Ireland - Post Australia

UnitedWeStand

Two games into this Autumn international series, and the JS era, we appear to be in the same situation as we were before Kidney in the sense most of seem to feel further out of touch from international rugby than we ever thought possible. It now feels a distant memory the days between 2005-2010 where we could probably match most teams in the world and beat them.

However, this loss was probably coming, and hey, its probably a good thing. Heres why. I think this Ireland team is still suffering from a bad hangover from the Kidney era's eratic ways. It was so stagnant at the end as the team seemed to gather negative momentum. Every successive game seems to give them reason to play worse as they remember the previous one. That has to be replaced, its a mindset thing and it's going to take a while. No coach in world rugby was going to be able to coach Ireland to beat Australia today. What happened wasn't in anyway the coaches fault. He picked the right gameplan and everything. There was just a clear issue in the players putting that gameplan into action.

Some people are calling for heads already, some are writing off our entire squad as average and the Heineken cup success's being something far below the international stage as well! (That would be a valid argument until you see the likes of Toulon who have the entire Springbok team of last year, if teams can beat the likes of them in this competition they can damn well do it on the international stage). Perhaps the truth is our media and ourselves have become too expectant of success that we just demand in straight away. I believe Ireland have/had one of the most talented squads in world rugby but because Kidney isn't a tactical genius of a coach, we unluckily didn't see the best of them.

We must go easy on the team, Schmidt will damn well tear some heads off in that dressing room on Monday, and rightly so. But lets get one thing clear, no coach could of saved Ireland from what happened yesterday. You could see what Schmidt wanted, there was great phases of play by Ireland in the first 40 mins. Mainly from 25-40 minutes. Perhaps should of had two tries even, if we got them I still believe we would've lost, but it would've just been a ridiculous scoreline such as 34 37. The problem was in the players not trusting themselves, being nervous and just plain erratic. Sloppy defense, lethargic at spreading out.

Schmidt is going to need time to get this team together and to blow out the mental scars left over from the Kidney era. When Kidney took over he had an average autumn campaign, and his solution before the 6N was to remove the old stock and fit in some new ones. JS may have to remove some older faces, purely to make a fresh start. Whatever happens, his task isn't the same as most coaches, he has to repair a lot of damage thats gone on in truth since atleast 2010. Perhaps further. I'd liken this team currently to a piece of rotten wood with termites. From the outside it doesn't look that bad, but the inside is rotten and without a core. JS has a job at building it all up again from the inside, and not just putting a paint of gloss over it all with the odd good result like in the Kidney era.

Its best we lose heck, a lot of games in a row but get it all out of the way and start again with a new core as it has to happen eventually. For us to think we were going to win today was highly niave, this could be a big work in the making, but either way, its one that has to be done, and with the talent coming through at every province, you can't say the tools or talent isnt there to help us along.

fryup

when does the schimdt honeymoon end??

after the 5 nations??

OldRio

fryup wrote: »

when does the schimdt honeymoon end??

after the 5 nations??

5 Nations ?

fryup

ok........6 nations

LuckyLloyd

fryup wrote: »

when does the schimdt honeymoon end??

after the 5 nations??

He'll get a nice long honeymoon on here. And if things haven't started to improve by the end of the six nations, the blame will be shifted onto the playing squad.

Lots of regular posters on here who have staked JS as everything that is good and Kidney as everything that is bad. It will be hard for them to call it if it doesn't work out.

darragh_haven

I think give him at least till after the 6 nations and if there is improvement in style and performance we should be happy. We won't turn into world beater in one year. Joe has to build this team for RWC 2015, so give him that at least.

Tox56

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

He'll get a nice long honeymoon on here. And if things haven't started to improve by the end of the six nations, the blame will be shifted onto the playing squad.

Lots of regular posters on here who have staked JS as everything that is good and Kidney as everything that is bad. It will be hard for them to call it if it doesn't work out.

Can you at least wait and see if that actually happens before getting outraged about it? Stating a prediction as fact doesn't make it so

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

He'll get a nice long honeymoon on here. And if things haven't started to improve by the end of the six nations, the blame will be shifted onto the playing squad.

Lots of regular posters on here who have staked JS as everything that is good and Kidney as everything that is bad. It will be hard for them to call it if it doesn't work out.

ah, as sure as the the sun sets every evening, luckyloyd arrives to have a dig when Ireland lose

Brian_Zeluz

Leinster lost their first 4 games under Joe and went on to win back to back Heineken Cups. Questioning his ability at this level this early is idiotic.

sydthebeat

More boards hyper over reaction...

Hermy

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

What happened wasn't in anyway the coaches fault.

How so?

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

What happened wasn't in anyway the coaches fault.].

Sorry now but that's rubbish

Schmidt has to bare a brunt for how we lined out in defense/not having Jackson on the bench and persisting with aimless kicking

Players didn't stand up last night but Schmidt got some things wrong too

molloyjh

I can't understand people's reaction to the Madigan selection. If we were selecting our bench as injury cover then yes Jackson should have started. If we were usig it tactically then there were genuine reasons for starting Madigan. Add to that the fact that Joe wants to get a look at everyone too and the selection was understandable. Sextons hamstring was not part of the equation.

Kidney got a lot of flak for not using his bench tactically and now vile is getting flak because he's using it tactically. Hindsight is great but unfortunately you don't have it in advance.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

molloyjh wrote: »

I can't understand people's reaction to the Madigan selection. If we were selecting our bench as injury cover then yes Jackson should have started. If we were usig it tactically then there were genuine reasons for starting Madigan. Add to that the fact that Joe wants to get a look at everyone too and the selection was understandable. Sextons hamstring was not part of the equation.

Kidney got a lot of flak for not using his bench tactically and now vile is getting flak because he's using it tactically. Hindsight is great but unfortunately you don't have it in advance.

My biggest issue with Madigan when he came in was that he looked really uncomfortable in possession and pretty unsure of our attacking patterns

Jackson had 80 minutes under his belt, and a good 80 minutes at that. obviously Madigan offers more attacking threat from the bench but sometimes you have to go with the safer option. Sexton had been injured all week and has played 13 games on the trot, I think there was always a stronger chance that he might have shipped a knock in this game

sydthebeat

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

My biggest issue with Madigan when he came in was that he looked really uncomfortable in possession and pretty unsure of our e

I didn't see any evidence of that other than a whole back line under pressure.
And uncomfortable in possession is not a trait id equate with Madigan. He's very comfortable and can employ many options at a drop of a hat.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

sydthebeat wrote: »

I didn't see any evidence of that other than a whole back line under pressure.
And uncomfortable in possession is not a trait id equate with Madigan. He's very comfortable and can employ many options at a drop of a hat.

In the first half Sexton dictated play when we had the ball, and as a result we were actually very effective in attack

Madigan came on and we lost all of our structure in attack, and I mean uncomfortable in the sense that he didn't seem the know what was the next move on each phase

molloyjh

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

My biggest issue with Madigan when he came in was that he looked really uncomfortable in possession and pretty unsure of our attacking patterns

Jackson had 80 minutes under his belt, and a good 80 minutes at that. obviously Madigan offers more attacking threat from the bench but sometimes you have to go with the safer option. Sexton had been injured all week and has played 13 games on the trot, I think there was always a stronger chance that he might have shipped a knock in this game

I haven't seen the game pack and I was watching it from pitch level so it can be hard to see how people are lining up etc at times, but I thought Madigan did ok. I thought some of his distribution was very good and in back line with a bit more pace and guile coming onto the ball he could have been very effective. His restarts seemed decent bar one that didn't go 10, but he did look to give his chasers a chance. I'd still start Jackson against NZ if Sexton is out but I don't think Madigan was that bad.

Tbh, and I mentioned it in the match thread, for me our biggest issue is basic skills. How many times in the first half in particular did we go for a high risk offload that didn't go to hand or was spilled? Yet if you look at the Aussies how often did they make similar passes stick? How often were balls behind the player, over their heads or at their feet. I don't think that is something Joe can fix at this level. He needs buy in from the provincial coaches to ensure those skills are being maintained at a high standard at Pro12 and HEC level. Otherwise any work that he does in national camp will be undone or undermined provincially.

pynchy

Ireland gave away tries because we kicked the ball away

IRELAND PLEASE STOP KICKING THE BALL AWAY!

.. maybe see what happens....

stephen_n

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

Sorry now but that's rubbish

Schmidt has to bare a brunt for how we lined out in defense/not having Jackson on the bench and persisting with aimless kicking

Players didn't stand up last night but Schmidt got some things wrong too

How would having Jackson on the bench made any difference, what so ever? Despite the fact that probably no coach in the world given the players available for the bench would have picked Jackson ahead Madigan due to Jackson limited ability to cover the backline.

Tactically yes they got it badly wrong with the kicking, but considering we got beat up at the scrum, barely held our own line out and lost out at the breakdown all night, changing the game plan would have been next to near impossible.

The coaching staff and the players need to equally take the blame for a mindset that was nowhere near good enough. I can't remember, even in the depths of our despair in the 90's, seeing an Irish team play with less passion or intensity, you could forgive the errors somewhat if they had come out of over exuberance or and attempt to play high intensity rugby, that wasn't the case. Even the so called leaders in the team, looked like they really didn't want to be there yesterday. The one thing kidney did well and certainly at the start of his reign was to motivate his teams, joe failed to do that totally.

accidentprone1

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

Two games into this Autumn international series, and the JS era, we appear to be in the same situation as we were before Kidney in the sense most of seem to feel further out of touch from international rugby than we ever thought possible. It now feels a distant memory the days between 2005-2010 where we could probably match most teams in the world and beat them.................

Excellent post. I paticularly agree with the rotten wood analogy, even if it is an extreme way of putting it! Personally, I feel it is far more important that Schmidt continues to build the squad as he has been doing over the last two games.

I would argue that the result next week doesn't really matter in the long run. If we lose, well, that's not unexpected under a new coach when playing the number one team in the world. If we somehow manage to win, well, we'd get a monkey off our back and bragging rights. But the win would realistically only be from a whole bag of good fortune on our part, and misfortune on theirs. It might paper over cracks and put a gloss on the team, when realistically we have a whole lot of work to do to be able to put in consistent, error-free performances.

LorMal

stephen_n wrote: »

How would having Jackson on the bench made any difference, what so ever? Despite the fact that probably no coach in the world given the players available for the bench would have picked Jackson ahead Madigan due to Jackson limited ability to cover the backline.

Tactically yes they got it badly wrong with the kicking, but considering we got beat up at the scrum, barely held our own line out and lost out at the breakdown all night, changing the game plan would have been next to near impossible.

The coaching staff and the players need to equally take the blame for a mindset that was nowhere near good enough. I can't remember, even in the depths of our despair in the 90's, seeing an Irish team play with less passion or intensity, you could forgive the errors somewhat if they had come out of over exuberance or and attempt to play high intensity rugby, that wasn't the case. Even the so called leaders in the team, looked like they really didn't want to be thereyesterday. The one thing kidney did well and certainly at the start of his reign was to motivate his teams, joe failed to do that totally.

Sorry, but I just don't buy that. What exactly does playing with 'passion' and 'intensity' mean? Do you think the player are not motivated when playing for Ireland? That's nonsense. The last thing we want is a return to the old days (1980s / 1990s) when we were absolutely crap but always being praised for our 'passion' and 'fighting Irish' attitude.
What we need is skill, tactical nous, consistency, good systems, accuracy. Look at England now...they are beginning to motor. It took Lancaster a while but they are looking formidable ..It's about doing the basics very very well.

P.Walnuts

LorMal wrote: »

Sorry, but I just don't buy that. What exactly does playing with 'passion' and 'intensity' mean? Do you think the player are not motivated when playing for Ireland? That's nonsense. The last thing we want is a return to the old days (1980s / 1990s) when we were absolutely crap but always being praised for our 'passion' and 'fighting Irish' attitude.
What we need is skill, tactical nous, consistency, good systems, accuracy. Look at England now...they are beginning to motor. It took Lancaster a while but they are looking formidable ..It's about doing the basics very very well.

Well if we defender with more "intensity" and "aggression", I doubt they would of strolled over basically untouched for two tries.

LuckyLloyd

LorMal wrote: »

Sorry, but I just don't buy that. What exactly does playing with 'passion' and 'intensity' mean? Do you think the player are not motivated when playing for Ireland? That's nonsense. The last thing we want is a return to the old days (1980s / 1990s) when we were absolutely crap but always being praised for our 'passion' and 'fighting Irish' attitude.
What we need is skill, tactical nous, consistency, good systems, accuracy. Look at England now...they are beginning to motor. It took Lancaster a while but they are looking formidable ..It's about doing the basics very very well.

We were gutless in defense last night. There was obviously an absence of passion and intensity to concede tries like we did. And as Horgan and O'Gara pointed out after the game, the lack of a reaction from the Irish players after the spear tackle was disgraceful.

It's a physical game. We lacked desire last night and it showed on the scoreboard.

P.Walnuts

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

We were gutless in defense last night. There was obviously an absence of passion and intensity to concede tries like we did. And as Horgan and O'Gara pointed out after the game, the lack of a reaction from the Irish players after the spear tackle was disgraceful.

It's a physical game. We lacked desire last night and it showed on the scoreboard.

I tend to agree with this to be honest

If that was a Eng, France, SA or NZ player getting speared there would of been a reaction. It's not a coincidence that our biggest performances have been when we have been super aggressive eg Australia in WC, England at home in Croker (Now realising we really haven't had many big wins recently! )

Grimebox

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

We were gutless in defense last night. There was obviously an absence of passion and intensity to concede tries like we did. And as Horgan and O'Gara pointed out after the game, the lack of a reaction from the Irish players after the spear tackle was disgraceful.

It's a physical game. We lacked desire last night and it showed on the scoreboard.

Desire? So they didn't want to win. Sure

thecomedian

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

We were gutless in defense last night. There was obviously an absence of passion and intensity to concede tries like we did. And as Horgan and O'Gara pointed out after the game, the lack of a reaction from the Irish players after the spear tackle was disgraceful.

It's a physical game. We lacked desire last night and it showed on the scoreboard.

About the tackle, I'd say a lot of the players didn't realise it was a bad tackle. I didn't notice it until the replays showed the other side.
It was mistakes made for their tries that lost us the match not lack of desire.

thebaz

too many talented players didnt turn up, and not for the first time - heaslip, kearney, o'connell, ross, bowe

some of the players are just not good eneogh for international rugby - reddan, toner, - Henshaw is nowhere near ready for international rugby judging by yesterday.

Bowe has complety lost form , and should be dropped immediadtly along with heaslip.

O'Brien, BOD had stinkers , by ther high standards, but will recover.

worst game I've seen O'Mahony play .

the only players I thought who played somewhat well were McFadden and Healy - all in all, a bad day in the office for the boys in green

Howard Juneau

thecomedian wrote: »

About the tackle, I'd say a lot of the players didn't realise it was a bad tackle. I didn't notice it until the replays showed the other side.
It was mistakes made for their tries that lost us the match not lack of desire.

Even the crowd saw it, any player 5 feet away would most definitely have done so.
If it had been Heaslip tipped, POM would have been first in to support him

LorMal

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

We were gutless in defense last night. There was obviously an absence of passion and intensity to concede tries like we did. And as Horgan and O'Gara pointed out after the game, the lack of a reaction from the Irish players after the spear tackle was disgraceful.

It's a physical game. We lacked desire last night and it showed on the scoreboard.

I'm not sure. I think it was confusion in the ranks. You could see guys looking at each other - unsure who was responsible?
Joe will get this right I'm sure.
Still can't agree that the players didn't care or were under motivated. I just don't see that.

Buer

ROG and Horgan are talking out of their arses if they said that. When Ryan was speared by Davies, they weren't in there throwing punches. When Nonu dumped D'Arcy, they weren't in there throwing punches. These things happen and, most of the time, the players leave it to the officials.

madzers

http://www.flickr.com/photos/john-madden/

siltirocker

Buer wrote: »

ROG and Horgan are talking out of their arses if they said that. When Ryan was speared by Davies, they weren't in there throwing punches. When Nonu dumped D'Arcy, they weren't in there throwing punches. These things happen and, most of the time, the players leave it to the officials.

Conor O'Shea also said it was huge. It was actually his chief point along with ROG. They were using it to highlight the point that they are not a collective unit and seem to be too individual at times.

Not my words, O'Shea's.

LuckyLloyd

Buer wrote: »

ROG and Horgan are talking out of their arses if they said that. When Ryan was speared by Davies, they weren't in there throwing punches. When Nonu dumped D'Arcy, they weren't in there throwing punches. These things happen and, most of the time, the players leave it to the officials.

Oh yeah?

Maybe former top level players understand more about the desire and passion required to compete at the top level of a physically demanding sport than the consensus on here that wants to boil it down to some sort of studied understanding of systems?

Teferi

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Oh yeah?

Maybe former top level players understand more about the desire and passion required to compete at the top level of a physically demanding sport than the consensus on here that wants to boil it down to some sort of studied understanding of systems?

So is your thing just to post negative rubbish about posters on this particular forum or do you actually have some input? 200+ posts on this rugby forum from yourself and most of them are aimed at the posting public here.

Buer

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Oh yeah?

Maybe former top level players understand more about the desire and passion required to compete at the top level of a physically demanding sport than the consensus on here that wants to boil it down to some sort of studied understanding of systems?

My point, which seems to have escaped you, was they say this but when it happened with them on the pitch, they did absolutely nothing either. All very easy for them to make these claims on the sideline when the evidence suggests they would be absolutely no different.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Oh yeah?

Maybe former top level players understand more about the desire and passion required to compete at the top level of a physically demanding sport than the consensus on here that wants to boil it down to some sort of studied understanding of systems?

Ya sure twas all a lack of passion and pride

Nothing to do with our poor defensive setup our bad scrum and our inability to convert chances :rolleyes:

pynchy

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

We were gutless in defense last night. There was obviously an absence of passion and intensity to concede tries like we did. And as Horgan and O'Gara pointed out after the game, the lack of a reaction from the Irish players after the spear tackle was disgraceful.

It's a physical game. We lacked desire last night and it showed on the scoreboard.

The two tries were directly caused by bad kicking, a phase or so after counter attacking they scored.

LuckyLloyd

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

Ya sure twas all a lack of passion and pride

Nothing to do with our poor defensive setup our bad scrum and our inability to convert chances :rolleyes:

There was clearly bad coaching and preparation at play, but sloppy missed tackles and being dominated physically comes down to desire.

Shouldn't be a controversial observation? Why are you all so reluctant to accept its presence on the night?

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

There was clearly bad coaching and preparation at play, but sloppy missed tackles and being dominated physically comes down to desire.

Shouldn't be a controversial observation? Why are you all so reluctant to accept its presence on the night?

because it's cliched nonsense

POM's missed tackle for the second try was nothing to do with "desire" or "passion"

It was a defender leaving him flatfooted because our defensive line was stretched

.ak

Composure wins games, not passion/intensity/whatever you call it. Of this I am 100% sure.

P.Walnuts

I think we should differentiate between passion and intensity, whatever about passion being a bit of tired cliche, playing with a high intensity is crucial to a good performance.

They are two very different things

LuckyLloyd

.ak wrote: »

Composure wins games, not passion/intensity/whatever you call it. Of this I am 100% sure.

Well you are wrong. Passion and intensity are prerequisites to succeed at that level and they seemed lacking to me yesterday, a view shared by the former Irish players on the RTE panel. Playing infront of a funereal "Aviva" with music being played after we score doesn't help.

Hopefully things change soon. JS fans better hope they do anyway!

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Well you are wrong. Passion and intensity are prerequisites to succeed at that level and they seemed lacking to me yesterday, a view shared by the former Irish players on the RTE panel. Playing infront of a funereal "Aviva" with music being played after we score doesn't help.

Hopefully things change soon. JS fans better hope they do anyway!

No doubt you'll be delighted if they don't

Passion is just a bull**** buzzword and lazy analysis that fits easily into the frantic post match analysis of poor pundits

.ak

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Well you are wrong. Passion and intensity are prerequisites to succeed at that level and they seemed lacking to me yesterday, a view shared by the former Irish players on the RTE panel. Playing infront of a funereal "Aviva" with music being played after we score doesn't help.

Hopefully things change soon. JS fans better hope they do anyway!

Not in my opinion, and anyone else who's played rugby in the opposition 22 or your own 22 will know exactly what I'm talking about.

It's the teams that lose their head because they're all ramped up that usually let the first tackle slip or get tunnel vision and miss their man, or try and truck it up themselves.

Rugby is a completely different sport now. Schmidt bagged a load of trophies with Leinster through composure, not intensity. The same could be said from Quinns.

Boks are known for their 'intensity' but have picked Scotland apart today because of their cool heads. La Roux being testament to this.

jamiedav2011

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

No doubt you'll be delighted if they don't

Passion is just a bull**** buzzword and lazy analysis that fits easily into the frantic post match analysis of poor pundits

In particular, talking about passion after an incident (which many of them didn't even realise happened) with 8 mins left as if it's indicative of the overall game.

It was nonsense analysis.

LuckyLloyd

.ak wrote: »

Rugby is a completely different sport now. Schmidt bagged a load of trophies with Leinster through composure, not intensity. The same could be said from Quinns.

Boks are known for their 'intensity' but have picked Scotland apart today because of their cool heads. La Roux being testament to this.

Well, we'll see how his composed approach works with a squad that doesn't have a big technical advantage on average over its opponents.

South Africa got half their points through mauling Scotland over their goalline.

Teferi

I think the biggest positive that we can take from the weekend is that at least we aren't Scotland.

blackdog1

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

because it's cliched nonsense

POM's missed tackle for the second try was nothing to do with "desire" or "passion"

It was a defender leaving him flatfooted because our defensive line was stretched

No it was pom getting caught for pace. Simple. He couldn't accelerate into the tackle and the player got his hands free.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

blackdog1 wrote: »

No it was pom getting caught for pace. Simple. He couldn't accelerate into the tackle and the player got his hands free.

ya, "flat footed" is what I said

Nothing to do with desire or any other such nonsense

.ak

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Well, we'll see how his composed approach works with a squad that doesn't have a big technical advantage on average over its opponents.

South Africa got half their points through mauling Scotland over their goalline.

By 'technical advantage' I presume you mean size, physicality, power and talent?

Right, we don't have that technical advantage, playing head down rugby with 'intensity' is not going to fix that.

Using our head will.

.ak

Also Henshaw should've made that covering tackle. A lot of new players getting used to new defensive systems. We were bound to see some holes picked out by the Australians. Really isn't much of an issue - it'll fix itself, but it may take a season for the team to get onboard with it.