Ireland Attack.

First topic message reminder :

Clearly this is a weakness in the current irish team. It was frankly embarrassing to watch us get knocked further and further back so close to the welsh try line. It has already been said that if Ireland are far behind, they will find it very hard to get back into the game. This will kill us against better teams that are clinical with their chances in attack, if we do not have any way of generating points ourselves other than to force penalties.

Our tactical kicking game so far has been very good and for the most part it has been wonderfully executed, however we need to create more try scoring opportunities. We seemed to look much more dangerous when Eoin Reddan came on and quickened the service, and a lot of the substitutions generally did make an impact (not to sound too cliche) but whatever it was, the service at the breakdown was much quicker and players were taking the ball at pace. We need to do this for the full game and not just switch on at the end.

I am a big fan of Connor Murray, but there is a time and a place for marshalling the forwards into position, or preparing for a good box kick, and a time to just get the ball out quick and catch the opposition defence off guard. With the speed of service currently the opposition has far too much time to get into position and adjust to our attack. Murray needs to improve here, big time. On the occasions where we inevitably do have slow ball, we need options who can create space with very little themselves, or just power through the gain line.

It will be interesting to hear people's thoughts on how this can be achieved, what personnel changes should be made (if any) or even if people do not think it is a weakness at all and just a knee jerk reaction to the loss.

Sin é wrote:

The SH teams are not as big into defence as the NH teams. They concentrate on scoring tries. Thats why the SH teams always beat Wales.

It's already up there, Sin. WE AIN'T A SH SIDE. Why do some people have such an issue recognising that point?

Sin é wrote:The SH teams are not as big into defence as the NH teams. They concentrate on scoring tries. Thats why the SH teams always beat Wales.

The SH teams are definitely as big into defence as the NH teams, they're just better at attacking. Their defence and their kicking game is every bit as good as any NH team.

Notch wrote:

Sin é wrote:The SH teams are not as big into defence as the NH teams. They concentrate on scoring tries. Thats why the SH teams always beat Wales.

The SH teams are definitely as big into defence as the NH teams, they're just better at attacking. Their defence and their kicking game is every bit as good as any NH team.

Yep, they put more emphasis on attack, and they are not afraid to take chances (offloads etc). The Welsh rush defence is something else. I can't think of any other team that has such an aggressive defence.

Practice, practice, practice, sin.


God, and wasn't it ominous that the little 'colour' piece at the very beginning of RTEs coverage did a repetitive 'kick, kick, kick' genuflection to our supposed 'strong point'.

Hmmmmm.

Do people think Wales were just better on the day, or perhaps are a slightly better team?

Sin é wrote:

Notch wrote:

Sin é wrote:The SH teams are not as big into defence as the NH teams. They concentrate on scoring tries. Thats why the SH teams always beat Wales.

The SH teams are definitely as big into defence as the NH teams, they're just better at attacking. Their defence and their kicking game is every bit as good as any NH team.

Yep, they put more emphasis on attack, and they are not afraid to take chances (offloads etc). The Welsh rush defence is something else. I can't think of any other team that has such an aggressive defence.

Once they're running backwards to try and get back onside you have them- we can never get those first gain lines though. We rely on smart kicking and a good set piece to beat teams like Wales but this year they had adapted to the tactics we used on them last year, our lineout malfunctioned and we couldn't get over the ball to slow them down (especially with the way Barnes interprets the breakdown) so basically our three main weapons against them didn't work.

I'm not too concerned tbh- I know what shoite rugby is and despite all the howls that wasn't shoite rugby. Shoite rugby is more like when we lost to Italy in 2013, this was us being beaten by a better team. We played solidly but not clinical enough and Wales had a level of intensity we never matched in the first twenty minutes. It happens.

I'm actually excited for the Scotland game because the likelihood is we're going to need to score some points to try and win the championship and we're going to see if the coaches can improve the attacking game. Scotland are nowhere near as good a defensive side as Wales, so I won't be jumping to conclusions if we run in a few tries, but we'll definitely be approaching the game differently.

Wales played as hard as they can and won.

Ireland played very poorly (not saying anything about when they were colliding with Welsh players) but in their own right and making their own decisions, they played poorly - and almost drew.

So....................... jury is out, Hood. 50-50.

Hood83 wrote:Do people think Wales were just better on the day, or perhaps are a slightly better team?

Yes and not sure/no. I think Wales were better on the day but if the game was replayed tomorrow I think we could win. Wales were definitely better than us today, quite a bit better, but I would probably still say Ireland are a slightly better team than Wales, and I expect us to do better than them in the World Cup. There's not much between the two teams, they are pretty close in terms of ability.

If Wales can play with the intensity they showed in the first 15 minutes I honestly think they can beat anyone in world rugby. But the same is true for Ireland- if Ireland play with the intensity they showed in the first half against the All Blacks in 2013 or against Australia in 2014 they can beat anyone. The difference is I think Ireland are more likely to grind out results when they don't play well.

But today Wales turned up with a superb performance and Ireland maybe only played 60-70% of their potential. Wales deserved to win on that basis

Hood83 wrote:Do people think Wales were just better on the day, or perhaps are a slightly better team?

Good question. Truth be told, I think it is so, so close between Ireland, England and Wales. They are all on the same level, pretty much.

Notch wrote:

I'm not too concerned tbh- I know what shoite rugby is and despite all the howls that wasn't shoite rugby. Shoite rugby is more like when we lost to Italy in 2013, this was us being beaten by a better team. We played solidly but not clinical enough and Wales had a level of intensity we never matched in the first twenty minutes. It happens.

My personal point about shoite rugby extends beyond today, Notch.  
When I talk about shoite rugby, I'm saying even the rugby that had us win three games on the trot was still shoite rugby.  Yes, functional, yes winning.  But not the rugby that will keep smart opposition sides guessing.  
Like I said a while back, last year we had more variety to our game - within games.  We changed the focus of attack, we kicked for territory, we ran some, we kick chased etc and did it all with a swagger that was confident with the demands of variety.  This year is a very limited selection box and it's telling and it has proven very risky.... with some close wins that supporters keep saying were actually oh so comfortable.  But no, not for me were they comfortable, and not for Schmidt in his post game chats, and not for POC, who lamented the close calls and was genuine about not wanting them as part of their modus operandi.

So functional and for a time winning.  But not great rugby that challenges an opponent to keep thinking for 80.

Notch wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Notch wrote:

Sin é wrote:The SH teams are not as big into defence as the NH teams. They concentrate on scoring tries. Thats why the SH teams always beat Wales.

The SH teams are definitely as big into defence as the NH teams, they're just better at attacking. Their defence and their kicking game is every bit as good as any NH team.

Yep, they put more emphasis on attack, and they are not afraid to take chances (offloads etc). The Welsh rush defence is something else. I can't think of any other team that has such an aggressive defence.

Once they're running backwards to try and get back onside you have them- we can never get those first gain lines though. We rely on smart kicking and a good set piece to beat teams like Wales but this year they had adapted to the tactics we used on them last year, our lineout malfunctioned and we couldn't get over the ball to slow them down (especially with the way Barnes interprets the breakdown) so basically our three main weapons against them didn't work.

I'm not too concerned tbh- I know what shoite rugby is and despite all the howls that wasn't shoite rugby. Shoite rugby is more like when we lost to Italy in 2013, this was us being beaten by a better team. We played solidly but not clinical enough and Wales had a level of intensity we never matched in the first twenty minutes. It happens.

I'm actually excited for the Scotland game because the likelihood is we're going to need to score some points to try and win the championship and we're going to see if the coaches can improve the attacking game. Scotland are nowhere near as good a defensive side as Wales, so I won't be jumping to conclusions if we run in a few tries, but we'll definitely be approaching the game differently.

1. please dont tell me the catastrophic injuries were not a part of this....
2. How in gods name can you know this?

Actually, the loss today was very similar to the loss to Wales in the last World Cup. It was all Kidney's & ROG's fault that time.

Whose fault is it this time?

Sin é wrote:Actually, the loss today was very similar to the loss to Wales in the last World Cup. It was all Kidney's & ROG's fault that time.

Whose fault is it this time?

Wayne Barnes apparently...or Enda Kenny...same person

SecretFly wrote:

My personal point about shoite rugby extends beyond today, Notch.  
When I talk about shoite rugby, I'm saying even the rugby that had us win three games on the trot was still shoite rugby.  Yes, functional, yes winning.  But not the rugby that will keep smart opposition sides guessing.  

You want to see to shoite rugby, go watch Ulster vs Dragons from last weekend. Or Ireland vs Italy in 2011 and 2013. Go watch the four games we played in the 2007 RWC. Go watch the first 50 minutes of Ireland getting hammered by France in the 2003 RWC. Go and watch the hammering we took in Twickenham in 2011. Go and watch the game we lost 60-0 in New Zealand.

Then watch the last four games again- and you'll understand the difference between the last four games and some of the genuinely shoite rugby we've played in the professional era. If what we've played so far in 2015 is shoite, we need a whole new word for those games again.

Not good enough to be a Top 3 side or score lots of tries ≠ Shoite. There've been games where we were genuinely shoite- games were we've looked like we didn't belong in the top 10 never mind the top 3. Thats real shoite.

ME-109 wrote:
1. please dont tell me the catastrophic injuries were not a part of this....  
2. How in gods name can you know this?

Pretty damn obvious really- we need to win by a bigger margin than England win by and England go after us- so like a cricket team we need to post up a big score to give the English a difficult target to chase.

I'm not saying we'll go all-out attack, but until today points difference wasn't a factor. Now we need to score tries.

Sin é wrote:Actually, the loss today was very similar to the loss to Wales in the last World Cup. It was all Kidney's & ROG's fault that time.

Whose fault is it this time?

Personally, I blame you

Sin é wrote:Actually, the loss today was very similar to the loss to Wales in the last World Cup. It was all Kidney's & ROG's fault that time.

Whose fault is it this time?

Schmidt and Zebo's

Notch wrote:

You want to see to shoite rugby, go watch Ulster vs Dragons from last weekend. Or Ireland vs Italy in 2011 and 2013. Go watch the four games we played in the 2007 RWC. Go watch the first 50 minutes of Ireland getting hammered by France in the 2003 RWC. Go and watch the hammering we took in Twickenham in 2011. Go and watch the game we lost 60-0 in New Zealand.

Then watch the last four games again- and you'll understand the difference between the last four games and some of the genuinely shoite rugby we've played in the professional era. If what we've played so far in 2015 is shoite, we need a whole new word for those games again.

Not good enough to be a Top 3 side or score lots of tries ≠ Shoite. There've been games where we were genuinely shoite- games were we've looked like we didn't belong in the top 10 never mind the top 3. Thats real shoite.

That's fine. You think you're looking at good stuff obviously. Fine. We all see the game differently. I'm looking at shoite... and explaining why I see it as such. That is all.

At the end of the day (thanks Roy) its the result that matters and we have been getting the results and today we were still in it. I dont think we are playing Shoite....I think we are playing to a specific game plan that makes us very competitive against most teams...that is a good thing...

However who is our attack coach....is it LesKiss...or Schmidt because you know what Kiss has been around a long time now and to be honest I dont see much of a difference from the Kidney era in terms of attacking rugby except for the few obvious (and overused) Leinster plays introduced by Schmidt..

SecretFly wrote:

Notch wrote:

You want to see to shoite rugby, go watch Ulster vs Dragons from last weekend. Or Ireland vs Italy in 2011 and 2013. Go watch the four games we played in the 2007 RWC. Go watch the first 50 minutes of Ireland getting hammered by France in the 2003 RWC. Go and watch the hammering we took in Twickenham in 2011. Go and watch the game we lost 60-0 in New Zealand.

Then watch the last four games again- and you'll understand the difference between the last four games and some of the genuinely shoite rugby we've played in the professional era. If what we've played so far in 2015 is shoite, we need a whole new word for those games again.

Not good enough to be a Top 3 side or score lots of tries ≠ Shoite. There've been games where we were genuinely shoite- games were we've looked like we didn't belong in the top 10 never mind the top 3. Thats real shoite.

That's fine.  You think you're looking at good stuff obviously.  Fine.  We all see the game differently.  I'm looking at shoite... and explaining why I see it as such.  That is all.

I don't think I'm looking at good stuff- well I do, I think our breakdown work, defence and kicking game are all pretty good. But our attacking game is mediocre at the moment. So what's your word for all the games that are actually much worse than the stuff we're playing now? Games where not only can we not attack, we also kick aimlessly, leak line breaks and generally look like 15 men who are giving a public lecture in their underwear? What's shoiter than shoite? If beating England 19-9 and not running the ball very much is shoite, what is being lucky to avoid losing to Georgia in 2007?

Not trying to make a point- genuinely curious.

Notch wrote:

I don't think I'm looking at good stuff- well I do, I think our breakdown work, defence and kicking game are all pretty good. But our attacking game is mediocre at the moment. So what's your word for all the games that are actually much worse than the stuff we're playing now? Games where not only can we not attack, we also kick aimlessly, leak line breaks and generally look like 15 men who are giving a public lecture in their underwear? What's shoiter than shoite? If beating England 19-9 and not running the ball very much is shoite, what is being lucky to avoid losing to Georgia in 2007?

Not trying to make a point- genuinely curious.

Shoite is shoite.  Do I need to prove that I was calling the stuff under Kidney shoite too?  No I don't.  I was a vocal critic, like most of us in these parts.

But I always mentioned his 'Coaching TEAM' too because the Munster boys kept saying Kidney wasn't really a coach but a mentor.  So whilst others kept to Kidney, I always included some of his underlings - most notably Kiss, who avoided the bullet and is still there.

But even so, look back on Kidney's Ireland and look back on some of our try scoring records - most tries in one of his later and disappointing 6Ns if I recall.  2nd best strike rate of tries in one of his latter November International series - second only to the ABs

So I called it shoite but I also always took the opportunity to point out to 'external' critics that we were shoite as a team but as players, they still had the ability to score some fantastic tries.

Tries ease the burden on Schmidt's gameplan.  You don't need one blueprint (massive defensive game and safety first kicking) - you can merge Schmidt's more cautious defensive strategies to a little more spark in space creating attack to make the absolute whole much more convincing.  

Much More Convincing if he adds to the 'safe' stuff - and it doesn't threaten the 'safe' stuff - if cushions it.  So I call what I'm seeing shoite because I don't see it as a complete blueprint.  I repeat we did variety much more fluidly last year, and even that wasn't seen as anything coming close to a complete plan.  When Schmidt introduces something more complete and fluid then I'll say the 'shoite' stuff has lifted.  It's half a gameplan to date.

ME-109 wrote:At the end of the day (thanks Roy) its the result that matters and we have been getting the results and today we were still in it. I dont think we are playing Shoite....I think we are playing to a specific game plan that makes us very competitive against most teams...that is a good thing...

However who is our attack coach....is it LesKiss...or Schmidt because you know what Kiss has been around a long time now and to be honest I dont see much of a difference from the Kidney era in terms of attacking rugby except for the few obvious (and overused) Leinster plays introduced by Schmidt..

I think those 'Leinster' moves are Gaffney's, not Schmidts.

Geriatric, second hand attack patterns from the rusting wreck era...............................................

Oh we're spicey!

You're right about it being half a game plan, but you have a nearly unbelievable lack of perspective about things. Ireland can improve, Ireland should improve and Ireland absolutely need to improve- a lot- if they want to win more trophies. But given the amount of progress the current Irish team has made it's pretty remarkable people are so critical.

Having watched Ireland when we have been genuinely shoite- not hyperbolically or figuratively shoite in the way you might use the word to try and give your analysis a bit of colour, but actually shoite at every aspect of the game- I'm pretty happy with where we are and how we're playing, whilst I know improvements are needed otherwise we'll eventually just stagnate and be figured out.

I worry about us if we can't add an extra few strings to our bow as the year goes on but at the same time I have enough perspective to thank the sporting gods the days were we might lose games by big margins and be totally outplayed are gone. The national team is in a good place right now and whilst I know the areas that need work, I also need to enjoy it while it lasts. In 2 or 3 years Schmidt will be off and we'll have some joker like Foley or O'Shea in.

I think thats what perspective is about. Being able to enjoy what you have even whilst knowing what needs to happen for things to get better. It's not so bad. My advice? Relax and enjoy the ride. We'll never have a better chance of a World Cup run than this season and we're in with a shot at the Six Nations on the last day. It's not perfect but its not so bad either.

Top athletes should never be happy with their performance, always striving to get better and thats the ethos of guys like Paul O'Connell... but we're just armchair generals and we can let ourselves sit back and enjoy it every now and again.

Notch wrote:You're right about it being half a game plan, but you have a nearly unbelievable lack of perspective about things. Ireland can improve, Ireland should improve and Ireland absolutely need to improve- a lot- if they want to win more trophies. But given the amount of progress the current Irish team has made it's pretty remarkable people are so critical.

Having watched Ireland when we have been genuinely shoite- not hyperbolically or figuratively shoite in the way someone might misuse the word to try and give his analysis a bit of colour, but actually shoite at every aspect of the game- I'm pretty happy with where we are and how we're playing, whilst I know improvements are needed otherwise we'll eventually just stagnate and be figured out.

I worry about us if we can't add an extra few strings to our bow as the year goes on but at the same time I have enough perspective to thank the sporting gods the days were we might lose games by big margins and be totally outplayed are gone. The national team is in a good place right now and whilst I know the areas that need work, I also need to enjoy it while it lasts. In 2 or 3 years Schmidt will be off and we'll have some joker like Foley or O'Shea in.

I think thats what perspective is about. Being able to enjoy what you have even whilst knowing what needs to happen for things to get better.

Don't accept that at all, Notch.  You're all but agreeing with everything I say except succumbing to the word I use to describe half a plan in a serious contest like the 6N.  

I choose to say shoite because I want to make a blunt point.  Time for niceties are over.  The time is for extras with bite and hard drilled bite - not off the cuff hope - hard drilled, running, attacking, space finding rugby - to ADD to what is already in the bag, which I note and say Bank.  

Bank what we've done.  

Use it to get us through games but the extra portions of a full game are needed to be brought in now - if they are there waiting at all.  We need a more complete game that is more fluid in the gear changes and keeps opposition on their toes in all departments.

I say shoite because I'm in a mood not to sweet talk through the defeat.  I've already as much as said the loss is perhaps a good thing on this or other threads because it will end some of the Godlike junk talk about Schmidt, who must rightly be sick of the guff.  
But I also, weeks back - weeks back - said I feel we have more to give, that we're working to a very limited palette by direction, that Schmidt will not show all he has to offer in this 6N.  
If none of that is perspective then I don't know what is.  I value Schmidt too much as a coach and as a man to be fond of this Lordlike Poopie coming from the media and some fans and not just in this country either.  So I remain critical of the truth before me.  

Ireland needs more.  I hope Schmidt is planning more.  But for the moment, I've labelled half a plan as shoite for the night because that's the mood I'm in.  Not sad.  Not angry.  But in a mood to stop all the mush talk and speak the truth of our current limitations.

Scotland will be a bit of a red letter day for this Ireland team- not the last chance by a long way, but for the first time in this tournament winning ugly won't do. So we'll see what if anything has been held back in attack, and we'll need a good attacking performance. So after that game I'll be a bit more critical if we're not looking a bit more dangerous with the ball in hand,

It may be an unpopular opinion but I would honestly drop Devin Toner and Rob Kearney. I think from an attacking point of view Dan Tuohy and Iain Henderson can carry the ball a hell of lot better. None of our back row is particularly powerful in contact (O'Brien is effective given a soft shoulder to run at, not tight carrying). We can make up for that with a more mobile second row. Flipside is, we can score tries off mauls too... and he'd be a big loss to our lineout/maul.

Zebo at fullback and Earls on the wing will bring a bit more pace to the back line. I feel like we're struggling to bring Zebo into the game. Zebo getting a chance to run it back at them and pick angles from deep should help him no end.

My team for Scotland would be something like

Healy, Best, Ross, Henderson, POC, POM, O'Brien, Heaslip, Murray, Sexton, Earls, Henshaw, Payne, Bowe, Zebo

Cronin, McGrath, Moore, Tuohy, Murphy, Reddan, Madigan, Kearney

My team:
Healy, Best, Ross, Tuohy, POC, POM, TOD, Murphy, Murray, Sexton, Zebo, Henshaw, Earls, Bowe, Payne

Cronin, McGrath, Moore, Henderson, SOB, Reddan, Madigan, Kearney/Luke Fitz

I'd keep Zebo & Earls together. They are used to playing together. Zebo scored a lot of tries when Earls was playing centre.

I don't think Heaslip is fully fit and Murphy should not have been dropped to the bench. SOB needs a lot more games with Leinster to get him back to where he was (hopefully he will get there).

As I said weeks and weeks ago, Kearney is not in good form. I firmly believe that he should be rested, get Payne to 15 and bring in Earls at 13.

It looked to me that Heaslip had not fully recovered from his injury and I feel he is a doubt for the next match.

It was a very big concern of mine that Ireland would not know how to chase a game and yesterday it appeared so. Three pretty scraped wins (and they were scraped wins) raised my concerns over Irelands tactics of safety first rugby. Ireland have the players to play a more varied style but they have been coached in such a way that when attempting a more varied attack, they look very rusty and under prepared.

Full credit to Wales, they put Ireland under extreme pressure and forced Ireland into mistakes but for all the pressure Ireland were applying, they looked very clueless in their attack. Wales played in the same way Ireland had done for the first 3 matches, get the lead and defend it at the end.

SecretFly wrote:Wales played as hard as they can and won.

Ireland played very poorly (not saying anything about when they were colliding with Welsh players) but in their own right and making their own decisions, they played poorly - and almost drew.

So....................... jury is out, Hood.  50-50.

Sorry, it was a completely loaded question. Just I think that is sort of similar to the Ireland v England game, and many people's reactions. You guys played better on the day, but maybe there's a bit less in it if we played 10 in a row. Actually, the difference is I think for sections you were the better team yesterday. I think that's a far response and one I had to our game with you - 50/50, maybe you guys are a bit better, but definitely not 10 points.

There's a lot of doom and gloom, not sure it's entirely merited. But I agree with Taylorman, for all the talk of a plan B and C up Schmidt's sleeve (and I think we saw the start of one) it may be too late for the WC.

Hood83 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Wales played as hard as they can and won.

Ireland played very poorly (not saying anything about when they were colliding with Welsh players) but in their own right and making their own decisions, they played poorly - and almost drew.

So....................... jury is out, Hood.  50-50.

Sorry, it was a completely loaded question. Just I think that is sort of similar to the Ireland v England game, and many people's reactions. You guys played better on the day, but maybe there's a bit less in it if we played 10 in a row. Actually, the difference is I think for sections you were the better team yesterday. I think that's a far response and one I had to our game with you - 50/50, maybe you guys are a bit better, but definitely not 10 points.

There's a lot of doom and gloom, not sure it's entirely merited. But I agree with Taylorman, for all the talk of a plan B and C up Schmidt's sleeve (and I think we saw the start of one) it may be too late for the WC.

10 points on the day Hood.  Did any Irish fan here say that made England a side 10 points less a side than us?  I don't think so.  Better on the day in a game between two sides that have to play some damn hard stuff against each other to make or get any gains.  Last year it was England - this year is was us.

And vice versa for Wales.  Last year it was us, this year it is them.  They are another side that you have to go to the deepest part of the efforts you bring to get the gain, to get the win.  Yesterday, they were the side that beat us to the intensity levels - easily so I'd say.  But we were still cruising around a win (deserved or not deserved) towards the end.
That little thing of fighting back to be nearly there is the only little tendril of hope that comes from a lost game.

Schmidt.  Taylorman is being premature.  Schmidt sees what we see.  He sees 'turgid' so the question is still does he have a Plan B or C for the real hard days at the office when really big prizes are up for grabs?  I reckon those questions will get answered further down the line.... closer to the WC, when then form of some obviously way-off-current-form players can be better assessed.  I think many of our players are plodding through way off their expected form levels for that competition.

Ireland, Wales and England are very much on an even level as far as I am concerned and any team can beat eachother at any time.

I am still quite grumpy about the loss yesterday, not grumpy at Wales but grumpy at the performance from Ireland. Like SecretFly, I also see this as a slight blessing in disguise as it may wake a few people up.

Nachos, why do you have a different username now?

Because it's DOD in disguise

DOD wants to try out what it's like to be more reasonable and understanding as a poster

Notch wrote:Nachos, why do you have a different username now?

Because I re-installed my OS and for some reason my email has gone haywire and wont be recognized on here anymore. I have sent a PM to HERO to change my email address.

SecretFly wrote:Because it's DOD in disguise

DOD wants to try out what it's like to be more reasonable and understanding as a poster

Are you insinuating that I am reasonable and understanding

Best ask a few other posters (exiled Gael for instance) if I am that

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:Ireland, Wales and England are very much on an even level as far as I am concerned and any team can beat eachother at any time.

I am still quite grumpy about the loss yesterday, not grumpy at Wales but grumpy at the performance from Ireland. Like SecretFly, I also see this as a slight blessing in disguise as it may wake a few people up.

I don't mean to cause offence to anyone but I think it's good to deflate a few people a little. Ireland still have a huge amount of work to do and I think a fair few people were getting a bit carried away (as happens with all fans)

nathan wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:Ireland, Wales and England are very much on an even level as far as I am concerned and any team can beat eachother at any time.

I am still quite grumpy about the loss yesterday, not grumpy at Wales but grumpy at the performance from Ireland. Like SecretFly, I also see this as a slight blessing in disguise as it may wake a few people up.

I don't mean to cause offence to anyone but I think it's good to deflate a few people a little. Ireland still have a huge amount of work to do and I think a fair few people were getting a bit carried away (as happens with all fans)

Aye. I think mainly the media was hyping us up like crazy. Possibly because we beat England, and they needed to exaggerate how good we are to make that defeat seem like less of a reality check for the English ahead of the RWC.

SecretFly wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Wales played as hard as they can and won.

Ireland played very poorly (not saying anything about when they were colliding with Welsh players) but in their own right and making their own decisions, they played poorly - and almost drew.

So....................... jury is out, Hood.  50-50.

Sorry, it was a completely loaded question. Just I think that is sort of similar to the Ireland v England game, and many people's reactions. You guys played better on the day, but maybe there's a bit less in it if we played 10 in a row. Actually, the difference is I think for sections you were the better team yesterday. I think that's a far response and one I had to our game with you - 50/50, maybe you guys are a bit better, but definitely not 10 points.

There's a lot of doom and gloom, not sure it's entirely merited. But I agree with Taylorman, for all the talk of a plan B and C up Schmidt's sleeve (and I think we saw the start of one) it may be too late for the WC.

10 points on the day Hood.  Did any Irish fan here say that made England a side 10 points less a side than us?  I don't think so.  Better on the day in a game between two sides that have to play some damn hard stuff against each other to make or get any gains.  Last year it was England - this year is was us.

And vice versa for Wales.  Last year it was us, this year it is them.  They are another side that you have to go to the deepest part of the efforts you bring to get the gain, to get the win.  Yesterday, they were the side that beat us to the intensity levels - easily so I'd say.  But we were still cruising around a win (deserved or not deserved) towards the end.
That little thing of fighting back to be nearly there is the only little tendril of hope that comes from a lost game.

Schmidt.  Taylorman is being premature.  Schmidt sees what we see.  He sees 'turgid' so the question is still does he have a Plan B or C for the real hard days at the office when really big prizes are up for grabs?  I reckon those questions will get answered further down the line.... closer to the WC, when then form of some obviously way-off-current-form players can be better assessed.  I think many of our players are plodding through way off their expected form levels for that competition.

A lot of Irish fans took issue to English fans saying we didn't think you were that much of a better team than us, and that a lot of the problems we faced was a result of our failings. I think that is similar to many posters response to the Wales defeat.

That's how it feels to me anyway. Maybe I'm just being chippy/sensitive. Maybe you're right about Schmidt. I think he's an excellent coach so I'd be amazed if your plans B and C, or however it might be put, haven't advanced by then.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Because it's DOD in disguise

DOD wants to try out what it's like to be more reasonable and understanding as a poster

Are you insinuating that I am reasonable and understanding

Best ask a few other posters (exiled Gael for instance) if I am that

Ah I've always found you reasonable and understanding, nachos. We obviously don't see eye to eye always but it don't get into a cat fight.

Besides, I'm only goading ol' DOD too. His bark is worse than his bite.... although I'd never wilfully insult his honour to his face by saying so

Hood83 wrote:

A lot of Irish fans took issue to English fans saying we didn't think you were that much of a better team than us, and that a lot of the problems we faced was a result of our failings. I think that is similar to many posters response to the Wales defeat.

I'm personally making the distinction though Hood.  I'm saying we were terrible at our own errors.  But I'm not saying Wales didn't beat us fair and square.  Their part in the equation was when they were playing their game against us - and it was working - and their players were hitting everything that moved - hard! - and making it all count.  That was them.  They were doing the hard work and keeping Ireland on the back foot.  
They - Wales - won the game.
We - Ireland - didn't beat ourselves.
But the parts of our game that didn't involve the Welsh - for example that time when the backs were crying for the ball to come out to them - that was us, killing our own chances.  And kicking out on the full was killing our own chances.  And not being refined enough in finding gaps was killing our chances.

But Wales won the game - fair and square.

The bits I read concerning the afters of the Irish/English game was that Irish fans got ratty that England were insinuating that their own lack of accuracy lost them the game; ie, that they beat themselves.  Some Irish fans felt that was unfair to the effort Ireland made, particularly at the breakdown and scrum - where England expected dominance didn't emerge due to Irish pressure.  I think that's where the 'disagreement' on interpretation came from.

Think a loss was the best thing that could happen to Ireland. Hopefully it will force Schmidt to reconsider some elements of the gameplan and it means we can go into the RWC without so much pressure and expectation.

The Grand Slam is gone and of course that is bitterly disappointing.
However, we had the majority of the play and dominated most aspects of the game. There were too many handling errors. Sexton had an off day. Best had one of those days when he can't throw a fit. POC made some poor decisions. We failed to adapt to Wayne Barnes' style of reffing. Despite all this the game still went to the wire.

Any other referee and I think the outcome would have been different yesterday. That's not a slant at Barnes, it's just we really struggle to compete under his interpretations. Barnes has reffed 20 Ireland Tests and we have only been victorious in four. That is an incredible statistic. Furthermore our scrum dominance would have yielded far more penalties under Romain Poite, for example.

Apart from the opening 15 minutes I actually thought our performance was pretty good. Ireland's last 3 games have been fairly tight affairs, the result doesn't always reflect the performance.

I wouldn't be pushing for him starting against Scotland but Reddan made an incredible impact off the bench. Attacking wise we looked like a completely different team in the last twenty minutes. For me that was encouraging and showed we can play expansively when needed, it was just too little too late. Murray seems to spend too long organising the forwards, the coaching team need him to coach him to play with the same zip that Reddan showed.

Personnel wise I'm not sure I would change much. Perhaps Cian Healy if he is back at full fitness. The likes of Cronin and Henderson do boost our attack but lack the fundamentals required compared to Best and Toner. The backline I am not entirely happy with but introducing Earls for Payne will not be a quick fix. Earls could add a lot to our attack but any player in the backline needs a run of games to settle.

theslosty wrote:

Personnel wise I'm not sure I would change much. Perhaps Cian Healy if he is back at full fitness. The likes of Cronin and Henderson do boost our attack but lack the fundamentals required compared to Best and Toner. The backline I am not entirely happy with but introducing Earls for Payne will not be a quick fix. Earls could add a lot to our attack but any player in the backline needs a run of games to settle.

