Ireland 2016 Squad

First topic message reminder :

So what would you like to see for the 6 nations and end of season tour of South Africa? Who would you like brought in and left out? Les Kiss and POC are gone, the only definites..


Players I think should be brought in to the squad or considered:
Olding - Utility back
McCloskey - center
Garry Ringrose - center
Marmion - scrum half
Luke McGrath - scrum half
Dave O'Callaghan - blindside
Sherry - hooker
Josh Van Der Flier - openside
Dan Leavy - backrow
Jack Conan - 8
Jack O'Donoghue - 8
Cj Stander - 8
Ross Moloney - lock
Marty Moore - tighthead
Matt Healy - winger
Cathal Marsh  - outhalf
Andrew Trimble - winger

Some of the best young (except Trimble) players in Ireland to consider.

I don't think Jackson isn't rated by Schmidt, I just think he needs to improve his place kicking and kick more regularly for Ulster to be trusted to come off the bench or start in really important test matches. He was ahead of Madigan when Schmidt came in, and only really fell behind when he was ruled out with a long injury. Since he came back he's only occasionally kicked at goal at any level so I'm not surprised that he hasn't been trusted to, say, start a quarter-final for Ireland and kick. If we had a to class place kicking 9 or 15 I have little doubt that Jackson would be featuring in green more regularly. It's another weakness in Irish Rugby that we have the mentality that the 10 has to be the kicker. Other backs who can kick a bit are rarely encouraged to keep up with it so we develop few other options. But Jackson needs to work on this and develop as a place kicker otherwise it won't matter how good he is at everything else, it will hold him back.

I'm hopeful that Dublin will enforce him kicking more for Ulster. It can be hard to manage because you don't want to be chopping and changing the kicker and Pienaar has been more consistent. So it's a club/country balancing act. But if they can tell us to play Payne at outside centre not fullback and to play Henderson at lock not blindside, they can tell us that Jackson has to kick at goal. Madigan will not overtake Sexton, he is an understudy at best. Jackson can be much more.

SecretFly wrote:

eirebilly wrote:My point being Fly, Leinster will have Ireland's number 1 and 2 fly halves. This is not good as far as I am concerned. Ireland need to keep Madigan match fit and I do not believe that Leinster will pick a semi fit Sexton over Madigan every day of the week. Madigan needs to go where he will get regular game time.

Where would you want him to go?  Another player going abroad?  If he's happy where he is, he's happy where he is.  That's the right environment.... both players of high value pushing each other................. especially in training.

People often fail to understand that is the very strength of the ABs.  The talent hasn't been diluted into a number of squads.  It's there in the one squad........... stuffed with talent..... a pressure cooker.  They give each other more high value games in training than they'll pretty much ever meet with the exception of one or two International sides having a very good day.  Talent concentrated.  Making the work behind the scenes high value.

Yes, we need to encourage a mentality of competitiveness and rivalry within the squad. It is healthy and necessary to get the best out of the players and it is a big reason why certain players have been coasting. If you play in the same position as another very talented player, then you play better in training and on the pitch when you get your chance. It is as simple as that. Every team needs a number of high quality players in each position who can consistently battle for that starting spot.

I think that Sam Warburton has been exceptional recently for Wales because he has Justin Tipuric breathing down his neck. POM and SOB upped their games whenever they knew they were being criticised and with Henderson/Henry pushing them hard. I actually cannot wait to see Henshaw and Ringrose fight for the 13 shirt, which I imagine will happen in the not too distant future.

Munchkin wrote:
It's a bit of a stretch to call BOD a bitter and twisted man, Sin é. I don't get that impression at all. He believes Ireland were weaker without Payne, and with Earls. He is hardly alone in that opinion, and why would he give credit to Payne if he was a bitter and Twisted man?

BOD singled Earls out for the loss last week. No mention of errors made by the Kearneys x 2. Explain that one to me please.
He also went on a rant about a lack of a Plan B in 2011, excusing Les Kiss from the criticism.
Not a word of criticism of lack of Plan B or any criticism of Les Kiss for last week's debacle versus Argentina.

ROGs comments were less than a year ago. Rog didn't train with Payne, and less than a year ago was obviously outside of the warm ups and the world cup. What are ROGs thoughts on the Payne/Earls debate now? If ROGs was to come out now and say Earls isn't as good as Payne, would you agree? If ROG said that Earls isn't good enough to play at centre for Ireland, would you agree?

I'd imagine ROG would still contend that Earls is a top player who was the only player that always challenged defensive specialist BOD in training.

Earls is not our best back. The only reason he was picked to play all those games was because Payne was injured. Otherwise he would have been playing in the big games. He wouldn't have played v Itlay, or France. That much is obvious.

I'm well aware of Schmidt's defensive, conservative game plan which involved Payne. Lets not forget that Ireland conceded a try because of a poor kick from him. I don't recall BOD having a go at Payne for that one.

I am not contradicting myself with BOD. BOD isn't a good commentator, but he quite plainly knows what he is talking about when speaking about the position he was world class in. Not that his experience means that we have to agree with everything he says, but it does mean that his opinion is worth listening too.

Its not unusual for the guys with the greatest ability to know the least as it has all comes naturally to them. Where BOD was wrong was to single out Earls at fault for not apparently yelling at Dave Kearney 'tackle'. [/quote]

Yeah, I'm sure BOD is jealous of Earls  

That is the only way to explain the outspoken criticism of Earls from him.

Notch wrote:I don't think Jackson isn't rated by Schmidt, I just think he needs to improve his place kicking and kick more regularly for Ulster to be trusted to come off the bench or start in really important test matches. He was ahead of Madigan when Schmidt came in, and only really fell behind when he was ruled out with a long injury. Since he came back he's only occasionally kicked at goal at any level so I'm not surprised that he hasn't been trusted to, say, start a quarter-final for Ireland and kick. If we had a to class place kicking 9 or 15 I have little doubt that Jackson would be featuring in green more regularly. It's another weakness in Irish Rugby that we have the mentality that the 10 has to be the kicker. Other backs who can kick a bit are rarely encouraged to keep up with it so we develop few other options. But Jackson needs to work on this and develop as a place kicker otherwise it won't matter how good he is at everything else, it will hold him back.

I'm hopeful that Dublin will enforce him kicking more for Ulster. It can be hard to manage because you don't want to be chopping and changing the kicker and Pienaar has been more consistent. So it's a club/country balancing act. But if they can tell us to play Payne at outside centre not fullback and to play Henderson at lock not blindside, they can tell us that Jackson has to kick at goal. Madigan will not overtake Sexton, he is an understudy at best. Jackson can be much more.

From an interview with Payne in Irish times, the deal to get him over to Ireland was that he would get the Ireland 13 Jersey, but he had to play fullback for Ulster before that.

edit: I would also question the handling of Jackson. He was mollycoddled by Ulster having Pienaar as his crutch. Whatever about him having Pienaar for the first two seasons, Pienaar was kept on too long for Jackson's development.

It's like watching a snake eat it's own tail.

How was it wolf? Needed salt?

So just so I understand things, you are all happy that Leinster have Irelands number 1 and 2 fly halves?

To me it seemed obvious that Schmidt didn't have much faith in Jackson which is a real shame as I believe he is a far more rounded 10 than Madigan.

I'd like to see Madigan move to Connacht. I think we need Keatley and Jackson to be starting at 10 as well as having him play regularly, so don't see the sense of him moving to Munster or Ulster. But if he doesn't want to move to Connacht its definitely better to keep him in Leinster than for him to move overseas. And him not wanting to move from Leinster is extremely likely. If he wants to stay and fight Sexton for his place we're better off letting him do that than forcing him into a move he doesn't want.

What I'm really frustrated about is seeing Gopperth preferred at 10 to Madigan and Keatley at 10 to Hanrahan in the last few years.

Keatley has been given time and time and time to shine in Munster. He must feel like he's living a charmed life - the longest playing-himself-into-form period in world rugby history

Sin é wrote:I would also question the handling of Jackson. He was mollycoddled by Ulster having Pienaar as his crutch. Whatever about him having Pienaar for the first two seasons, Pienaar was kept on too long for Jackson's development.

There are two roles here, the 10 role and the place kicking role. From a general play perspective; no, sorry but thats simply not accurate. There's nothing thats not going to be helpful to him about having a top class 9 inside him. Early on, I felt Pienaar was the dominant playmaker when Jackson was easing his way into the team and that was a long-term concern. Fortunately those concerns have come to nothing. It's very obviously not the case that Pienaar is a crutch or overshadowing him- when both are on the pitch at the same time it's Jackson calling the plays and organising the back line. He is the main leader and communicator in that halfback partnership. Pienaar still has an important role in terms of his territorial kicking and organising of course, but no more than you see guys like Webb and Murray doing for other Pro12 teams. Jackson is very much the teams General.

From a place kicking perspective; it limits his time place kicking. So the solution is to give him more time kicking at goal.

If playing at 12 for a few seasons is good enough for Dan Carter, it should be good enough for Ian Madigan, Sexton and JJ Hanrahan.

I think you are being unfair on Connacht as well, thinking to move Madigan there. I think Madigan will get a lot more starts than you think with Leinster in the coming seasons.

I think he will get a lot of starts, Sexton will need to be managed carefully

SecretFly wrote:Keatley has been given time and time and time to shine in Munster.  He must feel like he's living a charmed life - the longest playing-himself-into-form period in world rugby history

Keatly is a confidence player, but generally is fairly good (not a world beater) when paired with Murray who takes a lot of pressure off him. Losing Murray & POM for the Pro12 final killed Munster.

By the way, Tomas O'Leary is looking very good in his two sub appearances for Munster.

Notch wrote:

Sin é wrote:I would also question the handling of Jackson. He was mollycoddled by Ulster having Pienaar as his crutch. Whatever about him having Pienaar for the first two seasons, Pienaar was kept on too long for Jackson's development.

There are two roles here, the 10 role and the place kicking role. From a general play perspective; no, sorry but thats simply not accurate. There's nothing thats not going to be helpful to him about having a top class 9 inside him. Early on, I felt Pienaar was the dominant playmaker when Jackson was easing his way into the team and that was a long-term concern. Fortunately those concerns have come to nothing. It's very obviously not the case that Pienaar is a crutch or overshadowing him- when both are on the pitch at the same time it's Jackson calling the plays and organising the back line. He is the main leader and communicator in that halfback partnership. Pienaar still has an important role in terms of his territorial kicking and organising of course, but no more than you see guys like Webb and Murray doing for other Pro12 teams. Jackson is very much the teams General.

From a place kicking perspective; it limits his time place kicking. So the solution is to give him more time kicking at goal.

Well, the way I'd see it, by his presence, Pienaar is a safety blanket in a similar way that POC was a safety blanket when he was playing.

SecretFly wrote:Keatley has been given time and time and time to shine in Munster.  He must feel like he's living a charmed life - the longest playing-himself-into-form period in world rugby history

He should have accepted that offer from Schmidt to move back to Leinster. He would probably would have made the world cup squad if he did.

Sin é wrote:

Keatly is a confidence player, but generally is fairly good (not a world beater) when paired with Murray who takes a lot of pressure off him. Losing Murray & POM for the Pro12 final killed Munster.

By the way, Tomas O'Leary is looking very good in his two sub appearances for Munster.

I really don't rate Keatley and felt that Munster should have done more to keep JJ there and give him the starting 10 position.

TOL has looked very handy so far, I hope he keeps it up.

Sin é wrote:Well, the way I'd see it, by his presence, Pienaar is a safety blanket in a similar way that POC was a safety blanket when he was playing.

Then the argument is any good, experienced player is a safety blanket for any other player. You could say Best is a safety blanket for McGrath. Payne is a safety blanket for Henshaw. And so on, and so on. Maybe there is a hint of truth in that, in that experienced players do make the lives of the guys around them easier. But for me that's not really a 'safety blanket', which implies Jackson can't function without his presence or he relies on him excessively. For me he'd only be a safety blanket if he was taking on responsibilities Jackson should have. And that is true with regards to place kicking. It's just not true with any of his other responsibilities.

Jackson needs to kick more, but he's the leader in that halfback partnership.

Sin é wrote:

Notch wrote:

Sin é wrote:I would also question the handling of Jackson. He was mollycoddled by Ulster having Pienaar as his crutch. Whatever about him having Pienaar for the first two seasons, Pienaar was kept on too long for Jackson's development.

There are two roles here, the 10 role and the place kicking role. From a general play perspective; no, sorry but thats simply not accurate. There's nothing thats not going to be helpful to him about having a top class 9 inside him. Early on, I felt Pienaar was the dominant playmaker when Jackson was easing his way into the team and that was a long-term concern. Fortunately those concerns have come to nothing. It's very obviously not the case that Pienaar is a crutch or overshadowing him- when both are on the pitch at the same time it's Jackson calling the plays and organising the back line. He is the main leader and communicator in that halfback partnership. Pienaar still has an important role in terms of his territorial kicking and organising of course, but no more than you see guys like Webb and Murray doing for other Pro12 teams. Jackson is very much the teams General.

From a place kicking perspective; it limits his time place kicking. So the solution is to give him more time kicking at goal.

Well, the way I'd see it, by his presence, Pienaar is a safety blanket in a similar way that POC was a safety blanket when he was playing.

That's the perception that people have, but I think it's based more on a few seasons ago, than now. If you watch the games with both Jackson and Pienaar playing, you will realise that it is Jackson that is controlling the game.
Pienaar, as great as he is, tends to lose it a bit when things look like they are falling apart, in games without Jackson. Jackson is the one to help steady the ship in tough games.

Munchkin wrote:

Kinsella is great because he really gets into the detail with his analysis.

Fly, why would Kinsella need to come from a strong playing background? Mourinho never made it to professional football as a player, but that didn't seem to hinder him as a coach.

:

He doesn't.  Not by me thus my allusion to school teachers.  
But this place has its traditions.  And the traditions of this place suggest past players of renown always know more about what they're talking about than a few bitter 'journos' 'TV pundits' etc etc.  Yeah, most of us have been here long enough to have read many of those threads over the years.
So I'm applying 606 logic.  What makes Kinsella such a quoted source of excellence in game interpretation?  I personally believe he's a cult   He's a hindsight analyst.  Great.  Coaches do acres of it every week and choose their sides accordingly.  But that's not foresight analysis.  That's more difficult...actually choosing the players that's going to do it rather than explaining why it didn't.

Kinsella can be what he wants to be, Munch - good luck to him.  But I watch and get a kick out of the whole Kinsella 'name-drop' show more as a social science display of cult creation.....  Very interesting at that level.  As Kinsella analyses the game, I analyse the cult of Kinsella   .

But actually, as a former Munster Academy player, Kinsella does come from a strong playing background. He was in the Ireland U20s squad at one point.

He's great for a rugby writer, because he actually does analysis. He is basically the only Irish rugby writer that analyses games in detail and doesn't just offer up very general, vague and safe opinions on the game. The whole reason he is name dropped so much is because he is different to other rugby journos in his approach. It's very unusual to have anyone go into that level of detail. Really he tries to explain to his audience things they don't already know about the games they've watched, when a lot of sports journalism is about echoing the opinions of the readers back to them. He tries to offer a level of insight you only get by rewatching games and poring over them in great detail, which most of us- including sports writers- just do not have the time or inclination to do.

Whether he could work as a professional video analyst for a team I have no idea. But as a journalist it's not his job to bring that level of foresight to his articles. It's give his audience insights into the game they wouldn't have had otherwise. I'll happily drop his name, because they are so many lazy, cliched sports writers out there who could serve to emulate that attitude.

SecretFly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Kinsella is great because he really gets into the detail with his analysis.

Fly, why would Kinsella need to come from a strong playing background? Mourinho never made it to professional football as a player, but that didn't seem to hinder him as a coach.

:

He doesn't.  Not by me thus my allusion to school teachers.  
But this place has its traditions.  And the traditions of this place suggest past players of renown always know more about what they're talking about than a few bitter 'journos' 'TV pundits' etc etc.  Yeah, most of us have been here long enough to have read many of those threads over the years.
So I'm applying 606 logic.  What makes Kinsella such a quoted source of excellence in game interpretation?  I personally believe he's a cult   He's a hindsight analyst.  Great.  Coaches do acres of it every week and choose their sides accordingly.  But that's not foresight analysis.  That's more difficult...actually choosing the players that's going to do it rather than explaining why it didn't.

Kinsella can be what he wants to be, Munch - good luck to him.  But I watch and get a kick out of the whole Kinsella 'name-drop' show more as a social science display of cult creation.....  Very interesting at that level.  As Kinsella analyses the game, I analyse the cult of Kinsella   .

Ah, fair enough.

Kinsella is a hindsight analyst, but then all analysis is hindsight, and plans/predictions can be based on that. The thing is, Kinsella is a very good analyst, and a very good communicator. He simplifies the complicated for the simple. Like me

I don't know if there's a Kinsella cult emerging. For me he is just a fan who happens to be one of the current best analysts.

God, looking at this Australian v Argentina game.  The Irish players must be getting sicker and sicker, because Australia are simply giving this game what Ireland never looked like giving - drive and aggression, pushing the fancy Argentinians back in their box with furious defence and vicious breakdown work.  And they've had quite a number of rough energetic and big physical games -more than we certainly had when we met Argentina.

We really let this one slip when we allowed ourselves to come to the WC with so little in the tank in stamina terms. We huffed against Italy, Healy wasn't up to Pro12 form nevermind WC standards.  Sexton seemed off too.  Then one heavy game against France, where we dropped to injuries like flies, and we were then blown...  
We'd had our final.  We tried to survive that Argentina game rather than attacking it.

I hope and pray we learn so much from the enquiry and act on it.   I'm sick being an observer at these events!

Argentina might come back.... but that doesn't change the fact that it's more than skills pushing Australia in this game - it's gas and attitude.

Yeah, I really do think if Ireland had done the things that Ireland have always done well in their biggest games- we would have been competitive with them until the end at least.

A lot of the focus is on our lack of offloading, attacking- seems like people seeing what they want to see. True need to be better as a rugby nation at skills but when we played Argentina we never applied pressure to them. And thats for me what the best Irish performances have been based on under O'Sullivan, Kidney and Schmidt- pressure in defence, pressuring the lineout, pressure with the kick chase, pressure at the breakdown. Suffocating pressure. We didn't do it.

I would much rather see Ireland continue to build on their strengths and gradually implement a better attacking game. I would still rather see a solid, disciplined game where we focus on starving teams of possession and killing their game. There is no point abandoning what we have built for a looser expansive game. We just need to introduce players with the all around skills required to fulfil the defensive duties but also provide the attacking spark and creativity we need. If that is what people define as "over coaching" or killing flair then so be it. Schmidt knows what he wants from his players and it is up for them to meet the standards required.

Well, for me pressure has been the key to our game but thats not just about harassing them at the breakdown, turning them, challenging them in the air, denying them time and space to make decisions- you can apply pressure by forcing teams to work very hard off the ball as well and taking them through phase after phase. It's something we do extremely well against lesser teams but there are teams like Wales who just find us too easy to defend. For us to improve I think we have to realise that we don't put enough pressure on certain teams when we have the ball.

That's going to be very difficult for us to change as we have very little in the way of players who can step it up- very few natural ball carriers. Very few creative backs. Not many players who have the skills to play faster.

But I do think the way we shaped up to play early in the tournament was encouraging in this regard, unfortunately the moment Sexton went down against France any opportunity to see the fruits of our preparations were pretty much dashed. So frustrating we never got to see Sexton, Henshaw and Payne together in one competitive game!

We've seen plenty of Sexton, Payne and Henshaw together in the competitive Six Nations. Most people were underwhelmed.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I would much rather see Ireland continue to build on their strengths and gradually implement a better attacking game. I would still rather see a solid, disciplined game where we focus on starving teams of possession and killing their game. There is no point abandoning what we have built for a looser expansive game. We just need to introduce players with the all around skills required to fulfil the defensive duties but also provide the attacking spark and creativity we need. If that is what people define as "over coaching" or killing flair then so be it. Schmidt knows what he wants from his players and it is up for them to meet the standards required.

The question is do we have it in us to keep such a game - highly attritional and so physically demanding - going through a sequence of some 6 or 7 games with no rest weeks.

We've proven time and again over the years that the answer is unfortunately No.  We're only fooling ourselves, and certainly stalling our progress, if we claim the answer is Yes.  It's No.  So - if we were to keep playing  a containing, smothering game that starves the best teams of the ball they need to kill us with, then we need to still seriously look at the quality of the athletes we have to apply this kind of game over a realistic number of games with no rest weeks.

Frankly, I think keeping to a SA style bang, bang game is killing us and the players who try to sustain it.  The truth is we have players more designed to space finding and evasion rather than the big athletic brutes designed to bang the opposition out of a game.  More of our talented players are lighter and smaller and that for the time being will remain our general type off the production line over the next number of years.  

So IF they were seriously coached to play it, if it was a genuine Nationwide program to instill it, then I genuinely believe we'd have a much better chance of progressing in a WC.  Yes, we'd have to have our basics of killing an opposition's game but even the best SH sides have that. It's not an Either/Or equation. You really do need a total game.  
Do we want to achieve something truly on the World stage or do we continue to make the choice that competitiveness within the NH structure is fine for us and our ambitions?

We can't sustain our present ideas on rugby.  They don't last long enough through a sequence of games at the highest levels with no rest weeks.

Sin é wrote:We've seen plenty of Sexton, Payne and Henshaw together in the competitive Six Nations. Some people Munster men were underwhelmed.

Yeah, winning back to back 6N's not good enough for some folk. More Munster men needed.

They were improving with every game and their defence was top notch.

Sin é wrote:We've seen plenty of Sexton, Payne and Henshaw together in the competitive Six Nations. Most people were underwhelmed.

How underwhelming to win back to back championships...

SecretFly wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I would much rather see Ireland continue to build on their strengths and gradually implement a better attacking game. I would still rather see a solid, disciplined game where we focus on starving teams of possession and killing their game. There is no point abandoning what we have built for a looser expansive game. We just need to introduce players with the all around skills required to fulfil the defensive duties but also provide the attacking spark and creativity we need. If that is what people define as "over coaching" or killing flair then so be it. Schmidt knows what he wants from his players and it is up for them to meet the standards required.

The question is do we have it in us to keep such a game - highly attritional and so physically demanding - going through a sequence of some 6 or 7 games with no rest weeks.

We've proven time and again over the years that the answer is unfortunately No.  We're only fooling ourselves, and certainly stalling our progress, if we claim the answer is Yes.  It's No.  So - if we were to keep playing  a containing, smothering game that starves the best teams of the ball they need to kill us with, then we need to still seriously look at the quality of the athletes we have to apply this kind of game over a realistic number of games with no rest weeks.

Frankly, I think keeping to a SA style bang, bang game is killing us and the players who try to sustain it.  The truth is we have players more designed to space finding and evasion rather than the big athletic brutes designed to bang the opposition out of a game.  More of our talented players are lighter and smaller and that for the time being will remain our general type off the production line over the next number of years.  

So IF they were seriously coached to play it, if it was a genuine Nationwide program to instill it, then I genuinely believe we'd have a much better chance of progressing in a WC.  Yes, we'd have to have our basics of killing an opposition's game but even the best SH sides have that.  It's not an Either/Or equation.  You really do need a total game.  
Do we want to achieve something truly on the World stage or do we continue to make the choice that competitiveness within the NH structure is fine for us and our ambitions?

We can't sustain our present ideas on rugby.  They don't last long enough through a sequence of games at the highest levels with no rest weeks.

I have had a good think about this after the disappointment of last weekend. I think the game plan works exceptionally well and we have proved it against some of the biggest teams. Things began to fall apart when we had a very bad day with injuries against France, and they were freak accidents for the most part. Jonny Sexton also clearly hasn't been fully fit for a while. We just didn't have the personnel to effectively build on what we have been doing under Schmidt and our strength in depth was badly exposed against Argentina.

It isn't true that our players mainly consist of elusive, clever runners. In fact, our back line is one of the biggest in the game, when the players are fit. All over six foot and most around fifteen stone. That isn't small by any means. Our pack includes some of the best ball carriers in the game, though many are not fully fit and firing such as SOB and Healy.

Our biggest problem that needs fixed in order to reach the top, as Notch has rightly alluded to above, is that we do not apply enough pressure with ball in hand. We are not a threat and therefore we are not particularly good at scoring points ourselves, except through forcing penalties and pressure through kicking and our set piece prowess. This needs serious work if we want to remain competitive.

wolfball wrote:

Sin é wrote:We've seen plenty of Sexton, Payne and Henshaw together in the competitive Six Nations. Most people were underwhelmed.

How underwhelming to win back to back championships...

Yes, by points difference both times - disimproving by 10pts, to 7 pts and losing to England and Wales. We couldn't even manage a Triple Crown.

As someone says over on Munsterfans when an Irish player throws a pass like for Adam A.C's 2nd try, he gets dropped by Schmidt.

We have some big men in the back line, but we have few really powerful carriers in the back line in terms of getting across the mainline the strength of the tackling they face. Tommy Bowe may be a big guy, but he's not what I would call a powerful guy- someone like Julien Savea would maybe fit that bill but the collisions are so big very few backs are going to be dominating them. I do feel you're not going to just crash through modern defences with some big backs unless you're running at soft shoulders.

Sometimes we're caught out trying to do that. Inside balls to a guy like Bowe running at an organised defence aren't going to get us on the front foot unless we catch them unawares.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

I have had a good think about this after the disappointment of last weekend. I think the game plan works exceptionally well and we have proved it against some of the biggest teams. Things began to fall apart when we had a very bad day with injuries against France, and they were freak accidents for the most part. Jonny Sexton also clearly hasn't been fully fit for a while. We just didn't have the personnel to effectively build on what we have been doing under Schmidt and our strength in depth was badly exposed against Argentina.

It isn't true that our players mainly consist of elusive, clever runners. In fact, our back line is one of the biggest in the game, when the players are fit. All over six foot and most around fifteen stone. That isn't small by any means. Our pack includes some of the best ball carriers in the game, though many are not fully fit and firing such as SOB and Healy.

Our biggest problem that needs fixed in order to reach the top, as Notch has rightly alluded to above, is that we do not apply enough pressure with ball in hand. We are not a threat and therefore we are not particularly good at scoring points ourselves, except through forcing penalties and pressure through kicking and our set piece prowess. This needs serious work if we want to remain competitive.

I can't agree Rory.  This debate has grown within me over the years and I distinctly remember myself being in the exact same mood last time.  We keep saying we have the players to do the job.  We don't.  
We have players that fall off in form from week to week, so unpredictable in the form they'll bring when compared to the top sides and their players.
We have players that are unfortunately so susceptible to dangerous concussions/bad injuries.  When games get really hard, we start picking up serious injuries.  You can be whatever side you want. Tall boxers can still be susceptible to the old glass jaw Opposition teams relish 'picking on them' to influence the game in their favour.  

I don't care how tall or how heavy the stats ...you can't tell me we have abrasive players anywhere in the sphere of the street fighters that Australia have for example.  So in the absence of the silky skills we'd all love to see but aren't there, we're not even remotely on the map in terms of genuine fighters that again, and importantly, last weeks at that level.  One off games is not good enough, and we shouldn't be marking our card using such stats to bluff ourselves past the truth.
Are Zebo, Fitz, Earls, Bowe Rob Kearney, D, Kearney, Sexton, Redden, Marmion, Murray, Felix Jones, etc etc really dangerous aggressive, always-on players who viciously fight their corner and come away with faces like boxers to prove it?  We don't intimidate top teams with our physicality.  We can lay it on for one game at a time but need too much recovery time to try it again.  
That's not good enough.  It isn't.  We rely on three enforcer types and they have to be in absolute best form (POM, Healy, SOB) - and even they find it difficult to do the 'big game' week after week - that's the important bit and why I keep repeating it.  Week after Week is the measuring stick.  Even Keith Wood in the studio was saying nope, we struggle in repeating intensity.

And I didn't say we have fleetfooted elusive runners, Rory (I wish it were true!!!), I said our players have the physique more suited to evasion than collision.  We're not playing a game suited to our natural makeup.  We can't intimidate long enough in non-broken runs of games.  Just check over history and find out the truth - always one-offs that slide away then.  
The French game, the effort of it, fecked us.  It did, you could see it in the face of Heaslip and others.  That's why I worried and I kept hoping we had a containment game in us for the Argentina game because I knew we'd never repeat that with only one week to recover.  It turns out we didn't even have a containing game left in us.  We were stuffed physically.  The game doesn't suit us - we run into contact and take the hit over and over as other sides offload a lot of that effort away and when doing so also give themselves options to score easier than our chosen methods.

I just can't understand the opinion that wants more of our Six Nations stuff and not less of it.

Sin é wrote:

wolfball wrote:

Sin é wrote:We've seen plenty of Sexton, Payne and Henshaw together in the competitive Six Nations. Most people were underwhelmed.

How underwhelming to win back to back championships...

Yes, by points difference both times - disimproving by 10pts, to 7 pts and losing to England and Wales. We couldn't even manage a Triple Crown.

As someone says over on Munsterfans when an Irish player throws a pass like for Adam A.C's 2nd try, he gets dropped by Schmidt.

Ohhh for the glory days of EOS triple crowns... #schmidtout #bringbackeddie

Sin é wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

Sin é wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

eirebilly wrote:  Earls was also Irelands best back during the RWC, sure you can focus on that one dropped pass but even the blindest of the blind (Notch excluded ) must see that Earls actually performed well.

Henshaw for me - he made a difference.

Actually no back was anything other than, at best, average.
That was part of the problem.
Earls is a very good wing - he is not an international 13 and never will be.
The problem we have had a great of the game occupying that space for a decade and are still struggling to fill it.
Payne was chosen because he was the best defensively and the threes needed a talker to organise the line.
Going forward Henshaw is seen as the best prospect as he will be better suited to 13 than 12

Whatever your views of what position Earls should play (bear in mind that he played with Henshaw for the first time in the world cup as his centre partner), he is still Ireland best back. In your opinion not mine, and many others Well, I'll listen to the view of players whose views I respect - Peter Stringer & Ronan O'Gara (who said that Earls is the only Irish player that challenged BOD in training every time). This comment also explains why BOD ego doesn't want anyone thinking or saying anything good about Earls. He compares far better to Payne. I'd also like to point out that Schmidt seems to disagree with you as to how good Earls is bearing in mind he is the only back to start all world cup games.

Henshaw will not be moved out to 13 because Ireland need his defensive solidarity there outside Sexton/Madigan/Jackson.He will eventually go to 13 because that will be his best position. Defensively it is the hardest position to perform and until Joe thinks he is ready he will pick Payne, if fit. As to new 12's to make that possible  we have two very good prospects at Ulster - Olding and McCloskey who will be coming through in the coming year McCloskey & Olding might not even be starting for Ulster when all players are fit.

Earls may well have been the 2nd best 13 when BOD was playing but that doesn't mean he was good enough merely we had no one decent behind BOD.
Even then, outside of Munster, many put Cave down as the 2nd best 13.
That also doesn't make him good enough either - neither were.

Actually Joe doesn't consider Earls the best choice - he was relying on Payne staying fit as his first choice 13. In truth he had no backup to the Henshaw Payne combination.
Earls playing every game proves nothing - it simply confirms he was one of a handful of wingers selected and was the backup 13.

As I posted on the Ulster forum if all players were available for a top match - one of Olding or McCloskey would start at 12 for Ulster.
Regardless of that having both at the same provinces doesn't invalid the possibility of them being 1st and 2nd choice.
We have that LH and TH now and we have had it in the past at Lock with 3 Munster boys in the team

geoff999rugby wrote:

Sin é wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

Sin é wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

eirebilly wrote:  Earls was also Irelands best back during the RWC, sure you can focus on that one dropped pass but even the blindest of the blind (Notch excluded ) must see that Earls actually performed well.

Henshaw for me - he made a difference.

Actually no back was anything other than, at best, average.
That was part of the problem.
Earls is a very good wing - he is not an international 13 and never will be.
The problem we have had a great of the game occupying that space for a decade and are still struggling to fill it.
Payne was chosen because he was the best defensively and the threes needed a talker to organise the line.
Going forward Henshaw is seen as the best prospect as he will be better suited to 13 than 12

Whatever your views of what position Earls should play (bear in mind that he played with Henshaw for the first time in the world cup as his centre partner), he is still Ireland best back. In your opinion not mine, and many others Well, I'll listen to the view of players whose views I respect - Peter Stringer & Ronan O'Gara (who said that Earls is the only Irish player that challenged BOD in training every time). This comment also explains why BOD ego doesn't want anyone thinking or saying anything good about Earls. He compares far better to Payne. I'd also like to point out that Schmidt seems to disagree with you as to how good Earls is bearing in mind he is the only back to start all world cup games.

Henshaw will not be moved out to 13 because Ireland need his defensive solidarity there outside Sexton/Madigan/Jackson.He will eventually go to 13 because that will be his best position. Defensively it is the hardest position to perform and until Joe thinks he is ready he will pick Payne, if fit. As to new 12's to make that possible  we have two very good prospects at Ulster - Olding and McCloskey who will be coming through in the coming year McCloskey & Olding might not even be starting for Ulster when all players are fit.

Earls may well have been the 2nd best 13 when BOD was playing but that doesn't mean he was good enough merely we had no one decent behind BOD.
Even then, outside of Munster, many put Cave down as the 2nd best 13.
That also doesn't make him good enough either - neither were.

Actually Joe doesn't consider Earls the best choice - he was relying on Payne staying fit as his first choice 13. In truth he had no backup to the Henshaw Payne combination.
Earls playing every game proves nothing - it simply confirms he was one of a handful of wingers selected and was the backup 13.

As I posted on the Ulster forum if all players were available for a top match - one of Olding or McCloskey would start at 12 for Ulster.
Regardless of that having both at the same provinces doesn't invalid the possibility of them being 1st and 2nd choice.
We have that LH and TH now and we have had it in the past at Lock with 3 Munster boys in the team

From what I can see, Payne was offered the Ireland 13 Jersey to get him over to Ulster. Schmidt is just keeping his promise.

Irish TImes wrote:Humphreys came to visit soon after, offering an opportunity to fill the 13 jersey for Ireland by November 2014. There was a catch; he would wear 15 for Ulster until that time came.

You say Schmidt is keeping his promise even though your own quote says it was Humphreys who pitched this idea, and he was an Ulster employee who wasn't involved in the national set-up. Schmidt was also not involved in the national set-up at this point. So how Schmidt is meant to be keeping a promise is not obvious.

Humphreys wouldn't have been shy about using every tool he could to convince a player to sign on the dotted line. It's probably the thing he is best at. He's no fool, and he could see what we could all see three years ago; that there was absolutely no-one in Ireland at that point putting their hand up as O'Driscolls immediate successor and so Payne would have a great opportunity to get into the team. So it would be a surprise if he didn't try and use that to persuade him to come.

Sin é wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

Sin é wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

Sin é wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

eirebilly wrote:  Earls was also Irelands best back during the RWC, sure you can focus on that one dropped pass but even the blindest of the blind (Notch excluded ) must see that Earls actually performed well.

Henshaw for me - he made a difference.

Actually no back was anything other than, at best, average.
That was part of the problem.
Earls is a very good wing - he is not an international 13 and never will be.
The problem we have had a great of the game occupying that space for a decade and are still struggling to fill it.
Payne was chosen because he was the best defensively and the threes needed a talker to organise the line.
Going forward Henshaw is seen as the best prospect as he will be better suited to 13 than 12

Whatever your views of what position Earls should play (bear in mind that he played with Henshaw for the first time in the world cup as his centre partner), he is still Ireland best back. In your opinion not mine, and many others Well, I'll listen to the view of players whose views I respect - Peter Stringer & Ronan O'Gara (who said that Earls is the only Irish player that challenged BOD in training every time). This comment also explains why BOD ego doesn't want anyone thinking or saying anything good about Earls. He compares far better to Payne. I'd also like to point out that Schmidt seems to disagree with you as to how good Earls is bearing in mind he is the only back to start all world cup games.

Henshaw will not be moved out to 13 because Ireland need his defensive solidarity there outside Sexton/Madigan/Jackson.He will eventually go to 13 because that will be his best position. Defensively it is the hardest position to perform and until Joe thinks he is ready he will pick Payne, if fit. As to new 12's to make that possible  we have two very good prospects at Ulster - Olding and McCloskey who will be coming through in the coming year McCloskey & Olding might not even be starting for Ulster when all players are fit.

Earls may well have been the 2nd best 13 when BOD was playing but that doesn't mean he was good enough merely we had no one decent behind BOD.
Even then, outside of Munster, many put Cave down as the 2nd best 13.
That also doesn't make him good enough either - neither were.

Actually Joe doesn't consider Earls the best choice - he was relying on Payne staying fit as his first choice 13. In truth he had no backup to the Henshaw Payne combination.
Earls playing every game proves nothing - it simply confirms he was one of a handful of wingers selected and was the backup 13.

As I posted on the Ulster forum if all players were available for a top match - one of Olding or McCloskey would start at 12 for Ulster.
Regardless of that having both at the same provinces doesn't invalid the possibility of them being 1st and 2nd choice.
We have that LH and TH now and we have had it in the past at Lock with 3 Munster boys in the team

From what I can see, Payne was offered the Ireland 13 Jersey to get him over to Ulster. Schmidt is just keeping his promise.

Irish TImes wrote:Humphreys came to visit soon after, offering an opportunity to fill the 13 jersey for Ireland by November 2014. There was a catch; he would wear 15 for Ulster until that time came.

Schmidt didn't promise him anything. Who was the head coach then?.......


.......

Munchkin wrote:

Sin é wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

Sin é wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

Sin é wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

eirebilly wrote:  Earls was also Irelands best back during the RWC, sure you can focus on that one dropped pass but even the blindest of the blind (Notch excluded ) must see that Earls actually performed well.

Henshaw for me - he made a difference.

Actually no back was anything other than, at best, average.
That was part of the problem.
Earls is a very good wing - he is not an international 13 and never will be.
The problem we have had a great of the game occupying that space for a decade and are still struggling to fill it.
Payne was chosen because he was the best defensively and the threes needed a talker to organise the line.
Going forward Henshaw is seen as the best prospect as he will be better suited to 13 than 12

Whatever your views of what position Earls should play (bear in mind that he played with Henshaw for the first time in the world cup as his centre partner), he is still Ireland best back. In your opinion not mine, and many others Well, I'll listen to the view of players whose views I respect - Peter Stringer & Ronan O'Gara (who said that Earls is the only Irish player that challenged BOD in training every time). This comment also explains why BOD ego doesn't want anyone thinking or saying anything good about Earls. He compares far better to Payne. I'd also like to point out that Schmidt seems to disagree with you as to how good Earls is bearing in mind he is the only back to start all world cup games.

Henshaw will not be moved out to 13 because Ireland need his defensive solidarity there outside Sexton/Madigan/Jackson.He will eventually go to 13 because that will be his best position. Defensively it is the hardest position to perform and until Joe thinks he is ready he will pick Payne, if fit. As to new 12's to make that possible  we have two very good prospects at Ulster - Olding and McCloskey who will be coming through in the coming year McCloskey & Olding might not even be starting for Ulster when all players are fit.

Earls may well have been the 2nd best 13 when BOD was playing but that doesn't mean he was good enough merely we had no one decent behind BOD.
Even then, outside of Munster, many put Cave down as the 2nd best 13.
That also doesn't make him good enough either - neither were.

Actually Joe doesn't consider Earls the best choice - he was relying on Payne staying fit as his first choice 13. In truth he had no backup to the Henshaw Payne combination.
Earls playing every game proves nothing - it simply confirms he was one of a handful of wingers selected and was the backup 13.

As I posted on the Ulster forum if all players were available for a top match - one of Olding or McCloskey would start at 12 for Ulster.
Regardless of that having both at the same provinces doesn't invalid the possibility of them being 1st and 2nd choice.
We have that LH and TH now and we have had it in the past at Lock with 3 Munster boys in the team

From what I can see, Payne was offered the Ireland 13 Jersey to get him over to Ulster. Schmidt is just keeping his promise.

Irish TImes wrote:Humphreys came to visit soon after, offering an opportunity to fill the 13 jersey for Ireland by November 2014. There was a catch; he would wear 15 for Ulster until that time came.

Schmidt didn't promise him anything. Who was the head coach then?.......


.......

I doubt if the head coach was consulted. To get Payne to Ulster/Ireland he was promised an opportunity to fill the Ireland 13 jersey by Humphreys.

SecretFly wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

I have had a good think about this after the disappointment of last weekend. I think the game plan works exceptionally well and we have proved it against some of the biggest teams. Things began to fall apart when we had a very bad day with injuries against France, and they were freak accidents for the most part. Jonny Sexton also clearly hasn't been fully fit for a while. We just didn't have the personnel to effectively build on what we have been doing under Schmidt and our strength in depth was badly exposed against Argentina.

It isn't true that our players mainly consist of elusive, clever runners. In fact, our back line is one of the biggest in the game, when the players are fit. All over six foot and most around fifteen stone. That isn't small by any means. Our pack includes some of the best ball carriers in the game, though many are not fully fit and firing such as SOB and Healy.

Our biggest problem that needs fixed in order to reach the top, as Notch has rightly alluded to above, is that we do not apply enough pressure with ball in hand. We are not a threat and therefore we are not particularly good at scoring points ourselves, except through forcing penalties and pressure through kicking and our set piece prowess. This needs serious work if we want to remain competitive.

I can't agree Rory.  This debate has grown within me over the years and I distinctly remember myself being in the exact same mood last time.  We keep saying we have the players to do the job.  We don't.  
We have players that fall off in form from week to week, so unpredictable in the form they'll bring when compared to the top sides and their players.
We have players that are unfortunately so susceptible to dangerous concussions/bad injuries.  When games get really hard, we start picking up serious injuries.  You can be whatever side you want.  Tall boxers can still be susceptible to the old glass jaw Opposition teams relish 'picking on them' to influence the game in their favour.  

I don't care how tall or how heavy the stats ...you can't tell me we have abrasive players anywhere in the sphere of the street fighters that Australia have for example.  So in the absence of the silky skills we'd all love to see but aren't there, we're not even remotely on the map in terms of genuine fighters that again, and importantly, last weeks at that level.  One off games is not good enough, and we shouldn't be marking our card using such stats to bluff ourselves past the truth.
Are Zebo, Fitz, Earls, Bowe Rob Kearney, D, Kearney, Sexton, Redden, Marmion, Murray, Felix Jones, etc etc really dangerous aggressive, always-on players who viciously fight their corner and come away with faces like boxers to prove it?  We don't intimidate top teams with our physicality.  We can lay it on for one game at a time but need too much recovery time to try it again.  
That's not good enough.  It isn't.  We rely on three enforcer types and they have to be in absolute best form (POM, Healy, SOB) - and even they find it difficult to do the 'big game' week after week - that's the important bit and why I keep repeating it.  Week after Week is the measuring stick.  Even Keith Wood in the studio was saying nope, we struggle in repeating intensity.

And I didn't say we have fleetfooted elusive runners, Rory (I wish it were true!!!), I said our players have the physique more suited to evasion than collision.  We're not playing a game suited to our natural makeup.  We can't intimidate long enough in non-broken runs of games.  Just check over history and find out the truth - always one-offs that slide away then.  
The French game, the effort of it, fecked us.  It did, you could see it in the face of Heaslip and others.  That's why I worried and I kept hoping we had a containment game in us for the Argentina game because I knew we'd never repeat that with only one week to recover.  It turns out we didn't even have a containing game left in us.  We were stuffed physically.  The game doesn't suit us - we run into contact and take the hit over and over as other sides offload a lot of that effort away and when doing so also give themselves options to score easier than our chosen methods.

I just can't understand the opinion that wants more of our Six Nations stuff and not less of it.

I don't want to see more of our Six Nations stuff - I want to see a more dangerous Ireland who are known for playing an exciting and expansive game. I just do not think we will see it very soon, but I also do not think we should play a looser game for the sake of it. Schmidt has Ireland playing a very effective style of rugby. The problem is that we may not compete as well against "the big 3". Then again, we did win all 3 November tests last year...

Also I will always hold onto the fact that we lost too many key players to make it work against Argentina. The huge drop in quality was evident. No team can afford to lose that many players in a wide range of positions. We also had players who were not fully fit. It would have been a much tighter game with more of an aggressive defence, I am almost certain of it. Plus Keith Earls would have started at 11 if Payne was fit and caused Argentina problems from there.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:
I don't want to see more of our Six Nations stuff - I want to see a more dangerous Ireland who are known for playing an exciting and expansive game. I just do not think we will see it very soon, but I also do not think we should play a looser game for the sake of it. Schmidt has Ireland playing a very effective style of rugby. The problem is that we may not compete as well against "the big 3". Then again, we did win all 3 November tests last year...

Unfortunately, that is exactly what we will see. The 6N is the bread and butter competition for the NH so Schmidt will set up pretty much exactly the same game plan that has seen Ireland win the last two 6N. Only England (in the past) has had the insight to broaden their horizons and target not only the 6N but a RWC. Ireland will not be doing that, they will focus on the same tactics, do well in the 6N and come the next RWC, bow out at the 1/4 final stage again.

Well one thing that stood out over the weekend is how slow the pro12 is compared to what we've seen in the RWC - the first scrum in the Australia v Pumas game was 20min in.  

Let's be honest a player could look a world beater in the European club game and it wouldn't matter a jot against the 4 top SH teams. The fact that we don't have any players even at that level looking like world beaters makes some of the comments about us not playing enough attacking rugby look pretty silly.

Too many Irish fans are buying into Irish times/indo hype about players - Zebo, Earls. Fitzgerald are average players who beat less defenders in a season than the likes of Savea, SBW, Mitchel or Habana do in a game.

We have a group of honest, decent players and play an honest decent game plan which gets the most out of them. There is always room for improvement but we are punching well above our weight at the minute and Schmidt deserves a lot more credit than some are giving him.

Problem is Rodders, Schmidt doesn't encourage flair. Rob Penney tweeted a few weeks ago after one of the warm-up games that:
"Simon Zebo can play, too many people putting the brakes on him."

And thats coming from someone who has worked with some of the best and most successful of New Zealand talent (i.e., Carter,McCaw, Reid all came through his hands in the Canterbury academy and later the Canterbury team).

Penney also tried to bring Luke Fitzgerald to Munster so he must have rated him as well.

Sin é wrote:Problem is Rodders, Schmidt doesn't encourage flair. Rob Penney tweeted a few weeks ago after one of the warm-up games that:
"Simon Zebo can play, too many people putting the brakes on him."

And thats coming from someone who has worked with some of the best and most successful of New Zealand talent (i.e., Carter,McCaw, Reid all came through his hands in the Canterbury academy and later the Canterbury team).

Penney also tried to bring Luke Fitzgerald to Munster so he must have rated him as well.

Who cares what Penney thinks - he was a poor coach at Munster and took a players coo to sort them out.

Fitzgerald and Zebo are decent players nothing more - neither would get near any of the other top international sides.

rodders wrote:

Let's be honest a player could look a world beater in the European club game and it wouldn't matter a jot against the 4 top SH teams. The fact that we don't have any players even at that level looking like world beaters makes some of the comments about us not playing enough attacking rugby look pretty silly.

Too many Irish fans are buying into Irish times/indo hype about players - Zebo, Earls. Fitzgerald are average players who beat less defenders in a season than the likes of Savea, SBW, Mitchel or Habana do in a game.

In Olding / McCloskey / Cave / Henshaw, Ireland do have players that can develop into world beaters. Throw in Earls / Zebo / Marmion / Madigan / JJ, the potential is there for a very exciting future backline prospects. If, and I stress if, these players are allowed to express themselves then Ireland may actually develop something very good. Ireland have always been fairly rich in good mobile backrowers.

The potential is there but they have to be coached accordingly, it will not happen over night but I do sadly see Ireland reverting to old and not bringing these players on.

I don't buy into any hype, I see it there before my eyes and can see how restrained these players (currently in the squad) are being forced to play.

Sin é wrote:  
From what I can see, Payne was offered the Ireland 13 Jersey to get him over to Ulster. Schmidt is just keeping his promise.

Irish TImes wrote:Humphreys came to visit soon after, offering an opportunity to fill the 13 jersey for Ireland by November 2014. There was a catch; he would wear 15 for Ulster until that time came.

You know what they say don't believe what you read in the papers - the above is utter rubbish.
No such promise was ever made.

Payne arrived in 2011
Schmidt became Ireland manager in 2013.

It was only when Schmidt took over that he identified Payne as a 13 and it was only then he started playing 13 for Ulster

rodders wrote:

Sin é wrote:Problem is Rodders, Schmidt doesn't encourage flair. Rob Penney tweeted a few weeks ago after one of the warm-up games that:
"Simon Zebo can play, too many people putting the brakes on him."

And thats coming from someone who has worked with some of the best and most successful of New Zealand talent (i.e., Carter,McCaw, Reid all came through his hands in the Canterbury academy and later the Canterbury team).

Penney also tried to bring Luke Fitzgerald to Munster so he must have rated him as well.

Who cares what Penney thinks - he was a poor coach at Munster and took a players coo to sort them out.

Fitzgerald and Zebo are decent players nothing more - neither would get near any of the other top international sides.

They certainly wouldn't playing the style of game they are asked to play at the moment.

Penney was PRO12 coach of the year in his 2nd season so he mustn't have been that poor - 2 HCup semis with a very young team.

rodders wrote:Well one thing that stood out over the weekend is how slow the pro12 is compared to what we've seen in the RWC - the first scrum in the Australia v Pumas game was 20min in.  

.

ditto the Aviva and the Top14.

I have watch 4 Aviva games so far- not a decent one amongst them.

If the NH continues to learn nothing they will continue to win nothing at this level - simple

I'll ask the question then - how many of our outside backs would get into any of the 4 teams that played in this weekend SF?

JJ can't get game time at any decent club. Olding is injured, Cave is in about his 8th season of first team rugby - Henshaw has been a standout player for Ireland and playing better for Ireland than Connacht.

It is simply untrue to suggest these guys are playing different, or more creative at club level than for Ireland.

In fact its the opposite - Zebo has been coming in at first receiver for Ireland, Henshaw and Cave have been developed into quality inside centers - Earls has been given a run in the center whereas a Munster he's been on the wing.

The players have been given chances, the reason we aren't in the SF is they didn't play well enough against the Pumas, specifically in defence and specifically the 2 Kearneys and Earls.

If any coach is to blame it is Les Kiss as the wallabies using a blitz were able to comfortably snuff out the Pumas main threats where as we hung back and were caught narrow.