South Africa v Ireland, 11 June

First topic message reminder :

        
SOUTH AFRICA v IRELAND
11 June 2016
17:00 SAST (UTC+02)
DHL Newlands, Cape Town

Live on Sky Sports

Referee: Mathieu Raynal (France)
Touch judges: [tbc]
Television match official: [tbc]

A. Head to Head

22 Played 22
16 Won 5
1 Drawn 1
5 Lost 16
422 Points 277

B. Recent Form

8 November 2014 - Aviva Stadium, Dublin: 29 – 15 to Ireland

10 November 2012 - Aviva Stadium, Dublin: 12 – 16 to South Africa

6 November 2010 - Aviva Stadium, Dublin: 21 – 23 to South Africa

28 November 2009 - Croke Park, Dublin: 15 – 10 to Ireland

11 November 2006 - Lansdowne Road, Dublin: 32 – 15 to Ireland

13 November 2004 - Lansdowne Road, Dublin: 17 – 12 to Ireland

19 June 2004 - Newlands, Cape Town: 26 – 17 to South Africa

C. Teams

SOUTH AFRICA 

15 Willie le Roux, 14 JP Pietersen, 13 Lionel Mapoe, 12 Damian de Allende, 11 Lwazi Mvovo, 10 Pat Lambie, 9 Faf de Klerk, 8 Duane Vermeulen, 7 Siya Kolisi, 6 Francois Louw, 5 Lood de Jager, 4 Eben Etzebeth, 3 Frans Malherbe, 2 Adriaan Strauss (captain), 1 Tendai Mtawarira

Substitutes: 16 Bongi Mbonambi 17 Trevor Nyakane 18 Julian Redelinghuys 19 Pieter-Steph du Toit 20 Warren Whiteley 21 Rudy Paige 22 Elton Jantjies 23 Jesse Kriel

IRELAND

J Payne; A Trimble, R Henshaw, L Marshall, K Earls; P Jackson, C Murray; J McGrath, R Best, M Ross; I Henderson, D Toner; CJ Stander, J Murphy, J Heaslip

Replacements: S Cronin, F Bealham, T Furlong, U Dillane, R Ruddock, K Marmion, I Madigan, C Gilroy.

Thing is Notch, Schmidt is always lauded as an amazing coach, if he is that good, he should have seen this in Payne. Not wait until injuries forced his hand, that's why I feel he is re-active.

Its exactly the same for Paddy, for the life of me I have no idea why he wasn't given any game time at all during the last 6N. He was clearly the form 10 in Ireland and was overlooked. Had Sexton have been fit, Jackson may not have even got game time this series. This too me again highlights how re-active he is as a coach.

The introduction of Farrell (I was dead against it at the time but look to be very wrong in that thought) has helps Schmidt a lot but I still firmly feel that had the Rob Kearney have been fit, no matter how off form he is, he would have been picked, Payne would go to 13 and Ireland would not have been as effective in the backline.

catchweight wrote:I dont think it is doing a disservice to the Ireland players or performance by saying that Schmidt was forced to make changes rather than making them naturally. Schmidt has many strengths as a coach but I dont selection is one of them. He has a formula and only injuries to his core players seems to make him deviate from that. The likes of the Kearneys, Madigan and McFadden look no more than serviceable at test level but are go to guys for Schmidt when its looked like there are better options available. They might have beat SA yesterday with Schmidts usual team but its hard to deny the positive effect of the (forced) changes compared to their recent 6 nations.

Correct. It's not a thought that will often appear over the next week though.

People are saying this isn't a good South African side. Well it's the one put in front of us and the Irish team did it with 14 for most of the game and 13 for a brief period too. So honour to those that played. They were asked to prove selection (in the event of many injuries) and did prove it and then some.
But Sexton has done enough for this Irish side in the past (and perhaps the future) not to be cast off a 'no more than serviceable at test level'.
Madigan too helped drag his team through a furiously physical encounter against France at the World Cup, when virtually all leaders were taken from the field - so quickly forgotten in the buzz about the players in the shirts now.

Let's hope the heroic exploits of the players yesterday isn't quickly forgotten over the coming weeks. It's a fickle old world is rugby fandom.

Well Schmidt might be the first to forget once the Kearneys are fit again

eirebilly wrote:Thing is Notch, Schmidt is always lauded as an amazing coach, if he is that good, he should have....

He is that good. 'Amazing' is for comic book characters. He's a classy coach and on a par with the best in the world. He coached this side to victory (a first in Irish rugby history), using men he doesn't usually use in the positions he doesn't usually use them in.

Should he step back and say he never went near these guys in the lead-up? Should he say he let them do it their way? Should he hold up his hand and say he shouldn't get any plaudits as coach coz he never wanted some of these guys?

He's the coach. He has (like all best sides) now again a defensive coach to take the pressure off in that area but even in the Six Nations he wasn't doing too badly on his own. The world knows what he is. It's only us Irish that debate the point - as is our nature.

catchweight wrote:Well Schmidt might be the first to forget once the Kearneys are fit again

And he might be proved right...........

A win is a win, plenty of wins with Kearney One or Two in the team.

SecretFly wrote:

eirebilly wrote:Thing is Notch, Schmidt is always lauded as an amazing coach, if he is that good, he should have....

He is that good.  'Amazing' is for comic book characters.  He's a classy coach and on a par with the best in the world.  He coached this side to victory (a first in Irish rugby history), using men he doesn't usually use in the positions he doesn't usually use them in.

Should he step back and say he never went near these guys in the lead-up?  Should he say he let them do it their way?  Should he hold up his hand and say he shouldn't get any plaudits as coach coz he never wanted some of these guys?  

He's the coach.  He has (like all best sides) now again a defensive coach to take the pressure off in that area but even in the Six Nations he wasn't doing too badly on his own.  The world knows what he is.  It's only us Irish that debate the point - as is our nature.

Fly, I did not say that he does not deserve credit, on the previous page I say that he and Farrell deserve a lot of credit for yesterdays win. All I am saying is that he is not as pro-active a coach as many on here seem to think he is. What ever side turns out for Ireland, he has them prepared but its not always the best side available that he picks. Fact is, Ireland did very well yesterday due to injuries forcing Schmidt's hand so much so that he had to coach new players in the team that should have been selected much earlier. It was a fine job he did to prepare the team but that does not hide the fact that it he was forced into this.

catchweight wrote:I dont think it is doing a disservice to the Ireland players or performance by saying that Schmidt was forced to make changes rather than making them naturally. Schmidt has many strengths as a coach but I dont selection is one of them. He has a formula and only injuries to his core players seems to make him deviate from that. The likes of the Kearneys, Madigan and McFadden look no more than serviceable at test level but are go to guys for Schmidt when its looked like there are better options available. They might have beat SA yesterday with Schmidts usual team but its hard to deny the positive effect of the (forced) changes compared to their recent 6 nations.

Let's not forget that Schmidt showed a lot of confidence in Jackson to last the 80 minutes- he could've panicked and brought on Madigan when that interception was given away but he didn't, and that would have disrupted us unnecessarily.

I think whatever about the Kearneys the fact Madigan didn't make the 32 originally shows he was going to back Paddy to step up all along- albeit probably on the bench behind Sexton.

Another decision which was heavily protested was the omission of McCloskey, but Marshall was brilliant. You can see the logic of omitting McCloskey now as we generally either used forwards to attack around the ruck or we moved it wider. Sure sometimes Marshall had to carry it, but his kicking skills and playmaking abilities were more useful than a strike runner. His grubber for the first try shows the value of a second playmaker and with Olding backing him up it looks like this is something we're going to see a lot of.

Was Marshall only in there because Kearney and Zebo were injured so he had to move Payne to full back? And was Madigan given the boot because he moved abroad but had to be included again when Sexton got injured?

Sorry but for me there is nothing in that that wasnt basically forced. Jackson and Marshall have been around for a while now. They are only getting a look in because of injuries to Schmidts usual guys.

I dont doubt Schmidt prepares his players well is organised and tactically excellent at analysing opposition. But thats a seperate matter.

catchweight wrote:Sorry but for me there is nothing in that that wasnt basically forced. Jackson and Marshall have been around for a while now. They are only getting a look in because of injuries to Schmidts usual guys.

Either Marshall was planned to come in due to Schmidt wanting to attack the wider channels, or Schmidt was forced to put Marshall in but he adapted the alignment of the centres and tweaked the game plan subtly to fully use Marshalls strengths. I think both are true to an extent.

We were playing the wide game plan at the end of the Six Nations but it was Payne at 13 who was given the role of being the secondary playmaker in the back line with Henshaw running harder. Despite Henshaw moving to 13 he's still the hard runner in the midfield and 12 is now the playmaker- we've switched the jobs of the centres to suit the personnel. I think he was always going to have a creative player in there and I believe we could play that well in attack with Payne at 13 and Zebo at 15, because I have seen us play that well in attack with that set-up. Remember this? Maybe Kearney isn't threatening in attack but Zebo when he enters the line is very capable of creativity, and Schmidt has been the one who has tried to mould Zebo into a 15.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9wcuHtWfX4

And just like we were over focusing on the back line in the Six Nations when our poor run was down to the forwards losing us games, we're now arguing about the backs when the forwards were absolutely the ones that won us that game! The internet is funny

offload wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

offload wrote:Rewatched the match and have to say again what an excellent performance Ireland put in.  By far the better team and a really gutsy display.

I still don't understand why so many fans talk about "intent" as if it makes a difference.  Stander smashed a player in the face with his hip, it was dangerous and always likely to attract a red. His intention is irrelevant.  The ref was not as bad as many are claiming. The two cards were correct.  His worst decision was allowing the SA try when there was clear obstruction.

Thankfully it didn't make a difference and Ireland got a deserved win.

Not sure about SA, they were poor.  Were there better players not selected or is the problem more fundamental?   Can't see them doing much in this year's Rugby Championship playing like that.

I think intent absolutely has to be taken into account.

Take a classic high ball contest - both players have their eyes fixed on the ball and make a fair attempt to catch it yet following the collision one of the players lands on their head. How is it just and fair that the other player gets carded? He made a fair attempt to contest for the ball and it was essentially an accident.

To me Stander did what every player does when chasing a kicker - charged at him as fast as he could then jumped in the air to try and block it. No intent to cause harm.

Rugby really is a strange game where you can intend to hurt someone in a big tackle and that is fine, yet accidental collisions are red cards! I'm being a bit facetious but I'm sure you get my point!

I do get your point.  Intent is sometimes obvious (a deliberate punch) but very often is very hard to determine.  I can readily accept that Stander didn't intend to hurt Lambie and was attempting a charge down. But if that wasn't the case and he only had foul play on his mind, how would we know?  That's why players have to be in control and when they are reckless they often put themselves at risk of sending off.  To me it's the same as lashing out with your boot at the ball close to a players head.  Might only be going for the ball, but if you kick him in the face, you could easily see red.  But yes, rugby is a strange game.

Offload,
Very good comments regarding intent.  When a charge-down happens, as in this case, intent is difficult to judge.  On the other hand, a gouge, for example, is almost impossible not to know intent.  Charge-downs are split second things and someone would have to make up his mind in the blink of an eye.  

In this case, it is clear (to me at least) Stander did not try to stretch out with his hands going near the kicking foot, the normal way to block a kick.  I think he got his timing seriously wrong and ended up with his body going into a defenseless player.  Could I have been OK with a Yellow?  Possibly.  For me, a tough call, but likely the Red is right.  I do think players looking to block a kick need to know the right approach and this was obviously not it.  In the NFL, with all their body armour, they have no extenuating circumstances for running into a kicker, just two grades of penalties, and if the more serious one is detected, then the referee has the discretion to disqualify the offending player.  I like this.

At least, for Ireland, it still worked out in the end, as they played a great 14 man game of Rugby.

catchweight wrote:Well Schmidt might be the first to forget once the Kearneys are fit again

I think it will depend on who is outhalf. Sexton back in, it will be Henshaw at 12 and Payne at 13. Jackson starting it will be Marshall at 12 and Payne at fullback.

The team will be built around whoever the outhalf is.

Sin é wrote:

catchweight wrote:Well Schmidt might be the first to forget once the Kearneys are fit again

I think it will depend on who is outhalf. Sexton back in, it will be Henshaw at 12 and Payne at 13. Jackson starting it will be Marshall at 12 and Payne at fullback.

The team will be built around whoever the outhalf is.

Not so sure about this Sin é. Payne from fullback was outstanding yesterday as were the centres. I cannot for the life of me understand the reasoning for changing this (injury or form aside) to suit the 10. Sexton would play very well with Marshall/Henshaw I feel.

Notch wrote:

catchweight wrote:Sorry but for me there is nothing in that that wasnt basically forced. Jackson and Marshall have been around for a while now. They are only getting a look in because of injuries to Schmidts usual guys.

Either Marshall was planned to come in due to Schmidt wanting to attack the wider channels, or Schmidt was forced to put Marshall in but he adapted the alignment of the centres and tweaked the game plan subtly to fully use Marshalls strengths. I think both are true to an extent.

We were playing the wide game plan at the end of the Six Nations but it was Payne at 13 who was given the role of being the secondary playmaker in the back line with Henshaw running harder. Despite Henshaw moving to 13 he's still the hard runner in the midfield and 12 is now the playmaker- we've switched the jobs of the centres to suit the personnel. I think he was always going to have a creative player in there and I believe we could play that well in attack with Payne at 13 and Zebo at 15, because I have seen us play that well in attack with that set-up. Remember this? Maybe Kearney isn't threatening in attack but Zebo when he enters the line is very capable of creativity, and Schmidt has been the one who has tried to mould Zebo into a 15.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9wcuHtWfX4

And just like we were over focusing on the back line in the Six Nations when our poor run was down to the forwards losing us games, we're now arguing about the backs when the forwards were absolutely the ones that won us that game! The internet is funny

People probably are not arguing the forwards, because there was not much of an argument to be had.

I dont agree with the assessment on the centres are full back. In a nut shell, Schmidt was forced to make the changes he did. When Kearney is fit, he is first choice (lets see if this will remain after the last test). Even when Madigan was a utility back at Leinster, struggling to win a starting spot either at fly half or centre, he was the go to deputy for Sexton at international level despite Jackson being the regular 10 at Ultster. Payne was kept at centre even with Karney injured when Marshall was available in the past. I dont think there is any case for Schmidt experimenting on this, I think injuries forced him into these changes and it looks like they were positive. The back line looked better when injuries forced Schmitd to reshuffle. No plaudits for Schmidt on that one.

I think Schmidt is great at certain aspects of coaching. I dont think he is great in terms of selection and picking the best team. He is overly conservative. I guess we will see when the likes of Kearney is fully fit again whether he will slot back in or if he will keep Payne at full back. With Madigan moving to France, the decision to stick with Jackson seems already made on that one although it will be interesting to see if he starts getting more game time when Sexton is back again.

catchweight wrote:With Madigan moving to France, the decision to stick with Jackson seems already made on that one although it will be interesting to see if he starts getting more game time when Sexton is back again.

Did Madigan get much time when he was designated understudy? Not much, to be honest. If Sexton was fit, Sexton played. If things are different now with Jackson, it'll be because Jackson will be getting more shots at playing 10 than Madigan got. If Jackson is kept on the bench then it'll be only a continuation of the treatment given to Madigan.

That's the way this coach decides to coach. Many people have an issue with it but there are many theories in coaching. The coach will have his ideals and opinion on players and team balance - and therefore it comes down to how many Internationals in a year an ambitious coach gives to understudies when there are few International games that can really ever be termed friendlies.

Madigan couldnt hold down a place at his club side across a couple of positions, and was generally used as a utility player. Jackson was a starting 10 at his club side. I dont think Schmidt showed much faith in either Jackson or Madigan, but that heaped the reliance on a Sexton who's best years look behind him. Madigan was never going to be a test level 10. He might struggle to even be a club level 10. He was on Irelands bench because he could slot in and cover a couple of positions in a pinch. Jackson at least had the potential to be a test level 10 but was mainly overlooked and his development at test level stunted, im my opinion, because Schmidt is conservative and operates off a doctrine of just getting the next result. There are many of ways of coaching, it doesnt mean a coach gets everything right. Schmitd has done plenty of good, I think hes got a few things wrong in terms of selcetion and player development.

Sorry for my late reply but only just watched the match. Well done Ireland that win was massive for several reasons. Strength of mind, skill, determination, defence, fitness to name a few. Brilliant win. Great for the NH too. I'm fed up with us all being beaten by that lot.

Madigan couldn't hold it down - why?  Because Schmidt was there (we've explained him) and then O'Connor was there, who bizarrely preferred Gopperth (a player I had a lot of time for - a lovely spark player) who was then used in a dreadfully coached gameplan. Neither Madigan or even Gopperth could thrive with O'Connor in charge.

Madigan has never been given enough time to settle into the role.  You might say he hasn't the skills but I'd still say that needed to be proved with more gametime.  If you think you're a 10 and yet seldom get the opportunity to prove it, when that opportunity does arise, you can often jump too eagerly at the chance and 'overplay' things.
Water under the bridge now.  Jackson is now the man.

Incidentally, Jackson has been victim of nerves and over-stretching in an Ireland shirt in the past.  He hasn't exactly always been 'Perfection' waiting on the sidelines for a coach to admit the inevitable.

Why Madigan couldnt hold down a place isnt really point. The point is despite that, and despite his prospects of ever being an international level 10 being remote he was used as an under developed back up for cover to an increasingly battle worn Sexton. Jackson might not have had and in all probability wont be as good as Sexton was but at leat he was starting 10. And the werent really any better options at 10 for an understundy. Schmidt essentially optend not to really look at developing cover but just have a guy on the bench to fill a hole in an emergency. Risky considering Sextons injury problems and fading peak years. This policy would probably have continued had it not been a combination of Madigan leaving Ireland and Sexton getting injured thrusting Jackson into the SA test. He mightnet have even been there were it not for those things. But these factors forced Schmidts hands and it worked out pretty well for Ireland when under normal business as usual for Schmidt, Jackson wouldnt be in the matchday squad.

I think that you are dead on there catchweight. I found it very frustrating to continually see Madigan selected ahead of Jackson during the last 6N. The utility thing is an excuse, there were more than enough players in the squad that could play in several positions to accommodate Jackson and give him game time at International level. His performance yesterday was a slap in the face to Schmidt and proved to many people how he was mis-managing Jackson.

catchweight wrote:Why Madigan couldnt hold down a place isnt really point. The point is despite that, and despite his prospects of ever being an international level 10 being remote he was used as an under developed back up for cover to an increasingly battle worn Sexton. Jackson might not have had and in all probability wont be as good as Sexton was but at leat he was starting 10. And the werent really any better options at 10 for an understundy. Schmidt essentially optend not to really look at developing cover but just have a guy on the bench to fill a hole in an emergency.

It is the point.  Regardless of who was the 10 safety blanket sitting on the bench (Madigan or Jackson) either would have been scantly used to be able to claim valuable gametime in the position in big games.  That was my point.  You alluded to how much time will Jackson get now that Madigan is gone.  I answered that it might be as little as Madigan was used at 10.
Why should Jackson have benefitted from sitting on a bench anymore than Madigan, who at least offered something extra that Schmidt Might have called on at some point in a game?  Little gametime is little gametime - we've already agreed that Schmidt, at International level anyway, tends to stick to players he has trusted.  In that mindframe, Madigan gave the team more options in Schmidt's mind from off the bench.  Schmidt doing things his way.  
But then again, he doesn't exactly need any lessons from anyone on the merits of rotation; he was a master of it when he had quality time with players at Provincial level. - so it goes back to what the Provinces give him and how much they can all do what he wants them to do on his terms when they arrive at his training grounds.  The privilege of Office.

No the point is why didnt he didnt pick a starting club level ten with youth on his side and develop him as a back up to Sexton and potential successor instead of a utility 10 who couldnt hold down a club place and was never going to be a successor to Sexton?

His hand was forced, luckily for Ireland, and it looks like they might have something to work with now instead of an ageing Sexton and a bit part Madigan. I say might, because with Schmidt once Sexton is fit again, Jackson might not get much playing time at all.

Fly,

Given that Jackson was the best 10 in Ireland at that point (yes I believe he was actually in better form than Sexton) would it not have made a lot more sense to have Jackson as the bench option over Madigan as there were enough players in the squad that could be deployed as utilities?

Jackson was a starting 10 for his province whilst Madigan was a bench warmer at his province.

The lack of faith shown in Jackson was poor and the injury to Sexton left him having to put Jackson into the starting line up against SA in SA without any international games under his belt this season. Luckily Jackson proved he was exactly up to the standard required and that was some effort considering how little experience he has had at International level. This was not a Schmidt master stroke, it was Jackson proving himself.

I've heard it said that success has many fathers but failure is an orphan. But it seems in Ireland, the head coach is always the father of our failures and the players are always the fathers of our successes!

Thats sounds like like waffle. The buck always stops with the coach rightly or wrongly in sports. You think this is unique to Ireland?

I m not doubting the effort put in by Schmidt and Farrell for the win yesterday, obviously they put in a winning game plan. That said, it was the first time I have seen Ireland have a game plan defined around the strength of certain individuals instead of a conservative approach. It was also the first time that Ireland managed to adjust to in game situations.

Not all of the credit should go to Schmidt though as the players did step up, every single one. When Ireland lose, people say that its not Schmidt's fault as it is the players on the field making the mistakes...

My issue is, Schmidt did not prepare to have Jackson starting at 10 against SA in SA when he clearly should have. It was a very lucky thing for Schmidt that Jackson is that good to stand up and be countered. I give Schmidt no credit for Jacksons development Internationally.

catchweight wrote:No the point is why didnt he didnt pick a starting club level ten with youth on his side and develop him as a back up to Sexton and potential successor instead of a utility 10 who couldnt hold down a club place and was never going to be a successor to Sexton?

His hand was forced, luckily for Ireland, and it looks like they might have something to work with now instead of an ageing Sexton and a bit part Madigan. I say might, because with Schmidt once Sexton is fit again, Jackson might not get much playing time at all.

The point is he's Schmidt and the coach.  The point is he'd argue around the points I've been making... because your idea about 'why' and 'what' are different to his.  Why did he not develop Jackson better alongside Sexton?  Because he had different priorities for winning games.  Madigan served his purpose.  Schmidt does it his way, not the fans' way.

But the fans are smug now and will have their day.  Whether it was forced or not - he's the coach that is responsible (in coaching terms) for the historic win.  Like I say, the Jackson fans seem to so quickly forget Madigan in a game with equal if not more Physical fire - the French World Cup game.  Would Jackson have carried the team as 10 just as well as Madigan then?  Yeah - maybe.  Maybe Sexton would have helped Ireland pull off a bigger win against South Africa yesterday (man down and all).  Who is to know?  Who cares.  We beat the schit out of a pompous bullying France and we beat South Africa on their own territory with 14 men.  You tell me which game you liked less.

All that has been proven with certainty is that some people think Schmidt wasn't responsible (in coaching terms) for that win and that he probably should be apologising to a few players.

I say Bullshchidt to that.  He's the coach.  The coaching kudos belongs to him, and some here want to dissolve that sense of accomplishment because it fits in with their idea that he is a coach who uses bias rather than coaching ideals and beliefs.

Come on Fly, that match in the RWC was the worst French side I have seen in over 30 years. Not taking it away from Madigan who played brilliantly but France were simply dire that RWC.

Point catchweight is trying to make is why was Madigan (pretty sure not the future 10 for Ireland) preferred over Jackson (the absolute future 10 for Ireland) during the 6N when Jackson should have been developed?

It worked for him yesterday but that has more to do with Jackson than it does with Schmidt.

No I think its fits with those who think that Schmidt is overly conservative and inflexible in his selections policy and the result yesterday fit that belief a little to will for those that cant handle any questioning of Schmidt and think he is infallible.

I would take the historic 14 man win in SA witht he changes that were forced on Schmidt that he otherwise would not have made over the win against a crap France team myself.

eirebilly wrote:Come on Fly, that match in the RWC was the worst French side I have seen in over 30 years. Not taking it away from Madigan who played brilliantly but France were simply dire that RWC.

Point catchweight is trying to make is why was Madigan (pretty sure not the future 10 for Ireland) preferred over Jackson (the absolute future 10 for Ireland) during the 6N when Jackson should have been developed?

It worked for him yesterday but that has more to do with Jackson than it does with Schmidt.

Belittle it as you will, Billy - that was one tough game and I'll remember it as some bloody brilliant rugby by a bunch of Irish players up against it. We were pretty dire ourselves in that WC, if you recall - but that game, with Madigan at the helm, wasn't one of them - and neither was it a push over version of France on display either as quite a few of our 'stars' found out.

Back to Jackson though. He should have been developed during the Six Nations? So you know how Schmidt coaches in the training camps? Schmidt hasn't added to his development? He wasn't used in the 6N. Live with it, billy. The past is the past and both Madigan and Sexton and O'Gara before them had some good days at 10. Jackson had a pretty good one yesterday... without the need for 'development'. Marvellous! A self-made man. Delighted for him, us and all the other players that contributed. Delighted for a great coach and a nice man too - Joe Schmidt.

But by all means...back to Jackson.............................

I did not belittle his performance Fly, I said it was brilliant but also that France were simply dire.

I don't need to know how Schmidt does his coaching in the training squads, don't need to. I, and many more, have seen that Schmidt completely missed an opportunity during the 6N, an opportunity that could have back fired yesterday by dumping Jackson into the match without any International match experience but luckily for him it didn't, that's all.

As I said, I like Schmidt as a coach, I really do but just wish he would be a little more pro-active and a little less re-active in his selections.

eirebilly wrote:I did not belittle his performance Fly, I said it was brilliant but also that France were simply dire.

I don't need to know how Schmidt does his coaching in the training squads, don't need to. I, and many more, have seen that Schmidt completely missed an opportunity during the 6N, an opportunity that could have back fired yesterday by dumping Jackson into the match without any International match experience but luckily for him it didn't, that's all.

As I said, I like Schmidt as a coach, I really do but just wish he would be a little more pro-active and a little less re-active in his selections.

South Africa - we're being told by plenty media people in the aftermath that they're not up to much. Should I demote Paddy's performance levels accordingly?

Nothing backfired, billy so let's not worry about backfires. Of course, saying that things might have backfired is setting up excuses for the next two games. Paddy has his future performances already covered. Joe will be blamed if there are losses. Paddy hadn't enough game time experience to keep it going.

Oh well...let's hope he'll be ready for New Zealand later in the year. Of course it seems like there is a possibility we'll have a less biased coach in charge by then. Everything will be perfect then. Relax lads. Enjoy the present

Its like reading the ramblings of a religous fanatic having someone question their deity.

Amazing how Ireland didnt win the world cup and do the grand slam with Schmidt at the helm.

I guess Schmidt works in mysterious ways though and its not for mere mortals to question his great plans.

The number of posters who call me a rambler

I am, very much so, ...with teeth.

So had Jackson been involved in the 6N and in the WC we'd have won both? Glad the retrospective crystal ball is well shined. Lend it to Saint Joe, he needs at least one more win that he'll have had nothing to do with.

Think your getting a little too hot under the collar and taking things a little too personally there Fly.

I did not belittle Madigan's performance against France in the RWC, no matter how you care to twist it so.

Also as far as I can see, nobody has claimed that they want Schmidt out and nobody has claimed that Ireland would have won the RWC or 6N with Jackson in the team. Some (including myself) have simply questioned his selection policy.

Take a Sunday drink and relax a bit there bud

eirebilly wrote:Think your getting a little too hot under the collar and taking things a little too personally there Fly.

I did not belittle Madigan's performance against France in the RWC, no matter how you care to twist it so.

Also as far as I can see, nobody has claimed that they want Schmidt out and nobody has claimed that Ireland would have won the RWC or 6N with Jackson in the team. Some (including myself) have simply questioned his selection policy.

Take a Sunday drink and relax a bit there bud

Nah...won't work, billy.  The kettle switch is broken on'ON' - them bubbles won't stop.  

Everyone is entitled to an opinion/agenda - and most times I ride with it and let people just get on with it.  Join in - yes.  Oh by all means, I like joining in.  But keep it light - smile on through.

But this one, I could feel this one coming a long way off.  I think too many people had themselves set up for this one from a long way out.  Nothing Schmidt managed to do this weekend was going to meet with approval from people who think he carries too many lingering happy memories of a certain time before his International career began - and/or that he allows those fuzzy lovey feelings of yesteryear cloud his better judgement.

So -

Ireland lose.  Blame Joe.  Poor Paddy didn't get enough time in the 6N and Payne didn't get enough time at 15.
Ireland win.  Blame Joe.  See, Schmidt???  That's what good players can do as distinct from favourite ones.

Ireland win (with the old favourites!). Blame Joe. We're not learning anything from these damn games. Sexton should have been rested and Rob dropped.

This is a forum, those people have a right to hold those opinion, but I'm reserving my right to respond to the patterns as I see them.

eirebilly wrote:I think that you are dead on there catchweight. I found it very frustrating to continually see Madigan selected ahead of Jackson during the last 6N. The utility thing is an excuse, there were more than enough players in the squad that could play in several positions to accommodate Jackson and give him game time at International level. His performance yesterday was a slap in the face to Schmidt and proved to many people how he was mis-managing Jackson.

What exactly are you insinuating? An excuse for what?
For the record, I believe Jackson should have been given his chance sooner but there's an awful lot of re-writing of history going on here. Firstly, Madigan has not always been the useless player you all think so, in the past he has shown an ability to break the line and make a difference off the bench. His goalkicking has always been world-class and not so long ago there were posts here saying we looked better with Madigan at 10 than we did with Sexton - such was the performance he put in against France in the RWC. You're also getting too hung up on the utility thing - Schmidt is on record as saying Madigan was preferred to Jackson due to his goalkicking. PJ has never been consistent off the tee until this year.
It is also worth remembering in just how many games our backline has been decimated by injuries before you discard utility as "an excuse".

P.S. Don't understand the anti-Sexton bandwagon, from what I've seen he's still a quality act as long as he's fit.

catchweight wrote:Thats sounds like like waffle. The buck always stops with the coach rightly or wrongly in sports. You think this is unique to Ireland?

No, but basically I think we're like the ugly guy with the super-hot girlfriend who doesn't realise how lucky he is and how many lonely years he might be facing after she gets wise to him and leaves!

When a coach comes into a country with a very insular culture, and a long history of failure, and gets an unspectacular group of players competing with and beating nations with much better underage structures, wider talent pools and better players I think that coach is a very good coach. Especially if he manages to change the mentality of top-level rugby players into real competitors who expect to win and comes down hard on our very Irish propensity to excuse mistakes and flaws. I have long, long believed that selection is less than 10% of success at international level and we treat it like 100% of his job. You could pick those players and see them fail or pick different players and see us succeed and its down to coaching. People slate someone like McFadden- well in the try I posted up the thread McFadden showed he can be coached into doing the job and so can other players. 

Would any of these criticisms of our back line selection have made a difference in the Six Nations whatsoever? No-one has made that case. We lost or drew three games because we were quite simply beaten up the pack and apparently the major case Schmidt has to answer is about playing one guy in a different position and picking a different 10 on the bench. And all that when he still brings us close to squeezing out a few wins against the odds despite having a tight five that was absolutely dominated. Can't you see how comical that sounds when you take a step back from it? But people don't want to talk about things that have been relevant to the winning and losing of games. They want to cry because their favouritest player wasn't picked. As if this was still the 70s and we should just play a few trial games and then let a panel of amateurs pick the 15 best players and then hope for the best.

Let me spell it out as simply as possible.

We have a top class coach. We are not a top class rugby country. We are a mid-tier rugby country and we have previously employed strictly mid-tier coaches or worse. Prior to Schmidt we had just suffered through two years of players looking increasingly like they didn't know what their job was supposed to be and ambling around the pitch like concussed sheep. And then! We got lucky enough to catch a rising star on his way to the top of the world game. We should know we are probably a pitstop on his path to greater things and enjoy it while we can. And hope to feck that some of our other unimpressive homegrown coaches are picking up on a few things...

Prior to Schmidt, we had won a couple of Triple Crowns, Heineken Cups, a Grand Slam, beating a SH team in the SH and you are judging it all on 2 years prior to Schmidt coming on board when Kidney capped most of those young players who won that game yesterday.

You're right Sin, it's not fair to Kidney. He's a good man and if you remember I supported him and defended him against the exact same kind of witch hunt Schmidt faces now when he was still doing well and coping with stratospheric expectations. Up until the RWC in 2011 I defended him and supported him so I have no shame in saying this now.

Kidney's a very good coach, but just not a good technical coach- and after Gaffney left and wasn't replaced the coaching set-up unraveled. The IRFU should've acted then but they prevaricated. That was the real disaster- as the man at the top Kidney got all the blame, and deserved some, but he was always only going to be as good as the coaches he had under him and the IRFU shamefully wouldn't back him, but weren't ballsy enough to sack him either. Kiss was stretched too thin, Smal had been worked out by the other sides and there was no leadership at the top. Thats on the IRFU, not on Kidney. But it shows just how amateurish the set-up was prior to the decision to bring in Schmidt, at a Union level.

There are a good few other coaches out there with the capacity to make the same impact Schmidt has when Schmidt finally goes, but when you look at Kiss not being replaced for the last Six Nations, Gaffney not being replaced at all and then Nucifora being brought in, I sincerely doubt the IRFUs ability to find them and recruit them. We're like a blind pig thats found an acorn. We lucked into getting Schmidt because he was very successful and there was no-one else. The IRFU has a poor enough track record with recruitment more generally.

toml wrote:Yeah I thought about it when Payne was sent off against Saracens. I was so excited about that match and after 5 minutes such a benign incident turned it into a mismatch and ruined it.

Come on World Rugby sort it out!

a fifth minute red card should be Black whereas a 78th minute red card should be more like Milk colour

Toml i love the idea of refs having dulux swatches as cards, trying to pick out the correct hue to suit the time and severity of the incident.

Sin é wrote:Prior to Schmidt, we had won a couple of Triple Crowns, Heineken Cups, a Grand Slam, beating a SH team in the SH and you are judging it all on 2 years prior to Schmidt coming on board when Kidney capped most of those young players who won that game yesterday.

Lovely. We had some great times before Schmidt and now we've had some good times with Schmidt.

Life goes on. Maybe a new coaching adventure for New Zealand games. But this is the present. We won.

Marshes wrote:

toml wrote:Yeah I thought about it when Payne was sent off against Saracens. I was so excited about that match and after 5 minutes such a benign incident turned it into a mismatch and ruined it.

Come on World Rugby sort it out!

a fifth minute red card should be Black whereas a 78th minute red card should be more like Milk colour

Toml i love the idea of refs having dulux swatches as cards, trying to pick out the correct hue to suit the time and severity of the incident.

Yeah it's a metaphor for the severity of the punishment

Notch wrote:

catchweight wrote:Thats sounds like like waffle. The buck always stops with the coach rightly or wrongly in sports. You think this is unique to Ireland?

No, but basically I think we're like the ugly guy with the super-hot girlfriend who doesn't realise how lucky he is and how many lonely years he might be facing after she gets wise to him and leaves!

When a coach comes into a country with a very insular culture, and a long history of failure, and gets an unspectacular group of players competing with and beating nations with much better underage structures, wider talent pools and better players I think that coach is a very good coach. Especially if he manages to change the mentality of top-level rugby players into real competitors who expect to win and comes down hard on our very Irish propensity to excuse mistakes and flaws. I have long, long believed that selection is less than 10% of success at international level and we treat it like 100% of his job. You could pick those players and see them fail or pick different players and see us succeed and its down to coaching. People slate someone like McFadden- well in the try I posted up the thread McFadden showed he can be coached into doing the job and so can other players. 

Would any of these criticisms of our back line selection have made a difference in the Six Nations whatsoever? No-one has made that case. We lost or drew three games because we were quite simply beaten up the pack and apparently the major case Schmidt has to answer is about playing one guy in a different position and picking a different 10 on the bench. And all that when he still brings us close to squeezing out a few wins against the odds despite having a tight five that was absolutely dominated. Can't you see how comical that sounds when you take a step back from it? But people don't want to talk about things that have been relevant to the winning and losing of games. They want to cry because their favouritest player wasn't picked. As if this was still the 70s and we should just play a few trial games and then let a panel of amateurs pick the 15 best players and then hope for the best.

Let me spell it out as simply as possible.

We have a top class coach. We are not a top class rugby country. We are a mid-tier rugby country and we have previously employed strictly mid-tier coaches or worse. Prior to Schmidt we had just suffered through two years of players looking increasingly like they didn't know what their job was supposed to be and ambling around the pitch like concussed sheep. And then! We got lucky enough to catch a rising star on his way to the top of the world game. We should know we are probably a pitstop on his path to greater things and enjoy it while we can. And hope to feck that some of our other unimpressive homegrown coaches are picking up on a few things...

This is way off the mark. Ireland enjoyed the most successful period in their rugby history prior to Schmidt coming. This is far from a case of a top class coach sweeping in to transform the fortunes of little old Ireland from top to bottom.

Nobody on here has said Schmidt is not a good coach. Aspects of his selection and inflexibility to make changes without being forced to have been questioned.

theslosty wrote:

eirebilly wrote:I think that you are dead on there catchweight. I found it very frustrating to continually see Madigan selected ahead of Jackson during the last 6N. The utility thing is an excuse, there were more than enough players in the squad that could play in several positions to accommodate Jackson and give him game time at International level. His performance yesterday was a slap in the face to Schmidt and proved to many people how he was mis-managing Jackson.

What exactly are you insinuating? An excuse for what?
For the record, I believe Jackson should have been given his chance sooner but there's an awful lot of re-writing of history going on here. Firstly, Madigan has not always been the useless player you all think so, in the past he has shown an ability to break the line and make a difference off the bench. His goalkicking has always been world-class and not so long ago there were posts here saying we looked better with Madigan at 10 than we did with Sexton - such was the performance he put in against France in the RWC. You're also getting too hung up on the utility thing - Schmidt is on record as saying Madigan was preferred to Jackson due to his goalkicking. PJ has never been consistent off the tee until this year.
It is also worth remembering in just how many games our backline has been decimated by injuries before you discard utility as "an excuse".

P.S. Don't understand the anti-Sexton bandwagon, from what I've seen he's still a quality act as long as he's fit.

Not seeing any anti Sexton bandwagon stuff on here? Pretty sure that all (myself included) still see Sexton as the No. 1 10 in Ireland.

Also, I am not having a go at Madigan, he has been very good at times for Leinster and Ireland but he was/is clearly behind Jackson this season and as such deserved to be given the back up roll. Jacksons kicking was also up to standard around the 6N so that does not wash with me either. All I am saying is that all the reasons used to not select Jackson were continually being proven wrong by him in performance after performance.

eirebilly wrote:

theslosty wrote:

eirebilly wrote:I think that you are dead on there catchweight. I found it very frustrating to continually see Madigan selected ahead of Jackson during the last 6N. The utility thing is an excuse, there were more than enough players in the squad that could play in several positions to accommodate Jackson and give him game time at International level. His performance yesterday was a slap in the face to Schmidt and proved to many people how he was mis-managing Jackson.

What exactly are you insinuating? An excuse for what?
For the record, I believe Jackson should have been given his chance sooner but there's an awful lot of re-writing of history going on here. Firstly, Madigan has not always been the useless player you all think so, in the past he has shown an ability to break the line and make a difference off the bench. His goalkicking has always been world-class and not so long ago there were posts here saying we looked better with Madigan at 10 than we did with Sexton - such was the performance he put in against France in the RWC. You're also getting too hung up on the utility thing - Schmidt is on record as saying Madigan was preferred to Jackson due to his goalkicking. PJ has never been consistent off the tee until this year.
It is also worth remembering in just how many games our backline has been decimated by injuries before you discard utility as "an excuse".

P.S. Don't understand the anti-Sexton bandwagon, from what I've seen he's still a quality act as long as he's fit.

Not seeing any anti Sexton bandwagon stuff on here? Pretty sure that all (myself included) still see Sexton as the No. 1 10 in Ireland.

Also, I am not having a go at Madigan, he has been very good at times for Leinster and Ireland but he was/is clearly behind Jackson this season and as such deserved to be given the back up roll. Jacksons kicking was also up to standard around the 6N so that does not wash with me either. All I am saying is that all the reasons used to not select Jackson were continually being proven wrong by him in performance after performance.

Problem is sexton can rarely stay fit for a whole international game.

eirebilly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

catchweight wrote:Well Schmidt might be the first to forget once the Kearneys are fit again

I think it will depend on who is outhalf. Sexton back in, it will be Henshaw at 12 and Payne at 13. Jackson starting it will be Marshall at 12 and Payne at fullback.

The team will be built around whoever the outhalf is.

Not so sure about this Sin é. Payne from fullback was outstanding yesterday as were the centres. I cannot for the life of me understand the reasoning for changing this (injury or form aside) to suit the 10. Sexton would play very well with Marshall/Henshaw I feel.

I can see the argument for bringing in McCloskey, he is an outstanding player, but the additional fielding ability that we have in Marshall adds a whole new threat to the attack, he was brilliant yesterday, not easy coming fresh into the team and pulling a performance like that. In sexton/jackson, marshall, henshaw, and payne, the kicking and aerial game they bring is very strong

catchweight wrote:Why Madigan couldnt hold down a place isnt really point. The point is despite that, and despite his prospects of ever being an international level 10 being remote he was used as an under developed back up for cover to an increasingly battle worn Sexton. Jackson might not have had and in all probability wont be as good as Sexton was but at leat he was starting 10. And the werent really any better options at 10 for an understundy. Schmidt essentially optend not to really look at developing cover but just have a guy on the bench to fill a hole in an emergency. Risky considering Sextons injury problems and fading peak years. This policy would probably have continued had it not been a combination of Madigan leaving Ireland and Sexton getting injured thrusting Jackson into the SA test. He mightnet have even been there were it not for those things. But these factors forced Schmidts hands and it worked out pretty well for Ireland when under normal business as usual for Schmidt, Jackson wouldnt be in the matchday squad.

Whys that? Paddy gives a commanding performance in Ireland's first ever win against SA in SA at 24yo... Sexton doesn't make his debut until 24yo

toml wrote:

Marshes wrote:

toml wrote:Yeah I thought about it when Payne was sent off against Saracens. I was so excited about that match and after 5 minutes such a benign incident turned it into a mismatch and ruined it.

Come on World Rugby sort it out!

a fifth minute red card should be Black whereas a 78th minute red card should be more like Milk colour

Toml i love the idea of refs having dulux swatches as cards, trying to pick out the correct hue to suit the time and severity of the incident.

Yeah it's a metaphor for the severity of the punishment

"You jumped into the player, accidentally, but it's the 67 minute, so I have no other option but to give you an eggshell card"

One down.  Next one to go.

South Africa are brooding.  We don't 'need' the next win but they do to get pride back and to keep themselves in the reckoning on the series.  They probably underrated a few of our players coming into the game - Paddy being one (rightfully so!    )  and Toner being another.  So those two will certainly have red laser spots on their foreheads next time.  AND - the elevation of the proposition has just gone up by a mile too in Johannesburg.

The South African side will have done their acclimatising.  I wonder what our preparations have been down that line?

New kinds of challenges for our guys plus the absolute requirement to play even better now if possible.

So no pressure.

Notch wrote:You're right Sin, it's not fair to Kidney. He's a good man and if you remember I supported him and defended him against the exact same kind of witch hunt Schmidt faces now when he was still doing well and coping with stratospheric expectations. Up until the RWC in 2011 I defended him and supported him so I have no shame in saying this now.

Kidney's a very good coach, but just not a good technical coach- and after Gaffney left and wasn't replaced the coaching set-up unraveled. The IRFU should've acted then but they prevaricated. That was the real disaster- as the man at the top Kidney got all the blame, and deserved some, but he was always only going to be as good as the coaches he had under him and the IRFU shamefully wouldn't back him, but weren't ballsy enough to sack him either. Kiss was stretched too thin, Smal had been worked out by the other sides and there was no leadership at the top. Thats on the IRFU, not on Kidney. But it shows just how amateurish the set-up was prior to the decision to bring in Schmidt, at a Union level.

There are a good few other coaches out there with the capacity to make the same impact Schmidt has when Schmidt finally goes, but when you look at Kiss not being replaced for the last Six Nations, Gaffney not being replaced at all and then Nucifora being brought in, I sincerely doubt the IRFUs ability to find them and recruit them. We're like a blind pig thats found an acorn. We lucked into getting Schmidt because he was very successful and there was no-one else. The IRFU has a poor enough track record with recruitment more generally.

I was trying to contract your point that Ireland were this third world rugby nation up to when Schmidt arrived on the scene. We've been punching way above our weight for the last 15 years or so. Of the foreign coaches in that period, I'd say Gatland and Cheika (with Leinster) have made the most impression. Cheika in particular had to change the whole culture there.