Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread IV

Quin_Dub

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Can't say I've ever noticed anything like that myself. It's logical that matches between two top teams would be close affairs anyway.

Totally agree. I recall an argument being made that the penalty count between the teams is always very close under Owens, that you rarely see one team getting 12 and the other only getting 3 or whatever...but again I've not seen anything to prove that this is the case, or that if it is (statistically speaking) that it's a result of Owens consciously deciding to "level things up".

CatFromHue

connachta wrote: »

So Henshaw and White out for this game, if he saw any kind of Connacht guys, he'll find a way to organize their defeat in additional or extra-time..

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Totally agree. I recall an argument being made that the penalty count between the teams is always very close under Owens, that you rarely see one team getting 12 and the other only getting 3 or whatever...but again I've not seen anything to prove that this is the case, or that if it is (statistically speaking) that it's a result of Owens consciously deciding to "level things up".

Again though this is something that could be explained by the fact he's a good referee. He talks to the players, makes sure they behave and that would lead to only one or two penalties per side. Obviously you'd have to see the stats over a long period of time to say anything for definite but yeah... I can't see it myself.

irishbucsfan

Owens has always been very very good to Irish teams. Getting him for that game is great for us.

total former

Ceadog wrote: »

Owens has become a bit of a notorious "homer" of late but I've never heard the adjusting his refereeing thing before.

It's completely made up, that's probably why you never heard of it.

.ak

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Can't say I've ever noticed anything like that myself. It's logical that matches between two top teams would be close affairs anyway.

The theory is if he produces a tight but free flowing game between two too teams he'll constantly get the plaudits for it and thus keep getting the big gigs. The tinfoil hat brigade would have you believe that the reason the best games in world rugby from the previous 24 months have been so good is because he's been at the helm.

macslash

Just realised I'll be in Madrid for the final (shoddy planning I know)...

Are there decent Irish bars there to watch us win?!

CatFromHue

macslash wrote: »

Just realised I'll be in Madrid for the final (shoddy planning I know)...

Are there decent Irish bars there to watch us win?!

If you look up the OLSC (leinster supporters club) they've a list of rugby friendly bars in the world, there might be one in Madrid.

If there's none on it just ring a few Irish or English bars, they're usually good for stuff like that.

padser

andymx11 wrote: »

I remember the last World Cup every squad member had to buy everyone else a present. Jamie Heaslip bought everyone a pair of Beats headphones- typical!

I'm fairly sure those Beats headphones are the primary reason we lost to Wales during RWC2011

Lots of the Irish lads were wearing them on the team coach on the way to the game. The Welsh lads saw this and said "these guys aren't up for this" ..... The rest is history

vienne86

This thread title is beginning to annoy me......Tuesday announcement????? Maybe I'm just being cranky.

bilston

Just a thought ahead of the 2015 world cup. It's three years to the day since Nevin Spence died.

I bet there is fair chance he would have been preparing for his first world cup right now had that horrible tragedy not occurred.

Clearlier

.ak wrote: »

The theory is if he produces a tight but free flowing game between two too teams he'll constantly get the plaudits for it and thus keep getting the big gigs. The tinfoil hat brigade would have you believe that the reason the best games in world rugby from the previous 24 months have been so good is because he's been at the helm.

I think it's a bit risible for anyone to suggest (in general that is I know that you're not) that referees deliberately engineer close end games. That said I do think that there are referees who unconsciously veer in this direction. This can manifest itself in a couple of ways, you get some referees who will award a plethora of penalties to the losing side so that they get a score, again there's nothing intentional in this, referees just start to see more faults in the play of the team that's leading which isn't difficult given the nature of our sport. Other referees tend to swing their focus within games. I think that it's much much less of an issue now than it used to be which I presume is down to assessor being aware of it and the greater focus on consistency.

In the bad old days +/- 20 years ago we used to benefit from it although we were rarely good enough to look like winning a game we'd often get a consolation try semi-gifted to us.

Yeah_Right

Clearlier wrote: »

I think it's a bit risible for anyone to suggest (in general that is I know that you're not) that referees deliberately engineer close end games. That said I do think that there are referees who unconsciously veer in this direction. This can manifest itself in a couple of ways, you get some referees who will award a plethora of penalties to the losing side so that they get a score, again there's nothing intentional in this, referees just start to see more faults in the play of the team that's leading which isn't difficult given the nature of our sport. Other referees tend to swing their focus within games. I think that it's much much less of an issue now than it used to be which I presume is down to assessor being aware of it and the greater focus on consistency.

In the bad old days +/- 20 years ago we used to benefit from it although we were rarely good enough to look like winning a game we'd often get a consolation try semi-gifted to us.

Absolutely. The amount of scrutiny and assessment that modern refs get means they simply wouldn't get away with intentionally engineering games in any way.

I don't think there is any game management going on amongst referees' at all and whilst they get things wrong and it can cost a team a game, I don't ever think this is ever intentional (though Hodges in the Connacht / Cardiff game pushed the tin foil boundaries a little).

I do however think that the referees council have a secret game every season to see how much they can piss Ulster fans off. At the end of the season whoever pisses them off the most get's the Lacey-Garces trophy.

rrpc

Deleted User wrote: »

I do however think that the referees counsel have a secret game every season to see how much they can piss Ulster fans off. At the end of the season whoever pisses them off the most get's the Lacey-Garces trophy.

There's a similar trophy on offer for taking the p1ss off Munster fans. It's called the Chamber Poite.

redmca2

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Absolutely. The amount of scrutiny and assessment that modern refs get means they simply wouldn't get away with intentionally engineering games in any way.

Except in the 2011 World Cup Final of course !!!

awec

Fez preaches the truth. :cool:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/34259474?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

"We are missing that little bit of go forward and that's why I think it's so important Iain Henderson is in the team - but in the back row."


"I would keep Devin Toner at lock alongside Paul O'Connell because in the back row you can use your energy a little more efficiently by carrying ball and making big tackles. That's what Henderson is good at.
Even though you can see he is trying very hard, Seanie O'Brien's form is not quite there yet after all his injury problems over the past couple of years and it is putting a big burden on Jamie Heaslip.
And with Peter O'Mahony coming back from shoulder reconstruction last season, the back row just isn't firing.
However, Henderson is a marauding force at the moment and we have got to get him in there alongside Seanie and Jamie and let him tear at teams."

Yeah_Right

redmca2 wrote: »

Except in the 2011 2007 World Cup Quarter Final of course !!!

FYP

rrpc

awec wrote: »

Fez preaches the truth. :cool:

And with Peter O'Mahony coming back from shoulder reconstruction last season, the back row just isn't firing.
However, Henderson is a marauding force at the moment and we have got to get him in there alongside Seanie and Jamie and let him tear at teams."

At the expense of POM it seems...

sweetthing

macslash wrote: »

Just realised I'll be in Madrid for the final (shoddy planning I know)...

Are there decent Irish bars there to watch us win?!

O´Neills and the JAmes Joyce are both around the centre and are great shouts for rugby. google them and you´ll find the addresses. THey even have decent guinness, shock horror!

The Rape of Lucretia

rrpc wrote: »

At the expense of POM it seems...

Tending to agree. But not fully sure the backrow blend would really be right. If we had a different style of 7, then mayby. But with O'Brien there, who is still very much a 6.5 seven rather than a 7.0 (I think "out and out" is the industry jargon), not fully convinced it would work.
Its a nice quandary to have though.
I more think having him in there instead of Paulie might be the true solution but realise that is a heresy.

daramike

POM will start at 6, if Henderson does start it will be in place of Toner. I think most people would agree with this and it seems to be Joe's thinking too.

daramike

daramike wrote: »

POM will start at 6, if Henderson does start it will be in place of Toner. I think most people would agree with this and it seems to be Joe's thinking too.

Joe certainly seems to be looking at Henderson as a lock, but I don't see him starting ahead of either to be honest. Toner only plays lock, POM only played 6 whereas Henderson covers both. Impact sub is likely to be his role this tournament unless POM's or Toners form tanks or either gets injured.

rrpc

daramike wrote: »

POM will start at 6, if Henderson does start it will be in place of Toner. I think most people would agree with this and it seems to be Joe's thinking too.

Well since Henderson has only 5 starts for Ireland, two of which were on a summer tour to Argentina and the rest were with Donncha Ryan, POC and at 6, I'm not sure how you can extrapolate Joe's thinking.

We can definitely say that he won't be starting with POC for very long though, if at all, so I'm not sure how useful it would be for the future.

andymx11

So Warren thinks 5 teams played expansive rugby in the last 6 nations. I wonder who he feels the only team who didn't is?!

See paragraph half way down of below link.

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/13663980/rugby-world-cup-warren-gatland-wants-media-keep-writing-wales-off

molloyjh

Toner is not there to carry ball or bust through the gain line. If he was then maybe Hendo would replace him. Unless Hendo can do the things Toner does then he simply will not replace Toner. Hendo may well be a strong lad who can break the gain line and smash guys in rucks but does he offer the same security in the line out, the same maul defence, the same work rate etc etc? No is the answer. And for that reason he won't replace Toner. Everyone in the team has their role and you just can't replace one role with a completely different one.

Hendo is POCs natural successor. End of. SOB hasn't been as effective because he has really been our only destructive carrier so defenses can focus on him. If we can get Healy fit and firing that should hopefully solve that. If not then we might need to look at our carrying options in the pack. But we need to make sure that we still have all the roles covered off. Hendo isn't as good on the deck as POM for example. So that would put more pressure on others in that regard.

rrpc

andymx11 wrote: »

So Warren thinks 5 teams played expansive rugby in the last 6 nations. I wonder who he feels the only team who didn't is?!

See paragraph half way down of below link.

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/13663980/rugby-world-cup-warren-gatland-wants-media-keep-writing-wales-off

The one that won it?

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

Toner is not there to carry ball or bust through the gain line. If he was then maybe Hendo would replace him. Unless Hendo can do the things Toner does then he simply will not replace Toner. Hendo may well be a strong lad who can break the gain line and smash guys in rucks but does he offer the same security in the line out, the same maul defence, the same work rate etc etc? No is the answer. And for that reason he won't replace Toner. Everyone in the team has their role and you just can't replace one role with a completely different one.

Hendo is POCs natural successor. End of. SOB hasn't been as effective because he has really been our only destructive carrier so defenses can focus on him. If we can get Healy fit and firing that should hopefully solve that. If not then we might need to look at our carrying options in the pack. But we need to make sure that we still have all the roles covered off. Hendo isn't as good on the deck as POM for example. So that would put more pressure on others in that regard.

I think Toner is a bit over stated. Ireland can live without Toner, he is not irreplaceable.

It is a very close call now as to whether or not Henderson's all round abilities are more significant than Toner's to the extent that Toner's lineout and maul work no longer makes up for it.

If Schmidt ever did decide to drop Toner for Henderson there really could be no complaints or concerns, and I say that as someone who still thinks Henderson is a much better flanker than a lock and would far rather see him at 6.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

andymx11 wrote: »

So Warren thinks 5 teams played expansive rugby in the last 6 nations. I wonder who he feels the only team who didn't is?!

See paragraph half way down of below link.

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/13663980/rugby-world-cup-warren-gatland-wants-media-keep-writing-wales-off

I'm not sure you can disagree as far as we're concerned but the implication always seems to be that Wales do play expansive free flowing rugby, which they don't. We all played that way on the last day of the 6 Nations because there was points difference to aim for but generally speaking, they just sort of bash their way to the line, right?

Ceadog

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I'm not sure you can disagree as far as we're concerned but the implication always seems to be that Wales do play expansive free flowing rugby, which they don't. We all played that way on the last day of the 6 Nations because there was points difference to aim for but generally speaking, they just sort of bash their way to the line, right?

Right. As do England and France these days. Scotland played some decent rugby but still finished dead last, and Italy were a shambles, but their modus operandi is generally bosh bosh bosh.

No international team plays free running rugby every week in the NH, nor do most of the SH for that matter. Even the great NZ kick the ball 40+ times per game because it works. The key to winning successive competitive matches is grinding out results, history has proven that time and time again.

This idea that Ireland are somehow inferior because they play a conservative game plan is ludicrous, especially when it's being touted by the inventor of Warrenball.

Bazzo

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I'm not sure you can disagree as far as we're concerned but the implication always seems to be that Wales do play expansive free flowing rugby, which they don't. We all played that way on the last day of the 6 Nations because there was points difference to aim for but generally speaking, they just sort of bash their way to the line, right?

Yeah not really sure why he always seems to be firing that criticism, I sometimes wonder is he trying mourinho-esque mind games? Wales, from what I can recall, were one of the earlier European nations to adopt the larger players and a tactic of smashing your way to the line.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Ceadog wrote: »

Right. As do England and France these days. Scotland played some decent rugby but still finished dead last, and Italy were a shambles, but their modus operandi is generally bosh bosh bosh.

No international team plays free running rugby every week in the NH, nor do most of the SH for that matter. Even the great NZ kick the ball 40+ times per game because it works. The key to winning successive competitive matches is grinding out results, history has proven that time and time again.

This idea that Ireland are somehow inferior because they play a conservative game plan is ludicrous, especially when it's being touted by the inventor of Warrenball.

Yeah, I watched a fair bit of Super Rugby this season and a lot of it was really fast and free flowing and there were lots of tries and there is no question it is very exciting to watch. But then the Rugby Championship starts and all that disappeared and they're playing tactical keep ball type rugby the same as us.

aimee1

Ceadog wrote: »

Right. As do England and France these days. Scotland played some decent rugby but still finished dead last, and Italy were a shambles, but their modus operandi is generally bosh bosh bosh.

No international team plays free running rugby every week in the NH, nor do most of the SH for that matter. Even the great NZ kick the ball 40+ times per game because it works. The key to winning successive competitive matches is grinding out results, history has proven that time and time again.

This idea that Ireland are somehow inferior because they play a conservative game plan is ludicrous, especially when it's being touted by the inventor of Warrenball.

well hopefully warren will get to watch the QFs onwards without distraction and will see why the teams in the QF got there.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

I think Toner is a bit over stated. Ireland can live without Toner, he is not irreplaceable.

It is a very close call now as to whether or not Henderson's all round abilities are more significant than Toner's to the extent that Toner's lineout and maul work no longer makes up for it.

If Schmidt ever did decide to drop Toner for Henderson there really could be no complaints or concerns, and I say that as someone who still thinks Henderson is a much better flanker than a lock and would far rather see him at 6.

I really don't think Joe will. The simple fact of the matter is that Toner delivers certain things that Joe wants in the team. Hendo delivers totally different things. Hendo might do a few head turning things in a game, but his work rate is well below that of Toner. He doesn't offer the same security at the most important attacking set piece. How many of our tries have come from line-outs, be that through a maul or a move through the line-out or off first or second phase immediately after a line-out? It's a huge part of our game and Hendo doesn't offer what Toner does there. He doesn't disrupt the maul, a big part of the game at this stage, anywhere near as well as Dev does. He doesn't offer the same restart options Toner does (Toner has secured our own kick offs more than any other player lately).

total former

I just think one standout game by Henderson won't be enough to erase two years of solidity from Toner.

Toner hasn't set the world on fire in the warm ups but hasn't been that bad that he must be dropped. I'd say the exact same about POM too.

I think people are going to be disappointed on this one.

awec

total former wrote: »

I just think one standout game by Henderson won't be enough to erase two years of solidity from Toner.

Toner hasn't set the world on fire in the warm ups but hasn't been that bad that he must be dropped. I'd say the exact same about POM too.

I think people are going to be disappointed on this one.

I doubt anyone will be disappointed if Toner starts. I'm just saying he's not irreplaceable and that a POC / Henderson partnership is just as good as a POC / Toner partnership (but in a different way). Toner is not a player Ireland can't live without, he's not undroppable and he's certainly not someone you would put into the starting 15 without even having to think about it. His line out and maul work is good but his value and contribution to the team I feel is a bit over stated at times.

It will be interesting to see what happens post WC if Ryan can get a run of form going. People are assuming that post WC it's going to be Toner and one of Henderson and Ryan. I could be wrong but I think Ryan is a good line out operator and if he can take do the job there then a Henderson / Ryan partnership gives us a lot more grunt in the row than when Toner is involved.

I like Toner, but a Ryan, Henderson, POM, SOB and Heaslip back 5 is a collection of gnarly big bastards who'll match any team for physicality.

typhoony

i look at it from the perspective of the french game, we'll need toners lineout ability against the french otherwise we will be in big trouble, I also think we'll need Henderson's physicality against them also in the maul and tight exchanges. so unfortunately for the france game I can see POM losing out.

with all the talk being about our scrum it's been easy for there not to be any talk about our lineouts, and the reason for this is that Toner has given us high percentage lineout wins over the last 3 seasons that we take it for granted

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

I doubt anyone will be disappointed if Toner starts. I'm just saying he's not irreplaceable and that a POC / Henderson partnership is just as good as a POC / Toner partnership (but in a different way). Toner is not a player Ireland can't live without, he's not undroppable and he's certainly not someone you would put into the starting 15 without even having to think about it. His line out and maul work is good but his value and contribution to the team I feel is a bit over stated at times.

It will be interesting to see what happens post WC if Ryan can get a run of form going. People are assuming that post WC it's going to be Toner and one of Henderson and Ryan. I could be wrong but I think Ryan is a good line out operator and if he can take do the job there then a Henderson / Ryan partnership gives us a lot more grunt in the row than when Toner is involved.

I like Toner, but a Ryan, Henderson, POM, SOB and Heaslip back 5 is a collection of gnarly big bastards who'll match any team for physicality.

I wouldn't say Toner is indispensable, just that we have nobody doing what he does with a straight swap.

CatFromHue

Henderson is an example of how a young player should go about forcing his way into the team, he's really pushing it.

shuffol

Toner for us is very hard to replace as the areas he excels at have been where Ireland's excelled in the last 2 seasons. Our maul has been the strongest part of our game and something we've milked a lot of points from so it's going to take a lot to drop our most effective player in that department.

total former

awec wrote: »

I doubt anyone will be disappointed if Toner starts. I'm just saying he's not irreplaceable and that a POC / Henderson partnership is just as good as a POC / Toner partnership (but in a different way). Toner is not a player Ireland can't live without, he's not undroppable and he's certainly not someone you would put into the starting 15 without even having to think about it. His line out and maul work is good but his value and contribution to the team I feel is a bit over stated at times.

No, Toner certainly isn't undroppable. I just think he's been consistently good for two years whereas Henderson is still a bit unproven at the top level. So I'd agree with a lot of what you say, except saying that POC-Henderson is as good as POC-Toner; it might be, but there's no real evidence of it yet, one way or the other.

Like Dave Kearney apparently forcing his way in, the final call is going to come down to what's going on behind closed doors and not what we saw in the warm ups.

MikeCork2009

Good write up by Ferris here giving his thoughts for team selection - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/34259474

Wang King

Yeah, saw the yesterday, he seems to think dropping POM is the answer, not going to happen. He won't start in place of Toner either, but will be used as an impact sub

bilston

If Dave Kearney has a chance of taking the established Tommy Bowe's spot then I don't see how Iain Henderson doesn't have a chance of taking Devin Toner's place in the team. There is either competition for places or there isn't.

Podge_irl

Well Toner hasn't been as bad as Bowe.

There is certainly a larger chance of Henderson ousting Toner than I thought there would have been a few months ago. Toner is central to a lot of what Ireland do, but he has to be playing at his best and he's not really at the moment.

irelandrover

andymx11 wrote: »

So Warren thinks 5 teams played expansive rugby in the last 6 nations. I wonder who he feels the only team who didn't is?!

See paragraph half way down of below link.

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/13663980/rugby-world-cup-warren-gatland-wants-media-keep-writing-wales-off

Reading this Gatland said that Walker could still play a part later in the tournamnet.
I thought once you left the squad you couldn't come back?

total former

bilston wrote: »

If Dave Kearney has a chance of taking the established Tommy Bowe's spot then I don't see how Iain Henderson doesn't have a chance of taking Devin Toner's place in the team. There is either competition for places or there isn't.

No one is saying he doesn't have a chance though, just debating how much of a chance.

Re: being established, DK has played almost as much under Joe as Bowe has, you can't say the same for Henderson vs Toner so it's not really comparing like with like.

I wouldn't mind seeing Henderson start, but I don't think he will.

connachta

total former wrote: »

No one is saying he doesn't have a chance though, just debating how much of a chance.

Re: being established, DK has played almost as much under Joe as Bowe has, you can't say the same for Henderson vs Toner so it's not really comparing like with like.

I wouldn't mind seeing Henderson start, but I don't think he will.

Why oh why being such a conservative and priviledge "establishement". That makes no more sense than the "in form" aspect, even less IMO

I just love the idea of Henderson off the bench. I don't think we have any other options that can start in the wings and come on and do damage.

Perhaps Earls when on Fire, or Reddan to change the pace of the game. But they're both maybes, Henderson's engine coming onto the pitch at 55 is a weapon.

total former

connachta wrote: »

Why oh why being such a conservative and priviledge "establishement". That makes no more sense than the "in form" aspect, even less IMO

I couldn't agree more, on the first bit anyway.