Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread VIII - ** MOD NOTE POST #4781 **

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

I took his meaning there to say that he isn't going to give away trade secrets, but he's sure they will write about them.

Generally IBF I think you're posts are brilliant, I'm sure I'm one of the top 10 posters to like your posts, but I think you are extremely blinkered on this issue to be honest.

I wish I could be on the side assuming the IRFU are right on this issue, but unfortunately that option isn't open to me.

I appreciate that's what you took him to mean, but in reality it's not important when listening in on a media briefing what you or I took him to mean. Thought they were smart ending it when they did. I'd love to have heard what the "Written Emargoed" briefing went like.

mangobob

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Given the current tensions, do you not think that maybe Schmidt challenging reporters to find out more about the Irish team on their own while also continuously reducing their access to the camp might be a bit inflammatory?

Not in the least. Telling an audience of reporters and analysts that 'we have made some important changes to how we play but I am not going to make our opponents job easier by highlighting them, so your challenge will be to tease them out yourselves' is hardly inflammatory behaviour. Its simply a statement of fact.

Furthermore, a good analyst should not need access to the camp to identify those changes, so I don't see the connection.

Former Former

Joe got very tetchy about a perfectly valid question. Cummiskey was very quick to highlight said tetchiness. Neither man covered himself in glory.

Let's move on.

irishbucsfan

mangobob wrote: »

Not in the least. Telling an audience of reporters and analysts that 'we have made some important changes to how we play but I am not going to make our opponents job easier by highlighting them, so your challenge will be to tease them out yourselves' is hardly inflammatory behaviour. Its simply a statement of fact.

Furthermore, a good analyst should not need access to the camp to identify those changes, so I don't see the connection.

This is not a briefing of analysts. That is not at all what it's supposed to be. This is a briefing of media, some of whom have never played or coached the game in their lives and cover many sports. This is the entire point of the briefing. Analysts do not need a media briefing, and indeed most don't attend. So when they ask a coach about tactics, they don't expect to have their question dismissed with a question straight back at them.

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

Joe got very tetchy about a perfectly valid question. Cummiskey was very quick to highlight said tetchiness. Neither man covered himself in glory.

Let's move on.

Very fair.

D14Rugby

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No. It's absolutely not what's called for.

Going over and over again down the throat of an opponent who are playing havoc with the ball on the ground, giving them chance after chance to wreck possession and slow you down. Please...

However they wanted to do it, whether it was putting the ball behind Thomas/Vakatawa or shifting the French tight 5 laterally to stop them having such a huge influence, they should have achieved it. Going back to the same place over and over again is absolutely what "what's called for" at any level unless you're doing it successfully.

I'm not even going to bother trying to explain to you why it was exactly what was called for, your clearly not interested in being told why you're wrong.

baaba maal

Buer wrote: »

Gatland looks like a character off Prisoner Cell Block H.

Literally the first thing I thought!

irishbucsfan

D14Rugby wrote: »

I'm not even going to bother trying to explain to you why it was exactly what was called for, your clearly not interested in being told why you're wrong.

I would love to hear you make an attempt at it.

mangobob

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'm not even saying Schmidt was wrong in his answer, at all, here. I think it's completely an understandable answer. But it's obvious why the media would want to highlight it. I can understand why Schmidt would get frustrated if his frames of reference are lightyears ahead of the media who are asking him, it's not at all going to be fun to have to mentally switch state from talking to professionals about extremely minute details to talking to lay people about generalities. But it's part of the job. The media aren't there to be PR men or cheerleaders, and its just weird to expect that they should be.

This is absolutely reasonable and I agree with all of it. However it seems to presuppose that Schmidt had an Eddie Jones moment or a Martin O'Neill style confrontation with the media. I never detected any of that. I felt his tone and body language throughout the whole conference was perfectly relaxed and calm. He answered all questions thoroughly and where he disagreed with the premise of a question he gave a polite, detailed and logical rebuttal. Having read Cummiskeys tweet before I saw the video, I had a very different impression of the tenor of Joes responses. I honestly suspect that may be deliberate.

Finally, I am not sure anyone here is expecting the media to be cheerleaders. I just expect accuracy and professional integrity from them.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This is not a briefing of analysts. That is not at all what it's supposed to be. This is a briefing of media, some of whom have never played or coached the game in their lives and cover many sports. This is the entire point of the briefing. Analysts do not need a media briefing, and indeed most don't attend. So when they ask a coach about tactics, they don't expect to have their question dismissed with a question straight back at them.

It doesn't really matter who the briefing was to, paper never refused ink. He's not going to give anything away before a game.

irishbucsfan

Madelynn Glamorous Range wrote: »

It doesn't really matter who the briefing was to, paper never refused ink. He's not going to give anything away before a game.

Oh absolutely, never suggested he would.

mangobob

Former Former wrote: »

Joe got very tetchy about a perfectly valid question. Cummiskey was very quick to highlight said tetchiness. Neither man covered himself in glory.

Let's move on.

Honestly if that's considered being tetchy then Martin O'Neills outburst must be reclassified to borderline homicidal. I honestly felt Joes responses were 100% professional, courteous and reasonable. For the life of me I cannot find anything worthy of being labelled "tetchy".

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This is not a briefing of analysts. That is not at all what it's supposed to be. This is a briefing of media, some of whom have never played or coached the game in their lives and cover many sports. This is the entire point of the briefing. Analysts do not need a media briefing, and indeed most don't attend. So when they ask a coach about tactics, they don't expect to have their question dismissed with a question straight back at them.

Except he didn't "dismiss" their question at all. Thats a distortion worth of Cummiskey lol.

Joe answered their question, in some depth and detail I might add. He politely and calmly rejected the premise of the question that they need to suddenly change how they play in the middle of a campaign that has seen them win both their games. He talked about the closeness of all the matches with Wales and how they could have easily gone either way which is why the win/loss statistic is somewhat misleading and why in his view we don't need any radical changes to be able to beat them. He discussed the impact of injuries to key personnel in some of those losses and he went on to state that we have in fact already made some changes to the how the team play over the last 2 years, but stated that he is obviously not going to reveal those changes before the world and its their challenge to figure it out. And he is absolutely right. Even if they are as clueless as you make out, its not Schimdts job to alleviate their ignorance at the expense of making our opponents job easier.

None of that could be remotely characterised as "dismissive".

Burkie1203

Buer wrote: »

Gatland looks like a character off Prisoner Cell Block H.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/2783979140/5ddaec40eb79d70f9bd7a8a6a57fe58e_400x400.jpeg

irishbucsfan

mangobob wrote: »

Honestly if that's considered being tetchy then Martin O'Neills outburst must be reclassified to borderline homicidal. I honestly felt Joes responses were 100% professional, courteous and reasonable. For the life of me I cannot find anything worthy of being labelled "tetchy".



Except he didn't "dismiss" their question at all. Thats a distortion worth of Cummiskey lol.

Joe answered their question, in some depth and detail I might add. He politely and calmly rejected the premise of the question that they need to suddenly change how they play in the middle of a campaign that has seen them win both their games. He talked about the closeness of all the matches with Wales and how they could have easily gone either way which is why the win/loss statistic is somewhat misleading and why in his view we don't need any radical changes to be able to beat them. He discussed the impact of injuries to key personnel in some of those losses and he went on to state that we have in fact already made some changes to the how the team play over the last 2 years, but stated that he is obviously not going to reveal those changes before the world and its their challenge to figure it out. And he is absolutely right. Even if they are as clueless as you make out, its not Schimdts job to alleviate their ignorance at the expense of making our opponents job easier.

None of that could be remotely characterised as "dismissive".

Joe was asked if he felt he needed to change much, he asked "What can you change? It's a game of rugby, some times we kick sometimes we run wide sometimes we run through the middle. If anyone tried to analyse what we do do there is a lot of variety in what we do..." and so on. He then went off on a very interesting tangent, but that was how he dismissed the question of whether or not he felt change was needed.

Anyway this has gone on way longer than this specific episode remotely warrants, it might have deserved a sideways glance at most, but definitely not multiple posts, so I'm sorry. This is not a major press v. Schmidt moment and it was never brought up to be that. What's far more important here is the idea that there's nothing Ireland could change, that's the reason it was brought up in the first place.

Try_harder

Team as expected by Joe. I trust his judgment so happy. What would be a good pub to watch the Calcutta Cup in after the match?

irishbucsfan

Try_harder wrote: »

Team as expected by Joe. I trust his judgment so happy. What would be a good pub to watch the Calcutta Cup in after the match?

Are you going to the match? If so I'd suggest walk back up towards Baggot's Street and catch it in Searsons, or one of those hives of scum and villainy.

D14Rugby

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I would love to hear you make an attempt at it.

They got a try that was more bad defense than anything else, take that out and its a 6 - 12 win in Paris, and as the linked stats show, we dominated the game.
If you've ever played with a new ball in the rain you'll know spinning it quickly wide through the hands isn't an option. As for the kicking in behind, that's just giving France's two biggest weapons the ball or at least giving them a line out, the way to beat France is use their two biggest weaknesses against them, fitness and discipline, to exploit fitness you've to move them about quick and often (not an option in the weather), so then you get to discipline and the easiest way to do that is go from ruck to ruck to ruck.

https://www.sixnationsrugby.com/matchcentre/live/france-v-ireland/#match-report

Yeah_Right

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Oh absolutely, never suggested he would.

I honestly don't understand your point of view at times. You're criticizing JS for dismissing a question about tactics but you're also saying he didn't need to answer it. I'm confused.


Also, in my opinion, any journo that asks a coach or player a question about tactics before a match deserves ridicule. And if they persist, they should be shot.

irishbucsfan

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I honestly don't understand your point of view at times. You're criticizing JS for dismissing a question about tactics but you're also saying he didn't need to answer it. I'm confused.


Also, in my opinion, any journo that asks a coach or player a question about tactics before a match deserves ridicule. And if they persist, they should be shot.

Not only did I not criticize Joe Schmidt for not answering a question about tactics, he wasn’t asked specifically about tactics. Your inability to understand my view may be assisted by reading it I guess.

prawnsambo

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Also, in my opinion, any journo that asks a coach or player a question about tactics before a match deserves ridicule. And if they persist, they should be shot.

A bit extreme, but gave me a chuckle anyway.

irishbucsfan

D14Rugby wrote: »

They got a try that was more bad defense than anything else, take that out and its a 6 - 12 win in Paris, and as the linked stats show, we dominated the game.
If you've ever played with a new ball in the rain you'll know spinning it quickly wide through the hands isn't an option. As for the kicking in behind, that's just giving France's two biggest weapons the ball or at least giving them a line out, the way to beat France is use their two biggest weaknesses against them, fitness and discipline, to exploit fitness you've to move them about quick and often (not an option in the weather), so then you get to discipline and the easiest way to do that is go from ruck to ruck to ruck.

https://www.sixnationsrugby.com/matchcentre/live/france-v-ireland/#match-report

As attempts to justify how a team with > 60% possession and territory should be happy with 0 tries and 0 linebreaks go, this is extremely disappointing. The match thread was better than this.

Try_harder

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Are you going to the match? If so I'd suggest walk back up towards Baggot's Street and catch it in Searsons, or one of those hives of scum and villainy.

Yeah but I’m heading for Hueston. Slattery’s or a pub nearer town?

D14Rugby

irishbucsfan wrote: »

As attempts to justify how a team with > 60% possession and territory should be happy with 0 tries and 0 linebreaks go, this is extremely disappointing. The match thread was better than this.

Because they weren't playing for linebreaks the majority of the time, they were playing for penalties and the hard yards.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Not only did I not criticize Joe Schmidt for not answering a question about tactics, he wasn’t asked specifically about tactics. Your inability to understand my view may be assisted by reading it I guess.

The question asked was specifically about tactics.

Yeah_Right

prawnsambo wrote: »

A bit extreme, but gave me a chuckle anyway.

I spent a few years working for a national newspaper (no I wasn't a paper boy 😆) Trust me it's a perfectly valid way of dealing with them.

Sorry lads, just realized this was the team thread not the RWI v Schmidt thread.

irishbucsfan

D14Rugby wrote: »

Because they weren't playing for linebreaks the majority of the time, they were playing for penalties and the hard yards.



The question asked was specifically about tactics.

The question was whether or not Joe felt changes needed to be made. OK, you could say that’s specifically about tactics but he wasn’t asking Joe to go into detail about tactics for this game specifically, just whether or not he felt changes were needed. Joe’s decision to talk about tactics in detail was entirely his own. He could easily have said “Were always looking to change things for the better”, thrown the mic at the floor, and walked out with his hands above his head.

Ireland weren’t playing for hard yards! What a meaningless idea! What you’ve said just makes little sense. 1. Passing is hard in the rain: True, certainly for amateurs, but it’s just a fairly meaningless fact. Especially for a coach from NZ. We dominated possession, we could have taken risks. 2. Kicking is risky: Ireland’s most important play in the entire game was a kick to over Vakatawa at a time when the slightest mistake would have been game over. There’s absolutely no reason Ireland could not have done more of that, and it would have created far more space for the midfield as the back three changes their shape to adapt. 3. France’s fitness is a weakness: Their tight 5 made 140+ tackles, we did a terrible job of taking advantage of this supposed lack of fitness if it exists.

The bottom line is our attack falters at times. It did against Wales last year and it did against France this year. It’s not heresy to point this out.

pickarooney

joseywhales wrote: »

Has anyone ever been out as long and returned to international rugby?
He is an example of determination.

Lionel Bauxis?

Yeah_Right

pickarooney wrote: »

Lionel Bauxis?

Fergus to come on (wearing a jersey that's too small ) score the winning try/DG and be forever known as the Paddy Beaver.

D14Rugby

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Ireland weren’t playing for hard yards! What a meaningless idea! What you’ve said just makes little sense. 1. Passing is hard in the rain: True, certainly for amateurs, but it’s just a fairly meaningless fact. Especially for a coach from NZ. We dominated possession, we could have taken risks. 2. Kicking is risky: Ireland’s most important play in the entire game was a kick to over Vakatawa at a time when the slightest mistake would have been game over. There’s absolutely no reason Ireland could not have done more of that, and it would have created far more space for the midfield as the back three changes their shape to adapt. 3. France’s fitness is a weakness: Their tight 5 made 140+ tackles, we did a terrible job of taking advantage of this supposed lack of fitness if it exists.

The bottom line is our attack falters at times. It did against Wales last year and it did against France this year. It’s not heresy to point this out.

1. It's difficult for everyone, science doesn't change based on the level of rugby you play at, its slightly easier for pros but not significantly.
We had that much possession because we didn't take risks.
2. The kick was possible because France were so tight due to what Ireland had done the previous 80 so they weren't expecting it.
3. Aerobic fitness is their problem, not anaerobic fitness.

It does falter but against France it didn't, it went to plan, no better, no worse

I just heard the Schmidt comments on the radio that Cummisky tweeted about earlier, he gave a perfectly reasonable answer. There's much more to it than given in the tweet.

mangobob

mangobob wrote: »

Ok I have just watched the video of the press conference and I have to say the tenor of Joes statement is completely different from that suggested by Cummiskeys tweet. His tone was in fact totally relaxed and I felt not defensive at all. He disagreed with the premise of the question, but he explained his reasoning calmly and in some depth.

He also was misquoted at the end. With respect to the differences in how we play from 2 years ago, he didn't say "I'm not going to explain them...that's your job" he said "I'm obviously not going to explain them...that's your guys challenge, I guess."

Subtle differences but it completely changes the interpretation. Sloppy journalism.

Just sitting down to watch this in full in case I missed it something in it. Here is the full coverage:

I'd encourage people to watch that and form an opinion. Then read this tweet and see if you think it is fair.

https://twitter.com/Cumoski/status/966672383791849473

IBF I know you feel a determined need to defend the print media but you don't need to worry here, this isn't journalism. It's something else.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

schmidt and the irfu have a relatively easy ride from all media.
But i have noticed since autumn some fair questioning of irelands tactics, which in itself is questioning schmidts job.
Add in the poor form against france, the poor finish against italy, rory best and grobler - and the media/experts have asked honest and fair questions of the irfu and schmidt.
And schmidt and the irfu have completely over reacted.
i am surprised by schmidt, usually he is well able for the media. if ireland lose 2 of the next 3 which is very possible he will find he needs the same media he has just declared war on at his side.
This championship just got real.

The Rape of Lucretia

irishbucsfan wrote: »

As attempts to justify how a team with > 60% possession and territory should be happy with 0 tries and 0 linebreaks go, this is extremely disappointing. The match thread was better than this.

Possession is a very powerful weapon even without tries or line breaks - the opposition is not scoring as long as you have the ball. The match is decided by points not tries or linebreaks. Winning with three-pointers is much better than losing with five-pointers.

We must take the sting out of this Welsh team, and frustrate them. 60% possession would be great. We must also waste as much time as possible (slow to lineouts, scrums, etc, reset scrums as much as possible, delay the play at rucks to the max, etc) , play as little as possible. The shorter, the real 'in play' time, which is the risk time, the better.

The offload is our enemy - I would not be surprised if the team is sent our with a "you'll never rugby in this town again" if you offload message from Joe. Zero risks. Zero mistakes. Give away zero penalties. And play the game infront of their 22. Win penalties. Maybe a drop. Secure the defensive line as the all over riding priority and shut them down at source as quickly as possible.

It will be tough. And will take a top performance of discipline, work rate, team work, and cool heads, to implement. But we can do it. Am looking forward to the Schmidt tactical masterclass that will unfold.

foxyladyxx

Marina Old-fashioned Locket wrote: »

schmidt and the irfu have a relatively easy ride from all media.
But i have noticed since autumn some fair questioning of irelands tactics, which in itself is questioning schmidts job.
Add in the poor form against france, the poor finish against italy, rory best and grobler - and the media/experts have asked honest and fair questions of the irfu and schmidt.
And schmidt and the irfu have completely over reacted.
i am surprised by schmidt, usually he is well able for the media. if ireland lose 2 of the next 3 which is very possible he will find he needs the same media he has just declared war on at his side.
This championship just got real.

Scmidt was prefectly reasonable in that video. .What more could he say?

jacothelad

joseywhales wrote: »

Has anyone ever been out as long and returned to international rugby?
He is an example of determination.

Tony O'Reilly. Seven year gap. Ireland's greatest ever wing.

The Rape of Lucretia

jacothelad wrote: »

Tony O'Reilly. Seven year gap. Ireland's greatest ever wing.

Prompting the line "Ireland recall Heinz Beans has bean".

Quint2010

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Prompting the line "Ireland recall Heinz Beans has bean".

Heinz Meanz Triez...

leakyboots

Cummiskey is a mouthpiece, even if he was right I'd still have no interest in listening to his opinion. I dunno, maybe it's the proliferation of online sports sites that rely on traffic passing through it by whatever means possible... or the general bite-sized way media is being consumed/provided, but the standard of journalism is definitely lowering.

There seems (or not, I've stayed well out of it to be honest) to be a bit of tension between Joe/IRFU and the media recently but even if there is or isn't, is it really that interesting anyway?

leakyboots

As for the game, I think Wales could do us.

penybont exile

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Possession is a very powerful weapon even without tries or line breaks - the opposition is not scoring as long as you have the ball. The match is decided by points not tries or linebreaks. Winning with three-pointers is much better than losing with five-pointers.

We must take the sting out of this Welsh team, and frustrate them. 60% possession would be great. We must also waste as much time as possible (slow to lineouts, scrums, etc, reset scrums as much as possible, delay the play at rucks to the max, etc) , play as little as possible. The shorter, the real 'in play' time, which is the risk time, the better.

The offload is our enemy - I would not be surprised if the team is sent our with a "you'll never rugby in this town again" if you offload message from Joe. Zero risks. Zero mistakes. Give away zero penalties. And play the game infront of their 22. Win penalties. Maybe a drop. Secure the defensive line as the all over riding priority and shut them down at source as quickly as possible.

It will be tough. And will take a top performance of discipline, work rate, team work, and cool heads, to implement. But we can do it. Am looking forward to the Schmidt tactical masterclass that will unfold.

Is this the template of a team with ambitions to win the next RWC ..... hardly.

prawnsambo

penybont exile wrote: »

Is this the template of a team with ambitions to win the next RWC ..... hardly.

Ahem. TRoL often gets that kind of response.

penybont exile

prawnsambo wrote: »

Ahem. TRoL often gets that kind of response.

Seriously though .... you'd swear you were playing NZ on Saturday not Wales by some of the stuff I've been reading and hearing over the last few days.

Ireland .... 3rd best team in the world (as the media here are ever so quick to remind us all) ..... @ home ...... best half backs in the world (as we are also constantly reminded of) .... best coach in the world (ditto .... the constantly reminded of bit) ........ up against a team minus 3 lions test starters (plus another on the bench) who are rated the nth best in the world. You are all way too twitchy .... surely it's home win.


BTW .... is it me or is Joe feeling the heat a little?

Zzippy

penybont exile wrote: »

Seriously though .... you'd swear you were playing NZ on Saturday not Wales by some of the stuff I've been reading and hearing over the last few days.

Ireland .... 3rd best team in the world (as the media here are ever so quick to remind us all) ..... @ home ...... best half backs in the world (as we are also constantly reminded of) .... best coach in the world (ditto .... the constantly reminded of bit) ........ up against a team minus 3 lions test starters (plus another on the bench) who are rated the nth best in the world. You are all way too twitchy .... surely it's home win.


BTW .... is it me or is Joe feeling the heat a little?

Furlong, SOB, Henderson, Heaslip, Henshaw, Payne. You're not the only ones missing a few Lions

sydthebeat

Slightly out there but would anyone know a good place to watch this game in Reykjavik by any chance??
The only Irish pub in keflavik said there's no chance he's having it there.... Go figure

joseywhales

penybont exile wrote: »

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Possession is a very powerful weapon even without tries or line breaks - the opposition is not scoring as long as you have the ball. The match is decided by points not tries or linebreaks. Winning with three-pointers is much better than losing with five-pointers.

We must take the sting out of this Welsh team, and frustrate them. 60% possession would be great. We must also waste as much time as possible (slow to lineouts, scrums, etc, reset scrums as much as possible, delay the play at rucks to the max, etc) , play as little as possible. The shorter, the real 'in play' time, which is the risk time, the better.

The offload is our enemy - I would not be surprised if the team is sent our with a "you'll never rugby in this town again" if you offload message from Joe. Zero risks. Zero mistakes. Give away zero penalties. And play the game infront of their 22. Win penalties. Maybe a drop. Secure the defensive line as the all over riding priority and shut them down at source as quickly as possible.

It will be tough. And will take a top performance of discipline, work rate, team work, and cool heads, to implement. But we can do it. Am looking forward to the Schmidt tactical masterclass that will unfold.

Is this the template of a team with ambitions to win the next RWC ..... hardly.

I know its sarcasm but some of that strategy seemed to win a couple of world cups for SA and England

penybont exile

joseywhales wrote: »

I know its sarcasm but some of that strategy seemed to win a couple of world cups for SA and England

Agreed .... though it was complemented with a mighty pack and a slice of luck in avoiding NZ in both instances ....

penybont exile

Zzippy wrote: »

Furlong, SOB, Henderson, Heaslip, Henshaw, Payne. You're not the only ones missing a few Lions

Acknowledged ..... though I suspect I'd beat you in missing 'king of the savannah' top trumps .....:)

Neil3030

I fear Chris Farrell will be used in a similar way corpses used to be catapulted over the walls of besieged mid-evil towns to spread plague.

swiwi_

pickarooney wrote: »

https://www.instagram.com/p/BfeDNpslbli/

I think I have 7 or 8

Deleted User wrote: »

Sigh. Unzips.

You needed to take a leak after seeing that

irishbucsfan

D14Rugby wrote: »

It does falter but against France it didn't, it went to plan, no better, no worse

I don't think there's any way to reconcile with someone who thinks our attacking game went to plan against France. This is a situation where someone is adapting their own expectations to make them fit in with their opinion of their team, rather than the other way around.

Scythica

Its funny, if you go on scrum5 or whatnot forums you'll see the Welsh think the exact same as us except the other way around. This fixture is possibly unique in rugby in the fact that home advantage seems to mean absolutely naff all