Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread

jm08

Tox56 wrote: »

Not only are we playing a short term option at 12, we are playing a short term option at 10, and playing our long-term 10 at 12!

The only possible gain is short term, and even then we aren't going to set the world alight if NZ prepare for ROG and can shut him down in attack. All this while completely neglecting the long term.

In answer to above Carter was protecting his groin by not kicking as much

To hell with the future, Ireland would be better off with a win.

Anyway, with Madigan progressing so well, there is every chance that Sexton could be moved to 12.

McQuilkin seems to think its a good option.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/mcquilkin-wants-sextonogara-axis-to-take-attack-to-all-blacks-3143955.html

Fishooks12

jm08 wrote: »

To hell with the future, Ireland would be better off with a win.

Anyway, with Madigan progressing so well, there is every chance that Sexton could be moved to 12.

McQuilkin seems to think its a good option.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/mcquilkin-wants-sextonogara-axis-to-take-attack-to-all-blacks-3143955.html

We'd also be better off playing McFadden or Wallace at 12

jm08

totallegend wrote: »

You were wrong, accept it, move on.

Prove I'm wrong.

I read an interview with Carter on his 100th cap for the Crusaders and he certainly wasn't making excuses as to why he was playing at 12.

Also read an article by Graham Henry on the ABs where he mentioned the future and bringing in Tom Taylor and moving Carter to 12.

Fishooks12

jm08 wrote: »

Prove I'm wrong.

I read an interview with Carter on his 100th cap for the Crusaders and he certainly wasn't making excuses as to why he was playing at 12.

Also read an article by Graham Henry on the ABs where he mentioned the future and bringing in Tom Taylor and moving Carter to 12.

He started one game and missed 3 kicks because of his groin so they moved him to 12 to ease his kicking responsibility. There's your proof

http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/04/12/carter-move-eases-rugby-injury-return/

All Blacks playmaker Dan Carter starts at inside centre for the first time in seven years when the Crusaders take on the unbeaten Stormers in a round-eight Super Rugby clash in Christchurch on Saturday.

Carter last started in the No.12 jersey outside Andrew Mehrtens against the Waratahs in Sydney in 2005, but says he envisages no transitional problems shifting out from his usual five-eighth spot.

Rookie Tom Taylor will wear the No.10 jersey and assume goal-kicking responsibilities after Carter, recently back after a long lay-off with a groin injury, missed three penalty goals in the two-point loss to the Bulls in Pretoria last weekend.

profitius

The backline did improve with Sexton moving to 12. D'Arcy is limited these days.

totallegend

jm08 wrote: »

Prove I'm wrong.

I read an interview with Carter on his 100th cap for the Crusaders and he certainly wasn't making excuses as to why he was playing at 12.

Also read an article by Graham Henry on the ABs where he mentioned the future and bringing in Tom Taylor and moving Carter to 12.

Endless back and forth sniping and trawling the internet for "facts" doesn't sound like the best use of my time. If you think Tom Taylor is actually displacing Carter because he's a better out-half, then good luck to you. Respond if you want, I'm out.

jm08

totallegend wrote: »

Endless back and forth sniping and trawling the internet for "facts" doesn't sound like the best use of my time. If you think Tom Taylor is actually displacing Carter because he's a better out-half, then good luck to you. Respond if you want, I'm out.

If you care to read what I posted, you will note Henry was talking about the future (and of course, if Carter gets injured). No mention whatsoever that Tom Taylor was a better outhalf than Carter. You might also have noted that Carter is the best outhalf in the world (and not Tom Taylor).

Fishooks12

jm08 wrote: »

If you care to read what I posted, you will note Henry was talking about the future (and of course, if Carter gets injured). No mention whatsoever that Tom Taylor was a better outhalf than Carter. You might also have noted that Carter is the best outhalf in the world (and not Tom Taylor).

So you're just ignoring the fact that it's clearly stated in several online publications that Carter moving to 12 was because of a fear of his groin injury flaring up, and nothing mentioned in any of them about developing Carter at 12?

jm08

Fishooks12 wrote: »

He started one game and missed 3 kicks because of his groin so they moved him to 12 to ease his kicking responsibility. There's your proof

http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/04/12/carter-move-eases-rugby-injury-return/

One game. Taylor could have taken the kicking duties (if it was a huge issue) from 12. Taylor started at 12 in the previous match in their win against the Lions.

Fishooks12

jm08 wrote: »

One game. Taylor could have taken the kicking duties (if it was a huge issue) from 12. Taylor started at 12 in the previous match in their win against the Lions.

"You can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink"

mikedragon32

Guys, this isn't the thread to discuss Carter in any context.

totallegend

Anyhoo... damn I hope Kidney doesn't go down the route of starting Sexton at 12, fair enough he doesn't want to experiment and is not overly concerned with squad development but this would be a seriously retrograde step.

Fishooks12

totallegend wrote: »

Anyhoo... damn I hope Kidney doesn't go down the route of starting Sexton at 12, fair enough he doesn't want to experiment and is not overly concerned with squad development but this would be a seriously retrograde step.

