Women's Rugby World Cup - August 2017

irishbucsfan

gaius c wrote: »

I don't mean to come across so harsh on the players but the danger is that we'll blame everything on Tierney when there's other problems there too.

The other problems are up the chain. Not the players. Eddy and Nucifora.

sullivlo

gaius c wrote: »

Partly but don't 100% accept it. Physical conditioning was particularly poor for some players and that's not entirely down to coaches. Basic skills for most of the players were also poor.

Lack of backline attack and hit & miss lineout (to name just two things). That's at Tierney's door.

Players dropping simple catches, missing straightforward tackles and being gassed on 50 mins. That's on them. Look at the fluency Australia had when moving the ball in the backline. That's great handling ability and athleticism allied to decent coaching. We know the coaching was "sub par" but what about the hands and athleticism.

I don't mean to come across so harsh on the players but the danger is that we'll blame everything on Tierney when there's other problems there too.

BTW Sunday Times are reporting Tierney is off to the U20's next...

In terms of fitness/being gassed.

The team all had individual fitness plans tailored for them and their positions - weights, running, resistance, etc - based on what the management said. They were updated frequently by management.

The reason that they were gassed, IMO, was lack of match practice. The same situation as in 2007.

Hands - there were a lot of mistakes, but how much did the team train together in advance? Where was the fluidity in the back line? If you don't train beside someone, do you know what their preference or technique for passing and catching is? Whether they burst onto a ball? Whether they want a pop or a pass?

Defence - same thing. If you don't train with people can you really get to know their ability in defence? Will there be confusion in terms of positioning? Where they're meant to stand off different plays? How they'll adapt to quick turnovers?

The team wasn't ever decided upon. The best back row available to Ireland was Griffin, Molloy, Fitzpatrick, yet it was the third game before we saw it. Fitzpatrick is not a second row, why was this experimented in the World Cup? Why leave Spence on the bench, impact? Need to not be chasing the game without a plan A. Lyons came on yesterday at tight head prop - leaving a tight head prop on the bench. Leah can scrum, and the scrum did well with her at 3, but again, trust your players. Trying Sene at outhalf in a must-win game? There are numerous other incidents of team selection being baffling. How can players be comfortable in their gameplay when they don't have a clue what they're going to be doing from one game to the next?

gaius c

I'm trying to avoid making names here as we're talking about amateurs but some of the players were not in condition to play international rugby. When Simon Zebo turns out with an increasingly barrel chested physique, nobody blames his coaches for his deficiencies in conditioning. That's because he's a lazy so and so. In the same vein, questions need to be asked about the condition some of the players took to the field in.

Re handling skills, it was especially apparent with the number of kick offs that were dropped under no pressure from the opposition. This isn't metro division 9. At international level, 95% of uncontested kick offs should be caught.

Tackling. There were straight up tackles being missed where our player didn't even get a hand to theirs.

None of this invalidates your points re coaching. The selection in particular was a shambles but the danger on review is that the coaching deficiencies mask other deficiencies that need to be fixed as well.

gaius c

P.S. 2007 was quite different. Players were over-trained, fatigued and forwards were significantly underweight. Not really comparable to here.

irishbucsfan

I wonder what it is a strength and conditioning coach is supposed to take responsibility for... I always thought it was the strength and conditioning of the players but obviously not!

Stheno

gaius c wrote: »

I'm trying to avoid making names here as we're talking about amateurs but some of the players were not in condition to play international rugby. When Simon Zebo turns out with an increasingly barrel chested physique, nobody blames his coaches for his deficiencies in conditioning. That's because he's a lazy so and so. In the same vein, questions need to be asked about the condition some of the players took to the field in.

I thought some of our players looked quite unfit at times

sullivlo

gaius c wrote: »

I'm trying to avoid making names here as we're talking about amateurs but some of the players were not in condition to play international rugby. When Simon Zebo turns out with an increasingly barrel chested physique, nobody blames his coaches for his deficiencies in conditioning. That's because he's a lazy so and so. In the same vein, questions need to be asked about the condition some of the players took to the field in.

Re handling skills, it was especially apparent with the number of kick offs that were dropped under no pressure from the opposition. This isn't metro division 9. At international level, 95% of uncontested kick offs should be caught.

Tackling. There were straight up tackles being missed where our player didn't even get a hand to theirs.

None of this invalidates your points re coaching. The selection in particular was a shambles but the danger on review is that the coaching deficiencies mask other deficiencies that need to be fixed as well.

The conditioning was controlled by the IRFU. Not the players.

Ireland weren't the only team to drop re-starts. IIRC New Zealand had a dropped restart last night.

One on one tackles can be taken out of context. There's every possibility that the missed tackle was as a result of a system failure or missed position a phase or two back, and in last-player-back/one on one scenarios, it can come down to luck, a step or a bounce of a ball.

sullivlo

Stheno wrote: »

I thought some of our players looked quite unfit at times

I think it was a lack of match fitness that showed.

Stheno

sullivlo wrote: »

The conditioning was controlled by the IRFU. Not the players.

l.

Were they just given programmes to follow?

sullivlo

gaius c wrote: »

P.S. 2007 was quite different. Players were over-trained, fatigued and forwards were significantly underweight. Not really comparable to here.

The players have said that their conditioning was wrong and that they lacked match sharpness and match fitness and that they didn't train enough together: too much time in a gym, not enough time on the grass.

Edit: in 2007

sullivlo

Stheno wrote: »

Were they just given programmes to follow?

Yeah. Individually tailored. And nutrition plans too, also individually tailored. The IRFU had the responsibility for that.

gaius c

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I wonder what it is a strength and conditioning coach is supposed to take responsibility for... I always thought it was the strength and conditioning of the players but obviously not!

If they get the focus wrong, certainly but I don't believe for a second that any of the forwards were told to be at the world cup carrying tens of kilos of flab.

The backs looked too lean and lightweight in comparison to their opposite numbers. That's definitely one the S&C team have to answer for, albeit that it's been obvious for a while that our backs were lacking power.

And there's the basic skill/tackling deficit that you chose to ignore in my post.

First Up

Whatever about fitness, there is a giant gulf between the skill levels of the top sides and what Ireland showed. You didn't see uncontrolled scrum ball, sloppy rucking or passes thrown behind players from New Zealand, England or France. Maybe tiredness was a factor but we were sloppy from the start.

irishbucsfan

gaius c wrote: »

If they get the focus wrong, certainly but I don't believe for a second that any of the forwards were told to be at the world cup carrying tens of kilos of flab.

So they just tell players what they should do and leave them to it?

Obviously not. They are responsible for driving standards on an ongoing basis. But because the structure is not in place the coaching resources and structure is not in place to do that. Just because the players are amateurs it doesn't excuse the IRFU from being amateurish and semi-committed in their approach to women's rugby.

These are a lot of the same girls who beat the ferns in 2014. The changes have come off the field, Tierney/Eddy/Nucifora.

gaius c

sullivlo wrote: »

The conditioning was controlled by the IRFU. Not the players.

Ireland weren't the only team to drop re-starts. IIRC New Zealand had a dropped restart last night.

One on one tackles can be taken out of context. There's every possibility that the missed tackle was as a result of a system failure or missed position a phase or two back, and in last-player-back/one on one scenarios, it can come down to luck, a step or a bounce of a ball.

Did the IRFU really tell some players to be way overweight?

The restart problem was especially apparent in one game. I think all of them were dropped backwards thus not conceding a scrum but they were low pressure catches and should have been caught. It was not isolated.

After the first few missed tackles, I started looking at defensive alignments and positioning. Much of the time, the players were in a reasonable position to make the tackle but their basic technique was all wrong. That's not something they should have to be learning in international training.

gaius c

irishbucsfan wrote: »

These are a lot of the same girls who beat the ferns in 2014. The changes have come off the field, Tierney/Eddy/Nucifora.

Three years is a long time and other teams have improved significantly in that time, France in particular.

connemara man

gaius c wrote: »

Three years is a long time and other teams have improved significantly in that time, France in particular.

Same team that beat France in march

irishbucsfan

gaius c wrote: »

Three years is a long time and other teams have improved significantly in that time, France in particular.

As c_m said. We beat France in March. And it was a similar French side.

3 years is a long time, you're right, in that time we've gone from a well coached team who made the most of our strengths and kept ourselves playing in the correct area of the field to becoming a team who don't seem to have any method of winning the territory battle, who don't practice set pieces despite having a strong lineout and scrum and a whole list of other incredibly failures that are all directly the fault of the management. And what is more concerning is the fact that this guy is taking on the 20s after this, what on earth is Nucifora thinking.

gaius c

connemara man wrote: »

Same team that beat France in march

Indeed. And we were missing three players for that but France kept improving and we went backwards.

gaius c

irishbucsfan wrote: »

As c_m said. We beat France in March. And it was a similar French side.

3 years is a long time, you're right, in that time we've gone from a well coached team who made the most of our strengths and kept ourselves playing in the correct area of the field to becoming a team who don't seem to have any method of winning the territory battle, who don't practice set pieces despite having a strong lineout and scrum and a whole list of other incredibly failures that are all directly the fault of the management. And what is more concerning is the fact that this guy is taking on the 20s after this, what on earth is Nucifora thinking.

As I said earlier, none of those points are invalid but I'd seriously question players turning up to play in the shape they were in. Take a look at planet rugby and the thread on the WRWC. People from all nations were agog at the size of some of our forwards. If the players were instructed to turn up looking like NFL linesmen and the players didn't question that, they can't really apportion all the blame on the IRFU.

The backs S&C problem is different and 7's might be a factor there.

irishbucsfan

gaius c wrote: »

As I said earlier, none of those points are invalid but I'd seriously question players turning up to play in the shape they were in. Take a look at planet rugby and the thread on the WRWC. People from all nations were agog at the size of some of our forwards. If the players were instructed to turn up looking like NFL linesmen and the players didn't question that, they can't really apportion all the blame on the IRFU.

The backs S&C problem is different and 7's might be a factor there.

I think you're making it sound far far worse than it is. Its a massive overstatement, making it sound like this was all of our forwards. The vast majority of forwards were fine. There was one or two who aren't in shape.

It's miles and miles down the list of problems we have. We could easily have beaten France with the players in that condition if the supposedly professional coach was remotely close to the standard required.

CIARAN_BOYLE

To be honest any players gassed after 50 minutes is probably a response to having semi professional/amateur players.

irishbucsfan

Ailis Egan has retired as well. A great player for us, a shame to see her go.

gaius c

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

To be honest any players gassed after 50 minutes is probably a response to having semi professional/amateur players.

Playing against other amateurs?

molloyjh

gaius c wrote: »

irishbucsfan wrote: »

As c_m said. We beat France in March. And it was a similar French side.

3 years is a long time, you're right, in that time we've gone from a well coached team who made the most of our strengths and kept ourselves playing in the correct area of the field to becoming a team who don't seem to have any method of winning the territory battle, who don't practice set pieces despite having a strong lineout and scrum and a whole list of other incredibly failures that are all directly the fault of the management. And what is more concerning is the fact that this guy is taking on the 20s after this, what on earth is Nucifora thinking.

As I said earlier, none of those points are invalid but I'd seriously question players turning up to play in the shape they were in. Take a look at planet rugby and the thread on the WRWC. People from all nations were agog at the size of some of our forwards. If the players were instructed to turn up looking like NFL linesmen and the players didn't question that, they can't really apportion all the blame on the IRFU.

The backs S&C problem is different and 7's might be a factor there.

You are aware that these players are amateurs who have full time jobs outside of rugby? They have those commitments and have to follow a prescribed S&C programme from the IRFU. There are only so many hours in a day. Do you think they should ignore the programme the IRFU set out for them to follow their own based on what they think they should be? When do they do that? Especially when the IRFU are also asking them to do video analysis and come up with game plans and train etc.

You're being far too critical and you're not really taking into account the reality of an amateur sportspersons life.

gaius c

Other teams are largely amateur as well. England are the only fully/mostly Pro squad. French squad were missing three players who couldn't get off work.

Also the sevens players are not 100% amateur.

There's really no excuse for the conditioning of some of the players. If they were lean but unfit, you could blame the S&C program but if they haven't got lean in the first place, they won't be able to play top level rugby.

molloyjh

gaius c wrote: »

Other teams are largely amateur as well. England are the only fully/mostly Pro squad. French squad were missing three players who couldn't get off work.

Also the sevens players are not 100% amateur.

There's really no excuse for the conditioning of some of the players. If they were lean but unfit, you could blame the S&C program but if they haven't got lean in the first place, they won't be able to play top level rugby.

Other teams are largely amateur with full professional backing. That's exactly the issue O'Reilly is trying to highlight. A lack of a proper S&C will always have an impact. As will a lack of matches of any kind, especially matches at the required level. Asking the players to take on far more than any other Unions asks, while providing them even less, also has a major impact. The entire set up is wrong. That will show up in many different ways.

Braken

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Is tom Tierney taking over the mens u20 team?

What CV had Tierney coming in to the women's team?as far as I can recall he managed to get Garryowen relegated the season he was with them...

sullivlo

molloyjh wrote: »

Other teams are largely amateur with full professional backing. That's exactly the issue O'Reilly is trying to highlight. A lack of a proper S&C will always have an impact. As will a lack of matches of any kind, especially matches at the required level. Asking the players to take on far more than any other Unions asks, while providing them even less, also has a major impact. The entire set up is wrong. That will show up in many different ways.

I think he just wants to call the forwards fat.

Stheno

sullivlo wrote: »

I think he just wants to call the forwards fat.

In fairness a couple of the forwards looked downright obese, slow on their feet and incapable of playing 50 minutes let along 80. I was shocked at the state of some of the players.

Looking at their counterparts on other teams their was no comparison

That said in the six nations while the same players still looked overweight they performed better and appeared fitter

What went wrong in the months since? Popr management coupled with lack of motivation?

The Lost Sheep

Braken wrote:

What CV had Tierney coming in to the women's team?as far as I can recall he managed to get Garryowen relegated the season he was with them...

Coaches cork con and he wasn't fault Garryowen were relegated that season.... That was players at fault as well and he's done quite well in his other seasons with Garryowen in league any way....

Stheno

Stheno wrote: »

In fairness a couple of the forwards looked downright obese, slow on their feet and incapable of playing 50 minutes let along 80. I was shocked at the state of some of the players.

Looking at their counterparts on other teams their was no comparison

That said in the six nations while the same players still looked overweight they performed better and appeared fitter

What went wrong in the months since? Popr management coupled with lack of motivation?

I came up with another theory.

Badly fitting/ undersized shirts.

Im five eight and weigh none stone and look like ive been stuffed into my size small oreland womens jersey but in the male equivalent i look fine

sullivlo

Stheno wrote: »

I came up with another theory.

Badly fitting/ undersized shirts.

Im five eight and weigh none stone and look like ive been stuffed into my size small oreland womens jersey but in the male equivalent i look fine

I'm 5'8 (but not 9 stone). I bought one of the women's jerseys. I bought the biggest size they had (an 18) because I like my jersey baggy (I usually buy men's fit, these only came in women's) I would usually take a 14. The new jersey is very snug on me and very short. Like I've to wear a long vest under it because if I stretch I flash my tummy! The fit on the jersey isn't great.

Stheno

sullivlo wrote: »

I'm 5'8 (but not 9 stone). I bought one of the women's jerseys. I bought the biggest size they had (an 18) because I like my jersey baggy (I usually buy men's fit, these only came in women's) I would usually take a 14. The new jersey is very snug on me and very short. Like I've to wear a long vest under it because if I stretch I flash my tummy! The fit on the jersey isn't great.

Same here buying mens in future, i won a mens jersey at a gig and will wear that in future

Same to be said for the leinster jersey

pickarooney

gaius c wrote: »

As I said earlier, none of those points are invalid but I'd seriously question players turning up to play in the shape they were in. Take a look at planet rugby and the thread on the WRWC. People from all nations were agog at the size of some of our forwards. If the players were instructed to turn up looking like NFL linesmen and the players didn't question that, they can't really apportion all the blame on the IRFU.

The backs S&C problem is different and 7's might be a factor there.

Speaking of being out of shape, being amateur and making no improvements in years, are the good folks who run that forum familiar with being mobile or responsive?

robbiezero

Stheno wrote: »

In fairness a couple of the forwards looked downright obese, slow on their feet and incapable of playing 50 minutes let along 80. I was shocked at the state of some of the players.

Looking at their counterparts on other teams their was no comparison

That said in the six nations while the same players still looked overweight they performed better and appeared fitter

What went wrong in the months since? Popr management coupled with lack of motivation?

Which couple of the starting 15 v Wales was "downright obese"?

As for lack of motivation - hardly, they trained before work up to three times a week, and trained the same day after work for the guts of 3 years, you would want to be fairly motivated to be enduring that regime.

Larbre34

This debate has been had about male players too. If you were to calculate the BMI of 70% of the players on the pitch in a mens pro game, they would be classified obese, and so for that reason any sports medic will tell you that BMI is a pointless marker for rugby players.

As the same goes for the women players, some of the front rowers may look very hefty but if they werent hitting S&C markers and excellent cardiac fitness numbers, they wouldnt be next or near the squad.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Stheno wrote: »

In fairness a couple of the forwards looked downright obese, slow on their feet and incapable of playing 50 minutes let along 80. I was shocked at the state of some of the players.

Obese is a technical term. 80% of rugby players fit the definition of obese. Men and woman.

What's with the nit-picking over the term Obese? Obesity is excess adipose tissue (fat). If someone says that someone looks obese, it means that they look like they're carrying too much fat.....which it's clear that some players are.

Buer

If I may, I don't think Stheno was referencing the specific weight or BMI more using the word obese in it's more colloquial sense but I suspect most know that are are just being awkward. We all know BMI is a pointless metric for high level athletes. With those athletes though you can see they're obviously elite athletes and their weight is a result of gym work.

But, in terms of physical appearance, I do agree that a couple of the Irish players looked simply in bad shape. The weight they were carrying was very clearly not developed through training and, in that respect, I can understand the use of the term. Those one or two looked completely out of shape for competing at this level.

gaius c

pickarooney wrote: »

Speaking of being out of shape, being amateur and making no improvements in years, are the good folks who run that forum familiar with being mobile or responsive?

I'm not sure how that is relevant to the discussion. I brought it up in the context of posters from other countries commenting on the lack of conditioning for some of our players in comparison to other countries.

Talk of BMI and unflattering jerseys is beside the point. All top level players in rugby would probably qualify as overweight and a lot as obese. The difference is if that weight is lean muscle mass or puppy fat. There are sometimes advantages to some forwards carrying a small amount of extra body fat but for most players, these are offset by the obvious drawbacks re mobility.

Stheno

Buer wrote: »

If I may, I don't think Stheno was referencing the specific weight or BMI more using the word obese in it's more colloquial sense but I suspect most know that are are just being awkward. We all know BMI is a pointless metric for high level athletes. With those athletes though you can see they're obviously elite athletes and their weight is a result of gym work.

But, in terms of physical appearance, I do agree that a couple of the Irish players looked simply in bad shape. The weight they were carrying was very clearly not developed through training and, in that respect, I can understand the use of the term. Those one or two looked completely out of shape for competing at this level.

Thats exactly what i meant, another poster mentioned that s and c and fitness is heavily monitored so maybe ive been overly critical purely based on appearance

Buer

Stheno wrote:

Thats exactly what i meant, another poster mentioned that s and c and fitness is heavily monitored so maybe ive been overly critical purely based on appearance

You haven't. A couple of the players are clearly unfit looking at their mobility on the field and it's obvious they're carrying more fat than muscle.

Hastentoadd

Buer wrote: »

You haven't. A couple of the players are clearly unfit looking at their mobility on the field and it's obvious they're carrying more fat than muscle.

I think you say it as it is Buer. I hope folks agree. You can't move on unless folks accept what the problem is. Tom Tierney is an obvious target but there is no doubt that, no matter how much Irish women wanted to win, they were simply not mobile. And you can't blame a coach for that

sullivlo

Hastentoadd wrote: »

I think you say it as it is Buer. I hope folks agree. You can't move on unless folks accept what the problem is. Tom Tierney is an obvious target but there is no doubt that, no matter how much Irish women wanted to win, they were simply not mobile. And you can't blame a coach for that

I'm not looking to make a scapegoat out of Tierney, but I have to question what changed between the 6N and the WC. We beat both teams (France and Wales). I don't see much physical difference between the team.

There were major flaws in the preparation for the tournament. The team selection was mis-managed (too much chopping/changing). There didn't seem to be a game plan in place.

Things like that lie with the coach, IMO.

stephen_n

sullivlo wrote: »

There didn't seem to be a game plan in place.

Things like that lie with the coach, IMO.

Well if the interview with Ruth O'Reilly is accurate, there was no gameplan, or at the very least not one that the players had been informed of. Mind you if that was accurate, then the senior players should have taken more responsibility to change that.

molloyjh

stephen_n wrote: »

Well if the interview with Ruth O'Reilly is accurate, there was no gameplan, or at the very least not one that the players had been informed of. Mind you if that was accurate, then the senior players should have taken more responsibility to change that.

Wasn't she saying that they were asked to formulate one themselves while doing the video analysis too? I've honestly no idea how people spread out all over Ireland (and in England in some cases) are going to be able to do that effectively. Where would they get the time in between working, training, S&C etc? How do you coordinate it and pull it all together? And who takes charge of training sessions then to make sure everyone is on the same page? And if the players are doing that then what are the coaches getting paid for?

It all just sounds so completely f-ed up. There was no way the team were ever going to have a coherent approach if even half of what O'Reilly said was true.

shoutman

From watching each game, I thought it was very apparent that there was no game plan outside of one out runners...

The technique on display by some of the players was horrendous, tackle technique that you wouldn't see at under 13 C teams...

As disappointing as it is to say, it seems fairly clear that the women's game is not a priority within the IRFU. It would appear to me that it sits just below that of the All Ireland League...

I am not suggesting that nobody in the IRFU cares about the women's game, but more that the IRFU as a whole does not.


I also don't like the trend of Union's looking to focus their efforts on the 7's game as a way to attract players to the game. I think it will be counterproductive, and not lead to a larger uptake int he women's game.


Part of what's great about rugby is how it caters to such a variety of skillsets and body types, the 7's game is suited to very specific (athletic & fast) physiques. I do not believe it will help the women's game as a whole.

ThisRegard

Although I knew the result I only got to watching the final this evening. What a cracking game it was.

The Lost Sheep

shoutman wrote:

As disappointing as it is to say, it seems fairly clear that the women's game is not a priority within the IRFU. It would appear to me that it sits just below that of the All Ireland League...

I dont think women's game isn't a priority. And certainly isn't below AIl in eyes of union. They know how a successful women's game can bring women into sport who otherwise may never join the sport

shoutman wrote:

I am not suggesting that nobody in the IRFU cares about the women's game, but more that the IRFU as a whole does not.

when you say as a whole the don't care what more do you want?

shoutman wrote:

I also don't like the trend of Union's looking to focus their efforts on the 7's game as a way to attract players to the game. I think it will be counterproductive, and not lead to a larger uptake int he women's game.

why is that an issue? It's helped get higher level athletes into game easier than they would otherwise and that's a good thing.

shoutman wrote:

Part of what's great about rugby is how it caters to such a variety of skillsets and body types, the 7's game is suited to very specific (athletic & fast) physiques. I do not believe it will help the women's game as a whole.

7s has helped as some county gaa stars got attracted by chance of Olympic shot and having more options than just 15s is a good thing for the sport. The depth isn't there for specialising in 15s or 7s so women can play both