South Africa V Ireland, Third Test Build-up Thread

Teferi

swiwi_ wrote: »

Sigh. Bloody social media again.

No good can come off it I'm telling you.

Give us a selfie.

swiwi_

Teferi wrote: »

Give us a selfie.

Adbrowne

Zzippy wrote: »

Personal observation and opinion, same as 99.9% of the posts on this forum. Watch him play fullback and watch him play wing, his skillset is far better suited to the wing. His defence is suspect at fullback, he's been caught out of position a few times where a fullback would have been covering across. He's a better straight line runner than picking lines through gaps as a fullback needs to, his distribution and passing isn't good enough, he's better at being in the right place to receive a scoring pass than he is at making space and giving one. His kicking is about the only aspect of his game suited to 15. He's good enough to be a regular starter for Ireland on the wing, playing him at fullback is just exposing weaknesses in his game and not doing him any favours.

I dont think Zebo's distribution/passing is a problem, i think its decision making more then anything.

AbusesToilets

I think Zebo has become a new Godwin's Law for this forum. ****ing ridiculous.

andymx11

Did Sky Sports not witness our victory in the 1st test?

b.gud

jm08 wrote: »

What is interesting is that his Instagram account has him as Simonzebo15.

You might be out to something here jm. I was just looking at Isaac Boss' twitter page and his handle is @theTOKpirate. I mean he says that when he left Ireland he'd go playing in the ITM Cup but I suspect he's actually taken up a role in his natural position as a pirate

The Rape of Lucretia

I wouldnt write Zebo out of the 15 slot completely yet.

People must understand it does follow though, that to facilitate that, you do need to have McFadden on the wing, and Earslie at 13. Reddan and Madigan as the halves of course. Dave K on the other wing, and Payne back to his best position, 13.

shaungil

54 weeks since these lads started the world cup warm up camp. How has heaslip managed to improve in the last few games. Phenomenal.

jm08

b.gud wrote: »

You might be out to something here jm. I was just looking at Isaac Boss' twitter page and his handle is @theTOKpirate. I mean he says that when he left Ireland he'd go playing in the ITM Cup but I suspect he's actually taken up a role in his natural position as a pirate

Not surprising you missed the bleeding obvious when you were reading his twitter page.;)

Jump_In_Jack

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I'm thinking Joe will look to stay close to the starting pack from saturday, they did a monster job on the Boks. The bench below would give better impact and explosiveness coming on.

For me:

McGrath, Best, Ross
Toner, Roux
Henderson, Heaslip, Ruddock

Murray, Jackson
Marshall, Payne
Earls, TOH, Trimble

Bealham, Cronin, Furlong, Dillane, Stander, Marmion, Olding, Gilroy

Good idea, but Olding hasn't played enough at outhalf to cover Jackson, so Madigan needs to be no 22 by default.
Ross could be phenomenal in the scrums with Roux and Henderson backing him up!
And lots of impact there with all of those forwards on the bench.
If Toner had to go off though, who would run the lineout calls? Henderson?
Might see Ryan on the bench for that reason alone.

Zzippy

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Good idea, but Olding hasn't played enough at outhalf to cover Jackson, so Madigan needs to be no 22 by default.
Ross could be phenomenal in the scrums with Roux and Henderson backing him up!
And lots of impact there with all of those forwards on the bench.
If Toner had to go off though, who would run the lineout calls? Henderson?
Might see Ryan on the bench for that reason alone.

Ryan wasn't on the bench for the first test so I don't think "running the lineout" matters a lot to Schmidt. All the locks train together on a daily basis, I'm sure they all know the calls. The idea that we should pick a lock who "calls the lineout" on the bench ahead of a better player (in impact terms) is fanciful nonsense. We have an extremely experienced hooker and skipper, and Henderson/Dillane are well able to work with him to run an effective lineout.

jm08

Zzippy wrote: »

Ryan wasn't on the bench for the first test so I don't think "running the lineout" matters a lot to Schmidt. All the locks train together on a daily basis, I'm sure they all know the calls. The idea that we should pick a lock who "calls the lineout" on the bench ahead of a better player (in impact terms) is fanciful nonsense. We have an extremely experienced hooker and skipper, and Henderson/Dillane are well able to work with him to run an effective lineout.

Actually it would be no harm to change the lineout caller. The Boks were beginning to pick off his calls in the 2nd Test.

Perhaps you should read this article on the lineout before dismissing its importance. It will explain to you why Paul O'Connell was so highly rated.

“If you want to be a starting secondrow, someone that’s really valued, you have to be the guy who calls the lineouts. It requires a confidence. A brain. It’s such a pressure, something people on the outside probably don’t realise. Every part of the field you have to be aware of what lineout would work here, what our defence would be in this certain area. What do our backs need off this? Add it all on to your own performance where you’re worrying about rucks, you’re worrying about carries, and defensively where you need to be in the pattern.”

http://www.andymcgeady.com/lineoutmaths/

leakyboots

Didn't BOD allude to Henderson being a super player but... well... being a bit thick and not knowing the lineout calls well enough?

former total

Can't see Ryan being involved this week.

Irish Times is reporting that Payne sat out training with cramp, except they're calling it "cramp" so they're implying something more serious.

Sanjuro

leakyboots wrote: »

Didn't BOD allude to Henderson being a super player but... well... being a bit thick and not knowing the lineout calls well enough?

I remember him saying that. I think he was alluding to Henderson being lazy about learning the calls rather than thick.

bilston

leakyboots wrote: »

Didn't BOD allude to Henderson being a super player but... well... being a bit thick and not knowing the lineout calls well enough?

I believe before joining the Ulster Academy he was offered a place at Uni to study Acturial sciences (or some sort of clever degree anyway) so he can't be that thick! But yes BOD did something along those lines a couple of years ago.

Adbrowne

jm08 wrote: »

Actually it would be no harm to change the lineout caller. The Boks were beginning to pick off his calls in the 2nd Test.

Perhaps you should read this article on the lineout before dismissing its importance. It will explain to you why Paul O'Connell was so highly rated.



http://www.andymcgeady.com/lineoutmaths/

The boks picked off a few in Dublin in 2014 too, with a different caller. They could just be good lineout operators who pick off the occasional lineout.

Rigor Mortis

mcgrath best ross
toner hendo
stand heaslip ruddock

murray pj

gilroy marshall olding trimble
TOH

bealham cronin murphy roux furlong reddan madigan healy

Jump_In_Jack

Rigor Mortis wrote: »

mcgrath best ross
toner hendo
stand heaslip ruddock

murray pj

gilroy marshall olding trimble
TOH

bealham cronin murphy roux furlong reddan madigan healy

While Olding would be very interesting to see at 13 it's not likely the risk of trying a new player there will be taken in such an important match. Much more likely Payne to 13.
Unless Marshall is to move to 13, as Olding is more a 12 for Ireland.
Also Earls was left out, and that's not likely unless he were injured.
I would think O'Halloran is more likely to be 23 as Joe has gone for fullback cover in the past with Jones and Zebo, and I think in the squad O'Halloran is the 3rd choice fullback, behind Payne, and then Henshaw.
So with Henshaw out I'd expect O'Halloran to be in the 23.
It's a toss of a coin between Murphy and Ruddock, but perhaps the rest that Murphy has had would tip him to start as he'd be fresher.
I don't know if Roux has done enough to claim a bench spot, I think Dillane might offer more dynamism off the bench.
And Ryan might be ahead of Roux in the pecking order.

mareegoo

Rigor Mortis wrote: »

mcgrath best ross
toner hendo
stand heaslip ruddock

murray pj

gilroy marshall olding trimble
TOH

bealham cronin murphy roux furlong reddan madigan healy

You forgot Dillane ????????

dear oh dear

jm08

bilston wrote: »

I believe before joining the Ulster Academy he was offered a place at Uni to study Acturial sciences (or some sort of clever degree anyway) so he can't be that thick! But yes BOD did something along those lines a couple of years ago.

He has a mathematics degree - he is not thick! Just not bothered. His preference has been to play blindside rather than lock.

Zzippy

jm08 wrote: »

Actually it would be no harm to change the lineout caller. The Boks were beginning to pick off his calls in the 2nd Test.

Perhaps you should read this article on the lineout before dismissing its importance. It will explain to you why Paul O'Connell was so highly rated.



http://www.andymcgeady.com/lineoutmaths/

You're doing POC a huge disservice by attempting to suggest being able to call a lineout is why he was so highly rated. Also, are we to believe that only a second row can read the game and know what lineout to call? So a hugely experienced hooker or no. 8 can't do it? Nonsense... just scratching around for reasons to include your own favourite player over others who have much more impact on a game.

jm08

Zzippy wrote: »

You're doing POC a huge disservice by attempting to suggest being able to call a lineout is why he was so highly rated. Also, are we to believe that only a second row can read the game and know what lineout to call? So a hugely experienced hooker or no. 8 can't do it? Nonsense... just scratching around for reasons to include your own favourite player over others who have much more impact on a game.

There is a bit of a difference between being able to call a lineout and being one of the best in the world at it.

If you looked at that article I linked, you would realise that only 21% of teams contested the Irish lineout (compared to SA where 48% were contested by their opposition) at the last world cup. Think what a difference that would mean to Rory Best who can get the jips every now and then when under pressure (and you want to add more pressure on him by getting him to call the lineout as well?) If it was so easy, why hasn't Heaslip done it for Leinster? If you read that article, you would know that a huge amount of study and analysis goes into calling the lineout.

I don't want Ryan to play because I don't think he is match fit (last game he played was middle of April), but I wouldn't want to be depending on Dillane or Henderson to be calling the lineout if anything happens to Toner or he can't last the 80 minutes.

former total

jm08 wrote: »

I don't want Ryan to play because I don't think he is match fit (last game he played was middle of April), but I wouldn't want to be depending on Dillane or Henderson to be calling the lineout if anything happens to Toner or he can't last the 80 minutes.

Are these not mutually exclusive? What's the solution?

Jump_In_Jack

Zzippy wrote: »

jm08 wrote: »

Actually it would be no harm to change the lineout caller. The Boks were beginning to pick off his calls in the 2nd Test.

Perhaps you should read this article on the lineout before dismissing its importance. It will explain to you why Paul O'Connell was so highly rated.



http://www.andymcgeady.com/lineoutmaths/

You're doing POC a huge disservice by attempting to suggest being able to call a lineout is why he was so highly rated. Also, are we to believe that only a second row can read the game and know what lineout to call? So a hugely experienced hooker or no. 8 can't do it? Nonsense... just scratching around for reasons to include your own favourite player over others who have much more impact on a game.

Hold on and wait a minute before you go off making assumptions, who's scratching around for reasons to include their favourite player here?
Ryan wouldn't be my favourite player anyway.
I still think that because he has a lot of experience calling the Irish lineouts that it may count in his favour for the bench spot.
Do you have a counter argument to that point?
Ryan may not be match fit to do a full 80, but he could do a job for 20-30 minutes off the bench if we feel the lineout warrants an experienced caller.

jm08

former total wrote: »

Are these not mutually exclusive? What's the solution?

Its a chance that Schmidt has to take. I won't be pointing the finger at him for whichever he takes. He needs Toner to last the 80 minutes.

Zzippy

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Hold on and wait a minute before you go off making assumptions, who's scratching around for reasons to include their favourite player here?
Ryan wouldn't be my favourite player anyway.
I still think that because he has a lot of experience calling the Irish lineouts that it may count in his favour for the bench spot.
Do you have a counter argument to that point?
Ryan may not be match fit to do a full 80, but he could do a job for 20-30 minutes off the bench if we feel the lineout warrants an experienced caller.

I wasn't replying to you, I quoted jm08 in my post, so why you would think I was referring to you is strange...

No good having a player who's not match fit for the full 80 if either of the starting locks get injured early on. All subs have to be able to come on after 2 minutes and play a full game.

Jump_In_Jack

Zzippy wrote: »

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Hold on and wait a minute before you go off making assumptions, who's scratching around for reasons to include their favourite player here?
Ryan wouldn't be my favourite player anyway.
I still think that because he has a lot of experience calling the Irish lineouts that it may count in his favour for the bench spot.
Do you have a counter argument to that point?
Ryan may not be match fit to do a full 80, but he could do a job for 20-30 minutes off the bench if we feel the lineout warrants an experienced caller.

I wasn't replying to you, I quoted jm08 in my post, so why you would think I was referring to you is strange...

No good having a player who's not match fit for the full 80 if either of the starting locks get injured early on. All subs have to be able to come on after 2 minutes and play a full game.

Zzippy wrote: »

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Hold on and wait a minute before you go off making assumptions, who's scratching around for reasons to include their favourite player here?
Ryan wouldn't be my favourite player anyway.
I still think that because he has a lot of experience calling the Irish lineouts that it may count in his favour for the bench spot.
Do you have a counter argument to that point?
Ryan may not be match fit to do a full 80, but he could do a job for 20-30 minutes off the bench if we feel the lineout warrants an experienced caller.

I wasn't replying to you, I quoted jm08 in my post, so why you would think I was referring to you is strange...

No good having a player who's not match fit for the full 80 if either of the starting locks get injured early on. All subs have to be able to come on after 2 minutes and play a full game.

Hardly strange, I had barely posted that Ryan could be selected because he can call the lineout, and you posted not too shortly afterwards that was akin to scratching around for a reason to have a favourite player on the team.
It's hardly that much of a stretch to draw the conclusion you were referring to my post, when JM had not even mentioned a name, only that a different caller might not be a bad idea when Toner's calls seemed to be getting more predictable to the Springboks.

Anyway, if you wouldn't have him on the bench in case Toner got injured after 2 minutes, clearly his selection on the bench for the 2nd test negates that point.

former total

I think it's very unlikely that Ryan will feature in any capacity this weekend so the whole argument is a bit redundant. He was coming from pretty far back and didn't stake any sort of a claim in the last game, despite getting 30 minutes to do so.

Jump_In_Jack

Zzippy wrote: »

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Good idea, but Olding hasn't played enough at outhalf to cover Jackson, so Madigan needs to be no 22 by default.
Ross could be phenomenal in the scrums with Roux and Henderson backing him up!
And lots of impact there with all of those forwards on the bench.
If Toner had to go off though, who would run the lineout calls? Henderson?
Might see Ryan on the bench for that reason alone.

Ryan wasn't on the bench for the first test so I don't think "running the lineout" matters a lot to Schmidt. All the locks train together on a daily basis, I'm sure they all know the calls. The idea that we should pick a lock who "calls the lineout" on the bench ahead of a better player (in impact terms) is fanciful nonsense. We have an extremely experienced hooker and skipper, and Henderson/Dillane are well able to work with him to run an effective lineout.

And this "fanciful nonsense"??
Running the lineout is a difficult and important job. It's up to the coach which way he will go, but I merely pointed out why Ryan is still in the mix for a bench spot.
Personally I would take the risk and have Dillane on the bench, but the coach may not take that particular risk was all I was saying.