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

Paul Smeenus

My real "unh?" at reading the team was about Herring instead of Kelleher. But I wonder are they going with the more reliable Herring to focus on getting the rest of the lineout straight - the lifting, the timing, the calls, and then, once that is running better, they'll bring in Kelleher and let him get his throwing up to speed. In other words, just isolating one wobbly issue at a time and addressing it.

Burns deserves his big moment. I hope Stu has a lovely time, before he leaves the camp, never to attend again.

molloyjh

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

My real "unh?" at reading the team was about Herring instead of Kelleher. But I wonder are they going with the more reliable Herring to focus on getting the rest of the lineout straight - the lifting, the timing, the calls, and then, once that is running better, they'll bring in Kelleher and let him get his throwing up to speed. In other words, just isolating one wobbly issue at a time and addressing it.

Burns deserves his big moment. I hope Stu has a lovely time, before he leaves the camp, never to attend again.

Heffernan is on the bench. Kelleher has gotten some big game time so far so giving the others time makes sense.

Yeah_Right

Niallof9 wrote: »

No i don't think there is. On balance it looks like many are accepting and understanding of it. which is never a surprise really.

Trying to understand the thinking behind the selection isn't they same as accepting the selection. Plenty of people here are saying what they think the selection should have been. You just seem to have an issue with the fact no one else is having a hissy-fit about it. I would have gone with some different choices but its not the end of the world.

BTW, you mentioned before a the average ages of the Wallabies and ABs in the last match they played against each other compared to the Irish team last weekend. Do you have a link to that info?

aloooof

Niallof9 wrote: »

yeah as i've suggested a balance, but no you don't accept or acknowledge that of course.

This is what you claimed people would say:

Niallof9 wrote: »

...we'll see the usual shifting of goalposts on here saying its an excellent side for a vital game against a tough opponent.

This is a selection of what has actually been said:

sydthebeat wrote: »

Reasonably understandable team considering where we are at with our development.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Not a particularly inspiring team.

Dubinusa wrote: »

Got to say that I am a bit disappointed.

molloyjh wrote: »

Some disappointing elements to that selection

thomond2006 wrote: »

There's little to be gained from <picking Earls over Daly>

Solutionking wrote: »

I think it is time we ring Joe and tell him all is forgiven please come back

CMcsporty wrote: »

I couldnt have picked a worse team if I tried!

Are you going to accept and acknowledge that your first claim was hyperbole?

Yeah_Right

shootermacg wrote: »

Another loss and that might get a bit lower in NZ

**** you!!!

Maybe they should bring in a policy like some here are advocating, after a loss the whole team gets dropped. Repeat until they learn to win

Iamabeliever

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

My real "unh?" at reading the team was about Herring instead of Kelleher. But I wonder are they going with the more reliable Herring to focus on getting the rest of the lineout straight - the lifting, the timing, the calls, and then, once that is running better, they'll bring in Kelleher and let him get his throwing up to speed. In other words, just isolating one wobbly issue at a time and addressing it.

Burns deserves his big moment. I hope Stu has a lovely time, before he leaves the camp, never to attend again.

To be fair Kelleher was dreadful last time out.
Not too sure. If Stu puts in a good shift . I could see the media getting behind him and putting the pressure on Farrell to get him in ahead of Aki who has been abysmal!. Sure isn’t that the reason Hugo got playing in the first place and then drafted to 15

CMcsporty

Dog Botherer wrote: »

how many pro players are there in France as opposed to Ireland? seems relevant. as does the fact that France have won the last two Junior World Cups and have approximately 50 insanely talented freaks that they're going to be capping over the next few years.

Oh no....
Did you know that the Irish U-20's won the grand slam last year?

Now i think you could reasonably argue that 3 out of the 4 of that side that were called up as part of the initial squad should also be playing v Georgia.

So that would be 4 caps

And the "junior" World Cup you referred to. Ireland were unlucky to loose to France in 2018 24-22. in France.
Another player in that side was also part of the initial squad.

So thats 5 new caps.

Does any of that seem relevant to you?

Or do you think we should still play Murray, Burns, Beirne, Roux and O 'Mahony ahead of them for the Georgia game?

Not 11. But maybe the penny is dropping here....we can cap allot more players but Farrell is choosing not to.

