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.

The thing is Rory, its not only about attacking where Ireland need speed in their wingers. Its for defence as well. All too easily did Argentina outpace our wingers to score.

Zebo, for instance, is an excellent man on man defender and I am sure that he would have defended the wing channel better for Ireland. As I said earlier, I would have selected Dave Kearney for the Argentine game based on his previous form but having seen how easily he was outpaced, I saw it as a flaw in JS for not having Zebo on the bench to cover that game plan that Argentina were playing.

At the very least, he should have moved Earls out to the wing after the first try as he is a quick and also a good defender.

Its not always about attack with wingers.

Personally for the 6N I'd go with Trimble on the right and Fitzgerald on the left wing, with Earls on the bench.

I'd be strongly considering picking Zebo at 15 but don't think Kearney will be dropped as long as he has 4 functioning limbs.

Midfield I actually like the idea of Cave at 12 and Henshaw at 13. I think midfield will be very competitive with Mccloskey, reid and Olding emerging in the next 12-18 months.

I think lock is our weakest postion - in the backrow we have Stander, Copeland, O'Donnell all coming through to add a bit of depth.
'

Sounds like Zeebs is off to Toulouse though....

Does the craic sound the same in French though? Gallic craic is a come down for such a player. He won't have the form required now on that front to be picked for Ireland ever again. Bad decision by his agent.

No doubt if he does move Schmidt will get the blame.

Has the new coach of Toulouse been chosen? Who is he?

Penney?

It would be a shame to see Zebo turn his back on test rugby, hopefully he can be persuaded to stay.

Notch wrote:It would be a shame to see Zebo turn his back on test rugby, hopefully he can be persuaded to stay.

Yeah I have big hopes for Zebo and his future with Ireland. I don't think this would be a good move at all. He is one of the first names on the Munster team sheet and he is very close to a starting place with Ireland.

I honestly think he could oust Rob Kearney in the next year or two.

Maybe Gatland can block Zebos proposed move to France

Zebo has family in Toulouse, so maybe thats why he is linked with them. I don't think Schmidt rates him and if I was him I'd be heading off to France, making a few quid and then comeback when/if Schmidt moves on.

Sin é wrote:Zebo has family in Toulouse, so maybe thats why he is linked with them. I don't think Schmidt rates him and if I was him I'd be heading off to France, making a few quid and then comeback when/if Schmidt moves on.

Might as well..nothing doing for him with Schmidt in charge might as well make some money while he can.

SecretFly wrote:Penney?

Fabien Pelous has taken over from Noves. JP Elissalde is backs coach.

Hmmm, so the twist on this tale is that Zebo is Arnie? "I'll be back."

God, I can't wait......................
....but I think he might be back before he goes, which will be better for everyone all round

I would not be happy to see Zebo move to Toulouse but cant begrudge him a move for family and undoubtedly financial reasons. Playing for such a side may even be beneficial to him and he would be always welcomed back to Munster.

For the upcoming 6N, if fit, this would be my backline.

09 : Murray
10 : Sexton / Madigan (Madigan will have to get some game time at 10 and not be seen as a utility back, if he is seen as a Utility back then Jackson)
11 : Earls
12 : Cave
13 : Henshaw
14 : Trimble
15 : Payne

Good balance of seep, attacking ability and defence.

eirebilly wrote:I would not be happy to see Zebo move to Toulouse but cant begrudge him a move for family and undoubtedly financial reasons. Playing for such a side may even be beneficial to him and he would be always welcomed back to Munster.

For the upcoming 6N, if fit, this would be my backline.

09 : Murray
10 : Sexton / Madigan (Madigan will have to get some game time at 10 and not be seen as a utility back, if he is seen as a Utility back then Jackson)
11 : Earls
12 : Cave
13 : Henshaw
14 : Trimble
15 : Payne

Good balance of seep, attacking ability and defence.

I'd go with that backline and actually be pretty excited about it Billy.
I might even try and squeeze Stuart McCloskey in there instead of Cave

McCloskey was on my mind as well Pete and I am sure he and Olding will be in the mix.

I honestly feel that Payne would be better at 15 than Kearney based on his one on one defensive skills.

I'd like to see Madigan/Reid used at 12 for Leinster as a Giteau/Hernandez type player, could be an option for Ireland if we want to switch up the game plan.

My backline for 6N if being picked now:

9.Murray
10.Sexton
11.Fitz
12.McCloskey/Henshaw
13.Henshaw/Payne
14.Earls
15.Zebo

Wing Competition so tight atm, I wouldn't mind any two of Fitz, Earls, Trimble, also if Gilroy's all round game is up to scratch he's got to be given a shot.
I'm Olding's biggest fan but I'm leaving him out until he gets a decent run.

Could be some interesting decisions to be made up front as well. Will Healy regain his form? Who will start tight head and 2nd row?

McGrath's arguably the best loosehead in Europe so has to start and I think by the time Feb roles around Furlong will be first choice tighthead. His scrummaging looks stronger than Marty's and his loose play is just as good.
2nd row I think Ryan should start with Hendo because of the aggression he brings to rucks and the tackle, was badly needed against Argentina.
Backrow should pick itself with POM out, SOB, Stander, and Jamie, Ruddock or Henry on the bench.

My starting pack:

1.McGrath
2.Best
3.Furlong
4.Hendo
5.Ryan
6.Stander
7.SOB
8.Jamie

Subs: Healy, Strauss, Toner, Ruddock, Reddan, Madigan, Payne/Gilroy/Trimble

Such is the competition that many excellent fringe players won't even get a look in but hopefully get a chance to stake a claim and make the squad:

Buckley, on form is probably ahead of Healy at the minute.
Conan, JOD, VDF, these three all looking very good atm and could soon push ahead of TOD and Murphy.
L McGrath looking very good at the minute and probably sneaking ahead of Marmion who is still young and I'm still holding out hope for.
Ringrose and Reid could potentially be starting in the HC, and who knows could definitely make the 6N squad.
Conway seems to be finally reaching his potential and I would love to see him get atleadt 1 irish cap.
At Ulster, Arnold is still only 19 but has played every game so far this season but probaby still too early for him. Scholes is also so far down the pecking order but has looked fantastic whenever I've seen him play, should try and move to Connacht where he'd definitely get more game time.
Parata at Connacht is another guy who looks the business and should learn alot of Aki and Henshaw.


Overseas wise, McCallister seems to be living up to his potential and I can definitely see him going back to Ulster in a season or two.
I can see Annett getting Irish caps once Best and Strauss retire, we dont have too many options coming through the ranks.
The early signs for JJ look ominous but agin its still early days.
I don't know too much about Hart or Farrell's for at Grenoble tbh.

Zebo off to France?! With both Zebo and JJ leaving, is Foley starting to give off the air of a Joe Schmidt in his Carlos Spencer days? Foley can't coach and keep young talent?

wolfball wrote:Zebo off to France?! With both Zebo and JJ leaving, is Foley starting to give off the air of a Joe Schmidt in his Carlos Spencer days? Foley can't coach and keep young talent?

JJ left because he wanted to get more game time and experience as a 10 and not Utility back. Not happy with Munster for letting him go but understand his reasoning, just hope it works well for him as he is a quality player.

Zebo, I can understand him leaving for personal reasons (family connections in Toulouse) but also one that I am sad to see leave Munster and Ireland.

Okay...Zebo may be going and may not be going.... but could we dispense with the reasoning for (family connections)?

He's always had those family connections and always seemed comfortable enough getting enough time in the year to keep those connections going during holiday periods etc...he ain't broke and travel is quick to France these days.

Let's just at least do some real thinking on this if we're going to talk about it. If he's going, he's going for more money and/or simply wanting to experience the Top14. I doubt its because he's homesick for his connections.

wolfball wrote:is Foley starting to give off the air of a Joe Schmidt in his Carlos Spencer days?

They love the tall poppies down in Toulouse.

wolfball wrote:Zebo off to France?! With both Zebo and JJ leaving, is Foley starting to give off the air of a Joe Schmidt in his Carlos Spencer days? Foley can't coach and keep young talent?

Nah...would say its more Joe Schmidt and his Ireland days...

I honestly feel that Schmidt has a lot to do between now and the 6N game plan and selection wise.

I wont be upset if Ireland do poorly but show more enterprise in the way they approach the game (no more passive defence or total reliance on the kick and chase if its not working).

If Ireland approach the 6N playing the same style as they have played under Schmidt so far then do well or poorly I will not be happy.

I think Schmidt's in a no win situation in the 6N, He's been to successful for his own good and the knives are out in force.

He's done wonders with an average group of players -a bit like Connor McGregor and Michael O'Leary, we won't appreciate him until he's gone.

No rodders, he is in a good position because he does have excellent players at his expense. He just has to change his approach that although once successful, has been pretty much found out by other nations.

The sign of a great coach is the ability to adapt, change and progress.

Would you honestly be happy playing this same brand of rugby in the next 6N?

I do not think that's getting out the knives.

I would also like to see ROG get to work with Paddy Jackson, people always have a go at me for this but if Jackson got his kicking sorted then I truly believe that he could be one of the best 10's Ireland have produced. He posses' a great rugby brain and is a very controlled 10.

Marmion, if he can come through will be the perfect partner for Jackson as well.

In Cave, Henshaw, McCloskey and Olding, Ireland have a very solid centre pairings for years to come.

In Henderson, POM and SOB, there is also the ability to form a pack around them. I think that its happy days ahead for Ireland if Schmidt gets it right, which again I hope he does.

eirebilly wrote:
Would you honestly be happy playing this same brand of rugby in the next 6N?

I do not think that's getting out the knives.

Nothing wrong with the brand of Rugby, the problem is the skill levels are too low to play it under pressure and the depth isn't there in enough positions.

Earls fumbling Bowe's pass against France or Madser missing an easy place kick to level against the Pumas isn't the coaches fault - you just don't see NZ or Australia making these simple mistakes.

I also think we can't move to the next stage with only 4 pro teams, we need more players playing 1st team rugby so a few guys leaving is probably a good thing in the long run.

Every team has individual mistakes rodders and yes there is nothing a coach can do about that. I am refereeing to the constant adherence to one game plan. Far too often I have seen Ireland deploy the kick and chase but when shown to be ineffective, continued to do so. Why?

The passive defence system deployed against Argentina and Italy, was not working so why persist?

If Ireland continue this approach then yes, I will be upset.

eirebilly wrote:Every team has individual mistakes rodders and yes there is nothing a coach can do about that. I am refereeing to the constant adherence to one game plan.Far too often I have seen Ireland deploy the kick and chase but when shown to be ineffective, continued to do so. Why?

The passive defence system deployed against Argentina and Italy, was not working so why persist?

If Ireland continue this approach then yes, I will be upset.

How many times do Ireland have to play a possession based gameplan before you can see it exists.Just look at how we played against France in the WC or against Wales and Scotland in the 6N.This is how Ireland want to play but when we aren't getting quick ruck ball and occupying defenders then we have to resort to kicking.If we are more effective at what we are trying to do then we will suddenly become a more expansive,attacking side and it will be because we are using the same gameplan but executing it correctly.

No, Ireland were good at executing the kicking game plan but many nations have found it out and can confidently counter.

France were simply pish the whole tournament and have been for some time.

When Ireland set out with one game plan, they seem unable to adjust or change that mid game if it is not working well.

eirebilly wrote:No, Ireland were good at executing the kicking game plan but many nations have found it out and can confidently counter.

France were simply pish the whole tournament and have been for some time.

When Ireland set out with one game plan, they seem unable to adjust or change that mid game if it is not working well.

Okay we're never going to agree.

eirebilly wrote:No, Ireland were good at executing the kicking game plan but many nations have found it out and can confidently counter.

France were simply pish the whole tournament and have been for some time.

When Ireland set out with one game plan, they seem unable to adjust or change that mid game if it is not working well.

I would like us to play a bit more with heads up, as rodders says it's difficult to find the group who can do that and have the opportunity to practice it frequently. The weather conditions in this hemisphere does not lend itself to going through the hands all the time! The lads have been very good at the particular brand and have shown they can do it successfully at times (like France in the RWC and Scotland in the 6N)

I wouldn't say we have been found out, the sample size of losses you have for that theory isn't large enough to have any power. Four losses since Joe has been in post and each of them have been very different in terms of the factors, and three of them very close.

Also Marmion is back playing well at Connacht, but needs a bit of consistency now to push on, Cooney was first choice at the end of last season and playing really well. I think we should be looking past Boss and Reddan.

eirebilly wrote:Every team has individual mistakes rodders and yes there is nothing a coach can do about that. I am refereeing to the constant adherence to one game plan. Far too often I have seen Ireland deploy the kick and chase but when shown to be ineffective, continued to do so. Why?

The passive defence system deployed against Argentina and Italy, was not working so why persist?

If Ireland continue this approach then yes, I will be upset.

I didn't see any adherence to one plan at all - we've varied from game to game, sometimes things clicked and sometimes they didn't - if anything some of the power plays were too elaborate and didn't quite come off. The best move from the warm-ups was when Reddan did the loop around Paddy Jackson against Wales but we didn't see anything like this with Murray.

The team got the defensive pattern wrong in 2 of the last 3 games of the RWC I agree. I believe we were missing Payne and not that this was the way we set out to defend - it certainly wasn't how we've defended previously under Schmidt so this is something to review.

eirebilly wrote:
When Ireland set out with one game plan, they seem unable to adjust or change that mid game if it is not working well.

I think against Italy we adapted very well - once we realized we weren't going to break them down Sexton dropped back into the pocket and started kicking from territory.

The problem against the Pumas was we were behind and had to chase the game, also Madigan doesn't have the tactical kicking game Sexton has.

If you are chasing a game and struggling at the breakdown and end up committing numbers then at some point you will be caught out wide for numbers. Sometimes it's just not your day, like the Wallabies against NZ but there has been way too much negativity and hyperbole.

I agree that game plans will be figured out if they remain static and so they need to constantly evolve, and for once I can see that happening with Ireland year to year and game to game, which is why I believe the future is mainly positive. I just cannot accept that our kicking game plan has been found out, because a) I don't think our game revolved around kicking the ball and trying to win it back or pressurise the opposition with chasers, or even kicking for territory. And b) when we did use kicking we didn't execute with anywhere near the clinical accuracy we can see when you look at the kicking game we employed against South Africa in 2014 or against England in the Six Nations until Sexton came off for Madigan when it fell apart. It wasn't like those teams weren't expecting the kicking game, we were just more accurate than them and were very clinical. When a team executes a simple game plan as well as we did in those games it's very hard to stop even if you know what's coming, albeit I don't recommend we stay with it- one bad mistake or great play from the opponent can leave you floundering.

In this World Cup we tried to keep the ball and recycle it quickly, but made little headway with ball in hand in 2 of our 3 real games- the warm-ups and the games against Romania and Canada really don't count as they were about building up for the end of the phoney war and experimenting with a number of different things. In those three crucial games we didn't use the same game plan as we did against South Africa in the Autumn or against England in the Spring etc. We tried to keep the ball in hand and go through phase after phase, and we only switched to the kicking game when that didn't work.

I would go so far to say that of late Schmidt generally coaches a possession based game and only switches to a kicking dominated game against teams he doesn't think we can get through in phase play. However, thats becoming a too large proportion of teams. I would say the issue we have in attack is we are making small gains and not getting through the phases quickly enough or creating enough line breaks to really put the opposition under stress. Unless we can recycle the ball quicker than they can re-organise the defences we are going to look pedestrian. This is where the much debated 'offloading game' fits into the debate... But arguably re-introducing more kicking would be a good thing for our attack, if it's well targeted and executed, in terms of variety and keeping opponents guessing.

In terms of organisation in both attack and defence, I think it was hugely destructive not to have Payne in any of those three games and even worse to be missing Sexton in one and a half games. We invested so much time in building up the Sexton-Henshaw-Payne axis as the fulcrum of our game in attack and defence and we didn't see them play a single game of any significance together. But thats sport- sometimes injuries and circumstances conspire against you.

I think the problem is that our ball carriers aren't attracting defenders.Teams are stopping us but keeping 13 defenders in the line and we don't seem to be able to suck in defenders to create the space that we need to play attacking rugby.

Just like Ireland the NZ and Oz attack are both based around lightning quick ruck ball and the offloading only comes into play when there is space for it to be effective.The real difference I see is that they manage to tie defenders into the breakdown when they carry.Ireland might get quick ruck ball but there is still a wall of defenders set when they get that ball.I don't know what the solution is but we need to figure it out if we are to progress.

So if I am to understand some of the views on here :

Irelands kicking game only works well when done perfectly and when it doesn't its down to Ireland not executing it well enough and not down to the opposition countering it well?

This I disagree with as I feel that teams have figured it out and can counter it well. It does not take 15 losses to see other teams setting up their game plan to counter Irelands tactics.

My point about the kicking game was, there was very little chasing the ball and yet Ireland still persisted in the kicking game and that really astounds me.

Argentina figured out early that Ireland were deploying a passive defence (Italy game gave them all the recon they needed for this) sussed out the lack of speed in the back three and outclassed Ireland very early. It was a hell of an effort, largely thanks to Fitz showing some individual magic and backing himself for the break, to get back in the game but coming from behind is not something I have seen Ireland do so far. This was not a game plan tactic so should be recognised for what it was, individuality.

So if Ireland aren't chasing the ball- its not the same kicking game. Because previously in certain games (and in other games in the same time period we played quite differently) we based our game around an accurate chase, kicking to retrieve the ball or apply the maximum amount of pressure. We didn't do that as you say. So I don't see how teams demonstrated that they have figured out and countered a tactic which wasn't used very much. I think that some other teams in the competition would have countered it extremely well to be honest. It is a real high-wire act as I said in that if you're slightly off with your timing your gifting them good counter-attacking opportunities and we all saw what the likes of Milner-Skudder and Mitchell can do with those... so I don't think it was the right game plan to try and win a World Cup with, which might indicate why it wasn't used as much. I think trying to shift towards more of a possession based game wasn't the worst idea in the world; the problems with that approach have been well-discussed but in general I doubt we were going to beat Australia or NZ by kicking the ball away. But I do think against Argentina we were passive in our defence and in our kick chase and we needed to be better at pressurising them- because they are a team that can cut you to ribbons but can also make a lot of mistakes under pressure. We didn't bring that pressure and a good kick chase is part of that.

eirebilly wrote:So if I am to understand some of the views on here :

Irelands kicking game only works well when done perfectly and when it doesn't its down to Ireland not executing it well enough and not down to the opposition countering it well?

This I disagree with as I feel that teams have figured it out and can counter it well. It does not take 15 losses to see other teams setting up their game plan to counter Irelands tactics.

My point about the kicking game was, there was very little chasing the ball and yet Ireland still persisted in the kicking game and that really astounds me.

Argentina figured out early that Ireland were deploying a passive defence (Italy game gave them all the recon they needed for this) sussed out the lack of speed in the back three and outclassed Ireland very early. It was a hell of an effort, largely thanks to Fitz showing some individual magic and backing himself for the break, to get back in the game but coming from behind is not something I have seen Ireland do so far. This was not a game plan tactic so should be recognised for what it was, individuality.

I don't think that was the plan,that was a symptom of losing the gainline battle up front.We lost numbers and our defense was on the backfoot so had to tighten up and couldn't get up quickly to shut them down.They then had space and numbers to expose us out wide.D Kearney had a poor game but for the 1st try he was facing a 3 on 1 when the ball got to his channel.The 2nd try we had Best,Ross,Madigan and Kearney facing a 4 on 6 attack.The 3rd try our defense was at a 6 on 8 disadvantage and too narrow and Rob Kearney far too deep and slow to move up.The final try was a result of 2 props and a lock defending a 4 on 3 with a large blindside to attack.

Lack of pace wasn't the problem and complaining about our passive defense is worrying about the symptom while ignoring the disease.

eirebilly wrote:So if I am to understand some of the views on here :

Irelands kicking game only works well when done perfectly and when it doesn't its down to Ireland not executing it well enough and not down to the opposition countering it well?

This I disagree with as I feel that teams have figured it out and can counter it well. It does not take 15 losses to see other teams setting up their game plan to counter Irelands tactics.

My point about the kicking game was, there was very little chasing the ball and yet Ireland still persisted in the kicking game and that really astounds me.

Argentina figured out early that Ireland were deploying a passive defence (Italy game gave them all the recon they needed for this) sussed out the lack of speed in the back three and outclassed Ireland very early. It was a hell of an effort, largely thanks to Fitz showing some individual magic and backing himself for the break, to get back in the game but coming from behind is not something I have seen Ireland do so far. This was not a game plan tactic so should be recognised for what it was, individuality.

As to this question I don't think anyone is saying that,it doesn't have to be perfect but it has to be pretty good to work well,just like any aspect of play in international rugby.It was not done well against Argentina,Murray and Madigan sent up several kicks which had no chance of being contested.I don't know what caused this,but having a chaser who can contest or at least hit the receiver is a basic of the kick/chase game.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

As to this question I don't think anyone is saying that,it doesn't have to be perfect but it has to be pretty good to work well,just like any aspect of play in international rugby.It was not done well against Argentina,Murray and Madigan sent up several kicks which had no chance of being contested.I don't know what caused this,but having a chaser who can contest or at least hit the receiver is a basic of the kick/chase game.

But that is the core of my point. Bowe went off (Irelands main kick chaser) but still Ireland continued with this tactic. This is not an onfield issue, this was very much an off-field issue with Ireland totally under prepared and incapable of adjusting. This is why I say that Ireland adhere to a set game plan even when not working. Surely Schmidt should have noticed this and got a message to the players on the field, most other coaches are able to.

eirebilly wrote:

But that is the core of my point. Bowe went off (Irelands main kick chaser) but still Ireland continued with this tactic. This is not an onfield issue, this was very much an off-field issue with Ireland totally under prepared and incapable of adjusting. This is why I say that Ireland adhere to a set game plan even when not working. Surely Schmidt should have noticed this and got a message to the players on the field, most other coaches are able to.

The tactic is not dependent on one player (at least it shouldn't be),I can't talk for Schmidt but I expect that he felt that they should be able to execute this tactic no matter who was on the field.The problem was that our halfbacks were kicking when there was no chase organised,that's an onfield issue since it is not a regular feature of our game.

I don't know whether the halfbacks or the players who were meant to be chasing are to blame but it's something that the Argies can't affect so it's an onfield issue,if it continues to happen over the next few games then we have to ask the coaches why it hasn't been rectified but if it doesn't happen again then we can assume it was just a malfunction at the worst possible time.

It looked very much like a pre-set game plan. It was not working and yet no adjustment was made.

Coaches have a broader picture of the game and relay messages to the onfield players all the time. This did not appear to happen. It seemed very much like Ireland were simply sticking to a game plan that was not working.

Sure you can have a go at the players but I do believe that Schmidt has a plan on how to play matches and seems incapable of adjusting his plans and getting these messages across to the onfield players and the players seem very concerned to change the plan as well.

Fitz was the one who took the mantle by some individual skill and got Ireland back into the match but his play was not out of the Schmidt textbook, it was purely individual.

eirebilly wrote:It looked very much like a pre-set game plan. It was not working and yet no adjustment was made.

Coaches have a broader picture of the game and relay messages to the onfield players all the time. This did not appear to happen. It seemed very much like Ireland were simply sticking to a game plan that was not working.

Sure you can have a go at the players but I do believe that Schmidt has a plan on how to play matches and seems incapable of adjusting his plans and getting these messages across to the onfield players and the players seem very concerned to change the plan as well.

Fitz was the one who took the mantle by some individual skill and got Ireland back into the match but his play was not out of the Schmidt textbook, it was purely individual.

It seemed to me Ireland weren't executing the gameplan,not having chasers when you kick isn't the gameplan.Why would Schmidt tell the team to stop using a core tactic that has been very successful for them in the last few years.

Schmidt does have a plan on how to play matches and I am 100% certain it doesn't involve his halfbacks using boxkicks and Garryowens with no chase.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

It seemed to me Ireland weren't executing the gameplan,not having chasers when you kick isn't the gameplan.Why would Schmidt tell the team to stop using a core tactic that has been very successful for them in the last few years.

Schmidt does have a plan on how to play matches and I am 100% certain it doesn't involve his halfbacks using boxkicks and Garryowens with no chase.

That was the original game plan, the fact that Bowe went off and no-one was chasing was amazingly poor. I am saying, why was Schmidt not relaying messages to the team to either tell them to stop the kick game plan with Irelands most effective chaser off or assign someone else the Bowe role of chasing kicks?

This went on far too long for him not to intervene in my opinion or he had no other idea as to how to get Ireland to change or adjust their tactics.

eirebilly wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

It seemed to me Ireland weren't executing the gameplan,not having chasers when you kick isn't the gameplan.Why would Schmidt tell the team to stop using a core tactic that has been very successful for them in the last few years.

Schmidt does have a plan on how to play matches and I am 100% certain it doesn't involve his halfbacks using boxkicks and Garryowens with no chase.

That was the original game plan, the fact that Bowe went off and no-one was chasing was amazingly poor. I am saying, why was Schmidt not relaying messages to the team to either tell them to stop the kick game plan with Irelands most effective chaser off or assign someone else the Bowe role of chasing kicks?

This went on far too long for him not to intervene in my opinion or he had no other idea as to how to get Ireland to change or adjust their tactics.

Well we don't know that he was or wasn't relaying those messages,I am pretty sure that there would be someone assigned to Bowe's role,most likely D Kearney who was on the right wing.You can't really be trying to argue that the team wouldn't be prepared for Bowe going off,the role is the same regardless of who is playing there.If the players aren't fulfilling those roles then there isn't much he can do.It was either the halfbacks or the chasers fault,probably some combination of both but there were no more subs he could use in the back 3 so I don't see how you think he can could have changed things.

Oh well, I guess we have to disagree on this. Whilst apportioning some of the blame to the players, I truly feel that Schmidt failed in not realising or adjusting things during that match (also when Sexton looked out on his feet during the AI's when Ireland could have beaten the AB's) and to me, they are big mistakes from a coaching perspective.