Ireland Squad Discussion

First topic message reminder :

Continuing on from Ireland Squad Announcement Thread.

eirebilly wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:


Well we've completely changed the way we play compared to last year and it's not a case of learning from the SH as Schmidt was implementing this new style at the WC we just ran out of players good enough to compete.
Ross will be replaced by Moore in the short term and Furlong in the long term,Heaslip has Stander,Conan and Murphy (who played very well at 8 v England last year) as possible replacements while SoB has Henry,ToD,VDF and Leavy behind him.There is also very little reason to think SoB is going to decline that quickly,BoD and PoC had injury ravaged periods of there career in their late 20's/early 30's and came back to perform better than ever so dismissing SoB (Healy is in a similar position) is foolish imo.

If Ireland had run out of players that were good enough to compete then surely Schmidt, as a great coach, should have realised this and implemented a game plan to suit the players he had available?

Load of rubbish the pair of you - Argentina, with a fully fit and prepared squad, are a better side with better players than us - we wouldn't win a game in the Rugby Championship.

We're delusional up here at times in the NH generally and Ireland specifically. The skill levels of some of these players coming through the provincial academies is shocking at times.

We desperately need a half decent tier of rugby below the provincial level for players to get real game time and experience - not spending all their time doing S&C work and drills and playing the odd game.  

The pool is small because once we get a few injuries we're bringing in guys who've barely played 20-30 full games of pro rugby.

How many actual full senior level games have the likes of Madigan played? He has 140 Leinster caps plus Ireland appearances but how many as a sub or in the center/full back? I'd bet he hasn't played 80 min as fly half more than 60-70 times his whole life outside youth level and he's 26.

We have guys who are averaging as low as 10 full games per season having to step in when we have injuries to our first and second tier players.

eirebilly wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:


Well we've completely changed the way we play compared to last year and it's not a case of learning from the SH as Schmidt was implementing this new style at the WC we just ran out of players good enough to compete.
Ross will be replaced by Moore in the short term and Furlong in the long term,Heaslip has Stander,Conan and Murphy (who played very well at 8 v England last year) as possible replacements while SoB has Henry,ToD,VDF and Leavy behind him.There is also very little reason to think SoB is going to decline that quickly,BoD and PoC had injury ravaged periods of there career in their late 20's/early 30's and came back to perform better than ever so dismissing SoB (Healy is in a similar position) is foolish imo.

If Ireland had run out of players that were good enough to compete then surely Schmidt, as a great coach, should have realised this and implemented a game plan to suit the players he had available?

In a week,yeah you aren't being completely ridiculous and unreasonable in your expectations there at all.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:


Well we've completely changed the way we play compared to last year and it's not a case of learning from the SH as Schmidt was implementing this new style at the WC we just ran out of players good enough to compete.
Ross will be replaced by Moore in the short term and Furlong in the long term,Heaslip has Stander,Conan and Murphy (who played very well at 8 v England last year) as possible replacements while SoB has Henry,ToD,VDF and Leavy behind him.There is also very little reason to think SoB is going to decline that quickly,BoD and PoC had injury ravaged periods of there career in their late 20's/early 30's and came back to perform better than ever so dismissing SoB (Healy is in a similar position) is foolish imo.

If Ireland had run out of players that were good enough to compete then surely Schmidt, as a great coach, should have realised this and implemented a game plan to suit the players he had available?

In  a week,yeah you aren't being completely ridiculous and unreasonable in your expectations there at all.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:


Well we've completely changed the way we play compared to last year and it's not a case of learning from the SH as Schmidt was implementing this new style at the WC we just ran out of players good enough to compete.
Ross will be replaced by Moore in the short term and Furlong in the long term,Heaslip has Stander,Conan and Murphy (who played very well at 8 v England last year) as possible replacements while SoB has Henry,ToD,VDF and Leavy behind him.There is also very little reason to think SoB is going to decline that quickly,BoD and PoC had injury ravaged periods of there career in their late 20's/early 30's and came back to perform better than ever so dismissing SoB (Healy is in a similar position) is foolish imo.

If Ireland had run out of players that were good enough to compete then surely Schmidt, as a great coach, should have realised this and implemented a game plan to suit the players he had available?

In  a week,yeah you aren't being completely ridiculous and unreasonable in your expectations there at all.

No, I am saying that a coach of the quality of Schmidt should be able to prepare a squad, not just a team for such a big tournament. Loosing certain players will affect a team but if the team that is to be selected with these missing players, you should set up a game plan to their strengths and not to the strengths of the missing players. I don't think that is ridiculous at all to be honest, I think that is a fair comment.

It is incredibly unrealistic. What are the first team doing while these backup teams are being developed? Time and preparation are not unlimited resources. No coach will have the time to come up with multiple teams with different tactics for each to fill in when needed. He will have players that he may use depending on the opposition for different roles but he will also have his key players that he builds his team around. To think otherwise is naive and juvenile. Point me to a team and coach that does what you propose?

This is also something Schmidt deserves a lot of credit for. He has a system that each player must adapt to and that is why the team almost always looks well drilled. This makes it easier when the inevitable happens and a few players are injured. The player coming in knows his job and what he has to do. The problem recently has been that we have lost an awful lot of our best players which will affect any team and any coach. As will not having a defence coach. This Six Nations was always going to be the toughest yet.

My criticism of Schmidt would be our passive defensive strategy and his conservative selection policy. However he certainly picked an exciting team to play against England. He has also highlighted the passive defence as a big issue so he is obviously looking to improve things ASAP.

You only have to look at the RWC QF where Australia were missing two key players Folau and Pocock,that was enough to make the game close.

I will point you to Wales coach Warren Gatland Rory. Wales were far more riddled with injuries to key players than Ireland were yet the players coming in to replace the injured ones slotted in very well. Why, because Gatland had a drilled squad, not just a team and played game plans to the players strengths that were on the pitch.

Thanks for calling my opinions 'naïve and juvenile' but that actually says more about you than myself, I like to have debates without insulting others. Something you have yet to learn

I am not saying that Schmidt is a bad coach, I think he is a very good coach. I have been impressed with the way he has been approaching the games this 6N, just feel that he has selected the wrong players for the style he is trying to develop so far. The grounding is there but he has to select the correct players (inform players) in their best positions for this to work.

eirebilly wrote:I will point you to Wales coach Warren Gatland Rory. Wales were far more riddled with injuries to key players than Ireland were yet the players coming in to replace the injured ones slotted in very well. Why, because Gatland had a drilled squad, not just a team and played game plans to the players strengths that were on the pitch.

Thanks for calling my opinions 'naïve and juvenile' but that actually says more about you than myself, I like to have debates without insulting others. Something you have yet to learn

You think that Gatland changed his tactics during the World Cup? Wales played in the exact same fashion as they always do. Gatland has been criticised by Welsh fans for years for never having a Plan B. He brought in the players to do the exact same job and he ended up with the same result as Ireland. He didn't lose the key personnel that Ireland did either, and the injuries were focused on 2 positions mainly where their depth was really pushed. This isn't a good example.

Also, how can I insult an opinion or comment? They are inanimate. I haven't insulted you personally but I can say if I believe the comments are naive. You are free to counter it.

For reference, here are the facts:

Key players missing for Ireland: POM, Payne, POC, SOB and Sexton who we basically had built our team around both offensively and defensively. They are literally the core of our team. You could add Bowe to that list although I wouldn't classify him as important as the others.

Key players that Wales were missing: Jonathan Davies (pushed hard by Scott Williams) and Leigh Halfpenny (pushed hard by Liam Williams). The problem for them was that the players in brackets also ended up injured. However, it was still only two positions largely affected. They still had their famous back row, AWJ, Roberts, Biggar, North etc.

I really do not care what Welsh fans say about Gatland and his approach, their opinions do not form mine. I watch the game and form my own opinions and in my opinion, he had a far better drilled squad than Ireland did.

You disagree, cool beans, not bothered by that either and just because I don't share your opinion, I wont call your them naive and juvenile.  

Sin é wrote:Very impressive display of skills yesterday for this try in Clongowes v Roscrea (leinster schools cup). The Roscrea prop's handling is particularly impressive and what about the pace of the hooker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXhNw-GYPSM

Not bad at all

rodders wrote:
We're delusional up here at times in the NH generally and Ireland specifically. The skill levels of some of these players coming through the provincial academies is shocking at times.

Its much better than what it was. I've seen a big difference in skill levels of the forwards in particular, in recent years. Most are playing heads up rugby nowadays as a result of the IRFU upskilling coaches for a decade or more. Most of the Ireland squad (average age about 28) would not have gotten the same standard of coaching thats currently there so they don't have the same skill level in general.


If you look at Leinsters over 25s vs their U25s, the U25s have been playing the better rugby this season, as they showed in the early rounds of the Pro 12 and against Bath in the champions cup.

The no skills commentary is self fulfilling. Keep telling them they are useless and they will be useless. This sending players back on their workons doesn't seem to be working. For instance, Simon Zebo's skills has disimproved since he has got all these 'work-ons'. Zebo is a skilful player.

Great piece in Indo today from Alan Quinlan about players needing to step up and lead. For instance, he says that Toner, as lineout caller, needs to call every lineout to himself to secure ball even if it makes him look greedy.

Similarly, does Devin Toner have to just say, 'right, I'm 6"10, I'm the line-out caller, and if we get nine line-outs in a game, I'm going to call all nine on myself and back myself to win them. And if some of my team-mates don't like it and think I'm being greedy, then I don't care, because I'm in charge here, this is my responsibility and I'm doing this for them?'

That's how players become leaders.

Quinny's comments about Rob Kearney may explain why he will always start when even half-fit.

You would expect a good coach to inspire better performances from his players.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/international-rugby/alan-quinlan-in-2008-i-knew-rob-kearney-would-become-an-irish-leader-its-time-for-others-to-step-up-34513471.html

Zebo improved hugely after working with Schmidt. The difference in his defensive game has been clearly evident. His lack of space to attack from has been an issue for both Munster and Ireland over recent years.

Also I think we have missed Peter O'Mahony hugely this season. If there is one player who can channel that POC type of aggression and leadership, it's him. I think he will take the captaincy from Best on his return.

Sin é wrote:
You would expect a good coach to inspire better performances from his players.

Isn't the point he's making that even with the best coaching and best players around them, players still need to step up and take responsibility for their performances and refuse to lose?

I feel like we're a very fickle bunch as far as coaches go. Like, its laughable to suggest Schmidt is not a 'good coach'. The debate is whether he is world class or not.

How thin skinned is George Hook? Hes never been my favorite pundit but this takes the biscuit. He can say what he likes about Sexton but when Johnny questions his motivations he goes running to his solicitors.

I think hes missing the attention since leaving rte

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/george-hook-threatens-to-sue-johnny-sexton-1.2560826

What a total knob.

Big, big mistake by Hook. Its one thing being the pantomime villain on RTE but its another threatening to sue someone because he doesn't like what was said. The irony is that will be 100 times more damaging to his character than anything Sexton said.

I don't mind him being a pompous gasbag who's willing to say anything about anybody to boost his own profile- you can always just ignore him. But if you've made your living out of slagging other people off in controversial fashion it really is disgraceful to then turn around and threaten to sue once someone says even the mildest thing about you.

The thing is what Sexton said is almost certainly true and everyone knows it.

The thing about Hook and Dunphy is that they stir.... they stir for fun yes - they stir to further their careers, yes... they stir because it's simply in their character - yes.  
But they also stir because they were born with the uncommon affliction (in broadcasting terms) of actually having genuine opinions to express.  Genuine opinions obviously rub people up and down the wrong way. They shy away from genuine opinions that haven't been through the PC grey-ioniser filter that is so often demanded of broadcasters.  Just look at how Grey the coverage of sport is in England where one rosey line or two gets you fired for fear of upsetting the Politically correct and their myriad of reasons to be 'Offended'.

I've spoken here about my fears for Sexton and the many hits he's taken to the head in recent years, and of the number of times he's been out because of those hits lingering as out and out genuinely official concussion episodes.
Does that make me a Hook?  Does that make me a knob?........................   Yeah, well I know I got that reputation anyway so let's move swiftly along...............

But what has Hook done and said that doctors and respected specialists haven't been saying all along and repeatedly? (Doc Barry O'Driscoll being one)

Hook gets it in the neck for simply being the wrong person saying it, not because of what he's actually saying.  Hook has his reputation and he has to live with it now whenever he speaks.  But I think it kind of a lazy response to attack the messenger and ignore the message.  Why not belittle O'Driscoll's opinions too whilst at it?  

There is obviously 'History' between a lot of Irish players and Hook.  Whilst Hook mouthed off in a studio, these guys were listening and holding their lifelong grudges because of it.  Sexton isn't the first player or ex-player to show that it's the man rather than the actual comments that he has a problem with.  That's fine, he's entitled to like and dislike whoever he decides to like or dislike.  He's entitled to take offence as outsiders give their five cents worth on his health and/or career.  But Hook isn't saying anything different to what many others from all walks of life, and many posters in here too, have stated concerning repeated concussion incidents and the dangers of such episodes for player health way way down the line in later life.

I'd personally have a Hook or Dunphy propping up any sports chat circle rather than the plethora of machine-speak grey stats'n'cliche drones that populate most panels.  

"What did you think of that then?"  
"Well, the lad did well, didn't he.  Had a few half chances that might have gone in the back of the net and one great chance where the ball just wouldn't rise for him, poor lad.  He had a terrific gyme, the lad".

Yeah, he did.........................*snore*

He isn't a knob for expressing his opinion - he is a knob for penalising someone else when they respond with their own.

Also, I have a lot of time and respect for opinionated people who can back up their claims. I love debating with such people and I enjoy hearing what they have to say. Hook doesn't fall in that category for me as most of the time he talks out of his rather large behind. He is a provocateur with very little to actually add to the narrative most of the time.

There is nothing worse than a provocateur who plays the victim card when his or her audience responds. If you prod the lion, you shouldn't be surprised when it decides to take a swipe.

SecretFly wrote:I've spoken here about my fears for Sexton and the many hits he's taken to the head in recent years, and of the number of times he's been out because of those hits lingering as out and out genuinely official concussion episodes.
Does that make me a Hook? Does that make me a knob?

No, thats not what makes Hook a knob. I mean, speculating on a players health when you know nothing about it isn't exactly great behaviour but as much as it's distasteful there's nothing much wrong about it. Sure even on here we all have opinions and 95% of them are like our arrseholes, as they say. That's natural.

What makes Hook a knob is that as soon as the person he's speculating about makes even the mildest of replies to what he's said he runs to the lawyers. You've got a right to say what you want as a pundit but the people you're talking about have a right to talk back too. As for Hook, he isn't respected by players because while he expresses opinions colourfully they are almost never based on facts. They almost never have any kind of passing relationship with the facts, in fact.

Finally I would say what Hooks doing is going to give us even more bland sports coverage because if players themselves can't give candid opinions in an interview without being threatened by lawsuits why would they ever bother going beyond the usual empty clichés? I don''t really care for the difference between listening to informed but dull pundits over uninformed 'entertaining' pundits. In fact, I generally avoid listening to pundits full stop with a few rare exceptions. But it would be nice to get to hear coaches and players talk about the game without having to worry about what spin some eejit like Hook is going to put on it.

If ireland lose their last two will Schmidt get the boot?

Gwlad wrote:If ireland lose their last two will Schmidt get the boot?

No. The IRFU have some sense, thank god.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Also, I have a lot of time and respect for opinionated people who can back up their claims. I love debating with such people and I enjoy hearing what they have to say. Hook doesn't fall in that category for me as most of the time he talks out of his rather large behind. He is a provocateur with very little to actually add to the narrative most of the time.

There is nothing worse than a provocateur who plays the victim card when his or her audience responds. If you prod the lion, you shouldn't be surprised when it decides to take a swipe.

SEE YOU IN COURT MOTHERF............. !!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's catching!

Seriously, I worried that you might take that personal, considering I used your word as the kick start for my own ten cents.  But that's all it was really, using your line to address the issue that popped up - not getting at you, Rory.

But now that we're at it....I really do have to disagree with that response on a number of grounds.

Firstly, when you actually listen to Hook and forget about the bombast and the frowns and acting and smarting and literary allusions...when you get through all that - no, Mr Hook does not say all that much different again to many commentators on rugby - both now in the Schmidt era and back in other eras.  Hook is critical of wrong players in wrong positions (maybe not the people you or I might agree with but his opinion of wrong players in wrong positions).... he's critical of style of play...he's critical of negative play.... he's critical of people who like to over-talk our place in the world without (to use your words) very often being able to 'back up their claims'.  He's critical of certain players and critical of certain coaches.  He says his role is not to be a cheerleader for the Irish team but to provide critiques of where we are in rugby terms.  

And where truly are we and have we been for a long time now in International terms?  Underperformers.  Not overperformers - underperformers.  When you consider the promise and the genuine expectations risen time and time again, then you can only come to the conclusion that Irish players and teams tend to fall back down again just as you think they might be about to take that giant leap up higher.
So the voice, and the whine, and the theatricality of Hook is often readily dislikeable for those that seem to take the persona way too seriously.... but I can't really think about a whole lot that he ever says wrong or why more than any of the other panellists that he should need to 'back up' his claims.  He has opinions.  Nothing more.  Same as the others.  He is by no means the worst analyst in any medium.  That's not to say that I agree with his opinions... but they're as valid as any opinions I've ever heard expressed in here by any of our more 'normal' posters.

And just to show how we all react differently to different opinions.... for me personally, I find Conor O'Shea's opinion on the game to be ...well, I don't listen to him.  He's a coach...or perhaps more accurately a director... but I think he cruises along with whatever 'generalised' tide of opinion is doing the rounds at the time.  He just speaks dry techno babble mostly in my opinion...always wise after the event and has a very cosy number ringing in his soundbytes and taking the money back home with him on Monday.

I guess I'm saying just that the 'provocateur' has always demanded more from his team.... but a supposed incisive analyst of the game seems to be so uninvolved emotionally...a neutral spectator from afar, giving us the lingo but with so little soul attached.  I prefer soul....even if its located in a heavy set ass

Notch wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I've spoken here about my fears for Sexton and the many hits he's taken to the head in recent years, and of the number of times he's been out because of those hits lingering as out and out genuinely official concussion episodes.
Does that make me a Hook? Does that make me a knob?

No, thats not what makes Hook a knob. I mean, speculating on a players health when you know nothing about it isn't exactly great behaviour but as much as it's distasteful there's nothing much wrong about it. Sure even on here we all have opinions and 95% of them are like our arrseholes, as they say. That's natural.

What makes Hook a knob is that as soon as the person he's speculating about makes even the mildest of replies to what he's said he runs to the lawyers..

But no.... that's not why he's an asswhole though is it? That's a new story. Hook has been an old story. People have a salty view of him distinctly because of his opinions in the past.... that's what's colouring their opinion on this episode. Hook's asswhole reputation comes from his opinions, not his solicitor's letter. The solicitor's latter is just the petrol that his enemies will throw over him now.

Like I say... did Sexton or any other player have anything to say about Dr O'Driscoll's comments on the continuing debate?

SecretFly wrote:

Notch wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I've spoken here about my fears for Sexton and the many hits he's taken to the head in recent years, and of the number of times he's been out because of those hits lingering as out and out genuinely official concussion episodes.
Does that make me a Hook? Does that make me a knob?

No, thats not what makes Hook a knob. I mean, speculating on a players health when you know nothing about it isn't exactly great behaviour but as much as it's distasteful there's nothing much wrong about it. Sure even on here we all have opinions and 95% of them are like our arrseholes, as they say. That's natural.

What makes Hook a knob is that as soon as the person he's speculating about makes even the mildest of replies to what he's said he runs to the lawyers..

But no.... that's not why he's an asswhole though is it? That's a new story.  Hook has been an old story.  People have a salty view of him distinctly because of his opinions in the past.... that's what's colouring their opinion on this episode.  Hook's asswhole reputation comes from his opinions, not his solicitor's letter.  The solicitor's latter is just the petrol that his enemies will throw over him now.

Like I say... did Sexton or any other player have anything to say about Dr O'Driscoll's comments on the continuing debate?

Disagree with that Fly. The problem isnt Hook making claims about the health of a player. The problem is him threatening legal action after said player responded to this. There was nothing malicious in Sextons comment. It was a very mild response to someone who has been calling his career into question (which he is entitled to do). What did anyone expect Sexton to say about it?

Hook could have replied on his show, or written an article but he went and 'told the teacher' over something so mild.  He can give it but he cannot take it. I feel any journalist/pundit going straight to his solicitors would have the same reaction.

Okay, I'll clarify it. Hook has always been a bit of a knob in my view because he loves to trash other people's efforts without fair basis in the name of entertainment and self-advancement. However, threatening those who object to being slated by him with lawsuits makes me think that he is a much, much bigger knob than I had previously suspected.

SecretFly wrote:

Notch wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I've spoken here about my fears for Sexton and the many hits he's taken to the head in recent years, and of the number of times he's been out because of those hits lingering as out and out genuinely official concussion episodes.
Does that make me a Hook? Does that make me a knob?

No, thats not what makes Hook a knob. I mean, speculating on a players health when you know nothing about it isn't exactly great behaviour but as much as it's distasteful there's nothing much wrong about it. Sure even on here we all have opinions and 95% of them are like our arrseholes, as they say. That's natural.

What makes Hook a knob is that as soon as the person he's speculating about makes even the mildest of replies to what he's said he runs to the lawyers..

But no.... that's not why he's an asswhole though is it? That's a new story.  Hook has been an old story.  People have a salty view of him distinctly because of his opinions in the past.... that's what's colouring their opinion on this episode.  Hook's asswhole reputation comes from his opinions, not his solicitor's letter.  The solicitor's latter is just the petrol that his enemies will throw over him now.

Like I say... did Sexton or any other player have anything to say about Dr O'Driscoll's comments on the continuing debate?

This is a bit like the Trump debate. A good few morons seem unable to differentiate between being politically incorrect and just being a jackass. Hook falls into the latter category. I completely agree with your point earlier that this PC micro aggressive culture is destroying the concept of freedom of speech and actively dissecting whatever a person has to say. Some people have made a career out of this and have bills to pay, so they will always need to find the "bad guys". But based on Hook's actions he seems to fit into that crowd rather well. He is the one suing someone for expressing their opinion. That is what I have an exception with here.

And what really grinds me is that Hook has made a career saying whatever he wants about whoever he wants, regardless of the facts. The second somebody responds in kind he runs to his mother. It is really pathetic.

Healy again struggling for Leinster, he needs to be left alone at the province to get back to some form after all the injuries, never really been able to put a string together and get his confidence back.

Calling a jackass a jackass has nothing to do with over-zealous 'political correctness'. There have been jackasses long before that, and as long as there have been jackasses there have been people who say 'Jeez, that guy is a jackass'.

No-one ever criticises Hook for being 'politically incorrect', whatever that means. They criticise him for either being clueless and self-important or playing a character who is clueless and self-important. All of that is annoying but ultimately harmless.

But then, he's the one trying to police what people can and cannot say! He, not his critics, are trying to suppress free speech. For a man who makes his money saying outrageous things this is unbelievably disingenuous and hypocritical, hence the criticism.

Lots of interesting comments on the development of the team. Its noteworthy that the team is trying to play a different type of gameplan from the last two years and which failed us miserably at the world cup. The next two games will be interesting.Hopefully Joe will pick more on form but his MO is not to do that.

Having said that I expect us to win the next two games handily. One loss will lead to a little more pressure on him.

I said after the RWC that I expected Ireland to have a poor 6N. I am not so upset about having a poor 6N because I can see something developing gameplan wise, what I am sore about is the fact that Schmidt continues to ignore form players to select his favourites. That is what is costing Ireland and making the perform sub standard to the expectations.

If certain players are overlooked for the remaining two games and Ireland lose one of them (Italy should be a win for Ireland no matter how poor they play) then I also believe that Schmidt will feel some pressure.

My wish is that Schmidt selects the correct players in their correct positions, utilise the gameplan that we are seeing and for Ireland to destroy Italy and France.

On the Hook debate, I never really pay too much attention to him myself but for him to threaten legal action of Sexton's comments is pretty poor. I don't think that it will get far because Sexton's comments were not harsh in the slightest.

If Hook had any respect for the Irish team he would not be talking about suing one of their key players in the middle of the 6 Nations.

Particularly at a time when the team is going through a rough patch and people need to get behind them.

People like Hook and Francis try to out-do each other as critics because it is the only way they are heard. They are desperate to be relevant.

Neil Francis had huge potential as a player but couldn't be bothered running the length of himself.

eirebilly wrote:I said after the RWC that I expected Ireland to have a poor 6N. I am not so upset about having a poor 6N because I can see something developing gameplan wise, what I am sore about is the fact that Schmidt continues to ignore form players to select his favourites. That is what is costing Ireland and making the perform sub standard to the expectations.

If certain players are overlooked for the remaining two games and Ireland lose one of them (Italy should be a win for Ireland no matter how poor they play) then I also believe that Schmidt will feel some pressure.

My wish is that Schmidt selects the correct players in their correct positions, utilise the gameplan that we are seeing and for Ireland to destroy Italy and France.

I agree with you billy, I'd be happy enough to beat Italy and Scotland though rather than playing France again .

Oops, Scotland I mean

eirebilly wrote:On the Hook debate, I never really pay too much attention to him myself but for him to threaten legal action of Sexton's comments is pretty poor. I don't think that it will get far because Sexton's comments were not harsh in the slightest.

I only got wind of this because of this forum as I usually completely ignore anything regarding Mr Hook. He's a windbag who's opinions are far too often proved to be ridiculous but this is a new level even for him. Don't deal it out if you can't take it back Mr Hooky.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...mucho to ponder on since last I showed up..... do I got time to respond yet again?

Unfortunately for you lot....yep, I have a few minutes.


So Hookie - the man rugby loves to hate.......... ie, secretly love shouting at and about..... is a very bad man because'n he can't take what he gives..............

Oh dear, 606.  The record ain't good here in that department.  

I haven't gotten into many fights on here over the years - I've loved great debates but the verbal fisticuffs in those threads, even when very robust, were never what I'd describe as fights.

So about three times over the years I've had dirt thrown at me that I wasn't prepared to take - as in, I decided I'd hit back as good as I got.  In short, I was finally doing a Sexton on one or two backseat personal insulters that obviously didn't like my style enough to get all personal and chippily insulting about it.

BUT................ when I tried being a Sexton and giving my non-PC ten cents worth of home truths back at the aggressors........................................... I'd find the PC secret moderator police would come in swiftly with the paranoia sweeping brush and dump both the aggressor's very public personal comments about me - PLUS - my Right-to-Respond retort.

The aggressors comment got the limelight for a few hours or even a day or two.... the 'Sexton' retort seldom even get 5 minutes

So much for Hook and the lack of an appreciation that for every barb there is rightfully a retort barb in the post for seasonal aggressors.

So, I think I've complained to Moderators here about three times in all my years coming and going - and on each occasion it was simply to articulate my annoyance that they wouldn't give me the right to fight my own battles and publically respond to what I felt were publically announced slurs.

So, yep - Sexton could teach a lot of people, most especially the Internet community police, the importance of being allowed the freedom to comment - and most especially to respect that right when a person feels they have been castigated in a public forum and haven't been given the right to respond in that very same public forum.

Hail Sexton.

Jack O'Donoghue and Finlay Bealham called up nto the Ireland squad.

That is a strange comparison to say the least. This is a rugby forum, which means it will need moderated to keep things on topic and to avoid losing good posters because of WUMs etc. This isn't a political forum, nor is it a general discussion forum, but a rugby union forum. It needs moderated and thankfully we have volunteers who are doing this to the best of their ability.

I certainly do not envy them. I have noticed they clearly wish to allow debate as much as possible and allow people to speak their minds, but they also want to avoid mud slinging contests or insults/personal attacks. This is a hard balance to strike and it does become "damned if you do, damned if you don't" very quickly. I do think some people on these forums are easily offended but at the same time there are genuine WUMs with the intent to ruin discussion for everyone else. If they are allowed to have free reign then we no longer have a rugby discussion forum. That is just how internet forums work, folks.

Either way, I do not understand what point you are trying to make. What does the Sexton-Hook feud have to do with how this forum is moderated? They aren't comparable as this is a forum with a very specific reason for existing. It has to be moderated in order to keep things on track. It has to have rules and regulations. As for the posters who have been giving you hassle... one in particular hasn't been posting here for a while now. Surely that tells you that the moderators have been dealing with this.

Rory it's not strange at all.  We disagree yet again.  The right to reply to put downs was the topic.  Hook was the topic.  Hook was brandished an idiot because his legal missive shows he can't take a hit (mild and all as it was) from Sexton.

The comparison is as direct as sunlight falling onto the Sahara.  Let Hook not be a hypocrite - certainly.  Let others not fall into the same trap in talking about him.  Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.  Censorship is censorship.  We can call it rules, I still choose to call it censorship.  But that really is a topic for another thread.... but the comparison is obvious to me.

And let's stop trying to second guess who I was referring to - the lad 'whatshisname' (I actually forget it 'cause I'm useless with names) from the 'Ireland is crap and full of cheating players' isn't and hasn't remotely been close to being complained about by me or me being even vaguely personally annoyed by anything he has said.  He's just one of the normal debaters in my opinion - entitled very much to his opinion.  
Everyone is.  But everyone also should have the right to reply.

SecretFly wrote:
And let's stop trying to second guess who I was referring to - the lad 'whatshisname' (I actually forget it 'cause I'm useless with names) from the 'Ireland is crap and full of cheating players'

Warren Gatland?

You!!!!

I've sent 20 bloody long long private messages to the mods about you over the years Rodders.................. and look, you're still here................. insulting everyone!

Deplorable!

The mods have me on ignore so they don't even know I'm here

Nice move!

SecretFly wrote:Rory it's not strange at all.  We disagree yet again.  The right to reply to put downs was the topic.  Hook was the topic.  Hook was brandished an idiot because his legal missive shows he can't take a hit (mild and all as it was) from Sexton.

The comparison is as direct as sunlight falling onto the Sahara.  Let Hook not be a hypocrite - certainly.  Let others not fall into the same trap in talking about him.  Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.  Censorship is censorship.  We can call it rules, I still choose to call it censorship.  But that really is a topic for another thread.... but the comparison is obvious to me.

And let's stop trying to second guess who I was referring to - the lad 'whatshisname' (I actually forget it 'cause I'm useless with names) from the 'Ireland is crap and full of cheating players' isn't and hasn't remotely been close to being complained about by me or me being even vaguely personally annoyed by anything he has said.  He's just one of the normal debaters in my opinion - entitled very much to his opinion.  
Everyone is.  But everyone also should have the right to reply.

Like I said, this is a rugby discussion forum. It isn't political and it isn't general discussion. Call it censorship if you like. There isn't freedom of speech on these forums as it would descend into chaos and constantly stray off topic. There needs to be balanced discussion on rugby, there needs to be policing and the moderators call the shots. I'm happy enough to trust their judgement and I think they do a very good job. They aren't perfect but it would be ridiculous to expect such a standard. They do it voluntarily, after all.

I find it strange that you began defending Hook, who is suing someone for exercising their freedom of speech in an interview, and then you turn to the moderators on here who make it very clear that there are things they will not allow on these forums. Insults and constant WUMs for example. Not to mention the fact that the biggest punishment you will receive on here is a permanent ban. It really isn't comparable.