Irish Squad/Ireland XV for Six Nations?

Brewster

Realistically there are only two calls to make in pack, Best v Flannery; Heaslip v Leamy. I think Best is the better hooker and I think he will start. Heaslip/Leamy is a closer call, it depends on Kidney's game plan to a degree. Thought Heaslip did well carrying ball, and I think he could link better with three quarters and Id give him the nod. I think most people would agree that 2 and 8 are only positions of debate.

As for the backs, who knows? Ive never gone into a 6 Nations with such uncertainty as to team selection in many a year. Kearney will play as will O Driscoll. I believe these are the only two certainties. I cant name rest of team with any great certainty. It could be anyone. Does anyone feel the same?

My backline would be 11. Trimble 12. Wallace 13 O Driscoll 14 Bowe 15 Kearney

Murphy and Fitz on bench. Harsh on Earls whose time will come. Horgan is yesterdays man. People question Bowe's pace, does anyone think Horgan is quicker than him??

Wallace is the only eligable player in the country, who has consistently played as a 12 to a high standard this season. FACT

corny

I seriously doubt if 2 games would be enough ammunition to sack him but you're probably right about him feeling the pressure and his subsequent likely action.

anonymous_joe

Brewster wrote: »

Realistically there are only two calls to make in pack, Best v Flannery; Heaslip v Leamy. I think Best is the better hooker and I think he will start. Heaslip/Leamy is a closer call, it depends on Kidney's game plan to a degree. Thought Heaslip did well carrying ball, and I think he could link better with three quarters and Id give him the nod. I think most people would agree that 2 and 8 are only positions of debate.

As for the backs, who knows? Ive never gone into a 6 Nations with such uncertainty as to team selection in many a year. Kearney will play as will O Driscoll. I believe these are the only two certainties. I cant name rest of team with any great certainty. It could be anyone. Does anyone feel the same?

My backline would be 11. Trimble 12. Wallace 13 O Driscoll 14 Bowe 15 Kearney

Bench Murphy and Fit zon bench. Harsh on Earls whose time will come. Horgan is yesterdays man. People question Bowe's pass, does anyone think Horgan is quicker than him??

Wallace is the only eligable player in the country, who has consistently played as a 12 to a high standard this season. FACT

I hope to God David Wallace comes nowhere near the number 7 jersey ever again. Ever. He is not a real 7. He is currently the form 8 in this country, with young Heaslip coming back into form, and possibly going to give him a run for his money.

In the autumn internationals, Heaslip never got near the ball, because it all ended up in Wallace's hands. There's no point having 2 great ball carriers if you only use one anyway.

I want to see a backrow of 6. Ferris 7. Jennings/any other form 7 8. David Wallace/Heaslip.

chupacabra

Any news on earls' injury?

Brewster

anonymous_joe wrote: »

I hope to God David Wallace comes nowhere near the number 7 jersey ever again. Ever. He is not a real 7. He is currently the form 8 in this country, with young Heaslip coming back into form, and possibly going to give him a run for his money.

In the autumn internationals, Heaslip never got near the ball, because it all ended up in Wallace's hands. There's no point having 2 great ball carriers if you only use one anyway.

I want to see a backrow of 6. Ferris 7. Jennings/any other form 7 8. David Wallace/Heaslip.

That just aint going to happen. Wallace is a great number 8 and is the form back row in country, (along with Ferris) but he will play 7. Jennings just hasnt done enough to get in Ireland team, Leamy/Heaslip cant play 7. So really Ireland are forced to play Wallace at 7 because of the personnel available

anonymous_joe

Brewster wrote: »

That just aint going to happen. Wallace is a great number 8 and is the form back row in country, (along with Ferris) but he will play 7. Jennings just hasnt done enough to get in Ireland team, Leamy/Heaslip cant play 7. So really Ireland are forced to play Wallace at 7 because of the personnel available

Wallace is a shít openside flanker though...

Podge_irl

outwest wrote: »

the prob with the team he will pick by the next world cup they will be old,and after this six nation there only two years to develop the young players into multi cap palyers

Who ****ing cares?

I swear to God, I almost start crying every time people say we should sacrifice a 6N in order to experiment for the WC. We haven't won a 6N in over twenty years! The RWC is nothing but a money making exercise for the IRB (and I don't have a problem with that), but to sacrifice a competition with as much history and importance as the 6N in order to possibly slightly increase our chances of doing better in a competition we have a slim chance of ever winning and can so easily go wrong....well I just don't understand it. I'll start thinking about the RWC 11 sometime around 2011. For now I would like to see Ireland play well and beat the bejaysus out of the other 5 nations and actually win a 6N for once.

I don't think kidney can afford to experiment.He won't get any leeway imo.

he has to win.

This is something I never understood EOS. He always claimed he couldn't experiment because he had to win, but replacing a player who is playing poorly with someone playing better just doesn't strike me as that much of a risk. The French are ruthless about it, yet they are also exceptionally successful. Better to maybe do well with some experimenting then know you'll probably do poorly with the same old same old. As mentioned, Wallace at 12 and Healy at 1 would not weaken the team much, and there is a decent chance it could strengthen it (just as an example).

outwest

anonymous_joe wrote: »

I hope to God David Wallace comes nowhere near the number 7 jersey ever again. Ever. He is not a real 7. He is currently the form 8 in this country, with young Heaslip coming back into form, and possibly going to give him a run for his money.

In the autumn internationals, Heaslip never got near the ball, because it all ended up in Wallace's hands. There's no point having 2 great ball carriers if you only use one anyway.

I want to see a backrow of 6. Ferris 7. Jennings/any other form 7 8. David Wallace/Heaslip.

ur comment is outrages wallace is irelands form player, and if your saying that he shud be at 8 then heaslip will drop to the bench, keep wallace at 7 jennings is muckat the moment, if o brien had started those last two games instead of jennings then who should of been had a ban, the we all could see if he could handle the two games, and sob might of been in with a shot

as it stands its going to be 6 ferris 7 wallace 8 heaslip jennings wont make the bench cos he is the worst 7 performing in all 4 provnces at the moment in time,

Crash

Outwest, he has a very valid point. I HATE having Wallace at 7. I don't think he should be anywhere near the 7 shirt, I think it leads to a very very VERY unbalanced backrow, and this habit we have of picking the player overall, not their actual skillset, bugs the hell out of me. He's not a 7, he doesn't play like a 7, he's simply there because he's too good NOT to put on the team.

Himself and Heaslip should be competing at 8 at this point, not leaving ourselves with a backrow that just isnt quite right because of it.

outwest

ya but with wallace and heaslip competing for 8 as well as leamy, we have n odecent 7 in the squad of 39 so wallace is going to be 7, if pollock and sob were picked then i think wallace wud be fantastic at 8 for ireland

twinytwo

anonymous_joe wrote: »

I hope to God David Wallace comes nowhere near the number 7 jersey ever again. Ever. He is not a real 7. He is currently the form 8 in this country, with young Heaslip coming back into form, and possibly going to give him a run for his money.

In the autumn internationals, Heaslip never got near the ball, because it all ended up in Wallace's hands. There's no point having 2 great ball carriers if you only use one anyway.

I want to see a backrow of 6. Ferris 7. Jennings/any other form 7 8. David Wallace/Heaslip.

In fairness to the man he has done great service to both munster and ireland over the years. To say his is a **** 7 is unfair i would an average international 7. He is far a superior 8. Better than both leamy and heaslip. He is also the best 7 we have so what can ya do...


good back line would be
11 Murphy
12 BOD
13 Earls
14 Bowe
15 Kearney

with possibley an interchange between Kearney and murphy
,Earls and BOD

outwest

Podge_irl wrote: »

Who ****ing cares?

I swear to God, I almost start crying every time people say we should sacrifice a 6N in order to experiment for the WC. We haven't won a 6N in over twenty years! The RWC is nothing but a money making exercise for the IRB (and I don't have a problem with that), but to sacrifice a competition with as much history and importance as the 6N in order to possibly slightly increase our chances of doing better in a competition we have a slim chance of ever winning and can so easily go wrong....well I just don't understand it. I'll start thinking about the RWC 11 sometime around 2011. For now I would like to see Ireland play well and beat the bejaysus out of the other 5 nations and actually win a 6N for once.

if this crop of players have failed to win a six nations, then some of the team should be sent to the clu factory, see if the younger one can win it,
ireland havent played well as a team sence before the world cup wat makes you think these palyers will play better this time round,

Chucky the tree

Wallace was one of Irelands best players in the AI at 7, and while 7 isnt his best position he's still miles ahead of any other 7 available. Leamy and Heaslip are playing far to well to be dropped for someone like Jennings.

My starting XV for France would be
1. Horan
2. Flannery/Best
3. Hayes
4. DOC
5. POC
6. Ferris
7. Wallace
8. Leamy/Heaslip
9. TOL
10. ROG
11. Fitz
12. Wallace
13. BOD
14. Bowe
15. Kearney

Tehe hooker and number 8 spots are wide open. I wouldnt complain about either opition and the selection will come down to who does best in training.

anonymous_joe

outwest wrote: »

ur comment is outrages wallace is irelands form player, and if your saying that he shud be at 8 then heaslip will drop to the bench, keep wallace at 7 jennings is muckat the moment, if o brien had started those last two games instead of jennings then who should of been had a ban, the we all could see if he could handle the two games, and sob might of been in with a shot

as it stands its going to be 6 ferris 7 wallace 8 heaslip jennings wont make the bench cos he is the worst 7 performing in all 4 provnces at the moment in time,

Balance is more important than names.

Going Waterforward wrote: »

Outwest, he has a very valid point. I HATE having Wallace at 7. I don't think he should be anywhere near the 7 shirt, I think it leads to a very very VERY unbalanced backrow, and this habit we have of picking the player overall, not their actual skillset, bugs the hell out of me. He's not a 7, he doesn't play like a 7, he's simply there because he's too good NOT to put on the team.

Himself and Heaslip should be competing at 8 at this point, not leaving ourselves with a backrow that just isnt quite right because of it.

Wallace is a great player - but a modern team needs a forager in the 7 jersey, and that;s not David Wallace. He unbalances the backline in the 7 jersey - so we need a proper forager.

twinytwo wrote: »

In fairness to the man he has done great service to both munster and ireland over the years. To say his is a **** 7 is unfair i would an average international 7. He is far a superior 8. Better than both leamy and heaslip. He is also the best 7 we have so what can ya do...

Ah I know it's unfair, but he's not a 7. He's our best 8 a bit better than Heaslip, who will replace him in the next season or two.

outwest

ballance is more importent than names, good point put i think both wallace as to be at 7 cos there is no one better, or even capable of playing well there instead of him

Stev_o

outwest wrote: »

ballance is more importent than names, good point put i think both wallace as to be at 7 cos there is no one better, or even capable of playing well there instead of him

Why we arent Argentina or South Africa we cant play a backrow thats just 3 huge lumps and expect to get quick ball. Why did we get dumped on of the RWC? Because we couldnt get quick ball. Why couldnt we get quick ball? Cause our pack came up against 3 bigger lumps that were better suited to smacking into walls then we were.

Wallace has to go to 8 he's playing his best rugby there and it will bring him more into the game. Jennings played a good fetcher role against Edinburgh in fairness and i hope for the love of god he starts playing like that again to resemble his Leicester days.

outwest

u cant throw jennings in against france and hope he goes back to the forum he had with tigers, , u myt as well say johney u were emense for ireland befroe the injury, ur start at 7, good luck,

i agree wallace is our best number 8, on form u pick player, wallace did a great job at 7 in november, let him stay until a actual seven stars playing well

Amazotheamazing

Going Waterforward wrote: »

Outwest, he has a very valid point. I HATE having Wallace at 7. I don't think he should be anywhere near the 7 shirt, I think it leads to a very very VERY unbalanced backrow, and this habit we have of picking the player overall, not their actual skillset, bugs the hell out of me. He's not a 7, he doesn't play like a 7, he's simply there because he's too good NOT to put on the team.

Himself and Heaslip should be competing at 8 at this point, not leaving ourselves with a backrow that just isnt quite right because of it.

Rubbish, it's up to every player to turn over ball now. Wallace still usually leads the turnover and tackle count though. This "a 7 must do this" theory is a hangover from u-12's rugby. The pace of the game has removed the strict roles that used to differentiate between the different backrow positions.

I swear it's like George Hook said Wallace wasn't a 7 years ago and all the impressionable people just keep on repeating the myth.

If Wallace wasn't good at 7, Munster have enough money to go out and buy in a top level one, and I daresay, if he was as poor at 7 as some on here like to pretend, Munster would never win a match.

Stev_o

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Rubbish, it's up to every player to turn over ball now. Wallace still usually leads the turnover and tackle count though. This "a 7 must do this" theory is a hangover from u-12's rugby. The pace of the game has removed the strict roles that used to differentiate between the different backrow positions.

I swear it's like George Hook said Wallace wasn't a 7 years ago and all the impressionable people just keep on repeating the myth.

If Wallace wasn't good at 7, Munster have enough money to go out and buy in a top level one, and I daresay, if he was as poor at 7 as some on here like to pretend, Munster would never win a match.

Bar Italy every Home Nation has a natural 7. Why do we presume we dont need one?

Moncti48

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Rubbish, it's up to every player to turn over ball now. Wallace still usually leads the turnover and tackle count though. This "a 7 must do this" theory is a hangover from u-12's rugby. The pace of the game has removed the strict roles that used to differentiate between the different backrow positions.

I swear it's like George Hook said Wallace wasn't a 7 years ago and all the impressionable people just keep on repeating the myth.

If Wallace wasn't good at 7, Munster have enough money to go out and buy in a top level one, and I daresay, if he was as poor at 7 as some on here like to pretend, Munster would never win a match.

I agree. Wallace himself prefers playing at 7. he has always said he prefered 7 as this is where he learned his trade for the last 10+ years. He said he was glad to have Leamy back at 8 doing the hard graft and then he can concentrate on his game

If he was the greatest 8 ever as people are making him out to be he would have replaced foley at 8 for munster, he didnt Leamy did. Wallace is a better option at 7 at the minute than putting Jennings in and leaving out either Leamy or Heaslip

bleg

i'm just curious as to why people think he's not an "out and out 7" what qualities are you looking for exactly?

Serenity Now!

Stev_o wrote: »

Bar Italy every Home Nation has a natural 7. Why do we presume we dont need one?

Sorry to be pedantic but...
I'd say Mauro Bergamasco would be a world class natural openside as he has proven (as well as his dirty side) so Italy do in fact have one.

England don't. They have struggled big-style to find a replacement to Neil Back. Moody played much better at blind side than open. Rees has still to prove himself. A position that has been a troublesome spot for the RFU.

Scotland play Ally Hogg these days in that position who is more a natural 8 and ball carrier. Not bad openside though when he plays there. Barclay still very raw.

France have an ace depth of breakaways. Always have done. Wales has Martyn Williams who we all know is a class act.

Stev_o

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Sorry to be pedantic but...
I'd say Mauro Bergamasco would be a world class natural openside as he has proven (as well as his dirty side) so Italy do in fact have one.

England don't. They have struggled big-style to find a replacement to Neil Back. Moody played much better at blind side than open. Rees has still to prove himself. A position that has been a troublesome spot for the RFU.

Scotland play Ally Hogg these days in that position who is more a natural 8 and ball carrier. Not bad openside though when he plays there. Barclay still very raw.

France have an ace depth of breakaways. Always have done. Wales has Martyn Williams who we all know is a class act.

Id consider him more a natural footballer then a ground hog but thats always going to be a hard one to judge.

England have Stefon Armitage who is a out and out 7.

Barkley for Scotland is a huge prospect and i think he is a very good 7. Wouldnt be surprised if he's in the Scotland XV

Sparky14

bleg wrote: »

i'm just curious as to why people think he's not an "out and out 7" what qualities are you looking for exactly?

First of all I think Wallace is the best option we have at 7 unfortunately, I would have always picked Gleeson when he was playing, tho J O'Connor had 2 great yrs.

What I want from a 7 is speed around the pitch, based just as much on anticipation and fitness as actual pace. This speed should provide continuity in attack and the highest tackle/turnover count in defence. It doesn't really matter hugely to me whether continuity comes from ball in hand support like M Williams/K Gleeson or from groundhog work ala N Back/R McCaw.

I definitely would not agree, with Amazotheamazing that specialist 7s are no longer needed. Certain teams are less reliant on 7s such as SA and Arg but these are usually hugely powerful dominant packs. I'd always want a 7 to focus on continuity, with no specialist the responsibility for this is spread to thin. I know I'll get slated but, I'd see it the same way as going into a match without a specialist kicker from hand just because the SH and 12 can also kick reasonably well.

PS Sorry forgot to add the reason I don't think Wally is an out an out 7 is that he is also our best ball carrier and as a result ends up playing like more of a hybrid 6/7/8 in fact hes played all 3 positions. He also doesn't hav the natural instincts/anticipation of an out and out 7.

anonymous_joe

Sure I still rate Richie McCaw as the most influential player in the world - and that's because of the work he does winning ball at openside.

I want to see Wallace in the 8 jersey because I see that as the best place to use his talents.