Kidney contract extension

Coburger

Hey, what do you lot think of Kidney getting an extension of his contract? Shouldn't contract renewals be done after the World Cup, depending on how well they performed? Coburger

Wollwead

Yeah shouldn't the IRFU have learnt their lesson after what happened in the last RWC, in 2007. It was pretty stupid giving EOS a big deal before a ball had been touched IMO!

Piliger

After what happened the last time ... I am flabbergasted !

flutered

the following lines from an old song comes to mind
when will they learn
when will they ever learn

CatFromHue

ive heard other people mention it and it kinda makes sense when you think about it. gert smal and les kiss would be free agents after the world cup. it's not just kidney who has had his contract extended but them too. considering after world cups is usually when there is most movement in international management positions they could be offered some very attractive positions.
gert smal was wanted as sa forward coach when de villers too over.

phog

Are all the other international coaches contracts expiring after the WC?

I would seriously doubt it.

thomond2006

Nick Mallett is a free agent after the World Cup. Jacques Brunel (Perpignan head coach) is taking over as Italy coach after the tournament.

Marc Lievremont is leaving his post too AFAIK.

LuckyLloyd

"Once bitten, twice shy". Or not.

totallegend

In fairness to the IRFU, they have extended it by only two years, to 2013. Compare that to the shenanigans with Eddie O'Sullivan, who got a five-year deal a couple of months before the fiasco of the 2007 World Cup.

So, worst case scenario, there will be time to bed another coach in before the 2015 tournament.

fitz

totallegend wrote: »

In fairness to the IRFU, they have extended it by only two years, to 2013. Compare that to the shenanigans with Eddie O'Sullivan, who got a five-year deal a couple of months before the fiasco of the 2007 World Cup.

So, worst case scenario, there will be time to bed another coach in before the 2015 tournament.

I think this is still short sighted.
We should be giving a coach as much of the four years of build up to prepare for a World Cup as possible. The World Cup is the pinnacle of the sport (not that it's the only thing that's important), but I'd like to see contracts done in 4 year terms, so that each head coach is given 4 years to develop a team that can challenge for the sports top title.

Regardless of how we do at RWC 2011 (and I think we have the players to do very well), I'm astounded the IRFU would do the same thing that bit them so badly in the ass with EOS.

bamboozle

i wonder if the 2 year deal was tailored to allow him take on the lions role.

either way i dont rate Kidney anymore and dont think he's getting the best out of such a strong squad. However a fit and in form Kearney and a bit of luck and hopefully we'll (finally) have a strong showing in the world cup.

Colm_OReilly

From what I hear the two year deal allows him to coach the Lions. While I agree that contracts should not be reviewed ahead of the RWC I can see why they do it. They could have a provision in the contract that it's dependent on a performance in NZ though. Doubt they have it.

phog

bamboozle wrote: »

i wonder if the 2 year deal was tailored to allow him take on the lions role.

either way i dont rate Kidney anymore and dont think he's getting the best out of such a strong squad. However a fit and in form Kearney and a bit of luck and hopefully we'll (finally) have a strong showing in the world cup.

I have high hopes for Ireland but wouldnt be basing it on an in or out of form Kearney, lost some hope for him prior to his injury.

GerM

Without being privy to the details of the contract signed, we're really just shooting in the dark on this one. There could be clauses included, options to walk away, review of contract based on performance, whatever. At first glance, it seems hasty but the fact is that post WC, it could cost them more to get a coach in that performed well at the WC and not only would they lose DK but Les Kiss, who has performed excellently in his role would probably be lost too as well as a WC winning forwards coach. It's not the end of the world; it's only a 2 year extension. I'm not his biggest fan but it seems there will be an element of continuity involved and some of the senior players and DK will all finish up at the same time.

bamboozle

phog wrote: »

I have high hopes for Ireland but wouldnt be basing it on an in or out of form Kearney, lost some hope for him prior to his injury.

he had played for the guts of 2 seasons non stop prior to suffering his injury, we all saw in the AI's and the 6 nations how we struggled to find suitable cover at 15 in the absence of Kearney and Murphy, a fresh and fit kearney will bring cohesion back to what has been a back line performing in fits and starts.

phog

bamboozle wrote: »

he had played for the guts of 2 seasons non stop prior to suffering his injury, we all saw in the AI's and the 6 nations how we struggled to find suitable cover at 15 in the absence of Kearney and Murphy, a fresh and fit kearney will bring cohesion back to what has been a back line performing in fits and starts.

IMHO, he certainly wasn't playing international rugby and possibly provincial rugby to the standard he was capable of in the games that lead up to his injury.

I'm not dissing him, in fact I'm delighted he is returning but I'd question mentioning his name in a post that was about doing well in the WC, there's a good few players I'd list before I'd reach Kearney.

theboss80

bamboozle wrote: »

he had played for the guts of 2 seasons non stop prior to suffering his injury, we all saw in the AI's and the 6 nations how we struggled to find suitable cover at 15 in the absence of Kearney and Murphy, a fresh and fit kearney will bring cohesion back to what has been a back line performing in fits and starts.

Im afraid the back line can be as fit and fresh as they want but if DK ploughs on using TOL then they are rarely going to be given the platform to do something anyway.

With regards to the contract extension, I think the contract should have been extended until the end of March 2012 and no more unless we see some success* in New Zealand.

* semi final

CatFromHue

Kearney isn't as important to the Irish team as he was before the new rules but he still pretty important. He is a natural full back and we haven't had one of those since he got injured. I'd love to get his opinion on the try we conceded against the Italians.

durkadurka

I'm hoping he's changing his game. He's a super talent but the constant kicking was driving me nuts.

Off Topic - Law interpretations punish kicking backs, Kearney is hopefully going back to his running game, which can be fairly lethal tbh.

You wouldn't extend an employee's contract before their mid-year review would you?

Baffling stuff from the boys at the IRFU.

mikedragon32

Albert Einstein wrote:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

molloyjh

IRFU wrote:

Apart from securing the Grand Slam in 2009, the team has made significant progress over the last two years in terms of results and the development of players in international competition.

That's the bit that pisses me off the most. Since the Grand Slam the only way we could have progressed in terms of results was by having a successful Southern Hemisphere tour. We didn't have one. We have also failed to win even a Triple Crown since the GS. It's just factually incorrect to say our results have progressed.

As for the development of players that's rubbish. Of the 8 changes in the starting XV against France in 2009 and 2011 there were 5 due to injury and 1 of the other ones was replacing Hayes, which absolutely had to be done. The only truly unforced changes were to LH and OH. And even the LH change could be debated given Horans injuries and surgeries.

2009 wrote:

Ireland: R Kearney (Leinster); T Bowe (Ospreys), B O'Driscoll (Leinster, capt), P Wallace (Ulster), L Fitzgerald (Leinster); R O'Gara, T O'Leary; M Horan, J Flannery, J Hayes, D O'Callaghan, P O'Connell (all Munster), S Ferris (Ulster), D Wallace (Munster), J Heaslip (Leinster).

2011 wrote:

Ireland: L Fitzgerald; F McFadden, B O'Driscoll (capt), G D'Arcy (all Leinster), K Earls (Munster); J Sexton (Leinster), T O'Leary (Munster); C Healy (Leinster), R Best (Ulster), M Ross (Leinster), D O'Callaghan, P O'Connell (both Munster), S O'Brien (Leinster), D Wallace (Munster), J Heaslip (Leinster).

It just looks to me like the glory of the 2009 GS is tinting IRFU glasses a distinct shade of rosy in relation to results and player development. While I still have a lot of faith in the team and think we can do well in this RWC, it's foolish to award a contract renewal at this stage. And it's insulting to have that logic shovelled at us.

Phonehead

Unfortuantely it seems the benchmark for a good season is how we perform against one team, England. Take out the England game and we were shocking in the 6 nations.

profitius

Phonehead wrote: »

Unfortuantely it seems the benchmark for a good season is how we perform against one team, England. Take out the England game and we were shocking in the 6 nations.

In the other 6n games they blew hot and cold. There were times when Ireland blew the opposition away but in every game they took their foot off the gas and/or started to give away stupid penalties (also the refs were targeting Ireland). That crippled them. Against Scotland they were hanging on near the end when early in the second half it looked like they would win by 20pts or more.

They were trying to play a more expansive game in this years 6 nations. When they won it in 09 they played a boring defensive gameplan. Kidney to his credit is adapting to the new law changes and knows that Ireland have to keep possession and play a high tempo game and be defensively sound.

I think the reason they performed so well against England was mainly because
it was the last game and things started to click. The 4 warm up games before the world cup should be valuable.

Kidney will get the best out of them in the world cup. I'm confident of that. The coaching team have loads of experience and more importantly they're used to winning things so that means they are good at getting the players to perform.

d'Oracle

Look, if they are crap and its his fault it will be bad.
But its only really 2 years they have to hold on to him.

Which gives 2 years for the next coach to prepare for a world cup.

Glass half full.

Plus, despite some eyebrow raising calls, I think he is still looking a damn sight better than Eddie was going into the last world cup.

Phonehead

profitius wrote: »

In the other 6n games they blew hot and cold. There were times when Ireland blew the opposition away but in every game they took their foot off the gas and/or started to give away stupid penalties (also the refs were targeting Ireland). That crippled them. Against Scotland they were hanging on near the end when early in the second half it looked like they would win by 20pts or more.

They were trying to play a more expansive game in this years 6 nations. When they won it in 09 they played a boring defensive gameplan. Kidney to his credit is adapting to the new law changes and knows that Ireland have to keep possession and play a high tempo game and be defensively sound.

I think the reason they performed so well against England was mainly because
it was the last game and things started to click. The 4 warm up games before the world cup should be valuable.

Kidney will get the best out of them in the world cup. I'm confident of that. The coaching team have loads of experience and more importantly they're used to winning things so that means they are good at getting the players to perform.

I understand where you are coming from but Kidneys team over the last 2 seasons have been similar to Gavin Hensons rugby career - glimpses of quality which are far out numbered by moments of abject performances. I really hope you are right and everything will click in the World Cup, I hope we don't see this typical inconsistent form Ireland have shown under Kidney.

@profitus

@profitus, I would've agreed almost completely with your post had it not been for the reversion to type against Wales. We took out the safety net which we always use to not lose games. We kicked the ball every time we had it, and defended for 70 minutes. No team will win this years WC with that as a plan B

It ultimately worked in our favour however, because now the team know that the "not losing" gameplan doesnt work, and we're either winning the WC by playing expansive rugby and trying things, or we go out in a blaze of glory.

If we kick the ball away in NZ we come home early with unhappy players, bored fans and an ashen-faced coach who has 2 years left to figure out how rugby is now played.

molloyjh

profitius wrote: »

They were trying to play a more expansive game in this years 6 nations.

I know Kidney talks about a more expansive game a lot and has made certain moves to that end. But why when you are trying to play a fast game would you pick TOL at SH? Anyone worth their salt would tell you the most important thing for a fast game is a quick scrum-half providing quick and clean ball to the OH. TOL doesn't do that.

And look at how the team as a whole played. One off runners looking for contact again and again. An expansive game means keeping the ball alive and looking for space (look at Leinster this season for plenty of examples of that kind of play). Look at Dricos try against Wales, or Fergs try against France. Look at the last few mins of the Wales game. What we were playing in the 6 Nations wasn't truly expansive rugby.

d'Oracle wrote: »

Plus, despite some eyebrow raising calls, I think he is still looking a damn sight better than Eddie was going into the last world cup.

I dunno about that tbh. We were very unlucky not to win the 6 Nations in 2007 and we were in good form going into the RWC build up. Granted EOS hadn't won a 6 Nations competition or a GS but he had gotten us a number of Triple Crowns and was unlucky a few times not to win the 6 Nations. It all started to unravel in the RWC build up itself and we only really saw how bad things were in the pool games.

We've won nothing in the last 2 years in terms of silverware and our form in the 6 Nations was, as profitius said, a bit hot and cold. One good game against the auld enemy when the backs were against the wall is more likely to be the exception than the rule I'm afraid. I think we were in a better position (from the outside looking in at least) in 2007.

That said, if Deccie does get us to click and if we do play to our potential then we should be serious contenders.

Podge_irl

d'Oracle wrote: »

Plus, despite some eyebrow raising calls, I think he is still looking a damn sight better than Eddie was going into the last world cup.

That's not even remotely close to being true. Ireland had a fantastic 6N in 2007 and played better rugby then I've seen Kidney's Ireland even come close to. They were also ranked higher.

CatFromHue

you know what this means don't you?

kidney is going to be the next munster head coach!

profitius

Deleted User wrote: »

@profitus, I would've agreed almost completely with your post had it not been for the reversion to type against Wales. We took out the safety net which we always use to not lose games. We kicked the ball every time we had it, and defended for 70 minutes. No team will win this years WC with that as a plan B

It ultimately worked in our favour however, because now the team know that the "not losing" gameplan doesnt work, and we're either winning the WC by playing expansive rugby and trying things, or we go out in a blaze of glory.

If we kick the ball away in NZ we come home early with unhappy players, bored fans and an ashen-faced coach who has 2 years left to figure out how rugby is now played.

Yeah I forgot about the Wales match. Both teams deserved to lose that match. It was one of the most negative games of the season.

I agree that they might as well go for it at the world cup. Fortune favours the brave.

profitius

Phonehead wrote: »

I understand where you are coming from but Kidneys team over the last 2 seasons have been similar to Gavin Hensons rugby career - glimpses of quality which are far out numbered by moments of abject performances. I really hope you are right and everything will click in the World Cup, I hope we don't see this typical inconsistent form Ireland have shown under Kidney.

Following the Irish rugby team has never been easy! There always seem to be disappointment lurking around every corner when it comes to the Irish.

I think this year will be different because all the players have tasted success now compared to previous world cups. Thats a hurdle previous squads had not crossed and it can't be underestimated. Likewise Kidney is a proven winner and Smal won the last world cup with SA when they used their forwards to grind it out.

Another big difference from the last time is expectation levels are way down compared to the 07 team who were being talked up as world cup contenders. Its a great position to be in. Looking at foreign forums, many believe that the Ireland team is an ageing one and getting worse while in reality the squad has never been better amd things are on the up.

I always thought the 07 team were talking themselves up without really believing it. They never won the 6 nations so hadn't tasted victory. This squad have that belief and with them being underdogs too its a bonus.

Phonehead

I will agree to disagree with you profitius (hoping to God you are the one saying I told you so in future;) ) I really can't see anything from Kidneys time as Irish Manager to suggest we can go down to the Southern Hemisphere and beat all around us, I find he still hasn't fully committed to how he wants to play. Gert Smal had very different animals to work with in South Africa compared to Ireland, I don't think we will be winning it Saffa style;)

As has been pointed out in this thread, if Kidney want's to play expansive then O'Leary surely shouldn't be near first or second choice SH. The warm up games will go a long way towards making my mind up about our chances, if we see a consistent style then the omens may be good.

NikNak8

My God there is an aweful amount of tripe being posted on here. Ireland are in a much better situation than when going to the previous world cup. They now have a real squad of players who have gametime and have nearly 2 players for every position. (Except O'Driscoll)
Ireland were slow starters in the six nations last year because they had to change their whole game plan (Thank God!).
While it clicked for the English game there were a few spilled pases in some of the other games that if they had gone to hand would have painted a whole different picture and we would now all be sining about Irelands chances. I am not loosing the run of myself, there is still a mountain to climb if we are to beat any of the SH teams especially NZ in NZ but it can be done on the day if it clicks. I think Ireland have the best chance out of any of the NH teams. My glasses may be slightly tinted green but how many Eng and Fr players would start for Ireland? Maybe some but only marginally.
Ire V Aus is the key fixture, that will be the real litmus test. I am not concerned about the warm-up games because thats what they are warm-up practice matches to test combinations and iron out mistakes etc. They wont want to show full hand in these games. There will also be the inevitable fact that some players will be trying to protect themselves.
Not long to go now and I can't wait, I am getting rugby withdrawl symptoms!!

Phonehead

"how many Eng and Fr players would start for Ireland? Maybe some but only marginally"

So you reckon every Irish player is ahead or on a par with their English or French counterpart?

I can tell you if I was picking a combined team from those 3 nations, France would easily dominate selection and the likes of Lawes, Youngs, Foden, Ashton, Coles and Wood of England would be pushing easily for a place.

"Ireland are in a much better situation than when going to the previous world cup. They now have a real squad of players who have gametime"

Really, how so? We are probably in a marginally worse place if you take the 2007 six nations compared to this years. Had it not been for a 79 minute Clerc try we would have been going into the WC as Grandslam champions. Also don't forget that +50 try fest against Italy in the last game, when I think about it we were going into the WC as real contenders in 07.

molloyjh

NikNak8 wrote: »

My God there is an aweful amount of tripe being posted on here. Ireland are in a much better situation than when going to the previous world cup. They now have a real squad of players who have gametime and have nearly 2 players for every position. (Except O'Driscoll)
Ireland were slow starters in the six nations last year because they had to change their whole game plan (Thank God!).
While it clicked for the English game there were a few spilled pases in some of the other games that if they had gone to hand would have painted a whole different picture and we would now all be sining about Irelands chances. I am not loosing the run of myself, there is still a mountain to climb if we are to beat any of the SH teams especially NZ in NZ but it can be done on the day if it clicks. I think Ireland have the best chance out of any of the NH teams. My glasses may be slightly tinted green but how many Eng and Fr players would start for Ireland? Maybe some but only marginally.
Ire V Aus is the key fixture, that will be the real litmus test. I am not concerned about the warm-up games because thats what they are warm-up practice matches to test combinations and iron out mistakes etc. They wont want to show full hand in these games. There will also be the inevitable fact that some players will be trying to protect themselves.
Not long to go now and I can't wait, I am getting rugby withdrawl symptoms!!

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I reckon we have more strength in depth and probably a closer knit squad than before. On the flip side I'm concerned about the coaching side. I think they've been ridiculously conservative in both team selection and game plan.

Kidney talks about an expansive game, but we don't play one. As I've said before just look at the number of times we went with the one off runners looking for contact in the 6 Nations this year, or the horror that was the Wales game (where we abandoned even the pretense of expansive rugby in sheer desperation).

Look at the inclusion of P Wallace at 22 rather than McFadden, who I think offers far more cover to the back line. And look at the amount of game time Wallace got in the 6 Nations. 10 minutes in 5 games! Why pick him if you're not going to play him? Let's not even start on the TOL selection, or the amount of time it took to get Ross into the starting XV.

While we are better in some respects we are going into this world cup without any real form or consistency. We're just hoping that the guys will gel and hit form at the right time. And I can't help but think that if the coaching staff were less conservative, had they embraced the expansive game properly, we'd be in a far better position. We have the players for it.

molloyjh

NikNak8 wrote: »

I think Ireland have the best chance out of any of the NH teams.

Oh and don't write off England. They seem to be the polar opposite of the Kiwis in that they can be awful for 3 1/2 years but come good for the RWC. They were awful in 2007 (that was the 43-13 win in Croker remember - and didn't they get beaten well by Wales that year too?) and still made the final of the RWC.

Phonehead wrote: »

Had it not been for a 79 minute Clerc try we would have been going into the WC as Grandslam champions.

Don't forget their try in the 80th minute against Scotland that won the tournament for them. Had they not gotten that we would have won on points scored. Talk about heartbreak! Twice in the one tournament a last gasp French try denied us. I thought Pattersons conversion a few minutes before that had won it for us.

durkadurka

I think I was actually in tears when that try against scotland was allowed.

NikNak8

Phonehead wrote: »

"how many Eng and Fr players would start for Ireland? Maybe some but only marginally"

So you reckon every Irish player is ahead or on a par with their English or French counterpart?

I can tell you if I was picking a combined team from those 3 nations, France would easily dominate selection and the likes of Lawes, Youngs, Foden, Ashton, Coles and Wood of England would be pushing easily for a place.

Sorry for being positive, but I think each Irish player is as good as anything else in the NH. I'll give you Youngs but our backrow and back three are better than Eng - Wallace, Heaslip. O'Brien, Ferrice, Earls, Bowe, Fitzgerald, Kearney

"Ireland are in a much better situation than when going to the previous world cup. They now have a real squad of players who have gametime"

Really, how so? We are probably in a marginally worse place if you take the 2007 six nations compared to this years. Had it not been for a 79 minute Clerc try we would have been going into the WC as Grandslam champions. Also don't forget that +50 try fest against Italy in the last game, when I think about it we were going into the WC as real contenders in 07.

You are not looking at the big picture, there is now far more competition in the squad, if you play badly or get injured you mightn't get back in the team. The bench is much stronger (assuming p wallace isn't there). For each player there is another similar calibre player waiting in the wings for him to slip up. Only one who is irreplacebale is O'Driscoll and I hope they try some other centre combinations in the warm-up games.
P.S. think Murray could be a dark horse scrumhalf!

Phonehead

NikNak, I am looking at the bigger picture! I agree we have a stronger squad than in 2007, but that is of no use if we don't have any consistency in performance or style, If the players are still not sure of what they are being asked to do then player B of the almost equal ability coming on for A means nothing. One of the reaosns England always do well in the World Cup is largely because the have a plan and every player knows his role. Judging by the last 2 years we still don't know what we are doing, one match we are kicking another we are playing headless expansive just going across the pitch.

molloyjh

durkadurka wrote: »

I think I was actually in tears when that try against scotland was allowed.

I remember running up to the TV screaming my head off after Pattersons conversion, but I think I just went into shock after the French try. I just couldn't understand how they could be capable of that twice in a couple of weeks.

NikNak8 wrote: »

You are not looking at the big picture, there is now far more competition in the squad, if you play badly or get injured you mightn't get back in the team. The bench is much stronger (assuming p wallace isn't there). For each player there is another similar calibre player waiting in the wings for him to slip up. Only one who is irreplacebale is O'Driscoll and I hope they try some other centre combinations in the warm-up games.
P.S. think Murray could be a dark horse scrumhalf!

Is there really more competition? Bowe walked straight back into the side after injury even though Ferg had just scored a try against France in the previous game (and on only his second cap). Ferg was then completely relegated from the 22. The only areas where there was any real competition was at OH and possibly FB given our issues there. Had Kearney been fit that wouldn't have been the case. Everything else was pre-ordained. I agree we have talented people waiting in the wings, but that's useless unless they are being used. Outside of the ROG-Sexton battle there was no other battle for a starting place. That will change with Fez-SOB, but that's it.

GerM

NikNak8 wrote: »

You are not looking at the big picture, there is now far more competition in the squad, if you play badly or get injured you mightn't get back in the team. The bench is much stronger (assuming p wallace isn't there). For each player there is another similar calibre player waiting in the wings for him to slip up. Only one who is irreplacebale is O'Driscoll and I hope they try some other centre combinations in the warm-up games.

Is there more competition? We have option but they won't be used which is the exact same situation as last time. We made 4 or 5 unforced changes between the SA and Australia game in 2006 where we played arguably the best rugby we've played in the last 20 years. That's not including the likes of Easterby, Flannery or O'Kelly who didn't start either game. We have 8 or 9 untouchables again this time around that will not be dropped for a big game no matter. BOD, POC, DOC, Darce, Wallace, Heaslip, Bowe and Healy will all play barring an unprecedented surprise. DK made one unenforced change in the autumn between the SA, NZ and Argentina games. One in three matches.

The bench is stronger. The bench, however, isn't used. We all saw how it was used in a game like the French encounter when we were chasing. 2 subs only until the last 10 minutes. Two or three trusted subs and the rest may as well be watching on TV. In 2007 we had a strong enough bench on paper too. Flannery for Best. MOK for locks. Boss for Stringer. Murphy for the back 3. Best for the back row. Not a bad bench at all.

I live in hope but it's down to our best 18 or 19 players when they're out there. I don't have massive faith in our coach as a tactician and the apparent strength in depth is overblown in my opinion and, in most cases, was forced upon the team through injury. Depth isn't much use when it won't be used.

Podge_irl

NikNak8 wrote: »

if you play badly or get injured you mightn't get back in the team.

I'd like you to give me just one example of this from this season.

The reality is that the key players all came straight back in regardless of how well their replacements played.

In this year's 6N 20 players started a game. 3 of those changes were injury related (Bowe, Heaslip coming in and O'Leary dropping out). Only Trimble and ROG were brought in as replacements without injury being an issue.

In the 07 6N 20 players started a game. In fairness most of those were injury related, but it's still the same number of players. Doesn't back up the idea that they squad is better this time round. On top of that Ireland were simply playing better rugby in 07 then they are now.



I'm not overly bothered by the extension. It's only two years. Short of Kidney failing to get out of the group he was going to be re-signed anyway. An poor to average performance in the RWC followed by a similar 6N should see him gone though. Hopefully, and presumably given their history, there is a clause in the contract to terminate it for just such a reason.

CatFromHue

This season with Ireland you can view it as half full or half empty as it wasn't perfect. Against the Welsh, Scots and Italians we were the better team and with better finishing and less penalty's given away we could have been home and dry, in particular the Scotland and Italian games. Remember in the Welsh game their winning try should have been disallowed and that we finished both halves on their line pushing for a try. The French game ultimately came down to a missed tackle by D'arcy. We outscored them three tries to one, three good tries at that, but gave away too many penalties and so lost. In all four of those games we had patches were we were far better than the opposition.

I think Kidney is still finding his feet at international level. He has struggled with his substitutions and their timings, bizarrely in most games this season he has used nearly all the bench, from his Munster days this could have been expected. I think he is getting there though. By the end of this contract extension we will know if gets there. I don't see any benefit of changing coach after the World Cup.

Edit: I don't see the benefit of comparing the '07 with the '11 team. Back then you had O Gara, Stringer, Hickie, Horgan, D'Arcy, O Callaghan, and O Connell all in their pomp!

profitius

molloyjh wrote: »

Don't forget their try in the 80th minute against Scotland that won the tournament for them. Had they not gotten that we would have won on points scored. Talk about heartbreak! Twice in the one tournament a last gasp French try denied us. I thought Pattersons conversion a few minutes before that had won it for us.

That tournament was a sickner alright but they blew it themselves against Italy conceding two late tries.

Having thought about it I'd say the main reason Ireland usually ease up when they are in winning positions is because theres not enough competition in the squad. Either that or the long season means European teams have to concerve energy.

ironingbored

molloyjh wrote: »

Outside of the ROG-Sexton battle there was no other battle for a starting place. That will change with Fez-SOB, but that's it.

Fez and SOB must start if fit. It's Wallace who should come on from the bench.

molloyjh

CatFromHue wrote: »

Against the Welsh, Scots and Italians we were the better team and with better finishing and less penalty's given away we could have been home and dry, in particular the Scotland and Italian games. Remember in the Welsh game their winning try should have been disallowed and that we finished both halves on their line pushing for a try. The French game ultimately came down to a missed tackle by D'arcy. We outscored them three tries to one, three good tries at that, but gave away too many penalties and so lost. In all four of those games we had patches were we were far better than the opposition.

The overall standard of rugby this 6 Nations was very poor. The Welsh and Scottish in particular should have been easy victories for us if we played even close to our best ability. Nearly losing to Italy too is troubling given that we want to challenge in the RWC.

Game by game -
Italy: Poor performance nearly cost us. We were terrible on the day.
France: Poor discipline cost us against a French side that were really no great shakes.
Scotland: A seriously weak team that we should have put away with 1 hand tied behind our collective backs. Yet they came perilously close to beating us as well. With 10 mins on the clock they were 3 points behind and had all the possession. And whats worse if you watch the game they played a far more expansive game than we did.
Wales: You can blame the try that wasn't all you want, but we abandoned our "expansive" game in favour of a dreadful kicking game out of sheer desperation. That was one we should have won, even after the try that wasn't. But we weren't capable of going out there and winning it. There were 30 mins left after that try where we didn't score a single point.
England: The auld enemy and backs against the wall finally saw us produce the goods. But let's not get carried away here. This is not exactly an excellent English side, and they were particularly poor in Landsdowne that day. We still need to up it a gear against the Aussies.

CatFromHue wrote: »

I think Kidney is still finding his feet at international level. He has struggled with his substitutions and their timings, bizarrely in most games this season he has used nearly all the bench, from his Munster days this could have been expected.

After nearly 3 years in the job, and after delivering a Grand Slam already I can't see the "finding his feet" excuse working with many people. He has made no use of the bench at all and that "in most games he has used nearly all the bench" logic is fine if you ignore the fact that many of those weren't even on the pitch long enough to settle into the game.

profitius wrote: »

That tournament was a sickner alright but they blew it themselves against Italy conceding two late tries.

I'm not convinced by that. If you watch the Scotland-France game again you can see they knew exactly how many points they needed to win the tournament. Once they scored those they took the foot off the gas. Scotland came back and got 7 and so France switched back on and got their 7 to do the business. They did exactly what they needed to, no more, no less.

Yes I was livid that we let in 2 soft tries in the Italian game. The last one in particular. Who knows whether that extra 12 points would have been too much for France or not....

Phonehead

ironingbored wrote: »

Fez and SOB must start if fit. It's Wallace who should come on from the bench.

I don't know about that, both are 6's and you really need a 7 playing 7 (that sounds stupid but ye know what I mean;) )

Phonehead

Phonehead wrote: »

I don't know about that, both are 6's and you really need a 7 playing 7 (that sounds stupid but ye know what I mean;) )

David Wallace has never really been a 7 though...

But I'm happy enough with the idea of having any of Fez, Wallace or SOB on the bench providing we use them. Tired legs vs any of those beasts mean mismatches everywhere.

But we have never used our bench pro actively.

Phonehead

Well I'd have Jennings at 7 but then again we don't even know if Kidney will bring him.

blackdog2

Phonehead wrote: »

Well I'd have Jennings at 7 but then again we don't even know if Kidney will bring him.

Jennings is the only true 7 we have, all the others are a collection of 6s and 8s!