Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…296297299301302…335

Comments

  • Options
    #8942
    mangobob
    Registered Users Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭mangobob


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    He was reporting on what Schmidt was saying. And he was pointing out that Schmidt was challenging the media which is particularly relevant given his and his employer's recent behaviour.
    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    "That's your job" is obviously paraphrasing "That's your guys challenge, I guess", remember this is a tweet sent while Joe was saying it.

    It may be paraphrasing but it also distorts the intended meaning in a subtle but important way. I get that he was tweeting on the hoof as it were. But its not like you or I sent out an inaccurate tweet to our mates with a few typos or a mistakes. He is a journalist, and his primary responsibility should be to accurately quote his source to fully convey their intended meaning, so I am not willing to cut him any slack on this.

    Given the current tensions between the media and the IRFU, one would have thought that if anything journalists would be at pains to ensure the accuracy of their reporting. Instead we get clipped tweets taking selected statements out of context and then misquoting him at the end. I understand the limitations of twitter as a journalistic medium, but if it forces to you compromise the quality and integrity of your reporting then I would suggest its better to forego it instead.

    I acknowledge that I might be reading too much into things when I say this, but reading the entirety of Cummiskeys tweet in the current climate, I can't help but feel suspicious that he is deliberately attempting to portray Schmidt in an unflattering light to feed the prevailing media narrative.


  • Options
    #8943
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    joseywhales wrote: »
    Has anyone ever been out as long and returned to international rugby?
    He is an example of determination.

    He played three matches in the 2016 Six Nations and was called up to the 6N squad last year too (but didn't play).


  • Options
    #8944
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Members of the media trying to distort the truth and present a narrative to sell papers?

    Never.

    Gavin WUMmiskey... :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #8945
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    arsebiscuits1 wrote: »
    Replace "Chancellor Palpatine" with "the media"

    Replace "The Jedi" with "The IRFU"

    This is essentially what is happening right now.

    You are lost. I will pray for you

    Hilarious and all as that is, it's just a cheesey sidestep around giving an answer. What's happened is Schmidt has been asked if they'll make changes, he's replied to the media's question with his own question (which was an attempt to discredit the original question) and then told them he's not going to answer it and that its their job to work it out themselves. Which in the context of what has gone on is quite tone-deaf. It's a very good example of what Shane Horgan was referring to when he said that Joe is not great at this bit and gets tetchy a bit too quickly with the media.

    I'm not even saying Schmidt was wrong in his answer, at all, here. I think it's completely an understandable answer. But it's obvious why the media would want to highlight it. I can understand why Schmidt would get frustrated if his frames of reference are lightyears ahead of the media who are asking him, it's not at all going to be fun to have to mentally switch state from talking to professionals about extremely minute details to talking to lay people about generalities. But it's part of the job. The media aren't there to be PR men or cheerleaders, and its just weird to expect that they should be.


  • Options
    #8946
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    mangobob wrote: »
    Given the current tensions between the media and the IRFU, one would have thought that if anything journalists would be at pains to ensure the accuracy of their reporting.

    Given the current tensions, do you not think that maybe Schmidt challenging reporters to find out more about the Irish team on their own while also continuously reducing their access to the camp might be a bit inflammatory?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8947
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Given the current tensions, do you not think that maybe Schmidt challenging reporters to find out more about the Irish team on their own while also continuously reducing their access to the camp might be a bit inflammatory?

    I took his meaning there to say that he isn't going to give away trade secrets, but he's sure they will write about them.

    Generally IBF I think you're posts are brilliant, I'm sure I'm one of the top 10 posters to like your posts, but I think you are extremely blinkered on this issue to be honest.


  • Options
    #8948
    OldRio
    Registered Users Posts: 5,953 ✭✭✭OldRio


    Well the love for the media keeps on growing for some. Even factually incorrect statements are glossed over.
    Very very interesting.


  • Options
    #8949
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,264 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    We need to kick more on Saturday.


  • Options
    #8950
    Interested Observer
    Registered Users Posts: 13,039 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    joseywhales wrote: »
    Has anyone ever been out as long and returned to international rugby?
    He is an example of determination.

    He played in the 2016 6N, it's not really that long between caps. Think he was injured and possibly suspended a fair bit in the interim. But yes he's playing very well this season and good on him.


  • Options
    #8951
    Yeah_Right
    Registered Users Posts: 5,972 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    We need to kick more on Saturday.

    Correct. All the top teams kick a lot. But don't point that out to the journos. They would rather write articles complaining that Ireland kick more than anyone in the history of rugby.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8952
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I took his meaning there to say that he isn't going to give away trade secrets, but he's sure they will write about them.

    Generally IBF I think you're posts are brilliant, I'm sure I'm one of the top 10 posters to like your posts, but I think you are extremely blinkered on this issue to be honest.

    I wish I could be on the side assuming the IRFU are right on this issue, but unfortunately that option isn't open to me.

    I appreciate that's what you took him to mean, but in reality it's not important when listening in on a media briefing what you or I took him to mean. Thought they were smart ending it when they did. I'd love to have heard what the "Written Emargoed" briefing went like.


  • Options
    #8953
    mangobob
    Registered Users Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭mangobob


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Given the current tensions, do you not think that maybe Schmidt challenging reporters to find out more about the Irish team on their own while also continuously reducing their access to the camp might be a bit inflammatory?

    Not in the least. Telling an audience of reporters and analysts that 'we have made some important changes to how we play but I am not going to make our opponents job easier by highlighting them, so your challenge will be to tease them out yourselves' is hardly inflammatory behaviour. Its simply a statement of fact.

    Furthermore, a good analyst should not need access to the camp to identify those changes, so I don't see the connection.


  • Options
    #8954
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    Joe got very tetchy about a perfectly valid question. Cummiskey was very quick to highlight said tetchiness. Neither man covered himself in glory.

    Let's move on.


  • Options
    #8955
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    mangobob wrote: »
    Not in the least. Telling an audience of reporters and analysts that 'we have made some important changes to how we play but I am not going to make our opponents job easier by highlighting them, so your challenge will be to tease them out yourselves' is hardly inflammatory behaviour. Its simply a statement of fact.

    Furthermore, a good analyst should not need access to the camp to identify those changes, so I don't see the connection.

    This is not a briefing of analysts. That is not at all what it's supposed to be. This is a briefing of media, some of whom have never played or coached the game in their lives and cover many sports. This is the entire point of the briefing. Analysts do not need a media briefing, and indeed most don't attend. So when they ask a coach about tactics, they don't expect to have their question dismissed with a question straight back at them.


  • Options
    #8956
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Former Former wrote: »
    Joe got very tetchy about a perfectly valid question. Cummiskey was very quick to highlight said tetchiness. Neither man covered himself in glory.

    Let's move on.

    Very fair.


  • Options
    #8957
    D14Rugby
    Registered Users Posts: 2,815 ✭✭✭D14Rugby


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    No. It's absolutely not what's called for.

    Going over and over again down the throat of an opponent who are playing havoc with the ball on the ground, giving them chance after chance to wreck possession and slow you down. Please...

    However they wanted to do it, whether it was putting the ball behind Thomas/Vakatawa or shifting the French tight 5 laterally to stop them having such a huge influence, they should have achieved it. Going back to the same place over and over again is absolutely what "what's called for" at any level unless you're doing it successfully.

    I'm not even going to bother trying to explain to you why it was exactly what was called for, your clearly not interested in being told why you're wrong.


  • Options
    #8958
    baaba maal
    Registered Users Posts: 772 ✭✭✭baaba maal


    Buer wrote: »
    Gatland looks like a character off Prisoner Cell Block H.

    Literally the first thing I thought!


  • Options
    #8959
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    D14Rugby wrote: »
    I'm not even going to bother trying to explain to you why it was exactly what was called for, your clearly not interested in being told why you're wrong.

    I would love to hear you make an attempt at it.


  • Options
    #8960
    mangobob
    Registered Users Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭mangobob


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    I'm not even saying Schmidt was wrong in his answer, at all, here. I think it's completely an understandable answer. But it's obvious why the media would want to highlight it. I can understand why Schmidt would get frustrated if his frames of reference are lightyears ahead of the media who are asking him, it's not at all going to be fun to have to mentally switch state from talking to professionals about extremely minute details to talking to lay people about generalities. But it's part of the job. The media aren't there to be PR men or cheerleaders, and its just weird to expect that they should be.

    This is absolutely reasonable and I agree with all of it. However it seems to presuppose that Schmidt had an Eddie Jones moment or a Martin O'Neill style confrontation with the media. I never detected any of that. I felt his tone and body language throughout the whole conference was perfectly relaxed and calm. He answered all questions thoroughly and where he disagreed with the premise of a question he gave a polite, detailed and logical rebuttal. Having read Cummiskeys tweet before I saw the video, I had a very different impression of the tenor of Joes responses. I honestly suspect that may be deliberate.

    Finally, I am not sure anyone here is expecting the media to be cheerleaders. I just expect accuracy and professional integrity from them.


  • Options
    #8961
    Interested Observer
    Registered Users Posts: 13,039 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    This is not a briefing of analysts. That is not at all what it's supposed to be. This is a briefing of media, some of whom have never played or coached the game in their lives and cover many sports. This is the entire point of the briefing. Analysts do not need a media briefing, and indeed most don't attend. So when they ask a coach about tactics, they don't expect to have their question dismissed with a question straight back at them.

    It doesn't really matter who the briefing was to, paper never refused ink. He's not going to give anything away before a game.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8962
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Interested Observer wrote: »
    It doesn't really matter who the briefing was to, paper never refused ink. He's not going to give anything away before a game.

    Oh absolutely, never suggested he would.


  • Options
    #8963
    mangobob
    Registered Users Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭mangobob


    Former Former wrote: »
    Joe got very tetchy about a perfectly valid question. Cummiskey was very quick to highlight said tetchiness. Neither man covered himself in glory.

    Let's move on.

    Honestly if that's considered being tetchy then Martin O'Neills outburst must be reclassified to borderline homicidal. I honestly felt Joes responses were 100% professional, courteous and reasonable. For the life of me I cannot find anything worthy of being labelled "tetchy".
    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    This is not a briefing of analysts. That is not at all what it's supposed to be. This is a briefing of media, some of whom have never played or coached the game in their lives and cover many sports. This is the entire point of the briefing. Analysts do not need a media briefing, and indeed most don't attend. So when they ask a coach about tactics, they don't expect to have their question dismissed with a question straight back at them.

    Except he didn't "dismiss" their question at all. Thats a distortion worth of Cummiskey lol.

    Joe answered their question, in some depth and detail I might add. He politely and calmly rejected the premise of the question that they need to suddenly change how they play in the middle of a campaign that has seen them win both their games. He talked about the closeness of all the matches with Wales and how they could have easily gone either way which is why the win/loss statistic is somewhat misleading and why in his view we don't need any radical changes to be able to beat them. He discussed the impact of injuries to key personnel in some of those losses and he went on to state that we have in fact already made some changes to the how the team play over the last 2 years, but stated that he is obviously not going to reveal those changes before the world and its their challenge to figure it out. And he is absolutely right. Even if they are as clueless as you make out, its not Schimdts job to alleviate their ignorance at the expense of making our opponents job easier.

    None of that could be remotely characterised as "dismissive".


  • Options
    #8964
    Burkie1203
    Registered Users Posts: 11,315 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203


    Buer wrote: »
    Gatland looks like a character off Prisoner Cell Block H.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/2783979140/5ddaec40eb79d70f9bd7a8a6a57fe58e_400x400.jpeg


  • Options
    #8965
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    mangobob wrote: »
    Honestly if that's considered being tetchy then Martin O'Neills outburst must be reclassified to borderline homicidal. I honestly felt Joes responses were 100% professional, courteous and reasonable. For the life of me I cannot find anything worthy of being labelled "tetchy".



    Except he didn't "dismiss" their question at all. Thats a distortion worth of Cummiskey lol.

    Joe answered their question, in some depth and detail I might add. He politely and calmly rejected the premise of the question that they need to suddenly change how they play in the middle of a campaign that has seen them win both their games. He talked about the closeness of all the matches with Wales and how they could have easily gone either way which is why the win/loss statistic is somewhat misleading and why in his view we don't need any radical changes to be able to beat them. He discussed the impact of injuries to key personnel in some of those losses and he went on to state that we have in fact already made some changes to the how the team play over the last 2 years, but stated that he is obviously not going to reveal those changes before the world and its their challenge to figure it out. And he is absolutely right. Even if they are as clueless as you make out, its not Schimdts job to alleviate their ignorance at the expense of making our opponents job easier.

    None of that could be remotely characterised as "dismissive".

    Joe was asked if he felt he needed to change much, he asked "What can you change? It's a game of rugby, some times we kick sometimes we run wide sometimes we run through the middle. If anyone tried to analyse what we do do there is a lot of variety in what we do..." and so on. He then went off on a very interesting tangent, but that was how he dismissed the question of whether or not he felt change was needed.

    Anyway this has gone on way longer than this specific episode remotely warrants, it might have deserved a sideways glance at most, but definitely not multiple posts, so I'm sorry. This is not a major press v. Schmidt moment and it was never brought up to be that. What's far more important here is the idea that there's nothing Ireland could change, that's the reason it was brought up in the first place.


  • Options
    #8966
    Try_harder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,681 ✭✭✭Try_harder


    Team as expected by Joe. I trust his judgment so happy. What would be a good pub to watch the Calcutta Cup in after the match?


  • Options
    #8967
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Try_harder wrote: »
    Team as expected by Joe. I trust his judgment so happy. What would be a good pub to watch the Calcutta Cup in after the match?

    Are you going to the match? If so I'd suggest walk back up towards Baggot's Street and catch it in Searsons, or one of those hives of scum and villainy.


  • Options
    #8968
    D14Rugby
    Registered Users Posts: 2,815 ✭✭✭D14Rugby


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    I would love to hear you make an attempt at it.

    They got a try that was more bad defense than anything else, take that out and its a 6 - 12 win in Paris, and as the linked stats show, we dominated the game.
    If you've ever played with a new ball in the rain you'll know spinning it quickly wide through the hands isn't an option. As for the kicking in behind, that's just giving France's two biggest weapons the ball or at least giving them a line out, the way to beat France is use their two biggest weaknesses against them, fitness and discipline, to exploit fitness you've to move them about quick and often (not an option in the weather), so then you get to discipline and the easiest way to do that is go from ruck to ruck to ruck.

    https://www.sixnationsrugby.com/matchcentre/live/france-v-ireland/#match-report


  • Options
    #8969
    Yeah_Right
    Registered Users Posts: 5,972 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Oh absolutely, never suggested he would.

    I honestly don't understand your point of view at times. You're criticizing JS for dismissing a question about tactics but you're also saying he didn't need to answer it. I'm confused.


    Also, in my opinion, any journo that asks a coach or player a question about tactics before a match deserves ridicule. And if they persist, they should be shot.


  • Options
    #8970
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Yeah_Right wrote: »
    I honestly don't understand your point of view at times. You're criticizing JS for dismissing a question about tactics but you're also saying he didn't need to answer it. I'm confused.


    Also, in my opinion, any journo that asks a coach or player a question about tactics before a match deserves ridicule. And if they persist, they should be shot.
    Not only did I not criticize Joe Schmidt for not answering a question about tactics, he wasn’t asked specifically about tactics. Your inability to understand my view may be assisted by reading it I guess.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8971
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Yeah_Right wrote: »
    Also, in my opinion, any journo that asks a coach or player a question about tactics before a match deserves ridicule. And if they persist, they should be shot.
    A bit extreme, but gave me a chuckle anyway. :D


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement