Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

Dubinusa

Stockdale back for Ulster this week too! That's a boost for us. Hopefully he goes well and Carberry too.
Very disappointed that O'Toole wasn't selected. Would have been a chance to get his feet in. I see no point of having Porter on the bench.
Ruddock dropped! He played well against France. Some reward. I suppose he won't get much of a look in now.
I hope Casey gets 40 minutes and goes guns blazing.
We should put 40 on Italy. As long as we keep the ball opposite Lowe when Italy have possession, we'll be fine.

Richie_Rich89

Dubinusa wrote: »

Stockdale back for Ulster this week too! That's a boost for us. Hopefully he goes well and Carberry too.
Very disappointed that O'Toole wasn't selected. Would have been a chance to get his feet in. I see no point of having Porter on the bench.
Ruddock dropped! He played well against France. Some reward. I suppose he won't get much of a look in now.
I hope Casey gets 40 minutes and goes guns blazing.
We should put 40 on Italy. As long as we keep the ball opposite Lowe when Italy have possession, we'll be fine.

Both of the Ireland wingers are inclined to come in off their wing when they should stay out in defence. Looking at the type of try Monty Ioane's one against England was, you'd have to say Italy are capable of exploiting defensive mistakes if they're made.

ersatz

glasso wrote: »

so what is the required outcome vindication for Farrell and Catt here?

Ireland score at least 6 tries against Italy who have conceded 90 points in their opening 2 games and the Ireland attack will be deemed "back" after scoring 1 created try in 2 games?

(Kelleher try was a French mistake and lucky bounce)

Kelleher try was from a Kelleher mistake iirc.

Podge_irl

prawnsambo wrote: »

I am really very surprised that it's been this long since the last time we had an all Leinster back line.

Stringer and ROG innit.

phog

I haven't read back the last few pages and I only saw the team listed without any announcement but was there a reason why Ruddock lost out? Happy once again to see Casey but hoping this time he'll get on the field.

CMcsporty

Former Former Former wrote: »

I mean, people have to be happy with that team, right?

Lots of changes, two potential new caps, that dastard Healy finally benched. It's like a boards.ie fantasy XV.

But It's ok if you aren't happy with the team isn't it? Or no?

e.g. Earls on the bench
Daly would be fine for Italy. Larmour can switch to centre if stuck.

kilns

I'd like to hear the reason Ruddock was dropped. Chances are now O'mahoney will come straight back into the match day squad when available and leap over him for no reason

Overall the team has a very inspiring look about it and has a look of a coach looking to save his job rather than building a team for the future

AbusesToilets

phog wrote: »

I haven't read back the last few pages and I only saw the team listed without any announcement but was there a reason why Ruddock lost out? Happy once again to see Casey but hoping this time he'll get on the field.

He's Ruddock, that's how it goes. I'm not sure why they felt the need to move Beirne from where he was playing great to accommodate Henderson. I'd rather have seen Conan start at 8, get a different approach from Standers smash mouth style.

bilston

AbusesToilets wrote: »

He's Ruddock, that's how it goes. I'm not sure why they felt the need to move Beirne from where he was playing great to accommodate Henderson. I'd rather have seen Conan start at 8, get a different approach from Standers smash mouth style.

Probably because Henderson was very good against France and along with Ryan forms Ireland's best second row pairing. Beirne has played well but he is always up against when both Ryan and Henderson are fit.

I never understand why people don't seem to acknowledge that Henderson is one of the first names on the teamsheet. The fact he captained the team against France when it could have been either CJ or Ringrose should give an indication of his status within the team.

When Henderson and Ryan play together Ireland generally play very well...it just hasn't happened enough for whatever reason.

mfceiling

prawnsambo wrote: »

I am really very surprised that it's been this long since the last time we had an all Leinster back line.

Cheers PS.

Actually came here to ask the same question. Have we ever had a pack line out from 1 province?

Delighted to see Conan there...he's very underated by some (not me).

irishgrover

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to give that much of a **** about Ireland under this setup. It's highly unlikely we will win anything of significance.
It seems we are following the Leinster system which is primarily designed to get a Leinster team ahead when playing a lesser team and then take a totally risk-averse game plan to keep the lead and exploit any opportunistic weakness when it presents.
It's a great system when you have a superior team playing in the Pro 14 but it is questionable when the opposition is similar or better.
Out coaching staff seem incapable of introducing anything specific or new, and are reliant on recycling existing club capabilities, so it totally makes sense to use almost exclusively Leinster players to regurgitate at the international level.
Although in fairness the set pieces and line outs seem to be improving noticeably.

