Can we make a correlation between Jack Charlton and Joe Schmidt?

Black Menorca

So he devised a simplistic, banal style of football, that required massive levels of fitness as all the players did was run like workhorses for 90 minutes and feed off scraps in the attack.

Watching Ireland under Schmidt against the top teams, we play a very unadventurous game, very pedantic in possession, a huge fear to be expansive.Rumbling forward in a 12 man game and feeding off penalties conceded by the opposition.

While in defence we play like lions and are very disciplined, considering the amount of pressure we put ourselves under.

This might be successful and may be the best option considering our player pol, but to mis-quote Pat Spillane, are Ireland playing 'Puke Rugby'?

total former

Ah for fucx sake.

No. Just no.

I'm gonna say no

Did you watch this match at all?

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

Black Menorca

I'm talking about the trend since Schmidt took over. There has been a gradual closing of ranks, a minimalist approach.

First and foremost do not expand because that will put your own try line in danger. Keep it close, play ultra conservatively, feed off scraps and don't give an inch in defence.

sydthebeat

Was Jack Charltons winning rate with Ireland over 90%

QED.....

Nonsense.

Losty Dublin

The only co-relation that they have is that neither man was born in Ireland.

CatFromHue

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The only co-relation that they have is that neither man was born in Ireland.

They both like wearing hats too

marco_polo

CatFromHue wrote: »

They both like wearing hats too

Any particular colour?

bilston

In the first quarter yesterday Ireland did play expansively, however the French were up very quickly in defence (legally or otherwise) which cut down a lot of attacking options. The French tacklers also seemed very slow to move in the ruck as well which helped slow our ball down and again limited what we could do.

Last week we were limited but we had an inexperienced 10 and to be frank didn't need to do anything more than what we did do, which was wear the Italians down. But for a downpour in the last quarter we may well have broken loose and won by more than 23 points away from home with a third of our first team missing...

There is a bizarre air of negativity amongst some posters which is strange.

We just beat the French at home for the first time in 6 years. We have won 9 tests in a row to equal our record. We have created more depth than ever before. We are the defending Six Nations champions. We have key players who have been injured and are now just back from injury and are unlikely to have peaked.

We're in a good place, let's stop looking for negatives that just aren't there.

sydthebeat

Negativity is an Irish trait, we do not hold the mantle of champions well.

bilston

Also we have a brand new backline. It's eady to forget this, but only three of the current backs played in last years Six Nations. Henshaw and Payne are new to the team and Bowe and Zebo were injured or just not selected. It isn't going to click overnight.

Tox56

bilston wrote: »

In the first quarter yesterday Ireland did play expansively, however the French were up very quickly in defence (legally or otherwise) which cut down a lot of attacking options. The French tacklers also seemed very slow to move in the ruck as well which helped slow our ball down and again limited what we could do.

Last week we were limited but we had an inexperienced 10 and to be frank didn't need to do anything more than what we did do, which was wear the Italians down. But for a downpour in the last quarter we may well have broken loose and won by more than 23 points away from home with a third of our first team missing...

There is a bizarre air of negativity amongst some posters which is strange.

We just beat the French at home for the first time in 6 years. We have won 9 tests in a row to equal our record. We have created more depth than ever before. We are the defending Six Nations champions. We have key players who have been injured and are now just back from injury and are unlikely to have peaked.

We're in a good place, let's stop looking for negatives that just aren't there.

It is totally bizarre and completely ridiculous, I said it in the match thread, but there are literally no circumstances where people won't complain

Black Menorca

sydthebeat wrote: »

Was Jack Charltons winning rate with Ireland over 90%

QED.....

Nonsense.

There are far more draws in football than rugby.

Ireland in the Charlton era had a huge amount of draws.

sydthebeat

Black Menorca wrote: »

There are far more draws in football than rugby.

Ireland in the Charlton era had a huge amount of draws.

Thanks for that, but nothing at all to do with my point.

CatFromHue

marco_polo wrote: »

Any particular colour?

Dark and with a peak

Black Menorca

There seems to be a knee jerk reaction to jump all over anyone who may not like aspects they see in the Schmidt regime.

Why the ultra defensiveness?

bilston

Black Menorca wrote: »

There are far more draws in football than rugby.

Ireland in the Charlton era had a huge amount of draws.

Being a Nordie I'm not a Republic of Ireland supporter, but I do remember Italia 90, USA 94 and have very vague memories of Euro 88 but did you not all go wild getting to those finals? Was it not a great time to be a supporter?

I suppose my point even if Ireland did bore us all to tears with their brand of rugby (which I don't think they do anyway) but won a GS and WC, would anyone in Ireland care?

Black Menorca

sydthebeat wrote: »

Thanks for that, but nothing at all to do with my point.

I was correcting your original premise.

Black Menorca

bilston wrote: »

Being a Nordie I'm not a Republic of Ireland supporter, but I do remember Italia 90, USA 94 and have very vague memories of Euro 88 but did you not all go wild getting to those finals? Was it not a great time to be a supporter?

We went ballistic. We'd never qualified for World Cups before so of course we lived the moment.

But if you look back on Ireland v Romania, Ireland v Egypt, Ireland v Italy. They were p*ss poor games as visual spectacles.

meathstevie

Can't see what's wrong with doing the essentials right, keeping things from getting needlessly complicated and everyone rigorously sticking to their task.

Ok, the attacking aspect may not have fired on all cylinders yet but the discipline in defence has made this team very very hard to break down.

marco_polo

Black Menorca wrote: »

There seems to be a knee jerk reaction to jump all over anyone who may not like aspects they see in the Schmidt regime.

Why the ultra defensiveness?

Can't speak for everyone but from my POV, if you build a time machine and grow up watching Ireland vs France games in the late 80s/90s you'd understand.

Black Menorca

meathstevie wrote: »

the discipline in defence has made this team very very hard to break down.

I agree 100%.

Just like Ireland under Big Jack.

bilston

I'd compare us more to Chelsea anyway!

Great coach who produces a winning gameplan for a functional and hard to beat team but with players capable of brillance when required.

Black Menorca

marco_polo wrote: »

Can't speak for everyone but from my POV, if you build a time machine and grow up watching Ireland vs France games in the late 80s/90s you'd understand.

So, like Charlton in his pomp, is Schmidt not to be criticiesd or questioned? Has he become exempt?

bilston

Black Menorca wrote: »

So, like Charlton in his pomp, is Schmidt not to be criticiesd or questioned? Has he become exempt?

Of course you can criticise him! For example I think he has got his No.23 wrong. It should be Earls or Fitzgerald.

Still you and others can criticise and others can defend him too if they like.

marco_polo

Black Menorca wrote: »

So, like Charlton in his pomp, is Schmidt not to be criticiesd or questioned? Has he become exempt?

No you have a perfect right to criticism of the coach, as do I to find it a little bit puzzling based on a couple of admittedly scrappy recent games

Tox56

Black Menorca wrote: »

So, like Charlton in his pomp, is Schmidt not to be criticiesd or questioned? Has he become exempt?

Are we not allowed to argue that you might actually be completely wrong?

marco_polo

We actually started off fairly expansivly yesterday it wasn't working so to me it is the hallmark of a good coach to recognised this and tweak the gameplan as France were killing us with turnovers out wide.

sydthebeat

Black Menorca wrote: »

I was correcting your original premise.

You didn't provide any figures.

But i will. His win rate was 50%.
Very good to get us to championships. Not good enough to win them.

Brian kerrs rate is 55% by the way.

Anyways that beside the point. There is no co relation between these two very distinct people in two distinct sports.

Charltons style may have been banal, but the performances whipped the nation into a frenzy between 88 and 94. I was a teenager of this period so i remember it very well. Performances did not matter, winning games and getting results were all that mattered.

We got to a world cup quarter final while not winning a game in 90 mins. ... did people complain that they werent been served champagne football. ... did they fcuk.

Whereas we are winning championships, beating BIG teams, and not just being "proud Ireland" who did well for sixty minutes before being rail roaded.

I remember THOSE horrible days of the eighties and nineties as well.

Black Menorca

Respectful debate is healthy.

davegrohl48

I think the broader picture is that the game has evolved to the point where size and power are more important than skills.
Ireland are playing the correct tactics.
We are choosing to kick rather than get smashed by 16-19 stone backs in our own half.

Black Menorca

sydthebeat wrote: »

You didn't provide any figures.

But i will. His win rate was 50%.
Very good to get us to championships. Not good enough to win them.

Brian kerrs rate is 55% by the way.

Anyways that beside the point. There is no co relation between these two very distinct people in two distinct sports.

Charltons style may have been banal, but the performances whipped the nation into a frenzy between 88 and 94. I was a teenager of this period so i remember it very well. Performances did not matter, winning games and getting results were all that mattered.

We got to a world cup quarter final while not winning a game in 90 mins. ... did people complain that they werent been served champagne football. ... did they fcuk.

Whereas we are winning championships, beating BIG teams, and not just being "proud Ireland" who did well for sixty minutes before being rail roaded.

I remember THOSE horrible days of the eighties and nineties as well.

Maybe the performances didn't bother you, but it did bother others I'm afraid.

Do you remmeber Ireland Norway, Ireland Holland and Ireland Mexico in '94? Dreadful, mind numbing stuff.

matthew8

Schmidt's Ireland are one of the best sides in the world. That's one big difference. Ireland play differently in every game under Schmidt too. His first Autumn series was anything but dull, nor was the Australian game last Autumn, or away to France last year.

sydthebeat

Black Menorca wrote: »

Maybe the performances didn't bother you, but it did bother others I'm afraid.

Do you remmeber Ireland Norway, Ireland Holland and Ireland Mexico in '94? Dreadful, mind numbing stuff.

And the country still partied, Thanks to Ray Houghtons shin.

Only eternal nah Sayers like eamon dunphy were unhappy with the 88-94 period.

I tell you what, let's give schmidt the same nine years that Charlton got and comment then, instead of complaining 1 year into his unbelievably successful tenure.

lologram

Black Menorca wrote: »

Maybe the performances didn't bother you, but it did bother others I'm afraid.

Do you remmeber Ireland Norway, Ireland Holland and Ireland Mexico in '94? Dreadful, mind numbing stuff.

I didn't realise Norway, Holland and Mexico were particularly into rugby.

thebaz

No - Jack Charlton played dour hoofball with a super talented bunch of players - Joe plays attractive rugby , certainly his brand at Leinster was;

Both have been successful, but Joe's test will be the WC , a stage where Charlton did bring Ireland to heights not seen before.

Black Menorca

sydthebeat wrote: »

And the country still partied, Thanks to Ray Houghtons shin.

Only eternal nah Sayers like eamon dunphy were unhappy with the 88-94 period.

I tell you what, let's give Schmidt the same nine years that Charlton got and comment then, instead of complaining 1 year into his unbelievably successful tenure.

Oh, I partied. Getting sloshed in The Harp. Happy days.

Because I make a comparison to our dour performances in ruby now with Charlton's era doesn't mean I don't like winning or being successful.

Nor does it mean it doesn't hold water either.

Would being compared to Charlton be a bad thing?

Gits_bone

He certainly played an up them and at them style yesterday. WC will be the big test to see if they can do it when it matters.

thebaz

Black Menorca wrote: »

Because I make a comparison to our dour performances in ruby now with Charlton's era doesn't mean I don't like winning or being successful.

Joe Schmidt introduced a style of winning rugby to Leinster , never seen at the top level (by an Irish team) - the brand was extremely successful and stylish - Joe Schmidt coaching is successful first , style comes second (and rightly so ) - but dour is the last thing you could call possibly the best coach in world rugby right now.

sydthebeat

Black Menorca wrote: »

Would being compared to Charlton be a bad thing?

No not a bad thing, just a meaningless thing.
Sure compare him to Pete Sampras and Steven Hendry while youre at it.

Gits_bone

sydthebeat wrote: »

No not a bad thing, just a meaningless thing.
Sure compare him to Pete Sampras and Steven Hendry while youre at it.

Not really. They're 2 completely different sports.

It's like comparing tennis to volleyball.

sydthebeat

Gits_bone wrote: »

Not really. They're 2 completely different sports.

It's like comparing tennis to volleyball.

EXACTLY MY POINT

Gits_bone

sydthebeat wrote: »

EXACTLY MY POINT

It will all come down to the world cup.

we got found out in the last WC.

Will the same happen again?

Dangerous Man

CatFromHue wrote: »

Dark and with a peak

Well - that's all the evidence I need.

Tox56

Gits_bone wrote: »

It will all come down to the world cup.

we got found out in the last WC.

Will the same happen again?

If we get a grand slam will it actually all come down to the World Cup? I'd much rather a grand slam than a WC semi final

Kankan14

Even if you people are talking negatively about our style of play being dull drab and ultra defensive( which I dont think it is) what does it matter. As Clive Woodward says test match rugby at WC Semi Final and beyond and grand slam deciders are all about results not playing champagne rugby.

Look at the last world cup final it was if memory serves a terrible game but the victors wont be remembered for playing the ultra defensive game they did. Rugby at top test match level is all about executing your game plan and minimizing mistakes. Joe is proving a mastercraftsman our discipline has been excellent, our penalty count quiet good and only two yellows in our last 10 test matches.

Charlton lucked out with a heap of premier league quality pro's who were good at their job. Schmidt is turning players that are good into even better players with his brilliant tactical nous.

errlloyd

I was born in 91 so don't ask me about my memories of Charlton. But the way people talk about him, it's like he developed a game plan we used all the time, against all opposition.

Joe tailors his game plan. The Wales team we played in last year's 6n are a good team, we opened against them. Even against the All Blacks in 2013 we looked to score tries. The last two weeks have been limited, because the last two weeks were hard bloody games.

Conclusion, the reason were doing well, is because we have no set style, we're adaptable.

Gits_bone

Tox56 wrote: »

If we get a grand slam will it actually all come down to the World Cup? I'd much rather a grand slam than a WC semi final

RWC is the pinnacle. Every 4 years the world feasts its eyes on you. You want to prove yourself. 6 nations is every year and the grand slam has been done before.

galwaylad14

I'm not sure I'd agree with that comparison but I do think some people are a bit deluded about Schmidt and his style of play as Ireland coach.

He's a world class coach and his results are top class. I think under him we'll reach heights never before reached in Irish Rugby. But let's call a spade a spade here, we generally play a very dull and conservative brand of rugby (with a few exceptions in fairness) under Schmidt.

Now that's not a criticism, he obviously feels that our style of play is the best way to play the game given the players we have and the results he has acheived would back that up totally. They've been consistently excellent. But we don't play expansive and exciting rugby, that's just a fact and it's nothing to be ashamed off. We have a very conservative style in which we look to minimise mistakes and squeeze the life out of the opposition through our power game and then look to Murray and (more so) Sexton to win us the game.

I'm delighted to see Ireland winning and long may it continue, but I really wouldn't think we're a team that the neutral would relish watching to be honest, unlike say some of the Welsh teams that have won Grand Slams over the last decade or so. But that fact certainly doesn't bother me to be honest.

Black Menorca

Well another mind numbing display. But 10 wins in a row. Far better than Charlton ever achieved.

ThisRegard

Black Menorca wrote: »

Well another mind numbing display. But 10 wins in a row. Far better than Charlton ever achieved.

Which game are you talking about? Certainly not todays game anyway.