Who should be next England coach

by nlpnlp Fri Oct 09, 2015 1:01 pm

First topic message reminder :

I think most of us are agreed that Stuart Lancaster should go as England coach - but who do you want to see get the job? I think that Stuart Lancaster has proved that you need a coach who has a proven winning track record at the top level of club or international rugby.

Lets not turn this topic into a debate about which players should be in, or Stuart Lancaster's failings, those are valid issues for other topics. Just who you think it should be and why.

I don't think any English coach has a record of success in the European Rugby Champions/Heineken Cup, or any track record of coaching abroad. So I would go for an overseas coach and I think we should break the bank for the best 'available' coach, which for me is Wayne Smith. Assuming Steve Hansen does not want to step down, would Smith be satisfied as being a number 2 for another 4 years?

Simple and short - Who and Why.

by RubyGuby Thu Oct 22, 2015 3:18 pm

yappysnap wrote:In return the WRFU get Rob Andrew

Sorry Yapp we already have our own mascot

thumbsup

by Hood83 Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:06 am

Rugby Fan wrote:Most of the thinking I'm seeing on coaches seems very backward-looking. There are lost of calls for the RFU to "get the best" with all England's resources but I'm unconvinced we know what the best is.

Let's take Graham Henry as an example, although I know no-one is seriously putting his name forward right now. He has a World Cup, and unrivalled global experience but also a failed Lions tour, an acrimonious end to his career at Wales, and the earliest World Cup exit by an All Blacks team to his name. Which Graham Henry would we see?

I don't doubt that some of the international coaches being mentioned have significant achievements in the game but we have no guarantee this experience can transfer seamlessly to other posts. Eddie Jones is a popular pick after his time with Japan but I can't recall anyone wanting to give him the England top job before then. We are in danger of selecting the flavour of the month, rather than trying to decided whether someone has the qualities to help England succeed.

I see the same knee-jerk response in claims that only an experienced overseas coach will do for England. Has no-one been watching Argentina? I can't recall Daniel Hourcade being tipped as a top international prospect, and yet Argentina have shown some classy moves in this tournament. His assistant coach is Pablo Bouza, who used to play for Leeds under Stuart Lancaster. Perhaps that's where it all comes from.

Meanwhile, over in Australia, Mario Ledesma is winning plaudits for his work with the Wallaby scrum.

While we are flagellating ourselves in the North for not having structures to produce coaches to rival New Zealand, we might want to stop and consider how Argentina have apparently managed to do just that. I don't buy the argument that Hourcade has come good because of two years experience in the Rugby Championship.

Another popular idea mentioned above is to set an experienced overseas guru at the head of a team of Englishmen, so they can be brought through to take the top post from him.

There's a problem with this. Firstly, when a coach fails, it's pretty common to see his team booted out with him, so they would be hostage to fortune. Secondly, I can't recall too many examples of assistant coaches going on to unqualified success in the top job.

Clive Woodward had a very good team, including John Mitchell, Andy Robinson and Brian Ashton. All went on to senior roles but found the air a bit rarefied. I don't find many Welsh supporters excited at the thought of Rob Howley taking over from Gatland. Steve Hansen seems like an exceptional case, rather than the norm.

I wish I knew who would be a good fit for England but I don't. I do think we ought to be able to demand of the RFU that the people making selection decisions know what qualities are needed, and know how to identify them.

All fair points but it feels like an argument for inertia re SL. It's absolutely true you can't always know where the next top coach will come from, or whether those with great CVs will be able to replicate that. But you are entitled to ask a) what has this person done, and what about them suggests they will do, all the things needed to be successful; and b) whether there is good evidence of that in their past experience. Those seem like decent questions to ask, and in both cases, with SL, I believe the answers would be 'nothing' and 'no'. If that makes him the best candidate, I'd be amazed.

Would Eddie Jones or someone of his ilk be any good? Maybe not. Would he have a better shot at answering those two questions? I think probably.

There's also a third question you can ask SL now as well 'what have you done over the past four years to suggest you have improved the team or set the team up for future improvement' we know the answer to that, it's something about 'culture'. It's not, sadly, anything to do with gameplan, tactics, coaching or conditioning

by Guest Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:04 am

Wayne Smith is not interested

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11534010

How about McCaw and Foster picard

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11533993

by Sgt_Pooly Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:00 am

"Wayne Smith is not interested"

No quote from the man, just a poor article.

by Guest Fri Oct 23, 2015 9:06 am

My bad, this is the original poor article from the Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11946816/No-prospect-of-New-Zealands-Wayne-Smith-succeeding-Stuart-Lancaster-as-England-Head-Coach.html

by Sgt_Pooly Fri Oct 23, 2015 10:14 am

There's nothing really in that saying Smith is not interested in a position.

End of the day, we wouldn't know unless he was approached.

by king_carlos Fri Oct 23, 2015 10:55 am

Smith had been reported to be planning a year off after the RWC for a little while so it wouldn't be a huge surprise.

As Sgt says, he needs to be approached anyway. He is one of the best thinkers in the game with a reputation for working out exactly how a team should play in order to get the best out of the players at their disposal. Given a failure to do this is the main downfall of Bombers tenure he should be our main target.

by **Rugby Fan** Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:37 pm

Hood83 wrote:...All fair points but it feels like an argument for inertia re SL...

It would only look like that if you conclude that we are incapable of asking the right questions about where we go next. I worry that, in the desperate desire to change something, we fail to ask these questions.

To take Eddie Jones again as an a example, since his name is in the frame. It's simply not enough to say that he has been around the block, and done a lot of good things in his career. We need to look closely at what he has done, and how he has done it.

I pointed out above that he oversaw a period of notable decline in the Wallaby scrum, while also being credited with the increased competitiveness of the Japanese scrum. There are a whole host of reasons why that might be, and we should not be frightened to look into them.

Perhaps neither outcome is directly down to Jones, but his coaches. Did he select them or was he handed them? Maybe the answer is his rugby philosophy or training methods. He could just have learned from his mistakes. Finding out, would not only put us in a better position to decide if Jones is the right man, but also how we could best help him succeed if we do choose him.

It is often said one reason New Zealand decided to stick with Graham Henry after 2007 rather than go with Robbie Deans is that Deans had given no real thought to his coaching team at the time of the interview. That's going to be a crucial part of our decision.

"Let him choose his own team" only works if the head coach has a record of selecting good people, and working with them. Not everyone can do this, and I can't believe there isn't enough scuttlebutt on every leading candidate to give us an idea of what they would bring to the role.

Not only do we need to ask good question, we also need to be clear about our priorities. It would be nice if we could achieve the following

- coach the England senior team to 6N championships, tour wins and World Cups
- develop a generation of top English coaches
- maintain a mutually beneficial relationship between club and country

Immediately, you can see where these priorities might clash, so we have to settle on what we really want. Woodward says any coach worth his salt would demand access to players outside the Premiership. Is that something on offer? If a new coach doesn't want a single English coach in his set-up, can we live with that?

We haven't lost four years with the appointment of Lancaster, we have now lost twelve years. We bungled appointments after Woodward resigned. The RFU cleaned house with the appointment of Johnson, and then cleaned house again with Lancaster.

I don't think we should keep Lancaster because we are too embarrassed to admit we screwed up again. Lancaster might be incapable of learning from mistakes, so we can't just assume continuity will solve things. At the same time, the reason we have bungled things is because we have often fought the last war rather than the next one.

by **Rugby Fan** Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:39 pm

by RubyGuby Fri Oct 23, 2015 10:47 pm

How about Smith & Jones

thumbsup

by lostinwales Sat Oct 24, 2015 12:04 am

RubyGuby wrote:How about Smith & Jones

alas...

by Guest Sat Oct 24, 2015 1:13 am

lostinwales wrote:
RubyGuby wrote:How about Smith & Jones

alas...

That's a funny combination.

by Hood83 Sat Oct 24, 2015 8:08 am

Rugby Fan wrote:
Hood83 wrote:...All fair points but it feels like an argument for inertia re SL...
It would only look like that if you conclude that we are incapable of asking the right questions about where we go next. I worry that, in the desperate desire to change something, we fail to ask these questions.

To take Eddie Jones again as an a example, since his name is in the frame. It's simply not enough to say that he has been around the block, and done a lot of good things in his career. We need to look closely at what he has done, and how he has done it.

I pointed out above that he oversaw a period of notable decline in the Wallaby scrum, while also being credited with the increased competitiveness of the Japanese scrum. There are a whole host of reasons why that might be, and we should not be frightened to look into them.

Perhaps neither outcome is directly down to Jones, but his coaches. Did he select them or was he handed them? Maybe the answer is his rugby philosophy or training methods. He could just have learned from his mistakes. Finding out, would not only put us in a better position to decide if Jones is the right man, but also how we could best help him succeed if we do choose him.

It is often said one reason New Zealand decided to stick with Graham Henry after 2007 rather than go with Robbie Deans is that Deans had given no real thought to his coaching team at the time of the interview. That's going to be a crucial part of our decision.

"Let him choose his own team" only works if the head coach has a record of selecting good people, and working with them. Not everyone can do this, and I can't believe there isn't enough scuttlebutt on every leading candidate to give us an idea of what they would bring to the role.

Not only do we need to ask good question, we also need to be clear about our priorities. It would be nice if we could achieve the following

- coach the England senior team to 6N championships, tour wins and World Cups
- develop a generation of top English coaches
- maintain a mutually beneficial relationship between club and country

Immediately, you can see where these priorities might clash, so we have to settle on what we really want. Woodward says any coach worth his salt would demand access to players outside the Premiership. Is that something on offer? If a new coach doesn't want a single English coach in his set-up, can we live with that?

We haven't lost four years with the appointment of Lancaster, we have now lost twelve years. We bungled appointments after Woodward resigned. The RFU cleaned house with the appointment of Johnson, and then cleaned house again with Lancaster.

I don't think we should keep Lancaster because we are too embarrassed to admit we screwed up again. Lancaster might be incapable of learning from mistakes, so we can't just assume continuity will solve things. At the same time, the reason we have bungled things is because we have often fought the last war rather than the next one.

Are we not in violent agreement then? Of course, knowing your objectives before asking those questions is a given, I'd hope. My point was if the answer to those questions is to find Lancaster is the best coach out there for us, then I think something has gone horribly wrong with the evaluation of answers to those questions.

Your points re looking at how achievements have come about is absolutely correct. My point is that having those achievements in the first place is a decent starting point when answering those questions.

One of my biggest reservations about Lancaster is not only his own credentials but those of his coaches. One possible answer is the RFU say he can stay on but he'll need to get rid of the current coaching set up. You could say 'well we'll need to know who coached what first'. Perhaps, but none of the coaches has advanced us in a meaningful as far as I'm concerned. My personal feeling is that SL never really wanted Smith as a deputy, and that he consciously or otherwise built a team of inexperienced coaches, in his own image, who wouldn't threaten his position. Maybe that's unfair, but either way, I'm far from convinced he can put together a decent coaching team.

by doctor_grey Sat Oct 24, 2015 3:06 pm

How often in sport does it really work when a coach is allowed to stay, but with the previso to replace his coaching staff? Almost never. To me, that is like putting a patient on life support, neither truly alive on their own, nor dead. Putting off the inevitable.

For me it's time to pull the plug on the entire Lancaster regime and also on the ghosts of 2003.

by Sin é Sat Oct 24, 2015 6:15 pm

When you read this, you will not want Wayne Smith as England coach (he says he could only coach a team other than a New Zealand team if they were not a threat to the ABs)!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/64495853/Wayne-Smith-I-won-t-coach-against-sides-I-love

by Guest Sat Oct 24, 2015 6:47 pm

Good man Wayne Smith.

This is why you are a NZ legend.

by doctor_grey Sat Oct 24, 2015 10:07 pm

Sin é wrote:When you read this, you will not want Wayne Smith as England coach (he says he could only coach a team other than a New Zealand team if they were not a threat to the ABs)!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/64495853/Wayne-Smith-I-won-t-coach-against-sides-I-love

The plan in mind-bogglinly simple:
Wayne Smith goes back to Northampton where he coached previously - to be in a first class organisation.
Mallinder takes the England job. Quality men for quality positions.

Done and dusted. Please pay me is cash money, checks are too diffucult to handle.

by **LondonTiger** Sun Oct 25, 2015 7:55 am

I very rarely disagree with you Doc, but Mallinder is a terrible choice. As the only DoR who whines more than Cockers he would be a PR nightmare too.

by Sgt_Pooly Sun Oct 25, 2015 8:01 am

Mallinder has never offered a plan B, if Saints can't power through teams, they lose. We certainly wouldn't be able to do this at Int level.

by yappysnap Sun Oct 25, 2015 8:16 am

I agree Mallinder is just too one dimensional.

His forwards coach could be useful though to replace Rowntree

by **LondonTiger** Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:00 am

yappysnap wrote:I agree Mallinder is just too one dimensional.

His forwards coach could be useful though to replace Rowntree

you really want another former Tiger in the coaching panel?

by yappysnap Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:04 am

I'm not fussed where he comes from as long as he has no Saracens connections.

Over all saints may be one dimensional but their forwards do have a good mix of bosh and ball skills, and their set piece is very good.

by doctor_grey Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:47 am

LondonTiger wrote:I very rarely disagree with you Doc, but Mallinder is a terrible choice. As the only DoR who whines more than Cockers he would be a PR nightmare too.

Yes, Mallinder's media sessions will be a cure for insomnia. Cockers would be great for PR - every time a microphone gets hear his mouth, everyone will simply be prepared for all to break lose. Enyertainment, man.

Mallinder does play a varied attack. However, it bases it upon the fundamentals. Forwards who can make some difficult yards and do know how to offload, ruck, and tackle too, by the way. He is simply a guy who wants his team to earn/create the right to attack wide. And they usually do. Not simply the big old-fashioned England tactic of yore. Fine blend of power and pace and unlike the current Eglanding regime, actually adapts his style to the players at his disposal. Let's see how a healthy Foden does (oh, wait 2 tries yesterday). I think is is wrong to suggest he has not punched his ticket. My preference is to keep him at Saints because I want Saints to remain successful, but I do wonder when the club-coach relationship starts go stale (it eventually does 99% of the time) and a freshening is needed. A promotion for Jimmy should be in the cards. Alex King should take over at Saints.

This is not to say I favour Jim over other candidates, but let's see the list and make up our minds. Unfortunately for me, Jim must be at/near the top of the list, he has punched his ticket, and earned the right to be interviewed............................

by HammerofThunor Sun Oct 25, 2015 10:05 am

Anybody seen this yet?

http://www.randomhouse.co.uk/editions/the-house-of-lancaster/9780224100007

House of Lancaster: How England Rugby was Reinvented.

by majesticimperialman Sun Oct 25, 2015 10:13 am

How can the vision of one man turn a team in to world beaters?

England did not look world beaters this rugby world cup. now did they?

by nathan Sun Oct 25, 2015 10:28 am

ebop wrote:Wayne Smith is not interested

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11534010

How about McCaw and Foster

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11533993

Nobody listens to Barnes, I'd suggest doing the same

by Sgt_Pooly Sun Oct 25, 2015 11:08 am

majesticimperialman wrote:How can the vision of one man turn a team in to world beaters?

