Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

19519529549569571816

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,819 ✭✭✭Dubinusa


    Excellent research Neil.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,389 ✭✭✭Jump_In_Jack


    Couple of easy scores? Which other score was easy? And Aki beat the defender with a good side step and a strong carry close to their line where their defence was scrambling to cover space.

    I wouldn’t really equate that with the system failure off the lineout that led to their try or for leaving acres of space on the wing for Savea to go over untouched.

    The feeling after the game was Ireland dominated most of the game and had to work much harder to get points but NZ got a few sucker punches without having to do much. The penalty against Murray was a soft penalty too, Keenan claimed a magnificent high ball and Jordie Barrett threw himself down to make a meal of barely any contact I thought.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,893 ✭✭✭snotboogie


    The Gibson Park try was exceptionally soft. Jordan made a terrible defensive read where he doesn't commit to JGP because he is worried about Lowe, despite Lowe being clearly covered by Barrett and falls off the tackle on a scrum half. If he makes that tackle JGB is isolated and Savea is steaming in for the penalty turnover.

    Those "sucker punches" aren't a fluke either, they were a direct consequence of NZ selecting superior athletes to Ireland, particularly in the backs. Ireland prioritised system players and cohesion over pace and as with most decisions at the top level you gain and lose based on that selection.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,759 ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    You're painting it as black and white, when the reality is there's a whole spectrum. Nerves does automatically not mean bottled / choked.

     Some were trying to deny this happened. Including some high profile ex players

    At least you've rowed back from claiming ex-players were saying they "choked" when you couldn't find a single one that did.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,759 ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    Brilliant post, Neil.

    I think one large part of it was that Hansen didn't seem to be 100% following his injury either, and he has become such an important part of our attack that just hampered us even further.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,147 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    So if I’m reading this right we got some easy points due to lapses and NZ got easy points because Ireland choked?



  • Site Banned Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Musicrules


    I didn't say ex players said they choked, I said they meant that using different words. Same with the affected by nerves phrase used on this thread, it means the same thing. Now we even have some stats to back it up. We didn't play the way we've been playing for the last 2 years. The occasion got the better of most of our players. Sexton missing a kick is an obvious example but him not orchestrating attacks as normal is a less obvious sign.

    So you can avoid calling it choking or deny it ever happened or whatever you want but the stats and the views of some ex players and pundits state that we had 'a sub-optimal sporting performance delivered under pressure' (definition of choking).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,759 ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    I didn't say ex players said they choked, I said they meant that using different words.

    So you know what pundits actually meant... despite them using entirely different words??

    Right....



  • Site Banned Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Musicrules


    They didn't use entirely different words, they used words that define choking. Are you more comfortable if we just say the players were affected by nerves instead?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 27,279 ✭✭✭✭phog


    I'd be concerned if players playing in any knock out game weren't nervous.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,759 ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    Yes. Because nerves and "choking" are at entirely difference points in the spectrum of performance.



  • Site Banned Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Musicrules


    I'd say players get nervous before most matches. That's not what we're discussing. We're discussing a sub-optimal sporting performance delivered when under pressure. That describes Ireland against New Zealand.



  • Site Banned Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Musicrules


    Affected by nerves is the phrase. As above, I'd say most players on all teams have nerves, we're discussing how it affects performance. Do you disagree that Ireland had a sub-optimal sporting performance delivered when under pressure against New Zealand?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,759 ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    And there are degrees of "affected by nerves". I don't think Ireland's performance was anywhere near the "choking" end of that spectrum.

    Not all performances, affected by nerves equals choking.

    Just like pundits who said we were nervous didn't mean we choked.



  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 36,388 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    What is people's accepted definition of choking, on a scale of Missing an easy kick to Jean Van De Velde?



  • Site Banned Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Musicrules


    You're uncomfortable with the term choking, that's fair enough. But you can look up any definition of the term and it means the same as affected by nerves. The Wikipedia definition for example:

    'choking is the failure of a person, or persons, to act or behave as anticipated or expected'

    This is what some pundits have described, some ex players have described, the stats and analysis of the game backs this up. They state that Ireland delivered a sub-optimal sporting performance when under pressure against New Zealand.

    You're free to disagree with the pundits and the stats if you want and you can even disagree with the definition of choking if you want. It's a widely accepted definition though so you'll have a hard time changing it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,759 ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    I'm not uncomfortable with it. I just think you're wrong.

    Fwiw, one of the pundits you're claiming meant choking literally said "one thing this wasn't was a choke".

    But sure, you know what they meant....



  • Site Banned Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Musicrules


    You're not arguing with anything I said, you're arguing with the definition of choking. You think it should be defined differently.

    What pundit said that?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,858 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Id say if they weren't nervous before the game, they certainly were after the first 20 mins when we found ourselves down 13 points having seen our scrum and lineout both misfiring

    Ban billionaires



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,759 ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    Like I said before, all definitions also include caveats like the following:

    The term itself is often an over-used, or even derisive term in the sports world, where "choke" status is assigned to a team or player that was simply unlucky. 

    What pundit said that?

    Shane Horgan. You falsely attributed "choking" to him. Like I said you haven't been able to find a single pundit who actually said "choking".



  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Musicrules


    So you don't dispute the definition of choking then? Because Shane Horgan and others used the definition to describe our performance against New Zealand.

    Like I said, choking seems like a harsh word. As a friend to the players, of course Horgan wouldn't want to use that word. It would make him uncomfortable like it makes you and others uncomfortable.

    It doesn't mean that the players didn't underperform under pressure. Many supporters and pundits thought we underperformed under pressure. This means choking but as I said, I have no problem using phrases like 'affected by nerves' or 'underperformed under pressure' if it's more palatable.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,759 ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    Underperformed ≠ choking.



  • Site Banned Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Musicrules


    Underperformed under pressure. Again, you can dispute the definition of choking if you want. I'll give a few examples of the definition below:

    In sport, choking under pressure is a negative athletic experience that may have psychologically damaging effects

    In sports, choking is the failure of a person, or persons, to act or behave as anticipated or expected

    Choking under pressure ensues when athletes fail to meet their performance goals, usually during high-pressure situations

    Choking can be defined as a sub-optimal sporting performance delivered when under pressure.

    Now, here's what Rob Kearney had to say after the New Zealand match:

    “I said before the game that if Ireland were even at 90% of what they’re capable of, they would win. They were so brave and tried so hard. They filled the country with so much pride, but at the end of the day, they weren’t at 90%. Here we are, at another quarterfinal, and we didn’t produce the rugby this team is capable of. That’s the bit that will hurt so much.”

    Then Shane Horgan said:

    "It’s heartbreaking because of the result. It’s also heartbreaking because they didn’t deliver the performance they wanted. Their sub-maximum performance was nearly enough, but they were quite a bit off today in a lot of areas. Some of them will have to live this for four years. Some of them will have to live with it for the rest of their lives. There is no easy way to put it."

    So there you have it. Kearney and Horgan basically using the definition of choking. As I've stated. I agree with their verdict, you don't. That's fair enough. I think we should move on for the benefit of other posters.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,759 ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    Shane Horgan: "I've heard the term 'choked' being bandied around. We didn't see that. What a choke would be is if Ireland didn't come back into the game after the opening that we saw from New Zealand and went onto the lose the game by 30 points".

    But sure. You can still believe he meant they choked...



  • Site Banned Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Musicrules


    Do you disagree with all the definitions I've listed for you? If so, take that up with those who made the definition. You may have been unfamiliar with how choking is defined, Shane Horgan may be the same. But his statement and that of Rob Kearney aligns with the definition of choking. Uncomfortable truth, yes but the truth it is.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,759 ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    Musicrules: "Shane Horgan: This was a choke"

    Shane Horgan: "This wasn't a choke".



  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 36,388 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    That's a bit mad. For me, you can only choke if you have a commanding lead and let it slip, Northampton style. Ireland were never in a position to choke in that game.



  • Site Banned Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Musicrules


    Shane Horgan, Rob Kearney, many supporters, ex players and pundits use the definition of choking to describe Ireland's performance against New Zealand. The stats back it up.

    Aloooof stomps his feet claiming the definition of choking is wrong.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79,480 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    In your opinion they 'choked'.

    Teams only choke when they are expected to win something.

    You had an expectation we would win.

    That was never a legitimate expectation, it was always a 50/50 game.



  • Advertisement
  • Subscribers, Paid Member Posts: 44,902 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    New Zealand were required to play a game where they had ZERO handling errors, which is pretty much unheard of in the professional game. They won by 4 points.

    it appears the only way to define a winning performance is "perfect" and a losing performance as "chokers"

    there is literally nothing in between these two definitions, one or the other, you pick lads.....



Advertisement
Advertisement