The Official English Rugby Thread

[sockwithaticket]

Wasps sign John Ryan from Munster. With him and Koch coming in at tighthead I think it's fair to say Toomaga-Allen will definitely be off and our scrum should improve.

Ibitoye back in the Prem and togging out for Bristol next season apparently.

[SaintK]

Interesting article from BCM

English rugby is wasting millions of pounds on players who are simply not good enough.

Both Bill Sweeney, the Rugby Football Union’s chief executive, and Eddie Jones, the England head coach, got a lot of stick last week from many journalists – Jones for his team not doing better in the recent Six Nations and Sweeney for not sacking his coach and issuing an unseemly rapid statement backing Jones.

As I wrote last week, Jones has a case to answer for England’s underperformance, not least in terms of inconsistent selection, but he is not culpable for the structural faults in the English game. You could allege that Sweeney is responsible for those but, in truth, they are long-standing and without a clear mandate from the professional element of the English game and support from the grass roots, the inherent faults will not be solved.

https://12ft.io/proxy?ref=&q=https://w ... layers/

[Paddington Bear]

Start at the bottom and with participation – English rugby is wasting millions of pounds. I sat on the committee that looked into this and I was firmly against the current RFU policy of allowing clubs at levels three, four and five to pay players who are not good enough to be professionals, full or part-time. By all means encourage players who want to try to be pro, but if they are not good enough, why pay them at all? Rugby league and cricket have clear demarcated levels, why union does not do the same is beyond me.

I mean this is just crap. You can't stop teams from paying players if they want to.

Cricket allegedly has a demarcated system but I'll play against first class players every week and one or two ex-test players this summer, who are all presumably there for the love of the game.

[JM2K6]

Start at the bottom and with participation – English rugby is wasting millions of pounds. I sat on the committee that looked into this and I was firmly against the current RFU policy of allowing clubs at levels three, four and five to pay players who are not good enough to be professionals, full or part-time. By all means encourage players who want to try to be pro, but if they are not good enough, why pay them at all? Rugby league and cricket have clear demarcated levels, why union does not do the same is beyond me.

I mean this is just crap. You can't stop teams from paying players if they want to.

Cricket allegedly has a demarcated system but I'll play against first class players every week and one or two ex-test players this summer, who are all presumably there for the love of the game.

I mean, you actually can stop them. No reason why you wouldn't be able to keep the game entirely amateur or have a "costs only" payment scheme if needed. BCM's point is that that money could be better off spent on investing in the infrastructure the game needs, youth development, keeping more casual teams going, etc. As he says, even at that level it's a financial arms race and the player wages suck up all the oxygen (and money)

[Slick]

Start at the bottom and with participation – English rugby is wasting millions of pounds. I sat on the committee that looked into this and I was firmly against the current RFU policy of allowing clubs at levels three, four and five to pay players who are not good enough to be professionals, full or part-time. By all means encourage players who want to try to be pro, but if they are not good enough, why pay them at all? Rugby league and cricket have clear demarcated levels, why union does not do the same is beyond me.

I mean this is just crap. You can't stop teams from paying players if they want to.

Cricket allegedly has a demarcated system but I'll play against first class players every week and one or two ex-test players this summer, who are all presumably there for the love of the game.

I mean, you actually can stop them. No reason why you wouldn't be able to keep the game entirely amateur or have a "costs only" payment scheme if needed. BCM's point is that that money could be better off spent on investing in the infrastructure the game needs, youth development, keeping more casual teams going, etc. As he says, even at that level it's a financial arms race and the player wages suck up all the oxygen (and money)

We've banned it in Scotland below the 3rd tier (Super 6) and I entirely agree with it.

[JM2K6]

I mean this is just crap. You can't stop teams from paying players if they want to.

Cricket allegedly has a demarcated system but I'll play against first class players every week and one or two ex-test players this summer, who are all presumably there for the love of the game.

I mean, you actually can stop them. No reason why you wouldn't be able to keep the game entirely amateur or have a "costs only" payment scheme if needed. BCM's point is that that money could be better off spent on investing in the infrastructure the game needs, youth development, keeping more casual teams going, etc. As he says, even at that level it's a financial arms race and the player wages suck up all the oxygen (and money)

We've banned it in Scotland below the 3rd tier (Super 6) and I entirely agree with it.

I genuinely don't know enough about rugby at that level to have a real opinion on it, but on the face of it BCM's argument makes sense. It's not like we don't know wages are too high in the Premiership too...

[Slick]

I mean, you actually can stop them. No reason why you wouldn't be able to keep the game entirely amateur or have a "costs only" payment scheme if needed. BCM's point is that that money could be better off spent on investing in the infrastructure the game needs, youth development, keeping more casual teams going, etc. As he says, even at that level it's a financial arms race and the player wages suck up all the oxygen (and money)

We've banned it in Scotland below the 3rd tier (Super 6) and I entirely agree with it.

I genuinely don't know enough about rugby at that level to have a real opinion on it, but on the face of it BCM's argument makes sense. It's not like we don't know wages are too high in the Premiership too...

I've seen too many clubs, including my own down south, bugger themselves up financially and lose teams worth of players because of a few egos at the club wanting to pay players and seek some kind of obscure glory, it's a fucking nonsense. Keep that cash in the clubs to promote the game locally.

And he's quite right about the standard of players. After 5 years of paying players, only one of whom was actually a local lad, my team had risen to one league higher than we were in when I was playing. In that time they had lost a least 2 teams worth of players and a huge amount of local goodwill. By the end they would be getting 6 or 7 of these paid players turning up for training and every year was an almost entirely new team as average players moved around the clubs for a few quid more. Utterly moronic situation.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

They'll be two larger problems used to counter the idea, that it's very hard if not impossible to police, also the idea there's a pot of money period and if you don't use it at lower levels happy to raise/spend the money it simply aggregates and is available to use higher up the levels is largely false, that money or a lot of it doesn't come into the game to begin with.

I can't say I'm fussed if they try to largely take the lower levels amateur, but I wouldn't be expecting it'll release millions to develop top tier talent

[Kawazaki]

Start at the bottom and with participation – English rugby is wasting millions of pounds. I sat on the committee that looked into this and I was firmly against the current RFU policy of allowing clubs at levels three, four and five to pay players who are not good enough to be professionals, full or part-time. By all means encourage players who want to try to be pro, but if they are not good enough, why pay them at all? Rugby league and cricket have clear demarcated levels, why union does not do the same is beyond me.

I mean this is just crap. You can't stop teams from paying players if they want to.

Cricket allegedly has a demarcated system but I'll play against first class players every week and one or two ex-test players this summer, who are all presumably there for the love of the game.

I mean, you actually can stop them. No reason why you wouldn't be able to keep the game entirely amateur or have a "costs only" payment scheme if needed. BCM's point is that that money could be better off spent on investing in the infrastructure the game needs, youth development, keeping more casual teams going, etc. As he says, even at that level it's a financial arms race and the player wages suck up all the oxygen (and money)

It's a specious argument and Moore should know better, it's little more than click-bait. The RFU don't pay the players at these clubs, it's not money going out of the game, it's money going in. He can argue it's a waste money but that money isn't being diverted from any other more worthy recipients.

He's little more than a pathetic lefty whinger nowadays.

[SaintK]

I mean this is just crap. You can't stop teams from paying players if they want to.

Cricket allegedly has a demarcated system but I'll play against first class players every week and one or two ex-test players this summer, who are all presumably there for the love of the game.

I mean, you actually can stop them. No reason why you wouldn't be able to keep the game entirely amateur or have a "costs only" payment scheme if needed. BCM's point is that that money could be better off spent on investing in the infrastructure the game needs, youth development, keeping more casual teams going, etc. As he says, even at that level it's a financial arms race and the player wages suck up all the oxygen (and money)

It's a specious argument and Moore should know better, it's little more than click-bait. The RFU don't pay the players at these clubs, it's not money going out of the game, it's money going in. He can argue it's a waste money but that money isn't being diverted from any other more worthy recipients.

He's little more than a pathetic lefty whinger nowadays.

Be that as it may, but both you and I have seen the corrosive effect of paying players in our regions Look at Barking, look at Staines and Tabard theey're only just surviving. Hadleigh disappeared completely some years back. You watch Rochford Hundred's bubble burst at some stage soon!!
Oh and well done Harlow, looks like promotion this season. Same for us!!!

[Paddington Bear]

Start at the bottom and with participation – English rugby is wasting millions of pounds. I sat on the committee that looked into this and I was firmly against the current RFU policy of allowing clubs at levels three, four and five to pay players who are not good enough to be professionals, full or part-time. By all means encourage players who want to try to be pro, but if they are not good enough, why pay them at all? Rugby league and cricket have clear demarcated levels, why union does not do the same is beyond me.

I mean this is just crap. You can't stop teams from paying players if they want to.

Cricket allegedly has a demarcated system but I'll play against first class players every week and one or two ex-test players this summer, who are all presumably there for the love of the game.

I mean, you actually can stop them. No reason why you wouldn't be able to keep the game entirely amateur or have a "costs only" payment scheme if needed. BCM's point is that that money could be better off spent on investing in the infrastructure the game needs, youth development, keeping more casual teams going, etc. As he says, even at that level it's a financial arms race and the player wages suck up all the oxygen (and money)

You can't stop boot money, you can't stop the chairman paying out of his own pocket etc. Teams that want to throw cash at sport have always found a way - pretty much why rugby went pro in the first place no?

I'd love to say no one would do it but it's not practical, as has been proven time after time. Obviously BCM is right but it's wishful thinking.

[Kawazaki]

I mean, you actually can stop them. No reason why you wouldn't be able to keep the game entirely amateur or have a "costs only" payment scheme if needed. BCM's point is that that money could be better off spent on investing in the infrastructure the game needs, youth development, keeping more casual teams going, etc. As he says, even at that level it's a financial arms race and the player wages suck up all the oxygen (and money)

It's a specious argument and Moore should know better, it's little more than click-bait. The RFU don't pay the players at these clubs, it's not money going out of the game, it's money going in. He can argue it's a waste money but that money isn't being diverted from any other more worthy recipients.

He's little more than a pathetic lefty whinger nowadays.

Be that as it may, but both you and I have seen the corrosive effect of paying players in our regions Look at Barking, look at Staines and Tabard theey're only just surviving. Hadleigh disappeared completely some years back. You watch Rochford Hundred's bubble burst at some stage soon!!
Oh and well done Harlow, looks like promotion this season. Same for us!!!

Oh totally, I agree it's a waste of money paying players at those lower levels. Moore is making something akin to that childlike argument that a millionaire shouldn't buy a Ferrari because the NHS would be better off with that money instead. It's not a zero-sum game, if the level 3-8 players get paid by a wealthy club owner/sponsor, it doesn't take money out of other areas of the game.

p.s also worth pointing out the irony that Moore left Nottingham to join a club who were the absolute worst culprits at totally taking piss out the old amateur regulations on payments.

[Paddington Bear]

There's also precious little evidence that the sugar daddies who bankroll clubs as they shoot up the leagues before leaving them in the lurch have any interest in spending £50-150k a year on coaching/youth development etc.

[JM2K6]

There's also precious little evidence that the sugar daddies who bankroll clubs as they shoot up the leagues before leaving them in the lurch have any interest in spending £50-150k a year on coaching/youth development etc.

Almost definitely not. But I don't think it's a fair description of the majority of clubs that are paying their players at that level. You get the occasional Big Spender With Big Dreams and they go up the leagues until shit happens and they pull out / reach their level. Most clubs are still mostly concerned with a sustainable level of spending and keeping the club going - and that does include investing in the future.

[Paddington Bear]

There's also precious little evidence that the sugar daddies who bankroll clubs as they shoot up the leagues before leaving them in the lurch have any interest in spending £50-150k a year on coaching/youth development etc.

Almost definitely not. But I don't think it's a fair description of the majority of clubs that are paying their players at that level. You get the occasional Big Spender With Big Dreams and they go up the leagues until shit happens and they pull out / reach their level. Most clubs are still mostly concerned with a sustainable level of spending and keeping the club going - and that does include investing in the future.

I think this is broadly fair. The problem remains there's enough Big Spenders to create a ratchet effect that 'forces' clubs who'd rather not to focus on their 1st XV over other concerns (if we don't we'll lose our promising youngsters etc). BCM's diagnosis is fine, this leads to a lot of players who aren't worth paying picking up cheques, it is an opportunity cost etc etc. However, I do not believe there is a serious way of stopping these guys from trying to buy success. I've seen various attempts at it both in rugby and cricket and none have been successful and all have been a waste of time and energy.

For example, for a while to clamp down on paid players our cricket league forced clubs to hand over their accounts. Of course any players who were being paid through the books suddenly became coaches/barmen/groundsmen etc, most were just paid cash in hand and a significant number were paid direct by said backer/had their rent/car/holiday paid for instead. The league gave up after two years. I know the same thing happens at rugby clubs up and down the country. It's not viable for the RFU to police this IMHO.

I know the damage this can do to rugby clubs first hand (I think I'm right in saying Slick and I are referencing the same club), but I honestly don't see a realistic solution to it and I'd rather the RFU focused it's energy on other things. Paying a couple of players could win you the league this year, getting gun coaches for the Under 9s might get you some 1st XV players in a decade, the temptation will always exist.

[Kawazaki]

A team Saint referenced above - Rochford - went about 5 years unbeaten as they went up the leagues unbeaten often racking up record victories and 1000pt+ per season. They've been in National 2 South now for a few years where they've found the level that the largess of their financial backer had bought. None of the Rochford players are paid by the club, they're directly employed by the backer who runs a scaffolding company.

I've not been to the Rochford ground since I played there decades ago in an Essex cup match but it was a total dump back then. I'd hope that they've sorted the slope on the pitch and the drainage too. A new clubhouse as well would be good as the old one was grim. All of those things were/are more important (and far more long-standing) than paying an overmatched squad for 10 years to buy 5 successive promotions.

[duke]

Old Elthamians are one of the more high profile recent examples of what happens when the backer pulls the plug for whatever reason. National League 1 has been short one club for the whole season.

[Kawazaki]

Old Elthamians are one of the more high profile recent examples of what happens when the backer pulls the plug for whatever reason. National League 1 has been short one club for the whole season.

He died so a fairly definitive and sad reason!

An odd club for a Saffa expat to pump money into though.

[duke]

Old Elthamians are one of the more high profile recent examples of what happens when the backer pulls the plug for whatever reason. National League 1 has been short one club for the whole season.

He died so a fairly definitive and sad reason!

An odd club for a Saffa expat to pump money into though.

I wasn't aware of those circumstances. There were some fairly high profile names helping out there at one stage - Mike Friday was doing their player development.

[SaintK]

A team Saint referenced above - Rochford - went about 5 years unbeaten as they went up the leagues unbeaten often racking up record victories and 1000pt+ per season. They've been in National 2 South now for a few years where they've found the level that the largess of their financial backer had bought. None of the Rochford players are paid by the club, they're directly employed by the backer who runs a scaffolding company.

I've not been to the Rochford ground since I played there decades ago in an Essex cup match but it was a total dump back then. I'd hope that they've sorted the slope on the pitch and the drainage too. A new clubhouse as well would be good as the old one was grim. All of those things were/are more important (and far more long-standing) than paying an overmatched squad for 10 years to buy 5 successive promotions.

Haven't been to Rochford for about 10 years when both Rochford and my club were in London 1 (Westcliffe were as well. There's another story). It was an utter shithole.
Saw some photos recently from a girls tournamernt which we won and the pitches and outside look substantially improved. Can't comment on the clubhouse as there were no pictures of that though you'd think that would be up to scratch for a Nat 2 outfit.

[sockwithaticket]

Picked up on a few Saints' leavers:

Ahsee Tuala, Api Ratuniyarawa, Piers Francis and Taqele Naiyaravoro.

Think it's fair to say they'll only really miss Ratuniyarawa. For Francis' sake I hope he's retiring so that his brain doesn't get any further scrambled than it must be after the number of concussions he seems to have had already.

[Oxbow]

Yeah, Api is the only one that I'm sad to see go (playing wise). Word is we were only prepared to offer him a one-year deal, and another club offered him two years which he took to help secure his family's future, which is fair enough.

[SaintK]

Yeah, Api is the only one that I'm sad to see go (playing wise). Word is we were only prepared to offer him a one-year deal, and another club offered him two years which he took to help secure his family's future, which is fair enough.

Shame he's off. Been playing well alongside Ribbans
Agree that Francis should not be playing anymore with his concussion history.

[Margin__Walker]

Some talk of Api being LI bound.

He made a decent impression the other week by making about a mile up the middle against us with ball in hand.

Italy TH Giosue Zilocchi signed with immediate effect yesterday. Rumoured that Danilo Fischetti is due to follow him for next season, who would be an excellent addition if there's anything in it.

[JM2K6]

We're sniffing round some Benetton saffer lock, presumably to cover for Lewies' injury record on top of Tizard leaving, even with Lewies/Symons/Hammond/Lamb/Jurevicius as options.

On a different note, the BBC rugby pod has an episode with Stuart Lancaster. It's a good one, a genuinely interesting chat. Obviously quite Ireland focused and a chunk of stating the bleeding obvious, but there's some gems in there. It also was interesting to me just how often he mentioned "continuity/stability of coaching teams" as a path to success when referencing international sides - which I thought was fairly clearly referencing England - on top of a comment he made about wanting evolution of game plans not revolution, more directly referencing England...

[Kawazaki]

On a different note, the BBC rugby pod has an episode with Stuart Lancaster. It's a good one, a genuinely interesting chat. Obviously quite Ireland focused and a chunk of stating the bleeding obvious, but there's some gems in there. It also was interesting to me just how often he mentioned "continuity/stability of coaching teams" as a path to success when referencing international sides - which I thought was fairly clearly referencing England - on top of a comment he made about wanting evolution of game plans not revolution, more directly referencing England...

Was that a recent episode?

Lancaster had to go after 2015. He's clearly a good bloke, trustworthy, genuine and a very good coach. He just lost faith in himself at the crucial moment when selecting his squad for 2015 - maybe he had somebody in his ear pushing for certain things but if he did he's never thrown them under the bus.

[sockwithaticket]

On a different note, the BBC rugby pod has an episode with Stuart Lancaster. It's a good one, a genuinely interesting chat. Obviously quite Ireland focused and a chunk of stating the bleeding obvious, but there's some gems in there. It also was interesting to me just how often he mentioned "continuity/stability of coaching teams" as a path to success when referencing international sides - which I thought was fairly clearly referencing England - on top of a comment he made about wanting evolution of game plans not revolution, more directly referencing England...

Was that a recent episode?

Lancaster had to go after 2015. He's clearly a good bloke, trustworthy, genuine and a very good coach. He just lost faith in himself at the crucial moment when selecting his squad for 2015 - maybe he had somebody in his ear pushing for certain things but if he did he's never thrown them under the bus.

It's just come out.

Our physical preparation more than any selection decisions let us down. The training camps focused on making everyone leaner and faster, but it really meant we just looked knackered and more capable of being outmuscled by teams we''d previously been out-muscling.

[Paddington Bear]

On a different note, the BBC rugby pod has an episode with Stuart Lancaster. It's a good one, a genuinely interesting chat. Obviously quite Ireland focused and a chunk of stating the bleeding obvious, but there's some gems in there. It also was interesting to me just how often he mentioned "continuity/stability of coaching teams" as a path to success when referencing international sides - which I thought was fairly clearly referencing England - on top of a comment he made about wanting evolution of game plans not revolution, more directly referencing England...

Was that a recent episode?

Lancaster had to go after 2015. He's clearly a good bloke, trustworthy, genuine and a very good coach. He just lost faith in himself at the crucial moment when selecting his squad for 2015 - maybe he had somebody in his ear pushing for certain things but if he did he's never thrown them under the bus.

The bored FACT at the time was that it was all Faz's fault, which given their working relationship now seems to be exposed for the shite it always clearly was.

[Oxbow]

It's just been announced that Saints have signed Angus Scott-Young from Queensland Reds. Can't say I know anything about him but apparently he's English-qualified, so Eddie will be all over him, maaaate.

[SaintK]

On a different note, the BBC rugby pod has an episode with Stuart Lancaster. It's a good one, a genuinely interesting chat. Obviously quite Ireland focused and a chunk of stating the bleeding obvious, but there's some gems in there. It also was interesting to me just how often he mentioned "continuity/stability of coaching teams" as a path to success when referencing international sides - which I thought was fairly clearly referencing England - on top of a comment he made about wanting evolution of game plans not revolution, more directly referencing England...

Was that a recent episode?

Lancaster had to go after 2015. He's clearly a good bloke, trustworthy, genuine and a very good coach. He just lost faith in himself at the crucial moment when selecting his squad for 2015 - maybe he had somebody in his ear pushing for certain things but if he did he's never thrown them under the bus.

The bored FACT at the time was that it was all Faz's fault, which given their working relationship now seems to be exposed for the shite it always clearly was.

Problem was he had far too much on his plate. He was responsible for a host of other things as well as just the senior England mens team. My ,mate who was at the RFU as an elite coach during Lancaster's time said he really couldn't cope with all the other areas he was responsible for. and they were a distraction.
He'd probably do a good job as the DoR type figure that Woodward was going on about that the head England coach should report to at the RFU rather than the CEO

[Paddington Bear]

Was that a recent episode?

Lancaster had to go after 2015. He's clearly a good bloke, trustworthy, genuine and a very good coach. He just lost faith in himself at the crucial moment when selecting his squad for 2015 - maybe he had somebody in his ear pushing for certain things but if he did he's never thrown them under the bus.

The bored FACT at the time was that it was all Faz's fault, which given their working relationship now seems to be exposed for the shite it always clearly was.

Problem was he had far too much on his plate. He was responsible for a host of other things as well as just the senior England mens team. My ,mate who was at the RFU as an elite coach during Lancaster's time said he really couldn't cope with all the other areas he was responsible for. and they were a distraction.
He'd probably do a good job as the DoR type figure that Woodward was going on about that the head England coach should report to at the RFU rather than the CEO

Yes he's a good man and a good coach but the question at the time and remains was whether he had the stomach for what the England top job entails, and I think we got our answer at the 15 WC.

[Raggs]

Bored fact simply had Faz making calls in place of Lancaster. But the RWC was clear we looked weak in the forwards, as well as muddled in the backline with the league convert.

Pretty much the only forward to look halfway decent in the warmup games, and not completely shagged, was Haskell, who then barely got a look in for the world cup itself.

[sockwithaticket]

Yes he's a good man and a good coach but the question at the time and remains was whether he had the stomach for what the England top job entails, and I think we got our answer at the 15 WC.

I don't think that's what 2015 indicated at all. He made an error with the strength and conditioning approach. That's not a lack of stomach for the role.

I'll always wonder what might have been if he'd been given a second chance. Clive and Graham Henry both got another shot at a world cup with their teams and won the thing on the next go. Henry's All Blacks in '07 only went one step further into the competition than Lancaster's England.

[Kawazaki]

Yes he's a good man and a good coach but the question at the time and remains was whether he had the stomach for what the England top job entails, and I think we got our answer at the 15 WC.

I don't think that's what 2015 indicated at all. He made an error with the strength and conditioning approach. That's not a lack of stomach for the role.

I'll always wonder what might have been if he'd been given a second chance. Clive and Graham Henry both got another shot at a world cup with their teams and won the thing on the next go. Henry's All Blacks in '07 only went one step further into the competition than Lancaster's England.

Nah, for England to not make it out of their pool is bad enough but to do it while playing all your big matches at Twickenham? That's unforgivable.

[Lobby]

Yes he's a good man and a good coach but the question at the time and remains was whether he had the stomach for what the England top job entails, and I think we got our answer at the 15 WC.

I don't think that's what 2015 indicated at all. He made an error with the strength and conditioning approach. That's not a lack of stomach for the role.

I'll always wonder what might have been if he'd been given a second chance. Clive and Graham Henry both got another shot at a world cup with their teams and won the thing on the next go. Henry's All Blacks in '07 only went one step further into the competition than Lancaster's England.

Suggesting that he only made an error with conditioning is being extremely generous to him. He got pretty much everything wrong including selection and tactics as well as strength and conditioning.

[Raggs]

Yes he's a good man and a good coach but the question at the time and remains was whether he had the stomach for what the England top job entails, and I think we got our answer at the 15 WC.

I don't think that's what 2015 indicated at all. He made an error with the strength and conditioning approach. That's not a lack of stomach for the role.

I'll always wonder what might have been if he'd been given a second chance. Clive and Graham Henry both got another shot at a world cup with their teams and won the thing on the next go. Henry's All Blacks in '07 only went one step further into the competition than Lancaster's England.

I think he made more errors than that, but it was the strength and conditioning that sunk him. Maybe the other last minute changes to strategy (we change often with him) were positive, rather than negative.

I'd view the comments about evolution/revolution as potentially self reflective, just as much as a comment on Eddie. Depending on how you want to argue, Eddie has done better in 6N, and vastly better in the world cup, than Lancaster did.

That said, I'd be more than happy to see Lancaster return.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Pretty much the only forward to look halfway decent in the warmup games, and not completely shagged, was Haskell, who then barely got a look in for the world cup itself.

At least history sort of got to repeat itself there as the best forward going into the 2011 WC (at least based on the 2011 6N) was Haskell who then barely got a look in

[Niegs]

That Lancaster chat is here for download, btw: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0bzlsl2

[JM2K6]

Yes he's a good man and a good coach but the question at the time and remains was whether he had the stomach for what the England top job entails, and I think we got our answer at the 15 WC.

I don't think that's what 2015 indicated at all. He made an error with the strength and conditioning approach. That's not a lack of stomach for the role.

I'll always wonder what might have been if he'd been given a second chance. Clive and Graham Henry both got another shot at a world cup with their teams and won the thing on the next go. Henry's All Blacks in '07 only went one step further into the competition than Lancaster's England.

Suggesting that he only made an error with conditioning is being extremely generous to him. He got pretty much everything wrong including selection and tactics as well as strength and conditioning.

What selection decisions did he get wrong? Taking a look at that Wales game, and, well. The back three were the best in the country. Barritt was a fixture, Burgess was parachuted in but didn't seem to be the problem on the day. Farrell at 10 had his ups and downs under Lancaster but I don't remember whether he had serious opposition from Ford at that point or whether Farrell starting was the right call. Youngs was in a period of being decent. Marler, Youngs, Cole was a decent front row - don't think there were better available at the time. Parling was good, Lawes is Lawes, maybe Launchbury should've been starting. Wood/Robshaw/Vunipola had elevated England's play at the breakdown under Lancaster but IIRC Wood's form had dropped off a cliff so perhaps Haskell should've started. Haskell/Robshaw/Vunipola were pretty dominant under Eddie.

The bench is uglier and IMO substitutions played a big role in our Wales defeat. Ford coming on for Burgess was a mistake turning a winning position into a losing one, Wigglesworth was too slow for international rugby and it showed. Rob Webber was a nobody. With Brown starting, Goode on the bench was an odd call as he only covered 15, which Watson also covered, so whoever was a flexible midfield/wing option should've taken that spot.

Thanks to injuries, the Aussie game saw Barritt at 12 and Joseph at 13, a more balanced pairing, but we got gubbed early on anyway. Launchbury came in for Lawes. Ben Morgan came in for a broken Billy, Easter on the bench. Wood was shite against Wales and should've been dropped, but then he had a decent performance against Aus and Robshaw had a poor one compared to the Wales game. Ford came on just after half time after May got injured and we ended up with Ford - Farrell - Barritt again. Faz got himself binned for a bad tackle. IMO the biggest question to answer from this game was why the hell we started so flat and were so panicky.

Tactically, what were we doing wrong that wasn't intrinsically tied to being overpowered by the oppopsition? I'm not being facetious, because I largely don't remember our tactical approach in these games and how it varied vs the successful 6N, I only remember us getting battered in contact. Good luck winning from there. You could argue with some justification looking at how those matches went that Ford 10 / Farrell 12 should've been the way to go, and that's fair enough but it also would've meant Barritt at 13 and that worked very poorly indeed.

[Margin__Walker]

England v Wales in the U18 6N live now