Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

Scratchly

The Inbetween is mine wrote: »

What way are the bookies calling this? .. personally I think it's a toss of a coin between the teams

Ireland marginal favourites. Personally I think Scotland are a tad overrated and have been playing "well" against dire opposition. England were godawful against them and Wales were ****e enough too.

If Ireland aren't ****e and put in a decent shift I think it will be a comfortable win.

CMcsporty

schmoo2k wrote: »

Is Murray starting? I missed that...

Murray is on the bench after not playing in 5 wks.
And having played poorly v Wales.
And the last 3 years.

sydthebeat

CMcsporty wrote: »

It's no biased at all.
What veterans did he not pick?

its incredibly biased and posted with a clear agenda.

Farrell has given debuts to 13 different players in 15 months

what players would you have selected ahead of these "veterans" ?

JGP starts ahead of murray
Baird is there ahead of Dillane and Kleyn,
Kelleher is there ahead of scannell / heffernan
Aki isnt playing
Chris Farrell isnt playing
Billy Burns is there ahead of carty
Doris woudl be playing if he wasnt injured.

7 players in the 23 with less than 10 caps


if you are going to put picking experienced players ahead of novices as something to beat Farrell with
.. at least put forward who you would have in instead and why??

TRC10

crossman47 wrote: »

We can maybe on a given day with everyone available but we don't have strength in depth for a WC campaign. Anyway my point was thinking of 2023 WC now is nonsense. Deal with the here and now.

Strength and depth is great but you can only field 23 players. We can field a 23 that should be able to compete for a world cup.

CMcsporty

sydthebeat wrote: »

its incredibly biased and posted with a clear agenda.

Farrell has given debuts to 13 different players in 15 months

what players would you have selected ahead of these "veterans" ?

JGP starts ahead of murray
Baird is there ahead of Dillane and Kleyn,
Kelleher is there ahead of scannell / heffernan
Aki isnt playing
Chris Farrell isnt playing
Billy Burns is there ahead of carty
Doris woudl be playing if he wasnt injured.

7 players in the 23 with less than 10 caps


if you are going to put picking experienced players ahead of novices as something to beat Farrell with
.. at least put forward who you would have in instead and why??

As i said he's picked ALL of the veterans. All of them. And i listed them.

You call it biased because because you dont agree with it.
I've put an opinion forward that is based on reality.

There is no bias. I just dont agree with how Farrell has handled a difficult transition. Its that simple.

Youve listed players that not only aren't veterans but they arent even in the picture.
Kelleher should be starting...never mind Scannell??

Baird is 100% better than any alternative. Kleyn?

I dont know what your point is about Aki or Farrell. Or Dorris.

Larmour should be starting for Earls. Earls is long gone.
Healy also.
Sexton?? Byrne/Burns clearly arent better but he ignores Carty. Bad decision.

If you think Murray and Earls are worth there place. Fine. I realise its an opinion and not biased.
But they shouldnt be in the 23 for this game.
Take your pick from almost any scrum half or winger from the provinces and i'd take that option for the 23.

sydthebeat

CMcsporty wrote: »

If you think Murray and Earls are worth there place. Fine. I realise its an opinion and not biased.
But they shouldnt be in the 23 for this game.
Take your pick from almost any scrum half or winger from the provinces and i'd take that option for the 23.

who would you have in the 23 instead of murray and earls then? and why?

you argue he picks 'veterans' but then say this:

CMcsporty wrote: »

Baird is 100% better than any alternative. Kleyn?
.

hes picked the best 23 available to him.

do you want him to pick an under 20s squad in order to plan for 2027 ???

CMcsporty

?
Ive told you who id want instead of Earls or Murray and why.
?
I give up on that one

He's picked all the veterans that i listed yea.

I dont what you point is about Kleyn - He's not even in the picture
Baird?
If i took a man whose never watched rugby and asked him "Do you think he's good at this sport" He'd say Of course!

I never said anything of the such about u20's or 2027. But if you want to drag into mud fine.
I'd much rather you just say. Ok - sorry i said biased.
Good luck now.

swiwi_

Dubinusa wrote: »

While I do agree with you, it's been pointed out that the prize money is a huge driver of team selection. I would love to see several aging players put out to Pasteur, but could the union afford a really bad 6nations? Especially now, with the pandemic.
It's also worth noting that some of these older players, like Sexton are vastly better than the alternatives. Healy for example, looks his age and is probably just about finished as an international player, but nobody else has taken his place from him.
This time next year, I think most of the aging players will be either on the bench or completely gone from the squad.

Surely Pasteur is exactly what you need in a pandemic.

Dubinusa

There's some lads that just extended for a year. I think that's transitional. They would want to keep the experience whilst blooding new lads. The big issue for me is Healy! As good as he was, he looks like he's old. He has no explosive moments anymore. Who steps in to replace him?
Kilcoyne is an option and he too is aging! EOS, clearly isn't there yet and Ed Byrne is not good enough, imo.
Wycherly has to pass a gaggle of loose heads and that could be ages. Milne needs to work on his scrummaging.
In the meantime, there's a lack of top level talent at lh.
I think James Cronin could be an option. But, he's behind Kilcoyne.
It's a similar situation at 10. Sexton clearly is better than any alternative.
But at 9, it's really not a problem. There's enough talented 9's around. Even if JGP doesn't pan out, Blade and Casey are right there or will be.

schmoo2k

CMcsporty wrote: »

Murray is on the bench after not playing in 5 wks.
And having played poorly v Wales.
And the last 3 years.

Ahh right I thought your point was that he would be started no matter what as he is a veteran?

jacothelad

swiwi_ wrote: »

Surely Pasteur is exactly what you need in a pandemic.

You're milking it.......:D:D:D

sydthebeat

CMcsporty wrote: »

?
Ive told you who id want instead of Earls or Murray and why.
?
I give up on that one

.

if this really is your answer

Take your pick from almost any scrum half or winger from the provinces and i'd take that option for the 23.

then you 100% have just proven your own bias and agenda "anybody but them"

it actually could not be any more blatant

Dubinusa

Pasture! Pasture! You heathens

ionadnapokot

sydthebeat wrote: »

if this really is your answer



then you 100% have just proven your own bias and agenda "anybody but them"

it actually could not be any more blatant

Why do you think the selection of Earls or Murray are a good selection?

This is like a really bad joke to me.

Larmour and Casey would fully justify their spots instead.

sydthebeat

ionadnapokot wrote: »

Why do you think the selection of Earls or Murray are a good selection?

This is like a really bad joke to me.

Larmour and Casey would fully justify their spots instead.

I didn't say earls and Murray were "good selections"

I asked what players you'd have on the 23 ahead of them.... And the response was a laughable "anybody but them"

ionadnapokot

Ok....so who would you pick?

Yeah_Right

ionadnapokot wrote: »

Ok....so who would you pick?

I'd go with Dave Kearney and Casey.

sydthebeat

ionadnapokot wrote: »

Ok....so who would you pick?

Jesus have you got a serious issue with comprehension??

Quantum Baloney

If everyone was available this would be my team for tomorrow:

Starting: Larmour, Sweetnam, Farrell, Henshaw, Earls, Sexton, Marmion; Kilcoyne, Kelleher, Furlong, Henderson, Ryan, Beirne, Connors, Stander

Replacements : Heffernan, Porter, Baird, Kleyn, JGP, B Burns, J Larmour.

ionadnapokot

sydthebeat wrote: »

Jesus have you got a serious issue with comprehension??

What? I must do!!!!!
Spell it out for me so

aloooof

Quantum Baloney wrote: »

If everyone was available this would be my team for tomorrow:

Starting: Larmour, Sweetnam, Farrell, Henshaw, Earls, Sexton, Marmion; Healy, Kelleher, Kilcoyne, Henderson, Ryan, Beirne, Connors, Stander

Replacements : Heffernan, Porter, Baird, Kleyn, JGP, B Burns, J Larmour.

Larmour at FB and 23?

Also, I’m a huge Munster fan, but even I wouldn’t have Sweetnam in the 23, nor Farrell ahead of Ringrose.

sebdavis

Quantum Baloney wrote: »

If everyone was available this would be my team for tomorrow:

Starting: Larmour, Sweetnam, Farrell, Henshaw, Earls, Sexton, Marmion; Kilcoyne, Kelleher, Furlong, Henderson, Ryan, Beirne, Connors, Stander

Replacements : Heffernan, Porter, Baird, Kleyn, JGP, B Burns, J Larmour.

You are dropping Ringrose

theVersatile

My fifteen is the fourteen tallest players in the country and then Craig Casey at scrumhalf, just for comic relief.

1. Eric O'Sullivan
2. Dan Sheehan
3. Finlay Bealham
4. James Ryan
5. Devin Toner
6. Ryan Baird
7. Dan Leavy
8. Gavin Coombes
9. Craig Casey
10. Ben Healy
11. Robert Balacoune
12. Stuart McCloskey
13. Chris Farrell
14. Jacob Stockdale
15. Thomas Ahern (his true position)

kilns

Everyone can gripe about team selections but for more the biggest let down if the Farrell era so far is Irelands lack of discipline. In all of Irelands game under so far we have given away so many stupid needless penalties. Under Schmidt this was unthinkable and it was Ireland was so successful as no one got an easy out against Schmidt's Ireland but now you see so many brain dead penalties been given away. If we could tidy up that part of the game it would go a long way to get us back to where we think we should be

sebdavis

kilns wrote: »

Everyone can gripe about team selections but for more the biggest let down if the Farrell era so far is Irelands lack of discipline. In all of Irelands game under so far we have given away so many stupid needless penalties. Under Schmidt this was unthinkable and it was Ireland was so successful as no one got an easy out against Schmidt's Ireland but now you see so many brain dead penalties been given away. If we could tidy up that part of the game it would go a long way to get us back to where we think we should be

Schmidt had a game plan, a hugely success one which was built on a number of factors. This included low penalty count because it was low risk rugby.

Seemingly this was not good enough for the Irish public who constantly thought we should play "head up rugby", which if you ask people the majority have no idea what game plan that is. I heard on one of the podcast someone actually turned around and asked the presentators what is heads up rugby and the answer was flaky

Now we are trying to play a more expansive game according to Farrell & Catt, more risky and more chance of penalties. Thats the line they are taking anyway.

Problem for Catt is our attack was better under Schmidt system, this over & back the field all day long is terrible. I do remember some of the ENglish saying that was the issue with Lancasters England, they had the ball alright but they spent the whole match in the middle of the field going over & back and not getting to the 22

ionadnapokot

sebdavis wrote: »

Schmidt had a game plan, a hugely success one which was built on a number of factors. This included low penalty count because it was low risk rugby.

Seemingly this was not good enough for the Irish public who constantly thought we should play "head up rugby", which if you ask people the majority have no idea what game plan that is. I heard on one of the podcast someone actually turned around and asked the presentators what is heads up rugby and the answer was flaky

Now we are trying to play a more expansive game according to Farrell & Catt, more risky and more chance of penalties. Thats the line they are taking anyway.

Problem for Catt is our attack was better under Schmidt system, this over & back the field all day long is terrible. I do remember some of the ENglish saying that was the issue with Lancasters England, they had the ball alright but they spent the whole match in the middle of the field going over & back and not getting to the 22

Bad gameplans (v Eng & Fra particularly), bad decisions, poor execution and disjointed nature of our attack that are all alarmingly bad.
& the talk from Sexton and Farrell of it been "a sign of character" after beating Italy - Ridiculous!

Ireland are going out to try and beat Scotland the way they have always done over the last 20 years. Up front.
I've no Q's about our forwards ability to do that.
But Scotland have an improved backrow and defence and are playing with confidence. I can see them winning.

sebdavis

ionadnapokot wrote: »

Bad gameplans (v Eng & Fra particularly), bad decisions, poor execution and disjointed nature of our attack that are all alarmingly bad.
& the talk from Sexton and Farrell of it been "a sign of character" after beating Italy - Ridiculous!

Ireland are going out to try and beat Scotland the way they have always done over the last 20 years. Up front.
I've no Q's about our forwards ability to do that.
But Scotland have an improved backrow and defence and are playing with confidence. I can see them winning.

The hype over the win against Italy was a small bit embarrassing when you think the majority of this team won a Grand Slam and beat NZ twice.

The Irish provinces hammer these players week in week out for their respective provinces and at the end of those games I don't see any player jumping for joy. It is fully expected they will win. Yet put an international jersey on and suddenly we are to believe the Italian players are better? that this was a great victory?

Remember when Schimdt took over what was a shambles of a squad, at this stage into his coaching we had 1 6 nations and on the way to a second. Everyone already knew what Ireland style was and how Ireland could win. Yes some people didn't like it but it was effective.

Ask anyone at this stage, listen to any podcast and nobody can tell you what Ireland are actually trying to do. This is a huge concern.

Yeah_Right

sebdavis wrote: »

Schmidt had a game plan, a hugely success one which was built on a number of factors. This included low penalty count because it was low risk rugby.

Seemingly this was not good enough for the Irish public who constantly thought we should play "head up rugby", which if you ask people the majority have no idea what game plan that is. I heard on one of the podcast someone actually turned around and asked the presentators what is heads up rugby and the answer was flaky

Now we are trying to play a more expansive game according to Farrell & Catt, more risky and more chance of penalties. Thats the line they are taking anyway.

Problem for Catt is our attack was better under Schmidt system, this over & back the field all day long is terrible. I do remember some of the ENglish saying that was the issue with Lancasters England, they had the ball alright but they spent the whole match in the middle of the field going over & back and not getting to the 22

I was watching Bristol v Wasps last night and pre match they talked about the number of penalties Bristol give away on attack. The support players are always looking to be in position for an offload so sometimes the ball carrier gets isolated. That results in turnovers or penalties. Under Schmidt that didn't happen so Ireland built pressure on their opponents and could grind them down. Not pretty but effective.

ionadnapokot

sebdavis wrote: »

The hype over the win against Italy was a small bit embarrassing when you think the majority of this team won a Grand Slam and beat NZ twice.

The Irish provinces hammer these players week in week out for their respective provinces and at the end of those games I don't see any player jumping for joy. It is fully expected they will win. Yet put an international jersey on and suddenly we are to believe the Italian players are better? that this was a great victory?

Remember when Schimdt took over what was a shambles of a squad, at this stage into his coaching we had 1 6 nations and on the way to a second. Everyone already knew what Ireland style was and how Ireland could win. Yes some people didn't like it but it was effective.

Ask anyone at this stage, listen to any podcast and nobody can tell you what Ireland are actually trying to do. This is a huge concern.

What about the 1-3-2-2? :pac:
As if this is some revolution!

sebdavis

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I was watching Bristol v Wasps last night and pre match they talked about the number of penalties Bristol give away on attack. The support players are always looking to be in position for an offload so sometimes the ball carrier gets isolated. That results in turnovers or penalties. Under Schmidt that didn't happen so Ireland built pressure on their opponents and could grind them down. Not pretty but effective.

I still remember Joe sitting in Carton House at an interview and saying "Yeah Ireland had played in 6 and won 3 6 nations since he took over" as if it was a cast away comment. As if this was nothing new for Ireland. Ahh Joe if only you knew