lord quackinton wrote: » Just to clarify no blame must be assigned to Schmidt and the senior players For example You can blame Carty marimon kleyn and other peripheral player
Niallof9 wrote: » More adaptable over multiple seasons. Look they don't play brilliant stuff but they, definitely have a better running game and like to keep the ball more alive than we do, they keep at it and have made three semi finals. We can't take any pops at Wales. Ireland play a pretty similar game at times like you say.
lord quackinton wrote: » The weather The injuries The supporters The irfu New Zealand brilliance Japan brilliance Angus Gardner No strength in depth Can we add anything further to this list
Shefwedfan wrote: » I am not taking pops at Wales..... I would say Wales current style is similar to ireland 2015
Shefwedfan wrote: » Carbery has played less minutes for Ireland this year compared to Carty. So he has had more than plenty of chances. Are we expected to keep banging on this drum in the hope at some stage he might be able to pull out a 40 minute or even an 80 minute performance? something he has failed to do so far. How many caps do you want him to have before we move to the next player? You seem to have one rule for players and then another rule for Connnacht players. You slate other players and asked for them to be dropped but when a Connacht players is clearly not performing then they require more time.
Burkie1203 wrote: » This. Times a thousand. NZ sacrificed the tri nations/RC in last 3 RWC years. I think they are odds on to win 3 RWC in a row. They dumped half the team that lost to Ireland a year ago.
ClanofLams wrote: » Would you like to elaborate on any errors you think he made? Other than POM being retained?
ClanofLams wrote: » FFs this is some nonsense. At least you’re not still accusing me of provincial bias for suggesting O’Mahony be replaced by Conan or Ruddock I guess. Or trying to tell us Ireland are in a good run of form after performing terribly for nine months. I would have far different standards for experienced players than guys new to the squad yeah. If you can find a post of me ruling out a player after two caps go ahead and expose my double standards. It might be yourself that has provincial bias, have you considered that? You came on here last season upset at Cartys inclusion having seen him a grand total of two games v Leinster, you insisted he was terrible in one even though others said he had been fairly good as did reports leading you to come back with the incisive analysis (paraphrasing) ‘well he couldn’t have been that good, they lost 20-3.’ Complete nonsense feeling in entitled to judge a guy on two games, especially when you can’t remember one of them. Then the nonsense about him ‘doing nothing’ in the six nations when I have shown you a report from Murray Kinsella saying he impressed. I’m not sure what more you expected in the few mins he got, but if Kinsella says he impressed, I’m going to put more confidence in that assessment than your review.
Shefwedfan wrote: » Still have an issue with me been positive towards Ireland? really do you need to include in every post? You keep going back to 6 nations. As I said already I have watched lots of Carty since then...... This is the famous comment from Murray Kinsella you keep referring to "Connacht’s Kieran Marmion and Jack Carty had little time to show their ability, although both had some nice touches in the limited window. Carty is, of course, inexperienced but has been playing with real confidence in recent times and impressed off the bench against France last weekend. Marmion has only recently returned from injury but has shown excellent form for Connacht." Yes a glowing reference for Carty. Marmion actually comes out better in that comment As I posted, he was picked for squad. I raised my doubts prior to squad announcement but after it was picked I said nothing and got behind the entire squad. The WC is over, everyone is reviewing players and you seem to have no issue. Out of the 31 players that flew Carty has to be rated one of the poorest performers over the campaign. The standard excuse for his poor performance was lack of game time. As I have pointed out he has had more minutes on the pitch to Carbery this year for Ireland. So that is not an excuse. Are you saying any of the above is incorrect?
ClanofLams wrote: » With respect, when you come out with stuff on a continuous basis like it’s not a poor run of form, James Hart is a loss to Ireland, Carty shouldn’t be picked for the six nations on the basis of two games you apparently watched and were incorrect about his performance in one of them, accuse me of provincial bias for suggesting Ruddock or Conan should start ahead of POM etc it’s hard to take your analysis seriously. You said yesterday he ‘done nothing’ in the six nations, that’s not a criticism of what you posted at the time, you said it yesterday and it’s yet again untrue. He done as much could be expected in forty minutes he got in three games. I think very few players came out of the World Cup with enhanced reputations. I think a guy who had less than two games worth of time before the World Cup was very far from being at the top of Ireland’s problems. Here’s an Irish times view that gave him ‘5’ (average ranking) saying he had some excellent individual moments but needs to improve game management. That’s more or less what I have said. https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/ireland-s-player-by-player-rugby-world-cup-report-1.4058166?mode=amp We aren’t going to agree on this so I won’t be engaging any further. I think it’s fairly bizarre after a total failure of a season how much you are focusing on a guy who has got two starts, his first two starts for Ireland at that. The scapegoating of someone with two starts whilst having very little to say about the failures of the coaching team and the underperformance of far more established players is bizarre.
Foxtrol wrote: » How is it bizarre to discuss one of the two replacements (but the only fit one) when you were banging on again and again that Sexton should be benched? This is the key issue with calls for Murray and Sexton to be dropped, the guys who were to fill in for them might be better when the incumbents are playing at their poorest but they have never really shown that they can do much more than that. In comparison the players who have taken their chances Kilcoyne, VDF, Leavy, Ryan, Porter have elevated themselves in the squad.
ClanofLams wrote: » Conor Murray hasn’t been at his best for eighteen months. In his absence, Ireland have beaten England and New Zealand
aloooof wrote: » I'm pretty sure Murray started the GS game in Twickenham in 2018?
ClanofLams wrote: » Yeah I meant 2017 in Dublin, sorry should have specified that I didn’t mean his 2018 absence, just meant when he wasn’t available.
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.
JRant wrote: » Well neither Sexton nor Murray were anywhere near their peak form so it's a completely mute argument.
Shefwedfan wrote: » I was waiting for you to mention James Hart. Predictable or what. It was posted on one of the thread from 2015 the potential 9's going forward. Guess who was on the list? I do think you have referenced that tome about 10 times now. You have called for Sexton to be dropped due to form. He was and Carty got the Welsh match, let just say he under-performed. Give him another chance, ok so he plays in Japan match and well, he under-performs. People wanted to give him more minutes, he came on at half time in Russia match and under-performed. Maybe instead of posting links to random websites give us your view of Carty? Also I am not making Carty the scape goat. Plenty of players failed to perform and people are calling for them to get dropped etc. Rightly so. But are we supposed to only pick on some players? why should we drop the established players when the back up players are clearly are not up to the standard?
jacothelad wrote: » Addison? Surprisingly apposite grammatical error. His argument should be 'mute' as well as being moot.:D
Shefwedfan wrote: » I was waiting for you to mention James Hart. Predictable or what. It was posted on one of the thread from 2015 the potential 9's going forward. Guess who was on the list? I do think you have referenced that tome about 10 times now.
ClanofLams wrote: » I was saying performances should have consequences. The Welsh game was gone after forty five minutes anyway and frankly Sexton was so poor that any competent pro14 outhalf would have been a marked improvement. If Ross Byrne was on the bench I would have wanted him on too. I remember posting in ‘17 (I think) when Sexton struggled in a game that Paddy Jackson should have been on much sooner. Conor Murray hasn’t been at his best for eighteen months. In his absence, Ireland have beaten England and New Zealand, neither may have been at the level they currently are but both are good teams. No team will be successful if performances don’t have consequences.
aloooof wrote: » We've had our disagreements in the past Shef, but I've actually softened to some of your posts on here over the last while as, to give you your due, you go to Leinster matches and will still be here posting when the Ireland trolls get bored and move onto something else. But you're wrong on James Hart. In 2015 he might have been seen as a potential 9 going forward. But you posted as recently as January of this year that he was a huge loss to Ireland. By that point, it had become pretty clear that wasn't the case. He couldn't even get into the Munster starting 23, ahead of Duncan Williams for the bench spot, let alone get near an Ireland squad. I actually think it'd give your other posts more credence if you held your hands up and admitted you were wrong on this one.
joseywhales wrote: » I am hoping that kleyn did not get a place in a world cup squad just to lock him in post world cup, we couldn't be that cynical surely. Maybe it was just a nice coincidence. He did get a bench spot so there was obviously some merit in it. I need to not think about professional rugby for a few months, hopefully there are some green shoots come the champions cup.
Foxtrol wrote: » But consequences for the sake of it does nothing aside from placate some people on their couches. There has to be a plan for what comes next. It is easy to make that decision when you have a guy with similar ability to come in but when you have a guy who when playing well is only better the incumbent playing poorly then you have a much harder decision to make. Maybe dropping Sexton and/or Murray would have been the thing that would have revitalised the squad and fixed their issues, but I simply don't see it. Any attempts to claim that we 'learned in 2019' that dropping underperforming players is the only way to go in the future is just nonsense. The results this time didn't work out but that isn't proof that making a switch would have been any better.
lord quackinton wrote: » This year has been a disaster from start to finish and it would depress you I was very sad on Saturday to see those players at the end walking around aimlessly in complete shock. The trauma of this year will have long term affects for Ireland and the provinces No one will be harder on the players then themselves and I believe the sports psychologists in Irish rugby are going to have to earn their wages.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/ad289898c0c6dda7e667bf900ae26d0c.svg)
