Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread

Benny Cake

Hagz wrote: »

I don't think anyone would say anything on here that they wouldn't say in a rugby discussion down in their local. Besides there a some regular posters on here who have made their identity known. The reality is that it's not exactly a wise decision to use your real name on any internet discussion forum. That would be the reason people use usernames, not because they are too cowardly to take ownership of their opinion.

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Ya I mean It's pretty easy to track down who I am. And I've certainly left links and stuff that contained my twitter.. Don't think I've said anything on here I'd have a problem saying in public

In general terms I agree with both your points. However, i do sometimes wonder at the fairness of it all. We are free to criticise as we see fit, the people who we dismiss (sometimes flat-out insult) have no right of reply making it an unfair fight....
In any case, this is an ethical discussion more suited to the philosophy forum!!!

danthefan

Benny Cake wrote: »

In general terms I agree with both your points. However, i do sometimes wonder at the fairness of it all. We are free to criticise as we see fit, the people who we dismiss (sometimes flat-out insult) have no right of reply making it an unfair fight....
In any case, this is an ethical discussion more suited to the philosophy forum!!!

What? Tony Ward has just brandished basically everyone who talks about rugby on the internet a vitriolic coward or whatever it was. He means you. And he did it in a national newspaper.

You and me and the rest of us are the ones who pay for basically everything rugby related in this country, including paying Tony's wage, because if nobody wanted to read about rugby there'd be no rugby journalism. We're perfectly entitled to our opinions.

Fishooks12

Benny Cake wrote: »

In general terms I agree with both your points. However, i do sometimes wonder at the fairness of it all. We are free to criticise as we see fit, the people who we dismiss (sometimes flat-out insult) have no right of reply making it an unfair fight....
In any case, this is an ethical discussion more suited to the philosophy forum!!!

Well put it like this. I'm in my 4th year of a journalism undergrad. Now I don't see myself going into sports next year but for arguments sake lets just say I get hired to cover an Ireland game.

I definitely wouldn't be as hysterical in my critique or praise of players as I would be on boards. So I suppose you're right that there's two sides to the argument in that people tend to indulge in a lot more hyperbole here. Even reasonable posters (I hope) like myself.

Not I'm not saying that we're anything close to what Ward is saying. But the veil of anonymity does help

jm08

Tox56 wrote: »

Don't tell me you agree with that jm, please don't

If you look around at the evdence, it is going that way All the official rugby site message boards have been shut down like in soccer because they couldn't deal with the abuse and provide the necessary modding required.

Everything on the Indo site is pre-modded for some reason as well!

Scioch

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Well put it like this. I'm in my 4th year of a journalism undergrad. Now I don't see myself going into sports next year but for arguments sake lets just say I get hired to cover an Ireland game.

I definitely wouldn't be as hysterical in my critique or praise of players as I would be on boards. So I suppose you're right that there's two sides to the argument in that people tend to indulge in a lot more hyperbole here. Even reasonable posters (I hope) like myself.

In a professional context it would be different as you wouldnt just be speaking for yourself. You'd be speaking on behalf of the media outlet and as such wouldnt have the freedom to express yourself as much.

Here though I doubt anyone would say anything that they wouldnt say down the pub. Its not as if we are doing anything untoward with our anonymity like leaving personal abuse on a facebook page.

Fishooks12

Scioch wrote: »

In a professional context it would be different as you wouldnt just be speaking for yourself. You'd be speaking on behalf of the media outlet and as such wouldnt have the freedom to express yourself as much.

Here though I doubt anyone would say anything that they wouldnt say down the pub. Its not as if we are doing anything untoward with our anonymity like leaving personal abuse on a facebook page.

I'd say you'd be speaking for yourself alright. But you'd be expected to be a lot more objective and not go out of your way to be overly critical of players and coaches that you have to work with.

Now there's a fine line which some have crossed and gone too far (Thornley)

jm08

danthefan wrote: »

What? Tony Ward has just brandished basically everyone who talks about rugby on the internet a vitriolic coward or whatever it was. He means you. And he did it in a national newspaper

If the hat fits, wear it.

You and me and the rest of us are the ones who pay for basically everything rugby related in this country, including paying Tony's wage, because if nobody wanted to read about rugby there'd be no rugby journalism. We're perfectly entitled to our opinions.

I know quite a few long-standing supporters of Irish rugby who would find the kidney clock quite distasteful if they about it.

Tony Ward would probably survive as his fulltime occupation is teacher & coach I believe.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

I know quite a few long-standing supporters of Irish rugby who would find the kidney clock quite distasteful if they about it.

I know plenty that find it useful, though shockingly slow.

goreyguy

oh know not something distasteful!!!

Fishooks12

Deleted User wrote: »

I know plenty that find it useful, though shockingly slow.

The Kidney clock is a bit of craic like. I'd think most people would realise that Kidney seems to be a pretty nice guy, if not the best coach in the world

totallegend

Lads, Tony Ward has been reading the comments section on one of his own articles; the Indo are unbelievably lax about what they'll allow to be posted and Ward just probably can't tell the difference between informed posters, crazy loopers and blatant trolls. The Indo comments section seems to attract very few of the former...

Storm? Check. Teacup? Check. It's a distraction from the actual issues that are plaguing this team.

danthefan

totallegend wrote: »

Lads, Tony Ward has been reading the comments section on one of his own articles; the Indo are unbelievably lax about what they'll allow to be posted and Ward just probably can't tell the difference between informed posters, crazy loopers and blatant trolls. The Indo comments section seems to attract very few of the former...

Storm? Check. Teacup? Check. It's a distraction from the actual issues that are plaguing this team.

Ehh, there are no issues that we have any control over. It's as good a topic of discussion as any.

Fireball07

totallegend wrote: »

Lads, Tony Ward has been reading the comments section on one of his own articles; the Indo are unbelievably lax about what they'll allow to be posted and Ward just probably can't tell the difference between informed posters, crazy loopers and blatant trolls. The Indo comments section seems to attract very few of the former...

Storm? Check. Teacup? Check. It's a distraction from the actual issues that are plaguing this team.

Well, he does say it'd be wrong to sack Kidney and we shouldn't say that.

It doesn't actually make much sense to me...if Kidney was capable of getting results like the Australia game in the WC, and the England game in 2011 on a regular basis, I could understand that argument. But they come along on a very irregular basis, coupled with some awful performances and just generally poor results. How can someone who played rugby at the highest level, and must watch a lot of rugby look at our team and think we wouldn't improve with proper coaching and a proper gameplan?

danthefan

totallegend wrote: »

Yeah, I meant that Ward, as a rugby journalist, should be focussing on actual rugby issues rather than giving out about that new-fangled internet thing.

Ahh fair enough. Yes he should certainly be using his column inches for analysis or somesuch. Though that would involve him doing some analysis.



Tangentially related, someone on PR has posted up this collection of interesting stats:

Since Jan 2010 Ireland have played 34 games. We have won 14.

Of those 34, 23 were against top 8 sides (i.e. RC sides plus Wales/Eng/France).

Of those 23 matches we've won 5. Of those 5, 3 were in 2010.

We have also lost to Scotland twice in that period and were seconds away from losing to Italy.

They're the facts, Tony. Spin that.

jm08

Fishooks12 wrote: »

The Kidney clock is a bit of craic like. I'd think most people would realise that Kidney seems to be a pretty nice guy, if not the best coach in the world

I'm sure most think its just a bit of craic, but a lot of people would find it distasteful that people are gleefully awaiting someone to get the sack from their job. Its not as if Kidney would be on a couple of million a year like a soccer manager to cushion him from the blow.

goreyguy

ah have a sense of humour

jm08

totallegend wrote: »

Yeah, I meant that Ward, as a rugby journalist, should be focussing on actual rugby issues rather than giving out about that new-fangled internet thing.

Try reading on after that paragraph about the internet commentary. That is one of 22 paragraphs in the article.

Some good responses as well at the end of the article.

jm08

goreyguy wrote: »

ah have a sense of humour

I have a sense of humour thanks. I'm just not 10 years of age.

Scioch

jm08 wrote: »

I'm sure most think its just a bit of craic, but a lot of people would find it distasteful that people are gleefully awaiting someone to get the sack from their job. Its not as if Kidney would be on a couple of million a year like a soccer manager to cushion him from the blow.

Not gleefully awaiting, patiently awaiting while making it clear that fans are not happy with the direction the team is going and that Kidney as the head coach is ultimately the man responsible for that.

He took the job after Eddie was unceremoniously booted out after a failed world cup campaign. He knew bad results would mean loss of credibility in the eyes of the public. Ward knows that full well too. But seems to be incapable of realising that the team isnt doing all that well.

goreyguy

:rolleyes:

danthefan

Scioch wrote: »

Not gleefully awaiting, patiently awaiting while making it clear that fans are not happy with the direction the team is going and that Kidney as the head coach is ultimately the man responsible for that.

He took the job after Eddie was unceremoniously booted out after a failed world cup campaign. He knew bad results would mean loss of credibility in the eyes of the public. Ward knows that full well too. But seems to be incapable of realising that the team isnt doing all that well.

He's involved in professional sport. You live and die by results. If he wanted a job for life he could have stayed teaching.

jm08

Scioch wrote: »

Not gleefully awaiting, patiently awaiting while making it clear that fans are not happy with the direction the team is going and that Kidney as the head coach is ultimately the man responsible for that.

He took the job after Eddie was unceremoniously booted out after a failed world cup campaign. He knew bad results would mean loss of credibility in the eyes of the public. Ward knows that full well too. But seems to be incapable of realising that the team isnt doing all that well.

Ward, like a lot of commentators think you are misguided if you think that sacking the coach is going to solve all the problems (like they are forever doing in soccer - sack the manager, get a new one, lose a few games, sack him, get another one, win a few games, then lose a few games, sack him). The soccer managers are making a fortune out of it. They rest for a year or so and then they get a job in another club - how many times has Mick McCarthy being sacked and rehired ). Sunderland are still towards the bottom of the premiership heading for where he left them).

Tox56

jm08 wrote: »

Ward, like a lot of commentators think you are misguided if you think that sacking the coach is going to solve all the problems (like they are forever doing in soccer - sack the manager, get a new one, lose a few games, sack him, get another one, win a few games, then lose a few games, sack him). The soccer managers are making a fortune out of it. They rest for a year or so and then they get a job in another club - how many times has Mick McCarthy being sacked and rehired ). Sunderland are still towards the bottom of the premiership heading for where he left them).

So under what circumstances do you think it is prudent to sack a coach?

jm08

danthefan wrote: »

He's involved in professional sport. You live and die by results. If he wanted a job for life he could have stayed teaching.

Yep, rugby is going down the soccer route (without the cash).

goreyguy

I'm not sure anyone has suggested that said sacking Kidney will solve all of the problems, but it will solve the biggest problem, Kidney being in charge in the first place.

He has had 4 years and the last two years have been terrible by any measuring stick. That's hardly a comparison to what goes on in soccer.

Fireball07

jm08 wrote: »

Ward, like a lot of commentators think you are misguided if you think that sacking the coach is going to solve all the problems (like they are forever doing in soccer - sack the manager, get a new one, lose a few games, sack him, get another one, win a few games, then lose a few games, sack him). The soccer managers are making a fortune out of it. They rest for a year or so and then they get a job in another club - how many times has Mick McCarthy being sacked and rehired ). Sunderland are still towards the bottom of the premiership heading for where he left them).

When Mick McCarthy was sacked as Sunderland manager, they were headed for the worst ever points total in the history of the Premiership. Since then, they have had a top-half finish, and are generally a side who have consolidated their position. (Not that it was all McCarthy's fault, he wasn't backed very well... I do think the sacking of Steve Bruce has a lot of similarities with the Kidney situation).


Sacking Kidney doesn't solve all the problems. But at the moment, we have some extremely talented players, and he's not getting the best out of them. He's come to the end of his useful life span in charge of the team, we need a fresh voice.

jm08

Tox56 wrote: »

So under what circumstances do you think it is prudent to sack a coach?

I don't think there is a general rule - but I'd expect some informed people to evaluate a coach's performance.

Most commentators recognise that Ireland cannot expect great results because of the injury sitution/aging team. Its just far too easy to blame the manager.

goreyguy

you are delusional. we weren't getting results before the injury "crisis"

Also irish rugby is perhaps at its strongest in the last 2-3 years yet the national team has underperformed drastically.

Fishooks12

jm08 wrote: »

I'm sure most think its just a bit of craic, but a lot of people would find it distasteful that people are gleefully awaiting someone to get the sack from their job. Its not as if Kidney would be on a couple of million a year like a soccer manager to cushion him from the blow.

He's not exactly struggling to pay the bills on the salaries he's been on for the last ten years either in fairness

JustinDee

Having read the article, I think some are taking what he mentions about people posting anonymously on the web too much to heart. Its obvious he has somebody in mind. Doesn't necessarily mean that its actually you.

As for his opinion on the squad's management, it is just that: opinion. No biggie. Take it or leave it.
I generally just read match reports myself. Matt Williams wrote something I disagreed with the other week. I tweeted him . . . but no bite. Hoped to bump into him at stadium on Saturday? Didn't seem to be at game.
Life goes on.