RWC'15 Pool D: Ireland vs Italy, RWC. KO Sunday 4:45PM TV3/ITV1

heybaby · 05-10-2015 12:48pm

This is going to be unpopular but I simply don't subscribe to the notion that Ireland are keeping anything hidden at this stage. What we saw yesterday was characteristic of an Irish team very prone to inconsistency as far as intensity goes. How on earth any team can be playing in the World Cup and look so passive is mystifying.

Even the japanese play with greater ferocity and pace than we did yesterday. Look at the way the Aussies played on Saturday night, every single one of them playing as if their lives depended on it, by comparison, our lot looked over rehearsed and going through the motions.

Schmidt has delivered 2 six nations titles yes, but through measured play, which at this stage is a tad too predictable and slow and opposition teams have figured this out. We kick way too much, people suggest it's a tactic, it may be but I think it also hides our lack of creativity with the ball in hand. Every other team plays an offloading game with runners running into space, not Ireland. Our lot are preconditioned to seek contact and go to ground without seeking an offload, it's way too formulaic and easy for teams to read, it also takes our pack away and robs us of that all important intensity Keith Wood said was inexplicably absent yesterday.

We have a real problem here. We've not played cohesively now since the 6 nations, the wins in the warm up games were immaterial as far as im concerned. We now have to beat the French in a World Cup game, something we've not managed in this competition before. I don't see it happen. The best 40 minutes this Irish team played arguably ever was the first half against the All Blacks, we blew them away all over the park, the intensity was ferocious, if we replicate that, we'll win, but I just can't see us doing it and I shudder to think we'll be playing that All Black team in the very next game.

Christy42 · 05-10-2015 12:57pm

heybaby wrote: »

We have a real problem here. We've not played cohesively now since the 6 nations, the wins in the warm up games were immaterial as far as im concerned.

Right well the matches against Romania and Canada have been written off due to the opposition while the warm up games are immaterial as they aren't competitive. So discounting them I agree that we haven't played cohesively since the 6 nations. In that one game against Italy we didn't play well. Literally the only competitive game we played against decent opposition since we last played well. If we play badly against France then maybe I will start thinking it could be a trend. I am not going to judge the entire philosophy of this team on a single game.

rrpc · 05-10-2015 1:00pm

Just one point to consider and it's an interesting one. Ourselves and France have played the same oppositions now and we've scored one point less than them and they have conceded thirteen points more than us.

Just saying

total former · 05-10-2015 1:20pm

rrpc wrote: »

Just one point to consider and it's an interesting one. Ourselves and France have played the same oppositions now and we've scored one point less than them and they have conceded thirteen points more than us.

Just saying

I don't think many people would argue that France are playing well either though.

henryporter · 05-10-2015 1:25pm

heybaby wrote: »

This is going to be unpopular but I simply don't subscribe to the notion that Ireland are keeping anything hidden at this stage. What we saw yesterday was characteristic of an Irish team very prone to inconsistency as far as intensity goes. How on earth any team can be playing in the World Cup and look so passive is mystifying.

Even the japanese play with greater ferocity and pace than we did yesterday. Look at the way the Aussies played on Saturday night, every single one of them playing as if their lives depended on it, by comparison, our lot looked over rehearsed and going through the motions.

Schmidt has delivered 2 six nations titles yes, but through measured play, which at this stage is a tad too predictable and slow and opposition teams have figured this out. We kick way too much, people suggest it's a tactic, it may be but I think it also hides our lack of creativity with the ball in hand. Every other team plays an offloading game with runners running into space, not Ireland. Our lot are preconditioned to seek contact and go to ground without seeking an offload, it's way too formulaic and easy for teams to read, it also takes our pack away and robs us of that all important intensity Keith Wood said was inexplicably absent yesterday.

We have a real problem here. We've not played cohesively now since the 6 nations, the wins in the warm up games were immaterial as far as im concerned. We now have to beat the French in a World Cup game, something we've not managed in this competition before. I don't see it happen. The best 40 minutes this Irish team played arguably ever was the first half against the All Blacks, we blew them away all over the park, the intensity was ferocious, if we replicate that, we'll win, but I just can't see us doing it and I shudder to think we'll be playing that All Black team in the very next game.

Tbh Ireland appear to be wisely avoiding injuries by not playing so ferociously - the three teams they have beaten were always beatable, so there was no point in going for high impact collisions and over doing it in the rucks, as they now have a full complement to get into the business end of the tournament. Granted some of the play was shockingly poor, but I'd take the lack of injuries over anything else at this stage - in fact I think Joe has been the first Irish coach in eons who considers injury management as crucial to progressing in such tournaments.

Webbs · 05-10-2015 1:35pm

I dont believe Schmidt would have sent out an Irish team yesterday with anything other than play at full throttle. Anything less would more likely cause more injuries.

Irelands worry is that nothing was created yesterday, the try came from a turnover 10 metres out and that was about it. Surely the key to beating that Italian defence was for offloads to create space and line breaks. Get in behind the Italians and the scores would have come.

Its a safe no risk rugby that is obviously the Schmidt way with Ireland but it will unlikely win a world cup. What happens if Ireland go a couple of scores behind? There doesnt appear to be a plan B as we would surely have seen that against Italy if there was one.

awec · 05-10-2015 1:45pm

I don't think we've ever been a few scores behind in a match and come back to win.

That said I don't think we've ever been a few scores behind that often.

Tobyglen · 05-10-2015 2:11pm

SOB & Heaslip would need to stand up, both were bang average against a poor Italian team. Stats can sway lots of things but SOB is nowhere near his top level. Favaro?? Got the better of SOB, hate to see what Hooper & Pocock could do at breakdown.

Moflojo · 05-10-2015 2:23pm

Tobyglen wrote: »

SOB & Heaslip would need to stand up, both were bang average against a poor Italian team. Stats can sway lots of things but SOB is nowhere near his top level. Favaro?? Got the better of SOB, hate to see what Hooper & Pocock could do at breakdown.

I suspect that Ireland adjusted their approach yesterday to suit Jerome Garces' interpretation of the breakdown. Garces seemed to want quick ball at the breakdowns and didn't hesitate to [mercilessly] ping players that he deemed to be slowing it down (tacklers not rolling away quickly enough, jackals not supporting their own weight fully, no clear release in the tackle).

As a result, Ireland didn't commit too many players to the breakdown so that a.) they wouldn't give away cheap penalties, and b.) they'd have numbers out wide to defend the inevitable quick ball from the rucks.

I think this is the main reason behind O'Brien & Heaslip having relatively quiet games. Even O'Mahony's stand-out moments were away from the breakdown. In general I didn't think there was a huge contest at the breakdowns throughout the game, with Italy's back row forwards doing their damage in the open field.

05-10-2015 2:29pm

Moflojo wrote: »

I suspect that Ireland adjusted their approach yesterday to suit Jerome Garces' interpretation of the breakdown. Garces seemed to want quick ball at the breakdowns and didn't hesitate to [mercilessly] ping players that he deemed to be slowing it down (tacklers not rolling away quickly enough, jackals not supporting their own weight fully, no clear release in the tackle).

As a result, Ireland didn't commit too many players to the breakdown so that a.) they wouldn't give away cheap penalties, and b.) they'd have numbers out wide to defend the inevitable quick ball from the rucks.

I think this is the main reason behind O'Brien & Heaslip having relatively quiet games. Even O'Mahony's stand-out moments were away from the breakdown. In general I didn't think there was a huge contest at the breakdowns throughout the game, with Italy's back row forwards doing their damage in the open field.

Sure Heaslip had a clean turn over was still on his feet when he got the ball out and when it was gone he was no longer supporting his weight as he was being cleared out and Garces said he had his knees on the ground. That got Italy off the mark scoring and it was a poor call.

Heaslip and SOB getting all the stick because Keith Wood said so, even though stats and actually watching the game says otherwise.

phog · 05-10-2015 2:39pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Heaslip and SOB getting all the stick because Keith Wood said so, even though stats and actually watching the game says otherwise.

That's at least twice you've said this but I'm not what you are actually basing this on.

Neil3030 · 05-10-2015 2:46pm

I'd love to ask anyone criticising SOB in particular what they expect from a player catching the ball and being immediately hit by an onrushing defender coming in (more often than not from an offside position) at full speed. How is holding your ground (in many cases still making a yard) protecting and recycling the ball in this difficult scenario any less of a contribution to the team than getting the ball with a gap in front and making a 10 yard burst?

05-10-2015 2:56pm

phog wrote: »

That's at least twice you've said this but I'm not what you are actually basing this on.

SOB and Heaslip didn't dominate proceedings, but they weren't *bad* and certainly shouldn't be dropped. Despite this they are getting a lot of stick on here and people are wondering why.

Keith Wood was asked if there were question marks about Peter O'Mahoney, and he wouldn't touch it, instead lashed into SOB and Heaslip. His answer was literally to just go on the attack against two other players who both had better days than POM in many's opinion.

He also did this before the game, this time Heaslip and Sexton came under fire all the while he couldn't say enough positive things about POC, Earls, POM etc., who have not been any better this tournament.

It reeked of biasness and he does it quite regularly. The reason I've repeated it is because as soon as it was said, like last week with Matt Williams and Payne, it became the defacto stance of many posters despite being patently wrong.

Ireland now apparently have an option of Earls at 13 instead of Payne according to Wood. Laughable.

Wood and Williams are poor pundits and Wood in particular refuses to be negative about certain players despite being quite unreasonable to others. Even without this he is a poor pundit but it's frustrating listening.

Regardless, that's why I've posted the point more than once in response to people not getting where the criticism is coming from.

Nermal · 05-10-2015 2:57pm

How come Italy made ground wide so easily? Why were our wide defenders so slow to come up/drift? Is this actually a tactic or just lack of intensity/laziness?

phog · 05-10-2015 3:03pm

Deleted User wrote: »

SOB and Heaslip didn't dominate proceedings, but they weren't *bad* and certainly shouldn't be dropped. Despite this they are getting a lot of stick on here and people are wondering why.

Keith Wood was asked if there were question marks about Peter O'Mahoney, and he wouldn't touch it, instead lashed into SOB and Heaslip. His answer was literally to just go on the attack against two other players who both had better days than POM in many's opinion.

He also did this before the game, this time Heaslip and Sexton came under fire all the while he couldn't say enough positive things about POC, Earls, POM etc., who have not been any better this tournament.

It reeked of biasness and he does it quite regularly. The reason I've repeated it is because as soon as it was said, like last week with Matt Williams and Payne, it became the defacto stance of many posters despite being patently wrong.

Ireland now apparently have an option of Earls at 13 instead of Payne according to Wood. Laughable.

Wood and Williams are poor pundits and Wood in particular refuses to be negative about certain players despite being quite unreasonable to others. Even without this he is a poor pundit but it's frustrating listening.

Regardless, that's why I've posted the point more than once in response to people not getting where the criticism is coming from.

All of this is based on an opinion. Yet, you've twice spouted as if it's fact that those talking down O'Brien are doing so on the basis of what Wood has said. I know from my own pov that statement is completely wrong.

leakyboots · 05-10-2015 3:04pm

Deleted User wrote: »

SOB and Heaslip didn't dominate proceedings, but they weren't *bad* and certainly shouldn't be dropped. Despite this they are getting a lot of stick on here and people are wondering why.

Keith Wood was asked if there were question marks about Peter O'Mahoney, and he wouldn't touch it, instead lashed into SOB and Heaslip. His answer was literally to just go on the attack against two other players who both had better days than POM in many's opinion.

He also did this before the game, this time Heaslip and Sexton came under fire all the while he couldn't say enough positive things about POC, Earls, POM etc., who have not been any better this tournament.

It reeked of biasness and he does it quite regularly. The reason I've repeated it is because as soon as it was said, like last week with Matt Williams and Payne, it became the defacto stance of many posters despite being patently wrong.

Ireland now apparently have an option of Earls at 13 instead of Payne according to Wood. Laughable.

Wood and Williams are poor pundits and Wood in particular refuses to be negative about certain players despite being quite unreasonable to others. Even without this he is a poor pundit but it's frustrating listening.

Regardless, that's why I've posted the point more than once in response to people not getting where the criticism is coming from.

Earls is a more than capable 13 at international level, he's proven this over and over? Or are you saying the idea that he should replace Payne is laughable? (I think it has it's merits against certain teams but Payne is rightfully first choice)

noway12345 · 05-10-2015 3:07pm

Earls offers far more in attack than Payne. Making breaks and offloading isn't encouraged though. Our game is so limited, Earls could be a great outside centre but not in the style we currently adopt.

05-10-2015 3:11pm

phog wrote: »

All of this is based on an opinion. Yet, you've twice spouted as if it's fact that those talking down O'Brien are doing so on the basis of what Wood has said. I know from my own pov that statement is completely wrong.

I didn't say it's the only reason - but like last week it heavily contributes.

And I appreciate that you reach your own perspective, even if I largely disagree with them.

leakyboots · 05-10-2015 3:13pm

My own two cents on the game.. Italy were fighting for their WC hopes, don't think we can dismiss them too easily.

Think our forwards as a unit (emphasis on unit) underperformed - while people like POM had standout moments, Rory Best also, the pack as a whole were not providing Murray and Sexton with good ball. Murray had a bit of an off-day regardless - Jonny controlled well under pressure at the end though which was a bit heartening as someone else said on here.

I can't help but feel our backrow is a bit unbalanced, I'd like to see Chris Henry brought in. Whether that's at the expense of any of the current three I'd leave up to the coaches, there's plusses and minuses for all three.

Centres did well, Earls was nearly MOM by half-time but had a quieter second half, one or two errors. On another day those offloads come off and we're lauding him.

Bowe did well in the air. Kearney was very quiet, I just remember him carrying sideways once or twice and getting smashed. Others would be slaughtered for less. Zebo was solid without doing anything very right or very wrong. Not really a day for the back three anyway... but I'd be inclined to put Earls back on the left wing, keep Bowe on the right.

I'm starting to have my doubts about the whole 'keeping our powder dry' - have we the attacking game necessary to go all the way in the tournament? Heading to the France match this weekend so hoping for a performance to remember.

05-10-2015 3:14pm

noway12345 wrote: »

Earls offers far more in attack than Payne. Making breaks and offloading isn't encouraged though. Our game is so limited, Earls could be a great outside centre but not in the style we currently adopt.

Earls offers more in attack as an individual. Payne offers more in attack by bringing those around him onto the ball and creating space which Earls doesn't do.

He hasn't proved anything yet at 13 against good opposition, he has shown that he is a good finisher and an attacking player, and he should keep doing that at 11. He doesn't have the vision or distribution for 13 and he isn't defensively on the same plane of existence as Payne.

I wan't him in the team, but I'd have Payne, Cave, ahead of him at centre in a game where it's likely to be tight.

phog · 05-10-2015 3:15pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't say it's the only reason - but like last week it heavily contributes.

And I appreciate that you reach your own perspective, even if I largely disagree with them.

I wouldn't be on my own in that. I think you're being disingenuous to some posters here.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 05-10-2015 3:18pm

leakyboots wrote: »

Earls is a more than capable 13 at international level, he's proven this over and over? Or are you saying the idea that he should replace Payne is laughable? (I think it has it's merits against certain teams but Payne is rightfully first choice)

I didn't see anything from Earls that showed this yesterday. Granted, as I've said already, the majority of the team were poor or completely anonymous.

Standout moments from Earls yesterday were his try, which he had very little to do with other than running behind Henshaw to take the ball.
The other moment he stood out was when he charged full speed at an Italian and completely missed the tackle and bounced right off him.

I would say he's an acceptable centre in case of emergency against weaker teams.

05-10-2015 3:22pm

phog wrote: »

I wouldn't be on my own in that. I think you're being disingenuous to some posters here.

If it hadn't been for the sudden dramatic narrative shift regarding Payne the week before and the direct regurgitation of Williams' comments I'd be more inclined to agree. But this week already follows a highly similar theme and I think it's a fair point.

noway12345 · 05-10-2015 3:22pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Earls offers more in attack as an individual. Payne offers more in attack by bringing those around him onto the ball and creating space which Earls doesn't do.

He hasn't proved anything yet at 13 against good opposition, he has shown that he is a good finisher and an attacking player, and he should keep doing that at 11. He doesn't have the vision or distribution for 13 and he isn't defensively on the same plane of existence as Payne.

I wan't him in the team, but I'd have Payne, Cave, ahead of him at centre in a game where it's likely to be tight.

If we were playing the sort of game that suits Earls and all the players were on the same wavelenght then he'd be a superb centre. Payne offers no threat in attack.

Earls is lethal on the wing but under a different coach he can definitely make an excellent centre. His vision and distribution has been very good in this World Cup. Defensively I'd have Payne ahead but overall Earls has more potential to be a far better 13 than Payne.

noway12345 · 05-10-2015 3:24pm

Deleted User wrote: »

If it hadn't been for the sudden dramatic narrative shift regarding Payne the week before and the direct regurgitation of Williams' comments I'd be more inclined to agree. But this week already follows a highly similar theme and I think it's a fair point.

Maybe it just so happens that the majority can see that Payne offers very little attacking threat and the majority saw that O'Mahony had a more effective game than O'Brien or Heaslip.

total former · 05-10-2015 3:28pm

Deleted User wrote: »

If it hadn't been for the sudden dramatic narrative shift regarding Payne the week before and the direct regurgitation of Williams' comments I'd be more inclined to agree. But this week already follows a highly similar theme and I think it's a fair point.

There are posters on this board who have been flagging the lack of cutting edge in our centres for months and months and months.

MJohnston · 05-10-2015 3:31pm

noway12345 wrote: »

Payne offers no threat in attack.

Imo, Earls showed absolutely nothing more than Payne in attacking threat yesterday, and seemed noticeably poorer in defence.

jacothelad · 05-10-2015 3:32pm

awec wrote: »

I don't think we've ever been a few scores behind in a match and come back to win.

That said I don't think we've ever been a few scores behind that often.

Yes, this is like the concept of the impact sub. It's mostly a bit of space filler used by t.v. commentators. Subs usually ruin the flow of a game. I can't think of many examples of a guy coming on late in the game and making a huge difference - other than the occasional prop changing events in the scrum. The idea of an impact sub is mostly that... an idea which isn't matched by reality.

noway12345 · 05-10-2015 3:37pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Imo, Earls showed absolutely nothing more than Payne in attacking threat yesterday, and seemed noticeably poorer in defence.

We kicked the ball all day, he wasn't given a chance. None of the back line were. However in his limited attacking opportunities Earls scored a try and made two half breaks with attempted offloads, one where Kearney should have collected and he was clean through. I don't see how you can claim he was poorer in defence either. Italy never got through midfield and they were held to 3 penalties. I'd have Earls on the wing but I wouldn't have Payne in the centre, the problem is we don't have a choice now if he's fit.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 05-10-2015 3:39pm

noway12345 wrote: »

If we were playing the sort of game that suits Earls and all the players were on the same wavelenght then he'd be a superb centre. Payne offers no threat in attack.

Earls is lethal on the wing but under a different coach he can definitely make an excellent centre. His vision and distribution has been very good in this World Cup. Defensively I'd have Payne ahead but overall Earls has more potential to be a far better 13 than Payne.

This still adds up to him not being a suitable centre for Ireland.

RWC'15 Pool D: Ireland vs Italy, RWC. KO Sunday 4:45PM TV3/ITV1

Comments