Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Sport is a results driven business so i am told.



Leekbrookgull

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2005
16,237
Leek
However two shining examples of failure Lancaster and Robinson are still in post,don't we resign anymore ? What credibility can they have in the dressing room ?:shrug:
 


Javeaseagull

Well-known member
Feb 22, 2014
2,475
However two shining examples of failure Lancaster and Robinson are still in post,don't we resign anymore ? What credibility can they have in the dressing room ?:shrug:

Sacking the manager is not always the answer. If England had sacked Sir Clive Woodward in 1999 would we have won the World Cup four years later?
 






























Eeyore

Lord Donkey of Queen's Park
NSC Patreon
Apr 5, 2014
23,381
I like Lancaster, and the team have developed well under him.

As I said though, after the first match against Fiji, there was something not right within the squad. An expansive Quins style approach had become very narrow and very 'safety first'. This was apparent again against the Welsh, and then the capitulation against the Aussies.

The team was never strong enough to win the trophy, but seemed choked by the burden of being the home side.

I suspect he may be replaced by Mallender, it is a shame Rob Baxter has ruled himself out.
 




beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,265
I like Lancaster, and the team have developed well under him.

not suare about that, im not a big egg chaser, but its clear they got a decent set of players who've failed to gel as a team and consistantly underachieve. either his tactics, training or selection have meant they do good enough for a few games then fluff their lines, and its een the same for several years.
 


Lovecake

Member
Jul 23, 2011
290
I like Lancaster, and the team have developed well under him.

As I said though, after the first match against Fiji, there was something not right within the squad. An expansive Quins style approach had become very narrow and very 'safety first'. This was apparent again against the Welsh, and then the capitulation against the Aussies.

The team was never strong enough to win the trophy, but seemed choked by the burden of being the home side.

I suspect he may be replaced by Mallender, it is a shame Rob Baxter has ruled himself out.

I don't dislike Lancaster either. I think he's done good things with the England team, his biggest failing is not spending the last 12 months building his first team and his backups for a world cup. He's spent far too long experimenting and his squad selection was categorically insane.

Burgess shouldn't have been in the squad, not just due to inexperience but due to lack of options it gave us. The lowest moment for me was when Jonny May got injured and our bench options meant we had to bring on George Ford, move Farrell (who's a 10) to 12, Barritt (who's a 12 and got very shown up at 13 the previous week) to 13 and JJ (who's a 13) to the wing!

I don't get how Lancaster hasn't gone through the starting line up and thought how he'd replace each player if they're injured. Moving the whole team around with players out of position was ludicours. If we'd had a centre who could play both 12 and 13 (Slade) or a Fly half who also played full back (Cipriani) or anyone other than Burgess who only plays 12 (allegedly) then we'd have been fine. But having a like for like and a like for like 12 as our only substitutes is insane.

If Lancaster goes then I hope we get a foreigner who has coached international teams before, been to a world cup and been abroad. I want to bring in a genuinely world class coach and team.
 


Mo Gosfield

Well-known member
Aug 11, 2010
6,276
Sacking the manager is not always the answer. If England had sacked Sir Clive Woodward in 1999 would we have won the World Cup four years later?

England were never gonna sack Woodward in 99. He was embarking on a project to transform English rugby and he had the full backing of the RFU. Lancaster has inherited this structure and has benefitted from the highest amount of money thrown at any rugby playing nation.
The burning question is....will it be any different in four years? The selectors knew that Woodward would improve. I'm not sure that Lancaster won't make the same mistakes again. He has a talented bunch of players to work with but has been selectorially and tactically naïve.
 


To answer the original question, it's a common situation where someone is on a fixed term contract. If the employer wants to terminate that contract they have to pay it up in full, so most employees will hang on in there waiting for a pay off. he or she is unlikely to "do the decent thing" and resign because it will cost them a load of money. Usually the only thing that can cancel a contract without paying it up in full is misconduct, and under-acheiving certainly wouldn't qualify.

The only wy round this is to put a clause in the original contract saying if you don't acheive such and such a target the contract will be terminated but few employees will sign something like that.
 




el punal

Well-known member
I like Lancaster, and the team have developed well under him.

As I said though, after the first match against Fiji, there was something not right within the squad. An expansive Quins style approach had become very narrow and very 'safety first'. This was apparent again against the Welsh, and then the capitulation against the Aussies.

The team was never strong enough to win the trophy, but seemed choked by the burden of being the home side.

I suspect he may be replaced by Mallender, it is a shame Rob Baxter has ruled himself out.

Having watched the Fiji match, which was "regulation, win the game, don't do anything silly" first tournament game, I felt that England would kick on ('scuse the pun) and play expansive, attacking rugby. How wrong I was. Against Wales, even before the game, England were more concerned about nullifying the Welsh backs than setting their own agenda. Result - straightaway it showed a lack of confidence which manifested itself alarmingly in the last 15 minutes of the game, when England made error after error. Fast forward one week, against Australia, same result. Goodbye World Cup.

My feeling? I'm sitting on the fence, a bit. Lancaster has brought on many, good exciting players that were far too inexperienced for this World Cup, and the pressure showed. It also showed in each of the last three 6 Nations tournaments where England played poorly in at least one match, each season, and lost. Can this group of players improve, become battle hardened and start bossing and winning games consistently remains to be seen - I hope they can.

On that basis, I would like to see Lancaster kept on for two years to give him the last chance to prove that he can produce a world beating side. If he succeeds all well and good, if he fails then there will be two years before the next World Cup for a new coach to do the business.
 


dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Mar 27, 2013
52,011
Burgess Hill
Having watched the Fiji match, which was "regulation, win the game, don't do anything silly" first tournament game, I felt that England would kick on ('scuse the pun) and play expansive, attacking rugby. How wrong I was. Against Wales, even before the game, England were more concerned about nullifying the Welsh backs than setting their own agenda. Result - straightaway it showed a lack of confidence which manifested itself alarmingly in the last 15 minutes of the game, when England made error after error. Fast forward one week, against Australia, same result. Goodbye World Cup.

My feeling? I'm sitting on the fence, a bit. Lancaster has brought on many, good exciting players that were far too inexperienced for this World Cup, and the pressure showed. It also showed in each of the last three 6 Nations tournaments where England played poorly in at least one match, each season, and lost. Can this group of players improve, become battle hardened and start bossing and winning games consistently remains to be seen - I hope they can.

On that basis, I would like to see Lancaster kept on for two years to give him the last chance to prove that he can produce a world beating side. If he succeeds all well and good, if he fails then there will be two years before the next World Cup for a new coach to do the business.
Good post, how I see it too. Maybe a new head honcho but Lancaster stays in in some kind of performance director type role?
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here