Ireland and the world cup

thebaz

Ireland record in the world cups so far has been pretty dismal , yet to reach the semis , a feat all the major nations have done so.
Fiji, Georgia , Samoa all have had heroic world cups, even New Zealand who have a poor record by their standard , have won it.

People will say we did well in 1991, but in fact apart from losing to Australia , we really blew it against an inferior Scottish team.

Will the next World Cup be the one , where we at least fulfil the potential ?

anonymous_joe

thebaz wrote: »

Ireland record in the world cups so far has been pretty dismal , yet to reach the semis , a feat all the major nations have done so.
Fiji, Georgia , Samoa all have had heroic world cups, even New Zealand who have a poor record by their standard , have won it.

People will say we did well in 1991, but in fact apart from losing to Australia , we really blew it against an inferior Scottish team.

Will the next World Cup be the one , where we at least fulfil the potential ?

England, Australia, South Africa, France and New Zealand all have way more players than us at all levels of the game. Thus they usually have more great players. With one or two injuries, we might not even be able to compete in the group stages, let alone go for the thing itself.

We've a great team, and a decent squad, but we've never beaten New Zealand, and can't get wins in the SH at all.

In saying that, this AI series is a lot tougher than most people think. We'll learn a lot about the relative strength of the team over the next month, but it's important to keep in mind quite a few lads are of no value for the next WC.

Hayes, Davey Wallace, O'Gara in particular will be finished at the top level in two years time, while D'Arcy, BOD, POC, DOC, Fla, Horan will be old. A lot of those guys will need replacing if we're to win the thing.

twinytwo

thebaz wrote: »

Ireland record in the world cups so far has been pretty dismal , yet to reach the semis , a feat all the major nations have done so.
Fiji, Georgia , Samoa all have had heroic world cups, even New Zealand who have a poor record by their standard , have won it.

People will say we did well in 1991, but in fact apart from losing to Australia , we really blew it against an inferior Scottish team.

Will the next World Cup be the one , where we at least fulfil the potential ?

We should have done some serious damage in 07 but we didnt and everything fell apart but our real problem will be the squad... we will imo have a very strong starting 15 good enough to give anyone a run for their money assuming drico is fit... even ignoring injuries will we have the debt in the squad i dunno.. also going to NZ all the eggs are in the abs basket.. they even have france in their group so no hope of them doing everyone else a favor.....

twinytwo

anonymous_joe wrote: »

England, Australia, South Africa, France and New Zealand all have way more players than us at all levels of the game. Thus they usually have more great players. With one or two injuries, we might not even be able to compete in the group stages, let alone go for the thing itself.

We've a great team, and a decent squad, but we've never beaten New Zealand, and can't get wins in the SH at all.

In saying that, this AI series is a lot tougher than most people think. We'll learn a lot about the relative strength of the team over the next month, but it's important to keep in mind quite a few lads are of no value for the next WC.

Hayes, Davey Wallace, O'Gara in particular will be finished at the top level in two years time, while D'Arcy, BOD, POC, DOC, Fla, Horan will be old. A lot of those guys will need replacing if we're to win the thing.

is the one player we will never be able to replace... it will always be a case of making due with someone else

thehighground

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Hayes, Davey Wallace, O'Gara in particular will be finished at the top level in two years time, while D'Arcy, BOD, POC, DOC, Fla, Horan will be old. A lot of those guys will need replacing if we're to win the thing.

Some of those you mention there will only be coming into their prime in 2 years time. Martin Johnson was 33 when he lifted the RWC and they are all younger than that. Ryan & Toner are going to have to work very hard to shift POC & DOC.

Hayes & O'Gara are the only two positions that there isn't any adequate blooded cover for yet.

thebaz

i know about our small numbers, but successfull world cups are all about playing above potential and pushing above your weight - with the excpetion of the Australia match in 1991 , which captured the nation at the end , i believe we have always fallen flat at the big stage

Podge_irl

Ireland have never really done well at a WC because up until the last one Ireland have generally been a pretty useless rugby team. The cluster**** that was the RWC 07 is a slightly different story.

Its easy to forget, given our current success, just how bad the Irish rugby team used to be. They were only starting to come out of that in the early 2000s, they could have beaten Aus in 03, but I think that was a case of lack of belief because of not being used to being in that position. They'll have no excuses for not doing well next time round - Ireland should definitely be aiming to top the group and get to the semis. Now, Aus will be a formidable challenge but they are the kind of games that the team needs to start winning.

Incidentally, I think the discussion based around low playing numbers is completely off. England have the most players in the world while I think Aus have fewer registered players than we do.

Chucky the tree

Podge_irl wrote: »

Incidentally, I think the discussion based around low playing numbers is completely off. England have the most players in the world while I think Aus have fewer registered players than we do.

Ireland have twice as many registered players compared to Austrailia and twice as many junior players as well. We have slight more registered players then New zeland but a few thousand less junior members. The most impressive though is Wales, who done brilliantly in the last few years. They have only 44k registered male players where as Ireland have 150k. Ireland have 57k teen players with Wales only having 13k.


The numbers can all be found here. Englands numbers to performance in the last few years is shocking. http://www.irb.com/unions/index.html

PhatPiggins

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Ireland have twice as many registered players compared to Austrailia and twice as many junior players as well. We have slight more registered players then New zeland but a few thousand less junior members. The most impressive though is Wales, who done brilliantly in the last few years. They have only 44k registered male players where as Ireland have 150k. Ireland have 57k teen players with Wales only having 13k.


The numbers can all be found here. Englands numbers to performance in the last few years is shocking. http://www.irb.com/unions/index.html

I dont see hoe you could argue that their performances throughout the history of the RWC is shocking or are you just talking about their dip in for since the 2007 WC? Seems a very small timeframe to make a judgement if you are.

jayo007

ireland will never win a world cup never good enough. all the hype over the grand slam if we played France in the world cup they would hammer us.Were only making up the numbers when it comes to the world stage.

Chucky the tree

PhatPiggins wrote: »

I dont see hoe you could argue that their performances throughout the history of the RWC is shocking or are you just talking about their dip in for since the 2007 WC? Seems a very small timeframe to make a judgement if you are.

Not just the WC I was refering too, since 2003 there results in 6 nations and test matches have been poor. But they do seem to get it going for the WC, the last two times anyway.

thomond2006

jayo007 wrote: »

ireland will never win a world cup never good enough. all the hype over the grand slam if we played France in the world cup they would hammer us.Were only making up the numbers when it comes to the world stage.

Back up that point please. :rolleyes:

http://www.irb.com/rankings/full.html

We are fourth in the world.

I believe we can win the world cup. Right now, I can honestly say we can beat any team in the world, even the Springboks.

Should the All Blacks be feared by Ireland? Should the Wallabies? Should any of the Six Nations sides? Absolutely not. South Africa are not much better than us either.

To win the World Cup we need:
1. A tight head prop to replace Hayes.
2. Sexton/Humphreys/Keatley to develop into strong test players
3. An excellent OC to come in if BOD gets hurt, could be Tommy Bowe imo
4. A scrum half in the class of Stringer in years past.
5. Leadership, which we already have in spades.
6. Luck

Why do so many Irish sports fans have this mentality of "Oh, (just because) we're Irish, we won't win any big tournament." :mad:

On any given day, we are capable of beating any international side, therefore, why shouldn't we aim to win the World Cup?

Judgement Day

jayo007 wrote: »

ireland will never win a world cup never good enough. all the hype over the grand slam if we played France in the world cup they would hammer us.Were only making up the numbers when it comes to the world stage.

Where do you get off with such rubbish? Why don't you have a look at the latest rugby World Rankings before you start sounding off? Who can say what way things are going to unfold in the next RWC - injuries, retirements and so on. The current Irish squad can take on anybody at present without fear - we may not always win but it's only down to how the team performs on each outing and a bit of luck - the quality is there for all to see.

http://www.irb.com/rankings/index.html

anonymous_joe

twinytwo wrote: »

is the one player we will never be able to replace... it will always be a case of making due with someone else

True that.

thehighground wrote: »

Some of those you mention there will only be coming into their prime in 2 years time. Martin Johnson was 33 when he lifted the RWC and they are all younger than that. Ryan & Toner are going to have to work very hard to shift POC & DOC.

Hayes & O'Gara are the only two positions that there isn't any adequate blooded cover for yet.

Do you really think it'd benefit Ireland if half our team was 32/33? I'd be really worried if that was the case. They just wouldn't be fit enough, and not only that, the likes of England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are all comparitevly youthful teams...

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Ireland have twice as many registered players compared to Austrailia and twice as many junior players as well. We have slight more registered players then New zeland but a few thousand less junior members. The most impressive though is Wales, who done brilliantly in the last few years. They have only 44k registered male players where as Ireland have 150k. Ireland have 57k teen players with Wales only having 13k.


The numbers can all be found here. Englands numbers to performance in the last few years is shocking. http://www.irb.com/unions/index.html

Ya see wildly different stats coming in from all over the place, including conflicting ones from the various unions...

thebaz

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Ireland have twice as many registered players compared to Austrailia and twice as many junior players as well. We have slight more registered players then New zeland but a few thousand less junior members. The most impressive though is Wales, who done brilliantly in the last few years. They have only 44k registered male players where as Ireland have 150k. Ireland have 57k teen players with Wales only having 13k.


The numbers can all be found here. Englands numbers to performance in the last few years is shocking. http://www.irb.com/unions/index.html

i think you read the stats wrong ireland have about the same registered players as wales and a less than New Zealand

Senior Male Player:21939

makes more sense

thomond2006

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Do you really think it'd benefit Ireland if half our team was 32/33? I'd be really worried if that was the case. They just wouldn't be fit enough, and not only that, the likes of England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are all comparitevly youthful teams...

If only we had 15 Simon Shaws....

Chucky the tree

thebaz wrote: »

i think you read the stats wrong ireland have about the same registered players as wales and a less than New Zealand

Senior Male Player:21939

makes more sense

Yea, it seems it's in the underage section where we have a huge advantage. Huge jump in numbers where supposedly in 2003 we had 53,000 total registered players.

thehighground

anonymous_joe wrote: »

True that.

Do you really think it'd benefit Ireland if half our team was 32/33? I'd be really worried if that was the case. They just wouldn't be fit enough, and not only that, the likes of England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are all comparitevly youthful teams...

Half our team won't be 32/33 ... and by the way there is nothing wrong with David Wallace's fitness and he is 33. If there was a world cup in the morning - do you think he would make the squad?

I just can't see the likes of POC or DOC letting their fitness slip somehow or other. And as I mentioned before, Martin Johnson was 33 when he lifted the world cup. Laurence Dellaglio at the ripe old age of 35 contributed to England getting to a RWC final 2 years ago. Pelous was 34 at the last RWC. The majority of the Ireland backs are now in their early 20s and with Healy, Heaslip, Leamy all in their early 20s at the moment half our team won't be 32/33.

gavkm27

Leamy is about 28 and a half now,so more like late 20's and Heaslip is mid twenties
Ferris,Kearney,Earls,Fitzgerald are the early 20's category:D

thehighground

gavkm27 wrote: »

Leamy is about 28 and a half now,so more like late 20's and Heaslip is mid twenties
Ferris,Kearney,Earls,Fitzgerald are the early 20's category:D

opps - meant Ferris (who is now 24), not Leamy!

Still, half the team are no where near 32/33 - it might be an issue if all the backs were that age, but they are mostly quite young/coming into their prime.

anonymous_joe

thomond2006 wrote: »

If only we had 15 Simon Shaws....

thehighground wrote: »

Half our team won't be 32/33 ... and by the way there is nothing wrong with David Wallace's fitness and he is 33. If there was a world cup in the morning - do you think he would make the squad?

I just can't see the likes of POC or DOC letting their fitness slip somehow or other. And as I mentioned before, Martin Johnson was 33 when he lifted the world cup. Laurence Dellaglio at the ripe old age of 35 contributed to England getting to a RWC final 2 years ago. Pelous was 34 at the last RWC. The majority of the Ireland backs are now in their early 20s and with Healy, Heaslip, Leamy all in their early 20s at the moment half our team won't be 32/33.

Guys like Simon Shaw and David Wallace aren't the norm though. Plenty of players in any sport start to burn out early. It's only a very small minority that maintains a very high standard.

laugh

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Yea, it seems it's in the underage section where we have a huge advantage. Huge jump in numbers where supposedly in 2003 we had 53,000 total registered players.

Should be good times ahead so.

thehighground

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Guys like Simon Shaw and David Wallace aren't the norm though. Plenty of players in any sport start to burn out early. It's only a very small minority that maintains a very high standard.

By the way you are posting, Wally would have been banished 3 years ago as he would be too old to compete at international level and Shaw would have been sent out to pasture 6 years ago and Shane Byrne would never have been capped (and never made a Lions Tour!)

Joe, you will have to do something about your ageism

subfreq

I think most of the age stuff is academic. Not sure who else said it about BOD maybe this thread maybe another but it's just a number.

I am a huge advocate of bringing players through now because I think there is a collective benefit from giving the new players experience. Whether you win or lose you do it together which is why it's so important for me that Sexton starts these games.

Ireland can definitely win the WC but 2 years is a huge amount of time and form/new players will mean a very different squad than what we see this Autumn will be on the plane to NZ when it comes around.

AdeT

thehighground wrote: »

Still, half the team are no where near 32/33 - it might be an issue if all the backs were that age, but they are mostly quite young/coming into their prime.

It's about balance isn't it. BOD at 33 would be an unbelievable asset to a backline with much younger and fresher players. The England team who won the world cup (and i'm not saying it's the correct/only formula) had balance everywhere. Their back row was aging but their front row were relatively young. Jonny W was 24 but Dawson was 31. Kay was 27, Johnson 33. Tindall was only 25 but Greenwood was 31.

What I'm saying is that there's no 'ideal' age for players to be when World Cups come around - it's about finding a balance within the Irish team and, more specifically, within each partnership within the team.

buck65

Unless we can beat the SH teams we are going nowhere. We need to win 2 from 3 this AI series and until we beat the Blacks we will never have the confidence to really believe we can rub shoulders with the best. Apart from France and England in 2003 we are miles behind still.
We can get there but its about nailing the big ones.

little173

I agree with a lot that has been said. The way our structure is at the moment, we do rely on quite a small pool of players. We won a Grand Slam with basically 2 clubs and a couple of Ulster players. I dont think that will change that much going into the next world cup, hopefully Ulster will be stronger, but a lot will depend on the established stars from Munster and Leinster staying fit.

We have proved we can now beat the SH teams, certainly at home and at full strength we are very difficult to beat and even on the Summer tours there is not much to seperate us from those teams.

To win a WC we need a good draw, and we have a decent one on 2011. Australia are the weakest of the SH teams and are in our group. If we can beat them then we would possibly meet Wales in the QF. If you look at what England did in 2007 to reach the final I wouldnt say we will be any weaker and we now have the ability to win tight games even when we are not at our best which we will need.

twinytwo

thehighground wrote: »

Half our team won't be 32/33 ... and by the way there is nothing wrong with David Wallace's fitness and he is 33. If there was a world cup in the morning - do you think he would make the squad?

I just can't see the likes of POC or DOC letting their fitness slip somehow or other. And as I mentioned before, Martin Johnson was 33 when he lifted the world cup. Laurence Dellaglio at the ripe old age of 35 contributed to England getting to a RWC final 2 years ago. Pelous was 34 at the last RWC. The majority of the Ireland backs are now in their early 20s and with Healy, Heaslip, Leamy all in their early 20s at the moment half our team won't be 32/33.

in fairness to wallace he is a machine ... at 40 he will still be a machine. i see him playing some part in the wc... prob be bench but still one hell of a player to bring on

RugbyFanatic

I think many posters underestimate how much aging can cause player's to regress in as little as a year. This is the problem. Nobody knows how long the likes of Wallace, O'Callaghan and O'Connell can continue playing at the this current level.

anonymous_joe

thehighground wrote: »

By the way you are posting, Wally would have been banished 3 years ago as he would be too old to compete at international level and Shaw would have been sent out to pasture 6 years ago and Shane Byrne would never have been capped (and never made a Lions Tour!)

Joe, you will have to do something about your ageism

Not really. Munster have been shíte since the Lions tour and most of their older players bar one (the evergreen David Wallace) have been fighting to be worst player of the season. I'd reckon a large part of that is age.

RugbyFanatic wrote: »

I think many posters underestimate how much aging can cause player's to regress in as little as a year. This is the problem. Nobody knows how long the likes of Wallace, O'Callaghan and O'Connell can continue playing at the this current level.

Judging by how exhausted they've looked after the Lions tour not that long.

jam_on_toast

thomond2006 wrote: »

Back up that point please. :rolleyes:

http://www.irb.com/rankings/full.html

We are fourth in the world.

I believe we can win the world cup. Right now, I can honestly say we can beat any team in the world, even the Springboks.

Should the All Blacks be feared by Ireland? Should the Wallabies? Should any of the Six Nations sides? Absolutely not. South Africa are not much better than us either.

To win the World Cup we need:
1. A tight head prop to replace Hayes.
2. Sexton/Humphreys/Keatley to develop into strong test players
3. An excellent OC to come in if BOD gets hurt, could be Tommy Bowe imo
4. A scrum half in the class of Stringer in years past.
5. Leadership, which we already have in spades.
6. Luck

Why do so many Irish sports fans have this mentality of "Oh, (just because) we're Irish, we won't win any big tournament." :mad:

On any given day, we are capable of beating any international side, therefore, why shouldn't we aim to win the World Cup?

Spot on, one thing i'd add is a proven international out and out 7. I like wallace a lot but he just doesnt make enough of a nuisance out of himself. Ferris & Heaslip can do the ball carrying.

Having good options from 6 - 10 is most important for a WC imo. We were completely outclassed in these positions in 07.

murphym7

thomond2006 wrote: »

Back up that point please. :rolleyes:

http://www.irb.com/rankings/full.html

We are fourth in the world.

I believe we can win the world cup. Right now, I can honestly say we can beat any team in the world, even the Springboks.

Should the All Blacks be feared by Ireland? Should the Wallabies? Should any of the Six Nations sides? Absolutely not. South Africa are not much better than us either.

To win the World Cup we need:
1. A tight head prop to replace Hayes.
2. Sexton/Humphreys/Keatley to develop into strong test players
3. An excellent OC to come in if BOD gets hurt, could be Tommy Bowe imo
4. A scrum half in the class of Stringer in years past.
5. Leadership, which we already have in spades.
6. Luck

Why do so many Irish sports fans have this mentality of "Oh, (just because) we're Irish, we won't win any big tournament." :mad:

On any given day, we are capable of beating any international side, therefore, why shouldn't we aim to win the World Cup?

I do agree with most of your posts on here Thomond but I can't say I agree with most of this one, sorry!

In answer to your question whether or not Ireland should be afraid of NZ: yes we should, we have never beaten them. We should not be too afraid of Australia and in fact we have a good chance of whacking them on Sunday.

I also don't think that Ireland are anywhere close to being as good as the BOK's - Quick example, the BOK's have just finished the tri nations winning 5 out of 6 matches. Never in a million years would Ireland complete a series like that against SH sides, its just not possible. This is not to say we might not beat them in a couple of weeks time - one off match.

I think Ireland, on their day as you said, have the ability to beat anyone. A world cup campaign is different though and I can't see Ireland doing it next time at least. Maybe within 10 years.

Podge_irl

murphym7 wrote: »

I also don't think that Ireland are anywhere close to being as good as the BOK's - Quick example, the BOK's have just finished the tri nations winning 5 out of 6 matches. Never in a million years would Ireland complete a series like that against SH sides, its just not possible. This is not to say we might not beat them in a couple of weeks time - one off match.

Ireland don't play Aus or NZ with anywhere near the same regularity as the Boks do though, and that certainly helps them. We've only played NZ 20 odd times - though I still don't see us beating them any time soon.

Your basic point is spot on though. Our best record against a SH opponent is against Aus, and we still lose far more than we win against them.

RugbyFanatic

Its actually quite pathetic that we have never beaten New Zealand. I still remember THAT kick from Stringer when we were so close.... maybe next year

Podge_irl

RugbyFanatic wrote: »

Its actually quite pathetic that we have never beaten New Zealand. I still remember THAT kick from Stringer when we were so close.... maybe next year

In fairness, we were still losing at the time.

It is a bit ridiculous though. We never seem to play them at home when we're actually playing well either!

RugbyFanatic

Podge_irl wrote: »

In fairness, we were still losing at the time.

It is a bit ridiculous though. We never seem to play them at home when we're actually playing well either!

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure we were ahead

GO'S

We should be playing inexperienced players in the big AIs to get them ready for the world cup.It doesnt matter about winning these games its more important to win the wolrd cup

Podge_irl

RugbyFanatic wrote: »

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure we were ahead

Not sure now. We lost the game by 10 points though didn't we? I think Ireland were pressing for a score at the time to get back ahead rather then trying to keep the lead. I'm not sure though.

GO'S wrote:

It doesnt matter about winning these games its more important to win the wolrd cup

Well, it appears we're getting into the season where I get to rant about how much I hate the RWC.

These are test matches. It does matter about winning them. Winnings games and introducing new players are not mutually exclusive. However, a mere look at some of Ireland's games against the ABs shows that there is a mentality issue because we've never beaten them. Similarly, against Aus in the 03 WC, Ireland had the winning of that game if they'd just gone for a naffin drop goal, but they panicked because they weren't used to being in that kind of situation - because they'd beaten Aus once in 30 years.

Also, without meaning to be too pessimistic, we're not going to win the bloody world cup. Winning the 6N and beating some SH opposition is what we should be aiming for - for now at least.

thomond2006

murphym7 wrote: »

I do agree with most of your posts on here Thomond but I can't say I agree with most of this one, sorry!

In answer to your question whether or not Ireland should be afraid of NZ: yes we should, we have never beaten them. We should not be too afraid of Australia and in fact we have a good chance of whacking them on Sunday.

I also don't think that Ireland are anywhere close to being as good as the BOK's - Quick example, the BOK's have just finished the tri nations winning 5 out of 6 matches. Never in a million years would Ireland complete a series like that against SH sides, its just not possible. This is not to say we might not beat them in a couple of weeks time - one off match.

I think Ireland, on their day as you said, have the ability to beat anyone. A world cup campaign is different though and I can't see Ireland doing it next time at least. Maybe within 10 years.

To be fair, I don't think our previous record against the All Blacks makes any difference. In the last encounter, they were in excellent form and we were short in confidence post Eddie O'Sullivan. In the game before that, we gave them a good game (under Michael Bradley, ironically).
As George Hook correctly said: "Sport has no memory".

South Africa are a very good team but I don't think their Tri Nations success counts for much. Look at the teams they faced.

They were playing an Australian side who are developing young players with a view to RWC2011. e.g. James O'Connor, David Pocock, Tatafu Polota-Nau etc

The All Blacks for a while were without Carter (their most important player) and were left with Stephen Donald (who is poor) and Luke McAlister playing out of position, McCaw was coming back from injury and they were generally all over the shop especially in the lineout where they had no Ali Williams and persisted with Andrew Hore at hooker who is an erratic thrower at best.

This is our best opportunity to win a Rugby World Cup because it will be Brian O'Driscoll's last World Cup. No words in the English language can depict his value to the team. We lose him and we're doomed.

The venue being New Zealand doesn't make a difference.

Unfortunately Brian O'Driscoll won't be playing in 10 years time, he'll be the starring role in "The Clinic".

buck65

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Not really. Munster have been shíte since the Lions tour and most of their older players bar one (the evergreen David Wallace) have been fighting to be worst player of the season. I'd reckon a large part of that is age.


Judging by how exhausted they've looked after the Lions tour not that long.

You just can't resist.
POC was good against Ulster, O Callaghan has been good in the past couple of games.
Are they exhaustred or are they getting better?!

anonymous_joe

buck65 wrote: »

You just can't resist.
POC was good against Ulster, O Callaghan has been good in the past couple of games.
Are they exhaustred or are they getting better?!

But that's the point man!

Munster have great players, only a fool would say otherwise, but the likes of O'Connell have looked tired at the start of this season after last season's gargantuan efforts. That's fairly simple really.

Exhaustion ends after all. The problem is, the older you get, the longer it takes to recover.