So here we are again. Another shambolic World Cup and another new coach to find. It is now three World Cups in a row where England have lost a coach after making a mess of things – yes, I know they reached the final in 2007 but that was a remarkable performance in spite of, not thanks to, everything that went on off the pitch.

Brian Ashton stumbled along for a few more months until the summer of 2008, whereas Martin Johnson in 2011 and now Stuart Lancaster departed Twickenham in the immediate aftermath, but we should not be surprised that this happens time and time again.

We’re in this mess because of the lack of strategic management from the Rugby Football Union. How did it not see this as a possibility? How can you have a home World Cup and only see the potential positives without a thought about the possible massive negatives if things don’t work out? What kind of business is run like that? The potential non-performance at the World Cup was one of the greatest risks facing English rugby yet we seem to have been completely unprepared for it.

We seem to arrive at every hole in the ground and be astonished by it. We hear there is a six-year contract but are told things are OK because there’s a get-out clause written into it, but what is the plan once that get-out is activated? No one seems to have a clear idea of what will happen next. That’s an incompetent way to run a business.

It all comes back to the point I have made many times before, that the structure of the game in this country is working against itself. A vicious circle has been allowed to develop where because the structure is not aligned and the people making the appointment are inexpert, you end up with a poor appointment, in whom you have little confidence, who then has to be replaced by someone who is almost condemned to be another poor appointment.

So it has gone on, arguably since 2003, but certainly since 2007. That is not to say that the next permanent coach, one with international experience according to the Rugby Football Union’s chief executive, Ian Ritchie, will not do a good job within the context of the dysfunctional English system. Rather that it will not be thanks to the brains trust on the appointment panel if he does.

Lancaster was appointed as an interim coach who had very limited experience at the top level and he appointed or retained a fairly inexperienced management team. That resulted in him shrinking under the home World Cup pressure, with poor selection and lack of clarity over what he wanted the team to do. This highlighted the lack of competence and understanding of the demands of the job among the appointment panel.

The risk is that we will repeat the Lancaster appointment with another person. There are better coaches out there than Lancaster but even if that side of the job is improved, whoever gets the job needs to have a charismatic persona because he has to play politics to influence things that are outside his control. He has to gain the cooperation of the clubs and get the RFU working for his and the England side’s benefit. Technical coaching skills are not enough.

It was perhaps this structural issue that led them to appoint Johnson – a man with more authority than most in the English game – but the problem is that the coach must also have, funnily enough, a coaching pedigree.

The leading English candidate would be Jim Mallinder. The Northampton head coach has been at the top of the Premiership for three or four years so most people would think he would have to be on the list but he has seemingly been ruled out by Ritchie’s declaration that international experience is essential.

This only further illustrates an inability to identify the criteria needed to do the job. Vern Cotter, Joe Schmidt and Michael Cheika had no international experience before taking their current jobs yet they are doing fine. Equally, international success somewhere else does not automatically translate into success with England, not least given the structural peculiarities.

So we now know we are looking for a world figure such as Eddie Jones, but how long would he be interested in the job? You’d need to hear what his plan is and what sort of coaching team he’d want under him and what his thoughts on succession planning are. Otherwise it’s back to the same thing we’ve had after each of the past three World Cups.

One thing is for sure, anyone coming to the job from overseas will face a steep learning curve. No other union bar France – and I assume Philippe Saint‑André is not a name in the frame – has a structure where the clubs and the union do not work together. Anyone coming from, say, New Zealand may find the way things work here, or don’t work, quite a shock.

It all feels a bit like the England football team’s appointment of the hugely experienced Fabio Capello after the underwhelming reign of the inexperienced Steve McClaren. From one extreme to the other. Whoever gets the job I wish them well, but don’t be surprised if we are looking in desperation for a reassuring Roy Hodgson-like figure in four years’ time.