KBurke85

irishgrover wrote: »

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to give that much of a **** about Ireland under this setup. It's highly unlikely we will win anything of significance.
It seems we are following the Leinster system which is primarily designed to get a Leinster team ahead when playing a lesser team and then take a totally risk-averse game plan to keep the lead and exploit any opportunistic weakness when it presents.
It's a great system when you have a superior team playing in the Pro 14 but it is questionable when the opposition is similar or better.
Out coaching staff seem incapable of introducing anything specific or new, and are reliant on recycling existing club capabilities, so it totally makes sense to use almost exclusively Leinster players to regurgitate at the international level.
Although in fairness the set pieces and line outs seem to be improving noticeably.

But you care enough to post about it on an internet forum :P

irishgrover

KBurke85 wrote: »

But you care enough to post about it on an internet forum :P

that would be the difference in measurement between zero ****es and some limited ****es :-)

prawnsambo

Podge_irl wrote: »

Stringer and ROG innit.

Yeah, but we've also had Sexton/Madigan and Reddan/Boss and the Ollie Campbell years.

prawnsambo

mfceiling wrote: »

Cheers PS.

Actually came here to ask the same question. Have we ever had a pack line out from 1 province?

Delighted to see Conan there...he's very underated by some (not me).

We must have come close to it in the noughties. There would have been a front row of Hayes, Flannery and Horan, second row of DOC and POC and the back row would have had the likes of Leamy, Wallace and Horgan. I'm sure there would have been a few more kicking around, but a mostly Munster pack was certainly the rule at the time.

Podge_irl

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yeah, but we've also had Sexton/Madigan and Reddan/Boss and the Ollie Campbell years.

True, though it was utterly bizarre how infrequently Kidney played Reddan/Sexton together. 11-15 was quite regularly fully Leinster in the Stringer/ROG years but Bowe obviously forced his way in then and Earls.

Podge_irl

prawnsambo wrote: »

We must have come close to it in the noughties. There would have been a front row of Hayes, Flannery and Horan, second row of DOC and POC and the back row would have had the likes of Leamy, Wallace and Horgan. I'm sure there would have been a few more kicking around, but a mostly Munster pack was certainly the rule at the time.

Mal was often enough the only Leinster player in the pack I think. EOS loved Easterby also - when Leamy moved across to 6 obviously Heaslip came in.

aloooof

prawnsambo wrote: »

We must have come close to it in the noughties. There would have been a front row of Hayes, Flannery and Horan, second row of DOC and POC and the back row would have had the likes of Leamy, Wallace and Horgan. I'm sure there would have been a few more kicking around, but a mostly Munster pack was certainly the rule at the time.

Foley as well in the early 00's. I'm almost certain there were teams named with 7 out of 8, but not sure if they ever got the fully complement.

prawnsambo

aloooof wrote: »

Foley as well in the early 00's. I'm almost certain there were teams named with 7 out of 8, but not sure if they ever got the fully complement.

And Quinlan as well. Although you'd have had the likes of Reggie Corrigan, Shane Byrne and Bernard Jackman in and around the squad as well.

ujjjjjjjjj

kilns wrote: »

I'd like to hear the reason Ruddock was dropped. Chances are now O'mahoney will come straight back into the match day squad when available and leap over him for no reason

Overall the team has a very inspiring look about it and has a look of a coach looking to save his job rather than building a team for the future

Nuts.....but there you go it's Farrell, he still has Billy Burns in the squad so the fact that he can't see that Ruddock is the way to go at 6 isn't that surprising.

If POM walks back into the side I literally give up.....

Good to see Hendo and Ryan in the 2nd Row. Front Row looks good and obviously trying to tinker around with Beirne, to be honest don't think he is physical enough for an international 2nd Row. Perhaps he can make a big enough mark to keep Ruddock out of 6 and POM too.....

Love that backline and front row looks good too.

Interesting to see Baird on the bench.....

sydthebeat

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Nuts.....but there you go it's Farrell, he still has Billy Burns in the squad so the fact that he can't see that Ruddock is the way to go at 6 isn't that surprising.

If POM walks back into the side I literally give up.....

Good to see Hendo and Ryan in the 2nd Row. Front Row looks good and obviously trying to tinker around with Beirne, to be honest don't think he is physical enough for an international 2nd Row. Perhaps he can make a big enough mark to keep Ruddock out of 6 and POM too.....

Love that backline and front row looks good too.

Interesting to see Baird on the bench.....

Horses for courses... we dont exactly need a high tackling power horse against italy.
we're much better served with Beirne, who is patently a better lineout choice, whos better on the deck and who has better link play out wide.

had this been a game against Scotland id actually prefer Ruddock in there as scotland as bollixes when it comes to the break down and like to keep it tight around the fringes, so a power cleaner there who can a dominate the tackle area is much more valuable.

ujjjjjjjjj

sydthebeat wrote: »

Horses for courses... we dont exactly need a high tackling power horse against italy.
we're much better served with Beirne, who is patently a better lineout choice, whos better on the deck and who has better link play out wide.

had this been a game against Scotland id actually prefer Ruddock in there as scotland as bollixes when it comes to the break down and like to keep it tight around the fringes, so a power cleaner there who can a dominate the tackle area is much more valuable.

No issue with trying Beirne at 6 - for me if he is going to play for Ireland he has to be in the back row, he isn't enough of a lump for an intl 2nd row.....but I'd have had Ruddock on the bench - gives all the wrong messages.

Right now I think it's time to move past POM and let Ruddock and Beirne scrap over 6.

sydthebeat

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

No issue with trying Beirne at 6 - for me if he is going to play for Ireland he has to be in the back row, he isn't enough of a lump for an intl 2nd row.....but I'd have had Ruddock on the bench - gives all the wrong messages.

Right now I think it's time to move past POM and let Ruddock and Beirne scrap over 6.

what wrong messages?

why would ruddock deserve the bench spot ahead of conan?
(taking into account my previous post)

im not sure why youre bring POM into this?? hes no where near the squad for this selection

TomsOnTheRoof

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

No issue with trying Beirne at 6 - for me if he is going to play for Ireland he has to be in the back row, he isn't enough of a lump for an intl 2nd row.....but I'd have had Ruddock on the bench - gives all the wrong messages.

Right now I think it's time to move past POM and let Ruddock and Beirne scrap over 6.

There is less than a year between POM and Ruddock so if you're ruling O'Mahony out based on age then Ruddock is basically in the same boat.

bayern

Less than a year...
September 17, 1989 -> November 13, 1990

TomsOnTheRoof

bayern wrote: »

Less than a year...
September 17, 1989 -> November 13, 1990

Apologies. Just over a year. Pretty insignificant nonetheless.

Paul Smeenus

Beirne is 29 as well - it's not like this is a brave new generation.

prawnsambo

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

Beirne is 29 as well - it's not like this is a brave new generation.

We're all getting older.

Buer

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

Beirne is 29 as well - it's not like this is a brave new generation.

I've no issue with Beirne's age; he could well play test rugby for another 5-6 years. I've an issue with him being selected in a position where he's almost certainly not going to play to any significant extent in the future.

It's absolutely a wasted opportunity to look at someone else who could potentially be an option at blindside or rejig the backrow. As good as Beirne is playing, we know what he's going to give us. Either select him where he has been playing well or don't select him.

What our pack needs is dynamism and players who can create, carry and give another dimension in attack. Does anyone think that moving a 113kg lock to flanker is the way to do that?

ujjjjjjjjj

Buer wrote: »

I've no issue with Beirne's age; he could well play test rugby for another 5-6 years. I've an issue with him being selected in a position where he's almost certainly not going to play to any significant extent in the future.

It's absolutely a wasted opportunity to look at someone else who could potentially be an option at blindside or rejig the backrow. As good as Beirne is playing, we know what he's going to give us. Either select him where he has been playing well or don't select him.

What our pack needs is dynamism and players who can create, carry and give another dimension in attack. Does anyone think that moving a 113kg lock to flanker is the way to do that?

Think the problem is Beirne has kinda fallen between two stools.........he's not quite the full article for an international 2nd row but has been playing most of rugby there - always felt he was best suited to 6 but perhaps the log jam in the Ireland and Munster backrow at 6.