Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread VIII - ** MOD NOTE POST #4781 **

P.Walnuts

Was the tour four years ago the game with the hilarious ( Argentinian?) ref who literally hadn't a breeze what was going on?

I remember that match thread vividly, half two in the morning, in an advanced state of refreshment and slowly coming to the realisation that the game was so awful that absolutely nothing could be garnered from it

Former Former

Interested Observer wrote: »

So you're talking about the USA match really, not the tour overall.

Yeah, hopefully. Honestly, I'm not sure exactly where Japan are in terms of the hierarchy, I haven't been following them too closely.

It would be great if they give us a real test.

Niallof9

stephen_n wrote: »

The figures don't lie, more capped players than any other coach, but they're all injury enforced? Seriously does that actually make sense in your head when you type it?

Club form means nothing or very little at international level. If the guys who got caps against Canada or whoever, were actually good enough to displace what's ahead of them, then they would. The fact they failed to take that opportunity suggests they aren't. Form in most people's minds seems to be based on what player x does in attack, then completely ignores everything else. Which of these form players who got their shot in a lesser game demanded inclusion and didn't get it?

Completely untrue...so many more factors come into it. Canada dismissed as lower opposition so doesn't count, the incumbents earned the right, central contracts, marketing, team balance, morale etc etc. "He didn't force his way in" is nonsense.

Joe Schmidt is capping more players cause they are starting to come on stream and are of a better quality in what is now the 3rd and possibly final age of professional rugby. One caps and then nothing happened under EOS and Kidney too just not as much because of quality issues.

thomond2006

Former Former wrote: »

It would be great if they give us a real test.

They should give us a good test. They are all professionals and should have a few weeks to prepare as SR takes a break.

Niallof9

molloyjh wrote: »

None. Not one. In any national team ever. Not just Ireland.

Lol. Quite a statement :pac:

molloyjh

Niallof9 wrote: »

Lol. Quite a statement :pac:

Yeah, I've nailed my colours to the mast on that one anyway.

Seriously though, form for your province only gets your foot in the door. It doesn't get you on the pitch for a Test match. Because that form at provincial level alone is absolutely no guarantee that the same player will be any good at Test level. Selection is a far more complicated process.

jacothelad

Interested Observer wrote: »

Is there any substance to that though? I don't even understand how a player contacted to a province can decide they aren't going to play, surely it's effectively gross misconduct?

None.

awec

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Was the tour four years ago the game with the hilarious ( Argentinian?) ref who literally hadn't a breeze what was going on?

I remember that match thread vividly, half two in the morning, in an advanced state of refreshment and slowly coming to the realisation that the game was so awful that absolutely nothing could be garnered from it

Yep.

molloyjh

Niallof9 wrote: »

Joe Schmidt is capping more players cause they are starting to come on stream and are of a better quality in what is now the 3rd and possibly final age of professional rugby.

Yeah, in fairness there's definitely a lot of truth to this. And you do gain extra points for the LOTR reference.

Former Former

Ugh, "form".

Have we not seen enough players be the "form" player, demanding inclusion, has to be picked, and then sink into obscurity just as quickly?





And why does the ignoring of form, conservative etc etc only ever apply to the back three?

awec

Former Former wrote: »

Ugh, "form".

Have we not seen enough players be the "form" player, demanding inclusion, has to be picked, and then sink into obscurity just as quickly?





And why does the ignoring of form, conservative etc etc only ever apply to the back three?

Because!

Former Former

awec wrote: »

Because!

Checkmate. Well played sir.

Interested Observer

jacothelad wrote: »

None.

I'm shocked.

bilston

Former Former wrote: »

Just so long as people realise that good performances in the matches this summer does not equate to a player deserving selection against the Boks in November. Running in a few tries against sub-Pro12 level opponents does not mean a guy is going to displace a guy who has been there for years. It's a start, but it is not everything.

Good luck with that

bilston

stephen_n wrote: »

bilston wrote: »

And you guys want us to start this guy over Pienaar!!!!

And you still have this guy in every squad for the 7 years you've had Pienaar!!!!!

I'm not taking the blame for that. Ulster can explain that themselves

stephen_n

Former Former wrote: »

Ugh, "form".

Have we not seen enough players be the "form" player, demanding inclusion, has to be picked, and then sink into obscurity just as quickly?





And why does the ignoring of form, conservative etc etc only ever apply to the back three?

It doesn't really, at different stages.

Buckley was the form prop
McCloskey was the form centre
Marmion the form scrumhalf
etc..

Though it's more common in that people complain about back three, as our style of play doesn't lead to a lot of tries out wide against top tear opposition and of course we know pro 12 form will fix that.

bilston

Former Former wrote: »

Ugh, "form".

Have we not seen enough players be the "form" player, demanding inclusion, has to be picked, and then sink into obscurity just as quickly?





And why does the ignoring of form, conservative etc etc only ever apply to the back three?

People like flambouyant back three players. Therefore if a player isn't scoring a bucketload of tries he isn't in form.

The secret is finding a player who can defend, kick, have good positioning as well as being able to run round/over/between the opposition at extreme pace. I don't know if such a player exists but he would be the holy frail of wingers...although if he can't hit a ruck it would still mean nothing.

Buer

bilston wrote: »

the holy frail of wingers

I think you'll find that was Luke Fitzgerald.

stephen_n

bilston wrote: »

People like flambouyant back three players. Therefore if a player isn't scoring a bucketload of tries he isn't in form.

The secret is finding a player who can defend, kick, have good positioning as well as being able to run round/over/between the opposition at extreme pace. I don't know if such a player exists but he would be the holy frail of wingers...although if he can't hit a ruck it would still mean nothing.

Stockdale hopefully.

Yeah_Right

bilston wrote: »

The secret is finding a player who can defend, kick, have good positioning as well as being able to run round/over/between the opposition at extreme pace.

So Ben Smith.


Though I do have some doubts about his ability to steam roll people.

Ah **** it! You're right. The player doesn't exist

swiwi_

Buer wrote: »

You think he's got a horn after seeing the squad?

A horn for his strumpet.

(badum tish for stephen_n)

pickarooney

Yeah_Right wrote: »

So Ben Smith.


Though I do have some doubts about his ability to steam roll people.

Ah **** it! You're right. The player doesn't exist

It almost​ sounds like Scott Spedding.

Almost.

mfceiling

Former Former wrote: »

does not mean a guy is going to displace a guy who has been there for years.

That's a problem too tbh. Form is temporary class is permanent yadda yadda yadda.

I wonder do some of the "form" players wonder what they have to do to get picked while a guy who has been there years gets picked irrespective of form.

If you can't get on the pitch you can't show them what you can do.

stephen_n

mfceiling wrote: »

That's a problem too tbh. Form is temporary class is permanent yadda yadda yadda.

I wonder do some of the "form" players wonder what they have to do to get picked while a guy who has been there years gets picked irrespective of form.

If you can't get on the pitch you can't show them what you can do.

How often have we seen guys in "poor form" produce when it's required though.

molloyjh

mfceiling wrote: »

Former Former wrote: »

does not mean a guy is going to displace a guy who has been there for years.

That's a problem too tbh. Form is temporary class is permanent yadda yadda yadda.

I wonder do some of the "form" players wonder what they have to do to get picked while a guy who has been there years gets picked irrespective of form.

If you can't get on the pitch you can't show them what you can do.

Well if you're in form you'd surely be getting called up to training squads, so there is always the training pitch......you know, where they do most of their work.

mfceiling

molloyjh wrote: »

Well if you're in form you'd surely be getting called up to training squads, so there is always the training pitch......you know, where they do most of their work.

No amount of training will ever replicate what goes on in a game though. I don't really believe that a player gets that much of an opportunity to impress in training that they jump the queue. Bowe "tearing it up in training" that he gets back in the 23 even though his club form wasn't particularly stellar after injury.

Former Former

mfceiling wrote: »

That's a problem too tbh. Form is temporary class is permanent yadda yadda yadda.

I wonder do some of the "form" players wonder what they have to do to get picked while a guy who has been there years gets picked irrespective of form.

If you can't get on the pitch you can't show them what you can do.

Except some players have no problem breezing past a queue of rivals, they get on the pitch once or twice and that's it, they're in.

And other players don't.

The "conservative Joe never gives anyone a chance" only applies to some players. Some players are simply not good enough; there's no universal right to get a run in a big match.

mfceiling

Former Former wrote: »

. Some players are simply not good enough; there's no universal right to get a run in a big match.

True but if you are in form and playing well it must be disheartening to see your rival who may be playing ok getting the nod again and again.

Former Former

mfceiling wrote: »

True but if you are in form and playing well it must be disheartening to see your rival who may be playing ok getting the nod again and again.

Honestly, I don't think this happens.

I'd struggle to name a single player who has consistently performed (for maybe > 1 year) at his province and not been given a fair shot.

Clegg

Buer wrote: »

bilston wrote: »

the holy frail of wingers

I think you'll find that was Luke Fitzgerald.

I will cut you.