Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

Options
15855865885905911190

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,240 ✭✭✭sprucemoose


    who is 22?

    POM was one of the players of the series in the summer and now he doesnt even make the 23? riiiiight......



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,941 ✭✭✭TRC10


    I think for the Boks we'll need to beef up the pack a bit. Whether that means Coombes coming in, or Beirne shifting to the backrow with one of POM or VDF being an impact player from the bench. Henderson being injured probably makes the former the more likely. But if Beirne was to move to 6, the options at lock to go alongside Ryan would be Treadwell, McCarthy or possibly Ahern. It would be a big ask for McCarthy or Ahern to debut against South Africa. But I'd have no fears over Treadwell starting after how well he went over the summer and his form over the last year.

    Anyway, I'd go with something like

    15.Lowry 14.Baloucoune 13.Ringrose 12.Henshaw 11.Hansen 10.Sexton 9.Cooney 1.Porter 2.Sheehan 3.Furlong 4.Treadwell 5.Ryan 6.Beirne 7.VDF 8.Doris

    16.Herring 17.Loughman 18.Bealham 19.McCarthy 20.POM 21.Casey 22.Crowley 23.McCloskey



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,169 ✭✭✭✭Clegg


    John Cooney hasn't been part of an Ireland squad in years. He's clearly not getting called up now.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,941 ✭✭✭TRC10




  • Registered Users Posts: 17,169 ✭✭✭✭Clegg


    Of course. But barring a complete change in selection policy, Cooney isn't getting selected and everyone knows it. We should at least post likely squads.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,240 ✭✭✭sprucemoose


    i know the general line is to select a bigger pack against SA but i dont see that as a good idea. if we try and take them on with sheer physicality thats never going to work so we would be much better off picking a fast and skillful set of forwards to try and outsmart/outplay them. the pack from the summer has alot of that with a few decent ball carriers mixed in when needed



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭TomsOnTheRoof


    I'd agree with that. It didn't work out too well for the Lions.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,941 ✭✭✭TRC10


    I'm not saying we should change our gameplan and go after the Boks at their own game and try to take them on physically. I'm saying we should consider getting maybe one bigger body in the pack to prevent us getting bullied. It's not the same thing. Picking Beirne at 6 doesn't prevent us playing our game, it just beefs up the pack a bit. I'd be quite concerned about a back 5 of Beirne, Ryan, POM, VDF and Doris going up against the South Africa pack. I think they'd find it very tough to live with them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,941 ✭✭✭TRC10


    The Lions failed because they tried to beat the Boks at their own game. That's not at all what I'm proposing.



  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Should probably exclude South African internationals in that case.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,986 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    The likely squad will be that which beat NZ, adjusted for injuries. Experimenting will happen in the NZ and Fiji games, that's what they're there for.

    I'd say if Keenan gets through 60 minutes against Scarlets, he'll play against SA, same for Lowe.

    Doesn't sound like JGP is going to make it though.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,565 ✭✭✭Dubinusa


    Looks like Beirne has an injury! So if Henderson is out also it would be Treadwell? I think McCarthy will get a shot too. The injuries are piling up.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭TomsOnTheRoof


    Yeah, we're in agreement. My point was that the Lions approach of trying to out muscle South Africa didn't work out too well.



  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    So we've had that 32-year-old John Cooney may have 'matured a bit' in the last two years to pending World Player of the Year nominee Josh Van Der Flier possibly being an impact player from the bench.

    This is all very funny.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,194 ✭✭✭Must love hardship


    Ryan, Henderson and Beirne might all be injured. Or at least are all carrying knocks.

    You'd have to go back a long way to find at test match against a tier 1 nation where at least one of them didn't start. Maybe 5 years when Toner and Donnacha ryan were paired together.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,240 ✭✭✭sprucemoose


    i dont think adding one extra bigger player would make much of a difference though to be honest, while it would take out one of our best players from the summer. im not saying its a terrible idea but for me its a bit too much of trying to play against their gameplan rather than playing to ours, much as i take your point



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,941 ✭✭✭TRC10


    The reality is, if Beirne shifts to 6, one of VDF or POM has to drop to the bench. Why is that very funny? Sure if I had only suggested POM, I'd have been crucified in here for the mere suggestion that one of our best performers over the summer has a change in role.

    It's 2022. It's a 23-man game. Test Lion and player of the 6N nominee in 2021 Tadhg Beirne was an impact player for us last November. We need to stop being so narrow minded in how we view selections. Look at how South Africa use their front rowers. They finish the game with their strongest front row rather than start with it and finish with their weaker one. They literally start games with the best hooker in the world on the bench. But the idea of VDF coming on for POM in the 50th minute so that he can make maximum impact in the biggest minutes of the game get's laughed at. The mere suggestion of anything outside the box here gets mocked.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,597 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    To follow on from TRC's post, one slightly left-wing suggestion that, in past, I remember being dismissed here (and I was probably on that side of the argument tbh) is Ringrose as a wing option. (It might've been yourself TRC that suggested it).

