Super Saturday, Game 2: Scotland v Ireland

First topic message reminder :

     
SCOTLAND v IRELAND
Saturday 21 March 2015
KO: 14:30
BT Murrayfield, Edinburgh

Referee: Jérôme Garcès (FFR)
AR1: Pascal Gauzere (FFR)
AR2: Federico Anselmi (UAR)
TMO: Graham Hughes (RFU)

***********************

A. Teams

SCOTLAND

15 Stuart Hogg (Glasgow Warriors)
14 Dougie Fife (Edinburgh Rugby)
13 Mark Bennett (Glasgow Warriors)
12 Matt Scott (Edinburgh Rugby)
11 Tommy Seymour (Glasgow Warriors)
10 Finn Russell (Glasgow Warriors)
09 Greig Laidlaw (Gloucester)

01 Ryan Grant (Glasgow Warriors)
02 Ross Ford (Edinburgh Rugby)
03 Euan Murray (Glasgow Warriors)
04 Jim Hamilton (Saracens)
05 Jonny Gray (Glasgow Warriors)
06 Adam Ashe (Glasgow Warriors)
07 Blair Cowan (London Irish)
08 David Denton (Edinburgh Rugby)

16 Fraser Brown (Glasgow Warriors)
17 Alasdair Dickinson (Edinburgh Rugby)
18 Geoff Cross (London Irish)
19 Tim Swinson (Glasgow Warriors)
20 Rob Harley (Glasgow Warriors)
21 Sam Hidalgo-Clyne (Edinburgh Rugby)
22 Greig Tonks (Edinburgh Rugby)
23 Tim Visser (Edinburgh Rugby)

IRELAND

15 Rob Kearney (UCD/Leinster)
14 Tommy Bowe (Belfast Harlequins/Ulster)
13 Jared Payne (Ulster)
12 Robbie Henshaw (Buccaneers/Connacht)
11 Luke Fitzgerald (Blackrock/Leinster)
10 Johnny Sexton (Racing Metro)
09 Conor Murray (Garryowen/Munster)

01 Cian Healy (Clontarf/Leinster)
02 Rory Best (Banbridge/Ulster)
03 Mike Ross (Clontarf/Leinster)
04 Devin Toner (Lansdowne/Leinster)
05 Paul O'Connell (Young Munster/Munster) captain
06 Peter O'Mahony (Cork Constitution/Munster)
07 Sean O'Brien (UCD/Leinster)
08 Jamie Heaslip (Dublin University/Leinster)

16 Sean Cronin (St. Mary's College/Leinster)
17 Jack McGrath (St. Mary's College/Leinster)
18 Martin Moore (Lansdowne/Leinster)
19 Iain Henderson (Ballynahinch/Ulster)
20 Jordi Murphy (Lansdowne/Leinster)
21 Eoin Reddan (Lansdowne/Leinster)
22 Ian Madigan (Blackrock/Leinster)
23 Felix Jones (Shannon/Munster)

B. Head to Head

119 Played 119

58 Wins 56

56 Losses 58

5 Draws 5

187 Tries 200

96 Conversions 102

128 Penalties 104

32 Drop Goals 15

1,234 Points 1,301

It seems that us winning the championship has officially elicited less comment and debate than the dropping of Simon Zebo!

Notch wrote:It seems that us winning the championship has officially elicited less comment and debate than the dropping of Simon Zebo!

You Irish obviously aren't happy unless you've got something to moan about!

Try being Scottish - I'd be delighted if the only thing we had to worry about was Simon zebo being dropped from the team!

Notch wrote:It seems that us winning the championship has officially elicited less comment and debate than the dropping of Simon Zebo!

They've nothing to complain about.

Looking back at the game, I thought it was Irelands best attacking display since last year. They must have been practising it all week because there were runners coming onto the ball at pace, they played on the gainline, they went wide more often and attacked from deep. POM, SOB, Henshaw, Bowe etc sprang into life. Henshaw and Payne are starting to gel now and it looked like they were swapping positions a bit too with Henshaw attacking from outside center a few times. Henshaw looks a great prospect at 21.

Healy coming back was a big bonus too and adds a ball carrier to the front row.

I think they got carried away with the kick chase game too much and became too one dimensional. You do indeed learn more from your defeats.

I feel for the Scots. I vaguely remember Ireland in the 90's losing every game when rugby was in the doldrums. They'll rise again, the question is when.

Henshaw is going to be an outstanding player, Payne has really come into his own in the last two game and there is a wealth of talent coming through at 12 so life is good. I still believe Henshaw will eventually move out one but it's impressive how well he's adapted to the inside centre role. That centre partnership will assuredly take Ireland into the World Cup, as Gerry Thornley would say. It's hard to see anyone coming in and being able to develop the rapport those two are beginning to show in just 4 warm-up games.

