England's Six Nations finish was "unacceptable" says Ian Ritchie

First topic message reminder :

Well, well, Ian Ritchie is not a happy bunny, "We should be, as a country, winning more, in terms of whether it's Grand Slams or Six Nations Championships." is what he is saying, do you agree with him ? Winning one championship in the last decade is not enough, and for a country the size of England you have to agree with him.


http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/32035225

If Ritchie thinks he can do a better job (of coaching) the England squad. Then let him get on with it, and prove how much better he is at doing the coaching roll.

If England do start winning under Ritchie's time as head coach, then we will know the reason England kept coming second was because off the  coaching set up.

majesticimperialman wrote:If Ritchie thinks he can do a better job (of coaching) the England squad. Then let him get on with it, and prove how much better he is at doing the coaching roll.

If England do start winning under Ritchie's time as head coach, then we will know the reason England  kept coming second was because off the  coaching set up.

Its not his job to coach. Its his job to get the best coach the RFU can afford. Maybe he is saying to SL 'get better or else'.

englandglory4ever wrote:

Its not his job to coach. Its his job to get the best coach the RFU can afford. Maybe he is saying to SL 'get better or else'.

If he is, the 'or else' will prove expensive for the RFU. Doesn't Lancaster have a pretty long contract?

englandglory4ever wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:If Ritchie thinks he can do a better job (of coaching) the England squad. Then let him get on with it, and prove how much better he is at doing the coaching roll.

If England do start winning under Ritchie's time as head coach, then we will know the reason England  kept coming second was because off the  coaching set up.

Its not his job to coach. Its his job to get the best coach the RFU can afford. Maybe he is saying to SL 'get better or else'.

Fair enough, but he should have had the sense to say it to his face. Not attempt to embarrass him in public, and not when the World Cup is so close.

He is basically telling the public and, more importantly, the players, that the coach is failing at his job.

Englands record show that theres more to it than player numbers.

I'm always interested in the psychology side of things. Smaller nations have an advantage in being more nationalistic, playing for their community etc. In other words the culture is better. That is exactly what Stuart Lancaster has been trying to do by building up the culture within the England team.

When I saw the headline my suspicion was that his comments were perhaps to do with the ongoing discussions between the rfu and clubs regarding a replacement for the eps agreement. However he does seem to be having a dig at the players/coaches. Which seems really daft. A) Suggesting its not the system would presumably undermine asking the clubs for more going forwards. B) I don't see how attacking the players motivates them to perform well, in fact quite the contrary. C) He is the one that chose to extend the coaches contracts last year after a third second place and three defeats in a row, if he's not happy now he need look no further than his own mirror.

profitius wrote:That is exactly what Stuart Lancaster has been trying to do by building up the culture within the England team.

Richie has other intentions it seems.  

I think the whole logic about England and the World Cup is wrong.  Yes, every Union will have 'targets'.  I think the IRFU's target is to get Ireland to a semi-final.  After all the false dawns, that's become their perhaps unspoken, but not fully disguised, target.  But I think that's where it stops.  I'm not sure there are specific sub-targets to hit in advance of that goal.
With England I think it's been official RFU policy that distinct run-in targets were outlined.  One of them being winning the Six Nations (I'd assume that to mean preferable the GS) in the year of the WC itself.

So now, it seems Ritchie and his people have looked over their targets and have come to the conclusion that not meeting the set Six Nations target for 2015 is a warning bell for the WC itself????

6 points on a scoreboard has put the however many year plan to win the WC under threat?

The world doesn't work that way - he and his people are boardroomadising sport.  You can't outline directives and bloody graphs and targets and expect them to fall into place like a multi-million advertising campaign for an alcoholic beverage.  It's bloody sport.  You win, you lose, it's rainy and you have to change your tactics, a player almost loses his head in an impact and has to be replaced, someone gets a yellow card, another guy gets a red.

You can't do that kinda itemising a road-trip to a World Cup - first I need my roadmap and then I need my carkeys, then I need my comfy pad.  

6 points won't stand between England and a World Cup if that's what fate awaits them.  I shudder at all the pen-pushing/business school antics surrounding rugby these days.

jeez fly you do talk some guff

coming second four years in a row is not acceptable given our ambitions and resources. but the 6Ns has an inherently random points difference element to it.

RWC has nothing of the sort. you just need to beat everyone you play in the knockout stages.

We are aiming to win the RWC. make no bones about it. we are far from favourites, and we are in the toughest group. But getting to the final in a home tournament is a minimum for me.

quinsforever wrote:jeez fly you do talk some guff

coming second four years in a row is not acceptable given our ambitions and resources. but the 6Ns has an inherently random points difference element to it.

RWC has nothing of the sort. you just need to beat everyone you play in the knockout stages.

We are aiming to win the RWC. make no bones about it. we are far from favourites, and we are in the toughest group. But getting to the final in a home tournament is a minimum for me.

I talk the absolute truth.  Richie is talking guff.

What the hell does 'Not Acceptable' mean in relation to the Six Nations???

It means nothing.  It's boardroom guff talk.  It's meaningless.  Does he send in the troops to steal the Title?  He has to accept it, it's the truth.  No way around accepting it.  He has a time machine that he wants to give it another shot???

Guff?  

The World Cup campaign won't be influenced by six points in a Six Nations.  If you believe Ritchie is right then you join the guff club.

LordDowlais wrote:

MissBlennerhassett wrote:Rugby is very much a minority sport in England and the majority of those who do play do so to keep fit and have a few beers - let's just say it's very social. Wales on the other hand is defined by its rugby, as is NZ, but the kiwis are different in that they haven't totally under-achieved.

How have Wales underachieved ? Three Grand Slams, and a championship and a semi final in a world cup in a decade is pretty good going if you ask me.

Fourth place is something to celebrate ?

quinsforever wrote:jeez fly you do talk some guff

coming second four years in a row is not acceptable given our ambitions and resources. but the 6Ns has an inherently random points difference element to it.

RWC has nothing of the sort. you just need to beat everyone you play in the knockout stages.

We are aiming to win the RWC. make no bones about it. we are far from favourites, and we are in the toughest group. But getting to the final in a home tournament is a minimum for me.

Thr group stage will be like te 6N not enough pionts for and against you are out as it is likely England may not win all their games and it is a strong group with 4 useful teams in it like the 6N.

"not acceptable" results means if offered them beforehand, you would not accept them. nothing more. nothing less.

the CEO's job is to apply pressure where it is needed, offer a shoulder where it is needed, and sack where it is needed.

Ritchie is doing his job as he sees it. Was he supposed to come out and say we are happy coming 2nd 4 years in a row and that is great preparation for a RWC? he is doing he job. pressure at the right moments. reward at others.

Ritchie is a boatload more experienced in this kind of role than anyone else aboard any other Unions, so lets just give him his head and see where it takes us. After all, he got such a good renegotiation of the HC that he has plenty of credits to play with.

I don't care what he comes out and says.  He said it - bluntly.  Brown will enjoy his assumption that Brown and his players didn't play well enough .  
Ritchie had his graph and the graph didn't work out.  If he thinks that simply because such a graph existed (on his wall or on his desk) that somehow everything on it should fall into place in sequence, then he is naïve.
Everyone else has their own graph.  All our graphs conflict with each other - some people's graphs burn other people's graphs.

He can be as angry as he likes, being angry won't change what he 'must' accept - accept and move on to the WC.

blah blah blah

ritchie is the boss. not brown. ritchie talks. lancaster, brown et al listen.

over the last 4 years england werent good enough. ritchie didnt say the players didnt play well enough on saturday. he said the results over 4 years werent good enough. lots of things go into that. stop stirring.

God, you're such a spicy character, quins. "blah, blah, blah" that you simply don't want to hear.

Ritchie has been in charge (BOSS) of the last four years of 'Unacceptable'. I'm sure there is a mirror in his office he could look into for a good enough target of his anger?

quinsforever wrote:over the last 4 years england werent good enough. ritchie didnt say the players didnt play well enough on saturday. he said the results over 4 years werent good enough. lots of things go into that. stop stirring.

The results weren't good enough means players and coaches not doing enough. BTW Ritchie has the stirring spoon. Stole mine the blighter.

SecretFly wrote:God, you're such a spicy character, quins.  "blah, blah, blah" that you simply don't want to hear.

Ritchie has been in charge (BOSS) of the last four years of 'Unacceptable'.  I'm sure there is a mirror in his office he could look into for a good enough target of his anger?  

absolutely right. he carries the can. hence why he can threaten, chastise, punish, sack, reward, whatever he wants, to get the results.

his change of tone is explicit recognition that the patient period is over.

Only a plank would direct his ire at himself.

His statement is a shot across the bows. Lancaster knows time is up anyway, RWC is here while England have been running on the spot 4 years have passed and this makes it official. Anything less than a semi and Stewie goes and the campaign is deemed a failure.

Gwlad wrote:Only a plank would direct his ire at himself.

His statement is a shot across the bows. Lancaster knows time is up anyway, RWC is here while England have been running on the spot 4 years have passed and this makes it official. Anything less than a semi and Stewie goes and the campaign is deemed a failure.

Agree. Which makes me wonder why we gave stewie a 4 year contract til 2019!

Fact is quins that if england win the group they are bound to get a semi. By my calculations a semi is guaranteed. Perhaps then this is just a sound byte by Ritchie for the sake of appearances.

Seems to me England's biggest challenge is to get out of the group and to win it. The rest is gravy. 1/4 V Scots/Samoa and then a semi is enough IMO to regard RWC as a success and for him to avoid the boot.

Gwlad wrote:Only a plank would direct his ire at himself.

His statement is a shot across the bows. Lancaster knows time is up anyway, RWC is here while England have been running on the spot 4 years have passed and this makes it official. Anything less than a semi and Stewie goes and the campaign is deemed a failure.

Have England been running on the spot though?

I don't think they have, I just think the other teams have been improving at the same speed

The England side reminds me of Ireland under Eddie O'Sullivan. Under Eddie we played glorious rugger and won three triple crown but kept coming second. In '07 in particular we played some of the nicest rugby of all teams but fell short on the last day when an Irish TMO awarded a try to France to seal our fate on points.

Ireland are much more methodical, controlled and clinical now and thats probably why they have back to back championships.

Comes down to luck a bit as well.

Sin é wrote:He is just peed off that England didn't win the 4m top prize! And who could blame him.

I think England will do very well in the world cup - young George Ford & JJ now have the experience of a difficult and disappointing 6Ns that will stand to them. With Lawes back they have a very good pack.

England has the strength 'n depth that Ireland and Wales don't have.

Also, I'd imagine Mr Richie is very worried with how the game is going in England when he sees what has happened to France when there is a lot of money in the game.

For the record, the Irish players are paid the least for winning the tournament.

I would hope so, Ireland's bankrupt isn't it?

It's a bit rich from Ian Ritchie to complain about the position being unacceptable when he and his buddies at the RFU have given the current England coaching nice and juicy long contracts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/29439822

Would need a hefty payout to get rid of these coaches now.

Well done Ritchie....

beshocked wrote:  It's a bit rich from Ian Ritchie to complain about the position being unacceptable when he and his buddies at the RFU have given the current England coaching nice and juicy long contracts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/29439822

Would need a hefty payout to get rid of these coaches now.

Well done Ritchie....  

I think the only thing holding England back from winning titles now, is the coaching staff. SL should stay, but I would like him to be a bit more ruthless in selection. The rest of them seem to have done well enough with the players they had at their disposal, but you get the feeling they've reached a ceiling now and need a fresh set of eyes on them.

Jimpy I agree with you.

Unfortunately it's not going to happen.

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:jeez fly you do talk some guff

coming second four years in a row is not acceptable given our ambitions and resources. but the 6Ns has an inherently random points difference element to it.

RWC has nothing of the sort. you just need to beat everyone you play in the knockout stages.

We are aiming to win the RWC. make no bones about it. we are far from favourites, and we are in the toughest group. But getting to the final in a home tournament is a minimum for me.

I talk the absolute truth.  Richie is talking guff.

What the hell does 'Not Acceptable' mean in relation to the Six Nations???

It means nothing.  It's boardroom guff talk.  It's meaningless.  Does he send in the troops to steal the Title?  He has to accept it, it's the truth.  No way around accepting it.  He has a time machine that he wants to give it another shot???

Guff?  

The World Cup campaign won't be influenced by six points in a Six Nations.  If you believe Ritchie is right then you join the guff club.

That's what Culture Club called themselves in the early days.

The big criticism of the coaches previously were the lack of tries. We seem to now be able to score against everyone, or least create some very good chances. Defence isn't that bad bar some individual errors. Who are people thinknig and to focus on what?

no 7 & 1/2 still failed to score a try vs Ireland.

Ultimately it was England's very poor performance vs Ireland which should be unacceptable.

Decision making has been very poor at times.

Still not sure Robshaw is the right captain. He's a good player but I think England need someone with a bit more dog as captain. Unfortunately there is no England player who is a clear replacement. Hartley is a loose cannon but I didn't see him as an inspirational figure in this year's 6 nations.

England needed someone to rally the troops vs Ireland.

Yeah well I still think Nowell's was a bit harsh vs Ireland. I was disappointed against ireland but Sexton was just a different class as was their chase. So you still think attack, defence decision making need new coaching blood to improve (further)?

You've beaten me to it there beshocked - I thought it was last June that Ritchie was singing the praises and extending contracts, but when I checked it is in fact just 5 months - and you've already got the link up. Really does need to look in the mirror if he's not happy now! It's not like there's been any degradation. If anything, despite results being similar overall the team look to be playing better and have a lot more scope for rapid improvement than at this point 12 months ago.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The big criticism of the coaches previously were the lack of tries. We seem to now be able to score against everyone, or least create some very good chances. Defence isn't that bad bar some individual errors. Who are people thinknig and to focus on what?

England didnt score any tries against Ireland this year and in 2013 and only got one last year.

Even when England hammered Ireland in 2012 they only scored two tries and one of them was a penalty try from a scrum because Ireland were playing two loosehead props.

Like I said we created good chances and I still think took one. My point being from 2012 to as of now the attack is much better.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Like I said we created good chances and I still think took one. My point being from 2012 to as of now the attack is much better.

Too late though.  Game was over.  Game was over folks.  Cronin had a lineout that Ireland won about 2 minutes earlier.  That's when the game was over.

Yeah I know, that's not my point. I'm talking about the improvement of England's backs since Lancaster took over.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Like I said we created good chances and I still think took one. My point being from 2012 to as of now the attack is much better.

Nowells try may or may not have been forward, I probably would have given it. However, the game should have been blown up two minutes earlier so if was fair to not award it in the end as the ref made an error with the clock earlier in the game.

Nowell had a great championship IMO and is a very good finisher who seems to have a great attitude as well. I think Lancaster deserves a lot of credit for bringing him in again.

Your point is right though. Guys like Ford, Joseph and Nowell are very good at creating chances from nothing so for the first time in a long time England do have a spark in the backs and arent 1 dimensional.

I'm not arguing, about ref errors, I'm talking about England's backs.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm not arguing, about ref errors

they are not errors when they favour Ireland.

Don't start them off LD. The argument is the forward pass should never have been as the game should have ended 2 min earlier as the ref didn't start his clock again. None of which is important when considering England's ability to create that, and other chances.

SecretFly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Like I said we created good chances and I still think took one. My point being from 2012 to as of now the attack is much better.

Too late though.  Game was over.  Game was over folks.  Cronin had a lineout that Ireland won about 2 minutes earlier.  That's when the game was over.

That was only ever reported in the Irish Independent, it is in fact not fact like you seem to think it is.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Like I said we created good chances and I still think took one. My point being from 2012 to as of now the attack is much better.

Too late though.  Game was over.  Game was over folks.  Cronin had a lineout that Ireland won about 2 minutes earlier.  That's when the game was over.

That was only ever reported in the Irish Independent, it is in fact not fact like you seem to think it is.

It IS a fact. The game is recorded. So is the clock. Watch the game. Watch the clock. From Henshaw's try onwards. Do it. It's a simple prover that one.

It is not a fact, it is a so called fact stated by the Irish and nobody else.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm not arguing, about ref errors

they are not errors when they favour Ireland.

The ref had already stopped the clock not to favour us! The bastarde Like I say. Had that try been scored and was allowed and had Saturday happened just like it happened..... all hell would break lose - Barnesgate would be small fish.

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The big criticism of the coaches previously were the lack of tries. We seem to now be able to score against everyone, or least create some very good chances. Defence isn't that bad bar some individual errors. Who are people thinknig and to focus on what?

England didnt score any tries against Ireland this year and in 2013 and only got one last year.

Even when England hammered Ireland in 2012 they only scored two tries and one of them was a penalty try from a scrum because Ireland were playing two loosehead props.

Theres not been many tries from either side in England/ Ireland matches over the last few years to be fair. Ireland have only scored 4 tries against England since 2010 SN. England have scored 6 (inc WC warm-up).

When you compare the two, it is quite eerie how similar the 2011 and 2015 Ireland England games were. England blown away for first 50 minutes. Stage slight comeback but too little too late. 24-8 to 19-9.

Strange how there's not been an official investigation into the timekeeping of that game, that is the only fact that matters not what the Irish papers say.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It is not a fact, it is a so called fact stated by the Irish and nobody else.

IT - IS - A - FACT.

The game is there. You're afraid to look at it. Bury your head. I don't care. The evidence is there for eternity.

What was the result then Fly?

'Six Nations officials are investigating the possibility that more than two minutes of additional time was accidentally added into the second half of Ireland’s 19-9 win over England at the Aviva Stadium on Sunday.

A Six Nations source admitted to The Irish Times that “there was a problem with the synchronising of the timing” and that at one point “it got out of sync”, although he maintained that this error may have been corrected.'

What came of it?

SecretFly wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It is not a fact, it is a so called fact stated by the Irish and nobody else.

IT - IS - A - FACT.

The game is there.  You're afraid to look at it.  Bury your head.  I don't care.  The evidence is there for eternity.

No official investigation means no problem with the timekeeping, that is a fact.