Shock Result? Ireland were simply the better team.

It’s time to face the facts. Australia didn’t manage to lose their game against Ireland. They were simply beaten by a better team. And all the crying into Australian beer won’t change that simple fact.

The review of Australia’s performance following Saturday night’s match has been full of what went wrong for Australia, the lack of performance from players, the absence of clear thinking under pressure, the inability at scrum time to control matters, the absence of Pocock and Moore.

Much of the analysis points to deficits that were a once-off set of circumstances, an occasion when the otherwise mediocre, mad Irish pulled off an unlikely victory. It was a perfect storm – never to be repeated. The underlying implication was that if Australia were to play Ireland again next week with the same lineups, the result would be markedly different.

That would be a mistake.

Former Wallaby, Adam Freier, had probably the most honest appraisal of the match in an article he wrote – “Suck it up, we were outplayed and outsmarted” ran his headline. Except as you got into the detail of it, he focussed largely on what the Wallabies did wrong, rather than acknowledge what Ireland did right and executed positively.

Reflecting on the outcome, criticism from a number of quarters is couched in classic avoidance language with reasons trotted out by commentators that are as predictable as much as they are limited.

First up - northern-hemisphere style conditions was set as the context for the game – as if it had never rained in New Zealand before Saturday night. Had the Wallabies watched how Ireland underperformed in the rain against USA?

Of course, went another of the reasons, the Irish gameplan was classic Northern-hemisphere style negative rugby. As if Australia had never played against a side that sought to dominate at scrum and breakdown time and kicked penalties to win when defences were too good – on either side - to get anything else.

Ireland slowed the ball down and prevented Australia getting the ball to their backline and what they did get was slow and on the back foot. As if Australia had never encountered this context before when playing New Zealand or South Africa, let alone a 6 Nations team. If only we’d been allowed to play positive rugby goes the deluded thinking.

Playing with a ref who penalised them unfairly at scrum time and but for a couple of calls, Australia would and should have won it. When in reality, bar one brief period when Australia were hammering on the Irish line, they failed to get past a defence that had conceeded just three (legitimate) tries in the whole of the 6 Nations championship.

Instead, despite all the wise warnings from some within the Wallaby camp, Ireland’s warm-up form was used as a metric to place them firmly into the valiant, also ran category. The mix and match Irish teams that played and lost against Scotland, France and England whilst conceding 6 tries set the expectation for the Irish performance. The USA pool match was viewed equally risibly.

There were a lot of Australian players standing around after the match with a dazed look on their faces, particularly James Horwill, the recently-installed Wallaby captain. Next to him stood his predecessor, Rocky Elsom, whose face told a completely different story – one that began with “I told you so”.

Publicly, and no doubt privately on the training field and in the dressing room, Elsom had been warning about the dangers inherent in the Irish team. Not just in their ability to fire up for the big occasion, but also because they have some world-class players, beyond the fading and injured Brian O’Driscoll. And – whisper it - some of those players were possibly better than their Wallaby counterparts.

Nowhere was this more evident than in Elsom’s own department of the backrow. Even before Pocock had suffered an injury prior to the game, Elsom was talking publicly about the calibre of the players he had played with and against in Ireland – and how underrated they were.

The absence of Pocock was no doubt keenly felt, yet the Wallabies knew that Ireland hadn’t been able to travel with their primary specialist opensider, David Wallace. Unlike Australia, Ireland had another 7 specialist in their squad, Shane Jennings of Leinster, yet Kidney had selected a blindsider instead to fill the position – Sean O’Brien - the European Player of the Year in 2010/11.

What was probably not recognised by non-Irish commentators and fans was that if David Wallace had been able to travel and play yesterday, O’Brien would likely have been on the bench, with Stephen Ferris regarded as even better now that he’s recovered from injury. Alongside both of them was Jamie Heaslip, an Irish Lion No 8, nominated as IRB Player of the Year in 2009, and with a Grand Slam and two Heineken Cups under his belt.

McCalman, Elsom and Samo/Palu just didn’t and don’t match up – any day of the week.

In the second row, Horwill and Vickerman, were up against O’Connell and O’Callaghan. The most telling assessment of this comparison was to simply look at what Australia did for most of their lineouts yesterday. First they avoided them whenever possible, and when they did, they invariably threw to the front. Polata-Nau just made it a lottery, and his erratic throwing was well-known in advance.

Front row – Healy, Best, Ross versus Kepu, TPN and Alexander. It wasn’t exactly a state secret that Ireland’s scrum had improved – who could have missed it. The emergence of Ross and Healy as a propping partnership for Leinster and Ireland had done wonders for their respective teams. Healy, in particular, in the loose had tormented pack play and was a choke-tackle specialist at test level.

Greg Growden in one of his articles for the Sydney Morning Herald, said that Ireland had prevented Australia’s rolling and driving mauls moving forward by holding the Australian player up. James Horwill also was quoted as saying: “With the maul, Ireland used the philosophy of getting on the ball and using the laws to their advantage. When it's called a maul, once it collapses the defensive team gets the feed in the scrum.”

If this quote is accurate, then the Wallaby captain failed to understand a key tactic of the Irish and the actual Law in question. There was no driving maul. The Australian player was tackled, held up ('choked") by two Irish players and prevented from going to ground or moving forward. As other Australian players gathered in the tackle, it became a maul, and as Ireland had successfully argued with the use of their tactic 12 months ago with the IRB referees panel, if the ball doesn’t emerge, then a scrum must be called and the put-in awarded to the defending team. It doesn’t require for the maul to be collapsed, just the passage of sufficient time and ensuring the maul is not moving forward. Australia should have picked up on this as Irish players were consistently saying to the ref: “It’s a maul, it’s a maul.” whilst the players were on their feet.

Behind the scrum, Australia should have had an advantage with their half-back combination. Except, as had been flagged well in advance, stop Genia, and you halt the whole Wallaby backline. Genia simply hadn’t reckoned on how good the Irish backrow was until he found himself being picked up by Ferris and firmly carried back 10 metres and dumped unceremoniously by the Ulsterman at one point in the match.

Cooper was transfixed. The level of indecision on his face when he got the ball and had Ferris and O’Brien tearing at him was palpable. When he got the ball in open space from stupid kicking from Ireland, he ran back once and nearly penetrated the Irish defence. He didn’t learn from this, and ended up attempting to chip kick and re-gather and was swallowed up greedily by the Irish pack or Irish back defenders. Nowhere to run to, nowhere to hide for the Reds playmaker.

Australian Player of the Season, Kurtley Beale, had a similar experience despite brilliantly claiming a high kick from Kearney at the beginning of the match.

Out wide, the record-breaking partnership of O’Driscoll and Darcy was hardly troubled when in fact it was the one clear weak spot in the Irish defence. McCabe and Fainga’a are just not in the same class and barely troubled the injured O’Driscoll and out of form Darcy.

In O’Connor, Beale and Ashley-Cooper lay Australia’s best hopes of gaining advantage and getting across the try-line. Kearney, Bowe and Earls all had question marks about their form coming into the match. Kearney ended up matching his counterpart, and Bowe and Earls were lively enough. Except for the fact that he was taking the place-kicks, you wondered if O’Connor was even on the pitch, he was so invisible, except for his chase down of Bowe.

Overall, Ireland had the better, more committed, more experienced, and more intelligent 22 out on the pitch. In the pack, 1 through to 8, there was simply no contest. At scrum, at lineout, and at the breakdown and ball-carrying. It wasn’t all one-way traffic, but Australia lost 16 turnovers to Ireland’s 9. And a good number of them came from Ireland’s well-flagged use of the choke tackle.

This was no 10-man victory for a negative-style northern hemisphere team. Ireland played a 15-man game with the same intensity, commitment and pace as Australia were used to playing. And Ireland were able to mix and match their attacking play to be more adventurous when it suited.

One moment in the second half captured that. About 60 minutes in, with Ireland in the lead, they were defending resolutely on their 5m line on their put-in. The scrum held firm, and instead of the ball going back to O’Gara to fire to safety of touch, Heaslip picked and ran inside his own 22. The ball fired left out the backline, and Australia first line of defence was caught napping, as Bowe streaked in open space down the wing and kicked ahead. An unlucky ricochet off the covering Beale’s legs prevented a certain try. But Ireland had a lineout on the halfway line. A positive outcome to a piece of positive play. Just one of many in what was a fascinating game.

In the end, Ireland won, because they were the better team.

Overall a nicely written piece Pothale, there are a few points though that I do not entirely agree ith you.

"and no doubt privately on the training field and in the dressing room, Elsom had been warning about the dangers inherent in the Irish team. Not just in their ability to fire up for the big occasion, but also because they have some world-class players, beyond the fading and injured Brian O’Driscoll. And – whisper it - some of those players were possibly better than their Wallaby counterparts. "

A bit of an assumption you are making there and a little biased if you ask me.


"McCalman, Elsom and Samo/Palu just didn’t and don’t match up – any day of the week."

It is a little unfair to place the criticism on them when their whole pack was under severe pressure. you put them with a stronger tight five and their performance will differ like night from day.

"And Ireland were able to mix and match their attacking play to be more adventurous when it suited. "

Neither team achieved much with their backlines during this match.


"An unlucky ricochet off the covering Beale’s legs prevented a certain try"

Wow, you are assuming a lot there, based on a poorly executed kick and the possibility that no one would run down the Irish backs in a race to the line.

Anyway, Ireland won because of two reasons IMO, their forwards totally dismantled the Australian pack, from the dominating scrum, to the way they hit the rucks, and as you rightly said keeping up the ball carrier in a "choke tackle".

Then the way you used your defensive hits and organisation to deny them space. Cooper and Genia was negated by this completely.

Declan Kidney had a masterful plan of negating all the Wallaby strengths, and it worked, but I have to agree that Deans is a smart cookie, yes he was outsmarted by Kidney this time, but if you were to meet Australia again in this world cup, they will be wisened to the tactics.

during the match it continued to perplex me as to why McCabe and his fellow back liners kept on running into contact when it clearly wasn't working.

But celebrate the win and well done to Ireland.

Australia have a very young team and Ireland were better on the day, it's not as if Ireland haven't beaten a southern hemisphere team for a long time, but clearly it shows that 6 Nations sides are capable.

The problem is all the teams are looking iffy at the moment, and the teams that build the best over the next few weeks will be the ones who get to the semis.

Wales and Ireland will fancy each other in the quarters, both fans will feel they can win and get to the semis.

France and England will fancy each other also, both sets of fans will think they can win that match. France normally pulls out one big game a World Cup, though these seems to be a lot of problems within their camp and little team spirit.

Wales, Ireland and England will all feel playing each other is a 50/50 game, so it will be a case of who gets lucky! I think England has the best depth though, especially in the forwards, Wales has the weakest.

There's blogging and there's War & Peace. This post falls in to the latter category. In summary Ireland played to their strengths and won. End of.

Looking at recent results between England and france I would think England will fancy their chances a little more than france's.

Between Ireland and wales the same applies to Ireland.

Not by too much for either team but I would fancy it will be Ireland vs england in the semi's.

France have yet to meet NZ in the pool. Not a foregone conclusion by any means. If France were to win that one then it would be England v NZ in the quarters.

To be fair, Biltong I'm pretty sure this is Pothale sharing a columnists views not his own analysis?

Maybe I'm wrong and if I am I apologise!

War & Peace........and then at the end...."In the end, Ireland won, because they were the better team."

That's the shock mate. Right there in your last sentence. To state the obvious Aus were the tri-Nations winners with NZ being the IRB No1 ranked team in the world and no other team including Ireland would actually think that is anything other than a 'shock result'.

Notch, you may be right, I thought it was his own article.

duplication

The crowd, the wet conditions, the referee and the missing talent all proved to much for the Wallabies.

Josh Rakic

There you have it - nowt to do with the Irish, just 'other factors'.

Obviously trying to steal the 'whinging' title from us Pomms

biltongbek wrote:
Declan Kidney had a masterful plan of negating all the Wallaby strengths, and it worked, but I have to agree that Deans is a smart cookie, yes he was outsmarted by Kidney this time, but if you were to meet Australia again in this world cup, they will be wisened to the tactics.

Jim Williams (Deans's Assistant) was a player, captain and assistant coach to Declan Kidney for Munster before he took on his present job. Deans must not have been listening to his assistant because I doubt if Jim Williams would have been surprised as to how a Declan Kidney coached teams can turn it on when needed.

The other thing is that last November a Deans coached Wallaby A team were beaten out the door by Munster B/Academy in poor weather and he didn't learn anything from that. He knew what the weather was going to be like on Saturday.

pot hale
What would have been the reason for Bowe to have kicked that ball "about 60 minutes in "

This is simply a post where the bookies odds on favourite was beaten by a better team on the day, but where the poster requires that everyone, including the opposition must agree that they were beaten by a better team.

That aint gonna happen- that's sport. If they want to cry into their Australian beer. Let them. That's their choice. But don't expect all and sundry to bend down and take it so easily.

For me, if Pocock and Ioane were playing the result would have been different. You probably wont agree with that either but that's my opinion.

In the end it was a great win by Ireland. Insisting that others say so is another thing. Bask in the glory I say, for you don't know how long it will last.

Taylorman wrote:In the end it was a great win by Ireland. Insisting that others say so is another thing. Bask in the glory I say, for you don't know how long it will last.

Good point. You don't hear the best sides begging for recognition. They don't need to.

Also, don't believe everything you read in the media or think that's how everbody views the result.

very good point Sin. I think they were complacent

biltongbek wrote:Overall a nicely written piece Pothale, there are a few points though that I do not entirely agree ith you.

"and no doubt privately on the training field and in the dressing room, Elsom had been warning about the dangers inherent in the Irish team.... better than their Wallaby counterparts. "

A bit of an assumption you are making there and a little biased if you ask me.

"McCalman, Elsom and Samo/Palu just didn’t and don’t match up – any day of the week."

It is a little unfair to place the criticism on them when their whole pack was under severe pressure. you put them with a stronger tight five and their performance will differ like night from day.

"And Ireland were able to mix and match their attacking play to be more adventurous when it suited. "

Neither team achieved much with their backlines during this match.

"An unlucky ricochet off the covering Beale’s legs prevented a certain try"

Wow, you are assuming a lot there, based on a poorly executed kick and the possibility that no one would run down the Irish backs in a race to the line.

Anyway, Ireland won because of two reasons IMO, their forwards totally dismantled the Australian pack, from the dominating scrum, to the way they hit the rucks, and as you rightly said keeping up the ball carrier in a "choke tackle".

Then the way you used your defensive hits and organisation to deny them space. Cooper and Genia was negated by this completely....

Hi Biltong - thanks for the response. Just to respond to some of your comments. The assumption that Elsom had been telling his team-mates about the Irish players is not that much of a leap, since he had made comments about the Ireland team and in particular the backrowers being underrated at a public press conference last week.

Picking out the comment about the backrowers not matching up to the Irish backrow is fair comment, I believe. Although it is in a context of an analysis of the entire pack. Maybe a fair question would be to ask an Australian fan who - if anyone - want they want out of the Irish backrow in their team if Pocock isn't available? Maybe they might say none. I would disagree.

Re the Beale block on Bowe's run, sure he might have been caught. That wasn't really the point though. It was the decision to run it out of the 22 at that point rather than kick for touch was more my point.

Dominating the scrum, lineout, hitting rucks, the maul and choke tackle area and highly organised defence and closing down Genia and Cooper is more than two reasons in my view, but hey who's counting. : )

Onwards to Russia.

aucklandlaurie wrote: pot hale
What would have been the reason for Bowe to have kicked that ball "about 60 minutes in "

Do tell, Laurie. I can tell you want to.

Sin é wrote:

biltongbek wrote:
Declan Kidney had a masterful plan of negating all the Wallaby strengths, and it worked, but I have to agree that Deans is a smart cookie, yes he was outsmarted by Kidney this time, but if you were to meet Australia again in this world cup, they will be wisened to the tactics.

Jim Williams (Deans's Assistant) was a player, captain and assistant coach to Declan Kidney for Munster before he took on his present job. Deans must not have been listening to his assistant because I doubt if Jim Williams would have been surprised as to how a Declan Kidney coached teams can turn it on when needed.

The other thing is that last November a Deans coached Wallaby A team were beaten out the door by Munster B/Academy in poor weather and he didn't learn anything from that. He knew what the weather was going to be like on Saturday.

So in your opinion Kidney will outsmart Deans again with the same tactics?

Is there any need for all this PotHale? Ireland did what they needed to do and won. Who cares what other people think?

People will say that Australia were missing Pocock and Ioane but we were also missing one of our best players in David Wallace and playing a brand new backrow combination. BOD and D'arcy are carrying injuries, Kearney and Bowe aren't match fit and Heaslip and Sexton were both well below their best.

I've no doubt Australia can play better but so can we and we'll need to if we want to go further than the QF. The fact is though that they are ranked 2nd in the world and we are 8th so you can't say it wasn't an upset.

Lets just draw a line under the Australia game and look to the next game.

Pot hale
No, I dont want to tell you because I cant for the life of me think of a reason....

Taylorman wrote:This is simply a post where the bookies odds on favourite was beaten by a better team on the day, but where the poster requires that everyone, including the opposition must agree that they were beaten by a better team.

That aint gonna happen- that's sport. If they want to cry into their Australian beer. Let them. That's their choice. But don't expect all and sundry to bend down and take it so easily.

For me, if Pocock and Ioane were playing the result would have been different. You probably wont agree with that either but that's my opinion.

In the end it was a great win by Ireland. Insisting that others say so is another thing. Bask in the glory I say, for you don't know how long it will last.

Taylorman - the notion that an Australian might "bend down and take it so easily" is definitely your own invention - it's an image I'm trying to forget already.

You're right - I wouldn't waste my time insisting that people cleave to a certain point of view. Although, that's not a reason for me to express my own. And I also agree that if Pocock and Ioane had been playing, the game, nevermind the result, would have been different.

I'm over basking already. Eden Park will mean nowt if Ireland don't win the pool and beat whoever in the quarters.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Pot hale
No, I dont want to tell you because I cant for the life of me think of a reason....

Oh - I'm disappointed now. You're such a tease.

Pot hale
Where can I find the article by Adam frier, Im interested in having a nosey.

roddersm wrote:Is there any need for all this PotHale?

No roddersm, there probably isn't. But hey it's Sunday and sure what else would I be doing...

this post stems from the way in which certain results are viewed and talked about by media and fans alike,

if ireland had lost by a point or two the other day, most people's reaction would be of the inevitability of it all, after all australia are the 3n champions and had beaten new zealand recently

however because it was an 'upset' people look to reasons why it happened and again rather than the irish just outplaying the opposition there have been excuses as to why Australia 'underperformed'

its classic SH arrogance and an arrogance which is prevalent in its fanbase and media alike,

taylorman - i dont see how much difference pocock would make....hes one of the best at the breakdown area.....what could he have done against the irish 'choke' tackling...likewise ioane, he wouldnt have seen the ball just like o'connor didnt....

im loving the fact that as it stands assuming new zealand top their group the 3n teams are all set to face each other in quarters or semis

Pothale, I understand the need to put your point of view across, you are proud of your team and what they have achieved.

The problem is recognition doesn't always come to the deserved and also depends from where it comes.

This is an age old problem with sport, a team percieves themselves to have been the better team on the field and hence cannot give praise to the opposition for winning, or a team plays an opponent they aren't supposed to beat and then must hear it wasn't your team that were good but the other team that was poor.

It is all about emotions, and I doubt it will ever change, although you will find the level headed individuals who will give recognition irrespective.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Pot hale
Where can I find the article by Adam frier, Im interested in having a nosey.

Sure laurie. I should have added that Freier finished his piece with this generous comment:

"We can also applaud that we were beaten by a better nation on the night. Put our hand up and say, thank you Ireland for a small dose of humble pie."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/suck-it-up-australia-were-outsmarted-and-outplayed-20110917-1kfip.html#ixzz1YKslUVpO

Pot Hale wrote:

roddersm wrote:Is there any need for all this PotHale?

No roddersm, there probably isn't. But hey it's Sunday and sure what else would I be doing...

Relax, have a and look forward to the Russia game .

So Gavin if I congratulate and compliment Ireland on their victory over Australia ,Am I being arrogant?

biltongbek wrote:Pothale, I understand the need to put your point of view across, you are proud of your team and what they have achieved.

The problem is recognition doesn't always come to the deserved and also depends from where it comes.

This is an age old problem with sport, a team percieves themselves to have been the better team on the field and hence cannot give praise to the opposition for winning, or a team plays an opponent they aren't supposed to beat and then must hear it wasn't your team that were good but the other team that was poor.

It is all about emotions, and I doubt it will ever change, although you will find the level headed individuals who will give recognition irrespective.

Quite. Succintly put, old bean. Would you like a job as an editor?

GavinDragon wrote:taylorman - i dont see how much difference pocock would make....hes one of the best at the breakdown area.....what could he have done against the irish 'choke' tackling...likewise ioane, he wouldnt have seen the ball just like o'connor didnt....

I agree with you Gav, look at the performance Brussow put in during the past two tests, although he made 22 tackles in the match against Wales, he could not dominate turnovers at the breakdown because there wasn't enough physicality from his fellow forwards, compare this to the match vs Fiji, he could be more effective because the collective unit of SA's forwards were better.

One individual cannot do it on his own.

Pot Hale wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Pothale, I understand the need to put your point of view across, you are proud of your team and what they have achieved.

The problem is recognition doesn't always come to the deserved and also depends from where it comes.

This is an age old problem with sport, a team percieves themselves to have been the better team on the field and hence cannot give praise to the opposition for winning, or a team plays an opponent they aren't supposed to beat and then must hear it wasn't your team that were good but the other team that was poor.

It is all about emotions, and I doubt it will ever change, although you will find the level headed individuals who will give recognition irrespective.

Quite. Succintly put, old bean. Would you like a job as an editor?

Does it involve much reading?

maybe its just my perception auckland but the fact that your sniping at pot hales observations about the media reaction does to mee seem like your telling him to pipe down and just be happy with the win as others have wrote 'is (the post) neccessary'?

and it is neccessary because as pot hale has wrote if you read and believed some of the press australia lost that game rather than ireland winning it,

but then it could just be my small nation syndrome kicking in ;-)

biltongbek wrote:

Sin é wrote:

biltongbek wrote:
Declan Kidney had a masterful plan of negating all the Wallaby strengths, and it worked, but I have to agree that Deans is a smart cookie, yes he was outsmarted by Kidney this time, but if you were to meet Australia again in this world cup, they will be wisened to the tactics.

Jim Williams (Deans's Assistant) was a player, captain and assistant coach to Declan Kidney for Munster before he took on his present job. Deans must not have been listening to his assistant because I doubt if Jim Williams would have been surprised as to how a Declan Kidney coached teams can turn it on when needed.

The other thing is that last November a Deans coached Wallaby A team were beaten out the door by Munster B/Academy in poor weather and he didn't learn anything from that. He knew what the weather was going to be like on Saturday.

So in your opinion Kidney will outsmart Deans again with the same tactics?

I think Declan Kidney is a great coach who always gets the best out of his teams when it matters.* Kidney always has something up his sleeve for the games that matter as well.

*I know Ireland lost a load of games coming into the world cup. But the team didn't lose confidence and just peaked when required. Ireland will probably be rubbish for the next two games, but will lift themselves again when necessary. And they play as a team, not as individuals.

Pot Hale wrote:

Taylorman wrote:This is simply a post where the bookies odds on favourite was beaten by a better team on the day, but where the poster requires that everyone, including the opposition must agree that they were beaten by a better team.

That aint gonna happen- that's sport. If they want to cry into their Australian beer. Let them. That's their choice. But don't expect all and sundry to bend down and take it so easily.

For me, if Pocock and Ioane were playing the result would have been different. You probably wont agree with that either but that's my opinion.

In the end it was a great win by Ireland. Insisting that others say so is another thing. Bask in the glory I say, for you don't know how long it will last.

Taylorman - the notion that an Australian might "bend down and take it so easily" is definitely your own invention - it's an image I'm trying to forget already.

You're right - I wouldn't waste my time insisting that people cleave to a certain point of view. Although, that's not a reason for me to express my own. And I also agree that if Pocock and Ioane had been playing, the game, nevermind the result, would have been different.

I'm over basking already. Eden Park will mean nowt if Ireland don't win the pool and beat whoever in the quarters.

all good pot. Had to mention pocock and ioane as they beat us with the same team plus he two!
Good win in any case. Loved it

GavinDragon wrote:maybe its just my perception auckland but the fact that your sniping at pot hales observations about the media reaction does to mee seem like your telling him to pipe down and just be happy with the win as others have wrote 'is (the post) neccessary'?

Gavin you misunderstand my comment. I understand what Pot Hale has saying and Biltong has perhaps articulated it better.

However people are entitled to their views. I think Ireland have had a lot of goodwill and support from fans of other nations this weekend and recieved plenty of generous (and deserved) praise. If some want to descredit or undermine the victory in some way so be it. It suits us to be underestimated and to be fair we still have plenty to prove as we have had pretty inconsistant form over the past 18 months.

Lots of drivel on this thread - Haven't posted since Friday so just want to say a big congratulations to a mighty Irish performance and to all the Irish boys on here and that fella Gibson in Amsterdam. Well played lads - The Aussies have a lot more to say yet and may well be the first RWC winners to lose in the groups stages. Well done again you green monsters

pot hale
thanks, I've read the article by adam frier, and I thought it was excellant.
Not every article reviewing last saturday nights game has to written from the exclusive perspective of complimenting and praising Ireland, surely the Australians are to be allowed the opportunity to analyse the performance of their team,in their newspaper?

gav dragon
I asked what I thought was a perfectly valid question,how is that sniping?
It may well be looked on as sniping if I pointed out that Pot hale hasnt answered my question..

apologies auckland didnt mean to get into anything with you, just let my annoyance of how nh rugby is viewed in general by the sh and on reflection the views are justified, until teams from the nh produce results like this on a regular basis the perceptions wont change

biltongbek wrote:So in your opinion Kidney will outsmart Deans again with the same tactics?

Biltong, to be fair it wasn't rocket science. If you dominate the set piece and breakdown then you will likely win the game. There was nothing new about what we did and the australians had already hilighted our main strengths in the build up to the game so were well aware of the tactics we would use. I would back us, with the same players to be able to reproduce the same level of performance and better in fact as a number of players were still well below par.

Whether or not that would be good enough to beat the Australians on different day is another thing, as that match could have went either way. I believe we were good for the win though.

I think the most important thing for us as Irish fans is not to get cocky because Italy have a great chance to knock us off our new pedestal, any of the teams we meet in the quarters if we qualify have the ability to beat us on the day and Russia, although I think we are heavy favourites, have the ability to cause us problems if we're not completely professional and committed in that game.

The thing is, Ireland have played quite well in a group game and got a fantastic result. But we need to do more than replicate that performance. Other teams will be taking us a lot more seriously now whereas we flew in very much under the radar. If we play like we did yesterday against a 3N team we can cause them big problems but if we don't up our game, especially with regard to our backline, we're still likely to fall just short in the biggest games of all!

roddersm wrote:

biltongbek wrote:So in your opinion Kidney will outsmart Deans again with the same tactics?

Biltong, to be fair it wasn't rocket science. If you dominate the set piece and breakdown then you will likely win the game. There was nothing new about what we did.

Rodders, absolutely I agree with you, but Sine wassuggesting that this is the second time Australia has been caught by this tactic and Deans didn't learn previously and .....

But as you say, tactics do have only so much to do when forwards dominate, the collective physicality can outdo a more tecnicaly coached team as well as a simply weaker pack of forwards.

Notch wrote:I think the most important thing for us as Irish fans is not to get cocky because Italy have a great chance to knock us off our new pedestal

Spot on as always Notch

gav dragon
thank you for that reply.

roddersm wrote:

Notch wrote:I think the most important thing for us as Irish fans is not to get cocky because Italy have a great chance to knock us off our new pedestal

Spot on as always Notch

You know what Rodders? This isn't the place for it, but Nevin Spence looks a different player this season in terms of knowing when to pass, when to offload and when to run. See his offload for Caves second try? Class!

The kid is learning. He's learning. And the way we're lining up, the number on his back makes little difference because Cave and Spence are interchanging a lot. He lined up at 13 for some moves already with Cave inside him (ooh-er).

biltongbek wrote:

roddersm wrote:

biltongbek wrote:So in your opinion Kidney will outsmart Deans again with the same tactics?

Biltong, to be fair it wasn't rocket science. If you dominate the set piece and breakdown then you will likely win the game. There was nothing new about what we did.

Rodders, absolutely I agree with you, but Sine wassuggesting that this is the second time Australia has been caught by this tactic and Deans didn't learn previously and .....

But as you say, tactics do have only so much to do when forwards dominate, the collective physicality can outdo a more tecnicaly coached team as well as a simply weaker pack of forwards.

Yeah, thing is Munster used different tactics in Thomond! What they really struggled with was our gang tackle and the specific laws around that. Once it turns into a maul it has to move forward or it's a scrum to the defending side. So you have to get your big men hitting the static ball carrier really, really hard once we hold the player up! You have to keep going forward. Thats the kind of physical response they didn't have to our pack who were magnificent in the collisions and tight work. Apart from that it was just class pressure on Genia, we really got to him. Get to Genia and Cooper will follow...

So, unlike Sin, I am certain that they would try and counter what we did to them and I'm sure all the other teams will do the same from now on. If we meet Australia again maybe they will commit more men to the ruck and try and play a bit tighter. Try and get a strike runner running into midfield and get your backrows around him quickly to try and drive him on. Then, once you get that go-forward, go wide.

I'm sure they were aware of Kidneys motivational prowess- but I think the players took their eye off the ball for this game a little. It happens. Oh, and Poloto-Nau and McCalman just aren't that good! Their first choices are great players but if they had O'Brien and Best as understudies it would have been much tougher for us.

biltongbek wrote:
Rodders, absolutely I agree with you, but Sine wassuggesting that this is the second time Australia has been caught by this tactic and Deans didn't learn previously and .....

Biltong, I think Sin just wanted to bring up the fact that Munster beat Australia

Some of the Australian players did indicate after that they were shocked at how strong the Irish players were physically and perhaps went too upright into contact. They also said they didn't expect the physicality Ireland had at the breakdown and couldn't move them off the ball.

Ireland also have a very professional set up but I think this was a victory for the players rather than the coaches. Australia perhaps lacked the leaders and old heads that Ireland had. In contrast to the way SA were able to weather the storm from Wales Australia just lacked that experience and control but they will learn.

Perhaps this will be another WC for the old men rather than the young guns .

Ha ha Notch, when I said you were always spot on, I should have said 'nearly always' I told you Spence was some boy!

aucklandlaurie wrote: pot hale
thanks, I've read the article by adam frier, and I thought it was excellant.
Not every article reviewing last saturday nights game has to written from the exclusive perspective of complimenting and praising Ireland, surely the Australians are to be allowed the opportunity to analyse the performance of their team,in their newspaper?

gav dragon
I asked what I thought was a perfectly valid question,how is that sniping?
It may well be looked on as sniping if I pointed out that Pot hale hasnt answered my question..

Laurie - you're correct in saying that not every article reviewing the game has to be written from the exclusive perspective of complimenting Ireland. I never suggested that they should. You go on to rhetorically ask "Surely the Australians are to be allowed the opportunity to analyse the performance of their team in their newspaper?" There's a bit of me that wants to respond No they are not allowed, but you might take me seriously.

Finally, I promise not to look on it as sniping - what question did I not answer for you?

This reminds me of the anglos always going on about how Ireland are always able to raise their game against them - I think they raised it 7 times out of 8. Always a bit frustrating and insulting when you read that crap - Maybe they were just the better team god forbid