So when will Lancaster resign.....I guess after the wc once the rfu have paid up

I'll fatten this out later, but I think this is now worthy of serious speculation given the wc is less than a month away and the impending realisation that we will not progress from the group stage.

I think you are over reacting. What part of yesterdays performance would you blame Lancaster for?

The poor attitude in the first half?
Particular selections as I understood that was pretty much a first team for England?
Who do you suggest is going "fix it" a month out?
Which players will he bring in that can make a difference?
How is the set piece going to improve?


Me thinks you are looking for some miracle that will change evrything overnight.

It was a typical slow start, low attitude performance many teams are guilty of at stages

It was a worse performance than the week previous.

I think a lot coaches will have their head on the block at this world cup

You wouldn't get a pay out normally if you resign.

I think the scoreline flattered England a little... France took the foot off the gas. 25-6 up halfway through the 2nd half. You can say the team only needs to peak in one months time but I can't see the same players all of a sudden turning it around just like that.

SCW I read was very coy in supporting Lancaster although I think he looked at the probable backrow and said... "I hope there is enough speed in there" i.e they are all big lumps (robshaw, wood, haskell, morgan, vunipola.. what all 6'3+ 110kg?)... If Wales play Tipuric and Warburton as AUS play Pocock and Hooper I think ENG will be in real danger. They don't seem to be bossing teams upfront like 12 months ago either to give them easy points and put teams on backfoot and then with a large backrow the balance is thrown off.

If England qualify for the KO stages I think Lancaster will stay on for a season or too but England picking a guy who played at best 2nd tier rugby, never coached beyond junior level and has never gone out of his comfort zone in terms of selection.

It's the RFU's own stupid fault for giving the coaches a significant contract extension.

I have been a critic of Lancaster but it's better to have England's weaknesses exposed yet again now than at the RWC. Gives Lancaster more time to try and fix the issues.

fa0019 wrote: but England picking a guy who played at best 2nd tier rugby, never coached beyond junior level and has never gone out of his comfort zone in terms of selection.

In fairness picking a guy who was one the best players of his generation, captained the most sucessful club of his era and captained a RWC winning side didn't exactly work out well either did it ?

I think Lancaster is naturally conservative in his selections, but who has he not played that would honestly do a better job through the group stages of a RWC - he can't pick overseas players, he can't pick Hartley due to his self imposed stupidity and lack of match fitness, so who out there is missing that's going to turn it round?

Similarly with tactics (which IMHO follow the selections) given the players available what should SL be doing that's he's not doing now ?

true but saying last time we picked the worst guy for the job... this time we only picked the 8th choice out of 12 so technically its progress is not really an excuse.

As far as I know the 2 contenders were Mallet and Lancaster. Lancaster had the advantage of in depth knowledge of the players, a caretaker role and the fact mallet didn't do much with italy. If Lancaster did go now it would be interesting to see who would apply, I'd say the quantity and quality would be better and that's down in large part to the good job lancaster has done.

Irish Londoner Martin Johnson was a poor selection. Being a great player doesn't necessarily mean you'll be a great coach.

Well we don't know who could have turned it around because Lancaster left them out! Certainly could have tried some more options in the backrow that's for sure!

We know that Lancaster wanted to leave out Jamie George.

fa0019 the issue isn't just Lancaster. His team of coaches aren't great either.

Mike Catt has very little top class coaching experience. Farrell has been freeloading off other coaches' good work to get an England job - Farrell has not been missed at Saracens, on the contrary they've improved in his absence.

Rowntree has been okay but even and now again the lineout goes to pieces.

Have said it time and again - England need to utilise the best coaches.

It was a bad day at the office. They happen to all sides.

Still only lost to France by 5 points away from home (and could have won it). Very poor performance but let's put it in proper perspective.

Typical overreaction from the OP.

Backs look pretty good to be fair.

Must be difficult for players in these warm up games. It is so easy to pick up an injury especially as a forward. For guys like Robshaw, Wood, Lawes and Launchbury to miss a home WC would be devastating and I'd expect their intensity will be raised significantly in the pool stages.

MJ was all that, but also had no coaching experience at all. He did improve during his tenure, but started from a much lower point. Both appointments make me sceptical of the selectors.

Biltong wrote:I think you are over reacting. What part of yesterdays performance would you blame Lancaster for?

