Sinking Feeling

Requiem4adream

Ok there's been a lot of threads discussing the upcoming team announcement tomorrow, a lot of opinions on what changes EOS is going to make. I've got a sudden sinking feeling come over me that he's gonna do a Clive Woodward and stick with every 1 of the underperforming "stars", leave Murphy out of the 22 and not use the bench (again). :mad:

paulie.walnuts

i think you;re right there. Why would he change a losing formula at this stage!

bugler

I'm not expecting many changes either to be honest.

I'd like to see a back three of Hickie, Carney and Murphy, with Girve on the bench. No slight on Girve, but for this game we need attacking potential more than solidity.

He'll keep Reddan. I don't support ousting O'Gara for P Wallace, even though Rog has been playing like a dog.

In the pack, same front row (no choice really). As for the locks, I'd be tempted to drop DOC. But I don't expect the lineout to be under as much pressure against Arg, so I'm not sure MOK is worth inclusion. Quinlan at lock would be interesting. If I could be assured the scrum wouldn't suffer I'd go for this. DOC is barely used in the lineout, so I'm not sure you could even say Quinlan's inclusion would weaken us in this regard. There's no way EOS would go for this though.

Finally, the back row. Hmmm. None of the incumbents could complain if they were dropped.

If neither Quinlan nor N Best start then it will have been another cop-out.

CJhaughey

Unfortunately I have the same feeling as ^^ Looking at the Argentinian scrum the last game, they are very very dominant, the whole pack moves as one unit and I really fear for our scrum against them.
Perversely the Sco Vs NZ game showed that often a superior scrum is penalised against a weaker unit.

LuckyLloyd

bugler wrote:

Finally, the back row. Hmmm. None of the incumbents could complain if they were dropped.

I think Easterby would strongly disagree with you on that point. And he'd be 100% correct too.

bugler

I think Easterby would strongly disagree with you on that point. And he'd be 100% correct too.

2 games of complete anonymity, followed by a decent performance punctuated with mindless stupidity in giving away penalties. There is no other coach in the world who would have played him against France (for better or worse). As he is EOS's favourite though, I don't expect him to be dropped.

Punchbowl

You all seem to foget that Girv has been known to score trys and he is very dependable with ball in hand in an attacking position

I would start ROG, and if he's having a shocker you can always take him off.

I think he will bring in Hickie and Carney. (If he started with Murphy he will be admitting he got it wrong previously, which I don't think he will)

LuckyLloyd

bugler wrote:

2 games of complete anonymity, followed by a decent performance punctuated with mindless stupidity in giving away penalties. There is no other coach in the world who would have played him against France (for better or worse). As he is EOS's favourite though, I don't expect him to be dropped.

There was nothing "decent" about his performance on Friday. He was a man mountain.

Tbh, these "grass is greener on the other side" calls for wholesale changes are hilarious.

MikeHoncho

The team I would pick:

Best
Flannery
Hayes
POC
MOK
Best
Quinlan
Easterby
Reddan
Walace
Hickie
O'Driscoll
Darcy
Horgan
Murphy

Right here is why: Horan had a shocker on Friday and also will be put under pressure in the scrum against Argentina it was a toss up between Best and Young but im giving Best the nod. I think the second row decision speaks for itself we need Mal so that we can use our line out as a platform (I would go as far as to give the calls over to him too). Eddie shot himself in the foot by not bringing another specialist No7 and No8 so im not sure how I would position these players but Wallace and Leamy have been so inefectual we just have to try something different. Reddan keeps his shirt he deserves it (could be a great battle between him and Pichot). There is something seriously wrong with ROG and if Walace can pull out a performance he is better than the ROG we have seen this world cup. As for the back line I have picked the most attacking back line we have. You could argue that Carney could be included over Horgan. Girvan is only dropped because he cant give us as much in attack as Murphy.

bugler

There was nothing "decent" about his performance on Friday. He was a man mountain.

No, he just carried ball for a change (which he rarely does), and won a very good turnover. His persistent taking out of the kicker after the ball was gone was pointless, and we were lucky it only cost us one penalty. He stood out more by virture of his teammates absence than anything else.

Tbh, these "grass is greener on the other side" calls for wholesale changes are hilarious.

No, what's hilarious is EOS's obsession with his select players. No other team takes a similar approach. Not NZ, not SA, not France, not England, not Wales, and not Scotland. The reason they don't is that it isn't sustainable when the team isn't going well. Sometimes it isn't even sustainable when the team is going well. Last summer he put the first side out in two tests against NZ where they competed well, then put them out yet again against Aus where they were run ragged.

We have no chance of getting through this group. Not because we don't have the players or the skill, but because the team are playing terrible rugby and the coach's solution seems to be to keep sending them out in the hope it will resolve itself.

It's easy in retrospect to point out mistakes in selection, but some things are clear: When it was apparent during the summer that Wallace would struggle with injury then the decision should have been made that either Gleeson or Jennings (even though neither impressed in Argentina) would be picked as back-up openside. Heaslip should have been picked instead of Ferris (who seems to have been picked with some sort of injury apocalypse in mind, whereby he could cover 6/7/8, but he's not really rated as real competition for any of these positions).

EOS has apparently been talking about a high-risk strategy for this game. It will be interesting to see if this high-risk strategy features the same old personnel. If it does, we're hosed.

LuckyLloyd

bugler wrote:

No, he just carried ball for a change (which he rarely does), and won a very good turnover. His persistent taking out of the kicker after the ball was gone was pointless, and we were lucky it only cost us one penalty. He stood out more by virture of his teammates absence than anything else.



No, what's hilarious is EOS's obsession with his select players. No other team takes a similar approach. Not NZ, not SA, not France, not England, not Wales, and not Scotland. The reason they don't is that it isn't sustainable when the team isn't going well. Sometimes it isn't even sustainable when the team is going well. Last summer he put the first side out in two tests against NZ where they competed well, then put them out yet again against Aus where they were run ragged.

We have no chance of getting through this group. Not because we don't have the players or the skill, but because the team are playing terrible rugby and the coach's solution seems to be to keep sending them out in the hope it will resolve itself.

It's easy in retrospect to point out mistakes in selection, but some things are clear: When it was apparent during the summer that Wallace would struggle with injury then the decision should have been made that either Gleeson or Jennings (even though neither impressed in Argentina) would be picked as back-up openside. Heaslip should have been picked instead of Ferris (who seems to have been picked with some sort of injury apocalypse in mind, whereby he could cover 6/7/8, but he's not really rated as real competition for any of these positions).

EOS has apparently been talking about a high-risk strategy for this game. It will be interesting to see if this high-risk strategy features the same old personnel. If it does, we're hosed.

EOS gambled on building a core 15; on them turning up fit and in form; and in getting five big performances in a row that would take us to the World Cup Semi - Final. Clearly the gamble has failed, and clearly such planning needs to be negatively assessed after the tournament.

But the plan that was tried meant that 10 players on the squad just are not prepared to step into action now. And now is not the time for blooding or experimentation. It is unfortunate that players are out of form - but bringing in players with NO form, and NO experience is not going to improve the situation.

Hence my "grass is greener" statement. In theory, you should be dropping players that aren't performing. But if you don't have any viable alternatives on the bench - you need to persevere and cross your fingers I'm afraid.