Gregor Paul: English coach well behind his peers

England's coach Stuart Lancaster observes his players warm-up before the Rugby World Cup Pool A match between England and Australia. Photo / AP.

As England begin the process of ripping themselves apart and debating what to do with coach Stuart Lancaster an element of clarity is necessary to gauge how far behind his peers he's been.

Good coaches have had a major impact at this tournament and their value has been obvious and significant. Good coaches have been easy to spot - their respective teams playing with purpose, focus and consistency of intention if not always execution.

Japan's victory against South Africa was masterminded by the acute rugby brain of Eddie Jones. The players added bravery and passion to a tactically smart and nearly technically perfect performance.

In contrast, Springboks coach Heyneke Meyer made a mistake with his selection, opting to run a host of players who lacked match fitness. Since the defeat, he's fixed on one idea which is to revert to what he calls a traditional South African gameplan of set-piece excellence, brutal straight running and a deadly rolling maul.

Keeping it simple works for them and they look dangerous. The Wallabies, with the odd exception, have much the same players as they did a year ago, but look at them now.

They have a tight five that believes in themselves and with reason: they scrummaged England off the park at Twickenham. Michael Cheika has fixed, in less than one year, what Robbie Deans and Ewen McKenzie couldn't in six at the helm between them.

England, in stark contrast, have looked like a side under coached in some areas and massively over coached in others. Australia have earned rave reviews in beating England and while their performance was well planned, clinical when it needed to be and physical throughout, they were made to look considerably better than they really were.

For all of England's resources and preparation time, they couldn't set their defensive line in the build-up to the two first half tries. The English press have fallen over themselves to laud the Wallabies as out of this world but it doesn't take rugby genius to run into giant holes created by unforced, poor decision-making by defenders.

The more worrying aspect of Lancaster's coaching, though, was his selection. It made no sense, reeked of panic and suggested that after four years, neither he nor anyone in his coaching team had worked out the sort of players they would need to play the game they had in mind.

There wasn't a hint of anything clever or innovative - which brings up the All Blacks.
They have opened to mixed reviews, the last of which was down to them looking to innovate in a novel way.

Head coach Steve Hansen arrived in England with a plan and they have stuck to it. They have gone down a relatively unconventional path of highlighting specific areas they want to road test and even manufactured scenarios to accentuate the pressure.

The rationale for it said Hansen: "We are in this competition to get something out of it, not to get a pat on the back for beating Georgia and the likes by big scores."

If nothing else, this is bold coaching. It's foundation is experience of World Cups and analysis of what lies ahead.

It has made for an element of tension and nervousness for those on the outside looking in. While Australia, South Africa and Argentina appear to be showing their respective full games and looking, easily, the three most impressive teams, the All Blacks have been about nailing component parts - such as their defence - amid overall scrappy performances.

It's bold because it requires faith, patience and discipline to make it work. The pressure is building a little on the All Blacks as more people wonder whether they are good enough to win again. Others have impressed - they haven't and yet this troubles the All Blacks not one bit.

They know what they have come to do and have faith in the way they are going about it.
In a few weeks, the pool strategy may be seen as a stroke of coaching genius and highlight further how far behind England have been in that department.