ireland 6N warmdown and look ahead to RWC

First topic message reminder :



Two years in a row!! Both tournaments have been close run, but this team has come on leaps and bounds in the time Schmidt has been in charge. The team is playing with a confidence that has rarely been seen as consistently as this from past Irish teams, we can vary the gameplan to meet the needs of the contest, the new combinations are starting to gell, and we have genuine competition in most positions around the pitch.

So rather than scurrying around the rest of the forum attempting to put out fires that try to feebly illegitimise the championship win, I think we can look back on another positive campaign showing real growth but with plenty of areas for improvement.

Six Nations
Comfortable if not spectacular for the most part. The team looked in control in games versus Italy and France without impressing two much, both results felt like a job done. Against England and Scotland were the real high points. Ireland's plan of attack put England on the back foot for most of the game with Sexton and Murray managing the game brilliantly. Against Scotland it was great to see us play positive and expansive stuff, it is good to know we can play that ball in hand game and have the players to do so. The low point was the Wales game, but even then I feel the territory and possession Ireland had was encouraging, but there are lessons to be learned about finishing chances and adapting to the ref (although credit also to the Welsh defense who were immense).

The Squad
Front Row: McGrath has shown more evidence he is an able replacement to Healy, for me he is not that far off now and was unlucky to lose his place. Rory Best is fantastic in the loose and at the breakdown, but at times his throws can be suspect and Cronin is a great option to bring on and run the ball. Total turnaround for Mike Ross, had a very strong campaign I thought, and great there is finally an able body to come on in Marty Moore
Lock: POC is absolutely vital to the cause and I worry about the impact of his loss more so than BOD. Toner has become a beast in the last two years, but I would love to see what Henderson is capable of starting for Ireland. Getting the best locks in Ireland fit at the right times (Touhy and Ryan are both useful options) has been a problem but these three currently are head and shoulders above the challengers.
Back Row: One of our strongest positions in quality and depth. SOB grew into the tournament, Heaslip and POM work incredibly hard. Honorable mention to Murphy for his early performances which were very positive.
Half Backs: Sexton and Murray have to be the form pair in the world right now, blip against Wales aside. The drop off in quality from those two is a concern, although Reddan had a very strong cameo against Wales. The position of understudy for 10 is still very much up for grabs between Madigan, Jackson and Keatley. I feel the team need to bring on Marmion more as well.
Centres: Starting to get to know each other's games. Henshaw has been absolute quality in all performances, reliably outstanding. Payne has grown into the role and really shone against Scotland. I think there  may be options in coming through in Olding, McCloskey, Marshall and eventually Ringrose, and I'd say Henshaw may eventually move to 13 in green, but I'd wager the incumbents go into the world cup as 12 and 13.
Wings: Another area of strength, with some great variety in the options. Zebo was unlucky to miss out against Scotland but Fitzgerald made a real difference. Bowe for me has been solid but I think Trimble has been missed. Earls for me should be competing for this spot rather than at centre and I would like to see Gilroy push on from his early promise. I have slight concerns about how the wingers are slowly losing their creativity as they come into the set up a la Zebo, and would like to see them try something other than take the soonest contact and recycle
Full Back: Not sure about Rob. Not pulling up and trees but hasn't let anyone down either. I don't know if Jones offers much else that Kearney doesn't. I'd say there are more creative options in the wings that can play fullback in the Pro 12 but against the other 6Ns fullbacks I don't know when they could be blooded. Payne at 15 maybe?

World Cup
Anything other than a semi-final appearance would be a huge disappointment following the last two years of progress. A semi-final win at Twickers against England is certainly doable but it would be a big ask. Despite the last showing at a World Cup I am confident Ireland can go further this time.

I honestly see no problem in criticising aspects of the Ireland game that some people may be concerned with. Even though Ireland won the 6N, it does not mean that Ireland played as well as can be expected. I am not going to put my head in the sand and say everything is fine if I do not think it is.

Simply put, the safety first rugby can be a winning formula as it has done but can be countered, as it has been done.

The issue I have with this safety first rugby from Schmidt is, it can negate the natural attacking players impulses. How often have we seen moments of magic win matches? People say that Schmidt encourages players to be impulsive, I am not convinced that he does.

What I saw in the 6N was during the Wales game, the tactic was not working due to Gatland setting Wales up to counter Irelands tactic. When then trying to change the tactic, Ireland looked very rusty and uncoordinated in attack. The next match against Scotland, the tactic was expansive rugby and it worked.

What I am yet to see, is Ireland being able to successfully change tactics during a match. Top sides can do this.

kunu wrote:

Sin é wrote:
Oh, and I think Kidney was IRB International Coach of the Year in 2009. He is up there with all the great coaches like Henry & Hansen, woodward & White.

 He simply isn't. He won 27, lost 22 during his tenure. He had 1 good season with Ireland, and failed to deliver in every other

Edit : I don't know why I took the bait there. Well played sin.

Here is the list Kunu:

2001: Rod Macqueen ( Australia)
2002: Bernard Laporte ( France)
2003: Clive Woodward ( England)
2004: Jake White ( South Africa)
2005: Graham Henry ( New Zealand)
2006: Graham Henry ( New Zealand)
2007: Jake White ( South Africa)
2008: Graham Henry ( New Zealand)
2009: Declan Kidney ( Ireland)
2010: Graham Henry ( New Zealand)
2011: Graham Henry ( New Zealand)
2012: Steve Hansen ( New Zealand)
2013: Steve Hansen ( New Zealand)
2014: Steve Hansen ( New Zealand)

Sin é wrote:

kunu wrote:

Sin é wrote:

The Slam is the ultimate - Schmidt hasn't won it yet (because he is too conservative). He made exactly the same mistake this year v Wales as he did against England last year.

We won the slam because of Drico and ROG forced it. If you're indirectly suggesting we won the slam because of Kidney's ingenuity you're a madman.  The simple fact is, Ireland are a lot better under Schmidt than they have been under any coach over the last 15 years. We have never been ranked 3rd for this long.

To say Schmidt made a mistake in The Millenium is fair enough. However I doubt you genuinely believe it was the same mistake that he made in Twickenham. Firstly I wouldn't begrudge anyone losing in Twickenham to a good England team who didn't bottle it. Secondly we played brilliantly that day, England never really broke us down, but instead scored when we disrupted their ball and Brown created  something when we tried to pounce on England, having forced a loose pass. Irelands try in that game was also 100% Schmidt - similar to Leinster's try v clermont in the Heineken semi. After half time he identified a consistent gap and the team were able to exploit it. We lost because England played well, not because of conservatism.

Conservatism producing a win in the six nations before the World Cup is a dream scenario I would suggest. We gave away nothing, and in the long camps before the tournament the team can add some panache to the incredibly solid foundations Schmidt, Easterby, Feek and Plumtree  have helped create.

If you want to talk about consistent mistakes , Kidney finished with a 53% winning record. He must have made a fair few!

Schmidt's international career isn't finished yet to compare him to anyone else. He seems to have a knack of moving on before the Poopie hits the fan and a bit of rebuilding has to be done.

He needed a game breaker against England and he didn't have one. Dave Kearney was run down by a lock. Enough said.

Out of interest, who would an open minded, progressive coach pick instead? Don't say Earls now. We've been there.

Why would you object to Earls? He has pace (which you can't coach) at least and is good at hitting rucks as well and a superb finisher. (by the way, he was injured at the time).

I'd have said Zebo. Kearney just doesn't have the pace or the finishing skills.

Sin é wrote:

kunu wrote:

Sin é wrote:
Oh, and I think Kidney was IRB International Coach of the Year in 2009. He is up there with all the great coaches like Henry & Hansen, woodward & White.

 He simply isn't. He won 27, lost 22 during his tenure. He had 1 good season with Ireland, and failed to deliver in every other

Edit : I don't know why I took the bait there. Well played sin.

Here is the list Kunu:

2001: Rod Macqueen ( Australia)
2002: Bernard Laporte ( France)
2003: Clive Woodward ( England)
2004: Jake White ( South Africa)
2005: Graham Henry ( New Zealand)
2006: Graham Henry ( New Zealand)
2007: Jake White ( South Africa)
2008: Graham Henry ( New Zealand)
2009: Declan Kidney ( Ireland)
2010: Graham Henry ( New Zealand)
2011: Graham Henry ( New Zealand)
2012: Steve Hansen ( New Zealand)
2013: Steve Hansen ( New Zealand)
2014: Steve Hansen ( New Zealand)

Hah, I never said he didn't win it. I know he won it. 1 thing I can guarantee is that no one else on that list finished with a 53% international winning record. Kidney is closer to the likes of Martin Johnson (43%) and Andy Robinson (41%) than to Woodward (71%)

kunu wrote:

Sin é wrote:

kunu wrote:

Sin é wrote:
Oh, and I think Kidney was IRB International Coach of the Year in 2009. He is up there with all the great coaches like Henry & Hansen, woodward & White.

 He simply isn't. He won 27, lost 22 during his tenure. He had 1 good season with Ireland, and failed to deliver in every other

Edit : I don't know why I took the bait there. Well played sin.

Here is the list Kunu:

2001: Rod Macqueen ( Australia)
2002: Bernard Laporte ( France)
2003: Clive Woodward ( England)
2004: Jake White ( South Africa)
2005: Graham Henry ( New Zealand)
2006: Graham Henry ( New Zealand)
2007: Jake White ( South Africa)
2008: Graham Henry ( New Zealand)
2009: Declan Kidney ( Ireland)
2010: Graham Henry ( New Zealand)
2011: Graham Henry ( New Zealand)
2012: Steve Hansen ( New Zealand)
2013: Steve Hansen ( New Zealand)
2014: Steve Hansen ( New Zealand)

Hah, I never said he didn't win it. I know he won it. 1 thing I can guarantee is that no one else on that list finished with a 53% international winning record. Kidney is closer to the likes of Martin Johnson (43%) and Andy Robinson (41%) than to Woodward (71%)

It was pretty impressive to actually do better than NZ though, wasn't it? You may have noticed that the only coach to win it since the 2007 world cup is the coach of NZ who have a 95% winning record anyway.

Some achievement for Kidney to do that.

Sin é wrote:Why would you object to Earls? He has pace (which you can't coach) at least and is good at hitting rucks as well and a superb finisher. (by the way, he was injured at the time).

I'd have said Zebo. Kearney just doesn't have the pace or the finishing skills.

The Irish youtuber contingent love to make tribute videos. Looking at Zebo's and Earl's, they're not that impressive. I honestly believe they're both overhyped. Cian Healy's tribute videos are significantly more exciting : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOPBwC0ZITs&spfreload=10

Bit harsh on big D. Kearney's finishing, I'd say it's equal to Zebo's. Zebo is obviously faster, but not by as much as you'd think. Never actually seen Zebo score a scorcher of a try, aside from that one against Racing a few years back, which in itself wasn't amazeballs.

Lol you do try your best Sin but you can't erase the years of failure,the losses to Scotland and Italy,the nilling to NZ.The barely above 50% win record and the embarrassing home record.

His coaching record with Ireland resemble Gavin Hensons playing record,a good start followed by years of mediocrity and failure.

Kunu,

I personally don't use youtube to form my opinions on players, I more tend to watch the games as a whole as people will always pick and choose what points they wish to make for or against players.

On Zebo, personally I feel that he is a much better finisher that Dave Kearney, better under the high ball, hits more rucks, better defensively and much quicker so he would be above Dave Kearney in my books any day.

As for Earls, defo squad member if not even a starter. The myth that he is bad defensively, not committed at rucks, has a bad pass and has no awareness is just that, a myth. If you watch Munster games as much as I do, you would see just how invaluable he is to the team and just how good he is.

Sin é wrote:

kunu wrote:

Sin é wrote:

kunu wrote:

Sin é wrote:
Oh, and I think Kidney was IRB International Coach of the Year in 2009. He is up there with all the great coaches like Henry & Hansen, woodward & White.

 He simply isn't. He won 27, lost 22 during his tenure. He had 1 good season with Ireland, and failed to deliver in every other

Edit : I don't know why I took the bait there. Well played sin.

Here is the list Kunu:

2001: Rod Macqueen ( Australia)
2002: Bernard Laporte ( France)
2003: Clive Woodward ( England)
2004: Jake White ( South Africa)
2005: Graham Henry ( New Zealand)
2006: Graham Henry ( New Zealand)
2007: Jake White ( South Africa)
2008: Graham Henry ( New Zealand)
2009: Declan Kidney ( Ireland)
2010: Graham Henry ( New Zealand)
2011: Graham Henry ( New Zealand)
2012: Steve Hansen ( New Zealand)
2013: Steve Hansen ( New Zealand)
2014: Steve Hansen ( New Zealand)

Hah, I never said he didn't win it. I know he won it. 1 thing I can guarantee is that no one else on that list finished with a 53% international winning record. Kidney is closer to the likes of Martin Johnson (43%) and Andy Robinson (41%) than to Woodward (71%)

It was pretty impressive to actually do better than NZ though, wasn't it? You may have noticed that the only coach to win it since the 2007 world cup is the coach of NZ who have a 95% winning record anyway.

Some achievement for Kidney to do that.

Well we know exactly what he did, he won a Grand Slam, beat SA and Drew with Aus. That was deemed enough to win it in 2009. Obviously influenced by the IRB being located in Dublin, and seeing all the hullabaloo at the time. Also I'm sure they felt sorry for shafting Drico in the player category, and thought they'd throw us a bone. In all seriousness I'm happy he won it in 2009 because he had a good year. I don't dispute that. 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 were below par though.

Had a quick check on the42 and was wrong earlier, Kidney finished with a 51% winning record.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:Kunu,

I personally don't use youtube to form my opinions on players, I more tend to watch the games as a whole as people will always pick and choose what points they wish to make for or against players.