It was good to see basically the same game plan with a different emphasis, the more attack orientated game people have been calling for- I feel they're pretty versatile in terms of tactics, they play the same basic plan but they've adapted the game plan for different scenarios. I do still feel their phase play is very predictable and they'll need to rely on intricate moves like the one used in the opening minutes to cut open opposition defences. While some of the intricate loop moves and sleight of hand in the midfield were a joy to watch, being so heavily reliant on set plays is a definite weakness and I wonder if the coaches were forced to reveal a few things they would have preferred to keep under wraps until the World Cup begins. In phase play Ireland carried with a lot more aggression and O'Mahony and O'Brien really shone there, but the speed the ball comes back at from those gain line breaking carriers can be still be faster. The recycling of the ball after half-breaks wasn't always quick enough to capitalise on the yards made, which will mean we'll still struggle to break down the top teams.

There were a few really disappointing errors- the lineout where Heaslip went up at the front and Best didn't throw in was obviously due to confusion/miscommunication over the call. Restarts weren't always gathered well enough, once O'Connell and Toner went for the same ball and knocked it on and the ball was allowed to bounce on a couple of occasions. But it was mainly massively heartening looking ahead to the summer. This teams deficiencies are usually covered well, they lack pace and physicality but they are an extremely clever side. Clever enough to make up for the fact they're often outgunned up front and don't have the truly top-class finishers other teams have in the back three? Time will tell.

I was calling for Zebo's inclusion, but did he do more than D Kearney the year before? No he didn't in my opinion. They both did decent jobs but nothing special. Fitzgerald looked more dangerous. I know he was lucky that he started the one game that the entire team had to attack more. Overall I wouldn't be upset about any of them being selected there.

I think our pack make up for a lack of power with technical excellence and anyway O'Brien and Healy bring much more power to our game. We have become absolutely brilliant at controlling territory and where the game is played. Which helps us build up leads and makes us nigh on impossible to reel back in.

We are clearly weaker than Wales and England when it comes to the the firepower to score tries. When we did finally fall behind on the score board to a team with a good defence in a match, peoples fears came true and we weren't able to score the tries required to get ourselves back on top.

I'd expect our big RWC games to have plenty of those clever set plays Joe Schmidt became known for at Leinster. I'd think (hope) that's one thing we've held back on in this tournament since we obviously don't want our RWC rivals to analyse them. They worked so well for Leinster. But defences are better at international level.

I was pretty disappointed with R Kearney. Compared to Brown or Williams he's pretty much useless with the ball in hand. And he wasn't always. Payne won me over. I'd hope Trimble can come back and either force Bowe to up his game or take his place. Apart from that I'm happy.

We can reach a World Cup semi final or maybe final with the rub of the green. We're winning. We've finally gotten a favourable draw. Now we just have to go and do it. Apparently the French are still confident they can turn up and perform at the RWC. I don't want to be mean but I'd have hoped their spirits would be broken by all the defeats by now. That's a massive game now, because win it and the tournament opens right up for us.

Will Henshaw stay at Connacht?

Leinster could do with a big barnstorming 12...

FecklessRogue wrote:I was calling for Zebo's inclusion, but did he do more than D Kearney the year before? No he didn't in my opinion. They both did decent jobs but nothing special. Fitzgerald looked more dangerous. I know he was lucky that he started the one game that the entire team had to attack more. Overall I wouldn't be upset about any of them being selected there.

The thing is, Zebo got 4 games where Ireland were playing a very safety orientated style so it was very difficult for his attacking abilities to stand out. The last game, Ireland played a much more expansive game plan which would have been very ideal for Zebo, probably why Fitz had a very good game as both players are very similar.

Dave Kearney was playing in a side last year that were playing expansive rugby and simply could not shine because he does not have that attacking flair or speed. In my opinion, Dave Kearney should not be mentioned in the same breath as Zebo, Kearney, Trimble or even Earls. All are miles ahead of him.

He should stay at Connacht - Connacht need him more.

Leinster ain't short on cash, let them buy one!  And that's coming from a Leinster guy

Ireland needs 4 Strong Provinces now.  The world of rugby just got a lot more difficult.  And we also need each of the four to realise there is a real avenue into the Irish team.  Play well enough and you should be in and around Ireland camp regardless of what Province you're from.

Cue Sin coming to put me in my box "Fly, try telling Munster players that if they're good enough they get in."

I ain't Joe.  I'm just the fanclub tea maker.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote: In my opinion, Dave Kearney should not be mentioned in the same breath as Zebo, Kearney, Trimble or even Earls. All are miles ahead of him.

Don't agree at all on that one, Nachos. But we'll see what the future holds.

Some of the guys on that list are going to be very disappointed come the World Cup. Equally either Tommy O'Donnell or Chris Henry will be gutted not to make it.

I really do hope Henshaw stays with Connacht. We can see already he's capable of big performances at test level, so the justification it will being him on as a player is rather sketchy. It would be extremely disappointing if he was to leave because Connacht could use a big 'homegrown star' to promote rugby in the province.

SecretFly wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote: In my opinion, Dave Kearney should not be mentioned in the same breath as Zebo, Kearney, Trimble or even Earls. All are miles ahead of him.

Don't agree at all on that one, Nachos.  But we'll see what the future holds.

Do you honestly believe that Dave Kearney is of the same quality as the mentioned players or even Fitz (oh and Bowe, always seem to forget Tommy )?

