Ireland RWC Backline

jm08

total former wrote: »

No one. The point of naming 45 players is to cover injuries.

I would have thought 15 x3 for training purposes and to facilitate different style of player.

Wang King

Ian Keatley plays 12...

total former

smiley_face wrote: »

Yes, but only 31 make the RWC squad. Who would replace any of our 10 options if we had 1 or even 2 injuries?

One injury = Noel Reid
Two injuries = Reid + Keatley

If we have that many injuries where Humphreys or JJ become a factor, then we're f**ked anyway.

smiley_face

total former wrote: »

One injury = Noel Reid
Two injuries = Reid + Keatley

If we have that many injuries where Humphreys or JJ become a factor, then we're f**ked anyway.

Ok, if 2 injuries (however unlikely) would Keatley be benching ahead of Reid?
If injury to Madigan does Jackson get the 22 jersey?
If Jackson is 22 and comes on for an injury to a centre, would Sexton go to 12? Keatley might be the better option to go to 12 if prefer Sexton to stay at 10.
Or would Reid be preferred at 22?

bilston

smiley_face wrote: »

Ok, if 2 injuries (however unlikely) would Keatley be benching ahead of Reid?
If injury to Madigan does Jackson get the 22 jersey?
If Jackson is 22 and comes on for an injury to a centre, would Sexton go to 12? Keatley might be the better option to go to 12 if prefer Sexton to stay at 10.
Or would Reid be preferred at 22?

Jackson has played 12 for Ulster, only two or three times from the start but he has moved there a few times during matches, so while he clearly doesn't have Madigan's experience there he is capable of it.

I wonder if it is something we will see during the August matches, even if just for 20 minutes towards the end of one of the matches.

smiley_face

bilston wrote: »

Jackson has played 12 for Ulster, only two or three times from the start but he has moved there a few times during matches, so while he clearly doesn't have Madigan's experience there he is capable of it.

I wonder if it is something we will see during the August matches, even if just for 20 minutes towards the end of one of the matches.

Which would be better, PJ at 10 with JS at 12, or JS at 10 with PJ at 12?

The Pheasant2

smiley_face wrote: »

Which would be better, PJ at 10 with JS at 12, or JS at 10 with PJ at 12?

I'd reckon the latter. We've seen Sexton slot in at 12 a few times in the past and he's looked comfortable enough.

total former

The grim spectre of Jonny Sexton at 12 is the reason Madigan has to bench.

smiley_face

total former wrote: »

The grim spectre of Jonny Sexton at 12 is the reason Madigan has to bench.

Ok,
If injury to Madigan does Jackson get the 22 jersey?
If Jackson is 22 and comes on for an injury to a centre, would Sexton go to 12?
Or would Reid be preferred at 22?

total former

smiley_face wrote: »

Ok,
If injury to Madigan does Jackson get the 22 jersey?
If Jackson is 22 and comes on for an injury to a centre, would Sexton go to 12?
Or would Reid be preferred at 22?

No, he'd pick Jackson at 22, and I think they'd put him at inside centre if it came to it. Sexton is so instrumental to everything that Joe will be loathe to shift him out.

bilston

smiley_face wrote: »

Ok,
If injury to Madigan does Jackson get the 22 jersey?
If Jackson is 22 and comes on for an injury to a centre, would Sexton go to 12?
Or would Reid be preferred at 22?

Reid hasn't a hope of being preferred to Jackson for the 22 jersey in any circumstance.

Imagine Sexton gets injured after 10 minutes, you'd have Noel Reid at out half for 70 minutes. Better having Jackson at 12 for 70 minutes than Reid at 10 I'd have thought.

bilston

Although with a bit more imagination with the 23 shirt you could probably have someone here who can cover centre, wing and full back...ie Fitzgerald (if he isn't starting) or Earls.

Wang King

bilston wrote: »

Although with a bit more imagination with the 23 shirt you could probably have someone here who can cover centre, wing and full back...ie Fitzgerald (if he isn't starting) or Earls.

Or Jones



Oh yeah!!!

smiley_face

I've been wondering lately what the likely backline will be against Romania,
Obviously we're way out from that now and injuries will most likely occur before then,
But without knowing who might get injured, and assuming we want our best team against Canada, and also want them to be well rested before taking on Italy and France, then how do you line out the team against Romania (that will be after the Canada match and before the Italy match)?
Let's say this is your preferred starting backline against Italy for argument's sake:
9. Murray, 10, Sexton, 11. Fitzgerald, 12. Henshaw, 13. Payne, 14. Bowe, 15. Kearney, 21. Reddan, 22. Madigan, 23. Jones.

Backline against Romania??
Would it be:
9. Boss, 10, Jackson, 11. Zebo, 12. Madigan, 13. McFadden, 14. Bowe, 15. Jones, 21. Reddan, 22. Sexton, 23. Kearney.
subs at 20 mins to go:
Reddan for Boss,
Sexton for Madigan but swap with Jackson,
Kearney to come in for Bowe but to swap with Jones.

Any thoughts?
It asks a bit more from Bowe, but could make that substitution a bit earlier perhaps.
Possibly Cave or Earls could go instead of McFadden for cover at 13.
With this setup it's more a toss up between McFadden and Earls as they can both cover right wing if anything happens to Bowe.
Personally I would prefer McFadden for his convincing performances for Ireland in recent years. I could be wrong but doesn't he also offer another goal-kicking option?

.ak

Doubt we'll see that much rotation tbh, but a chance to bubble wrap some key players. I imagine something along the lines of;

09. Murray
10. Jackson
11. Zebo
12. Henshaw
13. Payne
14. Trimble
15. Jones

21. Reddan
22. Madigan
23. Earls

smiley_face

.ak wrote: »

Doubt we'll see that much rotation tbh, but a chance to bubble wrap some key players. I imagine something along the lines of;

09. Murray
10. Jackson
11. Zebo
12. Henshaw
13. Payne
14. Trimble
15. Jones

21. Reddan
22. Madigan
23. Earls

That could work if you bring 15 backs.
Also would put Murray and the centres under pressure, could sub them early I suppose.
You wouldn't use Boss either?
Or to cut it down to 14 are you saying you would bring Zebo and leave Fitz out of the squad? Would then also be putting him under pressure and would leave it without any left-legged cover for left wing if he gets injured other than R Kearney.
(That's as I'm assuming Bowe is going, and you have Trimble there also).
Or would you keep both Fitz and Zebo and remove Trimble perhaps to cut it down to 14?
I'd assume we need 14 backs, and will break down as 3 SH (Murray+Reddan+Boss), 2 OH (Sexton+Jackson), 4 centres (Henshaw+Payne+Madigan+1 more centre), 3 wings (Bowe + 2 more wingers), 2 fb (Kearney+Jones).
So would you choose Earls as the centre, and Fitz at 11 and Zebo as the 3rd winger?
I would prefer McFadden over Earls but otherwise I have the same RWC backline squad in mind, minus Trimble as I would only take 14 backs.

.ak

Yeah that's it, I'd ideally like to bring 15, although I'm banking on us saving a prop space with bent.

Murray, Reddan, Boss
Sexton, Jackson, Madigan
Bowe, Fitzgerald, Trimble, Zebo, Earls
Payne, Henshaw
Kearney, Jones

Very likely tho that Trimble or Earls may lose out tho, which is mad to think.

smiley_face

.ak wrote: »

Yeah that's it, I'd ideally like to bring 15, although I'm banking on us saving a prop space with bent.

Murray, Reddan, Boss
Sexton, Jackson, Madigan
Bowe, Fitzgerald, Trimble, Zebo, Earls
Payne, Henshaw
Kearney, Jones

Very likely tho that Trimble or Earls may lose out tho, which is mad to think.

I think it's unlikely to take 15 backs, as I think the forwards will be:
5 Props (Healy+McGrath+Bent+Ross+Moore), 3 Hookers (Best+Cronin+Strauss), 4 2nd Row (POC+Toner+Henderson+Ryan), 5 Back Row (POM+Heaslip+O'Brien+Murphy+Henry).
Could argue about Touhy over Ryan, and O'Donnell over Henry, and if Healy out then Kilcoyne would make it.
That leaves 14 backs.
I can't see any other way, unless we only take 3 2nd Rows, but I'd rather 4 2nd Rows than bring 4 Wingers.
Or if you brought 4 Wingers and only 3 Centres then that would be too tight. Unless Trimble played at Centre against Romania.

.ak

Yeah true, I actually had in my head we'd bring 3 locks, but that's leaving it tight.

In an ideal world we'd leave Jones behind, we've so many players that can play FB, and he seemed to only be used as a break incase of emergency player during the 6N... for me, he's wasting a space. It's criminal to think someone of Zebo, Earls, Trimble or Fitzgerald could be left behind for him, when they're all much better players IMO.

.ak

.ak wrote: »

Yeah true, I actually had in my head we'd bring 3 locks, but that's leaving it tight.

In an ideal world we'd leave Jones behind, we've so many players that can play FB, and he seemed to only be used as a break incase of emergency player during the 6N... for me, he's wasting a space. It's criminal to think someone of Zebo, Earls, Trimble or Fitzgerald could be left behind for him, when they're all much better players IMO.

Three locks would mean POC for example would have to be in every match day squad. At his age you need to give him a rest.

Totally agree on Jones, it's the one selection Schmidt has made so far that I can't get my head around, given that he's been used so little. I just don't get why he's there.

total former

I honestly don't think Jones will go. You can make the "Joe seems to like him" argument for pretty much all the outside backs, I don't think it will help Jones.

smiley_face

Assuming Jones doesn't go,
And as Madigan is sure to go as backup 12 and cover for 10,
That leaves 3 squad positions available.
We don't need another 12 as Madigan is there.
So we need to cover OC, LW, RW and FB with 3 choices.
I would think it's safe to say that either Fitz or Zebo will be first choice 11.
I would think we need at least one left-legged player among the 3 choices to cover left wing, (unless Kearney would be moved out there which I don't see happening).
The most likely would be to bring Zebo and Fitz to completely cover the left wing, and bring two more to cover right-wing and preferably OC and FB too.
Zebo can cover 11 and 15, Fitz can cover 11, 12, 13.
Earls and McFadden can cover 13 and 14 comfortably, and at a push Bowe and Trimble can also cover 13 as well as 14.
Gilroy can cover 14 and 15.
Dave Kearney can cover 11 and 14.
I think Rob Kearney can cover left wing but would not see him moved from 15.
What is our best option to cover the 2 other positions?
I would like to choose Cave and Trimble, but that would make us rely on Zebo as only fullback cover, so Cave and Gilroy might be better as Gilroy can cover fullback.

thomond2006

total former wrote: »

I honestly don't think Jones will go. You can make the "Joe seems to like him" argument for pretty much all the outside backs, I don't think it will help Jones.

Unless we see someone other than Jones or Kearney used at 15 during the warmups IMO Jones is a near certainty.

smiley_face

bilston wrote: »

Reid hasn't a hope of being preferred to Jackson for the 22 jersey in any circumstance.

Imagine Sexton gets injured after 10 minutes, you'd have Noel Reid at out half for 70 minutes. Better having Jackson at 12 for 70 minutes than Reid at 10 I'd have thought.

I agree with this point, so it begs the question, what does Reid offer at all as call-up sub if he would only be there to cover 12?
If Reid were called up then Jackson and Sexton would be 10 and 22 for each of the group matches, and Reid would start against Romania at 12.
Surely if Madigan gets injured shouldn't it be Keatley getting the call-up?
I'm beginning to think Reid is only being called into the training squad for experience and for Joe to see what he is capable of for future reference, and to run against the other guys in training.

AbusesToilets

thomond2006 wrote: »

Unless we see someone other than Jones or Kearney used at 15 during the warmups IMO Jones is a near certainty.

Half of our backline have played 15 to a high level, Kearney, Payne, Henshaw, Zebo, Fitz, Earls. There are so many better options, I would be amazed if Jones goes purely to cover 15.

total former

smiley_face wrote: »

I'm beginning to think Reid is only being called into the training squad for experience and for Joe to see what he is capable of for future reference, and to run against the other guys in training.

It would be bizarre if Joe called up 44 guys as genuine contenders and then 1 randomer for the experience of it, while still planning to call up Keatley in case of injury.

smiley_face

total former wrote: »

It would be bizarre if Joe called up 44 guys as genuine contenders and then 1 randomer for the experience of it, while still planning to call up Keatley in case of injury.

If he's not good enough at 10 then what other explanation is there to have a specialist 12 in the training squad?
I think D'arcy or Cave would be better at 12, and both can cover 13 also.
Maybe Reid is being looked at to see if he has potential to also play at 13?
Also, I don't think there are 44 genuine contenders, a few are definitely only there as cover in case of injuries, and to run against the 1st choice players in training.

total former

smiley_face wrote: »

If he's not good enough at 10 then what other explanation is there to have a specialist 12 in the training squad?
I think D'arcy or Cave would be better at 12, and both can cover 13 also.
Maybe Reid is being looked at to see if he has potential to also play at 13?
Also, I don't think there are 44 genuine contenders, a few are definitely only there as cover in case of injuries, and to run against the 1st choice players in training.

This is going in circles, I've answered all these already. You're throwing out all these suggestions and scenarios but you're taking no notice of what Joe has actually done with his selection.

smiley_face

total former wrote: »

This is going in circles, I've answered all these already. You're throwing out all these suggestions and scenarios but you're taking no notice of what Joe has actually done with his selection.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because I don't think Reid will be called up, it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
There are 3 potential outhalves in the training squad, and for whatever reason Joe didn't want a 4th outhalf in the camp.
I think if any of them get injured they will be replaced with someone outside the camp, and not with Reid.
Reid can only really play 12, and can only be there as possible backup to Henshaw.

wittycynic

Think we have some very serious issues with the backline going into this World Cup. Defensively, we've been very good overall, but unfortunately the same can't be said about our attack.

The Scotland performance from last year, where we admittedly did score pretty freely, was against a tired team, with nothing to play for, and which had effectively thrown in the towel. It put a gloss on the whole Six Nations during which, otherwise, we looked pretty impotent going forward.

Some concerning points:
1. The Henshaw-Payne axis has never looked capable of opening up a defence of any quality. The highlight of this was during the Welsh game where, despite being camped on their line, we were completely incapable of the ingenuity required to create a gap.

2. We have no idea what happens if either Henshaw or Payne get injured. No other combination has been tried, and if anything were to happen during the tournament we'd be left with a completely untested partnership. I'm disappointed Joe hasn't properly assessed other options.

3. We have two top quality players who have been performing well below their capabilities in recent seasons in Bowe and Kearney. Neither have given the sustained world-class performances that won them accolades earlier in their careers, but neither are old enough for us to simply chalk this down as natural age-related decline. For me Bowe's slide has been particularly deftly felt as he has gone from a perpetual try scoring threat to a guy who I am now surprised to see score against international-tier opposition.

Just some food for thought.

jacothelad

wittycynic wrote: »

Think we have some very serious issues with the backline going into this World Cup. Defensively, we've been very good overall, but unfortunately the same can't be said about our attack.

The Scotland performance from last year, where we admittedly did score pretty freely, was against a tired team, with nothing to play for, and which had effectively thrown in the towel. It put a gloss on the whole Six Nations during which, otherwise, we looked pretty impotent going forward.

Some concerning points:
1. The Henshaw-Payne axis has never looked capable of opening up a defence of any quality. The highlight of this was during the Welsh game where, despite being camped on their line, we were completely incapable of the ingenuity required to create a gap.

2. We have no idea what happens if either Henshaw or Payne get injured. No other combination has been tried, and if anything were to happen during the tournament we'd be left with a completely untested partnership. I'm disappointed Joe hasn't properly assessed other options.

3. We have two top quality players who have been performing well below their capabilities in recent seasons in Bowe and Kearney. Neither have given the sustained world-class performances that won them accolades earlier in their careers, but neither are old enough for us to simply chalk this down as natural age-related decline. For me Bowe's slide has been particularly deftly felt as he has gone from a perpetual try scoring threat to a guy who I am now surprised to see score against international-tier opposition.

Just some food for thought.

Bowe has missed a lot of rugby through injury. He has only played 12 games in the last 3 seasons. he has still managed to score 4 tries in those games. Anyway, apparently we don't need to worry about wingers scoring tries. It seems that Bowe is actually scoring too many to be doing all the other things that wingers now do. Dressage, mincing about, getting stones taken out of their hoof etc....:D

wittycynic

jacothelad wrote: »

Bowe has missed a lot of rugby through injury. He has only played 12 games in the last 3 seasons. he has still managed to score 4 tries in those games. Anyway, apparently we don't need to worry about wingers scoring tries. It seems that Bowe is actually scoring too many to be doing all the other things that wingers now do. Dressage, mincing about, getting stones taken out of their hoof etc....:D

Do you not feel that our attacking threat has waned? In the 2014 Six Nations we scored 16 tries, the most of any team, while simultaneously operating the best defence. This year, we scored 8, compared to England's 18 and Wales's 13. We have a great defence, of that there can be little doubt, but more offensive guile will be required if we are to progress in this tournament. The change in centre partnership is the most obvious difference between last year's championship and this year's, and it shows on the scoreboard.

Of the eight tries we scored in this year's Six Nations, four came against Scotland, and only one could be classed as being as a result attacking backline play, Payne's against Scotland.

Unless we become more adept at manufacturing genuine try scoring opportunities we will seriously struggle to beat France in a neutral venue. France will want to avoid a quarter final with New Zealand just as much as we will.

postitnote

One hopes that the lack of genuine plays and try scoring opportunities is down to Joe's decision to keep his cards close to his chest. We know he's capable of creating some wonderful looking plays. The one that stands out from the last 6 Nations was o'brien's against scotland when we absolutley had to score tries.

molloyjh

wittycynic wrote: »

Do you not feel that our attacking threat has waned? In the 2014 Six Nations we scored 16 tries, the most of any team, while simultaneously operating the best defence. This year, we scored 8, compared to England's 18 and Wales's 13. We have a great defence, of that there can be little doubt, but more offensive guile will be required if we are to progress in this tournament. The change in centre partnership is the most obvious difference between last year's championship and this year's, and it shows on the scoreboard.

Of the eight tries we scored in this year's Six Nations, four came against Scotland, and only one could be classed as being as a result attacking backline play, Payne's against Scotland.

Unless we become more adept at manufacturing genuine try scoring opportunities we will seriously struggle to beat France in a neutral venue. France will want to avoid a quarter final with New Zealand just as much as we will.

Factor in a few other things into those stats though, like the fact we were missing a number of key players away to Italy and the weather was crappy compared to England who played them at home with pretty much a full squad or Wales who played them on that insane last day, again with pretty much a full strength squad. That puts a very different slant on things straight away. The England-France game then as well was a total aberration. Those 2 England games account for 13 of their tries.

We didn't have a particularly cutting attack, but we did have a game plan that worked well pretty much all the time. It's no coincidence that the only 2 defeats we've had in the last 2 6 Nations were away from home to teams that put in a very impressive defensive effort. And all that with a completely new centre pairing. What we lacked in that scintillating attack department we made up for with guile, invention and accuracy in other areas.

And we won't approach this RWC the same way we did the 2015 6 Nations. Joe is a fan of changing it up and not staying still.

bilston

I felt the centres were growing as a partnership with every game in the 6Ns. We basically have 6 games now until the WC really kicks in and if Payne and Henshaw play 4 of those games they will have time to click.

However we need Healy fit as along with SOB he is our main source of carrying up front. Without them we don't go forwards and our backs will just be bystanders chasing kicks all day long.

smiley_face

wittycynic wrote: »

Think we have some very serious issues with the backline going into this World Cup. Defensively, we've been very good overall, but unfortunately the same can't be said about our attack.

The Scotland performance from last year, where we admittedly did score pretty freely, was against a tired team, with nothing to play for, and which had effectively thrown in the towel. It put a gloss on the whole Six Nations during which, otherwise, we looked pretty impotent going forward.

Some concerning points:
1. The Henshaw-Payne axis has never looked capable of opening up a defence of any quality. The highlight of this was during the Welsh game where, despite being camped on their line, we were completely incapable of the ingenuity required to create a gap.

2. We have no idea what happens if either Henshaw or Payne get injured. No other combination has been tried, and if anything were to happen during the tournament we'd be left with a completely untested partnership. I'm disappointed Joe hasn't properly assessed other options.

3. We have two top quality players who have been performing well below their capabilities in recent seasons in Bowe and Kearney. Neither have given the sustained world-class performances that won them accolades earlier in their careers, but neither are old enough for us to simply chalk this down as natural age-related decline. For me Bowe's slide has been particularly deftly felt as he has gone from a perpetual try scoring threat to a guy who I am now surprised to see score against international-tier opposition.

Just some food for thought.

Good points,

1. Hopefully a few more matches together will improve their partnership.
I would expect that a summer of preparation, with summer tests against good opposition, will bring them on in their link play, their choice of running angles, and the distribution to the back 3.

2. I fully agree with that point. However the 6 nations was a competition that the team desperately wanted to win and back up from last season, so experimentation was not an option. There should be a few outings for Cave, Earls, and McFadden and possibly Reid or D'Arcy, over the next few matches.
I hope to see Cave at 12 with McFadden at 13 at some point.
Trimble hasn't played centre in a while, but has good physicality and speed to play at 13 against the weaker teams at least, could be good to see him get a run out there perhaps.

3. I don't go along with them playing below their capabilities, they are being given exact duties by Joe, and I don't think that would include flair plays or off-the-cuff type decisions to leave the line or pop up in different channels.
I think they have both been solid in their positions, and particularly where there is a kick-chase type game-plan adopted, they are two proven aerial challengers with cool heads at top level, so they perfectly suited this year's 6 nations strategy. It wasn't desired for them to go on mazey runs or try little chip-and-chase kicks etc even if they wanted to, and as fans we would have enjoyed it more.
I would like to see Gilroy at full-back and at right wing, and also Zebo or Earls at fullback, but with only a few matches it can't all be tested out in time for the 31-man squad selection for the RWC.
Must be said also that Jones hasn't had an 80 minute shot at full-back recently (if ever) so that might be worth a look at too.

molloyjh

smiley_face wrote: »

I hope to see Cave at 12 with McFadden at 13 at some point.

As big a fan of Ferg as I am, just no to this. If those 2 are going to be partnered in midfield (and I don't think there's any point in it at this late stage) then it should at least be the other way around (Ferg at 12 and Cave at 13).

smiley_face

molloyjh wrote: »

As big a fan of Ferg as I am, just no to this. If those 2 are going to be partnered in midfield (and I don't think there's any point in it at this late stage) then it should at least be the other way around (Ferg at 12 and Cave at 13).

I take your point, but they can both play in either position, and I'm more interested in McFadden at 13 and Cave at 12 than the other way around. I think McFadden is good at scoring at 13, and I think that's his favourite position, while Cave may lack the pace required for 13 but is solid enough to play 12.
Only my opinion, but perhaps they could play a half with Cave at 12 and McFadden at 13 and then swap for the 2nd half to see which is a better line-up.
Don't think there's enough matches left to try out every combination though.
I would think theirs is potentially the 2nd best combination after Henshaw and Payne, would prefer them over D'Arcy and Earls for example, or Reid and Fitz etc.

irishbucsfan

Our backs were superb in the 6 Nations. Murray and Sexton were playing at a level I don't think I've ever seen an Irish half back pairing perform at. Henshaw was our player of the tournament imo. The whole unit were incredibly well organised and they were on the exact same page as each other at nearly all times.

We didn't score tries because that's not what we set out our stall to do. Our focus was in keeping opponents away from our lines and disrupting them as much as possible in possession and then capitalise on that pressure. We probably have the best players in the world to play that specific tactic thanks to Murray/Sexton/Kearney.

There was a moment when we were playing France that completely underlined this. We won the ball at the edge of their half and played into their territory. On 3rd phase we went to the blindside and Sexton was there with a couple of players outside him, there was a little bit of space for him to attack, nothing special but we would have been certain of making ground and retaining possession. Instead Sexton put boot to ball and disposed of possession and put France under pressure deep in their own 22. When a team are kicking on 3rd phase in the opposition's half then it tells you a lot about their intentions.

We have opponents stretching themselves just to retain possession on 1st/2nd phase and it's giving our back row a lot of opportunities to be disruptive. Sometimes we're able to recover possession from those kicks but what a lot of people don't realise is that recovering possession isn't the optimal result, the optimal result is forcing a penalty. If you kick the ball from your 22 and the chaser wins the ball in the air, you're going to get 1st phase in or around half way. On the other hand, if you kick the ball from your 22 and the chaser smashes the opposition's receiver of that kick and that disruption leads to a penalty, you're going to have 1st phase deep in opposition territory, maybe even in their 22. It's a massively efficient way of playing if you have strong half backs and strong loose forwards. It suits our strengths perfectly.

This worked consistently and it worked well. The only time it faltered was in Wales and that was due to some heroics from their back 3 cancelling out that side of our game. We did adapt and change our approach over there and climb back into the game eventually but I think our half backs were taken by surprise a little, I think that experience will stand to them if any of our World Cup opponents have someone like Halfpenny playing at their peak helping them to win the territory battle against us. In general though it worked very well and it was very rare that opponents were able to get established in our half for any length of time. If you look at the 1st half territory statistics of both the England and France games, we had 66% against England and 65% against France. If we can replicate that in the World Cup we'll be very difficult to beat for anyone.

If we can keep that 6 Nations unit together then great. Maybe the real question is what happens if we pick up injuries, it's important that anyone coming into the team can make a positive addition to that strategy. I think we have a lot of depth in midfield and on the wing who can do exactly that. Earls, Fitzgerald and Trimble are the three guys who can slot in with no loss of ability imo, Trimble on the wing and Earls/Fitz at 13 or on the wing. The questions are elsewhere really, I think we've seen that Madigan can't replace that side of Sexton's game however I think Jackson can if he's starting in an emergency. Reddan certainly can't replace that side of Murray's game, it's massively important Murray is fit and firing. Kearney would be irreplaceable on any side that wants to play this way, the quality of his left boot and his ability in the air mean he's absolutely built to play this rugby, however I think Jones is as good as we could ever have hoped for as a stand in and he certainly used to be very talented in that area. At 12, if Henshaw went down, I suppose D'Arcy would be the only established replacement (although I don't think he will be named in the squad just for that purpose). I think overall the squad has a lot of depth so long as our half backs can stay fit, if I was a more cynical opposition coach I'd absolutely be targeting those guys.

I'm a huge fan of our backs, they've been absolutely crucial for us so far this year. And make no mistake, we're incredibly lucky to have everyone fit at this stage facing into the competition, if we can keep them all in shape, and even by some miracle get them all through the group stages, then I think we have a real chance of winning the entire thing. I'm intrigued to see what the French or any SH teams bring against it.

stephen_n

I can see no legitimate reason not to give Henshaw and Payne as much game time together as possible in these games. Looking at options to replace one or the other in case of injury is reasonable, but trying out other partnerships would be pointless at this stage.

total former

I've been saying this for months but a recalibration of expectations for these matches is needed in some quarters. Joe won't be bothered about new combinations or seeing what guys can do in a different position. There isn't time and there's very little point.

molloyjh

total former wrote: »

I've been saying this for months but a recalibration of expectations for these matches is needed in some quarters. Joe won't be bothered about new combinations or seeing what guys can do in a different position. There isn't time and there's very little point.

At most we'll see back-ups getting time off the bench but not a whole lot else. I would like to see Jackson get a decent bit of game time, but other than that I wouldn't be too pushed really.

smiley_face

molloyjh wrote: »

At most we'll see back-ups getting time off the bench but not a whole lot else. I would like to see Jackson get a decent bit of game time, but other than that I wouldn't be too pushed really.

Our 1st choice players are more or less decided, but we have to give a few 2nd choice players time in these matches, or we might end up regretting it if there are injuries.
Without injuries it would all be very simple, but how often do we go 4-6 matches without an injury.
We simply have to prepare for the scenario where Henshaw or Payne gets an injury, or we could end up facing France in a huge match with a new centre pairing.
Surely a run against Scotland for example with Cave and McFadden would be worth the game-time.
Henshaw and Payne could play the other 3 matches.
I do think they need time to get more cohesive, but I'd also be wary of either of them being over-used without any other options being tested out.
At the very least, the other players deserve a crack at impressing before selections are made.

Podge_irl

Cave and McFadden won't be starting without about 4 injuries. I'm sceptical of the benefit of one start in a middling warm up game (I lie, I'm not sceptical I think its worthless).

shuffol

I think we'll see another option tried at 13, possibly Earls or Fitz with Payne possibly getting a run at FB. Think we might see D'arcy starting a game also.

bilston

There is no way the 1st XV are going to play all 4 warm up games. I would have thought that just about all 41, or whatever number it is will get some minutes in the first two games, and if not the 41 then the 33 or 34 players that are in contention for the WC squad. So fringe players are bound to get a chance, even if it is just one start and maybe a couple of 30 minute bursts from the bench.

Not that any of that will change the 1st XV. I think most of us agree 14 positions are nailed down and only the left wing is open to debate. But there will unfortunately be injuries so it is important that other players get at least some game time in these next 4 weeks as some of them will be needed during the WC.

bilston

Podge_irl wrote: »

Cave and McFadden won't be starting without about 4 injuries. I'm sceptical of the benefit of one start in a middling warm up game (I lie, I'm not sceptical I think its worthless).

They are worthwhile from the point of view of getting players match fitness up to scratch.

That is really the whole point, as well as making a few Euros/Pounds for the Unions of course!

jacothelad

shuffol wrote: »

I think we'll see another option tried at 13, possibly Earls or Fitz with Payne possibly getting a run at FB. Think we might see D'arcy starting a game also.

I sincerely hope not. Two wingers - one of whom scores tries - and an over the hill, once stellar player who now has the acceleration of Mike Ross. Time to go Gordon. Despite his great history he has gone on too long - certainly in the Ireland shirt. If you want centres, use centres. It's like calling for McFadden to play there. I'd have him at 12 or 13 only if all the other actual centres had become unavailable but he has proven his worth on the wing. Fitz has played a few games in the league at 13 and has looked o.k. but let's see him do it for a season and actually be better than the other options. Earls is a good player and can do a job at 13 for Munster but when you see him on the wing, he is so much in his element. I have to admit I would have him as a starter on the wing.

phog

I can't see Darcy starting a game for us bar injury. He didn't feature for us during the 6Ns or was he injured?.

Fitz has said he's behind the rest in terms of fitness so he'll probably miss the first warm up game and possibly the Scottish game too.

shuffol

jacothelad wrote: »

I sincerely hope not. Two wingers - one of whom scores tries - and an over the hill, once stellar player who now has the acceleration of Mike Ross. Time to go Gordon. Despite his great history he has gone on too long - certainly in the Ireland shirt. If you want centres, use centres. It's like calling for McFadden to play there. I'd have him at 12 or 13 only if all the other actual centres had become unavailable but he has proven his worth on the wing. Fitz has played a few games in the league at 13 and has looked o.k. but let's see him do it for a season and actually be better than the other options. Earls is a good player and can do a job at 13 for Munster but when you see him on the wing, he is so much in his element. I have to admit I would have him as a starter on the wing.

I wouldn't have D'arcy in the squad myself but we've shag all options at 12 and I can see him being given an opportunity. I can't see Cave being involved, we'll be relying on someone from the back 3 as center cover so that would mean Earls or Fitzgerald.

Fitzgerald also played 6 games in the ERC last season and looked better than ok IMO, not sure why his try scoring record on the wing is relevant to him playing center either.