Match Thread: Ireland v Wales [2.30pm 29/08/15 Aviva Stadium] Guinness Series

Wang King

total former wrote: »

It was borderline at best, but Kinsella is querying the officials' motivation for making the call and that's ridiculous paranoid bullsh*t.

No, Kinsella is wondering if it was a borderline call and Sexton was roaring away at him, would that have swayed the ref to go against him... It's quite possible

digzy

digzy wrote: »

you could say the same for the welsh lads....

Look, we've a seriously limited game plan, predicated upon murray box kicks which are 50/50 at any time.....I hope i'm wrong but lets see.....

Schmidt has a massive box of tricks. He had amazing assets at Leinster like BOD and Nacewa but overall he has a much stronger squad now and I suspect we will see more complete pwrformances from the France game onward.

I think Lancaster is probably similarly keeping England playing a limited game plan and they will be a different team in the WC.

Wales I think will be as they are and I don't think they will progress from that group.

molloyjh

total former wrote: »

It was borderline at best, but Kinsella is querying the officials' motivation for making the call and that's ridiculous paranoid bullsh*t.

Agreed. I'm actually surprised as I'd held Kinsella in higher regard than that.

molloyjh

digzy wrote: »

you could say the same for the welsh lads....

Look, we've a seriously limited game plan, predicated upon murray box kicks which are 50/50 at any time.....I hope i'm wrong but lets see.....

I believe Wales played Ospreys and Scarlets behind closed doors.

total former

Wang King wrote: »

No, Kinsella is wondering if it was a borderline call and Sexton was roaring away at him, would that have swayed the ref to go against him... It's quite possible

Just to clarify. When Sexton was roaring at the touch judge, the ref called a penalty for Ireland.

Kinsella is accusing the touch judge of storing up the resentment at being roared at and then calling a penalty against a completely different player later on in the game, to get back at Sexton/Ireland.

It's bananas.

The Lost Sheep

Hagz wrote: »

Can you tell me what was correct about the call?

Isnt it obvious what was correct.... Will I just repeat what referee signalled...

Wang King wrote: »

No, Kinsella is wondering if it was a borderline call and Sexton was roaring away at him, would that have swayed the ref to go against him... It's quite possible

It isn't really really unlikely for a guy refereeing at this level to have a player shouting at him to alter their view. I would say maybe if we were discussing a very inexperienced referee at this level but we're not.

Hagz

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Isnt it obvious what was correct....

Not to me it wasn't. And it wasn't to Joe Schmidt, the commentators, Murray Kinsella and a plethora of others. So please, enlighten us won't you?

Hagz

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Will I just repeat what referee signalled...

Please don't. That wouldn't be constructive or logical.

phog

.ak wrote: »

Well that might be your opinion. Another opinion is he's the incumbent left wing.

The truth is our opinions aren't worth anything, Fitzgerald could already be one of the guaranteed or he could not be in schmidt's plans. This whole "fighting for places" or "opportunity to play their way onto the plane" are just situations that are completely fabricated by us and the media.

He's the incumbent simply because the previous incumbent was suffering from wear and tear or was Joe spinning lies.

Buer

phog wrote: »

He's the incumbent simply because the previous incumbent was suffering from wear and tear or was Joe spinning lies.

That would be the bloke who went with the squad as the 24th man....

Wang King

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Isnt it obvious what was correct.... Will I just repeat what referee signalled...

It isn't really really unlikely for a guy refereeing at this level to have a player shouting at him to alter their view. I would say maybe if we were discussing a very inexperienced referee at this level but we're not.

As we saw from his performance, experience means nothing when you're having a bad game.

phog

Buer wrote: »

That would be the bloke who went with the squad as the 24th man....

Yes, hardly unusual. A guy has a few bumps and bruises, rest him to give a fresh guy a run but bring the incumbent with you in case a back pulls up in training.

Or do you subscribe to the theory that Joe told us lies on why Fitz was selected.

