Ewen McKenzie touted as next Ireland coach.

First topic message reminder :

Well more than touted as apparently a senior IRFU official has said that he will be the next Ireland coach.

He won the World Cup in 1991 as a prop playing for Australia. He is currently the main man at Queensland Reds but it is believed that he has no chance of coaching Australia after Robbie Deans on the basis that an ARU board member said....

"As long as my backside is pointing to the ground, Ewen McKenzie will not coach Australia. You cannot have a front-row forward in charge of the Wallabies because they know nothing about backline play."

So he's been told he can't coach Australia on account of being a prop, but his goal is to become an international test level coach, which is where the vacant Ireland head coach role comes in.

What do Ireland fans think if this appointment came to be?

http://www.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/story/178989.html

profitius wrote:I'd say if the IRFU want McKenzie they'll get him unless the ARU has promised him the Aussie job. He is up against Deans and Jake White who has thrown his hat in the ring. McKenzie could coach Ireland for 2 seasons then return home. It wouldn't be hard to improve Ireland.

2 seasons is about 24 games - less than a season at a club. Just look at the stage Munster are in with a new coaching staff with about 24 games in and Penney has his players every week.

Sin é wrote:

profitius wrote:I'd say if the IRFU want McKenzie they'll get him unless the ARU has promised him the Aussie job. He is up against Deans and Jake White who has thrown his hat in the ring. McKenzie could coach Ireland for 2 seasons then return home. It wouldn't be hard to improve Ireland.

2 seasons is about 24 games - less than a season at a club. Just look at the stage Munster are in with a new coaching staff with about 24 games in and Penney has his players every week.

Never forget what you always quote to me Sin...International is a 'step up'...played by stepped-up players. The time it takes Penney to teach his ways to a Provincial team and time needed to teach 'Internationals' a few new (or just renewed) tricks shouldn't be the same - if I use your usual theory in full.

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

profitius wrote:I'd say if the IRFU want McKenzie they'll get him unless the ARU has promised him the Aussie job. He is up against Deans and Jake White who has thrown his hat in the ring. McKenzie could coach Ireland for 2 seasons then return home. It wouldn't be hard to improve Ireland.

2 seasons is about 24 games - less than a season at a club. Just look at the stage Munster are in with a new coaching staff with about 24 games in and Penney has his players every week.

Never forget what you always quote to me Sin...International is a 'step up'...played by stepped-up players. The time it takes Penney to teach his ways to a Provincial team and time needed to teach 'Internationals' a few new (or just renewed) tricks shouldn't be the same - if I use your usual theory in full.

Some of those in international setup are barely stepped up players at club level (i.e., Zebo is probably the only one who would be considered a game breaker at club level).

Can't have it both ways Sin.. Keep saying that to you. International is either a step up or it isn't. If it's a step up for Welsh and English players it's also a selection process Ireland use to take the men from the boys.

SecretFly wrote:Can't have it both ways Sin.. Keep saying that to you. International is either a step up or it isn't. If it's a step up for Welsh and English players it's also a selection process Ireland use to take the men from the boys.

Can't have it both ways????? International is a step up. I don't want it both ways. Some players take a while to find their feet - for example, its only in the last year that Sexton looks to be of international class and he was first capped in 2009 (with a HCup to his name at that stage).

The argument you've used is that an International coach will take as long as a Provincial one to teach new ways...I said nope, as the players selected for International have already a step-up in inherent abilities anyway. Quick learners, to put it another way. Like Welsh and English players...it's why they get chosen...alllegedly.

As for Sexton...if we get the coaches most of us would like (playing the game most of us would like to see) you'll realise quickly enough that Sexton hasn't even begun to show us what he can do...or indeed any of the other 10 alternatives. The gameplan dictates how the players perform at International.

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Can't have it both ways Sin.. Keep saying that to you. International is either a step up or it isn't. If it's a step up for Welsh and English players it's also a selection process Ireland use to take the men from the boys.

Can't have it both ways????? International is a step up. I don't want it both ways. Some players take a while to find their feet - for example, its only in the last year that Sexton looks to be of international class and he was first capped in 2009 (with a HCup to his name at that stage).

The role of the club and country coaches are not the same. The club coach needs to develop, buy and produce players and build a team/squad to compete week in week out.

The International coach just has to pick his best team and send them on the field best prepared to a job for either short tournaments or one off tests. He doesn't need to teach or develop new skills, if he does he's probably picking the wrong players.

