Lancaster = Martin Johnson

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Like I say... I don't think you are recognising how ****ing appallingly bad some of the games we saw under previous coaches were.

And I don't think you read where I said England weren't better off under Johnson.

 

[j'nuh]

Lancaster is faaaaaaaaar better than MJ.

Our pack is one quality fetcher away from being as good as any in the world. Our front 5 depth is arguably the best in the world, we have two amazing 8s and a few good options at 6. If Kvesic kicks on fast, a fully-fit England pack is formidable. This was definitely not the same under MJ. Our second row was a mess, Moody and Easter should not have been starting at that point, we had no depth in the front row etc.

Our backline is a different story. There are two main reasons for this:
1. We don't have quality players available. Generally, the best players in each position are picked, they just don't measure up on the international scene.
2. Our backs are not well-drilled. This, I put down to Farrell, not Lancaster. (Whether Lancaster takes culpability for not replacing Farrell/telling Farrell to change things up, I'm not sure.)

MJ had problems with both of these, but he also simply didn't select the right players. Hape/Flutey over Barritt/Allen. Tindall over Tuilagi. Cueto (at the end) over, well, a lot of players. Persisting with Care for a long time over, at the time, a fantastic Youngs.

MJ also served up some head-scratchers. Why, oh why, oh why did he pick Wilkinson at the WC? Flood had been his first-choice for most of the 4 years and had done very well. When Flood replaced Wilko in the game, our tempo increased dramatically. Wilko even just looked bad. Before trying Flood at 10 instead, we put Flood at 12 outside Wilko. Why!? Also leaving out Wood for Moody in the WC after having a fantastic 6N. And only bringing in Tuilagi into the XV during the WC even though he was obviously the best for a long, long time, keeping Tindall as long as possible. I sometimes felt that MJ was a little too loyal to the older members of the squad.

I'm more than happy with Lancaster 'til 2019. It's Farrell that bothers me.

 

[Mikel92]

Once in 2012 against NZ since then 19 games have been played and we have failed to look anywhere near that good.

Well you came out here and could have easily tipped us up, at least twice. Lost by 5 points, then by 1 point. You guys hardly got smashed (maybe other than the third test) - chin up, you did well for yourselves. Even in 2013 when we came up there, we had to work for it. As ratsapprentice said, you really have to cast your mind back. I have a pretty good long-term memory and in all honesty, the way England performed prior to Lancaster was just garbage. You guys have held your own against the top nation in rugby, and multiple times you've been pretty injury stricken.

I say we wait to see how this series plays out. Number one thing someone should be hammering into these boys is if the opposition receive a yellow card (ala last week) DON'T kick the thing away, aimlessly, or at all. Not the end of the world of the Boks win this weekend, but if England can't beat any of the big 3 at home (you should Definitely be able to beat the Wallabies) then Lancaster and his team will seriously need to look at a few systems. Time will tell.

 

[ratsapprentice]

And I don't think you read where I said England weren't better off under Johnson.

You asked how we've improved over the last two years... our poor performances now, were about par for the course 2 years ago.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Our pack is one quality fetcher away from being as good as any in the world. Our front 5 depth is arguably the best in the world, we have two amazing 8s and a few good options at 6. If Kvesic kicks on fast, a fully-fit England pack is formidable. This was definitely not the same under MJ. Our second row was a mess, Moody and Easter should not have been starting at that point, we had no depth in the front row etc.

Our backline is a different story. There are two main reasons for this:
1. We don't have quality players available. Generally, the best players in each position are picked, they just don't measure up on the international scene.
2. Our backs are not well-drilled. This, I put down to Farrell, not Lancaster. (Whether Lancaster takes culpability for not replacing Farrell/telling Farrell to change things up, I'm not sure.)

Disagree with that really.

Was Brown the best winger in England at times, was Foden the best winger in England at times, was Goode the best full back, Manu @ wing even Farrell at 10 sometimes. What about Tomkins @ 13?

My main problem with Lancaster is that he generally would rather put a player out of position than give someone else a try.

For me if he puts Farrell at 12 instead of giving something like 12 Barritt, 13 Joesph then that only shows it more imo.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Well you came out here and could have easily tipped us up, at least twice. Lost by 5 points, then by 1 point. You guys hardly got smashed (maybe other than the third test) - chin up, you did well for yourselves. Even in 2013 when we came up there, we had to work for it. As ratsapprentice said, you really have to cast your mind back. I have a pretty good long-term memory and in all honesty, the way England performed prior to Lancaster was just garbage. You guys have held your own against the top nation in rugby, and multiple times you've been pretty injury stricken.

I say we wait to see how this series plays out. Number one thing someone should be hammering into these boys is if the opposition receive a yellow card (ala last week) DON'T kick the thing away, aimlessly, or at all. Not the end of the world of the Boks win this weekend, but if England can't beat any of the big 3 at home (you should Definitely be able to beat the Wallabies) then Lancaster and his team will seriously need to look at a few systems. Time will tell.

I'm not calling for Lancaster to be sacked or anything esp before the WC but I just don't feel the love as other do.

And yes the 6 nations last year was decent although imo we were lucky against Ireland but the 2013 England looked poor imo just beating Italy 18 -11 @ Tiwckenham and losing 3 -30 to wales.

I guess I'm just fed up of England trying to stop teams scoring rather than just once going into attack mode (Like that NZ game), and trying to put a team to the sword. Because we do have the players to do that If they can be used properly and his backs selection doesn't look like he is even thinking about it (Hoping I am wrong).

Now maybe that is more Farrell and Catt's doing but Lancaster should see that. and his

 

[ratsapprentice]

I can't agree that we've picked the best players.

Certainly picking an England team is difficult because of the way talent is spread across the premiership, and the volume of players, but the best players certainly haven't been consistently picked.

Ashton's selection being the prime example of that.

 

[BRSTLDRGN]

We have had some pretty dire games in the last 2 years aswell though.

Who doesn't?

Lancaster is waaaay better coach than Johnson will ever be. England seem a far more consistent, deeper and more disciplined outfit now (ugh, I hated saying that) than they were under Johnson. Admittedly Lancaster has had the better players to coach making it easier but his record stands alone.

(and just to address the point Ive been nice about England - BOOOOOOO! YOU SUCK......ahh, thats better)

 

[goodNumber10]

My main problem with Lancaster is that he generally would rather put a player out of position than give someone else a try.

have you ever coached? Not meaning to be patronising but if a team selected itself, as your suggesting by only selecting the best player in each position then what's the point in having a coach?

surely it would just take care of itself?

You pick a team based on what it is you want it to do, sometimes that doesn't work or seem obvious to others but you don't abandon it straight away.

The important thing, at least to me, is that we've seen progress and a move towards a genuine style of moving the ball outside of 10/12, ti's not always worked - mainly against a team like NZ and Ireland who play a solid drift defence when they want, but we have scored a to of tries and played some excellent rugby. More importantly though we've actually looked like we had a clue on the pitch unlike almost any game under Johnson where the whole world could see our slow ponderous stale rugby was stuck in the 90's.

All coaches make unfathomable decisions people just have to live with that, what's important is improvement of performance .

 

[Gavin]

Lancaster has actually got a team together which is quite likeable. This is the first time in a while I can say that about an English team (there are a few unlikeable players though). For that reason alone, keep him.

 

[j'nuh]

Disagree with that really.

Was Brown the best winger in England at times, was Foden the best winger in England at times, was Goode the best full back, Manu @ wing even Farrell at 10 sometimes. What about Tomkins @ 13?

My main problem with Lancaster is that he generally would rather put a player out of position than give someone else a try.

For me if he puts Farrell at 12 instead of giving something like 12 Barritt, 13 Joesph then that only shows it more imo.

No, perhaps not, but there is a gradual improvement and realisation towards what we should be picking, and it is broadly falling in-line with what people have been asking for.

But what I'm saying is that whereas most nations have one or two stand-out players per position that are certainly international level, we don't.

Think about the Wales backline for example. I'd be comfortable penning the likes of Biggar, North, Davies, Halfpenny etc. into the starting line-up for the first WC game. Now do the same with the England backline... erm... maybe Tuilagi? Maybe?

And then you think of partnerships. Let's say our 12/13 options are:
12 - Twelvetrees/Eastmond/Barritt/Burrell
13 - Tuilagi/Joseph/Barritt/Burrell

There are 14 different permutations of those players. If we count in the Farrell/Ford decision, there would be 28.

For Wales, you have one stand-out option: Biggar-Roberts-Davies.

It would be a lot easier for Lancaster if he had one player that was clearly, even if marginally, better than the rest, in each position. Or a few select players that have delivered consistently on an international stage. We could then focus on those players, rather than changing every few games.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I think we have the talent for there to be 2 world class options just haven't been given enough of a chance or they suffer from confidence.

I will hold off at the minute now on my criticism of this England setup until after the AI games, I guess Lancaster will have his game plan for SA and we will see if it works esp if Farrell is at 12.


And yes Rats I have coached before although the selection choice are slightly slimmer than the England setup .

I have tickets to the Samoa game and hoping for a real attacking line up though.

Anyway for the record I do feel Lancaster has been the best HC for England since 2003 but that isn't really saying much though

 

[ratsapprentice]

It wasn't me that asked whether you had coached before...

The issue of "too many" players is where a system like NZ's has a massive advantage over us.

Because they almost certainly have even more good professionals than us, but they get funneled into their 5 SR teams without stopping the other younger/lesser players from getting a full season in the ITM.

 

[HenryChinaski]

Looking at Lancasters win Ratio is complex because you have to consider the significant effect the two summer tours have had.
The South Africa tour was far too soon for us to really stand much of a chance. It can be surprisingly when you realise just how much evolution our squad has gone through to get to where we are now - two years ago in the first test in South Africa this was our team; The Bench in particular is ridiculously changed.


FB 15 Mike Brown Substituted off 78'
RW 14 Chris Ashton
OC 13 Manu Tuilagi
IC 12 Brad Barritt Substituted off 53'
LW 11 Ben Foden
FH 10 Owen Farrell
SH 9 Ben Youngs Substituted off 72'
N8 8 Ben Morgan
OF 7 Chris Robshaw (c)
BF 6 Tom Johnson
RL 5 Geoff Parling
LL 4 Mouritz Botha Substituted off 58'
TP 3 Dan Cole
HK 2 Dylan Hartley Substituted off 75'
LP 1 Joe Marler Substituted off 72'
Replacements:
HK 16 Lee Mears Substituted in 75'
PR 17 Paul Doran-Jones Substituted in 72'
LK 18 Tom Palmer Substituted in 58'
N8 19 Phil Dowson
SH 20 Lee Dickson Substituted in 72'
FH 21 Toby Flood Substituted in 53'
FB 22 Jonathan Joseph Substituted in 78'

Coach:
England Stuart Lancaster

These 4 games against New Zealand this year have really brought the average down a lot as well. That's 7 games lost against the top 2 (1 drawn) but generally by quite small margins but it leaves Lancasters winning Percentage at something like 58% - which is clearly what bracken is zoning in on.

Also consider the moments of individual execution which have cost us games; Farrells lousy drop-goal against South Africa...Strettles ballsed-up try against Wales...

 

[goodNumber10]

I think we have the talent for there to be 2 world class options just haven't been given enough of a chance or they suffer from confidence.

I will hold off at the minute now on my criticism of this England setup until after the AI games, I guess Lancaster will have his game plan for SA and we will see if it works esp if Farrell is at 12.

Not sure that will actually happen with Eastmond fit to play.

And yes Rats I have coached before although the selection choice are slightly slimmer than the England setup .

that was me mate, it wasn't meant as a put down JTBC, i just wanted to illustrate that coaches sometimes just go with something we don't see/understand and it can't always be about pick the best in eahc position and hope that makes a team... I have guys in my team who i just have to fit in, a good center who is a decent winger so i make sure he gets on the pitch and so on... because in the game plan he'll be doing things that aren't necessarily wingers roles.

 

[Every Time Ref]

have you ever coached? Not meaning to be patronising but if a team selected itself, as your suggesting by only selecting the best player in each position then what's the point in having a coach?

surely it would just take care of itself?

You pick a team based on what it is you want it to do, sometimes that doesn't work or seem obvious to others but you don't abandon it straight away.

I think you're simplifying Tigs Man's argument (apologies if I'm misrepresenting you, TM), I don't read him as arguing entirely against playing players in different positions, but against an obsession with putting an established player in (out of position) over giving a chance to a new player who specialises in that position. Examples - Burrell to 13 was a good idea and worked; Brown on the wing wasn't and didn't; Barritt to 13 - I argued against it but he did pretty well, jury's still out as he didn't get any chance to attack. The point is, some work and some don't, it's a judgement call, but Lancaster seems to be going for this option as often as possible; he's making a lot of the judgement calls wrong.

