False Dawns - any explanation?

How and why do false dawns happen?

I am an England supporter so naturally enough I look at this question through this prism. But also we seem to suffer this more than most.

Examples -

England's win over Ireland 2008 with Cipriani to the fore England 33 Ireland 10
England's wins over Australia
November 2005 - England 26 Australia 16
June 2010 England 21 Australia 20 (In Sydney)
November 2010 England 35 Australia 18

We won these games playing really well and the supporters rightly think - great - maybe not perfect but were on track here, were on our way to being a decent rugby side again…..and then were kaka again.

Someone anyone please explain this to me! Is it only England that suffers this endless torment?

One bad performance after a few good ones and all hell breaks loose - coach gets the sack, and new young players with "God-like" over-written potential are brought into the side ready to start the whole 'inconsistent' circle again.

England doesn't tolerate loss. It doesn't see it as a cruve that needs to be gone through. It knows it has the resources to change everything in an instant - and it tends to do so.

If this present side lose to Ireland the talk will be back to new coaches and new players.....

England is an eternal study in Lack of Patience.

How and why do false dawns happen?

It is when you think the sun is up, and then wehn you look outside it is the porchlight that was left on.

SecretFly wrote:One bad performance after a few good ones and all hell breaks loose - coach gets the sack, and new young players with "God-like" over-written potential are brought into the side ready to start the whole 'inconsistent' circle again.

England doesn't tolerate loss. It doesn't see it as a cruve that needs to be gone through. It knows it has the resources to change everything in an instant - and it tends to do so.

If this present side lose to Ireland the talk will be back to new coaches and new players.....

England is an eternal study in Lack of Patience.

Sounds about right

It is close to unbearable.

Given me steady progress any day of the week over the rollercoaster ride that England supporters have to endure.

sorry had to get that out.

Triangulation, I think it has a lot to do with the modern era of professional rugby. teams obviously suffer from it to a smaller or larger extent.

Injuries, player management is one.

But then if you look at the wins over Australia for example, Deans was losing a lot of matches then, he was still building his squad, so that could be a justifiable factor.

Hit the nail on the head there Secret.

I don't think it is the whole story, but I think computer games have something to do with it. People seem to expect 15 people to slot together like cogs in a machine and a change at eg 7 to produce a simple, predictable result.

There's also the whole "we're much bigger than other player bases" thing, so we sort of feel we ought to be there or there abouts and have undoubtedly got impatient. But we now know beyond argument (Blackett Report) that the RFU has been a cliquey disgrace and THAT, more than anything else, has hindered our development. Contrast our Rugby and our Cricket over the same period.

there are no false dawns, but sometimes there are very short days

It's interesting that a number of false dawns have happened after Australia games. I think, of the big three they are the easiest to beat. On their day they are sublime, but they often lack the up front grunt that England (and other NH sides) often have.

SecretFly is right, it's about patience. Look at the France game for instance. If you study our actual play there were a great many areas we could massively improve upon and they were one DG from winning it. Yes we played pretty well, especially for a scratch team, but there is a massive difference between that performance and what we need to achieve on a regular basis if we are to win world cups and grand slams.

Instead of looking at the game with constructive criticism though, fans and press alike hail Farrell as the new JW, comment about how this side looks like it could become world beating etc etc.

It could become world beating, but that doesn't mean it WILL become world beating - there's a real leap from one to the other had by many fas and pundits.

It's the same with players. Cipriani had/has buckets and buckets of potential. It doesn't mean he WILL become great, just that he COULD.

Look at the Scotland side. They have a good side that COULD be challenging for the top of the six nations. One of the best 2nd rows in the world, a solid front row, some excellent back row, a fly half who likes to run the ball, big solid centres and a young full back with pace and vision. The don't challenge the top of the table, but they have the potential.

Remember, Wales are looking like they could become very good indeed, as are Ireland and also France. All of them have the potential to be very very good, as do England. They can't ALL be very very good because they are measured against each other, so therefore most of them will NOT reach their potential and it will be seen as a false dawn.

Injuries are often a key and show a lot about a teams strength in depth. England when they get all their players available are a very decent unit and would challenge near all teams to the brink.

However take 1 or 2 players away, perhaps not key players but the only real test players in their position and England will struggle. Take Hooker for instance.... if Hartley gets injured then Lee Mears jumps onto the starting berth more often then not.

Hartley may not be a match up for someone like Bismaarck but he will hold his own against him... compare that to Mears who will just be destroyed in every contest.

Everyone always goes on about ENG in 03 and their great side but just as much it was the back up players such as Catt, Bracken, Corry, Moody, Grewcock etc who deserve the credit as they would come in when the first choice players were injured and do near as well as those they replaced.

Back then ENG probably had 40-50 real test quality players... now its more like 20.

In all seriouisness, I think there are so many reasons that it'd be difficult to point out all of them.#

As much of a success 2003 was, I thin it set back England 10 years. SCW did an excellent job winning the world cup, he cultivated the team and I thin he was basically the first to use cycles and players management correctly in the modern day era. But he left England with nothing beyond that tourny, and he knew he wasn't staying in the job so why would he?

Post 2003 England went 6/7/8 games without a win wasn't it? Because the new coach inherited a team of fringe players and kids. Instead of building a team with what they had they panic'd and tried to quick fix, the foreign mercenaries started and younger players were overlooked.

As the pressure got worse, the coaching set up got more negative in an attempt to win games, and wins against Aus etc of whom were re structuring and using differing players and combos provided them with ammo to stay on, even though other teams abilities were surpassing them.

I don't think 2011 was a false dawn, more like a stumble from MJ on a winning formula that was worked out pretty quickly, and wasn't built upon.

I think Lancaster has brought a refreshing honesty to the set up, but unless he shows more ambition, and does get a decent finish he won't get the job for not getting the wins. Which I think is wrong, give him 2 years and measure where he's taken the team I say.

This French win in my eyes was a false dawn, the French team almost beat themselves, not that England weren't good, they were, but it was the worst performance Iv ever seen from a France side, and they were still in it at the end.

I honestly think a few wooden spoons, or poor 6N are just what England need, lower the publics expectation, start from scratch and develop a team going forward. Instead of beating teams in a mess and building the team up to be what it's not only for them to lose to lesser opposition again, that isn't helping anyone!

bluesmancometh

Woodward was in the job for a year after 2003 and won three games in the 2004 six nations, so I think a fair bit of what you said needs fact-checking

Also, Woodward left the job because the RFU refused to put in place the things he wanted to put in place that would prevent England dwindling in the future. That went well...

Also, Woodward left the job because the RFU refused to put in place the things he wanted to put in place that would prevent England dwindling in the future. That went well...

The RFU.

Not the only problem, for sure, but the biggest and the one which, unless it's solved, makes it almost impossible for anything else to achieve much. SCW (particularly his manic drive) is the exception that proves the rule.

The Blackett Report and consequences thereof are at least hopeful signs the main problem has been identified. But it'll take time for changes to take effect and early signs have at least some hope. I would say the situation overall is better than it was. It becomes apparent that successive England Coaches have really been no more than sticking plaster on a gaping, festering wound.

Don’t fully buy the false dawn thing for England. The 2010/11 sides were a gradual improvement in quality from the dark days of 2004-9. A problem we’ve had with our stuttering improvement with the 2012 side is that one of Jonno’s weaknesses was in slow development in certain areas of weakness (centres, 2nd row). It’s somewhat bad luck that we’ve not had our 1st choice backrow (Croft, Haskell, Wood), and that our 1st choice OHs have lost fitness &/or form (or IQ in the case of Care).

Barney McGrew did it wrote: (or IQ in the case of Care).

Hopefully Danny Care will grow stronger for this experience and come to SA with a point to prove and seeking redemption and glory

The problem for most teams is that once a player reaches a certain level, aka 'Celebrity' everything goes south.....I'm a Welshman and we know best....Mr Henson...

In one word 'conservatism'. Post 2003 none of the encumbent managers have either been free to or have the desire to develop young players. Most often trotted out excuse is 'we don't want to try players too early in their career for fear of them being overawed/destroyed by not coming up to scratch.' The inclusion of young blood has always been through necessity rather than desire. When MJ introduced Ashton, Foden and Youngs to the side it was after continuous dire performances and huge public demand for change. It came over as a desperate act and not natural progression. They had an impact beyond their experience but there it stopped and their inclusion wasn't followed up by more youngsters who could be developed.

SL is in both an enviable whilst at the same time impossible situation. He has no tenure but is expected to effect change for the future but not lose too badly. By achieving what he has he has made a rod for his own back because after Wales and France expectations are running too high for the squad as it is. He should have been given the Summer tour as well as 6 Nations to prove himself and his selections. We are on the brink of major changes in England coaching attitudes but that is a dangerous place to be. If the RFU go for Mallet anything could happen. If Lancaster gets it will he find himself pressured more and more into pragmatic and inevitably conservative selections or will he fly high on the backs of young ambitious talent. Right now he's between the devil and the deep.

I can't think of a time when there was more potential in young EQ talent than now.

SecretFly wrote:One bad performance after a few good ones and all hell breaks loose - coach gets the sack, and new young players with "God-like" over-written potential are brought into the side ready to start the whole 'inconsistent' circle again.

England doesn't tolerate loss. It doesn't see it as a cruve that needs to be gone through. It knows it has the resources to change everything in an instant - and it tends to do so.

If this present side lose to Ireland the talk will be back to new coaches and new players.....

England is an eternal study in Lack of Patience.

Stop the press. SecretFly is in fact...... ........

Brendan Venter!

This is what he said in the toryograph....

"Now Lancaster, or whoever takes the long-term England coaching job, must keep their nerve. If you lose matches sometimes the tendency can be to make changes to the side. England may continue to narrowly lose Test matches, like they did against Wales, but no knee-jerk selection decisions must be made. "

SecretFly wrote:One bad performance after a few good ones and all hell breaks loose - coach gets the sack, and new young players with "God-like" over-written potential are brought into the side ready to start the whole 'inconsistent' circle again.

England doesn't tolerate loss. It doesn't see it as a cruve that needs to be gone through. It knows it has the resources to change everything in an instant - and it tends to do so.

If this present side lose to Ireland the talk will be back to new coaches and new players.....

England is an eternal study in Lack of Patience.

Spot on.

The cycle is: we bring in a new coach with the expressed remit of 'building for the future',....and then two games later press and fans are shouting and screaming "I'm sick of these 'building for the future' excuses!! I want results now!!".....so we repeat the process.

And the Johnson saga was the most depressing yet: it is now just the accepted narrative in English rugby union that we need to accept the disaster of the past couple of years....draw a line under it, forget about it and start again. Why do we always go to these extremes??!! Johnson made mistakes at the world cup (I'm talking about tactically on the pitch - I couldn't care less about the press-inflated 'scandals' that weren't), and probably had to go after 3 years. But why did he need to go in a sh1tstorm of bad feeling, culminating in a supposed need for a 'clean slate' and an apparent selective amnesia about such facts as: England winning last year's 6 nations; a group of promising youngsters in the squad who were 'brought-on' by the Johnson regime; a win ratio and notable results that had vastly improved throughout Johnson's tenure. Nope - forget about all that. We're at rock bottom! We need a clean slate! Start again!

....what utter Love sacks

Adam wrote:

SecretFly wrote:One bad performance after a few good ones and all hell breaks loose - coach gets the sack, and new young players with "God-like" over-written potential are brought into the side ready to start the whole 'inconsistent' circle again.

England doesn't tolerate loss. It doesn't see it as a cruve that needs to be gone through. It knows it has the resources to change everything in an instant - and it tends to do so.

If this present side lose to Ireland the talk will be back to new coaches and new players.....

England is an eternal study in Lack of Patience.

Spot on.

The cycle is: we bring in a new coach with the expressed remit of 'building for the future',....and then two games later press and fans are shouting and screaming "I'm sick of these 'building for the future' excuses!! I want results now!!".....so we repeat the process.

And the Johnson saga was the most depressing yet: it is now just the accepted narrative in English rugby union that we need to accept the disaster of the past couple of years....draw a line under it, forget about it and start again. Why do we always go to these extremes??!! Johnson made mistakes at the world cup (I'm talking about tactically on the pitch - I couldn't care less about the press-inflated 'scandals' that weren't), and probably had to go after 3 years. But why did he need to go in a sh1tstorm of bad feeling, culminating in a supposed need for a 'clean slate' and an apparent selective amnesia about such facts as: England winning last year's 6 nations; a group of promising youngsters in the squad who were 'brought-on' by the Johnson regime; a win ratio and notable results that had vastly improved throughout Johnson's tenure. Nope - forget about all that. We're at rock bottom! We need a clean slate! Start again!

....what utter Love sacks

Adam you are spot on ! Well done sir. I only hope that history and the collective memory will come to look more kindly on the Johnson regime than it has done in the storm of bad feeling that you describe. I was in the Euston Flyer the other day and they had a list above the bar of the England 6Nations wins. Wins mind you not slams. Last years was not on the list. Like it never happened! Absurd.

The problem is teams go in cycles,England had a relatively long period under Geoff Cooke,Jack Rowell,and Sir Clive Woodward.Culminating in RWC 2003 .Woodward had the advantage of time,lots of it to get it right,had he been judged by results.As his successors were he would have gone in 1999,virtually the whole 2003 quit en masse,or were injured.Richard Hill was a near cripple,Dalligio retired form Test Rugby,Wilkinson THE key player under Woodward.Always injured,Martin Johnson retired building teams take time,results for coaching teams matter.
The All Blacks since 1987 have about an 81% record,but were 24 years between RWC wins.Most of there Coaches had high win stats,but failure to win Rwcs meant the chop.1991 was a case of a team growing old together,1998 when they could`nt win to save there lives .They great side all went at once,only
by giving Henry and Co a second chance.Were they so successful and in 2009 half way thru,the Media was crying sack the coaches.
Robinson was sacked with a better win rate to his dismissal than SCW,Ashton was begining to get there then they sacked him.
Martin Johnson had no Coaching experience ,and was chosen by Media,when he looked like getting it right.He carried the can for the RWC and resigned,Lancaster in a short time has built a promising side.BUT chances are he will be sacked and a new Manager installed probably NickMallett.
IF the RFU let the Coaches do there job,have the support that SCW enjoyed then England can flourish again.
BUT if it is a case of results lead,then a constant changing of Coaches and players will continue to lead to mediocrity.
Too much hero worship based on ,a single or couple of games then when they lose form dump them does`nt help.
Cipriani a stellar match,loss of form dumped because he was`nt JW,ditto Goode,Hodgeson,Barclay,Flood, Owen Farrell is the latest hero.
Ashton last year was supposedly World`s best by some media,this year according to them rubbish.
Get a settled team/coaching staff and give them a run forget 2015 aim 2019.

emack: While I agree with pretty much every word, what were you doing while typing? Mowing the lawn?

At the moment England seem to be where Wales were on the pitch after the decline i the early eighties. Wales struggled to deal with the high expectations of fans used to grand slams and triple crowns. The reality was that Wales had seen a clutch of truly world class players retire in 78-82 and their replacements were not in teh sam quality. Malcom Dacey at ten for instance.

The WRU and the clubs were so hung up on the success of the seventies that they failed to develop and had an attitude that if it was alright for Gareth and co it should be fine now. After 87 that attitude was seriously exposed and Wales were humiliated at the 91 and 95 world cups. However we still had to reach rock bottom against the Boks before the WRU, Clubs and fans finally realised where we really were in world rugby and started to try and build a team instead of believing you could simply throw anyone into a Welsh shirt and he would come good. Henry and Hasnsen made the team fit and Rudock reaped the benefit and created a team that won the slam in 05 and 08 but we were still underachieving. Gatland has rebuilt his 08 side and now looks set for a second title but it wasnt until we reached rock bottom and everyone realised it that change happened and we are still not where we should be.

England at the moment are hung up on a world cup from a decade ago. They have forgotten what took them to that title and expect to win because they won the world cup once. Same attitude of the Welsh in the 80s and 90s. 2007 disguised the state of the English game although jettisoning Ashton who was a real innovator demonstrated the narrow thinking i the corridors of power. Johnson was a populist appointment always doomed to failure and Lancaster who has done admirably is not teh man the RFU want so he will get the chop. When the RFU realise along with the fans that some stability and continuity is key to success and that England at the moment are nowhere near the levels they were in the 01-03 period then they will really start to develop a team again. At the moment their is still a beleif in Englands god given right to be successful. In the grand scheme of world rugby over the last century, England have not been that successful and the 1990-2003 domination of the north and RWC win is an anomoly of thirteen years set against decades of failure. Im still of the opinion that bumface sold his soul to the devil for 13 years of English dominance.

Of all the sides to win the world cup England have suffered from the post RWC win curse more than the other three teams and have sunk lower. Although I have a feeling that Hansens All Blacks are going to struggle.

Cowshot I have explained on numerous occsassions,on a Pc I am Dyslexic,also my Pc/Typing skills are poor.On Paper my English is excellent,I hold GCE and CSE certificates in English Literature and Language.
My post was at least readable,my rugby knowledge is extensive,my prose style is poor.
I come here to debate Rugby union NOT mt prose style,IF you don`t like my prose style .IGNORE IT and read someone elses`s.IF you stick to reading mine you just may learn something,as others have from me!!!!