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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Mr Tickle wrote: » I think both Henshaw and Bundee are capable of playing a more expansive game.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
jacothelad wrote: » He looks a fully formed player.
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.
Faugheen wrote: » Six Nations 2018: ‘oh Farrell should start at 13 in future. Ringrose shouldn’t walk back in.’
Faugheen wrote: Can't wait for Farrell to play well followed by a certain cohort believing he should start ahead of Ringrose.
Buer wrote: There is no established Irish centre aside from Henshaw.
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.
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.
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.
awec wrote: » 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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/ad289898c0c6dda7e667bf900ae26d0c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dd23f423fe14831a2a84d9f17c825ecc.svg)