The poor attitude in the first half?
Particular selections as I understood that was pretty much a first team for England?
Who do you suggest is going "fix it" a month out?
Which players will he bring in that can make a difference?
How is the set piece going to improve?


Me thinks you are looking for some miracle that will change everything overnight.

I am a big believer in leadership, mate. The players being unprepared and/or unready is a coaching failure. The on-field absence of leadership is just as bad. I would expect some experienced players to show some class and play regardless how the merde was unfolding around them.

On the other hand, as a practice game, what does this mean in the big scheme of things? Likely not so much, but is a watch-out going forwards. The were only a few players who distinguished themselves. One was Cipriani, who is every ready to do something bizarre, the other being the 600 year old Nick Easter.

I think everyone wanted to see a nice competent game, win or lose. I think the fact England were in it until the inevitable knock-on at the end shows more about France than England.

It's not SL. Clearly the coaching weakness is rowntree. England forwards are always in catch up mode with Rowntree. All the big sides work out ways to get an advantage in the set piece. They always are one step ahead. Rowntree is thick and should be sacked asap.

englandglory4ever wrote:It's not SL. Clearly the coaching weakness is rowntree. England forwards are always in catch up mode with Rowntree. All the big sides work out ways to get an advantage in the set piece. They always are one step ahead. Rowntree is thick and should be sacked asap.

I think most people would say Rowntree is the star of coaching set-up. Our forwards have had big injury problems but he's usually been able to put together a pack that dominates opposition, albeit with a couple of high profile exceptions such as Cardiff 2013. Gatland obviously saw enough in him in 2009 to make him full forwards coach in 2013, and our forwards destroyed Australia out there.

We've lost the set-piece in the last two weeks. We've won in for the majority of the last four years. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

doctor_grey wrote:The were only a few players who distinguished themselves.  One was Cipriani, who is every ready to do something bizarre, the other being the 600 year old Nick Easter.  

I think everyone wanted to see a nice competent game, win or lose.  I think the fact England were in it until the inevitable knock-on at the end shows more about France than England.  

When 600 years old you are, play that well you will not. - Brian Ashton

I think I'd probably take a shambolic loss over a competent loss, to be honest. A competent loss implies that we can put our best game on the pitch and it's still not good enough. A shambolic one at least points to some things that can be fixed!

I think SL was the right man at the time and the right man now. But he’s unlikely to be the right man in a few months.

He’s stressed discipline and culture but we still have the shenanigans of Hartley, Manu & (to an alleged extent only) Cips. Not to mention dropping ‘bad vibes’ Easter only to reselect him. So 7/10 for that.

Selection has been a little conservative at times, but in reality he’s tried most possibilities, if only because of injury, etc. So maybe an 8/10.

Tactics however seem a bit muddled to be honest. Whether it’s the player is more important than the position (as in his mucking about in the BR with Wood & Lawes and a back 3 of FBs, and of course a flanker in the centre, not to mention a failed centre in the FR), LO calls, restarts, commitment at the breakdown, locks lurking on the wing, lack of direct carrying, and so on. That’s a 5/10 at best then.

Basically he’s good, but no cigar. He’s never going to change a good side into a RWC-winning team. That probably doesn't matter this time - let’s get to the QF or even SF, then thank him for the memories and give him a decent pay-off. For next time we need a world-beating coaching team. Just pay the best what they want.

What is the minimum needed for Lancaster to stay on and/or be acknowledged as doing a good job in this World Cup?

I know what the best and worst scenarios are. If it's a group stage exit he's obviously not going to be a popular man and if England win the World Cup everyone will be delighted and he'll carry on, but what's the tipping point between success and failure? Quarter-final exit? Semi-final exit? Beaten finalists?

In defence of SL.

It is a warm up match against a very good French pack and a first hit out for many of ours so best to understand where we are to ensure we try and rectify.
Many of our players are just not world class. You can swap Marler with Corbs and Cole for Wilson but they have all struggled in these two matches. All the hookers have struggled and that is not all down to SL.
Over recent years injury and poor form has prevented England creating a settled side. SL has tried 36, Care, May, Nowell, T and B Youngs, Mako etc etc and none of them have nailed down a spot.
England are clearly on a journey aiming for the 2019 RWC and are just not good enough to win this one. Having said that with home advantage and a fair wind we could make the final but we could also go out in the group stage.

Against SL.

Can't believe we still don't know our best side just weeks from the opening match!!!
Wasting the precious few warm up matches still experimenting on which players to pick. With only 3 warm up matches our starting XV and the subs need as much game time as possible. They have clearly done some great fitness work, but nothing replicates match pressure and all players need a few games to get some form. SL needed to trim his squad down before all these warm up matches and get his RWC players some vital match practice. Why waste playing Parling/Kruis if one or both are not selected? Surely Launchbury needs the match practice more than anyone? And why are we talking about Barritt and Joseph being our midfield when they have never played together before?? Crazy to be in this situation now.

Overall SL has been dealt a poor hand, but he has certainly not played it as well as he could have done. But hopefully he will learn and produce the goods the next time around?

Notch....semi-final exit is respectable when at home. Anything else is a failure.

FORGET the wailing,and gnashing of teeth bit and look at Lancasters record then answer this question.IF you discount his 9 losses to NZ /SA and how many NH teams have beaten them
on a regular basis over the last 4 years?
How many games has he lost to NH sides the odd one or two,with Home advantage isn`t
that the norm?
Take into account the large number of fairly potentially long term injuries players suffered
he`s done a reasonable job.
If anything too well he has more players than any other country to pick from therefore
more choice.He could select maybe 6 teams of roughly equal strength for his successor
to pick from.
Everyone has there own idea about the best players to pick when picking a team but
don`t have to justify it when things go wrong.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I think SL was the right man at the time and the right man now. But he’s unlikely to be the right man in a few months.

He’s stressed discipline and culture but we still have the shenanigans of Hartley, Manu & (to an alleged extent only) Cips. Not to mention dropping ‘bad vibes’ Easter only to reselect him. So 7/10 for that.

Selection has been a little conservative at times, but in reality he’s tried most possibilities, if only because of injury, etc. So maybe an 8/10.

Tactics however seem a bit muddled to be honest. Whether it’s the player is more important than the position (as in his mucking about in the BR with Wood & Lawes and a back 3 of FBs, and of course a flanker in the centre, not to mention a failed centre in the FR), LO calls, restarts, commitment at the breakdown, locks lurking on the wing, lack of direct carrying, and so on. That’s a 5/10 at best then.

Basically he’s good, but no cigar. He’s never going to change a good side into a RWC-winning team. That probably doesn't matter this time - let’s get to the QF or even SF, then thank him for the memories and give him a decent pay-off. For next time we need a world-beating coaching team. Just pay the best what they want.

On the discipline and culture side, I think that's not quite an accurate reflection of the situation. On the couple of occasions where players have been in the wrong - Care at the start of his reign and Tuilagi now - he's dropped players without hesitation. Care has not had any issues since; too early to say with Manu. Hartley's issues have been in-game and I have some sympathy for him - in this case he's missing a world cup for a nothing incident that even some members of the citing commission think was harshly dealt with. Cipriani is a reformed player on the pitch and we will have to wait to see the outcome of his road traffic accident. Lancaster's never said he dropped Easter for attitude issues (and in fact praised his attitude in training during the 6N) - everyone just assumed it. The only thing that's ever been said was that Easter was 33 in 2011 and Lancaster didn't expect him to be playing and in form in 2015. He was, and came back into consideration. The reports from players themselves is that the culture in the camp is much better than it was in 2011, though you have to take that with a pinch of salt given they want to be selected.

I'd agree with you on selection; he places a big emphasis on players having trained enough with the team to be up to speed on the calls and patterns, and generally won't play someone until they've had several weeks in training. He's also loyal to people who have peformed before (at least partly because of the desperate need to build up a base of experience).

I'm not sure I agree on tactics. 2012 was pretty stodgy, but that's because there was a deliberate emphasis on getting a secure defence. Every year since, he's had to work with a new backline so there has always been an element of going back to square one. But in the last 4 games we have seen enough evidence to suggest that there is some real attacking threat beginning to emerge when England get the basics right - which means earning the right to go wide, something they forgot for 65 minutes on Saturday.

My main tactical worry now is that Rowntree has tried to break new ground with the forwards and done it too early. He was quoted back in June as saying that the days of the monster pack are numbered, and England have emerged with a pack where pretty much everyone has shed a few pounds. Right now, they look neither flesh nor fowl - not the juggernaut of English yore, but equally not quick enough in mind or body to run the opposition off the park. That could change. If the emphasis to date has been on strength and cardio, and they are only now shifting to speed work (which is probably the right way round to do it) then in a month's time they could be where they need to be.

I'm also worried about the breakdown. But here's a thought: I hadn't realised Peyper will be reffing the Fiji game. It's possible that England went out with a deliberate strategy of trying to find his boundaries. Even if that wasn't the intent, they certainly have a lot of video to review to find out exactly what he does and doesn't like.

I'm not sure I agree that he could never turn a good side into an RWC winning team. Brian Ashton (or, by the players' version, Catt and Wilkinson) turned a hopeless team into one that was the width of a kneecap away from being an RWC winning team. Lancaster's teams have shown at least as much as Ashton's or Johnson's teams - they just haven't put it all together at the same time more than a couple of times a season. Jury's still out on whether they can.

It was a warm up game, not the WC Final. Most of the English pack would have gone in to that game thinking their names were already in the squad list bar an injury, did they really give their all? There was an obvious lack of enthusiasm from them in the first half especially, even Billy V didn't seem to want to take the ball in to contact.
The replacements had everything to play for and brought a real spark back in to the side, though France's replacements may have had an impact on this. Cips played a blinder (and I'm not a fan), I was disappointed to see Lancaster naming replacements who made a difference without mentioning Cips in the post-game interview, even when prompted.
I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little bit worried but I do expect big improvements. Ireland will be a huge test if the Irish go hell for leather.

hugehandoff wrote:Notch....semi-final exit is respectable when at home. Anything else is a failure.

Depends how you look at it.
Englands worst world cup I can remember in terms of performances was 2007 when they reached the final despite being utter dross.
France were flipping awful and arguably got robbed of winning the thing last time, whereas we all know that Wales were the best team at the tournament (moral victories against SA and France) despite finishing a distant 4th.

The manner of success and failure should be considered. If they go down early, but not through lack of quality and endevour, then its easier to forgive than if they are given a semi then flop (*snigger*)


As it is the France game seems to have tempered expectations and makes the media narrative that they have a solid chance and have to be targetting victory even herder to sustain. Looking like they are competitive is enough for me.

Poorfour wrote:


I'm not sure I agree that he could never turn a good side into an RWC winning team. Brian Ashton (or, by the players' version, Catt and Wilkinson) turned a hopeless team into one that was the width of a kneecap away from being an RWC winning team. L

Fact check : England lost that final 15-6 , at that time tries were not worth 10 points

doctor_grey wrote:I think everyone wanted to see a nice competent game, win or lose.  I think the fact England were in it until the inevitable knock-on at the end shows more about France than England.  

That's the weird thing. Even after Huget's try I still thought that if England improved from, say, "really, really poor" to "just below average" they still had a more than decent chance to win that game. Odd that England had probably 4 decent phases in the whole game (the move starting with Brown at the start of the second half, the two tries and the patient build-up from one 22 to the other at the death). France were almost very embarrassed given that England's set piece went walkies and we couldn't catch a ball or even avoid running into each other at most points.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I think SL was the right man at the time and the right man now. But he’s unlikely to be the right man in a few months.

He’s stressed discipline and culture but we still have the shenanigans of Hartley, Manu & (to an alleged extent only) Cips. Not to mention dropping ‘bad vibes’ Easter only to reselect him. So 7/10 for that.

Selection has been a little conservative at times, but in reality he’s tried most possibilities, if only because of injury, etc. So maybe an 8/10.

Tactics however seem a bit muddled to be honest. Whether it’s the player is more important than the position (as in his mucking about in the BR with Wood & Lawes and a back 3 of FBs, and of course a flanker in the centre, not to mention a failed centre in the FR), LO calls, restarts, commitment at the breakdown, locks lurking on the wing, lack of direct carrying, and so on. That’s a 5/10 at best then.

Basically he’s good, but no cigar. He’s never going to change a good side into a RWC-winning team. That probably doesn't matter this time - let’s get to the QF or even SF, then thank him for the memories and give him a decent pay-off. For next time we need a world-beating coaching team. Just pay the best what they want.

And yet in some matches, Saturday's included, the penalty count against England was embarrassing. I suppose you could argue that's down to coaching because the forwards did not play the ref - and that's down to coaching - but still, discipline has at times been poor under the authoritarian Lancaster...

Gooseberry wrote:

Poorfour wrote:


I'm not sure I agree that he could never turn a good side into an RWC winning team. Brian Ashton (or, by the players' version, Catt and Wilkinson) turned a hopeless team into one that was the width of a kneecap away from being an RWC winning team. L

Fact check : England lost that final 15-6 , at that time tries were not worth 10 points

The score at the time of the try being score was 3-9. In fairness Burger should have gone to the bin for holding on at the final breakdown anyway but with 9-8 and the momentum all with England who is to say how the match would have gone. It was certainly not game set match but it would have been a game changer no doubt.

Gooseberry wrote:

Poorfour wrote:


I'm not sure I agree that he could never turn a good side into an RWC winning team. Brian Ashton (or, by the players' version, Catt and Wilkinson) turned a hopeless team into one that was the width of a kneecap away from being an RWC winning team. L

Fact check : England lost that final 15-6 , at that time tries were not worth 10 points

Reality check: The try was "scored" and disallowed immediately after half time, when the scoreline was 9-3. A try scored at that point could well have shifted the momentum of the match, and if converted would have given England the lead. That would have been a pretty major momentum shift and could well have forced the Boks to open up the game a little rather than play an attritional game.

In the stadium, the change in atmosphere when it looked like a try had been scored and the change when it was disallowed were huge. It might not have been enough to win the game, but equally it might have been.

I really like SL. I think that he has done an excellent job for England, his discipline with the team and in sticking to his guns with decisions like Heartley and Manu show he is a very strong coach.
He has also gotten England playing a very good brand of rugby (i enjoy watching them) and i guess every team has an off day at work.
Farrell snr is, to me, a man way out of his depth and i have no understanding what he does other than accepting the praise deserved for other coaches. Farrell jr, in my opinion, unbalances the England team so i would have Ford and Cips above him.

So what would people judge as a failure by England this World Cup, anything less than winning it? A semi final spot?

I reckon below a final is under achieving. Anything below a SF spot should mean a new coach. In 1999 you could see where SCW was going, you could see the players, the team, the style of play, same in 2007 when NZ got unexpectedly knocked out. Today you don't see that development, don't see that potential in England with the current players to simply be all better come 2019.

They could get to the final, they could easily get KO'd in the pool stages. Difficult to tell.

fa0019 wrote:I reckon below a final is under achieving. Anything below a SF spot should mean a new coach. In 1999 you could see where SCW was going, you could see the players, the team, the style of play, same in 2007 when NZ got unexpectedly knocked out. Today you don't see that development, don't see that potential in England with the current players to simply be all better come 2019.

They could get to the final, they could easily get KO'd in the pool stages. Difficult to tell.

The 2nd bit is true but cant really see the first.

The main problem that has plagued England during Lancaster's reign is failing to start until the first quarter has elapsed, which has happened in a multitude of games. Not all the time, but enough games to be a consistent cause for concern. From memory, it cost England in games against France (2014), New Zealand (2013) and South Africa (2012).

Saturday was even worse, given how England didn't start till 65 minutes had gone!

I think England will make the final, but only because they should avoid South Africa and New Zealand en route.

And I see 2007 has been mentioned - yes, I think the try should have been given, but South Africa would have still won the game. Didn't England lose about nine of their own line-outs in that game?

fa0019 wrote:I reckon below a final is under achieving. Anything below a SF spot should mean a new coach. In 1999 you could see where SCW was going, you could see the players, the team, the style of play, same in 2007 when NZ got unexpectedly knocked out. Today you don't see that development, don't see that potential in England with the current players to simply be all better come 2019.

They could get to the final, they could easily get KO'd in the pool stages. Difficult to tell.

I disagree with that entirely. Hindsight colours things differently.

In 1999, Woodward had picked a few good players but we still went into the RWC more in hope than expectation and duly got out-thought by the Boks in the pool and out played by the ABs in the QFs. He copped a lot of flak for it - particularly because before the tournament he'd said what he claims was "regardless of what they say, all coaches will be judged by how their teams perform in the world cup" and the press claim was "judge me on the world cup."

It wasn't until 2001 that his team started putting together the performances that led to the RWC in 2003 (and even then, they were still in the habit of losing one 6N game every year. Sound familiar?). They were also still widely thought to be playing 10 man rugby and that Wilkinson was basically the second coming of Rob Andrew. Even in 2003 there was a lot of debate that they were too one-dimensional and reliant on his boot to win the RWC.

Lancaster's current position isn't dissimilar to where Woodward was in 99. They've got similar win/loss ratios. Lancaster's developed a side with a strong defence, usually an effective pack and a better ability to create and finish than we have had in a long time. What's missing is consistency and the ability to find a way to win regardless of what goes wrong. That takes experience, which is the big thing this side doesn't have.

There is a lot that could be better in an ideal world, but in the real world I'd be very surprised if Mallett or Woodward or even Graham Henry could have done much better.

I reckon that anything less than the semis will be judged as a failure but to get that far we're going to need to see an England firing on all cylinders and even winning the odd lineout and turnover!

bedfordwelsh wrote:So what would people judge as a failure by England this World Cup, anything less than winning it? A semi final spot?

Well, if England play poorly and go out in the QF, then there is zero movement from 2011. And the benefit of having a team full of Boy Scouts? Instead of simply exorcising the cancers and moving on. But wait, you say? We just brought back one of the cancers? Oh well.......

And, reflecting on Saturday, the greatest expression about playing at the highest level:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I

doctor_grey wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:So what would people judge as a failure by England this World Cup, anything less than winning it? A semi final spot?

Well, if England play poorly and go out in the QF, then there is zero movement from 2011.  And the benefit of having a team full of Boy Scouts?  Instead of simply exorcising the cancers and moving on.  But wait, you say?  We just brought back one of the cancers?  Oh well.......  

And, reflecting on Saturday, the greatest expression about playing at the highest level:  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I

Do you think Herm will be up for coaching England doc?!!

stub wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:So what would people judge as a failure by England this World Cup, anything less than winning it? A semi final spot?

Well, if England play poorly and go out in the QF, then there is zero movement from 2011.  And the benefit of having a team full of Boy Scouts?  Instead of simply exorcising the cancers and moving on.  But wait, you say?  We just brought back one of the cancers?  Oh well.......  

And, reflecting on Saturday, the greatest expression about playing at the highest level:  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I

Do you think Herm will be up for coaching England doc?!!

I love Herm. That would be grand!!!!!!!

Its been a very long day, but still the point I want to underline is that there is a very real possibility that we will not progress beyond the group stage and so Lancaster should either resign or be sacked.

His coaching ability is debatable, just read the above comments and you'll understand the various opinions for and against, however regardless of all of our views, the next 4/5 games will determine the road ahead.

I would be happy with Baxter, though would like to see the old Malinder & Diamond double act reunited.

England's main problem is that their backrow is just not as good at the breakdown as any of the other top teams. And I think that's down to the players available rather than anything the coaches are doing. Is it Lancaster or the RFU that are responsible for Armitage not being selected? If it's Lancaster you could criticize him for that. But even then, there is definitely an argument that not selecting foreign based players is for the good of English rugby in the long run; and breaking the rule once means it's not even a real rule.

Their other problem is that their best hooker can't be selected because if he has yet another "learning experience" in a must win game then it could be curtains. But Hartley is so much better than the next best hooker I would gamble and take him. If there was someone almost as good I wouldn't risk it. But there isn't.

On the whole, as someone who does not support England, you should remember that England really have gotten much better. Especially at home. You've beaten the All Blacks. When you beat Ireland I was really surprised by just how you were. We didn't play badly that day either we played well, and were beaten. You have improved under Lancaster, and it could be easily argued your weaknesses would be weaknesses under any coach. If he's guilty of anything it's sticking to his principles on things that are for the benefit of English beyond the World Cup. Keeping the best English players in England, and demanding a standard of behaviour from players that play for England.

Ye may find that as annoying as I found it when other fans told me Kidney was doing a grand job and Ireland's problem was their players. But that's how I see it.

Thanks Feckless - it's nice to have a neutral analysis.

I wouldnt be too woried about the France game. England will be world beaters again if they beat Ireland and I reckon they will find it a little easier to get motivated for that one.

England players were a little sluggish around the park. They should be able to raise their game considerably at the WC. Still, anyone could exit that group IMO.

If they are to beat Ireland they will need to be a very different team than we saw on Saturday. If they manage to do it I will be comforted but I'm not sure that they will..

stub wrote:If they are to beat Ireland they will need to be a very different team than we saw on Saturday. If they manage to do it I will be comforted but I'm not sure that they will..

Well its in "HQ" and its not until the 5th Sept.Im sure it will close as they usually are but I dont think a loss will be the end of the world for either team. It could even suit Ireland.

Do we really need that different a team? I really think people are taking this 5 point defeat too hard.

I agree, the Twickenham factor should help Guns but still not sure. I also agree that a loss for either team does not spell disaster but I would like to see England learn and improve from what happened in Paris.