6N: Scotland v Ireland 24/02/2013; 14:00 [MOD WARNING POST 246 & 1020]

DeDoc

Piliger wrote: »

That smacks of a rugby journalist's work ........ :cool:

Sorry to disappoint Piliger, but it isn't.

Entirely my own, for better or worse......

irishbucsfan

Ireland by >7 points

DeDoc wrote: »

Sorry to disappoint Piliger, but it isn't.

Entirely my own, for better or worse......

If it had contained less logic and explanation I might think it something the Irish journalists could muster.

Maybe if it was written in crayon as well.

CatFromHue

I genuinely don't get you internet trogoldytes.

When ROG scores twenty 50-60m penalties against France and then steers the team to a massive win against Italy, who'll be flying high after their first massive win over England that rocks them to their core so that they lose to Wales, who're trying to get their act toegther after losing to Scotland, and we're the 6 Nation Champions......well you'll all look pretty silly then!

danthefan

So, nothing about Kidney's contract.

molloyjh

The goals of the IRFU aren't even worth talking about. For 2008-2012 they wanted us to win 1 6 Nations, get at least 1 triple crown and make a semi in the RWC. After that they wanted us to come at least 3rd in every 6 Nations and win one of both summer and autumn internationals.

1 triple crown in 4 years is a very low level of expectation. Especially as we'd won 3 in the previous 4-5 years. We should be well able to win 1 6Ns in 4 years so the goals there should be set higher too. A Grand Slam or 2 championship wins for example. And a single win in an autumn and summer series is also far too low. We should be looking to outright win one autumn series and 1 game per summer tour.

durkadurka

How about a goal that says we should develop three viable internationals in every position.

totallegend

Ireland by >7 points

durkadurka wrote: »

How about a goal that says we should develop three viable internationals in every position.

Nah, not possible. Too many foreigners. We'd need some sort of policy to run them out of town too...

danthefan

durkadurka wrote: »

How about a goal that says we should develop three viable internationals in every position.

That's basically every Irish starter in every province. Not really feasible imo.

DeDoc

molloyjh wrote: »

The goals of the IRFU aren't even worth talking about. For 2008-2012 they wanted us to win 1 6 Nations, get at least 1 triple crown and make a semi in the RWC. After that they wanted us to come at least 3rd in every 6 Nations and win one of both summer and autumn internationals.

1 triple crown in 4 years is a very low level of expectation. Especially as we'd won 3 in the previous 4-5 years. We should be well able to win 1 6Ns in 4 years so the goals there should be set higher too. A Grand Slam or 2 championship wins for example. And a single win in an autumn and summer series is also far too low. We should be looking to outright win one autumn series and 1 game per summer tour.

really?
Here are the goals

1) Reach the semi-final of the Rugby World Cup 2011****** FAIL

2) Win a 6 Nations Championship ************* SUCCESS

3) Win a Triple Crown at least once ********** SUCCESS

4) Finish in the top 3 every year in the 6 Nations *************** SUCCESS

5) Win at least one of SANZAR / Argentina game during the November Internationals **** SUCCESS

6) Win at least one of SANZAR / Argentina game during the summer tours *********** FAIL

7) Win all games against tier II countries******** SUCCESS

We have never in the modern era achieved (1) and (6) and had never achieved (2) - although we did win one 5N IIRC (but not the Slam)
While we achieved (3) three times under EOS, they were the only 3 in 13 seasons of professional rugby and we only had 3 in the 100 odd years before that!
For any rugby fan who grew up watching Ireland in the 80s and 90s (and no doubt before), finishing ahead of any two of Scotland, Wales, England and France was a decent season. We didn't do it in 2008 and it cost EOS his job.
As for (5) we've had 8 games under Kidney and won 3.5.

So clearly some of the goals are 'norms' for us (at least in the last 10 years), while others were more ambitious. No point having goals that are too ambitious or too easy - I'd say the IRFU were about right given where we were in 2008 with those goals. They might be different now.

irishbucsfan

Ireland by >7 points

danthefan wrote: »

That's basically every Irish starter in every province. Not really feasible imo.

There are 4 provinces!

It is feasible, completely, if the acknowledged the existence of Irish players abroad.

danthefan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There are 4 provinces!

It is feasible, completely, if the acknowledged the existence of Irish players abroad.

Yeah and each has about 4 foreigners.

jjjd

danthefan wrote: »

So, nothing about Kidney's contract.

Have a look at post #1610 above for the IRFU's objectives/goals for Kidney's contract/tenure.

molloyjh

DeDoc wrote: »

So clearly some of the goals are 'norms' for us (at least in the last 10 years), while others were more ambitious. No point having goals that are too ambitious or too easy - I'd say the IRFU were about right given where we were in 2008 with those goals. They might be different now.

In the 2 years preceding 2008 we came incredibly close to winning the 6 Nations, losing out on points difference in both cases. We won the Triple Crown both years (3 times in 4 years) and were being tipped to make the RWC semi-final. Yes we had a bad 8-9 months after that but that shouldn't have dictated anything.

Basically the goals that were set for 2008-2012, certainly from a 6 Nations point of view (the highest competition on the IRFUs priority list), were pretty much a step down from where we were and/or should have been expecting to go at the time. They wanted us to win a single 6 Nations when we were very capable of winning more than that. They wanted us to win a single Triple Crown when we had just won 3 of them and they wanted us to make 3rd in the table when we had regularly been second over the previous number of years.

How good, bad or indifferent we were in the 90s is irrelevant in setting goals for the last 4 years in the same way that Kidneys past successes are irrelevant today. They should have been aiming a little higher.

totallegend

Ireland by >7 points

jjjd wrote: »

Have a look at post #1610 above for the IRFU's objectives/goals for Kidney's contract/tenure.

Ah in fairness now, you said:

It's written into his contract that he must win 3 matches out of 5 in the Six Nations.

You can't say things like that and expect not to be be pulled up on it.

Regardless of where the three wins thing is written, that doesn't preclude him from using autumn internationals or summer tours to blood players, or indeed playing less experienced guys in games against Italy or Scotland* that we should win at a canter.

*yes, I know we lost at the weekend.

jjjd

totallegend wrote: »

Ah in fairness now, you said:



You can't say things like that and expect not to be be pulled up on it.

Regardless of where the three wins thing is written, that doesn't preclude him from using autumn internationals or summer tours to blood players, or indeed playing less experienced guys in games against Italy or Scotland* that we should win at a canter.

*yes, I know we lost at the weekend.

Fair point. In fairness it was something I read on an internet forum and maybe I thought it was public knowledge or just something I mixed up with the IRFU's goals. My bad.

Kidney in fairness to him did blood new players in the Fiji game and played them against Argentina. It was a pity that he didn't blood more players in the AIs I agree, but the focus of the AIs last November was on World Cup seeding. This I believe was an over-riding objective of the IRFU in the AIs. I feel some people have lost sight of this. Last summer in New Zealand I don't think was the ideal time to blood new players either. Look how that turned out! This summer's tour to America is a more suitable and ideal environment for blooding new players now that World Cup seeding is sorted and the pressure is off.

leeroybrown

I can understand Kidney and the IRFU being very reluctant to blood new players when World Cup seedings were being decided but I can't understand him allowing a situation to develop where we have to go into a major championship with only one out half we could trust on to play 5 x 80 minutes if required. That's just plain bad management coaching in my opinion.

andrewdcs

leeroybrown wrote: »

I can understand Kidney and the IRFU being very reluctant to blood new players when World Cup seedings were being decided but I can't understand him allowing a situation to develop where we have to go into a major championship with only one out half we could trust on to play 5 x 80 minutes if required. That's just plain bad management coaching in my opinion.

I agree with you, but to play advocate, no other 6 nations team has much better unfortunately, I cant think of any international team with any depth, including the all blacks.

10s are like phoenixes, or dr whos only one can be around at any time. until they are reborn.

Artful_Badger

andrewdcs wrote: »

I agree with you, but to play advocate, no other 6 nations team has much better unfortunately, I cant think of any international team with any depth, including the all blacks.

10s are like phoenixes, or dr whos only one can be around at any time. until they are reborn.

All blacks had plenty of options in the world cup. Hell they lost how many 10's and still found one to slot the winner in the final !!

10's are only rare because they can only get ahead on the failure or injury of those ahead of them. Our problem is we dont have the clubs to be producing that many of them and the we (or rather the management) allowed ROG to halt proceedings on developing the few we did have by refusing to admit ROG was failing as an international outhalf.

Macy0161

jjjd wrote: »

It was a pity that he didn't blood more players in the AIs I agree, but the focus of the AIs last November was on World Cup seeding. This I believe was an over-riding objective of the IRFU in the AIs. I feel some people have lost sight of this.

But why were we going into the autumn internationals panicking about the seeding in the first place?

awec

Macy0161 wrote: »

But why were we going into the autumn internationals panicking about the seeding in the first place?

We were at risk of falling outside the top 8 I think.

.ak

awec wrote: »

We were at risk of falling outside the top 8 I think.

I think the poster meant that the problems lay deeper, much deeper. We had a horrible run into the AIs that put us in that position in the first place. We shouldn't have been, and we should've had the luxury of playing some fringe players.

Really we were dipping out of the top 8 because of years of mediocre and poor rugby under Declan Kidney, so yeah, I'd say the problems are as deep as 2010/11.

ssaye

Our chance of winning 3 in a row this year probably rests on winning against the 3 below. Says a lot.

Italy
USA
Canada


The Irish team has little or no consistency and its so frustrating.

CIARAN_BOYLE

ssaye wrote: »

Our chance of winning 3 in a row this year probably rests on winning against the 3 below. Says a lot.

Italy
USA
Canada


The Irish team has little or no consistency and its so frustrating.

We might get 4 in a row if we get our international against a second tier team early in the AIs

Macy0161

awec wrote: »

We were at risk of falling outside the top 8 I think.

.ak explained my thinking. You can't isolate the ai's - below standard results previously had us in a position of needing results in the autumn, which is then used as the excuse for not blooding more players. And then that's now used as an excuse for not having squad depth. None of it predates the current management team.

irishbucsfan

Ireland by >7 points

Just to clear up the first Earls thing. Having watched it back (the one in the first 10 minutes).

He very clearly tries to offload but his arms were held by Scottish tacklers. He made the correct decision to hold onto it (O'Driscoll was about 5 meters away, would've much more likely lost possession if he'd gone for the offload). I don't think anyone could watch that and claim he should have made that pass.

On the very next phase O'Driscoll got the ball from Murray on the blindside with Earls outside him. He went himself rather than passing to Earls. Noone complained about this, when it was probably a much easier scoring opportunity. He had actually drawn Maitland in and Earls was in space and probably (knowing his finishing ability) would have scored. Noone has mentioned this.

We ended up winning a penalty from the next breakdown which went to touch (should have gone for goal!). Lost possession and lost the opportunity. Should have followed Wilkinson's mantra, "leave with points".

Not talking about Earls' later break, which he completely butchered.



On another note, who were we throwing to at that lineout!? Not a single player went up. There needs to be a massive change in the lineout for the France game. Whoever was calling the lineout (Ryan?) needs to be removed from that job. It was a shambolic performance.

EDIT:

My first half ratings:

Court: 5.5 - Not great scrummaging but got up to a bit around the field
Best: 5.5 - Involved in loads but his throwing was definitely at fault for a couple of our lineout losses
Ross: 5 - For a guy who is involved so little around the field you would expect far more from him in the scrums, was at fault more than once.
DOC: 6 - Ignored as a lineout option mostly (actually won one of our few successes I think) but was extremely strong in defense.
Ryan: 5.5 - Our best defensive player but if he was calling the lineouts he should be ashamed!
POM: 5 - Got through nowhere near as much work as I had thought on first viewing (I must have confused him with Ryan!). He needs to be working harder to make up for his lack of subtletly and nous, which is what he has been doing for the most part this season.
SOB: 7 - Our best carrier (quelle surprise) and always having a go at the breakdown and in defense. Also won a lineout.
Heaslip: 6 - Hard working as usual but his control of the ball at the back of the scrum cost us 1 penalty and allowed Laidlaw to spoil a great attacking opportunity on another occasion. Normally an area he thrives in.

Murray: 6.5 - Got through tons in defense, forced a Scottish player to be sin binned, made the right decisions in attack. Perhaps slow to get the ball away at 2 scrums but I would definitely look towards Heaslip for those as well. Kicked out over dead ball line once, kicking was good apart from that.
Jackson: 7.5 - Knocked on very early on but after that he was a great running threat, created 3 line breaks excellently, created a choke tackle and kicked well from hand. Missed 1 from the tee pretty badly.
Earls: 6 - Was constantly threatening in attack and always looks hungry for the ball (in good space as well). Made a massive error after his break though, even if he didn't pass (which was criminal) he should have at least chipped the ball through rather than allowing Hogg to force him into touch. Did very well to create the break initially it must be said though. If he'd passed to BOD he'd be a 7 or 7.5
Marshall: 8 - Our best player of the half. Made two breaks, was perfect in defense and was even our best back at the breakdown (BOD comparisons to follow...). Another standout moment came during spoiled possession deep in our half when Scotland were all over us, he took the ball on and carried strongly, making 2 or 3 yards after contact and putting us on the front foot. A complete performance at 12. Let down by his passing after both breaks, the only negative.
BOD: 6 - Very quiet and probably made the wrong decision not to pass to Earls in the first 10 minutes, could have been a try. Not his strongest performance by a long way. Ran some brilliant lines, particularly to create breaks for others.
Gilroy: 5.5 - Very quiet as well. Only really got the ball properly once and attempted an offload that wasn't on and didn't go to hand.
Kearney: 5.5 - Doesn't look anywhere near his best. Not passing when it's on and trying kicks that don't have much of a chance of coming off. Didn't contribute much.

jacothelad

"Gilroy: 5.5 - Very quiet as well. Only really got the ball properly once and attempted an offload that wasn't on and didn't go to hand."

I think he might have got it twice.......:D....he did score.

irishbucsfan

Ireland by >7 points

jacothelad wrote: »

"Gilroy: 5.5 - Very quiet as well. Only really got the ball properly once and attempted an offload that wasn't on and didn't go to hand."

I think he might have got it twice.......:D....he did score.

That was just the first half I watched!

andrewdcs

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That was just the first half I watched!

I think we'll see those scores come down somewhat, IIRC Ireland end up losing this game..... :rolleyes:



(though I've drunk a lot of whiskey trying to forget it!)
:pac:

Sinbad_NI

jacothelad wrote: »

"Gilroy: 5.5 - Very quiet as well. Only really got the ball properly once and attempted an offload that wasn't on and didn't go to hand."

I think he might have got it twice.......:D....he did score.

He was good under the high ball as well. Don't think he missed any that came his way.

Podge_irl

irishbucsfan wrote: »

On the very next phase O'Driscoll got the ball from Murray on the blindside with Earls outside him. He went himself rather than passing to Earls. Noone complained about this, when it was probably a much easier scoring opportunity. He had actually drawn Maitland in and Earls was in space and probably (knowing his finishing ability) would have scored. Noone has mentioned this.

It was 2 on 2 with Laidlaw sweeping across as well - I don't think it was a clear scoring opportunity at all. Maitland only committed to BOD when he saw he wasn't passing. If BOD passed the ball it was a 1 on 1 for Earls with very little space.