[RWC2023 QF2] Ireland vs New Zealand (14/10/2023)

[Zac_ETNZ]

Can't agree with leaving out telea. His ability to bounce off tackles and run laterally could have played an important role in disrupting the structured defence. Faingaanuku more just rides tackles for metres. Usually that's a good thing because you can get front foot ball but irelands defence is very quick to organise and you are less likely to get frobt foot ball against Ireland on the wing. They should have left out beauden and put jordan at fullback, not drop telea. Edit: apparently for disciplinary reasons

And no Roigard. He could also have made a difference. Edit: apparently for Christie's defensive prowess. While I agree that roigard defence can be atrocious at times, Christie's passing game just isn't nearly good enough at this level

And no taukeiaho. How have we got there? Taukeiaho provides the front foot ball up the middle. Simply he is out most important player.

Newell and Williams on the bench. Well I don't know that these selections are necessarily wrong because ofa and nepo havent been playing the house down but I do worry for these youngsters coming off the bench in a pressure situation. And newell has had some scrum issues this year.

Roigard played himself out of the QF against Uruguay. De Groot hasn't played since R1 and will give away the first 4 more penalties before he's yellow-carded. As for leaving out Telea - Foster has just moved the needle closer to another loss to Ireland under his watch. Lester will carry the ball and get bashed by the Irish defence for 50 minutes before he's pulled for McKenzie.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I'll say again...its only on here, in my experience, that people are saying Roigard played THAT badly against Uruguay, the worst ive seen anywhere else was along the lines of started a bit rough but learnt from it and came right...and far more saying he was actually pretty good against a team that came out hungry....its mad to drop him based on that

I understand you need to punish breaking the rules....but for FUCKS sake!

 

[Kiwiwomble]

....i honestly thought that would get censored

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Roigard played himself out of the QF against Uruguay. De Groot hasn't played since R1 and will give away the first 4 more penalties before he's yellow-carded. As for leaving out Telea - Foster has just moved the needle closer to another loss to Ireland under his watch. Lester will carry the ball and get bashed by the Irish defence for 50 minutes before he's pulled for McKenzie.

Do you even watch rugby? You are making out like a loss to Ireland is shameful, something that implies the team has done poorly; that they should expect to beat Ireland.

Get with the times. We were way quicker than any other nation to professionalize. Other teams were comparatively amateur. Rugby is more globally a proper pro sport now. other teams have caught up and surpassed us. What has happened in history is not relevant to what should happen now. We haven't been competitive at u20 level for a long while; not because we have gotten worse, just other nations have gotten better.

If you have watched and analysed a lot of rugby over the years, in both hemispheres, you will have seen the structures, the rugby smarts, the skill sets, the conditioning, etc of the other nations catch up.

And you would know that Ireland is a great team. And you would realise that some of the all blacks teams in the past have been special; the exception, not the rule.

There is no automatic right for New Zealand to be the best.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

I'll say again...its only on here, in my experience, that people are saying Roigard played THAT badly against Uruguay, the worst ive seen anywhere else was along the lines of started a bit rough but learnt from it and came right...and far more saying he was actually pretty good against a team that came out hungry....its mad to drop him based on that

I understand you need to punish breaking the rules....but for FUCKS sake!

It was only Uruguay too, let's be honest. Who says he doesn't play differently against better opposition. Players often try to be a hero against minnows.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Do you even watch rugby? You are making out like a loss to Ireland is shameful, something that implies the team has done poorly; that they should expect to beat Ireland.

Get with the times. We were way quicker than any other nation to professionalize. Other teams were comparatively amateur. Rugby is more globally a proper pro sport now. other teams have caught up and surpassed us. What has happened in history is not relevant to what should happen now. We haven't been competitive at u20 level for a long while; not because we have gotten worse, just other nations have gotten better.

If you have watched and analysed a lot of rugby over the years, in both hemispheres, you will have seen the structures, the rugby smarts, the skill sets, the conditioning, etc of the other nations catch up.

And you would know that Ireland is a great team. And you would realise that some of the all blacks teams in the past have been special; the exception, not the rule.

There is no automatic right for New Zealand to be the best.

....i didnt get any of that from what @Zac_ETNZ said...i thought he was saying to beat Ireland now days we need to be our best...and even then not guaranteed....and the selections fozzie has made aren't our best...and so tipped even more in Ireland favour...

 

[ncurd]

We were way quicker than any other nation to professionalize.

Point of order!

England was the quickest it was probably the key factor to the 2003 side. The issues with England post that we'll there are many....and the list is long.

Agree with everything else you said.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

....i didnt get any of that from what @Zac_ETNZ said...i thought he was saying to beat Ireland now days we need to be our best...and even then not guaranteed....and the selections fozzie has made aren't our best...and so tipped even more in Ireland favour...

It was the point about foster moving the needle closer to another loss to Ireland. I could have misinterpreted but why say that if you don't think there is something wrong about losing to Ireland, specifically.

