Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread V

total former

rrpc wrote: »

Kidney's record dictated his treatment. And we're only talking about his treatment here on boards. He got a free ride in the press on the basis of his record with Munster, but eventually that coin became debased.

Funny you should mention that. Gerry Thornley a) sticks the boot in on Eddie over 2007 and b) gives Deccie a free pass on the balls-up of 2011 in today's paper.

Clearlier

gucci wrote: »

Have a feeling this is going to continue to be an argument that will be right versus wrong with no middle ground. My points below may have been made many times already but to be honest I took a break from reading the tit for tat stuff for yesterday as I went into my glum post world cup depression!

Whether you believe the 5 players are our best, most important or on best form is one element of the argument. But the fact that you are essentially taking out a unit of first choice players (SOB - POM - POC) out of the team really left us up against it. Maybe we could have dealt with the 5 player loss in better fashion if it had have been spread a little bit more across the team.

Also add to that Tommy Bowe going off (coupled with Sextons absence) so early so we lost a significant aerial target man for the many kick offs and returns meant our go to game plan when we needed to have cool heads and re compose ourselves was really effected.

I completely agree with the first bit but Fitz was a definite step up on Bowe in the game who for all his aerial prowess was totally off the pitch of the game and not working nearly as hard as he needed to. There's a danger of me overstating how poor he was and he wasn't abysmal but he was definitely part of the general malaise of the team in the first 20 minutes.

aimee1

jm08 wrote: »

No Paul O'Connell or Sexton and a pile of new caps (Paddy Jackson was the outhalf). Of course it was going to be difficult. Injuries were not accepted then, they shouldn't be now.

We still had enough good players to beat Italy [not NZ but Italy]. The defeat to Italy was largely irrelevant. Kidney was almost certainly gone and a win over Italy wasnt going to be enough to save him. The performances over a long time were not good enough. The results were equally poor.

Nobody is claiming injuries are an acceptable excuse, but they are a factor when any team loses 5 of its best players for an important game because as you say, it does create difficulties. It is no coincidence that we put in the worst defensive performance in the JS era having lost

POC - Captain and leader
Sexton - Our best Flyhalf and a good defender/organiser
Payne - Our defence lynchpin in the 6n this year [which is what our win was based on]
POM - We lost our starting 6 a week after probably his best performance
SOB - Suspended

I also reckon there would have been some team changes had we not been forced to make so many changes due to injury and suspension.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

I am not saying someone must pay. I have said multiple times now that the coaches positions shouldn't be up for discussion. People seem to equate wanting questions to be asked with wanting the coaches head and therefore are getting really defensive.

In fairness I never said anything about the coaches.

awec wrote: »

I don't think "ah sure, we had 5 players missing" is a good enough excuse for being humiliated in a quarter final.

Our defence - woeful.
Breakdown - woeful.
Attacking options - poor.

Our defence was poor because we were missing our best defenders in the middle of the park. The very same guys that boss our defensive line. Sexton and Payne. We were missing our heavy hitters in defence. POC, POM and SOB. The guys that read the game well and come out of the line to cut off outside channels were missing. SOB and Payne. The reason our defence was so bad was because of the guys we were missing and because we didn't have guys who could adequately replace them.

Our breakdown work was poor because our heavy hitters at the ruck were missing. POM and SOB in particular, but POC does a really good job of disrupting and making a mess of opposition ball at ruck time. Again the replacements simply weren't of the required standard. It was left to Best and Heaslip to pick up the slack and there was simply too much of that.

Our attacking options were poor because we didn't have the ball carrying options in POM and SOB to get us over the gain line. We didn't have a good distributor in the middle of the park (Payne) and we didn't have one of the best 10s in the world pulling the strings. Again the replacements simply weren't of the required calibre to get close to where we could have been with a full strength squad.

Those 3 issues existed because of who we were missing and who we had filling their shoes. And that is exactly what the issue is. We don't have the quality in depth.

awec wrote: »

This is not knee jerk either, if people look back over this forum for the past few months these questions have all been raised before. And people have said things like we weren't up for the game cause it wasn't an important game, or we didn't want to give anything away etc etc. Yesterday was the biggest game to date and we were completely blown away at the start of the match which is where all the damage was really done.

The warm-ups were a fitness exercise and nothing more. Anyone complaining about us during that time was simply expecting something they were ever going to get. We went on to comfortably top our pool. Excluding the injuries the pool stage of the competition went absolutely perfectly. The Italy game performance wise was disappointing but it was a worthwhile wake up call and a game we were obviously not going all out on either.

awec wrote: »

Also, is this the same god awful French side that we beat last week that people have used to justify our play style? Or the same god awful French side that are part of our six nations that we've won twice in a row?

We can't big up France when it backs up how good we are and then run them down whenever other teams hand them a beating that we couldn't come close to.

I wouldn't "big up" France. But I would say that they were 100% up for our game and nowhere near 100% up for the NZ game. The hits they were putting in against us were far harder than those against NZ. As I said in the match thread for that one I do think France lost against NZ in the game against us. They had built themselves up hugely and we brought them back down to earth with a bang. So the 2 games were very different. We beat France comfortably with a number of injuries when France were up for it. NZ beat them very well with a full strength team when France weren't up for it.

awec wrote: »

Also, "other than the opening 15 and the closing 15 we were the better team" matters not a jot when in those 30 minutes the opposition rack up over 40 points.

In their 30 minutes of dominance they got 43 points, in our apparent 50 minutes of dominance we got 20. Alarm bells surely ringing here?

See previous point re our attack. Madigan for example simply doesn't have the variety to his game and isn't as good at marshalling the back line. Who in the pack was making the gain line carries that we would expect from SOB or showed the footwork that POM had shown?

You also have to factor in that, as I said, we were a long way off the pace in the opening and closing stages of the game. Argentina never were. Again because they didn't have the injuries that we did. Which meant their defence was always going to hold better against our limited attack than our limited defence was against their near full strength attack.

awec wrote: »

I want to see a complete review of how we play the game. If that means instructions coming from the IRFU down to the provinces then so be it. I've had enough of this bollocks of constant kick chase, passive defence and over reliance on pre-determined moves. That will only get you so far. I want to see us pass the ball around, players able to think on their feet (instead of having kick, powerplay, kick, powerplay, kick, powerplay pattern) and cause teams problems that way. That makes us so much more a better team.

You know the only try that NZ scored in the 2011 final was a set piece move, which is exactly what you don't want us utilising? None of the knock-out games in 2011 were big scoring games where the free flowing SH game utterly dominated the NH conservative game. This year France were just dire against a really good NZ side while Ireland and Wales had catastrophic injury issues. That is why things have panned out the way they have. Not because this open running game is suddenly the be all and end all. I honestly believe that with even 2 missing players back in the respective squads would have been enough to see Wales past SA and Ireland past Argentina. And we wouldn't be having this conversation if that happened.

awec wrote: »

If that means not winning the six nations for a year or two then so be it.

I'd take 1 or 2 6 Nations wins over a RWC SF any day personally. Winning the RWC would be great, but it is an incredibly tough thing to do and only comes around every 4 years. There's also no reason why we can't aim to do both.

awec wrote: »

We also need to make a few player changes in certain positions. Rob Kearney needs dropped for a bit. Dave Kearney is not at this level. We need to blood another 12 and 13 if Cave isn't the answer, that means giving someone else game time. We need to give a second 10 some game time, be that Madigan or Jackson. We need to put Ross out to stud, and McGrath is ahead of Healy now without question.

If we line out this six nations with the same players where possible and the same tactics then we will have learnt nothing.

Who are you going to bring in ahead of Rob Kearney? And why exactly are you dropping him? He did little to nothing wrong in the tournament. In fact I thought he did quite well. And it's not like we're overloaded with quality full-backs in the provinces.

Personally I think our top wingers at the moment are Fitz and Earls. And they have been for some time. I'd have no problem dropping Dave for one of those on the left wing. But who do we put on the right wing? Bowe? Even if he were fit he's not the player he was and is only going one way.

I agree we need to develop more depth at centre and in the half backs, but all of this goes back to what I discussed before. The quality in depth is the issue. We are in a better place than we were but we're still not where we need to be. Personally I'd be looking to win the 2016 6 Nations to get the winning culture thing back. Then in the summer and autumn look at our options. Developing a squad can be a bit of a slow burner so it's not all going to happen at once.

And for all the complaints about our game plan it should be noted that we've varied our game plan quite a bit over the course of Joes tenure. And we were starting to run the ball a hell of a lot more again in this RWC. So the issues with the kicking game are unfounded. We still box kick as an exit from our 22, but so do most teams. Other than that we haven't been kicking that much at all. I don't doubt that we'll be playing a different style come the 6 Nations than we were 6 months ago. Not because of the RWC, but because that is just how Joe is.

phog

Teferi wrote: »

It's strange how some people are delighted we're out the tournament. Bizarre stuff, looking to get the boot in.

