England

[13thWarrior]

I'd love to see Baxter.

Picking Young's makes sense only in that some consistency in selection for a must win game is sensible. Otherwise he is pretty cack.

Would have been great to see Willis but hopefully he gets a chance in the next tournament. If not EJ is barmy.

[WaspsUpNorth]

Ideally I would start with Baxter, stand out candidate who thoroughly deserves the opportunity.  Quite sure he wouldn't have us cringing during press conferences with embarrassing comments. Also he might play a more expansive game (I appreciate it won't be as exciting as our own style) and select players who are in form rather than those who have been adequate in past international matches. It seems most of us believe there are better number 8's, 9's & 10's out there for instance but until they are given a go we shall never know. 

England Rugby is about winning, but it is also about encouraging participation in the game and it is a business - both these would be assisted by a coach and style of rugby that are easier to get behind than the current incumbent.

[Raggs]

Baxter? A man who made his name by sticking with a club for decades, building them to champions, getting to spend endless amounts of time with them, and perfecting a system across that time.

International is not club rugby, the demands, the time, the access etc are all different. I think Baxter may well be able to do a good job of it, but unless you're willing to give him 4 years, and a failed RWC to get that experience, then I don't think he's a smart choice. Lancaster had us playing good rugby, doing well, but didn't have the experience of a world cup to pull it all together, he kept flip flopping between styles, and not sticking to one, and then tried to change it all again for the rwc. Funnily enough, once he had the experience he needed, we fired him, and now he's excelling elsewhere.

[Shugs]

Take your point Raggs but Jones does have an embarrassment of riches at his disposal which has to be accounted for. What he's achieved is probably on par with what he should have done and not a lot else. Plus, there have been some dire spells in that time. There will always be differences of opinion about who should and should not play - that's inevitable but my problem is that Jones' ego has far too much effect on selection. I may be wrong but that's my perception of him.

[WaspsUpNorth]

No one has the experience until they have done it. Many who have done it didn't do it very well.  And if they did it well once there is no saying they'll do it well again. So yes, I would reward Baxter for all his work and achievements at club level, otherwise you go back to all the usual suspects on the international circuit.  Blackett hadn't done it before he got an opportunity

[Raggs]

No one has the experience until they have done it. Many who have done it didn't do it very well.  And if they did it well once there is no saying they'll do it well again. So yes, I would reward Baxter for all his work and achievements at club level, otherwise you go back to all the usual suspects on the international circuit.  Blackett hadn't done it before he got an opportunity

Blackett had been Head Coach before, for Rotherham. It was from there that we signed him to be attack coach, he's had experience with this squad and it's development.

International experience doesn't have to start as head coach of England.

[hookender]

Why would Baxter want to take it at the moment? Got a good couple of seasons still to get best out of current Exeter side.

If we wanted an ex Premiership director to take over look no further than Mark McColl .Proven winning record and no salary cap to worry about ( not that I think he worried about it in the first place)

[matelot22]

If we wanted an ex Premiership director to take over look no further than Mark McColl .Proven winning record and no salary cap to worry about ( not that I think he worried about it in the first place)

I don't think it would be a good advert for the game if a coach who had knowingly cheated on a massive scale were to be promoted to the national side......

[Neils]

If we wanted an ex Premiership director to take over look no further than Mark McColl .Proven winning record and no salary cap to worry about ( not that I think he worried about it in the first place)

I don't think it would be a good advert for the game if a coach who had knowingly cheated on a massive scale were to be promoted to the national side......

+1

[Hymenoptera]

Just to be clear, I don't agree with everything Eddie does, but the guy has the best winning % of an English head coach. He got us to a final of a world cup 1 cycle after not even making the play offs, won a grand slam (after not even making the playoffs), a 6 nations, potentially another this weekend, matched the record number of consecutive wins for a tier 1 nation, whitewashed the aussies at home etc etc...

Who exactly are we expecting to replace him with and being confident in them to do better?

Given the talent available at his finger tips and the opposition, i expect more. He's one 1 grand slam in his tenure.
The prem has built talent that no other coaches had at their disposal, i reckon my dog could take charge and have a matching win ratio.
And BTW - Look at his coaching record elsewhere, couple of great games aside, its hardly stellar.

[Vespula Vulgaris]

Baxter? A man who made his name by sticking with a club for decades, building them to champions, getting to spend endless amounts of time with them, and perfecting a system across that time.

International is not club rugby, the demands, the time, the access etc are all different. I think Baxter may well be able to do a good job of it, but unless you're willing to give him 4 years, and a failed RWC to get that experience, then I don't think he's a smart choice. Lancaster had us playing good rugby, doing well, but didn't have the experience of a world cup to pull it all together, he kept flip flopping between styles, and not sticking to one, and then tried to change it all again for the rwc. Funnily enough, once he had the experience he needed, we fired him, and now he's excelling elsewhere.

You make some very cogent arguments, but do you honestly believe that Youngs is the best choice for a starting 9? Is Furbank the right choice at all? And is Hill really better than Launch?

[Raggs]

Baxter? A man who made his name by sticking with a club for decades, building them to champions, getting to spend endless amounts of time with them, and perfecting a system across that time.

International is not club rugby, the demands, the time, the access etc are all different. I think Baxter may well be able to do a good job of it, but unless you're willing to give him 4 years, and a failed RWC to get that experience, then I don't think he's a smart choice. Lancaster had us playing good rugby, doing well, but didn't have the experience of a world cup to pull it all together, he kept flip flopping between styles, and not sticking to one, and then tried to change it all again for the rwc. Funnily enough, once he had the experience he needed, we fired him, and now he's excelling elsewhere.

You make some very cogent arguments, but do you honestly believe that Youngs is the best choice for a starting 9? Is Furbank the right choice at all? And is Hill really better than Launch?

Youngs. No. And much like Farrell, coaches repeatedly seem to see something that most of us can't. However I can at least appreciate Farrell's strengths, I just don't see them in Youngs.

Furbank is an interesting one. Much like Daly was given a fair few games to settle in at fullback (and did OK with more gametime), I'm hoping Furbank will show the same, he has talent, it's a case of whether or not it can be utilized.

Hill is a fantastic lock frankly. I think Launch and Itoje are very similar in many ways, whereas Hill is more similar to Kruis, forming a better pair with Itoje.  I'd pick Launch over Hill as an individual, but when considering a pair, it becomes a bit stickier. As Itoje has increased in size, he no longer dominates the lineout as he did when he first broke out, and Hill offers more at the lineout than Launch, who is a world class tighthead lock (who is bafflingly poor at restarts for some reason).

[mike909]

Just to be clear, I don't agree with everything Eddie does, but the guy has the best winning % of an English head coach. He got us to a final of a world cup 1 cycle after not even making the play offs, won a grand slam (after not even making the playoffs), a 6 nations, potentially another this weekend, matched the record number of consecutive wins for a tier 1 nation, whitewashed the aussies at home etc etc...

Who exactly are we expecting to replace him with and being confident in them to do better?

Given the talent available at his finger tips and the opposition, i expect more. He's one 1 grand slam in his tenure.
The prem has built talent that no other coaches had at their disposal, i reckon my dog could take charge and have a matching win ratio.
And BTW - Look at his coaching record elsewhere, couple of great games aside, its hardly stellar.

Remembering that Jones' win record, compared to Lancaster's is boosted by not having to have toured NZ......and Lancaster never lost more than one in any one 6Ns. Great win percentage but did lose 5 in a row and his RWC record is similar to Brian Ashton and Brian got a team with no form to a final!

[westwaleswasp]

I don't think Eddie understands the relationship between his selection of an England team and whether anyone wants to watch them play.

I don't think he cares whether people watch England or like him. The latter is not helpful because he keeps doing team talks for the opposition, and worse, does them for teams in matches we are not in!

[westwaleswasp]

Just to be clear, I don't agree with everything Eddie does, but the guy has the best winning % of an English head coach. He got us to a final of a world cup 1 cycle after not even making the play offs, won a grand slam (after not even making the playoffs), a 6 nations, potentially another this weekend, matched the record number of consecutive wins for a tier 1 nation, whitewashed the aussies at home etc etc...

Who exactly are we expecting to replace him with and being confident in them to do better?

To be fair that is a hugely selective list - because the wheels came off and he also produced our worst 6n result ever (fifth) and our worst winning run (8 in nine).
His win percentage in the 6n was not better than his predecessor at the start of this tournament. Lancaster lost 4 in four years, Eddie lost 3 in one alone, and two more and a draw with Scotland on top, making Lancaster's win % much better in the 6n. Compared to Johnson's tenure, sure, but whose record would not be?  Obviously his overall win percentage is a bit better than Bomber's (but not much difference, surprisingly) but it is also worth noting that Australia, who we have beaten seven times in a row now-  are now seventh in the world rankings- so not quite the same level of opposition as the 2000s. There have been high highs and low lows, and, in contrast to SCW's England tenure, the curve was not always upwards. SCW's England eventually managed ten in a row vs the SH as he built the team from not much c.f. the tri nations as professionalism took hold.
The bottom line is nobody thought much of Lancaster's England because losing 1 match and finishing second every year or winning triple crowns is not what it is about for the headline writers- and neither is seconds in the world cup (England and France have three each now) and so we are down to titles, of which Eddie has two in four years- a fair performance but not one that will keep him dining out on much longer. 


If you want to compare with SCW, say 1999 -03 cycle, Jones' achievements 2015-19 are slimmer all round.