And when they are predicting us to win by 20+ points I don't think they are trying to say we need to be at our best

@Zac_ETNZ sorry if I misinterpreted

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Point of order!

England was the quickest it was probably the key factor to the 2003 side. The issues with England post that we'll there are many....and the list is long.

Agree with everything else you said.

Yes a somewhat generalized statement. More specifically when you are looking international only (and not development at school for example) I think we were closer to professional when rugby officially went professional, then rod mcqueen and Eddie jones (at brumbies first) took it to another level, then England 2003, then we took over and never let go for many years.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

It was the point about foster moving the needle closer to another loss to Ireland. I could have misinterpreted but why say that if you don't think there is something wrong about losing to Ireland, specifically.

And when they are predicting us to win by 20+ points I don't think they are trying to say we need to be at our best

@Zac_ETNZ sorry if I misinterpreted

it honestly just sounds to me like it is more likely ireland win than if we'd played roigard and Telea, maybe a slight shade that all but one of our losses to Ireland have been under Fozzies tenure, Ireland have definitely improved but i think its not out of line to criticise fozzie for seemingly just watching the rest of the world improve and allowing the AB's to at best stagnate....but probably more realistically go backwards

just anecdotally talking to other kiwis fans, it use to be the case players would "lift" when they put on the black jersey (and probably any national team)...and it makes sense, you may be playing tougher opposition but you're also surrounded by 22 of the best players in the country and you SHOULD have the best coaching in the country...its why we use to send players to training with the ABs...see if they click and show any lift

....but it doesnt feel that way anymore, if anything several players seem to have gone backwards

 

[Which Tyler]

Point of order!

England was the quickest it was probably the key factor to the 2003 side. The issues with England post that we'll there are many....and the list is long.

Agree with everything else you said.

Point of order!

NZ and England both had a bit of a head-start when it came to professionalising.

Once legal, I'd say that NZ adapted more quickly and more efficiently (took England 5-6 years, took NZ 5-6 months). Mind, I'll allow that SCW took England to a height of professionalism that was peak for it's time (and peak for England, for that matter)

Same goes for Bath and Leicester at English club level - with Leicester adapting more quickly once legal

 

[Umaga's Witness]

it honestly just sounds to me like it is more likely ireland win than if we'd played roigard and Telea, maybe a slight shade that all but one of our losses to Ireland have been under Fozzies tenure, Ireland have definitely improved but i think its not out of line to criticise fozzie for seemingly just watching the rest of the world improve and allowing the AB's to at best stagnate....but probably more realistically go backwards

just anecdotally talking to other kiwis fans, it use to be the case players would "lift" when they put on the black jersey (and probably any national team)...and it makes sense, you may be playing tougher opposition but you're also surrounded by 22 of the best players in the country and you SHOULD have the best coaching in the country...its why we use to send players to training with the ABs...see if they click and show any lift

....but it doesnt feel that way anymore, if anything several players seem to have gone backwards

I think all those points are good points.

But I think NZ rugby fans are overwhelmingly attributing a ton more power to the head coach than they really have in todays environment.

If you look at how much of an improvement the all blacks made, through coaching, starting end of year 2004 and sustained until 2016, that kind of improvement from coaching is no longer attainable. Because back then in many respects we did have better players than the rest of the world (due to better super rugby, better schools coaches, better under twenties systems, people playing rugby in the back yard, some absolute legends we lucked upon, etc), and other teams didn't have the same coaching and conditioning that we had (for example). That sort of coach impact isnt achievable nowadays. And let's not forget that it was never just the head coach that caused our greatness; assistants like Wayne smith, skills coaches like mick byrne, dude like Gilbert enoka; we had a full suite of professional coaches that were ahead of most other nations (some nations had some of these things, we learnt from other team for sure but we brought a lot of stuff together and added more).

The head coach can still make a big difference, but it's nowhere near what it was. As rugby gets more and more professional we are dealing with finer margins as to the difference that can be made between our different potential coach options.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

.but for FUCKS sake!

how did that get through the filter?

 

[dirty harry]

Ok ok you've convinced me, NZ are a spent force, they were lucky to adapt to professionalism first, but now with a waining player base, lack of cash and poor club structure they have been surpassed and the NZ rugby public now accept their standing as mid table mediocrity in the new world order.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Ok ok you've convinced me, NZ are a spent force, they were lucky to adapt to professionalism first, but now with a waining player base, lack of cash and poor club structure they have been surpassed and the NZ rugby public now accept their standing as mid table mediocrity in the new world order.

The NZ rugby public accept no such thing. The NZ rugby public believes strongly that with the right coach our seventh best team should win the World Cup.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Do you even watch rugby? You are making out like a loss to Ireland is shameful, something that implies the team has done poorly; that they should expect to beat Ireland.

Get with the times. We were way quicker than any other nation to professionalize. Other teams were comparatively amateur. Rugby is more globally a proper pro sport now. other teams have caught up and surpassed us. What has happened in history is not relevant to what should happen now. We haven't been competitive at u20 level for a long while; not because we have gotten worse, just other nations have gotten better.

If you have watched and analysed a lot of rugby over the years, in both hemispheres, you will have seen the structures, the rugby smarts, the skill sets, the conditioning, etc of the other nations catch up.

And you would know that Ireland is a great team. And you would realise that some of the all blacks teams in the past have been special; the exception, not the rule.

There is no automatic right for New Zealand to be the best.

I agree with quite a lot of that. The issue I face is that if I just list players and compare, I'd give NZ the edge, which implies it's the system/process/whatever you wanna call it that makes Ireland (allegedly) better. I find that counterintuitive. It's one of the two things I thought NZ would still be the best at.

I could understand, dunno, France or South Africa to eventually get to that point, mainly because of population and resources. Well, mostly population. But that is not what I see.
I mean, getting the best 15 out of a population of 5 million is not the same as getting the best 15 out of 70 million. But again, what I see strongly suggests the difference lies elsewhere.

The other things I believe are worth pointing out are the trends. We are comparing (arguably) the best-performing Irish side in history against a quite poor New Zealand side. Are we going to extrapolate this based on two data points? I wouldn't be so adventurous.

If there is one country that has been able to produce top-tier talent again, and again, and again, it's New Zealand. So I am inclined to believe they will bounce. Sure, the gap between them and the rest will narrow down but the system fundamentally works. It'll need some tweaking to adjust it to the current times but nothing too big. Again, look at the players. Add that there is a bit of a generational change in the squad and what's going on is understandable.

And Ireland is an amazing team, off the charts good, but the question is, is this a one-off? Did all the stars align for them to reach 2023's WC like this or can they replicate these performances for generations to come?
Ask yourselves this question: who do you think has better odds at being top 4 in the rankings in 15 years, Ireland or NZ? I don't have an answer. One swallow does not a summer make,

 

[Zac_ETNZ]

Do you even watch rugby? You are making out like a loss to Ireland is shameful, something that implies the team has done poorly; that they should expect to beat Ireland.

Get with the times. We were way quicker than any other nation to professionalize. Other teams were comparatively amateur. Rugby is more globally a proper pro sport now. other teams have caught up and surpassed us. What has happened in history is not relevant to what should happen now. We haven't been competitive at u20 level for a long while; not because we have gotten worse, just other nations have gotten better.

If you have watched and analysed a lot of rugby over the years, in both hemispheres, you will have seen the structures, the rugby smarts, the skill sets, the conditioning, etc of the other nations catch up.

And you would know that Ireland is a great team. And you would realise that some of the all blacks teams in the past have been special; the exception, not the rule.

There is no automatic right for New Zealand to be the best.

You sound like a professional apologist!! Roigard in the first 20 minutes tried too hard and made all sorts of mistakes: tried to run from our own 22 a few times, popped up kickcs which went straight up in the air and allowed the Uruguay players to get forward ball, his passing was wayyyyy too slow clearing the ball....the difference was quite noticeable when he was subbed and Christie came on: a lot more flency to the backline and the ball was fired out from the rucks a lot quicker. Roirad played himself off the bench. For the record, I preferred Roigard to Christie, but not on his Uruguay performance!!

Foster was the absolutely wrong selection as coach and his record proves it. Stop trying to make excuses: the ABs are no longer the team their opponents feared thanks to the incompetentNZR appointing the incompetent Foster who had the Chiefs for 8 years in Super Rugby and nothing to show for it!!

 

[Which Tyler]

Ireland’s embrace of Zombie song at Rugby World Cup stirs debate over lyrics

Fans seen singing the Cranberries’ hit in stadiums but some Irish republicans are unhappy at revival

www.theguardian.com

 

[Zac_ETNZ]

Yes a somewhat generalized statement. More specifically when you are looking international only (and not development at school for example) I think we were closer to professional when rugby officially went professional, then rod mcqueen and Eddie jones (at brumbies first) took it to another level, then England 2003, then we took over and never let go for many years.

That's a lot of BS. England were professional in all but name only a lot earlier than we ever did, through their Premiership Club structure and player recruitment and retention. An they had all the financial wherewithalls to sustain the newly-professional rugby environment. NZ's size and captive rugby community made it easier to adopt professionalism - or die. We were always playing catch-up with the RFU and other 6-nations and their massive financial resources which enabled them to entice NZ and PI players over to Europe and then change the rules to qualify them for their adopted rugby unions.

 

[Jakedood]

Ireland’s embrace of Zombie song at Rugby World Cup stirs debate over lyrics

Fans seen singing the Cranberries’ hit in stadiums but some Irish republicans are unhappy at revival

www.theguardian.com

I mean to be fair, regardless what sde you're on, if you can't get behind a song that's basically saying how wrong it is to shoot kids dead, what are you even doing