IN one of his final press conferences before the start of the World Cup, England head coach Stuart Lancaster challenged his players to do “something remarkable”. They have done it. Somehow, they have made the World Cup efforts of England’s footballers look respectable.

Over the course of three successive weekends, England have become the first host nation in World Cup history to fail to make it out of the group stage.

There is a slither of mitigation in the draw, and World Rugby must surely overhaul a flawed system that has resulted in four of the top-nine ranked nations in the world finding themselves together in the same pool.

Yet any misfortune in being drawn with Australia, Wales and Fiji cannot adequately explain the shambolic way in which England’s World Cup campaign has unravelled. The blame for most of that must be laid at Lancaster’s door, and while he recently signed a contract taking him to 2020, the England boss’ future has to be in grave doubt despite Sunday’s assurances from RFU chief executive Ian Ritchie that he would not be making any knee-jerk decisions.

Last November, England beat Australia 26-17 at Twickenham and exposed chronic failings in the visitors’ forward play. Australia head coach Michael Cheika went away and resolved to make wholesale changes before the World Cup began.

He appointed former Argentina hooker Mario Ledesma to overhaul the scrum, developed a strategy that was designed to exploit the potency of David Pocock and Michael Hooper at the breakdown and vowed to provide as much ball as possible for the explosive backline talents of Israel Folau, Adam Ashley-Cooper and Matt Giteau.

As a result, when the Wallabies returned to Twickenham for Saturday’s explosive encounter with England, they knew exactly what they were trying to do and executed their game plan perfectly.

The Northern Echo:

Lancaster has been planning for this World Cup campaign for almost four years, and yet it will end with more questions than answers.

Who is England’s preferred fly-half – Owen Farrell or George Ford? What is Lancaster hoping to achieve in the centres – a balance between inside and outside, or a dual battering ram that can smash through an opposition defence? How can England compete at the breakdown when their back row is an amalgam of disparate parts?

Lancaster has made great play of restoring pride to the England shirt. He has evoked great teams of the past, talked repeatedly of respect and honour, and adopted an almost militaristic approach to serving Queen and country. Yet amidst all of that, he has forgotten that the best way to instil pride is to win matches. I doubt you’ll find too many Welsh or Australian fans questioning their own players’ commitment at the moment.

In attempting to create ‘Team England’, Lancaster has instead developed a group of honest, likeable players, completely out of tune with the cut-throat environment of international rugby. They’d buy you a pint after the final whistle, but ask them to take decisive, split-second decisions in the furnace of a closely-fought game and their discomfort is immediately apparent.

The warning signs were there when skipper Chris Robshaw made some dreadful calls in the 2012 autumn international series, yet he was still there nine days ago, making the ill-fated decision not to attempt a penalty against Wales that did so much damage to England’s World Cup hopes. There is no leadership in this England side, no hard-edged assassin unworried about what others might make of his bluntness.

The Northern Echo:

There is also no shape or pattern to the style of play. One week, Luther Burrell and Ford are in, and the plan is to throw the ball around. The next, it’s Sam Burgess and Farrell and the instruction is to barge up the middle.

Lancaster’s squad is a mish-mash of the undroppable (Robshaw, Dan Cole, Brad Barritt, Tom Youngs) and the seemingly untrustable (Ford, Henry Slade, Nick Easter).

It is more notable for who is absent than who is there, with the decision not to select Steffon Armitage, one of the best back rowers in the world, simply because he plays his club rugby in France a gross error of judgement.

Lancaster was no doubt put under considerable pressure from his employers at the RFU not to select Armitage in order to protect the status of the English club game. A more powerful leader – Sir Clive Woodward, for example – would have told the RFU where to stick their selection policy in order to enhance his chances of World Cup success.

In desperately trying not to offend anyone, Lancaster has ultimately let everyone down. For all that he can attempt to portray this tournament as a stepping stone towards 2019 for a group of young players who do not boast much international experience, that was not the remit he was handed when the RFU surveyed the wreckage of their last World Cup disaster in New Zealand.

Somehow, the current campaign has turned out to be worse. Lancaster admits he is ultimately responsible, and for that reason alone, he surely cannot remain in his post.

This was England’s best opportunity to add to their solitary World Cup success and place rugby at the very heart of the sporting landscape. The tournament will continue, but as the party’s departed hosts, England leave in a state of considerable embarrassment.