Ireland v Australia - Build Up discussion/News

Adbrowne

NiallBoo wrote: »

Would it be too much of a shock to see olding start at 12?

Marshall is in camp, Olding hasnt been so hard to know

awec

Duggie2012 wrote: »

i must admit i never really could tell the difference in 12's and 13's. are they not pretty much the same.....really?? they seemed to cope ok against the all-blacks

Subtly different.

In attack 12 has a lot less time on the ball so you have to be able to think fast, have a good pass and usually they are physically able to bosh the ball up the line if needs be in a lot of traffic. 13 will have more space to run at the defence.

Defensively 13 is more difficult.

Duggie2012

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

13 usually operates in a bit more space than 12. That works both ways as the 13 has a much tougher job in defense.

12 is easier to defend, but gets more traffic. In attack, a 12 with a good step and good acceleration could do real damage.

so maybe they could switch it up between themselves depending on how the game is panning out? or is that too simplistic

Mr Tickle

I'm actually looking forward to seeing Ireland have the chance to tactically replace our fly half.
You have to wonder about the value we get from sexton these days. He's the best 10 in the country sure enough but I can;t think of the last time we played a game without some sort of questions about his fitness.

Jackson gives us a good game-managing 10 and Carbery has a bit of spark for the last 20 mins if we need to make something happen.
I'd have a similar attitude towards Murray and Marmion.

awec

Duggie2012 wrote: »

so maybe they could switch it up between themselves depending on how the game is panning out? or is that too simplistic

Teams can and do switch it up if they have players capable of playing in both positions. The 12 can also step in for the 10 if the 10 is unavailable. You cannot line up in a perfect 10, 12, 13 line for every phase.

But Ringrose and Payne are both 13s. I think it's too soft a partnership to work, Henshaw brings a lot of physicality in the tight spaces. Payne and Ringrose are both suited to having a bit of space around them IMO.

Professor Moriarty

Adbrowne wrote: »

A lot depends on which part of this week this is. POM trained last Thursday so hopefully he is good to go so backrow maybe POM/SOB/Heaslip with VDF on bench.

Zebo - cramp, expected to train this week
POM, Dillane, Earls - expected to return to training this week

O'Mahony for Stander shouldn't deplete the pack too much. O'Mahony doesn't carry as well as Stander but is much more of an enforcer. We really do have an abundance of good forwards, especially in the back row. I wonder if Carberry's flair should be given a chance over Jackson's consistency? Probably not, but it depends on how Schmidt sees the Aussies.

CMOTDibbler

bilston wrote: »

I think Joe will be loathe to move Payne to 15 with Sexton and Henshaw out. Zebo will go there before JP.

The question is who partners Payne?

I'd love to see Ringrose start again, but the temptation may be to go with an actual 12. In that case I'd personally go with Olding over Marshall, I assume Scannell isn't really in contention at this stage but you never know.

This.

We've seen what happens when the spine of the team is ripped out. Bad enough without adding collateral damage in selection. So Payne stays at 13 and either Marshall or Ringrose at 12. Personally having seen both in action lately, Ringrose shades it for me. By quite a bit tbh.

Zebo is just suffering from cramp, so he has to be in teh 23. Personally I'm in favour of TOH at 15 since he's already had a game there and should be up to speed. Zebo on the bench at 23 is a better option imo.

Neil3030

10. Carberry
11. Zebo
12. Olding
13. Ringrose
14. Adeolokun
15. Payne

Pretty, pretty pleeeeeeeeeeeeease!

Adbrowne

Kevski wrote: »

If we have worst case scenario and both Zebo and Kearney are out, what about -

11. Earls
12. Marshall
13. Ringrose
14. Trimble
15. Payne

Not entirely enthusiastic about seeing Marshall there after his performance against Canada but it's a possibility at this stage

Marshall v Canada had a lot of must do something with every possession to make an impression about it. If had done a nuts and bolts performance it would have counted a lot more in the eyes of the coach even of he appeared to have a quiet game to the ordinary fan.

Earls, Marshall, Payne, Trimble, Zebo with Ringrose 23

is probably what we are looking at even If I would prefer to see Payne at 15. If Zebo is also out then TOH slots in.