He is solid at best, not quick enough and has zero attacking flair. If Tom Croft can outpace you then you are not a winger worth salt. Way down the pecking order in my opinion.

We'll see. I like Kearney a lot. Some see nothing - I see enough.

But he'll have a tough time now proving it of course - at least for this WC anyway. There is always another one down the line. I'd have Kearney over his brother. I like Zebo but no I wouldn't put Zebo head and shoulders above Kearney.

Dave Kearney isn't a wing btw - and that's the problem.

Ok, let me put it another way. Where would Dave Kearney fit in to this Irish squad?

As for Zebo, I don't think that it is just him that is head and shoulders above Dave Kearney but all the players I mentioned earlier. Simply just not good enough.

Your opinion. Hold onto it. I don't share it.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:Ok, let me put it another way. Where would Dave Kearney fit in to this Irish squad?

He's a guy who can pretty much cover all three back three positions from the bench- I would say he could replace Felix Jones.

Fair enough Fly, I was just interested in why you actually thought that he was good enough or even on par with the players I mentioned.

He may be able to cover the back three positions but so can the players I mentioned and all of them are far better than Dave Kearney.

Your opinion Nachos, and welcome to it. I don't share it. I don't see why I should feel 'dirty' for not assuming the players you mention are way above him.

I don't. But then neither do I think 15 is the position most suited to him. We'll see what he does over the next few years. I'll keep an eye on him anyway if none of the rest of you do

I didn't say you should feel 'dirty' for not sharing my opinion, rather odd thing to say, even from you

As I said, I was only interested in your opinion as to why you think he is on par with the players I mentioned. I gave reasons why I didn't think he was but as you say, its my opinion and I respect your opinion normally but since you don't feel the need to explain your opinion, we will leave it at that.


Except I am right and you are wrong

I'm not inclined to jinx him.  That's why Nachos.  If Leinster pick up a new coach with Sexton back (wishful thinking it seems!) but if they do, then I'll be interested in where Dave's career takes him.

But I'm good enough at talent spotting.  I back my own thoughts and then too I'll hoist my hand in the air as being wrong too if need be.  But we'll see.

Yeah but you're still wrong

Time will tell.  I'll be awaiting your signed apology in 2019 when he leads Ireland to their 2nd World Cup.

The point about Baby Kearney's pace is fair enough but you could say the same about a lot of our backs. Very few are lightning fast. But none are ridiculously slow either. Here are some things I like about him.

He doesn't make many errors
He's strong
He has very good awareness of what's going on around him
He developed a high work rate in his time in the Ireland team.
He's safe as houses under the high ball.

It all adds up to a very well rounded player even though he's probably not flashy. I do think Zebo, Fitzy and Earls are better at beating a man and that's actually a big plus for a winger. But Dave didn't really do any worse than Zebo in his Ireland caps to date. Both did well without standing out. And I was in the original "Zeebs for Ireland" brigade.

I think Fitzy will be confident he can hold onto the jersey though. I think that over his horrible time with injuries for so many years people have forgotten just how good he can be. As a creative force in the team more than a finisher. But we need more creativity. He's also very good defensively.

FecklessRogue wrote:The point about Baby Kearney's pace is fair enough but you could say the same about a lot of our backs. Very few are lightning fast. But none are ridiculously slow either. Here are some things I like about him.

He doesn't make many errors : I feel he is on the same level as most professionals in the error making. Not better or worse.
He's strong : Not something that I have noticed in him, his upper body strength in hits and contact seems to be average.
He has very good awareness of what's going on around him : This I don't believe, many times in attack he looks lost and very quick to go for the contact and not look whats around him.
He developed a high work rate in his time in the Ireland team. : What work rate are you alluding to? To me, he followed the game plan but nothing else.
He's safe as houses under the high ball. : I seem to recall him not being so secure under the high ball, you may be right here but I seem to remember otherwise.

It all adds up to a very well rounded player even though he's probably not flashy. I do think Zebo, Fitzy and Earls are better at beating a man and that's actually a big plus for a winger. But Dave didn't really do any worse than Zebo in his Ireland caps to date. Both did well without standing out. And I was in the original "Zeebs for Ireland" brigade.

I think Fitzy will be confident he can hold onto the jersey though. I think that over his horrible time with injuries for so many years people have forgotten just how good he can be. As a creative force in the team more than a finisher. But we need more creativity. He's also very good defensively.

For the record, I believe that Dave Kearney does the job asked of him but nothing more. I don't see him as a well rounded player, I just see him as a player that can be molded by a coach to exactly what he is told. No creativity at all, all round players have creativity as well as being able to follow a set game plan.

Creativity is a red herring, any player in this Ireland team will be playing a highly structured game because thats the way we play. We're not going to go out an play Barbarians rugby at any point- even when we were chasing a score at the weekend we played in a highly structured fashion with only slightly more scope to try things. I think it's time we started using phrases like 'can be moulded by a coach to carry out a game plan' as negatives and understand that this is actually a massive strength. The real issue is; Zebo can carry out a game plan equally well and has a bit more about him, ditto Fitzgerald, Trimble etc. etc.

Kearney is a very good player, I wouldn't be adverse to seeing him as part of the squad but I do feel we don't need him anymore- I would be inclined to pick the back three from McFadden, Zebo, Fitzgerald, Trimble, Bowe, R. Kearney and Jones. 4 or 5 out of those 7 to travel to the Rugby World Cup.

We're going to be leaving some very good back three players at home. I think even the likes of Trimble and Bowe are not guaranteed a seat on the plane.

Maybe I am not being clear enough. The moulding statement was because I feel that players are being over coached and sticking purely to a set game plan. I did not refer to 'Barbarian' style rugby at all. I am simply saying that I appreciate a structured game plan but also feel that players have to express themselves (without fear or punishment) should they show some individual magic.

Sticking 100% to a game plan and not diverting is robotic play and I do not like it.

Even though Ireland played a slightly more expansive game on Saturday, they still looked very insecure about it.

To me, Dave Kearney is robot 001, plays the game exactly how he is told to do and as a result, will not chance himself given half an opportunity. Sometimes games hinge purely on a single piece of individual skill and I do not want to see that removed from the Irish players who can perform such skill. Stick to the plan but by god, back yourself if you see an opportunity.

One more thing, by removing any semblance of individuality in certain players games, has the negative effect of turning game winners into average players simply fulfilling a function.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:Maybe I am not being clear enough. The moulding statement was because I feel that players are being over coached and sticking purely to a set game plan. I did not refer to 'Barbarian' style rugby at all. I am simply saying that I appreciate a structured game plan but also feel that players have to express themselves (without fear or punishment) should they show some individual magic.

Sticking 100% to a game plan and not diverting is robotic play and I do not like it.

Even though Ireland played a slightly more expansive game on Saturday, they still looked very insecure about it.

To me, Dave Kearney is robot 001, plays the game exactly how he is told to do and as a result, will not chance himself given half an opportunity. Sometimes games hinge purely on a single piece of individual skill and I do not want to see that removed from the Irish players who can perform such skill. Stick to the plan but by god, back yourself if you see an opportunity.

Do you think Ireland are being over coached to the point that its affecting us negatively ? I think it works well for us, and we've seen it has produced a far more consistent rugby team - despite the team not having the same number of world class players as the teams of the "golden generation". The way I see it, a micromanaging style gives the players a lot to think about, and they have no time to think about choking. I believe it works for us temperamental Irish.

kunu wrote:

Do you think Ireland are being over coached to the point that its affecting us negatively ? I think it works well for us, and we've seen it has produced a far more consistent rugby team - despite the team not having the same number of world class players as the teams of the "golden generation". The way I see it, a micromanaging style gives the players a lot to think about, and they have no time to think about choking. I believe it works for us temperamental Irish.

Its affecting Ireland's players negatively I feel. Its worked so far but I still believe in a new coaches honeymoon period and Schmidt is now leaving that period. Always (except for Scotland) a new manager brings new impetus and generates good results. Now other managers will have enough to study Schmidt's tactics and will counter them. Hell, even Kidney (who lots of people love to hate) had an excellent start to his Ireland career.

I am all for game plans but I do believe that micromanaging this team has the potential to backfire. I simply want a structured game plan but also that players do not feel that they will be punished if they try something out of the ordinary. I think it was Connor Murray who said that Schmidt is very strict. If you try something out of his game plan, even if it works, he will be unhappy. Not the way I want to see things happen.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

I think it was Connor Murray who said that Schmidt is very strict. If you try something out of his game plan, even if it works, he will be unhappy. Not the way I want to see things happen.

He said the exact opposite Nachos.  The exact opposite of what you say.  

"You don't go out on the pitch as a robot and just do exactly what you're told to do.  You do have a game plan and, under any coach, there's a game plan that you try and follow as best you can.  There's times we go against the grain of play or do our own thing.  If you see the little kick for Robbie; people do back themselves and express themselves if they want to.  You can do that within a game plan as well."

Yeah I have no doubt he's extremely controlling. I think to call it a honeymoon period is unfair though, Schmidt's micromanaging has won 2 consecutive European Cups, and now 2 consecutive Six Nations, created the most consistent Ireland team ever (taking into account the opposition we played during the record equaling 11 wins). I don't think many would call 2 seasons a honeymoon period.

I suppose my trust in him comes down to how I rate the man, I see him as the best coach in the world, with extremely valuable opinions, and someone who should be allowed to impose himself on our team.

If he was a lesser coach, I would agree with you. But his record speaks for itself. Top 14 winner 2010, Heieno 2011, 2012, Six Nations 2014, 2015

The begrudgers have been awfully quiet.  

A honeymoon period?  He's been coach for two years (so not 'new') and won back to back Six Nations titles which Ireland has never achieved before (though obviously they won Five Nations twice in 1948 and 1949).  

Connor Murray also said this about Schmidt:
"He's been unbelievable for me since he came in, he challenges players to improve and get better and if you don't do the work and you're not showing it in training, he'll talk to you and give you advice on what you should be working on.  From the moment he came in, he gave me a few little pointers on my game, and he's improved me as a player, definitely."

Source: http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/sport/ireland-blessed-to-have-schmidt-says-murray-668505.html

What an absolute nightmare to deal with!  

You criticise him for being too defensive.  Then he expands the gameplan and hammer Scotland, and unlike other contenders not shipping a whole pile of points while barely getting out of third gear.  Then you claim we our over coached (in comparison to England who went in with no gameplan, no leadership and threw the title away).  How do you know what Schmidt is like in training camps?  You aren't in the camp and players' comments do not back your comments up.  You have absolutely no idea what is said behind the scenes beyond what the messages your tinfoil hat picks up.  

Kidney's Ireland had already fallen apart as this point in his reign.  There is a world of difference between the two sides with arguably a weaker side now being more successful.  And yet you can't see your way to really give Schmidt any real credit.  A real shame.

Oh I rate Schmidt as a coach, I really do. He has done some excellent stuff. I just saw signs during the 6N that he (in my opinion) was over coaching the team and removing any creative thoughts or play that existed in the Ireland team and I believe that its important that certain players retain that creativity. Some players get to where they are by being who they are and if you coach that out of them, they can become very average players. I think that Lancaster has done it with Hartley, he has warned him about his conduct and as a result has totally removed his natural aggressive style of play and left him looking like a very average hooker...

Fly, it may not have been Murray but I am certain one of the current players or recently retired players intimated at Schmidt's toughness on deviation from his plans.

The one thing you see in Schmidt is that he WORKS for a living.

He doesn't take the money and stroll around training fields with the proverbial coaching tracksuit as his lieutenants shout the orders.  He does all the homework his players require for each and every game they are involved in.  He does the video look overs in precise detail.  No laziness.  He looks at everything.  And he gives back to players what they need, outside eyes critiquing what they do and restructuring things they do to make them perform better.

He Works.  He doesn't con the players and leave them high and dry with little or no intelligence on how to get under the skin of oppositions.  He puts in the hours and respects the players enough to have them mentally and strategically prepared for what they then bring.

Great coach - win or loss. Honourable in the efforts he puts in to do his job Right.

Even if you wish to disregard Schmidt's 2 seasons as coach as a prolonged honeymoon, there's more to be said about his style. As has been repeated ad nauseam over the six nations, teams play to defend nowdays. You need to have everyone working off the same page to create a machine to break down defences. I don't think requiring players to strictly play certain patterns is overly limiting them, but allowing them to play their way into positions in which they can express themselves. If players fall apart upon being given specific directions, I do not think they have a place in professional rugby, it's the nature of professional sport. Teams are only going to become harder to break down as more Schmidt-type coaches who take the role incredibly seriously and analyse teams to the nth degree become appointed.

Look at football, a sport which dealt with the consequences of professionalisation long ago. If someone did something Alex Ferguson had expressly prohibited, a boot wouldn't be too far from their heads, just ask Becks ! The rugby lads are pros, they should be told off for their mistakes. Besides, it doesn't sound as if they're completely barred from making decisions as long as they are well made.

France (and even to an extent England on Saturday) is an example of a team playing on their own terms, using all their instincts.  And a glorious spectacle it was too - if you could enjoy it as a neutral!!!

But the only reason so many tries were being scored is because both sides lost all discipline in defence.

If you want exhibitionist rugby then yes, the coaching role becomes limited, just stuff your team with expressive players and let them scent space all over the park.  
But if you want to win competitions, the gameplan and discipline to it is required.  Schmidt is known to talk about wanting players to make other players look good.  That means players staying close to the gameplan and doing their bit, so that other players don't have to fill in for them and do more than should be doing.  Team effort - for 80.

I do not disregard Schmidt's first two years in charge but I believe that the 'Honeymoon period' ended after the AI's. He has implemented a very effective game plan and I am happy Ireland have been winning. I just feel that other clever coaches (Gatland) who spend just as much time analyzing the game as Schmidt does will formulate counters for his game plan, we saw that this 6N against Wales. The more video evidence that can be built up will be detriment to a coaches style and its only the truly great coaches that can survive this by changing their styles. Being an international coach integrating players from different clubs is slightly different to being a club coach. I believe that Schmidt has that quality as a coach.

I make no secret in saying that I felt Kidney was one of the best Ireland had, I also very much liked EOS. In fact, I would love EOS to come in as attack coach under Schmidt.

SecretFly wrote:France (and even to an extent England on Saturday) is an example of a team playing on their own terms, using all their instincts.  And a glorious spectacle it was too - if you could enjoy it as a neutral!!!

But the only reason so many tries were being scored is because both sides lost all discipline in defence.

If you want exhibitionist rugby then yes, the coaching role becomes limited, just stuff your team with expressive players and let them scent space all over the park.  
But if you want to win competitions, the gameplan and discipline to it is required.  Schmidt is known to talk about wanting players to make other players look good.  That means players staying close to the gameplan and doing their bit, so that other players don't have to fill in for them and do more than should be doing.  Team effort - for 80.

Have you read a word I have said? I have said that I like the structured approach but also would not like to see players natural instincts coached out of them. Where did I say go for it willey nilley or Barbarian style?

kunu wrote:Even if you wish to disregard Schmidt's 2 seasons as coach as a prolonged honeymoon, there's more to be said about his style. As has been repeated ad nauseam over the six nations, teams play to defend nowdays. You need to have everyone working off the same page to create a machine to break down defences. I don't think requiring players to strictly play certain patterns is overly limiting them, but allowing them to play their way into positions in which they can express themselves. If players fall apart upon being given specific directions, I do not think they have a place in professional rugby, it's the nature of professional sport. Teams are only going to become harder to break down as more Schmidt-type coaches who take the role incredibly seriously and analyse teams to the nth degree become appointed.

Look at football, a sport which dealt with the consequences of professionalisation long ago. If someone did something Alex Ferguson had expressly prohibited, a boot wouldn't be too far from their heads, just ask Becks ! The rugby lads are pros, they should be told off for their mistakes. Besides, it doesn't sound as if they're completely barred from making decisions as long as they are well made.

There is also a difference between stopping creativity and being risk averse. I would criticise Schmidt's gameplan in this Six Nations as being risk averse, particularly with the lack of an offloading game, but that does not mean that players have lacked creativity. Schmidt demands accuracy, but look at the game in Paris last year and against Scotland this year where players making good decisions about when to offload creates holes in the opposition defence. I really don't know why Ireland haven't been executing an accurate offloading game more. Leinster were spectacular at it. We have the players, particularly in the backrow. Healsip, SOB, POM, TOD and Henry are all good footballers.

That continuity was missed against Wales in Cardiff when players were too keen to go to ground. We keep possession extremely well. To beat a blitz defence you can expose the space with i) clever kicking over the top, ii) a quick continuity game, or iii) you suck defenders in around the ruck area and then expose mismatches out wide. Ireland didn't do i) or ii), and with regard to ii) did well in sucking Welsh defenders in, but then the half backs either made poor decisions, allowed the forwards to take to the ball on too much, or distributed poorly.

You can be creative within an overall gameplan or system- it only becomes debilitating if you cannot change it mid match if it isn't working.

Nachos, I'm not always talking to you specifically.  I'm sometimes merely addressing the issues circling around the current discussion/thread/news story etc.  There is more than you and me here.

I'm addressing the theme and talking about it.  The Irish team didn't suddenly begin to play like they did on Saturday just on the whim of a mid-week moan.  Anybody who tries to tell me that was a quickly put together plan on a postage stamp in panic will have a hard job convincing me.

I've been talking about it for weeks, months now.  I believed that Schmidt and his players MUST be practicing a more aggressive ball-in-hand attack game.  I said I believed that they were doing those drills in training and weren't showing them.

My cry was that I was losing patience, I was frustrated. Time was running out on practicing such a gameplan under real game conditions. I wanted to see Ireland act out that sharper attack game to prove to myself that it wasn't being overlooked by the kick/chase stuff.  I've had my proof.  I now know that more will come in the attack department.  I know it's part of planned packages.  That's all I required - reassurance.

It needs a lot of work!!!  It's still quite rusty in my eyes.  But the intent is certainly there to be able to provide such a game come crunch time.

I'd love EOS to come into Leinster, or at least back in Ireland somewhere, I agree that he was far better than his terms of resignation suggested. I think Kidney was good, but the professionalisation of the game caught up with him. We saw what happened as Ireland tried to play without a technical edge in attack, and from 09-13 he achieved a 53% winning rate, 27 wins and 22 losses. Not great, with EOS's at 64%.

Why do you not value Schmidt as an attack coach? His Leinster team were absolutely flawless in attack -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69xdh1p7Mr8&spfreload=10 .

If you skip to 5:03 on that link -  you'll see Leinster running exactly the same plays Ireland were running against Scotland from the restarts over the weekend. Fitzgerald even made the same step on a few occasions! This is an example of how much thought Schmidt puts into his game plans - he picked Fitz for Scotland because he knows how he works with the wide game, and work he did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKFH36j7D74&spfreload=10 - here's footage of the weekends game - at 11.05 and 16.08 you'll see variations of the Leinster play.

The Leinster plan was completely different to what he's been doing internationally recently. My point with all this is that he's not a one trick pony. Gatland, a great coach in his own right, got one over him this year (in an away game, which Ireland played awful, and nearly drew)- but lets not forget Ireland hammered Wales the year before. Schmidt has plenty in his bag of tricks and I'm sure we'll see more of it in the world cup.

Kanu, I do not feel that Schmidt is a bad attack coach, far from it. After watching Leinster for years you cannot help but admire his abilities there.

I just feel that being an international coach takes so much more time and effort as you have to spend large amounts of time integrating players into a system and team that is not together week in week out, Schmidt cannot be involved in every aspect of the team. That's why I feel that someone like EOS would be absolutely perfect as an attack coach for Schmidt.

SecretFly wrote:Nachos, I'm not always talking to you specifically.  I'm sometimes merely addressing the issues circling around the current discussion/thread/news story etc.  There is more than you and me here.

I'm addressing the theme and talking about it.  The Irish team didn't suddenly begin to play like they did on Saturday just on the whim of a mid-week moan.  Anybody who tries to tell me that was a quickly put together plan on a postage stamp in panic will have a hard job convincing me.

