Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread V

Neil3030

aimee1 wrote: »

He was caught out of position 2-3 times by italy with sarto unlucky with one contestable just spilling from his hands in the 22

I remember that actually now that you mention it. I'd say we'll see a few bombs thrown his way.

Yeah_Right

Neil3030 wrote: »

If the words "braai", "boerewors" or "biltong" didn't feature, I want an investigation into where these lads are really from.

Damn you! Now I'm hungry.

Billysays no

Billysays no wrote: »

As a person, I could be considered a part of the people, and the suggestion of McFadden reeks of the suggestion of zebo, reeks of the suggestion of Healy. All are so underperforming how could anybody suggest them for an international team. Its so far beyond far I can't even guess the universe

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

irishbucsfan

"Its so far beyond far I can't even guess the universe"

Billysays no is Jaden Smith!

Neil3030

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Damn you! Now I'm hungry.

https://www.instagram.com/p/-ZeAj_lcEA/

https://www.instagram.com/p/5jmAk0lcI2/

.ak

aimee1 wrote: »

I dont think there was "no contact t all". Looked at it again and as he goes to support heaslip he has some contact with furlongs hip and goes head first and connects wit heaslip too. If he goes through the RTP then he cannot be named on thursday surely.

Ah yeah, I was being fairly obtuse. But as head knocks go it was innocuous.

errlloyd

aimee1 wrote: »

He was caught out of position 2-3 times by italy with sarto unlucky with one contestable just spilling from his hands in the 22

As I remember it, that was Medard's fault. All Vantawa could have done is summon the dark arts to obstruct more effectively coming back.

aimee1

.ak wrote: »

Ah yeah, I was being fairly obtuse. But as head knocks go it was innocuous.

I dont know if they were though. The first off furlong seemed to knock him off his stride and it looks like he hit the top of his head off Heaslips hip with his body weight behind it so it would be a fairly heavy impact on his head and neck.

former total

Billysays no wrote: »

As a person, I could be considered a part of the people, and the suggestion of McFadden reeks of the suggestion of zebo, reeks of the suggestion of Healy. All are so underperforming how could anybody suggest them for an international team. Its so far beyond far I can't even guess the universe

Well, I'm glad you asked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq4uCWtQE24

So as you can see, McFadden is clearly the right choice.

Billysays no

former total wrote: »

Well, I'm glad you asked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq4uCWtQE24

So as you can see, McFadden is clearly the right choice.

Was more a Douglas Adams fan myself. Probably explains our difference of opinion

irishbucsfan

Billysays no wrote: »

Was more a Douglas Adams fan myself. Probably explains our difference of opinion

I was just thinking of him today when considering that concussion issue.

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."

What a man. Of course, he was notorious for his love of box-kicking and would have been a huge fan of Conor Murray.

Billysays no

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I was just thinking of him today when considering that concussion issue.

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."

What a man. Of course, he was notorious for his love of box-kicking and would have been a huge fan of Conor Murray.

What an excellent quote. Well done irishbucsfan. My jaws hurt from laughing. Very good.☺

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

People need to stop getting worked up about Earls based on nothing at all. The quote in the paper earlier gave no reason to back up their statement that he was likely to be fit. The poster saying they have heard he's "better than 50/50" to play also gives no reason to back this up.

If he took a very serious head knock I'd trust the medical staff to be looking after him.

If he's only suspected of having a concussion he would be going through the normal procedures which means the very most someone could actually confirm today is that he passed the first stage of that. That is in no way a sign he'll be playing on Saturday.

Billysays no

irishbucsfan wrote: »

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."

this quote describes many of my past posts. it also provides a degree of latitude for future lunacy. I thank you twice :-). I shall quote from douglas adams if my opinions are ever queried in the future.

molloyjh

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

People need to stop getting worked up about Earls based on nothing at all. The quote in the paper earlier gave no reason to back up their statement that he was likely to be fit. The poster saying they have heard he's "better than 50/50" to play also gives no reason to back this up.

