Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread V

molloyjh

aimee1 wrote: »

Henderson, Healy, Moore get fit and stay fit and find form is important going forward. Molony has a big future if he keeps progressing and Furlong is improving all the time. Not sure whats available in other provinces at TH and Lock.

At TH there isn't much. White has a lot to do to prove himself at this level. I'd say he's a bit of a drop from either Ross or Moore.

At lock Foley at Munster looked good in the 2014 AIs and showed some good form in the 14-15 season overall. Unfortunately he hasn't been able to replicate that this season. It'll be interesting to see how Dillane gets on should he get some time.

Zzippy

molloyjh wrote: »

At TH there isn't much. White has a lot to do to prove himself at this level. I'd say he's a bit of a drop from either Ross or Moore.

At lock Foley at Munster looked good in the 2014 AIs and showed some good form in the 14-15 season overall. Unfortunately he hasn't been able to replicate that this season. It'll be interesting to see how Dillane gets on should he get some time.

He does a lot more around the field than Ross or Moore, and his scrummaging is just fine. Moore is very injury-prone and just looks plain unfit, I wouldn't say he's ahead of White on form over the last season.

aimee1

Zzippy wrote: »

He does a lot more around the field than Ross or Moore, and his scrummaging is just fine. Moore is very injury-prone and just looks plain unfit, I wouldn't say he's ahead of White on form over the last season.

I think Moore would have travelled to the RWC ahead of White if he was fit. I dont think White weakens us at TH in the short term.


Henderson staying fit and Molony developing, and someone like Dillane or Alan O'Connor, or even Dave Foley stepping up is important.

Tox56

Zzippy wrote: »

He does a lot more around the field than Ross or Moore, and his scrummaging is just fine. Moore is very injury-prone and just looks plain unfit, I wouldn't say he's ahead of White on form over the last season.

A lot more? He doesnt play like Furlong but Moore contributes a lot around the field

But ultimately at international level its all about the scrum, if they cant hold that up nothing else really matters, and if they keep it solid thats good enough for me

irishbucsfan

If White was younger I think he'd be ahead of both Moore and Furlong, just my opinion based mostly on his time with Leinster.

Zzippy

aimee1 wrote: »

I think Moore would have travelled to the RWC ahead of White if he was fit. I dont think White weakens us at TH in the short term.


Henderson staying fit and Molony developing, and someone like Dillane or Alan O'Connor, or even Dave Foley stepping up is important.

Yep, there's not much between them, and Moore has a higher ceiling perhaps given his age, so I'd have no problem with Moore being picked ahead of White for the WC as he is hopefully the future in that position. Having a higher ceiling/future potential is not the same as currently being a step up in quality, however.

Pink Fairy

Pink Fairy wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Do I really have to state every time when I'm being facetious?

You need to add this :pac:

Journeyman_1

Deleted User wrote: »

You need to add this :pac:

Not sure if being facetious or trying to help....

Neil3030

Gonna have a stab here at justifying the team I'd like to see.

Main point of contention is whether Jared Payne starts at 15 or 13. In my mind, with Luke Fitz gone, Payne must play 13 so we have a senior player in midfield who knows the system. None of the options without Payne at 13 appeal to me, i.e., any combination of Madigan, Henshaw, McCloskey, Earls or Marshall.

With Payne starting 13, it also allows for my next selection that I'd really like to see - McCloskey at 12. He's big, he's fast, he finds space, he's unknown, he could really make for an exciting addition to the team. Payne outside him will know both him and the system so it's probably the ideal way to start him in a big test match. To be fair, there's a shout there to put Marshall outside him for the same reasons, but I just prefer Payne.

Earls and Trimble on the wings. I love the balance they give in terms of ground and aerial game, respectively.

I think you then have to think long and hard about the following question - who do you want in the matchday 23 - Rob Kearney or Robbie Henshaw? Because if you have 12. McCloskey, 13. Payne (which I want), then starting Kearney means Henshaw drops to the bench, and with Henshaw in the 23 shirt, you now have no wing cover. Alternatively, if you start Henshaw at 15, you can now put Zebo or Dave Kearney in the 23 shirt, and between Earls, Payne, Henshaw and the 23 (SZ or DK), you now have centre, wing and full-back cover in various permutations. So comparing Henshaw and Rob, while Rob is the elder statesman and I see what he brings from a territorial perspective, Henshaw covers more positions, is actually quite solid as a territorial 15, has a cannon for a peg and can offer a pretty trouser-browning attacking threat to join the line. So Rob is cut. I'm firm but fair.

Stander will bench for me. The backrow will be pretty much as you'd expect, in Ruddock, SOB and Heaslip. Stander to come on for Heaslip and start smashing it up around the 55 minute mark please.

If all were on form, the starting second row would be Ryan and Toner, with McCarthy benching. I'm going to assume Ryan is tearing it up in training and this will come to pass.

Other than that, the team pretty much picks itself, given the available bodies.

Henshaw
Trimble
Payne
McCloskey
Earls
Sexton
Murray
Heaslip
O'Brien
Ruddock
Toner
Ryan
White
Best
McGrath

Cronin
Cronin
Furlong
McCarthy
Stander
Reddan
Jackson
DK or SZ

kuang1

Neil3030 wrote: »

Gonna have a stab here at justifying the team I'd like to see.

Main point of contention is whether Jared Payne starts at 15 or 13. In my mind, with Luke Fitz gone, Payne must play 13 so we have a senior player in midfield who knows the system. None of the options without Payne at 13 appeal to me, i.e., any combination of Madigan, Henshaw, McCloskey, Earls or Marshall.

With Payne starting 13, it also allows for my next selection that I'd really like to see - McCloskey at 12. He's big, he's fast, he finds space, he's unknown, he could really make for an exciting addition to the team. Payne outside him will know both him and the system so it's probably the ideal way to start him in a big test match. To be fair, there's a shout there to put Marshall outside him for the same reasons, but I just prefer Payne.

Earls and Trimble on the wings. I love the balance they give in terms of ground and aerial game, respectively.

I think you then have to think long and hard about the following question - who do you want in the matchday 23 - Rob Kearney or Robbie Henshaw? Because if you have 12. McCloskey, 13. Payne (which I want), then starting Kearney means Henshaw drops to the bench, and with Henshaw in the 23 shirt, you now have no wing cover. Alternatively, if you start Henshaw at 15, you can now put Zebo or Dave Kearney in the 23 shirt, and between Earls, Payne, Henshaw and the 23 (SZ or DK), you now have centre, wing and full-back cover in various permutations. So comparing Henshaw and Rob, while Rob is the elder statesman and I see what he brings from a territorial perspective, Henshaw covers more positions, is actually quite solid as a territorial 15, has a cannon for a peg and can offer a pretty trouser-browning attacking threat to join the line. So Rob is cut. I'm firm but fair.

Stander will bench for me. The backrow will be pretty much as you'd expect, in Ruddock, SOB and Heaslip. Stander to come on for Heaslip and start smashing it up around the 55 minute mark please.

If all were on form, the starting second row would be Ryan and Toner, with McCarthy benching. I'm going to assume Ryan is tearing it up in training and this will come to pass.

Other than that, the team pretty much picks itself, given the available bodies.

Henshaw
Trimble
Payne
McCloskey
Earls
Sexton
Murray
Heaslip
O'Brien
Ruddock
Toner
Ryan
White
Best
McGrath

Cronin
Cronin
Furlong
McCarthy
Stander
Reddan
Jackson
DK or SZ

100% with you on all of this.
McCloskey is too good a 12 not to be in. And Henshaw has been so solid since he entered the set up that he has to start too.
The only realistic way that both of these things can come to be is as you've outlined.

Alas as much as I wish for it, I'm not too optimistic that this is what joe will do.

AbusesToilets

Neil3030 wrote: »

Gonna have a stab here at justifying the team I'd like to see.

Main point of contention is whether Jared Payne starts at 15 or 13. In my mind, with Luke Fitz gone, Payne must play 13 so we have a senior player in midfield who knows the system. None of the options without Payne at 13 appeal to me, i.e., any combination of Madigan, Henshaw, McCloskey, Earls or Marshall.

With Payne starting 13, it also allows for my next selection that I'd really like to see - McCloskey at 12. He's big, he's fast, he finds space, he's unknown, he could really make for an exciting addition to the team. Payne outside him will know both him and the system so it's probably the ideal way to start him in a big test match. To be fair, there's a shout there to put Marshall outside him for the same reasons, but I just prefer Payne.

Earls and Trimble on the wings. I love the balance they give in terms of ground and aerial game, respectively.

I think you then have to think long and hard about the following question - who do you want in the matchday 23 - Rob Kearney or Robbie Henshaw? Because if you have 12. McCloskey, 13. Payne (which I want), then starting Kearney means Henshaw drops to the bench, and with Henshaw in the 23 shirt, you now have no wing cover. Alternatively, if you start Henshaw at 15, you can now put Zebo or Dave Kearney in the 23 shirt, and between Earls, Payne, Henshaw and the 23 (SZ or DK), you now have centre, wing and full-back cover in various permutations. So comparing Henshaw and Rob, while Rob is the elder statesman and I see what he brings from a territorial perspective, Henshaw covers more positions, is actually quite solid as a territorial 15, has a cannon for a peg and can offer a pretty trouser-browning attacking threat to join the line. So Rob is cut. I'm firm but fair.

Stander will bench for me. The backrow will be pretty much as you'd expect, in Ruddock, SOB and Heaslip. Stander to come on for Heaslip and start smashing it up around the 55 minute mark please.

If all were on form, the starting second row would be Ryan and Toner, with McCarthy benching. I'm going to assume Ryan is tearing it up in training and this will come to pass.

Other than that, the team pretty much picks itself, given the available bodies.

Henshaw
Trimble
Payne
McCloskey
Earls
Sexton
Murray
Heaslip
O'Brien
Ruddock
Toner
Ryan
White
Best
McGrath

Cronin
Cronin
Furlong
McCarthy
Stander
Reddan
Jackson
DK or SZ

That's a smashing team, would love to see a change at 15 for more of an attacking shape. Shame Fitz is injured again, seems like everytime he is shaping to take ownership of a centre jersey he gets crocked. Dude has the worst luck.

postitnote

Let's not forget Jackson, who has slotted into 12 for Ulster before. Just in case people trot out the versatility card again :rolleyes:

It would be fascinating to watch the Irish training sessions to see what Joe sees and how he decides on his squad. But then that would ruin the fun on here of speculation and being able to denigrate players keeping their favourite player out of the team.

former total

postitnote wrote: »

Let's not forget Jackson, who has slotted into 12 for Ulster before. Just in case people trot out the versatility card again :rolleyes:

It would be fascinating to watch the Irish training sessions to see what Joe sees and how he decides on his squad. But then that would ruin the fun on here of speculation and being able to denigrate players keeping their favourite player out of the team.

Jackson has many valid claims to a jersey but versatility is not one. However, I think Joe wil pick the best out half, not the most versatile.

Agree completely on the second point.

Sanjuro

Neil3030 wrote: »

Gonna have a stab here at justifying the team I'd like to see.

Main point of contention is whether Jared Payne starts at 15 or 13. In my mind, with Luke Fitz gone, Payne must play 13 so we have a senior player in midfield who knows the system. None of the options without Payne at 13 appeal to me, i.e., any combination of Madigan, Henshaw, McCloskey, Earls or Marshall.

With Payne starting 13, it also allows for my next selection that I'd really like to see - McCloskey at 12. He's big, he's fast, he finds space, he's unknown, he could really make for an exciting addition to the team. Payne outside him will know both him and the system so it's probably the ideal way to start him in a big test match. To be fair, there's a shout there to put Marshall outside him for the same reasons, but I just prefer Payne.

Earls and Trimble on the wings. I love the balance they give in terms of ground and aerial game, respectively.

I think you then have to think long and hard about the following question - who do you want in the matchday 23 - Rob Kearney or Robbie Henshaw? Because if you have 12. McCloskey, 13. Payne (which I want), then starting Kearney means Henshaw drops to the bench, and with Henshaw in the 23 shirt, you now have no wing cover. Alternatively, if you start Henshaw at 15, you can now put Zebo or Dave Kearney in the 23 shirt, and between Earls, Payne, Henshaw and the 23 (SZ or DK), you now have centre, wing and full-back cover in various permutations. So comparing Henshaw and Rob, while Rob is the elder statesman and I see what he brings from a territorial perspective, Henshaw covers more positions, is actually quite solid as a territorial 15, has a cannon for a peg and can offer a pretty trouser-browning attacking threat to join the line. So Rob is cut. I'm firm but fair.

Stander will bench for me. The backrow will be pretty much as you'd expect, in Ruddock, SOB and Heaslip. Stander to come on for Heaslip and start smashing it up around the 55 minute mark please.

If all were on form, the starting second row would be Ryan and Toner, with McCarthy benching. I'm going to assume Ryan is tearing it up in training and this will come to pass.

Other than that, the team pretty much picks itself, given the available bodies.

Henshaw
Trimble
Payne
McCloskey
Earls
Sexton
Murray
Heaslip
O'Brien
Ruddock
Toner
Ryan
White
Best
McGrath

Cronin
Cronin
Furlong
McCarthy
Stander
Reddan
Jackson
DK or SZ

Man alive, if that was the team, I'd be more excited about Sunday then the unease I feel right now. I have the feeling Joe will play it conservatively, with only the wings and 23 being the real question. But the selection you've put up would really liven things up.

techdiver

Neil3030 wrote: »

Gonna have a stab here at justifying the team I'd like to see.

Main point of contention is whether Jared Payne starts at 15 or 13. In my mind, with Luke Fitz gone, Payne must play 13 so we have a senior player in midfield who knows the system. None of the options without Payne at 13 appeal to me, i.e., any combination of Madigan, Henshaw, McCloskey, Earls or Marshall.

With Payne starting 13, it also allows for my next selection that I'd really like to see - McCloskey at 12. He's big, he's fast, he finds space, he's unknown, he could really make for an exciting addition to the team. Payne outside him will know both him and the system so it's probably the ideal way to start him in a big test match. To be fair, there's a shout there to put Marshall outside him for the same reasons, but I just prefer Payne.

Earls and Trimble on the wings. I love the balance they give in terms of ground and aerial game, respectively.

I think you then have to think long and hard about the following question - who do you want in the matchday 23 - Rob Kearney or Robbie Henshaw? Because if you have 12. McCloskey, 13. Payne (which I want), then starting Kearney means Henshaw drops to the bench, and with Henshaw in the 23 shirt, you now have no wing cover. Alternatively, if you start Henshaw at 15, you can now put Zebo or Dave Kearney in the 23 shirt, and between Earls, Payne, Henshaw and the 23 (SZ or DK), you now have centre, wing and full-back cover in various permutations. So comparing Henshaw and Rob, while Rob is the elder statesman and I see what he brings from a territorial perspective, Henshaw covers more positions, is actually quite solid as a territorial 15, has a cannon for a peg and can offer a pretty trouser-browning attacking threat to join the line. So Rob is cut. I'm firm but fair.

Stander will bench for me. The backrow will be pretty much as you'd expect, in Ruddock, SOB and Heaslip. Stander to come on for Heaslip and start smashing it up around the 55 minute mark please.

If all were on form, the starting second row would be Ryan and Toner, with McCarthy benching. I'm going to assume Ryan is tearing it up in training and this will come to pass.

Other than that, the team pretty much picks itself, given the available bodies.

Henshaw
Trimble
Payne
McCloskey
Earls
Sexton
Murray
Heaslip
O'Brien
Ruddock
Toner
Ryan
White
Best
McGrath

Cronin
Cronin
Furlong
McCarthy
Stander
Reddan
Jackson
DK or SZ

As with others, I would love to see a team like that. But also, as others have stated I don't expect to see it.

I wouldn't even call it risky. You have 2 Ulster teammates in the centre, so they are familiar with each other (albeit, they haven't played together in those positions this season). The only bone of contention would be Henshaw for Kearney.

Unfortunately, the issue with Irish Rugby is, once a team is established, it will only change due to forced circumstances such as injury and retirements, or the odd time when someone form has consistently fallen off a cliff.

former total

techdiver wrote: »

As with others, I would love to see a team like that. But also, as others have stated I don't expect to see it.

Sanjuro wrote: »

Man alive, if that was the team, I'd be more excited about Sunday then the unease I feel right now. I have the feeling Joe will play it conservatively, with only the wings and 23 being the real question. But the selection you've put up would really liven things up.

Ah lads, rein it in a bit. The only difference in Neil3030's team compared to the probable one is Henshaw at full-back. It's not a particularly daring selection and the one that will be picked will not be a "conservative" team full of aging has-beens.

It's completely mental how the narrative around Joe and Ireland has changed since the Argentina game. One game. Jesus but people are fickle.

Neil3030

former total wrote: »

Ah lads, rein it in a bit. The only difference in Neil3030's team compared to the probable one is Henshaw at full-back. It's not a particularly daring selection and the one that will be picked will not be a "conservative" team full of aging has-beens.

It's completely mental how the narrative around Joe and Ireland has changed since the Argentina game. One game. Jesus but people are fickle.

So you expect McCloskey at 12, Jackson at 22 and Trimble at 14?

Podge_irl

Neil3030 wrote: »

So you expect McCloskey at 12, Jackson at 22 and Trimble at 14?

Well if Henshaw isn't at full back then he will be at 12. The other two are eminently possible though, if not even probable.

awec

former total wrote: »

Ah lads, rein it in a bit. The only difference in Neil3030's team compared to the probable one is Henshaw at full-back. It's not a particularly daring selection and the one that will be picked will not be a "conservative" team full of aging has-beens.

It's completely mental how the narrative around Joe and Ireland has changed since the Argentina game. One game. Jesus but people are fickle.

Not true, many of these points of discussion long pre-date the World Cup.

Sanjuro

former total wrote: »

Ah lads, rein it in a bit. The only difference in Neil3030's team compared to the probable one is Henshaw at full-back. It's not a particularly daring selection and the one that will be picked will not be a "conservative" team full of aging has-beens.

It's completely mental how the narrative around Joe and Ireland has changed since the Argentina game. One game. Jesus but people are fickle.

Nothing fickle about it. The pre, and during world cup selections made total sense considering the game we were playing, and I never once complained about it. Nor would I complain if Joe made the same selection (injury and retirement permitting) in the 6N, especially since the results in 2016 are important for the seeding in 2019. But I would like to see some different selections considering there are some new players being brought in, and taking into consideration the recent performances of players like McCloskey, Stander, Van Der Flier and Peej. There's nothing to be 'reined in.' It's merely looking at the options we now have in several positions.

former total

Neil3030 wrote: »

So you expect McCloskey at 12, Jackson at 22 and Trimble at 14?

No, I expect Henshaw at 12, and not at full-back.

Yes, I expect Trimble to start and I'd say it's 70-30 that Jackson will bench. But are either of those selections particularly daring? Not really... picking Jackson is the conservative option. Trimble is no more or less conservative than Kearney or Zebo.

awec

awec wrote: »

Not true, many of these points of discussion long pre-date the World Cup.

Joe was being lauded before the World Cup for having built a squad of players that knew the system and could fit in and do a job as required.

He certainly wasn't being called conservative, or being accused of not allowing attacking rugby when we put 40 points on Scotland in Murrayfield.

He made errors going into and during the world cup with selection for sure and I'm sure he knows that more than anyone else. I do think it's unfair however to call a coach who has introduced massive rotation to the national setup and overseen the passing of the "golden generation" whilst maintaining six nation success as "overly conservative".

I think he is probably less conservative despite fewer resources than many other international coaches.

aimee1

I cant really see past this as the 23. Might be 1/2 swaps between XV and 23 [2nd row, left wing] and reckon Madigan might bench over Jackson purely as a cover option. Would love to see a change of approach with a view to the long term but it wont happen so not going to get worked up over it.



McGrath, Best, White
Toner, McCarthy
Ruddock, SOB, Heaslip
Murray, Sexton
DK, Henshaw, Payne, Trimble, RK.


Cronin, Cronin, Furlong, Ryan, Stander, Reddan, Madigan/Jackson, Earls

former total

awec wrote: »

Not true, many of these points of discussion long pre-date the World Cup.

Well the Jackson-Madigan debate feels like it pre-dates ROG-Humphreys at this stage.

But no, the sweeping generalisation of conservative selection is a new one. And it's miles off the mark.

Is Henshaw's positioning, kicking and aerial game good enough for fullback?

aimee1

aimee1 wrote: »

I cant really see past this as the 23. Might be 1/2 swaps between XV and 23 [2nd row, left wing] and reckon Madigan might bench over Jackson purely as a cover option. Would love to see a change of approach with a view to the long term but it wont happen so not going to get worked up over it.



McGrath, Best, White
Toner, McCarthy
Ruddock, SOB, Heaslip
Murray, Sexton
DK, Henshaw, Payne, Trimble, RK.


Cronin, Cronin, Furlong, Ryan, Stander, Reddan, Madigan/Jackson, Earls

Barring injury that is exactly what I think we may see. Earls may get in ahead of Dave Kearney but off the back of their last 3 - 4 games I'd leave Dave in there.

McCarthy's provincial form is better than Ryan's, but Ryan has more proven international pedigree so I guess whoever is doing the job in training will dictate who starts.

I also think it's a bit of a toss up between Stander and Ruddock as both can do a good job covering the backrow from the bench, with Stander having the edge covering 8.

I wouldn't be hugely surprised to see McCloskey in the mix at 12 given Henshaw's release at the weekend. But on the balance of probability It will be Henshaw Payne midfield.

Buer

I think with the possible exception of the wings and blindside flanker, we're all pretty confident with what the team is. I'd think it's quite likely Ruddock will get the nod at 6 and Earls likely to get one of the wing spots alongside either Trimble or DK.

I think that Payne at 13 is pretty much a guarantee seeing as how badly exposed and disorganised we were in our midfield defence without him.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Is Henshaw's positioning, kicking and aerial game good enough for fullback?

He's been fine at Pro12 level and won that high ball to score against England last year.

Neither him or Kearney have played a lot of rugby this season and for this reason I think it's probably more likely that we'll go with experience at least against Wales, England and France and perhaps to some level of rotation against Scotland and Italy.

That said, I'm probably disrespecting Scotland a bit too much - they were poor last 6N but far from it in the WC. Not sure how much rotation we can realistically afford here.

bilston

I actually think there are quite a few spots that we can't really predict. Obviously there are favourites for certain positions but I'd say there are as many as 4 spots in the starting XV up for grabs and several bench spots still open.

I would be pretty surprised if White didn't get the nod at TH but I've been impressed by Furlong anytime I've seen him so I wouldn't mind him starting. One wing spot, second row and blindside are wide open.

15 Kearney
14 ??
13 Payne
12 Henshaw
11 Earls
10 Sexton
9 Murray
1 McGrath
2 Best
3 ???
4 Toner
5 ???
6 ???
7 O'Brien
8 Heaslip

16 ???
17 Cronin
18 ???
19 ???
20 ???
21 Reddan
22 ???
23 ???

errlloyd

awec wrote: »

Not true, many of these points of discussion long pre-date the World Cup.

I don't think the points have changed, but sadly the tone has. There was a belief in Joe before the world cup, something has destroyed that belief. People genuinely thought we could win the world cup, people now seem to think we're going to come third or fourth in the 6 nations. In fact, I think some people are hoping we fail.

There would have been bloody outrage here if a bunch of journos had got together last year and said Ireland were probably going to come fourth (bottom paragraph). People for some reason have just given up believing in this Ireland team because (I think) people want this Ireland team to fail.

It's perfectly acceptable really. We believe Kearney is passed it, Sexton is broken, Payne is a fullback, Healy is a liability and Heaslip is overrated, so we actively want them to fail to prove us right. For most people posting in this thread, it's in good faith. They don't want Kearney to be dropped, they just want to see Henshaw tried at fullback - that is okay. But for a small minority of posters around the web and on here, there is a distaste for the starting players, it's "Anyone but Healy" or "anyone but Payne".

Part of this is framed in the context of expectation versus reward. For instance we will accept a conservative team selection when the potential reward is a world cup victory, but when the reward is "Just" another 6 nations trophy fans look for a more inventive selection.

We need a bit more optimism around here. 4 teams in the top 6 of the league. Young players in every province are pushing new boundaries. Our national coach has still won a trophy every year he's been a head a coach. We have 8 tests matches in the next 6 months, at least 6 of which could be described as very tough games against top tier opposition, and 5 of those are away from home!

This will be one of the toughest years of Irish test rugby ever. 3 tests against South Africa, 2 against New Zealand, 1 Against Australia and England and France on the road. This is the most mouth watering non world cup year for Irish rugby ever. Players will get a chance. CJ Stander will probably return to South Africa and wear number 8 on his back at least once. McCloskey will probably start against the All Blacks this year at some stage. Rob Kearney will not start all 8 games at fullback. I'd expect we will see 25 different players starting against England, Wales, France, South Africa, All Blacks or Australia.

I can't guarantee we will see Ireland playing with style and substance this year. I can't guarantee we will see experimental combinations and youth coursing through the side. But we are going to see more top class test matches with Ireland involved than ever before. We don't need to throw the toys out of the pram just because the coach didn't cull half the side before playing Wales in Dublin. (Besides, we really need to win the winnable matches, because our ranking is gonna tank badly this year).

aimee1

Deleted User wrote: »

McCarthy's provincial form is better than Ryan's, but Ryan has more proven international pedigree so I guess whoever is doing the job in training will dictate who starts.

McCarthy to start. He cant go the 80 so if he benches and Toner or Ryan go down early he could have to go 65+ which could be a problem. Just a hunch.

errlloyd

errlloyd wrote: »

I don't think the points have changed, but sadly the tone has. There was a belief in Joe before the world cup, something has destroyed that belief. People genuinely thought we could win the world cup, people now seem to think we're going to come third or fourth in the 6 nations. In fact, I think some people are hoping we fail.

There would have been bloody outrage here if a bunch of journos had got together last year and said Ireland were probably going to come fourth (bottom paragraph). People for some reason have just given up believing in this Ireland team because (I think) people want this Ireland team to fail.

It's perfectly acceptable really. We believe Kearney is passed it, Sexton is broken, Payne is a fullback, Healy is a liability and Heaslip is overrated, so we actively want them to fail to prove us right. For most people posting in this thread, it's in good faith. They don't want Kearney to be dropped, they just want to see Henshaw tried at fullback - that is okay. But for a small minority of posters around the web and on here, there is a distaste for the starting players, it's "Anyone but Healy" or "anyone but Payne".

Part of this is framed in the context of expectation versus reward. For instance we will accept a conservative team selection when the potential reward is a world cup victory, but when the reward is "Just" another 6 nations trophy fans look for a more inventive selection.

We need a bit more optimism around here. 4 teams in the top 6 of the league. Young players in every province are pushing new boundaries. Our national coach has still won a trophy every year he's been a head a coach. We have 8 tests matches in the next 6 months, at least 6 of which could be described as very tough games against top tier opposition, and 5 of those are away from home!

This will be one of the toughest years of Irish test rugby ever. 3 tests against South Africa, 2 against New Zealand, 1 Against Australia and England and France on the road. This is the most mouth watering non world cup year for Irish rugby ever. Your players will get a chance. CJ Stander will probably return to South Africa and wear number 8 on his back at least once. McCloskey will probably start against the All Blacks this year at some stage. Rob Kearney will not start all 8 games at fullback.

I can't guarantee we will see Ireland playing with style and substance this year. I can't guarantee we will see experimental combinations and youth coursing through the side. But we are going to see more top class test matches with Ireland involved than ever before. We don't need to throw the toys out of the pram just because the coach didn't cull half the side before playing Wales in Dublin. (Besides, we really need to win the winnable matches, because our ranking is gonna tank badly this year).

Well said.

aimee1

aimee1 wrote: »

McCarthy to start. He cant go the 80 so if he benches and Toner or Ryan go down early he could have to go 65+ which could be a problem. Just a hunch.

There is a touch of myth about this. He is a bit like POM in that he tends to empty the tank through hard work. Like POM though he can Marshall his energy usage and do 60 - 80 if that is the plan.

It's not a black and white "McCarthy can only play 50 minutes".

aimee1

errlloyd wrote: »

(Besides, we really need to win the winnable matches, because our ranking is gonna tank badly this year).

that also goes for other sides too. Wales wont want to risk being third seed again, and they have NZ away in June x3. Sunday is actually one of the most important games of the year for both sides because a loss could go way beyond the 6n. It sets a tone too.

aimee1

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a touch of myth about this. He is a bit like POM in that he tends to empty the tank through hard work. Like POM though he can Marshall his energy usage and do 60 - 80 if that is the plan.

It's not a black and white "McCarthy can only play 50 minutes".

He does seem to fade with Leinster midway through the second half though. His performances this season have been excellent and leinsters scrum has dominated when he is in it. He was badly missed against Bath away for example. Maybe he just doesnt know any other way.

errlloyd

errlloyd wrote: »

...

Rob Kearney will not start all 8 games at fullback.

...

I can't see this happening without injury.

flangemeistro

Is there any leaks coming out of camp yet as to what injury they're going to fabricate for Sexton to cover up his concussion and rule him out of Sundays game or will they do the usual of pulling him in the pre game warm up so Wales won't be prepared for Jackson?

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

Joe was being lauded before the World Cup for having built a squad of players that knew the system and could fit in and do a job as required.

He certainly wasn't being called conservative, or being accused of not allowing attacking rugby when we put 40 points on Scotland in Murrayfield.

He made errors going into and during the world cup with selection for sure and I'm sure he knows that more than anyone else. I do think it's unfair however to call a coach who has introduced massive rotation to the national setup and overseen the passing of the "golden generation" whilst maintaining six nation success as "overly conservative".

I think he is probably less conservative despite fewer resources than many other international coaches.

Not universally he wasn't. As I said, these issues long pre-date the world cup.

If you go back to the last 6 nations I am sure you will find people raising concerns about our style of play.

awec

awec wrote: »

If you go back to the last 6 nations I am sure you will find people raising concerns about our style of play.

Yes I'm sure if you go back to before the last six nations you will find people raising concerns about our style of play and team selection.

How did we fair in that six nations out of interest?

awec

errlloyd wrote: »

I don't think the points have changed, but sadly the tone has. There was a belief in Joe before the world cup, something has destroyed that belief. People genuinely thought we could win the world cup, people now seem to think we're going to come third or fourth in the 6 nations. In fact, I think some people are hoping we fail.

There would have been bloody outrage here if a bunch of journos had got together last year and said Ireland were probably going to come fourth (bottom paragraph). People for some reason have just given up believing in this Ireland team because (I think) people want this Ireland team to fail.

It's perfectly acceptable really. We believe Kearney is passed it, Sexton is broken, Payne is a fullback, Healy is a liability and Heaslip is overrated, so we actively want them to fail to prove us right. For most people posting in this thread, it's in good faith. They don't want Kearney to be dropped, they just want to see Henshaw tried at fullback - that is okay. But for a small minority of posters around the web and on here, there is a distaste for the starting players, it's "Anyone but Healy" or "anyone but Payne".

Part of this is framed in the context of expectation versus reward. For instance we will accept a conservative team selection when the potential reward is a world cup victory, but when the reward is "Just" another 6 nations trophy fans look for a more inventive selection.

We need a bit more optimism around here. 4 teams in the top 6 of the league. Young players in every province are pushing new boundaries. Our national coach has still won a trophy every year he's been a head a coach. We have 8 tests matches in the next 6 months, at least 6 of which could be described as very tough games against top tier opposition, and 5 of those are away from home!

This will be one of the toughest years of Irish test rugby ever. 3 tests against South Africa, 2 against New Zealand, 1 Against Australia and England and France on the road. This is the most mouth watering non world cup year for Irish rugby ever. Players will get a chance. CJ Stander will probably return to South Africa and wear number 8 on his back at least once. McCloskey will probably start against the All Blacks this year at some stage. Rob Kearney will not start all 8 games at fullback. I'd expect we will see 25 different players starting against England, Wales, France, South Africa, All Blacks or Australia.

I can't guarantee we will see Ireland playing with style and substance this year. I can't guarantee we will see experimental combinations and youth coursing through the side. But we are going to see more top class test matches with Ireland involved than ever before. We don't need to throw the toys out of the pram just because the coach didn't cull half the side before playing Wales in Dublin. (Besides, we really need to win the winnable matches, because our ranking is gonna tank badly this year).

The World Cup itself probably. If we are honest, we had a pretty disappointing world cup and this has probably ended the coach's honeymoon period.

We have more average performances than we had good performances. A good result against a truly crap French side papered over a few cracks. The complete failure to turn up against Argentina is a massive issue. Yes, we had injuries, but we were absolutely rubbish.

For me, it has always been the case that I believe style of play and results are not mutually exclusive. I believe Ireland has the players to play exciting rugby and still win. I believe we have a coach who has the ability to have Ireland play exciting rugby and still win, he has shown he is capable of this at all levels below test rugby and it would seem very unlikely to me that he is unable to carry this to the next level.

As for the people who "want Ireland to fail", the very nature of Irish rugby means an Ireland coach is never going to have universal support from the fan base. There will always be unhappy people. The current coach doesn't have universal support, the last coach didn't have universal support, nor the coach before that etc. The next coach won't either. That's just the unfortunate reality really.

flangemeistro

flangemeistro wrote: »

Is there any leaks coming out of camp yet as to what injury they're going to fabricate for Sexton to cover up his concussion and rule him out of Sundays game or will they do the usual of pulling him in the pre game warm up so Wales won't be prepared for Jackson?

Are you suggesting that team Ireland, the management, the staff and doctors are all going to join in a mass conspiracy to allow someone with a brain injury play a physical contact sport?

If Sexton has a concussion then no one is going to try and hide that fact, and suggesting that they would without proof is not helpful.

The doctors who care for him would not only lose their jobs, but lose their ability to practice medicine if they wilfully engaged with something like that.

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes I'm sure if you go back to before the last six nations you will find people raising concerns about our style of play and team selection.

How did we fair in that six nations out of interest?

We won it. So what? This doesn't mean we can't improve how we play.

awec

awec wrote: »

The World Cup itself probably. If we are honest, we had a pretty disappointing world cup and this has probably ended the coach's honeymoon period.

We have more average performances than we had good performances. A good result against a truly crap French side papered over a few cracks. The complete failure to turn up against Argentina is a massive issue. Yes, we had injuries, but we were absolutely rubbish.

For me, it has always been the case that I believe style of play and results are not mutually exclusive. I believe Ireland has the players to play exciting rugby and still win. I believe we have a coach who has the ability to have Ireland play exciting rugby and still win, he has shown he is capable of this at all levels below test rugby and it would seem very unlikely to me that he is unable to carry this to the next level.

As for the people who "want Ireland to fail", the very nature of Irish rugby means an Ireland coach is never going to have universal support from the fan base. There will always be unhappy people. The current coach doesn't have universal support, the last coach didn't have universal support, nor the coach before that etc. The next coach won't either. That's just the unfortunate reality really.

You're completely forgetting that we came back to 20-23 after being 0-17 down.

awec

awec wrote: »

We won it. So what? This doesn't mean we can't improve how we play.

You're not talking about improving how we play. You're asking for more expansive or attacking or just plain attractive rugby.

I'd rather we improved how we play and if that means more of the same just better that's fine with me if we win.

And in a previous post of yours you talk about how Leinster played under Joe being an example of what Ireland could do. You seem to forget that some of our best and toughest wins under Joe came from disciplined territorial set piece rugby just like Ireland play.

We had days of throwing the ball around, but not against every team.

If our win/lose ratio starts to look similar to previous coaches then let's change it up. But at the moment, bar a disappointing world cup we've been absolute top drawer under Joe as far as I'm concerned.

former total

awec wrote: »

The World Cup itself probably. If we are honest, we had a pretty disappointing world cup and this has probably ended the coach's honeymoon period.

We have more average performances than we had good performances. A good result against a truly crap French side papered over a few cracks. The complete failure to turn up against Argentina is a massive issue. Yes, we had injuries, but we were absolutely rubbish.

For me, it has always been the case that I believe style of play and results are not mutually exclusive. I believe Ireland has the players to play exciting rugby and still win. I believe we have a coach who has the ability to have Ireland play exciting rugby and still win, he has shown he is capable of this at all levels below test rugby and it would seem very unlikely to me that he is unable to carry this to the next level.

As for the people who "want Ireland to fail", the very nature of Irish rugby means an Ireland coach is never going to have universal support from the fan base. There will always be unhappy people. The current coach doesn't have universal support, the last coach didn't have universal support, nor the coach before that etc. The next coach won't either. That's just the unfortunate reality really.

Yes, I agree with all of this. I don't particularly like the style of play that we employ.

However, people are equating the style of play with the personnel in the jerseys and that's the fundamental error in all this.

Putting McCloskey in at 12, or Earls at 11, or Jackson at 22, none of this will, by itself, change anything. McCloskey will be given the same brief as Henshaw, or Henshaw at FB will be given the same instructions as Kearney and so on. Payne, Kearney, Conor Murray's incessant box-kicking, they're all just doing as they're told by the coach.

The "problem" is not personnel, but people will still lose their sh*t if/when the announcement on Thursday contains the word "Kearney" not once but twice. And there is no logical basis for that.

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

You're completely forgetting that we came back to 20-23 after being 0-17 down.

"After being 0-17 down". Exactly.

We were piss poor for the first 20 minutes. This cost us the match.

CMOTDibbler

awec wrote: »

The complete failure to turn up against Argentina is a massive issue. Yes, we had injuries, but we were absolutely rubbish.

awec wrote: »

"After being 0-17 down". Exactly.

We were piss poor for the first 20 minutes. This cost us the match.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

:rolleyes:

awec

former total wrote: »

Yes, I agree with all of this. I don't particularly like the style of play that we employ.

However, people are equating the style of play with the personnel in the jerseys and that's the fundamental error in all this.

Putting McCloskey in at 12, or Earls at 11, or Jackson at 22, none of this will, by itself, change anything. McCloskey will be given the same brief as Henshaw, or Henshaw at FB will be given the same instructions as Kearney and so on. Payne, Kearney, Conor Murray's incessant box-kicking, they're all just doing as they're told by the coach.

The "problem" is not personnel, but people will still lose their sh*t if/when the announcement on Thursday contains the word "Kearney" not once but twice. And there is no logical basis for that.

Well, I think some players have a skill set that will naturally lend itself to a more pleasing style of play. I think McCloskey is a more natural 12 than Henshaw is, and I think Henshaw is a better 13 than Payne is. Even together, McCloskey Henshaw sounds better than Henshaw Payne to me.

At full back, well it's a secondary discussion really. I rate Kearney but would like to see other options tried there. This isn't really a reflection on RK, I'd just be curious to see how we'd do if we had a full back who played a different style of game to RK. For years RK was miles ahead of all other pretenders but that's not really the case any more.

Obviously changing personnel isn't going to magically change the style of play, but I think it helps and the two go hand in hand. It still requires the coaching team to create different tactics though.

jacothelad

former total wrote: »

Ah lads, rein it in a bit. The only difference in Neil3030's team compared to the probable one is Henshaw at full-back. It's not a particularly daring selection and the one that will be picked will not be a "conservative" team full of aging has-beens.

It's completely mental how the narrative around Joe and Ireland has changed since the Argentina game. One game. Jesus but people are fickle.

It really wasn't one game. How did Ireland do in the RWC warm - ups? We beat Wales 3rds and scraped by a woeful Scotland before losing at home to Wales and being well beaten by England. These games reflected what Ireland were to do in the RWC...unconvincing I'd say. We were one desperate tackle away from losing to Italy.

I think we all have to realise that eventually any team runs out of steam. Players become jaded. Opposition coaches analyse what you are doing and employ counter measures. If we were New Zealand, we would have many fresh faces to reinvigorate the team. Ireland tend not to do so until they are forced in to it. This has been our history yet history shows that when this happens the team begins to perform again. Changing a winning formula for no reason defies sporting logic. Not changing a losing team does also. I think we are somewhere in the middle of this.

Looking at the players we have, only one or two are in the very top echelons of rugby playing. We simply don't have the forwards in abundance to make sweeping changes there. We all know that forwards and the set pieces win games and especially the back row. If Schmidt can get them to keep winning then he is a genius. I personally don't care how it's done but I'd be happier if it was with uplifting style. I don't think we have a team to do so in that manner. Players like Henderson, Stander and McCloskey just might be the catalyst to do so in the future. I'd have Stander and McCloskey in the starting team v. Wales. I'd also have Henshaw at 13 and give Payne the 15 slot.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

Not universally he wasn't. As I said, these issues long pre-date the world cup.

If you go back to the last 6 nations I am sure you will find people raising concerns about our style of play.

There does tend to be a lot of reactionary nonsense from people as well don't forget. The truly painful and constant posts of doom from a small handful of posters following the Argentina game for example. Again, one single game upon which everything about Irish rugby was getting judged. Look at Dave Kearney. A bad day at the office, and one in which he was put under massive pressure by failings inside him, and that one performance is used to knock him time after time. To hell with the fact that he was the form winger going into the RWC, and to hell with the fact that he's been the form winger of the last few weeks as well. That one game alone is all the evidence some want to see.

The simple fact of the matter is that for the 2014 AIs and the 2015 6 Nations we had to try and bed in a completely new centre partnership. They only played together once in 2014 and so we simply couldn't expect huge things from them in the 6 Nations last year in terms of a creative force. We went from Sexton-Darce-Drico in 2014, a combo who are utterly at home with each other, to Sexton-Henshaw-Payne who barely knew each other. There was always going to be a drop off in what happened in the middle of the park. And that was always going to impact those outside them.

Injuries and a lack of depth there continued to hurt us in the RWC (and will almost certainly limit us in this 6 Nations). Now we are starting to see the depth coming through though. We might not see them get huge game time in the next few weeks but as long as they do over the course of the year then that's just fine. Our game plan will develop as the combinations do.

For those who think we've always played the same under Joe here's some stats from the 2014 6 Nations that might be of interest:

1. Ireland scored the most tries (16 to England’s 14) and conceded the least (4 to England’s 5).
2. Ireland scored the second highest number of points (132 to England’s 138) and conceded the least (49 to England’s 65).
3. Ireland’s points difference was the highest points difference in the 6 Nations since France in 2004 (+83 compared to +84).
4. Ireland made more carries and passes than any other side.
5. Sexton was the highest point scorer and the joint top try scorer with the Player of the Championship Mike Brown.

I understand people wanting to see more attractive rugby and more adventurous selections. But do people really want to see that at the expense of success? Because I feel pretty bloody confident that if we were more adventurous and we lost there'd be no shortage of complaints about that as well. The Argentinians were adventurous in the RWC and the only side of note that they beat was us when we were missing 1/3 of our team (and arguably the most important 1/3). We saw what happened to them when they tried to be adventurous against Australia and SA. I'd rather win another 6 Nations playing the way we did last season than lose one playing naively like the Argies did in the RWC.