Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread V
Comments
-
Do you think yesterday's performance and ultimate hammering was ok because we were missing 5 players?
Honestly?
The team we had out was more than good enough to win.
We all knew the injuries we had in the lead up to the game, have a look at the build up thread or the match thread and see how many posters predicted the loss or the margin of the loss?0 -
People aren't questioning Schmidt's position (at least the sensible people asking questions aren't). Nobody wants to see him go anywhere, but I would guess more than a few want to see some changes be that in tactics or in playing personnel.
Just because he won two six nations doesn't mean the coaches and players are exempt from any sort of criticism for yesterdays display. What sort of attitude is that really?
I agree lessons need to be learned but what changes do you make? Do you suggest we forget about the 6N and build towards a World Cup in 2019?0 -
Guys like Moore, Murphy, Hendo, Henshaw, Dave Kearney, Zebo, McGrath, Henry have all been developed carefully under Schmidt into solid options for us rather than just parachute jobs.
The above players have all got chances, but mainly due to injury. Henshaw is the notable exception I suppose.
Marty Moore is an interesting example; 10 caps, 0 starts. Henderson got something like 70 minutes over the entire 2015 6N campaign, Madigan got even less. Joe has stuck rigidly to his first-choice XV whenever possible in the 6N, is it reasonable then to expect that the fringe guys can suddenly deliver on an even bigger stage when they're not trusted for the bread and butter? I understand that he is under instructions from IRFU to deliver results so maybe that is what needs to change, that's all I'm saying.
We need to shift to a longer-term perspective.White, Jackson, O'Donnell, Jones, Keatley, Marmion...
Lol. Bringing in Nathan White is embracing the youth alright. The rest, meh, have they really been blooded?0 -
We all knew the injuries we had in the lead up to the game, have a look at the build up thread or the match thread and see how many posters predicted the loss or the margin of the loss?
What point are you making? That fans are optimistic when it comes to their teams? Hardly groundbreaking stuff.0 -
total former wrote: »The above players have all got chances, but mainly due to injury. Henshaw is the notable exception I suppose.
Marty Moore is an interesting example; 10 caps, 0 starts. Henderson got something like 70 minutes over the entire 2015 6N campaign, Madigan got even less. Joe has stuck rigidly to his first-choice XV whenever possible in the 6N, is it reasonable then to expect that the fringe guys can suddenly deliver on an even bigger stage when they're not trusted for the bread and butter? I understand that he is under instructions from IRFU to deliver results so maybe that is what needs to change, that's all I'm saying.
We need to shift to a longer-term perspective.
Lol. Bringing in Nathan White is embracing the youth alright. The rest, meh, have they really been blooded?
I really don't think a longer term perspective would have done anything to help us yesterday.
Where exactly is the problem with our personnel, and how would you have fixed that over the past 12 months?0 -
This injury thing is being over used.
The team we had out was more than good enough to win.
IMO it wasn't. Murphy simply isn't at the level required at all. Madigan isn't either despite a good display against France. Earls is a great winger, but a fairly average centre. Compare that to the guys they replace. POM is truly excellent at this level. Sexton is world class. Payne (despite some peoples misgivings) is at the very least incredibly solid. That's a massive drop in those 3 positions alone. Throw in the loss of POC and SOB, then take a look at the quality in that Argie side and we simply didn't have the team capable of beating them.Sexton was withdrawn with a minor strain because they didn't want to risk him. Does that sound like the action of a coach who thinks he might be sending a team out for their last WC game?
Sexton wasn't fit to play. They even admitted when asked that they didn't know when he would be fit to play again. He wasn't withdrawn for any other reason then he wasn't fit to play.At the end of the day it was a game we really should have targeted to win and we not only lost, but we got absolutely battered. If questions shouldn't be asked after that (and I am NOT questioning Schmidt's position) then when do they get asked?
We should be asking questions. But not just any auld questions. The right ones. For starters were our expectations too high going into the game (based on the above I would say yes they were)? Did we, the fans, severely underestimate the Argentinians? Again I would say that we very much did. Do we have the depth we need to compete at the top level? No we don't. We're fairly close to it, but we aren't there yet.We won two six nations. Clearly that is not worth a damn when it gets to the business end of the world cup. Our first meeting with decent SH opposition this tournament and we are sent packing with ease. That is not good enough.
That would not be good enough if we had a fully fit squad. In the context of the game itself though it was still a disappointment. However, and this needs to be said, a huge number of people on this form massively underestimated Argentina. Massively. I tried to say it in the build up to the game, and even now having seen how good they are people are still doing it. We were out and out underdogs going up against that quality a side with so many losses. And if you are not starting your review of the game from there everything else you come up with is tainted.0 -
One of the reasons that there's so much disappointment and knee-jerk suggestions going around is that many people significantly underestimated what Argentina bring to the party. It didn't matter how many people said that they needed to be respected you still had posters throwing out the favourites tag nonsense. It shouldn't be surprising that the knee jerk reactions are as thoughtful as the pre-game analysis.
With the benefit of hindsight I wonder if the draw that we all thought was great was not actually a hindrance - as Australia showed yesterday it's very hard to hit highs 2 weeks in a row. Argentina will be brave against Australia but I can't see them hitting the same heights again.
As others have mentioned the problem in this game was our defence - anyone know when the last time we conceded 43 points was? It was the 60 - 0 defeat to NZ in 2012 and the last time that we conceded 43 points to a team other than NZ was in 2006 in that horror show in Paris where we made one error after another before nearly pulled off a miraculous comeback in the second half.
You can criticise Ireland's defence (and plenty have) but we just haven't got a record of conceding big scores so perhaps a little bit of credit to the Puma's for identifying a weakness and exploiting it so ruthlessly? As well as having a good strategy their execution was outstanding.
I still don't know quite how we pulled it back to a scenario where we should have levelled the game at 23 all - it's a credit to the character of the team that they found a way but it should be mentioned that we were flat right from the kick off. Heaslip stood up and tried to lead from the front with a monster hit and a massive clearout early on but it was 20 minutes before the team began to get near the pitch of the game and in truth they never reached the intensity levels of Argentina. The area this was most evident in was the breakdown where Argentina dominated - the area upon which our game is built. They were quicker to them, more aggressive and more effective.
If there was a selection error in the tournament for me it was in picking Madigan to start against Romania. It meant that Jackson was short on game time and couldn't really be selected to play yesterday. In my world, Jackson to start with Madigan to close out the game is our best combination when Sexton isn't available.
Our strength in depth is better that it has even been but we're still Ireland with a small pool of players to pick from. It's not just that we lost 5 first choice players but it's who we lost - our captain and talisman. Our openside who I think has a shout at being the best 7 in the world, our outhalf - again arguably the best outhalf in the world and our 13 - the one who balances out our midfield by providing time and space to everyone around him as well as excellent defensive reads (although I don't think that he would have changed much about yesterdays result - we just got out thought). POM is an outstanding player too and was in great form but was probably the most replaceable.1 -
Looking at our squad overall with a nod towards the next world cup (although predicting a squad 4 years out is something of a fools errand):
Front row - I know that Woody made a greater impact but Best is in the discussion when it comes to the best Irish hookers ever. We're going to miss his general play and leadership when he retires. Strauss and Cronin are adequate but it would be best if someone was able to overtake them. We're in a good place at the moment for props. I know that Moore has had more exposure to date but I expect Furlong to leapfrog him when Ross retires in the not too distant future.
Second row - Toner and Henderson offer a lot but neither is a leader and we need a lot more depth. Hopefully Foley develops but I'd say that this is a weak area for us at the moment.
Back row - SOB's injury profile makes it unlikely that he'll be around in four years time. If yesterday showed nothing else it's that the step down from SOB and POM to their replacements is a big one. We can probably afford for a total of one our backrow to be unavailable and maintain our standards but not two.
Scrum half - Backup is necessary, possibly the area of greatest concern now. I think that Murray needs to take a bit more responsibility - at one stage early in the second half it looked to me like he was taking the game by the scruff of the neck but then he let it go again. I don't know whether it's a lack of self belief or something else but he can contribute more and should be running games for us.
Outhalf - Sexton/Jackson could be an interesting discussion come 2019 - Madigan remains an impact sub for me.
Centres - Henshaw is likely to move to 13 when Payne retires with Fitz the only other potential option - one of the many Ulster lads has to make the 12 position his own. A general observation is that the number of injuries that Henshaw picks up is a bit concerning. He's still physically maturing though so hopefully their incidence will diminish.
Back 3 - Bowe's workrate was poor before he went off - I wouldn't be terribly surprised if we never saw him in a green jersey again but there's no way that he's around for the next world cup. Fitz/Earls/Zebo for the wing. I hope that another fullback comes through because Zebo is quite a big step down. I'm only going to mention Gilroy because others have. Anytime that I've seen him I've seen an excellent runner who is nowhere near international level at any other aspect of the game - in particular he doesn't link up at all well with the rest of his team. He's not first choice for his club and I wouldn't be surprised if he never is. A pity because his running ability reminds me of Shane Williams.
Aside from those I guess if Garry Ringrose lives up to the hype he might have something to contribute to the backline in a couple of years. Still a long way for him to go though.0 -
What part are you struggling to understand?
We got thumped and people are quite rightly asking questions. That surprises you?
It's as if some people think the entire setup is beyond question or something, like it's infallible. It's not.
What could we have done to avoid the thumping? Was there anything specific or tangible that you can point to that we did wrong in game?
On some days, the opposition just show up and play to a level that you need to be at to get close. We did it to England before. They had zero answers, they weren't able to up their game enough, it was a great day.
The Argentina side that showed up yesterday would've scored heavily vs anyone in that opening salvo. They almost let us back in with that brainless yellow, which knocked them out of their patterns and slowed them down. Ultimately though, they simply upped their game to an extent that we couldn't deal with. GG Argies.0 -
Advertisement
-
wicklowwonder wrote: »I agree lessons need to be learned but what changes do you make? Do you suggest we forget about the 6N and build towards a World Cup in 2019?
