Is Joe Schmidt concealing his hand?

It is a fair comment, when it is made fairly for sure!

molloyjh wrote: »

And Joe has been quoted numerous times as saying that if you stand still you get overtaken. He's always looking to vary how we play. And we have varied it between the 2 6 Nations wins. Not massively, but there isn't the space or time in international rugby to completely alter your game plan with such limited access to players. It's about tweaking things and adding little bits here and there. And if you can do that with accuracy then most sides will struggle to deal with it.

Joe also analyses sides to see where they are weakest. Look at how we targeted Wales in the 2014 6 Nations using our kicking game to utterly neuter them (kicking just outside the 22 with an aggressive chase to dictate who has the ball and where) and compare it to how we beat England in the 6 Nations this year (by targeting them up front and winning that battle and using our kicks in a more attacking sense). Against France this year we targeted their left wing with our kicking game to expose a weakness there which we followed up with a running game that complimented that, focusing on the same area.

We utilise the same elements but have been utilising them differently depending on the opposition. We don't run the ball from anywhere, but I'd be curious to see how many teams who make the knock-outs actually do. We'll need to add a little variety to our back play certainly, but we don't need to reinvent the wheel.

Spot on. In fact, how we play the game is perfectly suited to competitions like this. Other teams, who are normally less conservative, will actually be much more conservative during the WC - the advantage we have is a team that has been playing in a "cup winning fashion" for a couple of years now. We will subtly change things here and there as you mention, but we are well equipped to do well. (No that isn't me saying we will win the cup!)

Amazed at comments that equate Joe Schmidt with Martin O'Neill or Trappatoni - 'we only have limited resources so what can you do!'

Schmidt is very well aware of the quality of resources we have and how best to utilise them. In fact our squad is one of the most balanced and capable of the 6N teams.

Warren Gatland was right about Ireland last weekend, we didn't come to play, it was a complete sandbagging job. People forget how Schmidt's Ireland team have got it so right against big teams over the last 20 months, with the result that we are now ahead of almost all of them. Ireland can appear limited or nervy for sections of games and the next thing they just strike, turn on the gameplan and demoralise the oppostion. Its actually jawdropping at times and I expect no less when it counts in the RWC

LorMal wrote: »

2007.

So a completely different team & coaching staff had a hugely disappointing tournament 8 years ago, after being hyped up. Therefore anyone who this year thinks this current team can do well is "self convincing"?

I am failing to see what your argument is, if it isn't the above? And if it is the above....it is ludicrous. Might as well say "I saw a magpie this morning. Therefore, I don't think this team can do well in this tournament and anyone who says otherwise is just trying to convince themselves"

Noopti wrote: »

Also from what I remember (correct me if I am wrong) the 2007 team was much more ambitious and "free flowing" in its approach to the game, so even if we take your argument as valid - then how can you also say that Ireland play too narrow and conservatively now to progress in a World Cup? When the team you are using as a previous example of failure did the opposite and still failed?

The failure of the 2007 team was down to an inability to adapt once other teams, and not necessarily the world's greatest, sussed us out tactically.

Yes, we had some great running backs in that team. And yes we based our game plan around using them. EOS as manager had, as he always does, several set plays to run off set pieces in the opposition's half. All we needed were lineouts and scrums in opposition territory.

Only problem was, both Georgia and later Argentina sussed out that what we were doing was kicking long in the expectation that the fullback would make a tidy clearance kick to touch so that we would get a throw in in their half.

Dirty rotten spoiling Georgian and Argie bastards refused to play ball. Instead of kicking to touch they kicked long to our back three. Who included the puny Geordan Murphy and Dennis Hickie. (funny they never kicked at Shane Horgan)

They would gather the ball and either return the kick (whence it was banged straight back) or they would run it and find themselves confronted by the opposition pack who had been told to pressurise the kick receiver.

Our pack would be caught unawares because they would have been expecting a lineout in enemy territory and would be scratching their heads wondering what went wrong with the plan. (You can't expect forwards to think independently!) So Murphy or Hickie would get turned over and next day in the Irish Times Gerry Thornley would write long screeds about how the Irish team was "overcooked" and "overtrained" and lacking physicality at the breakdown.

Yeah because wee Dennis or Geordan getting duffed up by the likes of the Argentinian or Georgian front rows was because of "overtraining"!!!

It wasn't overtraining; it was out thinking.

I claim no special insight on this. It was pointed out convincingly on TV3's coverage by the likes of Matt Williams and Franno after the Georgia match which we nearly lost. It was obvious to anyone who had been listening to that when Argentina did exactly the same thing.

Brian O'Driscoll clearly hadn't seen it. In post match interviews he whinged about the Argentinian tactics, almost going as far to say they were unfair because they didn't dovetail with Ireland's. All he was missing was an Australian accent.

That's the level of tactical insight you come up against in the World Cup. If all you have is plan A, the opposition don't have to work too hard to suss you out.

LorMal wrote: »

Nope. My point is that simply trying to drive though or out kick our opponents won't cut it against the better teams. As Snickers Man points out, Gatland has us sussed now - others will follow - unless we add other dimensions to our game.

Has he? It's 2-2 Gatland v Schmidt, two of which were warm ups for the RWC.

Snickers Man wrote: »

The failure of the 2007 team was down to an inability to adapt once other teams, and not necessarily the world's greatest, sussed us out tactically.

Yes, we had some great running backs in that team. And yes we based our game plan around using them. EOS as manager had, as he always does, several set plays to run off set pieces in the opposition's half. All we needed were lineouts and scrums in opposition territory.

Only problem was, both Georgia and later Argentina sussed out that what we were doing was kicking long in the expectation that the fullback would make a tidy clearance kick to touch so that we would get a throw in in their half.

Dirty rotten spoiling Georgian and Argie bastards refused to play ball. Instead of kicking to touch they kicked long to our back three. Who included the puny Geordan Murphy and Dennis Hickie. (funny they never kicked at Shane Horgan)

They would gather the ball and either return the kick (whence it was banged straight back) or they would run it and find themselves confronted by the opposition pack who had been told to pressurise the kick receiver.

Our pack would be caught unawares because they would have been expecting a lineout in enemy territory and would be scratching their heads wondering what went wrong with the plan. (You can't expect forwards to think independently!) So Murphy or Hickie would get turned over and next day in the Irish Times Gerry Thornley would write long screeds about how the Irish team was "overcooked" and "overtrained" and lacking physicality at the breakdown.

Yeah because wee Dennis or Geordan getting duffed up by the likes of the Argentinian or Georgian front rows was because of "overtraining"!!!

It wasn't overtraining; it was out thinking.

I claim no special insight on this. It was pointed out convincingly on TV3's coverage by the likes of Matt Williams and Franno after the Georgia match which we nearly lost. It was obvious to anyone who had been listening to that when Argentina did exactly the same thing.

Brian O'Driscoll clearly hadn't seen it. In post match interviews he whinged about the Argentinian tactics, almost going as far to say they were unfair because they didn't dovetail with Ireland's. All he was missing was an Australian accent.

That's the level of tactical insight you come up against in the World Cup. If all you have is plan A, the opposition don't have to work too hard to suss you out.

You make some great points, but to say Ireland almost lost to Georgia due to tactical naivety alone or not being able to change their gameplan is beyond ridiculous. There was much more at play to cause that near calamity.

There was a definite general malaise around the team. All you have to do is read the thoughts of players who were involved. And those players saying the environment wasn't good, or they weren't in great physical shape is hardly a way to save face. In fact it would be better to say "we were outsmarted at a game plan & tactical level" in my opinion! So I see no reason to not believe them to be honest.

Noopti wrote: »

to say Ireland almost lost to Georgia due to tactical naivety alone or not being able to change their gameplan is beyond ridiculous. There was much more at play to cause that near calamity.

No. There really wasn't.

Maybe the very strict policy of a first team that was wrapped in cotton wool before the finals (remember he sent a B team down to lose twice in Argentina as a warm up?) caused some grumbling among the reserves but they weren't the ones playing against Georgia and Argentina.

I really think that the difference between that team being a great Irish team and being an all-time great international team, you know winning a couple of grand slams and challenging at the world cup, was a lack of tactical adaptability at captaincy level.

Don't get me wrong: O'Driscoll and O'Connell are two of our all time great players and I would have each of their babies if I were so inclined but fantastic players don't always make fantastic captains. I thought O'Connell's captaincy limitations were shown up during the Lions series he led against S Africa. But that's not a criticism of a great player. Just a captain.

Both were "lead by example" captains. Which is all very well but sometimes you need a cool tactical brain.

molloyjh wrote: »

So a very good team narrowly beat us in their home ground with what was a fairly monumental defensive effort and that is your only real evidence of there being a problem with how we play the game? And why exactly does that trump the fact that we won the 6 Nations this year and last year, as well as won all our AI games?

In fact, we actually played well in the 2nd half of that game, and changed up our tactics...

penybont exile wrote: »

Ireland woulld be my preference for the semi if we're good enough to get there.

Not likely to happen though ...... QF exit to the AB's beckons.

Wales' pool doesn't cross over with the ABs pool though

penybont exile wrote: »

Not likely to happen though ...... QF exit to the AB's beckons.

:rolleyes: