Stuart Lancaster speaks

http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/36006135

and no one listens?

He still feels the pain of the Rugby World Cup. i mean even now. Plus he now wan'ts to go back in to coaching, in the SH.

I believe that EJ is getting the best out of the player that SL brought into the side.

My point is if Gatlands CV is not good enough. What make him think that his CV will be good enough.

Nick Mullins said this:

A good man sitting in a caravan in the Lake District, thinking of the pain he'd caused his family. A vivid image of Stuart Lancaster.

https://twitter.com/andNickMullins/status/719082129783668736

That was a good read, couldn't help feeling for the guy. Hope he gets a bit of luck and success in the future.

I will remember his England tenure as a foundation builder to a good future for England.

Best of luck to him.

He's a good bloke and deserves another shot. Remember what Henry say about his time at Wales and with the Lions.

Was it medically induced?

Wants a super rugby coaching job? He's definitely been raiding grandpa's old liquor cabinet.

Would any want him? Maybe some of the fringe operations such as Southern Kings but they couldn't afford to pay him.

From £300,000 a year to £50,000. That's what it would take and given the Kings are bankrupt and can't play a professional outfit in this years Currie Cup it won't come from them either.

As a backs coach he's useless, he's traditionally a forwards coach right???

However, its not a great advert when as England coach he picked a side in the RWC who were the lightest front 5 of tier 1 nations and the heaviest backrow. Maybe he is right and everyone else was wrong but given they got dumped out the world cup I would say it was a loco setup and this isn't hindsight talking. A philosophy which depended  on forward domination yet he picked powderpuff players with a incoherent set piece.

He got a win vs NZ. So What.... Peter De Villiers got 5 and the best record vs. NZ than any coach has had since the late 90s yet all he could muster was a job with a second tier South African university rugby team outside franchise academies.

Aiming too high. Think he should start somewhere in tier 2 and build himself up. Eddie Jones showed one or two tweaks and England were their old self again. Its not because of a favourable butchers bill and others being fatigued. It was the setup, the ethos and Lancaster is probably more unemployable than he was before the 6N began because of the obvious flaws Eddie showed he possesses to coach at test/super rugby level.

The pack isn't that different to the one we've just won the 6Ns with.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The pack isn't that different to the one we've just won the 6Ns with.

Front 5 from world cup only had the props as survivors no? Backrow mostly the same but at least he dropped Wood and had a more mobile option off the bench.

It's the same choice front row. Kruis previously capped, Itoje would have come in sooner following the world cup for me if Lancaster had stayed. And same choice of backrow that Lancaster was criticised for, with yes Clifford included from the bench.

I get why people don't rate Lancaster but so far Jones hasn't strayed far from Lancasters blueprint. He hasn't had the time. It will be interesting to see where he moves to now he has had the time to judge and work with the players but from my point of view playing wise I didn't see much different to this 6Ns.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's the same choice front row. Kruis previously capped, Itoje would have come in sooner following the world cup for me if Lancaster had stayed. And same choice of backrow that Lancaster was criticised for, with yes Clifford included from the bench.

I get why people don't rate Lancaster but so far Jones hasn't strayed far from Lancasters blueprint. He hasn't had the time. It will be interesting to see where he moves to now he has had the time to judge and work with the players but from my point of view playing wise I didn't see much different to this 6Ns.

That's the thing, it wasn't that much different but it looked so different. I could imagine Itoje eventually would go to 6, was impressed by a chap called Harrison on the weekend at Northampton, easily better than Fraser of Saracens.. and well Vunipola is alright at 8 .... still think if he loses 10kg he would go from being rather good to exceptional.
I think if they find a class loosehead that pack will be unplayable.

Well I've probably watched England more consistently, I didn't see a huge difference myself. The one aspect we nailed in the 6Ns was the lineout which apart from about 12 months under Lancaster where I think we went through about 5 games perfectly we ok but not good.

Think you're going to have to admit Vuinpola is rather good eventually!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well I've probably watched England more consistently, I didn't see a huge difference myself. The one aspect we nailed in the 6Ns was the lineout which apart from about 12 months under Lancaster where I think we went through about 5 games perfectly we ok but not good.

Think you're going to have to admit Vuinpola is rather good eventually!

Use of subs has improved out of sight. I think we are playing smarter under Jones too. We are where we are because of both Lancaster and Jones.

The team had come on a long way under Lancaster even if it had plateaued, and having that team plus the new guys coming through made taking the job a lot easier for Jones than it would have been 4 years ago

I do wonder if Lancaster would be best suited to some kind of development role. As for the past the thing is to learn from mistakes. As one of my old teachers used to say the man who never made any mistakes never made anything. Still - Lancaster did make one or two big mistakes.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well I've probably watched England more consistently, I didn't see a huge difference myself. The one aspect we nailed in the 6Ns was the lineout which apart from about 12 months under Lancaster where I think we went through about 5 games perfectly we ok but not good.

Think you're going to have to admit Vuinpola is rather good eventually!

Still question the professionalism. He's good, he can be exceptional. The diff IMO is his outlook. Look at all the other 8s out there.

Heaslip, Faletau, Picamoles, Parisse, Read, Vermeulen.

They're all athletes. All shredded, all can lift all can jump in the lineout.. Vunipola is as likely to go up in the air as his brother and it makes England's lineout that more predictable (maybe by 1% sure but 1% may be all that matters).
Last a full 80 or whatever so did Dean Richards back in the day. You don't see guys like him in SR, even the PI guys. They all look like Jerome Kaino i.e. could be bodybuilders. Too suited to European winter rugby.... if he wants to be the best (for me) he has to taking on style less Tongan and more Kiwi (big yes, powerful yes, fast yes... but professional with a proper diet and conditioning programme).

lostinwales wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well I've probably watched England more consistently, I didn't see a huge difference myself. The one aspect we nailed in the 6Ns was the lineout which apart from about 12 months under Lancaster where I think we went through about 5 games perfectly we ok but not good.

Think you're going to have to admit Vuinpola is rather good eventually!

Use of subs has improved out of sight. I think we are playing smarter under Jones too. We are where we are because of both Lancaster and Jones.

The team had come on a long way under Lancaster even if it had plateaued, and having that team plus the new guys coming through made taking the job a lot easier for Jones than it would have been 4 years ago

I do wonder if Lancaster would be best suited to some kind of development role. As for the past the thing is to learn from mistakes. As one of my old teachers used to say the man who never made any mistakes never made anything. Still - Lancaster did make one or two big mistakes.

Agree with a lot of that, but then Jones has only had 5 games so far and 1 of those demonstrated really bad use of subs.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well I've probably watched England more consistently, I didn't see a huge difference myself. The one aspect we nailed in the 6Ns was the lineout which apart from about 12 months under Lancaster where I think we went through about 5 games perfectly we ok but not good.

Think you're going to have to admit Vuinpola is rather good eventually!

Still question the professionalism. He's good, he can be exceptional. The diff IMO is his outlook. Look at all the other 8s out there.

Heaslip, Faletau, Picamoles, Parisse, Read, Vermeulen.

They're all athletes. All shredded, all can lift all can jump in the lineout.. Vunipola is as likely to go up in the air as his brother and it makes England's lineout that more predictable (maybe by 1% sure but 1% may be all that matters).
Last a full 80 or whatever so did Dean Richards back in the day. You don't see guys like him in SR, even the PI guys. They all look like Jerome Kaino i.e. could be bodybuilders. Too suited to European winter rugby.... if he wants to be the best (for me) he has to taking on style less Tongan and more Kiwi (big yes, powerful yes, fast yes... but professional with a proper diet and conditioning programme).

Hmm, so he'll never be exceptional as he'll never be a strong lineout option. Sure beshocked will tell you if he ever takes the lineout for Saracens, he did get one in the 6Ns.

And England had comfortably the best lineout in the 6Ns. Thanks Mr Borthwick.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well I've probably watched England more consistently, I didn't see a huge difference myself. The one aspect we nailed in the 6Ns was the lineout which apart from about 12 months under Lancaster where I think we went through about 5 games perfectly we ok but not good.

Think you're going to have to admit Vuinpola is rather good eventually!

Still question the professionalism. He's good, he can be exceptional. The diff IMO is his outlook. Look at all the other 8s out there.

Heaslip, Faletau, Picamoles, Parisse, Read, Vermeulen.

They're all athletes. All shredded, all can lift all can jump in the lineout.. Vunipola is as likely to go up in the air as his brother and it makes England's lineout that more predictable (maybe by 1% sure but 1% may be all that matters).
Last a full 80 or whatever so did Dean Richards back in the day. You don't see guys like him in SR, even the PI guys. They all look like Jerome Kaino i.e. could be bodybuilders. Too suited to European winter rugby.... if he wants to be the best (for me) he has to taking on style less Tongan and more Kiwi (big yes, powerful yes, fast yes... but professional with a proper diet and conditioning programme).

Hmm, so he'll never be exceptional as he'll never be a strong lineout option. Sure beshocked will tell you if he ever takes the lineout for Saracens, he did get one in the 6Ns.

No player can do everything (well perhaps Brooke was the exception right)

However see all those above and all jump, not often but they all do and most play with a big jumping 6 too. Its about disguise. You have to keep teams thinking, who will it go to, not lets track player x as its 70% likely to go to him.

But at his current size it would be a joke.

Good to see it's only 1 aspect he has to improve on now though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Good to see it's only 1 aspect he has to improve on now though.

Well conditioning I think would improve all of it. Talent was always there and I think I have always said that, well maybe......

He'd at least be getting in some of the SA club sides now though!

No 7&1/2 wrote:He'd at least be getting in some of the SA club sides now though!

With Spies and Vermeulen now moved to France there are a few openings now sure!

For all Lancasters doubters....he has the highest win ratio of any England coach since Woodward.

He let himself down a bit, but hes not as bad as everyone says!
He should try to get a coaching job in the UK and work on his weaker areas and I think in a few years he could be a very good coach indeed.

FA

Do you EVER have anything good to say about English rugby??

Especially as half the time it seems to me you haven't actually seen much of it??!!

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Good to see it's only 1 aspect he has to improve on now though.

Well conditioning I think would improve all of it. Talent was always there and I think I have always said that, well maybe......

Whats wrong with his conditioning?

GeordieFalcon wrote:For all Lancasters doubters....he has the highest win ratio of any England coach since Woodward.

He let himself down a bit, but hes not as bad as everyone says!
He should try to get a coaching job in the UK and work on his weaker areas and I think in a few years he could be a very good coach indeed.

John Mitchell had a superb record with NZ. At the time his win rate was unchallenged, 2 3N titles... after that he was a failure nearly everywhere else. Same with Peter De Villiers from SA, excellent record for SA on paper.

its not how good your record is, its how good your team was vs. its potential. From that you'd have to say with the talent he had, he should have done better... a lot better.

I would challenge that asumption. It was a disappointing WC but given the players at Lancaster disposal I wasn't expecting domination. He's unlucky to go at the time he did given the core group and age.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Good to see it's only 1 aspect he has to improve on now though.

Well conditioning I think would improve all of it. Talent was always there and I think I have always said that, well maybe......

Whats wrong with his conditioning?

Match him up vs. the following

Heaslip
Parisse
Picamoles
Read
Vermeulen
Kaino
Vito
Spies
Faletau

They're all shredded, all athletes, all can jump and lift in lineouts etc. Vunipola is like 10kg heavier than all of those players.

Vunipola plays like a Tongan, big, strong... but have a look at the Tongan's and PI players in NZ... they all play like AB's, not Tongans. They're never over 130kg, never over 120kg. They are multi versatile and that's what Vunipola should do. So his mum is a great cook.. and all the other PI players in NZ don't say the same?

And he doesn't have the wonderful guns of Pocock.

His performance in general was fine. He brought through a lot of youngsters, give players their debuts.

You need time.
He was consistently second - again not horrific.

Where he let himself down -
He failed to take England up to the next level - 1st spot in the 6n after 4 years...and he had a brain melt at the WC.

But I firmly expect he can learn from that and will be a very strong coach.

I don't care if they're shredded etc? I want a player to play hard rugby for 80 minutes.

Billy does that no problem. He doesn't look it,.....but he's fit!

Waldrom is fat...but is regarded as one of the fittest players around.

England don't play with an 8 who is a jumper. And not having that hardly affected our lineout.

The one thing that has been levelled was that Lancaster wasn't strong enough to take input from his coaches but hold firm in his own choice in the end. Plenty of chatter around farrell for instance but I have no proof that's true or not. Think he would have had to change his background staff had he survived the WC.

I'd be surprised if he did anything noticeable be in a European Cup/Super rugby or test team again.

Can anyone name a coach who failed badly on the big stage and redeemed himself after that after getting the sack?

Henry was a bit pants for the Lions.

Perhaps Vuinipola wouldn't suit a SH team but he doesn't play there week in week out so it's not really relevant.

Players like Skelton have been a big hit(and Vuinipola is much fitter than him) so there is room for big guys.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Henry was a bit pants for the Lions.

His Wales players never trusted him again that's for sure. Had to go all the way back to NZ club rugby though before jumping back up.

Steve Hansen presided over a record losing streak for Wales I think - and is best remembered for a couple of galliant defeats in RWC03 where he had brought in what he viewed then as his second stringers.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Perhaps Vuinipola wouldn't suit a SH team but he doesn't play there week in week out so it's not really relevant.

Players like Skelton have been a big hit(and Vuinipola is much fitter than him) so there is room for big guys.

Lots of 130kg guys in SR NZ. But they don't get picked for NZ even their props are generally no more than 120kgs. They're big but heavy into their cardio and conditioning.
Lok how they managed McCaw, Smith, Carter.. they are well ahead of the curve here, not just skills wise. Its not a case of oh NZ NZ NZ look what they do, SA very similar. Their approach is second to none.

Skelton is a lock though but has different qualities, almost a flyhalf type distributor.. but when he first broke through he looked like he was a contestant on "the biggest loser" no?

Well Lancaster and Jones felt the importance of Vunipola to the team lacking strong carriers. I think you run the risk of taking away the parts of vunipolas game that set him ahead of the rest trying to make him an all rounder. He only lacks pace and lineout. I don't think either matter given the options around for England (and the Lions).

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well Lancaster and Jones felt the importance of Vunipola to the team lacking strong carriers. I think you run the risk of taking away the parts of vunipolas game that set him ahead of the rest trying to make him an all rounder. He only lacks pace and lineout. I don't think either matter given the options around for England (and the Lions).

maybe like a pro boxer he's at his conditioning peak but looks a bit sloppy I agree.  Exception to the norm mind but possible I acknowledge.

And Nathan Hughes is on his way anyway, whether we like it or not.

Having a six pack doesn't relate to being "rugby fit"

Ive known many a player whose body type will never allow a 6 pack but by god they were fit lads!

Lancaster is a great organiser, obviously good at developing players, professionalism, performance programs etc.

What he isn't is a great coach and inspirational leader. He bottled it in the WC and it was because of his lack of experience.

Take Ford and Farrell - the combination never looked that convincing as 10 & 12. Did Jones seem bothered? No he thought it was the best chance of winning a grand slam and resisted the urge to change it. But unlike Lancaster with Wood/Robshaw I bet Eddie will now change it to make it better.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Having a six pack doesn't relate to being "rugby fit"

Ive known many a player whose body type will never allow a 6 pack but by god they were fit lads!

How many SANZAR players bar frontfive forwards are the above type? Warren Gatland for all his faults places conditioning very high on his agenda and 3 6N titles is a more than fair return on his tenure.

It depends in the end what you're looking for. If you want to take on the SANZAR nations seriously then you have to be able to fight on an even keel. Let strategy and skill be the determinant not conditioning.  
Maybe emulation of SANZAR is not the way to beat them, to a certain extent I agree but if I had to prefer one method of conditioning players it would be the NZ model. Look at Richie McCaw, he has got all these caps, yet plays the toughest position in the game, the crash test dummy and in other nations he would have had half as many caps from injuries alone.

There is no problem with Vunipola's conditioning. He has played every minute of the last 2 England 6N campaigns and he's at a level where his running game if anything goes up a notch in the last quarter of those games. (Maybe the opposition are just fed up of tackling him)

He was very noticeably an 'impact player' (e.g. 30 -40 minutes) when he first appeared on the international scene, but it is an area he has improved out of sight, and losing more kilos isn't going to help him at all.

He is what he is, is becoming increasingly influential as to how we play and we are very lucky to have him.

fa0019 wrote:...Can anyone name a coach who failed badly on the big stage and redeemed himself after that after getting the sack?

Eddie Jones?

fa0019 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Having a six pack doesn't relate to being "rugby fit"

Ive known many a player whose body type will never allow a 6 pack but by god they were fit lads!

How many SANZAR players bar frontfive forwards are the above type? Warren Gatland for all his faults places conditioning very high on his agenda and 3 6N titles is a more than fair return on his tenure.

Yes but your listing al these no 8's who are lean and ripped saying Vunipola doesn't even come close.

From your list I can tell you id rather have Billy over the majority! Certainly over Heaslip, Spies, etc etc.

Billy played a very strict role for England and was effective. Add in anther carrier at 6 - Ewers or Nathan Hughes and he'll be even more effective.

People keep saying he's so predictable etc....yes maybe but they all found it very hard to stop him for all hes so "predictable"

Rugby Fan wrote:

fa0019 wrote:...Can anyone name a coach who failed badly on the big stage and redeemed himself after that after getting the sack?

Eddie Jones?

Taking AUS to the RWC final is not what I'd call failure. Especially given 2 months before they faced NZ in the SF in the same stadium NZ put 50 points on them. That and being taught a lesson by England at home in the same summer... so within a shot at goal.