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

Padraig121 wrote: »

A great win no doubt but it was a friendly, we can't forget that. A world cup quarter final is far bigger, let's get serious here.

You clearly don't understand international rugby if you continue to refer to non-tournament test matches as 'friendlies'.

They are not within an asses roar of friendlies in the soccer sense. Apart from the importance in world rankings, they also feature pretty much first team selections unless against inferior opposition. Which is exactly how we play similar RWC matches.

And I see we're now comparing this with RWC QFs. Keep those goalposts moving. :rolleyes:

And just to clarify. Are you saying NZ just didn't give a fup and our kicking game beat them because it was a 'friendly'?

irishbucsfan

Padraig121 wrote: »

Lads, they are friendlies. The results mean nothing at the end of the day. Of course no one wants to lose but tournament matches are what counts.

They're test matches. They're not friendlies. Although it makes some sense, are you confusing the Irish rugby team with the Irish soccer team perhaps?

aloooof

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They're test matches. They're not friendlies. Although it makes some sense, are you confusing the Irish rugby team with the Irish soccer team perhaps?

Tactics including "Garryowen's"... it all makes sense!

prawnsambo wrote: »

You clearly don't understand international rugby if you continue to refer to non-tournament test matches as 'friendlies'.

They are not within an asses roar of friendlies in the soccer sense. Apart from the importance in world rankings, they also feature pretty much first team selections unless against inferior opposition. Which is exactly how we play similar RWC matches.

And I see we're now comparing this with RWC QFs. Keep those goalposts moving. :rolleyes:

And just to clarify. Are you saying NZ just didn't give a fup and our kicking game beat them because it was a 'friendly'?

They are friendlies.

Beating teams in friendlies isn't on the same level as beating teams in the world cup. No goalposts moved.

Of course they did, I've said so.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They're test matches. They're not friendlies. Although it makes some sense, are you confusing the Irish rugby team with the Irish soccer team perhaps?

Well they both play hoofball I suppose but no, I'm talking about the rugby version.

[Deleted User]

Granny15 wrote: »

Cheiks was a renowned depressive when he got here. His teammate David Knox hated it so much he left. He brought that broodish personality with him into the coaching realm and I genuinely believe it was the online bullying and negative atmoshpere in the country at the time which had him like this. Was he tough enough to stand up to it? You beet your life he wasn't being the clown that he is he was trampled all over by the Purple brigade and they got their man through - granted he was playing very well at the time under the high ball (a tactic he learned off our own Michaeels man Sean Murray on the 1988 SCT team).

Kidney was/is a Turnip - they had a significant presence on the Munsterfans website at the time - enough said. They labelled him Judy and got to him but I believe at the time he picked Kearney on merit and didn't crack under the pressure from online/media etc.

McGeechan - There wasa distinct lack of opposition in his position fuillback at the time - can't remember who was there for the other 3 Unions but I remember it was easy enough for a relatively standard Fullback to march onto that Lions team with the lack of alternatives there at the time.

I enjoyed this, thanks

irishbucsfan

Padraig121 wrote: »

They are friendlies.

No matter how many times you say this, you will remain incorrect

Padraig121 wrote: »

They are friendlies.

Beating teams in friendlies isn't on the same level as beating teams in the world cup. No goalposts moved.

You started comparing to RWC matches without specifying at what stage and then with QFs which is completely different. That's a significant shift seeing as pool matches are played against lower tier opposition.

Padraig121 wrote: »

Of course they did, I've said so.

So why is it different then? Is there a degree of care beyond which kicking the ball doesn't work or something?

connachta wrote: »

Once. And it wasn't in RWC vs Wales and Argentina (expensive teams who counter-attack)

1. Wales were not an expansive team.

2. Once? Since RWC 2015 we have beaten NZ, Aus, SA and England.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No matter how many times you say this, you will remain incorrect

People can call them what they want, I call them friendlies.

Padraig121 wrote: »

People can call them what they want, I call them friendlies.

Yeah. I call them county finals. :rolleyes:

Padraig121 wrote: »

Lads, they are friendlies. The results mean nothing at the end of the day. Of course no one wants to lose but tournament matches are what counts.

Every test carries ranking points. Rankings are used to determine RWC draws.

Wales lost to Aus in 2012 and ended up in a RWC pool with England, Australia and Fiji. By the time they played SA they were missing a stack of players. If that game in 2012 never happened or if Wales won it (they lost to an 80th minute try) RWC 2015 takes a very different look

prawnsambo wrote: »

You started comparing to RWC matches without specifying at what stage and then with QFs which is completely different. That's a significant shift seeing as pool matches are played against lower tier opposition.

So why is it different then? Is there a degree of care beyond which kicking the ball doesn't work or something?

Well of course world cup matches are more important than friendlies!

It's different because it's a friendly. Teams don't want to lose but it's not nearly as bad as a tournament defeat!

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yeah. I call them county finals. :rolleyes:

Why?

irishbucsfan

Padraig121 wrote: »

People can call them what they want, I call them friendlies.

You can call them Martina if you want, you're still completely wrong.

Padraig121 wrote: »

Why?

Because apparwently we can call them what we want.

jm08

Granny15 wrote: »

Kidney was/is a Turnip - they had a significant presence on the Munsterfans website at the time - enough said. They labelled him Judy and got to him but I believe at the time he picked Kearney on merit and didn't crack under the pressure from online/media etc.

McGeechan - There wasa distinct lack of opposition in his position fuillback at the time - can't remember who was there for the other 3 Unions but I remember it was easy enough for a relatively standard Fullback to march onto that Lions team with the lack of alternatives there at the time.

Lee Byrne looked like he would be the starting fullback for the Lions until he got injured. At the time of when Rob was at his best, high balls and kicking were all the rage. Kearney was the best fullback in the world under a high ball and he had a great boot. Rob is also great for the big occasion.

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Every test carries ranking points. Rankings are used to determine RWC draws.

Wales lost to Aus in 2012 and ended up in a RWC pool with England, Australia and Fiji. By the time they played SA they were missing a stack of players. If that game in 2012 never happened or if Wales won it (they lost to an 80th minute try) RWC 2015 takes a very different look

If my granny had balls.

aloooof

On a completely different note... what was the verdict on Sweetnam at the weekend? I only caught the match it fits and starts, was hoping he'd have a good outing. Farrell looked good from the bits I saw as well.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You can call them Martina if you want, you're still completely wrong.

There's no wrong or right, it's just what i call them.

prawnsambo wrote: »

Because apparwently we can call them what we want.

Yes but why county finals?

Teferi

Padraig121 wrote: »

If my granny had balls.

...they still wouldn't be called friendlies?

Teferi wrote: »

...they still wouldn't be called friendlies?

Why not? They're friendlies.

aloooof wrote: »

On a completely different note... what was the verdict on Sweetnam at the weekend? I only caught the match it fits and starts, was hoping he'd have a good outing. Farrell looked good from the bits I saw as well.

I thought Sweetnam did very well overall. He might have done better on Nadolo just befire half time but he doesn't look out of place so far.

connachta

aloooof wrote: »

connachta wrote: »

Once. And it wasn't in RWC vs Wales and Argentina (expensive teams who counter-attack)

Wales 2011 were by no means an expansive team. Just look at their midfield.

Wales has always played an expansive rugby. Never rely on the pack and the kicks. Passes, passes

[Deleted User]

This is a bizarre afternoon on boards.ie rugby. Can we stop providing oxygen? Please?

Padraig121 wrote: »

Yes but why county finals?

I like it. Isn't that what you said? Call them what you want I think were your words.

aloooof

connachta wrote: »

Wales has always played an expansive rugby. Never rely on the pack and the kicks. Passes, passes

This is completely inaccurate of Wales under Gatland. He even has a phrase named after him to describe his brand of in-expansive rugby.

connachta wrote: »

Wales has always played an expansive rugby. Never rely on the pack and the kicks. Passes, passes

Wales gameplan was pass to jamie roberts to crash it up. That was it. Wales under Gatland have not been expansive in any way shape or form until the last 2 weeks.