Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread V

awec

awec wrote: »

1. Rob Kearney needs to be dropped. Give Zebo or Payne a go at 13. We need more options at 15. I am not saying dropped forever, but IMO he shouldn't be a certain starter any more.

Why? I think if we'd better options in midfield, that Payne would be challenging hard for Kearney's spot at FB, but we don't! You can't just analyse in a vacuum. If we move Payne to FB, then we have a hole at centre.
Zebo will probably want to play some games ahead of Felix Jones (also IQ and capped) at FB at Munster if he wants to start ahead of Kearney...

awec wrote: »

2. Gilroy absolutely has to come in to the Ireland setup now. The excuses for overlooking him are wearing thin.

He wouldn't start for Ulster if Bowe wasn't injured. Why does he leapfrog those two IQ wingers? Given that Trimble didn't make the squad, surely he gets there first as a winger that starts ahead of Gilroy at his province?

awec wrote: »

3. Earls is possibly Ireland's best winger at this stage. He should never be moved to 13 again. Ever.

I don't like Earls at 13. He was injury cover. The player got injured. He covered. We need a 13 to come from somewhere to force this to never happen again.

awec wrote: »

4. Madigan or Jackson (pick one) need more game time at 10. Probably Jackson for me.

I prefer Jackson as a 10 than Madigan. However Madigan did well at the WC did he not? Is this a great example of change for change's sake?

awec wrote: »

5. Marmion needs to come in as backup 9 now.

Will obviously happen. The two Leinster 9s are almost totally out of gas. Marmion didn't do enough to get to the WC though, did he? Arguably Cooney was better than him at the end of the season for Connacht.

awec wrote: »

6. McGrath is now comfortably ahead of Healy.

Agreed today, but Healy's ceiling is higher, and he's only returning from injury still. He'll get back there. Not something worth worrying about with Kilcoyne, Cronin and Buckley all in the mix.

awec wrote: »

7. Mike Ross is done. A busted flush at this stage.

Moore was injured. Would have been there otherwise surely. Ross will be put out to pasture as Moore takes over the shirt. Not sure Ross had a bad WC though. Unsure of 'busted flush' status!

awec wrote: »

8. Stop constantly kicking the fcuking ball.

We'll talk about this.

awec wrote: »

9. Look at moving Henshaw to 13 (if Payne moves to 15) and bringing in another 12. That might be McCloskey, it might not. .

Yup, happy to consider this. McCloskey is absolutely on my radar. Keeps up the form and he's giving us an option in the centre for 6N. Not sure that this requires a 'change' though, just needed Stuart to probably have started at Ulster 12 months earlier to have been on Joe's radar for WC.

awec wrote: »

10. Kick the ball less.

But what if it makes sense? What kicks didn't make sense?

awec wrote: »

11. For the love of all that is good, please offload the ball more.

Can't just say this and make it happen. We're miles away yet. Did you read D'Arcy's article? I think that the 'weight grouping' a la NZ instead of age-grade is possibly the best chance of us teaching our fat kids not to have tits for hands. Will take time to get through to Senior Squad.

awec wrote: »

12. Kick chase to be used sparingly.

Back to the drawing board altogether with Joe's gameplan? It's been a disaster thus far obviously..

awec wrote: »

13. Can we please try Henderson at 6? Pretty please?

Why? What would he do differently there other than where he sets up at set pieces? He obviously went really terribly in the second row during the WC to be earning all those plaudits.

awec wrote: »

Lineup I would like to see developed:

Zebo / Payne, Trimble, Henshaw, McCloskey, Earls, Sexton, Murray, McGrath, Best, Moore, Ryan, Henderson, POM, SOB, Heaslip. Alternatively you put Toner in for Ryan. You can also try Toner, Ryan, Henderson as 4, 5 and 6. This Jordi Murphy business just won't do for me. The current midfield with Zebo at 15 is also work experimenting with.

Ball through the hands with kicking only used when it makes sense to do so.

What I don't want to see is the same old lineup going into the 6n, and the same old kick chase.

Jordi Murphy was 'only' there because POM and Ruddock were both injured/ coming back from injuries. Murphy doesn't start at 6 in a fully fit Leinster side. Strange person to take an issue with really.

All of the players you're looking for involvement from have the ability to get into the squad. They need to force the issue though.

Redgirl82

awec wrote: »

The selection of Earls at 13.

The selection of Dave Kearney.

The lack of selection of Cave.

The selection of an awful Cian Healy.


The failure to sub a floundering Madigan against Argentina.

The failure to sub a visibly wrecked Henderson or Toner until the game was dead and buried already.

The premature subbing of Ireland's best player on the day (Best).

The drift defence tactics used against Argentina.


The boring, limited game plan with which we play (kick, kick, powerplay, kick kick powerplay). We look absolutely clueless when this doesn't work.

It is not as if these concerns appeared after the Argentina game. People were concerned about our showing right through August and September and were dismissed.

I'm sure there are more.

People can point to the injuries all they want. Injuries don't help, but they don't excuse the pitiful performance we put in against Argentina. Are people really saying that our players outside the missing 5 are all rubbish (cause that's how we looked) ?

Based on that Joe should just quit....

The boring, limited game as you call it won 2 6 nations back to back.....

I bet England, France, Wales etc would all love to say that.....

Everyone seems to forget Ireland lost there centre partnership last year. The loss of form of D'Arcy was unexpected and this was because of things happening at club level. Joe had to put a new centre partnership together. He done this, then at the biggest stage the centre partnership was ripped apart. First with Henshaw injury and then with Payne injury.

This threw a huge problem into selection for Joe. Which other team in WC hadn't got a settled centre partnership? I can only think of England and look where they ended up.

It is gas how after one loss Ireland are sh*t, Joe hasn't a clue and we should just stop playing rugby.

Ireland had a poor 15 mins at start of game and could never recover but how many teams in that position would actually get back to within 3 points? Not many in World rugby

I am not saying there wasn't mistakes. Of course there was, but every other team had there manager in place for 4 years. They had the chance to build towards the WC. Joe was given 2 years and during that 2 years he lost the best centre partnership Ireland has ever seen. There was no back up strategy before Joe came in....

Say what you want but I think the job done so far by Joe and his management has been great. Give him 4 years to work on the team towards 2019 and we won't have the same issues as this time.....

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

In terms of going forward, I have already said much earlier in the thread.

1. Rob Kearney needs to be dropped. Give Zebo or Payne a go at 13. We need more options at 15. I am not saying dropped forever, but IMO he shouldn't be a certain starter any more.
2. Gilroy absolutely has to come in to the Ireland setup now. The excuses for overlooking him are wearing thin.
3. Earls is possibly Ireland's best winger at this stage. He should never be moved to 13 again. Ever.
4. Madigan or Jackson (pick one) need more game time at 10. Probably Jackson for me.
5. Marmion needs to come in as backup 9 now.
6. McGrath is now comfortably ahead of Healy.
7. Mike Ross is done. A busted flush at this stage.
8. Stop constantly kicking the fcuking ball.
9. Look at moving Henshaw to 13 (if Payne moves to 15) and bringing in another 12. That might be McCloskey, it might not.
10. Kick the ball less.
11. For the love of all that is good, please offload the ball more.
12. Kick chase to be used sparingly.
13. Can we please try Henderson at 6? Pretty please?


Lineup I would like to see developed:

Zebo / Payne, Trimble, Henshaw, McCloskey, Earls, Sexton, Murray, McGrath, Best, Moore, Ryan, Henderson, POM, SOB, Heaslip. Alternatively you put Toner in for Ryan. You can also try Toner, Ryan, Henderson as 4, 5 and 6. This Jordi Murphy business just won't do for me. The current midfield with Zebo at 15 is also work experimenting with.

Ball through the hands with kicking only used when it makes sense to do so.

What I don't want to see is the same old lineup going into the 6n, and the same old kick chase.

It's become pretty obvious from the last 2 posts of yours that there is serious provincial bias going on here. And it brings me no pleasure to say it, but it's pretty clear at this point.

Not one of the players you've knocked are Ulster players. It's Healy, Ross, Kearney, Madigan and Earls that are problem cases. But all the "victims" are Ulster players. Hendo was tired and needed to come off. Best was great and was taken off too early, Cave should have been involved. There's no mention of how quiet both Hendo and Henry were against Argentina. The majority of new additions to the squad are Ulster boys. Gilroy and McCloskey need to be brought in and Jackson should be given more time at 10.

You've also been saying that you're not sticking the knife in at all, particularly not when it comes to Joe, yet you've constantly bemoaned his selections and game plan (which you still fail to realise actually did change in the RWC, just like it changed after the 2014 6 Nations).

Then we have reactionary nonsense like Zebo to FB in the 6 Nations. The guy is not anything even close to a top international FB. Yes we need to develop some depth there, but as I've said before change merely for the sake of it is damaging. If and when we have genuine alternatives then fine let's look at bringing them in. Zebo is not a FB option. If he plays, he plays on the wing. His strengths are better utilised there than at FB.

As for Gilroy, he is very much behind Earls, Fitz and Zebo as far as I'm concerned. So there is no real need for him in the squad. We need to find options at 14, which is a different position. Gilroy does not fit that mould. Plus he still has issues with his game such as his defence and his decision making that the other options don't have.

Marmion has been mixing the good with the bad lately, in fact since the start of 2015 really.

On current form McGrath is ahead of Healy, but I wouldn't be surprised to see that change over the coming months. Remember Healy is just back from injury.

Mike Ross is still the best scrummaging TH that we have. We are developing replacements and Rossy has his limitations, but against a good scrum the guy is still worth his weight until Moore and/or Furlong get to that level.

We have been running a lot more ball in the last month and kicked a lot less so that criticism is invalid.

Offloading is hugely overrated, as the SH sides showed in the SFs.

If we play Hendo at 6 then who goes into the row at 5 and 19?

b.gud

I think calling for Kearney to be dropped is a bit harsh I thought he played well. Having said that I would love to see Payne get a shot at 15 to see how he goes.

Might be a Connacht bias but I would def like Henshaw to get a run at 13, really think that his best position. As to who should partner him a lot of people think it should be McClouskey, which would be good but I think everyone has missed a good shout for 12. He's a player already in the Irish squad, a player with over 60 caps, a player who runs great lines, a player great ability to get over the gain line, a player with pace to burn.
It's obvious Ireland's next centre should be Sean Cronin

accidentprone1

awec wrote: »

The selection of Earls at 13.


The drift defence tactics used against Argentina.

Just a note on this: I'm pretty sure the first try (could be second, can't recall exactly) was a direct result of Best trying to blitz instead of drifting, when we were clearly men short.

b.gud

b.gud wrote: »

I think calling for Kearney to be dropped is a bit harsh I thought he played well. Having said that I would love to see Payne get a shot at 15 to see how he goes.

Might be a Connacht bias but I would def like Henshaw to get a run at 13, really think that his best position. As to who should partner him a lot of people think it should be McClouskey, which would be good but I think everyone has missed a good shout for 12. He's a player already in the Irish squad, a player with over 60 caps, a player who runs great lines, a player great ability to get over the gain line, a player with pace to burn.
It's obvious Ireland's next centre should be Sean Cronin

I'd be happy for a combination of
12. McCloskey
13. Henshaw
15. Payne

to force themselves into those spots.

I'd also like to see what Henshaw would be like outside of Olding or Marshall (if we can get him back up to speed!).

Unfortunately for Marshall, his injuries and subsequent going off the boil were a massive issue for us, as he did look like the guy that we'd be trying to use to pry apart the D'Arcy/BOD partnership to then give us a chance to get someone up to speed so that when BOD finished that we'd have less of a gap in experience in the centres.

molloyjh

accidentprone1 wrote: »

Just a note on this: I'm pretty sure the first try (could be second, can't recall exactly) was a direct result of Best trying to blitz instead of drifting, when we were clearly men short.

That's harsh as well. The defensive line never got set properly leaving Best and Rossy in midfield. Part of the reason for that was the fact that we didn't even try to slow down the Argie ruck ball, but also that we were missing our defensive leaders in midfield. As I said before it was almost a perfect storm of defensive issues, pretty much none of which would have existed had we a full strength team.

whatawaster

awec wrote: »

13. Can we please try Henderson at 6? Pretty please?

We need him in the second row far more than we do at 6. We have lots of good options at 6 - POM, Ruddock, Murphy, SOB. Our strength is much thinner at 4&5

Neil3030

It's so funny living in Wales and observing two groups of people react to very similar situations (injuries).

Wales: Let's see how far we go, ah well, we eventually ran out of luck. Let's now support Ireland/Scotland.

Ireland: WE'RE SH1TE!! WE'RE CRAP!! THE GAMEPLAN IS USELESS!! COACH HAS NO IDEAS!! P.S. GATLAND IS A W4NKER.

Redgirl82

Neil3030 wrote: »

It's so funny living in Wales and observing two groups of people react to very similar situations (injuries).

Wales: Let's see how far we go, ah well, we eventually ran out of luck. Let's now support Ireland/Scotland.

Ireland: WE'RE SH1TE!! WE'RE CRAP!! THE GAMEPLAN IS USELESS!! COACH HAS NO IDEAS!! P.S. GATLAND IS A W4NKER.

I agree with the Gatland part :P

I actually do think during the World Cup the attitude of most people I have talked to has softened towards Gatland. Thats not to say during the build up for the opening match in 6N he will come out and say something and everyone will lose the plot again

Pink Fairy

Yes, we've won 2six nations on the bounce, but this world cup gas shown up how tactically naiive the NH teams are, how far behind the SH teams in most aspects of the game, and frankly if we are happy being the big dogs in a misfiring NH then that's grand, if we want to kick on and actually compete at the 2019 WC, changes to our play have to be made, its that simple, thinking any different is just wrong

Pink Fairy

Pink Fairy wrote: »

Yes, we've won 2six nations on the bounce, but this world cup gas shown up how tactically naiive the NH teams are, how far behind the SH teams in most aspects of the game, and frankly if we are happy being the big dogs in a misfiring NH then that's grand, if we want to kick on and actually compete at the 2019 WC, changes to our play have to be made, its that simple, thinking any different is just wrong

What changes do you want us to make? You've not answered the question!

Give us an idea of what you think the solution is, not what you think the problem is!

whatawaster

Pink Fairy wrote: »

Yes, we've won 2six nations on the bounce, but this world cup gas shown up how tactically naiive the NH teams are, how far behind the SH teams in most aspects of the game, and frankly if we are happy being the big dogs in a misfiring NH then that's grand, if we want to kick on and actually compete at the 2019 WC, changes to our play have to be made, its that simple, thinking any different is just wrong

I don't think there is a massive gap between Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Ireland, England and Wales.

I think the gap is being overplayed.

bilston

awec wrote: »

The selection of Earls at 13.

The selection of Dave Kearney.

The lack of selection of Cave.

The selection of an awful Cian Healy.


The failure to sub a floundering Madigan against Argentina.

The failure to sub a visibly wrecked Henderson or Toner until the game was dead and buried already.

The premature subbing of Ireland's best player on the day (Best).

The drift defence tactics used against Argentina.


The boring, limited game plan with which we play (kick, kick, powerplay, kick kick powerplay). We look absolutely clueless when this doesn't work.

It is not as if these concerns appeared after the Argentina game. People were concerned about our showing right through August and September and were dismissed.

I'm sure there are more.

People can point to the injuries all they want. Injuries don't help, but they don't excuse the pitiful performance we put in against Argentina. Are people really saying that our players outside the missing 5 are all rubbish (cause that's how we looked) ?

As someone who would be more of the "injuries done us" argument, I have to admit you do make some good points.

I suppose I would look at it from the POV that the injuries and Argentina's more favourable schedule at that stage in the competition severely handicapped us.

That said the coaching team aren't above criticism and some of your points are a fair critique. Plenty of people questioned the selection of Healy over McGrath, the choice of Earls in midfield and the lack of use of Cave throughout the tournament.

Still, because of the loss of the spine of the team, I'm not sure it would have mattered much. I suppose we'll never know.

Redgirl82

Pink Fairy wrote: »

Yes, we've won 2six nations on the bounce, but this world cup gas shown up how tactically naiive the NH teams are, how far behind the SH teams in most aspects of the game, and frankly if we are happy being the big dogs in a misfiring NH then that's grand, if we want to kick on and actually compete at the 2019 WC, changes to our play have to be made, its that simple, thinking any different is just wrong

This is a massive over reaction. Lets look at 6 nations

France: Terrible team, not coached properly and not playing French rugby. They have huge strides to make for 2019 to make them competitive
England: Great squad of players but poor management, changing there 10 a couple of games before the start of WC, no proper centre partnership. Most of there squad will be available for 2019 so they will be a force. If proper manager they would have went further
Italy: Not sure where they are going to be honest.
Wales: Huge injury crisis but still ran South Africa close, if they had a backline left on pitch they would have won. Need some rebuilding but alot of players still around in 2019
Scotland: Again a new manger but he is building a good squad. There aim was to get out of pools and this was done. Close quarter final and played some great rugby but lost. Very young squad and will build towards 2019. Need to keep manager till 2019.

and lastly

Ireland: Lost centre partnership for entire tournament. Got a great result against France. Had a terrible 15 mins and paid for it. Loss of leadership did not help in Argentina match. Need to keep Joe in place for 4 years and build towards 2019, not change manager 2 years into 4 year cycle....

The 6 nations teams are not too far behind the SH teams. Wales would have went further for injury.

England France had terrible managers.

Ireland/Scotland are only 2 years into new managers. Need to keep management team in place for 4 years and take run at World cup then.

South Africa played a more limited game than the 6 nations teams and got to the Semi Finals.

rrpc

awec wrote: »

The selection of Earls at 13. The lack of selection of Cave.

I'm putting these two together because they are linked.

In my view, it was a mistake. It's worth remembering though that at the time that Earls was first used as a 13, we were reasonably confident that Payne would be back and it was seen (on here anyway) as useful experience for Earls if he was to have the 23 shirt. Hindsight tells us that Cave or Fitz would have been better in the long term, but it was a can that got kicked down the road until we realised that there was no road left.

awec wrote: »

The selection of Dave Kearney.

The selection of an awful Cian Healy.

Again, these two can be viewed together. Kearney was a standout player in the warmups and there wasn't much (if any) protest at his starting in the pool games on the back of that form. The alternatives (once Earls went to centre) were Fitz and Zebo, neither of whom showed better form than Kearney. Hindsight is 20-20 vision, but Kearney's poor performance against Argentina had its roots in poor defensive organisation in midfield. In at least two of his missed tackles, he was faced with an overlap situation and that's caused by bad covering defense further in. Healy was getting a pass from everyone based on his injury situation and really the only other option was to start McGrath and put Healy on the bench; a fifty-fifty call that most here were comfortable with before the game.

awec wrote: »

The failure to sub a floundering Madigan against Argentina.

Yep, we'll never know if Jackson would have done any better but I was surprised that he didn't get on.

awec wrote: »

The failure to sub a visibly wrecked Henderson or Toner until the game was dead and buried already.

I thought Toner was ok fitness wise, but Henderson was clearly struggling before he was subbed. The scrummaging really took it out of him.

awec wrote: »

The premature subbing of Ireland's best player on the day (Best).

Best was completely shagged. He'd put in a huge shift and really couldn't continue imo. I thought Strauss did well when he came on.

awec wrote: »

The drift defence tactics used against Argentina.

