Ireland Tour to New Zealand 2012 Discussion thread

BoardsMember

Hagz wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think you can blame Murray for static runners. I think regardless of who the scrum half is, players like POC will still take the ball standing.

I dont understand you. How about Healy, SOB, Ferris, Darcy, Kearney. It rarely happens that they take a flat fast pass at pace for Ireland, when that's all they do for Leinster. Either coaching, scrum half or both are to blame.

Hagz

BoardsMember wrote: »

I dont understand you. How about Healy, SOB, Ferris, Darcy, Kearney. It rarely happens that they take a flat fast pass at pace for Ireland, when that's all they do for Leinster. Either coaching, scrum half or both are to blame.

Coaching. Doesn't matter who the scrum half is, O'Connell, Best, O'Brien and company take the ball from a static position more often than not with Ireland.

BoardsMember

.ak wrote: »

Yeah I agree there was issues before this.. but that kinda backs up that rumour. Reddan was getting on and might've thought 'Feck it, last time I get to pull something like this, might get picked again for it.'

It was the best Irish performance under Kidney's reign, no denying that, and Reddan had a huge hand in it, delivering quick ball on platter to the strike runners.

Totally agree, it was beautiful rugby

BoardsMember

Hagz wrote: »

Coaching. Doesn't matter who the scrum half is, O'Connell, Best, O'Brien and company take the ball from a static position more often than not with Ireland.

Em, if you're talking about POC yes, he takes it standing still. But copmplete rubbish for OBrien & other Leinster players, and Ferris and others too.

If the SH is slow to the breakdown he can be under more pressure at the breakdown, more forwards needed to secure it. Also, runners dont know when Murray is going to pass, whereas with Reddan they know the minute the clearout happens, he gets hands on it and whips it out. So the runners time their runs accordingly. It works like clockwork when Readdan plays for Leinster with SOB, Healy, Cronin, Kearney, Darcy etc, with Ireland there are two things that affect this - nobody knows when Murray is going to pass, or indeed run straight at a bigger man for a pointless no yard gain that ties in our SH and causes more issues.

Fishooks12

BoardsMember wrote: »

Em, if you're talking about POC yes, he takes it standing still. But copmplete rubbish for OBrien & other Leinster players, and Ferris and others too.

If the SH is slow to the breakdown he can be under more pressure at the breakdown, more forwards needed to secure it. Also, runners dont know when Murray is going to pass, whereas with Reddan they know the minute the clearout happens, he gets hands on it and whips it out. So the runners time their runs accordingly. It works like clockwork when Readdan plays for Leinster with SOB, Healy, Cronin, Kearney, Darcy etc, with Ireland there are two things that affect this - nobody knows when Murray is going to pass, or indeed run straight at a bigger man for a pointless no yard gain that ties in our SH and causes more issues.

That's all completely speculative

jm08

Fishooks12 wrote: »

You're rather subtly farting around the point that you think ROG should start next week. Why not just come out and say it?

I think Sexton should start.

jm08

GerM wrote: »

NZ is one place where ROG is not and has never been particularly rated and I'd be shocked if they didn't think ROG starting would be handy. As the famous comment in 2005: "Kiwis know their rugby and they know a lemon when they see one". It was a similar story 2 years ago after the 66-28 hammering and Sexton's first NZ appearance a few days later against the Maoris. They absolutely took him to pieces on that Lions tour and it has been one way traffic since, undeservedly as he went on to produce his best rugby in the next 2-3 years but the damage was done.

ROG isn't the only Irish player not to be rated down in NZ, so no shame in that. The Kiwis knock every player to play on the Lions tour, so picking ROG out for mention would suggest that they rated him somewhat (similar situation to POC who they point out was poor on the Lions tour).

Do you honestly think they would prefer O'Gara to start to make life easier for them after Saturday?

BoardsMember

Fishooks12 wrote: »

That's all completely speculative

Speculative implies there's no evidence to prove it. Look at when Ireland have payed their best front foot rugby under Kidney. Australia and RWC, and England last year. Reddan at SH, Leinster/Irish forwards taking flat fast passes & dominating the collisions. Compare this to how we consistently perform EVERY time Murray plays SH for Ireland. Compare how Leinster & Ireland forward play for Leinster with Reddan compared to how they play for Ireland.

Clegg

Irelands biggest problem is the coaching setup imo. Kiss is a good defence coach but that area is suffering because he's also our attack coach. We used to have good defence and a poor attack but now we're poor at both. We desperately need a proper attack coach.

We look useless from numbers 11-15. I think we also have a problem with Sexton. We're not getting the best out of him atm. And thats not entirely his fault. A lot of people I've talked to bemoan the fact that he cannot translate his provincial form to the international stage. But Leinster and Ireland are coached completely differently. At leinster there are runners coming from deep, wings coming in from the blindside but the main difference between the sides is Leinsters ability to generate quick ball.

Dan Carter is the best 10 in the world. He's supremely telented in every facet of the game but he's aided by the quick ball thats generated by his pack. Sexton gets this at Leinster but not with Ireland. We either muddle too long at the breakdown or decide that we'd rather pass to a forward than to our 10. Sexton has always played well for Ireland. He's kicked poorly and made mistake but 2012 has actually been a decent year for him. His goalkicking has improved and he's stood up well in defence. But we still can't get our backline moving.

Our entire backline has been mismanaged imo. We need quick ball to look threatening but we rarely get that. When the backs get slow ball all they can do is ship it to the next man or take it into contact.

JustinDee

BoardsMember wrote: »

Speculative implies there's no evidence to prove it. Look at when Ireland have payed their best front foot rugby under Kidney. Australia and RWC, and England last year. Reddan at SH, Leinster/Irish forwards taking flat fast passes & dominating the collisions. Compare this to how we consistently perform EVERY time Murray plays SH for Ireland. Compare how Leinster & Ireland forward play for Leinster with Reddan compared to how they play for Ireland.

Speculative means you are making a presumptive guess at the reasoning behind a performance and also that you are basing this further on guesswork involving how a player feels or what a player knows, which of course is something you are not party to.

ed7890

BoardsMember wrote: »

Speculative implies there's no evidence to prove it. Look at when Ireland have payed their best front foot rugby under Kidney. Australia and RWC, and England last year. Reddan at SH, Leinster/Irish forwards taking flat fast passes & dominating the collisions. Compare this to how we consistently perform EVERY time Murray plays SH for Ireland. Compare how Leinster & Ireland forward play for Leinster with Reddan compared to how they play for Ireland.

How about the recent England game? We had the Sexton-Reddan combo but we didnt play front foot rugby.

BoardsMember

JustinDee wrote: »

Speculative means you are making a presumptive guess at the reasoning behind a performance and also that you are basing this further on guesswork involving how a player feels or what a player knows, which of course is something you are not party to.

Is that the JustinDee definition?

Anyhow, you've completely missed my point. I'm not talking about this performance in particular. What I am trying to point out is that teams (Ireland & Leinster) play good, fast, flat passing aggressive attacking rugby with Reddan at SH, with many of the same ball carriers as Ireland have.

Additionally, when Ireland has played a similar brand of rugby and played its best rugby in the last two years, I am suggesting (not speculating, completely wrong word to use) that the common theme is the SH gets to breakdown quickly, and gets the ball away quickly. It's not rocket science, its all about quick ball, and Murray doesnt provide it. Reddan does.

In my opinion it is beyond question that Murray gets to breakdown slower than Reddan, and gets the ball away more slowly.

So I am making the conclusion, which doesn't seem a massive leap of faith, that this is the cause of why our big ball carriers fail to take flat ball when Murray is at SH. It really isnt that complicated. If you want to conclude otherwise, for instance that Murray is in no way responsible then so be it.

Of course, the only sure way to know this is to ask SOB & Healy etc why they dont make runs to receive flat passes from Murray, and they do from Reddan. Failing that, we'll never know.

BoardsMember

ed7890 wrote: »

How about the recent England game? We had the Sexton-Reddan combo but we didnt play front foot rugby.

Did you notice anything in particular about that game? For instance, getting eaten in the pack, especially at the scrum. That pretty much precludes quick ball being available, which is the starting point of what I am saying - quick ball delivered quickly. When the big ball carriers know it is coming they commit to making the runs.

ed7890

BoardsMember wrote: »

Did you notice anything in particular about that game? For instance, getting eaten in the pack, especially at the scrum. That pretty much precludes quick ball being available, which is the starting point of what I am saying - quick ball delivered quickly. When the big ball carriers know it is coming they commit to making the runs.

We got eaten in the scrum no question, but how come we didn't play better going forward rugby in the rest of the game? We had Reddan on. Munster got eaten in the scrum against the Saints, but still played good going forward rugby and got tries. And that was with only Murray at scrum half.

Tox56

ed7890 wrote: »

We got eaten in the scrum no question, but how come we didn't play better going forward rugby in the rest of the game? We had Reddan on. Munster got eaten in the scrum against the Saints, but still played good going forward rugby and got tries. And that was with only Murray at scrum half.

Not only were we on the back foot, it was pouring it down and as a result it was a tight game, I don't think the ball got as far as Tuilagi all night. It's incredibly harsh to criticise a scrum-half for not playing expansive, try scoring rugby in the pouring rain, on the back foot and in such a tight game.

With or without the scrum dominance, that was a game for the forwards.

BoardsMember

The type of game Reddan plays is higher skill/higher risk (and return). I think it is fair to say that Kidney is pretty risk averse. Another way of interpreting that is that he doesn't back his players, their skills, and their ability to play the best rugby they can play, he'd rather concentrate on defensive duties & ability and play safe, waiting for the other team to make mistakes.

As Tox56 intimates above, it's fair to say that Reddan's game is not always the right one, depending on a number of conditions, including the weather, but also sometimes it just wont work, in which case you have a more basic game plan and a more robust (if limited) SH.

Stev_o

BoardsMember wrote: »

The type of game Reddan plays is higher skill/higher risk (and return). I think it is fair to say that Kidney is pretty risk averse. Another way of interpreting that is that he doesn't back his players, their skills, and their ability to play the best rugby they can play, he'd rather concentrate on defensive duties & ability and play safe, waiting for the other team to make mistakes.

As Tox56 intimates above, it's fair to say that Reddan's game is not always the right one, depending on a number of conditions, including the weather, but also sometimes it just wont work, in which case you have a more basic game plan and a more robust (if limited) SH.

Or maybe he just picks players to suit his system...

BoardsMember

Stev_o wrote: »

Or maybe he just picks players to suit his system...

Kidneys biggest indictment?

Stev_o

BoardsMember wrote: »

Kidneys biggest indictment?

Pretty much but to be fair it's like not we'v had one decent attack coach that was whiling to make changes to our style of play.

irishbucsfan

Stev_o wrote: »

BoardsMember wrote: »

Kidneys biggest indictment?

Pretty much but to be fair it's like not we'v had one decent attack coach that was whiling to make changes to our style of play.

While this is true, we had the perfect opportunity to go get an attack coach after the world cup and we didn't even try, seemingly.

So that is nobody's fault but ourselves.

armchaircoach

So with Earls out we are calling up Duffy, but why. I don't want to get into bashing players, and I understand that Duffy is an integral part of connacht's team, but for me he's just not up to international standard.

So What role will he play. I see 3 options:

1) We have no other fullback cover so Duffy has to be the 22 sub for the match. As he covers no other positions this means that we give up any chance of using our back subs for tactical reasons, and he will exist purely to cover an injury to Kearney. This is rediculous that our entire strategy now has to revolve around the inability of a player to cover more than one position, but also the inability of management to recognise this and involve a different more versitile option (Gilroy, Baby Kearney)

2) As above, with but with Ferg starting centre, and Sexton having to move out to cover when Ferg is shifted around. Once again this is a reactionary selection rather than one that offers tactical solutions.

3) He doesn't get on the squad, so whats the point in flying him out.

For all of the above I think its safe to say that the IRFU got it wrong in only selecting 29 players. And then selecting (at this stage) so many "one position ponys" (Trimble Duffy Zebo Kearny) out of a very limited number of backs.

(kearney is included in the above list but I under no circumstance think that he should have been left at home, just in there for fairness)

Zzippy

armchaircoach wrote: »

So with Earls out we are calling up Duffy, but why. I don't want to get into bashing players, and I understand that Duffy is an integral part of connacht's team, but for me he's just not up to international standard.

So What role will he play. I see 3 options:

1) We have no other fullback cover so Duffy has to be the 22 sub for the match. As he covers no other positions this means that we give up any chance of using our back subs for tactical reasons, and he will exist purely to cover an injury to Kearney. This is rediculous that our entire strategy now has to revolve around the inability of a player to cover more than one position, but also the inability of management to recognise this and involve a different more versitile option (Gilroy, Baby Kearney)

2) As above, with but with Ferg starting centre, and Sexton having to move out to cover when Ferg is shifted around. Once again this is a reactionary selection rather than one that offers tactical solutions.

3) He doesn't get on the squad, so whats the point in flying him out.

For all of the above I think its safe to say that the IRFU got it wrong in only selecting 29 players. And then selecting (at this stage) so many "one position ponys" (Trimble Duffy Zebo Kearny) out of a very limited number of backs.

(kearney is included in the above list but I under no circumstance think that he should have been left at home, just in there for fairness)

Duffy covers fullback and centre. He has played centre quite a few times, for Connacht, Harlequins, and Ireland. How is that less versatile than Gilroy, who covers wing, and eh, wing, or "Baby Kearney" who also covers wing, and eh, wing?

Tox56

Gilroy and D Kearney both cover full back

irishbucsfan

Zzippy wrote: »

armchaircoach wrote: »

So with Earls out we are calling up Duffy, but why. I don't want to get into bashing players, and I understand that Duffy is an integral part of connacht's team, but for me he's just not up to international standard.

So What role will he play. I see 3 options:

1) We have no other fullback cover so Duffy has to be the 22 sub for the match. As he covers no other positions this means that we give up any chance of using our back subs for tactical reasons, and he will exist purely to cover an injury to Kearney. This is rediculous that our entire strategy now has to revolve around the inability of a player to cover more than one position, but also the inability of management to recognise this and involve a different more versitile option (Gilroy, Baby Kearney)

2) As above, with but with Ferg starting centre, and Sexton having to move out to cover when Ferg is shifted around. Once again this is a reactionary selection rather than one that offers tactical solutions.

3) He doesn't get on the squad, so whats the point in flying him out.

For all of the above I think its safe to say that the IRFU got it wrong in only selecting 29 players. And then selecting (at this stage) so many "one position ponys" (Trimble Duffy Zebo Kearny) out of a very limited number of backs.

(kearney is included in the above list but I under no circumstance think that he should have been left at home, just in there for fairness)

Duffy covers fullback and centre. He has played centre quite a few times, for Connacht, Harlequins, and Ireland. How is that less versatile than Gilroy, who covers wing, and eh, wing, or "Baby Kearney" who also covers wing, and eh, wing?

Kearney and Gilroy have played more fullback than Sexton has played 12.

The problem isn't with Duffys ability, its the fact he's never going to be a first choice international whereas the others might well be.

irishbucsfan

Also Kearney was fullback cover on Feb 5th

Stev_o

irishbucsfan wrote: »

While this is true, we had the perfect opportunity to go get an attack coach after the world cup and we didn't even try, seemingly.

So that is nobody's fault but ourselves.

Stupid IRFU because the chance to get John Kirwan would of been magnificent. Given what he did with Japan (they had a crap pack and extremely under weight across key positions) we could of been tearing it up.

Fishooks12

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Kearney and Gilroy have played more fullback than Sexton has played 12.

The problem isn't with Duffys ability, its the fact he's never going to be a first choice international whereas the others might well be.

+1

This is exactly why he shouldn't be near the squad

thomond2006

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Kearney and Gilroy have played more fullback than Sexton has played 12.

The problem isn't with Duffys ability, its the fact he's never going to be a first choice international whereas the others might well be.

It's a real symbol of Kidney's conservatism IMO. He would rather have a dependable pair of hands like Duffy than a player like Gilroy or Kearney who are perhaps less polished but have the potential to make a better impact off the bench, which is essentially where Duffy would be if he got a look in into the 22.

Stev_o

thomond2006 wrote: »

It's a real symbol of Kidney's conservatism IMO. He would rather have a dependable pair of hands like Duffy than a player like Gilroy or Kearney who are perhaps less polished but have the potential to make a better impact off the bench, which is essentially where Duffy would be if he got a look in into the 22.

It's all about people with experience in the set up....

Though on a lesser note maybe he doesn't want to wreck the confidence of these two young prospects. Nothing worse then "England" syndrome ( Promising English player gets picked for the national squad, plays a few games,returns to their club as a shadow of them self).

armchaircoach

Agreed he's never going to be a first choice international at this stage in his career, but what I'm more trying to get at is that last week we had centres who could interchange, a cover for centre, a centre who could move to fullback or wing, and a wing who could switch back to centre. That at least left us with options (not that Kidney realises that your allowed make tactical changes during a match)

this week we will be far more limited in what we can change around, and had we brough either more players to begin with, or made a better choice of who we were to fly out now, then we would not necessesarily be as hard pressed.