Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread IV

sullivlo

.ak wrote: »

That's interesting!


.... what sort of cake?

Birthday cake. It was his birthday yesterday.

.ak

The plot thickens.

awec

Yea but what sort of cake? Chocolate? Fruit? Victoria Sponge? Battenburg?

Fill us in here sullivlo.

.ak

And do you reckon there's any left?

awec

Was there cream involved? Single or double?

Synode

It's small but as they say, size doesn't matter

https://instagram.com/p/4g8jqBt0rc/

sydthebeat

Synode wrote: »

It's small but as they say, size doesn't matter

https://instagram.com/p/4g8jqBt0rc/

thats actually a 12" cake on devins usual dinner plate....

awec

Looks like some sort of cheese cake to me? Can anyone confirm?

Micky Dolenz

awec wrote: »

Looks like some sort of cheese cake to me? Can anyone confirm?

I think you could be right, I also suspect it's on a chocolate base. It's only speculation mind, waiting for any follow on info or press release.

awec

Possibly coffee flavoured cheese.

sydthebeat

baileys on an oreo base???

Synode

The start of the rugby season can't come soon enough :pac:

thomond2006

It looks like a Rolys cheesecake.

awec

sydthebeat wrote: »

baileys on an oreo base???

That's a good shout actually.

Micky Dolenz

sydthebeat wrote: »

baileys on an oreo base???

I'd never had selected oreo, chocolate would have been a way better foundation. Baileys, I'd be happy enough with.

connemara man

All the back pages to lead with #cakegate tomorrow in the papers

Podge_irl

Can't beat a crushed hobnob base for a cheesecake.

DGRulz

Silly season officially in full swing ... I'm a fan of a base of Maryland cookies on a Toblerone cheese cake.

Zzippy

And in a parallel universe, the mods of the cake forum are wondering why the hell their regular posters are suddenly discussing the finer points of the lineout and debating the relative merits of drift vs blitz defences...

awec

Podge_irl wrote: »

Can't beat a crushed hobnob base for a cheesecake.

Ginger nut biscuits provide a sharp yet satisfyingly sweet base for a cheesecake.

I do make a mean cheesecake myself would always use the reliable ginger nut for the base.

Wang King

Just come back from the gym and I'm reading about cakes of all sorts......you shower of Welsh hookers! .......fckin starving I am boyho!

awec

Wang King wrote: »

Just come back from the gym and I'm reading about cakes of all sorts......you shower of Welsh hookers! .......fckin starving I am boyho!

Thinly veiled "I'm buff and go to the gym" post.

Wang King

awec wrote: »

Thinly veiled "I'm buff and go to the gym" post.

Nah, still a fat bastard, but I'm getting there, slowly but surely

dub_skav

Zzippy wrote: »

And in a parallel universe, the mods of the cake forum are wondering why the hell their regular posters are suddenly discussing the finer points of the lineout and debating the relative merits of drift vs blitz defences...

Why would they be discussing those, things like that are never discussed here :pac:

smiley_face

Impossible to guess what the final squad will be,
but here's my effort of the Irish Team for RWC against Italy and France.
1. Cian Healy 2. Rory Best 3. Mike Ross
4. Paul O'Connell 5. Devin Toner
6. Peter O'Mahony 7. Seán O'Brien 8. Jamie Heaslip
9. Conor Murray
10. Jonathan Sexton
12. Robbie Henshaw 13. Jared Payne
11. Luke Fitzgerald 14. Tommy Bowe
15. Rob Kearney

Subs:
Jack McGrath
Seán Cronin
Martin Moore
Iain Henderson
Chris Henry
Eoin Reddan
Paddy Jackson
Andrew Trimble

RWC Reserves:
Michael Bent
Richardt Strauss
Dan Tuohy
Jordi Murphy
Isaac Boss
Ian Madigan
Darren Cave
Craig Gilroy

Cuts:
David Kilcoyne
Rob Herring
Tadhg Furlong
Donnacha Ryan
Tommy O'Donnell
Jack Conan
Kieran Marmion
Gordon D'Arcy
Noel Reid
Keith Earls
Fergus McFadden
David Kearney
Simon Zebo
Felix Jones

Injury cover:
Direct replacements for full front row.
If either Lock or O'Mahony gets injured bring on Henderson.
If O'Brien or Heaslip get injured bring in Henry.
Direct replacements for Scrumhalf and Outhalf.
If Henshaw got injured - would move Fitzgerald to Inside Centre and bring on Trimble on the wing or a somewhat lesser option might be to move Johnny Sexton to Inside Centre and bring on Jackson at Outhalf.
If Payne got injured - would replace with Trimble.
If Fitzgerald or Bowe got injured - would replace with Trimble.
If Kearney got injured - would move Bowe to fullback and bring on Trimble on the wing or other possibility (but would be less inclined to choose it as too much moving around) would be to move Bowe to Outside Centre and switch Payne to Fullback, and bring on Trimble on the wing.

Impact subs (all going well and no injuries):
Would bring on the whole front row subs at about 55-60 minutes,
Would tell Heaslip and Peter O'Mahony to give it everything for at least 50-55 minutes and then take them off whenever they begin to show signs of flagging.
Henderson to come on for O'Mahony at 6.
Would move O'Brien to 8, and bring in Henry at 7 replacing Heaslip.
O'Connell and Toner would have to pace themselves to last for the 80 minutes though.
Otherwise, way out there, but could use Seán Cronin as a loose forward and keep Best on for the full 80 and move Henderson into Lock if either O'connell or Toner can't last the full 80.

Felix Jones is definitely going

thomond2006

I cannot see Earls getting cut. IMO he's ahead of Cave.

irishbucsfan

thomond2006 wrote: »

I cannot see Earls getting cut. IMO he's ahead of Cave.

Yeah for me it'd have to take something extraordinary to explain his absence from the squad.

Clearlier

Not a bad shout but Jones and Earls will travel ahead of Gilroy and Cave with if the 6 nations is anything to go by Jones also replacing Trimble on the bench (although I'd probably have Earls). Don't see why you think Heaslip would be subbed. I haven't seen signs of an inability to last the 80 and he's a much better 8 than the alternatives. I wouldn't be surprised to see Henderson getting an increasing amount of game time replacing POC but it may be dependent upon how much leadership is in the rest of the team.

smiley_face

Clearlier wrote: »

Don't see why you think Heaslip would be subbed. I haven't seen signs of an inability to last the 80 and he's a much better 8 than the alternatives.

Partly because I would prefer to keep O'Brien on the pitch for the final 20 minutes over Heaslip for O'Brien's explosive carrying, and partly because I sometimes wonder if Heaslip has more in him but holds back trying to pace himself to last the 80, and doesn't impose himself enough.
Altenatively, if Henderson comes on as a sub for a Lock, then would take off O'Mahony for Henry and swap O'Brien to Blindside and Henry to Openside, keeping Heaslip at 8.
I suppose the choice is whether you tell both of the locks to pace themselves, or you tell Heaslip to pace himself and sub whichever lock is more tired after 60.
I'd rather see Heaslip go out all guns blazing until he runs out of steam and leave the two locks on for 80.

Clearlier

smiley_face wrote: »

Partly because I would prefer to keep O'Brien on the pitch for the final 20 minutes over Heaslip for O'Brien's explosive carrying, and partly because I sometimes wonder if Heaslip has more in him but holds back trying to pace himself to last the 80, and doesn't impose himself enough.
Altenatively, if Henderson comes on as a sub for a Lock, then would take off O'Mahony for Henry and swap O'Brien to Blindside and Henry to Openside, keeping Heaslip at 8.
I suppose the choice is whether you tell both of the locks to pace themselves, or you tell Heaslip to pace himself and sub whichever lock is more tired after 60.
I'd rather see Heaslip go out all guns blazing until he runs out of steam and leave the two locks on for 80.

Heaslip isn't a physically imposing player, no doubt he has at some point run over the top of somebody but I can't remember it happening. I don't think that that's going to change. I'm not sure about Henry as an impact replacement to be honest. Henderson on the other hand...

irishbucsfan

Clearlier wrote: »

Heaslip isn't a physically imposing player, no doubt he has at some point run over the top of somebody but I can't remember it happening. I don't think that that's going to change. I'm not sure about Henry as an impact replacement to be honest. Henderson on the other hand...

REALLY?!

.ak

Also remember pom isn't an 80 min player so it'll always be sob and Heaslip finishing the 80 bar injury.

The Lost Sheep

.ak wrote: »

Also remember pom isn't an 80 min player so it'll always be sob and Heaslip finishing the 80 bar injury.

Really? Why you think that? I don't see how he isn't an 80 min guy...

total former

Heaslip is the ultimate 80 minute player, there is just no way he'll ever be subbed in an important game.

smiley_face

smiley_face wrote: »

Partly because I would prefer to keep O'Brien on the pitch for the final 20 minutes over Heaslip for O'Brien's explosive carrying, and partly because I sometimes wonder if Heaslip has more in him but holds back trying to pace himself to last the 80, and doesn't impose himself enough.
Altenatively, if Henderson comes on as a sub for a Lock, then would take off O'Mahony for Henry and swap O'Brien to Blindside and Henry to Openside, keeping Heaslip at 8.
I suppose the choice is whether you tell both of the locks to pace themselves, or you tell Heaslip to pace himself and sub whichever lock is more tired after 60.
I'd rather see Heaslip go out all guns blazing until he runs out of steam and leave the two locks on for 80.

