Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ireland - Scotland 1st Feb 16.45 - Six Nations

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Spiffy View Post

    Absoultely. But the strongest team could include an uncapped player or two, based on recent and current form. Experienced does not always equate with strongest.
    No problem with that...…..every centurian is uncapped at the start.
    Anybody who sees a psychiatrist would want their head examined. &nb sp;Henry Ford

    Comment


      Originally posted by Spiffy View Post

      Absoultely. But the strongest team could include an uncapped player or two, based on recent and current form. Experienced does not always equate with strongest.
      Kelleher deegan Byrne Cooney wouldnt hold a huge amount of caps between them. Add in Doris to that lot of untested players too
      I am the million man.

      Comment


        Originally posted by Spiffy View Post

        A very profound statement of the bleedin obvious by ROG that applies to every player ever picked for any country. But coaches have nothing to go on but club form for an uncapped player.
        Every international player has to get picked for the first time, and usually what gets him picked is good form against his peers at club level. After that, he may or may not have what it takes at test level, but there is no way of knowing that in advance until you see how he performs in tests.
        Presumably ROG himself was first selected for Ireland because of his club form, and of course the rest is history. There have also been many one-cap wonders who could not hack it (or at least were never given a second chance after making a mistake or two.)
        Just as it was in the old amateur days when Irish (and other) rugby was run on croneyism, and yer uncle could pull a few strings - it's a hell of a lot easier to stay in the squad than to break into it.

        I think you're missing a stage there. Your club form gets you into the international camp, and that's where the coaches have a chance to look closely at players and decide where they are. Importantly, that's refracted through a lens of the game plan and systems that the coaches want to implement.

        Anyone who thinks that Joe Schmidt couldn't see the limitations in Rob Kearney's game is talking out his hat. What that "loyalty" actually means is that that player has proven over and over that they can deliver a chunk of what the coach's game plan demands, and the coach is willing to accept their limitations on that basis.

        We can sit here all day saying that Cooney looks like a more exciting option than Murray right now. But pretending that Farrell and Catt can't see from detailed video analysis, gym outputs, hands on training etc what a shower like us can see on the TV or from the terraces doesn't wash.


        There's always a good reason that a coach makes what seems to us to be a bad selection. They may turn out to be wrong. The thing they're seeking to build may not come off for whatever reason. But they do know things we don't know, and they will have a rationale for that call. Otherwise they'd be sitting watching it in the pub with the rest of us.

        "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven into an age of unreason if we dig deep into our history and remember we are not descended from fearful men" Edward R Murrow

        "Little by little, we have been brought into the present condition in which we are able neither to tolerate the evils from which we suffer, nor the remedies we need to cure them." - Livy


        "I think that progress has been made by two flames that have always been burning in the human heart. The flame of anger against injustice and the flame of hope that you can build a better world" - Tony Benn

        Comment


          Originally posted by Balla Boy View Post


          I think you're missing a stage there. Your club form gets you into the international camp, and that's where the coaches have a chance to look closely at players and decide where they are. Importantly, that's refracted through a lens of the game plan and systems that the coaches want to implement.

          Anyone who thinks that Joe Schmidt couldn't see the limitations in Rob Kearney's game is talking out his hat. What that "loyalty" actually means is that that player has proven over and over that they can deliver a chunk of what the coach's game plan demands, and the coach is willing to accept their limitations on that basis.

          We can sit here all day saying that Cooney looks like a more exciting option than Murray right now. But pretending that Farrell and Catt can't see from detailed video analysis, gym outputs, hands on training etc what a shower like us can see on the TV or from the terraces doesn't wash.


          There's always a good reason that a coach makes what seems to us to be a bad selection. They may turn out to be wrong. The thing they're seeking to build may not come off for whatever reason. But they do know things we don't know, and they will have a rationale for that call. Otherwise they'd be sitting watching it in the pub with the rest of us.
          All very good points Balla. If they turn out to be poor coaches they will wind up sitting in the pub anyway. But it's good to have some discussion on these issues. If we all took the "coach knows best" approach there would be little of interest on these boards.
          Erse end of nowhere

          Comment


            Originally posted by Spiffy View Post

            All very good points Balla. If they turn out to be poor coaches they will wind up sitting in the pub anyway. But it's good to have some discussion on these issues. If we all took the "coach knows best" approach there would be little of interest on these boards.

            Oh I agree, and I'm not advocating for "coach knows best" as such. Just that acknowledging that the coach might have some clue and be focussed enough on success to not have a provincial bias is a good starting point.

            I think "Murray isn't on top form, Cooney is playing well, why do we think Farrell has left Murray in place given what we can all see and what he knows in addition" is a more interesting discussion than "Murray is past it, Farrell's an eejit", which unfortunately is where a lot of these conversations top out. And I'm not pointing the finger at you in that - it just flowed on from your comment about provincial form being the arbiter.

            And as you say, the coaches live or die by these calls. As long as there's that accountability, they're entitled to make these calls.

            I think it's more interesting for the rest of us though to have a conversation that starts from the assumption that coaches aren't fools.



            I mean, the question of Joe's failures in his last year are far, far more interesting if you acknowledge from the off that the man has an incredible rugby brain.
            "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven into an age of unreason if we dig deep into our history and remember we are not descended from fearful men" Edward R Murrow

            "Little by little, we have been brought into the present condition in which we are able neither to tolerate the evils from which we suffer, nor the remedies we need to cure them." - Livy


            "I think that progress has been made by two flames that have always been burning in the human heart. The flame of anger against injustice and the flame of hope that you can build a better world" - Tony Benn

            Comment


              Originally posted by Balla Boy View Post


              I think you're missing a stage there. Your club form gets you into the international camp, and that's where the coaches have a chance to look closely at players and decide where they are. Importantly, that's refracted through a lens of the game plan and systems that the coaches want to implement.

              Anyone who thinks that Joe Schmidt couldn't see the limitations in Rob Kearney's game is talking out his hat. What that "loyalty" actually means is that that player has proven over and over that they can deliver a chunk of what the coach's game plan demands, and the coach is willing to accept their limitations on that basis.

              We can sit here all day saying that Cooney looks like a more exciting option than Murray right now. But pretending that Farrell and Catt can't see from detailed video analysis, gym outputs, hands on training etc what a shower like us can see on the TV or from the terraces doesn't wash.


              There's always a good reason that a coach makes what seems to us to be a bad selection. They may turn out to be wrong. The thing they're seeking to build may not come off for whatever reason. But they do know things we don't know, and they will have a rationale for that call. Otherwise they'd be sitting watching it in the pub with the rest of us.
              One has a central contract for the next few seasons, the other doesn't. That plays a major role in being selected. If Murray wasn't being paid big money by the IRFU, he wouldn't be starting for Ireland. Training stats are great, but in-game performance should count a hell of a lot more and right now Cooney is playing better at pro14 and HC level. Guys can't show what they can do at Test level unless given a decent chance, not 10-20 minutes here and there and then right back to the bench.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Finnegan79 View Post

                One has a central contract for the next few seasons, the other doesn't. That plays a major role in being selected. If Murray wasn't being paid big money by the IRFU, he wouldn't be starting for Ireland. Training stats are great, but in-game performance should count a hell of a lot more and right now Cooney is playing better at pro14 and HC level. Guys can't show what they can do at Test level unless given a decent chance, not 10-20 minutes here and there and then right back to the bench.

                So is your contention that Andy Farrell, dual code international, Captain of Wigan and Great Britain at the age of 21, a decade of coaching experience with Saracens, England, Lions and Ireland, with his cock on the block in the biggest job of his life, is having his selections dictated to him by IRFU contract terms?

                Or that he can't see what Cooney can do, while we all can?

                Those are the options arising from what you've suggested, and I don't find either of them even vaguely plausible.

                Is it not more likely that he's looked at them both, looked at his game plan, looked at his front 8 and the young back rows he's bringing in, looked at his leadership group and decided that, overall, on balance and after some serious deliberation that starting Murray and springing Cooney from the bench is his best route right now?

                "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven into an age of unreason if we dig deep into our history and remember we are not descended from fearful men" Edward R Murrow

                "Little by little, we have been brought into the present condition in which we are able neither to tolerate the evils from which we suffer, nor the remedies we need to cure them." - Livy


                "I think that progress has been made by two flames that have always been burning in the human heart. The flame of anger against injustice and the flame of hope that you can build a better world" - Tony Benn

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Balla Boy View Post


                  So is your contention that Andy Farrell, dual code international, Captain of Wigan and Great Britain at the age of 21, a decade of coaching experience with Saracens, England, Lions and Ireland, with his cock on the block in the biggest job of his life, is having his selections dictated to him by IRFU contract terms?

                  Or that he can't see what Cooney can do, while we all can?

                  Those are the options arising from what you've suggested, and I don't find either of them even vaguely plausible.

                  Is it not more likely that he's looked at them both, looked at his game plan, looked at his front 8 and the young back rows he's bringing in, looked at his leadership group and decided that, overall, on balance and after some serious deliberation that starting Murray and springing Cooney from the bench is his best route right now?
                  Makes complete sense that the decision is made on the basis of information beyond what fans see on TV. On the basis of that alone he’d have to select Cooney. Wider circumstances, such as an inexperienced back row as you point out and the leadership needed (given POM want select Best is gone, Healy and Furlong don’t seem to provide much leadership). There may also be other dynamics at play- who, for example, does Sexton want to play with? He may also want to change things slowly, partly to avoid getting things disastrously wrong because he has made too many/wrong changes, partly out of loyalty to the ‘anciennne regime’. He may also want something different from Murray, and be giving him the chance to show he can provide it. Early days, Saturday will tell us more ..

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X