[TRF World XV] Head Coach

[Big Ewis]

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 ***le 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 ***le-less; or Papé 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 ***le 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 ***le, 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.

 

[Peat]

Oh I do love that, if any player has become good or got better it is the club not Lancaster, anyone who has gone down hill well that's Lancasters fault. You can't have it both ways- he cant just be responsible for all the bad things and the good things have nothing to do with him.

He's not. He's responsible for what he affects as England coach and not responsible for what happens outside his aegis.

Launchbury looked like he was born to be a superstar at the JWC. I'm not sure he'd even met Lancaster at that point. Yeah, Lancaster deserves credit for picking him, and seems to be doing a reasonable job of bringing him on, but we're not talking huge amounts of credit. It's not like he was a left-field choice or like he's suddenly become ten thousand times better since associating with him. When it comes to Launchbury, Lancaster is doing the job I'd expect any other international coach to be able to do.

[/quote]We beat New Zealand and lost by 8 points too them next time around, I don't really know how fluky that is, I just think that he has done pretty well against them. We were a bounce of a ball away from winning the grand slam, he still has too select the players and he has selected some poor players (Botha, Johnson, Strettle) but has also selected lots of young players and made some great decisions, Robshaw as captain, Parling coming in. With winning down south, he had the tour against South Africa, lost the first 2 then he drew the last one. Not too bad considering that he hadn't been in charge a year, how many teams go down to Joburg and actually get a result.[/QUOTE]

We lost to New Zealand by 10 points under Johnson. Does 2 points - I don't count the win, it was fantastic but clearly such a one-off freak result in unusual circumstances - count as a reason to fete someone?

Yeah, he's made some good decisions. He's even made a few great ones - Tom Youngs' selection was inspired.

We are wandering away from the point. I feel that Lancaster was left with some solid foundations to work with and that people forget that - although ragerancher makes an excellent point about the culture. A lot of what has people purring about Lancaster is his record as a transformative coach. I feel that is overstated and that some of the stuff he changed he didn't have to. You talked up how he saved us from being a laughing stock, that he had to blood a whole bunch of players and untested partnerships... I disagree. If he's brought through more youngsters than other international coaches, it should be noted that the academy system is spewing out riches. The 2011 team was insanely good and they are the right age. Bringing in players like Launchbury isn't a disadvantage for an international coach, it's an advantage.

 

[goodNumber10]

Eh. I sometimes feel the England transition is overtalked. The Six Nations was a low point, yeah, but he took a side that had just won the Six Nations by winning 4 games and turned it into side that loses the Six Nations by winning 4 games. Uhm. Viva le progress?

that's fair if you only measure success by results, but the performances from day one were of a different calibre to anything under the previous coaches, and you suddenly saw an England team with genuine direction and not just bullying the smaller nations with power.


Also, i like schmidt but how he has got more votes than Hansen, White and Sir Geech is beyond me.

 

[goodNumber10]

Any idiot could look at Launchbury aged 20 and work out they wanted him in the senior team. We all knew he was going to be an international and that is primarily and hugely to Wasps' credit - and not Lancaster's.

The World Cup was a flustercluck where everything went wrong at once. It's not particularly to Johnson's credit but it's not the measure of the team. Could the team have challenged more? Yeah, I think so, we all expected more.

Just because the team is better doesn't mean Lancaster is a better coach. It potentially means he's simply got a better standard of player available. Nowell, Burrell, Twelvetrees, May, Farrell, Vunipola, Launchbury, Morgan - all weren't pushing for inclusion at that point. Brown was a distance off as well while Lawes was very injury prone. And what has Lancaster lost? Thompson finished his career a better player than Hartley, so that's a loss (and no I don't think he's improved). Moody was too injury prone, Easter was never top standard - but who did you replace him with back then? Stevens, Deacon, Palmer, god in heaven - if Lancaster can't get his team working better he really is shat.

Lancaster inherited a fair bunch of players - Foden, Tuilagi, Cole, Croft, Wood, Lawes, Flood, Youngs, Ashton (was good then) and a few more besides. Then he got a whole bunch more of really talented young players to supplement them. The result? No advance on trophies or 6N position and a pretty fluky victory on NZ.

I want to see some trophies - or wins down South - before I get big on him. Very good? Hmm.

you're doing lancaster a disservice, considering a lot of these guys were developed and brought into senior rugby under lancaster in the saxons, the current england team we see now is a direct evolution of what he and farrell etc.. did at the second level of international coaching.

the accusations you level at lancaster could be levelled at any coach, that he is reaping the benefits of the previous coaches systems but coaching just doesn't work like that.

 

[goodNumber10]

it should be noted that the academy system is spewing out riches. The 2011 team was insanely good and they are the right age. Bringing in players like Launchbury isn't a disadvantage for an international coach, it's an advantage.

i suggest you read that again, then read this: http://www.rfu.com/squadsandplayers/managers/stuartlancaster then read what you wrote again.

 

[Peat]

that's fair if you only measure success by results, but the performances from day one were of a different calibre to anything under the previous coaches, and you suddenly saw an England team with genuine direction and not just bullying the smaller nations with power.


Also, i like schmidt but how he has got more votes than Hansen, White and Sir Geech is beyond me.

His first day in charge was a horror show with the only redeeming factor being luck, the result and the scramble defence. Like, there were good reasons for this, so I'm not holding it against him, but what you've just said is just untrue.

And yes, I am aware of his role as with the Saxons/head of development, and am dubious as to how much they should count.

 

[goodNumber10]

His first day in charge was a horror show with the only redeeming factor being luck, the result and the scramble defence. Like, there were good reasons for this, so I'm not holding it against him, but what you've just said is just untrue.

And yes, I am aware of his role as with the Saxons/head of development, and am dubious as to how much they should count.

What is untrue? About what I've said?

Even in the pouring rain you could tell there was something different about this England side under the three of them... And this was using the old elite players squad.

Italy was ropey but then Wales and France was fantastic. For a first year in charge he got some excellent progression from a squad he didn't select. And in his first 12 months he got wins over New Zealand and a draw against SA.

Would you rather have the old coaches back then? Because on what your saying they are the true brains behind this current resurgence.

 

[McTallshort]

Scott Johnson. How can one bloke make a living in a profession he completely sucks at? That take talent.

 

[FrenchFan]

that makes him a candidate for the french job next year

 

[Big Ewis]

Scott Johnson. How can one bloke make a living in a profession he completely sucks at? That take talent.

it shows you how "unofficial" or un-academical a coaching job in pro sports is. You see it all the time in the NBA, guys who are barely trained and know the sport well but may not have a lick of confidence, speaking/people skills, an on-par strategic mind, poise and charisma...etc...
a good coach in pro sports is very rare. Think that FRANCE, the fifth best Rugby nation historically, is coached by Phillipe Sainte-Diarrhée and Lagisquet and co.

 

[FrenchFan]

its none of the above. Its just political here. They get the job because they shake hands with the people in power. Nothing else. Qualifications experience etc don't come into it. I dont know about other coaching jobs in other countries. Im talking about the national selector position here, he is a figurehead. Une tête de gondole.

 

[FrenchFan]

did you see the movie Mike Bassett England Manager? there's a scene when the Federation men meet to appoint the new manager. well its very close to what happens when a new manager gets voted in by FFR selection commitee. Not much difference.

from 2:00 onwards http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5QfKxYbAag

 

[nickdnz]

I'd go:

Henry
Rennie
Hansen
Schmidt
White

In that order. And before someone calls me bias, they're all kiwis anyway except White - however for a lot of Jake White's time South Africa were pretty average - Other than the RWC they only won 1 Tri Nations. He did well with the Brumbies but didn't win anything and I'd say Rennie was much more impressive with what he did for the Chiefs. I'm perhaps a bit harsh on Hansen as his record is pretty phenominal - I'm suprised he isn't getting considerably more nominations counsidering New Zealand's record since he took over..

 

[FrenchFan]

could it be that in Buddhist terms PSA is the rugby reincarnation of footballing Mike?

 

[nickdnz]

could it be that in Buddhist terms PSA is the rugby reincarnation of footballing Mike?

Haha - I love that film and especially that scene.

"He says 'I'm a bit busy at the moment, maybe next time".

I love that line. I feel Noves would be magnificent for France - but I think he's happier at Toulouse.

 

[lynam1104]

I'd go:

Henry
Rennie
Hansen
Schmidt
White

In that order. And before someone calls me bias, they're all kiwis anyway except White - however for a lot of Jake White's time South Africa were pretty average - Other than the RWC they only won 1 Tri Nations. He did well with the Brumbies but didn't win anything and I'd say Rennie was much more impressive with what he did for the Chiefs. I'm perhaps a bit harsh on Hansen as his record is pretty phenominal - I'm suprised he isn't getting considerably more nominations counsidering New Zealand's record since he took over..

While Hansen's record is phenomenal I don't really think its down to him. He inherited a world cup winning team full of players who are young enough to go to the next one. He has brought in new players yes but most of them have been no brainers, he also seems to have an endless supply of talent so hes not really faced any challenges or had to build a team/prove himself, i'm sure hes a good coach its just hes got a pretty easy job. I know people will say being the coach of the AB's is the toughest job because you have to keep up the record, but in reality when you have the mean to Barrit as a 3rd choice flyhalf the talent pool you're picking from is incredible.

 

[nickdnz]

While Hansen's record is phenomenal I don't really think its down to him. He inherited a world cup winning team full of players who are young enough to go to the next one. He has brought in new players yes but most of them have been no brainers, he also seems to have an endless supply of talent so hes not really faced any challenges or had to build a team/prove himself, i'm sure hes a good coach its just hes got a pretty easy job. I know people will say being the coach of the AB's is the toughest job because you have to keep up the record, but in reality when you have the mean to Barrit as a 3rd choice flyhalf the talent pool you're picking from is incredible.

Well if that's the case no New Zealander can ever be a great coach unless they're not the best coached picked by New Zealand...

Looking at our last squad of 36 which toured - 24 of those players didn't play in the RWC. It's not like he's relying on a RWC winning squad - a RWC winning squad I think people forget - he helped build. His record is 26 wins, 1 loss and 1 draw. Sure we have arguably the best player pool in the world - but we also have the best coaching pool in the world, and it shows that clearly the NZRU felt Hansen was better than the others.

 

[Peat]

That World Cup team was pretty gnarly. Guys like Woodcock, Hore, Mealamu, Thorn, Williams... they ain't making the next world cup. Well, maybe Woodcock, gods only knows how. Kaino hasn't been available for most of Hansen's reign. Muliania's gone. Carter's been injured as often as not... but then he can just slot in Cruden.

I feel he's managed a lot of churn and has done well there, but there's no arguing he's got an excellent talent pool to pick from. The 2011 Baby Black team was phenomenal, he's the man on the spot to benefit from it. Hansen's record with Wales was nothing to write home about either. Not sure which way I'm arguing here.

I'm not sure Assistant's roles should be considered too much when looking for a head coach though - nobody's lining up to bring Andy Robinson into the discussion, even if he was a very good Assistant Coach. The two roles are separate imo.

 

[lynam1104]

Well if that's the case no New Zealander can ever be a great coach unless they're not the best coached picked by New Zealand...

Looking at our last squad of 36 which toured - 24 of those players didn't play in the RWC. It's not like he's relying on a RWC winning squad - a RWC winning squad I think people forget - he helped build. His record is 26 wins, 1 loss and 1 draw. Sure we have arguably the best player pool in the world - but we also have the best coaching pool in the world, and it shows that clearly the NZRU felt Hansen was better than the others.

On your first point what i'm trying to say in Hansens case is that during his time as a (head) coach I don't think hes faced any massive challenges and if he is hes better than given credit for because it seems like nobody noticed.

On your point about coaching pool, that doesn't tell the whole story. Of your list of to 5 coaches at the time of Hansen's selection Henry was on the way out so that rules him out, Rennie hadn't had his first year at the chiefs yet, schmidt was on contract with Leinster and only had 1 HC and season as head coach and I don't think NZRU would ever pick a foreign coach so that rules white out. So its not as simple as he was the best option, however he was probably the right one because he had the continuity.

Your point on the players is a good one he has brought through Savea, Cane, Smith, Smith, Barrit ect.

 

[Big Ewis]

And before someone calls me bias, they're all kiwis anyway except White - however for a lot of Jake White's time South Africa were pretty average - Other than the RWC they only won 1 Tri Nations.

don't worry. I for one won't call you "bias". I know your name is 'TRF_nickdnz', and that's what I'll call you !

did you see the movie Mike Bassett England Manager? there's a scene when the Federation men meet to appoint the new manager. well its very close to what happens when a new manager gets voted in by FFR selection commitee. Not much difference.

from 2:00 onwards http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5QfKxYbAag

haha, yeah I see what you're saying...I do think so too, although I'll never have the proof per se. I do think it's political.

On your first point what i'm trying to say in Hansens case is that during his time as a (head) coach I don't think hes faced any massive challenges and if he is hes better than given credit for because it seems like nobody noticed.

well he's beaten the Boks every time and all the others and they're on a one million game winstreak. They just swept the last two TRC. You must be referring to only the World Cup then, that's the only thing left. Then he'll finally be legitimate for all the skeptics.