Joe Schmidt 2017

[simonokeeffe]

the assistant coaches seem to be getting no cirticism rightly or wrongly

we still have the (irish) rugby problem of waiting for Murray/scrumahlf to pass the ball

[Oldschool]

the assistant coaches seem to be getting no cirticism rightly or wrongly

we still have the (irish) rugby problem of waiting for Murray/scrumahlf to pass the ball

Can we just get one thing clear, Murray is the best SH in the NH, sure he has the odd slightly off day but even then he's very effective.
He'll start in all the Lions tests in NZ this summer, no question and if he doesn't there will be only one reason for it - Gatland.
The only thing to add to that is that Murray plays much better when Stander is at 8, which is why I now finally understand all the calls for Heaslip to be dropped in favour of Stander.
Obviously if you are a Munster fan and watching them playing together week in week out it's self evident .
The rest of us don't have that luxury we, unfortunately, are stuck watching Heaslip week in week out.

[FLIP]

the assistant coaches seem to be getting no cirticism rightly or wrongly

we still have the (irish) rugby problem of waiting for Murray/scrumahlf to pass the ball

Can we just get one thing clear, Murray is the best SH in the NH, sure he has the odd slightly off day but even then he's very effective.
He'll start in all the Lions tests in NZ this summer, no question and if he doesn't there will be only one reason for it - Gatland.
The only thing to add to that is that Murray plays much better when Stander is at 8, which is why I now finally understand all the calls for Heaslip to be dropped in favour of Stander.
Obviously if you are a Munster fan and watching them playing together week in week out it's self evident .
The rest of us don't have that luxury we, unfortunately, are stuck watching Heaslip week in week out.

The 8-9 relationship only really influences scrums, not anything else, so how would it affect how Murray plays in general? I very much doubt having to play with Heaslip was the reason that Murray was absolutely gotten to in Edinburgh.

[Cor. Ind.]

the assistant coaches seem to be getting no cirticism rightly or wrongly

we still have the (irish) rugby problem of waiting for Murray/scrumahlf to pass the ball

Can we just get one thing clear, Murray is the best SH in the NH, sure he has the odd slightly off day but even then he's very effective.
He'll start in all the Lions tests in NZ this summer, no question and if he doesn't there will be only one reason for it - Gatland.
The only thing to add to that is that Murray plays much better when Stander is at 8, which is why I now finally understand all the calls for Heaslip to be dropped in favour of Stander.
Obviously if you are a Munster fan and watching them playing together week in week out it's self evident .
The rest of us don't have that luxury we, unfortunately, are stuck watching Heaslip week in week out.

The 8-9 relationship only really influences scrums, not anything else, so how would it affect how Murray plays in general? I very much doubt having to play with Heaslip was the reason that Murray was absolutely gotten to in Edinburgh.

Not in their case. Stander is Munster & Ireland's primary ball carrier. If he's not presenting ball to Murray at the bottom of a ruck, he's running a line, part of a pod or (as the case last week) taking slow ball into contact from a static position.

[Logorrhea]

Can we just get one thing clear, Murray is the best SH in the NH, sure he has the odd slightly off day but even then he's very effective.

Murray had one great game vs New Zealand in Chicago. That showed us he has the ability to be the best scrumhalf in the world. The reality is he hasn't played to that standard since, or if so, only in glimpses.

He's still the best scum half we have but the "best in the world" should only apply to players that play at that level consistently. Without that consistency, he's just one of the top 4 or 5 scrumhalves in the world.

[Golf Man]

He was by a mile the stand out player v France.

He hasn't been as good as he was v New Zealand in Chicago - likewise Sexton hasn't been as good as he was in the 2011 Heineken Cup final, Dan Carter hasn't been able to reproduce his 2005 Lions first test performance, etc etc

[curates_egg]

the assistant coaches seem to be getting no cirticism rightly or wrongly

we still have the (irish) rugby problem of waiting for Murray/scrumahlf to pass the ball

I think Farrell is very lucky in that regard. In 4 games, we've already let in 19 points more than we did in the entire 2014 6 nations and 12 more than in 2015...and we will definitely leak more this weekend against the best team.
I saw a stat last night that we've leaked a try every 29 minutes on average under Farrell, compared to 55 minutes under Kiss.
The stats don't lie: we have replaced Kiss with a much poorer coach. Leaving aside the world cup, England leaked 100 points in the 2015 6 Nations. 100! That's not championship winning defensive coaching.
If you can score 27 plus points in a game, it mightn't matter...but if you are under that, it clearly does.
I definitely think Schmidt has not managed the squad very well in this championship but I think it would be wrong to heap all the blame on him.

[Leoslovechild]

the assistant coaches seem to be getting no cirticism rightly or wrongly

we still have the (irish) rugby problem of waiting for Murray/scrumahlf to pass the ball

Can we just get one thing clear, Murray is the best SH in the NH, sure he has the odd slightly off day but even then he's very effective.
He'll start in all the Lions tests in NZ this summer, no question and if he doesn't there will be only one reason for it - Gatland.
The only thing to add to that is that Murray plays much better when Stander is at 8, which is why I now finally understand all the calls for Heaslip to be dropped in favour of Stander.
Obviously if you are a Munster fan and watching them playing together week in week out it's self evident .
The rest of us don't have that luxury we, unfortunately, are stuck watching Heaslip week in week out.

Very happy to be watching Heaslip week in week outn thanks and not Stander and Murray

Anyway don't think he is far ahead of Rhys Webb at all so not clear he is the best SH in the NH

[arsebiscuits1]

the assistant coaches seem to be getting no cirticism rightly or wrongly

we still have the (irish) rugby problem of waiting for Murray/scrumahlf to pass the ball

I think Farrell is very lucky in that regard. In 4 games, we've already let in 19 points more than we did in the entire 2014 6 nations and 12 more than in 2015...and we will definitely leak more this weekend against the best team.
I saw a stat last night that we've leaked a try every 29 minutes on average under Farrell, compared to 55 minutes under Kiss.
The stats don't lie: we have replaced Kiss with a much poorer coach. Leaving aside the world cup, England leaked 100 points in the 2015 6 Nations. 100! That's not championship winning defensive coaching.
If you can score 27 plus points in a game, it mightn't matter...but if you are under that, it clearly does.
I definitely think Schmidt has not managed the squad very well in this championship but I think it would be wrong to heap all the blame on him.

Actually mate. The stats do lie in some cases.

The year England conceded 100 points, 6 of those tries (29 points total) came from the French game, which can comfortably be called an "anomaly" There was 12 tries and 90 points scored in a game where England had no choice but to throw the kitchen sink at them.

I did the numbers when Farrell was appointed. Discounting the "anomaly" against the French, Farrell coached Englands defence in 19 6 nations game where they conceded 21 tries. Or 1.1 tries per game.

For the sake of balance, I have given Kiss's tenure in the same period an "anomaly" too. 2012 he conceded 3 tries against the Welsh (conceding 3 tries in a game can hardly be called such but sure let's go for consistency in my argument). But in the other 19 games, Ireland conceded 17 tries. Or 0.9 tries per game.

So to say he is a much poorer coach is a disservice. Certainly he has conceded more tries, but there is very little in it

Not taking away from anything Les did with Ireland either, I think he was fantastic for us save for his final game

[Flash Gordon]

the assistant coaches seem to be getting no cirticism rightly or wrongly

we still have the (irish) rugby problem of waiting for Murray/scrumahlf to pass the ball

I think Farrell is very lucky in that regard. In 4 games, we've already let in 19 points more than we did in the entire 2014 6 nations and 12 more than in 2015...and we will definitely leak more this weekend against the best team.
I saw a stat last night that we've leaked a try every 29 minutes on average under Farrell, compared to 55 minutes under Kiss.
The stats don't lie: we have replaced Kiss with a much poorer coach. Leaving aside the world cup, England leaked 100 points in the 2015 6 Nations. 100! That's not championship winning defensive coaching.
If you can score 27 plus points in a game, it mightn't matter...but if you are under that, it clearly does.
I definitely think Schmidt has not managed the squad very well in this championship but I think it would be wrong to heap all the blame on him.

Great point! In 2015 we conceded just 3 tries over the whole tournament (compared to England on 11 in second place. We only conceded 4 the year before when we won the championship. My understanding is that Les Kiss was fairly marginalised running up to the 2015 World Cup and we went out of the tournament after conceding 43 points to an Argentina side who scored the least points in the Rugby Championship. Our defensive frailties continue today and you've got to ask the question of Farrell particularly as we're conceding in games where we have the ball for most of the match.

[curates_egg]

the assistant coaches seem to be getting no cirticism rightly or wrongly

we still have the (irish) rugby problem of waiting for Murray/scrumahlf to pass the ball

I think Farrell is very lucky in that regard. In 4 games, we've already let in 19 points more than we did in the entire 2014 6 nations and 12 more than in 2015...and we will definitely leak more this weekend against the best team.
I saw a stat last night that we've leaked a try every 29 minutes on average under Farrell, compared to 55 minutes under Kiss.
The stats don't lie: we have replaced Kiss with a much poorer coach. Leaving aside the world cup, England leaked 100 points in the 2015 6 Nations. 100! That's not championship winning defensive coaching.
If you can score 27 plus points in a game, it mightn't matter...but if you are under that, it clearly does.
I definitely think Schmidt has not managed the squad very well in this championship but I think it would be wrong to heap all the blame on him.

Actually mate. The stats do lie in some cases.

The year England conceded 100 points, 6 of those tries (29 points total) came from the French game, which can comfortably be called an "anomaly" There was 12 tries and 90 points scored in a game where England had no choice but to throw the kitchen sink at them.

I did the numbers when Farrell was appointed. Discounting the "anomaly" against the French, Farrell coached Englands defence in 19 6 nations game where they conceded 21 tries. Or 1.1 tries per game.

For the sake of balance, I have given Kiss's tenure in the same period an "anomaly" too. 2012 he conceded 3 tries against the Welsh (conceding 3 tries in a game can hardly be called such but sure let's go for consistency in my argument). But in the other 19 games, Ireland conceded 17 tries. Or 0.9 tries per game.

So to say he is a much poorer coach is a disservice. Certainly he has conceded more tries, but there is very little in it

Not taking away from anything Les did with Ireland either, I think he was fantastic for us save for his final game

I take back the "much poorer coach" bit...but maintain the rest. Farrell has yet to face scrutiny but he certainly should based on this year's championship and a reasonable comparison with how the Ireland defence performed under the previous defence coach that worked with Schmidt.

That said, we would have probably won the games we lost anyway with a more coherent attack, so it is certainly not all Farrell's fault.
I am only highlighting that he is getting a free ride so far, which defies the results.

[arsebiscuits1]

I take back the "much poorer coach" bit...but maintain the rest. Farrell has yet to face scrutiny but he certainly should based on this year's championship and a reasonable comparison with how the Ireland defence performed under the previous defence coach that worked with Schmidt.

I agree with that sentiment.

[Oldschool]

He was by a mile the stand out player v France.

He hasn't been as good as he was v New Zealand in Chicago - likewise Sexton hasn't been as good as he was in the 2011 Heineken Cup final, Dan Carter hasn't been able to reproduce his 2005 Lions first test performance, etc etc

By a mile simply does not add up.
The factsish.
Just for simplicity, let's say a rugby pitch is 100m long by 100m wide.
There are 1600m in a mile approx, 1500m if you want to round down to the nearest 100.
Not for the first you are are guilty of wild exaggeration.
By a factor of 15 in this case.
It's one of the reasons why your exaggerated claims for some players' abilities are pretty much dismissed.

[simonokeeffe]

the assistant coaches seem to be getting no cirticism rightly or wrongly

we still have the (irish) rugby problem of waiting for Murray/scrumahlf to pass the ball

Can we just get one thing clear, Murray is the best SH in the NH, sure he has the odd slightly off day but even then he's very effective.
He'll start in all the Lions tests in NZ this summer, no question and if he doesn't there will be only one reason for it - Gatland.
The only thing to add to that is that Murray plays much better when Stander is at 8, which is why I now finally understand all the calls for Heaslip to be dropped in favour of Stander.
Obviously if you are a Munster fan and watching them playing together week in week out it's self evident .
The rest of us don't have that luxury we, unfortunately, are stuck watching Heaslip week in week out.

Im not faulting Murray at all, hence saying /scrumhalf, but theres always a few times where a forward waits for the 9, who may have been tackled, at the bottom of a ruck, held down, etc, rather than pass it out fo the ruck themselves

if our clearouts arent good enough that falls on Easterby and Feek (IIRC) too

[MunsterSugar]

I'm back

Fair question but is Schmidt's post RWC record vs Tier 1 teams a bit overhyped?
Like ok take out NZ win and like rest is average really

[Oldschool]

I'm back

Fair question but is Schmidt's post RWC record vs Tier 1 teams a bit overhyped?
Like ok take out NZ win and like rest is average really

Creative accounting is always creative accounting
We did beat NZ or maybe being from Munster you'd like to erase that fact from the stats.

[paddyor]

I'm back

Fair question but is Schmidt's post RWC record vs Tier 1 teams a bit overhyped?
Like ok take out NZ win and like rest is average really

We've "declined" all the way in the rankings from 8th to 4th in the past 12 months. Is that what you mean?

[MunsterSugar]

It's fair question and as I say people might not like it but stats are there, would anyone say last 2 6Nations were a success?
I suppose watching way SH teams use November tests for experiment and use competitions to win yet our last 3 competitions have been disaster.

[MunsterSugar]

I'm back

Fair question but is Schmidt's post RWC record vs Tier 1 teams a bit overhyped?
Like ok take out NZ win and like rest is average really

We've "declined" all the way in the rankings from 8th to 4th in the past 12 months. Is that what you mean?

Does ranking cover the record vs tier 1 teams. 1 win over New Zealand was great. I'm not discounting it but are we making mistake of just living off that or kicking on?
And would you agree so as you say a 4th place team in World should be expecting to at least finish 2nd once out of 2 years in 6Nations or make a Semi Final of a World Cup if not meeting a team ranked above you?
Also lets bot forget while we won against the worst SA team in a long time 1/3, England beat Aus down there in all their tests and didn't make too big a deal of it. My point being the mentality of a top 4 team is you expect to win at least 90% of games. As you can agree our record is below and Schmidts overall record is 65%. Loose vs England and guess who's record is better. Eddie O'Sullivans. And Eddie played more tier 1 teams. That's stats

[curates_egg]

I'm back

Fair question but is Schmidt's post RWC record vs Tier 1 teams a bit overhyped?
Like ok take out NZ win and like rest is average really

We've "declined" all the way in the rankings from 8th to 4th in the past 12 months. Is that what you mean?

Does ranking cover the record vs tier 1 teams. 1 win over New Zealand was great. I'm not discounting it but are we making mistake of just living off that or kicking on?
And would you agree so as you say a 4th place team in World should be expecting to at least finish 2nd once out of 2 years in 6Nations or make a Semi Final of a World Cup if not meeting a team ranked above you?
Also lets bot forget while we won against the worst SA team in a long time 1/3, England beat Aus down there in all their tests and didn't make too big a deal of it. My point being the mentality of a top 4 team is you expect to win at least 90% of games. As you can agree our record is below and Schmidts overall record is 65%. Loose vs England and guess who's record is better. Eddie O'Sullivans. And Eddie played more tier 1 teams. That's stats

You're back and still not making sense. As you note in your last line, he is our most successful coach. He's won two championships and beaten the All Blacks, and still has the highest win ratio.
You may want to wish that away for whatever reason - just like the rest of the country would like Munster to stop droning on about having beaten the ABs before I was born (and I am now definitely middle aged) - but, even if we lose on Saturday and he momentarily goes below Eddie's (another great Ireland coach) win ratio, he will still be our most successful coach.

Now a separate question is whether he is still the right coach going forward, which is a legitimate question. If you want to engage in a meaningful debate about that - and have people take you seriously - you would be better off putting your provincial dislike of Schmidt and his achievements aside and engaging in an analysis of the current situation.

The negatives of the current situation, as I see it, are: our attack has not really improved since the World Cup (based on this championship); our defence has gotten worse; there would seem to be an issue about how the squad is being managed (we have blooded dozens of players but aren't trusting them for whatever reason). I am not panicking yet but do think it is legitimate to ask questions about that.