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

Former Former wrote: »

We don't have the bulk to grind the opposition into the dust and we don't have the athletes to run the legs off them. We are entirely dependent on an error-free, high intensity but ultimately uncomplicated game plan.

we don't have the athletes now? so player pool, genetics, size. What other excuses can we rattle off?

molloyjh

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I think part of the problem why highs are so high and the lows are so low for Irish rugby media and fans is you are all old enough to remember the not too distant past. When the Irish were crap or at best inconsistent.

Now in recent history there has been some great results at club and international level. Consistency. Regularly winning. This resulted in a kind of euphoria. And hype. And belief. It's meant that when they have failed, the hurt and disappointment is that much worse.

Probably, but I also think one big difference between us and teams that have made the SF is belief. NZ, SA, England, Wales and to a lesser extent (or lesser these days) Australia and France all fully believe that they can and will win the RWC. That kind of confidence, bordering on arrogance, is something we still dont have. Probably because of the fact that our successes are so recent and yet to show at the RWC. That has an impact on everything in terms of build up, prep and performance.

molloyjh wrote: »

I reckon we had been looking to the Hendo-Ryan pairing prior to the 6Ns and that formed part of our new approach in terms if what the pack were delivering for us. Hendo is a better ball carrier than Toner and I think they wanted to exploit that.

Great post. On this bit in particular, I think you're spot on. I think Joe wanted Henderson and Ryan in the 2nd row to add that carrying threat to the pack (along with Stander, Healy etc.) while still being able to get POM and VdF into the team.

Yeah_Right

I think part of the problem why highs are so high and the lows are so low for Irish rugby media and fans is you are all old enough to remember the not too distant past. When the Irish were crap or at best inconsistent.

Now in recent history there has been some great results at club and international level. Consistency. Regularly winning. This resulted in a kind of euphoria. And hype. And belief. It's meant that when they have failed, the hurt and disappointment is that much worse.

Former Former

awec wrote: »

Agree with bits of this for sure. I think Henshaw should have been sent home as soon as the injury hit. Agree about Kleyn and Beirne.

I think by the time the WC came round, the horse had already bolted in terms of rotating players out. IMO, the changes should have been ringing back in February / March, with real competition for spots being pushed, and we could have arrived in September with an in-form (or at least, more in-form that it was) team.

I would add a few more. Stockdale should have been dropped, he has been terrible all year. Conway was the form player here and should have been in. I'd have had Larmour in for Kearney this year. Not bringing Toner was a huge mistake as Henderson is just too inconsistent, and neither Kleyn nor Beirne are good enough.

But the players is really just one half of the issue. The tactics, the setup, it was all just wrong. We had been found out but did nothing to adapt to this fact. That one is squarely on the coaches.

Absolutely. OK we don't know what happened in the setup but the malaise was so pervasive that it had to be something systemic.

Tactics weren't great but again it goes back to our player pool. We don't have the bulk to grind the opposition into the dust and we don't have the athletes to run the legs off them. We are entirely dependent on an error-free, high intensity but ultimately uncomplicated game plan. When the errors crept in and the intensity dropped, what are you left with? Just the "uncomplicated" part and, clue in the name, that's very easy to counter.

Where we differ is what else Joe (or anyone else) could have done differently. I'm not sure there was a plan B that could have really improved things.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

No it isn't, not even close. Who actually gives a crap about the Pro14 in this context? It is such an insignificance, it has no bearing on anything.

It's a totally daft stance to take, as if the pro14 is going to improve anyone's mood or make anyone feel better.

It has made me feel better. I've enjoyed watching rugby again which in itself is a big improvement.

Lots has been, and will be, said about the RWC failure. My own 2 cents is that a number of things went wrong that all contributed.

We looked to change our game and get more width on the ball while looking to play more in our own half. But for whatever reason we failed to implement that well. Primarily because our pack failed to deliver. Was that failure down to mindset or the fact they were being asked to do something different and they weren't able to deliver?

My best guess is mindset. We've heard that the QF became the focus at Christmas. The Henshaw to FB selection would suggest to me that was the case for players and coaches alike. They were happy to sacrifice the 6Ns if it meant getting to a SF. But that mindset ended up robbing us of our edge during the 6Ns and therefore the chance to build momentum.

Injuries to certain guys at certain times compounded that. Murray and Sexton getting injured pre-6Ns meant they either got dropped or had to find form during the 6Ns, neither of which was ideal. Add Carberys injury to that and we're struggling further in that department. I'm pretty sure Hendersons injury during the 6Ns similarly contributed. I reckon we had been looking to the Hendo-Ryan pairing prior to the 6Ns and that formed part of our new approach in terms if what the pack were delivering for us. Hendo is a better ball carrier than Toner and I think they wanted to exploit that.

So we're looking to change our game plan while moving away from our game by game approach and being hampered by injuries. This led to a poor 6Ns which robbed us of momentum and confidence. We looked close to getting that back a few times, but ultimately too much damage had been done.

I think, for me at least, it has shown that while we have developed and improved our depth, we are still a small country with a small playing pool. As a result we are still dependent on a core group of guys to ensure success. Former Former touched on it earlier. Best should have been dropped, but there was nobody better. With Sexton and Carbery as injury concerns we simply didnt have a 3rd international level 10 to get us through against Japan. And we saw the distinct lack of leadership in our inability to turn that game around as well as the difficulties we had against Russia (we never struggled in that game per se, but we struggled to be as dominant as we should have been in the middle 20-30 mins). We simply didnt have enough guys at the requisite level to take over from guys who were injured or on the way out.

An element of blame (and I hate the blame game) can be placed at the door of the coaches. Some at the players. But some of it is also down to our limitations in terms of squad depth, which is impossible to resolve in the short to medium term. And yet despite all of that, I still full believe that had we gotten the Welsh draw, i.e. France in the QF, we'd have made the SF. So theres a bit of luck in there too.

Henry Ford III

IRFU have all the necessary resources to figure out what went wrong surely?

There'll be report after report flying around the place......

awec wrote: »

No it isn't, not even close. Who actually gives a crap about the Pro14 in this context? It is such an insignificance, it has no bearing on anything.

It's a totally daft stance to take, as if the pro14 is going to improve anyone's mood or make anyone feel better.

I don't think that's at all what Thornley has suggested tho. The half-sentence again that seems to be rubbing people the wrong way:

...but maybe it also typified promising signs that the healing process has begun.

He adds a caveat with "maybe". And uses the word "process" which goes towards acknowledging this will take time.

In the very next paragraph he mentions how Conway and Ruddock will have been frustrated with their lack of gametime, and are in good shape continue their form and to not be overlooked in future. Which is exactly the type of thing people have been calling for.

It's half a sentence in a 1000 word piece. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if some people have just read the headline and reacted to that without reading the piece itself.

awec

Faugheen wrote: »

Because the start of the Pro14 IS the beginning of the healing process.

The players at the RWC are now back with their provinces. As disappointing as the RWC was, we have a new coach, we have no game until February and the players are now back with their provinces. The time to move forward is now.

You can still be annoyed with the RWC but Thornley saying the ‘healing process’ has begun isn’t a stupid thing to say. I’d say loads of those players couldn’t wait to get back playing with their provinces.

What on Earth is wrong with that? Should we all just keep bitching and moaning about it until the Six Nations?

Someone had a pop at Thornley’s article, someone had a different opinion, and then you came in with your ultra-defensive mind set. Nobody is out to offend you or to shoot you down. It’s a discussion forum.

No it isn't, not even close. Who actually gives a crap about the Pro14 in this context? It is such an insignificance, it has no bearing on anything.

It's a totally daft stance to take, as if the pro14 is going to improve anyone's mood or make anyone feel better.

Faugheen wrote: »

Because the start of the Pro14 IS the beginning of the healing process.

