Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread V

rrpc

davegrohl48 wrote: »

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

They were deliberately pulled in by a decoy and killed with a perfectly weighted skip pass. Australia did it twice to them. This is the danger of a wraparound rush defense; If you don't cut off the pass or hit the player, you're completely open to a skip pass or a well weighted kick.

Australia were well drilled and knew exactly what to do. Genia had a great game and was so aware of what the Argentinians were doing in defense.

davegrohl48

rrpc wrote: »

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.

A rush defence is not a play. Its fairly commonplace defence.
Standing off a maul is not a play.
Im talking about backline moves to setup trys.
Adam Ashley Cooper one player moves infield and he skips the ball out Wide. Doubt it was named as a 'play' just some good backline movement to set a man free out wide. That phase of play had gone on for many phases, player already wide seen that AAC was heading wide and made as if to receive. I call that playing what is in front of them. They didnt have time to call that play.

Clearlier

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?

You're not watching the same matches I am. The second Aussie try was straight off the training ground - not a hand laid on any of the Aussie players. If you think that they did that without practicing...

Are you equally dismissive of exit strategies because all teams have them, it's not by accident that teams run with the ball a couple of times after being tackled in their 22 close to the touch line - they're setting up position for an exit from the 22. Sometimes it's just giving the outhalf space for a better touch kick. Other times it's to set up a box kick to contest. Sometimes they spot that the other teams defense has too many players waiting for the kick and they move the ball into space to run with it. All of these scenarios are practiced for. Several of them have names so that what's happening can quickly be communicated amongst the team.

These 'plays' are an essential part of any semi-serious teams repertoire.

Clearlier

davegrohl48 wrote: »

A rush defence is not a play. Its fairly commonplace defence.
Standing off a maul is not a play.
Im talking about backline moves to setup trys.
Adam Ashley Cooper one player moves infield and he skips the ball out Wide. Doubt it was named as a 'play' just some good backline movement to set a man free out wide. That phase of play had gone on for many phases, player already wide seen that AAC was heading wide and made as if to receive. I call that playing what is in front of them. They didnt have time to call that play.

It was a move straight off a scrum. 2 passes and lots of misdirection from the centres and crucially the blind side winger.

bilston

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.

I'd hardly call losing with the absolute spine of your team ripped out a fiasco.

davegrohl48

Clearlier wrote: »

You're not watching the same matches I am. The second Aussie try was straight off the training ground - not a hand laid on any of the Aussie players. If you think that they did that without practicing...

Are you equally dismissive of exit strategies because all teams have them, it's not by accident that teams run with the ball a couple of times after being tackled in their 22 close to the touch line - they're setting up position for an exit from the 22. Sometimes it's just giving the outhalf space for a better touch kick. Other times it's to set up a box kick to contest. Sometimes they spot that the other teams defense has too many players waiting for the kick and they move the ball into space to run with it. All of these scenarios are practiced for. Several of them have names so that what's happening can quickly be communicated amongst the team.

These 'plays' are an essential part of any semi-serious teams repertoire.

I'm talking only about backline moves to setup trys.

Clearlier

davegrohl48 wrote: »

I'm talking only about backline moves to setup trys.

That's a bit naive to be honest - there are 15 players on a team. It happens but it's increasingly rare these days that you see a try like the Aussies second try yesterday which was a pre-planned move that the forwards had nothing to do with beyond the set piece.

aimee1

Clearlier wrote: »

That's a bit naive to be honest - there are 15 players on a team. It happens but it's increasingly rare these days that you see a try like the Aussies second try yesterday which was a pre-planned move that the forwards had nothing to do with beyond the set piece.

the core part of our game is pretty good. Our lineout was good and our scrum was solid as can be. We dont need to reinvent ourselves, we just need to become less predictable by adding more variation in attack.

Argentina didnt kick to us because they knew that was what we wanted them to do. Instead they identified a defensive weakness and exploited it ruthlessly and relentlessly. It could possibly have been much different if we had Payne defending the 13 channel and SoB slowing their ball. We will never know.

