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.

geoff999rugby wrote:

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

Totally agree.

rodders wrote: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.

I will try and explain myself a little better. The players I have mentioned do have the potential but the are being restrained at both club level and International level in Ireland. If they were coached more to their natural instincts then yes, they could be world class. I am not saying that they are now, nor am I implying that they would walk into any of the SH sides.

geoff999rugby wrote:

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

The Irish Times doesn't usually make stuff up. That reads like a very factual interview with Payne. If it wasn't so, I expect a letter to the Times at least refuting it if it was an error as it doesn't look too good.

Schmidt was hardly going to ignore the promises made to a player that had come halfway around the world, especially when his assistant (Kiss) was going to coach Ulster next season.

Its going to be interesting to see what happens in Ulster next season. Will the young tyros get an opportunity to play in the centre or will they be moved around to accommodate Payne there.

All good for Ulster fans though - they can blame the IRFU for insisting that Payne is played at 13.

eirebilly wrote:The players I have mentioned do have the potential but the are being restrained at both club level and International level in Ireland. If they were coached more to their natural instincts then yes, they could be world class.

And what is that based on?

The expectations on Ireland are so unrealistic. A number of posters have said that we are blinded by northern hemisphere achievements and need to focus on targeting the Southern Hemisphere teams. Grand, let's look at our squad. At the very, very best, we have two world class players in Best and Sexton and even that is a stretch. We are a decent side full of some very good international players (Healy when fit, SOB, POM, Heasip and Rob Kearney), some good internationals (Murray, Payne, Bowe, Trimble of fit, Earls on the wing), a couple of up and comers (Henshaw and Henderson). But compare our basic skill levels to the teams we aspire to beat and we are quite a while behind. And some of you want to open up our game, make it more expansive, to actually create more space for better teams to exploit? Absolute lunacy. Australia did a number on Argentina, not by playing expansive, free flowing rugby, but by keeping the game tight for the most part, by employing a blitz defence and starving the Argentinians of go forward ball, having a genuine number 7 (playing at 8) who has been, by a distance, the best player in the tournament, and holding width in attack by running proper lines of attack and not crabbing sideways. In effect, everything Ireland should have done but failed. But even more than that, they were accurate and took their chances. Plus they had their big players on the field not injured. Without Pocock, as against Scotland, Australia are a completely different and much inferior side. That's one player. We had two of our main ball carriers and leaders out, our captain, our out half and key back, our 13 who lead our defensive organisation. The replacements, bar Henry(who didn't have a great game at any rate) are far inferior than the players we missed.

rodders wrote:

eirebilly wrote:The players I have mentioned do have the potential but the are being restrained at both club level and International level in Ireland. If they were coached more to their natural instincts then yes, they could be world class.

And what is that based on?

Based on what I have seen from fleeting moments of brilliance. The ability, willingness and potential is there.

eirebilly wrote:  
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. p

Cave, Earls, Madigan are not and never will be a world beaters.
The other you mention have the potential but need to be handled correctly

Given the way they are coached at Provincial level (and Saints) I suspect none will reach the same level they would if they were in the SH

eirebilly wrote:

rodders wrote:

eirebilly wrote:The players I have mentioned do have the potential but the are being restrained at both club level and International level in Ireland. If they were coached more to their natural instincts then yes, they could be world class.

And what is that based on?

Based on what I have seen from fleeting moments of brilliance. The ability, willingness and potential is there.

No I mean what are you basing your assertion that they are being coached not to play?

Against France Bowe made a great break, of a super inside ball and Earls fumbled a walk in try - that is not player being restrained, that is players encouraged to play but not having the skills to execute. Compare Dew Mitchel and AAC yesterday.

Madigan bombing a massive overlap with a banana kick - compare to Gitau's miss pass to AAC where he doesn't miss a step.

Our players don't convert enough opportunities and that is down to lack of skill under pressure.

Have you seen Schmidt's sessions? Players are not allowed to drop the ball - he's improved the skill levels of our players out of sight but there is still some way to go to match NZ and Australia.

Simon Zebo threw a pass similar to the AAC try yesterday and he can't make the starting team.

To improve their skills when under pressure, players need practice doing it a bit. This seems to be discouraged.

As for Earls dropping the ball - that is more than likely down to the conditions in a Millenium stadium when the roof is closed. The ball is like a bar of soap. I've seen Doug Howlett having similar problems in the Millenium stadium when the roof is closed.

Sin é wrote:Simon Zebo threw a pass similar to the AAC try yesterday and he can't make the starting team.

To improve their skills when under pressure, players need practice doing it a bit. This seems to be discouraged.

Based on what? What is discouraged is throwing 50:50 passes and coughing up possession -which is a good thing and in line with any top side.

Australia and NZ very rarely offload but when they do it tends to result in scores.

The problem is too often our players can't execute to a high enough standard but this isn't always the case - for example we cored 2 good tries against Argentina and France.

Can people remember the last game we failed to score a try?

Jeez rodders, its as if you don't think that the SH make handling errors or throw the odd bad pass. Trust me they do but the major difference is that it is not frowned upon. Its actually encouraged to take that extra risk. Because they do it so often, they are more comfortable and it doesn't show up as much when it goes wrong.

rodders wrote:

Sin é wrote:Simon Zebo threw a pass similar to the AAC try yesterday and he can't make the starting team.

To improve their skills when under pressure, players need practice doing it a bit. This seems to be discouraged.

Based on what? What is discouraged is throwing 50:50 passes and coughing up possession  -which is a good thing and in line with any top side.

Australia and NZ very rarely offload but when they do it tends to result in scores.

The problem is too often our players can't execute to a high enough standard but this isn't always the case  - for example we cored 2 good tries against Argentina and France.

Can people remember the last game we failed to score a try?

Well, thats nonsense anyway. SBW has 10 offloads himself in this world cup. Carter 7. Kurtle Beale 7 (from Top 20 list - SBW is No. 1).

Team offloads:
1: Argentina: 62;
2: NZ: 53;
9: Australia 35.
17: Ireland: 21 (Namibia, 21, USA 19 and Romania 16 are behind Ireland

Sin é wrote:

rodders wrote:

Sin é wrote:Simon Zebo threw a pass similar to the AAC try yesterday and he can't make the starting team.

To improve their skills when under pressure, players need practice doing it a bit. This seems to be discouraged.

Based on what? What is discouraged is throwing 50:50 passes and coughing up possession  -which is a good thing and in line with any top side.

Australia and NZ very rarely offload but when they do it tends to result in scores.

The problem is too often our players can't execute to a high enough standard but this isn't always the case  - for example we cored 2 good tries against Argentina and France.

Can people remember the last game we failed to score a try?

Well, thats nonsense anyway. SBW has 10 offloads himself in this world cup. Carter 7. Kurtle Beale 7 (from Top 20 list - SBW is No. 1).

Apart from Kurtley not one Australian is in the top 10. So they've barely offloaded at all. Same with NZ - apart from Sonny Bill and Carter they have hardly offloaded.

Coached not to perhaps?

rodders wrote:

Sin é wrote:

rodders wrote:

Sin é wrote:Simon Zebo threw a pass similar to the AAC try yesterday and he can't make the starting team.

To improve their skills when under pressure, players need practice doing it a bit. This seems to be discouraged.

Based on what? What is discouraged is throwing 50:50 passes and coughing up possession  -which is a good thing and in line with any top side.

Australia and NZ very rarely offload but when they do it tends to result in scores.

The problem is too often our players can't execute to a high enough standard but this isn't always the case  - for example we cored 2 good tries against Argentina and France.

Can people remember the last game we failed to score a try?

Well, thats nonsense anyway. SBW has 10 offloads himself in this world cup. Carter 7. Kurtle Beale 7 (from Top 20 list - SBW is No. 1).

Apart from Kurtley not one Australian is in the top 10. So they've barely offloaded at all. Same with NZ - apart from Sonny Bill and Carter they have hardly offloaded.

Coached not to perhaps?

Team offloads:
1: Argentina: 62;
2: NZ: 53;
9: Australia 35.
17: Ireland: 21 (Namibia, 21, USA 19 and Romania 16 are behind Ireland

Exactly - Ireland average 1 less offload per game than Australia.

geoff999rugby wrote:

eirebilly wrote:  
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. p

Cave, Earls, Madigan are not and never will be a world beaters.
The other you mention have the potential but need to be handled correctly

Given the way they are coached at Provincial level (and Saints) I suspect none will reach the same level they would if they were in the SH

Earls only Irish back to make Top 10 in Gainline carries.

3. Sean O'Brien (29 gainline carries)
5. SB Williams (28)
10. Keith Earls (24 carries)
13. Julian Savea (22)
15. Henshaw (22 carries)
16. Conrad Smith (21)

The SANZAR teams are most definitely not encouraged to take risks for the sake of it and it is most certainly frowned upon when they make mistakes. I have no idea why people seem to think otherwise. They are encouraged to keep the ball alive and they have the skill levels to pull it off. It is as simple as that. Of course the coach isn't saying "lads throw the ball about, it's okay if you drop it a few times as long as you score a few tries". The coaches will be drilling the basics into these players to ensure the mistakes are eradicated.

None of them coach their teams to look for contact ALL the time. They encourage them to look for space.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:The SANZAR teams are most definitely not encouraged to take risks for the sake of it and it is most certainly frowned upon when they make mistakes. I have no idea why people seem to think otherwise. They are encouraged to keep the ball alive and they have the skill levels to pull it off. It is as simple as that. Of course the coach isn't saying "lads throw the ball about, it's okay if you drop it a few times as long as you score a few tries". The coaches will be drilling the basics into these players to ensure the mistakes are eradicated.

Exactly - and this is same approach Schmidt has - if our no of passes is lower it's because our players don't have the same ability to execute the offload or the support players are not in the right position to receive it. That will come in time but this is not instinctive to a lot of our players because they don't play this way at underage and club level the way the SH teams to.

This hasn't been coached out of our players - it's not there in the first place and Schmidt and some of the provincial coaches like Lam are trying to improve them.

Nice of Sin to cherry pick the stats again - how did we get on for metres made and gainline carries?

Sin é wrote:None of them coach their teams to look for contact ALL the time. They encourage them to look for space.

Neither do we.

Sin é wrote:None of them coach their teams to look for contact ALL the time. They encourage them to look for space.

Yep.  Even the contact work...and it can be ferociously physical....has the primary role of establishing space that will generally be used.  So often we can see Irish players (not looking at you Rob )actually come from areas where there might be space available with a little one/two attempt at passing and instead run a neat diagonal straight back into contact.

Now let nobody tell me there is a method in that.  I know the method...I'm saying it is an overly caution-first method that might win us tight games against NH opposition but will always sting us against much superior outfits from down south ways.  
We have to become more dangerous in our desire to attack...and bloody well use more effectively the efforts of the poor schidts asked to ram ram ram into the opposition.

rodders wrote:Exactly - Ireland average 1 less offload per game than Australia.

and what about NZ & Argentina?

Pretty impressive use of the ball for a side coached not to attack:-

Most tries scored:-

1 NEW ZEALAND 36
2 ARGENTINA 26
3 AUSTRALIA 26
4 SOUTH AFRICA 24
5 IRELAND 18

CARRIES OVER GAIN LINE
1 South Africa 347
2 Argentina 339
3 Ireland 325
4 New Zealand 325
5 France 286

MOST METRES MADE
COUNTRY AMOUNT
1 Argentina 3854
2 New Zealand 3464
3 South Africa 2807
4 Ireland 2424
5 Australia 2379

More tries than any other team that reached the QF - 3rd most gainline carries - 29 clean breaks just behind the other NH sides.

rodders wrote:

Sin é wrote:None of them coach their teams to look for contact ALL the time. They encourage them to look for space.

Neither do we.

Crickey, have you ever watched Rob Kearney running into contact all the time. Read D'Arcy's column in the IT. He explains it all very well.

Sin é wrote:

rodders wrote:

Sin é wrote:None of them coach their teams to look for contact ALL the time. They encourage them to look for space.

Neither do we.

Crickey, have you ever watched Rob Kearney running into contact all the time. Read D'Arcy's column in the IT. He explains it all very well.

D'arcy spent the last 5 seasons of his career running head long into contact - he might want to write about something he knows about.

rodders wrote:Pretty impressive use of the ball for a side coached not to attack:-

Most tries scored:-

1 NEW ZEALAND 36
2 ARGENTINA 26
3 AUSTRALIA 26
4 SOUTH AFRICA 24
5 IRELAND 18

CARRIES OVER GAIN LINE
1 South Africa 347
2 Argentina 339
3 Ireland 325
4 New Zealand 325
5 France 286

MOST METRES MADE
COUNTRY AMOUNT
1 Argentina 3854
2 New Zealand 3464
3 South Africa 2807
4 Ireland 2424
5 Australia 2379

More tries than any other team that reached the QF - 3rd most gainline carries - 29 clean breaks just behind the other NH sides.

Mostly down to that very underrated centre, Keith Earls

He had more gainline carries than Heaslip for feic sake! And you expect him to make the Kearney's tackles as well

rodders wrote:

Sin é wrote:

rodders wrote:

Sin é wrote:None of them coach their teams to look for contact ALL the time. They encourage them to look for space.

Neither do we.

Crickey, have you ever watched Rob Kearney running into contact all the time. Read D'Arcy's column in the IT. He explains it all very well.

D'arcy spent the last 5 seasons of his career running head long into contact - he might want to write about something he knows about.

And guess who his club coach was during most of that time

Sin é wrote:
He had more gainline carries than Heaslip for feic sake! And you expect him to make the Kearney's tackles as well

Well no, I expect him to miss them but one can live in hope...

rodders wrote:Pretty impressive use of the ball for a side coached not to attack:-

Best line of this thread so far. Brevity is the soul of wit and all that.

That line encapsulates the opinion of both defenders and critics of our methods.

Now we know how good we might actually be if we were coached to attack. That's always been my point. And when we've been sneered at during the 6Ns, that's what I'd generally do..... "Not bad for a side that plays 'boring' non-rugby".

But why not be ambitious for us now to add some 'rugby' to the mix and see how we might really shine?

Well Schmidt gets judged on results because that's what pays the bills.

Evolving the game plan has to be done gradually but I believe we are a pretty varied side and only the execution is letting us down from the next level.

I think we were good enough to reach a SF, maybe a final but that is probably it. We were unlucky with injuries and outplayed by a good side - no disgrace in that...

Evolving a gameplan happens by either waiting for the natural players to come on-line that have the IT factor themselves (I hate that excuse/reasoning personally)  - or  - you decide to fast-track coach it, changing players' perceptions of their own game and yep, changing their instincts too..... like Townsend and Cotter are doing up in Scotland.  Scotland might still be losing the 'big' games but they've been shunted aggressively into a more dynamic outfit and look dangerous and up-for-it in all games they play.  They don't do a slow version of it'll-do to some games - they and Glasgow practice the always-on, always-turbo version of rugby.  And they are learning much quicker than us how to handle such games of speed and chance through 80.  They're learning and adapting to think faster and act faster.  

Our version of rugby is the more stately process of NH stuff where set-piece is king and strolling around to get through 80 is the norm.   We're not conditioning ourselves to the mental heat of the kind of games that Argentina and Australia had yesterday.  We can do it one-off, like I've said so often.  But a WC is weekly, weekly, weekly.  Our it'll-do winning approach (get a score and sit on it) will not suffice as a blueprint.

Well Schmidt coaches his players to keep the ball in play for 4 minutes at a time in training which is more intense than any game anywhere.

Off the training park in the NH games are stop start and the set piece is king and that's just the way it is. Our players will always have to go up a few gears against the SH.

There is nothing more we can do beyond what we are doing. Our coaches and backroom staff are the best in the world.

SecretFly wrote:... like Townsend and Cotter are doing up in Scotland.  Scotland might still be losing the 'big' games but they've been shunted aggressively into a more dynamic outfit and look dangerous and up-for-it in all games they play.  They don't do a slow version of it'll-do to some games - they and Glasgow practice the always-on, always-turbo version of rugby.  And they are learning much quicker than us how to handle such games of speed and chance through 80.  They're learning and adapting to think faster and act faster.  

Is that the same Scotland we blew off the park a few months ago to win the 6N? Sorry but that is total rubbish fly to say Scotland are better coached or moving forward faster than us.

There is no evidence of Glasgow's game transferring to Scotland.

rodders wrote:Well Schmidt coaches his players to keep the ball in play for 4 minutes at a time in training which is more intense than any game anywhere.

Off the training park in the NH games are stop start and the set piece is king and that's just the way it is. Our players will always have to go up a few gears against the SH.

There is nothing more we can do beyond what we are doing. Our coaches and backroom staff are the best in the world.

Schmidt selects his wings on their ruck  hitting stats, not on skill or pace. Earls wouldn't have a hope in hell of making a Schmidt team except he is one of the best ruck resourcer in the squad.

Sin é wrote:
Schmidt selects his wings on their ruck  hitting stats, not on skill or pace.

No he doesn't - he just doesn't pick players who can't defend or ruck.

Which players in the NZ or Australia team can't ruck?

rodders wrote: Well Schmidt coaches his players to keep the ball in play for 4 minutes at a time in training which is more intense than any game anywhere.

Off the training park in the NH games are stop start and the set piece is king and that's just the way it is. Our players will always have to go up a few gears against the SH.

There is nothing more we can do beyond what we are doing. Our coaches and backroom staff are the best in the world.

You also said earlier that Joe doesn't accept dropped balls in training.  So??  The players save all their non-training field stuff for real games against real opposition?

Nice.  I'd prefer it the other way around but beggars can't be choosers I suppose....

Also, this throwing in the towel stuff from us up here in the bloody "NH" - it's actually laughable if it wasn't so painful to listen to.

Why should the idea be that our players have to go up a few gears against the SH?  If you have to go up a few gears that means you're not conditioned to the gears you have to go up into.  Therefore, when you meet these teams that 'cruise' in the higher gears, well then.............. it's always going to be a battle against the odds isn't it.

So why habitually accept those odds when logic also states that if you try to yearly be in some of the gears the SH uses then not only are you going to be in better shape to meet and challenge them, BUT...you're also naturally going to be in a pretty good condition to beat your nearest neighbours too.

So what is this crud idea in the NH that your best bet in the NH is to keep to a NH brand of rugby (which has been proven to be inferior to the SH now for practically millennia! )?

I don't get the logic.  "This is the way we do things and sure,.... well, it's what we do.  It's our traditions to play worse rugby than the SH, but we gotta keep those traditions alive"

Sin é wrote:

Schmidt selects his wings on their ruck  hitting stats, not on skill or pace. Earls wouldn't have a hope in hell of making a Schmidt team except he is one of the best ruck resourcer in the squad.

It's not one or the other. It's both! At a higher level. Both. We don't do either consistently well enough to compete with the best.
If Earls is a good ruck resourcer and handy in attack then great. That's what we need. We don't need lightweight speedboys who can't handle rucking duties. We need players able to do both...consistently. Consistent form, consistently done.

No no fly I'm not in favour of retaining traditions at all - I just believe we are doing as well as we can within out circumstances.

If it were down to me I'd like to see:-

Touch rugby introduced at age 7
All junior rugby under the IRFU and through clubs rather than schools.
Age grade replaced by size and removal of knockout competitions at underage.
8 pro teams - 2 each in Munster and Ulster, 3 in Leinster and 1 in Connacht.
A full time exiles team - LI -under the IRFU.

But it isn't going to happen so progress is gradual.

rodders wrote:

Is that the same Scotland we blew off the park a few months ago to win the 6N? Sorry but that is total rubbish fly to say Scotland are better coached or moving forward faster than us.

There is no evidence of Glasgow's game transferring to Scotland.

No evidence? Okay.

Now back to the topmost point then.

We blew Scotland off the park playing what? What kind of game did we give them? Yep, one of our one-off games of dynamic aggression for 80. Not our usual 6N fare of kicking away to sit back and defend for 20 mins at a time.

So the point holds We blow teams off the fields when we play as aggressor (like against France, like against Scotland). We are inconsistent in offering that game to our opposition/enemy. I want a consistency of that effort to aggressively make that gameplan our usual Gear...not the one we go up to on special occasions

Well we the aggressor against the Puma's and Italy too.

Against Italy? ..and the Pumas?


Another one of your wind-ups, rodders

SecretFly wrote: Against Italy?  ..and the Pumas?


Another one of your wind-ups, rodders

Ireland made 30 kicks against Argentina compared to the Wallabies 38.

By contracts NZ kicked 40 times from hand versus SA.

I am deadly serious, we do try and play with the ball but the end result is just not always there.

rodders wrote:

SecretFly wrote: Against Italy?  ..and the Pumas?


Another one of your wind-ups, rodders

Ireland made 30 kicks against Argentina compared to the Wallabies 38.

By contracts NZ kicked 40 times from hand versus SA.

I am deadly serious, we do try and play with the ball but the end result is just not always there.

Ireland kick aimlessly, that's the difference. Its not an effective weapon when there are no chasers. I say again, Ireland cannot adjust to in match scenarios. When trying to run the ball, they did it primarily through the forwards and lost ground. When kicking, it was little better than kicking possession away.

Ireland kicked aimlessly against Argentina, but we've won our recent Six Nations titles and beaten teams like South Africa largely because our kick chase game was so good and organised and we used it as an effective weapon

This is a big part of the reason why an on-form Sexton is irreplaceable. I remember well the clinical accuracy of our kicking game against England in the 6N; and how it went out the window when Madigan came on. I just feel like we lost our organisation with the injuries we had. There's no doubt the coaches and players we have can execute that game in general.

I do feel like Madigan at 10 forces you to play a more running orientated game, which suits us less.

Also let's bear in mind that we were chasing the game against Argentina right from the start and that will have affected our tactics in terms of kicking/running.

I also don't want it to seem like I'm scapegoating Madigan either; Jackson probably wouldn't have done much better. Neither are experienced at this level. It's just that when people say Sexton is indispensable to this team they aren't overstating it...

Notch wrote:Ireland kicked aimlessly against Argentina, but we've won our recent Six Nations titles and beaten teams like South Africa largely because our kick chase game was so good and organised and we used it as an effective weapon

This is a big part of the reason why an on-form Sexton is irreplaceable.

Well exactly - but the Schmidt-anators refuse to acknowledge and put this down to coaching and tactics....

The kicking game has worked in the past, sure but it has since been found out. Wales countered Ireland in the 6N, in the warm-up's Ireland were dire and England gave Ireland a fairly comfortable defeat.

During the RWC, Italy countered it well. I would say the best rugby Ireland played was when Madigan came on against France and played his natural game. As dire as France were, Ireland looked a lot more comfortable playing that style.

Against Argentina, it appeared to me as if Madigan was told to be more controlling and that was where it went wrong (well that and Argentina punishing Irelands lack of speed out wide.
Without Bowe chasing, the kicking game was nullified and yet sadly, Ireland kept to that plan. It wasn't until Fitz came on, showed a bit of flair that Ireland looked to have maybe gotten back into the match...

Another key factor that must be noted for Scotland's change of play is that they now have the players who suit such a game - Russell, Bennett, Seymour and Hogg in particular. The pack also suits this game also with the Gray brothers, Denton, Strauss, Hardie etc.

Ireland do not have the same players as of yet and that is the reality. Unless people suggest we fast track some of the youngsters immediately.

Schmidt is a former Leinster coach........ a God in our Universe down here and don't anyone forget it  We'll always be grateful to him just as Munster fans will always have affection for Kidney.

He is not above criticism though.  And coaches in Provinces are not above criticism.  And our new crowned Director of Rugby is not above criticism.  The criticism is designed to be part of the inquisition into where it all went wrong................. again!  The criticism is designed to be part of a process to make us ...em.... better.

No sin in being better.  

Schmidt is the man for me.  I very much want him on board for the next four years.  I hope he finds assistants that he truly wants rather than one or two that I think time constraints and other limiting factors dropped onto his lap.  But he, his assistants, the Director and the Provinces really need now to get on the one sheet and approach our limitations together to find solutions to those limitations thus far.  

And incidently, an example:  If the conclusion reached is that Ireland without a fit Sexton is not competitive enough then that truth and that perception needs a lot of resolving over the next few seasons.  It is not a 'truth' that should exist in an International top tier side with ambitions to do well in WCs  

So I think we can improve, but the will has to be there to elaborate on what's there.  It is doable.  What we have now can be improved upon WITH the players we already have.  But the will just has to be there and not drain away again come the 6Ns.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Another key factor that must be noted for Scotland's change of play is that they now have the players who suit such a game - Russell, Bennett, Seymour and Hogg in particular. The pack also suits this game also with the Gray brothers, Denton, Strauss, Hardie etc.

Ireland do not have the same players as of yet and that is the reality. Unless people suggest we fast track some of the youngsters immediately.

Anything over 20 is okay by me. Bring them into an extended camp and let the coaches work with and analyse at close range. No reason why we can't use younger ambitious players. BOD started out before he played for Leinster.
But also I mentioned a while back that Schmidt should set up specific camps within each year with the express purpose of getting the Provincial 'side-kick' players of promise together to just get them up to speed on the nature of the camps and the requirements he has. A few 'working-dinner' camps as it were for the fringe younger players both to get to know each other better and the International coaches, and to work on a few things without the pressures of being directed at any upcoming competition.