Ireland vs Japan

Burkie1203

Hastentoadd wrote: »

I think you see the point but fail to see the point. You suggest that we have many players down under and that is a given. You then point to all the up and coming players. And my point is that these up and coming players are so shackled into a process that they arrive at the same mundane outcome. You talk about the wins, so lets step through them. SA are currently at an alltime low, for us to be unable to win that series with the quality we have is in itself dreadful, we won against the ABs minus the majority of their starting players but it was a great win and I do not knock it, Australia we finished playing Marmion on the wing but they are so rubbish how could you honestly say that was a good win. And then we lose against Scotland and lose against Wales, so there was pride at stake against England. And this our year summed up. We lifted ourselves on a couple of occasions from our normal mediocrity. I would rather we lift our norm beyond mediocrity. I find it hard to believe this is possible with such a mundane gameplan.

Australia we had a makeshift backline for half the game and still won. Aus are far from rubbish. A year before we beat them they played a world cup final

We beat NZ who were missing a few players but far from the majority of their starting team. But so were Ireland missing a few players such as PoM and SoB who didnt play as they were just returning from injury. Two Lions this very day.

We beat SA in SA for the first time ever and lost the series after two close defeats. However after the rwc the SA players had a few months break. The Irish players went to SA having been on the go for over 11 months. It took its toll.

thebaz

Hastentoadd wrote: »

I think you see the point but fail to see the point. You suggest that we have many players down under and that is a given. You then point to all the up and coming players. And my point is that these up and coming players are so shackled into a process that they arrive at the same mundane outcome. You talk about the wins, so lets step through them. SA are currently at an alltime low, for us to be unable to win that series with the quality we have is in itself dreadful, we won against the ABs minus the majority of their starting players but it was a great win and I do not knock it, Australia we finished playing Marmion on the wing but they are so rubbish how could you honestly say that was a good win. And then we lose against Scotland and lose against Wales, so there was pride at stake against England. And this is our year summed up. We lifted ourselves on a couple of occasions from our normal mediocrity. I would rather we lift our norm beyond mediocrity. I find it hard to believe this is possible with such a mundane gameplan.

I fail to see your point - Rugby is a minority sport in Ireland and you snigger at achievements like beating the All Blacks - as I said go back 20 years if you want to see what unimaginative Irish rugby is or was . Irish rugby has never been in better shape. good luck.

Hastentoadd

Hastentoadd wrote: »

Iwe won against the ABs minus the majority of their starting players

This is just complete and utter fiction. You either don't know what you're talking about or do and you're simply lying to try prove a point. Either way - can't see any reason to take the rest of what you're saying seriously.

Jump_In_Jack

To be fair, watched the Ire V Jap match today and did get the feeling a lot of the passages of play were what could be called basic one-out running.
Some of Ireland's tries came from Japan's errors, rather than Ireland creating them.
It seemed like the Irish forwards and Marshall were able to pick holes every now and then which was ok, but seemed despite making decent breaks they were looking to create rucks very often instead of much off-loading.
For Ireland to make life easier for themselves it would be better to back the runner more and have someone willing to track the carrier so it becomes natural to expect a runner on your shoulder.
It is easier said than done, but no matter if we are using our first or second string, the ethos should be there to play the same way.
Wouldn't discourage the players though by criticising, they are punching well above their weight, but the next level is tantalisingly close!

Watching the all-blacks today, they seem to be abe to make one or two yards after they are tackled, I noticed their body positions, in particular their heads were bowed to chest height, which seemed to force the tackler to go low, which freed them to off-load or else just push one step more forward before going to ground.
Perhaps there's something there, even with one-out runners, which is inevitable at times, Ireland could get more go forward ball.
After that everything becomes easier- clearing the ruck and getting the backs running onto the ball with the defensive line retreating.
It's basic but it's fundamental to building the right tempo and pressure.

CMOTDibbler

Jeremias Cool Explosion wrote: »

This is just complete and utter fiction. You either don't know what you're talking about or do and you're simply lying to try prove a point. Either way - can't see any reason to take the rest of what you're saying seriously.

That's exactly where I stopped reading that post.

CMOTDibbler

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Watching the all-blacks today, they seem to be abe to make one or two yards after they are tackled, I noticed their body positions, in particular their heads were bowed to chest height, which seemed to force the tackler to go low, which freed them to off-load or else just push one step more forward before going to ground.
Perhaps there's something there, even with one-out runners, which is inevitable at times, Ireland could get more go forward ball.
After that everything becomes easier- clearing the ruck and getting the backs running onto the ball with the defensive line retreating.
It's basic but it's fundamental to building the right tempo and pressure.

They also seemed to pass two or three out from the ruck and then truck it up. I actually thought they were making headway because the Lions weren't pushing up in defence as they were against the Maori. A lot of static tackling getting driven back.

sydthebeat

We made silly easy yards in the first 30 minutes by keeping it tight to one out runners... Conan, Marshall and others were gain line breaking with ease.

connachta

sydthebeat wrote: »

We made silly easy yards in the first 30 minutes by keeping it tight to one out runners... Conan, Marshall and others were gain line breaking with ease.

Marshall is an uniniventive but effective player

CMOTDibbler

connachta wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nQr-2zcSGg

That was fun to watch, even if just for the little cartoons explaining the laws on knock-ons and penalties.

I assume there was text to explain them as well, otherwise there'd be a lot of apoplectic Japanese every time there was a tackle*.

*Thinking of the 'not rolling away' penalty cartoon here.

Squidgy Black

As I was watching that I could just think of one thing.

Someone holding a camera recording a TV screen was still better quality than an Eirsport broadcast.

CMOTDibbler

sydthebeat wrote: »

We made silly easy yards in the first 30 minutes by keeping it tight to one out runners... Conan, Marshall and others were gain line breaking with ease.

To be fair, when you're in the 22, it's counter-productive going wide whilst the defence is set. You just get pushed back phase after phase.

You mightn't make gain line in every phase, but you won't lose very much either. You see teams driven out of the 22 when they try to go wide too early. When you do go wide, you almost need to score immediately as it's very likely that you'll get turned over without the numbers to protect the ball.

molloyjh

Hastentoadd wrote: »

Not that young OldRio :-) but honestly I thought the Irish game was such terrible stuff. There was absolutely no inventiveness. I don't really know what Marmion was doing. It was just sideways pass and bang, over and over and over and yawn. It was so shockingly one dimensional you could teach anybody how to do it. Is this the future of Irish rugby? Is it so caught up in a process that there is nothing else? Today was a shocking indictment of how unimaginative Irish rugby is.

Did you watch that game in utter isolation of the entire tour or something? Did you watch in in utter isolation of the opposition? Because those 2 things being true are the only reasons I can think of for such an opinion tbh.

There were periods in the second half where I got frustrated with the way we were playing. But it was bloody hot out there and the end of a very long season for guys. I'll forgive a dodgy 20-30 mins at the arse end of the season in a game they had already won. The first half was a very pragmatic way of playing an opposition who were very aggressive with their line speed and who were as aggressive at ruck time. And it payed off with 4 tries.

I'm also not sure how you could be shocked that a game of complete tier 1 quality (the best team in the world playing the best of the NH excluding France) was of better quality than a game of very few tier 1 players. I mean, d'uh.

The purpose of this tour was to continue to develop our depth. People keep talking about how Ireland aren't consistent and can get themselves up for performances from time to time. The thing is that's hugely impacted by a lack of depth in the squad. Lose a few players and it has a disproportionate impact on the team. So developing depth is the exact way to address that issue. That's not always going to happen alongside mind blowing performances.

Squidgy Black

molloyjh wrote: »

Did you watch that game in utter isolation of the entire tour or something? Did you watch in in utter isolation of the opposition? Because those 2 things being true are the only reasons I can think of for such an opinion tbh.

There were periods in the second half where I got frustrated with the way we were playing. But it was bloody hot out there and the end of a very long season for guys. I'll forgive a dodgy 20-30 mins at the arse end of the season in a game they had already won. The first half was a very pragmatic way of playing an opposition who were very aggressive with their line speed and who were as aggressive at ruck time. And it payed off with 4 tries.

I'm also not sure how you could be shocked that a game of complete tier 1 quality (the best team in the world playing the best of the NH excluding France) was of better quality than a game of very few tier 1 players. I mean, d'uh.

The purpose of this tour was to continue to develop our depth. People keep talking about how Ireland aren't consistent and can get themselves up for performances from time to time. The thing is that's hugely impacted by a lack of depth in the squad. Lose a few players and it has a disproportionate impact on the team. So developing depth is the exact way to address that issue. That's not always going to happen alongside mind blowing performances.

This tour was probably the best in terms of developing depth and giving game time to second string players and blooding new players.

In the pack, Devin Toner was the only starter. Front row and back row consisted of second string and new guys. We got valuable game time for Marmion and Jackson, as well as McGrath. Ryan and Treadwell were introduced and made their mark. Stockdale put in big performances on the wing for a debutant.

typhoony

Hastentoadd wrote: »

Not that young OldRio :-) but honestly I thought the Irish game was such terrible stuff. There was absolutely no inventiveness. I don't really know what Marmion was doing. It was just sideways pass and bang, over and over and over and yawn. It was so shockingly one dimensional you could teach anybody how to do it. Is this the future of Irish rugby? Is it so caught up in a process that there is nothing else? Today was a shocking indictment of how unimaginative Irish rugby is.

it's Schmidts lack of imagination not Irish rugby

Former Former

The tour was a resounding success. Lots of new caps, especially in problem areas, dominant performances and lots of scores.

The only sour note was Carbery's ropey display against USA and subsequent injury. We're still not really sure where we stand at back up 10.

molloyjh

typhoony wrote: »

it's Schmidts lack of imagination not Irish rugby

Yeah that's definitely something Joe is known for A lack of imagination. I'm sure the coaches sit the players down every week and say "listen lads, don't mind any of that fancy stuff. One out runners into contact all day is the way to go". That's definitely how that works. :rolleyes:

I watched highlights of the three games last night and realistically the standard of opposition was somewhere between Zebre and Cardiff Blues, certainly nothing more than mid table pro12 if even that.

We didn't "learn" anything about any of the guys over there that we didn't already know from the pro12. James Ryan is probably the only exception as he has yet to grace the pro12 but his opponents in the JWC were probably of a higher calibre than USA at least.

What was learned and the purpose of the tour is for a bunch of lads to execute "system Joe" and only the coaching team know precisely what they were looking for there. For all we know they could well be disappointed with what they've seen on tour but hopefully they've been given some food for thought and selection headaches in the months ahead.

Talking about "winners and losers" on tour in this context probably doesn't matter much without knowing what Joe wanted to see from them. The only player you could say with some certainty had a poor tour was Carbery, who played well for the most part but made two significant blunders leading directly to scores and then got injured.

Otherwise it was an end of season reward for a lot of guys and an introduction to the setup for a bunch of lads who didn't really earn it but have shown pedigree that is being nurtured with 2019 firmly in the coaches minds.

Conan and Earls the Irish players of the tour with an honourable mention for Ruddock who worked his socks off and led well. Also huge credit to Jackson whose international kicking stats this season are impeccable if the commentators were correct on Saturday.

I also think we got through all three summer tour match threads without a single mod infraction. That must be some kind of record.

Sexton > ROG

ScrubsfanChris

Former Former wrote: »

The tour was a resounding success. Lots of new caps, especially in problem areas, dominant performances and lots of scores.
The only sour note was Carbery's ropey display against USA and subsequent injury. We're still not really sure where we stand at back up 10.

Plus 2 RWC votes in the bag presumably

thebaz

Former Former wrote: »

The tour was a resounding success. Lots of new caps, especially in problem areas, dominant performances and lots of scores.

The only sour note was Carbery's ropey display against USA and subsequent injury. We're still not really sure where we stand at back up 10.

would Jackson not be back up 10 - see Carberry more of a full back , from what I've seen.

Bazzo

thebaz wrote: »

would Jackson not be back up 10 - see Carberry more of a full back , from what I've seen.

Jackson is absolutely the back up 10. Carbery has talent but he's got a long way to go before he overtakes PJ.

irishbucsfan

I assume FF meant back up 10 in terms of who comes into the 23 if one of Jackson or Sexton are unavailable. Because there's absolutely no doubt who our 2nd choice is.

Erik Shin

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I assume FF meant back up 10 in terms of who comes into the 23 if one of Jackson or Sexton are unavailable. Because there's absolutely no doubt who our 2nd choice is.

Tyler B baby!

molloyjh

I think Japan were certainly a lot better on Saturday than they had been the previous week. They were in and around the level I'd expected from them. Their defensive line speed was strong and they were pretty aggressive in the tackle and at the ruck for large parts.

Overall the opposition was weak, but we knew that going into the tour. It makes it all the harder for guys who perform well as we'd expect them to in that situation. It also makes it harder for the guys who don't step up because they really should. Overall though it was a successful tour. We blooded guys in key positions like hooker, lock, scrum half and back three. I'm still a bit concerned about hooker and centre at the moment though. We've relatively few strong contenders there beyond our starters. Niall Scannell is probably going to overtake Cronin but beyond that we don't have huge depth at all really. Cronin is 31 so is no spring chicken. Tracy went okay at the weekend but didn't really stand out hugely. It's still relatively early in his development there though I suppose. And at centre I'm not sure we saw enough to suggest we have genuine options behind Henshaw and Ringrose. Rory Scannell suffered from being back up 10 after Carbery was injured to a degree and Marshall didn't really shine the way you'd have expected of someone with his experience, albeit he was much improved on Saturday over the US game.

On the positive side John Ryan is coming along nicely and with Porter behind him we seem well stocked at TH (what's the story with Bealham?). James Ryan looks the real deal from what little we've seen of him so far. I was very impressed. Treadwell was far quieter, but it's still early days for him too and I wouldn't be too worried there at all. Our back row has definitely shown the depth it has. Conan was outstanding at times but for me Ruddock was the most impressive over the 3 games. The guy was absolutely everywhere in every game. I thought McGrath showed that he could well put it up to Marmion for second choice which is exactly what we want to develop. Carbery was better overall than most made out I thought. Big errors from him, but at that age it's not something to get concerned about. The issues we saw are fixable. I liked what I saw from Stockdale. He didn't stand out as much on Saturday but didn't make any huge errors either. TOH for me had a bit of a mixed bag. Some really good bits, particularly against the US, but not great under the high ball and was very quiet at times. I thought Conway was pretty decent on Saturday too, with very limited chances to get involved.

Yeah at times in the second half in that final Test we did see a bit of crappy one out stuff that went nowhere, but at no stage did we ever come even remotely close to being under real pressure in terms of results. In a depth building exercise at the tail end of the season I'll take that, even considering the opposition.

Bazzo

molloyjh wrote: »

On the positive side John Ryan is coming along nicely and with Porter behind him we seem well stocked at TH (what's the story with Bealham?).

He came off injured after about 10 mins on the pitch in the first test against Japan.

molloyjh

Bazzo wrote: »

He came off injured after about 10 mins on the pitch in the first test against Japan.

Any word on the injury?

Bazzo

molloyjh wrote: »

Any word on the injury?

Nothing from the Ireland camp but he was down for a long time, tried to get up and went straight back down to one knee where he stayed until medical staff got to him. Saw someone in the match thread suggesting it might be a concussion.

Neil3030

I was a little disappointed to see the same sort of attacking strategy tbh - up-and-unders in our half, and then up the jumper once into Japanese territory. This simply isn't working for us against the better teams and it puts far too much workload and attrition on our forwards.

Neil3030

Neil3030 wrote: »

I was a little disappointed to see the same sort of attacking strategy tbh - up-and-unders in our half, and then up the jumper once into Japanese territory. This simply isn't working for us against the better teams and it puts far too much workload and attrition on our forwards.

Not to disagree but this is the bread and butter of most good teams. Sure the best have a lot more to them but as we've seen with the AB'S - get the basics right across the board and build from there.

molloyjh

Neil3030 wrote: »

I was a little disappointed to see the same sort of attacking strategy tbh - up-and-unders in our half, and then up the jumper once into Japanese territory. This simply isn't working for us against the better teams and it puts far too much workload and attrition on our forwards.

We played smart in the first half and that more direct game was the right approach. We just failed to execute it well enough in the second half. Tired bodies at the end of a long season wouldn't have helped there.

I also wouldn't be all that surprised to see us deliberately go to the more direct game for reasons other than winning the game. We'd had 2 training runs at that stage that we'd learned a fair bit from, but we hadn't learned how guys were going to stack up in a tighter battle. Maybe we wanted to see how guys adapted to those kinds of scenarios?

* Please note, the above is a wild stab in the dark to explain a very different approach in the 3rd Test to the previous 2.

Neil3030

molloyjh wrote: »

We played smart in the first half and that more direct game was the right approach. We just failed to execute it well enough in the second half. Tired bodies at the end of a long season wouldn't have helped there.

I also wouldn't be all that surprised to see us deliberately go to the more direct game for reasons other than winning the game. We'd had 2 training runs at that stage that we'd learned a fair bit from, but we hadn't learned how guys were going to stack up in a tighter battle. Maybe we wanted to see how guys adapted to those kinds of scenarios?

* Please note, the above is a wild stab in the dark to explain a very different approach in the 3rd Test to the previous 2.

What you say is entirely plausible, I can't argue with that logic. However it would mean that the attritional style will remain part of our MO, which I'm not entirely delighted about.

molloyjh

Neil3030 wrote: »

What you say is entirely plausible, I can't argue with that logic. However it would mean that the attritional style will remain part of our MO, which I'm not entirely delighted about.

It'll always have to be there to a degree, as it will with every team. Inside an opposition 22 you just don't have the space to play with that you have elsewhere and the only way to create it is to tie players down and drag them in. Look at the Lions game for example. NZs first try came from a quick tap after a series of one out runners had dragged the defence in. Every team does it.

Neil3030

molloyjh wrote: »

It'll always have to be there to a degree, as it will with every team. Inside an opposition 22 you just don't have the space to play with that you have elsewhere and the only way to create it is to tie players down and drag them in. Look at the Lions game for example. NZs first try came from a quick tap after a series of one out runners had dragged the defence in. Every team does it.

Indeed, many teams do it. However teams who score tries in this way in the 22 will crash it up to generate space out wide, and then back their finishers to use that space. With Ireland I feel it's far too risk averse - we keep crashing it, but never seem to to actively seek the space, instead looking to players who have support. We are terrified of turning the ball over, whereas I feel other teams look to score tries. The result is that we go through far more phases, with a far less proportional return.

RichieRich89

molloyjh wrote: »

I'm still a bit concerned about hooker and centre at the moment though. We've relatively few strong contenders there beyond our starters. Niall Scannell is probably going to overtake Cronin but beyond that we don't have huge depth at all really. Cronin is 31 so is no spring chicken. Tracy went okay at the weekend but didn't really stand out hugely. It's still relatively early in his development there though I suppose. And at centre I'm not sure we saw enough to suggest we have genuine options behind Henshaw and Ringrose. Rory Scannell suffered from being back up 10 after Carbery was injured to a degree and Marshall didn't really shine the way you'd have expected of someone with his experience, albeit he was much improved on Saturday over the US game.

Don't really agree about hookers. There's Best, Cronin, Scannell, Tracy and Heffernan. I think that's good quality and depth. McCartney will qualify soon, and Strauss and Herring could be options again if they can get back playing well. I'm happy with those options.

As regards centres, Aki qualifies soon. He can play 12 or 13. It'll be interesting to see whether he's brought into the fold on the Autumn, or whether they persist with developing O'Loughlin instead.

The position I think there's a bit of weakness in is loosehead prop. Kilcoyne doesn't convince, so the cupboard is still rather bare behind McGrath and Healy

Neil3030

RichieRich89 wrote: »

Don't really agree about hookers. There's Best, Cronin, Scannell, Tracy and Heffernan. I think that's good quality and depth. McCartney will qualify soon, and Strauss and Herring could be options again if they can get back playing well. I'm happy with those options.

As regards centres, Aki qualifies soon. He can play 12 or 13. It'll be interesting to see whether he's brought into the fold on the Autumn, or whether they persist with developing O'Loughlin instead.

The position I think there's a bit of weakness in is loosehead prop. Kilcoyne doesn't convince, so the cupboard is still rather bare behind McGrath and Healy

Joe picking Rory O'Loughlin over Bundee Aki... RIP Internet :pac:

Bazzo

Not to be smarmy or anything but as I suspected, I don't think Joe necessarily agrees with the (in my opinion) harsh criticism of Marmion that was going on in here, in fact he praised him in a post match interview:

Joe Schmidt wrote:

He really stepped up and led. Particularly defensively, he covered enormous amounts of ground.

Also getting some praise were players like Ringrose, Earls, Conan and a couple of others I can't remember off the top of my head.

molloyjh

Neil3030 wrote: »

Indeed, many teams do it. However teams who score tries in this way in the 22 will crash it up to generate space out wide, and then back their finishers to use that space. With Ireland I feel it's far too risk averse - we keep crashing it, but never seem to to actively seek the space, instead looking to players who have support. We are terrified of turning the ball over, whereas I feel other teams look to score tries. The result is that we go through far more phases, with a far less proportional return.

That's a hard one to call as on TV we don't get to see the full width of the pitch. So it's hard to know exactly where the issue is most of the time. Are we not tying defenders down enough? Are we not sucking them in? Are we not maintaining our own width? Do we have the guys capable of throwing the long balls too busy buried in rucks?

RichieRich89 wrote: »

Don't really agree about hookers. There's Best, Cronin, Scannell, Tracy and Heffernan. I think that's good quality and depth. McCartney will qualify soon, and Strauss and Herring could be options again if they can get back playing well. I'm happy with those options.

As regards centres, Aki qualifies soon. He can play 12 or 13. It'll be interesting to see whether he's brought into the fold on the Autumn, or whether they persist with developing O'Loughlin instead.

The position I think there's a bit of weakness in is loosehead prop. Kilcoyne doesn't convince, so the cupboard is still rather bare behind McGrath and Healy

In terms of ongoing depth Best is at the tail end of his career and won't be around much longer. Cronin is 31 himself so will probably make the RWC but that's about it. Tracy is a converted LH who is still a WIP. Strauss and Herring are reasonably decent back ups but are not guys (as things currently stand) that you'd feel completely comfortable with going into a RWC QF.

Aki still hasn't decided if he'll declare for Ireland, let alone get into the squad.

I do agree that LH is a slight concern all right.

bilston

Former Former wrote: »

We're still not really sure where we stand at back up 10.

Hmmm...keep trying...

RichieRich89

molloyjh wrote: »

That's a hard one to call as on TV we don't get to see the full width of the pitch. So it's hard to know exactly where the issue is most of the time. Are we not tying defenders down enough? Are we not sucking them in? Are we not maintaining our own width? Do we have the guys capable of throwing the long balls too busy buried in rucks?



In terms of ongoing depth Best is at the tail end of his career and won't be around much longer. Cronin is 31 himself so will probably make the RWC but that's about it. Tracy is a converted LH who is still a WIP. Strauss and Herring are reasonably decent back ups but are not guys (as things currently stand) that you'd feel completely comfortable with going into a RWC QF.

Aki still hasn't decided if he'll declare for Ireland, let alone get into the squad.

I do agree that LH is a slight concern all right.

Scannell and Tracy and Heffernan will hopefully have progressed in their development by the time Best and then Cronin are out of the picture, so it's not a bad dynamic. If everyone was at their peak at once then it would be more likely that you'd get four or five retiring within a short space of time

sydthebeat

Nucifora was right

Neil3030

molloyjh wrote: »

That's a hard one to call as on TV we don't get to see the full width of the pitch. So it's hard to know exactly where the issue is most of the time. Are we not tying defenders down enough? Are we not sucking them in? Are we not maintaining our own width? Do we have the guys capable of throwing the long balls too busy buried in rucks?

I'd happily defer to a Murray Kinsella type on this, but for me it's probably a combination of a few things - probably at the route of it all is our midfield's slight shortcomings in tying down defenders and moving the ball wide quickly. If we had this in spades, like the Sarries of this world, it wouldn't matter so much if the wide man gets isolated one-on-one, because the ball would reach the flanks in time for him to at least get around his man before being tackled, so defensive support have a longer route to run to stay onside. Our slower distribution and a relative lack of fixing would more often result in the wide man being tackled for a loss, meaning our lads are now all offside.

For this, I suspect our tactics are to play it safe, and keep a backline formation in attack that ensures a ball carrier will always have clear-out support never too far away. Basically our backs line up like forward pods, with maybe one straggler holding width, but they'll rarely see the ball given the length of the required pass (probably why we need to make hay with cross-kicks, e.g. Henshaw vs England).

I'd love to see us trust our fixing/passing, and also trusting players like Earls to back themselves to get around the last man. I don't know if you have the same impression as me, but when our phase play in the 22 pays off, it's more often then not a forward or Murray around the corner of a ruck. For teams like Wales and England, it's North/Watson in the corner. It'd be great if we could move towards this.

Hastentoadd

Bazzo wrote: »

Not to be smarmy or anything but as I suspected, I don't think Joe necessarily agrees with the (in my opinion) harsh criticism of Marmion that was going on in here, in fact he praised him in a post match interview

It was an opinion Bazzo. If you look at Marmion playing for his province there are two obvious differences as to how he plays for Ireland. One is the willingness to pick a ball and go. In fairness when McGrath was on the field he was doing that to great effect The other is to provide ball back into the pod. But here is where you would need Murray Kinsella to identify if Ireland use a pod system (I certainly can't see it) in which case it leads to one-out runners or hopeful kicks.

AbusesToilets

So with Ruddock and Conan being in such strong form, what do folks see the backrow make up being next season?

Neil3030

AbusesToilets wrote: »

So with Ruddock and Conan being in such strong form, what do folks see the backrow make up being next season?

Ruddock, VDF, Heaslip. #balance


Conan on the bench. #impact

:pac:

AbusesToilets

Neil3030 wrote: »

Ruddock, VDF, Heaslip. #balance


Conan on the bench. #impact

:pac:

It's pretty disgusting how many good options there are available.

Neil3030

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's pretty disgusting how many good options there are available.

All jokes aside it is a great situation to be in. I genuinely can't think of a single nailed on starter.

.ak

jordi Murphy, if he can bottle the form he had in Chicago, before his knee went, will have a lot to say about it too.

DGRulz

We have so many quality backrows coming through. Can we not start playing some of them at center and prop or just field a team of backrows?

DGRulz

DGRulz wrote: »

We have so many quality backrows coming through. Can we not start playing some of them at center and prop or just field a team of backrows?

We'll try and convert a bunch of them to hooker and they'll feck off and play for South Africa or something mad.

stephen_n

bilston wrote: »

Hmmm...keep trying...

Not to speak for FF but I assume he means back up to Sexton and Jackson.


Though I could be wrong.

Hastentoadd

Think what upset me most about the June Internationals was a bunch of young kids with loads of talent playing a methodology that is not very imaginative. I so wanted Marmion to pop it back to Jackson who would fling it wide, or back in the pocket again, to see exactly what we possibly could do. But instead we stuck to the routine. So all we learnt was who was willing to play the process or who wasn't. I feel we lost a huge opportunity to try new things. We had weak opposition. We were always going to win. The whole point is what we were going to learn. And I felt we learnt the process. And the process cannot be perfect without being perfected. But this tour was not about improving a process but instead imposing a process.