Should O'Driscoll be considered at 12 at international? Fitzgerald/Bowe play 13

homergriffin

I feel that O'Driscoll should be tried at Inside Centre (12) for the up and coming November internationals. He's lost a significant amount of pace (injuries not helping) but he is still a leagues above most players with respect to tackling, passing and tactical awareness. To give the team a cutting edge I feel Luke Fitzgerald or Tommy Bowe should be considered at 13.

bleg

midfield is definitely a conundrum. glad i'm not kidney

ozt9vdujny3srf

Play him at 7

remus808

BOD at inside centre with Fitzgerald outside him was the midfield originally selected for the Summer tour...

tHE vAGGABOND

Based on how he is playing this season I would not consider BO'D a surefire anything, let alone 12..


Luke Fitz is a winger or full back right now, playing him at 12 or 13 against anyone except [and maybe including] Canada would be a disaster..for the moment anyway.

..plus we are VERY short on game breaking wingers, and he is exactly that. I would be amazed if he is not on the wing for at least a couple of November internationals.

I dont understand this need we have on boards to play people out of position

bleg

paddy wallace anybody?

(gets ready to have head torn off)

monaghanbiffo

BOD has played at 12 for the last wee while for ireland, he just wears the 13 jersey

Amazotheamazing

BOD's form is such that he hardly merits a place in the squad. If we'd never known how good he once was, we wouldn't see anything amazing in him now. Pity, but he can't just walk on to the team on reputation, imo.

Course, I would love to see him play at his best again.

remus808

monaghanbiffo wrote: »

BOD has played at 12 for the last wee while for ireland, he just wears the 13 jersey

Is that so? When exactly? Cause he was playing outside Paddy Wallace down under..

tHE vAGGABOND

BOD has played at 12 for the last wee while for Ireland, he just wears the 13 jersey

...and whats our win/loss percentage in those games he has played there...yea it was not too flash was it

Just because he was the best player in the world 4 years ago, does not make him the best player for there right now. Like it or not. If it was that easy, we could stick Keith wood in at hooker forever, and just forget about crooked lineouts at the worst possible time

That said, he is never getting dropped - because of the media backlash and also because we don't have 2 lads standing up screaming to be picked there instead..

Stev_o

Wallace at 12 and Bowe at 13 and pray to thank god that there is a shortage of decent centre's in the world otherwise we'd really be hammered.

RugbyFanatic

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

BOD's form is such that he hardly merits a place in the squad. If we'd never known how good he once was, we wouldn't see anything amazing in him now. Pity, but he can't just walk on to the team on reputation, imo.

Course, I would love to see him play at his best again.

The only player to actually perform in the WC is walking into the squad on reputation?

RugbyFanatic

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

That said, he is never getting dropped - because of the media backlash

To be honest I think that if Kidney thought he had better options he would cut BOD we all remember his attitude with Foley Kidney will always do whats best for the team.

That said I think you will find BOD starting for the Autumn internationals because Kidney is not as short sighted as some of the posters in this thread who think Tries = Merit. BOD is still considered one of the best centres in the world and defensively I can't think of ONE player in the world that matches him. Not one.

Amazotheamazing

RugbyFanatic wrote: »

To be honest I think that if Kidney thought he had better options he would cut BOD we all remember his attitude with Foley Kidney will always do whats best for the team.

That said I think you will find BOD starting for the Autumn internationals because Kidney is not as short sighted as some of the posters in this thread who think Tries = Merit. BOD is still considered one of the best centres in the world and defensively I can't think of ONE player in the world that matches him. Not one.

Mortlock, McAllister, there's two for you.

BOD has done nothing this season, if we're going to cite old World Cups I want to see Geoghan lining out for us again.

louthandproud

Lawrence Plump Mountain the Uncivil wrote: »

Play him at 7

16 would look well on him at the moment.

dub_skav

louthandproud wrote: »

16 would look well on him at the moment.

He'd proabably still wear 13 just be sitting on the bench.

All joking aside though the rumours of his demise are premature. He's still a great player and deserves his place at this stage, seeing as how the other best centres in the country are all foreign.

Crash

You know there's only one way to settle what is in essence a moot argument - a game where O'Driscoll doesn't play.

It can definitely be said that previously Ireland sans O'Driscoll lacked intensity, the ability to create regular decent turnover ball, and defensively crumbled at points in the past.

Now we're arguing over whether or not this is still the case. We need to remember there were times (France in Croker for instance) where no one expected lacking BOD to make that much of an impact. But it did. We also need to remember that there have been times of late where he's very much running hot and cold.

So all in all? it balances out. its a pointless argument until we actually see an Irish team line out without BOD in it, and can compare with an irish team with BOD there. So is there much point in this entire argument?

No. there isn't. :P

dub_skav

Going Forward wrote: »

You know there's only one way to settle what is in essence a moot argument - a game where O'Driscoll doesn't play.

It can definitely be said that previously Ireland sans O'Driscoll lacked intensity, the ability to create regular decent turnover ball, and defensively crumbled at points in the past.

Now we're arguing over whether or not this is still the case. We need to remember there were times (France in Croker for instance) where no one expected lacking BOD to make that much of an impact. But it did. We also need to remember that there have been times of late where he's very much running hot and cold.

So all in all? it balances out. its a pointless argument until we actually see an Irish team line out without BOD in it, and can compare with an irish team with BOD there. So is there much point in this entire argument?

No. there isn't. :P

Oh yes there is

Crash

He's behind you!

Amazotheamazing

I think we'd all love to see O'Driscoll back to his best, but I'm not sure I have faith in Kidney or Gaffney to bring it out of him.

chris85

I think BOD is lacking a cutting edge in the last couple of seasons but defensively he is better than the rest of the backline, and also his work rate is immense, he covers so much of the field, he will jump into a ruck if need and is a very intelligent player still.

I do think he has lost a bit of something but still warrants his place. I have been saying since the 6N that BOD should be at 12 and Fitzgerald. I do believe Fitzgerald is a natural centre and more so an outside centre due to this very quick feet and being able to dance his way through defences.

IN fairness when BOD and fitzgerald are paired at centre it is usually BOD switching to the inside which is great as his tackling is great and can take the hits in there.

RugbyFanatic

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Mortlock, McAllister, there's two for you.

BOD has done nothing this season, if we're going to cite old World Cups I want to see Geoghan lining out for us again.

If I was picking on defence I would certainly choose BOD over them.

BOD has done nothing this season? The season has just started ffs what are you talking about?

Inquitus

RugbyFanatic wrote: »

If I was picking on defence I would certainly choose BOD over them.

BOD has done nothing this season? The season has just started ffs what are you talking about?

He was crap by his standards down under too.

thetyreman

Kidney woud be signing his own death warrent if he dropped him now,you would get all the:because hes not from Munster stuff:lets see how the AInt goes first.But IMO BOD is starting his downwood spiral,actually it started 2yrs ago or so..

ALH-06

monaghanbiffo wrote: »

BOD has played at 12 for the last wee while for ireland, he just wears the 13 jersey

BOD usually plays at 12 in defence, then switches to 13 in attack. Presumably because of his unrivalled tackling ability.

And of course he should be in the Irish team. This debate has been done to death at this stage but the fact is, even though he isn't playing his best at the moment, BOD still remains a quality player. His massive contribution to the Irish team only seems to be noticed when he's not present, ie versus England 2008, France 2007 etc. Why is this?

I can't believe that people are calling for BOD to be dropped - we have absolutely no world class 13s apart from him. Completely stupid. And please don't say Trimble - I'd say the people who are calling for BOD's head are the same ones that were calling for Trimble to be dropped last March... Annoying.

SomeFool

I'd be curious to see how Tommy Bowe would look at 12 with Fitzgerald outside him for the Canada game maybe.

Noopti

O'Driscoll shouldn't be dropped imo.
He is immense in the tackle, and does loads of unseen work in the tight. To drop someone with these characteristics against a team like NZ this November would be a crazy decision.

11 - Fitzgerald
12 - O'Driscoll (even if he is wearing 13)
13 - Earls
14 - Bowe
15 - Kearney

Looks pretty decent to me. Could swap Fitz for Earls either.

Diamondmaker

Going Forward wrote: »

a game where O'Driscoll doesn't play.

It can definitely be said that previously Ireland sans O'Driscoll lacked intensity, the ability to create regular decent turnover ball, and defensively crumbled at points in the past.

Now we're arguing over whether or not this is still the case. We need to remember there were times (France in Croker for instance) where no one expected lacking BOD to make that much of an impact. But it did. We also need to remember that there have been times of late where he's very much running hot and cold.
P

I reckon the loss of that Grand Slam on that day was 100% due to his absence on that day.
Its a classic example of the difference he makes in a Crunch match.

Noopti

Yep, what channel did Clerc get through for that try, was it the 12/13 channel? All I know is that Hayes was there,with O'Connell!

I can still remember the feeling of elation - this could be our year, to the utter dejection as I watched Clerc weave his way through our defense unmolested.

thehighground

Anyone think that playing a winger as a centre is going to put a bit more pressure on the rest of the team?

Taking Horgan off the wing and putting him in the centre is going to weaken both the wing and the centre positions and put that extra bit of pressure on the whole team. Its wasn't just because BOD was not playing - Stringer was also out injured) it was not having any sort of a decent centre to replace BOD which contributed to that loss (and I'm not blaming Horgan for the lost - its a team sport - we were just not good enough on the day).

zAbbo

Who the midfield partnership depends entirely on the make-up of other positions.

At least one player is going to play out a position they are inexperienced in to accommodate another, as we have NO dedicated centre bar Brian O'Driscoll

So the decision is on who should play 13, assuming Kidney goes with the dependable defence of BOD at 12.

FB: Dempsey / Murphy / Kearney / Earls
RW: Bowe / Horgan / Murphy
LW: Fitz / Kearney / Trimble

OC: BOD / Fitz / Earls / Trimble
IC: BOD / Wallace / Horgan

So, it's a fairly difficult decision.

The best team for me would be

15. Earls
14. Bowe
13. Fitz
12. BOD
11. Kearney

anonymous_joe

I would see an ideal team given current form resembling something along these lines:

11. Fitzgerald
12. BoD
13. Earls
14. Bowe
15. Kearney

Saying that Dempsey's on form, and Murphy's not doing too badly at 15 either.

I don't think Earls is as good under a high ball as Kearney and I think he's probably a better attacker. As for Fitzgerald, he could prove a superb winger, and has looked lethal for Leinster this season, Munster game notwithstanding.

Crash

I'd say earls and kearney are very different attackers, as opposed to better. Kearney needs the space that fullback provides to get started, in that he has great acceleration and can work his way through to a high ball, Whereas Earls seems a lot more like Fitz, who can work a bit of magic in the minimum of space. Not having Kearney at fullback and placing Earls there instead wastes both of their talents, IMO.

homergriffin

anonymous_joe wrote: »

I would see an ideal team given current form resembling something along these lines:

11. Fitzgerald
12. BoD
13. Earls
14. Bowe
15. Kearney

I'd possibly do the same. It's imporant to develop the backline for the next WC.

I have reservations about Kearney's defensive capabilities. There has been way too many examples of poor defending including Mafi's break down the line against Munster in the last 10 mins, against Edinburgh and Toulouse int the Heineken Cup. Also Tait's try, Tuqiri bouncing him and one of Clercs tries in internationals this year. I still rate him very highly in attack but he needs to be thought how to tackle when players are running at pace. Hopefully Kidney will be a positive influence on him.

Stev_o

Im more worried about people having Kearney at 15 considering 1 He isnt starting there 2 He's been found on defence a few times now in this season.

Regardless what he did down under he isnt peforming/starting at this very moment so why should he start for Ireland?

15 should go to Girve or Murphy at the moment

remus808

zAbbo wrote: »

15. Earls
14. Bowe
13. Fitz
12. BOD
11. Kearney

Agree with everything you've said, but Earls at FB with Kearney at wing? They're much more suited to swapping positions, not to mention Kearney has solid test experience against the two best teams in the world at FB... While earls has played about 3 games there..

mcerc

9 O'Leary
10 O' Gara
11 Tommy Bowe
12 Driscoll
13 Fitzgerald
14 Kearney
15 Earls

And forget about Paddy Wallace he's a never been, either sexton or even Keatley second choice.

spoon

For the Irish team i think it would be silly to have Earls at 15. We have plently of good options for natural full backs. Earls would be put to much better use on the wing or in the centre, which are his natural positions.

RugbyFanatic

How anyone could justify putting Earls ahead of Kearney at FB I'll never know. Kearney is a far superior player and has proven it against none other than The All Blacks!

What international powerhouses has Earls proved his worth at FB against again?

il gatto

Kearney has a massive boot which is a great in a full back. Earls is faster. Kearney at FB and Earls on the wing. Makes sense. Unless of course Dempsey plays FB and tbh, he has every chance. Fitz in the center looks o.k. to me, but at 13 and BOD at 12. Or maybe Bowe at 13 and Fitz on the wing. Hmmm. This is why being a coach is difficult It's nice to have some options though. We had a great team a couple of years ago, but it picked itself as there were no flexibility in the squad. Unless putting Murphy on the wing or was an option.

Stev_o

RugbyFanatic wrote: »

How anyone could justify putting Earls ahead of Kearney at FB I'll never know. Kearney is a far superior player and has proven it against none other than The All Blacks!

What international powerhouses has Earls proved his worth at FB against again?

Earls has form Kearney does not.

One's being selected nearly week in week out the others being forced to bench warm and start against the worst team in the ML.

IMO i dont want Earls at FB for the AI but saying that Kearney should start is so laughable at this point in time. It should be a throw up between Murphy and Girve