Who?

jm08

aimee1 wrote: »

We still had enough good players to beat Italy [not NZ but Italy]. The defeat to Italy was largely irrelevant. Kidney was almost certainly gone and a win over Italy wasnt going to be enough to save him. The performances over a long time were not good enough. The results were equally poor.

The circumstances were similar in that Kidney didn't have a huge number of experienced players available to him. Paddy Jackson was the starting outhalf and with 3 years less experience than he has now. He also had a new captain who was trying to find his feet. Players like Craig Gilroy was starting on the wing and 3 years later he couldn't make a 31 man squad for the world cup.

molloyjh

total former wrote: »

Best, Murray, Heaslip, Henshaw? Healy would be up there if fully fit.

The most important player to the entire effort was probably Mike Ross.

So no, I don't really buy that the 5 players we lost were the 5 best players we had.

I'd agree they probably weren't a definitive list of the 5 best. But if you were to rank players in terms of importance to Irelands game those 5 are in the top 7 or 8. I'd have Heaslip and Henshaw behind all of them (Henshaw stepped up against France but until then Payne for me was more important). Best and Murray would be in there though too. Ross I'm not sure about. White did well enough that we may not have missed Ross quite as much as the others. And Healy wasn't fully fit so he isn't in there at all.

gucci

Clearlier wrote: »

I completely agree with the first bit but Fitz was a definite step up on Bowe in the game who for all his aerial prowess was totally off the pitch of the game and not working nearly as hard as he needed to. There's a danger of me overstating how poor he was and he wasn't abysmal but he was definitely part of the general malaise of the team in the first 20 minutes.

Oh yes I do agree with you re: Bowe and his defensive side and over all he hasnt had the best of world cups. It was clear to see Fitz was a worthy replacement on Sunday.
I was speaking more from a back to basics route back into the game from the 17-0 down and on the ropes position we were in.

jm08

rrpc wrote: »

But you're not making that point. You're trying to make out they are similar situations when they're not, they're not even close.

Kidney's record dictated his treatment. And we're only talking about his treatment here on boards. He got a free ride in the press on the basis of his record with Munster, but eventually that coin became debased.

Well, I disagree. Kidney had a horrendous injury list along with a rake of new caps.

No one deserved the treatment he got from some quarters. The kidney clock was disgraceful.

molloyjh

jm08 wrote: »

I'm making the point that Schmidt should be judged in a similar way to Kidney. I don't think Schmidt should get the same treatment of Kidney which in my opinion was disgraceful.

Fair enough. Kidney took Ireland on their worst run of form in years and got the boot. Joe took Ireland on their best run of form in years so should be kept on.

The end.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

I'm making the point that Schmidt should be judged in a similar way to Kidney. I don't think Schmidt should get the same treatment of Kidney which in my opinion was disgraceful.

But there's an absolute gulf in circumstances.

We've won back to back six nations coming into this tournament!

Here's the summation of the context that Kidney's loss to Italy occurred in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_Kidney

Ireland's international fortunes declined after 2009 with a poor string of results, which was the antithesis to the success of its provinces Leinster, Ulster, Connacht and Munster. They suffered their heaviest defeat in history and slipped to their worst IRB World Ranking of 9th. After finishing a very poor 5th in the 2013 Six Nations Championship, the IRFU, on 2 April 2013, took the decision to terminate Kidney's contract.

The Italy loss wasn't even the straw that broke the camel's back. His time was well and truly up.

jm08

gucci wrote: »

Oh yes I do agree with you re: Bowe and his defensive side and over all he hasnt had the best of world cups. It was clear to see Fitz was a worthy replacement on Sunday.
I was speaking more from a back to basics route back into the game from the 17-0 down and on the ropes position we were in.

Fairplay to Luke on Sunday, he put in a big performance, but up to that he was fairly average. Who is to say that Bowe wouldn't have stepped up to the plate on Sunday.

BoardsMember

total former wrote: »

Best, Murray, Heaslip, Henshaw? Healy would be up there if fully fit.

The most important player to the entire effort was probably Mike Ross.

So no, I don't really buy that the 5 players we lost were the 5 best players we had.

I can't believe anyone believes that. Ross is more important to our overall effort than Sexton? Not in a million years. We have a sub tight head than can anchor the scrum, and another one or two back in Ireland should we need a call up.

Teferi

phog wrote: »

Who?

I'll answer your questions when you answer the ones I've posed to you. You can find them in my history.

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

But there's an absolute gulf in circumstances.

We've won back to back six nations coming into this tournament!

Here's the summation of the context that Kidney's loss to Italy occurred in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_Kidney


The Italy loss wasn't even the straw that broke the camel's back. His time was well and truly up.

With more or less Kidney's team. Dave Kearney, Henshaw & Murphy are I think the only 3 starters last Sunday that Kidney didn't cap in that period.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

With more or less Kidney's team. Dave Kearney, Henshaw & Murphy are I think the only 3 starters last Sunday that Kidney didn't cap in that period.

And?

Stunningly, the best players in Ireland 4 years ago are in and around the best players in Ireland now.

What a world we live in.

jm08

BoardsMember wrote: »

I can't believe anyone believes that. Ross is more important to our overall effort than Sexton? Not in a million years. We have a sub tight head than can anchor the scrum, and another one or two back in Ireland should we need a call up.

Well, vesting so much importance to Sexton could be regarded as poor management considering his injury profile.

Some of the stuff being said about his loss last week couldn't have done a lot for Madigan's confidence either.

aimee1

jm08 wrote: »

The circumstances were similar in that Kidney didn't have a huge number of experienced players available to him. Paddy Jackson was the starting outhalf and with 3 years less experience than he has now. He also had a new captain who was trying to find his feet. Players like Craig Gilroy was starting on the wing and 3 years later he couldn't make a 31 man squad for the world cup.

You are focussing on one game which is largely irrelevant. The circumstances of that game meant nothing in the bigger picture. The teams performances and results over the previous 3 years had not been good enough. Kidneys time was up.

The new captain thing is bull. There was plenty of experienced players around Heaslip including BoD, Best, SoB, PoM, Earls, Kearney, Murray, Healy, Ross, Ryan and McCarthy.

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

And?

Stunningly, the best players in Ireland 4 years ago are in and around the best players in Ireland now.

What a world we live in.

They were not the players they are now 4 years ago, so you can't expect the same results. Even with that, Schmidt has said that we were missing a bit of experience on Sunday - and thats 4 years later.

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

Who are you going to bring in ahead of Rob Kearney? And why exactly are you dropping him? He did little to nothing wrong in the tournament. In fact I thought he did quite well. And it's not like we're overloaded with quality full-backs in the provinces.

I would give Zebo a run there.

Kearney is a very good player, but he is also a pretty limited one. He is unrivalled under the high ball, but we absolutely have to develop alternative options.

He is not good enough that he should be considered undroppable or that we should just write off trying to find other options.

Zebo can bring a different skillset to full back and it's an option worth exploring.

We could also try Payne there seeing as he is a full back and a pretty damn good one.

In terms of other positions, Gilroy absolutely has to be called into the squad now. The guy is scoring far too many tries to be ignored any further and we have to get rid of this idea of picking wingers based on how good a defender they are or how well they can clear out a ruck.

In the centre, we can try moving Henshaw out one and putting McCloskey in at 12.

At 10 - start Madigan or Jackson more often, or at least give them longer off the bench.

At 9 we have a huge problem and I am not sure what we are going to do there. The problem at 9 is much bigger than at 10, the drop off in quality is much greater.

I'd like to see Ruddock get some games at 6 because Murphy just is just squad filler material. At 7 we are ok because SOB and Henry both have ample experience and are both capable players.

Of course it has to be done over time because we can't just swap out all these positions at once, but the changes do have to be made

total former

BoardsMember wrote: »

I can't believe anyone believes that. Ross is more important to our overall effort than Sexton? Not in a million years. We have a sub tight head than can anchor the scrum, and another one or two back in Ireland should we need a call up.

A bit of poetic licence perhaps. Sexton is of course the most important player.

Ross is massively important though. The ability of Nathan White to anchor a scrum in successive weeks against Italy, France and Argentina was a complete unknown. And with Tadhg Furlong as back-up?

I just don't agree that the 5 guys we lost happened to be the very 5 guys we simply could not do without. It doesn't add up. If we all agree on that, then no issue.

OldRio

Deleted User wrote: »

But there's an absolute gulf in circumstances.

We've won back to back six nations coming into this tournament!

Here's the summation of the context that Kidney's loss to Italy occurred in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_Kidney


The Italy loss wasn't even the straw that broke the camel's back. His time was well and truly up.

9th in the World Rankings. My God how times have changed. I forgot how truly awful we were before Kidney got the boot. 9th (shudders)

aimee1

OldRio wrote: »

9th in the World Rankings. My God how times have changed. I forgot how truly awful we were before Kidney got the boot. 9th (shudders)

It was that position that got wales into group A with aus, england and fiji

jm08

aimee1 wrote: »

You are focussing on one game which is largely irrelevant. The circumstances of that game meant nothing in the bigger picture. The teams performances and results over the previous 3 years had not been good enough. Kidneys time was up.

The new captain thing is bull. There was plenty of experienced players around Heaslip including BoD, Best, SoB, PoM, Earls, Kearney, Murray, Healy, Ross, Ryan and McCarthy.

BoD was pissed off with Kidney because of the Captaincy and actually undermined Heislip. Bar Best, Healy & Kearney, the rest were fairly inexperienced at that level.

jm08

OldRio wrote: »

9th in the World Rankings. My God how times have changed. I forgot how truly awful we were before Kidney got the boot. 9th (shudders)

Well, he got the important stuff right. Securing a Top 8 finish so that we got a decent pool in this world cup.

By the way, we're 6th now. Just 3 points above Scotland who are 9th and 4 above Japan who are 10th.
We are 12 points behind New Zealand who are 1st.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

They were not the players they are now 4 years ago, so you can't expect the same results. Even with that, Schmidt has said that we were missing a bit of experience on Sunday - and thats 4 years later.

But I didn't say that did I?

This is what I wrote.

Deleted User wrote: »

And?

Stunningly, the best players in Ireland 4 years ago are in and around the best players in Ireland now.

What a world we live in.

What was the point of your post where you said that it was largely with players Kidney also gave caps to?

OldRio

jm08 wrote: »

Well, he got the important stuff right. Securing a Top 8 finish so that we got a decent pool in this world cup.

9th. Dreadful times.

aimee1

jm08 wrote: »

They were not the players they are now 4 years ago, so you can't expect the same results. Even with that, Schmidt has said that we were missing a bit of experience on Sunday - and thats 4 years later.

SoB, Sexton, Heaslip and most other leinster players were winning HECs for fun back then. They were very much at the top of their game back then.

Leinster win trophies for fun under JS. Play crap for ireland under Kidney.

Ireland squads with a lot of same leinster players win 6n for fun under JS. They play crap for leinster under MOC.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

BoardsMember

jm08 wrote: »

Well, vesting so much importance to Sexton could be regarded as poor management considering his injury profile.

Some of the stuff being said about his loss last week couldn't have done a lot for Madigan's confidence either.

Maybe so, but it is hard to avoid planning your team without probably its most outstanding player, and shrewdest tactician. And I'm not sure what the alternative is. There is definitely an argument for having giving Jackson more appearances. We all know that Madigan can only play one way, and is not all all-round 10. Maybe that fact, combined with the injury profile of Sexton, means that we finally need to make a tough decision, and no longer consider Madigan as a starter or cover for 10. It's hard on him, I love the way he plays, but it will lose us the big/tight games.

aimee1

jm08 wrote: »

BoD was pissed off with Kidney because of the Captaincy and actually undermined Heislip. Bar Best, Healy & Kearney, the rest were fairly inexperienced at that level.

Most of those players were at rwc 2011 and some were 2013 lions.

Clearlier

BoardsMember wrote: »

Maybe so, but it is hard to avoid planning your team without probably its most outstanding player, and shrewdest tactician. And I'm not sure what the alternative is. There is definitely an argument for having giving Jackson more appearances. We all know that Madigan can only play one way, and is not all all-round 10. Maybe that fact, combined with the injury profile of Sexton, means that we finally need to make a tough decision, and no longer consider Madigan as a starter or cover for 10. It's hard on him, I love the way he plays, but it will lose us the big/tight games.

I continue to think that Madigan is a great bench option for Ireland and Leinster. He's incredibly well suited to coming on as a sub but I'd start Jackson ahead of him. I mentioned it elsewhere but if there was one selection error I thought Joe made it was starting Madigan against Romania - it meant that Jackson wasn't a realistic option for the Argentina game when Sexton got injured. I'm aware that Madigan is a better placekicker but he's not infallible (as the miss to draw the game level showed) and Jakson's ability to control a game is at a different level which more than makes up for it IMO.

whatawaster

Jackson is 23 now and already a very good player - probably a better player than Sexton was at that age? Hopefully in the next 4 years he can step up and really challenge Sexton.

Ideally, Hanrahan will nail down the 10 position at Northampton and we could have some genuine competition for 10.

jm08

aimee1 wrote: »

Most of those players were at rwc 2011 and some were 2013 lions.

3 players from the Italy game had starts on the Lions - BOD (dropped from Test team), Heaslip (dropped from test team) and SOB selected when Warburton got injured.

Tommy Bowe was injured for the Italy game.

That 6Ns campaign was similar to this World Cup. A great win over Wales, injuries kicked in and that was it.

captbarnacles

Agree on Jackson. Very good player and lots of years to improve. Would've liked to see him more of him this WC but I guess in practice the coaches weren't liking what they saw.

aimee1

jm08 wrote: »

3 players from the Italy game had starts on the Lions - BOD (dropped from Test team), Heaslip (dropped from test team) and SOB selected when Warburton got injured.

Tommy Bowe was injured for the Italy game.

That 6Ns campaign was similar to this World Cup. A great win over Wales, injuries kicked in and that was it.

Italy starting xv
Ireland: Kearney; Gilroy, O'Driscoll, L Marshall, Earls; Jackson, Murray, Healy, Best, Ross, McCarthy, Ryan, O'Mahony, O'Brien, Heaslip, Fitzgerald.

11/12 of that starting team had enough experience at top level club rugby including HEC finals and then there is the 2011 RWC [10 went I think]. It was not a lack of experience or leadership.

Joe Schmidt led ireland to back to back 6n and using guys like Henshaw, Payne, Jordi, TOD, McGrath, Moore, Henderson, Zebo, POM, Toner, Strauss, Madigan, D Kearney, Fitz who had never been to a RWC before.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

I would give Zebo a run there.

Kearney is a very good player, but he is also a pretty limited one. He is unrivalled under the high ball, but we absolutely have to develop alternative options.

He is not good enough that he should be considered undroppable or that we should just write off trying to find other options.

Zebo can bring a different skillset to full back and it's an option worth exploring.

Dear God no. Zebo is a decent FB against poor opposition. He is not anywhere remotely close to the level Kearney is. I'm not at all against the idea of looking at alternatives, but let's make them realistic alternatives. Which is our problem. We simply don't have a quality FB available to challenge Kearney. As for Payne....

awec wrote: »

We could also try Payne there seeing as he is a full back and a pretty damn good one.

Payne is an excellent FB. He's also an excellent 13. Unless or until we find an outside centre capable of replacing Payne he absolutely must stay where he is. Otherwise you're compromising a vital area on the pitch for a change in skill set in an area we currently have no real issues in. I'd say it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul, but that would only be the case if Peter was a scary and violent loan shark while Paul was your best mate who would be fine to wait a while for his money.

awec wrote: »

In terms of other positions, Gilroy absolutely has to be called into the squad now. The guy is scoring far too many tries to be ignored any further and we have to get rid of this idea of picking wingers based on how good a defender they are or how well they can clear out a ruck.

In place of who? He's a left wing and we already have Fitz an Earls who are better players than Gilroy. And then there's Zebo who is better as well. That's one spot we don't need to worry about.

awec wrote: »

In the centre, we can try moving Henshaw out one and putting McCloskey in at 12.

I agree we need to develop depth in the centre and would be happy to see something like this on the summer tour. Ulster are churning out centres at the moment and Ireland need to take advantage.

awec wrote: »

At 10 - start Madigan or Jackson more often, or at least give them longer off the bench.

Jackson needs to be the starting 10 in the summer for me. Mads isn't good enough.

awec wrote: »

At 9 we have a huge problem and I am not sure what we are going to do there. The problem at 9 is much bigger than at 10, the drop off in quality is much greater.

And in fairness we all said as much before the RWC. I've no idea what the answer is there. Maybe hope Marmion can refind his form and McGrath kicks on at Leinster?

awec wrote: »

I'd like to see Ruddock get some games at 6 because Murphy just is just squad filler material. At 7 we are ok because SOB and Henry both have ample experience and are both capable players.

Rhys has already seen a good deal of game time and the fact he went straight into the 23 on Sunday despite not being fully fit shows how highly Joe rates him. He'll be starting at 6 in Feb, injury permitting. We need another 8 though. Heaslip is a great player. But he's not invulnerable or ageless. And like FB I'm all for developing alternatives.

molloyjh

Also, how have we allowed 1 person to drag the conversation back to Declan Kidney 2.5 years after he finished with Ireland!?

awec

I don't think Fitzgerald being better than Gilroy would be a universally accepted thing molloy. I think again this comes down to what we want from our wingers, do we want to pick the guys who are better attackers or pick our wingers based on their defensive capabilities? Gilroy's record speaks for itself, even if you discount his scores this season so far against the depleted teams. He's the most prolific winger in Ireland and I am pretty sure he scored more tries last season than Fitzgerald has in about 5 seasons added together (maybe not 5, I can't remember exactly). That can't be just ignored IMO.

Also, we don't know if we have anyone at Kearney's level because we don't give anyone else a real chance. RK is put on a bit of a pedestal, he is good but he is not that good. We won't know if we have any other options unless we give players a proper shot. I think Zebo looks promising at 15. It might work out, it might not, but it should be explored. The key is to have multiple players for the positions rather than one guy who is undroppable because nobody else has experience.

Kearney fits very well into our tennis-like approach to rugby, but as I am hoping that will be consigned to the scrap heap we have less need of his ability to catch a ball and kick it back to where it came from.

As for Payne; McCloskey, Henshaw, Payne at 12, 13 and 15 respectively is a very good trio on paper. It will take time to develop (and it may not actually work out) but it's probably more exciting than Henshaw, Payne, Kearney.

Not scapegoating RK either, the guy is very good but was woefully shown up on Sunday along with his brother. Earls was another weak link but we don't need to discuss that again as we have other options there.

awec

awec wrote: »

I don't think Fitzgerald being better than Gilroy would be a universally accepted thing molloy. I think again this comes down to what we want from our wingers, do we want to pick the guys who are better attackers or pick our wingers based on their defensive capabilities? Gilroy's record speaks for itself, even if you discount his scores this season so far against the depleted teams. He's the most prolific winger in Ireland and I am pretty sure he scored more tries last season than Fitzgerald has in about 5 seasons added together (maybe not 5, I can't remember exactly). That can't be just ignored IMO.

Also, we don't know if we have anyone at Kearney's level because we don't give anyone else a real chance. RK is put on a bit of a pedestal, he is good but he is not that good. We won't know if we have any other options unless we give players a proper shot. I think Zebo looks promising at 15. It might work out, it might not, but it should be explored. The key is to have multiple players for the positions rather than one guy who is undroppable because nobody else has experience.

Kearney fits very well into our tennis-like approach to rugby, but as I am hoping that will be consigned to the scrap heap we have less need of his ability to catch a ball and kick it back to where it came from.

As for Payne; McCloskey, Henshaw, Payne at 12, 13 and 15 respectively is a very good trio on paper. It will take time to develop (and it may not actually work out) but it's probably more exciting than Henshaw, Payne, Kearney.

Not scapegoating RK either, the guy is very good but was woefully shown up on Sunday along with his brother. Earls was another weak link but we don't need to discuss that again as we have other options there.

Easy enough to create a poll...

I'd like to see a
12. Olding
13. Henshaw
15. Payne

setup at some stage.

I think McCloskey/Henshaw could be interesting for a Bash-Brothers style game too

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

captbarnacles wrote: »

Agree on Jackson. Very good player and lots of years to improve. Would've liked to see him more of him this WC but I guess in practice the coaches weren't liking what they saw.

I don't know if it was that they didn't like what they saw. Obviously we don't know what their thought process was but a lot of decisions, final squad members and bench players, seemed to be heavily influenced by a players ability to play more than one position. Madigan, ignoring scrum half, can cover 3 positions if needed. Jackson only covers 1. I think that heavily influences Madigan's inclusion over Jackson.

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

Easy enough to create a poll...

I'd like to see a
12. Olding
13. Henshaw
15. Payne

setup at some stage.

I think McCloskey/Henshaw could be interesting for a Bash-Brothers style game too

The outcome of the poll would depend on where you run it!

Olding is another option, but he could easily find himself playing 15 for Ulster. All depends on how he is coming back from these injuries and whether or not his body can handle it at centre.

BoardsMember

Clearlier wrote: »

I continue to think that Madigan is a great bench option for Ireland and Leinster. He's incredibly well suited to coming on as a sub but I'd start Jackson ahead of him. I mentioned it elsewhere but if there was one selection error I thought Joe made it was starting Madigan against Romania - it meant that Jackson wasn't a realistic option for the Argentina game when Sexton got injured. I'm aware that Madigan is a better placekicker but he's not infallible (as the miss to draw the game level showed) and Jakson's ability to control a game is at a different level which more than makes up for it IMO.

I like him as a bench option, someone who can change things et.

But the problem with having him on the bench for Sexton at 10 is that it stops Jackson getting time at 10 from the bench, which, while Sexton is fit, is the only realistic opportunity anyone is going to get, apart from development tours.

rrpc

BoardsMember wrote: »

I like him as a bench option, someone who can change things et.

But the problem with having him on the bench for Sexton at 10 is that it stops Jackson getting time at 10 from the bench, which, while Sexton is fit, is the only realistic opportunity anyone is going to get, apart from development tours.

I think Madigan as a bench option came about through necessity rather than design. At first he was there because he covered more positions than Jackson and we had injury doubts in those positions, then it became necessity as he had gained the most experience through being on the bench.

jm08

molloyjh wrote: »

Also, how have we allowed 1 person to drag the conversation back to Declan Kidney 2.5 years after he finished with Ireland!?

The point was made that we shouldn't go down the soccer route. I've made the point that its too late not to now because we have already gone down that route with Kidney.

jm08

aimee1 wrote: »

Italy starting xv
Ireland: Kearney; Gilroy, O'Driscoll, L Marshall, Earls; Jackson, Murray, Healy, Best, Ross, McCarthy, Ryan, O'Mahony, O'Brien, Heaslip, Fitzgerald.

11/12 of that starting team had enough experience at top level club rugby including HEC finals and then there is the 2011 RWC [10 went I think]. It was not a lack of experience or leadership.

Joe Schmidt led ireland to back to back 6n and using guys like Henshaw, Payne, Jordi, TOD, McGrath, Moore, Henderson, Zebo, POM, Toner, Strauss, Madigan, D Kearney, Fitz who had never been to a RWC before.

Do you recall POM out on the wing because there were so many injuries during the game? Fitzgerald lasted all of about 3 minutes before he got injured.

We still lost two games in those two six nations. Just couldn't make it over the line in crunch games. Thats what injuries does to a team though I think Schmidt's conservative gameplan is there because we don't have the players.

BoardsMember

rrpc wrote: »

I think Madigan as a bench option came about through necessity rather than design. At first he was there because he covered more positions than Jackson and we had injury doubts in those positions, then it became necessity as he had gained the most experience through being on the bench.

Agreed, and I understand how we got here.

But we need to take steps to try to have a fit-for-purpose replacement for Sexton who can, as close as possible, seamlessly replace an injured Sexton. We absolutely know that Madigan will never be that. Jackson looks the best bet at the moment.

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

But I didn't say that did I?

This is what I wrote.



What was the point of your post where you said that it was largely with players Kidney also gave caps to?

Apologies, I misunderstood what you said then. I thought you were not giving any credit to Kidney for blooding a lot of new players. So we agree that Schmdit benefitted from a lot of the development work Kidney had done with the present players?

rrpc

jm08 wrote: »

Well, I disagree. Kidney had a horrendous injury list along with a rake of new caps.

No one deserved the treatment he got from some quarters. The kidney clock was disgraceful.

You're disagreeing from a position based on quicksand.

I'm not going over his record again, or the fact that the injury list was irrelevant as the Italy game was the third defeat in that 6N.

In his last season; out of seven games, we won 2 lost 4 and drew 1.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

BoardsMember wrote: »

Agreed, and I understand how we got here.

But we need to take steps to try to have a fit-for-purpose replacement for Sexton who can, as close as possible, seamlessly replace an injured Sexton. We absolutely know that Madigan will never be that. Jackson looks the best bet at the moment.

The only way I can see this happening anytime soon is if Sexton gets a long term injury and missed the 6 Nations. Jackson comes in at 10 and Madigan keeps the bench spot. While Sexton is fit the other 2 are competing with each other for 15-20 minutes at the end of a match, if they're lucky.

rrpc

BoardsMember wrote: »

Agreed, and I understand how we got here.

But we need to take steps to try to have a fit-for-purpose replacement for Sexton who can, as close as possible, seamlessly replace an injured Sexton. We absolutely know that Madigan will never be that. Jackson looks the best bet at the moment.

Due to his injury profile, we could be without Sexton at the drop of a hat. Perhaps coming back to Leinster will give him a second wind, but he looks tired and off his game a little.

He's still our best ten, but we definitely need an able stand in and a plan C behind him.