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 would also like to add that I find it rather funny that I am being accused as having double standards. The people accusing me of double standards may not realize that the things they are getting on Kidney's back for are things that they are sweeping over when Schmidt makes the same presumed mistakes.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote: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.

If the IRFU were tinkering with selection and Kidney was allowing it, then as Notch said, he shouldn't be in the job. If this is true (we can't be sure) then this doesn't paint Kidney in a good light, makes him look like a doormat. A pleasent man, but not up to the job anymore. Either way you have swerved my question, did you make any inferrence to the IRFU interferring with selection at any point during the 2015 6Nations before today? Now I haven't read every match thread, but I don't remember any mention of it. I have no doubt you have used it in the past (probably when defending Kidney for his poor results at the time), but it is a double standad if you don't acknowledge that this could be the reason when certain selections were made that you feel contributed to the defeat in Wales.

Then again, what if that is complete BS? I guess that would mean Kidney wasn't a success, he was picking the team, and that team was losing.

Either the buck stops with both Schmidt AND Kidney, or not. And that all your critizims of Schmidt's selections are invalid.

I have yet to see anyone attribute the loses to England and Wales to the IRFU tinkering with selection. The blame has been 100% directed at Schmidt.

Schmidt hasn't been critized as much as Kidney was in 2012 and 2013 because losing by a score or less away to England and Wales (whilst still winning a championship) isn't the same as taking beating from England (2012), and losing to Scotland and Italy (2013), and coming 4th and 5th and continuing the downward trend from 2010 and 2011.

the-goon,

As I said earlier, I did mention it before this 6N, not this year but last year and was told that Schmidt would not be the man to bow to any pressure, hence me being critical of Schmidt. This seems to be going in circles as you keep asking the questions I have already answered. I find it funny that people defend him for the tactics used against Wales that led to the loss but can attack Kidney for apparently doing the same thing.

My whole point was that Kidney gets taken apart on here and Schmidt is worshipped. People seem to have very short memories of just exactly what Kidney did in his career preceding Ireland and what he did for the Irish team.

For all that Kidney apparently did wrong, he left Ireland in a very strong position qua strength of depth. He blooded many players. The results went against him but he still left the Ireland team with an amazing amount of potential. Schmidt did not build this Irish team. Picking Payne and Henshaw is redeeming for him but he had a wealth of talented players with International experience thanks to Kidney.

You may not accept that Schmidt has built this current Irish team (which is bull anyway, since he has actually built an extremely pragmatic and efficient team that I haven't really seen from Ireland before) but one thing is certain, he has helped to fix the absolute mess of a team left behind by Kidney. The team was an absolute shambles, and he has taught them how to win again. Schmidt had his work cut out for him from the start, and although he obviously hasn't been perfect, boy has he done a fine, fine job.

You may not like him, but the facts that Sin e so dearly loves are quite clear.

Another thing to add, all of the best coaches will be outsmarted from time to time. I find it funny that one loss in something like 11 games is being used against him.. especially by the Declan Kidney brigade.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:I would also like to add that I find it rather funny that I am being accused as having double standards. The people accusing me of double standards may not realize that the things they are getting on Kidney's back for are things that they are sweeping over when Schmidt makes the same presumed mistakes.

But Kidney was getting criticised 3/4 years into his tenure for making consistent mistakes, having no game plan and losing games. Schmidt's in his 2nd year and is winning games. Plus he has a discernible game plan which while some may not like is working in the majority of matches.

Of course there are things to work upon, but there has seemed to be an anti-schmidt vibe among certain posters(not talking about you) since day 1 who also defended kidney in the darkest days. Thats the double standard.

So are we comparing Joes first two years with DKs last two. So that isn't a double standard?

Rory,

I am saying that Schmidt has done a very good job but he has not built this team, he inherited it. Its what happens when a new coach takes over, they inherit what the old coach has built. All I am saying is that people have very short memories as to what Kidney achieved in his career and time as Ireland coach. I am tired of hearing that he was a poor coach when he presided over what I consider to be the best year in Irish rugby. What may have ended in a bad way does not mean that he was a bad coach or not the man to coach Ireland, he very much was at the time.

He built a strength in depth in the Ireland set up that I have not seen for many a year.

I never said that i don't like him, I do like him and think that he is the right man for the job right now just that he has had a good bit of fortune in the fact that Kidney did develop a lot of players so he had a rather large pool of experienced Internationals to choose from.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:I would also like to add that I find it rather funny that I am being accused as having double standards. The people accusing me of double standards may not realize that the things they are getting on Kidney's back for are things that they are sweeping over when Schmidt makes the same presumed mistakes.

I think the issue here is of timing. The loud (legitimate) criticism's of Kidney were all from the 2011 world cup onwards. No-one but the most petty of petty provincial squablers, either on these boards, or in real life had anything but positive things to say about Kidney in 2009/2010. We are in Joe Schmidt's successful period (ie Kidney's 2009/2010) and there are criticisms being made similar to those made against Kidney in 2011-2013. People are just really puzzled; not that there are not criticisms to be made, even the most die-hard Leinster supporter on these boards have critiqued Kearney being picked etc, but the criticisms should be nearly joyful, ie how much better can we be? I feel we are only at 75% of our potential and we are already 3rd in the world, back to back champions and on the way to a RWC with an amazing luck of the draw path to a semi or better. SMILE LADS AND LADIES

One other point in Nachos defence (or it might detract from a naive defence of Kidney, not sure). I'm pretty sure that one of Joe Schmidt's conditions for taking the Irish job, was changing some of the protocols around the IRFU's "selectors" having any say in the teams he picked to play. Kidney might not have had that luxury, but it was up to him to fight for it. The success is down to the coach, and any coach should have all elements that may impact that success under their full control; if Kidney had not negotiated that, he dealt himself a weak hand from the off.

That tends to happen when you win back to back titles playing smart consistant rugby (even if it isn't pretty). I remember doing exactly the same in 2009, and revelling in the fact Kidney got coach of the year. We played pretty basic rugby then as well. I also remember celebrating the 2006 (I was at the match) and 2008 HCs he won as well and I'm not even a Munster fan. But when you start losing that shine tends to go away, and ppl will question your decisions.

Kidney did do great things with Ireland, I have no issues admitting that. But things went wrong as well, and he should take the flack in the same way he received the plaudits.

I believe that Schimdt is keeping his cards close to his chest, and will show his hand at the WC. If you don't think so fine. The proof will be in the pudding, until then we are speculating.

It's quite funny that you are doing to Kidney what you think we are doing to Schmidt. But equally sad that you aren't giving him the same benefit of the doubt...

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:Rory,

I am saying that Schmidt has done a very good job but he has not built this team, he inherited it. Its what happens when a new coach takes over, they inherit what the old coach has built. All I am saying is that people have very short memories as to what Kidney achieved in his career and time as Ireland coach. I am tired of hearing that he was a poor coach when he presided over what I consider to be the best year in Irish rugby. What may have ended in a bad way does not mean that he was a bad coach or not the man to coach Ireland, he very much was at the time.

He built a strength in depth in the Ireland set up that I have not seen for many a year.

I never said that i don't like him, I do like him and think that he is the right man for the job right now just that he has had a good bit of fortune in the fact that Kidney did develop a lot of players so he had a rather large pool of experienced Internationals to choose from.

But the team he inherited was in an awful state.. Schmidt has pulled them from the bottom of the top 10 rankings to the top 3. That is truly exceptional in my books. The grand slam year is irrelevant, that isn't the team that Schmidt inherited.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:Rory,

I am saying that Schmidt has done a very good job but he has not built this team, he inherited it. Its what happens when a new coach takes over, they inherit what the old coach has built. All I am saying is that people have very short memories as to what Kidney achieved in his career and time as Ireland coach. I am tired of hearing that he was a poor coach when he presided over what I consider to be the best year in Irish rugby. What may have ended in a bad way does not mean that he was a bad coach or not the man to coach Ireland, he very much was at the time.

He built a strength in depth in the Ireland set up that I have not seen for many a year.

I never said that i don't like him, I do like him and think that he is the right man for the job right now just that he has had a good bit of fortune in the fact that Kidney did develop a lot of players so he had a rather large pool of experienced Internationals to choose from.

But the team he inherited was in an awful state.. Schmidt has pulled them from the bottom of the top 10 rankings to the top 3. That is truly exceptional in my books. The grand slam year is irrelevant, that isn't the team that Schmidt inherited.

Rory again, Kidney left with having blooded many Irish players and left a very good strength in depth. That they were not performing and now are is credit to Schmidt but that does not mean that Kidney was all that bad. Schmidt had a rather large pool of already experienced International players to choose from, far more than I have ever seen any other Irish coach inherit.

Another thing that I find very sad, we all know that when Schmidt does fail, and when Ireland do start to get poor results, we will see some very bitter irish "fans" on here with a big grin on their face. Some people want to see him fail from the start. Many of these "fans" are on the Kidney bandwagon, and are still in denial even now.

There is no way I would want Ireland or Schmidt to fail and I think that anyone wanting that is a little simple. This does not exempt Schmidt from criticisms.

I am not one that is on the Kidney bandwagon, I simply choose not to accept peoples negative opinions on Kidney as for all his apparent bad things, I feel he actually did a very good job in his development of players.

I remember very clearly, going back to the BBC 606, that many posters (some are even still on here) being very negative towards Kidney's appointment and had a seemingly hope that he would fail... That's what I call double standards.

Kidney was in a similar position when he came into the job too though. Again, you can't talk down Schmidts record because he's utilising players blooded by Kidney without acknowledging that Kidneys best moments came with pretty much an entire team that had been blooded by O'Sullivan. It's the same basic principle for both coaches.

Kidney is taken apart on here now, but believe me the love-in over him when Ireland won the Grand Slam on the old 606 eclipses even the affection that exists for Schmidt. At the start of his reign he was seemingly much more popular than Schmidt is now. If Schmidt makes the same mistakes as he did, gets the same results, we'll see the same level of criticism. Never doubt it. There were also people bemoaning the style of play, and voicing much of the same criticisms we're reading about Ireland now as well. I thought those were as uncharitable then as I do. It's still the honeymoon period for Schmidt- the fact he's won championships surely insulates him from any serious criticism, but he'll be judged on our World Cup and how well he handles the retirement of key players. I think he's passed or is passing the BOD test. The POC test will be incredibly tough.

I'd like to say, because it's been quoted so much, that 'my man in the wrong job' isn't about anything Kidney did before he came into the Ireland job for Munster, or even in the first few years of his reign.

When he came in, he basically had a strongly established team with fully functioning combinations that was extremely low on confidence and morale, and possibly split along provincial lines. His job description at this point was to restore confidence, to get the team believing in itself again and he did this spectacularly well. The team didn't need major surgery- you had the basic units in place. The tight five, the halfbacks, the centres etc. The leadership group was there too. The guys who needed to come in and would be key players in coming years like Ferris, Kearney, Bowe and Heaslip were already around the fringes of the squad. He introduced a simple but effective game plan to get the best out of those players. He brought in other guys like Tomas O'Leary, Luke Fitzgerald and Paddy Wallace who wouldn't be in the same league as the other newcomers but were effective and reliable cogs.

So far, so good and it's a very good job done there. Keeping what works, replacing some of the older guys with new, talented young bucks with obvious potential, bringing in guys who were able to perform reliably in problem positions even if they weren't world beaters and implementing a simple and effective game plan whilst restoring the confidence of the group. He did a great job of that.

But then as that team started to break up and other players came through, what we needed from him changed. We needed a coach who could integrate new players into the team and develop our game plan into something less simple and easy for opponents to adapt to (the parallels with Schmists first year and Kidneys first year and the challenges they faced in their second years are actually extremely strong). We needed someone to basically rebuild the team. I think then he was the wrong man for that job. I don't think he ever really managed to put a coherent and effective game plan to get the best out of our players in place from 2010 on. I don't think he was able to build combinations in key areas like the halfbacks, he wasn't decisive in selection. I think we needed a more technically minded coach than a guy who was known primarily as a man-manager and motivator. And I think whilst we struggled in 2010 and 2011, once Gaffney left and wasn't replaced after the RWC the wheels came off in terms of having an attack coach who was double jobbing as defence coach and there not being very much clarity over what players roles were...

I think if anyone says Kidney just won a Slam with O'Sullivans team, thats unfair. He did a good job initially. It was no fluke. But I really do think he just wasn't the right coach to take Ireland on from there. I don't think the job was right for him or he was right for the job.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:Rory,

I am saying that Schmidt has done a very good job but he has not built this team, he inherited it. Its what happens when a new coach takes over, they inherit what the old coach has built. All I am saying is that people have very short memories as to what Kidney achieved in his career and time as Ireland coach. I am tired of hearing that he was a poor coach when he presided over what I consider to be the best year in Irish rugby. What may have ended in a bad way does not mean that he was a bad coach or not the man to coach Ireland, he very much was at the time.

He built a strength in depth in the Ireland set up that I have not seen for many a year.

I never said that i don't like him, I do like him and think that he is the right man for the job right now just that he has had a good bit of fortune in the fact that Kidney did develop a lot of players so he had a rather large pool of experienced Internationals to choose from.

But the team he inherited was in an awful state.. Schmidt has pulled them from the bottom of the top 10 rankings to the top 3. That is truly exceptional in my books. The grand slam year is irrelevant, that isn't the team that Schmidt inherited.

Rory again, Kidney left with having blooded many Irish players and left a very good strength in depth. That they were not performing and now are is credit to Schmidt but that does not mean that Kidney was all that bad. Schmidt had a rather large pool of already experienced International players to choose from, far more than I have ever seen any other Irish coach inherit.

Kidney inherited the "golden generation"!

These are the double standards that people are talking about. It is clear to any rugby fan who is looking with both eyes, that the team that Schmidt came in to work with was a complete shambles, and their confidence was very low. Kidney came in with similar circumstances, but I would argue that he had a much better team to work with.

Also, Schmidt has introduced an entirely new midfield, forced by the retirement of the best irish player ever. That is a pretty huge change for any coach.

Aah the 'Golden Generation'. Never really bought into that myself.

Rory, when Kidney took over, how much strength in depth did Ireland have?

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:Aah the 'Golden Generation'. Never really bought into that myself.

Rory, when Kidney took over, how much strength in depth did Ireland have?

Kidney capped alot of players in his last 3 years (i wish i could find somewhere which aggregated that info, but couldn't). But I suspect that Schmidt has capped as many or more in the first 18 months of his tenure as Kidney did. I mean we were getting down to bare bones in a couple of positions last autumn, and still had some fantastic wins.

Ah the myths start already....he took a bunch of raw youngfellas and turned them into world beaters....

Of the starting 15's against Aus and SA

McGrath, Henshaw, Ruddock and Payne were the only four not capped by Kidney.

In the 6ns at the start with injuries you could add Keatley, TOD and Jordi M. However by the last game only Henshaw and Payne (for obvious reasons) were the only two of the first 15 not capped by DK (or EOS for that matter - Best, Bowe, Heaslip, POC)

ME-109 wrote:
Of the starting 15's against Aus and SA

McGrath, Henshaw, Ruddock and Payne were the only four not capped by Kidney.

In the 6ns at the start with injuries you could add Keatley, TOD and Jordi M. However by the last game only Henshaw and Payne (for obvious reasons) were the only two of the first 15 not capped by DK (or EOS for that matter - Best, Bowe, Heaslip, POC)

And DOD, what are the stats for Kidney in his first 18 months? Honestly curious who he capped in that time.

ME-109 wrote:Ah the myths start already....he took a bunch of raw youngfellas and turned them into world beaters....

Sure POC didn't know what a rugby ball looked like until Joe came knocking on his door...

No idea...some of the ones I do remember from the current team who debuted in 08-10(or thereabouts) are Earls, Sean Cronin, SOB, Healy, - you might include D Ryan if he ever recovers...

You might be right about POC though. Considering up to the Scottish game he was topping the # of clean breaks and closing in on some of the backs meter tally.

ME-109 wrote:Ah the myths start already....he took a bunch of raw youngfellas and turned them into world beaters....

Of the starting 15's against Aus and SA

McGrath, Henshaw, Ruddock and Payne were the only four not capped by Kidney.

In the 6ns at the start with injuries you could add Keatley, TOD and Jordi M. However by the last game only Henshaw and Payne (for obvious reasons) were the only two of the first 15 not capped by DK (or EOS for that matter - Best, Bowe, Heaslip, POC)

Kidney capped Ruddock v Australia in 2010. He was called into the team from the Junior World Cup.

He capped Healy, Ross, Bent, Kilcoyne, Archer, Toner, Bob Casey, Ryan, McCarthy, Tuohy, Chris Henry, POM, Ruddock, O'Leary, Murray, Sexton, Luke Marshall, Darren Cave, Earls, McFadden, Felix Jones, Earls, Simon Zebo, Paul Marshall, Paddy Jackson, Declan Fitzpatrick for starters.

He actually gave Paddy Wallace gametime in his best position of inside centre.

Less hopeful caps, more quality coaching seems to be the answer to that one Sin

The truth is that Provinces 'Cap' players by presenting them as possibles by playing them and letting them shine at Provincial level.
The International coach then selects his 'hope' players and hopes they do the bizz.  Kidney came in when everyone knew that a period of 'rebuilding' was required after that GS.  First the GS, then some serious work on kicking some much needed new blood into the mix.

But nobody expected us to nose dive down to 9th to achieve that rebuild.

Nope and those who respect Kidneys tenure will not change nor will those who continue to denigrate him....

Anyhow we are where we are 18 months into a winning coach and a world cup coming up with high expectations. All seems very familiar.

ME-109 wrote:Nope and those who respect Kidneys tenure will not change nor will those who continue to denigrate him....

Anyhow we are where we are 18 months into a winning coach and a world cup coming up with high expectations.  All seems very familiar.

Not really,most of us saw the writing on the wall before the world cup in 2011.The 2010 and 2011 six nations were both failures,we exceeded expectations by beating Australia in the WC but it proved to be yet again a one off performance (this was a consistent feature of Kidneys reign post 2009) , we were rubbish in the build up and after the 1st pool game we were all fearing a repeat of 2007.

The last 2 years of consistent,quality perfomances,short of creativity absolutely but consistently winning and competitive.We've seen hugely different teams where no matter who is injured the next man comes in and just gets on with the job,no excuses.

ME-109 wrote:Nope and those who respect Kidneys tenure will not change nor will those who continue to denigrate him....

Anyhow we are where we are 18 months into a winning coach and a world cup coming up with high expectations.  All seems very familiar.

Now all we need is a few 'secret' private issues to take the wheels off the wagon right as it arrives in England.  And for the publicists and players to come out with the usual rubbish of 'I don't know what it was.  I think we maybe over-trained... '

Yeah...that must have been it.  The Irish boys lost their ability to play rugby because they 'over-trained'.  Not what I heard.  Not what Alan Quinlan sniggered past recently on RTE.

But we'll leave it there.  I hope the Irish don't over-train this time!!!!  More exiles to far off lands for the offenders.

Yet more double standards. Kidney has a sub 50% win record in his last few years, "ah yeah but didn't he cap loads of lads", effectively implying that that was part of the success of 2014 and 2015 and that it is an excuse for losing plenty of games. Again, at no point were the same posters qualifying this point on the 2009 season. I don't remember reading "Kidney won a grand slam, but he did inherit the team EOS made so it wasn't all him". It seams that praising the previous coach was omitted when listing Kidney's achievements. Just like the alleged IRFU tinkering.

Now this is the hilarious bit. Kidney was defended because it was argued that it was the players not being good enough. Now these same players that Schmidt inherited from Kidney (Sin has kindly listed the new caps), that were only good enough for 5th place in 2013 were the reason we are successful now. You couldn't make it up if you tried.

Kidney was praised for his successes, and criticized for his failures. What is the big deal? The Kidney defenders are criticizing Schmidt for HOW he was was successful (either too Leinster-centric or playing "boring robotic" rugby), and make up excuse after excuse for Kidney's failures. Double Standards!

It is all so, so pathetic.

the-goon wrote:Yet more double standards. Kidney has a sub 50% win record in his last few years, "ah yeah but didn't he cap loads of lads", effectively implying that that was part of the success of 2014 and 2015 and that it is an excuse for losing plenty of games. Again, at no point were the same posters qualifying this point on the 2009 season. I don't remember reading "Kidney won a grand slam, but he did inherit the team EOS made so it wasn't all him". It seams that praising the previous coach was omitted when listing Kidney's achievements. Just like the alleged IRFU tinkering.

Now this is the hilarious bit. Kidney was defended because it was argued that it was the players not being good enough. Now these same players that Schmidt inherited from Kidney (Sin has kindly listed the new caps), that were only good enough for 5th place in 2013 were the reason we are successful now. You couldn't make it up if you tried.

Kidney was praised for his successes, and criticized for his failures. What is the big deal? The Kidney defenders are criticizing Schmidt for HOW he was was successful (either too Leinster-centric or playing "boring robotic" rugby), and make up excuse after excuse for Kidney's failures. Double Standards!

It is all so, so pathetic.

But all so, so hilarious at the same time.

The thing that I find hilarious is peoples inability to actually read what is being said and comprehend...

That too me is so, so pathetic

What is being said is: "You can't blame Kidney for all of it"

I don't think anybody does.  We only blame him for the bad bits.  He did the absolutely good bit (GS) and then was in charge for a lot of bad stuff.

Same will be true for Schmidt.  He has gotten credit for the good bits (two titles in two years) and he'll probably get it in the neck for bad bits that come along.

That's what a coach is - a punch bag for followers' moods.  It's just how it goes.  Nobody will ever change it.  Kidney gets his three cheers for the Slam and the boot for being the guy in the driving seat as we sped down to 9th.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:The thing that I find hilarious is peoples inability to actually read what is being said and comprehend...

That too me is so, so pathetic

Sadly we do comprehend, and we know your agenda, the fact that you are squirming out of the debate with this "witty" line says it all really. It's a shame but I know now to take any of your comments with a big dollop of red salt.

the-goon wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:The thing that I find hilarious is peoples inability to actually read what is being said and comprehend...

That too me is so, so pathetic

Sadly we do comprehend, and we know your agenda, the fact that you are squirming out of the debate with this "witty" line says it all really.  It's a shame but I know now to take any of your comments with a big dollop of red salt.

Please enlighten me as to what you feel my 'agenda' is?

It is very obvious that you do not understand what I am saying or you simply refuse too so you resort to claiming I have an 'agenda'.

You are defending anything Munster regardless if criticism is valid or not. And you have significant Munster bias in your analysis of Ireland games and when rating players and coaches, it seems that you will see things in a certain light to prove your point.

Examples:

Zebo is far better than Dave Kearney. You rate Zebo to be better in every facet, despite the performances not reflecting this. I think Zebo is a better player and played slightly better than Kearney 2014, but only marginally. I think you dismiss Zebo weaknesses in the same way you dismiss Kearney's strengths.

Joe Schmidt can't get his team to "change game plans during the game", you somehow refuse to acknowledge that this happened against Scotland when we overtook Wales on PD. We also changed the gameplan vs Wales as well, once it obvious Wales were winning the high balls we kept it in hand and made ground (up until the tryline).

You claim we were on the verge of defeat again France, and Wales were "comfortable". The margin was 7 points in both games. At full time, we were on Wales' line, France weren't even in our 22.

You blame Schmidt over selection, yet absolve Kidney.

You look for positives when we finish 4th and 5th under Kidney, yet you criticize when we finish 1st and 1st under Schmidt. For the record I have no issue when you look to things we need to work on, it just isn't in line with how you treated Kidney.

It shows a complete lack of balance that discredits almost anything you say, even if the point is valid. And you do make valid points. A shame.

the-goon wrote:
Zebo is far better than Dave Kearney. You rate Zebo to be better in every facet, despite the performances not reflecting this. I think Zebo is a better player and played slightly better than Kearney 2014, but only marginally. I think you dismiss Zebo weaknesses in the same way you dismiss Kearney's strengths.

Yes I do believe that Zebo is better than Dave Kearney but what you fail to read in my posts is that I feel many other players are better than Kearney as well. Players like Bowe, Fitz, Trimble etc. I honestly see no Munster bias in this opinion?

the-goon wrote:
Joe Schmidt can't get his team to "change game plans during the game", you somehow refuse to acknowledge that this happened against Scotland when we overtook Wales on PD. We also changed the gameplan vs Wales as well, once it obvious Wales were winning the high balls we kept it in hand and made ground (up until the tryline).

Yes, I do not think that it was a clear change in tactics, I believe it was one complete set game plan, get in front and pin a team back. I agreed that Ireland switched tactics in the Wales game but looked very rusty. My whole point was that we have not seen Ireland switch tactics mid game to success YET

the-goon wrote:
You claim we were on the verge of defeat again France, and Wales were "comfortable". The margin was 7 points in both games. At full time, we were on Wales' line, France weren't even in our 22.

Once again you really have not read what I said, I was countering people that claimed that Ireland won comfortable against France and England yet Wales were barely hanging on. I believe that Wales were comfortable in defense, Ireland were not stretching them and were very predictable in attack. The fact that Ireland got so close to the line on numerous occasions but could not cross showed a rusty attacking plan. Personal opinion and I see nothing wrong with that. If people want to say that Ireland were comfortable against France and England then they should also apply the same logic and assume Wales were comfortable in their victory.

the-goon wrote:
You blame Schmidt over selection, yet absolve Kidney.

I said that Kidney was under pressure from the selection team to pick certain players and that Schmidt may experience that same issue (or even has). Read also what Wolfball wrote, part of Schmidts contract was to ensure that he has full control over selections (unlike what Kidney experienced) so I do believe that he is open to some criticisms. I believe that I also questioned some of Kidney's selections, especially the handling of Sexton and ROG when Sexton came onto the scene. This seems to be something you have also failed to read.

the-goon wrote:
It shows a complete lack of balance that discredits almost anything you say, even if the point is valid. And you do make valid points. A shame.

No what is a shame is that you have a problem with me because I am a Munsterfan and as a result, you read what you only want to read with one eye already closed. I have never brought provincial bias to any discussion.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:No what is a shame is that you have a problem with me because I am a Munsterfan and as a result, you read what you only want to read with one eye already closed. I have never brought provincial bias to any discussion.

We all have our provincial bias, I want Connacht to hammer ye all, and the Munster-Leinster bickering on herehas always swayed from cute to irritating, but the chip about being a Munsterfan (and its not you, I read Munsterfans.com all the time and its crazy over there at times) is so constant. I adore what Munster has done for Irish rugby, how it has set a standard that improved Leinster, Ulster, and now us in Connacht, but the whinging about how others see Munster is so non-stop by some posters, and again I think you are no-where near the worst. Where are the lads who thought nothing of tearing up trees with their teeth, and where every match was a battle, not a sulk? I mean its like when literally any comment for or against Wales, is taken as some form of ethnic slur by the like of Saint. Calm down, have a sense of humour about yourselves at least. DOD does!

The three main Munster boys here are all fine by me. Some passion, a lot of dry humour from one in particular that I love, lots to bite at from all three when the days are bleak and nothing much is happening on 606 or in rugby in actual playing terms. And of course Sin, our go-to man for all the details and stats. God how I needed his back up in the Great War of Europe last year. He was invaluable. We lost the War but some of the battles were glorious

I think there is a place for all of us here and quite a lot of place for healthy back-biting too. It can be frustrating at times (like that Welsh analogy you used Wolf) but hell, life ain't meant to be a box of roses as some eejit said once.

Re: Kearney, my point is not that you think Zebo is better, is that you paint him out to be basically rubbish, or at least that Zebo is measurably better, yet his performances don't reflect that. You are not balanced in your argument, unless you do find him rubbish then we disagree.

Re: Tactical shift, I don't what more to say. I think you are completely wrong on this. Sorry.

Re: France, England, Wales. I take your point on that. I think we were slightly more "comfortable" than Wales were in our games, but I see where you were looking to add balance to the discussion. I thought Wales got some very fortunate calls going their way in the final minute. Anyway, fair point made, I will concede that.

Re Selection. The timing of when you brought up this point got my back up here. You spend all championship having a go at selections in the backline with no mention of your belief that the IRFU may have got involved, but as soon as we are looking at Kidney, it's another excuse. You could be right in the sense that Kidney may have had to deal with it and Schmidt doesn't, but that makes Kidney to be weak and ineffective; and therefore not as good as Schmidt. You can't have it both ways.

I have no issue with Munster. I believe (and hope) I have "played" the ball (I.e. what you said) and not the man (you) in this debate. My conclusions are that I find you have a bias in your analysis.

wolfball wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:No what is a shame is that you have a problem with me because I am a Munsterfan and as a result, you read what you only want to read with one eye already closed. I have never brought provincial bias to any discussion.

We all have our provincial bias, I want Connacht to hammer ye all, and the Munster-Leinster bickering on herehas always swayed from cute to irritating, but the chip about being a Munsterfan (and its not you, I read Munsterfans.com all the time and its crazy over there at times) is so constant. I adore what Munster has done for Irish rugby, how it has set a standard that improved Leinster, Ulster, and now us in Connacht, but the whinging about how others see Munster is so non-stop by some posters, and again I think you are no-where near the worst. Where are the lads who thought nothing of tearing up trees with their teeth, and where every match was a battle, not a sulk? I mean its like when literally any comment for or against Wales, is taken as some form of ethnic slur by the like of Saint. Calm down, have a sense of humour about yourselves at least. DOD does!

Thing is, I really try to stick clear of any provincial bias. I like this forum because its good to get others points of views. I do not agree with all but its good to know what others think. What I find truly bad is that when I have an opinion, I explain it clearly (well I think I do) that someone who does not agree with me (which is fine) simply states that I have no rugby insight...

Its the lazy people like that who are incapable of holding a civilized debate and simply fall back on the old 'He is a Munsterfan so obviously has bias and wants Ireland to lose' comments that annoy me.

I have never said that I am correct in everything I say, probably only correct in half of what I say but I do like what other people have to say and respect anyone capable of an open and honest discussion.

I dont know Nachos. You and Profitius come on here with your reasonable arguments and opinions. Given you are both from Cork I find it a bit disconcerting...must be a break in the lineage somewhere cos you both are a disgrace to Munster let alone Cork.

Did someone say Bias....dead right. Biased and be damned. Its the only thing the bleenheads understand. They have been duped by Holy Joe and his coaching methods https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXa9tXcMhXQ

This is what you have to do to fit in here....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvNn_vJy0BM

Any bit of luck the Barbarians team will have about 10 Munster players on it on May 28th...for a bit of fun and games.

I see that Henshaw is back for Connacht and has been selected at 12. How do people feel about this? He is seemingly being converted into an inside centre. Personally I am not a fan, I have said numerous times that I think he is better at 13, but I can understand the decision if he is going to be playing there for at least the World Cup. If this is a permanent thing, I think it is a mistake, personally.

I think Connacht are just making the best use of their available resources for this one.

ME-109 wrote:

Any bit of luck the Barbarians team will have about 10 Munster players on it on May 28th...for a bit of fun and games.

Joe will be annoyed. He was planning on using that Barbarian game to give a run-out to the Munster contingent as it's a safe non-ranking game He'll have to use their 2nds I suppose.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

ME-109 wrote:Nope and those who respect Kidneys tenure will not change nor will those who continue to denigrate him....

Anyhow we are where we are 18 months into a winning coach and a world cup coming up with high expectations.  All seems very familiar.

Not really,most of us saw the writing on the wall before the world cup in 2011.The 2010 and 2011 six nations were both failures,we exceeded expectations by beating Australia in the WC but it proved to be yet again a one off performance (this was a consistent feature of Kidneys reign post 2009) , we were rubbish in the build up and after the 1st pool game we were all fearing a repeat of 2007.

The last 2 years of consistent,quality perfomances,short of creativity absolutely but consistently winning and competitive.We've seen hugely different teams where no matter who is injured the next man comes in and just gets on with the job,no excuses.

Howya ASLS...you're right of course it is not really the same. We had won a GS prior to the 2011 world cup....

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I see that Henshaw is back for Connacht and has been selected at 12. How do people feel about this? He is seemingly being converted into an inside centre. Personally I am not a fan, I have said numerous times that I think he is better at 13, but I can understand the decision if he is going to be playing there for at least the World Cup. If this is a permanent thing, I think it is a mistake, personally.

I agree that I feel that his best position is at 13 but I have also been hugely impressed with him at 12 for Ireland. I can understand them starting him at 12 with a view to preparing him for the RWC for Ireland.

I guess the issue is that if you use Henshaw at 13, then who will Ireland use at 12? Olding? Marshall?

I'm still not convinced by Payne at 13, but on review of the whole 6 Nations, the Henshaw/Payne combination did ok.

the-goon wrote:
Zebo is far better than Dave Kearney. You rate Zebo to be better in every facet, despite the performances not reflecting this. I think Zebo is a better player and played slightly better than Kearney 2014, but only marginally. I think you dismiss Zebo weaknesses in the same way you dismiss Kearney's strengths.

I have likened Dave Kearney to Ian Dowling who I rated very highly as a munster player, but just not international class. I would rate Simon Zebo to be a better player than Ian Dowling. The one thing which Kearney & Dowling lacked was pace - essential in a winger in my opinion. Ian Dowling had everything else.

Sin é wrote:The one thing which Kearney & Dowling lacked was pace - essential in a winger in my opinion.

Not in Schmidt's Ireland, it ain't.

Besides I do sometimes snigger at this idea of 'pace' and Ireland, and Irish players.  

Where is our real pace?  And when do we genuinely use much of it?  Have we ever used genuine real pace to open up opponents?  
Pace of forward phase play momentum - yes.  
Pace often of passing close to the line - yes.  
Pace in keeping a game moving at a quick momentum - not allowing opponents to settle - taking lineouts quickly, sustaining a kick and chase game when the opponents are looking for a breather etc - yes.

But pace of the variety that England use or Wales sometimes use to open up, run through or around the opposition using breathlessly quick strike runners with Olympic class sprinting ability?  I seldom see it or have seen it.  Zebo himself would be burned in a trial of pace against quite a few of the players he meets at 6N level.  
And it's not only about a once off attack using pace - its about having the stamina to repeat and repeat through 80 minutes; the ability to have that weapon at the ready through game after game.  Not simply one special all-out game in a year. Every game.

What players in Ireland show that consistency of pace at International level?  Few.  Even Bowe would admit he's not on his wing for his earth-shattering pace.

Earls has serious pace. I was a bit disappointed Schmidt didn't get him onto the field at some point in the Championship. I was calling for Fitzy to be selected and he played really well. Now I'm calling for Earlsy for the warmup matches. I'm sure he'll give Schmidt something extra to ponder.

But pace is not always about attack, pace is also very good in defense. I do believe that Wingers need pace, not just for attack but for covering any potential line breaks, even if it is only to force a player out wide to score a try but leave a difficult kick.

FecklessRogue wrote:Earls has serious pace. I was a bit disappointed Schmidt didn't get him onto the field at some point in the Championship. I was calling for Fitzy to be selected and he played really well. Now I'm calling for Earlsy for the warmup matches. I'm sure he'll give Schmidt something extra to ponder.

I thought Fitz was exceptional against Scotland. Sure, we gave him acres to work with, but he's a really sharp operator.

Are people calling for Earls on the wing, or at 13?

I would be happy with Earls at 13 or on the wing myself (preferably 13 though). He has certainly done enough to get a look in again during the warm up matches.