nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Would you sack Kidney, yay, or nay ?

Almaviva

Forget the practicalities of contracts, what it would cost, whether the IRFU will or wont: if you could, would you sack him now ?

Find more posts tagged with

rugby

manager

replace

declan

kidney

Comments

.ak

buyer95 wrote: »

Are ye guys even serious, it is only 3 years ago that he led Ireland to its first Grand Slam in 60 years, and only months since we had all of the southern hemisphere saying we were the northern team to watch. Never mind the capitulation against Wales, obviously disappointing, but the went to that world cup as rank outsiders... Let me ask you this, who would you have instead of him(queue Leinster supporters roaring Joe Schmidt) well sorry I fail to believe that his track record is any better than Kidney's, who has 2 Heineken cups to his name, and 2 more finals as well as a Grand Slam.

I hate these bandwagon jumpers, who when things are going well, they are the first to say. " Kidney top man, been saying it for years, should have replaced Eddie years ago . " Th he reality is that we do very well with limited resources, England has 12 top teams competing in its premiership every week, and they still resort to picking, New Zealander's on a regular basis. And still the state of their rugby team at the moment is very poor. We have 3 top class teams and one mediocre one. Granted Wales are in the same boat, but they are going through something of a golden spell at the moment, its only 7 years since they were standing in abyss regularly getting trounced by Ireland, and on one occasion, I recall received the wooden spoon.

Bottom line, let Kidney do his business, he is the right man for the job, for the foreseeable future

I'll stop you at the first line sir. He was there for the Grand Slam. Didn't win anything. Changed the mood in the camp and helped the 'divide' between players... but EoS did all the hard work.

The HC wins were decent wins. But the game has moved on.

marco_polo

Phonehead wrote: »

The ERC takes the Sky money from the HCup and I'm not sure what % is given out to clubs so I would say Irish Rugby gets much more from the National side.

The IRFU ultimately get the TV income from both the HEC and International rugby which apparently amounts to something like 16m annually if I recally figures thrown about when the Green party were trying to make everything free to air, the split is something like 10-11m international and 5-6m HEC I believe.

smog

Podge_irl wrote: »

RTÉ and BBC still have to pay for the free to air rights, and pay handsomely. Far more people watch the 6N then the HEC and the rights are comparatively more. Merchandising wise, international rugby has a much bigger impact then provincial rugby as well.

You also have 50,000 tickets at about 80 a pop for every game.

I dont really want to argue this as its sort of irrelevant to the thread.
Neither of us has access to the figures directly and as the IRFU pays wages its a difficult one to work out but this is the closest i have seen to figures
www.mrsc.ie/files/admin/uploads/W80_Field_12_21787.pdf

Podge_irl

smog wrote: »

I dont really want to argue this as its sort of irrelevant to the thread.
Neither of us has access to the figures directly and as the IRFU pays wages its a difficult one to work out but this is the closest i have seen to figures
www.mrsc.ie/files/admin/uploads/W80_Field_12_21787.pdf

Well, JustinDee claims the Ireland team are the economic engine that drives the whole shebang and I tend to believe him when it comes to these kind of matters.

Match tickets from 5 games alone would bring in about €20m and there are seasons where we have 6. The above figures alone show a €7m difference in TV income from the 6N over the HEC.

I'm gonna do some thread gymnastics and claim that it's relevant to the thread because we've been used to a moderately successful team for the last 10 years. If we continue with this abject rugby we may start to see financial problems as well.

jacothelad

People will always go to watch Ireland in the 6 Nations even though Ireland are slithering down the rankings. I can't see how tinkering will make any difference after 3 years of rubbish interspersed with a few games where the players seem to cast off the lead boots nailed to their feet by an outdated and naive game plan. All Kidney can do is footer about. He doesn't have either the time to make a worthwhile change or the inclination to admit he has made a balls of the whole thing. I just don't think he has either the imagination or wit to do anything different to Munster circa 2000 -2008. The only hope I see is for the players to simply play their own game.

