Ireland Tour to New Zealand 2012 Discussion thread

irishbucsfan

They probably should have both out. Kearney/Gilroy to cover from the bench this weekend and Duffy there training to start if Kearney Sr. is injured.

19543261

http://murraykinsella.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/all-blacks-far-too-clinical/

Great review of the match here, for anyone still not following this guy

GerM

Zzippy wrote: »

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?

Duffy is a good, solid player who is reliable. A less effective Girvan Dempsey, perhaps. I am happy for him and it's probably as much as he deserves for being a great servant. However, simple fact is, he's 31 this year. He doesn't have an international future. He's primarily a full back which is a position where we have several options much younger with better international prospects. I wouldn't have considered calling up Gilroy for Earls though. He has never started one game as full back for Ulster, only the Irish U20 side in my memory.

Dave Kearney should have been in consideration as he has actually played full back for his side as recently as a few weeks ago and is a decent winger also. After that, we're looking towards the likes of Adam D'Arcy. Can understand Duffy but don't think it was the right call. He's out there only in event of Rob Kearney getting injured, really. He won't come into consideration for any other spot in the back line unless there are a few injuries.

armchaircoach

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They probably should have both out. Kearney/Gilroy to cover from the bench this weekend and Duffy there training to start if Kearney Sr. is injured.

This exactly, why did we go out with so few in the first place, and why aren't we rectifying it now.

If its IRFU. Pennypinching I'm mad. If its just incompetence I'm sad.

Hagz

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.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong but I'm fairly sure pretty much all the forwards are accustomed to taking the ball statically. I'll keep a close eye on it for next time now that it's a topic of debate, but I honestly don't remember the last time SOB, Healy and co have taken a flat ball coming from deep.

I understand what your point is, that Murray's laboured recycling means the guys can't come from deep, but I believe that the type of tactics employed by the team don't concern coming from deep anyway. Not even the backs cut angles form deep.

irishbucsfan

There is an element of poor passing taking away from our momentum going forward.

For example the offload that BOD is getting crucified for came after a particularly bad pass.

However there's equally an issue of the forwards just taking the ball in a very structured static manner for some reason. It seems to be intentional somewhat, its been there for a while.

BoardsMember

It's low risk. It's all about low risk for Deccie. Don't f#ck it up is the message. A negative message, and that explains the outcome in most circumstances.

FireStart

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)

This is the probalem bringing alot tof these players that can play in a few positions and then playing them on the wrong position ie McFadden got roasted on the wing and Earls is playing out of position

SomeFool

BoardsMember wrote: »

It's low risk. It's all about low risk for Deccie. Don't f#ck it up is the message. A negative message, and that explains the outcome in most circumstances.

I'm suprised he went for Duffy over Denis Hurley actually! :eek:

JRant

At this stage it's all getting extremely tedious and frustrating watching this management team slowly going through the motions. Winning is a habit but so is losing and it's evident we have the latter.
We are just not playing with any purpose in defense or attack. NZ showed how you play a simple gameplan and execute it precisely. SA showed how you play a forward orientated game against England. You either pick a quick mobile pack and play at a higher tempo or you get the BIG lads out there and keep trucking it up the middle. We seem to be trying to do both and as a result we're doing neither.
We really need a nephrologist at this stage, however even a layman can tell we need a transplant at this stage.

totallegend

My paranoid conspiracy theory is that Kidney knows Duffy is not the right call and he's only been called up so Kidney can blame the number of foreign back-three players in the provinces for our next hiding.

twinytwo

i know people wont like this but i think o leary would actually make a decent enough winger.. quick, strong, decent defence and the most important thing he wouldnt need to pass much.

twinytwo

twinytwo wrote: »

i know people wont like this but i think o leary would actually make a decent enough winger.. quick, strong, decent defence and the most important thing he wouldnt need to pass much.

I think he could play 12 too. He's just a limited passer, not a bad rugby player.

danthefan

twinytwo wrote: »

i know people wont like this but i think o leary would actually make a decent enough winger.. quick, strong, decent defence and the most important thing he wouldnt need to pass much.

You're probably not wrong. Any and all criticism of TOL has been to do with his skills as a SH, his passing is awful and his decision making glacially slow. He's very quick and very strong.

.ak

He played wing before for Munster iirc. Don't know how it worked out though.. I think he's a bit shy going into contact with ball now adays, but still has a fierce tackle.

Fishooks12

I think TOL is a decent 9. Not spectacular but decent. Gets a lot of unwarranted stick for not being a Stringer type passer

Fishooks12

Fishooks12 wrote: »

I think TOL is a decent 9. Not spectacular but decent. Gets a lot of unwarranted stick for not being a Stringer type passer

he's not even a Malcolm O'Kelly type passer

FireStart

With all the talk here on the forum. Did anyone think that Ireland had a very good first half. I have watched it for the first time tonight and I was very impressed with them.
Yes we had a few dodgy moments. Murray kicked 2-3 box kicks to far; BOD threw a hospital pass and Mcfadden would not be covered in roses for his play
But the matter seems to be that they were playing NZ and if they gave them a whisper they were cut open. If Ireland gave that performance against any other team I would no doubt beleive the score would be reversed.
NZ seem to give themselves that extra bit of space. When a normal team go in for a ruck they are looking to off load. Every time NZ try to break a tackle there is a support runner left and right. this doesn't happen for ireland, their passes stick
yes the second half was shamble as NZ knocked the life out of us but I believe talk of an end of the era and looking for peoples head is a bit premature.
for the next test we need someone better than mcfadden on wing. would reddan make much of a difference possibly but look at the tackling murray did around the field.

fitz

Alan Creamy Oxygen wrote: »

Fishooks12 wrote: »

I think TOL is a decent 9. Not spectacular but decent. Gets a lot of unwarranted stick for not being a Stringer type passer

he's not even a Malcolm O'Kelly type passer

Unfairly harsh on Mal tbh...

.ak

FireStart wrote: »

But the matter seems to be that they were playing NZ and if they gave them a whisper they were cut open. If Ireland gave that performance against any other team I would no doubt beleive the score would be reversed.

Hmm, whilst I agree for the first 20 we showed glimpses of good rugby, I can't agree with the statement above. The ABs are the world champions, yes, but they don't beat top 8 teams by +32 points that often. France were on a wing and a prayer and they came within +1 point.

To put it another way, the ABs didn't even reach top gear on saturday.

We were woeful because of our imposed gameplan.

Teg Veece

.ak wrote: »

Hmm, whilst I agree for the first 20 we showed glimpses of good rugby, I can't agree with the statement above. The ABs are the world champions, yes, but they don't beat top 8 teams by +32 points that often. France were on a wing and a prayer and they came within +1 point.

To put it another way, the ABs didn't even reach top gear on saturday.

We were woeful because of our imposed gameplan.

What gameplan would you have used to beat them?

Fishooks12

Teg Veece wrote: »

What gameplan would you have used to beat them?

One that employs fast ball, better backline moves and bigger runners out wide on 3rd and 4th phase ball

Less kicking too

Swiwi

JustinDee wrote: »

It was a top kick, exploiting a rare gap in New Zealand's defence.

Top kick gets my vote

Swiwi

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.

Totally agree. ROG has only ever been utter pies when playing NZ, and given most people downunder dont set their alarms to watch 6N/HC/Pro12, I would agree he is not at all rated. Not sure why Rattue thought he would make a better option than Sexton. I could only see him starting if Ireland wanted to play 10 man rugby, and for that to beat NZ in the modern game you need an utterly dominant forward pack...If Ireland do kick, they have to give Kearney a chance to do his thing, I was amazed at how often Ireland kicked restarts deep to the NZ back 3....that never works. Play to your strengths, and one of those at the moment is Kearney under a high ball. If Ireland do play O'Gara though, look for SBW to run at him all day.

GerM

Teg Veece wrote: »

What gameplan would you have used to beat them?

Food poisoning.

FireStart

.ak wrote: »

Hmm, whilst I agree for the first 20 we showed glimpses of good rugby, I can't agree with the statement above. The ABs are the world champions, yes, but they don't beat top 8 teams by +32 points that often. France were on a wing and a prayer and they came within +1 point.

To put it another way, the ABs didn't even reach top gear on saturday.

We were woeful because of our imposed gameplan.

i think you are expecting too much when you say the first 20 mins were only "glimpses of good rugby". They beat France by 20 in group stages and Arg by 23. they beat SA by 20points in same venue last year as well.

your head will tell you we can't beat them but we can string a series of plays together and put it up to them for a period of the game. Ireland can only improve as well, assuming we stay injury free. Would we have put it to them more and lost by less if we had POC, Ferris, Ross and Bowe last week. if we took away Savea, Vitto, Whitelock, woodcock away from NZ next week would there be 32 points in it

wonton

foolishly thought the last game would be on rte radio or newstalk, is there anywhere online you can listen to the game online ? ( as in can listen to it on my phone, but wont have laptop to search for links to watch it)

.ak

FireStart wrote: »

i think you are expecting too much when you say the first 20 mins were only "glimpses of good rugby". They beat France by 20 in group stages and Arg by 23. they beat SA by 20points in same venue last year as well.

That's fair enough, but SA, France and Aus regularly put them to the sword. We don't. That wasn't or isn't going to change unless we play a strong running game - which is our strength considering some of decent strike runners in our ranks.

your head will tell you we can't beat them but we can string a series of plays together and put it up to them for a period of the game. Ireland can only improve as well, assuming we stay injury free. Would we have put it to them more and lost by less if we had POC, Ferris, Ross and Bowe last week. if we took away Savea, Vitto, Whitelock, woodcock away from NZ next week would there be 32 points in it

Yes, if we 'even' it out and the players you mentioned above are missing I can still see the ABs putting a big one on us. Savea is a n00b and a bit of a bosh merchant, he's playing well in the S15 but don't let that fool you - they could've put Buckley on the wing and he'd ghost in for a couple of those tries, our defensive structure was shockingly bad and was marshalled on-field even worse. Vitto's good but there's a ton of other Kiwi backrowers that could take his place - considering he's stepping in for Kaino there already down one there. Whitelock would be a big loss considering it'd be an all-new second row but I don't think that'd be a huge issue imo, and Woodcock is a mobile prop but isn't a tight scrummager - he could be replaced by another mobile prop imo.

I do get where you're coming from, we were showed up by some players on the field, but we also had a lot of experienced, highly rated players causing havoc within the ranks. It doesn't come down to just players, but how you use them. Gameplan is paramount, and when your gameplan doesn't work you must have a plan b. We didn't, we looked bewildered and players were seemingly playing against the grain (Earls making silly tackles, BOD offloading when it wasn't on) Yes it's nice when they have the x-factor, but put it this way: If Kidney and Co were in charge of that All Black team then we'd have a fairly decent chance...

Ardillaun

I was very disappointed in Sexton's tactical kicking in the first test but there's no question he should start the second test with Leinster players in 9, 12,13,15 as well. Kearney should avoid collisions next time. He just bounces backwards when he tries that trick in NZ. Zebo has earned another start and Trimble should be on the right wing to see if he can offer a little more resistance.

Fitzpatrick deserves big praise against some strong lads, if not the greatest scrummagers. He has greatly exceeded my expectations. Our whole front row deserves praise.

I feel like emailing the backs over there - DON"T KICK the ball to Dagg, guys, unless you want to see them score more tries than is strictly necessary. He's the best counter-attacker in the world. Just don't do it, OK?

Monty Burnz

A particularly liked how Deccie realised the Munster/Leinster half back pairing wasn't doing the trick, so he changed it to a Leinster/Munster pairing.