RWC QF 3 IRE v ARG (Millenium Stadium) 18th Oct 2300 AEDT

[mxyzptlk]

That's park footy though. I'm talking about English Premiership, Top 14, Pro 12 etc.

Maybe the standard of our professional grounds are better (outside the international ones). I'm not really sure.

Not sure about Australia or South Africa, but the New Zealand grounds are incredible. During the 2011 world cup, I was reading about the sophisticated drainage system and hybrid pitch at Eden Park, with artificial filaments sown into the sod so when the roots grew they would wrap around the anchored filaments and help keep all the natural grass in place. At the time, it was the most sophisticated pitch in the world, and the other venues were shooting for that standard for the World Cup. They're just now starting to get some similar designs and technology in Great Britain, but it seems more stadiums there are going with completely artificial over hybrid pitches. (I think that's partly so they can be used for other sports/activities with minimal upkeep.)

Saracens got a fully artificial pitch, and they tend to run and put the ball through their hands more when they play on it, even when it rains. But some have said it's an unforgiving surface. Newcastle just got one as well, after playing on a mud slick for years.

As for the national stadiums, last year Murrayfield in Edinburgh was infested with nematodes, and the entire pitch was like dirty spongecake. Stade de France in Paris is almost as bad. One 6N game there a few years ago had to be cancelled on the morning because the waterlogged pitch froze solid overnight. They had no way to heat it from underneath, and the pitch just wouldn't thaw. So they just couldn't play, and had to turn away tens of thousands of fans.

 

[KevinO]

I suggest that your playing style is limiting,and that you over rate the quality of the 6 Nations.
And your idea of how to improve yourselves is to weaken the balance sheets of Southern Hemisphere nations,and to play more games against lower quality nations?

What benefit does the Lions have for us? It's actually just a glorified Babas side. We lose 3 test matches as it is, always lose someone to injury that affects club and national set up.

Would be better off playing separately than as Lions. Plus when club sides don't play a full strength side whats the point in a tour?

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

 

[Bardon]

On the playing styles there's no doubt in my mind that the attirtional plodding style does suit the conditions up north. But teams like Leinster under Cheika and Schmidt have shown it's possible to not only play attacking rugby but to be very successful while doing so.

It's riskier but if a team can work on their skill to play running rugby in slippery conditions then executing in more favourable conditions should be easier.

The problem is that switching styles takes a long time and it's a painful process. Possibly finishing bottom 2 in the 6Ns and shipping some heavy defeats might see Schmidt lose his job after the disappointment of the RWC.

Then I can see a call for Ireland to go back to basics and focus on our natural game. We'd appoint an Irish coach and have some success in the 6Ns before exiting in the QF next RWC.

If the IRFU were brave they'd not only tell Schmidt that results were not important over the next year as we transition but to make that public knowledge.

It's a testament to the lack of attacking ambitition in Irish rugby that there's no room for a talent like JJ Hanarahan in our provincial set up.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Until they get over this idea that they can blame the weather for their style of play, the balance between the hemispheres will remain.

Only small minds limit the reasons for their shortcomings to solely on the weather, and don't offer possible solutions -- like playing in better conditions and playing fewer games of professional club rugby. Y'know, like those wildly successful SH teams that only play 16 rounds of Super Rugby in comparative sunshine. Works for them.

In fact some of us had that whole discussion a few pages back, about ways NH sides could improve their attacking style because right now it's not working. That's been a running discussion here. Don't worry, we don't expect you to catch up. We're used to simple selective slagging around these parts.

 

[Quick Hands]

I'm not saying that they are wrong, I'm saying that almost no-one lives in that part of the,country. So if hardly any of the population live there, it's only marginally relevant to the discussion.

As the map that you posted shows, most of the population lives in the north island and on the south east coast of the south island. Your map also shows that the north island receives somewhere between 1000 and 4000 mm per year.

So using the south west of NZ as your example is a bit like using the French Alps or the Orkney Islands as European examples - very little rugby played there and very few people live there.

I purposely did not include Australia or South Africa in my post, so your introduction of that is a complete misrepresentation of the discussion.

Your thesis is (and correct me if this is wrong), the NH teams play in the rain and therefore play a more conservative style. I simply pointed out the in NZ, it rains just as much (if not more) than in the European rugby centres. One major difference being that from the very youngest age kids in NZ practice catch/pass skills in wet weather and on heavy grounds, so they become better at it and can execute it better.

Just because you lose the argument on the objective facts, it's no need to become abusive. I've never attacked you personally or adopted an agressive tone, I simply stated that I disagree and provided some facts and figures to support my argument. Asking aggressive, rhetorical questions suggests a weakness to an argument.

 

[Quick Hands]

Only small minds limit the reasons for their shortcomings to solely on the weather, and don't offer possible solutions -- like playing in better conditions and playing fewer games of professional club rugby. Y'know, like those wildly successful SH teams that only play 16 rounds of Super Rugby in comparative sunshine. Works for them.

In fact some of us had that whole discussion a few pages back, about ways NH sides could improve their attacking style because right now it's not working. That's been a running discussion here. Don't worry, we don't expect you to catch up. We're used to simple selective slagging around these parts.

Yes, you seem an expert at selective slagging.

 

[Quick Hands]

On the playing styles there's no doubt in my mind that the attirtional plodding style does suit the conditions up north. But teams like Leinster under Cheika and Schmidt have shown it's possible to not only play attacking rugby but to be very successful while doing so.

It's riskier but if a team can work on their skill to play running rugby in slippery conditions then executing in more favourable conditions should be easier.

The problem is that switching styles takes a long time and it's a painful process. Possibly finishing bottom 2 in the 6Ns and shipping some heavy defeats might see Schmidt lose his job after the disappointment of the RWC.

Then I can see a call for Ireland to go back to basics and focus on our natural game. We'd appoint an Irish coach and have some success in the 6Ns before exiting in the QF next RWC.

If the IRFU were brave they'd not only tell Schmidt that results were not important over the next year as we transition but to make that public knowledge.

It's a testament to the lack of attacking ambitition in Irish rugby that there's no room for a talent like JJ Hanarahan in our provincial set up.

That's right, and most of it needs to happen at junior level - that's where the basic catch/pass stuff is learnt.

 

[mxyzptlk]

It actually happens pretty often after a barnstorming display. We seem to start the next game slowly. Normally our defence keeps us in touch but when it doesn't we have no answer with our current tactics.

The kicking game is one tactic that's going to need revisiting. It was more effective a couple years ago, but it depends on super-precise kicks, a venomous chase, and almost always winning the breakdown if you don't recover the ball. It can be done -- the All Blacks can be effective with it -- but I'm not sure it can be the primary tool. It seems more effective as something that can be pulled out of a pack of attacking options to keep the defense guessing. Ireland's kicking game has become like Gatlandball -- everyone knows what's coming.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Yes, you seem an expert at selective slagging.

Why thank you.

 

[Quick Hands]

That's park footy though. I'm talking about English Premiership, Top 14, Pro 12 etc.

Maybe the standard of our professional grounds are better (outside the international ones). I'm not really sure.

Yes, but kids learn their basic catch/pass skills on suburban grounds.

Most of the Top 14 grounds are quite good - and let's not forget that Top 14 starts in August - still summer in France and continues until May, so most of it is played in reasonable winter weather.

 

[the plastic paddy]

Gotta great idea then that I'll suggest to wru. Since it's so much beneath you and you gave us such a thrashing Let's not play each other for four years and we ll see how long you survive by playing with yourselves

And let's knock the Lions on the head while we are at it given that it is such a waste of time.

 

[mxyzptlk]

The problem is that switching styles takes a long time and it's a painful process. Possibly finishing bottom 2 in the 6Ns and shipping some heavy defeats might see Schmidt lose his job after the disappointment of the RWC.

Then I can see a call for Ireland to go back to basics and focus on our natural game. We'd appoint an Irish coach and have some success in the 6Ns before exiting in the QF next RWC.

Isn't that kind of what happened to Munster under Rob Penney? He tried to introduce a wide-wide style of play, where the forwards were stretching out the defense (kind of similar to what Argentina is doing, but not as effective). The Munster players grew up playing a more narrow, pack-oriented style where they sucked in the defenders and then someone like O'Gara would kick for territory. They still got to the Heineken Cup semifinal, but it seemed both the players and the fans just weren't having it and wanted to go back to "Munster values," whatever those are (pack-oriented rugby I guess). Penney was out after two years, and Munster resorted to leaving backs like Junior Player of the Year nominee J.J. Hanrahan twiddling their thumbs. So Hanrahan left for Northampton.

 

[Bardon]

Isn't that kind of what happened to Munster under Rob Penney? He tried to introduce a wide-wide style of play, where the forwards were stretching out the defense (kind of similar to what Argentina is doing, but not as effective). The Munster players grew up playing a more narrow, pack-oriented style where they sucked in the defenders and then someone like O'Gara would kick for territory. They still got to the Heineken Cup semifinal, but it seemed both the players and the fans just weren't having it and wanted to go back to "Munster values," whatever those are (pack-oriented rugby I guess). Penney was out after two years, and Munster resorted to leaving backs like Junior Player of the Year nominee J.J. Hanrahan twiddling their thumbs. So Hanrahan left for Northampton.

Yeah and that's one of the major problems with Irish rugby. We need to be more open to new ideas and a variety of styles. No matter the game plan if you've only got one then the opposition will figure you out eventually. That's what the ABs do so well. They continually adapt and they play attacking rugby but still have grit in the pack. with Munster and Leinster Ireland have one province that produced hard as granite forwards for fun while the other produces players with excellent ball handling skills. We need to find a way to blend the two at international level.

 

[Bardon]

The kicking game is one tactic that's going to need revisiting. It was more effective a couple years ago, but it depends on super-precise kicks, a venomous chase, and almost always winning the breakdown if you don't recover the ball. It can be done -- the All Blacks can be effective with it -- but I'm not sure it can be the primary tool. It seems more effective as something that can be pulled out of a pack of attacking options to keep the defense guessing. Ireland's kicking game has become like Gatlandball -- everyone knows what's coming.

The kicking game is a nice string to our bow but I agree it shouldn't be the basis of our play. We have players with a natural ability in the air but when you're predictable the opposition can set their defence. That leaves us a very slim margin of error. Then the fact that we leave our pacier backs out it means teams can make easy ground running the ball back.

I was really surprised we persisted with the kicking game yesterday. Our chase was non existent. The kicks were great but the chase meant that the Argentinians had all the time in the world to gather the ball and spot gaps in our defence.

 

[Dewald Nel]

Not that it matters too much, but this result would have turbocharged Los Pumas with respect to their World Ranking.

With the double points available for ranking at RWC, I reckon that Los Pumas may have jumped from 6th to 4rd with their nose just in front of Wales and just behind SAF.

This would have to be the highest that Los Pumas have been on the ranking table since The Hand Of God intervened to help the Argies win a Soccer World Cup Final.

They were ranked 3rd after the 2007 world cup.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Your thesis is (and correct me if this is wrong), the NH teams play in the rain and therefore play a more conservative style. I simply pointed out the in NZ, it rains just as much (if not more) than in the European rugby centres. One major difference being that from the very youngest age kids in NZ practice catch/pass skills in wet weather and on heavy grounds, so they become better at it and can execute it better.

Just because you lose the argument on the objective facts, it's no need to become abusive. I've never attacked you personally or adopted an agressive tone, I simply stated that I disagree and provided some facts and figures to support my argument. Asking aggressive, rhetorical questions suggests a weakness to an argument.

Yep, you've got the thesis wrong. I've already stated it a couple times, so I can't help you there. Don't disagree on the catch/pass skills. But you're arguing with a straw man here, since you came up with your own idea of what I was saying and took that on. You can't leave out Australia and South Africa, and you can't leave out temperature. Population doesn't really come into it, because we're talking about where pro rugby games are played, not where people live. Non-sequitur. And you keep coming back to France and the Top 14 in other comments -- again, that's a different question. They have better weather in the south, but different issues, and are in a size-arms race with the Premiership.

And I have not yet begun to become abusive. I have begun to be a wise-ass, but that's because the argument seems so obvious on its face, and I didn't realize you were such a sensitive soul. So please forgive me if I damaged your feelings. (Your team is in the semis, don't be so brittle.)

But just so we're clear -- you're still arguing that the UK and Ireland in winter are a warm rugby paradise compared to dolorous damp New Zealand, is that correct? Because I think damn near everyone would question that. And no one is saying that the NH has to play a more limited game because of the weather; we're saying that's the excuse that's used, but it doesn't work, and there's evidence at the pro club level to the contrary. Do we have to repeat everything?

 

[Bardon]

That's right, and most of it needs to happen at junior level - that's where the basic catch/pass stuff is learnt.

The Leinster academy and supporting junior set up churns out those kinds of players by the bucket load. But the obsession with big units has seen they overlooked in favour of power players like Dave Kearney who have lower skill levels and less attacking nouse.

Guys like Zebo, Fitzgerald, Earls and Gilroy should be the centre of our attacking philosophy. Instead it seems like the threshold for them to be dropped is much lower than the power players. So often they find themselves dropped or out in the wilderness after one mistake or bad performance. While the likes of Kearney and McFadden can be exposed multiple times but still get into the match day squad.

Ultimately I'd like Schmidt to move to an attacking philosophy akin to his Leinster team where our structures create the opportunities. It's less reliant on who the specific personnel are but those with greater skill levels and/or vision will prosper.

 

[Bardon]

Also it might be a tangential discussion but it won't be too long before it becomes clear that it's no longer a NH v SH development race. It's a Europe v Rest of the World development race. Japan is a long way from the SH and they won't be the last NH nation outside of Europe that follows a development path with SANZAR.

The European clubs have the soccer Champions league as their model for development and income growth. That relies on creating global brands akin to Manchester United, Barcelona, Real Madrid etc.

In that model you don't want a team from the US, Hong Kong, Middle East etc. competing in your competition. Instead you want to develop fans there for your team by moving your big games to local venues. That's what Saracens have tried to do over the last few seasons and we'll see more of it.

European rugby will definitely develop the financial side of the game more than the rest of the world over the next few years but that will be at the expense of rugby development.

 

[Quick Hands]

Yep, you've got the thesis wrong. I've already stated it a couple times, so I can't help you there. Don't disagree on the catch/pass skills. But you're arguing with a straw man here, since you came up with your own idea of what I was saying and took that on. You can't leave out Australia and South Africa, and you can't leave out temperature. Population doesn't really come into it, because we're talking about where pro rugby games are played, not where people live. Non-sequitur. And you keep coming back to France and the Top 14 in other comments -- again, that's a different question. They have better weather in the south, but different issues, and are in a size-arms race with the Premiership.

And I have not yet begun to become abusive. I have begun to be a wise-ass, but that's because the argument seems so obvious on its face, and I didn't realize you were such a sensitive soul. So please forgive me if I damaged your feelings. (Your team is in the semis, don't be so brittle.)

But just so we're clear -- you're still arguing that the UK and Ireland are a warm rugby paradise compared to dolorous damp New Zealand, is that correct? Because I think damn near everyone would question that. And no one is saying that the NH has to play a more limited game because of the weather; we're saying that's the excuse that's used, but it doesn't work, and there's evidence at the pro club level to the contrary. Do we have to repeat everything?

I'll put it in simple sentences for you, as reading paragraphs seem a bit of a stretch.

How many pro- rugby games are played in the south west side of the south island of New Zealand? Nil so it's not relevant.

The comparison with New Zealand is valid because it is a place which has a high annual rainfall, which goes against the idea that wet heavy grounds and rain prevent high skill, high speed rugby and necessitate attritional play for the penalty forward play.

Australia and South Africa aren't a valid comparison because they are both quite dry places when compared to Europe. (See the difference)

France was part of European pro rugby last time I looked.

London, Edinburgh, Dublin and Cardiff receive less rainfall in autumn and winter than Auckland and Wellington and about the same as Christchurch and Dunedin.

What my team being in the semis has to do with it, I'm unsure. Some of us can put parochialism aside when talking about rugby.

Yes the cold has an impact, I've never said that it didn't.

You probably do need to keep repeating yourself, as you seem think that doing so will make what you say correct.

I'm not a particularly sensitive soul, but I find that most people on these threads appreciate an amicable, polite and respectful discussion, but it seems that you don't.

 

[Cardiffblue]

I suggest that your playing style is limiting,and that you over rate the quality of the 6 Nations.
And your idea of how to improve yourselves is to weaken the balance sheets of Southern Hemisphere nations,and to play more games against lower quality nations?

Think the reaction of the clubs in England and France is not going to be in your favour anyway. The whole Sh uber alles thing is such gobshite.