Hello Grey Ghost. long time no see

I do agree with everything except on lancaster.

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.

For me England, should be looking within their own system anyway. If not Lancaster, then someone from the AP.

I'm Also slightly bemused and confused about this
"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. "

Should that not be the job of the new coach? To go and get the back room staff he feel will bring something and work well with?
Seems totally Idiotic that the RFU would be trying to do that. Any coach worth his pay packet would be annoyed but that. It looks like the RFU are interfering in coaching matters before they have even appointed a coach.

Good points. Indicative of the behaviour of incompetends in a nervous power vaccuum.

It is a concern if you article is on the money. So basically the men in the Blazers are just making the same mistakes over again? I heard that Conner O'Shea ruled himself out of the position but has subsequently been added to the panel who will choose the next coach. That was a good move. But don't people need to put their name in the hat for that panel to make their choice?

Do you know who is actually on the list? Is White actually on it or not? Irish Press reported last week that he was. I do think White would be a good option. He is a coach in the style of Woodward. Not hands on but takes a more director approach and gets a good team around him to work with the players. Who ever England choose, he needs to have a good manner with the press. For example, Declan Kidney for Ireland. He can have a ten minuet interview with the press, talk for most of the ten minuets and yet say absolutely nothing! He drives the press nuts. They go away with nothing to write about. Now i suppose some of the fans want to hear more from the coach, but his style certainly protects his plyers from the microscope of the press.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

JPB

Yes, and i have been one of the converted. They proved against France they are on an upward curve.

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.

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.

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.