Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread V

Stheno

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

They do a bit more than hold tackle bags. If that's all that is needed, the office staff would suffice. :rolleyes:

Ah now you couldn't be breaking the office staff :pac:

irishbucsfan

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

They do a bit more than hold tackle bags. If that's all that is needed, the office staff would suffice. :rolleyes:

It's a euphemism

Billysays no

I don't think a couple of starts merits serious consideration as a potential wing cover for an international team. And Rob Kearney playing there a couple of seasons ago. Hmmm. Indeed of the 4 wingers listed only two show any consistent form of note. Dave Kearney has his days but he has a lot of not so good days. And zebo hasn't sparked this season whatsoever. So in truth we have only two consistently performing wingers. That's kind of says where its at with the provinces these days and is why its such a surprise gilroy/toh/Healy(injured) weren't considered instead of another centre cover

jacothelad

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

They do a bit more than hold tackle bags. If that's all that is needed, the office staff would suffice. :rolleyes:

Yes, they go out for the lattes and cappuccinos. :D:D...or in the case of the props for deepfriedmegacheeseandbaconburgers and chips.

Podge_irl

Billysays no wrote: »

I don't think a couple of starts merits serious consideration as a potential wing cover for an international team. And Rob Kearney playing there a couple of seasons ago. Hmmm. Indeed of the 4 wingers listed only two show any consistent form of note. Dave Kearney has his days but he has a lot of not so good days. And zebo hasn't sparked this season whatsoever. So in truth we have only two consistently performing wingers. That's kind of says where its at with the provinces these days and is why its such a surprise gilroy/toh/Healy(injured) weren't considered instead of another centre cover

Regardless of your opinion on Zebo and DKearney though they were rated ahead of Gilroy et al already. So calling in those players now wouldn't make any sense. 4 wingers is plenty, that's all that matters.

awec

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

They do a bit more than hold tackle bags. If that's all that is needed, the office staff would suffice. :rolleyes:

Ah for goodness sake.

They are called up to make up the numbers and run opposition lines. This may involve holding a tackle bag from time to time.

This happens all the time. When Ireland train in Belfast Ulster players do the same, when they train in Galway Connacht players do the same.

"Holding tackle bags" is just a phrase to refer to guys who are called to camp but who aren't in contention for selection.

Tarf1234

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

They do a bit more than hold tackle bags. If that's all that is needed, the office staff would suffice. :rolleyes:

Funnily enough during the world cup some of the support staff got involved in D stuff and tip etc.

awec

Tarf1234 wrote: »

Funnily enough during the world cup some of the support staff got involved in D stuff and tip etc.

Unsurprising as the World Cup squad had a limit on the amount of players allowed to be in camp. Anyone outside the squad couldn't even be in the same hotel.

This isn't the case for the 6 nations.

molloyjh

Billysays no wrote: »

Players that can cover fullback
Rob Kearney, Dave kearney, Zebo, Madigan, Payne, Henshaw. (6)

Billysays no wrote: »

I don't think a couple of starts merits serious consideration as a potential wing cover for an international team.

Um.......

Billysays no wrote: »

...its such a surprise gilroy/toh/Healy(injured) weren't considered instead of another centre cover

Ringrose wasn't called into the squad, he was called into training. They do that at all the sessions, i.e. bring in younger lads who are close by to give them some experience and fill out the training sessions a bit. Luke hasn't been replaced by anyone yet.

Billysays no

molloyjh wrote: »

Um.......



Ringrose wasn't called into the squad, he was called into training. They do that at all the sessions, i.e. bring in younger lads who are close by to give them some experience and fill out the training sessions a bit. Luke hasn't been replaced by anyone yet.

:-). Difference is ringrose had two starts on the wing for his province while the others are experienced internationals. Anyway I don't need to point that out.

LorMal

While there is a lull in the debate here, can I just interject with a bit of pedantry please. The term 'reactionary' is not the same as 'over reacting'. It's incorrectly used on here all the time. Drives me ****ing bonkers (l have no life)

A reactionary is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics (discipline, respect for authority, etc.) that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore the status quo ante.

Thank you. Now back to the Rugby. (C'mon Oirlind!!)

WarZ

LorMal wrote: »

While there is a lull in the debate here, can I just interject with a bit of pedantry please. The term 'reactionary' is not the same as 'over reacting'. It's incorrectly used on here all the time. Drives me ****ing bonkers (l have no life)

A reactionary is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics (discipline, respect for authority, etc.) that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore the status quo ante.

Thank you. Now back to the Rugby. (C'mon Oirlind!!)

Thank you for that, we are all better for it. Pat yourself on the back you intellectual, you.

molloyjh

LorMal wrote: »

While there is a lull in the debate here, can I just interject with a bit of pedantry please. The term 'reactionary' is not the same as 'over reacting'. It's incorrectly used on here all the time. Drives me ****ing bonkers (l have no life)

A reactionary is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics (discipline, respect for authority, etc.) that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore the status quo ante.

Thank you. Now back to the Rugby. (C'mon Oirlind!!)

It can also be defined as "related to, marked by or favouring reaction". Which is how I mean it when I use it, i.e. a reactionary post is one that is written purely in reaction to an event or series of events with no consideration for context, relevance and/or frequency of occurrence. So I don't mean over reaction, jumping to conclusions might be more apt.

LorMal

LorMal wrote: »

While there is a lull in the debate here, can I just interject with a bit of pedantry please. The term 'reactionary' is not the same as 'over reacting'. It's incorrectly used on here all the time. Drives me ****ing bonkers (l have no life)

A reactionary is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics (discipline, respect for authority, etc.) that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore the status quo ante.

Thank you. Now back to the Rugby. (C'mon Oirlind!!)

Just what we need. More bloody reactionary's on here.

I wish this place would just go back to the way it was.

molloyjh

Billysays no wrote: »

:-). Difference is ringrose had two starts on the wing for his province while the others are experienced internationals. Anyway I don't need to point that out.

Sorry, I thought you meant caps in the relevant position. But surely then Ringrose wouldn't count as centre cover then either.

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

It can also be defined as "related to, marked by or favouring reaction". Which is how I mean it when I use it, i.e. a reactionary post is one that is written purely in reaction to an event or series of events with no consideration for context, relevance and/or frequency of occurrence. So I don't mean over reaction, jumping to conclusions might be more apt.

So you use the word in it's original meaning, ie; before it was cool?


pfft.

wp_rathead

former total wrote: »

Is four wingers not enough? What's the point of calling up more?

McFadden would be next in line but see above, he's not needed.

One would hope Gilroy or Healy (or even Scholes) would be ahead of McFadden but you're probably right

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

It can also be defined as "related to, marked by or favouring reaction". Which is how I mean it when I use it, i.e. a reactionary post is one that is written purely in reaction to an event or series of events with no consideration for context, relevance and/or frequency of occurrence. So I don't mean over reaction, jumping to conclusions might be more apt.

Are you sure that reaction there means what you think it means? Reaction also means to "re-do" something.

LorMal is right as far as I'm aware.

Billysays no

molloyjh wrote: »

Sorry, I thought you meant caps in the relevant position. But surely then Ringrose wouldn't count as centre cover then either.

Gawd, you're being a pain. Ringrose is a hugely talented centre and deserves a pick on that alone. He is an unproven winger. But then you know all this as well ☺

Teferi

Just watching the Scotland v Ireland game last year, I'd love if Ireland implemented a slightly tidier and tighter version of the game we played that day. Maybe not the type of game to play against Wales but against other teams possibly. I think that style would have a lot of the naysayers happier with the style too as it was quite ambitious while still maintaining some of the style we have seen Joe implement with Ireland.

That entire day of rugby really shows how extra points and things like that need to be implemented. When teams need to chase points they play a little looser.

Billysays no

former total wrote: »

Is four wingers not enough? What's the point of calling up more?

McFadden would be next in line but see above, he's not needed.

So we need 7 to cover centre but 4 is grand for the wing (of which two are playing somewhat below form (being non-reactionary about it)). Joe has called up more of the same, irrelevant of form. Just the few inclusions to make it look like he is listening. Its such a baffling collection of players that are not firing it could be considered funny. Hopefully wales will put us out of our misery early.

thomond2006

Billysays no wrote: »

So we need 7 to cover centre but 4 is grand for the wing (of which two are playing somewhat below form (being non-reactionary about it)). Joe has called up more of the same, irrelevant of form. Just the few inclusions to make it look like he is listening. Its such a baffling collection of players that are not firing it could be considered funny. Hopefully wales will put us out of our misery early.

You don't get the selections you want, so you want Ireland to lose?

AdamD

Billysays no wrote: »

So we need 7 to cover centre but 4 is grand for the wing (of which two are playing somewhat below form (being non-reactionary about it)). Joe has called up more of the same, irrelevant of form. Just the few inclusions to make it look like he is listening. Its such a baffling collection of players that are not firing it could be considered funny. Hopefully wales will put us out of our misery early.

You sure you support Ireland?

The Rape of Lucretia

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's a euphemism

Oooh, pardon !
I'd hold Rob Kearney's tackle bags any day.

The Rape of Lucretia

awec wrote: »

"Holding tackle bags" is just a phrase to refer to guys who are called to camp but who aren't in contention for selection.

Yes, but is the origin of the phrase 'holding tackle bags' not that those drafted in to 'hold tackle bags' spend their time holding tackle bags ?

Billysays no

thomond2006 wrote: »

You don't get the selections you want, so you want Ireland to lose?

I didn't say I want Ireland to lose. However I have no doubts Ireland will lose. And then maybe joe will get serious for the need to reward players on form rather than this cronyism. And with the election around the corner I'm sounding like those lot. I appreciate rugby is a team sport but by selecting so many misfiring links in the hope that the chain will work is simply incredulous.

awec

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Yes, but is the origin of the phrase 'holding tackle bags' not that those drafted in to 'hold tackle bags' spend their time holding tackle bags ?

One would imagine so, yes.

Pink Fairy

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Oooh, pardon !
I'd hold Rob Kearney's tackle bags any day.

Jesus, my stomach just churned

thomond2006

Billysays no wrote: »

I didn't say I want Ireland to lose. However I have no doubts Ireland will lose. And then maybe joe will get serious for the need to reward players on form rather than this cronyism. And with the election around the corner I'm sounding like those lot. I appreciate rugby is a team sport but by selecting so many misfiring links in the hope that the chain will work is simply incredulous.

So who would you pick in an Ireland 23 who you believe Joe won't?

molloyjh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you use the word in it's original meaning, ie; before it was cool?


pfft.

Why yes I did...

Billysays no

thomond2006 wrote: »

So who would you pick in an Ireland 23 who you believe Joe won't?

Thomond, joe has already indicated he will settle for mid table with this team. Why do you think that is? He is by nature conservative. So his selection is conservative. So that's his aim. And I think that's a shocking indictment of our coach. Where are we going with this team? Is it our future? Obviously not. So why stick with it? Because joe is playing percentages. Do I want Ireland to finish mid table? No way. We try but we try with then best available, not a percentages team, particularly when the percentages team our manager has already admitted is mediocre by saying mid-table. You hear the pundits talking about the likes of ringrose, vdf, Healy, toh, scholes, gilroy, Masterson and more. If our aim is mediocrity I simply don't agree with it. If our aim is mid table then its wrong.

mfceiling

Billysays no wrote: »

Thomond, joe has already indicated he will settle for mid table with this team. Why do you think that is? He is by nature conservative. So his selection is conservative. So that's his aim. And I think that's a shocking indictment of our coach. Where are we going with this team? Is it our future? Obviously not. So why stick with it? Because joe is playing percentages. Do I want Ireland to finish mid table? No way. We try but we try with then best available, not a percentages team, particularly when the percentages team our manager has already admitted is mediocre by saying mid-table. You hear the pundits talking about the likes of ringrose, vdf, Healy, toh, scholes, gilroy, Masterson and more. If our aim is mediocrity I simply don't agree with it. If our aim is mid table then its wrong.

So what do you suggest a coach should do? Throw a pile of youngsters in at the deep end and finish bottom of the 6N? Then what?

Ah sure we're not conservative any more...yeah but the team is getting hockeyed and their confidence is shot to bits...not to mention the media backlash. Seriously what then?

irishbucsfan

The coach never said the aim is mid-table. The aim is always to win the next game.

errlloyd

Joe is not by his nature conservative. He has not always been conservative. In fact when he arrived at Leinster he was positively revolutionary. Eoin O Malley was going to usurp Brian O Driscoll. 52 players in the squad were used in a year we won the Heineken cup a record only beaten this year, and only beaten by Leinster.

Since becoming Ireland head coach he's been conservative. This is completely different reality from saying he is by his nature conservative.

Stop spreading these lies. Why would he be picking anything less than the best team? The only reason is becuase the IRFU blazers will punish him more if an experimental team fails than if a conservative team fails.

The Rape of Lucretia

Joe said "top half". And that he might have to settle for that. So, presuming that settling for winning the championship is a nonsense, he is saying he might have to settle for 2nd or 3rd. And if he might only have settle for those, then logically he is targeting to win the 6N rather than settle.
Interesting how people can spin targeting winning the championship into targeting a midtable finish.

Billysays no

Billysays no wrote: »

Thomond, joe has already indicated he will settle for mid table with this team. Why do you think that is? He is by nature conservative. So his selection is conservative. So that's his aim. And I think that's a shocking indictment of our coach. Where are we going with this team? Is it our future? Obviously not. So why stick with it? Because joe is playing percentages. Do I want Ireland to finish mid table? No way. We try but we try with then best available, not a percentages team, particularly when the percentages team our manager has already admitted is mediocre by saying mid-table. You hear the pundits talking about the likes of ringrose, vdf, Healy, toh, scholes, gilroy, Masterson and more. If our aim is mediocrity I simply don't agree with it. If our aim is mid table then its wrong.

Now that you phrase it like that, I finally see all that is wrong with Joe. I was blinded by all the pro12, Heineken cup and six nations he has won.

The reality is that he was trying to lose intentionally but couldn't even get that right and ended up being one of the most decorated coaches in the world.

It's so obvious now.
:pac:

bilston

Of the current squad this is my preferred XV

15 Jared Payne
14 Andrew Trimble
13 Robbie Henshaw
12 Stuart McCloskey
11 Keith Earls
10 Jonathan Sexton
9 Conor Murray
1 Jack McGrath
2 Rory Best
3 Tadgh Furlong
4 Devin Toner
5 Mike McCarthy
6 Rhys Ruddock
7 Sean O'Brien
8 Jamie Heaslip

Sean Cronin, James Cronin, Nathan White, Ultan Dillane, CJ Stander, Eoin Reddan, Paddy Jackson, Simon Zebo

Now I'm entirely comfortable with the fact that that won't be the team, and given I'm just an anonymous poster on a MB I can pick whoever I want knowing that my career doesn't depend upon it, but the above is a side I'd love to see.

There is pace, power and intelligence in the backs, experience in the middle 5, and with Toner a solid line out platform. The scrum and midfield defence would be the big unknowns but White is as much a gamble as Furlong IMO. Furlong has a very very high ceiling and our midfield would ask as many questions of the Welsh as vice versa. Anyway it's a bit of a pipe dream and there are certainly valid reasons for not picking the team above as well.

Brewster

bilston wrote: »

Of the current squad this is my preferred XV

15 Jared Payne
14 Andrew Trimble
13 Robbie Henshaw
12 Stuart McCloskey
11 Keith Earls
10 Jonathan Sexton
9 Conor Murray
1 Jack McGrath
2 Rory Best
3 Tadgh Furlong
4 Devin Toner
5 Mike McCarthy
6 Rhys Ruddock
7 Sean O'Brien
8 Jamie Heaslip

Sean Cronin, James Cronin, Nathan White, Ultan Dillane, CJ Stander, Eoin Reddan, Paddy Jackson, Simon Zebo

Now I'm entirely comfortable with the fact that that won't be the team, and given I'm just an anonymous poster on a MB I can pick whoever I want knowing that my career doesn't depend upon it, but the above is a side I'd love to see.

There is pace, power and intelligence in the backs, experience in the middle 5, and with Toner a solid line out platform. The scrum and midfield defence would be the big unknowns but White is as much a gamble as Furlong IMO. Furlong has a very very high ceiling and our midfield would ask as many questions of the Welsh as vice versa. Anyway it's a bit of a pipe dream and there are certainly valid reasons for not picking the team above as well.

That's my team also based on players available. However, pretty sure R Kearney will start, not so sure on tight head.

JPCN1

Billysays no wrote: »

Thomond, joe has already indicated he will settle for mid table with this team. Why do you think that is? He is by nature conservative. So his selection is conservative. So that's his aim. And I think that's a shocking indictment of our coach. Where are we going with this team? Is it our future? Obviously not. So why stick with it? Because joe is playing percentages. Do I want Ireland to finish mid table? No way. We try but we try with then best available, not a percentages team, particularly when the percentages team our manager has already admitted is mediocre by saying mid-table. You hear the pundits talking about the likes of ringrose, vdf, Healy, toh, scholes, gilroy, Masterson and more. If our aim is mediocrity I simply don't agree with it. If our aim is mid table then its wrong.

It's not his aim. He aims to win. Simple as that. Though he might indulge in mind games infrequently he understands coaching is about results.

Billysays no

bilston wrote: »

Of the current squad this is my preferred XV

15 Jared Payne
14 Andrew Trimble
13 Robbie Henshaw
12 Stuart McCloskey
11 Keith Earls
10 Jonathan Sexton
9 Conor Murray
1 Jack McGrath
2 Rory Best
3 Tadgh Furlong
4 Devin Toner
5 Mike McCarthy
6 Rhys Ruddock
7 Sean O'Brien
8 Jamie Heaslip

Sean Cronin, James Cronin, Nathan White, Ultan Dillane, CJ Stander, Eoin Reddan, Paddy Jackson, Simon Zebo

Now I'm entirely comfortable with the fact that that won't be the team, and given I'm just an anonymous poster on a MB I can pick whoever I want knowing that my career doesn't depend upon it, but the above is a side I'd love to see.

There is pace, power and intelligence in the backs, experience in the middle 5, and with Toner a solid line out platform. The scrum and midfield defence would be the big unknowns but White is as much a gamble as Furlong IMO. Furlong has a very very high ceiling and our midfield would ask as many questions of the Welsh as vice versa. Anyway it's a bit of a pipe dream and there are certainly valid reasons for not picking the team above as well.

Now bilston I know your an ulster fan but from 15 to 11 I wouldn't change. I would put Jackson at 10 (I am not a fan of Jackson as I have said in the past but he is so far ahead of where sexton is its an obvious choice). Then if I have to see another boxkick from murray it will be too soon (conor remember tommy bowe is the only winger who ever really got you and he isn't playing). So being a Connacht supporter and not a marmion fan I suggest marmion. If he gets his ass in gear he's a go forward player rather than this Murray nonsense.

Then you have players who should be there. Is Buckley not an obvious. And stander to be on the bench even though he gets motm week in week out. And please, please drop zebo from the 23. In what way does his performances deserve that. Nathan white has surprised me for the better. Second row is a conundrum. Toner yes, without Henderson I would say muldowney is the form second row. Back row I would say Ruddock, sob and Masterson.

So that's change but all form players. And my opinion.

former total

This notion of "conservatism" is gone absolutely mental. It's just a euphemism for "not picking every single player I want him to pick", or just as frequently, "not dropping the players I don't like", except people want to pretend their analysis is deeper than that. It's bollocks.

The Rape of Lucretia

Billysays no wrote: »

Then if I have to see another boxkick from murray it will be too soon (conor remember tommy bowe is the only winger who ever really got you and he isn't playing).

Even like the advantage one for Henshaw-who-isnt-Tommy-Bowe last year who was on an almost telepathic level with him and got the touchdown ???
More of those please.

CMOTDibbler

former total wrote: »

This notion of "conservatism" is gone absolutely mental. It's just a euphemism for "not picking every single player I want him to pick", or just as frequently, "not dropping the players I don't like", except people want to pretend their analysis is deeper than that. It's bollocks.

To be fair it's also (incorrectly) about the perceived game plan as being all about "kicking the leather off the ball".

Billysays no

former total wrote: »

This notion of "conservatism" is gone absolutely mental. It's just a euphemism for "not picking every single player I want him to pick", or just as frequently, "not dropping the players I don't like", except people want to pretend their analysis is deeper than that. It's bollocks.

Its more about dropping players who are playing (as you describe it) bollocks

CMOTDibbler

Billysays no wrote: »

Its more about dropping players who are playing (as you describe it) bollocks

This from the guy who thinks box kicks should be stopped :rolleyes:

Billysays no

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

This from the guy who thinks box kicks should be stopped :rolleyes:

The all blacks do it all the time. They run into cover and don't release the ball. Because there is value in muffin kicks and slowing play down. Maybe you will catch the opposition snoozing.

CMOTDibbler

Billysays no wrote: »

The all blacks do it all the time. They run into cover and don't release the ball. Because there is value in muffin kicks and slowing play down. Maybe you will catch the opposition snoozing.

All the time...

awec

former total wrote: »

This notion of "conservatism" is gone absolutely mental. It's just a euphemism for "not picking every single player I want him to pick", or just as frequently, "not dropping the players I don't like", except people want to pretend their analysis is deeper than that. It's bollocks.

Honestly this is just wrong. You keep trying to dismiss things like this, a few days ago it was all just an over reaction to one game apparently despite that being wrong too.

stephen_n

awec wrote: »

Honestly this is just wrong. You keep trying to dismiss things like this, a few days ago it was all just an over reaction to one game apparently despite that being wrong too.

Well it's not born out by results, or points scored in the last 6N. In fact I'm not sure it's born out of anything other than the perception Ireland should be playing like a club side.

AdamD

former total wrote: »

This notion of "conservatism" is gone absolutely mental. It's just a euphemism for "not picking every single player I want him to pick", or just as frequently, "not dropping the players I don't like", except people want to pretend their analysis is deeper than that. It's bollocks.

Meh. There are serious numbers of posts saying we can't start McCloskey because its 'unknown', 'we have no idea how it'll go' etc.

Its not unknown. We have a fair idea, we've seen the guy play at European level. Yes its a step up, but its obvious the guy has the ability and its not some massive unknown as to how players perform when they do step up, its usually as expected.

Sure, don't advocate a player because hes not good enough, but this 'unknown' stuff is utter bollocks. By the logic in this thread the only team a player is allowed to make their debut against is Italy and that is inherently conservative.