ZeFrenchy
First XV
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,786
- Reaction score
- 0
Now that we all think that we would be better than PSA at his job, I think it is time we analyse his job a bit in perspective. I, as a principle, try to maintain some inertia in my opinions, that is, not to change my view on a coach/player after only three game, so PSA still has some credit left in my mind.
For starters, we should go through the different stages he has gone through. I'm getting a few things off my chest, so you ca skip to #5 if you want the short version.
1. The pre-PSA:
Let's forget about Laporte and start with the final years of Lièvremont. He had a Grand Slam in 2010 and his biggest merit was to give chances to new talent. This was also his biggest flaw, as the number of selected players reached a record high, and results came only after players like Domingo, Servat, Mas, Dusautoir, Bonnaire, Harinordoquy, Parra, and Jauzion became too obvious even to ML. After the Grand Slam things started to go awry: besides a very average June tour (that he never took seriously), a disastrous November window and an extremely disappointing 2011 6N (including a by then unprecedented defeat to Italy) led to a RWC where a very underwhelming pool stage led to players take control of the team themselves, leading to what we all know.
2. The appointment:
I was all for Galthié. PSA's tenure with Toulon had been, in my view, not successful enough for the resources he had available. But, ok, as any coach that starts, we'll have to wait and see.
3. Six Nations 2012, the swan song:
In a very arguable decision, he followed the popular claim and gave the previous generation their last games: Bonnaire, Yachvili, Servat, Harinordoquy, Rougerie, Nallet, Poux. They were mixed with some newcomers, such as Debaty, Maestri and Fofana. It led to, again, pretty disappointing results. After almost two full seasons without a break, not much blame could be pointed at the coach, so patience goes on.
4. 2012 June tour to Argentina:
I'm all against experimental squads for June tours, but given the circumstances, most top players did need a break. So I wasn't against the squad taken in principle, bar a few players. One huge loss and one huge win against an equally experimental Argentina side. Not much to take out of the results, but people (including PSA) thought that Machenaud's and Michalak's (and other like Dulin's and Forestier's) performances in the second test merited starts in November.
5. Success in November:
Now it gets interesting. He trusted the players that had been good in that test in June, and believed in Michalak's renaissance. This, in my opinion, was very unfair on players such as Parra, that had been given a rest in June and then lost their spot against players that had performed against Pumas C. It paid off though, with convincing wins in all three tests. PSA earned credit in everybody's mind, as did Machenaud, Michalak and others.
6. Six Nations 2013:
The selection for the first test was, as expected, in continuity with the November test matches. Some adjustments had to be made due to injury: Fofana had to play wing (I, for one, blame this on circumstances and not on PSA), while some other decisions were arguable but hardly crazy. Anyone could be in any side of Szarsweski/Kayser, Domingo/Forestier, Ouedraogo/Nyanga, Parra/Machenaud, Michalak/Trinh-Duc, Fritz/Bastareaud and Fall/Huget/Buttin.
People started to get the (wrong) feeling that he was making crazy decisions and playing players out of position. The only really wrong decision he made regarding selections in that test (and the next) was counting on Trinh-Duc as fullback cover.
Disappointing personal performances (Mermoz, Szarsweski, Michalak and to a lesser extent Fritz, Machenaud, Ouedraogo, Mas, Forestier and Fall) and some suspect coaching led to a second defeat in a row in Rome. Maybe PSA's decision were not ideal but, IMHO, the blame should be placed on the players and on the FFR/LNR fiasco. My belief in PSA remained intact, mostly because of how well Italy had played and on how he couldn't have predicted the players' bad game.
Voices started asking for changes (notably the return of recently injured players like Domingo), but PSA chose, and I agree, not to shatter the players' confidence and the side stayed largely unchanged for the test against Wales. Even changes that I would have liked before he start of the tournament, became now career-enders: like Domingo, Nyanga and Parra instead of Forestier, Machenaud and Ouedraogo.
The same players disappointed and the same result was obtained. Now, no excuses were valid anymore and changes were made. Again, you can disagree with some changes, but nothing beyond normality. Clerc's return allowed to place Fofana at center, which was made easier by Mermoz's bad performances in the first two games.
The logic thing happened: replacements showed more hunger than the bourgeoining starters, France "showed up", but still lost at Twickenham. Hardly a result that could cost a coach the job. Changes were made at the moment where France were losing momentum (around the 55 minutes): had he not changed the players he changed, France was going to lose for sure. He counted on the entering players playing confidently after a good first half by the starters, while adding something extra. It was a risky bet, but the only way of trying to win the game. It wasn't as if Trinh-Duc was setting the world alight anyway (Parra is different, but you may have noticed he's kind of my chouchou). We know that French players are exhausted, and the changes in the front row were just the safe thing to do; that the second-best TH prop in France is light-years behind Mas is neither a secret nor PSA's fault. After the game, people started saying that obviously Debaty wasn't a good bench option due to his lacking of scrum skills, but I heard no-one saying this before the game. (I even read some people saying Debaty was a great scrummager...)
7. Conclusions:
Selections have been within logic. As I said, some were arguable, but nothing crazy. We weren't the best team in the world in November, and we are not the worst now. I don't blame PSA for the results, and he still has as much credit for me as before the 6N.
Edit: I didn't talk about tactics, but in a nutshell; I don't really like it. He basically relies on carries by Picamoles and the centers, without any tactical creativity. This is the case with most coaches anyway.
For starters, we should go through the different stages he has gone through. I'm getting a few things off my chest, so you ca skip to #5 if you want the short version.
1. The pre-PSA:
Let's forget about Laporte and start with the final years of Lièvremont. He had a Grand Slam in 2010 and his biggest merit was to give chances to new talent. This was also his biggest flaw, as the number of selected players reached a record high, and results came only after players like Domingo, Servat, Mas, Dusautoir, Bonnaire, Harinordoquy, Parra, and Jauzion became too obvious even to ML. After the Grand Slam things started to go awry: besides a very average June tour (that he never took seriously), a disastrous November window and an extremely disappointing 2011 6N (including a by then unprecedented defeat to Italy) led to a RWC where a very underwhelming pool stage led to players take control of the team themselves, leading to what we all know.
2. The appointment:
I was all for Galthié. PSA's tenure with Toulon had been, in my view, not successful enough for the resources he had available. But, ok, as any coach that starts, we'll have to wait and see.
3. Six Nations 2012, the swan song:
In a very arguable decision, he followed the popular claim and gave the previous generation their last games: Bonnaire, Yachvili, Servat, Harinordoquy, Rougerie, Nallet, Poux. They were mixed with some newcomers, such as Debaty, Maestri and Fofana. It led to, again, pretty disappointing results. After almost two full seasons without a break, not much blame could be pointed at the coach, so patience goes on.
4. 2012 June tour to Argentina:
I'm all against experimental squads for June tours, but given the circumstances, most top players did need a break. So I wasn't against the squad taken in principle, bar a few players. One huge loss and one huge win against an equally experimental Argentina side. Not much to take out of the results, but people (including PSA) thought that Machenaud's and Michalak's (and other like Dulin's and Forestier's) performances in the second test merited starts in November.
5. Success in November:
Now it gets interesting. He trusted the players that had been good in that test in June, and believed in Michalak's renaissance. This, in my opinion, was very unfair on players such as Parra, that had been given a rest in June and then lost their spot against players that had performed against Pumas C. It paid off though, with convincing wins in all three tests. PSA earned credit in everybody's mind, as did Machenaud, Michalak and others.
6. Six Nations 2013:
The selection for the first test was, as expected, in continuity with the November test matches. Some adjustments had to be made due to injury: Fofana had to play wing (I, for one, blame this on circumstances and not on PSA), while some other decisions were arguable but hardly crazy. Anyone could be in any side of Szarsweski/Kayser, Domingo/Forestier, Ouedraogo/Nyanga, Parra/Machenaud, Michalak/Trinh-Duc, Fritz/Bastareaud and Fall/Huget/Buttin.
People started to get the (wrong) feeling that he was making crazy decisions and playing players out of position. The only really wrong decision he made regarding selections in that test (and the next) was counting on Trinh-Duc as fullback cover.
Disappointing personal performances (Mermoz, Szarsweski, Michalak and to a lesser extent Fritz, Machenaud, Ouedraogo, Mas, Forestier and Fall) and some suspect coaching led to a second defeat in a row in Rome. Maybe PSA's decision were not ideal but, IMHO, the blame should be placed on the players and on the FFR/LNR fiasco. My belief in PSA remained intact, mostly because of how well Italy had played and on how he couldn't have predicted the players' bad game.
Voices started asking for changes (notably the return of recently injured players like Domingo), but PSA chose, and I agree, not to shatter the players' confidence and the side stayed largely unchanged for the test against Wales. Even changes that I would have liked before he start of the tournament, became now career-enders: like Domingo, Nyanga and Parra instead of Forestier, Machenaud and Ouedraogo.
The same players disappointed and the same result was obtained. Now, no excuses were valid anymore and changes were made. Again, you can disagree with some changes, but nothing beyond normality. Clerc's return allowed to place Fofana at center, which was made easier by Mermoz's bad performances in the first two games.
The logic thing happened: replacements showed more hunger than the bourgeoining starters, France "showed up", but still lost at Twickenham. Hardly a result that could cost a coach the job. Changes were made at the moment where France were losing momentum (around the 55 minutes): had he not changed the players he changed, France was going to lose for sure. He counted on the entering players playing confidently after a good first half by the starters, while adding something extra. It was a risky bet, but the only way of trying to win the game. It wasn't as if Trinh-Duc was setting the world alight anyway (Parra is different, but you may have noticed he's kind of my chouchou). We know that French players are exhausted, and the changes in the front row were just the safe thing to do; that the second-best TH prop in France is light-years behind Mas is neither a secret nor PSA's fault. After the game, people started saying that obviously Debaty wasn't a good bench option due to his lacking of scrum skills, but I heard no-one saying this before the game. (I even read some people saying Debaty was a great scrummager...)
7. Conclusions:
Selections have been within logic. As I said, some were arguable, but nothing crazy. We weren't the best team in the world in November, and we are not the worst now. I don't blame PSA for the results, and he still has as much credit for me as before the 6N.
Edit: I didn't talk about tactics, but in a nutshell; I don't really like it. He basically relies on carries by Picamoles and the centers, without any tactical creativity. This is the case with most coaches anyway.
Last edited:
I stupidly judged too quickly Debaty was a powerful scrummager based on merely 2 good performances (overwhelmed by his strength on the penalty try against Australia back in Nov...).
)
