Ireland Tour of USA & Canada

by debaters1 Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:46 pm

First topic message reminder :

rodders wrote:Consider my roll slowed...

I don't think Jackson is great. I think he is good though and his distribution is excellent, better even than Sextons, he has good pace and is a solid defender. I'm not sure that he has the mental strength or personality to be a top class 10 and boss games but at only 21 its hard to judge and he has time.

I don't accept though that he has been selected on anything other than merit or that his contributions so far for Ireland have been anything other than positive.

If you judged Sexton on his goal kicking then he is a mediocre player. Except he isn't mediocre, he's top class.

Madigan is the second best 10 in Ireland right now, I think nearly everyone agrees, but in February this wasn't necessarily the case.

This right here ^^^ 100% true. Had an argument with my sister who is a Leinster fan (we're an odd family, Cork father, Kilkenny mother, living in Dublin I was born in Belgium) about this at the time. madigan was in good form in Feb and has shown he can play 10 but usually (at that point) it was almost exclusively Rabo amd not against an Ulster or Munster or Ospreys type side whereas PJ had played a Heino 1/4 in Thomond and helped Ulster win as well as the semi and final loss. So totally earned and is in credit for his 6 nations game too. But if Kidney were making the decision now, he'd obviously pick IM today.

Oh and agreed, his first 15 caps or so, if you took away a 9/9 or 10/10 kicking performance for Ireland against Fiji or Samoa (apols for failing memory here) in the RDS, Sexton was kicking less than 50% for Ireland. People would have shot ROG for less than 80%.

Regarding the mental side of the game that you have questions about over Jackson, I agree but that's the thing. if you told someone in May 2000 that ROG would go on to be capped 125+ times, tour thrice with the Lions, be named Heino play of the first 15 years of the comp, winning it twice and have the testicular fortitude to win two games on consecutive weeknds with drop goals, there would have been many to question your sanity.

People forget that only about 10% (if that) of players are like BOD or POC, the others learn to be winners by losing and learning from it, gaining experience and testing themselves weeke in week out. ROG is a winner but less in the 'born' mould more in the 'made' sense but he had many weaknesses in his game that he himself and his coaches too, refused to hide. ROG was never stuck out on the wing on opposition ball or hidden in some other way. He stood his post and was run over. And over agin. And got back up. Targeted for each and every one of his 125 Test caps and 200+ Munster games and had a 14 year pro career. That's balls right there.It is easy to always showcase what you're great at and forget your weaknesses. ROG didn't do that and I hope PJ doesn't either.

He is so young and has many strings to his bow and he and Madigan and JJ will hopefully be providing us with many a (positive!) selection dilemna over the coming years. This is the depth we've craved for the past 5 or 6 years, so we do not have to as patient, but we do not have to be super rash either.

by Gibson Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:14 pm

I always have the fear that a new coach will have serious provincial bias. I have a feeling Schmidt will.

Of course there will be "bias". But only because initially, in a 50-50 choice, he knows the players who will perform for him and those he can trust in a Storm.

But that will dissipate over the next year or two. Because he has been watching and playing against Irish players, for 3 years now.

The best players to suit his style of play and game-plan, will play under him.
No matter where they are from. He's a winner and will pick the 23 accordingly. Not from fear but to suit his style. I can see him use 30 players constantly. The game demands it now, at the top-end. The attrition and injury rate is growing with the bulking-up and pace of the game. Its a whole New Wuddild.

As for Schmidt, he's not Leinster anymore, thats all done and dusted. He is Irelands Coach now.

As my mate Maggie Thatcher once said... Rejoice!

by SecretFly Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:23 pm

The problem for our International coaches is not so much displays of bias but moreso the need to pick players to play. As soon as they decide they'll need players they set themselves up for a fall. Our deeply Provincial sensibilities will always remember who they coached and as soon as they pick a few of them - that's bias.

Incidently, even a coach coming from outside will have bias, because he'll have observed Ireland and the Provinces from outside and he'll have formed opinions on best players...but those best players will be Provincials, and the outside coach will eventually be accused of holding a secret love of a certain Province based on his previous observational history.

A coach will never escape the accusation of bias from those who like using the word.

by Sin é Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:27 pm

SecretFly wrote:The problem for our International coaches is not so much displays of bias but moreso the need to pick players to play. As soon as they decide they'll need players they set themselves up for a fall. Our deeply Provincial sensibilities will always remember who they coached and as soon as they pick a few of them - that's bias.

Incidently, even a coach coming from outside will have bias, because he'll have observed Ireland and the Provinces from outside and he'll have formed opinions on best players...but those best players will be Provincials, and the outside coach will eventually be accused of holding a secret love of a certain Province based on his previous observational history.

A coach will never escape the accusation of bias from those who like using the word.

Looks like any Leinster fans who screamed on and on about Kidney's Munster bias (despite the evidence otherwise) were digging a hole for themselves. Whistle

by red_stag Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:29 pm

Schmidt was at Leinster for three years. During that time he was in charge for 3 European Cup Finals.

Shane Jennings did not start in any of them. His much touted love of the traditional 7 is a myth.

He has no more interest in a traditional 7 than Declan Kidney or any other coach.

That isn't a slight against Schmidt. I'm very happy with his appointment and I look forward to the future. But this idea that he loves his "true #seven" is a complete myth.

by SecretFly Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:32 pm

My point was it happens, it's happened in the past and it'll go on happening. It's nature, Sin é.

Meanwhile, I was a fierce critic of Kidney yes, ...never once mentioned his Munster bias. So Mr Whistler whistled down the wrong road Wink

.

by Sin é Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:39 pm

SecretFly wrote:My point was it happens, it's happened in the past and it'll go on happening. It's nature, Sin é.

Meanwhile, I was a fierce critic of Kidney yes, ...never once mentioned his Munster bias. So Mr Whistler whistled down the wrong road .

I don't think Kidney had a 'provincial' bias and I doubt if Schmidt will either. Successful coaches will always pick the player who they consider will do a job for them.

by Rory_Gallagher Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:40 pm

red_stag wrote:Schmidt was at Leinster for three years. During that time he was in charge for 3 European Cup Finals.

Shane Jennings did not start in any of them. His much touted love of the traditional 7 is a myth.

He has no more interest in a traditional 7 than Declan Kidney or any other coach.

Exactly, people are talking nonsense here.

Gibson, I know you love Shane Jennings as a player, but he isn't the guy to solve anything, and clearly Schmidt agrees with that or he would have him as his nailed on starter. He quite clearly isn't the starting 7 for Leinster, and despite a few good games this season, he is still lacking at higher levels. The simple answer is that despite a few good games he isn't actually an improvement to the side. Schmidt believes his back row is better for his game plan, and for his team, without Jennings starting. That is quite clear.

The irish back row is imbalanced, yes, but also our pack is imbalanced, not to mention our entire team. The team has no structure, no organisation. Whatever Schmidt wants to achieve with Ireland, he can select his players on that basis, on his terms and whatever suits the game he wants Ireland to play. He will pick his 7 to achieve the role that benefits the game plan and the team. The player selected might be different from what us armchair experts want to see.

People seem to think the solution here is "pick a 'natural' 7" and all these issues are suddenly going to correct themselves.

Madness.

by SecretFly Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:41 pm

Sin é wrote:
SecretFly wrote:My point was it happens, it's happened in the past and it'll go on happening. It's nature, Sin é.

Meanwhile, I was a fierce critic of Kidney yes, ...never once mentioned his Munster bias. So Mr Whistler whistled down the wrong road .

I don't think Kidney had a 'provincial' bias and I doubt if Schmidt will either. Successful coaches will always pick the player who they consider will do a job for them.

Agree.... the Provincial bias comes from the Provincial fans who accuse people of it.

by Gibson Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:41 pm

Wrong. Jenno started and won us the 1st one against his former team Tigers, in 2008/09. Came on in the 2nd-half, v a home-and-dry Saints in 2010/11 and turned them over too.

In 2011/12, it didn't matter. I could have played there and we would have won it.

My point is, because of his nous, durtiness and leadership, he was key to us getting where we are now. At the very top of NH club-rugby.
And to achieve that, you need to utilise a proper 7. Everyone knows that. Specially Schmidt.

red_stag

Schmidt was at Leinster for three years. During that time he was in charge for 3 European Cup Finals.

Shane Jennings did not start in any of them. His much touted love of the traditional 7 is a myth.

He has no more interest in a traditional 7 than Declan Kidney or any other coach.

That isn't a slight against Schmidt. I'm very happy with his appointment and I look forward to the future. But this idea that he loves his "true #seven" is a complete myth.

by Rory_Gallagher Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:47 pm

In the Northampton game, isn't it widely reported that Sexton made the difference. His famous half time match discussion seemed to turn the momentum around and the team came out with a different mindset. Again, the addition of Jennings may have helped somewhat at this point, but he is not the sole reason for the momentum shift.

Is Jennings the same sort of player as McCaw? Or as Pocock? Or Warburton? Tipuric? Dusautoir? The funny thing is, every single one of those guys have different strengths and weaknesses, and they do not have the same role in their respective teams. They work so well in conjunction with their team mates though.

Thanks for the comments about the Ulster-Leinster final btw. Classy. thumbsup

by Gibson Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:52 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:
red_stag wrote:Schmidt was at Leinster for three years. During that time he was in charge for 3 European Cup Finals.

Shane Jennings did not start in any of them. His much touted love of the traditional 7 is a myth.

He has no more interest in a traditional 7 than Declan Kidney or any other coach.

Exactly, people are talking nonsense here.

Gibson, I know you love Shane Jennings as a player, but he isn't the guy to solve anything, and clearly Schmidt agrees with that or he would have him as his nailed on starter. He quite clearly isn't the starting 7 for Leinster, and despite a few good games this season, he is still lacking at higher levels. The simple answer is that despite a few good games he isn't actually an improvement to the side. Schmidt believes his back row is better for his game plan, and for his team, without Jennings starting. That is quite clear.

The irish back row is imbalanced, yes, but also our pack is imbalanced, not to mention our entire team. The team has no structure, no organisation. Whatever Schmidt wants to achieve with Ireland, he can select his players on that basis, on his terms and whatever suits the game he wants Ireland to play. He will pick his 7 to achieve the role that benefits the game plan and the team. The player selected might be different from what us armchair experts want to see.

People seem to think the solution here is "pick a 'natural' 7" and all these issues are suddenly going to correct themselves.

Madness.

Rory man, calm yer brouges. No one is saying a proper 7 is the answer. No one. But it goes a long way towards the complete solution.

All I want is a balance that works for our country. Thats all. 90% of the people on here, want dynamic ball-carriers all over the shop. But remember, it has to be secured 1st.
And for the record, Jenno is the past internationally. He's just the last proper 7 we've seen in Ireland for Yonks. Since Gleeson in fact.

On a positive note, Im liking O Donnell a lot. POM too (hes a 6 and SOB is in trouble). Could see a Munster-dominant Irish backrow again soon, just like de aul days.

As long as it gets us places, Im happy.

by ME-109 Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:58 pm

Jennings got his chances and was decidedly underwhelming...a great Leinster player but never good enough for Ireland

by Rory_Gallagher Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:59 pm

What is wrong with dynamic ball carriers if they are perfectly capable of winning and securing ball themselves? Such players exist, believe it or not. Richie McCaw is a great example over the past few years, where his carrying has been a huge weapon for NZ.

My next question is why do you think a "natural" 7 is going to prove to be any better at securing ball? It is the pack as a whole who are primarily going to win or lose this battle, not the 7. The 7, depending on who he is, may win the most turnovers, and disrupt opposition ball, but how is he going to help secure it more?

What is harder to move off the ball, an 18 stone man, or a lighter but more agile 15 stone man? After the first phase (where the 7 is usually the first man to the breakdown, either as the tackler or to secure/steal) he shouldn't be expected to solely secure ball. There are 7 other players in the pack with that duty.

by SecretFly Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:51 pm

The number I most hate in rugby is the Number 7.

I hate it because there once was a time when nobody cared who was natural as long as they played with fire in their belly and all round ability in their performances.

The Natural 7 debate bores me to tears.

But that's just a personal thought on the number 7, folks. Don't mind me at all. By all means carry on with the debate. Smile

There's room for all of us.

by Hookisms and Hyperbole Mon Jun 17, 2013 8:45 am

No one is talking about a 'natural' 7, except for Rory who seems to believe that traditionalesque or balance means the same thing as natural. We dont have a natural 7 anyway so it's a moot point. We don't have one so no point picking someone to play as one. I mean we could artificially create one with DNA of Mccaw, Pocock and some bull seamen but the ethical questions are stark. Also, where do you buy a turkey baster at this time of year? David Wallace wasn't a natural 7 but he was an outstanding 7 in a balanced backrow playing with people who complimented each other. So many people screamed at the selection of Easterby but he was a cog in a unit that worked well together and so Eddie kept the faith even where better individual players existed.

I don't know how I can be any clearer than this and ill repeat it for the slow learners- we need balance, balance, balance, balance, balance. Complimentary skill sets and the best unit not the best individuals. I don't see where the 'nonsense' as Rory puts it is in that. The only nonsense is going with the same failed unit time and time and time again. It's utterly moronic. Hey, maybe Joe can get them working together. I doubt it as they do not possess the skillets to work together sufficiently. Stag, I'm afraid you've been shown up by Gibbo. Jennings started against the Tigers and when he came on against Northampton he helped change the face of the match. He wasn't the only one, but to suggest as Rory does that he wasn't a massive part of it is disingenuous and silly. No one is suggesting Jennings for Ireland, that ship has sailed. But at 32 or 33 Joe saves him for the big ones and games where he is needed- horses for courses. Last season Joes tactics for the final meant there were better solutions. That is just good coaching. When he got it wrong against Northampton he brought someone on to help change a match that was lost. Already two big ticks in comparison to Kidney. But yeah, you lads are right. Joe just doesn't value 7s like Jennings. I made it up. Stag and Rory, you lads need to vary your diet. Stag turnip juice hasn't got enough nutrients. Same could be said for Rory and the SOB kool aid. I suggest fruit and fibre. My bowel run like clockwork. Tescos own brand are quite nice.

So just to be clear lads balance. Not natural this or traditional that. Complimentary skillsets, and that might include someone who leans more closely to traditional type 7 skills but I don't mean out and out natural 7. Just so you get it. I know it's its difficult for Stag and Rory- they thought a thesaurus was a herbivorous dinosaur. I like the one in Jurassic park with the neck flaps that made high pitched noises and spat gunk in your mans eyes. Reminds me of a girl I used to go out with actually. She was from Cork. Say no more lads.

So, balance. Balance I tells ye. That means on form and complimentary skills for the autumn:
6 SOB
7 TOD
8 Heaslip

POM pushing hard at SOB and Heaslip's heels and on the bench.

As DOD would point out I'm racist against Munster people so I must mean it.

by Rory_Gallagher Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:31 am

Hook, to be honest there is a lot of words there without much substance, and you are largely missing the point. If you read my posts I am the one suggesting that balance is the key (for the entire team, not just the back row) so why you think I am suggesting otherwise is strange. I agree that individuals do not make the best team. You say I am the one bringing up the "natural" 7 business, yet you make reference to it multiple times.

My question is (which is yet to be answered) what do you actually mean by "natural", "out and out", "traditional" 7? These media buzz words are thrown around so often but mean very little. Again, the usual suspects are thrown in. Pocock and McCaw. Yet both are totally different players with different strengths. So what skillset is required? Pilfering ability at the breakdown? Is that the one and only skill that a 7 must possess? Yet again some are better than this than others, but not better 7s.

For example, David Wallace was a world class openside flanker, an all around excellent player sorely missed by Ireland. He was far better than his competition at 7 in Ireland, and nobody matched his skillset at 7. Simple.

Can you even remember the Northampton game in which Leinster won the HEC, Hook? You say it is foolish to suggest Jennings didn't play a large part, but can you tell me what he contributed to the game that was lacking in the 1st half? I know you will say "balance" but in what way did he balance the Leinster side? What did he improve? What he did improve, was replacing McLaughlin who was having a lacklustre game, so he was the better player to bring on, and he freed up O'Brien because of this. However that is clearly supposed to be McLaughlin's role as well.

Also, claiming that Schmidt uses a "insert favourite buzz word" 7 for his high intensity games makes absolutely no sense, as it has been clearly proven that he doesn't start Jennings in the big games. Using Jenning's age as an excuse for this is also strange, and I highly doubt is a factor in why Jennings doesn't start these games. David Wallace as an example was the starting 7 for Ireland at 35, and before his injury was playing some of his best rugby still.

by **Notch** Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:57 am

All this arguing about whether or not Schmidt favours a "natural 7"; with Leinster Schmidt clearly favoured flexibility in this position opting to chop and change the kind of player who wears depending on the opponent and the gameplan.

i.e. he's not dogmatic about who plays there, and is flexible depending on what tactics they are using on the day. Which is how it should be.

This debate is awfully, awfully dull. There's no stupider phrase in rugby than natural 7. We accept that we have 10s who sit deep and dictate the game via the boot and 10s who take the ball on the gainline and thrive because of their fine attacking instincts and they are both 10s. We accept that inside centres can be big, direct boshers or slight, twinkletoed playmakers and we still describe them both as 12s. And so on.

A 7 is like a 6 or an 8. Whatever is necessary to balance the backrow is a good 7.

by pete (buachaill on eirne) Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:07 pm

Little late to the party on this and have only read this page and the previous thread but two things:

1) does anyone have a good link for the Canada game? I have been watching it on TG4 player and it keeps stopping after the Cave try, would like to see the whole damn thing

2) Heaslip and SOB work best as a unit when there is a "worker" in the other backrow position. It doesn't matter if SOB is 6 or 7 as long as the other guy is a really tough worker. Needless to say a lot of it comes down to the front 5 as well.

by debaters1 Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:21 pm

Notch wrote:All this arguing about whether or not Schmidt favours a "natural 7"; with Leinster Schmidt clearly favoured flexibility in this position opting to chop and change the kind of player who wears depending on the opponent and the gameplan.

i.e. he's not dogmatic about who plays there, and is flexible depending on what tactics they are using on the day. Which is how it should be.

This debate is awfully, awfully dull. There's no stupider phrase in rugby than natural 7. We accept that we have 10s who sit deep and dictate the game via the boot and 10s who take the ball on the gainline and thrive because of their fine attacking instincts and they are both 10s. We accept that inside centres can be big, direct boshers or slight, twinkletoed playmakers and we still describe them both as 12s. And so on.

A 7 is like a 6 or an 8. Whatever is necessary to balance the backrow is a good 7.

This, this right here. Thank you Notch.

Gibson also said something vitally important above and I'd concur, I do not care who plays in our backrow come November, so long as they are collectively effective at aiding our ball retention and collectively effective at pilfering/slowing down/frustrating the opposition when they have the ball. As I ay, this could mean that 3 guys whom we do not even know (highly unlikely but i'm being @rsey to make my point) could be at 6, 7 & 8 with any one of the many aforementioned guys above. fark it, Schmidt could do a Gatland and (with the aid of miracle medical science!) recall Wally to the set up. And if we're winning and said backrow is doing its fair share, then queue smile on my face.

In reality though, if I were Joe and had the full deck to shuffle, I'd select:

6: POM
7: TOD
8: SOB (though after the past 5 or 6 weeks I must admit that Heaslip has been much better than the 6N so could be at 8)

20: SOB if Heaslip at 8. Henry is SOB at 8.

Or an alternative:

6: SOB
7: TOD
8: Heaslip/POM

20: Henry or POM.

Or....

6: Henry
7: SOB
8: POM

20 TOD

While there are, of course, more combinations to be made of the above, i think the 3 backrow's I have selected have enough balance and enough in respect of carrying, retention, pilfering and link play to be an effective unit.

Do I see Heaslip or SOB being dropped? No but there are alternatives to serious loss of form or injury. And the young guys like TOD, Henry and POM are capable of being seriously good players (I understand young here is a relative term, they ain't 19 year olds after all)

by pete (buachaill on eirne) Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:30 pm

I would like to see Henry in the backrow I must say, not as a "typical 7" which he is not but just as a work horse to allow Heaslip and SOB carry around the pitch more (not that they wouldn't do other work - they are both good in defense and at the ruck).

During the 6Nations POM, SOB and Heaslip did not work as they all wanted to carry and it meant that Jamie had to go in to the trenches where he is good but not outstanding (he was ridiculed to high-heaven by many including a large number on here). It was not effective however in my eyes.

Maybe with POM doing more dirty work as witnessed post 6Nations he has been doing a lot of, and Jamie moving a little further out and carrying there at times but overall it was not great and I am not sure it ever will be.

Likewise Henderson, not enough workrate and is another big ball carrier when we really need a grafter.

Henry could come in and link the pieces of the puzzle together and in my opinion do a really good job, he would not be flashy and many people would say he's gone missing in the game but I think he could keep the whole machine well-oiled and ticking over and allowing others to look good which is one of Joe's mantras.

NB: The reason I have gone for SOB and Heaslip as constants in the backrow is that currently they are in the best form playing some outstanding stuff for the Lions, if POM forced his way in at 8 or 6 then by all means he would get whichever shirt.

by gleesonisgod Mon Jun 17, 2013 2:18 pm

I think O'Mahony is in the same mould as Parisse. Not big bulldozers like SOB or Picamoles, but more dynamic, good hand, and of course tireless workers.

by pete (buachaill on eirne) Mon Jun 17, 2013 3:11 pm

Apologies for being so late to this but finished watching the Canadian game there:

1=worst performance ever seen
5=completely average
10=best performance ever seen

Court: 4
Gave away a few penalties at the scrum and was largely ineffective in the loose. I saw him jogging far too often. Shoveled a lot of poor ball too putting pressure on halfbacks.

Strauss: 5.5
Pretty mediocre game, but importantly the lineout functioned much better. Seems to have lost some of his power and dynamism around the field, needs to up it, like most of our hookers.

Ross: 4
Pretty poor showing I thought, scrum was ok but gave away a penalty or two in the loose. he gets to rucks but does so little other than throw his weight at them, so little actual power.

Tuohy: 7.5
Impressive in most aspects of play, dynamic for a tighthead lock and has footballing ability and vision which is great to see in the front 5. Mix this with some of his power and he looks good. 2 offloads and 2 clean breaks, better than some backs.

Toner: 7
Got (and gets) a lot of stick last week, showed outstanding hands in moving contact, good lineout operator, tackled well and made some incisive carries when taking the ball at pace.

McLaughlin: 5.5
Rucked really effectively and made some strong carries but overall seemed quite quiet. I would have expected a much higher (and successful) tackle count (5/3) from him.

O'Donnell: 7.5
Tackled like a machine and carried the ball really hard. He looked good and very alert. He is not the kinda guy who is going to win you much ball on the deck but he was good at securing ball.

O'Mahony: 7.5
This would have been higher if he'd been a more effective captain I think. The Canadian's worked out how to rile him very easily. That being said he was effective with ball in hand, carrying when we needed go forward ball as opposed to when we had. Good work in the lineout, like McLaughlin I'd have expected more/better tackling. (5/2)

Boss: 6.5
A huge improvement from last week. He controlled the play a lot better and his passing was not as laboured. He didn't have to deal with as much physicality but played well.

Madigan: 7
Good goalkicking again. He shortened his up and unders well, kicked from hand well and varied it (chips/cross kicks). Good array of passing but the Canadians read the moves easily I felt.

Trimble: 6
Played right wing in 11 jersey. Took his try well and made some nice half-breaks on good line running. Was very solid for the most part.

Downey: 5.5
Was not the yard maker everyone expected him to be (9 carries 14 metres). He was rock solid in defense though and his decision making was relatively good too.

Cave: 5.5
Took his try well but did very little else, he defended the outside channels with some great decision making but looks short on attacking class.

McFadden: 8
Has transitioned in to a winger effectively over the last year. Great tries, each displaying different skills (1: footwork, 2: support line, 3: pace and finishing), tops the defenders beaten and clean breaks list while also putting in some nice offloads and passing.

Jones: 5
Safe at the back in terms of fielding and tackling but very uncreative, he ran 10 times for only 22 metres in a position that allows for countering. He is however excellent and regathering restarts and is a kicking option.

Other:
Interesting to Henshaw at 13.
Cronin looked impressive when he came on as did McCarthy.
Jackson ran the ball really well when he arrived in to the fray.
The scrum improved when Kilcoyne came in for Court.
Lineout ran at 93% which is very good and the team and management deserve credit for it.

by debaters1 Mon Jun 17, 2013 3:24 pm

Pete,

I think you're being very harsh on Cave. The hour I saw (missed first 20 mins) he was pretty creative and took some excellnt lines., In the final 15 mins both he and Jackson looked our most dangerous backs and their differing methods put other guys into space. He is not fast and is not twinkle toed, but Cave made a couple of excelent line breaks that eventually led to scores. So I'd say 6.5 myself.

As for Downey, while he may have only gotten 14 metres for all those carries, sometimes you just have to credit the defence in this respect; they shut down his space before recieving and then tackled well when he got the ball. You could make the arguement (and, for the record, I am NOT doing that on this occassion) that Madigan/Boss/the Coaches are to blame for his lack of metres gained as they persisted with an ineffective tactic within the 10/12 channel.

Much improved collective forward performace though. Canada are a much better team than the US and we fronted up much more. Good to see. Not perfect by any stretch but better. Which is the right direction to be heading in.

The Post Kideny era is 100% thus far.

by pete (buachaill on eirne) Mon Jun 17, 2013 3:57 pm

Debaters-

I'm a Cave fan I must say and just wasn't that impressed with him. I don't mind the lack of pace that much as he does choose good running lines and is good at releasing lads outside him. ESPN say he only made one break (not sure if that is for his try or not) and made 40 metres (a lot of those made on his try). Maybe I was a bit harsh but we weren't playing world beaters here.

I have to say I thought the 10/12 channel play was pretty good. They used Downey a few times in the early passages of the game then he became a decoy man later on (see Cave's try and how Downey drifted allowing POM some space to make the primary carry, he also ran at least one wrap move) which I have to say I love. Eddie O'Sullivan was excellent at selling a move over the course of a match.

Schmidt is as well, how often have you seen variants on the wrap play at Leinster? There are at least 4 versions that can be played off this.

Definitely much improved from the week before, not sure Canada are better than America, but we were definitely more cohesive and a lot more fluid too.

by SecretFly Mon Jun 17, 2013 4:23 pm

Could anyone bring up for me (the guys who love stats) how many full games Ross has had this season - Provincial + International?

It just came to me again when I was reading Pete's summary and him saying how poor Ross was - I agree that he wasn't exactly at his best. But I just instantly thought: "You poor bastarde" And maybe I'm all wrong but he just seems to be always there, in every blasted game because Ireland can't seem to do without him. And it really has been shameful planning by the IRFU to be workhorsing the poor guy so mcuh in a position that does require a little bloody break now and again.

by St John The Enforcer Mon Jun 17, 2013 4:35 pm

Easy enough to find

9 for Ireland

http://www.irishrugby.ie/squads/index.php?player=19908&includeref=dynamic

18 + 3 for Leinster

http://www.leinsterrugby.ie/team/results/squad_leinster_first_team.php?player=19908&includeref=dynamic#.Ub8rVtggurl

by pete (buachaill on eirne) Mon Jun 17, 2013 4:36 pm

Secret-

Ross played 21 games for Leinster this year, averaging 56mins per game.
He played 9 games for Ireland.

The year before (11/12) he played 18 games, averaging 61mins per game.
He played 15 games for Ireland this year averaging, 71mins per game.

by SecretFly Mon Jun 17, 2013 4:44 pm

Thanks guys for the stats.... I tend to do my own legwork and didn't like asking but I just was doing other things here. Much obliged.

by The Great Aukster Mon Jun 17, 2013 6:28 pm

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:Apologies for being so late to this but finished watching the Canadian game there:

1=worst performance ever seen
5=completely average
10=best performance ever seen

Court: 4
Gave away a few penalties at the scrum and was largely ineffective in the loose. I saw him jogging far too often. Shoveled a lot of poor ball too putting pressure on halfbacks.

Strauss: 5.5
Pretty mediocre game, but importantly the lineout functioned much better. Seems to have lost some of his power and dynamism around the field, needs to up it, like most of our hookers.

Ross: 4
Pretty poor showing I thought, scrum was ok but gave away a penalty or two in the loose. he gets to rucks but does so little other than throw his weight at them, so little actual power.

Tuohy: 7.5
Impressive in most aspects of play, dynamic for a tighthead lock and has footballing ability and vision which is great to see in the front 5. Mix this with some of his power and he looks good. 2 offloads and 2 clean breaks, better than some backs.

Toner: 7
Got (and gets) a lot of stick last week, showed outstanding hands in moving contact, good lineout operator, tackled well and made some incisive carries when taking the ball at pace.

McLaughlin: 5.5
Rucked really effectively and made some strong carries but overall seemed quite quiet. I would have expected a much higher (and successful) tackle count (5/3) from him.

O'Donnell: 7.5
Tackled like a machine and carried the ball really hard. He looked good and very alert. He is not the kinda guy who is going to win you much ball on the deck but he was good at securing ball.

O'Mahony: 7.5
This would have been higher if he'd been a more effective captain I think. The Canadian's worked out how to rile him very easily. That being said he was effective with ball in hand, carrying when we needed go forward ball as opposed to when we had. Good work in the lineout, like McLaughlin I'd have expected more/better tackling. (5/2)

Boss: 6.5
A huge improvement from last week. He controlled the play a lot better and his passing was not as laboured. He didn't have to deal with as much physicality but played well.

Madigan: 7
Good goalkicking again. He shortened his up and unders well, kicked from hand well and varied it (chips/cross kicks). Good array of passing but the Canadians read the moves easily I felt.

Trimble: 6
Played right wing in 11 jersey. Took his try well and made some nice half-breaks on good line running. Was very solid for the most part.

Downey: 5.5
Was not the yard maker everyone expected him to be (9 carries 14 metres). He was rock solid in defense though and his decision making was relatively good too.

Cave: 5.5
Took his try well but did very little else, he defended the outside channels with some great decision making but looks short on attacking class.

McFadden: 8
Has transitioned in to a winger effectively over the last year. Great tries, each displaying different skills (1: footwork, 2: support line, 3: pace and finishing), tops the defenders beaten and clean breaks list while also putting in some nice offloads and passing.

Jones: 5
Safe at the back in terms of fielding and tackling but very uncreative, he ran 10 times for only 22 metres in a position that allows for countering. He is however excellent and regathering restarts and is a kicking option.

Other:
Interesting to Henshaw at 13.
Cronin looked impressive when he came on as did McCarthy.
Jackson ran the ball really well when he arrived in to the fray.
The scrum improved when Kilcoyne came in for Court.
Lineout ran at 93% which is very good and the team and management deserve credit for it.

Pete - I don't agree with too many of your ratings.
I thought both starting props deserved 5s. They had a marginal edge in the scrums, and both did at least carry the ball. Hodges hadn't a clue at scrum time so the scrum penalties could have gone either way. I didn't notice much difference in the scrum when Kilcoyne and Fitzpatrick came on.
I also wouldn't give Strauss any more than a 5. Yes the lineout improved but that was largely because RS threw to the front, the Canadians didn't contest and Tuohy took some ownership.
Tuohy 7 - was prominent in the loose and I especially liked the way he shared a joke with the Canuck 13 - the one he elbowed in the face to set up the opening for the Toner pass to McFadden!
Toner 6 - a much better outing and great offload to McF. Gets manhandled too easily off the ball for a lock and doesn't have the leg drive for the maul though
Backrow 6 each - I didn't think any of them stood out more than the others irrespective of the stats. They all had memorable carries and worked as a unit. POM is in danger of getting a reputation of being easily wound up.
Boss 6 - Calming influence but maybe a bit too calm conceding the ball by not getting it away in the 5 seconds. I actually thought Marshall looked better when he came on and I'm not a fan of his.
Madigan 6 - Couldn't give him any more as while his place kicking is good, his line kicking is fairly poor. He is generally being way too conservative and hardly gaining any meterage - except for one free kick where he (rightly) kicked it straight out to clear the lines. OTOH he is still kicking Garryowens too long despite Trimble's best efforts to chase them down. Still he looked better than last week so that is a positive.
Trimble 7 - I thought he was at least as good as McFadden in everything but the scoresheet. He made some bone crushing tackles dislodging the ball and had some real work to do for his try.
Downey 5 - An inauspicious start where he was anonymous but gradually adjusted to the rhythm of the game and got better as it went on. Still he didn't do anything to make me think he deserves to start ahead of Marshall, Olding or even D'Arcy.
Cave 6 - It's such a pity he couldn't be melded with his great mate Earls - they have such complimentary skillsets, but neither have quite enough on their own.
McFadden 7 - scored three tries, so gets in the right place, but IIRC kicked once when he had an overlap - tad selfish, but then that's how MOTM awards are won.
Jones 5 - Really looks to be a shadow of his former courageous self. Decent but needs his confidence mojo back.

by red_stag Mon Jun 17, 2013 6:55 pm

I bet nowadays Willie John McBride would be dismissed as easily wound up.

Just interesting how rugby has changed.

by SecretFly Mon Jun 17, 2013 6:59 pm

red_stag wrote:I bet nowadays Willie John McBride would be dismissed as easily wound up.

Just interesting how rugby has changed.

You'll soon find out, stag. He's got his call up to cover for Paulie.

by debaters1 Mon Jun 17, 2013 7:03 pm

red_stag wrote:I bet nowadays Willie John McBride would be dismissed as easily wound up.

Just interesting how rugby has changed.

Perhaps Stag. But in my humble eyes of a mere 30 year old, would say that WJMcB was a pragmatised at heart and like any such individual, would have adapted quickly to the scrutiny of behaviour that professional rugby has brought. I like POM's fire but he needs someone like Axel to have a word in his ear. He was a grumpy a fiery individual but he rarely gave away a stupid penalty etc. Controlled fury he called it and if POM can harness that emotional energy half as successfully as Floey did, he'll go far in all jerseys he'll play in.

by Thomond Mon Jun 17, 2013 7:13 pm

To be honest for all the guff and bluster of POM I can't recall him ever giving away a penalty or get binned for acting the maggot, every team needs a mouthy gobshoite to stir things up, make opposition lose their focus, it's not a bad thing, and he hasn't hurt his team from doing it, so I actually don't really mind it, just annoys people and that's a good thing most of the time.

by pete (buachaill on eirne) Mon Jun 17, 2013 8:03 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:Apologies for being so late to this but finished watching the Canadian game there:

1=worst performance ever seen
5=completely average
10=best performance ever seen

Court: 4
Gave away a few penalties at the scrum and was largely ineffective in the loose. I saw him jogging far too often. Shoveled a lot of poor ball too putting pressure on halfbacks.

Strauss: 5.5
Pretty mediocre game, but importantly the lineout functioned much better. Seems to have lost some of his power and dynamism around the field, needs to up it, like most of our hookers.

Ross: 4
Pretty poor showing I thought, scrum was ok but gave away a penalty or two in the loose. he gets to rucks but does so little other than throw his weight at them, so little actual power.

Tuohy: 7.5
Impressive in most aspects of play, dynamic for a tighthead lock and has footballing ability and vision which is great to see in the front 5. Mix this with some of his power and he looks good. 2 offloads and 2 clean breaks, better than some backs.

Toner: 7
Got (and gets) a lot of stick last week, showed outstanding hands in moving contact, good lineout operator, tackled well and made some incisive carries when taking the ball at pace.

McLaughlin: 5.5
Rucked really effectively and made some strong carries but overall seemed quite quiet. I would have expected a much higher (and successful) tackle count (5/3) from him.

O'Donnell: 7.5
Tackled like a machine and carried the ball really hard. He looked good and very alert. He is not the kinda guy who is going to win you much ball on the deck but he was good at securing ball.

O'Mahony: 7.5
This would have been higher if he'd been a more effective captain I think. The Canadian's worked out how to rile him very easily. That being said he was effective with ball in hand, carrying when we needed go forward ball as opposed to when we had. Good work in the lineout, like McLaughlin I'd have expected more/better tackling. (5/2)

Boss: 6.5
A huge improvement from last week. He controlled the play a lot better and his passing was not as laboured. He didn't have to deal with as much physicality but played well.

Madigan: 7
Good goalkicking again. He shortened his up and unders well, kicked from hand well and varied it (chips/cross kicks). Good array of passing but the Canadians read the moves easily I felt.

Trimble: 6
Played right wing in 11 jersey. Took his try well and made some nice half-breaks on good line running. Was very solid for the most part.

Downey: 5.5
Was not the yard maker everyone expected him to be (9 carries 14 metres). He was rock solid in defense though and his decision making was relatively good too.

Cave: 5.5
Took his try well but did very little else, he defended the outside channels with some great decision making but looks short on attacking class.

McFadden: 8
Has transitioned in to a winger effectively over the last year. Great tries, each displaying different skills (1: footwork, 2: support line, 3: pace and finishing), tops the defenders beaten and clean breaks list while also putting in some nice offloads and passing.

Jones: 5
Safe at the back in terms of fielding and tackling but very uncreative, he ran 10 times for only 22 metres in a position that allows for countering. He is however excellent and regathering restarts and is a kicking option.

Other:
Interesting to Henshaw at 13.
Cronin looked impressive when he came on as did McCarthy.
Jackson ran the ball really well when he arrived in to the fray.
The scrum improved when Kilcoyne came in for Court.
Lineout ran at 93% which is very good and the team and management deserve credit for it.

Pete - I don't agree with too many of your ratings.
I thought both starting props deserved 5s. They had a marginal edge in the scrums, and both did at least carry the ball. [1] Hodges hadn't a clue at scrum time so the scrum penalties could have gone either way. [2] I didn't notice much difference in the scrum when Kilcoyne and Fitzpatrick came on.
I also wouldn't give Strauss any more than a 5. Yes the lineout improved but that was largely because RS threw to the front, the Canadians didn't contest and Tuohy took some ownership. [3]
Tuohy 7 - was prominent in the loose and I especially liked the way he shared a joke with the Canuck 13 - the one he elbowed in the face to set up the opening for the Toner pass to McFadden!
Toner 6 - a much better outing and great offload to McF. Gets manhandled too easily off the ball for a lock and doesn't have the leg drive for the maul though [4]
Backrow 6 each - I didn't think any of them stood out more than the others irrespective of the stats. They all had memorable carries and worked as a unit. POM is in danger of getting a reputation of being easily wound up. [5]
Boss 6 - Calming influence but maybe a bit too calm conceding the ball by not getting it away in the 5 seconds. I actually thought Marshall looked better when he came on and I'm not a fan of his. [6]
Madigan 6 - Couldn't give him any more as while his place kicking is good, his line kicking is fairly poor. He is generally being way too conservative and hardly gaining any meterage - except for one free kick where he (rightly) kicked it straight out to clear the lines. OTOH he is still kicking Garryowens too long despite Trimble's best efforts to chase them down. Still he looked better than last week so that is a positive. [7]
Trimble 7 - I thought he was at least as good as McFadden in everything but the scoresheet. He made some bone crushing tackles dislodging the ball and had some real work to do for his try.
Downey 5 - An inauspicious start where he was anonymous but gradually adjusted to the rhythm of the game and got better as it went on. Still he didn't do anything to make me think he deserves to start ahead of Marshall, Olding or even D'Arcy.
Cave 6 - It's such a pity he couldn't be melded with his great mate Earls - they have such complimentary skillsets, but neither have quite enough on their own. [8]
McFadden 7 - scored three tries, so gets in the right place, but IIRC kicked once when he had an overlap - tad selfish, but then that's how MOTM awards are won. [9]
Jones 5 - Really looks to be a shadow of his former courageous self. Decent but needs his confidence mojo back. [10]

Ausker-
How's things bru?

Ehm a few things here (sorry can't quote properly with the new layout just yet)

1) I'm not hugely knowledgable beyond being a fan, on how the scrums work so yeah if you know more on that I'd take your word on it, however the props carried once each for a combined total of 1 metre........that is not good enough when you think of what a weapon Kilcoyne and Healy are in that department.

2) Yeah ref seemed a bit airy fairly in a few parts of the game and as I said I can't claim to be a scrum expert.

3) Can't agree that we kept throwing to the front and Tuohy only claimed one lineout ball. POM and Toner were calling the lineouts together. The Canadians didn't contest much no but when you think of all the overthrows we have had when our opposition have not contested then this is an improvement. Lineout equaling 93% is good, especially when it has been our weakness for a number of months.

4) I think Toner is much more useful than the majority of people on here. He had maybe 2 or 3 carries that were very effective (in terms of metres gained and defenders drawn in). I think the key to him carrying is to come on to the ball at pace. He was really very good in the rucks and while he is not that great as the anchor of a maul he is very good in the second tier of mauling forwards due to his physical size.

5) POM is easily wound up and I think any team that does their homework (aka all teams) will work this out. Fortunately it is something that he can work on very easily and shouldn't stop him being a great player.

6) I agree, not a Marshall fan either but he looked better than Boss.

7) I thought his kicking was great. Excellent chip kicks and cross kicks. His up and unders were hugely improved. When he is clearing touch he gets good distance. Sky have a analysis software they used on ROG to show his kicking I'd love to see it on Madigan's to compare it to Sexton's and maybe Jackson's.

8) Completely agree, together as one player, they could be great.

9) When he got in the right place, he always had work to do. For his first try, he still had to beat three defenders. For his second try he had to ride the almost immediate tackle. For his third try he had to gas his man on the outside in a 20 metre channel.

10) Completely agree.

by pete (buachaill on eirne) Mon Jun 17, 2013 8:07 pm

Thomond- It's great when it annoys the opposition but let's face it, you never want to annoy the ref. Ever.

by red_stag Mon Jun 17, 2013 8:12 pm

I saw an interview before the tour and its amazing how well respected O'Mahony is as a captain.

I saw Zebo saying that when he plays with O'Mahony he always assumes he is captain. The two have been playing together since school and O'Mahony was always his captain.

Toner was saying that O'Mahony was showing inexperienced guys that they can be vocal with their opinion or step up and make decisions on the pitch.

It was an interesting read.

by pete (buachaill on eirne) Mon Jun 17, 2013 8:20 pm

I heard the same thing from Toner Stag, what is the line? "Real leaders show others how to lead." or something like that.

Then again he does have to calm it down just a different ref could very well have marched him 10 metres or reversed a penalty. Stranger things have happened.

Before this thread changed you had a check list of things you wanted Stag, how did we do on it?

by red_stag Mon Jun 17, 2013 8:26 pm

It was an average tour. I'd give it a C.

We never had an 80 minute performance in either game. I don't feel we really have too many players who have really benefitted from this experience in a big way. Nor have we given ourselves any real proising options in our positions where we lack depth (fullback, outside centre, tighthead, scrumhalf).

It wasn't a bad tour but it wasn't great either. I don't feel we learned that much.

by pete (buachaill on eirne) Mon Jun 17, 2013 8:30 pm

kinda disappointed we didn't see more of Hagan or any of Marmion myself, they would be the two big regrets for me along with how poor we were vs the USA

by red_stag Mon Jun 17, 2013 8:32 pm

On the handling the referee I think its important for a captain to thread that line. Guys like Sean Fitzpatrick, Martin Johnson or Paul O'Connell were experts in challenging the ref.

Its comes with experience. Another referee might march him back 10m but its about feeling out when to try it and when to keep it zipped.

No different to a guy like Madigan learning when to try a risky piece of skill that could pay dividends or when to take the safe option.

by Sin é Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:58 pm

Gavin Cumiskey is raving about POM's leadership skills in the Irish Times today. I myself can't see why people are so critical of him - it seems to me he read the ref perfectly well (who just threatened but never carried through on his threats).

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/peter-o-mahony-steps-up-when-his-country-calls-1.1431096

by **Notch** Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:13 pm

A stronger ref would have carried through- Bodges was lenient on both sides for the number of infractions. There should have been a couple of yellows in that game. O'Mahony impressed me with his leadership on this tour, but sometimes needs to run in all guns blazing to show his team won't be intimidated and sometimes he needs to be the man to calm things down.

O'Connell is the master of focused aggression on the rugby pitch. He can give that for 80 minutes and still be the calm head when he needs to be. I fear for a Captain who is too easy to wind up- be rather unfair to compare O'Mahony to Hartley (O'Mahony gets red-faced and pushy but doesn't act like a dirty thug when his blood is up) but right now if he was Captain in a test oppositions would be trying to provoke him and it seems like they'd succeed.

Don't get me wrong, he still seems like a better Captain than Heaslip in that he has a great effect on the men around him. Just needs to work on being the cool head when the cool head is needed. I thought it was the best O'Mahony has shown in a green jersey, after a pretty average Six Nations he shone at number 8. I think it suits him, he can use his athleticism all the better. He is a good, intelligent footballer not the powerhouse in the tight we were looking for at 6. He's better with more space. Heaslip vs. O'Mahony is one of those great selection battles we have shaping up.

However we have a bit of a lack of quality in our backrow if Stephen Ferris can't prove his fitness next year and we may be forced into trying to accomodate both players.

by Sin é Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:17 pm

Do you not think that the IRFU (& Ulster) have written Ferris off at this stage? He is just too injury prone.

by ME-109 Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:39 pm

POM is Captain in waiting...its only a matter of time ( and possibly Leinster bias)...

by **Notch** Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:27 am

Sin wrote:Do you not think that the IRFU (& Ulster) have written Ferris off at this stage? He is just too injury prone.

Not if he's willing to take a fairly large paycut. I think he is going to stay now.

by pete (buachaill on eirne) Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:41 pm

Interesting article regarding Joe's backroom staff and Devin Toner
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/joe-schmidt-s-regeneration-of-ireland-begins-to-take-shape-1.1432245

by pete (buachaill on eirne) Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:00 pm

also, a review of the tour and the individual positives/negatives. Don't agree with them all but...

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/first-impressions-count-in-schmidts-stocktake-29352305.html

by **Notch** Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:17 pm

God help us if Toner is to be a frontline lock for Ireland. We're always going to be a bit prone to being bullied unless we can get some beef in sour second row. Love how that article says Paddy Jackson made no impression before noting he had only 20 minutes. Standard Indo hatchet job there.

by Guest Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:21 pm

"1 PADDY JACKSON
That a lip-synced video filmed with Simon Zebo will be the main thing he is remembered for is an indictment of the contribution of a young man who arrived as incumbent out-half and saw just 20 minutes of action.
Did okay when introduced for Madigan, but it is the Leinster man who will spend his summer satisfied with the events of the last fortnight."

What an absolute load of tripe. Yet another journo who doesn't know his @ss from his elbow, and as for Toner? Get a grip....

Anywho, was it not Gilroy with Jackson in that video?

by Sin é Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:51 pm

Munchkin

http://www.joe.ie/rugby/rugby-news/video-simon-zebo-and-paddy-jackson-play-kanye-and-jay-z-in-absolutely-brilliant-rap-lip-sync/

by Sponsored content