Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread

JustinDee · 16-12-2011 2:14pm

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

Height has a huge role to play

No, it does not.
One of the greatest centres the game has ever seen is the same height and roughly the same weight as the player you mention (O'Driscoll). James O'Connor is the same.
Even further inside, Jonny Wilkinson was one of the best pivots in defence.
Far too tunnel-visioned. If a player is good enough to catch a selector's eye, they will be chosen. If they deliver the performances, they'll succeed.

Tactics adapt to a selection just as much as vice-versa. If you want to beat South Africa, you're 9 times out of 10 not going to select an untried, yet-to-be-tested-at-international level at centre. You're going to pick the best players at your disposal.
If you're not, then don't give up the day job.

CatFromHue · 16-12-2011 2:16pm

ALH-06 wrote: »

Yep he did all right other than the try that should never have been scored and was an unforgivable defensive lapse and which probably cost us that game.

Earls was caught way too narrow that any player could have gotten passed him. Tuilagi had very little to do and his size never came into the equation. For the rest of the game Tuilagi never got anywhere against Earls.

While that try was principally Earl's fault there were covering defenders who could have done more once the line was broken but didn't.

JustinDee · 16-12-2011 2:17pm

CatFromHue wrote: »

While that try was principally Earl's fault there were covering defenders who could have done more once the line was broken but didn't.

It was a mistake in his positioning (ie. too close to 10/12 channel). Not a mismatch in size or . . . erm, for some reason . . . height

CatFromHue · 16-12-2011 2:22pm

JustinDee wrote: »

It was a mistake in his positioning (ie. too close to 10/12 channel). Not a mismatch in size or . . . erm, for some reason . . . height

If he'd longer arms he could have gotten a hand on Tuilagi. We need to pick guys with long arms!

Cpt_Blackbeard · 16-12-2011 2:22pm

molloyjh wrote: »

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

Height has a huge role to play.

The taller you are, the more mass you can comfortably pack on without negativitly affecting your game. The more mass you have, the easier it is for you generate momemtum. The more momentum you have, the harder you are to stop. The harder you are to stop, the more likely you are to break the gainline. The more likely you are to break the gainline, the more attention the opposition defense will have to afford you. The more attention the opposition defense affords you, the more room your team will have out wide. etc. etc.

Sure, there are a huge number of variables and exception but, there is a very good reason why all the best international teams have at least one giant in the centre.

So then why were Darce and BOD considered one of the best partnerships in international rugby for years? They may not be any more, but that's more to do with age and recent drops in form, but neither are big tall men and both are held in very high regard. BOD is considered to be one of the best centres in the game.

All of the above totally ignores the fact that Earls and EOM are the same size. An inch is nothing. So if you're going to discount EOM on size then you have to discount Earls (and all our other centres) too. Of course that wouldn't suit your agenda would it?

Read a few posts up

leakyboots · 16-12-2011 2:27pm

Think ye're being harsh on Earls lads, but time will tell if he is our starting 13 and if so, how well he does

Cpt_Blackbeard · 16-12-2011 2:29pm

JustinDee wrote: »

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

Height has a huge role to play

No, it does not.
One of the greatest centres the game has ever seen is the same height and roughly the same weight as the player you mention (O'Driscoll). James O'Connor is the same.
Even further inside, Jonny Wilkinson was one of the best pivots in defence.
Far too tunnel-visioned. If a player is good enough to catch a selector's eye, they will be chosen. If they deliver the performances, they'll succeed.

Tactics adapt to a selection just as much as vice-versa. If you want to beat South Africa, you're 9 times out of 10 not going to select an untried, yet-to-be-tested-at-international level at centre. You're going to pick the best players at your disposal.
If you're not, then don't give up the day job.

You can't use exceptions to prove a rule. An exception who happens to be out for a season as his shoulder finally gave in from having to tackle bigger men throughout his career.

If you cannot see that it is much easier for less skilled players to make a living from rugby, if they are bigger, you are blind.

Smaller players have to be much more talented than bigger players if they are to be successful.

16-12-2011 2:30pm

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

You can't use exceptions to prove a rule.

First I was this :eek:
Then I was this

Then I did this :rolleyes:

ALH-06 · 16-12-2011 2:33pm

molloyjh wrote: »

All of the above totally ignores the fact that Earls and EOM are the same size. An inch is nothing. So if you're going to discount EOM on size then you have to discount Earls (and all our other centres) too. Of course that wouldn't suit your agenda would it?

Well many people wouldn't agree that Earls is cut out for centre either. Due to his defensive game, but also his size. Flops off tackles & gets turned over too easily for the top level. The argument of some people here is 'Look, he's as big as Earls, therefore he's big enough'... I don't get that. Earls is a grand size for a winger but not for an international centre. Citing exceptions like Williams, Stringer, O'Connor etc doesn't disprove that fact.

JustinDee wrote: »

No, it does not.
One of the greatest centres the game has ever seen is the same height and roughly the same weight as the player you mention (O'Driscoll).

O'Driscoll is 'roughly' the same weight as EOM? That's being very liberal with the truth in fairness.

Hagz · 16-12-2011 2:35pm

You seem to be missing the point mister blackbeard, what's shocking about your opinion is not that bigger players are more preffered at centre, but it's that your excuse for Earls over O'Malley is 2 bloody inches! I don't really care who gets the nod at 13, but I 2 inches should not be the deciding factor.

ALH-06 · 16-12-2011 2:36pm

JustinDee wrote: »

It was a mistake in his positioning (ie. too close to 10/12 channel). Not a mismatch in size or . . . erm, for some reason . . . height

CatFromHue wrote: »

Earls was caught way too narrow that any player could have gotten passed him.

I'm not saying Earls wasn't big enough to make that tackle. Just that he didn't make the tackle. And he should have. That's the fact.

danthefan · 16-12-2011 2:37pm

Hagz wrote: »

Is this guy seriously debating about two friggin inches.....Imagine if Lomu was 2 inches shorter, would he have even made the All Blacks squad I wonder..

Nope, even worse, debating over 1 inch.

Seems to be some arbitrary cut off point where you can play centre as an international, 5'11".

wixfjord · 16-12-2011 2:37pm

ALH-06 wrote: »

Well many people wouldn't agree that Earls is cut out for centre either. Due to his defensive game, but also his size. Flops off tackles & gets turned over too easily for the top level. The argument of some people here is 'Look, he's as big as Earls, therefore he's big enough'... I don't get that. Earls is a grand size for a winger but not for an international centre. Citing exceptions like Williams, Stringer, O'Connor etc doesn't disprove that fact.

Both are small for international centres without a doubt, but an obviously inflammatory attempt to dismiss O Malley as too small and Earls as fine when the two are incredibly similar in build is the reason for the furore.
If anything, because of the type of attacking game O Malley plays, he suits the role better, but that's neither here nor there.

CatFromHue · 16-12-2011 2:37pm

ALH-06 wrote: »

I'm not saying Earls wasn't big enough to make that tackle. Just that he didn't make the tackle. And he should have. That's the fact.

You're right he should have made the tackle. The general debate on this thread though is on players size.

ALH-06 · 16-12-2011 2:39pm

CatFromHue wrote: »

You're right he should have made the tackle. The general debate on this thread though is on players size.

Agreed.

JustinDee · 16-12-2011 2:39pm

ALH-06 wrote: »

O'Driscoll is 'roughly' the same weight as EOM? That's being very liberal with the truth in fairness.

Yes. Both are around the 5"10 mark and weigh out roughly the same.

This isn't flippin' basketball. Seriously, the difference is ability. Not bulk. Not height as my other example players will show, particularly when down to centimetres.

Cpt_Blackbeard · 16-12-2011 2:40pm

Hagz wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point mister blackbeard, what's shocking about your opinion is not that bigger players are more preffered at centre, but it's that your excuse for Earls over O'Malley is 2 bloody inches! I don't really care who gets the nod at 13, but I 2 inches should not be the deciding factor.

The debate has evolved from that, friend. I'm now engaged in debate with a poster who doesn't belive that being bigger brings any advantage to a centre.

I acknowledged that I didn't realise that there was so little in it and that neither player is really built for being a centre.

CIARAN_BOYLE · 16-12-2011 2:41pm

JustinDee wrote: »

Yes. Both are around the 5"10 mark and weigh out roughly the same.

This isn't flippin' basketball. Seriously, the difference is ability. Not bulk. Not height as my other example players will show.

A bout a stone and three pounds in the difference according to leinsterrugby.ie

wixfjord · 16-12-2011 2:43pm

JustinDee wrote: »

Yes. Both are around the 5"10 mark and weigh out roughly the same.

This isn't flippin' basketball. Seriously, the difference is ability. Not bulk. Not height as my other example players will show, particularly when down to centimetres.

In fairness, bulk has a big impact and does make it easier for a centre.
Basteraud and Tualigi are two good examples. By that theory, a small centre and a large centre with the exact same skills would be equally as effective, and no way is that correct.

All being even on ability, you'd obviously take the more physical, bigger player.

molloyjh · 16-12-2011 2:45pm

ALH-06 wrote: »

Well many people wouldn't agree that Earls is cut out for centre either. Due to his defensive game, but also his size. Flops off tackles & gets turned over too easily for the top level. The argument of some people here is 'Look, he's as big as Earls, therefore he's big enough'... I don't get that. Earls is a grand size for a winger but not for an international centre. Citing exceptions like Williams, Stringer, O'Connor etc doesn't disprove that fact.

I think people are actually saying that height is really irrelevant. If EOM performs he should be in with a shout regardless of height. Earls is a great finisher and a natural winger as a result, but he doesn't have the defense or the creativity to be an international centre. EOM stood up well against Rougerie this time last year, and if he can perform against Bath tomorrow (and keep a good run of form over the next few weeks) he should be in the reckoning for the Irish squad along with Cave.

Cpt_Blackbeard · 16-12-2011 2:45pm

JustinDee wrote: »

ALH-06 wrote: »

O'Driscoll is 'roughly' the same weight as EOM? That's being very liberal with the truth in fairness.

Yes. Both are around the 5"10 mark and weigh out roughly the same.

This isn't flippin' basketball. Seriously, the difference is ability. Not bulk. Not height as my other example players will show, particularly when down to centimetres.

Players of incredible ability will always rise to the top but, so will players of incredible size and good ability.

Jamie Roberts is a player of good ability but, massive size. He is one of the better centres in the world. Would he be where he is now was he the size of a BOD/Earls? No, his size makes up for the ability he succumbs to players like BOD, Smith etc.

bamboozle · 16-12-2011 2:46pm

either way, Earls in his 4th season playing HC has never consistently looked like a HC or International standard centre, he is however a top quality winger and should be left out there to become a better player rather than being switched from 11 to 15 to 13.

16-12-2011 2:47pm

Yeah, most people are saying it's completely bizarre to state "Not tall enough to be an international centre" and then recommend AN Other player that is less than a Euro Coin taller than the one you've written off.

It's more a case of the persistent and unwavering defence of that ridiculous statement that people are having an issue with.

Nobody thinks Earls is too small to play centre, just that he's too much of a winger to play centre.

JustinDee · 16-12-2011 2:48pm

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

A bout a stone and three pounds in the difference according to leinsterrugby.ie

A whole 2kg at time of weighing.

It is utterly daft to choose a player based on size over their ability to play.

molloyjh · 16-12-2011 2:53pm

wixfjord wrote: »

In fairness, bulk has a big impact and does make it easier for a centre.
Basteraud and Tualigi are two good examples. By that theory, a small centre and a large centre with the exact same skills would be equally as effective, and no way is that correct.

All being even on ability, you'd obviously take the more physical, bigger player.

+1

Yes all other things being even the bigger player would get the nod. And yes size does matter to a degree. But the skills are far more important. You can compensate for a lack of size with skill. You can't really compensate for a lack of skill with size in the same way. Look at Banahan for example. He's not a HEC level centre, let alone an international level.

ALH-06 · 16-12-2011 2:54pm

JustinDee wrote: »

Yes. Both are around the 5"10 mark and weigh out roughly the same.

BOD currently listed as 7kg heavier. Which is a very substantial difference. In earlier stages of his career, BOD was much heavier than his current 95kg.

JustinDee wrote: »

This isn't flippin' basketball. Seriously, the difference is ability. Not bulk.

Players are massive now. Of course ability is always necessary, but significant bulk has become a primary prerequisite of this sport at the highest level. Earls and EOM will always struggle as Heineken / International centres for this reason, unfortunately.

JustinDee · 16-12-2011 2:55pm

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

Players of incredible ability will always rise to the top but, so will players of incredible size and good ability

Oh peace.
If you have the skillset in a player and they can manage to carry out what they are expected to do, they'll be picked. Regardless of size.
If they're good enough, they'll be chosen.

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

Jamie Roberts is a player of good ability but, massive size. He is one of the better centres in the world

That is debatable. Good RWC. Poor Six Nations and previous Nov test series.
He has kept up the Welsh tradition on non-passing centres, taking up Mark Taylor's mantle. Wales haven't had an offloading bish-bosher since Scott Gibbs but Gibbs also had far more skills under his belt in addition. All good if you want someone to take hit-ups and keep ball. Don't expect too much from Roberts if on the backfoot and you need him to pass.

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

Would he be where he is now was he the size of a BOD/Earls? No, his size makes up for the ability he succumbs to players like BOD, Smith etc.

Tad silly. You're asking what a big fella would be like if they were small. Kind of pointless and not exactly realistic.

JustinDee · 16-12-2011 3:01pm

ALH-06 wrote: »

Players are massive now. Of course ability is always necessary, but significant bulk has become a primary prerequisite of this sport at the highest level. Earls and EOM will always struggle as Heineken / International centres for this reason, unfortunately.

The only reason for any struggling is ability. Ability gets players (off the top of my head) like Jonny Wilkinson, James O'Connor, Leigh Halfpenny, Gio Aplon, Patrick Lambie, Juan de Jongh, Rob Horne, Aaron Cruden selected for national teams.

wixfjord · 16-12-2011 3:02pm

JustinDee wrote: »

Oh peace.
If you have the skillset in a player and they can manage to carry out what they are expected to do, they'll be picked. Regardless of size.
If they're good enough, they'll be chosen.

That is debatable. Good RWC. Poor Six Nations and previous Nov test series.
He has kept up the Welsh tradition on non-passing centres, taking up Mark Taylor's mantle. Wales haven't had an offloading bish-bosher since Scott Gibbs but Gibbs also had far more skills under his belt in addition. All good if you want someone to take hit-ups and keep ball. Don't expect too much from Roberts if on the backfoot and you need him to pass.

Tad silly. You're asking what a big fella would be like if they were small. Kind of pointless and not exactly realistic.

Come on Justin that's pure fluff.
The Jamie Roberts question isn't "pointless" or "silly" at all.
Do you not agree that a big powerful specimen will have it far easier to succeed in rugby than a small, less bulky player, all skills being equal?

International rugby is littered with huge centres with medium skill levels, never mind pro rugby. Roberts, Basteraud, Pat McCabe, any Scottish centre, Wynand Olivier. If these guys were the size of O Malley or Earls, do you still reckon they'd be picked?!
I can't believe this is even up for discussion tbh.

wixfjord · 16-12-2011 3:05pm

JustinDee wrote: »

The only reason for any struggling is ability. Ability gets players (off the top of my head) like Jonny Wilkinson, James O'Connor, Leigh Halfpenny, Gio Aplon, Patrick Lambie, Juan de Jongh, Rob Horne, Aaron Cruden selected for national teams.

And bar Wilkinson (is he small

) most of them have struggled with physical mismatches in their careers! Jesus what you're arguing is nearly as blind as the original point about O Malley and Earls.

Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread

Comments