Leekbrookgull
Well-known member
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 ?
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 ?
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?
Wrong sport, and the word is maths.No. Because if my math is correct that is 2003 and the WC was in 2002 and 2006.
No. Because if my math is correct that is 2003 and the WC was in 2002 and 2006.
Wrong sport, and the word is maths.
You're a very strange poster.Jeez, sorry, didn't pay enough attention to which manager he referred to. I am becoming Americanized too much. It comes and goes.
You're a very strange poster.
I am talking about the Rugby World Cup in 2003. What are you talking about? The clue was Sir Clive Woodward.
You're a very strange poster.
You're a very strange poster.
I like Lancaster, and the team have developed well under him.
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.
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?
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.
Good post, how I see it too. Maybe a new head honcho but Lancaster stays in in some kind of performance director type role?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.