AI: Ireland v South Africa; Aviva Stadium, Sat 10 Nov [MOD WARNING POST #1160]

JRant

Fishooks12 wrote: »

TBH I'm stunned at the negativity here. People need to look at this in perspective. We all know we would probably go into the game with the same tired turgid Kidney game plan that we always use. This mixed with our injuries meant we could have been well beaten. But our players stood up and took the game to SA as best they could without cohesive strategy.

I agree with everything you say expect that we were well beaten yesterday. That was as comfortable a 4 point win you'll see anywhere, may as well been 40 points.

Before the game people were giving it the whole "ah give DK a chance, see what brand of rugby we play before critizing him" etc. yet it was plain as day this was the way we would play.

The most important personel change I want to see is DK out. Till then i'll watch the games, cheers the team on but not expect anything other than abject mediocrity.

Fishooks12

The only aspect of our attacking play that really worked yesterday was our box kicking. Because we have a brilliant chase. But then when we reclaim it we have no idea what to do

bamboozle

after yesterday's performance i hope kidney picks a practically fresh 15 to start against Fiji, my concern is he'll load it with Munster players given its in TP. I'd have McFadden & Cave in the center with Earls at 15 and zebo at 11. We need more from our backs, they're sitting too deep.

Backline for fiji
Reddan Jackson
Earls McFadden Cave TOH
Duffy

Backline for Argentina
Reddan Sexton
Earls McFadden Cave Bowe
Zebo

Darcy didnt play badly yesterday but its time to plan ahead.
Trimble was shocking yesterday, idiotically conceding that lineout, dreadful clearance kick - does not have the skill set for international rugby.
ROG - please DK let the guy disappear from the international game with his reputation intact, he's not needed.

porterbelly

Franno with his usual display of accurate, pro Connacht journalism this morning.

He says McCarthy gave away a number of penalties. He gave away 1 peno and the stats prove that, POM, Henry and Heaslip all gave away 2 each.

He also says McCarthy missed the tackle on the line for Pienaar's try, what a load of pipe, everyone knows it was Donnacha Ryan

liammur

Our players aren't good enough, and our coach isn't good enough to trouble, let alone beat the top teams. A clearout of the deadwood is needed.

Give the younger players a chance, ok they won't win either but maybe it'll be more entertaining to watch.

Fishooks12

liammur wrote: »

Our players aren't good enough, and our coach isn't good enough to trouble, let alone beat the top teams. A clearout of the deadwood is needed.

Give the younger players a chance, ok they won't win either but maybe it'll be more entertaining to watch.

In what sense? Out of all the players on the field yesterday the only one that didn't look up to the standard was ROG, and at a stretch Trimble

There is only so much a team can do without any strategy going forward.

Tox56

When Leinster (and other provinces too, but Leinster in particular) are at their best, there are players swarming everywhere, dummy runners, ball in two hands, slick accurate passing and the opposition doesn't know where the ball is going next.

Most of the time, Ireland is just the complete opposite of that. Very little movement in the backline, no creativity, little cohesion and everything is ponderous, telegraphed and predictable.

People throw around phrases like "international level is a step up", but that really doesn't account for how many of the same players look so clueless when they play for their country. Reddan when he came on pretty much summed it up for me, you could see he wanted to get things moving but there was no cohesion and nobody was really sure what was going to happen next.

The players do have to take some of the blame for that, and they do, but it's clear there is a larger problem with the way they are coached, and yesterday confirmed everything most of us had suspected.

irishbucsfan

Ireland should totes be more like Leinster

Fishooks12

Tox56 wrote: »

When Leinster (and other provinces too, but Leinster in particular) are at their best, there are players swarming everywhere, dummy runners, ball in two hands, slick accurate passing and the opposition doesn't know where the ball is going next.

Most of the time, Ireland is just the complete opposite of that. Very little movement in the backline, no creativity, little cohesion and everything is ponderous, telegraphed and predictable.

People throw around phrases like "international level is a step up", but that really doesn't account for how many of the same players look so clueless when they play for their country. Reddan when he came on pretty much summed it up for me, you could see he wanted to get things moving but there was no cohesion and nobody was really sure what was going to happen next.

The players do have to take some of the blame for that, and they do, but it's clear there is a larger problem with the way they are coached, and yesterday confirmed everything most of us had suspected.

A better response to Liamur's post than mine. +1

liammur

Fishooks12 wrote: »

In what sense? Out of all the players on the field yesterday the only one that didn't look up to the standard was ROG, and at a stretch Trimble

There is only so much a team can do without any strategy going forward.

A disinterested bok team beat us quite easily. The only Irish player that impresses me is Sexton. An also ran from NZ is parachuted straight into Irish international team, that absolutely shows the difference in class. We are operating leagues below them.

Fishooks12

liammur wrote: »

A disinterested bok team beat us quite easily. The only Irish player that impresses me is Sexton. An also ran from NZ is parachuted straight into Irish international team, that absolutely shows the difference in class. We are operating leagues below them.

The boks were far from disinterested. Players simply don't get disinterested at test level. Don't buy that for a second.

An also ran who came off the bench and dominated a massive SA scrum to win a crucial penalty that could have swung the match our way you mean? Come off it

I also notice that you've just ignored what I said about us not having a gameplan with ball in hand because it doesn't buy into your strange theory that we're "leagues" behind SA despite only losing by 4 points with 7 frontline players missing and a bad coach (which you admit yourself) . Convenient

thomond2006

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Ireland should totes be more like Leinster

Yeah it's totes awks when you see Oireland play so badly like.

Funk It

porterbelly wrote: »

Franno with his usual display of accurate, pro Connacht journalism this morning.

He says McCarthy gave away a number of penalties. He gave away 1 peno and the stats prove that, POM, Henry and Heaslip all gave away 2 each.

He also says McCarthy missed the tackle on the line for Pienaar's try, what a load of pipe, everyone knows it was Donnacha Ryan

Some people only see what they want to see, and believe what they want to believe. I will let the stats speak for themselves for this case.

liammur

Fishooks12 wrote: »

The boks were far from disinterested. Players simply don't get disinterested at test level. Don't buy that for a second.

An also ran who came off the bench and dominated a massive SA scrum to win a crucial penalty that could have swung the match our way you mean? Come off it

I also notice that you've just ignored what I said about us not having a gameplan with ball in hand because it doesn't buy into your strange theory that we're "leagues" behind SA despite only losing by 4 points with 7 frontline players missing and a bad coach (which you admit yourself) . Convenient

No, I certainly didn't ignore that point, I agree with it. Kidney is out of his depth, but missing players like O Driscoll is now a blessing in disguise. The Darcys of this world are finished.

If this guy had any chance of making the NZ set up he wouldn't be here. Yet, he's now an international for Ireland after spending what, a week in the country. Tells me we are missing something.

Quint2010

Swiwi wrote: »

However, I was at the ground and he was standing flatter. I'm not suggesting O'Gara should replace Sexton, far from it, I just think the Irish backline needs to be flatter in attack, they were full of endeavour, but never really looked like scoring.

Totally agree. From where I was sitting our backline was playing far too deep.

JRant

Fishooks12 wrote: »

The only aspect of our attacking play that really worked yesterday was our box kicking. Because we have a brilliant chase. But then when we reclaim it we have no idea what to do

How do u explain the 2 shocking box kicks from inside the SA half?
Bad tatics all-round really.
Bowe looked very frustrated today with the complete lack of any type of service.

Fishooks12

JRant wrote: »

How do u explain the 2 shocking box kicks from inside the SA half?
Bad tatics all-round really.
Bowe looked very frustrated today with the complete lack of any type of service.

They were the wrong choice. Obviously we had no business kicking so deep in their half but in did work pretty well further down the field

I only remember one of them too and it was more a case of a very poor chase from Trimble than a bad kick. Granted it was the wrong option, but considering the lack of any gameplan out wide they might have been thinking "**** it" may aswell use the one thing going anyway well. Because we certainly didn't look like scoring from anywhere else

Scioch

Fishooks12 wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by "take charge of the forwards"., I want you to elaborate on that because I'm curious as to how Murray didn't do that and Reddan did

I actually think you're just making up ways to try and somehow argue that Murray was poor

I'm not sure what exactly I mean seeing as though I didnt exactly say that. I said he took charge of the game. The responsibility was laid on his shoulders to up the tempo and organise the attack by directing the forwards. A responsibility which is never laid on Murray as his role is simple to "do the basics well" and get the ball away while adding to the defence.

I think you're trying to make things personal as you havent the ability to discuss anything rationally. Learning to read whats been written might be a better use of your time.

ScissorPaperRock

liammur wrote: »

No, I certainly didn't ignore that point, I agree with it. Kidney is out of his depth, but missing players like O Driscoll is now a blessing in disguise. The Darcys of this world are finished.

If this guy had any chance of making the NZ set up he wouldn't be here. Yet, he's now an international for Ireland after spending what, a week in the country. Tells me we are missing something.

It's no secret that we have a serious lack of tightheads in this country. It doesn't mean we don't have depth in fantastic talent in a lot of other positions.

JRant

Fishooks12 wrote: »

They were the wrong choice. Obviously we had no business kicking so deep in their half but in did work pretty well further down the field

I only remember one of them too and it was more a case of a very poor chase from Trimble than a bad kick. Granted it was the wrong option, but considering the lack of any gameplan out wide they might have been thinking "**** it" may aswell use the one thing going anyway well. Because we certainly didn't look like scoring from anywhere else

It was just poor boxkicking, nothing Trimble could do when they were far to long.
Anyhow, it was just another indication of how clueless we are at this stage.
Sad state of affairs but going on that performance we are now clearly the worse top tier team with ball in hand and I'm including Scotland and Italy in there.

Fishooks12

Scioch wrote: »

I'm not sure what exactly I mean seeing as though I didnt exactly say that.

You did: So don't pontificate to me for not reading properly when you can't back up your own claims

Scioch wrote: »

Reddan took charge of the forwards

The responsibility was laid on his shoulders to up the tempo and organise the attack by directing the forwards. A responsibility which is never laid on Murray as his role is simple to "do the basics well" and get the ball away while adding to the defence.

How do you know what Murray's role is? Do you think Kidney is going over to him telling him "do the basics well"?

Murray provided perfectly quick ball. It was our lack of any notion of what to do with the ball outside him that was the problem.

When Reddan came on he was more hesitant than Murray and made a few errors because of it. I can accept the argument that Reddan was so insure of the attacking plan that he simply didn't know what to do. But to suggest, as you did, that he showed a gulf in class to Murray on yesterdays performance is stretching the boundaries of reality

Scioch

phog wrote: »

You're implying that if Redden doesn't start a game he shouldn't get the bench spot.


BTW, Murray did a lot more than just pass the ball.

I'm implying that anyone can fill Murrays role and you dont beat the Boks or anyone else in the last 20 minutes. We either take them on or we dont. You cant sit back and eek by for 60 minutes and then expect tired players to push forward and take the game by storm. It doesnt happen, Leinster have had small success with it using impact players coming on to destroy a side that has already lost. But I havent seen too many instances of anyone let alone Ireland being able to use this to beat a dominant team.

If we are going to try and win games then Murray filling a hole isnt what we need, we need Reddan on for 60 to take them on and set the pace that best suits us so we can actually achieve something then perhaps Murray to grind out the win once the work has been done and its the opposition thats under pressure.

Fishooks12

Scioch wrote: »

I'm implying that anyone can fill Murrays role and you dont beat the Boks or anyone else in the last 20 minutes. We either take them on or we dont. You cant sit back and eek by for 60 minutes and then expect tired players to push forward and take the game by storm. It doesnt happen, Leinster have had small success with it using impact players coming on to destroy a side that has already lost. But I havent seen too many instances of anyone let alone Ireland being able to use this to beat a dominant team.

If we are going to try and win games then Murray filling a hole isnt what we need, we need Reddan on for 60 to take them on and set the pace that best suits us so we can actually achieve something then perhaps Murray to grind out the win once the work has been done and its the opposition thats under pressure.

What does this paragraph even mean?

How would Reddan starting have in anyway altered the outcome of the game when we had no clue what to do with the fast ball Murray was actually providing for the first time at international level ?

By this logic how do you go about explaing Reddan coming on with plenty of time left and getting the same amount of joy out of our backline? i.e. none. In fact I'd say even less than Murray considering Reddan was unusually hesitant

Yesterdays loss had nothing to do with our 9. It was the complete lack of attacking structure outside of 9 that hampered us

Scioch

Fishooks12 wrote: »

You did: So don't pontificate to me for not reading properly when you can't back up your own claims

It would help if you quoted the correct post. You quoted me saying he took charge of the game and then asked a question based on a different post.

How do you know what Murray's role is? Do you think Kidney is going over to him telling him "do the basics well"?

Murray provided perfectly quick ball. It was our lack of any notion of what to do with the ball outside him that was the problem.

When Reddan came on he was more hesitant than Murray and made a few errors because of it. I can accept the argument that Reddan was so insure of the attacking plan that he simply didn't know what to do. But to suggest, as you did, that he showed a gulf in class to Murray on yesterdays performance is stretching the boundaries of reality

Its clear as day what his role is and has always been. Its an extra defender with the bonus being his not a completely useless SH. Thats been clear since day 1 when he was thrown into the WC squad simply because he was a big lad.

He provided quick ball and it was the lack of any notion elsewhere thats the problem ? Thats my point. He's just a link man, when Reddan comes on people expect him to make those decisions himself and not just get the ball away. The reason he seems hesitant is because of the lack of options. He cant just arrive at the base and pass the ball like Murray he has to be thinking and looking for options in an effort to direct the flow and speed the game. That means forcing it if need be.

The gulf was evident in the way Reddan attempted to direct the game. Its also amazing me how people can claim Murray is now an international standard SH simply because he can do the basics well.

Scioch

Fishooks12 wrote: »

What does this paragraph even mean?

How would Reddan starting have in anyway altered the outcome of the game when we had no clue what to do with the fast ball Murray was actually providing for the first time at international level ?

By this logic how do you explaing Reddan coming on with plenty of time left and getting the same amount of joy out of our backline? i.e. none.

Yesterdays loss had nothing to do with our 9. It was the complete lack of attacking structure outside of 9 that hampered us

Again your trying to crowbar this into me blaming Murray for the loss. I'm not, I'm saying Murrays role and Reddans role are completely different. Murray's role is not as an international SH. His role is as an extra defender who can cover SH.

I dont know what would have happened had Reddan started but if he did it would have to be a different plan. Thats what I want. I want the team to play rugby and try and beat the opposition. Not eek by for 60 and hope to scrape a win by only showing up for the last 20.

The reason Reddan didnt get any joy is because the Boks were better organised at that stage, he did have some more joy in directing the forwards and we went forward with a burst and he tried to take the ball flatter (as did ROG) to get us moving forward. But the players were tired, it was an immensely physical game. The plan of attack was wrong all round and at that stage there was nothing he could do. The reason people think he was indecisive and not as snappy as usual is likely because he knew it was wrong and he was trying to find an alternative. As I said there is a responsibility on Reddan thats never laid on Murray. Reddan cant just show up and do the basics.

Fishooks12

Scioch wrote: »

It would help if you quoted the correct post. You quoted me saying he took charge of the game and then asked a question based on a different post.



Its clear as day what his role is and has always been. Its an extra defender with the bonus being his not a completely useless SH. Thats been clear since day 1 when he was thrown into the WC squad simply because he was a big lad.

He provided quick ball and it was the lack of any notion elsewhere thats the problem ? Thats my point. He's just a link man, when Reddan comes on people expect him to make those decisions himself and not just get the ball away. The reason he seems hesitant is because of the lack of options. He cant just arrive at the base and pass the ball like Murray he has to be thinking and looking for options in an effort to direct the flow and speed the game. That means forcing it if need be.

The gulf was evident in the way Reddan attempted to direct the game. Its also amazing me how people can claim Murray is now an international standard SH simply because he can do the basics well.

So no explanation as to how Reddan "took charge of the forwards" and how Murray didn't?

Basically the crux of this argument, as far as I can see, is that Murray was somehow limited despite providing perfectly quick ball (albeit 3 or 4 imperfect passes), kicking very well and defending brilliantly as well as making a break. And then you go on to say that Reddan showed how much better he is by coming on and being largely indecisive at the base under the guise of "taking control of the forwards" and "trying to direct the speed and flow of the game", neither of which have been explained with any real examples of what actually happened in the game yesterday.

It's also worth noting that I would have started Reddan over Murray yesterday and I think Reddan is a lot more consistant (but hopefully yesterday's performance from Murray can be built upon). What I just can't get my head around is how someone can claim that yesterday, of all days, showed the apparant gulf in class between the two. Don't get me wrong, we've seen Reddan come on for Ireland a few times before and his speed at the base showed just why he should have started. But because of Reddan being unusually indecisive and Murray carrying his quicker passing seen this season into the international stage, yesterday was certainly not such a day

Teferi

Swiwi wrote: »

However, I was at the ground and he was standing flatter. I'm not suggesting O'Gara should replace Sexton, far from it, I just think the Irish backline needs to be flatter in attack, they were full of endeavour, but never really looked like scoring.

I agree they do need to stand flatter.

Rog wasn't standing flatter though.

JRant

Fishooks12 wrote: »

So no explanation as to how Reddan "took charge of the forwards" and how Murray didn't?

Basically the crux of this argument, as far as I can see, is that Murray was somehow limited despite providing perfectly quick ball (albeit 3 or 4 imperfect passes), kicking very well and defending brilliantly as well as making a break. And then you go on to say that Reddan showed how much better he is by coming on and being largely indecisive at the base under the guise of "taking control of the forwards" and "trying to direct the speed and flow of the game", neither of which have been explained with any real examples of what actually happened in the game yesterday.

It's also worth noting that I would have started Reddan over Murray yesterday and I think Reddan is a lot more consistant (but hopefully yesterday's performance from Murray can be built upon). What I just can't get my head around is how someone can claim that yesterday, of all days, showed the apparant gulf in class between the two. Don't get me wrong, we've seen Reddan come on for Ireland a few times before and his speed at the base showed just why he should have started. But because of Reddan being unusually indecisive and Murray carrying his quicker passing seen this season into the international stage, yesterday was certainly not such a day

Scioch's not wrong though, there are different standards being applied. The long and the short of it is that Murray had 40 mins behind a dominant pack and we created nothing, Reddan had 15/20 mins behind a retreating pack and created nothing.

We haven't performed at all with Murray at 9 but is it correlation or causation at play here?

gaius c

JRant wrote: »

How do u explain the 2 shocking box kicks from inside the SA half?
Bad tatics all-round really.
Bowe looked very frustrated today with the complete lack of any type of service.

Why then was he over-running potential passes from Zebo? Zebo shouldn't have been putting the ball under the arm but Bowe over-running meant Zebo had absolutely nobody to pass to.

Scioch

Fishooks12 wrote: »

So no explanation as to how Reddan "took charge of the forwards" and how Murray didn't?

I addressed that by saying he directed the forwards, he took charge. He barked orders and he got them into positions he wanted. Murray showed up and gave it to whoever got in position or whoever called for it, which in regards to the forwards was pretty static. Several times he got lost himself in rucks when he should have been anticipating players getting isolated and calling in support. I'm no rugby coach, I cant give you a breakdown of the plays and calls and whatnot. I can only go by what seemed evident to me in my uneducated opinion.

Basically the crux of this argument, as far as I can see, is that Murray was somehow limited despite providing perfectly quick ball (albeit 3 or 4 imperfect passes), kicking very well and defending brilliantly as well as making a break. And then you go on to say that Reddan showed how much better he is by coming on and being largely indecisive at the base under the guise of "taking control of the forwards" and "trying to direct the speed and flow of the game", neither of which have been explained with any real examples of what actually happened in the game yesterday.

He kicked ok, good mixed with bad, he passed ok, generally fast ball, sometimes got lost, threw a few dodgy passes. He made a break and then threw a blind pass over his shoulder to nobody. He was ok, good and bad elements. He's always just ok, because he's an extra defender more than he's a good scrum half. Reddan came on with a different job to do, one that involved that other important part of being a good SH's game. Game management. I'm sure Reddan could have simply stuck to giving quick ball and kicking a few times too but he didnt, because he was trying to do something with the game as all good SH's should be doing.

It's also worth noting that I would have started Reddan over Murray yesterday and I think Reddan is a lot more consistant (but hopefully yesterday's performance from Murray can be built upon). What I just can't get my head around is how someone can claim that yesterday, of all days, showed the apparant gulf in class between the two. Don't get me wrong, we've seen Reddan come on for Ireland a few times before and his speed at the base showed just why he should have started. But because of Reddan being unusually indecisive and Murray carrying his quicker passing seen this season into the international stage, yesterday was certainly not such a day

I would have started Reddan because Murray hasnt shown anything to suggest he should be starting international games. He wasnt bad yesterday but the gulf I'm talking about was evident in the expectations people have of Reddan over Murray and the visible difference in how they both go about their roles. People know Reddan is capable of something and hold him to a higher standard than Murray. And now we have finally seen an O.K performance from Murray after all those games gifted the Irish jersey people are falling over themselves to say he's finally made it. He hasnt, he's just not noticeably bad any more, he still hasnt got the ability to do anything other than the basics at this level and for me thats not good enough.

Fishooks12

Scioch wrote: »

I addressed that by saying he directed the forwards, he took charge. He barked orders and he got them into positions he wanted. Murray showed up and gave it to whoever got in position or whoever called for it, which in regards to the forwards was pretty static. Several times he got lost himself in rucks when he should have been anticipating players getting isolated and calling in support. I'm no rugby coach, I cant give you a breakdown of the plays and calls and whatnot. I can only go by what seemed evident to me in my uneducated opinion.



He kicked ok, good mixed with bad, he passed ok, generally fast ball, sometimes got lost, threw a few dodgy passes. He made a break and then threw a blind pass over his shoulder to nobody. He was ok, good and bad elements. He's always just ok, because he's an extra defender more than he's a good scrum half. Reddan came on with a different job to do, one that involved that other important part of being a good SH's game. Game management. I'm sure Reddan could have simply stuck to giving quick ball and kicking a few times too but he didnt, because he was trying to do something with the game as all good SH's should be doing.



I would have started Reddan because Murray hasnt shown anything to suggest he should be starting international games. He wasnt bad yesterday but the gulf I'm talking about was evident in the expectations people have of Reddan over Murray and the visible difference in how they both go about their roles. People know Reddan is capable of something and hold him to a higher standard than Murray. And now we have finally seen an O.K performance from Murray after all those games gifted the Irish jersey people are falling over themselves to say he's finally made it. He hasnt, he's just not noticeably bad any more, he still hasnt got the ability to do anything other than the basics at this level and for me thats not good enough.

tbh, this is all just so horrendously biased against Murray that it's not even worth discussing anymore. Good day sir

liammur

Fishooks12 wrote: »

tbh, this is all just so horrendously biased against Murray that it's not even worth discussing anymore. Good day sir

I completely agree.

Fishooks12

liammur wrote: »

I completely agree.

Well at least we agree on something :P

.ak

irishbucsfan wrote: »

He isn't double jobbing in fairness

I thought he was the defence coach and the attacks coach?

Fishooks12

.ak wrote: »

I thought he was the defence coach and the attacks coach?

It would be interesting to see the on pitch dynamic of who actually does what. If they're down in UL before the six nations I'm going to try and watch a full session to see who is taking the backs and what they're doing

irishbucsfan

.ak wrote: »

I thought he was the defence coach and the attacks coach?

No, Anthony Foley is the defense coach now. Kiss is focusing solely on attack for the first time.

Cpt_Blackbeard

.ak wrote: »

I thought he was the defence coach and the attacks coach?

Axel Foley has come in as the defense coach.

.ak

Ah, thanks.

Scioch

Fishooks12 wrote: »

tbh, this is all just so horrendously biased against Murray that it's not even worth discussing anymore. Good day sir

He's a regular feature in the starting line up. He's not a kid learning his trade any more. He's going to be held to the same standards as others internationals whether you like it or not.

But yeah, use your Munster trump card and just write it off as bias.

Fishooks12

Scioch wrote: »

He's a regular feature in the starting line up. He's not a kid learning his trade any more. He's going to be held to the same standards as others internationals whether you like it or not.

But yeah, use your Munster trump card and just write it off as bias.

Oh irony

btw I didn't mention Munster once, so don't know where you're getting that crap from

JRant

gaius c wrote: »

Why then was he over-running potential passes from Zebo? Zebo shouldn't have been putting the ball under the arm but Bowe over-running meant Zebo had absolutely nobody to pass to.

Probably because Bowe is used to things being done at pace.

Scioch

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Oh irony

btw I didn't mention Munster once, so don't know where you're getting that crap from

People spend their time apologising for him while he learns how to play SH in a green shirt. Then he improves to the point where he's not noticeably bad and all of a sudden he's a world class player.

You dont have to mention Munster. Your a Munster fan right ? Murray is a Munster player. It would be unrealistic to expect any criticism not to be written off as bias.

irishbucsfan

Scioch wrote: »

People spend their time apologising for him while he learns how to play SH in a green shirt. Then he improves to the point where he's not noticeably bad and all of a sudden he's a world class player.

You dont have to mention Munster. Your a Munster fan right ? Murray is a Munster player. It would be unrealistic to expect a discussion not to be written off as bias.

I'm not a Munster fan. I still think your analysis of their performance is ridiculously prejudiced against Murray

sjwpjw

JRant wrote: »

Probably because Bowe is used to things being done at pace.

Hear hear.

Also, Zebo did this with both wingers. After the first time didnt work, or the second or the third....

.ak

Scioch, Fishhooks, you've just both spent the last few pages arguing whilst throwing in petty shots after I've asked you not to do so. Infractions issued. Next one is a two week ban.

Cpt_Blackbeard

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'm not a Munster fan. I still think your analysis of their performance is ridiculously prejudiced against Murray

I think some people just have their colours nailed to the mast regarding Murray. He had a good game yesterday. He isn't a Pienaar (yet) and isn't a game changer like him, but he does what is asked of him. When he has a supposedly worldclass and experienced 10 outside him, he shouldn't be the one expected to be dictating our play.

Teferi

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

I think some people just have their colours nailed to the mast regarding Murray. He had a good game yesterday. He isn't a Pienaar (yet) and isn't a game changer like him, but he does what is asked of him. When he has a supposedly worldclass and experienced 10 outside him, he shouldn't be the one expected to be dictating our play.

I don't disagree with what you say but it is absolutely hilarious that you basically said "people are biased against Murray" and then went on to make a few shots (and be biased against) Sexton.

Cpt_Blackbeard

Teferi wrote: »

I don't disagree with what you say but it is absolutely hilarious that you basically said "people are biased against Murray" and then went on to make a few shots (and be biased against) Sexton.

How is it being biased against Sexton? If the criticism is valid, its hardly bias.

He didn't step up in the absence of our primary leaders yesterday and he needed to. We need to start expecting more from him because he is one of the best 10s around at club level, but he isn't influencing games as we know he can for Ireland.

Teferi

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

How is it being biased against Sexton? If the criticism is valid, its hardly bias.

I'll remember this quote for your future offerings

.ak

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

How is it being biased against Sexton? If the criticism is valid, its hardly bias.

He didn't step up in the absence of our primary leaders yesterday and he needed to. We need to start expecting more from him because he is one of the best 10s around at club level, but he isn't influencing games as we know he can for Ireland.

Dan Carter wouldn't have made a difference.