Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread

d-gal

If its all about height can we just put Devin Toner in 13?

Benny Cake

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.
.

There are so many holes in your argument its beyond belief... :rolleyes: To use running backs in the NFL as an example, two of the most explosive, hardest running backs in the game are Maurice Jones Drew (5ft7) & Ray Rice (5Ft8)..

In actual fact, it would be easier to argue that shorter players & have a lower centre of gravity which makes them more difficult to stop. The only benefit height gives you is in fielding the ball which is of little importance at 13.

Cpt_Blackbeard

Benny Cake wrote: »

There are so many holes in your argument its beyond belief... :rolleyes: To use running backs in the NFL as an example, two of the most explosive, hardest running backs in the game are Maurice Jones Drew (5ft7) & Ray Rice (5Ft8)..

In actual fact, it would be easier to argue that shorter players & have a lower centre of gravity which makes them more difficult to stop. The only benefit height gives you is in fielding the ball which is of little importance at 13.

There are tonnes of variables such as centre of mass, leg drive, running lines etc, but, in its most simplistic sense, ball carrying is about linear momentum. Linear momentum is a product of an objects mass and velocity. This means that more massive objects don't need less velocity to reach a certain momentum.

In rugby terms, this is why you see the biggest, heaviest, players carrying the ball in tight spaces and the smaller faster players carrying the ball when there is more space to exploit.

Your arguement displays a lack of knowledge of basic mechanics and little else.

your argument displays a complete lack of understanding of the game of rugby. It's not just about big ****ers tackling big *****.

Get a new branch of rebellion, your new one reeks

molloyjh

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

In rugby terms, this is why you see the biggest, heaviest, players carrying the ball in tight spaces and the smaller faster players carrying the ball when there is more space to exploit.

Yes because Shane Williams dancing feet are so important in open space. And Darces jinking only ever happens when no one is anywhere near him. Of course Richardt Strauss, who is shorter than EOM, wasn't able to make any impact last season either as a forward because he just wasn't big enough. I don't think I've ever seen anyone oversimplify the game of rugby to such an extent.

Fireball07

molloyjh wrote: »

Yes because Shane Williams dancing feet are so important in open space. And Darces jinking only ever happens when no one is anywhere near him. Of course Richardt Strauss, who is shorter than EOM, wasn't able to make any impact last season either as a forward because he just wasn't big enough. I don't think I've ever seen anyone oversimplify the game of rugby to such an extent.

It is oversimplified but the point still has to be made that certain bigger players, who are less skilled than their smaller counterparts, may be picked ahead of them because being large, having leg power and able to punch holes in defences is so useful. And it is a skill in itself, but big, powerful players running good lines can gain ground every time. See Bastareaud, Roberts, etc.


Though I don't think it really applies in an Earls V O'Malley debate. Earls may be slightly bigger but he's no Roberts. Tbh Griffin is still the player I want to see there but I think it's unlikely.

Benny Cake

Ok, lets assume you are correct in all the above.

Now, explain why O'Driscoll is one of the greatest centers to ever play the game? He possesses none of the attributes you deem essential yet manages to be successful. Thats the problem with your argument, rugby is not simply a game of physics where you use a players physical attributes to calculate how much momentum a player can generate and therefore say "player x" is greater than "player y".

I'd take BOD all day every day over the likes of Bastreaud.

molloyjh

Fireball07 wrote: »

It is oversimplified but the point still has to be made that certain bigger players, who are less skilled than their smaller counterparts, may be picked ahead of them because being large, having leg power and able to punch holes in defences is so useful. And it is a skill in itself, but big, powerful players running good lines can gain ground every time. See Bastareaud, Roberts, etc.


Though I don't think it really applies in an Earls V O'Malley debate. Earls may be slightly bigger but he's no Roberts. Tbh Griffin is still the player I want to see there but I think it's unlikely.

But the problem with size over talent is that to mitigate a big man simply requires that you tackle him the right way - hit him low and get a second man in to go high if he is going to offload in the tackle. You don't want your centres making the hard yards. That's what your forwards are for. You want them to make breaks, which has more to do with timing, running the right lines and having the eye for the opportunity. Size can certainly help, but only after other criteria have been met.

Defensively it's as much about technique in the tackle as anything. Plenty of big men can't tackle and plenty of small men can. And again things like position on the field, body position, technique and knowing what to do when, e.g. when to come out of the line to shut down the wide option etc, are the basics that need to be considered before size is.

Size can always help in rugby but only once certain skills are present. Therefore the skills are the most important thing. This doesn't just apply to centres either. Cian Healy wouldn't be the biggest prop going, but he's still world class because he has gotten his scrummaging techniques right and has skills and athleticism in the loose that some back row forwards don't have.

danthefan

It's all of sudden become clear why Tony Buckley is such a good pla.... oh, wait.

jasper11

to be fair bod is kinda a freak. he is short in height but ridiculously strong. think a big centre with a small one is always going have a chance lke bod and roberts were excellent. wales have some huge back and as a munster fan i dread the thought of earls up aganst roberts n the 6 natons. bod is an animal in comparison to earls in defence.

Fireball07

Benny Cake wrote: »

Ok, lets assume you are correct in all the above.

Now, explain why O'Driscoll is one of the greatest centers to ever play the game? He possesses none of the attributes you deem essential yet manages to be successful. Thats the problem with your argument, rugby is not simply a game of physics where you use a players physical attributes to calculate how much momentum a player can generate and therefore say "player x" is greater than "player y".

I'd take BOD all day every day over the likes of Bastreaud.

I never said that they were essential attributes to be successful. I said that if 2 players are of a similar skill level, defensively and attacking-wise...then a player who is a couple of inches taller and a stone heavier will probably be picked.

MungBean

Fireball07 wrote: »

I never said that they were essential attributes to be successful. I said that if 2 players are of a similar skill level, defensively and attacking-wise...then a player who is a couple of inches taller and a stone heavier will probably be picked.

Depends on the coach and who he likes, current form, previous form, previous achievements......there's a hundred million things that will get a player picked before an extra inch of height. No coach will value two players equally enough to pick one over the other for something as basic as height and weight in a position like centre.

Fireball07

MungBean wrote: »

Depends on the coach and who he likes, current form, previous form, previous achievements......there's a hundred million things that will get a player picked before an extra inch of height. No coach will value two players equally enough to pick one over the other for something as basic as height and weight in a position like centre.

Again, I didn't say one inch...that would be a fairly minimal difference. But if height and weight didn't make any difference then Roberts, Bastareaud, Morrison, Downey, McCabe probably wouldn't be picked for their respective teams.

fitz

Fireball07 wrote: »

Benny Cake wrote: »

Ok, lets assume you are correct in all the above.

Now, explain why O'Driscoll is one of the greatest centers to ever play the game? He possesses none of the attributes you deem essential yet manages to be successful. Thats the problem with your argument, rugby is not simply a game of physics where you use a players physical attributes to calculate how much momentum a player can generate and therefore say "player x" is greater than "player y".

I'd take BOD all day every day over the likes of Bastreaud.

I never said that they were essential attributes to be successful. I said that if 2 players are of a similar skill level, defensively and attacking-wise...then a player who is a couple of inches taller and a stone heavier will probably be picked.

Which is prety much irrelevant when it comes to Earls at 13. He's not at the same skill level as EOM, McFadden, Fitzgerald, or Spence in the centre. The fact that he's an inch taller than EOM doesn't change that fact. People are getting drawn into a daft argument for the sake of arguing here.

What's important is that there are much better options than Earls at 13.

Fireball07

fitz wrote: »

Which is prety much irrelevant when it comes to Earls at 13. He's not at the same skill level as EOM, McFadden, Fitzgerald, or Spence in the centre. The fact that he's an inch taller than EOM doesn't change that fact. People are getting drawn into a daft argument for the sake of arguing here.

What's important is that there are much better options than Earls at 13.

Oh I know that...I said that from the outset. There's no way Earls should be 13.

Griffin/EOM/Cave should be the 3 candidates.

ALH-06

This debate about size / mass / bulk has become ridiculous. People here continue to refute the basic fact that bigger men are harder to repel, in attack or defense. It's pure rubbish.

People who are attacking Blackbeard etc here... I ask you - would you prefer a 5'10 88kg EOM, or a 6'2 95kg EOM of the same ability?

We're not talking about skill level. It's a separate argument. We know EOM has abundant skill and technique, but we're talking about the issue of size. EOM was swatted off his massive opposite number on at least one occasion tonight (once only by the mere swinging of a forearm), and was solely to blame for Donald's try. No-one can argue that his size wasn't a decisive factor in these instances. Absolutely not.

I genuinely felt for EOM when he conceded that try. Poor guy, awful feeling. I do think he's a good player with plenty of potential, but the size issue can't be ignored. His size will remain a liability at the highest level of this sport.

Benny Cake

Fireball07 wrote: »

Griffin/EOM/Cave should be the 3 candidates.

And then there were two....

Would be more than surprised if the team that starts the first game (and probably all barring injury) is

1 - Healy
2 - Best
3 - Ross
4 - POC
5 - DOC/Ryan
6 - Ferris
7 - SOB
8 - Heaslip
9 - Reddan/Murray
10 - Sexton
11 - Trimble/Fitz
12 - D'Arcy
13 - Earls
14 - Bowe
15 - Kearney

Steady Eddie Declan Kidney doesn't go off track...

Benny Cake

Benny Cake wrote: »

And then there were two....

Griffin actually got caught quite badly in defence more than once today too, and Cave had a couple of poor errors.

gally74

In fairness it's griffins first year, within a weak conn team,

Device should bring mcsharry, tier an and griffin into the 6 N training squad

gally74

gally74 wrote: »

In fairness it's griffins first year, within a weak conn team,

Device should bring mcsharry, tier an and griffin into the 6 N training squad

I'd definitely hope that Griffin would be in contention. I was just saying that if we're going to write off someone for a missed tackle, that if we used the same metric on all available players, we'd probably only field a team of 4 or 5.

Takeabath

After today its omalley for 13. He's been a key clog in a Leinster team that's playing the best stuff in Europe. One missed tackle when the game was over doesn't change that... If it did then griffin,cave and earls are all out because they missed more than one tackle when they last played 13! O'driscoll also says he calls the defense, impressive for such a young player and especially today when the defense was solid until the game was won and there were a raft of changes!

Fireball07

Deleted User wrote: »

Griffin actually got caught quite badly in defence more than once today too, and Cave had a couple of poor errors.

So Earls it is then?

Takeabath wrote: »

After today its omalley for 13. He's been a key clog in a Leinster team that's playing the best stuff in Europe. One missed tackle when the game was over doesn't change that... If it did then griffin,cave and earls are all out because they missed more than one tackle when they last played 13! O'driscoll also says he calls the defense, impressive for such a young player and especially today when the defense was solid until the game was won and there were a raft of changes!

EOM's doing pretty well, missed tackle aside, but I don't think a really awful Bath team can be used to judge his ability. See how he does against Montpellier and Glasgow first.

porterbelly

Deleted User wrote: »

Griffin actually got caught quite badly in defence more than once today too, and Cave had a couple of poor errors.

He also made a couple of superb tackles tracking back that were certain try savers

Himself and McSharry were up against Tindall and Sapolu, vastly experienced, hugely powerful and in Sapolu's case, supremely skillfull.

They made them look very ordinary and Tindall ended up kicking most of the ball he got.

McSharry got us over the gainline alot with some great direct running, Griffin looked good in possession.

These lads are getting exposure at a very good level of rugby and are excelling in it. Should they be considered for a 6 nations squad, of course they should

^^ I wasn't being harsh on Griffin, just pointing out that players miss tackles.

durkadurka

bamboozle wrote: »

and he's going to score another 2 tomorrow...

You sir are a genius. (comment was about Luke)

Hype710

15 Kearney
14 Trimble
13 Bowe
12 D'arcy
11 Fitzgerald
10 Sexton
9 Reddan

Please.

Takeabath

Sport101 wrote: »

bamboozle wrote: »

and he's going to score another 2 tomorrow...

If by score you mean overrun the pass then wave his hands, then sure!
Where's Shaggy these days? Now he's a winger who knows how to score tries...what a machine.

Ouch.... Horgans been out all season as well pretty old news

jasper11

Hype710 wrote: »

15 Kearney
14 Trimble
13 Bowe
12 D'arcy
11 Fitzgerald
10 Sexton
9 Reddan

Please.

thats a serious backline

except Bowe has never been a good 13