Ireland v Waltzing Matilda, test 1 build up thread.

shootermacg

shootermacg wrote: »

Not puzzled at all really. I'm kind of puzzled as to why you aren't attacking Sexton for handing momentum back to Australia at a key moment in a match we were winning? I'm kind of puzzled why you haven't had a go at Aki for his knock-on at the 5M line, or Henshaw's shooting out of the line. Or our kicking away good chances. But maybe that's next on your list.

All those things are perfectly valid points. I have commented on a few of them in fact. But I'm not going to have a little whinge and little cry and tell you to stop talking about them.

shootermacg

Ok see you next week. All that's left at this stage is pedantry.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Bridge93 wrote: »

I don't see where this 'he probably grounded it' is coming from. DHP was clearly under it initially. When he shifted it looks like Folau gets under it too. It's at best 50/50 and no way in hell can be proven either way

There seemed to be far fewer camera angles over there than we get in the 6N

baas baa

shootermacg wrote: »

Enjoying Andy Dunne on Off the Ball:

I'd be of the same opinion, I won't lose any sleep over losing the series, but I'd love to see Joey start another game. Sexton was an absolute choker in his first few starts for Ireland.

Aside from the fact your wrong about Sexton why use language like that which you know is going to provoke a reaction, and then throw a hissy over people criticizing Stander for blowing a guaranteed 7 points. Cop on.

baas baa

baas baa wrote: »

Aside from the fact your wrong about Sexton why use language like that which you know is going to provoke a reaction, and then throw a hissy over people criticizing Stander for blowing a guaranteed 7 points. Cop on.

Didn't realise that was the same poster. Well there you go.

joseywhales

I had a good go at Sexton, that kick was criminal, I believe the most impactful mistake in the game and carbery had done it we would be saying he is not ready. There was plenty of individual errors though. I wouldn't be harsh on Stockdale slicing the kick out of play though, correct decsion that he should make again just bad execution.

Burkie1203

joseywhales wrote: »

I had a good go at Sexton, that kick was criminal, I believe the most impactful mistake in the game and carbery had done it we would be saying he is not ready. There was plenty of individual errors though. I wouldn't be harsh on Stockdale slicing the kick out of play though, correct decsion that he should make again just bad execution.

Sorry but Stander not grounding the ball is every bit as poor as sexton missing touch, if not moreso. There was no guarantee of anything off the lineout.

joseywhales

Burkie1203 wrote: »

joseywhales wrote: »

I had a good go at Sexton, that kick was criminal, I believe the most impactful mistake in the game and carbery had done it we would be saying he is not ready. There was plenty of individual errors though. I wouldn't be harsh on Stockdale slicing the kick out of play though, correct decsion that he should make again just bad execution.

Sorry but Stander not grounding the ball is every bit as poor as sexton missing touch, if not moreso. There was no guarantee of anything off the lineout.

There was a garaunteed 5m scrum from not grounding the ball and a >50% chance of scoring a try by going for the line. Very easy to kick the ball over the touchline. We had a perfect lineout, we didn't even need a score from it,we were leading, the possession and pressure would have been enough.

Buer

Missing touch was a shocker. It's up there with Henshaw shooting and missing and Kearney spilling a ball unchallenged.

They're mistakes that players of their quality should not be making.

The failure to ground was not good but it isn't on the same level. It was good play not finished. It wasn't a totally unforced error.

Deusexmachina

I thought Andy Dunne's analysis was very balanced and insightful. Its a welcome change from the bland and inane stuff we get from many former players who are now pundits.
He praised the good stuff and pointed out areas for improvement. He again pointed out our lack of innovation - particularly in their 22. And he rightly suggests we need to stop relying on wrap around plays which have been done to death.
His point about Stockdale was interesting. I looked back at the match and he is right, Stockdale kicked away nearly every runn
ing opportunity given to him.
Anyway, excellent analysis.

First Up

A bit harsh to blame Stockdale when those inside him created no space. The Leinster 10-12-13 do it ten times a game. Put Aki in the middle of it and you get biff bash and little else.

shootermacg

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Sorry but Stander not grounding the ball is every bit as poor as sexton missing touch, if not moreso. There was no guarantee of anything off the lineout.

Just out of interest who was this support runner that would have provided an easy target for CJ to pass to?

First Up

Burkie1203 wrote: »

joseywhales wrote: »

I had a good go at Sexton, that kick was criminal, I believe the most impactful mistake in the game and carbery had done it we would be saying he is not ready. There was plenty of individual errors though. I wouldn't be harsh on Stockdale slicing the kick out of play though, correct decsion that he should make again just bad execution.

Sorry but Stander not grounding the ball is every bit as poor as sexton missing touch, if not moreso. There was no guarantee of anything off the lineout.

It might have been as crucial but the degrees of difficulty are hardly comparable. Was anyone tackling Sexton when he failed to find touch?

shootermacg

First Up wrote: »

It might have been as crucial but the degrees of difficulty are hardly comparable. Was anyone tackling Sexton when he failed to find touch?

The very fact that Burkie1203 thinks this is very insightful, so I wouldn't bother

Deusexmachina

First Up wrote: »

A bit harsh to blame Stockdale when those inside him created no space. The Leinster 10-12-13 do it ten times a game. Put Aki in the middle of it and you get biff bash and little else.

Stockdale kicked away his possession numerous times to no good effect.

Buer

First Up wrote: »

A bit harsh to blame Stockdale when those inside him created no space. The Leinster 10-12-13 do it ten times a game. Put Aki in the middle of it and you get biff bash and little else.

We got the ball wide a number of times but used it poorly once there. The one blatant time we failed to get it wide when there was a clear chance was when Aki was turned over for the disallowed try.

If he moves that, I reckon we're into their 22. It was a 2 on 1 with DHP also deep in cover defence.

But our wingers got their hands on the ball a number of times in promising positions otherwise.

shootermacg

What were peoples impressions of larmour. I thought he was a bit meh myself. Nothing to cry about, but I wouldn't have him in instead of Kearney.
He's a little on the short side and I could see teams targeting him all day under the highball.

Dog Botherer

shootermacg wrote: »

What were peoples impressions of larmour. I thought he was a bit meh myself. Nothing to cry about, but I wouldn't have him in instead of Kearney.
He's a little on the short side and I could see teams targeting him all day under the highball.

I thought he did very little wrong. He made a lot of good tackles and despite his size was a real handful for defenders. Often stepped out of the first resulting in a couple of defenders having to commit to the cleanup tackle. Also stripped a ball in contact when Australia were looking dangerous. Seem to recall him doing something similar in a 6 Nations game.

I think he doesn't get anywhere near the same amount of space at international level as he does at lower levels and as a result we don't get the same jaw-dropping runs as we do when he's with Leinster. But unlike a lot of those talented runners (Christian Wade comes to mind) he seems to have the all round game to make up for it.

clsmooth

shootermacg wrote: »

What were peoples impressions of larmour. I thought he was a bit meh myself. Nothing to cry about, but I wouldn't have him in instead of Kearney.
He's a little on the short side and I could see teams targeting him all day under the highball.

I seem to remember him making one great tackle and turnover when he came on in the first half and nearly getting away when a kick was put through in their 22 where he gathered beautifully but lost it when recycling it. Apart from that, thought he was very solid. As Buer said, the one real chance he would have had was when Aki got turned over for their disallowed try. All about letting him get some experience and I can see him coming back even better next year like Ringrose after his breakthrough season when he filled out. Wouldn’t drop Kearney for him any time soon as I suspect he’d be found out positionally at this (highest) level, but he’s doing everything right at the moment. Just don’t expect him to be score from 50m every week.

Jump_In_Jack

shootermacg wrote: »

What were peoples impressions of larmour. I thought he was a bit meh myself. Nothing to cry about, but I wouldn't have him in instead of Kearney.
He's a little on the short side and I could see teams targeting him all day under the highball.