Agreed but will the IRFU allow an experimental type of game plan for a few years which will, no doubt deliver defeats. Plus those defeats would effect our seeding for the next world cup.0 -
Do you think yesterday's performance and ultimate hammering was ok because we were missing 5 players?
Honestly?
The team we had out was more than good enough to win.
You are not answering the question there at all awec. In fact (and I haven't read the full thread) all I've seen from you has been "Grr, we lost. Someone must pay. Grr". You need to be more specific.Also, see this "you can't throw the ball around in international rugby" talk?
We have four semi finalists who are happy to throw the ball around. I think we can toss that argument out the window.
Again, context. NZ did it against a God awful French side. Argentina did it for 25 mins against first a disorganised and then a tired Irish side. SA most certainly did not do it at all. And I didn't watch Australia but they seemed to have been lucky to get the win.
Other than the opening 15 and closing 10 minutes of our game we were the better team. We held onto possession better and built up a decent score against good opposition missing some of our best players. The disorganisation of the first quarter is what killed us. And you can't honestly think that would have happened with a fully fit squad.We all knew the injuries we had in the lead up to the game, have a look at the build up thread or the match thread and see how many posters predicted the loss or the margin of the loss?
Very few, because we all wear green tinted glasses.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »What could we have done to avoid the thumping? Was there anything specific or tangible that you can point to that we did wrong in game?
On some days, the opposition just show up and play to a level that you need to be at to get close. We did it to England before. They had zero answers, they weren't able to up their game enough, it was a great day.
The Argentina side that showed up yesterday would've scored heavily vs anyone in that opening salvo. They almost let us back in with that brainless yellow, which knocked them out of their patterns and slowed them down. Ultimately though, they simply upped their game to an extent that we couldn't deal with. GG Argies.
You asked me this last night.
Our defence.
We had a winger out there who missed more tackles than he made. A full back who missed almost half as many as he made.
Who actually thinks that's good enough?0 -
Agreed but will the IRFU allow an experimental type of game plan for a few years which will, no doubt deliver defeats. Plus those defeats would effect our seeding for the next world cup.
One suspects that after the group of death issue this year that the seeding process will be overhauled. I cant see them ever allowing seeding over two years out deciding on how groups will be drawn.
I would imagine that they will put a cut off point at the end of the Rugby Championship in 2018 to decide the seeding based on the 12 teams who finished in the top three in their groups. Other than that they can run the qualification as previously and then allot the places in the groups based on world rankings at that time.
If this were to happen, i think that the team would have time between now and 2017 to make fairly big changes and work on a four year cycle0 -
You asked me this last night.
Our defence.
We had a winger out there who missed more tackles than he made. A full back who missed almost half as many as he made.
Who actually thinks that's good enough?
You didn't answer it last night though
Dave Kearney missed tackles. That is piss poor. Agreed.
Do you think that everything else was just fine though? All that needed to change was Kearney make those tackles and we win that game?
I don't.0 -
irishbucsfan wrote: »I really don't think a longer term perspective would have done anything to help us yesterday.
Where exactly is the problem with our personnel, and how would you have fixed that over the past 12 months?
No, on a given day anything can happen, no matter what planning you put in place you're always running the risk that you will lose a one-off match. I think there were other factors at play yesterday.
But Irish failure at the world cup is nothing new. We can't just keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. One massive performance, a struggle to put Italy away and a dispiriting quarter-final defeat to an opponent roughly on an equivalent level to us. Am I talking about 2011 or 2015? Both! That's how history will record it.
What would I have done over the last 12 months? I would have mixed it up a bit more. I'd have tried a few different options in a few positions and most importantly I'd have tried a few different tactics. My point is that this needs to start more than 12 months out though. Easy to say with hindsight? Yes, but I've been banging on about our one-dimensional attack since last November.0 -
Advertisement
-
my main worry is if the gap grows between NH and SH whats the point of the 6Nations? It just becomes a 2nd Teir comp compared to the Rugby Championship. This could be compounded by the entry of Japan to the RC.
I believe ultimately the IRB will need to look at ways to coerce the NH to improve. They helped Arg improve by paying their entry fee into the RC for 4 years, and their new Super Rugby side.
The IRB need a strong NH as that's where the money is. At the end of the day the game is about making money for Rugby Boards, Owners and Sponsors. Even if we don't see that as fans....0 -
You are not answering the question there at all awec. In fact (and I haven't read the full thread) all I've seen from you has been "Grr, we lost. Someone must pay. Grr". You need to be more specific.
Again, context. NZ did it against a God awful French side. Argentina did it for 25 mins against first a disorganised and then a tired Irish side. SA most certainly did not do it at all. And I didn't watch Australia but they seemed to have been lucky to get the win.
Other than the opening 15 and closing 10 minutes of our game we were the better team. We held onto possession better and built up a decent score against good opposition missing some of our best players. The disorganisation of the first quarter is what killed us. And you can't honestly think that would have happened with a fully fit squad.
Very few, because we all wear green tinted glasses.
I am not saying someone must pay. I have said multiple times now that the coaches positions shouldn't be up for discussion. People seem to equate wanting questions to be asked with wanting the coaches head and therefore are getting really defensive.
I don't think "ah sure, we had 5 players missing" is a good enough excuse for being humiliated in a quarter final.
Our defence - woeful.
Breakdown - woeful.
Attacking options - poor.
This is not knee jerk either, if people look back over this forum for the past few months these questions have all been raised before. And people have said things like we weren't up for the game cause it wasn't an important game, or we didn't want to give anything away etc etc. Yesterday was the biggest game to date and we were completely blown away at the start of the match which is where all the damage was really done.
Also, is this the same god awful French side that we beat last week that people have used to justify our play style? Or the same god awful French side that are part of our six nations that we've won twice in a row?
We can't big up France when it backs up how good we are and then run them down whenever other teams hand them a beating that we couldn't come close to.
Also, "other than the opening 15 and the closing 15 we were the better team" matters not a jot when in those 30 minutes the opposition rack up over 40 points.
In their 30 minutes of dominance they got 43 points, in our apparent 50 minutes of dominance we got 20. Alarm bells surely ringing here?
I want to see a complete review of how we play the game. If that means instructions coming from the IRFU down to the provinces then so be it. I've had enough of this bollocks of constant kick chase, passive defence and over reliance on pre-determined moves. That will only get you so far. I want to see us pass the ball around, players able to think on their feet (instead of having kick, powerplay, kick, powerplay, kick, powerplay pattern) and cause teams problems that way. That makes us so much more a better team.
If that means not winning the six nations for a year or two then so be it.
We also need to make a few player changes in certain positions. Rob Kearney needs dropped for a bit. Dave Kearney is not at this level. We need to blood another 12 and 13 if Cave isn't the answer, that means giving someone else game time. We need to give a second 10 some game time, be that Madigan or Jackson. We need to put Ross out to stud, and McGrath is ahead of Healy now without question.
If we line out this six nations with the same players where possible and the same tactics then we will have learnt nothing.0 -
Utah_Saint wrote: »my main worry is if the gap grows between NH and SH whats the point of the 6Nations? It just becomes a 2nd Teir comp compared to the Rugby Championship. This could be compounded by the entry of Japan to the RC.
I believe ultimately the IRB will need to look at ways to coerce the NH to improve. They helped Arg improve by paying their entry fee into the RC for 4 years, and their new Super Rugby side.
The IRB need a strong NH as that's where the money is. At the end of the day the game is about making money for Rugby Boards, Owners and Sponsors. Even if we don't see that as fans....
I've always been opposed to it up to now because of the imbalance between home and away games, however of it can be proved that it will encourage more attacking rugby I'd be tempted to change my mind and support the introduction of bonus points to the 6Ns.0 -
total former wrote: »No, on a given day anything can happen, no matter what planning you put in place you're always running the risk that you will lose a one-off match. I think there were other factors at play yesterday.
But Irish failure at the world cup is nothing new. We can't just keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. One massive performance, a struggle to put Italy away and a dispiriting quarter-final defeat to an opponent roughly on an equivalent level to us. Am I talking about 2011 or 2015? Both! That's how history will record it.
What would I have done over the last 12 months? I would have mixed it up a bit more. I'd have tried a few different options in a few positions and most importantly I'd have tried a few different tactics. My point is that this needs to start more than 12 months out though. Easy to say with hindsight? Yes, but I've been banging on about our one-dimensional attack since last November.
I can't agree that that's the approach we should be following. I don't think we should be giving the World Cup any greater importance than we already do.
As you say anything can happen in a one-off game of rugby. Injuries happen to everyone sooner or later, look at Wales' campaign or look at how multiple injuries in one position nearly derailed the Kiwis in 2011. If we change our approach to focus more on the World Cup then we're basing our entire national focus around a competition of one-off games. It could mean the focus of an entire 4-year cycle comes down to nothing, all that would need to happen is a few injuries or a patriotic waitress.
The 6 Nations, despite the nonsense suggestions to the contrary, is a very strong competition. England and France are struggling right now but most years there are 3 or more top international sides in that competition and we play them all. We're right to focus on it as far as I'm concerned, instead of emphasising a competition that happens once every 4 years and could be ended by a whole host of factors outside our control.
As for the need to try different strategies, I think we've shown plenty of variety really. I really can't even begin to accept this truism that all we have done for the past 12 months is kick the ball well.0 -
You asked me this last night.
Our defence.
We had a winger out there who missed more tackles than he made. A full back who missed almost half as many as he made.
Who actually thinks that's good enough?
But exactly what tackles did he miss? Dave was chaser for a good few kicks and some of those were just too far, so at least some of those missed tackles were "offensive" tackles. Argentina loaded the short side on a number of occasions and our line didn't react properly leaving the guys out on the wings outnumbered and on the back foot. So what tackles did he miss that you can genuinely point to and say were poor? For me he was at fault for the first try so that's one criticism you could level at him, although I don't know if he attempted a tackle there or not.
If a player makes 22/22 of his tackles though does that mean he has a good defensive game? What happens if 8 of those tackles were the wrong call and he came out of the line, creating a dog leg and not getting the man before he passed the ball? Numbers alone rarely tell the full story. Trust me, I'm a data man and have been for years. Context is absolutely everything. So other than numbers can you point to specifics, because numbers alone aren't definitive by any means. If Kearney missed 3 tackles in the kick chase and 1 in the build up to the first try then that just leaves 1 other missed tackle. And that isn't as bad as you are making out.0 -
Advertisement
-
You can't dismiss the players we were missing and then castigate our defense for missing them. Our main defensive organisers were gone.I don't think "ah sure, we had 5 players missing" is a good enough excuse for being humiliated in a quarter final.
Our defence - woeful.
Not one to blame the ref, but you can't play the ref when the opposition are playing the ball on the ground and he's bending down and warning him three times before he lets go; and isn't pinged.Breakdown - woeful.
Yep, agreed. But you can't suddenly produce attacking players out of thin air when we have lost three of them.Attacking options - poor.
The damage was done when the ball got to the wings. How many times have you seen SOB close down the pass and stop the ball going wide. It's part of our narrow defense and requires experience and trust for it to work. All of that was missing.This is not knee jerk either, if people look back over this forum for the past few months these questions have all been raised before. And people have said things like we weren't up for the game cause it wasn't an important game, or we didn't want to give anything away etc etc. Yesterday was the biggest game to date and we were completely blown away at the start of the match which is where all the damage was really done.
France were beaten before they took to the field against NZ. In the first five minutes you could see their fear. They had all their confidence knocked out of them by the manner in which we beat them and it showed. Even the coach cracked and dropped Bastareaud and Tilous-Borde.Also, is this the same god awful French side that we beat last week that people have used to justify our play style? Or the same god awful French side that are part of our six nations that we've won twice in a row?
We can't big up France when it backs up how good we are and then run them down whenever other teams hand them a beating that we couldn't come close to.0 -
5 key players missing in a week cannot be underestimated, especially when they are so key to how we play and the experience they bring. Not to mention the general disruption that having to replace them all at once brings.
Jordi Murphy would probably be our 4th choice at 6 behind POM, Ruddock and Henderson in normal circumstances, possibly Henry too which gives an idea of the scale of our problems.0 -
Having any one of sexton, o'mahony or o'brien would have made a difference in closing off their distribution to the wide channels. Such horrible luck that we lost all three.0
-
5 key players missing in a week cannot be underestimated, especially when they are so key to how we play and the experience they bring. Not to mention the general disruption that having to replace them all at once brings.
Jordi Murphy would probably be our 4th choice at 6 behind POM, Ruddock and Henderson in normal circumstances, possibly Henry too which gives an idea of the scale of our problems.
True, but even considering the XXIII v XXIII we had out yesterday, and the context surrounding it, we were still rightly favourites imo.
However, Argentina decided that they weren't arsed by tags, and played like World Champions and utterly blew us away everywhere.
It was a combination of us only performing at 7/10, and them reaching the top of their abilities a few times over the game that left them convincing and worthy winners.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »True, but even considering the XXIII v XXIII we had out yesterday, and the context surrounding it, we were still rightly favourites imo.
However, Argentina decided that they weren't arsed by tags, and played like World Champions and utterly blew us away everywhere.
It was a combination of us only performing at 7/10, and them reaching the top of their abilities a few times over the game that left them convincing and worthy winners.
I certainly didn't have us as favourites, no disrespect to Madigan but we were playing a 10 who flatters to deceive in the pro 12. Hoping he'd lead us to victory in a tight game was hugely optimistic IMO.
I also think POC was a huge loss for the intensity he brings in defence, usually he's the one who leads the line there and we were certainly more sluggish than usual.0 -
So what is our goal ? The 6n or the World Cup? if it's the latter we can't let Schmidt walk out halfway to Japan. We need to blood new players now and evolve our game. The likes of Zebo, Jones, Stander, McCloskey, Marmion and Fitzgerald, McGrath, Cronin, Furlong etc all need to get game time in the next 6n.0
-
irishbucsfan wrote: »I can't agree that that's the approach we should be following. I don't think we should be giving the World Cup any greater importance than we already do.
Fair enough, but that's the decision to be made. I'd go the other way tbh.0 -
CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »you said we had two brilliant centers we needed two more as when payne got injured there was noone
I said we have two good centers with little international experience (meaning its not really Joes fault that we only had two centers as there was no time to develop either a third or a fourth)
yes, I said we HAD 2 brilliant centres, BOD and D'Arcy -
Henshaw and Payne were replacements and were doing good -
but we had no cover, when Payne got injured there was no obvious replacement, took over a week before someone was called up - Earls is not a good international centre , at best average - winger is his position
We need 2 more centres as cover -0 -
Deleted User wrote: »True, but even considering the XXIII v XXIII we had out yesterday, and the context surrounding it, we were still rightly favourites imo.
However, Argentina decided that they weren't arsed by tags, and played like World Champions and utterly blew us away everywhere.
It was a combination of us only performing at 7/10, and them reaching the top of their abilities a few times over the game that left them convincing and worthy winners.
I think there was an element of green tinted glasses there emmet. And I was guilty of it myself. Murphy and Madigan stand out straight away as guys who just aren't at the required level for a RWC QF. Add in Earls in the centre (who is a little off the level required there, but top class on the wing) and I think we had a few serious holes in the XV. Add to that White, who again is good but not quite there and Ruddock who simply isn't fully fit and it's hard to see where we had the advantages.
We have got to work on our depth in key positions here, and without wanting to get provincial we need the other provinces to start stepping it up. We cannot keep going with a system where over half the national side are from a single team. Ulster seem to be doing a good job with centres at the moment. We should be tapping into that next summer in a big way. But in both half back spots we simply don't have the required depth, or at least the required quality and depth. We probably need one or two more quality back rows too. And our back three are getting on a bit too....0 -
So what is our goal ? The 6n or the World Cup? if it's the latter we can't let Schmidt walk out halfway to Japan. We need to blood new players now and evolve our game. The likes of Zebo, Jones, Stander, McCloskey, Marmion and Fitzgerald, McGrath, Cronin, Furlong etc all need to get game time in the next 6n.
I'm not sure we could have introduced more new players than we have over the last few years.
It's a massive list as it is, the fact is that we don't have a huge pool to draw upon and what we have isn't brilliant.
There are names being bandied about like Matt Healy and Stuart Olding or McCloskey and they should be given a shot alright. But we're not flush with choice and we still have great difficulty in certain positions like out half, scrum half and centre.
Henderson is a great addition, but he still has a lot of work to do before he can be an international tight head lock (if that's what we want him for). He was plainly exhausted yesterday.
It's so difficult to 'blood' players to international rugby. All the training camps in the world can't be substituted for top level matches and there are only so many of them and even less that are not highly competitive.0 -
Advertisement
-
So what is our goal ? The 6n or the World Cup? if it's the latter we can't let Schmidt walk out halfway to Japan. We need to blood new players now and evolve our game. The likes of Zebo, Jones, Stander, McCloskey, Marmion and Fitzgerald, McGrath, Cronin, Furlong etc all need to get game time in the next 6n.
hopefully not winning the 6 N, it has been shown at this WC as been a level below the best - traditionalists, will differ , but in reality it is , as you say we should blood new players for a new team in 2 years , and then for WC '190 -
I'm not sure we could have introduced more new players than we have over the last few years.
It's a massive list as it is, the fact is that we don't have a huge pool to draw upon and what we have isn't brilliant.
There are names being bandied about like Matt Healy and Stuart Olding or McCloskey and they should be given a shot alright. But we're not flush with choice and we still have great difficulty in certain positions like out half, scrum half and centre.
Henderson is a great addition, but he still has a lot of work to do before he can be an international tight head lock (if that's what we want him for). He was plainly exhausted yesterday.
It's so difficult to 'blood' players to international rugby. All the training camps in the world can't be substituted for top level matches and there are only so many of them and even less that are not highly competitive.
Don't forget the attrition rate in the modern game. Our tour to Argentina last summer was blighted by injured centres. We had Cave and McFadden in for the second Test with Reid on the bench. That should have been a tour to get Henshaw bedded in but he was injured. Marshall then got injured in the first Test. Then we got Henshaw and Payne together for SA only for Payne to be injured. Then coming into the RWC we couldn't get the 2 lads on the pitch together at all other than the England game.
Circumstance can play utter havoc with whatever best laid plans coaches come up with.0 -
It's bit crazy to base everything around what happens in WC's. I don't remember the Sanzar teams rushing to emulate the English after the 2003 WC.0
-
I think there was an element of green tinted glasses there emmet. And I was guilty of it myself. Murphy and Madigan stand out straight away as guys who just aren't at the required level for a RWC QF. Add in Earls in the centre (who is a little off the level required there, but top class on the wing) and I think we had a few serious holes in the XV. Add to that White, who again is good but not quite there and Ruddock who simply isn't fully fit and it's hard to see where we had the advantages.
We have got to work on our depth in key positions here, and without wanting to get provincial we need the other provinces to start stepping it up. We cannot keep going with a system where over half the national side are from a single team. Ulster seem to be doing a good job with centres at the moment. We should be tapping into that next summer in a big way. But in both half back spots we simply don't have the required depth, or at least the required quality and depth. We probably need one or two more quality back rows too. And our back three are getting on a bit too....
You're spot on, Molloy - I certainly had green tinted glasses on, and yes, our lack of depth, particularly at half back and at centre, was shown up.
Argentina have shown themselves to be a very good team, and IMO they will beat NZ before long.0 -
I think there was an element of green tinted glasses there emmet. And I was guilty of it myself. Murphy and Madigan stand out straight away as guys who just aren't at the required level for a RWC QF. Add in Earls in the centre (who is a little off the level required there, but top class on the wing) and I think we had a few serious holes in the XV. Add to that White, who again is good but not quite there and Ruddock who simply isn't fully fit and it's hard to see where we had the advantages.
We have got to work on our depth in key positions here, and without wanting to get provincial we need the other provinces to start stepping it up. We cannot keep going with a system where over half the national side are from a single team. Ulster seem to be doing a good job with centres at the moment. We should be tapping into that next summer in a big way. But in both half back spots we simply don't have the required depth, or at least the required quality and depth. We probably need one or two more quality back rows too. And our back three are getting on a bit too....
And the betting companies that all had us as 5/6 point favourites all had green tinted glasses too?
I'm okay discharging my bias by taking the 'market view', and the 'market view' was XXIII vs XXIII we were favourites.
Argentina produced towards the top of their abilities, we didn't, though we were not bad either. That was enough.0 -
Midi olympique reporting the RFU offering the IRFU 1.5 mil to buy JS out of his contract.0
-
While i am gutted we are out I think we put it all into the French game this left us short in this game (as well as being down some key players)
Argentina were up for this as we were for France and I think they may be in the same boat next week. Just not able to get themselves up to that level again.
swings and roundabouts.........0 -
Deleted User wrote: »And the betting companies that all had us as 5/6 point favourites all had green tinted glasses too?
I'm okay discharging my bias by taking the 'market view', and the 'market view' was XXIII vs XXIII we were favourites.
Argentina produced towards the top of their abilities, we didn't, though we were not bad either. That was enough.
If that's what you're using as your guage you'll be right more than you're wrong. But from time to time you'll be wrong.
Where did we have the edge on the field before kick off?0 -
While i am gutted we are out I think we put it all into the French game this left us short in this game (as well as being down some key players)
Argentina were up for this as we were for France and I think they may be in the same boat next week. Just not able to get themselves up to that level again.
swings and roundabouts.........
Creevy has a leg injury and is a doubt0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
While i am gutted we are out I think we put it all into the French game this left us short in this game (as well as being down some key players)
Argentina were up for this as we were for France and I think they may be in the same boat next week. Just not able to get themselves up to that level again.
swings and roundabouts.........
Cheika won't have missed what Argentina did to us. If they use a narrow defence, they'll wrap around and cut off the wings. Or they'll defend wider, but may leave gaps in the centre.
I'm guessing it'll be the rush defense. If you do it right, you'll force turnovers with their wingers out of position.0 -
Cheika won't have missed what Argentina did to us. If they use a narrow defence, they'll wrap around and cut off the wings. Or they'll defend wider, but may leave gaps in the centre.
I'm guessing it'll be the rush defense. If you do it right, you'll force turnovers with their wingers out of position.
Australia will be much better at the breakdown too. They won't get shoved around as much as we did, Argentina won't have as much time on the ball as we gave them.0 -
This WC should see the end of the Ireland careers of POC, Ross, White, McCarthy, Reddan & Boss.
So immediately, there are 3 problem positions - Tight Head, Lock and Scrum Half.
At TH - Marty Moore and Furlong are the obvious next 2 to step up, but will Ross still be starting for Leinster? If so, that poses a huge problem.
At lock - Henderson and Toner will likely be first choice, and Ryan, who is 31, could conceivably still be around for the next 4 years. But no doubt we need one or two other options. Foley? Kearney?
At scrum-half - Murray will remain number one, but we need backup. Marmion will be a regular starter for Connacht so should be in the driving seat. Let's hope Luke McGrath gets enough game time at Leinster.
It does show up a problem though - older players possibly blocking the progression of young players at the provinces.0 -
FYP :pac:TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »Australia will be much better at the breakdown too. They won't get shoved around as much as we did, Argentina won't have as much time on the our ball as we Garces gave them.0 -
Advertisement
-
whatawaster wrote: »This WC should see the end of the Ireland careers of POC, Ross, White, McCarthy, Reddan & Boss.
So immediately, there are 3 problem positions - Tight Head, Lock and Scrum Half.
At TH - Marty Moore and Furlong are the obvious next 2 to step up, but will Ross still be starting for Leinster? If so, that poses a huge problem.
At lock - Henderson and Toner will likely be first choice, and Ryan, who is 31, could conceivably still be around for the next 4 years. But no doubt we need one or two other options. Foley? Kearney?
At scrum-half - Murray will remain number one, but we need backup. Marmion will be a regular starter for Connacht so should be in the driving seat. Let's hope Luke McGrath gets enough game time at Leinster.
It does show up a problem though - older players possibly blocking the progression of young players at the provinces.
The answer is simple - move Marty Moore to Munster :pac:0 -
-
whatawaster wrote: »
It does show up a problem though - older players possibly blocking the progression of young players at the provinces.
It's possibly an issue as well that our older guys cannot retire from internationals but continue with the provinces. Like, Mike Ross will be 36 when the Six Nations comes around; maybe he'd rather pack it in and focus on his club game, try to get an extension at Leinster? But that option isn't open to him.0 -
total former wrote: »It's possibly an issue as well that our older guys cannot retire from internationals but continue with the provinces. Like, Mike Ross will be 36 when the Six Nations comes around; maybe he'd rather pack it in and focus on his club game, try to get an extension at Leinster? But that option isn't open to him.
But if Ross isn't an international anymore, he is hurting the national team by continuing at Leinster as Furlong and Moore are going to get less gametime.
The ideal for me would be players playing at the provinces in their youth and their prime and then getting a nice payday in the South of France to end their career, giving the new generation the gametime they need.
We have players who would be getting first choice club rugby in England or France. Look at Gilroy at 24, Reid at 25, Madigan at 26. I'm not sure provincial rugby as it currently is, has developed them fully.0 -
Utah_Saint wrote: »Should we get a good NZ coaching setup in to work with the underage Ireland team. Have them play a SH style and hope through time it filters through to the senior setup? Just a thought...
I'd be all for such a move. When I look at the absolute shambles of the underage set up and the total lack of coaching and interest at Ulster I despair.
total former wrote: »There is only one solution IMO. End the obsessive focus on winning the 6N.End this arrogance that the 6N somehow means little....
These posts are absolute nonsense. It is the cash from the 6Ns that keeps Irish rugby afloat - almost entirely. It happens every year, not a 6 week junket once every four years. In order to develop and spread rugby in Ireland we need to keep it vibrant and active each season, not sell out so the IRB . W.R. can have fun with the cash it generates.Regardless of how long Joe is planning tohang around, the IRFU and their sponsors will want us to target the 6Ns. Rightly so too, IMHO.
Hear! Hear!
Gilroy is good enough. Actions speak for themselves.TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »This needs to start at club level though, yes?
Some positions are fine in that regard. Jackson, for example, is a first choice player for Ulster, gets regular game time.
If Bowe and Trimble are first choice wingers for Ulster how does Gilroy (just as an example) get enough game time there to deserve a call up to the Ireland squad. I know the IRFU have some input when it comes to the provinces but it's unlikely they're not going to play their best players just to allow the national team to get a better look at the next generation of players.
I suppose you could argue that if Gilroy was good enough he'd be pushing Trimble or Bowe for their jersey.I hope the IRFU's review take a bit longer than yours. It's probably a bit simplistic to lay the blame of our exit solely on the injuries. I'd like to think that there are lessons to be learned from our World Cup campaign.
I'm not even sure we brought the best 31, Trimble and possibly Gilroy could have been brought, was Healy the best choice to travel/start?
On yesterday's game - did our game plan yesterday suit the opposition rather than suit us? Should Zebo have started or have been on the subs bench? Should McGrath have started ahead of Healy? Why wasn't Jackson given a run? Should Ryan have started at lock with Henderson at 6?
Again Hear! Hear!
Healy was never back up to full speed as a player after his injuries and has shown very little. He is definitely not 100% back to his best. Kilcoyne should have been there. No one will convince me that Dave Kearney is a better wing than Trimble or Zebo. I'm also pretty certain that Zebo should have been on. We needed pace and he brings it. Ryan should have been in the row and Henderson at 6 instead of having his head buried in rucks with little support to the point of exhaustion. If you had a straight choice between Murphy and Henderson for 6 who would you choose.....?Answers on a postcard to J. Schmidt c/o IRFU.
.
As for your argument about maybe Gilroy being there, well I think he was the only player in the 43 not to get a game so Schmidt sees him as pretty poor. So long as he continues to be as poor as he is for Ulster I'll be feckin' delighted. He simply has to stop scoring tries out of nothing if he is ever to get a green shirt again. It's clearly bad, unstructured rugby. He and |cave with their awful, wasteful line breaks:D. Wasters. I had to laugh at an earlier post which claimed that he was no good at linking up with his team mates. What an easy criticism to make with no foundation whatsoever. It's particularly laughable when we compare him to the other back 5 and their ability / penchant for dropping passes, not passing, running up dead ends etc. He is no Denis Hickie but ffs. Any of us could make such a claim about any player to damn him. It's almost unquantifiable.
Healy at Conn. never even got a sniff. Looks to be very quick. Earls is a brilliant wing but at this level is no 13. Again Cave never got a sniff.
People correctly can praise Schmidt to the heavens when he gets it right. He also deserves to be held to the account when he gets it wrong. The important thing is to look ahead to February with positivity. We can be sure that Scotland and Wales leave with their heads held high while we slink quietly off. The players have no need to do so, particularly those that were never seen in anger.Utah_Saint wrote: »my main worry is if the gap grows between NH and SH whats the point of the 6Nations? It just becomes a 2nd Teir comp compared to the Rugby Championship. This could be compounded by the entry of Japan to the RC.
I believe ultimately the IRB will need to look at ways to coerce the NH to improve. They helped Arg improve by paying their entry fee into the RC for 4 years, and their new Super Rugby side.
The IRB need a strong NH as that's where the money is. At the end of the day the game is about making money for Rugby Boards, Owners and Sponsors. Even if we don't see that as fans....
Here's an idea. Make the 6Ns home and away like the RCC. Play it over 10 weeks. Restructure the season accordingly.irishbucsfan wrote: »I can't agree that that's the approach we should be following. I don't think we should be giving the World Cup any greater importance than we already do.
The 6 Nations, despite the nonsense suggestions to the contrary, is a very strong competition.
As for the need to try different strategies, I think we've shown plenty of variety really. I really can't even begin to accept this truism that all we have done for the past 12 months is kick the ball well.
I agree. The RWC for me is interesting but the 6Ns and domestic rugby is where I get my enjoyment. As for their being only 1 NH winner, well we all know France were robbed of the last one and England should have clearly won in 1991. It's good at raising money for World Rugby but that's it. A sort of car boot sale of rugby wares to raise cash for the less well off.0 -
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement