This is the issue that was discussed earlier; that of opposition from the established Church against the Bible being translated into the vernacular. These men considered it important that the people themselves be able to read the scriptures for themselves rather than be blocked from Biblical understanding because the scriptures were only available in an archaic language.
Later, when it was seen as inevitable that the scriptures would be translated, more scholarly work translations were translated.
Again, you are ignoring historical reality.
Two important facts to remember:
(1) 95% of the population was illiterate and could read neither English nor Latin. Books of any kind, let alone books as large and complex as the Bible, were prohibitively expensive and difficult to come by. Why?
(2) Printing had only been around for a few decades. The cost of a complete Bible in any language prior to 1500 was somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-20 workingmen's annual wages.
Even in the 1550s, a century after the invention of printing had significantly cut the cost of books, Bibles were so expensive that the English Crown could not afford to provide every government preacher with a Bible - so a Bible was chained to the altar of a select number of churches for the use of itinerant, government-licensed preachers.
It wasn't until the 1600s that printing had sufficiently achieved the economies of scale necessary to make books available to wealthiest 20% of society.
The vernacular translations of Tyndale and Coverdale did not "put the Bible in the hands of the common man" as is commonly claimed. It put the Bible in the hands of the less-well-educated portion of the educated 5% - and it was done for a very specific reason.
After the King had tortured, persecuted and driven abroad two-thirds of the English clergy, his new church had to make do with the dregs and washouts of the educated class - the kind who barely remembered their schooling and required vernacular Bibles to be able to perform their clerical duties.
In point of fact, the Catholic Church never opposed the translation of the Bible into the vernacular.
In Europe, from the fourth century until the sixteenth century, to be literate meant to read Latin. The concept of vernacular Bibles as one's primary Scriptural text was strange - vernacular versions were considered to be analogous to Cliff Notes for people who hadn't fully mastered their Latin, or as aids to preaching to enable pastors to more swiftly translate passages verbally for the illiterate common throng.
You are taking the modern-day milieu of cheaply available books and 99% literacy for granted - we are not living the norm of human history: we are incredibly lucky to live in an age where one can both buy an accurately translated Bible for $4 and read it.