Ireland Tour to New Zealand 2012 Discussion thread

twinytwo

bamboozle wrote: »

What i suggested above was muldoon at 8 and Mcl at 6, much of the POM hype (aided by G. Hook) was for him as a 7. I've seen him play plenty for Munster and for Cork Con and yes he's good but i think his form this season has been overhyped & expectations of him have increased as a result.

this time 12 months ago people were raving about danny barnes's performance in the magner's final and touting him as a replacement for BOD in national team. He finished this season playing AIL with Dolphin.

I think POM is very good but he's not near the levels some people suggest.

please show me where that got said.

RoundBox11

twinytwo wrote: »

No ferris, no bowe, prob no POC and even worse prob no ross.... anymore injuries and this tour will turn into a farce before it even gets started.

There's no basis for saying this. He looked fine.

Don't be a scaremonger

Scioch

With Boss out does that mean Marshall will travel ?

thomond2006

LordSmeg wrote: »

With Boss out does that mean Marshall will travel ?

Given he's on the bench for the Barbarians game, yes.

irishbucsfan

profitius wrote: »

irishbucsfan wrote: »

POM has made handling errors. Had a couple of very bad ones against (I think) Castres. Also he has turned over a bit of ball with over aggressive carrying. Handling is good though generally but I havent seen anyone criticise it.

It's funny when someone asks who is overrating him, and then continues to do it in the exact sane paragraph!

To be a really great 6 he needs gym time though. If it wasn't for the Munster and Ireland injuries this year I'd imagine he'd be getting it. It'll just have to come a bit more gradually. KMcL had the luxury of being behind Rocky etc. which allowed him to bulk up to where he was in 2010, POM was nearly just as lucky but for the injuries.

I'm not overrating him. I named out all his qualities. Sure maybe he made a few handling errors I missed but those were rare.

POM is the same size as McCaw and Kieran Read according to a post from yesterday.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't talk up many players but the signs look good for POM. I'm not too bothered about him starting against NZ. He should have gotten a ban for the late, slide tackle on the Ospreys player (IMO) so hes lucky to be going to NZ in that sense.

Fair enough. Comparing the height and weight of these guys is completely pointless though. I'm taller and heavier than BOD for example!

theKramer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Fair enough. Comparing the height and weight of these guys is completely pointless though. I'm taller and heavier than BOD for example!

But you play backrow, as you said earlier, and he is a professional rugby player, so no point in comparing yourself to BOD

It is relevant as POM plays both of the same positions they do, i.e. 7 and 8.
Im surprised he is as big as Read, as most 8's would be about 107-110Kg, or more, although Wannenburg is only 99Kg..

irishbucsfan

theKramer wrote: »

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Fair enough. Comparing the height and weight of these guys is completely pointless though. I'm taller and heavier than BOD for example!

But you play backrow, as you said earlier, and he is a professional rugby player, so no point in comparing yourself to BOD

It is relevant as POM plays both of the same positions they do, i.e. 7 and 8.
Im surprised he is as big as Read, as most 8's would be about 107-110Kg, or more, although Wannenburg is only 99Kg..

Do you think he is as powerful as Read or McCaw?

theKramer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Do you think he is as powerful as Read or McCaw?

Read, I'm not sure about, but McCaw's game is not about power. Its about intelligence and being in the right place at the right time. I read some article on McCaw where he said he much prefer doing fitness stuff than doing weights, as he prefers to be able to get around the field. So I would say in power terms there might not be that much difference, but of course, McCaw is an all time great and POM is a 22 yr old kid...

irishbucsfan

theKramer wrote: »

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Do you think he is as powerful as Read or McCaw?

Read, I'm not sure about, but McCaw's game is not about power. Its about intelligence and being in the right place at the right time. I read some article on McCaw where he said he much prefer doing fitness stuff than doing weights, as he prefers to be able to get around the field. So I would say in power terms there might not be that much difference, but of course, McCaw is an all time great and POM is a 22 yr old kid...

Sorry but McCaws game is very much about power. His leg drive is immense.

And your last point is exactly what I'm saying and have been saying. POM is a 22 year old kid. No point comparing him to a fully developed veteran.

Fishooks12

Ya infairness McCaw has much more power in terms of leg drive

Although POM is still a good ball carrier considering his size

irishbucsfan

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Ya infairness McCaw has much more power in terms of leg drive

Although POM is still a good ball carrier considering his size

He's a decent ball carrier. He does turnover the ball a bit more than you'd like from a back row but I wonder how much that is down to Munsters system more than him.

GerM

I would have considered McCaw, pound for pound, to be one of the most powerful players in the world in terms of all round game.

irishbucsfan

GerM wrote: »

I would have considered McCaw, pound for pound, to be one of the most powerful players in the world in terms of all round game.

Pound for pound its probably Peter Stringer!

molloyjh

bamboozle wrote: »

i'd disagree with the above and suggest McLaughlin is probably the most underrated player in Irish rugby, he's had a better season than POM, POM has played well in some games and stood out in a poor munster team but he's not at the same level as McL in my opinion and is completely overhyped.

Watching McL play his ball carrying is so effective, he generally carries off rucks and mauls and the pace and angles he comes onto the ball are what all young rugby players should try replicate. His defence is great, his lineout is very good.

Muldoon is very much under appreciated also, dare i suggest both Muldoon and Mclaughlin would stroll onto the current munster backrow at 8 & 6.

I meant that in the Irish set-up at the moment he's behind POM. I'm a huge fan of Locky, have been for some time. I'm delighted he's getting the opportunity to travel because he really deserves it. But I wouldn't be getting massively upset if POM is selected ahead of him. It's not like a DOC/Ryan debate.

bilston wrote: »

Errrr ok

You were talking about a Leinster love-in. Comments like that are hardly constructive or informative. There have been a few comments on this thread saying people were bigging up Locky while knocking POM. That's not happening. People are rightly acknowledging a talented player, while also acknowledging that he is still behind others in the squad. You can compliment a player without knocking another one or having some sort of a "love-in". After all the guy was an integral part of a squad that won the HEC back-to-back. He must have some good points. Talking about those good points doesn't constitute some sort of provincial bias.

bilston

molloyjh wrote: »

I meant that in the Irish set-up at the moment he's behind POM. I'm a huge fan of Locky, have been for some time. I'm delighted he's getting the opportunity to travel because he really deserves it. But I wouldn't be getting massively upset if POM is selected ahead of him. It's not like a DOC/Ryan debate.



You were talking about a Leinster love-in. Comments like that are hardly constructive or informative. There have been a few comments on this thread saying people were bigging up Locky while knocking POM. That's not happening. People are rightly acknowledging a talented player, while also acknowledging that he is still behind others in the squad. You can compliment a player without knocking another one or having some sort of a "love-in". After all the guy was an integral part of a squad that won the HEC back-to-back. He must have some good points. Talking about those good points doesn't constitute some sort of provincial bias.

Obviously I'm relatively new round here so point taken, I'll ease off on the banter then:)

Sindri

http://www.lassen.co.nz/pagmisc.php#hrh

The link is a rugby ranking rating system. If we lose to New Zealand it seems that we lose no points whereas if no other matches were played and if we win 1 match by 15 points or less we move up to 4th place on 81.95 and if we win 2 matches by 15 points or less we move up to 3rd place on 83.95 if no other games were played.

We're currently on 79.85 and New Zealand are on 91.43. The program doesn't seem able to assess if we lose points in the event of a loss, or maybe we don't any way, but if we lost all 3 games in the event where we did lose ranking points we would be 9th on 76.59 I think but I'm not certain on that.

Podge_irl

We can't lose any ranking points. We're too far behind NZ.

sock puppet

If we were to win a test it'd be slightly advantageous for us to win the final test.

bilston

I'll leave it to any genius mathematicians that may frequent these parts but if we were to win one test in NZ presumably that would be massive to our ranking, if we won one test in NZ and then beat both SA and Argentina in November would we be in with a chance of a top 4 ranking never mind a top 8 finish?

CatFromHue

bilston wrote: »

I'll leave it to any genius mathematicians that may frequent these parts but if we were to win one test in NZ presumably that would be massive to our ranking, if we won one test in NZ and then beat both SA and Argentina in November would we be in with a chance of a top 4 ranking never mind a top 8 finish?

That's an impossible request to be honest :pac:

SA will play 9, Eng 3, Wal 3, OZ 10 and Arg 8 games before the November series even starts!

Assuming though that going into the last game against Arg in November and everyone is on the same points as they are and we win one test in NZ by 1-15 points, beat SA by 1-15 points, even by beating ARG by 15+ points we'd still only be on 83.47 points. England are currently in fourth on 83.62.

Frankly I'm more worried about us being caught by Samoa, this has been eased a little by their political squad omissions. They could catch is assuming that we lose all three games in NZ and at home to SA and they win the Pacfic Nations Cup with a Grand Slam, beat Scotland in June, and pick up a test win in November.

sock puppet

As said above it's impossible with all the different possibilities. At a guess I'd say we'll need either a series win in NZ or a lot of other results going our way to break into the top 4. So pretty unlikely.

.ak

Let's pretend I'm stupid (yes, 'pretend'....) what would happen if we ended up 9th at the end of the year? Is the seeding drawn for the next RWC by NYE?

Podge_irl

Draw is done shortly after the end of the AIs. If we were ranked 9th after the Argentina game then we'll be third seeds going into the draw - which could in theory land us in a group like NZ/France/Ireland which would obviously be a nightmare.

Scioch

.ak wrote: »

Let's pretend I'm stupid (yes, 'pretend'....) what would happen if we ended up 9th at the end of the year? Is the seeding drawn for the next RWC by NYE?

Dont know if its before NYE but I presume its before any game after the autumn internationals or based on the rankings as of the end of 2012.

If we finish at 9th we are guaranteed to end up in a group with 2 higher seeds aint we ? One from top 4 and one of 5-8th in a random draw ? If we are lucky England and Tonga. If not NZ and France.

CIARAN_BOYLE

bilston wrote: »

I'll leave it to any genius mathematicians that may frequent these parts but if we were to win one test in NZ presumably that would be massive to our ranking, if we won one test in NZ and then beat both SA and Argentina in November would we be in with a chance of a top 4 ranking never mind a top 8 finish?

If its the third test and many other results go our way its certainly possible

CIARAN_BOYLE

Fishooks12 wrote: »

I don't remember POM physically lacking in any game I've seen him in this year? Although bulking up will improve his ball carrying

It depends on what you call physically lacking. He has come off the field a fair few times hurt which is too me a sign that the he isn't physically prepared

Cpt_Blackbeard

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

It depends on what you call physically lacking. He has come off the field a fair few times hurt which is too me a sign that the he isn't physically prepared

Would you say the same about Healy?

WeeBushy

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

It depends on what you call physically lacking. He has come off the field a fair few times hurt which is too me a sign that the he isn't physically prepared

I don't for a second doubt his heart, but the frequency of knocks he picks up at such a young age is worrying. I have the same concerns about Healy, he always needs treatment during games and all those knocks are bound to build up as they reach their 30s.

It might not be that he's physically lacking, Healy certainly isn't, but more so the way he plays the game.

CatFromHue

WeeBushy wrote: »

It might not be that he's physically lacking, Healy certainly isn't, but more so the way he plays the game.

His tackling technique leaves alot to be desired. Was it against Italy were he got his head on the wrong side and had to get treatment straight away after making a tackle?

Ruairi Sweeney 1997

Ireland team to play NZ:
15:Kearney
14:Trimble
13:BOD
12:Cave/McFadden
11:Earles
10:Sexton
9:Reddan
8:Heaslip
7:Henry
6:O'brien (thanks to the loss of ferris heaslip remains in my squad)
5:Ryan/Tuohy
4:O'connell
3:Ross
2:Best
1:Healy

Bench:
Cronin,Archer,Fitzpatrick,Tuohy/ryan, O'mahony,Murray,O'gara, Spence/mcfadden/cave/gilroy(even though not named in squad)