I have every confidence in Tom Sears giving us all chapter and verse on EOS, Holley et al once the final decision is taken.

You get this kind of thing in selection conventions. It would appear Holley got the message he wasn't going to get the job and decided to flout confidentiality and get his retaliation in first. His is such a transparent ruse that one can only sigh with relief he wasn't chosen.

Who does that leave of the original six: Millard, McFarland, Lam, and Hanks. And I wouldn't necessarily rule out a late candidate either.

Agreed its all agent speak. I'm shocked he didn't go with "I want to spend more time with my family" or "I'm pursuing other opportunities".

Hope Sears tears him a new one when the new lad gets appointed.

I have every confidence in Tom Sears giving us all chapter and verse on EOS, Holley et al once the final decision is taken.

You get this kind of thing in selection conventions. It would appear Holley got the message he wasn't going to get the job and decided to flout confidentiality and get his retaliation in first. His is such a transparent ruse that one can only sigh with relief he wasn't chosen.

Who does that leave of the original six: Millard, McFarland, Lam, and Hanks. And I wouldn't necessarily rule out a late candidate either.

Whos to say he was offered the job in the first place?

He could have got a pfo and this is just his spin on it.

No two ways about it, this selection process has been cackhanded. And I think there seems to be a lot of different people to blame. Holley is another one for the list - clearly afraid he would be labelled a reject, so he breaches confidentiality.

He obviously was just keeping his name circulating in the media for somebody bigger to pick him up.
Really unprofessional and now whoever gets it as Ummm says they know they were second choice.

What an arsehole, it was obviously nothing more than a PR exercise for him, delighted he's not taking it anyway.

overstrander wrote: "However, my decision is based purely on the timing and my current personal circumstances."

So why did you apply for it in the first place you time wasting bampot?

If Holley thinks the time is not right all of a sudden that doesn't say much for his homework into Connacht's requirements. Bullet dodged.

One major negative with this is whoever gets the offer will know they were second choice, at best. Why he felt the need to publicly state he had been offered the job only he knows. Very unprofessional.

BBC Sport Rugby Union

7 January 2013 Last updated at 11:23 GMT


Pro12: Sean Holley turns down Connacht role

Ex-Ospreys coach Sean Holley has turned down the chance to become Eric Elwood's successor at Irish Pro12 team Connacht.

Former Ireland fly-half Elwood is to step down at Connacht at the end of the 2012-13 season.

"No head coach position should be taken for granted... and I am flattered and honoured to have received the Connacht offer," Holley told BBC Wales Sport.

"However, my decision is based purely on the timing and my current personal circumstances."

The Ospreys and Holley parted company in February, 2012, ending his nine-year association with the region.

Since then Holley has become a pundit, often working for BBC Wales.

But while admitting that the decision to turn down the Connacht job was a difficult one, he hinted that a return to coaching is still on the agenda.

"The professionalism, vision and drive of the Connacht board in particular has made this a tough decision," Holley admitted.

"I remain committed to rugby and am excited about some opportunities that are on the horizon."

He became assistant to current London Welsh boss Lyn Jones at the Ospreys when they were launched in 2003.

Following Jones' May 2008 exit, Holley took charge with ex-Wales captain John Humphreys as his assistant for the 2008-09 season.
Eric Elwood

Current Scotland interim coach Scott Johnson then joined in 2009 to head a three-man coaching team including Holley and they led the side to the Heineken Cup quarter-finals in 2010, where they lost 29-28 to Biarritz.

That disappointment spurred them on to winning the Magners League, taking the title in the competition's inaugural play-off final against Leinster in Dublin .

However, the Ospreys have not moved beyond the Heineken Cup quarter-finals in subsequent seasons.

The Swansea-based region did not reach the 2010-11 knock-out stages and a 36-5 defeat by Biarritz in the 2011-12 season's final Pool Five clash ended their hopes, after they had also twice lost to Saracens and drawn at Treviso.

They lie third in the 2012-13 campaign in Pool 2 behind Toulouse and Leicester.

But the side coached by Steve Tandy face Leicester Tigers at the Liberty Stadium on Sunday, 13 January hoping to have a future in Europe this season.

Progress to the Heineken Cup knock-out stage seems unlikely.

But good wins over the Tigers and then at Treviso could see the Ospreys make the second-tier Amlin Challenge Cup quarter-finals.
Share this story
BBC

BBC © 2013 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

_nobody_ wrote: Interesting article today in the indo.

Although I now leave the whole "hail king Eddie" agenda out of it, the part that struck me was about Lam being turned down for the Ulster job because he wanted to bring his own coaches with him. I can't see this having changed too much in one year.

What does this mean for McFarland and Millard? Both of whom I feel are doing a good job. Our forwards are rarely beaten up. When our backs look to play, and not kick pointlessly, they look dangerous. Millard also has a track record of bringing through youth and this must help with our backline.

Not an issue really, not unusual for a head coach to want to surround himself with his own choice of back up team. However I suspect that he will have been told that for those in contract he will need to work with them until a renewal is due and that he will have major input along with PGB if it is determined that new blood is required...

agree to an extent with rogue re pack. i think its a wee bit of attitude from players that can be the difference there.
but there have been times when scrum or lineout have been a problem. imo he needs help to keep it cinsistant. does he deserve top job, imo no but he has done a decent job.

vainekolo is a puzzle. he was excellent at times on saturday but when we needed him most he went hiding in numbers when the blind side(his side) was there for the taking. at one sage in second half we had scrum half way between clan and posts. imo he went hiding. it was farcicle as noone was either attacking or defending the blind side..
a try scorer would imo have exploited that situation.

I'm sorry I have to go with Rossie in regards to Millard. Connacht have been held tryless too often for him to be considered a success at attacking rugby. They are towards the bottom of the Rabo table for trys scored and total points scored. Sure he's not on the field, but he has a role in the performance out there. Personally I would be looking for more ways to get Vainikolo the ball in his hands.

I think a stronger case can be made for McFarland. When Connacht have the services of most of their first choice players they are usually a match for any pack out here.

Craic Head wrote: I would be gutted if Billy Millard left, he has done a great job, ties in well with Nigel and gives the young lads plenty of chances. Our backs look very threa
tening under his coaching. I had hoped that we were going to give him the job

too often in the last 2 seasons our game has been blighted by poorly executed and chased garryowens and handling errors in the backs.
some of this, both in terms of tactics and lack of execution, have to be laid at milliards door. if you dont then you are saying that eric solely had input into team tactics and preparation and imo that simply isnt the case.

a similar arguement could be made against mcfarland.

munster fans, including me, are outraged by last nights performance and loss. we are blaming penney, mannix, foley and the players. they are all responsible for performance, good and bad.

Anyone know how long Millard and McFarland have left in their contract?

I would be gutted if Billy Millard left, he has done a great job, ties in well with Nigel and gives the young lads plenty of chances. Our backs look very threatening under his coaching. I had hoped that we were going to give him the job

Interesting article today in the indo.

Although I now leave the whole "hail king Eddie" agenda out of it, the part that struck me was about Lam being turned down for the Ulster job because he wanted to bring his own coaches with him. I can't see this having changed too much in one year.

What does this mean for McFarland and Millard? Both of whom I feel are doing a good job. Our forwards are rarely beaten up. When our backs look to play, and not kick pointlessly, they look dangerous. Millard also has a track record of bringing through youth and this must help with our backline.

Irish times suggesting its pat lam.

I would be quite happy. Hes been around the block. Is a born winner and is still young.

And he has been a good young coach.

Id think it was between him and king but king would have been more of a risk.