The players at the RWC are now back with their provinces. As disappointing as the RWC was, we have a new coach, we have no game until February and the players are now back with their provinces. The time to move forward is now.

You can still be annoyed with the RWC but Thornley saying the ‘healing process’ has begun isn’t a stupid thing to say. I’d say loads of those players couldn’t wait to get back playing with their provinces.

What on Earth is wrong with that? Should we all just keep bitching and moaning about it until the Six Nations?

Someone had a pop at Thornley’s article, someone had a different opinion, and then you came in with your ultra-defensive mind set. Nobody is out to offend you or to shoot you down. It’s a discussion forum.

It is a stupid trite thing for Thornley to say. its not a healing process. the players barely play for their province as it is. the only healing they can have is in an international context in 10 or so weeks. As Sexton has admitted, this will never heal and will haunt them for the rest of their careers, if not lives. And why should some of them be allowed waltz in and heal. what has Murray, say, done to deserve starting this weekend? apart from having a central contract

Faugheen

awec wrote: »

I think people are taking issue with a cringeworthy Thornley article that suggests some poxy pro14 interpro matches are the beginning of some "healing process" for another world cup disaster.

It's vacuous bollocks from our rugby media, as if results in the tin pot league that our clubs play in really mitigates anything that's happened in 2019 for Ireland.

Because the start of the Pro14 IS the beginning of the healing process.

The players at the RWC are now back with their provinces. As disappointing as the RWC was, we have a new coach, we have no game until February and the players are now back with their provinces. The time to move forward is now.

You can still be annoyed with the RWC but Thornley saying the ‘healing process’ has begun isn’t a stupid thing to say. I’d say loads of those players couldn’t wait to get back playing with their provinces.

What on Earth is wrong with that? Should we all just keep bitching and moaning about it until the Six Nations?

Someone had a pop at Thornley’s article, someone had a different opinion, and then you came in with your ultra-defensive mind set. Nobody is out to offend you or to shoot you down. It’s a discussion forum.

[Deleted User]

awec wrote: »

"It's sport, it's a competition" is a pretty dismissive angle to take on it. Again, it's all too easy and convenient a way to avoid saying anything too negative.

I'm not really sure what you're looking for here? Was RWC2019 humiliating for Ireland? Yes. Is it un-constructive to point that out? I don't think so.

What do you think the reasons were for us going from being really quite excellent in 2019, to pretty bloody rubbish in 2019?

I don't think anyone in team Ireland showed anything close to the type of hubris that would justify calling what transpired humiliating. I felt vicariously humiliated by the Japan result, but I'd never throw that remark at players who have tried their best. We've all tried and failed, we don't need to be reminded of our failure in such terms and it's ultimately going to result in a lot of defensiveness on here (as we've seen). Just my two cents.

As for what went wrong?

It started with England in the six nations.

We were on a high, we had closed out the all blacks and we were in an ideal position a year out from the World Cup.

Then an England team who had been dire through 2018 and who we had dismissed in Twickenham a year prior showed up and caught us cleanly on the hop.

I think had the focus we brought to New Zealand in November been on display in the Aviva we'd have weathered the early onslaught and have had enough composure to close out a win.

Instead we looked properly rattled and became innacurate. This wasn't part of the script. We fell apart in that last quarter in Dublin and I'm firmly of the opinion that this was a catalyst for everything which came later.

The fruits of this loss of confidence were on display against Wales. 2018 was a year where we built confidence and momentum. We didn't suddenly become a bad team, we just started to doubt ourselves. Against Wales that doubt crept in much sooner and we had no composure and never got into the game.

I think losing to England and Wales in the fashion we did, compounded by Munster and Leinster being turned over by Saracens put a lot of doubt into the core international squad, but ultimately it all started with that loss to England and our inability to fight our way back into that game.

By the time we rocked up in Twickenham for the warm ups in hindsight I think our confidence was lower than anyone knew and the subsequent thrashing was representative of the breakdown which had started in February.

The body language of the players that day was the same as we saw in Cardiff a few months earlier and the same as we saw against Japan.

I don't want to throw out glib clichés but ultimately I feel we lost our mojo. Sure the game plan may have been a bit exposed but I think the greater issue was our execution. Inaccuracy can be a result of a lack of preparation but I think with Ireland it was a lack of confidence and subsequent lack of composure.

Once we lost to Japan it was game over. New Zealand getting a pass into the quarters probably gave the squad the excuse I think some of them probably wanted at that stage to get out of dodge. They're miles from home and it's all gone Pete Tong and they don't want to be there anymore.

I think the biggest failure was that six nations England loss and how we dealt with it.

Had we won that game I think we would have been in an entirely different mindset by the end of that tournament and we'd have been able to deal with whatever happened in Twickenham in the warm ups.

It's been said countless times but rugby is often about small margins. That's true for what happens off the pitch aswell.

I think we're a very strong team, we've good depth and Joe is an exceptional coach.

I think we're prone to over thinking things and the prescribed nature of our play style under Joe requires all the working parts to be on song. The collapse of confidence robbed us of the composure required to implement our game and the rest is history.

I'm not sure there is a fix for this but I also don't believe fundamentally there is anything other than circumstance denying us a World Cup semi final. There is context to all of our exits that don't really demonstrate an obvious pattern.

Had a hurricane struck in 2015 and instead of playing France we got a pass and were full strength against Argentina would we be having this conversation?

Context and circumstance.

true. lets stop the arguments and petty squabbles and begin the healing process.

Squidgy Black

Burkie1203 wrote: »

She should say nothing. The media reaction was fairly standard fare. Franno threw out his usual guff but by and large the media stuff was fairly accurate

These are well paid, well looked after professional athletes in a high performance environment Who have produced well below par in 2019. So of course media will react negatively. That goes with the territory. If she doesn't like it she should avoid newspapers and social media for a few weeks.

She definitely shouldn't have said anything, however I would say that I'd imagine her anger/frustration isn't just at the media for their world cup coverage, and probably predates that with the coverage from certain individuals about how CJ shouldn't be playing for Ireland etc. On a personal level, I don't think there's really a financial threshold that would make it easier for you to be constantly seeing your partner be a target for the media, especially given the fact you've uprooted your entire life to join him and moved away from family etc.

Clegg

I see we're now rehashing arguments from a month ago.

Nice.

Burkie1203

Shefwedfan wrote: »

What exactly did you expect her to say?

What exactly do you want the press to say about the players?

Go into their personal lives?

As a fan what would you like to see in the press about Irish rugby players that would keep you happy??

She should say nothing. The media reaction was fairly standard fare. Franno threw out his usual guff but by and large the media stuff was fairly accurate

These are well paid, well looked after professional athletes in a high performance environment Who have produced well below par in 2019. So of course media will react negatively. That goes with the territory. If she doesn't like it she should avoid newspapers and social media for a few weeks.

aloooof wrote: »

So you mean weakened versus previous NZ side's, rather than the side itself was weakened? Cos they selected a pretty much full strength side.

Tbh, the 2011 and 2015 incarnations of the NZ squads were probably the best ever squads to play the game, no side in the world will compare favourably towards them.

It doesn't count? Surely this whole conversation has come about because we've never made a QF, including 2007?

yes, and therefore our mentality should have been along those lines. We didn't target Reece at all for example. Yes i agree with what you say, but still we went out like we were playing that vintage. It was arguably a weaker NZ team than in November but as we are finding out the november wins mean little.

Yes rugby in 2007 was nearly a different sport.

sydthebeat wrote: »

good to see decent discussion without having to descend to the pits of hyperbole like some other posters.

100% agreed on the above.. though its easy to do in hindsight.

its hard not to see the argument that the team that beat NZ 12 months earlier could do it again.... but obviously nothing at all was shown in 2019 to suggest they could. The coaches reverted to conservatism when in hindsight they should have been a bit more experimental.

i think this shows our main issue when it comes to it though... we dont have a huge player pool.

we have what, about 130 professional players to choose from?

england have about 1000, france similar.
wales have similar to ireland, but would actually have more of a blood line connection to english players than we would.
Also, obvious rugby in wales is practically their first sport. i think the reason wales have done so well in recent years in comparison to say scotland or france, is purely down to their coaching team... and i can see some barren years ahead for wales because their clubs are a mess.

what are the examples of hyperbole?

and this is hardly hindsight -

https://www.offtheball.com/rugby/andy-dunne-think-no-capacity-express-840185

https://www.the42.ie/matt-williams-ireland-4474065-Feb2019/

https://punditarena.com/rugby/smcmahon/shane-horgan-expectations-ireland-world-cup/

and they have stuff going back to 2016, 2017 etc. Its not hindsight

And now we are down to the numbers excuse.

And thousands of those English players aren't good enough to play in the AIL. Have you seen the standard of some of the championship? Its utter dog****.

We purposefully chose a provincial system. In the mid nineties some argued for AIL clubs in Europe, obviously would have been the wrong call. But if we say we did immediately we have more players.

Our players have some of the best rest periods of any nation, they have great money, and great contract security and sponsorship opportunities.

There's about 172 players across all four provinces, not including the ready made academy players - so about 200. In the AIL top leagues we have at a rough guess 1500 players, obviously all cut adrift, completely sidelined by the IRFU and deemed second class players. We chose a very tight net which controls the quality. But many of them have either gone to semi pro or gone on like Liam Quill. I played with a few lads who could have easily gone pro. One was on the possibles versus Chris Henry on the probables back in the old days. Only one spot, him or Henry and Henry got it. And arguably Henry was the worse player. The spoils for the loser...the slog of the AIL and a captaincy and a ****ty offer from Rotherham for 6k. Rotherham in particular a graveyard for some very talented Irish players.

We don't have enough players playing enough minutes.

ROG on the money here: "I am convinced more than ever we have got to the stage where our players are under-rugbyed (is that a word?).

The local derbies are gone, and with them the bite; the national team has become a disproportionate priority, so where’s the hardness in our players, that durability from playing in real games? There’s no PRO14 relegation, there’s no Six Nations relegation and if someone throws at me ‘neither has New Zealand or Super Rugby’, NZ are streets ahead in their mental as well as physical preparation."

awec wrote: »

I think by the time the WC came round, the horse had already bolted in terms of rotating players out. IMO, the changes should have been ringing back in February / March, with real competition for spots being pushed, and we could have arrived in September with an in-form (or at least, more in-form that it was) team.
.

good to see decent discussion without having to descend to the pits of hyperbole like some other posters.

100% agreed on the above.. though its easy to do in hindsight.

its hard not to see the argument that the team that beat NZ 12 months earlier could do it again.... but obviously nothing at all was shown in 2019 to suggest they could. The coaches reverted to conservatism when in hindsight they should have been a bit more experimental.

awec wrote: »

I would add a few more. Stockdale should have been dropped, he has been terrible all year. Conway was the form player here and should have been in. I'd have had Larmour in for Kearney this year. Not bringing Toner was a huge mistake as Henderson is just too inconsistent, and neither Kleyn nor Beirne are good enough.
.

i think this shows our main issue when it comes to it though... we dont have a huge player pool.

we have what, about 130 professional players to choose from?

england have about 1000, france similar.
wales have similar to ireland, but would actually have more of a blood line connection to english players than we would.
Also, obvious rugby in wales is practically their first sport. i think the reason wales have done so well in recent years in comparison to say scotland or france, is purely down to their coaching team... and i can see some barren years ahead for wales because their clubs are a mess.

Niallof9 wrote: »

Did you miss their semi final game? It wasn't a vintage NZ side at all and it was largely in experienced. We are always bleating on about experience and arguing guys like Kelleher aren't ready. Like which is it?

So you mean weakened versus previous NZ side's, rather than the side itself was weakened? Cos they selected a pretty much full strength side.

Tbh, the 2011 and 2015 incarnations of the NZ squads were probably the best ever squads to play the game, no side in the world will compare favourably towards them.

Niallof9 wrote: »

Imo it is our worst. 2007 stands alone yeah in a way. But it was 12 years ago, it doesn't count.

It doesn't count? Surely this whole conversation has come about because we've never made a QF, including 2007?

aloooof wrote: »

Were NZ weakened? They went pretty full strength, no? Any of the omissions were down to selection rather than weakened through injury, say. Maybe Damian McKenzie, but even then, they had serious options.

Japan is nowhere near our worst, imo. Georgia in 2007, for example, was a far worse performance. Even against USA in 2011 was pretty poor, a game we won 22-10. That's a game we struggled in. The Russia game this year, which posters have been suggesting we struggled in, was nothing like that.

Did you miss their semi final game? It wasn't a vintage NZ side at all and it was largely inexperienced. We are always bleating on about experience and our huge cap numbers, and arguing guys like Kelleher aren't ready or Ryan is too young to captain (even tho drico was same age). Like which is it? Either as a hugely experienced side we should be winning- New Zealand backline with 294 caps to our 436 - or at least accept we are old and tired and in need of a refresh.

I'm not saying we had any right to beat them but accepting defeat as just something that happened is the old Ireland. I thought we had moved beyond that. We have people trying to reframe the narrative that Japan are our equals or even our betters in the skill department. Its utter nonsense.

Imo it is our worst. 2007 stands alone yeah in a way. But it was 12 years ago, it doesn't count.

this was a few weeks back, and already we have people, as predicted, trying to shift the goalposts and talk of healing. On Monday, if we get the four or even three wins in Europe..it will be "Irish rugby is back".

Niallof9 wrote: »

INo we weren't. We were good enough to beat Japan but we shat the bed and ended up playing a weakened NZ, whom we put in our possibly our second worst ever world cup performance.

Were NZ weakened? They went pretty full strength, no? Any of the omissions were down to selection rather than weakened through injury, say. Maybe Damian McKenzie, but even then, they had serious options.

Niallof9 wrote: »

Japan being the worst, and Argentina QF had the injuries mitigation. So two of our worst ever performances came in the the 2019 World Cup and there will be no "healing" sweeping under carpets until we see Farrell pick on form and implement a sea change in how we approach the games.

Japan is nowhere near our worst, imo. Georgia in 2007, for example, was a far worse performance. Even against USA in 2011 was pretty poor, a game we won 22-10. That's a game we struggled in. The Russia game this year, which posters have been suggesting we struggled in, was nothing like that.

sydthebeat wrote: »

what do you mean "were we?" .... i didnt say that obviously.... as you quoted exactly what i said.

are you saying we were not expected to go out at QF stage?? because its easy to show that we were.

Its implied because posters like yourself always conveiently leave out the fact about the Japan game, where we played our third choice outhalf and were planning on resting our frontliners after that game in anticipation of the SA quarters, where despite what has transpired, we had a great chance. Obviously though from the minute of the botched squad announcement, and selection our race was rung, so what happened, happened in a way. But plenty of folk, myself included (in a different guise) were saying this a long time back. The Dunnes, the horgans, williams. We were made look foolish at times, but we were proven correct.

No we weren't meant to go out. We were good enough to beat Japan but we shat the bed and ended up playing a weakened NZ, against whom we put in ,possibly, our worst world cup performance, ever. Japan would be the worst, but underestimating them was key, and Argentina QF had the injuries mitigation. So two of our worst ever performances came in the the 2019 World Cup and there will be no "healing" / sweeping under carpets until we see Farrell pick on form and implement a sea change in how we approach the games. I have heard and read that has already happened, so at least that is something. Apparently (and in a way obviously) Farrell shares the same philosophies as Lancaster.

I hope to see players like Ronan Kelleher selected and a more attacking game implemented. Then at least, the disaster of the World Cup can be put into our memory box. I couldn't care less what happens in the 6 Nations as long as form is rewarded and there is a clear change in how we approach our attacking strategy.

Niallof9 wrote: »

we were expected to lose to Japan were we? will you please stop with this self defeating nonsense.

what do you mean "were we?" .... i didnt say that obviously.... as you quoted exactly what i said.

are you saying we were not expected to go out at QF stage?? because its easy to show that we were.

Riskymove

sydthebeat wrote: »

if irelands QF exit is humiliation.... s

I don't know if you are deliberately just focussing on the QF or not to suit but I think its clear that it is the overall RWC performance that may be seen as humiliating

losing a QF to NZ cannot in itself be seen as humiliating even given that we were poor

awec wrote: »

So, like the second point I made somewhere in one of my posts above, maybe we really are guilty of blowing smoke up our own arses a bit too much, and overdoing it on our achievements in the in-between years.
.

yeah i don't have a problem admitting to that.....
are we essentially at our best when others are not at theres... well thats hardly our fault. When the playing field is levelled we go backwards.
do we overachieve?? we certainly have in the last 6 years

sydthebeat wrote: »

humiliating???

humiliation is a very strong word to use...

if irelands QF exit is humiliation.... then how would you describe englands pool exit as the host country 4 years ago?? youd have to stretch your lexicon to get a comparative world for that.

Failure, yes. Disappointing, yes.
expected???? well yes... we were expected to go go out at the QF stages

we were expected to lose to Japan were we? will you please stop with this self defeating nonsense.

awec

Former Former wrote: »

I didn't agree with Kleyn and Beirne from the off and nothing we saw in Japan changed my mind.

It was increasingly obvious that Best was done and should have got the D'Arcy treatment, either before or during the tournament.

Henshaw should have been sent home halfway through the pools.

But ultimately selection didn't really matter. Would Toner, N Scannell or C Farrell have made any difference? No. That's our problem, we just don't have the squad depth we need.

So what did go wrong? The Japanese result got inside our heads IMO. It's long forgotten that for 20 minutes, it looked like we would blow them away but we got a couple of unlucky breaks and we don't have the on-field leadership to right the ship when things went awry.

So the pressure piles on. By the time we get to the NZ game, we were already beaten but still, you can't legislate for some of the stuff we saw. Sexton missing touch twice, then Carbery comes on and does likewise?

In the end of it all, we missed our window. Key players lost form or got too old and their potential replacements weren't good enough. We're always going to be subject to cyclical changes in squad quality and this RWC came at a trough.

Joe could have gambled on lesser players hitting the form of their lives, instead he hoped that better players would come good. It didn't pan out but I don't think the alternative option would have helped.

Agree with bits of this for sure. I think Henshaw should have been sent home as soon as the injury hit. Agree about Kleyn and Beirne.

I think by the time the WC came round, the horse had already bolted in terms of rotating players out. IMO, the changes should have been ringing back in February / March, with real competition for spots being pushed, and we could have arrived in September with an in-form (or at least, more in-form that it was) team.

I would add a few more. Stockdale should have been dropped, he has been terrible all year. Conway was the form player here and should have been in. I'd have had Larmour in for Kearney this year. Not bringing Toner was a huge mistake as Henderson is just too inconsistent, and neither Kleyn nor Beirne are good enough.

But the players is really just one half of the issue. The tactics, the setup, it was all just wrong. We had been found out but did nothing to adapt to this fact. That one is squarely on the coaches.

Riskymove wrote: »

I think this oversimplifies it, not all QFs consist of 1 top 4 team and someone else so you don't always have to beat a top 4 team to make the SF

I don't think anyone would claim that Scotland or Argentina were one of the top 4 teams when they managed to win a QF.

In any event, imo, it is not simply the fact that we have failed to win a QF but the particularly poor performances that have resulted in us hardly ever being in with a chance of winning the QF that is the issue

The QF has generally been an awful performance regardless of whether we have been in form in the pool stage or not

I think this is the most worrying thing for me. We've never been ahead in a QF since the game went pro. We haven't even been competitive, we're not even getting close.