Ireland Fiji match thread

Buer

I thought McCloskey did exactly what was asked of him and did it well. He tidied up crap, slow ball and brought it back up to the gain line smartly as did Farrell at times although McCloskey was better.

They didn't have much chance given the barrell of muck that was being shovelled out to them a lot of the time. Marmion's passing was very slow. Carbery's running of the back line in general was pedestrian. He looked good when trying to make something happen in space but needs more time to get comfortable dealing with phase play where he looks really one dimensional and vulnerable.

Buer

Bazzo wrote: »

Um no. If it was a no, I would have said no.



There have been many incidents in the past year or two where a player comes down on his shoulder and the tackler is issued a yellow. As with many of these directives they seem to be strictly enforced for a short period of time followed by a gradual softening to the rules. Under the directive it is probably ared card but you would very rarely see that now and most people would call it a harsh red. The person I was responding to I think is arguing it's not a card at all?

I agree, was just grabbing an opportunity to talk bollix.

Burkie1203

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

He's a very decent third choice. I thought he was grand. Did you see how many times we were turned over at the breakdown? Our issues were the second row and the back row. Ruddock was grand. Conan got a couple of decent highlight reel moments, but we were getting taught a lesson at the rucks.

I thought McCloskey was decent. Think some of his stronger aspects of his game suffered as a result of the lack of familiarity with each other.

Farrell looks more of a 12 then a 13. Midfield tonight was a bit too much of the same.

Marmions game suffered because the breakdown work was awful. Wouldnt judge him too much on tonights game.

Conway really put his hand up the last few weeks.

uptherebels

Bazzo wrote: »

Um no. If it was a no, I would have said no.



There have been many incidents in the past year or two where a player comes down on his shoulder and the tackler is issued a yellow. As with many of these directives they seem to be strictly enforced for a short period of time followed by a gradual softening to the rules. Under the directive it is probably ared card but you would very rarely see that now and most people would call it a harsh red. The person I was responding to I think is arguing it's not a card at all?

No you mean you didn't say no because you would be admitting your wrong. The ref asked for replays saw the replays and decided the tackle warranted nothing more than a penalty. It doesn't matter that the to was hmmmmm awww. He wasn't asked to make a call on it.

The real mccoy 91

Buer wrote: »

I thought McCloskey did exactly what was asked of him and did it well. He tidied up crap, slow ball and brought it back up to the gain line smartly as did Farrell at times although McCloskey was better.

They didn't have much chance given the barrell of muck that was being shovelled out to them a lot of the time. Marmion's passing was very slow. Carbery's running of the back line in general was pedestrian. He looked good when trying to make something happen in space but needs more time to get comfortable dealing with phase play where he looks really one dimensional and vulnerable.

I think carberrys game management was very questionable it shows that we have Murray the best scrum half in the world and sexton who's in the top 3 fly halfs but behind them there is a huge drop and a worrying lack of depth atm

Bazzo

uptherebels wrote: »

No you mean you didn't say no because you would be admitting your wrong. The ref asked for replays saw the replays and decided the tackle warranted nothing more than a penalty. It doesn't matter that the to was hmmmmm awww. He wasn't asked to make a call on it.

The **** are you on about? You can stop speaking for me thanks, I'm perfectly capable.

Here's the directive Buer was talking about:

https://www.rugby.com.au/news/2016/02/10/irb-issues-statement-on-tip-or-spear-tackle

The International Rugby Board has issued a statement of clarification regarding the Tip or Spear tackle.

Law 10.4(j) reads: Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.

A directive was issued to all Unions and Match Officials in 2009 emphasizing the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance towards dangerous tackles and reiterating the following instructions for referees:

- The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)

- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)

- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient

Regular directives to Unions, Match Officials and Judicial Officers have been issued to reinforce the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance regarding dangerous tackles and the promotion of player welfare.