SecretFly wrote:The argument you've used is that an International coach will take as long as a Provincial one to teach new ways...I said nope, as the players selected for International have already a step-up in inherent abilities anyway. Quick learners, to put it another way. Like Welsh and English players...it's why they get chosen...alllegedly.

As for Sexton...if we get the coaches most of us would like (playing the game most of us would like to see) you'll realise quickly enough that Sexton hasn't even begun to show us what he can do...or indeed any of the other 10 alternatives. The gameplan dictates how the players perform at International.

The difference is time together. I saw recently a Leinster player commenting on the difference. He said at club level they can practice a move all day if they want until they get it completely right (and Joe makes them do that), but at international level they just don't have the time to do that. Add in the lack of familarity as well. While the abilities of the individuals maybe better, they are generally not exposed to Heineken Cup rugby in their first or second week when they first join the provinces.

Since when was the gameplan to have a 40% successful kicking ratio, miss touchfinders, poor kick-offs (too long or too short) etc?

Sin é wrote:
Since when was the gameplan to have a 40% successful kicking ratio, miss touchfinders, poor kick-offs (too long or too short) etc?

Probably since the IRFU decided that they would continue to pick ROG for as long as he could walk without a zimmeframe.

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:The argument you've used is that an International coach will take as long as a Provincial one to teach new ways...I said nope, as the players selected for International have already a step-up in inherent abilities anyway. Quick learners, to put it another way. Like Welsh and English players...it's why they get chosen...alllegedly.

As for Sexton...if we get the coaches most of us would like (playing the game most of us would like to see) you'll realise quickly enough that Sexton hasn't even begun to show us what he can do...or indeed any of the other 10 alternatives. The gameplan dictates how the players perform at International.

The difference is time together. I saw recently a Leinster player commenting on the difference. He said at club level they can practice a move all day if they want until they get it completely right (and Joe makes them do that), but at international level they just don't have the time to do that. Add in the lack of familarity as well. While the abilities of the individuals maybe better, they are generally not exposed to Heineken Cup rugby in their first or second week when they first join the provinces.

Since when was the gameplan to have a 40% successful kicking ratio, miss touchfinders, poor kick-offs (too long or too short) etc?

Funny that the likes of NZ and Aus seem to be able to execute a multitude of rehearsed backs moves perfectly well.

GunsGerms wrote:

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:The argument you've used is that an International coach will take as long as a Provincial one to teach new ways...I said nope, as the players selected for International have already a step-up in inherent abilities anyway. Quick learners, to put it another way. Like Welsh and English players...it's why they get chosen...alllegedly.

As for Sexton...if we get the coaches most of us would like (playing the game most of us would like to see) you'll realise quickly enough that Sexton hasn't even begun to show us what he can do...or indeed any of the other 10 alternatives. The gameplan dictates how the players perform at International.

The difference is time together. I saw recently a Leinster player commenting on the difference. He said at club level they can practice a move all day if they want until they get it completely right (and Joe makes them do that), but at international level they just don't have the time to do that. Add in the lack of familarity as well. While the abilities of the individuals maybe better, they are generally not exposed to Heineken Cup rugby in their first or second week when they first join the provinces.

Since when was the gameplan to have a 40% successful kicking ratio, miss touchfinders, poor kick-offs (too long or too short) etc?

Funny that the likes of NZ and Aus seem to be able to execute a multitude of rehearsed backs moves perfectly well.

None of their back's moves worked particularly well in the world cup final. They needed the ref's help as well. Just shows how missing an important player like Carter does to an exceptionally talented team.

rodders wrote:

Sin é wrote:
Since when was the gameplan to have a 40% successful kicking ratio, miss touchfinders, poor kick-offs (too long or too short) etc?

Probably since the IRFU decided that they would continue to pick ROG for as long as he could walk without a zimmeframe.

So you claim that the gameplan was for Sexton to miss his kicks (which he obliged with) so that ROG would start?

Sin é wrote:

rodders wrote:

Sin é wrote:
Since when was the gameplan to have a 40% successful kicking ratio, miss touchfinders, poor kick-offs (too long or too short) etc?

Probably since the IRFU decided that they would continue to pick ROG for as long as he could walk without a zimmeframe.

So you claim that the gameplan was for Sexton to miss his kicks (which he obliged with) so that ROG would start?

What about if Sexton chose to do a running 10 game rather than a kicking one? How about that? Would the rest of his team-mates, backs and forwards be ready for that game? Would they have been coached to take their lead from Sexton? Would they have been with him at an instinctive level? Would the side chase in unison?

I doubt it. It's not coached. The players are seldom ready to chase anything because solid cautionary defence in prima donna in the Irish squad.

The kicking itself is the issue (or was) Sin. Not how well or how badly any of the 10s kicked, the kicking solution to all ills is(was) the issue with only little feints of creativity for perhaps 5, 10, or 15 minutes at most.

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

rodders wrote:

Sin é wrote:
Since when was the gameplan to have a 40% successful kicking ratio, miss touchfinders, poor kick-offs (too long or too short) etc?

Probably since the IRFU decided that they would continue to pick ROG for as long as he could walk without a zimmeframe.

So you claim that the gameplan was for Sexton to miss his kicks (which he obliged with) so that ROG would start?

What about if Sexton chose to do a running 10 game rather than a kicking one? How about that? Would the rest of his team-mates, backs and forwards be ready for that game? Would they have been coached to take their lead from Sexton? Would they have been with him at an instinctive level? Would the side chase in unison?

I doubt it. It's not coached. The players are seldom ready to chase anything because solid cautionary defence in prima donna in the Irish squad.

The kicking itself is the issue (or was) Sin. Not how well or how badly any of the 10s kicked, the kicking solution to all ills is(was) the issue with only little feints of creativity for perhaps 5, 10, or 15 minutes at most.

The comment about the pracising the move was in response to a comment about one of a Leinster failing in execution in an international. The Leinster player said to get those moves to work you need a lot of practice and you don't get the time to do that internationally.

My point is that even though Sexton was very experienced (HCup winner) and played erratically for Ireland for about 2 years before he got to the stage he is at now.

If we go on your theory that its all down to the gameplan, that would seem to suggest that Sexton's improved form is down to a massive improvement in the Irish gameplan.

Sin é wrote:

rodders wrote:

Sin é wrote:
Since when was the gameplan to have a 40% successful kicking ratio, miss touchfinders, poor kick-offs (too long or too short) etc?

Probably since the IRFU decided that they would continue to pick ROG for as long as he could walk without a zimmeframe.

So you claim that the gameplan was for Sexton to miss his kicks (which he obliged with) so that ROG would start?

No I'm suggesting that the IRFU prioritised the prolonging of ROGs career at the expense of providing opportunities to younger and potentially better players.

Now we have a situation where ROG isn't even up to doing a cameo any more and no other fly-half other than Sexton has reached double figures of caps.

You know how there's a lot of chat Les Kiss is in the running for head coach?

Why? Seriously?

Notch wrote:You know how there's a lot of chat Les Kiss is in the running for head coach?

Why? Seriously?

Friends in the media. I like Les Kiss and think he could make a very good head coach but it would be lunacy for Ireland to give him the job without proving himself.

What is it about the Irish and their homage for Les Kiss? I'm not trying to wind any one up, its just that I dont see what he has really done.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
What is it about the Irish and their homage for Les Kiss? I'm not trying to wind any one up, its just that I dont see what he has really done.

Hes a nice guy! He is a good defense coach overall. He went from being a good defense coach (gave Ireland the infamous choke tackle) to attack coach these days. He looks a bit out of his dept being an attack coach.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
What is it about the Irish and their homage for Les Kiss? I'm not trying to wind any one up, its just that I dont see what he has really done.

You're not reading much if you think its homage, laurie. He's not exactly on most people's list of take-over guys as far as I can see.

We've had some coaches now for 5 years. Some of it good, some of it dreadful...most of it actually. We don't hand out awards here for that kind of performance level amongst coaches. We just come to a conclusion that they're not good enough as a unit and then we try to dissect which of them might be more responsible than the others. I guess Kiss doesn't get as much blame as some others.

profitius wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
What is it about the Irish and their homage for Les Kiss? I'm not trying to wind any one up, its just that I dont see what he has really done.

Hes a nice guy! He is a good defense coach overall. He went from being a good defense coach (gave Ireland the infamous choke tackle) to attack coach these days. He looks a bit out of his dept being an attack coach.

Personally I thought as a defense coach he was pretty ordinary, anyone could have given Ireland what you call the 'Choke tackle", if I was to suggest he had any merit at all it would probably be as an attack coach however he has always been very one dimensional in trying to create opportunities from which point scoring could possibly occur. he definitely knows his stuff when it comes to wingers and pace but other than that???

While I'm on the subject, I also think the Irish are entitled to be somewhat dissappointed in Greg Feeks results as well. but having never played in the front row I'm not really qualified to say too much.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
While I'm on the subject, I also think the Irish are entitled to be somewhat dissappointed in Greg Feeks results as well. but having never played in the front row I'm not really qualified to say too much.

Very much so. Mainly because I often feel our second row and back row aren't contributing in the scrums.

If anyone could have come up with the choke tackle they would have and everyone would have been using a variation of it. But they didn't and Kiss did. He was a pretty good defence coach and you only need to look at how much more passive and less aggressive we have been since he was inexplicably moved to attack coach. We have one dreadful defensive performance last season where we stood off Wales and allows them space to run at us and we were exploited. It was rectified the next week. This season the passive defence of Foley has been out trademark. We allow teams to run at us and have relied on the sheer bravery of players like Gilroy and McFadden bursting out of the line and making huge hits from conversing certain tries. In each game the score flattered us.

On another note can you imagine I we had met the Wales of round 5 rather than the Wales of week 1?

Damn apple spellchecker

Bookies now rowing in behind Schmidt. Thornley et al have been bigging him up.

If Thornley says it, it's a Twickenham Bible! (oh don't mind me, that's an allusion to another entertaining thread)

Like I said...Nacewa going seems to suggest to me that Schmidt might have been whispering in his ear about his own plans......

Maybe that's the case fly I don't know. I know Schmidt had planned to return to NZ but an international job might give him more freedom to return between whiles and also has the added cache of bigging him up (provided he is a success) for the NZ job

Well, he's unlikely to get the New Zealand job this side of the WC...so what better way to keep yourself in the picture than arrive at the WC with a team of your own...and well, at least bring that side better fortune than the last two Irish outings. That would get noticed.

Not that I think he's such an ambitious man. I think he'd obviously like a shot at coaching his own Nation but he doesn't strike me as a man who dreams ambitions like that in his sleep. So I wouldn't be surprised by anything he might choose to do after Leinster. Go home and have a quiet life where we never heard from him again - that wouldn't surprise me either.

Standulstermen wrote:Bookies now rowing in behind Schmidt. Thornley et al have been bigging him up.

The most notable thing about it is Schmidt hasn't said anything yet. If he was 100% decided on going home he would have put an end to the speculation but he has said nothing so far which leads me to believe that he is at least thinking about it. Its a great opportunity for any coach to put themselves on the world stage and if Ireland have a few high profile wins then their stock will go up further.


I bet the timing of McKenzies announcement the other day was also not a coincidence. The super rugby season is 4 or 5 games old and he suddenly says he is quitting at the end of the season. The announcement was of course straight after the 6 nations ended and with Declan Kidney a certainty to be off. McKenzie says he wants to coach an international side with Australia his preferred choice but he would consider other offers.

Joe Schmidts price in the bookies has come crashing down over night. He was 5/1 but 6/4 today.

profitius wrote:Joe Schmidts price in the bookies has come crashing down over night. He was 5/1 but 6/4 today.

Once more into the breach dear Brian.....

Quitting the Reds and chasing the Wallabies job - it's all about the timing
March 21, 2013

Ewen McKenzie


We're two days on and what does the rugby landscape in Australia look like? Much the same as it was before. Everyone is still coaching and trying to get their teams into the best position for success.

Externally, Tuesday's announcement has created debate and conversation in media and blog circles, but internally we have already moved forward with the rugby week and everyone is continuing to work hard in preparing for the Bulls on Saturday night.

From a team perspective, it was a matter of integrity and honesty that I was straightforward with the playing group and staff about my future. Irrespective of interpretations, it was important that the very large group of people who I have toiled with and developed strong bonds and friendships with understood the decision and its timing.

In this situation, change to the rugby program and my role was already identified in advance with our succession plan already in place. That left only the timing. For me, it came down to everyone deserving to have certainty around what 2014 would look like.

By creating certainty now, with six months left in the Super Rugby season, it allows all those people around me to make decisions and plan while also ensuring there is a greater focus on 2013. In my mind, the greatest destabiliser is uncertainty. When you are focused and not uncertain you put yourself into the best position to produce your best work.

