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

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.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

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.

She did win two silvers at the European Championships proper. I agree with you though that nobody really expects anything out of the T&F team, unlike rugby we're used to not being competitive on the world stage. The one time when do get stick is when they bomb out of heats with below personal best performances at the Olympics.

.ak

awec wrote: »

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.

I completely disagree but we're obviously not going to agree. At the end of the day at one point it was a 3 point game and we looked to have momentum and that was with our b-side team essentially whom I wouldn't be confident going into a 6n game. Without doubt if we had poc, sexton, Pom and sob we would've won.

But my point is the media obviously think there isn't much to criticise either. No team would suffer injuries to key players like that and not be massively affected.

Tim Robbins

Chivito550 wrote: »

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

When he says the "choked" in the second half he is telling everyone that instead of analysing where Argentina excel in core Rugby skills he prefers to use asinine lazy rhetoric. Can't believe people get paid to write such drivel.

We were beaten by a better team. That's good for Rugby. It would be a farce if a team that was better at running the ball didn't win.

Dr. Bre

It's mainly cos rugby is such a tough sport the media always react with bravery and heroes no matter win lose draw.. Football gets a lot of stick and a tad harsh in my view considering you have to qualify for major tournaments..also rugby has Leinster Munster etc.. Competing at the highest level in Europe so with the players based here maybe the media feel more of a connection with the players. Our best footballers go abroad

matthew8

awec wrote: »

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.

I don't see how you can say that starting 15 really should've beaten Argentina. I'd say most people were very surprised at how well the weakened side dealt with France in the second half of that match, and that was with Sean O'Brien. If you told most people that we'd have to face Argentina without POC, SOB, POM, Sexton and Payne before seeing that France match they'd have said we'd be up against it. There were several below par performances but it was hardly a game we should've won.

Quint2010

molloyjh wrote: »

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.

But do you not think going 17-0 after 15 minutes to a team ranked below you is some sort of mental collapse?

kidneyfan

In fairness Ireland had a very tough draw each game was getting tougher and tougher and the injuries were mounting up and Argentina are our bogey team in a way and also I think that we put the mockers on by looking past them.

Chivito550

Rugby is a physical sport where injuries are inevitable. Every team gets them. You can't excel with 15-17 good players. You need 30. Relying on your best and hoping you get granted a miracle of none getting hurt is deluded. NZ won the last RWC final with their fourth choice fly half. Injuries are part of rugby as much as mountain climbs are part of the Tour de France. The team that can deal with them best usually prevail. You need depth to win. Nobody here would ever say we only won because the opposition were without 3-4 players. Can't have it both ways. Physical full contact sport = expect plenty of injuries.

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

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.

2 European outdoor silvers (robbed in 2010 of a gold by a since convicted drug cheat). She finished 4th in the World Championships in 2009, which is a phenomenal achievement given the global nature of the sport. She was done out of a bronze by Doloreen Ennis London who is a shady character to say the least. This achievement was celebrated less than her European medals despite the greater scale of this 4th place.

The general public care enough to call up Joe Duffy complaining that we fund these failures who can't even medal against the Jamaicans and Kenyans! What chumps indeed!

Rugby doesn't get the same idiotic ignorant treatment.

matthew8

Chivito550 wrote: »

Rugby is a physical sport where injuries are inevitable. Every team gets them. You can't excel with 15-17 good players. You need 30. Relying on your best and hoping you get granted a miracle of none getting hurt is deluded. NZ won the last RWC final with their fourth choice fly half.

Sure they won it but they were clearly badly affected by their injury crisis. They were much worse with Donald than they had been all tournament. However, they were just that much better than everyone else that they were able to cope with it. We're not that much better than Argentina at full strength (if we're better at all).

captbarnacles

I don't think NZ were able to cope it. They abandoned their attacking rugby for the final and scraped over the line thanks to Joubert ignoring penalties in multiple kickable positions.