6N 2016: Ireland v Italy, 12 March

by **George Carlin** Sun 06 Mar 2016, 5:05 pm

First topic message reminder :

6N 2016: Ireland v Italy, 12 March - Page 7 Irelan11

6N 2016: Ireland v Italy, 12 March - Page 7 Italy11

IRELAND v ITALY
12 March 2016
KO: 13:30 GMT
Aviva Stadium, Dublin

Live on RTE, DMAX, ITV, FR2 / BBC (H)

Referee: Angus Gardner (Australia)
Touch judges: [tbc]
Television match official: [tbc]

A. Head to Head

16 Played 16
15 Won 1
0 Drawn 0
1 Lost 15
519 Points 209

B. Recent Form

4 October 2015: Olympic Stadium, London, England
16 – 9 to Ireland
2015 Rugby World Cup Pool D

7 February 2015: Stadio Olimpico, Rome
3 – 26 to Ireland
2015 Six Nations Championship

8 March 2014: Aviva Stadium, Dublin
46 – 7 to Ireland
2014 Six Nations Championship

16 March 2013: Stadio Olimpico, Rome
22 – 15 to Italy
2013 Six Nations Championship

25 February 2012: Aviva Stadium, Dublin
42 – 10 to Ireland
2012 Six Nations Championship

C. Teams

IRELAND
6N 2016: Ireland v Italy, 12 March - Page 7 Father10

6N 2016: Ireland v Italy, 12 March - Page 7 Father10

[tbc]

ITALY
6N 2016: Ireland v Italy, 12 March - Page 7 Pope-f10

[tbc]

by Guest Sun 13 Mar 2016, 6:29 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Munchkin wrote:

And BOD remained past his 'sell by' date. Look at them both, Healy and SOB, and try and tell me, with a straight face, that you really believe they will both be there for the next WRC...

I agree with you on Paynes defence. He's great, no doubt, but do we want to move from where we are now, into more attacking play? Can we do that with Payne at centre? Actually, I think we probably can, but then Payne won't be there for the next world cup. Moving Payne to FB in some games, like against the Italians, will allow us to give game time to young prospects, like McCloskey. Yesterdays game was ripe for that, and it's a missed chance, in my view, The same with Jackson. These are vital positions for us to fill, and prepare guys for. I also agree on Marmion, and he wouldn't have got his chance yesterday, but for injury.

When are our young hopefuls to get that game time? Against SA? Against the AB? or do we wait until injury forces their inclusion in the next 6N's? Windows of opportunity are so slim, and yesterday was a wasted opportunity.

BoD came back and basically dragged the team to a GS on his own,won 3 HC's a Pro 12 and 2 6N's.That's not bad for a guy who was past it.

I can absolutely say I expect both of them to make it bar some unforseen injury or massive dip in form, I 100% believe they'll both be important parts if the squad for the next 4 or 5 years.I really don't see why not,SoB especially has been in good form this year and it's not like either of them have a consistent problem with one injury.

Now you're just being silly. How long ago was the grand slam?

Pointless discussion, so will leave it there.

by asoreleftshoulder Sun 13 Mar 2016, 6:43 pm

Munchkin wrote:
asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Munchkin wrote:

And BOD remained past his 'sell by' date. Look at them both, Healy and SOB, and try and tell me, with a straight face, that you really believe they will both be there for the next WRC...

I agree with you on Paynes defence. He's great, no doubt, but do we want to move from where we are now, into more attacking play? Can we do that with Payne at centre? Actually, I think we probably can, but then Payne won't be there for the next world cup. Moving Payne to FB in some games, like against the Italians, will allow us to give game time to young prospects, like McCloskey. Yesterdays game was ripe for that, and it's a missed chance, in my view, The same with Jackson. These are vital positions for us to fill, and prepare guys for. I also agree on Marmion, and he wouldn't have got his chance yesterday, but for injury.

When are our young hopefuls to get that game time? Against SA? Against the AB? or do we wait until injury forces their inclusion in the next 6N's? Windows of opportunity are so slim, and yesterday was a wasted opportunity.

BoD came back and basically dragged the team to a GS on his own,won 3 HC's a Pro 12 and 2 6N's.That's not bad for a guy who was past it.

I can absolutely say I expect both of them to make it bar some unforseen injury or massive dip in form, I 100% believe they'll both be important parts if the squad for the next 4 or 5 years.I really don't see why not,SoB especially has been in good form this year and it's not like either of them have a consistent problem with one injury.

Now you're just being silly. How long ago was the grand slam?

Pointless discussion, so will leave it there.

Why am I being silly,BoD had massive injury problems post 2005 and up to 2009 with many writing him off as a busted flush.He came back and played the best and most successful rugby of his career after that.That's completely relevant to the point I'm making,noth SoB and Healy are at similar age profiles to BoD and they are forwards so you would expect them to naturally have a better chance of having a creer well into their 30's.

by SecretFly Sun 13 Mar 2016, 6:53 pm

Yes, both O'Brien and Healy have time enough to come back stronger still over the next few seasons... and yes, O'Driscoll proved that a player can come back from the graveyard - he was considered past it well in advance of that vintage 2009 year.

But of course the work is with both O'Brien and Healy to make that possibility real. O'Brien especially has to find a way of playing that allows him to sustain a period of substantial gametime when next he comes back.
Right now he's in the problem position of always trying to re-prove himself every time he comes back, making him far too aggressive for contact - he bludgeons himself to injury. He's not the victim but the over-zealous perpetrator of his own all too frequent tunnel walks.

by Sin é Sun 13 Mar 2016, 8:08 pm

Peter Stringer wrote:
Engine#4 wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Engine#4 wrote:
Sin é wrote:
eirebilly wrote:Still, if he stays injury free, 34 is not too old to play international rugby. What about Connacht's TOH at 15?

Lam's Connacht have a different philosophy (you are encouraged to give it a go). Schmidt has the opposite philosophy. Defence first. Carr made a huge mistake moving to Schmidt's Leinster. Schmidt just does not like flair players.

I should have added: TOH hasn't a hope.

Is that why Zebo has been playing 15? Because the strongest parts of his game are defensive?

No. Because he keeps positive even though he is dropped frequently.

He is also lucky that he had a few caps before Schmidt came on the scene.

Just so I'm clear - Schmidt won't pick O'Halloran ever because he is a flair player. So, to ensure defensive solidity, Schmidt instead picks a flair player with less experience at 15 than O'Halloran. A player whose defence is not considered to be quite as good as the injured first choice fullback who some consider to be a poor one-on-one tackler. Well colour me confused!

If you want to know what the man-robot Schmidt thinks of flair players go ask Carlos Spenser.

+ x 10

by SecretFly Sun 13 Mar 2016, 8:20 pm

Peter DOD?

by Geen sport voor watjes Sun 13 Mar 2016, 9:17 pm

Seems to be a lot of divided opinions concerning the win and the coach. It was a good win but next week will tell us more.

BTW what's a Peter DOD.

by **Notch** Sun 13 Mar 2016, 10:02 pm

The only thing that those who hate Schmidt hate more than Ireland losing with him in charge, is Ireland winning with him in charge. Especially if we score a few tries along the way and play some expansive rugby, as they supposedly want us to do Very Happy

Yes it would be crazy to go the other way and talk us up completely given the state of Italy in that game, but when I was leaving the stadium I didn't see many folk without a smile on the face. Then you go online and people are absolutely gutted. Love it Very Happy

by **Notch** Sun 13 Mar 2016, 10:07 pm

SecretFly wrote:It's a results based bizz, billy. Ain't that the new buzzword in these professional times? I still say you're being much too impatient about McCloskey. He'll probably go to SA..................... now there is a test for the big lad if he gets a shot at a game. Head down time for McCloskey and time to think about what he'll bring to the party if and when he's selected again.... which might be next week for all we know.

There's no way we'll be picking the same XV for all the games with three tests in three weeks in South Africa. Those games will be hugely punishing and Schmidt won't even need to decide to rotate- the South African flankers will take that decision out of his hands! There will be more opportunities for players.

by Guest Sun 13 Mar 2016, 10:23 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Munchkin wrote:

And BOD remained past his 'sell by' date. Look at them both, Healy and SOB, and try and tell me, with a straight face, that you really believe they will both be there for the next WRC...

I agree with you on Paynes defence. He's great, no doubt, but do we want to move from where we are now, into more attacking play? Can we do that with Payne at centre? Actually, I think we probably can, but then Payne won't be there for the next world cup. Moving Payne to FB in some games, like against the Italians, will allow us to give game time to young prospects, like McCloskey. Yesterdays game was ripe for that, and it's a missed chance, in my view, The same with Jackson. These are vital positions for us to fill, and prepare guys for. I also agree on Marmion, and he wouldn't have got his chance yesterday, but for injury.

When are our young hopefuls to get that game time? Against SA? Against the AB? or do we wait until injury forces their inclusion in the next 6N's? Windows of opportunity are so slim, and yesterday was a wasted opportunity.

BoD came back and basically dragged the team to a GS on his own,won 3 HC's a Pro 12 and 2 6N's.That's not bad for a guy who was past it.

I can absolutely say I expect both of them to make it bar some unforseen injury or massive dip in form, I 100% believe they'll both be important parts if the squad for the next 4 or 5 years.I really don't see why not,SoB especially has been in good form this year and it's not like either of them have a consistent problem with one injury.

Now you're just being silly. How long ago was the grand slam?

Pointless discussion, so will leave it there.

Why am I being silly,BoD had massive injury problems post 2005 and up to 2009 with many writing him off as a busted flush.He came back and played the best and most successful rugby of his career after that.That's completely relevant to the point I'm making,noth SoB and Healy are at similar age profiles to BoD and they are forwards so you would expect them to naturally have a better chance of having a creer well into their 30's.

Because I was talking about the end of his career, not when Ireland won the GS. It's a pointless argument because it misses the fact that not all players, who are currently playing, will be there for the next RWC, and it would be madness to eject them just because of that. Age does come into it, but it's more that these are two players whose careers seem to be effected more with injuries, as time marches on. It's possible, you might be right, but I seriously doubt it.

by The Great Aukster Sun 13 Mar 2016, 10:24 pm

eirebilly wrote:Aukster, Maybe you are not understanding me. I want Schmidt to invest in the future. Investing in the future is not having Redden or McFadden in the squad.

Yesterday was the perfect chance to give McCloskey a spot on the bench or even start at 12. McFadden (ok played well) was in there for his versatility, Henshaw has this so why not have given McCloskey the 12 and Henshaw on the bench or vice versa? Zebo, Earls, Payne and Henshaw are all capable of covering several positions so why the need for McFadden's versatility on the bench?

Jackson is another that has been overlooked for what, Madigan's supposed better place kicking? Jackson is by far the better 10 and he should be looked at more.

These are the issues I have with the selection policies from Schmidt and as I have said before, many of the players would not even have been looked at bar injuries so I disagree with statements about Schmidt spreading the net wide when necessity has forced him to do this, not good selection policies.

No not misunderstanding you at all. Investment in the future is one thing, and living for today is another. These two games were to build a ranking that would provide shoulders for those in the future to stand on. Not losing ranking points against Italy and Scotland is far easier than gaining them against SA or NZ.

Do you understand how Joe operates? He picks his players to play in their positions and he picks cover on the bench. He does not shift half the team around for one injury so his bench has to be able to cover someone going off. His philosophy is that if someone gets injured, a direct replacement comes on for them without changing any other part of the team. Not always easy to get so he is looking for players to cover more than one position and preferably with experience who can read the game situation. Madigan covers two positions Jackson only one, McFadden covers two positions, McCloskey only one and both have experience of playing with the players in the team. Joe's selection makes logical sense when you understand what drives it.

Sexton played better on Saturday and Henshaw had a good game too, so options to start like Jackson and McCloskey need to be playing better than them to deserve a start and simply aren't versatile enough (in Joe's plan) to make the bench.

So to reiterate my previous question (that you ignored) - given the amount of flux in the main team do you really think it is a good idea to further unsettle the team by making unforced changes as well?

by Guest Sun 13 Mar 2016, 10:25 pm

Notch wrote:
SecretFly wrote:It's a results based bizz, billy. Ain't that the new buzzword in these professional times? I still say you're being much too impatient about McCloskey. He'll probably go to SA..................... now there is a test for the big lad if he gets a shot at a game. Head down time for McCloskey and time to think about what he'll bring to the party if and when he's selected again.... which might be next week for all we know.

There's no way we'll be picking the same XV for all the games with three tests in three weeks in South Africa. Those games will be hugely punishing and Schmidt won't even need to decide to rotate- the South African flankers will take that decision out of his hands! There will be more opportunities for players.

Actually, that's a fair point, although my own point was more that Schmidt isn't trusting Jackson now, but might be forced to throw him in against SA, away from home.

by Peter Stringer Sun 13 Mar 2016, 10:32 pm

Notch wrote:The only thing that those who hate Schmidt hate more than Ireland losing with him in charge, is Ireland winning with him in charge. Especially if we score a few tries along the way and play some expansive rugby, as they supposedly want us to do

Yes it would be crazy to go the other way and talk us up completely given the state of Italy in that game, but when I was leaving the stadium I didn't see many folk without a smile on the face. Then you go online and people are absolutely gutted. Love it

Clearly you were watching a different match from the rest of us who are impartial and sensible observers. It's clear that Kaiser Schmidt has lost the dressing room. There is no way on earth he sent that team out there to play like that. Absolutely no way that the players would have been authorised to attempt so many offloads. Just ask Carlos Spenser what happens when you try to show some individuality. There was a player revolt yesterday and I expect there to be consequences. Just shows how much we miss POC in the dressing room. He would never slow the players to do that. I respect Rory Best but only POC could put done revolts like this, just like he did that famous day in St Peters Field in Manchester.

Schmidt will be absolutely furious at that performance. Too much heads up rugby, the sort that Kidney loved to encourage.

by Guest Sun 13 Mar 2016, 10:35 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
eirebilly wrote:Aukster, Maybe you are not understanding me. I want Schmidt to invest in the future. Investing in the future is not having Redden or McFadden in the squad.

Yesterday was the perfect chance to give McCloskey a spot on the bench or even start at 12. McFadden (ok played well) was in there for his versatility, Henshaw has this so why not have given McCloskey the 12 and Henshaw on the bench or vice versa? Zebo, Earls, Payne and Henshaw are all capable of covering several positions so why the need for McFadden's versatility on the bench?

Jackson is another that has been overlooked for what, Madigan's supposed better place kicking? Jackson is by far the better 10 and he should be looked at more.

These are the issues I have with the selection policies from Schmidt and as I have said before, many of the players would not even have been looked at bar injuries so I disagree with statements about Schmidt spreading the net wide when necessity has forced him to do this, not good selection policies.

No not misunderstanding you at all. Investment in the future is one thing, and living for today is another. These two games were to build a ranking that would provide shoulders for those in the future to stand on. Not losing ranking points against Italy and Scotland is far easier than gaining them against SA or NZ.

Do you understood how Joe operates? He picks his players to play in their positions and he picks cover on the bench. He does not shift half the team around for one injury so his bench has to be able to cover someone going off. His philosophy is that if someone gets injured, a direct replacement comes on for them without changing any other part of the team. Not always easy to get so he is looking for players to cover more than one position and preferably with experience who can read the game situation. Madigan covers two positions Jackson only one, McFadden covers two positions, McCloskey only one and both have experience of playing with the players in the team. Joe's selection makes logical sense when you understand what drives it.

Sexton played better on Saturday and Henshaw had a good game too, so options to start like Jackson and McCloskey need to be playing better than them to deserve a start and simply aren't versatile enough (in Joe's plan) to make the bench.

So to reiterate my previous question (that you ignored) - given the amount of flux in the main team do you really think it is a good idea to further unsettle the team by making unforced changes as well?

So Jackson and McCloskey need to be playing better than the starters? How on earth are we ever going to know if they don't get the chance? How can they ever really challenge for a starting place unless they get a bench spot?

by Guest Sun 13 Mar 2016, 10:38 pm

Peter Stringer wrote:
Notch wrote:The only thing that those who hate Schmidt hate more than Ireland losing with him in charge, is Ireland winning with him in charge. Especially if we score a few tries along the way and play some expansive rugby, as they supposedly want us to do

Yes it would be crazy to go the other way and talk us up completely given the state of Italy in that game, but when I was leaving the stadium I didn't see many folk without a smile on the face. Then you go online and people are absolutely gutted. Love it

Clearly you were watching a different match from the rest of us who are impartial and sensible observers. It's clear that Kaiser Schmidt has lost the dressing room. There is no way on earth he sent that team out there to play like that. Absolutely no way that the players would have been authorised to attempt so many offloads. Just ask Carlos Spenser what happens when you try to show some individuality. There was a player revolt yesterday and I expect there to be consequences. Just shows how much we miss POC in the dressing room. He would never slow the players to do that. I respect Rory Best but only POC could put done revolts like this, just like he did that famous day in St Peters Field in Manchester.

Schmidt will be absolutely furious at that performance. Too much heads up rugby, the sort that Kidney loved to encourage.

To be fair, the team played like that against Scotland when we needed the points. Schmidt will trust them, sometimes, to play like that against weak opposition, and when it matters. My gripe is that adding players like Jackson or McCloskey would have made sod all difference to the result.

by The Great Aukster Sun 13 Mar 2016, 10:51 pm

Munchkin wrote:Actually, that's a fair point, although my own point was more that Schmidt isn't trusting Jackson now, but might be forced to throw him in against SA, away from home.

There will be zero expectation on Paddy playing against SA - Ireland are expected to lose. I have long been of the opinion that playing for Ireland is harder at home because of provincial rivalry and the need to justify selection which is more acute than playing away. Jackson hasn't been on great form but maybe by that time he will be, so it would be far better to pick him on form against a good team with low expectations than the reverse.

John Robbie loved the country so much he emigrated there!

by The Great Aukster Sun 13 Mar 2016, 10:57 pm

Munchkin wrote:So Jackson and McCloskey need to be playing better than the starters? How on earth are we ever going to know if they don't get the chance? How can they ever really challenge for a starting place unless they get a bench spot?

McCloskey did get his chance as a starter against England and didn't look out of place at all but didn't look significantly better than Henshaw either to take over from him.

Jackson hasn't been playing that well for Ulster so Sexton being the incumbent gets the vote.

by Guest Sun 13 Mar 2016, 11:01 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
Munchkin wrote:Actually, that's a fair point, although my own point was more that Schmidt isn't trusting Jackson now, but might be forced to throw him in against SA, away from home.

There will be zero expectation on Paddy playing against SA - Ireland are expected to lose. I have long been of the opinion that playing for Ireland is harder at home because of provincial rivalry and the need to justify selection which is more acute than playing away. Jackson hasn't been on great form but maybe by that time he will be, so it would be far better to pick him on form against a good team with low expectations than the reverse.

John Robbie loved the country so much he emigrated there!

Jackson hasn't been at his best because he is spreading his time between Ireland camp and Ulster. It happens. Think it was McCloskey that said he found it difficult to come straight into playing for Ulster, after being Ireland camp.

The fans will very much expect from Jackson in SA. He plays badly and they will let him know. Unfortunately that's how it works. And no, I don't want Jackson immigrating to SA. It's them I want immigrating to us Very Happy

by **Notch** Sun 13 Mar 2016, 11:03 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
Munchkin wrote:Actually, that's a fair point, although my own point was more that Schmidt isn't trusting Jackson now, but might be forced to throw him in against SA, away from home.

There will be zero expectation on Paddy playing against SA - Ireland are expected to lose. I have long been of the opinion that playing for Ireland is harder at home because of provincial rivalry and the need to justify selection which is more acute than playing away. Jackson hasn't been on great form but maybe by that time he will be, so it would be far better to pick him on form against a good team with low expectations than the reverse.

John Robbie loved the country so much he emigrated there!

Yeah, and in terms of pressure and expectation the 'easy' home game after a four-match losing streak is very, very high on that. We had to win by about 30 or 40 points or the knives would be out. Hell, for some people the knives are out and we scored nine tries.

A lot of people- including influential pundits in the media as well as normal fans- give the impression they are waiting for certain players or coaches to fail to stick the boot in, and then they also criticise the conservative mindset. Do we not realise that when we do this we are contributing to a culture which actually discourages experimentation and discourages risk taking?

by Guest Sun 13 Mar 2016, 11:06 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
Munchkin wrote:So Jackson and McCloskey need to be playing better than the starters? How on earth are we ever going to know if they don't get the chance? How can they ever really challenge for a starting place unless they get a bench spot?

McCloskey did get his chance as a starter against England and didn't look out of place at all but didn't look significantly better than Henshaw either to take over from him.

Jackson hasn't been playing that well for Ulster so Sexton being the incumbent gets the vote.

McCloskey only got his start through injury. Imagine if Payne hadn't have been injured. Do you think he would have even been benched? I don't want to see McCloskey get ahead of Henshaw for a starting place. I want him to play beside him.

Jackson has been playing well for Ulster, very well. During Ireland camp you expect a little drop in form.

by eirebilly Mon 14 Mar 2016, 6:03 am

The Great Aukster wrote:

No not misunderstanding you at all. Investment in the future is one thing, and living for today is another. These two games were to build a ranking that would provide shoulders for those in the future to stand on. Not losing ranking points against Italy and Scotland is far easier than gaining them against SA or NZ.

Do you understand how Joe operates? 1 : He picks his players to play in their positions and he picks cover on the bench. He does not shift half the team around for one injury so his bench has to be able to cover someone going off. His philosophy is that if someone gets injured, a direct replacement comes on for them without changing any other part of the team. Not always easy to get so he is looking for players to cover more than one position and preferably with experience who can read the game situation. Madigan covers two positions Jackson only one, McFadden covers two positions, McCloskey only one and both have experience of playing with the players in the team. Joe's selection makes logical sense when you understand what drives it.

Sexton played better on Saturday and Henshaw had a good game too, so options to start like Jackson and McCloskey need to be playing better than them to deserve a start and simply aren't versatile enough (in Joe's plan) to make the bench.

2 : So to reiterate my previous question (that you ignored) - given the amount of flux in the main team do you really think it is a good idea to further unsettle the team by making unforced changes as well?

1 : I don't think that Henshaw is a 12 at all, I think that he is a better 13 or even 15. He only plays at 12 for Ireland so please explain to me how Schmidt picks players to play in their positions? Do you know how Schmidt operates?

2 : I thought that I answered your question when I responded earlier which does lead me to believe that you do not understand fully what I am trying to say so again I will answer you and try to be more clear for you. Yes, I do believe in unforced changes in the team, I want players playing in their best positions and I want correct bench replacements not versatile players as there are enough versatile players in the starting 15 to negate the need for versatile players on the bench.

I truly hope that clears a few things up for you about my opinions.

by wolfball Mon 14 Mar 2016, 8:20 am

The point is not whether you or anyone is open to unforced changes; everyone wants to see up and coming players given a shot. The point is unforced changes on top of a raft of existing injury enforced changes. Some modicum of continuity is required in international rugby. Maybe we wish that wasn't the case but if watching France and Lancaster's England taught us anything is that constant changing to flavour of the month players does more harm then good.

There were 8 players playing against Italy who played in the same fixture last year. And even last years team was hardly conservative when you look at it, with Keatley starting and Diack on the bench. The idea our coach is conservative with selection baffles me. His starting selection is nearly always perfect once you take into consideration available players. But we then have massive ruckus over his choice of bench. A bench that all played pretty well (though as painful as it feels to admit it as a mayo man, white certainly and marmion a bit less so were disappointing off the bench). I am a connacht supporter and love seeing our lads get a shot. And henshaw aside (who is consistently one of our best backs) only Dillane has shown an actual aptitude for this level. And Dillane is getting his shot off the bench and learning loads. Exactly how it should be.

by **rodders** Mon 14 Mar 2016, 9:14 am

I have to eat my words a bit, Joe got it bang on again. This doesn't make up for the very disappointing last 3 performances but that was a pretty decent performance.

Italy were very poor but you can only play who is in front of you and put them to the sword.

Trimble was MOTM for me - he made 4 or 5 brilliant defensive reads, took his try really well and its actually his work off the ball that helps makes Heaslip's first brilliant try, he takes out 4 Italian defenders with the double wrap around and offload making it impossible for McFadden and Heaslip not to score.

Payne was excellent and fully justified his selection, as did McFadden, as much as I hate to say it. Zebo wasn't bad either.

Up front Jack McGrath had a great game and the back row has real balanced look about it at the minute.

Scotland are looking pretty good so wouldn't be complacent about winning the final game - overall it has been a very disappointing campaign but at least there is something positive to build on going into the summer.

by eirebilly Mon 14 Mar 2016, 9:27 am

See rodders, I don't think it has been a disappointing campaign. My selection issues aside, there has been a definite switch in the way that Ireland are approaching matches and I have enjoyed it.

Once the correct players are playing in their best positions, I think that Ireland will become very strong again. The signs are there.

by **rodders** Mon 14 Mar 2016, 9:44 am

eirebilly wrote:See rodders, I don't think it has been a disappointing campaign. My selection issues aside, there has been a definite switch in the way that Ireland are approaching matches and I have enjoyed it.

Once the correct players are playing in their best positions, I think that Ireland will become very strong again. The signs are there.

Well I don't see it that way - I think there has always been variations in how the team has played under Schmidt but the difference in previous campaigns is they played the right rugby at the right times more often than not.

In the previous games we've been running the ball out of our half and getting turned over and making easy targets for the opposition defense.

Against a passive defense like Italy its ok making these plays but in the previous games we needed to identify where the space was and mix things up. We aren't going to run around teams like England and Wales with their line speed.

Guys like Sexton, Kearney and Murray have been making poor decisions, which there is no excuse for given their experience.

by GunsGerms Mon 14 Mar 2016, 9:52 am

Some of the criticism of Schmidt this year has been absolutely ridiculous. Under him Ireland have capped over the 6 nations average in terms of first caps and we have only lost 2 competitive games at home in 15 games. The last time we lost at home in a competitive game was v New Zealand in 2013.

In this years six nations we were a little off the pace but had opportunities to win every game. Execution probably to blame on occasion. I don't think we are even that far off England to be honest and wouldn't be surprised if we beat them next year in the six nations.

I think as this team grows together a little more they will gel a little better and the pay off will come.

by GunsGerms Mon 14 Mar 2016, 9:55 am

rodders wrote:
eirebilly wrote:See rodders, I don't think it has been a disappointing campaign. My selection issues aside, there has been a definite switch in the way that Ireland are approaching matches and I have enjoyed it.

Once the correct players are playing in their best positions, I think that Ireland will become very strong again. The signs are there.

Well I don't see it that way - I think there has always been variations in how the team has played under Schmidt but the difference in previous campaigns is they played the right rugby at the right times more often than not.

In the previous games we've been running the ball out of our half and getting turned over and making easy targets for the opposition defense.

Against a passive defense like Italy its ok making these plays but in the previous games we needed to identify where the space was and mix things up. We aren't going to run around teams like England and Wales with their line speed.

Guys like Sexton, Kearney and Murray have been making poor decisions, which there is no excuse for given their experience.

Completely agree Rodders. Its as if some of the really silly media and fan criticism of the team has filtered through to the players and they feel under pressure to attack from every where when the reality is New Zealand kicked more ball than Ireland in the WC. New Zealand are just better than us with ball in hand.

On field decision making has been really poor. I think Sexton and Murray have had a bad campaign.

by GunsGerms Mon 14 Mar 2016, 10:03 am

Another thing I will say is we have to beat Scotland at all costs. Throw everything at them for a few reasons.

We need some redemption for a poor campaign, they need to lay down a marker and show all other teams and themselves that they are still good and to preserve our excellent home record. We also need to keep Scotland's ranking low. If they beat us they will be on track to overtake us by year end and that cant happen.

If we beat Scotland we will probably end the campaign in third place which wouldn't be bad for a year in transition.

We could even finish second if Wales lose to Italy and we beat Scotland.

by eirebilly Mon 14 Mar 2016, 10:11 am

I have never seen as many variations in the style of play under Schmidt until this campaign rodders. You may see it as a poor campaign (rightly so given the results) but I am not disappointed in the campaign as I have seen Ireland become more inventive with their style.

Its going to take time but continuing down the road they are now then I honestly feel Schmidt will again get this Ireland team competitive with the SH sides.

I am critical of his selections but not of his approach, if that makes sense Smile

by **rodders** Mon 14 Mar 2016, 10:40 am

GunsGerms wrote:
We could even finish second if Wales lose to Italy and we beat Scotland.

Not sure how we can finish 3rd as we have 2 losses and a draw. Even if France and Wales both loose they will finish above us, no?

by GunsGerms Mon 14 Mar 2016, 10:47 am

rodders wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
We could even finish second if Wales lose to Italy and we beat Scotland.

Not sure how we can finish 3rd as we have 2 losses and a draw. Even if France and Wales both loose they will finish above us, no?

No we have scored the most tries in the tournament so will come second on goal difference ahead of Wales. If Wales lose they have 2 losses, 2 wins and a draw and if France lose they have 3 losses.

If that happens we will finish second.

by Pete330v2 Mon 14 Mar 2016, 10:50 am

We've not been far off in any of our games thus far and with a rub of the green could very well have won any of them. We made putting Italy to the sword look easy enough and we absolutely can beat Scotland but it's nowhere near as assured as previous years. So all in all it's not been a terrible 6 nations, frustrating at times but not terrible. We probably should have beaten Wales and we definitely should have beaten France but those are the fine lines that make the difference between winning the championship and aiming for a possible 3rd place. As Irish fans we have plenty to be optimistic about and I think Joe will take us in the right direction despite some of my previous misgivings and frustrations.

by GunsGerms Mon 14 Mar 2016, 10:53 am

Pete330v2 wrote:We've not been far off in any of our games thus far and with a rub of the green could very well have won any of them. We made putting Italy to the sword look easy enough and we absolutely can beat Scotland but it's nowhere near as assured as previous years. So all in all it's not been a terrible 6 nations, frustrating at times but not terrible. We probably should have beaten Wales and we definitely should have beaten France but those are the fine lines that make the difference between winning the championship and aiming for a possible 3rd place. As Irish fans we have plenty to be optimistic about and I think Joe will take us in the right direction despite some of my previous misgivings and frustrations.

Yeah Scotland are looking pretty good to be honest. However, we are at home and he did hammer them by 30 points last year so a loss will be a big disappointment.

by **rodders** Mon 14 Mar 2016, 11:11 am

GunsGerms wrote:
rodders wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
We could even finish second if Wales lose to Italy and we beat Scotland.

Not sure how we can finish 3rd as we have 2 losses and a draw. Even if France and Wales both loose they will finish above us, no?

No we have scored the most tries in the tournament so will come second on goal difference ahead of Wales. If Wales lose they have 2 losses, 2 wins and a draw and if France lose they have 3 losses.

If that happens we will finish second.

Doh, think my brain is still on weekend.

by SecretFly Mon 14 Mar 2016, 11:12 am

I was laughing at that 'most tries' stat when I looked it up yesterday. What a smart ass way of getting to the top of that tree, using one game to do the work in. Nice Wink

Nine more tries next week - and why not? Whistle

- and it'll be a lovely little season all the same considering we lazily let both Wales and France back into their games against us. Cool

That 'lazy' switch-off that happens for no good reason in most Irish games is now something that needs looking at. And we need true leaders on the field who should be able to sense its arrival and push their teammates out of it with growls and yelps and encouraging back slaps. The general mood isn't being controlled enough and I think Best needs to goad his players on when the lapses in concentration begin to show. Keep the drive going. Keep the pace up. Ruthlessness. There won't be a choice against Scotland anyway - because they've become an out and out 80 minute attack orientated side.

by asoreleftshoulder Mon 14 Mar 2016, 1:33 pm

Munchkin wrote:

Because I was talking about the end of his career, not when Ireland won the GS. It's a pointless argument because it misses the fact that not all players, who are currently playing, will be there for the next RWC, and it would be madness to eject them just because of that. Age does come into it, but it's more that these are two players whose careers seem to be effected more with injuries, as time marches on. It's possible, you might be right, but I seriously doubt it.

I don't understand you there,I was talking about how BoD had injury problems in his mid to late 20's,was written off and came back to have the best season of his career and a very effective few seasons after that,PoC did something similar although his injury problems were in his early 30's.It is a direct comparison with SoB and Healy who are both having injury problems in their mid to late 20's,why would you be talking about the end of his career in this context when he didn't have any siginificant injury problems towards the end of his career?

by asoreleftshoulder Mon 14 Mar 2016, 1:35 pm

Sin é wrote:
Peter Stringer wrote:
Engine#4 wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Engine#4 wrote:
Sin é wrote:
eirebilly wrote:Still, if he stays injury free, 34 is not too old to play international rugby. What about Connacht's TOH at 15?

Lam's Connacht have a different philosophy (you are encouraged to give it a go). Schmidt has the opposite philosophy. Defence first. Carr made a huge mistake moving to Schmidt's Leinster. Schmidt just does not like flair players.

I should have added: TOH hasn't a hope.

Is that why Zebo has been playing 15? Because the strongest parts of his game are defensive?

No. Because he keeps positive even though he is dropped frequently.

He is also lucky that he had a few caps before Schmidt came on the scene.

Just so I'm clear - Schmidt won't pick O'Halloran ever because he is a flair player. So, to ensure defensive solidity, Schmidt instead picks a flair player with less experience at 15 than O'Halloran. A player whose defence is not considered to be quite as good as the injured first choice fullback who some consider to be a poor one-on-one tackler. Well colour me confused!

If you want to know what the man-robot Schmidt thinks of flair players go ask Carlos Spenser.

+ x 10

Please tell me you're in on the joke!

by Guest Mon 14 Mar 2016, 2:10 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Munchkin wrote:

Because I was talking about the end of his career, not when Ireland won the GS. It's a pointless argument because it misses the fact that not all players, who are currently playing, will be there for the next RWC, and it would be madness to eject them just because of that. Age does come into it, but it's more that these are two players whose careers seem to be effected more with injuries, as time marches on. It's possible, you might be right, but I seriously doubt it.

I don't understand you there,I was talking about how BoD had injury problems in his mid to late 20's,was written off and came back to have the best season of his career and a very effective few seasons after that,PoC did something similar although his injury problems were in his early 30's.It is a direct comparison with SoB and Healy who are both having injury problems in their mid to late 20's,why would you be talking about the end of his career in this context when he didn't have any siginificant injury problems towards the end of his career?

Are you really still pushing this even though it's irrelevant?

just to try and make you understand. My point about BOD was that he stayed on a season or two, too long. That was it. Nothing more, nothing less. Yes, he came back from injury, as many have, and it's just possible that Healy and SOB come back fully fit and firing, and lead Ireland to world cup victory, scoring three tries each in the final. It's possible.

Now, as I said previously, it misses the point I was making; the point being that it would be madness to drop players simply because they will not make the next RWC.

Hope that's cleared it up for you.

by asoreleftshoulder Mon 14 Mar 2016, 2:26 pm

Munchkin wrote:
asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Munchkin wrote:

Because I was talking about the end of his career, not when Ireland won the GS. It's a pointless argument because it misses the fact that not all players, who are currently playing, will be there for the next RWC, and it would be madness to eject them just because of that. Age does come into it, but it's more that these are two players whose careers seem to be effected more with injuries, as time marches on. It's possible, you might be right, but I seriously doubt it.

I don't understand you there,I was talking about how BoD had injury problems in his mid to late 20's,was written off and came back to have the best season of his career and a very effective few seasons after that,PoC did something similar although his injury problems were in his early 30's.It is a direct comparison with SoB and Healy who are both having injury problems in their mid to late 20's,why would you be talking about the end of his career in this context when he didn't have any siginificant injury problems towards the end of his career?

Are you really still pushing this even though it's irrelevant?

just to try and make you understand. My point about BOD was that he stayed on a season or two, too long. That was it. Nothing more, nothing less. Yes, he came back from injury, as many have, and it's just possible that Healy and SOB come back fully fit and firing, and lead Ireland to world cup victory, scoring three tries each in the final. It's possible.

Now, as I said previously, it misses the point I was making; the point being that it would be madness to drop players simply because they will not make the next RWC.

Hope that's cleared it up for you.

I'm just trying to understand what you mean,I never engaged with you on the point about dropping players who won't be available in the next WC so I don't see why you think I'm missing that point when it's something I 100% agree with you on.I have seen mention on loads of places that Healy and SoB are finished etc. yours was just the latest so I chose to engage with you on it.You replied and now seem to be getting exasperated for some reason I can't understand,we'll leave it there if you want but you have yet to give any justification for why you feel Healy or SoB won't make it back.

by Guest Mon 14 Mar 2016, 2:35 pm

That's fair enough, asls, and sorry if I seem a bit harsh. Probably due to me breaking a tooth mad

For me, it doesn't matter if Healy or SOB both make the next world cup. I should probably have used other examples. Ones that definitely won't be there.

No, I don't think SOB or Healy are done yet, although I do have concerns about Healy. It's just that I don't see them being there for the next world cup. It's possible they could be, and I will very happily eat my words but, personally, I don't think they will.

by SecretFly Mon 14 Mar 2016, 2:40 pm

Munchkin wrote:That's fair enough, asls, and sorry if I seem a bit harsh. Probably due to me breaking a tooth

For me, it doesn't matter if Healy or SOB both make the next world cup. I should probably have used other examples. Ones that definitely won't be there.

.

Oh God...could we all give it a rest about McCloskey for a while please, peoples..... Whistle

by Guest Mon 14 Mar 2016, 2:45 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Munchkin wrote:That's fair enough, asls, and sorry if I seem a bit harsh. Probably due to me breaking a tooth

For me, it doesn't matter if Healy or SOB both make the next world cup. I should probably have used other examples. Ones that definitely won't be there.

.

Oh God...could we all give it a rest about McCloskey for a while please, peoples.....

McCloskey is king

and will be there for years, unless it's Luke Marshall Very Happy

by **profitius** Mon 14 Mar 2016, 2:51 pm

Or the boy wonder Garrry Ringrose.

by asoreleftshoulder Mon 14 Mar 2016, 2:51 pm

Munchkin wrote:That's fair enough, asls, and sorry if I seem a bit harsh. Probably due to me breaking a tooth

For me, it doesn't matter if Healy or SOB both make the next world cup. I should probably have used other examples. Ones that definitely won't be there.

No, I don't think SOB or Healy are done yet, although I do have concerns about Healy. It's just that I don't see them being there for the next world cup. It's possible they could be, and I will very happily eat my words but, personally, I don't think they will.

Fair enough thumbsup

by **profitius** Mon 14 Mar 2016, 2:57 pm

Kilcoyne and Conway called up to the squad. Kearney out of the Scotland game.

Conway is a strange one but has played under Schmidt before so..

by asoreleftshoulder Mon 14 Mar 2016, 3:03 pm

profitius wrote:Kilcoyne and Conway called up to the squad. Kearney out of the Scotland game.

Conway is a strange one but has played under Schmidt before so..

He's played a lot at fullback this year hasn't he?I guess Schmidt doesn't rate ToH at all.

by GunsGerms Mon 14 Mar 2016, 3:15 pm

Who is TOH?

by GunsGerms Mon 14 Mar 2016, 3:21 pm

Ah O'Halloran. Ok

by **profitius** Mon 14 Mar 2016, 3:34 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
profitius wrote:Kilcoyne and Conway called up to the squad. Kearney out of the Scotland game.

Conway is a strange one but has played under Schmidt before so..

He's played a lot at fullback this year hasn't he?I guess Schmidt doesn't rate ToH at all.

He has played most of the session at fullback. He is dangerous going forward but many times he lacks some of the basic skills.

by The Great Aukster Mon 14 Mar 2016, 6:19 pm

eirebilly wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:

No not misunderstanding you at all. Investment in the future is one thing, and living for today is another. These two games were to build a ranking that would provide shoulders for those in the future to stand on. Not losing ranking points against Italy and Scotland is far easier than gaining them against SA or NZ.

Do you understand how Joe operates? 1 : He picks his players to play in their positions and he picks cover on the bench. He does not shift half the team around for one injury so his bench has to be able to cover someone going off. His philosophy is that if someone gets injured, a direct replacement comes on for them without changing any other part of the team. Not always easy to get so he is looking for players to cover more than one position and preferably with experience who can read the game situation. Madigan covers two positions Jackson only one, McFadden covers two positions, McCloskey only one and both have experience of playing with the players in the team. Joe's selection makes logical sense when you understand what drives it.

Sexton played better on Saturday and Henshaw had a good game too, so options to start like Jackson and McCloskey need to be playing better than them to deserve a start and simply aren't versatile enough (in Joe's plan) to make the bench.

2 : So to reiterate my previous question (that you ignored) - given the amount of flux in the main team do you really think it is a good idea to further unsettle the team by making unforced changes as well?

1 : I don't think that Henshaw is a 12 at all, I think that he is a better 13 or even 15. He only plays at 12 for Ireland so please explain to me how Schmidt picks players to play in their positions? Do you know how Schmidt operates?

2 : I thought that I answered your question when I responded earlier which does lead me to believe that you do not understand fully what I am trying to say so again I will answer you and try to be more clear for you. Yes, I do believe in unforced changes in the team, I want players playing in their best positions and I want correct bench replacements not versatile players as there are enough versatile players in the starting 15 to negate the need for versatile players on the bench.

I truly hope that clears a few things up for you about my opinions.

1. Fair enough you "don't think that Henshaw is a 12 at all", but there are many who think he is and that he had a very good game playing there on Saturday and indeed for most of the times he has played there since his impressive start against South Africa. Joe obviously likes Henshaw at 12 because he continues to start him there and he doesn't give a fig for what anyone else thinks.
The point being made was that Schmidt picks players to execute his gameplan and gives then as much practice as he can to prepare to do so in the match. Reallocating starting players to different roles compounds the disruption of an injury.

2. Everyone acknowledges the need to build depth, but the specific question was about doing so when the team is injury ravaged and the personnel constantly changing - your opinion is that it's OK, and that's OK.
IMO I'd prefer to introduce a new player when he is the only variable rather than throw him in with half the team wondering what the other half is doing. I'd also prefer to minimise the pressure where possible as everyone is nervous until they settle in. Each to their own.

by Rory_Gallagher Mon 14 Mar 2016, 7:27 pm

Well that is quite the result. Unfortunately I missed the game as I was away for the weekend but hopefully I'll get the chance to watch it at some stage this week. I have to say though, a quick glance through here has given me quite the laugh. Even after a spectacular much needed victory, a certain fan has still continued his caped crusade against the evil Schmidt empire. Laugh

Let's hope we can continue with the same next week. If we come third after what has been an extremely disappointing Six Nations then that would be quite incredible, given the circumstances.

by Sponsored content