Ulster Team Talk Thread IV... Go On My Henderson...

Shefwedfan

Utah_Saint wrote: »

I agree...his exclusion has barely been mentioned. Off the ball just wants to talk about Murray being the correct choice and how Aki is keeping henshaw out of the team

His exclusion from the squad was all over the press/radio/podcast etc. Once he was brought in then it died

In terms of the options at 12, if the current options are fit and playing well then I think McCloskey is 3rd. I really liked McCloskey and hoped he would kick on from his debut but he didn’t and other options came

Stats are also hard, McCloskey is playing a lot of games in the Pro14, if you look at the Leinster/Irish player for example they hardly ever play in Pro 14 and just play in HC. So against better teams

I’m not trying to put down MCCloskey but I think the decision is more than a few stats

Utah_Saint

Shefwedfan wrote: »

His exclusion from the squad was all over the press/radio/podcast etc. Once he was brought in then it died

In terms of the options at 12, if the current options are fit and playing well then I think McCloskey is 3rd. I really liked McCloskey and hoped he would kick on from his debut but he didn’t and other options came

Stats are also hard, McCloskey is playing a lot of games in the Pro14, if you look at the Leinster/Irish player for example they hardly ever play in Pro 14 and just play in HC. So against better teams

I’m not trying to put down MCCloskey but I think the decision is more than a few stats

The stats are shown in per minutes played to nullify the few games played by internationals.

Did Connacht and Munster play that many more games than Ulster? Leinster when making finals obviously play 3-4 more games in HC.

McCloskey has kicked on. In past 2 seasons he's got better and better. And that is evident in the stats. No really sure what else he can do.

Is Aki and henshaw clearly that much better than him? I really don't think so.

molloyjh

Utah_Saint wrote: »

The stats are shown in per minutes played to nullify the few games played by internationals.

Did Connacht and Munster play that many more games than Ulster? Leinster when making finals obviously play 3-4 more games in HC.

McCloskey has kicked on. In past 2 seasons he's got better and better. And that is evident in the stats. No really sure what else he can do.

Is Aki and henshaw clearly that much better than him? I really don't think so.

No, but hes not clearly much better than them either. His stats will always be better than theirs because he plays more P14 games against poorer opposition so the stats have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Theres very little between the 3 of them. What McCloskey doesnt have is the pedigree and experience at Test level. That's not his fault, but it's true nonetheless. That was always going to swing it against him. Basically he needs to he noticeably better than the other options to overcome that. It isnt all that fair in one way, but it makes sense too.

Former Former

bilston wrote: »

I was going to say that his position for turnovers conceded may be significant, but then I see Ringrose is actually worse!

It's a strange one, maybe a case of his face just not fitting. If he was a Leinster or Munster player the southern media would be in meltdown over his exclusion.

The southern media have been almost unanimous that Cooney should be playing. There's no anti Ulster conspiracy going on.

I remember similar stats being thrown around for Tom Farrell a year or two ago. THE form centre in Ireland, what more can he do, etc etc

Those stats mean the square root of my hole.

McCloskey is in the squad. He's playing in an Ulster team that finally looks like they know what they're doing. There's a new Ireland head coach and a brand new backs coach. He's on a level playing field with Aki and Henshaw. If he deserves the jersey, he'll get it.

Ultimately I think his problem is the same for previous guys whose faces didn't fit - the other guy is better.

Utah_Saint

Former Former wrote: »

Ultimately I think his problem is the same for previous guys whose faces didn't fit - the other guy is better.

But they are clearly not...Molly probably was more accurate in his assessment that the fact the others have more international experience the hope is if you pick them their experience will shine through

molloyjh

Utah_Saint wrote: »

But they are clearly not...Molly probably was more accurate in his assessment that the fact the others have more international experience the hope is if you pick them their experience will shine through

Pretty much. On the one hand you've 2 guys performing well who you know can make the step up to Test level and deliver the performance you want. On the other you have a guy who is performing well but you dont know if he can make the step up to Test level. If you have to leave 1 out, which one is it most likely to be?

stephen_n

Utah_Saint wrote: »

But they are clearly not...Molly probably was more accurate in his assessment that the fact the others have more international experience the hope is if you pick them their experience will shine through

Better is maybe relative to what suits the coaches needs. Stats don’t really demonstrate that. McCloskey’s a strange one, Joe didn’t seem to think he suited him and it looks like Farrell doesn’t either. Yet the only flaw you could really point to before was his defence, which seems to have gotten better. Yet he still only made the squad because Chris Farrell was injured. Which suggests the current coaches don’t want to use him either.

mfceiling

Former Former wrote: »

He's on a level playing field with Aki and Henshaw. If he deserves the jersey, he'll get it.

Except he's not. 100% guaranteed that if Henshaw is injured it will be Aki at 12 and vice versa.
McCloskey won't be given a chance I feel. He's in flying form the past 2 years...against both pro 14 and HC sides but that's as far as he'll get unfortunately bar a token cap in November against Canada, USA or the like.

Dubinusa

It is strange to think that he may not get a look in. The test experience works against him, but the incumbents were so poor at the rwc. Even with experience they failed , as did the entire set up.
I thought that bringing an injured Henshaw to the rwc was nuts. It turned out very badly. Aki was average at best too! I don't see why the experience factor works against McCloskey? The fact that Aki/ Henshaw couldn't produce when it matters is not a good look for "experience ".
However, Farrell will select those who he thinks will do the job! He must feel that Aki is the better 12. There is not much between all 3. They all have different strengths and they're all good players. I don't think McCloskey will get much of a look at all. That said , injuries could be a factor. I would love to see him get a run and see what he can do. I think they're all good 12's international quality, none of them world class.

bilston

Being parochial about it the Ulster players did ok yesterday.

Herring was probably the pick of the bunch. Hit all his lineouts, did his bit in the right and carried a bit as well, without making big yards.

Henderson had some big moments...two lineout steals and a couple of big tackles when we were under the cosh early on. Unfortunately his last two interventions were a knock on and I think a penalty for not rolling away which may have tainted some people's opinion of his overall performance. But to be honest I thought he was the pick of the starting Irish locks.

Stockdale got the ball two or three times and looked dangerous each time, he put in some big hits as well. We need to get him more ball, or he needs to go looking for it, but it was a decent improvement on his WC form.

Cooney put in some nice kicks and tackled well during his 20 minutes. There was no opportunity for any funky support lines or breaks though.

Paul Smeenus

Agree with pretty much all of that. Henderson wasn't amazing, but he was the best-performing Irish lock yesterday. Ryan was well below this usual standards. And Toner was Toner. First thing he did was catch a lineout ball, second thing was knock the ball on on the ground when we were on the attack.

Herring was good - efficient, smart, reliable. Not a long-term Irish hooker, but certainly deserves his place currently.

Stockdale looks to have a bit of fizz back, and was pretty determined in defence. Would like to see him coming infield a bit more.

Cooney was markedly better than Murray. The other problem is that I just noticed at the weekend how much Murray with his designer stubble looks like Mac from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, and it's causing me issues in assessing how he plays.

ionadnapokot

Just on Henderson. I was underwhelmed by his performance again.

There was a passage of play around 16 mins when Ireland were in possession and he just stumbled from ruck to ruck. Offered nothing and completely ineffectual. & of course looked wrecked!

I believe he should and could give more when Ireland are in possession.

bilston

ionadnapokot wrote: »

Just on Henderson. I was underwhelmed by his performance again.

There was a passage of play around 16 mins when Ireland were in possession and he just stumbled from ruck to ruck. Offered nothing and completely ineffectual. & of course looked wrecked!

I believe he should and could give more when Ireland are in possession.

And yet the Henderson I saw was a guy who stole Scottish lineouts and made crucial tackles on our try line to stop Scotland scoring.

Paul Smeenus

ionadnapokot wrote: »

Just on Henderson. I was underwhelmed by his performance again.

There was a passage of play around 16 mins when Ireland were in possession and he just stumbled from ruck to ruck. Offered nothing and completely ineffectual. & of course looked wrecked!

I believe he should and could give more when Ireland are in possession.

While I certainly don't think he was brilliant, I just think it's confirmation bias to not compare him to Ryan. Ryan's last great performance was exactly the same game as Henderson's - Scotland in the RWC. Yesterday, Henderson was making a jackal and the ref blew up for a penalty for Scotland because Ryan didn't roll away. No turnover, three points for Scotland. Then, we're on the attack and Ryan torpedoes into the Rick, giving away another kickable penalty (which thankfully Hastings missed). We had another attacking opportunity in the right hand corner later, and Ryan goes himself with two players outside him - opportunity gone. Ryan need a boot up the hole - not something you can say openly in these boards, but it's true. And Toner was no improvement.

Dubinusa

I thought both locks were good. Not fantastic but good.
Henderson needs more ball. He should be used more as a carrier. Ryan makes a lot of yards by wriggling out of tackles , Henderson should be used at pace off the rucks. His best attributes are his ball carrying. We should use him more.

ionadnapokot

bilston wrote: »

And yet the Henderson I saw was a guy who stole Scottish lineouts and made crucial tackles on our try line to stop Scotland scoring.

Ok
But look at Itoje there now for example.
World Class no.4 - the benchmark
Henderson has the ability but goes missing for parts of the game.
It appears to me that it’s laziness

ionadnapokot

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

While I certainly don't think he was brilliant, I just think it's confirmation bias to not compare him to Ryan. Ryan's last great performance was exactly the same game as Henderson's - Scotland in the RWC. Yesterday, Henderson was making a jackal and the ref blew up for a penalty for Scotland because Ryan didn't roll away. No turnover, three points for Scotland. Then, we're on the attack and Ryan torpedoes into the Rick, giving away another kickable penalty (which thankfully Hastings missed). We had another attacking opportunity in the right hand corner later, and Ryan goes himself with two players outside him - opportunity gone. Ryan need a boot up the hole - not something you can say openly in these boards, but it's true. And Toner was no improvement.

It’s not biased
Ok?
My first words were - “just on Henderson”

Do you have any observations on Henderson?

Locke_Lamora

ionadnapokot wrote: »

Ok
But look at Itoje there now for example.
World Class no.4 - the benchmark
Henderson has the ability but goes missing for parts of the game.
It appears to me that it’s laziness

Not sure what the point of this comment is? Henderson isn't the benchmark for second rows everywhere, so what? Neither is Toner or Ryan (although put Ryan in a better team and that might change). Claiming Henderson is lazy seems like lazy analysis to me. Put in a decent shift and I couldn't understand some calls for Toner to start. The whole point of Toner is to tidy the lineout - which Henderson was managing fine - but he's an empty jersey and negative yards gained in open play.

ionadnapokot

Lazy analysis me hole
Go look where I give an example

jacothelad

bilston wrote: »

And yet the Henderson I saw was a guy who stole Scottish lineouts and made crucial tackles on our try line to stop Scotland scoring.

Yes but those things don't count to the lazy confirmation bias of provincial One Eyes.

Paul Smeenus

ionadnapokot wrote: »

It’s not biased
Ok?
My first words were - “just on Henderson”

Do you have any observations on Henderson?

Yeah - he wasn't great. I wish we would let him carry further out, rather than the six-inch carries he's tasked with making currently, close-in to rucks. I get that ball security is a major strength of his, but he's also a superb carrier in a bit of space.

With all the pre-game anguish about the lineout, I was really pleased that it went well. He seemed to have a good grip on it, and two steals is excellent at international level.

I'd like him to use a bit more of his physicality. He's entirely capable of flattening lads, but has been coached into this choke tackler. I know he slows a lot of opposition ball that way, even though maul is rarely called these days, but I think psychologically, putting lads backwards can mean more than ruining their clean ball sometimes.

I also think dropping him would substantially weaken the team. He was the best Irish second row to play yesterday. James Ryan is a better player per se, but he didn't cover himself in glory yesterday, with a number of brain-dead decisions that cost us in good positions. His fluffing of a three-on-one was absolutely criminal.

So I'm wondering why anyone would suggest dropping him and talk "just on Henderson". Ryan's last two games for Ireland are the same as Henderson's - NZ in the RWC and yesterday. No great performances between the two of them across the two games. Both were brilliant against Scotland in the RWC. I do think Henderson can be inconsistent, but I don't think Ryan is the model of consistency that he is made out to be. That's what I mean about confirmation bias. People are on high alert for Henderson taking by his foot off the gas in games. Which so fair enough. But Ryan's mistakes were more costly and less forgivable, in my humble view. And we've no idea what he's like calling lineouts at international level, especially if he's calling them for Herring, with whom he has little familiarity.

So I suppose it would have to be Toner starting then, but Toner isn't as good as Henderson. People love to make out that Toner's some under-appreciated, less fancy player who's like an unsung hero. The roar when he came on and caught a perfectly run-of-the-mill lineout demonstrates how far that is from the truth. I think people are overly sentimental about him, and that he's a beloved favourite, and that colours many people's perception of how good he is.

Ryan's more deserving of our ire after yesterday's game, and Toner isn't at the level of Henderson or Ryan (who, when he's performing, is better again than Henderson). Just my two bits' worth.

ionadnapokot

Good points. On the lineout and choke tackle in particular.

My thinking for dropping him to bench is that hopefully it will get a positive reaction. Short and longer term.
Unfortunately there aren’t real alternatives to encourage enough competition.

Paul Smeenus

I was hoping because of the Andy Farrell link, we might see the Henderson who played for the Lions. Even though he didn't get an international match, he was superb, and improved game on game.

He gave an interview to the 42 where he talked about how Joe had tasked him with being a kind of roving troubleshooter (my words), where he had licence to hold off until he felt a ball could be turned over by counter-rucking, someone else's choke tackle could become a maul, and so on. Joe obviously thought he had the gumption to try to make a difference when it mattered most.

But I want to see him melt the opposition. I have memories of him galloping over the top of Etzebeth, carrying an Italian nine backwards twenty feet a la Ferris, singlehandedly turning rucks over by just relentlessly paneling into them. It seems he's being asked to play a bit differently.

Sometimes it makes sense. He's a fast guy - deceptively so. He's often up early in support and he was the one who won our own kick-off for Sexton's 41 phase dropgoal. I do wonder if they ask him to hold back a bit so he can turn that on if he needs to.

I do get frustrated. I hope Farrell uses him differently, asking him to go off the leash more. Maybe he also needs to settle into all these new roles first - lineout carrier for province and country, provincial captain, the Irish team leadership group.

But I do think the criticism of him is really heavy-handed on here, especially when Toner's form is good.

Dubinusa

Henderson can be a beast , if used properly. I don't think we do use him to his strengths. Getting him the ball with a bit of space, instead of trucking up into the defense. It's only 1 match Farrell may start implementing new roles all around the park. It will take time, so hopefully a little patience will go a long way.
Toner is a good player. International level, but he doesn't bring the same kind of athletic ability of Henderson. I would like to see Dillane on the bench. He, like Henderson can bring athleticism and speed to the forwards. Henderson won't be benched. Farrell will want his 1st pair of locks to play together as often as possible.

Hands Like Flippers

ionadnapokot wrote: »

Just on Henderson. I was underwhelmed by his performance again.

There was a passage of play around 16 mins when Ireland were in possession and he just stumbled from ruck to ruck. Offered nothing and completely ineffectual. & of course looked wrecked!

I believe he should and could give more when Ireland are in possession.

How many times are you going to post this about Henderson?

ionadnapokot

Hands Like Flippers wrote: »

How many times are you going to post this about Henderson?

I’m not sure what your problem is?
I’ve posted twice about the match- lack of intensity was my only big concern. I identified Henderson on each occasion. Is that too much?

And fwiw i came here for a discussion and input from Ulster lads.
I’m open to alternative views - bit surprised you are trying to shut me up.

ionadnapokot

jacothelad wrote: »

Yes but those things don't count to the lazy confirmation bias of provincial One Eyes.

Offside Sir

Utah_Saint

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

But I want to see him melt the opposition. I have memories of him galloping over the top of Etzebeth, carrying an Italian nine backwards twenty feet a la Ferris, singlehandedly turning rucks over by just relentlessly paneling into them. It seems he's being asked to play a bit differently.
.

Yes...this!!!

Former Former

In fairness, it's not provincial one-eyed bias to ask what the deal is with Henderson.

Like, this is a guy who made his debut under Kidney. Seven and a half years ago.

When he came on that day, we all had very high hopes and anyone who had said "no, it's actually Devin Toner who'll be the second-row stalwart for the next five years..." would have been accused of blue-tinted glasses, anti-Ulster hatred and everything else, but that's exactly what happened. When you look at their natural talents and athleticism, it should never have been an issue, Henderson should have left Toner for dead but he didn't.

Henderson has always had an issue with consistency. Seven and a half years down the road, we're still talking about what we hope to see from him this year. He's just never been able to replicate those sort of rampaging carrying displays with any sort of regularity and he's never been as good at the nuts and bolts of second row as others. Whether it's work rate, motivation, maybe he's just not as good as we'd hoped, I don't know.

However, we need him to step up now. Toner is winding down and there's no clear alternative behind him; no disrespect to the Kleyns and Rouxs of the world but... it has to be Henderson. AWJ is coming at the weekend and Jake Ball is a very good player too, it's a huge test for him and Ryan.

Paul Smeenus

There's an element of truth to what you're saying,, but if Henderson has two great games and an alright one, people start yelling about inconsistency - most other players will get "ah, he was better in the previous two games." We are having this conversation bit because we like to talk about him endlessly, but because he was the best of our three locks playing on Saturday and within a couple of hours people were talking about him being dropped. That's not reflective of his performance, that's reflective of the grand narrative of him being inconsistent being people's go-to topic. If we were listing problems in order of actual pertinence, Ryan's performance would be the topic before Henderson.

It also means you see several posts in the run up to the game saying "Henderson had a patchy world cup, we should go with Toner." A player who was in such poor form at the time that the man who made him a cornerstone of his pack had to drop him. For Jean Kleyn.

He's 27 now. Maybe turned 28? He's the main lineout caller, in the leadership group - let's see how he kicks on. Especially, as I've said before, under a Farrell coached team rather than a Schmidt team. I am hopeful that Farrell's Ireland will suit him more than Schmidt. Although, in fairness, Henderson was being selected over Toner more and more over the last few yerars of Joe anyway.