Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread V

WarZ

Rightwing wrote: »

Not sure they are. The Boks silverware cupboard is fairly bare of late, which tells its own story. Our '09 GS remains our greatest rugby result.

4 teams are every even at the moment which makes winning a GS right now very hard.

As if any of those teams highlighted would have any silverware if they played in the 4 nations.

I think it says it all that you highlighted France. I mean England are bad, Wales are pretty bad but France?!

Once again, having to beat Wales, France and England with a home game for one of them is easier than having to beat South Africa and South Africa away for both games.

I honestly don't know how anyone could think otherwise. Italy, Scotland and France are cannon fodder and if you were betting there is no way you would bet both England and Wales to beat South Africa in South Africa.

WarZ

WarZ wrote: »

Going to have to disagree. Currently a GS is a much easier task than beating South Africa in 2 out of 3 games in South Africa for all of the games.. England, Wales, Scotland, France, Italy are miles behind South Africa.

It terms of probability, you are definitely wrong. Winning 2/3 games vs winning 5/5 games... even against significantly worse opposition than SA in the 6N

Rightwing

WarZ wrote: »

As if any of those teams highlighted would have any silverware if they played in the 4 nations.

I think it says it all that you highlighted France. I mean England are bad, Wales are pretty bad but France?!

Once again, having to beat Wales, France and England with a home game for one of them is easier than having to beat South Africa and South Africa away for both games.

I honestly don't know how anyone could think otherwise. Italy, Scotland and France are cannon fodder and if you were betting there is no way you would bet both England and Wales to beat South Africa in South Africa.

France were probably the biggest disappointment of the WC, but they are nowhere near as bad as recent results suggest. Get Hansen in there and you've a completely different situation. As for SA..remember Japan ?

The Rape of Lucretia

captbarnacles wrote: »

Don't agree but i probably have a different definition of world class to you. To me it means you are in contention for a place in a world 15 rather than you are a guaranteed starter.

To me, any of the players who participated in the World Cup for any team are world class. A big step up from the vaste majority of for-fun rugby players, competing for your country, at a world cup - you are world class.

Rightwing

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

To me, any of the players who participated in the World Cup for any team are world class. A big step up from the vaste majority of for-fun rugby players, competing for your country, at a world cup - you are world class.

You aren't. But you are representing your country on the world stage. Not to confuse the 2.

WarZ

Rightwing wrote: »

France were probably the biggest disappointment of the WC, but they are nowhere near as bad as recent results suggest. Get Hansen in there and you've a completely different situation. As for SA..remember Japan ?

France have been terrible for a long time now, this wasn't a WC blip.

Yeah South Africa had an off day, they are still vastly superior to all 6N teams.

Rightwing

WarZ wrote: »

France have been terrible for a long time now, this wasn't a WC blip.

Yeah South Africa had an off day, they are still vastly superior to all 6N teams.

They also struggled to beat a depleted Welsh team. I do agree about France, although they did make the previous WC final and could easily have won it.

kuang1

WarZ wrote: »

Yeah South Africa had an off day, they are still vastly superior to all 6N teams.

Superior yes. Vastly? Absolutely not.
They've been very poorly managed imo, and could potentially be "vastly" superior to the 6N teams, but currently are not.

irishbucsfan

What areas of the game are South Africa vastly superior to us and Wales?

molloyjh

WarZ wrote: »

Going to have to disagree. Currently a GS is a much easier task than beating South Africa in 2 out of 3 games in South Africa for all of the games.. England, Wales, Scotland, France, Italy are miles behind South Africa.

Which is why an injury ravaged Wales team only lost to a near full strength SA team a few weeks ago.

Jesus but you really are down on the NH aren't you!?

Rightwing

irishbucsfan wrote: »

What areas of the game are South Africa vastly superior to us and Wales?

Mental strength. This can't be under estimated.

In the recent WC, both were poorly coached, but we went in to game v Argies fearful, and subsequently collapsed, whereas the boks went in against the ABs fearless and nearly won. They are arrogant and confident, probably their biggest strength.

bilston

For what it's worth in the last 5 meetings between Ireland and South Africa we have won team 4 times and SA have 1 win. That doesn't smack of vast superiority over the NH to me.

Different fight in SA of course. But I see no reason for an inferiority complex.

shuffol

Rightwing

bilston wrote: »

For what it's worth in the last 5 meetings between Ireland and South Africa we have won team 4 times and SA have 1 win. That doesn't smack of vast superiority over the NH to me.

Different fight in SA of course. But I see no reason for an inferiority complex.

Apart from in the really big games when the pressure is on, we tend to hide in our shells, none more so than in the recent game where we made the Argies look like potential WC winners.

shootermacg

England aren't a bad team, Wales are a great team, Scotland are coming along nicely, Italy can easily drag you down to their level, France are currently badly coached but can beat the sh1t out of you physically. Winning another 6 nations, especially with Wales in it will be a great achievement for us.

Argentina had an easy run-up to our game and had specifically targeted us, it was their big game, they knew they'd lose to NZ and put the entire tank into beating us, they then lost the next game because the tank was empty.

We targeted the French game, as did the french, we emptied the tank on that game as did they. We were flat against Argentina as a result, which was quite apparent by 1) our slow start and 2) our slow finish. Likewise the French had nothing to offer NZ.

Rugby is a physical sport, it demands a lot from the body if two teams of comparable levels are playing tomorrow, my money would be on the one that got an easy run in.

Those people demanding 6 nations wins and a SA white-wash should maybe think about following darts or snooker.

Rightwing

shootermacg wrote: »

England aren't a bad team, Wales are a great team, Scotland are coming along nicely, Italy can easily drag you down to their level, France are currently badly coached but can beat the sh1t out of you physically. Winning another 6 nations, especially with Wales in it will be a great achievement for us.

Argentina had an easy run-up to our game and had specifically targeted us, it was their big game, they knew they'd lose to NZ and put the entire tank into beating us, they then lost the next game because the tank was empty.

We targeted the French game, as did the french, we emptied the tank on that game as did they. We were flat against Argentina as a result, which was quite apparent by 1) our slow start and 2) our slow finish. Likewise the French had nothing to offer NZ.

Rugby is a physical sport, it demands a lot from the body if two teams of comparable levels are playing tomorrow, my money would be on the one that got an easy run in.

Those people demanding 6 nations wins and a SA white-wash should maybe think about following darts or snooker.

That's complete rubbish.

• It was Aussies they were playing after destroying us.
• If players can't put back to back performance together, they are no more than LOI amateurs.

shootermacg

Rightwing wrote: »

That's complete rubbish.

• It was Aussies they were playing after destroying us.
• If players can't put back to back performance together, they are no more than LOI amateurs.

Darts or snooker!

Rightwing

shootermacg wrote: »

Darts or snooker!

Snooker.

molloyjh

Just out of an evening with the Irish coaches. They really are a great bunch. Some good banter and craic between the 4 of them (Schmidt, Feek, Easterby and Murphy). A couple of interesting bits and pieces from it.

Joe acknowledged the issues caused by losing the 5 guys ahead of the Argentina game and spoke about how they need to expand the playing group and the opportunities people are getting there. He seemed to be suggesting there'd be more rotation from now on.

He was asked what changes would he make to the AIL. He mentioned that a more regional approach might work, similar to the GAA with teams qualifying for an All Ireland competition from there. He reckons a greater focus on local derbies might help. But he goes to a lot of the AIL games from the sounds of it.

Feek spoke a bit about the fact that they are trying to build a system where everything feeds into the national team like NZ. That a 15 year old kid playing the game can see how those things that he is learning relate to the national side. And having that working from that level, through the provincial level to national level. But while they've started doing that it will take time to see the results.

Joe confirmed he was approached by the RFU 4 years ago but not this time.

He also had to answer "that" offloading question 3 times. Twice he made the point that the team that made most offloads in a game was France against NZ, and they got tonked. When part of one of the questions spoke about how great Argentina were Joe pointed out that it took another 160 minutes after the Ireland game before Argentina got another try.

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

... When part of one of the questions spoke about how great Argentina were Joe pointed out that it took another 160 minutes after the Ireland game before Argentina got another try.

What does this mean? I'm tired.

Eoin

I imagine it means they didn't score another try until the end of the 3rd place final, having not scored one in the semi-final against Australia.

phog

Deleted User wrote: »

What does this mean? I'm tired.

That Australia & SA had better defence than Ireland.

CIARAN_BOYLE

any work on Kiss's replacement?

phog

phog wrote: »

That Australia & SA had better defence than Ireland.

Lolz. Any opportunity

phog

Deleted User wrote: »

Lolz. Any opportunity

Lolz all you like but that's the reality and it seems Joe has implied as much in his reply to "how good were Argentina"

bilston

phog wrote: »

That Australia & SA had better defence than Ireland.

Yeah I'm not sure the fact that Argentina didn't score a try for 160 mins after playing us is anything to advertise!

.ak

No, what he meant by it was an offloading game doesn't always reap rewards and that this reactionary nonsense for Ireland to adapt an offloading game all of a sudden is a load of toddle.

... To paraphrase.

molloyjh

phog wrote: »

Lolz all you like but that's the reality and it seems Joe has implied as much in his reply to "how good were Argentina"

Wow. Talk about missing the point entirely.

No, Joe meant that the offloading game wasn't "all that" and used both France and Argentina as examples of teams who used offloading a lot and how it didn't always produce results. He was trying to say that this notion that Ireland suddenly need to throw caution to the wind and look to offloading for success is not based in reality.

Easterby spoke a bit about how a lot of people saying these things are either armchair pundits or former players who haven't played in a while, with the media stoking the flames as well. But that ultimately it's rubbish. There are multiple ways to play the game and what can work in one game may not work in the next, which is what Argentina showed well.

.ak

And you know what, now the dust has settled. for me Argentina weren't even that good. I found them pretty frustrating to be honest. I'm not taking away from our game where they got everything right, but had we a fully fit XV we would've won that game. They almost threw it against our 2nds and that was their best game.

Apart from our game I thought they were very poor in decision making and it cost them against NZ, Oz and SA.

molloyjh

bilston wrote: »

Yeah I'm not sure the fact that Argentina didn't score a try for 160 mins after playing us is anything to advertise!

I don't think anyone is shying away from the defensive issues we had on the day. As I said Joe had addressed the point that there was a fall off when we lost the 5 lads and that has to be dealt with. The point was about the attacking style people seem to have become obsessed with since the RWC regardless of the validity of it.

As Joe said there was a lot of talk about the expansive offloading game that the NH need to start adopting. But when it came to reporting the failings of that game plan (France and Argentina) most media outlet and pundits neglected to discuss that because it didn't fit the narrative they were trying to paint.

molloyjh

Also worth pointing out that when asked about referees Joe made a point of saying that he felt Joubert was hung out to dry by World Rugby re the decision in the Australia-Scotland game. He backed Jouberts call and said how disappointed he was in how that all panned out.

jm08

molloyjh wrote: »

I don't think anyone is shying away from the defensive issues we had on the day. As I said Joe had addressed the point that there was a fall off when we lost the 5 lads and that has to be dealt with. The point was about the attacking style people seem to have become obsessed with since the RWC regardless of the validity of it.

As Joe said there was a lot of talk about the expansive offloading game that the NH need to start adopting. But when it came to reporting the failings of that game plan (France and Argentina) most media outlet and pundits neglected to discuss that because it didn't fit the narrative they were trying to paint.

The lack of attack isn't just since the RWC. A lot of the commentary was that Joe was holding back for the RWC. No one is asking for Ireland to throw the ball around without a care in the world, but the Ireland attack is so predictable that it is easy for defences to figure out that the only thing Ireland are going to do is go to ground and recycle. Not much analysis needs to be done with Joe's Ireland.

errlloyd

It's amazing we won back to back 6 nations on points difference considering we can't attack.

former total

.ak wrote: »

And you know what, now the dust has settled. for me Argentina weren't even that good. I found them pretty frustrating to be honest. I'm not taking away from our game where they got everything right, but had we a fully fit XV we would've won that game. They almost threw it against our 2nds and that was their best game.

Apart from our game I thought they were very poor in decision making and it cost them against NZ, Oz and SA.

That team was not "our 2nds". And they beat us out the gate.

But if, as you say, Argentina are not that good, it's very worrying for us.

Podge_irl

.ak wrote: »

And you know what, now the dust has settled. for me Argentina weren't even that good. I found them pretty frustrating to be honest. I'm not taking away from our game where they got everything right, but had we a fully fit XV we would've won that game. They almost threw it against our 2nds and that was their best game.

I think that's grossly unfair and not really based on anything.

Calling it our second team is completely disingenuous - we were missing 5 crucial players yes, but that is the nature of the game. Healy, Best, Ross, Toner, Heaslip, Murray, Kearney, Henshaw, Bowe and Kearney were all legitimately first choice selections.

No idea what you mean by almost threw it either. Ireland worked very hard to get back into the game and almost level the scores but Argentina were never once behind and won by 23 bloody points.

If Argentina weren't that good then we were complete rubbish.

shootermacg

jm08 wrote: »

The lack of attack isn't just since the RWC. A lot of the commentary was that Joe was holding back for the RWC. No one is asking for Ireland to throw the ball around without a care in the world, but the Ireland attack is so predictable that it is easy for defences to figure out that the only thing Ireland are going to do is go to ground and recycle. Not much analysis needs to be done with Joe's Ireland.

You have a point there. Ireland haven't really varied their game in attack, that's a fact, high balls, single runners good clear out and move on. Losing to Wales a team that can field and defend.

Only issue I see is the clubs dictate the style and the international manager has to play to the team's strengths. Our players basically don't have the handling skills to offload, well except for Best...Best can do anything [did I say that out loud?]

.ak

former total wrote: »

That team was not "our 2nds". And they beat us out the gate.

But if, as you say, Argentina are not that good, it's very worrying for us.

Well I know our opinion on it differs so I won't go into it, but I'm really not sure how you can say a team starting with Madigan, Earls at 13, Henry, Murphy and Hendo is anything but a 2nd choice team.

If Madigan starts for Leinster this Sunday there'd be doubts of a win... Never mind a World Cup quarter.

former total

.ak wrote: »

Well I know our opinion on it differs so I won't go into it, but I'm really not sure how you can say a team starting with Madigan, Earls at 13, Henry, Murphy and Hendo is anything but a 2nd choice team.

If Madigan starts for Leinster this Sunday there'd be doubts of a win... Never mind a World Cup quarter.

What about the other 10?? This wasn't a Wolfhounds selection.

We were out thought and outplayed. The absences were a contributing factor but not the only one, not by a long way.

shootermacg

former total wrote: »

That's insane. What about the other 10??

Keats has started knocking the kicks over this season, so we got you covered!

Clearlier

.ak wrote: »

And you know what, now the dust has settled. for me Argentina weren't even that good. I found them pretty frustrating to be honest. I'm not taking away from our game where they got everything right, but had we a fully fit XV we would've won that game. They almost threw it against our 2nds and that was their best game.

Apart from our game I thought they were very poor in decision making and it cost them against NZ, Oz and SA.

You're going a bit too far ak. I agree that Argentina aren't a great team and that if we had a fully fit first XV to choose from that we probably would have beaten them. They are a good team though and improving all the time. That said it's worth remembering that Joe (and almost any coach in the world) has never really cracked the challenge of how to get a team to perform at its absolute optimum two weeks in a row. Witness the Leinster losses to the Ospreys in the Pro 12 finals after their European cup wins. Leinster only won the pro 12 under Joe when they won the Challenge cup final at a canter. Hindsight is great and all and even with it there's nothing we could have done about it but our schedule which looked great initially was actually a big problem, we would have been much better off playing France a week or two before we did.

molloyjh wrote: »

Also worth pointing out that when asked about referees Joe made a point of saying that he felt Joubert was hung out to dry by World Rugby re the decision in the Australia-Scotland game. He backed Jouberts call and said how disappointed he was in how that all panned out.

I thought it said a lot about Vern Cotter that when pushed pretty hard by the BBC straight after the game he was very reluctant to criticise the referee. His focus was on his team instead. His sole concession and even then only after being asked several times was that it would have been nice if the referee could have gone to the TMO. It all suggests that Scotland will continue to get better and could pose a serious threat in the upcoming 6 nations.

molloyjh

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

any work on Kiss's replacement?

No, but strangely that question wasn't asked. The lads set out their stall early though by letting us know that as he wasn't there it was all his fault.

thomond2006

.ak a second choice team implies the second choice 15 players, not a a first choice team with 6/7 missing

molloyjh

errlloyd wrote: »

It's amazing we won back to back 6 nations on points difference considering we can't attack.

It frustrates me how little it has been acknowledged that we actually did change our game at the RWC. We weren't kicking as much, especially in attack, and we were playing a lot more like Australia than the 2015 6 Nations version of Ireland. Of course that doesn't suit those who just want to stick the knife in.

As the host of the event said last night, Joe is one awful b*****ks. He has us performing well and winning trophies. He speaks sense in the press stuff that he does. He's almost always smiling, has charisma and seems like a genuinely decent and humble bloke. So that leaves us Irish nothing to moan about. He was joking of course, but I do think there's an element of truth to it tbh.

molloyjh

.ak wrote: »

And you know what, now the dust has settled. for me Argentina weren't even that good. I found them pretty frustrating to be honest. I'm not taking away from our game where they got everything right, but had we a fully fit XV we would've won that game. They almost threw it against our 2nds and that was their best game.

Apart from our game I thought they were very poor in decision making and it cost them against NZ, Oz and SA.

former total wrote: »

That team was not "our 2nds". And they beat us out the gate.

But if, as you say, Argentina are not that good, it's very worrying for us.

I've said it before but I think there was an element of perfect storm to that QF. Argentina love to play with a bit of width, and we lost exactly the players we needed to shut that game plan down. I wonder is it a little bit like the Madigan thing. Looks great when on the front foot (see the Northampton game 2 years ago) but struggles otherwise. We saw Argentina play some utterly stupid rugby in the last 2 games in their attempts to be expansive and exciting after looking really good against us.

It wasn't a second string Irish team, but in the key areas defensively it was. And ultimately that's where we lost it. I'd agree with ak that we probably would have won, even with just some of those 5 in the squad.

molloyjh

shootermacg wrote: »

You have a point there. Ireland haven't really varied their game in attack, that's a fact, high balls, single runners good clear out and move on. Losing to Wales a team that can field and defend.

Only issue I see is the clubs dictate the style and the international manager has to play to the team's strengths. Our players basically don't have the handling skills to offload, well except for Best...Best can do anything [did I say that out loud?]

This is just completely and utterly untrue. We played that limited (and sccessful) kicking game in the AIs last year and this years 6 Nations. For the majority of Joes tenure so far we haven't played that way. And even at that we still passed the ball more than any other side in the 6 Nations this year.

dr.kenneth noisewater

molloyjh wrote: »

Just out of an evening with the Irish coaches. They really are a great bunch. Some good banter and craic between the 4 of them (Schmidt, Feek, Easterby and Murphy). A couple of interesting bits and pieces from it.

Just wondering where this event was or what is was for? Sounds like it was an interesting evening!

molloyjh

dr.kenneth noisewater wrote: »

Just wondering where this event was or what is was for? Sounds like it was an interesting evening!

It was a charity thing for CRY (Cardiac Risk in the Youth - basically funds a unit that look after Sudden Adult Death because the Govt don't provide funding) in a hotel in Bray. There's a lot of discussion on the couple of points I made but most of the session was actually really good fun with the lads ripping the piss out of each other.

Podge_irl

molloyjh wrote: »

I'd agree with ak that we probably would have won, even with just some of those 5 in the squad.

I just don't know how anyone can make that statement when we were beaten out the gate. It just seems like people assuming we should automatically be better than Argentina.

phog

molloyjh wrote: »

Wow. Talk about missing the point entirely.

No, Joe meant that the offloading game wasn't "all that" and used both France and Argentina as examples of teams who used offloading a lot and how it didn't always produce results. He was trying to say that this notion that Ireland suddenly need to throw caution to the wind and look to offloading for success is not based in reality.

Easterby spoke a bit about how a lot of people saying these things are either armchair pundits or former players who haven't played in a while, with the media stoking the flames as well. But that ultimately it's rubbish. There are multiple ways to play the game and what can work in one game may not work in the next, which is what Argentina showed well.

Maybe I missed Joe's point, I wasn't there to hear him first hand and we can dress that up any way we like but we weren't beaten by Argentina because we didn't offload, we were beaten by them because we gifted them ball, territory and more importantly scores.

padser

.ak wrote: »

Well I know our opinion on it differs so I won't go into it, but I'm really not sure how you can say a team starting with Madigan, Earls at 13, Henry, Murphy and Hendo is anything but a 2nd choice team.
.

Ah hold on. By that logic every team is playing their "seconds" pretty much every game.

We had, by my count, 9 or 10 (depending on how you view Henderson) nailed on first choice players.

Every rugby team has 2 or 3 injuries out of their first 15 at pretty much any point in time. We had 5 or 6 players missing in total gone, so a bit worse than normal.

It's most definitely not our "seconds". It's an injury hit first choice team, compounded by the fact we lost two of our three most important players.

But let's not exaggerate...,