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

kilns

Former Former wrote: »

The Pro14 is utterly meaningless for international selection and Ulster had a weird European group. The sample size of useful games is very small.

But the process is the same for everyone. Provincial form gets you into the squad, then it's up to you to take advantage. Cooney hasn't really done so despite repeated call ups.

I've given my possible explanation for that, what's yours?

if provincial form got you into the squad, then probably we would have a different guy playing at 6 on Saturday

Interested Observer

I wonder what gets you out of the squad. It doesn't appear to be losing over and over again.

kilns

aloooof wrote: »

I only pointed this out to show that POM isn't the useless lump that some are painting him to be. A loose look at what was claimed:

• Deegan "will offer more than POM."
  There's obviously no way of knowing that. If it was that simple, Farrell would have selected Deegan.
  
  
• This changed to "he'll offer more going forward". No issues with this.
  
  
• Added to this was "...chances are he will tackle better too as he has a better tackle rate than POM in the European cup too."
  This is inaccurate; their tackle % rates for the season are practically the same. (Deegan 87.3%, POM >87.7%).
  
  
• When this was pointed out, this changed to "those percentages are meaningless" because "Deegan has made a hell of lot more tackles"
  
  To back this up, another poster claimed "Deegan has made 132 tackles this season, POM has made 49."
  
  This is just plain wrong. POM has made 94 tackles. Admittedly lower than Deegan but nowhere near what was being made out. And part of the picture of the tackle counts is also that POM has 9 jackals while Deegan has 0.
  
  
• Finally, the original poster then claimed that "In truth whenever Ireland were at full strength it was POM that would lose out. cJ/Heaslip and conan/cJ"
  
  With regards CJ and Conan, that's just plain wrong. Complete nonsense.

That's an awful lot of goalpost-moving and factual inaccuracy.

I think nearly everyone would agree if Conan had not got injured at the World Cup he would have been at 8 and POM would have lost the 6 jersey.

At the end of the day, POM is good at what he does but its not enough, you need more on both sides of the ball and like it or not, he is a luxury player we can ill afford to carry

Former Former

Interested Observer wrote: »

I wonder what gets you out of the squad. It doesn't appear to be losing over and over again.

Per the above, the answer is a better alternative being available.

aloooof

kilns wrote: »

I think nearly everyone would agree if Conan had not got injured at the World Cup he would have been at 8 and POM would have lost the 6 jersey.

You're goalpost-moving again. Even if the above is accurate (we've no way of knowing), it's not the case than POM was dropped "whenever" CJ and Conan were fit, which is what you claimed. POM was clearly 1st choice 6 for a long period.

kilns

aloooof wrote: »

You're goalpost-moving again. Even if the above is accurate (we've no way of knowing), it's not the case than POM was dropped "whenever" CJ and Conan were fit, which is what you claimed. POM was clearly 1st choice 6 for a long period.

Did i say whenever, I was referencing the world cup

aloooof

kilns wrote: »

Did i say whenever, I was referencing the world cup

You said exactly that, yes; no mention of WC whatsoever.

kilns wrote: »

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

kilns

aloooof wrote: »

You said exactly that, yes; no mention of WC whatsoever.

You were answering on my next answer which I accept not whenever as Conan only came into real reckoning for the team at the world cup

think nearly everyone would agree if Conan had not got injured at the World Cup he would have been at 8 and POM would have lost the 6 jersey.

I stand by my belief that POM is a luxury player we cant afford anymore.

aloooof

kilns wrote: »

You were answering on my next answer which I accept not whenever as Conan only came into real reckoning for the team at the world cup

think nearly everyone would agree if Conan had not got injured at the World Cup he would have been at 8 and POM would have lost the 6 jersey.

I stand by my belief that POM is a luxury player we cant afford anymore.

To try and move the conversation along, one thing worth mentioning is the injuries list.With Leavy, Conan and now Doris injured, we don't really know what Farrell's first choice back-row actually is.

kilns

aloooof wrote: »

To try and move the conversation along, one thing worth mentioning is the injuries list.With Leavy, Conan and now Doris injured, we don't really know what Farrell's first choice back-row actually is.

If all were fit for Saturday i would say Leavy, Stander and VDF

Sabre0001

kilns wrote: »

I think nearly everyone would agree if Conan had not got injured at the World Cup he would have been at 8 and POM would have lost the 6 jersey.

The only people that need to agree on this are the selectors. And considering our form winger (Conway) didn't get picked in crunch games in the World Cup and Cooney will have to maim Murray to get ahead of him, I don't think anything can be taken as a guarantee.

ionadnapokot

stephen_n wrote: »

What did he do better than Murray when he came on during the game on Saturday? I didn’t see any notable difference between them. You’re 100% right he is having a much better season than Murray. But what did Murray do so wrong on Saturday that Conney did better?

I must say Cooney put in a great clearing kick. From Ireland’s 22 to the Scottish 10m.
It’s one are of the game that wouldn’t be Cooneys forte but that was a top drawer kick. And one I haven’t seen Murray execute for Ireland on Saturday ....and maybe even in all of 2019?

ionadnapokot

What’s the story with Addison?

aloooof

ionadnapokot wrote: »

What’s the story with Addison?

https://twitter.com/Murray_Kinsella/status/1224693262931431425?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1224693262931431425&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boards.ie%2Fvbulletin%2Fshowthread.php%3Fp%3D112443726

fitz

ionadnapokot wrote: »

I must say Cooney put in a great clearing kick. From Ireland’s 22 to the Scottish 10m.
It’s one are of the game that wouldn’t be Cooneys forte but that was a top drawer kick. And one I haven’t seen Murray execute for Ireland on Saturday ....and maybe even in all of 2019?

His passes seemed noticeably quicker to me too.

ionadnapokot

Has there been talk of Earls as cover at 13?
Please tell me No!
I jest. but bloody hell. I can’t believe we are back here again. I would reshuffle the whole back line - Larmour - instead.

In fact Dave should be on bench instead.

irishbucsfan

Interested Observer wrote: »

I wonder what gets you out of the squad. It doesn't appear to be losing over and over again.

The squad has been pretty much the same size for years now, and a lot of that squad have not been in it for years... so clearly doesn’t take very much intensive thought to find a rake of examples and start to work that out.

We had 2 debutants last weekend and a debutant this weekend, they were both in the squad believe it or not! Will Connors just added to a squad for the first time as well.

stephen_n

ionadnapokot wrote: »

I must say Cooney put in a great clearing kick. From Ireland’s 22 to the Scottish 10m.
It’s one are of the game that wouldn’t be Cooneys forte but that was a top drawer kick. And one I haven’t seen Murray execute for Ireland on Saturday ....and maybe even in all of 2019?

I thought Murray’s kicking overall was good on Saturday. Most kicks were contestable and he made his clearances. That was a great kick by Cooney though. When Cooney came on he had to work with the same sh1t ball Murray was working with all game and more or less did the same with it as Murray did. I’d have Cooney starting no problem, but Murray did not have a bad game on Saturday. Considering the mess Scotland were allowed to make of our ball and Cooney didn’t do any better. So leaving it as it is to keep cohesion in the half backs is understandable, even though most people would like to see Cooney get a start.

daddy pig

ionadnapokot wrote: »

Has there been talk of Earls as cover at 13?
Please tell me No!
I jest. but bloody hell. I can’t believe we are back here again. I would reshuffle the whole back line - Larmour - instead.

In fact Dave should be on bench instead.

O'Gara on OTB was the one who mentioned it.
Thankfully I haven't seen any of the management team mention it. However we get O'Mahony at 6, Murray at 9 and Earls at 13 this place would be a lot of fun!

ionadnapokot

fitz wrote: »

His passes seemed noticeably quicker to me too.

Always hard to gauge.
He showed more urgency anyway

daddy pig

stephen_n wrote: »

I thought Murray’s kicking overall was good on Saturday. Most kicks were contestable and he made his clearances.

We didn't retrieve a single box kick and simply gave possession to Scotland every time we tried it. Part of that was down to Murrays kicking and partly to the runners being blocked yet we persisted with it.
The only time we retrieved the ball was when it went back to Sexton to kick instead - I remember us retrieving the ball on two occasions this way as he could change where the ball would land freeing up the runners to chase without being blocked.

irishbucsfan

Retrieving the ball is not the primary objective of a box kick. In fact sometimes it’s far more beneficial for the opposition to retrieve it

daddy pig

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Retrieving the ball is not the primary objective of a box kick. In fact sometimes it’s far more beneficial for the opposition to retrieve it

That would be true if the box kick travelled more then 10 metres. I am pretty sure Murray is able to kick further then that if it was his intention but it clearly wasn't on countless occasions at the weekend. We simply had no joy with chasers blocked yet continued to do it.

Shefwedfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Retrieving the ball is not the primary objective of a box kick. In fact sometimes it’s far more beneficial for the opposition to retrieve it

Yes, but the point of box kicking is to gain field position


On a number of kicks it resulted in Ireland losing position and going backwards. This was mostly down to poor kicks

Mr Tickle

ionadnapokot wrote: »

Has there been talk of Earls as cover at 13?
Please tell me No!
I jest. but bloody hell. I can’t believe we are back here again. I would reshuffle the whole back line - Larmour - instead.

In fact Dave should be on bench instead.

Well without Ringrose and Addison we don't really have the flexibility to cover the back 3 and centre in a very solid way. I think Earls and Larmour are about on par with each other as 13s. It's nearly a choice between Farrell (with Henshaw moving to 15 to cover the back 3) and Earls/Kearney (with earls/Larmour moving to 13)

Having Carbery there would really open things up.

Shefwedfan

Mr Tickle wrote: »

Well without Ringrose and Addison we don't really have the flexibility to cover the back 3 and centre in a very solid way. I think Earls and Larmour are about on par with each other as 13s. It's nearly a choice between Farrell (with Henshaw moving to 15 to cover the back 3) and Earls/Kearney (with earls/Larmour moving to 13)

Having Carbery there would really open things up.

So we can have

Sexton 10 and can play 12 at a push
Stockdale - 11/14/15
Henshaw - 12/13/15
Aki - 12/13
Conway - 11/14/15
Larmour - 11-15 :-)

Earls - 11/13/14/15

Plus

Cooney - 9/10

Not sure what Carbery would bring that would open up things?

All of the above have played at some stage those roles and would have more experience than sticking Marmion onto the wing which happened in a real crisis.

AdamD

Shefwedfan wrote: »

So we can have

Sexton 10 and can play 12 at a push
Stockdale - 11/14/15
Henshaw - 12/13/15
Aki - 12/13
Conway - 11/14/15
Larmour - 11-15 :-)

Earls - 11/13/14/15

Plus

Cooney - 9/10

Not sure what Carbery would bring that would open up things?

All of the above have played at some stage those roles and would have more experience than sticking Marmion onto the wing which happened in a real crisis.

Carbery's the only one of those who I'd actually like to see at 15 (other than Larmour)

Shefwedfan

AdamD wrote: »

Carbery's the only one of those who I'd actually like to see at 15 (other than Larmour)

Carbery hasn't played 15 really since he left Leinster. So that ship has sailed.

Conway/Stockdale would be better options

AdamD

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Carbery hasn't played 15 really since he left Leinster. So that ship has sailed.

Conway/Stockdale would be better options

How many times have either of those played 15 in that time frame? Doubt its more than 2 each

Dunno where this notion of Conway as 15 comes from, he never plays there for Munster.

kilns

Forgetting about certain player selection (no matter how disappointing it has been), the real test of Farrell is how we play on Saturday. The one team who always nearly had our number was Wales because they loved how we attacked and lapped it up. Will Farrell change this or will it be much of the same. If its much of the same without any signs of trying to develop it that will be the real disappointment as certain players will come and go but the style of play will define how the coach wants to approach things over his term