Andy Farell's Reign of Terror

[ronk]

New coach is reshuffling the team.

Easterby is taking on defensive duties so Farrell can concentrate on his role.

I'm glad to hear this. Joe took on a lot himself at different stages and it was an unusual arrangement. Theres no reason another coach should be bound to follow it.

It's as important to change up the structures as it is to change people.

[Logorrhea]

Joe took on a lot himself at different stages and it was an unusual arrangement.

Was it though? Feek and Easterby took the forwards, Farrell took defense and Joe took Attack. All the coaches were assigned to their specialist fields and they were meant to be a collaborative group. I'm not sure what Joe did that was so unusual. On the other side we now have Easterby in defense an assignment he hasn't actually done before, and Fogarty is taking the Irish lineout, something Leo apparently controlled in Leinster. I don't think it'll be a problem, but Easterby to defense seems like a move to facilitate the coach, not the team.

Anyhoo, looking forward to seeing what they can produce in the new year. Will be interesting.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Easterby has been a defence coach before, that's how he started off with the Scarlets. I quite like the idea of that actually. Obviously defence is Farrell's thing but I think it's important to freshen things up and he'll still have a big say in it. I can't remember the Scarlets' defence tbh but my memory is that Easterby was an impressive coach from day one, open to correction on that though. It also feels a bit different to when Les Kiss moved across to attack under Kidney, that always felt like it was just done because Kiss wanted to broaden his horizons and his whole attacking ethos consisted of moving the ball from side to side.

The lack of a new forwards coach does worry me, it looks like there's a big gap there. Not that other teams necessarily have it cracked but I'd have thought that the trend was to have specialist coaches for every aspect of the game and that's a concern. That said, I really like the idea of us giving it a go with this coaching team and then adding another coach in a year or two if a gap does exist. Said it before but I think adding coaches is a great way of keeping things fresh and made a big difference to England over the last 18 months.

[Oldschool]

New coach is reshuffling the team.

Easterby is taking on defensive duties so Farrell can concentrate on his role.

I'm glad to hear this. Joe took on a lot himself at different stages and it was an unusual arrangement. Theres no reason another coach should be bound to follow it.

It's as important to change up the structures as it is to change people.

That's the first change, two more to go.
Easterby is a thinker, it will interesting to see what he comes up with.

[ronk]

Easterby has been a defence coach before, that's how he started off with the Scarlets. I quite like the idea of that actually. Obviously defence is Farrell's thing but I think it's important to freshen things up and he'll still have a big say in it. I can't remember the Scarlets' defence tbh but my memory is that Easterby was an impressive coach from day one, open to correction on that though. It also feels a bit different to when Les Kiss moved across to attack under Kidney, that always felt like it was just done because Kiss wanted to broaden his horizons and his whole attacking ethos consisted of moving the ball from side to side.

The lack of a new forwards coach does worry me, it looks like there's a big gap there. Not that other teams necessarily have it cracked but I'd have thought that the trend was to have specialist coaches for every aspect of the game and that's a concern. That said, I really like the idea of us giving it a go with this coaching team and then adding another coach in a year or two if a gap does exist. Said it before but I think adding coaches is a great way of keeping things fresh and made a big difference to England over the last 18 months.

Forwards coach is interesting. Easterby is more senior and Fogarty is taking some lineout responsibility.

There's a large enough team already so Id agree about waiting before expanding.

[Twist]

Mike Catt is the interesting one for me. Attack is where I think we have most scope for improvement, and I saw definite encouraging signs during his time with Italy. But also, I think Larkham has started making enormous strides with Munster's attack play, and I wonder what effect that'll have on the players being sent into Ireland camp. Catt also has a pre-existing relationship with Lancaster, so I suspect that might lead to Stu having some degree of influence on what happens in Ireland camp since Catt will likely ask his opinion on what certain players can do.

In short, I have no idea how it'll go.

[dropkick]

Mike Catt is the interesting one for me. Attack is where I think we have most scope for improvement, and I saw definite encouraging signs during his time with Italy. But also, I think Larkham has started making enormous strides with Munster's attack play, and I wonder what effect that'll have on the players being sent into Ireland camp. Catt also has a pre-existing relationship with Lancaster, so I suspect that might lead to Stu having some degree of influence on what happens in Ireland camp since Catt will likely ask his opinion on what certain players can do.

In short, I have no idea how it'll go.

Im looking forward to seeing what Catt does. Italy played a nice style of play in attack and his England team had some big wins too.


All the provinces are now trying to play with speed and keep the ball alive rather than looking to set up a ruck all the time. That should make Catt's job easier when the players go into camp.

[dropkick]

I see we have Jaco Pyper reffing our match away to England. Of all the refs in the world...

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I see we have Jaco Pyper reffing our match away to England. Of all the refs in the world...

That was my take away from the appointments too, no chance of winning that then

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Quite interesting that Nucifora spoke a lot about the psychological issues with the squad in Japan, sounds like they were just majorly stressed out by the pressure of everything going well and then when that got worse things started to unravel. I don't think it's a surprise but I didn't expect him to be so open about it and it's interesting that he mentioned bringing in more support in that area. Apart from the serious work that would need to be done with professionals, I wonder if they might look to change the backroom team at all, maybe get a couple more characters (similar to Rala) involved just to lighten the mood a bit? I'm not suggesting that he should have been picked but honestly I'd love to know what kind of difference Zebo (confident and delighted to be there as opposed to feeling the pressure) would have made if he'd arrived in Japan after the second game. At different stages in the 6N, the warm ups, and the group stage, it looked like something radical was needed but nothing was ever really tried. You can't just work your way out of everything.

I'm less enthused with the talk about changing our style of play. It really gets on my wick when people suggest that it's unrealistic and foolhardy to try and make dramatic changes to a gameplan, not because that's wrong, but because nobody has actually been suggesting that. I know I'm saying this for the millionth time, but having Joey as an option at fullback for the last half an hour of games would have gone a long way to doing what was required and that's just one change.

There's one element of our game that hasn't really been mentioned much but it's been an issue for over a year now (aside from the NZ game) and it's that players stopped running on to the ball. How does that happen? Why couldn't it be undone? I know Nucifora isn't going to hang players or coaches out to dry and we have discussed how some players were a year past their best and there were games where we lost collisions, but we should have been able to recognise this issue and solve it pretty quickly. We all wondered about our strength and conditioning as the year went on but sometimes I think that we could have just done with a Keith Wood type figure chasing players around the changing room and telling them to run on to the f***ing thing.

[jimbobjoe]

Surpised they didn't have a sports psychologist along with them. Players (especially BOD in my memory) have spoken highly of the effect Enda McNulty has had with regard to their individual approach and focus. Mental state just as important as physical imo, and if there's a doctor, physio and nutritionist, then there's space for a psychologist.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/ ... -1.4013609

[paddyor]

Quite interesting that Nucifora spoke a lot about the psychological issues with the squad in Japan, sounds like they were just majorly stressed out by the pressure of everything going well and then when that got worse things started to unravel. I don't think it's a surprise but I didn't expect him to be so open about it and it's interesting that he mentioned bringing in more support in that area. Apart from the serious work that would need to be done with professionals, I wonder if they might look to change the backroom team at all, maybe get a couple more characters (similar to Rala) involved just to lighten the mood a bit? I'm not suggesting that he should have been picked but honestly I'd love to know what kind of difference Zebo (confident and delighted to be there as opposed to feeling the pressure) would have made if he'd arrived in Japan after the second game. At different stages in the 6N, the warm ups, and the group stage, it looked like something radical was needed but nothing was ever really tried. You can't just work your way out of everything.

I'm less enthused with the talk about changing our style of play. It really gets on my wick when people suggest that it's unrealistic and foolhardy to try and make dramatic changes to a gameplan, not because that's wrong, but because nobody has actually been suggesting that. I know I'm saying this for the millionth time, but having Joey as an option at fullback for the last half an hour of games would have gone a long way to doing what was required and that's just one change.

There's one element of our game that hasn't really been mentioned much but it's been an issue for over a year now (aside from the NZ game) and it's that players stopped running on to the ball. How does that happen? Why couldn't it be undone? I know Nucifora isn't going to hang players or coaches out to dry and we have discussed how some players were a year past their best and there were games where we lost collisions, but we should have been able to recognise this issue and solve it pretty quickly. We all wondered about our strength and conditioning as the year went on but sometimes I think that we could have just done with a Keith Wood type figure chasing players around the changing room and telling them to run on to the f***ing thing.

THe Best interview is quite good. Seems to say the pressure was maangement driven(not intentionally of course). He regrets not pushing back against it in the run up to the Japan game. It seems to be the managements approach more than the lack of characters.

[blockhead]

The whole pressure due to being favourites thing sounds like total b*%&!x to me. The Leinster guys anyway, are favourites for every game they play in for their province for pretty much their entire career. They're used to it, know how to hande it and nearly always win. I know a RWC is a bigger deal but still if there is any group of lads capable of handling the tag of favourites, it's our guys, they do it every week.

[Dave Cahill]

Surpised they didn't have a sports psychologist along with them. Players (especially BOD in my memory) have spoken highly of the effect Enda McNulty has had with regard to their individual approach and focus. Mental state just as important as physical imo, and if there's a doctor, physio and nutritionist, then there's space for a psychologist.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/ ... -1.4013609

Enda McNulty was in Japan for the duration

[Dave Cahill]

The review, conducted by David Nucifora, cleared David Nucifora of any responsibility said David Nucifora. David Nucifora was said to be pleased with how David Nucifora conducted the review though he admitted that David Nucifora hadn't actually interviewed David Nucifora.

[Oldschool]

The review, conducted by David Nucifora, cleared David Nucifora of any responsibility said David Nucifora. David Nucifora was said to be pleased with how David Nucifora conducted the review though he admitted that David Nucifora hadn't actually interviewed David Nucifora.

Nothing wrong with any of that especially the last bit.
Talking to yourself is one of the first signs of madness and as such might be deemed as grounds for dismissal.

[paddyor]

The review, conducted by David Nucifora, cleared David Nucifora of any responsibility said David Nucifora. David Nucifora was said to be pleased with how David Nucifora conducted the review though he admitted that David Nucifora hadn't actually interviewed David Nucifora.

[Oldschool]

Quite interesting that Nucifora spoke a lot about the psychological issues with the squad in Japan, sounds like they were just majorly stressed out by the pressure of everything going well and then when that got worse things started to unravel. I don't think it's a surprise but I didn't expect him to be so open about it and it's interesting that he mentioned bringing in more support in that area. Apart from the serious work that would need to be done with professionals, I wonder if they might look to change the backroom team at all, maybe get a couple more characters (similar to Rala) involved just to lighten the mood a bit? I'm not suggesting that he should have been picked but honestly I'd love to know what kind of difference Zebo (confident and delighted to be there as opposed to feeling the pressure) would have made if he'd arrived in Japan after the second game. At different stages in the 6N, the warm ups, and the group stage, it looked like something radical was needed but nothing was ever really tried. You can't just work your way out of everything.

I'm less enthused with the talk about changing our style of play. It really gets on my wick when people suggest that it's unrealistic and foolhardy to try and make dramatic changes to a gameplan, not because that's wrong, but because nobody has actually been suggesting that. I know I'm saying this for the millionth time, but having Joey as an option at fullback for the last half an hour of games would have gone a long way to doing what was required and that's just one change.

There's one element of our game that hasn't really been mentioned much but it's been an issue for over a year now (aside from the NZ game) and it's that players stopped running on to the ball. How does that happen? Why couldn't it be undone? I know Nucifora isn't going to hang players or coaches out to dry and we have discussed how some players were a year past their best and there were games where we lost collisions, but we should have been able to recognise this issue and solve it pretty quickly. We all wondered about our strength and conditioning as the year went on but sometimes I think that we could have just done with a Keith Wood type figure chasing players around the changing room and telling them to run on to the f***ing thing.

In for a penny, in for a pound. The answer to this is very simple, it relies a lot on your half backs and particularly your SH being able to deliver the ball appropriately.

[Oldschool]

New coach is reshuffling the team.

Easterby is taking on defensive duties so Farrell can concentrate on his role.

I'm glad to hear this. Joe took on a lot himself at different stages and it was an unusual arrangement. Theres no reason another coach should be bound to follow it.

It's as important to change up the structures as it is to change people.

Hopefully the reshuffling is a mindset that is not limited to the coaching staff.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

The review, conducted by David Nucifora, cleared David Nucifora of any responsibility said David Nucifora. David Nucifora was said to be pleased with how David Nucifora conducted the review though he admitted that David Nucifora hadn't actually interviewed David Nucifora.

I'm not sure what he could have done differently. It's not his job to coach the team and it would be hard for him to identify issues from the England game onwards and make any changes in time for the World Cup. To be fair he seems to have identified issues now and hopefully he can implement the solutions.

Lancaster talks a lot about mentors and having people to bounce ideas off. I've often wondered if Joe has the same thing or if his personality makes that impossible? I know Conor O'Shea spoke about Joe giving him assistance before but did Joe have a similar arrangement with anyone? Vern Cotter was one name that came to mind. I'd be in favour of having some kind of coaching consultants committee that reviews 6N, summer tours, and November internationals, especially because Farrell is a novice head coach. I don't mean a throwback to the amateur era where coaches had to give the blazers an idea of the gameplan, but just a group that are available for advice and essentially do a quick SWOT analysis after every batch of games. I can't imagine Nucifora could really challenge Joe, but if he had reports from three people and they flagged a major concern then that would be something he could go to Farrell about.

I don't just mean rugby people either, I'd be looking to get someone like Jim Gavin on board.