England did not look world beaters this rugby world cup. now did they?

Yes we didn't but our U20 side does. It's just finding a way of intergrating the talent through a finding an actual game plan.

by **Rugby Fan** Sun Oct 25, 2015 11:11 am

HammerofThunor wrote:Anybody seen this yet?

http://www.randomhouse.co.uk/editions/the-house-of-lancaster/9780224100007

House of Lancaster: How England Rugby was Reinvented.

I did notice a member of the review panel in that link:

"With a foreword from Sir Ian McGeechan OBE"

by doctor_grey Sun Oct 25, 2015 11:35 am

Rugby Fan wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:Anybody seen this yet?

http://www.randomhouse.co.uk/editions/the-house-of-lancaster/9780224100007

House of Lancaster: How England Rugby was Reinvented.

I did notice a member of the review panel in that link:

"With a foreword from Sir Ian McGeechan OBE"

Did we win anything? Maybe I was asleep at the wheel.

Probably just a business decision to pop out a book to capitalise on presumed England results. Anyone want to guess how the sales will fare? Still have to admit it takes cajones to put a bookl ike that out right now. Big ones cajones.

by SecretFly Sun Oct 25, 2015 12:08 pm

Contracts already signed... nobody could stop it even if they wanted to. Randomhouse wants some return on investment. They might be thinking 'notoriety' or 'novelty value' will sell it now.

by SecretFly Sun Oct 25, 2015 12:16 pm

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
majesticimperialman wrote:How can the vision of one man turn a team in to world beaters?

England did not look world beaters this rugby world cup. now did they?

Yes we didn't but our U20 side does. It's just finding a way of intergrating the talent through a finding an actual game plan.

Gameplans.

How many gameplans have the ABs shown us this WC? They've played an express train against France, they've played it close and almost up-the-jumper in certain games, they've kicked, they've resisted the spaces before them in some games and played quickly to that space in others.
When you look at it, there really is no gameplan except a desire for excellence in all aspects of the game (they don't always achieve it of course but that's their goal) - excellence in all isolated aspects, and then the collective brain to adapt in games to use those aspects as they see fit for best outcomes.

by Barney McGrew did it Sun Oct 25, 2015 12:23 pm

Is it my imagination or is McGeechan having a worrying influence on English rugby?

He should give up his position on the review board for Brian Moore - now that would shake things up

by WELL-PAST-IT Sun Oct 25, 2015 12:33 pm

Much as I would dislike the effect it would have on Saints, Mallinder as DoR with Wayne Smith as his number 2 could be a very good pairing. AS previously said by the Doc amongst others, Mallinder does play a game plan to suit the players at his disposal. Number one priority though is the set piece, you cannot play well, especially against the top sides if you cannot win ay least your own ball.

Saints were blighted the last year by injuries to key players (and a few suspensions) and have had to rely on Myler playing virtually every game due to lack of cover, they also had a big weakness at tight head, hopefully now resolved. If Foden can stay fit, Corbs gather some form and again stay fit, Dickinson get back to fitness, Burrell get back to where he was 2 years ago and Hartley stay un-suspended, with North back, Stevenson offering competition at 12 we could go very well.

All the Saints forwards can run and pass like backs ( not the Manu or Burgess type of backs), unlike a lot of the current crop of England forwards they don't just take the ball into contact when out in the middle, they look for the space and run into it, a very NZ sort of philosophy.

I would suspect he would like to take Alex King as well if he were offered, that would really cause problems for us, he is probably ready for the next step up and is the natural successor to JM.

On his own though, I wouldn't have him as England DoR, he still has this habit of thrying to fix tings that are not broke ay 60 minutes regardless of the match situation, 10 points up, 20 minutes to go in a tight match and he changes half the side. Sounds very familiar somehow.

by Sin é Sun Oct 25, 2015 1:36 pm

Well-Past-It - how is JJ doing for you? Will he get any chance at 10 soon. I saw he was an unused sub last week and this week he subbed as centre?
(sorry for butting into England thread here)

by Geordie Sun Oct 25, 2015 3:48 pm

Woodward and Dallaglio getting a nice dig in the 6 Nations administration over Argentina.

And also about cheika doing what he has in 10 months whilst still coaching waratahs as opposed to Lancaster who keeps say....2019!!!!

by SecretFly Sun Oct 25, 2015 4:05 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:Woodward and Dallaglio getting a nice dig in the 6 Nations administration over Argentina.

And also about cheika doing what he has in 10 months whilst still coaching waratahs as opposed to Lancaster who keeps say....2019!!!!

At least Lancaster's mind is working in the right direction............. as in who keeps mentioning 2003? Whistle

by Sgt_Pooly Sun Oct 25, 2015 4:11 pm

Can we have Cheika pls

by Geordie Sun Oct 25, 2015 4:17 pm

SecretFly wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:Woodward and Dallaglio getting a nice dig in the 6 Nations administration over Argentina.

And also about cheika doing what he has in 10 months whilst still coaching waratahs as opposed to Lancaster who keeps say....2019!!!!

At least Lancaster's mind is working in the right direction............. as in who keeps mentioning 2003?

I think you'll find the only reference to 2003 is a back up up to the 6 Nations teams having a go at at Englands exit.

Imagine what we could do with a proper coach!

by Geordie Sun Oct 25, 2015 4:24 pm

We you see what Pocock offers how can Lancaster not play a proper 7!!!!

by HammerofThunor Sun Oct 25, 2015 4:35 pm

He's playing at 8. Don't you say we need a proper 8? Or is a proper 7 a proper 8? Also, Pocock is exceptional, not just a proper 7.

by Rory_Gallagher Sun Oct 25, 2015 4:41 pm

Yeah the main difference is that Pocock is just the best in the world over the ball and nobody else is even close.

by Sgt_Pooly Sun Oct 25, 2015 4:44 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Yeah the main difference is that Pocock is just the best in the world over the ball and nobody else is even close.

Brussow is the only player close but he's outcast by Meyer.

by Geordie Sun Oct 25, 2015 4:44 pm

He may be playing 8 but his role is a 7.

And he's showing what it can bring to the team.

by Rory_Gallagher Sun Oct 25, 2015 4:57 pm

Are the likes of Rory Best, Du Plussis or Duane Vermeulen playing the role of a 7? I think it is simplistic to look at things in such a fashion... not many teams are going to have another David Pocock available, therefore it is preferable for most teams to have it as a universal skill, generally with the open-side excelling in particular.

Do England have options at open-side flanker who will have the same impact as David Pocock? Maybe Steffon Armitage?

by Geordie Sun Oct 25, 2015 5:06 pm

Who knows because Lancaster hasn't tried any of them!

by Sgt_Pooly Sun Oct 25, 2015 5:10 pm

It's more suited for a backrower to fufill that "fetching" role due to his location off set piece ball but I see your point Rory. Rory Best, BdP etc are excellent at the breakdown but can't pick and choose their rucks as much as Pocock can.

Fraser is probably the nearest we have to a fetcher in the AP, past that it's Steffon.

by WELL-PAST-IT Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:16 pm

Sin é wrote:Well-Past-It - how is JJ doing for you? Will he get any chance at 10 soon. I saw he was an unused sub last week and this week he subbed as centre?
(sorry for butting into England thread here)

Sin é

I have not had a chance to keep track of anything but results having just come out from a stay in hospital. I will have a word with a few mates and see how he is doing.

He should go well, we need an option other than Myler at 10, he offers nice contrast

by Sgt_Pooly Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:28 pm

JJ went well when he came on, think he slotted in at 13. JJ/Burrell midfield could work nicely I think

by Hood83 Mon Oct 26, 2015 7:35 am

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Much as I would dislike the effect it would have on Saints, Mallinder as DoR with Wayne Smith as his number 2 could be a very good pairing. AS previously said by the Doc amongst others, Mallinder does play a game plan to suit the players at his disposal. Number one priority though is the set piece, you cannot play well, especially against the top sides if you cannot win ay least your own ball.

Saints were blighted the last year by injuries to key players (and a few suspensions) and have had to rely on Myler playing virtually every game due to lack of cover, they also had a big weakness at tight head, hopefully now resolved. If Foden can stay fit, Corbs gather some form and again stay fit, Dickinson get back to fitness, Burrell get back to where he was 2 years ago and Hartley stay un-suspended, with North back, Stevenson offering competition at 12 we could go very well.

All the Saints forwards can run and pass like backs ( not the Manu or Burgess type of backs), unlike a lot of the current crop of England forwards they don't just take the ball into contact when out in the middle, they look for the space and run into it, a very NZ sort of philosophy.

I would suspect he would like to take Alex King as well if he were offered, that would really cause problems for us, he is probably ready for the next step up and is the natural successor to JM.

On his own though, I wouldn't have him as England DoR, he still has this habit of thrying to fix tings that are not broke ay 60 minutes regardless of the match situation, 10 points up, 20 minutes to go in a tight match and he changes half the side. Sounds very familiar somehow.

I don't this is true at all. In addition, Mallinder teams have dominated teams less and less with their pack it seems to me. I also don't see what everyone else sees in Alex King. Northampton are extremely one dimensional. If the forwards can pass like backs, I've not seen it, nor have I seen much offloading. Their work at the breakdown is no great shakes, I mean, Tom Wood plays for you, and I can't think of a less dynamic player at the breakdown.

by Sgt_Pooly Mon Oct 26, 2015 8:54 am

Hood83 wrote:
WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Much as I would dislike the effect it would have on Saints, Mallinder as DoR with Wayne Smith as his number 2 could be a very good pairing. AS previously said by the Doc amongst others, Mallinder does play a game plan to suit the players at his disposal. Number one priority though is the set piece, you cannot play well, especially against the top sides if you cannot win ay least your own ball.

Saints were blighted the last year by injuries to key players (and a few suspensions) and have had to rely on Myler playing virtually every game due to lack of cover, they also had a big weakness at tight head, hopefully now resolved. If Foden can stay fit, Corbs gather some form and again stay fit, Dickinson get back to fitness, Burrell get back to where he was 2 years ago and Hartley stay un-suspended, with North back, Stevenson offering competition at 12 we could go very well.

All the Saints forwards can run and pass like backs ( not the Manu or Burgess type of backs), unlike a lot of the current crop of England forwards they don't just take the ball into contact when out in the middle, they look for the space and run into it, a very NZ sort of philosophy.

I would suspect he would like to take Alex King as well if he were offered, that would really cause problems for us, he is probably ready for the next step up and is the natural successor to JM.

On his own though, I wouldn't have him as England DoR, he still has this habit of thrying to fix tings that are not broke ay 60 minutes regardless of the match situation, 10 points up, 20 minutes to go in a tight match and he changes half the side. Sounds very familiar somehow.

I don't this is true at all. In addition, Mallinder teams have dominated teams less and less with their pack it seems to me. I also don't see what everyone else sees in Alex King. Northampton are extremely one dimensional. If the forwards can pass like backs, I've not seen it, nor have I seen much offloading. Their work at the breakdown is no great shakes, I mean, Tom Wood plays for you, and I can't think of a less dynamic player at the breakdown.

Have to agree with Hood, I've never seen any evidence of this.

I'd be more inclined to say your backs pass like forwards (until the game is in the bag). Saints play a big power game, they did nothing but maul against us till 60mins or so.

by Sponsored content