However, in providing certainty to others, I have now provided little to myself other than the fact that I'll need to find new work in August. I can carry this as I have been around long enough to understand how it works. It now allows open discussion in any direction required, as I can still contribute and offer my thoughts and advice.

I always say timing is everything but sometimes it won't matter what the timing is as interpretations are always varied. For example, the connection of Ireland losing on the weekend and my announcement were purely coincidence. I didn't wake up on Sunday and see Ireland lose only to think I should hold a press conference to capitalise on that. Nor did Ireland ring me up and offer me a job when as far as they and the world knew, I already had one.

The other obvious connection was to the Wallabies job. It is important that I reiterate that while I have ambitions to coach my country at the highest level, the announcement was by no means associated with applying added pressure to the process.

People love a conspiracy. But if it was a conspiracy theory, it has been running for at least three years and across two ARU regimes. Watergate looks like small bikkies by comparison.

The reality is, the Wallaby coaching position is all about timing. You have to be the best person when they actually want to appoint someone and until it's a vacant position, it's not available.

I understand this more than most. I was once asked to be the Wallaby coach and declined because I didn't feel ready. That was eight years ago. I have since applied for the position, along with many others, and did not get it. That was six years ago. If the job comes up once again and I am looking for a coaching position, then I will apply for it, but it's all about timing.
The job isn't one you can campaign for as though it were politics. It's not one that you can overthrow or steal.

It's a position decided by the ARU and its board when they choose to do so. Until there is a vacancy, there is actually nothing to apply for or enquire about.

In terms of my personal situation, all I have said is that I would like the opportunity to apply, assuming the timing is right and there is a position to apply for. That's it. You would be dishonest if you admitted you weren't interested and it would mean the public opinion would be that you are not. On the other hand, if you spend time coveting the position, it's also interpreted as a negative.

All I can do is be honest and consistent with my answers while others debate about my merits and those of any others. But, for now, I am busy coaching the Reds and at least they know what's ahead.


Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/quitting-the-reds-and-chasing-the-wallabies-job--its-all-about-the-timing-20130320-2gg7m.html#ixzz2OBKIeYBM

What are the odds on McKensie head coach and Schmidt backs coach? Dream ticket?

Dunno Guns, although could you really see a Kiwi and an Ozzie working together? I'd be tasty no doubt!

UlstermaninGlasgow wrote:Dunno Guns, although could you really see a Kiwi and an Ozzie working together? I'd be tasty no doubt!

Sure why not. Robbie Deans and Tony McGahan work together ok.

GunsGerms wrote:

UlstermaninGlasgow wrote:Dunno Guns, although could you really see a Kiwi and an Ozzie working together? I'd be tasty no doubt!

Sure why not. Robbie Deans and Tony McGahan work together ok.

I'm wondering how long that one will last actually. Deans has a bit of a reputation for being a control freak.

If you were going the McKenzie route, it would be far more likely to be with Les Kiss (his former assistant at the Waratahs).

Edit: It would be interesting to see if you could get Deans (Canterbury) & Schmidt (Auckland) on the same coaching ticket though!

Do any of these guys want to share tickets anymore though? Maybe they want their own tickets and isn't Scotland still up for grabs...

Its shaping up to be Schmidt as first choice with McKenzie second choice with the fans. I'd go along with that too. Schmidt would at least guarantee a decent attack.

If, big IF, Schmidt does get the job, the question then is does he bring along Jonno Gibbes or does Gibbes take over Leinster? I'd say Gibbes would choose the Leinster job and I think they'll offer it to him.

Provided Schmidt is thinking straight and taking advice (from players too - he specifically said his choice to come to Leinster was mostly based on the players views themselves who wanted him and what they said about the commitment they'd give him)...provided he's doing that with a clear head and under no pressure and therefore has an idea about how he' like to proceed, then Schmidt would put a real smile on my face.

And yeah Gibbes at Leinster would be a continuation of a wheel that isn't really broken yet.... continuity would be important for an increasingly young and 'inexperienced' team to get by without the falling away stars.

Keith Wood mentioned Mallett for the Ireland job ahead of Graham Henry. I thought I was hearing things. lol

Gibbes has been at Leinster since Michael Cheikas time. He'll stay there and take the top job.

I think that Gibbes has been Leinsters most valuable asset in the last few years. They have won plaudits for playing with flair but they have won matches up front - something which I think has been forgotten.

Similarly I think all this talk about Irelands attacking patterns isn't really addressing the main issue - we can't dominate other teams packs.

I don't think any coach will resolve Ireland's inability to dominate other packs as we simply don't have the players to do it, particularly at tight head and in the second row.

I think we would be better going for an attack orientated coach rather than a technical forward type with the players we have currently.

I agree with you entirely. I'll be very happy with Schmidt as coach but we need to address the forwards approach to get real results.

Just saying when the Leinster plaudits get dished out Gibbes doesnt get enough credit.

I disagree, I think our set piece has been solid if not dominant over the past 12 months.

Whats been exposed is that Ferris, David Wallace, Heaslip and O'Brien have or had been carrying this team in terms of ball carrying, and Bowe has been the only really strike threat.

Now that they are retired/injured/out of sorts we are left with a side which offers very little with the ball in hand is remarkably easy for other teams to defend against.

None of the forwards offload out of the tackle, there's very little carrying options in the front 5, the 3/4s are too small, the centres too slow, Murray doesn't produce quick ball, the backrow has no balance and too many players play as individuals rather than for the team.

Securing posession has not generally been an issue for us, our failure to do anything with it has.

red_stag wrote:

Similarly I think all this talk about Irelands attacking patterns isn't really addressing the main issue - we can't dominate other teams packs.

I'd say the main issue is attack. I think our problem is that all our present 'solutions' are always eternally concerned with 'dominating' other team packs. I think Ireland has become downright obsessed with that issue and thinking about, praying for, moving one player here and one there, buying in a hope that doesn't work, relying on Ross for 80 minutes every blasted game (poor, poor guy - I really do pity him) isn't going to solve it anytime soon. It's a continuing experiment - forever being tried out at International level, and only working on and off. When it fails it absolutely destroys us (England last year) - when it succeeds, (perhaps once or twice in a game) the players are all back slapping and we too here kinda get a little too animated by that scrum we won and that one we lost.

Some guys like the forward stuff, others like the backs. But when I also go for attack as the solution, yes, it's because that's my area of most delight - I'm a backs orientated follower. But, that's not the reason I champion it as the blueprint.

Of course we have to keep working on trying to solve pack issues, but some of them are technique too that might get attention with the right new coaches. The main reason is that an effective attack takes pressure off an area that is suffering. I keep repeating, a game has a finite time. It's only 80 minutes. Don't try to constantly solve an issue with the same players shuttling around in a circle. Start just trying to win again by taking the pressure off that area. Confidence is another factor that can often turn a misfiring pack into a raging bull one. But playing the game we currently play is just slog - it's Monday morning work gloom, the players aren't enjoying it and performances go down all over the park - pack too.

The Ireland pack did alright in the 6 nations. Looking at the stats they had plenty of possession and territory. Like fly I think the problem is with the attack.

Ireland need a more holistic approach to the attack like the provinces have. Forwards and backs need to combine more (begin to combine would be more accurate) and be on the same wavelength. Thats where Les Kiss comes up short.

SecretFly wrote: relying on Ross for 80 minutes every blasted game (poor, poor guy - I really do pity him) isn't going to solve it anytime soon.

A major reason for our failure to close out games. As Ross tires our scrum creaks badly and we come under increasing pressure. The lack of bench options in the front row versus other sides really hurt us in terms of results this year.

Results aside our performances are just plain pants.

profitius wrote:The Ireland pack did alright in the 6 nations. Looking at the stats they had plenty of possession and territory. Like fly I think the problem is with the attack.

Ireland need a more holistic approach to the attack like the provinces have. Forwards and backs need to combine more (begin to combine would be more accurate) and be on the same wavelength. Thats where Les Kiss comes up short.

The Holy Grail. The Holy Grail

That's where Ireland is falling down. There is too much compartmentalisation. The backs wait in a boring obvious string waiting for a line break to be made somewhere and it seldom appears. Why? Because our forwards are coached to take up ball and run headlong into trouble and recycle...repeat as desired. Our forwards are eternally followed by the proverbial flock of birds circling around their heads. Give them a plan to avoid unecessary collisions, give them a plan to evade and to become part of an attacking platform with the backs. It's too much rugby by ancient numbers right now... it's survival rugby when the creators know time is running out.