Billy Vunipola's Online Revelations....Stuart Lancaster Not Coaching England

He alleged that Stuart Lancaster wasn't even picking the team and that Andy Farrell was.

He attributes this to the picking of Burgess, who he says Farrell Snr saw as a new version of himself.  He also attributes it to the picking of Farrell Jnr over George Ford.

He says Mike Catt walked out of the last selection meeting and vowed never to return on account of Andy Farrell picking the team.

He says the whole squad has been unhappy about the steamrollering of Sam Burgess into not just the squad but the starting 15.

He goes as far as to say that Stuart Lancaster does not coach the team but that Andy Farrell does.

He says Sam Burgess should never have been in the squad ahead of Luther Burrell because Burrell earned his place as opposed to Burgess just walking straight in.

He also says that none of the England players knew bonus point were on offer until after the Fiji game.

http://postimg.org/image/5cb3eur7r/

http://postimg.org/image/bnq4sgx1t/

I find that hard to believe to be honest.

If SL is not coaching the England players. What is he doing?

Is he just a media man?

It's been reported (without names) in the Telegraph.

If any of this is true then sh*t is going to get real.

Heaf already posted a link to the forum in another thread. I don't buy it myself.

If it is true Vunipola does not come out of it looking great either tbf.

Makes dwarf-gate seem tame.

Notch wrote:If it is true Vunipola does not come out of it looking great either tbf.

True, but he's probably as sick as the rest of us are with how England performed. If what he says is true regarding Farrell Snr then it certainly needs to be brought to light, and doing so in a very public manner is the best way to create change.

Anyone got a link too the article?

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Makes dwarf-gate seem tame.

Dwarf-gate was tame. The worst that happened was Tindall getting drunk and chatting up an old girlfriend.

Driver wrote:Anyone got a link too the article?

Heaf gave this link:

http://www.rugbynetwork.net/boards/read/s98.htm?100,15365838

According to David Campese, Vunipola was there did the Q&A but didn't have a drink. Makes me wonder about the rest of the story. Don't know fact from fiction but you know a lie can get halfway around the world... caution needed.

https://twitter.com/Davidcampese11

You got to hand it to the Springbok camp, they had much turmoil, split camp, fights, power struggles and everyone remains tight lipped about it.

Biltong wrote:You got to hand it to the Springbok camp, they had much turmoil, split camp, fights, power struggles and everyone remains tight lipped about it.

How do you know then?

Notch wrote:According to David Campese, Vunipola was there did the Q&A but didn't have a drink.

According to Alex Goode, Billy doesn't drink, and never has.

https://twitter.com/Alex_goode0/status/650737809557442560

Biltong wrote:You got to hand it to the Springbok camp, they had much turmoil, split camp, fights, power struggles and everyone remains tight lipped about it.

Not really, if this is true then all power to Billy V for having the balls to say something, keeping quiet about things like this is not the way to go.

Watching the Irish coverage Peter Stringer intimated (actually said) that from the little chats he was having with the English lads that during the six nations George Ford and the Bath lads were given the responsibility of "coaching" the backs as thats the way Lancaster wanted to play. Which makes it more interesting when suddenly you get Owen Farrell picked for the big games with Burgess originally included. Just seems funny that the team went from one way of playing to another...

Now I know Stringer would be in the George Ford camp so to speak but it was interesting none the less.

And picking Burgess over Eastmond as well, not to mention Burrell. From the outside its all over the place.

I'm behind Lancaster to be honest and the more i read the more Farrell seems to be the problem.

Does anyone else remember the tour too Argentina when Faz was with the Lions? We played some blinding rugby and scrummed the Argies off the park.

Notch wrote:And picking Burgess over Eastmond as well, not to mention Burrell. From the outside its all over the place.

The continued selection of Wigglesworth and Barritt seems very centred around Farrell too.

It definitely seems as if there were two "philosophies" involved. The main thing is that the team which went from having very good back play suddenly changed tack almost completely....

Assuming this is an accurate report - and that is a big 'if' - then Billy needs to learn to keep his yapper shut. But who knows if this is accurate or if someone made it all up and put it on the internet.

Not sure I would ever pour my frustrations out to Dave Campese. Would you?

Driver wrote:I'm behind Lancaster to be honest and the more i read the more Farrell seems to be the problem.

Does anyone else remember the tour to Argentina when Faz was with the Lions? We played some blinding rugby and scrummed the Argies off the park.

Rowntree was with the Lions too. Rob Baxter and Paul Gustard joined the coaching set-up for that tour.

You mean when Argentina agreed not to call up their France based players so they wouldn't be missing too much (with their addition to the RC)? Effectly it was the Jaguars.

Speaking of Billy, don't forget his hat-trick of tries against the mighty Consur XV on that tour 

Rugby Fan wrote:

Driver wrote:I'm behind Lancaster to be honest and the more i read the more Farrell seems to be the problem.

Does anyone else remember the tour to Argentina when Faz was with the Lions? We played some blinding rugby and scrummed the Argies off the park.

Rowntree was with the Lions too. Rob Baxter and Paul Gustard joined the coaching set-up for that tour.

It was also a second string Argentina, they're not great on depth. Perhaps not a coincidence though that the pack was extremely well drilled under Baxter, not Rowntree.

I'm pretty sure Lancaster has said that he leaves most of the actual coaching to Faz, Catt and Rowntree, so that's not a surprise. Selection is more of a shock, but it certainly makes sense.

Bathman_in_London wrote:I'm pretty sure Lancaster has said that he leaves most of the actual coaching to Faz, Catt and Rowntree, so that's not a surprise. Selection is more of a shock, but it certainly makes sense.

It makes sense for the Head Coach not to be making selection calls??

Notch wrote:

Biltong wrote:You got to hand it to the Springbok camp, they had much turmoil, split camp, fights, power struggles and everyone remains tight lipped about it.

How do you know then?

A mate of mine know Johann van Graan. He has been leaking us some info, but is light on detail.

So not THAT tight lipped then.

Artful_Dodger wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:I'm pretty sure Lancaster has said that he leaves most of the actual coaching to Faz, Catt and Rowntree, so that's not a surprise. Selection is more of a shock, but it certainly makes sense.

It makes sense for the Head Coach not to be making selection calls??

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant the apparent change in direction and the resulting shambles ties in with divisions in the selection process.

Bathman_in_London wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:I'm pretty sure Lancaster has said that he leaves most of the actual coaching to Faz, Catt and Rowntree, so that's not a surprise. Selection is more of a shock, but it certainly makes sense.

It makes sense for the Head Coach not to be making selection calls??

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant the apparent change in direction and the resulting shambles ties in with divisions in the selection process.

My mistake.

HammerofThunor wrote:So not THAT tight lipped then.

Enough to tell us all is not well, there was a fist fight for example, but no names.

If you consider Bismarck du Plessis was completely dropped in the next match, we can only assume it was him

Surely the pertinent point with the England tour of Argentina isn't that England won, but that they played a more aggressive brand of rugby with a better attacking game. In what was effectively a seconds match up, it was the approach rather than the result that was satisfying.

In terms of Farrell being one to go - absolutely, and I'm not at all surprised at the idea of him selecting the backs. I had assumed that all along - not least due to the continued selection of jnr, and any player that reminded him of himself such as Burgess and even Ashton who did the Wigan then Saracens thing - albeit via Saints (I say Ashton sparingly as I don't necessarily think he was a bad player - just didn't suit the way they were playing. Demonstrated when utilised well, as e.g. at Saints, Saracens post Farrel, and England pre-Farrell).

billy doesn't drink and never has.

https://twitter.com/Alex_goode0/status/650737809557442560

Inferno productions has been spreading the story and then admitted he read it on a message board. To me it sounds like a load of Love sacks.

What is Lancasters role, is it the same as Martin Johnsons as in a "manager" or an actual coach?

The Argentina tour means diddly squat in the greater scheme of things. It was a very poor Arg squad that most AP sides would have battered.

This is backed up further by Kvesic and Eastmond looking like they cut the mustard in an England shirt....

seen this on another forum ostensibly from Billy
"Billy Vunipola ‏@bvunipola 44s44 seconds ago

Hearing some rumours that I've been saying negative stuff about England. Laughable! Complete rubbish and I don't even drink!"

Yup - its on his twitter https://twitter.com/bvunipola?lang=en-gb

This story is now officially dead.

Spoke to David Campese who confirmed @bvunipola said nothing negative about Burgess or coaches in that Q&A. And didn't drink all night

https://twitter.com/MikeBovill/status/650770235562270721

Billy on Twitter

Hearing some rumours that I've been saying negative stuff about England. Laughable! Complete rubbish and I don't even drink!

I would never say anything negative about the boys or staff. We gave everything we had, just wasn't enough and we all take responsibility

Proud to train and play alongside such great lads and we have to look forward now. Thanks for all of your support

https://twitter.com/bvunipola

Think we have to take all these alleged stories from the England camp with a pinch of salt.

Pity the eager muppets who believed this obvious twaddle.

People believe what they want to believe. But only the idiots repeat it as the truth...

I would imagine Inferno Productions are feeling a bit silly .

For example. Why did the England players go so wild after scoring their 4th try against Fiji if none of them knew about bonus points? The clues were in the story, before the denials from everyone who was actually there...

As I would hope artful does too...

Not really. The most attention they've probably ever had. After all, that's what life is about. Drawing as much attention to yourself as possible to bask in the glory.

HammerofThunor wrote:Not really. The most attention they've probably ever had. After all, that's what life is about. Drawing as much attention to yourself as possible to bask in the glory.

This is a fair comment.  I have found the whole thing highly amusing.... true or not.

Yes u would because you're just wunming

quinsforever wrote:Yes u would because you're just wunming

Not at all, I was merely facilitating some debate on what has been reported on many rugby forums.  Which is that there may have been some internal turmoil within the England camp attached to their WC exit.  

By the way Quins now that England are out of the competition with a group game to spare, can we now count on your support for the other home nations?

Facilitating some debate. Wonderful term for spreading made up cowpat. But then that's the lifeblood for forums like this I suppose. That's why the rugby paper exists.

I'm supporting Australia for the rest of RWC. Great team, great coach, sensible policies. England should have paid particular attention to cheika changing their overseas player rule....if u hope to win world cups as a coach, u leave no stone unturned to have every weapon available.

For Australia's complete dismantling of England, and quality of their play all over the pitch, I want to see them win.

quinsforever wrote:I'm supporting Australia for the rest of RWC. Great team, great coach, sensible policies. England should have paid particular attention to cheika changing their overseas player rule....if u hope to win world cups as a coach, u leave no stone unturned to have every weapon available.

For Australia's complete dismantling of England, and quality of their play all over the pitch, I want to see them win.

I feel the same. Despite the painful reaming I finished up in admiration for the best rugby I have seen this tournament. Never imagined myself writing this kind, of stuff. I feel Aussie are the team, along with AB who will be in the final. Go Aussie.

I can't imagine any of this is actually true.

Yeah I agree 7.5

I don't doubt Farrell is a big influence...and maybe does lead the training...but I just cant see him making the selections.

But who knows. Mike Catts actions will be monitored closely

I think the whole lot of them need to go. Bring in management that has direction and none of this PR rubbish we constantly get.