There is no one at the RFU who is qualified to carry out this review
Don’t ask players to take part, either
ENGLAND’S disappointed World Cup squad should not be involved in any review of the England coaching management and structure. Many are young players, with few having any experience of European Cup or Six Nations wins, and not only is their input potentially limited but it could also be very divisive.
Honest opinions given in confidence four years ago were disgracefully leaked, twisted and misconstrued and it ended up as complete chaos and did England rugby a lot of damage. The players should not be put in that position again — it can only be counter-productive.
The England squad should just go back to their clubs, roll up their sleeves and get stuck in with their Premiership and European games until the new year. They don’t need to be torturing themselves by reliving this campaign and finding their names and candid thoughts all over the media.
They are fine players and their priority is to find their best form and make sure they are fit for purpose in January when thoughts start turning to the Six Nations. England begin with away games in Scotland and Italy and must be good to go.
In the meantime, none of the executive officers at the RFU — the paid officials — should be involved in any review, either. They are either not qualified and/or have a conflict of interest in that they have been involved closely in the selection of Stuart Lancaster as England coach and, in the case of professional rugby director Rob Andrew, the selection of Brian Ashton and Martin Johnson before him.
Andrew was an experienced England international nearly 20 years ago but he has never coached above club level and chief executive Ian Ritchie has never played or coached at any significant level.
With all due respect, these are not the people to lead either a review into the intimate workings of the England team recently or to oversee any changes in the coaching team to make England world-beaters.
That is not their domain. You need a strong expert rugby voice looking after the elite England rugby set-up 24-7. The RFU badly need a director of rugby who takes all that on board.
Does it not strike you as odd that the RFU, the biggest rugby organisation in the world, have a director of communications, a director of finance and a director of just about everything except a director of rugby?
So this is what I would do. Ritchie must urgently identify the best candidate as the RFU’s director of rugby whoever that might be. He must take advice from those at the RFU who really know their rugby and those from outside the RFU and indeed, England, who can give wise counsel, but he must use his executive skills to get that man and invest full power in him.
And at that point the RFU must let the director of rugby take over and bring his expertise to bear. He should be the man to review what has been going on with the England team and determine what changes are required. He is in charge of the rugby.
We don’t want situations, as happened in March, when Ritchie went public and told Lancaster that second place in the Six Nations is ‘totally unacceptable’. That should never have been his role. If harsh words are to be spoken to the coach they should come from the director of rugby, the man responsible for rugby excellence, not the chief executive who runs the business.
The new director of rugby would undertake the review on his own. He would interview who he wants of the management and people behind the scenes, but not the players. He will decide whether Lancaster and his coaching team can take England forward or if a complete change is required.
This process — the appointment of a director of rugby (DoR) and the director’s review — may take time, so in the interim Lancaster remains as the England coach, indeed after the DoR’s review it might be that he remains as head coach. But that must be the DoR’s decision based on his expertise, not the current directors’.
If he decides to keep Lancaster and his team, then full steam ahead and we will hope the added expertise and support of the DoR can make the difference.
If the DoR, however, decides it is time for a parting of the ways he must be the man, solely, to make the worldwide search for the best coach, with no headhunters or recruitment agencies being used.
Why on earth would you want them involved? There are only a handful of men in the world qualified to coach England. It’s one of the biggest jobs in the rugby world, for heaven’s sake.
The director of rugby will be aware of every single ‘candidate’ and will probably already have most on speed-dial. He will compile the shortest of shortlists and make the calls accordingly.
THE director of rugby will proactively go out and get the man he wants. You don’t go out and humiliate big names like Nick Mallett in 2011 by publically inviting them to interview and then turning them down flat. You don’t need a formal round of interviews with all the speculation and conjecture that kicks up. The DoR picks his man, tracks him down and appoints him.
The coach will want his chosen coaching team and the DoR will then move heaven and earth to make that happen, while also supporting the coach with cutting edge back-up staff and facilities.
The DoR also ensures the coach is sheltered from political arguments and will deliver what is needed so he can do his job properly — i.e., win the argument over access to overseas players.
The head coach will report to the DoR at all times. Apart from normal pleasantries, he should have no day-to-day dealings with anybody else at the RFU. If there are any major issues then the DoR will deal directly with the CEO.
It is an incredible opportunity for someone — there has never been a better time to take on such a role. The RFU’s ambition must be to find someone who will let our opposition and fans know that England mean business.