Where you underwhelmed by the Autumn internationals?

First topic message reminder :

I was. I've been watching rugby religiously for most of the last 40 years and occasionally there are periods where the quality of the game is dire. I like competition, contest for the ball, the variety of ways teams can break down the opposition. The competition between brawn and skill, power and endurance. Occasionally, I find the game one dimensional. For most of my life I've supported Waikato and the Chiefs (I now support Wellington due to the kids growing up here). Ironically, with the current All Black selector Ian Foster at the helm I got bored. I struggled even though Fossie went to the same University hostel as me. They were so so so boring. I got to the point where I turned down free tickets to games.

I find myself having the same thoughts this autumn. I can usually watch most rugby games. I can still watch the AB's, but most of the autumn internationals  have left me cold. Reading Paul Hayward's column in the Telegraph I see I'm not the only one.

So was it a feast of rugby from Nov 8-29? No, and the sport needs to do more to encourage skill and enterprise if it is to hook fans outside the cognoscenti. You can cram as many punters as you like into the Ruck & Maul bar, and keep the post-match gig going so long it feels like a package holiday, but without good rugby the game will not draw a new congregation.

My feeling is we've stepped back in time about 5 years. It's basically dominated by defence and kicking. Better policing of the ruck and offside line would improve the game pretty quickly. Discuss......

I'd have to agree with Rodders.  I know, I know - and effort for me to be so agreeable with anyone, but Rodders speaks the truth in my opinion.

And its why I find the topic so frustrating.  

Yes, I do see that similarity (overall! - when looking at teams in say an Anthem lineout) between the Irish tendancy to look less 'ripped' than their opponents in practically all teams but (of all teams!!!, ) the All Blacks!

That's the frustrating bit!  How can those guys - the ABs - (some of them, not all of them) look so 'lightly conditioned' and 'un-muscled up' and still seem far more resilient to high intensity, physical games in a sequence than we to date seem to ever manage?  Because they are better players is one reason - yes.  But it's not the whole deal.

We MIGHT be beginning to show signs of improving there.  But anyone who looks at even Wale's smallest guy - Halfpenny - will see Welsh philosophy of pumped up, highly veined conditioning done on him... same with most of them, Warburton etc.  And I see it in most sides.  I see a lack of it in many New Zealanders and Irish players.  But to date - they thrive on their relative 'lightness', whilst we tend to suffer for it in our European attritional rugby environment.

Funny how most of the time Irish supporters are talking themselves down (e.g. smaller players like Devon Toner or how poor they are compared to England and France).

Whereas Wales supporters are always talking themselves up.

lostinwales wrote:Funny how most of the time Irish supporters are talking themselves down (e.g. smaller players like Devon Toner or how poor they are compared to England and France).

Whereas Wales supporters are always talking themselves up.

Not height and not weight but tone, muscle density, gym profile.  Not height, not weight.

And we've always talked ourselves down, mostly because we believe we're being honest, and everyone else thinks we're being cute hoors

rodders wrote:

profitius wrote:
I'd disagree there Rodders. Ireland are picking big lumps like most teams. Jack McGrath ahead of Kilcoyne, Rhys Ruddock ahead of O'Donnell or Dom Ryan, Mike McCarthy ahead of Dave Foley against South Africa, Henshaw and Payne ahead of Olding etc. It makes sense to pick big solid players if you're going to play like Ireland plays so I can see Schmidts point.

Of course they are - but physically to a man Ireland are smaller than SA or England in the pack or Australia in the backs - as are NZ.

Ireland's pack were about the same size as SA's and England's. We tend to have a heavier pack than the likes of the Wallabies and France.

The backs are mostly average. Not massive but not small (except D'Arcy but arguably Payne and Henshaw is first choice now). The Wallabies and NZ have a few big backs. Most of the Welsh backs are bigger than average.

So I don't think theres a massive difference.

SecretFly wrote:I'd have to agree with Rodders.  I know, I know - and effort for me to be so agreeable with anyone, but Rodders speaks the truth in my opinion.

And its why I find the topic so frustrating.  

