awec wrote: » 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).
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.
Hands Like Flippers wrote: » Marmion did well v NZ.
Podge_irl wrote: » Yes, its pretty consistent. But some players did come in and they were no better. Maybe a large change in personnel would have been something worth trying. I think it would have ended up with the same outcome, if not worse, because when all 15/23 players are playing poorly I don't think the issue is generally personnel.
Interested Observer wrote: » Conway, Chris Farrell, Larmour, Conan, literally anyone but POM all played better than some of the guys who started. Appreciate Conan was injured but I think it's fair to say he wouldn't have started anyway, he didn't start against Scotland. The QF team was picked 12 months ago, adjusted for injury.
Podge_irl wrote: » Fair enough, I don't particularly think they did. I know selection is the easiest thing to discuss, but I think the problems were much worse to be honest. I think anyone in the squad was affected with the same malaise.
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 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.
Interested Observer wrote: » There were definitely other issues, I'm not saying there weren't. The horrible turgid rugby we tried to play, it having not worked at all in 2019 was right up there.
stephen_n wrote: » Can you give one example anywhere in sport where bringing in inferior players at an elite level produced better performances?
irishbucsfan wrote: » I’d say that it was a huge part of the reason and contributed massively to their inability to produce a performance. Im not sure changing a couple of starters out for guys would have changed much at all because they would have been subject to the exact same overall problem
Utah_Saint wrote: » Difficult to say really. Could be a number of things. There def seemed to be a trend in the NH for a bosh merchant at 12 for a while. Maybe it was the influence of Rugby League coaches in the game? Maybe it was to create an extra ball carrying option for teams where their backrows lack someone with Speed & Power. henshaw does seem to have the perfect blend to transform into a ball carrying 12. Although it cancelled out his greater assets in my eyes.
JJJackal wrote: » Stephen Donald World Cup final 2011 (possibly 4th choice out half) - guided NZ to world cup In your opinion (or in some peoples opinion), Conway, Chris Farrell, Larmour, carty, carberry, marmion, Conan.. are inferior. Sexton and Murray at their peak are better than Carberry or Carty and Marmion at their current best. However, injured (hopefully not but most likely declining) Sexton and Murray are not clearly to superior to the listed players. Again in form Farrell versus an injured Henshaw Conway v the try scoring machine Stockdale (but who needs more time to learn defending)?
JJJackal wrote: » I think the people who believe a change was needed are referring to about half the team such as Best, some would say Healy, POM, CJ, Sexton, Murray, Henshaw, Stockdale, Kearney
Mr Tickle wrote: » AIf the set move breaks down then we lose our shape entirely and it comes down to very basic carries from the forwards or maybe a switch / loop called by Sexton
clsmooth wrote: » If JS had picked Marmion, Carty, Farrell and Conway ahead of Murray, Sexton, Henshaw and Stockdale, do you think the result would have been any different against NZ? Would there be an element of people thinking WTF was Schmidt thinking by dropping those 4? Player selection wasn’t the issue, tactics and preparation were. We got it badly wrong this year. As an aside I would have liked to see Ruddock and Larmour (on back of him coming of age as a genuine quality international over the World Cup-it was only a few months previously the finger was pointed at his defence vs Sarries and if he should be in the squad) start vs NZ. Wouldn’t have made a blind bit of difference unfortunately. We just weren’t at the races.
stephen_n wrote: » Apart from Marmion they were all in the squad, they were all eligible for selection, all played minutes during the RWC and didn’t do enough to force their way in in the eyes of the coaches. They are not the players I was referring to.
Interested Observer wrote: » I'm pretty sure that is our shape, purposefully, and has been for a couple of years. But I agree with you that our attacking play needs a complete overhaul.
JJJackal wrote: » who were you referring to
JJJackal wrote: » Doubt the NZ result would have been different - the Japanese result on the other hand. A loss to SA who eventually won the tournament after winning the group would have been seen as a poor to average world cup. Losing to Japan and being destroyed by NZ is a truly awful one. I agree that the changes in a QF would not have mad ad a sufficient difference
ionadnapokot wrote: » Re: Hume That’s a big statement! Do you mean physically? What’s his passing and kicking like?
jacothelad wrote: » Yes physically and skill wise. It's not a 'big statement.' It's a statement based on watching his development over the last 3 or 4 years and the experience gained on over 60 years of involvement in rugby. I didn't say he would be the next Mike Gibson or BOD, I said he was a well rounded and physically ready rugby player with good levels of skill, awareness and is robust physically.
ionadnapokot wrote: » Ok. My questions were inquiries not accusations! Edit Would you describe him as more McCloskey than Olding? & Does he have a kicking game?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/ad289898c0c6dda7e667bf900ae26d0c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dd23f423fe14831a2a84d9f17c825ecc.svg)
