Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread V
Comments
-
come year end leinster will be top 6, why? because of their internationals.
where will connaught be?
its all backed up by the tables.
That is my point. Leinster would do better if their player were with Leinster and not with Ireland. So if I am all about my province I would want the guys with my province and not with Ireland. So that Leinster would win more games.0 -
(I don't suggest that you waste time doing this but) If you were to trawl through my posts you'd find that my first allegiance is to Ireland. It's lazy to suggest that my comments have anything to do with a provincial bias. When I first started posting here someone even had a brief discussion trying to work out which province I supported. BTW - I don't know which province you support and I really don't care.
You're completely missing the point. You think that we should offer more opportunities to non-first choice players and that we should do it in a competitive environment. I'm saying that for the 6 nations and the world you select your best team with a view to winning the games.
If you want a detailed critique of the issues that I had with your selection (front row, backrow and fullback):
1 - David Kilcoyne - He's third choice at best, we have two outstanding players in the position both of the same age. By all means bring him into the squad and give him an opportunity to stake a claim in the summer or autumn just not at the 6 nations
2 - Cronin - I prefer Strauss as a starter with Cronin as impact but if for some reason we wanted to start Cronin it wouldn't be a big issue for me.
3 - White - we have two players a decade younger in Moore and Furlong (I think that Furlong will leapfrog Moore) - I see no advantage in playing White unless we're desperate.
The biggest issue with your backrow suggestions is that you're proposing moving one of the best 7's in the world out of position and dropping the best no.8 that we've had in the professional era. In their place you want to introduce a player who was third choice before he had a horrendous injury in the warm up games and is looking to start playing rugby again in the new year. I've a lot of time for Tommy but it'll be bordering on miraculous if he's in serious contention for the 6 nations squad. The loss of nous by the way is partly from moving SOB out of his most effective position but mostly because Heaslip isn't there. He's the glue that holds the backrow together varying his game to dovetail with whatever is required.
I love watching Zebo play - I even posted after the game against Romania how impressed I was with how we played but you have to be in cloud cuckoo land to think that he's at the same level as Rob Kearney. Perhaps if he plays at 15 a bit more he might develop into a great 15 but I don't think that the 6 nations is the right place to do that developing.
fair enough, but tours are of no use in getting players into senior side, it takes injuries to do that.
R keraney offers very little bar catch and kick and running back the ball back into crowded area.0 -
-
There's a reason why he does that.fair enough, but tours are of no use in getting players into senior side, it takes injuries to do that.
R keraney offers very little bar catch and kick and running back the ball back into crowded area.
When you catch a kick, you have two options: Kick it or run it. A kick may gain you territory or it may not, depending on the positioning of the opposition backs and how deep you are.
Running is an option, but there are negatives. You can get isolated and turned over. The opposition line speed can gain them territory at your expense. What Kearney does (and this has been said by him and others) is run the ball back as quickly and as close to the gain line as possible and where there is the most cover to recycle the ball cleanly.
What you may not have noticed is that Zebo does this as well. During the 6N, he was the guy who caught most of the opposition kick offs and ran them back into cover in a central position to give us options on either side.0 -
sydthebeat wrote: »well in reality thats just knee jerk rubbish.
New zealand play quite a lot of a kicking game themselves, using it intelligently to gain territory and build pressure.
NZ kicked the ball 33 times against argentina, we kicked the ball 28 times
people saying we should play more like Argentina conveniently over look how porous their defense were... they missed 33 tackles versus new zealand!!! 33 !! if we missed 7 tackles in a game we'd be disgusted.
there are many commentators who say that argentinas free flowing style is what actually cost them against australia, if they had played a more structured game the would have been much more competitive.
our gameplan suits our strengths.
we do not have backs with silky skills that can off load out of a tackle in a low risk manner. The last time a winger of ours tried it in a big game, it was zebo against australia and they scored straigth off that error.
unless and until we end up with a backline who are lightning fast with fantastic hands, we should continue to play a game that accentuates our strengths.
Exactly this. Watch NZ the next game and count how many times they run the ball from before the 10m mark in their half. There is nothing wrong with kicking from these areas but as with most things NZ kick well and their chase is good. It's not the game plan it is the execution of it and under Joe Schmidt the execution has normally been excellent.
If we were kicking away possession in our opponents half I'd be questioning that for sure but apart from one kick by Murray in Argentina game I don't remember any other.
And again we were being bossed at the breakdown and losing the collisions. Running from our own half would've been suicidal. I hazard a guess that if we had done that and lost by more the same people would be calling us tactically naive.0 -
So you agree losing key players will negatively affect your chances of winning.
Not really the same though is it. Irelands depth is vastly superior to Ulsters. Ireland don't have AIL level players playing for them.
If irelands backup players were as rubbish as Ulsters I would agree, even taking into account the lower standard in general below test level.
I don't think irelands second choice players are that poor though.
Anyway I never said it doesn't affect the chances of winning. I said it doesn't excuse a very poor performance. We might not play at our best but we shouldn't just automatically play at our worst.0 -
Not really the same though is it. Irelands depth is vastly superior to Ulsters. Ireland don't have AIL level players playing for them.
If irelands backup players were as rubbish as Ulsters I would agree, even taking into account the lower standard in general below test level.
I don't think irelands second choice players are that poor though.
Anyway I never said it doesn't affect the chances of winning. I said it doesn't excuse a very poor performance. We might not play at our best but we shouldn't just automatically play at our worst.
Didn't you give out about Jordi Murphy being not good enough only 3 hours ago?!0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Didn't you give out about Jordi Murphy being not good enough only 3 hours ago?!
He's not good enough for sure. But Murphy playing for Ireland is still not as bad as Clive Ross playing for Ulster.
As I said though, nobody said injuries don't make it as hard. People just take issue with the idea that injuries equal automatic defeat, and they we went out purely on bad luck.
The team we fielded is significantly better than the performance they put on.
Injuries may have contributed, but do not excuse completely the result.0 -
Areas I want to see addressed, in order of importance:
Depth at 10
Sexton will be 34 at the 2019 World Cup and with his injury profile, we just can't rely on him even still playing at that age. We need to move things around so all viable 10s are getting played each week at their clubs/provinces. Madigan needs to leave Leinster. I've suggested he go to Connacht several times, but he could also go to England or France - just somewhere he starts week in/week out as a 10. At some point it may also be worth giving Sexton a sabbatical (like the ABs did with McCaw) and give someone like Madigan, Jackson or even JJ a full 6N Championship. That would also allow Sexton freshen up a bit, injury wise. We simply can't go into the next World Cup with only viable starter at 10.
Depth at 13 (which affects 12)
Our depth below Payne at 13 was also telling. And we are not that much better off (as it stands) than we are at 10. Cave is solid but unfavoured, for whatever reason the coaches see. After that, you have a player playing out of position (Earls, Luke). I am not going to include Madigan in the discussion here. Future options are looking bright; McCloskey will be involved soon, Bundee Aki will qualify next year, Ringrose and Arnold look great prospects. And then you have Olding, who is a player that could fall down the Ian Madigan Patented Black Hole of Versatility. They (Ulster/IRFU) need to decide a position for him (I spoke to a guy who went to school with him who told me his favourite position is 10), and have him play there.
Depth at 4/5
Another point to consider is the second row - Toner and Henderson look set to be our long term pairing here, with capable cover in Ryan. However Ryan will be 35 in 2019, and then below him, Tuohy will be 34 and Mike McCarthy 37. Suffice to say that at least two of these will not be around. Given the physical requirements for the position, not much can be done here except waiting and seeing who comes through, hopefully someone like Molony. But the depth is worrying.
Depth at 2
We are seriously going to miss Best when he retires, and this will probably happen in the next year or two. Strauss and Cronin will also be 33 in 2019, i.e. not guarantees to still be playing. Interesting to see what happens here over the next few years.
Subserving all of the above, of course, will be how the provinces and national side cooperate in the next four years. Although they will obviously say otherwise in public, I think it's clear that we are now moving to a system where the national side and the four provinces will be working a lot more closely together. You can already see the personnel at the coaching level - Kiss worked with Joe in Ireland, now coaching Ulster. Leo played for Joe at Leinster, now coaching there. Foley coached various levels of national teams, now coaching at Munster. Pat Lam is the only one to has not worked directly for either the IRFU or Schmidt.
I think this could be where we maintain an edge over other national teams (New Zealand aside). It can only be helpful for players coming into national camp to be familiar with a significant group of the other players. Now we can also employ some manner of cohesion between systems, tactics, structures, etc. Not that all four provinces need to play identical rugby, but just to have some areas of overlap between first phase moves, defensive systems, etc., so that new recruits to the national side aren't learning everything from scratch, and players can come in and out of the side with less consequence.
NZ are the model we should be looking at in terms of co-operation. There everything is geared around the national team. After the Super Rugby season, the coaches are brought together, and if one team has had a brilliant lineout, that coach is required to share his secrets with all the other coaches. Another team might have come up with great set piece moves. Ditto, spill the beans. There are no secrets. Right, tell us how you did that. Now go away and do something even better. Those coaching tips are then incorporated into the national team if deemed useful.
That's where we need to go. Les Kiss telling Foley, Cullen, Lam and Schmidt how Ulster's maul defence was coached and why exactly it worked. Cullen admitting that he hasn't a clue and it's all gone pear shaped in training since Matt left (joke!). The end result is better coaching methods at every province, so if we have excellence in one area at one province that knowledge benefits all provinces, and ultimately the national team. Hopefully Nucifora and Joe are working towards that.0 -
Advertisement
-
Not really the same though is it. Irelands depth is vastly superior to Ulsters. Ireland don't have AIL level players playing for them.
If irelands backup players were as rubbish as Ulsters I would agree, even taking into account the lower standard in general below test level.
I don't think irelands second choice players are that poor though.
Anyway I never said it doesn't affect the chances of winning. I said it doesn't excuse a very poor performance. We might not play at our best but we shouldn't just automatically play at our worst.
The drop off is significant in fairness.
POC - Henderson:
Hendo carries better than Paulie but is weaker at scrum time and doesn't have anywhere near the leadership ability that Paulie has (who does). Paulie is also a desperate a better defender and disrupts rucks better and with more regularity. Hendo is capable of making a bigger one off impact, but Paulie has a level of consistency there that Hendo doesn't. He's also better in the line-out.
