Argies v Ireland (2nd Test Sat 8pm)

buck65

I think you are overreacting. These players were sent out to get some test experience and have a shot at the world cup panel, both of which they achieved. The 2nd test was a poor game and with a kicker Ireland could have been in the shakeup right till the end. It was only a 16 point defeat not a 50 point one against a decent Argentinian team - 5 or 6 of whom will be playing in September.
I read an interview with Jack White the SA coach on Sunday and he told a story about Clive Woodward before the 2003 RWC when England played a weakened French side in Marseille before leaving. England if they had won would have created a new record for consecutive away wins (12 I think) but Woodward sent a second string side to get experience and cement a position for the RWC and England duly lost, but as we all know Eng won the RWC so I think the whole thing is about the bigger picture.
These players aren't kids , and apart from Jeremy Staunton should get their chance again to prove themselves, at least we know a few home truths about ourselves now, what would we learn by sending our first choice team ?
A couple of morale boosting victories? Does that stand for anything in 4 months time???

Diamondmaker

buck65 wrote:

I think you are overreacting. These players were sent out to get some test experience and have a shot at the world cup panel, both of which they achieved.QUOTE]

Totally agree, 30 players 2 or 3 sets of combinations in all the different positions over 2 games with a 2 week get together to shake hands for the 1st time as many never even met each other before.

Argentina kept it simple and tight and had a place kicker and Ireland could have played that ( less the kicker as it happens ) but where is the benefit for the backs and centres by playing for a win that way?

We looked beter in the tight but 2 sets of backs with no familiartity can harldy be expected to do a Leinster in so little time sure Leinster cant even do it without BOD it seems these days!:rolleyes:

It was the end of a long season for many and when individuals are playing with seuch selof interest it is never good for an overall team performance.

Eddie will just have to look through the mire ignore the results and pick what he can.

loadabollocks

what was the point in bringing Luke Fitzgerald at all if your are only going to stick him on for 3 mins when the game is lost and we are completely under the kosh?
despite what most people thought, i thought Kearney had a decent game considering the player inside him and behind him could do nothing right. With a small bit of space he can be devastating in attack. Id bring him to WC. Id bring Reddan too.

Snickers Man

buck65 wrote:

I think you are overreacting. These players were sent out to get some test experience and have a shot at the world cup panel, both of which they achieved.

at least we know a few home truths about ourselves now, what would we learn by sending our first choice team ?

Now hold on. I never said anything about sending our first-choice team. I said that we could and should have won that match with the team we had on the park and that the reason we didn't was a shocking lack of leadership and an apalling performance from the fly half.


An improvement in either one of those might have resulted in a win. If Staunton had been on song and had managed to work a few tries with or wihout the boot, confidence would have been on a high and the leadership issue would have sorted itself.

If a real leader had been there he would have seen that Staunton's plan A wasn't working and might have suggested a plan B. ie kick the ball a bit more.

And please, I am not saying here that Ireland's tactics should be exclusively Munster kick and rush. I'm a D4 boy after all.

What I'm saying is that rugby is and always will be a game of trade offs. If the Argentinians put all their defensive eggs into one basket, which they did, then kick the ball in behind them a couple of times. If we don't score from that tactic, we might at least worry them enough that they hedge their blitz defence tactics a little. So then you get more space for the backs to try running plays.

There was nothing learned from that match apart from the fact that our complete lack of depth at fly half was confirmed with knobs on. An opportunity to blood some promising players in a succesful way was wasted.

Diamondmaker

Snickers Man wrote:

If a real leader had been there he would have seen that Staunton's plan A wasn't working and might have suggested a plan B. ie kick the ball a bit more.

What QUOTE]

The captain was in the pack and he as much as anyone else was trying to impress as an individual as anyone else. It was not in his interest to play an expansive game or kick over the top as it would have suited him to keep the ball in the pack.

You cant judge a performance when so much self interest is at stake, no one had the win at heart, all individualism. Its up to Eddie to pick from the mesw what he can.

Even Murphy who at least twice competed with his own player for the high ball seemed to be trying to stamp his authority on the FB berth and not playing for the team.

Once Kearney ducked under as Murphy called, but the one where they bumped was all Murphys fault!

Nukem

Diamondmaker wrote:

Once Kearney ducked under as Murphy called, but the one where they bumped was all Murphys fault!

look at the clip again. He didnt even look where he was passing it

zAbbo

There was no invention in the backline, ideally we needed either Staunton to chip over the rush defence, at least once, or to put at least one garryowen to their FB.

Duffy and Murphy should have tried to put some width on the ball, the 2nd test was all about the individuals, everything looked forced, so in that regard, perhaps some elements are excusable.

G.Murphy has got to go, take Kearney to cover Wing/FB, and Kearney if needed.

Diamondmaker

Nukem wrote:

look at the clip again. He didnt even look where he was passing it

No you must be thinking of another incident.
It was a highball fielded to the Left wing, RK went towards the wing and the ball must of blown in field a bit as he went in a few yard to field it. Murphy came in from FB and the 2 made a mess of it with GM bumong into his back.

No pass was made, are you thinking of B Murphys terrible pass to no one whih left RK under pressure.

Mixing up Murphys here I think?

Long and the short, No Murphys should go to avoid confusion!

buck65

Barry Murphy looked like a headless chicken but may come good in a year or two for the moment I would leave him at home. Geordan deserves to go, remember his match turning cameo against Wales?

zAbbo

G. Murphy throw a wild pass back on more or less his first touch, he also ran into Rob Kearney under a high ball, when RK was in position to field it. Next time he give Rob the shout and Rob ducked away from it.

He also flung a pass out onto the wing, without looking at it.

Neither Murphy should goto the RWC, Barry Murphy can barely do impressions of a Rugby player.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sangre

It would be mad not to bring G Murphy.

EdgarAllenPoo

Is it my imagination or had G. Murphy's form dipped considerably since the 6 nations?

zAbbo

He'll go, but I'd use Kearney as backup, helps with the all Leinster backline.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

NotWormBoy

GDM wrote:

Is it my imagination or had G. Murphy's form dipped considerably since the 6 nations?

From a purely international perspective, its hard to soar with eagles when you work with turkeys (I may not be entirely serious here).

Geordan does well with Leicster, when he's surrounded by good players. And he did well (with one notable exception) during the 6N this year (when he was on, that is). He's the one with the experience and skills - he lacks consistency, however. We know that (on his day) he can do serious damage to the opposition. Duffy just doesn't stack up against that. None of the rest of them (yet) do.

terry mac

Nukem wrote:

My god anyone want to hand out some cheese with this wine!

Front Row
We needed cover for a front row, we blooded 2 props and a possibility of another one. We now have 3 fit hookers, Flannery looks back to his best and Shehan looks good.

Second Row
Second rows we have issues, Cullen isn’t up for it, Hogan needs more experience, Driscoll looked good in the lineout but not that effective in the loose or open play. MOD I'm sorry is just too long in the tooth, fantastic servant but just been out gunned.

Back Row
Gleeson still looks a bit rusty but hopefully will come good. Heaslip looked very effective, and more game time in the starting XV will help I’m sure. Jennings looking at him just looked knackered, long season for him. Ferris looked dynamic and needs more grooming. Quinlan was destructive and showed that if EOS ever needed a brawling player he only can choose one man.

Half Backs
Boss looked a little rushed but I think once he slows down and thinks he will be a huge asset to Ireland. Reddan like Jennings is coming off a long season and was a big ask to show up all guns blazing, visibly looks tired. Looked very sharp all season and probably edges Boss on all round display.

OH position is a major problem. Wallace is very one dimensional while still having a fair boot but a long way off ROG. Staunton well what can I say, covers himself in glory one minute then pulls a shotgun and blows his foot off. His last chance IMO now f**k off. Far too many school boy errors.

Centre
What do you compare them too, Darcy and BOD. Com'on be fair, possibly the two best players let alone centres. Trimble and Kearney I reckon if we give them more time they can become a fair strike force. Kearney did look woeful on Saturday with some school boy errors but looked like he didn’t gel with Murphy. I reckon Murphy let the occasion get the better of him but more time in the Ireland camp may prove fruitful. Duffy is a good utility player but not a natural centre IMO, more a fullback

Wingers
Trimble,Lewis,Carney,mmmmmmmmm none seem to be up to Hickie and Shaggy standards but once again in form front line experienced. They should be introduced in parts with a full backline and see how they get on. Fitzgerald, very young in terms of international but still good exposure for him.

Fullback
Oh Jesus how it pains me to say this but Dempsey is the only true FB in Ireland at the moment. Duffy looked handy but needs far more exposure at this level to be proven. GM no potency in attack and has proved frailties in defense than will I’m afraid never go away after that missed tackle against France.

Come on this was a very cut+paste squad and you must take positives from it as they were tough tests. We need leaders and players to stand up and be counted and a lot of players just didn’t do it.

Nukem

Everyone on here is going through a nightmare scenario where our entire 1st team gets struck down by the Ebola Virus or whatever. Lets be realistic, likelihood is that we won't go to World Cup with our all of our 1st choice players. But if we lose half of our first team and most of our best players we're fu**ed, forget about the replacements.

The reason why the second string looks so bad is that the 1st team is so good. Look at the positives. The nature of the second string is that it is worse thant the 1st string. We're Ireland not NZ, we lucky to have 15 top class players where usually we have 5 or 6. We're getting greedy if we're expecting to have 30.

The only position I'd be really worried about is out-half, what are the chances of drafting Humphs in if ROG gets ruled out early. In the centres, if we lose either of them and stick Trimble in thats still a good midfield. Stick G Murphy in instead of any of the back three, thats still a good strikeforce out wide. Front row, I wouldn't be that worried, your man Best can probably hold up the scrum and thats all your looking for. Second row, back row, we have pretty good cover. Scrum half, Stringers miles ahead of Boss/Reddan, but Boss did well enough in the 6 Nations to suggest that the team isn't going to fall apart with him in it.

Snickers Man

terry mac wrote:

The only position I'd be really worried about is out-half.

Damn right. You can almost see what's going to happen when we play NZ can't you? Within the first 5-10 mins O'Gara will be taken out on some spurious grounds like he was picking his nose during the haka or something.

Maybe a late tackle, maybe a spear in a ruck, maybe another "choking" incident. Not that the Kiwis need to do that but the pressure will be on them this year and they will want to make sure.

Diamondmaker

terry mac wrote:

The only position I'd be really worried about is out-half, what are the chances of drafting Humphs in if ROG gets ruled out early. .

Disagree losing BOD in the past has proven disasterous for both club and country...consistently.

Whereas ( nearest parallel I can draw ) when Felipe was out Leinster won all their games, when BOD was out the 6N, HCup and ML were lost............Important point !

Also Muster underperformed when minus POC and ROG still in, I think the lack of the leadership of either these 2 is a greater problem than ROGs talents. ( not to mention their skills other than leadership)

I know we never have played a key game without ROG, but Wallace in with a different game plan ( he can kick goals in all fairness ) as a result, may not be as bad as no BOD.

We look useless without BOD.

This is not a BOD V ROG thing just based on past evidence and how ( on limited exposure ) adequate PW seemed when he got his run outs.
The Argie match tilted to the negative clearly after he left.

Its all about how Eddie Juggles PW and ROG in the last 2 games both will need match time at that point.

Also I have not seen anything bad enough to warrant drafting in DH for PW.
PW can kick goals too and would mix it up with the backs interestingly

Sangre

Diamondmaker wrote:

Disagree losing BOD in the past has proven disasterous for both club and country...consistently.

IMO Eddie amplifies his absence by switching nearly the whole back line around instead of doing a straight sub. Of course, he obviously still is a massive loss.

Inquitus

Paddy Wallace isn't half the player ROG is to even comtemplate that we could live with playing that muppet is laughable.

Sure Ulster prefer to roll out Humphs and his zimmerframe at 10 and play Wallace at 12 in the big games (read 4/6 HC when Humph was injured for the last 2, and 75% of the Magners league)

Wallace is not a front line goal kicker and only kicks for Ulster when Humphs is injured, he can't run a game and to cite the run out against the Pacific Islands as an example of how he copes with the pressures of the International game is a amusing at best.

He may one day, when he gets his start at 10 for Ulster regularly, grow into a 10 of International Calibre, but for now he is a long long way short.

Diamondmaker

Diamondmaker wrote:

Disagree losing BOD in the past has proven disasterous for both club and country...consistently.

Whereas ( nearest parallel I can draw ) when Felipe was out Leinster won all their games, when BOD was out the 6N, HCup and ML were lost............Important point !

Also Muster underperformed when minus POC and ROG still in, I think the lack of the leadership of either these 2 is a greater problem than ROGs talents. ( not to mention their skills other than leadership)

I know we never have played a key game without ROG, but Wallace in with a different game plan ( he can kick goals in all fairness ) as a result, may not be as bad as no BOD.

We look useless without BOD.

This is not a BOD V ROG thing just based on past evidence and how ( on limited exposure ) adequate PW seemed when he got his run outs.
The Argie match tilted to the negative clearly after he left.

Its all about how Eddie Juggles PW and ROG in the last 2 games both will need match time at that point.

Also I have not seen anything bad enough to warrant drafting in DH for PW.
PW can kick goals too and would mix it up with the backs interestingly

What post did iniqitus read? I said none of what was quoted.

Just focus on the nub of the point if your concentration lapses, The leinster back line and their "poor" pack can operate better without their no 1 OH than their capt and centre. Proven
Just draw some parallel in that to Ireland considering the pack should be better and the capt and backs the same.

Bottom line there is a clear logic in the above theory.

"to cite the run out against the Pacific Islands as an example of how he copes with the pressures of the International game is a amusing at best."

Who cited this? you?

Inquitus

how ( on limited exposure ) adequate PW seemed when he got his run outs.

No you did, he's only started on 2 occassions so by definition your quote above includes the Pacific Islands.

but Wallace in with a different game plan ( he can kick goals in all fairness )

He can't, and didn't against Argentina, as he is not a front-line kicker.

Whereas ( nearest parallel I can draw ) when Felipe was out Leinster won all their games, when BOD was out the 6N, HCup and ML were lost............Important point !

Leinster are a team without a Pack, and the impact on their game of missing BOD compared to missing Filipe does not stand up to more balanced sides or indeed the International Game.

..........and we should have beaten France

Diamondmaker

If Wallace has to play the ball goes to BOD and Darcy more to take on more responsibilty and the rudder is still relatively steady. PW does not necesarily have to steer the game the same way with his captain outside him.

If BOD is out we dont really have an outlet that can compensate the same way as the above scenario I feel. ROG is not the best at gettiing the backs moving and it leaves such a potent backline reatively mute and devoid of BODs creativity.

I miss understood your point about the PIs:) of course your right there.

Any way ROG has proved himsef a lot more durable than BOD over the years and by the laws of averages we really need to have better cover for him as he is terribly injury prone to hammer blows!:mad:

Im not sure Eddie knows yet what to do if BOD cries out again in WC at this stage.

Sangre

Diamondmaker wrote:

ROG is not the best at gettiing the backs moving and it leaves such a potent backline reatively mute and devoid of BODs creativity.

I disagree, while ROG isn't a very potent attacking threat he is an incredible passer of the ball and is well able to unleash the back line into space with a beauty of pass. His out of hand kicking as well means that teams also can't utilise out and out rush defences giving the back line more space. Of course, I'd much rather if could actually make some decent breaks.

Same with Stringer, kind of, while his lack of running puts pressure on the fringes his very quick service somewhat makes up for it.

Any way ROG has proved himsef a lot more durable than BOD over the years and by the laws of averages we really need to have better cover for him as he is terribly injury prone to hammer blows!

In fairness, I don't think ROG puts in the same hits and rucking as BOD does

Diamondmaker

True true and true but by the very nature if he is not of a huge attacking threat in himself there is that little extra split second the defences have to line up those outside him.

Hopefully Eddie has a trick up his sleave where ROG has a few breaks while eyes are on BOD and Dracy, Strings too needs to make some more slippy ones to progress in the WC, this is perhaps the difference between us and the really good teams - attacking threat from the 2 HBs.