Irish fans?

First topic message reminder :

I just wondered whether Neil Francis represents the views of most Irish fans. Given that the Lions series was almost 2 years ago and the final match result kind of vindicated his decision do Ireland fans still feel bitter about it?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/wales-v-ireland-six-nations-8824442

GunsGerms wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

beshocked wrote:Gatland didn't pick the best players but in the end he didn't need to as the Lions won.
!

Which players were the best ones that didn't get picked?

Kelly Brown and Chris Robshaw - who were two of the top players in the 6 nations that year - instead he picked an unfit Croft and Lydiate.

Mike Brown was also overlooked too.

To be honest I think Gatland got a bit lucky - this was not a vintage Aussie side. His flaws and poor decisions have been swept under the carpet because the Lions won.

I agree. Australia were quite poor and had a comparitively inexperienced side because half their stars were dropped due to bad behavour. They were in turmoil.

Tactically the Lions were poor enough. It really should have been a clean sweep IMO.

I agree we should have won the 3 test but gatland couldn't pick ten Wales players for the second test too

mckay1402 wrote:I just wondered whether Neil Francis represents the views of most Irish fans.  Given that the Lions series was almost 2 years ago and the final match result kind of vindicated his decision do Ireland fans still feel bitter about it?  

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/wales-v-ireland-six-nations-8824442

I'm sure Neil Francis speaks for few people except himself - at least, I hope so. This is the guy who last year claimed that "gay people do not have any interest in sport". What about Gareth Thomas and Nigel Owens? Unlike Francis himself, Thomas went on a Lions tour, captaining them in the tests against against NZ after dirty play put out BOD.
As for the "tub of flora" comment, it doesn't say much for Francis's own "intellectual capacity" that he can't think of an original insult for Gatland. It's a straight take from Have I Got News For You, which featured a tub of lard instead of Roy Hattersley. Before anyone objects, I know that flora is margarine, not lard!

Sin é wrote:

Marshes wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

beshocked wrote:Gatland didn't pick the best players but in the end he didn't need to as the Lions won.
!

Which players were the best ones that didn't get picked?

Conor Murray (for Phillips)
Sean O'Brien (for Warburton)

He also picked a half fit Tommy Bowe because since he was playing in Wales, people thought he was Welsh

I remember at the time a lot of Irish fans even unhappy with Murray, saying his supply was too slow, so I don't think he was clearly ahead of Philips for the Lions. Granted he played well in the first two tests when he came on and the build up games. SOB for me would be ahead of Warburton.

I think the selection has as much to do with combinations for Gatland as anything else, Welsh players knowing each other's games better and how to implement his game etc. When it was a tight call for a spot, he probably erred to the Welsh side.

Mad that it is still a bone of contention now.

What would you expect? He is from Munster. Half the people of Ireland live in Leinster. Same with Peter O'Mahony and Keith Earls. They don't rate them either.

If he was going for existing partnerships, he would have had a Heislip/Murray/Sexton partnership.

The only reason its brought up now is because some are claiming that the only reason we Irish are critical of Gatland is because he dropped BOD. That isn't so.

Tinfoil hats out! I think bias works both ways Sin Nobody is doubting his ability now, but you have to admit he has come on leaps and bounds.

And I was more thinking about how the media still brings it up as part of the rivalry, much bigger points of contention for me eg Gethin Jenkins patronisingly patting Stephen Ferris on the head after getting the yellow card for a "tip tackle"

Actually might have been Ian Evans, can't remember!

Whoever it was, he was Welsh - so that'll do!

Are you serious about being mad that Bodgate is still a bone of contention, Marshes?

I'm not.  It marks the card of the special rivalry.  I don't think even the Welsh are, if they were honest about it.  They like a good list of items in a rivalry box too.  If you don't have a box of tricks, you don't have a rivalry worth sh*t.

Marshes wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Marshes wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

beshocked wrote:Gatland didn't pick the best players but in the end he didn't need to as the Lions won.
!

Which players were the best ones that didn't get picked?

Conor Murray (for Phillips)
Sean O'Brien (for Warburton)

He also picked a half fit Tommy Bowe because since he was playing in Wales, people thought he was Welsh

I remember at the time a lot of Irish fans even unhappy with Murray, saying his supply was too slow, so I don't think he was clearly ahead of Philips for the Lions. Granted he played well in the first two tests when he came on and the build up games. SOB for me would be ahead of Warburton.

I think the selection has as much to do with combinations for Gatland as anything else, Welsh players knowing each other's games better and how to implement his game etc. When it was a tight call for a spot, he probably erred to the Welsh side.

Mad that it is still a bone of contention now.

What would you expect? He is from Munster. Half the people of Ireland live in Leinster. Same with Peter O'Mahony and Keith Earls. They don't rate them either.

If he was going for existing partnerships, he would have had a Heislip/Murray/Sexton partnership.

The only reason its brought up now is because some are claiming that the only reason we Irish are critical of Gatland is because he dropped BOD. That isn't so.

Tinfoil hats out! I think bias works both ways Sin Nobody is doubting his ability now, but you have to admit he has come on leaps and bounds.

And I was more thinking about how the media still brings it up as part of the rivalry, much bigger points of contention for me eg Gethin Jenkins patronisingly patting Stephen Ferris on the head after getting the yellow card for a "tip tackle"  

Of course Murray has got better since then - but he was deservedly ahead of every other Irish scrumhalf at the time, so I don't know what they were moaning about* and he was in most people's opinions, the form scrumhalf on the Lions.

A lot of Leinster fans preferred Reddan because he would up the tempo (which was fine at club level), but at international level you needed to be able to slow the tempo down as well (and not get scragged as Reddan constantly did).

Nachos Jones wrote:GunsGerms,

Although he could be ponderous at times, I never really saw Murray as being as slow and sloppy as made out to be. By the time of the Lions tour, he was already firmly Irelands first choice 9, was playing very good rugby and had a very good 6N. To me, other than Parra (possibly Care as well) he was the stand out 9 in the NH. He was far ahead of Phillips.

He improved a lot on that tour and Howley helped him to become the fully rounded 9 he is now and I would say he is up there with the best 9's in world rugby.

He was not dire leading up to the Lions, he was playing some great rugby.

I would go so far as to say his passing was terrible. Not only did he wait too long at rucks until the defense had set when he did decide to pass he took too many steps so that the defense had advanced enough to ensure that we had no hope of making breaks. He has eradicated both flaws now. His passing is undelayed, crisp and without steps unless he is trying to fix defenders. The improvement is huge.

GunsGerms wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:GunsGerms,

Although he could be ponderous at times, I never really saw Murray as being as slow and sloppy as made out to be. By the time of the Lions tour, he was already firmly Irelands first choice 9, was playing very good rugby and had a very good 6N. To me, other than Parra (possibly Care as well) he was the stand out 9 in the NH. He was far ahead of Phillips.

He improved a lot on that tour and Howley helped him to become the fully rounded 9 he is now and I would say he is up there with the best 9's in world rugby.

He was not dire leading up to the Lions, he was playing some great rugby.

I would go so far as to say his passing was terrible. Not only did he wait too long at rucks until the defense had set when he did decide to pass the defense had advanced enough to ensure that we had no hope of making breaks. He has eradicated both flaws now. His passing is undelayed, crisp and without steps unless he is trying to fix defenders. The improvement is huge.

Again, I really don't think that his passing was THAT bad. He had off moments like all player do but he certainly wasn't as bad as being made out to be. He was in some fine form and playing excellent rugby in the 6N and lead up to the Lions tour. Howley dragged that last missing link out to make him the more rounded 9 he is now but as I said earlier, was firmly the best in Ireland. If he was as bad, as being made out to be, he would not have been in the Ireland team or even up for selection for the Lions.

Sin é wrote:

A lot of Leinster fans preferred Reddan because he would up the tempo (which was fine at club level), but at international level you needed to be able to slow the tempo down as well (and not get scragged as Reddan constantly did).

True.  You need to be able to control the tempo to suit the game.  But that's the point.  
I've often felt Ireland were in good positions to take advantage of their superiority close to the opposition lines - and do so by increasing tempo (scrumhalve's role to inject that change of beat as he's the distributor).  But at times we've often walked away from such strong positions with nothing on the board because defences were being allowed re-set time and time again due to our tempo being wrong for the moment that was in it.

So yes, it very much is judgement of when to speed up and slow down.  Judgement was the debate.

SecretFly wrote:Whoever it was, he was Welsh - so that'll do!

Are you serious about being mad that Bodgate is still a bone of contention, Marshes?

I'm not.  It marks the card of the special rivalry.  I don't think even the Welsh are, if they were honest about it.  They like a good list of items in a rivalry box too.  If you don't have a box of tricks, you don't have a rivalry worth sh*t.

Nah not mad about it, just think the rivalry has a bunch more poignant items rather than one that's largely contrived. You know, things that actually happened on the pitch! Last minute drop goals (successful and not), Davies on Ryan, Ferris on Evans, Ballboys, Zebo flicks. Plenty in this rivalry without the BOD/Gatland bout.

And just check it was Ian Evans, bloody makeweight

No Liam Williams? I'm staggered.

You mean his elbow drop on Paddy Jackson?

Nachos Jones wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:GunsGerms,

Although he could be ponderous at times, I never really saw Murray as being as slow and sloppy as made out to be. By the time of the Lions tour, he was already firmly Irelands first choice 9, was playing very good rugby and had a very good 6N. To me, other than Parra (possibly Care as well) he was the stand out 9 in the NH. He was far ahead of Phillips.

He improved a lot on that tour and Howley helped him to become the fully rounded 9 he is now and I would say he is up there with the best 9's in world rugby.

He was not dire leading up to the Lions, he was playing some great rugby.

I would go so far as to say his passing was terrible. Not only did he wait too long at rucks until the defense had set when he did decide to pass the defense had advanced enough to ensure that we had no hope of making breaks. He has eradicated both flaws now. His passing is undelayed, crisp and without steps unless he is trying to fix defenders. The improvement is huge.

Again, I really don't think that his passing was THAT bad. He had off moments like all player do but he certainly wasn't as bad as being made out to be. He was in some fine form and playing excellent rugby in the 6N and lead up to the Lions tour. Howley dragged that last missing link out to make him the more rounded 9 he is now but as I said earlier, was firmly the best in Ireland. If he was as bad, as being made out to be, he would not have been in the Ireland team or even up for selection for the Lions.

People were not complaining about his passing, they were complaining how he was slower than Reddan to get to rucks. His pass was excellent.

If Howley is such a good coach, how come he couldn't improve the passing part and decision making of Mike Phillips?

edit: the difference between Murray and the rest is that when he got to the ruck he knew what he was going to do and just passed immediately whereas other scrumhalfs would start looking around (and Reddan would just fling the ball out and hope there was someone there to pick it up).

Marshes wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Whoever it was, he was Welsh - so that'll do!

Are you serious about being mad that Bodgate is still a bone of contention, Marshes?

I'm not.  It marks the card of the special rivalry.  I don't think even the Welsh are, if they were honest about it.  They like a good list of items in a rivalry box too.  If you don't have a box of tricks, you don't have a rivalry worth sh*t.

Nah not mad about it, just think the rivalry has a bunch more poignant items rather than one that's largely contrived. You know, things that actually happened on the pitch! Last minute drop goals (successful and not), Davies on Ryan, Ferris on Evans, Ballboys, Zebo flicks. Plenty in this rivalry without the BOD/Gatland bout.

And just check it was Ian Evans, bloody makeweight  

Our rivalry with Wales is actually mixed up in a longer rivalry with that very man Gatland.  Maybe its a newer rugby generation who have no perception of it.  But I think the truth is still that he's coached in Ireland longer than he's been with Wales - and that's a long time he's been there!
So I don't think even most of the Welsh fans realise that a lot of us here remember Gats when he was slightly slimmer and had quite a bit more dark hair and when he coached us.  And the fallout of his leaving was as big as Ruddock's fallout when leaving Wales.  So Gats has always had his extra curricular relationship with Ireland and that I think is the extra spice that many newer fans don't actually appreciate.  It's not a big factor but it's latent and it doesn't die.  But it's good.  He enjoys that aspect of rugby as much as some of us do - that brooding desire to get one over - the memories.  It's all lovely sporting stuff.  He thrives on it all.  He enjoys the 'blood feud' aspect of rugby

Sin é wrote:

People were not complaining about his passing, they were complaining how he was slower than Reddan to get to rucks. His pass was excellent.

If Howley is such a good coach, how come he couldn't improve the passing part and decision making of Mike Phillips?

edit: the difference between Murray and the rest is that when he got to the ruck he knew what he was going to do and just passed immediately whereas other scrumhalfs would start looking around (and Reddan would just fling the ball out and hope there was someone there to pick it up).

Reddan was/is slightly quicker than Murray but in no way shape or form does he posses the same quality in game management as Murray. Even 2 years ago Murray was streaks ahead of all other Irish 9's. I always say that players with great game management seem to have more time than other players and make it look easy.

To some, Murray may have appeared to look slow but to me, he was quick enough. To some, Reddan may have looked quicker but to me, he looks hurried.

Quick ball remains quick ball though, Nachos. It's not a sense or an idea, it's a fact and it comes with proof.

And proof of quick ball is that defences get hassled and start to fail in the ability to keep defensively set. They get stretched, they get caught lying on the ground struggling to get to their feet, they get subjected to mismatches.

The proof is usually there for all to see when ball is either quick or a few degrees too slow.

Quick ball is quick ball, agreed SecretFly but I would rather slightly delayed but accurate ball over hurried inaccurate ball myself.

To me, Murray is more than quick enough and always has been. His control, however, is well above that of Reddan and as a result is more effective in attacking situations as the ball goes to the right player at the right time. Can the same be said of Reddan?

Quick ball only works when your pack are really on top (i.e., Stringer with Munster for most of the 00s) and Reddan with Leinster at home. Schmidt used Boss a lot away from home and he must have the slowest pass in the west.

Sin é wrote:

People were not complaining about his passing, they were complaining how he was slower than Reddan to get to rucks. His pass was excellent.

If Howley is such a good coach, how come he couldn't improve the passing part and decision making of Mike Phillips?

edit: the difference between Murray and the rest is that when he got to the ruck he knew what he was going to do and just passed immediately whereas other scrumhalfs would start looking around (and Reddan would just fling the ball out and hope there was someone there to pick it up).

His pass was fine but the problem was that he took a number of steps before passing rather than whipping the ball out from the base of the ruck which he does much more now.

Nachos Jones wrote:

Sin é wrote:

People were not complaining about his passing, they were complaining how he was slower than Reddan to get to rucks. His pass was excellent.

If Howley is such a good coach, how come he couldn't improve the passing part and decision making of Mike Phillips?

edit: the difference between Murray and the rest is that when he got to the ruck he knew what he was going to do and just passed immediately whereas other scrumhalfs would start looking around (and Reddan would just fling the ball out and hope there was someone there to pick it up).

Reddan was/is slightly quicker than Murray but in no way shape or form does he posses the same quality in game management as Murray. Even 2 years ago Murray was streaks ahead of all other Irish 9's. I always say that players with great game management seem to have more time than other players and make it look easy.

To some, Murray may have appeared to look slow but to me, he was quick enough. To some, Reddan may have looked quicker but to me, he looks hurried.

It's no bad thing to say where murray was in 2010, he was 20 years of age in fairness, there was always going to be parts of his game to improve

Marshes wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:

Sin é wrote:

People were not complaining about his passing, they were complaining how he was slower than Reddan to get to rucks. His pass was excellent.

If Howley is such a good coach, how come he couldn't improve the passing part and decision making of Mike Phillips?

edit: the difference between Murray and the rest is that when he got to the ruck he knew what he was going to do and just passed immediately whereas other scrumhalfs would start looking around (and Reddan would just fling the ball out and hope there was someone there to pick it up).

Reddan was/is slightly quicker than Murray but in no way shape or form does he posses the same quality in game management as Murray. Even 2 years ago Murray was streaks ahead of all other Irish 9's. I always say that players with great game management seem to have more time than other players and make it look easy.

To some, Murray may have appeared to look slow but to me, he was quick enough. To some, Reddan may have looked quicker but to me, he looks hurried.

It's no bad thing to say where murray was in 2010, he was 20 years of age in fairness, there was always going to be parts of his game to improve

We weren't talking about Murray circa 2010, we were talking about Murray in the Lions year of 2013. I was debating whether or not he was terrible in that year and that Howley transformed him dramatically. I firmly believe that he was close to being the finished article back then and that Howley did help him to achieve that but he did not develop all that is good about Murray now.

GunsGerms wrote:

Sin é wrote:

People were not complaining about his passing, they were complaining how he was slower than Reddan to get to rucks. His pass was excellent.

If Howley is such a good coach, how come he couldn't improve the passing part and decision making of Mike Phillips?

edit: the difference between Murray and the rest is that when he got to the ruck he knew what he was going to do and just passed immediately whereas other scrumhalfs would start looking around (and Reddan would just fling the ball out and hope there was someone there to pick it up).

His pass was fine but the problem was that he took a number of steps before passing rather than whipping the ball out from the base of the ruck which he does much more now.

A couple of posts up the page you said his 'passing sped up'! That implies that his passing was not fine.

I think you are confusing Murray with Tomas O'Leary or Mike Phillips who do that. Murray never did.

Mike Phillips was the worst offender for that - surprising Howley didn't erradicate that from his game

Howley did not transform him dramatically.  Had Murray needed Howley's assistance then you'd question why so many Welsh fans perpetually complained about Phillips??  Wasn't Howley around him a lot longer?

It's a myth designed again to suggest that somehow or other Irish key players learned their best bits from the Lions coaching outfit during the Lions tour.

Murray was on the Lions tour because he was considered an asset.  He proved himself that asset.  But he's was often still quite 'slow' at delivering ball after the Lions so it's him developing as he goes - his talent - helped along by all coaches he's been under, and that includes Howley but certainly doesn't make Howley the 'mentor'.  He's being coached at the moment by a pretty good one. Is he teaching too?

SecretFly wrote:Howley did not transform him dramatically.  Had Murray needed Howley's assistance then you'd question why so many Welsh fans perpetually complained about Phillips??  Wasn't Howley around him a lot longer?

It's a myth designed again to suggest that somehow or other Irish key players learned their best bits from the Lions coaching outfit during the Lions tour.

Murray was on the Lions tour because he was considered an asset.  He proved himself that asset.  But he's was often still quite 'slow' at delivering ball after the Lions so it's him developing as he goes - his talent - helped along by all coaches he's been under, and that includes Howley but certainly doesn't make Howley the 'mentor'.  He's being coached at the moment by a pretty good one.  Is he teaching too?

Well I will go by what Murray has said himself and that was that Howley helped him with certain aspects of his game. As for Phillips, well some players are open to learn from experienced players and some just choose to do what they do. Phillips falls into the category of the latter. For his whole career, Murray has always been open to others opinions, experience and has always been open to apply others experience and knowledge in his game.

I certainly do not claim that Howley was his mentor, I say that he helped him with some aspects of his game and it improved his game.

If you want to credit a coach, how about Ian Costello who has been coaching him for about the last 6 or 7 years through Munster Academy, then as Senior Team Skills & Kicking coach.

I'd imagine he learned a thing or two from ROG & Stringer as well about game management.

Howley is hopeless wish he would be got shot off

SecretFly wrote:Howley did not transform him dramatically.  Had Murray needed Howley's assistance then you'd question why so many Welsh fans perpetually complained about Phillips??  Wasn't Howley around him a lot longer?

It's a myth designed again to suggest that somehow or other Irish key players learned their best bits from the Lions coaching outfit during the Lions tour.

Murray was on the Lions tour because he was considered an asset.  He proved himself that asset.  But he's was often still quite 'slow' at delivering ball after the Lions so it's him developing as he goes - his talent - helped along by all coaches he's been under, and that includes Howley but certainly doesn't make Howley the 'mentor'.  He's being coached at the moment by a pretty good one.  Is he teaching too?

Philips problems are to do with attitude and effort rather than skill IMO. Not much Howley can do about that.

Howely was a great scrum half himself and the changes in Murrays passing coincided with the Lions tour. It stands to reason that Howely had something to do with it and then further improvements were obviously developed through Schmidt.

POC definitley took chop tackle classes from Lydiate and aparently most players do learn quite a lot from these tours.

Yes Howley will have improved aspects of his game...as has his coaches at Munster, as has Schmidt and his coaches. As indeed will have a fellow player like Sexton, who'll have indictated what he requires in certain moments too.
But the talk seems to suggest he stopped learning after the Lions because he then knew it all.
No, he's still learning - as they all do given that Sexton has learned quite a bit from O'Gara over in France. Henshaw has I think got quite a bit of help from a guy called BOD - and there are hints that he still gets help from that source.
So help from all sources to complete the full picture of the player he is.

GunsGerms wrote:

Philips problems are to do with attitude and effort rather than skill IMO. Not much Howley can do about that.

Howely was a great scrum half himself and the changes in Murrays passing coincided with the Lions tour. It stands to reason that Howely had something to do with it and then further improvements were obviously developed through Schmidt.

POC definitley took chop tackle classes from Lydiate and aparently most players do learn quite a lot from these tours.

I am slightly confused here GunsGerms. Firstly you say his passing was bordering on being terrible, then you say his passing was fine but it was the speed he got to the breakdown but now you are saying that Howley improved his passing game on the Lions tour thus they were bad?

I am not trying to be rude, I am just having trouble understanding what you are saying.

I too believe Murray improved dramatically on the Lions tour. In fact he started out as 3rd choice SH and by the end was pushing for a test place.

Sexton came back a better player too.

Whether that's down to the coaches or playing with different players is hard to tell.

In Murray's own words as to what Howley did for his game:

People have asked Murray what Howley did for his game and he admits he struggles to answer. “The main point was that he instilled a lot of confidence in me. When you did something well in a game or in training and you’ve a fella like that telling you that – Rob Howley was an unbelievable scrum-half – was a real boost.”

rodders wrote:I too believe Murray improved dramatically on the Lions tour. In fact he started out as 3rd choice SH and by the end was pushing for a test place.

Sexton came back a better player too.

Whether that's down to the coaches or playing with different players is hard to tell.

He has 2 Test caps.

Nachos Jones wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Philips problems are to do with attitude and effort rather than skill IMO. Not much Howley can do about that.

Howely was a great scrum half himself and the changes in Murrays passing coincided with the Lions tour. It stands to reason that Howely had something to do with it and then further improvements were obviously developed through Schmidt.

POC definitley took chop tackle classes from Lydiate and aparently most players do learn quite a lot from these tours.

I am slightly confused here GunsGerms. Firstly you say his passing was bordering on being terrible, then you say his passing was fine but it was the speed he got to the breakdown but now you are saying that Howley improved his passing game on the Lions tour thus they were bad?

I am not trying to be rude, I am just having trouble understanding what you are saying.

It was pretty clear what I said to be honest. He hasnt ever had a problem with the skill of hitting a target with his pass (as far as I remember anyway) so the mechanics of his pass are fine. However, there is much more to passing than that. If you accept that decision making, the time you take releasing the ball from the back of a ruck and or maul or the number of steps you take before you release a pass are all part of a scrum halfs job loosely described as passing then his passing was terrible.

His issue was taking those extra steps and the the time he took to get the ball out of the back of the ruck. He often made poor decisions too. Unlike his predecessor O'Leary the mechanics of his actual pass are pretty good. His passes are accurate enough and crisp. They were too often way too slow and telegraphed and as a result defenses had a field day.

GunsGerms wrote:
It was pretty clear what I said to be honest. He hasnt ever had a problem with the skill of hitting a target with his pass (as far as I remember anyway) so the mechanics of his pass are fine. However, there is much more to passing than that. If you accept that decision making, the time you take releasing the ball from the back of a ruck and or maul or the number of steps you take before you release a pass are all part of a scrum halfs job loosely described as passing then his passing was terrible.

His issue was taking those extra steps and the the time he took to get the ball out of the back of the ruck. He often made poor decisions too. Unlike his predecessor O'Leary the mechanics of his actual pass are pretty good. His passes are accurate enough and crisp. They were too often way too slow and telegraphed and as a result defenses had a field day.

It wasn't as clear as you think GunsGerms.

GunsGerms wrote:

I would go so far as to say his passing was terrible.

Then

GunsGerms wrote:

His pass was fine but the problem was that he took a number of steps before passing  

Follwed by

GunsGerms wrote:
Howely was a great scrum half himself and the changes in Murrays passing coincided with the Lions tour.

Am I to understand that the only problem you had with Murray was the steps he took or was it also the quality of his passing?

To me, he has always been an excellent passer, has been more than quick enough to the rucks but did have a tendency to take a couple of steps but that was mainly due to the forwards being put under pressure. When on the front foot, Murray has always been quick and clean with his passing.

No I highlighted at least three issues with his passing:

1.decision making, in other words passing to the wrong person or going to the wrong side or passing when running would have been better etc.
2. taking too many steps before passing. Argueably the biggest issue he had.
3. waiting way too long before releasing a pass.

Re your second quote. As I have clarified the mechanics of the pass itself are fine but there is much more to a SHs job of passing than hitting a target.

GunsGerms,

I believe that Murray always had a very good game management, he missed confidence at times but his management has always been good, especially for Munster.

As I said before, when he took steps or was late with the pass, that was largely due to the forwards being on the back foot. Not many 9's can have quick distribution with a forward pack on the back foot. A lot of criticism was directed unfairly at Murray when the forwards were on the back foot. He has improved but that is to be expected but he was never really as bad as some may think he was.

Nachos Jones wrote:GunsGerms,

I believe that Murray always had a very good game management, he missed confidence at times but his management has always been good, especially for Munster.

As I said before, when he took steps or was late with the pass, that was largely due to the forwards being on the back foot. Not many 9's can have quick distribution with a forward pack on the back foot. A lot of criticism was directed unfairly at Murray when the forwards were on the back foot. He has improved but that is to be expected but he was never really as bad as some may think he was.

To be honest I think he wouldnt have made it in the team and probably would have been dropped if his defense wasnt as strong as it always has been because at time it was so unbelievably frustrating watching him flounder so often it was at times like watching Mike Phillips on very strong horse tranquilizers. It didnt have much to do with his forwards at all.

Thankfully his passing, decision making and box kicking has improved out of sight. His form for Munster is largely irrelevant in context of his form for Ireland.

Is this thread now about Neil (Darwin was wrong) Francis or Connor Murray?  The less said about Francis, the better.  Even though there was a kernel of truth:  Many people believed Gatland showed favouritism to his Welsh players.  But maybe any national coach would do the same.  I don't know.  I know I didn't love it at the time, but that was two years ago.  We B&I types won a Lions tour. We should be happy, no?
It is good enough for me.  
Time to move on was a long time ago.

Regarding Connor Murray. I don't remember him so much until that Lions tour.  But for me, the difference maker, and change of game in the third test when the score became close, was when Murray came on.  Like a shot of electricity up the Lions collective bums. Seemed to open everything up.

I would say that if I was an international rugby player, and someone shot electricity up my bum, that would be extremely distracting and wouldn't help me perform very well.

Notch wrote:I would say that if I was an international rugby player, and someone shot electricity up my bum, that would be extremely distracting and wouldn't help me perform very well.

There are places in Hamburg where some people pay a lot of money for just that and apparently it does help with certain performance

Oh my.

Nachos Jones wrote:

Notch wrote:I would say that if I was an international rugby player, and someone shot electricity up my bum, that would be extremely distracting and wouldn't help me perform very well.

There are places in Hamburg where some people pay a lot of money for just that and apparently it does help with certain performance

Well, it did kinda work for the Lions, no? I didn't suggest this as a regular form of entertainment, though I won't judge you if you prefer it. We need to be open and accepting..........

Nachos Jones wrote:

Notch wrote:I would say that if I was an international rugby player, and someone shot electricity up my bum, that would be extremely distracting and wouldn't help me perform very well.

There are places in Hamburg where some people pay a lot of money for just that and apparently it does help with certain performance

Well, you may have noticed that Wales no longer go to Spala in Poland for cryotherapy. I hear a rumour that instead they now go for Anal-tricity sessions at some back street (no pun intended) operator in Merthyr.

Griff wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:

Notch wrote:I would say that if I was an international rugby player, and someone shot electricity up my bum, that would be extremely distracting and wouldn't help me perform very well.

There are places in Hamburg where some people pay a lot of money for just that and apparently it does help with certain performance

Well, you may have noticed that Wales no longer go to Spala in Poland for cryotherapy. I hear a rumour that instead they now go for Anal-tricity sessions at some back street (no pun intended) operator in Merthyr.

I used to know a woman from Port Talbot who could do wonders with a car battery and electrical cables.  Also with a trapeze, whip, handcuffs, and leather.  All for a tenner.  Learned much from her, i did. Class girl...........

Sin é wrote:

What would you expect? He is from Munster. Half the people of Ireland live in Leinster. Same with Peter O'Mahony and Keith Earls. They don't rate them either.

Classic 'chip on the shoulder' stuff. God forbid a Munster player could have a deficiency in his game. Everyone and their mother knew Murray was the best scrumhalf in Ireland at the time. Any criticism of him was a result of a comparison to Reddan moving Leinster around the pitch at breakneck speed. Murray was not perfect, he was 3rd choice scrumhalf when he departed for Australia. He was not even nailed on to tour. He went up in the eyes of many on the tour and has improved since, as you might expect of a talented 23 year old.

Engine#4 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

What would you expect? He is from Munster. Half the people of Ireland live in Leinster. Same with Peter O'Mahony and Keith Earls. They don't rate them either.

Classic 'chip on the shoulder' stuff.  God forbid a Munster player could have a deficiency in his game.  Everyone and their mother knew Murray was the best scrumhalf in Ireland at the time. Any criticism of him was a result of a comparison to Reddan moving Leinster around the pitch at breakneck speed. Murray was not perfect, he was 3rd choice scrumhalf when he departed for Australia.  He was not even nailed on to tour. He went up in the eyes of many on the tour and has improved since, as you  might expect of a talented 23 year old.

I feel that the criticism was unfair myself, he was not as quick as Reddan but had by far the better game management. Being quick does not always mean being good. I fail to see how he was 3rd choice for the Lions as well as he was well ahead of Phillips (just not in Gatlands eyes) so for me he was the front runner that was not selected until Gatlands hand was forced and then he showed just why he should have been first choice from the start.