Lancaster is starting to worry me

From the start let me say that I am not doing the usual media thing and jumping on him after one loss. I think he still has the potential to be a great coach for us but a couple of things about him are starting to worry me.

I've said before that his lack of ruthlessness and loyaly to certain players is effecting the balance of the team and the bench. Examples previously being (in my opinion) playing Barrett and Farrell in the centres rather than dropping one of them, and having Brown on the bench simply (again in my opinion) as he was unlucky not to be starting.

Today though I was really disappointed with his tactical use of the bench. If the players turned out to be injured or seriously fatigued I'll apologise but the substitutions of Hartley, Marler and Morgan just smacked of schoolboy coaching where you are just trying to make sure everyone has a game. We were very much still in the game when these changes were made and the impact on the scrum/forwards was visible to me. Probably wouldn't have made an impact on the result but didn't help in my opinion. To be honest I have no idea what Mears was even doing on the bench. Everyone knows he can't hack it at this level, why not take a chance with a youngster who actually has the potential to be a game changer? (credit where credit is due he has been doing this with other players Marler, Morgan etc)

I give him 6 more months on the job, you guys really missed a trick not picking Mallett I feel. Lancaster is too conservative, and why he didn't have Flood on in the starting lineup is beyond me (although being a Scottish fan haven't paid too much attention, but I know Owen Farell is about as boring a player as his dad) and Toby Flood has been an excellent player for England.

Also Brown on the bench was a bit of a strange choice too considering he's been on top form for Quins, but again, I'm no English rugby expert! I think Lancaster will have a similar tenure to Ashton, brief and uninteresting with some fairly standard wins.

I said it was the wrong appointment at the time. I don;t think he's doing a bad job...with the dreadful selections he's making. But therein lies the problem.

He's made us better at the breakdown defensively, the set-piece looked ok until today, but we still have the same old problem of slow ball and abject backs with zero creativity.

Oh and the use of subs today was shocking. Really truly shocking. We needed an experienced Head Coach and a Backs Coach with real invention. Lancaster and Catt will not provide this.

PDJ for Marler and Mears for Hartely effectively killed is off. Neither should be anywhere near the first team. Morgan looked knackered and drifted out of the game, but a player like Dowson doesn't have the physicality for this level.

Brown did start...

My worrry is Lancaster post match interview.

First question "What do you feel about the performance of England?"

He replies "Oh tremendous pride!..." and go on to talk about accurate execute the game plan!

Well I'm sorry but England lose! should not be feel "pride" at this time. For team #4 in the world lost to team #3 in the world.

Time to stop spin and show some honest:

"Tremendous devastated! To not win the game and we could have win!"

This is what he should be say and it makes a bad leadership to the team who thinking lose a little bit is still to be proud about it.

SL is fast becoming a more conservative version of Jonno. Flood is currently the best FH in the NH but still can’t buy a start for England. When he becomes the 1st choice Lion SL is going to look a burke. Mears and PDJ against the SA front row – he’s havin’ a Turkish, me and my mum would look more threatening.

Some very valid points...

Marler not as good as corbs yet corbs is Englands heaviest.
Second row too lightweight.
Farrell not good.enough
Ashton not good enough

We nearly won.
We were physically under powered
Barritt is class
Tuilagi is class...just need a playmaker like flood to direct them

Barney McGrew did it wrote: Flood is currently the best FH in the NH but still can’t buy a start for England..

Really? Sexton, Preistland, laidlaw, Weir?

How did Barritt play today, I haven't seen the game so was he attacking enough or was Farrell to blame for the lack of attacking impetus?

TJ wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote: Flood is currently the best FH in the NH but still can’t buy a start for England..

Really? Sexton, Preistland, laidlaw, Weir?

Internationally, I think he is better than Preistland and Sexton and more successful than Laidlaw and Weir (although thats not to say Laidlaw isn't better, its just hard to compare the two)

Isnt the reason that Flood was on the bench is because he as only just come back from injury?

Also i am not to sure that i like the idea of BOTH Foden and Brown on the field at the same time. Surely we have some one who could come on and play in and play on the wing, a true winger?

Brown played alright to day, Foden did not to bad but i think it would of bean better if one or the other was on the bench and the othe play in the position that they are used to playing.

Some changes needed for the next game, Young's on the bench and maybe Care to start.

TJ wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote: Flood is currently the best FH in the NH but still can’t buy a start for England..

Really? Sexton, Preistland, laidlaw, Weir?

Unquestionably so. Although Sexton would be a strong 2nd.

Shoit fellas.....how quick? SA? Away? youngest team ever to go there, (caps wise)?, close game? You all tick so many boxes of stereotypical blowhards tapping at a keyboard.

LET THE BLOKE HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE A TEAM!! Jeesus, you all must be mail readers.

ultra wrote:Shoit fellas.....how quick? SA? Away? youngest team ever to go there, (caps wise)?, close game? You all tick so many boxes of stereotypical blowhards tapping at a keyboard.

LET THE BLOKE HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE A TEAM!! Jeesus, you all must be mail readers.

I totaly agree with that 100/%

Lancaster

He said: "I was happy with the endeavour and the effort we put in from the first minute until the 80th minute. [It was a] very positive first-half performance, accurate in a lot of areas and it was that third quarter where the Springboks got on top of us a bit and it's very hard when they get that momentum. [The players are] disappointed because it's one we could have won.

"Certainly in the first half we were the better side and we played some good rugby but we weren't on top in the scoreboard. But they had that period at the start of the second half and put us under real pressure.

Oh dear - its the deluded coach again

England never looked like winning, at no point looked the better side, didn't creat anything much

Do these coaches think we are fools? do they think we are not able to see what is going on?

Reading over Dan coles words from the telegraph the other day is hilarious,
He said he was going to have the beast for breakfast and they are sick of hearing about South Africa forwards being powerful because they are not, who cares about the south African pack because we are england and this is the england pack! They should fear us.

As someone who knows a thing or two about actual physical strength, believe me, the south african pack were no beastial freaks.......Marler struggled scrum time but apart from that we matched 'em power wise....and the hype over 'the BEAST is unbelievable..........although they did get a penalty through him i suppose...when he dropped his jumper!

SA, were more clinical, more experienced and better tuned. I don't think we'll win a match now, but I think our pack will have 'THE BEASTS' for breakfast......'cept maybe that SA hooker. He's actually very good strength wise

Experience? South Africa give out more first caps than england today.

We were (if not by much) the better side in the first half, I believe that wholeheartedly. I don't think Lancaster is at all deluded to say so. Neutral fans agreed but it sounds like we were outclassed in the 2nd

viewtothegym wrote:Experience? South Africa give out more first caps than england today.

Ha Ha Ha You just have to have a dig. Didn't you?

No way were England the better side in the first half. Yes they did well at the breakdown disrupting and stealing but they simply didn't create chances and didn't look like doing so

You need to be honest in your appraisal. England were second best all game, slow and stodgy and uncreative.

Until the players coaches and fans stop deluding themselves then they will not improve

ultra wrote:As someone who knows a thing or two about actual physical strength, believe me, the south african pack were no beastial freaks.......Marler struggled scrum time but apart from that we matched 'em power wise....and the hype over 'the BEAST is unbelievable..........although they did get a penalty through him i suppose...when he dropped his jumper!

Inclined to agree. Doesn't carry very far for a beast. Manu and Alberts were far more beastly.

I think its far too early to start the tabloid tear down personally. I thought England were good today and very competitive with a squad that is still finding its feet. Surprised at the negativity, especially after the Johnson fiascos. Short memories people!

viewtothegym wrote:Experience? South Africa give out more first caps than england today.

Our highest capped player was Hartley with 34????

The Boks had numerous players with more caps than that, how many does De Villiers have? Habana? Spies?

Yeah....SA far more experienced team...I try to be completley objective as far as my first love, (rugby), goes but some folks want to make it something else. This england side was the most inexperienced, caps wise - as a TEAM - to venture down to the southern reaches for a long, long time (I will check but it might be EVER in the proffesional era). You want to de-value this and start coach shooting....ok, go ahead. Says a lot more about you than you realise
There is a chance Mr Lancaster just might know a bit more about rugby than the majority of us? No? Just a little chance?

TJ wrote:No way were England the better side in the first half. Yes they did well at the breakdown disrupting and stealing but they simply didn't create chances and didn't look like doing so

You need to be honest in your appraisal. England were second best all game, slow and stodgy and uncreative.

Until the players coaches and fans stop deluding themselves then they will not improve

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree

I would never be anything other than honest in my appraisal because there is never an advantage in lying to yourself, but obviously I am susceptible to bias with regards to England's performance in this match. We have different opinions but we won't learn anything about who was right until the sides play again

Well, I thought the teams were pretty evenly matched for the first 40 - 50 minutes. After that the Boks began to get the edge. And the England subs, excepting Flood and Dickson, were below the level of the Boks subs.

How one evaluates parity or simply compares usually comes from the things one looks for. And we all see things a bit differently. So, as England supporters let's not squabble over where we might have been even or worse. Where were we better? Where can we get better? These are the only points which matter now.

doctor_grey wrote:How one evaluates parity or simply compares usually comes from the things one looks for. And we all see things a bit differently. So, as England supporters let's not squabble over where we might have been even or worse. Where were we better? Where can we get better? These are the only points which matter now.

Good post.