So, it's come to this.
After snubbing Kirwan as "too inexperienced", the RFU lowered their hand sufficiently for us a get a peak, and it appears they were bluffing.
Maybe the typically bullish English press were speculating, or perhaps the blazers actually believed that the strategic application of cash might enable them to pair up RWC winning heavywieghts Jake White and NZ's third wise man Wayne Smith to rule over yet another New Look England.
Frankly someone, somewhere has to tell the RFU to pull their neck in.
Whatever they think, the lofty job of England head coach/manager under this bunch of blazered bufoons just doesn't hold the drawing power they apparently think it does.
Smith has already desribed the job spec as "waffly" and "too marketing orientated". Given a decade as being speak-no-evil, I wonder if he really has the stomach to play second fiddle to a second overbearing foul tempered school master personality. Scratch.
White too, has apparently gone cold faster than an English spring day. Wow, luckily they didn't pay a city head hunting firm millions of pounds to come up with candidates for this role or it would be starting to look embarassing about now.
So where to look now for the RFU? Having discarded two world cup Kirwan for his lack of experience, they've set the bar pretty high and on that basis it would be hard to see them appoint Lancaster long term, even if he still wanted it. The guy has every right to be disenchanted with his treatment.
Oh no. It's all happening again.
Personally, before they tie themselves in any further knots, my belief is they should look seriously at Lancaster's achievements in a short space of time. Rank on and off-field indiscipline has apparently been stamped out, he's ended a long run of dismal underperformance by winning away in Scotland, come within a poor referees decision of turning over form NH side Wales, and identified and nurtured the young and promising team controlled well by potential star Owen Farrell via a simple but effective territory and phase based game plan that has proven to be difficult to beat.
If he even looks like wining in France this weekend, they should immediately end their Quixote-esque search and hand him a pen and a contract before he gets tired of being strung along like an idiot and goes off to coach Scotland.
Can England Buy a Coach?
posted on 11/3/12
I wonder if the RFU didn't get a bit carried away with SCW's style of "total management".
In my view, that was necessary at the time to propel England into professionalism, but having got there what they need is a "coach" (not "manager" who just focusses on getting results out of his time and has at least input/vito power in selecting the EPS.
It seems like there's been too much focus on periphery nonsense and not enough just on treating the senior men's XV team as a rugby team.
Lancaster seems (from the outside) to fit that role and for me, I'd give him a spin with a two year contract, show a bit of faith in the guy, take the sword away from his head and give him breathing space to show what else he can achieve.
posted on 11/3/12
After today, its seems a no-brainer but then that is crediting the RFU top brass with brains which they have show a lack of since 2003.
Still at this point, for my money, the only way Lancaster does not get the job is if England lose horribly to Ireland or if Graham Henry makes a phone call in the morning and say he wants the job.
posted on 12/3/12
I saw in the Metro this morning a journalist claiming that England had won all three 6N away games for the first time in history. Surely this can't be true.
posted on 12/3/12
yeah, that surprised me as well. I read in the Independent that it was the first time that any 6N team had won 3 away games in the tournament which seems ridiculous, but I guess possible. I'll take a look at rugbydata.com later on to clarify
posted on 12/3/12
I was under the impression the Welsh grandslam in 2005 or 2008 or whenever it was had been done "the hard way" (I know, interesting turn of phrase, especially in that era). BUT I digress. Do let us know if you trawl the rugbydata.
posted on 12/3/12
Thats not to say don't give him the job, but i don't think he has made any massive impact such as your description.
=======================
after the wales game i said that the best england have played in 10 years. i missed the france game, but i see people are saying the same about that game.
its a no brainer to give this guy the job. him and his players are doing something right - and something that no england coach has done for years.
posted on 14/3/12
JPB
Yes, and i have been one of the converted. They proved against France they are on an upward curve.
posted on 15/3/12
Undoubtably a step up, but what would worry me from an England fan's perspective is that they failed to create any chances from static phase, all the tries came from broken play turn overs. Against a more accurate side, or on a more accurate day those chances wouldn't exist. It was scarcely as if they were pressure turn overs, they were unforced errors that led to turn over tries.
posted on 15/3/12
static phase,
===========
oh dear - more new terminology (not blaming the poster for it though). what does this one mean ??
as i stated above i missed the france game, but in the wales game it was what england were doing with the ball when they got it that caught my eye (rather than how they got it). they were effectively expansive on a regular basis, which is something they have not been for years. they were trying to run with the ball, and consistently made large territory gains without losing possession. that looked like a big step in the right direction to me.
posted on 16/3/12
Well, fair enough. By "static phase" I meant that from both set piece, or from stationary ruck ball.
What I'm getting at is that England were not very creative or incisive when in possession with an organised opposition defence. They didn't build phases and pressure and break down the opposition, the tries came from turn overs in broken play. You might point to "offensive defense" I suppose, and claim that sufficient pressure was applied to create opportunities to counter attack. That might be flattering to deceive though. Because to me that implies you're most likely to score when you don't have the ball, which would be a shame.