Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Leinster Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread VI: End of the MOC [Revenge of the STH]
Options
Comments
-
irishbucsfan wrote: »Make no mistake, Fitzgerald's point is that Guardiola is a good coach who is under pressure despite issues outside his control, and he is drawing a similarity to MOC, and he's is using it as an example of why top level sport is "ridiculous".
Or a veiled comparison of coaches making excuses....
Missing the winking smilie, but I guess he cant be too overt. The exclamation mark and the double question marks give the game away to those who want to see it. Still gets the message out there that not all in the Leinster camp are behind the coaching ticket.0 -
Because it hasn't made the rugby any better or the results. My issue isn't with MOC as a person, or even with how good, bad or indifferent he has them on the training paddock.
Also sometimes when you like a person it can be hard to see the wood from the trees. And while it may be true that they look great in training and MOC comes across as a technically excellent rugby man it isn't happening where it matters.
Yes, but what if you are wrong? What if the issues are genuinely issues which can be overcome by having patience with a good coach? The players are, of course, more invested in this than any of us. Maybe they're not all wrong and maybe the issues are not as serious or insurmountable as some fans would like to suggest. It makes a very big difference to me when players are making this kind of point repeatedly.0 -
total former wrote: »They wouldn't respect him if they didn't think he was a good coach.
It doesn't put any more points on the league table but it's interesting nonetheless that this is the second senior player in three days to contradict boards.ie wisdom that it's all on the coach (Without being cornered at some press conference).
Ah now there's very few pinning all of the blame on MOC. We need to get past that.
It may be interesting, but as you said it doesn't put more points on the league table.0 -
irishbucsfan wrote: »Yes, but what if you are wrong? What if the issues are genuinely issues which can be overcome by having patience with a good coach? The players are, of course, more invested in this than any of us. Maybe they're not all wrong and maybe the issues are not as serious or insurmountable as some fans would like to suggest. It makes a very big difference to me when players are making this kind of point repeatedly.
Having worked in environments with poor managers who have gotten by on their personalties I'm more inclined to look at results than I am the opinions of those too close to the whole thing. On Friday we had a match that involved almost a full strength squad who had been in camp for 6 weeks and should have been able to produce a hell of a lot more than they did. Are there issues in midfield? Yes of course. Do those issues fully explain poor performances like Friday? Absolutely not IMO.
Just because it works in training does not mean it works on match day. While they may see a lot of good things during the week that generate the respect and the guy is a lovely bloke meaning they like him counts for only so much on match day. And it would appear it counts for very little really. Would we be better with better half backs? Yes of course. Do we need better half back to be better than we were against Treviso? Absolutely not IMO.0 -
Having worked in environments with poor managers who have gotten by on their personalties I'm more inclined to look at results than I am the opinions of those too close to the whole thing. On Friday we had a match that involved almost a full strength squad who had been in camp for 6 weeks and should have been able to produce a hell of a lot more than they did. Are there issues in midfield? Yes of course. Do those issues fully explain poor performances like Friday? Absolutely not IMO.
Just because it works in training does not mean it works on match day. While they may see a lot of good things during the week that generate the respect and the guy is a lovely bloke meaning they like him counts for only so much on match day. And it would appear it counts for very little really. Would we be better with better half backs? Yes of course. Do we need better half back to be better than we were against Treviso? Absolutely not IMO.
I think the issues are far less widespread than you do. The issues we had on Friday were completely related to our inability to manage where the game was being played in very poor conditions. There was very little outside that to blame. That's been our issue consistently all season as well. Once we sort out that aspect of the game there is a lot of ability and talent available to become a very dangerous side very quickly, and we've shown that on the few occasions we've put ourselves in good positions this season. And yes, we absolutely 100% need a better half back pairing to be better against Treviso, it's the very first step and it's an absolutely basic requirement. Look at how we played previously under Schmidt on the days our half backs didn't turn up.0 -
Advertisement
-
Ah now there's very few pinning all of the blame on MOC. We need to get past that.
It may be interesting, but as you said it doesn't put more points on the league table.
I suppose my take on it, and I'm always the optimist here, is that the players seem to think he can do the job.
If they think he's up to it, then I'm at least willing to see what happens next season.
Get on board the positivity train lads. Choo choo!0 -
irishbucsfan wrote: »The issues we had on Friday were completely related to our inability to manage where the game was being played in very poor conditions. There was very little outside that to blame. That's been our issue consistently all season as well
What ????
We cant play in bad weather ?
And nothing else really was to blame ?
And inability to play in bad weather explains all our performance this season ?0 -
SaveOurLyric wrote: »What ????
We cant play in bad weather ?
And nothing else really was to blame ?
And inability to play in bad weather explains all our performance this season ?
Nope, not what I meant at all. Maybe I needed to leave a few exclamation points and question marks in there?! :pac:0 -
I can see a certain amount of sense in the Bayern-Leinster comparison but there are a couple of major differences.
While Leinster do have a bit of an advantage in terms of underage numbers coming through compared to most teams in the league; they don't have the same financial muscle that Bayern too and the gap between the depth of Bayern's squad + the quality of their starting 11 against the rest is much larger than Leinster versus the likes of Munster/Ulster/Glasgow/Ospreys.
I do think that Guardiola has underachieved though, although I have a certain amount of sympathy for him this time with the injuries. But the implication of his style of football has made the team worse, they are way more vulnerable defensively now. Leinster have also underachieved under MOC, although unlike Bayern who you could argue have strengthened their squad since Pep took over- they have lost Nacewa, BOD, Cullen and most importantly Sexton- important leaders and world class players.
I'm not sure how much further you can go with the comparison; fwiw I think it's understandable that Guardiola is under pressure even though he won the league... not winning the league with Bayern would be a massive, massive failure; I don't think this current Leinster team can have the same sort of arrogance although they should be performing better. I imagine that the Ferguson/Moyes comparison is possibly more apt.0 -
Its clear that the players rate MOC and are doing what they can to let the fan-base know that they think he is a good/great coach. If MOC has the option, I wouldn't be surprised if he left of his own accord at the end of the season.0
-
Advertisement
-
irishbucsfan wrote: »Once we sort out that aspect of the game there is a lot of ability and talent available to become a very dangerous side very quickly, and we've shown that on the few occasions we've put ourselves in good positions this season.
Maybe it's the cynic in me but it's pretty obvious that when we get better half backs we'll be better. It's also obvious that we have some real ability and talent in the team. But that we can make that count to the level we should with better half backs is nothing but a theory at this stage. One with little supporting evidence at all. And most importantly one we simply won't get to see enough of next season as Sexton will be missing for at least half the season and will be settling in for his first few weeks when we play the first few rounds of the Champions Cup.
It's easy to get more out of more though. Good coaches should be able to get more out of less surely?irishbucsfan wrote: »And yes, we absolutely 100% need a better half back pairing to be better against Treviso, it's the very first step and it's an absolutely basic requirement.
You realise this means that you think we played to our potential on Friday?0 -
There are very few coaches out there who have been very successful without good halfbacks, and the ones who are have either a very specific style of play (most of which are outdated now) or were excellent halfbacks themselves.Maybe it's the cynic in me but it's pretty obvious that when we get better half backs we'll be better. It's also obvious that we have some real ability and talent in the team. But that we can make that count to the level we should with better half backs is nothing but a theory at this stage. One with little supporting evidence at all. And most importantly one we simply won't get to see enough of next season as Sexton will be missing for at least half the season and will be settling in for his first few weeks why we play the first few rounds of the Champions Cup.
It's easy to get more out of more though. Good coaches should be able to get more out of less surely?
Nah, it doesn't. We weren't close to our potential on Friday because we were stuck in our own half and our forwards weren't able to give us anything the few times we got out of it. We played to our potential in the 2nd half against Ulster earlier in the season for example, while in the first half we had the exact same problems again, with Madigan wasting possession with dire kicking.You realise this means that you think we played to our potential on Friday?0 -
irishbucsfan wrote: »..but unfortunately there is no other way that this Leinster team could play without a stronger set piece or pack to rely on.
Would you care to point out how a team with a weakness at half back is supposed to enforce a structured game plan? Who drives that sort of game plan?
I guess this is part of my problem...we still have a serious pack.
I don't think they're performing as accurately at the breakdown as they used to be, and that's not helping the half-back issues, and may be one of the reasons Gopperth is often so deep...he's facing a set defence ready to charge as he receives the ball, so can't play flat.
Someone else mentioned the disconnect between attack and defence...I'm not knowledgeable enough to analyse things as in-depth as some of you guys here, but we don't look as cohesive a team as we once did...support runners aren't always there, or aren't in the right place, we don't look like we're moving as a unit. That's not just caused by the half-backs.irishbucsfan wrote: »I think the issues are far less widespread than you do. The issues we had on Friday were completely related to our inability to manage where the game was being played in very poor conditions. There was very little outside that to blame. That's been our issue consistently all season as well. Once we sort out that aspect of the game there is a lot of ability and talent available to become a very dangerous side very quickly, and we've shown that on the few occasions we've put ourselves in good positions this season. And yes, we absolutely 100% need a better half back pairing to be better against Treviso, it's the very first step and it's an absolutely basic requirement. Look at how we played previously under Schmidt on the days our half backs didn't turn up.
For me, I just want us to play to our potential consistently.
If we win stuff, great, if we don't, then it'll be because we've been beaten by better sides. MOC has had two years to achieve that kind of consistency, and while there have been external factors, I don't think they explain the regression we've seen. If Sexton solves all the problems great, but I'm not sure it will. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect more from the coaching team than MOC has overseen with the resources he has available.0 -
irishbucsfan wrote: ». And yes, we absolutely 100% need a better half back pairing to be better against Treviso, it's the very first step and it's an absolutely basic requirement. Look at how we played previously under Schmidt on the days our half backs didn't turn up.
I know you already denied it, but I can't see any way to interpret "we need a better half back pairing to be better against Treviso" other than meaning "we played to our potential on Friday given the players available".
We didn't. The team this season has consistently performed below it's potential (ie the sum of the players available).
Picking out one poor performance under Joe and comparing it to a season where probably the best squad in the pro 12 (first choice and depth) has a less than 50% win record is really grasping.0 -
As for the players opinions I am coming around to the idea that they genuinely like and respect MOC. That doesn't change a whole lot though in fairness.
I agree. The players do seem to like and respect him, but I think digging into that it raises questions as well.
Assuming they are being genuine (and I for one think they are) then either
1) they are right. MOC is not the problem. The players therefore are the problem and despite knowing this, they are completely unable to do anything about it (which starts to beg questions of the players, particularly the senior ones)
2) they are wrong, probably because they are too close to the situation, blame themselves for mistakes etc.
I tend to think number 2 is more likely.
But even if number 1 is correct I'd still change MOC because the players clearly can't correct it themselves and he clearly isn't able to correct it either.0 -
What makes you think number 2 is more likely?
Who else is to 'blame' for mistakes other than those that make them?0 -
I agree. The players do seem to like and respect him, but I think digging into that it raises questions as well.
Assuming they are being genuine (and I for one think they are) then either
1) they are right. MOC is not the problem. The players therefore are the problem and despite knowing this, they are completely unable to do anything about it (which starts to beg questions of the players, particularly the senior ones)
2) they are wrong, probably because they are too close to the situation, blame themselves for mistakes etc.
I tend to think number 2 is more likely.
But even if number 1 is correct I'd still change MOC because the players clearly can't correct it themselves and he clearly isn't able to correct it either.
There is a third option, which is a combination of the two you've outlined. To me that makes the most sense. Are there issues with the players? Yes. Are there also issues with the coach? Yes. It doesn't have to be one or the other.Deleted User wrote: »What makes you think number 2 is more likely?
Who else is to 'blame' for mistakes other than those that make them?
There is a train of thought (that has merit) that the person who allows those mistakes to continue is to blame at this stage. If a player drops the ball once then that is his fault. If he does it consistently over a period of time then questions need to be raised about what is being done to address it. As above though there it's probably a little from column A and a little from column B.0 -
There is a third option, which is a combination of the two you've outlined. To me that makes the most sense. Are there issues with the players? Yes. Are there also issues with the coach? Yes. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
Very much agree with this. Still not read an awful lot of issues with the coach that people can directly ascribe to the coach though.
Example. Leinster lose 16 - 14, conceding in the last minute after Player B gives away a silly penalty. Everyone had been saying for 10 minutes previously to sub player B off as he had run himself into the ground and was looking tired. Coach takes blame for not making the sub. Player B takes blame for indiscipline, but it is mitigated by the performance he put in over the course of the game. => Coaches blame is larger here.There is a train of thought (that has merit) that the person who allows those mistakes to continue is to blame at this stage. If a player drops the ball once then that is his fault. If he does it consistently over a period of time then questions need to be raised about what is being done to address it. As above though there it's probably a little from column A and a little from column B.
Okay, so which consistent mistakes are we ascribing as coaching errors?0 -
I agree. The players do seem to like and respect him, but I think digging into that it raises questions as well.
Assuming they are being genuine (and I for one think they are) then either
1) they are right. MOC is not the problem. The players therefore are the problem and despite knowing this, they are completely unable to do anything about it (which starts to beg questions of the players, particularly the senior ones)
2) they are wrong, probably because they are too close to the situation, blame themselves for mistakes etc.
I tend to think number 2 is more likely.
But even if number 1 is correct I'd still change MOC because the players clearly can't correct it themselves and he clearly isn't able to correct it either.
To summarise:
- The coach hasn't a clue
- The players haven't a clue
- Random internet punters are the only ones who really understand what's going on.
I know that's a bit flippant but it's essentially what you're saying.0 -
I know you already denied it, but I can't see any way to interpret "we need a better half back pairing to be better against Treviso" other than meaning "we played to our potential on Friday given the players available".
No, it's not what I said. We didn't play to our potential against Treviso, which I've already said and so the rest of your post is a total strawman. Our forwards completely underperformed as well. There is a lot more to the territory battle than the raw ability of the half backs, and missing easy tackles in the kick chase and being incapable of throwing the ball straight into the lineout in the oppositions 22 are major parts of the problem.0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »Very much agree with this. Still not read an awful lot of issues with the coach that people can directly ascribe to the coach though.
Example. Leinster lose 16 - 14, conceding in the last minute after Player B gives away a silly penalty. Everyone had been saying for 10 minutes previously to sub player B off as he had run himself into the ground and was looking tired. Coach takes blame for not making the sub. Player B takes blame for indiscipline, but it is mitigated by the performance he put in over the course of the game. => Coaches blame is larger here.
Agreed. And there have been a number of examples of things like this in the last 2 seasons. From as recently as the Dragons game where after Te'o was carded Luke wasn't sprung from the bench for his ability to defend the 13 channel. And going all the way back to the selection of Tuiqiri against Munster in October 2013, in a game where he wasn't used at all for some bizarre reason. The highest profile issue I can remember was the selection of Gopperth to start against Toulon last year having played almost no game time at all in the 6 weeks prior to the biggest game of the season.
There are things like this that we can fairly easily point to as coaching errors. Everything beyond that is little more than guesswork really because we simply don't have enough fact to "know". We have to analyse what we see and determine for ourselves what we think the issues are and who is to blame for them.
For example our mauls for most of the season have been pretty poor. That is surely on Leo more so than the players as it seemed that regardless of who we had available to us we still couldn't get a decent maul going. Our basic skills and kicking game have been poor, which you would look to Richie Murphy on. Now as I've said before I'd give him some more leeway than the other coaches because he was part of the set-up when we were at our best and is now double-jobbing so there are mitigating circumstances there. Rather than blame him I'd rather see him take up one job or the other full-time.
As for the back play it's been rubbish all season. Part of that is to do with the half-backs sure, but it's not all their fault that we seem to be consistently shovelling ball across the pitch, not fixing defenders, crabbing across field and throwing those loopy skip passes. In February (during the Zebre game I think it was) a few of us said that those loopy skip passes needed to be knocked on the head or they'd cost us. What ultimately happened in Toulon? You could point the finger at Mads and say it was a bad pass or it wasn't on. You could even point the finger a bit at Te'o for moving away from the ball and opening the hole for Habana to go through. Personally I looked at that and thought, "Well, it's been coming for months". As back coach it is MOCs job to identify and try to rectify issues like those. But we've seen little improvement in this area at all. I can't believe it is that hard to tell these professionals to fix a man before passing for example. We may not have world class backs any more, but they're not that bad surely? That's why I look to MOC for things like these.
Now obviously I don't know what happens in training. I don't know what is expected of the guy when they are out on the park. I'm surmising based on the limited amount I can see.Deleted User wrote: »Okay, so which consistent mistakes are we ascribing as coaching errors?
Coaching errors is possibly the wrong term. But when it is the coaches job to identify and rectify errors then anything that becomes consistent and endemic becomes the coaches responsibility to fix. I suppose the fairer question is probably which consistent mistakes could we expect them to fix that they haven't. I'm not getting overly worked up about our kicking game because the raw materials we have to work with in that regard aren't great. None of our half-backs are great kicking from hand really and that's something I place on them. It is their limitation.
But take the Treviso game for example. We should have been able to play with ball in hand from anywhere outside our 22. We shouldn't have needed to rely on a kicking game for the most part. As much because of the fact we were "only" playing Treviso as the fact that our kicking game simply isn't good enough so we should have been trying to play to our strengths more than our weaknesses. And with ball in hand we should have been by far the superior team, even in those conditions. But because our attacking game is just so poor and one dimensional we were utterly unable to get the rewards from it we should have. For me that is on MOC. The structure wasn't there the way it needed to be. Or at least that's how it seemed to me. And that has been a consistent issue for most of the season which hasn't been fixed.0 -
irishbucsfan wrote: »No, it's not what I said. We didn't play to our potential against Treviso, which I've already said and so the rest of your post is a total strawman. Our forwards completely underperformed as well. There is a lot more to the territory battle than the raw ability of the half backs, and missing easy tackles in the kick chase and being incapable of throwing the ball straight into the lineout in the oppositions 22 are major parts of the problem.
It's all semantics at this stage based on you saying that "we absolutely 100% need a better half back pairing to be better against Treviso". That technically states that unless we have a better half back pairing we won't do better against Treviso. You've clarified what you meant so that's all fair enough, let's all move on.0 -
A lot of the season I thought Leinster lacked a little bit of pashun fire in the belly. I can't remember many big hits or big tackles during the season that got the crowd and team going. Friday night was a good example. Look at how many times Treviso got over the gain line and how Leinster fell off regulation tackles. Thinking back to the Munster loss to October, look at how Munster got over the gain line repeatedly in the buildup to James Cronin's try. Conceding easy territory like this sucks the life out of the team and the crowd in attendance. I realise the World Cup has to be in the back of players' minds (I don't think we could blame them for that) but the lack of urgency on Friday was startling and it was a theme of the most of the season. I know you can't turn these things on and off like a switch, but look how Ireland defended against New Zealand for 79:20 before the match was called off.
My conclusion? That team lacks a Rocky Elsom or Doug Howlett type 'character' that could come up with a big moment to change the momentum of the match. Or to put it another way, leadership.0 -
I'll just delete the bits I agree with as otherwise it'll be essays all round!As for the back play it's been rubbish all season. Part of that is to do with the half-backs sure, but it's not all their fault that we seem to be consistently shovelling ball across the pitch, not fixing defenders, crabbing across field and throwing those loopy skip passes.
How do you know this? I thought we discussed at length the idea that MOC suggested that the team plays heads up rugby and adapts to the conditions without steering. If that's the case, then it's almost exclusively the fault of the players for making the decisions above. We can't hang MOC for both sides of the coin here.You could point the finger at Mads and say it was a bad pass or it wasn't on. You could even point the finger a bit at Te'o for moving away from the ball and opening the hole for Habana to go through. Personally I looked at that and thought, "Well, it's been coming for months".
It was a bad pass. It was on but badly executed. If he puts T'eo through the gap there, nobody ever remembers the Zebre game. There's confirmation bias afoot here.As back coach it is MOCs job to identify and try to rectify issues like those. But we've seen little improvement in this area at all. I can't believe it is that hard to tell these professionals to fix a man before passing for example. We may not have world class backs any more, but they're not that bad surely? That's why I look to MOC for things like these.
But we have zero evidence that MOC isn't doing all of this. None. And we can't get any, unless you want to go to all the training sessions. So we have to rely on bits of info from people involved (players) and try to disentangle MOC's impact from the results, a pretty difficult task no? I'm not certain we can simply put this on him. Certainly not without a lot more evidence.
Devil's advocate suggests this
"Surely a professional rugby player doesn't need to be told to fix a man before passing"?... And with ball in hand we should have been by far the superior team, even in those conditions. But because our attacking game is just so poor and one dimensional we were utterly unable to get the rewards from it we should have. For me that is on MOC....
Why? How can you directly ascribe that to him?0 -
Listen, the lads clearly rate the coach. I know plenty of professional sports people who have maintained faith in a coaching team that hasn't worked for them. When you've trained hard and put in a lot of work you want to see the spoils, it can be hard to walk away from that or verbalise doubt about that.
They also are a competitive team and want to maintain a positive attitude and atmosphere publicly. I remember competing and you would never bitch about what you were doing or where things were going against competitors or other teams no matter what.
All that said, the guys who don't have to back the coach (Darcy) have been doing so and that is significant. I don't like excuses before and after every single game, and I don't like the negativity that is clearly within the squad at the moment and I see the coach as being the one answerable about that.
But the players seem to be of a different opinion so I know which one I'd bet my house on.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Listen, the lads clearly rate the coach. I know plenty of professional sports people who have maintained faith in a coaching team that hasn't worked for them. When you've trained hard and put in a lot of work you want to see the spoils, it can be hard to walk away from that or verbalise doubt about that.
They also are a competitive team and want to maintain a positive attitude and atmosphere publicly. I remember competing and you would never bitch about what you were doing or where things were going against competitors or other teams no matter what.
All that said, the guys who don't have to back the coach (Darcy) have been doing so and that is significant. I don't like excuses before and after every single game, and I don't like the negativity that is clearly within the squad at the moment and I see the coach as being the one answerable about that.
But the players seem to be of a different opinion so I know which one I'd bet my house on.
Can you expand on the bolded bit?0 -
Deleted User wrote: »How do you know this? I thought we discussed at length the idea that MOC suggested that the team plays heads up rugby and adapts to the conditions without steering. If that's the case, then it's almost exclusively the fault of the players for making the decisions above. We can't hang MOC for both sides of the coin here.
Just on that, surely if the players can't play a heads up game plan, the onus is on MOC to change the game plan? If it was a new system and the first few games were shaky, that would be one thing, but it's been 2 seasons with ever decreasing quality of play (the occasional game aside, such as Toulon 2015, Northampton in Franklin's Gardens etc). If the players are simply incapable of carrying out the coach's instructions, surely the instructions need to change to something they can carry out.0 -
thomond2006 wrote: »
My conclusion? That team lacks a Rocky Elsom or Doug Howlett type 'character' that could come up with a big moment to change the momentum of the match. Or to put it another way, leadership.
So what you're saying is - Isa will fix it all.
Well thank goodness for that. :cool:0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I thought we discussed at length the idea that MOC suggested that the team plays heads up rugby and adapts to the conditions without steering. If that's the case, then it's almost exclusively the fault of the players for making the decisions above. We can't hang MOC for both sides of the coin here.
But if that approach consistently doesn't get the best out of the team, it's his job to recognise that and address it in the medium term. Any one off game can go drastically wrong, and I think most people would accept that. Trends are what we should be looking at, not individual events. I don't think you can judge O'Connor well on the trend of the team. He's ultimately responsible for the players and coaches working under him. If something, or someone isn't working, it's up to him to fix it, directly or indirectly.0 -
Advertisement
-
But if that approach consistently doesn't get the best out of the team, it's his job to recognise that and address it in the medium term. Any one off game can go drastically wrong, and I think most people would accept that. Trends are what we should be looking at, not individual events. I don't think you can judge O'Connor well on the trend of the team. He's ultimately responsible for the players and coaches working under him. If something, or someone isn't working, it's up to him to fix it, directly or indirectly.
So which is it?
Is he telling players to not fix defenders, telling players to throw loopy passes, telling players to play a kicking game?
Or is he saying they should be decision makers and choose the appropriate option themselves?
He can't be doing both. He's getting flak for both though.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement