Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

You can make moral judgements about some hypothetical manager, most managers aren't very good, etc. But the underlying point that was being made is that everything is all fine and well until results go again the team, and then there is criticism. So people who previously praised the team are now criticising the team just because new information emerges! I do not see what the problem is here, while we were doing well everyone is happy, now that we are doing badly everyone is pissed off. ITS SPORT, THIS IS WAHT HAPPENS. A manger who praises or apportions blame based on results, what is the world coming to?

Many managers are dicks but Im glad you know what a good manager is, maybe you have some experience. But let's recap here because people have been sidetracked by philosophising about managers who take credit and not criticism...the original point that brought this up.

This is, I think, intended as a criticism of posters who may have previously praised the team but who now criticise the team, because there is new information. The meaning of the new information is disputed so failing to get past NZ in the 1/4 means either, A) we aren't as good as we thought we were and the loss resulted from a loss of composure because of the pressure or B) it's just the bounce of a ball and SA are consistently luckier than Ireland who would have won if we had more luck but alas, fate. The manager analogy above supports A, my saying that the manager changed his mind because of new information (which would be the performance against NZ) and changing your mind because you become aware of new information is not unfair, its actually how things are supposed to work.

Humphreys official as Nucifora's replacement

World Cup failure and the recent fall of the Irish women's team will be the sole blots on his tenure. You can't deny where he's taken the IRFU in the last five years especially.

Humphreys will have big shoes to fill in continuing the success of the men's team, getting the Women's XV team up to their former standard, and promoting equality of resource sharing around the province (especially in the West and North, where the relevant provinces have had the short end of the stick comparatively).

Ireland absolutely did suffer from the pressure and it told. I think our opening 20 minutes were sloppy and then there were specific examples later in the game where it reared its head again. They looked rattled early on and it took them a while to get going.

What I'd highlight though is that Ireland aren't the only team that suffer from this. It's absolutely natural for this to be the case especially when there's such an intense focus placed on that specific game by ourselves and our media. NZ didn't come into the game with the same baggage or pressure and were able to cope better with the occasion.

But look at the final when NZ did have that level of scrutiny and pressure. They massively struggled and did so to a worse extent than we did, to my mind. Their captain made a really rash tackle that arguably cost them the RWC. They were totally rattled in that opening 20 minutes. Richie Mo'unga, the best 10 in the world over the last year, missed a straightforward touch. His opening kick off of the game was weirdly tame. Not high, not long, just chipped down the middle towards their 22 and Willemse was able to clear it with no pressure back into the NZ half; Mo'unga was terrified of making an error on it. He spilled a simple pass into his chest later in the game with an overlap on the cards. Beauden Barrett put in a brutal clearance from his own 22, missing touch by about 10-15m which led to a run back and three points for SA. NZ don't make these errors normally. Mentally, that game had the same pressure placed on NZ that the QF had on us.

And SA, who are clearly the best team at coping with pressure, are clearly not immune either. Pollard is the epitome of calm under pressure yet was about 3 inches from missing a tap over penalty in front of the posts in the opening minutes which clipped the inside of the post. His second shot was even closer, from about 12m out and snuck inside the post by about 12 inches. Then their line out had a significant collapse in the second half as they generally started to retreat into themselves. If Kwagga Smith hadn't been on the field for those final 25 minutes, they lose to 14 men.

The players are all human. Pressure gets to them all in different ways. Unfortunately for us, the QF is such a mental monster for us, that's where it pinched us.

Thats a strawman.

My question is - what does he do differently?

If its one thing that all coaches are taught from the very first day - its 'dont state the obvious' because actually we already know it, he knows it so whats the point in saying it. Yeah sure its terrible.

What does he do different, so that next time, in the same situation, he kicks it.

Because if you dont know the answer - then we have a situation where you saying on the one hand - this is a really really basic mistake and on the other hand, actually I dont know how to fix it.

Which is a flat contradiction; those two statements cant be right.

my point is that my colleague had opinions on performance that he could match to the result whether good or bad.Had luck allowed Kelleher change the result none of the other 14 players would have played better or worse.We would then be lauding all these same performances ,finding a way to win,collective mentality etc etc,in a game this close there is no real reason for win or lose other than its not your day.

Mystical thinking. SA don’t have 4 world cups because of luck, and the reason we haven’t progressed beyond the 1/4 isn’t luck.