Ireland vs Australia match thread, Saturday 22nd Nov. KO 4:30PM

duckysauce · 23-11-2014 2:25am

PTH2009 wrote: »

good win but i think we wont win the 6 nations next year and i fancy us to finish 2nd in our group in the world cup and lose to the all blacks in the qf.

Italy will be no pushovers in the 6 nations and the world cup

Imagine winning the world cup, the country should shut down

who do you think will win the Six nations?? if france keep their current form we will beat them in the WC , very poor tonight. Italy love not sure where that is coming from . Boks were gash today , thought they were on holidays already.

case885 · 23-11-2014 2:25am

There is pressure on Toner now after today, we will have to see how he performs heading into the 6n but Foley is closing in on him.
Great to see all this competition for places few have guaranteed places.

errlloyd · 23-11-2014 2:28am

Pudsy33 wrote: »

They weren't an issue against SA if I remember correctly? I think we needed to pull out of the rucks sooner then we did today. That's my only criticism.

I think we still had a lot.

errlloyd · 23-11-2014 2:37am

Ah just watching it back live, their first try is devastating, particularly without my beer comfort

PTH2009 · 23-11-2014 2:39am

duckysauce wrote: »

who do you think will win the Six nations?? if france keep their current form we will beat them in the WC , very poor tonight. Italy love not sure where that is coming from . Boks were gash today , thought they were on holidays already.

England or Wales. Would love to see us doing it again

degsie · 23-11-2014 2:41am

Wonder what George H took from the game?

UnitedWeStand · 23-11-2014 2:51am

In all my years of watching rugby, I'll tell you one thing, you dont beat the Bok's or Wallabies by playing poorly, and certainly not both by playing badly. Let people think were one dimensional, we're coming in under the radar still amazingly.

Tobyglen · 23-11-2014 2:53am

Cheika is an asshole. His interview after was pathetic, zero class.

Pudsy33 · 23-11-2014 2:57am

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

In all my years of watching rugby, I'll tell you one thing, you dont beat the Bok's or Wallabies by playing poorly, and certainly not both by playing badly. Let people think were one dimensional, we're coming in under the radar still amazingly.

Totally agree. Whatever about the Boks, Australia were hugely impressive. And yet we did what we needed to do and hung on.

I'm confident we will see this team cut lose at some point and we will see some of the great back play Schmidts Leinster were known for. Theres more to come...

errlloyd · 23-11-2014 3:08am

Didn't understand this in the stadium or on TV, at 37 minutes Aus make a mess of the ball outside their own 22, knock it back in, have a ruck and then kick out in the full, why wasn't the line out taken back.

Also, was there a suggestion that izzy folou didn't even try to catch the cross kick and that there could have been some sort of punishment?

former legend · 23-11-2014 3:14am

errlloyd wrote: »

Didn't understand this in the stadium or on TV, at 37 minutes Aus make a mess of the ball outside their own 22, knock it back in, have a ruck and then kick out in the full, why wasn't the line out taken back.

Also, was there a suggestion that izzy folou didn't even try to catch the cross kick and that there could have been some sort of punishment?

If you carry the ball back into the 22 but a ruck is subsequently formed, you can then kick straight into touch.

On first viewing I'd have agreed re Folau, but on the replay it looked like he tried to catch it.

stephen_n · 23-11-2014 3:14am

If we never cut loose and keep wining, I for one won't be losing any sleep. I think people have some strange ideas about the way we should be playing and selective memory about Joes time with Leinster. I will take nice clinical finishes from the wingers over flashy back play and multiple off loads any day if it means wining championships, gaining world rankings and the seeding which goes with it while also hopefully getting to a semi or final of the WC.

The Lost Sheep · 23-11-2014 3:20am

errlloyd wrote: »

Didn't understand this in the stadium or on TV, at 37 minutes Aus make a mess of the ball outside their own 22, knock it back in, have a ruck and then kick out in the full, why wasn't the line out taken back.

Also, was there a suggestion that izzy folou didn't even try to catch the cross kick and that there could have been some sort of punishment?

There was a ruck in the 22 which meant they could kick the ball out on the full and have lineout where ball went out over the touch line.
Folou did attempt to catch the ball. There could have been a penalty against him if a referee felt he did not attempt to catch the ball

errlloyd · 23-11-2014 3:24am

former legend wrote: »

If you carry the ball back into the 22 but a ruck is subsequently formed, you can then kick straight into touch.

