RugbyLover123 wrote: » Never going to happen but should really look towards building to the next WC in February. If it means poor performances in 6 Nations/November then so be it. But shouldn’t be investing time in players who aren’t going to be in France 2023. No point going over what went wrong now, but hopefully the likes of Ryan, Leavy, VDF, Larmour can step up. And we unearth a world class 2 & wing and 10 because Carberry is not a 10 and Byrne isn’t up to it.
ClanofLams wrote: » Nobody does that. Half of NZ’s backline only came on the scene in the last 18 months. Their back three played together for the first time two months ago. I would be happy to get on board a four year plan if there was an example where it had worked. Sacrificing six nations games would have a serious impact in terms of interest, commercially etc Some changes need to be made, Larmour at 15, New hooker, etc but there still needs to be a focus on a successful six nations.
Interested Observer wrote: » That was the poorest back 3 to play for Ireland since POM lined out on the wing against Italy. Said it before the match, Conway and Larmour should have been starting. Not that it would have made a huge difference overall but there was no opportunity for guys to play their way into the team.
Interested Observer wrote: » Can we all agree its not very likely we'll have a successful 6N if we keep playing the same players en masse?
ClanofLams wrote: » I’m fine with that and with changes or whatever. But if for example, Cian Healy is in the best form come six nations, he should still start even though he won’t make France.
whatawaster wrote: » I don’t agree with that Sexton has no chance of making France But will almost certainly still be our best 10 in 3 months There comes a point where we need to look to the future Players shouldn’t play on until their legs completely go
ClanofLams wrote: » It doesn’t seem to be affecting Steve Hansen or Warren Gatland. Correlation doesn’t equal causation as they say.
Niallof9 wrote: » Is Wayne pivac sitting on Gatlands shoulder? That’s the difference. Ian foster hasnt been announced either Huge error
Ulysses Gaze wrote: » I don't think we'll see huge changes from Farrell as HC and we will still be playing a bastardised version of coalminer rugby for 2 years until he is relieved of the HC position. I hope I am wrong on that.
ClanofLams wrote: » How does that work now? Players don’t care even though the new head coach is there but they care when the head coach is somewhere else or something?
Niallof9 wrote: » If you can’t see the difference I’m out. It’s a clear rebuttal to your argument. Gats and Hansen haven’t announced their successor, who’s to say the players are happy with it the succession idea? He’s a ghost/ shadow looming over it
Danthemanhere wrote: » I think we might have to face facts, Schmidt wasn't nearly as good a coach as we previously thought.
Exclamation Marc wrote: » Facts point to him being quite the opposite actually. But please, continue trolling.
ScissorPaperRock wrote: » Do we know who the assistant coaches will be now? Attack / Defence?
Niallof9 wrote: » If you can’t see the difference I’m out. It’s a clear rebuttal to your argument. Gats and Hansen haven’t announced their successor, who’s to say the players are happy with it the succession idea? He’s a ghost/ shadow looming over it You are arguing it doesn’t matter. If a coach as good as Ferguson thinks it does the idea is not without merit. Similar thing with one of the nfl coaches. For me announcing faz is up there with handing Eddie o and kidders and Staunton, mon contracts before the show. Typical of us really I think he’ll be gone by next season, that’s my prediction
Donnielighto wrote: » Depends, keep some experience yes but build out the squad properly and select on form when it matters. Sack off the 6 nation's, we have enough of them at this point.