Does this notion of players pacing themselves exist? I would have thought your giving it you're all as much as you possibly can. You certainly don't tell players to pace themselves.

.ak

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Really? Why you think that? I don't see how he isn't an 80 min guy...

Pom? He absolutely empties the tank early on in games. Gives everything for about 50-60 minutes. The way he plays the game he's usually very much spent at that time.

smiley_face

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Does this notion of players pacing themselves exist? I would have thought your giving it you're all as much as you possibly can. You certainly don't tell players to pace themselves.

I suppose it depends on what tactics you employ, and what subs you pick on the bench.
If you had 3 front row, 1 Lock, 2 back row, 1 covering SH + OH + Fullback, 1 covering Centre + Wing, then the forwards could be reassured that they can spend themselves and there are subs to cover them, but the backs would be light for cover, but if you kept the ball in the forwards and kicked for position it could make sense. Canada for example might employ those tactics as their backs are limited.
Ireland would probably prefer to have 3 backs on the bench, so the forwards would have to be aware that there would be less cover from the bench.
There's a subtle difference, but whether you decide to have 2 or 3 covering the Locks and back row I think that would have an effect on the way the Locks and back row would set themselves up to play. If players exhausted themselves and didn't think about cover it would leave them open towards the end of the match, as the opposition would look to expose a tired player that doesn't come up in the defensive line quickly enough or might miss a tackle.
So for that reason I think certain players do spend themselves early on such as Peter O'Mahony while other players try to pace themselves for 80 such as Heaslip and O'Connell, and those players in particular are very good at measuring their efforts and getting the most out of themselves according to their time on the pitch.

smiley_face

smiley_face wrote: »

I suppose it depends on what tactics you employ, and what subs you pick on the bench.
If you had 3 front row, 1 Lock, 2 back row, 1 covering SH + OH + Fullback, 1 covering Centre + Wing, then the forwards could be reassured that they can spend themselves and there are subs to cover them, but the backs would be light for cover, but if you kept the ball in the forwards and kicked for position it could make sense. Canada for example might employ those tactics as their backs are limited.
Ireland would probably prefer to have 3 backs on the bench, so the forwards would have to be aware that there would be less cover from the bench.
There's a subtle difference, but whether you decide to have 2 or 3 covering the Locks and back row I think that would have an effect on the way the Locks and back row would set themselves up to play. If players exhausted themselves and didn't think about cover it would leave them open towards the end of the match, as the opposition would look to expose a tired player that doesn't come up in the defensive line quickly enough or might miss a tackle.
So for that reason I think certain players do spend themselves early on such as Peter O'Mahony while other players try to pace themselves for 80 such as Heaslip and O'Connell, and those players in particular are very good at measuring their efforts and getting the most out of themselves according to their time on the pitch.

So what aspect of Heaslip or O'Connels game is curbed in an effort to pace themselves? How do they measure their efforts?

I just can't picture either player holding back.

smiley_face

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So what aspect of Heaslip or O'Connels game is curbed in an effort to pace themselves? How do they measure their efforts?

I just can't picture either player holding back.

It comes down to work rate and intensity and for how long you prolong high intensity efforts.
Carries, tackles, support play, hitting rucks, as well as set-piece responsibilities all take energy, and an intelligent player will choose the best moments tin a match to exert themselves, and they will conserve their energy when they are not required to lead the carries or tackle counts etc.
All that said, guys like O'Connell and Heaslip have a tremendous workrate and can perform better in the last 20 minutes than other lesser players can manage anytime in a match.
The real test is when competing against other quality sides, especially the likes of Wales or New Zealand, where they have massive workhorses from 4 to 8.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

So what aspect of Heaslip or O'Connels game is curbed in an effort to pace themselves? How do they measure their efforts?

I just can't picture either player holding back.

No, players don't hold back. Gameplan might dictate that they aren't flogging themselves from the get go but no one is intentionally running slower or staying out of plays. You also recover during the game, you might be flat out after 5 minutes defending on your line but you will get your legs back.

What does happen is that through exertion and contact you start to slow down, so players that are more prone to tightening up, or happen to be soaking a lot of tackles will end up needing to be subbed earlier. You will notice that the stride length of players can be down to a shuffle when they get subbed, they may still have energy left but the legs are gone.

Also being on the back foot a lot gets very tiring, when you are attacking and the crowd is on your side you don't feel nearly as much fatigue.

Some players get through 80 minutes due to athleticism and conditioning, but I think what makes players like Heaslip stand out is his ability to recover A LOT during a game so that he still has gas to burn at 60 minutes.

sydthebeat

smiley_face wrote: »

It comes down to work rate and intensity and for how long you prolong high intensity efforts.
Carries, tackles, support play, hitting rucks, as well as set-piece responsibilities all take energy, and an intelligent player will choose the best moments tin a match to exert themselves, and they will conserve their energy when they are not required to lead the carries or tackle counts etc.
All that said, guys like O'Connell and Heaslip have a tremendous workrate and can perform better in the last 20 minutes than other lesser players can manage anytime in a match.
The real test is when competing against other quality sides, especially the likes of Wales or New Zealand, where they have massive workhorses from 4 to 8.

when POM, Heaslip and SOB are on the pitch together they traditional 'duties' of the positions get a bit blurred.... becuase they all compliment each others game. Heaslip will tend to hit more rucks to clean out, hit more first up tackles and take more one out ball than the others, in order to free the like of SOB up to jackle or makes runs with space. He doesnt play a game like Reed for example, which is based more on open space attacking or crash ball. Heaslip makes the hard one out yards and is never ever* turned over

heaslips tackle counts are always on the high side and to suggest he paces himself in that area is madness.


* may or may not be strictly true

smiley_face

smiley_face wrote: »

It comes down to work rate and intensity and for how long you prolong high intensity efforts.
Carries, tackles, support play, hitting rucks, as well as set-piece responsibilities all take energy, and an intelligent player will choose the best moments tin a match to exert themselves, and they will conserve their energy when they are not required to lead the carries or tackle counts etc.
All that said, guys like O'Connell and Heaslip have a tremendous workrate and can perform better in the last 20 minutes than other lesser players can manage anytime in a match.
The real test is when competing against other quality sides, especially the likes of Wales or New Zealand, where they have massive workhorses from 4 to 8.

I think its down to the individual player's ability to last 80 minutes, rather than a player employing a strategy to last that long e.g. pacing themselves.

"I'm feeling a little tired and have used up my quota of tackles for this 10 minute period, I want to make it to 70 minutes so I'll just let them score this one try" .... No one ever.

smiley_face

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"I'm feeling a little tired and have used up my quota of tackles for this 10 minute period, I want to make it to 70 minutes so I'll just let them score this one try" .... No one ever.

Nobody would miss a tackle intentionally.
But you wouldn't waste energy by putting yourself in the position where you have to make so many tackles that you would tire quickly.
The back row would share the work.
Incidentally if you are on the pitch for 80 minutes as a back rower you will generally have a high tackle count.
The one place you can decide how much energy you spend is by opting to carry the ball more. The players that carry more often will definitely tire more quickly.
I'd like to see Heaslip carry more and put in big hits to blow back the opposition, as I think he would be very impressive if he did that without having to worry about having to last 80 minutes.
There are a lot of stoppages in matches which allow players to get their wind back, but the energy required to carry and make the gain line repetitively would tire anyone.
Billy Vunipola or Louis Picamoles for example are destructive carriers, and I'd like an 8 to do similar for Ireland.
Of course there's more to rugby than just carrying, and all our players have other strengths too, and it's a team game where all players add something important to the mix.

total former

This notion that Heaslip somehow holds back so that he can last the 80 is utter nonsense. It's just bananas.

sydthebeat

smiley_face wrote: »

Billy Vunipola or Louis Picamoles for example are destructive carriers, and I'd like an 8 to do similar for Ireland.
Of course there's more to rugby than just carrying, and all our players have other strengths too, and it's a team game where all players add something important to the mix.

when we have SOB on the pitch we dont need our 8 to be carrying loads, as i explained earlier. Heaslip allows players like SOB and POM to excel at what theyre good at, by doing the donkey work.
Both players youve mentioned have very traditional opensides working in tandem, Picamoles has Dusautoir and Billy has Robshaw... both players better known for their grunt spoiling work than their ball carrying.

when Heaslip had Henry playing more consistently beside him, he was making a lot more yardage as Henry is a more tradition groundhog 7.

aimee1

total former wrote: »

This notion that Heaslip somehow holds back so that he can last the 80 is utter nonsense. It's just bananas.

his tackle in the last few minutes against scotland was clearly because he took it easy in the 70+ minutes or so beforehand :eek:

smiley_face

sydthebeat wrote: »

when we have SOB on the pitch we dont need our 8 to be carrying loads, as i explained earlier. Heaslip allows players like SOB and POM to excel at what theyre good at, by doing the donkey work.
Both players youve mentioned have very traditional opensides working in tandem, Picamoles has Dusautoir and Billy has Robshaw... both players better known for their grunt spoiling work than their ball carrying.

when Heaslip had Henry playing more consistently beside him, he was making a lot more yardage as Henry is a more tradition groundhog 7.

One might make the case for O'Brien at 8 and Henry at 7, and Heaslip as an impact sub.

sydthebeat

smiley_face wrote: »

One might make the case for O'Brien at 8 and Henry at 7, and Heaslip as an impact sub.

Nope.... big bad black ball of nope.