I've been talking about it for weeks, months now.  I believed that Schmidt and his players MUST be practicing a more aggressive ball-in-hand attack game.  I said I believed that they were doing those drills in training and weren't showing them.

My cry was that I was losing patience, I was frustrated.  Time was running out on practicing such a gameplan under real game conditions. I wanted to see Ireland act out that sharper attack game to prove to myself that it wasn't being overlooked by the kick/chase stuff.  I've had my proof.  I now know that more will come in the attack department.  I know it's part of planned packages.  That's all I required - reassurance.

It needs a lot of work!!!  It's still quite rusty in my eyes.  But the intent is certainly there to be able to provide such a game come crunch time.

The key thing about the match for me was that Ireland hammered Scotland showing only one real training ground move, i.e., SOB's try. I coach and do video analysis at a big English grammar school and if they happening to my team the pack would be doing circuits on Monday until they were sick and I was sacked for child cruelty. This is world cup year, you are mental if you think any coach will be showing their hand. We are motoring along nicely for me. We need to see more continuity, we need to get Kearney playing well, and we need to have a better backup option on the bench than Felix Jones (who I'm sure is a grand fella, but where is Keith Earls).

All you can ask of a coach is that where mistakes are made, he learns from them. Schmidt continues to do that.

Schmidt is tough on players not being useful to the team.

I've heard the All Blacks are allowed one error in training. A second one and they're sent to train with the reserves. This isn't to be mean to them or make them robots. This is to try and put them under real pressure in training so they can handle real pressure in a match. I've heard RWC winning coach Bob Dwyer say that players shouldn't actually ever be seen walking. If they are where their team needs them they should stay there and if they're not they should run to where they should be. He said he gave out to players for walking! Not to mean or make them robots. But because as far as he was concerned walking was no use to the team.

I'm glad Schmidt is tough on things that he thinks he needs to be tough on. Because the work rate he's instilled is why Heaslip was there to knock the ball out of Hogg's hands to win us this title. And the low error rate he's enforced is the reason we conceded so few points which won us this title. If he hadn't instilled these things we would not have won any titles because of some invisible magic brought on by two and half year honeymoon period.

I share the concerns about the risk averseness. But between injuries to our two best tackle breaking ball carriers, malfunctioning set pieces in the Autumn and two guys in the center who are brand new to international rugby and to each other there are many obvious reasons for the risk averseness in attack. I don't consider it wishful thinking to say that there is definitely more to come from us in a attack between now and whenever Schmidt moves on. Which I hope is not for a long time.

kunu wrote: Ireland played awful, and nearly drew

A  guy was taunting me about Sexton after that game and I kept jabbing him with that precise point.  I don't think he ever really got it.  Some people don't.  But that's potent.  And that really is why other coaches around the world, including Mr Yawn-Not-Interested Hansen, are sitting up and taking notice.

Ireland have been winning without really doing much at all!  And even when Wales were punching and running and mocking us with pomp and defensive steel in that recent game - the auld boring sloggers still almost yawned over the winning line despite themselves.

You sense that other coaches are thinking like we do often.  Wondering what's going on.  There's bound to be more to these players than kick and chase.  Show us your full deck, Joe.  Don't be deceptive and holding back.  Show us what you got.  They are concerned about what he got.  So are we!!!!  But he has everyone wondering what a truly top form Ireland side might look like - we didn't see it this season and yet....................................

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:Kanu, I do not feel that Schmidt is a bad attack coach, far from it. After watching Leinster for years you cannot help but admire his abilities there.

I just feel that being an international coach takes so much more time and effort as you have to spend large amounts of time integrating players into a system and team that is not together week in week out, Schmidt cannot be involved in every aspect of the team. That's why I feel that someone like EOS would be absolutely perfect as an attack coach for Schmidt.

Fair enough. I suppose it's hard to know how much international coaches have on their plates. When I see Schmidt roaring around during the warm ups before games, I get the feeling he knows exactly how he wants us to play in attack, and loves the role.

FecklessRogue wrote:Schmidt is tough on players not being useful to the team.

I've heard the All Blacks are allowed one error in training. A second one and they're sent to train with the reserves. This isn't to be mean to them or make them robots. This is to try and put them under real pressure in training so they can handle real pressure in a match. I've heard RWC winning coach Bob Dwyer say that players shouldn't actually ever be seen walking. If they are where their team needs them they should stay there and if they're not they should run to where they should be. He said he gave out to players for walking! Not to mean or make them robots. But because as far as he was concerned walking was no use to the team.

I'm glad Schmidt is tough on things that he thinks he needs to be tough on. Because the work rate he's instilled is why Heaslip was there to knock the ball out of Hogg's hands to win us this title. And the low error rate he's enforced is the reason we conceded so few points which won us this title. If he hadn't instilled these things we would not have won any titles because of some invisible magic brought on by two and half year honeymoon period.

I share the concerns about the risk averseness. But between injuries to our two best tackle breaking ball carriers, malfunctioning set pieces in the Autumn and two guys in the center who are brand new to international rugby and to each other there are many obvious reasons for the risk averseness in attack. I don't consider it wishful thinking to say that there is definitely more to come from us in a attack between now and whenever Schmidt moves on. Which I hope is not for a long time.

It was a great tackle for sure but do you think that Schmidt has had a long angry word to Heaslip about Russel's try? Clearly Russel was going to touch down in the corner, saw that Heaslip had given up and went closer to the posts. To me what Heaslip did in not keeping Russell out wide was extremely poor...

EOS as underling?

That was tried before and a man called Gatland has never forgotten it.

EOS is a driven man, confident in his own abilities and leadership credentials - and justly so. But would he sit quietly and be second voice behind Schmidt's? Would he take direction at this stage in his life as a second?

SecretFly wrote:

kunu wrote: Ireland played awful, and nearly drew

A  guy was taunting me about Sexton after that game and I kept jabbing him with that precise point.  I don't think he ever really got it.  Some people don't.  But that's potent.  And that really is why other coaches around the world, including Mr Yawn-Not-Interested Hansen, are sitting up and taking notice.

Ireland have been winning without really doing much at all!  And even when Wales were punching and running and mocking us with pomp and defensive steel in that recent game - the auld boring sloggers still almost yawned over the winning line despite themselves.

You sense that other coaches are thinking like we do often.  Wondering what's going on.  There's bound to be more to these players than kick and chase.  Show us your full deck, Joe.  Don't be deceptive and holding back.  Show us what you got.  They are concerned about what he got.  So are we!!!!  But he has everyone wondering what a truly top form Ireland side might look like - we didn't see it this season and yet....................................

We are certainly yet to reach top gear. I would largely agree with the sentiment I've been reading around here that this six nations was all about setting the foundations of Ireland's game. We have the kick chase down, we can fall back on it- which we did against Scotland (towards the end of the game) and it was satisfying to see. On top of that, we have a ridiculously reliable ruck retention rate - won 589 lost 17, compared to England - won 390 lost 21, and Wales won 397 lost 21.

With the most reliable breakdown, and a rock solid kicking game - we've got our exit strategy and our general phase play well set. The cherry on top, our final details, frills, sidesteps and offloads can be built up during the longer camps prior to the world cup.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

FecklessRogue wrote:Schmidt is tough on players not being useful to the team.

I've heard the All Blacks are allowed one error in training. A second one and they're sent to train with the reserves. This isn't to be mean to them or make them robots. This is to try and put them under real pressure in training so they can handle real pressure in a match. I've heard RWC winning coach Bob Dwyer say that players shouldn't actually ever be seen walking. If they are where their team needs them they should stay there and if they're not they should run to where they should be. He said he gave out to players for walking! Not to mean or make them robots. But because as far as he was concerned walking was no use to the team.

I'm glad Schmidt is tough on things that he thinks he needs to be tough on. Because the work rate he's instilled is why Heaslip was there to knock the ball out of Hogg's hands to win us this title. And the low error rate he's enforced is the reason we conceded so few points which won us this title. If he hadn't instilled these things we would not have won any titles because of some invisible magic brought on by two and half year honeymoon period.

I share the concerns about the risk averseness. But between injuries to our two best tackle breaking ball carriers, malfunctioning set pieces in the Autumn and two guys in the center who are brand new to international rugby and to each other there are many obvious reasons for the risk averseness in attack. I don't consider it wishful thinking to say that there is definitely more to come from us in a attack between now and whenever Schmidt moves on. Which I hope is not for a long time.

It was a great tackle for sure but do you think that Schmidt has had a long angry word to Heaslip about Russel's try? Clearly Russel was going to touch down in the corner, saw that Heaslip had given up and went closer to the posts. To me what Heaslip did in not keeping Russell out wide was extremely poor...

Go to around 55 seconds on this video.  Heaslip was never getting to Russell in a millions years and his angle of defence means he couldn't possibly close down the space behind the try line.  He was somewhere around 6-8 metres away when Russell receives the ball and was never going to get near him to force him into the corner.  Never.  Even Earls would not have been able to bridge that gap.  More relevant would be to highlight POC at around 22-23 seconds committing himself to a ruck which he wouldn't win, pulling Healy into the right hand pillar and creating a Scottish man advantage down the narrow side.  Healy even tells Henshaw and POC to watch down the narrow side and only Henshaw moves into position to defend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQn_kdyb7GE

Exiled Gael wrote:

Go to around 55 seconds on this video.  Heaslip was never getting to Russell in a millions years and his angle of defence means he couldn't possibly close down the space behind the try line.  He was somewhere around 6-8 metres away when Russell receives the ball and was never going to get near him to force him into the corner.  Never.  Even Earls would not have been able to bridge that gap.  More relevant would be to highlight POC at around 22-23 seconds committing himself to a ruck which he wouldn't win, pulling Healy into the right hand pillar and creating a Scottish man advantage down the narrow side.  Healy even tells Henshaw and POC to watch down the narrow side and only Henshaw moves into position to defend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQn_kdyb7GE

As the ball goes out to Russell, Heaslip is in a great position to cut the angle, he gives up and walks. Even Russell expected to be cut off which is why he first tries to touch down but see's Heaslip's lack of commitment and goes on. Toner made a valiant effort but it was too late, he still got very close to Russell and he was standing inside of Heaslip...