That decision, derided now, was rational at the time. It turned out badly, but belongs in the category of honest errors. Lancaster had served his apprenticeship at all England levels and surrounded himself with a young coaching team widely described as promising, until those judgments performed a somersault at this World Cup.
England left their own tournament after 16 days. Lancaster left his job 39 days after that. The hiatus lasted more than twice as long as England's participation in the most entertaining of all World Cups. Canvassing 59 people, "with extensive feedback from the players", clearly led to the obvious conclusion that Lancaster's record in big games since 2012 had not been good enough. He was judged not solely on the pool-stage exit, presumably, but also four second-place finishes in the Six Nations Championship and three wins from 15 against the Southern Hemisphere big three.
There was no need for Ritchie to go the way of Lancaster, because much of the work done under his leadership has been constructive. The hunch he backed with Lancaster turned out to be a losing bet but punishing him with dismissal would only add to the chaos. The World Cup worked brilliantly. Only the England team spoiled the show.
Although it will solve the immediate problem - fill the experience gap - hiring a coach from New Zealand, Australia or South Africa will qualify as an indignity - and point to a failure in coach development. International sport, after all, is meant to be the players, coaches and fans of Country A against the players, coaches and fans of Country B. But this notion has been shredded by expediency, and, in this case, English weakness.
Should Eddie Jones, say, take the job, then two of the three big England teams would be coached by Australians. There is nothing parochial about recognising the absurdity of such an arrangement.
The danger is that Lancaster will be used as a symbol to exclude the possibility of a bright English club coach - Rob Baxter or Dean Ryan, say - ever being allowed near the top job. It simply does not follow that because Lancaster fell short, all the others would too. The World Cup fiasco should not be used as a stick to beat all English coaches.
But for now "international experience" is the fashionable corrective to the mistakes made in England's campaign. In retrospect the warning signs were there when Lancaster seemed so tortured by the process of having to pick his final World Cup squad. That prevarication turned to a lack of clarity and consistency in the pool itself, with the rewriting of England's game plan against Wales being the worst example.
Some of these players have a lot to answer for. For starters many froze on the biggest stage, which will worry the next coach; and as Mike Brown pointed out "trust" has since been destroyed by anonymous squealing and petty point scoring. The saddest part for Lancaster might be that he tried to build a team of giants able to take responsibility and honour the shirt, on and off the field. Instead, some have made themselves look quite small.
Lancaster thought he could eradicate the arrogance and self indulgence of 2011. In 2015 it returned in a different form. The next coach will need a clever plan to cure it.
On one level you would call it a glorious job for any coach, English or otherwise. On another, you would warn the new man it will not be easy money.
