QF3: Ireland v Argentina, 18 October

First topic message reminder :

   
IRELAND v ARGENTINA

18 October 2015
KO: 13:00 BST (UTC+01)
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff

Live on [tbc]

Ref: Jerome Garcès (France)
ARs: Romain Poite (France)and Chris Pollock (NZ)
TMO: George Ayoub (Australia)

A. Head to Head

15 Played 15
10 Won 5
0 Drawn 0
5 Lost 15
331 Points 283

B. Recent Form

14 June 2014
Estadio Monumental José Fierro, Tucumán
17 – 23 to Ireland

7 June 2014
Estadio Centenario, Resistencia
17 – 29 to Ireland

24 November 2012
Aviva Stadium, Dublin
46 – 24 to Ireland

28 November 2010
Aviva Stadium, Dublin
29 – 9 to Ireland

22 November 2008
Croke Park, Dublin
17 – 3 to Ireland

30 September 2007
Parc des Princes, Paris, France
30 – 15 to Argentina

2 June 2007
Estadio José Amalfitani, Buenos Aires
16 – 0 to Argentina

C. TEAMS:

IRELAND


15. Rob Kearney (UCD/Leinster)
14. Tommy Bowe (Belfast Harlequins/Ulster)
13. Keith Earls (Young Munster/Munster)
12. Robbie Henshaw (Buccaneers/Connacht)
11. Dave Kearney (Lansdowne/Leinster)
10. Johnny Sexton (St Mary's College/Leinster)
9. Conor Murray (Garryowen/Munster)
1. Cian Healy (Clontarf/Leinster)
2. Rory Best (Banbridge/Ulster)
3. Mike Ross (Clontarf/Leinster)
4. Devin Toner (Lansdowne/Leinster)
5. Iain Henderson (Ballynahinch/Ulster)
6. Jordi Murphy (Lansdowne/Leinster)
7. Chris Henry (Malone/Ulster)
8. Jamie Heaslip (Dublin University/Leinster) captain

Replacements;
16. Richardt Strauss (Old Wesley/Leinster)
17. Jack McGrath (St Mary's College/Leinster)
18. Nathan White (Connacht)
19. Donnacha Ryan (Shannon/Munster)
20. Rhys Ruddock (St Mary's College/Leinster)
21. Eoin Reddan (Old Crescent/Leinster)
22. Ian Madigan (Blackrock/Leinster)
23. Luke Fitzgerald (Blackrock/Leinster)

ARGENTINA


15. Joaquin Tuculet
14. Santiago Cordero
13. Matías Moroni
12. Juan Martín Hernández
11. Juan Imhoff
10. Nicolás Sánchez
9. Martín Landajo
1. Marcos Ayerza
2. Agustín Creevy (c)
3. Ramiro Herrera
4. Guido Petti
5. Tomás Lavanini
6. Pablo Matera
7. Juan Martín Fernández Lobbe
8. Leonardo Senatore

Replacements:
16. Julián Montoya
17. Lucas Noguera
18. Juan Pablo Orlandi
19. Matías Alemanno
20. Facundo Isa
21. Tomás Cubelli
22. Jerónimo De La Fuente
23. Lucas González Amorosino

LondonTiger wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I think Madigan should be given the entire 6N - win or lose - and whether Sexton is available or not.  Sexton can't be the only solution.  

Can Madigan play there for Ireland as starter if Sexton is playing for Leinster?

Unfortunately for you guys MOC really screwed it up by recruiting gopperth and playing him ahead of Madigan. IRFU shoudl never have allowed that. Sexton's sojourn in Paris was the ideal time to give another player exposure.

Schmidt recruited Goppert, not MOC.

Commenting on the move, Leinster Head Coach Joe Schmidt said: “We are delighted that Jimmy has put pen to paper on a deal and we believe that he will be an excellent foil for Ian Madigan, bringing added depth and experience to the out-half position when he joins this summer.

Yeah, Schmidt intended using him as back-up for Madigan. MOC used him all the time.... as you would if you were an Aussie coach that went back home before the WC after having dismantled anything that vaguely resembled Leinster in their prime.

Although to be fair to Gopperth, he wasn't all bad at all and just got a lot of bad publicity when he often looked like the only Leinster player with any life left in his bones.

SecretFly wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I think Madigan should be given the entire 6N - win or lose - and whether Sexton is available or not.  Sexton can't be the only solution.  

Can Madigan play there for Ireland as starter if Sexton is playing for Leinster?

Unfortunately for you guys MOC really screwed it up by recruiting gopperth and playing him ahead of Madigan. IRFU shoudl never have allowed that. Sexton's sojourn in Paris was the ideal time to give another player exposure.

I think anything is possible if we have a complete revision of how we approach the next four years.  We failed because ultimately Argentina were a much better side and would still have had a good shot at it with all our normal guys there.  But that's the other reason we failed, too many 'undroppable' Leaders that fate itself cruelly dropped for us.  And the show then looked largely rudderless.

We can't allow that reliance on a few Leaders to develop again as we're not going to become monsters overnight, we're still going to be less rugged than many sides and we're still going to be vulnerable to injuries knocking us off rhythm.  That's why I say we should use four years to have a real base of players with real experience, and use four years to really improve our ability to sustain our stamina levels though a WC, something we have major difficulty doing unlike a side like Wales for example.

Fly that is the reality of team sports, at any level there are players that you look to when the chips are down, and we lost four of those in one game. It is hard enough to turn around from a tough fixture, it's another to lose your talismanic captain, game controlling playmaker, and two breakdown artists and expect the same level the following week. Reality is even if we do come back in four years all singer all dancing, there will be those same lead culture carriers or generals whose loss will be keenly felt if they are missing. If NZ lost Carter, McCaw and Retallick it wouldn't just be a case of just stepping into their position, they bring more than that to those around them, as did POC, Sexton and POM for us.

catchweight wrote: The other Southern Hemisphere sides also think more in terms of World Cup cycles over yearly test matches or championships.

You really don't know much about SH rugby if that's what you think.

Marshes wrote:

Fly that is the reality of team sports, at any level there are players that you look to when the chips are down, and we lost four of those in one game. It is hard enough to turn around from a tough fixture, it's another to lose your talismanic captain, game controlling playmaker, and two breakdown artists and expect the same level the following week. Reality is even if we do come back in four years all singer all dancing, there will be those same lead culture carriers or generals whose loss will be keenly felt if they are missing. If NZ lost Carter, McCaw and Retallick it wouldn't just be a case of just stepping into their position, they bring more than that to those around them, as did POC, Sexton and POM for us.

Marshes, we rely on too many 'Leaders' and therefore pick them in all Internationals of meaning (virtually all Internationals in other words ) and then wonder why the next ups aren't ready to assume the roles.

The next ups aren't ready not because they haven't played International but because in Pro12 they seldom come close to the intensities of International.  They don't get enough time under fierce pressure and so implode under it.  
That's back to Provinces.  They're cheating the development of Internationals by playing this sly on-off attitude to the competition.  Like I said earlier, they're happy to have their teams get a 10 - 9 win if that's all they need.  "It's a win, we're saving ourselves".
Philosophy must change.  Provinces must attack games to create pressure.  Force players to think quickly and act sharply.  If the opposition aren't good enough to put up a fight still play them as hard as you can.  Have your own goals.  A number of tries to be scored in a half and judge success or failure on that rather than the victory.  Be angry and critical if the self set targets aren't met.  Keep pressure on all year and allow cool headed players under pressure to come to the top.  That can be done.  It doesn't require tough opposition every week, it requires a demand for weekly pressure from each Province.  
Rise your instincts for finding space, rise your game stamina levels.  Rise the instincts of players for 'always-on' games.  Week after week after week.  If all Provinces became more honest on a weekly basis then you'd have more players ready to step up at International mentally when injuries strike.

Marshes wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I think Madigan should be given the entire 6N - win or lose - and whether Sexton is available or not.  Sexton can't be the only solution.  

Can Madigan play there for Ireland as starter if Sexton is playing for Leinster?

Unfortunately for you guys MOC really screwed it up by recruiting gopperth and playing him ahead of Madigan. IRFU shoudl never have allowed that. Sexton's sojourn in Paris was the ideal time to give another player exposure.

I think anything is possible if we have a complete revision of how we approach the next four years.  We failed because ultimately Argentina were a much better side and would still have had a good shot at it with all our normal guys there.  But that's the other reason we failed, too many 'undroppable' Leaders that fate itself cruelly dropped for us.  And the show then looked largely rudderless.

We can't allow that reliance on a few Leaders to develop again as we're not going to become monsters overnight, we're still going to be less rugged than many sides and we're still going to be vulnerable to injuries knocking us off rhythm.  That's why I say we should use four years to have a real base of players with real experience, and use four years to really improve our ability to sustain our stamina levels though a WC, something we have major difficulty doing unlike a side like Wales for example.

Fly that is the reality of team sports, at any level there are players that you look to when the chips are down, and we lost four of those in one game. It is hard enough to turn around from a tough fixture, it's another to lose your talismanic captain, game controlling playmaker, and two breakdown artists and expect the same level the following week. Reality is even if we do come back in four years all singer all dancing, there will be those same lead culture carriers or generals whose loss will be keenly felt if they are missing. If NZ lost Carter, McCaw and Retallick it wouldn't just be a case of just stepping into their position, they bring more than that to those around them, as did POC, Sexton and POM for us.

I'd worry about Sexton's health actually - just too many head injuries in the last year or so. He doesn't look right either (body language is poor). Madigan may get a lot of starts at 10 for Leinster.

Sin é wrote:

Marshes wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I think Madigan should be given the entire 6N - win or lose - and whether Sexton is available or not.  Sexton can't be the only solution.  

Can Madigan play there for Ireland as starter if Sexton is playing for Leinster?

Unfortunately for you guys MOC really screwed it up by recruiting gopperth and playing him ahead of Madigan. IRFU shoudl never have allowed that. Sexton's sojourn in Paris was the ideal time to give another player exposure.

I think anything is possible if we have a complete revision of how we approach the next four years.  We failed because ultimately Argentina were a much better side and would still have had a good shot at it with all our normal guys there.  But that's the other reason we failed, too many 'undroppable' Leaders that fate itself cruelly dropped for us.  And the show then looked largely rudderless.

We can't allow that reliance on a few Leaders to develop again as we're not going to become monsters overnight, we're still going to be less rugged than many sides and we're still going to be vulnerable to injuries knocking us off rhythm.  That's why I say we should use four years to have a real base of players with real experience, and use four years to really improve our ability to sustain our stamina levels though a WC, something we have major difficulty doing unlike a side like Wales for example.

Fly that is the reality of team sports, at any level there are players that you look to when the chips are down, and we lost four of those in one game. It is hard enough to turn around from a tough fixture, it's another to lose your talismanic captain, game controlling playmaker, and two breakdown artists and expect the same level the following week. Reality is even if we do come back in four years all singer all dancing, there will be those same lead culture carriers or generals whose loss will be keenly felt if they are missing. If NZ lost Carter, McCaw and Retallick it wouldn't just be a case of just stepping into their position, they bring more than that to those around them, as did POC, Sexton and POM for us.

I'd worry about Sexton's health actually - just too many head injuries in the last year or so. He doesn't look right either (body language is poor). Madigan may get a lot of starts at 10 for Leinster.

Yeah... but didn't they lay out a whole wad of cash to get Sexton back? I can't see him being left off for any of the big games. Personally, I would prefer to see Madigan at Connacht rather than sitting on his arse for the biggest club games of the season. It's just not an appropriate use of the young fella's talent. But the pros and cons of these things are difficult to weigh up at the best of times.

I still think Madigan could be a really great player. And I hope he can recover from the problems he had today. He needs to really work on how he interacts with the flow of the game and the rest of the team though. It's funny coz he's seen as being slightly wild and erratic. But in fact his biggest problem is that he is too one-dimensional. He seems to only be happy when he can put his head down and take each individual phase as it comes at him. He's good at taking a tackle, changing the direction of play, looking for a flat pass or even dipping inside 2m for a nice secondary offload. But he looks completely lost when he's forced to pull his head up, change his natural game and start forcing himself to play a "smarter" percentages game. Then he seems to second guess everything he's doing and he sometimes pulls out half-way or screws it up. That's where the erratic stuff comes from - because he just loses the plot... like that backwards kick pass today! Never seen that one before!

I've watched the game after getting home as you get a different perspective when you are there in person. I've made a few notes but tonight is clearly not the night to have any reasonable debate. A number of thoughts immediately came to mind though:

1) Argentina spotted weakness in our defence and cruelly exposed it. They targeted Ross around the fringes knowing he is slow to get into position and created space for others to pick and go and go through the phases quickly. They ran straight at Toner on a number of occasions and exploited his height.

2) Ireland only tackle one way- they go high with the hope of turning it into a maul. They rarely, if ever, attempt a chop tackle to try to stop the Argentinians in their tracks. The Pumas on the other hand made so many tackles around the ankles and shins and stopped our carriers stone dead. It gave an added advantage to their counter rucking which was excellent.

3) Ireland packed the narrow side so often on the basis of one of the perceived Argentinian attacking strengths. I counted at least 8 occasions on which the entire pack was either pillar & post and on the narrow side. The Puma backline just exploited the sheer weight of numbers time and time again. Earls and the Kearneys were exposed in a number of occasions and missed key tackles, but with so many men over a smart offload would have made the tackles irrelevant if they had been made.

4) Ireland's kicking game was deplorable. Murray's kicking was mixed but he made a number of decent kicks that simply were not chased by anyone. I can't for the life of me understand why the chase, a real strength of ours over the past two years was ignored.

5) Madigan had a very poor game. His distribution was poor, his kicking all round was way below the standard needed. Out of hand particularly Sexton would have drilled he ball into position to try and either relieve the pressure or concert some on the opposition. Madigan just kept the ball in hand and made poor decision after poor decision. When he missed a straightforward kick to bring us level and then kicked the ball out on the full it was a massive momentum shift. In the stadium we all felt Ireland were on top and would win from there, but two simple errors sucked the life out of the side.

6) if you want to play an expansive game you need someone at 12 who can also distribute. Henshaw is a very talented player but his distribution is not good enough for the game some people in this forum want us to play.

7) You are taught when you start playing rugby to let the ball do the work and that a pass is quicker between two points than trying to run that distance. Why Madigan, Henshaw and too a lesser extent Earls,  insist on running sideways and condensing the space in the wider channels is baffling.

8) Rory Best had a tremendous game again. A contender for Irish captain.

When did Earls miss a key tackle? Just curious because I watched the game again and he didn't miss one "key" tackle. We got skinned out wide on three occasions. The first try there was no overlap for example. Three times we got skinned in the five metre channel. The majority of the problems started because Argentina got in behind us earlier in the attack something which the French or Italians didn't .

It is interesting to note that the Kearney brothers between them made 9 tackles and missed 8. Now I know one thing for sure if say Earls and Zebo had those stats they wouldn't be seen in an Irish shirt again under Joe. It goes to the point that this coach after two plus years will pick an average Leinster player over a performing player from the other provinces. Lets take a look at who he called up Mike Mc and Boss...nuff said

I doubt there will be much difference in 4 years time realistically. If anything, the gap between Argentina and Ireland will grow in favour of Argentina. Ireland dont have the luxury using the 6 Nations as an experimental competition. Schmidt (and Gatland) if they are still at the helm will still be using the same tried and tested.

The 6 Nations could do with a bit of a shake up. Possibly the introduction of a playoff between the winner of the Tier 2 and the bottom placed Six Nations side and the bonus point system to encourage more try minded rugy. But there seems to be massive resistance to tinker with the 6 Nations format and the annual p1ss ups.

Japan might be confident of sending these 6 Nations sides home early in 4 years.

McCarthy and Boss.  It's as if Schmidt had already resigned himself and the team to a loss.  So no risk of McCarthy or Boss ever getting a game.  Thankfully.

But the team did have a look of defeat about them even before they took to the field.  Did we genuinely need 'Leaders' to know how to defend?  Ireland really does need so much work.  All the fragility came back full bang during this WC.  The walls of the castle were paper thin.  Bricks were painted onto them so we all thought we had a fighting chance.  But it seems in Schmidt's body language over the weeks that he knew different.

catchweight wrote:

I doubt there will be much difference in 4 years time realistically. If anything, the gap between Argentina and Ireland will grow in favour of Argentina. Ireland dont have the luxury using the 6 Nations as an experimental competition. Schmidt (and Gatland) if they are still at the helm will still be using the same tried and tested.

The 6 Nations could do with a bit of a shake up. Possibly the introduction of a playoff between the winner of the Tier 2 and the bottom placed Six Nations side and the bonus point system to encourage more try minded rugy. But there seems to be massive resistance to tinker with the 6 Nations format and the annual p1ss ups.

Japan might be confident of sending these 6 Nations sides home early in 4 years.

God, catchweight. It isn't a war we're in. Argentina will play against more than Ireland over the next few years. And if they play like they've done in this WC so far then they'll give all NH sides a scare. Why are you making it an Argentina/Ireland issue?

Because its a thread about Ireland v Argentina?

Argentina at present look better than any NH side. I think England and France, if they can get the right coaching teams in have the resources and players pools to realistically target a World Cup in 4 years time, unlikely as it seems with the mess they are in now. I genuinely would not expect anything other that a group or QF exit from the rest of the NH sides though irrespective of what happens in the 6N and AI between now and then. I think it will be exactly the same, only Argentina will likely continue to improve and Japan and even some of the minnows might start closing the gap.

Basically I wouldnt be optimistic.

I thought if ever a the NH side had a chance of winning the WC or Irel to lay to rest their WC problems it would be this WC. They were all de facto home against the SH sides who didnt look as formidable as 4 years ago. End result is an all SH semi final. Zero wins over the 4 nations. England and Ireland blasted off the park really in what were essentially home matched for them.

catchweight wrote:I thought if ever a the NH side had a chance of winning the WC or Irel to lay to rest their WC problems it would be this WC. They were all de facto home against the SH sides who didnt look as formidable as 4 years ago. End result is an all SH semi final. Zero wins over the 4 nations. England and Ireland blasted off the park really in what were essentially home matched for them.

Has it ever been much different? The odd blip with a NH win, and the rest SH. The status quo.

I don't think the gap will get much bigger or smaller. It will roughly remain the same, with a little change either way every now and then.

I wouldn't change the 6N's for the sake of the world cup. The 6N's is fine. It's every year, and it provides loads of entertainment. No problem with tampering with the clubs though.

Let the SH be king of the world. All hail the SH

Feel really terrible for Dave Kearney, his form up to the Argentinian game had been excellent and he deserved his starting spot. He was sadly shown up for his lack of speed being skinned so easily.

Rob Kearney, well I have always had issues with his last man defending. I have never felt that he was strong in this area and it was exposed again.

POM and SOB were missed terribly in this match. It was glaring that this was the main issue with Ireland.

The kicking option was a good option but only if Ireland chased. Murray put in some wonderful kicks but there was simply nobody chasing the ball and it allowed the Pumas to counter at pace.

Massive congrats to the Pumas as that was some performance by them and they totally outthought and outplayed Ireland yesterday.

Schmidt should stay, he is a good coach but he needs to work on his over reliance of players he knows against players in better form.

Well there you go - Argentina proved every bit as good as they looked in their pool and in the RC and proved a big step up from France.

Unfortunately the one achilles heel in Schmidt's template was exposed - if teams are really strong in over the ball and can beat us on the deck our defense can get pulled narrow and we came across a team with the vision and speed out wide to expose us. Argentina caused us the exact same problems in the summer tour in 2012 with their 3rd/4th string.

After a terrible start we did really well to pull back to 20-17 but the missed kick from Madser and letting Argentina get the next score killed our momentum.

That said with Bowe going off we were really stretched on the bench and Argentina looked a lot fresher in the end.

The Indian summer weather conditions have really shown the gulf between the NH and SH in this world cup but the fixtures in the end weren't so kind for us -after two very physical games against Italy and France we came up against a hungrier, fresher side and we couldn't live with them over the 80min.

The score board flattered Argentina a bit but no complaints they were the better side and look a good bet to make the final.

Thought Heaslip and Rory Best really fronted up - Fitzgerald played really well, as did Madigan apart from a couple of mistakes.

Over all I think we performed well, better than in the 6N, and were pretty unlucky with injures and just came up against a red hot Puma's side who just had more on the day.

rodders wrote:The Indian summer weather conditions have really shown the gulf between the NH and SH in this world cup but...

That's a new one!
It looked like typical chilly autumn weather conditions from here.

The Loaded Dog wrote:

rodders wrote:The Indian summer weather conditions have really shown the gulf between the NH and SH in this world cup but...

That's a new one!
It looked like typical chilly autumn weather conditions from here.

There has been very little wind or rain - so perfect conditions for high tempo rugby. I think this has favored the SH teams who are used to a higher intensity, whereas the November internationals can be a bit of a leveler at times.

The Southern Hemisphere.  Is it the peculiar angle of the sun?  Is it a different form of radiation hitting it?  Is it because of the way water twirls when going down a plughole?

Can someone explain to me why 'Southern Hemisphere' explains everything?

I find it such a flea bitten surrender monkey attitude.  A ready excuse for mediocrity by varnishing everything that implodes with a shrug of the shoulders and an aside "Well, it's the Southern Hemisphere"

The Six Nations will do us.  We'll be fine.  We're good in that.   ...we think.

Very depressed after the game, like a lot on here. Argentina were comfortably the better team. Even if we had our cited and injured players available I think they still had our number. Anytime they found the front row defending the middle of the field they ran the channels either side of them creating confusion in our defensive line. We seemed to set up to defend very narrow expected a forward dominated display and quite often Argentina passed the ball outside of our our passive defensive and started making yards at ease.

Yet again we come up against the familiar ceiling of the QF exit.

Think it will be a new thread in a couple of days/weeks but next steps;
- what is to be our attacking/defensive style?
- what players will we have in 4 years?
- what gaps do we need to fill or improve in?

If we can properly learn from this it won't have been for nothing (though same could be said for every RWC so far for Ireland).

Not sure if it's been mentioned earlier but what was Bowes injury? It looked like an open fracture?

If so then it's time to ban the chop tackle and tackles on or below the knees - the initial contact needs to be on the thigh or torso or we are going to see more broken legs.

Did it look that bad? Didn't see but again looked in a lot of pain poor fella. We've had a disaster with injuries.... and shows how much more Force is used at this level.

SecretFly wrote:The Southern Hemisphere.  Is it the peculiar angle of the sun?  Is it a different form of radiation hitting it?  Is it because of the way water twirls when going down a plughole?

Can someone explain to me why 'Southern Hemisphere' explains everything?

I find it such a flea bitten surrender monkey attitude.  A ready excuse for mediocrity by varnishing everything that implodes with a shrug of the shoulders and an aside "Well, it's the Southern Hemisphere"

The Six Nations will do us.  We'll be fine.  We're good in that.   ...we think.

I dunno. Time to play a bit of devil's advocate it seems. And it's not you that's getting on my nerves SF (I mostly agree with you)... it's more the sort of useless verbal diarrhea articles from gobshits like Francis this morning. I too have been gutted by us hitting our familiar limit in a year when we seemed to be more ready than ever before.

But, nonetheless... I'm finding all the "SH are showing us all the only way to play proper rugby" a bit over the top. There have always been people who want their club, country... or local pub side... to play their sport like the best of the best. Along the spectrum, I would certainly be one of those people myself. I think what is important is not so much simply winning and being champs... but more that you can use sport as a community link and a form of representation and expression. That can be fulfilling and beautiful in itself. This all sounds a bit wally-ish I know. But I've always been far from jealous of the 2003 England win for that reason. It sort of forgets what sport is and replaces the metaphors of expression and creativity and collective spectacle... for metaphors of war, "we're a nation/team of winners", "do what you gotta do, however ugly and cynical"... and most of all "don't do anything stupid" (i.e. creative) because it might confuse your enforcer and bruiser team-mates.

Now we don't want to be like that... and that's all fair and good. But, still, you have to be able to bring a reasonable level of professionalism and performance to careers and long-term competitions if youre to build successful large professional structures. And so it's not all about choice. You don't simply choose to play like New Zealand and then find within 2 years that you're flying around the pitch and scoring top-level international tries for fun. The conservative style comes from a much more deep-rooted and comes from the necessities of the structures that you live with everyday of every week. Anyone who's ever played for an extended period in a particular sport knows that awful frustration. You may want to play like Brazil, or NZ, or Kerry/Dublin... but you simply can't produce the numbers and the talent and the money structures to produce that level of talent and competency week-in, week-out at the highest competitive levels. Even if you do say... sod it all... and attempt to mimic it... you end up instead just producing a load of inflated spectacle that much more likely ends up breaking down when it's put under consistent top-level pressure. Precisely the type of pressure that events like the Rugby WC will pile on in spades.

Argentina were able to change their game because they now deal with that sort of intensive level and game-play on a regular and practical basis. They have a paid-for and accounted-for system in place to build and expand their resources in that direction because that is the competition they are in. And they had little or no option in any case. I don't see that for Ireland no matter what they simply "decide" about how they "want" to play the game. Absent that, I'm not convinced that Ireland can spend the next few years deluding themselves that some sort of lesser 6Ns/Celtic league imitation running game could somehow make them fare any better in future WC encounters with the big SH teams in the later stages.

The irony of all this is that what broke down yesterday was not Schmidt's inability to produce points and tries. What broke down yesterday was precisely the strengths of NH and Schmidtian/Irish rugby. The formerly famous blanket defensive line didn't appear anywhere on the pitch. The breakdown intensity disappeared yet again (somewhat inevitably given SOB and POM being missing). Our kicking game was woeful. And, most of all, we missed key goal-kicks and strategic moments right at the moment when we had a stranglehold on the game. These are all failures of our own best attributes... that's where the problem lies. Argentina were fantastic in that typically SH way... but that was as dependent on Ireland performing badly as it was on Argentina having the talents that they undoubtedly have.

I don't believe that any of that was a simple matter of SH vs NH. Ireland couldn't bring their A-game yesterday. But Australia couldn't produce either... because they too had a really tough pool game just the weak before. Scotland only lost that game due to their tactical ineptitude and some bad luck in the refereeing. And yet Australia seemingly embodied all that was brilliant about the SH game just a week or two before (and yet they weren't too hot versus Wales either). Wales weren't too far from overturning SA either despite being completely out on their feet and decimated with injuries... again what let them down was their tactical decisions and loose-play on the pitch... and, in fact, their very naive willingness to play loose rather than to a more controlled game-plan played a part in that. Meanwhile NZ finally did too France what previous generations (1999 in particular) were ALWAYS predicted to do to them. The NZ's truly are the outlier... and they can do that to anyone when they hit their form and the opposition collapses.

So, while I would like to see more adventure at a root level in the Irish game... the degree to which this is all playing out as a sort of media cultural crisis and a Noah's ark moment where nearly everything has to be sacrificed and only a select few can be chosen for rebreeding... well it seems way over the top.  

I'm outta here for my usual long hiatus lads... been fun reading all your thoughts over the last few months. Even when I'm not posting I always come on here and read through SF, Rodders, ME's, Marshes... and on and on... thoughts on what's happening. For me ye're a part of Irish rugby like reading Thornley or others. Keep it up... most of ye have far more sensible things to say than that feckin eeejit Francis!

The Argentinians (and others) get away with how they use the chop tackle. On many occasions their defenders just throw themselves at the attackers' knees and below and stop them dead. To me, it's illegal. There is no attempt to use the arms or wrap them around the attacker. But it's effective and teams are getting away with it. It is something the IRB are going to have to look at.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Very depressed after the game, like a lot on here.  Argentina were comfortably the better team. Even if we had our cited and injured players available I think they still had our number.  Anytime they found the front row defending the middle of the field they ran the channels either side of them creating confusion in our defensive line.  We seemed to set up to defend very narrow expected a forward dominated display and quite often Argentina passed the ball outside of our our passive defensive and started making yards at ease.

Yet again we come up against the familiar ceiling of the QF exit.

Think it will be a new thread in a couple of days/weeks but next steps;
- what is to be our attacking/defensive style?
- what players will we have in 4 years?
- what gaps do we need to fill or improve in?

If we can properly learn from this it won't have been for nothing (though same could be said for every RWC so far for Ireland).

I'd definitely keep Schmidt.  
He has now four years instead of two to try it all again.  
He'll certainly have learned about the pressures involved and the standards required for this level.  He was a novice as some of his players were novices.  It will have been a painful but important learning curve.
If he can encourage new assistants in now, he should be allowed do so.  I think he's not satisfied with his assistants but of course smiles through it all.

But its the IRFU that needs to take its fingers out of its smug ass now, to be blunt about it.  Provinces are falling off in standards.  They're been allowed coast too much.  There is not the right drive coming from the top or demands going down the channels that the Provinces fight harder.

The Provinces Must give Schmidt the raw materials.  We can't have him trying to mould them in the few International camps that he gets.  Provinces must be given more resources by IRFU to create players of true International calibre.  And if that means sacking behind the scenes coaches that aren't performing or conditioning 'experts' that only condition to HEC or Six Nation standards and think it good enough.
Provinces Must be helped to create players with the right tools and lungs for the job of facing SH opponents.  If they reach those levels, and keep to them, then they'll be able to handle NH rivals too.  That's the start.

"Reports coming in that the RFU have offered the IRFU £1.5m to release Joe Schmidt from the last two years of his contract."


Hands off!!!

Take the money

Nos na Gaoithe wrote:I'm outta here for my usual long hiatus lads... been fun reading all your thoughts over the last few months. Even when I'm not posting I always come on here and read through SF, Rodders, ME's, Marshes... and on and on... thoughts on what's happening. For me ye're a part of Irish rugby like reading Thornley or others. Keep it up... most of ye have far more sensible things to say than that feckin eeejit Francis!

Didn't read your post yet Nos. Building myself up for it But have a good break away from this madhouse. I'll be doing the same soon enough and will probably be away until 6Ns. My head needs a breather! Catch you next time.

Golden wrote:"Reports coming in that the RFU have offered the IRFU £1.5m to release Joe Schmidt from the last two years of his contract."


Hands off!!!

No way. Find their own coach. Or go try to buy out Cotter

Golden wrote:"Reports coming in that the RFU have offered the IRFU £1.5m to release Joe Schmidt from the last two years of his contract."


Hands off!!!

Feic off!

I think Schmidt would suit England actually - strong disciplinarian and takes no messing. He has the volume and kind of player there to suit his playing philosophy.

Golden wrote:"Reports coming in that the RFU have offered the IRFU £1.5m to release Joe Schmidt from the last two years of his contract."


Hands off!!!

Just Midi Olimpique stirring the pot again.

The French are still sore that we beat them.

Irish Independent has just said that Guy Novès is in talks with RFU and may pull out of his contract with France as he had an out-clause that was executable before the World Cup ended.

probably Schmidt's men just looking to reaffirm his position as a coach in demand after losing to Argentina... albeit under some understandable circumstances i.e. top 4 players from one game to next suddenly out injured.

SecretFly wrote:

But its the IRFU that needs to take its fingers out of its smug ass now, to be blunt about it.  Provinces are falling off in standards.  They're been allowed coast too much.  There is not the right drive coming from the top or demands going down the channels that the Provinces fight harder.

The Provinces Must give Schmidt the raw materials.  We can't have him trying to mould them in the few International camps that he gets.  Provinces must be given more resources by IRFU to create players of true International calibre.  And if that means sacking behind the scenes coaches that aren't performing or conditioning 'experts' that only condition to HEC or Six Nation standards and think it good enough.
Provinces Must be helped to create players with the right tools and lungs for the job of facing SH opponents.  If they reach those levels, and keep to them, then they'll be able to handle NH rivals too.  That's the start.

Schmidt (with Nucifora) runs Irish rugby. What Schmidt says, goes. The Provinces dance to his tune. I don't like Schmidt's philosophy of playing rugby by numbers.

Sin é wrote:I think Schmidt would suit England actually - strong disciplinarian and takes no messing. He has the volume and kind of player there to suit his playing philosophy.

Sin - are you Foley's agent?

Sin mate, if you don't want Schmidt, us over the Irish Sea would be delighted to take him off your hands

fa0019 wrote:probably Schmidt's men just looking to reaffirm his position as a coach in demand after losing to Argentina... albeit under some understandable circumstances i.e. top 4 players from one game to next suddenly out injured.

Lots of injuries didn't save Declan Kidney's international coaching career - remember v. Italy Peter O'Mahony on the wing! (having lost Earls & Fitzgerald) and no POC.

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:I think Schmidt would suit England actually - strong disciplinarian and takes no messing. He has the volume and kind of player there to suit his playing philosophy.

Sin - are you Foley's agent?

Foley is just fine where he is for another few years. I'd like to see someone like Pat Lam in charge.

Sin é is not wrong here, I actually think that Schmidt's style of coaching would benefit England possibly better than it has Ireland.

On the counter, Lancaster would probably suit Ireland's style...

BamBam wrote:Sin mate, if you don't want Schmidt, us over the Irish Sea would be delighted to take him off your hands

Like I say, I think he would suit you. It would be interesting to see what he would do with an England team. Bet he would go with Farrell rather than Ford

Sin é wrote:

Schmidt (with Nucifora) runs Irish rugby. What Schmidt says, goes. The Provinces dance to his tune. I don't like Schmidt's philosophy of playing rugby by numbers.

God, you have such a romantic view of the world, Sin. Zebo flashing through the Argentina mob (after his little riverdance vital milliseconds wasting skip) all on his own, zigging, zagging, weaving inside, arching his back to escape another big Argentine killer...darting sharply back out to the wing, giving a dummy pass to Bowe but not needing him of course...pulling in his arse to swipe by the last Argentine winger.... chasing back infield and towards the goal posts..... IN..... ZEBO!!!! Three tries scored within 16 minutes!!

Rewind the clock to reality.

eirebilly wrote:Sin é is not wrong here, I actually think that Schmidt's style of coaching would benefit England possibly better than it has Ireland.

On the counter, Lancaster would probably suit Ireland's style...

Are you and Sin in the same pub? Happy drinking

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Schmidt (with Nucifora) runs Irish rugby. What Schmidt says, goes. The Provinces dance to his tune. I don't like Schmidt's philosophy of playing rugby by numbers.

God, you have such a romantic view of the world, Sin.  Zebo flashing through the Argentina mob (after his little riverdance vital milliseconds wasting skip) all on his own, zigging, zagging, weaving inside, arching his back to escape another big Argentine killer...darting sharply back out to the wing, giving a dummy pass to Bowe but not needing him of course...pulling in his arse to swipe by the last Argentine winger.... chasing back infield and towards the goal posts..... IN..... ZEBO!!!!   Three tries scored within 16 minutes!!

Rewind the clock to reality.  

The reality is that Schmidt has coached every little bit of spark out of Zebo's game. All the Irish players are coached to go to safety first and when they get an opportunity they are afraid to take it or they will be dropped.

Sin é wrote:

fa0019 wrote:probably Schmidt's men just looking to reaffirm his position as a coach in demand after losing to Argentina... albeit under some understandable circumstances i.e. top 4 players from one game to next suddenly out injured.

Lots of injuries didn't save Declan Kidney's international coaching career - remember v. Italy Peter O'Mahony on the wing! (having lost Earls & Fitzgerald) and no POC.

Let's put Declan the Saviour back in then. The coach that didn't actually coach but seems to be compared to a coach that very much does.

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Schmidt (with Nucifora) runs Irish rugby. What Schmidt says, goes. The Provinces dance to his tune. I don't like Schmidt's philosophy of playing rugby by numbers.

God, you have such a romantic view of the world, Sin.  Zebo flashing through the Argentina mob (after his little riverdance vital milliseconds wasting skip) all on his own, zigging, zagging, weaving inside, arching his back to escape another big Argentine killer...darting sharply back out to the wing, giving a dummy pass to Bowe but not needing him of course...pulling in his arse to swipe by the last Argentine winger.... chasing back infield and towards the goal posts..... IN..... ZEBO!!!!   Three tries scored within 16 minutes!!

Rewind the clock to reality.  

The reality is that Schmidt has coached every little bit of spark out of Zebo's game. All the Irish players are coached to go to safety first and when they get an opportunity they are afraid to take it or they will be dropped.

Hasn't stopped Fitz trying his heart out to kick some life into 'attacking' Ireland. The trick was you have to do both. Defend honestly (not waiting on the wing for the glory passes) and attacking if you can. Seems our wings can't concentrate on both and sulk if they're asked to.

Munchkin wrote:

Golden wrote:"Reports coming in that the RFU have offered the IRFU £1.5m to release Joe Schmidt from the last two years of his contract."


Hands off!!!

Just Midi Olimpique stirring the pot again.

The French are still sore that we beat them.

Can you imagine if we lost Schmidt on top of that quarter-final defeat? Disaster doesn't cover it.

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:I think Schmidt would suit England actually - strong disciplinarian and takes no messing. He has the volume and kind of player there to suit his playing philosophy.

Sin - are you Foley's agent?

Foley is just fine where he is for another few years. I'd like to see someone like Pat Lam in charge.

Pat Lam. You're judging him on Connacht? Be careful, we all judged Joe on Leinster.

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

fa0019 wrote:probably Schmidt's men just looking to reaffirm his position as a coach in demand after losing to Argentina... albeit under some understandable circumstances i.e. top 4 players from one game to next suddenly out injured.

Lots of injuries didn't save Declan Kidney's international coaching career - remember v. Italy Peter O'Mahony on the wing! (having lost Earls & Fitzgerald) and no POC.

Let's put Declan the Saviour back in then.  The coach that didn't actually coach but seems to be compared to a coach that very much does.

Declan had a philosophy of heads up rugby. Schmidt maybe a good coach, but I don't like his playing philosophy. I don't like how he tried to kill off any little bit of flair in the players. Schmidt had decided well before the world cup that Zebo was only ever going to get to it as a tackle bag holder. Gilroy was never going to get a look in. Earls wouldn't have either except Payne got injured.

He is unable to coach players with any bit of flair.