Stu Lancaster on Radio 5 Live

Just a heads up for any of those interested, Stuart Lancaster will be on Radio 5 Live in a special show. It begins at 1930.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/24440611

Thanks, mate.

who the host? he being a Tinkywinky. Just got owned though haha.

He is a complete ....

Of course the coach of any National set up should be casting his eye over all levels.

well, i've only just remember to turn it on lol  

anything mentioned worth knowing?

Talked about how important it is to the current players to put on the white shirt and play for England. How the the squad had learned from Cardiff, new motivational methods, feeding off the energy of the HQ crowd. Also that he's been to NZ, Aus in the summer experiencing new stuff from union and league.

Did he mention who he caught up with in NZ, Brian Lochore? I find it a bit odd that he made the trip to NZ and even stranger that people close to the ABs environment entertained him, very strange.

Ebop we are playing 4 games against NZ in the next year or so, and thankfully the majority of kiwis are pretty hospitable to upstandings members of other communities.

You find this strange??

Lancs isn't afraid to acknowledge the skills and positives of other nations and codes and NZ will have no doubt recognised the respect he has for their approach and achievements. Whilst it can become a little tedious banging on about pride in the shirt and and the culture of the game etc sometimes it's necessary to hammer it home and it is something that he deeply believes in, it's not just PR to him. There's a lot more to come from his tenure and and so far he hasn't got much wrong.

Your right Aitch...

He might not have been many peoples choice, but he's doing the right things.

I think we all just want to see England playing a bit more offensive stuff, and he has admitted himself we need to move in that area. Of course it helps when your players are available...with the likes of Vunipola and Morgan both injured at 8 etc etc.

Ive said before this AI's and 6n is where ill really judge him. He's had time now to put solid basics in, with some highlight performances (NZ) and some not so (Wales)...with ALOT of in the middle solid performances but nothing to write home about.

I want to see some performances now that will make us think ok...now we're moving in the right direction...

we have only had one truly bad game under Stu.

he is doing well.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

I want to see some performances now that will make us think ok...now we're moving in the right direction...

Amen to that, Geordie.

Your right...but theres been quite a bit of stagnant, huff and puff stuff aswell...v Italy etc.

Now its obviously been a plan to tighten things up...but lets see a bit more in the AI's and 6n please...

Yes mystri, I find it strange that Brian Lochore an ex AB captain and coach gave insights to Lancaster regarding NZ rugby psyche, you don't see anything strange about that? I doubt it was anything juicy and nothing he didn't already know. But why would a proud ex AB captain and coach do 'anything' to help England. If you don't think that's strange then fair enough mate.

"He's told the BBC speaking with people like Lochore has helped him understand more about the DNA of the All Blacks".

"I think it confirmed what I already thought in the sense that New Zealand have a really strong emphasis on culture and identity, so the shirt means a huge amount to them, the identity of playing for New Zealand is a big driver."

No i dont see anything strange at all about it.

ANd i certainly dont find anything strange about him visiting NZ to learn a few things. Infact is exactly part of his job description. 

I think you are elevating this into some kind of hate when there isn't any. Its just respect and learning(I do know what you kiwi fans can be like so i understand your shock!)

ebop, NZ export their skills in coaching and players all over the world, why is Lochore's willingness to talk to Lancs any different?

True, probably happens all the time aitchw, no drama, just thought it was strange that Lochore would assist and that's my opinion. No hate or shock there mystri, those words are yours alone.

Ok so what is strange about it then?

It ain't rocket science mate

Well its certainly too complex for me to work out dude!

Its a very natural thing for stu to do IMO.

He's seemingly placing a big emphasis on basic skills and nailing them giving a lot of credit to rugby league as well as to how they train their players. I just wish the 1st AI was today, think this is well and truely Lancaster's side now and I want to find out how good we are!

ebop wrote:Did he mention who he caught up with in NZ, Brian Lochore? I find it a bit odd that he made the trip to NZ and even stranger that people close to the ABs environment entertained him, very strange.

1) Rugby People love to talk rugby with other rugby people
2) Coaches and former coaches love to spread their "wisdom" - makes them still feel useful
3) Kiwis are hospitable guests
4) NZ are happy to share information as they perceive no threat from Lancaster's men.

any or all of these are reasons why they would talk to Lancaster.

Look, I'm just being a bit petty so forgive me. Usually on these scoping trips the coaches go visit the hotels, check out the training facilities, scope some restaurants out that aren't gonna give you food poisoning, blah blah blah. Maybe having the opportunity to pick the brains of an ex AB captain and coach about what makes the ABs tick is typical of such a trip. Like Lancaster said though, it was nothing he probably didn't already know anyway, so no drama. I ain't having a pop at your coach. And we export our players and coaches so why not tell upcoming opponents what the 'DNA of our rugby' is as well if it helps them out.

I know and I am being a bit of an ass as well. I understand why you would think giving england an insight into the  way the AB's do stuff is a bit counter productive for them/you.

But the reality is is that its not only about words is it. Its about quality. You are not going to stop being the best over that. SL has to somehow quantify an expenses paid holiday to NZ - right!(and in truth he has probably learnt a bit from you guys as well!!)

Let's face it, we can talk and pick brains all we like but if we can't put it to good use then it's all a waste of time. From day one of Lancs appointment he's been all about ethos, grounding and basics. If there's one nation that epitomises all of those it's NZ. Lancs is determined to build that here.

On top of that, we've all lamented the lack of basic skills in our national side in the past, handling, kicking and reading the game, and he's prepared to acknowledge the strengths of the 13 man game and to learn from them.

The honeymoon is over and now he has to prove he's on the right track. Fortunately, he's blessed with a very big player pool who have the potential to succeed at international level with genuine depth all over the park. This autumn has to send a signal that we are improving and expanding our game plan beyond what we've seen so far.

Got to agree with the foreigners on this one ebop. Nothing wrong or unusual about Lahore helping out.

What are your thoughts about Henry helping Argentina for example. Or the plethora of NZ national coaches in the game. How would you had felt if Wayne Smith had expressed a real desire and had been appointed England coach?

Ebop, I got the impression from the interview that he is seriously wants to put the NZ model, culture, training, motivation etc of rugby into the England set up. That's why he went out there. Gotta learn from the best I suppose....

Yeah Breadvan, and that's why it's strange that Lachore, or whomever, went out of his way to help. It was smart of Lancaster to arrange such meetings and I congratulate him. It may help, it may not, but it's the principle that we are helping other fiercly competitive tier 1 teams that beat us. Why would someone do that? That's 'strange' is all I'm saying

One day, NZ rugby will give up all it's best players, coaches and knowledge and then we'll wonder where it all went wrong when teams beat us. Sure we're hanging in there now, but we're so profligate with our resources that there's bound to be a tipping point. We need to keep winning so we can get the mega rich sponser/tv deals. When ex ABs give a glimmer of an insight in to what makes our team tick then that's an automatic loss of advantage, it's the 1% that can make a difference.

Like I say, I'm being petty and selfish, good luck

ps. Goneagain, I support Henry but not the rest (eg Gatland, Schmidt, Deans, or Smith if he'd left). Why would I? I support NZ/ABs but I want to see Tier 2 teams improve hence why I support Henry/Argie, that's not an unusual view I'd have thought. If Argie start beating us regularly, they won't be tier 2, hence they shouldn't need our skills/knowledge, so Henry goes back to the naughty corner. I knows it's childish logic, but sport means a lot to our national psyche and personal well being.

Who said he told him the truth?

I mean...remember when we told the Welsh that the All Blacks all spent half an hour in a cryogenic chamber? Ha!

Yes it was all a ruse!

I saw england training the other day in pink leotards and morris dancing!(supposedly thats the kiwis secret?)

Damn it, he's given away way too much for my liking:) Hope your props know not to look up when they line out lift with those tutus on. Or maybe he kept that a secret.

I enjoyed the interview. It all sounds pretty normal to me. international managers have been doing essentially the same thing for a while now. Looking at other sports and themselves and trying to bring new ideas in the pursuit of excellence.

The thing that stood out for me was the introduction of rugby into state schools. I think the aim is 750 in the next 3-5 years. That's huge. For instance we only have 350 odd secondary schools in NZ. Without doubt English rugby could be substantively more efficient and effective in the way it brings through players. The shear size of it's potential programme is impressive. Ironically, the major achilles heal of English (and European) rugby looks like the clubs.

Methinks you worry too much. This isn't a hunt for KFC's recipe. Trying to replicate the conditions that create the ethos you have doesn't depend on some magic formula that any number of conversations can convey. Maybe the biggest thing you have going for you is that the whole country is rugby mad and demands excellence. That's never going to happen anywhere else with only the Saffers coming close.

The secret is of course Taro, Sea Eggs and Durians. Get those England lads on a strict diet of that and they'll see no end of improvement.

I'm not sure what Lancaster learned but I would imagine he advised NZ on the benefits of Imodium.

I hope he learnt that wingers make the best wingers at international level and that picking players in their club positions really does work.

If he does that then we're on the right track for RWC glory, as long as we beat Aus and Wales in the group of death and NZ & SA fail to turn up we should do well.  

Scrumpy wrote:I hope he learnt that wingers make the best wingers at international level and that picking players in their club positions really does work.

If he does that then we're on the right track for RWC glory, as long as we beat Aus and Wales in the group of death and NZ & SA fail to turn up we should do well.  

I think (at least hope) the positional experiments from last season's 6Ns are a thing of the past, and that SL now goes for players in their primary positions only. It wasn't just wingers of course, and indeed Brown on the wing was the least unsuccessful of the three major position experiments - was generally effective with ball in hand and fielding kicks, but was badly exposed for both Wales tries (not entirely his fault particularly for the first try, when the ball squirted out of the ruck creating a 2 on 1).

Wood at 8, particularly in combination with Croft at 6, left us looking underpowered in the back row. OK, largely caused by injuries to Morgan, Vunipola and Crane, but we still looked stronger with Haskell at 8 and Wood in his better position of 6.

Lawes at 6 - well, it wasn't as disasterous as Bergomasco at scrum half...

backrow is all about balance..

England have had 2 great backrows in recent history

Teague, Winterbottom & Richards &
Hill, Back and Dillaglio.

In both cases it was the blend which was key.

Without Morgan last 6N England didn't have a big ball carrier.... Billy Vunipola looks to have answered the call.

You need a good ruck & turnover operator, genuine ball carrier, 1st phase tackler, lineout option in the rear all within that 3.

Last 6N England lacked a decent ruck operator and ball carrier in their backrow. Wood was a good lineout option, Robshaw tackled his heart but elsewhere they were lacking.

Last 6N England lacked a decent ruck operator and ball carrier in their backrow. Wood was a good lineout option, Robshaw tackled his heart but elsewhere they were lacking..

See, i agree about the Ball carrier...a huge miss...but i think Wood and Robshaw are very strong ruck operators...maybe not quite a McCaw level etc...but certainly not weak. In fact i think those two on the flank, with someone like Vunipola or Morgan is a nicely balanced back row.

Geordie

From memory England suffered a lot due to lack of possession in the 6N no? They were turnovered a number of times, were dominated by Ireland, France and Wales in possession stakes and found it very difficult to score tries.

The balance at least in the forward pack for me was not right. One player won't make a difference but a better operator on the floor would help immensely.

Actually i dont think it was a lack of possesion (we certainly werent dominated, bar the Wales game), for me it was more a complete lack of what to do when we had it...no heavy duty carriers, no creativity in the backs etc, with young Farrell all to keen to boot the thing away - badly.

Wales...well that was just a royal humping, and personally i think wales would have beaten anyone on that day, including the big SH teams.

This season, it appears Farrell has discovered a degree of attacking ability, which with the addition of Twelvetrees, Wade, Yard a rejuvanated Ashton, Brown at FB, in the backs should give us alot more...and with Morgan, Vunipola and the likes of Mako coming off the bench should give us far more options ball in hand.

We actually had more territory and possession than france..I think ireland had a bit more and its pretty safe to say that wales did!!!

But anyway..


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/21507603

We gave Ireland plenty of possession. The weather was dreadful so we kicked at them and they were nice enough to keep dropping it.

It just about worked, but it wasn't pretty

France was by memory a game of two halves though wasn't it.

France was on the up and had a cracking first half and then we smashed them in the second(they didn't make there dominating period count enough)


But it wasn't a good 6nations for england by any means ..4 wins and 1 loss isn't the end of the world.. But we did win our games a bit ugly(bar the french game which was a pretty impressive game.

People just love to knock England!

We lost one game in the 6 nations and I think it's fair to say the Ref didn't help in that game.

Wales used there anti england kryptonite against us that day. The ref wouldn't have made a difference!

mystiroakey wrote:Wales used there anti england kryptonite against us that day. The ref wouldn't have made a difference!

Maybe, maybe not.

But the Ref didn't help and he made a lot of very strange calls that day.

Lets be honest I think every Englishman would have rathered Welshman Nigel Owens to take charge of that game over Walsh.

I got so hammered during and after that game and it wasn't pretty. It has been completely etched out of my memory!!

I can remember being very angry at some point during the first half and then some more beers and jager bombs... Thats about all..

mystiroakey wrote:I can remember being very angry at some point during the first half and then some more beers and jager bombs... Thats about all..

Is that a direct quote from Henson's autobiography?