Are Ireland really the second best rugby team in the world?; The ROAR

If we were living in an alternative world, where Heyneke Meyer was coaching Ireland and Joe Schmidt was coaching South Africa, would Ireland still be ranked second in the world?

As an Irishman I still look at the rugby world rankings with a certain amount of bewilderment. Do we really have better players than South Africa and Australia?

It is questionable. What we do have is quality in the key positions.

We have tactical masterminds at half back through Conor Murray and Jonathan Sexton, which the Springboks and the Aussies arguably lack, and ferocity in the pack with Paul O’Connell, ‘The Tullow Tank’ Sean O’Brien and Cian Healy.

The main strength of Ireland is their powerful rucking at the breakdown. Against England at the Aviva Stadium earlier this year, Ireland won an astonishing 117 out of 118 rucks. Contrast this with England who lost six out of their 84 rucks.

Ireland have a number of potent poachers all over the field. O’Brien, Peter O’Mahony, Rory Best and Healy are all relentless at the breakdown.

Ireland have a genuine chance of getting to at least the World Cup semi-finals. We should have too much nous for the French in the group stage, in what will be a critical game for both teams.

France versus Ireland should be David versus Goliath, shouldn’t it? After all France has an incredible 360,847 registered rugby players. This is three times more rugby players than in Ireland.

Instead the Rugby World Cup match is being branded by much of the media as the mercurial French versus the mundane Irish. This is the beauty of sport and rugby in particular. No team has a divine right to beat any other nation regardless of the population.

It also features the individual battle I’m looking forward to most in the Rugby World Cup. The sight of Sean O’Brien and Louis Picamoles running at each other is sure to make any spectator quench.

So how do Ireland compensate for inferior numbers? Much like New Zealand, with an abundance of intelligence and heart.

“A smart man makes a mistake, learns from it, and never makes that mistake again. But a wise man finds a smart man and learns from him how to avoid the mistake altogether”.

This is Roy H. William’s definition of intelligence and it certainly rings true in the case of Ireland and Joe Schmidt. With the former part bearing relevance to Ireland and the latter part Schmidt.

The IRFU convinced the former Leinster coach to take charge of the national team in 2013. At the time Ireland were ranked ninth in the rugby world rankings. Since then Ireland have rocketed up to world number two.

Ireland have won 13 of their last 14 games under him, and in general when they do lose it is because of a lack of quality at centres (ironically the place we used to be strongest at). A clear example of this was the 32 phases Ireland went through against Wales.

The Irish centres were about as threatening as Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Contrast this with the wide variety of quality centres South Africa and Australia have at their disposal.

Ireland are defending Six Nations champions and have beaten everybody in the past two years apart from New Zealand. For this reason alone they are full value for their ranking.

"If we were living in an alternative world, where Heyneke Meyer was coaching Ireland and Joe [removed] was coaching South Africa, would Ireland still be ranked second in the world?

As an Irishman I still look at the rugby world rankings with a certain amount of bewilderment. Do we really have better players than South Africa and Australia?"
The coach does make a difference & the fact are Ireland is 2nd in the world rankings, I also find it hard to believe will check out their next game.

Ireland are good and certainly the best in the N hem at the moment.
Although to be 2nd in the world- they need to beat Southern Hemisphere teams in the Southern hemisphere. 

 SB
What is clear is that they are better than SA - we lost 5 games out of 8 played in the EOYT and subsequent tests - one comprehensive loss being against Ireland.  
Sure - they are the best team in the NH - but may go down in the ratings if they lose against Australia and New Zealand to no 3 - but that is how far it goes.  
I am more worried about our downward slide than I am about Ireland's rise in the ratings.  The way we are going is a blot on Meyer's coaching and selection practices.  What people do not realize is that we lost our forward competitiveness since Matfield returned to test rugby.            

 Can't think of an older team at the RWC. More evidence, experience counts.

 
Dream on, Moffie!!!

It's talent that wins matches. Not caps, not experienced hasbeens ... but on form talent.

Now go have a lie down before you strain yourself.

Nothing makes talent disappear like pressure. The only thing that can combat pressure is experience.

Age shall not weary them  .......

Ireland are anything but an old side....apart from O Connel. 
As for them being number 2....no chance in hell.
That will be short lived 

 Dave
This story about experience is as per normal not the whole story.  Experience without performance is a ridiculous situation.  Anybody expect from experience players to perform - but on this site that is no requirement, the only thing that counts with some members is reputation and experience - regardless of whether players perform or not.
I agree with you Ireland is not going to last.   I looked at their age distribution as was the case in the Scottish test and found that -
*  in their starting line-up they had 4 players older than 31 years of age; and*  on the bench they had 4 players in the same category (including O'Connel.
None of their players are 38 years of age like the beloved favourite of some - Matfield - while the favourites of some members will ensure that at least 8 of our starting line-up will be over 31 years of age.  Talking about the oldest team is consequently the standard claptrap that is the mode with some members of this site.   

 I have no issue with experience if the players are the best in their respective positions like Bismark and Strauss are.
The issue I have with the Bok side under useless Meyer is that the likes of Kirchner, Mvovo, Fourie, Jean, Morne, du Preez, Pienaar, Heinke, Jannie, Steenkamp, Matfield, Louw and Alberts are not even the second best players in their respective positions and therein lies the issue and the very reason we are utterly useless under clueless Meyer.
It's a different story in the cricket where experienced players like Amla, AB, JP, Tahir, Steyn, Morkel and Philander are the best.

Dave 
Sure - some of the players you mentioned were good in their hay-day - nowadays they are so far down the d rain it is a mystery, which only Meyer van explain why they are still in the mix.
I have no problem with age or experience of players - but then the experience must be accompanied by top class performance.  Like you said Bismarck and Strauss still show some positives - I would add Mvovo to tat list - the others  are all inadequate performers who should never have been in the present squad in the first instance..     

 I still rate the Boks and Aussies ahead of Ireland ,the Irish still need to win a series in NZ,Oz and SA or even a game vs the ABs to truly claim 2nd place .I like your "food in their HAY- DAY" comment Mike ,did they avoid all the bulls and wee cows ?

 @wardad,

"the Irish still need to win a series in NZ,Oz and SA or even a game vs the ABs to truly claim 2nd place ."

too true,..... their last 2 June Tours have been to Argentina in 2014 where the matches were btwin second string teams and to USA-Canada in 2013,..... so all their matches against NZ, Oz and SA have been at home in the last 3 years,..... this is why they have won 13 of the last 14.
In 2012 they travelled to NZ and though they were close in the second match they were thumped 60-0 in the third for a 3-0 in the series.

IMO now there's not a clear 2nd,.... SA, Oz, Ireland and probably England are disputing it

Actually I posted on the Irish age issue before. Granted there are some changes which might bring the age down a bit...but Ireland is an old team. Not unusually though, the ABs were north of 28 when they won the RwC....and even our young team in 2007 was north of 27.
Experienced teams win WCs



mozart
 
Status: Hall Of Fame 
Posts: 12993Ireland will be pushing 30 on average by the RWC
February 18, 2015, 05:28:34

They are 28.9 years now and will be 29.5 by the RWC....on average. And they are the form NH team. 

Why are Ireland winning, beating Oz, the Boks and France in recent months? These are tough guys....competitors. They are smart and battle hardened. There are no passengers.

And here we are wringing our hands about a few players in their thirties. Ireland has 5 of them. 

Sure every player over thirty has to assessed for continuing fitness and stamina....but we would be far worse without our experienced players. Time to learn from Ireland.

•  0 people like this post

 Cant really argue with experience winning RWCs  Moz,I dont see any Kiwis talking down the likes of Kevvy and our senior players the way Bok fans do about Matfield  and the senior Bok players even Habana is copping it ..BP  too true about the home game thing ,win all your home games and 90% of your away games then your talking .

Dr Mozzzz when ou warped DUD supports you re the 38 year old 105 kg stringbean and very pap matfiled you had better get worried. 
Snapster goes a little too far. Louw is still a good player as is Jean.
By the way the average age of the top 100 tennis players is on the rise. I think they said it was up to 27.
Look, to be generous, the the wee abs they may be the second best side but if you really factor in bent refs they would possibly only make 3 or 4 even?

Look HasBeen WD is spot on here. Jake always talked about the number of leaders in his team. Those leaders were more likely to be early thirties than low twenties. You can have a few youngsters around like Pollard and Kriel...who are to the manor born. The youngsters who are functional are the guys who want to compete in their very first game...damn few of those around.

 At the last world cup the smart ars.e wallabies were calling the ABS Dads Army ,we all know how that worked out dont we ?And England in 2003 had an older team as well same for the boks in 2007 .Young blokes might have the skill but they dont have the Mana as a general rule and its that experience that gives a unit [ even in a shooting war !]  the cohesion under pressure .As Mozart says "to the manor born " means you might automatically get picked but it sure doesnt buy you the hunger and determination to succeed.

The Irish side is no longer an old one......new frontrows, loosies, halfbacks, centres and outside backs.
Our older players are mostly past it and no longer close to being the best in their respective positions.
With the AB's its a bit different.....I don't see impressive young props coming through so hence Woodcock, Franks x 2 and Crockett still featuring. 
Same can be said of their loosies......few youngsters are putting their hands up. 
Carter is still a master at 10......Morne never was.
I see no class young centres coming through other than Fikatoa.....hence Nonu, Smith and SBW still featuring. Their next best youngster is Crotty who is pretty average.
Outside backs, hooker, scrumhalf and lock are dominated by youngsters....as are the back up 10's