Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread V

Clearlier

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.

You need to look at the game again. There wasn't much wrong with the tactics actually. The problem we had was our execution, in particular we were lethargic and we lacked leadership on the pitch.

The problem was not our attack - we're not going to win games by 50 - 43. 20 points would be enough to win the vast majority of our games. The problem that we had was our defence.

aimee1

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.

Take a look at the squad as a whole, with a view to 2019, we are in a far better position then say 2007. We have issues at several positions [half back and centre, and possibly full back]

Rightwing

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.

Do you think France are on par with Namibia?

captbarnacles

French heads dropped as soon as they conceded that block-down try and bar one or two they looked like guys thinking of a tough season ahead in the top 14.

Rightwing

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think France are on par with Namibia?

This tournament yes.

With a new coach, they'll be a different proposition, but again from their perspective this was another wasted opportunity.

Bridge93

Rightwing wrote: »

This tournament yes.

With a new coach, they'll be a different proposition, but again from their perspective this was another wasted opportunity.

What a stupid statement to make. Quite obviously France are not on par with Namibia. Get a grip for Gods sake

Rightwing

Bridge93 wrote: »

What a stupid statement to make. Quite obviously France are not on par with Namibia. Get a grip for Gods sake

Well I didn't want to insult France....but yes, they were the worst team in the tournament. An absolute disgrace to French rugby.

Bridge93

Rightwing wrote: »

Well I didn't want to insult France....but yes, they were the worst team in the tournament. An absolute disgrace to French rugby.

They were embarrassingly bad yes, but they were not on Namibia's level hence they won 3 of their 4 group games when Namibia got a point.
Are you suggesting that would've been a competitive game?

Pudsy33

Rightwing wrote: »

Well I didn't want to insult France....but yes, they were the worst team in the tournament. An absolute disgrace to French rugby.

You are just fabricating things to make your point now. If France were the worst team in the WC, they'd have lost to Canada, Italy, and Romania.

Rightwing

Pudsy33 wrote: »

You are just fabricating things to make your point now. If France were the worst team in the WC, they'd have lost to Canada, Italy, and Romania.

Bridge93 wrote: »

They were embarrassingly bad yes, but they were not on Namibia's level hence they won 3 of their 4 group games when Namibia got a point.
Are you suggesting that would've been a competitive game?

They were the worst team in terms of expectations and what they delivered. Others like ourselves, Italy and Namibia were just downright poor and disappointing, but France were the worst of all.

Neil3030

Someone correct me if i'm being harsh here.

We defend narrow and rely on midfield pressure to stop the ball getting wide.

Best commented after the game that the players were gassed after France and adding injuries into the mix, just couldn't get the right level of pressure on Argentina.

Our top men for applying midfield pressure are sexton, payne, o'brien and o'mahony.

Missing the above players we bring in Madigan, Earls, Henry and Murphy.

Where was the pressure and intensity from the above players? Our line speed was dire for the whole match. I'm willing to offer a pass to Earls and Madigan here, but Henry and Murphy cannot be acquitted - they had very little rugby under their belt compared to the rest of the squad. A bit more effort from this pair and the result would have been different; as Aus showed - get right up into the Argentinian midfield and they have no plan B.

QuinDixie

In the last 6 nations these stats are frightening
10 players started every game - R. Kearney, bowe, payne, henshaw, Murray, OMahoney, OConnell, Toner, Ross, Best.
another 3 players started 4 games - Zebo, sexton, OBrien

How does the above equate a strong squad.

Only for injuries to sexton, heaslip, obrien, and the scapegoating of Zebo for the scots game an amazing 14 players would have started every game.

bilston

Neil3030 wrote: »

Someone correct me if i'm being harsh here.

We defend narrow and rely on midfield pressure to stop the ball getting wide.

Best commented after the game that the players were gassed after France and adding injuries into the mix, just couldn't get the right level of pressure on Argentina.

Our top men for applying midfield pressure are sexton, payne, o'brien and o'mahony.

Missing the above players we bring in Madigan, Earls, Henry and Murphy.

Where was the pressure and intensity from the above players? Our line speed was dire for the whole match. I'm willing to offer a pass to Earls and Madigan here, but Henry and Murphy cannot be acquitted - they had very little rugby under their belt compared to the rest of the squad. A bit more effort from this pair and the result would have been different; as Aus showed - get right up into the Argentinian midfield and they have no plan B.

Your exact words are "a bit more effort from this pair (Henry and Murphy) and the result would have been different"

Yeah I'd say you are being harsh!

That said your general point about line speed is fair. To me that looked more like a tactical choice than down to any lack of effort or tiredness from the players.

.ak

Rightwing wrote: »

They were the worst team in terms of expectations and what they delivered. Others like ourselves, Italy and Namibia were just downright poor and disappointing, but France were the worst of all.

Stop moving the goal posts.

mfceiling

QuinDixie wrote: »

In the last 6 nations these stats are frightening
10 players started every game - R. Kearney, bowe, payne, henshaw, Murray, OMahoney, OConnell, Toner, Ross, Best.
another 3 players started 4 games - Zebo, sexton, OBrien

How does the above equate a strong squad.

Only for injuries to sexton, heaslip, obrien, and the scapegoating of Zebo for the scots game an amazing 14 players would have started every game.

I don't know what you want? We need to be competitive in every 6N game - it's where the revenue is. Do we chop and change every game to give lads a run out and risk losing 2 or 3 or possibly all our games?
Think of the Welsh team and I guarantee as many players started their games as did ours.

Neil3030

bilston wrote: »

Your exact words are "a bit more effort from this pair (Henry and Murphy) and the result would have been different"

Yeah I'd say you are being harsh!

That said your general point about line speed is fair. To me that looked more like a tactical choice than down to any lack of effort or tiredness from the players.

Well my thinking is, a bit more pressure up the guts and we don't go 17-0 down at the start of the game. We don't go 17-0 down at the start of the game and score the 20 points we did, we probably win.

Simplistic but not entirely implausible?

molloyjh

mfceiling wrote: »

I don't know what you want? We need to be competitive in every 6N game - it's where the revenue is. Do we chop and change every game to give lads a run out and risk losing 2 or 3 or possibly all our games?
Think of the Welsh team and I guarantee as many players started their games as did ours.

You'll notice (s)he has utterly ignored my question regarding who we should have been starting that was not. The simple fact that we all know is that most teams do not introduce new players to the starting XV in competitive games unless they have proven up to it or it's a dead rubber game. Ireland is, and should be, no different. It's all just more reactionary nonsense in people's desperate attempts to find someone to point the finger at.

molloyjh

Neil3030 wrote: »

Well my thinking is, a bit more pressure up the guts and we don't go 17-0 down at the start of the game. We don't go 17-0 down at the start of the game and score the 20 points we did, we probably win.

Simplistic but not entirely implausible?

I will say that I was quite disappointed with the impact Henry had on the game. Murphy though, as much as I like the guy, isn't up to that level. At least not yet. And that has to be factored in. Your point earlier about the defensive issues in midfield is spot on. And the issues existed because the quality of the replacements wasn't high enough. The impact that had on the guys in the wider channels was huge. Not that anyone who has been hopping on the Kearney-bashing bandwagon would admit it.

irishbucsfan

Neil3030 wrote: »

Well my thinking is, a bit more pressure up the guts and we don't go 17-0 down at the start of the game. We don't go 17-0 down at the start of the game and score the 20 points we did, we probably win.

Simplistic but not entirely implausible?

It's not their job to apply midfield pressure. You can't just have every player leading the line pushing the linespeed, it's their job to arrive second to the tackle area and win the ball back which they both did multiple times as far as I'm aware.

You won't see Pocock doing it either.

It wasn't a lack of effort that sent us 17-0 down, it was just that our defensive effort wasn't well organised and we left space for the Argentinians to exploit. We didn't have anyone to replace the defensive organisation of Sexton and Payne.

Neil3030

molloyjh wrote: »

I will say that I was quite disappointed with the impact Henry had on the game. Murphy though, as much as I like the guy, isn't up to that level. At least not yet. And that has to be factored in. Your point earlier about the defensive issues in midfield is spot on. And the issues existed because the quality of the replacements wasn't high enough. The impact that had on the guys in the wider channels was huge. Not that anyone who has been hopping on the Kearney-bashing bandwagon would admit it.

It's puzzling because a quick guy like Murphy can still shoot, even if he is not quite international class in other areas. He would have been fresh and able for a serious shift in the first quarter of the game.

molloyjh

Neil3030 wrote: »

It's puzzling because a quick guy like Murphy can still shoot, even if he is not quite international class in other areas. He would have been fresh and able for a serious shift in the first quarter of the game.

As IBF said above, and I've mentioned before, the guys organising the defensive line were missing. The guys with the confidence at this level to make the reads were also missing. And the guys making a mess of the breakdown were also missing, speeding up Argentinian ball and increasing the pressure on the defensive line to get organised. It was almost a perfect storm of defensive issues. All heavily driven by who we were missing.

QuinDixie

molloyjh wrote: »

You'll notice (s)he has utterly ignored my question regarding who we should have been starting that was not. The simple fact that we all know is that most teams do not introduce new players to the starting XV in competitive games unless they have proven up to it or it's a dead rubber game. Ireland is, and should be, no different. It's all just more reactionary nonsense in people's desperate attempts to find someone to point the finger at.

If henderson, Murphy, Madigan were actually given more serious game time before the quarter final we might have had a chance.
I am not disputing the players who started against Argentina, but I am saying you cannot expect those players to be at that level if they have no real experience of starting serious games in the 6 nations and this world cup itself.

As for the 6 nations just gone, Henderson, Madigan, Henderson, Moore were used subs every game.

If you fail to build a squad you end up in a position of starting a wing in the centre, and a 10, a lock and an blindside with little experience.

The stats dont lie, we do not have real depth to our squad. We have a bunch of untouchables and only fanboys and the deluded refuse to admit this.

jm08

molloyjh wrote: »

I will say that I was quite disappointed with the impact Henry had on the game. Murphy though, as much as I like the guy, isn't up to that level. At least not yet. And that has to be factored in. Your point earlier about the defensive issues in midfield is spot on. And the issues existed because the quality of the replacements wasn't high enough. The impact that had on the guys in the wider channels was huge. Not that anyone who has been hopping on the Kearney-bashing bandwagon would admit it.

Not many on that bandwagon, most have jumped on the Earls bashing bandwagon lead by Brian O'Driscoll.

irishbucsfan

QuinDixie wrote: »

If henderson, Murphy, Madigan were actually given more serious game time before the quarter final we might have had a chance.
I am not disputing the players who started against Argentina, but I am saying you cannot expect those players to be at that level if they have no real experience of starting serious games in the 6 nations and this world cup itself.

As for the 6 nations just gone, Henderson, Madigan, Henderson, Moore were used subs every game.

If you fail to build a squad you end up in a position of starting a wing in the centre, and a 10, a lock and an blindside with little experience.

The stats dont lie, we do not have real depth to our squad. We have a bunch of untouchables and only fanboys and the deluded refuse to admit this.

Our depth is very good. It's as good as or better than almost every other team in the competition bar NZ and SA. What you're claiming, that our depth is not strong, is completely divorced from reality.

We're not going to throw away the chance to win the 6 Nations, which is our bread and butter, so we can give more game time to these guys, we can use AIs and summer tours if we really want to give them any more.

captbarnacles

Untouchables to me means that they play every game no matter how bad they are or how much another player is showing form. That isn't the case for any of the Irish team. Schmidt is ruthless like that and even BOD admitted to being nervous after not playing well that he wouldn't be picked the following week.

QuinDixie

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Our depth is very good. It's as good as or better than almost every other team in the competition bar NZ and SA. What you're claiming, that our depth is not strong, is completely divorced from reality.

We're not going to throw away the chance to win the 6 Nations, which is our bread and butter, so we can give more game time to these guys, we can use AIs and summer tours if we really want to give them any more.

your post is divorced from reality, good or better than every other team in the competition bar nz and sa is an outrageous statement.
good one.:pac:

irishbucsfan

QuinDixie wrote: »

your post is divorced from reality, good or better than every other team in the competition bar nz and sa is an outrageous statement.
good one.:pac:

Which other teams have better depth than us, and who are these depth players then, 1-15?

QuinDixie

captbarnacles wrote: »

Untouchables to me means that they play every game no matter how bad they are or how much another player is showing form. That isn't the case for any of the Irish team. Schmidt is ruthless like that and even BOD admitted to being nervous after not playing well that he wouldn't be picked the following week.

your first point is correct.
your second point incorrect.
your third point, replace zebo with bod and you have a true story

molloyjh

QuinDixie wrote: »

your first point is correct.
your second point incorrect.
your third point, replace zebo with bod and you have a true story

Ah, it's all starting to make sense now.

Goodbye.

QuinDixie

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Which other teams have better depth than us, and who are these depth players then, 1-15?

we are rated at 9th, ahead of france. we were the 9th best team at the world cup.
so i guess your right, our squad is the envy of all bar nz and sa

Stheno

QuinDixie wrote: »

we are rated at 9th, ahead of france. we were the 9th best team at the world cup.
so i guess your right, our squad is the envy of all bar nz and sa

But only the top eight made the quarters?

irishbucsfan

QuinDixie wrote: »

we are rated at 9th, ahead of france. we were the 9th best team at the world cup.
so i guess your right, our squad is the envy of all bar nz and sa

You didn't answer the question. Who are these teams and who are their depth players?

If you're incapable of answering the question I'll just assume you're trying to dodge the point.

You yourself think that we're a top international team and that injuries were the only thing standing between us and a world cup final, so surely you can accept that losing 5 core players in the space of 2 games is a massive hurdle to attempt to overcome.

irishbucsfan

Stheno wrote: »

But only the top eight made the quarters?

I assume they meant 6th.

Bazzo

jm08 wrote: »

Not many on that bandwagon, most have jumped on the Earls bashing bandwagon lead by Brian O'Driscoll.

Didn't BOD specifically say that he WASN'T bashing Earls but that he thought since he'd been playing wing he probably wasn't up to speed partnering with Henshaw in the centre?

But sure, what would BOD know about playing 13.

aimee1

jm08 wrote: »

Not many on that bandwagon, most have jumped on the Earls bashing bandwagon lead by Brian O'Driscoll.

and earls was such a roaring success at 13. Most people who dont want earls at 13 have stated they want him at 11, in what they think is his best position

davegrohl48

Bazzo wrote: »

Didn't BOD specifically say that he WASN'T bashing Earls but that he thought since he'd been playing wing he probably wasn't up to speed partnering with Henshaw in the centre?

But sure, what would BOD know about playing 13.

I thought it was honest straight talking by Brian O'Driscoll on Off the ball. Said basically that "these guys are not starting because they are not as good." It made me reassess my view of the injury situation. If Brian ODriscoll thinks there is a gap towards the replacements I'd take his word on it.

rrpc

Neil3030 wrote: »

It's puzzling because a quick guy like Murphy can still shoot, even if he is not quite international class in other areas. He would have been fresh and able for a serious shift in the first quarter of the game.

The problem is that guys in the outside channels can't shoot up first otherwise gaping holes would be left.

A rush defense has to begin at the centre and outside players take their line from that. If the centres stay back, everyone else has to.

You might get a bit of a push up as the ball goes wide but it's usually too late to be effective.

QuinDixie

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You didn't answer the question. Who are these teams and who are their depth players?

If you're incapable of answering the question I'll just assume you're trying to dodge the point.

You yourself think that we're a top international team and that injuries were the only thing standing between us and a world cup final, so surely you can accept that losing 5 core players in the space of 2 games is a massive hurdle to attempt to overcome.

the teams and players - do you want me to name every player. google oz,sa, wales, argentina, nz squads.

i never said we were injuries away from final, i said the opposite.
i do accept the injuries affected our world cup, and that is why we need to give gametime to our whole squad while also getting our talent on the field.
cronin, zebo sitting on the sidelines, while d kearney and strauss playing away. nonsense.

just to make clear my ranking of ninth.
nz sa argentina oz wales scots fiji japan deserve to be ranked above us in this world cup in terms of achievement vs resources

irishbucsfan

QuinDixie wrote: »

i never said we were injuries away from final, i said the opposite.
i do accept the injuries affected our world cup, and that is why we need to give gametime to our whole squad while also getting our talent on the field.
cronin, zebo sitting on the sidelines, while d kearney and strauss playing away. nonsense.=

Oh?

If Ireland avoid too many injuries and play to form consistently we will make the world cup final. We have to accept we are a top 2 team, the last 2 years we have played some beautiful powerful clever rugby.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96545183&postcount=1048

rrpc

QuinDixie wrote: »

cronin, zebo sitting on the sidelines, while d kearney and strauss playing away. nonsense.

I would have thought that Cronin should have been ahead of Strauss but am willing to believe that the coach knows better than me.

In fact I'm sure of it.

Todd Toddington III

Would cave have been a good call at 13 in terms of leading defence and calling the shots? I presume this is something he does at ulster (or has done before moving to 12). Found it strange he was brought but not used at 13 once Payne was gone prior to the Italy game.

QuinDixie

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Oh?



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96545183&postcount=1048

that post was not mine, it was janus. I can say no more but I am sure you understand.
Lets wait and see in the 6 nations, but we will see how Schmidt carries on from this.
If he is going to stay for the next world cup, he will understand he has to develop real depth and I believe he will bring Ireland to the top table.
The next 6 nations he will experiment, because he knows now if Ireland want to compete with the big boys, and the world cup is where the big boys come to play, he needs to build a squad where success or failure is not wholly dependent on the same players playing every minute of every game.

it just makes sense that if your game plan is based on defense and hard running into players, you need credible back up because you will have injuries.

aimee1

QuinDixie wrote: »

that post was not mine, it was janus. I can say no more but I am sure you understand.
Lets wait and see in the 6 nations, but we will see how Schmidt carries on from this.
If he is going to stay for the next world cup, he will understand he has to develop real depth and I believe he will bring Ireland to the top table.
The next 6 nations he will experiment, because he knows now if Ireland want to compete with the big boys, and the world cup is where the big boys come to play, he needs to build a squad where success or failure is not wholly dependent on the same players playing every minute of every game.

it just makes sense that if your game plan is based on defense and hard running into players, you need credible back up because you will have injuries.

from all the media bites we hear, it is clear the 6n is important for the financial well being of the IRFU. It gets mentioned a lot when the FTA TV rights issue comes up as well as the alcohol sponsorship in sport.

The objective is to surpass our previous best RWC performances but there is no ultimate goal set out to win it, but if we get there great. I think reality is the 6n has financial clout year on year which funds the game so using the 6n to develop and experiment is a non runner. Being at least a 2nd seed is important too

.ak

QuinDixie wrote: »

that post was not mine, it was janus. I can say no more but I am sure you understand.
Lets wait and see in the 6 nations, but we will see how Schmidt carries on from this.
If he is going to stay for the next world cup, he will understand he has to develop real depth and I believe he will bring Ireland to the top table.
The next 6 nations he will experiment, because he knows now if Ireland want to compete with the big boys, and the world cup is where the big boys come to play, he needs to build a squad where success or failure is not wholly dependent on the same players playing every minute of every game.

it just makes sense that if your game plan is based on defense and hard running into players, you need credible back up because you will have injuries.

Schmidt has already developed a huge amount of depth over the past two years.

But he can only work with what he's got. People think more game time = world class. It's just not true. Sexton could give Madigan every game between now and the next World Cup and he still won't be the same player as Sexton.

The truth is guys like POC, Sexton and SOB are a rare breed in Ireland and we only come across them rarely. It's not like we haven't given guys opportunity to prove themselves to be on that level. The truth is we have some very good players, but very few of them are in the world class bracket. Our backup is much better then it was in years previously but not good enough to replace the entire core of the team.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Just watching the highlights of Leinster's match at the weekend. I don't know if it's because some of the players are 2nd/3rd choice players and some haven't fully developed yet, but none of the forwards look particularly big. I mean, they look like big strong guys but none of them look like tanks in the Healey/SOB mould.

There was a fair bit of discussion during the WC about NZ and other teams having forwards who can pass and run and beat defenders compared to the likes of England and other NH teams that are still going with the "less athletic" forwards.

Is it possible we're moving more towards the NZ model of forwards or is it purely down to most of the Leinster team still being away and these guys won't get a look in once they get back?

Tox56

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Just watching the highlights of Leinster's match at the weekend. I don't know if it's because some of the players are 2nd/3rd choice players and some haven't fully developed yet, but none of the forwards look particularly big. I mean, they look like big strong guys but none of them look like tanks in the Healey/SOB mould.

There was a fair bit of discussion during the WC about NZ and other teams having forwards who can pass and run and beat defenders compared to the likes of England and other NH teams that are still going with the "less athletic" forwards.

Is it possible we're moving more towards the NZ model of forwards or is it purely down to most of the Leinster team still being away and these guys won't get a look in once they get back?

Well looking at who specifically those players were, Ruddock and Conan are naturally absolutely huge men, I think "tank" is an accurate description. Conan was bigger than Heaslip when he was playing for the U20s team and although he might not be as bulky, hes 2 inches taller and a stone heavier than SOB, and Ruddock would also be noticeably bigger than Obrien



Two of the other younger players though, Van der Flier and Molony, are great prospects and fit your description pretty well.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

So, Bowe out for 6 months, definitely out of the 6 Nations.

Payne had surgery but long term prognosis is not yet known.

So we're looking at 3ish months of Earls v Fitz v Zebo talk.....

Redgirl82

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

So, Bowe out for 6 months, definitely out of the 6 Nations.

Payne had surgery but long term prognosis is not yet known.

So we're looking at 3ish months of Earls v Fitz v Zebo talk.....

What about Felix Jones?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I'm going with Gilroy and McCloskey, for the record.

P.Walnuts

Would love to see Mccloskey at 12 and Henshaw at 13, but probably unlikely to happen