"There's nothing heroic about Ireland’s World Cup failure" - The Times

Chivito550

It probably won't be very popular, but hard to argue with the points made in this article, particularly the comparisons to how other sportspeople (particularly our Olympians) would be treated if they came up short of their potential.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/irishnews/sport/article4591362.ece?shareToken=aa5ebdb6c7ead62b57e4758890000ea0

Utopia Parkway

Knew who that article would be from before I even clicked on it.

thebaz

lazy headline making journalism :-

This wasn’t the “Fields of Athenry” ringing around Gdansk as a ramshackle group were 4-0 down to perhaps the best international team to ever play the game. This was far more embarrassing; this was our hugely talented rugby team collapsing




p.s. Hang on this was our rugby team minus its spine (5 key players)

CatFromHue

This isn’t about kicking a group when they are down

I'm fairly sure it is.

I don't remember much celebration on Sunday or Monday but alot more actually interesting debate, say on Off The Ball with Jackman and EOS, about why it went wrong and how we can get better.

I regularly feel like the soccer team and our track and field Olympians are given way too much stick and this journalist seems to be of the opinion that this is how we should treat our athletes, when of course it's complete bollix.

Just cos we aren't abusing our rugby team doesn't mean we aren't disappointed or are celebrating a loss.

Marketing still says that this is a rugby country, maybe it’s about time we stopped believing the hype.

About 40K people went to see Leinster, Munster, Ulster, and Connacht play in Week 3 of the weakened Pro12 this season, maybe someone needs to look at the attendance numbers before making such statements

duffman13

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

Knew who that article would be from before I even clicked on it.

Some valid points, the game was a capitulation from Ireland. I think semi finals was what was needed for this tournament to be deemed a success.

Ireland were missing key players however we still shouldn't be lauding a quarter final team as heroic when it was what was expected.

awec

I actually agree with some of what is said.

m@cc@

duffman13 wrote: »

Ireland were missing key players however we still shouldn't be lauding a quarter final team as heroic when it was what was expected.

Bingo! How can our team be described as 'heroic' or us be 'proud' of them when they achieved the bare minimum?

molloyjh

That’s eight World Cups now and still no semi-final. And while early editions can be treated as a mediocre team simply not being good enough, that can’t be the case here. Instead, just like 2011, this was a massive choke. The lack of intensity for the opening try, the lack of tackling for the second try, forwards covering pace players out wide, the kicking game — all these elements showed a mental collapse much greater than the physical issues borne of a lack of depth.

You see now this is total crap. A mental collapse? Bollix. It was all down to missing key players and not having the depth to cope. It was not a mental collapse. A collapse suggests there was a height there for the players who were on the pitch that they somehow didn't reach on the day. That's just simply not the case.

Was the overall result a failure? Yes. That doesn't mean we should get the knives out or the cheap digs in on a group of players and coaches who gave their all. It means we should review dispassionately what happened and why. Once we identify that we should take steps to rectify the issue. And it's pretty damn clear to me that the issue is quality in depth.

The idea that they choked a second time having come back into the game is also nonsense. We didn't have another gear left in us and Argentina did.

The whole article is yet another example of someone wanting to have a go, but without any form of constructive comment or suggestion in the entire piece.

irishbucsfan

Wait, who is calling the Irish team "heroic" exactly? You can't just lift a quote out of the Simpsons and pretend it's being used elsewhere.

techdiver

I also agree to an extent.

If we don't question why this mediocrity keeps happening at World Cups, we are doomed to repeat the same tame exit every 4 years.

We can't hide behind injuries. Wales had more injuries and they gave a better account of themselves in a tougher group and against arguably a tougher quarter final opponent (to be confirmed after the semi final of course).

Utopia Parkway

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Wait, who is calling the Irish team "heroic" exactly? You can't just lift a quote out of the Simpsons and pretend it's being used elsewhere.

I don''t know. I haven't seen anyone describe them as heroic but if one person said it on twitter it's probably enough for the author of that story.

There has undoubtably been a certain amount of undisguised glee from a small section of the Irish sports media since Sunday. A section that just hates rugby and hates that it has become more popular and has appealed to a wider audience over the past 15 years or so in Ireland. You could probably easily name off about 4 or 5 journalists in particular.

CatFromHue

techdiver wrote: »

I also agree to an extent.

If we don't question why this mediocrity keeps happening at World Cups, we are doomed to repeat the same tame exit every 4 years.

We can't hide behind injuries. Wales had more injuries and they gave a better account of themselves in a tougher group and against arguably a tougher quarter final opponent (to be confirmed after the semi final of course).

There's been plenty of question and analysis just not on the headlines on the Irish Independent's website.

molloyjh

techdiver wrote: »

I also agree to an extent.

If we don't question why this mediocrity keeps happening at World Cups, we are doomed to repeat the same tame exit every 4 years.

We can't hide behind injuries. Wales had more injuries and they gave a better account of themselves in a tougher group and against arguably a tougher quarter final opponent (to be confirmed after the semi final of course).

I can't agree with that at all. Wales beat a pretty poor English side and then butchered a golden opportunity to finally beat Australia when they had a 2 man advantage but still couldn't do it. Then they went out to a poor SA side. All while having a near full strength pack (their injuries were almost exclusively in the back line).

Ireland on the other hand won all their pool games and went out to an Argentinian side as good as we've probably ever seen while suffering injuries in almost every area of the starting XV.

We should be questioning what went wrong. But as I said it seems clear that what went wrong was that we didn't have the requisite quality in our back ups to take the game to an in form Argentinian side. Which is a totally different reason for going out this time. If anything I think we learned a lot of lessons from previous years. After all exactly what mistakes did we repeat?

wp_rathead

Weird article
No one said RWC was heroic - some maybe after the France game when POC, POM and Sexton all went off
I do hate the "chokers" concept as it insinuates that it was ours to win- Argentina had a better 23 and played better rugby

Think he just wanted to use the Simpsons quote

m@cc@

molloyjh wrote: »

I can't agree with that at all. Wales beat a pretty poor English side and then butchered a golden opportunity to finally beat Australia when they had a 2 man advantage but still couldn't do it. Then they went out to a poor SA side. All while having a near full strength pack (their injuries were almost exclusively in the back line).

Ireland on the other hand won all their pool games and went out to an Argentinian side as good as we've probably ever seen while suffering injuries in almost every area of the starting XV.

We should be questioning what went wrong. But as I said it seems clear that what went wrong was that we didn't have the requisite quality in our back ups to take the game to an in form Argentinian side. Which is a totally different reason for going out this time. If anything I think we learned a lot of lessons from previous years. After all exactly what mistakes did we repeat?

Ah now, come on. You can't seriously believe that Ireland's performances in the pool stages were greater?

I could as easily counter that the only only coherent half Ireland had in the whole WC was the second half against the poorest France team in living memory.

You've mentioned a poor SA side and an Argentine side the best we've seen. I still know which I'd rather face.

techdiver

molloyjh wrote: »

I can't agree with that at all. Wales beat a pretty poor English side and then butchered a golden opportunity to finally beat Australia when they had a 2 man advantage but still couldn't do it. Then they went out to a poor SA side. All while having a near full strength pack (their injuries were almost exclusively in the back line).

Ireland on the other hand won all their pool games and went out to an Argentinian side as good as we've probably ever seen while suffering injuries in almost every area of the starting XV.

We should be questioning what went wrong. But as I said it seems clear that what went wrong was that we didn't have the requisite quality in our back ups to take the game to an in form Argentinian side. Which is a totally different reason for going out this time. If anything I think we learned a lot of lessons from previous years. After all exactly what mistakes did we repeat?

In 2007 we were poor, but it looked worse than other years because the group was much tougher. I just don't think the squad was right this year either. Very poor performances in the warmups and nearly losing to a poor Italian side. The France game papered over the cracks, but it must be remembered that France were awful.

We always seem to peak at the wrong time i.e. between World Cups.

m@cc@

wp_rathead wrote: »

Think he just wanted to use the Simpsons quote

Team member: Hey, look! There's a big crowd to welcome us back even though we lost...

Moe: Hey, I'll give you something to cry about, you loser! You can't catch a football? Let's see if you can catch a rock!

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

I can't agree with that at all. Wales beat a pretty poor English side and then butchered a golden opportunity to finally beat Australia when they had a 2 man advantage but still couldn't do it. Then they went out to a poor SA side. All while having a near full strength pack (their injuries were almost exclusively in the back line).

Ireland on the other hand won all their pool games and went out to an Argentinian side as good as we've probably ever seen while suffering injuries in almost every area of the starting XV.

We should be questioning what went wrong. But as I said it seems clear that what went wrong was that we didn't have the requisite quality in our back ups to take the game to an in form Argentinian side. Which is a totally different reason for going out this time. If anything I think we learned a lot of lessons from previous years. After all exactly what mistakes did we repeat?

That poor England side gave us a beating in the warm ups.

Jawgap

The aim well have been to reach the final, but to get there you have to succeed in the semi and quarter finals - and to get a decent qf draw (or stand the best chance) we had to win our group - to win our group we had to beat France.

I don't think there was anything ad hoc about our preparations - if anything the team and squad were well prepared and clearly had a tournament plan, but it would have been ridiculous to have focused on a qf opponent at the expense of our main pool rival.

I also think it's emotive, sensationalism to describe lack of predicted or desired success as 'failure' - yes, we need to go away and re-evaluate, to a degree, how we play the game but we also need to be careful not to discard those bits that went well.

We were undone by a combination of factors, some of which were under our control, some were not.

.ak

Is the article complaining because the media aren't sticking the knife in and twisting it and making people's life hell? Because it happens elsewhere it should happen in this context also?

It's a sad world.

I agree about one thing - the lumping of SOB in with the injured players in the 'key players missing' narrative should stop.

Discipline is a thing, and it is something that great teams control - his absence was entirely self-inflicted and there's no 'hard luck' story there. If anything he was lucky to just get one match.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree about one thing - the lumping of SOB in with the injured players in the 'key players missing' narrative should stop.

Discipline is a thing, and it is something that great teams control - his absence was entirely self-inflicted and there's no 'hard luck' story there. If anything he was lucky to just get one match.

It makes complete sense to lump him in with the others in the context of questioning why we struggled to win the Argentina match. IE, he is an important player who would have made a difference.

If you want to have a different conversation about how we to avoid missing those sorts of players in future then it's certainly valid to seperate him from the others.

There's certainly a valid case for lumping him in with the others, it just depends on the context.

ThisRegard

CatFromHue wrote: »

I don't remember much celebration on Sunday or Monday but alot more actually interesting debate, say on Off The Ball with Jackman and EOS, about why it went wrong and how we can get better.

Exactly. I don't recall too many declaring the team as being heroic in defeat, either through the media, both social and professional.

It reads like he wrote this on Sunday afternoon expecting a heroes welcome to be laid out for them, rather than the realistic appraisals that have done.

Overall it's a valid point (apart from the bull**** bottling it point that's made), but the guy seems to believe he's the first, and only one, to make that point.

NIMAN

If people are calling this WC campaign heroic, and I'm not sure if that's true or not, then I think it's slightly ott too.

Did we not go into this WC ranked 2nd in the world? And we got to the quarter finals, again! No better than we done before, and only real team we got the better of were France.

Sounds like other WC s, so I'd say no more heroic than previous years, many of which were called failures IIRC

ThisRegard

But are they? I saw a few people reply to players tweets saying they were heroic, but any decent analysis has been critical and honest.

Fr Tod Umptious

I'm not sure that many were labeling them as heroic on Monday but I also noticed a lack of real disappointment with them, which is certainly what we should be seeing after, as another poster put it, they came in ranked 2nd in the world and only got to a quarter final.

Maybe it's to do with the fact that rugby is just not that important, and the bandwagon were just as quick to unload on Sunday night as they were to join, and by Monday a hell of a lot of people just didn't care as much as they thought they should have.

sydthebeat

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

..... and the bandwagon were just as quick to unload on Sunday night as they were to join......

in a nut shell. .....

captbarnacles

I'm disappointed but not particularly surprised at what happened. Argentina are a very good team and we were missing too many of our best players.

molloyjh

m@cc@ wrote: »

Ah now, come on. You can't seriously believe that Ireland's performances in the pool stages were greater?

I could as easily counter that the only only coherent half Ireland had in the whole WC was the second half against the poorest France team in living memory.

You've mentioned a poor SA side and an Argentine side the best we've seen. I still know which I'd rather face.

I'm very serious. Wales were the poorer side in the game against England and only for England being incapable of finishing them off they would have lost that. Then against Australia they had a 2 man advantage and couldn't score.

I'm not saying Ireland were amazing in their pool, just that Wales weren't all that themselves.

Also Irelands pool performances in all games bar the Italy game were "coherent". We won those well and conceded very little.

Argentina right now would dish out a bit of a hiding to SA, who are improved since Japan but still not great.

techdiver wrote: »

In 2007 we were poor, but it looked worse than other years because the group was much tougher. I just don't think the squad was right this year either. Very poor performances in the warmups and nearly losing to a poor Italian side. The France game papered over the cracks, but it must be remembered that France were awful.

We always seem to peak at the wrong time i.e. between World Cups.

In 2007 we got our prep all wrong and went into the tournament all over the place. We didn't get a single good performance in the thing. In 2011 we went out against Wales with the wrong team and the wrong game plan (and if Drico is to be believed we had no real attacking game plan at all!). This year we were convincing in 3 of our 4 pool games and won the game that we struggled to get out of 2nd gear in. We ultimately lost the QF because of the personnel who were missing despite coming from behind quite well. It's apples and oranges.

awec wrote: »

That poor England side gave us a beating in the warm ups.

Really!? The warm-ups? The meaningless games that meant nothing to us other than to build up fitness? Haven't we been through that already?

Context awec. You can't form a sensible argument without it.

yourdeadwright

Got to the last 8 in a tournament that only 8 countries can be taken seriously in ,
Not much of an achievement, basically the bare minimum expected,

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

That poor England side gave us a beating in the warm ups.

Yeah. And France gave England a proper thumping as well, they were great that day. Probably a good indication of why they did so well in the tournament... Oh wait!

Idbatterim

will all teams other than the eventual victors also have been deemed to fail and not cut the mustard? Reverse the situation, us fully fit and not playing France the week before, I reckon we win comfortably enough. You can analyse it all you want and analysis is good and there may be truths to what is being said. Sport isn't only about the individual players, short of being so good that you can nearly do away with luck i.e. New Zealand, you need to get a few rubs of the green along the way, we didn't get them...

UnitedWeStand

techdiver wrote: »

In 2007 we were poor, but it looked worse than other years because the group was much tougher. I just don't think the squad was right this year either. Very poor performances in the warmups and nearly losing to a poor Italian side. The France game papered over the cracks, but it must be remembered that France were awful.

We always seem to peak at the wrong time i.e. between World Cups.

I'm sorry I can't agree with the peaking bit. If you want to be world champions you need to be the best team on the planet. New Zealand, Aus and SA will rarely have more than one bad year in RWC cycles, and between them they share 6 of the 7 cups. Ireland need to push on and build a winning culture by going 3 in a row this 6N's.

él statutorio

captbarnacles wrote: »

I'm disappointed but not particularly surprised at what happened. Argentina are a very good team and we were missing too many of our best players.

Even with a full squad I don't believe we'd have won.

People will say it was injuries but it wasn't, it was a problem with the game plan and we didn't have a plan B.

Lets be honest with ourselves. We've won two 6N titles where both Eng and Fra have been p*ss poor for the last few years.

We had an easy group with 2 minnows, Italy who we play and beat regularly and the worst French team in living memory. We weren't exactly convincing against Italy but at least put them away and we put in a great performance against a French team who had been instructed to go out and bash players instead of play rugby.

techdiver

molloyjh wrote: »

I'm very serious. Wales were the poorer side in the game against England and only for England being incapable of finishing them off they would have lost that. Then against Australia they had a 2 man advantage and couldn't score.

I'm not saying Ireland were amazing in their pool, just that Wales weren't all that themselves.

Also Irelands pool performances in all games bar the Italy game were "coherent". We won those well and conceded very little.

Argentina right now would dish out a bit of a hiding to SA, who are improved since Japan but still not great.



In 2007 we got our prep all wrong and went into the tournament all over the place. We didn't get a single good performance in the thing. In 2011 we went out against Wales with the wrong team and the wrong game plan (and if Drico is to be believed we had no real attacking game plan at all!). This year we were convincing in 3 of our 4 pool games and won the game that we struggled to get out of 2nd gear in. We ultimately lost the QF because of the personnel who were missing despite coming from behind quite well. It's apples and oranges.



Really!? The warm-ups? The meaningless games that meant nothing to us other than to build up fitness? Haven't we been through that already?

Context awec. You can't form a sensible argument without it.

So do you believe there is nothing wrong with the approach to the World Cup and that the only reason we were beaten off the park by Argentina was due to missing personnel and if so we should just continue on as we are and expect it all just to come together in the next World Cup?

I love going to Leinster and Ireland games and they have given me so much pleasure over the years. I'm almost at the stage now, where I will just have to accept that competing in the 6 nations and the odd november/summer series test is the highest point we will achieve. We don't seem to prepare with the World Cup in mind at all. It's a win at all costs mentality for every game at the expense of building a squad and varied game plan. The only time we blood new players is either injury enforced, against lesser nations or if that player has burst onto the scene spectacularly to the point that they can't be ignored. Even with the latter, how long did it take for the likes of Sean O'Brien and Jamie Heaslip to actually get their shot for Ireland?

techdiver

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

I'm sorry I can't agree with the peaking bit. If you want to be world champions you need to be the best team on the planet. New Zealand, Aus and SA will rarely have more than one bad year in RWC cycles, and between them they share 6 of the 7 cups. Ireland need to push on and build a winning culture by going 3 in a row this 6N's.

One word - Argentina.

total former

molloyjh wrote: »

Really!? The warm-ups? The meaningless games that meant nothing to us other than to build up fitness? Haven't we been through that already?

Obviously I couldn't give a fiddler's about the results of the warm-ups, but this was our third world cup in a row in which we were poor enough in the lead-in and then failed to produce the goods in the tournament itself.

Maybe we should take them more seriously?

molloyjh

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Got to the last 8 in a tournament that only 8 countries can be taken seriously in ,
Not much of an achievement, basically the bare minimum expected,

But nobody is saying it was an achievement?

captbarnacles

él statutorio wrote: »

Even with a full squad I don't believe we'd have won.

People will say it was injuries but it wasn't, it was a problem with the game plan and we didn't have a plan B.

Lets be honest with ourselves. We've won two 6N titles where both Eng and Fra have been p*ss poor for the last few years.

We had an easy group with 2 minnows, Italy who we play and beat regularly and the worst French team in living memory. We weren't exactly convincing against Italy but at least put them away and we put in a great performance against a French team who had been instructed to go out and bash players instead of play rugby.

Partly injuries and partly how good Argentina are. NZ (the team everyone is raving about now) struggled with a full team against Argentina for 60 minutes and it was only really the bench that have them the win. We had nothing left at that stage.

captbarnacles

molloyjh wrote: »

But nobody is saying it was an achievement?

Some people seem to be disappointed that there isn't enough mockery being hurled at the rugby team.

m@cc@

captbarnacles wrote: »

Some people seem to be disappointed that there isn't enough mockery being hurled at the rugby team.

That's way off the mark. You're just being flippant for the sake of it.

CatFromHue

I think the Captain is right.

In your man's article he highlights the poor treatment of our track and field Olympians and the Soccer team and is questioning why the rugby team hasn't got the same.

molloyjh

él statutorio wrote: »

Even with a full squad I don't believe we'd have won.

People will say it was injuries but it wasn't, it was a problem with the game plan and we didn't have a plan B.

Lets be honest with ourselves. We've won two 6N titles where both Eng and Fra have been p*ss poor for the last few years.

We had an easy group with 2 minnows, Italy who we play and beat regularly and the worst French team in living memory. We weren't exactly convincing against Italy but at least put them away and we put in a great performance against a French team who had been instructed to go out and bash players instead of play rugby.

England in 2014 were not piss poor. Since then they have definitely plateaued which has left them struggling a little bit, They still came second in the 6 Nations both years despite Wales being a very good side as well.

The missing players were exactly the issues we had. Our lack of presence at the breakdown would not have happened with POC, POM and SOB in the side. Our midfield defence would have been significantly better with Sexton and Payne there as they are both good defenders and good communicators. Argentina would have had a harder time getting width on the ball had guys like SOB and Payne been there to shoot out of the line they way that they do.

In attack we would have had a far better 10 pulling the strings. Madigan is imply far too limited a player at this level. We'd have had better ball carriers taking ball to the gain line in SOB and POM as well as a better distributor at 13 in Payne.

techdiver wrote: »

So do you believe there is nothing wrong with the approach to the World Cup and that the only reason we were beaten off the park by Argentina was due to missing personnel and if so we should just continue on as we are and expect it all just to come together in the next World Cup?

The first part of that sentence I agree with fully. The second part a little less so. What was exposed this RWC wasn't our prep like 2007 or our game plan like 2011. It was the quality we have in reserve. We need to work harder to develop that. We're a damn sight better than we ever have been but we're not quite good enough in that department yet.

techdiver wrote: »

I love going to Leinster and Ireland games and they have given me so much pleasure over the years. I'm almost at the stage now, where I will just have to accept that competing in the 6 nations and the odd november/summer series test is the highest point we will achieve. We don't seem to prepare with the World Cup in mind at all. It's a win at all costs mentality for every game at the expense of building a squad and varied game plan. The only time we blood new players is either injury enforced, against lesser nations or if that player has burst onto the scene spectacularly to the point that they can't be ignored. Even with the latter, how long did it take for the likes of Sean O'Brien and Jamie Heaslip to actually get their shot for Ireland?

If we ended up losing games left and right over the next 2 years do you think people would be happy? If we became the Argentina of the 6 Nations and only won 2 games over the next 2 years would you be ok with that?

The reactions to this RWC have been massively OTT. We have a great side when we are at or near full strength. And we have more and better depth than ever before. We are going the right direction, we just aren't quite there yet. Better luck in this RWC and we'd most likely have made at least a SF and then none of these complaints would be here.

total former wrote: »

Obviously I couldn't give a fiddler's about the results of the warm-ups, but this was our third world cup in a row in which we were poor enough in the lead-in and then failed to produce the goods in the tournament itself.

Maybe we should take them more seriously?

I think we built for this RWC almost perfectly. Look at NZ. They were far from convincing in the pool stages, at least in terms of what we expect from them. They realised that they had gotten it wrong in previous years. It isn't about starting the tournament well. It's about building your performances so that you are ending it well. And that is exactly what they are doing, and pretty much what Ireland was doing.

Utopia Parkway

CatFromHue wrote: »

I think the Captain is right.

In your man's article he highlights the poor treatment of our track and field Olympians and the Soccer team and is questioning why the rugby team hasn't got the same.

Do Olympians get poor treatment if they don't win medals? Derval O'Rourke was practically a national hero and she never won a medal at a major championships. Outdoor anyway. To be honest I don't think enough people are bothered enough about athletics to care either way. It's nice if they win and everyone goes mad but nobody is too bothered if they don't. Just the way it is unfortunately.

super_furry

He's not wrong though. There's a double standard when it comes to the treatment of our national tea!s in the media. I'm not saying the rugby team get away lightly but it would be nice if ournother sporting representatives were afforded the same support and respect.

.ak

CatFromHue wrote: »

I think the Captain is right.

In your man's article he highlights the poor treatment of our track and field Olympians and the Soccer team and is questioning why the rugby team hasn't got the same.

The question shouldn't be why the rugby team hasn't got the same, it should be why are the others treated poorly. It's just highlighting poor media standards really.

Also at the end of the day there isn't much scathing to do with the rugby team, everyone and their granny knows we went out down to pure rotten luck; 5 key players dropping out and meeting Argentina on great form. You just can't prepare for that so nothing to really attack there.

molloyjh

super_furry wrote: »

He's not wrong though. There's a double standard when it comes to the treatment of our national tea!s in the media. I'm not saying the rugby team get away lightly but it would be nice if ournother sporting representatives were afforded the same support and respect.

It should probably be somewhere in the middle. We saw when Kidney was in charge of Ireland that the media were in no way interested in being critical regardless of the performances and results. That's not right any more than being overly critical and sticking the knife in is. And let's not even mention the reactions to Ireland doing well!

The media should be dispassionately analytical. If Ireland don't do well regardless of the sport then the reasons for this should be outlined and potential solutions flagged. All done in a reasonable and respectful manner. We've seen times in all sports where the media have gone too far one way or the other. Of course you've got opinion pieces as well which can't and won't be quite the same. But even those should be able to manage a reasonable level of respect.

awec

.ak wrote: »

The question shouldn't be why the rugby team hasn't got the same, it should be why are the others treated poorly. It's just highlighting poor media standards really.

Also at the end of the day there isn't much scathing to do with the rugby team, everyone and their granny knows we went out down to pure rotten luck; 5 key players dropping out and meeting Argentina on great form. You just can't prepare for that so nothing to really attack there.

Luck didn't send us out. That's an excuse. We didn't go out on a coin toss, we went out because we were really poor when it really mattered.

This is like people trying to say we only got to the quarters cause we were lucky enough to get the easiest group. Yes, an element of fortune was there but we still had to win games.

We had an element of misfortune for the last game with the injuries but the main reason is because we were destroyed on the pitch. We still had more than a fair chance and we failed.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

We had an element of misfortune for the last game with the injuries but the main reason is because we were destroyed on the pitch.

And the reason for that was the injuries. I mean that's pretty self-evident. I'm not sure how there could be a debate around this.

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

And the reason for that was the injuries? I mean that's pretty self-evident. I'm not sure how there could be a debate around this.

Because the idea that luck is the main thing that sent us out just doesn't stand up.

We still had a game to play, a game we should really still have won even with the injuries.

Can we chalk our last two six nations wins down to pure luck of avoiding major injury?

People are saying the only reason we lost was injuries. Would you say the only reason we won games in the past was we avoided injury? Of course not.

The performance was rubbish, that is why we are out.

captbarnacles

I'm not sure we 'should have won'. Ireland's first 15 are better than Argentina's first 15 but missing the 5 players we were I don't see we have a significantly better team than them. I rate it an even match and they were better on the day.