The resignation of England Rugby Union coach Stuart Lancaster can have come as no surprise to many. Yet should he have been the man to fall on is sword?
Lancaster left the post according to the RFU, “by mutual consent.”
Lancaster who had a contract through to 2020 was in charge for 46 matches won 27, lost 17 and drew one. He was quoted as saying “I ultimately accept and take responsibility for the team’s performances and we have not delivered the results we all hoped for during the tournament.”
In modern sport the coach is frequently the man who ends up taking sole responsibility for his teams performances, but is that expectation fair? Should it always be the coach who loses his job?
In England it is a national pastime to build up their national team no matter what sport when they play prior to a major tournament. Australia too is guilty of pumping up its national teams with expectations which are often unrealistic.
For those who question that look at the 2014 FIFA World Cup, Australia conceded the most goals in the tournament in the group stage along with Cameroon, they did not win a game. Yet their performances were heralded! The truth is despite playing well they did not win, they were not good enough and were on the plane home. Sport is based on results.
As with England sports like Football, Rugby and Cricket grab the headlines, yet sports in which these nations consistently perform well are frequently ignored by the mainstream media.
The media built up the England Rugby team leading into the World Cup, not Lancaster. Never did he say that England as hosts would win the World Cup, yet obviously he believed he had the players to do so.
There are many ex-players who will blame the coach for the tactics that were used on game day, but very few of them were in the dressing room, or at team meetings, so how can they be 100% sure that it was the coach’s tactics that were wrong rather than his players failing to stick to the game plan?
If you look at the great teams in any sport the coach and captain are usually very much in cync. The captain being an extension of the coach’s beliefs on the pitch. Richie McCaw uniquely embodied that with both Sir Graham Henry and Steve Hanson. Francois Pienaar had it with Kitch Christie as did Martin Johnson with Sir Clive Woodward.
As nice a chap as Chris Robshaw seems off the pitch one has never had the impression that he and Lancaster shared that relationship. Maybe the coach should have named another player as his captain? It may be worth looking at Warren Gatland’s British and Irish Lions squad to Australia, not only was Robshaw not Captain but he did not make the squad.
Yet Lancaster’s results have been impressive. His team just were beaten by better teams in Australia and Wales on the day, in two memorable games. Had England been drawn in another group they may well have progressed. One of these first tier nations was always going to bow out at the group stage. Yet does the coach warrant the sack? Which is in truth what has transpired.
Sir Clive Woodward sums the situation up well when he wrote in the Daily Mail, “Those responsible for his appointment, and have backed him and been happy to reap praise in the good times, should be looking in the mirror today and feeling very uncomfortable over what has happened.”
“Instead Ian Ritchie, the man who appointed Lancaster as head coach and offered the coaches six year extensions just a year ago has lead the panel to review their performances before recommending to the board that Lancaster step down and he be the man to find the next England coach. That man will then will report to Ritchie. What business would operate that way.” He went on to say.
Some will say Woodward is trying to push himself forward but he has already said he does not want the job.
Dumping coaches is proven to be far more disruptive than dumping players. Was there a review into the individual performances of each player at the World Cup? Have any of them been told that they will no longer be a part of the England set-up?
England played some of the most boring rugby seen at the World Cup. They lacked an inspirational player who could turn a game. They played like a team on which the burden of being the host nation hung heavily on their shoulders, a weight no doubt added too by the expectation of their fans and the media.
It seems ludicrous that Lancaster has been jettisoned as a result of what comes down to two games. Counting these two games the man lost just a third of the games he was in charge. That is a record many coaches would be proud of.
Once again we see administrators take out their frustrations on a coach, when the coach may not in truth be the root of the problem. The lack of reflected glory is not good for their ego. They will explain that Key Performance indicators were not met, yet coaching at such tournaments should not be judged in this way, and coaches need to be given, like athletes time to develop a team and make it gel. Too often they are discarded too early and this is possibly another example of that being the case.
