Leinster line up Mike Ford to replace Kurt McQuilkin

[Peg Leg]

Except that we weren't losing Cheika because we didn't rate him, we lost him because he wanted to go and needed to be replaced. That's totally different. We gave Leo two seasons and I don't think he's done a bad enough job for him to be written off after one. If you do then fair play to you but like I said I think we're on an upward curve.

I don't actually mind people saying we should have gone for Rennie for next season if that option existed, but it's not how I'd approach it myself and it's certainly not scandalous that we haven't done so or a reflection of how attractive we are as a club.

I also think that we should give Leo the two seasons and support him fully on and off the pitch - something that patently isn't being done by Leinster Rugby. But I also believe that the reason why we had to appoint Leo in the first place is because no one else wanted the job.

+ 1

sacking coaches in successive seasons makes it an even less attractive job

only downside of Rennie at Glasgow, and its not a biggie, is hes GONE after his 2 year deal is up, no chance of keeping him for 3-5

Maybe in Scotland, there could be green options here.

[simonokeeffe]

very true, if Joe stays and Rennie doesnt get all Blacks

but NZ head job is between him and Joe, and Joe might well be an assistant

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Except that we weren't losing Cheika because we didn't rate him, we lost him because he wanted to go and needed to be replaced. That's totally different. We gave Leo two seasons and I don't think he's done a bad enough job for him to be written off after one. If you do then fair play to you but like I said I think we're on an upward curve.

I don't actually mind people saying we should have gone for Rennie for next season if that option existed, but it's not how I'd approach it myself and it's certainly not scandalous that we haven't done so or a reflection of how attractive we are as a club.

I also think that we should give Leo the two seasons and support him fully on and off the pitch - something that patently isn't being done by Leinster Rugby. But I also believe that the reason why we had to appoint Leo in the first place is because no one else wanted the job.

I said last year that it was an attractive job and I'd stand by that, but it obviously wasn't as attractive as I thought. There really aren't many coaches who I'd want anyway but I reckon that the NZ guys we would have been after were waiting to see what happened with the All Blacks job. Had we been going for Rennie this summer and missed out it'd be a different story.

How do you think Leinster are failing him? I'd have thought that bringing Henry on board, brief as it was, was a sign that he was being supported.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

very true, if Joe stays and Rennie doesnt get all Blacks

but NZ head job is between him and Joe, and Joe might well be an assistant

It's not, Ian Foster is the man in pole position.

[Dave Cahill]

How do you think Leinster are failing him? I'd have thought that bringing Henry on board, brief as it was, was a sign that he was being supported.

I think we're short at least two unit coaches, forwards and skills. He hasn't been allowed make a proper elite level foreign signing either - and we are desperately in need of an NIQ 10/12 for example.

[paddyor]

How do you think Leinster are failing him? I'd have thought that bringing Henry on board, brief as it was, was a sign that he was being supported.

I think we're short at least two unit coaches, forwards and skills. He hasn't been allowed make a proper elite level foreign signing either - and we are desperately in need of an NIQ 10/12 for example.

Is the last part not Luciforas doing?

[LeRouxIsPHat]

How do you think Leinster are failing him? I'd have thought that bringing Henry on board, brief as it was, was a sign that he was being supported.

I think we're short at least two unit coaches, forwards and skills. He hasn't been allowed make a proper elite level foreign signing either - and we are desperately in need of an NIQ 10/12 for example.

Yeah I'd have thought the signings were due to Nucifora. Not sure you could blame Leinster for not getting the coaches either. I can't imagine that Leo has asked for help and been told no. If you're saying that he's asked for help and Leinster have been inept in finding it then that's possible, but you're only guessing.

[Dave Cahill]

I don't think they've been inept. I think the Leinster coaching team is built to a budget, I think its built to be disposable and I think its built with the knowledge that no matter how badly its treated it'll keep its mouth shut out of loyalty. Leo was a good doggy a couple of times last season so they threw him Graham Henry shaped biscuit

[LeRouxIsPHat]

But there's no actual evidence of it being treated badly or not supported? The only evidence of involvement from above is actually the supportive move of allowing Henry to be involved? Still struggling to see any issues there.

[simonokeeffe]

very true, if Joe stays and Rennie doesnt get all Blacks

but NZ head job is between him and Joe, and Joe might well be an assistant

It's not, Ian Foster is the man in pole position.

Hmmmmm

What are the (unit) specialities of Foster and Rennie?
Think Rennie has said before he'll only do head coach for NZ, but you have to imagine him getting a national job in 2019

[molloyjh]

I don't think they've been inept. I think the Leinster coaching team is built to a budget, I think its built to be disposable and I think its built with the knowledge that no matter how badly its treated it'll keep its mouth shut out of loyalty. Leo was a good doggy a couple of times last season so they threw him Graham Henry shaped biscuit

I think you're adding 2 and 2 and getting 5 there. Leinsters coaching team is built to be functional. The MOC saga was handled incredibly badly and left Leinster with almost no options at all. It doesn't matter how attractive the job was to coaches if they were already under contract elsewhere, which most/all would have been. The options then are appoint a caretaker for a year and continue searching for a longer term appointment or appoint someone properly. Personally I favoured the former, but we don't know exactly what happened to make them choose the latter.

Now that Leo is there he should be given the same opportunities as every other coach. A single season, especially one as badly disrupted as last, isn't enough. Like with MOC I would favour making a call around Christmas. That gives enough time to recruit if the need be, but also gives Leo a chance to show progress.

The Henry thing wasn't a biscuit. Nobody at Leinster or in the IRFU can realistically afford for Leo to have a poor season. With the spine of the Irish team in blue they need these guys in some sort of form coming into the internationals. And with the new stand on the horizon Leinster need results so we aren't looking at a half full stadium each week. Leo identified something that would help address his inexperience (and I can't be positive enough about that) and it was win-win for Leinster and Ireland.

As for the forwards and skills coach issue we don't know whether Leo wants either so we can't say the branch isn't supporting him. We may well believe that we need those guys but if Leo doesn't then that's that.

[goreyguy]

I don't think they've been inept. I think the Leinster coaching team is built to a budget, I think its built to be disposable and I think its built with the knowledge that no matter how badly its treated it'll keep its mouth shut out of loyalty. Leo was a good doggy a couple of times last season so they threw him Graham Henry shaped biscuit

I think you're adding 2 and 2 and getting 5 there. Leinsters coaching team is built to be functional. The MOC saga was handled incredibly badly and left Leinster with almost no options at all. It doesn't matter how attractive the job was to coaches if they were already under contract elsewhere, which most/all would have been. The options then are appoint a caretaker for a year and continue searching for a longer term appointment or appoint someone properly. Personally I favoured the former, but we don't know exactly what happened to make them choose the latter.

Now that Leo is there he should be given the same opportunities as every other coach. A single season, especially one as badly disrupted as last, isn't enough. Like with MOC I would favour making a call around Christmas. That gives enough time to recruit if the need be, but also gives Leo a chance to show progress.

The Henry thing wasn't a biscuit. Nobody at Leinster or in the IRFU can realistically afford for Leo to have a poor season. With the spine of the Irish team in blue they need these guys in some sort of form coming into the internationals. And with the new stand on the horizon Leinster need results so we aren't looking at a half full stadium each week. Leo identified something that would help address his inexperience (and I can't be positive enough about that) and it was win-win for Leinster and Ireland.

As for the forwards and skills coach issue we don't know whether Leo wants either so we can't say the branch isn't supporting him. We may well believe that we need those guys but if Leo doesn't then that's that.

If Leo doesn't think he needs a skills coach or a forwards coach, someone needs to tell him to wake up.
The coaches we do have are unproven at best with little experience or record of player development. Maybe they'll all improve, you'd hope so, but we are currently being ran a bit naively. If he thinks what's in place right now is good enough.

[Ruckedtobits]

Getting Coaches, especially specialist coaches in key areas is part recruitment and part internal analysis. Ensuring that there is a singular theme across entire Coaching ticket seems simple, but is not.

Cheiks and Knox looked great on CV's but Cheiks and Gaffo was much more effective at the business end. Joe and Jonno benefitted from the presence of Feek and Murphy, in terms of workload and harmony.

Leo is a competent Head Coach en route to being a very good Head Coach. The chemistry and trust with Kurt and Girv looks good from body language and Foggs seems to have a clear role also.

Last season was a progression for Leinster Rugby beyond the previous year, IMO. Defence and forward set-pieces improved markedly. However, back play skills and overall attacking regressed. Development of young players improved markedly, without quite unearthing any gems in the backline.

My 'half-full' outlook on rugby matters extends to Club, Leinster and Ireland and at present Leo's greatest handicap is having to compete with the personality of JS as Irish Coach, because it has always been a competition for the bulk-suppliers of the Irish Squad, whether Munster in 2003-10 or Ulster 1998-03, or us since 2011. Leo may have to select more ruthlessly this year and pick his team, if he's allowed, only on the basis of Leinster performances.

Whether it was post-RWC or post 6N, we got the hind-tit from a lot of our international players last year. Hungry and motivated young guns can sometimes be more benefit that 200+ capped, (but jaded) international stars.

Time will unveil all in due course

[Flash Gordon]

How do you think Leinster are failing him? I'd have thought that bringing Henry on board, brief as it was, was a sign that he was being supported.

I think we're short at least two unit coaches, forwards and skills. He hasn't been allowed make a proper elite level foreign signing either - and we are desperately in need of an NIQ 10/12 for example.

Think, as our try scoring record in the Champions Cup showed, we probably need some support in terms of attack too. In fairness to Girv, working out strategies to break down the Cornish Pirates is not the same as figuring out ways to score tries against Toulon and Wasps. Different level and I thought we were exposed last year and this year we'll be short of Fitzgerald, Teo and Madigan.

[Dave Cahill]

Defence and forward set-pieces improved markedly.

Sorry if it seems like I'm banging on about this, but it really gets on my nerves - this repeated stating of how much better our defense was. It wasn't, it simply wasn't. We conceded two fewer tries than the previous season but played two fewer European games. There is simply no way that anyone can honestly say that our defense improved markedly. If we think our defense last season (even if Kurt weren't leaving) was a good portent for what was to come this season we are kidding ourselves.

[curates_egg]

Defence and forward set-pieces improved markedly.

Sorry if it seems like I'm banging on about this, but it really gets on my nerves - this repeated stating of how much better our defense was. It wasn't, it simply wasn't. We conceded two fewer tries than the previous season but played two fewer European games. There is simply no way that anyone can honestly say that our defense improved markedly. If we think our defense last season (even if Kurt weren't leaving) was a good portent for what was to come this season we are kidding ourselves.

I'm not going to argue that our defense was categorically better but we used far more players and survived for the first few months on rookies and squad players: to finish up a disrupted season like that with as few tries conceded as we did implies that we had a very well functioning defensive system which our players were all able to adapt to. You can look at it whichever way you choose to but there is a good case to be made for our defensive system having improved last year. Take out the Wasps malfunctions and it is a very good case.

However, what annoyed me was that was that in some of our bigger games (like Wasps) we seemed to use a different system, which coughed up loads of ground and allowed teams to go wide. This seemed to be intentional but it didn't seem to work that well and it always looked like some players didn't know what they were doing. You would hope those lessons would have been learned though.

Regardless, we are now starting from scratch after Kurt had built up a good platform. It would have been a nice luxury to have one well functioning part of our play, so we could focus on the others where there are clear deficiencies. We now may not even have that luxury.

[Logorrhea]

Sorry if it seems like I'm banging on about this, but it really gets on my nerves - this repeated stating of how much better our defense was. It wasn't, it simply wasn't. We conceded two fewer tries than the previous season but played two fewer European games. There is simply no way that anyone can honestly say that our defense improved markedly. If we think our defense last season (even if Kurt weren't leaving) was a good portent for what was to come this season we are kidding ourselves.

I thought the contrast though, between last year and previous years was worth noting. Our defense in our own 22 and especially on the line was a lot more dogged than we'd seen the year before. For me, teams needed to work a lot harder to score last year then they did previously. Maybe that's down to defensive systems, maybe its just in the players heads, but there were times we had no right to hold out, and we did. Fans always like to see that kind of defensive work. The fact that the opposition was able to easily run around us and push us back into our 22 all the time doesn't really come in to it.

[molloyjh]

Defence and forward set-pieces improved markedly.

Sorry if it seems like I'm banging on about this, but it really gets on my nerves - this repeated stating of how much better our defense was. It wasn't, it simply wasn't. We conceded two fewer tries than the previous season but played two fewer European games. There is simply no way that anyone can honestly say that our defense improved markedly. If we think our defense last season (even if Kurt weren't leaving) was a good portent for what was to come this season we are kidding ourselves.

And as a data nerd using using simple total figures gets on mine a bit I have to say. Totals will tell you some things, but don't paint an accurate picture of activity unless that activity is constant. If there are irregularities in there the totals can be misleading. Take for example the Wasps game. We conceded a whopping 7 tries that day. The max we ever conceded in the previous season was 5. We conceded 3 against them at home as well.

If you break the season down we conceded 27 tries in the regular league season, 5 in the knock outs and 17 in Europe. Compare that to the previous season of 39 in the regular league season, 9 in the pool stages in Europe and 3 in the knock outs in Europe. So even having played 2 more games in the league we still conceded 7 less tries. It was Europe, and mainly that away game against Wasps, that made the telling difference in the totals.

If you take away that one outlier (the Wasps game) and replace it with an average figure in the pools of 2 tries (10 in the other 5 games) then we conceded 7 less tries with far more disruption. That's an 14% improvement despite a challenging environment. There were a few other games where we let ourselves down, like Ulster away and the final, but these games were the exception rather than the rule. If you consider the disruption and the weaker teams we were fielding for such large chunks of the season (which cannot be discounted) I think there's a pretty solid case to say that our defensive systems improved.

EDIT: I didn't go through the previous season in detail to see if there were any outliers there, but I don't remember there being any 1 game where we conceded a noticeably higher number of tries. Open to correction there though.

[goreyguy]

So when we faced teams that were actually any good our defence wasn't that good...

[Peg Leg]

Thought T'eo effed up the defence, inside or out, no-one trusted him.