Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread V

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

irishbucsfan wrote: »

EDIT: Not actually a very good video, I didn't watch the whole thing and assumed it showed all of his contributions, no such luck. He created another one in that game if I remember correctly

Great tackle from Sexton at the end there.

I don't remember those jerseys with that much on the front of them.

phog

Saw this on Twitter, McCaw's first and last game team sheets.

His first was v Ireland in 2001 and it shows the Irish team.

Feek was on that ABs team.

CatFromHue

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0iHiVkZyRk

The game is up on youtube.

It's actually a great game to watch.

First try is begins at 11.36 on the youtube clock and it's a lovely one. Bod skips by Umaga.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

CatFromHue wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0iHiVkZyRk

The game is up on youtube.

It's actually a great game to watch

Did we win?

aimee1

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Did we win?

match abandoned. terrible weather that day:p

CatFromHue

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Did we win?

If there are no follow on questions then Yes, Yes we did........

stephen_n

Why is it always assumed, that if a senior player like Madigan, Murphy or Marshall were to move to get more game time, that it would be to another province. When they could easily take the JJ route and go to England for probably more money. People on here look at players like commodities and forget there are people behind the decisions.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

stephen_n wrote: »

Why is it always assumed, that if a senior player like Madigan, Murphy or Marshall were to move to get more game time, that it would be to another province. When they could easily take the JJ route and go to England for probably more money. People on here look at players like commodities and forget there are people behind the decisions.

Because we'd rather see them play for Irish teams and help develop the Provinces that could benefit from their skills.
Even the guys getting regular game time could move to England and make more money. I'm not sure a player getting a few run outs here and there would garner much interest from big money clubs anyway.

rrpc

stephen_n wrote: »

Why is it always assumed, that if a senior player like Madigan, Murphy or Marshall were to move to get more game time, that it would be to another province. When they could easily take the JJ route and go to England for probably more money. People on here look at players like commodities and forget there are people behind the decisions.

It would most likely damage their chances of playing for Ireland if that's their ambition. Unless they're someone like Sexton who are in a strong bargaining position to have it in their contract.

jacothelad

Flipper22 wrote: »

I'm not sure that these so-called maverick players are really capable of causing damage consistently at test level though. Zebo and Gilroy have both had significant chances at test level and while they've performed decently overall we haven't seen any real 'x factor' moments. Fitz on the other hand cut the argies up twice. While I think Zebo is a better footballer than the likes of DK, Bowe, Trimble, and Gilroy has better feet, in terms of adding value at test level I don't really see it happening.

Really. Yes. If only Gilroy would stop all that try scoring nonsense. Let me see, 2 against the Barbarians, 3 against Fiji, 1 against Argentina and 1 against Scotland. I don't think you could call 2 friendly games and four 6 Nations Games 'significant chances. Now I'd call giving Fitzgerald 34 games to produce one good game 'Significant Chances galore.' Gilroy may have flaws but to argue that he has had his chances and not taken them is frankly rubbish. He most certainly has if Fitzgerald is your yardstick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQpeP5wMLMs

I suppose you could always put up Fitz's tries but you'd have to use the last 6 seasons to do it.

captbarnacles

CatFromHue wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0iHiVkZyRk

The game is up on youtube.

It's actually a great game to watch.

First try is begins at 11.36 on the youtube clock and it's a lovely one. Bod skips by Umaga.

Humpheys had a huge boot out of hand.

rrpc

jacothelad wrote: »

Really. Yes. If only Gilroy would stop all that try scoring nonsense. Let me see, 2 against the Barbarians, 3 against Fiji, 1 against Argentina and 1 against Scotland. I don't think you could call 2 friendly games and four 6 Nations Games 'significant chances. Now I'd call giving Fitzgerald 34 games to produce one good game 'Significant Chances galore.' Gilroy may have flaws but to argue that he has had his chances and not taken them is frankly rubbish. He most certainly has if Fitzgerald is your yardstick.

I suppose you could always put up Fitz's tries but you'd have to use the last 6 seasons to do it.

Well for starters, Luke is four years older, so that should account for a fair few caps. Wasn't Gilroy injured between when he played in the six nations and his next cap against Georgia? And again this year?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

jacothelad wrote: »

Really. Yes. If only Gilroy would stop all that try scoring nonsense. Let me see, 2 against the Barbarians, 3 against Fiji, 1 against Argentina and 1 against Scotland. I don't think you could call 2 friendly games and four 6 Nations Games 'significant chances. Now I'd call giving Fitzgerald 34 games to produce one good game 'Significant Chances galore.' Gilroy may have flaws but to argue that he has had his chances and not taken them is frankly rubbish. He most certainly has if Fitzgerald is your yardstick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQpeP5wMLMs

I suppose you could always put up Fitz's tries but you'd have to use the last 6 seasons to do it.

I know if you're a coach you're looking for specific things from a player when you select a team but purely from a spectators point of view Gilroy is a joy to watch. One of my favourite players to watch this season has been Nehe Milner Skudder. He's like the complete opposite of Savea who can just run through players. NMS dances around them, he can beat 4 or 5 players without even getting touched. Not saying Gilroy is at All Blacks level but he has to be one of the best players to watch at the moment for that same skill.

stephen_n

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Because we'd rather see them play for Irish teams and help develop the Provinces that could benefit from their skills.
Even the guys getting regular game time could move to England and make more money. I'm not sure a player getting a few run outs here and there would garner much interest from big money clubs anyway.

JJ is the perfect example, he could have gone to Connacht, who desperately needed a 10, but instead choose England, for more money and a "higher standard" of rugby. My point is we talk on here as if players are commodities to be moved around the provinces and as one poster put it earlier, if they don't play ball, sure just don't give them another contract to be part of a squad. Players have the right to choose where they play their rugby, some people just don't seem to like that.

jacothelad

rrpc wrote: »

Well for starters, Luke is four years older, so that should account for a fair few caps. Wasn't Gilroy injured between when he played in the six nations and his next cap against Georgia? And again this year?

I'm not arguing that Gilroy should be in the Ireland squad, I'm simply pointing out the irony in a post that compares him and his 'significant chances' (6) that he has 'failed to take' - which is clearly not the case - with Fitz who has had chances galore with one, a couple of good plays against Argentina, as the reason why he should be in the side and Gilroy and Zebo add nothing. I mean the post was really thoughtless, particularly by using Fitz as the meter to measure Gilroy and Zebo. They are all good players but of the 3, it is Fitzgerald who hasn't made the most of his many opportunities.

errlloyd

How many minutes has Hanrahan got at Saints?

shootermacg

Whats the music in the Gilroy tribute?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

stephen_n wrote: »

JJ is the perfect example, he could have gone to Connacht, who desperately needed a 10, but instead choose England, for more money and a "higher standard" of rugby. My point is we talk on here as if players are commodities to be moved around the provinces and as one poster put it earlier, if they don't play ball, sure just don't give them another contract to be part of a squad. Players have the right to choose where they play their rugby, some people just don't seem to like that.

They are commodities though, to an extent. Professional Clubs are a business and the team is what they're selling. The talk of moving them between provinces was part of a conversation about having a sort of draft system among the 4 Provinces and the suggestion not to renew contracts if they refuse to move Province was in relation to that.

The provincial set up is geared towards feeding the Ireland squad so it's not that big a leap to want the best Irish players playing at home and actually playing rather than bench warming.

shuffol

Barring his ill fated spell at FB a few years back Fitzgerald has always played very well for Ireland. He was a test lion at 22. He's always been a serious player with great technical ability, it's no surprise to me that coaches keep picking him.

Nick Williams has a great try scoring record, I'd never like to see him in a test side though.

shootermacg

Never mind ^ ^

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

They are commodities though, to an extent. Professional Clubs are a business and the team is what they're selling. The talk of moving them between provinces was part of a conversation about having a sort of draft system among the 4 Provinces and the suggestion not to renew contracts if they refuse to move Province was in relation to that.

The provincial set up is geared towards feeding the Ireland squad so it's not that big a leap to want the best Irish players playing at home and actually playing rather than bench warming.

Treating people like commodities, particularly people with in-demand skills like rugby players, is setting yourself up for a kick in the hole. You can't just click your fingers and decide a guy is going to move from team A to team B, it doesn't work like that.

shuffol wrote: »

Barring his ill fated spell at FB a few years back Fitzgerald has always played very well for Ireland. He was a test lion at 22. He's always been a serious player with great technical ability, it's no surprise to me that coaches keep picking him.

Nick Williams has a great try scoring record, I'd never like to see him in a test side though.

Well said. It's getting tedious just seeing try scoring stats posted up on every page. How about we post medals won stats, or missed tackle stats instead?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Harley Uptight Light wrote: »

Treating people like commodities, particularly people with in-demand skills like rugby players, is setting yourself up for a kick in the hole. You can't just click your fingers and decide a guy is going to move from team A to team B, it doesn't work like that.

Well aware it doesn't work like that. Have you actually read through the posts where this idea was discussed? It was an entirely hypothetical conversation.

That said.... Rugby players are paid to play rugby, why shouldn't a club be able to say you're surplus to requirements here so we're not renewing your contract. We have talked to Province X though and they've desperate for a player like you. You can go there, it's all arranged, or you can send your agent off to see if someone abroad wants you.

rrpc

jacothelad wrote: »

I'm not arguing that Gilroy should be in the Ireland squad, I'm simply pointing out the irony in a post that compares him and his 'significant chances' (6) that he has 'failed to take' - which is clearly not the case - with Fitz who has had chances galore with one, a couple of good plays against Argentina, as the reason why he should be in the side and Gilroy and Zebo add nothing. I mean the post was really thoughtless, particularly by using Fitz as the meter to measure Gilroy and Zebo. They are all good players but of the 3, it is Fitzgerald who hasn't made the most of his many opportunities.

To be fair to Fitz, the early part of his career with Ireland was outstanding. Injury has blighted his last few years, but he seems to be back to that form again now.

Where I think Fitz and Gilroy really shine is in their ability to break the line in traffic. We don't have too many players with that skill.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Well aware it doesn't work like that. Have you actually read through the posts where this idea was discussed? It was an entirely hypothetical conversation.

That said.... Rugby players are paid to play rugby, why shouldn't a club be able to say you're surplus to requirements here so we're not renewing your contract. We have talked to Province X though and they've desperate for a player like you. You can go there, it's all arranged, or you can send your agent off to see if someone abroad wants you.

Well the conversation would hardly go like that, it would be the IRFU (who aren't a club) handing down diktats. Just as an example if Leinster want to keep player X and player X wants to stay at Leinster then you're clearly going to have a rather significant problem if the IRFU decides he has to go to Connacht or else. He's clearly not going to be happy, Leinster aren't going to be happy, and his teammates won't be happy because they'll be wondering if its them next.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Harley Uptight Light wrote: »

Well the conversation would hardly go like that, it would be the IRFU (who aren't a club) handing down diktats. Just as an example if Leinster want to keep player X and player X wants to stay at Leinster then you're clearly going to have a rather significant problem if the IRFU decides he has to go to Connacht or else. He's clearly not going to be happy, Leinster aren't going to be happy, and his teammates won't be happy because they'll be wondering if its them next.

Again, read back over the whole discussion. The idea was each province gets to name a certain amount of players that are theirs and nobody can touch. The rest can be picked up by other provinces. Nobody was suggesting the IRFU start randomly picking established players that the provinces want and forcing them to move to another province.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Again, read back over the whole discussion. The idea was each province gets to name a certain amount of players that are theirs and nobody can touch. The rest can be picked up by other provinces. Nobody was suggesting the IRFU start randomly picking established players that the provinces want and forcing them to move to another province.

I mean that is implicit to the situation. Of course Sexton or POM or Rory Best aren't going to be moved on to another province.

Flipper22

jacothelad wrote: »

Really. Yes. If only Gilroy would stop all that try scoring nonsense. Let me see, 2 against the Barbarians, 3 against Fiji, 1 against Argentina and 1 against Scotland. I don't think you could call 2 friendly games and four 6 Nations Games 'significant chances. Now I'd call giving Fitzgerald 34 games to produce one good game 'Significant Chances galore.' Gilroy may have flaws but to argue that he has had his chances and not taken them is frankly rubbish. He most certainly has if Fitzgerald is your yardstick.

I suppose you could always put up Fitz's tries but you'd have to use the last 6 seasons to do it.

Wow!

Strawmanning and hyperbole, Fitz has had one good game in green? It's hard to take the rest of it seriously tbh... but the bold bit is absolutely not what I was saying.

jm08

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Again, read back over the whole discussion. The idea was each province gets to name a certain amount of players that are theirs and nobody can touch. The rest can be picked up by other provinces. Nobody was suggesting the IRFU start randomly picking established players that the provinces want and forcing them to move to another province.

Not too sure the players would be happy with that one as it would restrict their options. For example, Luke Fitz got an offer from Rob Penney when at Munster which he seriously considered. If Leinster 'owned' him, he (or his agent) wouldn't have such a good bargaining tool.

Flipper22

jacothelad wrote: »

I'm not arguing that Gilroy should be in the Ireland squad, I'm simply pointing out the irony in a post that compares him and his 'significant chances' (6) that he has 'failed to take' - which is clearly not the case - with Fitz who has had chances galore with one, a couple of good plays against Argentina, as the reason why he should be in the side and Gilroy and Zebo add nothing. I mean the post was really thoughtless, particularly by using Fitz as the meter to measure Gilroy and Zebo. They are all good players but of the 3, it is Fitzgerald who hasn't made the most of his many opportunities.

Are you talking about me again? :pac:

Why are you misquoting me on the bold bit?

I didn't even say Fitz should be in the team. My point was that I have doubts that either of those two 'maverick' players would really add value to the team in comparison to the wingers we currently use, particularly against top sides. Evidence from both of their performances as well as similar players from other countries would suggest not. Their strengths are just not as relevant at test level.

The point about Fitz was simply that if Zebo or Giltoy had come off the bench and created two tries, we'd have everyone saying how crazy we are not to be picking them, X factor, look what we've been missing out on etc etc.

Edit- You've misunderstood the reasons behind my point as well. I'm not arguing for one winger over another, which I actually think is largely pointless given how comparatively uninformed we are as fans. More seeing how things stand and trying to rationalise it. FWIW, I love watching Gilroy and would be more than happy to see him in the team if that's what Joe wants.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

jm08 wrote: »

Not too sure the players would be happy with that one as it would restrict their options. For example, Luke Fitz got an offer from Rob Penney when at Munster which he seriously considered. If Leinster 'owned' him, he (or his agent) wouldn't have such a good bargaining tool.

Well again it was a hypothetical conversation and there were other problems with the idea pointed out. I think most agreed that beyond a certain point it was impossible to do with players and maybe introducing some sort of system for younger players, 18-22, for example, might be worth looking at.
I don't know what age Fitzgerald was when Munster were interested but he's a bit like Henshaw in that he was good enough from a young age to break into the first team and so he's not really one of the players you'd be talking about for this hypothetical system.

Hagz

errlloyd wrote: »

How many minutes has Hanrahan got at Saints?

Not sure about minutes but he hasn't really got any game-time at 10 yet in the premiership. He's come on at centre a few times though.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Hagz wrote: »

Not sure about minutes but he hasn't really got any game-time at 10 yet in the premiership. He's come on at centre a few times though.

He made his debut for Northampton last week. Came on at 32 minutes to replace Pisi. Replaced Pisi again today at 58 minutes. And that seems to be it.

eltonio

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Conway was saying yesterday that he always preferred playing FB because you get a bit more space there, more opportunity to attack or start a move. If you look at the likes of Le Roux or Folau or even Mike Brown, when they're on form, they're much more creative and attacking than anything we've seen from Rob K of late. Obviously it's important to bare in mind that Schmidt obviously wants his FB doing what Kearney does or he wouldn't be there, but I see no harm in having a variety of styles available for that position.

Would be interesting to see Payne moved back to FB for Ireland if McCloskey and Henshaw were to play 12 and 13.

Great call, was thinking the same thing myself! Payne always looked impressive at full
back for Ulster and McCloskey is one of the most promising players in the country.

Bazzo

stephen_n wrote: »

JJ is the perfect example, he could have gone to Connacht, who desperately needed a 10, but instead choose England, for more money and a "higher standard" of rugby. My point is we talk on here as if players are commodities to be moved around the provinces and as one poster put it earlier, if they don't play ball, sure just don't give them another contract to be part of a squad. Players have the right to choose where they play their rugby, some people just don't seem to like that.

Of course they have the right to play anywhere they want(as long as they are out of contract or their club is willing to release them). Absolutely nobody has ever said otherwise.

If they choose to play abroad though it will significantly hinder their chances of being selected for the national team, as is the case in many countries.

stephen_n

Bazzo wrote: »

Of course they have the right to play anywhere they want(as long as they are out of contract or their club is willing to release them). Absolutely nobody has ever said otherwise.

If they choose to play abroad though it will significantly hinder their chances of being selected for the national team, as is the case in many countries.

The suggestion is that they should be moved (forced to move) to other provinces, rather than benching at their current province. My response is based on that premise, there is no guarantee if you force a player to move, they will want to go to another province.

bennyl10

tickets online for France in February, just incase anyone was lookingr

Bazzo

stephen_n wrote: »

The suggestion is that they should be moved (forced to move) to other provinces, rather than benching at their current province. My response is based on that premise, there is no guarantee if you force a player to move, they will want to go to another province.

From what I can see one poster suggested that if they weren't making the match day 23 at a province they be encouraged to move to another province and told their contract won't be renewed at their current province.

That's very different from forcing players to move to designated teams, and again it's only been suggested by one person.

irishbucsfan

Bazzo wrote: »

From what I can see one poster suggested that if they weren't making the match day 23 at a province they be encouraged to move to another province and told their contract won't be renewed at their current province.

That's very different from forcing players to move to designated teams, and again it's only been suggested by one person.

You said the players have the right to play wherever they want. What you're describing here is vastly different to that.

Ultimately the players will move if they feel its worth it to them, which is fine. It's just up to the other provinces to convince them that moving is worth their while and Nucifora should facilitate that.

Bazzo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You said the players have the right to play wherever they want. What you're describing here is vastly different to that.

Ultimately the players will move if they feel its worth it to them, which is fine. It's just up to the other provinces to convince them that moving is worth their while and Nucifora should facilitate that.

I personally never said anything about players moving anywhere as I have no problem with the system as it is, I'm just describing what I've read over the past few pages.

I don't see how telling a player they are surplus to requirements at x province and their contract won't be renewed but y province has interest in them is forcing them to do anything?

irishbucsfan

Bazzo wrote: »

I personally never said anything about players moving anywhere as I have no problem with the system as it is, I'm just describing what I've read over the past few pages.

I don't see how telling a player they are surplus to requirements at x province and their contract won't be renewed but y province has interest in them is forcing them to do anything?

These guys aren't really surplus to requirements thoughh. If they were surplus to requirements then we don't need to do anything, we already let those guys go.

The intimation is that in order to get young depth to move we should not offer them new contracts in situations where we normally would (ie, clearly something the provinces want to do) and instead withdraw the offers to intentionally give them no option but to do what we want. It's the same as just forcing them to move, it's just less direct/honest.

If it's just referring guys that really aren't actually good enough to get new contracts at their current province then its a rather vacuous point, because that already happens a lot.

Bazzo

Bazzo wrote: »

I personally never said anything about players moving anywhere as I have no problem with the system as it is, I'm just describing what I've read over the past few pages.

I don't see how telling a player they are surplus to requirements at x province and their contract won't be renewed but y province has interest in them is forcing them to do anything?

Why would a province possibly do this though, go out of their way to strengthen one of the other provinces? It would have to be the IRFU doing this, and how can the IRFU decide who is or isn't surplus to requirements at a given province?

If Leinster or Munster or whoever decide they don't want to renew a contract and another province pick that player up then there's no real issue there, it's just a natural part of professional sport. Hardly worth discussing.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Harley Uptight Light wrote: »

Why would a province possibly do this though, go out of their way to strengthen one of the other provinces? It would have to be the IRFU doing this, and how can the IRFU decide who is or isn't surplus to requirements at a given province?

If Leinster or Munster or whoever decide they don't want to renew a contract and another province pick that player up then there's no real issue there, it's just a natural part of professional sport. Hardly worth discussing.

Different posters were throwing around different ideas. I don't think anyone was actually suggesting that a province be forced to send their best players to another province.

My idea was that there be a set age range where potential talent is identified and a system in place to ensure they go to the province where they're most likely to get the best opportunity to develop. Henshaw at Connacht is a perfect example of a young player getting plenty of game time and being at a high level at quite an early age. Had he been at Leinister he'd probably only have gotten the opportunity to stake a claim this past season.

If you read what I posted on Friday about Andrew Conway's experience at Leinster under Schmidt there was very little chance for a young player who wasn't fully developed as a professional rugby player to get the proper game time needed to iron out his game. The opportunity to move to Munster came up and he said in his gut he knew it was his best chance to improve.

Madigan's name has come up a few times in this conversation but the general consensus was that if he was going to move it should have happened a few years ago. Although he's mostly a bench player he's still an integral part of the Leinster squad and if he's happy being that kind of player and they're happy to have him in that role then leave them to it.

padser

Harley Uptight Light wrote: »

Treating people like commodities, particularly people with in-demand skills like rugby players, is setting yourself up for a kick in the hole. You can't just click your fingers and decide a guy is going to move from team A to team B, it doesn't work like that.

Franchise owners in most U.S. sports would probably disagree with you

irishbucsfan

padser wrote: »

Franchise owners in most U.S. sports would probably disagree with you

Not really. I think the members of the NFLPA would look at their CBA in comparison to what IRUPA have and agree pretty enthusiastically.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Zebo could be off.... or he could just be looking to get himself a nice deal with Munster/Ireland. Didn't realise he wasn't on a central contract.

http://www.the42.ie/simon-zebo-munster-contract-france-england-2421827-Nov2015/?utm_source=twitter_self

bilston

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Zebo could be off.... or he could just be looking to get himself a nice deal with Munster/Ireland. Didn't realise he wasn't on a central contract.

http://www.the42.ie/simon-zebo-munster-contract-france-england-2421827-Nov2015/?utm_source=twitter_self

How many players are on central contracts? 20?

Would Zebo be deserving of a central contract? There is probably an argument for giving him one I suppose.

awec

Don't think a central contract makes much difference these days. Getting one or not seems unrelated to the quality of a player or how often they'll tog out for Ireland.

salmocab

Id imagine the position you play and the depth of good player in that position might affect getting a central contract

WarZ

bilston wrote: »

How many players are on central contracts? 20?

Would Zebo be deserving of a central contract? There is probably an argument for giving him one I suppose.

I don't think any of our back 3 should be on central contracts and certainly not one who is lucky to make the bench of the international side. Central contracts should be used for keeping the likes of Jonathan Sexton and Sean O'Brien in Ireland

Annabella1

See O'Connell is out for up to 8 months-horrible injury
personally doubt he will ever make it to France