The one very poor moment I remember was when Australia scored on his wing,
Leading up to the try, the defensive line was fanned out, then Henshaw rushed up on Henderson’s man and the man got the ball away, then Henderson had to cover across and got side-stepped infield, the ball went wide and the cover tackle brought him down about 5 meters infield and a ruck formed,
This was the crucial moment,
Larmour came off his wing to cover the line as Australia attacked, but once the tackle was made he stayed there and turned his back to his wing, and got held by the Australian player clearing the ruck, and then Australia took advantage of the space to score.
Kearney should have covered over quicker and he made a last ditch effort but the damage was done in the few soconds where Larmour went out of position.
To be fair it was a scramble defense but Kearney and Larmour should have had a better understanding between them to cover the space as soon as the ball went to ground, and it was more Larmour’s fault as he was the winger and in that situation you’d want your winger to step across to shut down the space as soon as the tackle is made.
Other than that moment in the match he was good in a few moments as already mentioned by others.

Buer

shootermacg wrote: »

What were peoples impressions of larmour. I thought he was a bit meh myself. Nothing to cry about, but I wouldn't have him in instead of Kearney.
He's a little on the short side and I could see teams targeting him all day under the highball.

On first reflection, the game passed him a little but when I think back, he did have a few moments where he impacted on the game through his own efforts. Ripping the ball from an opponent, shooting up and cutting out that pass when we were under pressure and another lovely pick up off the deck come to mind.

He never really got the ball in space to actually do anything with it. Our best period came before his arrival and the one period where he got the ball in their 22 was when we had completely lost our attacking shape after Stander was held up and we were going backwards.

Nothing special but did enough to suggest he should get a start at some point in the next two tests if Earls is out.

The most important thing for Larmour to demonstrate right now is that he can do what the likes of Andrew Trimble and Dave Kearney can do. That's about it. Joe's gameplan is predicated on a very tight defence until we've opened the scoreboard a bit so we tend to play it quite safe ball in hand early on. Larmour is making his tackles and is technically strong at the breakdown without melting lads like Trimble can.

He's showing that he can stay attuned throughout the 80 minutes to what is happening on and off the ball and he is not afraid to get involved in contact in the mid field area.

He hasn't had many chances to show his pace and step but International tier 1 rugby doesn't throw up too many chances like that, they'll come eventually and he'll be on the end of a pass for a few of them in these last two tests I've no doubt.

in the meantime he's cementing himself as an option for Joe by doing everything else pretty well. He has already displayed a lot of composure especially in the 22 which bodes well for his future.

accensi0n

Deleted User wrote: »

........
in the meantime he's cementing himself as an option for Joe by doing everything else pretty well. He has already displayed a lot of composure especially in the 22 which bodes well for his future.

Yep he's looking fine at the moment. I can't wait for him to provide a WTF!!!!!!! moment in an international.

I'm going on about it a bit but Pocock really put in an astonishing performance at the weekend, just saw this linked on twitter and it showcases how much of an impact he had on the speed of our ball and the game overall:

Sangre

Deleted User wrote: »

The most important thing for Larmour to demonstrate right now is that he can do what the likes of Andrew Trimble and Dave Kearney can do. That's about it. Joe's gameplan is predicated on a very tight defence until we've opened the scoreboard a bit so we tend to play it quite safe ball in hand early on. Larmour is making his tackles and is technically strong at the breakdown without melting lads like Trimble can.

He's showing that he can stay attuned throughout the 80 minutes to what is happening on and off the ball and he is not afraid to get involved in contact in the mid field area.

He hasn't had many chances to show his pace and step but International tier 1 rugby doesn't throw up too many chances like that, they'll come eventually and he'll be on the end of a pass for a few of them in these last two tests I've no doubt.

in the meantime he's cementing himself as an option for Joe by doing everything else pretty well. He has already displayed a lot of composure especially in the 22 which bodes well for his future.

100%. I think Joe would have been absolutely delighted with Larmour's performance. Can he improve? A huge amount - but a very solid test performance for a kid who just turned 21 (literally days ago).

Professor Moriarty

Sangre wrote: »

100%. I think Joe would have been absolutely delighted with Larmour's performance. Can he improve? A huge amount - but a very solid test performance for a kid who just turned 21 (literally days ago).

