Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread V

Sinbad_NI

CMOTDibbler wrote:

Indeed. But there weren't wholesale changes in the rest of the backline. We saw against Argentina what happens when virtually your entire midfield is changed at the same time.

I put that down to playing a winger at 13.

molloyjh

Zzippy wrote: »

Look, the risk-averse thing has certainly produced results - we've won 2 6Ns on the trot now with trusted players and one or two players blooded in gradually. But the WC showed the vulnerability of this system. When we lose just a few of those very experienced players we don't have a second tier of players who have had enough experience to step in without a significant loss of quality/experience.

This is relevant to the example of Rob Kearney. Yes, he may be the best option at 15, and yes, he has been world class at times in his career. But we have serious options there now which we didn't before. As long as we continue to ignore those options and play RK, we risk having a big hole in our back 3 in experience terms if/when RK gets injured. I'm not saying drop RK for Wales, I'm saying we should be considering trying other options there for at least one/two games. It's not a slight on RK, it's exploring our options, broadening our squad and succession planning.

What options have we been ignoring until now?

EDIT: Until now what young guys have we been ignoring at all anywhere on the park? Do people actually have any examples of an experienced older player getting undeserved game time ahead of better younger players?

Mahatma Geansai

swiwi_ wrote: »

Mon cher compatriot, you can hand in your passport and don't let the door of the embassy hit you on the way out.

What you would call pragmatism I would call being defeatist.

The reserves are a bit thin on the ground in terms of the tight 5 (especially with Henderson injured), but if the First XV stays injury-free, Ireland can definitely win and with style (Stander has to start though - along with McCarthy, who has suddenly found a second wind, these 2 are the form Irish forwards at present).

McCarthy is a 50 minute player at provincial level. He doesn't have the legs for international rugby.

Yeah_Right

swiwi_ wrote: »

Mon cher compatriot, you can hand in your passport and don't let the door of the embassy hit you on the way out.

What you would call pragmatism I would call being defeatist.

The reserves are a bit thin on the ground in terms of the tight 5 (especially with Henderson injured), but if the First XV stays injury-free, Ireland can definitely win and with style (Stander has to start though - along with McCarthy, who has suddenly found a second wind, these 2 are the form Irish forwards at present).

which passport am I handing in? I have a couple.

Are saying that you'd rather watch the ABs play beautiful rugby all the time and have a 50:50 record? Or win all the time even if it's ugly and boring? I know which I'd prefer.

Henderson is a tight forward that could play that type of game. None of the locks in the squad can. McGrath is probably the only tight forward there that would be an asset in a high pace, ball movement game.

It's very rare that any team goes to Twickenham and beats England playing a run and gun style. Both France and Wales generally like that style and are happy to play it. Unless you accompany it with brutal defence then it's a risky option to take against the French and the Welsh.

I think Ireland can play beautiful rugby and win with style, just not against the big guns in the 6 Nations. It's too risky.

Zzippy

molloyjh wrote: »

What options have we been ignoring until now?

EDIT: Until now what young guys have we been ignoring at all anywhere on the park? Do people actually have any examples of an experienced older player getting undeserved game time ahead of better younger players?

Sticking with an ageing Isaac Boss instead of giving Kieran Marmion some experience. The much-publicised omission of Ringrose from the squad. Waiting until BOD and Darcy were both completely gone before bringing in Payne and Henshaw. Ignoring the potential of either at 15 and giving them test experience there. Henderson could have got more experience sooner too.
Just a few.

But you missed my point. It's not about older players getting undeserved game time ahead of better younger players. It's about giving those players gametime ahead of possibly better older players in order to improve them, and the squad as a whole.

irishbucsfan

Zzippy wrote: »

This is relevant to the example of Rob Kearney. Yes, he may be the best option at 15, and yes, he has been world class at times in his career. But we have serious options there now which we didn't before. As long as we continue to ignore those options and play RK, we risk having a big hole in our back 3 in experience terms if/when RK gets injured. I'm not saying drop RK for Wales, I'm saying we should be considering trying other options there for at least one/two games. It's not a slight on RK, it's exploring our options, broadening our squad and succession planning.

I think this is something completely different.

I myself was talking about Rob Kearney as a starting player. When it comes to the question of developing depth in the squad then yes absolutely we should be doing that. We had a look at Zebo and I'd like to look at Payne and Henshaw so we can see what our depth is like in case of problems.

That's quite different to the question of who should start against Wales though which I think other people were talking about.


As for how we should develop that depth, the only game where I'd even consider it in the next couple of months would be the Italy game, depending on how the rest of the 6 Nations games go. Maybe one game against South Africa, again depending on the others. Then we can go into November, look at the world rankings and consider exactly how much freedom we have to rotate in those games. 2017 is a completely different story however.

former total

Zzippy wrote: »

Sticking with an ageing Isaac Boss instead of giving Kieran Marmion some experience. The much-publicised omission of Ringrose from the squad. Waiting until BOD and Darcy were both completely gone before bringing in Payne and Henshaw. Ignoring the potential of either at 15 and giving them test experience there. Henderson could have got more experience sooner too.
Just a few.

But you missed my point. It's not about older players getting undeserved game time ahead of better younger players. It's about giving those players gametime ahead of possibly better older players in order to improve them, and the squad as a whole.

You're dead right about the delay with Payne. What was it, three years or something? Madness.

The Rape of Lucretia

I think the full back position is a good example. Payne is a known quantity there. He could certainly do the job if needed, and would bring pros an cons v Rob. So no need to panic for backup. Zeebs was tried, brought nothing to the party, so his situation is known also, and much of a muchness with Fitz and Earls who have also played there buall looking fit for it only at a pinch. Mads could also get througha game for if needed.
So, plenty of so so break glass in emegencyplayers, one genuine option, who, with many options now in the centre makes it perfectly viable to move him from, and one incumbent in the prime of a world class career.
No experimenting needed here.

The Rape of Lucretia

I think the full back position is a good example. Payne is a known quantity there. He could certainly do the job if needed, and would bring pros an cons v Rob. So no need to panic for backup. Zeebs was tried, brought nothing to the party, so his situation is known also, and much of a muchness with Fitz and Earls who have also played there buall looking fit for it only at a pinch. Mads could also get througha game for if needed.
So, plenty of so so break glass in emegencyplayers, one genuine option, who, with many options now in the centre makes it perfectly viable to move him from, and one incumbent in the prime of a world class career.
No experimenting needed here.

awec

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Kearney is the best played in his position by a long distance in Ireland anyway.

He's far and away the best option. Noone dominates the back field like him, noone is so consistent in winning territory and getting the optimal return from possession. And he also even offers an option as a strike runner from time to time.

As a pure full back he's one of the very best in the world, let alone Ireland.


Winning without our best players is less likely than winning with them.

:pac:

I'm sure it would take Jared Payne all of 5 minutes to learn how to catch a ball and then run as fast as you can toward the first opposition players you see.

For quite a while now we have had Kearney's complete lack of attacking ability excused with this idea that what he is doing is gaining territory. Why risk breaking the line when you can just run into contact and recycle to ensure possession?

The last line in your post makes no sense. The idea is not to just try and get as many of these apparent best players on the pitch as possible, that's just daft.

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

I'm sure it would take Jared Payne all of 5 minutes to learn how to catch a ball and then run as fast as you can toward the first opposition players you see

I don't really believe you're actually that naive, so I assume this is you being intentionally daft.

For quite a while now we have had Kearney's complete lack of attacking ability excused with this idea that what he is doing is gaining territory. Why risk breaking the line when you can just run into contact and recycle to ensure possession?

Yes it's really strange that mulitple coaches have been just excusing Kearney's lack of ability for so long. The current Australian national coach, Ian McGeechan, Joe Schmidt, Kidney, MOC, about as diverse a group of coaches from as diverse a group of backgrounds as you can imagine. It's really really weird the way these things keep happening in rugby. A bit like the way all those very talented and accredited professional coaches think Jared Payne is a 13.

awec

Kearney's form 3, 4,, 5 or whatever years ago is really irrelevant and thus so is Cheikas, McGeechan and Kidney's opinion.

Is Kearney an attacking force now? Nope.
is Payne a better attacker? Yep.
Is Kearney a better tackler or defender than Payne? Nope.
Is Kearney better at catching the ball? Yep.
Does Payne add extra potency to the back three? Yep.


You're putting RK on a pedestal here ibf. The idea he is the best full back in Ireland by a distance is absolute crap.

awec

Kearney's form 3, 4,, 5 or whatever years ago is really irrelevant and thus so is Cheikas, McGeechan and Kidney's opinion.

Is Kearney an attacking force now? Nope.
is Payne a better attacker? Yep.
Is Kearney a better tackler or defender than Payne? Nope.
Is Kearney better at catching the ball? Yep.
Does Payne add extra potency to the back three? Yep.


You're putting RK on a pedestal here ibf. The idea he is the best full back in Ireland by a distance is absolute crap. Great full back but miles better than Payne? Nah, not having that. Two players of a pretty similar standard, but Payne is undoubtedly a better attacking force (and exciting to watch) and I want to see Ireland play more attacking, exciting rugby (rugby is supposed to be entertaining).

molloyjh

Zzippy wrote: »

Sticking with an ageing Isaac Boss instead of giving Kieran Marmion some experience. The much-publicised omission of Ringrose from the squad. Waiting until BOD and Darcy were both completely gone before bringing in Payne and Henshaw. Ignoring the potential of either at 15 and giving them test experience there. Henderson could have got more experience sooner too.
Just a few.

But you missed my point. It's not about older players getting undeserved game time ahead of better younger players. It's about giving those players gametime ahead of possibly better older players in order to improve them, and the squad as a whole.

You see this is what annoys me about this. You'd swear that Joe was ignoring these guys based on what you're saying. But Marmion has been with the squad for a while now. That he hasn't played simply means he hasn't done enough in training to deserve it. And that's on him.

The Ringrose decision was the correct one. He's still in the Academy and he would benefit more from game time now that hanging around a squad he won't play for yet. He's only just turning 21 on Tuesday.

Henshaw had been in the squad for a while before Drico left and we saw the benefit of that when he started. He was ready from the off because he had been brought in and developed properly. Payne was brought in as soon as he was eligible.

Hendersons got his first cap at 20 and has been consistently involved in the squad since in a position with a lot of competition. At 23 and having had a few injury issues he has 23 caps.

The national side isn't a place to chuck a guy in on a hope. Getting guys into camp and giving them a shot to stake a claim while getting them up to speed is exactly what we should, and are, doing. Whoever is best for the jersey then should be selected. Having guys in camp and getting them up to speed is developing depth as well.

awec

BTW, am I right in saying that BOD (as in Brian O'Driscoll, Mr Outside Centre himself) said today on BT Sport that Payne's best position is full back? :eek:

Who would have thought it?! :pac:

awec

BTW, am I right in saying that BOD (as in Brian O'Driscoll, Mr Outside Centre himself) said today on BT Sport that Payne's best position is full back? :eek:

Who would have thought it?! :pac:

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

Kearney's form 3, 4,, 5 or whatever years ago is really irrelevant and thus so is Cheikas, McGeechan and Kidney's opinion.

That's very convenient for you, but completely untrue. You can't just wipe out his Lions tour (where he was widely considered the best player on tour, I think its fair to say that) and the year's where he was dominant in the 6 Nations.

Kearney is a very similar player now as he was back then. He's only better if anything. He's certainly one of the top full backs in Europe and has been ever since Bradley stuck him in the team there.

Noone is putting him on a pedestal, you just have an extremely naive perception of the position at international level. Payne is a good attacking player, but the best full backs in Europe at international level currently are all exceptional territorial players and Kearney is the best at that. The only player who isn't is Hogg. The rest of the starting players have been Halfpenny, Spedding, McLean and Brown who are all capable in the back field primarily. Before this generation it was Kearney v. Lee Byrne. That pattern exists for a reason, Scott Spedding was enFrenchenated because he was doing his best Rob Kearney impression.

The fact you limit it to "catching a ball and running back with it" probably goes a very long way to explaining why you fail to appreciate his ability though to be fair.

jm08

irishbucsfan wrote: »

He was barely tested in the World Cup.

He is entirely likely to improve between now and the 6 Nations when you consider that's what he's done every other year when the 6 Nations rolls around. People said the exact same thing last year (like they do every year) and he dismissed all suggestions against the French, as usual. At this stage, you just have to accept people will never learn.

He wasn't tested. I thought he was tested v. Argentina.:pac:

Rob Kearney started against Wales in the warm up games.
v. Canada
Benched v. Romania
v. France
v. Argentina

awec

To be clear here, you are bigging up RK now based on the Lions tour of 6 (six) years ago?

Anyway, the full back discussion is a secondary one for me (it is just frustrating to see people so dismissive or afraid of change). Centre is the main place where change needs to happen.

jm08

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

I put that down to playing a winger at 13.

Does that mean the winger playing 13 v. France (or Italy) was the reason why Ireland won?

jm08

awec wrote: »

BTW, am I right in saying that BOD (as in Brian O'Driscoll, Mr Outside Centre himself) said today on BT Sport that Payne's best position is full back? :eek:

Who would have thought it?! :pac:

Seriously? He was touting him as a great centre during the world cup.

He was he suggesting should play in the centre - Ringrose :pac:

jm08

awec wrote: »

BTW, am I right in saying that BOD (as in Brian O'Driscoll, Mr Outside Centre himself) said today on BT Sport that Payne's best position is full back? :eek:

Who would have thought it?! :pac:

Seriously? He was touting him as a great centre during the world cup.

Who was he suggesting should play in the centre - Ringrose :pac:

Synode

awec wrote: »

To be clear here, you are bigging up RK now based on the Lions tour of 6 (six) years ago?

Anyway, the full back discussion is a secondary one for me (it is just frustrating to see people so dismissive or afraid of change). Centre is the main place where change needs to happen.

Why does it need to happen? Payne and Henshaw have played very well together for Ireland.

irishbucsfan

jm08 wrote: »

He wasn't tested. I thought he was tested v. Argentina.:pac:

Rob Kearney started against Wales in the warm up games.
v. Canada
Benched v. Romania
v. France
v. Argentina

We didn't struggle for territory in any of those games, the opponents never really kicked to us or put us under any pressure in the air. Not even Argentina.

In fact the only game we really struggled for territory IMO was the Italy game and I had forgotten he didn't play in that one. It wasn't Zebo's fault either it was us giving up too much ground in defense when Italy went wide for the most part.

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

To be clear here, you are bigging up RK now based on the Lions tour of 6 (six) years ago?

Anyway, the full back discussion is a secondary one for me (it is just frustrating to see people so dismissive or afraid of change). Centre is the main place where change needs to happen.

Yes. And the tour to New Zealand in 2008 and the game against France in last year's 6 Nations. Quite a diverse list.

Rob Kearney is the same person you know. The role of Rob Kearney isn't something we put out to tender on a 4 year cycle, it's actually the same fella, as hard is it is to believe.

irishbucsfan

jm08 wrote: »

Seriously? He was touting him as a great centre during the world cup.

Who was he suggesting should play in the centre - Ringrose :pac:

In the podcast that just got released with O'Regan he specifically spoke about that Ringrose tweet and pointed out that he didn't mean he should be starting for us right away, just that we could be worse off than having him in midfield. Just thought that deserved to be pointed out as I believe a certain incredibly handsome intelligent poster was pointing out the same thing not too long ago.

jm08

irishbucsfan wrote: »

We didn't struggle for territory in any of those games, the opponents never really kicked to us or put us under any pressure in the air. Not even Argentina.

In fact the only game we really struggled for territory IMO was the Italy game and I had forgotten he didn't play in that one. It wasn't Zebo's fault either it was us giving up too much ground in defense when Italy went wide for the most part.

Who is talking about territory. The big issue most people have with Rob Kearney is that he runs for contact. He is preprogrammed to run to a certain spot in the pitch no matter where the opposition are so that the rest will know where to run to so as to support him.

Talking about playing by numbers!

Other criticism is his lack of pace (not even club standard now) and his poor defending.

jm08

irishbucsfan wrote: »

We didn't struggle for territory in any of those games, the opponents never really kicked to us or put us under any pressure in the air. Not even Argentina.

In fact the only game we really struggled for territory IMO was the Italy game and I had forgotten he didn't play in that one. It wasn't Zebo's fault either it was us giving up too much ground in defense when Italy went wide for the most part.

Who is talking about territory. The big issue most people have with Rob Kearney is that he runs for contact. He is preprogrammed to run to a certain spot in the pitch no matter where the opposition are so that the rest will no where to run to so as to support him.

Talking about playing by numbers!

Other criticism is his lack of pace (not even club standard now) and his poor defending.

irishbucsfan

jm08 wrote: »

Who is talking about territory. The big issue most people have with Rob Kearney is that he runs for contact. He is preprogrammed to run to a certain spot in the pitch no matter where the opposition are so that the rest will no where to run to so as to support him.

Talking about playing by numbers!

Other criticism is his lack of pace (not even club standard now) and his poor defending.

The criticism of his defense is a good one. He's a very shoddy tackler at times, that's always been his biggest weakness. His pace has never been a problem at any stage, he's been involved in plenty of line breaks that have lead to crucial tries. He's better in the kicking game than most other fullbacks on the planet, including what he does when the return kick isn't on.

Neil3030

International rugby, and the Six Nations in particular, weights on better defence than attack. We have shown this in the past two seasons by winning the tournament on both occasions and being nowhere near the highest try scorer in either.

What I look for in a full-back is how often the ball finds turf in a team's territory. A full-back that never lets the ball bounce in his half of the pitch is doing his job defensively; both by being in position himself, and by marshalling the wingers (or when needed, halfbacks) into position. Mike Brown is the only player in the Northern Hemisphere who is as reliable as Kearney in this area, in my opinion.

Neil3030

International rugby, and the Six Nations in particular, weights on better defence than attack. We have shown this in the past two seasons by winning the tournament on both occasions and being nowhere near the highest try scorer in either.

What I look for in a full-back is how often the ball finds turf in a team's territory. A full-back that never lets the ball bounce in his half of the pitch is doing his job defensively; both by being in position himself, and by marshalling the wingers (or when needed, halfbacks) into position. Mike Brown is the only player in the Northern Hemisphere who is as reliable as Kearney in this area, in my opinion.

molloyjh

Neil3030 wrote: »

International rugby, and the Six Nations in particular, weights on better defence than attack. We have shown this in the past two seasons by winning the tournament on both occasions and being nowhere near the highest try scorer in either.

What I look for in a full-back is how often the ball finds turf in a team's territory. A full-back that never lets the ball bounce in his half of the pitch is doing his job defensively; both by being in position himself, and by marshalling the wingers (or when needed, halfbacks) into position. Mike Brown is the only player in the Northern Hemisphere who is as reliable as Kearney in this area, in my opinion.

We were second only to England as try scorers in 2014. And IIRC the difference was just 1 try. We also scored the most in that Championship. But the general point is correct. We've been winning games in no small part due to our miserly defence.

aimee1

molloyjh wrote: »

We were second only to England as try scorers in 2014. And IIRC the difference was just 1 try. We also scored the most in that Championship. But the general point is correct. We've been winning games in no small part due to our miserly defence.

We conceded 56 points last yr, france conceded 55 to england alone and they were praised for turning up while italy and scotland rolled over to wales and ireland [mike brown and several welsh journo's in particular were quite scathing]

Brewster

Jared Payne is a better fullback than Rob Kearney. He is simply a better player, absolutely no question about it. Payne is one of the top ten players in the country, and challenges for a place in top 5. The guy has a fantastic rugby brain and makes the right decision all the time, the sign of a truly class player.

former total

awec wrote: »

BTW, am I right in saying that BOD (as in Brian O'Driscoll, Mr Outside Centre himself) said today on BT Sport that Payne's best position is full back? :eek:

Who would have thought it?! :pac:

If he did?

What you can't grasp is that it's totally irrelevant where Payne's best position is. The only thing that matters is where it suits the team best to play him.
It's like the constant insistence that Henderson is a 6; it doesn't matter because we don't need a 6.

irishbucsfan

Brewster wrote: »

absolutely no question about it

Who is better in the air? Kearney
Who is the better kicker out of hand? Kearney
Who is the better positional player? Kearney

Payne is very very good there, but of course there's a question about it. Payne hasn't played that much in the position throughout his career and he's never played at the highest level there. Kearney on the other hand has excelled at the highest level there.

Neil3030

molloyjh wrote: »

We were second only to England as try scorers in 2014. And IIRC the difference was just 1 try. We also scored the most in that Championship. But the general point is correct. We've been winning games in no small part due to our miserly defence.

You're right, I'd forgotten that in 2014 the home games to Wales, Scotland and in particular Italy were pretty high scoring. 2015 was the year our D won us the gong.

shootermacg

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Who is better in the air? Kearney
Who is the better kicker out of hand? Kearney
Who is the better positional player? Kearney

Payne is very very good there, but of course there's a question about it. Payne hasn't played that much in the position throughout his career and he's never played at the highest level there. Kearney on the other hand has excelled at the highest level there.

When RK has to make a big decision in defense, say he's in a 2 vs 1 situation he displays what I like to call the Kearney gene, his brother also has this gene.
He goes for the gap!!!

irishbucsfan

shootermacg wrote: »

When RK has to make a big decision in defense, say he's in a 2 vs 1 situation he displays what I like to call the Kearney gene, his brother also has this gene.
He goes for the gap!!!

Rob's defense is atrocious. Luckilly he plays in a position where it rarely matters.

Dave Kearney's defense however is becoming very underrated based on that Argentina game. I actually kinda get annoyed to it to the point where I have to be careful not overrate him in my own head, but I'm hoping he'll be able to lose that particular reputation quite soon if he keeps doing what he can do:

shootermacg

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Rob's defense is atrocious. Luckilly he plays in a position where it rarely matters.

Dave Kearney's defense however is becoming very underrated based on that Argentina game. I actually kinda get annoyed to it to the point where I have to be careful not overrate him in my own head, but I'm hoping he'll be able to lose that particular reputation quite soon if he keeps doing what he can do:

I'm not saying those guys don't try and Dave is definitely the better defender. They just seem to get caught in 2 minds and then the Kearney gene kicks in.

jacothelad

I don't think R.K. is as effective as he was under the ELVs nor do I think anyone with any wit would suggest that simply because a player was good 7 years ago that he must still be good today. If that was true we would still have Dick Milliken and Mike Gibson at 12 and 13 - or BOD and Darcy. Neither of course does the passage of time necessarily mean a guy is ready for the scrap heap just yet. Players change gradually over time, they don't stay the same. Sometimes the evolution is good and they become better,...like Sexton's journey to the top....or Mike Ross becoming indispensable. BOD altered his game many times to cope with his 'evolution'. Sometimes it's to their detriment...a bit like Keatley suffering the yips. Sometimes it is probably of little consequence. However often these changes are important in a players continual fight to stay at the top of his game.

Teams also must evolve. History has shown that those species that remain fixed and don't evolve become extinct. Remember the England RWC winners in the 6 Ns in 2004 at Twickenham. First game back. They didn't realise that time eventually catches up with players imperceptibly until one day they are simply not good enough any more. The Ireland team under Schmidt has changed a bit since the one below that beat Wales in 2013. 4 have retired completely or are no longer viewed as test standard (despite being so 7 years ago:D).

How much longer will we have the services of guys like Rory Best, McCarthy, Ross, Reddan, Ryan, Henry? Even Heaslip is not in the first flush of youth and Sexton needs to get throughthese concussion issues for his own well being. Some indeed may already be consigned to the history books for all we know, like DOC. It is the way of all team sports.

15 Rob Kearney





14 Craig Gilroy





13 Brian O'Driscoll
1T




12 Gordon D'Arcy





11 Simon Zebo
1T




10 Johnny Sexton

3C

3P

9 Conor Murray





1 Cian Healy
1T




2 Rory Best





3 Mike Ross





4 Mike McCarthy





5 Donnacha Ryan





6 Peter O'Mahony





7 Sean O'Brien





8 Jamie Heaslip





16 Sean Cronin





17 Dave Kilcoyne





18 Declan Fitzpatrick





19 Donncha O'Callaghan





20 Chris Henry





21 Eoin Reddan





22 Ronan O'Gara





23 Keith Earls
The team that lost to Italy a few weeks later.
15Rob Kearney

14Craig Gilroy

13Brian O'Driscoll

12Luke Marshall

11Keith Earls

10Paddy Jackson

9Conor Murray

1Cian Healy

2Rory Best

3Mike Ross

4Mike McCarthy

5Donnacha Ryan

6Peter O'Mahony

7Sean O'Brien

8Jamie Heaslip


16Sean Cronin

17Dave Kilcoyne

18Stephen Archer

19Devin Toner

20Iain Henderson

21Paul Marshall

22Ian Madigan

6 of either of those packs may well be starting again against Wales because there is little argument as to who is the best in some of those positions.

awec

former total wrote: »

If he did?

What you can't grasp is that it's totally irrelevant where Payne's best position is. The only thing that matters is where it suits the team best to play him.
It's like the constant insistence that Henderson is a 6; it doesn't matter because we don't need a 6.

And here-in lies the problem, for Ulster he is needed at 15. Can he play 13 for Ireland if he doesn't play 13 for Ulster?

jacothelad

I don't think R.K. is as effective as he was under the ELVs nor do I think anyone with any wit would suggest that simply because a player was good 7 years ago that he must still be good today. If that was true we would still have Dick Milliken and Mike Gibson at 12 and 13 - or BOD and Darcy. Neither of course does the passage of time necessarily mean a guy is ready for the scrap heap just yet. Players change gradually over time, they don't stay the same. Sometimes the evolution is good and they become better,...like Sexton's journey to the top....or Mike Ross becoming indispensable. BOD altered his game many times to cope with his 'evolution'. Sometimes it's to their detriment...a bit like Keatley suffering the yips. Sometimes it is probably of little consequence. However often these changes are important in a players continual fight to stay at the top of his game.

Teams also must evolve. History has shown that those species that remain fixed and don't evolve become extinct. Remember the England RWC winners in the 6 Ns in 2004 at Twickenham. First game back. They didn't realise that time eventually catches up with players imperceptibly until one day they are simply not good enough any more. The Ireland team under Schmidt has changed a bit since the one below that beat Wales in 2013. Look how many have retired completely - and we can add POC to the list, or of guys below who are no longer viewed as test standard (despite being so 7 years ago:D).

How much longer will we have the services of guys like Rory Best, McCarthy, Ross, Reddan, Ryan, Henry? Even Heaslip is not in the first flush of youth and Sexton needs to get throughthese concussion issues for his own well being. Some indeed may already be consigned to the history books for all we know, like DOC. It is the way of all team sports.

15 Rob Kearney
14 CraigGilroy
Brian O'Driscoll
Gordon D'Arcy
Simon Zebo
Johnny Sexton
Conor Murray
Cian Healy
Rory Best
Mike Ross
Mike McCarthy
Donnacha Ryan
Peter O'Mahony
Sean O'Brien
Jamie Heaslip
Sean Cronin
Dave Kilcoyne
Declan Fitzpatrick
Donncha O'Callaghan
Chris Henry
Eoin Reddan
Ronan O'Gara
Keith Earls







The team that lost to Italy a few weeks later.
15Rob Kearney

14Craig Gilroy

13Brian O'Driscoll

12Luke Marshall

11Keith Earls

10Paddy Jackson

9Conor Murray

1Cian Healy

2Rory Best

3Mike Ross

4Mike McCarthy

5Donnacha Ryan

6Peter O'Mahony

7Sean O'Brien

8Jamie Heaslip


16Sean Cronin

17Dave Kilcoyne

18Stephen Archer

19Devin Toner

20Iain Henderson

21Paul Marshall

22Ian Madigan

6 of either of those packs may well be starting again against Wales because there is little argument as to who is the best in some of those positions.

former total

shootermacg wrote: »

I'm not saying those guys don't try and Dave is definitely the better defender. They just seem to get caught in 2 minds and then the Kearney gene kicks in.

Yes. The undisputed first choice full back for club and country for the last 7 years with three Six Nations, three Heineken Cups and two Lions tours, cannot defend.

This thread is absolutely f**ked when the team is actually announced because Rob is going to be in it and I'd say 80% likely Dave will be too.

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

And here-in lies the problem, for Ulster he is needed at 15. Can he play 13 for Ireland if he doesn't play 13 for Ulster?

Ulster don't need Payne at 15. They've signed an All Black to play 15, and of course we all know the IRFU would never have permitted that if they foresaw a future for Payne in the position, they would have given Piutau the Stephen Moore treatment.

shootermacg

former total wrote: »

Yes. The undisputed first choice full back for club and country for the last 7 years with three Six Nations, three Heineken Cups and two Lions tours, cannot defend.

Just going to grab my popcorn. But yes you are correct in your assumption above.

jacothelad

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Ulster don't need Payne at 15. They've signed an All Black to play 15, and of course we all know the IRFU would never have permitted that if they foresaw a future for Payne in the position, they would have given Piutau the Stephen Moore treatment.

You are being disingenuous. Ulster need Payne at 15 now. Nelson is out for the season and Ludik has been carrying a string of injuries since the start of the season.

irishbucsfan

jacothelad wrote: »

You are being disingenuous. Ulster need Payne at 15 now. Nelson is out for the season and Ludik has been carrying a string of injuries since the start of the season.

Well what Ulster do with Payne in the short term due to injuries really doesn't mean much of significance.

They could even move him back to 14 for a couple of games in an injury crisis but it wouldn't really mean much to Ireland. Even if he finished out the year at 15 there'll be plenty of time with Ireland over the summer to make up the lost time. Unless Piutau or Payne are going to play on the wing for Ulster next season, which I think would be very surprising and a waste of both their talents, I think it's most likely Payne's long-term Ulster future is at 13.

Yeah_Right

A lot of people calling for Payne to move to fullback or be dropped from the 23 completely. Can I ask these posters, has Payne ever had a bad game for Ireland at 13? Has the Payne/Henshaw midfield ever been destroyed, embarrassed, shown up?

Neil3030

Yeah_Right wrote: »

A lot of people calling for Payne to move to fullback or be dropped from the 23 completely. Can I ask these posters, has Payne ever had a bad game for Ireland at 13? Has the Payne/Henshaw midfield ever been destroyed, embarrassed, shown up?

Ah but you see he is hopeless at 13 because a beloved former pundit on our dear national broadcaster once saliently referred to him as a journeyman mercenary foreigner (or some other such term of informed endearment) with no attacking threat.