On first viewing I'd have agreed re Folau, but on the replay it looked like he tried to catch it.

In response to part A, I am almost certain that isn't the rule. Very sure. For example many times you'll see a line out just outside the 22, a ruck a phase later inside and the defenders can't kick for touch.

As for folou trying to catch, I felt it was worth a proper look, I don't think he had any chance of not knocking that on,

Pudsy33 · 23-11-2014 3:28am

I was under the same impression. If you bring it in, you cannot go straight to touch regardless of the amount of phases.

former legend · 23-11-2014 3:46am

errlloyd wrote: »

In response to part A, I am almost certain that isn't the rule. Very sure. For example many times you'll see a line out just outside the 22, a ruck a phase later inside and the defenders can't kick for touch.

As for folou trying to catch, I felt it was worth a proper look, I don't think he had any chance of not knocking that on,

It's a bit silly because it gets you out of jail quite easily but once there is a tackle, ruck or maul after you carry it back, you can then kick straight out.

Re: Folau, maybe the ref wasn't bothered because he was going back for a penalty anyway? A one handed leap wouldn't seem to be the best way to make a clean catch alright.

former legend · 23-11-2014 4:04am

A few thoughts after watching it back.

The half backs weren't bad but well short of the imperious level of the SA game. Sexton in particular launched too many kicks that gave no hope of a chase.

Very encouraging from Henshaw, the 13 jersey is now his to lose. No scything breaks but looked lively and very comfortable at this level. Not sure why D'Arcy is getting so much stick, thought he did OK without setting the world on fire.

A good game from Zebo, tackled hard, looked for work and good awareness for his try. Couple of slight imprecisions to cut out but a good night. Outshone Bowe I think.

Kearney was brilliant. That drop goal would have capped a great November, shame.

I don't know when I last saw both props play 80 minutes in a test match. Phenomenal effort even if Kepu put us under a lot of pressure. Best had a couple of wobbles out of touch but good overall.

Quiet game from Toner, great stuff from POC. Think he got MOTM purely for that driving tackle, a wonderful moment.

No fear of Ruddock at this level anyway, possibly the best of a very good back row tonight? All three tackled like lions and tidied up a lot of dirty ball.

The subs: Madigan was great, popped up everywhere in defence, likewise Cronin. Foley didn't really have time to shine. Reddan's cameo was fine but his rapid withdrawal just highlighted how Murray is valued.

Finally; I'm genuinely baffled by the criticism of the ref.

Piliger · 23-11-2014 4:10am

.ak wrote: »

It may be pessimistic, but there's a lot of over the top optimism going around now too. It was a clean sweep, fair enough, but we played fairly poorly for the majority of the games.

Something we need to fix for the 6N. We made Australia look a lot better than they were, and we also gave them heart when we should have been squeezing the life out of them. Their burst of flair was only enabled by our abject failure to play smart rugby after going 17-0 up. Adulation of their talent is embarrassing when it completely overlooks the context, and the very poor referring display. Owens must have been hopping being forced to stand bye and watch from the lines.

The Lost Sheep · 23-11-2014 4:11am

errlloyd wrote: »

In response to part A, I am almost certain that isn't the rule. Very sure. For example many times you'll see a line out just outside the 22, a ruck a phase later inside and the defenders can't kick for touch.

As for folou trying to catch, I felt it was worth a proper look, I don't think he had any chance of not knocking that on,

Pudsy33 wrote: »

I was under the same impression. If you bring it in, you cannot go straight to touch regardless of the amount of phases.

Both of ye are wrong. When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22, it goes into that players 22/in goal area and the ball touches an opposition player or a tackle takes place or a ruck/maul are formed then the defending team can kick the ball straight to touch and the lineout is from where the ball went into touch

Hagz · 23-11-2014 4:13am

former legend wrote: »

Finally; I'm genuinely baffled by the criticism of the ref.

I didn't think he had a bad game, but there were small things that annoyed me. In particular I felt that the Aussies were making contact with our jumpers regularly in the line-out. Then of course the forward pass which was pretty blatant on the big screen. There was also a few occasions where I felt the Aussies were being sneaky at the breakdown, in attack pulling in/clearing out players who weren't part of the ruck, in defence deliberately getting in between the ruck and the scrum-half.
But I don't think he was imbalanced and it was an entertaining test match.

kingofthekong · 23-11-2014 4:45am

case885 wrote: »

There is pressure on Toner now after today, we will have to see how he performs heading into the 6n but Foley is closing in on him.
Great to see all this competition for places few have guaranteed places.

Think Henderson will be the starter for the six nations with either toner or foley on the bench , maybe dan tuohy depending on his form , he certainly brings a physicality that toner struggles with

EmacB · 23-11-2014 5:31am

former legend wrote: »

Finally; I'm genuinely baffled by the criticism of the ref.

From what I've seen on since the game, there's been virtually unanimous criticism of the ref from neutrals, Irish and Aussies.

mfceiling · 23-11-2014 9:35am

case885 wrote: »

There is pressure on Toner now after today, we will have to see how he performs heading into the 6n but Foley is closing in on him.
Great to see all this competition for places few have guaranteed places.

I'd disagree. Toner will still be first choice in the 6n. He was a bit quieter today but is definitely a 1st pick for us in the 6n.

Foley is good but he'll have a battle on his hands when Henderson and Tuohy come back.

No complaints here...our strength in depth will stand to us in the future.

bilston · 23-11-2014 9:41am

former legend wrote: »

Finally; I'm genuinely baffled by the criticism of the ref.

The criticsm is down to the TMO try. The problem is we don't know what the TMO was saying so we can't be sure what role Jackson had in it but nothing anyone says will convince me that was anything other than a forward pass.

Other than that he was alright, there was one crooked throw call against Best which was ridiculously harsh where it went to the tail went off the top and Henshaw was about to smash it up the middle. Again that may have been the touch judge calling that.

vienne86 · 23-11-2014 9:46am

mfceiling wrote: »

I'd disagree. Toner will still be first choice in the 6n. He was a bit quieter today but is definitely a 1st pick for us in the 6n.

Foley is good but he'll have a battle on his hands when Henderson and Tuohy come back.

No complaints here...our strength in depth will stand to us in the future.

I agree that Toner will stay. He's had some great games, and goes well with POC. Yesterda he was far from his best, but I think it would (and should) take more than one poor showing to dislodge him.

rrpc · 23-11-2014 9:59am

bilston wrote: »

The criticsm is down to the TMO try. The problem is we don't know what the TMO was saying so we can't be sure what role Jackson had in it but nothing anyone says will convince me that was anything other than a forward pass.

Other than that he was alright, there was one crooked throw call against Best which was ridiculously harsh where it went to the tail went off the top and Henshaw was about to smash it up the middle. Again that may have been the touch judge calling that.

I thought the crooked throw calls were fair enough. If it's the one I'm thinking of, the ball was over Toner's head and marginally on the outside. Best got away with at least two other crooked throws that I remember.

The try call was marginal, but what made it look worse was the fact that the player was knocked backwards just after he passed the ball. I was not overly surprised that the try was given. As always with these tries, the emphasis should be on the break that put them in that position rather than the mechanics of the play on the line.

We had good line speed in the first quarter, but lost it in the second for some reason and stood off them more. That's what was most annoying. We also weren't protecting our ball well and Murray got dragged into far too many rucks for my liking.

Great to get the three wins though and also good that there are (a) so many players to come back from injury and (b) that we have (and acknowledge that we have) a good many things to work on.

23-11-2014 10:09am

The ref was ok.

Missed a fair bit at the breakdown and around the breakdown most particularly with players not maintaining their feet while contesting.

The TMO try could go either way. I felt it was forward but it was centimeters.

Thought we looked below par today. Wouldn't be surprised if there were a few sick heads on the day as some are suggesting.

Kearney had one of his best games I thought, bar a missed tackle where he was blocked by Toner he was everywhere and always in the right place. Pity he wasn't rewarded with the DG. Shades of Clermont.

POC was MOTM by a fair bit, pulled the team through to be honest. Henshaw was great, POM and Heaslip were a bit understated, didn't stamp their authority on the game. Toner also wasn't on form today, Ruddock put in a huge effort.

Best looked rusty and McGrath while a bit quiet got through a lot of tackles and seemed to show up at every breakdown.

Of the Backs, mostly good and bad - nice tries coming from very little but seemed to run out of steam a bit towards the end of the first half and a lot of forced replacements in the second half. Didn't seem to trust our bench.

Respect to 1 and 3 for doing the 80. Not a common thing anymore.

Overall, I think a bad day at the office, we didn't so much underperform as Australia were very good in places and didn't allow us to play. Despite this, we won and we are now a team that is much more used to winning than losing going into 2015. When we only play OK and beat a top tier team it's a big deal.

Only other thing to note is how intense and physical this game was. Massive test and will stand to everyone, you learn a lot about your limits in a game like this and O'Connells late tackle was immense. Lot's of sore bodies today on both sides.

former legend · 23-11-2014 10:30am

bilston wrote: »

The criticsm is down to the TMO try. The problem is we don't know what the TMO was saying so we can't be sure what role Jackson had in it but nothing anyone says will convince me that was anything other than a forward pass.

I think the TMO was asked "any reason I cannot award the try"? If so, the forward pass had to be clear and obvious; it certainly looked forward but I don't think there was a definitive camera angle, and IIRC Jackson was in a great position to see it himself.

.ak · 23-11-2014 10:33am

Watching the game on TV and I have to say heaslip was amazing. He just goes around and does everything with such technical precision. His tackling and positioning in contact is top drawer. Nothing flash but it's the little things that puts you in the right side of the score board like how you position the attacker in a tackle or how he keeps his legs in attack. He won't have any pundits ranting and raving about his game but for me he's a major part in winning tight margins like this.

aimee1 · 23-11-2014 10:33am

S12b wrote: »

Except Pat Lam, Rodney had a nice sit down for 80 minutes and Henshaw was one of the few backs still standing at the end!!

On a more serious note, 4 of our 7 backs (Murray, Sexton, Darcy, Kearney) took blows to the head today.....for all the talk about SA's physicality I thought today was one of the most ferocious games I've seen in a long time!!

Was sexton a head knock or something else. He looked ill at the very start of the game and shipped a few late tackles after kicks.

Murray got a knee [cooper] to the head when him and Kearney decided to play silly buggers on the touchline near the end. I think he was taken off after the medical team saw the video footage.

Didnt see what happened to D'arcy or Keanrey

Heroditas · 23-11-2014 10:34am

There was another bad miss from the ref a little bit before the third Aussie try. The ball was passed back to an Aussie player who fumbled it and knocked on before clearing down field. A little later, they scored. The whole north end of the east lower saw the knock on yet Jackson missed it.
Instead of an attacking scrum deep in their 22, we conceded 5 points.
He missed a lot of illegal binding in the scrum too.
The try/non try has been discussed to death.

To be honest, the game was played at breakneck speed so one or two things will always be missed. If the scoreboard had been one-sided, nobody would bother discussing the errors.
Still though, for a game that close where either team could win it, a ref's errors will always be highlighted, in the same way as any player's errors will be examined by their coaches.

Heroditas · 23-11-2014 10:36am

Finally, I can't wait to see what Australia are like next year.
Some of their back play was frighteningly good and I dread to think how tough a team they will be once Cheika is in charge of them for a bit longer. They'll be a genuine threat at the RWC next year and Wales and England should be very worried.

.ak · 23-11-2014 10:37am

aimee1 wrote: »

Was sexton a head knock or something else. He looked ill at the very start of the game and shipped a few late tackles after kicks.

Murray got a knee [cooper] to the head when him and Kearney decided to play silly buggers on the touchline near the end. I think he was taken off after the medical team saw the video footage.

Didnt see what happened to D'arcy or Keanrey

Kearney and sexton took each other out trying to make a tackle.

We were incredibly lucky the Aussies didn't try to run down our blindside as the two of them stood up to defend but could barely walk. Kearney in particular didn't know where he was.

.ak · 23-11-2014 10:39am

Heroditas wrote: »

There was another bad miss from the ref a little bit before the third Aussie try. The ball was passed back to an Aussie player who fumbled it and knocked on before clearing down field. A little later, they scored. The whole north end of the east lower saw the knock on yet Jackson missed it.
Instead of an attacking scrum deep in their 22, we conceded 5 points.
He missed a lot of illegal binding in the scrum too.
The try/non try has been discussed to death.

To be honest, the game was played at breakneck speed so one or two things will always be missed. If the scoreboard had been one-sided, nobody would bother discussing the errors.
Still though, for a game that close where either team could win it, a ref's errors will always be highlighted, in the same way as any player's errors will be examined by their coaches.

Wasn't a knock on, thought so myself but watched it back. He did well but kept the ball on his fingertips.

Heroditas · 23-11-2014 10:41am

.ak wrote: »

Wasn't a knock on, thought so myself but watched it back. He did well but kept the ball on his fingertips.

Hmmmm, I haven't watched back that far yet.
I've seen many refs award a knock on for that before.

Bridge93 · 23-11-2014 10:43am

Heroditas wrote: »

Hmmmm, I haven't watched back that far yet.
I've seen many refs award a knock on for that before.

Well then they are the ones who are wrong seen as it wasnt a knock on. It didnt touch the ground.

Heroditas · 23-11-2014 10:48am

Bridge93 wrote: »

Well then they are the ones who are wrong seen as it wasnt a knock on. It didnt touch the ground.

Were you at the game? Reason I'm asking is because they showed a different angle on the big screen to the one on TV and the big screen camera angle showed the ball touching the ground (IMO anyway)

.ak · 23-11-2014 10:50am

They showed a super close up slo mo on TV, it didn't touch the ground.

You'd forgive the ref if he did award a knock on but he got the call right in the end.

Bridge93 · 23-11-2014 10:51am

Heroditas wrote: »

Were you at the game? Reason I'm asking is because they showed a different angle on the big screen to the one on TV and the big screen camera angle showed the ball touching the ground (IMO anyway)

No I was watching in Belfast. The tv replay immediately after it showed it didnt touch the ground. Foley recovered just in time.

Heroditas · 23-11-2014 10:53am

.ak wrote: »

They showed a super close up slo mo on TV, it didn't touch the ground.

You'd forgive the ref if he did award a knock on but he got the call right in the end.

From what angle did they show it though? If you're referring to the super slow month shown at the time it happened, it's an inadequate angle because his foot shields the view of the ball.
Did they show a different angle later? The angle shown on the big screen was taken from the east stand side.
Can't watch through the whole game at the moment because I have a child demanding cartoons.
I'll have to rely on you as my TMO!

Heroditas · 23-11-2014 10:56am

Bridge93 wrote: »

No I was watching in Belfast. The tv replay immediately after it showed it didnt touch the ground. Foley recovered just in time.

Different angle to the one shown in the stadium where you can see it touch the ground. As I said to ak, the TV angle is obscured by his foot.
Viewed from the other side, the ball is seen touching the ground.
From looking at the TV replay though I can see why he didn't award the scrum.

.ak · 23-11-2014 11:02am

Heroditas wrote: »

From what angle did they show it though? If you're referring to the super slow month shown at the time it happened, it's an inadequate angle because his foot shields the view of the ball.
Did they show a different angle later? The angle shown on the big screen was taken from the east stand side.
Can't watch through the whole game at the moment because I have a child demanding cartoons.
I'll have to rely on you as my TMO!

They showed it from the west side, nothing blocking the view of the ball.

Heroditas · 23-11-2014 11:05am

.ak wrote: »

They showed it from the west side, nothing blocking the view of the ball.

Yes there is. You can not see the whole of the ball just at the instant when the crowd roar for the knock-on. Part of the ball is obscured by the player.

.ak · 23-11-2014 11:06am

Heroditas wrote: »

Yes there is. You can not see the whole of the ball just at the instant when the crowd roar for the knock-on. Part of the ball is obscured by the player.

Not in the reply on TV?

Heroditas · 23-11-2014 11:08am

.ak wrote: »

Not in the reply on TV?

I've just looked at the replay on TV. You can not see a portion of the ball at the instant the crowd roars.
That portion was clearly visible in the replay on the big screens in the ground which was shown from the east stand and it shows the ball touching the ground.

former legend · 23-11-2014 11:16am

Heroditas wrote: »

I've just looked at the replay on TV. You can not see a portion of the ball at the instant the crowd roars.
That portion was clearly visible in the replay on the big screens in the ground which was shown from the east stand and it shows the ball touching the ground.

Either way, you couldn't blame the ref for not calling it.

Heroditas · 23-11-2014 11:22am

former legend wrote: »

Either way, you couldn't blame the ref for not calling it.

No, definitely not. At the time I thought he should have seen it but it was one of those games played at breakneck speed. He's only human.

Awkward Badger · 23-11-2014 11:29am

My thoughts on what's been talked about.

Firstly amazing win and brilliant to get a clean sweep in the AI's.
I didn't think it was the limited, anti rugby kicking game-plan some people are going on about. That first half certainly wasn't Ireland sitting down to defend, it was both teams going at it.

I thought the ref was terrible, just didn't want to know about infringements. That tackle on Kearney in the air was a yellow. If he just caught him fair enough but he tackled him while he was in the air with no intention of going for the ball. Deliberate, illegal and dangerous. Yellow card. The try didn't even look like it was grounded to me, the pass was clearly forward and between them the TMO and ref made a balls of it. Falou's knock on was another yellow card and a possible penalty try. No way in hell he was ever going to be able to intercept a ball swatting at it with one hand. And then there was the countless other things throughout the game the ref didn't seem bothered doing anything about. Shocking refereeing.

There's been a lot of talk about Zebo as per usual. I thought he did well but its very clear to me now there is little between him and Kearney and Gilroy at this level and they are all a far cry from the talents of Bowe, Trimble, Fitz and Earls. Capable of slotting in and doing a job but not a quality international wing. Not yet anyway. I hope we have a choice of the top 4 for the 6 nations.

Toner again I thought did well. Foley was good against Georgia, Lenihan flattered him with a MOTM award but he was good. And he was ok when he came on yesterday. Not sure why people think Foley is all of a sudden breathing down Toners neck.

Ruddock did well and I think he's solid at this level, just not a real 7 maybe. Then again when comparing him to the likes of SOB he's always going to look like he's just an adequate filler and nothing more.

Sexton and Murray were a bit off the pace I thought, compared with the SA game anyway. They were a bit flustered in those fast exchanges in the first half. They had their little blips (Sextons missed tackle for the try) but on the whole they were solid and kicked well, plenty of balls to chase, territory gained etc.

Madigan I was impressed with and delighted for. I know he was one of the guys at fault for the try in the loss to NZ. I'd say that played no small part in his reaction to being the one to kill the game off against Australia. For that alone, to hold out in a similar vein to the NZ game but this time do it right is a massive experience for those players.

Niallof9 · 23-11-2014 11:34am

molloyjh wrote: »

Zebo is a constant here. Thought he mixed the good with the bad. That needless offload when a simple give and take was all that was required was terrible, but he gave away a moronic penalty shortly after by simply jumping on a ruck. His speed off the line was good but he didn't fully complete a good few tackles. Yet other times he made his hits and chased well. He took his try well too. But he can have no complaints if he isn't in the 23 in the 6 Nations. He's done little to force himself ahead of Trimble or Bowe and if Earls or Fitz are fit he'll be behind them too.

Look Zebo's offload failure was a huge error when we needed to keep possession and maybe force another penalty, exactly the reason Joe doesn't favour them in certain situations. I'd say Trimble is favourite to start if fit. But to suggest Zebo is now somehow behind Earls and Fitzgerald, both of whom have failed to live up to their early promise and are blighted with injury, is ludicrous. Zebo gets some amount of stick here compared to others and you often have to wonder why. Its becoming a bit of a joke. Maybe people are thinking he should be some sort of Gallic speed demon with a name like Zebo. He's just a very decent winger. His early hit was as much of a positive catalyst as his incomplete offload. People's expectations of individuals here are way off. As Shane Horgan regularly points out its about the collective and the whole team. Like the All Blacks, Ireland are slowly becoming a machine capable of eking out the tight matches.

Awkward Badger · 23-11-2014 11:41am

Niallof9 wrote: »

Look Zebo's offload failure was a huge error when we needed to keep possession and maybe eke out another penalty, exactly the reason Joe doesn't favour them in certain situations. I'd say Trimble is favourite to start if fit. But to suggest he is somehow behind Earls and Fitzgerald is ludicrous. Zebo gets some amount of stick here compared to others and you often have to wonder why. Becoming a bit of a joke. His early hit was as much of a positive catalyst as his incomplete offload.

Its because unlike Kearney or Gilroy Zebo is put forth as an equal to and often the better of Bowe, Tribmle, Fitz and Earls. As someone who is now a quality international winger and should be starting international rugby regardless of the competition. People accept Kearney and Gilroy are young and limited and not quite there yet. People can't seem to understand that with Zebo.

He's not a quality international winger yet. And there is no hope in hell of Joe Schmidt ever picking him over a fit and on form Trimble, Bowe, Earls or Fitz who are all proven quality international wingers. He's not even a clear choice ahead of Kearney or Gilroy who have also shown they can do a job as good as Zebo and even McFadden would probably keep him out of a 23.

Ireland vs Australia match thread, Saturday 22nd Nov. KO 4:30PM

Comments