Ireland Team Talk XI: Team of nervoUS MOD warning Post 1

Shefwedfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

Matty Williams tried to buck that trend by starting out failed. He failed.

I will take a stab he had a better rugby career than anyone on this forum :-)

He is a TV pundit, he is paid to be controversial and get a reaction

He didn't call for Farrell to be sacked. Not according to his article


So in reality the poster who said he did is just trying to be controversial and get a reaction as well.......

Yeah_Right

stephen_n wrote: »

The reality of last Saturday was Murray had an ok game and Cooney had an ok 20 minutes. Nothing more, nothing less.

But is that good enough? Is that the standard you want from a guy who has played 80 plus tests including being the starter on 2 Lions tours? He was ok!!

If it was 1 match then that's fine. You would expect him to bounce back. But it's been over a year now. Ok isn't good enough.

Shefwedfan

kilns wrote: »

[/CENTER]

But he ended a Grand Slam winner

He ended up losing his last two games!! :P

Shefwedfan

Yeah_Right wrote: »

But is that good enough? Is that the standard you want from a guy who has played 80 plus tests including being the starter on 2 Lions tours? He was ok!!

If it was 1 match then that's fine. You would expect him to bounce back. But it's been over a year now. Ok isn't good enough.

Well I think it was BOD who said, Murray is playing around 80% at the moment.....but you keep playing him because his 80% is similar to other peoples 100%

Now that was the biggest BS I ever heard.....you reward the guy for under-performing but not the guy who is playing out of his skin!!!

arsebiscuits1

ionadnapokot wrote: »

too strong alright
i thought some of the comments on Joe by the players were less than gentlemanly

Have they been?

To be honest I think the media are the ones with the anti Joe narrative and not the IRFU/ players.

Any actual (full) quotes I've seen by players referring to the changes have been matter of fact but polite about Joe.

There has been a lot of references to "fresh" and "changes" etc etc etc

I don't think any player has actually said anything of substance

prawnsambo

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I will take a stab he had a better rugby career than anyone on this forum :-)

He is a TV pundit, he is paid to be controversial and get a reaction

He didn't call for Farrell to be sacked. Not according to his article


So in reality the poster who said he did is just trying to be controversial and get a reaction as well.......

We're (at least I am) talking about what he's written. And it's cliché ridden guff. Which all of us here are very familiar with

Anyone passing comment on Farrell's ability as Head coach based on his selection in his first two games in charge needs their heads checked.

The end of the 2021 six nations unless we are getting annihilated every game in between will be the point to start serious reflection on his tenure up to that point.

A lot of pundits, commentators and posters are coming across as entitled and deeply impatient in my opinion.

Cooney playing for everyone bar Munster no doubt has an impact on his fan favourite status but it's gotten to the point where Sexton spent half the pre match presser defending Connor Murray.

Like for fu*ks sake folks take a deep breathe, the teeth gnashing is getting embarrassing.

kilns

People seem to forget how Schmidts Ireland career started off, we got hammered by Australia in his second game and it was doom and gloom then, the next day we should have beat NZ after being 19-0 up and everyone was rejoicing.

So it shows you have to give a coach a chance, I for one am disappointed in some of the selections but I am very hopeful that Farrell is the man to get us back playing with a bit fire and passion and flair too

D.Q

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I will take a stab he had a better rugby career than anyone on this forum :-)

He is a TV pundit, he is paid to be controversial and get a reaction

He didn't call for Farrell to be sacked. Not according to his article


So in reality the poster who said he did is just trying to be controversial and get a reaction as well.......

That was myself, here is the quote:

"There are no more excuses. Ignite the passion to perform with superior aggression, or be replaced."

He seems to be saying here that this is Farrell's last chance (no more excuses), if he doesn't get a better performance, he should be sacked (replaced)

Am I wrong here?

This tone and rhetoric is absolutely ridiculous. "There are no more excuses" You'd think we're at the end of a long and unsuccessful campaign.

Shefwedfan

D.Q wrote: »

That was myself, here is the quote:

"There are no more excuses. Ignite the passion to perform with superior aggression, or be replaced."

He seems to be saying here that this is Farrell's last chance (no more excuses), if he doesn't get a better performance, he should be sacked (replaced)

Am I wrong here?

This tone and rhetoric is absolutely ridiculous. "There are no more excuses" You'd think we're at the end of a long and unsuccessful campaign.

Yes your wrong



If he was calling for him to be sacked he would say that. I have listened to a number of podcast this week with Matty on it and he hasn't mentioned anything about sacking Farrell.

aloooof

D.Q wrote: »

That was myself, here is the quote:

"There are no more excuses. Ignite the passion to perform with superior aggression, or be replaced."

He seems to be saying here that this is Farrell's last chance (no more excuses), if he doesn't get a better performance, he should be sacked (replaced)

Am I wrong here?

This tone and rhetoric is absolutely ridiculous. "There are no more excuses" You'd think we're at the end of a long and unsuccessful campaign.

Is he not talking about the players there, rather than the manager?

Kevski

aloooof wrote: »

Is he not talking about the players there, rather than the manager?

The line before reads ‘The Irish players and coaches need to cop on.’ so he would seem to be referring to both.

D.Q

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Yes your wrong



If he was calling for him to be sacked he would say that. I have listened to a number of podcast this week with Matty on it and he hasn't mentioned anything about sacking Farrell.

What do you feel he means when he says replaced?

I'm not talking about the podcasts, I'm talking about an article in print, black and white.

arsebiscuits1

D.Q wrote: »

What do you feel he means when he says replaced?

I'm not talking about the podcasts, I'm talking about an article in print, black and white.

Lad the headline literally starts with "Matt Williams: I'm am prepared to give Andy Farrell time"

The very first thing he does is say he's not looking to replace him.

The article is full of knee jerk and hyperbole.

But you''re reaching so far you might as well knock on Matts door from where you're sat now and tell him what you think

D.Q

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

Lad the headline literally starts with "Matt Williams: I'm am prepared to give Andy Farrell time"

The very first thing he does is say he's not looking to replace him.

The article is full of knee jerk and hyperbole.

But you''re reaching so far you might as well knock on Matts door from where you're sat now and tell him what you think

:pac::pac:

How am I reaching? It's there in black and white. "OR BE REPLACED"

Admittedly, starting the article with the exact opposite sentiment is confusing and probably speaks to his quality as a pundit.

I wasn't trying to drum up controversy or get a reaction, just thought it was a bit of a hatchet job and unnecessary after one win in this campaign.

If you don't think that's what he meant fair enough we can agree to disagree.

Sangre

D.Q wrote: »

:pac::pac:

How am I reaching? It's there in black and white. "OR BE REPLACED"

Admittedly, starting the article with the exact opposite sentiment is confusing and probably speaks to his quality as a pundit.

I wasn't trying to drum up controversy or get a reaction, just thought it was a bit of a hatchet job and unnecessary after one win in this campaign.

If you don't think that's what he meant fair enough we can agree to disagree.

Headlines are not typically written by the author of the article.

arsebiscuits1

Right the summary of this discussion from what I can tell is thus:

Matt Williams: **Doesn't call for Farrell to be replaced**

D.Q.: HEY EVERYONE MATT WILLIAMS IS SAYING FARRELL NEEDS TO BE REPLACED

Everyone: The article is flawed but it certainly doesn't call for th-

D.Q. (with fingers in ears): MATT WILLIAMS IS CALLING FOR FARRELL TO BE REPLACED. IT SAYS REPLACED IN THE ARTICLE

D.Q

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

Right the summary of this discussion from what I can tell is thus:



D.Q. (with fingers in ears): MATT WILLIAMS IS CALLING FOR FARRELL TO BE REPLACED. IT SAYS REPLACED IN THE ARTICLE

:pac::pac:

But... then how could I type?

Arsebiscuits needs to be replaced. No more excuses.

arsebiscuits1

D.Q wrote: »

:pac::pac:

But... then how could I type?

Arsebiscuits needs to be replaced. No more excuses.

Matt Williams said he is willing to give me a chance

Shefwedfan

D.Q wrote: »

:pac::pac:

How am I reaching? It's there in black and white. "OR BE REPLACED"

Admittedly, starting the article with the exact opposite sentiment is confusing and probably speaks to his quality as a pundit.

I wasn't trying to drum up controversy or get a reaction, just thought it was a bit of a hatchet job and unnecessary after one win in this campaign.

If you don't think that's what he meant fair enough we can agree to disagree.

Sorry but you are trying to drum up controversy....


This is headline
"Matt Williams: I am prepared to give Andy Farrell time but the early signs are not positive"


Is that not a bit of a hint he is not calling for him to get sacked?


The Irish players and coaches need to cop on.
There are no more excuses. Ignite the passion to perform with superior aggression, or be replaced.

That would suggest to me the players and coaching team. Not fire Andy Farrell

THis was your original post

D.Q wrote: »

Matt Williams already calling for Farrell to be replaced in The Irish Times today.

I do think you would get a job at the Sun or The Star......

stephen_n

Yeah_Right wrote: »

But is that good enough? Is that the standard you want from a guy who has played 80 plus tests including being the starter on 2 Lions tours? He was ok!!

If it was 1 match then that's fine. You would expect him to bounce back. But it's been over a year now. Ok isn't good enough.

No it’s not, I’d want to see more from both of them. As I said I’d be delighted to see Cooney get his shot. I’m just saying he didn’t outplay Murray on Saturday when he came on.

Clegg

VDF burst onto the scene as a work rate monster who reached up huge tackle counts. Great to see that he's developing his game to the point where he's now excellent at winning penalties on the deck. The first clip also highlights how awful Raynal was last weekend. Jones in at the side to stop VDF winning an early turnover pen. Referee was right in front of it and ignored it.

https://twitter.com/Murray_Kinsella/status/1225713309124628481?s=19

prawnsambo

Clegg wrote: »

VDF burst onto the scene as a work rate monster who reached up huge tackle counts. Great to see that he's developing his game to the point where he's now excellent at winning penalties on the deck. The first clip also highlights how awful Raynal was last weekend. Jones in at the side to stop VDF winning an early turnover pen. Referee was right in front of it and ignored it.

Apart from Jones being in at the side, the bit that annoys me is that the refs are actually ignoring the laws here. The tackled player has to release the ball and he hasn't. That's a penalty that for some reason isn't given until the jackalling player has held on for seconds while they're getting thumped from all sides. There'd be less injuries if they actually applied the law.

Shefwedfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

Apart from Jones being in at the side, the bit that annoys me is that the refs are actually ignoring the laws here. The tackled player has to release the ball and he hasn't. That's a penalty that for some reason isn't given until the jackalling player has held on for seconds while they're getting thumped from all sides. There'd be less injuries if they actually applied the law.

Wasn’t it when Leavy was talking about his injury and he mentioned this, got really angry!!! More or less said that why he got hurt

prawnsambo

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Wasn’t it when Leavy was talking about his injury and he mentioned this, got really angry!!! More or less said that why he got hurt

Yeah. It's the cause of a lot of injuries over the years. POC springs to mind as well. The law around the tackle hasn't changed in years and yet players are given free rein to hammer into guys who are extremely exposed. I was delighted to see Frank Murphy blowing up the second the ball was contested. That kind of officiating needs to become the norm.

Bazzo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yeah. It's the cause of a lot of injuries over the years. POC springs to mind as well. The law around the tackle hasn't changed in years and yet players are given free rein to hammer into guys who are extremely exposed. I was delighted to see Frank Murphy blowing up the second the ball was contested. That kind of officiating needs to become the norm.

It won't though, it's obviously the direction world rugby want to take probably to prevent turnovers from skyrocketing because jackalers are so good now. The ref shouting "didn't survive" after a player has been trying to pull the ball off someone holding on to it on the ground for a full 2 seconds before getting smashed in a clear out is something you see multiple times every match.

All My Stars Aligned

Am I right in saying that results this year decide rankings for the next WC? If so, could this be the reason behind certain selections?

Shefwedfan

All My Stars Aligned wrote: »

Am I right in saying that results this year decide rankings for the next WC? If so, could this be the reason behind certain selections?

With our record at WC I don’t think It matters much if we are first or second seeds. We are not going to drop to 3rd

But yes the seeding at end of year will be used for WC groups

I posted here about SA guy talking preWC, they didn’t care about losing to NZ.....just a route to final. I was laughing but he was right.

penybont exile

Shefwedfan wrote: »

With our record at WC I don’t think It matters much if we are first or second seeds. We are not going to drop to 3rd

But yes the seeding at end of year will be used for WC groups

I posted here about SA guy talking preWC, they didn’t care about losing to NZ.....just a route to final. I was laughing but he was right.

SA guy right. It was the same for us... Beat Oz gave us a route to the final with hopefully someone slotting NZ. Fine margins in end.

Former Former

It is much better to be in the top 4. Of course it is.