Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

Paul Smeenus

aloooof wrote: »

Thinking of the winners and losers, roughly off the top of my head:

Winners:
Doris: Consistently excellent and expect him to be a mainstay for the long haul.

Earls: A selection for the here and now given his age profile, but continues to deliver, on both sides of the ball.

POM: Some excellent displays. Now potentially a live option at 7 also which is another avenue into the team for him.

Porter: Serious workload asked of him and stood up to the task.

Keenan: Consistently solid under the high ball and in the tackle. (The odd poor kick being the only blot on his copybook)

Henshaw: If we ever have all midfielders fit, I'd wager he and Ringrose are 1st choice. Not a playmaking 12, but definitely brings more variation than Aki.

Mixed Bag
Stockdale: Some excellent moments in attack, some costly errors in defence.

Burns: Has likely moved ahead of R.Byrne as back-up 10 (while Carbery remains injured) but might be disappointed with his lack of gametime (albeit, down to injury also).

JGP: Was lively at times, injecting some pace into things, but the odd questionable decision making.

Lowe: Great debut vs Wales, not so great performance vs England.

Roux: Got the plaudits for his work in the scrum v Wales and even got a try for his days work, but more mixed recently.

Kelleher: Good in the loose, but some lineout issues (which seem to persist throughout the team regardless of personnel, so can't pin that entirely on Kelleher).

Losers:
Conway: Picked up an injury I believe, but seems to have fallen out of favour after being amongst our best players in the 6N pre-Lockdown 1.

VdF: Connors leapfrogging him and POM now an option at 7 mean he has a bit of work to do to get back into the team. Interesting to see who Leinster go with in Europe.

Ross Byrne: You have to feel for him (both your test starts coming in Twickenham is really drawing the short straw) but he doesn't seem to play flat enough for this level.

Marmion & Cooney: Don't seem to be in favour for whatever reason.

Healy: Saw some pretty ineffective carrying from him, you'd wonder is age beginning to catch up with him.

Ryan definitely a loser. Silly mistakes, poor lineout, still a way to go with captaincy, quieter than every second row partner he played with. I know that'll offend some, but it was a "feet of clay" tournament for him.

aloooof

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Generous to say his form demanded selection. I'd say he was included in a winning set up and looked good, as opposed to being one of the drivers of said performances.

Can I ask how you go about determining which players are the drivers of the performance and which players just benefit from it?

Not trying to be argumentative, just seems curious to me how someone can determine that, especially when we know POM is part of the leadership group.

ersatz

aloooof wrote: »

Can I ask how you go about determining which players are the drivers of the performance and which players just benefit from it?

Not trying to be argumentative, just seems curious to me how someone can determine that, especially when we know POM is part of the leadership group.

O Mahony comes out of this looking good, afaik. He did some nice work in the lineout, solid as you'd expect and AF's tactics seem to suit him. He does like showing up on the wing though he made 2 braindead mistakes. The forward pass was a simple error and the foot in touch was another that just shouldn't happen to players of his experience and ability. All that said, he's definitely put himself firmly in the BR mix for the 6n where coming into this tournament there was a big question mark over him.

leakyboots

ersatz wrote: »

O Mahony comes out of this looking good, afaik. He did some nice work in the lineout, solid as you'd expect and AF's tactics seem to suit him. He does like showing up on the wing though he made 2 braindead mistakes. The forward pass was a simple error and the foot in touch was another that just shouldn't happen to players of his experience and ability. All that said, he's definitely put himself firmly in the BR mix for the 6n where coming into this tournament there was a big question mark over him.

It was literally a toe on the line? I wouldn't be too harsh on him for that to be honest


I don't think he's just 'showing up on the wing' either - this is a tactic. Stander was out wide too. Munster used do it under Rob Penney - strong carriers who can pass/take contact

The Lost Sheep

ersatz wrote: »

O Mahony comes out of this looking good, afaik. He did some nice work in the lineout, solid as you'd expect and AF's tactics seem to suit him. He does like showing up on the wing though he made 2 braindead mistakes. The forward pass was a simple error and the foot in touch was another that just shouldn't happen to players of his experience and ability. All that said, he's definitely put himself firmly in the BR mix for the 6n where coming into this tournament there was a big question mark over him.

Showing up on the wing is a tactic. Look up attacking structures like 2-4-2 etc and it see's forwards showing up on wing as part of the attack.
The foot in touch cant be a criticism of him. It was a toe on the line

leakyboots wrote: »

It was literally a toe on the line? I wouldn't be too harsh on him for that to be honest

I don't think he's just 'showing up on the wing' either - this is a tactic. Stander was out wide too. Munster used do it under Rob Penney - strong carriers who can pass/take contact

Lots do it. Crusaders have been big proponents of 2-4-2 and it isnt just showing up on the wing. Its part of the attacking pattern/structure

molloyjh

Yep, POM on the wing is part of the shape we're employing. He's done really well and is absolutely rightly in the conversation to start for us.

AbusesToilets

aloooof wrote: »

Can I ask how you go about determining which players are the drivers of the performance and which players just benefit from it?

Not trying to be argumentative, just seems curious to me how someone can determine that, especially when we know POM is part of the leadership group.

What aspect would you say he's been instrumental for the team winning? He's been good in the lineout, but that has been one of the major malfunctions this series. He's not been dominant on the deck, or in the tackle stats, nor has he been a major factor in the attacking game.

I suppose it's the same cycle with him. Has a streak of being largely anonymous, contributing little. Comes under pressure for his spot. Has a game with a couple of standout moments, and suddenly he's undroppable again.

ersatz

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Showing up on the wing is a tactic. Look up attacking structures like 2-4-2 etc and it see's forwards showing up on wing as part of the attack.
The foot in touch cant be a criticism of him. It was a toe on the line

Lots do it. Crusaders have been big proponents of 2-4-2 and it isnt just showing up on the wing. Its part of the attacking pattern/structure

I guess that's why I said Farrell's tactics suit him, the tactic being 2-4-2 or, per Kinsella, 2-3-2-2. I don't think BRs in international rugby 'just show up' anywhere, particularly not on the wing, without it being a 'tactic'.

I'd say the foot in touch would be something a coach would point to and say, 'can do better', and I've no doubt that POM looking at that tape will beat himself up over it. He should have scored/

TRC10

ersatz wrote: »

I guess that's why I said Farrell's tactics suit him, the tactic being 2-4-2 or, per Kinsella, 2-3-2-2. I don't think BRs in international rugby 'just show up' anywhere, particularly not on the wing, without it being a 'tactic'.

I'd say the foot in touch would be something a coach would point to and say, 'can do better', and I've no doubt that POM looking at that tape will beat himself up over it. He should have scored/

I'd me amazed if an international team found time during a review session to criticise somebody's toe being in touch. It happens. Its not a technical error. That's Joe Schmidt levels of detail x10.

Dubinusa

I thought Ryan was average. Good against France. But overall he wasn't the same. I wonder if they've taken away some of his ball carrying duties? He seemed way less involved. His biggest problem, the penalties he's given away. He was struggling with his discipline. He's still our best option.
Beirne would also be a loser. He's now 4th on the line. Fairly remarkable as he was decent
Dillane is probably 5th. Will be interesting to see the selection when Baird is fit and firing?
I wouldn't write VDF off atm. His cameo was impressive imo. His speed around the park is great. I think he is a better option than Connors, atm.
Connors was good for the most part, but lacks carrying ability imo.

Dog Botherer

i think Henderson is really going to struggle to start once Baird or some of the other young locks break into the team.

Paul Smeenus

Dog Botherer wrote: »

i think Henderson is really going to struggle to start once Baird or some of the other young locks break into the team.

Let's hope one of them can call a half-decent lineout.

Henderson's real issue is his injury record. Can't remember the last time he played two full international games in a row. Just constant disruption.

Tomtom364

POM one of the better player against England.

Could have easily been man of the match against Scotland, 50/50 with Dorris and yet he didn't contribute to that win just benefitted from the performance of the rest of the team.

Half an inch if even on the touchline while breaking through a tackle...

Lads you're making an absolute show of yourselves.

phily2002

Tomtom364 wrote: »

POM one of the better player against England.

Could have easily been man of the match against Scotland, 50/50 with Dorris and yet he didn't contribute to that win just benefitted from the performance of the rest of the team.

Half an inch if even on the touchline while breaking through a tackle...

Lads you're making an absolute show of yourselves.