On Zebo, personally I feel that he is a much better finisher that Dave Kearney, better under the high ball, hits more rucks, better defensively and much quicker so he would be above Dave Kearney in my books any day.

As for Earls, defo squad member if not even a starter. The myth that he is bad defensively, not committed at rucks, has a bad pass and has no awareness is just that, a myth. If you watch Munster games as much as I do, you would see just how invaluable he is to the team and just how good he is.

A Leinster fan could say the same thing about Kearney.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:What I am yet to see, is Ireland being able to successfully change tactics during a match. Top sides can do this.

Seriously? For me, changing tactics during the match is something of a hallmark of this side. Even in the Scotland game there was a very clear and obvious change in tactics once we passed Wales on points difference.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:Kunu,

I personally don't use youtube to form my opinions on players, I more tend to watch the games as a whole as people will always pick and choose what points they wish to make for or against players.

On Zebo, personally I feel that he is a much better finisher that Dave Kearney, better under the high ball, hits more rucks, better defensively and much quicker so he would be above Dave Kearney in my books any day.

As for Earls, defo squad member if not even a starter. The myth that he is bad defensively, not committed at rucks, has a bad pass and has no awareness is just that, a myth. If you watch Munster games as much as I do, you would see just how invaluable he is to the team and just how good he is.

A Leinster fan could say the same thing about Kearney.

So you believe Dave Kearney to be better than Zebo?

Notch wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:What I am yet to see, is Ireland being able to successfully change tactics during a match. Top sides can do this.

Seriously? For me, changing tactics during the match is something of a hallmark of this side. Even in the Scotland game there was a very clear and obvious change in tactics once we passed Wales on points difference.

Yes I am serious, I see him as defining one tactic per match. When it didn't work against Wales, he tried to change but Ireland looked very rusty in attack.

Against Scotland, the tactic was to go for the win and get as many points as possible. That game was a great spectacle for controlled attack. Didn't really notice a change in tactics during the match myself...

The time when Ireland needed to effectively change tactics mid game was against Wales...

kunu wrote:

Sin é wrote:Why would you object to Earls? He has pace (which you can't coach) at least and is good at hitting rucks as well and a superb finisher. (by the way, he was injured at the time).

I'd have said Zebo. Kearney just doesn't have the pace or the finishing skills.

The Irish youtuber contingent love to make tribute videos. Looking at Zebo's and Earl's, they're not that impressive. I honestly believe they're both overhyped. Cian Healy's tribute videos are significantly more exciting : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOPBwC0ZITs&spfreload=10

Bit harsh on big D. Kearney's finishing, I'd say it's equal to Zebo's. Zebo is obviously faster, but not by as much as you'd think. Never actually seen Zebo score a scorcher of a try, aside from that one against Racing a few years back, which in itself wasn't amazeballs.

I'll go on his scoring stats. This season in Pro12
Zebo has 6 in 9 games. (0.66)
Earls has 3 in 6 games. (0.5)
D Kearney has 2 in 11 games.(0.18)
Bowe has 3 in 7 (0.42)
Trimble has 4 in 6 (0.66)
Gilroy has 9 in 15 (0.6)

Dave Kearney is way below average of his try scoring. Even Earls who has been playing mostly in the centre is doing better than he is at the moment.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:Kunu,

I personally don't use youtube to form my opinions on players, I more tend to watch the games as a whole as people will always pick and choose what points they wish to make for or against players.

On Zebo, personally I feel that he is a much better finisher that Dave Kearney, better under the high ball, hits more rucks, better defensively and much quicker so he would be above Dave Kearney in my books any day.

As for Earls, defo squad member if not even a starter. The myth that he is bad defensively, not committed at rucks, has a bad pass and has no awareness is just that, a myth. If you watch Munster games as much as I do, you would see just how invaluable he is to the team and just how good he is.

A Leinster fan could say the same thing about Kearney.

So you believe Dave Kearney to be better than Zebo?

Nope but I believe it's far closer than you obviously do.Last season I felt Zebo was the better option than Kearney and it was one of the few selections I disagreed with Schmidt on.This year I feel Zebo is a better player than he was last year yet he still didn't add a lot to the side that Kearney wouldn't have imo.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:Kunu,

I personally don't use youtube to form my opinions on players, I more tend to watch the games as a whole as people will always pick and choose what points they wish to make for or against players.

On Zebo, personally I feel that he is a much better finisher that Dave Kearney, better under the high ball, hits more rucks, better defensively and much quicker so he would be above Dave Kearney in my books any day.

As for Earls, defo squad member if not even a starter. The myth that he is bad defensively, not committed at rucks, has a bad pass and has no awareness is just that, a myth. If you watch Munster games as much as I do, you would see just how invaluable he is to the team and just how good he is.

A Leinster fan could say the same thing about Kearney.

Dave Kearney is the Leinster version of Ian Dowling (who I wouldn't have selected to play for Ireland).

Is Earls the equivalent of Simpson-Daniel?

asoreleftshoulder wrote:



Nope but I believe it's far closer than you obviously do.Last season I felt Zebo was the better option than Kearney and  it was one of the few selections I disagreed with Schmidt on.This year I feel Zebo is a better player than he was last year yet he still didn't add a lot to the side that Kearney wouldn't have imo.

I don't think that it is close at all.

To compare the two over two seasons is unfair in my opinion.

Last year, Ireland were playing a far more expansive game than this year but Dave Kearney was unable to unlock defenses. Zebo, would have unlocked the defenses playing in a team set up for more expansive rugby.

This year, yes Zebo was quiet but that is down to the less expansive approach that negated his natural attacking style. So yes, even Dave Kearney would have done pretty much the same as Zebo given the same gameplan.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:Kunu,

I personally don't use youtube to form my opinions on players, I more tend to watch the games as a whole as people will always pick and choose what points they wish to make for or against players.

On Zebo, personally I feel that he is a much better finisher that Dave Kearney, better under the high ball, hits more rucks, better defensively and much quicker so he would be above Dave Kearney in my books any day.

As for Earls, defo squad member if not even a starter. The myth that he is bad defensively, not committed at rucks, has a bad pass and has no awareness is just that, a myth. If you watch Munster games as much as I do, you would see just how invaluable he is to the team and just how good he is.

A Leinster fan could say the same thing about Kearney.

So you believe Dave Kearney to be better than Zebo?

Nope but I believe it's far closer than you obviously do.Last season I felt Zebo was the better option than Kearney and  it was one of the few selections I disagreed with Schmidt on.This year I feel Zebo is a better player than he was last year yet he still didn't add a lot to the side that Kearney wouldn't have imo.

Zebo was too busy hitting rucks which is all Joe wants his backs to do (when they are not kicking and chasing). Zebo had a great game against England.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:Kunu,

I personally don't use youtube to form my opinions on players, I more tend to watch the games as a whole as people will always pick and choose what points they wish to make for or against players.

On Zebo, personally I feel that he is a much better finisher that Dave Kearney, better under the high ball, hits more rucks, better defensively and much quicker so he would be above Dave Kearney in my books any day.

As for Earls, defo squad member if not even a starter. The myth that he is bad defensively, not committed at rucks, has a bad pass and has no awareness is just that, a myth. If you watch Munster games as much as I do, you would see just how invaluable he is to the team and just how good he is.

Regarding Youtube Nachos, I think its a great way to present evidence backing up an opinion. I have never said I don't watch matches, I watch more than a person with a decent social life would care to admit! Nor have I said I form my opinions on players using youtube. I watch games, form opinions and if I find a clip backing up my opinion, I'll post it! Why not?

Of course videos are a good way to highlight a facet of a player you're trying to discuss. It brings at least some solid evidence to what is otherwise pure speculation. You're free to dispute what videos show, but I wouldn't dispute the videos themselves, they're worthwhile. They're footage of the games we watch after all.

I'm not going to have the Earls discussion as its pointless, had it ad nauseam with Sin and DOD a couple of weeks back.
Dave Kearney is a good finisher if nothing else. That was all I was trying to convey to Sin. I'll concede that Zebo is better than Kearney at most things, but considering how badly Kearney is rated here, that doesn't mean much haha!

I suppose the point I was getting to over my last few posts is this - Zebo isn't the attacking dynamo some people think he is, and I don't believe Earls is either. I think the margins between our international backs are pretty small to be honest, and that none of them are world beaters - luckily we have a world beating coach!

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Is Earls the equivalent of Simpson-Daniel?

In what way?

Kunu,

My choice of words may have been poor, my apologies. I never intended to say that you only form your opinions based on YouTube video's. I was only saying that I don't use them myself as I feel the video's are generally too short and only highlight what an individual wishes others to see.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:



Nope but I believe it's far closer than you obviously do.Last season I felt Zebo was the better option than Kearney and  it was one of the few selections I disagreed with Schmidt on.This year I feel Zebo is a better player than he was last year yet he still didn't add a lot to the side that Kearney wouldn't have imo.

I don't think that it is close at all.

To compare the two over two seasons is unfair in my opinion.

Last year, Ireland were playing a far more expansive game than this year but Dave Kearney was unable to unlock defenses. Zebo, would have unlocked the defenses playing in a team set up for more expansive rugby.

This year, yes Zebo was quiet but that is down to the less expansive approach that negated his natural attacking style. So yes, even Dave Kearney would have done pretty much the same as Zebo given the same gameplan.