And how many pro players are there in France out of interest?

molloyjh

I think this is a general Internet problem. Polarisation seems to be the default. Most people are in some way shape or form disappointed or unenthused by the selection. It certainly has its issues. But for some reason, unless people are agreeing 100% with some posters, their position gets defined as 100% opposed by those posters. I think if they took a breath and actually looked through the posts they'd struggle to find anyone saying anything more positive than "ah look, I get it even if I don't fully agree". Most are more critical than that.

Niallof9

aloooof wrote: »

This is what you claimed people would say:



This is a selection of what has actually been said:















Are you going to accept and acknowledge that your first claim was hyperbole?

ha ok fair enough i accept that. anyway no point me going on about it. whats done is done. will be a 50 nil win or the like, with nothing gained apart from maybe Burns getting exposure.

Yeah_Right

CMcsporty wrote: »

Oh no....
Did you know that the Irish U-20's won the grand slam last year?

Now i think you could reasonably argue that 3 out of the 4 of that side that were called up as part of the initial squad should also be playing v Georgia.

So that would be 4 caps

And the "junior" World Cup you referred to. Ireland were unlucky to loose to France in 2018 24-22. in France.
Another player in that side was also part of the initial squad.

So thats 5 new caps.

Does any of that seem relevant to you?

Or do you think we should still play Murray, Burns, Beirne, Roux and O 'Mahony ahead of them for the Georgia game?

Not 11. But maybe the penny is dropping here....we can cap allot more players but Farrell is choosing not to.

And how many pro players are there in France out of interest?

Just out of curiosity, who are the 5 players from last year's U20s that you would like to see capped.

Dog Botherer

CMcsporty wrote: »

And how many pro players are there in France out of interest?

well they have 30 professional clubs so i'll let you do the fine maths. let me know how it stacks up the ~200 pro Irish players.

shootermacg

I'm really looking forward to seeing what Big Stu and Farrell bring as a team. It could be a great partnership. Both men are a threat with ball in hand, both men have great hands, and Stu has a bit of a kicking game.

I personally think Aki was poor in his defensive role and also think he had a big part in Farrell missed tackle. He literally left Farrell covering a huge gap on his own.

He might even have made that tackle after Farrell's miss if he didn't run the stupidest line I've ever seen. He literally ran to where Farrell was lying instead of covering the point behind him.

Niallof9

But surely the more players we have the harder it would be to settle on a team. i mean thats part of the argument we're having here. He's trying to build a solid, collected group according to some. So he can't be selecting outside that too much, we're told. Adding another 1,000 players to the mix could be an issue? There's an argument to be had that our core group, and four teams and four academies has a better quality control to it. I mean if the Ail clubs had had their way back in the 90's and been our Europen teams, we'd automatically have more players but possibly be worse off. There's alot of **** players playing in those 30 clubs, same in England. I mean we're so rich in resources we can release guys to Bristol, and have one of our best 15 an exile, and have a tighthead being talked of as an All Black all the while ringfencing 12/13 guys on bumper deals in a 22 man squad game. the genius of Irish rugby.

CMcsporty

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, who are the 5 players from last year's U20s that you would like to see capped.

from last years u20s are the ones that were included In the original squad
The other 2 are Daly.
And Byrne from ‘18 U20 World Cup

CMcsporty

Dog Botherer wrote: »

well they have 30 professional clubs so i'll let you do the fine maths. let me know how it stacks up the ~200 pro Irish players.

Do you know or not?

Dog Botherer

Niallof9 wrote: »

But surely the more players we have the harder it would be to settle on a team. i mean thats part of the argument we're having here. He's trying to build a solid, collected group according to some. So he can't be selecting outside that too much, we're told. Adding another 1,000 players to the mix could be an issue? There's an argument to be had that our core group, and four teams and four academies has a better quality control to it. I mean if the Ail clubs had had their way back in the 90's and been our Europen teams, we'd automatically have more players but possibly be worse off. There's alot of **** players playing in those 30 clubs, same in England.

i don't really understand what you're arguing here.

Niallof9

France has 542,242 registered players.

Niallof9

Dog Botherer wrote: »

i don't really understand what you're arguing here.

I'm saying people want it each and every way and find excuses for everything. Their population is clearly an advantage and we lose a Canning or Nash, while they keep that player. but if we had another 500 players to choose from some people wouldn't know what to do. People being crucified for suggesting a shocking 4/5 players to be brought in. another 500 options, jeez we'd be here all year. our low numbers of 200 could actually be an advantage as there is a load of pro players in france or england that wouldn't be good enough for Mary's let alone Connacht. The quality control therefore is probably much better as you can weed out flash in the pans, the Copelands of this World. On the flip side we miss him at a young age and lose him for good cause we only have 4 teams.

Dog Botherer

CMcsporty wrote: »

Do you know or not?

you know i don't know the exact number and you know it doesn't matter. can you spare the theatrics and engage my point or should i just start engaging in bad faith like you?

AbusesToilets

Talk of picking one player over another misses the point entirely imo. I've yet to see any evidence of style or philosophy from this coaching group. Our attacking structures remain pitiful, the players seem incapable of adapting to a game on the field. Our forward play has been anemic for the last couple of seasons, with the maul in particular seemingly a lost art.

I'd hoped to that there would have been signs of progress for this tournament. I have no idea what Catt is trying to do with the team. We're not using strike, we're not playing off the cuff, we're not a kick first team. We're nothing, lost and flailing, running into walls.

aloooof

Yeah_Right wrote: »

BTW, you mentioned before a the average ages of the Wallabies and ABs in the last match they played against each other compared to the Irish team last weekend. Do you have a link to that info?

I actually had a quick look at this, YR, it broke down as follows. Not much in it in the starting 15's, but the bench seems to be the biggest difference:

| Aus | NZ | Ire | Eng
15 | 25.7 | 26.7 | 27.4 | 27.3
Subs | 23 | 23.8 | 28 | 25.4
23 | 24.8 | 25.7 | 27.6 | 26.7

Interested Observer

Absolutely nothing to get excited about here. How do you manage to potentially have your most conservative selection of this series against Georgia?

CMcsporty

Dog Botherer wrote: »

you know i don't know the exact number and you know it doesn't matter. can you spare the theatrics and engage my point or should i just start engaging in bad faith like you?

See my detailed response previous
It was all fact based and rational

My question was genuine. It appears you were spoofing

If you are happy with only Daly getting a run off the bench. Good luck to you.

Iamabeliever

Secretly saying a rosary Stu has a class game. Always a keen admirer of what he brings to a rugby game. I think it’s time he got a substantial run this week and next. He got shafted with joe big time.

Dog Botherer

CMcsporty wrote: »

See my detailed response previous
It was all fact based and rational

My question was genuine. It appears you were spoofing

If you are happy with only Daly getting a run off the bench. Good luck to you.

don't even think Daly should be on there so not exactly happy but y'know swings and roundabouts

aloooof

CMcsporty wrote: »

See my detailed response previous
It was all fact based and rational

My question was genuine. It appears you were spoofing

If you are happy with only Daly getting a run off the bench. Good luck to you.

Is that really necessary? Would you at least agree that France have multiples more professional players than Ireland? You don't need to know the exact number to make that point.

You can also make that point and be unhappy with the Ireland selection.

Dog Botherer

aloooof wrote: »

Is that really necessary? Would you at least agree that France have multiples more professional players than Ireland? You don't need to know the exact number to make that point.

he knows that. don't bother.

Niallof9

i suppose the issue is with the excuse. i thought we were done with these. like people will say the same with size. but here we are with two 6,4 17 stone centres.

Irish rugby is always vunerable to lack of numbers due to us missing out on talents like Nash to aussie rules etc or never having a sniff at somebody like Clifford. But we can't be using it as an excuse as to why we are conservative. If its the case it should be the exact opposite. But no we can jettison he who shall not be named happily enough. Irish rugby, the smartest guys in the room, who needs 500k plus players. who needs zebo, conroy, niyi, etc.

CMcsporty

aloooof wrote: »

Is that really necessary? Would you at least agree that France have multiples more professional players than Ireland? You don't need to know the exact number to make that point.

I think so!
And my question was genuine!
How many pro players are there in France. In Ireland for that matter?
A simple calc and you would get a ratio of players: debut for 2020

molloyjh

CMcsporty wrote: »

I think so!
And my question was genuine!
How many pro players are there in France. In Ireland for that matter?
A simple calc and you would get a ratio of players: debut for 2020

You don't need to know the exact number FFS. Come on.

France have 14 sides in the T14 to our 4 provinces. So that's. 3.5 times the number of teams. Use that. We've capped 9 players so far this year. Daly will be 10. Have France capped 35 new players this year?