Wallace at 8

twinytwo

On page 2 of the sports section of the sunday independant George Hook asks

" Why he(Wallace) has not consistently been selected innhis best position in the middle of the row is a mystery"

he then goes onto say that

"He(Wallace) will retire an average international openside rather than perhaps the finest number 8 since Willie Duggan"


Thoughts?

Timothy Bryce

twinytwo wrote: »

On page 2 of the sports section of the sunday independant George Hook asks

" Why he(Wallace) has not consistently been selected innhis best position in the middle of the row is a mystery"

he then goes onto say that

"He(Wallace) will retire an average international openside rather than perhaps the finest number 8 since Willie Duggan"


Thoughts?

I wouldn't have gone that far....he's a decent 8 but he's not a 7!

Great ball carrier and does some good work in the loose. He's never really done it for me in general as a player

sm.org

Because we have never has a decent 7 who has been consistently so for more then 2 seasons in a row. Both Gleeson and O'Connor had great seasons followed by average ones. At least Wallace will never let you down.

Gleeson should have got more game time though.

sm.org

Timothy Bryce wrote: »

I wouldn't have gone that far....he's a decent 8 but he's not a 7!

Great ball carrier and does some good work in the loose. He's never really done it for me in general as a player

Ridiculous post.

Timothy Bryce

sm.org wrote: »

Ridiculous post.

In what way?

I said I think he's a decent 8 but I don't think he's done enough to warrant that kind of stuff written about him.

Serenity Now!

twinytwo wrote: »

"He(Wallace) will retire an average international openside rather than perhaps the finest number 8 since Willie Duggan"

Ffs, Hook just keeps on coming with the likes of the above, doesn't he? :rolleyes:
Utter bilge. He's playing well this season for sure but for one thing, Willie Duggan and any other bloody nr8 never had the luxury of their scrum-ball carriers having an extra 5m of space to run in.

twinytwo

personally i think wallace makes an excellent no 8 his ball carrying is second to none and he plays with his heart on his sleeve... he showed this in the match against clermont even though munster played bad

anonymous_joe

I actually agree with what Hook said.

Wallace is an average openside. He's the most naturally talented backrow forward we've had in a long while, but he's not a good openside. He does what he does well no matter where you put him in the pack, but the natural position for him would be 8.

d-gal

Wallace has shown to be one of best form 8's in the world at the moment. Was the reason munster won vs clermont, he had to do bloody ronan's job as well. Himself and powell are playing better than any other 8's at the moment. Great dynamic number 8's perfect for the ELV's.
Messam in the super 14 and the SA 8 (name has slipped my mind) are the only others hitting their form at the moment

bamboozle

completely agree with Hook,
if you look at the roles of an openside and a number 8,
openside is there to link play between forwards & back, ensure quick ruck ball and try steal the ball on the ground. Wallace doesnt excel at any of these.
No. 8's role is as a ball carrier and maybe in the lineout- Wallace is one of the worlds greatest ball carriers and he's decent in the lineout, if he was being picked according to his ability he'd always be at 8 cause he's totally wasted at 7 and not tough enough for 6.
Hopefully he'll be pushing Heaslip for ireland's 8 jersey and we'll leave Jennings, Ronan, O'Connor & O'Brien to fight it out over the 7

Amz

sm.org wrote: »

Ridiculous post.

I'd appreciate it if you kept these kinds of "contributions" to yourself.

sslazio11

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Ffs, Hook just keeps on coming with the likes of the above, doesn't he? :rolleyes:
Utter bilge. He's playing well this season for sure but for one thing, Willie Duggan and any other bloody nr8 never had the luxury of their scrum-ball carriers having an extra 5m of space to run in.

Who has been Ireland's best no.8 since Willie Duggan?

sm.org

Amz wrote: »

I'd appreciate it if you kept these kinds of "contributions" to yourself.

I apologise, I couldn't be bothered pointing out what I saw as the stupidity of the post.

Will not repeat mistake

Erin Go Brath

Hooks question about why Wallace hasn't been selected at 8 is a pertinent one. I hope to see more of him at 8 in the upcoming games, deserved to get MOTM

Hugh_C

Maybe he could do with a bit more bulk at 8? He's 16 st 3 according to wikipedia ...

Teg Veece

twinytwo wrote: »

" Why he(Wallace) has not consistently been selected innhis best position in the middle of the row is a mystery"

Two words: Anthony Foley.

themont85

There's no doubting that in my mind that Wallace is perfectly suited to 8 now with the ELVs, it really highlights the strengths in his game. As regards the 7s we have had I would disagree in people saying that Gleeson was good just for one year. Fact is he was superb for Ireland until he broke his arm and when he returned to Leinster after injury he consistantly performed well. EOS chose to more or less freeze him out, obviousely believing him not to fit into the game plan.

Serenity Now!

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Hooks question about why Wallace hasn't been selected at 8 is a pertinent one. I hope to see more of him at 8 in the upcoming games, deserved to get MOTM

Wallace has played three games under this coach. Three. He's the best 7 in the country and is not "average" at all in that role as well as the being one of the most consistent players in any position. If another openside can step up, then Wally could be afforded the move over. However if you have Ferris, Wallace and Leamy or Heaslip fit, you make a backrow to accomodate this as its currently the best backrow combination the national team can field.

How typical that Hook has a brainwave in the car on the way to work and then mouths off it as if its been his view for years (which is most certainly hasn't been).

bamboozle

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Wallace has played three games under this coach. Three. He's the best 7 in the country and is not "average" at all in that role as well as the being one of the most consistent players in any position. If another openside can step up, then Wally could be afforded the move over. However if you have Ferris, Wallace and Leamy or Heaslip fit, you make a backrow to accomodate this as its currently the best backrow combination the national team can field.

How typical that Hook has a brainwave in the car on the way to work and then mouths off it as if its been his view for years (which is most certainly hasn't been).[/quote

You see it all depends on how you classify the role of the 7, if you mean ball carrying back row forward-i agree he has no equals, if you mean link man and ground hog then i'd disagree and suggest O'Connor, Jennings are better in this role.
Stats from the argentina game show Wallace made 4 tackles (in comparison Heaslip & DOC made 13 & 14) he's a ball carrier and there are few better but anyone who think's he's a natural 7 doesnt understand the role.

Amazotheamazing

bamboozle wrote: »

You see it all depends on how you classify the role of the 7, if you mean ball carrying back row forward-i agree he has no equals, if you mean link man and ground hog then i'd disagree and suggest O'Connor, Jennings are better in this role.
Stats from the argentina game show Wallace made 4 tackles (in comparison Heaslip & DOC made 13 & 14) he's a ball carrier and there are few better but anyone who think's he's a natural 7 doesnt understand the role.

look up how many he made in the NZ game, and then ask yourself what style do Arg play and what style do NZ play and see if you can understand the difference in the number of tackles he made.

Serenity Now!

bamboozle wrote: »

You see it all depends on how you classify the role of the 7, if you mean ball carrying back row forward-i agree he has no equals, if you mean link man and ground hog then i'd disagree and suggest O'Connor, Jennings are better in this role.
Stats from the argentina game show Wallace made 4 tackles (in comparison Heaslip & DOC made 13 & 14) he's a ball carrier and there are few better but anyone who think's he's a natural 7 doesnt understand the role.

Tosh.
He's a great link player and a ball carrier of great pace. As far as fetcher's role goes, he has been prolific in forcing turnovers at the breakdown this season particularly due to the IRB enforcing contestable rucks to be reffed as the laws have always decreed (a big 'NO, its not an ELV, by the way). Very little snaffling in a game properly refereed these days. You must be on your feet to contest at the tackle. If not, you're quite simply done. If you're looking for a Josh Kronfeld or David Wilson, they will be pinged off the field. Opensides have had to adapt their game but some like Schalk Burger (6 is openside in Sth Africa) have found this difficult while others like Smith and McCaw have excelled.
Maybe you just "don't understand the role"?

Erin Go Brath

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Wallace has played three games under this coach. Three. He's the best 7 in the country and is not "average" at all in that role as well as the being one of the most consistent players in any position. If another openside can step up, then Wally could be afforded the move over. However if you have Ferris, Wallace and Leamy or Heaslip fit, you make a backrow to accomodate this as its currently the best backrow combination the national team can field.

How typical that Hook has a brainwave in the car on the way to work and then mouths off it as if its been his view for years (which is most certainly hasn't been).

He was never average at 7. He has always been one of Irelands most consistent players. Doesn't change my opinion that he would be a better 8 than a 7 though. As another poster pointed out he never got the 8 jersey largely because Anthony Foley owned it. Theres no reason why he wont start at 8 from now on. He's definitely the best 8 at Munster!

Hook talks a lot of waffle and bs and loves the sound of his own voice, but he does make the odd good point aswell sometimes.

siochain

bamboozle wrote: »

completely agree with Hook,
if you look at the roles of an openside and a number 8,
openside is there to link play between forwards & back, ensure quick ruck ball and try steal the ball on the ground. Wallace doesnt excel at any of these.
No. 8's role is as a ball carrier and maybe in the lineout- Wallace is one of the worlds greatest ball carriers and he's decent in the lineout, if he was being picked according to his ability he'd always be at 8 cause he's totally wasted at 7 and not tough enough for 6.
Hopefully he'll be pushing Heaslip for ireland's 8 jersey and we'll leave Jennings, Ronan, O'Connor & O'Brien to fight it out over the 7

Thats sums it up just right.

anonymous_joe

I think all those getting angry at him being called an average 7 need to step back a second.

It's probably the most important position on the pitch after out-half. Is it any wonder that the best team in the world (outside of World Cups) have the best 7 and 10? Cause or effect? I think cause.

David Wallace is brilliant. That's not being denied. However, he is not the best option for Ireland at 7. Our centres used to earn massive amounts of ball at the breakdown, but that didn't mean they would be best used as flankers.

The job of a 7 is to snaffle ball at the breakdown. There are better players than David Wallace at that in Ireland. That is why people are calling for him to be moved to 8 where he would be best used. And given that Heaslip is always overlooked for Wallace in terms of getting the ball for Ireland it would give us a more balanced backrow. We must be one of the few teams that goes and picks two ball carriers and then ignores one.

Tim Robbins

Wallace is a super option at 8. Should always have been. Great ball carrier, especially from a standing start. In fact, a world class 8. He should have always been a 8.

corny

I think it's best for Ireland if he continues at 7. If he starts at 8 Heaslip and Leamy(probably) won't start which really isn't maximising our options in the back row. I'd consider letting Wallace pack down at 8 on the occasional scrum however. 10 or 15 metres out he'd strike terror in the opposition carrying off the base of a scrum.

anonymous_joe

corny wrote: »

I think it's best for Ireland if he continues at 7. If he starts at 8 Heaslip and Leamy(probably) won't start which really isn't maximising our options in the back row. I'd consider letting Wallace pack down at 8 on the occasional scrum however. 10 or 15 metres out he'd strike terror in the opposition carrying off the base of a scrum.

I disagree. I like Heaslip a lot, but think he's not playing as well as he could. Let him take a break from internationa lrugby to get his form back.

Wallace at 7 gives us an unbalanced back row unless we play an actual 7 at 8 which is silly.

bamboozle

anonymous_joe wrote: »

I think all those getting angry at him being called an average 7 need to step back a second.

It's probably the most important position on the pitch after out-half. Is it any wonder that the best team in the world (outside of World Cups) have the best 7 and 10? Cause or effect? I think cause.

David Wallace is brilliant. That's not being denied. However, he is not the best option for Ireland at 7. Our centres used to earn massive amounts of ball at the breakdown, but that didn't mean they would be best used as flankers.

The job of a 7 is to snaffle ball at the breakdown. There are better players than David Wallace at that in Ireland. That is why people are calling for him to be moved to 8 where he would be best used. And given that Heaslip is always overlooked for Wallace in terms of getting the ball for Ireland it would give us a more balanced backrow. We must be one of the few teams that goes and picks two ball carriers and then ignores one.

Thank you Joe, you explained it better than i did!

Crash

Anonymous_Joe wrote:

I disagree. I like Heaslip a lot, but think he's not playing as well as he could. Let him take a break from internationa lrugby to get his form back.

Wallace at 7 gives us an unbalanced back row unless we play an actual 7 at 8 which is silly.

I'd completely agree with you on this - for instance our best backrow put out at an international test match recently was probably Ferris, Wallace and Heaslip, on pure skill levels across the row. That doesn't necessarily make it a good backrow - we've had continuous problems getting fast ball thanks to the fact that we're choosing our best back row players on skill in the backrow, not on skill at that backrow position, which I really do think is silly. I find myself a bit torn every time Wallace starts at 7, because I know we need him on the pitch, but I don't think he brings anything of a 7 to the backrow. And then we end up with 2/3 good ball carriers/defenders, yet with very little fast ruck ball coming out of the backrow.

jam_on_toast

i'd agree with hook. He is an average 7 (if even), on the highest international stage. He is definitely an 8 and could have been brilliant. I reckon if he's put at 8 for ireland in the 6N, he will be starting 8 for the lions.

Sparky14

This has been an issue for quite a while, I think most coachs apart from EOS would have picked Gleeson at 7 and moved Wallace to 8 or maybe 6 alongside Leamy. However with Gleeson gone, I don't really think we have another international standard 7. As much as I'd hoped Jennings would step into that role, he's been struggling for form for a long time. Hopefully Sean O'Brien will develop into the next Irish 7.

jam_on_toast

i know this is off subject, but i read somewhere lately, think it was liam toland in the times, that sean o'brien could be turned into a hooker. If he could learn how to throw, this could be an excellent idea.

We are average/poor in that position as it is and there seems to be few coming through (as far as i know). He could be a great player at 2 i think.

Sparky14

jam_on_toast wrote: »

i know this is off subject, but i read somewhere lately, think it was liam toland in the times, that sean o'brien could be turned into a hooker. If he could learn how to throw, this could be an excellent idea.

We are average/poor in that position as it is and there seems to be few coming through (as far as i know). He could be a great player at 2 i think.

Don't see why we'd turn him into a hooker unless he was already an excellent thrower. Looks good at 7, i'd leave him there.

tommmy1979

wallace always played at 8 when he was with garryowen..

Podge_irl

My biggest problem with Wallace is not actually his work on the deck, which is at least adequate and offset somewhat by our backs being better then average at snaffling and slowing done ball, it is more that he is absolutely no vision when he has the ball. He is a good support runner and is great with ball in hand, but he is useless at continuing a move and simply can not see support runners (or doesnt trust himself to make the pass). He definintely has a place in the backrow, but it's going to have to be balanced with other players.

jam_on_toast

jam_on_toast wrote: »

i know this is off subject, but i read somewhere lately, think it was liam toland in the times, that sean o'brien could be turned into a hooker. If he could learn how to throw, this could be an excellent idea.

We are average/poor in that position as it is and there seems to be few coming through (as far as i know). He could be a great player at 2 i think.

hed make as good a centre as he would hooker.Personally I would love to see him get a run at 12.Leinsters own islander centre lol.

Healy can play hooker if needed.

Serenity Now!

Podge_irl wrote: »

My biggest problem with Wallace is not actually his work on the deck, which is at least adequate and offset somewhat by our backs being better then average at snaffling and slowing done ball, it is more that he is absolutely no vision when he has the ball. He is a good support runner and is great with ball in hand, but he is useless at continuing a move and simply can not see support runners (or doesnt trust himself to make the pass). He definintely has a place in the backrow, but it's going to have to be balanced with other players.

I think you'll that its HIS support runners who are not quite up to the task a lot of the time. He's an excellent offloader, hard to catch and hard to bring down. What more can he do? Run sideways or hold up until support or dummy runners arrive? Nope. Defeats the purpose of a strong linkman or breaker from contact area.

Timothy Bryce

jam_on_toast wrote: »

i'd agree with hook. He is an average 7 (if even), on the highest international stage. He is definitely an 8 and could have been brilliant. I reckon if he's put at 8 for ireland in the 6N, he will be starting 8 for the lions.

He'll have to content with Nick Easter and Andy Powell who are both showing decent form

premierstone

Timothy Bryce wrote: »

He'll have to content with Nick Easter and Andy Powell who are both showing decent form

He's definitely ahead of Easter at the moment, and it should really be between himself and powell probably come down to who has the best 6N or even who's team wins it, so hopefully Wally gets the nod

bamboozle

Serenity Now! wrote: »

I think you'll that its HIS support runners who are not quite up to the task a lot of the time. He's an excellent offloader, hard to catch and hard to bring down. What more can he do? Run sideways or hold up until support or dummy runners arrive? Nope. Defeats the purpose of a strong linkman or breaker from contact area.

What does spring to mind is v argentina his great support of Bowe in the 1st half, followed by his pass to Ferris's ankles when a try was on!

+1 for Lions no. 8! in South Africa McGeech know's what's required in his forwards, strong fast & mobile...(easter fails on 2 of those!)

kingking85

Wallace is an average 7 but a fantastic player - a move to 8 would be good with Heaslip at 6 maybe? Along with the likes of Sean O'Brien or Jennings (if his form gets better) at 7

Moncti48

kingking85 wrote: »

Wallace is an average 7 but a fantastic player - a move to 8 would be good with Heaslip at 6 maybe? Along with the likes of Sean O'Brien or Jennings (if his form gets better) at 7

Are you for real!!! heaslip at 6. Ferris and leamy are miles ahead at 6 compared to heaslip. heaslip is just an 8, cant really play anyway else, might as well have him at centre

And also when Leamy returns from injury, he'll go back to 8 for munster which will put wallace back at 7, because ronan is not just good enough yet to force leamy out of 8, or even for wallace to be dropped.

I can maybe see heaslip losing out to leamy at 8 and wallace staying at 7, but with jennings(maybe) pollock and a few others this position could be well fought for in a year or so.

Wallace is 32 so he wont be around for much longer

twinytwo

Moncti48 wrote: »

Are you for real!!! heaslip at 6. Ferris and leamy are miles ahead at 6 compared to heaslip. heaslip is just an 8, cant really play anyway else, might as well have him at centre

And also when Leamy returns from injury, he'll go back to 8 for munster which will put wallace back at 7, because ronan is not just good enough yet to force leamy out of 8, or even for wallace to be dropped.

I can maybe see heaslip losing out to leamy at 8 and wallace staying at 7, but with jennings(maybe) pollock and a few others this position could be well fought for in a year or so.

Wallace is 32 so he wont be around for much longer

every year they say that about the bull

Moncti48

twinytwo wrote: »

every year they say that about the bull

dont get me wrong id think it would be great if we had him for another four years and still be at the top of his game. however with the current new crop of players coming through i think maybe given somebody like pollock or even jennings a chance not now but maybe after this 6n, provided of course wallace doesnt get injured

kingking85

Moncti48 wrote: »

Are you for real!!! heaslip at 6. Ferris and leamy are miles ahead at 6 compared to heaslip. heaslip is just an 8, cant really play anyway else, might as well have him at centre

And also when Leamy returns from injury, he'll go back to 8 for munster which will put wallace back at 7, because ronan is not just good enough yet to force leamy out of 8, or even for wallace to be dropped.

I can maybe see heaslip losing out to leamy at 8 and wallace staying at 7, but with jennings(maybe) pollock and a few others this position could be well fought for in a year or so.

Wallace is 32 so he wont be around for much longer

Leamy is a 6 at best, number 8 is not his position, you need to be a decision maker and have a good head on your shoulers to play there. Leamy has often made a few bad decisions at 8, unlike Heaslip or Wallace.

Heaslip at centre? Thats great input into this forum!!!!!

Moncti48

kingking85 wrote: »

Leamy is a 6 at best, number 8 is not his position, you need to be a decision maker and have a good head on your shoulers to play there. Leamy has often made a few bad decisions at 8, unlike Heaslip or Wallace.

Heaslip at centre? Thats great input into this forum!!!!!

I was only saying heaslip only can play at 8. hes not a 6. you couldnt play heaslip anywhere else. thats what the reference was to.

Fair enough, but leamy will still go to 8 for munster at wallace move back to 7, for Ireland I dont see leamy starting with Ferris at 6.
Plus lets not forget 2-3 years ago leamy was rated the best back row in the world,but unfortunatly he went to 8!!!

And what i cant understand is if wallace is this good at 8 why wasnt he moved to 8 when foley retired, instead leamy took over foley at 8 when foley was still playing?? ( Dont kill me for that, just a comment)

kingking85

Yeah Ferris is playing great rugby at the moment, should get 6 no problem for Ireland. I think Leamy was put in at 8 for Munster as they really had no 7 only Wallace and a great blind side in Quinlan - to be honest, those 3 boys can play anywhere in the munster back row and often have! Niall Ronan is playing grand at 7 at the moment, good to see those guys getting a chance.

Moncti48

kingking85 wrote: »

Yeah Ferris is playing great rugby at the moment, should get 6 no problem for Ireland. I think Leamy was put in at 8 for Munster as they really had no 7 only Wallace and a great blind side in Quinlan - to be honest, those 3 boys can play anywhere in the munster back row and often have! Niall Ronan is playing grand at 7 at the moment, good to see those guys getting a chance.

Interesting how they all have played everywhere for munster. Leamy has played at centre and wallace has played on the wing, when munster where in the celtic league.

Off point i no

twinytwo

Moncti48 wrote: »

Interesting how they all have played everywhere for munster. Leamy has played at centre and wallace has played on the wing, when munster where in the celtic league.

Off point i no

:eek: now that i would pay to see

Moncti48

twinytwo wrote: »

:eek: now that i would pay to see

Leamy played at 12, battering ram!! somebody else played at 13 that was out of position but cant remember, and wallace on the wing. hey maybe leamy can be irelands Nonu!!!!!!!!!;)

sm.org

Moncti48 wrote: »

Leamy played at 12, battering ram!! somebody else played at 13 that was out of position but cant remember, and wallace on the wing. hey maybe leamy can be irelands Nonu!!!!!!!!!;)

He played a fair bit of Schools rugby at 12, took the place kicks too, wasn't bad. Remeember seeing the ogre playing and thinking he had suprisingly good handling.