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'm not sure it's a sudden revelation that ROG is clever. He was lippy in the past, and had a knack of annoying people. Since retiring from playing he admits to being lippy in the past, and has said that was all part of his game. The revelation for some is that he is a genuinely sound guy. Sound, and a very funny guy when he wants to be.

FecklessRogue wrote:Sexton will be a MUCH better coach than ROG ever will be!

凸 (｀0´)凸

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.

His pass to Zebo for the try at the weekend wasn't exactly the stuff of dreams, great finish by Zebo though, and Earls very strong rest of the game. Frankly I don't think himself or D. Kearney are high up the list. Everyone being fit for me it would be Trimble, Bowe, Zebo and Fitzgerald.

That wasn't Earls who passed to Zebo. It was Hurley.

Earls created and passed to Denis Hurley for his try under the post (kick, chase, compete, reclaim, draw defenders, pass to Hurley - all from Munster's 22).

Sin é wrote:That wasn't Earls who passed to Zebo. It was Hurley.

Earls created and passed to Denis Hurley for his try under the post (kick, chase, compete, reclaim, draw defenders, pass to Hurley - all from Munster's 22).

Right your are Sin, my mistake. Like I said thought he had a very strong game at the weekend. Maybe he is the man you want coming on against tired legs for Ireland?

Marshes wrote:

Sin é wrote:That wasn't Earls who passed to Zebo. It was Hurley.

Earls created and passed to Denis Hurley for his try under the post (kick, chase, compete, reclaim, draw defenders, pass to Hurley - all from Munster's 22).

Right your are Sin, my mistake. Like I said thought he had a very strong game at the weekend. Maybe he is the man you want coming on against tired legs for Ireland?

He is the man you want if you want to put it through the hands or to beat a man. He has a very good kicking game as well (grubbers and kick over the defenders to reclaim rather than garryown into the clouds and compete for the ball then). He is the only back in Ireland who can do that well, now that BOD has retired.

Didn't he also spill an uncontested high ball for Connachts first try?  

Golden wrote:Didn't he also spill an uncontested high ball for Connachts first try?  

The ball was contested (as in the Connacht winger tackled him when he got out and the ball went flying). That would have been ok except Felix Jones took kind of crashed out and the ball bouncing nicely for Connacht to run in a try.

However, I did say that Earls isn't tall enough to play Joe's high ball game on the wings.

Sin é wrote:

Golden wrote:Didn't he also spill an uncontested high ball for Connachts first try?  

The ball was contested (as in the Connacht winger tackled him when he got out and the ball went flying). That would have been ok except Felix Jones took kind of crashed out and the ball bouncing nicely for Connacht to run in a try.

However, I did say that Earls isn't tall enough to play Joe's high ball game on the wings.

Thats not true Sin, he dropped it before the Connacht player touched him. Happens to everyone though. I was wonderng could you give me a rundown of what you see as Earl's shortcoming in the role as winger or centre, aside from height, if you don't think the "myths" about him apply?

Marshes wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Golden wrote:Didn't he also spill an uncontested high ball for Connachts first try?  

The ball was contested (as in the Connacht winger tackled him when he got out and the ball went flying). That would have been ok except Felix Jones took kind of crashed out and the ball bouncing nicely for Connacht to run in a try.

However, I did say that Earls isn't tall enough to play Joe's high ball game on the wings.

Thats not true Sin, he dropped it before the Connacht player touched him. Happens to everyone though. I was wonderng could you give me a rundown of what you see as Earl's shortcoming in the role as winger or centre, aside from height, if you don't think the "myths" about him apply?

I think he has a very good all round game - I can't see any major weaknesses (other than his height means he isn't going to compete in the air with 6'3''/4'' wingers). Thats why I think he is better off in the centre.

3 tries and 2 assistants in his last 5 and a half games.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

profitius wrote:You can't throw the 60-0 at Kidney or any coach. They players have to take responsibility for that.

Does that work both ways,how about the Grand Slam do the players get full credit for that?

Kidney won a grandslam with Ireland. Something many coaches have failed to do. He won heineken cups with Munster. Those 2 achievements have been crucial to Irish rugby even more so than people think. This generation believe they can win things, the older generation grew up in a time when Ireland and the provinces were never winning so they had that mental baggage. Kidney greatly helped to transform Irish rugby and was probably the most important man (coach definitely) from the amateur era to 2010.

I thought Kidney came up short tactically on some occasions, like the 2011 world cup loss to Wales and a few other matches against Wales and England but overall he didn't do too badly up until his last season.

Kidney like Schmidt had some quality players to work with although not as many options as Schmidt has. Even so Schmidt is tactically a better coach and right for Ireland now. Kidney was right for Ireland at the time which he proved by winning the grand slam. Thats something EOS could not do.

Well, if we're still digging over the past because we have no new international rugby to discuss until a rather tame friendly with the Barbarians rolls around, is Kidney was successful when he stuck to a very simple, very well executed game plan. Actually probably an even simpler game plan than the tactics employed so far by Schmidt in certain games, where he has been criticised for being conservative. Players knew what they were doing, they knew their roles, and of course we had some really big personalities on the field that could take tight games by the scruff of the neck which was hugely helpful.

He reached his limitations as a coach when he tried to move beyond that blueprint and I think somewhere along the road there was a loss of confidence in the group. That was the main factor in his early success for me, restoring the confidence of the group. Once he lost the confidence of the players it was over, and that came about because players lost clarity over what exactly their roles where and how exactly they fitted into the team and precisely what was expected of them. I think that the way we were trying to play became less and less clear as time went on.

I think the secret of Schmidts success is that he gives players exactly what Kidney had at the start and lost at the end. Clarity over their roles. Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, I think removing that room for doubt and any grey areas in what should happen on the pitch is inherently helpful for the mindset of our players. I absolutely think they thrive on clarity more than they feel free to express themselves in it's absence. I think the higher the level of detail, the more confidence it seems to breed.

I just don't get why the Kidney critics won't for a second accept that horendous injuries (due to probably playing too much in the world cup year) had a lot to do with why his tenure as national coach ended ... that and BOD was mad for revenge.

I think some of those injuries had to do with the way Ireland where playing at the time. Lads like Stephen Ferris, DOC and POC, and SOB (although some also being used in this way by their clubs) were being used to make minimal gain ground around the fringes by carrying straight into impact. The crashball gameplan I think took a massive toll on the body. I had a slight worry things could go the same way under Schmidt but I think we saw some of the variety there against Scotland in the second half against Wales which shows that can change.

I don't think you can blame that on the tactics. Players like David Wallace (knee injury from a heavy tackle from manu Tualagi while he was blasting off down the wing), DOC & Heaslip have had relatively injury free careers.

Its the way some players play - some just like the big collisions.

Sin é wrote:

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

In what way?

Both are players that I loved to watch playing the game. At Gloucester, JSD has a great club reputation and amazing potential but he never seemed to get his fair shake in an England team. I worry that Earls could drift into the 'could have been' players.

Both Earls and Luke could have been the stalwarts in the Irish backfield for the last 5 seasons (and even the next 3-4!) unfortunately injury, selection opportunities has put a dampner on all that.

Sin é wrote:I just don't get why the Kidney critics won't for a second accept that horendous injuries (due to probably playing too much in the world cup year) had a lot to do with why his tenure as national coach ended ... that and BOD was mad for revenge.

Here's some insight.

Declan Kidney

2008- Won 2, Lost 1 (66.6%)
2009- Won 9, drawn 1 (95%)- 6N Grand Slam
2010- Won 5, Lost 6 (45%)
2011- Won 7, Lost 7 (50%)
2012- Won 3, Lost 6, Drawn 1 (35%)
2013- Won 1, Lost 3, Drawn 1 (30%)

Overall; Won 27, Lost 23, Drawn 3 (53.77%)

I liked Kidney. He always seemed like a decent man, albeit one in the wrong job. I slightly resent being labelled as a critic of his for pointing this out. Once you take bias out of the equation, take all the conspiracy theories, even the injury list he was cursed with in his last year in the job... that is a team that was getting worse every year. No coach in world rugby could survive a decline like that.  Coaches who get by with teams with worse records than him inherited teams with equally poor records.

Here's some insight into why people like Schmidt

Joe Schmidt

2013- Won 1, Lost 2 (33%)
2014- Won 9, Lost 1 (90%)- 6N Championship
2015- Won 4, Lost 1 (80%)- 6N Championship

Overall- Won 14, Lost 4 (77.77%)

If that win ratio falls to the level it was in 2012 or 2013 Schmidt will be viewed in exactly the same way as his predecessor. The slaps on the back will turn into boots up the arse. That's sport.

Notch wrote:

I liked Kidney. He always seemed like a decent man, albeit one in the wrong job. I slightly resent being labelled as a critic of his for pointing this out.

Yet you have no issues labeling others as critics for having an opinion on Schmidt's tactics...

profitius wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

profitius wrote:You can't throw the 60-0 at Kidney or any coach. They players have to take responsibility for that.

Does that work both ways,how about the Grand Slam do the players get full credit for that?

Kidney won a grandslam with Ireland. Something many coaches have failed to do. He won heineken cups with Munster. Those 2 achievements have been crucial to Irish rugby even more so than people think. This generation believe they can win things, the older generation grew up in a time when Ireland and the provinces were never winning so they had that mental baggage. Kidney greatly helped to transform Irish rugby and was probably the most important man (coach definitely) from the amateur era to 2010.

I thought Kidney came up short tactically on some occasions, like the 2011 world cup loss to Wales and a few other matches against Wales and England but overall he didn't do too badly up until his last season.

Kidney like Schmidt had some quality players to work with although not as many options as Schmidt has. Even so Schmidt is tactically a better coach and right for Ireland now. Kidney was right for Ireland at the time which he proved by winning the grand slam. Thats something EOS could not do.

Well said Profitius, Under Kidney, Munster and Ireland started to have faith in themselves. This soon spread to Leinster who, lets face it, were amazing in their play and in winning the HC. Ulster also started to believe in themselves again. Not much credit is actually given to him for that.

Notch wrote:

Sin é wrote:I just don't get why the Kidney critics won't for a second accept that horendous injuries (due to probably playing too much in the world cup year) had a lot to do with why his tenure as national coach ended ... that and BOD was mad for revenge.

Here's some insight.

Declan Kidney

2008- Won 2, Lost 1 (66.6%)
2009- Won 9, drawn 1 (95%)- 6N Grand Slam
2010- Won 5, Lost 6 (45%)
2011- Won 7, Lost 7 (50%)
2012- Won 3, Lost 6, Drawn 1 (35%)
2013- Won 1, Lost 3, Drawn 1 (30%)

Overall; Won 27, Lost 23, Drawn 3 (53.77%)

I liked Kidney. He always seemed like a decent man, albeit one in the wrong job. I slightly resent being labelled as a critic of his for pointing this out. Once you take bias out of the equation, take all the conspiracy theories, even the injury list he was cursed with in his last year in the job... that is a team that was getting worse every year. No coach in world rugby could survive a decline like that.  Coaches who get by with teams with worse records than him inherited teams with equally poor records.

Here's some insight into why people like Schmidt

Joe Schmidt

2013- Won 1, Lost 2 (33%)
2014- Won 9, Lost 1 (90%)- 6N Championship
2015- Won 4, Lost 1 (80%)- 6N Championship

Overall- Won 14, Lost 4 (77.77%)

If that win ratio falls to the level it was in 2012 or 2013 Schmidt will be viewed in exactly the same way as his predecessor. The slaps on the back will turn into boots up the arse. That's sport.

Not sure why you keep stating the obvious. You still can't accept that there was a horendous injury problem (not to mention a lot of new players capped for the first time). Some found it harder than others acclimatising.

As for being in the wrong job, he built Munster up from nothing to be a world renowned side and you think he was in the wrong job, winning two Heineken Cups, winning a GS with Ireland and beating every SH team bar NZ while he was in charge

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

Notch wrote:

I liked Kidney. He always seemed like a decent man, albeit one in the wrong job. I slightly resent being labelled as a critic of his for pointing this out.

Yet you have no issues labeling others as critics for having an opinion on Schmidt's tactics...

At the risk of further feeding your persecution complex, I don't think I've ever labeled you as anything to be honest. Other than repetitive. I think you've made some criticisms that are either unreasonably harsh, or demonstrate a genuine lack of insight and I've pointed that out.

I've got no problems with valid criticisms of any coach based on informed and knowledgable opinions of the game. If I think criticism of Schmidt is harsh it's because of his record and our recent success. I would have said similar in 2009 about Kidney.

Sin é wrote:You still can't accept that there was a horendous injury problem (not to mention a lot of new players capped for the first time). Some found it harder than others acclimatising.

As for being in the wrong job, he built Munster up from nothing to be a world renowned side and you think he was in the wrong job, winning two Heineken Cups, winning a GS with Ireland and beating every SH team bar NZ while he was in charge

Yeah, there was a severe injury problem but it didn't last for three or four years. It was in his last five games, a point in which he was already on his last chance. If it was the case it was all down to injuries you would be looking at a blip, a temporary dip in form, not the continuation of a trend over a long period of time. From 2010 he never had a better winning ratio than 50%. He was definitely in the wrong job from a Ireland point of view- even good coaches can reach the limits of their abilities and there is no shame in that. It's not easy.

I don't see how you can look at his stats as Ireland boss and come to the conclusion that he was in the right job, but hey ho, each to his own.

Notch wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

Notch wrote:

I liked Kidney. He always seemed like a decent man, albeit one in the wrong job. I slightly resent being labelled as a critic of his for pointing this out.

Yet you have no issues labeling others as critics for having an opinion on Schmidt's tactics...

At the risk of further feeding your persecution complex, I don't think I've ever labeled you as anything to be honest. Other than repetitive. I think you've made some criticisms that are either unreasonably harsh, or demonstrate a genuine lack of insight and I've pointed that out.

I've got no problems with valid criticisms of any coach based on informed and knowledgable opinions of the game. If I think criticism of Schmidt is harsh it's because of his record and our recent success. I would have said similar in 2009 about Kidney.

Well you did label me a critic for what I have said about Schmidt, some of my points have been genuine and others have agreed with me. As for insinuating that I have a lack of insight? That is truly pathetic thing to say. If you do not agree with what I have to say or the points I make then fine, counter them in an adult manner. I don't agree with yours but never would I say you have a lack of insight.

Really don't feel the need to engage you in debates anymore.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

Notch wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

Notch wrote:

I liked Kidney. He always seemed like a decent man, albeit one in the wrong job. I slightly resent being labelled as a critic of his for pointing this out.

Yet you have no issues labeling others as critics for having an opinion on Schmidt's tactics...

At the risk of further feeding your persecution complex, I don't think I've ever labeled you as anything to be honest. Other than repetitive. I think you've made some criticisms that are either unreasonably harsh, or demonstrate a genuine lack of insight and I've pointed that out.

I've got no problems with valid criticisms of any coach based on informed and knowledgable opinions of the game. If I think criticism of Schmidt is harsh it's because of his record and our recent success. I would have said similar in 2009 about Kidney.

Well you did label me a critic for what I have said about Schmidt, some of my points have been genuine and others have agreed with me. As for insinuating that I have a lack of insight? That is truly pathetic thing to say. If you do not agree with what I have to say or the points I make then fine, counter them in an adult manner. I don't agree with yours but never would I say you have a lack of insight.

Really don't feel the need to engage you in debates anymore.

Well, look- it was pointed out to you that Ireland did change tactics against Scotland, very successfully, and you said you didn't see it and you disagreed. I don't think that's something that is really debatable. It's not something which some people will say they did, some will say they didn't, who knows who is right. A lot of things are subjective, but that isn't subjective. That is something that is very obvious and I'm certain you will agree if and when you rematch the game. It may be a minor tactical shift, it may have been player led or dictated by the coaches, but it did happen. It was a tweak, a change of approach based on circumstances changing.

I'm not some oracle of rugby or fount of knowledge, nor am I analyst of the game, I'm just a fan. There are many, many, many people with considerably more knowledge than me. If you read someone like Murray Kinsellas pieces, I clearly lack that kind of insight into the game. I'm not some smart guy for picking up on this. The commentators even picked up on it. That you didn't is slightly baffling and it does demonstrate a lack of insight on your behalf into how Ireland were set up and the tactics they employed. I'm not saying this to be offensive, I'm just being honest with you. I can't say that it was an insightful critique from yourself when you haven't picked up on something obvious like that.

Finally, I would say not to take it or yourself too seriously. It's only a game. Only a forum. Only rugby talk.

Notch wrote:

:1:Well, look- it was pointed out to you that Ireland did change tactics against Scotland, very successfully, and you said you didn't see it and you disagreed. I don't think that's something that is really debatable.  It's not something which some people will say they did, some will say they didn't, who knows who is right. A lot of things are subjective, but that isn't subjective. That is something that is very obvious and I'm certain you will agree if and when you rematch the game. It may be a minor tactical shift, it may have been player led or dictated by the coaches, but it did happen. It was a pronounced change of approach.

I'm not some oracle of rugby or fount of knowledge, nor am I analyst of the game, I'm just a fan. There are many, many, many people with considerably more knowledge than me. If you read someone like Murray Kinsellas pieces, I clearly lack that kind of insight into the game. I'm not some smart guy for picking up on this. The commentators even picked up on it. That you didn't is slightly baffling and it does demonstrate a lack of insight on your behalf into how Ireland were set up and the tactics they employed. I'm not saying this to be offensive, I'm just being honest with you. I can't say that it was an insightful critique from yourself when you haven't picked up on something obvious like that.

:2: Finally, I would say not to take it or yourself too seriously. It's only a game. Only a forum. Only rugby talk.

:1: I explained myself in saying that it was part of the game plane to get in front and pin Scotland back, did not see it as a wild change of tactics. You disagree, fine. Counter it in an adult manner instead of accusing a person of having no insight simply because they disagree with you.

:2: I don't take myself seriously, I wish to debate the state of the Irish game.

You have accused me of repeating myself, something that I have also shown you to do...
You labeled me a critic, something that you felt uneasy about when it was directed at you...

Hypocrisy at its best.

You accuse me of having a 'self persecution complex, that is frankly disgusting since I simply tried to defend an explain myself.

I suggest you get over this over inflated superiority complex that you have. Its people like you that are ruining this site and discouraging open debates.

Last interaction I will have with you as to be honest, you are not worth it,

This is what I mean, all this hot air and outrage that comes out whenever someone disagrees with you or points out why one of your arguments doesn't hang together. Is it really worth it on your end, getting worked up about such trivial things? Any time I engage with you, you get this wound up. You think I've labeled you as this or that. You think I have a superiority complex. All of these terrible crimes and transgressions! It's all just rugby talk man.

It's all a very serious business. All of this is coming from you, going out of your way to engage with me on something you claim I've said and me giving an honest and frank response. I think you need to just relax a little, and not take things so personally.

Notch wrote:

Sin é wrote:You still can't accept that there was a horendous injury problem (not to mention a lot of new players capped for the first time). Some found it harder than others acclimatising.

As for being in the wrong job, he built Munster up from nothing to be a world renowned side and you think he was in the wrong job, winning two Heineken Cups, winning a GS with Ireland and beating every SH team bar NZ while he was in charge

Yeah, there was a severe injury problem but it didn't last for three or four years. It was in his last five games, a point in which he was already on his last chance. If it was the case it was all down to injuries you would be looking at a blip, a temporary dip in form, not the continuation of a trend over a long period of time. From 2010 he never had a better winning ratio than 50%. He was definitely in the wrong job from a Ireland point of view- even good coaches can reach the limits of their abilities and there is no shame in that. It's not easy.

I don't see how you can look at his stats as Ireland boss and come to the conclusion that he was in the right job, but hey ho, each to his own.

2012- Won 3, Lost 6, Drawn 1 (35%):
1. Lost to Wales 21-23 (A Wayne Barnes special - DRyan Tip Tackle ignored), Ferris Yellow Card which was incorrect). Sexton missed 8 pts with the boot.
Draw in France 17-17.
2. Lost to England in Twickenham - Tom Court having to play tight head - England played for scrum penalties all day long.
3 Losses on Ireland 2nd tour to New Zealand within 6 months. No POC.
Loss to SA in Autumn - 12-16. No POC. Jamie Heaslip captian (and gets yellow carded) by our good friend Mr Wayne Barnes. Michael Bent made his debut.

The tour to NZ distorts that stat. Every other coach who heads off for a 3 match tour to New Zealand lose as well. In fact, a Kidney coached team did as well in the 2nd Test in NZ as Schmidt's loss at home last time Ireland played them.

2013- Won 1, Lost 3, Drawn 1 (30%). Yep - beat Wales well - in the Millennium. Schmidt has yet to beat Wales in the Millennium

After that we were entertained with having Peter O'Mahony playing on the wing!

Well I think that you need to wake up to yourself, accept that someone may have a slightly differing opinion than you without accusing them of having no rugby insight or labeling them this or that. I do not get that wound up, I get peed off that someone with an obvious intellect resorts to unfounded petty accusations as you do.

Yes, some years are harder than others and that artificially brings the ratio down, but you would equally have to discount the games we won against weak opposition that artificially bring the ratio up like when we got to play USA and Russia in the World Cup or the tour of USA/Canada in his first year. I think you have to take the easy games with the hard games when you do this kind of analysis.

And no, I didn't include the Churchill Cup

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:Well I think that you need to wake up to yourself, accept that someone may have a slightly differing opinion than you without accusing them of having no rugby insight or labeling them this or that. I do not get that wound up, I get peed off that someone with an obvious intellect resorts to unfounded petty accusations as you do.

I don't think I've made any accusations, I think I've disagreed with most of what you have to say on fair enough grounds. I think I was unfair to you before the Scotland game when I said you were repetitive. You are of course, but so am I and most other posters. There's a limited number of things to say. I do think this tactics thing is something you've just missed, not noticed, not picked up on, and ultimately that happens all the time. I notice loads of extra things when I watch games back because it's separated from the emotion of the game. I do think it legitimately refutes your point.

Notch wrote:Yes, some years are harder than others and that artificially brings the ratio down, but you would equally have to discount the games we won against weak opposition that artificially bring the ratio up like when we got to play USA and Russia in the World Cup or the tour of USA/Canada in his first year. I think you have to take the easy games with the hard games when you do this kind of analysis.

And no, I didn't include the Churchill Cup

Schmidt is never going to have to bring Ireland on a Tour to NZ after being there 6 months previously playing in a world cup.

Neither is he ever going to have to deal with the requirement of 22 man squads and having to play a loose head at TH for an entire game.

The issue I have with a lot of Kidney's critics is all they want to do is look at the win/loss percentage and completely ignore the circumstances (this comes mainly from people who actually complain about the use of stats because they don't give the full picture)

No, I give him the circumstances. But none of them are that strange and unusual for an international coach. Injury crises, having to go on tour against good teams. All can happen to any coach. I'm not so much basing my own opinions on the stats alone, I'm just saying why you'll always be ploughing a lonely furrow. Because regardless of the circumstances people only really respect winners. The win/loss thing is all they remember or care about. People are pretty fickle...

I could explain why my opinion of him is about more than games won and lost by listing some of the decisions that I think made some bad hands he was holding play out even worse than was necessary but, really, I'm not that into it, to rehash all of that. Seems like a lot of effort.

Notch wrote:No, I give him the circumstances. But none of them are that strange and unusual for an international coach. Injury crises, having to go on tour against good teams. All can happen to any coach. I'm not so much basing my own opinions on the stats alone, I'm just saying why you'll always be ploughing a lonely furrow. Because regardless of the circumstances people only really respect winners. The win/loss thing is all they remember or care about. People are pretty fickle...

I could explain why my opinion of him is about more than games won and lost by listing some of the decisions that I think made some bad hands he was holding play out even worse than was necessary but, really, I'm not that into it, to rehash all of that. Seems like a lot of effort.

This is what you stated:

I liked Kidney. He always seemed like a decent man, albeit one in the wrong job.

You took the trouble to make that comment now be prepared to argue it!

Having to tour NZ twice in 6 months is very unusual - particularly at the end of an 11 month season.

I think there were 16 International games without a break that season. You might also recall that that was the year that both Leinster & Ulster made the finals of the HCup, so it was like things were quiet at the Provincial end.

How Kidney can be seen as not being right for the Ireland job confounds me. Look at his success leading up to being made the Ireland head coach.

1998 Ireland U19 squad to be World Champions. (some would say this was the kick start to Irelands so called 'Golden Generation')

2002/2003 Celtic Cup
2005/2006 HCup with Munster
2007/2008 HCup with Munster

Many coaches would be extremely happy with these under their belts and can be seen as the perfect credentials to place in a CV for application to coach the Ireland team.

2009, the best year in Irish rugby. 6N GS, Churchill cup, Triple Crown and an undefeated year for Ireland.

After that, things did seem to go in decline results wise for a number of reasons mentioned above (player injuries, player fatigue, etc) but what is rarely mentioned is the number of debuts Kidney gave to Ireland players and the strength in depth he built within the Irish scene.

Schmidt has come along and done a very good job but lets not be so quick to dismiss the work that Kidney did. Kidney left the Ireland job with a lot more experienced internationals for Schmidt to choose from than what you would normally expect from a coach leaving his position.

In short, Kidney was the right man at the right time for Ireland just as much as Schmidt is the right man at the right time for the Ireland job now.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

1998 Ireland U19 squad to be World Champions. (some would say this was the kick start to Irelands so called 'Golden Generation')

Interesting. Who did Ireland have to beat along the way?

The Saint wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

1998 Ireland U19 squad to be World Champions. (some would say this was the kick start to Irelands so called 'Golden Generation')

Interesting. Who did Ireland have to beat along the way?

Aah now Saint, I know where this is leading, you are going to bring up the 17-17 draw with SA where Ireland lost in the penalty kicks but SA were disqualified for fielding an ineligible kicker aren't you

Kidney's biggest failure was the slide to ninth.  

He has to take some responsibility (if not most responsibility) for it.  

He either hung on to one or two coaches who weren't performing strongly enough (when he should have pressured the IRFU to have them - well sacked is the word);
or he allowed some players to think themselves undroppable when he should have dropped the ones he had lost faith in or the ones who played like they had lost faith in him;
or he found himself without sufficiently strong gameplans to keep his players at least reasonably competitive even through what was often described as a 'rebuilding' after the 2009 GS (back to the coaches he retained despite the serious downward trend)

You shouldn't have to fall to 9th, and be guilty of some of the most heartless and heedless performances, to prove a rebuilding phase is happening.  9th was too low for any excuses.  One good game a year was no excuse for rebuilding.

He was a good coach and a lovely man but he lost control of International.  He accepted too much bull from the IRFU.  He wasn't ruthless enough with either fellow coaches or players.

Bad period all round for the IRFU, for Kidney, for some of his coaches and for players who criminally under-performed for him at times. But he hadn't a ruthless streak when tough decisions were required to take back control of the game and results.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

1998 Ireland U19 squad to be World Champions. (some would say this was the kick start to Irelands so called 'Golden Generation')

Interesting. Who did Ireland have to beat along the way?

Aah now Saint, I know where this is leading, you are going to bring up the 17-17 draw with SA where Ireland lost in the penalty kicks but SA were disqualified for fielding an ineligible kicker aren't you

Even more interesting. I was generally curious. It's a good achievement. Back then the U21 SH teams were even better than now, regularly handing out 60-70 point beatings to us lot up here. Wonder if it's closer now due to it being U20.

Well they beat USA, SA (under those circumstanes ) France and Argentina.

SecretFly,

Given the amount of internationals played coupled with the success for Ireland at provincial level, there was bound to be player fatigue and injuries. Kidney had to deal with that and I am not sure if any coach could have done better at the time. The provincial success' of Leinster, Ulster and Munster affected the national team more than people may think.

There was of course 'The Undroppable Players'. Was this all down to Kidney? I feel that there were a few poster boys of Irish rugby who were not performing and deserved to be dropped but Kidney was under extreme pressure from the IRFU to keep them in the squad for the bums on seats reason. This also led to internal squabbles. It was, as you say a very bad time for Irish rugby but not all of that is down to Kidney.

You may see him as not being ruthless but I have had the pleasure of meeting him, seeing him work and trust me on this, he could be a real ruthless man.

9th needed more than excuses Nachos.  

When Kidney saw the downward spiral begin, and if being a good coach he could recognise some of the reasons, then he should have acted ruthless coach and stalled the slip by ruthless means - or fall on his sword trying.    

The IRFU needed some harsh truths thrown their way about an International side being asked to get by with coaches missing, leaving, not being replaced and others double-jobbing.  He should have told them bluntly that he'd be forced to drop the undroppable players if he felt they were saving themselves for Province.  Province success wasn't his business - his business was to be ruthless in his selections to get the 'intensity' of effort required for International.
Plus, he need gameplans that suited International, which over his time kept increasingly getting faster and more physical.  Those plans weren't there.  We had plenty of kick and no attempts at chasing.  We invited attacking sides onto us.  We always spoke about looking after our own game more than worrying about what the specific opposition might bring.

Someone had to fall for dipping to 9th.  Players were the ones playing and his coaches were the ones coaching - but he was given time enough to be ruthless in changing up both to steady the sinking ship.  If he tried, then we might hear it in a future autobiography.  But all I saw was a coach smiling through the idea that a backs coach left and we didn't really need a replacement........ as our defence coach and kicking coach could do the job.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:SecretFly,

Given the amount of internationals played coupled with the success for Ireland at provincial level, there was bound to be player fatigue and injuries. Kidney had to deal with that and I am not sure if any coach could have done better at the time. The provincial success' of Leinster, Ulster and Munster affected the national team more than people may think.

There was of course 'The Undroppable Players'. Was this all down to Kidney? I feel that there were a few poster boys of Irish rugby who were not performing and deserved to be dropped but Kidney was under extreme pressure from the IRFU to keep them in the squad for the bums on seats reason. This also led to internal squabbles. It was, as you say a very bad time for Irish rugby but not all of that is down to Kidney.

You may see him as not being ruthless but I have had the pleasure of meeting him, seeing him work and trust me on this, he could be a real ruthless man.

These excuses you make for Kidney are all fine and might even have some validity but why don't you bend over backwards in the same way to find excuses for Schmidt.Why the double standard?

Yeah, its not really consistent to say that key players being out of form and still being selected was down to the IRFU interfering with selection and not necessarily solely down to Kidney and then criticise Schmidt for selecting, say, Rob Kearney despite indifferent form. Either it is down to the coach or it isn't. I would say that it probably is.

If it wasn't down to the coach I would view either coach in the negative for not standing up to external forces who want to involve themselves in something beyond their job description.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:SecretFly,

Given the amount of internationals played coupled with the success for Ireland at provincial level, there was bound to be player fatigue and injuries. Kidney had to deal with that and I am not sure if any coach could have done better at the time. The provincial success' of Leinster, Ulster and Munster affected the national team more than people may think.

There was of course 'The Undroppable Players'. Was this all down to Kidney? I feel that there were a few poster boys of Irish rugby who were not performing and deserved to be dropped but Kidney was under extreme pressure from the IRFU to keep them in the squad for the bums on seats reason. This also led to internal squabbles. It was, as you say a very bad time for Irish rugby but not all of that is down to Kidney.

You may see him as not being ruthless but I have had the pleasure of meeting him, seeing him work and trust me on this, he could be a real ruthless man.

These excuses you make for Kidney are all fine and might even have some validity but why don't you bend over backwards in the same way to find excuses for Schmidt.Why the double standard?

All I am saying ASLS is that I don't believe that it was all down to Kidney. Schmidt as well will probably come under extreme pressure to pick certain players from the IRFU, maybe he already has...

People seem quick to have a dig at Kidney but I do feel that the IRFU are pains in the rectal area at times and are not totally innocent.

As I wrote above, Schmidt is the right man for the job now, just as Kidney was at the time he was appointed. It was more in a direct response to the 'He always seemed like a decent man, albeit one in the wrong job' statement. I firmly believe he was, even if it didn't end well people simply forget just how much good he did. Simply looking at win/loss stats does not tell the whole story.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:SecretFly,

Given the amount of internationals played coupled with the success for Ireland at provincial level, there was bound to be player fatigue and injuries. Kidney had to deal with that and I am not sure if any coach could have done better at the time. The provincial success' of Leinster, Ulster and Munster affected the national team more than people may think.

There was of course 'The Undroppable Players'. Was this all down to Kidney? I feel that there were a few poster boys of Irish rugby who were not performing and deserved to be dropped but Kidney was under extreme pressure from the IRFU to keep them in the squad for the bums on seats reason. This also led to internal squabbles. It was, as you say a very bad time for Irish rugby but not all of that is down to Kidney.

You may see him as not being ruthless but I have had the pleasure of meeting him, seeing him work and trust me on this, he could be a real ruthless man.

These excuses you make for Kidney are all fine and might even have some validity but why don't you bend over backwards in the same way to find excuses for Schmidt.Why the double standard?

All I am saying ASLS is that I don't believe that it was all down to Kidney. Schmidt as well will probably come under extreme pressure to pick certain players from the IRFU, maybe he already has...

People seem quick to have a dig at Kidney but I do feel that the IRFU are pains in the rectal area at times and are not totally innocent.

As I wrote above, Schmidt is the right man for the job now, just as Kidney was at the time he was appointed. It was more in a direct response to the 'He always seemed like a decent man, albeit one in the wrong job' statement. I firmly believe he was, even if it didn't end well people simply forget just how much good he did. Simply looking at win/loss stats does not tell the whole story.

If you believe that the IRFU are pressuring Joe to select certain players, why are you critizing him for it? You have been probably the most vocal for dropping Kearney and Heaslip, are you now acknowleging that it is the IRFU not Schmidt? Then why have you been blaming Schimdt all these weeks?

Also are you blaming provincial success for international failure?? I don't see how that works, are they mutually exclusive?

As for Kidney, he was the right man for the job until the RWC 2011 (even though results were already declining), then he no longer was the right man. The results back this up. 2012 and 2013 were disasters. Barnes had a shocker in 2012 vs Wales, but you don't seem to be giving Schmidt the same slack for the defeat this year... (one of Sin's excuses)

You still haven't explained the double standards you are applying to Kidney and Schmidt.

Maybe I am not expressing myself very well. I said that I felt Kidney was under pressure to pick certain players and that I felt that Schmidt either will or already has been under pressure to pick certain players. I did not say it was a fact, it was a personal opinion of mine.

For the record, in the past I did criticize Kidney for certain selections that I felt were wrong. I said for along time that I thought that his use of ROG and Sexton was incorrect (as well as the media handling of it, every kick that Sexton missed was immediately followed by a camera pointing to ROG).

I was very vocal for dropping of Kearney and Heaslip, I do not hide behind that at all. I feel that they were the wrong decisions to make, again my personal opinion. I was wrong with wanting SOB dropped for the Scotland match and acknowledged it.

I fail to see how having an opinion on a statement claiming that Kidney was in the wrong job is suddenly deemed as double standards?

As for the provincial success, yes I believe that it did have an affect on the national team as players were plying a lot more rugby at a higher bruising level leading to more injuries (or carrying niggles) and to player fatigue. This is my belief and I fail to see why this is controversial?

. This is my belief and I fail to see why this is controversial

Because you have not prostrated yourself at the feet of St Joe and gone forth to educate the red hoards. Joe = Good. 2014 = 1AD (After Deccie)

Joe = Good.

You need to continue your education, ME.  

C+ but could do better if you apply yourself and stop carving your name into the bench at the back of the class.

The point I am making Nacho is that you were critizing Schmidt for picking Kearney and Heaslip, you never mentioned the IRFU sticking their nose in once during this 6N. The only time we have heard this (alleged) long standing opinion of yours that the IRFU get involved in selection (leading to poor results) is when you were excusing Kidney for his poor record in 2011, 2012 and 2013. The timing seems somewhat odd... If you always thought this, why not mention it during previous discussions? I will apologise profusely if you indeed have and I have missed it.

I don't see how any provinces making the knockouts of HC have anything to do with 6N performances. They are played AFTER the 6nations. An extra 3 (if they get to a final) games is hardly "a lot more rugby". It may explain a poor summer tour (I personally don't), but you can't really use it for the November tests and the 6 nations.

I think the success of the provinces highlighted the shortcomings of Kidney. I.e. that we had quality players that were used to beating other European players on a regular basis. Sure we had a couple of World Class imports as well, but these were teams that were full of Irish players beating all comers in Europe. The opposite was happening at international level. I'm not saying he should have been winning Championships every year, but he should have been hitting a minimum of 3 wins per 6N and be competing for the title going into the final rounds.

the-goon,

One of the downsides to having a new account is that all my old posts no longer stand but believe me when I say that I did feel that the IRFU got overly involved on selections at certain occasions for the bums on seats reason.

I did however, level a certain amount of criticism towards Schmidt as many people (also in the media) were claiming that he was the man that would not allow any external interference in his selection policies.

I was not referring to the 6N but the whole of the Irish performances in regards to provincial success. 2011 and 2012 saw 6N, AI's RWC and tours. This is a lot of rugby to be played when coupled with the fact that the top players for Ireland were playing more higher level's of rugby with their provincial success'. This led to the injuries and fatigue I was alluding to. Not just 1 6N but a decline in rugby level due to the amount of high level rugby being played.