Stuart Lancaster?

Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on SL, this is not a knee jerk reaction to the loss to Ireland on Sunday but 'has SL taken us as far as he can?'

For me he has taken a lot of well deserved credit for turning us from 2011 RWC flops/party animals to a squad of players with talent, but ultimately we still lack something when it counts and some of his selections are questionable at times.

No. I think he's shown clear progression himself from 2012. He's not Joe Schmidt in terms of tactics and to that end perhaps he could do with another tactical perspective in the team.

England have improved this year. Their backs are for the first time in years looking quite good. However, unfortunatly for England Ireland have improved much more than them in the last year.

Its not just the national side that Lancaster has done wonders with, it goes down through the levels as well. He has brought a very fresh approach to English rugby.

I remember a time when I used to hate watching the English play rugby as they were boring, now they are one of the most exciting teams to watch. If Schmidt was not with Ireland, I would be screaming for Lancaster to get the job.

But it was very predictable how Ireland were going to play that game yet we looked like we had no ideas of how to combat it. Surely if you are in the position that SL is in he should have had some idea of what to expect himself without getting another coach/tactical genius on board?

I knew how Ireland were going to play so why did England look like they did not?

If it's considered a debating topic to get rid of him then it must also be on the minds who would be that coach with the right tools to do the job - bearing in mind any new Head coach would more than likely be a whole new team of coaches.  These coaches that have the alleged talents to do a job are being increasingly demanding that they do the choosing of their own assistants to do that job.

That would be a big upheaval - how long would it take for that explosion to settle?  Mucho bad blood all around possibly?

It took Ireland a few years to finally offload a coach who was not getting sufficiently good results.  England have always been much more reflexive about it.  One or two bad games and the talk starts of change.  But change is another start and nobody can ever predict how low each restart might be.  Look at Vern Cotter and Scotland.  Glass windows being broken I hear because the Scottish players aren't yet listening to his ideas.

England look over coached and are ill disciplined. Who's fault is that? The team need direction, so keep SL as coach and bring in a Director of rugby with some vision.

His substitutions have got better I think, but I'm one of those who wonders why we didn't see Cipriani given a run.

On selections: It seems to me that he selects from his EPS almost entirely which I generally agree with. JJ might be an example of this - probably merited selection last year, and looked at, but not given a run until he was part of the EPS.

Ireland are simply better in the air and at the breakdown than England, the coaching team will have known that but acknowledging that fact doesn't mean you can counteract it.

TightHEAD wrote:But it was very predictable how Ireland were going to play that game yet we looked like we had no ideas of how to combat it.  Surely if you are in the position that SL is in he should have had some idea of what to expect himself without getting another coach/tactical genius on board?

I knew how Ireland were going to play so why did England look like they did not?

But how would you have countered it? High balls from every angle keeping your players very deep, vicious chase on kicks keeping your players away from developing any rhythm, formidable breakdown energy hitting you, again unsettling anything you might have been planning of a running, counter-attacking game?

How should Lancaster have planned it? Because a lot of what I heard from the fans over the two weeks that Ireland played a predictable boring game that would be easily countered by Vunipola and a handful of lightening fast English backs?

Is that not the gameplan Lancaster came with? And now he's a fool for thinking it might be enough?

As efficient as Ireland were yesterday, I feel had the match been at HQ then the result would have been reversed. Neither side seem to have a dynamic game plan to trouble the ABs this year.

The biggest problem for me is the refusal to select Armitage, who is without doubt the best back row in the NH, it's a stupid and out dated rule keeping him out the side.

MissBlennerhassett wrote:England look over coached and are ill disciplined. Who's fault is that? The team need direction, so keep SL as coach and bring in a Director of rugby with some vision.

What does a Director of Rugby with vision do?

I'm not being smart. I'm interested. In Ireland we have the tradition of Head Coaches and in England there is Director of Rugby who overlooks what the Head Coach does. And I'm interested. What would/does a Director of Rugby do that influences precise practical playing level plans on the field?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Ireland are simply better in the air and at the breakdown than England, the coaching team will have known that but acknowledging that fact doesn't mean you can counteract it.

Agree totally. Launchbury and Lawes were sorely missed yesterday.

MissBlennerhassett wrote:As efficient as Ireland were yesterday, I feel had the match been at HQ then the result would have been reversed. Neither side seem to have a dynamic game plan to trouble the ABs this year.

It's a game of small margins for sure against these two.  But had Ireland converted some of the earlier pressure into a try or two, the game would have been over in the first half because Ireland wouldn't have physically imploded against the English like the Welsh did in the second.

Ifs and Ands.  Tight games.  But both sides could still have a go at the ABs.  Their talismen aren't getting younger and their influence is beginning to drift down towards retirement.

SecretFly wrote:

MissBlennerhassett wrote:England look over coached and are ill disciplined. Who's fault is that? The team need direction, so keep SL as coach and bring in a Director of rugby with some vision.

What does a Director of Rugby with vision do?

I'm not being smart.  I'm interested.  In Ireland we have the tradition of Head Coaches and in England there is Director of Rugby who overlooks what the Head Coach does.  And I'm interested.  What would/does a Director of Rugby do that influences precise practical playing level plans on the field?

Perhaps have the time to make strategic assessments of the opposition and advise the coach which areas to concentrate on during the build up, ie how not to restart and hand the advantage straight to the oppositions strong point.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The biggest problem for me is the refusal to select Armitage, who is without doubt the best back row in the NH, it's a stupid and out dated rule keeping him out the side.

Armitage isnt that good. If I was Lancaster Id probably leave him out too.

SecretFly wrote:

MissBlennerhassett wrote:As efficient as Ireland were yesterday, I feel had the match been at HQ then the result would have been reversed. Neither side seem to have a dynamic game plan to trouble the ABs this year.

It's a game of small margins for sure against these two.  But had Ireland converted some of the earlier pressure into a try or two, the game would have been over in the first half because Ireland would have physically imploded against the English like the Welsh did in the second.

Ifs and Ands.  Tight games.  But both sides could still have a go at the ABs.  Their talismen aren't getting younger and their influence is beginning to drift down towards retirement.

It was mighty close at times, but I am still to be convinced that the current Ireland version is capable of scoring 'a try or two'. It doesn't currently matter, because they are very good at what they do do, but they are a very destructive rather than constructive team. It may well be that this will come with time

SecretFly wrote:

MissBlennerhassett wrote:As efficient as Ireland were yesterday, I feel had the match been at HQ then the result would have been reversed. Neither side seem to have a dynamic game plan to trouble the ABs this year.

It's a game of small margins for sure against these two.  But had Ireland converted some of the earlier pressure into a try or two, the game would have been over in the first half because Ireland wouldn't have physically imploded against the English like the Welsh did in the second.

Ifs and Ands.  Tight games.  But both sides could still have a go at the ABs.  Their talismen aren't getting younger and their influence is beginning to drift down towards retirement.

I wish Ireland had scored more earlier then England may have started to play earlier with the intensity we only saw in the last 15 minutes, then who knows.

GunsGerms wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The biggest problem for me is the refusal to select Armitage, who is without doubt the best back row in the NH, it's a stupid and out dated rule keeping him out the side.

Armitage isnt that good. If I was Lancaster Id probably leave him out too.

The whole Armitage thing is overdone. Robshaw had a bad game yesterday but its very rare we get to say that.

MissBlennerhassett wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

MissBlennerhassett wrote:England look over coached and are ill disciplined. Who's fault is that? The team need direction, so keep SL as coach and bring in a Director of rugby with some vision.

What does a Director of Rugby with vision do?

I'm not being smart.  I'm interested.  In Ireland we have the tradition of Head Coaches and in England there is Director of Rugby who overlooks what the Head Coach does.  And I'm interested.  What would/does a Director of Rugby do that influences precise practical playing level plans on the field?

Perhaps have the time to make strategic assessments of the opposition and advise the coach which areas to concentrate on during the build up, ie how not to restart and hand the advantage straight to the oppositions strong point.

But I believe that's very much a Head coaches role. I think there can be too many generals sometimes. Maybe indeed that might actually be a problem with England right now. There must be massive organisational input from many sources in this WC year trying to influence Lancaster and his decisions. Maybe he should be given more breathing space to see his own way clearly than answering to a few more generals.

SecretFly wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:But it was very predictable how Ireland were going to play that game yet we looked like we had no ideas of how to combat it.  Surely if you are in the position that SL is in he should have had some idea of what to expect himself without getting another coach/tactical genius on board?

I knew how Ireland were going to play so why did England look like they did not?

But how would you have countered it?  High balls from every angle keeping your players very deep, vicious chase on kicks keeping your players away from developing any rhythm, formidable breakdown energy hitting you, again unsettling anything you might have been planning of a running, counter-attacking game?

How should Lancaster have planned it?  Because a lot of what I heard from the fans over the two weeks that Ireland played a predictable boring game that would be easily countered by Vunipola and a handful of lightening fast English backs?

Is that not the gameplan Lancaster came with?  And now he's a fool for thinking it might be enough?

There is always a way, but I admit I don't have all the answers, but then again I'm not a well paid International coach of the biggest rugby playing nation on the planet, saying we will learn from it just simple isn't good enough, SL should have had some ideas of how to beat Ireland,

my 1st idea - would be not to kick the ball back to you if we weren't interested in chasing it,
2nd  - be well disciplined in all areas of the field,
3rd - take points whenever you get a chance.
4th - be tough at the breakdown and make your hit count.

lostinwales wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

MissBlennerhassett wrote:As efficient as Ireland were yesterday, I feel had the match been at HQ then the result would have been reversed. Neither side seem to have a dynamic game plan to trouble the ABs this year.

It's a game of small margins for sure against these two.  But had Ireland converted some of the earlier pressure into a try or two, the game would have been over in the first half because Ireland would have physically imploded against the English like the Welsh did in the second.

Ifs and Ands.  Tight games.  But both sides could still have a go at the ABs.  Their talismen aren't getting younger and their influence is beginning to drift down towards retirement.

It was mighty close at times, but I am still to be convinced that the current Ireland version is capable of scoring 'a try or two'. It doesn't currently matter, because they are very good at what they do do, but they are a very destructive rather than constructive team. It may well be that this will come with time

Were they held up twice? That's close enough to scoring as makes no difference. They were highest try scorers last year. It's in them.

lostinwales wrote:

It was mighty close at times, but I am still to be convinced that the current Ireland version is capable of scoring 'a try or two'. It doesn't currently matter, because they are very good at what they do do, but they are a very destructive rather than constructive team. It may well be that this will come with time

Well they have scored a try or two in nearly every game under Schmidt since he took over so not sure what it will take to convince you. The game against France is the only game I can think of that Ireland havent scored a try in something like the last 20 matches.

Actually edit: In Schmidts 2nd match in charge Ireland also failed to score a try. The average try tally for Ireland in Schmidts 16 games in charge is 2.6 tries.

The average in Nov was 3 and it is 1.3 so far in the 6 nations for Ireland this year. We will get tries but it really doesnt matter much if you arent conceding any tries. 1 conceded in three games is phenominal.

TightHEAD wrote:But it was very predictable how Ireland were going to play that game yet we looked like we had no ideas of how to combat it.  Surely if you are in the position that SL is in he should have had some idea of what to expect himself without getting another coach/tactical genius on board?

I knew how Ireland were going to play so why did England look like they did not?

Seemed quite clear to me that rather than England looking as if they had no plan, actually they had a plan that they failed to execute properly. Credit should be given to Ireland for doing it so well - but equally there were a lot of brainless penalties.

GunsGerms wrote:

The average in Nov was 3 and it is 1.3 so far in the 6 nations for Ireland this year. We will get tries but it really doesnt matter much if you arent conceding any tries. 1 conceded in three games is phenominal.

#
does that include the plethora against Georgia?

Sometimes you ve just got to hold your hands up and say we werent good enough. The execution wasnt good enough some due to pressure some to dumb play. Ireland played very well.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sometimes you ve just got to hold your hands up and say we werent good enough. The execution wasnt good enough some due to pressure some to dumb play.  Ireland played very well.

Have to agree with this. Lancaster's tactics were clear but executed poorly by England. That could be due to an off day or Ireland having a very good day.

LondonTiger wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

The average in Nov was 3 and it is 1.3 so far in the 6 nations for Ireland this year. We will get tries but it really doesnt matter much if you arent conceding any tries. 1 conceded in three games is phenominal.

#
does that include the plethora against Georgia?

Yes five but there was two each against both Australia and SA which is decent.

My problems with Lancaster is not that he makes mistakes it is that he repeats them. Alex Goode has shown previously that he is not an international class player. When this was conclusively proved Lancaster finally dropped him. He brought him back in a game when he knew a top class full back was essential. The result was predictable.

He could have played Watson at full back. He could not have done worse under the high ball and he might have done something going forward.

England probably should have had the try at the end. Too little by then anyway.

Dont think Goode had that bad a game. Certainly better than Watson.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sometimes you ve just got to hold your hands up and say we werent good enough. The execution wasnt good enough some due to pressure some to dumb play.  Ireland played very well.

Absolutely spot on - we had a couple of opportunities to put Ireland under pressure, but gave them away too easily. The obvious one was the missed line out after the penalty kick to the corner. I was thinking 'catch and drive and look for the penalty try', but Hartley's throw got picked off.
Also, Billy V's break - not sure the kick ahead was a better option than crashing into the defender. Youngs was nearby but there was no pass on. If he had to kick, then a bit more angle would have been good, to get the ball into touch rather than in goal.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I think it was the first match where we have seriously missed some of the first choice guys - Ireland were excellent at putting us under pressure, but our inexperience showed a bit at times.

Exiledinborders wrote:My problems with Lancaster is not that he makes mistakes it is that he repeats them.  Alex Goode has shown previously that he is not an international class player. When this was conclusively proved Lancaster finally dropped him.  He brought him back in a game when he knew a top class full back was essential. The result was predictable.

He could have played Watson at full back. He could not have done worse under the high ball and he might have done something going forward.

Actually, he could have been a lot worse under the high ball - iirc, Goode missed one (came off his shoulder), but took a few good ones, while I am yet to be convinced that Watson is particularly effective under the high ball. OK, so Watson is more likely to beat the first man when countering, but if you've dropped the ball first that hardly makes much difference. The kick for Henshall's try was just very well executed - arguably Goode should have played the man not the ball and forced him into touch, but I think sometimes you have to just applaud an opponent's skill.

I'm not trying t mount too much of a defence of Goode - I think we really missed Brown, and I would also put Foden ahead of him, but I don' t think he was anywhere near the poorest player we had yesterday, an honour competed for by Haskell (no brain) and Hartley (poor set pieces and not enough in the loose)

Watson is normally solid under the high ball, maybe the occasion got to him yesterday.

No 7&1/2 wrote:England probably should have had the try at the end. Too little by then anyway.

Dont think Goode had that bad a game. Certainly better than Watson.

but watson at 15, with as much broken field possession as Goode got, could have been a thing of beauty. If you over-kick to Goode there is minimal downside.

The thing about Lancaster is that he was no messiah, everyone knew that. He wasn't an obsessed professor like SCW was looking at every detail from the diet, to the shirt change over at halftime to mental games. Lancaster is  an honest coach with a tendency for loyalty and changes only when plan A fails rather than someone like Mallett/White who preempts issues and acts accordingly.. sometimes to their detriment however.

There are a few things about him that England should worry about however. For me he lacks the vision and the ruthlessness of a top achieving coach. More often than not he exhausts a single plan until there is no other option bar change direction to the most obvious one that even the mere mortals in ourselves call months ahead of time.

You also have to wonder about the mentality in the camp. England are a very subdued team. Ever recall them being properly fired up? Take Haskell/Hartley out of the equation who get fired up over the tiniest things can you recall a time when England had real fire in their eyes? They can deal with it on occasion but I can't remember genuine intensity from England in a long long time. Perhaps they want to control their intensity but many teams often when beating England tend to go in with far more aggression then their opposition, often near over the top aggression.

The only way to beat Ireland in Ireland is if they bring clubs to a fight... make sure you bring bigger ones. Added to that they have a smooth backline which capitalises on their forward pack aggression. SA, AUS and now England have simply looked off the mark and to be truthful neither the boks nor England ever looked like winning from the first whistle.

fa0019 wrote:

You also have to wonder about the mentality in the camp. England are a very subdued team. Ever recall them being properly fired up? Take Haskell/Hartley out of the equation who get fired up over the tiniest things can you recall a time when England had real fire in their eyes? They can deal with it on occasion but I can't remember genuine intensity from England in a long long time. Perhaps they want to control their intensity but many teams often when beating England tend to go in with far more aggression then their opposition, often near over the top aggression.

They seemed pretty much in the 'zone' against Wales, fa.  The tunnel shenanigans marked their territory in an almost Martin Johnson way.  And looking at Rodshaw's face then, you knew he was in a mood to get a job done with fire.
And in that second half, that's what happened.  They blew a pretty good Wales off the park with Paulie's favourite slogan "manic aggression"

They can do it.  But they trust their processes too much to think they always need it.  And in truth, in Europe, they rarely do need it in recent years.  

I don't think it's something you can manufacture though.  It happens when the players are in the mood and it just oozes out.  There is no love lost between Wales and England in rugby terms so Robshaw and his players just naturally sunk into that 'fired up' mood.  It was instinctive.  
But something about their preparations (whether you could include any Lancaster advise or whether it was individual players being over-confident in their individual skills) but something in those preparations seemed to have made the journey to Dublin appear an easier task than it probably should have been.  They didn't seem to expect the tempo Ireland brought and that surprised me.  So they weren't in the zone because they probably felt it wasn't required.

SecretFly wrote:
I don't think it's something you can manufacture though.  It happens when the players are in the mood and it just oozes out.  There is no love lost between Wales and England in rugby terms so Robshaw and his players just naturally sunk into that 'fired up' mood.  It was instinctive.  
But something about their preparations (whether you could include any Lancaster advise or whether it was individual players being over-confident in their individual skills) but something in those preparations seemed to have made the journey to Dublin appear an easier task than it probably should have been.  They didn't seem to expect the tempo Ireland brought and that surprised me.  So they weren't in the zone because they probably felt it wasn't required.

England will not have been consciously over-confident, but Lancaster's team had not lost to Ireland before, so they will have been confident they knew what to do. Perhaps sub-consciously over-confident.

Bomber will go if the RWC showing is poor I think. IMO the only way he could survive a poor showing there is to get to the semi final which is eminently doable with the draw if they win the group especially. He has taken England a long way from the shambles under Johnson. If England can get everyone fit then they should be more than capable of the semi final. That said i do think the embarassment of riches England have in terms of strength in depth sometimes makes them finding a style of rugby that suits them even harder. For me though Ford might out that right in some respects and Joseph has been player of the tournament so far though was quiet v ireland

As for current showing, well they needed to dominate this tourney and Round 1 made you think they would. But their error and penalty strewn performance in Ireland showed that they have very little consistency. Wales flattered to deceive in round 1 and i think it gave England a false sense of superiority. it was an adroit win against Wales, no doubt of that, but Wales were shocking that day. They haven't kicked on in the tourney, they rarely do, all too often they do well in Round 1 and 2, shoot their bolt and then the momentum stalls. They can still win but i think the wind has gone out of their sails and with a French and Scotland side both looking for some redemption i think they will come 2nd. Whether Wales can beat Ireland and get a cricket score in Rome remains to be seen.

GunsGerms wrote:England have improved this year. Their backs are for the first time in years looking quite good. However, unfortunatly for England Ireland have improved much more than them in the last year.

Guns,

I agree with you about the English backs but he has stumbled on them because of injury rather than them being his first choice. I think as soon as Manu is fit he will be thrown straight back in, for me despite the result yesterday I think England need to keep faith in the likes of Ford, Joseph and Watson.

NO, i do not believe that SL as taken England to the limit. Their is a lot more to come from this England team. Ireland all a lot more settled side than England, more experience than England. England did have a lot of their top players missing from yesterday, this is not an excuse as to why England lost, England lost because Ireland was better all round than England.

England started yesterday's game like they have started all the game's so far ( SLOW) giving away toooo many penalties in the range of Johnny Sexton's boot, and not taking the points when they had a chance to......you cannot afford to give away penalties in kicking distance to team's like Ireland, they will punish you if you do.

England have to play better against France that's for sure, France all ways have 1 good game in them and they normaly save it for England. I just felt if we had Lawes, Launchberry, Wood, and Morgan back the result would of/maybe different to what it was.

One thing i did not understand yesterday why,oh why did he not bring on Cipriani for the last 20 odd minutes.

LondonTiger wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
I don't think it's something you can manufacture though.  It happens when the players are in the mood and it just oozes out.  There is no love lost between Wales and England in rugby terms so Robshaw and his players just naturally sunk into that 'fired up' mood.  It was instinctive.  
But something about their preparations (whether you could include any Lancaster advise or whether it was individual players being over-confident in their individual skills) but something in those preparations seemed to have made the journey to Dublin appear an easier task than it probably should have been.  They didn't seem to expect the tempo Ireland brought and that surprised me.  So they weren't in the zone because they probably felt it wasn't required.

England will not have been consciously over-confident, but Lancaster's team had not lost to Ireland before, so they will have been confident they knew what to do. Perhaps sub-consciously over-confident.

I get that attitude Tiger.  But Lancaster I think understands and respects the coaching ability of Schmidt.  And Schmidt was a coach he only beat once, at home in Twickenham, playing a game he admitted was a massive win for him at the time knowing the calibre of the Irish side...by three points.

Lancaster's team never lost to Ireland before but had only beaten this Schmidt run Ireland once.  I think there must have been some bad messages being communicated subconsciously around camp that enough was going to be enough.  Fast and furious running and offloading would win the day. If that was the case then yes, that would have been a bad reading of the situation by Lancaster and his fellow coaches.

I am more likely to complain about Lancaster if England play poorly (as they did on Sunday) rather than if they lose and play well.  Lancaster has done many good things and it would be silly to change him now.  In any case many contributors think England will not peak in 2015.  Main issues against Lancaster are making the same mistake more than once, but if a gradual improvement can seen.  I guess we need a thread "What should we do now?"

Not really SL's fault that half the team are out injured. I think our B side has been ok to be fair, they were never going to go unbeaten.

On the hand Stewie has been too slow to sort out our backs over his tenure. And hasn't shown too much tactical nous. He had better hope we have most of 1st choice back for the RWC otherwise both England and he could be out.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Not really SL's fault that half the team are out injured. I think our B side has been ok to be fair, they were never going to go unbeaten.

On the hand Stewie has been too slow to sort out our backs over his tenure. And hasn't shown too much tactical nous. He had better hope we have most of 1st choice back for the RWC otherwise both England and he could be out.

Well said. Particularly liked that subtle 'B side' reference.

Keep on thinking that about A and B sides, it has nowt to do with that as the two best players I have seen in an England shirt for some time are Joseph and Ford. England are overwhelmed with options and as a result they constantly tweak, the new broom comes in and there is never consistency. This translates to inconsistent performances. England have a ridiculous strength in depth such that suggesting this is a B side is frankly embarrassing. What they need is someone like Schmidt who coaches a game plan and a style of play that suits England. And that si the problem, we have no idea what that is because of the constant changing of selection.

Find 23 players and stick with them. its too late for experimentation.

Gwlad wrote:Keep on thinking that about A and B sides, it has nowt to do with that as the two best players I have seen in an England shirt for some time are Joseph and Ford. England are overwhelmed with options and as a result they constantly tweak, the new broom comes in and there is never consistency. This translates to inconsistent performances. England have a ridiculous strength in depth such that suggesting this is a B side is frankly embarrassing. What they need is someone like Schmidt who coaches a game plan and a style of play that suits England. And that si the problem, we have no idea what that is because of the constant changing of selection.

Find 23 players and stick with them. its too late for experimentation.

Ah no - I think he makes a fair point.

Once all the injured rise off their English stretchers, no more Nowell, Goode, Watson, Ford, Jesus Joseph, Burrell, Youngs, Easter, Haskell, Robshaw, Kruis, Cole, Hartley, etc.

It'll be an all new gleaming 'A side' machine with strategic-advisor-cum-director-of-rugby, Sir Clive, brought on board to show the boys how to play with TCUP and win the WECup.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Nah, just Corbs, Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, Morgan, Farrell (maybe), Barritt (unfashionable but England’s best 12), Manu, Brown, Care... But England do have depth and it’s no shame to beat (or lose to) them.

So Launchbury, Lawes and Brown then? Fair enough.

I think Lancaster has done a great job and he shouldn't be replaced. I agree with the above that we just weren't good enough on Sunday.

However I would like to see a couple of things that seem to be common.

1)A top class kicking coach brought in. Our kicking is just aimless and puts us in trouble time and again.

2)A top class SH breakdown coach brought in (or consultant) to work on our breakdown. Some times its ok...but aside from the odd game like the NZ victory we are never utterly aggressive and brutal at the breakdown. Ireland showed just what that can give to a side.

Of course the other problem we have is that our strength in depth is just not as good as we hoped...and when we are missing our 1st choicers those coming in cant match the consistency and level required...