The policy was again reiterated to team officials at a Team Managers seminar in Auckland two weeks before the start of Rugby World Cup and during the Tournament and there have been a number of other Tip Tackle cases at Rugby World Cup 2011.

So actually in response to your question: yes, lifting a player's legs beyond the horizontal in a tackle is a clearly cardable offense.

tooManyChoices

Gotta say, if it was wrong, it was far from the worst bit of reffing I saw today.

uptherebels

Bazzo wrote: »

The **** are you on about? You can stop speaking for me thanks, I'm perfectly capable.

Here's the directive Buer was talking about:

https://www.rugby.com.au/news/2016/02/10/irb-issues-statement-on-tip-or-spear-tackle



So actually in response to your question: yes, lifting a player's legs beyond the horizontal in a tackle is a clearly cardable offense.

Did you actually read what you posted? Healy was neither dropped nor driven into the ground. Leaving the ref with a choice of yellow card OR penalty. Thanks for proving my point.

Hastentoadd

So today confirmed that you cannot change a team completely and expect the process to simply work. Every one of the players out there today are talented in their own right, but as a combined force they are not automatons that simply can follow a process. That takes time and effort and working together and playing together. So this game was a completely useless exercise. Nothing was learnt because nothing could be learnt

Bazzo

Haha, I haven't seen somebody trying to argue by sticking their fingers in their ears and going "LALALALALALALA I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT" since I was 5. Shouldn't have been hooked so easily I suppose. G'luck.

PhlegmyMoses

Was at the game. Thought Carbery went well and Marion was okay. The midfield was too pedestrian and all the good work was done out wide. Will have to watch the game from a TV perspective tomorrow because I was behind the posts, which is ****e for keeping up with the play IMO, but felt like the ruck was weak and the midfield were uninspiring.

Paul Smeenus

Buer wrote: »

I thought McCloskey did exactly what was asked of him and did it well. He tidied up crap, slow ball and brought it back up to the gain line smartly as did Farrell at times although McCloskey was better.

They didn't have much chance given the barrell of muck that was being shovelled out to them a lot of the time. Marmion's passing was very slow. Carbery's running of the back line in general was pedestrian. He looked good when trying to make something happen in space but needs more time to get comfortable dealing with phase play where he looks really one dimensional and vulnerable.

100%. Some great, really enjoyable bits if skill. As an outhalf, I thought he was outplayed by his opposite number, who was much smarter in the way that he managed a team of questionable organisation.

Hastentoadd

Bazzo wrote: »

Haha, I haven't seen somebody trying to argue by sticking their fingers in their ears and going "LALALALALALALA I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT" since I was 5. Shouldn't have been hooked so easily I suppose. G'luck.

exactly who are referring to in this post? or are you just having a general rant?

MJohnston

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Was at the game. Thought Carbery went well and Marion was okay. The midfield was too pedestrian and all the good work was done out wide. Will have to watch the game from a TV perspective tomorrow because I was behind the posts, which is ****e for keeping up with the play IMO, but felt like the ruck was weak and the midfield were uninspiring.

A good 80% of views in most stadiums are rubbish tbh

Burkie1203

Hastentoadd wrote: »

So today confirmed that you cannot change a team completely and expect the process to simply work. Every one of the players out there today are talented in their own right, but as a combined force they are not automatons that simply can follow a process. That takes time and effort and working together and playing together. So this game was a completely useless exercise. Nothing was learnt because nothing could be learnt

I would say when Joe watches the game back he will learn plenty about each player. He will find positives and negatives about each individual players performance.

You might think it was useless but Joe wont.

MJohnston

Burkie1203 wrote: »

I would say when Joe watches the game back he will learn plenty about each player. He will find positives and negatives about each individual players performance.

You might think it was useless but Joe wont.

I think it stood as a good proof that the idea that certain posters propagate - namely that we should be chopping and changing the starting lineup more radically, more often - is a really bad one.

MJohnston

MJohnston wrote: »

A good 80% of views in most stadiums are rubbish tbh

I've never had a bad view in the Aviva, I think it's great. Definitely going to have to watch highlights of the match, though.

Buer

Burkie1203 wrote: »

I would say when Joe watches the game back he will learn plenty about each player. He will find positives and negatives about each individual players performance.

You might think it was useless but Joe wont.

Exactly. Thinking nothing can be learned from today shows serious ignorance of the job of a selector and/or coach. There will be something learned about every single player who was on the field today and much more than we'll know unless we're willing to forensically watch the game and then have a video analyst break down every players performance through their own involvements.

clsmooth

Bazzo wrote: »

Marmion wasn't great, though I think he mixed the good with the bad, but I think the fact that he was left on for 77 minutes says enough about where Joe rates him.

I think that's just one of the things JS tends to do as opposed to how he rates him, keep one player back on the bench just in case someone goes down rather than empty the bench with 20 to go rather then get caught out. It usually tends to be the scrum half, hence Marmion having had so little game time in the past (besides being behind a key player)

Bazzo

clsmooth wrote: »

I think that's just one of the things JS tends to do as opposed to how he rates him, keep one player back on the bench just in case someone goes down rather than empty the bench with 20 to go rather then get caught out. It usually tends to be the scrum half, hence Marmion having had so little game time in the past (besides being behind a key player)

Maybe. Don't think Henshaw was brought on at all though.

Hastentoadd

Buer wrote: »

Exactly. Thinking nothing can be learned from today shows serious ignorance of the job of a selector and/or coach. There will be something learned about every single player who was on the field today and much more than we'll know unless we're willing to forensically watch the game and then have a video analyst break down every players performance through their own involvements.

And my point is that you cannot appraise one players performance in alienation of another players performance. So if the unit isn't a unit then the cogs performance is really irrelevant

Burkie1203

MJohnston wrote: »

I think it stood as a good proof that the idea that certain posters propagate - namely that we should be chopping and changing the starting lineup more radically, more often - is a really bad one.

I thought if we got the basics right early in the second half we would have added 2 or 3 tries so it was disappointing to not kick on and do that. We gave away a few penalties in good positions and had a few knock ons too. The intercept try gave Fiji belief.

Conway has showed he is very capable at this level. He is somewhere between RK and TOH in terms of what he offers. Sweetnam certainly doesn't look out of place either. I thought McCloskey went well. He made some mistakes (offload to touch and was turned over badly once or twice) but he also did plenty of good things but for many people if he isnt breaking the line and offloading then he isnt effective when thats just not the case

Joe is looking at these guys in the context of the starting XV last week. If the player wearing the same number last week had dropped out could you be trusted to slot in. Depth isnt about having a team of 2nd and 3rd choice players being able to perform against a top 10/12 side as a group. Its about slotting into the first choice XV.

Some players have shown that. Conan, Conway, Sweetnam especially.

clsmooth

Bazzo wrote: »

Maybe. Don't think Henshaw was brought on at all though.

Came on for Farrell after about 60 I think

Bazzo

clsmooth wrote: »

Came on for Farrell after about 60 I think

Ah yeah, sorry, you're right be did.

clsmooth

I thought Keatley did well when he came on. Nailed two important kicks and put in one great kick into the corner where the Fijian did very well to get a good clearance under pressure from 2 or 3 chasers.

clsmooth

Hastentoadd wrote: »

So today confirmed that you cannot change a team completely and expect the process to simply work. Every one of the players out there today are talented in their own right, but as a combined force they are not automatons that simply can follow a process. That takes time and effort and working together and playing together. So this game was a completely useless exercise. Nothing was learnt because nothing could be learnt

A bit like the Wolfhound games a few years ago where you'd get an exciting mix of young players and overlooked fan favourites and it'd always be a disappointng game.

Burkie1203

Hastentoadd wrote: »

And my point is that you cannot appraise one players performance in alienation of another players performance. So if the unit isn't a unit then the cogs performance is really irrelevant

But your not looking for them to perform with the unit they played with tonight. Your looking for guys to show enough to know they can slot into the "first" XV.

Marmion looked much better in his start v england because it was the best team he has every played rugby with. He was surrounded by the best players we could send out that day. A unit that was together for 7 weeks.

This isnt about building a 2nd/3rd choice squad to beat NZ. Its about having capable back up across the park to slot into that XV

Hastentoadd

Burkie1203 wrote: »

But your not looking for them to perform with the unit they played with tonight. Your looking for guys to show enough to know they can slot into the "first" XV.

Marmion looked much better in his start v england because it was the best team he has every played rugby with. He was surrounded by the best players we could send out that day. A unit that was together for 7 weeks.

This isnt about building a 2nd/3rd choice squad to beat NZ. Its about having capable back up across the park to slot into that XV

Lets just take your argument, for arguments sake. Now I think Ruddock and Conan are fantastic talents but they simply cannot perform within a structure that has no structure. How can they merit their inclusion when playing in such a fiasco of a team selection. They have to show they can integrate within a first team. How can they prove anything playing in such a squad selection that was put on show today.

irishman86

First third game ive enjoyed in a good while
Good to see the young lads coming through in what was a tough test, the mistakes shouldnt shock anyone will lads gelling but overall im sure Joe is happy with the outing

MJohnston

Basil3 wrote: »

I've never had a bad view in the Aviva, I think it's great. Definitely going to have to watch highlights of the match, though.

Yes, there's barely any spots in the Aviva where you can't see the pitch very clearly, but I'm just saying, the best spot for actually viewing most of what's going on is a slim sliver of the seating.

Burkie1203

Hastentoadd wrote: »

Lets just take your argument, for arguments sake. Now I think Ruddock and Conan are fantastic talents but they simply cannot perform within a structure that has no structure. How can they merit their inclusion when playing in such a fiasco of a team selection. They have to show they can integrate within a first team. How can they prove anything playing in such a squad selection that was put on show today.

But Joe wont see it as a fiasco selection. Just because you do doesn't mean Joe does. Joe will look beyond the errors etc and breakdown each players performance and the metrics he will use to judge them will not be the same dumb ones you use.

uptherebels

Bazzo wrote: »

Haha, I haven't seen somebody trying to argue by sticking their fingers in their ears and going "LALALALALALALA I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT" since I was 5. Shouldn't have been hooked so easily I suppose. G'luck.

First time I've ever seen someone scuttle their own arguement with their own source. Keep throwing the toys out. If you cry enough someone might take you seriously

Asus X540L

connachta wrote: »

Terrible game overall, very few brillance moments. I don't think many today have changed Joe's mind in his picking order.
Maybe Carbery, Healy, Ruddock. Dillane was solid too. Conway might come in for R.Kearney but I doubt it will happen.
Otherwise...

Terrible game?

Did you want Ireland to hockey them 51-3?
It was competitive all the way.

Great game imo.

Some amazing tries from both sides.

Hastentoadd

Burkie1203 wrote: »

But Joe wont see it as a fiasco selection. Just because you do doesn't mean Joe does. Joe will look beyond the errors etc and breakdown each players performance and the metrics he will use to judge them will not be the same dumb ones you use.

I am going to watch Pulp Fiction and give this argument up, There is no logic that you will subscribe to

Burkie1203

Hastentoadd wrote: »

I am going to watch Pulp Fiction and give this argument up, There is no logic that will subscribe to

You look at one game and that's all. You look at one player selection and that's all. You are either unwilling or incapable of looking at the bigger picture. The main reason is you just want a reason to criticize Joe Schmidt.

Its time for you to grow up really.

baas baa

For the Healy tip tackle I thought just a pen was fair enough. It looked to me like Dillane pushed Healys upper body down when he was lifted and thats what turned him past the horizontal.

Was surprised L.Mcgrath didnt get longer, his box kicking is far superior to Marmions IMO and that makes a big difference when your doing it 10 times a game.

I dont see much scope for changes from the SA game next week. Maybe in the back row. Wouldnt mind getting another look at McCloskey in a full side but with Aki needing games and Ringrose plus possibly Payne to come back in theres probably no real need to spend caps on McCloskey.

Hastentoadd

Burkie1203 wrote: »

You look at one game and that's all. You look at one player selection and that's all. You are either unwilling or incapable of looking at the bigger picture. The main reason is you just want a reason to criticize Joe Schmidt.

Its time for you to grow up really.

I said it before the game, I say it after the game but you simply are unable to hear

Don Kiddick

I miss the educated arguments I used have Ruth Venjur....well..I say educated

molloyjh

Am I the only one who doesn’t want to see Farrell in an Irish jersey ever again?

Zzippy

molloyjh wrote: »

Am I the only one who doesn’t want to see Farrell in an Irish jersey ever again?

I thought he was completely anonymous, seemed out of his depth, and the two centres were far too similar in style besides. Think he's been fast tracked into the squad on the basis of having played in France and very little else. If it took McCloskey this long to get back into the squad I can see Farrell not featuring again for a while.

MJohnston

molloyjh wrote: »

Am I the only one who doesn’t want to see Farrell in an Irish jersey ever again?

Barely saw him in an Irish jersey this evening tbh

Hastentoadd

molloyjh wrote: »

Am I the only one who doesn’t want to see Farrell in an Irish jersey ever again?

Molloyjh, that is really unfair. He could be great. What hope did he have. What did he have inside him. Big Stu, and what did he do. Nothing, So don't blame Farrell for McCloskey being utter ****e

MJohnston

Hastentoadd wrote: »

Molloyjh, that is really unfair. He could be great. What hope did he have. What did he have inside him. Big Stu, and what did he do. Nothing, So don't blame Farrell for McCloskey being utter ****e

McCloskey wasn't excellent or anything, but he was definitely more impressive than Farrell.

Dave_The_Sheep

... lads. It was his debut, ffs. He may not have been great, but let's keep a bit of perspective here.

pickarooney

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

... lads. It was his debut, ffs. He may not have been great, but let's keep a bit of perspective here.

Aki plays one game and is now the first name on the team sheet for the rest of his career. Farrell plays one game an should never be seen again. It might be worth giving players just a smidgin more time to prove themselves!

Burkie1203

molloyjh wrote: »

Am I the only one who doesn’t want to see Farrell in an Irish jersey ever again?

If all our centres are fit and available our options at 13 would be Ringrose, Payne, Henshaw, Aki with Marshall, Farrell fighting over 5th or 6th spot. Its not a midfield pairing I would like to see in a game v tier 1 opponents. They both look like 12s.

I wouldn't be jumping to conclusions on him after 1 game.

Burkie1203

Hastentoadd wrote: »

Molloyjh, that is really unfair. He could be great. What hope did he have. What did he have inside him. Big Stu, and what did he do. Nothing, So don't blame Farrell for McCloskey being utter ****e

I thought we couldnt learn anything from a "fiasco" like last night??????

Changed your tune

Burkie1203

Hastentoadd wrote: »

I said it before the game, I say it after the game but you simply are unable to hear

Its difficult to hear when all you say is just noise.

molloyjh

Burkie1203 wrote: »

molloyjh wrote: »

Am I the only one who doesn’t want to see Farrell in an Irish jersey ever again?

If all our centres are fit and available our options at 13 would be Ringrose, Payne, Henshaw, Aki with Marshall, Farrell fighting over 5th or 6th spot. Its not a midfield pairing I would like to see in a game v tier 1 opponents. They both look like 12s.

I wouldn't be jumping to conclusions on him after 1 game.

I’m not judging him on 1 game though. Based on everything I’ve seen of him I don’t think he should have been selected for the squad in the first place.

thomond2006

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Its difficult to hear when all you say is just noise.

It's difficult to not read when you keep quoting.