Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread VIII - ** MOD NOTE POST #4781 **

prawnsambo

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Ever since Eddie Jones took over they have run a mile from NZ........a fee has got nothing to do with it....

Eddie is afraid NZ will hammer them and set back the England preparation for the WC......

It must have been a point of principle obviously. Who would believe that the RFU couldn't afford to pay the NZRU? :rolleyes:

Yeah_Right

stephen_n wrote: »

Genuine question as I don’t know the answer. Did they replace in form incumbents during the rugby championship, with less than 15 minutes of super rugby played and a handful of Mitre 10 games? Because after all this is what we are talking about here.

Savea debuted against Ireland in 2012 (scored a hat trick). ABs were rebuilding after the 2011 RWC and he had a full NPC and Super Rugby season behind him.

Jordie Barrett had 2 SR seasons and a NH tour as an AB apprentice before he played the Lions.

MacKensie was in the AB squad for June before making his debut off the bench vs Argentina when the Rugby Championship was already in the bag.

Ioane was in the squad for the RC before debuting in AIs against Italy I think.

I ****ing hate this narrative I hear all the time about the ABs giving exciting youngsters a chance at the drop of a hat. It's BS! They bring them into the squad, work with them and ease them in when they're ready. Obviously injuries sometimes force their hand like with ALB.
I think Larmour will make the squad but it will take some injuries before he plays and he will have to be tearing it up in training to show he's ready.


As for the Autumn Internationals this year, the ABs are playing Ireland and England. Can't remember who their other two games are against.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Usually announced after 6 nations isn’t it? Unless we do another trip to Chicago which I am on for again :-)

I would say we will have New Zealand as England are scared sh*tless of playing them, they will want a Northern Hemp team to play in run up to WC.....

Larmour will get his chance in summer in Australia tour

We turned down a neutral venue match with New Zealand as there was no money in it for us. We got a split of the profits in Chicago but this year we were asked to do it for free.

https://www.balls.ie/rugby/all-blacks-ireland-netherlands-378287

thomond2006

Larmour could be Ireland's fullback for 10 years. There's no need to throw him in now. Bring him into the squad and perhaps cap him in the summer when there is less pressure.

Bazzo

.ak wrote: »

Anyway .. just so I can look back and laugh at how wrong I am, and before Europe takes its toll, my 23 for the France game...

15. Kearney
14. Earls
13. Aki
12. Henshaw
11. Stockdale
10. Sexton
09. Murray
08. Stander
07. SOB
06. POM
05. Hendo
04. Toner
03. Furlong
02. Best
01. Healy

16. Cronin, 17. McGrath, 18. Ryan, 19. Dillane, 20. JVDF, 21. Marmion, 22. Keatley, 23. Conway

Why switch Aki and Henshaw now?

Podge_irl

prawnsambo wrote: »

Everybody seems to misunderstand what I mean by rotation.

Would you consider swapping Healy with McGrath rotation?

I get what you mean and I still don't think it will happen. McGrath/Healy is about the only position I could see starters in any way rotating.

b.gud

thomond2006 wrote: »

Larmour could be Ireland's fullback for 10 years. There's no need to throw him in now. Bring him into the squad and perhaps cap him in the summer when there is less pressure.

Dead right, and people should remember that Robbie Henshaw was in camp for 2 6 nations before he got to play even a minute in the 6 nations and it certainly hasn't done his development any harm

.ak

Bazzo wrote: »

Why switch Aki and Henshaw now?

I don’t think they thats important. They’re both switchable, personally I’d prefer Aki defending in the wider channel but they can both play 1st and 2nd equally well.

prawnsambo

Podge_irl wrote: »

I get what you mean and I still don't think it will happen. McGrath/Healy is about the only position I could see starters in any way rotating.

You could see it happening on the bench as well. McGrath/Marmion and at 23. Possibly at lock too. Then you have interchangability between Conway and Earls for example.

There are quite a few players who are of an equal standard.

Bazzo

.ak wrote: »

I don’t think they thats important. They’re both switchable, personally I’d prefer Aki defending in the wider channel but they can both play 1st and 2nd equally well.

Fair enough, I was just curious because I thought you were predicting that even though Schmidt has played Aki at 12 in both his caps so far, one inside Henshaw.

aloooof

prawnsambo wrote: »

You could see it happening on the bench as well. McGrath/Marmion and at 23. Possibly at lock too. Then you have interchangability between Conway and Earls for example.

There are quite a few players who are of an equal standard.

With regards Earls and Conway, it could be a horses for courses selection. Personally, I disagree they are of an equal standard (I would rate Earls as the superior player and I'd expect him to start) but if Joe wants a winger under a high ball, Conway is your man. Also think Conway is better suited to the 23 jersey.

gleesonisgod

I wonder if we'll have to get injuries for Joe to realise his back row/ fullback selection errors. Like we had last year before the England game.

arsebiscuits1

gleesonisgod wrote: »

I wonder if we'll have to get injuries for Joe to realise his back row/ fullback selection errors.

Yes.

But also referring to them as "errors" is needless language that you know will set this boards discussion back about 10 pages of sh1te.

VDF and Leavy are the form back rows who deserve an international place.

Stander, POM and SOB are proven performers who rarely fail to step up to the biggest stage.

That is the situation. Once Ireland win, no one will give a hoot

AdamD

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

Yes.

But also referring to them as "errors" is needless language that you know will set this boards discussion back about 10 pages of sh1te.

VDF and Leavy are the form back rows who deserve an international place.

Stander, POM and SOB are proven performers who rarely fail to step up to the biggest stage.

That is the situation. Once Ireland win, no one will give a hoot

Ah, you must be new here.

Podge_irl

prawnsambo wrote: »

You could see it happening on the bench as well. McGrath/Marmion and at 23. Possibly at lock too. Then you have interchangability between Conway and Earls for example.

There are quite a few players who are of an equal standard.

Equal standard to us, but I'm sure the Irish management team have differentiated them a bit.

Maybe it will happen, but basically every 6N someone suggests it might happen this year and basically every 6N it doesn't.

gleesonisgod

gleesonisgod wrote: »

I wonder if we'll have to get injuries for Joe to realise his back row/ fullback selection errors. Like we had last year before the England game.

Should we get the pitch forks now... or wait until he actually picks the team...?

arsebiscuits1

AdamD wrote: »

Ah, you must be new here.

Ha. Probably a bit naive of me.

I should have said "no one whose opinion I care to indulge in will give a hoot

gleesonisgod

Deleted User wrote: »

Should we get the pitch forks now... or wait until he actually picks the team...?

Hence why I said 'I wonder'.

molloyjh

gleesonisgod wrote: »

I wonder if we'll have to get injuries for Joe to realise his back row/ fullback selection errors. Like we had last year before the England game.

You're assuming he's making errors. Personally I'd be very, very wary of assuming I know better than the most successful coach this country has ever had. If he continues to select sides that keep us up there as deservedly one of the top 3 sides in the world I'm not sure quite how many complaints I could have. Although I'm sure if I looked hard enough and in the right way, er I mean places, I could find some.

prawnsambo

gleesonisgod wrote: »

I wonder if we'll have to get injuries for Joe to realise his back row/ fullback selection errors. Like we had last year before the England game.

What back row changes did he make? Afair, it was the same back row that played against Wales in the previous match. Full back was changed alright, but Rob Keaney had injured his knee, so that was an enforced change and not one we'll see this year because of Jared Payne's unfortunate absence.

Am I missing something?

molloyjh

prawnsambo wrote: »

What back row changes did he make? Afair, it was the same back row that played against Wales in the previous match. Full back was changed alright, but Rob Keaney had injured his knee, so that was an enforced change and not one we'll see this year because of Jared Payne's unfortunate absence.

Am I missing something?

POM came in for Heaslip. I've no idea how anyone can claim to know that we did better as a result, thus proving the original selection to be incorrect. But sure....

prawnsambo

molloyjh wrote: »

POM came in for Heaslip.

Ah! Remember now. That was a last minute change iirc. The big change for me in that match was Conor Murray not starting. That was a massive blow and Kieran Marmion really stepped up.

Was that another error on Joe's part?

Podge_irl

molloyjh wrote: »

POM came in for Heaslip.

After a fake injury from Heaslip just to play silly buggers with the English.

Unfortunately for us, it was unknown that Heaslip had a Daniel Day-Lewisesque commitment to his craft and his been method acting the injury for the last year.

molloyjh

prawnsambo wrote: »

Ah! Remember now. That was a last minute change iirc. The big change for me in that match was Conor Murray not starting. That was a massive blow and Kieran Marmion really stepped up.

Was that another error on Joe's part?

Of course. We won didn't we. So that clearly proved Marmion is better than Murray.

I'm pretty sure we're doing this right....

awec

prawnsambo wrote: »

Ah! Remember now. That was a last minute change iirc. The big change for me in that match was Conor Murray not starting. That was a massive blow and Kieran Marmion really stepped up.

Was that another error on Joe's part?

The change was made after the warmup.

Heaslip hasn't played since.

gleesonisgod

prawnsambo wrote: »

Ah! Remember now. That was a last minute change iirc. The big change for me in that match was Conor Murray not starting. That was a massive blow and Kieran Marmion really stepped up.

Was that another error on Joe's part?

Of course it is impossible to say for absolute certainty whether or not the enforced changes would have made a difference. We can however make educated arguments.

POM got MoM, and shored up our line out which had been plaguing us all competition. Payne added a lot more dynamism to what had been a relatively blunt attack. Murray Kinsella did an excellent analysis on it.

One thing we know for sure is that Murray is a lot better than Marmion, so if anything that enforced change helps my argument.

prawnsambo

gleesonisgod wrote: »

Of course it is impossible to say for absolute certainty whether or not the enforced changes would have made a difference. We can however make educated arguments.

POM got MoM, and shored up our line out which had been plaguing us all competition. Payne added a lot more dynamism to what had been a relatively blunt attack. Murray Kinsella did an excellent analysis on it.

One thing we know for sure is that Murray is a lot better than Marmion, so if anything that enforced change helps my argument.

Ah yeah. Though it probably helped that England were fully prepared for a team that included Heaslip and then were faced with a completely different player. Heaslip wouldn't have been a noted lineout threat whereas POM is.

irishbucsfan

This week on Hindsight Heroes...

gleesonisgod

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This week on Hindsight Heroes...

Hardly hindsight when I'm bringing the issue up now before the tournament has started.....

irishbucsfan

gleesonisgod wrote: »

Hardly hindsight when I'm bringing the issue up now before the tournament has started.....

You haven't brought up anything specific yet and the discussion became about last year's tournament. Why not tell us who shouldn't start and who should?

Yeah_Right

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You haven't brought up anything specific yet and the discussion became about last year's tournament. Why not tell us who shouldn't start and who should?

I can answer that.
Should start: anyone under 27 who is flashy and exciting no matter their experience. Should have made at least one big run or spectacular offload in the last month.
Dropped: over 27 years old, experienced players who consistently do their jobs.

molloyjh

It's so, so easy to call a selection that didn't take the field wrong. I mean it's not like anyone can prove that theory to be wrong really. That doesn't, however, in any way make that theory correct.

It's also incredibly easy for people to nit pick and find things to complain about. What's difficult is proper objective analysis with rational and reasonable points, and in particular that isn't a complete black and white perspective. Because there is no single right answer to selection. Selection doesn't happen in a vacuum and there is almost always more than one way to go about winning games. People can have opinions about game plans, styles and selection all they want. Definitively calling anything but their own opinion to be wrong though is ridiculous. Especially when they are coming from a point of no experience and are disagreeing with someone who has been there and done that at every level.

gleesonisgod

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You haven't brought up anything specific yet and the discussion became about last year's tournament. Why not tell us who shouldn't start and who should?

Since you asked. I can't say for certain who my back row would be, nearly impossible to call. If someone put a bullet to my head I'd go with POM, VDF, SOB, with Leavy on the bench. I'd give Conan a run out as well in one of the games.

I would certainly drop CJ, for me he doesn't offer anything over the other options. If our line out could function without POM I'd drop him as well but alas he's vital to the team, plus adds leadership.

molloyjh

gleesonisgod wrote: »

Since you asked. I can't say for certain who my back row would be, nearly impossible to call. If someone put a bullet to my head I'd go with POM, VDF, SOB, with Leavy on the bench. I'd give Conan a run out as well in one of the games.

I would certainly drop CJ, for me he doesn't offer anything over the other options. If our line out could function without POM I'd drop him as well but alas he's vital to the team, plus adds leadership.

Hang on, you would play a blindside with 2 opensides and no 8s? I'm assuming you'd want SOB at 8 then? His weakest position in the back row?

gleesonisgod

molloyjh wrote: »

It's so, so easy to call a selection that didn't take the field wrong. I mean it's not like anyone can prove that theory to be wrong really. That doesn't, however, in any way make that theory correct.

It's also incredibly easy for people to nit pick and find things to complain about. What's difficult is proper objective analysis with rational and reasonable points, and in particular that isn't a complete black and white perspective. Because there is no single right answer to selection. Selection doesn't happen in a vacuum and there is almost always more than one way to go about winning games. People can have opinions about game plans, styles and selection all they want. Definitively calling anything but their own opinion to be wrong though is ridiculous. Especially when they are coming from a point of no experience and are disagreeing with someone who has been there and done that at every level.

It's kind of coming across that that's what you're doing.

gleesonisgod

molloyjh wrote: »

Hang on, you would play a blindside with 2 opensides and no 8s? I'm assuming you'd want SOB at 8 then? His weakest position in the back row?

Nailed it.

molloyjh

gleesonisgod wrote: »

It's kind of coming across that that's what you're doing.

I've no idea how given that I haven't expressed an opinion on the matter at all.

molloyjh

gleesonisgod wrote: »

Nailed it.

Care to expand on why?

Set aside defence for a second. If we were going with an all action attacking starting 15 for Ireland, what would your team be?

Mine would be:

Healy
Cronin
Furlong
Henderson
Dillane
Stander
SOB
Conan
Murray
Sexton
Stockdale
Bundi
Ringrose
Earls
Larmour

You're entire forward pack can carry, every one of them. Sexton not as natural and evasive a runner as Carbery but as was correctly pointed out to me recently he's going to release your back line a lot more fluently so he's in.

gleesonisgod

molloyjh wrote: »

Hang on, you would play a blindside with 2 opensides and no 8s? I'm assuming you'd want SOB at 8 then? His weakest position in the back row?

SOB is too good to drop imo, and POM is too important for our line out. Out of VDF, Conan, Leavy, VDF is the most consistent and is proven at that level. I might go back on what I said about no.23 and put Conan there, due to the reshuffling required if SOB went off.

gleesonisgod

Deleted User wrote: »

Set aside defence for a second. If we were going with an all action attacking starting 15 for Ireland, what would your team be?

Mine would be:

Healy
Cronin
Furlong
Henderson
Dillane
Stander
SOB
Conan
Murray
Sexton
Stockdale
Bundi
Ringrose
Earls
Larmour

You're entire forward pack can carry, every one of them. Sexton not as natural and evasive a runner as Carbery but as was correctly pointed out to me recently he's going to release your back line a lot more fluently so he's in.

Some changes to consider possibly.... Ringrose at 12, Larmour 13, with TOH at FB.

I'd probably stick in Gilroy just about over Earls. Healy with a shout as well maybe.

prawnsambo

gleesonisgod wrote: »

Since you asked. I can't say for certain who my back row would be, nearly impossible to call. If someone put a bullet to my head I'd go with POM, VDF, SOB, with Leavy on the bench. I'd give Conan a run out as well in one of the games.

If someone put a bullet to your head, you'd only be going to one place.

aloooof

gleesonisgod wrote: »

If our line out could function without POM I'd drop him as well but alas he's vital to the team, plus adds leadership.

I don't really understand your point here...?

Squidgy Black

gleesonisgod wrote: »

Some changes to consider possibly.... Ringrose at 12, Larmour 13, with TOH at FB.

I'd probably stick in Gilroy just about over Earls. Healy with a shout as well maybe.

Larmour has never played 13 at senior level, and either has Ringrose at 12 other than the ABs match when Henshaw went off concussed?

prawnsambo

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Larmour has never played 13 at senior level, and either has Ringrose at 12 other than the ABs match when Henshaw went off concussed?

He played 12 against Australia as well iirc.

Yeah_Right

aloooof wrote: »

I don't really understand your point here...?

Being vital to the team and adding leadership is pointless if he doesn't make the occasional barnstorming run or spectacular offload. Do you know nothing about international rugby?!?

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

If someone put a bullet to your head, you'd only be going to one place.

Completely OT but that reminds me of a great scene from a great show called Justified (that no one seems to have watched)

Bazzo

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Larmour has never played 13 at senior level, and either has Ringrose at 12 other than the ABs match when Henshaw went off concussed?

Started at 12 the following week against Australia.

errlloyd

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Larmour has never played 13

I believe he came off the bench against Ulster away and played almost the whole game at 13.

gleesonisgod

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Larmour has never played 13 at senior level, and either has Ringrose at 12 other than the ABs match when Henshaw went off concussed?

Larmour has played 13 at senior level, Ringrose started 12 vs Aus. It's just a fun XV to do, no need to get too technical.