Stand up for the Ladyboys cause we're comin down your Stoop!

First topic message reminder :

An ting.
Friday Ealing. Saturday Wimbeldon. and Sunday..... Twicksticks!

Hope Nev and Marler are both ok

ChequeredJersey wrote:Hope Nev and Marler are both ok

Me too - big matches like that take their toll.

Brilliant win Quins

Easter, Marler and Robshaw were incredible today.

It's safe to say I've enjoyed the rugby (and results) this weekend!

LondonTiger wrote:

yappysnap wrote:No, but I still think we'll keep it tight, then it'll all come down to a drop goal or penalty...

I guess I have a gut feel it will be too much liek Quins matches against Sarries and Bath, where you were blown away. I have only seen Quins 3 times this season - and they were dire on all 3 occasions.

So I promise not to watch this game - and you may do well.

I kept my promise, and it worked

God that was dire stuff from Leinster. they looked decidedly second best against Quins.

Munster were puffing and blowing too in their defeat to Clermont.

Ulster managed the four tries in Belfast but I suspect too little too late.

No Irish teams in the knockout stages of the Cup this year? - Looking more likely with each round.

I'm betting a Clermont, Quins and Scarlets treble in the return matches.

Connacht look a safer bet to come out on top.

Pot Hale wrote:God that was dire stuff from Leinster.  they looked decidedly second best against Quins.

Munster were puffing and blowing too in their defeat to Clermont.

Ulster managed the four tries in Belfast but I suspect too little too late.

It shows how good a coach Joe is if you consider the state of each of the provinces versus the quality of the national side.

There's some real substandard coaching and recruitment going on at the minute - Connacht apart.

That said Leinster aren't in too bad a position...I think Munster have blown it though, I can't seem them turning things around for the return leg - they were really bullied and dominated at Thomond by Clermont.

Anybody think Care made a mistake kicking the ball out of play after the 80 mins had gone. On the attack in the Leinster half and the possibility of denying Leinster their LBP, †hink Quins should have gone for it - the only risk was that somehow Leinster would score a converted try - fat chance of that they we were playing.

Glad we got the LBP, hope for Quins sake 1pt isn't going to decide things at the end of the pool stage

Nah - good call booting it out. They might rue the LBP but that remains to be seen.

brennomac wrote:Anybody think Care made a mistake kicking the ball out of play after the 80 mins had gone.  On the attack in the Leinster half and the possibility of denying Leinster their LBP, †hink Quins should have gone for it - the only risk was that somehow Leinster would score a converted try - fat chance of that they we were playing.  

Glad we got the LBP, hope for Quins sake 1pt isn't going to decide things at the end of the pool stage

There's examples of teams trying that and conceding the try and people screaming 'why oh why didn't he just kick it out!'. I think if you can then just end the game safely and take the win.

kunu wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Are Leinster the worst coached team in Europe?

It's more a case of a mediocre coach, who's the wrong man for the job. According to the players, MOC is the polar opposite of Schmidt. He doesn't like to dictate the way the team plays too much, but rather leaves it to the players to play what's in front of them. This works fine when you've got a team full of big fellas who can run straight and always make metres, but not when you've got a skilful team full of small fellas - I think that's why he doesn't value Madigan so much.

Is that the right way round? I would have thought it would have been a dictorial coach would be good for boahing teams, simple game plan and stick to it. With heads up rugby being better for skill players. You seem to be suggesting that Leinster are unable to play what's in front of them and need a coach to tell them what to do. Which is certainly not something I associate with Leinster?

Stub and Griff

Have to disagree lads, Quins had us on the ropes as 80 mins passed, ye were going forward albeit slowly, no idea how the lad who came on from Evans is as regards DG but there was also always a chance of a penalty. The chance of Leinster getting a converted try was very low.  This is going to be a very tight group so 1pt can mean a lot.  If it had been the other way around, I'd have been p1ssed off if we didn't go for the jugular.

HammerofThunor wrote:

kunu wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Are Leinster the worst coached team in Europe?

It's more a case of a mediocre coach, who's the wrong man for the job. According to the players, MOC is the polar opposite of Schmidt. He doesn't like to dictate the way the team plays too much, but rather leaves it to the players to play what's in front of them. This works fine when you've got a team full of big fellas who can run straight and always make metres, but not when you've got a skilful team full of small fellas - I think that's why he doesn't value Madigan so much.

Is that the right way round? I would have thought it would have been a dictorial coach would be good for boahing teams, simple game plan and stick to it. With heads up rugby being better for skill players. You seem to be suggesting that Leinster are unable to play what's in front of them and need a coach to tell them what to do.  Which is certainly not something I associate with Leinster?

???  

Hammer.......  few if any sides play what's in front of them anymore.  The Best Coaches actually DO coach in practical terms - as in preparing intelligence on the opposition - how they play, little weaknesses spotted in their habits, strengths outlined.  Best coaches also then come with gameplans to neutralise as much as possible considered Opposition strengths.  
A coach who doesn't want to coach or can't coach - but who likes the money that the title represents - is always portrayed as a coach who likes players to 'think on their feet'.  It's shorthand for 'Don't ask me, because I probably don't really know'.

A Harlequin player was saying this week that O'Shea would be full of details on how to get one over Leinster.  I don't think it would have been "It's Leinster this week lads, so you know the score, just go out and trust your skills to play what's in front of you."

Fair enough brennomac but I've seen the likes of Leinster come back at the death and grab the win too often for my liking. As I've said I won't be surprised if that LBP comes back to haunt Quins but all that said though I'm pleased they secured the win and they get to try and get something in Dublin next week. Also the Nev replacement looked very fallible to me..

If we were on for the TBP as well, I'd expect Danny to go for it and not kick it out, but with only the one point to "lose" I agree with the safety, and them going in a gunning for at least a point but aiming for the win next week. I also think that intercept pass against SA probably made him a tad more conservative with the game still loseable

stub wrote:Fair enough brennomac but I've seen the likes of Leinster come back at the death and grab the win too often for my liking. As I've said I won't be surprised if that LBP comes back to haunt Quins but all that said though I'm pleased they secured the win and they get to try and get something in Dublin next week. Also the Nev replacement looked very fallible to me..

He grew into the game. Looks better than Botica has most of the season pre injury though!

ChequeredJersey wrote:

stub wrote:Fair enough brennomac but I've seen the likes of Leinster come back at the death and grab the win too often for my liking. As I've said I won't be surprised if that LBP comes back to haunt Quins but all that said though I'm pleased they secured the win and they get to try and get something in Dublin next week. Also the Nev replacement looked very fallible to me..

He grew into the game. Looks better than Botica has most of the season pre injury though!

He was OK - just didn't fill me full of confidence!

stub wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

stub wrote:Fair enough brennomac but I've seen the likes of Leinster come back at the death and grab the win too often for my liking. As I've said I won't be surprised if that LBP comes back to haunt Quins but all that said though I'm pleased they secured the win and they get to try and get something in Dublin next week. Also the Nev replacement looked very fallible to me..

He grew into the game. Looks better than Botica has most of the season pre injury though!

He was OK - just didn't fill me full of confidence!

Big ask to come on that early as sub in such a big game, it'll have done him good

Well done Quins, best game in a long while. Easter, Marler, Robshaw and Care were all great for us.

Marler looked alright post game shaking hands, groin injury for Nev though could be terrible, could we get another injury cover?

yappysnap wrote:Well done Quins, best game in a long while. Easter, Marler, Robshaw and Care were all great for us.

Marler looked alright post game shaking hands, groin injury for Nev though could be terrible, could we get another injury cover?

If it's long term then yes, and we can go quite experienced with Nev out.

One of the reports I read had marler expected to be fit next week. Nev much more doubtful

It's ok, Danny makes the dropped goals now

HammerofThunor wrote:]

Is that the right way round? I would have thought it would have been a dictorial coach would be good for boahing teams, simple game plan and stick to it. With heads up rugby being better for skill players. You seem to be suggesting that Leinster are unable to play what's in front of them and need a coach to tell them what to do.  Which is certainly not something I associate with Leinster?

Maybe 10 years ago it would be the other way around. However, the game has progressed massively since - holes in defences don't just open up any more. Against a quality side, the defence will almost always be well set, there's rarely a gap to see and run through. BOD alluded to this in the build up to the Ulster game yesterday when he said you never see tries from first phase ball anymore. You saw how many times Leinster players ran backwards today looking for a gap, it was painful stuff.

You really need to have some sort of plan to work your way through a defence, unless you've got huge runners who can just bludgeon through it, which was my original point. Leinster don't have big fellas, but have the skills to flawlessly execute a well planned attack, as we saw with Schmidt's Leinster.

Not good if NEv is out long term - I know Quins only have Swiel on loan till Feb, is there any scope in extending his stay?
Or is it even possible.

Great result though - I was really expecting a pumping from Leinster. This result now needs to be backed up and that is another issue with Quins this season (consistency).
Nick Easter is a revelation and he just looks like he is enjoying his rugby so much.
Robshaw and Marler put in massive shifts - Marler looking comfortable in the capt role for the first time really.
Brown, still dropped a few high balls but solid as ever and starting to show his form again carrying on from the Oz game.
Care had some brilliant touches and so very well weighted box kicking (something he has been given some stick for recently).
Lowe is really showing that after some stonkers that he just needs game time and he's coming back nicely with some great tackles and good lines selected.
Ticks took his intercept well.

kunu wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:]

Is that the right way round? I would have thought it would have been a dictorial coach would be good for boahing teams, simple game plan and stick to it. With heads up rugby being better for skill players. You seem to be suggesting that Leinster are unable to play what's in front of them and need a coach to tell them what to do.  Which is certainly not something I associate with Leinster?

Maybe 10 years ago it would be the other way around. However, the game has progressed massively since - holes in defences don't just open up any more. Against a quality side, the defence will almost always be well set, there's rarely a gap to see and run through. BOD alluded to this in the build up to the Ulster game yesterday when he said you never see tries from first phase ball anymore. You saw how many times Leinster players ran backwards today looking for a gap, it was painful stuff.

You really need to have some sort of plan to work your way through a defence, unless you've got huge runners who can just bludgeon through it, which was my original point. Leinster don't have big fellas, but have the skills to flawlessly execute a well planned attack, as we saw with Schmidt's Leinster.

Any coach who sent out his team to defend what's in front of them would be laughed out of it in this day and age,why some coaches still feel this is an acceptable method to base your attack on baffles me.

Here's an article outlining what a good structured attack plan can do,it gives players the chance to know what's going on around them and they can play heads up rugby within the structure as they should have several options available depending on how the opposition defense is set.

http://www.thescore.ie/analysis-grenoble-jackman-french-flair-1700614-Oct2014/

kunu wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:]

Is that the right way round? I would have thought it would have been a dictorial coach would be good for boahing teams, simple game plan and stick to it. With heads up rugby being better for skill players. You seem to be suggesting that Leinster are unable to play what's in front of them and need a coach to tell them what to do.  Which is certainly not something I associate with Leinster?

Maybe 10 years ago it would be the other way around. However, the game has progressed massively since - holes in defences don't just open up any more. Against a quality side, the defence will almost always be well set, there's rarely a gap to see and run through. BOD alluded to this in the build up to the Ulster game yesterday when he said you never see tries from first phase ball anymore. You saw how many times Leinster players ran backwards today looking for a gap, it was painful stuff.

You really need to have some sort of plan to work your way through a defence, unless you've got huge runners who can just bludgeon through it, which was my original point. Leinster don't have big fellas, but have the skills to flawlessly execute a well planned attack, as we saw with Schmidt's Leinster.

I think we have a few crossed wires on terminalogy (all mine), so get what you mean. So is MOC just not doing anything then?

A great weekend for the old guyst - Firstly big Nick Easter single handedly destroys the ladyboys and then Leinster reject Brad Thorn rolls back the years against Toulon.

HammerofThunor wrote:

kunu wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:]

Is that the right way round? I would have thought it would have been a dictorial coach would be good for boahing teams, simple game plan and stick to it. With heads up rugby being better for skill players. You seem to be suggesting that Leinster are unable to play what's in front of them and need a coach to tell them what to do.  Which is certainly not something I associate with Leinster?

Maybe 10 years ago it would be the other way around. However, the game has progressed massively since - holes in defences don't just open up any more. Against a quality side, the defence will almost always be well set, there's rarely a gap to see and run through. BOD alluded to this in the build up to the Ulster game yesterday when he said you never see tries from first phase ball anymore. You saw how many times Leinster players ran backwards today looking for a gap, it was painful stuff.

You really need to have some sort of plan to work your way through a defence, unless you've got huge runners who can just bludgeon through it, which was my original point. Leinster don't have big fellas, but have the skills to flawlessly execute a well planned attack, as we saw with Schmidt's Leinster.

I think we have a few crossed wires on terminalogy (all mine), so get what you mean.  So is MOC just not doing anything then?

He's doing enough to limp (in rugby terms).  We need a guy who can run.  Leinster has always been an aggressor attacking side (even before Cheika and Schmidt) - but now, having nowhere to run to is better called walking.  Leinster are a walking team and as I said, it seems O'Connor was brought over from Leicester because he could allegedly add to their attack (Leicester were supposedly scoring tries for fun in the AP under him - but omenously, and curiously, Leicester fans themselves weren't sorry to see him go)  
The irony is now that Leinster are clinging onto games by the tips of their fingers on everything but attack.  I assume that's because O'Connor is proving himself to be more a defined backs coach than a natural Head Coach.  Nothing is linking up, nothing is smooth.... the players get frustrated because the overall 'plans' are ineffective.

Harlequins could actually improve their scoreline away in Dublin next week.  I wouldn't by any means think Leinster at home in Dublin is going to be a different beast.  Quins will go at them again in the same vein.  The physical pressure will be on Leinster.  That's when you need coaching tricks to push that pressure off your team and give them a fighting chance. But if Leinster go down - O'Connor will have to begin packing his suitcases to be gone at the end of the season.  With Sexton coming back, the rot at coaching level will have to stop.

I was impressed how Bakkies came across in that interview on the bench when he was asked about Thorn.

Quins thoroughly deserved the victory. Leinster were poor but Quins still had to beat what was in front of them and they did that well.

Thought Gopperth were getting a load of false praise from the pundits. At one stage he made a great break which they waxed lyrical about. I honestly thought it was a case that the ball from the ruck was so slow and high that Jimmy had to abort the kick and after side stepping the quins player was fortunate to step into a foot race against a couple of tight 5 players.

Kearney was also very poor. He was trying to force so many plays. That intercept was a carbon copy of 2 fail moves he was involved in during the first half. Smart Quins play to capitalise on it.

Ross needs a rest, but MOC won't do that and it will probably end badly.

I like Fanning, I really do, but how on this planet is Zane on the bench for that guy? It beggars belief. Selection gone mad.

Then when Darcy was injured, he brings on Zane instead of Reid. Reid is a centre, if the lad isn't trusted to come on in the centres then why have him on the bench in the first place? Instead it meant re-positioning players mid game (something MOC is far too quick to do).

It was frustrating, and if I'm honest about it Leinster didn't really deserve any LBP out of that performance. And even more frustrating is that MOC will be 'happy' to pick up a LBP away from home. Does he even have a bar to set standards against anymore?

If Marler is out Ross, or backup, will have an easier time. Lambert really isn't in the same class. Kearney seemed to dance sideways a lot, which didn't really come to anything in this case.

Griff wrote:

brennomac wrote:Anybody think Care made a mistake kicking the ball out of play after the 80 mins had gone.  On the attack in the Leinster half and the possibility of denying Leinster their LBP, †hink Quins should have gone for it - the only risk was that somehow Leinster would score a converted try - fat chance of that they we were playing.  

Glad we got the LBP, hope for Quins sake 1pt isn't going to decide things at the end of the pool stage

There's examples of teams trying that and conceding the try and people screaming 'why oh why didn't he just kick it out!'. I think if you can then just end the game safely and take the win.

The real problem is the mis-allocation of match points. A Losing Bonus point shouldn't just appear out of thin air but instead be taken off the winners tally. A match should always have the same amount of points riding on the result, i.e. four. So one team wins by more than 7 they get four match points, if they draw both teams get two each and if there is a LBP then the winner gets 3 and the loser gets 1. That is a far fairer way to distribute the match points with Try bonus points unaffected.

We'll never know if such a system would have stopped Care kicking the ball out but it would encourage more attacking rugby and reduce the penalty count.

I'm not sure Aukster.

Why would limiting the top points to four necessarily improve the will to play attacking rugby?  The present system encourages the gaining of points through tries.  Care theoretically had as much enducement to keep going at the weekend as he'd have under the system you suggest.

Or am I missing some detail?  And I could be!  I'm only cruising through posts.

Anyway, had that been Leinster in scoring terms and they had an opportunity to end the game or to keep trying for another try....................  I'd be screaming 'kick it out!'  Better to live and fight another day than to get greedy and perhaps pay the awful price of losing in extra time. Bank what you have rather than gamble it.

I'd prefer a TBP for having three more than the opposition, rather than just 4 outright. But the LBP, I wouldn't be against 3-1 split in that case. So it would be 4-0, 3-1, 2-2, 1-3, 0-4, depending on the score.

But regardless at that point I think it was time for Quins to end it. I think they had given their all and at that point would be prone to mistakes, one knock-on and it could have been all over (it's happened to them often enough)

[quote="HammerofThunor"]I'd prefer a TBP for having three more than the oppositionquote]

Good shout - too many teams just empty the bench when the 4 tries are in the bag.

rodders wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I'd prefer a TBP for having three more than the oppositionquote]

Good shout - too many teams just empty the bench when the 4 tries are in the bag.

Are you f**king insulting Castro again???  You slimy c***!

SecretFly wrote:
but omenously, and curiously, Leicester fans themselves weren't sorry to see him go)  

Not how I would describe it tbh Fly. Obviously there was a vocal group who wanted him gone, but there's always a group of moaning Tigers fans who want the lot of them gone. From my perspective the overwhelming majority of people I spoke to, online and in person, felt that it was a bad thing for the club to lose him.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing either way whether or not he is a good attacking coach, as frankly I don't know how much he was responsible for Leicester's attacking play (which was very good for a while) or how much he is to blame for Leinster stuttering. It's just perhaps a little unfair to the bloke for you to use as evidence against him this idea that Leicester fans were indifferent about him leaving - as I have seen you do a couple of times - when that wasn't really my experience of the general attitude.

Matt O'Connor is out of his depth at Leinster it seems. The way they are playing it is unlikely they will get out of their group and there is a real chance Connacht will finish ahead of them in the league.

Though we have gone from having two of the best coaches in the world in Cheika and Schmidt to having a really average coach.

Quick question - is relying on overseas coaches any better than relying on overseas players?

I think O'Connors not the man for the job but he's been a bit of a scapegoat for leinster, same with Gopport.

I mean Rob Kearney through the ball into touch twice and then through an intercept pass - thats not O'Connors fault.

Leinster had real stable sides under Cheika and Schmidt which helped their fluid, attacking style evolve. Now they have different backline combination nearly ever week.

Credit to quins too, they dominated up front and won the backrow battle which was key. Robshaw and Easter were sensational, whereas Heaslip and Murphy were average.

It's very hard to follow up a coach who had so much success in such a short time, especially since on the evidence of Saint Joe's last season Leinster had already slipped off the summit of European rugby and O'Connor has since lost Sexton, O'Driscoll, Cullen and Nacewa, and D'arcy has gone over the hill and he's lost Healy and O'Brien to long term injury.

But if we lose to Quins, then Connacht we'll be dead and buried in Europe with two games to spare and the lowest placed Irish team in the league, which isn't good enough, given the squad we have. I find it annoying that the coach and the players don't seem that annoyed. They don't seem very aware that they're playing badly. They're just chugging along throwing out excuses after every bad result which they seem to find perfectly acceptable.

Just before Quins second try we were in their 22. Under Schmidt we would nearly always score a try or at least force a penalty from there, no matter what players were on the field. In that game we didn't look like scoring at all, and then even worse conceded an intercept. Terrible stuff and particularly hard for spoiled brats like us Leinster fans who are used to seeing much better.

Hopefully wins against Harlequins and Connacht will get us back on track.

SecretFly wrote:I'm not sure Aukster.

Why would limiting the top points to four necessarily improve the will to play attacking rugby?  The present system encourages the gaining of points through tries.  Care theoretically had as much enducement to keep going at the weekend as he'd have under the system you suggest.

Or am I missing some detail?  And I could be!  I'm only cruising through posts.

Anyway, had that been Leinster in scoring terms and they had an opportunity to end the game or to keep trying for another try....................  I'd be screaming 'kick it out!'  Better to live and fight another day than to get greedy and perhaps pay the awful price of losing in extra time.  Bank what you have rather than gamble it.

I'm not saying to do anything about the try bonus point, although I like the 'three more tries than the opposition' variant rather than just four award.

The problem is that it's far too easy for winning teams to concede a losing bonus point because it may not hurt them at all. Yet that easy concession of a point could affect the other teams in their pool or the final second placed qualifiers from other pools. If the LBP to the opposition meant the winners lost one point they would play a lot harder to keep it. That would encourage attacking rugby. Teams wouldn't be as happy as they are now to trade penalties to keep the other team at arms length, (which is outside three points not seven) - that is the point where it hurts them and risks them losing match points. The reason penalties are devalued at the end of a game is that when a losing team HAS to score a try it is relatively easy for the side in front to keep them out by conceding the three point shot knowing it will never be taken. Even a Yellow card is devalued because there won't be a full 10 minutes left on the clock. Teams who risk losing one of their winning points couldn't concede penalties with such impunity and therefore attacking rugby would be promoted.

If the 3/1 system was employed in pool 2, Quins would still be top with 10 points, but Leinster and Wasps would be equal on 7. The value of Wasps' TBP is heightened and so it rewards attacking rugby.

rodders wrote:I think O'Connors not the man for the job but he's been a bit of a scapegoat for leinster, same with Gopport.

[b]I mean Rob Kearney through the ball into touch twice and then through an intercept pass - thats not O'Connors fault.
[b]
Leinster had real stable sides under Cheika and Schmidt which helped their fluid, attacking style evolve. Now they have different backline combination nearly ever week.

Credit to quins too, they dominated up front and won the backrow battle which was key. Robshaw and Easter were sensational, whereas Heaslip and Murphy were average.

I don't understand this,surely MoC is responsible for drafting a game plan and practising skills.Kearney would never make those kind of mistakes in big games under Schmidt.

If it was just Kearney and just this game then your point would be valid but it's nearly all our players and nearly every game.MoC is the man in control and he is ultimately responsible.

Also Schmidt regularly put out weakened sides who played intelligent,accurate rugby to the best of their ability,MoC isn't getting that from his 1st team.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

rodders wrote:I think O'Connors not the man for the job but he's been a bit of a scapegoat for leinster, same with Gopport.

I mean Rob Kearney through the ball into touch twice and then through an intercept pass - thats not O'Connors fault.

Leinster had real stable sides under Cheika and Schmidt which helped their fluid, attacking style evolve. Now they have different backline combination nearly ever week.

Credit to quins too, they dominated up front and won the backrow battle which was key. Robshaw and Easter were sensational, whereas Heaslip and Murphy were average.

I don't understand this,surely MoC is responsible for drafting a game plan and practising skills.Kearney would never make those kind of mistakes in big games under Schmidt.

If it was just Kearney and just this game then your point would be valid but it's nearly all our players and nearly every game.MoC is the man in control and he is ultimately responsible.

+1

I don't think Kearney can be solely blamed for the intercept. It was a short pop to the winger that was well read instead of an over-ambitious looping pass across the line.

It's the predictability of the attacking play and the lack of confidence in the systems are the root causes of these errors. 

I do agree that MOC has been scapegoated but his bullishness and refusal to acknowledge problems in the media does not help him one bit.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

rodders wrote:I think O'Connors not the man for the job but he's been a bit of a scapegoat for leinster, same with Gopport.

[b]I mean Rob Kearney through the ball into touch twice and then through an intercept pass - thats not O'Connors fault.
[b]
Leinster had real stable sides under Cheika and Schmidt which helped their fluid, attacking style evolve. Now they have different backline combination nearly ever week.

Credit to quins too, they dominated up front and won the backrow battle which was key. Robshaw and Easter were sensational, whereas Heaslip and Murphy were average.

I don't understand this,surely MoC is responsible for drafting a game plan and practising skills.Kearney would never make those kind of mistakes in big games under Schmidt.

If it was just Kearney and just this game then your point would be valid but it's nearly all our players and nearly every game.MoC is the man in control and he is ultimately responsible.

Also Schmidt regularly put out weakened sides who played intelligent,accurate rugby to the best of their ability,MoC isn't getting that from his 1st team.

Are your seriously suggesting that MoC is responsible for teaching Kearney, a 30 year old international player, to look before passing the ball?

rodders wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

rodders wrote:I think O'Connors not the man for the job but he's been a bit of a scapegoat for leinster, same with Gopport.

[b]I mean Rob Kearney through the ball into touch twice and then through an intercept pass - thats not O'Connors fault.
[b]
Leinster had real stable sides under Cheika and Schmidt which helped their fluid, attacking style evolve. Now they have different backline combination nearly ever week.

Credit to quins too, they dominated up front and won the backrow battle which was key. Robshaw and Easter were sensational, whereas Heaslip and Murphy were average.

I don't understand this,surely MoC is responsible for drafting a game plan and practising skills.Kearney would never make those kind of mistakes in big games under Schmidt.

If it was just Kearney and just this game then your point would be valid but it's nearly all our players and nearly every game.MoC is the man in control and he is ultimately responsible.

Also Schmidt regularly put out weakened sides who played intelligent,accurate rugby to the best of their ability,MoC isn't getting that from his 1st team.

Are your seriously suggesting that MoC is responsible for teaching Kearney, a 30 year old international player, to look before passing the ball?

I'm suggesting he is responsible for the skill levels of our players,since he's been in charge those skill levels have dropped almost across the board with our established players.Leinster have conceded at least 5 tries through interceptions this season,after a while you need to open your eyes and realise that teams are reading what we're trying to do too easily.The responsibility for changing things lies with the head coach.

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
but omenously, and curiously, Leicester fans themselves weren't sorry to see him go)  

Not how I would describe it tbh Fly. Obviously there was a vocal group who wanted him gone, but there's always a group of moaning Tigers fans who want the lot of them gone. From my perspective the overwhelming majority of people I spoke to, online and in person, felt that it was a bad thing for the club to lose him.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing either way whether or not he is a good attacking coach, as frankly I don't know how much he was responsible for Leicester's attacking play (which was very good for a while) or how much he is to blame for Leinster stuttering. It's just perhaps a little unfair to the bloke for you to use as evidence against him this idea that Leicester fans were indifferent about him leaving - as I have seen you do a couple of times - when that wasn't really my experience of the general attitude.

Fuzzy, I try to always work on experience.  I don't lie because it's pointless here as people can always trawl back.  The experience I mention is actual discussions with Leicester fans at the very time O'Connor was being mentioned as going to Leinster.  I remember Leinster posters being interested to hear what the Leicester boys felt about him (this was a time when many more posters used this place - it was much busier, it had a buzz with lots of various fans from various teams intermingling.
And my overriding feeling of that time is that Leicester fans were shrugging their shoulders and saying things about O'Connor having some issues with communication with players.

Anyway, the point being, that's the main feeling that stuck with me, that this guy Leinster were getting to replace Schmidt was a guy the Leicester posters didn't seem to care about losing.  Now pardon me, but that sensation is more concerning for me as a Leinster supporter than it's a design of mine to sully O'Connor's reputation.  Followers don't get to choose the coach but if the coach isn't good enough, it's followers who feel the depression - the coach just walks away
I'm well within my rights to keep bringing up the point that when O'Connor was coming over, certainly the main view amongst Leicester supporters here was apathy - that's what I remember.  And I still wonder about the distinction between that reaction and the notion that Leinster would still feel he had what it took to replace Schmidt.  The disparate views don't compute and never have... but we're the side suffering the consequences of employing him.  No free lunches.  You get paid, you perform or someone else is needed.  If he has a better second half of the season - fine, we'll see where we go from there with our attitudes to him.  But for now, on evidence, he's not the guy Leinster needed to keep the tempo going.

rodders wrote:
Are your seriously suggesting that MoC is responsible for teaching Kearney, a 30 year old international player, to look before passing the ball?

Are you seriously saying you want him up at Ulster? Good, that's one offer on his agent's table

SecretFly wrote:

rodders wrote:
Are your seriously suggesting that MoC is responsible for teaching Kearney, a 30 year old international player, to look before passing the ball?

Are you seriously saying you want him up at Ulster?   Good, that's one offer on his agent's table

Gawd no - things are bad enough up here as is.

I remember that too Fly. To be fair Cheika was a guy nobody had heard of before and Schmidt had never been a head coach before. I read somewhere that Íosa Nacewa gave us the idea to go for Schmidt. Maybe someone in the Leinster camp had a high opinion of O'Connor too and suggested him. Hiring an assistant coach worked last time so why not?

FecklessRogue wrote:I remember that too Fly. To be fair Cheika was a guy nobody had heard of before and Schmidt had never been a head coach before. I read somewhere that Íosa Nacewa gave us the idea to go for Schmidt. Maybe someone in the Leinster camp had a high opinion of O'Connor too and suggested him. Hiring an assistant coach worked last time so why not?

Yes... Feckless, hiring an assistant coach is as good a choice as any - and I know about Leinster's habit of 'risking' on the coaching ticket, and it's paid off twice in a row,  but then the pressure comes onto that assistant coach to prove himself to have been a choice well made.  Nobody could know how O'Connor would work until he bedded down and did the work.  But all I'm saying is that for me there was a substantial warning there on the fringes that made me cautious from the beginning.

Unfortunately that caution proved well founded - to date.  As I said, the year isn't over and he still has time to turn things around and make many people (including me) look pretty damn sheepish by the end of the season.  My preference is that he would turn things round and if he did I'd eat humble pie.  But the signs haven't been looking good for the miracle rebirths so far.

Things could go either way at the moment. In both competitions. I suspect we'll be at least in the semi finals of the PRO12 in the end and our next European game could put us in the driving seat in this pool.

Believe. I might as well say it since the fella who used to say it all the time seems to be gone.