Richards Strauss

[All Blacks nil]

Firstly ,
I want to say I have no issue with his selection in the squad, as he is obviously the proven 2nd or 3rd choice with Cronin, behind Best.

However, Joe's mixed messages to players might be seen as a little confusing,
His decision on Jackson' omission was based on game time.
His decision on Strauss is that he 'has an understanding of the South African psyche and can help us with our preparation for South Africa"
Fair enough, but to then say
"Particularly because his cousin might be playing against us and that can only add a bit of value"
(Advantage for the naturalised Irishman over the indigenous player )

And wait for it

Richardt, when he WAS playing his best, WAS very effective,

So three seperate reasons furnished,
I'd have just nothing.

[Peg Leg]

Surely the tread title should be:
Joe Schmidt Selections, no?

[All Blacks nil]

Not really
Just his reasons for picking Strauss

[fourthirtythree]

Maybe the title should have been Richardt Strauss?

Imagine a coach replying when asked for reasons? What a terrible thing. He should have just pawed the ground while looking downwards and whined something in a priest voice about fellas sticking their hands up. That's the way to do it.

[All Blacks nil]

Maybe the title should have been Richardt Strauss?

Imagine a coach replying when asked for reasons? What a terrible thing. He should have just pawed the ground while looking downwards and whined something in a priest voice about fellas sticking their hands up. That's the way to do it.

Sorry about the thread title
Victim of predictive text.

I'm just wondering which reason everyone thinks is the best reason for selecting Strauss
1 he understands the South African psyche
2 his cousin MIGHT be playing
3 when he WAS playing at his best he WAS very effective

Can someone set up that poll
As I said he would have been better off saying nothing

[Peg Leg]

Maybe the title should have been Richardt Strauss?

Imagine a coach replying when asked for reasons? What a terrible thing. He should have just pawed the ground while looking downwards and whined something in a priest voice about fellas sticking their hands up. That's the way to do it.

The wasps lad?

[paddyor]

Jackson's been playing sh@te, Schmidt didn't say that big whoop.
Answer I'd all and any of the above or if you like some incredible conspiracy to keep Munster players down.

[nc6000]

Jackson's been playing sh@te, Schmidt didn't say that big whoop.
Answer I'd all and any of the above or if you like some incredible conspiracy to keep Munster players down.

Yep. I don't think I've ever seen a conversion blocked down like that in a professional match. Have any of you?

[All Blacks nil]

Jackson's been playing sh@te, Schmidt didn't say that big whoop.
Answer I'd all and any of the above or if you like some incredible conspiracy to keep Munster players down.

As I said i have no problem with the selection of Strauss
I have a problem with inconsistencies in selection.
There is absolutely no Munster axe being ground here.

Casey is our currently our only IQ hooker playing.
As I said in a previous post he was a long shot and I did not include him in a list of Munster players I thought should be in the squad (incidentally 100% of the players on the list were selected, as well as Keatly whom I did not expect to be selected). So as I say no issue with a Munster hooker losing out.

So POR
Jackson's form may be poor.
How is Strauss playing?

[fourthirtythree]

I'm just amazed that Dundon isn't in: throwing is fantastic, great scrummager.

Schmidt out!

[All Blacks nil]

I'm just amazed that Dundon isn't in: throwing is fantastic, great scrummager.

Schmidt out!

Funny,

but does anyone wish to discuss the opening post, or is it a little sacreligious

[Peg Leg]

I'm just amazed that Dundon isn't in: throwing is fantastic, great scrummager.

Schmidt out!

Funny,

but does anyone wish to discuss the opening post, or is it a little sacreligious

I agree with you. He did the same last time out too IIRC (just can't remember with whom, Madigan maybe?).

[paddyor]

If we're being pedantic, I never said you were grinding an axe for Munster players, I said you could......and then you did. Handy you could recycle some stuff from one of your Duncan Casey threads that never got any traction.

[johng]

Selection is an art as well as a science. Guys get picked for reasons that may sound silly in a presser, but actually make sense within the team environment.

As regards Schmidt. It is hard to criticise him as a coach or a man because he has done so much right.

He ain't perfect, which he would be at pains to stress himself, but is closer to it than anyone else I have seen in the role.

Has he got selections wrong? Yes. Will he in the future? Yes. Can I tell you definitively which ones and why? Probably not.

He will probably do that himself at some point.

[All Blacks nil]

If we're being pedantic, I never said you were grinding an axe for Munster players, I said you could......and then you did. Handy you could recycle some stuff from one of your Duncan Casey threads that never got any traction.

Answer I'd all and any of the above or if you like some incredible conspiracy to keep Munster players down.

i must admit, i found it difficult to understand the sentence you produced and may have jumped in feet first. perhaps you could reconstruct the sentence into an understandable sequence.

Here is your chance
Quote me anything produced here that was in a Duncan Casey thread and I will desist from posting on this forum.

Glad to see you were one of the 300+ people to read the post and not contradict it

[All Blacks nil]

Selection is an art as well as a science. Guys get picked for reasons that may sound silly in a presser, but actually make sense within the team environment.

As regards Schmidt. It is hard to criticise him as a coach or a man because he has done so much right.

He ain't perfect, which he would be at pains to stress himself, but is closer to it than anyone else I have seen in the role.

Has he got selections wrong? Yes. Will he in the future? Yes. Can I tell you definitively which ones and why? Probably not.

He will probably do that himself at some point.

Fair play
That's what I mean by discussion.

As I said in the opening post I have no qualms with Strauss being picked. i''m not a fan of Herring and it is six months too soon for Casey to be involved (as in, in six months time we will have a much rounder view of his overall game.), Varley is injured and anyway as I said Strauss is the proven second or third choice behind Best.

My concern is the inconsistency shown to players in selection. omit one guy because he hasn't enough game time and select the other guy (with less game time) beacuse we are playing against his native country, his cousin might be playing and when he was playing to his best, he was effective.

The three reasons quoted directly for selecting Strauss are/were laughable.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[simonokeeffe]

I think the playing his cousin remark was tongue in cheek but when Strauss was fit/debuted for Ireland it looked like Best was going to be relegated to 16 when he was fit again, plus he was first choice ahead of Cronin.
Then he had a heart op and a bad hamstring injury

Hes still best scrummaging (fit) hooker in Ireland and carrier and jackaller so these things must be factored in

Strauss has delivered for Ireland in a couple of starts, Jackson hasnt. Plus IMO Jackson is a confidence player and he was really kicked around the last time he played much for us

Plus every player is not the same. BOD could come back into a test match after not playing for 3 months, other guys need gametime/form established.

[All Blacks nil]

As I said I have no qualms with his selection. i have qualms with the inconsistency shown by Joe to different players in the selection pool.

As Joe said,
"when he was playing to his best , he was effective".

I think Joe was guilty of saying too much at the press conference. As I said he should have said nothing at all, or just give lip service and allude to the facts you have mentioned above.
But as I say the three reasons for Richardt's selection as directly quoted are laughable

[LeRouxIsPHat]

1. They're not solely the reasons he was picked. It's not like they looked around the country for guys who were related to Springboks and went with the first one they found. The reasons given are just extras to what Joe obviously feels he brings to the squad. For example, Strauss is brilliant at getting over the ball and that could be important without SOB and a general lack of oomph in the front five now due to injuries.

2. Joe is clearly a fan of Strauss, definitely preferred him to Cronin at Leinster. He's obviously built up enough credit with him to get in despite a lack of games, just like other players in the squad have. And no i don't just mean Leinster players. I don't quite agree with that because its over 2 years since Strauss had a consistent run of good form, but don't see anything wrong with a coach wanting one of his trusted players to get up to speed in the environment. At least not when there are no outstanding candidates to take his place.

3. Cronin is so good off the bench that I reckon Joe might want to keep him there regardless of whether Best is involved or not. In other words, if Best was to get injured the day before we play SA, would you rather have the experienced Strauss starting, or Casey to win his first cap? Even if you'd pick Casey, there's logic in the other argument.

4. Inconsistencies in selection bug me too, but there are still reasons this makes sense. You can get away with a few undercooked guys in a squad, but not a big group. There's also a big difference in the positions. Hooker is probably a 50/60 minute max position these days, whereas you'd want your outhalf to navigate you through the entire game.

[Peg Leg]

As I said I have no qualms with his selection. i have qualms with the inconsistency shown by Joe to different players in the selection pool.

As Joe said,
"when he was playing to his best , he was effective".

I think Joe was guilty of saying too much at the press conference. As I said he should have said nothing at all, or just give lip service and allude to the facts you have mentioned above.
But as I say the three reasons for Richardt's selection as directly quoted are laughable

He could hardly say "He's a personal favourite" and any journo worth worth their salt would have pursued an answer on the selection.
He gave one and he you think he's put his foot in it.

EDIT: Hardly a big f%~k up though?