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.

rodders wrote:I think players are working incredibly hard - too hard. One of the few special players we have is Olding and look at him, injury after injury.

Look at Felix Jones, Stevie Ferris, Dennis Leamy guys lost to injury prematurely and others like O'Brien and Healy.

I don't accept that our players aren't well conditioned and putting in the work. Conditioning wise we are ahead of the rest of the world bar the ABs.

What we don't have is the natural size and pace so our guys worker even harder in the gym and training not less than other sides.

I specifically stayed clear of gym work for the very reason that I'm talking about conditioning for the games we hopefully would seek to play - ie, the winning version rather than the clinging-on version of defend, defend, defend, impact, impact, impact, breakdown, defend, impact.

I specifically stayed clear of gym work for that very reason.... they're all different 'forms' of conditioning.  Players work hard at one, that doesn't necessarily compute that they're going to then succeed at aspects of the game that require other avenues of conditioning.  Too much of one potentially suppresses the other.

So O'Brien and Healy and Ferris, and Leamy before him, spend a lifetime running into ferocious contact?  Some of us choose to call that gamebreaking by special gamebreakers.  Some also say we simply don't have as many as we used to have, and we could be doing with more of them but will have to wait as there are few on the conveyor belt just now.  
Others might say that's the very reason you mentioned them as either lost to injury or, in the case of O'Brien and Healy, punched into pale copies of their earlier selves by that continuous bang of impact driven phase play.  

Meanwhile, if you tell me our conditioning is better than Wales I just won't believe it.

Just looking at next years 6N. With only two games at home against France and England, Ireland have a very tough 6N ahead.

Scotland away first up will be a very tough match given that Scotland are starting to take some form under Cotter and a very difficult side to beat at home.

Italy away (7 day turn around) can be a tough match but I would expect an Irish win and thank god there is the a 14 day turnaround for France as I think Ireland will be very bruised after the first two matches.

rodders wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:the reality is that a well conditioned and talented athlete is going to be better than a well conditioned average joe. The best teams will have more of the former.

Hey great phrase that Rory - it would look really good on a t-shirt or tank top.

I'll send you the first design.

I would love to see us play a more expansive game, but please point me to the players who you would like to see execute it. Maybe that is a poor choice of words, I know many players within Ireland who execute expansive rugby using the other definition.

Schmidt clearly wants Ireland to play attacking rugby also. I seriously do not understand what people think he is doing. Do you really think he doesn't want them to play heads up rugby? Or to keep the ball alive and more importantly hold onto possession? To try and play rugby in the right areas of the field? Certain fans would have you believe he doesn't want Ireland to score tries!

I would say the evidence clearly suggests that Schmidt is coaching Ireland to do all of the above. However, like I said at the beginning, please point me towards the players that you think are going to suddenly turn Ireland into the All Blacks.

SecretFly wrote:
Meanwhile, if you tell me our conditioning is better than Wales I just won't believe it.

What do you mean by conditioning? - sprint times, weights lifted, standing jump, vo2max, lactate threshold, metres run, tackles made, ruck hit etc. - yes in every aspect we are as good as any side in the world and better than most.

In fact, as Rory pointed out our game plan relies on us to be fitter as we need to go through more phases with the ball and work harder than some of the bigger sides who have more game breakers.

No amount of conditioning or training can take the likes of Fergus McFadden (one of the hardest trainers around) and make him Julien Savea or Sonny Bill, take Rob Kearney and make him Ben Smith, Piatau or Mike Brown, Jamie Heaslip and make him Billy Vunapola (as per Rory's t-shirt).

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I would love to see us play a more expansive game, but please point me to the players who you would like to see execute it. Maybe that is a poor choice of words, I know many players within Ireland who execute expansive rugby using the other definition.

Schmidt clearly wants Ireland to play attacking rugby also. I seriously do not understand what people think he is doing. Do you really think he doesn't want them to play heads up rugby? Or to keep the ball alive and more importantly hold onto possession? To try and play rugby in the right areas of the field? Certain fans would have you believe he doesn't want Ireland to score tries!

I would say the evidence clearly suggests that Schmidt is coaching Ireland to do all of the above. However, like I said at the beginning, please point me towards the players that you think are going to suddenly turn Ireland into the All Blacks.

Why such a high level, Rory?

Why mention the All Blacks?

Maybe Argentina.  Could we suddenly become or attack more like Argentina?  If not, why not?  

They work to systems, it's not off the cuff.  They have attacking pods, they use offloading without writing letters of apology to the stay-safe purists who might frown on the idea back home Offloading with potent win-game intent.  Not for show, for effectiveness in creating gaps and spaces.... at speed.  They run hard lines of attack, they run onto ball rather than collecting from standstill, they make defensive lines panic a little due to the consistency of pressure, they drag defences either in to run around or drag them out to run through.  Each team has only 15 players max. You can't be everywhere.  We don't test that theory often enough with our general style of play.  They constantly want to enforce their tempo and gameplan on the opposition.  They want to constantly be the aggressor.  They sustain it and did sustain it through pool games and against us.  Their gameplan remained the same.  They had confidence in it and love for it.  They didn't look for smokescreens to cover tactics for a game later down the line.  They just played as they play.  The opposition was simply asked to stop it. 

So, if not then why not can Ireland choose to play more an attacking brand like Argentina?  Currently just one place above us too so not an outlandish idea surely?  An easier standard to reach (IF we genuinely want to attack more expansively) than the glorious All Blacks surely???

Fly if you want that you should argue that they should play even less games with more intensity. The level of The more games they play the more they have to pace themselves, the lower the overall intensity drops. This is epitomised by the Top14 which is an incredibly low-intensity, high error count league.

I personally feel a 30 games plus club season is insane and we should be aiming for our clubs, provinces and regions to play between 18 and 22 games maximum a year- in as much of continuous block as possible. The fact that Bath are saying that they can't reschedule their European game is extremely annoying due to the fact they are- once again- trying to influence sensitive negotiations which should be private through the media. This time its doubly insensitive given the circumstances.

But they're right there is too much rugby being played, albeit completely wrong in terms of what needs to be cut back. It is the 9-month slog of our domestic leagues that encourages players to spread their efforts more thinly and dilutes the quality of the rugby played. Less games of higher intensity is what we need at that level.

Do we have the players to play like Argentina? Creevy, Matera, Lobbe, Isa, Sanchez, Hernandez, Bosch, Imhoff, Cordero, Tuculet... do we have similar players who can offer same amount of power, creativity and flair?

BTW I hope it doesn't sound as if I am accepting mediocrity. I will be furious if we do not perform in this Six Nations and the blame will largely be on Schmidt. However I think he is doing a good job with the current squad so far and I hope he can continue to improve and win us more trophies. I also hope that more star players can emerge for Ireland. Pray that the injuries have ended for Stuart Olding.

rodders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
Meanwhile, if you tell me our conditioning is better than Wales I just won't believe it.

What do you mean by conditioning? - sprint times, weights lifted, standing jump, vo2max, lactate threshold metres run, tackles made, ruck hit etc. - yes in every aspect we are as good as any side in the world and better than most.

In fact, as Rory pointed out our game plan relies on us to be fitter as we need to go through more phases with the ball and work harder than some of the bigger sides who have more game breakers.

No amount of conditioning or training can take the likes of Fergus McFadden (one of the hardest trainers around) and make him Julien Savea or Sonny Bill, take Rob Kearney and make him Ben Smith, Piatau or Mike Brown, Jamie Heaslip and make him Billy Vunapola (as per Rory's t-shirt).

I hate asking for proof on these boards....but that would need proof for us to go further with it.  As good as any side in the world in terms of a number of distinct measurable athleticism profiles?  Really?
You mention Mike Brown... a natural?  I think he's said how hard he had to work on aspects of his game and the athleticism required to make those incremental improvements.  
I can't believe it rodders because I don't see it.  We say we have limits and when someone points some of them out, we're back to being amongst the best in the world?  
Are we constrained by our limitations or are we the amongst the best prepared players in the World for high grade International competition?  Can we possibly have both?

SecretFly wrote:
You mention Mike Brown... a natural?  I think he's said how hard he had to work on aspects of his game and the athleticism required to make those incremental improvements.

I didn't say he was a natural - what I would say is that he has pace and counterattacking ability - either developed at a young age or natural/genetic whatever to a level which Rob Kearney or Simon Zebo is never going to have and that is nothing whatsoever related to conditioning.

I'll give you an example  - when Jason Robinson came into the England camp Jonny Wilkinson was so blown away he went off and tried to develop his footwork and acceleration with a coach. Did he turn into Jason Robinson? Nope, he was still Jonny Wilkinson.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Do we have the players to play like Argentina? Creevy, Matera, Lobbe, Isa, Sanchez, Hernandez, Bosch, Imhoff, Cordero, Tuculet... do we have similar players who can offer same amount of power, creativity and flair?

BTW I hope it doesn't sound as if I am accepting mediocrity. I will be furious if we do not perform in this Six Nations and the blame will largely be on Schmidt. However I think he is doing a good job with the current squad so far and I hope he can continue to improve and win us more trophies. I also hope that more star players can emerge for Ireland. Pray that the injuries have ended for Stuart Olding.

We intended beating them on our way to a semi-final.  Names drop now when cases are proven.  When Leinster were winning, names were dropping - Heaslip, Healy, O'Brien, Kearney, Nacewa etc.   When a team is in fashion, names are dropped.  'How can you beat them?'  'Look at the names they have'.  
We intended beating them... even with the injuries.

I say again, it's an athleticism they bring that's designed to advance a particular gameplan.  If a wing keeps getting a ball handed to him as he stands waiting for it, it's not going to have the momentum to sneak past top defences.  The difference is Argentine players play to gain space and create it.  It requires more hot leg work at speed to operate it.... consistently over 80....and through a sequence of games  That's not natural buzz, it's not natural athleticism,  it's specific conditioning to meet the challenges of the gameplan.

If you don't seek to play it, you won't have the handling skills or gas to play it.  It's as much a game of numbers and strategy as the phaseplay weardown, kicking defensive gameplan is.  Ireland can play a potent attacking game.  They can.  But the conditioning means it's a massive effort and isn't sustained through a number of games.  Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Wales, England (WC was a meltdown choke) even Scotland now, can sustain the hard physical but fast tempo through more games than we can.

Brown has worked with a running coach (the name Margot Wells is in my head for some reason) to increase his speed and he was well into his 20s. He's still not what I'd describe as fast for a back. He's the exact opposite of what you say he is.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Brown has worked with a running coach (the name Margot Wells is in my head for some reason) to increase his speed and he was well into his 20s. He's still not what I'd describe as fast for a back. He's the exact opposite of what you say he is.

What did I say he was?

'what I would say is that he has pace and counterattacking ability - either developed at a young age or natural/genetic whatever to a level which Rob Kearney or Simon Zebo is never going to have and that is nothing whatsoever related to conditioning.'

The counterattacking bit ok it's what he does, but Brown is a player not blessed with an abundance of natural ability, but a player who has wrung every last drop out through hard work. He was slow for a full back so worked to improve it. He doesn't accept that he has limitations, he looks to see how they can be lessened or eliminated.

Every good team has a group of players that are the backbone of the team. Do you think Scotland are suddenly doing better simply because they are now better conditioned than they were? Nonsense. They are better because now they have Finn Russell running the show at 10 with Mark Bennett at 13 and the likes of Maitland, Seymour and Hogg as the back three. They have the Gray brothers in the second row and an in-form Denton. Strauss and Hardie now available for the national team. When you take some of those players away, they are much weaker. It is as simple as that.

Ireland have their own key players as well. We did not lose to Argentina because we were not well conditioned. We lost too many of our key players. Our defensive game was hugely lacking. We lacked the firepower to punch through the opposition defence, apart from a few moments of brilliance from the likes of Luke Fitzgerald.

I think you are missing the point. Rodders was clearly suggesting that extra conditioning isn't going to turn our players into the same calibre of player as Mike Brown etc. Mike Brown is a very talented player and someone who brings a real threat to the England side. It doesn't matter how much the likes of Fergus McFadden or Dave Kearney work off the field - they lack the same talent.

No, that's what I thought he meant. Brown isn't a good example of this. Maybe someone like Watson who looks the surpreme athlete with spades of talent would be better?

As far as I am aware, Mike Brown has always possessed a good rugby brain but he lacked the pace to play at the highest level. Which is where he worked hard in order to correct that element of his game.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:As far as I am aware, Mike Brown has always possessed a good rugby brain but he lacked the pace to play at the highest level. Which is where he worked hard in order to correct that element of his game.

There are many good Irish players, Rory, with good brains that lack the pace to play at the highest level.  We're beginning to get somewhere here with the powers of collective deduction

Oh PS...and it's never just about pace. Pace is Usain Bolt. Pace in rugby is repeated servings through 80 minutes. The number of times pace can hit the afterburner is the significant factor.

Do you think that are players are not working hard to develop their game? Because that seems rather specious.

I do think there are certain skills that need to be worked on more, but that requires quality coaching and quality coaches; by the time players get to Schmidt he's going to struggle to have a similar impact to the one he had at Leinster given he has less time, less games and more immediate pressure. This comes down to improving schools and Academy coaching, which I think is being done in Ulster, but also depends a lot on provincial coaching.

I'm very concerned about the standards being set by coaching teams in our provinces; I think Ulster have pulled a good move in bringing in Les Kiss and he'll raise the bar for our players, but we had to leave a very substandard coaching team in place for a full calendar year while we waited on him. The test players we already have at Ulster stayed at their usual high level but the players with the potential to step-up have not improved under the previous regime, especially in the forwards. Doak is a decent backs coach but the forwards coaching has been terrible and we'll have to wait and see how that is addressed.

Munster also made an excellent appointment bringing in Rob Penney from a skills and development perspective but for me the jury is still out on Foley; slightly disappointed to see the way Hanrahan was handled and now he can't/shouldn't be considered for Ireland given he's overseas. Foley is very astute and has the makings of a good coach but it still did feel like a bit of a backwards step.

As for Leinster, bringing in Matt O'Connor was a disaster in that he apparently let the high standards from Schmidt he inherited really fall away when it comes to training etc. Cullen in his first coaching job is in at the deep end trying to undo that damage and its not going to be easy at all.

Think Pat Lam is one of the best coaches in Ireland in terms of the way he's coaching these Connacht players to play.

So, I really disagree that its an issue of players not working hard. It's largely about the coaching they receive- but, we have very few really good homegrown coaches around so we rely on who's available. Sometimes there isn't any good around who'd be interested, like after Leinster got rid of O'Connor or when Ulster got rid of Anscombe and had to wait for their man.

We don't disagree, but my expectations are tempered by this and the amount of development we have to do to improve coaching at every level of the game here. Thats why I'm a bit more sanguine about our prospects than you I think Fly. There are some very important structural issues outside the national set-up to address to keep us moving forward and to improve the quality of players we are producing. We've actually made remarkable progress in the last 15 years, but there's plenty more to do.

As for Argentina- this point was made at the time of the game. Argentina lost 18 out of the 21 Rugby Championship games they played in the last RWC cycle before the tournament. In so many of those games they made basic errors from overplaying their hand, trying to be very expansive etc.

They play a very ambitious style of rugby and its taken a long time for them to get to that level of execution, a lot of games they could have won have been lost, a lot of mistakes have been made. Thats good because ultimately they have grown as a team. But they were almost expected to lose every game in the RC every year since they joined. The absence of pressure has really given Hourcade an opportunity to try and expand the game plan. In a sense, the opposite situation to what we face as defending 6N champions. Schmidt must win games and losing but playing well wouldn't cut the mustard. Hourcade was expected to lose, but must be able to prove that his team are progressing in terms of skills with a long term view.

No Ireland coach could possibly survive losing 18 out of our next 21 Six Nations games to maybe peak at the RWC- Schmidt will be watching the 2019 RWC at home if his record is anywhere near that. Argentina had very little to lose by gambling on peaking at the RWC, but if Ramiro Herrera had picked up a second yellow card they might still have lost that quarter-final in spite of everything. And then the gamble wouldn't have paid off. Maybe not, we'll never know, but its easy to look back with hindsight and say the gap between Ireland and Argentina is quite big. I don't think it is. I would be confident we could beat them home or away with some key players back and the right game plan. I think the gap between Ireland with their best players out there and the team we put out is quite big though.

My annoyance at the Argentina argument is I think even despite the efforts that have been taken to up-skill them in favour of getting results they are still a team that can be pressured into mistakes with ball in hand. We even saw that in our quarter-final; when Ireland mounted their come back the discipline went and they had a bit of luck on their side not to concede a red card, gave Madigan lots of chances to chip away at the scoreboard etc. And this was with a passive defence that gave Sanchez and Hernandez as much time as they needed to pick their passes... We saw Australia and South Africa pressurise them in the subsequent games.

My point is, lets give credit to them but lets not pretend their approach was flawless either. There were a few weaknesses that we simply didn't exploit and they haven't been winning a huge ratio of games outside the RWC.

We should be learning about skills, coaching and talent identification from NZ and Australia in my opinion. Not Argentina.

Jesus...Argentina was the lowest common denominator I could find to compare with Rory's All Black allusion.

It worked as a counter argument... let's not compare us with New Zealand and let's instead compare our attacking profile with the side only one step up from us in the rankings.

New Zealand and Australia doesn't work as a counter argument for obvious reasons that people can throw the line back at you that our players aren't even remotely close to theirs.

That's why Argentina made it into the debate, Notch.

I know fine well why they made it in, but just because the two teams are close in terms of the rankings and in terms of the similar size of talent pool doesn't mean they are comparable. We're actually not very comparable in terms of the different objectives the coaches have thrust upon them by their bosses and the expectations we operate under, not to mention the differences in our structures and players playing overseas etc. Only other thing I would say is that Argentinas attacking flair doesn't run as deep as might be assumed. Unsettle them, pressurise them and that flair can be turned into looseness and overplaying their hand.

I actually think Australia are much more comparable to us in terms of expectations on the coach, competiting with other larger and more popular sports, number of professional teams etc. Difference is they are miles ahead on the coaching side at every level up to test rugby.

People can throw back the line that our players aren't remotely close to their players or to the All Blacks, but why is that? Surely it is because of the superior coaching they get from a very young age right through to Super Rugby. Its not just one good coach at test level. It's a culture of quality coaching at every level of the game over there. They don't just get test players off the magic test player tree. I'm patient because I understand we can bring in one top class coach to the national side (and we have done) and it will improve us (and it has done) but we have to recognise the limitations of having quality coaching at the top level, and we have to be realistic about the difference that one coach can make. Quality coaching in the dominant rugby nations runs deep and wide. There are no overnight solutions, so we must be patient.

On a side note; we were talking about game breakers earlier- New Zealand really only had one, Sonny Bill Williams. They have plenty of other outstanding players with that ability sure, but they don't rely on individuals with that one exception and he is often not even a starter. They are the ultimate team.

Notch wrote:Do you think that are players are not working hard to develop their game? Because that seems rather specious.

I do think there are certain skills that need to be worked on more, but that requires quality coaching and quality coaches; by the time players get to Schmidt he's going to struggle to have a similar impact to the one he had at Leinster given he has less time, less games and more immediate pressure. This comes down to improving schools and Academy coaching, which I think is being done in Ulster, but also depends a lot on provincial coaching.

I'm very concerned about the standards being set by coaching teams in our provinces; I think Ulster have pulled a good move in bringing in Les Kiss and he'll raise the bar for our players, but we had to leave a very substandard coaching team in place for a full calendar year while we waited on him. The test players we already have at Ulster stayed at their usual high level but the players with the potential to step-up have not improved under the previous regime, especially in the forwards. Doak is a decent backs coach but the forwards coaching has been terrible and we'll have to wait and see how that is addressed.

Munster also made an excellent appointment bringing in Rob Penney from a skills and development perspective but for me the jury is still out on Foley; slightly disappointed to see the way Hanrahan was handled and now he can't/shouldn't be considered for Ireland given he's overseas. Foley is very astute and has the makings of a good coach but it still did feel like a bit of a backwards step.

As for Leinster, bringing in Matt O'Connor was a disaster in that he apparently let the high standards from Schmidt he inherited really fall away when it comes to training etc. Cullen in his first coaching job is in at the deep end trying to undo that damage and its not going to be easy at all.

Think Pat Lam is one of the best coaches in Ireland in terms of the way he's coaching these Connacht players to play.

So, I really disagree that its an issue of players not working hard. It's largely about the coaching they receive- but, we have very few really good homegrown coaches around so we rely on who's available. Sometimes there isn't any good around who'd be interested, like after Leinster got rid of O'Connor or when Ulster got rid of Anscombe and had to wait for their man.

We don't disagree, but my expectations are tempered by this and the amount of development we have to do to improve coaching at every level of the game here. Thats why I'm a bit more sanguine about our prospects than you I think Fly. There are some very important structural issues outside the national set-up to address to keep us moving forward and to improve the quality of players we are producing. We've actually made remarkable progress in the last 15 years, but there's plenty more to do.

I think Pat Lam has done something at Connacht Ireland should at least be partially looking to implement, and that is getting comfortable playing the ball from deep. This has more been a symptom of not having a decent 10 to rely on, so the onus had to become focused on the strengths. But to be honest Ireland are not too dissimilar nowadays at least relative to our rivals, Sexton could be past his best or prone to the odd stinker, and Madigan and Jackson are not currently reliable enough in different ways, lets use the opportunity to foster a team which encourages the gameplan we want to see. Not saying it always has to be an option (emphasis on tactical kicking will long be a part of the Irish game I think) and it won't always work (Connacht will give up points when seemingly in possession in their own half more often than the other provinces), but the confidence it instils to play is the important thing, and the more you play it and rehearse it the more it becomes second nature.

For it to happen Connacht have had to do two things, again not always a choice but sometimes forced by options. Firstly is to trust in the ability of the young or promising players to be able to come in and get a chance, rather than skirting around the fringes of the squad holding tackle bags while lads who have grown comfortable in the jersey collect caps. We have for a long time now had a set of untouchables in the squad who in one way or another did not represent themselves well this tournament. At Connacht, lads like Henshaw, Healy, O Halloran, Parata, Ronaldson, Marmion, Masterson, and Buckley have all been given extended opportunity and grown in the environment, and I wonder would they have had the same opportunities are the other provinces. could stand to them in the long run if young players think they may get a better chance there. Again this may be a symptom of the expectations of the big three.

The other is to create an environment that does not have punitive measures for making mistakes in the course of improving. I'm as bad for it as anyone, having a go at Keith Earls for the dropped pass against France. Watching Leinster Wasps and D. Kearney get bamboozled by the flight and bounce of the ball to concede a try, you could hear the knives being sharpened. Mistakes will definitely be made in the pursuit of crisper passing and offloading but it is them that we learn from, particularly at a young age.

Look at Argentina in how they were happy to make mistakes in pursuit of playing a game which pressurises their opponents. Their record in the rugby championship is not great, but they are learning that game at the top table and so improving their consistency.

Marshes wrote:

I think Pat Lam has done something at Connacht Ireland should at least be partially looking to implement, and that is getting comfortable playing the ball from deep. This has more been a symptom of not having a decent 10 to rely on, so the onus had to become focused on the strengths. But to be honest Ireland are not too dissimilar nowadays at least relative to our rivals, Sexton could be past his best or prone to the odd stinker, and Madigan and Jackson are not currently reliable enough in different ways, lets use the opportunity to foster a team which encourages the gameplan we want to see. Not saying it always has to be an option (emphasis on tactical kicking will long be a part of the Irish game I think) and it won't always work (Connacht will give up points when seemingly in possession in their own half more often than the other provinces), but the confidence it instils to play is the important thing, and the more you play it and rehearse it the more it becomes second nature.

For it to happen Connacht have had to do two things, again not always a choice but sometimes forced by options. Firstly is to trust in the ability of the young or promising players to be able to come in and get a chance, rather than skirting around the fringes of the squad holding tackle bags while lads who have grown comfortable in the jersey collect caps. We have for a long time now had a set of untouchables in the squad who in one way or another did not represent themselves well this tournament. At Connacht, lads like Henshaw, Healy, O Halloran, Parata, Ronaldson, Marmion, Masterson, and Buckley have all been given extended opportunity and grown in the environment, and I wonder would they have had the same opportunities are the other provinces. could stand to them in the long run if young players think they may get a better chance there. Again this may be a symptom of the expectations of the big three.

The other is to create an environment that does not have punitive measures for making mistakes in the course of improving. I'm as bad for it as anyone, having a go at Keith Earls for the dropped pass against France. Watching Leinster Wasps and D. Kearney get bamboozled by the flight and bounce of the ball to concede a try, you could hear the knives being sharpened. Mistakes will definitely be made in the pursuit of crisper passing and offloading but it is them that we learn from, particularly at a young age.

Look at Argentina in how they were happy to make mistakes in pursuit of playing a game which pressurises their opponents. Their record in the rugby championship is not great, but they are learning that game at the top table and so improving their consistency.

Notch wrote:
I actually think Australia are much more comparable to us in terms of expectations on the coach, competiting with other larger and more popular sports, number of professional teams etc. Difference is they are miles ahead on the coaching side at every level up to test rugby.

Ulster are the only province who have not really used Australian or Kiwi coaches. Both Leinster & Munster have had an endless procession of Aussie & Kiwi coaches - in fact, Leo Cullen & Girvan are the first indigenous coaches they's had since Declan Kidney's short stint there 10 years ago. Even when Declan Kidney was in charge with Munster, most his coaching staff were aussies or kiwis.

edit: shouldn't a lot of the credit go to Nigel Carolan with Connacht?

Ulster have had Matt Williams and Mark Anscombe, and Les Kiss has just arrived. Before that we had the South African Alan Solomons.

Yes we had McLaughlin, McCall and Doak but only the first really did well. We do have an almost all-Irish support staff though, and we did until Jonny Bell left and had to be replaced.

Well, Ulster sacked Williams and Anscombe. Munster have had mostly non-Irish coaches - Gaffney, Jim Williams, Tony McGahan, Jason Holland, Laurie Fisher, Penney, Mannix - not to mention Bryce Williams (aus) and Aled Walters (welsh) - its probably easier to list the Irish coaches that we have had - the main ones were Kidney and now Foley in the last 10 years.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I think you are missing the point. Rodders was clearly suggesting that extra conditioning isn't going to turn our players into the same calibre of player as Mike Brown etc. Mike Brown is a very talented player and someone who brings a real threat to the England side. It doesn't matter how much the likes of Fergus McFadden or Dave Kearney work off the field - they lack the same talent.

Yes that's what I meant  - also re:pace, pace in rugby terms is not the same as athletics. Its about speed of mind and also short bursts of acceleration - very few rugby players have genuine 100m pace, likewise many fine sprinters have had very little impact on a rugby field.

I stand that Mike Brown is a very dangerous runner, a bit like Drew Mitchell  -he might not have electric pace in sprint terms but he has attacking instinct and very elusive - he certainly doesn't lack pace in the way Luke Fitzgerald does.

Rob Kearney was a 400 m runner, so has a very good sprint technique - however he lacks ability to change direction and speed of the mark - in other wards he's very predictable when he counter attacks, the same with Tommy Bowe - both are only effective when  they hit the line late and pick a line which hits a gap or a defenders soft shoulder, they aren't able to create the gap when the defender is in front of them and there is space for the defender to read the running line.

The only genuinely elusive players we have are Craig Gilroy, Keith Earls and maybe Luke Fitzgerald.  Earls lacks physicality, Fitz pace and Gilroy's defense isn't international standard yet. Zebo for my mind is not elusive as he's not strong enough to break tackles.

None of this is down to conditioning - rather natural ability and early years practice of running rugby, especially 7's which we don't encourage enough.

Still think there's better examples than Brown if you're looking for someone who hasn't worked on his conditioning to become better, Brown certainly did and does.

Yeah I'd agree with 7.5, a lot of the early criticism of Brown was that he didn't have the pace for international rugby.

He went away and trained with Margot Wells, and 3 years after he was first capped he became the entrenched starter

I think you guys are missing the point.

The point is Mike Brown isn't Mike Brown just because he worked on his sprint technique and conditioning. Dave Kearney can train until the cows come home (and by all accounts he does), he won't offer the threat from the back that Brown does, he can work with Usain Bolt if he wants.

If someone doesn't have the right mechanics, fast twitch muscle fibres and (early) developed ability/skill to see space on a rugby field they aren't going to offer serious threat running with the ball - technique and conditioning can be worked on but will only make a limited difference and refine what is already there.

No. Still getting your point. Brown ain't a good example on this.

You think Brown posses a running threat because he worked with a sprint coach? You do realize every player does sprint training and speed training?

Mike Brown is a perfect example because he's one of the most dangerous counter attackers in Europe and despite what you think that isn't because he worked with Margot Wells.

'No amount of conditioning or training can take the likes of Fergus McFadden (one of the hardest trainers around) and make him Julien Savea or Sonny Bill, take Rob Kearney and make him Ben Smith, Piatau or Mike Brown, Jamie Heaslip and make him Billy Vunapola (as per Rory's t-shirt).'

'I didn't say he was a natural - what I would say is that he has pace and counterattacking ability - either developed at a young age or natural/genetic whatever to a level which Rob Kearney or Simon Zebo is never going to have and that is nothing whatsoever related to conditioning.'

Brown hasn't got great pace still but is a whole lot better after the work with a sprint coach he did. Your original point seemed to be that a player can't get to the level brown is at through this work; actually Brown is at the level he is down to that exact thing.

Throw in Watsons name instead and it works better for your point, but someone will throw Browns name in to counter it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Brown hasn't got great pace still but is a whole lot better after the work with a sprint coach he did. Your original point seemed to be that a player can't get to the level brown is at through this work; actually Brown is at the level he is down to that exact thing.

That is my original point and it is correct. You can't get to Mike Browns level through work alone - the natural ability has to be there.

Lewis Moody worked with Darren Campbell for example.

We'll agree to disagree on this one. Brown for me is what every player should aspire to, making the absolute most of what he had. There's far more players with a better natural ability who will get nowehere near him as a player.

It's a nice story that will help Mike Brown sell a few autobiographies some day but unfortunately its not totally true -Mike Brown has plenty of natural ability and no doubt has worked very hard on attacking aspects of his game but but very few top players haven't.

i'm never going to think Brown has great pace or that it's all down to developing at a younger age or genetic. Watson all day long is a better example like I said.

Its not always a question of how hard you train - its also how smart you train (and how responsive your body is to training)

The work Brown did on speed (and on technique to break tackles) were the final components in making him the dangerous runner he is

I do feel that there are way too many games in a season and it does take a tremendous toll on players, especially in a very physical game like rugby.

As for the natural ability v conditioning and working on certain aspects of players games. I certainly believe that any player who gets to the level where they can play international level rugby have to have a hell of a lot of natural ability to begin with. This can be enhanced by extra training (repetitive training) and conditioning.

I truly hope that Ireland do well but unless they can learn to adapt during match situations, I feel that Ireland will struggle during the 6N. Teams know what Ireland will bring to the field and will have plans in place to counter it so its up to the coaching squad to formulate counter plans and get the players up to speed with them.

I know some of you feel that Ireland have a great plan that when executed perfectly wins matches but that same argument can be made for all teams. Not every team can play the same plan and always win, adaption to different scenarios is the key.

Well I think that the last few weeks have fully vindicated those of the opinion that Ireland currently have a fairly average group of hardworking players and that Schmidt is overachieving and by quite a long way too.

I'd qualify that by saying there is a bit of a RWC hangover there - Leinster and Ulster are better than what they've shown but definitely the Irish provinces aren't the force they were a few years ago and the quality of player isn't what it was - NIE or not.

I disagree rodders, I believe that there are very good players in Ireland but that the coaching (provincial as well) is hindering their development.

You mention Leinster and Ulster, well Leinster are having a rough time and Cullen was never expected to bring a miracle change to their fortunes but he needs more time. As for Ulster, I have never been convinced that Doak is a quality coach. Time will tell on that as well.

Agree the coaching is not at the standard it should be an would add Foley to that list.

Lamb and Schmidt are keeping Irish rugby above water - not convinced about Kiss but lets see how he goes over the next 6-12 months.

I think we have a lot of good players but very little world class ones. Coaching is a problem but not the only one - grass routes rugby is not fit for purpose.

I think that Foley is doing ok but like Leinster and Ulster, Munster need that extra bit of work. Not unhappy with Foley myself.

Lam has been doing some wonderful stuff and I truly hope he keeps it going.

Schmidt has done well in his first two seasons but I have noticed little progression and I feel that he has his work cut out for him next 6N. I would be happy with him if Ireland didn't win but showed that they were at least attempting to develop a better international game.

Cotter has done a great job with Scotland by getting them to play their own game rather than 1 style and set their team up to counter oppositions strengths. Its been refreshing to watch and that's the approach I would like to see with Ireland.

eirebilly wrote:I disagree rodders, I believe that there are very good players in Ireland but that the coaching (provincial as well) is hindering their development.

It's funny now that during the Kidney era, the excuse/reason for failure of the Irish team given by the Kidney defenders was down to the players not being good enough. Now the same people think that the players are good enough but it's the coach or coach's tactics that is holding the team back. The shoe is on the other foot for the other group of supporters as well, ones who thought the players were good enough during Kidney's time, now think our current coach is more or less overachieving with a more limited pool of players.

rodders wrote:Agree the coaching is not at the standard it should be an would add Foley to that list.

Lamb and Schmidt are keeping Irish rugby above water - not convinced about Kiss but lets see how he goes over the next 6-12 months.

I think we have a lot of good players but very little world class ones. Coaching is a problem but not the only one - grass routes rugby is not fit for purpose.

I think Foley is an excellent coach - he has pretty much been coaching the Munster pack since they were 18, they are raving about Paddy Butler in the Top 14* and how improved CJ Stander is in the last year or so.

I'd imagine the reason why Ulster are finding it difficult to get some of the Leinster forward fringe players moving north could have a lot to do with how poor the forward coaching is in Ulster.

*referred to as 'Saint Patrick' in an article recently.

the-goon wrote:

eirebilly wrote:I disagree rodders, I believe that there are very good players in Ireland but that the coaching (provincial as well) is hindering their development.

It's funny now that during the Kidney era, the excuse/reason for failure of the Irish team given by the Kidney defenders was down to the players not being good enough. Now the same people think that the players are good enough but it's the coach or coach's tactics that is holding the team back. The shoe is on the other foot for the other group of supporters as well, ones who thought the players were good enough during Kidney's time, now think our current coach is more or less overachieving with a more limited pool of players.

Personally I never felt that. Ireland had a very good group of players under Kidney and as far as I am aware, 'The Golden Generation' phrase is used a lot and they were the same players playing under Kidney...

This, however, is not about Kidney. Its about Ireland moving forward.