Is Joe Schmidt concealing his hand?

jacothelad

Noopti wrote: »

. And there were plenty of matches where Leinster would grind out wins.

This thing about Leinster cutting loose all the time, that is simply because Leinster played so many more games than Ireland. I'd say if you did some analysis on all of Leinster's games and which were dogfights and which were free flowing try fests you would probably find the ratio of one to the other is the same as with Ireland.

There seems to be a bit of selective memory at play. Leinster often won games with forward power. I was surprised to find that in only one season since '09 did Leinster end up as top try scorers.
2009. Ulster 39 / 35 tries. Leinster 27 / 29
2010. Ospreys 56 / 29. ....Leinster 50 / 25
2011. Ulster 53 / 41.........Leinster 48 / 28
2012. Leinster 63 / 46......Ulster 62 / 33
2013. Ospreys 59 / 32......Leinster 57 / 30
2014. Munster 68 / 31......Leinster 54 / 39

Interestingly the scores by Leinster Munster and Ulster are

'09 - '15. Leinster 299 / 197
'09 - '15. Ulster 302 / 204
'09 - '15. Munster 292 / 161

It's surprising that during that period when both Munster and particularly Leinster were very successful that while Ulster scored more tries and conceded just a few more than Leinster, they lost many close games by not having a high level kicker. Munster have nearly always had the best try defence.

None of this means anything really but I found it surprising and interesting.

LuckyLloyd

Why do you need to play a certain way to win? Why can the current approach not be successful in a knock out tournament? More pertinently, if that's the most logical approach given the make up of the players available and their relative quality at the highest level of the game why would you strive to play a more open / attacking / dynamic / pleasing (delete as appropriate) game plan?

Snickers Man

Is Joe Schmidt concealing his hand? Sure is, because when you've got crap cards, all you can do is bluff.

Ireland has shown nothing in the back line, when it counts, for the past season and a half. Since O'Driscoll retired we have not bothered to attack in the backs. And even in his last season or so we were very sparing in using our backs for anything other than chasing kicks. That's a long time to keep your hand hidden.

Maybe like Trapattoni and O'Neill with the soccer team Schmidt just does not have faith in Irish players' ability to play a fast attacking offloading game so he sticks with traditional hoof 'n horlicks or boot, bite&bollock Irish forward oriented play.

Sadly, it's probably our best option but it won't cut it against the top teams.
If we're lucky against France we might get a q final against Argentina which MIGHT just see us make the semis for the first time ever. But that's not certain. And if France play with their tails up, we just won't have enough fire power to reel them in.


What "cards" do you think Joe has to whip out of his hand and play? Darren Cave? Dave Kearney? Henshaw and Payne?

Fraid we're back to the days of playing hard-tackling hard-handed three quarters and trying to convince ourselves they constitute an attacking threat.

I'm old enough to remember when press "analysis" said that the likes of Phil Danagher, Alastair McKibbin, inter alia were "exciting" prospects. They'd tackle an elephant but that was the limit of their skills. With O'Driscoll we had a one-off who had the pace and eye for the gap to make a break and make it look easy. In that sense, he was a very atypical Irish centre. Might have to get used to more stolid fare for a while.

Hope I'm wrong but we could have a fairly dour set of matches ending in the inevitable whimpering exit.

Noopti

Snickers Man wrote: »

Is Joe Schmidt concealing his hand? Sure is, because when you've got crap cards, all you can do is bluff.

Ireland has shown nothing in the back line, when it counts, for the past season and a half.

What does "when it counts" mean?

I would suggest when it counts would mean when we needed to rack up a score against Scotland this year in the 6N to have a chance of winning it? In which case, we did show it.

Or it could mean against Italy in the 2014 6N for the same reason? In which case, we did show it.

Interesting.

Podge_irl

Snickers Man wrote: »

If we're lucky against France we might get a q final against Argentina which MIGHT just see us make the semis for the first time ever. But that's not certain. And if France play with their tails up, we just won't have enough fire power to reel them in.

We do we need to get lucky to beat a team we haven't lost to in 4 years?

I do agree that I wouldn't expect to see any massive change in approach though. I would disagree that it is not enough however. NZ are the only top team Ireland haven't beaten in the last two years sure.

shuffol

jacothelad wrote: »

There seems to be a bit of selective memory at play. Leinster often won games with forward power. I was surprised to find that in only one season since '09 did Leinster end up as top try scorers.
2009. Ulster 39 / 35 tries. Leinster 27 / 29
2010. Ospreys 56 / 29. ....Leinster 50 / 25
2011. Ulster 53 / 41.........Leinster 48 / 28
2012. Leinster 63 / 46......Ulster 62 / 33
2013. Ospreys 59 / 32......Leinster 57 / 30
2014. Munster 68 / 31......Leinster 54 / 39

Interestingly the scores by Leinster Munster and Ulster are

'09 - '15. Leinster 299 / 197
'09 - '15. Ulster 302 / 204
'09 - '15. Munster 292 / 161

It's surprising that during that period when both Munster and particularly Leinster were very successful that while Ulster scored more tries and conceded just a few more than Leinster, they lost many close games by not having a high level kicker. Munster have nearly always had the best try defence.

None of this means anything really but I found it surprising and interesting.

Leinster usually being pre-occupied with the HEC late into the season would have an effect there, also we were quite heavily effected by international call ups which meant that we were usually slow starters and wouldn't have had as settled a side as other teams.

ionadnapokot

Snickers Man wrote: »

Is Joe Schmidt concealing his hand? Sure is, because when you've got crap cards, all you can do is bluff.

Ireland has shown nothing in the back line, when it counts, for the past season and a half. Since O'Driscoll retired we have not bothered to attack in the backs. And even in his last season or so we were very sparing in using our backs for anything other than chasing kicks. That's a long time to keep your hand hidden.

Maybe like Trapattoni and O'Neill with the soccer team Schmidt just does not have faith in Irish players' ability to play a fast attacking offloading game so he sticks with traditional hoof 'n horlicks or boot, bite&bollock Irish forward oriented play.

Sadly, it's probably our best option but it won't cut it against the top teams.
If we're lucky against France we might get a q final against Argentina which MIGHT just see us make the semis for the first time ever. But that's not certain. And if France play with their tails up, we just won't have enough fire power to reel them in.


What "cards" do you think Joe has to whip out of his hand and play? Darren Cave? Dave Kearney? Henshaw and Payne?

Fraid we're back to the days of playing hard-tackling hard-handed three quarters and trying to convince ourselves they constitute an attacking threat.

I'm old enough to remember when press "analysis" said that the likes of Phil Danagher, Alastair McKibbin, inter alia were "exciting" prospects. They'd tackle an elephant but that was the limit of their skills. With O'Driscoll we had a one-off who had the pace and eye for the gap to make a break and make it look easy. In that sense, he was a very atypical Irish centre. Might have to get used to more stolid fare for a while.

Hope I'm wrong but we could have a fairly dour set of matches ending in the inevitable whimpering exit.

Agree with most of what you say. Particularly the bit in bold.
But......it is extremely effective rugby*. *When you're leading on the score board.
It's limitations were shown against England in ('14) and Wales ('15). Equally its effectiveness was shown against England in ('15) and Wales ('14).
We are not going to change the way we play now. Esp with Henshaw at 12. But he is vital to how JS wants to play (hence Cave call-up).

I dont agree that we will need to be lucky against France if we have PO'C, SO'B, MR, CM, JS, Healy, Henshaw & Heaslip (Ha...Tripple H!).
I can see this team getting to a semi final v's Aus. Again if we have all the players above available we can win that game. With a few strikes moves off first phase ball which King Joe is definitely keeping under wraps;)

Snickers Man

Noopti wrote: »

What does "when it counts" mean?

I would suggest when it counts would mean when we needed to rack up a score against Scotland this year in the 6N to have a chance of winning it? In which case, we did show it.

Or it could mean against Italy in the 2014 6N for the same reason? In which case, we did show it.

Interesting.

Scotland and Italy are hardly comparable with New Zealand, S Africa, Australia, France or England are they?

There's a term for people who can throw it about against the little guys but retreat into their shells against serious opposition: Flat Track Bullies.

Snickers Man

Podge_irl wrote: »

We do we need to get lucky to beat a team we haven't lost to in 4 years?

There is only one team in the 6N against whom we have a losing record since the tournament began in its current form in 2000.

Guess who?

Record since 2010 (6N only) P6 W2 D2 L2
2000-2009 P10 W4 D0 L6

Earlier than that, it just gets embarrassing
1990-1999 P10 W0 D0 L10
1980-1989 P10 W1 D1 L8
1970-1979 P10* W3 D2 L5
1960-1969 P10 W1 D1 L8

*Not including "Extra" match in 1972

France is a team we often have trouble beating, even when we can stuff everybody else.

Snickers Man

ionadnapokot wrote: »

Agree with most of what you say. Particularly the bit in bold.
But......it is extremely effective rugby*. *When you're leading on the score board........

.... Again if we have all the players above available we can win that game. With a few strikes moves off first phase ball which King Joe is definitely keeping under wraps;)

I REALLY REALLY REALLY hope you're right.

Ceadog

England won the RWC in 2003 playing 10 man rugby, as did SA in 2007. The AB pretty much fell over the line in 2011 so they don't really count, but still, history has shown that a competent, experienced pack and a top notch kicking game will get you very far at the World Cup.

LorMal

Snickers Man wrote: »

There is only one team in the 6N against whom we have a losing record since the tournament began in its current form in 2000.

Guess who?

Record since 2010 (6N only) P6 W2 D2 L2
2000-2009 P10 W4 D0 L6

Earlier than that, it just gets embarrassing
1990-1999 P10 W0 D0 L10
1980-1989 P10 W1 D1 L8
1970-1979 P10* W3 D2 L5
1960-1969 P10 W1 D1 L8

*Not including "Extra" match in 1972

France is a team we often have trouble beating, even when we can stuff everybody else.

Spot on, Snickers Man. Too much blind optimism and wishful thinking going on here.
If we were currently playing a Leinster style passing game, everyone would be saying that Joe knows how to unpick defences and allows our players to innovate and trust their instincts and play what's front of them (insert other cliches of your choosing) and that everyone else is boring and negative.
Because we are playing hoof and run instead, it must mean that Joe has secret moves up his sleeve or that approach this is the best way to win tournaments or that it is a master strategy.
We have squeezed out 2x6 nations when the Italian, Scottish and French teams have been terrible and the English have been building. We have beaten Aus and SA in friendlies. We have no evidence that this Ireland team, playing this style of rugby, can win the World Cup - not even close.

ionadnapokot

LorMal wrote: »

Spot on, Snickers Man. Too much blind optimism and wishful thinking going on here.
If we were currently playing a Leinster style passing game at the, all would be saying that Joe knows how to unpick defences and allows our players to innovate and trust their instincts and play what's front of them (insert other cliches of your choosing) and that everyone else is boring and negative.
Because we are playing hoof and run instead, it must mean that Joe has secret moves up his sleeve or that approach this is the best way to win tournaments or that it is a master strategy.
We have squeezed out 2x6 nations when the Italian, Scottish and French teams have been terrible and the English have been building. We have beaten Aus and SA in friendlies. We have no evidence that this Ireland team, playing this style of rugby, can win the World Cup - not even close.

Well In fairness there are very few posters, if any, saying that Ireland are going to win the WC.
But it is reasonable to expect us to get to a semi, or even a final, based on JS record with this Irish team.
Under JS we have played France twice. And won both. Albeit they were close.
We have played Argentina 3 times and beat them. But they will be a far tougher proposition in this WC.
Hopefully that could see us into a semi final against opposition who we have a 50 - 50 chance of beating based on recent games against them (Aus, Eng & Wales).
So i would say there is plenty of recent evidence to suggest that Ireland could come close to winning a WC.
I do agree that the type of rugby we play severely limits are options in attack.
It would be extremely naive of other teams at the WC to ignore the possibility that JS's Ireland do not have any strike moves planned.

LorMal

ionadnapokot wrote: »

Well In fairness there are very few posters, if any, saying that Ireland are going to win the WC.
But it is reasonable to expect us to get to a semi, or even a final, based on JS record with this Irish team.
Under JS we have played France twice. And won both. Albeit they were close.
We have played Argentina 3 times and beat them. But they will be a far tougher proposition in this WC.
Hopefully that could see us into a semi final against opposition who we have a 50 - 50 chance of beating based on recent games against them (Aus, Eng & Wales).
So i would say there is plenty of recent evidence to suggest that Ireland could come close to winning a WC.
I do agree that the type of rugby we play severely limits are options in attack.
It would be extremely naive of other teams at the WC to ignore the possibility that JS's Ireland do not have any strike moves planned.

my problem is with the narrative that we will beat the French because we have beaten them twice recently. I don't think that matters one jot going into the World Cup. They should have won the last WC - even though they were rubbish leading up to it and through the earlier matches.
They are a different bouilloire de poissons when they are playing together as a team over an extended period. They even get slightly fit and cut down a bit on the fags.
However, if we do beat them, Australia or England (at home in a SF) will be far from a 50:50 for us. Not impossible by any means but very very difficult given our scarce resources and one dimensional approach. Hope I'm wrong (I usually am).

ionadnapokot

LorMal wrote: »

my problem is with the narrative that we will beat the French because we have beaten them twice recently. I don't think that matters one jot going into the World Cup. They should have won the last WC - even though they were rubbish leading up to it and through the earlier matches.
They are a different bouilloire de poissons when they are playing together as a team over an extended period. They even get slightly fit and cut down a bit on the fags.
However, if we do beat them, Australia or England (at home in a SF) will be far from a 50:50 for us. Not impossible by any means but very very difficult given our scarce resources and one dimensional approach. Hope I'm wrong (I usually am).

Mange tout Rodney. Mange tout.

ionadnapokot

Bookies rate our chances of reaching the final right now at 33% or 25% (depending on bookies). If we are in a semi against Eng, Aus or Wal, with our key players available i reckon they would rate us at 50 or 45% to reach the final.

irishbucsfan

LorMal wrote: »

They are a different bouilloire de poissons when they are playing together as a team over an extended period.

Well we've found Gerry

ionadnapokot

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well we've found Gerry

Assuredly

LorMal

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well we've found Gerry

I don't know what you're talking about. Swing from the hip, coaching ticket, bulk suppliers, it's easy from the cheap seats, I agree with Fester, game management..

molloyjh

LorMal wrote: »

Spot on, Snickers Man. Too much blind optimism and wishful thinking going on here.
If we were currently playing a Leinster style passing game, everyone would be saying that Joe knows how to unpick defences and allows our players to innovate and trust their instincts and play what's front of them (insert other cliches of your choosing) and that everyone else is boring and negative.
Because we are playing hoof and run instead, it must mean that Joe has secret moves up his sleeve or that approach this is the best way to win tournaments or that it is a master strategy.
We have squeezed out 2x6 nations when the Italian, Scottish and French teams have been terrible and the English have been building. We have beaten Aus and SA in friendlies. We have no evidence that this Ireland team, playing this style of rugby, can win the World Cup - not even close.

No evidence at all, once you exclude the facts that we've won the last 2 6 Nations and beaten every side we've played bar NZ, which was an incredibly close (and dodgy given that decision from Nige) result.

Teams that have won the RWC during the professional era have rarely done so playing expansive running rugby. So there's not much evidence that we have to change our game plan at all.

aimee1

molloyjh wrote: »

No evidence at all, once you exclude the facts that we've won the last 2 6 Nations and beaten every side we've played bar NZ, which was an incredibly close (and dodgy given that decision from Nige) result.

Teams that have won the RWC during the professional era have rarely done so playing expansive running rugby. So there's not much evidence that we have to change our game plan at all.

We dont have to change our gameplan but we do need to add to it for variation in attack, and to be very accurate

LorMal

aimee1 wrote: »

We dont have to change our gameplan but we do need to add to it for variation in attack, and to be very accurate

I really think we do need to change our gameplay. Surely any international competent coach analysing our game will see how predictable it is - kick, chase, maul - and set up his team to counter it. It needs variation at least.

aimee1

LorMal wrote: »

I really think we do need to change our gameplay. Surely any international competent coach analysing our game will see how predictable it is - kick, chase, maul - and set up his team to counter it. It needs variation at least.

Yes it needs variation. I dont think we are going to change drastically. Would be a disaster if we did

Akrasia

LorMal wrote: »

I really think we do need to change our gameplay. Surely any international competent coach analysing our game will see how predictable it is - kick, chase, maul - and set up his team to counter it. It needs variation at least.

Well, in the group stages It doesn't really matter whether Italy, Georgia or Canada can identify our gameplan, they probably won't have the capacity to deal with it if it's executed well.

For France, Schmidt will implement a plan aimed at disrupting the French and exploiting their weaknesses.

When it gets to QFs and SFs the game plan becomes dependent on the state of our squad and who our opponents are. It's unlikely that we'll get to the QFs without at least one high profile injury.

In general Schmidt's best contribution to the squad is in his attention to detail and his coaching set-up to make sure the players work well together and don't make too many unforced errors. The most cohesive team that gives away the fewest penalties and makes the least amount of unforced errors will end up winning the world cup.

People that think our game plan is predictable are missing a couple of key aspects.

1. We do it to an extremely exacting standard.
2. It's safe, we don't give away scores.
3. We have just the right sort of players to make us better at implementing our game plan than other teams are at countering it
4. There is plenty of scope for us to add variety off the set piece.
5. We can create scoring opportunities from anywhere around the half way line with our cross field kicking
6. Teams have had two seasons to do something about it, and only teams playing at home at their absolute best (England '14 6N, Wales '15N) have managed to narrowly beat us.
7. We have had enough time in camp that we might see some Leinster style backline moves (though I still think the France game will be more of what we have seen with a forwards arm wrestle kick fest).
8. Points 1 - 7 above don't matter, we're going to win, it has been foreseen.

Noopti

Snickers Man wrote: »

Scotland and Italy are hardly comparable with New Zealand, S Africa, Australia, France or England are they?

There's a term for people who can throw it about against the little guys but retreat into their shells against serious opposition: Flat Track Bullies.

Not the point. You said "when it counts". And clearly, when Ireland needed to score tries they have done so.

I also seem to remember racking up a decent lead against NZ and Australia in recent years? Sure, we then let them back into it - but your point is we have shown nothing in attack or "in the backs". I know you will fall back on the "but it is since BOD retired" - but that is nonsense. BOD was hardly an attacking superstar in his last few years. We were also very comfortable against England in this years 6 Nations, and against SA in the Autumn last year. So that is Eng, SA, Aus and NZ whom we have either beaten comfortably, or shown considerably ability to score against them, or both. Yet the way you go on you would think we have done nothing in the past two years!

I actually think your argument could be taken more seriously if you hadn't come out with the "since BOD retired" line - that to me shows a serious lack of any understanding of the team, what they have achieved.

aimee1

Deleted User wrote: »

8. Points 1 - 7 above don't matter, we're going to win, it has been foreseen.

george hook says we wont, so its a done deal we will

total former

I think it's fair comment to say we haven't been particularly threatening through the backs with ball in hand. Most of our tries (Scotland 6N game apart) have come either through forward pressure or pouncing on opposition errors. If we're going to win the RWC, we will need more variety and expansiveness; we have a good pack but we don't have the raw power to bully the top teams.

The good news is that if random guys on the internet can see this, so can Joe.

Noopti

It is a fair comment, when it is made fairly for sure!

molloyjh

total former wrote: »

I think it's fair comment to say we haven't been particularly threatening through the backs with ball in hand. Most of our tries (Scotland 6N game apart) have come either through forward pressure or pouncing on opposition errors. If we're going to win the RWC, we will need more variety and expansiveness; we have a good pack but we don't have the raw power to bully the top teams.

The good news is that if random guys on the internet can see this, so can Joe.

And Joe has been quoted numerous times as saying that if you stand still you get overtaken. He's always looking to vary how we play. And we have varied it between the 2 6 Nations wins. Not massively, but there isn't the space or time in international rugby to completely alter your game plan with such limited access to players. It's about tweaking things and adding little bits here and there. And if you can do that with accuracy then most sides will struggle to deal with it.

Joe also analyses sides to see where they are weakest. Look at how we targeted Wales in the 2014 6 Nations using our kicking game to utterly neuter them (kicking just outside the 22 with an aggressive chase to dictate who has the ball and where) and compare it to how we beat England in the 6 Nations this year (by targeting them up front and winning that battle and using our kicks in a more attacking sense). Against France this year we targeted their left wing with our kicking game to expose a weakness there which we followed up with a running game that complimented that, focusing on the same area.

We utilise the same elements but have been utilising them differently depending on the opposition. We don't run the ball from anywhere, but I'd be curious to see how many teams who make the knock-outs actually do. We'll need to add a little variety to our back play certainly, but we don't need to reinvent the wheel.