hey now wait a second, you must understand winning comes with luck for EVERYONE. Somewhere along the line, you got flat-out, sheer luck that allowed you to lift whatever title trophy some time later. Ppl hail Schmidt's success and prowess as a coach a whole lot, and rightfully so, nothing to complain about so far. But France doesn't make that breach, Szar fks up the pass to Fickou in Paris on that first weekend and Ireland are title-less; or PapÃ© actually makes that basic pass to the wing at the 78th on the last weekend and Chouly punches it home easily for a home victory and again no title for the men in green, England win and all of a sudden much less power to Schmidt and a whole lot more to Lancaster. The thing to understand in those instances is they're firmly rooted into this current reality and don't/wouldn't change any of the current facts. Lancaster and Schmidt would still be the exact same men, precisely 100% the same quality coaches - it's just a tad, tad bit of luck/or misfortune respectively has changed the fate of the tournament and the face of its winner. I absolutely guarantee to you that had England won the title, Lancaster would've had a bunch more votes here as everywhere, although he'd be the exact same coach as explained above. I respect him just as much with England coming in second all 3 those last tournaments. Just as I respect Schmidt just as much despite Ireland losing to NZ last Nov. Ireland winning that game wouldn't make me respect Schmidt anymore, he did his job before the game and Ireland manifested it with ardor. There's that thin line most sports fans just don't understand at all, not saying you Saffycen in particular but, point had to be made.