Brian

jacothelad wrote: »

People will always go to watch Ireland in the 6 Nations even though Ireland are slithering down the rankings.

Very true. I mean, people watch Ireland play soccer.

Cpt_Blackbeard

Frustrated as many of us may be with the coaching staff and the shìt rugby we are playing, losing to Wales, France and NZx3 all in the same year isn't great reason to sack a coach. I've a feeling that I'll be as happy as most to see Kidney and co. leave if we keep playing this turgid shìt but, we'll be setting a dangerous socceresque president if we sack every coach who loses to better teams.

Due to our provincial success in Europe we tend to highly overrate our players. We probably only have ~5 players to make a first choice Wales team and even less that would be in contention for NZ or France.

That said, if we continue to flatter to deceive, something may have to be done.

JustinDee

Phonehead wrote: »

The ERC takes the Sky money from the HCup and I'm not sure what % is given out to clubs so I would say Irish Rugby gets much more from the National side.

The national team (which IS "Irish Rugby") earns the sport 80% of its revenue in Ireland. TV revenue is one area where that revenue is especially significant as well as sponsorship and endorsements. The IRFU underwrites many outgoings of its provinces (branches of the IRFU).

JoeyDoh

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

Frustrated as many of us may be with the coaching staff and the shìt rugby we are playing, losing to Wales, France and NZx3 all in the same year isn't great reason to sack a coach. I've a feeling that I'll be as happy as most to see Kidney and co. leave if we keep playing this turgid shìt but, we'll be setting a dangerous socceresque president if we sack every coach who loses to better teams.

Due to our provincial success in Europe we tend to highly overrate our players. We probably only have ~5 players to make a first choice Wales team and even less that would be in contention for NZ or France.

That said, if we continue to flatter to deceive, something may have to be done.

Due to our provincial success is a reason we SHOULD rate our national team so highly.
It's clear to anyone watching the most successful brand of rugby being played in the country at the moment is that being played at Leinster. Yet it seems the team is being forced to play in a way that's counter productive to what they know works. Now you could argue that Ireland is not Leinster and you'd be quite right,but the majority of the team is used to playing leinsters game week in week out,why not give Sexton and the backs free reign instead of this pointless kicking we saw at the weekend that Kidney seems set on!?

corny

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

Due to our provincial success in Europe we tend to highly overrate our players. We probably only have ~5 players to make a first choice Wales team and even less that would be in contention for NZ or France.

That said, if we continue to flatter to deceive, something may have to be done.

That just doesn't make sense. How can proving we are the best in Europe be misleading? The Leinster players are brutally clinical in everything they do because they have the structures in place to excel. Competition for places, absolute belief in proven defensive and attacking patterns, belief in the coach etc... When you remove those structures obviously you won't get the same level of performance. It has nothing to do with ability.

The basic difference between ourselves and the Welsh and the reason why they've beaten us 3 on the spin doesn't really hinge on personnel (thats why they still beat us with half their first teamers missing). They have a gameplan, structure, exuberance and everyone singing from the same hymn sheet. We don't. We have a man who sends the wrong messages to players in squad selection, insists on playing to a defunct gameplan, doesn't seem to be learning from his mistakes and i'm led to believe his motivational skills aren't exactly legendary.

For me it boils down to this. If Kidney was in charge of the Welsh and Gatland in charge here would the results be the same? I'd bet my house they wouldn't.

[Deleted User]

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

Frustrated as many of us may be with the coaching staff and the shìt rugby we are playing, losing to Wales, France and NZx3 all in the same year isn't great reason to sack a coach. I've a feeling that I'll be as happy as most to see Kidney and co. leave if we keep playing this turgid shìt but, we'll be setting a dangerous socceresque president if we sack every coach who loses to better teams.

Due to our provincial success in Europe we tend to highly overrate our players. We probably only have ~5 players to make a first choice Wales team and even less that would be in contention for NZ or France.

That said, if we continue to flatter to deceive, something may have to be done.

There's a massive difference between getting beaten by 3 top class teams in a year when they simply rise above you, and being beaten by 3 top class teams in a year when you've not been performing anywhere near the level capable.

As many have said, I'd be happy to see Ireland be beaten by a better team on "the day", if we were playing rugby that was indicative of the level of ability that we have available to us.

This business of creeping across the line with last minute drop goals in Italy is so far beneath what we should be achieving.

irishbucsfan

I dont like to see any man lose his job, but I think.the other teams in the 6 Nation's would be pretty scared of the prospect of this Ireland team playing to its potential.

I'd have a forrner in, there's plenty of em about.

rrpc

In all of this discussion, no-one seems to have mentioned the players. These guys have been playing great rugby for their provinces, winning tough matches and at times completely putting oppositions to the sword. They are not fools, they're coming from good coaching structures with excellent gameplans to execute poorly formed, turgid rubbish. Morale must be dreadfully low especially when it seems that they are not even thought worthy of a specialist backs coach.

And then individual players are getting lashed on here because they are "not performing". Well quelle surprise...

profitius

buyer95 wrote: »

Ok the result and overall performance on Sunday was disappointing, I'm not arguing that point, but look at it this way, we were 5 minutes away from beating the wc semi finalist, and if we had, we would go to paris next week, thinking the slam was on again.

My point really is that Kidney is the best man for the job right now, his track record says so. Someone else dismissed my comment asking who they thought would be feasible alternatives, but that is the question, who are you going to get, instead of him?

I'm not deluded, thinking that Kidney is some kind of genius, he isn't, he delegates well and has a good set up in place. But if we sacked him in the morning, realistically were would that leave us? At least give him till the end of the 6 nations, were one game in, back from a good w.c, lost a close game against a very good Wales side and already calls for him to leave...

We were 5 min of daylight robbery you mean. Theres no way Ireland deserved to win that and the only reason Ireland were leading is because despite having a sh!te gameplan to deal with, the Irish players are of a higher class than the Welsh players as they've proven time and time again in Europe. We see a few newby posters coming in defending Kidney saying the players are not there and thats plainly wrong.

As I've said before, I've defended Kidney up until last summer and thought that he should be judged finally on the world cup. The WC was a failure again. I was still willing to give him another chance to get it right but once again the team failed. How many more chances does he need? Its not being socceresque to ant a chance. 3 years in charge and things are going downhill all the time. He had 2 years to stop the slide, 2 years!

When you look at the big picture you see things that doesn't seem to make sense. What was the logic behind picking the world cup squad again? There seems to be no reward for form. DOC ahead of Ryan is an example. Hes very slow to pick some players (SOB) but starts Murray in a world cup match. He saw how Wales beat Ireland twice last year but plays the exact same way again. Its like he really hadn't a clue how to beat them.

George Hook said something I agreed with after the match that I agreed with. Ireland are the least innovative team in world rugby. Its true. Apart from the choke tackle that is. A defensive move.

Rugby is a tactical battle too. Someone hasn't told Kidney that. Gatland actually said that Ireland are predictable, easy to work out. The game has moved on from Kidney's Munster days but it looks like he hasn't. The tide is turning for Kidney now. Its a shame because he is a successful coach and a nice fella but lets be honest, he is not able to get the best from the team. Even in the grand slam year the team only played well once or twice.

rrpc

profitius wrote: »

Rugby is a tactical battle too. Someone hasn't told Kidney that. Gatland actually said that Ireland are predictable, easy to work out. The game has moved on from Kidney's Munster days but it looks like he hasn't. The tide is turning for Kidney now. Its a shame because he is a successful coach and a nice fella but lets be honest, he is not able to get the best from the team. Even in the grand slam year the team only played well once or twice.

This. When you take off the rose tinted spectacles, that grand slam was not much different from the two or three occasions under EOS that we took it to the line and were beaten to the prize by a scoreline in another game. There were some very tight results in 2009, not just the win in Cardiff.

bamboozle

as the old saying goes, forwards win matches backs decide by how much.

our pack should have had more than enough in them to dominate the welsh pack and stifle their performance, however due to very poor tactics we did not, their pack was on par and their backs had the platform they needed to tear us apart.
we wonder about our back play, lets not forget our backs are now being coached by our defence & kicking coach - what was the plan 'kick to them and tackle them when they run it back'

finally, i'm certainly not jumping on the band wagon, it was clear last august that this irish team was devoid of a logical game plan. There are options out there, Nick Mallet, Jake White, Joe Schmidt, Michael Cheika, Vern Cotter, Graham Henry.

If our current coach cannot park his bias towards certain players and outdated (albeit previously highly successful) tactics, then its time for someone to come in who is capable of taking the best players from 4 provinces playing very well and merging them into a national team we can be propd of.

JustinDee

profitius wrote: »

George Hook said something I agreed with after the match that I agreed with. Ireland are the least innovative team in world rugby. Its true

What exactly has been innovative with, for example, the Scottish, English, Italian, Argentinian, Samoan or South African sides?

Sorry Mr Hook but wrong.

irishbucsfan

If we got Vern Cotter I reckon Schmidt might take on the backs for him... That would be amazing.

Vern Cotter with Joe Schmidt, Greg Feek and Kurt McQuilkan...

irishbucsfan

JustinDee wrote: »

profitius wrote: »

George Hook said something I agreed with after the match that I agreed with. Ireland are the least innovative team in world rugby. Its true

What exactly has been innovative with, for example, the Scottish, English, Italian, Argentinian, Samoan or South African sides?

Sorry Mr Hook but wrong.

Those teams are playing unoriginal 2011-esque rugby. Were playing unoriginal 2008-esque rugby.

profitius

JustinDee wrote: »

What exactly has been innovative with, for example, the Scottish, English, Italian, Argentinian, Samoan or South African sides?

Sorry Mr Hook but wrong.

Innovative means doing something unusual. All those teams are willing to actually try things. When was the last time you see Ireland trying something unusual and not play traditional rugby ie playing the way you'd expect amature teams to play.

[Deleted User]

Joe Schmidt is not an option.

We need new blood, new life, fresh start.

We'd ideally need someone who'd been under a rock for the 2000-2010 era, and didn't even know who BOD is.

No players picked on reputation if they don't have one!

JustinDee

profitius wrote: »

Innovative means doing something unusual. All those teams are willing to actually try things. When was the last time you see Ireland trying something unusual and not play traditional rugby ie playing the way you'd expect amature teams to play.

I know what "innovative" means. Thats why I asked what those teams have tried that can be called "innovative". Highlight something thats apparently off-the-cuff that those teams try, setting them apart from Ireland.

[Deleted User]

JustinDee wrote: »

I know what "innovative" means. Thats why I asked what those teams have tried that can be called "innovative". Highlight something thats apparently off-the-cuff that those teams try, setting them apart from Ireland.

Scotland have Cheerleaders at home games.

England have tried to play a second row and an openside flanker in their midfield. (Banahan & Tindall)

Italy have actually found a scrum half that isn't a small hooker.

Argentina to be judged on this season's entry.

Samoa have discovered Twitter, to dangerous effect.

South Africa sent a team of Children to the 3N last season, and were duly whipped into obscurity by the ABs.

:pac:

Tox56

Deleted User wrote: »

Scotland have Cheerleaders at home games.

England have tried to play a second row and an openside flanker in their midfield. (Banahan & Tindall)

Italy have actually found a scrum half that isn't a small hooker.

Argentina to be judged on this season's entry.

Samoa have discovered Twitter, to dangerous effect.

South Africa sent a team of Children to the 3N last season, and were duly whipped into obscurity by the ABs.

:pac:

Judging on the France game, Italy also seem to have acknowledged the existence of backs.

irishbucsfan

Tox56 wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Scotland have Cheerleaders at home games.

England have tried to play a second row and an openside flanker in their midfield. (Banahan & Tindall)

Italy have actually found a scrum half that isn't a small hooker.

Argentina to be judged on this season's entry.

Samoa have discovered Twitter, to dangerous effect.

South Africa sent a team of Children to the 3N last season, and were duly whipped into obscurity by the ABs.

:pac:

Judging on the France game, Italy also seem to have acknowledged the existence of backs.

But not the existence of tackling

profitius

JustinDee wrote: »

I know what "innovative" means. Thats why I asked what those teams have tried that can be called "innovative". Highlight something thats apparently off-the-cuff that those teams try, setting them apart from Ireland.

South Africa pick players who can kick the ball long, one example. Australia are always innovating as are New Zealand. France are always innovating. I suppose they're the most innovative teams with the exception of South Africa lately. They're also the top teams in world rugby. Thats the point Hook was making.

Wales are innovative too, which has brought them success. England not so much. Scotland are trying things too but don't have the players, like Italy.

irishbucsfan

I would say the 4 most innovative teams are NZ, Oz, France and Wales. How did they get on during the WC?

totallegend

Ok, let's maybe try to bring the discussion back on topic, i.e. Kidney.

Whether Ireland are the least innovative team in world rugby is obviously very subjective, but I would agree that there has been a stagnation in terms of performance and tactics. The decision not to bring in a fresh voice when Gaffney departed was a step in the wrong direction, IMO. While Kiss might be an excellent coach, he has been in the camp for a long time at this stage.

On the face of it at least, appointing your defence coach to double up as your attack coach seems counter-intuitive if you want to expand your attacking game (which Ireland desperately need to do) but we'll see how Kiss pans out in his new job over the next few games.

JustinDee

profitius wrote: »

South Africa pick players who can kick the ball long, one example. Australia are always innovating as are New Zealand. France are always innovating. I suppose they're the most innovative teams with the exception of South Africa lately. They're also the top teams in world rugby. Thats the point Hook was making.

Wales are innovative too, which has brought them success. England not so much. Scotland are trying things too but don't have the players, like Italy.

You've pointed out Aussie and NZ who we already know are "innovative". South Africa? Nah. Big pack, one fetcher and a halfback who determines the plays more than his fly-half. Big bosh non-passing centres and quick back-three. All in gameplan dominated by a kicking game and the setpiece. This can be their saviour or their boon. Haven't changed since even Apartheid era. Hardly innovative.
What Hook has apparently claimed is that Ireland are the least innovative in world rugby. I was merely pointing out that this was an OTT claim to make, particularly with the national sides I already listed in mind.

rrpc

totallegend wrote: »

Ok, let's maybe try to bring the discussion back on topic, i.e. Kidney.

Whether Ireland are the least innovative team in world rugby is obviously very subjective, but I would agree that there has been a stagnation in terms of performance and tactics. The decision not to bring in a fresh voice when Gaffney departed was a step in the wrong direction, IMO. While Kiss might be an excellent coach, he has been in the camp for a long time at this stage.

On the face of it at least, appointing your defence coach to double up as your attack coach seems counter-intuitive if you want to expand your attacking game (which Ireland desperately need to do) but we'll see how Kiss pans out in his new job over the next few games.

Les Kiss is a good defensive coach. Ireland have been very difficult to beat largely I suspect because of him and he's done good work with Leinster as well. So why were we so defensively inept on Sunday? Why was our defensive line so deep and why were we 'soaking' tackles so much that we were giving up half the pitch in seven phases of Welsh play?

Our two best performances in the last year, were with Reddan and Sexton starting, so why start Murry with Sexton? And then when Sexton was subbed, why also sub Murray?

One suspects that Kidney does not want Sexton to get quick ball so that he will have to kick it and conversely can put Reddan on the pitch with O'Gara because he knows O'Gara will kick it anyway.

This is not a criticism of any of these players, it just seems like insanity to deliberately play against a player's strengths.

Quick Links

All Categories
Recent Posts
Activity
Unanswered
Groups
Best Of