Is Lancaster ever right?

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

After fords success at 10, it got me thinking.

Has Lancaster ever made a correct decision when not forced by injury?

These are things we all knew but Lancaster didn't and didn't learn from:

Ford is a dam good 10
Cipriani is a good 10
Farrell is an average 10
Goode is not an international FB
Barritt can't attack
Wood ant play 8
Brown can't play wing
Barritt and 12 trees should not be bench options
Not having a lock on the bench is a bad idea
Ashton is a very limited player
Tomkins wasn't international class
Manu isn't an unstoppable 13
Wingers need to be passed the ball to do their job
David Seymour is the best player in the world ever and should start at 7 and 10!

Just some of the things we all knew but Lancaster was forced into.

Has he ever made the correct choice?

 

[goodNumber10]

ford is a dam good attacking 10
cipriani is a good attacking 10
farrell is an average attacking 10 but the best defensive 10.

ftfy

 

[Patchey]

Well he did bring in a lot of players that are now established regulars? I'm thinking 2012.

And he made some good choices in 2013 in Argentina, albeit with the Lions forcing his hand.

But then he's also given Myler a cap and selected Jackson Wray for the EPS!

 

[TheSaffycen]

He got Rowntree into his staff.

 

[ncurd]

He got Rowntree into his staff.

Wasn't he left over from the Johnson era?

 

[goodNumber10]

He was. But only as scrum coach.

 

[McTallshort]

After fords success at 10, it got me thinking.

Has Lancaster ever made a correct decision when not forced by injury?

These are things we all knew but Lancaster didn't and didn't learn from:

Ford is a dam good 10 and is first choice
Cipriani is a good 10 currently 2nd choice
Farrell is an average 10 wrong
Goode is not an international FB true and he only starts when Brown is injured
Barritt can't attack wrong he can attack his defence is world class
Wood ant play 8 how many times has he played 8 since Cardiff 2013?
Brown can't play wing as above
Barritt and 12 trees should not be bench options why?
Not having a lock on the bench is a bad idea Why?
Ashton is a very limited player and has been dropped
Tomkins wasn't international class and was dropped
Manu isn't an unstoppable 13 is injured
Wingers need to be passed the ball to do their job is he telling them not to pass
David Seymour is the best player in the world ever and should start at 7 and 10! ok.....

Just some of the things we all knew but Lancaster was forced into.

Has he ever made the correct choice?[/QUOTE

He seems to have learnt a lot....

 

[Peat]

"Not having a lock on the bench is a bad idea"

Please point out how this was proven.

There's actually tons on that list I disagree with, and tons of positives, but I cbf, so I'm just going for some low-hanging fruit.

We spent 3 games without a specialist sub-lock when we 4 guys out injured in the position. Yes, there was another talented player available, but as Lancaster had no intention of playing him in a WC game, he decided to play a guy with reasonable experience in the position who he was thinking of taking to the WC instead. That's a reasonable decision.

And at no point that I recall did the scrum suddenly disintegrate, or the maul go to crap, or the lineout go to crap, when we removed our specialist lock for our makeshift.

So. A reasonable decision that didn't backfire. How is it a bad idea then?



And yes, I am flip-flopping a little. I would have rather had a lock on the bench "just in case". But as "just in case" never arose...

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

You weren't lying Peat, that was extremely low-hanging fruit!

..and there's definitely an argument that with Attwood playing pretty terribly against Ireland, it would have been nice to have a proper replacement for him...

 

[msf]

Yeah, the only correct choices he has made were to employ Rowntree and to try to get Wayne Smith - if we had had both of them, it wouldn't really matter that our head coach has won NOTHING.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I think all the responses to this thread proves my point.

 

[goodNumber10]

Not really.

It proves that coaches will make a series of decisions that people inside and outside the squad just don't, won't or want to understand.

Any good coach works to a vision, it will seldom tally with what the general consensus is.

 

[Peat]

I think all the responses to this thread proves my point.

How?

Your point is knee-jerk rubbish, to put it as respectfully as I can, simply intent on blaming the coach for everything feasible with no consideration of why things happened. If you genuinely think Lancaster was unaware that Ford is a very talented fly-half, please inform me why -

Ford was first mooted for an England squad at the age of 19, only to be withdrawn by his club to bulk up
Ford made his full England debut at the age of 20
Ford achieved double figures in caps at the age of 21

All with Lancaster as coach? Does playing a fly-half that often that young mean he doesn't rate him? Could Lancaster only rate him if he'd given him his debut as an 18 year old in that 2012 Six Nations?

Also - more low lying fruit - Lancaster tried to dump Ashton several times only to have his replacement injured before actually losing him from the team.

 

[j'nuh]

1. Gave Morgan his debut. Brought him in at 8 for Dowson unenforced.
2. Gave Billy Vunipola his debut. Who he then moved ahead of Morgan when Morgan went through some poor form. Then once again brought Morgan ahead of Billy when Ben was playing better.
3. Gave debuts to Parling, Kruis and Launchbury and took Attwood out of international isolation. He has rotated these players, and Lawes, dependent on form. You can even see that in this tournament, bringing Lawes and Parling back into the XV when they proved they were playing better than the incumbents. Ditched Palmer and Botha very early on, unforced.
4. Has ran a ridiculous number of experiments in the centres. Twelvetrees, Eastmond, Joseph, Tuilagi, Burrell, Tomkins, JTH, Barritt, Farrell... not a small number of players to try out there. Some was forced by injury, some wasn't.
5. Dropped Easter in 2012, brought him back in 2015. The right decision on both occasions, neither occasion forced.
6. Has experimented a lot on the wings to settle with Nowell and Watson. Has tried and moved on from Yarde, May, Sharples, Rokoduguni, Strettle, Ashton (from what I remember). Some of these decisions were overdue, but very few was a case of him being forced by injury.
7. Removed Care from England when Care was being naughty. Started with Dickson. Brought Care back in when he proved good form and was better behaved. Has rotated between Care and Youngs since, and Wigglesworth more recently.

He has made a lot of mistakes, but I don't really how anyone can feel that he hasn't made any positive decisions whilst in charge of England. On the whole, his squads are a lot more satisfying than MJ's, for example.

 

[Peat]

I'd be somewhat surprised if Nowell and Watson were still our wings this time next year. After all, it looked like he'd settled on May until not too long ago.

And that's one of the many ways I disagree with most of that list as well.

 

[j'nuh]

I'd be somewhat surprised if Nowell and Watson were still our wings this time next year. After all, it looked like he'd settled on May until not too long ago.

And that's one of the many ways I disagree with most of that list as well.

Yeah, I think everyone knows what I think about his decision to move on from May. Still, it does go to show that Lancaster doesn't let injury dictate his decisions.

He's consistently inconsistent in how much time he gives to players to prove their worth. Some players are safe some of the time, needing a long sequence of poor games to be dropped. Others walk on eggshells and are one mediocre performance away from being replaced.