Yes, I do see that similarity (overall! - when looking at teams in say an Anthem lineout) between the Irish tendancy to look less 'ripped' than their opponents in practically all teams but (of all teams!!!, ) the All Blacks!

That's the frustrating bit!  How can those guys - the ABs - (some of them, not all of them) look so 'lightly conditioned' and 'un-muscled up' and still seem far more resilient to high intensity, physical games in a sequence than we to date seem to ever manage?  Because they are better players is one reason - yes.  But it's not the whole deal.

We MIGHT be beginning to show signs of improving there.  But anyone who looks at even Wale's smallest guy - Halfpenny - will see Welsh philosophy of pumped up, highly veined conditioning done on him... same with most of them, Warburton etc.  And I see it in most sides.  I see a lack of it in many New Zealanders and Irish players.  But to date - they thrive on their relative 'lightness', whilst we tend to suffer for it in our European attritional rugby environment.

Being less ripped doesn't mean they have to be lightweight. Maybe they're taller for example. Devon Toner looks very lean but is about 20st. Robbie Henshaw doesn't look very heavy but he is about 16st.

The other day Mils Muliaina was interview about being in Connacht. He said the Connacht boys are very strong, a lot stronger than super rugby players are because NZ super rugby players don't bulk up but concentrate on fitness and explosive speed. They stopped overdoing the weights in the mid noughties. It suits NZ though because they also have the skills to play a fast paced game. So their physique is designed to fit their skillset.

IMO Ireland are half way between NZ and European teams. Schmidt is picking big players but Ireland isn't as obsessed about bulking up as other teams and its probably why the pack are able to play at a fast pace and last 80min. But will things change? I'm sure I read something a few weeks back where POC or/and Schmidt said they might bulk up more for the world cup.

Its probably all about getting the balance right.

lostinwales wrote:Funny how most of the time Irish supporters are talking themselves down (e.g. smaller players like Devon Toner or how poor they are compared to England and France).

Whereas Wales supporters are always talking themselves up.

And Wales have won more 6 nations than Ireland (4 vs 2) despite Ireland having a better record on the overall 6 nations table.

SecretFly wrote:I'd have to agree with Rodders.  I know, I know - and effort for me to be so agreeable with anyone, but Rodders speaks the truth in my opinion.

Well of course I do!

Irelands pack is heavy on average because Toner is 10 foot tall and Ross weighs about 20st.

Our heaviest backs are all well under 16st - with the exception of Henshaw - compare to many other nations who all have at least one 16st plus player in there at least. In fairness we have upped the physical levels this Autumn but in terms of bulk and sheer power we are one of the smaller sides - which contributes to our work rate and ability to finish strongly....not unlike... the ABs.....

profitius wrote:The other day Mils Muliaina was interview about being in Connacht. He said the Connacht boys are very strong, a lot stronger than super rugby players are because NZ super rugby players don't bulk up but concentrate on fitness and explosive speed. They stopped overdoing the weights in the mid noughties. It suits NZ though because they also have the skills to play a fast paced game. So their physique is designed to fit their skillset.

IMO Ireland are half way between NZ and European teams. Schmidt is picking big players but Ireland isn't as obsessed about bulking up as other teams and its probably why the pack are able to play at a fast pace and last 80min. But will things change? I'm sure I read something a few weeks back where POC or/and Schmidt said they might bulk up more for the world cup.  

Its probably all about getting the balance right.

This is exactly the point I've been trying to make!

Okay, Okay!!!  So we're on terms with the ABs!!!

I agree with you, Rodders.

Us and the All Blacks.   We're so alike.  And I'm right chuffed, me.

Indeed, I think we should claim the ABs of Europe title from Wales now!

at least until they kill us in the next 6N...................................

lostinwales wrote:Funny how most of the time Irish supporters are talking themselves down (e.g. smaller players like Devon Toner or how poor they are compared to England and France).

Whereas Wales supporters are always talking themselves up.

Which Wales fan on here has spoken Wales up ? Or are you just generalising again for your distinct, dislike for Wales or the Welsh ? All I have said is that I think we will beat Scotland, and that IF we beat England first up, then we could take some stopping. I have also said that if England win first up it could be a long Winter for us, so please feel free to point out and back that claim up, I will apologise if you can, if not I will except your apology with open arms.

SecretFly wrote:Us and the All Blacks.   We're so alike.

Of course we are fly ...sure we've stolen all their coaches! ....

We're currently brainwashing Schmidt of all vestiges of New Zealandism on his days off.  We don't want him thinking that one day he might want to go somewhere called Home.

"You are sleeeeeepyyyy Joe.  Sleeeeeeep.  You have never had a Home Joe.  You were found as a babe on a raft in the Atlantic ocean off the Skelligs, a golden opening in the clouds highlighting the Chosen aspect of your spiritual arrival.  You spent your early life minding sheep on the Blaskets and then when you were 33 you said to your foster mother that you must go out into the Dublin 4 world to bring Light to the Sinful City Bastards that wot do Munster men detest.  There is nowhere you need to go.  New Zealand has only sheep and you know how you wanted to get the smell of them f**kers ............. I mean sheep...off you."

rodders wrote:

profitius wrote:The other day Mils Muliaina was interview about being in Connacht. He said the Connacht boys are very strong, a lot stronger than super rugby players are because NZ super rugby players don't bulk up but concentrate on fitness and explosive speed. They stopped overdoing the weights in the mid noughties. It suits NZ though because they also have the skills to play a fast paced game. So their physique is designed to fit their skillset.

IMO Ireland are half way between NZ and European teams. Schmidt is picking big players but Ireland isn't as obsessed about bulking up as other teams and its probably why the pack are able to play at a fast pace and last 80min. But will things change? I'm sure I read something a few weeks back where POC or/and Schmidt said they might bulk up more for the world cup.  

Its probably all about getting the balance right.

This is exactly the point I've been trying to make!

That seems to be the common thread when you watch the NH sides- many abnormal looking bulkheads with huge traps and arms that never rest alongside their sides but rather hang out like low hanging branches....sigh...here we go again... you just can't play at pace when the focus is bulking up.

Bulking up is about contact... not space. Some just never seem to get that concept.

England are the biggest offenders in terms of picking brawn over anything else. They do it all the way from school boys up.

New Zealand and Ireland learned their lesson at the '07 WC. Both squads focussed massively on bulking up prior to that WC.

The ABs released a number of promo videos at the time showing how they were focussed on this and Denis Hickie in a recent interview mentioned that Ireland sacrificed warm up matches for extra focus on gym work and therefore werent match fit as a result and gave this as the main reason that they didnt do well in this WC.

Prior to the 2011 WC Ireland reverted to extra warm up matches instead.

Biltong wrote:Take no 8's as an example

TOby Faletau 1.87 meters, 110 KG
Keiran Read 1.93 meters, 112 KG
Duane Vermeulen 1.96 meters, 116 kg
Wycliff Palu 1.94 meters, 120kg
Billy VUnipola 1.88 meters, 126 kg
Jamie Heaslip 1.93 meters, 109kg
Sergio Parrise 1.96 meters, 112 kg

Let's take no 15
Israel Folau 1.93 meters, 102 kg
Rob Kearney 1.83 meters, 95 kg
Israel Dagg 1.86 meters 96 kg
Willie le Roux 1.86 meters, 90 kg
Mike Brown 1.83 meters 89kg
Lee Halfpenny 1.78 meters, 85 kg

Let's take lock
Victor Matfield 2.01 meters 110 kg
Eben Etzebeth 2.03 meters 121 kg
COurtney Lawes 2.01 meters 118 kg
POC 1.98 meters 110 kg
Brodie Retallic 2.04 meters 121 kg
Sam WHitelock 2.03 meters 114 kg


OK, I am tired now, but you get my drift

Ritchie Gray 2.08m 128 kgs are his official stats but most of us believe this has not been updated for years and he has grown a bit since then

rodders wrote:

profitius wrote:The other day Mils Muliaina was interview about being in Connacht. He said the Connacht boys are very strong, a lot stronger than super rugby players are because NZ super rugby players don't bulk up but concentrate on fitness and explosive speed. They stopped overdoing the weights in the mid noughties. It suits NZ though because they also have the skills to play a fast paced game. So their physique is designed to fit their skillset.

IMO Ireland are half way between NZ and European teams. Schmidt is picking big players but Ireland isn't as obsessed about bulking up as other teams and its probably why the pack are able to play at a fast pace and last 80min. But will things change? I'm sure I read something a few weeks back where POC or/and Schmidt said they might bulk up more for the world cup.  

Its probably all about getting the balance right.

This is exactly the point I've been trying to make!

Only difference is currently Ireland (Schmidt) is picking the biggest players where possible, possibly because they want the mauls to be a weapon and up the physicality. Horses for courses.

There's got to be a correlation between bulk and aerobic endurance. It was no surprise to see England and Wales' delay tactics throughout their games with the ABs. The incessant meetings before lineouts, slow scrums, fake injuries, etc. Too much bulk equals not enough in the tank aerobically to finish an 80 min game at the pace the ABs 'want' to play at. They pulled the wool over the refs eyes in those games so good on them.

lostinwales wrote:Funny how most of the time Irish supporters are talking themselves down (e.g. smaller players like Devon Toner or how poor they are compared to England and France).

Whereas Wales supporters are always talking themselves up.

Oh God forbid the Welsh man who supports his team It's called being a fan pal.

Also may i add all this bulking up talk actually makes players more agile , i hear this all the time "Get to big you will slow down and lose any flexibility" non sense! take Dimitry Klokov the Olympic Weight Lifter for example, the guy is huge and strong as hell but he can do the splits and has ridiculously fast sprinting times.
Problem for Wales is yes a lot of big backs but just the lack of Rugby brain ie. drawing the tackler, straightening up supporting on shoulders that's all nothing to do with size.

Sonny Bill Williams and Jamie Roberts are a similar size but one has a far superior rugby brain that's why people don't blame his size.

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:Also may i add all this bulking up talk actually makes players more agile , i hear this all the time "Get to big you will slow down and lose any flexibility" non sense! take Dimitry Klokov the Olympic Weight Lifter for example, the guy is huge and strong as hell but he can do the splits and has ridiculously fast sprinting times.
Problem for Wales is yes a lot of big backs but just the lack of Rugby brain ie. drawing the tackler, straightening up supporting on shoulders that's all nothing to do with size.

Sonny Bill Williams and Jamie Roberts are a similar size but one has a far superior rugby brain that's why people don't blame his size.

It's his hands I have a problem with. How can a man who drops the ball so much ever become an actual doctor. It's quite a frightening prospect.

I'm not talking about agility or mobility. I'm talking about ones capactity to fuel those bulked up muscles for 80 mins under anaerobic conditions.

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Funny how most of the time Irish supporters are talking themselves down (e.g. smaller players like Devon Toner or how poor they are compared to England and France).

Whereas Wales supporters are always talking themselves up.

Oh God forbid the Welsh man who supports his team It's called being a fan pal.

I definitely support a team - I ain't a fan.

TJ wrote:

Biltong wrote:Take no 8's as an example

TOby Faletau 1.87 meters, 110 KG
Keiran Read 1.93 meters, 112 KG
Duane Vermeulen 1.96 meters, 116 kg
Wycliff Palu 1.94 meters, 120kg
Billy VUnipola 1.88 meters, 126 kg
Jamie Heaslip 1.93 meters, 109kg
Sergio Parrise 1.96 meters, 112 kg

Let's take no 15
Israel Folau 1.93 meters, 102 kg
Rob Kearney 1.83 meters, 95 kg
Israel Dagg 1.86 meters 96 kg
Willie le Roux 1.86 meters, 90 kg
Mike Brown 1.83 meters 89kg
Lee Halfpenny 1.78 meters, 85 kg

Let's take lock
Victor Matfield 2.01 meters 110 kg
Eben Etzebeth 2.03 meters 121 kg
COurtney Lawes 2.01 meters 118 kg
POC 1.98 meters 110 kg
Brodie Retallic 2.04 meters 121 kg
Sam WHitelock 2.03 meters 114 kg


OK, I am tired now, but you get my drift

Ritchie Gray  2.08m  128 kgs are his official stats but most of us believe this has not been updated for years and he has grown a bit since then

Boring......Bill Beaumont was 3.62 and 147kg and yet his team mates could carry him on their shoulders in 1980 when none of them could afford Gym membership !

profitius wrote:
Only difference is currently Ireland (Schmidt) is picking the biggest players where possible, possibly because they want the mauls to be a weapon and up the physicality. Horses for courses.

Really - you think O'Mahoney, Best, Heaslip, O'Connell, D'arcy, Madigan are the biggest players possible? What about Strauss? - or are the players picked for their technical ability? Will McGrath be picked when Healy is back? Ruddock or Henderson ahead of POM or Henry? Copeland ahead of Heaslip? Marshall/McCloskey/Hurley ahead of D'arcy/Olding/Madigan?

I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that Schmidt is going for bigger players - in fact the opposite, he's looking at work rate - particularly off the ball - technique at the rucks, strong defence and low error count. Size will always be a consideration in the tight 5, but our back row is generally picked on mobility rather than size -remember Ruddock was a last minute selection at openside, not the preferred option going into the series.

rodders wrote:

profitius wrote:
Only difference is currently Ireland (Schmidt) is picking the biggest players where possible, possibly because they want the mauls to be a weapon and up the physicality. Horses for courses.

Really - you think O'Mahoney, Best, Heaslip, O'Connell, D'arcy, Madigan are the biggest players possible? What about Strauss? - or are the players picked for their technical ability? Will McGrath be picked when Healy is back? Ruddock or Henderson ahead of POM or Henry?  Copeland ahead of Heaslip? Marshall/McCloskey/Hurley ahead of D'arcy/Olding/Madigan?

I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that Schmidt is going for bigger players - in fact the opposite, he's looking at work rate - particularly off the ball - technique at the rucks, strong defence and low error count. Size will always be a consideration in the tight 5, but our back row is generally picked on mobility rather than size -remember Ruddock was a last minute selection at openside, not the preferred option going into the series.  

Rodders, I said he is picking the bigger players where possible. For the last year the Irish pack has been heavier than previously. Against SA people were saying it was Irelands biggest backline ever.

Size isn't the only consideration but it looks like Schmidt is taking it into account. Theres plenty of evidence to say he picks bigger players. Jack McGrath ahead of Kilcoyne, Toner ahead of Tuohy, Foley and McCarthy, Rhys Ruddock ahead of O'Donnell and Dom Ryan, Henshaw and Payne ahead of Olding. Any tight always seem to go the way of the bigger player. Like I said its not a bad strategy to have and they're not obsessed about size but they do take it into account. The likes of POC, Madigan, Best, POM are ahead of their rivals, in terms of ability. D'Arcy was there to balance Henshaws inexperience I'd say.

Here's the latest Aussie take on scrumsxz,

Cheika said the Wallabies may have to start fighting illegal tactics with their own scrum hi-jinks, and Weeks agreed saying the Australians had to forget about a "fair go" for their opposition. "You speak to anyone who's played in France or Europe and it's all about who can cheat the best, and I think that's something we need to develop," Weeks said.

blackcanelion wrote:Here's the latest Aussie take on scrumsxz,

Cheika said the Wallabies may have to start fighting illegal tactics with their own scrum hi-jinks, and Weeks agreed saying the Australians had to forget about a "fair go" for their opposition. "You speak to anyone who's played in France or Europe and it's all about who can cheat the best, and I think that's something we need to develop," Weeks said.

cool...doesnt take much to guess what the name 'Cheika' will easily revert to...

I love the Aussies and the way they play, but it's funny that they talk about needing to forget about "fair go". The number of dummy runners/blockers and forward passes they get way with...

Taylorman wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:Here's the latest Aussie take on scrumsxz,

Cheika said the Wallabies may have to start fighting illegal tactics with their own scrum hi-jinks, and Weeks agreed saying the Australians had to forget about a "fair go" for their opposition. "You speak to anyone who's played in France or Europe and it's all about who can cheat the best, and I think that's something we need to develop," Weeks said.

cool...doesnt take much to guess what the name 'Cheika' will easily revert to...

Cheetah?

Cheetah's Wallabies. It's turning into to a bloody zoo.