Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread V

padser

thomond2006 wrote: »

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

And I think you would struggle to list 7 first choices missing anyway and you would only get to 6 missing if you count Hendo as second choice which is debatable....

Podge_irl

padser wrote: »

And I think you would struggle to list 7 first choices missing anyway and you would only get to 6 missing if you count Hendo as second choice which is debatable....

O'Connell, O'Mahoney, O'Brien, Sexton, Payne is all you can realistically count.

Trimble as well, but he was never in the squad. Who else?

leakyboots

Wales were absolutely ravaged by injuries and put up a much better showing than us in the WC in a tougher run

shuffol

Podge_irl wrote: »

O'Connell, O'Mahoney, O'Brien, Sexton, Payne is all you can realistically count.

Trimble as well, but he was never in the squad. Who else?

It think with Ruddock injured pre tournament as well we took a pretty heavy hit in the backrow and that was a problem.

The way things panned out with Sexton ruled out so late and ending up playing Madigan at 10 when he's probably the 4th best flyhalf we have to start a game. I think that's an issue that really needs sorting, we can't go into a meaningful game with Madigan starting at 10 in future.

former total

shuffol wrote: »

It think with Ruddock injured pre tournament as well we took a pretty heavy hit in the backrow and that was a problem.

The way things panned out with Sexton ruled out so late and ending up playing Madigan at 10 when he's probably the 4th best flyhalf we have to start a game. I think that's an issue that really needs sorting, we can't go into a meaningful game with Madigan starting at 10 in future.

It would have made absolutely no difference if Jackson had started that match. I don't particularly think Sexton would have made much difference either, the problems we had were not at out-half.

shuffol

shuffol wrote: »

It think with Ruddock injured pre tournament as well we took a pretty heavy hit in the backrow and that was a problem.

The way things panned out with Sexton ruled out so late and ending up playing Madigan at 10 when he's probably the 4th best flyhalf we have to start a game. I think that's an issue that really needs sorting, we can't go into a meaningful game with Madigan starting at 10 in future.

1 Sexton
2 Jackson (debatable)
3 ???
4 Madigan

Is he really fourth best?

CIARAN_BOYLE

Deleted User wrote: »

1 Sexton
2 Jackson (debatable)
3 ???
4 Madigan

Is he really fourth best?

Keatley started a 6 nations game ahead of him. Not sure I would agree myself.

shuffol

former total wrote: »

It would have made absolutely no difference if Jackson had started that match. I don't particularly think Sexton would have made much difference either, the problems we had were not at out-half.

I don't think we used the ball well in the game at all, it probably wouldn't have made a huge difference if we still leaked 43 points but Madigans ability in open play is the weakest of the 4 options we have at the moment.

Awesomeness

former total wrote: »

It would have made absolutely no difference if Jackson had started that match. I don't particularly think Sexton would have made much difference either, the problems we had were not at out-half.

For me the moment we lost that game was when Madigan went for a kick to the corner and hit it out on the full shortly after missing the chance to tie the game.

After that heads dropped

If sexton is on the pitch that doesnt happen

molloyjh

Podge_irl wrote: »

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.

It's not got to do with assumptions like that on my part. I've gone through before how and where I felt we lost the game. We play with a narrow defense. To ensure sides don't take advantage of that we have strong breakdown work to at least slow down opposition ball. We then have good defenders and good defensive leaders in midfield who are able to close off the wider channels when the ball does come out. That they have the extra second or two due to our breakdown work obviously helps.

Now look at who we lost. We lost 3 of our most aggressive players at the breakdown. POC wasn't a guy to be turning over ball but he regularly made a mess of opposition rucks. POM (while admittedly not at his best in that regard this RWC) has always been a real pest at the breakdown. And SOB on form is absolutely world class there. Our efforts at opposition breakdowns were massively hampered by losing those guys. And if you look at the opening 10-15 mins we just didn't have the impact there we needed to. In a lot of rucks we simply stood off. Even before the first try I was roaring at the TV about it.

We then lost 2 of our best defenders in midfield in Sexton and Payne, and more importantly our 2 best defensive leaders in that area. So we didn't have guys cutting off the wider channels the way we usually would have.

Both of these things allowed Argentina to get ball to the wings very quick and very clean. And that is where we lost the game. Because we were never going to come back from the deficit we allowed ourselves to accumulate in the opening quarter. What happened in the last 10 minutes put a gloss on the scoreline for Argentina as we tried ever more desperately to chase the game and tired in the process. The damage was done in the opening 12 minutes or so.

Throw POC, SOB and Sexton into the mix there and the Argentinians almost certainly wouldn't have gotten such handy possession. And without the early scores I don't believe, having watched them against Oz and SA, that they would have engineered a way to win the game.

phog wrote: »

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.

I don't disagree, but that's totally irrelevant to what I said.

leakyboots wrote: »

Wales were absolutely ravaged by injuries and put up a much better showing than us in the WC in a tougher run

Did they? They just about squeezed past England in a poor enough game. They lost to Australia despite having a 2 man advantage for 8 minutes. They then lost to a fairly average SA side. The other thing to note is that the Welsh back line was ravaged by injury, but their pack wasn't. That makes a huge difference.

Bridge93

Podge_irl wrote: »

O'Connell, O'Mahoney, O'Brien, Sexton, Payne is all you can realistically count.

Trimble as well, but he was never in the squad. Who else?

Bowie went down very early. Although that brought Fitzgerald on which if anything on the day was an improvement

connemara man

We lost the Argentina game when they came out and played the opening 20 minutes at an intensity no one expected blew us away and most teams would have struggled with to be honest.


After that it was always gonna be a struggle and if we had drawn with that penalty I think we would have gone onto win. Argentina were starting to get flustered and indiscipline was creeping in. But the miss gave them a lift.

sydthebeat

Awesomeness wrote: »

For me the moment we lost that game was when Madigan went for a kick to the corner and hit it out on the full shortly after missing the chance to tie the game.

After that heads dropped

If sexton is on the pitch that doesnt happen

didnt watch the scarlets game then?

former total

Awesomeness wrote: »

For me the moment we lost that game was when Madigan went for a kick to the corner and hit it out on the full shortly after missing the chance to tie the game.

After that heads dropped

If sexton is on the pitch that doesnt happen

If that happened, then the 14 guys who dropped their heads are to blame, not Madigan.

Sexton is a great player but error-free he is not. He's as likely to kick it out on the full as Madigan.

He's an easy target but blaming Madigan for the loss is a joke. Ireland just got beaten up by a much better team. The pack got minced. Other than Luke Fitz the backs created nothing.

Clearlier

connemara man wrote: »

We lost the Argentina game when they came out and played the opening 20 minutes at an intensity no one expected blew us away and most teams would have struggled with to be honest.
.

It was our intensity that was lacking not theirs that was high. I think that the emotion of the French game cost us a lot.

former total wrote: »

If that happened, then the 14 guys who dropped their heads are to blame, not Madigan.

Sexton is a great player but error-free he is not. He's as likely to kick it out on the full as Madigan.

Definitely not error free but Madigan isn't as good at kicking out of hand and is more likely to put one out on the full. He also did one against France IIRC.

Harley Uptight Light wrote: »

He's an easy target but blaming Madigan for the loss is a joke. Ireland just got beaten up by a much better team. The pack got minced. Other than Luke Fitz the backs created nothing.

Nobody seriously thinks that Madigan was the reason that we lost the game. A lack of intensity and the loss of 5 players to injury and suspension figure much higher up on the list.

Nobody serious thinks that the problem was with our attack either, 20 points would have been enough to win a large majority of our games over the last couple of years. The problem was in defence

former total

Clearlier wrote: »

Definitely not error free but Madigan isn't as good at kicking out of hand and is more likely to put one out on the full. He also did one against France IIRC.

That is absolutely 100% not my point. Madigan is very error-prone, everyone knows that.

The point I was arguing was that the other poster was saying we lost the game because Madigan kicked out on the full with what, 25 minutes to go? I was pointing out that this is utter nonsense.

Awesomeness

sydthebeat wrote: »

didnt watch the scarlets game then?

Yeah maybe wouldnt happen is wrong but I would have been more confident. I don't put the loss on that solely(or madigan)but there was a few of those moments that added together all contributed to the loss

A few more of our experienced players would have made a huge differnece

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

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

Wonder if the RFU would be interested in approaching Doak.

leakyboots

molloyjh wrote: »

Did they? They just about squeezed past England in a poor enough game. They lost to Australia despite having a 2 man advantage for 8 minutes. They then lost to a fairly average SA side. The other thing to note is that the Welsh back line was ravaged by injury, but their pack wasn't. That makes a huge difference.

I wouldn't sniff at beating England under any circumstances at Twickers, definitely not in a RWC. We squeezed a Six Nations on points difference.

They lost three of their backline during that game too, Scott Williams in particular. Halfpenny was a huge loss also just before the tourament. They lost Rhys Webb and Johnathan Davies too before the tournament. Wales were absolutely decimated behind the pack but still performed.

Utah_Saint

awec wrote: »

Wonder if the RFU would be interested in approaching Doak.

WarZ

Excuses about Ireland losing 5 players just doesn't wash when Wales performed better with the same injury crisis against MUCH better opposition. I'm sick of people making excuses for this bunch of overrated players.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

WarZ wrote: »

Excuses about Ireland losing 5 players just doesn't wash when Wales performed better with the same injury crisis against MUCH better opposition. I'm sick of people making excuses for this bunch of overrated players.

Why are people still having this conversation?

For what it's worth Wales lost their players over a longer period of time and they still had the majority of their leaders in the squad. It's a completely different situation.

jm08

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Why are people still having this conversation?

For what it's worth Wales lost their players over a longer period of time and they still had the majority of their leaders in the squad. It's a completely different situation.

Some poor selections though. Healy should not have started. Neither should Murphy. Henderson should have started at 6, with Ryan in the row with Toner. Dave Kearney was a poor selection as well with his lack of pace on the wing.

molloyjh

leakyboots wrote: »

I wouldn't sniff at beating England under any circumstances at Twickers, definitely not in a RWC. We squeezed a Six Nations on points difference.

They lost three of their backline during that game too, Scott Williams in particular. Halfpenny was a huge loss also just before the tourament. They lost Rhys Webb and Johnathan Davies too before the tournament. Wales were absolutely decimated behind the pack but still performed.

I wouldn't argue that they did well at all, but I wouldn't say they performed that much better than we did either.

molloyjh

WarZ wrote: »

Excuses about Ireland losing 5 players just doesn't wash when Wales performed better with the same injury crisis against MUCH better opposition. I'm sick of people making excuses for this bunch of overrated players.

But it wasn't the same injury crisis. And the injury crisis for Ireland only applies in the QF when Wales were not playing MUCH better opposition.

But don't let small things like facts, reality or perspective trouble you. It's not like you've bothered with them thus far.

WarZ

molloyjh wrote: »

But it wasn't the same injury crisis. And the injury crisis for Ireland only applies in the QF when Wales were not playing MUCH better opposition.

But don't let small things like facts, reality or perspective trouble you. It's not like you've bothered with them thus far.

Ireland were poor against Italy and shambolic against Argentina. They only looked decent against France a team that NZ put 60pts on.

The Irish team is completely overrated.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

WarZ wrote: »

Ireland were poor against Italy and shambolic against Argentina. They only looked decent against France a team that NZ put 60pts on.

The Irish team is completely overrated.

You're overrated.

leakyboots

WarZ wrote: »

Ireland were poor against Italy and shambolic against Argentina. They only looked decent against France a team that NZ put 60pts on.

The Irish team is completely overrated.

I don't think we're massively overrated, but I do think the coaches erred with their gameplan (had we any plan B apart from trust the system?) and the passive drift defence we seem to use so much.

Very interested to see where Schmidt goes from here.

CatFromHue

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

You're overrated.

being under rated is over rated

Zzippy

WarZ wrote: »

Excuses about Ireland losing 5 players just doesn't wash when Wales performed better with the same injury crisis against MUCH better opposition. I'm sick of people making excuses for this bunch of overrated players.

WarZ wrote: »

Ireland were poor against Italy and shambolic against Argentina. They only looked decent against France a team that NZ put 60pts on.

The Irish team is completely overrated.

Mod: We get it. Change the record or come up with something more original. Repeated posts saying the same thing is not constructive debate.

WarZ

Ok how about this? The Ireland team is not world class. The only decent team we have to play every year is Wales and we struggle to beat them. Even then Wales are behind the 4 nations. When we play good teams in completion like Argentina we got trashed. We win against the likes of England and Framce who are on downward spirals and we think we're world beaters. Similarly we beat SH sides that are playing away and experimenting and this inflates our opinions of the team. However at the end of the day there isn't really much between us, England, Wales (in fact Wales are better) and dare I say it, Italy and Scotland

WarZ

WarZ wrote: »

Ok how about this? The Ireland team is not world class. The only decent team we have to play every year is Wales and we struggle to beat them. Even then Wales are behind the 4 nations. When we play good teams in completion like Argentina we got trashed. We win against the likes of England and Framce who are on downward spirals and we think we're world beaters. Similarly we beat SH sides that are playing away and experimenting and this inflates our opinions of the team. However at the end of the day there isn't really much between us, England, Wales (in fact Wales are better) and dare I say it, Italy and Scotland

Considering I've received an infraction for this I'll try be more positive about anything Irish rugby related in future. I apologise to forum members as I wasn't aware this forum operated under guidelines to only be positive about the team. Once again sorry. I will try to post my critique on other rugby forums and leave this one for when I feel like praising the players and team

CatFromHue

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtVDDk7jodc

Some Yoke

Ireland must be the team they need to be to become the team they want to be

CMOTDibbler

WarZ wrote: »

Ok how about this? The Ireland team is not world class. The only decent team we have to play every year is Wales and we struggle to beat them. Even then Wales are behind the 4 nations. When we play good teams in completion like Argentina we got trashed. We win against the likes of England and Framce who are on downward spirals and we think we're world beaters. Similarly we beat SH sides that are playing away and experimenting and this inflates our opinions of the team. However at the end of the day there isn't really much between us, England, Wales (in fact Wales are better) and dare I say it, Italy and Scotland

Who's expecting us to be world class? In a team sport that's number three in the national pecking order with a fraction of the resources (financial and player) of the likes of England and France and we're supposed to be world class? As a team?

case885

CMOTDibbler wrote:

Who's expecting us to be world class? In a team sport that's number three in the national pecking order with a fraction of the resources (financial and player) of the likes of England and France and we're supposed to be world class? As a team?

Those resources have really stood to France and England just look at their world cup performances..

CMOTDibbler

case885 wrote: »

Those resources have really stood to France and England just look at their world cup performances..

I never said they were able to use them properly

England have no shortage of money as do France. They have no shortage of players, but the question is do England have enough players of the right standard?

France have more than enough players and PSA has played pretty much all of them without settling on an even semi-permanent squad.

In terms of professional teams, France and England have five times the player pool we do. If you were to subtract half of them for non-qualified players or sub-standard players, you'd still be looking at more than twice the resources in players alone.

We're looking for our depth in the provincial academies.

shootermacg

I'm a long time rugby fan from back in the days when a triple crown was the be all end all (and all we could look forward to ^ ^), if you'd have offered me a grand slam and 2 5/6 nations, I would have taken the hand off you.

A lot of celtic tiger cubs doing the moaning here take all that for granted, because of the Leinster and Munster success and grand slam etc.
Well you shouldn't bloody well take it for granted! Its been a long time coming! Enjoy the good times and take the bad times with a pinch of salt.

Sport is all ladders and slides. If you don't think the Irish team is worth following, then don't, no one is making you.

Winning isn't a prerequisite for me, the bad days make the good ones even sweeter.

Bridge93

WarZ wrote: »

Ireland were poor against Italy and shambolic against Argentina. They only looked decent against France a team that NZ put 60pts on.

The Irish team is completely overrated.

So you're going to call South Africa a much better team than Argentina, highlight Ireland's poor performances and then ignore the fact SA were sh**e in as many games as us and uninspiring in the others?

Eoin247

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I never said they were able to use them properly

England have no shortage of money as do France. They have no shortage of players, but the question is do England have enough players of the right standard?

France have more than enough players and PSA has played pretty much all of them without settling on an even semi-permanent squad.

In terms of professional teams, France and England have five times the player pool we do. If you were to subtract half of them for non-qualified players or sub-standard players, you'd still be looking at more than twice the resources in players alone.

We're looking for our depth in the provincial academies.

This is a great image to put into context the number of players each country has. It's mind blowing how many are in England compared to everywhere else.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yeSN53py7PI/TmXJ4UMiD1I/AAAAAAAAAgs/54kHw_zo9AY/s1600/IRB+Player+Numbers.jpg

Journeyman_1

Wow, that graphic really puts Georgias WC performance (and even recent form in the Nations Cup) into perspective as a really fantastic accomplishment. 878 Senior males puts them at the bottom of the ladder but they are punching above that.

mfceiling

WarZ wrote: »

Ok how about this? The Ireland team is not world class. The only decent team we have to play every year is Wales and we struggle to beat them. Even then Wales are behind the 4 nations. When we play good teams in completion like Argentina we got trashed. We win against the likes of England and Framce who are on downward spirals and we think we're world beaters. Similarly we beat SH sides that are playing away and experimenting and this inflates our opinions of the team. However at the end of the day there isn't really much between us, England, Wales (in fact Wales are better) and dare I say it, Italy and Scotland

Yeah Scotland and Italy are up there with us alright. How have they fared in the last 10 years in the 6N?

.ak

The idea that England are a poor team is laughable to be honest. Even France have the ability to beat the best.

Using the WC as a yardstick is extremely short sited and naive IMO.

errlloyd

Journeyman_1 wrote: »

Wow, that graphic really puts Georgias WC performance (and even recent form in the Nations Cup) into perspective as a really fantastic accomplishment. 878 Senior males puts them at the bottom of the ladder but they are punching above that.

The graphic doesn't count Georgians playing in France.

There are at least another 878 in the top 14, of which 813 are front row forwards, and only 6 are backs. #rugbyfacts

Journeyman_1

errlloyd wrote: »

The graphic doesn't count Georgians playing in France.

There are at least another 878 in the top 14, of which 813 are front row forwards, and only 6 are backs. #rugbyfacts

OH, well that makes sense!

CMOTDibbler

Journeyman_1 wrote: »

Wow, that graphic really puts Georgias WC performance (and even recent form in the Nations Cup) into perspective as a really fantastic accomplishment. 878 Senior males puts them at the bottom of the ladder but they are punching above that.

It does, but that graphic is four years old. A lot has changed in those four years. I suspect that a current graphic would show a lot more Georgian players.

But it certainly bears out my point. It also shows how much above their weight New Zealand and Australia punch. I notice that Argentina don't show up on that for some reason.

RuggieBear

shootermacg wrote: »

I'm a long time rugby fan from back in the days when a triple crown was the be all end all (and all we could look forward to ^ ^), if you'd have offered me a grand slam and 2 5/6 nations, I would have taken the hand off you.

A lot of celtic tiger cubs doing the moaning here take all that for granted, because of the Leinster and Munster success and grand slam etc.
Well you shouldn't bloody well take it for granted! Its been a long time coming! Enjoy the good times and take the bad times with a pinch of salt.

Sport is all ladders and slides. If you don't think the Irish team is worth following, then don't, no one is making you.

Winning isn't a prerequisite for me, the bad days make the good ones even sweeter.

my first international match was in 1992...oz beat us something like 45-12. in the following decade i went to nearly every 5 nations game in lansdowne rd (i think i only missed eng 93 ) and saw ireland win something like 2 or 3 five nations matches.

CMOTDibbler

There's a newer graphic on the world rugby site: worldrugby.org/development/player-numbers.

Can't link it obviously but you can use the above in your address bar. It's slightly different in that it doesn't separate out senior players, just registered players and total players. (I'm assuming total players includes minis and other non-registered players).

Some highlights (just registered players)

Nation|Players
England|340,347
France|291,202
Ireland|96,880
Italy|82,143
Wales|73,444
Scotland|49,305
Spain|30,531
Russia|23,800
Georgia|7,113
USA|110,385
Argentina|56,998
South Africa|342,316
Zimbabwe|22,865
Japan|107,673
Malaysia|50,103
Sri Lanka|47,071
Australia|230,663
New Zealand|148,483


Canada|26,883

I thought this was debunked before. Each nation has a different idea of what a registered player is. Ireland apparently count tag rugby players.