Ireland Rugby World Cup Thread continuation: Flight of the Keith Earls

[Marshes]

First topic message reminder :

So the chat continues without letup as Ireland prepare for the first group game in a couple of days. At the behest of benevolent overlord Carlin, the discussion has be moved to the smoking room.

Group Stages
IRELAND v CANADA at Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
Saturday 19th September 2015 – Kick Off: 2:30pm - https://www.606v2.com/t60533-ireland-v-canada-19-september

IRELAND v ROMANIA at Wembley Stadium, London
Sunday 27th September 2015 – Kick Off: 4:45pm

IRELAND v ITALY at Olympic Stadium, London
Sunday 4th October 2015 – Kick Off: 4:45pm

FRANCE v IRELAND at Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
Sunday 11th October 2015 – Kick Off: 4:45pm

QF: TBC

SF: TBC

F: Saturday 31st October - Kick Off: 4:00pm

Open-top bus parade in Dublin with POC and Michael D on stilts holding the Trophy: TBC

Open sores from the last thread include:
- Do Ireland have a plan B or attack? And is Joe holding back all the best for the latter stages?
- Are Ireland on a downward turn following two disappointing warm-up matches against Wales and England?
- Payne or Earls at Outside Centre?
- Is POC over the the hill or the reason for back to back 6N titles?
- Is a semi final the minimum acceptable expectation for the fans?
- Was Schmidt right to leave our Andrew Trimble?
- Is the backrow imbalanced? Could the inclusion of Henry or Henderson make it more than the sum of its parts?

Have at it.

[ME-109]

Oh oh...now you're for it

[profitius]

https://twitter.com/JOEdotie/status/644612137877413888

[ME-109]

OMG...slightly disturbing...and fascinating at the same time.

[The Great Aukster]

Every coach stands on the back of his predecessor. Politically Gatland was a buffoon, but he did start to give new talent a chance. EOS was a control freak who was a master tactician but a crap man manager. Kidney was a great man manager but needed to delegate responsibility to players when they simply didn't have enough time at Test level to take it.
There is no doubt that EOS benefitted by Gatland's blooding new players and that he ultimately failed because he couldn't build depth. The key players that went into the Kidney regime had EOS's grounding in tactics but were released by Deccie to use them with more depth around them - cue a GS. Gradually that ran out of steam as the (lack of) tactics became stale and so Joe took over to build more depth and retake control over the gameplan. Schmidt has a blend of all three predecessors.

The only conclusion from the exclusion of Cave is that he's simply not good enough at Test level (I agree). DC is either unwilling or unable to understand or execute Joe's plan. Henshaw will be at 12 in the big games, so if Cave was to ever get a start this was surely it.

Cave has been here before when Kidney sent an SOS to a Spanish beach for Paddy Wallace rather than pick the guy who was already with him (DK obviously losing it by that stage). Fitz has never been very impressive at Test level in the positions he normally plays so it must be a real downer for Cave that he again loses out to someone who doesn't even play the position.

[SecretFly]

https://twitter.com/JOEdotie/status/644612137877413888

That is one of the best things to pop up this site in months.... A labour of love for whoever it was that did it.

[GunsGerms]

Is that the boyzone dance? If so it is class.

[rodders]

rodders, I think that you are being overly harsh on Kidney and EOS. ME-109 said it very well earlier in this thread just what Kidney and EOS brought to the Irish side they coached. Just because something didn't end well, does not mean it didn't begin well or have good moments during...

I don't think I ever said they never had good moments or did some good things. I don't think either can be compared to Schmidt in terms of coaching ability. I don't think it just comes down to results as you can't compare eras or players.

In theory Eddie achieved what Schmidt did in 2006/7 and Deccie in the 10 in row run from November 08 - November 09, including the GS. All beat Australia (or drew) and SA - all had at least one good stab at the ABs (Eddie Summer 2006, Deccie second test 2011).

Neither of them managed to successfully integrate or rotate players and still maintain consistency in performance/results the way Schmidt has and that's the difference for me. I think whoever plays will do a job for Schmidt whereas Eddie and Joe needed their big players fit to perform.    

No you didn't say that they were bad managers today (well except calling EOS a gobshoite) but you criticism of Kidney is well known.

I was simply countering your view that Ireland are playing better rugby now than in the last 20 years as I find that simply untrue. I felt that under EOS and Kidney (in the beginning) Ireland played better rugby than they have done under Schmidt. People, like your good self, seem to forget the innovations coaches like Kidney and EOS brought in. Even in his last 2 years in charge when things were not going to well, Kidney was still developing a lot of young players and establishing a strength in depth that Schmidt is now benefitting from. I know you would love to believe that Schmidt created this all by himself but he hasn't.

No I didn't say Ireland are playing better than the last 20 years - I said they are more varied tactically, as a counter argument to those who say we only have a plan A and are predictable. If you look over Schmidt's full term, rather than one or 2 6N games people will see that  -that some games we kicked a lot and some we didn't, some we used the maul, some we didn't, some we played a lot of phases and some we didn't. There is clearly different game plans for different opposition and conditions something we didn't have under Schmidt's predecessors.

I believe we played our best rugby under O'Sullivan, but that was a different time and place -  I don't think it's comparable.  

I've heard from people who played under Eddie (and Hook) at Connacht and what a great innovator he was - I believe like Woodward at the tail end of the amateur era he was ahead of the game and took a lot from other sports like NFL. However when the game leveled out among the top teams he wasn't able to adapt and found wanting tactically and for man management.

Interesting that Kidney gets a free pass on the attacking play - we won a GS playing negative rugby a la Munster (no that's not a wum ), essentially playing without the ball, which at that time was a very effective way to play. However when the ELVs came in and the directives moved towards rewarding the team in possession things quickly unraveled for Kidney's Ireland because they had no attacking patterns or cohesion - jumping between different half-backs and key personel with no direction for what way they were trying to play, and endured endless waffle in the media about the Leinster way, Munster way and Irish way.

This team is a work in progress but it is clear to me what Schmidt is trying to do in terms of building a bigger squad system and improving the set piece and breakdown skills - to the point that we are probably behind on the all blacks - without that foundation to attack from then everything else is a waste of time.

We do need more cutting edge in attack but as I've said in the past, looking at the provinces, we aren't cutting the place up - it's not like Schmidt is taking guys running in tries and making them play conservatively. Other than Trimble, Gilroy or McCloskey who is out there to bring more attacking options currently available that isn't in the squad?

We don't have any North, Joseph, Falou, Savea, Milner-Skully, Huget caliber attacking players in the panel. We have some very solid players and good back 3 players under the high ball so it makes sense that we are playing more in the narrow channels than spinning the ball wide too much - compared to days gone by when the likes of BOD and D'arcy could burn players on the outside.

[rodders]

The only conclusion from the exclusion of Cave is that he's simply not good enough at Test level (I agree). DC is either unwilling or unable to understand or execute Joe's plan. Henshaw will be at 12 in the big games, so if Cave was to ever get a start this was surely it.

Could be that Joe already had Cave in line to start against Romania alongside Jackson and that because Fitzgerald was originally the 23rd man for Canada and had likely been preparing across the outside back positions for that game, it would have been easier to slot him in and bring Zebo in on the bench rather than get Cave up to speed with the game plan.

I don't believe Schmidt would have brought Cave at the expense of Trimble, McFadden or Jones if he didn't have some value to the overall squad - that might be playing some role in training but I think his familiarity with Jackson might have been a key factor and both will probably start the next game....just a guess....

[GunsGerms]

The difference between the Eddie years and now is that he had better backs to work with and we have better forwards and greater squad depth now. You play to your strengths.

[SecretFly]

Let's live in the real world a bit too though.

I know the archived version of Coaching history must officially talk about Coaches having firstly good ideas, then those ideas being slowly found out, then no new ideas, then the sack.  
Namely, a team's journey downward is mirrored by a coach losing his edge, holding to old strategies, stubborn in defiance of new ideas from other coaches and finally becoming so out of touch that he has to go.

But the truth is a big part of Kidney going is that many of the players simply downed tools.  Clearly and distinctly, they stopped trying to work with him because they saw a sexier alternative on the horizon. They hoped that sexy guy might take them on, but they needed to quick-exit their present guy to get the ball rolling.

The players at the end played such lifeless, inane and simply dumb rugby that I'm pretty positive in my mind that old Kidney preached very little of it, or sanctioned most of it  

He was laboured with it.  He obviously never spoke out against the obvious down-tools from some, he obviously publically supported his players.  But when you think back to his interviews and his expressions, he knew he was a dead man walking in terms of player interest in his continuing on to the WC - and Mr Kiss wasn't exactly helping matters either as he probably saw a slim chance for himself too to get the main job.  
It was the active on-field coaches that were there to adapt to new approaches confronting them.  Kidney was merely overseer.  So if Kiss was so off the ball in terms of advising his superior on new needed methods when with Kidney, why was he then seen as good-to-go with Schmidt?

So - was it Kidney's ideas going to seed or was it simply mutiny?  Bit of both, I'd think, but I'd also declare the greater percentage was the latter.  I think the long view history of Kidney will be kinder to the man.  I've criticised him here ruthlessly.   But players do have a very significant disguised role in often getting the coaches they want or playing just the right brand of nonsense to lose one they don't want.

[rodders]

Unfortunately people always remember the end more than the beginning.

These are classic examples of coaches staying beyond their sell by date which happens a lot unfortunately.

Eddie and Kidney provided some of the best days in Irish rugby no question. When they left, where things in a better place than when they started though I'm not so sure...

[Golden]

Its a strong French team to play Italy.


Backs: Scott Spedding, Yoann Huget, Mathieu Bastareaud, Alexandre Dumoulin, Noa Naikataci, Frédéric Michalak, Sjbastien Tillous-Borde.
Forwards: Eddy Ben Arous, Guilhem Guirado, Rabah Slimani, Pascal Papé, Yoann Maestri, Thierry Dusautoir, Damien Chouly, Louis Picamoles.
Replacements: Benjamin Kayser, Vincent Debaty, NIcolas Mas, Bernard Le Roux, Alexandre Flanquart, Morgan Parra, Rémi Talès, Gaël Fickou

[GunsGerms]

Its a strong French team to play Italy.


Backs: Scott Spedding, Yoann Huget, Mathieu Bastareaud, Alexandre Dumoulin, Noa Naikataci, Frédéric Michalak, Sjbastien Tillous-Borde.
Forwards: Eddy Ben Arous, Guilhem Guirado, Rabah Slimani, Pascal Papé, Yoann Maestri, Thierry Dusautoir, Damien Chouly, Louis Picamoles.
Replacements: Benjamin Kayser, Vincent Debaty, NIcolas Mas, Bernard Le Roux, Alexandre Flanquart, Morgan Parra, Rémi Talès, Gaël Fickou

No Fofana or Parra though.

[BamBam]

Dumoulin's looked very good the few times I've seen him, and Tillous-Borde is currently a better player than Parra for me.

Other than Fofana, that's first choice isn't it? Italy will get a walloping

[SecretFly]

This France............................... I know we won't go to them with a sliver of complacency.

But we just better be ready to rumble because I don't care how disorganised they might look against Italy, they're as crafty as we sometimes are. Let's not fall for any wounded-duck routines - either us here in the post-match analysis of them or the Irish squad. They'll save their hardest hit for us.

[rodders]

Too fat, too old, too slow, too lazy - once all those altitude induced red blood cells expire by October and with it their inflated confidence they'll be like a popped balloon.

[SecretFly]

Precisely.

I'm with you, rodders.

[rodders]

Come on guys Spedding is built like a prop - half a dozen high balls and box kicks and the oxygen tank will be coming out.

We know what's coming, so do France - bonne nuit mes bleus amis.

[Notch]

OMG...slightly disturbing...and fascinating at the same time.

Oh yes.

[GunsGerms]

Good news for those who dont think Ireland score enough tries. SA have won two finals without scoring a try in either of them.

[SecretFly]

That'll be a nice stalemate game if it's a SA v Ireland final

[Sin é]

The difference between the Eddie years and now is that he had better backs to work with and we have better forwards and greater squad depth now. You play to your strengths.

I think Eddie had a very good pack.

Horan < Healy (when fit)
Flannery > Best
Hayes > Ross
DOC & Mal > Toner, Ryan, Henderson
POC = POC
Easterby = POM
Wallace > SOB
Leamy = Heaslip
(backrow had Quinlan & Ferris also hanging around).

[GunsGerms]

The difference between the Eddie years and now is that he had better backs to work with and we have better forwards and greater squad depth now. You play to your strengths.

I think Eddie had a very good pack.

Horan < Healy (when fit)
Flannery > Best
Hayes > Ross
DOC & Mal > Toner, Ryan, Henderson
POC = POC
Easterby = POM
Wallace > SOB
Leamy = Heaslip
(backrow had Quinlan & Ferris also hanging around).

Slightly biased there as usual Sin. The only one I agree on is Flannery was possibly better than Best. However, we now have two excellent forwards per position whereas Eddie probably didnt quite have a top class forward for every position at all times.

[Sin é]

rodders, I think that you are being overly harsh on Kidney and EOS. ME-109 said it very well earlier in this thread just what Kidney and EOS brought to the Irish side they coached. Just because something didn't end well, does not mean it didn't begin well or have good moments during...

I don't think I ever said they never had good moments or did some good things. I don't think either can be compared to Schmidt in terms of coaching ability. I don't think it just comes down to results as you can't compare eras or players.

In theory Eddie achieved what Schmidt did in 2006/7 and Deccie in the 10 in row run from November 08 - November 09, including the GS. All beat Australia (or drew) and SA - all had at least one good stab at the ABs (Eddie Summer 2006, Deccie second test 2011).

Neither of them managed to successfully integrate or rotate players and still maintain consistency in performance/results the way Schmidt has and that's the difference for me. I think whoever plays will do a job for Schmidt whereas Eddie and Joe needed their big players fit to perform.    

No you didn't say that they were bad managers today (well except calling EOS a gobshoite) but you criticism of Kidney is well known.

I was simply countering your view that Ireland are playing better rugby now than in the last 20 years as I find that simply untrue. I felt that under EOS and Kidney (in the beginning) Ireland played better rugby than they have done under Schmidt. People, like your good self, seem to forget the innovations coaches like Kidney and EOS brought in. Even in his last 2 years in charge when things were not going to well, Kidney was still developing a lot of young players and establishing a strength in depth that Schmidt is now benefitting from. I know you would love to believe that Schmidt created this all by himself but he hasn't.

No I didn't say Ireland are playing better than the last 20 years - I said they are more varied tactically, as a counter argument to those who say we only have a plan A and are predictable. If you look over Schmidt's full term, rather than one or 2 6N games people will see that  -that some games we kicked a lot and some we didn't, some we used the maul, some we didn't, some we played a lot of phases and some we didn't. There is clearly different game plans for different opposition and conditions something we didn't have under Schmidt's predecessors.

I believe we played our best rugby under O'Sullivan, but that was a different time and place -  I don't think it's comparable.  

I've heard from people who played under Eddie (and Hook) at Connacht and what a great innovator he was - I believe like Woodward at the tail end of the amateur era he was ahead of the game and took a lot from other sports like NFL. However when the game leveled out among the top teams he wasn't able to adapt and found wanting tactically and for man management.

Interesting that Kidney gets a free pass on the attacking play - we won a GS playing negative rugby a la Munster (no that's not a wum ), essentially playing without the ball, which at that time was a very effective way to play. However when the ELVs came in and the directives moved towards rewarding the team in possession things quickly unraveled for Kidney's Ireland because they had no attacking patterns or cohesion - jumping between different half-backs and key personel with no direction for what way they were trying to play, and endured endless waffle in the media about the Leinster way, Munster way and Irish way.

This team is a work in progress but it is clear to me what Schmidt is trying to do in terms of building a bigger squad system and improving the set piece and breakdown skills - to the point that we are probably behind on the all blacks - without that foundation to attack from then everything else is a waste of time.

We do need more cutting edge in attack but as I've said in the past, looking at the provinces, we aren't cutting the place up - it's not like Schmidt is taking guys running in tries and making them play conservatively. Other than Trimble, Gilroy or McCloskey who is out there to bring more attacking options currently available that isn't in the squad?

We don't have any North, Joseph, Falou, Savea, Milner-Skully, Huget caliber attacking players in the panel. We have some very solid players and good back 3 players under the high ball so it makes sense that we are playing more in the narrow channels than spinning the ball wide too much - compared to days gone by when the likes of BOD and D'arcy could burn players on the outside.

Alan Gaffney was the backs coach - you know the one and only decent move that Leinster use was his creation.

And that is cowpat that Munster played negative rugby. This goes way back to 2000 when Kidney was the backs coach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J9ylRxyy2w

[rodders]

Good news for those who dont think Ireland score enough tries. SA have won two finals without scoring a try in either of them.

If we get there then we're a shoe in, only Scotland are capable of scoring less.

[Sin é]

The difference between the Eddie years and now is that he had better backs to work with and we have better forwards and greater squad depth now. You play to your strengths.

I think Eddie had a very good pack.

Horan < Healy (when fit)
Flannery > Best
Hayes > Ross
DOC & Mal > Toner, Ryan, Henderson
POC = POC
Easterby = POM
Wallace > SOB
Leamy = Heaslip
(backrow had Quinlan & Ferris also hanging around).

Slightly biased there as usual Sin. The only one I agree on is Flannery was possibly better than Best. However, we now have two excellent forwards per position whereas Eddie probably didnt quite have a top class forward for every position at all times.

Ross & Toner will never make a Lions tour unlike DOC & Mal & Hayes.

[rodders]

The difference between the Eddie years and now is that he had better backs to work with and we have better forwards and greater squad depth now. You play to your strengths.

I think Eddie had a very good pack.

Horan < Healy (when fit)
Flannery > Best
Hayes > Ross
DOC & Mal > Toner, Ryan, Henderson
POC = POC
Easterby = POM
Wallace > SOB
Leamy = Heaslip
(backrow had Quinlan & Ferris also hanging around).

Slightly biased there as usual Sin. The only one I agree on is Flannery was possibly better than Best. However, we now have two excellent forwards per position whereas Eddie probably didnt quite have a top class forward for every position at all times.

Ross & Toner will never make a Lions tour unlike DOC & Mal & Hayes.

They would if Donal Lenihan was team manager and they took a squad of 50 again

[GunsGerms]

The difference between the Eddie years and now is that he had better backs to work with and we have better forwards and greater squad depth now. You play to your strengths.

I think Eddie had a very good pack.

Horan < Healy (when fit)
Flannery > Best
Hayes > Ross
DOC & Mal > Toner, Ryan, Henderson
POC = POC
Easterby = POM
Wallace > SOB
Leamy = Heaslip
(backrow had Quinlan & Ferris also hanging around).

Slightly biased there as usual Sin. The only one I agree on is Flannery was possibly better than Best. However, we now have two excellent forwards per position whereas Eddie probably didnt quite have a top class forward for every position at all times.

Ross & Toner will never make a Lions tour unlike DOC & Mal & Hayes.

Ross is much better than Hayes ever was who only toured in 05 because Woodward decided to take everyone from B&I with a passport to New Zeland and in '09 he only got called up due to injury. Tom Court is also a Lion dont forget.

Similar story with O'Callaghan for 05 and for 09 he was selected because there was a real dearth of quality NH locks. Simon Shaw toured too aged 50.

Was never a fan of O'Kelly. He was a knock on machine and in my opinion an amature playing professional rugby.

[profitius]

Is that the boyzone dance? If so it is class.

Boyzones first appearance on TV. I saw it a few years ago and was thinking WTF was that. lol

[SecretFly]

It's without doubt the best thing that has come out of this WC so far. Genuinely - a real honest party starter with real heart.

[GunsGerms]

It is really funny. Perfect choice making Schmidt Gatley and POC Shane Lynch I think it was. Classic.

[SecretFly]

They're all great individually but Joe himself, with that cheeky grin all the way through, and Bowe crack me up.

[Submachine]

Are you Ready

This isn't bad either.

[Sin é]

The difference between the Eddie years and now is that he had better backs to work with and we have better forwards and greater squad depth now. You play to your strengths.

I think Eddie had a very good pack.

Horan < Healy (when fit)
Flannery > Best
Hayes > Ross
DOC & Mal > Toner, Ryan, Henderson
POC = POC
Easterby = POM
Wallace > SOB
Leamy = Heaslip
(backrow had Quinlan & Ferris also hanging around).

Slightly biased there as usual Sin. The only one I agree on is Flannery was possibly better than Best. However, we now have two excellent forwards per position whereas Eddie probably didnt quite have a top class forward for every position at all times.

Ross & Toner will never make a Lions tour unlike DOC & Mal & Hayes.

Ross is much better than Hayes ever was who only toured in 05 because Woodward decided to take everyone from B&I with a passport to New Zeland and in '09 he only got called up due to injury. Tom Court is also a Lion dont forget.

Similar story with O'Callaghan for 05 and for 09 he was selected because there was a real dearth of quality NH locks. Simon Shaw toured too aged 50.

Was never a fan of O'Kelly. He was a knock on machine and in my opinion an amature playing professional rugby.

Hayes is a Test Lion. Two tours. Ross didn't even get a sniff. Also a Grand Slam playing every minute of every game.

And whatever you think of Mal, he still made the Lions.

[asoreleftshoulder]

The difference between the Eddie years and now is that he had better backs to work with and we have better forwards and greater squad depth now. You play to your strengths.

I think Eddie had a very good pack.

Horan < Healy (when fit)
Flannery > Best
Hayes > Ross
DOC & Mal > Toner, Ryan, Henderson
POC = POC
Easterby = POM
Wallace > SOB
Leamy = Heaslip
(backrow had Quinlan & Ferris also hanging around).

Slightly biased there as usual Sin. The only one I agree on is Flannery was possibly better than Best. However, we now have two excellent forwards per position whereas Eddie probably didnt quite have a top class forward for every position at all times.

Ross & Toner will never make a Lions tour unlike DOC & Mal & Hayes.

Ross is much better than Hayes ever was who only toured in 05 because Woodward decided to take everyone from B&I with a passport to New Zeland and in '09 he only got called up due to injury. Tom Court is also a Lion dont forget.

Similar story with O'Callaghan for 05 and for 09 he was selected because there was a real dearth of quality NH locks. Simon Shaw toured too aged 50.

Was never a fan of O'Kelly. He was a knock on machine and in my opinion an amature playing professional rugby.

Hayes is a Test Lion. Two tours. Ross didn't even get a sniff. Also a Grand Slam playing every minute of every game.

And whatever you think of Mal, he still made the Lions.

So the Lions settles all debates,Fitzgerald is a Test Lion and Sexton started 3 Tests on a winning tour,does that make them better than Earls and RoG respectively?

[Sponsored content]