England Rugby - what is needed for a successful future....

[irocfan]

I'd also add that although May didn't do badly in the last few matches he's still not convinced me he's the real deal (Watson on the other hand....). I'd like to see Wade in a few serious matches, that being said I'd also like to see if Ashton has re-discovered his mojo. I would like to see Foden challenging Brown for 15 (or at the very least replacing 'Izno' Goode as the go to super-sub). See if MT has improved his distribution/kicking (a la Nonu), see if Burrell has cured his tendency to drift in and out of games (actually does he even still want to play for England - if bomber stays on I'd say not), give Cips a fair crack at #10. I suspect our main worries up-front are are a lack of a 'fetcher' and/or (possibly) props to challenge the present incumbents. From what I'm reading 2nd row, #8 and #6 aren't a problem - it's just our coaches

[irocfan]

Robbo66 said:

But that's a good 2 cents worth. Players are too big, not mobile enough and there's too much time between set pieces and during.
The only way to get them out of the gym is to increase the aerobic requirements during the game, ie regulating times taken to set and complete set pieces. It will come.

NZ play very simple rugby, training very simply but have nouse. England don't, and have the like of Haskell. They simply cannot play what's in front of them and over complicate. Sometime the French are held in high regard, simply because they play off the cuff, and are the closest we have to a SH side.

England over train and are awash with flip charts and management acronyms ripped straight from an oddball running for the next series of the Apprentice.

Horse whispering to Tea Cup...drivel.
Woodward is held as a messiah, but he was extremely lucky to have the players he did in 03, and failed miserably in several tours and six nations before and after.
Play simply and it's simple.

to be fair I've not got a problem with tcup - it is however a sad indictment of our players that they have to be taught to think

[irocfan]

Derek Smith said:

Joey Ramone said:

So it appears that Sir Ian McGeechan is one of those to run the rule over Lancaster and England

I'll be interested to hear what he thinks, considering that Geech is one of those who pressed for Lancaster to be appointed in the first place, and then recommended that he have his contract extended.

I finished dinner and turned on the TV and Sky News was on. There was a shot of three people sitting being interviewed, the one in the centre was, I think, Sir Ian, and the heading was something like: 8 to decide Lancaster's future.

I didn't spend too much time reading it as I was distracted when I saw the young chap on the left of the shot, in a grey suit. It was my younger son.

I ran it back but the box stopped just after that so have no idea what's going on.

Quite a surreal moment.

I've tried phoning my lad but he's not replied, too busy trying to work out whether a sacking's in order I suppose. I've sent a text. I'll let you know what happens.

I think bomber is ok for the PR side of things but probably out of his depth as a top level coach. The less said about faz the better and Catt would appear to have an attitude too

[irocfan]

London424 said:

Some other thoughts and I think we can all agree it's the Welsh and the French fault. Stick with me on this one.


Since Gatland came to Wales he's played a pretty direct form of rugby based generally on size and power.

In the Euro cup the French teams have stacked their teams with size and power (which has also infected their national team)

To combat this the other teams in the NH, both national and club teams, have jumped on the bandwagon of trying to be bigger and more powerful than the other.

I think we are now at a cross roads of decisions. We can either keep making that same mistake or try and be different.

Go look at that All Black team in the backs and you'll see the complete opposite. Carter, Smith, Milner-skudder, smith, with similar types of replacements.

Oh I dunno - SBW, Nonu, Savea, Naholo... non of them are exactly what you might term 'small' or of 'average' stature What they do have though is skill

[irocfan]

but then look at the Japanese, they may have caught the Saffas cold (if that's not disrespectful) and they are MUCH smaller....

[irocfan]

Robbo66 said:

The governing bodies are looking into it, and they are more than considering the new regulations regarding shortening set piece time as they have in the NRL in Australia.

Larger aerobic capacity required = less player weight = less injuries + wider running game = wider appeal + increased revenue.

It is coming.

didn't someone mention that an idea was to only have the clock running while the ball was live? As soon as you cut the time taken to set the scrum and line-outs from game time you are forced to be less bulky and fitter.. mind you then matches would end up being 3 hours long lol

[irocfan]

I get the impression that these days the 3 blondes (Reeves, Winterbotton , Back) wouldn't have got many 1st class matches - let alone international

[irocfan]

a311 said:

Derek Smith said:

0000 said:

I hadn't realised the Aussies were that small. As an everyday 6'5 and 17.5 stone lump that's surprising - it's normally only scrum halves I look down on these days. I've no doubt they could run circles round me though - the size is pointless without pace and skill.

I went with my two sons to see Quins play a Tolouse side. We're all around 6'3". We went to clap the French side in. I think there were just two who were noticeable smaller than us, and even then, not by much.

That is the problem in the NH: teams have to be built around players who compete with other teams.

In the West something like 14% of men are taller than 6' only something like 3% are 6'2" or above.

Some may find this: interesting http://www.theguardian.com/sport/interactive/2013/...

Anyone else want to see proper lineouts back and ban lifitng? They used to be real contests!

what's really interesting is that the team that has changed size the least is the ABs... I thought England had gone up a bit until I saw the Taffs.

As for the lineouts the amount of running around before the ball is thrown is staggering (all I can picture in my head is Mike Reid shouting "... runarahhnd nah..."). IIRC the reason they introduced lifting is because it was too difficult to police in the old days - these days with a milliontyone cameras everywhere it shouldn't be a problem... incidentally you'd also solve the problem of "interfering with the jumper" because the danger aspect would be vastly reduced

[irocfan]

"amusingly" enough can anyone name another RL great who played flanker for his club and centre for England? That's right Faz!

Fat Armitage has been whinging about the "disrupting the squad" comments and reasons for him not being selected... I'd say that the Burgess debacle pretty much confirms that theory - though to be fair fat boy can feel aggrieved that SB got the preferential treatment that none were meant to have. Beyond that though could he please fk off. He chose to chase £££ (well in actuality €€€, for which I can't blame him) and then extended his contract knowing the rules - no sympathy.

[irocfan]

hornetrider said:

I was under the impression Andrew was the guy selecting the coaches. The line of coaches who have largely failed.

this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this

[irocfan]

timlongs said:

Farrell et al need to go. I'm sad for Lancaster as he is a really genuine bloke but he never instilled any mentality or game plan into his team IMO. And the team themselves are a complete mess, with all these leaks...

This ^^^ Lancaster does seem to be a thoroughly decent chap but (like Andy Robinson) promoted above his capabilities. My biggest fear is that Farrell Sr is given a shot....


I suspect that a left-field solution could well be to start introducing central contracts (the RFU would have to get this properly funded and maybe take England squad members away from any salary caps which could sweeten the pill for clubs) - though obviously this would need something that neither the RFU nor the clubs seem to have... vision.

[irocfan]

timlongs said:

Just watched the press conference with Ritchie:

Lancaster is leaving the RFU altogether
Farrell, Catt, Rowntree stay contracted for now
'Want the best coach possible' - Dodged question on getting English coach
Believes his position is still tenable.

you see I also believe that that is a waste bomber did a lot of good stuff (which should be kept!) and I believe that he would have a great deal to offer within the RFU... Farrell and to lesser degrees Catt & Rowntree can FRO. Richie is in an unenviable position and on balance (despite handing bomber and co a stupidly long contract, I hope there was a get out clause!!) should stay. Deadweight teflon Andrew go, for the love of all that is good about English rugby GO GO GO GO GO GO

[irocfan]

London424 said:

I might get burned at the stake as a heretic but as soon as all the Sir Clive fawning stops the better.

I agree - the fact is though that he does make some excellent points. That being said though if it were a choice between him and teflon rob I'd be looking for SCW every day of the week

[irocfan]

oh I dunno we've got a couple of shouts...

BB
May
Fazlet
Wood

[irocfan]

CR6ZZ said:

There is speculation over here that Hansen will step aside after the 2017 Lions tour. Further speculation is that if that happens, he may well consider a coaching job offshore, if the price is right. Is he a contender for England?

thing is that we can't be 18 months sans coach so that counts Hansen out IMO

[irocfan]

mike cheika's ruled himself out too. As for all the others who've said 'no' (baxter et al) it'll be interesting to see their resolve tested with a large offer...

[irocfan]

Kermit power said:

timlongs said:

Big news this evening is Eddie Jones has rocketed from 9/1 to favourite with all the bookies. Some have even suspended betting. Some big money must have gone onto him and there's a few rumours floating about...

Hmm... If there's one coach the RFU won't be able to buy out of his contract, it's surely got to be Jones? After all, their owner only has the odd $8bn or so down the back of the sofa!

I would imagine that it would be the challenge that would appeal to EJ, yes the money too, but at the highest level the challenge is what counts (isn't that why Nigel Melville toddled off to the US?)

[irocfan]

a311 said:

Lots of people putting themselves out of the running all except Jakey White. Plenty of folk saying they don't want his brand of rugby but to be fair that would be down to bringing in a good attack coach. When he got the Brumbies to the Super Rugby final it wasn't on the back of boring rugby-he did have Larkham in as an assistant coach though.

I think the others should have stood down with Lancaster. Anyone else scared of a scenario where Farrell Snr is given the job in a interim capacity then give the job permanently?!

you mean in exactly the same way as bomber got the job? Well yes the RFU is that stupid and pig-headed (let's be honest here they've still got teflon Andrew there)

[irocfan]

JRM said:

Anyone but Eddie - only the RFU would hire a coach with a worse win percentage than the current one and call it progress!
I get the impression one lucky win in RWC and the RFU all swoon - there's no hope, especially if he brings Borthwick with him!!

you'll be lining up Faz for the job then? I can think of loads worse than EJ - there are likely a few better as well (a few Kiwis stand, out NOT Warren) but I suspect not many.

The main question though is - does he want to do the job? Let's be honest SA with the weather and benefits is, one would imagine, a great draw. Can he be arsed with all the st that comes with the job? I appreciate, as I've said previously, that the chance to test yourself at the highest level is a massive draw. Yes he's coached the Crims and helped with the yarpies but England will be a whole lot of pressure - that being said if he's coped with it with SA where rugby is taken nearly as seriously as in NZ then maybe he'll thrive here?

[irocfan]

JRM said:

irocfan said:

JRM said:

Anyone but Eddie - only the RFU would hire a coach with a worse win percentage than the current one and call it progress!
I get the impression one lucky win in RWC and the RFU all swoon - there's no hope, especially if he brings Borthwick with him!!

you'll be lining up Faz for the job then?

Err no, why would anyone suggest Faz? I'd much prefer Jake White to Eddie Jones though

well you did say anyone but EJ <pedant mode off>