nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Ireland Team Talk XI: Team of nervoUS MOD warning Post 1

[Deleted User]

Continued from here
https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057953711/251
All Ireland Senior XV related talk here.

MOD: Bear in mind this thread is starting during the World Cup window and the zero tolerance policy is in force. Trolling will be rewarded with an instant ban. For the duration of the tournament any mention of Zebo in this thread will not be permitted, it is just dragging current Ireland squad talk off topic.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ClanofLams

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Did I say Geoghegan played in 80's? I just said I started to watch in 80's. I mentioned Geoghegan because he is still one of my favorite Irish players of all time...

I am fully aware how terrible Ireland where before the 2000's.

At the end of his contract Gatland had a win ratio of 47%. Loss more games than won. He had a number of disasters as coach including the loss against Scotland in the last 6 nations. The biggest was Lens.....all these came down to his coaching.

People look back now and think we should have kept him on, but at the time he was released nobody had a time machine.

The majority of people were saying at the time he should have been kept. Using 47% in isolation means nothing, what did the coaches before Gatland have? Had it improved every year over his term?

Irish rugby was in a shambolic state when he took over, they were on a clear upward trajectory. Ludicrous decision to get rid of him made by blazers because Gatland wasn’t suitably deferential to them and Eddie O’Sullivan was willing to go along with that nonsense.

Faugheen

Just to add, VDFs ground ability is vastly underrated.

He stole two balls against Scotland and another on on Saturday.

Fornevermore

Shefwedfan wrote: »

If you think a win ratio of 47% is success then so be it....

In my eyes anything under 50% is a failure....

How would you describe EOS and Kidney tenure?

Gatland took us from whipping boys to competitive. That's not a failure. You are wrong.

aloooof

Shefwedfan wrote: »

If you think a win ratio of 47% is success then so be it....

In my eyes anything under 50% is a failure....

In the context of what went before, it was.

Shefwedfan wrote: »

How would you describe EOS and Kidney tenure?

I would say they were both let go at, or near, the nadir of their tenure. Kidney was let go after we won 1 out of 5 in the 6 Nations, including our first ever defeat to Italy. EOS was let go with 2 wins out of 5 in the 6 Nations following the 2007 RWC.

Nothing of the sort can be said of Gatland. He won 4 out of 5 games in his last 6 Nations. That was completely unheard of in the 90s.

lleti

Not sure what thread to post in but how are tackles going to be made in future.

Look at the tackle Stockdale got. Stockdale was low as **** and running straight into a player. What is a defender supposed to do now? I heard BOD say go for the legs but how much lower can a defender go when a player is running straight into them dipping themselves?

sydthebeat

lleti wrote: »

Not sure what thread to post in but how are tackles going to be made in future.

Look at the tackle Stockdale got. Stockdale was low as **** and running straight into a player. What is a defender supposed to do now? I heard BOD say go for the legs but how much lower can a defender go when a player is running straight into them dipping themselves?

going for the legs is more dangerous and causes more concussions. the sweet spot is between the hips and the chest.

world rugby however have to start bring the actions of the ball carrier into play though. a player thats full bent through 90 degrees, in the perfect (and preferred) position to make a tackle should not be getting penalized when the ball carrier drops their head down to that level. Stockdale took that tackle basically kneeling on the ground.

PTH2009

A repeat of 2016/18 performances will be needed for Saturday

This is very much an end of a era and fitting it will likely end at the hands of the All Blacks

Cant wait for Saturday

bilston

Before Gatland the only teams we ever beat were Wales (oddly away and they beat us in Dublin all the time) and the odd pashun based win over England. But that was it. The only other teams we beat were Tier 2 sides and even then I remember us losing to Samoa and to Italy (who were Tier 2 at the time). Rugby was on its knees in the mid 90s in Ireland.

Gatland took over and after a disappointing world cup, he took us to consecutive wins over France, we beat Scotland at home (which was pretty much unheard of at the time), beat Wales and England and also beat Italy a couple of times. He also oversaw a pulsating game against NZ were we ran them close.

Unfortunately we screwed up against Scotland at Murrayfield and that seemed to do for Gatland.

He was undoubtedly helped by the emergence of BOD, ROG, Stringer, Easterby, Wallace, Hayes and Horgan, but relatively speaking he was definitely a success.

To be fair the IRFU have let their coaches at the right time in the past 20 years. Gatland took us so far and then EOS took us forward a bit more, then Kidney kicked on to the next level by winning a GS and Joe has taken us to unheard of heights. Both EOS and Kidney stayed on a year too long. There are small signs that Joe is probably timing his exit to perfection as I can see there being a dip for a year or so after the WC, but we'll see.

Shefwedfan

Gatland is long gone....

He has done well and fair play to him....he will never be Ireland coach again so pointless discussion

aloooof

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Gatland is long gone....

He has done well and fair play to him....he will never be Ireland coach again so pointless discussion

Nobody is saying he will be Ireland coach again. But to say he failed is inaccurate and doing him a disservice.

Portsalon

ClanofLams wrote: »

The majority of people were saying at the time he should have been kept. Using 47% in isolation means nothing, what did the coaches before Gatland have? Had it improved every year over his term?

Irish rugby was in a shambolic state when he took over, they were on a clear upward trajectory. Ludicrous decision to get rid of him made by blazers because Gatland wasn’t suitably deferential to them and Eddie O’Sullivan was willing to go along with that nonsense.

Hear hear!

jacothelad

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I started in the 80's.....simon geoghegan and all that.....I remember all the s**t days.

He threw young lads in because he was about to get the sack. He had just got hammered 50-18 by England. That why the young players got picked....He beat France and the following week at home got beaten by Wales?

He was the coach of the disaster in Lens.

They should have won the Grand Slam the foot and mouth year but got hammered by a terrible Scotland team.

Only coach in the professional era never to win a trophy and the worst win ratio.

Gatland was a btrath of fresh air but was dreadfully handicaped by nor being allowed to select the players he wanted until it was almost too late. Ireland still selected the team by means iof the appalling seleection committee system. When he did get a free - ish hand the team improved dramatically as he jettisoned the old hands p.d.q.

irishbucsfan

Fornevermore wrote: »

You do know that we would have had a choice to rest our players if we'd beaten Japan? Like what Wales did. I don't see them moaning. As excuses go, a 7 day turnaround is a flimsy one.

We’ve a 31 player squad. Do the maths.

irishbucsfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you don't think having one less game and a longer recovery isn't of significant benefit then I've got a bridge to sell you.

And don't take my word for it, see what Eddie Jones had to say.

Don’t just take Eddie Jones’ words for it. Steve Hansen literally said what a benefit it’s been and how hard they were able to go in training on Friday because they were locked up on Saturday

Absolutely no doubt it’s cast a shadow on this match and given an advantage. Still up to us to win though, it’s hardly put the game beyond reach.

prawnsambo

jacothelad wrote: »

Gatland was a btrath of fresh air but was dreadfully handicaped by nor being allowed to select the players he wanted until it was almost too late. Ireland still selected the team by means iof the appalling seleection committee system. When he did get a free - ish hand the team improved dramatically as he jettisoned the old hands p.d.q.

And after he was gone, the nonsense was back. It didn't stop until Joe took over and told them that he wouldn't be doing that.

[Deleted User]

I'm glad we got the extra match in. We played a full strength team against Japan and lost, a second string against Russia and were pretty terrible, so I really don't think they're ideal performances to carry into a game against NZ. The first team got another run against Samoa and were pretty good, I think that's important. Jones and Hansen saw their sides sail through the pool stages.

irishbucsfan

Interested Observer wrote: »

I'm glad we got the extra match in. We played a full strength team against Japan and lost, a second string against Russia and were pretty terrible, so I really don't think they're ideal performances to carry into a game against NZ. The first team got another run against Samoa and were pretty good, I think that's important. Jones and Hansen saw their sides sail through the pool stages.

I’d much prefer an extra week to target the game. And Bundee Aki wouldn’t mind that either I’m sure.

Birdie Num Num

I know this is most likely going over old ground by now but I haven’t been on any threads recently. I did have a glance over in the last few days and I know many people will disagree with me. I had the benefit (or disadvantage) of watching the Samoa game without sound, so had no commentary nor heard any views of pundits at the time nor since.

...I really didn’t see Aki’s Tackle as a red. To me all the force and momentum was coming from the Samoan. If I remember rightly Aki bounced or spun off another player, uprighted himself and was met in an almost standing position by the Samoan who was coming up from a low position. I was actually expecting a penalty without a card. On a few reruns in slowmo I thought a possible yellow. ...I haven’t seen a full replay of it since but I did see a twitter clip of the ref and TMO viewing the footage. I felt the footage that they viewed didn’t seem to take in enough of the lead up to the impact.

Apologies if posters find this monotonous at this stage. Also, as a btw, I didn’t think it was as bad as the shoulder to Stockdale’s face either. I felt Aki was unlucky, nothing malicious in it at all and a 3 week ban to me is ridiculous.

[Deleted User]

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

I know this is most likely going over old ground by now but I haven’t been on any threads recently. I did have a glance over in the last few days and I know many people will disagree with me. I had the benefit (or disadvantage) of watching the Samoa game without sound, so had no commentary nor heard any views of pundits at the time nor since.

...I really didn’t see Aki’s Tackle as a red. To me all the force and momentum was coming from the Samoan. If I remember rightly Aki bounced or spun off another player, uprighted himself and was met in an almost standing position by the Samoan who was coming up from a low position. I was actually expecting a penalty without a card. On a few reruns in slowmo I thought a possible yellow. ...I haven’t seen a full replay of it since but I did see a twitter clip of the ref and TMO viewing the footage. I felt the footage that they viewed didn’t seem to take in enough of the lead up to the impact.

Apologies if posters find this monotonous at this stage. Also, as a btw, I didn’t think it was as bad as the shoulder to Stockdale’s face either. I felt Aki was unlucky, nothing malicious in it at all and a 3 week ban to me is ridiculous.

Under the current rules it's a clear red. That's how it is these days. I don't think it was a referee error or anything close, the ban confirms that.

Podge_irl

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

Apologies if posters find this monotonous at this stage. Also, as a btw, I didn’t think it was as bad as the shoulder to Stockdale’s face either. I felt Aki was unlucky, nothing malicious in it at all and a 3 week ban to me is ridiculous.

The key difference between the two is that the Samoan was bent at the waist into basically a perfect tackle stance. Aki was completely upright. That is what makes it much worse.

ionadnapóca

Any news on when Ref will be announced?

testtech05

ionadnapokot wrote: »

Any news on when Ref will be announced?

I thought I heard on the radio this evening it was named as Wayne Barnes but it might have been the pundit was saying he would prefer Barnes though. Only heard it in passing.

Shefwedfan

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

I know this is most likely going over old ground by now but I haven’t been on any threads recently. I did have a glance over in the last few days and I know many people will disagree with me. I had the benefit (or disadvantage) of watching the Samoa game without sound, so had no commentary nor heard any views of pundits at the time nor since.

...I really didn’t see Aki’s Tackle as a red. To me all the force and momentum was coming from the Samoan. If I remember rightly Aki bounced or spun off another player, uprighted himself and was met in an almost standing position by the Samoan who was coming up from a low position. I was actually expecting a penalty without a card. On a few reruns in slowmo I thought a possible yellow. ...I haven’t seen a full replay of it since but I did see a twitter clip of the ref and TMO viewing the footage. I felt the footage that they viewed didn’t seem to take in enough of the lead up to the impact.

Apologies if posters find this monotonous at this stage. Also, as a btw, I didn’t think it was as bad as the shoulder to Stockdale’s face either. I felt Aki was unlucky, nothing malicious in it at all and a 3 week ban to me is ridiculous.

It was a red card....3 weeks was the minimum

Didn’t need pundits, just watch Aki face after the tackle, he knew it

Shefwedfan

jacothelad wrote: »

Gatland was a btrath of fresh air but was dreadfully handicaped by nor being allowed to select the players he wanted until it was almost too late. Ireland still selected the team by means iof the appalling seleection committee system. When he did get a free - ish hand the team improved dramatically as he jettisoned the old hands p.d.q.

The selection committee only went for Joe, all the coach’s had to deal with it

Plus if I remember correctly the committee never picked the team. The coach picked it and then the committee reviewed it.....

Birdie Num Num

Shefwedfan wrote: »

It was a red card....3 weeks was the minimum

Didn’t need pundits, just watch Aki face after the tackle, he knew it

I need to watch it again and not just the TMO footage. Disagree with the committee upholding the ban on the basis that they viewed it as not a reactionary tackle and I don’t think he really had the time to change his height. But need to watch again as said.

ionadnapóca

testtech05 wrote: »

I thought I heard on the radio this evening it was named as Wayne Barnes but it might have been the pundit was saying he would prefer Barnes though. Only heard it in passing.

Hope not
Jaco - no thanks
Gardner - no chance

Would like Nick Berry

Stheno

ionadnapokot wrote: »

Hope not
Jaco - no thanks
Gardner - no chance

Would like Nick Berry

Was on Facebook that it is Barnes

ionadnapóca

Stheno wrote: »

Was on Facebook that it is Barnes

Flip

[Deleted User]

Anyone but Garces

kuang1

Stheno wrote: »

Was on Facebook that it is Barnes

This would be veeeeeeeery good news.