Leinster Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread V

SaveOurLyric

Glass Prison 1214 wrote: »

MOC isn't perfect, but he gets far more criticism than he deserves. He's a decent coach.

He probably is a decent coach. Which would be fine for Rotherham Titans, Beziers, or Galwegians.
But not for an extensive squad of internationals including several world level players and a team that should be playing top class rugby and be the team to beat on the European stage.

Swiwi.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

He probably is a decent coach. Which would be fine for Rotherham Titans, Beziers, or Galwegians.
But not for an extensive squad of internationals including several world level players and a team that should be playing top class rugby and be the team to beat on the European stage.

And this is where a lot of the problems arise at the moment in terms of views from some fans. There is way too much of this "We're Leinster, we're awesome" (and ditto on the Munster thread). You're only as good as you're last game, and previous HEC medals, while adding to the club's history don't ensure it's future. There appears to be very few top quality SH players signing for Irish teams these days, and while the collective of the 4 provinces is enough to make a very competivie international side, once the talent is spread out, results are harder to come by. Losing to Dragons was pretty poor, but I'd wait until season's end to judge the coach.

What I'm trying to say, is I don't necessarily think another coach will be an instant panacea to a return to glory days, especially if that coach doesn't have access to Rocky Elsom, Brad Thorn, Isa Nacewa etc etc. You may well get your heart's desire with MOC not kept on...but I wouldn't be mortgaging my house on a new coach leading automatically to European success.

.ak

He was good enough for Leicester, we are lucky to have him. Don't think we'd pick up another coach of that calibre, and I genuinely don't buy this "AN Other coach would do!"

thomond2006

Who is at fault for shovelling the ball out wide too early and/or throwing loopy passes out to the wing? It's a constant watching Leinster this year.

.ak

thomond2006 wrote: »

Who is at fault for shovelling the ball out wide too early and/or throwing loopy passes out to the wing? It's a constant watching Leinster this year.

For me it's primarily the out halves.

Flipper22

Lads what the hell has happened this thread?

Hagz

I'd be interested to know what those who aren't in favour of Matt O'Connor staying on next season expect from Leinster next season if he does stay on.

SaveOurLyric

Hagz wrote: »

I'd be interested to know what those who aren't in favour of Matt O'Connor staying on next season expect from Leinster next season if he does stay on.

I would 'expect' the league and cup double.
But expect my expectation would not be met.

errlloyd

Hagz wrote: »

I'd be interested to know what those who aren't in favour of Matt O'Connor staying on next season expect from Leinster next season if he does stay on.

I don't think he should get a third season - I don't think it's unreasonable for a coach to be let go after two years.

If he does stay I'd suggest next year will be more challenging than this year despite Sexton. Our league position could very easily make us a 4th seed in Europe and we could end up getting fairly beaten up in the group stage. I think we'll struggle in the league, but perhaps this will be hidden behind a good start as we benefit from depth during the World Cup.

I propose a counter question to you Hagz. If you feel we don't need a different coach I guess I can conclude you think one of these things.

A: That Matt O Connor is one of the best coaches in the world.
B: That Leinster aren't good enough to deserve one of the best coaches in the world.
C: That coaches actually have very little impact on team performance.

My answer to all these statements is no.

I believe Matt O Connor is an ok coach, who was never great with Leicster or Leinster. I believe that Leinster are probably one of the top 25 most desirable professional rugby teams in the world to coach and we do deserve one of the best. Finally I think that Coaches have a huge impact, now there is a caveat here and I have stated it before. Sometimes good coaches just don't work at a team, Cheika, good for us, good for Tahs, shocking for Stade.

irishbucsfan

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I would 'expect' the league and cup double.
But expect my expectation would not be met.

It must be all those league and cup doubles we won in the past which has raised your expectations so high!

Hagz

errlloyd wrote: »

If he does stay I'd suggest next year will be more challenging than this year despite Sexton. Our league position could very easily make us a 4th seed in Europe and we could end up getting fairly beaten up in the group stage. I think we'll struggle in the league, but perhaps this will be hidden behind a good start as we benefit from depth during the World Cup.

Interesting. I would have to wholeheartedly disagree. But of course it all boils down to chance, and whether we experience injuries to key players. But assuming Jonathan Sexton stays fit, personally I see us as obvious title contenders up there with Clermont and Toulon.

errlloyd wrote: »

I propose a counter question to you Hagz. If you feel we don't need a different coach I guess I can conclude you think one of these things.

A: That Matt O Connor is one of the best coaches in the world.
B: That Leinster aren't good enough to deserve one of the best coaches in the world.
C: That coaches actually have very little impact on team performance.

I don't think Matt O'Connor is the best coach in the world. I'm quite comfortable admitting that I don't know for sure who the best coaches in the world are, but I would expect the best coaches to be coaching at an international level.

I'll take C for 500 with a pinch of salt. I would echo the remarks made by Conor O'Shea on RTE that the power of coaches is often over estimated. A coach is only as good as his players. I feel like I've said this a hundred times but in the case of Joe Schmidt (and this isn't a comparison), no way do I think he would have brought silverware to Leinster at a European level without Jonathan Sexton. No way do I think he would have won a 6nations trophy with Ireland last season without Jonathan Sexton. On the flip side, I 100% believe Leinster could have brought back European silverware without Joe Schmidt, and the same goes for Ireland.

errlloyd wrote: »

I believe Matt O Connor is an ok coach, who was never great with Leicster or Leinster. I believe that Leinster are probably one of the top 25 most desirable professional rugby teams in the world to coach and we do deserve one of the best. Finally I think that Coaches have a huge impact, now there is a caveat here and I have stated it before. Sometimes good coaches just don't work at a team, Cheika, good for us, good for Tahs, shocking for Stade.

Well I would then ask you who are these 'best' coaches that Leinster deserve? Presumably when Leinster went looking for a coach they went for the what they felt was the best fit. Who do you think would be the best fit?

total former

Flipper22 wrote: »

Lads what the hell has happened this thread?

Hijacked like a 1970s airliner I'm afraid. Except with more unreasonable demands and less chance of a satisfactory outcome.

Whatever about his merits as a coach, I think the notion that O'Connor has been given a fair go has been blown out of the water, at least by a minority.

molloyjh

.ak wrote: »

For me it's primarily the out halves.

Why? If a centre throws a big loopy cut out pass to the wing why is that the out halves fault?

I have to say I find it a little sad that you are so quick to blame the players and so slow to blame the coach. The buck stops with MOC surely? The question thomond is asking is a valid one. And to answer it we need to look at the problem some more. The wide element of our game is a massive part of our back play and has been for the majority of MOCs tenure this far. By that I mean when we go to the backs we more often than not just look to go wide fast (or we look for the strong carry up the middle or the surprise inside pass that surprises almost no one at this stage). It must be a tactical thing given its constant use and the skip out passes are a means to that end. Therefore it's not unreasonable to assume that this is part of that tactic.

But why do we do it? Is it because of a misguided belief that we can get around teams out wide? I'd hope not because the only side that's worked against has bee Scarlets this season. Is it because we are looking to pull defenses one way and then the other in the hopes that this will create space/mismatches, either in the wide channels or further infield? That seems more logical. But if that were the case would we not be trying to go from side to side in successive phases more often than we are? And are we not doing this deliberately or is our accuracy (at the breakdown and in our passing etc) preventing us implementing this properly?

These are the kinds of things we need to be discussing when looking at that aspect of our game.

molloyjh

Hagz wrote: »

I'd be interested to know what those who aren't in favour of Matt O'Connor staying on next season expect from Leinster next season if he does stay on.

I'm not sure we can expect a whole lot from Leinster next season regardless of who is coach. Leinster are likely to be hit with RWC disruptions more than any other club side in Europe (Glasgow could be equally but I suppose?) and that will account for the first 2 months of the season at a minimum. Then the 6 Nations will hit us for another 2 months. Combine that with the general player welfare and we'll be missing a lot of guys for over half the season. We won't have experienced half backs at all unless we manage a good signing at 9, but most likely we'll be looking at McGrath and Marsh for a large part of the season. This alone will make a big difference on this season where at least we had Gopperth at 10. And depending on what outside backs Joe takes with him we could find ourselves very light there too. Whatever about a lack of leadership this season we could well be seeing an even greater lack of leadership and experience for a lot of next.

molloyjh

total former wrote: »

Hijacked like a 1970s airliner I'm afraid. Except with more unreasonable demands and less chance of a satisfactory outcome.

Whatever about his merits as a coach, I think the notion that O'Connor has been given a fair go has been blown out of the water, at least by a minority.

What are his merits as a coach? Honest question.

.ak

molloyjh wrote: »

Why? If a centre throws a big loopy cut out pass to the wing why is that the out halves fault?

I have to say I find it a little sad that you are so quick to blame the players and so slow to blame the coach. The buck stops with MOC surely? The question thomond is asking is a valid one. And to answer it we need to look at the problem some more. The wide element of our game is a massive part of our back play and has been for the majority of MOCs tenure this far. By that I mean when we go to the backs we more often than not just look to go wide fast (or we look for the strong carry up the middle or the surprise inside pass that surprises almost no one at this stage). It must be a tactical thing given its constant use and the skip out passes are a means to that end. Therefore it's not unreasonable to assume that this is part of that tactic.

But why do we do it? Is it because of a misguided belief that we can get around teams out wide? I'd hope not because the only side that's worked against has bee Scarlets this season. Is it because we are looking to pull defenses one way and then the other in the hopes that this will create space/mismatches, either in the wide channels or further infield? That seems more logical. But if that were the case would we not be trying to go from side to side in successive phases more often than we are? And are we not doing this deliberately or is our accuracy (at the breakdown and in our passing etc) preventing us implementing this properly?

These are the kinds of things we need to be discussing when looking at that aspect of our game.

The out half calls the moves, 90% of those loopy passes are part of set plays.

Not sure why that's 'sad' to assume that? I'm not absolving MOC of anything, I'm not quick to the assumption either - this conversation has been a merry go round for 18 months... I do my own analysis and I think our directional play is dictated by the half backs.

We'll see how many unattainable loopy passes are thrown next year with sexton at the helm.

Who do people suggest instead of MOC?

A name, not a persona please.

.ak

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Who do people suggest instead of MOC?

A name, not a persona please.

AN Other has been doing well in the cup!

molloyjh

.ak wrote: »

The out half calls the moves, 90% of those loopy passes are part of set plays.

Not sure why that's 'sad' to assume that? I'm not absolving MOC of anything, I'm not quick to the assumption either - this conversation has been a merry go round for 18 months... I do my own analysis and I think our directional play is dictated by the half backs.

We'll see how many unattainable loopy passes are thrown next year with sexton at the helm.

The question thomond asked was:

thomond2006 wrote: »

Who is at fault for shovelling the ball out wide too early and/or throwing loopy passes out to the wing? It's a constant watching Leinster this year.

So it's not just about the big loopy pass, it's about the width we try to put on the game as often as we do. If that is dictated by the out-half then what exactly is the coaches role in all of this?

dregin

Swiwi. wrote: »

And this is where a lot of the problems arise at the moment in terms of views from some fans...

Stopped at "you're" instead of "your".

Sorry lad

molloyjh

Deleted User wrote: »

Who do people suggest instead of MOC?

A name, not a persona please.

How many of us knew who Cheika or Joe were prior to them getting hired? And of those of us who had heard of them how much did we really know about them? During the whole Kidney debacle how many people suggested Cheiks as an option to take over? There's very few (if any) posters with the kind of knowledge of existing coaches needed to answer that question.

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

How many of us knew who Cheika or Joe were prior to them getting hired? And of those of us who had heard of them how much did we really know about them? During the whole Kidney debacle how many people suggested Cheiks as an option to take over? There's very few (if any) posters with the kind of knowledge of existing coaches needed to answer that question.

Think about that carefully.

total former

molloyjh wrote: »

What are his merits as a coach? Honest question.

OK, I know you'll read what I have to say and give it proper consideration etc, I just hope others will do likewise.

Firstly, I think I've been pretty consistent in saying I don't know if he's the right coach for us, but my point is that none of us do, we're all just guessing. Where I differ from some of the more extreme MOC-outers is that I'm willing to consider other factors that might have contributed.

Going by what I've seen to date, I think my summary of MOC is that he organises his team very well, has made the right selection calls and (despite what is said about MOCball) tries to play a reasonably attractive brand of rugby. I think a number of younger guys have really come on during his spell in charge and (I've said this before and it didn't go down well), that's a bit of a black mark against Joe.

Where he has fallen down IMO is when things haven't gone to plan, he hasn't really shown me that he can change plan mid-game. Look at the loss to Connacht, the draw at Wasps, we started those games very well, but when the killer blows didn't land and the opponents got back into it, we didn't seem to have an extra gear or back-up plan to counter it. Again, I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that MOC has been hobbled by a lack of on-field leadership in the team and this is a major factor here, but I think he has questions to answer too.

Re: the style of play. I wasn't at the Dragons game but reading the posts here we seem to have played most of the rugby and been undone by handling errors (Te'o being the main culprit) - yet it seems we kept doing the same thing. Likewise in the Zebre game, we saw lots of running rugby, inventive moves and offloads but let down by the final execution.
Execution and accuracy, mainly manifested in knock-ons, has been one of the problems of the MOC regime, there's no getting away from that, but what I don't understand is how people can so definitively lay it at MOC's door. I don't know what he could be doing in training that pro rugby players suddenly lose the ability to catch a ball or to exploit a three-on-one overlap 5 metres from the try line. I'd suggest that it's the coach's job to engineer those situations to begin with, to set up the team so that they're in position to finish these chances and we have been doing that.

Re: team selection. I think he has been spot on every time, more or less. He put himself on the wrong side of a lot of fans last season by favouring Gopperth over Madigan, which I think has been borne out, and again this season by favouring Boss over McGrath, which again looks to be right. I think posters here have been very selective in what they've chosen to see on the pitch from certain players. His selection of Fanning didn't win him any fans either, but it was out of necessity rather than choice and I don't think anyone really appreciated that.

Finally, I think MOC has been very successful in light of the problems he has had to overcome.

He had to play his first season without Sexton, Strauss and Nacewa with Cullen barely able to run; four absolute pillars of the successful Joe Schmidt era gone. Now this season, O'Driscoll is gone, D'Arcy is a) aging and b) has had to play 13 all season while Reddan has been struggling too. You name pretty much any player who was central to the HC wins under Joe and they've been consistently denied to O'Connor, Heaslip excepted of course. In the 2011 and 2012 HC wins, Sean O'Brien started all 18 matches; of the 13 HC matches in the MOC era to date, he's started three, all of which were good wins for Leinster. You take a player of that quality out of the side and you're going to struggle. Likewise, he's lost Feek and Gibbes from the coaching staff.

The players we have are good, don't get me wrong, but they're a quantum leap below the guys named in the above paragraph. They are not HC-winning quality I'm afraid. To win the league in his first season and to qualify for the HC QFs was a good achievement but people were still calling for his head. Likewise, we're what, 5 points off top spot in the league and a home QF coming up? I think he deserves a lot more credit than he gets.

So yeah, he's not perfect, but he's done a good job with a pretty sh*tty hand.

.ak

molloyjh wrote: »

The question thomond asked was:



So it's not just about the big loopy pass, it's about the width we try to put on the game as often as we do. If that is dictated by the out-half then what exactly is the coaches role in all of this?

Well that depends, and it's not something we're privy too, but if you think the players play a micro-managed structure with blinkers on then I'd argue you're mistaken. We've heard from players and the coaches that they're not managed to this level.

Swiwi.

dregin wrote: »

Stopped at "you're" instead of "your".

Sorry lad

He he. Awec seems to often write "he should have went" instead of "should have gone". Is that a Northern thing, or is awec just uneducated

(seriously though, is that a northern thing??)

dregin

Swiwi. wrote: »

He he. Awec seems to often write "he should have went" instead of "should have gone". Is that a Northern thing, or is awec just uneducated

(seriously though, is that a northern thing??)

The googles tell me that both are correct. I don't use it, so you'll have to wait for answer from the man himself

Sangre

total former wrote: »

OK, I know you'll read what I have to say and give it proper consideration etc, I just hope others will do likewise.

Firstly, I think I've been pretty consistent in saying I don't know if he's the right coach for us, but my point is that none of us do, we're all just guessing. Where I differ from some of the more extreme MOC-outers is that I'm willing to consider other factors that might have contributed.

Going by what I've seen to date, I think my summary of MOC is that he organises his team very well, has made the right selection calls and (despite what is said about MOCball) tries to play a reasonably attractive brand of rugby. I think a number of younger guys have really come on during his spell in charge and (I've said this before and it didn't go down well), that's a bit of a black mark against Joe.

Where he has fallen down IMO is when things haven't gone to plan, he hasn't really shown me that he can change plan mid-game. Look at the loss to Connacht, the draw at Wasps, we started those games very well, but when the killer blows didn't land and the opponents got back into it, we didn't seem to have an extra gear or back-up plan to counter it. Again, I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that MOC has been hobbled by a lack of on-field leadership in the team and this is a major factor here, but I think he has questions to answer too.

Re: the style of play. I wasn't at the Dragons game but reading the posts here we seem to have played most of the rugby and been undone by handling errors (Te'o being the main culprit) - yet it seems we kept doing the same thing. Likewise in the Zebre game, we saw lots of running rugby, inventive moves and offloads but let down by the final execution.
Execution and accuracy, mainly manifested in knock-ons, has been one of the problems of the MOC regime, there's no getting away from that, but what I don't understand is how people can so definitively lay it at MOC's door. I don't know what he could be doing in training that pro rugby players suddenly lose the ability to catch a ball or to exploit a three-on-one overlap 5 metres from the try line. I'd suggest that it's the coach's job to engineer those situations to begin with, to set up the team so that they're in position to finish these chances and we have been doing that.

Re: team selection. I think he has been spot on every time, more or less. He put himself on the wrong side of a lot of fans last season by favouring Gopperth over Madigan, which I think has been borne out, and again this season by favouring Boss over McGrath, which again looks to be right. I think posters here have been very selective in what they've chosen to see on the pitch from certain players. His selection of Fanning didn't win him any fans either, but it was out of necessity rather than choice and I don't think anyone really appreciated that.

Finally, I think MOC has been very successful in light of the problems he has had to overcome.

He had to play his first season without Sexton, Strauss and Nacewa with Cullen barely able to run; four absolute pillars of the successful Joe Schmidt era gone. Now this season, O'Driscoll is gone, D'Arcy is a) aging and b) has had to play 13 all season while Reddan has been struggling too. You name pretty much any player who was central to the HC wins under Joe and they've been consistently denied to O'Connor, Heaslip excepted of course. In the 2011 and 2012 HC wins, Sean O'Brien started all 18 matches; you take a player of that quality out of the side and you're going to struggle. Likewise, he's lost Feek and Gibbes from the coaching staff.

The players we have are good, don't get me wrong, but they're a quantum leap below the guys named in the above paragraph. They are not HC-winning quality I'm afraid. To win the league in his first season and to qualify for the HC QFs was a good achievement but people were still calling for his head. Likewise, we're what, 5 points off top spot in the league and a home QF coming up? I think he deserves a lot more credit than he gets.

So yeah, he's not perfect, but he's done a good job with a pretty sh*tty hand.

All very sensible points.

However, on the selection debates, speaking generally, is it surpising that the favoured players (who got more gametime) were able to put in better perfomances? Just a general thought.

sydthebeat

Sangre wrote: »

All very sensible points.

However, on the selection debates, speaking generally, is it surpising that the favoured players (who got more gametime) were able to put in better perfomances? Just a general thought.

not quite sure what point your trying to make here?

can you give examples ?

Swiwi.

dregin wrote: »

The googles tell me that both are correct. I don't use it, so you'll have to wait for answer from the man himself

It's probably correct in the sense that that is what the masses use. By Oxford dictionary use, I'd say "should have went" is flat out wrong. TBH, I've enough difficulty just getting French grammer right these days, so I excuse myself for your/you're, enough though I would never extend that charity to anyone else

(thread derailed, back on topic now)

Back to what yer man wrote, and if I posted that "x" coach was good enough for Leinster, Ireland etc but not good enough for Crusaders/ABs, the old arrogant Kiwi jibes would flow fast enough. Saying MOC is a good coach, but not good enough for Leinster (but fine for Beziers) is just the same.

MOC should be judged on his record, but the overall calibre of player this season (especialy given the long injuries to Healy & SOB, not to mention Gooperth/Madigan vs Sexton) means the eras can't be compared easily.

total former

sydthebeat wrote: »

not quite sure what point your trying to make here?

can you give examples ?

Think he means that, because Boss & Gopperth were picked ahead of McGrath and Madigan, they got more chances to prove themselves and so O'Connor's choices seemed to be vindicated. Likewise, Fanning being picked ahead of the likes of SCM can't be proved wrong because SCM never got a chance.

Which is fair enough, it's definitely a possibility, but I've said all season though that MOC has no agenda with any of these guys, it's not like he has years of experience with any of them or loyalty to any of them, so the only reason he'd pick player A over player B is what he sees on the training ground or on the pitch.

sydthebeat

total former wrote: »

Think he means that, because Boss & Gopperth were picked ahead of McGrath and Madigan, they got more chances to prove themselves and so O'Connor's choices seemed to be vindicated.

Which is fair enough, it's definitely a possibility.

Boss ahead of Mcgrath is more a case of getting the last drop of blood from a stone... and if Boss is good enough for Joe Schmidts bench.....

On the Gopperth issue... people seem to forget that Jimy Gopperth was chosen to be the replacement for two absolute legends of the game. He joined newcastle to replace Jonny Wilkinson and for all intents and purposes he was a rock in a turbulent time for newcastle. Then again, Joe Schmidt chose him to replace Jonny sexton....

Clearlier

total former wrote: »

Execution and accuracy, mainly manifested in knock-ons, has been one of the problems of the MOC regime, there's no getting away from that, but what I don't understand is how people can so definitively lay it at MOC's door. I don't know what he could be doing in training that pro rugby players suddenly lose the ability to catch a ball or to exploit a three-on-one overlap 5 metres from the try line. I'd suggest that it's the coach's job to engineer those situations to begin with, to set up the team so that they're in position to finish these chances and we have been doing that.

A little bit of cherry picking here from your larger post which I hope you don't mind. When Joe came in most of us laughed when we heard that he planned to improve our passing. Sure, we were the best running side in Europe with BOD, d'Arcy etc.. 6 months later nobody is laughing as the level of execution in passing has gone through the stratosphere. Joe leaves and the deterioration in our passing was evident almost immediately. It's not what the MOC/the coaching are doing on the training ground that causes knock on's, it's what they're not doing.

Now, that's pretty much bashing MOC for not being Joe and I don't think that it's particularly fair. He's got a tough gig following probably the best coach that Leinster have ever had (for all that Cheika did I don't think that he had the capacity to bring the team to the level that Schmidt did). He appears to be much more of a Cheika style coach empowering the players being the focus of his efforts rather than the more prescriptive efforts of Schmidt. N.B. I'm not saying that Cheika didn't lay out gameplans or that Schmidt didn't empower the players but their focuses were different. I'd put MOC on a level with Matt Williams perhaps although Williams was obviously quite a different coach (more at the controlling end of the prescriptive mode). If he had come after Ella we would probably be talking about how much he had brought us on but he has come after Schmidt so we've dropped a couple of levels and everyone compares him to Schmidt and thinks that he's awful.

The loss of so many players is obviously huge. Losing BOD, Nacewa and Sexton would hurt any team. Schmidt would probably have found a way to be more competitive but that doesn't mean that MOC is doing a terrible job. It's no good saying that we shouldn't drop our standards, MOC isn't as good as Schmidt and therefore we should get rid of him and go out and get Joe mark II. That's a shortcut to a revolving door and the kind of instability that we really don't want. It's not very likely that there is a Joe mark II out there and even less likely that we could find him.

I think that MOC could be doing a better job but I don't think that he's doing a terrible job. I think he gets another year but absent a significant improvement next year it will probably be time to move on. With regard to replacements I very much like the way that Leinster have opted for coaches on an upward curve in Williams, Cheika and Schmidt and I hope that we revert to that policy. Somebody with something to prove should be our default not a big name who has been there and done that.

TL:DR - MOC not as good as Schmidt, not a reason to fire him. One more year and if no improvement get an up and coming coach rather than a big name.

jacothelad

Swiwi. wrote: »

He he. Awec seems to often write "he should have went" instead of "should have gone". Is that a Northern thing, or is awec just uneducated

(seriously though, is that a northern thing??)

Sloppy grammar that grates on the ear and which is a common enough mistake that can be heard everywhere. As a retired lecturer it used to irritate me immensely when marking papers and dissertations if it occurred. It doesn't really matter much in the over all scheme of things I suppose.

Gone is the past participle of to go. Used as the verb of a sentence, it must always be preceded by an auxiliary verb such as has, have, had, is, am, are, was, were, be, or one of their contractions.


e.g. I have gone mad reading some of X's posts. Awec has gone sloppy with his grammar being away from the motherland for too long.




Went is the past tense of to go. It never takes an auxiliary verb.

e.g. I went mad reading some of X's posts. Awec went to the bar to buy us all a drink.

Swiwi.

jacothelad wrote: »

.

*Grammar Nazi alert*

Should of went... :pac:

jacothelad

Swiwi. wrote: »

*Grammar Nazi alert*

Should of went... :pac:

Equal Opportunity Grammar Socialist please....:D Glad to help out.

molloyjh

total former wrote: »

OK, I know you'll read what I have to say and give it proper consideration etc, I just hope others will do likewise.

Firstly, I think I've been pretty consistent in saying I don't know if he's the right coach for us, but my point is that none of us do, we're all just guessing. Where I differ from some of the more extreme MOC-outers is that I'm willing to consider other factors that might have contributed.

Ah yeah, there's a fairly large element of opinion in everything we all write on the topic, which inevitably means there will be differences in opinion. Some refuse to acknowledge those other factors and some place more or less importance on them. That's to be expected.

total former wrote: »

Going by what I've seen to date, I think my summary of MOC is that he organises his team very well, has made the right selection calls and (despite what is said about MOCball) tries to play a reasonably attractive brand of rugby. I think a number of younger guys have really come on during his spell in charge and (I've said this before and it didn't go down well), that's a bit of a black mark against Joe.

Regarding younger players coming on I'm not so sure where credit does or doesn't go. For example we've seen a lot of forwards make great strides since MOC took over, but their development would have started before MOC arrived. They just broke onto the scene when he was here. I'd credit neither Joe or MOC with that. For me that is down to Gibbs. They developed and came through under him more-so than anyone else. And I know we agree his loss was pretty big, especially seeing as we handed his job to one of the boys when he left!

In terms of backs we've been pretty unlucky with injury in a few cases. McKinley and O'Malley are the two that spring to mind. If those two had panned out I do think we'd be in a different place because 10 and 13 have been areas we've struggled in the last 18 months (Darce having to go to 13 a lot being an example). We've always struggled to produce good scrum-halfs, but I'm very disappointed at losing Cooney to Connacht if I'm honest. He may not have been world class, but he is pretty decent.

Outside of those areas we've developed a few backs, but the quality of the guys ahead of them has driven them to go elsewhere. I'm not sure there's much we could have done about that tbf.

total former wrote: »

Where he has fallen down IMO is when things haven't gone to plan, he hasn't really shown me that he can change plan mid-game. Look at the loss to Connacht, the draw at Wasps, we started those games very well, but when the killer blows didn't land and the opponents got back into it, we didn't seem to have an extra gear or back-up plan to counter it. Again, I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that MOC has been hobbled by a lack of on-field leadership in the team and this is a major factor here, but I think he has questions to answer too.

Not much to be added here. Although against Wasps I don't know that we lacked much in the way of leadership. The only real leaders in the squad that we were missing that day were Jenno and Ruddock. Heaslip, Reddan and Kearney in the starting line-up (and arguably Luke Fitz who I think made a huge impact to our game when he returned) should have the leadership element covered.

total former wrote: »

Re: the style of play. I wasn't at the Dragons game but reading the posts here we seem to have played most of the rugby and been undone by handling errors (Te'o being the main culprit) - yet it seems we kept doing the same thing. Likewise in the Zebre game, we saw lots of running rugby, inventive moves and offloads but let down by the final execution.

In relation to the Dragons game there are two points. First Te'o got a lot of flack for his handling errors, but he didn't stand out in that regard until the final 20 where he knocked on 3 times in 10 minutes in very wet conditions. It was disappointing, but I feel its been blown out of proportion. The losing of that game happened well before that. The second point is that, IMO at least, we lost that game because we did something we've been guilty of for quite a while. We put more pressure on ourselves than the opposition. Our kicking game in the first half kept us pinned in our own half and Dragons had to do a lot less work for their scores than we did. The only way we had of getting out of our half was running with ball in hand because when we kicked we didn't kick for touch or into space, i.e. we didn't kick smartly. And the longer you have the ball the more errors you inevitably make anyway. If this was a one off then I'd have no problem laying the blame at the door of the half-backs but it followed the pattern of our kicking game all season. Remember the Ospreys game in the RDS where they realised that they could pin us back by just returning our kicks all day? It wasn't too dissimilar to that except unlike the Ospreys that day Dragons did a slightly better job of converting their chances.

With regard our playing style the notion of "putting more pressure on ourselves than the opposition" comes to mind frequently. For example when we go wide we pass too early and don't fix a defender. We crab across field reducing the space for those outside. And we don't have realistic alternatives to force defenders to make decisions. We go laterally and allow defences to drift. And when the ball makes it into the wide channels the receiver has little room to work with and often multiple defenders in front of him. It took Luke returning for us to start straightening the line some-what as he started doing that himself. And we almost never see wingers cutting back inside like Luke did against Zebre. I can't believe it's that hard for coaches to encourage that in the players we have. Opposition sides can see our inside balls coming a mile off to the point where they have become almost completely ineffective, even against weak opposition. How much of all of this is players executing badly and how much of it is bad game plan I don't know. What I do know is that it hasn't been working too well and the guys in charge of fixing things are the coaches, be that through working harder on the basics or changing up the game plan. And that's something I've been pretty consistent on. Errors on the pitch when they start happening are the players fault generally. The longer those errors go on for and the more endemic they are the more we need to look at the coaches as they are the ones responsible for fixing the issues.

total former wrote: »

Execution and accuracy, mainly manifested in knock-ons, has been one of the problems of the MOC regime, there's no getting away from that, but what I don't understand is how people can so definitively lay it at MOC's door. I don't know what he could be doing in training that pro rugby players suddenly lose the ability to catch a ball or to exploit a three-on-one overlap 5 metres from the try line. I'd suggest that it's the coach's job to engineer those situations to begin with, to set up the team so that they're in position to finish these chances and we have been doing that.

As per my last point above, the longer it goes on and the more endemic it becomes the more responsibility lies upon the coaches for resolving the issues. But by reducing the focus on those basic skills it is entirely possible for them to atrophy somewhat. And at that level it probably doesn't take much to cause real problems. We're not helped by the fact that our skills and kicking coach is double jobbing, and I'm not happy with that, but I don't think that's the sum total of our issue. My guess (and that's really all this ever could be) is that we are putting less emphasis in training on those basic skills than we should be.

total former wrote: »

Re: team selection. I think he has been spot on every time, more or less. He put himself on the wrong side of a lot of fans last season by favouring Gopperth over Madigan, which I think has been borne out, and again this season by favouring Boss over McGrath, which again looks to be right. I think posters here have been very selective in what they've chosen to see on the pitch from certain players. His selection of Fanning didn't win him any fans either, but it was out of necessity rather than choice and I don't think anyone really appreciated that.

I wouldn't argue massively with his selections for the most part. Although that Gopperth starting in Toulon decision was utterly baffling. I would argue somewhat with his use of the bench. I wouldn't be selecting McGrath ahead of Boss, but I would have liked to have seen him get more game time in the first half of the season. Even if that was just an extra 10 minutes here and there. And there have been a few cases where we haven't used our replacement backs when maybe we could have. For example Marsh in the Treviso game (when we had the TBP and were in the lead and Gopperth was having an absolute shocker due to being ill). We will need to rely on that guy for the first couple of months next season but he'll have gone through this season with all of 15 minutes in a single game in October.

total former wrote: »

Finally, I think MOC has been very successful in light of the problems he has had to overcome.

In terms of last season I would agree. I had issues with how we did it, but we did it. And as a result I was happy to give him time. This season we have yet to see that. We had the easiest of the European groups and came perilously close to messing it up plus we needed a bit of luck (which in fairness we were owed!) to get the home QF. It wouldn't have taken very much at all for us to have actually failed to qualify from our pool. And we may yet struggle to make the play-offs in the league.

total former wrote: »

The players we have are good, don't get me wrong, but they're a quantum leap below the guys named in the above paragraph. They are not HC-winning quality I'm afraid. To win the league in his first season and to qualify for the HC QFs was a good achievement but people were still calling for his head. Likewise, we're what, 5 points off top spot in the league and a home QF coming up? I think he deserves a lot more credit than he gets.

So yeah, he's not perfect, but he's done a good job with a pretty sh*tty hand.

Yeah I agree we haven't had anything like a HEC winning side available to us. Even with a fully fit squad we don't, IMO, have the half-backs to go after a title against the likes of Toulon or Clermont. On a good day we might be able to manage them, but we'd always be the underdog. I just often feel like we have been getting results in spite of ourselves. That TBP against Zebre should have been a foregone conclusion. They were missing players to Italian duty and to injury. Their coaches had resigned mid-week after a thrashing at home to Glasgow. They lost several players to injury throughout the game including both out-halves in the first half and had injured players on the field in the second because they couldn't replace them. They were away from home and are the worst side in the league as it stands. I know we had our disruption too but we shouldn't have needed the full 80 to get 4 tries. Like I said in the match thread, it took a Glasgow team minus their internationals 36 minutes to get the TBP where-as it took us 33 minutes just to get on the board.


TL;DR: I agree with a lot of total formers points. We're not the side we were by a distance but the way we are playing is putting more pressure on us than the opposition and our performances have been of the poor variety more often than not. Some of that is down to the players and the disruption and some of it is down to the coaches. I attribute more to the coaches than he does but neither of us really know.

molloyjh

.ak wrote: »

Well that depends, and it's not something we're privy too, but if you think the players play a micro-managed structure with blinkers on then I'd argue you're mistaken. We've heard from players and the coaches that they're not managed to this level.

I'm not sure I'd call a tactic of "look to use the width to do X or Y" micro managing.

.ak

molloyjh wrote: »

I'm not sure I'd call a tactic of "look to use the width to do X or Y" micro managing.

It is if it means they do it without looking at what's on and how the defence is organised. It's essentially playing overly structured rugby.

Which reminds me of how much we were playing very structured at the beginning of the first season under MOC, and how it seems we're doing the opposite now. Which incidentally backs up everything MOC has been saying...

The_Captain

MOC has always had to fight an uphill battle here.

Clermont played amazing rugby and I would imagine most Leinster fans saw comparisons between their style of play and ours (emphasis on breakdown/recycling and keeping the ball alive), so were quite happy when Joe was announced as new coach.

The Tigers style of play was the absolute antithesis of our style, head-down running from big lads looking to crashball straight into contact so I was nervous that MOC was going to try to change our team to fit his style.

I wasn't expecting much from Schmidt first season, but he blew everyone out of the water, albeit by inheriting the best team in Europe at the peak of their power.

O'Connor was never going to live up to that. He still managed to win the league on his first season, albeit with unexciting low-scoring play. It was worrying because it seemed to be a step backwards in skill level. Gopperth suffered too because he was in such a noticeable position replacing the best out half in the world (sorry Dan) and, while decent, hadn't the world class kicking and game management both expected and required to be playing for this team. We had a lot of younger players coming in with big boots to fill and they've done pretty well, but you don't beat Toulon by playing well.

His second season, I'm willing to give Matt the benefit of the doubt because of injuries etc, but it's now time for him to step up his game.
With our front-liners fit and getting more gametime, it's time to start showing what we can do, and it's time for MOC to start showing us what his long-term plan is with the team

19543261

Dravokivich wrote: »

But it's be too brash a suggestion to lay it on MOC. It may be something he has to contend with, but I doubt it's something of his own doing.

Why not? When is a coach ever at fault?

Dravokivich

19543261 wrote: »

Why not? When is a coach ever at fault?

It's a problem with the coach when they are complacent. I don't get the impression he is.

The_Captain

Dravokivich wrote: »

It's a problem with the coach when they are complacent. I don't get the impression he is.

David Moyes was never complacent in United, he just didn't have the skills to coach the team effectively. :pac:

TommyOM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It must be all those league and cup doubles we won in the past which has raised your expectations so high!

Our expectations should be a pro 12 final and the semi finals of the champions cup.

irishbucsfan

TommyOM wrote: »

Our expectations should be a pro 12 final and the semi finals of the champions cup.

That is something we can still achieve this season and probably a lot less ridiculous than a league a cup double.

TommyOM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That is something we can still achieve this season and probably a lot less ridiculous than a league a cup double.

No one said a league and cup double.

That should be a minimum expectation for a team like Leinster. Achieving that will not mean MOC is suddenly a good coach. With the players at his disposal a Pro 12 final and the semis of the champions cup shouldn't be difficult.

Scrapping a play off and then beating Bath shouldn't be enough to save MOC.

irishbucsfan

TommyOM wrote: »

No one said a league and cup double.

Incorrect

irishbucsfan

.ak wrote: »

Well that depends, and it's not something we're privy too, but if you think the players play a micro-managed structure with blinkers on then I'd argue you're mistaken. We've heard from players and the coaches that they're not managed to this level.

That's true, and it's almost certainly related to poor midfield play which has killed us this season, but of course it's also something that should be addressed by coaching as well. If it's something that they are free to decide themselves on the field there should still be critique on those decisions.

As you said, we'll see more along those lines next season. Sexton could be in his element with the freedom he's going to be afforded.

awec

TommyOM wrote: »

No one said a league and cup double.

That should be a minimum expectation for a team like Leinster. Achieving that will not mean MOC is suddenly a good coach. With the players at his disposal a Pro 12 final and the semis of the champions cup shouldn't be difficult.

Scrapping a play off and then beating Bath shouldn't be enough to save MOC.

I disagree, especially regarding Europe.

Leinster's squad is definitely not a given for being a semi finalist. That would certainly be over-rating what MOC has at his disposal.

TommyOM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That's true, and it's almost certainly related to poor midfield play which has killed us this season, but of course it's also something that should be addressed by coaching as well. If it's something that they are free to decide themselves on the field there should still be critique on those decisions.

As you said, we'll see more along those lines next season. Sexton could be in his element with the freedom he's going to be afforded.

They have had two years to correct this.

Things will undoubtedly improve next season but not because of the coaches philosophy coming to fruition it will be because Sexton is there. If Sexton doesn't believe in a coach he'll just go out there and do his own thing and rally the players to do likewise(think Ireland v Australia in 2011 WC)

irishbucsfan

TommyOM wrote: »

They have had two years to correct this.

Things will undoubtedly improve next season but not because of the coaches philosophy coming to fruition it will be because Sexton is there. If Sexton doesn't believe in a coach he'll just go out there and do his own thing and rally the players to do likewise(think Ireland v Australia in 2011 WC)

No, they haven't had two years to correct it, because width hasn't been a problem for two years. And also because our midfield has been the most disrupted unit in the entire team during that period.