    Farrell has already proven to be reasonably happy with a centre in the 23 jersey (Farrell, Hume and Henshaw have all been selected there). I'm not sure I'd ever start him there, but it gives a bit more flexibility to the Ringrose, Aki and Henshaw question if we ever have all of them available.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,194 ✭✭✭Must love hardship


    I think that was me.. I was suggesting Ringrose as a potential option on the wing with henshaw 12 and Hume 13.

    The suggestion was $hat on..



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,240 ✭✭✭sprucemoose


    and quite rightly imo unless he starts playing there more for leinster

    if ringrose/hume are in the 23 jersey and a winger got injured, id personally prefer to bring carbery on at 15 (presuming he's the 22) and move keenan over, think ringrose is too important at 13 and potentially hume would be too



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,169 ✭✭✭✭Clegg


    Ringrose isn't quick enough to play on the wing. He's also the best 13 available to us so moving him out doesn't really strengthen the side.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭ersatz


    So much of this is about form and Ringrose seems to be off to a flying start this season, but all things being equal is there that much between him and Henshaw at 13?



  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    It's mad that every single year this rubbish conversation around Garry Ringrose takes place despite the fact he is the best in his position.

    It's genuinely mad. It was suggested he would be dropped to move Henshaw to 13 and play Aki at 12, then McCloskey, and now all of a sudden Robbie Henshaw is best at 12 and James Hume should play at 13 instead and Ringrose should probably make way, again.

    We don't deserve any of the talent we have at our disposal. There's always a handful of players that are completely sh*t on for no reason whatsoever.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,597 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    Nobody has “completely sh*t on” anybody here. That’s a massive overreaction.



  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    You're not even thinking outside of the box though, you're making absolute rubbish suggestions

    Why should one of POM or VDF be dropped to accommodate Beirne in the back row? What's the actual purpose of it? Only a mad man would drop one of the best players in World Rugby this year for the sake of playing somebody else. It's sheer lunacy and it seems you're suggesting it for no other reason other than the pre-conceived notion that we have to do something outside the box.

    Your excuse for Cooney coming back into the side was that he has perhaps 'matured' a bit in the last two years. He's 32. If he was of any use to the coaching ticket he'd be one of the leaders right now but, he's not. And those petulant remarks he made as a 30 year old suggest that there is a bigger attitude problem at play here. Good riddance.

    Now the entire second/back row needs a shake up. Why? Also, why can't Beirne be the one to come off the bench and make an impact? Why should it be the best player we have had in the last 12 months to play the last 20 minutes?

    There's a bang of that video of the bloke in Dublin who claimed he was a big Pats fan talking about 'keeping the good men on the bench and then bam, Bob's your uncle, Mary's your aunty', from that suggestion. It isn't backed up by anything and is purely kite-flying.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭ersatz


    Right, and Ringrose just blew the lights out on the wing for Leinster, it's not unreasonable to consider whether he might show up on the wing for Ireland if circumstances force Farrel's hand for whatever reason.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,597 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    I’m not saying start him there, but it opens the door for 12. Henshaw 13. Ringrose and 23. Aki.

    We know Farrell seems comfortable with a centre in the 23 jersey.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,240 ✭✭✭sprucemoose


    agreed, although im not against trying hume out against strong opposition either, ideally from the bench imo



  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    It's not a massive over-reaction. Everytime we get close to international windows and talking about potential, Ringrose has to make way either for the latest flavour of the month or people just outright lie about perceived 'average form' from him to make some weird excuse around why he should be dropped.

    You could go all the way back to 2018, when so many here were saying Chris f*cking Farrell should have the 13 jersey because he played well in one game while Ringrose was out injured and Ringrose came back into the side against Scotland and put all of those nay-sayers back in their box. Ever since then there has been a weird idea that Ringrose isn't good enough and that Aki/McCloskey/Hume/whoever would be a better option alongside Henshaw when there is zero evidence to back up the idea that there is a better pairing than the Henshaw/Ringrose tandem.

    You can gaslight me all you want (like you tend to do) by saying I'm over-reacting or pretending that these conversations never happen here, but they do. Moving Ringrose out to the wing to accommodate someone else has been suggested more than once now.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,597 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    I can see that logic, and it’d still leave you space for a centre at 23 in case of an injury there.



Advertisement