Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread V

The Rape of Lucretia

The injuries both before the game making a serious portion of probable starter unavailable, and during the game to various degrees clearly hampered our chances.

But has the real problem in the two game so far been that we did not kick enough ball?

The merits of a slight reduction against the Welsh could maybe at least be argued. But against the French where it should have been greater, it seemed it was even lower. Much of the rest of the game plan has been in place in both games, but our lack of kicking is impossible to understand.
This tactic has served us well in the last two campaigns.

Simply not enough box kicks. Why ?
Kick-contestibles were virtually non-existent against the French. Why ?
Cross field kicks to our wingers. Minimal to nil ? Why ?
Grubbers close to the line incase of endless pick and gos that get us no where (usually ending in a knock on lately). I thought we learnt our lesson on that one against Wales last year. Why ?
Too slow to kick from our own half, risking passes and carrying instead. Why ?

We have thrown away this 6N by not kicking. Our general strategy, and selection choices are based on kicking. Yet we balk at the last step. This must change, or the next 3 games could be sorry events.

Joe brought a great strategy and success came with it. Get back to it.
Stick to the knitting - kick!

Mahatma Geansai

mfceiling wrote: »

Moore, Ross, Healy, Henderson, McCarthy, SOB, POM, Fitz, Bowe, DK, Zebo, Earls.

Throw in a game played in atrocious conditions away from home and there's a point in it at the end.

Yeah....sack the coach, dump all the current players and bring in an entirely new team who off load every time. Defence? Nah don't worry about that...they score 40, sure we'll try and score 50.

Kidney had an atrocious injury list in his last season...

aimee1

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

The injuries both before the game making a serious portion of probable starter unavailable, and during the game to various degrees clearly hampered our chances.

But has the real problem in the two game so far been that we did not kick enough ball?

The merits of a slight reduction against the Welsh could maybe at least be argued. But against the French where it should have been greater, it seemed it was even lower. Much of the rest of the game plan has been in place in both games, but our lack of kicking is impossible to understand.
This tactic has served us well in the last two campaigns.

Simply not enough box kicks. Why ?
Kick-contestibles were virtually non-existent against the French. Why ?
Cross field kicks to our wingers. Minimal to nil ? Why ?
Grubbers close to the line incase of endless pick and gos that get us no where (usually ending in a knock on lately). I thought we learnt our lesson on that one against Wales last year. Why ?
Too slow to kick from our own half, risking passes and carrying instead. Why ?

We have thrown away this 6N by not kicking. Our general strategy, and selection choices are based on kicking. Yet we balk at the last step. This must change, or the next 3 games could be sorry events.

Joe brought a great strategy and success came with it. Get back to it.
Stick to the knitting - kick!

Wales 50
Scotland 47
Italy 36
England 36
France 28
Ireland 25

Them are the weekend kicking stats. Two of englands tries came from clearance kicks. One was a take outside the 22 [contestable] which they turned over and the other was a kick to the corner, Italy took a quick line out which ended in an intercept. They also had a grubber in the Italy 22.

We caused a few problems with good kicking. The one Henshaw gathered in the first half and the one in the 2nd half which RK [i think] knocked on under the french posts.

aimee1

mfceiling wrote: »

Moore, Ross, Healy, Henderson, McCarthy, SOB, POM, Fitz, Bowe, DK, Zebo, Earls.

Henry and RK too .......

The Rape of Lucretia

aimee1 wrote: »

Wales 50
Scotland 47
Italy 36
England 36
France 28
Ireland 25

Them are the weekend kicking stats.

Embarrassing. Bottom of the league in use of our most potent weapon, and the most potent weapon in rugby in general. Thats just shocking. With inferior strike runners (and in fairness we are not selecting or setting up for that style), we should be topping that table. We didnt even kick half the amount required.
But. Still trusting Joe will know that better than all of us, and rectify matters for Twicks. The players must execute their instructions.

.ak

Leandro Round Billboard wrote: »

Schmidt has Ireland playing the most boring rugby. We are dreadful to watch.
Look at the stats for the 2 games so far
1 try
3 offloads
Schmidt deserves the flak he is getting.
sick of the excuses, injuries, french bullied us, referees did not help us.
If Schmidt was the second coming like many posters here think he is, he would
not be so full of excuses.
we lost to a very poor France by 1 point because Schmidt has his team so afraid of making mistakes that they play with negativity as their mindset.
Schmidt must stop being a control freak and let players make some of the decisions on the field.

also Kidney is our best manager ever, slam trumps everything.

Lets drop the Schmidt vs Kidney bollox before it starts, okay?

davegrohl48

Basil3 wrote: »

Sorry for bringing this up if it's been dealt with, backreading miles back

When I was doing my Sports science degree back in NZ, John Mathew (AB's doctor) came and talked to us for a lecture. He said that one of the issues with elite Rugby players was stopping them from getting too lean. He wouldn't let them go below 10%, as the body fat would help with protection during impact.

This was over 10 years ago, things might have changed.

I had read that many years ago in relation to Premiership players in football. They're around 10% bodyfat and it helps with joints.
What is your take on serious hypertrophy and agility/repeatable speed? It is also difficult to really bulk up without some of it being fat depending on genetics. Such muscle after a certain point is poorer in terms of efficiency with each extra kilo.
Excess bodyfat in my view has been proven both scientific and through common observation to negatively affect speed.
Its just too detrimental to the power per kilogram ratio of the athlete.

Neil3030

pickarooney wrote: »

He's not a whole bunch bigger than Henshaw. We need someone to either step and glide or draw and pass, not more brainless barging.

Wouldn't call Henshaw a brainless barger at all. His ability to find gaps is his main strength in making yardage. I love watching his ice skating move into contact where he gets his arms up and over the tackler, pivots his torso forward and flicks his feet back to try step away... Ok granted it's not quite as graceful as an ice skater, maybe some kind of surprisingly agile moose ice skating.

davegrohl48

davegrohl48 wrote: »

I had read that many years ago in relation to Premiership players in football. They're around 10% bodyfat and it helps with joints.
What is your take on serious hypertrophy and agility/repeatable speed? It is also difficult to really bulk up without some of it being fat depending on genetics. Such muscle after a certain point is poorer in terms of efficiency with each extra kilo.
Excess bodyfat in my view has been proven both scientific and through common observation to negatively affect speed.
Its just too detrimental to the power per kilogram ratio of the athlete.

To be honest, I'm no expert. Even though I've also done Strength and Conditioning courses after my degree, my career path has been along the bread and butter of helping overweight women lose weight

There will be sweet spot though, and it won't be the same for every player, or even every position. Everything will be individualised. Genetics will play a huge role, for example a Pacific Islander is going to have a very different makeup to your typical English or Irish player. It's finding the balance between size, power, muscular endurance, and mobility (around the pitch). Different players will have different bodyfat levels that are viewed as their target 'optimal level'.

There's a couple of myths that float around though. For example, this whole 'muscle bound' thing that originated decades ago, meaning that being muscular affects your joint mobility and flexibility. This just isn't true, you can be big, muscular and also flexible. The only real issue arises when you are more flexible than the range you are strong in. An example is someone who does loads of stretching, but doesn't train their muscles to be strong in the extremes of range of motion. That's asking for trouble.

Another thing is being too strong for your joints. If you train correctly and progressively over years, then your joints and connective tissue are adapted perfectly. The only real issues I've heard of are from steroid abusers who gain strength way too quickly for their connective tissue, so their muscles can literally pull a tendon from the bone.

Sorry, bit of a novel I find it all pretty interesting though, especially when you see a lot of smaller guys in certain positions that are really great players. You can guarantee that even though they're smaller, their power to weight and endurance levels are through the roof.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

So many posters here say Schmidt is #1, I answer back Kidney is and i am the one who is warned.
Very clicky in this thread.
To get along here you must never question the unfair make up of the Irish squad or Schmidt, yet this is a thread about Irish Rugby so how you are not allowed to discuss these topics without a warning is bizarre.

.ak

Leandro Round Billboard wrote: »

So many posters here say Schmidt is #1, I answer back Kidney is and i am the one who is warned.
Very clicky in this thread.
To get along here you must never question the unfair make up of the Irish squad or Schmidt, yet this is a thread about Irish Rugby so how you are not allowed to discuss these topics without a warning is bizarre.

I've given plenty of warnings on multiple of threads against multiple of posters not to start any Schmidt vs Kidney arguments because it brings the thread down into a flame war. I couldn't care less who you think is #1.

You don't seem to understand the issues we have around here, outlined in the charter and the sticky regarding zero tolerance, and right now you're only making them worse. Consider this a final warning or you'll be taking a 2 week break from the forum.

buck65

Nah Schmidt is the best coach for this team, we haven't clicked yet this season bar the first 20 mins against Wales. 2 - 6 nations in 3 years will be still a great record. Ireland are still punching above their weight.

Noopti

It is very interesting listening to various former players on the radio/podcasts after this game, especially those who have worked with Schmidt before. They all universally say that Schmidt is NOT a coach who wants his players to just stick to pre-planned routines, in fact he is the opposite. He wants the players to follow a game plan, but to adapt to what is presented in front of you.

All this talk of "Schmidt limits his players yada yada yada" - being blunt, we haven't a clue what the mindset or philosophy is. That thought is being based on players seemingly not taking risks, but that can be down to a myriad of factors and most certainly not the coach saying "stick to these moves, don't take any risks". It was also mentioned by various players that Schmidt does like his players to reduce risk in the oppo 22, BUT to also increase the tempo. This seems like an eminently sensible tactic to me.

Also, using stats about offloads. Who gives a crap?! France had 17(?) offloads last weekend.....I don't remember them carving us up very often. Offloads are great and all, but using offload stats as some way to argue a point that Ireland are boring and have the wrong game plan is a total nonsense. In fact a dodgy Kearney offload led to one of Frances most dangerous breaks/counter attacks.

There were so many factors at play last weekend
- Injuries
- Weather
- Bad officiating
- Dodgy scrum

They all played significant parts in us losing this game, yet we still only lost by 1 point. The biggest issues at the weekend were in my opinion:

1. Not clinical when in the oppo "red zone" (I would suggest some bad on field decisions and the weather played a part here)
2. Scrum - there does seem to have been a misstep in our approach to the scrum, and not anticipating what France were obviously going to do with their bench
3. Madigan on the bench. I understand he is versatile, but we need a solid 10 on the bench to replace Sexton if/when he breaks. Jackson is the only obvious alternative, and is in great form. That restart out on the full by Madigan is just not acceptable, especially as we still had the chance to get into their territory and get points to win the game. He should be dropped for that alone.

France are a bad team, and there was a lot conspiring against us in this game - however we still should have won it. The biggest areas we need to address for England are the scrum, our bench and the leadership on the field to ensure the right decisions are being made throughout the game, and especially when we are threatening the oppositions line.

rsh118

I've decided that just like you wouldn't make extra space on the bench by bringing a prop who can kinda do both sides (see Tom Court), you shouldn't bring a guy who doesn't reeeeally play 10.

Madigan's been a good player, but he's leaving, it's time for Paddy.

vienne86

rsh118 wrote: »

I've decided that just like you wouldn't make extra space on the bench by bringing a prop who can kinda do both sides (see Tom Court), you shouldn't bring a guy who doesn't reeeeally play 10.

Madigan's been a good player, but he's leaving, it's time for Paddy.

10 is such a critical position, and Sexton seems to go off injured, I would agree with having Jackson on the bench.

wittycynic

Most of the talk is that Payne will only be out of action for this week. Earls was concussed, and probably shouldn't feature again so soon, but I expect he will return anyway against England. McCarthy's concussion appears pretty severe and should necessitate a lengthy lay off. The most likely 23 for that match is...

McGrath
Best
White
Toner
Ryan
Stander
O'Donnell
Heaslip
Murray
Sexton
Earls
Henshaw
Payne
Trimble
Kearney

Strauss
Healy
Ross
Dillane
Ruddock
Reddan
Madigan
Zebo

Would be genuinely shocked if anything other than that team and bench was named for the Twickenham encounter.

aimee1

wittycynic wrote: »

Most of the talk is that Payne will only be out of action for this week. Earls was concussed, and probably shouldn't feature again so soon, but I expect he will return anyway against England. The most likely 23 for that match is...

McGrath
Best
White
Toner
Ryan
Stander
O'Donnell
Heaslip
Murray
Sexton
Earls
Henshaw
Payne
Trimble
Kearney

Strauss
Healy
Ross
Dillane
Ruddock
Reddan
Madigan
Zebo

Would be genuinely shocked if anything other than that team and bench was named for the Twickenham encounter.

Think Ross and Ruddock will start tbh. Think we need to see some fresh faces for italy though (mccloskey, jackson, gilroy, marmion)

Our bench made real impact in 2014 and 2015, so we need to get back to that.

errlloyd

I also think a lot of the accusations of conservatism are selectively biased.

"Let's analyse how much Ireland offload and not analyse how much Ireland kick" - because when you actually do analyse how much we kick you'll realise we kick a lot less than a few years ago.

"Let's analyse how much Ireland offload, but not analyse how much Ireland carry" because again, when you actually do analyse how much we carry you realise we carry more than other teams, and while others avoid the breakdown as a potential weakness we welcome it as a strength. France offload because they're worried they will lose possession, we go to ground because it forces the blitz defense other teams use to retreat again, and tires their backs.

"Let's analyse how Dave Kearney and Fergus McFadden get in the team, but ignore how Joe overlooked Jordi Murphy, Dom Ryan and Rhys Ruddock, his previous favourites" Along with the fact he rewarded McCarthy's form in promoting him to starting after initially not taking him to the WC, and hasn't recalled Ross and Healy at the first chance (despite doing exactly that during the world cup in the case of Healy). He also selected Marmion ahead of Boss and Reddan in week 1, despite most Connacht fans reasonably acknowledging that Marmion is a class player struggling to regain his 2014 form - even though most Lenster fans actually think Reddan has hit a good streak of form.

The coach is making positive decisions. Dillane ahead of Muldowney is frustrating, but positive. When all else is corrected for (same team, same national set up experience etc) he's backing youth. John Cronin over Killer is another big call where he is backing youth. There are just a few key decisions the coach has made that people are using as a stick to bash him with. McFadden and the two centres.

The centres have been justifed in my mind. They've been plenty exciting. And McFadden played most of the game on Saturday and he was fine, certainly not as costly for Ireland as other (more popular) selections Joe has made.


In Summary, we are trying to play better rugby. The coach is making some positive selections. Heaping pressure on him probably won't encourage him to experiment. He's not trying to screw over the national team.

Analyse deeper, don't simply take the first decision the coach makes that you dislike and build a narrative around it.

Buer

Regardless of who starts in the back row, I think we're going to struggle there. England have massive power there and have gone with a 6/2 split on the bench to give them two fresh flankers at 55 minutes.

It's not a pretty scenario when you have two guys like Robshaw and Haskell emptying the tank for 55 minutes and then are faced with two, extremely athletic and powerful lumps in Clifford and Itoje coming in for the last 25 minutes. We just don't have the legs and quality to match that impact.

former total

wittycynic wrote: »

Most of the talk is that Payne will only be out of action for this week. Earls was concussed, and probably shouldn't feature again so soon, but I expect he will return anyway against England. McCarthy's concussion appears pretty severe and should necessitate a lengthy lay off. The most likely 23 for that match is...

McGrath
Best
White
Toner
Ryan
Stander
O'Donnell
Heaslip
Murray
Sexton
Earls
Henshaw
Payne
Trimble
Kearney

Strauss
Healy
Ross
Dillane
Ruddock
Reddan
Madigan
Zebo

Would be genuinely shocked if anything other than that team and bench was named for the Twickenham encounter.

I'd expect Ross to start and White to bench, otherwise you have it right I'd say.
Dillane would be interesting, tough place to go for your debut but there are essentially zero alternatives.

postitnote

Not forgetting that Chris Henry might be recalled into the squad after playing for Ulster off the bench at the weekend. Although he may be a touch rusty, would certainly add a bit of guile to the backrow.

its_phil

errlloyd wrote: »

He also selected Marmion ahead of Boss and Reddan in week 1, despite most Connacht fans reasonably acknowledging that Marmion is a class player struggling to regain his 2014 form - even though most Lenster fans actually think Reddan has hit a good streak of form.

As someone who frequents the Connacht page more often than others, who was saying that? Marmion isn't in the form of his life like he was before the Wolfhounds game last year, but he's been very good this season. He is certainly not struggling.

Analyse deeper like you said.

Todd Toddington III

Leandro Round Billboard wrote:

So many posters here say Schmidt is #1, I answer back Kidney is and i am the one who is warned. Very clicky in this thread. To get along here you must never question the unfair make up of the Irish squad or Schmidt, yet this is a thread about Irish Rugby so how you are not allowed to discuss these topics without a warning is bizarre.

I like to read opinions here plenty. You'll find a core are present who ignore all newcomers though. There are some decent skins floating about here but there's also a snobbish element. Nothing you can do about it really, ppl are the way they are

bm_1212

why not play England at their own game so- start Ruddock and Ryan in back row and SR, then unleash TOD and Dillane

flangemeistro

Todd Toddington III wrote: »

I like to read opinions here plenty. You'll find a core are present who ignore all newcomers though. There are some decent skins floating about here but there's also a snobbish element. Nothing you can do about it really, ppl are the way they are

Very snobbish, arrogant, condescending and patronising but you better be careful posting the likes of this as that group of people have the cards in their pockets or the card holders in their pockets so back on topic,
How far off is O'Connell on becoming our defensive coach or is he still getting his coaching tickets?

Sanjuro

flangemeistro wrote: »

Very snobbish, arrogant, condescending and patronising but you better be careful posting the likes of this as that group of people have the cards in their pockets or the card holders in their pockets so back on topic,
How far off is O'Connell on becoming our defensive coach or is he still getting his coaching tickets?

Considering Andy Farrell just signed on to be the Irish defense coach, and it's becoming the accepted wisdom that players turned coaches need a lot of experience before making the massive step up to a national team, years. He's years away from being Ireland's defencive coach.

First Up

Sanjuro wrote: »

Considering Andy Farrell just signed on to be the Irish defense coach, and it's becoming the accepted wisdom that players turned coaches need a lot of experience before making the massive step up to a national team, years. He's years away from being Ireland's defencive coach.

I could see him as scrum or maybe lineout coach but defence? Surely not; that's primarily a back's job.

JPNelsforearm

Noopti wrote: »

It is very interesting listening to various former players on the radio/podcasts after this game, especially those who have worked with Schmidt before. They all universally say that Schmidt is NOT a coach who wants his players to just stick to pre-planned routines, in fact he is the opposite. He wants the players to follow a game plan, but to adapt to what is presented in front of you.

We were told the same about MOC,I trust my eyes. Schmidt was the best coach Leinster have ever had, and the game he brought to the RDS was a level above every other team in Europe, world class. He has not brought anything close to that at Ireland, its a conservative gameplan. All the pundits in the world saying we are playing attacking rugby cant change what I am seeing, kicking, loads of rucks, no invention, conservative selections, blather about systems. Its puke rugby.

All this talk of "Schmidt limits his players yada yada yada" - being blunt, we haven't a clue what the mindset or philosophy is. That thought is being based on players seemingly not taking risks, but that can be down to a myriad of factors and most certainly not the coach saying "stick to these moves, don't take any risks". It was also mentioned by various players that Schmidt does like his players to reduce risk in the oppo 22, BUT to also increase the tempo. This seems like an eminently sensible tactic to me.

True, no one knows what goes on behind closed doors. But we can judge based on the fare he has served up over the course of his Ireland tenure, Its all been very samey. Pre WC we were told we were not showing our hand, we had this fantastic game we would unleash, alongside the risible "power play". He has us playing a style that isnt easy on the eye, it brought success, but its been found out and we arent evolving.

Also, using stats about offloads. Who gives a crap?! France had 17(?) offloads last weekend.....I don't remember them carving us up very often. Offloads are great and all, but using offload stats as some way to argue a point that Ireland are boring and have the wrong game plan is a total nonsense. In fact a dodgy Kearney offload led to one of Frances most dangerous breaks/counter attacks.

You cant say we want to inscrease tempo on the one hand, and then also say we want to take the ball to deck and set up a ruck. Offloading leads to tempo, rucks are inherently slow, a multiple series of rucks end in either a turnover, a kick or a peno, rarely, or never in our case, a try.

There were so many factors at play last weekend
- Injuries
- Weather
- Bad officiating
- Dodgy scrum

Injuries can be mitigated by selecting a bench for size and explosiveness, not "a safe pair of hands".
Scrum was only a factor in the second half due to us not swapping our props.
Officiating and weather are laughable excuses, both teams have to deal with them.

1. Not clinical when in the oppo "red zone" (I would suggest some bad on field decisions and the weather played a part here)
2. Scrum - there does seem to have been a misstep in our approach to the scrum, and not anticipating what France were obviously going to do with their bench
3. Madigan on the bench. I understand he is versatile, but we need a solid 10 on the bench to replace Sexton if/when he breaks. Jackson is the only obvious alternative, and is in great form. That restart out on the full by Madigan is just not acceptable, especially as we still had the chance to get into their territory and get points to win the game. He should be dropped for that alone.

These are all caoching failures that you downplay above^^ All of that is on Schmidt being conservative, being afraid to throw out a bench.

France are a bad team, and there was a lot conspiring against us in this game - however we still should have won it. The biggest areas we need to address for England are the scrum, our bench and the leadership on the field to ensure the right decisions are being made throughout the game, and especially when we are threatening the oppositions line.

I agree, but Id put it all on Schmidts head, its down to him to take the handbrake off, pick a team to hurt the opposition.

First Up

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Id put it all on Schmidts head, its down to him to take the handbrake off, pick a team to hurt the opposition.

You have such a team to suggest?

Mr Tickle

flangemeistro wrote: »

Very snobbish, arrogant, condescending and patronising but you better be careful posting the likes of this as that group of people have the cards in their pockets or the card holders in their pockets so back on topic,
How far off is O'Connell on becoming our defensive coach or is he still getting his coaching tickets?

I think it's important that he isn't rushed into anything like that. I saw something in the munster thread aling the lines of "we need to give POC a role as soon as possible"
Surely it would be better to let him develop into a coaching role away from those he's over familiar with. He seems like someone who has great potential in the field but why rush him in and setting himself up for the kind of criticism he'll get given the expectations irish people would have for him. ROG seems to have the right idea in developing in france before taking a role
in Ireland.

errlloyd

its_phil wrote: »

As someone who frequents the Connacht page more often than others, who was saying that? Marmion isn't in the form of his life like he was before the Wolfhounds game last year, but he's been very good this season. He is certainly not struggling.

Analyse deeper like you said.

Struggling was the wrong word - I apologise for that. His struggle is over. What I mean is that he know he is not at his best.

JPNelsforearm

First Up wrote: »

You have such a team to suggest?

Without knowing who is injured etc no.

Off the top of my head first order of business is a center partnership of Henshaw and McCloskey, Payne at 15, Earls and Gilroy on the wings. Reddan to start, Murray on the bench. Murray was geriatric against France, you need to move these big teams about, Italy opened up space with Gori at 9, they didnt have the 10 or players to exploit it, we should.

TOD to start against the Hask, JVdf or ruddock to bench. Hard to know. You want to put someone quicker and low slung up against him really as we dont have anyone who can match his power. Ruddock would really only be on the bench of you are planning on giving TOD the full game

Toner, in two minds, he looks way off the boil, shagged, needs a break, but if McCarthy is out we are down to starting Ryan with another lightweight.. Pretty bare. What we are crying out for is a Damian Browne type tighthead lock to shore things up, but afaik we dont have one, unless Damian Browne is still on the go lol. I'd go Ryan McCarthy

Sean Cronin over Strauss, you want to speed the game up, post heart surgery Strauss doesnt offer that.

And being realistic, even with the two week break allowing you to call up anyone, Schmidt isnt going to do that, he's become a conservative coach, it'll be same **** different match imo.

Noopti

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

We were told the same about MOC,I trust my eyes. Schmidt was the best coach Leinster have ever had, and the game he brought to the RDS was a level above every other team in Europe, world class. He has not brought anything close to that at Ireland, its a conservative gameplan. All the pundits in the world saying we are playing attacking rugby cant change what I am seeing, kicking, loads of rucks, no invention, conservative selections, blather about systems. Its puke rugby.


True, no one knows what goes on behind closed doors. But we can judge based on the fare he has served up over the course of his Ireland tenure, Its all been very samey. Pre WC we were told we were not showing our hand, we had this fantastic game we would unleash, alongside the risible "power play". He has us playing a style that isnt easy on the eye, it brought success, but its been found out and we arent evolving.


You cant say we want to inscrease tempo on the one hand, and then also say we want to take the ball to deck and set up a ruck. Offloading leads to tempo, rucks are inherently slow, a multiple series of rucks end in either a turnover, a kick or a peno, rarely, or never in our case, a try.


Injuries can be mitigated by selecting a bench for size and explosiveness, not "a safe pair of hands".
Scrum was only a factor in the second half due to us not swapping our props.
Officiating and weather are laughable excuses, both teams have to deal with them.



These are all caoching failures that you downplay above^^ All of that is on Schmidt being conservative, being afraid to throw out a bench.


I agree, but Id put it all on Schmidts head, its down to him to take the handbrake off, pick a team to hurt the opposition.

1. You can of course have a high tempo game with a carrying and ruck domination. Just look at the first half versus Wales - point proven. More "blanket" statements without any actual thought going into the "analysis"

2. "kicking, loads of rucks, no invention" - So you are saying we are kicking the ball, what like pretty much every other team? Stats have told us loads of times we rarely do it more or less than other teams, but when we do do it it is usually very effective. Loads of rucks - like pretty much every other game of rugby these days. No invention - what does that actually mean?

3. "Officiating and weather are laughable excuses, both teams have to deal with them." France did not have to deal with two occasions where there was blatant foul play against their players going basically unpunished. Plus the fact Peyper hadn't a notion what was going on in the scrum. Yes, weather did effect both teams of course, but I suggest that it allowed the game to be reduced to set piece and slowed it down, which definitely played into the French hands. Just like a rainy day used to be a good thing for Irish teams in the past. Either way, I also said that Ireland should still have won regardless, so not sure what point you are trying to make.

I am not absolving Schmidt of anything, as you pointed out I mentioned some things which I would hope would improve in that regard. However the players must take some responsibility also. McCarthy messing up a loop play, Kearney offloading straight into a French players hands, Madigan kicking a restart out on the full. These are silly mistakes which must fall on the players, and there were a number of other occasions like this I am sure in the match.

Noopti

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Without knowing who is injured etc no.

Off the top of my head first order of business is a center partnership of Henshaw and McCloskey, Payne at 15, Earls and Gilroy on the wings. Reddan to start, Murray on the bench. Murray was geriatric against France, you need to move these big teams about, Italy opened up space with Gori at 9, they didnt have the 10 or players to exploit it, we should.

TOD to start against the Hask, JVdf or ruddock to bench. Hard to know. You want to put someone quicker and low slung up against him really as we dont have anyone who can match his power. Ruddock would really only be on the bench of you are planning on giving TOD the full game

Toner, in two minds, he looks way off the boil, shagged, needs a break, but if McCarthy is out we are down to starting Ryan with another lightweight.. Pretty bare. What we are crying out for is a Damian Browne type tighthead lock to shore things up, but afaik we dont have one, unless Damian Browne is still on the go lol. I'd go Ryan McCarthy

Sean Cronin over Strauss, you want to speed the game up, post heart surgery Strauss doesnt offer that.

And being realistic, even with the two week break allowing you to call up anyone, Schmidt isnt going to do that, he's become a conservative coach, it'll be same **** different match imo.

Base a backrow around countering "The Hask". I've heard it all now.

JPNelsforearm

Noopti wrote: »

Base a backrow around countering "The Hask". I've heard it all now.

He's actually pretty central to how they go about things defensively. Look at his positioning. Hand on heart I thought he's fail miserably as a seven, but hes doing a good job in the role he has whilst nominally an "openside". He lines up out wide defensively with a remit to leave the line, he makes a serious number of behind the gainline hits/pressure allowing the English defense to constantly be able to pressurise the opposition. In addition to making a nuisance of himself at rucks.

And its not "basing a backrow", its picking the openside, one position. Id pick pacy players to really get over and protect our own ball at openside. Play the game at a speed the English backrow cannot match. You pick players to best their opposite number..

We were up against Camara last week, the epitome of a luxury player, passenger for most of the game, lightweight and underpowered, if you dont think Haskell is looking to make ****e of any ball in the backline as he has done all tournament leading England to a great defensive record, you are wrong.

rsh118

I have to agree that Haskell is actually a surprisingly mobile and complex operator. He played in Super Rugby to get a taste of different things and you can see it in how he defends (high speed, high risk, tackles out of the line).

Obviously against us I'd prefer more of the running into the posts and spoiling an easy try type Hask, but there you go.

stephen_n

mfceiling wrote: »

Marshall for me won't make the team if Payne is out. Even if he has been in camp (for a limited time) and was counted as the 24th man it showed where he was at in the pecking order when Ferg got on the bench ahead of him.

It will be Earls to 13, Zebo to 11 and RK at 15.

Would you put a prop on the bench to cover the backrow? Then why would you pick a centre to cover the wing, it makes no sense what so ever.

Podge_irl

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

You pick players to best their opposite number..

You absolutely do not. You pick players to implement your gameplan (that gameplan being devised based on the players available of course). It's not 15 one on one match-ups out there.

The Lost Sheep

stephen_n wrote: »

Would you put a prop on the bench to cover the backrow? Then why would you pick a centre to cover the wing, it makes no sense what so ever.

:rolleyes:.... Earls is a centre. Schmidt is the latest in a very long line that considers Earls a centre. Many wingers have played centre and vice versa and your analogy of prop/backrow is nonsense..

jacothelad

stephen_n wrote: »

Would you put a prop on the bench to cover the backrow? Then why would you pick a centre to cover the wing, it makes no sense what so ever.

Plenty of centres play in both positions. It's not unusual at all.

Mahatma Geansai

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

:rolleyes:.... Earls is a centre. Schmidt is the latest in a very long line that considers Earls a centre. Many wingers have played centre and vice versa and your analogy of prop/backrow is nonsense..

Earls is a very good centre, but he isn't suited to Schmidt's route-one rugby. While Schmidt's tactics might limit his attacking ability while on the wing, the other strengths to his game still make him our best back 3 player. In the centre, Earls doesn't have the size to play Schmidt-ball.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Henshaw to Leinster has been confirmed, as if there was any doubt.

JPNelsforearm

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

Earls is a very good centre, but he isn't suited to Schmidt's route-one rugby. While Schmidt's tactics might limit his attacking ability while on the wing, the other strengths to his game still make him our best back 3 player. In the centre, Earls doesn't have the size to play Schmidt-ball.

Earls is not a center, too small, positionally weak in defence which leads to him not making tackles he should and exposing his wings. Its been done to death, Earls is a great winger, hes not an international center, no more than McFadden is.

jm08

Mr Tickle wrote: »

I think it's important that he isn't rushed into anything like that. I saw something in the munster thread aling the lines of "we need to give POC a role as soon as possible"
Surely it would be better to let him develop into a coaching role away from those he's over familiar with. He seems like someone who has great potential in the field but why rush him in and setting himself up for the kind of criticism he'll get given the expectations irish people would have for him. ROG seems to have the right idea in developing in france before taking a role
in Ireland.

I think it was ROG who wrote last week that he has been coaching the line out for the last 15 years. Donnacha Ryab said the reason he stayed in Munster was because POC was such a good coach!

As an assistant coach he would not get any criticisms. No one has commented on Simon Easterby.

jm08

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Earls is not a center, too small, positionally weak in defence which leads to him not making tackles he should and exposing his wings. Its been done to death, Earls is a great winger, hes not an international center, no more than McFadden is.

Yet Earls has nearly as many caps in the centre as he does on the wing.

I think his defence is very strong and if size is an issue (which I don't think it is) with all these giant wingers like North etc., wing isn't the best place for him.

One major problem with a lot of the wingers used by Schmidt, they have no pace and their positioning needs to be spot on as they are unable to cover any errors made through being too slow.

scott1974

http://www.the42.ie/robbie-henshaw-leinster-confirmed-2607465-Feb2016/

Pink Fairy

Didn't see that coming :rolleyes:

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

Yet Earls has nearly as many caps in the centre as he does on the wing.

I think his defence is very strong and if size is an issue (which I don't think it is) with all these giant wingers like North etc., wing isn't the best place for him.

One major problem with a lot of the wingers used by Schmidt, they have no pace and their positioning needs to be spot on as they are unable to cover any errors made through being too slow.

Who are these paceless wingers?

Bazzo

Deleted User wrote: »

Who are these paceless wingers?

Pink Fairy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Who are these paceless wingers?

I think Trimble has lost a yard of pace these days