Ireland v Italy, 4 October

Nos na Gaoithe wrote:

ME-109 wrote:Too early to suggest its 2007 revisited....we won and in truth never looked really like losing. Next week is another game and another chance.

^THIS^



...and it's not just another game... I think it's a whole new competition from here on in.

VinceWLB wrote:

kunu wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:

kunu wrote:SOB stands out to me as a particularly poor performer at the moment. Aside from his heavily man-marked carrying game, his handling and link play have been fairly bad during the last few months. He never looks comfortable on the pass, and has absolutely no subtlety - not what you want from a 7 at all. We may be better off starting Henry, and using Healy & Hendo as our primary ball carriers.

SOB is first and foremost a 6. He could be used at 8 in a Pocock like way. He never was and will never be an out and out 7.

I dunno if he even could at the moment. He used to be known as an absolute pain to shift off the ball, but at the moment he's not causing too many problems.

SOB is asked to be a pain at the breakdown but he is also asked to do the ball carrying as the 6 is not able to do it. Can't have it all, McCaws Hoopers aren't being asked to do the ball carrying.

Nos na Gaoithe wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

ME-109 wrote:

Here's Joes take...
http://m.independent.ie/sport/rugby/...-31581574.html

Joe sounds like he has half a white flag up the pole already.  He's in a weird mood lately.  Halfway between being emotionally dethatched and scared Schmidtless.

I think he's hinting that we should be already talking about how we'll try to deal with New Zealand in the quarters.

I can't see how you're being fair their SF. I mean he's damned either way after a performance like that. If he talked like Ireland were shoe-ins for a quarter against Argentina then everyone would be jumping on his back sayig he was oblivious to what had just happened and was still over-confident. If he dampens expectations and tries to get the players into a dog-fight mindset (which I think he has to now)... then he's accused of sounding defeatist and returning to Ireland's old mentality.

For my money, he's right. He needs to dampen exaggeration either way: if we beat France, I think Argentina are still a truly tough team to play... and if we lose to France (which is always possible - just look at the scores from the last 5 years)... then it's right that we should still stay focused and look to beat the AB's. No matter the difficult odds. They didn't look too hot themselves this time around.

SecretFly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

They lacked intensity, no question, although I'm not sure how much that has been Schmidts doing, rather than the team just not turning up. I'm not sure about the lack of direction. They seemed to want to stick to a very simple game plan, come what may, although it's hard to believe that the aimless kicking the ball away was part of that plan. Only Schmidt, and the Players know, I guess. Rather than a lack of direction, I would say it seemed more like a lack of ideas, if that makes sense.

You'd have to have an exceptional degree of confidence as a coach in knowing the minds of your players to send them out to play a very restricted gameplan in a World Cup against Italy, that were always going to fight for their lives.

I'm not saying that's a wrong theory, Munch.  But if Joe wanted them to keep it simple right to the bitter end, even if the scoreboard threatened to lose us the game, then he'd have to be very confident that players would then be still in the right buoyant mood going into a massive game against France.  
The players were in a feel-good mood after the first two games.  They were allowed play, run and score tries.  They needed those blow out games because the team need to be in a positive frame of mind going into the business end.  If Joe commanded that the gameplan against Italy remained limited, then he's risked a lot in turning off that 'confidence button' again.  

The players won't feel good about that game, even had they been under instructions.  And some of them might begin to doubt themselves again as France approaches.  Something went very wrong and I think Schmidt's tone suggests he's lost a degree of confidence himself.  That's or he and the team are doing some wonderful acting!!!

SecretFly wrote:

Nos na Gaoithe wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

ME-109 wrote:

Here's Joes take...
http://m.independent.ie/sport/rugby/...-31581574.html

Joe sounds like he has half a white flag up the pole already.  He's in a weird mood lately.  Halfway between being emotionally dethatched and scared Schmidtless.

I think he's hinting that we should be already talking about how we'll try to deal with New Zealand in the quarters.

I can't see how you're being fair their SF. I mean he's damned either way after a performance like that. If he talked like Ireland were shoe-ins for a quarter against Argentina then everyone would be jumping on his back sayig he was oblivious to what had just happened and was still over-confident. If he dampens expectations and tries to get the players into a dog-fight mindset (which I think he has to now)... then he's accused of sounding defeatist and returning to Ireland's old mentality.

For my money, he's right. He needs to dampen exaggeration either way: if we beat France, I think Argentina are still a truly tough team to play... and if we lose to France (which is always possible - just look at the scores from the last 5 years)... then it's right that we should still stay focused and look to beat the AB's. No matter the difficult odds. They didn't look too hot themselves this time around.

The All Blacks were acting, Nos.  We might have been acting to an extent too - it's possible.  They though have much more talent at their disposal to be acting in advance of tougher games than we have.

On the other points I just have to put a '?' in there.

The game, as you say, talked for itself.  He was never in a position after that game to talk about us being shoe-ins for anything and nobody would have expected it from him.

But I insist he's in a strange mood.  Yes, it's his first WC (it's the same for many of the coaches btw) - he admits he's nervous the whole time.  What he won't obviously say openly at this point is what the details are on his nervousness.  
Is he simply nervous because it is the event it is and he feels the pressure?
Is he nervous because he's excited about just what his team are capable of, and that he's trying to hide it as best he can for as long as possible?
Or is he nervous because behind the scenes he's beginning to understand the limitations of his squad, and feels this World Cup is probably a step they are not fully ready for.  He sees what's coming and knows how disappointed the Irish are going to feel again?

He's in a strange mood.  I've been listening to or reading much of what he's been saying and I can't define which nervousness it is.  But he's beginning to use language that hints at fate being more important now than solid preparation and tactics.

SecretFly wrote:I'm looking at highlights now... and we look sensational!
It's amazing how time editing heals everything

ME-109 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I'm looking at highlights now... and we look sensational!
It's amazing how time editing heals everything

SecretFly wrote:The All Blacks Were acting.

They Were Acting.

About us... I'm not the one saying we were acting.  I'm saying if we were acting (ie, using a limited gameplan to hide our real intentions from France) then it was a Very risky gameplan because we don't have enough quality players to pretend we'd pull it off with such a close scoreline.
I wouldn't have liked it if it was an act.  But it seems to a degree there was an element of 'no-show' about the affair and some here believe that to be the case.  Dangerous stuff.

Munchkin wrote:Yaaay we won!!

ME-109 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Yaaay we won!!

again...

RubyGuby wrote:

SecretFly wrote:The All Blacks Were acting.

They Were Acting.

About us... I'm not the one saying we were acting.  I'm saying if we were acting (ie, using a limited gameplan to hide our real intentions from France) then it was a Very risky gameplan because we don't have enough quality players to pretend we'd pull it off with such a close scoreline.
I wouldn't have liked it if it was an act.  But it seems to a degree there was an element of 'no-show' about the affair and some here believe that to be the case.  Dangerous stuff.

It is dangerous stuff Fly, we tried it against England and it almost backfired

SecretFly wrote:The All Blacks Were acting.

They Were Acting.

About us... I'm not the one saying we were acting.  I'm saying if we were acting (ie, using a limited gameplan to hide our real intentions from France) then it was a Very risky gameplan because we don't have enough quality players to pretend we'd pull it off with such a close scoreline.
I wouldn't have liked it if it was an act.  But it seems to a degree there was an element of 'no-show' about the affair and some here believe that to be the case.  Dangerous stuff.

SecretFly wrote:?

So you're conceding that the were....... Acting?

RubyGuby wrote:I think Schmidt has called up Neeson and Brosnan as replacements for Earls and Murray

SecretFly wrote:I think you've lost the keys to the Merit box, Nos as again you insist it was me declaring that Ireland were acting.  It wasn't.

The All Blacks though.................. them boys were doing Shakespeare with a bit of Chekov and a sprinkling of Beckett.  Had me in tears - of laughter - at one point, it was so moving.

SecretFly wrote:Nope.  The Lawsuit is steaming ahead.  The All Blacks don't like it that you don't rate their performances.  They feel slighted that you think that was an all out effort from them, and they weren't doing any of it to take the followers and spies off their scent.

They're heartbroken actually and have asked me to continue with the lawsuit until you admit their game was one of smokescreens and feints.

Nos na Gaoithe wrote:
Sorry SF... but most of that just seems like hocus pocus if you ask me. The AB's were not "acting" in that match... any more than they've acted in any of their 20-30 other matches against weaker teams for the past 30 years. One of their best assets is the fact that most teams (including Ireland) line up against them as if they think the team in black are invincible. And you're suggesting that 15 ABs who live and die to play in that jersey went out and purposefully damaged that reputation and belief in themselves... just for a shaky plan of mildly confusing an unknown opponent in the 1/4 finals (perhaps an opponent that has never beaten them in 100 years!).

SecretFly wrote:To recap then:

Nos na Gaoithe wrote:
Sorry SF... but most of that just seems like hocus pocus if you ask me. The AB's were not "acting" in that match... any more than they've acted in any of their 20-30 other matches against weaker teams for the past 30 years. One of their best assets is the fact that most teams (including Ireland) line up against them as if they think the team in black are invincible. And you're suggesting that 15 ABs who live and die to play in that jersey went out and purposefully damaged that reputation and belief in themselves... just for a shaky plan of mildly confusing an unknown opponent in the 1/4 finals (perhaps an opponent that has never beaten them in 100 years!).

Yeah, I'm saying exactly that and said it on the night.  And then later on that very night Grant Fox, an AB selector, agreed with me:

From NZH:

'Fox revealed the All Blacks brain trust had slightly altered the game structure against Georgia in a bid to keep rival nations guessing.
"We very deliberately went to another structure because it's something we've been looking at trying. What we did in the first few games was quite prescriptive and a lot of sides
would have said 'Ok, we've seen that, what else have they got'.  We went somewhere else tonight and it's the first time we've done it.  And it's not majorly different but it's subtly different. There were parts of it that were good and parts of it that didn't go quite so well."
Fox said the coaching staff will review the playing structure changes and decide "which was the better of the two - or do we mix them up a little bit to make sure the opponents are struggling to get a handle on where we are going to go".
He also felt the physical approach taken by Georgia and New Zealand's earlier Pool C opponents Argentina and Namibia had not been given due appreciation by All Blacks fans and had done the defending champions a favour.
"Yes, we made some errors, and we did some good things as well. But if people were worried we might not get the sort of physical contests we needed to prepare for the quarter finals, well I think that in all three games so far, physically we are getting well prepared for a quarter final."'

So - from the horse's mouth.  In a game they were supposedly having a real tough time in, they had taken the opportunity to do some experiments and try to keep their opponents guessing about future game plans - Plus - were drawing a physical game onto themselves to better prepare for the tougher encounters down the line.
Like I said on the night itself.  If the All Blacks needed a big score against the Georgians to get them through to another round - that would have been a different game.  To those who still don't believe so then I say Be Happy with your delusions and join the Corr bus

SecretFly wrote:It's pure English.  Their performance was a 'put-on'.  They still had to play it, and get hit and score their tries to win.  They still had to win.... but they were already planning for games after Georgia and using Georgia to keep future opponents guessing about what they might be.
That's 'acting' - giving yourself a tougher game than is required to deflect the enemy of the future from working out just what you plan to do when hitting them.

It's plain English.  If you want to feel the craving for All Black purity of spirit then keep believing that they go all out pummel the guts out of every team they meet.  Sorry to burst that bubble, but no, they don't.  They fooled around with Northern Hemisphere last time they were up for the Autumn Internationals too.  Toyed around for a half and then went for the jugular.  Acting.

rapidsnowman wrote:
Unfortunately the other choice to is to accept that was really our level last night. I think Irish rugby needs to get beyond the thought that we are the only team in the world than can catch a ball dropping from the sky, all because Bowe and co. played Gaelic when they were 12. Wales took our much vaunted aerial game apart in the 6 nations.


On a couple of occasions in the 2nd half Sexton pinned Italy back into the corners and considering their line-out was a bit iffy last night, I can't understand why they didn't do this more rather than the box kick/garryowen over and over.

profitius wrote:A win is a win is a win. Nothing to panic about. Italy were fantastic. I thought they'd give France a run for their money but the Italians were awful. This was their world cup final while Ireland were eyeing up France.


There's been a bit of an overreaction about dropping some players. POM being mentioned a lot which is just bizarre but expected.


Some players need to up their game. They were not up for the Italy match and couldn't get going. I'm looking at Heaslip in particular. The other leaders like Best, POC and POM stood up when the going got tough. Henderson was immense also and added to his highlight reel. It shows the value of players being under pressure for their positions. Next year Heaslip will be faced with that pressure to perform which is great for the team.

rapidsnowman wrote:
Unfortunately the other choice to is to accept that was really our level last night. I think Irish rugby needs to get beyond the thought that we are the only team in the world than can catch a ball dropping from the sky, all because Bowe and co. played Gaelic when they were 12. Wales took our much vaunted aerial game apart in the 6 nations.


On a couple of occasions in the 2nd half Sexton pinned Italy back into the corners and considering their line-out was a bit iffy last night, I can't understand why they didn't do this more rather than the box kick/garryowen over and over.

I believe Ireland has not shown their full hand yet. It came from the horses mouth as BOD said in a radio interview that Schmidt told him they were holding things back.

The reality is a fired up Italy played their best game of the last year while Ireland were poor but still won by 7. That's Ireland's level. The Boks lost to Japan in similar circumstances and in previous world cups this is a match Ireland would have lost but this side is high quality and can tough it out while playing badly. All those Pro12,  HEC and 6 nations medals count for something.

aqualung wrote:hello everyone, not too much to say. Well one Ireland and I will all the best for you for the rest of the Championship. We put on the pitch everything we had and, strangely, we could have won this one, throws-in killed our hopes (we badly missed Ghiraldini indeed) and luck wasn't on our side, few inches on the right and everything could have changed.
But it din't go this way and well deserved by Ireland. We proved we are not that bad and I'm very happy since I realize our team yesterday was made of a bunch of youngsters who can have their say in the future, plus that real class act that Parisse is indeed Our backrow and second row have been brilliant and didn't conceded anything to Ireland. I don't know if such a game hurts more or less than being thrashed, but I'll take the positive notes.
To the irish mates here: don't blame your team for Yesterday, we played the kind of game we would have made virtually everyone to look bad, our only chances were to suffocate Ireland's game and we did pretty well.
 

Pete330v2 wrote:I'm not sure where all the doom and gloom is coming from.

Looking at team selection I know Dave Kearney was solid but he doesn't scare the opposition Zebo does and also did ok; so my team for France is: