Ireland Team Talk XI: Team of nervoUS MOD warning Post 1

Utah_Saint

The table below is a list of Centres at each province. Gives us a look at the current and future combo's. At present i think Ringrose is our best 13. To me he is the player that will be critical to a more expansive style....

Connacht Ulster Munster Leinster
Aki Curtis Arnold Henshaw
Robb Hume Daly J O'Brien
Farrell Marshall Farrell C O'Brien
Daly McCloskey Goggin O'Loughlin
(Stewart Moore) Scannell Ringrose
(French) (Hawkshaw)

(Notable players not in Senior Squads)

molloyjh

Mr Tickle wrote: »

I think both Henshaw and Bundee are capable of playing a more expansive game. They did/do it well in Connacht. It was just part of Joe's game plan for them to keep a lid on it.

How much of that did they do above P14 level though?

We have a limited pool of players as the above table shows. Hell, Scannell is going to find himself behind De Allende in less than 12 months so its only getting smaller. The idea of a second playmaker at 12 is fantastic, but it's nothing more than a pipe dream if no player exists to fill the role. Maybe we could look to FB for that, but even then who do we have?

People spend a lot of time criticising what has gone on, but I'm seeing very few, if any, alternatives being presented. There's a reason for that. Joe tried developing Zebos playmaking skills if you recall. To some degree of success too. He tried to develop Ringrose in that regard too, but Ringrose probably needs to be at 12 for that to truly work. And who goes to 13 then?

At some stage people just need to realise that we've limited options and at some point it has to become about using those options the best way we can, rather than trying to force them to become something they are not.

aloooof

molloyjh wrote: »

To some degree of success too. He tried to develop Ringrose in that regard too, but Ringrose probably needs to be at 12 for that to truly work. And who goes to 13 then?

There are probably plenty of good reasons that this wouldn't work, but what about Ringrose to 12 as the play-making centre, and Henshaw to 13?

molloyjh

aloooof wrote: »

There are probably plenty of good reasons that this wouldn't work, but what about Ringrose to 12 as the play-making centre, and Henshaw to 13?

You're not making the best use of Ringrose that way IMO. You're taking your best attacking and defensive 13 away from his natural position and looking to shoehorn him into 12 and also into heavier traffic. I dont think hes good enough a playmaker for that to be worth it. It wont happen at Leinster either, meaning he wont develop the skillset as easily/quickly.

Mr Tickle

molloyjh wrote: »

How much of that did they do above P14 level though?


At some stage people just need to realise that we've limited options and at some point it has to become about using those options the best way we can, rather than trying to force them to become something they are not.

Well they didn't get to play above Pro12/14 level together. That said, Bundee has done it on occasion when he's had the chance in the Champions cup. I know less about Henshaw's individual performances. And they haven't played internationally without Joe's influence so it's impossible to say.

But I do agree about playing a game that suits our players rather than forcing guys into a game that doesn't suit them. Henshaw used be a ball playing 15. Scannell was a 10. Both were turned into battering rams 12's.

Utah_Saint

Mr Tickle wrote: »

Well they didn't get to play above Pro12/14 level together. That said, Bundee has done it on occasion when he's had the chance in the Champions cup. I know less about Henshaw's individual performances. And they haven't played internationally without Joe's influence so it's impossible to say.

But I do agree about playing a game that suits our players rather than forcing guys into a game that doesn't suit them. Henshaw used be a ball playing 15. Scannell was a 10. Both were turned into battering rams 12's.

Same thing happened to Marshall at Ulster....

Mr Tickle

Utah_Saint wrote: »

Same thing happened to Marshall at Ulster....

The question really is Why?. Either it's a trend in the global game that we needed to follow to keep up with or it was what Joe liked so guys were trying to adapt to get selected.

molloyjh

Mr Tickle wrote: »

Well they didn't get to play above Pro12/14 level together. That said, Bundee has done it on occasion when he's had the chance in the Champions cup. I know less about Henshaw's individual performances. And they haven't played internationally without Joe's influence so it's impossible to say.

But I do agree about playing a game that suits our players rather than forcing guys into a game that doesn't suit them. Henshaw used be a ball playing 15. Scannell was a 10. Both were turned into battering rams 12's.

I wouldn't have considered Scannell a battering ram, but then I suppose I dont watch him specifically very often in the same way you wouldn't Henshaw.

Sometimes players move into those roles because they are what best suit them. Sometimes it's because of a style of play. It's hard to know which is which in these cases. Certainly Henshaw being used as a physical 12 hasn't stopped him being part of an expansive and successful backline at Leinster. I think there is still very much a place for that on the game at the moment.

It's a tough one to call. Teams structure their sides differently. Some put second playmakers at 12 (England when they go Ford-Farrell), some at 15 (NZ with Mo'unga and Barrett) and some dont bother with a second playmaker (South Africa). There is no right or wrong way to do it. We know Henshaw can distribute, even if he isnt a second playmaker. So our game plan could look to change so he does it more. But then what? We dont have a huge amount of pace in our back 3 so we wont be burning teams on the outside. So how do we make the yardage if we do start to go wide?

Do we look to create space by drawing defenders and running smart lines to take advantage? Do we have ball carriers in the pack to do that? If not how do we supplement that without a hard carrying centre somewhere? I havent a clue tbh. But any singular positional decision we make needs to be made in the context of everything else as none of it happens in isolation. I'm all for more expense and running rugby. If someone else can tell me how we can achieve that then by all means....

Utah_Saint

Mr Tickle wrote: »

The question really is Why?. Either it's a trend in the global game that we needed to follow to keep up with or it was what Joe liked so guys were trying to adapt to get selected.

Difficult to say really. Could be a number of things. There def seemed to be a trend in the NH for a bosh merchant at 12 for a while. Maybe it was the influence of Rugby League coaches in the game? Maybe it was to create an extra ball carrying option for teams where their backrows lack someone with Speed & Power. henshaw does seem to have the perfect blend to transform into a ball carrying 12. Although it cancelled out his greater assets in my eyes.

molloyjh

It's probably also worth noting that I do think Joe tried to move us on a bit in terms of how we play. I think Henderson overtaking Toner was planned from further out, but Hendos injury ahead of the 6Ns made a mess of that. When you look at ball carrying options in the pack having Hendo and Ryan is the obvious lock pairing. But we didnt get to bed it down the way we'd hoped. Losing Leavy and SOB from the back row left us with feck all options there in terms of ball carrying. A serious lack of options there at 2 only added to the problems we have had in that regard. Once the pack struggles for ball carriers getting you front foot then you're always going to struggle. How we approach it next year will be interesting because many of the same limitations are there, if not all of the same limitations.

JJJackal

Utah_Saint wrote: »

The table below is a list of Centres at each province. Gives us a look at the current and future combo's. At present i think Ringrose is our best 13. To me he is the player that will be critical to a more expansive style....

Connacht Ulster Munster Leinster
Aki Curtis Arnold Henshaw
Robb Hume Daly J O'Brien
Farrell Marshall Farrell C O'Brien
Daly McCloskey Goggin O'Loughlin
(Stewart Moore) Scannell Ringrose
(French) (Hawkshaw)

(Notable players not in Senior Squads)

I think that table shows we have alot of options. Farrell over at Connacht is on fire. McCloskey could do a job. Addisson can also play at centre - not listed

Mr Tickle

molloyjh wrote: »

I wouldn't have considered Scannell a battering ram, but then I suppose I dont watch him specifically very often in the same way you wouldn't Henshaw.

Well he's been part of a Munster backline that have played very little ball in the last 4-5 years. He's actually a good passer but that's been almost completely taken out of his game.

JJJackal wrote: »

I think that table shows we have alot of options. Farrell over at Connacht is on fire. McCloskey could do a job. Addisson can also play at centre - not listed

Robb has started brilliantly this season too. He's kept Farrell on the bench a couple of times now.

JJJackal

Mr Tickle wrote: »

Well he's been part of a Munster backline that have played very little ball in the last 4-5 years. He's actually a good passer but that's been almost completely taken out of his game.



Robb has started brilliantly this season too. He's kept Farrell on the bench a couple of times now.

Thats true - never sure about him though. He is a massive man

Mr Tickle

JJJackal wrote: »

Thats true - never sure about him though. He is a massive man

Same. He showed promise in 2016. Then spent two years injured and dropping the ball. I think his enormous biceps were getting in the way of his hands.

Neil3030

molloyjh wrote: »

I wouldn't have considered Scannell a battering ram, but then I suppose I dont watch him specifically very often in the same way you wouldn't Henshaw.

Sometimes players move into those roles because they are what best suit them. Sometimes it's because of a style of play. It's hard to know which is which in these cases. Certainly Henshaw being used as a physical 12 hasn't stopped him being part of an expansive and successful backline at Leinster. I think there is still very much a place for that on the game at the moment.

It's a tough one to call. Teams structure their sides differently. Some put second playmakers at 12 (England when they go Ford-Farrell), some at 15 (NZ with Mo'unga and Barrett) and some dont bother with a second playmaker (South Africa). There is no right or wrong way to do it. We know Henshaw can distribute, even if he isnt a second playmaker. So our game plan could look to change so he does it more. But then what? We dont have a huge amount of pace in our back 3 so we wont be burning teams on the outside. So how do we make the yardage if we do start to go wide?

Do we look to create space by drawing defenders and running smart lines to take advantage? Do we have ball carriers in the pack to do that? If not how do we supplement that without a hard carrying centre somewhere? I havent a clue tbh. But any singular positional decision we make needs to be made in the context of everything else as none of it happens in isolation. I'm all for more expense and running rugby. If someone else can tell me how we can achieve that then by all means....

"molloy we need milk"

"milk? why milk? is it the thing we need more than anything else right now? is the carton really empty? is there anything else we could use instead of milk? is milk even healthy for us? should we consider dairy free? where will get the milk, there are a few places we can go. should we drive or walk?...... ten minutes later.... and if indeed the developing world builds its economy around dairy export is this not massively risky?"

"I'm back"

Dubinusa

I suppose by the next rwc that Hawkshaw, French or Stewart Moore may be available at 12. C.O.B is also an option if he can kick on.
I think our back row was beaten up also. It was clearly struggling against the A.B's. That's why I think Ruddock should have gotten a run. He adds ball carrying ability that POM just does not have. POM may be the poorest ball carrying 6 among the tier 1 sides.
For me, Henshaw and Aki were beyond poor. I think we should start trying to get someone else in at 12. But, at this time, they're probably the best options.
It's going to be a strange 4 years.

Paul Smeenus

Dubinusa wrote: »

I suppose by the next rwc that Hawkshaw, French or Stewart Moore may be available at 12. C.O.B is also an option if he can kick on.
I think our back row was beaten up also. It was clearly struggling against the A.B's. That's why I think Ruddock should have gotten a run. He adds ball carrying ability that POM just does not have. POM may be the poorest ball carrying 6 among the tier 1 sides.
For me, Henshaw and Aki were beyond poor. I think we should start trying to get someone else in at 12. But, at this time, they're probably the best options.
It's going to be a strange 4 years.

I know he's not one of the cool kids, but Hume has looked very good.

Former Former

Dubinusa wrote: »

For me, Henshaw and Aki were beyond poor. I think we should start trying to get someone else in at 12. But, at this time, they're probably the best options.

They are the best options and by some distance, and both will be around in 2023. There is absolutely no need to try anyone new just for the craic. If someone comes along who deserves a chance, then he'll get it.

awec

Former Former wrote: »

They are the best options and by some distance, and both will be around in 2023. There is absolutely no need to try anyone new just for the craic. If someone comes along who deserves a chance, then he'll get it.

I don't think any of this is true to be honest. The two of them are being over-hyped here. Best by some distance is, IMO, an exaggeration of both players' abilities and performances. I think we're guilty of this far too much. Player X is the best by a mile, therefore player X must play because nobody else is good enough.

There are lots of reasons to try someone new at 12 for Ireland, it's a position that's notably weak for us. I am not saying that Henshaw for example is a weak player, but the Robbie Henshaw of 2019, playing in this current Ireland side, is offering very little. He is a poor man's Jamie Roberts. He runs hard into defenders and goes to ground and the ball dies with him. Teams know there is no chance he's doing anything different.

However, there is nobody obvious to try. Which is a different problem.

shootermacg

awec wrote: »

I don't think any of this is true to be honest. The two of them are being over-hyped here. Best by some distance is, IMO, an exaggeration of both players' abilities and performances. I think we're guilty of this far too much. Player X is the best by a mile, therefore player X must play because nobody else is good enough.

There are lots of reasons to try someone new at 12 for Ireland, it's a position that's notably weak for us. I am not saying that Henshaw for example is a weak player, but the Robbie Henshaw of 2019, playing in this current Ireland side, is offering very little. He is a poor man's Jamie Roberts. He runs hard into defenders and goes to ground and the ball dies with him. Teams know there is no chance he's doing anything different.

However, there is nobody obvious to try. Which is a different problem.

I think Catt will get them moving onto the ball at pace and taking it flatter. Henshaw at 12 will cause all sorts of problems then, as would Farrell at 13.

Faugheen

Jesus, people were calling for Henshaw to start ahead of Ringrose after the Wales game and now he’s ‘a poor man’s Jamie Roberts’.

Irish rugby fans are so fickle. They’re flippant and react based on one poor/very good performance.

Faugheen

shootermacg wrote: »

I think Catt will get them moving onto the ball at pace and taking it flatter. Henshaw at 12 will cause all sorts of problems then, as would Farrell at 13.

Would be tough for Farrell really since he’s probably third choice 13.

Shefwedfan

Faugheen wrote: »

Jesus, people were calling for Henshaw to start ahead of Ringrose after the Wales game and now he’s ‘a poor man’s Jamie Roberts’.

Irish rugby fans are so fickle. They’re flippant and react based on one poor/very good performance.

According to the posts here now Henshaw was a great 15, Ireland played him at 15 and after 1 loss the fans lose the plot as well and it was all Henshaw fault

Prior to the 6 nations the call was to throw the tournament, England win and then it’s a disaster

Now we seem to be back to, ahh sure it doesn’t matter if we lose in 6 nations as long as we try player. Come Feb, Ireland try a few things and lose v Scotland and it will be another over reaction only this time it will be Farrell should be sacked etc

Paul Smeenus

Faugheen wrote: »

Jesus, people were calling for Henshaw to start ahead of Ringrose after the Wales game and now he’s ‘a poor man’s Jamie Roberts’.

Irish rugby fans are so fickle. They’re flippant and react based on one poor/very good performance.

Are we sure it wasn't just different people with different opinions?

jacothelad

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

I know he's not one of the cool kids, but Hume has looked very good.

He looks a fully formed player.

shootermacg

Faugheen wrote: »

Would be tough for Farrell really since he’s probably third choice 13.

Does Andy have any other thoughts on players, that you might relay to us?

awec

Faugheen wrote: »

Jesus, people were calling for Henshaw to start ahead of Ringrose after the Wales game and now he’s ‘a poor man’s Jamie Roberts’.

Irish rugby fans are so fickle. They’re flippant and react based on one poor/very good performance.

Jaysus, there's faugheen back to tell us all how <insert name of Leinster player> is beyond criticism.

Think you're either suffering amnesia or have been living under a rock recently if you think any of this is fickle, flippant or based on one performance.

Clegg

shootermacg wrote: »

Does Andy have any other thoughts on players, that you might relate to us?

Being open to different selection options is the sign of a good coach. It's what Schmidt got so right in 2018. He identified the need for change in certain areas of the team and brought in new players who had different strengths from the incumbents.

But sometimes player selection really just boils down to picking the same guy all the time because he's so much better than everyone else. In this instance that's Ringrose. There's a chasm between him and every other 13 in Ireland.

awec

Shefwedfan wrote: »

According to the posts here now Henshaw was a great 15, Ireland played him at 15 and after 1 loss the fans lose the plot as well and it was all Henshaw fault

Prior to the 6 nations the call was to throw the tournament, England win and then it’s a disaster

Now we seem to be back to, ahh sure it doesn’t matter if we lose in 6 nations as long as we try player. Come Feb, