Thought's on this article?

I was actually thinking about this the other day and Brendan Cole has written a good article imo.
http://www.rte.ie/ie/sportsixnations2010/entry/ireland

Do Ireland need new thinking in the tight five?

by Brendan Cole
Ireland were always going to get beaten at some point but there were echoes of the darkest days of the past in the way France tore through them on Saturday.
The options for Ireland are to continue on much as they are, and if they do so they can probably remain just below the top level for a number of years. However, if they really want to crack the world's top three, a more basic re-appraisal may be needed: obviously, half-back is up for discussion but fundamentally, the doing over on the ground in the tight five is what put France on top in Saturday's match.
In the medium term, the primary consideration will likely be the dichotomy between scrum and lineout. Ireland dominated the athletic and cerebral contest out of touch but as of old were completely overpowered in the scrum and that contributed massively to their eventual heavy defeat at the breakdown.

Rugby - a pushing and shoving game?
Winning lineout ball is, of course, crucial for Ireland as is the territory game it so closely relates too. But rugby is sometimes a more fundamental game of pushing, shoving and sheer weight and France won that contest hands down on Saturday.
The obvious place to look for an explanation of why both scrum and lineout went they way they did is the physical make-up of the respective forward packs.

Irelands superb lineout display obviously benefited from the excellence of Leo Cullen and Paul OConnell but the Irish locks were taking advantage of a powerful natural edge: one of the French props, Thomas Domingo, is just 5'8 while the second row pair of Pascal Pape and Lionel Nallet both weigh around 18 and a half stone.
OConnell and Cullen both weigh in at around 17 and a half stone each and had the 6'4 John Hayes to jack them up in the air. OConnell has many attributes but is naturally slim and light while Cullen is the a sidekick second row at Leinster, who brought in Nathan Hines to provide real ballast alongside him.

Irish tight five - light in the wrong places?
And whatever the average weights stats say, as a unit, the Irish tight five is light in all the wrong places: John Hayes 20 plus stone on the weighing scales obviously skews things when it comes to a straight comparison between the packs. France had in Domingo and Nicholas Mas a pair of 17 stone props with huge scrummaging reputations backed by bigger, more powerful locks.

Dominated in the air, they simply chewed Ireland up on the deck, setting the tone for the comprehensive victory in contact around the park. A look at the replay confirms that France not only dominated the scrums from the 24th minute: they sapped the Irish tight fives energy and gained a huge edge for the decisive period in the match.

As for the lineout? France were clearly fairly comfortable with letting Ireland get on top out of touch, and in retrospect almost seemed confident that their traditional method for winning this fixture - crushing the tight-five before waltzing through a broken team in the backs - would be more than enough, 10 plus years of pro rugby or not. And it was.

The broader Irish rugby culture is part of the problem here: nations such as France, Italy and Argentina have a far more natural understanding of how the scrum can set up the entire game of rugby. Sometimes, that goes against them and they overdo the emphasis on it. But on Saturday it worked for them in a big way.

Looking ahead, what could this mean for Ireland?
Basically, the issue is that when a real edge is established at scrum time, it opens Ireland up to the type of pasting we saw them get on Saturday. Ireland face a serious scrummaging unit in Australia at RWC 2011 and could well face New Zealand in the next round if they fail to win that game.
That is a something worth strategising for and there are some options for Kidney, though none are entirely satisfactory.

Cian Healy - proved worth at loosehead
First, obviously, Ireland may look at the propping: they will probably find little that can be changed. Cian Healys value on the loosehead side was, if anything, affirmed by the Stade De France experience while Marcus Horan has also proved himself there over a long period. Rory Best could also get his chance to show if his scrummaging can make a difference against England.
On the tighthead side, there is a dearth of outstanding contenders but Ireland badly need to develop alternatives to Hayes, who recently turned 36.
Tony Buckleys scrummaging has possibly wobbled too often to consider him for the cornerstone role. Mike Ross has a very good reputation as a scrummager but often cant get a game for Leinster in the Magners League. That's a problem. Tom Court did much better when in for Hayes at tighthead and contributed well around the park but had much bigger problems when replacing Healy at loosehead. Would he have stood up to the French power at tighthead early in the game?

Aside from that trio, the unfortunate reality is that top level propping in Ireland is largely dominated by imports.
The examination must then move to the second row. Would the Irish props have done better with serious ballast in behind them? The background to the issue is that with one or two exceptions there is a trend towards relatively light and athletic locks from the professional game all the way back to underage here. The depowered scrum game from schools level up obviously plays a role in shaping that.

But there are still some actual playing options. Bob Casey of London Irish - who is 19 stone plus - is the man usually brought up when issues of bulk raise their head and must be worth consideration for inclusion in the Irish set-up at the very least.

Ferris a potential Ireland second row?
An outside the box answer would be to take a look at current blindside Stephen Ferris as an option. Ferris, at just over 18 stone, is heavier than both of the current locks and has a reputation for power also suggests he is a man who could be very useful in the engine room. Of all the current Irish forwards, he is the one built like a French second rower and is a man who can stand opposite the likes of Bakkies Botha without looking dominated.
Granted, he is a superb blindside and Ireland would lose out to an extent there, but there is an element of getting into a needs must territory and need to shore up their base, especially against the real big hitters. Options at blindside are not a huge issue with Sean O'Brien looking a good fit.

The question really boils down to this: if your scrum is getting hammered on your own try-line by New Zealand or France, does it make sense to have the biggest, heaviest and strongest man in your back five making a minor contribution to the scrum from the wing-forward's side when he could be contributing far more from the second row? Logically, the answer to that is that it doesn't.
It would at least make sense to develop the young Ulstermans capacity to lock the scrum as an option for Ireland.

Ireland need to develop tailor-made tight five sets?
France tinker with their tight five far more often than Ireland; another hint that they think more deeply about the subject. Ireland may need to do the same and develop a capacity to look at a certain opposition team and say 'we need the big boys for this one'. As a thought experiment, imagine how a tight five of Healy, Best, Ross, O'Connell and Casey or Ferris would have done in Paris. Ireland might not have won, but would they have gotten shoved around to the same degree?

As usual, there is no telling what he will do but having pursued a fluid selection policy to date, he is at least in a position to mix it up. Obviously, Kidney may decide that fundamentally re-balancing his squad for an event which may or may not happen again over the next few years would be unwise.

But if Ireland are to improve, he may need to solve, or at least manage, the fundamental problems with tight five play in Irish rugby. We can't really expect radical change for the England match but the next six months or so will tell all about the Ireland head coach's thinking on the matter.

My thoughts were slightly different.I was looking at some tri nations matches and overall whether youth coaching or not there 2nd rows add alot more to the game.We have a dynamic backrow,they seem to have a dynamic pack the whole way through which allows them to up the tempo to a higher gear.

I went a step further then Cole by imagining something like

1-Healy
2-Best
3-Ross
4-Ferris
5-Heaslip
6-O'Brien
7-Wallace
8-Henry

I think that our opinions differ because he seems to be focused on adding weight but im looking at the dynamic ability.

It can be dismissed as crazy talk but I was trying to imagine how something like that pack would get on.
I think in the modern game we are going to see more backrows playing lock.
France proved against us that the lineout matters nothing when you can dominate with a pack of animals on the ground.


Any thoughts?

Offside

Diana Tangy Thimble wrote: »

1-Healy
2-Best
3-Ross
4-Ferris
5-Heaslip
6-O'Brien
7-Wallace
8-Henry

I can't say I agree with most of that pack. You've dropped O'Connell, an influential forward who will definitely be starting for us come 2011. What Heaslip does for us at number 8 is internationally recognised and many people would include him in their world 15, why move him to the engine room when his surges from the back of the scrum and his work at the breakdown and in the loose earn him international recognition? While a good player I feel we would be definitely weakened by Henry at 8 compared to the world class heaslip and in my opinion a second row of either O Callaghan/ O'Connell or Cullen/O'Connell is one many an international team would die to have. Cullen's work particulary has been outstanding in the lineout and around the pitch in the first two six nations games and O'connell has just been collossous as always with the Irish team.

A radical shift of postions and make up of the Irish pack is not going to solve anything, I believe if the pack you have mentioned here were to start against England we would lose against an inexperienced and waivering side. We need to keep our recent good record in Twickenham up and we can claim a win there with either O'leary/Sexton or Reddan/Sexton at half backs. I believe Sexton is the way forward with this team, before France I said we had been losing away to them for 10 years and the one constant was O'Gara, he has done much for Irish rugby but I really believe we need a spark to ignite our troops, I think Sexton can do this, and I hope he , if selected, he proves me right on Saturday.

danthefan

France proved against us that the lineout matters nothing when you can dominate with a pack of animals on the ground.

More of case of we proved against France we were completely impotent and couldn't do anything with 60% possession.

Co45

danthefan wrote: »

More of case of we proved against France we were completely impotent and couldn't do anything with 60% possession.

Yep. I disagree with that piece entirely. We were clueless with posession and wanted to get rid of it. A team like New Zealand would of broke that French team (as good as they played) with all the lineouts Cullen stole. The problem was when we stole the lineout and had the French defensive line is dissaray O'Leary was so slow and they were able to reallign. When O'Leary did get the ball out, O'Gara was too predictable and uncreative or O'Driscoll kicked it away.
Then there was the handling errors....

irishbucsfan

Disagree completely with Heaslip in the second row. That would be a monumental mismanagement of resources.

I could see Ferris being a good second row, but for now he's a back row forward so that's what we have to work with. Cullen and O'Connell were two of our best performers so I don't think we need to be looking at the second row for the moment.

anonymous_joe

Were it not for a succession of horrendous errors, Healy, Earls' knock on, Flannery's flirtation with brain damage, etc, we'd have been highly competitive.

What I would agree with though, is that our problem with the scrums has always had a lot to do with our props, but we've often ignored the issue of second-row.

A lot of teams these days use the same model as South Africa, one used by both Leinster and London Irish too, where you basically have a tall 'light' second row, your Leo Cullen, O'Connell, Matfield, etc, and then you've got a big heavy angry cúnt offering barrel loads of power - your Bob Casey, Nathan Hines and notably Bakkies Botha.

Obviously you sacrifice a bit of grunt for such a set up if you use two '4s' or lose some aerial power if you use two '5s.'

WeeBushy

Our line out would suffer with that slection imo, there is a need to balance pure grunt at the scrum with athletic players (a la POC) for the lineout.

Ferris as a second row option is intruiging, we have very little coming through in that position and have plenty of good back rows. It would stunt Ferris' contribution around the park but for the team as a whole I think its at least worth a look.

PhatPiggins

WeeBushy wrote: »

Our line out would suffer with that slection imo, there is a need to balance pure grunt at the scrum with athletic players (a la POC) for the lineout.

Ferris as a second row option is intruiging, we have very little coming through in that position and have plenty of good back rows. It would stunt Ferris' contribution around the park but for the team as a whole I think its at least worth a look.

Toughy
Toner
O Donohue
Ryan
Caldwell

You'll get at least one international standard secondrow out of them. Sticking the NH's second best 6 at 4/5 , no thanks.

Goose your team looks like a rugby league team, if we adopt the S14 rules it would be great.

WeeBushy

PhatPiggins wrote: »

Toughy
Toner
O Donohue
Ryan
Caldwell

You'll get at least one international standard secondrow out of them. Sticking the NH's second best 6 at 4/5 , no thanks.

Goose your team looks like a rugby league team, if we adopt the S14 rules it would be great.

I think it'll be a couple of seasons before any of them are international class. I think its worth looking at, just to have an as option in the interim.

jack01986

Bring bob casey in. I remember when tony buckley played in the second row for munster in some game as a replacement and they demolished that scrum.

PhatPiggins

WeeBushy wrote: »

I think it'll be a couple of seasons before any of them are international class. I think its worth looking at, just to have an as option in the interim.

In the interim you have POC,DOC,Cullen and Casey if stuck. Sorry I just think you'd be seriously handicapping Ferris by sticking him in the second row. He's real strengths are as a first up tackler,ball carrier and the early tussles at rucks. If you had a game with a lot of scrums he'd be near on invisible.

Otacon

jack01986 wrote: »

I remember when tony buckley played in the second row for munster in some game as a replacement and they demolished that scrum.

That could be a possible position for him, but I think Hayes would break his back trying to lift him.

stephen_n

The only thing new he is contributing is the idea off Ferris playing at second row, which I will admit is interesting as we have far more options at 6 than 4 or 5. Other than that mentioning Casey which has been done alot of times and seems to fall on deaf ears although after watching LI against Newcastle last weekend still makes no sense to me as he was immense as always. As for putting Heaslip in the second row are you smoking something funny, why would you want to play arguably one of the top 3 number 8's in the world in the second row?

Co45

stephen_n wrote: »

The only thing new he is contributing is the idea off Ferris playing at second row, which I will admit is interesting as we have far more options at 6 than 4 or 5. Other than that mentioning Casey which has been done alot of times and seems to fall on deaf ears although after watching LI against Newcastle last weekend still makes no sense to me as he was immense as always. As for putting Heaslip in the second row are you smoking something funny, why would you want to play arguably one of the top 3 number 8's in the world in the second row?

If we were to toy with the idea...
1.Healy
2.Cronin
3.Court
4.McLaughlin (Locky going second row more realistic than Heaslip or Henry)
5.Ferris
6.Henry
7.O'Brien
8.Heaslip




Could be very interesting, it would be an excellent 8 in the loose thats for sure!

jack01986

Otacon wrote: »

That could be a possible position for him, but I think Hayes would break his back trying to lift him.

Ha:D, Im sure he would but the two of them could get someone else pretty high. They would launch someone up there.

WeeBushy

PhatPiggins wrote: »

In the interim you have POC,DOC,Cullen and Casey if stuck. Sorry I just think you'd be seriously handicapping Ferris by sticking him in the second row. He's real strengths are as a first up tackler,ball carrier and the early tussles at rucks. If you had a game with a lot of scrums he'd be near on invisible.

But they don't provide the same power at scrum time (Casey would be good, but doesn't look like Deccie will pick him). I dont think he should move there permanently for Ireland, but having it as an option would be good imo.

stephen_n

Co45 wrote: »

If we were to toy with the idea...
1.Healy
2.Cronin
3.Court
4.McLaughlin (Locky going second row more realistic than Heaslip or Henry)
5.Ferris
6.Henry
7.O'Brien
8.Heaslip




Could be very interesting, it would be an excellent 8 in the loose thats for sure!

McLaughlin and Ferris together would leave us with no real Lineout specialist though. Depending on development as players either Ferris or Mcloughlin to second row but not both, I think we'd still need a specialist jumper at 4 which in time will probably be Ryan.

Still doesn't get us around the problem at tighthead where I just don't see Court making the grade as an international tighthead although he will do a job but it's still the position we most struggle with!

Co45

stephen_n wrote: »

McLaughlin and Ferris together would leave us with no real Lineout specialist though. Depending on development as players either Ferris or Mcloughlin to second row but not both, I think we'd still need a specialist jumper at 4 which in time will probably be Ryan.

From what I can see McLaughlin seems to be used for lineouts just as much as Cullen for Leinster though. I'd be interested to see how he got on at second row.

Still doesn't get us around the problem at tighthead where I just don't see Court making the grade as an international tighthead although he will do a job but it's still the position we most struggle with!

A lot of teams struggle with tighthead. I don't agree that Court won't make the international grade, in fact, I think he would be much more effective than Hayes both in the scrum and the loose.

anonymous_joe

PhatPiggins wrote: »

Goose your team looks like a rugby league team, if we adopt the S14 rules it would be great.

If you look at how the game's going in the SH that might not be all bad.

stephen_n

Co45 wrote: »

From what I can see McLaughlin seems to be used for lineouts just as much as Cullen for Leinster though. I'd be interested to see how he got on at second row.



A lot of teams struggle with tighthead. I don't agree that Court won't make the international grade, in fact, I think he would be much more effective than Hayes both in the scrum and the loose.

McLaughlin defo could jump at two alright but I still think we'd need a POC type player to jump at 4 and I wouldn't like to be lifting ferris!


Court is an oldstyle tighthead with ball in hand it's find a player and run at him, so no I don't think he would be better in the loose than Hayes was (maybe better than he is now) His scrumaging is strong alright but time will test that as he is defo the best option we have for now

d'Oracle

Very good article IMO.

I reckon it highlights the alarming foolishness of Caseys continued Exile.
Even if its with O'Connell at 4.

Maybe Ferris inside, but would you see him doing it?
I dunno.

Not Heaslip though OP. I mean there is no point in crippling the back row just to develop the tight 5.

Co45

stephen_n wrote: »

McLaughlin defo could jump at two alright but I still think we'd need a POC type player to jump at 4 and I wouldn't like to be lifting ferris!

Why not? Ferris is lighter than O'Connell and at 6'5 is only an inch off O'Connell's height.

Ciaran-Irl

I can definitely see the argument for putting a big hitter / heavy forward like Casey into the 4 position beside O'Connell for the reasons given. He certainly makes sense as an option to have on th bench.

I wouldn't go further than that at all, and would balk at the Ferris idea, let alone the Heaslip idea. You would have locks built like Fijian Locks. Have you ever seen how that works out for them in the lineout? Or Japan?

d'Oracle

d'Oracle wrote: »

Not Heaslip though OP. I mean there is no point in crippling the back row just to develop the tight 5.

I only through Heaslip in as he is quite heavy,for me its an interesting debate though.Im sure other would have other ideas?

As was said with the new Super 14 interpretations,we could se more stuff like this.

stephen_n

Co45 wrote: »

Why not? Ferris is lighter than O'Connell and at 6'5 is only an inch off O'Connell's height.

I don't know their weights so I'm going by the original article

Ferris, at just over 18 stone, is heavier than both of the current locks

Eoin

I've found that a jumpers weight (and height) is only one of many factors. I played with a second row who was about 5'10 and quite heavy, but his spring and overall technique was so good that we could compete against lighter and taller opposition.

Anyway, as I said in the Irish team v England thread, I agree that Cullen and O'Connell are too similar. If Cullen was to play, then I think it would have to be with O'Callaghan at O'Connell's expense, which obviously won't happen (barring injury).

irishbucsfan wrote:

Disagree completely with Heaslip in the second row. That would be a monumental mismanagement of resources.

I agree, it would be like playing BOD at flanker just because he's so good in defence.

PhatPiggins

Ciaran-Irl wrote: »

I can definitely see the argument for putting a big hitter / heavy forward like Casey into the 4 position beside O'Connell for the reasons given. He certainly makes sense as an option to have on th bench.

I wouldn't go further than that at all, and would balk at the Ferris idea, let alone the Heaslip idea. You would have locks built like Fijian Locks. Have you ever seen how that works out for them in the lineout? Or Japan?

Whats O Callaghan a bag of feathers. No point in having a big hitter if he cant get there in time.

Co45

stephen_n wrote: »

I don't know their weights so I'm going by the original article

Yeah article is wrong, Ferris is just over 17 stone whilst O'Connell is around 18 stone.

d'Oracle

Co45 wrote: »

Yeah article is wrong, Ferris is just over 17 stone whilst O'Connell is around 18 stone.

It is.
But O'Connell is still shy of 18 stone.
Both him and DOC are a shade above 17 1/2.

And Phiggins, yes, the point is that in terms of international second rows he is a bag of feathers. Didn't look like the french were having problems getting around.

d'Oracle

Ciaran-Irl wrote: »

I wouldn't go further than that at all, and would balk at the Ferris idea, let alone the Heaslip idea. You would have locks built like Fijian Locks. Have you ever seen how that works out for them in the lineout? Or Japan?

Erm, have you seen Ferris in the lineout for Ulster?

Actually, what point are you making there?

wixfjord

McLauglin would make a good second row imo.

profitius

Good article and one of the best I've read for some time.


I also noticed how the French played. Nallet is an excellent player and no doubt the locks were picked for their power. The French actually pick Chabal to play there sometimes which explains their attitude to it. Throwing involves 3 players mainly (2,4,5) so it would make sense to pick 3 more effective players in the loose instead of pure lineout players. Having said that the French are not bad in the lineout just not good either.


