Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread III

dregin

Going on form, I'd stick with PJ over Madigan.

awec

There's no way Madigan goes ahead of PJ.

Also I have no worries about Marshall's defensive abilities at 12.

I am pie

I cannot see a single argument for starting Dave Kearney ahead of Trimble. Both slipped off a few tackles, both had fiarly quiet afternoons, but Trimble is sturdier and will match up to North better than DK would to North or Cuthbert. Mcfadden looked livelier than both but i fear will be held back in reserve to cover 12/13. Ideally we'd be picking from Gilroy/Zebo/Bowe/Fitz but we'll probably have to make do with what we had last week again. If Fitz makes it, it should be for DK.

rrpc

awec wrote: »

There's no way Madigan goes ahead of PJ.

Also I have no worries about Marshall's defensive abilities at 12.

No, his stats show 9 tackles, 0 missed.

He didn't get a lot of ball though, 8 carries and 4 passes only.

dregin

I wouldn't mind seeing how a PJ/Sexton combo at 10/12 would work out to finish out a match.

Was gonna comment on Marshall's height V D'Arcy, but they're the same height with Marshall down as 7Kg heavier on wiki! Mad!

dregin

rrpc wrote: »

No, his stats show 9 tackles, 0 missed.

He didn't get a lot of ball though, 8 carries and 4 passes only.

Seeing him getting picked up early on in the game had me worrying, but he put it well behind him very quickly.

rrpc

dregin wrote: »

I wouldn't mind seeing how a PJ/Sexton combo at 10/12 would work out to finish out a match.

Noooooo! Please let's not go back there.

bilston

dregin wrote: »

Was gonna comment on Marshall's height V D'Arcy, but they're the same height with Marshall down as 7Kg heavier on wiki! Mad!

There was a replay of a break by Healy in the second half and Marshall was the nearest supporting player but rhe camera angle was pitch level and without wanting to sound like I was concentrating on the players legs (!) there hardly seemed to be much difference between Healy the prop and Marshall the inside centre.

danthefan

rrpc wrote: »

Noooooo! Please let's not go back there.

Indeed. We have two good 12s, why in the name of jebus would you want to move Sexton there?

former legend

dregin wrote: »

I wouldn't mind seeing how a PJ/Sexton combo at 10/12 would work out to finish out a match.

It would be lunacy. If we were coasting to victory and we got an injury at centre and had no more subs, then maybe it could be considered, but if there was anything left at stake, no, no, no, no, no.

dregin

For ****s and giggles

gaius c

danthefan wrote: »

I'd stick with Marshall for the time being. Thought his defence was very good, I don't see a reason to drop him tbh.

D'Arcy will be starting the Welsh game apparently.

dregin wrote: »

I wouldn't mind seeing how a PJ/Sexton combo at 10/12 would work out to finish out a match.

Was gonna comment on Marshall's height V D'Arcy, but they're the same height with Marshall down as 7Kg heavier on wiki! Mad!

Seen both in the flesh and Marshall is a good bit taller actually. Both are built like brick ****houses.

phog

ScissorPaperRock wrote: »

Apparently Tomas O'Leary is suing the IRFU for an incident during training prior to an England game in the 2011 Six Nations.

Most of the article is behind a paywall.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/article1370954.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_02_01

Without knowing any of the details, it seems a bit excessive to me.

Why?

.ak

IRFU have a duty of care of their players. I assume this was the incident that caused him to miss out on his RWC slot too? Pretty serious and seemed to be a faulty equipment problem. The IRFU in that situation would've had to have make sure he was properly compensated. If not then he has a right to sue to them I think.

danthefan

.ak wrote: »

IRFU have a duty of care of their players. I assume this was the incident that caused him to miss out on his RWC slot too? Pretty serious and seemed to be a faulty equipment problem. The IRFU in that situation would've had to have make sure he was properly compensated. If not then he has a right to sue to them I think.

He was fit at the time of the RWC. Played in two of the warm up games.

former legend

danthefan wrote: »

He was fit at the time of the RWC. Played in two of the warm up games.

Unless he's claiming that the injury setback meant he was never the same player again, loss of earnings, had to leave the country to play again etc.

The question is, why now? Three years on from the incident?

thomond2006

.ak wrote: »

IRFU have a duty of care of their players. I assume this was the incident that caused him to miss out on his RWC slot too? Pretty serious and seemed to be a faulty equipment problem. The IRFU in that situation would've had to have make sure he was properly compensated. If not then he has a right to sue to them I think.

Faulty equipment causes injury to an employee at a workplace. TOL should absolutely be completely compensated in whatever way/amount is fair.

The timing of this says a lot IMO, I imagine TOL wanted to wait until he was well out of the Irish picture before pursuing this. Can't blame him there.

Swan Curry

danthefan wrote: »

He was fit at the time of the RWC. Played in two of the warm up games.

Had one of the worst scrum half performances I've ever seen in the match against France in the Aviva iirc.

danthefan

former legend wrote: »

Unless he's claiming that the injury setback meant he was never the same player again, loss of earnings, had to leave the country to play again etc.

The question is, why now? Three years on from the incident?

It happened in March 2011, his form was well shot at that stage.

Anyway I'm not sure how he'd prove that, he doesn't have a divine right to be in the Ireland team. The IRFU could just argue they went with another player, that's how it goes. As Thomond says, there's possibly a case for compensation due to an injury caused by faulty equipment.

The Rooster

awec wrote: »

There's no way Madigan goes ahead of PJ.

Also I have no worries about Marshall's defensive abilities at 12.

Wait and see.

Regardless of whether Jackson is currently a better all around out half than Madigan, the fact of the matter is that there is no hope in hell of Jackson replacing Sexton for tactical reasons in a tight game.

But if Sexton picked up a knock and the replacement out half is on the field and we get an important penalty late on in the game, its an absolute no brainer that Schmidt would prefer to have Madigan on and not Jackson to make that kick. In a potentially very tight game, I don't think Schmidt gambles with having Jackson take a crucial difficult kick late on.

Madigan will be sub for Wales and if that goes reasonably well he'll stick with him for England. But no matter how he does Jackson will be back for Italy.

D'Arcy will definitely get the nod at 12 for Wales. Barring illness or injury that's guaranteed. Marshall will start again though in the 6N.

Rotation is all part of Schmidt's gameplan. He has stated his objective is to have a panel of 30-35 players who can slot in and out of the team seamlessly. It'll be very rare he picks an unchanged 15 and I doubt he will ever pick an unchanged 23.

former legend

danthefan wrote: »

It happened in March 2011, his form was well shot at that stage.

I couldn't agree more and if the IRFU want evidence to support that, there's plenty of it in the boards.ie archives!

danthefan wrote: »

Anyway I'm not sure how he'd prove that, he doesn't have a divine right to be in the Ireland team. The IRFU could just argue they went with another player, that's how it goes. As Thomond says, there's possibly a case for compensation due to an injury caused by faulty equipment.

Again, I'd agree, but the level of compensation he'd receive would be pretty low if there is no long-term damage to his eye (which I don't think there is?) or if he wasn't out of pocket in terms of earnings or medical expenses (again, I presume he wasn't).

awec

The Rooster wrote: »

Wait and see.

Regardless of whether Jackson is currently a better all around out half than Madigan, the fact of the matter is that there is no hope in hell of Jackson replacing Sexton for tactical reasons in a tight game.

But if Sexton picked up a knock and the replacement out half is off the field and we get an important penalty late on in the game, its an absolute no brainer that Schmidt would prefer to have Madigan on and not Jackson to make that kick. In a potentially very tight game, I don't think Schmidt gambles with having Jackson take a crucial difficult kick late on.

Madigan will be sub for Wales and if that goes reasonably well he'll stick with him for England. But no matter how he does Jackson will be back for Italy.

D'Arcy will definitely get the nod at 12 for Wales. Barring illness or injury that's guaranteed. Marshall will start again though in the 6N.

Rotation is all part of Schmidt's gameplan. He has stated his objective is to have a panel of 30-35 players who can slot in and out of the team seamlessly. It'll be very rare he picks an unchanged 15 and I doubt he will ever pick an unchanged 23.

If Sexton gets injured then it's a no brainer that Jackson is the man to replace him. That includes kicks, for which Jackson gets some undue, over the top criticism. I don't know where this idea that there would be a preference for Madigan to kick comes from.

Jackson has just as much chance of replacing Sexton as Madigan does in a tight game. Jackson is at this point in time the best 10 we have other than Sexton by a country mile, and with the bench we have available we no longer need to include Madigan for his versatility.

.ak

We shouldn't be looking at the 22 jersey as a replacement kicker.

ScissorPaperRock

phog wrote: »

Why?

In fairness, I can't really make any argument without knowing the details. I probably shouldn't have taken that position. It's probably just a default reaction to a suing culture.

But if there was negligence on the part of the IRFU then fair enough. Otherwise, I can't respect that.

I'll edit my initial post accordingly.

drohanzy

We should have more options other than our 10's kicking did McFadden not do a lot of kicking ahead of Madigan for leinster when Madigan was only breaking into leinster teams, also Murray has been taking kicks during warm ups for Munster games, RK also we know can kick of the ground, should players like this be pushed to practice more so we don't have to depend completely on our 10's?

.ak

Murray's been practising his place kicks too.

Hagz

I am pie wrote: »

I cannot see a single argument for starting Dave Kearney ahead of Trimble. Both slipped off a few tackles, both had fiarly quiet afternoons, but Trimble is sturdier and will match up to North better than DK would to North or Cuthbert.

I can think of a few arguments. Both chased the kicks well, but Dave Kearney showed far more commitment in the arial battle than Trimble did. That's one of Kearney's greatest qualities, he throws himself entirely into the arial challenges. It's why Sean Maitland had to hobble off the field. Personally, I've observed that Trimble not only tends to slow down in the challenge, but he also comes into the challenge tensed and braced for the collision, and it results in the ball bouncing out of his grasp even when he's in a position to take it.

Secondly, you say they both slipped off a few tackles, but I think the nature of the tackles that Trimble missed were more costly to the team. He missed two one on one tackles with Hogg that resulted in a counter attack that cost a lot of ground. Like I said already, if he does the same against North the punishment will be more severe. In comparison, I can only think of one missed tackle from Dave and it was mid-way through the second half where Max Evans cut inside running at full-tilt and O'Driscoll took him down.

Finally, as we all know, Schmidt is ocd about what a player does off the ball, and I think if you look at the difference between Trimble and Kearney, Kearney came off his wing a bit more, taking an inside line off Murray and getting involved in a few rucks. And a last pedantic point. I find that Kearney is more vocal in attack, waving his hands and shouting for the ball. I don't see the same level of communication from Trimble (pedantic I know, don't shoot me for it.)

Certainly Trimble is the bulkier of the two, but I don't think that means he's better suited to take on North/Cuthbert in defence.

bilston

.ak wrote: »

Murray's been practising his place kicks too.

Just on Murray, I thought he played well yesterday but the ball was occasionally slow coming out at the breakdown. However without wanting to be too critical of Joubert does anyone remembering saying to an Irish player early on "I know it's harsh but I'm trying to set high standards", now that would be fair enough but it seemed to me that BOTH sides were pretty slow to move all day long, and then when he did actually penalise Toner (not sure if that was the same incident above) for not rolling away there was absolutely nothing he could do about it.

I think this is surely the hardest part of the game to officiate. How does a referee decide if a player is deliberately slow to move or if they are just trapped? I felt anyway that Joubert got a few of these wrong yesterday.

.ak

bilston wrote: »

Just on Murray, I thought he played well yesterday but the ball was occasionally slow coming out at the breakdown. However without wanting to be too critical of Joubert does anyone remembering saying to an Irish player early on "I know it's harsh but I'm trying to set high standards", now that would be fair enough but it seemed to me that BOTH sides were pretty slow to move all day long, and then when he did actually penalise Toner (not sure if that was the same incident above) for not rolling away there was absolutely nothing he could do about it.

I think this is surely the hardest part of the game to officiate. How does a referee decide if a player is deliberately slow to move or if they are just trapped? I felt anyway that Joubert got a few of these wrong yesterday.

Yeah the incident you're talking about was when Toner was pinned at the bottom of the ruck. In that case I think Joubert knew he got it wrong and so made up this high standard story. The reality is players can't always roll away, but if they don't interfere with the ball then it doesn't matter. Toner wasn't interfering with play and I think that's why he shouldn't have pinged him.

Later on the breakdowns became a mess because that 'high standard' completely disappeared.

Hagz

I'm pretty sure that when he pinged Toner for not rolling away, that was when he said he was setting high standards.

I didn't have much complaints with the way he was reffing the breakdown. I like how he gave the attacking team the benefit and on several occasions he shouted "beaten by the clean out" where I thought other refs would have been whistle happy and given the defending team the penalty.

The one aspect I wasn't too happy with was sealing off. I think he pinged Henry for sealing off, which is fair enough, but he wasn't consistent with it afterwards.

.ak

Thought the breakdown was a bit of a mess tbh. He allowed both sides to spoil the ball too much. He also gave us a penalty for the scots holding on when Henry was off his feet and in from the side, I was amazed he gave us the penalty.

rrpc

.ak wrote: »

Yeah the incident you're talking about was when Toner was pinned at the bottom of the ruck. In that case I think Joubert knew he got it wrong and so made up this high standard story. The reality is players can't always roll away, but if they don't interfere with the ball then it doesn't matter. Toner wasn't interfering with play and I think that's why he shouldn't have pinged him.

Later on the breakdowns became a mess because that 'high standard' completely disappeared.

I thought that was particularly unfair on Toner who'd made a great tackle and turned his man over to present the ball for a steal and then released him. He couldn't move in any direction and Joubert knew it, hence the rather limp explanation.

P.Walnuts

Hagz wrote: »

I can think of a few arguments. Both chased the kicks well, but Dave Kearney showed far more commitment in the arial battle than Trimble did. That's one of Kearney's greatest qualities, he throws himself entirely into the arial challenges. It's why Sean Maitland had to hobble off the field. Personally, I've observed that Trimble not only tends to slow down in the challenge, but he also comes into the challenge tensed and braced for the collision, and it results in the ball bouncing out of his grasp even when he's in a position to take it.

Personally I think this is the type of stuff people spout when they have already made up their mind about a player. You would prefer Kearney there, no problem with that, but the above is rubbish imo.

What I noticed was Trimble putting his body on the line when one of the scottish back row was coming at him full pelt and putting the man to ground, questioning Trimble's appetite for collisions is a bit bizarre imo

awec

Have to agree really. For example in the first half Dave Kearney needed a last ditch tackle from Murray and Sexton to stop a Scotland try when he couldn't stop the Scottish forward (can't remember who) who ran down his channel from the retreating scrum.

The Pheasant2

I thought Trimble's best work yesterday was at the breakdowns, clearing people out, and the try of course. However as Hagz pointed out we can't afford him missing the tackle after the kick chase vs. Wales as Cuthbert/North will make us pay dearly. That said I wouldn't advocate dropping Trimble, I would just want to be certain he won't get slipped in a one on one

Brewster

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Personally I think this is the type of stuff people spout when they have already made up their mind about a player. You would prefer Kearney there, no problem with that, but the above is rubbish imo.

What I noticed was Trimble putting his body on the line when one of the scottish back row was coming at him full pelt and putting the man to ground, questioning Trimble's appetite for collisions is a bit bizarre imo

One of the main reasons Trimble should be in the team is for his physicality, particularly in defensive situations! Kearney is good player, but if Fitz doesn't make if, I'd like to see Fergus get the 11 shirt. Replacing Trimble at 14 is simply stupid, I doubt Joe would risk it. When Tommy is fit, fine, by all means.

Hagz

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Personally I think this is the type of stuff people spout when they have already made up their mind about a player. You would prefer Kearney there, no problem with that, but the above is rubbish imo.

What I noticed was Trimble putting his body on the line when one of the scottish back row was coming at him full pelt and putting the man to ground, questioning Trimble's appetite for collisions is a bit bizarre imo

Well first of all, I never questioned Trimble's appetite in defence. Not once. I questioned his commitment in the air on the kick chase. I think Kearney is better than him in this area. Secondly, your memory of that incident is rather flattering to Trimble. He didn't so much put his man down, as get bumped by Tim Swinson who then took himself to ground in the process. And please don't interpret that as a negative comment towards Trimble. Just giving a more realistic account of what happened.

If you believe it's rubbish then so be it. There is nothing at all I can do about that unfortunately.

awec wrote: »

Have to agree really. For example in the first half Dave Kearney needed a last ditch tackle from Murray and Sexton to stop a Scotland try when he couldn't stop the Scottish forward (can't remember who) who ran down his channel from the retreating scrum.

It was Dave Denton. Kearney went too high and it took 4 Irish players to take him into touch. You could very well use that as an example of Kearney's inadequacies in defence. Funnily enough, it was Heaslip who initially missed the tackle by going too high as well.

former legend

awec wrote: »

Have to agree really. For example in the first half Dave Kearney needed a last ditch tackle from Murray and Sexton to stop a Scotland try when he couldn't stop the Scottish forward (can't remember who) who ran down his channel from the retreating scrum.

But just like the post you're disagreeing with, you're using a single incident to form a general opinion. Dave K is very good in defence, in general, just like Trimble is very strong in collision, in general.

sydthebeat

Joubert was poor overall, pinged toner twice and was incorrect both times.
His calling of ball out was dodgy to saw the least and while it may not have looked out, the players were of the understanding that he said it was out.

awec

former legend wrote: »

But just like the post you're disagreeing with, you're using a single incident to form a general opinion. Dave K is very good in defence, in general, just like Trimble is very strong in collision, in general.

I'm not really forming any general opinion.

Hagz said that in general Trimble's mistakes were more costly. Kearney nearly cost us a try, only for Murray and Sexton to rescue us.

Of course Kearney isn't bad in defence, if he was bad in defence he wouldn't be playing at test level. But I believe Trimble would have brought Denton down.

rrpc

awec wrote: »

I'm not really forming any general opinion.

Hagz said that in general Trimble's mistakes were more costly. Kearney nearly cost us a try, only for Murray and Sexton to rescue us.

Of course Kearney isn't bad in defence, if he was bad in defence he wouldn't be playing at test level. But I believe Trimble would have brought Denton down.

This is a bit of a nonsense discussion. No offense to anyone here, but why are we discussing hypothetical non-events?

Both wingers were very good, and did all that was asked of them. There were fifteen missed tackles by Ireland, finger pointing is ridiculous. The whole squad needs to up their game in that department. I'm sure they will.

I would imagine the priorities would be getting the missed tackle count down, keeping the penalty count down and also reducing the turnover count and handling errors.

CatFromHue

Did Denton not hand off Heaslip?

The Rooster

.ak wrote: »

We shouldn't be looking at the 22 jersey as a replacement kicker.

Its a very important part of the job and a big part of the reason Madigan was on the bench during the Autumn.

awec

The Rooster wrote: »

Its a very important part of the job and a big part of the reason Madigan was on the bench during the Autumn.

Don't think that's true at all.

Hagz

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

I thought Trimble's best work yesterday was at the breakdowns, clearing people out

This isn't a response aimed solely at you Pheasant, as this is a comment that I think has been repeated a bit on here, and I know that Demented Mole mentioned it on his review, but I cannot see how anyone who has legitimately reviewed the game and seen Trimble's influence at the breakdown can make such a comment.

To commend Trimble for his clearing out yesterday, would be doing him a great disservice. He's a better player than that. Quite frankly his clearing out was completely ordinary, and at times poor. And I'm quite happy to debate this as I have looked at him closely in this area. I can highlight one ruck where he cleared out well, it was 66:30, he cleared Duncan Weir out. But there isn't one noteworthy moment in the rest of the game. Some times his attempts were downright terrible. For example 54:37 and 54:50.

I'm going to come across like I have some sort of vendetta against Trimble here:pac:. But I just would like to see what everyone else apparently saw yesterday.

gaius c

awec wrote: »

I'm not really forming any general opinion.

Hagz said that in general Trimble's mistakes were more costly. Kearney nearly cost us a try, only for Murray and Sexton to rescue us.

Of course Kearney isn't bad in defence, if he was bad in defence he wouldn't be playing at test level. But I believe Trimble would have brought Denton down.

When Denton got put down in the corner?
It was actually POM & Murray who shoved him into touch.

awec

gaius c wrote: »

When Denton got put down in the corner?
It was actually POM & Murray who shoved him into touch.

I knew it was Murray and someone!

gaius c

awec wrote: »

I knew it was Murray and someone!

All those Munster stock people look alike, don't they?

[This is a joke, before anybody reports me]

phog

ScissorPaperRock wrote: »

In fairness, I can't really make any argument without knowing the details. I probably shouldn't have taken that position. It's probably just a default reaction to a suing culture.

But if there was negligence on the part of the IRFU then fair enough. Otherwise, I can't respect that.

I'll edit my initial post accordingly.

Fair play.

I like you have a similar attitude to the "suing/insurance culture" in Ireland but I'm not sure how I'd behave if I had a work accident and felt my employer was in some way responsible so I'd find it hard to judge TOL in this case.

Hagz

Against the Head RTE 2, 10 mins.