Is Joe Schmidt concealing his hand?

Noopti

molloyjh wrote: »

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.

Spot on. In fact, how we play the game is perfectly suited to competitions like this. Other teams, who are normally less conservative, will actually be much more conservative during the WC - the advantage we have is a team that has been playing in a "cup winning fashion" for a couple of years now. We will subtly change things here and there as you mention, but we are well equipped to do well. (No that isn't me saying we will win the cup!)

LorMal

Noopti wrote: »

Spot on. In fact, how we play the game is perfectly suited to competitions like this. Other teams, who are normally less conservative, will actually be much more conservative during the WC - the advantage we have is a team that has been playing in a "cup winning fashion" for a couple of years now. We will subtly change things here and there as you mention, but we are well equipped to do well. (No that isn't me saying we will win the cup!)

I think there is a bit of self convincing going on here. I think Joe is a brilliant coach. I worry that he has decided that Ireland has limited resources and should therefore play a very structured, narrow and defensive game based around forward power, set pieces and kicking for territory.
If that approach is a proven winner, how come Argentina have never won the World Cup?

kuang1

LorMal wrote: »

I think there is a bit of self convincing going on here. I think Joe is a brilliant coach. I worry that he has decided that Ireland has limited resources and should therefore play a very structured, narrow and defensive game based around forward power, set pieces and kicking for territory.
If that approach is a proven winner, how come Argentina have never won the World Cup?

They at least have achieved semi-final* status. We...up to now...have not.

*3rd place in fact! (2007)

LorMal

kuang1 wrote: »

They at least have achieved semi-final* status. We...up to now...have not.

*3rd place in fact! (2007)

Their record is not convincing : 13th, 14th, 13th, 8th, 9th, 3rd, 8th

Larbre34

Amazed at comments that equate Joe Schmidt with Martin O'Neill or Trappatoni - 'we only have limited resources so what can you do!'

Schmidt is very well aware of the quality of resources we have and how best to utilise them. In fact our squad is one of the most balanced and capable of the 6N teams.

Warren Gatland was right about Ireland last weekend, we didn't come to play, it was a complete sandbagging job. People forget how Schmidt's Ireland team have got it so right against big teams over the last 20 months, with the result that we are now ahead of almost all of them. Ireland can appear limited or nervy for sections of games and the next thing they just strike, turn on the gameplan and demoralise the oppostion. Its actually jawdropping at times and I expect no less when it counts in the RWC

Noopti

LorMal wrote: »

I think there is a bit of self convincing going on here. I think Joe is a brilliant coach. I worry that he has decided that Ireland has limited resources and should therefore play a very structured, narrow and defensive game based around forward power, set pieces and kicking for territory.
If that approach is a proven winner, how come Argentina have never won the World Cup?

How is thinking a team which has won back to back 6 Nations the past two years, won against SA and AUS, and been bloody close to beating NZ and therefore has a chance at doing well in a World Cup "Self convincing".

The fact is the World Cup is typically a pretty boring affair for the most part, in terms of free flowing rugby. At least when it comes to matches between the top teams. It is typically game plans which revolve around possession, defence and kicking which have done well in the past 10+ years in this competition.

kuang1

Strictly speaking, every team has 'limited resources'.
A good coach looks at the resources/players he has, and devises a gameplan to optimise the output of these resources.

A bad coach has a gameplan set in his mind before he assesses his resources, and attempts to inflict this plan regardless.

It is for this reason that Schmidt is a brilliant coach, and simultaneously explains why we don't see Ireland playing identical rugby as Leinster did under Schmidt. Different resources, different gameplan.

Simples.

LorMal

Noopti wrote: »

How is thinking a team which has won back to back 6 Nations the past two years, won against SA and AUS, and been bloody close to beating NZ and therefore has a chance at doing well in a World Cup "Self convincing".

The fact is the World Cup is typically a pretty boring affair for the most part, in terms of free flowing rugby. At least when it comes to matches between the top teams. It is typically game plans which revolve around possession, defence and kicking which have done well in the past 10+ years in this competition.

2007.

Noopti

LorMal wrote: »

2007.

So a completely different team & coaching staff had a hugely disappointing tournament 8 years ago, after being hyped up. Therefore anyone who this year thinks this current team can do well is "self convincing"?

I am failing to see what your argument is, if it isn't the above? And if it is the above....it is ludicrous. Might as well say "I saw a magpie this morning. Therefore, I don't think this team can do well in this tournament and anyone who says otherwise is just trying to convince themselves"

Noopti

Also from what I remember (correct me if I am wrong) the 2007 team was much more ambitious and "free flowing" in its approach to the game, so even if we take your argument as valid - then how can you also say that Ireland play too narrow and conservatively now to progress in a World Cup? When the team you are using as a previous example of failure did the opposite and still failed?

molloyjh

LorMal wrote: »

I think there is a bit of self convincing going on here. I think Joe is a brilliant coach. I worry that he has decided that Ireland has limited resources and should therefore play a very structured, narrow and defensive game based around forward power, set pieces and kicking for territory.
If that approach is a proven winner, how come Argentina have never won the World Cup?

Two words: Ability and accuracy.

Snickers Man

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

Variation in attack indeed. If one doubts this, just look at the Wales Ireland match in Cardiff last season. We huffed and puffed a lot but we had NOTHING other than pick and go with which to threaten them. And they could snuff that out. They had to work at it but it was a one-dimensional problem.

You have to be able to pull something out of the bag in the backline to threaten a top team. Or at least let them think that you can to keep them honest. Wales didn't believe we could do it last season and so they contested the break down like berserkers. They were right. The other top teams will do the same.

What can we do in response? If this forum during the friendly with Wales which we lost last week, or YouTube in the aftermath of the 6N game in Cardiff last year are any guide, we can blame the ref. At length. With the supporting "evidence" of multiple clips.

No thanks.

LorMal

Noopti wrote: »

So a completely different team & coaching staff had a hugely disappointing tournament 8 years ago, after being hyped up. Therefore anyone who this year thinks this current team can do well is "self convincing"?

I am failing to see what your argument is, if it isn't the above? And if it is the above....it is ludicrous. Might as well say "I saw a magpie this morning. Therefore, I don't think this team can do well in this tournament and anyone who says otherwise is just trying to convince themselves"

Nope. My point is that simply trying to drive though or out kick our opponents won't cut it against the better teams. As Snickers Man points out, Gatland has us sussed now - others will follow - unless we add other dimensions to our game.

Neil3030

blackcard wrote: »

When Joe was in charge of Leinster, they were the most exciting club team in Europe scoring tries for fun. Since he became Irish manager, with the odd exception such as the last Scottish match in the 6N, we have played pragmatic, winning, but boring rugby. Scrum half box kicks or out half kicks and we contest the catches. We try and maul our way for a try and we don't offload in the tackle. The tactics have been successful bringing us two 6N and up to number 2 in the world rankings. However, I don't think our current method of playing will bring us far in the world cup. I appreciate that Joe may have some set plays up his sleeve but has he anything else? Is there an offloading game which he will unleash or a bold running game?

blackcard wrote: »

If you read my first post, you will see that I acknowledge the 6 nations successes, I just don't think the same tactics will be successful in the World Cup. The likes of France will be too powerful for us just as the Welsh were yesterday

General gist of OP underlined above - conservative rugby is fine for the Six Nations, but won't win the RWC.

I'm afraid the burden of proof is very much with you, blackcard; when has tryscoring proven the difference in the RWC format? When have bonus points ever proven crucial in group stages? When have knockout games rewarded open, attacking rugby?

History suggests the opposite. Added to the fact that there are no BPs in the Six Nations, Schmidt's general style of play as Irish head coach is completely justified, imo.

Snickers Man

Noopti wrote: »

Also from what I remember (correct me if I am wrong) the 2007 team was much more ambitious and "free flowing" in its approach to the game, so even if we take your argument as valid - then how can you also say that Ireland play too narrow and conservatively now to progress in a World Cup? When the team you are using as a previous example of failure did the opposite and still failed?

The failure of the 2007 team was down to an inability to adapt once other teams, and not necessarily the world's greatest, sussed us out tactically.

Yes, we had some great running backs in that team. And yes we based our game plan around using them. EOS as manager had, as he always does, several set plays to run off set pieces in the opposition's half. All we needed were lineouts and scrums in opposition territory.

Only problem was, both Georgia and later Argentina sussed out that what we were doing was kicking long in the expectation that the fullback would make a tidy clearance kick to touch so that we would get a throw in in their half.

Dirty rotten spoiling Georgian and Argie bastards refused to play ball. Instead of kicking to touch they kicked long to our back three. Who included the puny Geordan Murphy and Dennis Hickie. (funny they never kicked at Shane Horgan)

They would gather the ball and either return the kick (whence it was banged straight back) or they would run it and find themselves confronted by the opposition pack who had been told to pressurise the kick receiver.

Our pack would be caught unawares because they would have been expecting a lineout in enemy territory and would be scratching their heads wondering what went wrong with the plan. (You can't expect forwards to think independently!) So Murphy or Hickie would get turned over and next day in the Irish Times Gerry Thornley would write long screeds about how the Irish team was "overcooked" and "overtrained" and lacking physicality at the breakdown.

Yeah because wee Dennis or Geordan getting duffed up by the likes of the Argentinian or Georgian front rows was because of "overtraining"!!!

It wasn't overtraining; it was out thinking.

I claim no special insight on this. It was pointed out convincingly on TV3's coverage by the likes of Matt Williams and Franno after the Georgia match which we nearly lost. It was obvious to anyone who had been listening to that when Argentina did exactly the same thing.

Brian O'Driscoll clearly hadn't seen it. In post match interviews he whinged about the Argentinian tactics, almost going as far to say they were unfair because they didn't dovetail with Ireland's. All he was missing was an Australian accent.

That's the level of tactical insight you come up against in the World Cup. If all you have is plan A, the opposition don't have to work too hard to suss you out.

Noopti

LorMal wrote: »

Nope. My point is that simply trying to drive though or out kick our opponents won't cut it against the better teams. As Snickers Man points out, Gatland has us sussed now - others will follow - unless we add other dimensions to our game.

Ok fair enough, but if that was your point then saying "2007" is completely irrelevant to it!

All I will say is great defence, possession/territory and kicking is what has done well in recent World Cups. Gatland has nothing sussed, his team are as one dimensional as they come - it comes down to executing your plan really well. If we kick with accuracy and all our players nail it, then we will put teams under serious pressure - simple as. It is actually more down to the execution by our players rather than any counter tactics by the opposition as to whether it is successful. I certainly would not be reading too much into what transpired last week and think "Gatland has us sussed, and others will too" - you cannot take that game out of its context - a warm up game pre squad selection, 6 weeks out from our first sort of proper game of the cup, against Italy.

The point about being able to adapt when it matters is fair of course, but again this is something Schmidt has always been good at in my mind. I don't know how many times Leinster or Ireland have gone in at half time and I think "that wasn't a great first half, but wait and see, in the 2nd half will be 100% more effective". And they invariably have.....in games which really matter.

Neil3030

LorMal wrote: »

Nope. My point is that simply trying to drive though or out kick our opponents won't cut it against the better teams. As Snickers Man points out, Gatland has us sussed now - others will follow - unless we add other dimensions to our game.

Has he? It's 2-2 Gatland v Schmidt, two of which were warm ups for the RWC.

Snickers Man

Noopti wrote: »

I certainly would not be reading too much into what transpired last week and think "Gatland has us sussed, and others will too" - you cannot take that game out of its context - a warm up game pre squad selection, 6 weeks out from our first sort of proper game of the cup, against Italy.

I was talking about the 6N game in Cardiff last spring. The one that effectively cost us a Grand Slam. That's some context.

Noopti

Snickers Man wrote: »

The failure of the 2007 team was down to an inability to adapt once other teams, and not necessarily the world's greatest, sussed us out tactically.

Yes, we had some great running backs in that team. And yes we based our game plan around using them. EOS as manager had, as he always does, several set plays to run off set pieces in the opposition's half. All we needed were lineouts and scrums in opposition territory.

Only problem was, both Georgia and later Argentina sussed out that what we were doing was kicking long in the expectation that the fullback would make a tidy clearance kick to touch so that we would get a throw in in their half.

Dirty rotten spoiling Georgian and Argie bastards refused to play ball. Instead of kicking to touch they kicked long to our back three. Who included the puny Geordan Murphy and Dennis Hickie. (funny they never kicked at Shane Horgan)

They would gather the ball and either return the kick (whence it was banged straight back) or they would run it and find themselves confronted by the opposition pack who had been told to pressurise the kick receiver.

Our pack would be caught unawares because they would have been expecting a lineout in enemy territory and would be scratching their heads wondering what went wrong with the plan. (You can't expect forwards to think independently!) So Murphy or Hickie would get turned over and next day in the Irish Times Gerry Thornley would write long screeds about how the Irish team was "overcooked" and "overtrained" and lacking physicality at the breakdown.

Yeah because wee Dennis or Geordan getting duffed up by the likes of the Argentinian or Georgian front rows was because of "overtraining"!!!

It wasn't overtraining; it was out thinking.

I claim no special insight on this. It was pointed out convincingly on TV3's coverage by the likes of Matt Williams and Franno after the Georgia match which we nearly lost. It was obvious to anyone who had been listening to that when Argentina did exactly the same thing.

Brian O'Driscoll clearly hadn't seen it. In post match interviews he whinged about the Argentinian tactics, almost going as far to say they were unfair because they didn't dovetail with Ireland's. All he was missing was an Australian accent.

That's the level of tactical insight you come up against in the World Cup. If all you have is plan A, the opposition don't have to work too hard to suss you out.

You make some great points, but to say Ireland almost lost to Georgia due to tactical naivety alone or not being able to change their gameplan is beyond ridiculous. There was much more at play to cause that near calamity.

There was a definite general malaise around the team. All you have to do is read the thoughts of players who were involved. And those players saying the environment wasn't good, or they weren't in great physical shape is hardly a way to save face. In fact it would be better to say "we were outsmarted at a game plan & tactical level" in my opinion! So I see no reason to not believe them to be honest.

Noopti

Snickers Man wrote: »

I was talking about the 6N game in Cardiff last spring. The one that effectively cost us a Grand Slam. That's some context.

One game.

Podge_irl

Snickers Man wrote: »

I was talking about the 6N game in Cardiff last spring. The one that effectively cost us a Grand Slam. That's some context.

Sure, that was a very worrying game. But on the other hand England "found us out" last year and then we quite convincingly beat them in this year's 6N. I would disagree with the concept that Ireland don't shift their play just as opposition shift to play them.

Snickers Man

LorMal wrote: »

Their record is not convincing : 13th, 14th, 13th, 8th, 9th, 3rd, 8th

It's quite good against us, though. Three times we have met at WC finals. In each case it was effectively **** or bust for at least one of the teams.

They beat us in a play off in 1999.

We put them out in 2003. (Had we lost that game we would in theory have had another bite at the cherry the following week against Australia)

They put us out in 2007.

It's one of the world cup's great rivalries, IMHO. It will be a tense game, if it transpires. And we owe them one.

Snickers Man

Noopti wrote: »

to say Ireland almost lost to Georgia due to tactical naivety alone or not being able to change their gameplan is beyond ridiculous. There was much more at play to cause that near calamity.

No. There really wasn't.

Maybe the very strict policy of a first team that was wrapped in cotton wool before the finals (remember he sent a B team down to lose twice in Argentina as a warm up?) caused some grumbling among the reserves but they weren't the ones playing against Georgia and Argentina.

I really think that the difference between that team being a great Irish team and being an all-time great international team, you know winning a couple of grand slams and challenging at the world cup, was a lack of tactical adaptability at captaincy level.

Don't get me wrong: O'Driscoll and O'Connell are two of our all time great players and I would have each of their babies if I were so inclined but fantastic players don't always make fantastic captains. I thought O'Connell's captaincy limitations were shown up during the Lions series he led against S Africa. But that's not a criticism of a great player. Just a captain.

Both were "lead by example" captains. Which is all very well but sometimes you need a cool tactical brain.

kuang1

Snickers Man wrote: »

Variation in attack indeed. If one doubts this, just look at the Wales Ireland match in Cardiff last season. We huffed and puffed a lot but we had NOTHING other than pick and go with which to threaten them. And they could snuff that out. They had to work at it but it was a one-dimensional problem.

LorMal wrote: »

Nope. My point is that simply trying to drive though or out kick our opponents won't cut it against the better teams. As Snickers Man points out, Gatland has us sussed now - others will follow - unless we add other dimensions to our game.

Some of this is laughable lads really.
Gatland has us sussed? I really hope that he thinks he has. Coz we'll have him and his lot for breakfast if we meet them in the semi.

If that 6N match in cardiff was to be played over infinitely, with no change to team selections or referee, I can assure you we would not lose it infinitely. Wales peaked that day. That's them at their very, very best. We certainly were not. Yes I think Barnes had a shocker, but wasn't the sole reason we were defeated. Replay that match over and over again and either team would win at random.

In terms of the 2 friendly games we had and insights into each teams potential? I think it's folly to attempt it. True cards yet to be revealed etc. (That said I don't necessarily expect us to have an entire array of never-seen-before methods of attack come the WC, but we'll have more than enough variation when the time comes.)

If we get as far as the semi final, of all possibilities, the dream opposition for me would be Wales.

LorMal

Neil3030 wrote: »

Has he? It's 2-2 Gatland v Schmidt, two of which were warm ups for the RWC.

Sure - but he is obviously not phased by our approach. He has the tactical nous to counter our kicking game. (No matter how well executed). We need to mix it up more - we are predicable.

flutered

LorMal wrote: »

Sure - but he is obviously not phased by our approach. He has the tactical nous to counter our kicking game. (No matter how well executed). We need to mix it up more - we are predicable.

this year against wales was, it all grunt up front, all day long, leinster under oconnor used the same ploy in the cup simi agains their french opposition

LorMal

kuang1 wrote: »

Some of this is laughable lads really.
Gatland has us sussed? I really hope that he thinks he has. Coz we'll have him and his lot for breakfast if we meet them in the semi.

If that 6N match in cardiff was to be played over infinitely, with no change to team selections or referee, I can assure you we would not lose it infinitely. Wales peaked that day. That's them at their very, very best. We certainly were not. Yes I think Barnes had a shocker, but wasn't the sole reason we were defeated. Replay that match over and over again and either team would win at random.

In terms of the 2 friendly games we had and insights into each teams potential? I think it's folly to attempt it. True cards yet to be revealed etc. (That said I don't necessarily expect us to have an entire array of never-seen-before methods of attack come the WC, but we'll have more than enough variation when the time comes.)

If we get as far as the semi final, of all possibilities, the dream opposition for me would be Wales.

Yes we were unlucky with the referring that day - but we should have addressed it on the pitch. I felt that we repeatedly battered against them and they absorbed it all and we had nothing else to offer.
I am no expert - so happy to be corrected.

Neil3030

LorMal wrote: »

Sure - but he is obviously not phased by our approach. He has the tactical nous to counter our kicking game. (No matter how well executed). We need to mix it up more - we are predicable.

In fairness, he has Leigh Halfpenny to neutralise any kicking game.

Wales are just a very good team. I don't subscribe to this idea that Gatland 'has our number'.

molloyjh

Snickers Man wrote: »

I was talking about the 6N game in Cardiff last spring. The one that effectively cost us a Grand Slam. That's some context.

So a very good team narrowly beat us in their home ground with what was a fairly monumental defensive effort and that is your only real evidence of there being a problem with how we play the game? And why exactly does that trump the fact that we won the 6 Nations this year and last year, as well as won all our AI games?

penybont exile

kuang1 wrote: »

Some of this is laughable lads really.
Gatland has us sussed? I really hope that he thinks he has. Coz we'll have him and his lot for breakfast if we meet them in the semi.

Blah blah .... Referee .... Blah blah

If we get as far as the semi final, of all possibilities, the dream opposition for me would be Wales.

Ireland woulld be my preference for the semi if we're good enough to get there.

Not likely to happen though ...... QF exit to the AB's beckons.