England are out of the rugby world cup. The first time they have gone out in the group stages. The first time a sole host nation has gone out in the group stages. The loss against Wales was their first defeat to one of the home nations in a world cup since 1987.
These facts in isolation look bad but should not be reason on their own to sack Lancaster. The RFU will rightly hold “a thorough and comprehensive internal performance review” or some other such management speak.
The argument to stand by Lancaster
There are no doubt many people who will cite Clive Woodward’s reign as evidence supporting the “stand by your man” theory. England crashed out of the 1999 RWC at the quarter final stage to South Africa with Woodward in charge and many called for his head then. The axe never fell on Woodward and the rest, as they say, is history.
There is also an argument that Lancaster has the players on his side. The management team bang on again and again about the “culture” of the side and there is little doubt that this atmosphere around the team seems to have improved since the dwarf-throwing, ferry jumping antics of 2011. Lancaster fans would argue that he is growing and learning along with this side and that he should be given the opportunity to lead them for the next four years.
These are perfectly valid arguments and I wouldn’t be surprised if that is the view the RFU take. But….
The argument to relieve Lancaster of his duties
Selection issues
It is all very well to criticise one or two selections, but the fact is you are probably never going to agree with every single selection in a squad of 31. Despite this, Lancaster selected the squad that most people expected and were, on the whole, quite happy with. However there were a number of selections, that were, in my opinion, wrong
- Sam Burgess – Bath fans will testify to the fact that Burgess playing in the centre has been a pretty much unmitigated disaster. He played the last few months of last season at blindside flanker and was undoubtedly much more effective there. When asked about Burgess, Lancaster said that he does not yet have the technical proficiency in the set piece and breakdown to be considered as a back row forward in the world cup squad. That is fine, but if the coaching staff thought this then the obvious decision was to cut him from the squad., Instead the decision was taken to try to fit a square peg into a round hole, just to get this impressive character into the squad
- Henry Slade – a brilliant player, but there is a good reason this was a poor selection. Slade played outside centre for a good chunk of season last and impressed in that position in the warm up games enough to force his way into the squad ahead of an established international in Luther Burrell. It was generally accepted that while this was a tough call on Burrell, it was a fair decision. The problem came when Jonathan Joseph was injured. The question has to be asked, why was Slade in the squad if, when the first choice player in his position gets injured, a complete reshuffle of the centre partnership is made in order to avoid playing him? If Burrell had been selected in the squad, there would have been a strong case for him to be included at 13 against Wales in Joseph’s absence. This didn’t even seem to be a consideration for Lancaster in Slade’s case.
- Bench selections – it is pretty clear that Lancaster’s bench selections were designed to continue to execute a gameplan and defend a hoped-for lead rather than to give options to try to change the game if England were in trouble. This is exemplified by the selection of Richard Wigglesworth over Danny Care. Care has his faults, particularly with his kicking game when compared with Wigglesworth, but he has the ability to increase the pace of England’s attack from the bench. Something Wigglesworth, solid player though he is, doesn’t have. You can also see this in the selection of Burgess, and George Kruis over, let’s say, Jack Nowell and James Haskell (Easter needed to be on the bench because of worries over Ben Morgan’s fitness, but he could also have covered 2nd row if necessary giving Haskell the opportunity to come off the bench). I think England fans would have been much more hopeful of the game against Australia changing with players on the bench who actually provide a different threat to the opposition rather than the “more of the same” tactic that Lancaster seems to adopt.
Distancing himself from on-field decisions
Michael Vaughan tweeted immediately after the post Eng V Wal match press conference that you can tell an international coach is in trouble when he distances himself from on-field decisions. This was referring to Lancaster pointing out that the bone-headed decision to not take the kick at goal in the last minutes of that match to secure a draw was a decision made by the players on the field. A draw in that match would have meant that even now, the morning after the Australia defeat, England would still be looking very likely to go through to the quarter final. The question has to be asked – was the scenario that unfolded discussed before the game? If yes and Robshaw went against instructions by opting to go for the try, why was Robshaw still captain against Australia? If it wasn’t discussed, then honestly, why the hell not?
Flip-flopping over Fly Half selection
Fly half is the most important position on the field when it comes to implementing a game plan. Lancaster made the surprising call to drop George Ford for Owen Farrell for the biggest games of the campaign. The argument over who is the best 10 for England is a complex one, but what is not in doubt is that Ford was established as first choice in the lead up to the tournament. Ford started all of the big games over the past year since coming into the side during last years November internationals (admittedly Farrell was injured during the 6 Nations) and without doing much wrong found himself on the bench against Wales. We all know now that Lancaster sees Farrell as his number one 10, and although there are arguments for and against this, what is indisputable is that with this being the case Farrell should have played more in the warm up games and should also have started against Fiji. Lancaster found himself under pressure to stick with Ford throughout those games because of his performances through the 6 Nations and for Bath this year, and then at the last minute, I’m afraid, he bottled it.
This last point is the nail in the coffin, for me. Lancaster should be removed from his post.
Who will replace him? Good question, but the RFU could do worse than Rob Baxter and/or Jim Mallinder, in my opinion.
theoutsidehalf 