Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread VIII - MOD NOTE POST #4781

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Ireland's first option isn't always to kick.

Leinster kicked plenty of ball on first phase as well. Especially away from home or in tight games (look at important away European games, off the top of my head Sarries away in 2011 or Llanelli the following season in that game where Maule skinned Drico).

Because the coach is a pragmatist and is good at putting teams on the field who use the ball efficiently, most of the time.

Leinster kicked but it wasn't the main tactic. It won't work against the top teams at the world cup. We've seen that already.

Interested Observer wrote: »

The first option for Ireland isn't to kick either. This is a myth. We don't really kick any more or less than our peers at international level.

It's our main tactic. Murray and Sexton do it more than most and definitely more than southern hemisphere teams. Argentina didn't kick it much when they ripped us apart.

Buer

Padraig121 wrote: »

Leinsters main tactic was not the garryowen under Schmidt. Ireland's main game plan is the garryowen. This is undeniable.

You should go back and watch games like Leinster away to Bath or Glasgow in the HEC under Schmidt at our peak. We crushed them up front and kicking for field position. Brutal games to watch but highly effective, accurate performances.

molloyjh

Padraig121 wrote: »

Accuracy and ruthlessness yes but with a danger that they could score a try from anywhere. Yes there was set piece moves but it was far more expansive than we see with Ireland.

Of course things appeared to be more expansive. As I said earlier we had an international quality side playing at club level. It was always going to be easier to find space and exploit it with Leinster than with Ireland. Because at international level the space isn't there to the same degree. You can't just ignore what opposition sides bring to the table when talking about how we play.

Take for example the strike running of Rob Kearney. At Leinster he was excellent at it and often made yardage there. At international level not so much because there's less room and the defence tends to be a lot better. He tried it against SA the week before last and was stopped on the gain line. Same move, different result. Because it is played at a different level. You simply can't translate the success at Leinster directly over to Ireland.

Padraig121 wrote: »

No, we were exposed by an attacking game plan that we just couldn't live with. Kicking the ball to them continuously was exposed very badly. It was a 20+ point defeat wasn't it?

Our defence was found wanting. We missed 23% of our tackles. And they were just the ones we attempted. At one stage our midfield shooters were Best and Ross. When that happens its very easy for opposition sides to get into the wider channels because they are pretty much unopposed in midfield. Joe Schmidt sides have almost always been happy to give the opposition the ball, knowing that we can back our defence and be clinical when we have the ball. It was that way at Leinster too.

Padraig121 wrote: »

We weren't able to attack them! We only had one game plan and it failed, miserably. We're repeating the same mistakes!

We really are not. At all. But you keep stating it as fact without really being able to address any of the more detailed and analytical posts to the contrary. If you can't back up what you're saying with anything then maybe reconsider what you are saying.

Thanos

Padraig121 wrote: »

Leinsters main tactic was not the garryowen under Schmidt. Ireland's main game plan is the garryowen. This is undeniable.

Padraig121 wrote: »

Ireland's main game plan is the garryowen. This is undeniable.

I deny this.

Buer wrote: »

People have given multiple examples of where tries were coming from, how Leinster's line breaks were created etc.

Surely that's evidence?

Tries were coming from everywhere, it was far from predictable which Ireland are now.

Padraig121 wrote: »

Well mostly I mean that the first option wasn't always to kick. The kick and catch tactic was used but not nearly as much as with Ireland. Leinster ran it far more frequently.

Ireland's first option isn't always to kick.

Leinster kicked plenty of ball on first phase as well. Especially away from home or in tight games (look at important away European games, off the top of my head Sarries away in 2011 or Llanelli the following season in that game where Maule skinned Drico).

Because the coach is a pragmatist and is good at putting teams on the field who use the ball efficiently, most of the time.

Buer wrote: »

You keep on saying that without actually giving any evidence.

For context, Nacewa as a thirty-something scored more tries in the two seasons since returning to Leinster than he did in his 3 years at his peak under Schmidt. Luke Fitzgerald needed a map to find the try line. BOD scored 9 tries in 3 years under Schmidt.

We played highly skilled rugby mixing backs and forwards but that is not necessarily expansive.

Leinsters main tactic was not the garryowen under Schmidt. Ireland's main game plan is the garryowen. This is undeniable.

Clegg wrote: »

Expand

It's gas, but its funnier the more you think about it. His coaches at the time he came through were Michael Cheika for Leinster and Declan Kidney for Ireland (techncially Michael Bradley gave him his Irish debut).

Can you imagine Cheiks or Kidney wrapped up at home in their blankets on the coach being abused online and then selecting Rob Kearney because they were being forced to by the online brigade. And then the severe amounts of fear causing them to call up Ian McGeechan to make sure Kearney was included in the Lions squad.

Padraig121 wrote: »

Well mostly I mean that the first option wasn't always to kick. The kick and catch tactic was used but not nearly as much as with Ireland. Leinster ran it far more frequently.

The first option for Ireland isn't to kick either. This is a myth. We don't really kick any more or less than our peers at international level.

Buer

Interested Observer wrote: »

Nobody is giving any evidence.

People have given multiple examples of where tries were coming from, how Leinster's line breaks were created etc.

Surely that's evidence?

Thanos wrote: »

Any know the time needed to recover from a fractured wrist?

Completely depends on the extent of the damage but I'd hope a bit shorter than a forearm break.

Tommy Bowe was back in 4 or so weeks after having pins put in during the Lions tour to Australia.

Surgical options will dictate recovery time but they'll definitely be more cautious as he won't want anything to limit his range of motion moving forward.

Sanjuro

Thanos wrote: »

Any know the time needed to recover from a fractured wrist?

According to a cursory Google search, anywhere between 8 weeks and 6 months for a severe break.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

What do you mean by expansive?

Well mostly I mean that the first option wasn't always to kick. The kick and catch tactic was used but not nearly as much as with Ireland. Leinster ran it far more frequently.

Thanos wrote: »

Any know the time needed to recover from a fractured wrist?

I would imagine it's highly variable. A complicated fracture could be a long time. A nice clean one would be quick enough, 6-8 weeks ish.

Clegg

Granny15 wrote: »

Kearney had a free ride at the beginning of his pro career due to some effective promoting of him as a player and online bullying to get him through the system faster. The coaches at the time listened to this bile.

Expand

Granny15 wrote: »

Kearney had a free ride at the beginning of his pro career due to some effective promoting of him as a player and online bullying to get him through the system faster. The coaches at the time listened to this bile.

Can you actually take a second and read this sentence that you have written. And if it doesn't make you laugh, we might have a severe problem on our hands.

Thanos

thomond2006 wrote: »

http://www.irishrugby.ie/news/40910.php#.WhLU30mnzqA

John Ryan back fit.
Fractured wrist for Carbery.

Any know the time needed to recover from a fractured wrist?

Burkie1203 wrote: »

It wasnt though. If you knew anything about rugby at all you would understand that. Leinster were just ruthless at exposing any weakness with strike moves.

:rolleyes: I could say you know nothing about rugby for realising it was more expansive.

Granny15

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Who says R Kearney will be going on too long?

Whats wrong with keeping as many options open as possible?

Kearney had a free ride at the beginning of his pro career due to some effective promoting of him as a player and online bullying to get him through the system faster. The coaches at the time listened to this bile.

Conway on the other hand had to fight his up with the competition. He left. It is now time for Kearney to understand what it feels like to have to fight for the jersey. Conway is showing he offers more atm so Kearney should be put on sidelines.

Burkie1203 wrote: »

We had lost PoM,SoB, Sexton and Payne. In the first 20 minutes they tore us apart because we couldn't slow their ball down and we were missing our defensive leaders. We didnt kick the ball to them continuously.

We actually got back to within 3 at one stage and missed a penalty to go level IIRC.

Yep, it was 20-23 going into the last 15 mins as far as I recall.

We also didn't have POC.

Buer wrote: »

You keep on saying that without actually giving any evidence.

Nobody is giving any evidence.

"Leinster were more explansive"
"No they weren't"
"Yes they were"

Buer

Padraig121 wrote: »

It didn't look more expansive, it was more expansive!

You keep on saying that without actually giving any evidence.

For context, Nacewa as a thirty-something scored more tries in the two seasons since returning to Leinster than he did in his 3 years at his peak under Schmidt. Luke Fitzgerald needed a map to find the try line. BOD scored 9 tries in 3 years under Schmidt.

We played highly skilled rugby mixing backs and forwards but that is not necessarily expansive.

Padraig121 wrote: »

Accuracy and ruthlessness yes but with a danger that they could score a try from anywhere. Yes there was set piece moves but it was far more expansive than we see with Ireland.

What do you mean by expansive?

thomond2006

http://www.irishrugby.ie/news/40910.php#.WhLU30mnzqA

John Ryan back fit.
Fractured wrist for Carbery.

connachta

determinations wrote: »

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Maybe I'm wrong but I had thought Slade started at 10 for Exeter in the last match I saw. Never mind that.

It might have happened in Europe tbf, but Steenson has played 80 min at 10 in all but the opening game of the season. He isn't going anywhere anytime soon unfortunately. He would be a great addition to either Ulster or Connacht.

And a perfect 3rd choice for RWC before retiring. Competing with Keatley for the spot

Burkie1203 wrote: »

We had lost PoM,SoB, Sexton and Payne. In the first 20 minutes they tore us apart because we couldn't slow their ball down and we were missing our defensive leaders. We didnt kick the ball to them continuously.

We actually got back to within 3 at one stage and missed a penalty to go level IIRC.

We had injuries which affected us of course but we did kick the ball to them and then when we had to chase the game we didn't have enough. Plan b wasn't up to scratch. This was Argentina let's not forget.

Burkie1203

Padraig121 wrote: »

It didn't look more expansive, it was more expansive!

It wasnt though. If you knew anything about rugby at all you would understand that. Leinster were just ruthless at exposing any weakness with strike moves.