Leinster Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread VI: End of the MOC [Revenge of the STH]

LeinsterDub

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Matt's "style" of play

What is that? Can you give me some idea of what you think his style of play is?

Quint2010

.ak wrote: »

The point is why sign an unknown coach to replace one where we aren't even sure if he's the main issue at hand. I'm talking from someone's point of view like Dawson.

Well Dawson needs to go to the captain at the end of the season (not now) and ask him if he thinks the coach is the problem whilst at the same time right now drawing up a list of possible replacements (if he hasnt already)

.ak

molloyjh wrote: »

Sometimes when you're really close to something it can be hard to see the wood from the trees. And while it may well be true that he's a technically good coach, is he the man manager we need? I know that may sound a little clichéd but there's often a lot of truth in that sort of thing.

To be honest I think that's something we can agree on. I actually think MOC is tactically a very good coach. He brings a very good all-round game plan to each game and varies it quite a lot. That's all we can really appraise from the stands - the positions and roles players are used in.

However, when we see seasoned internationals making screw ups time and time again, or the confidence wavering, or the handling mistakes... It leads me to believe that where MOC is falling down in is his management of the squad. He's very much a DOR style coach and I wonder if that's effecting us after having such a hands on guy like Joe. For me, Joe's biggest strength was getting guys like Ben Marshall or Jordi Murphy to play out of their skin and win us titles when the internationals were away. These guys don't get worse or better in terms of skills when they play under different coaches, but their mindset and how they approach a game can vary differently depending on how they're spoken too.

Ideally if MOC was to move to a DOR style job and we got someone like Girve to step in as a manager below him it might work out better.

shuffol

I'd be fairly concerned about our options at scrumhalf next season. With Sexton coming in we should be aiming to compete for the ECC but I don't think it will be possible with the scrumhalves we have. Why sign arguably the best outhalf in the world but fail to ensure that he has someone that can guarantee him good supply, just seems a bit careless to me. People are expecting big things from Sexton and rightly so but the Sexton we're probably all picturing is the one playing with Conor Murray now or the one who played with Reddan of 2/3 years ago.

.ak

Quint2010 wrote: »

Well Dawson needs to go to the captain at the end of the season (not now) and ask him if he thinks the coach is the problem whilst at the same time right now drawing up a list of possible replacements (if he hasnt already)

I'm fairly sure the senior players are asked to give feedback regularly as the season goes on (on everything from s&c sessions to coaching). The branch has always been very player power enabled.

irishbucsfan

Quint2010 wrote: »

Well Dawson needs to go to the captain at the end of the season (not now) and ask him if he thinks the coach is the problem whilst at the same time right now drawing up a list of possible replacements (if he hasnt already)

We'll that would be an awful way to do it. If you're making a change of coach you don't make the decision after the season has finished unless it's unavoidable.

Larbre34

shuffol wrote: »

I'd be fairly concerned about our options at scrumhalf next season. With Sexton coming in we should be aiming to compete for the ECC but I don't think it will be possible with the scrumhalves we have. Why sign arguably the best outhalf in the world but fail to ensure that he has someone that can guarantee him good supply, just seems a bit careless to me. People are expecting big things from Sexton and rightly so but the Sexton we're probably all picturing is the one playing with Conor Murray now or the one who played with Reddan of 2/3 years ago.

McGrath is a fine player, he needs games, we need to back him.

.ak

Larbre34 wrote: »

McGrath is a fine player, he needs games, we need to back him.

Do we? I hate this idea of throwing a player in the deep end. We gave him plenty of backing this season and he was for the most part quite poor in terms of delivery and service.

What we need is a decent scrumhalf to bridge the gap, McGrath's form will come but throwing him into games where we lose because he's passing to people's heads or bootlaces won't do him any favours.

Larbre34

.ak wrote: »

Ideally if MOC was to move to a DOR style job and we got someone like Girve to step in as a manager below him it might work out better.

I don't think he'd wear that type of ignominy, as it would be an obvious sideliner.

I see those DORs in England and all they are is an extra salary, which is fine if you are Bruce Craig. It muddies the waters and a good head coach with a well structured staff and a team manager should be plenty.

I'd like to see Girve take over, with Leo, Murphy and John Foggy brought in to coach the scrum.

.ak

Would you apply the same comments to O'Shea or Cockerill? They're DORs.

AbusesToilets

.ak wrote: »

Do we? I hate this idea of throwing a player in the deep end. We gave him plenty of backing this season and he was for the most part quite poor in terms of delivery and service.

What we need is a decent scrumhalf to bridge the gap, McGrath's form will come but throwing him into games where we lose because he's passing to people's heads or bootlaces won't do him any favours.

We should have looked to bring Cooney back from Connacht.

total former

Larbre34 wrote: »

I'd like to see Girve take over, with Leo, Murphy and John Foggy brought in to coach the scrum.

Really?

Firstly, Caputo is doing a fine job with the scrum; we are dominant there every week, pretty much regardless of personnel.

Secondly, how can you exonerate Cullen and Murphy from blame but dump MOC?

Thirdly, Girve take over??

Edit: did that go over my head?

Buer

Larbre34 wrote: »

John Foggy brought in to coach the scrum.

Why would we want to change our scrum coach? It's the one thing that has gone really well this season.

Buer

LorMal wrote: »

I think the quote from BOD you are referencing was more about criticism of Leinster rather than MOC? (About fans expecting to win everything all the time)

I've heard him speak a few times on it regarding the criticism levelled at Leinster and also the coach. The one specific time I'm thinking about was when he referenced criticism of MOC and laughed it off while questioning people criticising a guy who won the league in his first season with the team.

Larbre34

.ak wrote: »

Would you apply the same comments to O'Shea or Cockerill? They're DORs.

Yes but are effectively head coaches. The David Humphreys with Mark Anscombe model is one to be avoided IMO

Larbre34

Buer wrote: »

Why would we want to change our scrum coach? It's the one thing that has gone really well this season.

He's O'Connor's man. I don't argue the scrum is decent, but we would be retaining the players and Fogarty is true Leinster, between him and Leo you would still see high performance there.

If we are to rebuild the lost spirit, it be through big leaders within the province.

Buer

Larbre34 wrote: »

He's O'Connor's man. I don't argue the scrum is decent, but we would be retaining the players and Fogarty is true Leinster, between him and Leo you would still see high performance there.

If we are to rebuild the lost spirit, it be through big leaders within the province.

Baby and bathwater come to mind. He's the one guy who can stand over his work this season without issue and has to be retained; he has worked miracles with Bent. However, you advocate retaining Cullen who is probably the worst performing coach out of all of them with how poor our pack has been outside the scrum?

Makes no sense at all.

thomond2006

Larbre34 wrote: »

He's O'Connor's man. I don't argue the scrum is decent, but we would be retaining the players and Fogarty is true Leinster, between him and Leo you would still see high performance there.

If we are to rebuild the lost spirit, it be through big leaders within the province.

Bit harsh, guilty by association. If he's good on his own merits then he doesn't deserve to be fired.

LeinsterDub

Deleted User wrote: »

What is that? Can you give me some idea of what you think his style of play is?

Generally we been playing an out , out , in ball. A major reluctance on getting the ball wide . kicking it (generally aimlessly) after we've used all the options in tight.

Buer

Larbre34 wrote: »

Yes but are effectively head coaches. The David Humphreys with Mark Anscombe model is one to be avoided IMO

Not really. For example, John Kingston is Quins head coach. He's a hugely experienced coach and was formerly the Director of Rugby when Dean Richards departed.

total former

Larbre34 wrote: »

He's O'Connor's man. I don't argue the scrum is decent, but we would be retaining the players and Fogarty is true Leinster, between him and Leo you would still see high performance there.

LeinsterDub

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Generally we been playing an out , out , in ball. A major reluctance on getting the ball wide . kicking it (generally aimlessly) after we've used all the options in tight.

That's probably exactly the opposite of what went on at the weekend

Buer

In terms of tactics, I'm honestly not sure what the game plan is. We do want to play high tempo and move the ball, obviously. But it seems all a little telegraphed and we really struggle to make line breaks. But I've seen so many claims that we play boring, bash it up rugby with no ambition. That's absolutely not what we're doing a lot of the time. We also kick quite poorly more often than not. Neither Madigan nor Gopperth are good kickers from hand.

I think the squad just look entirely void of confidence at this stage and that transfers into the performances.

CIARAN_BOYLE

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Generally we been playing an out , out , in ball. A major reluctance on getting the ball wide . kicking it (generally aimlessly) after we've used all the options in tight.

we go wide only when we have failed to 'earn the right to go wide'.

thomond2006

Buer wrote: »

In terms of tactics, I'm honestly not sure what the game plan is. We do want to play high tempo and move the ball, obviously. But it seems all a little telegraphed and we really struggle to make line breaks. But I've seen so many claims that we play boring, bash it up rugby with no ambition. That's absolutely not what we're doing a lot of the time. We also kick quite poorly more often than not. Neither Madigan nor Gopperth are good kickers from hand.

I think the squad just look entirely void of confidence at this stage and that transfers into the performances.

Sometimes it reminds me of Munster under Mannix/Penney, aside from having a plodding lock on the wing! Leinster fling the ball to the wing a lot with no preparation work done beforehand: There doesn't seem to be an aim of fixing defenders out wide to create space or making carries near the breakdown to attract defenders to create man advantages on the wings. It's left to the wide player to make the individual break himself but he just ends up getting swallowed up by the drift defence behind the gain line. If the defence is allowed to drift then the wide player has no time to set himself to do something positive, he just receives a hospital pass most of the time.

If there was someone like Folau or Savea on the wing it might make sense as you're putting an outstanding attacker up against someone who might not be able to handle them on a one-on-one situation. However aside from Fitzgerald Leinster's wingers are more the solid as opposed to the flashy player.

Quint2010

.ak wrote: »

To be honest I think that's something we can agree on. I actually think MOC is tactically a very good coach. He brings a very good all-round game plan to each game and varies it quite a lot. That's all we can really appraise from the stands - the positions and roles players are used in.

However, when we see seasoned internationals making screw ups time and time again, or the confidence wavering, or the handling mistakes... It leads me to believe that where MOC is falling down in is his management of the squad. He's very much a DOR style coach and I wonder if that's effecting us after having such a hands on guy like Joe. For me, Joe's biggest strength was getting guys like Ben Marshall or Jordi Murphy to play out of their skin and win us titles when the internationals were away. These guys don't get worse or better in terms of skills when they play under different coaches, but their mindset and how they approach a game can vary differently depending on how they're spoken too.

Ideally if MOC was to move to a DOR style job and we got someone like Girve to step in as a manager below him it might work out better.

You are seriously suggesting we should "promote" Matt O'Connor? Sheesh! Best laugh I have had in ages!:)

CIARAN_BOYLE

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

we go wide only when we have failed to 'earn the right to go wide'.

Decision making on the field to blame for this surely?

Unless we believe that MOC has a rigid set of rules like "after the 4th phase, always pass to the wings" that mean that we're seeing players make bad decisions because they're forced into them by some underlying tactic?

If there is such a rigid set of rules, I'd be very very very surprised and disappointed.

LorMal

Buer wrote: »

I've heard him speak a few times on it regarding the criticism levelled at Leinster and also the coach. The one specific time I'm thinking about was when he referenced criticism of MOC and laughed it off while questioning people criticising a guy who won the league in his first season with the team.

Yeah, I have heard him too but I think it was a bit more equivocal than laughing at criticism - he has been critical of Leinster himself.
I think he was less positive last Friday evening on Off the Ball (Himself and Denis Hickey). More a case of 'not sure' what is going wrong. However, I agree with you - he is not blaming the coach - I think they all like Matt for sure.

molloyjh

.ak wrote: »

The point is why sign an unknown coach to replace one where we aren't even sure if he's the main issue at hand. I'm talking from someone's point of view like Dawson.

But the coaches they are looking at wouldn't be unknown to Dawson. We didn't know who Cheika was, but Dawson obviously did. So from Dawsons point of view we wouldn't ever be bringing in an unknown.

.ak wrote: »

To be honest I think that's something we can agree on. I actually think MOC is tactically a very good coach. He brings a very good all-round game plan to each game and varies it quite a lot. That's all we can really appraise from the stands - the positions and roles players are used in.

I think at some point we should sit down and review a game together because I'd love to see the good all-round and varied game plan you speak of. I generally see the same thing week in week out and it more often than not doesn't work, nor do I understand how it can be expected to.

.ak wrote: »

However, when we see seasoned internationals making screw ups time and time again, or the confidence wavering, or the handling mistakes... It leads me to believe that where MOC is falling down in is his management of the squad. He's very much a DOR style coach and I wonder if that's effecting us after having such a hands on guy like Joe. For me, Joe's biggest strength was getting guys like Ben Marshall or Jordi Murphy to play out of their skin and win us titles when the internationals were away. These guys don't get worse or better in terms of skills when they play under different coaches, but their mindset and how they approach a game can vary differently depending on how they're spoken too.

Ideally if MOC was to move to a DOR style job and we got someone like Girve to step in as a manager below him it might work out better.

Isn't the head coach the tactician with the DOR being the man manager though? And s that not in theory why MOC was more successful at Leicester, i.e. he had Cockerill looking after the bits he wasn't great at?

Either way I'm not sure man-management is the term I want to use personally. I think it's like a manager at work. People often produce their best for a manager who is tough but fair. The kind of manager who will make sure you know all about it if you're not doing what you should be, but who will also have your back externally. A manager who is quite lax generally about things can create a lax environment (oops, there's that word again!) where people aren't working as well as they could. I don't see a rugby club being wildly different. You need a tough taskmaster in there and if he isn't (and this is only a theory remember) then maybe that's what is lacking.

total former wrote: »

Really?

Firstly, Caputo is doing a fine job with the scrum; we are dominant there every week, pretty much regardless of personnel.

Secondly, how can you exonerate Cullen and Murphy from blame but dump MOC?

Thirdly, Girve take over??

Edit: did that go over my head?

Yeah I've no issue with Caputo other than maybe the decision not to hook. We've seen Cronin can do it for Ireland but we rarely see it for Leinster. But when we're dominating the scrum more often than not it tends not to be a huge issue.

I have sympathy for Murphy because he was skills and kicking coach when we were really good in that area. He is now double jobbing which I completely disagree with as it means he's in 2 different systems and the non-Leinster one is the priority. For example when we were playing Scarlets he was in Scotland preparing for the last game in the 6 Nations.

As for Leo I really wasn't happy with that when it was announced but it's hard to know what the right course of action is from here. Do you drop the guy after making the mistake or do you change his role and give him a "sideways move"? I wouldn't be in favour of firing him completely as the mistake was Leinsters and they should find some way to make things work for both parties. He could be a very good coach in 5 years and should be given the opportunity to develop. I'd rather we invested in him than chucked him completely.

LorMal

I don't think anyone could credibly argue that Joe Schmidts success is all down to the players. He has been obviously instrumental to the success of Leinster and Ireland since he took charge of them respectively.
Therefore, I cannot understand how anyone can credibly argue that Leinster's current failings are all down to the players and not due to the coaching. The same logic applies surely?