Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

Dubinusa

With the way things are refereed these days, it's likely that Schmidt would have to switch things up. I think that Schmidt's style was easily defended. Hence, the crap effort at the world cup. Schmidt made a mark with Ireland and was a great coach. But, the style utilized is very predictable and decent sides can negate it.
Farrell is trying to bring in a new style. It is a labor right now and the players aren't fluid. Reverting back to kick chase and overpowering other packs can't work, if the pack isn't able to dominate. As we have seen, our pack can't get on top of the top level opponents.

mfceiling

sebdavis wrote: »

The hype over the win against Italy was a small bit embarrassing when you think the majority of this team won a Grand Slam and beat NZ twice.

I pulled another poster on this. Where was the hype about the win over Italy?

Everyone knows Italy are a poor team. I don't remember reading anything about Ireland being outstanding or world beaters after that game. If anything most people understood that nothing was really gained from that match.

thomond2006

mfceiling wrote: »

I pulled another poster on this.

molloyjh

mfceiling wrote: »

I pulled another poster on this. Where was the hype about the win over Italy?

Everyone knows Italy are a poor team. I don't remember reading anything about Ireland being outstanding or world beaters after that game. If anything most people understood that nothing was really gained from that match.

This. The lads after the game spoke about how it was pleasing to put in the sort of performance they wanted etc. Nobody that I saw was making any real song or dance about the win. And its not like the players are going to publicly say that Italy are crap and the victory was no more than they expected. Nobody says that, because that would be a dick thing to say.

sydthebeat

So we can't even be happy about a decent win over Italy now?

We really are a nation of begrudgers

thomond2006

sydthebeat wrote: »

So we can't even be happy about a decent win over Italy now?

We really are a nation of begrudgers

I mean, it's not a case of being happy anymore. They're so off the pace that you take a TBP win as a given.

Clegg

Schmidt's gameplay was worked out by the World Cup, but we also had quite a few players starting whose form didn't warrant selection, but they played anyway. For me, Sexton, Murray, Best, Kearney and POM, essentially the spine of the side, all had stinkers.

sebdavis

mfceiling wrote: »

I pulled another poster on this. Where was the hype about the win over Italy?

Everyone knows Italy are a poor team. I don't remember reading anything about Ireland being outstanding or world beaters after that game. If anything most people understood that nothing was really gained from that match.

Really? even on majority of the podcast this week they mentioned the over hype after the game.

sebdavis

sydthebeat wrote: »

So we can't even be happy about a decent win over Italy now?

We really are a nation of begrudgers

Ireland is one of the top teams in World Rugby. Joe had us in the top 4 for a long time and we have beaten every rugby team in the World. We are better than we have every been.

I am happy with the win but lets not get ahead of ourselves. Every other team hammered Italy and the provinces hammer Italian teams every game.

aloooof

sebdavis wrote: »

Really? even on majority of the podcast this week they mentioned the over hype after the game.

Can you give an example of the hype you’re talking about?

Most coverage I came across was positive about a lot of aspects of the Italy performance e.g offloading but was all qualified by it being Italy, and that we now have to show it against better teams. Which I think is pretty spot on tbh.

salmocab

aloooof wrote: »

Can you give an example of the hype you’re talking about?

Most coverage I came across was positive about a lot of aspects of the Italy performance e.g offloading but was all qualified by it being Italy, and that we now have to show it against better teams. Which I think is pretty spot on tbh.

Even here it seemed most people either topped or tailed their praise with something about it being only Italy.

schmoo2k

sydthebeat wrote: »

So we can't even be happy about a decent win over Italy now?

We really are a nation of begrudgers

Comparing Ireland v Italy and Wales v Italy, Wales are 3 better...

mfceiling

sebdavis wrote: »

Really? even on majority of the podcast this week they mentioned the over hype after the game.

Which podcasts were that?

Who were the pundits bigging us up and full of hype after a routine victory over the worst team in the tournament?

Any sound bites or quotes from these podcasts about how brilliant Ireland were?

sydthebeat

schmoo2k wrote: »

Comparing Ireland v Italy and Wales v Italy, Wales are 3 better...

Hummm

Both Ireland and Wales put 48 points on Wales.
Ireland had three (at least 2 harshly) scratched off by the TMO.
Wales had one correctly scratched for a forward pass.

Wales had one interception try

Both Ireland and Wales got disrupted when the reserves came on.

How exactly were Wales 3 times better??

What possible metric can you use to argue that?

Podge_irl

sydthebeat wrote: »

Hummm

Both Ireland and Wales put 48 points on Wales.
Ireland had three (at least 2 harshly) scratched off by the TMO.
Wales had one correctly scratched for a forward pass.

Wales had one interception try

Both Ireland and Wales got disrupted when the reserves came on.

How exactly were Wales 3 times better??

What possible metric can you use to argue that?

Wales conceded 3 fewer points...

schmoo2k

sydthebeat wrote: »

Hummm

Both Ireland and Wales put 48 points on Wales.
Ireland had three (at least 2 harshly) scratched off by the TMO.
Wales had one correctly scratched for a forward pass.

Wales had one interception try

Both Ireland and Wales got disrupted when the reserves came on.

How exactly were Wales 3 times better??

What possible metric can you use to argue that?

3 points better

sydthebeat

schmoo2k wrote: »

3 points better

Apologies!!

I blame the drink

stephen_n

TRC10 wrote: »

Why not? We can field a 23 as good as anyone's. Why are people so negative and unambitious?

Can we? Name the 23 Irish players that would make the New Zealand, South African or French teams?

Clegg

stephen_n wrote: »

Can we? Name the 23 Irish players that would make the New Zealand, South African or French teams?

Ryan and Furlong at their best would start for New Zealand. After that maybe Ringrose and Beirne. The latter would suit their quick transitions to a tee although I'm not familiar enough with the loose forwards to say if he'd definitely get in.

I think New Zealand and Australia would also get the best out of a player like Larmour as well. He's a gifted runner of the ball, but we don't play in such a way as to give him the space to actually run one on one at defenders. Maybe he'd never be a regular for a side like New Zealand, but he'd be given the best shot.

stephen_n

Clegg wrote: »

Ryan and Furlong at their best would start for New Zealand. After that maybe Ringrose and Beirne. The latter would suit their quick transitions to a tee although I'm not familiar enough with the loose forwards to say if he'd definitely get in.

I think New Zealand and Australia would also get the best out of a player like Larmour as well. He's a gifted runner of the ball, but we don't play in such a way as to give him the space to actually run one on one at defenders. Maybe he'd never be a regular for a side like New Zealand, but he'd be given the best shot.

Furlong and Ryan at their best. Think Ringrose might but I’m not sure. Beirne I really don’t think so, just haven’t seen enough yet at top flight that would make me think he’d make it into any of those three squads. That’s still 4 out of 23 though. Sexton at his peak would have too but no 10 in Ireland would at the moment.

Dubinusa

POM!!! Angry face fits in with haka!

bilston

Clegg wrote: »

Ryan and Furlong at their best would start for New Zealand. After that maybe Ringrose and Beirne. The latter would suit their quick transitions to a tee although I'm not familiar enough with the loose forwards to say if he'd definitely get in.

I think New Zealand and Australia would also get the best out of a player like Larmour as well. He's a gifted runner of the ball, but we don't play in such a way as to give him the space to actually run one on one at defenders. Maybe he'd never be a regular for a side like New Zealand, but he'd be given the best shot.

Furlong yes, but is Ryan getting in ahead of Retallick (will be back for NZ this summer I think) and Whitelock? I can't see it myself.

AdamD

bilston wrote: »

Furlong yes, but is Ryan getting in ahead of Retallick (will be back for NZ this summer I think) and Whitelock? I can't see it myself.

Scott Barrett has 36 AB caps at the age of 27, Ryan wouldn't have an issue getting gametime.

TRC10

stephen_n wrote: »

Can we? Name the 23 Irish players that would make the New Zealand, South African or French teams?

I don't have to name 23 players to prove we have as good a team as them. There's lots of players in those teams that wouldn't get in our team.

aloooof

TRC10 wrote: »

I don't have to name 23 players to prove we have as good a team as them. There's lots of players in those teams that wouldn't get in our team.

No, but you do have to provide some evidence. Just declaring we are as good doesn’t make it so.

If we did a combined 23, I’d say Ireland might have 7, 8 players at a push?

The Inbetween is mine

Very bad feeling about today's game...I think if Hogg & Russell are firing on all cylinders... we're in for a long afternoon..

TRC10

aloooof wrote: »

No, but you do have to provide some evidence. Just declaring we are as good doesn’t make it so.

If we did a combined 23, I’d say Ireland might have 7, 8 players at a push?

My evidence is that we have enough world class players to challenge for a world cup. e.g. Furlong, Henderson, Ryan, Leavy, Henshaw, Ringrose. Some of those players would get in NZ/SA/France/England's team, and some wouldn't. It doesn't make them any less good.

You also have to take form and age into account. For example, all of England's team are at peak age, whereas we have many players coming to the end of heir careers who were undoubtably world class but aren't anymore. e.g. Healy, Murray, Sexton and Earls

hahashake

Who would get in which team is massively subjective in the perhaps the majority of cases.

I'm sure most Scottish players wouldn't make the Irish 23 according to most Irish fans yet they'd probably still be nervous about this game.

Yeah_Right

bilston wrote: »

Furlong yes, but is Ryan getting in ahead of Retallick (will be back for NZ this summer I think) and Whitelock? I can't see it myself.

Agreed. Ryan at his peak might get a bench spot but he'd be up against Barrett and Tuipolotu so not guaranteed. Healy and Fulong at their best would make the 23. Henshaw and Ringrose would be in the conversation but there is a lot of midfield talent. Stockdale is another. I don't think Murray or Sexton at their best would make the ABs because their style of play wouldn't suit the team and tactics.

stephen_n

TRC10 wrote: »

I don't have to name 23 players to prove we have as good a team as them. There's lots of players in those teams that wouldn't get in our team.

You said our 23 is as good as theirs. Yet you can provide no evidence to back it up. I would argue that we don’t and have significantly punched above our weight in the last 7 or 8 years. There are probably at maximum 5 players that would be in contention for the NZ team. Probably the same for France at the moment. So I don’t think you can make a statement that our 23 is as good as any of the top nations.