England vs Ireland, Part 2

First topic message reminder :

You beauties...

What a crackin game....

Think Paddy Jackson should have been given at least 15 minutes. Sexton was out of sorts, and I thought at the time that he looked slightly concussed after his knock.
Also think Henderson should have been on sooner. He did well in the line out, and was in the mood for ripping up trees.

kingelderfield wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:Danny Care really needs to find a cure for White Line Fever, it is a debilitating illness that makes the sufferer feel the impulse to find the biggest guys on the pitch and dive on top of them.

Agreed, I thought he and Farrell were very poor in those opening minutes with the line begging and space a plenty outside.

I actually believe that both overlaps were wasted by Farrell. The first one was clear but the second one, he was not calling Danny Care for the ball. Farrell needs to be more in control and he wasn't yesterday.

I also think that he was a very lucky boy to not see a yellow card for the late hit on Murray. That sort of thing needs to be removed from his game before he costs England dearly.

Cyril wrote:I think I saw a bit of discussion about the England/Ireland game in between all this inter-province bickering.

My England/Ireland congrats and commiserations bit is above... now onto business for us Irish.
'Murray and why it's not him that's slowing down anything a back might try to do creatively with a ball'.

This one, and other related topics, will I'm sure run and run on another dedicated Irish thread later in the week. For now, we is hijacking this one a little to do some domestic laundry.

Nachos Jones wrote:

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I do... it should be in readiness to be on the field!  

You talk about defence?  Fine, Murray does defence.  
You give a little bite at the lack of attack.  Fine, Boss would be better.

Balance, Sin.  
Which do you prefer?  
Defence?  
Well then thank Schmidt for emphasising it so far.  You and he should be best buddies really - tactically very close to each other

Murray does defence?  I don't think Mike Brown would agree with you there.  Murray was hugely culpable for England's try, he ought to have done much better.  It is not like Murray at all.  I wondered if he had a knock because he looked extremely laboured the rest of the match.  All the more reason to ask Schmidt why Boss didn't come on.  [/quote

Nothing to do with D'Arcy charging up out of the line, leaving a massive gap and tackling the wrong player then?

Indeed Nacho, D'Arcy should have done much, much better. He only just about made the tackle on Robshaw in the first place.  But who you can suggest he tackled 'the wrong man' seems strange- who should have tackled? Who was his responsibility if it wasn't Robshaw?

But Murray could and should have done better to cover it.  He stayed too wide in the 13 channel when Darcy and Best both pushed out.  He is culpable, but not to blame if that makes sense.    

You could also ask should Kearney (I think) have done slightly better on Brown before the offload?

Munchkin wrote:Think Paddy Jackson should have been given at least 15 minutes. Sexton was out of sorts, and I thought at the time that he looked slightly concussed after his knock.
Also think Henderson should have been on sooner. He did well in the line out, and was in the mood for ripping up trees.

Agree, Sexton didn't look to have the best mind in the second half (even his mates kept asking him if he was okay)  You'd think an obvious sign to get him off and get a sharp minded played in instead.  But another cue that wasn't answered for some reason.

Hookisms,

There were several instances in that try where many players could/should have done better but at the same time, it was an excellently worked try by England so I have no grudges against anyone. Just thought it was not right to single out Murray like that

SecretFly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Think Paddy Jackson should have been given at least 15 minutes. Sexton was out of sorts, and I thought at the time that he looked slightly concussed after his knock.
Also think Henderson should have been on sooner. He did well in the line out, and was in the mood for ripping up trees.

Agree, Sexton didn't look to have the best mind in the second half (even his mates kept asking him if he was okay)  You'd think an obvious sign to get him off and get a sharp minded played in instead.  But another cue that wasn't answered for some reason.

At the 60 minute mark I was screaming for Jackson to come on. It was clear to everyone that Sexton was having a poor game and struggling. Sexton should not be above being substituted if not playing well. Just one of several tactical errors made by JS yesterday.

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:

Indeed Nacho, D'Arcy should have done much, much better.  He only just about made the tackle on Robshaw in the first place.  But Murray could and should have done better to cover it.  He stayed too wide in the 13 channel when Darcy and Best both pushed out.  He is culpable, but not to blame if that makes sense.    

You could also ask should Kearney (I think) have done slightly better on Brown before the offload?

We lost the game by three points so there is I'm sure a plethora of "shouldas" (and I personally saw a bunch of them) in the video analysis.  But a few coaching choices to keep with a certain few players is what I'd question mostly.  

That said, it was a good collective effort against England at home with a new coaching set-up.

Nachos Jones wrote:Hookisms,

There were several instances in that try where many players could/should have done better but at the same time, it was an excellently worked try by England so I have no grudges against anyone. Just thought it was not right to single out Murray like that

It looked like Best and Darcy pushed up, while Murray at 13 and those outside him didn't. Darcy should have put Robshaw down, simple as that. But Murray should have been positionally better. And Kearney maybe could have put in a more effective tackle on Brown before the offload. No single person to blame, all are culpable. Much the same way if May went over in the first 5 minutes or so Best would have been culpable for failing to rip the ball from Brown a few phases before that & POM for a high missed tackle in the corner.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I thought D'Arcy did ok, carried well and looked a threat.

I find these comments that POM played well bizarre, he did nothing. He was easily your least effective forward, you don't need stats to tell you that.

He made at least 2 turnovers, was heavily involved in the lineout, made the most metres carrying in the Irish pack, hit numerous rucks etc. I find your criticism bizarre!?! What game were you watching?


Did you notice Wood much? You know, POMs opposite number. He got the ball 5 times in open play and 2 lineouts compared to 9 times in open play and 6 lineouts for POM. Did Wood make any turnovers? I'm not criticising Wood, he is a fine player but just highlighting your biased views on things.

Nachos Jones wrote:

At the 60 minute mark I was screaming for Jackson to come on. It was clear to everyone that Sexton was having a poor game and struggling. Sexton should not be above being substituted if not playing well. Just one of several tactical errors made by JS yesterday.

I'm not saying it was a straight 'playing badly' deal with Sexton - it was in my opinion a 'playing in a fluffy cloud' deal. He didn't look right in his head for decision making and should have been taken off for that specific reason.

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I do... it should be in readiness to be on the field!  

You talk about defence?  Fine, Murray does defence.  
You give a little bite at the lack of attack.  Fine, Boss would be better.

Balance, Sin.  
Which do you prefer?  
Defence?  
Well then thank Schmidt for emphasising it so far.  You and he should be best buddies really - tactically very close to each other

Murray does defence?  I don't think Mike Brown would agree with you there.  Murray was hugely culpable for England's try, he ought to have done much better.  It is not like Murray at all.  I wondered if he had a knock because he looked extremely laboured the rest of the match.  All the more reason to ask Schmidt why Boss didn't come on.  

Murray was busy tackling Robshow in the middle of the pitch who offloaded. I don't know how you would expect him to be up and back to tackle Care. Both Kearneys fell off tackles, and Brian O'Driscoll was never going to catch Care. He doesn't have the pace anymore.

SecretFly wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:

At the 60 minute mark I was screaming for Jackson to come on. It was clear to everyone that Sexton was having a poor game and struggling. Sexton should not be above being substituted if not playing well. Just one of several tactical errors made by JS yesterday.

I'm not saying it was a straight 'playing badly' deal with Sexton - it was in my opinion a 'playing in a fluffy cloud' deal.  He didn't look right in his head for decision making and should have been taken off for that specific reason.

He had a couple of good moments in the first half but overall he was not performing. After 55 minutes into the second half (for what reason I don't know) he started to look really poor. JS should have seen this if he is the tactical genius he is being lauded as and replaced him with Jackson.

SecretFly wrote:

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:

Indeed Nacho, D'Arcy should have done much, much better.  He only just about made the tackle on Robshaw in the first place.  But Murray could and should have done better to cover it.  He stayed too wide in the 13 channel when Darcy and Best both pushed out.  He is culpable, but not to blame if that makes sense.    

You could also ask should Kearney (I think) have done slightly better on Brown before the offload?

We lost the game by three points so there is I'm sure  a plethora of "shouldas" (and I personally saw a bunch of them) in the video analysis.  But a few coaching choices to keep with a certain few players is what I'd question mostly.  

That said, it was a good collective effort against England at home with a new coaching set-up.

I feel more positive than negative after yesterday. For all the talk of Englan'd butchering tries, if Trimble had have taken better choices and been more accurate we would have scored two in the first half ourselves. Swings and roundabouts.

There was a clarity of gameplan. Even having a gameplan is an improvement. The coaches can't be blamed for a failure in execution. Sexton was as poor this week as he was good against Wales. Why was he not substituted? Why was Murray not taken off when he appeared, to me at least, to have taken a knock as was nowehere near his usual self.

But gameplans Fly, they betray you. Like a woman. Or a pet wombat. The hairy buggers. It felt like the team just said, 'well England expect us to do X, Y & Z so we will do the opposite'. Fine lads, good thinking. Keep em guessing. But would it have been so wrong to thrown in a few more rolling mauls or asked Murray to kick more from the base of rucks and scrums? New coaching team, mistakes will be made. But unlike Kidney, I trust this team will learn from them.

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:Hookisms,

There were several instances in that try where many players could/should have done better but at the same time, it was an excellently worked try by England so I have no grudges against anyone. Just thought it was not right to single out Murray like that

It looked like Best and Darcy pushed up, while Murray at 13 and those outside him didn't.  Darcy should have put Robshaw down, simple as that.  But Murray should have been positionally better.  And Kearney maybe could have put in a more effective tackle on Brown before the offload.  No single person to blame, all are culpable.  Much the same way if May went over in the first 5 minutes or so Best would have been culpable for failing to rip the ball from Brown a few phases before that & POM for a high missed tackle in the corner.  

POM's high missed tackle was enough to put him off/slow him down for Murray to get to him. You can't ask for anything more.

Nachos Jones wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:Danny Care really needs to find a cure for White Line Fever, it is a debilitating illness that makes the sufferer feel the impulse to find the biggest guys on the pitch and dive on top of them.

Agreed, I thought he and Farrell were very poor in those opening minutes with the line begging and space a plenty outside.

I actually believe that both overlaps were wasted by Farrell. The first one was clear but the second one, he was not calling Danny Care for the ball. Farrell needs to be more in control and he wasn't yesterday.

I also think that he was a very lucky boy to not see a yellow card for the late hit on Murray. That sort of thing needs to be removed from his game before he costs England dearly.

He dosn't have the ability to improve this part of his game, throwing a dummy in mid field when you've either hoofed or passed for the previous 50 minutes is one thing, having the spatial awareness 2 yards from the line in the heat of battle is plain old talent.

He will be yellow carded in the WC, it might cost us a game but it won't stop us winning the world cup as his selection will have already done that.

Sin é wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

Notch wrote:Tbh, I thought England will be annoyed at the chances they missed- especially the two times they kicked to the corner and turned down the 3 points! That was madness.

Had England been penalised for hands in the scrum at the end turning down those kicks at goal would have cost them the win. They deserved to win the game, but turning down points when they were on offer could have easily let Ireland sneak a draw or win against the run of play. There are still issues about decision making in this England side for me.

100% agree. That worried me too. There were far too many times when we were deep in their half but came away with nothing.

Ireland have the best defence & very good discipline in the championship. Only conceeded 1 try and a total of 22pts.

England & Wales have both conceeded 4 tries each.

Sorry, yes, I wasn't giving Ireland enough credit. I actually meant as much about decision making. Kicking to the corner at the end of the first half for example. Ireland's defence is excellent, but if we'd made the decision to go wide earlier when May got the ball knocked from his hand, I'm not sure the best defence in the world could have dealt with the overlap. But yes, Ireland's defence is a might hard nut to crack.

SecretFly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Think Paddy Jackson should have been given at least 15 minutes. Sexton was out of sorts, and I thought at the time that he looked slightly concussed after his knock.
Also think Henderson should have been on sooner. He did well in the line out, and was in the mood for ripping up trees.

Agree, Sexton didn't look to have the best mind in the second half (even his mates kept asking him if he was okay)  You'd think an obvious sign to get him off and get a sharp minded played in instead.  But another cue that wasn't answered for some reason.

Murray asked him if he was ok. He looked dazed at the time, and didn't seem to recover throughout the match. Not playing Jackson even when Sexton is having a poor game sends out the wrong message.

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:

Indeed Nacho, D'Arcy should have done much, much better.  He only just about made the tackle on Robshaw in the first place.  But Murray could and should have done better to cover it.  He stayed too wide in the 13 channel when Darcy and Best both pushed out.  He is culpable, but not to blame if that makes sense.    

You could also ask should Kearney (I think) have done slightly better on Brown before the offload?

We lost the game by three points so there is I'm sure  a plethora of "shouldas" (and I personally saw a bunch of them) in the video analysis.  But a few coaching choices to keep with a certain few players is what I'd question mostly.  

That said, it was a good collective effort against England at home with a new coaching set-up.

I feel more positive than negative after yesterday.  For all the talk of Englan'd butchering tries, if Trimble had have taken better choices and been more accurate we would have scored two in the first half ourselves.  Swings and roundabouts.  

There was a clarity of gameplan.  Even having a gameplan is an improvement. The coaches can't be blamed for a failure in execution.  Sexton was as poor this week as he was good against Wales.  Why was he not substituted?  Why was Murray not taken off when he appeared, to me at least, to have taken a knock as was nowehere near his usual self.  

But gameplans Fly, they betray you.  Like a woman.  Or a pet wombat.  The hairy buggers.  It felt like the team just said, 'well England expect us to do X, Y & Z so we will do the opposite'.  Fine lads, good thinking.  Keep em guessing.  But would it have been so wrong to thrown in a few more rolling mauls or asked Murray to kick more from the base of rucks and scrums?  New coaching team, mistakes will be made.  But unlike Kidney, I trust this team will learn from them.

Schmidt, the great tactician, got his tactics wrong. And he didn't have his selections right on the bench to change the gameplan. He was relying on defence and England to give away penalties to win the game. Thing is, England don't give away that many penalties. Boss is a terrible scrumhalf, I don't know why he is there.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
“
I thought D'Arcy did ok, carried well and looked a threat.

I find these comments that POM played well bizarre, he did nothing. He was easily your least effective forward, you don't need stats to tell you that.
”

He made at least 2 turnovers, was heavily involved in the lineout, made the most metres carrying in the Irish pack, hit numerous rucks etc. I find your criticism bizarre!?! What game were you watching?


Did you notice Wood much? You know, POMs opposite number. He got the ball 5 times in open play and 2 lineouts compared to 9 times in open play and 6 lineouts for POM. Did Wood make any turnovers? I'm not criticising Wood, he is a fine player but just highlighting your biased views on things.

People generally bring up stats when it's obvious a player has added little.

Yes I noticed Wood, as I noticed Robshaw, Heaslip, Billy & Henry.

POM added little, I don't see taking line outs as a massive contribution. If that was POM's greatest part of the game, good on him.

I was massively impressed with Ireland's choke tackles with Henry & Best seeming the drivers behind this.

I just don't rate POM particularly highly. Ireland have some incredible options in the backrow (Ferris, SOB etc) I just don't think POM is one of them.

Nachos Jones wrote:

He had a couple of good moments in the first half but overall he was not performing. After 55 minutes into the second half (for what reason I don't know) he started to look really poor. JS should have seen this if he is the tactical genius he is being lauded as and replaced him with Jackson.

His nine was no way quick enough for an imposed English game pace - so he was down on that score.  And then as Munckin says, I think he was consussed in the second half.  "Really poor" would then be a symptom in that circumstance, Nachos, not form going into the game.  As I say, some of his team-mates were showing concern for his washiness and he should have been taken off - yes.

As for POM, I thought he did quite well myself. Not as bad as some people think and not as good as others think but he did his job well.

What was more surprising to me was how Heaslip got pushed back in nearly every contact, not like him at all but that was down to England marking him perfectly more than him having a bad game.

Schmidtball fails. I told you it would.

 

SecretFly wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:

He had a couple of good moments in the first half but overall he was not performing. After 55 minutes into the second half (for what reason I don't know) he started to look really poor. JS should have seen this if he is the tactical genius he is being lauded as and replaced him with Jackson.

His nine was no way quick enough for an imposed English game pace - so he was down on that score.  And then as Munckin says, I think he was consussed in the second half.  "Really poor" would then be a symptom in that circumstance, Nachos, not form going into the game.  As I say, some of his team-mates were showing concern for his washiness and he should have been taken off - yes.

As I said, I didn't know the reason why he started looking very poor but remember that it was around the 55th minute and that JS should have seen that as well and replaced him, a really bad tactical mistake. Before the 55th minute he was also not having the best of games too in my opinion but around the 60th minute I was screaming for Jackson to come on.

As for being concussed, not sure about that but if he was then the medical team should have advised that he be removed. If he has played on concussed then himself, his team mates, the medical team and the coaching team should all hang their heads in shame.

Nachos Jones wrote:As for POM, I thought he did quite well myself. Not as bad as some people think and not as good as others think but he did his job well.

What was more surprising to me was how Heaslip got pushed back in nearly every contact, not like him at all but that was down to England marking him perfectly more than him having a bad game.

I thought POM had a perfectly decent match. Couple of good carries, was excellent in the lineout, though praise must go to Best & O'Connell as well. He just wasn't effective at the breakdown as he was the previous two rounds. Let me put i clearly as the sensitive Munster souls seem to take it very personally- POM was ineffective at this part of the game, not because he is a bad player or that he didn't play well, or he didn't work hard. He was ineffective at the breakdown because England nullified him through their gameplan. England deserve credit for that. POM worked his little socks off all day long to try and impose himself. You cant dominate every game.

Englands scrum though ...jesus. Can we now admit they might actually miss Cole?

Seagultaf wrote:For a neutral Welshman who usually supports the Celtic nations against England...

That's hardly neutral is it?

ABE

Good point about how much attention POM attracted from the England backrow. The Guardian comments that Tom Wood went off absolutely shattered.

They gave POM a 7 in the ratings. Henry & Heaslip got 6. Tom Wood also got a 6.

Also, did POM pick up an injury? He is leg is all strapped up on the sideline.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I just don't rate POM particularly highly. Ireland have some incredible options in the backrow (Ferris, SOB etc) I just don't think POM is one of them.

Neither Ferris or SOB are options.

If they were, they'd both be starting. Ferris I think will probably never play for Ireland again, which is sad because he is a once in a generation player. Sean O'Brien will hopefully be involved in the next autumn internationals. He had an operation but the wound got infected requiring a second operation- sounds like his season is over. He'll need a good pre-season to get back to where he was.

When Henderson came on at blindside he actually started carrying the ball and breaking tackles. I would send him back to Ulster to play 6 next weekend and start him against Italy to compensate for the lack of carriers. Toss up between O'Mahony and Henry for 7 then really. Both good players who had quiet games yesterday, not much between their respective performances. O'Mahony would shade it on form, Henry has played more at 7 and know that role better - O'Mahiny is good enough to adapt and perform well there though. 50/50 call.

Sin é wrote:Good point about how much attention POM attracted from the England backrow. The Guardian comments that Tom Wood went off absolutely shattered.

They gave POM a 7 in the ratings. Henry & Heaslip got 6. Tom Wood also got a 6.

Also, did POM pick up an injury? He is leg is all strapped up on the sideline.

Ratings don't mean much. For every paper that gives him a good one another gave him a worse one. Sunday Independent gave POM 6.5, Henry 6.5 and Heaslip 7 for example.

POM was fine. Very good work rate but not particularly effective at times. Did plenty of the unseen work.

I have been giving JS the benefit of the doubt but I really do hope (if he is the great tactician) that he does not start D'Arcy again this 6N. Its time Marshall be given the start, he is the better option and will also be available for the RWC which I doubt that D'Arcy will be.

If he continues his selection and substitution policy as shown yesterday then he will damage Ireland.

Nachos Jones wrote:I have been giving JS the benefit of the doubt but I really do hope (if he is the great tactician) that he does not start D'Arcy again this 6N. Its time Marshall be given the start, he is the better option and will also be available for the RWC which I doubt that D'Arcy will be.

If he continues his selection and substitution policy as shown yesterday then he will damage Ireland.

We lost to England in Twickers by three points. Schmidt's tactics put Ireland in a position to win the game. Player execution, particularly Sexton let us down.

Hardly a disaster. I'm sure Marshall will get more game time but he didn't do himself many favours v Scotland.

Nachos Jones wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:Danny Care really needs to find a cure for White Line Fever, it is a debilitating illness that makes the sufferer feel the impulse to find the biggest guys on the pitch and dive on top of them.

Agreed, I thought he and Farrell were very poor in those opening minutes with the line begging and space a plenty outside.

I actually believe that both overlaps were wasted by Farrell. The first one was clear but the second one, he was not calling Danny Care for the ball. Farrell needs to be more in control and he wasn't yesterday.

I also think that he was a very lucky boy to not see a yellow card for the late hit on Murray. That sort of thing needs to be removed from his game before he costs England dearly.

It wasn't a late hit, he was committed before the ball was kicked, it was however a shoulder charge and not a tackle and therefore a penalty as given.

Not a lot has been said about the height of the Irish tackling, I am gob smacked that England didn't get a penalty when May dropped the ball going over for the line, the slow mo replays clearly show the arm around his head and he is 6'3". I thought the tackler was trying to give him a new hairstyle.

Had Schmidt and the team won by 3 we'd all be having a different argument.  
Funny how we can detect so much disaster, from players to coaches, in a 3 point game, away to 4th ranked team in the world...having come in 2nd from the bottom last year, and risen to I think 5th (?? - I think next week) from 9th not so very long ago.

We're such malcontents, us Irish  Long may it continue.

GunsGerms wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:I have been giving JS the benefit of the doubt but I really do hope (if he is the great tactician) that he does not start D'Arcy again this 6N. Its time Marshall be given the start, he is the better option and will also be available for the RWC which I doubt that D'Arcy will be.

If he continues his selection and substitution policy as shown yesterday then he will damage Ireland.

We lost to England in Twickers by three points. Schmidt's tactics put Ireland in a position to win the game. Player execution, particularly Sexton let us down.

Hardly a disaster. I'm sure Marshall will get more game time but he didn't do himself many favours v Scotland.

I am not saying its a disaster to lose to England at Twickers, far from it as England are a very good side.

I am referring to his selection and substitute policy. The continuation of D'Arcy's selection when he is simply not as good as he once was is upsetting me because I believe he should be building for the future and I would like to see Marshall be given more of a run with the experienced BOD helping him into the side.

The fact that every man and his dog could see that Sexton was struggling after 55mins yesterday and he was not subbed really worried me. He is supposed to be the master tactician but was seriously found wanting yesterday.

GunsGerms wrote:

Sin é wrote:Good point about how much attention POM attracted from the England backrow. The Guardian comments that Tom Wood went off absolutely shattered.

They gave POM a 7 in the ratings. Henry & Heaslip got 6. Tom Wood also got a 6.

Also, did POM pick up an injury? He is leg is all strapped up on the sideline.

Ratings don't mean much. For every paper that gives him a good one another gave him a worse one. Sunday Independent gave POM 6.5, Henry 6.5 and Heaslip 7 for example.

POM was fine. Very good work rate but not particularly effective at times. Did plenty of the unseen work.

It was in response to a post about how poor POM was.

I think you take away local bias if you look at opposition press, thats why I used Guardian ratings.

Italy needs serious attention now.  
No fussing around them..like tradition seems to demand  
They need to be used to provide a points cushion.  We'll see do we get a team to do that - AND, whether that team (that I think will have a good few changes) will do what is required.  
The lurkers on the sidelines will have a chance to prove worth.  Big score - nothing else will suffice.

SecretFly wrote:Had Schmidt and the team won by 3 we'd all be having a different argument.  
Funny how we can detect so much disaster, from players to coaches, in a 3 point game, away to 4th ranked team in the world...having come in 2nd from the bottom last year, and risen to I think 5th (?? - I think next week) from 9th not so very long ago.

We're such malcontents, us Irish  Long may it continue.

My views have nothing to do with losing to a very good England side on their own turf, they are directed at Schmidt the supposed master tactician. Losing always will generate such observations more than winning but even if Ireland had of won that match I would still be questioning Schmidt.

I do think he will start Marshall against Italy Nachos, but I also think the criticism of D'Arcy is based on him being a punching bag when we lose not based on him playing badly.

D'Arcy made all his tackles while BOD missed several. D'Arcys distribution was actually very good and he crossed the mainline most of the time he carried the ball. He was probably our best outside back after Kearney. We do have a problem with lack of penetration in the centres but D'Arcy played well enough that he doesn't deserve to be singled out.

I'd like to see Luke Marshall slot in between BOD and Sexton in two weeks, but thats a bit ironic considering those two had worse games than the bearded wonder.

SecretFly wrote:Had Schmidt and the team won by 3 we'd all be having a different argument.  
Funny how we can detect so much disaster, from players to coaches, in a 3 point game, away to 4th ranked team in the world...having come in 2nd from the bottom last year, and risen to I think 5th (?? - I think next week) from 9th not so very long ago.

We're such malcontents, us Irish  Long may it continue.

We could have won by 3 if we had a more effective bench. The obvious lack of pace in the backs is killing us. Now, if all our speedster options were injured/not available it wouldn't have been a bad defeat. The fact that they were sitting at home watching on the box is a coaching error.

Both Marshall & Zebo would have made a huge different. D'Arcy had a good game and I would have been inclinded to move him out to outside centre to accommodate Marshall and drop BOD if it wasn't BOD's last season and he won't be dropped.

Notch wrote:I do think he will start Marshall against Italy Nachos, but I also think the criticism of D'Arcy is based on him being a punching bag when we lose not based on him playing badly.

D'Arcy made all his tackles while BOD missed several. D'Arcys distribution was actually very good and he crossed the mainline most of the time he carried the ball. He was probably our best outside back after Kearney.

We do have a problem with lack of penetration in the centres but D'Arcy played well enough that he doesn't deserve to be singled out.

I really like D'Arcy, always have done but its clear that he is far from his best and that's not singling him out, its me questioning why a player that is past his best and not going to play in another year is being kept in the side ahead of a currently better player in Marshall who is the future and needs to learn the ropes from the great BOD.

I am a fierce Munster fan, I know, but I was also questioning DK when he continued to select ROG ahead of the better option in Sexton.

Nachos Jones wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Had Schmidt and the team won by 3 we'd all be having a different argument.  
Funny how we can detect so much disaster, from players to coaches, in a 3 point game, away to 4th ranked team in the world...having come in 2nd from the bottom last year, and risen to I think 5th (?? - I think next week) from 9th not so very long ago.

We're such malcontents, us Irish  Long may it continue.

My views have nothing to do with losing to a very good England side on their own turf, they are directed at Schmidt the supposed master tactician. Losing always will generate such observations more than winning but even if Ireland had of won that match I would still be questioning Schmidt.

As is your right, Nachos.  Not against the questions at all.  As you'll have seen, I've pointed out a few of my own.  I'm not agin' 'em - opinions

But 'master tacticians' also lose games....  We are at a beginning.  Plenty people were saying he shouldn't change a player last week.... afterall, it was said, the rhythm is good , Julia - why kill a rhythm by chancing something something different?
Now, the feeling is he should have tried something different!  

Welcome to Ireland duty Joe!  

Notch wrote:If they were, they'd both be starting. Ferris I think will probably never play for Ireland again, which is sad because he is a once in a generation player. Sean O'Brien will hopefully be involved in the next autumn internationals. He had an operation but the wound got infected requiring a second operation- sounds like his season is over. He'll need a good pre-season to get back to where he was.

When Henderson came on at blindside he actually started carrying the ball and breaking tackles. I would send him back to Ulster to play 6 next weekend and start him against Italy to compensate for the lack of carriers. Toss up between O'Mahony and Henry for 7 then really. Both good players who had quiet games yesterday, not much between their respective performances. O'Mahony would shade it on form, Henry has played more at 7 and know that role better - O'Mahiny is good enough to adapt and perform well there though. 50/50 call.

I don't think it is really 50/50, its probably more 60/40 to picking POM. All three backrowers have benefitted from playing in a balanced unit. Each have excelled in their roles, and all have made various teams of the week so far. But on an individual basis POM is a better player than Henry. His ceiling is higher as well. But POM has been outstanding so far, and was decent yesterday. Henry has been very good and decent yesterday. I wouldn't mind see TOD be given a go, though Henderson did his selection chances no harm. I long for the day when people realise he is a 6 and not a second row and no amount of wishing can make it so.

You are singling him out. The fact is Darcy has been one of our better players in the last three or so games he has played in. He is in the team on merit.

I still believe the biggest factor was our poor kicking for the wingers.

It was crucial to our sucess in the past two games - good kicks - players like Trimble hunting down ballcatchers, putting pressure on, controlling the game.

Yesterday I don't think i seen one kick from Murray or sexton that was the right distance for our chasers to put pressure on. The result, you give the ball away and give the opposition plenty of time to kick for territory.

I still cannot understand why Jackson did not gets brought on. Either Schmidt thought Sexton was great, or he doesn't rate Jackson.

Like I asid before, if you don't have faith in your bench 10, then something is seriously wrong.

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Had Schmidt and the team won by 3 we'd all be having a different argument.  
Funny how we can detect so much disaster, from players to coaches, in a 3 point game, away to 4th ranked team in the world...having come in 2nd from the bottom last year, and risen to I think 5th (?? - I think next week) from 9th not so very long ago.

We're such malcontents, us Irish  Long may it continue.

We could have won by 3 if we had a more effective bench. The obvious lack of pace in the backs is killing us. Now, if all our speedster options were injured/not available it wouldn't have been a bad defeat. The fact that they were sitting at home watching on the box is a coaching error.

Both Marshall & Zebo would have made a huge different. D'Arcy had a good game and I would have been inclinded to move him out to outside centre to accommodate Marshall and drop BOD if it wasn't BOD's last season and he won't be dropped.

If your zippy backs don't have attack ball they are worthless in attack - onlookers. Nine is a premium position to create pace for backs. Nine is a central position to execute a 'spreedster' gameplan, Sin. Nine is where Danny Care was. Nine - 9 - Murray. Needs to speed up. QED

With Kidney I basically gave him the first two years and I plan to do much the same with Schmidt. But before I came on here yesterday, immediately after the game, I was quite impressed with how effective the set moves he gave us were and pleased with the variety he injected into our attack. We all said that the tactics would be different from the Wales game and he would change it up and he did, he did deliver a good game plan.

Certainly it was a game where I was more impressed with the way Ireland were coached to play than I wasn't. A lot of the criticisms I have about our performance, which I thought was poor, come down to execution. Poor kicks, poor chases, poor tackles. Thats what lost it for us.

Nachos Jones wrote:

Notch wrote:I do think he will start Marshall against Italy Nachos, but I also think the criticism of D'Arcy is based on him being a punching bag when we lose not based on him playing badly.

D'Arcy made all his tackles while BOD missed several. D'Arcys distribution was actually very good and he crossed the mainline most of the time he carried the ball. He was probably our best outside back after Kearney.

We do have a problem with lack of penetration in the centres but D'Arcy played well enough that he doesn't deserve to be singled out.

I really like D'Arcy, always have done but its clear that he is far from his best and that's not singling him out, its me questioning why a player that is past his best and not going to play in another year is being kept in the side ahead of a currently better player in Marshall who is the future and needs to learn the ropes from the great BOD.

I am a fierce Munster fan, I know, but I was also questioning DK when he continued to select ROG ahead of the better option in Sexton.

Darcy has already said he is playing on until the RWC. He is obviously hoping to get on the RWC squad.

GunsGerms wrote:

Sin é wrote:Good point about how much attention POM attracted from the England backrow. The Guardian comments that Tom Wood went off absolutely shattered.

They gave POM a 7 in the ratings. Henry & Heaslip got 6. Tom Wood also got a 6.

Also, did POM pick up an injury? He is leg is all strapped up on the sideline.

Ratings don't mean much. For every paper that gives him a good one another gave him a worse one. Sunday Independent gave POM 6.5, Henry 6.5 and Heaslip 7 for example.

POM was fine. Very good work rate but not particularly effective at times. Did plenty of the unseen work.

The elusive "unseen work".........yea he certaibly did plenty of things that were unseen!