Ireland November Tests.

First topic message reminder :

What would we like to see?
With ringrose definitely out, and henshaw and Payne looking unlikely, who shall step into the centre pairing?
If all our back row are fit whats the best combo?
Will tonner continue in the row or will he be usurped?

Lots of questions, and the season hasnt even started yet

You can practise the systems against a Georgia or Romania. You play these teams to be tested and it could be the case that they fail to test Ireland properly

If the systems aren't practised against good sides how can their worth be judged?

That's my point, we're playing SA and Argentina when they are in disarray and low on confidence so are not being tested properly. The amount we can learn from the game is hampered by the quality of the opposition

NZ and Aus are the SH teams to be playing this year to be tested but unfortunately they aren't on Irelands schedule

Well from Joe's own lips comes the philosophy that he doesn't want things too easy and is very cautious about what he can learn from 'easy' games..., he has pretty much directly said so about that SA game.  He kinda secretly (or not so secretly) liked it that we only pulled away from them late in the game, that the scoreline for much of the game threatened to become only a one score game if SA had worked a try from somewhere.  Pressure is the drug that keeps Schmidt going, it seems.
So I know that's his attitude and I know it's been his attitude, and he often alludes to it without directly saying so, so I don't know why I get so frustrated sometimes - he wants things the very way they often roll.  He's a masochist, he likes things close to the bone; those results seem to be more satisfying to him even though they do torture him just like the rest of us.
He wants the tension of close games because it seems he learns what he needs to know about players then.

That's all fine - I can understand the philosophy but you can learn a lot about players too when you release some of the structure-shackles and let them get some adrenalin pumping - players like to cut loose too and it can bring the best (quality-wise) out in a side when they let themselves go for it fully and enjoy the ride -; it hones their high speed instincts, increases alertness and the readiness to pounce sharper when those 50-50 opportunities arrive.

So if a particular side is giving you the space or opportunities that better sides won't then why bother to keep with systems that gain nothing from the exercise?   Better to use such games to let the players off the leash and practice the other variations we might bring to a game.  If you have the ability to carve a side up, carve it up - don't waste time doing the midfield slogging for practice sake.  There is enough time to practice that miserly defensive stuff in the 6N when things get serious!

Only problem there IS..... I don't think either Fiji or Argentina are the kind of team to play a high tempo, less attritional, loose game with! - We actually might have had better opportunities to cut loose more often against South Africa......    

What a weird sport Rugby Union is  

Okay - John Ryan, Dan Leavy and Tommy O'Donnell are all ruled out for Fiji. John Ryan is quite a big loss as no tighthead replacement has been called up meaning that either Porter or Furlong start against Fiji. Jordi Murphy and Sean Reidy have been called up as the back row replacements.

All of this makes the team selection really interesting. I imagine that a good few of the starting players against South Africa will be retained. Will Schmidt start with Porter at tighthead? It would be a risk worth taking in my opinion.

SecretFly wrote:Well from Joe's own lips comes the philosophy that he doesn't want things too easy and is very cautious about what he can learn from 'easy' games..., he has pretty much directly said so about that SA game.  He kinda secretly (or not so secretly) liked it that we only pulled away from them late in the game, that the scoreline for much of the game threatened to become only a one score game if SA had worked a try from somewhere.  Pressure is the drug that keeps Schmidt going, it seems.
So I know that's his attitude and I know it's been his attitude, and he often alludes to it without directly saying so, so I don't know why I get so frustrated sometimes - he wants things the very way they often roll.  He's a masochist, he likes things close to the bone; those results seem to be more satisfying to him even though they do torture him just like the rest of us.
He wants the tension of close games because it seems he learns what he needs to know about players then.

That's all fine - I can understand the philosophy but you can learn a lot about players too when you release some of the structure-shackles and let them get some adrenalin pumping - players like to cut loose too and it can bring the best (quality-wise) out in a side when they let themselves go for it fully and enjoy the ride -; it hones their high speed instincts, increases alertness and the readiness to pounce sharper when those 50-50 opportunities arrive.

So if a particular side is giving you the space or opportunities that better sides won't then why bother to keep with systems that gain nothing from the exercise?   Better to use such games to let the players off the leash and practice the other variations we might bring to a game.  If you have the ability to carve a side up, carve it up - don't waste time doing the midfield slogging for practice sake.  There is enough time to practice that miserly defensive stuff in the 6N when things get serious!

Only problem there IS..... I don't think either Fiji or Argentina are the kind of team to play a high tempo, less attritional, loose game with! - We actually might have had better opportunities to cut loose more often against South Africa......    

What a weird sport Rugby Union is  

The sooner Joe goes, the sooner you'll be happy fly...... Joe Out!

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

The sooner Joe goes, the sooner you'll be happy fly...... Joe Out!

Are you mad??!!!

The problem with me is that I'm too like Joe.   Plus I like Joe too much..... it might be even platonic lurve!  That's my problem. I'm too easy on him 'cause I want him to stay.
You have to read the swing of my comments more precisely, bandwagon.  You is jumpin' the gun too much on my temperamental, often mucho affected tantrums...
I'm too much like Joe.  A fecking perfectionist...i.e never happy.
Hasn't he the reputation of never being fully happy with anything any of his players ever do, that the 'to work on' homework he gives his players is always a long and pedantic one, that he don't suffer fools gladly, that he allegedly demanded that Henderson get a haircut a few seasons ago, that he gave Zebo a tongue lashing in a secret carpark meeting that nobody ever witnessed but everybody knows about.....

Me and Joe see eye to eye.  Long may he reign.

It is annoying that people narrow it to two distinct categories of Joe haterz and Joe worshippers. I'm also a fan of Joe, but I'm also aware of his faults, which apparently puts me in the former camp. To those people, grow up, hero worship is for children.

Anyway, Joe has obvious strengths as a coach and Ireland are such a well drilled and well polished side. Very low penalty count and few errors. Joe also has some very clever set piece moves, which we saw with Stockdale's break leading up to Ruddock's try. However, that alone will not win games. The in-between phases are just brutal. A midfield slog, throwing bodies into bodies with the hope that someone might break through before realising nothing is happening and then kicking the ball away. We all know what I'm talking about.

Surely we can add a string to the bow? The blueprint is very good, but we need some invention. There were glimpses against SA and it was thrilling to see both Aki and Henshaw's passing game in the centres. But in the modern game, a bit of zip, unpredictability and offloads are required to break down a defence. We are lacking that crucial spark and it has and will cost us dearly.

Some fans are content with that and will never question their hero Joe. They will never get rid of the bedroom poster which makes them feel safe. Well, not me. We have the potential to be better, and I want to see it.

And of course Joe's selection policy often leaves a lot to be desired, but his hand has been forced in recent years (thankfully).

Rory_Gallagher wrote:And of course Joe's selection policy often leaves a lot to be desired, but his hand has been forced in recent years (thankfully).

Snore. He knows much more about selection than you.

I'd echo what Rory and fly are saying.


Joe's style of play is more about limiting mistakes rather than doing anything constructive. He is like a good race car driver who aims to finish in the top 3 rather than win the race because finishing in the top 3 looks great on the CV and the race team are happy with it too from a monetary point of view. So while others might crash out and finish first more often, the Joe mobile is never pushed 100%. Considering where Ireland were in the 90s, being in the top 4 in the world means he is a saint in Irish rugby.


The match against SA was a weird one. I remember at one stage - around 60 min gone - saying to someone that Stockdale hardly got a touch of the ball. We got some points off the scrums, SA illegally kicking the ball out of a ruck and a luck albiet well taken try. There was no creativity whatsoever. Everyone is talking about how bad SA were too.


So my opinion of Schmidt has not changed. He is technically superb at doing the basics and Ireland are extremely well drilled but he limits the attacking game. Like an F1 car using more downforce than necessary just to be sure it won't crash.

Its hard to believe some of the absolute sh1te posted here. If only we could go back to the good old days when we were always gallant, exciting, lovable losers.

Collapse2005 wrote:Its hard to believe some of the absolute sh1te posted here. If only we could go back to the good old days when we were always gallant, exciting, lovable losers.

....like in the Last World Cup and the last Six Nations Campaign?

Oh NO!!!! Not a return to them bad old days, please!

Collapse2005 wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:And of course Joe's selection policy often leaves a lot to be desired, but his hand has been forced in recent years (thankfully).

Snore. He knows much more about selection than you.

Haha, you are such a fanboy.

SecretFly wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Its hard to believe some of the absolute sh1te posted here. If only we could go back to the good old days when we were always gallant, exciting, lovable losers.

....like in the Last World Cup and the last Six Nations Campaign?

Oh NO!!!!  Not a return to them bad old days, please!

Nope, it don't count when it be Joe.

I've become distracted..... I don't care about rugby no more....


.............Zodwa Wabantu..................

There has been almost a team of new caps from last seasons November tests to this season's.

15, Conway
14, Sweatnam
13, Ringrose
12, Aki
11, Stockdale
10, Carbery
9, Cooney
1, Porter (playing tighthead now but can play loose head)
2, N Scannell
3, John Ryan
4, Treadwell
5, James Ryan
6, Leavy
7,
8, O'Donoghue


Also O'Loughlin, B Holland, Adeolokun, L McGrath, Heffernan.

profitius wrote:There has been almost a team of new caps from last seasons November tests to this season's.

15, Conway
14, Sweatnam
13, Ringrose
12, Aki
11, Stockdale
10, Carbery
9, Cooney
1, Porter (playing tighthead now but can play loose head)
2, N Scannell
3, John Ryan
4, Treadwell
5, James Ryan
6, Leavy
7,
8, O'Donoghue


Also O'Loughlin, B Holland, Adeolokun, L McGrath, Heffernan.

There were a another handful in the 6Ns and SA tour too

How many though will be long term options?

Now, in the interests of the WC, Joe needs to find some of those guys some quality time rather than one off cameos.  One off cameos won't show too much except act as an intro to team logisitics.  

Onwards 6N.... and I'll say something I usually say about this time of year that gets everyone laughing at my idiocy and lack of International standard nous.... let's try experimentation.........

  You absolute craphead, Fly.  You can't be 'experimenting' with the Hallowed Competition that be's the Six Nations!  Heaslip needs to be dragged out of any sick bed he's in and Zebo will have to be back for the serious stuff!

The Irish provinces only have two wingers with real pace, and they are both at Connacht.
Carberry is the only back with anything close to an X factor - where is this exciting attacking game plan going to come from?

The Great Aukster wrote:The Irish provinces only have two wingers with real pace, and they are both at Connacht.
Carberry is the only back with anything close to an X factor - where is this exciting attacking game plan going to come from?

The last 10 minutes against South Africa?
Pretty slick, ruthless, clean and almost unstoppable work...and all pre-planned too, in my opinion. Did we know how bad South Africa would be or did our final gameplan just finish them off anyway?

The Great Aukster wrote:The Irish provinces only have two wingers with real pace, and they are both at Connacht.
Carberry is the only back with anything close to an X factor - where is this exciting attacking game plan going to come from?

Seriously?

The Great Aukster wrote:The Irish provinces only have two wingers with real pace, and they are both at Connacht.
Carberry is the only back with anything close to an X factor - where is this exciting attacking game plan going to come from?

I don't even think you believe the nonsense you've just typed. It's wrong in almost every regard. First, in terms of pace, Stockdale is extremely fast, which I did not believe at first until I saw his long stride take him past other supposedly quick players. Sweetnam and Byrne also have bags of pace, then there is still the likes of Earls, Gilroy etc. All have clearly demonstrated they have pace.

As for the x-factor (can we please stop using this term in rugby?) nonsense, that is just funny. You know fine well there are plenty of players across the provinces capable of offloading, spotting gaps, creating space, exploiting space etc.

But wait - those players don't count - they aren't defensively good enough, they don't know the systems, they aren't experienced, they need every excuse under the sun as to why Schmidt can't pick them and why he is always, always right. I have to say though, pretending they don't exist is the funniest yet.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:The Irish provinces only have two wingers with real pace, and they are both at Connacht.
Carberry is the only back with anything close to an X factor - where is this exciting attacking game plan going to come from?

I don't even think you believe the nonsense you've just typed. It's wrong in almost every regard. First, in terms of pace, Stockdale is extremely fast, which I did not believe at first until I saw his long stride take him past other supposedly quick players. Sweetnam and Byrne also have bags of pace, then there is still the likes of Earls, Gilroy etc. All have clearly demonstrated they have pace.

As for the x-factor (can we please stop using this term in rugby?) nonsense, that is just funny. You know fine well there are plenty of players across the provinces capable of offloading, spotting gaps, creating space, exploiting space etc.

But wait - those players don't count - they aren't defensively good enough, they don't know the systems, they aren't experienced, they need every excuse under the sun as to why Schmidt can't pick them and why he is always, always right. I have to say though, pretending they don't exist is the funniest yet.

Who is Joe not picking outside of TOH? Sweetnam, Byrne and Gilroy aren't even first choice for their provinces. Carberry will be behind Rob for the 15 jersey if he ever stays fit.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
Who is Joe not picking outside of TOH? Sweetnam, Byrne and Gilroy aren't even first choice for their provinces. Carberry will be behind Rob for the 15 jersey if he ever stays fit.

In this instance, I didn't say Joe should select any of them, that wasn't the point I was making. But thanks for adding O'Halloran to my list, knew I had missed someone.

SecretFly wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:The Irish provinces only have two wingers with real pace, and they are both at Connacht.
Carberry is the only back with anything close to an X factor - where is this exciting attacking game plan going to come from?

The last 10 minutes against South Africa?  
Pretty slick, ruthless, clean and almost unstoppable work...and all pre-planned too, in my opinion.  Did we know how bad South Africa would be or did our final gameplan just finish them off anyway?

Thanks Fly, that seems to be debate over! The current team has already got the wherewithal to play defensive or attacking as they see fit. No need to change anything other than give the current guys as much time together as possible

If you think the Connacht wingers should be picked instead of Stockdale you live on a different rugby planet to me.

As to Gilroy not being picked for Ulster he has been injured all season so I don't think you can say that.
I'd say he is ahead of the declining Trimble and Bowe and probably Ludik, at least as a winger, that makes him a first choice.
When Piatau goes next year he will definitely be a first choice because Ludik will be 15.

Geoff - the Connacht lads are the fastest wingers in the provinces, Paul Marshall is the fastest back at Ulster, but that doesn't mean any of them should start over Stockdale on the wing for Ireland.

The Great Aukster wrote:Geoff - the Connacht lads are the fastest wingers in the provinces, Paul Marshall is the fastest back at Ulster, but that doesn't mean any of them should start over Stockdale on the wing for Ireland.

Actually Stockdales the fastest player at Ulster, the top 4 in Ireland as of last month are

Barry Daly (Leinster) – 10.5 metres per second.
Rory Scholes (Connacht) – 10.0 m.p.s
Jacob Stockdale (Ulster) – 9.97 m.p.s
Simon Zebo (Munster) – 9.85 m.p.s

The top 5 at Ulster 2 years ago as per Chris Hagan were

Rory Scholes - 10 m.p.s
Craig Gilroy - 9.8 m.p.s
Tommy Bowe - 9.7 m.p.s
Sam Arnold - 9.7 m.p.s
Jared Payne - 9.6 m.p.s

So not sure were you pulled the Paul Marshall line from

The Great Aukster wrote:Geoff - the Connacht lads are the fastest wingers in the provinces, Paul Marshall is the fastest back at Ulster, but that doesn't mean any of them should start over Stockdale on the wing for Ireland.

Take your point but as Marty says it isn't true.

Paul Marshall used to be the fastest but lost a yard of pace now and no longer top of the list.
He used to be, and still is, fast but Stockdale is genuinely quick.

To go back to the original point to create exciting attacking play is not just about pace - brilliant running lines can do that too.
Tommy at his peak was as good as anyone in the world at running the perfect lines

geoff999rugby wrote:
To go back to the original point to create exciting attacking play is not just about pace - brilliant running lines can do that too.
Tommy at his peak was as good as anyone in the world at running the perfect lines

Didn't the oracle that is George Hook once say Tommy couldn't cut it at the highest level because he lacked the pace?

If you look at Joes Leinster team, did they have players with top class pace? They relied on quick ball and intelligent play to open teams up

Yeah, as Shakespeare once said; "What's the use in pace if you don't got the space?"

marty2086 wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:
To go back to the original point to create exciting attacking play is not just about pace - brilliant running lines can do that too.
Tommy at his peak was as good as anyone in the world at running the perfect lines

Didn't the oracle that is George Hook once say Tommy couldn't cut it at the highest level because he lacked the pace?

If you look at Joes Leinster team, did they have players with top class pace? They relied on quick ball and intelligent play to open teams up

So why is everyone so down on Daverage?

Because Moss Keane after a feed of Guinness would catch him

The Great Aukster wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:
To go back to the original point to create exciting attacking play is not just about pace - brilliant running lines can do that too.
Tommy at his peak was as good as anyone in the world at running the perfect lines

Didn't the oracle that is George Hook once say Tommy couldn't cut it at the highest level because he lacked the pace?

If you look at Joes Leinster team, did they have players with top class pace? They relied on quick ball and intelligent play to open teams up

So why is everyone so down on Daverage?

He a player renowned for intelligent play?

If he really was crap Leinster whould have offloaded him to munster with the rest of the Leinster rejects down there.

marty2086 wrote:

profitius wrote:There has been almost a team of new caps from last seasons November tests to this season's.

15, Conway
14, Sweatnam
13, Ringrose
12, Aki
11, Stockdale
10, Carbery
9, Cooney
1, Porter (playing tighthead now but can play loose head)
2, N Scannell
3, John Ryan
4, Treadwell
5, James Ryan
6, Leavy
7,
8, O'Donoghue


Also O'Loughlin, B Holland, Adeolokun, L McGrath, Heffernan.

There were a another handful in the 6Ns and SA tour too

How many though will be long term options?

There were a few more on the SA tour yeah.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ireland_national_rugby_union_players


To answer your question about which ones will be there long term. All the starting team above though I don't think JOD will feature much anymore and its too early to say on Treadwell although locks don't mature until their late 20s.

Schmidt has a very high attention to detail and micor-analytical approach. I doubt theres much analysis done on rugby boards that has passed him by at any stage. If a certain player isnt selected then I dont think its because Schmidt has missed something.

I think he has great belief in his system and values loyaly, familiarity and understanding to this system above individual strengths or weaknesses. A sabermetric-esque approach to rugby. Its about the the system and the aggregate and how the individual fits into that.

An individual seemingly playing a blinder and scoring three solo tries might win an individual match. But if that player was out of position or not marching in step elsewhere 10 phases before that (that only Schmidt would notice) then I think Schmidts philosophy is that hat trick might win you a battle now but lose you a war in the long run.

That's exactly it, catch. "Don't impress me (Joe), just improve the system". I think a few players said in his early tenure that he told them to make the player beside them look good to impress him.

https://youtu.be/VXa9tXcMhXQ

catchweight wrote:Schmidt has a very high attention to detail and micor-analytical approach. I doubt theres much analysis done on rugby boards that has passed him by at any stage. If a certain player isnt selected then I dont think its because Schmidt has missed something.

I think he has great belief in his system and values loyaly, familiarity and understanding to this system above individual strengths or weaknesses. A sabermetric-esque approach to rugby. Its about the the system and the aggregate and how the individual fits into that.

An individual seemingly playing a blinder and scoring three solo tries might win an individual match. But if that player was out of position or not marching in step elsewhere 10 phases before that (that only Schmidt would notice) then I think Schmidts philosophy is that hat trick might win you a battle now but lose you a war in the long run.

That's great and all, 'cept you do actually need to score tries in the game of rugby. An individual scoring three tries (I imagine this is an allusion to Gilroy against Italy) is not "seemingly" playing well - he has done more in one game than Dave Kearney in his entire career. I mean, flip me, only in Irish rugby would someone try and downplay that. So what if he was out of position once or twice (not noticeably in that game)? Even if his positioning was poor enough in one instance to allow a try in, the player has still scored three. That's three to one (higher number wins the game). Even if the law of mathematics were to cease it still isn't a good defence for Joe, as Rob Kearney even in his world class, best 15 in the world, performance against New Zealand, he was at fault for two of their tries. No one seemed to mind then because he played well overall.

I do think some of the stuff people come up with to defend Joe is hilarious. So far we have had someone pretend players don't exist and the usual attempts to think of a clever explanation as to why Joe Schmidt picks an over-the-hill Rob Kearney instead of Tiernan O'Halloran. Joe has his favourites, it's that simple. He's as human as anyone else, I'm sorry to disappoint the hero-worshipers.

And just to add the disclaimer that seems necessary now, Joe is a great coach, but he also has his weaknesses like any other.

https://youtu.be/ZNeq2Utm0nU

Im neither agreeing or disagreeing. Merely offering an interpretation of Schmidts outlook.

A player playing great swashbuckling rugby for province is unlikely to be unnoticed by Schmidt but what good to Schmidt is a plyer playing under a different system, differnent mindset that employs a different strategy when he want a player that fits his model?

I dont think Schmidt is sentimental, but I do think he has a pro Leinster bias based on having worked with many of the plyers before and having a better familiarity with his methods and systems.

Also, I dont think Schmidt looks at things in terms of "you have to score tries". I think he looks at things in terms of "you have to win matches". Players score tries. The sytem wins matches.

Schmidt and Nucifora want 4 deep in every position.

They'll need a 45 man training squad for RWC 19 selected from a wide squad of 60 capped players. So who've they got so far and who might yet be brought in?

1. McGrath, Healy, Kilcoyne, Bealham, (Buckley?)
2. Best, Scannell, Tracy, Herring, Cronin, (Heffernan?)
3. Furlong, Ryan, Porter, Bealham
4. Henderson, Ryan, Roux, (Molony?)
5. Toner, Treadwell, Dillane,(Kearney?)
6. Ruddock, O'Mahony, Murphy, Reidy
7. O'Brien, vd Flier, Leavy, O'Donnell
8. Heaslip, Conan, O'Donoghue, Stander, (Deegan?)
9. Murray, Marmion, McGrath, Cooney
10. Sexton, Carbery, Bleyendaal, Keatley, (Madigan?)
11. Stockdale, Gilroy, Conway, Zebo, Adeolokun, Healy,
12. Aki, McCloskey, Farrell, Marshall, (R Scannell?)
13. Ringrose, Henshaw, Payne? (O'Loughlin?)
14. Earls, Sweetnam, Byrne, Kearney, McFadden
15. R Kearney, Carbery, O'Halloran, Conway, Henshaw

31 of those to get on the plane for Tokyo.

I might have got wings mixed up but there's a fair skelp of them either ways.

Anyone to add?

The criteria we use to evaluate an Irish team varies fan to fan and coach to coach. I really only care at the end of the day about wins. This Irish team has had its ups and downs on that front, but generally I am happy though we need to win in my eyes the following to match out potential... two of the next 3 6nations, win all our home autumn internationals every year including against the ABs and reach a RWC semi. If we do not match those aims I am not happy.

I know alot of you love to see running rugby. I do too! The Lam years were amazing, and I never want connacht to be a bosh team. But Ireland is different to me. I would happily have a 50 game winning streak of 3-0 per match.

In general I think the fairest criticism of Joe is down to the squashing of flair. But that critique too often goes hand in hand with a critique that he is conservative in selection. This is demonstrably untrue as earlier posts on the number of players he has capped shows. True his first year as Irish coach he was very conservative in selection. But outside of 1 player, Kearney, I cannot think of any selection decision that I can't see the logic of even if it wasn't one I would make. Kearney I suspect is down to experience levels, and now with Zebo not being selected backline experience is even more lacking. Henshaw is a senior player now!

wolfball wrote:The criteria we use to evaluate an Irish team varies fan to fan and coach to coach. I really only care at the end of the day about wins. This Irish team has had its ups and downs on that front, but generally I am happy though we need to win in my eyes the following to match out potential... two of the next 3 6nations, win all our home autumn internationals every year including against the ABs and reach a RWC semi. If we do not match those aims I am not happy.

I know alot of you love to see running rugby. I do too! The Lam years were amazing, and I never want connacht to be a bosh team. But Ireland is different to me. I would happily have a 50 game winning streak of 3-0 per match.

In general I think the fairest criticism of Joe is down to the squashing of flair. But that critique too often goes hand in hand with a critique that he is conservative in selection. This is demonstrably untrue as earlier posts on the number of players he has capped shows. True his first year as Irish coach he was very conservative in selection. But outside of 1 player, Kearney, I cannot think of any selection decision that I can't see the logic of even if it wasn't one I would make. Kearney I suspect is down to experience levels, and now with Zebo not being selected backline experience is even more lacking. Henshaw is a senior player now!

This has already been discussed ad nauseam. I feel like having some sort of sticky thread where all of these points are debunked. No, his conservative selection isn't demonstrably untrue. People have made lists about five times now of all the new caps, many of whom are one cap wonders or have a handful of caps, but they do not realistically feature in the Irish XXIII. They get their caps in the rather meaningless games and then they're gone.

The point is that Joe rarely strays from his main XV and many of the caps he does introduce are when his hand is forced (injuries). Due to the attritional game we play injuries are fairly frequent. The fact that many of Joe's favourites are getting on a bit (for example, Heaslip) means that the replacements are going to be very experienced as very few players were tested as viable alternatives. We are in that period now, as Trimble, Bowe, Heaslip, Best, Payne, Kearney, and even Sexton are in the twilight of their careers. Hence why Stockdale, Carbery, Conan etc are coming in largely at the same time.

And nobody is saying that they want flair for the sake of it. The point being made is that it is required at times to win big games or tournaments, and that our style of play is actually not winning us the games that we should be winning. Hence why, in your example, clinging onto the 3-0 lead can be undone in one go from a bit of magic from the opposition. Then what? The whole debate is about the most effective game plan for winning, is that really not clear at this point?

I was thinking though - Stockdale and Byrne are the perfect wingers for a Schmidt team. Like Bowe, Stockdale's biggest strength seems to be his scything running lines, but he is faster and stronger which makes him potentially even more dangerous. So he works really well for those prepared backline moves off the set piece.

As for Byrne, which may be more surprising, he is an extremely effective weapon under the high ball. Yes, he has his positioning problems in defence, which I'm sure can be at least improved somewhat, but Leinster fans will know that he is an absolute torture for the opposition when the ball goes in the air. Conway shown how effective that sort of player could be against SA, and Byrne is taller, stronger and faster. I hope we see him against Fiji.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

wolfball wrote:The criteria we use to evaluate an Irish team varies fan to fan and coach to coach. I really only care at the end of the day about wins. This Irish team has had its ups and downs on that front, but generally I am happy though we need to win in my eyes the following to match out potential... two of the next 3 6nations, win all our home autumn internationals every year including against the ABs and reach a RWC semi. If we do not match those aims I am not happy.

I know alot of you love to see running rugby. I do too! The Lam years were amazing, and I never want connacht to be a bosh team. But Ireland is different to me. I would happily have a 50 game winning streak of 3-0 per match.

In general I think the fairest criticism of Joe is down to the squashing of flair. But that critique too often goes hand in hand with a critique that he is conservative in selection. This is demonstrably untrue as earlier posts on the number of players he has capped shows. True his first year as Irish coach he was very conservative in selection. But outside of 1 player, Kearney, I cannot think of any selection decision that I can't see the logic of even if it wasn't one I would make. Kearney I suspect is down to experience levels, and now with Zebo not being selected backline experience is even more lacking. Henshaw is a senior player now!

This has already been discussed ad nauseam. I feel like having some sort of sticky thread where all of these points are debunked. No, his conservative selection isn't demonstrably untrue. People have made lists about five times now of all the new caps, many of whom are one cap wonders or have a handful of caps, but they do not realistically feature in the Irish XXIII. They get their caps in the rather meaningless games and then they're gone.

The point is that Joe rarely strays from his main XV and many of the caps he does introduce are when his hand is forced (injuries). Due to the attritional game we play injuries are fairly frequent. The fact that many of Joe's favourites are getting on a bit (for example, Heaslip) means that the replacements are going to be very experienced as very few players were tested as viable alternatives. We are in that period now, as Trimble, Bowe, Heaslip, Best, Payne, Kearney, and even Sexton are in the twilight of their careers. Hence why Stockdale, Carbery, Conan etc are coming in largely at the same time.

And nobody is saying that they want flair for the sake of it. The point being made is that it is required at times to win big games or tournaments, and that our style of play is actually not winning us the games that we should be winning. Hence why, in your example, clinging onto the 3-0 lead can be undone in one go from a bit of magic from the opposition. Then what? The whole debate is about the most effective game plan for winning, is that really not clear at this point?

Schmidt has introduced more players than most international coaches. He has developed greater depth per position than any coach in Irish rugby history and you still aren't happy. The only myths debunked are the silly ones than you seem desperate to hold onto despite endless evidence to the contrary.