Downton, Clarke and Lancaster Bombing

This is a cricket blog, so I never really get to express my love of rugby union. If the England cricket team is my first love, then Worcester Warriors – another team that have given me a rollercoaster ride over the years – are my second. You could say I’m married to both.

I was lucky enough to be at Twickenham last weekend to see England lose to Wales. I say ‘lucky’ because the atmosphere was superb, it was a great day out, and I’m half Welsh.

However, I felt very sad at the prospect of England (another team I’ve supported through thick and thin over the years) being knocked out at the group stages of their own world cup. We’ll need to beat Australia, the current southern hemisphere champions, on Saturday to progress. Not an impossible task, but pretty effing close to it.

Although Stuart Lancaster and his captain Chris Robshaw can still save their tournament, I have to admit I’m not a particular fan of either. Lancaster seems like a nice chap, but he was insanely fortunate to land the England job. I really despaired when the RFU appointed him because he simply doesn’t have the credentials or experience needed for the job.

Here’s a quick recap in case you don’t know his story. It’s a bit of a Mike Bassett fairytale if I’m being honest with you.

A few years ago Lancaster was a rookie coach at Leeds. He got his side promoted from the championship (that’s the second tier) in his first season but his second season was a nightmare. Leeds won just two games all season and were relegated.

Rather than getting sacked however, Lancaster was offered a job at the RFU coaching young players. He took it. I suppose you could call him a bit of a Gareth Southgate – a novice club manager with a dodgy record who found a niche at the sport’s governing body.

As Lancaster is a likeable soul who works hard, he began to make friends and influence people. When Martin Johnson was sacked after England’s poor showing at the last World Cup (although he won the Six Nations championship beforehand), the RFU decided it needed a few months to find a successor. Heaven knows why but that’s what they decided.

There was just one problem: the Six Nations started in a few weeks time so they needed a caretaker. As Lancaster was already at the RFU and not contracted to a premiership club (none of whom would have wanted him anyway given his inexperience and previous lack of success) the former Leeds boss was in the right place and the right time.

After leading England to victories in the games they normally win anyway (Scotland at home etc), but not actually winning the Six Nations, the RFU confused the ‘new manager bounce’ that most teams experience in all sports, with Lancaster being some kind of alchemist. Yes, they really are that stupid.

Even though experienced international coaches like Nick Mallet and Jake White (who had actually won the World Cup with South Africa) applied for the position, the RFU made Lancaster the permanent boss – even though his CV showed just two premiership wins in his entire career, zero victories in the top tier of European rugby, and an empty trophy cabinet.

And what were the press doing when all this happened? They were charmed by Lancaster’s personality, fooled by a load of management speak and became enamoured with his patriotic cliches. They welcomed his appointment enthusiastically. The numpties.

But why is this relevant to cricket you may ask? Well, it’s because Giles Clarke and Paul Downton quickly became signed up members of the Stuart Lancaster fan club too.

They proclaimed Lancaster’s England as a model they’d like to emulate after the Ashes whitewash. One wonders if they did their research. Lancaster still hasn’t won the Six Nations. Perhaps they liked his penchant for axing talented rebels like Danny Cipriani, Dylan Hartley and Manu Tuilagi. Apparently these wild children can’t be accommodated in the England team, even though they’re bloody good, because it would set a bad example and undermine team spirit. Kevin *cough* Pietersen *cough *.

Here’s some quotes from the big man, Clarke, himself. You can read the full article here.

Lancaster has done a fantastic job. In a very short space of time, he has sorted out English rugby. He’s talked the language of teams that Paul Downton and I like very much.

I really hope England can prove everyone wrong tomorrow. We have a decent record against Australia at home, so anything is possible. However, as the England rugby team stand on the brink of elimination from their own world cup, it’s interesting to reflect on Clarke and Downton’s wisdom.

As Peter Moores proved (twice), management speak and impressing at interview are no substitute for knowledge, intuition and experience. At least Peter Moores had won more than two matches in his domestic league though.

James Morgan

@DoctorCopy

34 comments

  • As a rugby fan your comments are true but a bit harsh. Lancaster did bring an ethos to the team that seemed to be lacking under Johnson. (That too was a poor choice pandering to the media and general public) Lancaster did oversee an improvement in England’s play and generally they have been on an upward curve with new talent coming to the fore which he has helped developed.
    The questions is he the man to take the team further into being world champions? It does not look like the case, that said we have to wait for the result v Australia before we can make that judgement. I think this world cup was always going to be his benchmark.

