Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread V

davegrohl48

Harley Uptight Light wrote: »

Of course it's possible. You can't attack and defend at the same time.

I thought he'd a particularly good game against England in the air so maybe it was both, but I'm going from memory so could be wrong.

Yes against England he got the first four or five high kicks aimed at him.

Pink Fairy

davegrohl48 wrote: »

Yes against England he got the first four or five high kicks aimed at him.

Yeah, but against France he was targeted, they put every ball in the first 30 mins into his corner, took the lot under pressure,

phog

IMHO, there's some argument to have Fitz ahead of Zebo or vice versa but there's none to have Kearney ahead of either.

phog

phog wrote: »

IMHO, there's some argument to have Fitz ahead of Zebo or vice versa but there's none to have Kearney ahead of either.

I think I'd go with that. Kearney is not one of the best two wingers in the country.

Pink Fairy

Harley Uptight Light wrote: »

I think I'd go with that. Kearney is not one of the best four wingers in the country.

AbusesToilets

DK falls into the same category as McFadden imo. Industrious, hard working and technically sound (usually), but lacking top level talent.

.ak

phog wrote: »

IMHO, there's some argument to have Fitz ahead of Zebo or vice versa but there's none to have Kearney ahead of either.

If I'm being honest this debate comes up every year, DK vs Zebo... And it never progresses.

They're on level pegging, still. Neither are better then the other IMO.

.ak

Pink Fairy wrote: »

DK is a better fullback than Jones though.






:pac:

Pink Fairy

.ak wrote: »

DK is a better fullback than Jones though.






:pac:

Psh, RK isn't even a better FB than Zebo

.ak

.ak wrote: »

If I'm being honest this debate comes up every year, DK vs Zebo... And it never progresses.

They're on level pegging, still. Neither are better then the other IMO.

As a Leinster supporter if I could swap Zebo for Kearney I'd do it in a heartbeat.

.ak

Harley Uptight Light wrote: »

As a Leinster supporter if I could swap Zebo for Kearney I'd do it in a heartbeat.

They certainly divide opinions alright.

I can't see much between the two apart from their strengths, but when it comes down to it neither are world class, but both are decent players.

Pink Fairy

.ak wrote: »

They certainly divide opinions alright.

I can't see much between the two apart from their strengths, but when it comes down to it neither are world class, but both are decent players.

Ah, I don't think they divide opinion, I'd say most would take Zebo over Kearney in a heartbeat.............
We. Need. A. Poll !!!!!

Stheno

Pink Fairy wrote: »

Ah, I don't think they divide opinion, I'd say most would take Zebo over Kearney in a heartbeat.............
We. Need. A. Poll !!!!!

No we need less of this endless debate.

rrpc

Pink Fairy wrote: »

Ah, I don't think they divide opinion, I'd say most would take Zebo over Kearney in a heartbeat.............
We. Need. A. Poll !!!!!

Experience has taught me that these arguments always end up being moot.

Injuries, form or just plain luck can make fools of any predictions this far out.

I'm happy to leave it in the hands of our coach.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Get rid of Dave and Zebo and bring Gilroy in. Problem solved

Clegg

They're all too old.

Ringrose is the new hotness.

rrpc

Clegg wrote: »

They're all too old.

Ringrose is the new hotness.

Hopefully at centre though.

Nice to see the production line is still working though.

phog

.ak wrote: »

They certainly divide opinions alright.

I can't see much between the two apart from their strengths, but when it comes down to it neither are world class, but both are decent players.

I wonder how close Dave was or is to being called up to the Lions.

thomond2006

I think the word Zebo should be censored on the forum.

Let's go Simon **** !

Clegg

To be fair to Dave Kearney he was a form pick. Was one of our best backs in the warm ups and played well in his pool stage games. We're always calling for selections to be made on form rather than reputation. In hindsight it's right to say he isn't good enough, but before the game I don't think there was much to criticise about the decision. As for wings for the upcoming 6 Nations I'd go for Earls and Fitzgerald with Zebo and Trimble pushing them close.

Teferi

phog wrote: »

I wonder how close Dave was or is to being called up to the Lions.

Cringe.

CatFromHue

phog wrote: »

I wonder how close Dave was or is to being called up to the Lions.

hard to know after Paulie kicked the head off him

phog

Teferi wrote: »

Cringe.

Nothing better to offer?

I sent you a PM last week but haven't got a reply.

CatFromHue wrote: »

hard to know after Paulie kicked the head off him

Let's see what keeps him off the next tour.

Teferi

phog wrote: »

Nothing better to offer?

Well penis measuring competitions are absolutely cringey so I think my contribution was succinct but accurate.

phog wrote: »

I sent you a PM last week but haven't got a reply.

The last PM I received was from Podge in August. I didn't get anything off you.

phog

Teferi wrote: »

Well penis measuring competitions are absolutely cringey so I think my contribution was succinct but accurate.


.

Where did you get that from?

We were discussing the difference of having Dave Kearney on the field or having quality like Zebo, Fitz or Trimble.

The last PM I received was from Podge in August. I didn't get anything off you

Re PM. You're correct, no idea what happened, pretty sure I sent one last week. I'll send it now.



Edited to add. I did send one on Tuesday.

CatFromHue

phog wrote: »

Let's see what keeps him off the next tour.

MMA is the in thing now so maybe a James Cronin flying knee?

:pac:

phog

CatFromHue wrote: »

MMA is the in thing now so maybe a James Cronin flying knee?

:pac:

No flying knee is more Heaslip, isn't it :pac:

CatFromHue

Ooohh, haha very good!

My box, I've just been put!

.ak

phog wrote: »

I wonder how close Dave was or is to being called up to the Lions.

molloyjh

The general madness is contagious obviously.

Dave Kearney was a form pick the moment Earls went to 13. Of course form is what should define selection according to some, at least until one of their players might do better otherwise. The guy had been playing well and had worked his socks off for the team. Few were complaining about the selection at the time. But we all need our scapegoats. Sure didn't he miss 5 tackles. And doesn't that tell you everything (hint: the obvious answer is no, it doesn't tell you everything).

This whole debate is tedious and going absolutely nowhere. If I had to select my first choice wings right now for the 6 Nations Dave would not be one. That doesn't mean I need to s*** all over the guy though. And those that are need to take a long look at themselves.

For me I think we need to look at Trimble at 14 with one of Earls or Fitz at 11. Right now I'd go with Fitz, purely on the back of how both finished the RWC. Harsh on Earls given he was moved in to centre, but thems the breaks. Thankfully I don't need to berate one player to make a case for another.

thomond2006

To paraphrase another poster, Matt Stevens was a 2013 Lion. It doesn't mean anything now and isn't an argument to pick a player over another. All it proves is that the player was selected by that management team at that time.

QuinDixie

sure some of the team under performed, but picking out certain players like d.kearney or madigan is very unfair.
If anyone deserves criticism, its the management. Schmidt really got it wrong.
He needs to develop a squad of leaders - by utilising a squad and by trusting our players.
The best thing for Ireland now is to win the Grand Slam, get the feelgood factor back. But do it by not playing r.kearney, heaslip, ross, healy, and best for all 400 minutes of game time.

The reality is Ireland under schmidt ran into the same form and injury problems as Ireland in the last days of Kidney.
And Schmidt, for a great coach, never rectified our most serious issue. We do not have a strong squad.

thomond2006

thomond2006 wrote: »

To paraphrase another poster, Matt Stevens was a 2013 Lion. It doesn't mean anything now and isn't an argument to pick a player over another. All it proves is that the player was selected by that management team at that time.

No it's conclusive proof that Matt Stevens is better than every prop who never made the Lions.

Alex Cuthbert also made the initial squad and i think featured in a test, meaning he's superior to Zebo. FACT.

jacothelad

Pink Fairy wrote: »

Ah, I don't think they divide opinion, I'd say most would take Zebo over Kearney in a heartbeat.............
We. Need. A. Poll !!!!!

Will the Poll be Irish Qualified????:D:D

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

jacothelad wrote: »

Will the Poll be Irish Qualified????:D:D

Is he one of these Polls?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpEHtepiR14

mickey1979

I just want to vent a little now. I was very hopeful Ireland would get to the final of this World Cup. Yesterday's semi final was even more galling when I think that these two teams were beatable. The tough draw was on the other side, however I honestly think two tough games against Italy and France ultimately cost us. Joe was prob right in hindsight the way to get to a World Cup final was a conservative game plan. Our path was one with the least mistakes we just messed it up against Argentina. We had a very capable team but are we better than Wales or New Zealand prob not but we had a game plan that really should have worked but we failed to implement it. It is imperative we keep Joe I think in years to come we may realise this is one that got away.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

mickey1979 wrote: »

I just want to vent a little now. I was very hopeful Ireland would get to the final of this World Cup. Yesterday's semi final was even more galling when I think that these two teams were beatable. The tough draw was on the other side, however I honestly think two tough games against Italy and France ultimately cost us. Joe was prob right in hindsight the way to get to a World Cup final was a conservative game plan. Our path was one with the least mistakes we just messed it up against Argentina. We had a very capable team but are we better than Wales or New Zealand prob not but we had a game plan that really should have worked but we failed to implement it. It is imperative we keep Joe I think in years to come we may realise this is one that got away.

Given the marked improvement in nearly all teams since the 2011 World Cup you'd assume that another 4 years of progress will make it an even harder WC to win in 2019. You'd hope we will also improve and stay as one of the top teams but with the gap constantly closing between the top teams themselves and between them and the "minnows" this may well have been our best chance to at least make a final, if not win the whole thing.

Pink Fairy

Unfortunately, I think we got exactly what we deserved so to speak. Injuries, tactics and inability to negate an attacking team meant we got as far as we were ever going to
I'm just glad we didn't get to play NZ...we'd have been spanked .

davegrohl48

mickey1979 wrote: »

I just want to vent a little now. I was very hopeful Ireland would get to the final of this World Cup. Yesterday's semi final was even more galling when I think that these two teams were beatable. The tough draw was on the other side, however I honestly think two tough games against Italy and France ultimately cost us. Joe was prob right in hindsight the way to get to a World Cup final was a conservative game plan. Our path was one with the least mistakes we just messed it up against Argentina. We had a very capable team but are we better than Wales or New Zealand prob not but we had a game plan that really should have worked but we failed to implement it. It is imperative we keep Joe I think in years to come we may realise this is one that got away.

Assuming we had less injuries and scraped past Argentina.
It didn't look yesterday like we would be able for the pace of that game. That game never let up in terms of intensity and pace.
Our pack for example would not be able to maintain that pace or anything near it. Many of them far from mobile.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Pink Fairy wrote: »

Unfortunately, I think we got exactly what we deserved so to speak. Injuries, tactics and inability to negate an attacking team meant we got as far as we were ever going to
I'm just glad we didn't get to play NZ...we'd have been spanked .

I don't think we would have. We'd probably still have lost, assuming everything else happened the same in the lead up, but I don't think we'd have been as passive against NZ. I don't think we underestimated Argentina but I think we thought we could take a bit of time to settle into the game and get things going how we wanted but Argentina had other ideas. I can't think we'd have come out against NZ with that attitude, we'd have been switched on from the first whistle.

rrpc

mickey1979 wrote: »

I just want to vent a little now. I was very hopeful Ireland would get to the final of this World Cup. Yesterday's semi final was even more galling when I think that these two teams were beatable. The tough draw was on the other side, however I honestly think two tough games against Italy and France ultimately cost us. Joe was prob right in hindsight the way to get to a World Cup final was a conservative game plan. Our path was one with the least mistakes we just messed it up against Argentina. We had a very capable team but are we better than Wales or New Zealand prob not but we had a game plan that really should have worked but we failed to implement it. It is imperative we keep Joe I think in years to come we may realise this is one that got away.

That's the reality of cup rugby I'm afraid. Luck has a lot to do with it. A good defence is the cornerstone as we saw yesterday and we lost our best defensive players when it really mattered. We shipped more points in that one game than we had in the previous four pool games put together.

We were never getting through a semi-final, missing the players we lost anyway. Possibly with SOB and Sexton back, but Sexton wasn't a cert to recover in any case.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

My biggest gripe with this campaign is that it almost feels like a non event. The Italy game was closer than we would have thought but really our World Cup didn't start until the French game and the win came at such a high cost which cast a shadow over the rest of the week and then we lost. We had basically a stuttering week of World Cup rugby. It almost feels like we weren't even part of it. I know England had a terrible time of it but at least you'd remember the matches they were involved in and be aware that you were in a World Cup. It just feels a bit like it never even happened for us.

alias no.9

AbusesToilets wrote: »

DK falls into the same category as McFadden imo. Industrious, hard working and technically sound (usually), but lacking top level talent.

McFadden is a much better finisher than Kearney

davegrohl48

Well one thing I don't believe anymore is this idea of having a package of plays up our sleeve "Indigo 29" or however they are coded.
It's nonsense whether we do have them or not, not a single try from New Zealand, Australia, South Africa or Argentina I'v seen in this World Cup was a "play". We need to end this guff about plays. Whether we have them or don't have them they plainly don't work. Other sides in the Southern Hemisphere don't care if we have them or not.
- They set a high tempo
- They compete hard in the rucks
- They run at us with pace
- They press up on us quick
You think they stress themselves trying to figure out what "Indigo 29" is from looking back at vidoes of our matches?

rrpc

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

My biggest gripe with this campaign is that it almost feels like a non event. The Italy game was closer than we would have thought but really our World Cup didn't start until the French game and the win came at such a high cost which cast a shadow over the rest of the week and then we lost. We had basically a stuttering week of World Cup rugby. It almost feels like we weren't even part of it. I know England had a terrible time of it but at least you'd remember the matches they were involved in and be aware that you were in a World Cup. It just feels a bit like it never even happened for us.

To be fair, I think we remember the English matches for the car crashes that they were. I'm not sure you could say the same about us. We were favourites to get through the quarter final until the injuries struck and that's a fair assessment. Most of the predictions that I read before the game (from outside commentators; English, Australian, NZ etc.) had Argentina to win given our injury list.

If you look at how Australia negated the Argentinian attack by rushing up and cutting off the wide players, you could see how that frustrated the Argentinians and forced errors and turnovers. We were quite capable of that game plan with the right players on the pitch but were always going to be more limited once the likes of Sexton, SOB and POM were gone, not to mention POC or Payne.

We did it against France and completely starved them of possession and territory. It's easy to say that France were dire, but that's not the whole story. They had clearly aimed to beat us and get Argentina in the quarters and when that didn't happen they suffered the double whammy of getting NZ and being pretty much demolished by us in every facet of the game.

Within the first five minutes of their QF, you could see that the belief was gone and they were already a beaten team.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

davegrohl48 wrote: »

Well one thing I don't believe anymore is this idea of having a package of plays up our sleeve "Indigo 29" or however they are coded.
It's nonsense whether we do have them or not, not a single try from New Zealand, Australia, South Africa or Argentina I'v seen in this World Cup was a "play". We need to end this guff about plays. Whether we have them or don't have them they plainly don't work. Other sides in the Southern Hemisphere don't care if we have them or not.
- They set a high tempo
- They compete hard in the rucks
- They run at us with pace
- They press up on us quick
You think they stress themselves trying to figure out what "Indigo 29" is from looking back at vidoes of our matches?

One of Australia's tries yesterday was a play. The commentators said it at the time and the pundits at half time said it. Straight off the whiteboard.

No harm having them in your arsenal. Can't build an entire game plan around it.

I still think Schmidt's Ireland are a work in progress and maybe we did get too carried away with ourselves going into this WC but I don't doubt that there's much more to come.

davegrohl48

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

One of Australia's tries yesterday was a play. The commentators said it at the time and the pundits at half time said it. Straight off the whiteboard.

No harm having them in your arsenal. Can't build an entire game plan around it.

I still think Schmidt's Ireland are a work in progress and maybe we did get too carried away with ourselves going into this WC but I don't doubt that there's much more to come.

Adam Ashley Cooper running out to the right wing. I dunno I think he just seen how stretched they were. Hard to know.

Rightwing

1 thing is for sure after this WC fiasco. Pressure must be put on Schmidt and everything questionned. The worshipping period must end.

thomond2006

Rightwing wrote: »

1 thing is for sure after this WC fiasco. Pressure must be put on Schmidt and everything questionned. The worshipping period must end.

But they exceeded your own expectations...

rrpc

davegrohl48 wrote: »

Well one thing I don't believe anymore is this idea of having a package of plays up our sleeve "Indigo 29" or however they are coded.
It's nonsense whether we do have them or not, not a single try from New Zealand, Australia, South Africa or Argentina I'v seen in this World Cup was a "play". We need to end this guff about plays. Whether we have them or don't have them they plainly don't work. Other sides in the Southern Hemisphere don't care if we have them or not.
- They set a high tempo
- They compete hard in the rucks
- They run at us with pace
- They press up on us quick
You think they stress themselves trying to figure out what "Indigo 29" is from looking back at vidoes of our matches?

Of course they do. You think Italy or France lucked out in how to stop our maul attack?

France defended one of our mauls by standing off. The only problem is that we had a plan B for that and it worked. We use plays all the time. So do other teams. Australia got their first try by using a rush defense and intercepting a pass. It doesn't always happen, but when it works it just looks like a lucky break. They also used decoys to force a drift and open a hole in defense. We exploited a habit Bastareaud has of being a pace or two behind the defensive line for Henshaw to make his break.

Murray Kinsella regularly breaks these moves down and analyses them in detail.