I'd like to see Conway get a run just to contrast and compare with Larmour.

molloyjh

Haven't read the thread, and probably won't, so this my have already been discussed. But Irelands decision making at times was very frustrating. Stander for his non-try ran across Herring support line, taking the only supporting player he had out of the game. Had he run a smarter line and passed to Herring (assuming Herring was letting him know where he was) that was a certain try. And then Aki not giving the ball to Kearney ahead of the Folau non-try was mind boggling. We had a 2 on 1 in the line at that stage with HP covering behind. That's a dream scenario for Larmour. Those were only 2 examples, but there were a number of them.

Our midfield didn't work either. Aki and Henshaw are too similar, and I think at this stage it's clear that Henshaw is our first choice 12 with Aki being second choice. Ringrose is our first choice 13 with Farrell being our second choice. Clearly Ringrose couldn't play all 3 Tests so Henshaw always had to play there in one of them, but I hope we don't see that pairing again unless we've no other choice.

On the positive side though, we got a few guys some really invaluable experience. Not least an experience of losing a big Test match. That stuff will stand to players in the longer term. I thought Carbery was fine, which was impressive given his lack of experience. That could have been one he had a mare in. He had issues in his game, but he kept his head. That's a good sign. Herring went fairly well I thought and James Ryan now knows what a loss feels like. He won't want to repeat that. Aki will have learned a good bit too hopefully. He's still very new to international rugby so is still on a learning curve. And Larmour and Stockdale faced as tough a challenge as they ever have.

I thought Australia played very well, particularly in defence where they had us sussed all day long. They were clearly willing to risk the odd offside or man without the ball penalty in order to shut us down. And it worked. We did start to get on top a bit by being more direct in the second half, but unforced errors let us down a few times. If we could have retained the ball better in that third quarter we could have had a couple more scores. Hopefully the guys don't feel the effects of the long season too much from here, but even if we lose the series 3-0 we can still benefit from it by giving guys that experience. And if that helps us in 15 months time then I couldn't care less what the result of this series is tbh.

Buer

I wouldn't go so far as to say I wouldn't care about the result if we develop guys but it's certainly a critical aspect of the tour.

For the younger guys, it was a huge game. Carbery was solid. Made one or two errors (pass to ground behind Kearney, straightforward missed kick, missing touch from deep in his own 22 after the second half started) but he also looked comfortable with the ball in hand for the most part. He threw a couple of lovely flat passes in the first half and, most impressively, he was rock solid defensively which is great considering he's not a big bloke and Australia have plenty of power runners. I thought his restarts were excellent too. He was a little hesitant at times to trust himself, I felt, and Sexton made far more impact in running the ball but that's why he needs these starts and game time. The more comfortable he becomes, the more he'll back himself.

Larmour and Stockdale had relatively decent games also. Stockdale was in a bit of a no win situation. He got the ball out wide a few times with little else on aside from trying to beat the last man or kick ahead. He defended well and dealt with several cross field kicks nicely. His last ditch tackle was excellent.

Larmour was quieter and saw far less ball. Curiously, the Australian kicking game seemed to target the 6'4" Stockdale far more than the shorter Larmour. But he got involved and had some telling contributions in defence even if he saw very little ball in hand.

I don't think there's any point in discussing the other starter who is under 24. He should rest next week and on the third test he will rise again in accordance with the selection.

molloyjh

Buer wrote: »

I wouldn't go so far as to say I wouldn't care about the result if we develop guys but it's certainly a critical aspect of the tour.

For the younger guys, it was a huge game. Carbery was solid. Made one or two errors (pass to ground behind Kearney, straightforward missed kick, missing touch from deep in his own 22 after the second half started) but he also looked comfortable with the ball in hand for the most part. He threw a couple of lovely flat passes in the first half and, most impressively, he was rock solid defensively which is great considering he's not a big bloke and Australia have plenty of power runners. I thought his restarts were excellent too. He was a little hesitant at times to trust himself, I felt, and Sexton made far more impact in running the ball but that's why he needs these starts and game time. The more comfortable he becomes, the more he'll back himself.

Larmour and Stockdale had relatively decent games also. Stockdale was in a bit of a no win situation. He got the ball out wide a few times with little else on aside from trying to beat the last man or kick ahead. He defended well and dealt with several cross field kicks nicely. His last ditch tackle was excellent.

Larmour was quieter and saw far less ball. Curiously, the Australian kicking game seemed to target the 6'4" Stockdale far more than the shorter Larmour. But he got involved and had some telling contributions in defence even if he saw very little ball in hand.

I don't think there's any point in discussing the other starter who is under 24. He should rest next week and on the third test he will rise again in accordance with the selection.

For me , we've won everything we can win this season and if we do well in the RWC next year we'll forget utterly about this tour. Almost like the Treviso and Connacht games for Leinster at the end of the season. They were disappointing at the time, but ultimately who cares given the way the bigger picture panned out.

I thought Carbery did well generally, but it was hard to tell at times whether some of the confusion was coming from him not dictating things strongly enough or others being a bit off. There were 2 passes in a short period of time in the first half that seemed to go between players (IIRC both time were Murphy in front and Kearney behind, so Joey might not have been the issue there).

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

For me , we've won everything we can win this season and if we do well in the RWC next year we'll forget utterly about this tour. Almost like the Treviso and Connacht games for Leinster at the end of the season. They were disappointing at the time, but ultimately who cares given the way the bigger picture panned out.

I thought Carbery did well generally, but it was hard to tell at times whether some of the confusion was coming from him not dictating things strongly enough or others being a bit off. There were 2 passes in a short period of time in the first half that seemed to go between players (IIRC both time were Murphy in front and Kearney behind, so Joey might not have been the issue there).

We can win a series in Australia. Not a small thing.

Deusexmachina

molloyjh wrote: »

For me , we've won everything we can win this season and if we do well in the RWC next year we'll forget utterly about this tour. Almost like the Treviso and Connacht games for Leinster at the end of the season. They were disappointing at the time, but ultimately who cares given the way the bigger picture panned out.

I thought Carbery did well generally, but it was hard to tell at times whether some of the confusion was coming from him not dictating things strongly enough or others being a bit off. There were 2 passes in a short period of time in the first half that seemed to go between players (IIRC both time were Murphy in front and Kearney behind, so Joey might not have been the issue there).

But that's the key question, isnt it? We will face the ABs or the Saffers in the WC QF. On the strength of this showing, we are not ready to beat the best Southern Hemisphere teams (certainly without our complete first selection).
So, I think this is a very important tour. It tells us where we are in the pecking order with a year to go. If Joe can turn this tour around, then we must be considered real contenders for next year. If not, then I suspect we may be flattering to deceive.

awec

Deusexmachina wrote: »

But that's the key question, isnt it? We will face the ABs or the Saffers in the WC QF. On the strength of this showing, we are not ready to beat the best Southern Hemisphere teams (certainly without our complete first selection).
So, I think this is a very important tour. It tells us where we are in the pecking order with a year to go. If Joe can turn this tour around, then we must be considered real contenders for next year. If not, then I suspect we may be flattering to deceive.

It's definitely an important tour. It's a bit of a litmus test for Ireland.

We want to blood new players, but I definitely would not go so far as to say that a tour win is not important. Another tour loss against one of the big SH three would be pretty disappointing.

molloyjh

Deusexmachina wrote: »

But that's the key question, isnt it? We will face the ABs or the Saffers in the WC QF. On the strength of this showing, we are not ready to beat the best Southern Hemisphere teams (certainly without our complete first selection).
So, I think this is a very important tour. It tells us where we are in the pecking order with a year to go. If Joe can turn this tour around, then we must be considered real contenders for next year. If not, then I suspect we may be flattering to deceive.

This showing was a mix and match team playing at the end of a very long season in the oppositions back yard. The RWC will be at the start of a season with as close to full strength as we can muster in games in a neutral venue. Dare I say, chalk and cheese?

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

It's definitely an important tour. It's a bit of a litmus test for Ireland.

We want to blood new players, but I definitely would not go so far as to say that a tour win is not important. Another tour loss against one of the big SH three would be pretty disappointing.

I agree it would be disappointing. Here and now. Just like losing at home to Treviso was disappointing for Leinster fans in April. Or the hammering we were on the end of in Galway. But if we succeed in the bigger picture, tours like this one will be forgotten about pretty quickly.

In all honesty, given that we're looking to blood players on this tour, a tour loss here will be less disappointing than the loss in SA 2 years ago. That's the one that will always bother me most.

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

I agree it would be disappointing. Here and now. Just like losing at home to Treviso was disappointing for Leinster fans in April. Or the hammering we were on the end of in Galway. But if we succeed in the bigger picture, tours like this one will be forgotten about pretty quickly.

In all honesty, given that we're looking to blood players on this tour, a tour loss here will be less disappointing than the loss in SA 2 years ago. That's the one that will always bother me most.

I don't take disappointment well. I have suffered enough.



Fair enough though, I see your point. (It was very hard for me to write this post).

Deusexmachina

molloyjh wrote: »

This showing was a mix and match team playing at the end of a very long season in the oppositions back yard. The RWC will be at the start of a season with as close to full strength as we can muster in games in a neutral venue. Dare I say, chalk and cheese?

No - I dont agree. If we get beaten again in the QF next year, do we blame it on 'only the start of the season..'?

We cannot be guaranteed a full strenght squad going into the QF - in fact we can be sure we will have some players missing. So the 'mix and match' excuse doesnt really apply either.

So - we need to be able to beat SH teams away from Dublin - even without a full strenght selection or it will be another disapppointing WC.

Former Former

Deusexmachina wrote: »

But that's the key question, isnt it? We will face the ABs or the Saffers in the WC QF. On the strength of this showing, we are not ready to beat the best Southern Hemisphere teams (certainly without our complete first selection).
So, I think this is a very important tour. It tells us where we are in the pecking order with a year to go. If Joe can turn this tour around, then we must be considered real contenders for next year. If not, then I suspect we may be flattering to deceive.

This is the difficulty Joe faces.

Everyone wants him to be less conservative, not to pick the same players all the time, etc - but no one is prepared to take the dip in performance or the defeats that might come with that. One defeat, to a really good team, and the hyper-analysis of how crap we are begins in earnest.

We didn't play well on Saturday, but we were ahead with ten minutes to go. If we'd started with Furlong and Sexton, two of our best players, would we have got the win? Very possibly, but what would we have learned? That our best XV can beat Australia? We already knew that. That John Ryan and Joey Carbery can fill in for five minutes off the bench? Knew that too.

We have to build a wider squad, we have to give Carbery the space to make mistakes. If Porter has to get minced in a scrum, if Larmour has to get caught in no mans land in defence, if Scannell has to throw it crooked all day long - so be it. We simply have to give these lads time in meaningful games and see what they're made of.

Carbery was fine on Saturday, better than any of his predecessors at the same age. Herring was a major surprise, I did not see that one coming. Ryan did fine too, after a difficult season. Larmour was bog-standard, which ironically is what we want from him, to show that he can do the mundane stuff as well as the outrageous stuff.

I don't care if we lose the next two tests as long as we get something from those defeats.

Professor Moriarty

A whitewashing of Aus in Aus would have been a massive boost in confidence.

Bridge93

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A whitewashing of Aus in Aus would have been a massive boost in confidence.

It would have of course but so was winning a Grand Slam. The players will be well up to speed with what the coaching ticket are after. Losing on Saturday won't concern them. It will have had minimal impact on where they are mentally as a group.

We could've stuck the first team out in all three games and it would still be unlikely we would have whitewashed Australia

Deusexmachina

Former Former wrote: »

This is the difficulty Joe faces.

Everyone wants him to be less conservative, not to pick the same players all the time, etc - but no one is prepared to take the dip in performance or the defeats that might come with that. One defeat, to a really good team, and the hyper-analysis of how crap we are begins in earnest.

We didn't play well on Saturday, but we were ahead with ten minutes to go. If we'd started with Furlong and Sexton, two of our best players, would we have got the win? Very possibly, but what would we have learned? That our best XV can beat Australia? We already knew that. That John Ryan and Joey Carbery can fill in for five minutes off the bench? Knew that too.

We have to build a wider squad, we have to give Carbery the space to make mistakes. If Porter has to get minced in a scrum, if Larmour has to get caught in no mans land in defence, if Scannell has to throw it crooked all day long - so be it. We simply have to give these lads time in meaningful games and see what they're made of.

Carbery was fine on Saturday, better than any of his predecessors at the same age. Herring was a major surprise, I did not see that one coming. Ryan did fine too, after a difficult season. Larmour was bog-standard, which ironically is what we want from him, to show that he can do the mundane stuff as well as the outrageous stuff.

I don't care if we lose the next two tests as long as we get something from those defeats.

With respect, we don't know that we can beat Australia (away from home). While I agree fully that Schmidt cannot pick his Top 15 for every game, but why does this mean we have to lose?
If we are truly Number 2 in the world, then we must expect to be able to win matches with a few changes.
Others can do it, why cant we?

awec

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A whitewashing of Aus in Aus would have been a massive boost in confidence.

Yes, you have to consider the mental side as well. The old cliché of success breeds success.



A 3-0 defeat would be very bad IMO. There needs to be a very fine balance here between blooding new players and winning this series.

irishbucsfan

Deusexmachina wrote: »

With respect, we don't know that we can beat Australia (away from home). While I agree fully that Schmidt cannot pick his Top 15 for every game, but why does this mean we have to lose?
If we are truly Number 2 in the world, then we must expect to be able to win matches with a few changes.
Others can do it, why cant we?

We shouldn't "expect" to win matches with a few changes. We should expect to be competitive in matches with a few changes. Which we were.

We could have won that game 5 times out of 10 with the team we selected. It was a very close game.

It's never as black and white as:

Pick best team = Expect to win
Pick rotated team = Expect to lose

stephen_n

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A whitewashing of Aus in Aus would have been a massive boost in confidence.

And would have lead to posters questioning how poor this Australian team must be. What we know is Australia are good and we can’t afford to play below our best against and expect to win.

If the players needed a boost in confidence after winning a grand slam, there’s something wrong somewhere.

molloyjh

Deusexmachina wrote: »

No - I dont agree. If we get beaten again in the QF next year, do we blame it on 'only the start of the season..'?

We cannot be guaranteed a full strenght squad going into the QF - in fact we can be sure we will have some players missing. So the 'mix and match' excuse doesnt really apply either.

So - we need to be able to beat SH teams away from Dublin - even without a full strenght selection or it will be another disapppointing WC.

Deusexmachina wrote: »

With respect, we don't know that we can beat Australia (away from home). While I agree fully that Schmidt cannot pick his Top 15 for every game, but why does this mean we have to lose?
If we are truly Number 2 in the world, then we must expect to be able to win matches with a few changes.
Others can do it, why cant we?

On these 2 posts, the last time we played Australia on neutral ground we won. The last time we played NZ on neutral ground we won. In the RWC we will be playing on neutral ground.

We don't "have" to lose by selecting a weaker team, but we certainly make it more likely if we do. And the whole point of playing the back ups in these games is so that they are ready should they be required in the RWC QF. So I think you might be missing the fundamental point being made. Take the losses now so that we can build depth. That way when we really need it, e.g. in a RWC QF, we can be more confident in the ability of our back ups.

awec wrote: »

Yes, you have to consider the mental side as well. The old cliché of success breeds success.

A 3-0 defeat would be very bad IMO. There needs to be a very fine balance here between blooding new players and winning this series.

I think a lot depends on what the group expected out of the tour. If they went there with the expectation of winning then fair enough. If they went there with the expectation of building depth and not really caring that much about results then it's not going to have too much of an impact. Bear in mind, Joe did speak before the first game about how the point was squad building and that might mean losses.

evil_seed

I've tried to stop posting knee jerk reactions to the game, so I let it sit for a day or two and then post.

Ireland wanted to over power them but the were having none of it. For the 1st 20 mins they hit us like we slept with their sisters. Missed Earls concussion for a phone call. We didn't play smart. Kicking game did not work. We didn't break their defense enough and wingers that can't beat their man only kick chase.

Oz deserved the win and deserved to win by more the lads off the bench didn't get into it at all cos they're used to starting. If Marms try at the end stood it would have flattered us a lot

Buer

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A whitewashing of Aus in Aus would have been a massive boost in confidence.

It was also very unlikely.

There's a reason it's hard to win these tours. Since the English RWC winning side in 2003 (they won back to back tests against NZ and Australia), there has only been one nation to win a tour of the big 3 in the southern hemisphere and that was England against Australia in 2016; all those were one score games until the dying minutes.

Teams are on their last legs after long seasons, they regularly use these tours to blood a few new players also. The same is true of the southern hemisphere sides in November. Lat season Australia lost to England and Scotland, SA were thumped by us and lost to Wales.

Buer

evil_seed wrote: »

Oz deserved the win and deserved to win by more the lads off the bench didn't get into it at all cos they're used to starting.

I'd disagree with that. Sexton had one shocker of an error but one degree to the left and it was a fantastic kick. He should have been more conservative; we weren't chasing the game. Sloppy. But he was pretty good aside from that and definitely brought us on the front foot and attacked the line much more than Carbery.

Furlong put himself about. There was obviously the scrum where we lost a penalty which he was struggling in but he was very decent outside of that including one superb carry and offload in their 22.

The problem was that we had multiple players flagging at that point anyway and Australia had two areas of dominance which they could continually revert to in the aerial battle and the breakdown. Stander, Ryan and Murphy were all dead on thier feet and passengers in the closing stages really. Australia's 6/2 split on the bench proved a very significant boost to them.

Professor Moriarty

Buer wrote: »

It was also very unlikely.

There's a reason it's hard to win these tours. Since the English RWC winning side in 2003 (they won back to back tests against NZ and Australia), there has only been one nation to win a tour of the big 3 in the southern hemisphere and that was England against Australia in 2016; all those were one score games until the dying minutes.

Teams are on their last legs after long seasons, they regularly use these tours to blood a few new players also. The same is true of the southern hemisphere sides in November. Lat season Australia lost to England and Scotland, SA were thumped by us and lost to Wales.

Fair point. But I'd to question God's Joe's rationale. You could argue that blooding players while they're being beaten by Aus isn't the optimum strategy. We could have picked our strongest team available, tried to outscore them for 50 minutes and then blooded players while bringing off the likes of Furlong/Healy/Sexton. Assuming that strategy worked, you have a win and you've thrown the likes of Carberry in for 30 minutes. Instead we put out a team with a second/third string front row, a lock who has played very little, a second string 10 who has played relatively little and a centre who has played very little.

Shefwedfan

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Fair point. But I'd to question God's Joe's rationale. You could argue that blooding players while they're being beaten by Aus isn't the optimum strategy. We could have picked our strongest team available, tried to outscore them for 50 minutes and then blooded players while bringing off the likes of Furlong/Healy/Sexton. Assuming that strategy worked, you have a win and you've thrown the likes of Carberry in for 30 minutes. Instead we put out a team with a second/third string front row, a lock who has played very little, a second string 10 who has played relatively little and a centre who has played very little.

What exactly would you learn about a player with that strategy?

molloyjh

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Fair point. But I'd to question God's Joe's rationale. You could argue that blooding players while they're being beaten by Aus isn't the optimum strategy. We could have picked our strongest team available, tried to outscore them for 50 minutes and then blooded players while bringing off the likes of Furlong/Healy/Sexton. Assuming that strategy worked, you have a win and you've thrown the likes of Carberry in for 30 minutes. Instead we put out a team with a second/third string front row, a lock who has played very little, a second string 10 who has played relatively little and a centre who has played very little.

At the end of the day, these games don't matter a damn really. There's no trophy to be won, there's no RWC rankings on the line, there's nothing really to be gained from winning it other than the actual wins themselves. Getting guys like Joey to start a game and manage most of it himself though, there's lots to be gained from stuff like that. The 55-60 mins that he got on Saturday are far more beneficial to him than 2 30 min appearances off the bench.

And bear in mind, we were in the lead when he went off. So we actually probably learned a hell of a lot (and conversely the players learned a hell of a lot) from that starting team.