Kidney's record as Irish coach

First topic message reminder :

2009: 5 wins
2010: 3 wins
2011: 3 wins
2012: 2 wins

We're getting progressively worse. For 2 years Kidney's been criticized for apparently having no gameplan. But this year and today particularly we have seen a gameplan emerge. And unfortunately it's what we all knew was all Kidney knew. Kick the ball up in the air and chase it. And that's it.

At the same time the Irish provinces are tearing teams apart with the best attacking rugby in Europe. Kidney is way out of his depth at this level, and is making Ireland a lot less than the sum of their parts. Which is the opposite of what a coach should do. Meanwhile Leinster are playing like the All Blacks. Why?

Joe Schmidt
Jono Gibbes
Greg Feek
and previously Kurt McQuilkin

Sin é wrote:
It was in the 6Ns GS documentary. Basically he said that for years Ireland played a back orientated game that didn't work. Something like "you have to earn the right to go wide". The backs turned over ball the whole time because they got hammered in tackles when it went wide too quickly.

I don't see what point you're trying to make here,nobody is saying that we don't have to earn the right to go wide or anything like it.That comment is completely irrelevant.

Sin é wrote:

I think a fair few players feel they have done it all now, and have lost their hunger for success. People remark on how hungry/competitive ROG is despite his advanced years. It is possible.

Yet these players thoroughly sated with success go out and perform for the provinces.If they had lost their hunger why would this happen.

It's far more likely that they play well with their provinces because they play for coaches who have a coherent gameplan.

Sin é wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:In the same way you question paddy wallace decision making sin I question kidneys win ratio of less than 50% in the last two years

The players are not under robotic control from the coaching team. The better players can play what is in front of them.

And the poorer players can get away with not doing it because they will never be dropped.......

Not sure how that statement mitigates kidneys record btw. The coach takes responsibility for the team and therefore the results

Jaysus, no country can beat us Irish in fighting eachother.

Actually Sin, Boss was announced as leaving well before Pienaar was announced. He was told we were looking for a top-class number nine. Pienaar had signed nothing; I don't even know if we had even started talking to him.

What do you guys think of John Kirwan as a coach for Ireland?

Not enough experience but would welcome him as backs coach.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Sin é wrote:
It was in the 6Ns GS documentary. Basically he said that for years Ireland played a back orientated game that didn't work. Something like "you have to earn the right to go wide". The backs turned over ball the whole time because they got hammered in tackles when it went wide too quickly.

I don't see what point you're trying to make here,nobody is saying that we don't have to earn the right to go wide or anything like it.That comment is completely irrelevant.

OK - think back to Leinster prior to 2009. Great set of backs (better than what Leinster have now), but a very poor pack = win nothing.

Leinster were sent home with their tails between their legs by Toulouse in '10 because they were killed off by Toulouse's scrum. Same with Munster over the last few years - poor scrum and Munster get knocked out of the Heineken Cup for the first time in 13 years or something.

Sin é wrote:

OK - think back to Leinster prior to 2009. Great set of backs (better than what Leinster have now), but a very poor pack = win nothing.

Leinster were sent home with their tails between their legs by Toulouse in '10 because they were killed off by Toulouse's scrum. Same with Munster over the last few years - poor scrum and Munster get knocked out of the Heineken Cup for the first time in 13 years or something.

So are you trying to say that Irelands main problem is the scrum,fix that and we'll be fine?

Notch wrote:Actually Sin, Boss was announced as leaving well before Pienaar was announced. He was told we were looking for a top-class number nine. Pienaar had signed nothing; I don't even know if we had even started talking to him.

So Ulster rated Ian Humphreys to be better than Boss. Outside of Ulster, I'd say that if asked whether Ulster should get an OH or a SH, most would have voted that Ulster needed an OH more.

Sin é wrote:

Notch wrote:Actually Sin, Boss was announced as leaving well before Pienaar was announced. He was told we were looking for a top-class number nine. Pienaar had signed nothing; I don't even know if we had even started talking to him.

So Ulster rated Ian Humphreys to be better than Boss. Outside of Ulster, I'd say that if asked whether Ulster should get an OH or a SH, most would have voted that Ulster needed an OH more.

Outside of Munster I'd say that if asked whether Ireland need a new coach or better players, most would have voted that Ireland needed a new coach more.

Notch wrote:Not enough experience but would welcome him as backs coach.

Ok, then who would you have as head coach?

If Deccie could get Kirwan as a backs coach, i would be more than happy to have Deccie stay on.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Sin é wrote:

OK - think back to Leinster prior to 2009. Great set of backs (better than what Leinster have now), but a very poor pack = win nothing.

Leinster were sent home with their tails between their legs by Toulouse in '10 because they were killed off by Toulouse's scrum. Same with Munster over the last few years - poor scrum and Munster get knocked out of the Heineken Cup for the first time in 13 years or something.

So are you trying to say that Irelands main problem is the scrum,fix that and we'll be fine?

We're on the road to somewhere if we can sort out our propping situation. Then the next issue will be inside centre - short term solution there is BOD to 12 and Earls at 13. And in 2 years time I'd like to see Luke Fitz there.

Earls will be playing 13 for Munster because Munster have plenty of outside backs to cover and some real talent coming through like Zebo & O'Dea (early days yet for those 2).

If JJ Hanrahan continues to develop on his present trajectory, I can see him being a player who will play both 10 & 12 - but that will be a few years down the road and no doubt there are others coming through as well elswhere who will be playing 12.

We could do with an Openside, but an onform SOB or O'Mahony are not the worst options there.

eirebilly wrote:

Notch wrote:Not enough experience but would welcome him as backs coach.

Ok, then who would you have as head coach?

If Deccie could get Kirwan as a backs coach, i would be more than happy to have Deccie stay on.

Wayne Smith would be my ideal coach.

Sin é wrote: How would I make that up? Ulster rugby must have told Boss that Pienaar was coming in as a 9. Isn't that why he decided he was moving on because he would obviously be not first choice 9 with Pienaar. I'd imagine Boss would have stayed if he thought he was going to partner Pienaar at outhalf.

Boss decided to leave a good 4 months before Ulster spoke to Pienaer so the situation doesn't arise. Ulster would not be paying the money they are for Pienaer as a 10 - he is not a good enough 10 to warrant that level of pay. He is a World Class 9 though - as I said Ulster think 9 is a more important position than 10 in running a game and they decided Boss wasn't good enough to carry the load on his own. A correct assessment imv.

Sin é wrote:They never comment that they are sending out the youngsters due to Ireland player rotation

That fine as Ulster have never said that they put out youngsters due to Ireland player rotation either.

As far as I recall they have informed their paying customers once that the reason Paddy Wallace played 10 in a game was because Dublin required it. It was provide as a piece of fact no 'excuses' were given. There have been many other instances where players have played in different positions because Dublin have asked for it and nothing has been said. I think the reason it was mentioned on that one occassion was because it was such a bizarre selection given what had gone before and the club felt they owed it to their paying customers an explanation.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Notch wrote:Actually Sin, Boss was announced as leaving well before Pienaar was announced. He was told we were looking for a top-class number nine. Pienaar had signed nothing; I don't even know if we had even started talking to him.

So Ulster rated Ian Humphreys to be better than Boss. Outside of Ulster, I'd say that if asked whether Ulster should get an OH or a SH, most would have voted that Ulster needed an OH more.

Outside of Munster I'd say that if asked whether Ireland need a new coach or better players, most would have voted that Ireland needed a new coach more.

You sure about that. You'd have expected the Indo bandwagon to have jumped on that one if it was a runner Pretty much every commentator have said that Ireland was sunk once Ross got injured.

by the way, who would you have gone for in Ulster - Pienaar at 10 & Boss at 9, or Humphreys at 10 & Marshall at 9?

Notch wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

Notch wrote:Not enough experience but would welcome him as backs coach.

Ok, then who would you have as head coach?

If Deccie could get Kirwan as a backs coach, i would be more than happy to have Deccie stay on.

Wayne Smith would be my ideal coach.

Is Kirwan not more expierenced as a head coach than Wayne Smith though?

Sin é wrote:

We're on the road to somewhere if we can sort out our propping situation. Then the next issue will be inside centre - short term solution there is BOD to 12 and Earls at 13. And in 2 years time I'd like to see Luke Fitz there.

Earls will be playing 13 for Munster because Munster have plenty of outside backs to cover and some real talent coming through like Zebo & O'Dea (early days yet for those 2).

If JJ Hanrahan continues to develop on his present trajectory, I can see him being a player who will play both 10 & 12 - but that will be a few years down the road and no doubt there are others coming through as well elswhere who will be playing 12.

We could do with an Openside, but an onform SOB or O'Mahony are not the worst options there.

One disaster of a game aside our scrum has been fine over the last few years,so that is no exscuse for our mediocre form.

Inside centre has been an issue for 3 years but Kidney has ignored it,what makes you think he can get it right now after getting it wrong for so long.

Why did Munster sign Lalala (no idea how to spell that name) if Earls isn't going back to the wing?Maybe it's just for depth we'll seee how that works out.

Oh and what has any of this got to do with what PoC said in that interview?

You still haven't answered whether a less than 50% win ratio is acceptable in the last two years for a coach sin. In your quest for the worlds thinnest argument this point has gone unnoticed

It worse than that - in the 8 games we have played, this year, against the the other 7 sides in the top 8 our record is:

Won 1
Drawn 1
Lost 6

I cant see how anyone can consider that acceptable.

geoff998rugby wrote:It worse than that - in the 8 games we have played, this year, against the the other 7 sides in the top 8 our record is:

Won 1
Drawn 1
Lost 6

I cant see how anyone can consider that acceptable.

I didn't go into at much depth Geoff. Just looked through the results for the past few years. Unfortunately the percentage is massaged by wins against Russia, Argentina and Samoa (the latter two at lansdowne)

Sin é wrote:

Notch wrote:Actually Sin, Boss was announced as leaving well before Pienaar was announced. He was told we were looking for a top-class number nine. Pienaar had signed nothing; I don't even know if we had even started talking to him.

So Ulster rated Ian Humphreys to be better than Boss. Outside of Ulster, I'd say that if asked whether Ulster should get an OH or a SH, most would have voted that Ulster needed an OH more.

No that is not the reason.

As I have said Ulster consider 9 a more pivotal position than 10 and therefore thought it a position in more urgent need of improvement. They did not consider Boss or Marshall anywhere near good enough for what they wanted. As it happens Marshall has improved playing alongside Pienaer but that is just a bonus.

In addition Dublin have been blocking the signing of NIQ 10's since Contepomi left Leinster.

eirebilly wrote:

Notch wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

Notch wrote:Not enough experience but would welcome him as backs coach.

Ok, then who would you have as head coach?

If Deccie could get Kirwan as a backs coach, i would be more than happy to have Deccie stay on.

Wayne Smith would be my ideal coach.

Is Kirwan not more expierenced as a head coach than Wayne Smith though?

Kirwan has coached Japan and Italy. Smith has coached the Crusaders, the All Blacks as Head Coach for two years and was Assistant Coach in the most fearsome All Blacks side in the professional era.

I would have to say Smith's experience is more impressive. But I would welcome Kirwan playing a role in the set-up.

geoff998rugby wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Notch wrote:Actually Sin, Boss was announced as leaving well before Pienaar was announced. He was told we were looking for a top-class number nine. Pienaar had signed nothing; I don't even know if we had even started talking to him.

So Ulster rated Ian Humphreys to be better than Boss. Outside of Ulster, I'd say that if asked whether Ulster should get an OH or a SH, most would have voted that Ulster needed an OH more.

No that is not the reason.

As I have said Ulster consider 9 a more pivotal position than 10 and therefore thought it a position in more urgent need of improvement. They did not consider Boss or Marshall anywhere near good enough for what they wanted. As it happens Marshall has improved playing alongside Pienaer but that is just a bonus.

In addition Dublin have been blocking the signing of NIQ 10's since Contepomi left Leinster.

All of this has been on public record for a loooong time. You like talking about things you don't know much about, eh Sin?

That said, there are many Ulster fans who would agree with your assessment of us needing a 10. But don't cry for Isaac Boss, he's a good player but like O'Leary well short of having the distribution skills of a top-class 9.

The only position we are worse off than 9 is 3. Our scrumhalves are almost universally not up to it, the only top 10 nation with less quality in that position than us is Italy and maybe Argentina.

I knew he was the AB's coach for 2 years but Kirwan has a longer full international head coach experience.

Is Wayne Smith even available?

eirebilly wrote:I knew he was the AB's coach for 2 years but Kirwan has a longer full international head coach experience.

Is Wayne Smith even available?

I don't know. You asked me who I'd like and I told ye!

This is all pie in the sky stuff anyway. Deccie is in harness until 2013. Before Gaffney left there were rumblings that his input was being ignored by the coaches anyway. Not much is going to change.

Fair dues Notch

As i said earlier, i still think that Deccie is a very good coach just not right to coach Ireland with the style that the players want to play.

Havent read all the previous comments as theres too much to catch up on and im sure everything has been said already.

But lads the bottom line is we have been playing muck for 3 years, if we were getting results than fair enough but we aren't.

You can look at the England game in isolation and say well players didn't perform, we were unlucky with injuries or whatever other excuse you can come up with. but when you take it in the context of Deccies tenure as coach its clear as day that deccie isn't the man for Ireland.

Some posters argue that certain players let him down in certain games, but i think its more likely that its the players that have saved his bacon by performing so well in games like australia and england last year despite Deccies coaching. These players seem to be 'letting Kidney down' fairly regular and they still get picked.

Cut him loose now and get someone in asap. any good coaches free at the moment that have nothing to do with the provinces??

Notch wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Notch wrote:Actually Sin, Boss was announced as leaving well before Pienaar was announced. He was told we were looking for a top-class number nine. Pienaar had signed nothing; I don't even know if we had even started talking to him.

So Ulster rated Ian Humphreys to be better than Boss. Outside of Ulster, I'd say that if asked whether Ulster should get an OH or a SH, most would have voted that Ulster needed an OH more.

No that is not the reason.

As I have said Ulster consider 9 a more pivotal position than 10 and therefore thought it a position in more urgent need of improvement. They did not consider Boss or Marshall anywhere near good enough for what they wanted. As it happens Marshall has improved playing alongside Pienaer but that is just a bonus.

In addition Dublin have been blocking the signing of NIQ 10's since Contepomi left Leinster.

All of this has been on public record for a loooong time. You like talking about things you don't know much about, eh Sin?

That said, there are many Ulster fans who would agree with your assessment of us needing a 10. But don't cry for Isaac Boss, he's a good player but like O'Leary well short of having the distribution skills of a top-class 9.

The only position we are worse off than 9 is 3. Our scrumhalves are almost universally not up to it, the only top 10 nation with less quality in that position than us is Italy and maybe Argentina.

Paper never refused ink and you will obviously believe anything you want to believe.

I've commented in the past that I don't think Ulster will ever win anything worthwhile with Ian Humphreys at outhalf. I do think you would have a chance with Pienaar at 10 and Boss at 9 though. Anyone but Ian Humphreys to be honest. He is too erratic. If Ulster have any sense he will be moved to the bench immediately and have Pienaar starting at 10.

As for blocking NIQ 10s - at the moment every province has IQ 10s starting for them and Humphreys was never considered to be up to international standard anyway, so Ireland would be losing nothing by him not starting for Ulster. However, they might gain something with Boss starting for Ulster.

Sin é wrote:
Paper never refused ink and you will obviously believe anything you want to believe.

I've commented in the past that I don't think Ulster will ever win anything worthwhile with Ian Humphreys at outhalf. I do think you would have a chance with Pienaar at 10 and Boss at 9 though. Anyone but Ian Humphreys to be honest. He is too erratic. If Ulster have any sense he will be moved to the bench immediately and have Pienaar starting at 10.

As for blocking NIQ 10s - at the moment every province has IQ 10s starting for them and Humphreys was never considered to be up to international standard anyway, so Ireland would be losing nothing by him not starting for Ulster. However, they might gain something with Boss starting for Ulster.

Come on Sin it's not like Boss is starved of game time with Leinster.He gets plenty of games in both the Heino and Rab so I don't see how him playing for Ulster would make much of a difference,especially as Deccie clearly doesn't rate him and only ever picks him when there's no other option.You're grasping at straws if you think an extra 4 or 5 games a year for our 3rd or 4th choice scrumhalf would somehow make a difference to Ireland.

[quote="asoreleftshoulder"]

Sin é wrote:

We're on the road to somewhere if we can sort out our propping situation. Then the next issue will be inside centre - short term solution there is BOD to 12 and Earls at 13. And in 2 years time I'd like to see Luke Fitz there.

Earls will be playing 13 for Munster because Munster have plenty of outside backs to cover and some real talent coming through like Zebo & O'Dea (early days yet for those 2).

If JJ Hanrahan continues to develop on his present trajectory, I can see him being a player who will play both 10 & 12 - but that will be a few years down the road and no doubt there are others coming through as well elswhere who will be playing 12.

We could do with an Openside, but an onform SOB or O'Mahony are not the worst options there.

One disaster of a game aside our scrum has been fine over the last few years,so that is no exscuse for our mediocre form.

So Buckley was fine, was he

Inside centre has been an issue for 3 years but Kidney has ignored it,what makes you think he can get it right now after getting it wrong for so long.

All the starting inside centres for their provinces for Ireland got a chance (including Downey on tour to US & Churchill Cup in 2009, along with Mike Ross). D'Arcy was still the best of a bad lot.

Why did Munster sign Lalala (no idea how to spell that name) if Earls isn't going back to the wing?Maybe it's just for depth we'll seee how that works out.

We're very short on centres having lost Barry Murphy to injury last year, various signings not working out (sammy / de villiers) & Mafi more than likely leaving at the end of this season. Then you have Earls available for about 12 matches a year because of international commitments.

Oh and what has any of this got to do with what PoC said in that interview?

No team have a chance of competing until they have a decent pack/scrum. Ireland had no scrum against England.

you know its the forwards win the match, and the backs decide by how much.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Sin é wrote:
Paper never refused ink and you will obviously believe anything you want to believe.

I've commented in the past that I don't think Ulster will ever win anything worthwhile with Ian Humphreys at outhalf. I do think you would have a chance with Pienaar at 10 and Boss at 9 though. Anyone but Ian Humphreys to be honest. He is too erratic. If Ulster have any sense he will be moved to the bench immediately and have Pienaar starting at 10.

As for blocking NIQ 10s - at the moment every province has IQ 10s starting for them and Humphreys was never considered to be up to international standard anyway, so Ireland would be losing nothing by him not starting for Ulster. However, they might gain something with Boss starting for Ulster.

Come on Sin it's not like Boss is starved of game time with Leinster.He gets plenty of games in both the Heino and Rab so I don't see how him playing for Ulster would make much of a difference,especially as Deccie clearly doesn't rate him and only ever picks him when there's no other option.You're grasping at straws if you think an extra 4 or 5 games a year for our 3rd or 4th choice scrumhalf would somehow make a difference to Ireland.

My point is that most clubs had a choice between keeping Humphreys or Boss, they would keep Boss. Humphreys is pretty 'lucky' to be the starting OH for Ulster.

Sin, just a quick question. Who would be your ideal coaching setup for Ireland?

Sorry if you have said so earlier, i have been too lazy to read back

No Buckley wasn't fine but since Ross has come in our scrum has been fine or even a weapon as it was against Oz.We still haven't been any good with 2 notable exceptions and Deccie hasn't been able to sort it out.

You say all the inside centres got a chance and D'Arcy is the best of a bad lot.You say this as if your opinion is fact yet everyone else is telling you you're wrong.It takes a special type of narcissism to be that obtuse.

No team have a chance of competing until they have a decent pack/scrum. Ireland had no scrum against England.

So what' your exscuse for all the other matches where our scrum has been fine?

you know its the forwards win the match, and the backs decide by how much.

Resorting to cliches is not a valid form of debate,nobody has suggested that our forwards don't need to perform,what we have suggested is Kidney might try a gameplan which catered to the strengths of his players backs and forwards alike.

Sin é wrote:No team have a chance of competing until they have a decent pack/scrum. Ireland had no scrum against England.

you know its the forwards win the match, and the backs decide by how much.

Nice cliched comments that people always use. Along with that other popular one in Irish circles "earning the right to go wide"

No, it's actually having the ability to go wide...or not, as the case may be. That again comes down to the philosophy of how you want to play and the players needed to play it.

The bit about no team being able to compete unless they have a decent scrum: 2010, Stade de France, Australia 59 - France 16. France with a dominant scrum, Australia with no scrum to speak of.

Our European thought processes are stopping us - along with our love of hoary old maxims from the amateur days.

Sin é wrote: Paper never refused ink and you will obviously believe anything you want to believe.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

If you beleive something is incorrect please post in plain English.

I'll give you 2 facts

Boss burnt his bridges with Ulster in October
Ulster did not talk to Pienaer until the following Jan/Feb

Sin é wrote: I've commented in the past that I don't think Ulster will ever win anything worthwhile with Ian Humphreys at outhalf. I do think you would have a chance with Pienaar at 10 and Boss at 9 though. Anyone but Ian Humphreys to be honest. He is too erratic. If Ulster have any sense he will be moved to the bench immediately and have Pienaar starting at 10.

As for blocking NIQ 10s - at the moment every province has IQ 10s starting for them and Humphreys was never considered to be up to international standard anyway, so Ireland would be losing nothing by him not starting for Ulster. However, they might gain something with Boss starting for Ulster.

As usual you go off at a tangent rather than address the debate in hand.

Humphreys not being good enough is not the point - most Ulster fans agree
Boss at 9 and Pienaer at 10 was never an option so the point is moot
As for moving Humphreys to the bench that is exactly what Ulster did in their last 2 matches
How good Humphreys is irrelevant to the fact that Dublin have blocked the provinces signing NIQ 10's

Sin é wrote:Paper never refused ink and you will obviously believe anything you want to believe.

You may never understand the irony here, but I'm enjoying it. Ah Sin. Never change

Sin é wrote: My point is that most clubs had a choice between keeping Humphreys or Boss, they would keep Boss. Humphreys is pretty 'lucky' to be the starting OH for Ulster.

So which IQ 10 should we have signed because we were blocked signing a NIE one
Again it was never a Boss or Humphreys situation - that is merely something from your over active imagination

What has Paddy Wallace got to do with Kidney's record as coach? Deccie has always stuck by Paddy even selecting him as his first choice 12 in the GS team, so if Wallace is so short of Test class, did Kidney make a major selection error there too? Similarly what does it matter to Kidney's record whether Pienaar plays 9 or 10 for Ulster?

So moving on from the attempted obfuscation, it's not Kidney's selections that are the worst part of his tenure, it's how he directs those he has picked.

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:No team have a chance of competing until they have a decent pack/scrum. Ireland had no scrum against England.

you know its the forwards win the match, and the backs decide by how much.

Nice cliched comments that people always use. Along with that other popular one in Irish circles "earning the right to go wide"

No, it's actually having the ability to go wide...or not, as the case may be. That again comes down to the philosophy of how you want to play and the players needed to play it.

The bit about no team being able to compete unless they have a decent scrum: 2010, Stade de France, Australia 59 - France 16. France with a dominant scrum, Australia with no scrum to speak of.

Our European thought processes are stopping us - along with our love of hoary old maxims from the amateur days.

I think it is naive to think that if we had flung the ball around the park we would have had some parity with England? The aus/fr match is no comparison as it was dry, there were a lot less scrums and the Australian scrum got its act together enough in the second half of that game.

Anyway the England game was desperately disappointing but it was the case that 27 of Englands points were directly as a result of the scrum. On top of that there were poor showings all round really. I dont subscribe to the "never" allowing some players to play for Ireland approach as some advocate here but in reality the following players positions must be (and in some cases this is an understatement) under threat.
Darcy
DOC
Redden
Heaslip
TOL

Poor showings from
SOB (as openside)
Trimble
Sexton
Healy

The rest were decent but that was it.

With regards to Kidney. Its hard to lay any blame on the coach here and overall I do agree with a number of posters regarding the quality of our players. I think the main problem with the players is that they still lack something in the brain department (and maybe a tight head prop or two). Maybe it is time for a change in the coaching department but I dont think we will get the calibre of coach people are thinking off and I dont think it will make a bit of a difference...

anyway be careful what you wish for...

newbie wrote:I think it is naive to think that if we had flung the ball around the park we would have had some parity with England? The aus/fr match is no comparison as it was dry, there were a lot less scrums and the Australian scrum got its act together enough in the second half of that game.

Anyway the England game was desperately disappointing but it was the case that 27 of Englands points were directly as a result of the scrum. On top of that there were poor showings all round really. I dont subscribe to the "never" allowing some players to play for Ireland approach as some advocate here but in reality the following players positions must be (and in some cases this is an understatement) under threat.
Darcy
DOC
Redden
Heaslip
TOL

Poor showings from
SOB (as openside)
Trimble
Sexton
Healy

The rest were decent but that was it.

With regards to Kidney. Its hard to lay any blame on the coach here and overall I do agree with a number of posters regarding the quality of our players. I think the main problem with the players is that they still lack something in the brain department (and maybe a tight head prop or two). Maybe it is time for a change in the coaching department but I dont think we will get the calibre of coach people are thinking off and I dont think it will make a bit of a difference...

anyway be careful what you wish for...

Free to think what you wish newbie, but it isn't naive - it happened. Australia retained possession; ie, didn't kick the ball away on a hope and a prayer only to have a scrummaging team push it back in their faces and force the scrums. Ireland might still have lost the game without a scrum but they could have done it far less ugly than they did.

"With regard to Kidney. It's hard to lay any blame on the coach here". Ireland are again 8th in world rankings. Behind Argentina, just above Tonga. Before the 6N this year we were 8th. Before the WC last year we were 8th. In that time three Irish provinces have reached the HC, and Leinster won it last year. Don't tell me about the foreign imports - all sides now have them. Welsh, English and French. Their weaknesses (foreign blood) are our weaknesses, our strengths (home grown talent) are on par with theirs.

I blame someone for being 8th in the world, and consistently so - and no, it's not the quality of the players I blame. So try a new line if the coach can't be blamed but don't keep trying that one - many of us aren't buying it.

PS - you're right. A team ranked 8th in the world will find it tough getting the quality of coach we might think we deserve - another downside to pretending the glass is always half full.

On the subject of coaching.

Yes the players play the game, but it is the coaches job to prepare them for that game. In my experience, both as a player and a coach, that means:

1. Practicing and developing skills - even at the highest level.
2. Through practice and simulation foster decision making so that the athletes can perform when under pressure.
3. Select the best available players for the team - that doesn't always mean selecting the best players, but can mean selecting the best players for the game you want to play.
4. Devise a game plan.

If the coaches do this, then the team can perform to its potential and indeed there are times that a team is better than its individual parts. Some might argue that this is the case with Wales. There are other times that a team fails to play as a team.

Gatland gets credit for Wales performance, but he also has a very strong team of coaches around him. Does deccie have the same support?

And it is not a football reaction, but when a team is playing under 50% rugby then some thing needs to change.

All those who said before the Scotland game that four games in four weeks were too much have been vindicated. There were calls for Kidney to rest players against Scotland and he should have. Instead he chose to flog the players by picking the same ones even though they were obviously tired in body and mind. That was a prime case for a little bit of creative thinking by DK and he didn't show any.

Add to that the selections he was forced to make generally proved successful. Donnacha Ryan should have been starting before the injury to POC forced him into the team. Peter O'Mahoney did well enough in SOB's absence to keep his place against England and move SOB to 8.

Everyone knows that Tom Court isn't a tight head, yet in every game there is a chance that he has to play there. Are we expected to believe that if TC has to come on at tighthead, this coaching team just throw their hands in the air and concede the game? They surely have a better plan than that?

Plenty of blame can be squarely laid at the door of Declan Kidney, who seems incapable of identifying Ireland's strengths and weaknesses, and even more incapable of playing to the former and minimising the latter.

humphstheman wrote:On the subject of coaching.

Yes the players play the game, but it is the coaches job to prepare them for that game. In my experience, both as a player and a coach, that means:

1. Practicing and developing skills - even at the highest level.
2. Through practice and simulation foster decision making so that the athletes can perform when under pressure.
3. Select the best available players for the team - that doesn't always mean selecting the best players, but can mean selecting the best players for the game you want to play.
4. Devise a game plan.

If the coaches do this, then the team can perform to its potential and indeed there are times that a team is better than its individual parts. Some might argue that this is the case with Wales. There are other times that a team fails to play as a team.

Gatland gets credit for Wales performance, but he also has a very strong team of coaches around him. Does deccie have the same support?

And it is not a football reaction, but when a team is playing under 50% rugby then some thing needs to change.

I won't say good points because others will say they ain't So I'll just say I agree with them in full. By the arguments that constantly crop up when talking about Ireland it's clear to me that many people think if we get the best players we'll start going back uphill. Kidney himself seems to be guided by the principle of picking 'proven' players who do well in their respective Provinces.

But that doesn't mean those players are the best to play his - gameplan. He's picking players because of their individual talents and then trying to manipulate them to play a game that often drifts away from the very talents of the players he chooses. Sean O'Brien is an example. His worth was always his linebreaks, his coming on to a ball at speed and not so much crashing into bodies (like Ferris) but finding the softest spot in the defending armour and breaking through it. Kidney doesn't coach for this or require it of O'Brien and yet O'Brien is still there...obviously because he was player of the year and you pick those kind of fellas...! I'm not saying O'Brien shouldn't be in the Ireland team I'm saying if Kidney is honest that he has a gameplan, and he trusts it to work if the players respond to it, then O'Brien isn't the man for HIS Ireland team.

The Great Aukster wrote:All those who said before the Scotland game that four games in four weeks were too much have been vindicated. There were calls for Kidney to rest players against Scotland and he should have. Instead he chose to flog the players by picking the same ones even though they were obviously tired in body and mind. That was a prime case for a little bit of creative thinking by DK and he didn't show any.

Add to that the selections he was forced to make generally proved successful. Donnacha Ryan should have been starting before the injury to POC forced him into the team. Peter O'Mahoney did well enough in SOB's absence to keep his place against England and move SOB to 8.

Everyone knows that Tom Court isn't a tight head, yet in every game there is a chance that he has to play there. Are we expected to believe that if TC has to come on at tighthead, this coaching team just throw their hands in the air and concede the game? They surely have a better plan than that?

Plenty of blame can be squarely laid at the door of Declan Kidney, who seems incapable of identifying Ireland's strengths and weaknesses, and even more incapable of playing to the former and minimising the latter.

Good points Aukster.

Ah lads, youse lot are hilarious. Its kidneys fault that Ulster and Munster don't play Irish tight heads or that they don't play certain players in certainpositions. Its his fault that players drop balls, have complete brain farts and according to fly its his fault that they aren't Australian and it wasn't dry last Saturday...

What is even funnier is the view that a few decent performances in the HC and we are suddenly world beaters. Irish rugby is full of Ups and downs but it is still a fact that over the last ten to twelve years of consistency three names stood out. None of those started last Sat and the new bunch don't seem to be showing anything like the leadership or ability of those players. I definitely see another Brian Ashton moment coming next year...

DOD wrote:Ah lads, youse lot are hilarious. Its kidneys fault that Ulster and Munster don't play Irish tight heads or that they don't play certain players in certainpositions. Its his fault that players drop balls, have complete brain farts and according to fly its his fault that they aren't Australian and it wasn't dry last Saturday...

What is even funnier is the view that a few decent performances in the HC and we are suddenly world beaters. Irish rugby is full of Ups and downs but it is still a fact that over the last ten to twelve years of consistency three names stood out. None of those started last Sat and the new bunch don't seem to be showing anything like the leadership or ability of those players. I definitely see another Brian Ashton moment coming next year...

What's wrong with (or was wrong with!) McGahan? You talked about him a while back. What was wrong with him? You told the thread you were on what was wrong with him in your eyes. Remember?

Could Irelands game be put down to "TIREDNESS" After all both France and Ireland have played is it 3/4 game on the run due to that cacelled game.

I cannot hoestly recall a Ireland scrum get dominated like it did on saturday.
Was it down to BOD, POC, not being avalible? did the team lack that leadership, that drive, that confidence that BOD and POC give the team?

Is Irelands performance realy down to Kidey, and Kidney alone? Ireland have a lot of experence players in their squad, they have more, alot more caps than the England team have.

Could Irelands game be put down to "TIREDNESS" After all both France and Ireland have played is it 3/4 game on the run due to that cacelled game.

I cannot hoestly recall a Ireland scrum get dominated like it did on saturday.
Was it down to BOD, POC, not being avalible? did the team lack that leadership, that drive, that confidence that BOD and POC give the team?

Is Irelands performance realy down to Kidey, and Kidney alone? Ireland have a lot of experence players in their squad, they have more, alot more caps than the England team have.