Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread IV

.ak

awec wrote: »

When did he last play there? Has he ever played there is any game of importance?

I would say the reason he shouldn't play at 12 is because we have Cave, a guy who has actually played 12 quite a bit recently.

This selection is pretty unjustifiable. The only reason can be that Joe hasn't got faith in all 31 players. In that case the decision to bring two 9s makes even less sense.

Like I said, if you played 13 yesterday moving to 12 isn't a big deal. The question you should be asking if when did he last play centre. And that was the other week.

FWIW I would've thought Cave was 2nd choice inside centre, but I'd have no issues with Fitz there.

As I said earlier, Joe might have plenty of faith in Cave, but might think he isn't ideal for this game.

WeleaseWoderick

I wonder was it a case of Henshaw's injury only springing up yesterday and Fitz was due to be no 23 in the squad (with a view to him being bench cover for the France game too). They might now be taking the opportunity to try him at 12 in case Henshaw's injury flares up again during the French game.

I'd say if it was Italy or France that we were playing on Saturday, Cave would have leapfrogged straight into the starting team.

The phrase "typical Joe curveball" isn't a derogatory idiom nor is it a recent one. He's been doing things like this since his time with Leinster and it always made sense in the context of how a team played and performed.

Either that or there are a couple of knocks being minded. Will come out in the wash.

rrpc

awec wrote: »

There's no other reason to suddenly play a guy who never plays 12 ahead of the guy specifically brought to cover that position. If Henshaw is injured then play Cave against Canada and Romania, he can play two games like pretty much every other player selected for Saturday will.

Does he think Cave isn't fit enough to play two games 8 days apart or something?

Madigan is presumably on the bench but even he should be starting 12 ahead of Fitzgerald.

It's a world cup, we're not there to give players at wee runaround now and again.

You've completely ignored my point. It's not about a 'wee runaround' it's about managing our squad for what could conceivably be (if we're serious) a run of six or seven games in as many weeks.

We don't know who's scheduled to play which matches, we don't know which guys have knocks or minor strains (like Henshaw). What we do know is that we have 31 players who will all be needed if we're to get through the pool stages and hopefully the knockouts.

You've taken my example as if it's an actual fact and argued against it in the same vein. What if Cave is down to play Romania and Italy?

I could speculate for hours as to why it's Fitz instead of Cave but that's all it is; speculation. One thing I'm sure of is that it's not some kind of slight or put-down of Cave by the management, that would be completely pointless. He's there because he's needed.

Podge_irl

.ak wrote: »

Like I said, if you played 13 yesterday moving to 12 isn't a big deal. The question you should be asking if when did he last play centre. And that was the other week.

The question we're asking is what was the point in bringing Cave if Fitz is the backup 12.

bilston

.ak wrote: »

Like I said, if you played 13 yesterday moving to 12 isn't a big deal. The question you should be asking if when did he last play centre. And that was the other week.

FWIW I would've thought Cave was 2nd choice inside centre, but I'd have no issues with Fitz there.

As I said earlier, Joe might have plenty of faith in Cave, but might think he isn't ideal for this game.

Oh yeah I don't think anyone questions Fitz at 12, it is just a bit weird that we specifically brought Cave at the expense of another scrum half. This seems exactly the situation for which he was picked.

However I'll wait until the Romania selection before feeling sleighted on behalf of DC!

A Fitzgerald/Payne could be exciting anyway. Payne's deft touches and Fitzgerald's running makes for a nice combo.

The bench will be interesting as well.

Awesomeness

Just read the squad is due to be announced today. Any idea what time

#JusticeForCave

Noopti

There could be any amount of reasons why Fitz has been chosen over Cave. Do we honestly think Schmidt is a coach who will bring a player (Cave) who he has little confidence in, and who he has no intention of playing?

I am guessing he will be asked this at the team announcement and will have a perfectly valid reason for making the decision.

.ak

Podge_irl wrote: »

The question we're asking is what was the point in bringing Cave if Fitz is the backup 12.

That's not a question, that's jumping to a conclusion imo.

.ak

Awesomeness wrote: »

Just read the squad is due to be announced today. Any idea what time

Around lunchtime.

Podge_irl

.ak wrote: »

That's not a question, that's jumping to a conclusion imo.

Yes it is. And I'm obviously perfectly happy to wait and see.

But that team has a fierce whiff of first choice or next backup about it.

Tox56

Podge_irl wrote: »

The question we're asking is what was the point in bringing Cave if Fitz is the backup 12.

But just because Fitz plays 12 in this game doesn't mean he's the backup 12 if Henshaw was to get injured ahead of the France game, or the QF. As I said earlier, they could be using this as an opportunity to get a look at Fitzgerald with regards to the back 3 selection, and they'll play cave in another pool game

Podge_irl

Tox56 wrote: »

But just because Fitz plays 12 in this game doesn't mean he's the backup 12 if Henshaw was to get injured ahead of the France game, or the QF. As I said earlier, they could be using this as an opportunity to get a look at Fitzgerald with regards to the back 3 selection, and they'll play cave in another pool game

They could but that wouldn't make a lot of sense to me. What is him playing at 12 going to tell you about him playing in the back 3?

its_phil

.ak wrote: »

That's not a question, that's jumping to a conclusion imo.

Very much a reasonable question IMO.

rrpc

Tox56 wrote: »

But just because Fitz plays 12 in this game doesn't mean he's the backup 12 if Henshaw was to get injured ahead of the France game, or the QF. As I said earlier, they could be using this as an opportunity to get a look at Fitzgerald with regards to the back 3 selection, and they'll play cave in another pool game

I think it's far more likely that Fitz was moved up from the bench spot as WeleaseWoderick said. It's interesting that the Indo has Henshaw starting and the Times has Fitz, so it's been a very late decision. Neither of the articles speculated on the bench spots.

We'll probably see Zebo on the bench now.

I'll be interested to see Payne and Fitz together. I suspect that there'll be a lot of interchanging between them like Fofana and Bastereaud do for France.

awec

Noopti wrote: »

There could be any amount of reasons why Fitz has been chosen over Cave. Do we honestly think Schmidt is a coach who will bring a player (Cave) who he has little confidence in, and who he has no intention of playing?

I am guessing he will be asked this at the team announcement and will have a perfectly valid reason for making the decision.

Like what?

awec

awec wrote: »

Like what?

Chance that Henshaw is out for first two games and we're going for Cave/Earls next game to see who partners Payne in the centre v Italy if Henshaw can't make it.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

The thing about Joe is, and this is just my opinion, he seems to want very specific things from his players and that varies from game to game. It is entirely possible that whatever plan he has set out for the Canada game that Fitzgerald is the man for the job required at 12. Again, assuming that team is accurate.
I think too often people complain about how a player played and the decisions they made and all that but generally it seems to be that they've been told something very specific to do and that's what they do. Many players have mentioned that Schmidt likes players who do what they're told, whether it's a 10 being told to kick everything to the corner or a FB being told never to kick it etc. etc.
It's entirely possible that Schmidt wants to play an open and fast game against Canada and get the bonus point secured nice and early so he can take a couple of guys off after 50 minutes. Perhaps he feels Fitzgerald is the player best suited to making that happen.
Point being Schmidt's team selections and game plans seem to be very very specific and there is no way on earth we are ever going to know precisely what they are unless we manage to get into his backroom staff.

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

Chance that Henshaw is out for first two games and we're going for Cave/Earls next game to see who partners Payne in the centre v Italy if Henshaw can't make it.

Mental. Fitz isn't a 12, he never plays 12.

If Henshaw is out for two games then it has to be Cave starting both, and if so against Italy too. That's the reason for bringing him.

More important to start players in positions they actually play rather than give Luke Fitzgerald another chance at another position to get a spot in the team.

rrpc

its_phil wrote: »

Very much a reasonable question IMO.

Which concludes that Fitz is 12 cover. :pac:

I think Fitz is likely to be the utility bench back (Like Madigan being the utility bench half-back) and it's just worked out for him in this instance. I'm pretty sure that this was concluded early on in the squad discussion thread.

awec

For all this "he was on the bench talk", promoting Madigan and bringing in Jackson again makes infinitely more sense than putting Fitzgerald at 12. Madigan may not be a stellar 12 but at least he has played there.

awec

awec wrote: »

Mental. Fitz isn't a 12, he never plays 12.

If Henshaw is out for two games then it has to be Cave starting both, and if so against Italy too. That's the reason for bringing him.

More important to start players in positions they actually play rather than give Luke Fitzgerald another chance at another position to get a spot in the team.

He's played 12 plenty of times. Cave isn't really a 12 either. Neither is Earls.

But someone will have to play there!

total former

awec wrote: »

Mental. Fitz isn't a 12, he never plays 12.

This time last year, you could have said the exact same about Henshaw. The match against SA last November was his third or fourth game ever as a 12 and he did OK.

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

He's played 12 plenty of times. Cave isn't really a 12 either. Neither is Earls.

But someone will have to play there!

When did he last play 12?

Cave isn't really a 12 but has at least played 12 for the past year.

total former wrote: »

This time last year, you could have said the exact same about Henshaw. The match against SA last November was his third or fourth game ever as a 12 and he did OK.

Yea, this time last year during the AIs is a pretty massive difference though. Not for the first game in a world cup, and not after we actually brought a player to play this position.

rrpc

awec wrote: »

Mental. Fitz isn't a 12, he never plays 12.

If Henshaw is out for two games then it has to be Cave starting both, and if so against Italy too. That's the reason for bringing him.

More important to start players in positions they actually play rather than give Luke Fitzgerald another chance at another position to get a spot in the team.

From what we know of Joe's selection process, the squad for a Saturday game is selected and told on the Tuesday. The entire squad work together for the next few days and that's why bench players get moved up to starting positions if there's an injury.

As .ak says, 12 and 13 are interchangeable and we've often seen Payne and Henshaw switch around during a match. I really can't see the problem with Fitz starting at 12 because he could just as easily have 13 on his back. Cave having been selected as a 12 is unlikely to be bench cover as that's the only position he plays, so he'll be a starting 12 or not in the squad. That I believe is the case here.

aimee1

awec wrote: »

Mental. Fitz isn't a 12, he never plays 12.

If Henshaw is out for two games then it has to be Cave starting both, and if so against Italy too. That's the reason for bringing him.

More important to start players in positions they actually play rather than give Luke Fitzgerald another chance at another position to get a spot in the team.

Eh henshaw and payne are a "manufactured midfield " to quote JS. The key figures who need gametime are playing. Outside of that we just need to hope for no injuries.

JS will make his decisions with all the info. It was clear from how drained he looked annoucing the squad that every detail is looked at which will apply for this game and the next 3 too

total former

awec wrote: »

When did he last play 12?

Cave isn't really a 12 but has at least played 12 for the past year.


Yea, this time last year during the AIs is a pretty massive difference though. Not for the first game in a world cup, and not after we actually brought a player to play this position.

Oh yeah I totally agree, just highlighting that Joe has a bit of a track record on this front.

Luke has played a bit at 12 under Joe, it's a couple of years ago alright but I'm not shocked to see it happening, I'm just baffled as to why it's happening when Cave is there scratching his arse.

I'd say Luke isn't too chuffed either, btw; you'd assume Henshaw will come back in if he recovers, meanwhile Earls gets first go at nailing down the 11 jersey that Luke is probably hoping to claim for himself.

accensi0n

Jackson at 10, Sexton at 12, easy. :P

LostPassword

According to Thornley, Schmidt is playing his strongest team, and Thornley is essentially a mouthpiece for the Irish management.

I'd guess that what has happened is that Fitz is pencilled in as number 23 and the selection is based on what happens if our 12 gets injured during a game. A good idea, IMO, to give Fitz a run at 12 if that's the case, especially if Jackson is 22, because that's where he will play if whoever plays 12 gets injured during a game.

awec

The article suggests he last played 12 under Schmidt when he missed out on the 2011 World Cup.

So basically he has played 12 in the pro 12 when all the rest of the teams were missing their best players.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

awec wrote: »

Mental. Fitz isn't a 12, he never plays 12.

If Henshaw is out for two games then it has to be Cave starting both, and if so against Italy too. That's the reason for bringing him.

More important to start players in positions they actually play rather than give Luke Fitzgerald another chance at another position to get a spot in the team.

:eek: How dare you. Fitz is the golden child of Irish rugby, don't you know!

rrpc

LostPassword wrote: »

According to Thornley, Schmidt is playing his strongest team, and Thornley is was essentially a mouthpiece for the Irish management. Declan Kidney.

FYP

awec

awec wrote: »

The article suggests he last played 12 under Schmidt when he missed out on the 2011 World Cup.

So basically he has played 12 in the pro 12 when all the rest of the teams were missing their best players.

Is there any player available to Joe to pick that this isn't true of?

Luke Marshall perhaps.

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

This selection is pretty unjustifiable. The only reason can be that Joe hasn't got faith in all 31 players. In that case the decision to bring two 9s makes even less sense.

I laughed at this. The ONLY reason can be that he doesn't have faith in all 31 players! The ONLY reason!

Yesterday (or the day before) they were saying all 31 players would get game time in the group stages... But it can't be that this is the best opportunity to give Luke a start. The only reason can be that Joe has absolutely no faith in anyone else

This is a game against Canada, lets not forget that, there'll be plenty of opportunities for Ulster players to play next week and the week after.

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there any player available to Joe to pick that this isn't true of?

Luke Marshall perhaps.

Darren Cave.

rrpc

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I laughed at this. The ONLY reason can be that he doesn't have faith in all 31 players! The ONLY reason!

Yesterday (or the day before) they were saying all 31 players would get game time in the group stages... But it can't be that this is the best opportunity to give Luke a start. The only reason can be that Joe has absolutely no faith in anyone else

This is a game against Canada, lets not forget that, there'll be plenty of opportunities for Ulster players to play next week and the week after.

Well at least the Toner/Henderson debate is shelved for the moment .

awec

awec wrote: »

Darren Cave.

Played inside centre for Ulster how many times in the last season?

total former

LostPassword wrote: »

According to Thornley, Schmidt is playing his strongest team, and Thornley is essentially a mouthpiece for the Irish management.

I love a baseless rant as much as the next guy, so I won't point out that the article was written by Gavin Cummiskey.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I laughed at this. The ONLY reason can be that he doesn't have faith in all 31 players! The ONLY reason!

Yesterday (or the day before) they were saying all 31 players would get game time in the group stages... But it can't be that this is the best opportunity to give Luke a start. The only reason can be that Joe has absolutely no faith in anyone else

This is a game against Canada, lets not forget that, there'll be plenty of opportunities for Ulster players to play next week and the week after.

You could argue, if you wanted, that the questionable players starting against Canada are the ones Joe has least faith in. No offense to any Canadians lurking here but they're pretty awful. I watched a few of the Pacific Nations matches and they were just very very poor. Granted they've had a bit more time together now and may have improved slightly but still, arguably the worst team in the pool so you could say this is the only game Luke is going to get a start in and looking forward Joe plans on playing Dave K on the wing so he needs more game time and he's not sure about Bowe anymore so he's giving Earls another opportunity to show what he can do. Or indeed that it's only Canada and Bowe is being saved for Italy or whatever.

Basically, what I'm saying is you can read whatever the hell you want into it and you're probably still wrong.

awec

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I laughed at this. The ONLY reason can be that he doesn't have faith in all 31 players! The ONLY reason!

Yesterday (or the day before) they were saying all 31 players would get game time in the group stages... But it can't be that this is the best opportunity to give Luke a start. The only reason can be that Joe has absolutely no faith in anyone else

This is a game against Canada, lets not forget that, there'll be plenty of opportunities for Ulster players to play next week and the week after.

Why does Luke need another start? Is getting Luke Fitzgerald a start more important than fielding a team of players in the actual positions they have played?

The fact it's Darren Cave is coincidental. This is not about Ulster players, this is about the fact that we brought one less 9 to accommodate some 12 cover and are now deciding to not use that cover. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. These "he was on the bench", "Luke needs a start" excuses are incredibly thin.

And so what that it's against Canada, it's still a world cup.

dub_skav

With Best and Payne as established starters, there's only 1 spot left to fill the Ulster quota. If Henderson was on the bench then Cave could start and Henderson could come on once Best had been replaced.

Be honest with yourself awec, it's Henderson's fault.

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

Played inside centre for Ulster how many times in the last season?

A good few times.

Even if he played there once (it was more than once) he still has more game time there than Fitzgerald.

awec

awec wrote: »

A good few times.

Even if he played there once (it was more than once) he still has more game time there than Fitzgerald.

What's a good few times? Also, remember what I asked!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97044131&postcount=7542

Cave is absolutely as 'guilty' of this issue as any. That's what I'm pointing out.

If Joe only wants to play Payne once before Italy, then he might play all 4 centres (one established, one backup per game) across the two games before that.

dub_skav

awec wrote: »

this is about the fact that we brought one less 9 to accommodate some 12 cover and are now deciding to not use that cover. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Just to pick up on this one.
I firmly believe there was always a specialist centre in Joe's plans and that the 2 scrum halves thing was to bring both Earls and Fitz.
Both are wingers who cover centre with a bit of full-back if really needed - essentially the same roles filled by both of them.

No major point to my statement except to say that I believe Cave did not take the 3rd scrum half spot, so it is not as crazy a thing as you assert

rrpc

awec wrote: »

Why does Luke need another start? Is getting Luke Fitzgerald a start more important than fielding a team of players in the actual positions they have played?

The fact it's Darren Cave is coincidental. This is not about Ulster players, this is about the fact that we brought one less 9 to accommodate some 12 cover and are now deciding to not use that cover. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

And so what that it's against Canada, it's still a world cup.

I already pointed out why I think Fitz was selected. The squad is selected on Tuesday and work together (including the bench players) on the opposition and the game plan. This has been said by Joe and players on many occasions. If there are injuries, it's bench players who move up to the starting team first, not players outside the selected squad.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Cave played at 12 a total of 4 times for Ulster last season. All 4 coming right at the end of the season.

WeleaseWoderick

awec wrote: »

For all this "he was on the bench talk", promoting Madigan and bringing in Jackson again makes infinitely more sense than putting Fitzgerald at 12. Madigan may not be a stellar 12 but at least he has played there.

I believe the management have said that Madigan won't be expected to cover 12 due to him having to cover 9 & 10 as the workload would be too much.

That's not to say they wouldn't bring him on there if there's an injury but he won't be starting any games at 12.

Noopti

awec wrote: »

Like what?

I haven't got Schmidt's number, but if I did I would call and ask for you. I am just putting the (I know, it's crazy) idea that there could be various reasons to make such a decision.

Anyway here is one:
Cave might have an injury, maybe just a niggle, but still might not worth playing him. Start him against Romania if Henshaw is in doubt, or a bench spot for that game if Henshaw does start.

Here is another one:
Cave hasn't been training well since squad announcement and Fitz has. Not likely, but can happen.

And here is another one:
He sees Fitz as a more like for like replacement for Henshaw than Cave, for this particular game, and what his game plan is for this particular game, and what he wants his 12/13 to do.

My point is we have no idea why a highly experienced and decorated coach, who obviously knows what he is doing, has potentially made this decision. But I am guessing he might know more than us.....and I am guessing it isn't anything to do with him "not trusting" one of the players he decided to bring to the World Cup.

.ak

awec wrote: »

The article suggests he last played 12 under Schmidt when he missed out on the 2011 World Cup.

So basically he has played 12 in the pro 12 when all the rest of the teams were missing their best players.

I'm not sure why you keep banging this drum... and you're just ignoring my posts. Actually, do you have me on ignore?

AWEEEEEEECC?!?