Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread V

.ak

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

But...but....he hits rucks resources rucks and works really really hard...

Bad defender and doesnt score tries, you can be one if you are the opposite of the other, but to be both is criminal. This craic of having slow wingers who dont score tries was found out at the WC.

Oh it's terrible having wingers that don't just stand out on the wing and wait for the ball.

Welcome to the 21st century where all your players are expected to be good rugby players, and not specialists. Everyone needs to be effective at ruck time. Gone are the days where you can carry a player who's afraid of contact work just because they have a set of wheels on them.

Mr Tickle

I really didn't mean to start this again. I apologise

irishbucsfan

Bazzo wrote: »

Is Dave Kearney a poor defender? I'd have pegged it as a strength of his to be honest. One game aside I fairly frequently see him either putting in big hits or pushing attacking players into touch.

I'm happy to be corrected if somebody can pull some stats that prove it but anecdotally I don't recall him being pegged as a poor defender any time outside the Argentina game.

Correct, it's one of his strengths

This is a bit like after the 2007 World Cup when everyone would tell us how poor a defender Andrew Trimble was without really knowing what they're talking about.

Bazzo

Bazzo wrote: »

Is Dave Kearney a poor defender? I'd have pegged it as a strength of his to be honest. One game aside I fairly frequently see him either putting in big hits or pushing attacking players into touch.

I'm happy to be corrected if somebody can pull some stats that prove it but anecdotally I don't recall him being pegged as a poor defender any time outside the Argentina game.

He has weaknesses to his game, but defending and tackling are not one of them.

He made mistakes against Argentina, some of those mistakes happened in mid field and he was blamed for the overlaps. He was unlucky against Wasps at the start of the season but again probably shouldn't have let the ball bounce.

Most of the season though he has been beasting people in the tackle and is probably one of the best defensive assets available to us. His first try against Ospreys and his setup for Reddan against Wasps were both quite sensational.

His try save against Bath was also something a bit special and shows his work rate

Podge_irl

Podge_irl wrote: »

Context is pretty important and while he most certainly did not have a good game, plenty of those tackles were in acres of space. They were not easy tackles to make.

Has been said countless times, the problems stemmed from bad alignment inside him and overlaps out wide from bad positioning across the back line.

We badly missed Payne and Sexton.

But sure there just facts, lets blame Dave instead because agenda.

Noopti

.ak wrote: »

I'm so confused by this bolded part. I've seen this bandied about a few times and it makes no sense to me. 'Its a risk, but feck it'? How do people apply that logic? Do people think this is a bit of a kick about on a Sunday afternoon? Game of tip and then a few pints after? Are people forgetting what the ramifications are if we lose this game?

I'm all for mccloskey getting a cap, but against Italy, and beside an experienced centre like Payne please.

Schmidt isn't paid to go "feck it. Let's feck up our chances of getting a seeding for the next World Cup because this team looks 'inspiring/cool/exciting/x-factory/youthful/ubercool/da bomb/l337". He's paid to ensure we win our winnables. Wales are a brilliant side and playing a green midfield and 3rd choice out half against them wouldn't just be suicidal, it'd be disrespectful.

I am not saying Schmidt should think "go feck it". However I DO think that we should be picking players on form, and with a view to making us less predictable. Gatland and Wales will eat up our predictability all day long. Right now, on form:

McCloskey should start
Payne should be 15
Stander should probably start, but Ruddock is also in great form
Jackson should start ahead of Sexton

If we play the same way we have played for the past two seasons, then I do not think we will win this 6 Nations.
If we play the same way we have for the past two seasons, I do not think we will beat Wales on Sunday.
If we lose to Wales on Sunday we then have two tough away games to play, which we could easily lose, putting us in a pretty ****e situation
Therefore, in my opinion we need to change how we play and change how we attack, because with no defence coach and a less than first choice pack I think we need to attack teams more incisively and keep the ball moving away from contact as fast as possible.

It is precisely because this is NOT just a kick around in the park that I think we need to make these changes, as it is a very important game to win. And I think if we go with the same old, Wales have our number and will beat us.

So "feck it" is probably the wrong word to use, perhaps "take more risks" is more apt. But either way, I think we need to make changes to give us a good chance of beating Wales this weekend.

And World Cup seedings did SFA for us the last time. I would rather see us adapt and innovate.

awec

I've fallen asleep and woken up in January again...

Sangre

.ak wrote: »

Aside from that one game can point out any other examples of DK being a poor defender?

I think people need to get over that game. If you want to use it as a yard stick to beat people with then there's 15 lads who should never wear green again.

Unfortunately DK immediately followed up that RWC game with some terrible defensive blunders in his next high profile game against Wasps in the RDS. I think that cemented some people's view of DK, particularly those who only watch the 'big' games.

I think he has had an absolutely super season though. He has absolutely bossed people in the tackle and scored some excellent tries. Definitely one of the standout Leinster players of the season so far.

.ak

Noopti wrote: »

I am not saying Schmidt should think "go feck it". However I DO think that we should be picking players on form, and with a view to making us less predictable. Gatland and Wales will eat up our predictability all day long. Right now, on form:

McCloskey should start
Payne should be 15
Stander should probably start, but Ruddock is also in great form
Jackson should start ahead of Sexton

If we play the same way we have played for the past two seasons, then I do not think we will win this 6 Nations.
If we play the same way we have for the past two seasons, I do not think we will beat Wales on Sunday.
If we lose to Wales on Sunday we then have two tough away games to play, which we could easily lose, putting us in a pretty ****e situation
Therefore, in my opinion we need to change how we play and change how we attack, because with no defence coach and a less than first choice pack I think we need to attack teams more incisively and keep the ball moving away from contact as fast as possible.

It is precisely because this is NOT just a kick around in the park that I think we need to make these changes, as it is a very important game to win. And I think if we go with the same old, Wales have our number and will beat us.

So "feck it" is probably the wrong word to use, perhaps "take more risks" is more apt. But either way, I think we need to make changes to give us a good chance of beating Wales this weekend.

And World Cup seedings did SFA for us the last time. I would rather see us adapt and innovate.

But that's just not the way international footy works. You don't chop n change a team that only gets limited time together based on "form" from the past few games.

I was the one advocating for mccloskey to get a cap in the 6n a year ago, so I really don't want to be coming across as overly conservative but I imagine people will think that anyway.

But putting him in the firing line is rediculous. Also is starting Jackson, do you really think he'll have a better game than sexton? Not a chance. And then Payne has played how many minutes at 15 over the past 12 months exactly?

It's all wishful thinking and ignoring the fundamental basics of international rugby.

Also the seedlings meant we got a great position in the pool, and we did. We topped the pool. That's something we can manage and achieve. We cannot manage the unmanageables; injuries. We got snookered by injuries and that's not something to can forecast. We could've gone out in the pool stages like England. How would that have reflected on us? So to say the seedlings did SFA for us is erroneous.

Aside from the seedlings it's important we win the 6n.

It'd be incredibly hard to win it after playing an experimental side at home against Wales just for the craic.

wp_rathead

PTH2009 wrote: »

meant to ask a while ago but how come there is no Wolfhounds game this year ???

Due to the RWC - no time to have it

irishbucsfan

We're not making any major changes to the way we play. SOB himself said it in that press conference. I think people should probably let go of that idea.

awec

awec wrote: »

I've fallen asleep and woken up in January again...

It's almost as bad as the great Toner Henderson kerfuffle of 2015...

LuckyLloyd

If you hold the position that we are likely to lost three games in this tournament irrespective of what we do, then it is very reasonable to suggest that we blood some players by distributing starts we wouldn't have considered during the World Cup.

Now is the winter of our discontent.

.ak

I also don't subscribe to the idea that our play is predictable. It's been extremely varied over the past 2 years. Nobody wants to hear that, but the stats back it up. We've varied where we kick and carry on the park and at what point from game to game. We vary our defensive alignment and patterns based on the opposition. It just might not be "sexy" rugby, but it most certainly is varied.

Tbh people who advocate sexy over winning can go watch 7s. Sexy rugby only comes from dominance up front. And that's hard to gain nowadays in international rugby.

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

If you hold the position that we are likely to lost three games in this tournament irrespective of what we do, then it is very reasonable to suggest that we blood some players by distributing starts we wouldn't have considered during the World Cup.

Now is the winter of our discontent.

We beat smashed South Africa with a worse team than what is likely to field at the weekend.

Personally I think this is an incredibly tough year for us in the six nations with the way the fixtures are falling and also how close we are to crises in 2-3 positions.

That said, I have seen this Ireland team over the last two seasons be viciously clinical and efficient at times and England / France could struggle under new setups. Could go the other way, but I see no reason at all to even think about throwing the towel in.

Podge_irl

.ak wrote: »

But that's just not the way international footy works. You don't chop n change a team that only gets limited time together based on "form" from the past few games.

Sure. However, let's not pretend playing a centre partnership that have 2? games between them at centre in the last number of months isn't without risks either.

McCloskey is the form centre all season. It is absolutely not some kind of knee-jerk reaction to want him in the team and Henshaw/Payne is by no means some kind of unchangeable, settled partnership.

.ak

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

If you hold the position that we are likely to lost three games in this tournament irrespective of what we do, then it is very reasonable to suggest that we blood some players by distributing starts we wouldn't have considered during the World Cup.

Now is the winter of our discontent.

The tournament is winnable, as always.

Noopti

.ak wrote: »

But that's just not the way international footy works. You don't chop n change a team that only gets limited time together based on "form" from the past few games.

I was the one advocating for mccloskey to get a cap in the 6n a year ago, so I really don't want to be coming across as overly conservative but I imagine people will think that anyway.

But putting him in the firing line is rediculous. Also is starting Jackson, do you really think he'll have a better game than sexton? Not a chance. And then Payne has played how many minutes at 15 over the past 12 months exactly?

It's all wishful thinking and ignoring the fundamental basics of international rugby.

Also the seedlings meant we got a great position in the pool, and we did. We topped the pool. That's something we can manage and achieve. We cannot manage the unmanageables; injuries. We got snookered by injuries and that's not something to can forecast. We could've gone out in the pool stages like England. How would that have reflected on us? So to say the seedlings did SFA for us is erroneous.

Aside from the seedlings it's important we win the 6n.

It'd be incredibly hard to win it after playing an experimental side at home against Wales just for the craic.

Will you stop this stuff like "Just for the craic". Or that I only want it because it is "sexy rugby". I am not saying we do it for a laugh or because it is sexy!
Completely different to think "There are risks, but f*ck it we need to take risks to get the rewards sometimes" to "Hey, you know what would be hilarious. If we put this team out against Wales. Haha!"

I have set out why I think it would be a good thing to do in my opinion. I understand there are quite significant risks, I also am of the opinion that going with the usual team and the usual tactics will be exploited by this Welsh team, probably above all other teams to be honest. So that approach has its own inherent risks.

And
"Also is starting Jackson, do you really think he'll have a better game than sexton?"

Yes. I completely honestly believe he would.

former total

Podge_irl wrote: »

Sure. However, let's not pretend playing a centre partnership that have 2? games between them at centre in the last number of months isn't without risks either.

McCloskey is the form centre all season. It is absolutely not some kind of knee-jerk reaction to want him in the team and Henshaw/Payne is by no means some kind of unchangeable, settled partnership.

I agree. However, no-one is suggesting that playing McCloskey is where the changes should end. All the suggestions involve either a McCloskey-Henshaw midfield with Payne, as the "in-form fullback"* at 15, or a McCloskey-Payne midfield with Henshaw at fullback, despite not having played a major game there in years.

That is introducing a lot of unnecessary change into a team that is already greatly changed with the injury/retirement of key players. I'd be very surprised.

*this is serious bollocks, btw

.ak

Podge_irl wrote: »

Sure. However, let's not pretend playing a centre partnership that have 2? games between them at centre in the last number of months isn't without risks either.

McCloskey is the form centre all season. It is absolutely not some kind of knee-jerk reaction to want him in the team and Henshaw/Payne is by no means some kind of unchangeable, settled partnership.

I agree, however the op is stating that mccloskey and henshaw start together.

Also the issue is as good mccloskey is we have no idea how he'll get on with the pressure of test rugby in a massive must one game against the other best team form wise in the tournament... Sorry but that just seems foolhardy to me. Play him against Italy with Payne outside him. Between his cool head and sexton's direction he'll get settled into that stage better than the pressure he'll be under against wales.

case885

.ak wrote:

Oh it's terrible having wingers that don't just stand out on the wing and wait for the ball.

.ak wrote:

Welcome to the 21st century where all your players are expected to be good rugby players, and not specialists. Everyone needs to be effective at ruck time. Gone are the days where you can carry a player who's afraid of contact work just because they have a set of wheels on them.

Which of Kearney's rivals for the wing spot do that? Earls, Trimble and Zebo certainly aren't afraid of hitting rucks and making tackles.

.ak

Noopti wrote: »

Will you stop this stuff like "Just for the craic". Or that I only want it because it is "sexy rugby". I am not saying we do it for a laugh or because it is sexy!
Completely different to think "There are risks, but f*ck it we need to take risks to get the rewards sometimes" to "Hey, you know what would be hilarious. If we put this team out against Wales. Haha!"

I have set out why I think it would be a good thing to do in my opinion. I understand there are quite significant risks, I also am of the opinion that going with the usual team and the usual tactics will be exploited by this Welsh team, probably above all other teams to be honest. So that approach has its own inherent risks.

And
"Also is starting Jackson, do you really think he'll have a better game than sexton?"

Yes. I completely honestly believe he would.

Fair enough you're welcome to that opinion but it just seems to be a risk for the sake of taking risks.

Is there a game plan mccloskey and henshaw can carry out than henshaw and Payne can't? The predictability you allude to would be one of the approach to the game and not the players IMO.

former total

.ak wrote: »

Also the issue is as good mccloskey is we have no idea how he'll get on with the pressure of test rugby in a massive must one game against the other best team form wise in the tournament... Sorry but that just seems foolhardy to me.

This is a pet peeve of mine; all these selection debates assume we have the full story from watching the games. We don't. We have no idea how these guys are doing in training, whether they're ready for the jump to test level, whether they can adapt to Ireland's tactics.
At some point, in a tight selection call, you have to accept that there are factors at play other than what I saw on BBCNI there at the weekend.

.ak

case885 wrote: »

Which of Kearney's rivals for the wing spot do that? Earls, Trimble and Zebo certainly aren't afraid of hitting rucks and making tackles.

Trimble isn't a rival, he's a nailed on starter for the right wing.

It's between DK, earls and zebo. I think earls is the best of the bunch but I also think he's looked a bit shakey in the last while, I think DK has been on great form and has been a favourite of the management on that left wing previously so that's where I predict where they'll go.

Zebo isn't afraid of hitting rucks and making tackles either, I didn't suggest otherwise. The poster suggested that wingers being capable of contact is a bad thing.

Noopti

.ak wrote: »

Fair enough you're welcome to that opinion but it just seems to be a risk for the sake of taking risks.

Is there a game plan mccloskey and henshaw can carry out than henshaw and Payne can't? The predictability you allude to would be one of the approach to the game and not the players IMO.

Believe me, I can see the risks in my suggestions. But put it this way, I would be more confident of us beating Wales if we make some selection changes to if we put out the team everyone expects.

I could be completely wrong and we could go out there and win, but I am worried about this game. I don't think we can rely on us dominating at set piece and being accurate with kicking. And if we haven't got both or one of those then I think we need to put a marker down in terms of attack, and get some scores. If it comes down to a "grind it out" type of game, then I feel Wales have the advantage to be honest.

Noopti

former total wrote: »

This is a pet peeve of mine; all these selection debates assume we have the full story from watching the games. We don't. We have no idea how these guys are doing in training, whether they're ready for the jump to test level, whether they can adapt to Ireland's tactics.
At some point, in a tight selection call, you have to accept that there are factors at play other than what I saw on BBCNI there at the weekend.

Yep, true. We also have no idea how Henshaw and Payne are doing in training either. Sure, chances are they are doing just fine - but you still can't be sure of it. And I am not suggesting in any way that McCloskey or others should be picked if they are not doing well in training, or not adapting to the planned tactics.

All my suggestions are on the assumption they are showing the same (or better) aptitude in training as they are in club games up to now.

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

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.

And as if to prove the point.....

galwaylad14 wrote: »

My only comment on Dave Kearney is 5 out of 9. I'm sure most of you will know what that statistic represents. That should be enough to prove the guy isn't good enough for the top level.

Sure let's not consider how many of those tackles were him following up kicks that went too far for him to realistically compete for (which happened a few times in the game BTW). Who cares about the context or the reality of the situation!? Who cares about the fact that there were a boat load of issues from the ruck through the midfield and basically all throughout the defensive set-up that day!? Sure aren't we all here to react and point fingers and wave pitch forks.

Of course then we have the "Ireland under Schmidt play crap rugby and have always played the same way" line.....

Noopti wrote: »

If we play the same way we have played for the past two seasons.....

As I posted previously (and have posted consistently on the topic):

molloyjh wrote: »

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.

The amount of what can only at this point be described as lazy reactionary nonsense that gets flung around is gone beyond a joke now. There have been plenty of posts, repeated plenty of times, describing why these kinds of points are at best exaggerated and at worst simply false. There's feck all excuse for this stuff coming up time after time. Is there any chance that we can get back to reality now?

bilston

former total wrote: »

This is a pet peeve of mine; all these selection debates assume we have the full story from watching the games. We don't. We have no idea how these guys are doing in training, whether they're ready for the jump to test level, whether they can adapt to Ireland's tactics.
At some point, in a tight selection call, you have to accept that there are factors at play other than what I saw on BBCNI there at the weekend.

What did you see on BBCNI at the weekend? All they talked about was that Stander was the form back row in Europe and that SOB was the key man for Ireland. At least 50% of that is spot on IMO!

.ak

Noopti wrote: »

Believe me, I can see the risks in my suggestions. But put it this way, I would be more confident of us beating Wales if we make some selection changes to if we put out the team everyone expects.

I could be completely wrong and we could go out there and win, but I am worried about this game. I don't think we can rely on us dominating at set piece and being accurate with kicking. And if we haven't got both or one of those then I think we need to put a marker down in terms of attack, and get some scores. If it comes down to a "grind it out" type of game, then I feel Wales have the advantage to be honest.

But you can't dictate attack with just your backs.

We could have the AB back line but if we can't cause defenders to get sucked in because our pack isn't doing its job it's meaningless. Every team's attack is dictated with your forwards.

If anything I think we're missing a top quality forwards coach. I like easterby but if can't help feel we were far more dominant with Plumtree.

irishbucsfan

Noopti wrote: »

Believe me, I can see the risks in my suggestions. But put it this way, I would be more confident of us beating Wales if we make some selection changes to if we put out the team everyone expects.

Why exactly do you think your team would be more likely to beat Wales?

What about the current Wales side do you think that team would be able to exploit?

As far as I'm concerned Sexton is a no-brainer to start against Wales and Payne absolutely 100% must start in midfield against them. Kearney becomes the only sensible choice at 15 in that case. Set piece is vital so McCarthy/Toner are the 2nd rows, McGrath/Best/White in the front row. I'd have Trimble across from North as well for certain, Earls seems the best choice then on the other wing. Stander/Ruddock is up in the air depending on whether or not we need ball-carrying to start or support work. As O'Gara pointed out, may suit us better to have Stander off the bench.

Territory is crucial against Wales above all else. You have to make sure that they don't get too many options to start with the ball in your half, because they're the best in the competition at hanging onto it. They're also now more than ever capable of converting possession into points. I find it extremely unlikely that we'd choose to start anyone other than Sexton, and I wouldn't be able to remotely understand any other choice. I'm sure we'll see a selection which favours experience.

irishbucsfan

bilston wrote: »

What did you see on BBCNI at the weekend? All they talked about was that Stander was the form back row in Europe and that SOB was the key man for Ireland. At least 50% of that is spot on IMO!

We also found out that Stuart Olding is ****e craic and Ian Henderson's dog is more coherent than Jim Neilly.

bilston

.ak wrote: »

But you can't dictate attack with just your backs.

We could have the AB back line but if we can't cause defenders to get sucked in because our pack isn't doing its job it's meaningless. Every team's attack is dictated with your forwards.

If anything I think we're missing a top quality forwards coach. I like easterby but if can't help feel we were far more dominant with Plumtree.

Well this is thing. We have spent the last week debating who should start in the centre and who should start at FB. The selections at TH, Lock and BS flanker are far more important IMO. Get those wrong and the rest is moot.

It's also why I'm concerned for this tournament. We've lost Healy, Ross, POC and POM and to make matters worse we have also lost POC's successor in Henderson. That worries me a lot.

bilston

irishbucsfan wrote: »

We also found out that Stuart Olding is ****e craic and Ian Henderson's dog is more coherent than Jim Neilly.

Hendy's bitch is lovely...

But yes that was pretty excruciating TV! Watching Stuart Olding do air guitar to ACDC was all kinds of wrong...

LuckyLloyd

.ak wrote: »

The tournament is winnable, as always.

I admire your optimism.

aimee1

irishbucsfan wrote: »

We also found out that Stuart Olding is ****e craic and Ian Henderson's dog is more coherent than Jim Neilly.

i nearly went into labour reading that .......

molloyjh

bilston wrote: »

Well this is thing. We have spent the last week debating who should start in the centre and who should start at FB. The selections at TH, Lock and BS flanker are far more important IMO. Get those wrong and the rest is moot.

It's also why I'm concerned for this tournament. We've lost Healy, Ross, POC and POM and to make matters worse we have also lost POC's successor in Henderson. That worries me a lot.

This. I'm not at all worried about our back line because I'm too worried about our tight 5. Our back row missing POM can cope, but missing Healy (and by that I mean a form Healy), Ross, Moore, POC and Henderson coupled with the fact that Ryans form hasn't been great and Foleys seems to have been left in last season means we're really starting to struggle there. How we do on Sunday will be more about how the replacements there go than anything else. Who we have at FB is all but irrelevant IMO.

bilston

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I admire your optimism.

It is absolutely winnable for us, but we could easily come 5th. That is how close it is.

.ak

bilston wrote: »

Well this is thing. We have spent the last week debating who should start in the centre and who should start at FB. The selections at TH, Lock and BS flanker are far more important IMO. Get those wrong and the rest is moot.

It's also why I'm concerned for this tournament. We've lost Healy, Ross, POC and POM and to make matters worse we have also lost POC's successor in Henderson. That worries me a lot.

Yep, a lot hinges on things like can Ruddock replicate his previous starts in a green jersey, will Stander make the grade, can the backup tight heads do a job, who'll partner Toner...

At the end of the day, the guys are well capable of producing big moments. We just gotta have faith, but the leaders really need to be there for them; sob, heaslio and best will require to push them that bit further for the tournament.

errlloyd

bilston wrote: »

It is absolutely winnable for us, but we could easily come 5th. That is how close it is.

Do you really expect us to lose at home to the same Scotland team we whacked away last year?

awec

.ak wrote: »

But that's just not the way international footy works. You don't chop n change a team that only gets limited time together based on "form" from the past few games.

Doesn't the fact that they hardly ever play together, therefore are already unfamiliar mean that change is less risky?

One or two changes in an already unfamiliar team hardly seems like a massive issue.

What is less risky:

1. Playing the 12 who has been the best centre in Ireland all season.
2. Playing a 12 and 13 who have played only a few games each all season, none of which were in the position that they are supposedly going to play?

Not sure I buy into this "risk" argument in this specific case.

.ak

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I admire your optimism.

I haven't seen anything to suggest we can't.

England, France or Wales could also win it. None of the above winning it would be outlandish.

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

Doesn't the fact that they hardly ever play together, therefore are already unfamiliar mean that change is less risky?

One or two changes in an already unfamiliar team hardly seems like a massive issue.

What is less risky:

1. Playing the 12 who has been the best centre in Ireland all season.
2. Playing a 12 and 13 who have played 2 games each all season, none of which were in the position that they are supposedly going to play?

Not sure I buy into this "risk" argument in this specific case.

The World Cup was this season, and that 12 and 13 spent the entire summer together preparing for it as a partnership.

Not totally opposed to playing McCloskey/Payne in midfield though.

Noopti

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Why exactly do you think your team would be more likely to beat Wales?

What about the current Wales side do you think that team would be able to exploit?

- I think Payne will be a more potent attacking threat than Kearney at 15
- I think McCloskey and Henshaw could cope with the Welsh midfield, allowing Payne to play 15
- I think Jackson is the form 10 in Ireland, and could offer more in attack than Sexton currently

And underpinning this is I think we need to play more like we did against Scotland last year to give us a decent chance of beating Wales. I just think Wales have our number if we try and beat them up front and kick the ball a lot.

I think the above could exploit the Welsh team at a basic level in terms of them not expecting what they will expect from us(strategy wise). They know exactly what they need to do to beat us. And yes, we can pull out stats which show some variance in our tactics game on game - but overall our strategy has been quite clear up to now, and hasn't changed very much.

Edit: Also I know we didn't have Payne at 15 or Jackson at 10 when we beat Scotland last year. But we also had other players not available to us now, and players showing better form than current.

Also - If Sexton has a fantastic game, then I see this as a bit of a moot point to be honest as he will drag others into the game and we could be very potent. I am not hugely confident of this happening. I am more confident of him having to come off early after being smashed by Roberts though.

.ak

awec wrote: »

Doesn't the fact that they hardly ever play together, therefore are already unfamiliar mean that change is less risky?

One or two changes in an already unfamiliar team hardly seems like a massive issue.

What is less risky:

1. Playing the 12 who has been the best centre in Ireland all season.
2. Playing a 12 and 13 who have played only a few games each all season, none of which were in the position that they are supposedly going to play?

Not sure I buy into this "risk" argument in this specific case.

No, it means that the limited time henshaw and Payne have had together over the past has been getting better, not worse, so you keep on with that. They're developing together nicely.

Do I really need to spell out the risk argument in this case? It's not as black and white as playing someone who's been in great form all season. Like I said previously, if it was you'd have a different team every 6n. International experience counts for so much. The quarter final showed us that.

Rightwing

bilston wrote: »

It is absolutely winnable for us, but we could easily come 5th. That is how close it is.

I agree, but 4th should realistically be the worst we'll finish, or Schmidt will come under severe pressure.

Also depends on the manner of defeat/victory. Narrow defeats and coming in 3rd or 4th on points difference would be a very good championship for me.

.ak

Noopti wrote: »

- I think Payne will be a more potent attacking threat than Kearney at 15
- I think McCloskey and Henshaw could cope with the Welsh midfield, allowing Payne to play 15
- I think Jackson is the form 10 in Ireland, and could offer more in attack than Sexton currently

And underpinning this is I think we need to play more like we did against Scotland last year to give us a decent chance of beating Wales. I just think Wales have our number if we try and beat them up front and kick the ball a lot.

I think the above could exploit the Welsh team at a basic level in terms of them not expecting what they will expect from (strategy wise). They know exactly what they need to do to beat us. And yes, we can pull out stats which show some variance in our tactics game on game - but overall our strategy has been quite clear up to now, and hasn't changed very much.

To be fair Noopti, there's nothing above which really answers IBF's questions. What specifically can we exploit from selecting the team you've advocated? What tactics can we employ that will suit those players? The bullet points above are fairly vague.

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I admire your optimism.

In like clockwork for the 6 nations with doom and gloom :pac:

awec

.ak wrote: »

No, it means that the limited time henshaw and Payne have had together over the past has been getting better, not worse, so you keep on with that. They're developing together nicely.

Do I really need to spell out the risk argument in this case? It's not as black and white as playing someone who's been in great form all season. Like I said previously, if it was you'd have a different team every 6n. International experience counts for so much. The quarter final showed us that.

I wouldn't have a different team every 6 nations, but at some point form has to count. At some point you have to take responsible risk. We cannot be completely risk averse otherwise we will once again end up with a really experienced first 23 and then be two or three injuries away from being screwed.

This idea that we give lads a run out against Italy is a waste of time.

Henshaw and Payne have not shown anything to suggest that this partnership is untouchable or that we can't do better.

awec

awec wrote: »

1. Playing the 12 who has been the best centre in Ireland all season.

Fitzy has been ruled out for the tournament I'm afraid

awec wrote: »

2. Playing a 12 and 13 who have...

...played together all last season and in the run up to the world cup alongside the 9 and 10 who will start at the weekend and alongside the back three that are likely to start at the weekend.

I doubt McCloskey will start but not going to stress out if he does. I don't mind either way so long as Payne is in at 13 where he ads the most value.

Rightwing

awec wrote: »

I wouldn't have a different team every 6 nations, but at some point form has to count. At some point you have to take responsible risk. We cannot be completely risk averse otherwise we will once again end up with a really experienced first 23 and then be two or three injuries away from being screwed.

This idea that we give lads a run out against Italy is a waste of time.

Henshaw and Payne have not shown anything to suggest that this partnership is untouchable or that we can't do better.

Correct. We've been far too conservative lately.