Adbrowne

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

O'Mahony for Stander shouldn't deplete the pack too much. O'Mahony doesn't carry as well as Stander but is much more of an enforcer. We really do have an abundance of good forwards, especially in the back row. I wonder if Carberry's flair should be given a chance over Jackson's consistency? Probably not, but it depends on how Schmidt sees the Aussies.

A few years ago we had a mental first half against them, which if continued, we would have been hockeyed. We tightened the game up completely in the second half and strangled the game into an arm wrestle, so POM stepping in at 6 doesnt weaken us at all. I think that 2nd half in 2014 is a to closer to how we will approach the game then the 1st half.

Mr Tickle

Also if we lost Stander there'd be a case to use henderson as a 6 again. Useful for the carrying and we still have dillane for impact in the second row.

kuang1

Adbrowne wrote: »

Marshall v Canada had a lot of must do something with every possession to make an impression about it. If had done a nuts and bolts performance it would have counted a lot more in the eyes of the coach even of he appeared to have a quiet game to the ordinary fan.

Earls, Marshall, Payne, Trimble, Zebo with Ringrose 23

is probably what we are looking at even If I would prefer to see Payne at 15. If Zebo is also out then TOH slots in.

My thoughts exactly. If Ringrose were to start instead of Marshall then we don't really have a decent option for the 23 jersey.

Professor Moriarty

Adbrowne wrote: »

A few years ago we had a mental first half against them, which if continued, we would have been hockeyed. We tightened the game up completely in the second half and strangled the game into an arm wrestle, so POM stepping in at 6 doesnt weaken us at all. I think that 2nd half in 2014 is a to closer to how we will approach the game then the 1st half.

The recent experience of the two games against NZ will make us a lot more street-wise in the future. You can't buy that type of knowledge. Very possible that our pack will be the more dominant so maybe a tighter game would be better. Playing to our strength might be to stuff it up the jumper until we wear them down or they start to commit too many men to the breakdown.

Kevski

Mr Tickle wrote: »

I'm actually looking forward to seeing Ireland have the chance to tactically replace our fly half.
You have to wonder about the value we get from sexton these days. He's the best 10 in the country sure enough but I can;t think of the last time we played a game without some sort of questions about his fitness.

Jackson gives us a good game-managing 10 and Carbery has a bit of spark for the last 20 mins if we need to make something happen.
I'd have a similar attitude towards Murray and Marmion.

We had the opportunity to do it in South Africa and it never really materialised as Jackson played about 95% of the three tests.

Whatever about the amount of time that Sexton has the pitch, the impact and game changing ability that he brings when he's there is second to none. I'm
not sure that any of our alternatives would have shown he commitment that he showed in making that tackle on Barrett on Saturday.

CMOTDibbler

Adbrowne wrote: »

Marshall v Canada had a lot of must do something with every possession to make an impression about it. If had done a nuts and bolts performance it would have counted a lot more in the eyes of the coach even of he appeared to have a quiet game to the ordinary fan.

It wasn't a quiet game from my pov. He stuck out a few times in all the wrong ways. He kicked twice and badly, he did exactly the wrong thing for DTHVDM's try and conceded three turnovers (presumably from the above).

On the credit side, he took his try well and made nine tackles missing none.

On Ringrose's credit side is two clean breaks, five defenders beaten and two offloads in his first two matches for Ireland. seventeen tackles made and two missed.

Adbrowne

Mr Tickle wrote: »

Also if we lost Stander there'd be a case to use henderson as a 6 again. Useful for the carrying and we still have dillane for impact in the second row.

He looked miles off the pace on Saturday though. With Dillane a doubt, he is needed at lock.

Adbrowne

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

It wasn't a quiet game from my pov. He stuck out a few times in all the wrong ways. He kicked twice and badly, he did exactly the wrong thing for DTHVDM's try and conceded three turnovers (presumably from the above).

On the credit side, he took his try well and made nine tackles missing none.

I dont disagree with what you said he did, I just think it had a lot to do with trying to make too many big plays off every possession to leave a lasting impression, totally the wrong thing when the coach is a stickler for detail. He showed in June in the first test how capable he is.

CMOTDibbler

Adbrowne wrote: »

I dont disagree with what you said he did, I just think it had a lot to do with trying to make too many big plays off every possession to leave a lasting impression, totally the wrong thing when the coach is a stickler for detail. He showed in June in the first test how capable he is.

Yeah, that's possible alright. But the pragmatic decision has to go with the guy who's taken his chances well and stood out for all the right reasons. When you put those stats together for his first two games in green, they look very impressive and belie his age and experience.

If that's the bottom end of the curve, I can't wait to see where it goes.

Adbrowne

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Yeah, that's possible alright. But the pragmatic decision has to go with the guy who's taken his chances well and stood out for all the right reasons. When you put those stats together for his first two games in green, they look very impressive and belie his age and experience.

If that's the bottom end of the curve, I can't wait to see where it goes.

Its not a bad problem to have either.

Interested Observer

I will be unbelievably disappointed if it's Payne in the centre again, I really will.

Sangre

Interested Observer wrote: »

I will be unbelievably disappointed if it's Payne in the centre again, I really will.

Would be very surprised if he is not. Enough disruption to the team already.

Mahatma Geansai

With Payne remaining at centre, I'd be quite happy if we see the following:

9. Murray
10. Jackson
11. Earls
12. Marshall
13. Payne
14. Trimble
15. Zebo

23. Ringrose

Mr Tickle

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

With Payne remaining at centre, I'd be quite happy if we see the following:

9. Murray
10. Jackson
11. Earls
12. Marshall
13. Payne
14. Trimble
15. Zebo

23. Ringrose

More than likely to be the way it goes alright. As someone else said, if zebo is out then TOH slots in.

CMOTDibbler

Interested Observer wrote: »

I will be unbelievably disappointed if it's Payne in the centre again, I really will.

Why?

What good does putting Payne at fullback do us? At best it's a stopgap for one game. It does nothing to bring a new fullback into the squad (one that's already played there this month) and it removes an experienced player from the spine of the team.

There are no positives to be gained from doing this. Either short term or long term. Payne's days in an Ireland jersey are numbered anyway. We have to start putting plans for the future in place. This is the last match before the Six Nations, the last chance to give new players some valuable game time.

Tiernan O'Halloran has to start. I really can't see any good reason not to start him.

irishbucsfan

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Why?

What good does putting Payne at fullback do us? At best it's a stopgap for one game. It does nothing to bring a new fullback into the squad (one that's already played there this month) and it removes an experienced player from the spine of the team.

There are no positives to be gained from doing this. Either short term or long term. Payne's days in an Ireland jersey are numbered anyway. We have to start putting plans for the future in place. This is the last match before the Six Nations, the last chance to give new players some valuable game time.

Tiernan O'Halloran has to start. I really can't see any good reason not to start him.

The same argument you've made against Payne being moved to 15 can surely be made against keeping him at 13, right? Surely if his days in an Ireland jersey are numbered we should want to see Ringrose at 13.

Interested Observer

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Why?

What good does putting Payne at fullback do us? At best it's a stopgap for one game. It does nothing to bring a new fullback into the squad (one that's already played there this month) and it removes an experienced player from the spine of the team.

There are no positives to be gained from doing this. Either short term or long term. Payne's days in an Ireland jersey are numbered anyway. We have to start putting plans for the future in place. This is the last match before the Six Nations, the last chance to give new players some valuable game time.

Tiernan O'Halloran has to start. I really can't see any good reason not to start him.

Did you misread my post? You're responding to things I never said, and your logic is bizarre. We should give new guys valuable game time by keeping a guy whose days are numbered in the team? OK.

former total

Interested Observer wrote: »

I will be unbelievably disappointed if it's Payne in the centre again, I really will.

I don't see any set of circumstances in which Payne gets dropped

CMOTDibbler

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The same argument you've made against Payne being moved to 15 can surely be made against keeping him at 13, right? Surely if his days in an Ireland jersey are numbered we should want to see Ringrose at 13.

Yep. That would be the ideal scenario. But Payne's value at 13 increases with the loss of Sexton and Henshaw. Ideally we would drop Payne and line up Henshaw and Ringrose.

That's not going to happen this time though.

CMOTDibbler

Interested Observer wrote: »

Did you misread my post? You're responding to things I never said, and your logic is bizarre. We should give new guys valuable game time by keeping a guy whose days are numbered in the team? OK.

Apologies. I assumed you meant moving him to 15. Total misapprehension on my part. I am suitably chastened and beg your forgiveness.

Interested Observer

I know this forum is ultra conservative but Payne really offers not that much in the centre anymore. He is no good in attack.

Has that experience though I guess.