Would you sack Kidney, yay, or nay ?

Hagz

Egypt Many Pushcart wrote: »

Can we please stop with the whole provinces are doing well so ireland should be winning everything argument.
1.international rugby is far harder
2. were basically picking from 3 clubs france and england are picking from far more so they could have far better players than us but spread out more

Hmmm. So in summary -
1. Test rugby is harder (go figure)
2. England and France are better because they have more clubs, hence more players to choose from.

Egypt Many Pushcart wrote: »

no if u read my post my point was that club rugby cant be taken into account

Perhaps you should read your post. If anything your point was that club rugby should be taken into account, and that it is a reason why France and England are better, because their large no. of clubs results in a greater player pool to choose from.

Tox56

Tox56 wrote: »

Someone's been watching too much Hook.

haha na dislike the man but wouldnt you swap ferris or o brien for warburton

Tox56

Egypt Many Pushcart wrote: »

haha na dislike the man but wouldnt you swap ferris or o brien for warburton

If they are used effectively, there are few players in the world I would swap them for.

Podge_irl

Egypt Many Pushcart wrote: »

gatland was ireland coach we didnt win anything under him

Surprisingly coaches get better. Gatland coached Ireland 10 years ago. If anything he has shown himself much better then Kidney at adapting to the modern game and changing his approach.

It should also be noted that Ireland got a hell of a lot better under Gatland's reign. Ireland were also still relying on 5 players Gatland brought through 10 years later which goes to show his replacements haven't been much good in that department either.

I don't think Gatland is a perfect coach or anything. But he has clearly outsmarted Kidney twice in a row now and has Wales playing much, much better rugby then Ireland.

Podge_irl

Egypt Many Pushcart wrote: »

haha na dislike the man but wouldnt you swap ferris or o brien for warburton

I wouldn't swap Ferris for anyone, though Warburton would certainly bring a bit more balance to the backrow ahead of SOB.

The make up of the backrow is not why we lost either of the last two games against Wales though.

Podge_irl

Podge_irl wrote: »

I don't think Gatland is a perfect coach or anything. But he has clearly outsmarted Kidney twice in a row now and has Wales playing much, much better rugby then Ireland.

i do think gatland is good but he also has a better team there are not many positions i would have started an irish player instead of his counterpart

Tox56

Egypt Many Pushcart wrote: »

i do think gatland is good but he also has a better team there are not many positions i would have started an irish player instead of his counterpart

The players played badly and lost by a last minute kick. We've seen what these group of players can do, why cant they do it more.

Podge_irl

Egypt Many Pushcart wrote: »

i do think gatland is good but he also has a better team there are not many positions i would have started an irish player instead of his counterpart

Better players? Based on what? Their performance for Wales? That's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy isn't it?

CatFromHue

Hagz wrote: »

No, it doesn't...

So Ireland's clubs teams doing well but our national team not and Wales's club doings doing poorly but their national team not doesn't indicate that club form does not carry through to national team form?

Tox56

Tox56 wrote: »

The players played badly and lost by a last minute kick. We've seen what these group of players can do, why cant they do it more.

there older and the competitions different

Hagz

CatFromHue wrote: »

So Ireland's clubs teams doing well but our national team not and Wales's club doings doing poorly but their national team not doesn't indicate that club form does not carry through to national team form?

You said it re-enforces his point, when his point was different to the one you made it out to be. Anyway, forget about it, I've highlighted further up where the confusion is stemming from.

The team isn't performing because the game-plan is all wrong, plus the selections are questionable. How many times did Sexton kick against Wales? how many time did POC carry only to be swallowed up immediately? how many times did we see either O'Brien or Ferris carry like they have been doing for their clubs? why is D'Arcy untouchable apart form the rare time where Kidney takes a risk and goes with Paddy Wallace? why is Keith Earls odds on to start at 13? why won't he start Reddan with Sexton when it has proved the most fruitful? why did DOC deserve to start ahead of either Ryan or Tuohy? Why were we so passive in defense?

Tox56

Egypt Many Pushcart wrote: »

there older and the competitions different

So you say Heineken is easier than International, why are these Welsh players nowhere near the same level in the HEC as they are in Internationals? Surely they would be even better in the HEC if it's easier, infact they aren't as good, which reflects on the coaching they recieve from Gatland etc.

EmeraldNK

CatFromHue wrote: »

So Ireland's clubs teams doing well but our national team not and Wales's club doings doing poorly but their national team not doesn't indicate that club form does not carry through to national team form?

There are too many variables in this argument, from both sides... namely the difference in the Welsh and Irish national team's coaching ability to adapt to the modern game and get the best out of the players. We have coaches for our provincial sides with the ability to get the best out of the players we have, hence they are doing very well in the Pro12 and Heineken Cup. We simply do not have this with the international side, hence we are doing very badly internationally.

Yes, international rugby is very different to provincial/club rugby, but there are so many other reasons Ireland are underperforming at international level, Kidney IS one of them.

Podge_irl

CatFromHue wrote: »

So Ireland's clubs teams doing well but our national team not and Wales's club doings doing poorly but their national team not doesn't indicate that club form does not carry through to national team form?

Welsh club teams aren't doing "poorly", they're just doing worse then ours.

Scarlets came 2nd in their group ahead of Northampton. Blues came second in their group and are in the QFs. Ospreys did quite poorly, but there are fundamental issues at Ospreys and have been for quite some time..

Ospreys are 2nd in the Rabo. Blues are 5th with a game in hand over those ahead of them (except Munster).

It's somewhat silly to suggest that "club form means nothing at international level" without offering some suggestion at to why. Perhaps the reason is the difference in coaching...

molloyjh

This whole debate can be summed up easily as follows:

Ireland are the only team in the 6 Nations that are under-performing by comparison to their clubs.

The French, English, Scottish and Italian national sides quality are pretty much comparable to their club sides. Wales are playing above the level of their regions. Both our performances and our results fall far below those of our provinces.

Any talk of having to step up applies to every other country, not just us. The number of clubs in a country is fairly irrelevant. The individual players that make up the 22 are either good enough or they aren't.

It takes a special kind of coaching staff to get continually get less out of players than other coaches are when all other coaches at that level are getting much the same or more out of their players.

JRant

molloyjh wrote: »

This whole debate can be summed up easily as follows:

Ireland are the only team in the 6 Nations that are under-performing by comparison to their clubs.

The French, English, Scottish and Italian national sides quality are pretty much comparable to their club sides. Wales are playing above the level of their regions. Both our performances and our results fall far below those of our provinces.

Any talk of having to step up applies to every other country, not just us. The number of clubs in a country is fairly irrelevant. The individual players that make up the 22 are either good enough or they aren't.

It takes a special kind of coaching staff to get continually get less out of players than other coaches are when all other coaches at that level are getting much the same or more out of their players.

Summed up pretty nicely.
It takes a special talent to get the 2 most destructive ball carriers in Europe (Ferris and O'Brien) to look so average.
Adding to that I'd say every other team has pretty much worked us out defensively.

phog

Podge_irl wrote: »

I wouldn't swap Ferris for anyone, though Warburton would certainly bring a bit more balance to the backrow ahead of SOB.

The make up of the backrow is not why we lost either of the last two games against Wales though.

The make-up of the back row may not but certainly the ineffectiveness of backrow contributed to the losses.

rrpc

phog wrote: »

The make-up of the back row may not but certainly the ineffectiveness of backrow contributed to the losses.

The question therefore should be why was it ineffective?

For me it was the SH not getting in quickly enough and getting the ball away. We were trying to commit less to the breakdown and more to attack, but once you slow down the recycle, you're doomed to turnover or very slow ball.

molloyjh

rrpc wrote: »

phog wrote: »

The make-up of the back row may not but certainly the ineffectiveness of backrow contributed to the losses.

The question therefore should be why was it ineffective?

For me it was the SH not getting in quickly enough and getting the ball away. We were trying to commit less to the breakdown and more to attack, but once you slow down the recycle, you're doomed to turnover or very slow ball.

That and the fact that we're getting our second row to take on a lot of ball as first receiver meaning the back row have to get more involved at the breakdown than maybe they should be and we play a game plan where our players take the ball on from a standing start.

phog

rrpc wrote: »

The question therefore should be why was it ineffective?

For me it was the SH not getting in quickly enough and getting the ball away. We were trying to commit less to the breakdown and more to attack, but once you slow down the recycle, you're doomed to turnover or very slow ball.

But the SH wasn't slow for the 6Ns game except for where the ball wasn't presented quickly for him and I cant really recall the 1/4 final in that detail.

JRant

phog wrote: »

rrpc wrote: »

The question therefore should be why was it ineffective?

For me it was the SH not getting in quickly enough and getting the ball away. We were trying to commit less to the breakdown and more to attack, but once you slow down the recycle, you're doomed to turnover or very slow ball.

But the SH wasn't slow for the 6Ns game except for where the ball wasn't presented quickly for him and I cant really recall the 1/4 final in that detail.

The thing is though for we shouldn't be blaming the SH or lack of a "7" for our defeats. The malise rums much deeper than an individuals performance. There is a fundamental lack of belief in both defense and attack and that is completely unacceptable.

jm08

JRant wrote: »

The thing is though for we shouldn't be blaming the SH or lack of a "7" for our defeats. The malise rums much deeper than an individuals performance. There is a fundamental lack of belief in both defense and attack and that is completely unacceptable.

you shouldn't be underestimating the value of a certain mr brian o'driscoll in both aspects of the game to be played. he competes at the breakdown like any 7. Then throw in his organisation of the defence.

we won't always have him, so better get used to it and allow more than one game for the transition to a player no matter what they do will not be as good a player as he is.

edit: he was on one wing for the world cup QF.

JRant

jm08 wrote: »

JRant wrote: »

The thing is though for we shouldn't be blaming the SH or lack of a "7" for our defeats. The malise rums much deeper than an individuals performance. There is a fundamental lack of belief in both defense and attack and that is completely unacceptable.

you shouldn't be underestimating the value of a certain mr brian o'driscoll in both aspects of the game to be played. he competes at the breakdown like any 7. Then throw in his organisation of the defence.

we won't always have him, so better get used to it and allow more than one game for the transition to a player no matter what they do will not be as good a player as he is.

edit: he was on one wing for the world cup QF.

Nor am I underestimating BOD's influence but we've been pretty much rubbish the last 2 years even with BOD playing. Our systems have either been worked out (defense) or non-existent(attack). Until that changes it doesn't matter who's at 13 or SH or 7, we're going to be beaten more often than not.

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

This whole debate can be summed up easily as follows:

Ireland are the only team in the 6 Nations that are under-performing by comparison to their clubs.

The French, English, Scottish and Italian national sides quality are pretty much comparable to their club sides. Wales are playing above the level of their regions. Both our performances and our results fall far below those of our provinces.

Any talk of having to step up applies to every other country, not just us. The number of clubs in a country is fairly irrelevant. The individual players that make up the 22 are either good enough or they aren't.

It takes a special kind of coaching staff to get continually get less out of players than other coaches are when all other coaches at that level are getting much the same or more out of their players.

hate the title of this thread beyond belief, as wouldn't be happy to see anyone ever sacked by "popular demand", but this post and many others sum up simply why Declan isn't the man to take us forward. He wasn't the man 2 years ago, and he still isn't the man.

Great for getting the best out of certain players, but nowhere near the level of manager/tactician a team of players that can be picked from some Europe's best deserve.

just going to leave this here.
Cumulative winrate under Declan.

Super Start but...



Spot the introduction of the new rules into the game...

Third_Echelon

phog wrote: »

I haven't seen any great evidence from him that he would be an improvement. What's his record compared to Kidney's?

I wasn't talking about Cheika in particular, I was talking about that kind of attitude and guile in a manager...

Let's face it, Kidney is well past it at this level. I wouldn't mind Cheika as the manager. He only has 1 less Heinken Cup under his belt compared to Kidney when he took over Ireland. He is also doing a decent job in France with a currently-troubled Stade Francais...

WeeBushy

Third_Echelon wrote: »

I wasn't talking about Cheika in particular, I was talking about that kind of attitude and guile in a manager...

Let's face it, Kidney is well past it at this level. I wouldn't mind Cheika as the manager. He only has 1 less Heinken Cup under his belt compared to Kidney when he took over Ireland. He is also doing a decent job in France with a currently-troubled Stade Francais...

Cheika has too much baggage to coach the Ireland team. The next coach should have no provincial ties imo. But I agree with your first sentence.

Third_Echelon

WeeBushy wrote: »

Cheika has too much baggage to coach the Ireland team. The next coach should have no provincial ties imo. But I agree with your first sentence.

True....

Third_Echelon

Third_Echelon wrote: »

I wasn't talking about Cheika in particular, I was talking about that kind of attitude and guile in a manager...

Let's face it, Kidney is well past it at this level. I wouldn't mind Cheika as the manager. He only has 1 less Heinken Cup under his belt compared to Kidney when he took over Ireland. He is also doing a decent job in France with a currently-troubled Stade Francais...

not cheika its a step sideways what about connor o shea or michael bradley

irishbucsfan

Wynter Sparse Noblewoman wrote: »

just going to leave this here.
Cumulative winrate under Declan.

Super Start but...



Spot the introduction of the new rules into the game...

He never once hit that 120% mark. Disgraceful.