Of course you don't that's my point.You say that because you watch Munster a lot that you know how invaluable Earls is to the team and just how good he is.Yet you can't understand that someone who watches Leinster a lot can know something similar about Kearney.

Can't you see the double standard in that?

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:



Nope but I believe it's far closer than you obviously do.Last season I felt Zebo was the better option than Kearney and  it was one of the few selections I disagreed with Schmidt on.This year I feel Zebo is a better player than he was last year yet he still didn't add a lot to the side that Kearney wouldn't have imo.

I don't think that it is close at all.

To compare the two over two seasons is unfair in my opinion.

Last year, Ireland were playing a far more expansive game than this year but Dave Kearney was unable to unlock defenses. Zebo, would have unlocked the defenses playing in a team set up for more expansive rugby.

This year, yes Zebo was quiet but that is down to the less expansive approach that negated his natural attacking style. So yes, even Dave Kearney would have done pretty much the same as Zebo given the same gameplan.

Of course you don't that's my point.You say that because you watch Munster a lot that you know how invaluable Earls is to the team and just how good he is.Yet you can't understand that someone who watches Leinster a lot can know something similar about Kearney.

Can't you see the double standard in that?

He maybe invaluable to Leinster (like Ian Dowling was to Munster and who received a lot of abuse from Leinster fans). That doesn't mean that Kearney is an international standard wing.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:Kunu,

My choice of words may have been poor, my apologies. I never intended to say that you only form your opinions based on YouTube video's. I was only saying that I don't use them myself as I feel the video's are generally too short and only highlight what an individual wishes others to see.

Cool beans Nachos. I know what you mean. I just think its a good way to review a player's highs and lows. Its mad that we can scrutinise players so much from the comfort of our own couches. The future is now!

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:



Nope but I believe it's far closer than you obviously do.Last season I felt Zebo was the better option than Kearney and  it was one of the few selections I disagreed with Schmidt on.This year I feel Zebo is a better player than he was last year yet he still didn't add a lot to the side that Kearney wouldn't have imo.

I don't think that it is close at all.

To compare the two over two seasons is unfair in my opinion.

Last year, Ireland were playing a far more expansive game than this year but Dave Kearney was unable to unlock defenses. Zebo, would have unlocked the defenses playing in a team set up for more expansive rugby.

This year, yes Zebo was quiet but that is down to the less expansive approach that negated his natural attacking style. So yes, even Dave Kearney would have done pretty much the same as Zebo given the same gameplan.

Of course you don't that's my point.You say that because you watch Munster a lot that you know how invaluable Earls is to the team and just how good he is.Yet you can't understand that someone who watches Leinster a lot can know something similar about Kearney.

Can't you see the double standard in that?

Aside from the fact that I watch Leinster as well and have formed my opinion based on that?

I have also explained my reasons and thoughts behind them...

kunu wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:Kunu,

My choice of words may have been poor, my apologies. I never intended to say that you only form your opinions based on YouTube video's. I was only saying that I don't use them myself as I feel the video's are generally too short and only highlight what an individual wishes others to see.

Cool beans Nachos. I know what you mean. I just think its a good way to review a player's highs and lows. Its mad that we can scrutinise players so much from the comfort of our own couches. The future is now!

Its a great time for sure, without the internet, I would probably miss half the games being played.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

Notch wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:What I am yet to see, is Ireland being able to successfully change tactics during a match. Top sides can do this.

Seriously? For me, changing tactics during the match is something of a hallmark of this side. Even in the Scotland game there was a very clear and obvious change in tactics once we passed Wales on points difference.

Yes I am serious, I see him as defining one tactic per match. When it didn't work against Wales, he tried to change but Ireland looked very rusty in attack.

Against Scotland, the tactic was to go for the win and get as many points as possible. That game was a great spectacle for controlled attack. Didn't really notice a change in tactics during the match myself...

The time when Ireland needed to effectively change tactics mid game was against Wales...

You didn't notice that after we got over a 21 point margin we switched to a very focused territorial kicking game into the corners? It was very obvious... if you're not picking up on that, I'm not sure how much value to place in your analysis.

I feel responsible for the bi-weekly Earls/Kearney standoff. Apologies, although this is the thread to air it.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

Aside from the fact that I watch Leinster as well and have formed my opinion based on that?

I have also explained my reasons and thoughts behind them...

Yes but you've claimed that because you watch a lot of Munster you know how good Earls is,are you just assuming that the people criticising him haven't watched Munster.

Notch wrote:

You didn't notice that after we got over a 21 point margin we switched to a very focused territorial kicking game into the corners? It was very obvious... if you're not picking up on that, I'm not sure how much value to place in your analysis.

One of the most satisfying parts of the game for me. For a second, the game had made me forget about our kicking strategy, and once we got over the margin our 9/10 reverted to a style which basically made it impossible for Scotland to do anything productive. Really professional stuff & great to see all the practise paying off

kunu wrote:I feel responsible for the bi-weekly Earls/Kearney standoff. Apologies, although this is the thread to air it.

Earls isn't seen as a winger by Schmidt - he is too small for the game Schmidt wants to play.

Notch wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

Notch wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:What I am yet to see, is Ireland being able to successfully change tactics during a match. Top sides can do this.

Seriously? For me, changing tactics during the match is something of a hallmark of this side. Even in the Scotland game there was a very clear and obvious change in tactics once we passed Wales on points difference.

Yes I am serious, I see him as defining one tactic per match. When it didn't work against Wales, he tried to change but Ireland looked very rusty in attack.

Against Scotland, the tactic was to go for the win and get as many points as possible. That game was a great spectacle for controlled attack. Didn't really notice a change in tactics during the match myself...

The time when Ireland needed to effectively change tactics mid game was against Wales...

You didn't notice that after we got over a 21 point margin we switched to a very focused territorial kicking game into the corners? It was very obvious... if you're not picking up on that, I'm not sure how much value to place in your analysis.

Did you read what I wrote? I said in was a spectacular display of controlled attack. Controlled attack means playing with pace, expansive rugby and pinning a team back in their own 22 to apply continued pressure on them. Really didn't think I would ever have to explain that to a fellow rugby fan...

Yeah, and the tactics changed midway through the game. There was no pinning them back until we passed the points differential needed to better Wales. After, its something we did whenever possible. You can call them two different varieties of controlled attack if you like, but there was clearly Plan A and Plan B and the change between the two midway through the game. I'm slightly baffled you'd disagree.

Sin é wrote:

kunu wrote:I feel responsible for the bi-weekly Earls/Kearney standoff. Apologies, although this is the thread to air it.

Earls isn't seen as a winger by Schmidt - he is too small for the game Schmidt wants to play.

I agree, I've made that point myself on past threads.

Notch, I will say again even though you will accuse me of repeating myself again.

The tactics in that match were to get a win and win by a margin. 1 tactic, not two. Part of that tactic was pinning Scotland back as much as possible. If you want to see that as two different tactics then fine, I wont stoop to saying that I do not value your analysis, I just see that as one tactic for the match.

Wales however, showed clearly that Schmidt was underprepared for the fact that Ireland may go behind and be in need of chasing a game. When attempting to change the tactics, Ireland looked rusty as they were not prepared for such a gameplan.

France and England, only one tactic was used as well in my opinion, although some will say that Ireland changed tactics and chose to sit back and defend their lead once they had it.

Notch wrote:Yeah, and the tactics changed midway through the game. There was no pinning them back until we passed the points differential needed to better Wales. After, its something we did whenever possible. You can call them two different varieties of controlled attack if you like, but there was clearly Plan A and Plan B and the change between the two midway through the game. I'm slightly baffled you'd disagree.

Ronan O'Gara used regularly change 'the gameplan', depending on how his pack was going. That was never regarded as a plan A or B. It was just something an out half/scrumhalf would do when playing heads up rugby. POC said that you never had to tell ROG to do anything - he just went and did the right thing. I'd be very disappointed to hear that Sexton would not have the same leeway.

But... it was such an obvious change...

kunu wrote:

Sin é wrote:

kunu wrote:I feel responsible for the bi-weekly Earls/Kearney standoff. Apologies, although this is the thread to air it.

Earls isn't seen as a winger by Schmidt - he is too small for the game Schmidt wants to play.

I agree, I've made that point myself on past threads.  

Well, then, why are you banging on about an Earls/Kearney standoff? Its Zebo v Kearney.

Sin é wrote:Ronan O'Gara used regularly change 'the gameplan', depending on how his pack was going. That was never regarded as a plan A or B. It was just something an out half/scrumhalf would do when playing heads up rugby. POC said that you never had to tell ROG to do anything - he just went and did the right thing. I'd be very disappointed to hear that Sexton would not have the same leeway.

Well, now you're in a quandary because you either have to give credit to Sexton for changing it or Schmidt for the tactics. Can't wait to see which bitter spill you swallow. My money is on option c, it was down to Paul O'Connell

Sin é wrote:

kunu wrote:

Sin é wrote:

kunu wrote:I feel responsible for the bi-weekly Earls/Kearney standoff. Apologies, although this is the thread to air it.

Earls isn't seen as a winger by Schmidt - he is too small for the game Schmidt wants to play.

I agree, I've made that point myself on past threads.  