POM played really well against Scotland but he shouldn't have been pushed into touch in that position. It didn't matter because Scotland were beaten but if that was to win the match he'd rightly be criticised.(Think Dorris and Stander would have finished it)
I like the tactic of using forwards out wide but not sure POM is the best option. He'd a couple of good runs but a few errors as well. The one against Wales where he fell into the winger and dropped the ball was pretty bad.
I think we've a lot better carriers who'd be more effictive out wide but they wouldn't be as effictive in the lineout so it's just finding the right balance.

lawrencesummers

Forwards on the wing makes sense for a number of reasons,
They can often find a mismatch and target a back,
They can take a defensive forward out of the line,
The can resource rucks Effectively on the extremities of the pitch to get safe and fast ball.

NZ have been doing it for years with their hookers. Codie Taylor has 12 tries, Dane coles 13.

That’s more than our most prolific current backrow CJ stander on 11.

aloooof

AbusesToilets wrote: »

What aspect would you say he's been instrumental for the team winning? He's been good in the lineout, but that has been one of the major malfunctions this series. He's not been dominant on the deck, or in the tackle stats, nor has he been a major factor in the attacking game.

I suppose it's the same cycle with him. Has a streak of being largely anonymous, contributing little. Comes under pressure for his spot. Has a game with a couple of standout moments, and suddenly he's undroppable again.

Bit it hasn't just been one game; he's had a number of good games. And you claimed he wasn't the driver of said performances. I'm just curious how you go about determining that? Who was the driver of those performances?

Imo, only being instrumental in one area is exactly what he used to be criticised for. Whereas now he's contributing an awful lot more in attack (Farrell's system seems to be suit him in this regard much more than under Schmidt). He's had more passes, better carries, some offloads and good latches. That's added to his usual lineout and breakdown work.

He's probably been amongst our 3 best players in this Autumn Nations Cup. Yet he still courts criticism.

You argument reads as:
- POM plays well? Benefitting from the team's performance.
- POM plays poorly? Drop him from the squad.

AbusesToilets

aloooof wrote: »

Bit it hasn't just been one game; he's had a number of good games. And you claimed he wasn't the driver of said performances. I'm just curious how you go about determining that? Who was the driver of those performances?

Imo, only being instrumental in one area is exactly what he used to be criticised for. Whereas now he's contributing an awful lot more in attack (Farrell's system seems to be suit him in this regard much more than under Schmidt). He's had more passes, better carries, some offloads and good latches. That's added to his usual lineout and breakdown work.

He's probably been amongst our 3 best players in this Autumn Nations Cup. Yet he still courts criticism.

You argument reads as:
- POM plays well? Benefitting from the team's performance.
- POM plays poorly? Drop him from the squad.

He was more involved, relative to how he's performed in the past, that's fair. He wasn't particularly good at it though, and certainly not so excellent that I'd considered him cemented in place. Fact is he's old, in rugby terms, and not as effective as many other players at those areas you mention. We have better carriers, better ruckers, better tacklers.

So yea, drop him.

Former Former Former

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Forwards on the wing makes sense for a number of reasons,
They can often find a mismatch and target a back,
They can take a defensive forward out of the line,
The can resource rucks Effectively on the extremities of the pitch to get safe and fast ball.

But as we saw on Saturday, if they actually get the ball in space, do they have the pace or finishing skills to score? POM did very well but an actual winger would definitely have scored that.

Added to that, having a forward on the wing means fewer heavy lads to resource rucks infield, or if they opposition has the ball, a pacy winger might have a mismatch against a lumbering forward on the wing.

I dunno, I hope it's not a recurring strategy.

aloooof

AbusesToilets wrote: »

He was more involved, relative to how he's performed in the past, that's fair. He wasn't particularly good at it though, and certainly not so excellent that I'd considered him cemented in place. Fact is he's old, in rugby terms, and not as effective as many other players at those areas you mention. We have better carriers, better ruckers, better tacklers.

So yea, drop him.

But we don't have better lineout options. It's about getting the balance right and with Doris and Stander in the team providing strong carrying and tackle, and POM upping his game in those areas also, he's clearly a live option for the 7 shirt.

Do you not agree he was one of our 3 best players in the last number of games?

Compared to replacements, he was far superior to VdF, who was anonymous vs Wales, for example.

And you still haven't answered how you determine this. Or who was /were the driver(s)?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I'd say he was included in a winning set up and looked good, as opposed to being one of the drivers of said performances.

lawrencesummers

Former Former Former wrote: »

But as we saw on Saturday, if they actually get the ball in space, do they have the pace or finishing skills to score? POM did very well but an actual winger would definitely have scored that.

Added to that, having a forward on the wing means fewer heavy lads to resource rucks infield, or if they opposition has the ball, a pacy winger might have a mismatch against a lumbering forward on the wing.

I dunno, I hope it's not a recurring strategy.

The positioning of players on the field involves pros and cons in all areas, having a forward on the wing has its advantages and disadvantages that need to be considered as part of the overall game plan but the AB’s have been making it work for years with Coles and Taylor.

In the build up to One of Earls try’s POM provided the last pass, great hands drew the defender and gave earls a feee run in.

Maybe it should be asked why Stockdale or Keenan were not outside PoM in this instance, but stockdales pass was excellent to POm, while keenans to Stockdale was a fraction behind.

irishbucsfan

The game has just adapted over the years because we learned that having forwards on the wing is more valuable, on every phase, than having larger pods in midfield. The threat of a forward out wide is far more productive than ending up with 4/5 man pods which just largely leaves the 4th man redundant, does nothing to speed up ball and does nothing to stretch or hold the defense.

The question, i think, isn’t whether or not it’s valuable, the question is whether it’s being used in an effective way. Largely I’d say it seems to me the problems are happening much closer to the breakdown.

Thinking about it, this trend may actually change now that the defense has such an upper hand at the breakdown...

Dog Botherer

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

Let's hope one of them can call a half-decent lineout.

Henderson's real issue is his injury record. Can't remember the last time he played two full international games in a row. Just constant disruption.

Ahern is 6”9 so hopefully we can just chuck it to him

Yeah_Right

thomond2006 wrote: »

Most wanted POM out of the side. He got selected and his form demanded he remain in the side. He's definitely a winner.

I was definitely one who thought POM shouldn't be there because he had been awful for nearly 2 years but he had a good series. Would have no issue with him being in the 6 Nations squad now.

sydthebeat

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I was definitely one who thought POM shouldn't be there because he had been awful for nearly 2 years but he had a good series. Would have no issue with him being in the 6 Nations squad now.

yes

POMs position this autumn completely makes a mockery of those that argue that centrally contracted players HAVE to be selected and therefore don't play to full potential

POMs position was in jeopardy (to be fair, due to recent performances in green and due to the performances of his challengers) but he certainly have sufficiently upped his game to be 100% in the conversation for starting 6Ns games

Dog Botherer

starting to think a lot of animosity towards POM comes from people decisively writing him off then him doing what he just did, making them look like fools. i could see myself being irritated by that if i cared about being right 15% more than i do.

TomsOnTheRoof

One thing that was noticeable was how much more carrying POM was being tasked with. As a Munster fan I always considered it to be the weakest part of his game but he's more than capable of making good ground.

Yeah_Right

sydthebeat wrote: »

yes

POMs position this autumn completely makes a mockery of those that argue that centrally contracted players HAVE to be selected and therefore don't play to full potential

POMs position was in jeopardy (to be fair, due to recent performances in green and due to the performances of his challengers) but he certainly have sufficiently upped his game to be 100% in the conversation for starting 6Ns games

I'd go as far as saying that even if he is average for Munster over the next 2 months, he has probably put enough credit in the bank to be in the match day squad for the first 2 rounds. Not saying I'd pick him but he would be in the conversation.

Former Former Former

Well, POM has never been a typical 6, in that he's not a powerful carrier or dominant in the clearout. It's often been said here that a backrow featuring POM, VDF and Stander was not very balanced, so might just be that 7 is better suited to his skillset.

Either way, keep it coming.

irishbucsfan

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I'd go as far as saying that even if he is average for Munster over the next 2 months, he has probably put enough credit in the bank to be in the match day squad for the first 2 rounds. Not saying I'd pick him but he would be in the conversation.

We’ve had this discussion before, but it’s a good reminder of why you can’t just pick on provincial form. The test side is a very different team at a different level and we’ve seen loads of players who have effectively appeared to have their form “reset” as soon as international rugby period comes around. That could be anything from the style of play to confidence to motivation levels, but it’s worth keeping in mind. Doesn’t mean form should be totally ignored either

salmocab

Former Former Former wrote: »

Well, POM has never been a typical 6, in that he's not a powerful carrier or dominant in the clearout. It's often been said here that a backrow featuring POM, VDF and Stander was not very balanced, so might just be that 7 is better suited to his skillset.

Either way, keep it coming.

I’m not sure the backrow of Stander POM and Doris is right. The problem is they are all playing well but I think the backrow balance is something very hard to even describe. At Leinster I’d love to see Leavy Connors and Doris together for some big games.