The thing is, I feel that Kearney is well out of form and should be given a rest and that leaves Felix Jones, who I believe is not of the same quality. That leaves Payne, a known fullback and a very solid defender and attacker from 15. I would give Kearney a rest for the last game, place Payne at 15 and bring in Earls at 13. Earls has the international experience and while Scotland are a little soft in defense, Earls would walk rings around them and link up perfectly with Zebo. That would be my approach and to be honest, would have been my approach after the France game when Earls truly started showing the return to form for Munster.

theslosty wrote:

I wouldn't be pushing for him starting against Scotland but Reddan made an incredible impact off the bench. Attacking wise we looked like a completely different team in the last twenty minutes. For me that was encouraging and showed we can play expansively when needed, it was just too little too late. Murray seems to spend too long organising the forwards, the coaching team need him to coach him to play with the same zip that Reddan showed.

God, relief that someone else sees the point  Exactimously!  

I'm not looking for Murray to be gone.  He's too important.  But yes, I am looking for the coaches to mould him even more now.  To get his instincts up for when he needs to change the profile of attack and by he himself seeing that's his role to do so.
Reddan gave us a look we haven't seen this year - and he Was that swing - let nobody tell me it was because all of a sudden our forwards were giving him go forward ball.  Nope, he was the one speeding up the assault by his very presence.  The scrumhalf is essential.  And he must have the whole gamut of skills and instincts.  Redden would get beaten about for 80 but that's no excuse why Murray shouldn't be forced to add extra bits that he needs to get us back on the front foot using Reddan's methods.

It may not be completely out of the question that Reddan starts next week. While Murray is the better all-round SH Schmidt showed at Leinster he is a horses-for-courses coach. Last year Reddan was the SH which allowed us to rack up a championship winning PD against Italy.

I hate to scapegoat players but Murray is one Irish player I feel has been overhyped. He was definitely underrated prior to the 2013 Lions Tour but since then the praise has gone overboard. For me he is far from being the best 9 in the world.
Along with Sexton and Kearney he is a player who is given an easy ride by the media.

Nachos

I really rate Earls but the guy has played no international rugby in 2 years, throwing him in beside Henshaw who he has never played with before will disrupt the backline rather than spark life into it.

On the other hand, I cannot make any sense of Schmidt's continued selection of Felix Jones on the bench. If my memory serves he wasn't even trusted to be brought on yesterday. He only covers fullback which we already have cover in abundance. More pertinently, down 11 points with 20 minutes remaining you want an impact player (Earls) rather than someone who is solid under the high ball and won't make too many mistakes. Baffling from Schmidt.

thelosty - Earls is in terrific form at the moment. To illustrate how well he is playing, rugbynet do weighted stats on each player in the world at the moment and in each competition. When I say weighted, they do a raw data on each player and then they substract for strength of opposition, errors they make etc. They then do Top 10 of weekend, Europe, world etc. in every competition. To be in the Top 10 you need to be earning around 500 points every week.

Over Earls last couple of games since coming back from injury he has averaged 900 pts. To put that in context for you, Darren Cave's average (who also plays in the centre), is 450.

As for Felix Jones being on the bench - Schmidt has said the reason is that he is right footed unlike Luke Fitz. He doesn't want to end up with 3 left footed players in the back 3. Also, most coaches will leave one player on the bench until the last minute or two in case of injury.

thelosty, Payne and Henshaw had never partnered eachother at International level but they have been solid so far. Earls would in no way disrupt the backline, he would bring pace and movement that brings the wingers into the game. People like to say that he is weak defensively, it irks me as he really isn't, his offloading is also a point where people say he isn't good, another myth. His experience would also benefit Henshaw I feel.

As Sin é said, he is in amazing form right now.

It baffles me anyone would want to change the centres after yesterday. And then it baffles me more that they would want to change the 13 and not the 12. If you're talking about who has been the better centre, Payne has certainly outshone Henshaw. And I'm not criticising Henshaw, whose role at 12 is not one he has much experience of. But it's just so bizarre to me that people say Payne is out of position and off form and needs changed when actually, Henshaw is the guy playing in a role he hasn't played much before and is still not quite mastering it.

I think Henshaw has a lot of potential and deserves to retain his place. As does Jared Payne. Just seems to be that people want to find a reason to crowbar players they like into the team- which has always, always been the case with the Irish national team. For instance, it's very funny to hear that Earls experience would help Henshaw, who has given about three interviews at this stage when he talks about how Payne's experience is helping him right now!

I think Payne was the best Irish player yesterday, long term I'd prefer Henshaw back out at 13 but in the short term he's earned the shirt.

I'd move Jared to fullback Notch, not drop him. Henshaw's physicality is needed in the centre. I also think that the role he plays at 12 suits Henshaw's lack of international experience at the moment.

Payne is growing into the role. Certainly not an issue yesterday and it was probably his best game even in losing.
We had lots of issues yesterday with sub-form players being given bulky roles but the centres weren't the issue in my book.