So the fate of Lancaster is to be decided by Ian, Ian, Ian, Ian and Ben...http://www.englandrugby.com/news/rfu-names-review-panel/I can accept 4 of them but why the fuck is Ian Ritchie included in a review that, fundamentally, is deciding whether he can continue in his own job (given he's on record as saying England not winning this world cup would be his responsibility). I'd have liked them to get someone a little more 'progressive' involved in the review in his place, maybe even a foreign influence for a bit of balance.
I still believe that the choice of Lancaster, much like Villa with Sherwood, was the easiest option so they just ran with it. I've said it a few times I think there's a lot of similarities between the problem at Villa and England rugby. There's loads of potential but it needs a manager who can work with the players to bring that out and in both cases they had an initially popular manager whose reputation took such a battering that 'anyone but him' became appealing so a quick and easy replacement was put in and saw promising early results only to completely collapse when the pressure came on.
Quote from: paul_e on October 19, 2015, 07:36:59 PMSo the fate of Lancaster is to be decided by Ian, Ian, Ian, Ian and Ben...http://www.englandrugby.com/news/rfu-names-review-panel/I can accept 4 of them but why the fuck is Ian Ritchie included in a review that, fundamentally, is deciding whether he can continue in his own job (given he's on record as saying England not winning this world cup would be his responsibility). I'd have liked them to get someone a little more 'progressive' involved in the review in his place, maybe even a foreign influence for a bit of balance.Mcgechan, in spite of his status, is an odd one. He was part of the team who picked Lancaster.
I agree Paul. It's fine to criticise him a bit for the decision (and what's-his-name in the TMO for the sin-binning, as Joubert initially saw nothing wrong with that), but it has gone a bit mad, conspiracy theories and so on.
I think World Rugby releasing the statement they made about Joubert is just shocking. It was a mistake made without the benefit of a load of replays, and for which the rules do not allow a referral to a TMO. It's unfortunate it was at a key moment of the game, but there's no way he should be getting the flack he is. I notice there hasn't been much mention of the very slight knock-on from Genia which he did spot and check to prevent Scotland going further behind. I understand it's frustrating, but the criticism has got way out of hand. It's always easy to make these decisions based on loads of replays from different angles. But you can't be referring every decision or the game would go on for about a week.