.ak

phog wrote: »

Yes, hardly unusual. A guy has a few bumps and bruises, rest him to give a fresh guy a run but bring the incumbent with you in case a back pulls up in training.

Or do you subscribe to the theory that Joe told us lies on why Fitz was selected.

Yes, because everything joe says is 100% true...

He's a coach of a professional team. He's hardly going to admit dropping someone just to satisfy the media. All the players have wear n tear.

Buer

phog wrote: »

Yes, hardly unusual. A guy has a few bumps and bruises, rest him to give a fresh guy a run but bring the incumbent with you in case a back pulls up in training.

Or do you subscribe to the theory that Joe told us lies on why Fitz was selected.

Schmidt was asked directly about it and gave a soft answer saying he was "showing signs of wear and tear" and had "worked incredibly hard on his game".

It was a diplomatic answer. If he was genuinely out for physical reasons, he couldn't be the 24th man especially for a 6N decider where you hardly decide to give someone a rest if you reckon they're the best man for the job.

phog

phog wrote: »

He's the incumbent simply because the previous incumbent was suffering from wear and tear or was Joe spinning lies.

Would you have preferred if Schmidt came out in public and said "yeah, I've dropped Zebo because he was crap against Wales"?

Answer - no you'd have gone absolutely mental. Poor Simon, confidence destroyed, I am outraged, etc etc etc.

He's a professional coach, of course he sometimes doesn't tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

phog

.ak wrote: »

Yes, because everything joe says is 100% true...

He's a coach of a professional team. He's hardly going to admit dropping someone just to satisfy the media. All the players have wear n tear.

So when he says Jordi had a good game he's telling the truth but when he says he's resting Zebo because of wear and tear it's a lie.

Got you.

phog

Albert Scrawny Wall wrote: »

Would you have preferred if Schmidt came out in public and said "yeah, I've dropped Zebo because he was crap against Wales"?

Answer - no you'd have gone absolutely mental. Poor Simon, confidence destroyed, I am outraged, etc etc etc.

He's a professional coach, of course he sometimes doesn't tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Well he couldn't say that because that would certainly be a lie.

duckysauce

total former wrote: »

Just to clarify. When Sexton was roaring at the touch judge, the ref called a penalty for Ireland.

Kinsella is accusing the touch judge of storing up the resentment at being roared at and then calling a penalty against a completely different player later on in the game, to get back at Sexton/Ireland.

It's bananas.

he said wondering hardly accusing

--Sexton remonstrating with Luke Pearce in the first half. Wonder if this subconsciously influenced call against POC? --

.ak

phog wrote: »

So when he says Jordi had a good game he's telling the truth but when he says he's resting Zebo because of wear and tear it's a lie.

Got you.

I never said anything about Jordi Murphy?

CatFromHue

phog wrote: »

Well he couldn't say that because that would certainly be a lie.

but he wasn't great either.

smiley_face

Buer wrote: »

Schmidt was asked directly about it and gave a soft answer saying he was "showing signs of wear and tear" and had "worked incredibly hard on his game".

It was a diplomatic answer. If he was genuinely out for physical reasons, he couldn't be the 24th man especially for a 6N decider where you hardly decide to give someone a rest if you reckon they're the best man for the job.

That doesn't actually stand up, he can be rested and still brought as emergency backup, if it's preferable to have a guy in need of a break in reserve rather than another lesser quality player if you see the drop In quality to the next choice as too great. In other words he'd rather a slightly injured Zebo over the next choice, which is believable at least.

Buer

For a do or die, championship game you select your best side regardless of "wear and tear" which every single player would have at that point. You don't drop a guy for the biggest game of the season because he needs a rest. If you do, his spot is on very shaky ground to begin with.

Keith Earls was in the 6N squad and went as the 24th man previously. Zebo was brought ahead of him as no. 24 to Scotland. If Zebo's physical condition actually hindered him from being involved, Earls would have easily slotted into the role again.

I'm sure if you asked Zebo if he was good to go for the Scotland game, he'd have been absolutely ready given he trained fully that week.

phog

.ak wrote: »

I never said anything about Jordi Murphy?

I never said you did but when Awec said Murphy was awful on Saturday, someone replied that Joe mentioned he had a good game.

Truth or a lie just to keep the media off his back and to keep a few posters on here happy?

Buer wrote: »

For a do or die, championship game you select your best side regardless of "wear and tear" which every single player would have at that point. You don't drop a guy for the biggest game of the season because he needs a rest. If you do, his spot is on very shaky ground to begin with.

Keith Earls was in the 6N squad and went as the 24th man previously. Zebo was brought ahead of him as no. 24 to Scotland. If Zebo's physical condition actually hindered him from being involved, Earls would have easily slotted into the role again.

I'm sure if you asked Zebo if he was good to go for the Scotland game, he'd have been absolutely ready given he trained fully that week.

So you're sticking with Joe lied.

The Rape of Lucretia

phog wrote: »

So you're sticking with Joe lied.

http://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/rugby-union/simon-zebo-admits-disappointment-over-5488228

http://www.the42.ie/ireland-simon-zebo-jack-mcgrath-2001428-Mar2015/

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/six-nations/irish-news/luke-fitzgerald-set-to-start-against-scots-as-simon-zebo-pays-the-price-for-cardiff-showing-31078767.html


Of course he lied. A white lie to soften the blow. Two of them in fact. The kick footedness as well. But Zeebs knew what it was. Bottom line is dropped.

Buer

phog wrote:

So you're sticking with Joe lied.

Pretty much, if it makes you happy. It would be extremely naive to think it wasn't a white lie to deflect a media question.

.ak

phog wrote: »

I never said you did but when Awec said Murphy was awful on Saturday, someone replied that Joe mentioned he had a good game.
.

So what's that got to do with me or the point I'm making? You're assuming I share the same opinion as another poster?

100% Joe tells white lies to the media from time to time.

jm08

Buer wrote: »

For a do or die, championship game you select your best side regardless of "wear and tear" which every single player would have at that point. You don't drop a guy for the biggest game of the season because he needs a rest. If you do, his spot is on very shaky ground to begin with.

Keith Earls was in the 6N squad and went as the 24th man previously. Zebo was brought ahead of him as no. 24 to Scotland. If Zebo's physical condition actually hindered him from being involved, Earls would have easily slotted into the role again.

I'm sure if you asked Zebo if he was good to go for the Scotland game, he'd have been absolutely ready given he trained fully that week.

At that stage of the season, Zebo had played 21 games (including 7 internationals). Luke Fitz had played 12. Tommy Bowe 18 (including 6 internationals).

It was fatigue, not wear and tear. And he wanted to reward Luke for performing in training and he said he didn't want to put him on the right wing because that would have meant having 3 left footed players in the back 3.

I would also guess that Schmidt is also trying to keep Zebo on his toes!

Witheringeye

IMO I think joe would have always preferred to have fitz there instead of Zebo but he also couldn't give fitz the majority of 6N game time in a World Cup year due to his injury profile.
I would say that Zebo did have some wear and tear but if fitz didn't exist he could have started. He wanted to have a look at Luke and that was the main reason he started.
FWIW I rate Luke very highly and people may claim that he's overrated and that is true to an extent but I think he is massively underrated by some. I would have him streets ahead of Zebo personally and a fair bit ahead of earls.
I think LF, DK and bowe are all more or less on the same playing field atm with Trimble being a cut above the rest.

I completely agree with ak., I've been watching him since he was 16 and his awareness is incredible. I reckon he has one of the highest ceilings amongst our outside backs and has almost no natural weaknesses

Buer

Witheringeye wrote: »

I completely agree with ak., I've been watching him since he was 16 and his awareness is incredible. I reckon he has one of the highest ceilings amongst our outside backs and has almost no natural weaknesses

I think his weakness now is mental. He doesn't attack with the direct confidence of Zebo or Earls. They hit the soft shoulders like trains whilst Fitzgerald tends to take contact or step his way around. He hit those gaps hard and fast once upon a time but doesn't do it anymore.

With that in mind, the other two offer a lot more cutting edge individually in attack.

Fitz is a more all round performer, undoubtedly, in terms of positioning, rucking and talking in the defensive line.

It's going to be a fascinating call. Any one of the three could be left at home which would be harsh on them. Zebo went the best in the warm ups overall, for me, and should travel which would allow Jones to be omitted and Zebo probably to be our 23.

That would allow Trimble or an outside chance of DK to take the 11 jersey as guys who appear to have Schmidt in their fan club.

I think their respective knocks from the weekend could tip the scales for either Earls or Fitzgerald to stay at home. At this point, if I had to put money on it, I'd say Earls following his showing at the weekend but I'd hate to see him omitted. He's too bloody good a player not to be out there but we only have so many spots.

phog

Buer wrote: »

Pretty much, if it makes you happy. It would be extremely naive to think it wasn't a white lie to deflect a media question.

Everything Joe does in his role as Irish manager attracts media attention, I really don't see why he needs to lie about why he selected Luke for one game.

.ak wrote: »

So what's that got to do with me or the point I'm making? You're assuming I share the same opinion as another poster?

100% Joe tells white lies to the media from time to time.

Absolutely not. I was merely making the point that some of Joe's utterances to the media are used here to support an opinion and others discounted as lies when it suits the poster.

total former

phog wrote: »

Absolutely not. I was merely making the point that some of Joe's utterances to the media are used here to support an opinion and others discounted as lies when it suits the poster.

I think you just have to critically review what he says. No coach, in any sport, is 100% honest, 100% of the time, so yes, sometimes what he says is genuine and other times, not so much.

Zebo was just dropped, this business of "wear and tear" was cushioning the blow for him. It's good man-management.

.ak

phog wrote: »

Absolutely not. I was merely making the point that some of Joe's utterances to the media are used here to support an opinion and others discounted as lies when it suits the poster.

Yeah but what does that have to do with me? You're using a point another poster made to suit your side of the debate with me? Makes no sense. I never said that but you seem to be trying to attribute it to me. Bizarre.

FWIW I think Joe lied about Murphy as well, probably to man-manage his spirits somewhat as he seemed pretty distraught after that defeat.

Flipper22

phog wrote: »

Everything Joe does in his role as Irish manager attracts media attention, I really don't see why he needs to lie about why he selected Luke for one game.




Absolutely not. I was merely making the point that some of Joe's utterances to the media are used here to support an opinion and others discounted as lies when it suits the poster.

I wouldn't say he lied exactly, in that I'm sure Zebo did have a couple of knocks, but equally it was apparent at that time and confirmed by SZ afterwards in an interview or two that he could have played and saw it as being dropped. I'm sure there were other guys playing with similar or worse knocks. The knocks may have had some impact on the decision to drop him but if Joe decisively wanted him in the side he would have played. Coaches don't often come out in the media and simply say a player was dropped, if there's another reason they can plausibly come out with they will.

I think the above is all fact, but to venture into the realm of opinion, I think it shows that Joe probably rated Fitz more highly and would have had him in the team from the start of the 6N ahead of Zebo had he been fit. Whether that's still the case with Luke having had more surgery and SZ generally impressing in the warmups remains to be seen.

On the point about Jordi, I don't think he was asked directly about him, was he? I presume he just namechecked him as having had a good game as he often does about a few players after games. I thought he was OK myself, not much influence at the breakdown where we were second best but he made a lot of tackles. Maybe he did exactly what Joe asked him to do. I doubt there was any ulterior motive in namechecking him, it's pretty obvious that he'll be in the squad but won't start any big games unless we get an injury or two.

phog

.ak wrote: »

Yeah but what does that have to do with me? You're using a point another poster made to suit your side of the debate with me? Makes no sense. I never said that but you seem to be trying to attribute it to me. Bizarre.

Again, absolutely nothing.

FWIW I think Joe lied about Murphy as well, probably to man-manage his spirits somewhat as he seemed pretty distraught after that defeat.

Mind or the sarcasm police will pounce. :rolleyes:

phog

total former wrote: »

I think you just have to critically review what he says. No coach, in any sport, is 100% honest, 100% of the time, so yes, sometimes what he says is genuine and other times, not so much.

Zebo was just dropped, this business of "wear and tear" was cushioning the blow for him. It's good man-management.

You mean when it suits your argument you can use Joe's utterances as lies of fact.

phog

Flipper22 wrote: »

I wouldn't say he lied exactly

He dropped Zebo - he lied.

He rested Zebo because of wear and tear - he told the truth

.ak

phog wrote: »

Again, absolutely nothing.



Mind or the sarcasm police will pounce. :rolleyes:

I wasn't being sarcastic. That's my honest opinion.

Flipper22

phog wrote: »

He dropped Zebo - he lied.

He rested Zebo because of wear and tear - he told the truth

Well call it a lie if you want, I don't really mind either way. It's not as black and white as that imo.

Did Zebo have some wear and tear? Almost certainly.

Did this have an impact on the decision to leave him out? Maybe, leaning towards yes.

Would Zebo have played if JS decisively wanted him ahead of Fitzgerald? Yes

If Joe saw Zebo as decisively ahead of Luke in the pecking order, would he have started? Yes

Imagine a hypothethical situation where, say, Rob Kearney is suffering from similar wear and tear ( in fact, he may well have been); Would Joe have rested him for Felix Jones given that RK had trained fully all week? Not a chance.

molloyjh

phog wrote: »

Absolutely not. I was merely making the point that some of Joe's utterances to the media are used here to support an opinion and others discounted as lies when it suits the poster.

Total former has already said that no coach is never 100% honest, 100% of the time. And he's completely right

You're going to struggle to find people using Joe's claims about Jordi to suggest he had a good game. In fact you are far more likely to find people being surprised he said it at all given how people rated Jordis performance. That said he wasn't specifically asked about Jordi so it's probably fair to say that Joe thought he performed well. There'd have been no reason for him to bring the guy up otherwise.

As for Zebo in the 6Ns he was specifically asked about it. And if Zebo was fit to be the 24th man then surely he was fit to play. Zebo was dropped because Joe felt he wasn't the best option available. Now Joe could have said that. He could have said he wasn't happy with Zebos work at the breakdown or in the tackle area and that these are areas he needs to work on (or whatever it was that caused the guy to be dropped) or he could have sidestepped the question with the reply he gave. He was completely right (from both the players perspective and his own) to go with the latter.

I don't see what the issue is here at all tbh, it all seems fairly clear cut to me.

thomond2006

I'd never imagine or expect any coach to be 100% honest. It's not a truth or lie situation either, it's grey area and opinion too. Coach to media is like any PR exercise, they will embellish and play down when it suits them. Calling something truth or a lie is very simplistic. An opinion is neither.

I've no problem with posters taking a position on something a coach says, personally I'll take anything said by management or a player with a grain of salt. But do we have to accuse confirmation bias if posters want to read something into a quote? I don't think that's fair.

total former

phog wrote: »

You mean when it suits your argument you can use Joe's utterances as lies of fact.

I have no idea what is contentious about this.

He dropped Zebo, maybe he thought it would be better for the player's confidence if he cushioned it for him, rather than just saying "Simon wasn't very good last week and I think Luke will do better".

I have no idea what the objection to this is, or how you can extrapolate one white lie to your conclusion that everything Joe says is a lie.

phog

total former wrote: »

I have no idea what is contentious about this.

He dropped Zebo, maybe he thought it would be better for the player's confidence if he cushioned it for him, rather than just saying "Simon wasn't very good last week and I think Luke will do better".

I have no idea what the objection to this is, or how you can extrapolate one white lie to your conclusion that everything Joe says is a lie.

I haven't said nor implied this. I've no idea why you even think it.

smiley_face

total former wrote: »

I have no idea what is contentious about this.

He dropped Zebo, maybe he thought it would be better for the player's confidence if he cushioned it for him, rather than just saying "Simon wasn't very good last week and I think Luke will do better".

I have no idea what the objection to this is, or how you can extrapolate one white lie to your conclusion that everything Joe says is a lie.

It's simply a question, if Zebo is ahead of Fitzgerald why was he not playing?
He was either rested as Joe made out, or he was dropped.
Nobody knows except Joe.
The suspicious nature of this debate is that anything Joe says from now on can be regarded with skepticism.
But anyone who's managed a team, or captained a team, knows that you can't just blurt out the truth to anyone outside the team, but you can easily have quiet conversations behind closed doors and clear the air that way.
I used to think JS was very forthcoming with his analysis and evaluation of the players, but comments lately about Murphy, Furlong etc just make me totally reject anything he says anymore at face value.

total former

phog wrote: »

I haven't said nor implied this. I've no idea why you even think it.

My apologies.

So we're agreed that sometimes we can take what he says at face value and sometimes we need to read between the lines.

phog

total former wrote: »

My apologies.

So we're agreed that sometimes we can take what he says at face value and sometimes we need to read between the lines.

There is another option

MJohnston

Well this thread has definitely entered the "we've nothing else to talk about during work" phase of a match thread lifespan.

Trojan

Sports manager tells white lie to soften cut shocker.

The biggest issue with that whole episode was Zebo insisting to the media "But I'm fine, really (yeah, so I got dropped from the squad for another reason)". This is high level international sports. Doing that was either naive, i.e. he didn't realise it was a dumb idea, or or stupidly attempting to pressure management to reconsider. Using media to force selection is a pretty bad idea and I can't see it working on most managers.

There mustn't be a whole lot else to talk about in the world of rugby at the moment, eh?

Wang King

Trojan wrote: »

Sports manager tells white lie to soften cut shocker.

The biggest issue with that whole episode was Zebo insisting to the media "But I'm fine, really (yeah, so I got dropped from the squad for another reason)". This is high level international sports. Doing that was either naive, i.e. he didn't realise it was a dumb idea, or or stupidly attempting to pressure management to reconsider. Using media to force selection is a pretty bad idea and I can't see it working on most managers.

There mustn't be a whole lot else to talk about in the world of rugby at the moment, eh?

So Joe fibs and Zebo tells the truth...and its Zebo who's at fault?
Wonder what would happen if Zebo had said he wasn't fit and Joe turned around and said he is fit,

mfceiling

smiley_face wrote: »

It's simply a question, if Zebo is ahead of Fitzgerald why was he not playing?
He was either rested as Joe made out, or he was dropped.
Nobody knows except Joe.
The suspicious nature of this debate is that anything Joe says from now on can be regarded with skepticism.
But anyone who's managed a team, or captained a team, knows that you can't just blurt out the truth to anyone outside the team, but you can easily have quiet conversations behind closed doors and clear the air that way.
I used to think JS was very forthcoming with his analysis and evaluation of the players, but comments lately about Murphy, Furlong etc just make me totally reject anything he says anymore at face value.

I think joe will be incredibly upset to find out that you now reject anything he says any more.

All managers will tell stories to the media that may not be entirely true.

They may claim that a star player isn't match fit on a Wednesday however he may end up playing in the match on a Saturday.

smiley_face

mfceiling wrote: »

I think joe will be incredibly upset to find out that you now reject anything he says any more.

All managers will tell stories to the media that may not be entirely true.

They may claim that a star player isn't match fit on a Wednesday however he may end up playing in the match on a Saturday.

Course he'll be upset, but he'll say otherwise...