Well Cockers!!

[Cliffeclimber]

Ah, if only you'd been down at the training ground over the last couple of months, seeing what Matt and Cockers see, then maybe lots of your questions would be answered.

[masopa]

Inevitable I'm afraid, it's the nature of the beast - when there is a loss there will be criticism and questions asked, which are forgotten after a win.

Nothwithstanding the injuries though I think some criticism is valid, yes we topped the leage, yes we scored the most tries (though I'd like to see the stats against the top teams in the AP and HC - I'd bet they tell a different story) but I thought the tactics were very poor yesterday and I have to say few Tigers players can take any positives from that game:

- Why the insistence on kicking so much with no decent chase? Only a few times did we really chase hard and Smith won the ball because of it, the rest of the time is was free ball to Saffas. Played their game plan it seems.

- Why were Tigers so lethargic in the first half? They just don't seem fit enough to me. Several times recently they have dug themselves into a hole like this, this time there was no get of jail card, it was bound to happen sometime.

- Where are the support runners when the odd break is made and the offloads? Where was the initiative to try something different,a chip over or through - anything to keep the Saffas defence guessing. Tigers never looked like they had a plan A to break down Sarries let alone a plan B.

- Why take the penalty with 5 minutes to go rather than the corner and go for 5 or 7 and the possibility of a late drop goal or penalty from the restart - seemed like playing for a loosing bonus point type mentality.

- What was the point about 12T at 75 minutes, why not earlier? Again a recurring theme through the season has been the poor use of substitues. Why not also have Danny on the bench if we had 12T as back up kicker?

Cracking post, GK. Agree with all your points and it is frustrating that all of our problems seem to have been in preparation (fitness, desire, tactics, pre-match analysis, etc.)

None of Sarries' play was surprising - they didn't play a different brand of rugby to that which they've been playing all season. They have an excellent aggressive defence and will take opportunities if you gift them to them. They don't tend to create much absent these opportunities and their try was really down to our poor defence (as highlighted by Oz).

So why did it seem to come as a shock to our players? Why, as you say, did they not even have a Plan A, let alone a Plan B to counteract the Sarries' gameplan? Why was our weakness at the breakdown not sured up or at least mitigated by throwing more numbers in there, especially when we saw they were piling in half a dozen bodies to secure quick ball?

Ok, some of the blame needs to lie with the players and whilst Newby played reasonably well IMO, he was captain and was responsible, once players are on the pitch, to guide the team. But why was the team put in that position? Why didn't they have better preparation?

[kend]

I see the 'blame allocation' programme is running already. Get some perspective - it was a game of small margins (if one of Flood's missed kicks had gone over...last ditch tackle on Croft in full flight...?), and we were close enough at the end to have nicked it in that final drive.

The coach gets the environment right for the players to perform, but once they are on the pitch he can't control their decision making either on the ball, or at tactical points (I think I'm right in saying the try came from a confused attempt to run the ball out of our 22 - was in the east stand and memory might be occluded by the beer after the game!). He can't control poor execution either - and the kicking game was pretty appalling. He's watching the same game as us - a group of players who are misfiring a bit, but are still in with a reasonable shout of winning the game in the last 15. Do you misshape the team in that circumstance by making big changes that you haven't prepared for in training? Probably not.

If Cockers got it wrong, it was only wrong by inches - which must have been how close to the line Crane was in the final drive?

What would you call for if we were outside the top 4, but still in HC qualification (going to be a very difficult season with international call-ups)? Public flogging in the ABC bar?

[Tigerbeat]

I am disappointed when results dont go Tigers way but I am also a realist and recognise that the other teams are improving and chasing the standards that Tigers have set in the last few seasons.
The Premiership is a very challenging league where all teams can beat one another on the day.
This season Tigers have had away wins at Bath, Sale, Newcastle where we have not done well in the past.
Exeter have been a plus to the League.

This season Tigers have not got any silverware for the following reasons:

LV Cup - Took the option to play developing players where other teams played strong teams to try and secure a Heineken Cup place.

Heineken Cup - Draw at home gave Perpignan the momentum to go on and win the game. Tigers had a good win at Llanelli.

Aviva Premiership - Finished top but that counts for nothing. A good win over Northampton but beaten in the Final by a Saracens side who were well drilled in defence, had a good game plan and probably wanted it a bit more.

Not a bad season. Other coaches in the Premiership would like to have achieved the above.

[Broadstaff]

Ah, if only you'd been down at the training ground over the last couple of months, seeing what Matt and Cockers see, then maybe lots of your questions would be answered.

Agreed, but some of us aren't able to get to the training ground so it would be nice if we could have an update. For example if we have one of the best attacking centres in the Premiership why is he not being used? If he's not good enough then fine, but please tell us!

It's been a great season to follow Leicester with so much to talk about. I would have to say that there have been a number of games when we have under performed and usually gone on to win. Richard Cockerill has usually selected teams to win the games, but not necessarily to play our best players or our best rugby. Against the very best opposition we have been undone. But I still think Leicester has provided us with a great season!

[JWM]

A vote of confidence in Cockers from me.

Tigers did come back on in the second half with a revised game plan. If I noticed that, then to be honest it must have been pretty obvious. It didn't come off because of player sloppiness and inaccuracy, and panic in the face of a hard and fast savvy Sarries defence. That, in the end, is not the DoR's fault.

If there's one thing this Thread has taught me is that we really do live in a blame game society. Why can it never be a case of 'we were beaten'? It's a game. Get over it. (And buy-in Schalk Brits for next season.)

[G.K]

Of course we were beaten now we are discussing why! So you advocate we have a blameless society where no one is responsible for their actions and so cannot be criticised and instead everyone just shrugs their shoulders and bleats "Keep the Faith".

[Bill W (2)]

Why can it never be a case of 'we were beaten'? It's a game.

It is, as you say, (only) a game.

However, IMHO, we were not beaten. We failed to win. We could have won, indeed maybe we should have won.

And so the questions are asked:

Why did Tigers not follow up kicks;
Why did Tigers not chip the advancing flat Sarries defensive line;
Why was 12T not brought on earlier;
etc.

[Jose]

Don't think am being wise after the event, as have said much of this on the forum during the year. I've struggled to understand Cockerill's selections for a number of reasons:

1) Insistence on having Staunton and Grindal on the bench - they don't offer the ability to change a game positively so why are they there?
2) Dropping Waldrom when he was in great form apparently as punishment
3) Refusal to use Hipkiss and Amorosino
4) Awful management and (mis)use of Twelvetrees
5) Persistent selection of Matt Smith in front of better players - he is one dimensional and doesn't seem to possess the ability to read the game, create anything or run good support lines
6) Refusal to select Hawkins in front of Chuter when Hawkins in better form

It seems to me that we've missed a big opportunity to develop 12T at 12 playing him alongside Hipkiss and rotating the centre partnership (understand that Twelvetrees and M Tuilagi together too inexperienced). Having Twelvetrees on bench covering 10 as well would have given the option to have Hipkiss on bench too, not least yesterday.

Also feel sorry for Flood - much of our attacking game has been based on Manu this season. Flood and Allen are excellent fulcrums at 10/12 for others to play around. Flood and Allen with M Tuilagi at 13, a creative full back like Murphy at 15 and a ballcarrying 8 (Waldrom) running good support lines are brilliant. Smith as outside centre offers the same level of attacking threat as Tindall in an England shirt (i.e. none). Against the best defensive team in the country we were always going to struggle without Manu (or Waldrom) to cross the gain line, and without a lot of invention or pace from full back. Is impossible to create at 10/12 against a top class defence if nobody else is running decent lines off you and worrying the opposition. That is the biggest reason we had to select Hipkiss (great lines and the ability to stay on his feet long enough to let the pack get there and push him across the gain line) and Waldrom. Is just very frustrating.

[JWM]

Of course we were beaten now we are discussing why! So you advocate we have a blameless society where no one is responsible for their actions and so cannot be criticised and instead everyone just shrugs their shoulders and bleats "Keep the Faith".

No, of course not. But not the knee-jerk bleating of armchair coaches.

We can all have our comments on here, that's the beauty of a public forum. Though I guess if many of the arm chair coaches were actually any good at the real thing, they'd be walking the walk as well as talking the talk, and doing it rather than just bleating on about it.

Oh, and 'failing to win' = 'being beaten'.

I agree about Tigers failing to chase up kicks and chip over the Saracens flat defensive line. But I see that as primarily being about the players [not] performing. The one strategic failing I would agree with is not bring 36 on earlier, but even that I see as pretty last ditch. He does drop balls.

In the last minutes' play, we could have won if the ball had been sent out wide to Twiggy who had a huge overlap. But BY/TF failed to see it.

[tigers fan]

I'm behind Tigers 100% but those of you who blame cockers (hello he's not playing on the field) yes and I know sometimes we don't agree with his team selection but we have had injuries to some of our key players and floody for missing 2 kicks what about the rest of the team they have to turn up and play for the whole 80 mins not just the 2nd half as I said on another thread you can't rely on the kicker you have to play the game and if a penelty is awarded great a chance to get extra points on the board.

I agree floody and youngs have not been the same since they returned from the internationals.

They defended well when youngs was sent off and didn't allow Sarries to get a try.
Would have been great if they had scored a try in those dying minutes but if they had played like that for the who;e of the 80mins the result would prob have been different.

On the day the team that turned up and played the whole 80 mins won. Well done to sarries.

[JWM]

Oh, by the way, the REAL reason we didn't win was because I forgot to wear my lucky pants.

[Bill W (2)]

Oh, by the way, the REAL reason we didn't win was because I forgot to wear my lucky pants.

Shame on you Sir!

[G.K]

So it was your fault all along! It's no wonder then that you would like a blameless society!

[Smudge]

Of course we can discuss our disappointing failure to win any silverware and
where necessary, point an accusing finger. Even playing as bad as we did,
we should have won it with the chances we had.
Toby was the main problem and there was an obvious lack of communication
and leadership on the field. It's all very well being loyal to the coach but his
failings are there for all to see. He doesn't use his squad well enough.
Also, please don't assume that all posters on here know nothing about the game
or haven't played at the top level.