The question everybody is asking.......................

[baldpaul101]

I don't think there is any question that England have the players to be up there with the best in world.
The question that really needs to be answered is why successive coaching setups have not been able to consistently get the bets out of them.
Even under Sir Clive, which is held up as a golden era, form was patchy.
England have had essentially the same problem no matter which type of coach they have in charge.
They've had innovative thinkers, maverick attacking gurus, hard grafters, talismanic ex captains, touchy feely types & highly experienced borderline phsycopaths.  (you can all decide which coaches fit those descriptions)   
It doesn't seem to matter, none of them were able to deliver more than one or two decent 6 nations or RWC performances.

What is it about the mind of English players which makes coaching them to consistent success so hard?

[DGP Wasp]

Even under Sir Clive, which is held up as a golden era, form was patchy.

I'd hardly describe it as "patchy".  yes there was the "Tour from hell" in 98, which is best forgotten, and the 99 WC where Jannie de Beer's drop goals did for England, but the entire cycle between that and the next WC was incredibly consistent.  Falling at the final hurdle for a Grand Slam after winning the rest of their 6N games pretty emphatically year after year is a far cry from the mediocrity we see now.  Home and away wins against all 3 big SH teams, all while bringing through young players who went on to win a WC; Lewsey, Luger, Worsley, Woodman, Cohen, Tindall, Balshaw, White, Robinson, Kay, Moody, Thompson, Abbott all earned their first caps during that 4 year cycle, and even Wilkinson and Vickery only made their debuts in the previous 6N.

The way to win a World Cup is not to spend the 4 years in between trying to convince the rest of the world you're crap by being mostly crap.  This isn't a strategy, it's an excuse.

[califauna]

What is it about the mind of English players which makes coaching them to consistent success so hard?

Interesting question for sure. Gets asked about football as well.

Mental fragility seems to be an issue. EJ and others have mentioned it before. Perhaps cultural factors such as sportsmanship in the English tradition (not the winning but the taking part, etc.) and British amateurism etc. play a part in it. When I watch the Inside Line series and think back to my own experiences around football (playing at uni, watching coaches etc.) a lot of the positive reinforcement seems mechanical to me. A need to be constantly praising players for very routine stuff in a way which seems, well, mechanical, to me. A bit forced. I don't sense it so much in US sport, or SA rugby. NOt sure of the significance of it. Just something that has always stuck out for me and perhaps ties in with the above.

[Westy68]

OK, I will add in a goat in a compromising position.

Mental Eddie has already done that and Ben Youngs has the photos

[baldpaul101]

I'd hardly describe it as "patchy".

How many Grand Slams were lost by poor performances in games they should have won?
What about the post RWC season where he lost the plot a bit and believed his own hype?

I'm not suggesting that it wasn't the best England have ever been, its just given the players & resources &, at that time, a fairly revolutionary, professional approach to training & playing, England could, IMO have dominated world rugby for 4-5 years.

[baldpaul101]

Gets asked about football as well

Interesting to see that young English footballers brought up around foreign players & coaches in the Prem seem to be becoming more consistent? Semi final of the world cup, Final of the Euros.
I wonder if some of their "Englishness" is being coached out of them?

Given England Rugby have probably the most diverse squad ever plus a mix of non English or non traditional Rugby coaches, I'm surprised they haven't been able to move more in that direction themselves...

[wasps]

Largest player base does not mean best player base
Quantity does not equal quality.


Rugby Union is so far behind football in the pecking order of sports in England, that so many of the naturally gifted athletes (i.e. those that would be professionals at multiple sports) are in the football system.

We likely lose a lot of the top quality athletes before they even know what a rugby ball is.



Obviously, there will always be some quality within the quantity that we have at our disposal, but it's not a great comparison to say that we have more registered rugby players than New Zealand so most be better than them

[DGP Wasp]

I'd hardly describe it as "patchy".

How many Grand Slams were lost by poor performances in games they should have won?
What about the post RWC season where he lost the plot a bit and believed his own hype?

I'm not suggesting that it wasn't the best England have ever been, its just given the players & resources &, at that time, a fairly revolutionary, professional approach to training & playing, England could, IMO have dominated world rugby for 4-5 years.

Yes, they certainly bottled a few Grand Slams at the last hurdle, but they got themselves into that position in the first place in consecutive years, and consistently putting 40+ points on teams other than Italy, something which Eddie hasn't achieved on any kind of consistent basis.  Ultimately, those defeats in GS deciders probably served that team well, but no one would ever suggest that was somehow part of SCW's grand plan, whereas the earlier poster suggested that being rubbish in between World Cups was Eddie's way of ensuring we were brilliant once the WC comes around which is just nonsense.

And yes, after that WC win, SCW did get a bit carried away on his own hype and England fell off a cliff, he dabbled in football and led an utterly disastrous Lions tour which has tarnished his reputation, but by the end of 2003, his job was done.  Nothing that followed really mattered in that respect.

[baldpaul101]

Agree with  most of that DGP, just think England could have really dominated for a few years rather than blow a few chances. Agree it probably made them stronger in the long run but why did they need to choke a few times to become strong enough to be world champs?

[Rifleman Harris]

I don't have a problem with crucial losses in a developing team, it's part of the growing process.  But once the team is at it's peak then it's about keeping there - making the winning culture permanent, having a succession plan where the incoming players and coaches add to the collective. We should have dominated after the World Cup though, there should have been like minded players coming through whose objective was to oust a world cup winner and then hold on to the place, but it was more like 'job done' and that was it. the intensity was lost and with it the winning culture. We really we should have continued dominating up to the next world cup at least, let's face it we were a marginally TMO call from winning that one with all the chaos that happened between the 2. 

[Sting]

https://www.rugbyworld.com/countries/england-countries/why-the-england-u16-team-should-be-scrapped-stephen-jones-14452

[baldpaul101]

according to Wikipedia, Jones still has the best win ratio at 77% of any England coach.
Sir Clive is on 71%

[Raggs]

according to Wikipedia, Jones still has the best win ratio at 77% of any England coach.
Sir Clive is on 71%

And we beat the current world champions just a few months ago, but people tend to gloss over the victories as though England are entitled to them.

[wycombewasp]

but sir Clive only had Italy from 2000

[westwaleswasp]

Jones 6n win pc is short of Lancaster's.
Jones's win pc vs tier one is the metric to use.