irishbucsfan wrote: » Yes, there is a lot of hope in it. But he seems like a decent man and he has been very successful as an assistant coach, so in the absence of a reason to doubt him I'll probably be much happier if I err on the side of being hopeful.
Donnielighto wrote: » It's a tool that wasn't used and who said random. Players were out of form, drop em. Not all at once but at least have them know they can't just coast by owning the jersey. Larmour or Conway should have had starts ahead of Kearney. Ah should have come in. Conan should have got a start ahead of stander. These aren't just ah well pick and number and replace them form players weren't getting game time. What's the incentive to perform.
irishbucsfan wrote: » This sentence is all I really need to respond to here because the rest is ****e. I haven't defended his selection policy. I am saying I think it wasn't the problem. I'm not saying it was a positive. I think it was grand, I think he was slow to bring on half backs for sure. I would have liked to have seen someone else at 9 more often in the 6 Nations. At the same time I think it was better than 2015 when it was a complete mess that left us completely bereft of experience and quality against Argentina. So not good, but not as bad as it was before. What you're not understanding here is that I'm saying it wasn't the problem. I'm not saying it was right, I'm saying it wasn't the cause for our complete and utter failure to perform. I think there are other deep factors at play that a couple of changes in selection here and there would have made absolutely no impact in changing. The performance against New Zealand was a new depth of poor that I don't think can be explained by some stale selections. On multiple occasions against New Zealand we gave up huge field position and handed over either direct tries or first phase deep in our half due to errors that wouldn't be acceptable from guys at pro 14 level. They were errors that were several levels below the guys who were making them. Whether its guys losing the ball in contact because they're making poor decisions, or its guys making simple mistakes in the kicking game they wouldn't normally. I think general performance levels had dropped massively and I think that is something that should have not been allowed to happen by the coaching team, and I think a lot of those areas were in the remit of Joe Schmidt himself as a technical coach (or maybe Richie Murphy). I just don't agree with the hypothesis that a stale selection policy was responsible for those types of errors. These guys were hardly unmotivated going into the biggest game of their careers because they started a 6 Nations game against Italy 7 months before.
ClanofLams wrote: » Of course they weren’t unmotivated
ClanofLams wrote: » no-one has suggested that, absolute strawman stuff. What has been suggested was that having undroppables in a team can have damaging knock on impacts, in relation to standards, both in game and training, in relation to morale and so on. You have refused to believe Schmidt has these undroppable players for some unknown reason despite ample evidence to the contrary. .
irishbucsfan wrote: » Larmour and Conan both started games in the 6 Nations this year, didn't they? Robbie Henshaw also started a game at 15, in a selection experiment that didn't exactly work out. Jordi Murphy also started a game at 8 if I remember right. I think Conan could have had a good chance of starting at 8. A real shame he'll be gone from Farrell's first 6 Nations. Fair point on the random bit, I didn't mean random in terms of pick a number, I meant more in terms of me not trying not to be too specific but it was a bad word selection.
irishbucsfan wrote: » Again ignoring the bits where you seemed to either misunderstand or misrepresent me. OK right.. We agree. In relation to morale and so on? So what apart from motivation affects their morale and so on if they're not afraid of being dropped (that specifically was still a problem for them in the biggest game in Irish rugby history, if you will).
ClanofLams wrote: » To simplify it a great deal. It’s not necessarily about the starters. Players see certain players getting picked and staying on long periods despite playing terrible, consistently. They think ah f**k this, what’s the point. Training standards dip, those in possession of jerseys aren’t getting real competition at training because there is no motivation to do so, no chance of winning a spot. That has a knock on impact on the skill/focus of starters who aren’t being pushed. There are a myriad of ways having guaranteed starters can negatively affect teams. It’s hard to believe this needs explaining to someone who was talking about a mental skills expert earlier on.
irishbucsfan wrote: » Ah right, so a motivation problem! Why didn't someone say that! :pac: Look that's something that could happen on paper for sure, but I just cannot see that being the explanation in practice for the difference in performance between the team that took the field in Dublin in 2018 and the team that took the field in Tokyo (or the drop from November to February). Especially because for an environment that incredibly toxic to be created, you wouldn't be talking about a situation where nearly everyone got a start throughout the pool stages and a bunch of guys got starts in the 6 Nations. Jack Carty is in his first real year and a half with the squad for example, he's hardly given up already. Luke McGrath only just edged out Marmion, he's hardly given up to the extent that he can be blamed for Murray's inconsistent form. Maybe its a small part of the cause of the general performance problems, I wouldn't be shocked. I'd say we'll hear soon enough if morale got that bad amongst the wider squad. I also don't think that's what most people are talking about here when they complain about selections, I think they're talking about the starting team, maybe I'm wrong.
ClanofLams wrote: » That’s a simplification of what I have said on here, it’s my fault because I just left it at a ‘myriad of issues’. That’s one negative way guaranteed starters can affect a team but there are others too. It can be a problem for starters too, it’s not even a conscious decision, but you’re just going to push harder if you think your spot isn’t guaranteed. The problem then is you can’t just turn it back on in big games no matter how motivated you are: I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Peter O’Mahony was man of the match against England in 2017 when he wasn’t even in the squad originally (iirc). I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Rob Kearney had one of his best games ever for Ireland after being told his position was under threat. Genuine competition for places almost always yields better outcomes. I don’t believe that was there for the vast majority of spots on the team this year and I’m not sure how anyone could suggest there was looking at selection decisions. I find it difficult to envisage a scenario this year where this issue wasn’t a significant problem. Sure our defensive structure got nullified to a large extent and our attack has never been the best in the world. But I mean to go from grand slam champions, unbeaten all year to getting absolute hidings in the three competitive fixtures Ireland played against top tier teams and beaten by Japan would strongly suggest to me that the policy of disregarding player performances on the basis of what they done 18 months ago is definitely a factor and likely a significant one.
irishbucsfan wrote: » I just don't understand how on earth our loss to England be linked to this as well. Our loss to England was the first game we played after beating New Zealand. Even our loss to Wales came after a 6 Nations where we changed our team more than ever. Now these games are also being used as evidence? Its really interesting to me that one example of this being used for motivation is one where a guys gets dropped and comes back in, proving you need to change to motivate players. Then the other example is one where Rob Kearney specifically doesn't get dropped, despite everyone calling for it. Surely the fact Rob Kearney rediscovered his form after Schmidt stuck with him should not be used as an example of why you shouldn't give players time to rediscover their form! That is actually an example of a guy being trusted in specifically the way you are saying ruins the entire team, but is also somehow an example. And I'd imagine its an example because Kearney came out honestly and shared that he'd been told his position was under threat, as if the same thing hasn't been told to other players who have struggled? Its not a satisfactory answer to me. I think we've failed to perform multiple times now across many years and many combinations of teams. Even under Declan Kidney I think this was a problem in 2011 before things really went off the wall. Whether it's a deeply settled team against New Zealand or a very disrupted team against Argentina. I think there's a far deeper problem there with Irish players being incapable of sustaining performances under pressure. I think it shares a lot of symptoms with the one New Zealand solved in 2011, Kinsella wrote about that here: https://www.the42.ie/red-heads-all-blacks-mental-skills-gazing-3055185-Oct2016/ I think that explains why we struggle when things go against us early and why we struggle to chase a lead in general. I think it also explains why we often need to build our way into competitions through momentum and struggle if we lose early on. Early losses to England this year and Scotland in 2017 ruined our entire year, and we barely scraped past a poor France side the year we won the Grand Slam before building our way into the tournament. When we lost to Argentina in 2015 we were 14-0 down after 10 minutes. We were 15-0 down after 20 this time. Two teams who were specifically focusing on this side of the game (Argentina having been brought it by Graham Henry and his connections, remember). Rather than a subtle slide in skill levels, motivation or staleness, I think on a wider level we're just not set up to deal with pressure. I think it possibly even has a wider effect on limiting our ability to play a multi-phase game with confidence and is why we often find more success playing a highly structured game with a lot of focus on creating pressure off the ball rather than creating pressure with the ball. I think fixing this problem would be exceptionally difficult but I think that's the challenge that'll be set out in front of them, because I've heard murmurings of this elsewhere.
ClanofLams wrote: » Not resorting to name calling you, just your analysis, which is moronic. You can of course bring up Carty, implying he was the only problem against Japan, as you did is ridiculous hence ‘moronic’. The pack was terrible, Murray was terrible. He made errors but the only good things in the game came from him and ringrose. There wasn’t any improvement when Carberry came on that day. You felt qualified to comment on his inclusion in the six nations squad when you had admittedly seen him play two games, more moronic analysis. You insisted he was terrible in Connacht v Leinster when Leinster won 20-3, when it was pointed out by posters and reports he played quite well you replied with the very incisive analysis that he couldn’t have played that well given the score. You banged on about team winning percentages as it that was the be all and end all. Aaron Wainwright was man of the match in the World Cup quarter final yesterday. He plays for Dragons, his win rate is probably around 15%. Done nothing in the six nations? Big part in the only points Ireland got against Wales in the eight minutes he got on the field. Played well against France with some nice kicks and half breaks. Done fine in the ten minutes or so he got against Italy. More insightful analysis from you.
Shefwedfan wrote: » Unfortunately you are talking about the 6 nations and not the WC.....who talked about winning percentage? During the 6 nations I questioned his inclusive and all anyone pointed to was the Leinster game, when he played against a B team and at the end of day the game was lost...but that was 6 nations so not really sure why you are bringing it up now? Everything is moronic to you if we mention a Connacht player, it’s open season on everyone else. I said before the squad was announced that Carty wasn’t up to it and disappeared in matchs. He had twice played against Italy and done nothing and it was a concern. I have watched plenty of Connacht since the 6 nations and again no idea what people are raving around, sorry Connacht people I haven’t said anything since the squad was picked about Carty but you seem to have no issue picking out majority of rest of squad but forget about Carty. As I said he done ok against Japan for 20 mins and then done his usual disappear act and done nothing the rest of match till a unfit Carbery was brought on and actually made the team slightly tick. Not just me but majority of rugby people said Sexton at 10 would have guided that team a lot better, even a fit Carbery It was 3-0 tries I p at half time against Russia, team was going decent, Carty came on and the game went to a mess for 30 mind with him central to the issues. Are we just going to ignore this? It’s the ireland thread so at least be critical of all players equal. I actually seen a post on here calling for Carty to start at 10? How deluded is that? Do we expect the back to cover for Carty every game? I am listening to you and a few other posters bang on about Carty for months now with absolutely nothing to back it up, even your own analysis is “fine” and “ok”.....sexton is not an 8 out of 10 and you are jumping all over him, even Carbery who actually tried to do something against Japan you have no problem calling out. PS I didn’t say a the problems in Japan match was Carty, people suggested Marmion would somehow rescue the issue, I just pointed out we had bigger issues at 10 than at 9, I didn’t say Murray had a good game....
The Lost Sheep wrote: » they do have aims for better prep for world cup and to do better. Why then had schmidt capped so many players, looked at so many players while maintaining levels of success. its also vital we move on from naming how we play after name of our coach and just adding 'ball'.
Niallof9 wrote: » Its also vital people on here acknowledge what is in front of them. We had posters on here for years lauding Ireland's style. It was winning rugby sure, but it was **** rugby and ultimately got found out on the biggest stage of all, twice.
Scythica wrote: » Cooney in from the cold for the 6N perhaps?
ClanofLams wrote: » Just caught up with the rugby weekly podcast. This theory about it being a mental block and Gilbert Eboka with the All Blacks etc was being discussed. From listening to Kinsella and Toolan, it seems this was what Joe Schmidt and Rory Best pinpointed post game (haven’t heard either myself). Again massive respect to both, Ireland’s most successful coach and captain etc but it’s an awful lot easier to come out after a defeat and say there is a mental block issue rather than come up and say we got our preparation wrong or in hindsight maybe we got some selections wrong, etc.
Clegg wrote: » Cooney isn't the answer. His pinpoint goal kicking masks his overall play which is no better than anyone other 9 in the country.
Shefwedfan wrote: » How would describe the style Wales are currently playing?
Wegians89 wrote: » Blade x
irishbucsfan wrote: » Saying that there is a mental block IS saying that you got your preparations wrong. That is one of the things Schmidt is responsible in preparing the team for. If he is saying there is a mental block, he is saying he failed to overcome it as coach. Haven’t heard them saying it, mind. If they are, that’s an encouraging start and a decent example for them to hopefully leave to the people coming after them.
ClanofLams wrote: » Did this mental block cause poor 6N performances too, I mean if it’s affecting them that far back it must be a crippling issue.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/ad289898c0c6dda7e667bf900ae26d0c.svg)
