Lancaster's short lived honeymoon
Stuart Lancaster’s honeymoon at Twickenham was short lived. Following his appointment on March 29th he has shown his inexperience and naivety in failing to secure the services of both Andy Farrell and Wayne Smith. Once might have been unlucky, twice raises some serious questions.
The success of any business in recruiting the best talent is driven by a number of factors, none more important than the ability of the CEO or senior employee to present a compelling opportunity to the candidate. At a senior level the compensation package is only one part of the equation. The position must offer an opportunity for personal growth and will invariably provide significant and exciting challenges. Most importantly there must be a management team with the charisma and experience to convince the candidate to take the leap of faith that may be required to make the move.
Most senior corporate recruiting is conducted by stealth. Such an approach allows discussions to take place out of the public glare and is invariably more likely to be successful.
Lancaster’s first mistake was offering the position to Andy Farrell who is a long way from being ready for such an appointment. England rugby followers should have breathed a sigh of relief that Farrell declined the offer. However, having suffered the indignity of being rejected by Farrell, nothing was more important than getting the appointment right next time.
Wayne Smith was then identified by Lancaster as “the standout candidate” to replace Farrell. The effort to recruit Smith was extensively reported in the media, including Lancaster’s trip to South Africa. While accepting that it can be difficult to operate discreetly in the world of international sport, this public approach was flawed from the outset.
The relationship between the media and the English rugby team plumbed new depths at the world cup. While it is important that Lancaster and Ian Ritchie build bridges with the fourth estate, such recruitment efforts should take place behind closed doors.
What is worrying for England is their failure to attract one of the top names in world rugby to one of the most attractive positions in the game. Those who were critical of Lancaster’s appointment have been given further reason to be sceptical. It is incumbent upon Ian Ritchie to ensure that there are no further embarrassing recruitment gaffes. Having appointed Lancaster, the CEO is clearly going to have to mentor and manage him in a way that should be unnecessary with a head coach. A tough tour to South Africa awaits and Lancaster is already on the back foot.
Posted under News & Opinions
about 1 year ago
Sounds overly harsh? He made a play for one of the best attacking coaches in rugby. The fact that Wayne Smith considered the role so seriously speaks volumes for Lancaster I would have though, considering it was a role that would have taken Smith away from his family and pitted him against the team he loves. Besides, good luck recruiting one of the world’s most high profile coaches in stealth. If the RFU couldn’t do that with all the coaches they worked through before appointing Lancaster, how do you expect him to do it? I assume Ian Ritchie was part of those recruitment gaffs too?
about 1 year ago
Defo harsh. PLEASE lets hold off the knocking for a while. The guy – and his coaches and players – deserve a bit of time. Going for Smith was ambitious, but if it’s on, back yourself and go for it. Better to fail trying than fail to try.
about 1 year ago
He may be looking in all the wrong places. He should be looking for assistants who buy into the brand he wants to see England play. People he has worked with and knows what they are capable of. Smith has been with the AB’s for an extended period and I’m sure he would have found it difficult to adapt to Lancaster’s way in a lesser role. The only attraction for Smith would be head coach of England as opposed to reporting to a far less experienced senior coach. Nevertheless hats off to Lancaster for having the balls to admit he needs an assistant he can learn from.
about 1 year ago
Lancaster is lucky he did not get Farrell or Smith. This article is harsh. He’s good at selection not recruitment. He should not need to persuade players or coaches to represent England. Catt is the right result. Lancaster is still on track for now…
about 1 year ago
“Listen to me. Learn from me. I was not the best because I killed quickly. I was the best because the crowd loved me. Win the crowd and you will win your freedom”. Proximo, Gladiator
about 1 year ago
I actually kind of hate the tone this section of the site is taking. This is a site Wayne Smith is personally associated with, and is represents Mr. Henry, Smith, et al. who have a lot of respect and admiration around the globe, and I find this smells of gossip, and negativity. This is a coaching page people come to for resources, guidance and inspiration. I see little value in, other than cautionary example in articles like this. But if you do not know that the knives are long and sharp at the international level, you are not paying attention. This is chat room level gossip about Mr. Lancaster, and and Mr. Kidney, beneath what this site is about, which I beleived to be good coaching.
about 1 year ago
Bit harsh, Wayne Smith agreed to meeting him but then after discussing with family and confidants decided not to pursue the opportunity – that shouldn’t be a blight on Lancaster. And, you have a typo in you headline – Lanacaster should be Lancaster
about 1 year ago
Hardly harsh. The interesting question is “whether Wayne Smith would have taken the job with England if Nick Mallett was head coach?”.
about 1 year ago
All these recent articles sound like they’re written by the same person, because they all have exactly the same point-of-view! I guess Lancaster was responsible for the RFU only offering Sarries £60K compensation for Farrell, was he? Having spent so much on expensive headhunters, you’d think Lancaster would be entitled to some support from his administration.
By all accounts Wayne Smith turned the offer down for personal reasons rather than absence of attraction to Lancaster’s philosophy – unless you believe he’s not telling the truth!
9
Comments