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

irishbucsfan wrote: »

What do you mean? The blame is at the feet of the coaches and the players. They were absolutely ****e. That doesn't automatically mean there are better players in all their positions in Ireland, especially when we know that isn't the case in nearly every position.

I would have to dispute that Kieran Marmion is not better than 2019 Conor Murray.

awec wrote: »

There is an awful lot of wishy washy vague stuff going on, to avoid having to criticise or say anything negative about anything or anyone specific. We can't blame individual players, cause they were all rubbish. We can't blame the coaches for their selection, sure we were great last year and our backups have never shown they were world class players in their token runouts. We can't blame the tactics, cause again we were great last year.

We can't really blame anything. Just have to forget about it. One of those things.

What do you mean? The blame is at the feet of the coaches and the players. They were absolutely ****e. That doesn't automatically mean there are better players in all their positions in Ireland, especially when we know that isn't the case in nearly every position.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't think you ever settle on a XV. I don't think any coach does and I doubt Schmidt ever did. I think there's an incredible level of misunderstanding going on there. Its a complete and utter myth.

We have a very similar XV right now than we did at the end of 2018 because there's very little variance in who the best players playing in Ireland are. However EVEN allowing for that, Jack McGrath and Devin Toner both beat New Zealand in 2018 and neither of them could even make our squad for this world cup. So they hardly picked their squad a year in advance and everyone knows that whether or not they want to admit it.

There are plenty of teams who settle on a pattern of selection for periods when they're confident they're the best players around. Who was introduced to the kiwi 23 before they won the 2015 world cup, was there anyone outside of Milner-Skudder? I don't think so... I'm not saying that justifies every one of our own selections, I'm saying in all likelihood they got other far more important things right (on the mental side of the game) that we still aren't capable of doing.

EDIT: And when I say "we" aren't capable of doing it, I of course mean Joe Schmidt wasn't capable of doing it. I'm in no way trying to defend his performance here. I just think the criticism is entirely miscalculated.

Schmidt settled on a XV when he refused to not only change things up between games, but to change things up in a game when it isn't working.

The message was sent loud and clear in the 6 nations. Few, if any players had much to worry about when it came to selection.

I think your post highlights part of the problem, the idea that the team has to be made up of the best players in Ireland are. This is a logical fallacy. The team should be made up of the best, in form players. The second point is key. No point picking the best player in Ireland in a certain position if his form is terrible.

And just to clarify, we are using Sexton and Murray a lot because they really are prime examples of the problems in our selections. I am not for a minute suggesting that changing those two alone would solve anything. The problems run much deeper than simply player selection in 2 positions unfortunately (and that is absolutely on Schmidt).

There is an awful lot of wishy washy vague stuff going on, to avoid having to criticise or say anything negative about anything or anyone specific. We can't blame individual players, cause they were all rubbish. We can't blame the coaches for their selection, sure we were great last year and our backups have never shown they were world class players in their token runouts. We can't blame the tactics, cause again we were great last year.

We can't really blame anything. Just have to forget about it. One of those things.

awec wrote: »

Because he put in his best performance in years?

Ah here, surely you get my point.

He did the exact same thing. It's a really obvious point I'm trying to make here.

ClanofLams wrote: »

You’re happy to rule out that having more or less settled on your XV a year out from the World Cup has no impact on how the year goes then? No impact on training quality? No impact on morale?

I find your provincial dig pretty juvenile. I’m arguing for Leinster players to be picked ahead of Munster players for the most part here. If you’re not capable of debate without that sort of sh**e, do one.

I don't think you ever settle on a XV. I don't think any coach does and I doubt Schmidt ever did. I think there's an incredible level of misunderstanding going on there. Its a complete and utter myth.

We have a very similar XV right now than we did at the end of 2018 because there's very little variance in who the best players playing in Ireland are. However EVEN allowing for that, Jack McGrath and Devin Toner both beat New Zealand in 2018 and neither of them could even make our squad for this world cup. So they hardly picked their squad a year in advance and everyone knows that whether or not they want to admit it.

There are plenty of teams who settle on a pattern of selection for periods when they're confident they're the best players around. Who was introduced to the kiwi 23 before they won the 2015 world cup, was there anyone outside of Milner-Skudder? I don't think so... I'm not saying that justifies every one of our own selections, I'm saying in all likelihood they got other far more important things right (on the mental side of the game) that we still aren't capable of doing.

EDIT: And when I say "we" aren't capable of doing it, I of course mean Joe Schmidt wasn't capable of doing it. I'm in no way trying to defend his performance here. I just think the criticism is entirely miscalculated.

Professor Moriarty

ClanofLams wrote: »

It’s ridiculous, exactly what I said earlier today. There are loons who say he’s s total failure or whatever and then another extreme of posters for whom he in an infallible messiah who has never got a decision wrong in his life. Ironically the latter group had many posters who are frequently condescending and sneering.

The condescending and sneering on rugby threads is of a different order. Nothing compares except, perhaps, the Norn Iron threads. Dunno why that is, seems pointless.

awec wrote: »

Because he put in his best performance in years?

Honestly, Joe Schmidt could select Furlong at full back and some on here would be defending it. There is a general refusal among certain quarters to accept that he is capable of getting it wrong.

It’s ridiculous, exactly what I said earlier today. There are loons who say he’s s total failure or whatever and then another extreme of posters for whom he in an infallible messiah who has never got a decision wrong in his life. Ironically the latter group had many posters who are frequently condescending and sneering.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

And Rob Kearney's wasn't acted on either was it. Peter O'Mahoney is a big game player, one of the only people to do anything positive.

The problem wasn't selection. Every single player out there underperformed, from 1 to 15. And a lot of those guys are better than anyone else by a distance.

Everyone knows Sexton is clearly the best option we have in his position. One of the best in the world in his position. But he's taking the ball to the line soft just like everyone else. When every single player is doing that consistently, the problem isn't individuals. They could have picked 15 separate players, even incredible Connacht players, and they likely would have been in exactly the same mental state taking the field because the external factors would have been exactly the same.

Because he put in his best performance in years?

Honestly, Joe Schmidt could select Furlong at full back and some on here would be defending it. There is a general refusal among certain quarters to accept that he is capable of getting it wrong.

Foxtrol wrote: »

But that is where the issue is, benching them is no guarantee that Marmion is going to be at his best or Carbery is going to play at his best. It was a calculated gamble that the others would return to form. From how Ireland performed when Sexton wasn't on the pitch during the WC (NZ aside) shows that at least in his case the right decision was likely made.

Players regaining form happens constantly without benching so it isn't the same result.

With your new found 2019 fact that benching fixes all, I expect you to be calling for the likes of Henderson and Cooney to be benched for Ulster for big European games if they any runs of bad games.

Calculated based on what?

irishbucsfan wrote: »

And Rob Kearney's wasn't acted on either was it. Peter O'Mahoney is a big game player, one of the only people to do anything positive.

The problem wasn't selection. Every single player out there underperformed, from 1 to 15. And a lot of those guys are better than anyone else by a distance.

Everyone knows Sexton is clearly the best option we have in his position. One of the best in the world in his position. But he's taking the ball to the line soft just like everyone else. When every single player is doing that consistently, the problem isn't individuals. They could have picked 15 separate players, even incredible Connacht players, and they likely would have been in exactly the same mental state taking the field because the external factors would have been exactly the same.

You’re happy to rule out that having more or less settled on your XV a year out from the World Cup has no impact on how the year goes then? No impact on training quality? No impact on morale?

I find your provincial dig pretty juvenile. I’m arguing for Leinster players to be picked ahead of Munster players for the most part here. If you’re not capable of debate without that sort of sh**e, do one.

ClanofLams wrote: »

If it was, it wasn’t acted upon, it was an empty threat. Conor Murray was still there playing poorly last Saturday. Peter O’Mahony was still there having limited impact, with three good moments and one major error in eighty minutes. It’s a World Cup year and we had a poor six nations. The axe should have been swung long ago.

And Rob Kearney's wasn't acted on either was it. Peter O'Mahoney is a big game player, one of the only people to do anything positive.

The problem wasn't selection. Every single player out there underperformed, from 1 to 15. And a lot of those guys are better than anyone else by a distance.

Everyone knows Sexton is clearly the best option we have in his position. One of the best in the world in his position. But he's taking the ball to the line soft just like everyone else. When every single player is doing that consistently, the problem isn't individuals. They could have picked 15 separate players, even incredible Connacht players, and they likely would have been in exactly the same mental state taking the field because the external factors would have been exactly the same.

awec wrote: »

Well this is becoming nonsense now. Marmion playing at his best is better than Murray playing like a drain. Carbery at his best is better than Sexton playing like a drain. The players in question don't need to make HUGE jumps to be better than the incumbents right now.

But that is where the issue is, benching them is no guarantee that Marmion is going to be at his best or Carbery is going to play at his best. It was a calculated gamble that the others would return to form. From how Ireland performed when Sexton wasn't on the pitch during the WC (NZ aside) shows that at least in his case the right decision was likely made.

Your argument is flawed anyway. The real question is not about what is more likely. It's about how many times you do the same thing over, and over, and over again, getting the exact same result but expecting something different.

Players regaining form happens constantly without benching so it isn't the same result.

With your new found 2019 fact that benching fixes all, I expect you to be calling for the likes of Henderson and Cooney to be benched for Ulster for big European games if they any runs of bad games.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Are there multiple definitions of form? I'm defining it as player performance on the pitch.

I never said solely due to them being continuously played. I don't see it as some kind of magic elixir that some here believe benching achieves. I did see the 6 nations being the last meaningful gametime of the two players together so if one or both was to be dropped they needed to make that decision and stick with it, not some 'teach them a lesson' for show action.

It’s not about teaching them a lesson. It’s that their form wasn’t good enough to warrant a spot or in Sextons case, it certainly wasn’t good enough to warrant seventy two minutes in Cardiff. Up your form or you might not be starting in the World Cup, it shouldn’t be an empty threat.

lord quackinton

Shefwedfan wrote: »

What exactly was Marmion going to do if he flew?

Even if he started against NZ would the result have changed?

Our issues started in the Japan game and the problem position in that game was not 9, it was 10.

Let’s all be honest here. Murray has never been right since his injury
Sexton form has been well off all year
Best is finished 8 months ago and had no business in japan

Our problems started the 6 nations just gone and the Welsh game especially highlighted the serious problems that were there

Why was Ireland so successful in 2018 we had a game plan that was built on best toner stander Pom Murray sexton all being in top form
Again if we are all honest a case could be made for only stander of that bunch even going to the World Cup
The form of the others due to age and injuries has been brutal all year

irishbucsfan wrote: »

And you know the same wasn't said to whoever else you're thinking needed competition this time around because...?

If it was, it wasn’t acted upon, it was an empty threat. Conor Murray was still there playing poorly last Saturday. Peter O’Mahony was still there having limited impact, with three good moments and one major error in eighty minutes. It’s a World Cup year and we had a poor six nations. The axe should have been swung long ago.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

And you know the same wasn't said to whoever else you're thinking needed competition this time around because...?

Because that would be stupid. Bit late to be delivering that message now.

Horse. Bolted. All that jazz.

ClanofLams wrote: »

I’m not sure what you’re defining as form? Have guys had two or three bad games and then come back into form? Sure. Have guys been poor for six months consistently and then come back into form solely due to them being continuously played? I wouldn’t think so.

No I wasn’t implying no off field changes were not being made. I was saying it would be very difficult to prove someone coming back into form was solely due to game time and not due to their training or diet being altered or some work on mentality, etc

Are there multiple definitions of form? I'm defining it as player performance on the pitch.

I never said solely due to them being continuously played. I don't see it as some kind of magic elixir that some here believe benching achieves. I did see the 6 nations being the last meaningful gametime of the two players together so if one or both was to be dropped they needed to make that decision and stick with it, not some 'teach them a lesson' for show action.

Foxtrol wrote: »

I'm basing it off their full body of work as players.

What is more likely a 29 year old returning from a neck injury regaining their peak performance level or a 27 year old making a large jump to levels that are well above anything they've ever played before?

Well this is becoming nonsense now. Marmion playing at his best is better than Murray playing like a drain. Carbery at his best is better than Sexton playing like a drain. The players in question don't need to make HUGE jumps to be better than the incumbents right now.

Your argument is flawed anyway. The real question is not about what is more likely. It's about how many times you do the same thing over, and over, and over again, getting the exact same result but expecting something different.

ClanofLams wrote: »

One of his best performances was in Chicago when Schmidt pretty much told him pre game his position was up for grabs if he didn’t have a big game. What do you know, a bit of concern about spot results in huge performance.

And you know the same wasn't said to whoever else you're thinking needed competition this time around because...?

JRant wrote: »

Well neither Sexton nor Murray were anywhere near their peak form so it's a completely mute argument.

awec wrote: »

Murray and Sexton haven't consistently lived up to peak Murray or Sexton for over a year.

Are you basing your opinion on the alternatives based on the token run-out they get when games are dead and buried?

I'm basing it off their full body of work as players.

What is more likely a 29 year old returning from a neck injury regaining their peak performance level or a 27 year old making a large jump to levels that are well above anything they've ever played before?

Shefwedfan wrote: »

What exactly was Marmion going to do if he flew?

Even if he started against NZ would the result have changed?

Our issues started in the Japan game and the problem position in that game was not 9, it was 10.

The problem was ten? Just ten really? Murray was awful in that game as were the pack. Jesus.

Shefwedfan

lord quackinton wrote: »

The players and management must feel dreadful. Rightly or wrongly Everything they achieved in a Green shirt under Schmidt reduced to an after thought

2018 has been a brutal year
But we all knew after this 6 nations we were goosed
We all fooled our selves into believing it would be ok even after England tonked us before the World Cup

I Blame Schmidt 100%
He must have known he needed to make changes and didn’t
Add in dropping Marimon which made no sense and was never properly explained.
He gambled and he blew it

What exactly was Marmion going to do if he flew?

Even if he started against NZ would the result have changed?

Our issues started in the Japan game and the problem position in that game was not 9, it was 10.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Maybe You're actually saying you are unsure that you have ever seen a player's form improve without them being benched?

Are you also implying that you are sure that the Irish set up, along with Sexton and Murray, weren't making off field or training changes to improve their form throughout the 6 nations?

I’m not sure what you’re defining as form? Have guys had two or three bad games and then come back into form? Sure. Have guys been poor for six months consistently and then come back into form solely due to them being continuously played? I wouldn’t think so.

No I wasn’t implying no off field changes were not being made. I was saying it would be very difficult to prove someone coming back into form was solely due to game time and not due to their training or diet being altered or some work on mentality, etc

lord quackinton

The players and management must feel dreadful. Rightly or wrongly Everything they achieved in a Green shirt under Schmidt reduced to an after thought

2018 has been a brutal year
But we all knew after this 6 nations we were goosed
We all fooled our selves into believing it would be ok even after England tonked us before the World Cup

I Blame Schmidt 100%
He must have known he needed to make changes and didn’t
Add in dropping Marimon which made no sense and was never properly explained.
He gambled and he blew it

ClanofLams wrote: »

Have players regained form through playing time? Maybe, have you an example of it happening at international level? Will also be interested in how you show it was down to playing time and not off field changes.

Maybe

You're actually saying you are unsure that you have ever seen a player's form improve without them being benched?

Are you also implying that you are sure that the Irish set up, along with Sexton and Murray, weren't making off field or training changes to improve their form throughout the 6 nations?

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The entire career of Rob Kearney

One of his best performances was in Chicago when Schmidt pretty much told him pre game his position was up for grabs if he didn’t have a big game. What do you know, a bit of concern about spot results in huge performance.

mfceiling wrote: »

How long do you give them though? 2 games, 10 games, 20 games?

That's the million dollar question and what coaches are hired to assess.

My original point wasn't that Joe was right in his decision to not bench them, I just buy that a) the other players made a good enough case to take the job and b) 2019 has somehow proved that playing players into form has never worked and will never work again

awec wrote: »

Murray and Sexton haven't consistently lived up to peak Murray or Sexton for over a year.

Are you basing your opinion on the alternatives based on the token run-out they get when games are dead and buried?

Exactly. One of the alternatives was good enough to start and deliver in wins over New Zealand and England. He’s not as good as Murray at his peak but he’s a damn sight better than Murray has been since the end of the 17/18 season.