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

Buer

Buer wrote: »

Hayes was never a strong scrummager and his game was never based on that. He was eaten alive at the scrum during some of his best years too. Playing alongside a debutant after being suspended for several weeks hardly helped his performance either.

I don't see a comparison to Hayes being reasonable. Hayes was on a downward curve. He was part of the 2009 team but that's not to say he was playing near to the level he had been previously. He turned 36 in 2009 and his career was circling the drain overall.

Adam Jones of 2013/14 was a far superior player to John Hayes 2009/10.

We're going to have to agree to disagree then, if Jones was as good as you're suggesting he'd have played for Wales again. The fact he didn't is clear enough indication of where he was at the time imo.

Buer

Madelynn Glamorous Range wrote: »

We're going to have to agree to disagree then, if Jones was as good as you're suggesting he'd have played for Wales again. The fact he didn't is clear enough indication of where he was at the time imo.

Fair enough. I would say it was far more of an indication as to how Warren Gatland and Declan Kidney approached selection, respectively.

Wales are a good team. They are playing well but they are still inconsistent with a patchy away record.

We've been much, much better than them over the last number of years yet we consistently struggle against them in the six nations.

Leinster used to have a similar issue with Ospreys. We would win Heinekin cups against the best in Europe but often struggled to put Ospreys away who have never reached the knock out stages of that tournament as far as I can remember.

I think we'll win, I don't think it will be easy. Schmidt teams can be made to look poor at times, but we are still very hard to beat. I'm not anticipating bonus points from either team but if you asked me to put money on one team scoring 4 tries it would be the home team without question.

I am surprised that people are suggesting a team missing Heaslip, Sean O'Brien, Furlong, Henderson, Zebo, Ringrose, Henshaw should voluntarily drop other players we know can deliver at this level. We're a few more injuries away from having a scratch summer tour feeling about the squad. We've one of the greenest teams in a long, long time likely to start on Saturday. Throwing in more inexperience is much more likely to see us shift a heavy loss than it is to turn the game in our favour based on some individual excellence.

Anyone who thinks otherwise should look what happened when we lost a bunch of front liners against Argentina. We lost our shape and the house of cards came down.

Burkie1203

Venjur

Ospreys were in a 1 or 2 qfs

IIRC there was one where POC was sent off.

Sanjuro

Deleted User wrote: »

I am surprised that people are suggesting a team missing Heaslip, Sean O'Brien, Furlong, Henderson, Zebo, Ringrose, Henshaw should voluntarily drop other players we know can deliver at this level. We're a few more injuries away from having a scratch summer tour feeling about the squad. We've one of the greenest teams in a long, long time likely to start on Saturday. Throwing in more inexperience is much more likely to see us shift a heavy loss than it is to turn the game in our favour based on some individual excellence.

Anyone who thinks otherwise should look what happened when we lost a bunch of front liners against Argentina. We lost our shape and the house of cards came down.

I'm not sure people are suggesting we drop more front liners. Can you point out what people are suggesting we do? Genuinely curious.

molloyjh

Sanjuro wrote: »

I'm not sure people are suggesting we drop more front liners. Can you point out what people are suggesting we do? Genuinely curious.

People are suggested we play Conan, meaning dropping one of POM or Stander. Also Rob Kearney.

Sanjuro

Sanjuro wrote: »

I'm not sure people are suggesting we drop more front liners. Can you point out what people are suggesting we do? Genuinely curious.

Well I did. I think I've explained, at some length at this point, why I would too. I also think we're in a very different place than the RWC 2015 in terms of our squad.

Sanjuro

molloyjh wrote: »

People are suggested we play Conan, meaning dropping one of POM or Stander. Also Rob Kearney.

Well, the Kearney calls are so predictable, I just tune em out at this stage. But yeah, I think dropping Stander for Conan would be the wrong call. I can see why people would make that call, but I think the order they're likely to be played is better than reversing it.

Sanjuro

Sanjuro wrote: »

Well, the Kearney calls are so predictable, I just tune em out at this stage. But yeah, I think dropping Stander for Conan would be the wrong call. I can see why people would make that call, but I think the order they're likely to be played is better than reversing it.

If Henshaw, Furlong and Henderson were available I'd be in favour of making one or at most two changes elsewhere. With them missing our defence is already dealing with enough variables and our strength as a team is in our defence.

I still wouldn't drop Kearney though, not with Stockdale cutting his teeth on the wing and the inexperience in mid field.

Former Former

Conway is back for Munster this weekend so it should be another option for the Scotland game.
Edit: and Ringrose in for Leinster too.

molloyjh

Sanjuro wrote: »

Well, the Kearney calls are so predictable, I just tune em out at this stage. But yeah, I think dropping Stander for Conan would be the wrong call. I can see why people would make that call, but I think the order they're likely to be played is better than reversing it.

Yeah, the only change I'd consider is either dropping Stander for Conan or maybe dropping POM, moving Stander to 6 and putting Conan to 8. But I just don't know if Conan is ready to make that step up yet. And in a must win game with a number of key injuries already taking their toll it's not really the place to find out. We just can't afford the risk. For me I'd have Stander, Leavy, Conan as the back row for Scotland. If Conan can show he's able for that game I'd consider him for the England game then.

I'm more than happy with our back 3 and would hope the Italy game has given Stockdale a confidence boost. He's looked a little short on that lately. Our midfield is the only possible area of concern in the back line. I would like a more creative option in one of the centre positions but I just don't think we have one available. Carbery might be able to deliver that from 15, but that leaves us short on cover at 10 and even at that I'm not sure Carbery can deliver what Rob does there in terms of back field cover, solidity and leadership. He hasn't been tested in the way that he would be against this Welsh team.

People might not like it, but solidity is key for the 6Ns. Attacking flair is a nice to have. Scotland have played some lovely rugby in the last few years but it hasn't really done them any good. I mean who cares that Stuart Hogg was player of the tournament the last 2 years when they finished 4th both years? Wales are capable of playing some truly scintillating stuff at times. They haven't won since 2013. Generally speaking the 6Ns is won by the team that concedes the least more so than the team that scores the most. And I'd rather be Ireland, who have won 2 of the last 5 and come 2nd once in that time, playing less than the most thrilling rugby than be Scotland, who have played some great stuff lately but have only managed a 3rd place in the last 5 years and haven't so much as won a Triple Crown in the last 17 years.

thomond2006

Niall Scannell is starting for Munster tomorrow so Cronin on the bench for Ireland is nailed on.

Professor Moriarty

Idle speculation: Would Navidi, Shingler or Moriarty displace any or all of POM, Stander and Leavy? Personally, I think Shingler is a fine player who would displace POM or Stander.

thomond2006

Buer wrote: »

Hayes was never a strong scrummager and his game was never based on that. He was eaten alive at the scrum during some of his best years too. Playing alongside a debutant after being suspended for several weeks hardly helped his performance either.

I don't see a comparison to Hayes being reasonable. Hayes was on a downward curve. He was part of the 2009 team but that's not to say he was playing near to the level he had been previously. He turned 36 in 2009 and his career was circling the drain overall.

Adam Jones of 2013/14 was a far superior player to John Hayes 2009/10.

Buer

Sorry Thomond...in a non-wind up manner, Hayes was never much of a scrummager. He had serious strength and was part of an incredible unit which allowed him to survive at scrum time for the most part. His actual ability as a rugby player lay elsewhere though.

thomond2006

Buer wrote: »

Sorry Thomond...in a non-wind up manner, Hayes was a ligind.

Fixed

Webbs

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Idle speculation: Would Navidi, Shingler or Moriarty displace any or all of POM, Stander and Leavy? Personally, I think Shingler is a fine player who would displace POM or Stander.

On this six nations so far, Navidi and Shingler would be ahead of POM and Leavy. And Moriarty and Stander not much in it

I'd have little doubt Shingler has been better for the Scarlets than POM has been for Munster this season as well. Haven't seen enough of the other two to comment there but all three have played pretty well in the 6N.

irishbucsfan

Webbs wrote: »

On this six nations so far, Navidi and Shingler would be ahead of POM and Leavy. And Moriarty and Stander not much in it

On this 6 Nations alone, yes. But POM was able to turn it up a notch against England at home last year.

Although I would not doubt you lot could definitely get the better of those exchanges if we play into your hands. Has me worried indeed.

Hurrache

https://twitter.com/IrishRugby/status/966669305218846720

Buer

Just once this 6N, I'd like a surprise when the team is announced.

Sanjuro

Buer wrote: »

Just once this 6N, I'd like a surprise when the team is announced.

The announcement wasn't delayed. Is that not enough of a surprise for you?

stephen_n

Buer wrote: »

Just once this 6N, I'd like a surprise when the team is announced.

It’s getting kidneyesque at this stage.

Hurrache

Buer wrote: »

Just once this 6N, I'd like a surprise when the team is announced.

I found the announcement in the form of a gif which flips the players names into the names of their position a nice surprise. Better than the twitter handle one anyway.

Jack Kanoff

Expected team is expected shocker

irishbucsfan

Pretty defensive interview from Joe when asked if they are going to change the way they play

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Pretty defensive interview from Joe when asked if they are going to change the way they play

What did he say?

irishbucsfan

Madelynn Glamorous Range wrote: »

What did he say?

https://twitter.com/Cumoski/status/966672383791849473

Doesn't make great reading tbh.

What can we change... I mean cmon.

irishbucsfan

Madelynn Glamorous Range wrote: »

Doesn't make great reading tbh.

What can we change... I mean cmon.

I think Cummiskey capitalising the fine margins bit probably makes it read a little different ot how I would have written it, but for me the key bit was when he said "What can we change? It's a game of rugby", as if there's only one possible way that Ireland can play test rugby. I don't think for a second he believes that. Especially in a week where the coaches have been taking every chance they can to praise the changes Howley has introduced to Wales (which I think is very much intentional).

Zzippy

irishbucsfan wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Cumoski/status/966672383791849473

Please don't quote that wind-up merchant

Zzippy

Zzippy wrote: »

Please don't quote that wind-up merchant

It appears to be a direct quote from Schmidt. Don't shoot the messenger.

irishbucsfan

Zzippy wrote: »

Please don't quote that wind-up merchant

Afraid I'll keep doing it

Akrasia

Big game for James Ryan and Andrew Porter. I think they have what it takes though

Nice impacts off the bench. I hope John Ryan can shake off his poor club form and raise his game for Saturday

Stockdale and Earls on the wings and we have plenty of dynamic potential on the counter attack or at kick transition.

I would be a bit worried about our attack options off the bench if we need to close a gap towards the end though, I think we have chosen a better defensive closing team hoping that we'll be defending a lead rather than chasing one, but we still have the likes of Cronin and Conan in the pack who can create space and score tries from close range

I'd be equally exasperated if I were Schmidt. We're third in the world, have toppled all the major world rugby nations over the last two years and our attack when warranted has improved bar aspects of our set piece which I feel aren't where they used to be.

Yet there is a significant element of negativity and complaining that suggests people have a lot to be unhappy about.

It can't be conservatism anymore because we've a load of players who by rights could still be in academy set ups. It can't be Kearney because he is playing too well.

So what have we moved onto? The selection isn't enough of a surprise.

How about I stand behind y'all when the team is announced and go 'Boo' while Joe reads out the team sheet.

thomond2006

Zzippy wrote: »

Please don't quote that wind-up merchant

Who? Cummiskey or Schmidt? :pac:

CurryFlavoured

Some big misses. We have good depth at backrow and lock, but even at that you can't replace quality of SOB and Hendo. Henshaw to Farrell and Furlong to Porter are clear drops, but hopefully they fill in well.

Both teams are missing some key men though, so no excuses on that front.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd be equally exasperated if I were Schmidt. We're third in the world, have toppled all the major world rugby nations over the last two years and our attack when warranted has improved bar aspects of our set piece which I feel aren't where they used to be.

What do you mean when warranted? Does that not include the 6N or something?

D14Rugby

I don't actually see a problem with that quote, basically says what can we change, its a game of rugby which is made up of fine margins and we tend to play a game that leads to us winning those fine margins. We don't play overly adventurous rugby but you can't really pin point our style of play, its pretty balanced between, forwards, backs, running, kicking. As for the thats your job bit, well it is, a coach can't go giving away tactics, its down to journalists to try work them out in a way thats interesting to their audience.

Madelynn Glamorous Range

Madelynn Glamorous Range wrote: »

What do you mean when warranted? Does that not include the 6N or something?

Well it's easy to just say 'Kearney is bad, Conan offloads, Joe is wrong', but sometimes the opposition or conditions don't warrant anything more than 10 man rugby.

There is a reason why we can play with width in a sunny, dry Chicago against the best team in the world, but keep it tight in a miserable wet stade de France.

irishbucsfan

D14Rugby wrote: »

I don't actually see a problem with that quote, basically says what can we change, its a game of rugby which is made up of fine margins and we tend to play a game that leads to us winning those fine margins. We don't play overly adventurous rugby but you can't really pin point our style of play, its pretty balanced between, forwards, backs, running, kicking. As for the thats your job bit, well it is, a coach can't go giving away tactics, its down to journalists to try work them out in a way thats interesting to their audience.

Yes, Schmidt said our play is very balanced. But it's not, at all. I've already showed that statistically against France that our style of play was anything but balanced. Massively focused on running down the throat of the beefy French tight 5, over and over and over again with no change. 0 line breaks, very little success, escaped with a victory against a team in deep crisis by the skin of our teeth.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

Well it's easy to just say 'Kearney is bad, Conan offloads, Joe is wrong', but sometimes the opposition or conditions don't warrant anything more than 10 man rugby.

There is a reason why we can play with width in a sunny, dry Chicago against the best team in the world, but keep it tight in a miserable wet stade de France.

You mean there is a reason we fail to make a single line break against a historically poor French side while Scotland can make 7/8 of them the following week. Maybe it was that famous tropical Edinburgh weather.

whatawaster

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes, Schmidt said our play is very balanced. But it's not, at all. I've already showed that statistically against France that our style of play was anything but balanced. Massively focused on running down the throat of the beefy French tight 5, over and over and over again with no change. 0 line breaks, very little success, escaped with a victory against a team in deep crisis by the skin of our teeth.

I don't think that was necessarily our intention or our usual gameplan though.

We got it wide and made ground in the first couple of minutes, which makes me think the conditions deteriorating had a lot to do with our play in that game. We didn't play like that against Italy, so Saturday will tell us more in that regard.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Well it's easy to just say 'Kearney is bad, Conan offloads, Joe is wrong', but sometimes the opposition or conditions don't warrant anything more than 10 man rugby.

There is a reason why we can play with width in a sunny, dry Chicago against the best team in the world, but keep it tight in a miserable wet stade de France.

This has been done to death. There is a clear trend of us scoring fewer tries than our rivals against our rivals. Awec posted the stats recently, in the past 2 or 3 seasons Wales and England have scored twice the number of tries we have against Wales/England/Ireland/France (select as applicable).

Furthermore if you pick players who are only capable of playing one way then you are going to play that way. This is pretty obvious. And I'm pretty sure Schmidt picks the team.

Honestly if you or anyone else can look at how we've played in the 2016, 2017 6Ns and think we're attacking well then I don't know what to say.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes, Schmidt said our play is very balanced. But it's not, at all. I've already showed that statistically against France that our style of play was anything but balanced. Massively focused on running down the throat of the beefy French tight 5, over and over and over again with no change. 0 line breaks, very little success, escaped with a victory against a team in deep crisis by the skin of our teeth.

Think this is a ridiculous criticism personally. I think we are extremely balanced. We've good discipline, we've a decent set piece, we've a good kicking game, were exceptional defensively and our attack is good enough that we win most games.

There are no obvious weaknesses which is a good sign of a balanced team.

We rarely win in France, you can quote the game statistics and I can quote our away win record statistics against them. It was a good win.

prawnsambo

Buer wrote: »

Just once this 6N, I'd like a surprise when the team is announced.

Well you'd need to stop the leaks then.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You mean there is a reason we fail to make a single line break against a historically poor French side while Scotland can make 7/8 of them the following week. Maybe it was that famous tropical Edinburgh weather.

Scotland play a different game and it was more effective against France. They were also at home.

Scotland tried to play like that against Wales. How did that work out.

So do you want us to play like Scotland this weekend then?

irishbucsfan

whatawaster wrote: »

I don't think that was necessarily our intention or our usual gameplan though.

We got it wide and made ground in the first couple of minutes, which makes me think the conditions deteriorating had a lot to do with our play in that game. We didn't play like that against Italy, so Saturday will tell us more in that regard.

Well it didn't work in Paris, nearly cost us the grand slam on the opening weekend. So it's a lesson that needs to be learned.

I agree with you though, we'll see on Saturday. I believe we absolutely have the ability to play much, much better. I'm saying I really hope that we're not going to run down the throats of the Welsh tight 5 100+ times or else we'll see another historic tackling performance against us, but this time it'll be Ken Owens and AWJ getting the plaudits. Because guys at this level are more than up for a physical challenge like that.

I want to see us forcing Scott Williams and his buddies into making decisions instead. That'll be a huge success and it'd set us up very nicely.

gleesonisgod

Deleted User wrote: »

Well it's easy to just say 'Kearney is bad, Conan offloads, Joe is wrong', but sometimes the opposition or conditions don't warrant anything more than 10 man rugby.

There is a reason why we can play with width in a sunny, dry Chicago against the best team in the world, but keep it tight in a miserable wet stade de France.

Down with offloading!!!

Also the reason we were able to play with some amount of width (I thought the win was more down to pressure and being uber clinical) in Chicago was because we had a second playmaker.

Madelynn Glamorous Range

Madelynn Glamorous Range wrote: »

This has been done to death. There is a clear trend of us scoring fewer tries than our rivals against our rivals. Awec posted the stats recently, in the past 2 or 3 seasons Wales and England have scored twice the number of tries we have against Wales/England/Ireland/France (select as applicable).

Furthermore if you pick players who are only capable of playing one way then you are going to play that way. This is pretty obvious. And I'm pretty sure Schmidt picks the team.

Yes that's fine, bar England - we've a far better record than all of those teams.

Madelynn Glamorous Range wrote: »

Honestly if you or anyone else can look at how we've played in the 2016, 2017 6Ns and think we're attacking well then I don't know what to say.

I've said, repeatedly, that we are set up defensively. In other games it's called 'Turtling'. It's in keeping with our strength's and it wins us most games.

It's the reason Leinster have 2 Heineken cup titles under Joe. People wan't to remember the flair stuff, but the wins that mattered were not free flowing try fests.