If he took a very serious head knock I'd trust the medical staff to be looking after him.

If he's only suspected of having a concussion he would be going through the normal procedures which means the very most someone could actually confirm today is that he passed the first stage of that. That is in no way a sign he'll be playing on Saturday.

This is the thing. Are the HIAs perfect and fool proof? No. But are they carried out by trained medical professionals in person? Yes. Surely to God they are a far more accurate way of diagnosing a patient than a YouTube video!? Because that's all people here (and elsewhere on the web) are using to question what is happening with Earls. How can anyone who saw footage of the incident claim to know more than medical professionals who saw the same footage, examined Earls on the pitch moments later and continued to monitor him thereafter? It's not a perfect system but it's a lot more comprehensive than the YouTube and gif examinations here.

We don't know if he was knocked out, we don't know if he was concussed, we don't know if he's been or will be passed fit for Saturday and yet people are still making definitive statements about what has happened and what should happen.

Mr Tickle

aimee1 wrote: »

His wife had a baby last night apparently. And JS said the only real training session this week is going to be thursday so no decisions will be made until then.

Paddy Jackson sobs quietly as that starting jersey gets ever further away....

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There's nothing arbitrary about 2 weeks for a suspected concussion. That's the period over which symptoms can appear.....

the '2 weeks' is totally arbitrary.

Citation for the second bit?

Zzippy

molloyjh wrote: »

This is the thing. Are the HIAs perfect and fool proof? No. But are they carried out by trained medical professionals in person? Yes. Surely to God they are a far more accurate way of diagnosing a patient than a YouTube video!? Because that's all people here (and elsewhere on the web) are using to question what is happening with Earls. How can anyone who saw footage of the incident claim to know more than medical professionals who saw the same footage, examined Earls on the pitch moments later and continued to monitor him thereafter? It's not a perfect system but it's a lot more comprehensive than the YouTube and gif examinations here.

We don't know if he was knocked out, we don't know if he was concussed, we don't know if he's been or will be passed fit for Saturday and yet people are still making definitive statements about what has happened and what should happen.

I'm not going to get into whether Earls knocked out/concussed or not, but there are serious questions over the whole HIA, so there is certainly reason to question what should happen. There's a reason Dr. Barry O'Driscoll resigned from his position, and it wasn't because he thought the HIA was good for player safety...

molloyjh

Zzippy wrote: »

I'm not going to get into whether Earls knocked out/concussed or not, but there are serious questions over the whole HIA, so there is certainly reason to question what should happen. There's a reason Dr. Barry O'Driscoll resigned from his position, and it wasn't because he thought the HIA was good for player safety...

Like I said there are question marks over it. But until/unless we have something better we have to make do with what we have.

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

Like I said there are question marks over it. But until/unless we have something better we have to make do with what we have.

The 538 article is worth reading. The piece in particular about false sense of security is important.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/concussion-tests-wont-fix-the-concussion-problem/

1eg0a3xv7b82of

aimee1 wrote: »

We have 6 day turnaround between games and several players have minor knocks. The coach is the best positioned person to make this call because he knows what he needs for this week. Best guess is we may need a bench cover option and mcfadden covers several positions.


We kicked far less against wales and passed more, we had 7 line breaks to none by wales. Expecting ireland to be leinster 2012 is totally unrealistic.

IMO there is too much significance put on the rwc to sacrifice 6n.

In my Opinion, which is the way all posts must start on this thread because of the tone set by certain posters which includes a mod, we need to reach a semi final of the WC. The WC trumps everything else.
What have Connacht to do to get more players into the squad, move to leinster.
McFadden decision smacks of conservatism and IMO that is wrong.

irishbucsfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

the '2 weeks' is totally arbitrary.

Citation for the second bit?

It's on an online learning resource i had to go through that's behind a login so I can't directly link. But as far as I'm aware, and I'm not medically qualified, the two weeks isn't arbitrary, it's the window where it can remain subclinical. I think the 3 weeks guideline at elite level for example is that period plus the 6 days of RTP.

former total

On the "2 weeks" thing.

Remember in November 2014, Murray was completely away with the fairies against Australia, and yet managed to come back on for the last few minutes and was not, we were told afterwards, concussed.

Only later, he was diagnosed with "delayed concussion". The whole thing stank but presumably there is some medical basis for forcing players to sit things out for a while.

irishbucsfan

Sounds like Zebo and Earls are the two they're most worried about.

Let's hope we don't lose both, because the McFadden selection isn't exactly going to inspire much insightful debate...

aimee1

Leandro Round Billboard wrote: »

In my Opinion, which is the way all posts must start on this thread because of the tone set by certain posters which includes a mod, we need to reach a semi final of the WC. The WC trumps everything else.
What have Connacht to do to get more players into the squad, move to leinster.
McFadden decision smacks of conservatism and IMO that is wrong.

The RWC is every 4 years. While getting beyond a QF would be good I dont think it should become the be all for irish rugby. The national team generates most of the finance for the IRFU to fund the game so year on year the 6n holds importance.

Connacht have had much improved representation in the extended squad and had 3 players in the match day squad last week. Dillane is also obviously well thought of so further representation isnt too far away, and one or two others are close too.

McFadden was called up because he covers several positions, knows the systems - important in the circumstances in that Ireland have a 6 day turnaround with recovery, minimal training sessions and a trip to Paris. Its a selection that suits the situation. Its practical, not conservative. Throwing players in for the sake of removing the false conservatism tag isnt the way forward

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's on an online learning resource i had to go through that's behind a login so I can't directly link.

Is it a scientific paper with citations and studies? (Could you reference any citations, I can use Google Scholar to find any of the papers)

irishbucsfan wrote: »

But as far as I'm aware, and I'm not medically qualified, the two weeks isn't arbitrary, it's the window where it can remain subclinical. I think the 3 weeks guideline at elite level for example is that period plus the 6 days of RTP.

Citation for this is what I'm after.

I think it's a far fairer statement to say "we don't know much at all about concussion, and it's very dangerous to pretend we do". Any degree of certainty shown about any of this is worrying.

molloyjh

Deleted User wrote: »

The 538 article is worth reading. The piece in particular about false sense of security is important.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/concussion-tests-wont-fix-the-concussion-problem/

Interesting article all right. The whole issue reminds me of a different medical issue a family member had recently. Getting clear and definitive answers from doctors was impossible, which was frustrating at first until it became clear that the human body is simply too complex for us to fully understand everything about it. And each individual can react to things (from food to illness to medication) very differently from the next. The whole thing is a huge balancing act with so many variables that we simply can't expect to be even close to 100% on a lot of parts of our health. Inevitably what happens is doctors have to make best guesses and have to try various tests to see if they can deduct what is happening.

Ultimately a similar thing is happening with concussion. We are trying to arm ourselves with the most/best information possible but the reality is that we're still a long way from understanding it. Some of the tests we're running might well be useless or less instructive than others. But we need to accept that this is all part and parcel of figuring this thing out. You start from a low base of knowledge and build it up with time and experience. I'd hope no medical professional involved in concussion monitoring believes we know it all. And I don't believe for a second that the HIA is the one and only test/examination that is done on players to determine their physical state. Sometimes we'll get it right and sometimes we'll get it wrong. That's not ideal, but it is real life. Getting these things right/wrong is an everyday occurrence in treating certain conditions and nothing is guaranteed. What's important is that we are doing the best we can to treat cases now and continue to better understand it all going forward.

Bazzo

Deleted User wrote: »

the '2 weeks' is totally arbitrary.

Citation for the second bit?

As IBF said, 2 weeks isn't completely arbitrary, it's the period over which symptoms will present themselves in the vast majority of patients.

See below:

http://www.healthline.com/health/post-concussion-syndrome#Overview1

Post-concussion syndrome can begin to occur within days of the head injury. It can sometimes take weeks for the symptoms to appear

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/post-concussion-syndrome/basics/definition/con-20032705

In most people, post-concussion syndrome symptoms occur within the first seven to 10 days and go away within three months, though they can persist for a year or more.

Almost any article you find on the matter will say something similar.

Bazzo

Bazzo wrote: »

As IBF said, 2 weeks isn't completely arbitrary, it's the period over which symptoms will present themselves in the vast majority of patients.

See below:

http://www.healthline.com/health/post-concussion-syndrome#Overview1



http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/post-concussion-syndrome/basics/definition/con-20032705



Almost any article you find on the matter will say something similar.

Sorry, I'm struggling to see how that backs up what's been said?

An arbitrary figure of 2 weeks has been given as the timeframe within which the issues can be asymptomatic.

The link you've posted doesn't back that up. Instead it doesn't mention anything with any degree of certainty.

It can sometimes take weeks for the symptoms to appear

aimee1

Bazzo wrote: »

As IBF said, 2 weeks isn't completely arbitrary, it's the period over which symptoms will present themselves in the vast majority of patients.

See below:

http://www.healthline.com/health/post-concussion-syndrome#Overview1



http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/post-concussion-syndrome/basics/definition/con-20032705



Almost any article you find on the matter will say something similar.

Mike Brown last season is a perfect example. He passed the RTP protocols but then the symptoms returned a few weeks later and he sat out most of the latter part of the season.

Bazzo

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry, I'm struggling to see how that backs up what's been said?

An arbitrary figure of 2 weeks has been given as the timeframe within which the issues can be asymptomatic.

The link you've posted doesn't back that up. Instead it doesn't mention anything with any degree of certainty.

There's no magic timeline after which you can be sure the person is suffering from post-concussion syndrome or not. As per article 2 the majority of patients will be showing symptoms within 7-10 days. The vast majority(Upper 90s) will be showing symptoms after 2 weeks.

If you wanted to catch 100% of cases the waiting period would be enormous because of possible outliers. Setting it at 2 weeks has reasoning behind it, they didn't just pull a number out of their arse, so calling arbitrary is a little unfair.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it a scientific paper with citations and studies? (Could you reference any citations, I can use Google Scholar to find any of the papers)

I don't have access to it now but I texted our physio to see if she has it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Citation for this is what I'm after.

I think it's a far fairer statement to say "we don't know much at all about concussion, and it's very dangerous to pretend we do". Any degree of certainty shown about any of this is worrying.

That's a completely fair statement. But let's be clear, noone is saying, explicitly or implicitly, that they're certain about concussions. They're advising a treatment based on the science we have, and when we have better science they might advise a better treatment. Just because we're not certain about something doesn't mean we can't advise treatment based on the best evidence we have. Our lack of certainty, which is undoubtable is exactly why we should be entirely cautious about the welfare of these players, which we haven't been in the past, from amateur level all the way up to elite international level.

Aschwanden's article is fine, it's about baseline testing, with a cursory reference to reintroduction. We know that's easilly manipulated, a good friend and ex-coach of mine retired from the pro game in Ireland after having multiple concussions and he used to joke that those tests were the only tests he ever passed in his life. It's really upsetting to think about where this could be going, I hope (and I know you do too) that it won't take an Irish Junior Seau to change the approach.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

aimee1 wrote: »

The RWC is every 4 years. While getting beyond a QF would be good I dont think it should become the be all for irish rugby. The national team generates most of the finance for the IRFU to fund the game so year on year the 6n holds importance.

Connacht have had much improved representation in the extended squad and had 3 players in the match day squad last week. Dillane is also obviously well thought of so further representation isnt too far away, and one or two others are close too.

McFadden was called up because he covers several positions, knows the systems - important in the circumstances in that Ireland have a 6 day turnaround with recovery, minimal training sessions and a trip to Paris. Its a selection that suits the situation. Its practical, not conservative. Throwing players in for the sake of removing the false conservatism tag isnt the way forward

McFadden, IMO, has no business near that squad. There is better players that could be picked. But that is a typical Schmidt decision, conservative.

aimee1

Leandro Round Billboard wrote: »

McFadden, IMO, has no business near that squad. There is better players that could be picked. But that is a typical Schmidt decision, conservative.

Jackson is a better 10 then Madigan, but Madigan gets picked because he covers multiple positions from the bench. Its the same with McFadden, if there are doubts over 2-3 players then we have a cover option. The conservatism tag is getting boring at this stage. No matter what decision is made this tag gets trotted out. McFadden is unlikely to even make the bench unless a few players are not available but the coach is conservative for having a back up in place in case a few players drop out.

MugMugs

aimee1 wrote: »

Jackson is a better 10 then Madigan, but Madigan gets picked because he covers multiple positions from the bench. Its the same with McFadden, if there are doubts over 2-3 players then we have a cover option. The conservatism tag is getting boring at this stage. No matter what decision is made this tag gets trotted out. McFadden is unlikely to even make the bench unless a few players are not available but the coach is conservative for having a back up in place in case a few players drop out.

Jackson plays well for his club.

Name a time when he has been given a chance to play for his country that he has shown he deserves the 10 jersey.

errlloyd

I don't really buy that McFadden provides any flexibility as a winger, because I have never rated him as a centre. Trimble has had more success playing centre at the top level than McFadden.

Anyway, last week we were fine with Madigan and an out an out winger on the bench, why not this week too?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

MugMugs wrote: »

Jackson plays well for his club.

Name a time when he has been given a chance to play for his country that he has shown he deserves the 10 jersey.

The entire 6 Nations campaign in 2014?

irishbucsfan

MugMugs wrote: »

Jackson plays well for his club.

Name a time when he has been given a chance to play for his country that he has shown he deserves the 10 jersey.

Ireland v Scotland 2013, Ireland v Samoa 2013

When has he started for Ireland when he has shown he didn't?

former total

errlloyd wrote: »

I don't really buy that McFadden provides any flexibility as a winger, because I have never rated him as a centre. Trimble has had more success playing centre at the top level than McFadden.

Anyway, last week we were fine with Madigan and an out an out winger on the bench, why not this week too?

Exactly. We have two spare centres in the squad already in Marshall and McCloskey and there is Madigan's ability to cover 12 at a push.

McFadden is there as wing cover.

Say what you want about him but he's always played well for Ireland.

Mr Tickle

errlloyd wrote: »

I don't really buy that McFadden provides any flexibility as a winger, because I have never rated him as a centre. Trimble has had more success playing centre at the top level than McFadden.

Anyway, last week we were fine with Madigan and an out an out winger on the bench, why not this week too?

We did have earls there too to possibly cover 13 if needs be. Not saying this totally explains it but it was an option.

I wonder if this had happened with a 2 week lead up to the next game would we have seen something else. there'd be more chance to assimilate another winger.

errlloyd

former total wrote: »

Exactly. We have two spare centres in the squad already in Marshall and McCloskey and there is Madigan's ability to cover 12 at a push.

McFadden is there as wing cover.

Say what you want about him but he's always played well for Ireland.

Apart from that time with Julian Savea in that match that didn't happen. Now that I mention it, I can't remember it.

I agree that McFadden does a job at test level on the wing.

MugMugs

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

The entire 6 Nations campaign in 2014?

I have a terrible memory.

From memory though, he saw no more than 10 minutes sub time each game, got a try against Wales (kudos, it was nicely supported too) and was dropped for France

Wasn't it moreso out of we have little other option than to use him ?

Paul Smeenus

MugMugs wrote: »

I have a terrible memory.

From memory though, he saw no more than 10 minutes sub time each game, got a try against Wales (kudos, it was nicely supported too) and was dropped for France

Wasn't it moreso out of we have little other option than to use him ?

You asked

"Name a time when he has been given a chance to play for his country that he has shown he deserves the 10 jersey."

You got your answers.

MugMugs

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

You asked

"Name a time when he has been given a chance to play for his country that he has shown he deserves the 10 jersey."

You got your answers.

I'll take solace in the fact that he didn't show the people who actually count that he deserves to play so.

Jackson has never impressed me in green. He had a good run when he started out in 2013 and diminished from there. I'd be surprised if he ever see's an international cap again.

awec

MugMugs wrote: »

I'll take solace in the fact that he didn't show the people who actually count that he deserves to play so.

Jackson has never impressed me in green. He had a good run when he started out in 2013 and diminished from there. I'd be surprised if he ever see's an international cap again.

He has never been given the opportunities really. He has consistently outshone Madigan at club level, so unless Madigan is magically raising his game during every training camp and Jackson's game is falling off a cliff you'd have to point to Madigan's versatility as to why he keeps getting picked.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

MugMugs wrote: »

I'll take solace in the fact that he didn't show the people who actually count that he deserves to play so.

Jackson has never impressed me in green. He had a good run when he started out in 2013 and diminished from there. I'd be surprised if he ever see's an international cap again.

He was in the squad for the Summer tour in 2014 over Madigan, which suggests the "people who actually count" think more highly of him than you. He was injured just before and then was injured twice in the following season, the second injury keeping him out of contention for last year's 6 Nations.

Madigan is clearly preferred but we'll see if that's still the case next season when he's not in camp.

stephen_n

MugMugs wrote: »

I'll take solace in the fact that he didn't show the people who actually count that he deserves to play so.

Jackson has never impressed me in green. He had a good run when he started out in 2013 and diminished from there. I'd be surprised if he ever see's an international cap again.

That's a bit odd given his age profile and the fact Madigan will probably never be good enough to be a first choice 10 for Ireland. He got the jersey against Argentina based on how he played against France and that proved to be the wrong decision. Jackson at this point is the most likely to succeed Sexton or replace him if he picks up a long term injury.

Bazzo

MugMugs wrote: »

I'll take solace in the fact that he didn't show the people who actually count that he deserves to play so.

Jackson has never impressed me in green. He had a good run when he started out in 2013 and diminished from there. I'd be surprised if he ever see's an international cap again.

He's just gone 24 and improved quite a bit over the last 2-3 years, I think it's a bit early to be calling it on his Irish career yet.

The Rape of Lucretia

aimee1 wrote: »

Jackson is a better 10 then Madigan, but Madigan gets picked because he covers multiple positions from the bench. Its the same with McFadden, if there are doubts over 2-3 players then we have a cover option. The conservatism tag is getting boring at this stage. No matter what decision is made this tag gets trotted out. McFadden is unlikely to even make the bench unless a few players are not available but the coach is conservative for having a back up in place in case a few players drop out.

Its correct to keep trotting out Joe's conservatism - its one part of what makes him a great coach. His attention to detail and analysis bring him to these conservative deciaions rather than select-and-hope gambles that some of the spoofer coaches pull. Joe is to be praised for his top notch conservative coaching - a lot of coaches would have done better if they were more like him in this regard - and why not too many boards.ie posters have been appointed to the top coaching jobs in intertational rugby.

Paul Smeenus

MugMugs wrote: »

I'll take solace in the fact that he didn't show the people who actually count that he deserves to play so.

Jackson has never impressed me in green. He had a good run when he started out in 2013 and diminished from there. I'd be surprised if he ever see's an international cap again.

That's fine. That's your opinion, no worries. You asked for examples of good performances, and were given them, and have retreated from that debate.

Jackson turned 24 last month - he has about three/four months before he reaches the age Sexton was when he got his first cap.

So yeah, fairly safe to write off as a busted flush.