Ireland Team Talk X: The Long Hard Road to a Semi. MOD WARNING POSTS #1, #1474, #5707

randomname2005 wrote: »

What about his speed to rucks and the time he takes to get the ball out? Harder things to measure but equally as important I would think.

That was the single biggest thing that stood out to me in the first half against Italy. There were at least 3 or 4 occasions where the ball was at the back of the ruck and Murray was still making his way across to the base, allowing the defence to reset and line up attackers. Kinsella's analysis is great but I find it odd for him to overlook/not include that facet of a scrumhalf performance.

sydthebeat wrote: »

There's definitely an element of "the lady doth protest too much" in that article

I don't want to be disingenuous as Kinsella is doing work that no other rugby journalist does in this country....or most countries for that matter.

But I always take it with a small pinch of salt when I see a journalist passing comment/verdict on a player that was a former team mate.

There's undoubtedly a lot true in what he says but the tone of the article from the very outset is to reel in the criticism Murray has been experiencing.

His accent...I can't.

Buer wrote: »

I don't want to be disingenuous as Kinsella is doing work that no other rugby journalist does in this country....or most countries for that matter.

But I always take it with a small pinch of salt when I see a journalist passing comment/verdict on a player that was a former team mate.

There's undoubtedly a lot true in what he says but the tone of the article from the very outset is to reel in the criticism Murray has been experiencing.

Kinsella is a class act. Love his pieces. This falls short of his usual standards.
How can you properly analyse a 9 without discussing the speed of the pass? It’s nearly back at his 2011 level.

I thought his finest ever performance was vFra in 2017. Everything he did that day was World class. Including his defense.
He is so far from that level today I have my doubts if he can get close to that by September.

ionadnapokot wrote: »

Kinsella is a class act. Love his pieces. This falls short of his usual standards.
How can you properly analyse a 9 without discussing the speed of the pass? It’s nearly back at his 2011 level.

I thought his finest ever performance was vFra in 2017. Everything he did that day was World class. Including his defense.
He is so far from that level today I have my doubts if he can get close to that by September.

It would be interesting to see someone do an analysis of ruck times. Italy were getting such quick ball in the first half particularly. Ours seemed very slow by comparison.
with the way Murray Kinsella likes to dig into the details he could give some great insight.
What's a good ruck time? (look at other top teams)
how many of our rucks went over this?
what caused the slow ball? (bad presentation, clear out, scrum half, opposition being sneaky, the rest of the team getting set)

If anyone here knows Murray and wants to pass on the idea please do.

Mr Tickle wrote: »

It would be interesting to see someone do an analysis of ruck times. Italy were getting such quick ball in the first half particularly. Ours seemed very slow by comparison.
with the way Murray Kinsella likes to dig into the details he could give some great insight.
What's a good ruck time? (look at other top teams)
how many of our rucks went over this?
what caused the slow ball? (bad presentation, clear out, scrum half, opposition being sneaky, the rest of the team getting set)

If anyone here knows Murray and wants to pass on the idea please do.

Less than 3 secs is quick ball.
I’m not sure if Ireland ruck ball itself has been much over 3secs. But Murray getting the ball away from the ruck has been slow.
Opposition aren’t committing players to the ruck, which brings up the offside line and they blitz up (generally offside) on the delayed and slow pass.

thegreycity wrote: »

Frankly it's my favourite publication.

The annual subscription fees are justified by the page 3 spreads

Zzippy wrote: »

He's a terrible interviewer though, if I want to hear an interview I want to hear the person beign interviewed, not the interviewer constantly interjecting and talking over them. He may have improved, I stopped listening a long time ago. He's also as biased as Frankie Sheahan was, and as xenophobic as Francis. Not a good combination.

he may be a poor interviewer , but how is he xenophobic, is it for saying Roux is South African ?

troyzer wrote: »

He doesn't want him on the team because he was born in South Africa.

Despite being an Irish citizen and having lived here for seven years. If somebody in work told you they didn't want to hire somebody even though they were Irish because they were born in a different country, you'd be calling them xenophobic and racist.

I hope.

don't see that as racist - like I see James Lowe as a New Zealander , but cause he lives hear 3 or 4 years to play rugby professionally, is he suddenly Irish - PC nonsense really, people can have opinions on this without being termed racist. The work examkle is totally irrelevant , we are talking about players playing international rugby.

Former Former wrote: »

If you actually listen to the podcast which no one has, he says he doesn't like the project thing but he's also very clear that he couldn't understand the Roux selection because Henderson is so much better. Which is true.

Do we have to get outraged over everything?

Apparently, yes.

I did listen to it. He initially says Roux shouldn't be playing because "he's not Irish". He later mentions that Henderson was better. But he definitely led off with "he's not Irish".

troyzer wrote: »

If he becomes an Irish citizen, yes. He is Irish.

We are talking about Irish citizens playing Irish international rugby in complete compliance with the World Rugby regulations.

Saying he shouldn't be there because he was born abroad is xenophobic, it just is.

to have an opinion on whether professional rugby players are eligble to play for a particular country is now ok to be termed racist or zenohobic - this is just PC nonsense - from someone who has witnessed real racism , and stood up to it.

thebaz wrote: »

to have an opinion on whether professional rugby players are eligble to play for a particular country is now ok to be termed racist or zenohobic - this is just PC nonsense - from someone who has witnessed real racism , and stood up to it.

No, you can argue about whether or not the system is fair. But he has done absolutely nothing wrong. He's abided by all of the rules and is now as Irish as a pig's smile seeing as how he has a passport. He's a citizen and that's good enough for me.

Go after the system, not the man. But the idea that you'd drop an Irish citizen (which Henderson might not be by the way) because he was born abroad is madness.

troyzer wrote: »

No, you can argue about whether or not the system is fair. But he has done absolutely nothing wrong. He's abided by all of the rules and is now as Irish as a pig's smile seeing as how he has a passport. He's a citizen and that's good enough for me.

Go after the system, not the man. But the idea that you'd drop an Irish citizen (which Henderson might not be by the way) because he was born abroad is madness.

but to have an opinion that he is South African (even thogh he was born and bred) and that Henderson or Dillane or Beirne may be more eligble to play professional rugby fort Ireland- is grounds to be called racist , is not how I understand the word racist , or what Mandela and Martin Luther King fought for.