We also need to have our players playing in their best positions as much as possible. Earls is not a centre at international level. His best position is wing and thats is where he should be played. If he continues to be played at centre it will hurt us again and again.

rrpc

davegrohl48 wrote: »

A rush defence is not a play. Its fairly commonplace defence.
Standing off a maul is not a play.
Im talking about backline moves to setup trys.
Adam Ashley Cooper one player moves infield and he skips the ball out Wide. Doubt it was named as a 'play' just some good backline movement to set a man free out wide. That phase of play had gone on for many phases, player already wide seen that AAC was heading wide and made as if to receive. I call that playing what is in front of them. They didnt have time to call that play.

A rush defense is a play. It's rooted in defense, but as an opportunity for turnover ball it has a strong offensive capability. It's also a risk (as seen by how Australia worked against it), so there's a risk/reward element to it.

So is a maul standoff. It negates the effectiveness of a maul and can result in a turnover if the attacking team don't recognise it quickly enough and move the ball to the back. That particular one was like a series of chess moves, which is how most 'moves' are worked out nowadays. There are 'option' moves where different scenarios are worked through depending on what way the opposition react.

The AAC try was a pre-planned move. AAC had stayed infield (around the fifteen) which gave the Argentinians the false impression that they could cover him if they stayed narrow and wrapped around. Foley took the ball up to the line, but instead of passing to the decoys who were being cut off by the Argentinian defense, he skipped it out to AAC who had taken a diagonal line to the corner. There are a lot of moving parts to a move like that and every player has to carry theirs off to a high degree of accuracy.

.ak

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.

Not really. The only people questioning him were the ones dying he'd slip up.

Schmidt didn't go out and injure POC, POM, Sexton and Payne. He didn't radio down to SOB to punch someone in the first minute of a game.

He did however build a very strong squad over 2 years. I said it before the tournament that this was the strongest squad we'd ever brought to a tournament. I was happy that everyone of our 31 were capable of playing test rugby to an expected level.

However, world class players are rare in Ireland. You can train all you want, but some players are just blessed with a certain skillet. We were never going to replace our best ever 10, lock, flanker, or our most dogged blindside or our possibly most important (albeit underrated) outside back with guys that "can do a job".

The management got very little wrong IMO. The tries we conceded were very much player errors.

Rightwing

.ak wrote: »

Not really. The only people questioning him were the ones dying he'd slip up.

Schmidt didn't go out and injure POC, POM, Sexton and Payne. He didn't radio down to SOB to punch someone in the first minute of a game.

He did however build a very strong squad over 2 years. I said it before the tournament that this was the strongest squad we'd ever brought to a tournament. I was happy that everyone of our 31 were capable of playing test rugby to an expected level.

However, world class players are rare in Ireland. You can train all you want, but some players are just blessed with a certain skillet. We were never going to replace our best ever 10, lock, flanker, or our most dogged blindside or our possibly most important (albeit underrated) outside back with guys that "can do a job".

The management got very little wrong IMO. The tries we conceded were very much player errors.

And they didn't have long to wait, the first mini test that came his way and he and the team were on their arses after about 5 minutes. Still, we can roll out the excuses.

Hippo

bilston wrote: »

I'd hardly call losing with the absolute spine of your team ripped out a fiasco.

Absolutely, it's a ridiculous comment. Great quote from Keith Wood who said he asked Laurence Dallaglio how England in his day would have coped without Wilkinson, Johnson, Hill, Greenwood (I think) and Dallaglio himself. Sums it up.

rrpc

Rightwing wrote: »

And they didn't have long to wait, the first mini test that came his way and he and the team were on their arses after about 5 minutes. Still, we can roll out the excuses.

Depends on how you define long.

Since the last six nations wouldn't be long. If however, you've been waiting through two championship wins and a bunch of other notable victories along the way, well that'd be long.

You've been very patient to be fair.

Teferi

Rightwing wrote: »

And they didn't have long to wait, the first mini test that came his way and he and the team were on their arses after about 5 minutes. Still, we can roll out the excuses.

Haha, it only took you two 6 Nations victories to be right. Fair play in fairness.

Pink Fairy

Next year's 6n is going to be a proper test for Joe, Paulie gone, Healy not recovering well, Ross over the hill, POM out, Sexton injury prone and another concussion away from an extended break, Bowe gone as an international player, will be interesting to see if we actually have the squad and strength in depth we believe we have, or if we might have been a little bit swept up in the media hysteria that's been created over the last 2 years

Rightwing

rrpc wrote: »

Depends on how you define long.

Since the last six nations wouldn't be long. If however, you've been waiting through two championship wins and a bunch of other notable victories along the way, well that'd be long.

You've been very patient to be fair.

A bit like Kidney early on, credit in the bank but it's quickly running out. An opportunity was lost in the WC as far asI can see. We had the lucky draws. The 6N is as poor as it possibly could be. A decent SH club team would be winning the GS year in year out. Most realise now that winning the 6N on points differential isn't all its cranked up to be.

France and England will probably improve soon enough. Just like pre world cup, I remain pessimistic.

aimee1

Rightwing wrote: »

A bit like Kidney early on, credit in the bank but it's quickly running out. An opportunity was lost in the WC as far asI can see. We had the lucky draws. The 6N is as poor as it possibly could be. A decent SH club team would be winning the GS year in year out. Most realise now that winning the 6N on points differential isn't all its cranked up to be.

France and England will probably improve soon enough. Just like pre world cup, I remain pessimistic.

IMO its going to take a seismic shift in structure and priorities in france for the national side to made a significant improvement.

England, well a lot depends on the coaching situation.

The 6n is the cash cow which funds the game in ireland. Otherwise we will see guys leaving for france in the peak years of their careers.

.ak

Rightwing wrote: »

And they didn't have long to wait, the first mini test that came his way and he and the team were on their arses after about 5 minutes. Still, we can roll out the excuses.

2 years, 2 trophies. Seems long enough to be waiting in the grass.

You can carry on ignoring the elephant in the room if that makes you feel better.

rrpc

Pink Fairy wrote: »

Next year's 6n is going to be a proper test for Joe, Paulie gone, Healy not recovering well, Ross over the hill, POM out, Sexton injury prone and another concussion away from an extended break, Bowe gone as an international player, will be interesting to see if we actually have the squad and strength in depth we believe we have, or if we might have been a little bit swept up in the media hysteria that's been created over the last 2 years

We have a lot of work to do

POC is irreplaceable as a leader, though perhaps not so much as a player. We do have alternatives, but Henderson needs to work on his scrummaging if he's to be an adequate replacement there and we need to be looking behind him and Ryan for more options.

We have pretty good backup at tight head and Jack McGrath is certainly on a level with Healy (though probably shaded by Healy at his best). We really don't have any shortage of wingers: Fitz, Earls, Zebo, Gilroy, Trimble, Kearney as well as some good young prospects in the provinces.

We definitely have work to do in the centre and at 10. Converting wings to centre is an ok stopgap but it's not a long term proposition. The back row, although under pressure during the RWC, is pretty good. What's the prognosis on Tommy O'Donnell?

.ak

Rightwing wrote: »

A bit like Kidney early on, credit in the bank but it's quickly running out. An opportunity was lost in the WC as far asI can see. We had the lucky draws. The 6N is as poor as it possibly could be. A decent SH club team would be winning the GS year in year out. Most realise now that winning the 6N on points differential isn't all its cranked up to be.

France and England will probably improve soon enough. Just like pre world cup, I remain pessimistic.

It certainly was cranked up to being important when we never won the thing down to points difference in the mid naughties. You tell the team it didn't mean anything and that France weren't champs.

When I read "Points difference" it's generally used as a tool to berate this irish team. Sad stuff really.

We're on par with England and Wales, no team is clearly better, they're three very good teams, it's not surprising point difference is used to separate a deserving champion.

aimee1

rrpc wrote: »

What's the prognosis on Tommy O'Donnell?

back january apprently

mfceiling

Rightwing wrote: »

And they didn't have long to wait, the first mini test that came his way and he and the team were on their arses after about 5 minutes. Still, we can roll out the excuses.

Was that the France game? It was the first decent team we played in our pool. Or was it the Argentinian game where we were missing a third of our starters...and the best players we have.
Again no credit to Argentina who were very, very good that day...In fact one renowned coach reckoned no team in the tournament would have lived with them in that first 20 mins.
You seem to not particularly like or respect JS as a coach judging by your posts....who would you replace him with?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

If we know for certain X, Y and Z are not going to be playing in the 6 Nations we have plenty of time to adapt. We had roughly a week to recover and adapt to the losses during the WC.

We were always going to be without PoC, and Bowe has been hit or miss the last while anyway, so PoM is the only big loss we're looking at.

Our backs need working on anyway so Bowe's absence and depending on how/when Payne recovers might not be terrible losses.

clsmooth

Rightwing wrote: »

A bit like Kidney early on, credit in the bank but it's quickly running out. An opportunity was lost in the WC as far asI can see. We had the lucky draws. The 6N is as poor as it possibly could be. A decent SH club team would be winning the GS year in year out. Most realise now that winning the 6N on points differential isn't all its cranked up to be.

France and England will probably improve soon enough. Just like pre world cup, I remain pessimistic.

I agree, but due to bad luck with injuries. Not because of the team management. Up until the injuries and suspension after the French game, what more could we have asked for? Everybody looking at Argentina as the new model to aspire to, I think with a full strength selection to choose from we would have been closer than 14 points to the Aussies. And we wouldn't have lost by 23 points to Argetina. Can't pin that on Schmidt.

Pink Fairy

O'Donnell is due back sometime around Xmas, Stander comes into the equation now thru eligibility, think we are covered at lock and across the back row, but there's def something to be said for trying Fitz and Henshaw together in the center to see if they can dovetail

rrpc

Pink Fairy wrote: »

O'Donnell is due back sometime around Xmas, Stander comes into the equation now thru eligibility, think we are covered at lock and across the back row, but there's def something to be said for trying Fitz and Henshaw together in the center to see if they can dovetail

In attack, certain they would be a force. I haven't seen enough of Fitz as a defensive player in the centre to be able to judge what he'd be like though.

We should probably stick with Payne having done so much work on him, but good backups also need to be developed. The same at 10.

The difference with the 6N though is that we're not limited in training squad size. We were always in 'break glass in case of emergency' mode if key players got injured at the World cup.

molloyjh

QuinDixie wrote: »

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.

But you can't completely fix issues like that in 2 years unless the country has been hiding away top class rugby players. Our depth is stronger than ever before, but there is still work to be done on that front. And that work isn't all down to the national team coaches. It's a far broader issue that needs to be dealt with at all levels of the game.

Rightwing

clsmooth wrote: »

I agree, but due to bad luck with injuries. Not because of the team management. Up until the injuries and suspension after the French game, what more could we have asked for? Everybody looking at Argentina as the new model to aspire to, I think with a full strength selection to choose from we would have been closer than 14 points to the Aussies. And we wouldn't have lost by 23 points to Argetina. Can't pin that on Schmidt.

Injuries were unlucky, but they are little more than an excuse. We'd certainly have been closer to the Argentina with a full team, but doubtful we'd have beaten them. Quite simply we've been far too negative. We were even struggling against a woeful Italian side.

A change in style is needed.

Rightwing

mfceiling wrote: »

Was that the France game? It was the first decent team we played in our pool. Or was it the Argentinian game where we were missing a third of our starters...and the best players we have.
Again no credit to Argentina who were very, very good that day...In fact one renowned coach reckoned no team in the tournament would have lived with them in that first 20 mins.
You seem to not particularly like or respect JS as a coach judging by your posts....who would you replace him with?

I like JS, I don't know anyone who doesn't. I don't want to see him replaced, but we need to get rid of this box kicking madness, and get away from this percentage game. Reminds me of Kidney's era at its worst.

aimee1

Rightwing wrote: »

A change in style is needed.

no it isnt. whats needed is for the national side to evolve and become less predictable, by adding to everything that they already do.

Look at NZ on saturday, they kicked a lot, But when they identified space out wide they were able to take advantage by passing the ball.

Argentina flung the ball about very carelessly on sunday and had one intercept try, and nearly another.

Our biggest problem IMO is at 10. We dont seem to have anyone currently able to read the game the way sexton does.

Rightwing

aimee1 wrote: »

no it isnt. whats needed is for the national side to evolve and become less predictable, by adding to everything that they already do.

Look at NZ on saturday, they kicked a lot, But when they identified space out wide they were able to take advantage by passing the ball.

Argentina flung the ball about very carelessly on sunday and had one intercept try, and nearly another.

Our biggest problem IMO is at 10. We dont seem to have anyone currently able to read the game the way sexton does.

I agree. When Gatty was saying our style was far too predictable he was doing us a big, big, favour...if we had listened. Italians had figured us out but were too limited to execute it, Argentinians ruthlessly exposed us.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

aimee1 wrote: »

no it isnt. whats needed is for the national side to evolve and become less predictable, by adding to everything that they already do.

Look at NZ on saturday, they kicked a lot, But when they identified space out wide they were able to take advantage by passing the ball.

Argentina flung the ball about very carelessly on sunday and had one intercept try, and nearly another.

Our biggest problem IMO is at 10. We dont seem to have anyone currently able to read the game the way sexton does.

Some people seem incapable of grasping the fact that it takes more than 2 years to build a decent team. Especially at International level where you're limited to how much time you can actually spend with the players.
Can anyone say that there has been zero improvement in our side since Schmidt took over? There are obviously more areas that need work but how anyone can expect these to happen all at once is beyond me. For anything to be sustainable beyond the JS era it needs to be gradual, it needs to be perfected and it needs to be implemented across all levels of rugby in Ireland. That takes time.

It seems a lot of people who accuse others of having had too much faith in Joe or believing the hype or whatever are people who had unrealistic expectations themselves of what could be achieved in two years.

Rightwing

.ak wrote: »

It certainly was cranked up to being important when we never won the thing down to points difference in the mid naughties. You tell the team it didn't mean anything and that France weren't champs.

When I read "Points difference" it's generally used as a tool to berate this irish team. Sad stuff really.

We're on par with England and Wales, no team is clearly better, they're three very good teams, it's not surprising point difference is used to separate a deserving champion.

Childish comments.

It means there is very little between Ireland/Eng/Wales, all of whom didn't have the best WC.

captbarnacles

Other sides of course use set moves, aus one yest has been discussed but they had an even better one against england off second phase ball.

Tox56

Rightwing wrote: »

A bit like Kidney early on, credit in the bank but it's quickly running out. An opportunity was lost in the WC as far asI can see. We had the lucky draws. The 6N is as poor as it possibly could be. A decent SH club team would be winning the GS year in year out. Most realise now that winning the 6N on points differential isn't all its cranked up to be.

France and England will probably improve soon enough. Just like pre world cup, I remain pessimistic.

What an absolute shocker, we could literally have won the world cup and you would still be moaning

Rightwing

Tox56 wrote: »

What an absolute shocker, we could literally have won the world cup and you would still be moaning

And the other extreme is taking a 23 point defeat to Argentina and you being satisified with your lot. There is a happy medium.

aimee1

Rightwing wrote: »

And the other extreme is taking a 23 point defeat to Argentina and you being satisified with your lot. There is a happy medium.

nobody is saying they are satisfied with this, most people recognise the issues which face the team and can see how losing 4 players from france to argentina on top of losing Payne had such an impact.

there is negatives but there is also plenty of positives to take from this RWC going forward.

Clearlier

Rightwing wrote: »

I'll adopt a wait and see approach, and in the meantime I'll back France to top the group.

Come the 6N, maybe a different story.

Rightwing wrote: »

France are going to be a lot tougher than people here think. World cup and 6N are entirely different. Irish rugby should know that more than most. It will be the defining game of Schmidt's era. No question about that.

Rightwing wrote: »

Wales are going nowhere. It's a serious worry that they beat us. Aussies and Eng will demolish them. Fiji will seriously test them.

Rightwing wrote: »

Our group won't be decided on points differential. Conservatism can win you a tournament on points differential when you play 5 games. But to top this group we will have to win all our games, I've seen nothing from Schmidt's style to suggest we are capable of winning our group.

So, apparently France would top the group because we had no chance and Wales were going to crash out at the pool stages having been demolished by England and Australia.

Do you this it's possible that given that you were completely wrong about the above that there might possibly be room for discussion on the below point?

Rightwing wrote: »

Injuries were unlucky, but they are little more than an excuse. We'd certainly have been closer to the Argentina with a full team, but doubtful we'd have beaten them. Quite simply we've been far too negative. We were even struggling against a woeful Italian side.

A change in style is needed.

Someone else put it nicely in context earlier in this thread when they asked how England would have faired if they had lost Martin Johnson, Richard Hill, Neil Back, Johnny Wilkinson and Will Greenwood. That's before you take into account the fact that Woodward had been preparing that team for 6 years compared to 2.

You would have to be deluded to think that losing their captain, outhalf and some of the best players in the world at the time wouldn't have seen a serious impact on the level of their performance. The same applies to us.

Far too many people thought that we would beat Argentina handily. That was an insult to Argentina and an underestimate of the impact that the injuries and suspension had on us. We could have handled some of those but not all of them.

Now, we're in danger of overreacting to defeat by Argentina. We don't need a huge overhaul, of course we need to improve but we're a pretty good team. With Les Kiss departing we have an opportunity to shake up the coaching team with the introduction of some fresh ideas.

I'm not blind to our weaknesses, in particular we lack an incisive edge however I'm also not blind to our strengths and I'd prefer to focus on our strengths and what we do better than other sides than focus on what other teams do better than us.

P.Walnuts

aimee1 wrote: »

nobody is saying they are satisfied with this, most people recognise the issues which face the team and can see how losing 4 players from france to argentina on top of losing Payne had such an impact.

there is negatives but there is also plenty of positives to take from this RWC going forward.

The only positives I can see from this WC are Henderson, Henshaw and White showing he can hack it at international level.

We had rotten performances against Italy and Arg and one half of good rugby against a poor French team.....don't think anyone should be trying to gloss over a really poor WC overall

QuinDixie

molloyjh wrote: »

But you can't completely fix issues like that in 2 years unless the country has been hiding away top class rugby players. Our depth is stronger than ever before, but there is still work to be done on that front. And that work isn't all down to the national team coaches. It's a far broader issue that needs to be dealt with at all levels of the game.

To strengthen your squad you must play them in games that are important.
Against Argentina we lost 5, all were big losses.
Thats 5 players with over 220 caps being replaced by 5 players with around 100 caps, most of those as replacements.

In Ireland we are obsessed with having a core of players that are untouchables, I though Schmidt would end that. But its a case of smoke and mirrors.

Check the stats of players who have played in the 10 6 nation games under Schmidt, as in caps earned, time on field.
The results do not point to a strong squad, they point to a strong core that if are missing en-bloc, result in Ireland having a very inexperienced side.

Lets not forget Argentina hammered us, we were missing big players, but they hammered us.

Rightwing

Clearlier wrote: »

So, apparently France would top the group because we had no chance and Wales were going to crash out at the pool stages having been demolished by England and Australia.

Do you this it's possible that given that you were completely wrong about the above that there might possibly be room for discussion on the below point?



Someone else put it nicely in context earlier in this thread when they asked how England would have faired if they had lost Martin Johnson, Richard Hill, Neil Back, Johnny Wilkinson and Will Greenwood. That's before you take into account the fact that Woodward had been preparing that team for 6 years compared to 2.

You would have to be deluded to think that losing their captain, outhalf and some of the best players in the world at the time wouldn't have seen a serious impact on the level of their performance. The same applies to us.

Far too many people thought that we would beat Argentina handily. That was an insult to Argentina and an underestimate of the impact that the injuries and suspension had on us. We could have handled some of those but not all of them.

Now, we're in danger of overreacting to defeat by Argentina. We don't need a huge overhaul, of course we need to improve but we're a pretty good team. With Les Kiss departing we have an opportunity to shake up the coaching team with the introduction of some fresh ideas.

I'm not blind to our weaknesses, in particular we lack an incisive edge however I'm also not blind to our strengths and I'd prefer to focus on our strengths and what we do better than other sides than focus on what other teams do better than us.

France were the shambles of this tournament. Biggest Q-F defeat ever, it even took away from our victory over them. I got them wrong, badly wrong, along with Eng. All the others were nailed on.

That Eng team wouldn't have collapsed to Argentina, no question about that.

Stheno

Rightwing wrote: »

France were the shambles of this tournament. Biggest Q-F defeat ever, it even took away from our victory over them. I got them wrong, badly wrong, along with Eng. All the others were nailed on.

That Eng team wouldn't have collapsed to Argentina, no question about that.

Eh Wales?

Rightwing

Stheno wrote: »

Eh Wales?

No, England were the failures rather than Wales being great. It just shows how poor the 6N is, and winning on points difference is no world class achievement.

I knew we'd flop. That was quite clear.

I didn't expect the host nation would be the first home team to fail to make it out of the group. Or suffer it's biggest defeat to the Aussies. I didn't expect France to suffer the biggest Q-F defeat ever. It just shows what level we are operating in.

Let's give Cotter's Scotland some credit, they had the best tournament of the 6N teams. Says it all.

Clearlier

Rightwing wrote: »

That Eng team wouldn't have collapsed to Argentina, no question about that.

Way to miss the point that I made. We were a poorer team for missing five starting players 3 if not 4 of whom are part of the core leadership group. England in 2003 would have been a poorer team if a similar thing had happened to them. I did not say that we were at the equivalent level of England in 2003. England is a handy analogy for most people because they know the players and the backup better than any southern hemisphere team.

It's foolish to suggest that because we lost to Argentina while missing 5 players that it's proof that we need to make big changes.

Todd Toddington III

captbarnacles wrote:

Other sides of course use set moves, aus one yest has been discussed but they had an even better one against england off second phase ball.

They did the same move against Argentina too, broke the gain line with it too

Rightwing

Clearlier wrote: »

Way to miss the point that I made. We were a poorer team for missing five starting players 3 if not 4 of whom are part of the core leadership group. England in 2003 would have been a poorer team if a similar thing had happened to them. I did not say that we were at the equivalent level of England in 2003. England is a handy analogy for most people because they know the players and the backup better than any southern hemisphere team.

It's foolish to suggest that because we lost to Argentina while missing 5 players that it's proof that we need to make big changes.

But look at all the players Wales had injured and they still come out and test the Boks. We can't gloss over it and blame injuries, that would be foolish in the extreme. Tactics were all wrong. We basically box kicked our way out of the WC.

Tox56

QuinDixie wrote: »

To strengthen your squad you must play them in games that are important.
Against Argentina we lost 5, all were big losses.
Thats 5 players with over 220 caps being replaced by 5 players with around 100 caps, most of those as replacements.

In Ireland we are obsessed with having a core of players that are untouchables, I though Schmidt would end that. But its a case of smoke and mirrors.

Check the stats of players who have played in the 10 6 nation games under Schmidt, as in caps earned, time on field.
The results do not point to a strong squad, they point to a strong core that if are missing en-bloc, result in Ireland having a very inexperienced side.

Lets not forget Argentina hammered us, we were missing big players, but they hammered us.

What does "untouchables" actually mean? POC, Sexton, POM, SOB and were clearly and obviously the best choices for their positions, and our best players. Why on earth would they not play our most important games? They're "untouchable" because they are clearly the best player in the country in the position they play. That is never going to change, and despite what you seem to suggest, its no different in Ireland than it is in New Zealand or Australia. Richie McCaw got to 133 caps 2 years quicker than BOD. The never injured Jamie Heaslip, who first played for Ireland in 2006, has less caps for Ireland than Kieran Read does for New Zealand (he made his debut in 2008). Brodie Retallick is 24 (!!) and has more caps for NZ than Sean O'Brien does for Ireland. Sam Whitelock has been playing for NZ for 5 years and has 72 caps in that time. Julian Savea has 40 caps in 3 years, I didnt even know an international team played 40 games in 3 years

Rightwing

I posted that this would be a disastrous campaign for us. Even though I knew Italy were a shambles I was even nervous ahead of that one.

captbarnacles

Rightwing wrote: »

But look at all the players Wales had injured and they still come out and test the Boks. We can't gloss over it and blame injuries, that would be foolish in the extreme. Tactics were all wrong. We basically box kicked our way out of the WC.

I don't agree with this. We didn't kick or chase well but it wasn't the wrong strategy and trying to run from deep in our half against Argentina would've made things worse not better when they are bossing the breakdown.

Our passive defense which was really inexplicable got us out of the WC.

molloyjh

QuinDixie wrote: »

To strengthen your squad you must play them in games that are important.
Against Argentina we lost 5, all were big losses.
Thats 5 players with over 220 caps being replaced by 5 players with around 100 caps, most of those as replacements.

In Ireland we are obsessed with having a core of players that are untouchables, I though Schmidt would end that. But its a case of smoke and mirrors.

Check the stats of players who have played in the 10 6 nation games under Schmidt, as in caps earned, time on field.
The results do not point to a strong squad, they point to a strong core that if are missing en-bloc, result in Ireland having a very inexperienced side.

Lets not forget Argentina hammered us, we were missing big players, but they hammered us.

Your expectations are and were hugely unrealistic. The development of quality depth does not start at international level. Which of the available options have shown the ability to be truly capable of playing at QF level? Is it that the guys haven't been selected or is it that they are not quite good enough.