Is it now time to thank Cockers?

[jgriffin]

BFG and RB - it was two seasons ago, told by one player directly and two other players views via a countryman player with another club, the two accounts being the same essentially. They all may have been biased of course, as it was clear he wasn't on their Xmas card list. The player concerned is still in rugby, and I wouldn't betray his confidence anyway (as I would not betray yours).
Frankly, there is a very selective memory of MOC and Meyer (especially based on surmise) on here, and while Cockers may have taken the club as far as he can, the Head Coach carries a lot of the can for me since it is his job to be Head Coach. I personally would prefer, if there must be football-style sackings, then both AM and RC should go thus defusing any alleged toxicity.

[Ilkestonlad]

Time for Deano!

[RagingBull]

I will say that players will very much side on the coach of their preference I could mention a couple of players recently that would say similar to Cockers. (Some have done publicly)

I think a clean sweep would be best but short term it means twice the coaches (would add blaze to it aswell).

[loretta]

Meyer? No thanks. Too much dull rugby and too many odd team selections for my liking.

[Tigerbeat]

I for one dont want Meyer, I think he is not right for Tigers and I was glad when he went home!
We were in Treviso, he was on crutches, he limped across the field before the KO, all the travelling fans cheered and clapped him as he took his place in the stand, he had to be told that the fans were applauding him he was so ignorant and the team played so poorly just scraping a win and that was against lowly Treviso, the rest of his matches were just as bad. I dont think SA rugby is in a good state at the moment, so no thanks Mayer, but yes please Etzebeth.

South African international rugby is not in a good state due to the political interference saying that X number of players must be non-white.

[ourla]

Quoted in the Merc was Bateman keeping a straight face when he said:

We are a tight group not just the players but the coaches too

He got this bit right IMO:

We had probably played sub-standard teams in the weeks before. Munster have been rallied by the tragic events at their club and are at a different level to what we have played in previous weeks.

[jgriffin]

I for one dont want Meyer, I think he is not right for Tigers and I was glad when he went home!
We were in Treviso, he was on crutches, he limped across the field before the KO, all the travelling fans cheered and clapped him as he took his place in the stand, he had to be told that the fans were applauding him he was so ignorant and the team played so poorly just scraping a win and that was against lowly Treviso, the rest of his matches were just as bad. I dont think SA rugby is in a good state at the moment, so no thanks Mayer, but yes please Etzebeth.

South African international rugby is not in a good state due to the political interference saying that X number of players must be non-white.

And the refusal to invest enough - it's like the reliance on independent schools here, it's a class thing PLUS the ethnic divide. Having said that, if we put UK rugby under a similar ethnic scrutiny IMO there would be questions asked.

[iceman_19]

I've only just calmed down enough to write something following the Munster debacle, having spent the majority of the last 72 hours being too angry/hungover to take stock of what I witnessed at Thommond Park.

As one of the many who travelled a long way to watch that turgid performance, it struck me that there is no magic solution to fixing the issues in our game at the moment. For example, sacking Cockers and installing someone else won't make everything right. That's not saying it shouldn't happen - it might help, but our on-field problems run far deeper.

The easy thing to point out is that the coaches have a huge responsibility when it comes to performance. On Saturday, we were bullied in the mauls in defence and ineffective when we tried to use it as an attacking weapon (Blaze), there was a supreme lack of subtlety, precision and deception on the rare occasion the backs got their hands on the ball (Mauger/Murphy), and overall there was no obvious or coherent gameplan that the players were buying into, and players were too often getting isolated in contact and turned over (Cockerill). So there is collective responsibility there for running a gameplan that didn't work or one which the players don't buy into.

But the guys on the pitch cannot be exempt. The biggest thing that stood out to me was a lack of passion and aggression. I don't expect Leicester teams to win these days, but I do expect them to fight. Everything about our game lacked aggression - from the complete lack of a kick chase to letting the ball bounce from a high kick because nobody really wanted it; from taking the ball standing still when applying a rare bit of pressure, to failing to come up off our line quickly in defence. The most stark comparison was when we were attacking their line in the second half - O'Mahony and O'Donnell were steaming off the line, smashing into our static, isolated ball carriers, intent on smashing them backwards. Later on, they scored a close range try themselves. They were almost pushing each other out of the way to get their hands on the ball, charging in with a mate behind them to drive them forward and through our static, placid defensive line.

We can talk tactical shortcomings and selection issues all we want, but if you do not buy into the Leicester shirt, its history and the requirement that you go out there and put everything on the line for club and your team-mates, it doesn't matter. The aggression and passion is a backbone and a platform for any Leicester performance, and it was conspicuous by its absence on Saturday. For me, the players - as much as the coaches - have to take ownership of this.

[loretta]

Well said.

[Bowden Tiger]

Iceman-19, I think you have got it about right. I watched the game again last night, and it was obvious that Munster wanted it more. I am not saying that Tigers didn't, but Munster had that drive and belief, that they would win every contact. I don't think that their players are any better than ours, or fitter than ours, just that they had that extra, intangible thing, that we used to have. It's a collective thing, with every player being a leader, every player having the desire and finally the Team being above everything.

[Tigerbeat]

Question - given the availibility of players available, is is realistic to expect Tigers to win every game. Players are missing in key postions, Front Row and Centres.
If the forwards cannot win the ball, how do you expect the backs to perform.
It is not Cockerill fault that he does not have all his resources avaialble!
Or
Would people be happy to accept a defeat so long as the team put in a decent shift / performance.

[chewbacca]

Iceman-19, I think you have got it about right. I watched the game again last night, and it was obvious that Munster wanted it more. I am not saying that Tigers didn't, but Munster had that drive and belief, that they would win every contact. I don't think that their players are any better than ours, or fitter than ours, just that they had that extra, intangible thing, that we used to have. It's a collective thing, with every player being a leader, every player having the desire and finally the Team being above everything.

Seems what you are describing is organisational failure (non belief in the "mission"). Who other than the leader of that organisation do you believe should be held responsible?

[Bowden Tiger]

Chewbacca, I believe it's down to motivational failure, but that certainly could be as a result of organisational failure. Thinking about it we have lost many good players over the last few seasons, where the club would surely have been stronger if they had stayed. The rumours with several of these departures was that there were contractual issues, not playing ones. If that is so, I believe the responsibity lies with the board, or one particular individual in particular - he who signs the cheques!!!!

[Norfolk & Goode]

If it's Mauger who's responsible for the performance, why is it then that it's Cockerill who's mainly barking out the orders during the game, and also giving post match reports to the press? I would suggest Cockerill is stifling the channels of communications between coaches and players, which would explain the lack of passion and commitment in many aspects of that game.

The saddest aspect to the drubbing Tigers took last weekend was that Cockerill had nothing to offer post match to the interviewer, Baxter on the other hand spoke eloquently about his loss and what went on during the game and specifically what they need to do to make amends. Cockerill spoke with the usual meaningless rhetoric and negative spiel all to common from a man who has lost touch with both players and coaching staff.

Whilst the talent in both the coaching staff and players is undoubtedly there, the cohesion is not, and that is down to the Director and no-one else as he over sees and manages all these individuals roles and their performances, including team selection.

[Scott1]

Still see folk sticking up for Cockers! Do you really think Mauger has last say over him as regards to training,selection and tactics? Hahaha! Don't be naive!