Individually, how good is this Irish team?

First topic message reminder :

It seems to have become an article of faith that the current Irish side is winning games through discipline, error-free rugby and a tactical and strategic approach that is somewhere close to genius. The suggestion, implied or spoken outright, is that there are few individual stars in this 'faceless' green machine.

I suggest that this does the players a serious disservice - at least five of the side that beat England (Murray, Sexton, Bowe, O'Connell and Healy) would be in contention for a "best Irish team of the past 50 years" jersey. The crocked Heaslip would similarly be in the running at 8 - that's one hell of a nucleus of outstanding individuals around which to build a team. Seems to me that in the rush to praise the organisation and the collective effort, we shouldn't forget that there are some mighty accomplished players out there.

rodders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:If you're going to win the world cup, the likelihood is always that you'll be asked to play at least two of the very best sides - a least.

Well not really Fly, England managed to avoid SA and NZ in 2003. Talk about luck!

england didnt care who they played. they were very comfortably world number 1 at the time, ahead of the SH sides by a distance.

no luck in going into RWC as clear favourites, and winning it.

SirBurger wrote:Surprised you guys seem to think Wallace > O'Brien. If SOB is fit he is one of the best players in the world in my opinion. An absolute wrecking ball, but his breakdown work is now also up there with the best. I really hope he gets an injury free run as he is one of my absolute favourite players.

Totally agree on SOB, but for me Wallace shades it - he was a brilliant player for Ireland for 5-6 seasons, just always delivered time and time again, whereas SOB has been unlucky with injuries.

SirBurger wrote:Surprised you guys seem to think Wallace > O'Brien. If SOB is fit he is one of the best players in the world in my opinion. An absolute wrecking ball, but his breakdown work is now also up there with the best. I really hope he gets an injury free run as he is one of my absolute favourite players.

David Wallace was criminally underrated. He was more clever and well balanced as a flanker than O'Brien in my opinion, and the trio of himself, Ferris and Heaslip is possibly the best Ireland have had (and depressingly rather short lived).

Even now I personally think O'Mahony is a better player than O'Brien. He is less physical, but he has a great rugby brain for a flanker.

O'Brien doesn't have much of a brain left!

But seriously, I think at this point O'Brien's main issue now is 'overtrying' every time he comes on.  I'd like him just to relax into the game.... let the blunderbuss stuff arrive gradually if it wants to when the game has warmed up.  He's trying to over-sell his supposed selling point out of fear of becoming replaceable.  The guy often looks too pumped mentally.  He needs to settle down and be patient.

quinsforever wrote:

rodders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:If you're going to win the world cup, the likelihood is always that you'll be asked to play at least two of the very best sides - a least.

Well not really Fly, England managed to avoid SA and NZ in 2003. Talk about luck!

england didnt care who they played. they were very comfortably world number 1 at the time, ahead of the SH sides by a distance.

no luck in going into RWC as clear favourites, and winning it.

Damn right they were lucky, 62/72 points from the boot of Jonny in the knockout stages. 1 man team personified.

if all those teams hadnt kept infringing to stop us getting quick ball we wouldnt have needed to kick the points as they would have been tries instead.

never thought i'd hear a welshman complain about another team's kicker being too good

quinsforever wrote:if all those teams hadnt kept infringing to stop us getting quick ball we wouldnt have needed to kick the points as they would have been tries instead.

never thought i'd hear a welshman complain about another team's kicker being too good

Not complaining as unlike you quins i enjoy Half's kicking ability, the fact that he won a lions tour for example is to his credit but hardly a precedent as Jenks did the same in 1997. Pretty sure that you are of the opinion that Half is a one trick pony for his kicking when it suits you kicking is a sideshow.

Fact is he doesn't prop up Wales like Jonny did England. Without him, England would have been a mere trifle. England's 2003 RWC campaign was Jonny Wilkinson plus 14 add ons.

Not very good.

yawn gwlad.

1/2P is an awesome kicker and a great attacking runner, he just hasnt been used that way by wales much in the last 3 years.

not going to get my goat today fella, am off for a cycling weekend tomorrow so all good.

all i will say is if wales had 14 add ons then maybe they could get to world number 1 and win a RWC carrying the favourites tag and a 6N slam in the same year.

O'Driscoll has said he think the team Kidney took to the last RWC was the strongest Ireland ever had. He also wondered aloud what that squad would have achieved with the level of detailed coaching they have now. Maybe a swipe at Kidney, maybe just articulating a genuine regret. Either way I agree with him. They were the strongest we've had.

This current side is a better team though. They sometimes come across as a cult devoted to their prophet. Trimble said that if they do what Schmidt tells them to do they just win. Sexton has said he hears Schmidt's voice in his head for Gods sake. That's just weird. But a lot of the best teams are cult-ish.

The only one who obviously doesn't seem brainwashed is the captain, POC, which is unusual.

quinsforever wrote:yawn gwlad.

1/2P is an awesome kicker and a great attacking runner, he just hasnt been used that way by wales much in the last 3 years.

not going to get my goat today fella, am off for a cycling weekend tomorrow so all good.

all i will say is if wales had 14 add ons then maybe they could get to world number 1 and win a RWC carrying the favourites tag and a 6N slam in the same year.

if we had jonny wilkinson we could have. any team could have

enjoy your punctures

FecklessRogue wrote: They sometimes come across as a cult devoted to their prophet. Trimble said that if they do what Schmidt tells them to do they just win. Sexton has said he hears Schmidt's voice in his head for Gods sake. That's just weird. But a lot of the best teams are cult-ish.

The only one who obviously doesn't seem brainwashed is the captain, POC, which is unusual.

Or Murray.  "We're not robots.  We allowed do our own thing"

The cult is media driven too and it's becoming distracting to be honest and might even become destructive if it becomes oppressive.  

Schmidt does what he does, like every other coach - and he'll make his mistakes.  
It ain't rocket science but I'd guess the only difference is that he's serious about dropping anyone who doesn't pull their weight and commit 100% through training and games.  
I'm not sure those threats were ever made before when 'star' players seems to drift around and decide for themselves when they showed up to perform and when they coasted.  I think that's the biggest difference he probably brings - that unspoken threat that if they don't listen and learn - they're gone and replaced.  That heightens hearing and attentiveness! So the stories then arrive about what Joe teaches.  They're simply hearing stuff they've never listened to before

FecklessRogue wrote:O'Driscoll has said he think the team Kidney took to the last RWC was the strongest Ireland ever had. He also wondered aloud what that squad would have achieved with the level of detailed coaching they have now. Maybe a swipe at Kidney, maybe just articulating a genuine regret. Either way I agree with him. They were the strongest we've had.

This current side is a better team though. They sometimes come across as a cult devoted to their prophet. Trimble said that if they do what Schmidt tells them to do they just win. Sexton has said he hears Schmidt's voice in his head for Gods sake. That's just weird. But a lot of the best teams are cult-ish.

The only one who obviously doesn't seem brainwashed is the captain, POC, which is unusual.

O'Driscoll just didn't like Kidney and he didn't want him as coach. Dropping him as captain didn't help the relationship either.

Kidney did a lot of the heavy lifting for Schmidt as well with regard to dropping and blooding a lot of players. I wouldn't underestimate the influence ROG has on Sexton either as his coach.

edit: as well as that. I think Schmidt is beginning to appreciate Zebo and is learning how to deal with him.

The acid test is how many of them would get into the top teams from SA, NZ or eh...England?

Pot Hale wrote:The acid test is how many of them would get into the top teams from SA, NZ or eh...England?

well payne could play for NZ, and several of them could play for England

not sure what that proves though as they would be unlikely to get picked or else why would they have chosen Ireland if they actually had a choice?

quinsforever wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:The acid test is how many of them would get into the top teams from SA, NZ or eh...England?

well payne could play for NZ, and several of them could play for England

not sure what that proves though as they would be unlikely to get picked or else why would they have chosen Ireland if they actually had a choice?

Very true. Most English fans I've spoken to in real life don't rate Sexton at all. They said he's always kicking the ball....

Payne has been described on one SH rugby site as a useful utility ITM Cup player who's only there to compensate for the much smaller Irish backline.

i've consistently said that sexton is the best 10 in world rugby. had a few 606 fights with kiwis about that one.

everyone rates sexton

especially the english fans. we know the worth of an elite 10.

Sin é wrote:

edit: as well as that. I think Schmidt is beginning to appreciate Zebo and is learning how to deal with him.

The other way round, Sin.  Zebo has taken to the man he ignored in the underground carpark  He's become humble and willing to hunker down to the non-fancy stuff for as long as it takes.[/quote]

quinsforever wrote:i've consistently said that sexton is the best 10 in world rugby. had a few 606 fights with kiwis about that one.

everyone rates sexton

especially the english fans. we know the worth of an elite 10.

I was joshing you about the English fans. However, "everyone" doesn't rate Sexton. There's acknowledgement that he may be the best 10 in the NH, but he has too many flaws in his playmaking for a good few SH fans, particularly in NZ.

He doesn't have an armchair ride like he would have if he was attached to New Zealand. That's the bit they can never compute. Each individual on a New Zealand team is pampered by the skill levels of the player next to him

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

edit: as well as that. I think Schmidt is beginning to appreciate Zebo and is learning how to deal with him.

The other way round, Sin.  Zebo has taken to the man he ignored in the underground carpark  He's become humble and willing to hunker down to the non-fancy stuff for as long as it takes.

I don't know about that - he was talking at the weekend about him being a free spirited young man or something who really loves playing. Funnily enough, ROG said something similar about it taking him a while to figure Zebo out.

The breakdown has been equally impressive as the kicking game. Ireland are very good at legally slowing ball down and have conceded on average 6.5 points per game in their last five games in the 6 nations.
That helps the defence greatly and the arrival of Henshaw in place of D'Arcy has really given the team solidity in midfield and Payne is also very solid.

We've seen nothing from an attacking point of view yet. With ball in hand they have not looked very sharp. As reliable as Kearney is I'd love to see a Mike Brown or Hogg type of fullback for Ireland. Someone who can open up defences. Keith Earls can do that but wouldn't be as good under the high ball.

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

edit: as well as that. I think Schmidt is beginning to appreciate Zebo and is learning how to deal with him.

The other way round, Sin.  Zebo has taken to the man he ignored in the underground carpark  He's become humble and willing to hunker down to the non-fancy stuff for as long as it takes.

I don't know about that - he was talking at the weekend about him being a free spirited young man or something who really loves playing. Funnily enough, ROG said something similar about it taking him a while to figure Zebo out.

Ah will you go away out of that would ya, Sin. Schmidt has been around free spirited young men before. He's in his late 40s and has coached in the SH and up here in two countries. He's met men like Zebo before. It isn't suddenly dawning on him how to handle a hippie Munsterman who likes to swing with the mood dance.

But Zebo. Well one thing is for sure. America 2013 won't happen again. He's learned that he's part of a team... and he's learned to enjoy it.

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

edit: as well as that. I think Schmidt is beginning to appreciate Zebo and is learning how to deal with him.

The other way round, Sin.  Zebo has taken to the man he ignored in the underground carpark  He's become humble and willing to hunker down to the non-fancy stuff for as long as it takes.

I don't know about that - he was talking at the weekend about him being a free spirited young man or something who really loves playing. Funnily enough, ROG said something similar about it taking him a while to figure Zebo out.

Ah jeez Sin you know that while we all down South were looking at Zebo and wondering why Schmidt didn't pick him it was because he had clearly not been through the scientology like initiation. Who knew that Zebo is now a brilliant player but before last autumn he wasn't. Here in sheepland they'll believe anything. For example the amazing southern hemisphere style offloading and backplay Joe was going to introduce! Instead we are getting Argentina circa 2007. Having said that I wouldn't be complaining if we got to a wc SF...just hopefully we can be spared the sanctimonious crap on here. At least guns breaks out every now and then and makes some snide comment which is refreshing. Other than that its like the stepford wives on loop.

Eh Argentina came third in 2007. That would be quite some progression if we came third.

rodders wrote:

SirBurger wrote:Surprised you guys seem to think Wallace > O'Brien. If SOB is fit he is one of the best players in the world in my opinion. An absolute wrecking ball, but his breakdown work is now also up there with the best. I really hope he gets an injury free run as he is one of my absolute favourite players.

Totally agree on SOB, but for me Wallace shades it - he was a brilliant player for Ireland for 5-6 seasons, just always delivered time and time again, whereas SOB has been unlucky with injuries.

Interesting - I also loved Wallace and thought he was an exceptional player. I just feel like SOB offers even more at his best. I guess though if this is a best team of the last decade Wallace probably does deserve his spot for consistency.

I'd have Wallace over SOB ---- just

Wallace had more subtlety. SOB is fine but just needs to disconnect the buzzing red switch.

Wallace was a proper 7, no doubt. It's all about balance in a back row, which is why England have occasionally come unstuck in that area in recent years. If you had a Ferris at 6 and a Heaslip at 8, the need for another bloke whose calling-card is his thunderous running with ball in hand is slightly less pronounced. O'Brien would be an ideal bench player in a side as complete as this one; meanwhile, I'd definitely want my starter at open-side to be an all-round jackal and nuisance on the ground.

GunsGerms wrote:Eh Argentina came third in 2007. That would be quite some progression if we came third.

Personally I'd go nuts if we get knocked out in the SF. If...and we're not there yet... we go in as topped ranked NH team to a RWC in the NH hemisphere happy with anything other than winning the thing then we shouldn't be involved in professional sport and pack up and go home.

If we play as well as we can we should make the final as a minimum - because only, I repeat only then, then can we meet a team on current standing who can beat us if they play to their maximum and we do too.

If we go out before the final then we have underperformed, it's that simple - it is not acceptable, and the rhetoric about the IRFU targeting a SF is just that, a soundbite to keep a lid on expectations.

rodders wrote:]

SecretFly wrote:If you're going to win the world cup, the likelihood is always that you'll be asked to play at least two of the very best sides - a least.

Well not really Fly, England managed to avoid SA and NZ in 2003. Talk about luck!

We comfortably beat SA in the group stages. That's how we avoided them in the knockouts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/3198160.stm

rodders wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Eh Argentina came third in 2007. That would be quite some progression if we came third.

Personally I'd go nuts if we get knocked out in the SF. If...and we're not there yet... we go in as topped ranked NH team to a RWC in the NH hemisphere happy with anything other than winning the thing then we shouldn't be involved in professional sport and pack up and go home.

If we play as well as we can we should make the final as a minimum - because only, I repeat only then, then can we meet a team on current standing who can beat us if they play to their maximum and we do too.

If we go out before the final then we have underperformed, it's that simple - it is not acceptable, and the rhetoric about the IRFU targeting a SF is just that, a soundbite to keep a lid on expectations.

There is a long way to go yet Rodders.

A long way indeed

12 wins sandwiched either side of a trip to spala - seems pretty close to me.

rodders wrote:

If we go out before the final then we have underperformed, it's that simple - it is not acceptable, and the rhetoric about the IRFU targeting a SF is just that, a soundbite to keep a lid on expectations.

The IRFU are targeting the winning of EVERY game that Ireland are involved in.
Joe is targeting the winning of EVERY game we play too.

So the spin on that belief is that yes, if we keep winning (the principle of one game at a time) - then something shaped like a cup hits us in the face in and around tea time this Autumn

The confidence is good.  Nothing wrong with confidence. But the next team along is Wales.  And that's the only thing I want us to win right now.  Let's not get all fired up again pre-emptively - we know how bad it felt when our Gods came home weeping the last few times...  We're genuine masochists if we do it again.

Official target is the RWC SF fly - its in the IRFU's plan and quoted frequently by Nucifera and Sshmidt.... who (Nucifera) isn't getting enough plaudits actually, he's been really impressive and soind an awesome job behind the scenes.

rodders wrote:Official target is the RWC SF fly - its in the IRFU's plan and quoted frequently by Nucifera and Sshmidt.... who (Nucifera) isn't getting enough plaudits actually, he's been really impressive and soind an awesome job behind the scenes.

I mention him regularly

But still............ it's the system of never wanting to lose Any game that keeps the 'target' going.  And obviously - if a semi-final IS won, Schmidt and the boys don't just phone in to the next game because target has already been achieved.  Champagne Lads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Big game next week for someone but not for us.  Let them win it - we've achieved Target!!
Schmidt wants each and every game.  Will heads dip deep if we lose to Wales, btw? Being as we're so confident, can we now mentally handle a loss?

We handled losing to NZ in heart-breaking terms fairly well when you look back at it. Could easily have triggered the same old response.

I think the individuals are technically very good. They can all do the basics very well even if they're not all flair players. I'd say Schmidt has a long term plan of bringing in more flair but the current side looks a well oiled machine and machines are only as good as their parts.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:We handled losing to NZ in heart-breaking terms fairly well when you look back at it. Could easily have triggered the same old response.

We're further down the line - and New Zealand are still New Zealand and were quite a number of notches above us in the rankings at the time.  Wales are two or three below us.

Oh I think the side could handle it yes - and it might be a good exercise in exposing the weaknesses that are there but that no side (bar England last year) has exposed.  It would be a good kick in the ass and would refocus minds.  NOT that I want that conclusion after the game!

But the fans?  They've become a little perhaps too excited by all this.  If we beat Wales, that churning excitement will grow more and more WC chat will hit the airwaves.  That kind of situation can lead to massive shocks and depressions whenever we do lose a game.  And it can be as excessive as the upbeat chat - and it can apply pressure to a coaching unit that doesn't need it.

So it's the fans/press I'm thinking about in terms of that question - can we mentally handle a loss now?

GunsGerms wrote:Eh Argentina came third in 2007. That would be quite some progression if we came third.

Read my next line after the comment on Argentina

rodders wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Eh Argentina came third in 2007. That would be quite some progression if we came third.

Personally I'd go nuts if we get knocked out in the SF. If...and we're not there yet... we go in as topped ranked NH team to a RWC in the NH hemisphere happy with anything other than winning the thing then we shouldn't be involved in professional sport and pack up and go home.

If we play as well as we can we should make the final as a minimum - because only, I repeat only then, then can we meet a team on current standing who can beat us if they play to their maximum and we do too.

If we go out before the final then we have underperformed, it's that simple - it is not acceptable, and the rhetoric about the IRFU targeting a SF is just that, a soundbite to keep a lid on expectations.

I'd contest that only NZ can beat you on top form!

SecretFly wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:We handled losing to NZ in heart-breaking terms fairly well when you look back at it. Could easily have triggered the same old response.

We're further down the line - and New Zealand are still New Zealand and were quite a number of notches above us in the rankings at the time.  Wales are two or three below us.

Oh I think the side could handle it yes - and it might be a good exercise in exposing the weaknesses that are there but that no side (bar England last year) has exposed.  It would be a good kick in the ass and would refocus minds.  NOT that I want that conclusion after the game!

But the fans?  They've become a little perhaps too excited by all this.  If we beat Wales, that churning excitement will grow more and more WC chat will hit the airwaves.  That kind of situation can lead to massive shocks and depressions whenever we do lose a game.  And it can be as excessive as the upbeat chat - and it can apply pressure to a coaching unit that doesn't need it.

So it's the fans/press I'm thinking about in terms of that question - can we mentally handle a loss now?

Quite possibly not. But lazy journalism is always going to be there. Simple column is how Joe is the messiah right now. The simple column after a loss will be that there is no inventiveness, that there is no passion, too Leinster centric, Joe has his 'favourites', etc. Those lazy journos probably have their columns written.
And the medjia will hype up every win (even if the performance is poor) and chastise every loss (even if the performance was exceptional). That will always be there, the contagion of US and soccer style reporting calling every half decent performance the greatest ever the second a final whistle is blown, calling out winners weeks/months from any final being played, no accountability by journalists to their predictions when wrong or their re-writing of history when they want to change their view of coaches/players at a whim. Unfortunately that will be there waiting for this team at the inevitable end.

Let's enjoy the journey in the mean time.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

rodders wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Eh Argentina came third in 2007. That would be quite some progression if we came third.

Personally I'd go nuts if we get knocked out in the SF. If...and we're not there yet... we go in as topped ranked NH team to a RWC in the NH hemisphere happy with anything other than winning the thing then we shouldn't be involved in professional sport and pack up and go home.

If we play as well as we can we should make the final as a minimum - because only, I repeat only then, then can we meet a team on current standing who can beat us if they play to their maximum and we do too.

If we go out before the final then we have underperformed, it's that simple - it is not acceptable, and the rhetoric about the IRFU targeting a SF is just that, a soundbite to keep a lid on expectations.

I'd contest that only NZ can beat you on top form!

Well the boks could definitely... maybe the wallabies... France maybe, although I don't think they've got the coach, fitness or halfbacks to turn things around by the Autumn...England and Wales would be 50:50s....other than that I think things are in our own hands...

That's fair enough. So apart from NZ, SA, Australia, England and Wales. And possibly France.

No 7&1/2 wrote:That's fair enough. So apart from NZ, SA, Australia,  England and Wales. And possibly France.

NZ, SA, Aus and England could easily beat Ireland. Not as in the match would be easy by Ireland would be evens or underdogs against any of those.

rodders wrote:

Well the boks could definitely... maybe the wallabies... France maybe, although I don't think they've got the coach, fitness or halfbacks to turn things around by the Autumn...England and Wales would be 50:50s....other than that I think things are in our own hands...

So it's a World Cup where all the usual culprits and hanger ons could have a chance?  Same as usual then

For a bit of spark though, I think Samoa will top their group playing surprising dangerous stuff.  And the world will hold its breath!  Not another blasted 'Wales' to ruin the favourites show???!!!

I'm going to go out in a limb and say we won't play England in the SF. It will be the Scotland, who'll beat the Wallabies in the QF.

rodders wrote:I'm going to go out in a limb and say we won't play England in the SF. It will be the Scotland, who'll beat the Wallabies in the QF.

That would be sweet and entirely possible especially after such a tough group.