They're right though, I think teams should only have 1 athletic jumper and another player more suited to the backrow. South Africa use Botha as the enforcer and Matfield as the more athletic jumper. I was never a big Bob Casey fan but after the French match I'm begining to change my mind. He would have been helpful defending those mauls and scrums.


Even Servat is picked for his ability around the field and not for his throwing. He might have missed his jumpers but he scored a try and helped in the scrums and mauls.


But another thing the article didn't mention was the French backrow. Their front 5 were picked for power and scrummaging ability but the backrow was picked for speed. Quodroego is actually under 15st! Not far off 2st lighter then David Wallace. So speed and workrate were important for 6 and 7 while their 8 can do everthing it seems.


Ireland has more athletic locks. France has a more athletic backrow.


I wouldn't move any of out backrowers to lock because they're good in their positions. Maybe in 7/8 years time when Ferris is getting old should it be considered.


Heres my alternative team:

1 Healy
2 Cronin
3 Ross
4 POC
5 Casey
6 Ferris
7 Wallace
8 Heaslip

I'd like a more traditional type of 7 but theres nobody worth putting on ahead of Wallace.

anonymous_joe

Dusatoir and Ouedrago are both only 14 stone or so. Harinordoquy's the leviathan at all of 16 stone or so.

JustinDee

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Dusatoir and Ouedrago are both only 14 stone or so. Harinordoquy's the leviathan at all of 16 stone or so.

In the official FFR player profiles available to unions and media, Dusaitoir is 100kg which is just under 16 stones. Imanol Harinordoquy is not much heavier at 105kg which is just over 16 stones.

anonymous_joe

JustinDee wrote: »

In the official FFR player profiles available to unions and media, Dusaitoir is 100kg which is just under 16 stones. Imanol Harinordoquy is not much heavier at 105kg which is just over 16 stones.

Really? Irish Times lied to me again then. :pac:

Either way, not a heavy backrow.

Goodluck2me

Diana Tangy Thimble wrote: »

4-Ferris
5-Heaslip

It can be dismissed as crazy talk but I was trying to imagine how something like that pack would get on.


Any thoughts?

Thats absolutely ridiculous!

Goodluck2me

Goodluck2me wrote: »

Thats absolutely ridiculous!

Productive stuff from you again,hopefully you dont stay for as long on this rare visit to the rugby forum.

I said It was imaginary,I never suggested it as a viable option.The idea of using backows as locks needs to be investigated.

Sid_Justice

To tell you the truth I'm wondering if the original poster or the rte journalist have actually played Rugby? Certainly doubt whether they understand the game at a high level.

The difference between the Irish front 5 and the best scrummagers in the world is more technique than simple kgs. People saying let's throw Heaslip and Ferris in the 2nd row to improve our scrum should be playing Championship manager.

Sid_Justice

Sid_Justice wrote: »

To tell you the truth I'm wondering if the original poster or the rte journalist have actually played Rugby? Certainly doubt whether they understand the game at a high level.

The difference between the Irish front 5 and the best scrummagers in the world is more technique than simple kgs. People saying let's throw Heaslip and Ferris in the 2nd row to improve our scrum should be playing Championship manager.

I have most certainly played rugby,I cannot vouch for Brendan Cole though.
My post was hypothetical,so yes it could be compared to championship manager because that is also fiction.
What is your point?

anonymous_joe

Sid_Justice wrote: »

To tell you the truth I'm wondering if the original poster or the rte journalist have actually played Rugby? Certainly doubt whether they understand the game at a high level.

The difference between the Irish front 5 and the best scrummagers in the world is more technique than simple kgs. People saying let's throw Heaslip and Ferris in the 2nd row to improve our scrum should be playing Championship manager.

The point you're sort of missing, and hasn't really been made, is that in other countries, Stephen Ferris let's say, might well have been a second-row rather than a flanker.

France, to use as an example, go for quick, tough buggers at flanker, and man-mountains at second-row. Culturally, we develop those players differently.

As an option, it's one worth considering.

danthefan

anonymous_joe wrote: »

The point you're sort of missing, and hasn't really been made, is that in other countries, Stephen Ferris let's say, might well have been a second-row rather than a flanker.

France, to use as an example, go for quick, tough buggers at flanker, and man-mountains at second-row. Culturally, we develop those players differently.

As an option, it's one worth considering.

He would have been looked at in the 2nd row I'm sure, I don't think he'd exclusively be a 2nd row. If you think of someone like Danie Rossouw who can play both, along those lines.

stephen_n

danthefan wrote: »

He would have been looked at in the 2nd row I'm sure, I don't think he'd exclusively be a 2nd row. If you think of someone like Danie Rossouw who can play both, along those lines.

Chabal too!

anonymous_joe

danthefan wrote: »

He would have been looked at in the 2nd row I'm sure, I don't think he'd exclusively be a 2nd row. If you think of someone like Danie Rossouw who can play both, along those lines.

Very true.

stephen_n wrote: »

Chabal too!

Another example.

It's not that we're doing something wrong it's just a difference of style. Unlike say football, rugby's still got a fair few national differences, even with a rake of globalisation. Irish teams still play like they're English, French teams are still all flair, skill and unpredictability and so on.

It might lead to more balanced packs if we did it the same way as other countries, but that's not going to change any time soon methinks. So it's all really speculation, but still, it's lunch time, the time for speculation.

buck65

I have only got around to reading this thread now. This article is like something you would hear during a really boring lunch break chat with some guys who don't really know much about rugby, part of you wants to laugh out loud in their faces and the other part is biting your tongue because you know that next day they will be reinventing the political wheel or complaining about Dustin in the Eurovision, or Roy Keane.

buck65

buck65 wrote: »

I have only got around to reading this thread now. This article is like something you would hear during a really boring lunch break chat with some guys who don't really know much about rugby, part of you wants to laugh out loud in their faces and the other part is biting your tongue because you know that next day they will be reinventing the political wheel or complaining about Dustin in the Eurovision, or Roy Keane.

If you consider an article/discussion on how backrows would do as locks boring then I suggest you are in the wrong forum.

buck65

Diana Tangy Thimble wrote: »

If you consider an article/discussion on how backrows would do as locks boring then I suggest you are in the wrong forum.

Actually Goose I never said the article was boring .

Also I am not aware of any other forum where I could discuss such things on Boards, are you?

buck65

buck65 wrote: »

Actually Goose I never said the article was boring .

buck65 wrote: »

I have only got around to reading this thread now. This article is like something you would hear during a really boring lunch break chat with some guys who don't really know much about rugby, part of you wants to laugh out loud in their faces and the other part is biting your tongue because you know that next day they will be reinventing the political wheel or complaining about Dustin in the Eurovision, or Roy Keane.

:rolleyes:

buck65 wrote: »

Also I am not aware of any other forum where I could discuss such things on Boards, are you?

I would suggest munsterfans.com

wixfjord

buck65 wrote: »

I have only got around to reading this thread now. This article is like something you would hear during a really boring lunch break chat with some guys who don't really know much about rugby, part of you wants to laugh out loud in their faces and the other part is biting your tongue because you know that next day they will be reinventing the political wheel or complaining about Dustin in the Eurovision, or Roy Keane.

Wasnt much need for that comment was there?
Anway do you not see the reasoning behind playing a guy like Ferris, McLaughlin, Roussow, Haskell, Chabal etc at second row? All good lineout jumpers, and what you lose in second row play you may make up in power, pace, etc.
Its a hypothetical discussion ffs, if you dont like it whats the point in bitching about it?

buck65

I reckon we should put the 5 from Operation Transformation as the Irish front 5. Bulk and weight wouldn't be a problem then. Jesus I might write an article.
Pass the sugar lads.

toomevara

Lads, I'm getting tired of the petty bitching on here between a number of you today. This is a friendly warning, particularly Buck & Goose. If it continues I'm issuing bans.

wixfjord

toomevara wrote: »

Lads, I'm getting tired of the petty bitching on here between a number of you today. This is a friendly warning, particularly Buck & Goose. If it continues I'm issuing bans.

Buck has posted three times on this thread with nothing but negative comments, and sarcastically (I presume) thanked two posts. You can see where its starting from toome.