Foxtrol wrote: » Care to answer the question I actually asked?
Foxtrol wrote: » Because none of the other options have ever consistently lived up to the level of peak Sexton or Murray at provincial level or their chances at Irish level. Maybe any of the options you listed could have taken a huge step to that of their peak levels if given the big 6 nations games but I see little evidence to support that opinion.
ClanofLams wrote: » I’m saying that consistent poor performances for a national team need to have consequences. I’m saying that when a guy is the worst player on the pitch by some distance that shouldn’t be tolerated for seventy plus mins. They had played what fifty times together? I really don’t think missing a game or two last March would make much difference to their performances six months on.
mfceiling wrote: » How did we know? Murray had a poor 6N. Sexton wasn't much better. Maybe try McGrath, Marmion, Cooney, Carty or Carberry? Or maybe keep saying " they'll come into form, they just need time". Must be disheartening for the back ups to think "best hope I have of game time is injury or 10 minutes at the end of the match"
Foxtrol wrote: » Sounds soccer phone-in show style management advice. So you're saying no player during 2019 improved their play with more gametime, they were all dropped or they didn't get better? Glad your take away from all of 2019 appears to fit in perfectly with you worldview, the repetition is helpful. There isn't a one size fits all solution to how to get players back in form. Competition is great when there are replacement players that have shown they come at least come close to the peak of the incumbent, but we didn't have that at SH or OH. It was either making the decision to move on from Murray and/or Sexton and developing a plan around that decision or dropping them for a game or two as some kind of 'no one is undropable' message to the team. The latter seems completely daft to me.
Foxtrol wrote: » Again, the problem is that we had no one to replace them that is near close to their level when they are on form.
Foxtrol wrote: » Just to clarify, you're also saying that no player has ever regained form through more playing time, that benching is the only way they regain it?
Foxtrol wrote: » Competition is great when there are replacement players that have shown they come at least come close to the peak of the incumbent, but we didn't have that at SH or OH.
ClanofLams wrote: » Sounds completely daft to me to keep picking or playing guys clearly out of form and hoping they magically find that form on the grass. Form matters. There was six months before the World Cup for these guys to recover form. If they don’t recover that form, you go with next guy up. With Murray having not recovered his form, Ireland would have been better off with McGrath or Marmion starting anyway. It also matters in terms of the message you’re sending to the squad. Dropping one of the most established players on the team shows no position is safe and places are up for grabs which should result in everyone lifting their game.
ClanofLams wrote: » To repeat again I’m not angling for anyone in particular. I’m arguing for performances having consequences, that’s a massively important thing for a squad at any level. I don’t agree you have to play them or move on. I’m not suggesting O’Mahony or Murray should be dropped completely. I’m suggesting the coach says ‘your form isn’t good enough so you’re dropped. We both know the talent you have so you need to get back to that level’ or ‘Johnny you know the respect I have for you. But your performance was so poor the last day that I had no option but to put a guy with two caps on with half an hour left’. There was European Cup, league play offs, warm ups,etc left. I think that’s plenty of time for guys to recover form. It’s not like any of these guys lack experience so much they desperately needed another game in the six nations. Performances being irrelevant, as they have appeared to be in Schmidt’s eyes this year will never result in success.
Clegg wrote: » I've watched the game again. It was even harder watching the second time as you can be more objective when you're not in the heat of the moment. It was a horror show performance, but not in the same way as on first view. First time round I thought we were simply crap. This time you could see that at times we actually manipulated the New Zealand defence, but at the crucial moments our execution was appalling. Sexton messing up relatively easy kick passes, going short to Henshaw when Stockdale was in space on the wing. Stander and Henshaw taking contact ball first and knocking on in promising positions. You could see we'd clearly worked on ways to crack New Zealand. But we really did just bottle it. Also, what I noticed this time which I didn't before is just how terrible Keith Earls was. When it comes to try scoring he's one of our best ever. But ask him to execute a pass under pressure and he bricks it. Did the same against Samoa. We made a nice little decoy play on Saturday. Used a few forwards as a screen and popped a pass to Earls who'd come from the far wing. When it came the time to pass to Larmour who was screaming for it in loads of space, Earls tucked the ball and ran. If you want to see a more well rounded attacking game from Ireland then I don't think Earls fits. You either get a second playmaker at 12 or 15, who can get the ball quickly to a finisher like Earls. Or you get a wing who is actually comfortable coming infield and acting as an auxiliary linkman to play that pass to space. I don't think we currently have the 12 or 15 for the former, but we've wings who are definitely more comfortable with the latter.
awec wrote: » Sorry, but what sort of question is that? You want evidence? Like, written documentation or what? Competition breeds success, this is pretty much universally accepted. No competition and players get comfortable. We saw this in 2019.
awec wrote: » Robbie Henshaw is IMO a very talented player who has been ruined at 12. He has been turned into a wannabe Jamie Roberts. I don't know if it was Joe Schmidt or Leinster that decided to coach the playmaking out of him, but whoever it was has made a total balls of it.
Foxtrol wrote: » But you have accepted that Marmion has never reached the peak of Murray. The choice was to either see if they could get Murray back to the level he had played or move to another SH that has never shown to be able to get to that level but is better than him in his currently poor form, the one you are angling for being 2 years younger at that time. This isn't a case of dropping a player to up their game, premier league manager dropping a player because he is going on the session too much. Players go through poor form and you either stick with them or move on. The problem at both OH and SH was that none of the other options put their hands up for anything other than being a fill in. Where I agree with you is POM, we had quality alternatives that were consistently outplaying him, with also a ceiling that was at his. I've already stated that it is easier for SH teams to try new guys in the run up to the WC. They are playing in competitive matches weeks before the event rather than 7 months before. Form is much more likely to change in the interim.
Foxtrol wrote: » Even if true, do you have any evidence that their form would improved by dropping them more than it did by giving them more game time?
awec wrote: » Purely as an example, how many times do you think Murray or Sexton have ever really worried during 2019 about being dropped? I bet it's never. I posted it at the time and I remember doing so because it pissed me off quite a bit, but Joe Schmidt sent a very clear message during the Six Nations to his team. Sexton and Murray were abysmal, like truly horrendous, and they both played 70+ minutes throughout the tournament. You might get a few sharp words from Schmidt during his famous Monday sessions, but it doesn't matter how crap you are, you aren't getting subbed and nobody else is getting your spot in the next game. So really, what does it matter? This is not a hindsight thing. People were calling this out back in February that it was a big problem, and it proved to be a big problem. I really don't know if this is a Joe Schmidt thing or an IRFU thing, because he's not the first Ireland coach to fall into this trap of picking his old reliables even when they're stinking the place out and not doing the business. We can only hope that he's the last though.
ClanofLams wrote: » I’m fine with using the six nations as a building block in World Cup years, I think success should be a priority every other year, for all the talk of four year plans that’s pretty much what NZ do, didn’t win tri nations/rugby championship in ‘11 ‘15 or ‘19 but look likely to win three world cups. That’s really besides the point though. I’m not sure if I’m not being clear or not but it’s about allowing players to become ‘undroppable’. Squads are successful when there’s genuine competition for places, again look at NZ Ioane and Ben Smith gone, newcomers Reece and Bridge who debuted a couple of months ago in. You can’t have a starting XV locked in a year out; it’s nonsense. Leaving Sexton on for seventy minutes, continuously playing Murray/O’Mahony and others who were out of form, etc. You don’t have to necessarily keep them out of the side but you need to make clear performances matter and that spots aren’t guaranteed.
Clegg wrote: » I've watched the game again. It was even harder watching the second time as you can be more objective when you're not in the heat of the moment. It was a horror show performance, but not in the same way as on first view. First time round I thought we were simply crap. This time you could see that at times we actually manipulated the New Zealand defence, but at the crucial moments our execution was appalling. Sexton messing up relatively easy kick passes, going short to Henshaw when Stockdale was in space on the wing. Stander and Henshaw taking contact ball first and knocking on in promising positions. You could see we'd clearly worked on ways to crack New Zealand. But we really did just bottle it. Also, what I noticed this time which I didn't before is just how terrible Keith Earls was. When it comes to try scoring he's one of our best ever. But ask him to execute a pass under pressure and he bricks it. Did the same against Samoa. We made nice little decoy okay on Saturday. Used a few forwards as a screen and popped a pass to Earls who'd come from the far wing. Then it came the time to pass to Larmour who was screaming for it in loads of space. Earls tucked the ball and ran. If you want to see a more well rounded attacking game from Ireland then I don't think Earls fits. You either get a second playmaker at 12 or 15 who can get the ball quickly to a finisher like Earls. Or you get a wing who is actually comfortable coming infield and acting as an auxiliary linkman to play that pass to space. I don't think we currently have the 12 or 15 for the former, but we've wings who are definitely more comfortable with the latter.
The Rape of Lucretia wrote: » Murray and Sexton were clearly both out of form for the world cup, which means they must now both play all the six nations to get them back on track. Players wont recover their form sitting in the stand. Murray could end up playing every game from here to the next world cup if his form keeps dipping. The worse he gets, the more important it become to keep starting him. You cant just go around dropping players just because they are playing badly and you have better ones on the sidelines. World Cups are not won with that kind of selection strategy.
ClanofLams wrote: » You can’t have a starting XV locked in a year out; it’s nonsense. Leaving Sexton on for seventy minutes, continuously playing Murray/O’Mahony and others who were out of form, etc. You don’t have to necessarily keep them out of the side but you need to make clear performances matter and that spots aren’t guaranteed.
ClanofLams wrote: » No I don’t think it would have made any difference last week. But players have been locked in for the last year at least. What impact has allowing that culture of ‘undroppable’ players to develop? How motivated are guys in training sessions if they it doesn’t matter what they do? At some stage a few of those undroppable players needed to get the bench. Against Italy doesn’t count, that’s clearly a second tier type game.
Shefwedfan wrote: » Your going in circles, you keep asking for players to get dropped but no alternative provided Is the plan just to drop players and put inferior players just to shake it up? It was recognised that over the last 4 years Ireland has tested more players than ever before, build up a squad with players who all had significant international experience So Marmion who hadn’t played from November was going to come in and Joe would pick him for a potential 6 nations decider in Wales? Marmion was in the squad for 4 years and never moved Murray from a starting role, I know your a Connacht fan but that has to suggest something to you....When Joe did shake it up everyone went nuts because he dropped Marmion.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/ad289898c0c6dda7e667bf900ae26d0c.svg)
