The Big Debate: Stuart Lancaster for England?
No sooner had the final whistle been blown on this year’s RBS 6 Nations Championship than thoughts of England fans turned to the next Head Coach.

The big question is whether Stuart Lancaster, the interim manager, has done enough to justify being appointed to the full-time role over the course of the last few months, and the last 5 matches in particular.
His tenure began with an outstanding PR effort, returning a sense of humilty to the players by taking them to Leeds rather than the Algarve, reinforcing discipline by unceremoniously ejecting Danny Care and Delon Armitage for their misdemeanours, and picking a squad on form rather than reputation.
He swept aside England’s old guard of players and those closely associated with the Martin Johnson regime, treating them respectfully, but making it clear that this was a new era.
Then after two unconvincing wins in Edinburgh and Rome, a home defeat to Wales suggested that Lancaster may not be in the job for too long, despite the improved performance. But then England came to life in Paris and thrashed Ireland at home to finish 2nd in the table and leave some people convinced that Lancaster is the right man.
He seems to have the backing of the squad, having created a hard-working environment in a short space of time, whilst assistants Graham Rowntree and Andy Farrell were unequivocal in their support for his candidacy on Monday.
The RFU has a dilemma on its hands. The public clamour for the RFU to hand him the reins on a full-time basis are growing louder every day, and the short-termism is reminiscent of the vociferous calls to appoint Martin Johnson several years ago.
However, the argument against appointing Lancaster is also reasonably compelling. His inexperience is the main factor counting against him, given he has never coached at international level, nor even at top-flight club level in the Heineken Cup. How will he fare when the pressure mounts, when he loses key players to injury, or when England suffers a heavy defeat? Nobody knows because he’s not been in that situation before.
Although the current mood is positive following the Six Nations campaign, a tough 3-match tour to South Africa is the next assignment for England, followed by a 4-match Autumn Internationals campaign against Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and Fiji.
A worst-case scenario – but one that is certainly feasible for this young side – would be 6 defeats out of the next 7 matches, and then how popular would Lancaster be? And would the public and press, currently calling for Lancaster, turn on RFU CEO Ian Ritchie to ask why he appointed a rookie coach?
Nick Mallett appears to be the other main contender for the position, and his CV appears to stack up more convincingly when you consider the challenges that lie ahead for England. He seems to be the more sensible long-term option, but will Ritchie go against public opinion for his first major decision?
What do you think? Vote in the poll and share your views below.


I’m a little astounded at the general consensus that Mallett is some sort of coaching genius. When he left Stade Francais, granted, they had won 2 French titles in a row.
Since then, it has been a massive downward spiral. Now Italy are not, in the foreseeable future, going to win trophies, and so it is unfair to say he won nothing with them, but:
Berbizier and Kirwan, his two immediate predecessors in the role, both had better winning records than Mallett with arguably similar strength squads and against simlar strength opposition.
His tactical astuteness at times blundered, culminating obviously in the Bergamasco at 9 at Twickenham fiasco.
Is this really a World Cup winning coach that we should be casting aside Lancaster for?
Bl00dy hell people bang on about bergamasco. It was a gamble that went wrong when he was facing an injury crisis. He didnt repeat it. Unlike Lancaster repeatedly bringing on Stevens who is a complete liability.
This is what I mean about making hard decisions. Lancaster hasn’t been stuck in a position where he’s had to make a tough decision. Yes, Bergamasco at 9 was a farce, it was a risk. Coaches need to make tough decisions when their backs are against the wall. Lancaster has been in a position thus far where any decision he makes would be an issue with selecting youngsters and trying things out. He is win win and can’t do anything wrong because anything wrong is part of him learning.
As for Mallet’s record with Italy – it’s not always about the number of wins, but the quality. He pulled Italy up in the world rankings. He got their first ever six nations win over France and pushed England and Ireland closer than before as well as an away draw to Wales and an away win over Scotland. It’s not always about percentages. Lancaster’s record is having an England Saxons side who win the Churchill cup (good win over Canada that!) and destroying Leeds.