Ireland Team Talk XI: Team of nervoUS MOD warning Post 1

kilns

molloyjh wrote: »

It's literally impossible to discuss this with you. You're working off a premise that Deegan is better than POM as though it were a fact. It isnt. It cant possibly be. Rugby isnt as linear and binary as you seem to think. Doris could be an unmitigated disaster against Wales for all we know. He might mess up at the back of the scrum. He might have the game pass him by because he cant keep up. Theres a bunch of areas that he could be found wanting. But you dont want to discuss any of that because you just want to be right.

I am not, I am working off the facts of what POM brings to the game. When we defend yes he is good to have but when we are attacking does he offer anything positive that a good 6 should offer? All I am saying is that there are guys out there who offer more than him going forward and yes of course guys like Deegan, Doris, ODonoghue will more than likely have areas which will be exposed that that they are weak in the international arena but they are all young and should be given that chance to learn. We know what that back row offers and we know it fails so why repeat it?

AbusesToilets

molloyjh wrote: »

It's literally impossible to discuss this with you. You're working off a premise that Deegan is better than POM as though it were a fact. It isnt. It cant possibly be. Rugby isnt as linear and binary as you seem to think. Doris could be an unmitigated disaster against Wales for all we know. He might mess up at the back of the scrum. He might have the game pass him by because he cant keep up. Theres a bunch of areas that he could be found wanting. But you dont want to discuss any of that because you just want to be right.

You're right, Deegan could be found wanting. He is an unknown at Test level. POM is very much a known, and has been shown deficient again and again. There's little to no risk in trying someone new when compared to the practical void that is POM.

Yeah_Right

WeleaseWoderick wrote: »

I'd understand keeping Murray if he had gone with Deegan but I feel the opportunity to start Cooney is gone now. There's no chance now of him starting in Twickenham if he didn't get the start in one of the home games. He'll get his start against Italy but no matter what the performance is like, it can be written off given the opposition.

I agree with this. In my head, he went with Murray last week because of the inexperience at 8. If Farrell is going with the tried and tested loose trio of VDF, Stander and the Passenger, then why not give Cooney a start.

theVersatile

Sometimes I wonder what POM has to do to earn a little praise.

Somehow one game a year ago (wihh an admittedly astounding statistical anomoly) is justification for not playing him this weekend.

He gets some amount of flak for not carrying when (a) he operates on the flanks where the ball isn't as much (b) when the ball gets to the flank its more than likely going to be sent to the winger through POM so that he's first arrival at the ruck - in a 2 v 2 do you really think POM will carry and Stockdale rucks instead of feeding Stockdale? (c) JVDF doesn't get half the flak for the lack of carrying (which is for the same reasons as above - not a dig at JVDF). (d) He played the last game and did well - if were so mad about choosing "on form" then why not give him another go.

Those first arriving ruck stats show a lot about the way he's being deployed. The man was first three to 27 own rucks and contested opposition rucks and slowed down some serious ball - his breakdown work is unmatched. The lineout also functioned extremely well (one Herring miscue aside IIRC), something he (or the other lineout leaders bar Toner) is not getting any credit for.

Interested Observer

aloooof wrote: »

So those stats are omitting POM's Ireland minutes for both last weekend, and the RWC, just to be clear.

Sure. We could do a tackles per minute to equalise things if you like but POM will be well behind Deegan, and possibly every other backrow in Ireland on that front but we could.

Deegan is likely to have a higher tackle counter, but equally, there's going to be an inverse correlation between tackle-count and jackal-count. You don't want your best jackaller at the bottom of a ruck.

That's borne out by the stats too; POM has 9 jackals this season. Deegan has 0.

It's often more complex than is made out.

Where's the 0 coming from? The Leinster site said he'd won 3 or so I think. And do you think Pocock, Hooper, whoever else of the best jacklers around have decided to not tackle? I doubt it.

daddy pig

molloyjh wrote: »

You're working off a premise that Deegan is better than POM as though it were a fact. It isnt. It cant possibly be. Rugby isnt as linear and binary as you seem to think.

For me there is no point in comparing players together in that way especially when they fulfill different roles.

Our backrow with O'Mahony 6, VDF 7, Stander 8 is not balanced and does not work. That has been proven at this stage.

Deegan is a definite risk but a backrow of Stander 6, VDF, 7, Deegan 8 has a better chance of working. You have ball carrying threat, tackling, work-rate & breakdown threat. You also have Murray at 9 to help the same as last week with Doris.

The only way I personally see a balanced back row with O'Mahony is with him at 7 but I don't think his tackling is good enough to warrant it.
The demands for a back row are changing all the time and you need an ability to play both sides of the ball. O'Mahony will never have that.

AbusesToilets

theVersatile wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder what POM has to do to earn a little praise.

Somehow one game a year ago (wihh an admittedly astounding statistical anomoly) is justification for not playing him this weekend.

He gets some amount of flak for not carrying when (a) he operates on the flanks where the ball isn't as much (b) when the ball gets to the flank its more than likely going to be sent to the winger through POM so that he's first arrival at the ruck - in a 2 v 2 do you really think POM will carry and Stockdale rucks instead of feeding Stockdale? (c) JVDF doesn't get half the flak for the lack of carrying (which is for the same reasons as above - not a dig at JVDF). (d) He played the last game and did well - if were so mad about choosing "on form" then why not give him another go.

Those first arriving ruck stats show a lot about the way he's being deployed. The man was first three to 27 own rucks and contested opposition rucks and slowed down some serious ball - his breakdown work is unmatched. The lineout also functioned extremely well (one Herring miscue aside IIRC), something he (or the other lineout leaders bar Toner) is not getting any credit for.

It's not one game, that just happened to be perhaps the most egregious example. He is most often at the bottom of the stats in defense and offense.

kilns

theVersatile wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder what POM has to do to earn a little praise.

Somehow one game a year ago (wihh an admittedly astounding statistical anomoly) is justification for not playing him this weekend.

He gets some amount of flak for not carrying when (a) he operates on the flanks where the ball isn't as much (b) when the ball gets to the flank its more than likely going to be sent to the winger through POM so that he's first arrival at the ruck - in a 2 v 2 do you really think POM will carry and Stockdale rucks instead of feeding Stockdale? (c) JVDF doesn't get half the flak for the lack of carrying (which is for the same reasons as above - not a dig at JVDF). (d) He played the last game and did well - if were so mad about choosing "on form" then why not give him another go.

Those first arriving ruck stats show a lot about the way he's being deployed. The man was first three to 27 own rucks and contested opposition rucks and slowed down some serious ball - his breakdown work is unmatched. The lineout also functioned extremely well (one Herring miscue aside IIRC), something he (or the other lineout leaders bar Toner) is not getting any credit for.

I dont think he is being questioned based on one game 12 months ago. Its been based on the last 12 months.

You made the point he hangs out on the flanks to be first to a ruck when Stockdale is tackled. That is the whole point, you shouldnt have to have your 6 hanging out near the wings to ruck, your 6 should be one of your main ball carriers and in a team which struggled with ball carriers Ireland cant afford the luxury of leaving your 6 out wide like that.

VDF yes has not carried for Ireland much but he is a very effective carrier for Leinster, I am sure Farrell has seen that and will hopefully incorporate into the Ireland game because VDF is very quick.

Henderson was calling the lineouts if I recall and stole 2 himself, so I would give the credit for the line out to him on Saturday

Interested Observer

This issue here is that the backrow in its current composition just doesn't work very well. There isn't nearly enough happening going forward. VDF isn't a great carrier particularly in a tight game, POM isn't a good carrier in any game and his good performance at the weekend notwithstanding, CJ has been comfortably shut down by better opposition in recent seasons.

With VDF, we are really struggling for options at 7. He has been in outstanding form for Leinster this season and there's nobody really near him with Leavy out. I don't really think there's much doubt Leavy would be starting if he was fit, he was such an influential player for us in the 2018 Slam win.
Stander is always going to start at 6 or 8, particularly with Conan out.
But with POM, we do actually have some options (Ruddock sitting at home who hasn't really been mentioned) and his form has been middling to poor for a prolonged period of time. That recent Ulster game for example, he was absolutely awful. He probably is getting a bit more focus than is fair but he's become fairly emblematic of the state of the team over the past 12 months.

The best outcome this weekend is obviously a good win with some good rugby played and clear signs of progress in our team. But I don't know how we can expect that when we've just been doing the same thing over and over for 12 months without it working.

Brief_Lives

daddy pig

theVersatile wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder what POM has to do to earn a little praise.

POM hit his rucks, had a turnover threat and was available in the lineouts. He performed these roles well.
The issue is that a modern day backrow really needs to be showing up on both sides of the ball. Stander at 6 can do everything O'Mahony did (lineout aside) and provide what he can't.

theVersatile wrote: »

He gets some amount of flak for not carrying when (a) he operates on the flanks where the ball isn't as much (b) when the ball gets to the flank its more than likely going to be sent to the winger through POM so that he's first arrival at the ruck - in a 2 v 2 do you really think POM will carry and Stockdale rucks instead of feeding Stockdale?

He operates on the flank specifically because he can't carry. If he could carry and make yards like Stander he would't be put on the flank. The simple fact is while O'Mahony is excellent in parts of his game he simply is not a good ball carrier.

theVersatile wrote: »

JVDF doesn't get half the flak for the lack of carrying (which is for the same reasons as above - not a dig at JVDF).

JVDF's primary role is not to carry the balls. He has an exceptional work rate and tackles all day long while providing a turover threat. As part of a balanced backrow VDF is ideal. However a backrow with VDF and POM doesn't work. We have seen it time and again. VDF is a better 7 so we need to change 6.

theVersatile wrote: »

He played the last game and did well - if were so mad about choosing "on form" then why not give him another go.

It's not form it's what he can bring to a balanced backrow and it's not enough as above.

theVersatile wrote: »

The lineout also functioned extremely well (one Herring miscue aside IIRC), something he (or the other lineout leaders bar Toner) is not getting any credit for.

Henderson called the lineout. Having O'Mahony in the lineout is a luxury only.

aloooof

Interested Observer wrote: »

Sure. We could do a tackles per minute to equalise things if you like but POM will be well behind Deegan, and possibly every other backrow in Ireland on that front but we could.

Out of interest, I've done just that, and I don't think that difference is anywhere near as stark as you're making out, particularly when you consider POM has 9 jackals and Deegan has 0.

| | Mins | Tackles |Mins per tackle | Source
POM | Munster | 540 | 49 | | Munster
POM | v Scotland (RWC) | 27 | 3 | | ESPN
POM | v Japan | 55 | 10 | | ESPN
POM | v Russia | 80 | 9 | | ESPN
POM | v Samoa | 20 | 1 | | ESPN
POM | v NZ | 57 | 12 | | ESPN
POM | v Scotland (6N) | 76 | 10 | | 6N
POM Total | | 855 | 94 | 9.1
Deegan | | 879 | 132 | 6.7


And as I previously mentioned:

At 87.3%, he has the lowest tackle success rate of Ireland’s back rows although he is working hard to develop an effective chop-tackling technique.

POM's was 87.7% prior to the Scotland game.

Interested Observer wrote: »

Where's the 0 coming from? The Leinster site said he'd won 3 or so I think.

From the Murray Kinsella article:

[Deegan] doesn’t yet offer a jackal threat, with no successful breakdown turnovers so far in this campaign.

Interested Observer wrote: »

And do you think Pocock, Hooper, whoever else of the best jacklers around have decided to not tackle? I doubt it.

As an aside, you might also find this post interesting from before the RWC; if you convert the stats to turnovers per 80 mins, POM was ahead of the likes of Hooper, Cane and Ardie Savea. POM himself is one of the best jackallers around. But still some people won't give him any credit.

AbusesToilets

Interested Observer wrote: »

This issue here is that the backrow in its current composition just doesn't work very well. There isn't nearly enough happening going forward. VDF isn't a great carrier particularly in a tight game, POM isn't a good carrier in any game and his good performance at the weekend notwithstanding, CJ has been comfortably shut down by better opposition in recent seasons.

With VDF, we are really struggling for options at 7. He has been in outstanding form for Leinster this season and there's nobody really near him with Leavy out. I don't really think there's much doubt Leavy would be starting if he was fit, he was such an influential player for us in the 2018 Slam win.
Stander is always going to start at 6 or 8, particularly with Conan out.
But with POM, we do actually have some options (Ruddock sitting at home who hasn't really been mentioned) and his form has been middling to poor for a prolonged period of time. That recent Ulster game for example, he was absolutely awful. He probably is getting a bit more focus than is fair but he's become fairly emblematic of the state of the team over the past 12 months.

The best outcome this weekend is obviously a good win with some good rugby played and clear signs of progress in our team. But I don't know how we can expect that when we've just been doing the same thing over and over for 12 months without it working.

VdF is an excellent link man, does really well running a support line. We should be looking to play forwards who can attack space and pass effectively. We finally have guys coming through capable of doing so, yet they go for same old dross.

theVersatile

daddy pig wrote: »

POM hit his rucks, had a turnover threat and was available in the lineouts. He performed these roles well.
The issue is that a modern day backrow really needs to be showing up on both sides of the ball. Stander at 6 can do everything O'Mahony did (lineout aside) and provide what he can't.


He operates on the flank specifically because he can't carry. If he could carry and make yards like Stander he would't be put on the flank. The simple fact is while O'Mahony is excellent in parts of his game he simply is not a good ball carrier.



JVDF's primary role is not to carry the balls. He has an exceptional work rate and tackles all day long while providing a turover threat. As part of a balanced backrow VDF is ideal. However a backrow with VDF and POM doesn't work. We have seen it time and again. VDF is a better 7 so we need to change 6.


It's not form it's what he can bring to a balanced backrow and it's not enough as above.


Henderson called the lineout. Having O'Mahony in the lineout is a luxury only.

Backrow balance is one arguement I will concede to, since we do lack carriers - but saying that O'Mahoney is out wide because he can't carry but VDF is out there because "carrying isn't his role" is something I want to challenge you on.

In that case, what's the arguement against moving POM to 7 and playing Deegan instead of JVDF. Deegan can carry strongly and will certainly make up for POMs lack of tackling numbers. What do we lose?

kilns

theVersatile wrote: »

Backrow balance is one arguement I will concede to, since we do lack carriers - but saying that O'Mahoney is out wide because he can't carry but VDF is out there because "carrying isn't his role" is something I want to challenge you on.

In that case, what's the arguement against moving POM to 7 and playing Deegan instead of JVDF. Deegan can carry strongly and will certainly make up for POMs lack of tackling numbers. What do we lose?

Because VDF is a better 7 than OMahony I don’t think there is any debate on that

ionadnapokot

aloooof wrote: »

Great point, and this is what I'm interested in seeing. Change doesn't just have to come from the team sheet, which some are overlooking.

There was some definite “green shoots” at the weekend. Most notably Jordan Larmour at FB. Errors and all!
But his license to roam and counter attack was the most pleasing part to me.

Yeah_Right

aloooof wrote: »

As an aside, you might also find this post interesting from before the RWC; if you convert the stats to turnovers per 80 mins, POM was ahead of the likes of Hooper, Cane and Ardie Savea. POM himself is one of the best jackallers around. But still some people won't give him any credit.

Hmmm. Thats (mildly) interesting. If you were picking a team, would you pick POM ahead of Hooper, Cane or Savea?

kilns

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Hmmm. Thats (mildly) interesting. If you were picking a team, would you pick POM ahead of Hooper, Cane or Savea?

In truth whenever Ireland were at full strength it was POM that would lose out. cJ/Heaslip and conan/cJ

aloooof

kilns wrote: »

In truth whenever Ireland were at full strength it was POM that would lose out. cJ/Heaslip and conan/cJ

Did Conan actually ever start ahead of POM?? I don't think he did. He certainly didn't to the point that POM missed out whenever Conan was fit.

stephen_n

kilns wrote: »

Can he be any worse? He will no doubt offer more going forward and its what we need

Clearly the coaches don’t think so. If they wanted a ball carrying 6 they’d pick one. Obviously they regard slowing opposition ball down as being more important to their game plan.

Dubinusa

Expected selection! Disappointed not to see Farrell. Happy to see Deegan on the bench! I don't know what Cooney has to do! If we are getting mullered this week, maybe Andy will pull the plug and put Cooney in.
I just want to see improved play! Even if it's minimal but a step in the right direction. Ringrose out , is crap. He was really getting going on Saturday.
Anyway we shall see what happens!

Shefwedfan

I was so positive before and during the WC. Even after the WC....

Even after the game last week.....

I seen that team pop up on my phone and that's it. Every single bit of postivity gone......

TomsOnTheRoof

AbusesToilets wrote: »

MotM are utterly meaningless. Stander is not a good 8. He doesn't carry effectively, and he isn't a ballhawk.

Stander is averaging nearly 2 metres a carry in the tight over 900 minutes this season. If that's what you classify as ineffective then you need to reevaluate your criteria. He also has double the amount of passes that Deegan (889) has and triple the amount of Doris (743). He has four times as many offloads as Deegan and twice as many offloads as Doris. So if you think Stander is a poor 8 who can't pass or carry then then what does that make his competitors?

kilns

TomsOnTheRoof wrote: »

Stander is averaging nearly 2 metres a carry in the tight over 900 minutes this season. If that's what you classify as ineffective then you need to reevaluate your criteria. He also has double the amount of passes that Deegan (889) has and triple the amount of Doris (743). He has 4 times as many offloads as Deegan and 2 times as many offloads as Doris. So if you think Stander is a poor 8 who can't pass or carry then then what does that make his competitors?

Just out of interest where did you get those stats?

salmocab

TomsOnTheRoof wrote: »

Stander is averaging nearly 2 metres a carry in the tight over 900 minutes this season. If that's what you classify as ineffective then you need to reevaluate your criteria. He also has double the amount of passes that Deegan (889) has and triple the amount of Doris (743). He has four times as many offloads as Deegan and twice as many offloads as Doris. So if you think Stander is a poor 8 who can't pass or carry then then what does that make his competitors?

889 passes? What time frame is that over? Seems an incredible amount of passes for anyone.

Neil3030

Burying our heads in stats is not useful here. Every team, no matter how they play, need a player to take the ball into contact in the tight, when the return may be negligible. If Stander makes 20 carries a game for 0 yards, that may actually be a decent return if other ball carriers would have lost 30 yards total on those same carries into heavy traffic.

The issue is what these carries achieve as part of a wider attacking system. If we're just flinging Stander and Ryan into traffic on every play, we'll get.... well.... what we got at the World Cup - beaten. But if Stander and Ryan can get the door open just a crack, and then we quickly get the ball to other players who can maximise return from that opportunity, it's an entirely different ball game.

I maintain that Stander is probably the best ball carrying back-row we have, though lets see what Doris can do when he gets his chance on the International stage. What I'd love to see is more variety in what Stander does in possession - just a few more passes or offloads, and I think he could offer exponentially more. It's easy for me to say obviously, as it's not my ribcage on the line!

awec

Conor Murray is an absolutely rubbish selection and the mental gymnastics required to try and excuse it are beyond my capabilities.

It really just is absolutely stupid at this stage.

"Here you go Conor, you were absolutely rubbish last year and you're still absolutely rubbish, but just have another go sure. John, I know you've been the best 9 on this island by a mile for at least a year now, I know you made Conor look like an amateur up in Ravenhill and I know you obviously were an improvement when you came on last week, but just take a seat on the bench there."

TomsOnTheRoof

salmocab wrote: »

889 passes? What time frame is that over? Seems an incredible amount of passes for anyone.

Minutes. Sorry should have clarified. 55 passes for Stander, 27 for Deegan and 18 for Doris.

salmocab

TomsOnTheRoof wrote: »

Minutes. Sorry should have clarified. 55 passes for Stander, 27 for Deegan and 18 for Doris.

Oh right I was thinking that it didn’t make sense

AbusesToilets

TomsOnTheRoof wrote: »

Stander is averaging nearly 2 metres a carry in the tight over 900 minutes this season. If that's what you classify as ineffective then you need to reevaluate your criteria. He also has double the amount of passes that Deegan (889) has and triple the amount of Doris (743). He has four times as many offloads as Deegan and twice as many offloads as Doris. So if you think Stander is a poor 8 who can't pass or carry then then what does that make his competitors?

What was the nature of these carries and passes? There's a big difference between shovelling the ball on desperately, a lá POC, versus drawing a defender and giving a pass to put away someone outside you. I can't remember Stander ever having a sequence similar to the one Conan did recently for example. Stander is a slightly more athletic version of POC.