Well, then, why are you banging on about an Earls/Kearney standoff? Its Zebo v Kearney.

Earls and Kearney are the buzz words really. No two other names ignite such debate on these threads. I think if you'll recall, our 'Earls not being physical enough for international rugby' discussion was honed on myself stating he was not only not big enough to be a winger, but a 13 also.

Sin é wrote:

Notch wrote:Yeah, and the tactics changed midway through the game. There was no pinning them back until we passed the points differential needed to better Wales. After, its something we did whenever possible. You can call them two different varieties of controlled attack if you like, but there was clearly Plan A and Plan B and the change between the two midway through the game. I'm slightly baffled you'd disagree.

Ronan O'Gara used regularly change 'the gameplan', depending on how his pack was going. That was never regarded as a plan A or B. It was just something an out half/scrumhalf would do when playing heads up rugby. POC said that you never had to tell ROG to do anything - he just went and did the right thing. I'd be very disappointed to hear that Sexton would not have the same leeway.

It wasn't just 10, but Murray was also kicking to touch just as often, with Chasers (Bowe) providing the option for a chip and chase if they fancied it. That's the difference between Kidney's 51% coaching and Schmidt's masterful professionalism! Everyone on the same page, with the same goal, at all times.

Notch wrote:

Sin é wrote:Ronan O'Gara used regularly change 'the gameplan', depending on how his pack was going. That was never regarded as a plan A or B. It was just something an out half/scrumhalf would do when playing heads up rugby. POC said that you never had to tell ROG to do anything - he just went and did the right thing. I'd be very disappointed to hear that Sexton would not have the same leeway.

Well, now you're in a quandary because you either have to give credit to Sexton for changing it or Schmidt for the tactics. Can't wait to see which bitter spill you swallow. My money is on option c, it was down to Paul O'Connell

No, I don't see any quandary. I posted earlier that Sexton has improved a lot (at international Level) since he has moved to France - in particular his game management.

I just don't see where there was a change when playing against Scotland. Its not unusual to play territory towards the end of a game.

kunu wrote:

Sin é wrote:

kunu wrote:

Sin é wrote:

kunu wrote:I feel responsible for the bi-weekly Earls/Kearney standoff. Apologies, although this is the thread to air it.

Earls isn't seen as a winger by Schmidt - he is too small for the game Schmidt wants to play.

I agree, I've made that point myself on past threads.  

Well, then, why are you banging on about an Earls/Kearney standoff? Its Zebo v Kearney.

Earls and Kearney are the buzz words really. No two other names ignite such debate on these threads. I think if you'll recall, our 'Earls not being physical enough for international rugby' discussion was honed on myself stating he was not only not big enough to be a winger, but a 13 also.

Too small = too short (he is about 5'10/11'') for Joe's kick and chase game. There is nothing wrong with his physicality though or his bravery going for high balls - just a 6'4'' wing has a couple of inches on him. Brian Habana wouldn't get into a Joe team as he too, would be too short. Joe is like Gats Lite in this respect - he wants all his backs to be like back rows.

kunu wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Notch wrote:Yeah, and the tactics changed midway through the game. There was no pinning them back until we passed the points differential needed to better Wales. After, its something we did whenever possible. You can call them two different varieties of controlled attack if you like, but there was clearly Plan A and Plan B and the change between the two midway through the game. I'm slightly baffled you'd disagree.

Ronan O'Gara used regularly change 'the gameplan', depending on how his pack was going. That was never regarded as a plan A or B. It was just something an out half/scrumhalf would do when playing heads up rugby. POC said that you never had to tell ROG to do anything - he just went and did the right thing. I'd be very disappointed to hear that Sexton would not have the same leeway.

It wasn't just 10, but Murray was also kicking to touch just as often, with Chasers (Bowe) providing the option for a chip and chase if they fancied it. That's the difference between Kidney's 51% coaching and Schmidt's masterful professionalism! Everyone on the same page, with the same goal, at all times.

Sexton's technical skill has improved a lot in the last two years (ROG is teaching him how to do spirals). Murray's kicking is just getting better and better (which can happen to a young player).

Sin é wrote:

Sexton's technical skill has improved a lot in the last two years (ROG is teaching him how to do spirals). Murray's kicking is just getting better and better (which can happen to a young player).

I will say it until I am blue in the face but ROG is going to be one hell of a coach. The work that he has put into Sexton is paying off very well. Many dislike the man but I honestly feel that he was one of the most intelligent players to play the game.

Since he has stopped playing, he has become very popular!

As a Munsterman, I may be somewhat biased towards ROG

That said, you are right, people are seeing him in a different light, now starting to see just how clever the man is.

Sexton will be a MUCH better coach than ROG ever will be!