Ireland Tour to New Zealand 2012 Discussion thread

profitius

The Irish backline didn't click at all in the last game until Sexton moved to 12 and ROG came on. They then had 2 good passers and the backline got motoring. Overall the backs were solid alright in the last game but Wallace might spark something off. He looked solid for all Ulsters HEC games too.

dtpc191991

I'm quite happy with that team the only difference is that i would have had Trimble over McFadden.

Fishooks12

dtpc191991 wrote: »

I'm quite happy with that team the only difference is that i would have had Trimble over McFadden.

tbh McFadden offered a bit more going forward last week than Trimble.

I'd have Zebo ahead of the both of them though, deserves another shot

lobber

While not entirely happy that Wallace got the call it mainly stems from despair that we don't have much other options. Wallace has performed reasonably well for Ulster the past year and is a very clever player, but I think he is a little lacking for this level.

His inclusion shows a lot about Kidneys (lack of) confidence with Earls at centre!

We are going to be more trouble on the wings for the third test with Hosea Gear unless the Irish slow down rucks and commit more AB's to compete here. What are the chances of the AB's getting caught out two weeks in a row here!

Fishooks12

Fishooks12 wrote: »

tbh McFadden offered a bit more going forward last week than Trimble.

I'd have Zebo ahead of the both of them though, deserves another shot

McFadden and Trimble offered more than Zebo going forward, backward and sideways. Both deserve "another shot" if we're aiming to use this game as a springboard to allow change for the AIs.

Zzippy

Clearlier wrote: »

I'm no great fan of where we have been heading for the past few years but I think that you're overstating the case.

• We've learned that Fitzpatrick has a pretty good chance of making it at this level and
• that Loughney is nowhere near the standard required.
  .

Clearlier wrote: »

Loughney went backwards very, very quickly at scrumtime. The difference in the tighthead side of the Irish scrum between Fitzpatrick going off and him coming on was immense and I was very relieved that we went to uncontested scrums.
QUOTE]

Loughney came on when Healy was clearly hurt and going down for treatment every couple of minutes, then had two scrums (with Healy carrying the injury) before Cronin came on and we went to uncontested scrums. And you feel qualified to judge a player as not good enough on that much evidence.... remember he came on because Fitzpatrick was only fit enough to last less than an hour(at the end of the season?!), yet you consider that Fitzpatrick is good enough to make it at this level.

jacothelad

Klunk_NZ wrote: »

I'm just saying it is highly unusual. But given the close nature of the test matches in the weekend I guess it could happen.
I would disagree with 5 -Donnacha Ryan (Ireland) and 7 Sam Cane (New Zealand) and 10 Berrick Barnes (Australia) and 12 Felipe Contepomi (Argentina) from the limited volume of rugby I saw. (I realise I have contradicted my main point by mentioning 3 winners of the 4 but I would replace them all with 3 winners to balance)

Barnes was really good.

cp wrote: »

not suggesting he should thrown on the scrap heap, far from it, I'd love to see him getting a start in November. In fact, I've been calling for his inclusion for a while..

But at the same time I'd be worried that his cameo in the first test left him with plenty to worry about regarding his prospects at this level. I'm thinking in particular about his lack of top line speed, speed of reaction for the try, and just plain pace in the jersey pulling incident...

Having said that he absolutely deserves another crack at it, just maybe not Saturday..

Yes. :rolleyes: Because everyone around him was playing so well. :rolleyes: None of them looked as if they had any problems at all. :rolleyes: McFadden in particular.
In reality the team had been butthoked to oblivion before he came on.

profitius wrote: »

The Irish backline didn't click at all in the last game until Sexton moved to 12 and ROG came on. They then had 2 good passers and the backline got motoring. Overall the backs were solid alright in the last game but Wallace might spark something off. He looked solid for all Ulsters HEC games too.

'The Irish backline didn't click at all' until Reddan came on and the forwards finally got the upper hand.

Fishooks12 wrote: »

tbh McFadden offered a bit more going forward last week than Trimble.

McFadden got more ball than Trimble. It's hard to look good going forward without the ball in your hand.

@Zzippy

@Zzippy

Fitness is more easily attained than scrummaging technique.

I completely agree with the rest of your post.

Fishooks12

Deleted User wrote: »

McFadden and Trimble offered more than Zebo going forward, backward and sideways. Both deserve "another shot" if we're aiming to use this game as a springboard to allow change for the AIs.

I just don't see the point in starting McFadden when he's not that good at International level on the wing and I can't really see him figuring in the position in the long term

Fishooks12

Fishooks12 wrote: »

I just don't see the point in starting McFadden when he's not that good at International level on the wing and I can't really see him figuring in the position in the long term

Zebo is not currently 'that good' at International level either. Trimble is, as most have alluded to preferring him to start with McFadden to cover the entire backline.

wrt long term, see my previous post. IF we're using this game to get a win to give us a buffer for the AIs which we then use as a development set of games, then it's nuts to play anything but our best possible team.

IF that's what we're attempting to do, I buy it. If not, then IRFU/DK need to start answering questions.

bilston

Deleted User wrote: »

7 minutes is barely long enough to have 2 scrums and a penalty kick, let alone cover yourself in glory.

Spot on, anyone who judges a player on the basis of 7 minutes were clearly going into the whole exercise with very strongly held pre-conceived ideas...either that or else they just have very unrealistic expectations!

lobber

Deleted User wrote: »

IF[/B] we're using this game to get a win to give us a buffer for the AIs which we then use as a development set of games, then it's nuts to play anything but our best possible team.

IF that's what we're attempting to do, I buy it. If not, then IRFU/DK need to start answering questions.

It seems like we have constantly been playing games at this time of year to give buffers to later games or maintain rankings and ensure automatic qualification for world cups etc. IRFU & management seem stuck in that rut and don't appear to look to far ahead

danthefan

On this backline clicking business, the backline did not click at all, full stop. We never really threatened to cut them open.

Hard straight running from BOD and the forwards got us some go forward.

Macy0161

danthefan wrote: »

Imo Wallace starting is certainly the right call.

It is, but again calls into question the original squad selection imo.

bilston

cp wrote: »

But at the same time I'd be worried that his cameo in the first test left him with plenty to worry about regarding his prospects at this level. I'm thinking in particular about his lack of top line speed, speed of reaction for the try, and just plain pace in the jersey pulling incident...

Zebo did the same thing in the same match and got pinged for it, I wouldn't question his top line speed, if he'd got away with it it would have been a smart move. Anyway I'm sure he'll get another go at some point.

.ak

Swiwi wrote: »

Of course, but Joubert comments seem to pop up everywhere, and it just becomes a bit boring IMHO. It's not as if he cost Ireland the RWC final.

Bizarre comment. Who's saying it cost Ireland anything? People don't bring it up because it effects them. We were neutrals in that match, and so, as unbiased observers have the best possible view on it - Joubert handed NZ that game.

I agree France didn't deserve to win it on merit, but it's a bad day for any sport when the ref decides to help one team in order to balance things out. On that merit, NZ didn't deserve to win that particular game, and that particular game happened to be a final. It was a disgrace, and the reason it's brought up over and over is because it was a RWC final, and there won't be another one for almost 3 years.

It'll be brought up on forums, in newspapers, and on TV around the world until probably the next generation of Rugby players take to the field, just like the 'food poisoning' one pops up all the time.

Just for the record Swiwi I really like your posts on this forum and I'm glad we have a Kiwi fan who's so articulate and has a fairly unbiased opinion on all things rugby, but I feel sometimes people get far too defensive over the Joubert thing. If it was Ireland in the WC final and that happened to us - Well, I'd be happy we won, but I'd have no problem admitting the ref gifted us the game and wouldn't be concerned when people brought it up.

bilston

danthefan wrote: »

On this backline clicking business, the backline did not click at all, full stop. We never really threatened to cut them open.

Hard straight running from BOD and the forwards got us some go forward.

Has the backline clicked at all since the days of Stringer, ROG, Hickie, D'Arce, BOD, Shaggy and Girv/Murphy? There have been some good moments but 2005/2006/early 2007 seems to have been the peak of Irish back play in recent years.

Kayless

Great team selection NZ look very beatable this week and I would argue with Wallace at 12 this is actually a better team than last week although, Heaslip was great.

Zzippy

Deleted User wrote: »

@Zzippy

Fitness is more easily attained than scrummaging technique.

I completely agree with the rest of your post.

Fair enough, but I'd be worried about the professionalism and attitude of a player, especially one trying to break into the national squad, who is clearly too unfit to last a full game. If he lays off the pies and hits the treadmill I'll be happy to take that back next season and have him as a decent back up for Mike Ross.

Swiwi

.ak wrote: »

Bizarre comment. Who's saying it cost Ireland anything? People don't bring it up because it effects them. We were neutrals in that match, and so, as unbiased observers have the best possible view on it - Joubert handed NZ that game.

I agree France didn't deserve to win it on merit, but it's a bad day for any sport when the ref decides to help one team in order to balance things out. On that merit, NZ didn't deserve to win that particular game, and that particular game happened to be a final. It was a disgrace, and the reason it's brought up over and over is because it was a RWC final, and there won't be another one for almost 3 years.

It'll be brought up on forums, in newspapers, and on TV around the world until probably the next generation of Rugby players take to the field, just like the 'food poisoning' one pops up all the time.

Just for the record Swiwi I really like your posts on this forum and I'm glad we have a Kiwi fan who's so articulate and has a fairly unbiased opinion on all things rugby, but I feel sometimes people get far too defensive over the Joubert thing. If it was Ireland in the WC final and that happened to us - Well, I'd be happy we won, but I'd have no problem admitting the ref gifted us the game and wouldn't be concerned when people brought it up.

I take your comments on board, although I fully disagree that he decided to help to balance things out. It may just have been that the pressure of the final being in NZ etc subconciously affected his performance, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was deliberate. But you might not have meant this.

In terms of posting, I try and keep an open mind and post how I see things not how I wish they were. I cringe sometimes when I see what my compatriots post on rugby forums. In general, NZ always has a handful of world-class players, but by no means is our 1st-five the equivalent of a world 1st-15. At present for me our world class players are Carter, Read & Dagg, probably the under-rated CSmith (even in NZ he remains under-rated, never sure why, people are always wanting a Nonu/SBW combo), and McCaw if he can recapture some form.

In term of the Irish team, I'm a big fan of Ferris, SOB (who seems to be back to his best after a quiet 6N), Cian Healy, Tommy Bowe, BOD (although not quite as good as previous) and Sexton, Kearney & Best have their moments, but I think Carter/Dagg/Du Plessis are better.

For the 4N, I think the smart money is on SA, and Argentina to get a win or two at home, but NZ v SA should make for compulsory viewing, even for neutrals.

Zzippy

Zzippy wrote: »

Fair enough, but I'd be worried about the professionalism and attitude of a player, especially one trying to break into the national squad, who is clearly too unfit to last a full game. If he lays off the pies and hits the treadmill I'll be happy to take that back next season and have him as a decent back up for Mike Ross.

who was also patently not fit enough for his first season at Leinster after returning from a successful AP stint. And similarly so can be said of Hagan after moving across to Leinster too.

There are strange parallels afoot!

molloyjh

lobber wrote: »

His inclusion shows a lot about Kidneys (lack of) confidence with Earls at centre!

I don't think so tbh. This is a real chance to beat New Zealand. Putting Earls into 12 or 13 means trying a pretty untested combination of two 13s together. While it may have potential in the longer term it is not likely to win us this game. And like emmet I've bought into the "the next game is all important" logic for this weekend. From a seeding point of view and with possible development opportunities coming from that it could be a big win for us.

From Deccies point of view not only will it help our seeding and ease the pressure in the AIs but it will also be another notch on his belt. Grand Slam, beating Australia in the RWC and beating NZ in NZ would be a serious looking record if looked at in isolation of everything else.

danthefan wrote: »

On this backline clicking business, the backline did not click at all, full stop. We never really threatened to cut them open.

Hard straight running from BOD and the forwards got us some go forward.

I thought Sexton made a few good breaks in the final quarter too. One that looked like a prime try scoring opportunity had someone been on his outside to take the off-load. POM picked a couple of good lines after coming on too that saw us get front foot ball. BODs hard running was very effective too all right, but I thought there was def more to us than that.

Clearlier

jacothelad wrote: »

'The Irish backline didn't click at all' until Reddan came on and the forwards finally got the upper hand.

Not true about Reddan, ROG came on early in the second half, Reddan a lot later and ROG had the backline moving with Murray at 9. I think it was the slicker passing from having two outhalves that made the real difference although I also think that ROG has a slightly nippier pass than Sexton and he can run a little straighter. It may also be fair to say that the Irish pack were beginning to gain the upper hand.

Zzippy wrote: »

Clearlier wrote: »

Loughney went backwards very, very quickly at scrumtime. The difference in the tighthead side of the Irish scrum between Fitzpatrick going off and him coming on was immense and I was very relieved that we went to uncontested scrums.

Loughney came on when Healy was clearly hurt and going down for treatment every couple of minutes, then had two scrums (with Healy carrying the injury) before Cronin came on and we went to uncontested scrums. And you feel qualified to judge a player as not good enough on that much evidence.... remember he came on because Fitzpatrick was only fit enough to last less than an hour(at the end of the season?!), yet you consider that Fitzpatrick is good enough to make it at this level.

Fitzpatrick scrummaged solidly for 55 minutes. Fitness is a realtively easy fix. Technique isn't. Your comment did make me wonder if I was being a bit harsh though so I looked at the period between Loughney coming on and Healy going off. There were in fact 7 scrums:

55 mins - Easily nudged to set up a try (which wouldn't have been so easy if Heaslip had disengaged)
60 mins - looks to me like he has been twisted inwards.
62mins - crumples up - totally demolished.
64:15 - best one. NZ get the hit but he holds his opposite number square and more or less shares the battle.
65:15 - It looks like he's turned inside again but the camera is too far away to be sure
66:30 - twisted inside. He's demolished again.
68:20 - holds squareish, Healy does something on the other side and gets the penalty

New Zealand are not that interested in forcing home an advantage in the scrum. If this had been England it would have been Twickenham Mk II.

Fishooks12 wrote: »

It was his first cap. Saying he's not up to the standard on the back of that is jumping the gun

It could be although I don't think so. It would certainly be jumping the gun to say that he'll never be good enough for this level but I was careful to say that I think he could be in the future.

Fishooks12 wrote: »

You don't need a quote, you can see the difference. In the first test we employed a bad drift and stood off the AB's. In the second test we had a much quicker line speed and made a conscious effort to put a man between the tackled player to stop the offloads.

The difference in the defensive system between the first and the second test was the decision making in the 13 channel. In the first test Earls consistently hung back. In the second BOD consistently intervened. The difference may have looked like we moved from a drift to a more aggressive defence but the underlying system was the same. The only difference was the actors.

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Exactly, it's his speed rather than the accuracy of his passing that's the problem. He actually has a very good pass

In my book passing needs to be accurate and fast. It's not much good if a pass has just one of those attributes.

Fishooks12 wrote: »

He made our only line break in the first test by coming off his wing and taking a brilliant line. I agree that he's not the finished article but I think he should have gotten another shot during the tour as McFadden or Trimble haven't been great

He did take a nice line although I seem to remember Earls taking an offload from BOD and being completely in the clear for another line break. He reminded me a bit of Bowe in his first test when he laboured to score his first try in the corner. Eddie told him what he needed to do, he went away and did it and became a much better player for it (not that Eddie actually paid attention). I would have had him ahead of McFadden too although I'm less certain about Trimble. Bowe, Fitzgerald, Earls and Gilroy are all ahead of him in my book. I suspect we pretty much agree on this one actually - just talking about it from different points of view.

totallegend

Fishooks12 wrote: »

tbh McFadden offered a bit more going forward last week than Trimble.

I'd have Zebo ahead of the both of them though, deserves another shot

Zebo might worth another shot, but he does not deserve one.

Zebo, after a middling season, got 80 minutes in the first test; he's got a lot more exposure than Sherry, Cronin, Loughney, Wilkinson, McCarthy, Henry, Marshall, Cave and Duffy...

.ak

Anyone else hoping Wallace has a stellar game and quiets some of his critics (me included)? He's been awesome for Ulster, and now that I think about it Ulster's template is as close to Ireland's as you'll get from a province currently. Something tells me he might have a pass or two that'll do us a lot of favours.

Fishooks12

totallegend wrote: »

Zebo might worth another shot, but he does not deserve one.

Zebo, after a middling season, got 80 minutes in the first test; he's got a lot more exposure than Sherry, Cronin, Loughney, Wilkinson, McCarthy, Henry, Marshall, Cave and Duffy...

He'd a very good season

mikedragon32

.ak wrote: »

Anyone else hoping Wallace has a stellar game and quiets some of his critics (me included)? He's been awesome for Ulster, and now that I think about it Ulster's template is as close to Ireland's as you'll get from a province currently. Something tells me he might have a pass or two that'll do us a lot of favours.

I would love to see him have a stormer in green. I think it's safe to say we'd all love to see all of them do well on Saturday and silence critics of them individually and as a team.

.ak

Yep, I defo want to see them all do well. The team is the best it can get (bar Reddan not starting) considering the injuries. It also is a very balanced team so I wouldn't be surprised to see a repeat of last week. It will boil down to how the management approach the game and hopefully have a couple of aces up their sleeve rather than just going out there and playing their hearts out.

I think NZ will be on a different level tho.

armchaircoach

The team is good,

I'm happy with Wallace moving in, he should have been there from the start with the season he's had.

The main change I'd make would be Trimble to start, with McFadden on the bench to cover.

@Fishooks

I think your blowing Zebo's contribution to the forst test out of proportion. It was his first test and thats always going to be hard to judge a player on, but several thoughts come to mind.

He was suspiciously absent on both occasions when the ball was held up in goal on his wing, and had to be saved by other players. He also ran across the pitch and missed his man for the third try (something that got McFadden pages of abuse in the world cup warmups)

Yes he made a linebreak, but you seem to leave out that McFAdden scored, and almost got a second.

He's young and its his first cap so we shouldn't crusify him for mistakes, and should see the good things he does as hopefull for the future, but lets not also forget that McFadden is also in the infancy of his international career and should also then be afforded the same consideration.

totallegend

Fishooks12 wrote: »

totallegend wrote: »

Zebo might worth another shot, but he does not deserve one.

Zebo, after a middling season, got 80 minutes in the first test; he's got a lot more exposure than Sherry, Cronin, Loughney, Wilkinson, McCarthy, Henry, Marshall, Cave and Duffy...

He'd a very good season

That's not the point. Whatever way you slice it, Zebo has not been short of international recognition in the few months he's been in the Munster team. The Connacht and Ulster lads named above would kill for the chances he's had.