Do you buy into the "Golden Generation" ?

sydthebeat

PhatPiggins wrote: »

Wouldn't a golden generation actually have won more than one GS?

Golden by comparison to what came before them but now the minimum standard given the dominance of our teams in europe the past decade.I

correct, the term is an irish media concoction.

using this definition the golden generation came to an abrupt halt in 2009.

Larbre34

The Golden Generation is more about the approach than the players.

After professionalism came into being in '95 it took a few years to find its feet and for properly professional training and organisational structures to get established. That coincided with an underage world champion side some of whose members went on to have long and decorated careers especially at provincial level. As momentum built, some overseas signings were brought in to supplement areas where talent was light (not all successfully) and together they started winning some silverware

Meanwhile at national level, they started becoming consistent, carrying through their club level improvements to archaic national team organisation which slowly began to change. Despite the consistency we failed to win a few key games and missed out on many more 6 nations titles, although triple crowns were plentiful

Overall I dont subscribe to a golden generation of players, more that the structures began to develop well. Even as the last of the 'Golden' players begin to wind down their careers, there are guys stepping up all over the place chomping at the bit for big games and test experience. With the right continuity in the Provinces and Joe Schmidt leading the national side, a new generation will probably haul some gold too and hopefully inspire the next lot of young kids out throwing a ball around the local park this weekend...

totallegend

Yeah, it's an interesting question as to whether the players were better or whether they just played at a time when Ireland were finally catching up in terms of structures and organisational ability?

Take the Irish teams of the late 90s/early 00s, i.e. immediately preceding the Golden Generation and widely recognised as being pretty crap.

If you fielded a team of:

15. Conor O'Shea
14. Kevin Maggs
13. Brian O'Driscoll
12. Rob Henderson
11. Justin Bishop
10. David Humphreys
9. Conor McGuinness
1. Peter Clohessy
2. Keith Wood
3. Paul Wallace
4. Paddy Johns
5. Jeremy Davidson
6. Eric Miller
7. Kieron Dawson
8. Victor Costello

Man for man, are they really that bad? Is there that much of a step-up between those players and the ones who succeeded them? Or was it that we were never able to get the most out of the players we had?

Edit: although I would concede that we had very little depth in those days.

kippy

kippy wrote: »

It's a "hype" thing, don't get me wrong. But there is some logic behind it.

Exactly and it was a very fortunate GS win at that. Some good players and 1 great player but a frustrating lack of consistency at the national level. Can't blame all that on the coaches.

bilston

totallegend wrote: »

Yeah, it's an interesting question as to whether the players were better or whether they just played at a time when Ireland were finally catching up in terms of structures and organisational ability?

Take the Irish teams of the late 90s/early 00s, i.e. immediately preceding the Golden Generation and widely recognised as being pretty crap.

If you fielded a team of:

15. Conor O'Shea
14. Kevin Maggs
13. Brian O'Driscoll
12. Rob Henderson
11. Justin Bishop
10. David Humphreys
9. Conor McGuinness
1. Peter Clohessy
2. Keith Wood
3. Paul Wallace
4. Paddy Johns
5. Jeremy Davidson
6. Eric Miller
7. Kieron Dawson
8. Victor Costello

Man for man, are they really that bad? Is there that much of a step-up between those players and the ones who succeeded them? Or was it that we were never able to get the most out of the players we had?

Edit: although I would concede that we had very little depth in those days.

How many of them would get into the current team?

O'Shea, Maggs, Bishop and McGuinness wouldn't. Humphreys would probably make the bench and Henderson would give D'Arcy a run for his money. Would you pick a young BOD over the current version?

Wood and Wallace would get into the current side but apart from that I think the rest of the pack would struggle. I suppose Davidson never quite fulfilled his potential because of injury, maybe his best would be enough to partner POC in the current side, hard to say.

But basically Wood, Wallace and maybe a young BOD, Henderson and Davidson would be the only players who would or might get into the current team. That added to a lack of depth meant that the 90s team would struggle in comparison with the current side never mind the 2004-2009 team.

Also there were worse players than those mentioned who played for Ireland through the 90s!

Tombo2001

There are three stand-out players for me in the Irish line-up in the past decade....

They are O'Driscoll, O'Connell and imho Ferris. I do think that Ferris when fit is player that Souther Hemisphere teams would fear.

In other words, they are our 'world class players', could make it into a World XV.

In previous years, there was usually never more than 1 Irish player that I'd have called 'World Class'.

totallegend

bilston wrote: »

How many of them would get into the current team?

O'Shea, Maggs, Bishop and McGuinness wouldn't. Humphreys would probably make the bench and Henderson would give D'Arcy a run for his money. Would you pick a young BOD over the current version?

Wood and Wallace would get into the current side but apart from that I think the rest of the pack would struggle. I suppose Davidson never quite fulfilled his potential because of injury, maybe his best would be enough to partner POC in the current side, hard to say.

But basically Wood, Wallace and maybe a young BOD, Henderson and Davidson would be the only players who would or might get into the current team. That added to a lack of depth meant that the 90s team would struggle in comparison with the current side never mind the 2004-2009 team.

