Gatland favourite for Welsh Job

[Dave Cahill]

The objectives for the professional teams are to be met by the end of the RWC 2007

The Strategic plan runs from May 2004 to April 2008. So we are 1.5 seasons into the 4 seasons included. If you want to be technical and say that April 2008 is before the HEC final then be pedantic but given that it ends before that final it's clear that the most relevant issues for EOS are the 6N and WC. Neither of his objectives for those competitions are failures yet.

The key indicators to measure progress in achieving these goals by 2007 are:

Goal
Ireland In The Top 4 In The World

Key Indicators
• Ireland in the semi-finals of the 2007 RWC.
• Ireland winning at least one 6 nations title.
• Winning the ERC once and 2 Celtic Leagues and cups.
• Irish U21s to win the Six Nations tournament at least once
and reach the semi-final of RWC at least once.
• Irish U19s to win RWC once and reach at least semi finals
once.

[CM]

Dave

Can you explain how we're meant to finish runners up in at least 3 of the 4 6Ns if the plan only runs from May 2004 to 2007?

[Dave Cahill]

Dave

Can you explain how we're meant to finish runners up in at least 3 of the 4 6Ns if the plan only runs from May 2004 to 2007?

No idea! But it says

2.1 Participate and win in the 6 Nations.
When: Ongoing
Indicators
• Win one 6 Nations.
• Finish runner up, at least, in 3 out of
the next 4 seasons.

Which would contradict the date given in the "Goals" section alright

[CM]

Dave

It does say near the start that it covers the period May 2004 to April 2008. I concede that it contradicts itself so at best both our arguments are ambiguous. Suffice to say that over the course of the next two weeks EOS could have irrevocably failed in his set objectives but he hasn't as of yet and you can't judge him on the basis of those goals until he does.

I would imagine however that the IRFU and players are quite clear as to why the team have played as they have. EOS has said to the papers on a number of occasions that his team is taking a step back to go two forward so it'd be bizarre if he didn't have the backing of the IRFU to do this. A lot of what he's been criticised for in the past has been resolved with the 10 week camp abandoned and training around Christmas cancelled. You have issues over player availability during the 6N and that's a valid opinion but I fail to see the problem given the clear proof that releasing players has affected both teams preparation for this weekend's games with Scotland losing their only hooker who can throw while Easterby and Reddan had to sit out training due to knocks they picked up. Previously the players played too little but this year they've played in most of the CL and HEC games. And I'll still maintain that until the season is streamlined better EOS can only be criticised for a very small part of the disruption to our HEC aspirations. At the very least the HEC QFs shouldn't take place until mid April but my preferrence would be for having the 6N take place after all the domestic and European games have finished.

[Flash Gordon]

Mick Galway? You are kidding me...decent club player but that was about it, he could barely last the hour at international level. His international career was a total hype job with no substance at all.

Disagree but that's irrelevant. Gatland's first choice pairing was Davidson and O'Kelly - equal to the current pairing.

Mick Galwey was a bloody liability in the lineout. His last period as an incumbant saw our line out go to pieces because the opposition knew that the ball was going anywhere except him. He could only every play 60 minutes because he wasn't fit enough for test match rugby....

As Dave says, decent provincial player, well short of top class international standard in my view.

I think its interesting generally that you criticise Gatland vehemently for defeats inflicted over the first two years of his reign and then vindicate Eddie 4 years into his tenure with "give him time"/team rebuilding etc.

I also think its you who's doing the revisionist thinking. Don't you remember what it was like to support Ireland during the Murray Kidd and Brian Ashton era? We were a total mess. To measure progress you look at where a coach took up and where he left. We were perennial whipping boys winning maybe one game a year when Gatland took over. We were joint top of the table on points when he left. Those are the facts.

EOS took a team that had just finished in that position. He has never improved on that. Those are the facts.

I also think its interesting that you highlight the Australia game as a standout achievement. Much as i enjoyed it, it was a friendly, and Australia played like that in my view. Winning test matches that don't result in silver wear and titles that don't have silver wear are not decisive factors in the judgement of the national coach in my view.

Final point, Wasps are not in a position to compete wage wise with the likes of Toulouse or Biarritz. As you probably know there is a wage cap on ZP teams - Lol only earns about 100K for example, while some of the stars of the French teams earn more than double that. The fact that you can't even give Gatland credit for taking the bottom team in the ZP to European champions illustrates that you are just not looking at this from a neutral perspective.

Gatland is gone, he's not coming back. His relevance now is only as a benchmark vs EOS. EOS is a coach who took a good team with outstanding prospects coming through and didn't move them forward. He didn't take that step up to win the championship or get to the world cup semi-finals.

Beating Australia in a friendly and finishing third in the 6 nations might be good enough for you. But with the most gifted players in a generation playing for Ireland and unprecidented resources offered to him, I don't think that's good enough.

[CM]

Mick Galwey was a bloody liability in the lineout. His last period as an incumbant saw our line out go to pieces because the opposition knew that the ball was going anywhere except him. He could only every play 60 minutes because he wasn't fit enough for test match rugby....

As Dave says, decent provincial player, well short of top class international standard in my view.

Eh did you miss the 'it's irrelevant' bit as he wasn't first choice.

I think its interesting generally that you criticise Gatland vehemently for defeats inflicted over the first two years of his reign and then vindicate Eddie 4 years into his tenure with "give him time"/team rebuilding etc.

When did I say that I've given him 4 years? My opinion is that his first 2 years was a great success. His last year hasn't. As I keep on saying maybe we could have done with a chance of coach at the start of the season but to expect a coach to maintain consistently high standards over a 6 year reign is ridiculous with our playing pool. In the last 6 years only England and New Zealand have a better success rate than Ireland. The last 4 years is the same with us closing the gap on England. Even taking out the easy games we've a comparable success rate to SA, Aus and France. So we haven't actually won the championship. Bummer. But we're maintaining a level of performance that hasn't ever been seen. Best set of players? A ridiculous statement. The team Gatland had in 2001 was our best team, since then we've had to carry a number of players in each game and a number of other players have been found out with no-one to replace them.

To measure progress you look at where a coach took up and where he left. We were perennial whipping boys winning maybe one game a year when Gatland took over.

And he really improved that stat in his first two seasons. Your failure to credit EOS with any input into our revival is ridiculous.

We were joint top of the table on points when he left. Those are the facts.

So EOS acheives marginal success (and better than Gatland) with a worse set of players but he doesn't get any credit (despite being part of the coaching team that got Gatland his success) while Gatland gets kudos? Give me a break.

Lol only earns about 100K for example

Dallaglio's last contract was a paycut from over 200K sterling to about 150K. And that was his basic. Two of the French top 5 earners are playing in the GP.

EOS is a coach who took a good team with outstanding prospects coming through and didn't move them forward. He didn't take that step up to win the championship or get to the world cup semi-finals.

In his first full season he took us to a GS match and lost to what some people say was England's best performance of the last 10 years. But go ahead, criticise him for it. We weren't that far off getting a real crack at the WC SF. A lot closer than the QF playoff that Gatland got us to.

Beating Australia in a friendly

There are no friendlies in rugby and I'd be pretty sure I'd have a sizeable majority of Irish rugby supporters agreeing with me that that win was very important.

finishing third in the 6 nations might be good enough for you.

When did I ever say it was good enough? I just don't have the soccer mentality of over-reacting to defeat. You act as if it's our god given right to win every game we play and all the competitions we enter. There are other teams out there too, you know.

But with the most gifted players in a generation playing for Ireland and unprecidented resources offered to him, I don't think that's good enough.

As I said our most complete squad was in 2001. Since then we've been deficient in a number of areas while we've only recently been able to put out our first choice backline (although you could still argue that Hickie's injury meant we're still one short of 1st choice - in any event Trimble is an able deputy).[/b]

[upfront_1979]

not going to weigh in on the historical argument you are having above but one article in the media recently has stood out for me as an indictment of EOS. That was the fact that he has never even spoken to Knox. Leinster supplies almost the entire backline for Ireland and yet he's never even given him a call? This makes no sense to me..

[epaddy]

not going to weigh in on the historical argument you are having above but one article in the media recently has stood out for me as an indictment of EOS. That was the fact that he has never even spoken to Knox. Leinster supplies almost the entire backline for Ireland and yet he's never even given him a call? This makes no sense to me..

3/7 is hardly the entire backline, but point taken

[CM]

not going to weigh in on the historical argument you are having above but one article in the media recently has stood out for me as an indictment of EOS. That was the fact that he has never even spoken to Knox. Leinster supplies almost the entire backline for Ireland and yet he's never even given him a call? This makes no sense to me..

I've said my bit here.

[Flash Gordon]

You've said quite a bit......

I can't believe the language and the sentiments frankly...."there are no friendlies in international rugby", "we didn't win the championship. Bummer" maintaining a level of performance.....etc etc this acceptance of mediocrity is exactly the kind of sentiment that is holding Ireland back.

as for win percentage - yeah, great, show us your win percentage medals lads....I'm delighted that you hammered Georgia, Russia, Romania, the USA, Namibia, Japan etc.....

The facts are that Ireland progressed to the point where they finished joint top on points in Gatland's last year. The next step up is the championship and a world cup semi final. Even the IRFU acknowledge that in the plan.

I'm amazed that you think that the current crop of players are so inferior to Gatlands bunch. Who did you have in mind? Matt Mostyn? Justin Bishop? Perhaps Tom Tierney? Kevin Maggs? Or a fat, unfit and injury prone Jeremy Davidson....

On the Lens game, no need to remind me, i was actually at that game. But you need to consider the facts before you throw out the allegations of revisionism:
1. Argentina weren't actually that bad.....they were a bloody good team with arguably the best goal kicker in the world at the time
2. We had to play 3 games in a week - the lads that played on Wednesday had played a match on the Saturday
3. Argentina cheated their way to victory. There were countless penalties on the line that day - today there were would have been cards and a penalty try.

Another point on Argentina - you seem to forget how close we were to going out in the last world cup. we were bloody lucky to beat Argentina by one point. I think we robbed them.

Basically, Ireland made progress under Gat - some of that was due to Eddie as a backline coach. No question about that in my view. But Gatland was fired. He was a coach who went on to win the European cup was fired. A new one came in to bring us to the next level - that's silverware in my view. If your rationale for why he's good is that he won a game in the pishing rain that Australian didn't look interested in or that his win percentage is X you're entitled to that view. But that smacks of the bullshite Woodwardesque spin that Eddie spouted post Paris about playing all the rugby and having superior stats. Who cares? France won. That's all that matters.

PS Lol is on 108K....as reported by rugby world.

[CM]

I can't believe the language and the sentiments frankly...."there are no friendlies in international rugby", "we didn't win the championship. Bummer" maintaining a level of performance.....etc etc this acceptance of mediocrity is exactly the kind of sentiment that is holding Ireland back.

Flash, can you point me in the direction of the bit where I said it was acceptable. I think you'll be hard pushed to find it.

Also I'm 100% certain I'm on firm ground here when I say that tests against NZ, Aus and SA matter quite a bit to the rugby public. You seem to think that because NZ have the ability to put out half their 1sts and half their 2nds against us that they have no interest in winning. I think you'd find that you're completely wrong there. Very few if any New Zealanders would be happy if NZ lost to Ireland, ever. It was a calculated risk but if you look at who some of those 2nd stringers were you'd realise that it's not quite the same as sticking Kearney on the wing against the ABs.

as for win percentage - yeah, great, show us your win percentage medals lads....I'm delighted that you hammered Georgia, Russia, Romania, the USA, Namibia, Japan etc.....

As I said before, when you take out our wins over those teams our win percentage is still drastically higher than Gatland's with those teams included. How you can't see that as an improvement I haven't a clue.

Even the IRFU acknowledge that in the plan.

Yes they do. Something which I have quite clearly pointed out runs from the season 2004/2005 and runs to the season 2007/2008. A point you've completely failed to acknowledge.

I'm amazed that you think that the current crop of players are so inferior to Gatlands bunch.

The fact that I said the team we had in 2001 was the best we've put out in recent times and you quote me players from 98/99 shows me that you're not really following this. My point about 98/99 was that Gatland had at his disposal a first choice pack of Clohessy, Wood, Wallace, O'Kelly, Davidson, Miller, Ward and Foley. He had Humphreys as his FH. That is not a bad pack. Yes there were some uncreative, pedestrian outside backs. Remind you of any current, relatively successful team? To win 1 5N game in 2 years while only beating two teams (Italy and Wales) of any note is not a good record. After beating France in Paris we contrived to lose to Wales at home and after a decent performance in Feb 2001 he picks completely the wrong team to travel to Scotland, as his subsequent selections proved. The knives were out for him in far greater numbers than currently are for EOS after that very poor loss and the victory over England seemed to have saved him. Cue our inability to defend a lead against NZ and the players unease with him and he was let go (not sacked as you keep on saying).

He was a coach who went on to win the European cup

You keep on saying this. It has absolutely no relevance on so many levels. I would have thought the part where Gatland himself admitted that the two types of coaching were completely different might have convinced you but you're so hell bent on sticking the dagger into EOS that you're completely ignoring that point.

PS Lol is on 108K....as reported by rugby world.

Well that must be his most recent contract. So what? It was over 200K before the WC. Dropping to about 150K after and now to 108K. Hardly surprising for a player nearing retirement. As I said 2 of the top 5 French earners are based in the GP.

Anyway, if you want to keep going around in circles that's your choice. I'll respond to you if you want me to but I can't see this going anywhere. We both have clear opinions on this and we're not looking like we're going to budge.