Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is the Media Too Soft on Declan Kidney and the Irish Management

12346

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    leftleg wrote: »
    What are our options so; how was our situation different from Englands?? And please can you answer clearly without any innuendo or vagueness.

    The leaked reports that portrayed the English coaches and some senior players as being incompetent and having little interest in how the English team performed is one difference.

    The English team had some high profile off the pitch misdemeanour's which portrayed a poor team dynamic is another.
    Also that Thomas completely shafted John Steele, who has come out of the whole thing looking quite good.

    The truth though is that just because England brought in a new coach did not mean they had to change playing personnel. A lot of the problem guys are still there in fact (Ashton, Hartley, Tuilagi).

    Lancaster could just as easilly come in with a continuity plan and worried about rankings points (England are in the same position as us, just 1 seed higher) and selected experienced guys like Tindall and Easter and Lancaster (who is an RFU insider) could have hidden behind his interim position and the threat of rankings losses as justification. He didn't though. He picked new players and instilled a new hunger and passion in the team. The players played for their jerseys and when they didn't perform he dropped or rotated them (Youngs, Dowson, Hodgson, Palmer).

    Kidney did the opposite to all that and for every step the English took forwards we took one backwards.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 502 ✭✭✭dougieruggie


    JustinDee wrote: »

    There'll be some changes for the tour I'd say, but I'm not going to go into specifics on whom I think will move up and down the order as an internet forum with anonymous posters is not the place.

    Let me guess. Zebo, POM, Archer and Keatley will be introduced to the squad. D'arcy will go. SOB loses his place and Reddan goes.

    Thats my guess knowing Uncle Deccie


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,407 ✭✭✭✭justsomebloke


    JustinDee and leftleg if you want to continue your spat please do it via PM
    JustinDee wrote:
    but I'm not going to go into specifics on whom I think will move up and down the order as an internet forum with anonymous posters is not the place.

    If you don't want to talk about it on an internet forum then the simplest thing to do is not mention it at all. If you are going to elude to stuff people will call you on it so don't be surprised when they do.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,175 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Also that Thomas completely shafted John Steele, who has come out of the whole thing looking quite good.

    The truth though is that just because England brought in a new coach did not mean they had to change playing personnel. A lot of the problem guys are still there in fact (Ashton, Hartley, Tuilagi).

    Lancaster could just as easilly come in with a continuity plan and worried about rankings points (England are in the same position as us, just 1 seed higher) and selected experienced guys like Tindall and Easter and Lancaster (who is an RFU insider) could have hidden behind his interim position and the threat of rankings losses as justification. He didn't though. He picked new players and instilled a new hunger and passion in the team. The players played for their jerseys and when they didn't perform he dropped or rotated them (Youngs, Dowson, Hodgson, Palmer).

    Kidney did the opposite to all that and for every step the English took forwards we took one backwards.

    Since Lancaster was the Saxons coach, you could say he stayed with what he knew who happened to work out. England's gameplan was fairly simple, besides having a very good scrum, there were lots of chip & chases. I don't think tualigi made one linebreak against ireland for instance.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,165 ✭✭✭leftleg


    jm08 wrote: »
    Since Lancaster was the Saxons coach, you could say he stayed with what he knew who happened to work out. England's gameplan was fairly simple, besides having a very good scrum, there were lots of chip & chases. I don't think tualigi made one linebreak against ireland for instance.

    So Lancaster used some players and it worked out; whats wrong with that?? sign of a good coach maybe?? Sometimes a simple game plan is the right one like targeting Irelands frail scrum. Good coaches spot weaknesses in the other team.

    Ireland most definitely targeted Tuilagi mercilessly; total credit on this must go to Less Kiss;


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    jm08 wrote: »
    Also that Thomas completely shafted John Steele, who has come out of the whole thing looking quite good.

    The truth though is that just because England brought in a new coach did not mean they had to change playing personnel. A lot of the problem guys are still there in fact (Ashton, Hartley, Tuilagi).

    Lancaster could just as easilly come in with a continuity plan and worried about rankings points (England are in the same position as us, just 1 seed higher) and selected experienced guys like Tindall and Easter and Lancaster (who is an RFU insider) could have hidden behind his interim position and the threat of rankings losses as justification. He didn't though. He picked new players and instilled a new hunger and passion in the team. The players played for their jerseys and when they didn't perform he dropped or rotated them (Youngs, Dowson, Hodgson, Palmer).

    Kidney did the opposite to all that and for every step the English took forwards we took one backwards.

    Since Lancaster was the Saxons coach, you could say he stayed with what he knew who happened to work out. England's gameplan was fairly simple, besides having a very good scrum, there were lots of chip & chases. I don't think tualigi made one linebreak against ireland for instance.
    Farrell? Morgan? Dickson? Parling? How many times have they played for the Saxons?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,636 ✭✭✭✭Tox56


    jm08 wrote: »
    Since Lancaster was the Saxons coach, you could say he stayed with what he knew who happened to work out. England's gameplan was fairly simple, besides having a very good scrum, there were lots of chip & chases. I don't think tualigi made one linebreak against ireland for instance.

    Tuilagi didn't have much of an impact because the ball hardly ever went past 2nd reciever due to the type of game England were playing as a result of the conditions.

    Against Wales, who have a bigger and stronger defence than us, in far better conditions, Tuilagi was instrumental in almost winning that game for England, he was fantastic.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    JustinDee and leftleg if you want to continue your spat please do it via PM

    If you don't want to talk about it on an internet forum then the simplest thing to do is not mention it at all. If you are going to elude to stuff people will call you on it so don't be surprised when they do.
    Ok doke.
    My opinion isn't an allusion, by the way. Its just my opinion. Will share some and keep others . . . just like anyone else.

    Thanks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,742 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    CoDy1 wrote: »
    Toland was reffering to England and Wales here tbf and that this is the ideal thing, making big changes but still winning matches.

    Maybe I read it wrong, but immediately before making their changes neither Wales nor England were "winning". Wales made there's after coming 4th in last years 6 Nations and England after failing to make it past the QF of the RWC.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    Again, you're comparing England's situation with that of Ireland's when the two were not even remotely similar.
    England made sweeping changes because they had no other option.
    They had no CEO but a temp who replaced a replacement who got the boot by his committees because they didn't like his recommendations, an elite head involved in a political battle at HQ, a manager who had never even headed coaches, let alone coached a professional side before in his life, a core of players showing evident disciplinary and attitude problems, the antithesis of what is required for a international squad. England also have a season-through battle with their clubs, particularly the privately-owned entities.
    Also your main point seems to be about age profiles. Having brought England forward as an example, what age was the backbone of England's RWC-winning team?

    It's a very general comparison Justin. A team has a problem, it makes changes to fix it (or them). We've underperformed for 4 successive tournaments. That may be a different problem to the English one but the overall point remains the same. Something needs to change. You can't expect to power on through with something that hasn't been working in the hope that it will somehow suddenly click.

    Wales and England have had the balls to make changes to the team and the way they play in an effort to combat their on-field issues. Ireland have not. There is always a risk inherent in making changes like that, but where there is potential risk there is also potential reward. If we persist with something that isn't working for fear of that risk we are going to find it incredibly difficult to get any sort of reward. A fact which has been borne out in the last number of tournaments.

    So many people are fast becoming disillusioned and fed-up with the national set-up because we can all see things are not working, yet none of us can see much in the way of effort to rectify that. Why would anyone want to spend their money watching their side bang their heads repeatedly against the same brick wall???


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    molloyjh wrote: »
    It's a very general comparison Justin. A team has a problem, it makes changes to fix it (or them). We've underperformed for 4 successive tournaments. That may be a different problem to the English one but the overall point remains the same. Something needs to change. You can't expect to power on through with something that hasn't been working in the hope that it will somehow suddenly click
    Wales were to lose players so brought some in. England had to shed players and retroactively brought new names in. Sorry but I don't see the same comparisons relevant, general or otherwise.
    People here have complained about the attack yet the attack has been potent. Defence has been pretty good too.
    Problems I saw were in on-field decision-making under pressure at times and ill-discipline when it really mattered in two of the games. Margins are that close and a result can flip on the tiniest details. Turning point for me last weekend for example, wasn't Kearney's field-goal attempt but when that lineout to the back surprised England but slipped through Heaslip's hands. England were absolutely f***ed if he took that. Only the left wing and a sweeping halfback in his way. A try then would have edged the psychological factor Ireland's direction at a crucial point of the first-half. As for tighthead, up-and-coming props playing the odd RaboDirect game behind overseas players isn't going to help situation but this problem is in the process of finally being alleviated.

    I was as frustrated as the next at some of the performances but I tend not to panic. Players know what went wrong. Up to them to learn from it and put right, and they know that too.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Wasn't that lineout 3 minutes into the game? My memory is playing tricks on ne again maybe


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    Wasn't that lineout 3 minutes into the game? My memory is playing tricks on ne again maybe

    I'm not sure about the exact min but I thought it was early on. It reminded me of a move I'd saw on the "Plays of the Week" clip RugbyDump had up last week actually.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,175 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    leftleg wrote: »
    So Lancaster used some players and it worked out; whats wrong with that?? sign of a good coach maybe?? Sometimes a simple game plan is the right one like targeting Irelands frail scrum. Good coaches spot weaknesses in the other team.

    Ireland most definitely targeted Tuilagi mercilessly; total credit on this must go to Less Kiss;


    nothing wrong with that. he is being admired for taking risks and making sweeping changes - maybe it wasn't so risky.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,165 ✭✭✭leftleg


    JustinDee wrote: »
    People here have complained about the attack yet the attack has been potent. Defence has been pretty good too.

    I agree Ireland have got more tries but we have still lost matches against Wales, and England and drew to a poor France
    JustinDee wrote: »
    Turning point for me last weekend for example, wasn't Kearney's field-goal attempt but when that lineout to the back surprised England but slipped through Heaslip's hands. England were absolutely f***ed if he took that. Only the left wing and a sweeping halfback in his way. A try then would have edged the psychological factor Ireland's direction at a crucial point of the first-half

    That was a dire miss by Heaslip at the tail but we were being savaged in the scrum and losing 3 points each time. I dont know how we could have won with the personel on the pitch at the time given the mincing we were getting in the scrum. In fact in a way its made Kidney face up to the fact that we need another TH.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    As for tighthead, up-and-coming props playing the odd RaboDirect game behind overseas players isn't going to help situation but this problem is in the process of finally being alleviated.

    How?? That statement sounds like there is an easy solution to this


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 502 ✭✭✭dougieruggie


    JustinDee wrote: »
    Wales were to lose players so brought some in. England had to shed players and retroactively brought new names in. Sorry but I don't see the same comparisons relevant, general or otherwise.
    People here have complained about the attack yet the attack has been potent. Defence has been pretty good too.
    Problems I saw were in on-field decision-making under pressure at times and ill-discipline when it really mattered in two of the games. Margins are that close and a result can flip on the tiniest details. Turning point for me last weekend for example, wasn't Kearney's field-goal attempt but when that lineout to the back surprised England but slipped through Heaslip's hands. England were absolutely f***ed if he took that. Only the left wing and a sweeping halfback in his way. A try then would have edged the psychological factor Ireland's direction at a crucial point of the first-half. As for tighthead, up-and-coming props playing the odd RaboDirect game behind overseas players isn't going to help situation but this problem is in the process of finally being alleviated.

    I was as frustrated as the next at some of the performances but I tend not to panic. Players know what went wrong. Up to them to learn from it and put right, and they know that too.

    Its amazing how 2 years of poor results are all down to us having 'bad luck'


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    I am looking forward to the new rules meaning there will be at least 2 Irish players starting at LH and TH from now on. That will be a welcome change.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,175 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Farrell? Morgan? Dickson? Parling? How many times have they played for the Saxons?

    farrell is a bit of a prodigy and his father was coaching him so he would have known all about him. Morgan was called up to the saxon and turned them down first of all, then changed his mind, so lancaster would have been keeping an eye on him, dickson has been in the saxons squad since 2007. hes been to 2 churchill cups. Parling toured with england last year but wasn't capped (he is 28). he also played against Ireland A & Italy last year for the saxons.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,742 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    JustinDee wrote: »
    Wales were to lose players so brought some in. England had to shed players and retroactively brought new names in. Sorry but I don't see the same comparisons relevant, general or otherwise.
    People here have complained about the attack yet the attack has been potent. Defence has been pretty good too.
    Problems I saw were in on-field decision-making under pressure at times and ill-discipline when it really mattered in two of the games. Margins are that close and a result can flip on the tiniest details. Turning point for me last weekend for example, wasn't Kearney's field-goal attempt but when that lineout to the back surprised England but slipped through Heaslip's hands. England were absolutely f***ed if he took that. Only the left wing and a sweeping halfback in his way. A try then would have edged the psychological factor Ireland's direction at a crucial point of the first-half. As for tighthead, up-and-coming props playing the odd RaboDirect game behind overseas players isn't going to help situation but this problem is in the process of finally being alleviated.

    I was as frustrated as the next at some of the performances but I tend not to panic. Players know what went wrong. Up to them to learn from it and put right, and they know that too.

    Panic? I'll tell you what Justin, look up the definition of the word panic. I'm fairly sure most, if not all, will use the word "sudden". There is nothing sudden about any of this. That's the main problem.

    I'll highlight another problem, which hasn't been talked about much. Half-time. One of the Irish players (can't remember who off the top of my head) said in the press that half-time is usually a good time for Ireland. A time where they go in and can address issues and get themselves mentally up for the second half. That didn't happen in Twickenham. Instead half-time was quiet and left them in no better position than they were going into the dressing room. That suggests two seperate issues to me. The first is a serious lack of leadership from the senior players and the second a serious lack of leadership and direction from the coaching staff.

    Another one is the substitutions. In the Scotland game with Ireland ahead but the game still somewhat in the balance Kidney brought on both TOL and ROG in the 53rd minute, moving Sexton to inside centre. We weren't sure why exactly he did it. The suggestion afterwards was that it was because he wanted Best off and ROG as captain. A week later and Kidney makes those exact same changes to the half-backs at 49 mins (in other words the same time really) in a game that had a completely different complexion and totally different issues. Is it a coincidence that the same changes were made to address completely different games, or is it more likely that Kidney really wasn't sure how to go about using his bench effectively so he made the same decision at the same time regardless of what was playing out on the field? It was exactly like 2011 again, when at half-time in the French game myself and a couple of strangers were able to predict when the scrum-half and out-half changes would be made almost to the very minute.

    Yes the margins at this level are very small, but if those margins are going against you constantly (4 successive tournaments is enough to say constantly for me) then surely it's a sign that something else is wrong. No team is that unlucky.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,165 ✭✭✭leftleg


    jm08 wrote: »
    farrell is a bit of a prodigy and his father was coaching him so he would have known all about him. Morgan was called up to the saxon and turned them down first of all, then changed his mind, so lancaster would have been keeping an eye on him, dickson has been in the saxons squad since 2007. hes been to 2 churchill cups. Parling toured with england last year but wasn't capped (he is 28). he also played against Ireland A & Italy last year for the saxons.

    So are you trying to say that Lancaster knew about all these players already so, even though they are relatively new to Proper International rugby, he is still sticking to his tried and trusted ala Kidney.

    1 His "tried and trusted" have been getting better and better.

    2 The step up from Saxons level to full international is massive

    3 Whether Farrell is a prodigy or not has nothing to do with it; if hes good enough than hes old enough.


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    jm08 wrote: »
    Farrell? Morgan? Dickson? Parling? How many times have they played for the Saxons?

    farrell is a bit of a prodigy and his father was coaching him so he would have known all about him. Morgan was called up to the saxon and turned them down first of all, then changed his mind, so lancaster would have been keeping an eye on him, dickson has been in the saxons squad since 2007. hes been to 2 churchill cups. Parling toured with england last year but wasn't capped (he is 28). he also played against Ireland A & Italy last year for the saxons.
    The thing is other players were ahead of all those guys for the Saxons. Young, Simpson and more have consistently been ahead of Dickson. They've had numerous options at 8. Nick Kennedy in the row. Plenty of players that Lancaster would have gone with if he was selecting the players he's familiar with. As it is he picked the right guys ahead of the ones he's most familiar with and it paid off.

    I think it certainly would have helped him that his previous job gave him the opportunity to watch all these guys, but no more opportunity than Kidney has had in his job. The difference between the two is Lancaster took that opportunity when presented with it, rather than take the easier option.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,175 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    molloyjh wrote: »

    Another one is the substitutions. In the Scotland game with Ireland ahead but the game still somewhat in the balance Kidney brought on both TOL and ROG in the 53rd minute, moving Sexton to inside centre. We weren't sure why exactly he did it. The suggestion afterwards was that it was because he wanted Best off and ROG as captain. A week later and Kidney makes those exact same changes to the half-backs at 49 mins (in other words the same time really) in a game that had a completely different complexion and totally different issues. Is it a coincidence that the same changes were made to address completely different games, or is it more likely that Kidney really wasn't sure how to go about using his bench effectively so he made the same decision at the same time regardless of what was playing out on the field? It was exactly like 2011 again, when at half-time in the French game myself and a couple of strangers were able to predict when the scrum-half and out-half changes would be made almost to the very minute.

    Yes the margins at this level are very small, but if those margins are going against you constantly (4 successive tournaments is enough to say constantly for me) then surely it's a sign that something else is wrong. No team is that unlucky.

    conspiracy theory !

    The only effective use of the bench would have been sending on a tighthead . ogara was put on so early because he wanted to take Best off (you can see why when you look at the serious lack of leadership from the team the following week when the going got tough). don't see how it would be odd to put ogara on to help out with the obvious leadership issues against england. reddan was taken off because his defence and physiciality are not good enough, specially behind a scrum in trouble .

    and most sports people will tell you that you need an element of luck to win (look at wales who have definately been lucky a few times).


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,636 ✭✭✭✭Tox56


    jm08 wrote: »
    conspiracy theory !

    The only effective use of the bench would have been sending on a tighthead . ogara was put on so early because he wanted to take Best off (you can see why when you look at the serious lack of leadership from the team the following week when the going got tough). don't see how it would be odd to put ogara on to help out with the obvious leadership issues against england. reddan was taken off because his defence and physiciality are not good enough, specially behind a scrum in trouble .

    and most sports people will tell you that you need an element of luck to win (look at wales who have definately been lucky a few times).

    You bring on a poor passing scrumhalf on a wet day when you need to avoid scrums? No matter how many time I say it, it sounds more ridiculous every time.

    Why take off the biggest leader in the team because you want more leadership? It's a weak excuse.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,592 ✭✭✭GerM


    Tox56 wrote: »
    Why take off the biggest leader in the team because you want more leadership? It's a weak excuse.

    No, you see, the last time ROG captained the side in a test match it was in Twickenham and it was a completely different situation. DK knew that ROG was the man for the job.

    Oh wait.

    http://www.espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/match/25604.html

    Whatever reasoning there is for the ROG/Sexton, 10/12 situation, it's not logical.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭CIARAN_BOYLE


    Tox56 wrote: »
    You bring on a poor passing scrumhalf on a wet day when you need to avoid scrums? No matter how many time I say it, it sounds more ridiculous every time.

    Why take off the biggest leader in the team because you want more leadership? It's a weak excuse.
    If it was you bring on a physical breaking SH when you want to avoid passing sure but a poor passing SH, thats just rediculous.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,175 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    The thing is other players were ahead of all those guys for the Saxons. Young, Simpson and more have consistently been ahead of Dickson. They've had numerous options at 8. Nick Kennedy in the row. Plenty of players that Lancaster would have gone with if he was selecting the players he's familiar with. As it is he picked the right guys ahead of the ones he's most familiar with and it paid off.

    I think it certainly would have helped him that his previous job gave him the opportunity to watch all these guys, but no more opportunity than Kidney has had in his job. The difference between the two is Lancaster took that opportunity when presented with it, rather than take the easier option.

    all i was saying was that he knows them all well from the saxons having coached them all at some stage. kidney doesn't coach the wolfhounds so wouldnt have the same knowledge of a player if he was coaching them .


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,742 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    jm08 wrote: »
    conspiracy theory !

    The only effective use of the bench would have been sending on a tighthead . ogara was put on so early because he wanted to take Best off (you can see why when you look at the serious lack of leadership from the team the following week when the going got tough). don't see how it would be odd to put ogara on to help out with the obvious leadership issues against england. reddan was taken off because his defence and physiciality are not good enough, specially behind a scrum in trouble .

    and most sports people will tell you that you need an element of luck to win (look at wales who have definately been lucky a few times).

    Not to put too big a hole in your theory, but against England Best played for another 30 mins or so after ROG came on.


    Oh and no conspiracy theory here, just simple facts. I'm not trying to float anything other than Kidneys inability to play whats in front of him.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,175 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Tox56 wrote: »
    You bring on a poor passing scrumhalf on a wet day when you need to avoid scrums? No matter how many time I say it, it sounds more ridiculous every time.

    Why take off the biggest leader in the team because you want more leadership? It's a weak excuse.

    best was carrying an injury (ribs) i think and he was also going to be having a tough day out the following week. there were 4 tests in a row with no break .

    there was not too much passing going on - what ireland needed to do in those weather conditions was put it up the jumper. england has more possession so defence was needed more .


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,165 ✭✭✭leftleg


    jm08 wrote: »
    - what ireland needed to do in those weather conditions was put it up the jumper. england has more possession so defence was needed more .

    Nope just a tight head and a new coach


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,175 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    molloyjh wrote: »
    Not to put too big a hole in your theory, but against England Best played for another 30 mins or so after ROG came on.


    Oh and no conspiracy theory here, just simple facts. I'm not trying to float anything other than Kidneys inability to play whats in front of him.

    Best had enough trouble going on with the scrum to be worrying about leadership . heads had really dropped by the time o'gara came on - if anything his introduction was too late to give the team a lift . they had well given up by then .


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,165 ✭✭✭leftleg


    jm08 wrote: »
    if anything his introduction was too late to give the team a lift . they had well given up by then .

    What are you talking about!!!

    We needed a TH not a 35 year old flyhalf; nothing except at least parity in the scrum or a total capitulation from England would have saved Ireland.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement