Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread V

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

No they don't. You're telling me Folau plays like Kearney? Or Ben Smith? No way. This really just has no basis in reality.

Nope, didn't say that either. You're really doing well with the straw man arguments tonight!

awec wrote: »

Nobody has said he isn't a good kicker. It is said he is not great at attacking with the ball, especially when he receives a kick. I don't really think this can be denied. It is not a huge problem that he is bad at this because Ireland's style of play actually utilises Kearney's strengths, i.e. kicking.

But attacking with the ball from deep? Absolutely not a strength of Rob Kearney.

If RK was as perfect as you say he'd stroll into any test side in the world. In reality I think he wouldn't even be a shoe-in for either England or Wales, even if we ignore the SH teams.

He never attempts to attack with the ball from deep. When he was a young player he showed that he absolutely is a good player attacking with the ball from deep, he scored some sensational tries. That one against Edinburgh will be remembered by any Leinster fans. Nowadays he plays intelligent heads up rugby and is as consistent with it as anyone.

I never said he'd stroll into any test side in the world. I do think he'd start for the majority of 6 Nations teams, the recent Lions tour certainly agreed with that. I'd have Halfpenny ahead of him because of his kicking of course, he'd start ahead of the rest (France even imported a Kearney knockoff in Spedding).

He wouldn't start for Australia or New Zealand, I've never said I thought anything like that.

Tox56

awec wrote: »

I am not so sure this is true. Ireland may play an incredibly structured game (almost robotic), but I am not sure this really applies to test rugby in general.

Certainly other teams manage to attack from full back just fine. I am not sure you could accuse Israel Folau, Ben Smith, Mike Brown or Leigh Halfpenny of being players who catch the ball and constantly take the low-risk option of running into traffic.

I think Kearney is a very good player, a very good test player. But we may as well be honest and call this out as a weakness of his game rather than try and come up with excuses as to why it's actually really good that he's bad at it.

But how is it a "weakness" to play in a low risk, structured way when he is playing in a team that you say yourself plays an "incredibly structured almost robotic" game, and how is it making excuses to say its not a "weakness" that he plays in the way he is expected to play?

I think you are confusing different arguments here. You seem to be arguing against Ireland's style of play more than Kearney, Kearney plays exactly how he needs to play under Schmidt and he has done it very well. If you think the style of play we have now is boring or not good enough for whatever reason thats a different argument, one I dont really agree with at this point, it has been hugely successful so far. But in terms of Kearney, I dont think its fair to say people are excusing his weaknesses, hes playing exactly how he needs to play for this team and doing it very well, I dont think its a coincidence that in winning two six nations in a row he has played every single game for us

wowy

Irish Times reporting Luke Fitz out for 6-8 weeks with medial knee ligament damage. Rotten timing.

awec

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Nope, didn't say that either. You're really doing well with the straw man arguments tonight!

So the players I mention don't play like Kearney then? Can we discuss the actual topic here, rather than waste time messing about with stupid semantics?

He never attempts to attack with the ball from deep. When he was a young player he showed that he absolutely is a good player attacking with the ball from deep, he scored some sensational tries. That one against Edinburgh will be remembered by any Leinster fans. Nowadays he plays intelligent heads up rugby and is as consistent with it as anyone.

I never said he'd stroll into any test side in the world. I do think he'd start for the majority of 6 Nations teams, the recent Lions tour certainly agreed with that. I'd have Halfpenny ahead of him because of his kicking of course, he'd start ahead of the rest (France even imported a Kearney knockoff in Spedding).

He wouldn't start for Australia or New Zealand, I've never said I thought anything like that.

Er, exactly?

Why does he not attack from deep? Is it because he's so amazing he feels it's unfair on all the other teams who'd be unable to defend his top class attacking ability?

Or maybe he's not actually that good at it after all, and his lack of attacking from deep is a symptom of this?

If he was good at it I have a hard time believing that Joe Schmidt would tell him not to do it. This would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. I find it much easier to believe that Schmidt would tell Kearney to do what he does because he doesn't have these scintilating line breaks in his locker.

Which is absolutely fine really, it just so happens that what he can do fits very well into the current Irish kicking tactics.

Rob Kearney is a good enough player that we don't need to pretend that he is good at things he isn't to try and justify his selection. He justifies it in other areas where his strengths actually are.

awec

Tox56 wrote: »

But how is it a "weakness" to play in a low risk, structured way when he is playing in a team that you say yourself plays an "incredibly structured almost robotic" game, and how is it making excuses to say its not a "weakness" that he plays in the way he is expected to play?

I think you are confusing different arguments here. You seem to be arguing against Ireland's style of play more than Kearney, Kearney plays exactly how he needs to play under Schmidt and he has done it very well. If you think the style of play we have now is boring or not good enough for whatever reason thats a different argument, one I dont really agree with at this point, it has been hugely successful so far. But in terms of Kearney, I dont think its fair to say people are excusing his weaknesses, hes playing exactly how he needs to play for this team and doing it very well, I dont think its a coincidence that in winning two six nations in a row he has played every single game for us

Ian Humphreys cannot tackle. Therefore, Ulster tell him not to tackle.

This means that Ian Humphreys does not have a weakness for tackling.

Logic.

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

So the players I mention don't play like Kearney then? Can we discuss the actual topic here, rather than waste time messing about with stupid semantics?

You listed a bunch of players, I said a lot of them are not that different. You then picked two of them and claimed I said they are the same. A complete twisting of what I said.

awec wrote: »

Er, exactly?

Why does he not attack from deep? Is it because he's so amazing he feels it's unfair on all the other teams who'd be unable to defend his top class attacking ability?

Or maybe he's not actually that good at it after all, and his lack of attacking from deep is a symptom of this?

If he was good at it I have a hard time believing that Joe Schmidt would tell him not to do it. This would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. I find it much easier to believe that Schmidt would tell Kearney to do what he does because he doesn't have these scintilating line breaks in his locker.

Which is absolutely fine really, it just so happens that what he can do fits very well into the current Irish kicking tactics.

Rob Kearney is a good enough player that we don't need to pretend that he is good at things he isn't to try and justify his selection. He justifies it in other areas where his strengths actually are.

I can only assume you didn't watch much of Kearney as a young player for Leinster before he shifted to full back full time and changed his game under Kidney/Schmidt. That's a plausible explanation.

The Rape of Lucretia

It all depends on whether the team strategy is adapted to cope with the player weakness, or whether the team strategy has no need in the first place for that attribute of the player.
In the former, the player has the weakness, it is mitigated by a modification in team strategy, but does harm the team somewhat.
In the latter, the player weakness is irrelevant, and so is not a weakness.

In Joe's world, I think we have the latter case re Rob.

awec

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You listed a bunch of players, I said a lot of them are not that different. You then picked two of them and claimed I said they are the same. A complete twisting of what I said.





I can only assume you didn't watch much of Kearney as a young player for Leinster before he shifted to full back full time and changed his game under Kidney/Schmidt. That's a plausible explanation.

Honestly, what Rob Kearney could do 8 years ago or whatever really doesn't matter a jot.

We are talking of the Rob Kearney of today. We can't pick the Rob Kearney of years gone by for Ireland.

awec

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

It all depends on whether the team strategy is adapted to cope with the player weakness, or whether the team strategy has no need in the first place for that attribute of the player.
In the former, the player has the weakness, it is mitigated by a modification in team strategy, but does harm the team somewhat.
In the latter, the player weakness is irrelevant, and so is not a weakness.

In Joe's world, I think we have the latter case re Rob.

I think actually a mix here. I don't see why any team wouldn't want an attacking threat from full back if this was possible.

I suspect that Ireland have adapted to Kearney's abilities because for years he was head, shoulders, knees and toes ahead of all the other options.

I think Kearney's weakness in this area means Ireland don't do it, but at the same time I don't really think it has harmed the team because Kearney is so good in other areas.

I think if you reversed Payne and Kearney (i.e. if RK was the NIQ player who just arrived when Payne did) Ireland would play a style of game that involved running from deep and people would point out RKs running from deep as a reason why he might not be first pick, the same way people point out Payne's tactical kicking as a reason why he might not be ahead of RK.

phog

wowy wrote: »

Irish Times reporting Luke Fitz out for 6-8 weeks with medial knee ligament damage. Rotten timing.

Huge loss, if true.

Tox56

awec wrote: »

Ian Humphreys cannot tackle. Therefore, Ulster tell him not to tackle.

This means that Ian Humphreys does not have a weakness for tackling.

Logic.

Would you say Ulster play in a non-tacking way? Because that would be more comparable to this argument. You've already said Ireland play in an incredibly structured way, its pretty clear that under Schmidt that is how the entire team has played and the way Kearney has played fits pretty much exactly into that, that is hardly some massive coincidence. Unless you are suggesting Schmidt has changed the tactics of the entire team to accommodate Kearney?

I also think there is a broader argument here that again you are missing, Humphreys inability to tackle is pretty obviously a negative and an inherent weakness. There is nothing inherently wrong with the way Kearney has played in the last two years. In fact you could more easily make the exact opposite argument, that it is a style of play that gets very good results.

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

Honestly, what Rob Kearney could do 8 years ago or whatever really doesn't matter a jot.

We are talking of the Rob Kearney of today. We can't pick the Rob Kearney of years gone by for Ireland.

You're just changing your argument now. The point is that Kearney is the player he is today because that's exactly what he's been asked to become at international level, and it's what we need. He has shown a natural ability to attack. He's used in attack still by Ireland and Leinster but it's very different (single phase of direct running after which he'll get up and move back into cover).

But similar to a lot of players who've been long-term international full time full backs he has moved away from that style of play under the tutelage of Schmidt and Kidney. And luckily for us he's naturally suited to it because of his aerial ability and the power of his left boot.

Now, is it a "weakness" that he doesn't look to play freely with the ball in attack instead of being more secure? I'm not sure that is something I'd call a weakness. Even if we don't want him to do it I don't think it's a weakness. A weakness, to me, is something you can specifically target or exploit, like his tackling which is awful at times. Is it a weakness of Mike Brown's game that he doesn't join the line as a 2nd pivot like Alex Goode can? I wouldn't say so, it's just a different style of play.

awec

Tox56 wrote: »

Would you say Ulster play in a non-tacking way? Because that would be more comparable to this argument. You've already said Ireland play in an incredibly structured way, its pretty clear that under Schmidt that is how the entire team has played and the way Kearney has played fits pretty much exactly into that, that is hardly some massive coincidence. Unless you are suggesting Schmidt has changed the tactics of the entire team to accommodate Kearney?

I also think there is a broader argument here that again you are missing, Humphreys inability to tackle is pretty obviously a negative and an inherent weakness. There is nothing inherently wrong with the way Kearney has played in the last two years. In fact you could more easily make the exact opposite argument, that it is a style of play that gets very good results.

You are not saying anything here that disagrees with what I am saying.

Are you under the impression that I think RKs weakness in attacking is a problem for Ireland? Because I haven't said that.

All I am saying is RK is not great at attacking from deep. If you got a bit of paper and were asked to write two columns, one for strengths and one for weaknesses then you wouldn't write attacking from deep in the strengths column.

That is all, pure and simple. Maybe "weakness" is the wrong word.

awec

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You're just changing your argument now. The point is that Kearney is the player he is today because that's exactly what he's been asked to become at international level, and it's what we need. He has shown a natural ability to attack. He's used in attack still by Ireland and Leinster but it's very different (single phase of direct running after which he'll get up and move back into cover).

But similar to a lot of players who've been long-term international full time full backs he has moved away from that style of play under the tutelage of Schmidt and Kidney. And luckily for us he's naturally suited to it because of his aerial ability and the power of his left boot.

Now, is it a "weakness" that he doesn't look to play freely with the ball in attack instead of being more secure? I'm not sure that is something I'd call a weakness. Even if we don't want him to do it I don't think it's a weakness. A weakness, to me, is something you can specifically target or exploit, like his tackling which is awful at times. Is it a weakness of Mike Brown's game that he doesn't join the line as a 2nd pivot like Alex Goode can? I wouldn't say so, it's just a different style of play.

I am changing the argument by talking about Kearney today? I never realised that this discussion was about how good players were when they first broke through.

Can you list all these international full backs who play the same way as Kearney when it comes to attacking from deep?

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

I am changing the argument by talking about Kearney today? I never realised that this discussion was about how good players were when they first broke through.

Yes, of course that's what I'm talking about :rolleyes:

awec wrote: »

Can you list all these international full backs who play the same way as Kearney when it comes to attacking from deep?

Most of the 6 Nations full backs go through the exact same progression at international level, Halfpenny, Brown, McLean and Spedding. All of them look to kick first, and then take it back safely towards support. Hogg is the only one who regularly differs at international level but I wouldn't be surprised to see that change now he's exposed to better coaching.

irishbucsfan

By the way I would absolutely entertain the idea of Jared Payne playing 15 for Ireland. I don't think there's much of a long-term reason to make that switch, but if it was a move that let us see McCloskey/Henshaw together in midfield I'd welcome it. I think people would be very disappointed to see how he played there though at international level.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

I am changing the argument by talking about Kearney today? I never realised that this discussion was about how good players were when they first broke through.

Can you list all these international full backs who play the same way as Kearney when it comes to attacking from deep?

This is a bit of a pointless argument. Is Kearney the guy that will make line breaks from deep? No he isn't really. Do we need him to be? No we don't. So is it a problem? No it isn't. I'd argue that there isn't a single player out there without flaws to their game somewhere. Knocking Kearney for not being utterly perfect is ridiculous.

And attacking from deep is such a small part of what any Test team requires from a FB. There are so many more things that are more important. How often do we see a FB in last years 6 Nations do the things people want Kearney to start doing (or be dropped for not doing)? Very bloody rarely is the answer. Covering the back field effectively is far more important and there is far more of a call for that than line breaks. Having a good kicking game is also required more often. Being able to recycle possession well is crucial too. Having the ability to break the line is a nice addition, but it's really not that important at all. It might be a bit more exciting for the viewer but from a rugby perspective it's well down the list and not something worth being too concerned about of the other elements are there.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

wowy wrote: »

Irish Times reporting Luke Fitz out for 6-8 weeks with medial knee ligament damage. Rotten timing.

The possibility of seeing Earls at 13 again, even if only briefly, looms it's ugly head!

Luke needs to get on a Ledley King style contact. No training, plays every second game.

I wonder is Schmidt likely to call anyone else into the squad? Probably not.

Possibility of McCloskey making the bench a teeny tiny bit higher now?

irishbucsfan

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

The possibility of seeing Earls at 13 again, even if only briefly, looms it's ugly head!

Luke needs to get on a Ledley King style contact. No training, plays every second game.

I wonder is Schmidt likely to call anyone else into the squad? Probably not.

Possibility of McCloskey making the bench a teeny tiny bit higher now?

Surely there's no chance at all of McCloskey making the bench. He covers one position.

It'll be Madigan and someone who can cover the back 3, almost certainly. Whoever doesn't start out of Kearney/Earls/Zebo I guess.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Surely there's no chance at all of McCloskey making the bench. He covers one position.

It'll be Madigan and someone who can cover the back 3, almost certainly. Whoever doesn't start out of Kearney/Earls/Zebo I guess.

But there is one player off the list of starters/subs so technically he is one place closer to the bench. So the chances of him making the bench have technically slightly improved

Also I'd argue with Earls' ability to cover more than one position but regardless I had assumed Luke would be #23 so yeah, one of those guys will get it.

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

This is a bit of a pointless argument. Is Kearney the guy that will make line breaks from deep? No he isn't really. Do we need him to be? No we don't. So is it a problem? No it isn't. I'd argue that there isn't a single player out there without flaws to their game somewhere. Knocking Kearney for not being utterly perfect is ridiculous.

And attacking from deep is such a small part of what any Test team requires from a FB. There are so many more things that are more important. How often do we see a FB in last years 6 Nations do the things people want Kearney to start doing (or be dropped for not doing)? Very bloody rarely is the answer. Covering the back field effectively is far more important and there is far more of a call for that than line breaks. Having a good kicking game is also required more often. Being able to recycle possession well is crucial too. Having the ability to break the line is a nice addition, but it's really not that important at all. It might be a bit more exciting for the viewer but from a rugby perspective it's well down the list and not something worth being too concerned about of the other elements are there.

This is exactly what I am saying though! I am not knocking him, I am just saying that Kearney is not a full back who can attack from deep. Of his many, many talents this is not one of them. Every single player has flaws.

I am disagreeing with the notion that he is good at it but Ireland just decided they never want him to do it.

Also I don't want RK dropped really. Yes, I want to see us try other options at full back but this really isn't a reflection on RK.

When we play our current game plan Kearney is perfect for us. I think I have been consistent though in saying I want to see Ireland play a more entertaining style and I want to see if a change of full back (either Henshaw or Payne) would help us do that. However, if Kearney plays (which he undoubtedly will) then it's not as if Ireland are weakened by him, he's a top quality player.

The Black Stags

molloyjh wrote: »

I'd argue that there isn't a single player out there without flaws to their game somewhere.

Just in terms of fullbacks I'm having a hard time thinking of flaws for Ben Smith.

This whole argument is centred around the fullback and how he plays - but it really shouldn't be. As already pointed most of the other 6N fullbacks look to retain possession, build a platform and string some phases together. It's what the team is wired to do.

The SH teams look to use that opportunity to attack when the ball has been kicked and defences aren't organised. But it's a whole team effort, you can see them line up and take counter attacking positions when they know the ball is about to be kicked to them.

It's not really much to do with Rob not 'being able to attack' it's more about the team not being programmed to do it. Sure he could go and attack but he'd take his team mates by surprise maybe only one or two might be playing heads up rugby and supporting him, but it wouldn't be enough to finish off an attack and the move would just lose possession.

Don't blame Rob blame the conservitive game plan that doesn't allow him to play that way.. That is if he still can-since Joe is likely playing the team to its strengths.

Considering we don't have any genuine speedsters counterattacking probably just isn't on.

Civil Joe

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You're just changing your argument now. The point is that Kearney is the player he is today because that's exactly what he's been asked to become at international level, and it's what we need. He has shown a natural ability to attack. He's used in attack still by Ireland and Leinster but it's very different (single phase of direct running after which he'll get up and move back into cover).

But similar to a lot of players who've been long-term international full time full backs he has moved away from that style of play under the tutelage of Schmidt and Kidney. And luckily for us he's naturally suited to it because of his aerial ability and the power of his left boot.

Now, is it a "weakness" that he doesn't look to play freely with the ball in attack instead of being more secure? I'm not sure that is something I'd call a weakness. Even if we don't want him to do it I don't think it's a weakness. A weakness, to me, is something you can specifically target or exploit, like his tackling which is awful at times. Is it a weakness of Mike Brown's game that he doesn't join the line as a 2nd pivot like Alex Goode can? I wouldn't say so, it's just a different style of play.

Jaysus digging up clips from nearly a decade ago to show how good Kearney is kinda illustrates the point he's yesterday's man.

awec

Civil Joe wrote: »

Jaysus digging up clips from nearly a decade ago to show how good Kearney is kinda illustrates the point he's yesterday's man.

He's hardly yesterday's man.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Civil Joe wrote: »

Kearney offers nothing now. Zero. Zilch. He just a pretty face that some fanbois and fangurls can't let go.

This argument is akin to the Hitler one these days. Not worth discussing anything with someone who throws this out.

bilston

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Surely there's no chance at all of McCloskey making the bench. He covers one position.

It'll be Madigan and someone who can cover the back 3, almost certainly. Whoever doesn't start out of Kearney/Earls/Zebo I guess.

I can't see how Madigan benches ahead of Jackson. There is already plenty of versatility in the team, just pick the better out half please.

The Rape of Lucretia

Civil Joe wrote: »

Kearney offers nothing now. Zero. Zilch. He just a pretty face that some fanbois and fangurls can't let go.

Agree Zebo offers zilch, and is no fullback upgrade option, but Rob certainly still does. Sure he is no Cullen, the Prince of Gliding Fullbacks, but Rob is the perfect player for System Joe, and that must be recognised. I think if Rob were one of identical quintuplets, Joe would thank the heavens and play them all from 11-15. And I dont think there is an attack or defence in the world that could handle them.

former total

bilston wrote: »

I can't see how Madigan benches ahead of Jackson. There is already plenty of versatility in the team, just pick the better out half please.

I know this has been done to death but...

While people wouldn't agree with it, surely no one could be surprised if Madigan is picked?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

bilston wrote: »

I can't see how Madigan benches ahead of Jackson. There is already plenty of versatility in the team, just pick the better out half please.

As much as I would rather see Jackson on the bench I'd imagine the same reasons that Madigan usually benches over him will come into effect again. Fitzgerald probably being out will have an impact too. The need someone on the bench who can cover more than one position.

The Rape of Lucretia

bilston wrote: »

I can't see how Madigan benches ahead of Jackson. There is already plenty of versatility in the team, just pick the better out half please.

I think the better out half issue is not quite such an open and shut case. Its more than versatility - and valid element that it too - that has Mads on the bench. Pros and cons versus Jackson. But no slam dunk even if you state it so blankly.

bilston

former total wrote: »

I know this has been done to death but...

While people wouldn't agree with it, surely no one could be surprised if Madigan is picked?

Surprised...no...disappointed...yes

Podge_irl

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I think the better out half issue is not quite such an open and shut case. Its more than versatility - and valid element that it too - that has Mads on the bench. Pros and cons versus Jackson. But no slam dunk even if you state it so blankly.

Versatility aside, I would be curious as to what you think the pros of Madigan over Jackson are?

Goal-kicking obviously, but I'm struggling massively beyond that.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Podge_irl wrote: »

Versatility aside, I would be curious as to what you think the pros of Madigan over Jackson are?

Goal-kicking obviously, but I'm struggling massively beyond that.

If it just came down to goal kicking he would be starting over Sexton :eek:

The Rape of Lucretia

Podge_irl wrote: »

Versatility aside, I would be curious as to what you think the pros of Madigan over Jackson are?

Goal-kicking obviously, but I'm struggling massively beyond that.

Goal kicking indeed obviously and very importantly. Jackson's kicking is a serious liability at international level.

Beyond that however, Mads is comfortably above Jackson in tackling and rucking. He deserves time sure, but fear Jackson be a weakness at international level defensively for those around him.

jacothelad

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Entirely possible that Schmidt can only work with what's in front of him. If he was coaching Australia and Izzy Folau was his FB his game plan may be entirely different.

Kearney plays the way Schmidt tells him to and the rest of the team can anticipate exactly what that means without having to wait for him to do it. It may be that Schmidt thinks there are other weak links in the side, so to speak, that would be exposed if his FB was given free reign to run around wherever he wanted.

I'm not an expert and I don't claim to know what Schmidt thinks or how he runs his teams but I would hazard a pretty certain guess that nothing an individual player is told to do, or not do, is based purely on that individual player.

Who is on here? There are certainly some who seem to be......well, spout enough makey uppy crud to fill the pages.

BTW, I think Kearney plays the way he does because that's the way he plays. He played pretty much the same under Uncle Deccie. He makes the best of what he has. Like all players he can have a dip in or a loss of form. Maybe he's just a bit jaded. A lot of the RWC players seem to be.

awec

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Goal kicking indeed obviously and very importantly. Jackson's kicking is a serious liability at international level.

Beyond that however, Mads is comfortably above Jackson in tackling and rucking. He deserves time sure, but fear Jackson be a weakness at international level defensively for those around him.

:eek:

What?! :pac:

Jacksons tackling is absolutely spot on and rucking at 10 is about as relevant as sprint speed in a prop. I wouldn't say Mr Sexton is in any way notable at clearing out rucks.

Wouldn't be surprised to see Madigan bench ahead of Jackson though purely for versatility.

The Rape of Lucretia

awec wrote: »

Wouldn't be surprised to see Madigan bench ahead of Jackson though purely for versatility.

And kicking surely ? While I think the expectation on Irish standoffs to goal kick is unfair, unless we have someone else who is international level at it, this has to be JAcksons real achilles heel to gain the place over Madigan .

But yes, the other aspects are less clearcut, and as I say, Jackson is due to get some more opportunities - spring tour and AIs this year he should start 3 or 4 games and really see how he does.

bilston

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Goal kicking indeed obviously and very importantly. Jackson's kicking is a serious liability at international level.

Beyond that however, Mads is comfortably above Jackson in tackling and rucking. He deserves time sure, but fear Jackson be a weakness at international level defensively for those around him.

I honestly doubt you have seen Jackson play much if you think he is a defensive liability.

As for an out half rucking. WTF. I wouldn't even know if Jackson and Madigan are good at it because it isn't close to my criteria for rating a fly half. I know Joe likes a good rucker, but we are talking about an out half here. Out halfs should only ruck when absolutely necessary. If that is a reason for selecting a 10 then the game is lost.

Wrt goalkicking Jackson was 90% in Europe this season.

Edit - uh...I've come to the conclusion that I've been reeled in hook line and sinker...well played ROL...rucking out halves...how did I fall for that one!

jacothelad

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Agree Zebo offers zilch, and is no fullback upgrade option, but Rob certainly still does. Sure he is no Cullen, the Prince of Gliding Fullbacks, but Rob is the perfect player for System Joe, and that must be recognised. I think if Rob were one of identical quintuplets, Joe would thank the heavens and play them all from 11-15. And I dont think there is an attack or defence in the world that could handle them.

Hyperbole.....or are you being ironic?

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Goal kicking indeed obviously and very importantly. Jackson's kicking is a serious liability at international level.

Beyond that however, Mads is comfortably above Jackson in tackling and rucking. He deserves time sure, but fear Jackson be a weakness at international level defensively for those around him.

This above is laughable and is just complete bilge. You do know that Jackson's goal kicking is on a par with Sexton's. Jackson's defence is absolutely brilliant. He is a fearless and accomplished tackler. Every bit as good or better than Madigan. Maybe you should actually watch him do it before making stuff up to suit your argument - whatever that actually is.

sydthebeat

Top five rucking out halves...

1.


....... ????

mfceiling

I'll just post it again in case it was missed.

Jackson is a very good defender. Strong in the tackle and is in no way a weak link.

Bazzo

With Fitzgerald now ruled out I wouldn't be surprised to see Madigan get the bench spot ahead of Jackson. Jackson is almost certainly the better all round 10 but Madigan covers 3 positions competently from the bench. If Earls is wearing the 23 jersey he may still be in with a shout.

former total

mfceiling wrote: »

I'll just post it again in case it was missed.

Jackson is a very good defender. Strong in the tackle and is in no way a weak link.

Ah yeah he is. It's not really a weakness. He's a good out-half and a mid-range goal kicker. He'll do a grand job if called upon.

Likewise however Madigan is a much better out half than the boards consensus would have you believe. Saying he's only picked for his versatility or his goal kicking is equally wide of the mark.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

sydthebeat wrote: »

Top five rucking out halves...

1.


....... ????

What position was McFadden playing the other night for Leinster? Loves a bit of a ruck these days.

Bazzo

former total wrote: »

Ah yeah he is. It's not really a weakness. He's a good out-half and a mid-range goal kicker. He'll do a grand job if called upon.

Likewise however Madigan is a much better out half than the boards consensus would have you believe. Saying he's only picked for his versatility or his goal kicking is equally wide of the mark.

I usually try to keep my mouth shut wrt Madigan on boards because he's not very popular here and I actually rate him. I don't think he'd be getting the big offers he was reported to be getting from French and English sides if he was ****e, or even just average.

That said, I still think Jackson is the better all round 10, and seeing as he's a few years younger I'd have to peg him as the way forward.

jacothelad

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

What position was McFadden playing the other night for Leinster? Loves a bit of a ruck these days.

I think McF. was trying too hard in order to get his Ireland place back. He's very under-appreciated indeed these days. Daft yellow card. There was no advantage to be gained by doing what he did.

jacothelad

Madigan should absolutely be the sub 10. If he was the man in possession in October, what has changed between then and now? Jackson was playing well then and is playing well now. He is a better 10 but Madigan is a top notch rugby player.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

jacothelad wrote: »

Madigan should absolutely be the sub 10. If he was the man in possession in October, what has changed between then and now? Jackson was playing well then and is playing well now. He is a better 10 but Madigan is a top notch rugby player.

That's going on the assumption that him being the man in possession in October was the right decision. Obviously Schmidt felt it was. Some would disagree but we're not the ones calling the shots. Also Jackson hadn't played any international rugby for quite some time and very little club rugby going into the WC. Now we have Jackson with twice as much playing time at club level since the WC. Will that change Schmidt's opinion? Maybe, maybe not. It is a different situation though.

Personally I don't have a problem with Madigan as the sub 10 over Jackson but I do have an issue with him as a starting 10 over Jackson in the absence of Sexton.

I also think that Jackson needs to get more international game time because I don't think if Sexton was to retire tomorrow, or even next year, that we should be looking at going into any campaign with Madigan as the first choice out half.

If Madigan goes to France next year and plays 80 minutes at 10 week in week out maybe we'll be looking at the situation differently in 2 years time, but the way things stand now I'd be far happier with Jackson being heir to Sexton's jersey.

BUT.... as we all know this is a very touchy subject so I assume it will continue to rage on until one of them retires.

aimee1

awec wrote: »

is about as relevant as sprint speed in a prop.

are you mike ross?

Mahatma Geansai

The injury is a disaster for Fitzgerald and will hugely weaken our matchday squad. It'll be interesting to see who comes into the 23 jersey now. Zebo would probably be the next in line as he offers proven versatility at international level. Earls will cover the centre positions from 11.

If Payne started at 15 we would have a side much better placed to cover for in-game injuries. However, I don't think Joe would risk such a selection if it isn't injury-enforced.