Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread V

Pink Fairy

We saw some wonderful rugby played with flair, lightning fast hands, and incisive running. Unfortunately Ireland weren't one of the teams to show this side of their game.
I know we have the players to compete on the world stage, but I think Joe must show a little more trust in the players at his disposal, and not systems.

CMOTDibbler

flangemeistro wrote: »

Firstly Thanks for picking up on my phones inaccuracy in spelling corrections, not sure what that has to do with anything but I suppose if you're desperately trying to pick holes in someone's posts then misspellings are a good start.

Nope, just confused as to what you might have meant.

flangemeistro wrote: »

When it comes to Paul O'Connell he is a gent and role model of the game and it is certainly not his style to come out and question the current coach who has another two years left in his contract.
And not to mention a coach who has on national tv guaranteed POC a position in the Irish setup, and with POC Toulon future a little in doubt pending on how he recovers from this injury then it wouldn't be in his interest to give a warts and all description of Schmidts coaching tactics.

Well putting aside the intimation that POC can be 'bought', he doesn't have to be so fulsome in his praise either.

flangemeistro wrote: »

As for flair (once again thank you for correcting me) I wasn't on about in the current Irish camp, I was on about the flair that was left in all four of the provinces not the one we brought.

Please point these out, because it's likely we could debate that.

flangemeistro wrote: »

And as you brought up Fitz, ya he showed great imagination and flair against Argentina, but he wasn't in Schmidts game plan, that was forced upon him when a washed up Bowe (who should have never made the squad) got injured.

Fitz is a far better winger and should have started a lot more games but he's unpredictable, and Joe doesn't do unpredictable.

What do you mean by unpredictable? FitzGerald has been one of Joe's main players in Leinster and has featured for him in green whenever he's been injury free and on form. He was coming back from serious injury, so there were no guarantees. But saying it's because he's unpredictable etc. is just nonsense.

flangemeistro wrote: »

Can you imagine the difference if he trusted Cave in the centre alongside Henshaw with Earls and Fitz on both wings.

But no he puts Earls who was on fire on the wing into the centre because he had a run in with Cave a while back.
Petty methodical ****e that could have changed our WC journey.

If anyone here thinks there's nothing wrong with Joes selection process and were happy with the way we played against Italy and Argentina then you've set your expectations way too low or you're defending him for all the wrong reasons.

OK, I can't even guess what you mean by 'methodical' but to suggest that he had something against Cave is just beyond ridiculous. If that were the case, why bring him? Especially in the context of having to bring one less scrum half. The reality is that Cave isn't considered good enough which is why Keith Earls was started in the centre ahead of him. There are possibly better centres coming through in the provinces but it's too early to tell at this stage. Cave is a decent centre at Pro 12 level but to suggest that the coach would hamstring the team by making a positional call like that out of pettiness is just nuts.

The selection process and how the team played are two separate issues. Against Italy and Argentina we were too passive in defense. Why this was so, is hard to understand when we were much more aggressive in that respect against France. Only the players can answer that but in my opinion (against Argentina anyway) it was down to a lack of aggression at the breakdown and being stretched because of it. Slow down the ball and put pressure on their half backs and quality ball just doesn't get to the wings. Don't slow it down and your defense gets stretched and mismatches start to appear.

bilston

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Nope, just confused as to what you might have meant.

Well putting aside the intimation that POC can be 'bought', he doesn't have to be so fulsome in his praise either.

Please point these out, because it's likely we could debate that.

What do you mean by unpredictable? FitzGerald has been one of Joe's main players in Leinster and has featured for him in green whenever he's been injury free and on form. He was coming back from serious injury, so there were no guarantees. But saying it's because he's unpredictable etc. is just nonsense.


OK, I can't even guess what you mean by 'methodical' but to suggest that he had something against Cave is just beyond ridiculous. If that were the case, why bring him? Especially in the context of having to bring one less scrum half. The reality is that Cave isn't considered good enough which is why Keith Earls was started in the centre ahead of him. There are possibly better centres coming through in the provinces but it's too early to tell at this stage. Cave is a decent centre at Pro 12 level but to suggest that the coach would hamstring the team by making a positional call like that out of pettiness is just nuts.

The selection process and how the team played are two separate issues. Against Italy and Argentina we were too passive in defense. Why this was so, is hard to understand when we were much more aggressive in that respect against France. Only the players can answer that but in my opinion (against Argentina anyway) it was down to a lack of aggression at the breakdown and being stretched because of it. Slow down the ball and put pressure on their half backs and quality ball just doesn't get to the wings. Don't slow it down and your defense gets stretched and mismatches start to appear.

I don't think there is anything more to it than Schmidt just not rating Cave that highly, but I think he underestimates him. My biggest and possibly only selection criticism of Schmidt from the WC would be his selection of Earls ahead of Cave when Payne got injured. I thought it at the time and I saw nothing against Argentina to make me think otherwise. I'd actually rate Fitzgerald ahead of Earls as a 13 as well, although like Earls I think he is best employed on the wing.

I doubt Joe will change his mind on Cave now but playing Earls at 13 just seems like the waste of an excellent international winger.

Assuming Payne is out a back five of 11 Earls, 12 Henshaw, 13 Cave, 14 Fitzgerald, 15 Kearney isn't too shabby at all. With the possible exception of Henshaw you even get to play players in their best positions.

CMOTDibbler

bilston wrote: »

I don't think there is anything more to it than Schmidt just not rating Cave that highly, but I think he underestimates him. My biggest and possibly only selection criticism of Schmidt from the WC would be his selection of Earls ahead of Cave when Payne got injured. I thought it at the time and I saw nothing against Argentina to make me think otherwise. I'd actually rate Fitzgerald ahead of Earls as a 13 as well, although like Earls I think he is best employed on the wing.

I doubt Joe will change his mind on Cave now but playing Earls at 13 just seems like the waste of an excellent international winger.

Assuming Payne is out a back five of 11 Earls, 12 Henshaw, 13 Cave, 14 Fitzgerald, 15 Kearney isn't too shabby at all. With the possible exception of Henshaw you even get to play players in their best positions.

I have to agree with you in that I was surprised that Earls was chosen instead of Cave. But then I don't see enough of Cave to be definitive about it and Joe obviously saw an advantage in playing Earls. The reality is that since well before the retirement of BOD and D'Arcy, we've known we were going to be in trouble for centres. Payne was an absolute godsend as was Henshaw. The problem is that we don't have realistic cover for them yet, which was inevitable really.

Looking around the provinces, we do have possible options but many are still very young and untested. I would imagine that the 6N will see some of them coming through.

molloyjh

Ah yes, like clockwork they are out with their knives and their pitchforks. When Leinster were playing badly but Ireland were winning they had to bite their tongues, but now that Ireland lost a game and Leinster played badly in a single game people are once again showing their true colours.

Well done to you folks. Sure wasn't boards too boring without the provincialism. :rolleyes:

molloyjh

bilston wrote: »

I don't think there is anything more to it than Schmidt just not rating Cave that highly, but I think he underestimates him. My biggest and possibly only selection criticism of Schmidt from the WC would be his selection of Earls ahead of Cave when Payne got injured. I thought it at the time and I saw nothing against Argentina to make me think otherwise. I'd actually rate Fitzgerald ahead of Earls as a 13 as well, although like Earls I think he is best employed on the wing.

I doubt Joe will change his mind on Cave now but playing Earls at 13 just seems like the waste of an excellent international winger.

Assuming Payne is out a back five of 11 Earls, 12 Henshaw, 13 Cave, 14 Fitzgerald, 15 Kearney isn't too shabby at all. With the possible exception of Henshaw you even get to play players in their best positions.

I'll be honest, my own preference would be:

Earls, Fitz, Henshaw, Trimble, Kearney

I think they offer more at international level, even though I do like Cave.

CMOTDibbler

molloyjh wrote: »

I'll be honest, my own preference would be:

Earls, Fitz, Henshaw, Trimble, Kearney

I think they offer more at international level, even though I do like Cave.

I assume that's 11, 12, 13, 14, 15?

If that's so, I still like Henshaw at 12. He's a very powerful lad and can regularly break the gain line with his carries. Fitz outside him is well capable of finishing things off given a bit of room.

molloyjh

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I assume that's 11, 12, 13, 14, 15?

If that's so, I still like Henshaw at 12. He's a very powerful lad and can regularly break the gain line with his carries. Fitz outside him is well capable of finishing things off given a bit of room.

Yeah I'd be ok with switching those 2 as well. In fact it probably makes more sense to.

bilston

molloyjh wrote: »

I'll be honest, my own preference would be:

Earls, Fitz, Henshaw, Trimble, Kearney

I think they offer more at international level, even though I do like Cave.

Well the advantage of that is that it allows Henshaw to play 13 so I'm not opposed to it. It is definitely preferable to Earls playing centre IMO.

captbarnacles

I'd love to see Fitz in the centres as he has very quick feet and evades the first tackle a lot of the time but I'd be worried for his health there with his history.

bilston

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Looking around the provinces, we do have possible options but many are still very young and untested. I would imagine that the 6N will see some of them coming through.

McCloskey, Olding and Ringrose are the three that spring to mind. McCloskey isn't ready yet as he is still inclined to do things in games that he wouldn't get away with at test level. Ringrose looks very good but I can't see him being an option for this 6Ns and Olding won't be back until January so probably won't be in contention, I'd rather see him play FB anyway. However once he is up to speed I think he will be right in the mix somewhere in the backline.

former total

Surely Payne will be back for the 6N?

CMOTDibbler

bilston wrote: »

McCloskey, Olding and Ringrose are the three that spring to mind. McCloskey isn't ready yet as he is still inclined to do things in games that he wouldn't get away with at test level. Ringrose looks very good but I can't see him being an option for this 6Ns and Olding won't be back until January so probably won't be in contention, I'd rather see him play FB anyway. However once he is up to speed I think he will be right in the mix somewhere in the backline.

Yeah, maybe the 6N is a tad too early. I'd still be hopeful we will see one or more of them getting a cap sometime next year. A bench spot would be a start obviously, but you don't normally see centres on the bench.

bilston

former total wrote: »

Surely Payne will be back for the 6N?

Dunno to be honest, the timeframe for his return is unspecified which suggests it might be a lengthy lay off.

CatFromHue

Yeah Payne's injury is a bit mysterious, but a bad mysterious. He was cleared to play and then they decided he'd a broken bone!

Journeyman_1

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Yeah, maybe the 6N is a tad too early. I'd still be hopeful we will see one or more of them getting a cap sometime next year. A bench spot would be a start obviously, but you don't normally see centres on the bench.

It's becoming more popular, especially when teams have good utility backs already in play or at 22. See NZ throughout the entire WC.

It's obviously a little different when that centre can be SBW!

CMOTDibbler

CatFromHue wrote: »

Yeah Payne's injury is a bit mysterious, but a bad mysterious. He was cleared to play and then they decided he'd a broken bone!

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember him being actually cleared to play. He was training before the game but suffered swelling again and they then scanned it again and found the broken bone is the way I remember it.

CMOTDibbler

Journeyman_1 wrote: »

It's becoming more popular, especially when teams have good utility backs already in play or at 22. See NZ throughout the entire WC.

It's obviously a little different when that centre can be SBW!

Well SBW is a centre/wing. We've done the same with FitzGerald and Earls: wing/centre but we don't have too many centres as it is. Ringrose would probably be a centre/wing as opposed to Olding: centre/fullback or McCloskey who's a centre only.

molloyjh

CatFromHue wrote: »

Yeah Payne's injury is a bit mysterious, but a bad mysterious. He was cleared to play and then they decided he'd a broken bone!

As I understand it it can be hard to diagnose certain breaks until the swelling in the area goes down/away. They were hopeful that there was no break based on the fact that he trained, but then there turned out to be a break after all.

Journeyman_1

SBW was not considered a wing at all. I think he played there once or twice in the RC/bledisloe for a short while. Barrett/B. Smith were covering the wing positions. SBW came on at 12 pretty much every time.

jm08

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I have to agree with you in that I was surprised that Earls was chosen instead of Cave. But then I don't see enough of Cave to be definitive about it and Joe obviously saw an advantage in playing Earls. The reality is that since well before the retirement of BOD and D'Arcy, we've known we were going to be in trouble for centres. Payne was an absolute godsend as was Henshaw. The problem is that we don't have realistic cover for them yet, which was inevitable really.

Looking around the provinces, we do have possible options but many are still very young and untested. I would imagine that the 6N will see some of them coming through.

Not only was Earls selected ahead of Cave, he was also selected ahead of Schmidt & BOD favourite, Fitzgerald.

molloyjh

jm08 wrote: »

Not only was Earls selected ahead of Cave, he was also selected ahead of Schmidt & BOD favourite, Fitzgerald.

So wait Joe selected Earls ahead of a player that Joe prefers? How exactly does that work?


I'll give you a clue. It doesn't.

jm08

molloyjh wrote: »

So wait Joe selected Earls ahead of a player that Joe prefers? How exactly does that work?


I'll give you a clue. It doesn't.

This is how it works. Schmidt rates Fitzgerald highly, but he rates Earls even higher as a centre.

molloyjh

jm08 wrote: »

This is how it works. Schmidt rates Fitzgerald highly, but he rates Earls even higher as a centre.

So your initial point was what exactly?

errlloyd

molloyjh wrote: »

So your initial point was what exactly?

I think his point is that Joe Schmidt is an excellent coach who is able to see beyond provincial favoritism and select the player he believes is better even in marginal calls. Which is why he unfortunately picked Earls, over the possibly superior Fitzgerald, as the latter demonstrated when he came off the bench in the quarter final.

I am fairly sure jm08 was simply highlighting how good a coach JS really is.

Yeah_Right

I get the impression that there is a reluctance in Ireland to chuck young (19-23 year old) guys in the deep end. I don't just mean in the Irish team but in the provinces as well. Instead of going with a young, rising star to start a ERC game the tendency seems to be to select the more experienced player.

I know this is a gross generalisation and that many of you will refute it with examples of young players like Henshaw getting their game. It is simply a feeling I have from watching Irish rugby over the last decade or so.

CMOTDibbler

jm08 wrote: »

Not only was Earls selected ahead of Cave, he was also selected ahead of Schmidt & BOD favourite, Fitzgerald.

Indeed. Which gives the lie to those saying Schmidt automatically favours Leinster players.

CMOTDibbler

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I get the impression that there is a reluctance in Ireland to chuck young (19-23 year old) guys in the deep end. I don't just mean in the Irish team but in the provinces as well. Instead of going with a young, rising star to start a ERC game the tendency seems to be to select the more experienced player.

I know this is a gross generalisation and that many of you will refute it with examples of young players like Henshaw getting their game. It is simply a feeling I have from watching Irish rugby over the last decade or so.

You may be right. You're also right in that there are exceptions. I don't think there's a hard and fast rule, more likely that individual players are on different points of the growth/capability curve and get started quicker than some of their contemporaries.

former total

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I get the impression that there is a reluctance in Ireland to chuck young (19-23 year old) guys in the deep end. I don't just mean in the Irish team but in the provinces as well. Instead of going with a young, rising star to start a ERC game the tendency seems to be to select the more experienced player.

I know this is a gross generalisation and that many of you will refute it with examples of young players like Henshaw getting their game. It is simply a feeling I have from watching Irish rugby over the last decade or so.

I think it's probably a fair enough comment.

The provinces have plenty of games in which young guys get experience (i.e. the Pro12 matches when the senior guys are rested), but the Heineken Cup games are so crucial that the coach is nearly always going to go with tried and trusted. It's rare enough that the provincial coaches take risks in Europe.

Ditto for the national team, the Six Nations is absolutely sacrosanct and we pick the best XV available, every time, and we usually treat the November games against tier 1 countries the same.

And I'm going to say something now which won't go down well; but there aren't that many guys coming through who demand inclusion. Not in the way the likes of Fitzgerald, Earls, Kearney, Healy did at the age of 21/22 a few years ago.

jm08

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Indeed. Which gives the lie to those saying Schmidt automatically favours Leinster players.

or that Earls was so good he couldn't be ignored

CMOTDibbler

former total wrote: »

And I'm going to say something now which won't go down well; but there aren't that many guys coming through who demand inclusion. Not in the way the likes of Fitzgerald, Earls, Kearney, Healy did at the age of 21/22 a few years ago.

Henshaw clearly and possibly Ringrose, Olding and McCloskey (given a bit more experience) as well as probably Luke McGrath. Paddy Butler seems to be tearing it up in Pau this season (got a whole article devoted to him in Midol titled 'Saint Patrick ). JJ Hanrahan is the big mystery as far as I'm concerned; how he could be starting for Northampton in a European game when he couldn't get much of a look in with Munster.

jm08

errlloyd wrote: »

I think his point is that Joe Schmidt is an excellent coach who is able to see beyond provincial favoritism and select the player he believes is better even in marginal calls. Which is why he unfortunately picked Earls, over the possibly superior Fitzgerald, as the latter demonstrated when he came off the bench in the quarter final.

I am fairly sure jm08 was simply highlighting how good a coach JS really is.

Luke Fitz showed nothing other than by the QF, LF was a good impact sub. He was very average in the games he started.

awec

Ringrose has played about 5 games for Leinster, he is nowhere near the national setup yet. Olding hasn't played enough recently to be banging on the door yet.

Yeah_Right

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

You may be right. You're also right in that there are exceptions. I don't think there's a hard and fast rule, more likely that individual players are on different points of the growth/capability curve and get started quicker than some of their contemporaries.

I agree. I don't think there is a hard and fast rule either. Just a reluctance from the coaches and selectors to go with the youngster in big matches or for prolonged periods.

I watch a lot of Super Rugby, ITM Cup and Curry Cup. It's what I grew up on. It seems more often that a commentator will mention or a graphic will show that some player was a member of this years or last years U20 team.

Like I said, it's simply an impression I have. I don't have stats to back it up

CMOTDibbler

awec wrote: »

Ringrose has played about 5 games for Leinster, he is nowhere near the national setup yet. Olding hasn't played enough recently to be banging on the door yet.

I didn't give a timeframe.

It's just that you see real promise in a player and hope that the stars align to give them a shot as early as possible.

CatFromHue

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I agree. I don't think there is a hard and fast rule either. Just a reluctance from the coaches and selectors to go with the youngster in big matches or for prolonged periods.

I watch a lot of Super Rugby, ITM Cup and Curry Cup. It's what I grew up on. It seems more often that a commentator will mention or a graphic will show that some player was a member of this years or last years U20 team.

Like I said, it's simply an impression I have. I don't have stats to back it up

I'd say you're right but how many of those guys who played U20's the season before, or the season before that, are being picked ahead of seasoned pros?

In NZ and SA they have a conveyor belt as alot of guys head to Europe at a certain age if they don't think they'll be an AB or Springbok. In Ireland we don't have many guys leave the provinces as this is where it's at for them.

Also there's an awful lot more pro teams in NZ and SA so players will get absorbed by them quicker.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

Luke Fitz showed nothing other than by the QF, LF was a good impact sub. He was very average in the games he started.

He played very well starting at 12 against Canada.

Clearlier

awec wrote: »

Ringrose has played about 5 games for Leinster, he is nowhere near the national setup yet. Olding hasn't played enough recently to be banging on the door yet.

Is Olding back yet? It's still too early to say about Ringrose. With decent playing time for Leinster this season you could see him starting the autumn tier 2 test, without it another year or two could pass or some flaw in his game could become apparent that takes time to fix. You also have to remember that he's relatively slight now but at just 20 has a couple of years yet to physically mature.

Yeah_Right

CatFromHue wrote: »

I'd say you're right but how many of those guys who played U20's the season before, or the season before that, are being picked ahead of seasoned pros?

In NZ and SA they have a conveyor belt as alot of guys head to Europe at a certain age if they don't think they'll be an AB or Springbok. In Ireland we don't have many guys leave the provinces as this is where it's at for them.

Also there's an awful lot more pro teams in NZ and SA so players will get absorbed by them quicker.

The answer to your question is I don't know.

You make a good point as well. I always find it interesting watching European club games (and reading about Japanese ones) and spotting some Kiwi/Aussie/South African. I often think so that's where he went. The number of pro teams is obviously a factor as is the exodus to other comps. This would explain the difference in attitude to young prospects in the SH vs Ireland. Thanks.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I think it'll be interesting to see what the squad is that heads to South Africa in the summer. I know Joe's not going to do an overhaul and risk losing the series badly just to give some guys a shot. There are however a few positions where we've struggled a bit when faced with injury and it'll be interesting to see if anyone has a good enough club season to force themselves into contention over certain players.

I'm thinking about centre, in particular. We went into the WC with a pretty solid 12/13 partnership and I don't think they ever actually got to play together, did they? We were moving guys around to plug the gap there and even in so much as filling the 31 man squad there were "utility" players getting the nod.

Could the likes of McCloskey or even Ringrose (obviously depending on the rest of his season) see themselves in the squad over the likes of Zebo, Earls, Dave K or even Fitzgerald?

aimee1

jm08 wrote: »

or that Earls was so good he couldn't be ignored

so good when exactly?

jm08

aimee1 wrote: »

so good when exactly?

Training obviously

jacothelad

Deleted User wrote: »

He played very well starting at 12 against Canada.

Who wouldn't have looked good against Canada?

.ak

jacothelad wrote: »

Who wouldn't have looked good against Canada?

Plenty.

Jeez the lengths you'll go to to shoot Fitz down never ceases to amaze me! :pac:

stephen_n

jacothelad wrote: »

Who wouldn't have looked good against Canada?

But the same barometer can't be used for Caves performance against Romania?

stephen_n

stephen_n wrote: »

But the same barometer can't be used for Caves performance against Romania?

No because a barometer is a scientific instrument used in meteorology to measure atmospheric pressure. Jeez.

errlloyd

Deleted User wrote: »

No because a barometer is a scientific instrument used in meteorology to measure atmospheric pressure. Jeez.

THANK YOU.

I am so sick of people using the word Barometer as if it means "measurement". The only time I will accept a metaphorical use of the word barometer is to describe the mental pressure a player is under.

**In Ryle's voice.

"The barometer in Sexton's head is sky high as he lines up this kick at goal"

Jaysus this thread has gone off topic. I hope people don't use this as a barometer for the quality on the forum.

.
.
.
.
titter

former total

Yeah, the English language gets butchered around here.

So, can we use the Romania game as a sphygmomanometer of Cave's ability or what?

former total

former total wrote: »

Yeah, the English language gets butchered around here.

So, can we use the Romania game as a sphygmomanometer of Cave's ability or what?

Look at you bounding in obstreperously, acting the big man with your big words.