POM - Murphy:
I don't need to say much here really. POM is better in every aspect of the game. And a good deal better. There may be an argument that Murphy gets around to more rucks, but at that level his impact there isn't enough to make that worth discussing. That said he wouldn't have been there but for injuries to both POM and Ruddock, plus the SOB citing (had SOB been available I'm sure he'd have moved to 6 with Henry at 7). So in many ways he was 4th choice. Do Ulster even have a 4th choice blindside?
SOB - Henry:
Henry is a fine player, but I was disappointed with the impact he made on this game in particular. He certainly can't carry as well as Seanie and Seanie is a more powerful man at scrum time and at the ruck.
Sexton - Madigan:
Sexton is one of the best in the world and Mads, while he has a great skillset, is clearly a long way off him in almost every aspect bar goal kicking. Mads played well enough though considering and I don't think Jackson would have done any better against such a physical side.
Payne - Earls:
Payne is a big guy, a powerful defender and a bloody clever footballer. He communicates well with those around him and organises the midfield defence (from everything we've heard). Earls is a great winger but lacks most of what Payne brings to 13, especially the stuff that really matters.
Add all that up and suddenly we're nowhere near as competitive at the breakdown and our midfield defence isn't as organised. Which is exactly what we saw on the day.
It didn't help that Argentina played the game of their lives either obviously.0 -
NZ are the model we should be looking at in terms of co-operation. There everything is geared around the national team. After the Super Rugby season, the coaches are brought together, and if one team has had a brilliant lineout, that coach is required to share his secrets with all the other coaches. Another team might have come up with great set piece moves. Ditto, spill the beans. There are no secrets. Right, tell us how you did that. Now go away and do something even better. Those coaching tips are then incorporated into the national team if deemed useful.
That's where we need to go. Les Kiss telling Foley, Cullen, Lam and Schmidt how Ulster's maul defence was coached and why exactly it worked. Cullen admitting that he hasn't a clue and it's all gone pear shaped in training since Matt left (joke!). The end result is better coaching methods at every province, so if we have excellence in one area at one province that knowledge benefits all provinces, and ultimately the national team. Hopefully Nucifora and Joe are working towards that.
We just don't have the players at the moment though. Rugby is competing with more sports here than NZ on a greater level. There is work to be done to improve things and we should set lofty goals. But we also need to be realistic. We won't match NZ.0 -
He's not good enough for sure. But Murphy playing for Ireland is still not as bad as Clive Ross playing for Ulster.
As I said though, nobody said injuries don't make it as hard. People just take issue with the idea that injuries equal automatic defeat, and they we went out purely on bad luck.
The team we fielded is significantly better than the performance they put on.
Injuries may have contributed, but do not excuse completely the result.
Well I can agree with that. Our performance levels weren't at the level that we might normally expect. It wasn't a problem with our attacking game though, I don't even think that it was a problem with our tactics. We were just flat, possibly as a result of the emotional energy put into beating France but also possibly because we were so many of our core leaders.
The solution to the above isn't the wholesale change that some posters are advocating though. There's a lesson to be learned about emotional energy, how to control it and use it positively and how to prevent it from having a negative impact. I left more or less straight after the final whistle against France and didn't see the players leaving the pitch so missed Madigan's tears etc. - I do wonder how much of an impact that had on the players.0 -
It could be viewed as the same kind of step down though. Pro 12 ---> AIL, International ---> Pro 12Not really the same though is it. Irelands depth is vastly superior to Ulsters. Ireland don't have AIL level players playing for them.
Not in isolation. i.e. Chris Henry isn't a huge step down from SOB for example. It's the next step down (which a lot of our bench was) and the cumulative effect of a number of step downs that hurts a team. And it IS a team effort, all the bits have to work at their optimum.I don't think irelands second choice players are that poor though.
But how poor a performance was it really? You've picked out players who played well and there were a good few in that bracket. The overall defence was poor to start with, which tbh isn't typical from us at all. In my view the defensive issues started in midfield with the loss of Payne and were further compounded with the loss of Sexton, POM and SOB. It's not that the replacements were all not good enough, it's that they were not experienced enough playing with each other in a high tempo international match.Anyway I never said it doesn't affect the chances of winning. I said it doesn't excuse a very poor performance. We might not play at our best but we shouldn't just automatically play at our worst.0 -
POC - Henderson:
Hendo carries better than Paulie but is weaker at scrum time and doesn't have anywhere near the leadership ability that Paulie has (who does). Paulie is also a desperate a better defender and disrupts rucks better and with more regularity. Hendo is capable of making a bigger one off impact, but Paulie has a level of consistency there that Hendo doesn't. He's also better in the line-out.
Henderson was comfortably Ireland's best lock over the entire tournament so I am really not sure where this idea comes from that he was an issue.
The problem with losing POC wasn't that we had to play Henderson instead, it's that we couldn't play the POC and Henderson partnership.0 -
He's not good enough for sure. But Murphy playing for Ireland is still not as bad as Clive Ross playing for Ulster.
As I said though, nobody said injuries don't make it as hard. People just take issue with the idea that injuries equal automatic defeat, and they we went out purely on bad luck.
The team we fielded is significantly better than the performance they put on.
Injuries may have contributed, but do not excuse completely the result.
Significantly? I'm not at all sure tbh. We weren't that bad were we? What (in our control) did we do badly?
I do think that 23 v 23 we were rightly marginal favourites, as I've said before (that's taking the injury 'excuse' away).
The thing with being marginal favourites though, is that it requires you to play as good (or only a little bit below) the other team on the day in order to get the win. You only have a small 'safety net'.
Argentina were brilliant in that opening 20, and put it up to us.
The fact that they played so well meant that we needed to put an 8/10 performance in across the board if we wanted to own the game.
We didn't, we turned in a 5 or two, a couple of 6s, a fair few 7s and one or two 8s.
To ignore Argentina's performance in the context of the result is bizarre if not a little bit sadistic!0 -
Advertisement
-
We just don't have the players at the moment though. Rugby is competing with more sports here than NZ on a greater level. There is work to be done to improve things and we should set lofty goals. But we also need to be realistic. We won't match NZ.
True but the point he made about coaches sharing information with each other is a good one that we could easily do.0 -
Henderson was comfortably Ireland's best lock over the entire tournament so I am really not sure where this idea comes from that he was an issue.
The problem with losing POC wasn't that we had to play Henderson instead, it's that we couldn't play the POC and Henderson partnership.
In the 'all change ahead' ideal you've suggested...
13. Can we please try Henderson at 6? Pretty please?
..0 -
Do you know what will be gas lads?
When Heaslip retires aged 35 with:
4+ European cups
3+ Celtic League cups
3+ 6 Nations Championships
1+ Grand Slam
2+ Lions Tours
250+ caps for Leinster
100+ caps for Ireland
Some people will still call him average.
Absolutely laughable.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »In the 'all change ahead' ideal you've suggested
Yea, so? I still think Henderson is a better 6 than a lock, that doesn't mean he can't be a really good lock as well. I think his talents are somewhat wasted when he was to waste so much energy in scrums.0 -
We just don't have the players at the moment though. Rugby is competing with more sports here than NZ on a greater level. There is work to be done to improve things and we should set lofty goals. But we also need to be realistic. We won't match NZ.
I'm not saying we'll match NZ. I'm saying we should be learning from their methods. We'll never have the players if they're not getting the best coaching possible. That means co-operation between provinces, not suspicion and holding secrets. If it means Les Kiss taking defence sessions with other provinces, or Reggie Corrigan coaching scrummaging at Munster for a day, so be it. The provinces need to be in no doubt that they are developing players for the national team, that we need these players to be able to do X, Y and Z to a high standard, and that to do that they need to be coaching these players a certain way.
At the moment can you imagine Axel Foley sharing successful lineout moves with Leo Cullen? No way, he knows Cullen would just coach his lineout defence to negate those moves. He should be forced to share them with all the coaches, then go away and develop new ones. It's not about competition with each other, it's about pulling together for the national team.0 -
Advertisement
-
What's always struck me about Heaslip (apart from his almost indestructability) is his unwavering enthusiasm to get stuck in and do whatever hard work it takes to get a result.Do you know what will be gas lads?
When Heaslip retires aged 35 with:
4+ European cups
3+ Celtic League cups
3+ 6 Nations Championships
1+ Grand Slam
2+ Lions Tours
250+ caps for Leinster
100+ caps for Ireland
Some people will still call him average.
Absolutely laughable.
The first time it struck me was during the period I call "the amazing reversing Leinster scrum". Leinster had no real forward pack to its name and the plan was to get the ball out as quickly and as painlessly as possible whilst in reverse. Heaslip almost always delivered clean ball to the scrum half in those situations and it was almost magical how he could do it.0 -
Has he not played most of his rugby at lock?Yea, so? I still think Henderson is a better 6 than a lock, that doesn't mean he can't be a really good lock as well. I think his talents are somewhat wasted when he was to waste so much energy in scrums.
Ireland under 20 and at schools level, I thought he was a lock?0 -
-
He prefers playing at 6 though. I'd be surprised if he's not back playing 6 when he gets fit again for Ulster.0
-
It could be viewed as the same kind of step down though. Pro 12 ---> AIL, International ---> Pro 12
Not in isolation. i.e. Chris Henry isn't a huge step down from SOB for example. It's the next step down (which a lot of our bench was) and the cumulative effect of a number of step downs that hurts a team. And it IS a team effort, all the bits have to work at their optimum.
But how poor a performance was it really? You've picked out players who played well and there were a good few in that bracket. The overall defence was poor to start with, which tbh isn't typical from us at all. In my view the defensive issues started in midfield with the loss of Payne and were further compounded with the loss of Sexton, POM and SOB. It's not that the replacements were all not good enough, it's that they were not experienced enough playing with each other in a high tempo international match.
There was nothing wrong with the midfield defence v. Mr Bastaurad & France. This is just scapegoating of Earls & Henshaw.0 -
So where does our performance against Italy, with a fully fit team bar Payne fit into this? It wasn't like we were blowing teams off the park in the pool games...0
-
So where does our performance against Italy, with a fully fit team bar Payne fit into this? It wasn't like we were blowing teams off the park in the pool games...
it fits into the
new zealand v argentina
scotland v samoa
wales v fiji
france v italy
bracket.....
in that the favourites for the game underperformed and allowed the opposition into the game.
and to be honest, ireland probably had it easier than any of those other teams in that we were never behind and never looked like loosing the game, although we made hard work of the manner of vistory0 -
Henderson was comfortably Ireland's best lock over the entire tournament...
I'm not dealing with that point again. You want everything to be binary when they are not and we're on a hiding to nothing in that regard....so I am really not sure where this idea comes from that he was an issue.
In terms of what we lost by not having POC it was an issue though. Do you agree or disagree with the particulars of what I said? If so why?
I'm not saying Hendo was an issue, I'm saying what he brought versus POC (which is the reality of the situation) was an issue.The problem with losing POC wasn't that we had to play Henderson instead, it's that we couldn't play the POC and Henderson partnership.
This goes back to the first point. And I'm not touching it any more. I've tried and failed a few times already and it's a waste of time at this stage.0 -
He prefers playing at 6 though. I'd be surprised if he's not back playing 6 when he gets fit again for Ulster.
Fitzgerald prefers full back.
I'd prefer if he'd never once appeared there for Ireland (past or future!)...
It doesn't particularly matter, given the respective depth at lock and back row across the entire country though.
Henderson will be a mainstay of the Irish second row so long as he keeps his performances up. Even if he must play at 6 for Ulster because they have a back row issue!0 -
There was nothing wrong with the midfield defence v. Mr Bastaurad & France. This is just scapegoating of Earls & Henshaw.
No it's not. In any case we had not much defending to do against Mr. Bastareaud since he only got the ball five times and France had only 30% possession.
It's not only the centres who have to defend in midfield.0 -
Advertisement
-
Just to throw another grenade into the discussion. Here is an article from the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/11959361/Rugby-World-Cup-2015-10-myths-that-were-exploded-this-tournament.html
Pretty cruel on Ireland and in particular Schmidt.
I agree with point 11 in the article that we can now put to bed the France myth of "showing up" at World Cups. History means nothing anymore, I specifically hope that is true in relation to Ireland as we seem to repeat history every 4 years.0 -
There's nothing binary about it molloyjh, it's just the reality.I'm not dealing with that point again. You want everything to be binary when they are not and we're on a hiding to nothing in that regard.
In terms of what we lost by not having POC it was an issue though. Do you agree or disagree with the particulars of what I said? If so why?
I'm not saying Hendo was an issue, I'm saying what he brought versus POC (which is the reality of the situation) was an issue.
This goes back to the first point. And I'm not touching it any more. I've tried and failed a few times already and it's a waste of time at this stage.
In fact, the argument could easily be made that Henderson was Ireland's best player across all positions for the world cup.
I really don't think that's up for much discussion.
This is different to me saying that Henderson is a better player than Toner. This is me saying that during the World Cup, Henderson out performed his peers. There is a subtle, but important difference.
It is frustrating that the guy played out of his skin and is talked about as if him playing was one of the issues. If POC was fit I suspect he'd have been playing anyway, Henderson was absolutely no part of the problem.0 -
Just to throw another grenade into the discussion. Here is an article from the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/11959361/Rugby-World-Cup-2015-10-myths-that-were-exploded-this-tournament.html
Pretty cruel on Ireland and in particular Schmidt.
I agree with point 11 in the article that we can now put to bed the France myth of "showing up" at World Cups. History means nothing anymore, I specifically hope that is true in relation to Ireland as we seem to repeat history every 4 years.
well this is a pretty big caveatAll appeared to be going to plan until injuries to Jonathan Sexton, Paul O'Connell and Peter O'Mahony in the win over France derailed the team's progress0 -
Deleted User wrote: »What changes do you want us to make? You've not answered the question!
Give us an idea of what you think the solution is, not what you think the problem is!Areas I want to see addressed, in order of importance:
Depth at 10
Sexton will be 34 at the 2019 World Cup and with his injury profile, we just can't rely on him even still playing at that age. We need to move things around so all viable 10s are getting played each week at their clubs/provinces. Madigan needs to leave Leinster. I've suggested he go to Connacht several times, but he could also go to England or France - just somewhere he starts week in/week out as a 10. At some point it may also be worth giving Sexton a sabbatical (like the ABs did with McCaw) and give someone like Madigan, Jackson or even JJ a full 6N Championship. That would also allow Sexton freshen up a bit, injury wise. We simply can't go into the next World Cup with only viable starter at 10.
Depth at 13 (which affects 12)
Our depth below Payne at 13 was also telling. And we are not that much better off (as it stands) than we are at 10. Cave is solid but unfavoured, for whatever reason the coaches see. After that, you have a player playing out of position (Earls, Luke). I am not going to include Madigan in the discussion here. Future options are looking bright; McCloskey will be involved soon, Bundee Aki will qualify next year, Ringrose and Arnold look great prospects. And then you have Olding, who is a player that could fall down the Ian Madigan Patented Black Hole of Versatility. They (Ulster/IRFU) need to decide a position for him (I spoke to a guy who went to school with him who told me his favourite position is 10), and have him play there.
Depth at 4/5
Another point to consider is the second row - Toner and Henderson look set to be our long term pairing here, with capable cover in Ryan. However Ryan will be 35 in 2019, and then below him, Tuohy will be 34 and Mike McCarthy 37. Suffice to say that at least two of these will not be around. Given the physical requirements for the position, not much can be done here except waiting and seeing who comes through, hopefully someone like Molony. But the depth is worrying.
Depth at 2
We are seriously going to miss Best when he retires, and this will probably happen in the next year or two. Strauss and Cronin will also be 33 in 2019, i.e. not guarantees to still be playing. Interesting to see what happens here over the next few years.
Subserving all of the above, of course, will be how the provinces and national side cooperate in the next four years. Although they will obviously say otherwise in public, I think it's clear that we are now moving to a system where the national side and the four provinces will be working a lot more closely together. You can already see the personnel at the coaching level - Kiss worked with Joe in Ireland, now coaching Ulster. Leo played for Joe at Leinster, now coaching there. Foley coached various levels of national teams, now coaching at Munster. Pat Lam is the only one to has not worked directly for either the IRFU or Schmidt.
I think this could be where we maintain an edge over other national teams (New Zealand aside). It can only be helpful for players coming into national camp to be familiar with a significant group of the other players. Now we can also employ some manner of cohesion between systems, tactics, structures, etc. Not that all four provinces need to play identical rugby, but just to have some areas of overlap between first phase moves, defensive systems, etc., so that new recruits to the national side aren't learning everything from scratch, and players can come in and out of the side with less consequence.
I doubt, if things don't change, that Sexton will be playing in 4 years. His injuries are increasing in number and frequency. He either needs to play less often which would thus allow another 10 at Leinster to play. Marsh or Byrne maybe. I don't know enough about them but they seem to be well regarded. I don't think it should always be Madigan. He isn't a beginner and more games aren't going to change him now unless a different approach is taken, not just with him but with all our players. It'll be interesting to see how J.J. gets on at Saints.
At 13 I feel we have squandered our resources to some degree here. Luke Marshall was shifted to 12 because we had BOD and Cave. His natural game is suited to 10, 12 and especially at 13 but is it a lack of imagination that takes creative players and bulks them up into boshers? I think anyone who has seen Olding would realise that he is the most BOD - like player. His pace is exceptional. Something we need more of in strike positions. Then there is Chris Farrell who looked good, got injured and left Ireland. These are just the options that have an Ulster aspect. Henshaw was suddenly flavour of the month in the press as a 13 without having really done all that much. he has looked fine there. Let's see him get his chance there. He's a great athlete.
In the second row, we have Toner, Foley, Ryan, Tuohy and Henderson at the moment. Not bad at all. Again from the Ulster side of things Alan o'Connor made a huge impact when he got starts. He was great in the line out, aggressive as feck, good hands and a big man at 6'7". He has been injured for a while and we'll see if it was a flash in the pan but all the signs of a good player are there. He's certainly better than Stevenson for example.
At hooker as Best can't go on much longer there is Strauss, Cronin, Sherry Casey and Herring who has been captaining Ulster and has led by example. I think Best's problems might come from him before Father Time.
The 4 Provincial Sides do need to work with the Schmidt regime. It is an imperative as the Ireland side is the gravy train in the end. However what happens if one of the coaches has a major disagreement over the use of a certain player / s? We had it a bit with Deccie. It didn't create a unitary atmosphere.
We have to look at what we have in terms of those available players and their strengths and weaknesses and work with that. Improve the good things, eradicate the bad. Let's examine those individual abilities and strengths and aim to improve them by - 1 or 2 %. Pace, strength, flexibility, decision making, passing , kicking accuracy, ball reception, defensive decisions and positioning. and so on.
Some of this is not so difficult , some - the bit's that use the brain rather than the body may take more time and effort and achieve less. There isn't a bad player among the 45 or so that went to the wider squad. There are possible gems in Olding, Ringrose, Marsh, Byrne, Furlong,Daly, McCloskey, Herring, etc. I hope we don't go down the usual Ireland route and say " Player A needs another year ...." The fastest way to learn is getting exposure to the highest level. Another game against Zebre won't do it.0 -
sydthebeat wrote: »well this is a pretty big caveat
It also states:Ireland's record of never having got beyond the last eight at the Rugby World Cup continued, and Schmidt was perhaps not the Messiah the Irish had hoped he was.0 -
-
There's nothing binary about it molloyjh, it's just the reality.
In fact, the argument could easily be made that Henderson was Ireland's best player across all positions for the world cup.
I really don't think that's up for much discussion.
This is different to me saying that Henderson is a better player than Toner. This is me saying that during the World Cup, Henderson out performed his peers. There is a subtle, but important difference.
It is frustrating that the guy played out of his skin and is talked about as if him playing was one of the issues. If POC was fit I suspect he'd have been playing anyway, Henderson was absolutely no part of the problem.
You're reading far too much into what I'm saying. I know you suspect Hendo would have started. And I suspect that there's nothing I can do to change that. We had a very similar conversation previously about the France game though if you recall.
Either way I'm not saying Hendo was the problem. I'm saying what we lost by not having POC there was. Hendo isn't the same player. He's very good, he had a great tournament before the Argentina game and I rate the guy highly. But the simple fact is that not having POC there was an issue and Hendo couldn't replicate the guy. Unless you have some points that contradict the logic of my statement then you must agree. I'm not blaming Hendo though. It's just the reality of the situation.0 -
Henderson is a great player but he's only 22. Seriously, what he does is outstanding for a guy of his age.It is frustrating that the guy played out of his skin and is talked about as if him playing was one of the issues. If POC was fit I suspect he'd have been playing anyway, Henderson was absolutely no part of the problem.
But he does not have the experience of somebody like POC. He's gained a lot from this World cup, but he's not the fully rounded player, organiser and tactician that POC is. How could he be?
Those were the facets we were missing in that game, Henderson could not have been expected to replace them, but that's absolutely no slight on the guy. Madigan equally lacks that kind of experience at that level and he's a good deal older than Henderson.
If you can't accept that, there's no real point in having this conversation. I'll just conclude that rugby is far more of a team game than other team sports and a team performance is not down to one or two individuals, but how they gel and work together as a group.0 -
I didn't know awec wrote for The Telegraph!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/11940343/Rugby-World-Cup-2015-referees-ranked-and-rated-is-Craig-Joubert-the-worst.html?frame=347658212. John Lacey (Ireland)
A referee whose appointment signals groans from both sets of fans. Lacey has not had a good tournament: his decision not to award Tonga a penalty try against New Zealand helped fuel the debate over whether tier-one nations are subconcsiously favoured by officials, while his handling of Wales-Fiji was also widely criticised.0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »Okay. So put them in the positions you want them in.
What's left? Who fills those gaps?
Líon na bearnaí
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
22.
23.
You asked which players were out of position from there best and usual positions. I simply gave a list. I'd have a player in the position in which he has proven over a number of seasons to be his best. e.g. Earls is a fantastic 11. Not rocket science. As for the centres, well you know my views. I don't see any problem either with playing left and right centres rather than 12 and 13. Given that Henshaw, Cave, Payne and Fitz are all equally adept at both. But that's an argument for another day.
The RWC is over for us. Time to learn and move on. One thing that will hinder us as it hinders Hospitals is the cover up of errors. In the health sector there is a huge number of systemic fatalities. In the U.K. this is more than die in car accidents. The mistakes that caused them originally are never reviewed or admitted or covered up so nothing changes. Covering your ass is a major part of the medical profession. A major hospital in the USA decided to expose and learn from those type of errors. As a result such deaths fell by 74% and litigation Because of them almost disappeared.
We have a rather good baby in the bath but some of the bath water needs pumped out. The first step in making changes - something I believe in is inherently good anyway - is to recognise where we've gone wrong. If the duck sinks - get a new and different duck.0 -
-
jacothelad wrote: »You asked which players were out of position from there best and usual positions. I simply gave a list. I'd have a player in the position in which he has proven over a number of seasons to be his best. e.g. Earls is a fantastic 11. Not rocket science. As for the centres, well you know my views. I don't see any problem either with playing left and right centres rather than 12 and 13. Given that Henshaw, Cave, Payne and Fitz are all equally adept at both. But that's an argument for another day.
The RWC is over for us. Time to learn and move on. One thing that will hinder us as it hinders Hospitals is the cover up of errors. In the health sector there is a huge number of systemic fatalities. In the U.K. this is more than die in car accidents. The mistakes that caused them originally are never reviewed or admitted or covered up so nothing changes. Covering your ass is a major part of the medical profession. A major hospital in the USA decided to expose and learn from those type of errors. As a result such deaths fell by 74% and litigation Because of them almost disappeared.
We have a rather good baby in the bath but some of the bath water needs pumped out. The first step in making changes - something I believe in is inherently good anyway - is to recognise where we've gone wrong. If the duck sinks - get a new and different duck.
Okay. So what changes should we make?
I'm about the meat, not the flowers. What changes? Gimme names. Gimme moves. Gimme details. Gimme gimme gimme.0 -
jacothelad wrote: »You asked which players were out of position from there best and usual positions. .
Milner skudder is primarily a full back, and has only played on the wing for NZ
Ben Smith too, has many caps for NZ on the wing
Beauden barrit is primarily a 10, less so a 15, and has made most of his appearances for NZ off the bench and onto the wing
Colin Slade is a 10 or 15 who is also played on the wing by hansen.
Jerome Kaino has switched between flanker and lock through the years, even having played 8 as well.
It could be argued that Schmidt played his best players on the pitch and devised a game plan around getting the most out of them, thus having players from 10 - 15 who all had full back experience.
I too feel cave was hard done by in this competition, and it must have been sickening to see other players shoehorned into his position ahead of him.... but i can only take from that that he wasnt doing enough in training to demand the shirt.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I didn't know awec wrote for The Telegraph!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/11940343/Rugby-World-Cup-2015-referees-ranked-and-rated-is-Craig-Joubert-the-worst.html?frame=3476582
That's far too polite to have been written by awec. The Telegraph's subbie had a job to make it readable from this:12. John Lacey (Ireland)
A **** whose appointment signals groans from both sets of fans. Lacey has had a ***** tournament: his **** decision not to award Tonga a penalty try against New Zealand helped fuel the debate over whether he was a f*****g **** or a f*****g ******, and also whether tier-one nations are subconcsiously favoured by officials, while his handling of Wales-Fiji was also widely criticised as a f*****g joke.0 -
jacothelad wrote: »Well we had Henshaw, a 13/15 at 12. We had Earls, an 11 at 13, We had Fitz., an 11 at 12 and 13, we had Payne, a 15 at 13, we had Cave, a 13 at 12 and we had a 10 / 12 / 15 covering 9.Deleted User wrote: »Okay. So what changes should we make?
I'm about the meat, not the flowers. What changes? Gimme names. Gimme moves. Gimme details. Gimme gimme gimme.
I just quoted jaco above to give a bit of context to this.
9. Reddan and Boss will have to be replaced. So far it's Marmion only, so we need McGrath to step up or another contender to appear
10. Jackson and Madigan are the next in line to Sexton but again new blood needed.
11. We have plenty of wings. No Saveas, but who has?
12. Henshaw has so much experience at 12 now that we don't need to be asking who goes here. It's who goes in here next that needs to be answered.
13. Payne clearly. For those who keep saying he's a full back, I've one word for you: Blues. A genuine backup who plays this position week in week out is needed.
14. As above, plenty of wing options.
15. Again new blood needed, it's Rob or Felix and that's about it unless Olding maybe steps in.
22. See 10 above
23. Luke or Zebo if either doesn't start0 -
Advertisement
-
Henderson is a great player but he's only 22. Seriously, what he does is outstanding for a guy of his age.
But he does not have the experience of somebody like POC. He's gained a lot from this World cup, but he's not the fully rounded player, organiser and tactician that POC is. How could he be?
Those were the facets we were missing in that game, Henderson could not have been expected to replace them, but that's absolutely no slight on the guy. Madigan equally lacks that kind of experience at that level and he's a good deal older than Henderson.
If you can't accept that, there's no real point in having this conversation. I'll just conclude that rugby is far more of a team game than other team sports and a team performance is not down to one or two individuals, but how they gel and work together as a group.
No, I am frustrated at the fact that people are saying we lost POC and had to play Henderson instead, instead of saying we lost POC and had to play Toner instead. How is that fair on the guy?
Henderson was Ireland's best forward (if not best player) over the entire tournament. If only all our so-called second choice players could outperform all the other players we'd be laughing.
Henderson playing against Argentina was not even in the slightest one of the issues. The problem was having to play Toner beside him instead of POC.
POC is Ireland captain. Henderson was Ireland's best player. Toner was good, but neither of the above. Yet it's because we have to play Henderson that we have a problem? How does that work?0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Okay. So what changes should we make?
I'm about the meat, not the flowers. What changes? Gimme names. Gimme moves. Gimme details. Gimme gimme gimme.
1. Blood more options at every position:
Why it won't happen - As pointed out over and over again the 6 Nations is the cash cow for the IRFU and as such no risks will be permitted with team selection with the greater good in mind. I'm not suggesting cropping the entire team as some have, but to ensure potential younger talent get exposure to international rugby earlier in their careers. This works in other countries, why do we have to wait until a guy is 25 before capping him? (Hyperbole, I know, obvious exceptions apply - Henshaw, Henderson).
2. Develop a more varied style of play:
Before anyone jumps down my neck, I'm not talking about abandoning the kick chase or the power game entirely. What I am suggesting is to develop a more varied game plan that is harder for the opposition to suss out and also provides more options mid game when "Plan A" is not working. I agree that the kick chase is a vital part of the modern game, but it needs to be supplemented.
3. Allow "some" offloading:
As with the above point, I'm not asking for a 7's game here. What I am saying is that a mixture of taking the ball into contact and recycling and some offloading can be quite effective on a number of fronts. Firstly, it varies the way we attack by altering the tempo and and numbers used, as well as the proposition of sucking in more defenders and creating space on subsequent phases of play. Secondly, it offers a new challenge to teams who play against us as we are currently "easy" to defend against. What I mean by easy, is we are too predictable in our attack and we reply on breaking teams down with brute force, or extremely accurate kick chase game.
4. Develop more "ball players":
This one is more long term. It is clear, or at least clear to the current coaching staff that we don't have the necessary skillsets to employ a more off the cuff/offloading game. It is hard to argue with in a way when you see some of the attempts at this World Cup. Earls threw a couple of offloads to people's ankles. As others have stated, size and bulk is the order of the day at youth level and this leads to us developing blunt force tools as opposed to skillful players. I also would like to see players of all positions have fundamental passing/kicking/catching skills. We have some players who never pass the ball. One thing that drives me mad also, is unforced knock ons. Sean O'Brien pretty much does one in every game. I can't for the life of me understand how that hasn't been coached out of him at this stage??
5. Better/More Kicking Options:
This was mentioned elsewhere too. We myopically rely on our 10 for kicking from hand, placed balls and in open play. In my opinion all players should be competent at kicking for territory accurately. With the GAA background of many of the players, we should be better than we are. Look at New Zealand and the ability they have with the ball. This has always been the case. When was the last time an Ireland back row player even thought about kicking a drop goal? (Zinzan Brooke anyone?). I understand that this is a long term goal as for the current batch of players that ship has sailed.
6. Mobility:
Whilst Mike Ross is fantastic at locking down the scrum, that is where his contribution ends. He is pretty much a passenger for other parts of the game, apart from lineout lifting. The era of carrying a player like that is coming to an end. Props from all other top nations are more mobile and skillful. New Zealand even sacrifice power in the scrum in order to have mobility in their front row.
You may agree/disagree with any/all of those suggestions, but the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.0 -
Sorry lads, I'm in an irritable mood today which is turning me into an argumentative oul sh!te!
0 -
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 49074
-
There was nothing wrong with the midfield defence v. Mr Bastaurad & France. This is just scapegoating of Earls & Henshaw.
Just because midfield defence was good against france doesn't mean it was the same against argentina who played a completely different game to France and our personnel was very much changed for Argentina with key men missing.
Our midfield defence had our front row in the line for one of the first tries with mike ross in the 13 channel. Argentina cleaned up as a result. Our defence as a whole for the first 20 min or so was shockingly bad and it was a collective thing, not down to any one individual and our line was breached because argentina had so much quick ball because of who was missing - poc, sob, pom.0 -
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement