Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…5556586061…338

Comments

  • Options
    #1712
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    awec wrote: »
    Jaysus, there's faugheen back to tell us all how <insert name of Leinster player> is beyond criticism.

    Think you're either suffering amnesia or have been living under a rock recently if you think any of this is fickle, flippant or based on one performance.

    I’m not saying he’s beyond criticism whatsoever. I’m one of his biggest critics especially when he’s playing at 13.

    For you to call him a ‘poor man’s Jamie Roberts’ is exactly the sort of nonsense what I’m talking about. He’s clearly not, and if you saw him for his province you might understand what I’m saying.

    Tell me that isn’t a flippant remark? Henshaw is a much better player than you gave him credit for there.

    Nice of you, a moderator, to go against your own rules regarding provincial baiting too.


  • Options
    #1713
    ClanofLams
    Registered Users Posts: 4,210 ✭✭✭ClanofLams


    Faugheen wrote: »

    Six Nations 2018: ‘oh Farrell should start at 13 in future. Ringrose shouldn’t walk back in.’

    Ringrose walks back in v Scotland (after injuries), puts on a masterclass. Wins a Grand Slam and the double with his province.

    Ringrose might well have started anyway but Chris Farrell got an injury that ruled him out for couple of months so wasn’t available for Scotland game.


  • Options
    #1714
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    awec wrote: »
    Sure according to some on here there's nothing wrong, there's nothing we could do to improve and 2019 just didn't happen. We should just avoid saying anything critical.

    These posts are gas. It is such patronising scutter. Retrospectively trying to downplay expectations, throwing out little soundbites and trying to insinuate that anyone who has a problem with the way the team has gone recently just doesn't get it. Give us all a break.

    Nobody is saying not to be critical.....

    Recently we have had comments on here saying the players can't pass. Also they are all slow then compared to the "lighting fast" players from other countries.

    Sexton is more or less useless now. Same with Murray and pick any other player.

    Now we are saying Henshaw is just a battering ram.

    Critical is one thing, maybe sometime come up with some positive options to look at. But just bashing players and management for bashing them is scutter to me.

    Nobody is happy with how the team went, I wanted them to win the group and get to a semi like everyone else. I would have loved 4 6 nations out of 6 but it didn't happen either.

    Lets take a look at Ireland, currently are four provinces are in number 1+2 in Pro 14. They are all in the Heineken Cup campaign with at least 2 of them with a good chance to win and Ulster also outside bet. Connacht you never know. We have some exceptional young players across all the provinces and current U20 Grand Slam winners.

    Yes be critical by all means!! but at least have a little perspective on some of it


  • Options
    #1715
    Hands Like Flippers
    Registered Users Posts: 569 ✭✭✭Hands Like Flippers


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Jesus, people were calling for Henshaw to start ahead of Ringrose after the Wales game and now he’s ‘a poor man’s Jamie Roberts’.

    Irish rugby fans are so fickle. They’re flippant and react based on one poor/very good performance.

    Different fans have different views. Did this particular poster call for that?


  • Options
    #1716
    Hands Like Flippers
    Registered Users Posts: 569 ✭✭✭Hands Like Flippers


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    Nobody is saying not to be critical.....

    Recently we have had comments on here saying the players can't pass. Also they are all slow then compared to the "lighting fast" players from other countries.

    Sexton is more or less useless now. Same with Murray and pick any other player.

    Now we are saying Henshaw is just a battering ram.

    ARE THESE COMMENTS NOT ACCURATE?

    Critical is one thing, maybe sometime come up with some positive options to look at. But just bashing players and management for bashing them is scutter to me.

    Nobody is happy with how the team went, I wanted them to win the group and get to a semi like everyone else. I would have loved 4 6 nations out of 6 but it didn't happen either.

    Lets take a look at Ireland, currently are four provinces are in number 1+2 in Pro 14. They are all in the Heineken Cup campaign with at least 2 of them with a good chance to win and Ulster also outside bet. Connacht you never know. We have some exceptional young players across all the provinces and current U20 Grand Slam winners...

    AGREED AND THAT IS WHY THERE ARE CALLS TO BRING THEM IN FOR TRIAL RATHER THAN STICK WITH TRIED AND TESTED BUT OUT OF FORM PLAYERS.

    THINK YOU ARGUED IT BOTH WAYS.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1717
    Hands Like Flippers
    Registered Users Posts: 569 ✭✭✭Hands Like Flippers


    Faugheen wrote: »
    I’m not saying he’s beyond criticism whatsoever. I’m one of his biggest critics especially when he’s playing at 13.

    For you to call him a ‘poor man’s Jamie Roberts’ is exactly the sort of nonsense what I’m talking about. He’s clearly not, and if you saw him for his province you might understand what I’m saying.

    IS THIS NOT AN IRELAND THREAD? THAT'S WHERE THE VIEW WAS FORMED.

    Tell me that isn’t a flippant remark? Henshaw is a much better player than you gave him credit for there.

    Nice of you, a moderator, to go against your own rules regarding provincial baiting too.

    Didn't pick up where he did that tbh.


  • Options
    #1718
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    Mr Tickle wrote: »
    I think both Henshaw and Bundee are capable of playing a more expansive game.

    I wouldnt hold that against them. Yes, they have Joe to thank for curtailing that expansive tendency, but they both raised their games and have shown they can now play a more effective style of rugby.


  • Options
    #1719
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »
    I wouldnt hold that against them. Yes, they have Joe to thank for curtailing that expansive tendency, but they both raised their games and have shown they can now play a more effective style of rugby.

    Joe curtailed them as you put it and was our most successful coach ever

    He is gone now so no need to try and sully his achievements

    A whole new coaching team are coming in now with new ideas, let see what they come up with....what would you deem as a more effective style?


  • Options
    #1720
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    awec wrote: »
    Sure according to some on here there's nothing wrong, there's nothing we could do to improve and 2019 just didn't happen. We should just avoid saying anything critical.

    These posts are gas. It is such patronising scutter. Retrospectively trying to downplay expectations, throwing out little soundbites and trying to insinuate that anyone who has a problem with the way the team has gone recently just doesn't get it. Give us all a break.

    From my perspective, and I'm sure others feel the same, it's frustrating to read the same people piss and moan constantly without ever proposing alternatives. It's very easy to say "this is sh!t, that is sh!t and all that stuff over there is sh!t", but if you're not being in any way constructive about it then you're just whinging. And theres only so much whinging people can listen to. This is a discussion forum. So let's actually discuss this stuff properly.

    As I said earlier, if you dont want Henshaw playing at 12 the way that he is, what do you want? And is it possible? How does it impact the rest of our game etc? Let's talk about this in a way that engages and advances actual discussion. If people are just here to moan though they should expect to be called out on that.


  • Options
    #1721
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,398 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    molloyjh wrote: »
    From my perspective, and I'm sure others feel the same, it's frustrating to read the same people piss and moan constantly without ever proposing alternatives. It's very easy to say "this is sh!t, that is sh!t and all that stuff over there is sh!t", but if you're not being in any way constructive about it then you're just whinging. And theres only so much whinging people can listen to. This is a discussion forum. So let's actually discuss this stuff properly.

    As I said earlier, if you dont want Henshaw playing at 12 the way that he is, what do you want? And is it possible? How does it impact the rest of our game etc? Let's talk about this in a way that engages and advances actual discussion. If people are just here to moan though they should expect to be called out on that.

    I think you're wide of the mark here tbh. People are discussing it. People have proposed alternatives.

    They just keep getting met with "well you can't do that", or "player x is just miles better than any alternative so we couldn't possibly make that change", "Joe is our most successful coach ever", "we were great in 2018, so you can't say our tactics don't work", "people are just so fickle", "Johnny was world player of the year last year", "there is absolutely no proof that rotating a squad makes things any better" and other stuff like this. It's just dismissive soundbites to avoid criticising.

    I'm really not sure what more you are looking for here? Detailed impact analysis and stuff? You aren't going to get that. This is only an internet forum.

    Neil3030 made a post a while ago, complete with statistics, that showed the limitations of Ireland's style of play. There is either a problem with the players, a problem with the tactics, or a problem with both, but people don't want to hear about any of it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1722
    Squidgy Black
    Registered Users Posts: 21,605 ✭✭✭✭Squidgy Black


    I can see both sides of the arguments, and I think there's people who go to both extremes in terms of getting their points across (which I think may be a hangover from the world cup threads). Be nice if we could get back to discussing things without people getting snippy and taking things personally though. We definitely need changes, and I'm hoping Farrell does being change and isn't a continuation of Joe, but wholesale changes like culling anyone over 27 and throwing out experienced players off the back of one poor season isn't the way to do it and is a pipedream that no coach at a national level would take on.

    Anyways, what's the story with hooker now that's Best is gone, is Scannell our starting option with Herring on the bench?


  • Options
    #1723
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    awec wrote: »
    I don't think any of this is true to be honest. The two of them are being over-hyped here. Best by some distance is, IMO, an exaggeration of both players' abilities and performances. I think we're guilty of this far too much. Player X is the best by a mile, therefore player X must play because nobody else is good enough.

    There are lots of reasons to try someone new at 12 for Ireland, it's a position that's notably weak for us. I am not saying that Henshaw for example is a weak player, but the Robbie Henshaw of 2019, playing in this current Ireland side, is offering very little. He is a poor man's Jamie Roberts. He runs hard into defenders and goes to ground and the ball dies with him. Teams know there is no chance he's doing anything different.

    However, there is nobody obvious to try. Which is a different problem.

    How are "they are the best options" and "there is nobody obvious to try" different things?

    What we're seeing at the moment is the assumption that because Ireland played badly and the Irish players played badly, that the players are bad and others would have done better. That's nonsense. All that would have happened from picking inferior players is that we'd have played worse and lost by even more.

    Whatever happened in Japan and in the few months before it, it wasn't a personnel issue.

    The substandard players who weren't even in the mix for the squad have not become international class by sitting at home.


  • Options
    #1724
    Clegg
    Registered Users Posts: 16,738 ✭✭✭✭Clegg


    Squidgy Black wrote: »
    Anyways, what's the story with hooker now that's Best is gone, is Scannell our starting option with Herring on the bench?

    There aren't many good options really. I don't think any of Scannell, Herring or Cronin are good enough to be test starters. Maybe give Ronan Kelleher the James Ryan treatment and parachute him straight into the team? That's probably unrealistic, but Cronin is injured and I think he's already at a similar level to Tracy and Byrne at Leinster. He could get some Champions Cup appearances this season.


  • Options
    #1725
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,398 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Former Former wrote: »
    How are "they are the best options" and "there is nobody obvious to try" different things?

    What we're seeing at the moment is the assumption that because Ireland played badly and the Irish players played badly, that the players are bad and others would have done better. That's nonsense. All that would have happened from picking inferior players is that we'd have played worse and lost by even more.

    Whatever happened in Japan and in the few months before it, it wasn't a personnel issue.

    The substandard players who weren't even in the mix for the squad have not become international class by sitting at home.

    Lots of assumptions in this post anyway. We're back to "if you change the players we'll definitely lose by more".

    Tell you what, some of these players that you think are undroppable were fairly substandard throughout this year.

    The idea that nobody else could possibly have done any better just sounds like wishful thinking on your part.


  • Options
    #1726
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    Former Former wrote: »
    What we're seeing at the moment is the assumption that because Ireland played badly and the Irish players played badly, that the players are bad and others would have done better. That's nonsense. All that would have happened from picking inferior players is that we'd have played worse and lost by even more.

    Spot on. Apart from Leavy, we had our best players there, and of those available played our best team. It needs no shake up unless we want to regress. Bestie's retirement obviously needs a replacement, but, even that will be a step backwards. Which is not that he could continue to play of course, but is that he was also the best of those available. Now we will for some years be playing a hooker inferior to a 37 year old one who while very good was never a world beater, Lion, or greatest Ireland hooker.

    There will be some natural change as players age and decline. Kearney and Sexton will be imminently eclipsed and replaced. But again, they are two of Ireland greatest evers. Their replacements are more likely to be a step backwards than an upgrade.

    There is no doubt we had our most complete squad, with the greatest depth ever. And our best ever coach......sometime you just have to accept that thats as good as it gets.


  • Options
    #1727
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    awec wrote: »
    Lots of assumptions in this post anyway. We're back to "if you change the players we'll definitely lose by more".

    Tell you what, some of these players that you think are undroppable were fairly substandard throughout this year.

    The idea that nobody else could possibly have done any better just sounds like wishful thinking on your part.

    I think the wishful thinking comes more from an unwillingness to accept where our limit is, and that if we only changed the player recipe, the shakles would be off and we would be a better team.

    (its nearly as bad a thought process as that broken record cant that we should be playing a more expansive or offloading game - without a higher stabdard of player, doing that would reduce our performance, not benefit it).


  • Options
    #1728
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    awec wrote: »
    Lots of assumptions in this post anyway. We're back to "if you change the players we'll definitely lose by more".

    Tell you what, some of these players that you think are undroppable were fairly substandard throughout this year.

    The idea that nobody else could possibly have done any better just sounds like wishful thinking on your part.

    I see the red mist is descending. Where did I say anyone was undroppable? And it is EXACTLY my point that they did play substandard during the year.

    Take any player from the squad, then compare his performance to that of 12 months ago. Literally anyone. Stockdale went from the most dangerous wing in international rugby to an absolute plodder. Furlong went from all-time great to John Hayes with hair. Sexton just didn't know what he was doing. Earls, Ringrose, Aki, Murray, VDF, Henderson, Healy... All top quality players who were completely at sea. They were ALL absolute gash.

    Something went badly wrong under Joe. I don't know what it was but bringing in new guys wouldn't have fixed it.

    We picked the right players. With a couple of exceptions, they're still the right players. We don't have a wealth of untapped talent sitting at home.

    We have good players who have been playing badly. Whether that's because of the systems, they're just sick of Joe, teams had us figured out, whatever... But those good players can come good again. A mediocre player can only ever go so far.


  • Options
    #1729
    ClanofLams
    Registered Users Posts: 4,210 ✭✭✭ClanofLams


    As I have said before, there’s largely two extremes on here, Schmidt was inept (nonsense) & Schmidt was an infallible genius (also nonsense).

    Those who fall in the latter camp will dispute that categorisation but when any criticism is made of Schmidt, a cohort comes to his defence and the strongest criticism they will ever say is something along the lines of ‘I’m certainly not saying Schmidt got everything right’.

    Ireland had never had a year like 2018 before, ‘09 was brilliant but it wasn’t eleven months out from a World Cup and didn’t feature a win over New Zealand, it ended unbeaten but with a last minute O’Driscoll try against Oz saving that unbeaten run.

    In that light, the temptation to stick to a gameplan that delivered Ireland’s greatest year is understandable but was also clearly wrong.

    There are probably a lot of ‘learnings’ as they say these days that can be taken from the year but the main ones to me would be me, the margins at top tier international level are small, if you don’t evolve, you’re likely to be passed out. The boks as champions might be a counterpoint given their traditional South African gameplan but even they added in some twists such as the six two bench split, don’t think that has been employed as an ongoing tactic at international level before.

    Secondly, genuine competition for places is a necessity. A year going terribly and ending with a quarter final where the first XV was pretty much as predicted a year out is not a scenario that should occur.


  • Options
    #1730
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,398 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Former Former wrote: »
    I see the red mist is descending. Where did I say anyone was undroppable? And it is EXACTLY my point that they did play substandard during the year.

    Take any player from the squad, then compare his performance to that of 12 months ago. Literally anyone. Stockdale went from the most dangerous wing in international rugby to an absolute plodder. Furlong went from all-time great to John Hayes with hair. Sexton just didn't know what he was doing. Earls, Ringrose, Aki, Murray, VDF, Henderson, Healy... All top quality players who were completely at sea. They were ALL absolute gash.

    Something went badly wrong under Joe. I don't know what it was but bringing in new guys wouldn't have fixed it.

    We picked the right players. With a couple of exceptions, they're still the right players. We don't have a wealth of untapped talent sitting at home.

    How do you know? Seriously, you're stating this as if it's fact.

    Could Ireland have fared better with someone like Farrell at 12? If Schmidt had actually invested time in developing half backs (and remember, he complained in 2015 that he didn't have any other half backs) could Sexton and Murray have been given the boot up the arse they so desperately required? Would Larmour have done any worse than Kearney at 15? Conway couldn't have been picked ahead of Stockdale or Earls?

    All these things are an impossibility in your head? An absolute certainty that they wouldn't have improved us?

    We didn't have a wealth of untapped talent sitting at home, but we had a number of in-form players sitting watching the match while the same old suspects stank the place out on the field.

    Schmidt deserves plenty of praise, and rightly so, for developing some depth for Ireland. He deserves all the criticism coming his way for failing to use it. He did what every single manager before him did in putting too much faith in out of form favourites, and he got the exact same result for it in the end.


  • Options
    #1731
    Neil3030
    Registered Users Posts: 17,004 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    Two state solution:

    Schmidt was Ireland's best ever head coach.

    This RWC was a disaster that was largely on him.

    IMO, both are true, and neither offset each other.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1732
    Squidgy Black
    Registered Users Posts: 21,605 ✭✭✭✭Squidgy Black


    Clegg wrote: »
    There aren't many good options really. I don't think any of Scannell, Herring or Cronin are good enough to be test starters. Maybe give Ronan Kelleher the James Ryan treatment and parachute him straight into the team? That's probably unrealistic, but Cronin is injured and I think he's already at a similar level to Tracy and Byrne at Leinster. He could get some Champions Cup appearances this season.

    We've a great young crop there in the making, with Kelleher and Dylan Tierney-Martin being two of the main standouts so far, I think McBurney always has shown promise (if he can keep his discipline under control), so hoping someone can step up in the mean time.

    Big fan of Cronin but realistically he's not a starting international hooker, great bench option though. Scannell has done relatively alright in his brief enough cameos so far, but I'm not convinced he's a long term option, similar with Herring.


  • Options
    #1733
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    awec wrote: »
    How do you know? Seriously, you're stating this as if it's fact.

    Could Ireland have fared better with someone like Farrell at 12? If Schmidt had actually invested time in developing half backs (and remember, he complained in 2015 that he didn't have any other half backs) could Sexton and Murray have been given the boot up the arse they so desperately required? Would Larmour have done any worse than Kearney at 15? Conway couldn't have been picked ahead of Stockdale or Earls?

    All these things are an impossibility in your head? An absolute certainty that they wouldn't have improved us?

    We didn't have a wealth of untapped talent sitting at home, but we had a number of in-form players sitting watching the match while the same old suspects stank the place out on the field.

    Schmidt was praised, and rightly so, for developing some depth for Ireland. He deserves all the criticism coming his way for failing to use it.

    Ah, enough of this "you're stating this as fact" bollocks. Are we supposed to say "it is my opinion that..." before every sentence now?

    We could have picked Farrell at 12. We did so against Japan and how did that pan out? Would Larmour have done worse than Kearney? Yeah, probably. Conway could have been picked ahead of Stockdale or Earls but it wouldn't have made any odds.

    This is tinkering on the fringes of a much larger problem.


  • Options
    #1734
    ionadnapokot
    Registered Users Posts: 4,753 ✭✭✭ionadnapokot


    & the problem was poor form Murray & Sexton in 2019.
    Poor performances from Kearney, Best, Healy, Henshaw, Earls and Stockdale v NZ in particular
    & poor selection from Joe v Jap & NZ in particular

    Culminating in the perfect storm of rubbishness v NZ

    If i were to apportion blame: 75% on players 25%* on Joe's selection of those players

    *lack of outstanding alternatives
    Marmion, Scannell, Farrell, Larmour and Conway should have started v Japan and NZ
    & too much invested in Sexton. Shouldnt have gone on tour in Aus. Carbery's subsequent injuries didnt help

    Onto 2023!!
    Some really tough selection decisions for Farrell over the next 2 seasons.


  • Options
    #1735
    ionadnapokot
    Registered Users Posts: 4,753 ✭✭✭ionadnapokot


    jacothelad wrote: »
    He looks a fully formed player.

    Re: Hume
    That’s a big statement!
    Do you mean physically?

    What’s his passing and kicking like?


  • Options
    #1736
    Interested Observer
    Registered Users Posts: 13,021 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    awec wrote: »
    Lots of assumptions in this post anyway. We're back to "if you change the players we'll definitely lose by more".

    Tell you what, some of these players that you think are undroppable were fairly substandard throughout this year.

    The idea that nobody else could possibly have done any better just sounds like wishful thinking on your part.

    It's an absolute load of ****e is what it is. The chosen few lost every single serious match they played this year. The solution - obviously better keep picking them en masse.


  • Options
    #1737
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Just because a team lose does not automatically mean there were other players available who would have won the game. Especially when the problem isn't bad individual performances in a sea of excellent performances.


  • Options
    #1738
    aloooof
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,225 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Six Nations 2018: ‘oh Farrell should start at 13 in future. Ringrose shouldn’t walk back in.’

    Seriously, this again?? We've been here before with this post before the Scotland game 6 Nations game this year:
    Faugheen wrote:
    Can't wait for Farrell to play well followed by a certain cohort believing he should start ahead of Ringrose.

    You were getting outraged about something that hadn't even happened yet. You went on to say it happened after the Wales game in 2018. When asked for any posts support this, all you could provide were quotes that were completely out of context / mis-quotes.

    For example, here's what you quoted from Buer to support it:
    Buer wrote:
    There is no established Irish centre aside from Henshaw.

    However, here's the full exchange.
    Faugheen wrote:
    People are now saying Farrell is possibly first choice after one game..
    Buer wrote:
    Are they? I can't see that. But he clearly has an opportunity to make himself first choice right now.

    He's the man in possession, has played excellently in back to back starts for Ireland and Schmidt is a fan. He's absolutely in with a big chance of staying in the team. He'll see out this 6N and then it's up to others to get the Jersey back. There is no established Irish centre aside from Henshaw.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see a midfield of Henshaw and Farrell combine this summer.

    You were, and continue to be, completely disingenuous about this.


  • Options
    #1739
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,398 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Just because a team lose does not automatically mean there were other players available who would have won the game. Especially when the problem isn't bad individual performances in a sea of excellent performances.

    Sorry, but this is pure nonsense. We’re back to making excuses again. “The problem was not player performances, “sure everyone was ****e”, “you can’t guarantee dropping ****e players would improve things”.

    Ireland clearly needed some fresh, in form faces and some tweaks to the tactics. We did neither and we paid the price for it with a disastrous year. Would changing fresh faces and tweaking tactics have guaranteed an improvement? No. Would it be more likely to lead to improvement than sticking with the same faces and same tactics that were consistently failing? Yes.


  • Options
    #1740
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,407 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    While there was obviously no large change in personnel, several positions had different players pop in and out over the course of the season - be it for injury or whatever reason. Those players did not play any better.

    This is not an absolution of the coaching - if anything it is a criticism. When you have players playing poorly across the entire team it is an indictment of the environment and the coaching.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1741
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,398 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    While there was obviously no large change in personnel, several positions had different players pop in and out over the course of the season - be it for injury or whatever reason. Those players did not play any better.

    This is not an absolution of the coaching - if anything it is a criticism. When you have players playing poorly across the entire team it is an indictment of the environment and the coaching.

    If you compare the team across the games that resulted in us getting hammered (i.e. any game against anyone half-decent) you will see that the side selected is pretty much consistent (a bit like the results).


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement