Ireland Tour to New Zealand 2012 Discussion thread

twinytwo

Tox56 wrote: »

So you want our players to be sore losers to prove how much they want to beat NZ??

Again your completely miss the point im making

Cpt_Blackbeard

matthew8 wrote: »

I don't blame the players if they're not giving 100%, if I was a player I wouldn't even want to go on this tour.

Fantastic attitude. :rolleyes:

Its not like the payers are being payed extremely well, doing something they love, and representing a country of millions at the other side of the world.

leftleg

twinytwo wrote: »

Again your completely miss the point im making

What is the point??

Fishooks12

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

Fantastic attitude. :rolleyes:

Its not like the payers are being payed extremely well, doing something they love, and representing a country of millions at the other side of the world.

+1

You should leave the red glasses at home more often Captain, really good poster when you do!

Regardless of the coach the Irish players should always strive for maximum effort when pulling on that shirt. No excuse for doing otherwise

(not saying this happened last week btw, just think we switched off a bit and lacked some intensity)

[Jackass]

Some bad calls mixed with good ones in the team.

Kidney has gotten the entire pack correct imo, but in the backline he has made the fatal error of conceeding the game before it's even started by trying his best to get something out of Murray, Reddan should be in, McFadden should be in 12 instead of 14.

One other small point is that I don't see the point in having O'Gara on the bench, should really be Madigan.

twinytwo

Clearlier wrote: »

I'm no great fan of McFadden but that's simply not true.



I think that you need to go back and take another look at the video. New Zealand were beaten down on the ground. Lots of big hits and a few more penetrating carries than you might have thought at first glance. We had two main problem areas in defence. They were the 13 channel where Earls simply wasn't stepping up at the right time and the back 3 being disorganised. The back 3 have been disorganised for quite a while but it's usually hidden by BOD snuffing things out at 13. If there was a lack of intensity towards the end it was because they were out on their feet.

It's all very well watching a screen and thinking I could have done better than that or why isn't he trying harder. It's quite another things to go out there and do it for 80 minutes.

Lets be honest, other than a few minutes at the start of the game we never even looked like scoring a try, mcfaddens was nothing other than lucky that it was Richie he had to out run. There is a lot more wrong with the team than defence. Too slow in both attack and defence.

How many people here would be happy if leinster turned in that sort of performance???

As for your last comment, i go out and do it every game of the rugby season.

leftleg

twinytwo wrote: »

As for your last comment, i go out and do it every game of the rugby season.

What play the All Blacks in Eden Park?? Get out of that and stop wasting everyone's time.

Go back and watch a replay of the match; that try was all about skill for the most part.

Teferi

[Jackass] wrote: »

One other small point is that I don't see the point in having O'Gara on the bench, should really be Madigan.

Yep. Completely pointless. The only thing you can say about him is that he was anonymous on Saturday apart from 2 decent kicks.

He won't develop any further and age has caught up with him. Time for Ireland to move on to greener pastures.

mfceiling

Clearlier wrote: »

While some of the criticism of Murray is perhaps over the top he was frequently poor at clearing the ball away from the breakdown and sometimes downright awful. He single-handedly butchered most of Ireland's best attacking opportunities by giving New Zealand enough time to realign in defence. Any reasonably organised defence with as much time to get in position as New Zealand had will look nigh on impenetrable.



The problem with Cave is that he looked anything but an international centre when he came on last week. I'd be inclined to give him another shot because I think he has the quality for this level but given that the biggest defensive problem we had last week was in the 13 channel where Earls was a step back from where he should have been in the alignment I'm not terribly surprised to see BOD move back there and to the best of my knowledge Cave never plays 12 which has quite different demands to 13.



McFadden is very lucky. If you think about it he only gets on to the Leinster team when there's an injury and frankly I think that's his level at the moment. He's got bags of pace and works hard but he makes poor defensive decisions and he's often not on the same wavelength as others in attack.

Sebo is unlucky, my initial thoughts last week were that he looked a bit lightweight and he does but on reviewing the game he did a number of good things. My biggest criticism of him is that he tends to stay out on his wing for most of the game and in particular I don't think that he worked as part of a back 3. He's young and inexperienced though and I thought he did enough to merit another game.



A bit tough on ROG, I don't think that he offers as much as Sexton but he's still a decent player. I actually wouldn't be surprised to see him come on at fullback if Kearney were to get injured. We wouldn't lose a massive amount defensively and he would appreciate the extra space to pin New Zealand back. On the negative side we'd be a lot less sure under high balls and we wouldn't have anything to offer ball in hand.



:eek:




I think that POM is the most unfortunate of the dropped players. He struggled to get to the pace of the game in the first half but he really grew into the game and I think that he would have hit the ground running this week.

I laughed...

Cpt_Blackbeard

mfceiling wrote: »

I laughed...

I think the point being made is that ROG isn't much of a weaker defender than Kearney. Which is pretty much true. ROG would be at sea position and attack wise at fullback though.

I'd love to see us bring through players capable to playing fullback and outhalf to a high standard though. It can be hugely advantageous for an outhalf to slot back into fullback for a few phases. It would allow him to become more isolated from the game and concentrate more on the attacking and defensive patterns of the opposition.

Tox56

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

I think the point being made is that ROG isn't much of a weaker defender than Kearney. Which is pretty much true. ROG would be at sea position and attack wise at fullback though.

I would say that ROG most certainly is a much weaker defender than Kearney, if anyone was 1 on 1 with ROG it is a certain try. Is there a worse possible last line of defence?

Fishooks12

Ya ROG is totally hopeless. Kearney is dodgy defender but not near as bad as that

CatFromHue

It's an interesting comparison actually (ROG and Kearney) and I don't think the two of them are that different.

Gelio

I do like the fact that Ireland are being completely written off. They have an opportunity to make a big statement in this game

thomond2006

ajeffares wrote: »

I do like the fact that Ireland are being completely written off. They have an opportunity to make a big statement in this game

Are you talking about tonight or saturday morning?

Clearlier

twinytwo wrote: »

Lets be honest, other than a few minutes at the start of the game we never even looked like scoring a try, mcfaddens was nothing other than lucky that it was Richie he had to out run. There is a lot more wrong with the team than defence. Too slow in both attack and defence.

I've said it elsewhere that the problems in attack were largely down to Murray. If he wasn't taking the wrong decision he was taking too long to clear the ball away from the breakdown. Sometimes the answer is as simple as 'they just lacked intensity' and intensity can let you away with a lot (see South Africa) but usually a more in depth analysis will highlight particular areas that need to be addressed. For me the big problems in attack were Murray at the breakdown and a lack of support for counter attacks. Zebo tends to stay out on his wing (he'll learn) and Kearney really missed having Nacewa giving him options. In defence it was the 13 channel and the organisation of the back 3. That's not to say that everything else was perfect but for me those were the glaringly deficient areas.

Tox56 wrote: »

I would say that ROG most certainly is a much weaker defender than Kearney, if anyone was 1 on 1 with ROG it is a certain try. Is there a worse possible last line of defence?

Well yes, Andrew Mehrtens and/or Peter Stringer (or me when I was an emergency fullback for the JCT at 13 and lost count of the number of 1 on 1's I missed ). Waisale Servei (sp) was a dreadful defender and I can think of any number of flash in the pans whose problem was invariably a lack of focus on defence.

Kearney was directly at fault for 2 of NZ's tries. He is not a good defender particularly in 2 on 2 situations but also 1 on 1.

All that said I wasn't advocating that ROG should be fullback cover except perhaps given the subs bench we seem to be selecting for Saturday.

Gelio

thomond2006 wrote: »

Are you talking about tonight or saturday morning?

I'm going to say Saturday :eek:

irishbucsfan

Kearney has cost Ireland a lot in his short career. He is a very poor defender. It will hold him back. Everything apart from that is superb.

Swiwi

Deleted User wrote: »

trolling does not mean "not agreeing with groupthink and as a result not posting anything that is different to what is already said".

Just because people are new, and don't agree with us, but provide a different viewpoint, doesn't make them trolls!

Well said Emmet

shuffol

Clearlier wrote: »

I've said it elsewhere that the problems in attack were largely down to Murray. If he wasn't taking the wrong decision he was taking too long to clear the ball away from the breakdown. Sometimes the answer is as simple as 'they just lacked intensity' and intensity can let you away with a lot (see South Africa) but usually a more in depth analysis will highlight particular areas that need to be addressed. For me the big problems in attack were Murray at the breakdown and a lack of support for counter attacks. Zebo tends to stay out on his wing (he'll learn) and Kearney really missed having Nacewa giving him options. In defence it was the 13 channel and the organisation of the back 3. That's not to say that everything else was perfect but for me those were the glaringly deficient areas.



Well yes, Andrew Mehrtens and/or Peter Stringer (or me when I was an emergency fullback for the JCT at 13 and lost count of the number of 1 on 1's I missed ). Waisale Servei (sp) was a dreadful defender and I can think of any number of flash in the pans whose problem was invariably a lack of focus on defence.

Kearney was directly at fault for 2 of NZ's tries. He is not a good defender particularly in 2 on 2 situations but also 1 on 1.

All that said I wasn't advocating that ROG should be fullback cover except perhaps given the subs bench we seem to be selecting for Saturday.

Harsh, for Savea's 2nd try I doubt there's a fullback in world rugby that would've stopped him running at that speed from 3 yards out.

JustinDee

twinytwo wrote: »

i dunno why you laugh, with the exception of SOB, Healy and Ryan, how many of the players do you actually think gave put in 100%??... If everyone else had followed SOB's lead and tackled everything that moved we would have been in a lot better shape.

I'm laughing because I see it as a stupid bloody thing to say. That team lacked no motivation, drive or will to succeed.
Damn straight they threw the lot into that game.

CatFromHue

shuffol wrote: »

Harsh, for Savea's 2nd try I doubt there's a fullback in world rugby that would've stopped him running at that speed from 3 yards out.

He makes it too easy for attackers to score. His tackle technique for that try was very bad, he was too high and he led with the wrong shoulder.

desertcircus

JustinDee wrote: »

I'm laughing because I see it as a stupid bloody thing to say. That team lacked no motivation, drive or will to succeed.
Damn straight they threw the lot into that game.

If they threw everything into that game, there are only two possible conclusions:
1. Ireland are vastly inferior to New Zealand.
2. Something is amiss with the coaching and gameplan.

Frankly, I really don't think Ireland are 32 points worse than NZ.

pynchy

I really hope reddan starts on saturday we dont need murrays decision making, we need the ball to get to sexton as quick as possible and then a few decent kicks here and there.

Would like to see mcafadden off the wing as well. Zebo looked good.

Kearney plays a role, is not the best tackler and was matched by a very good fullback.

I thought we did ok for the very start of the match but any mistakes were severly punished and these added up quickly. Looking forward to a good game.

Clearlier

shuffol wrote: »

Harsh, for Savea's 2nd try I doubt there's a fullback in world rugby that would've stopped him running at that speed from 3 yards out.

Don't look at the tackle, look at the lead up to it. He should have come in aggressively and hit him hard a couple of metres before the line and pushed him towards touch, instead he positioned himself to do a wrap tackle and hold him up over the line. It was a very high risk approach and it cost Ireland a try.

liammur

Well after watching that soccer, completely outclassed, let's hope for better from the rugby, and with 10 leinster players in, there really can be no excuses.

Clearlier

desertcircus wrote: »

If they threw everything into that game, there are only two possible conclusions:
1. Ireland are vastly inferior to New Zealand.
2. Something is amiss with the coaching and gameplan.

Frankly, I really don't think Ireland are 32 points worse than NZ.

It's not one or the other although I do think that there's a bigger problem with the coaching and gameplan than with the players. The suggestion made earlier (by somebody else) that everybody should have followed SOB's lead defensively is ludicrous and not just because SOB made two gross defensive errors.

Fishooks12

Clearlier wrote: »

It's not one or the other although I do think that there's a bigger problem with the coaching and gameplan than with the players. The suggestion made earlier (by somebody else) that everybody should have followed SOB's lead defensively is ludicrous and not just because SOB made two gross defensive errors.

What's ludicrous about following the example of your best player?

Clearlier

Fishooks12 wrote: »

What's ludicrous about following the example of your best player?

He made two gross defensive errors and gave away two stupid penalties. I thought Rory Best was our best player.

pynchy

Clearlier wrote: »

Fishooks12 wrote: »

What's ludicrous about following the example of your best player?

He made two gross defensive errors and gave away two stupid penalties. I thought Rory Best was our best player.

agreed Rory had a great game.