Except we didn't drift (evidence being outnumbered on the wing) enough and we didn't push up because the guys in charge of the midfield defense just weren't good enough at that level. This is what missing Payne, Sexton, POM and SOB actually meant.

awec wrote: »

The boring, limited game plan with which we play (kick, kick, powerplay, kick kick powerplay). We look absolutely clueless when this doesn't work.

It is not as if these concerns appeared after the Argentina game. People were concerned about our showing right through August and September and were dismissed.

They weren't dismissed out of hand. I'm sure (without going back to check) that the obvious limitations in our attack were predicated on the fact that we don't have that many gain-line breaking backs in our squad. Certainly not up to the standard that Australia, NZ or even Argentina have. This is the 'BOD is irreplaceable' dividend that we always knew we'd have to pay. Have we got good enough players that are a match for what the top four have? I don't think so personally. I think in the main we have adequate international level backs, with a couple of them a notch above that level, but we have no Savea's right now and would be unbelievably lucky if one turned up in the next four years.

awec wrote: »

People can point to the injuries all they want. Injuries don't help, but they don't excuse the pitiful performance we put in against Argentina. Are people really saying that our players outside the missing 5 are all rubbish (cause that's how we looked) ?

Ok, we're straying into hyperbole here. We didn't look rubbish, that's an unfair indictment of the likes of Best, Henderson, Toner, Heaslip, Fitz and Ross et al. We clawed our way back into that game to the point that it was on a knife edge. The effort to get there was huge and is being massively underrated by you. That we couldn't keep the momentum going was partly down to the effort expended in getting there and the drop in quality from the bench. Ruddock for example is a very good player, but his value with one league game under his belt after a long lay off was minimal.

What seems to be missed here is not just the injuries that occurred during the World cup, but the injuries sustained in the lead up.

Here's the full list:
Andrew Trimble
Rhys Ruddock
Cian Healy
Marty Moore
Tommy O'Donnell
Jared Payne
Paul O'Connell
Jonny Sexton
Peter O'Mahony
Sean O'Brien (suspended)
Tommy Bowe

sydthebeat

Pink Fairy wrote: »

Yes, we've won 2six nations on the bounce, but this world cup gas shown up how tactically naiive the NH teams are, how far behind the SH teams in most aspects of the game, and frankly if we are happy being the big dogs in a misfiring NH then that's grand, if we want to kick on and actually compete at the 2019 WC, changes to our play have to be made, its that simple, thinking any different is just wrong

well in reality thats just knee jerk rubbish.

New zealand play quite a lot of a kicking game themselves, using it intelligently to gain territory and build pressure.

NZ kicked the ball 33 times against argentina, we kicked the ball 28 times

people saying we should play more like Argentina conveniently over look how porous their defense were... they missed 33 tackles versus new zealand!!! 33 !! if we missed 7 tackles in a game we'd be disgusted.

there are many commentators who say that argentinas free flowing style is what actually cost them against australia, if they had played a more structured game the would have been much more competitive.

our gameplan suits our strengths.
we do not have backs with silky skills that can off load out of a tackle in a low risk manner. The last time a winger of ours tried it in a big game, it was zebo against australia and they scored straigth off that error.

unless and until we end up with a backline who are lightning fast with fantastic hands, we should continue to play a game that accentuates our strengths.

Neil3030

Areas I want to see addressed, in order of importance:

Depth at 10
Sexton will be 34 at the 2019 World Cup and with his injury profile, we just can't rely on him even still playing at that age. We need to move things around so all viable 10s are getting played each week at their clubs/provinces. Madigan needs to leave Leinster. I've suggested he go to Connacht several times, but he could also go to England or France - just somewhere he starts week in/week out as a 10. At some point it may also be worth giving Sexton a sabbatical (like the ABs did with McCaw) and give someone like Madigan, Jackson or even JJ a full 6N Championship. That would also allow Sexton freshen up a bit, injury wise. We simply can't go into the next World Cup with only viable starter at 10.

Depth at 13 (which affects 12)
Our depth below Payne at 13 was also telling. And we are not that much better off (as it stands) than we are at 10. Cave is solid but unfavoured, for whatever reason the coaches see. After that, you have a player playing out of position (Earls, Luke). I am not going to include Madigan in the discussion here. Future options are looking bright; McCloskey will be involved soon, Bundee Aki will qualify next year, Ringrose and Arnold look great prospects. And then you have Olding, who is a player that could fall down the Ian Madigan Patented Black Hole of Versatility. They (Ulster/IRFU) need to decide a position for him (I spoke to a guy who went to school with him who told me his favourite position is 10), and have him play there.

Depth at 4/5
Another point to consider is the second row - Toner and Henderson look set to be our long term pairing here, with capable cover in Ryan. However Ryan will be 35 in 2019, and then below him, Tuohy will be 34 and Mike McCarthy 37. Suffice to say that at least two of these will not be around. Given the physical requirements for the position, not much can be done here except waiting and seeing who comes through, hopefully someone like Molony. But the depth is worrying.

Depth at 2
We are seriously going to miss Best when he retires, and this will probably happen in the next year or two. Strauss and Cronin will also be 33 in 2019, i.e. not guarantees to still be playing. Interesting to see what happens here over the next few years.

Subserving all of the above, of course, will be how the provinces and national side cooperate in the next four years. Although they will obviously say otherwise in public, I think it's clear that we are now moving to a system where the national side and the four provinces will be working a lot more closely together. You can already see the personnel at the coaching level - Kiss worked with Joe in Ireland, now coaching Ulster. Leo played for Joe at Leinster, now coaching there. Foley coached various levels of national teams, now coaching at Munster. Pat Lam is the only one to has not worked directly for either the IRFU or Schmidt.

I think this could be where we maintain an edge over other national teams (New Zealand aside). It can only be helpful for players coming into national camp to be familiar with a significant group of the other players. Now we can also employ some manner of cohesion between systems, tactics, structures, etc. Not that all four provinces need to play identical rugby, but just to have some areas of overlap between first phase moves, defensive systems, etc., so that new recruits to the national side aren't learning everything from scratch, and players can come in and out of the side with less consequence.

QuinDixie

sydthebeat wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Best and Heaslip were our 2 best players against Argentina bar none.. Fitz probably had the most influence in his plays, but wasnt featured frequently.

Heaslip is an average 8, but i have good time for best, he just showed very poor leadership on the day.

QuinDixie

QuinDixie wrote: »

Heaslip is an average 8, but i have good time for best, he just showed very poor leadership on the day.

Can you give one single example?

One?

Pink Fairy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What changes do you want us to make? You've not answered the question!

Give us an idea of what you think the solution is, not what you think the problem is!

I've already said play players in their best positions,! Anything else?

Pink Fairy

Pink Fairy wrote: »

I've already said play players in their best positions,! Anything else?

You didn't answer the question of who you were talking about though?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97528100&postcount=1344

Deleted User wrote: »

Which were the best backs in the wrong positions?

Be specific!

sydthebeat

QuinDixie wrote: »

Heaslip is an average 8, but i have good time for best, he just showed very poor leadership on the day.

ah here.... :rolleyes:

QuinDixie

Clearlier wrote: »

We'd get murdered. Comfortable 20 point win for Wales against that team. Lack of direction from 15, a relatively weak front row scrum, a backrow lacking a bit of savvy but most of all just not enough nous at the breakdown in that team.

New Zealand spent an amazing amount of time developing backup in every position after the 'trauma' of Umaga's injury in 2003 and we all know how that turned out.

You have summer tours and autumn tests to introduce new players into the squad and team. The 6N's and World Cup are about performing. Sometimes you get bad luck ala NZ in 2003 and other times you don't.

Using the 6 nations to experiment for the world cup would be a disastrous mistake.

this is the thinking that causes irelands problems. he must start. Why?
Ross offers nothing in general play, cronin deserves a shot, lets see obrien at 8, omahoney is injured, odonnell was in good form before his injury, and cave is a centre, a real one who can pass.

No Savvy, etc.
are the players starting now that much better. The answer is no.
Zebo/R.Kearney/D.Kearney/Earls/Fitz/Trimble/
Bowe/ you could any back 3 there and the results would be similar.

change is good, the only reason for not liking is because your province has less internationals. Then change is bad.

Pink Fairy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You didn't answer the question of who you were talking about though?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97528100&postcount=1344

Ah give over, everyone and their dog knows who was played out of position, not here to answer your little rants.

whatawaster

QuinDixie wrote: »

Heaslip is an average 8

Heaslip is one of the best forwards Ireland have ever produced surely?

5 test starts for the lions, 3 6 nations championships, 3 Heineken cups, a machine in terms of fitness and reliability.

jacothelad

.ak wrote: »

Rob Kearney should've played 12.

He was just about the only one who didn't....:D

jacothelad

Deleted User wrote: »

Which were the best backs in the wrong positions?

Be specific!

Well we had Henshaw, a 13/15 at 12. We had Earls, an 11 at 13, We had Fitz., an 11 at 12 and 13, we had Payne, a 15 at 13, we had Cave, a 13 at 12 and we had a 10 / 12 / 15 covering 9.

irishbucsfan

If Henshaw is not a 12 then he has me fooled.

molloyjh

QuinDixie wrote: »

this is the thinking that causes irelands problems. he must start. Why?
Ross offers nothing in general play, cronin deserves a shot, lets see obrien at 8, omahoney is injured, odonnell was in good form before his injury, and cave is a centre, a real one who can pass.

No Savvy, etc.
are the players starting now that much better. The answer is no.
Zebo/R.Kearney/D.Kearney/Earls/Fitz/Trimble/
Bowe/ you could any back 3 there and the results would be similar.

change is good, the only reason for not liking is because your province has less internationals. Then change is bad.

Yep there it is again. The provincial BS.

Look as a Leinster man if I (or any other Leinster fan) were really so much more interested in my province than my country I'd actually prefer that we had less internationals. My team wouldn't be gutted throughout the year if that was the case. So you can take that nonsense and shove it where the sun don't shine.

QuinDixie

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you give one single example?

One?

what was the score again, and that flattered us.
i think best is a great hooker, but again argies all the experienced players showed poor leadership.

sydthebeat

QuinDixie wrote: »

what was the score again, and that flattered us.
i think best is a great hooker, but again argies all the experienced players showed poor leadership.

so you cant give an example of poor leadership by best???

Pink Fairy

Pink Fairy wrote: »

Ah give over, everyone and their dog knows who was played out of position, not here to answer your little rants.

Questions. Not rants.

Henderson played at 4 because POC was injured
Murphy played at 6 because POM was injured
Henry played at 7 because SOB was suspended
Madigan played at 10 because Sexton was injured
Earls played at 13 because Payne was injured
D.Kearney played at 11 because Earls was playing at 13 because Payne was injured and Trimble had been injured in the run up to the WC and because he'd was in very good form in warm ups and RWC games.

Other than that, all players were playing in their 'correct' position in a somewhat 'normally correct' pecking order for the International Squad.

So which were the best players playing out of position? And what could we have done about it?

jacothelad

jacothelad wrote: »

Well we had Henshaw, a 13/15 at 12. We had Earls, an 11 at 13, We had Fitz., an 11 at 12 and 13, we had Payne, a 15 at 13, we had Cave, a 13 at 12 and we had a 10 / 12 / 15 covering 9.

Okay. So put them in the positions you want them in.

What's left? Who fills those gaps?

Líon na bearnaí
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

22.
23.

molloyjh

jacothelad wrote: »

Well we had Henshaw, a 13/15 at 12. We had Earls, an 11 at 13, We had Fitz., an 11 at 12 and 13, we had Payne, a 15 at 13, we had Cave, a 13 at 12 and we had a 10 / 12 / 15 covering 9.

Henshaw has been excellent at 12 so I'm not sure how anyone can have complaints there.

Earls I agree on, although I don't think Cave would have been noticeably better against Argentina tbh.

Fitz filled in at 12 at the last minute but was originally due to play 11. He then came on at 11 when Bowe went off against Argentina (Dave moved across to 14).

Payne has been very good at 13 too and was surely a good use of resources given our issues in midfield? While I do like Cave I think Payne is a far better 13 at that level.

Madigan was covering the 9 as 3rd choice and was never utilised there so I don't think that counts.

QuinDixie

whatawaster wrote: »

Heaslip is one of the best forwards Ireland have ever produced surely?

5 test starts for the lions, 3 6 nations championships, 3 Heineken cups, a machine in terms of fitness and reliability.

how would u compare him to other top 10 international 8's.
give negative and positive answers.

QuinDixie

sydthebeat wrote: »

so you cant give an example of poor leadership by best???

your question makes no sense. you give me an example of his good leadership.
please inform me

irishbucsfan

QuinDixie wrote: »

your question makes no sense. you give me an example of his good leadership.
please inform me

You're not so keen on answering questions eh?

rrpc

QuinDixie wrote: »

what was the score again, and that flattered us.
i think best is a great hooker, but again argies all the experienced players showed poor leadership.

How do you define leadership?

Every player that's ever referenced leadership has done so by pointing out the work done on the pitch, the willingness to do the dirty work to the point of collapse, and create an example for others to follow.

In that respect, Best is one of our outstanding leaders on the pitch. But clearly you know better than the players, so please enlighten us.

QuinDixie

molloyjh wrote: »

Yep there it is again. The provincial BS.

Look as a Leinster man if I (or any other Leinster fan) were really so much more interested in my province than my country I'd actually prefer that we had less internationals. My team wouldn't be gutted throughout the year if that was the case. So you can take that nonsense and shove it where the sun don't shine.

so the less international players a province has, the better the province performs.
you can take absolute utter nonsense and shove it where the sun does shine.

molloyjh

QuinDixie wrote: »

how would u compare him to other top 10 international 8's.
give negative and positive answers.

This from someone who couldn't do the same!?


His control at the base of the scrum is one of the best in the game.

His tackle stats are almost always in the top 2 or 3 on the pitch and his completion rate is generally one of the highest as well.

He frees up POM and SOB to operate in the wider channels.

He doesn't actually have a weak part of his game. He is a great all-rounder who can (and does) vary his game depending on what works for those around him.

He takes contact really well. Has good feet going into contact and always places the ball in such a way that we retain possession, even in really tight and difficult circumstances.

He doesn't make the big gain line carries, but that's because we have others doing that. He does a lot of the blindside work. Really messy carrying tight in. But he's athletic enough that he can make those breaks if the need be.


Of course all of this has been done to death before. There are just some people out there who have it in for the guy.

molloyjh

QuinDixie wrote: »

so the less international players a province has, the better the province performs.
you can take absolute utter nonsense and shove it where the sun does shine.

The less players are taken away from a province for international duty the better the province performs. FACT.

Look at the Pro12 table now (here). Which Irish province is at the bottom of all Irish provinces? And which is at the top?

How you can even try and argue that is beyond me.

awec

OK folks let's calm it down a bit here.

QuinDixie

molloyjh wrote: »

This from someone who couldn't do the same!?


His control at the base of the scrum is one of the best in the game.

His tackle stats are almost always in the top 2 or 3 on the pitch and his completion rate is generally one of the highest as well.

He frees up POM and SOB to operate in the wider channels.

He doesn't actually have a weak part of his game. He is a great all-rounder who can (and does) vary his game depending on what works for those around him.

He takes contact really well. Has good feet going into contact and always places the ball in such a way that we retain possession, even in really tight and difficult circumstances.

He doesn't make the big gain line carries, but that's because we have others doing that. He does a lot of the blindside work. Really messy carrying tight in. But he's athletic enough that he can make those breaks if the need be.


Of course all of this has been done to death before. There are just some people out there who have it in for the guy.

thats not the question - i asked for a ranking comparison.

Clearlier

QuinDixie wrote: »

this is the thinking that causes irelands problems. he must start. Why?
Ross offers nothing in general play, cronin deserves a shot, lets see obrien at 8, omahoney is injured, odonnell was in good form before his injury, and cave is a centre, a real one who can pass.

No Savvy, etc.
are the players starting now that much better. The answer is no.
Zebo/R.Kearney/D.Kearney/Earls/Fitz/Trimble/
Bowe/ you could any back 3 there and the results would be similar.

change is good, the only reason for not liking is because your province has less internationals. Then change is bad.

(I don't suggest that you waste time doing this but) If you were to trawl through my posts you'd find that my first allegiance is to Ireland. It's lazy to suggest that my comments have anything to do with a provincial bias. When I first started posting here someone even had a brief discussion trying to work out which province I supported. BTW - I don't know which province you support and I really don't care.

You're completely missing the point. You think that we should offer more opportunities to non-first choice players and that we should do it in a competitive environment. I'm saying that for the 6 nations and the world you select your best team with a view to winning the games.

If you want a detailed critique of the issues that I had with your selection (front row, backrow and fullback):

1 - David Kilcoyne - He's third choice at best, we have two outstanding players in the position both of the same age. By all means bring him into the squad and give him an opportunity to stake a claim in the summer or autumn just not at the 6 nations
2 - Cronin - I prefer Strauss as a starter with Cronin as impact but if for some reason we wanted to start Cronin it wouldn't be a big issue for me.
3 - White - we have two players a decade younger in Moore and Furlong (I think that Furlong will leapfrog Moore) - I see no advantage in playing White unless we're desperate.

The biggest issue with your backrow suggestions is that you're proposing moving one of the best 7's in the world out of position and dropping the best no.8 that we've had in the professional era. In their place you want to introduce a player who was third choice before he had a horrendous injury in the warm up games and is looking to start playing rugby again in the new year. I've a lot of time for Tommy but it'll be bordering on miraculous if he's in serious contention for the 6 nations squad. The loss of nous by the way is partly from moving SOB out of his most effective position but mostly because Heaslip isn't there. He's the glue that holds the backrow together varying his game to dovetail with whatever is required.

I love watching Zebo play - I even posted after the game against Romania how impressed I was with how we played but you have to be in cloud cuckoo land to think that he's at the same level as Rob Kearney. Perhaps if he plays at 15 a bit more he might develop into a great 15 but I don't think that the 6 nations is the right place to do that developing.

molloyjh

QuinDixie wrote: »

thats not the question - i asked for a ranking comparison.

I'll tell you what, why don't you start. You were the one making the original claim about him so I think it is only fair that if anyone expand on their position it should start with you.

sydthebeat

QuinDixie wrote: »

your question makes no sense. you give me an example of his good leadership.
please inform me

any of his turnovers?
no lineouts lost (his darts were perfect)


http://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/rugby-union/ireland-v-argentina-player-ratings-6659723
MOTM here, ill quote to save you clicking

Regarded as one of Joe Schmidt’s main leaders and showed why here. Immense work (Our MOTM).

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/argentina-43-ireland-20-player-ratings-1.2396317
top irish player rated

https://www.newstalk.com/reader/47.302/57502/0/
joint top with heaslip

http://www.thesun.ie/irishsol/homepage/sport/irishrugby/6697774/Player-Ratings-Ireland-v-Argentina.html
our top player




so your opinion seems to be in the vast minority

QuinDixie

molloyjh wrote: »

The less players are taken away from a province for international duty the better the province performs. FACT.

Look at the Pro12 table now (here). Which Irish province is at the bottom of all Irish provinces? And which is at the top?

How you can even try and argue that is beyond me.

come year end leinster will be top 6, why? because of their internationals.
where will connaught be?

its all backed up by the tables.

molloyjh

QuinDixie wrote: »

your question makes no sense. you give me an example of his good leadership.
please inform me

Why should he have to give examples of something he never said while you give no examples of something you did say?

thomond2006

awec wrote: »

OK folks let's calm it down a bit here.

Damn I had my That Escalated Quickly post lined up.