    • The strange thing for me is that they gave Lancaster a huge contract extension until 2019 a couple of years ago, even though he’s yet to win the Six Nations. The RFU obviously didn’t think they needed to wait and see how the World Cup went first. The FA made exactly the same mistake with both Sven and Capello and were then forced to make huge pay offs after sacking them.

      In my opinion England haven’t improved much, if at all, under Lancaster. There was a small bounce to begin with, but we still didn’t beat anyone we weren’t supposed to. We blew numerous key games in the six nations and the there were extenuating circumstances in the solitary win against the all blacks. Half their squad was ill a couple of days before the game if I recall.

      Anyway, as you say the final chapter has yet to be written and I’d love nothing more than to stuff the Aussies today!

  • In addition the biggest mistake was going for Brian Ashton when Warren Gatland was free having left Wasps. His record at Wasp was second to none but the hierarchy at ERFC head quarters did not want Johnny Foreigner in charge. Best man for the job? Don’t be daft. We need the right sort here at HQ…

    • Totally agree. I was a massive fan of Gatland at the time. Still am. Creds coming out of his ears.

  • Thanks. Had no idea about Lancaster’s background as don’t really follow but that is a big worry.

    I really hope we don’t lose tomorrow. Imagine going out of a home world cup before the knockout stages? Has the England song been released yet or is that due for Monday?

  • I’m a casual rugby fan. One thing that has been encouraging is the emergence of a number of very promising young players during SL’s reign. The next few years – if he’s around for them – may see him cash in on an gelling team.

    The worry is that coming into this World Cup the amount of chopping and changing suggests he doesn’t know his best team, maybe the flipside of many options emerging. Some forced on him with injuries etc. but I saw a ridiculous statistic about how many different backline line-ups had been used in the last 12 months.

    He may not have deserved the job in the first place but it’s fairer to judge him post-WC. I hope England pull something out of the bag tomorrow because I’d like to see him continue – I don’t think he’s done too badly.

    I think the point about those three players is a bit harsh – for my money Hartley only has himself to blame and I quite admire SL for having the balls to follow through and axe him – I believe he had received a warning before? I’m less aware of the situation with Tuliagi but thought it was something similar? World Cup games are high pressure events and Hartley getting himself sent off is exactly what England would not need. True the team probably suffers for his absence but could conceivably suffer a lot more for his presence. If there’s one sport where discipline is especially important it’s rugby.

    • I can understand the stance on Hartley. He could easily get a yellow at a key moment. Tuilagi was done for drunk driving I think (a few months ago). Lancaster decided that criminals shouldn’t be involved in his England side. Drink driving is incredibly bad, and cannot be condoned, but I’m not sure whether it’s right to punish someone in their professional career for something that happened off the field. Mike Tindall was also done for drunk driving although the circumstances were a bit different.

      I don’t agree with the no foreign based players rule either by the way. I think it’s very expedient considering that armitage plays robshaw’s position. I’d have thought that picking the best flanker Europe in a home World Cup counts as extraordinary circumstances. We kept picking Wilkinson when he moved to France. Why not the last two European players of the year? But that’s a whole other debate :-) and I can see both sides of the argument. The strength of a nation’s domestic league has little impact on their national team. Just look at France (in both football and rugby).

  • James
    Not often I disagree with you on cricket but it looks like there may be in rugby! Firstly you’re spot on with regards Lanny being an honest hard working coach and a real gentleman.
    The phrase “insanely fortunate” is unfair – Lancaster did an impressive job of developing an academy at leeds bringing through the likes of Danny Care, Jordan Crane, Burrel and many others. His record at Leeds has to be set against the backdrop of other yo yo clubs (many clubs coming up win only one or two matches), a county that has never braced the union side, a continual loss of its top players and lack of investment when Caddick was tightening the purse strings.
    Lancaster also performed well with the Saxons continuing to develop players.
    One can argue he was certainly in the right place at the right time when the top job came up but let’s not forget the utter shambles and embarrassment that English rugby was in when he took over. Stuart’s character and beliefs were fundamental in restoring some pride in pulling on the shirt and reconnecting with clubs and public.
    The comparison of Harltey/Tuilagi to KP is unfair. I’m a huge of KP and his exclusion is still unjustified (in my view) but Lancaster has excluded one guy facing a police charge and one servicing a lengthy sentence from the game – not the same.
    Lancaster has undoubtedly got shortcomings in terms of experience but I had hoped that these had been filled by the team he built around him…huge amounts of experience in the back room staff. I also don’t always buy you need to have been there and done in and draw examples of Woodward, Wenger, Ferguson and Buchanan – none of them tearing up trees as players or coaches.
    Having said all that this England side is struggling to kick on to the next level but a lot of those questions seem to lie with the lack of leaders out there (the capitulation on Saturday should have been stopped by on field leaders) and a lack of truly world class players.
    Lancaster is the leader who like Woodward looks to create the right environment to play in and manage the preparation. Unlike Woodward the biggest difference he doesn’t have a Johnson, a Hill, a Wilkinson, a Tindall, a Dallaglio who drags you other the line. One or two of those last Saturday and we would be sitting with two wins.

    • Hi mate. I don’t believe Lancaster should’ve been appointed because he lacks the tactical credentials. He’s been found wanting in this area, although he obviously has considerable strengths in other areas. I’m not saying he’s a bad coach by any means, but I don’t think he was the best man for the job at the time.

      I completely take your point about developing young players, but I don’t believe being a good youth coach makes you a good manager at the top level. There’s much more emphasis on game planning and strategy etc. I think there are parallels with Peter Moores here. A very good coach whose strength lies in coaching up younger players. But when it came to winning internationals his lack of top level experience was really shown up.

      However, as I say above, the Lancaster fairytale could still have a happy ending. I don’t like criticising such a likeable bloke and I hope he rams these words down my throat!!!

      My wife’s cousin manages Laura Wright (the girl who sings the national anthems). She says Lancaster is a really good guy. Polite and attentive. I really hope we can pull of a win against Australia.

      • Yes I see your parallel with Moores and maybe that final x% of experience/nous that may be lacking could cost us.
        But it would be interesting to understand the input that Farrell, Catt etc have in to tactics. Are they pulling their weight? I do wonder how much influence Farrell has with both his lad and RL Burgess playing last Sat. Appreciate if it’s a strong influence then Lanny may being influenced too easily.
        There is a lack of game management on the pitch too….possible similarity to the England cricket when players were unable to think themselves during the Flower/Moores reign.
        Yep spot on re the bloke…friend of a friend and only hear good things about him.
        Here’s hoping for that fairy tale!

  • There isn’t a Pietersen situation with Lancaster where the decisions made are so appalling that even those of us on the outside can see the arse-covering, self-preservation and naked contempt for the fans clearly; but there have been a number of decisions that make you a bit suspicious.

    The appointment of Lancaster, for a start – you’re a bit unfair on him, in that it was the total dominance of England U20s that got him the job rather than his club coaching, but the subsequent performances of the U20s have shown that this dominance had very little to do with his coaching.

    And then the decisions – an “exceptional circumstances” clause allows you to pick players from France, but seemingly the European rugby player of the year (2014) playing in a position (breakdown-specialist back row) where we either have no players or, being generous, no back-up in case of injury, isn’t exceptional enough. Ford is dropped as soon as the pressure’s on. Wade’s the best attacking wing in the northern hemisphere but isn’t even in the 45-man training squad. England look like they have no idea how to score points when the game’s going against them. Lots of talk of guts and leadership and heart, and not much about brilliance, intelligence, or winning.

    I still think we’ll beat Australia – but we’ve got potentially the best generation of England rugby players of all time coming through, and it would be a crying shame if Lancaster was still in charge of them after this world cup.

  • Enjoyed reading this article, love my rugby too so it was a real unexpected treat to come across it on here! The information on Lanc’s background and pedigree was a bit of an eye-opener, and not in a good way. I knew that he, like Johnno before him, was new to the International coaching scene but didn’t realise he was quite that inexperienced. This untimely revelation hasn’t exactly lifted my spirits for Saturday evening! And that Clarke quote reads like the very antithesis of a ringing endorsement…

    That being said, elsewhere I think you have been unfair to him and inaccurate about his achievements. The ramshackle squad that he inherited in disarray with a couple of weeks to work with ended up mounting a very credible 6N campaign, including three AWAY victories against Scotland, Italy and France. They demolished Ireland at HQ and actually came within a whisker of securing a Grand Slam, missing out due to a tight home game against Wales that they were pretty unlucky to lose. So he had a fair bit of momentum behind him when it came down to deciding on the full-time position. I had just read Jake White’s excellent autobiography and wanted him (or Mallet actually) to get it, but I can see why they took a punt on Lancaster after a very decent start.

    And I have no idea why you are comparing his dealings with Tuilagi, Hartley and Cipriani with Pietersen’s ridiculous sacking? Manu pleaded guilty to assaulting two police officers and a taxi driver (and was out of the WC due to injury anyway), Dylan stupidly got himself banned AGAIN which ruled him out of the warm ups and Fiji game, while Danny was unlucky that his position in the squad as third fly half was effectively taken and shared by two utility backs, Goode and Slade. Personally I would have taken him, but it’s a judgement call not a conspiracy. Johnson was the coach that seemed to take issue with him, not Lancaster. Their effect on team spirit has not been mentioned, so to compare their ‘axings’ with KP feels like a lazy stretch to be honest!

    • On a tangent, have you guys ever considered recording a Full Toss podcast? I’ve really enjoyed reading the blog over the years, as well as the odd audio interview. Think it could be a winner, although I guess finding the time would be an issue as it sounds like you both have young families. i’d certainly listen to it though, bet you would have some great debates with each other!

      • Cheers mate! I appreciate that the KP parallels aren’t exact bit there are some. Call is one for the galleries :-) I didn’t really have time to get into a more detailed analysis.

        We’ve often talked about doing a podcast. Maxie is a freelance tv and radio producer so he’d certainly known what to do. Perhaps we’ll do one in the future. Finding the time is tough at the moment though.

        • I think there are similarities, but they predate Lancaster’s appointment. It’s part of a wider, longstanding culture in England, one in which flair and talent are frequently rejected in favour of stout yeoman qualities. One can’t help feeling that Cipriani, handled correctly, could and should have been the type of stellar talent that you build a team around for years to come. Alas, we’ll never know.

        • Agreed, the parallels are there.

          The obsession with team culture above individual ability (and the failure to realise that culture often follows success rather than creating it); the sacred cow captain, who isn’t really up to the job; the utter suspicion of individual flair.

          Reading the post-mortems, it seems that Lancaster’s greatest fault was possibly in not standing up to his nominally subordinate coaches. Had he done so, we might have seen Steffon Armitage picked (another Pietersen/IPL parallel), and also the premature experiment with an inexperienced RL convert canned.

  • Excellent article. There are similarities between the RWC 2015 and the CWC of 1999 with England’s looming exit

    I recommend you look up Gordon D’Arcy’s article in the Irish Times on Thursday on Burgess’ inability to play inside centre..google it…one of the best pieces of sporting analysis ever…

    • Thanks mate. I have indeed read the article in question. I actually thought England fell apart after Burgess went off, but I found his initial selection very confusing. Bath have a great coaching set up and they think Burgess is a flanker. I can’t believe we went into such a big game with a 10, 12 & 13 who had never played together before. Just madness. Injuries didn’t help though.

  • Yet another curious example of team spirit being privileged over winning. Curious and curiouser. Welcome the the new England where nothing is as it seems.

    I’ve been disappointed by Lancaster. I was pleased when he was given the job as an antidote to Johnson. I thought that just for once, an English body was challenging the the deluded notion that great players make great coaches. Then I read about all the patriotic claptrap, the management speech, the army etc etc. It’s all tedious in the extreme.

    Here’s an idea, one appropriate to all team sports: pick your best players, establish a pattern of play and a set of rules but give players the freedom to challenge ideas and rules, to work problems out for themselves. I think back to the great Liverpool sides of the 1970s and 80s and see players solving problems all over the pitch. When I watch sports or visit workplaces today I see players and staff trained to within an inch of their lives; constantly regulated and self-regulated; afraid to take responsibility outside the areas of specialism. It’s terrifying and the results speak for themselves.

  • I’ve generally been quite pleased with Lancaster. His team selections have by-and-large been sensible and defensible, and the team have been playing significantly better rugby than they were in the years before him taking over. Rugby is a 30 man game nowadays, and I thought he did a good job of making us less reliant on a “first choice” fifteen.

    Its also really not his fault that two of his most important players forced him to drop them from the squad for stupidity.

    However, his teams do have a habit of suddenly freezing in big games, hence the reason we never win anything. I think he’ll step aside after the world cup, and someone else may get the best out of the young squad that he has assembled.

    • No fairytale unfortunately.
      However, this morning I feel incredibly optimistic about the future. If Lanny steps down or is moved on we are blessed with a huge list of ex players and fans/students/experts of the game who are all ready to step in and do a far better job. I hasten to add this comment is not directed at this site but some of the garbage I’ve read elsewhere.

  • Inverdale reckoned that England’s early exit could cost the tournament as much as half a billion.

    I trust they’ll respond in the manner pioneered by cricket and rig the format of the next one so that it can’t happen again.

  • They’re not going to sack him, are they? Total, unmitigated failure over a four year period, but he talks the right kind of bollocks so he’s going to be given another four years. God I hope I’m wrong.

  • May I suggest something revolutionary?
    That as much fun as it is to engage in the old English game of “blame the coach”, getting stuffed by 20 points at home rather proves that regardless of who he picked, our players just aren’t (yet) good enough. And that is the issue. Similarly, as much as Lancaster was blamed for the Wales loss, the fact is that we were 22-12 up and the responsibility rests with the players (whichever ones they are) to close that game out. Lancaster does many things but he doesn’t make tackles, throw passes or kick for goal.
    I’m not suggesting that he should (or will) keep his job – but at what point do we accept that primary responsibility for performance lies with players? I must have read over 50 headlines and articles blaming Lancaster for all sorts over the last week and not one suggesting that maybe (just maybe) our players ain’t as good as we thought they were, or at least as hardened and experienced as they needed to be. And there is a limit to how much any coach can do if his players just aren’t quite good enough.
    I know I’m comparing apples and oranges here – but look at football. We’ve tried rookie coaches, experienced coaches – and the best available international coaches. And every tournament we’re horrible. That level of consistent under-performance cannot just be down to the England manager. There’s something intrinsic in elite England teams that seems to often make them punch below their weight – as opposed, say, to Australian teams who can usually be relied on to be greater than the sum of their parts.
    I’m damned if I know what that intrinsic factor is. If I knew I’d be telling people and getting paid a fortune – but I’d venture to suggest it’s a lot more complicated than “sack the coach”.

  • I think you will find the players will be criticised just as much as Lancaster, but for here we are talking about the coaches in Cricket and Rugby. Wales? Lancaster made the substitutions and failed to change the pattern of play. He set out a defensive team and paid the price. In response to an earlier comment about Burgess v Wales, I thought England played worse when he went off too.
    Against Australia he failed to negate the Australian back row. There seemed no game plan for them. This has been a glaring weakness for England over the last few years yet Lancaster has not addressed that issue.
    The big games are decided by tactics and strategy. The best teams do not always win. McGeechan’s victory for the Lions in South Africa showed that. Lancaster has shown that this is his Achilles heel here and has been out thought consistently at the top level.
    I do not think he has done a bad job, but it is time to move on. I cannot see things improving as they are.

    • Bob,

      “The big games are decided by tactics and strategy”.

      I guess this is where we differ. I think games are decided by players. The coach can make selection/tactical decisions that may help or hinder, and to that extent I take your points about Lancaster’s shortcomings. But in the end games are decided by which players play at the top of their game and which do not. Australia had at least 5 or 6 players who brought their very best on Saturday. England had one (Launchbury) – and that was the difference.

      • I was reading an interesting article a while back about the All Blacks and their preparation towards a game. They figured in a recent game against South Africa that it would come own to the wire and so practised a line out move five yards from the try line where the ball was thrown in between the two jumpers. Come the game and sure enough it was the last minute and the AB’s had a line out from the SA try line. The ball was thrown in between the two jumpers where McCaw positioned as the acting scrum half caught the ball, went over and scored.
        England had exactly the same situation against Wales and threw the all to the worst place possible. The Welsh defence pushed the maul into touch. Game over.
        To me the team had not prepared for an eventuality. That is down to the coaches.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting