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

Shefwedfan

Faugheen wrote: »

Actually I would argue that it was too much detail. The players couldn’t really think for themselves.

It’s called sarcasm :-)

Clegg

We've heard all about how the Ireland loss last November prompted a New Zealand rebuild. They're going to do the same once the loss to England is confirmed. They had their attacking structure dismantled by England's defence. England knew exactly when NZ were going wide and lined them up for the huge smash. The NZ double pivot at 10/15 doesn't work when you're going backwards and the defence knows you'll pass. In some ways it's the same as our victory against them. Once you take away their ground superiority and make them move backwards, even their skills fail them.

When Farrell comes to make his mark on the squad I can see him loosening the strings somewhat and encouraging more offloads. But this 10/15 pivot won't work when you don't have dominance up front. I don't think we have the forwards to use it.

Niallof9

An eng Wales final.... lol some heads here will explode

Niallof9

Delighted for English rugby. All that guff over the years regarding bosh merchants, Irish infallible etc. when they were building for these moments on the global stage not releasing dvds over November wins. drico picking a combined eng/ ire selection had one English player. Media saying England missing Andy Farrell. All laughable. Instead of banning media they open it up creating documentaries for the fans. Instead of relying on one Rock or Michaels they have a range of diverse backgrounds playing.
But like Liverpool like to say...Ireland are more. We don't have a team, we have us...
the hype train has been killed stone dead. And it was an English team that did it. Fair play
attacking rugby wins the day. Width, footwork, offloads, power, pace. The polar opposite of Ireland

Rebelbrowser

I wonder will Vodafone do any honest analysis of that ad campaign's success or otherwise? I suspect it is literally losing them customers in return for an undoubtedly big outlay.

edgecutter

Take a bow Jones. Superb set up with great ball skills, Ireland need to move to this type of game and hopefully bring guys in that can play it.

edgecutter

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

I wonder will Vodafone do any honest analysis of that ad campaign's success or otherwise? I suspect it is literally losing them customers in return for an undoubtedly big outlay.

Who cares. They sponsor the team and like us all, they probably thought we would go all the way.

Clegg

Ireland can't play the way England just did imo. We don't have the power carriers they do. The Vunipola's and Tuilagi are obvious examples. But Curry and Underhill and monsters too.

There's certainly a lot of scope for us to offload and link attacks like we saw today. Ringrose, Larmour, Stockdale, Carbery etc are all natural footballers and would love the chance to cut loose. But that's all predicated on front foot ball which we haven't been able to generate enough of this year. It'll be a balancing act which Farrell will have to figure out.

Interested Observer

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

I wonder will Vodafone do any honest analysis of that ad campaign's success or otherwise? I suspect it is literally losing them customers in return for an undoubtedly big outlay.

It's actually very hard to attribute exact success metrics to a TV campaign (as opposed to online where everything is measured) but yes they absolutely will try to work out the ROI of their sponsorship.

Niallof9

Oh now we don't have the carriers...why do we play a power game so?

it can be argued yes we don't have the 3 lads u mention we also don't help ourselves picking such deficient carriers...POM being an obvious example.

We have power athletes (not at that level of course) left out of the squad altogether. Its also obvious looking at the body shapes , and Aki admitted, that Ireland lost weight. Best, Furlong, Stander looked much lighter. Totally wrong approach. NZ similarly look a bit too lean.

McCloskey, Farrell , Byrne , Lowe, Stockdale , Henshaw all massive backs

Rebelbrowser

edgecutter wrote: »

Who cares. They sponsor the team and like us all, they probably thought we would go all the way.

Even if we were winning its an unctious ad campaign. Its a lot worse when we aren't.

tryagain

We peaked to early this NZ team have just showed they were not like previous NZ teams we made them look good we peaked last year that England team are good but we were not far off them last few years our players need to work on the mentally of game as I fear we can't deal with expectation .

Gonad

tryagain wrote: »

We peaked to early this NZ team have just showed they were not like previous NZ teams we made them look good we peaked last year that England team are good but we were not far off them last few years our players need to work on the mentally of game as I fear we can't deal with expectation .

England were able for the physicality . The forwards won that game . Don’t think we would ever be able to match that English front 8 unless a few freaks come along . Anyone the size of Billy V coming outta Blackrock college ?

Clegg

Gonad wrote: »

England were able for the physicality . The forwards won that game . Don’t think we would ever be able to match that English front 8 unless a few freaks come along . Anyone the size of Billy V coming outta Blackrock college ?

I'm gonna guess that we don't. But we could be using the players at our disposal so much better.

Iain Henderson had a relatively disappointing World Cup for instance. Played well against Scotland, but didn't put in a performance of similar quality after that. He's an excellent carrier when given the opportunity to run into the ball. One if the few players in the squad that can carry effectively against a set defence. Yet we never used him in that way. Healy and Furlong and decent carriers, but so much better when given the chance to run into the ball. But they didn't get the opportunity either.

Niallof9

https://www.rugbypass.com/internationals/teams/ireland/statistics

Look at Ireland's ruck numbers compared to Englands.

Acosta

ionadnapokot wrote: »

They are still showing that fcucking phone add

It was cringeworthy to see so many use the hashtag on twitter during Ireland matches. Between that and not calling it Lansdowne rd, The Point, Musgrave Park etc. Stop giving massive corporations free advertising for christ sake.

Niallof9

Clegg wrote: »

I'm gonna guess that we don't. But we could be using the players at our disposal so much better.

Iain Henderson had a relatively disappointing World Cup for instance. Played well against Scotland, but didn't put in a performance of similar quality after that. He's an excellent carrier when given the opportunity to run into the ball. One if the few players in the squad that can carry effectively against a set defence. Yet we never used him in that way. Healy and Furlong and decent carriers, but so much better when given the chance to run into the ball. But they didn't get the opportunity either.

Well there has been a few lads who came out. What was his name again Victor....

Mushy, Hayes, trev, Wood, Toner, Mal, Wallace and so forth some absolute beasts we had.

Its a clear policy we are adopting lighter rugby players from school upwards. Nz do it as well. They have tons of Vunipolas, Tualagis but they want a hybrid loose game. Look at some of the names they left behind or even will never see an all blacks shirt again like the bus Savea etc

Aki lost one stone in camp.

We don't obviously have their depth or scope but lets not go back to this size, weather, dna malarky.

6am7f9zxrsjvnb

It’s got nothing to do with tactics, strategies or ‘peaking’.
Farrell had the evil grin of a sadist during the haka. Rory Best was struggling to breathe .
Ireland are like the English soccer team. Plenty of impressive results,but when it comes down to the real tests they buckle every time...
Ireland will no doubt win a Grand Slam in 2022 and England will finish third or fourth in the table. The same people will say we’re in with a shout in 2023, and that England are finished....it’s the hope that kills you.

Squidgy Black

Acosta wrote: »

It was cringeworthy to see so many use the hashtag on twitter during Ireland matches. Between that and not calling it Lansdowne rd, The Point, Musgrave Park etc. Stop giving massive corporations free advertising for christ sake.

There's no such thing as free advertising when it comes to sports. You might think it's free because they're not paying you to call it the Aviva, or Independent Park etc, but the companies are paying big money in naming rights to the Unions and clubs in the hope that you will refer to it as that. The more exposure they get, the more unions and clubs can then negotiate bigger sponsorship deals due to the reach and exposure it gains by companies making that large upfront investment.

Clegg

Did anyone hear Donal Lenihan on commentary earlier? Apparently Graham Henry was analysing the Ireland/NZ game and said 4 or 5 of the Irish players who started shouldn't have even been selected for the WC squad due to being too old and lacking form. There's probably a bit of sensationalism thrown in there for the TV, but obviously he's not wrong.

Rugby seems to be trending younger and younger. New Zealand knew that so refreshed their squad by bring in two new starting wings. They were rewarded with fine performances from Bridge and Reece. England noticed that too. Their focus was up front however. Great servants like Robshaw were jettisoned and replaced. In doing so Jones have been rewarded with excellence from the likes of Underhill and Curry. Aged just 23 and 22 respectively.

Ireland did that too in 2017/2018. Stockdale, Ryan, Porter, Carbery etc all played a part in the Grand Slam. Ryan and Stockdale were starting members. It just seems like we stopped introducing younger players a season too early. We found the players that worked and even though there was an attempt to develope a new style we didn't bring in new players to help with that.

Our younger players were the best performers this WC. I think Ringrose and Ryan were the best of the regular starters. Jordan Larmour played well whenever he got the chance too. I'm not advocating for a wholesale clearout of everyone 30 or over. But there's definitely something to be gained by exposing young players to test rugby.

Squidgy Black

Clegg wrote: »

Did anyone hear Donal Lenihan on commentary earlier? Apparently Graham Henry was analysing the Ireland/NZ game and said 4 or 5 of the Irish players who started shouldn't have even been selected for the WC squad due to being too old and lacking form. There's probably a bit of sensationalism thrown in there for the TV, but obviously he's not wrong.

Rugby seems to be trending younger and younger. New Zealand knew that so refreshed their squad by bring in two new starting wings. They were rewarded with fine performances from Bridge and Reece. England noticed that too. Their focus was up front however. Great servants like Robshaw were jettisoned and replaced. In doing so Jones have been rewarded with excellence from the likes of Underhill and Curry. Aged just 23 and 22 respectively.

Ireland did that too in 2017/2018. Stockdale, Ryan, Porter, Carbery etc all played a part in the Grand Slam. Ryan and Stockdale were starting members. It just seems like we stopped introducing younger players a season too early. We found the players that worked and even though there was an attempt to develope a new style we didn't bring in new players to help with that.

Our younger players were the best performers this WC. I think Ringrose and Ryan were the best of the regular starters. Jordan Larmour played well whenever he got the chance too. I'm not advocating for a wholesale clearout of everyone 30 or over. But there's definitely something to be gained by exposing young players to test rugby.

In some ways yes, we have a lot of players getting on in age, but also we don't have an awful lot of top level promising youth who haven't broken into the squad already.

Bar the likes of maybe Rob Lyttle, Lowry, Deegan, there hasn't been any young players tearing up the Pro14 that haven't been involved in the setup already.

Larmour/Stockdale/Ryan/Porter/Carbery were almost like the Irish rugby equivalent of the class of 92, where a group of top level stars broke through at the exact same time from the academies. We don't really have the player base compared to England to regularly have that sort of calibre player come through to pick from, there'll always be a position or two where the replacements will be a lower standard to the older vet.

shootermacg

Clegg wrote: »

Did anyone hear Donal Lenihan on commentary earlier? Apparently Graham Henry was analysing the Ireland/NZ game and said 4 or 5 of the Irish players who started shouldn't have even been selected for the WC squad due to being too old and lacking form. There's probably a bit of sensationalism thrown in there for the TV, but obviously he's not wrong.

Rugby seems to be trending younger and younger. New Zealand knew that so refreshed their squad by bring in two new starting wings. They were rewarded with fine performances from Bridge and Reece. England noticed that too. Their focus was up front however. Great servants like Robshaw were jettisoned and replaced. In doing so Jones have been rewarded with excellence from the likes of Underhill and Curry. Aged just 23 and 22 respectively.

Ireland did that too in 2017/2018. Stockdale, Ryan, Porter, Carbery etc all played a part in the Grand Slam. Ryan and Stockdale were starting members. It just seems like we stopped introducing younger players a season too early. We found the players that worked and even though there was an attempt to develope a new style we didn't bring in new players to help with that.

Our younger players were the best performers this WC. I think Ringrose and Ryan were the best of the regular starters. Jordan Larmour played well whenever he got the chance too. I'm not advocating for a wholesale clearout of everyone 30 or over. But there's definitely something to be gained by exposing young players to test rugby.

It's a weird one. I'm of the opinion that you need one or two wise heads in key positions. Billy Holland for Munster or Isa for Leinster come to mind.

But certainly not too many old heads. Connor Murray is currently 30, is it worth investing in him and keeping players of that age on a central contract? Or would it be better to give youth it's head?

Maybe central contracts should be annual. Sure we might lose players but on the flip-side we'd have a wider player base, should we choose to loosen up on the policy against players not playing in Ireland. There are arguments for and against.

Clegg

Squidgy Black wrote: »

In some ways yes, we have a lot of players getting on in age, but also we don't have an awful lot of top level promising youth who haven't broken into the squad already.

Bar the likes of maybe Rob Lyttle, Lowry, Deegan, there hasn't been any young players tearing up the Pro14 that haven't been involved in the setup already.

Larmour/Stockdale/Ryan/Porter/Carbery were almost like the Irish rugby equivalent of the class of 92, where a group of top level stars broke through at the exact same time from the academies. We don't really have the player base compared to England to regularly have that sort of calibre player come through to pick from, there'll always be a position or two where the replacements will be a lower standard to the older vet.

I agree that we don't have the depth of NZ or England. There isn't much more Schmidt could have done with regards to introducing young players. But we definitely had players in good form that weren't selected for the big games. Ruddock being the obvious one. Conway and Larmour had better campaigns than our starting wings as well.

Schmidt stuck with what he knew and what served him so well in the past. So I can't blame him for that. But going forward I hope we aren't so devoted to those who've done well in the past, to the detriment of what's going on in the present. I also hope we'll continue the push towards youth that Schmidt embraced a few years ago.

Shefwedfan

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

I wonder will Vodafone do any honest analysis of that ad campaign's success or otherwise? I suspect it is literally losing them customers in return for an undoubtedly big outlay.

Why would it lose them customer?

People really that sad they would change networks over an ad?

salmocab

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Why would it lose them customer?

People really that sad they would change networks over an ad?

I’d imagine a few said they would, big talking in front of people

Acosta

Squidgy Black wrote: »

There's no such thing as free advertising when it comes to sports. You might think it's free because they're not paying you to call it the Aviva, or Independent Park etc, but the companies are paying big money in naming rights to the Unions and clubs in the hope that you will refer to it as that. The more exposure they get, the more unions and clubs can then negotiate bigger sponsorship deals due to the reach and exposure it gains by companies making that large upfront investment.

Yes I am aware that they're not getting It for free from the owners of the venues, but they are getting it for free from fans that call venues insurance companies and phone networks which was was point. I just don't understand why people are such sheep when it comes.to these things.

AbusesToilets

shootermacg wrote: »

It's a weird one. I'm of the opinion that you need one or two wise heads in key positions. Billy Holland for Munster or Isa for Leinster come to mind.

But certainly not too many old heads. Connor Murray is currently 30, is it worth investing in him and keeping players of that age on a central contract? Or would it be better to give youth it's head?

Maybe central contracts should be annual. Sure we might lose players but on the flip-side we'd have a wider player base, should we choose to loosen up on the policy against players not playing in Ireland. There are arguments for and against.

This. They need to be performance based incentives, rewarding players who get selected for the national team. They shouldn't be used as a means to tie players down long term.

Give players a financial motivation to compete for a spot with the team, remove the pressure to select players just based on a contract.

Shefwedfan

shootermacg wrote: »

It's a weird one. I'm of the opinion that you need one or two wise heads in key positions. Billy Holland for Munster or Isa for Leinster come to mind.

But certainly not too many old heads. Connor Murray is currently 30, is it worth investing in him and keeping players of that age on a central contract? Or would it be better to give youth it's head?

Maybe central contracts should be annual. Sure we might lose players but on the flip-side we'd have a wider player base, should we choose to loosen up on the policy against players not playing in Ireland. There are arguments for and against.

No player in their right mind would sign annual contract....every single player would be gone in a few yeard

shootermacg

Shefwedfan wrote: »

No player in their right mind would sign annual contract....every single player would be gone in a few yeard

Plenty of players playing in Ireland and gasp, they aren't on central contracts.

salmocab

shootermacg wrote: »

Plenty of players playing in Ireland and gasp, they aren't on central contracts.

The top players earn more than the provinces could afford so it would make it more likely for them to have their heads turned from abroad as the Irish money wouldn’t be a guarantee. The system probably needs tweaking somewhat but putting the centrally contracted players back on provincial wage bill would mean less money for the bottom end of the squad.