My two main issues with it would be that it puts our best 10 out of position and that it puts a possible defensive hole at 10 where we don't need to have one

jm08

Fishooks12 wrote: »

So you're just ignoring the fact that it's clearly stated in several online publications that Carter moving to 12 was because of a fear of his groin injury flaring up, and nothing mentioned in any of them about developing Carter at 12?

Only one Australian publication and no mention of the fear of his groin flaring up - his kicking was just poor it would seem from that.

I don't think Carter needs to be developed at 12 by the way - he can play both positions equally well.

totallegend

Fishooks12 wrote: »

My two main issues with it would be that it puts our best 10 out of position and that it puts a possible defensive hole at 10 where we don't need to have one

My main issue with it is that playing NZ away is the biggest test for a team and players and a massive learning opportunity for guys; giving the benefit of that experience to a guy who is past it (or, at best, has a limited lifespan remaining) is senseless when Sexton is both the better option now and the future of out-half for the foreseeable future.

irishbucsfan

Not to mention Sexton is a better 10 than OGara and Wallace is a better 12 than Sexton.

There's no logical reason to it. I don't think it'll happen.

Cpt_Blackbeard

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Not to mention Sexton is a better 10 than OGara and Wallace is a better 12 than Sexton.

There's no logical reason to it. I don't think it'll happen.

Wallace is coming out with no gametime in almost a month. He hasn't been training with the squad and he probably hasn't even trained with the team yet. It would be a huge ask for him to slot straight in. We aren't playing a Welsh side so every opposition player won't set out to run at ROG. If his defense was to hold up, bringing ROG in would probably be our best option. Big if though.

Tox56

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

Wallace is coming out with no gametime in almost a month. He hasn't been training with the squad and he probably hasn't even trained with the team yet. It would be a huge ask for him to slot straight in. We aren't playing a Welsh side so every opposition player won't set out to run at ROG. If his defense was to hold up, bringing ROG in would probably be our best option. Big if though.

He is suspect and defence and I don't think anyone can deny that, but even if they don't set out to run him over (he's such an obvious weakness I have a hard time believing they would simply ignore that), if they prepare for him a team the quality of New Zealand will probably be able to shut him down in attack.

Just look at it this way, they are more likely to shut down ROG in attack than Sexton, and ROG is certainly weaker in defence than Sexton, and he's going to be gone from this level very soon.

I understand the Wallace and lack of gametime argument, but I genuinely believe we would be better off with a 10/12 of Sexton/Wallace in both the short and longer term.

He's actually a 12, and we play our best 10. He also has a long history with BOD so communication should be better than the alternatives.

jm08

Tox56 wrote: »

He is suspect and defence and I don't think anyone can deny that, but even if they don't set out to run him over (he's such an obvious weakness I have a hard time believing they would simply ignore that), if they prepare for him a team the quality of New Zealand will probably be able to shut him down in attack.

Just look at it this way, they are more likely to shut down ROG in attack than Sexton, and ROG is certainly weaker in defence than Sexton, and he's going to be gone from this level very soon.

I understand the Wallace and lack of gametime argument, but I genuinely believe we would be better off with a 10/12 of Sexton/Wallace in both the short and longer term.

He's actually a 12, and we play our best 10. He also has a long history with BOD so communication should be better than the alternatives.

O'Gara has had a fair bit of gametime in the recent two tests and his defence hasn't been shown up as a problem.

Its doubtful Wallace will ever start a test match again (unless in an emergency) considering his age.

Looking to the future with Madigan on the scene, there is a good chance Sexton could be spending a lot more time at 12 as he looks to be a better candidate for 12 than Madigan.

keane2097

jm08 wrote: »

Not so sure about that - he played twice at 10 at the start of the season (Mar/April) and then moved to 12 for his next 5 games, then back to 10 (more than likely to give him a game or two at 10 before the Test matches).

He played 12 because he was injured. End of.

Madigan has an awful awful awful awful lot more gametime than Sexton at inside centre for Leinster.

Probably because when emergency substitutions happen, it makes far more sense to keep your best pieces in their most influential positions.

jm08, what would you think of putting ROG at 12? Genuinely.

Tox56

jm08 wrote: »

O'Gara has had a fair bit of gametime in the recent two tests and his defence hasn't been shown up as a problem.

Its doubtful Wallace will ever start a test match again (unless in an emergency) considering his age.

Looking to the future with Madigan on the scene, there is a good chance Sexton could be spending a lot more time at 12 as he looks to be a better candidate for 12 than Madigan.

We're about a 32 year old Wallace for a 35 year old ROG, age isn't exactly going to be an issue for Wallace here.

NZ have had their kick up the backside last week, and will be looking to win and win well. They're handed the team sheet, and Ronan O'Gara is at 10. Even if they don't run through him they could run around him, flood people into his channel and it's a clear weakness.

You get the team sheet with Sexton at 10 and as we've seen in the last test, even sending SBW down there consistently has had little success.

It's creating an unncessary headache in defence, and it's not like a ROG-Sexton axis is going to be significantly more potent than a Sexton-Wallace one, even taking into account Wallace's gametime issue.

Realistically, Wallace should have been in the squad from the start, and I have a feeling a Sexton-ROG partnership is what Kidney was always going to do.

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

Madigan has an awful awful awful awful lot more gametime than Sexton at inside centre for Leinster.

Probably because when emergency substitutions happen, it makes far more sense to keep your best pieces in their most influential positions.

jm08, what would you think of putting ROG at 12? Genuinely.

Madigan only really started getting game time with Leinster last season and he has never started a game at 12 for Leinster. Think he is a bit small to play 12 with the bulldozers around now. Sexton is a very good defender.

I wouldn't put O'Gara at 12. Not sure why you ask that.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

Madigan only really started getting game time with Leinster last season and he has never started a game at 12 for Leinster. Think he is a bit small to play 12 with the bulldozers around now. Sexton is a very good defender.

I wouldn't put O'Gara at 12. Not sure why you ask that.

Because none of us would put Sexton at 12. Because he's an out half. Much in the way you wouldn't put O'Gara at 12, because he's an out half.

Madigan has more gametime at 12 than Sexton. That is a fact.
He's also played a lot at 15.

bamboozle

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

Wallace is coming out with no gametime in almost a month. He hasn't been training with the squad and he probably hasn't even trained with the team yet. It would be a huge ask for him to slot straight in. We aren't playing a Welsh side so every opposition player won't set out to run at ROG. If his defense was to hold up, bringing ROG in would probably be our best option. Big if though.

hmmmm Luke McAllister springs to mind...
if ROG is selected NZ will target his defence.

Best solution in my view is Earls to 11, McFadden to 12, Trimble to 14.

As you note above, starting this one is too big of an ask of Wallace...which raises question as to why a squad of 29 was initially brought.

Podge_irl

He's never stared at 12 but has moved out there in an emergency (though it didn't really work). I'm not sure Sexton has played a single minute at anywhere other then 10 in the last 3 years. And that's because Leinster want to keep him at 10 where he is more influential.

I don't think the ROG/Sexton axis has ever really worked. It was alright last Sat because the change of pace possibly took the AB's by surprise. But it was noticeable that with ROG at 10 he was passing slightly earlier, not fixing any defenders and gave no inside passes. It was all a bit predictable and if we play that way for a full game NZ will exploit it.

jm08

Tox56 wrote: »

We're about a 32 year old Wallace for a 35 year old ROG, age isn't exactly going to be an issue for Wallace here.

It was mentioned that ROG isn't for the future. Well neither is Paddy Wallace. Madigan is and a way of giving him gametime is by playing Sexton at 12 because that is a problem area and anytime Sexton has played there, he has been good.

NZ have had their kick up the backside last week, and will be looking to win and win well. They're handed the team sheet, and Ronan O'Gara is at 10. Even if they don't run through him they could run around him, flood people into his channel and it's a clear weakness.

You get the team sheet with Sexton at 10 and as we've seen in the last test, even sending SBW down there consistently has had little success.

It's creating an unncessary headache in defence, and it's not like a ROG-Sexton axis is going to be significantly more potent than a Sexton-Wallace one, even taking into account Wallace's gametime issue.

Realistically, Wallace should have been in the squad from the start, and I have a feeling a Sexton-ROG partnership is what Kidney was always going to do.

I suspect the ABs now realise that O'Gara might come on at some stage and have been prepared for that eventuality. They won't need to see his name on a team sheet at 10 to prepare for him :rolleyes:

Unless Wallace starts, he really isn't a bench option unless he is also the flyhalf backup. His lack of gametime is an issue in such a key position.

Hype710

Just re-watching the game and Justin Marshall says Sexton looks very displeased when he sees O'Gara coming on and having to move to 12, gives an indication of what Johnny thinks of it.

Wallace to 12, Earls to 11 and Trimble to 14 please.

Fishooks12

jmo8, you're basically championing ROG starting under the guise of accommodating Madigan in the future. it's all very fan boyish

jm08

Podge_irl wrote: »

He's never stared at 12 but has moved out there in an emergency (though it didn't really work). I'm not sure Sexton has played a single minute at anywhere other then 10 in the last 3 years. And that's because Leinster want to keep him at 10 where he is more influential.

I'd say its more down to Sexton not having any great competition at 10 up to recently as to why he always starts there. And Leinster has plenty of centres.

I don't think the ROG/Sexton axis has ever really worked. It was alright last Sat because the change of pace possibly took the AB's by surprise. But it was noticeable that with ROG at 10 he was passing slightly earlier, not fixing any defenders and gave no inside passes. It was all a bit predictable and if we play that way for a full game NZ will exploit it.

Pretty much every commentator disagrees with you there. Even Shane Horgan was suggesting that D'Arcy be dropped in the 6Ns and Sexton be moved to 12 with O'Gara at 10.