Possibly, but...
I put the target of consistently top 3 in the world in that post, and I stand by that as a target that England haven't made and don't look like making. I'm not measuring us solely by the All Blacks, but it seems consistently likely that we'll be behind the Springboks, and we'll be behind a strong Ireland or Wales, and we'd be behind a drama-free Australia, and one of the last three happens often enough that I don't see it happening unless we kick on and improve. The other teams get free of their problems too often.
I disagree about the quality of our pack. I think it's scrummaging ability is inconsistent, its lineout dependent on a guy with very little else to offer, its mauling very average except with Attwood, it's ability to secure consistent quick ruck ball highly questionable, its physicality a little below top level at least, ball carrying is an issue and handling could be better. It must be an unholy nightmare to play against ball in hand because it has a very athletic tight five, massive work rate, strong tacklers and a pretty good disruptive breakdown - although that's not been so strong this window and neither has been the discipline.
Strong? Maybe I'm being too harsh, after all things are comparative and others do have their problems. But so do we, and they're pretty big problems, and they are causing the backline issues.
Who would you say are stars btw?
God's own truth that we squander talent.
However - either the players have had the chance to grow into the role and haven't taken it, or need to grow and are de facto (imo) not stars. Sure, coaching plays a big part in all this, but you can't blame Lancaster* and friends for the development of players at their junior clubs, age grade, clubs, under previous international coaches etc.etc. They can only work with what they've got, and developing players with the time they've got with them is tough. Sure, they've got a role, they're offering the platform on which to shine or not to shine (as with our wings)...
To sum it up - I agree with what you're saying, but that's far from solely Lancaster's fault and far from something he alone can fix.
*I can't remember the exact details of Lancaster's previous employment at the RFU and therefore whether this is entirely accurate.
I think you're right about a lot of that, but I also think you've got a "grass is greener" thing going on.
If the benchmark is New Zealand, we fall hopelessly short. It's not possible for Lancaster to create a team that will win more times than lose against them within this WC cycle. As an objective, that needs to be stricken now.
But if we don't relentlessly compare ourselves against the All Blacks, second best team in the world is a very reasonable objective for this team. It's not because we're that great, but that we do have the calibre of player to make it to that position, and all the other teams have their own problems going on too. The gap in quality between 2 and 6 really isn't that big at all.
I put the target of consistently top 3 in the world in that post, and I stand by that as a target that England haven't made and don't look like making. I'm not measuring us solely by the All Blacks, but it seems consistently likely that we'll be behind the Springboks, and we'll be behind a strong Ireland or Wales, and we'd be behind a drama-free Australia, and one of the last three happens often enough that I don't see it happening unless we kick on and improve. The other teams get free of their problems too often.
I disagree about the quality of our pack. I think it's scrummaging ability is inconsistent, its lineout dependent on a guy with very little else to offer, its mauling very average except with Attwood, it's ability to secure consistent quick ruck ball highly questionable, its physicality a little below top level at least, ball carrying is an issue and handling could be better. It must be an unholy nightmare to play against ball in hand because it has a very athletic tight five, massive work rate, strong tacklers and a pretty good disruptive breakdown - although that's not been so strong this window and neither has been the discipline.
Strong? Maybe I'm being too harsh, after all things are comparative and others do have their problems. But so do we, and they're pretty big problems, and they are causing the backline issues.
Who would you say are stars btw?
God's own truth that we squander talent.
However - either the players have had the chance to grow into the role and haven't taken it, or need to grow and are de facto (imo) not stars. Sure, coaching plays a big part in all this, but you can't blame Lancaster* and friends for the development of players at their junior clubs, age grade, clubs, under previous international coaches etc.etc. They can only work with what they've got, and developing players with the time they've got with them is tough. Sure, they've got a role, they're offering the platform on which to shine or not to shine (as with our wings)...
To sum it up - I agree with what you're saying, but that's far from solely Lancaster's fault and far from something he alone can fix.
*I can't remember the exact details of Lancaster's previous employment at the RFU and therefore whether this is entirely accurate.
