contrasting fortunes of Eddie O'Sullivan's Ireland and Steve Staunton's Ireland

Dunphy on the RTE website.
Eamon Dunphy

I was watching the Irish rugby team over the weekend and the contrasting fortunes of Eddie O'Sullivan's Ireland and Steve Staunton's Ireland couldn't be greater. The rugby team are obviously performing magnificently and doing really well, while our soccer team is probably as bad as it's ever been at the moment.

Although we might not have the calibre of player we had during the Jack Charlton era - the Roy Keanes, Paul McGraths - we do have a lot of talented young ones and some very good established Premiership players, so really the problem is management, preparation and organisation, and there's really no comparison between Eddie O'Sullivan and Steve Staunton. The IRFU seem to do their business much more efficiently than the FAI, unfortunately.

It's fairly obvious Staunton's out of his depth but you have to look at the governing bodies also. Eddie O'Sullivan was talking last week about his backroom team and he has 12 people in specialist areas working with him; the soccer team has Mick Byrne with a sponge!

The IRFU have gone for the best; they've set high standards, international standards, and that's showing on the pitch. The soccer team simply doesn't have that back up. I mean, even the top Gaelic teams in the country - Kilkenny, Cork, Kerry, Tyrone - they have all now advanced their techniques and want the very best but soccer has stayed the same; in fact, it's gone backwards.

While our top teams get the best and most progressive coaches the FAI give us Staunton and Robson - that's not very inspired, is it? Appointing Robson was a very bad public relations stunt, it looked wrong from the start and it has proved to be pretty disastrous for everybody.

There is a future there if you look at the players in England and Scotland. There are a lot of bright young players beginning to make themselves known and they look very promising for the future but the management of the Irish team needs upgrading and a serious appointment needs to be made.

They need a manager, a proper coaching staff, they need proper medical staff - a complete overhaul. They need someone who knows what it takes to manage at international level and then he needs to be given what he needs in terms of backroom staff and facilities - that's the way the modern game works.

You ask me would I take the job? (laughs) Well I couldn't afford to take the salary cut!

You ask me who would I have as next manager? Well I'd look at Guus Hiddink, who I think has an outstanding record (Hiddink led South Korea to the semi-finals of the 2002 World Cup, Netherlands to the semis in 1998, Australia to the second round in 2006 and is currently coach of Russia).

I'd also look at Leo Beenhakker, another Dutch coach with great experience. He brought Trinidad and Tobago to the World Cup in 2006 where they performed very well in a tough group (Beenhakker has also coached Ajax, Feyenoord, Real Madrid and Real Zaragoza).

I'd also look at Paul Jewell, who's done a fantastic job with Wigan (before leading Wigan from Division 2 to the Premiership, Jewell led Bradford City to the Premier League in 1999 and kept them there the following season against all the odds).

They'd be three names high on my list anyway. They've all got experience and have all shown they can work with players and improve them and get the very best out of their teams - that's what the job of a manager is.

It's very depressing looking at the national team at the moment and we have the players but they need proper guidance and with the proper management the 2010 World Cup is a realistic ambition. But every day we continue with the present situation is a day lost and we can't afford to lose any more time.

It's fair to say that we would be in a much healthier position now, both on and off the field, if the FAI had given Kerr a new contract.

I think the problem with our players, management, the FAI and our national team can be summed up with two words; Mick and Byrne. It's all just about having a good, auld laugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ifk101

It's fair to say that we would be in a much healthier position now, both on and off the field, if the FAI had given Kerr a new contract.

I think the problem with our players, management, the FAI and our national team can be summed up with two words; Mick and Byrne. It's all just about having a good, auld laugh.

---

Symptomatic of where were at alright - Kerr brought back Roy Keane, Stan brings back Mick Byrne.

Jewell & Hiddink wouldn't touch us with a bargepole, Beenhaker is probably a bit more persuadable as long as the cash was right.
The most interesting points are regarding the back room team, Kerr, from the outside, appeared to be going down the proffesional analytical route and for all his faults had us organised, his #2 was an assistant at a good premiership side. Staunton;s "team" look as lightweight as he does, there's no doubt he's out of his depth but by allowing him to pick others who aer equally out of their depth like Kevin MacDonald who as reserve team manager at Villa is not exactly a high flyer.

For once I agree with Dunphy.

Though I'm not sure what he's had in referring to Scotland as a positive example in international football. They've been in the wilderness for years, and still aren't out of it yet !

yeah i agree with dunphy. not sure about his choice of candidates, but he's got the right idea: we could at least enquire about their availability and see if they'd want it. There might not be a great deal of candidates interested in the job (certainly less so than when kerr was sacked) but if the FAI looked around properly they'd eventually find a suitable candidate. I mean, there's no way that we couldn't get somebody better than staunton in. plus, i agree that staunton would be in a far more enviable position now if he tried to get in a proper backroom staff who can scout, analyse opponents and give him ideas tactically as opposed to mick byrne ffs

The players have to accept some of the responsibility for the antiquated back up scenario.

Kerr tried to introduce a more professional mode of preparation and the players didn't buy into it.

Obviously, interminable amounts of time on analysis can be counter-productive but a balanced approach of the practical and SOME analysis is part and parcel of the modern game.

Its a cliche, but a lot of players have a 3 second attention span and would rather be in their room ****ing about on Play Station as opposed to analysing the opposition on video.

If Stan actually got proper backroom staff in relation to scouting, analysis and scouting - would they be listened to anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

Though I'm not sure what he's had in referring to Scotland as a positive example in international football. They've been in the wilderness for years, and still aren't out of it yet !

---

He was referring to good Irish players playing the Scottish league rather than the Scottish team I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfie

If Stan actually got proper backroom staff in relation to scouting, analysis and scouting - would they be listened to anyway?

---

If they knew how to do their job properly then I don't see why not. Most good coaches should be able to assert their authority over a group of players, irrespective of how disinterested the players are, so long as they don't overdo it as in the case of kerr.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilMcD

Dunphy on the RTE website.
Eamon Dunphy

I was watching the Irish rugby team over the weekend and the contrasting fortunes of Eddie O'Sullivan's Ireland and Steve Staunton's Ireland couldn't be greater. The rugby team are obviously performing magnificently and doing really well, while our soccer team is probably as bad as it's ever been at the moment.

---

Whilst I agree that the appointment of Staunton is by far the overriding reason for the ROI's current serious under-achievement and I take pleaure in the recent encouraging performances of the Ireland rugby team under O'Sullivan, I think Dunphy's comparison of the two is not a fair one, since it greatly overestimates the challenge facing O'Sullivan (and his corresponding results).

In assessing Ireland's performances in the Six Nations, the calibre of opposition has to be taken into account. Italy are second rate, having just achieved their first ever away 6N victory, after 19 attempts over seven years. This was against Scotland, whose form in recent years has been truly shocking, such that they have been nearer third rate.
Wales have been floundering recently, as have England, since they won the World Cup under Woodward.
In fact, only France have been playing to their potential in recent years (and then with the occasional "blip"), and they have proved simply too good for Ireland in the last two years.
Consequently, since 2000, whereas France have one 3 Championships (inc. 2 Grand Slams), England have had 3 Championships (1 a GS) and even Wales have managed a Championship win (also a GS), Ireland have managed neither.
Indeed, if you look at Irelands place in the points table, they have consistently only been "best of the rest" behind that year's top team:

6 Nations Table 2000 - 2007 (all played 38 games)
Won Dr. Lost
France 29 0 9
Ireland 27 0 11
England 26 0 12
Wales 14 2 22
Scotland 12 1 25
Italy 4 1 33

O'Sullivan, coach since 2001, has led teams which have usually been respectable, but so far (at least), have failed to "step up to the plate" when it has counted.
Indeed, despite all the opprobrium heaped upon Brian Moore for saying it recently, there is a case for saying that on two or three big occasions under O'Sullivan (6N and World Cup), Ireland have "choked".
And whilst I accept that that is a debateable charge to level, if it is correct, the major factor has not been lack of players, resources, preparation etc, or injuries, suspension, bad luck etc; rather it is down to O'Sullivan's innate conservatism when it comes to selection and tactics (imo).

Of course, it will be interesting to see how Ireland perform in the forthcoming World Cup, especially after the last disappointment under O'Sullivan.
Unless something catastrophic happens to them, NZ look to be far and away the best team this time round.
Therefore, I think it will be between France, Ireland and maybe Australia, to challenge for "best of the rest", where France's home advantage should see them through (unless they choke under the pressure, as they occasionally do)

Obviously, for Ireland e.g. to make the semi-finals or final would be a sound achievement, never mind winning it. But Dunphy should take more account of the relative level of the two codes, as regards "world" status.

With rugby, only four countries (Ire, Eng, Fr and Wales) of the 6N could be said to count on a world stage, with rugby only being the 2nd or 3rd sport (if that) in those countries.
As for the Southern Hemisphere, once again, only four countries count. These are Argentina, where it is very much a niche sport; Australia, where Union is the fourth team sport (with even soccer encroaching, to a degree); SA, where it is really only played by the white minority (and then is challenged by cricket and even soccer amongst non-Afrikaaner whites); and NZ.
Granted, Rugby is King in NZ, but the entire population is less than Ireland's, but with none of the competition from Soccer or GAA.
Indeed, the greatest indictment of rugby is that NZ is the only country in the entire world where rugby union could be said to be the "national game".

Oh, and unlike poor Stan, O'Sullivan has the whole of Ireland to pick from - not that he ever shows much inclination* to do so :eek:

* - How unlike the FAI, eh? ;)

ealing green , you come on these forums and post some serious drivel but that is an excellent post indeed although you have strayed slightly off topic.
Bottom line is that the Ireland XV have choked on the big days as have the boys in green. Eddie O'sullivans lads do not get ambushed by the minnows though and that is what stan's legacy will doubtless be when he is eventually cut loose by Delaney.

I read until this and refuse to read anymore::(

Quote:

---

the Roy Keanes, Paul McGraths

---

I hate when pundits/journalists come out with this crap.
How many Roy Keanes did we have? How many Paul McGrath's? I know it's only an expression but it annoys the hell out of me. Listening to the morons on the tv and radio bleat on about Arsenal recently talking about the Pires, the Vieras, the Petits, The Wrights, The Berkamps, gimme a break!!

End of Rant:mad:

Dunphy is in the sky with diamonds again.
"You ask me would I take the job? (laughs) Well I couldn't afford to take the salary cut! You ask me who would I have as next manager? Well I'd look at Guus Hiddink"
That contradiction might make sense to a 6 year old. What drivel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

Oh, and unlike poor Stan, O'Sullivan has the whole of Ireland to pick from - not that he ever shows much inclination* to do so :eek:

* - How unlike the FAI, eh? ;)

---

:D

Think the rugger team benefit from the fact in rugby they hand out trophies for anything......!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RogerMilla

ealing green , you come on these forums and post some serious drivel but that is an excellent post indeed although you have strayed slightly off topic.
Bottom line is that the Ireland XV have choked on the big days as have the boys in green. Eddie O'sullivans lads do not get ambushed by the minnows though and that is what stan's legacy will doubtless be when he is eventually cut loose by Delaney.

---

Thank you for the compliment (I think).

However, whilst there is no excusing Stan's "ambushes by the minnows", that is not really an area whereby one may compare football and rugby.

Notwithstanding that the Ireland rugby team simply don't come up against the equivalent of San Marino more than once in a blue moon, there are so many scores in the average rugby game that upsets are extremely rare.
For evidence of that, you only have look at the Rugby World Cup and see how many upsets that produces (Wales v Western Samoa is the only one I can think of).

Whereas, in a low-scoring game like football, the possiblility of the occasional upset is much greater. Usually, this is by a single goal; often following 90 minutes where the "big" team somehow missed half a dozen chances, and the "minnow" took their single one.

Further, draws are extremely rare in rugby, whereas a team that is hard to beat in football can often hold out for draws e.g. to help them go through a two-leg knockout, or Group qualifying stage.

Indeed, the evidence of competitions like the FA Cup, or even the European Championships, shows how upsets may occur. (For example, Denmark and Greece coming from nowhere to win the latter).

There is no real equivalent in rugby, even though their cups/leagues invariably have fewer competing, or competitive, teams.

That said, any football team that is going to win the Euro Championships has not only to avoid upsets by lesser teams, they will also have to beat a number of "big" teams along the way.
This is because UEFA currently has 52 (?) members, in the majority of which football is clearly the No.1 sport. Not only that, but most also have bigger populations than ROI.

Whereas, for Ireland to become "European Champions" at rugby i.e. win the 6N, they really only have to play to form for three (sometimes four) matches against poor opposition, then win one or two big matches against countries where rugby is not the main sport, all in the course of a three month period.

O'Sullivan has now signally failed to do that for the last five seasons, despite having his share of the best players in Europe.

And he's never had to qualify! ;)

P.S. Thinking about it, the 6N is arguably much nearer the rugby equivalent of a soccer qualifying competition for the Euros or World Cup. And whilst ROI have no chance of ever qualifying whilst poor Stan is in charge (imo), Steady Eddie has barely managed to "qualify" during his 6N campaigns, either!

P.P.S. How did I "stray off topic", even slightly? Dunphy clearly compared the relative merits of Stan and Eddie as national team coaches. But whilst Stan's failings are clear for all to see, in my post I merely made the point that Eddie's "successes" are debateable, given the paucity of opponent he normally has to face.

just out of interest(and at the risk of invoking the wrath of the off topic police.....) who would you have instead of o sullivan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billsthoughts

just out of interest(and at the risk of invoking the wrath of the off topic police.....) who would you have instead of o sullivan?

---

Hard to say, but I think it might need a gamble on someone of a different temperament from "Steady Eddie". Whilst he has undoubtedly taken the team up a level or two, I'm not sure he can inspire them to make the final leap they need to win at the very highest level.

An example of this is in his handling of Ronan O'Gara. Since he took over, EOS always seemed instinctively to favour the consistency of ROG over the more mercurial and expansive David Humphries. I always thought this was because EOS mistrusted DH for his liability to the occasional "off-day", where nothing went right.

Consequently, ROG learned always to play within his own "comfort zone" (imo). Of course, during the last 18 months, ROG has upped his game marvellously, to put him some way ahead of the aging Humphries. However,to my mind, this is a consequence of the huge boost he received from Munster's winning the Heineken, rather than anything he learned from EOS.

Anyhow, there aren't many candidates in rugby who (a) have experience of coaching a ranked international team, (b) are available, and (c) have the temperament to shake things up (without upsetting the Blazers in the IRFU, that is).

I'd almost be tempted to suggest Sir Clive Woodward :eek: (although he screwed up in a major way with the Lions), or Ian McGeechan for his innovativeness, if he could be persuaded (unlikely).

More realistically, I guess I'd plump for Nick Mallett. Although his record is patchy, and he can fall out with people (e.g. Gary Teichman), he's also produced one or two outstanding teams, most notably when he first took over the Springboks.

When rugby union went professional, so did the IRFU. It's got nothing to do with Eddie O'Sullivan.

The FAI has yet to go professional .....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

I'd almost be tempted to suggest Sir Clive Woodward :eek: (although he screwed up in a major way with the Lions), or Ian McGeechan for his innovativeness, if he could be persuaded (unlikely).

More realistically, I guess I'd plump for Nick Mallett. Although his record is patchy, and he can fall out with people (e.g. Gary Teichman), he's also produced one or two outstanding teams, most notably when he first took over the Springboks.

---

yeah Id have woodword alrite. anyone who says he is crap because of the lions tour is an idiot. McGeechan as well. dunno the other guy. dont really agree on the humphries point. maybe at the very start of o sullivans reign humphries might have had a case but the position was his for a good while and he had some stinkers. very inconsistant but deffo would try things that o gara wouldnt even dream of. mercurial probably the right word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilMcD

I'd also look at Paul Jewell, who's done a fantastic job with Wigan (before leading Wigan from Division 2 to the Premiership, Jewell led Bradford City to the Premier League in 1999 and kept them there the following season against all the odds)..

---

Is this the game Paul Jewell who was sacked by Wednesday and who barely won a game under him and whose team are on the fringe of the relegation zone :rolleyes: I'd sooner look to Steve Coppell.

You can't compare Rugby and soccer. If we were playing in the home championship in soccer we'd have plenty wins over Wales, Scotland and occasionally England and France like the rugby team.

The comparison of Mick Byrne and the sponge is typical Dunphy exaggeration and hype. There is as much if not more back-up for the soccer teams as the IRFU have. That said, I think it was a mistake to bring Byrne back but it was an attempt to get the team spirit back which some obviously thought had disappeared under Brian Kerr.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfie

The players have to accept some of the responsibility for the antiquated back up scenario.

Kerr tried to introduce a more professional mode of preparation and the players didn't buy into it.

Obviously, interminable amounts of time on analysis can be counter-productive but a balanced approach of the practical and SOME analysis is part and parcel of the modern game.

Its a cliche, but a lot of players have a 3 second attention span and would rather be in their room ****ing about on Play Station as opposed to analysing the opposition on video.

If Stan actually got proper backroom staff in relation to scouting, analysis and scouting - would they be listened to anyway?

---

Watching DVD's and analysis is part of doing your homework , basic professional preparation. If you don't study, or do your homework, you won't even get your Junior Cert... oh that's right I forgot, most of our team didn't get their Junior Cert :(

You can look to Steve Coppell but why would he look to managing part time a national team for a small % of wages?
You can get lucky with a young manager, get lucky with a Beenhakker type or pay 80% of the profits from games on a proven manager.
It isn´t a close comparison with Rugby. International Rugby almost resembles a club set up, players contracts, long training camps with comparative salaries against other federations, etc.
What´s the fuss about Mick Byrne, I thought he was the national team version of a Billy Lord :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie

If you don't study, or do your homework, you won't even get your Junior Cert... oh that's right I forgot, most of our team didn't get their Junior Cert :(

---

they are among the top tier of their chosen proffession......why would they need it??????:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lofty9

I read until this and refuse to read anymore::(



I hate when pundits/journalists come out with this crap.
How many Roy Keanes did we have? How many Paul McGrath's? I know it's only an expression but it annoys the hell out of me. Listening to the morons on the tv and radio bleat on about Arsenal recently talking about the Pires, the Vieras, the Petits, The Wrights, The Berkamps, gimme a break!!

End of Rant:mad:

---

Agree 100%. It's probably the prime example of your Jamie Redknapp's Lee Dixon's or Alan Shearer's:D on auto-cliche. And these are the people Dunphy was slagging off in the papers today.