Who should be the next England rugby manager? Stuart Lancaster is currently the caretaker but we are told the Rugby Football Union is hoping to make an announcement before the end of the month.
It has prompted an interesting debate over exactly what qualities you look for in a national coach, as well as a reminder of how much the World Cup cycle has come to dominate planning for all top unions.
Brett McKay wrote recently on how this question caused ripples outside England after Jake White was mentioned as a possible candidate. White pointed out that he is one of only six World Cup-winning coaches alive so his name is bound to come up when a top post becomes vacant.
Of course, one thing those six coaches have in common, along the with late Kitch Christie, is that they had never won a Cup before guiding their teams to the trophy.
Clive Woodward and Graham Henry had not only lost in previous tournaments, they presided over quarter-final losses which count as the earliest exits for both their countries. This is the same thing that happened in 1987, and again last year.
Warren Gatland is currently enjoying success as manager of Wales. He may see his team claim a Six Nations Grand Slam this weekend which would see him top the list of candidates for manager of the British and Irish Lions tour to Australia next year.
Gatland, however, could do little with Ireland in his three-year tenure, so we know he hasn’t always been able to wring top performances from his teams. Graham Henry’s credentials in the game are well established but he has also seen the fates conspire against him with the Lions in 2001, Wales in 2002 and New Zealand in 2007.
It seems to me that appointing a coach can be a relatively straightforward part of the process. The real difficulty lies in deciding when your choice is not up to the job. You can do that by setting performance targets. However, on that measure, perhaps neither Woodward or Henry would have been allowed to continue to later glory.
One of the regular themes here on The Roar is whether Robbie Deans is doing all that he can with the talent available or whether he is consistently under-performing. Was a third place World Cup finish enough? Or was that loss to Ireland a pointer to his underlying weaknesses as a coach?
Henry left Wales after he had apparently lost the dressing room, not the first time it’s happened to a manager in that proud rugby nation. His last match with the principality was a record 54-10 defeat to Ireland.
Conversely, he was reappointed to his job as All Blacks coach because the players still had faith in him, and more importantly, his union stuck with him. A similar combination helped Woodward keep his job in 1999.
Stuart Lancaster and his team have been given a strong vote of confidence by many members of the current England squad. Then again, the last squad all supported Martin Johnson, reserving their barbs for his coaches and each other.
We’ll never know whether the RFU planned to ditch Johnson, because he fell on his sword before they decided either way. Since he was originally selected as a manager to please the main sponsors and stakeholders at Twickenham, it’s very possible that the poor press surrounding the Cup had turned the tide irrevocably against him.
And therein lies another problem. The commercial realities of professional sport also determine how much rope a manager gets. The RFU turned to Johnson in 2008 because they needed to rebuild the goodwill lost since the 2003 World Cup win, a situation even an appearance in the 2007 final had done nothing to reverse.
By all accounts, the RFU is desperate to ensure that the team is in good shape and good hands when the next tournament is held in England. A performance such as the one delivered in 2011 would squander the chance to showcase the game, bring in sponsors, and give a boost to Premiership teams.
Stuart Lancaster has made a good start at rehabilitating England with the rugby-following public and the RFU will be delighted that memories of dwarfgate appear to be receding. In another era, he would probably have been handed the reins and told to get on with it.
However, that World Cup clock is ticking. When Andy Robinson was sacked one year out from the 2007 World Cup, one of the reasons Brian Ashton got the job next is because most top international managers were already in place taking other teams to the tournament. Others thought they could have little impact with the squad in such a short time.
This seems to mean that the man who takes England into 2015 must be someone who has been in place since at least the 2014 Six Nations, perhaps even earlier.
If Lancaster is to be appointed full time, then, realistically, he gets to take the team on tour to South Africa this year, has one round of autumn internationals against Fiji, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, and then another Six Nations competition next year before the RFU has to decide to keep him through to the Cup or dump him. Is that enough time to judge him?
The RFU might have other candidates up their sleeve but Nick Mallett is widely believed to be the other frontrunner. Another consideration they must have is whether he would still be available next year if Lancaster doesn’t work out. Also, would he even want the job if he was turned away this time? The risk of running with Lancaster now is having no Plan B if he looks to be out of his depth.
Mallett, of course, is no safe bet. Some of the Twickenham faithful would undoubtedly be unhappy with a non-English coach (despite his Anglo roots) so some of Lancaster’s feelgood factor would be immediately lost. It’s interesting to speculate whether Mallett would have agreed to step in earlier if he’d known the caretaker would have turned into such a strong challenger.
If they do choose Mallett, the RFU would be putting their eggs in one basket, looking for him to take the squad to the Cup. Unless the chemistry goes spectacularly wrong, there’s no way they could think about replacing him before he’s had at least a couple of Six Nations tournaments under his belt.
Even then, as the experience with Andy Robinson shows, changing horses barely a year out from a Cup doesn’t give you a lot of options. It would probably have to be Mallett all the way, no matter what the initial contract terms specify.
There’s a lot we don’t know about the selection process. For instance, it isn’t clear whether a manager would have the final decision on his coaching team. Lancaster is happy with Farrell and Rowntree as his lieutenants but Saracens have already piped up saying they want Farrell back at the club.
If Nick Mallett, or some other overseas choice, gets to choose his own coaches then there may be fewer Englishmen getting experience of working at the top level.
This has raised the prospect of a Mallett/Lancaster combination. Superficially, it looks attractive, because it keeps Lancaster in the loop, which should help with succession planning. However, it sounds a bit like asking both men for a compromise they might prefer not to make.
England play Ireland at Twickenham in their last Six Nations match. It’s unlikely, but if they win handsomely, and France manage the same against Wales in Cardiff, they will have a chance to take the title. If they suffer the kind of comprehensive defeat which undid them last year, then maybe some of Lancaster’s support will ebb away.
Perhaps some members of the RFU have a preferred outcome for Saturday.
Ben S
Roar Guru
'The English coach has to come out of England basiclly because the English are too up themselves to concede that there could be ever be anything better than all things English.' It's cringeworthy stuff like this that spoils articles that people put effort into creating. Be better.
Rugby Fan
Roar Guru
Colin mentions how the England players found Henry's regime difficult to understand but it's been widely reported since how some of the the Welsh players were the most upset. Henry faced a dilemma on that tour: He had led Wales to a string of victories but England were Six Nations Champions and, more importantly, were beating southern hemisphere sides when the other home nations couldn't. Whatever balance he hoped to strike, he got both wrong. English players felt they already knew how to beat Australia and thought Henry was overcomplicating and overtraining. Iain Balshaw is probably the highest profile victim of that experience. He never recovered his pre-Lions form at Test level. Meanwhile, Welsh players couldn't understand why Henry hadn't selected more of his own team as first choice players. When he returned to manage Wales, trust had competely broken down and his tenure was up after the next Six Nations. I'm disappointed with all sides in that story. Henry didn't find a way to bond the players (a failing Clive Woodward also succumbed to four years later) but I can't say the English players acted any more arrogantly than the Welsh players on that tour. Personally, I was furious with the media revelations. To this day, Austin Healey blames ghost writer Eddie Butler for sentationalizing his account. Healey isn't known as the "Leicester Lip" for nothing, though, so I doubt he's free from all blame. Mind you, seeing the way the British press laid into England during the last World Cup reminded me of the way they had been happy to talk up unhappiness in the Lions camp in 2001. I'm amazed they don't accept more responsibility for creating the unrest they claim they are only reporting.
Colin N
Guest
"Doesn’t that highlight the arrogance of the English players." Well, yes, but not the apparent xenophobc attitude which is what you have been insinuating.
thurl
Guest
"During that tour the reports were they were frustrated that Henry was apparently favouring the Welsh players even though England were the best in the world at that time." Doesn't that highlight the arrogance of the English players. besides, I thought Aust were the best in the world at that time. Given the hiding the Lions gave Aust in the first test, he was probably right to favour those players. I also recall the English press coming out in Henry's defense accusing the English players of being out of line. According to the press, the English players couldn't agree with henry's training methods. But if those methods produced a result such as the first test win, then perhaps the Engliish need to suck it up. There was also the Austin Healey incident. here was a coach who knew what had to be done to develop a winning team and got results. It wasn't the English way, so the English played up. It isn't because he's a NZ'er, it's because he's not English A non Englishman could succcessfully coach England, but he has to come through the club system, because in here he becomes part of the establishment
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
RF I answered your original question a few posts above.
Colin N
Guest
I think you'll find that Dickson limped off. It was obviously only minor but it's enough to stop you from getting to the breakdown quick enough.
Billo
Guest
Farrell was, but I think you'll find that Dickson wasn't.
Rugby Fan
Roar Guru
I think part of the problem for England, and perhaps some other teams, is never having a clear idea of what the job of manager entails. Clive Woodward redefined the role to a large degree, acting very much as a CEO and leaving the actual coaching to his lieutenants. He set the tone for the whole organization while his coaches came up with training drills and tactics. His successors, Andy Robinson and Brian Ashton, were very poor at creating the big picture, despite being excellent in their respective areas of forwards and backs coaching. I'm convinced one of the reasons Martin Johnson was chosen, is because the RFU thought he could take on a trusted figurehead role, overseeing a competent team of coaches. He would be a popular frontman with the sponsors and would get the press and Twickenham fans back on side. In many respects, that decision showed how little the RFU understood and appreciated exactly what Woodward had done over the years of his tenure. No-one in the organization ever learned from him so we built no institutional knowledge. You got the impression that logistical planning for the 2007 and 2011 World Cups was drawn up from scratch. In an ideal world the union should have all the resources available for a manager to draw on rather than leaving it to him to reinvent the wheel. The RFU also queered the pitch with the appointment of Rob Andrew to a senior role no-one really understands. We aren't sure whether he's supposed to be filling some of Woodward's old CEO functions or something else entirely. I suspect the RFU now wants someone who fits the description Melon has given above, and currently have some doubts whether Lancaster is really ready to cover all those bases. Of course, if you only ever plan to appoint experienced international coaches to your own top job then you'll never have any homegrown talent. I'm sure that's also a consideration.
Ben Farrell
Guest
When was the last time Australia beat England kpm? Last I checked we hold the cook cup.
Colin N
Guest
During that tour the reports were they were frustrated that Henry was apparently favouring the Welsh players even though England were the best in the world at that time. I could be wrong but that's what I thought happened. Either way it was nothing to do with having a New Zealander in charge. "yes, that’s true but they are club sides whose playing ranks are also full of foreginers" And those clubs that are full of foreign players and coaches also include the England internationals who play for their country. Also, who's in charge of the England cricket team? How many South Africans are part of the England cricket team? How many South Africans and New Zealand have played for the England rugby team in recent times? Capello and Eriksson have also managed the England football team over the last decade.
Colin N
Guest
He didn't blow it tactically. Dickson and Owen Farrell were injured during that game which forced their hand.
Billo
Guest
From speaking to one or two people close to the England team, the overwhelming feeling that comes through is that Lancaster's assistant Andy Farrell is the one who has made the biggest impression with the players, and who is a future coaching star. Read Lewis Moody's recently released autobiography to see his comments about how in awe of Farrell the players were when Farrell played for England, and how astute they all thought he was. Farrell is currently on loan from Saracens, but, whether or not the RFU keep Lancaster, they would be very foolish to let Farrell slip through the net. The way I see it, the jury is still out on Lancaster. So far in this Six Nations the English haven't really played a good team. They had a good win in Paris, and they played quite well against Wales, but blew it tactically, when Lancaster made some crazy replacements in the final 20 minutes, which perhaps reveals why he shouldn't get the job.
Rugby Fan
Roar Guru
I disagree. I think there are plenty of coaches who do just fine in specific roles but who are all at sea taking on the responsibilities of managing a national set-up. In England, both Andy Robinson and Brian Ashton were over-promoted. I can't tell you whether Rowntree is the best man for the job but suggesting England should only employ former national managers in such a role sounds like a recipe for overpaying, and unecessarily ignoring a lot of decent coaches.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
He might be fine as a scrummaging coach but nothing more at national level. New Zealand's forwards coach, Steve Hansen, had already coached Wales before he was considered up to being in charge of such a significant area. England should be aiming for the same level of achievement in their two major assistant positions.
Who Needs Melon
Roar Guru
I've mentioned a few times on here recently (in relation to Robbie Deans usually) that a NATIONAL coach doesnt get as much time with his players as coaches of clubs, etc. For this reason I think the skills in player DEVELOPMENT are less important than other qualities. I think the national coach needs an awareness of the available players, what their strengths and weaknesses are. He needs to be a strategic thinker, able to come up with an approach/ethos for the team that maximises the players at his disposal and suits the times. But also tactically astute and so be able to determine how best to approach particular opponents and change things on the fly. He also needs to be able to unite and inspire the players. To do this he needs to be good at 'man management' himself but also insightful enough (and with a small enough ego) to be able to get the support staff around him that can help. Finally, whilst he doesn't necessarily need to have had a COMPLETELY successful record previously, he does need to be respected by the wider RUGBY and SEEN to be the right choice. I see this a bit like a CEO appointment. There's no way CEOs are worth 100 'normal' people. But hire a good, well-repeated CEO and your share price jumps. Hire 100 normal people and the opposite is likely to happen if anything. I've no doubt SOME of the recent success of the Brumbies is due to Jake White being SEEN to be the right choice. Players and support staff will lift their game just from him having been appointed. A well respected coach will get a honeymoon period like this and, if they get the rest right, feed off that to establish a good team.
Rugby Fan
Roar Guru
Rowntree didn't say anything to force the RFU's hand but the press chose to play up his comments. He was asked directly whether he'd still have a job in a few months time and he simply replied saying he didn't know, adding the same was true of 20 others in the team. Rowntree is well-liked by the union. After all, he's the only man they kept from the Johnson regime. If a new coach doesn't want to work with him, they'll offer him some other position.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Rowntree has probably ruined his own chances by forcing the RFU's hand, rather than letting them keep him and the others on for the SA tour where they could make a greater case.
Jock
Guest
Agree with K of the G. What exactly has Mallett done ? I say stick with Lancaster, he deserves it. It sounds as if there is a "feel good' atmosphere around the squad. England are playing entertaining rugby, getting results and most importantly the players appear to have confidence in him.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
I should make it clear there are two different Wayne Smiths I'm referring to there.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Rugby Fan and Thurl, firstly Thurl's point: I'm not expecting southern hemisphere coaches to bring their style to England for as you say that would be difficult for players who don't play like that at club level. My point is not that a top coach has to come from the southern hemisphere, but that the best candidates at the moment seem to do so, and that a top coach should be appointed. Who would I appoint RF? Well in my opinion amongst working coaches that I'm familiar with Robbie Deans and Ewen Mckenzie are the best, and as the former is occupied, I would immediately after the RWC have thrown vast riches at Mckenzie to get him to come over, installing a stand-in for the year until then. Amongst the current choices Mallett is galaxies and realms above lowly homely Lancaster. Wayne Smith can be one assistant though I don't think Rowntree is anything like qualified enough to be forwards coach. The RFU should appoint three top coaches. However, it will take a while for these two to undo the dreadful work of the Johnson years. There don't seem to be too many other candidates do there? Probably there should be and it's amazing the RFU didn't manage to get more premiership club coaches to show some interest. Thurl has a good point that England are too arrogant, or rather the RFU are too arrogant and little England to appoint foreign coaches traditionally, but the same charge could be levelled against Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and France. The governing bodies of these countries are so nationalistic that they would never contemplate a foreigner. In Australia where they have taken the plunge, the press and most fans are possessed by the most venomous hatred of Robbie Deans mainly on the grounds of his not being Australian, as many Roarers indeed freely admit. The press willfully misrepresent everything he does in order to discredit him. Whenever Australia win or do well it is 'the Wallabies' that are responsible with no mention of Deans, while when they lose Deans is the only name to be heard as if he was playing all 15 positions on the pitch as well as coaching. Wayne Smith's pathological xenophobia makes him the worst exemplar of this and anything he writes on Deans bears so little resemblance to the truth it is near incomprehensible.