 

[HenryChinaski]

Not sure that will actually happen with Eastmond fit to play.



that was me mate, it wasn't meant as a put down JTBC, i just wanted to illustrate that coaches sometimes just go with something we don't see/understand and it can't always be about pick the best in eahc position and hope that makes a team... .

true...but as we all know, there are good coaches and less good coaches, and even good coaches make bad decisions...which is why it would be wrong to always assume that the coach knows something/sees something we don't

After all,lancaster has done some very silly things such as letting Alex Goode near the rugby pitch, indeed letting Alex Goode play at 15 whilst shoving Brown on one wing.... Foden to another...

Also, its very often the case that fans will be crying out for something long before the coach does it.

For example when Lancaster persisted with Mouritz Botha for what seemed like an eternity....Johnson ignored Foden for what seemed like eternity
I admit that its easier for the fan to be critical and make bold calls than the coach, but the educated fan is very often right and the consensus of us fans on these boards has been proven right time and time again!

 

[Big Ewis]

lots has been said and good points so I'll weigh in with a French scope. We beat England easily at the WC, more than the score tells. After the WC we proceed to a big change and see PSA coming into office, while England change lots themselves. PSA's incompetence is questioned by none, but while we had a team with still lots of quality and huge experience on paper we still lost a game in Paris to a young English side that had little expectation. Later that year England managed a draw in South Africa and a resounding win against the All-Blacks. Lancaster took no time to make this England side relevant, and things like the backline still hasn't been activated properly is an English thing not a Lancaster thing, the game plan was always going to be about a sound setpiece and dominant forward pack and good goal kicker first, all the rest second. And before this turns into world war 3, noooooo this isn't a cliché from a French perspective, I mean, just open your eyes for yourselves.

So I'm saying Lancaster easily had the excuse of having little time to pick this young team up from scratch and yadi yada when they finished 2nd at the 6N and were immediately relevant.
Then about the attacking Rugby part, I do think Lancaster is quite favorable to that, he's said himself on many occasions he wanted a "wider", more whole game from his side and it's shown on a few occasions lately, but again, England hasn't won those games during this Lancaster tenure with expansive tactics and have made sure they asserted themselves up front first and that's won them lots of tests. There's a clear difference from 2013 to 2014 in the attacking department from England, so it seems Lancaster wanted to make sure their fundamentals were set before tackling the attacking component.

 

[Peat]

If Lancaster is way better than Johnson, how comes he has neither beaten a SANZAR team away or won a Six Nations, both things that Johnson did?

I accept that the margins of Six Nations victory and defeat have been tight, but the England head coach is paid to get us on the right side of tight margins. I accept that South Africa and New Zealand are tougher than than Australia, but not that much more so, and Lancaster has had 6 attempts at the away win and Johnson 2 if memory serves.

I am not a Johnson fanboy, or apologist. But to me, a good way of measuring an England coach's performance are a) Winning the Six Nations b) Beating SANZAR c) Beating them away. I am not saying they are the only possible parameters, but they are good ones, and right now Johnson is ahead of Lancaster on those parameters. Yet apparently Lancaster is way better than Johnson and something does not compute there.

Personally I am deeply concerned that we have been sold the Emperor's new clothes when it comes to Lancaster and his coaching team. I have expressed these thoughts and I will probably keep expressing them until I start seeing results. As I have said before, every England coach since Greenwood who's had 3 chances to win a Six Nations has won one - except Lancaster. It is not unreasonable to start expecting results now.

I don't think I'm going to compare Lancaster to Johnson. The argument gets lost in memories of Johnson's madness at the end.

But it is flat out time for Lancaster to start beating SANZAR countries and winning the Six Nations. Bracken may have said some dumb things but he's right that it's incredible that they handed out a contract to 2019 when he didn't.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I prefer Lancaster to Johnson, he is much better infront of the cameras and the mentality of the England team as a whole is definitely better. It feels more professional now. I do think we need some changing in the other coaches, a dedicated attacking coach would be helpful.