See, the problem is that we only saw these guys playing in a poor Ireland team. If you put a given player into a better team, that player suddenly looks a whole lot better himself.

In terms of pure rugby ability, I'd put the likes of Henderson, Miller and Humphreys on a par with anyone we currently have. Davidson, fully fit, was on a different planet to any of the locks we have now, POC excepted.

The problem is that these guys were playing in an Ireland set-up that was essentially amateur and playing most of their rugby at AIL level. Then we complained because they were getting hockeyed by guys from England and France who playing at fully pro level week in, week out? How could we expect anything different?

Conor O'Shea played his club rugby in England; he was consistently one of the best players in the premiership, year in, year out. He pulled on a green jersey and suddenly he was atrocious. Does that tell us anything?

bilston wrote: »

Also there were worse players than those mentioned who played for Ireland through the 90s!

And there were plenty of awful, awful players capped during the 'Golden Generation' period too.

FrannoFan

"golden generation" backline compared to current backline using Lions as an independent judge.

9. Stringer (not a lion)
10. ROG (not a test starter in lions)
11. Hickie (missed out on test team)
12. D'Arcy (tourist)
13. BOD (4 time tourist)
14. Horgan (lion No.23 test team)
15. Girve (non lion)

9.Murray (lions tourist)
10.Sexton (likely test starter)
11.T.Bowe (Test starter)
12.Same
13.Same
14.Zebo/Earls/Trimble/gilroy
15. Kearney (test starter)

using that as a comparison you could argue the current backline is superior with more (likely)test starters. the biggest difference is the midfield. BOD will not be replaced. Nobody comes close to him. Marshall or Olding potentially could replace D'Arcy.

in short don't buy the "golden generation" thing!

kippy

FrannoFan wrote: »

"golden generation" backline compared to current backline using Lions as an independent judge.

9. Stringer (not a lion)
10. ROG (not a test starter in lions)
11. Hickie (missed out on test team)
12. D'Arcy (tourist)
13. BOD (4 time tourist)
14. Horgan (lion No.23 test team)
15. Girve (non lion)

9.Murray (lions tourist)
10.Sexton (likely test starter)
11.T.Bowe (Test starter)
12.Same
13.Same
14.Zebo/Earls/Trimble/gilroy
15. Kearney (test starter)

using that as a comparison you could argue the current backline is superior with more (likely)test starters. the biggest difference is the midfield. BOD will not be replaced. Nobody comes close to him. Marshall or Olding potentially could replace D'Arcy.

in short don't buy the "golden generation" thing!

Why are you measuring it on "Lions apps"?

Surely the yard stick is trophies won as a nation during that time?
We've never had a better spell as a nation.

One GS or not, it took us decades to win it.

Podge_irl

I think his point is the current crop have more Lions and thus there is an argument that they are just as good and will hopefully deliver more silverware. For all the Golden generation stuff we had several very limited players in those teams.

irishbucsfan

I think we overstate the difficulty of replacing BOD. I should preface this by saying he is an utterly amazing individual and I am not suggesting he isn't...

HOWEVER... I do think that we could have a midfield partnership that is stronger than BOD and D'Arcy were. I don't think that's beyond the realms of possibility. I think we would have to get very lucky again, but I think it's possible. I think that is certainly the standard we should expect of ourselves anyway, rather than writing it off as a once-off.

bilston

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I think we overstate the difficulty of replacing BOD. I should preface this by saying he is an utterly amazing individual and I am not suggesting he isn't...

HOWEVER... I do think that we could have a midfield partnership that is stronger than BOD and D'Arcy were. I don't think that's beyond the realms of possibility. I think we would have to get very lucky again, but I think it's possible. I think that is certainly the standard we should expect of ourselves anyway, rather than writing it off as a once-off.

For me it's not so much about trying to replace BOD at 13, it's replacing his influence in the team. Someone else needs to take on his role as the go to man and as the talismanic figure in the Irish team. Trying to find another BOD at 13 is a hopeless task, a year before Ronaldo left Manchester United they saw the writing on the wall and bought Nani in the hope that he would replace Ronaldo, of course it was never going to happen, but instead they focused their strengths elsewhere in the team and have continued to win trophies.

Obviously it's a different sport but the same should happen with Ireland. There have always been talismanic figures in Irish rugby, before BOD there was Wood (a hooker) and before Wood there was Geoghghan (a winger) and so on. After BOD there will be someone else, it might be Cian Healy, it might be SOB, maybe Ferris will get fit again and it will be him, or maybe it will be Sexton. On the other hand perhaps it will be one of the young guns like Zebo, Madigan, Marshall, Henderson or Olding etc etc. Who knows but there will be someone and it doesn't have to be a 13.

As far as replacing BOD at 13 we have centres coming out of our ears and as you say there may not be another BOD but there may be a better pairing or at least a more appropriate pairing for the demands on rugby in the 2010s.

Tox56

I have a feeling that talisman might be Sexton. Wouldn't make him captain at all as he seems very petulant on the field, but he plays in a crucial position, is just coming into his prime and is one of the only players we have who is genuinely one of the top 2 or 3 in the world in his position. He really stepped up against Argentina when the pressure was on and we were without BOD and POC, and I have a feeling he'll thrive when the onus is on him to be the big player.