Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
International Test Matches
Lancaster = Martin Johnson
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ratsapprentice" data-source="post: 688111" data-attributes="member: 67273"><p>Lancaster's record is definitely better than Johnson's... what do you think the scorelines would have been on the NZ tour under him?</p><p>I think they would be much, much worse.</p><p></p><p>As Henry says, whether Lancaster is the man to take us forward from the point he's brought us to is another matter.</p><p>I actually think Lancaster is fantastic at what he does - the trouble is that he is basically the manager.</p><p>Unless someone knows differently, I think Stuart does actually fulfill the role that a GM does in most other setups.</p><p></p><p>I was and still am very happy that he has signed a long contract extension.</p><p>What I'm not happy about is the fact that the other coaches have too...</p><p></p><p>I think having a coach that is at once both the defense and attack coach is a bad situation to be in.</p><p>It's a conflict of interests IMO - and making sure the defense is tight is less liable to make him look a *** than if it was the other way round.</p><p></p><p>I think the Argentina tour showed that with different coaches Lancaster can produce some wonderful attacking rugby.</p><p>The style of play we saw on that tour was very different to anything we've seen before or since IMO - and squaring that purely on the opposition is wrong.</p><p></p><p>I do feel that bringing in an attack coach could help improve the team significantly, so long as that coach was given as much seniority and influence as others.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ratsapprentice, post: 688111, member: 67273"] Lancaster's record is definitely better than Johnson's... what do you think the scorelines would have been on the NZ tour under him? I think they would be much, much worse. As Henry says, whether Lancaster is the man to take us forward from the point he's brought us to is another matter. I actually think Lancaster is fantastic at what he does - the trouble is that he is basically the manager. Unless someone knows differently, I think Stuart does actually fulfill the role that a GM does in most other setups. I was and still am very happy that he has signed a long contract extension. What I'm not happy about is the fact that the other coaches have too... I think having a coach that is at once both the defense and attack coach is a bad situation to be in. It's a conflict of interests IMO - and making sure the defense is tight is less liable to make him look a *** than if it was the other way round. I think the Argentina tour showed that with different coaches Lancaster can produce some wonderful attacking rugby. The style of play we saw on that tour was very different to anything we've seen before or since IMO - and squaring that purely on the opposition is wrong. I do feel that bringing in an attack coach could help improve the team significantly, so long as that coach was given as much seniority and influence as others. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
International Test Matches
Lancaster = Martin Johnson
Top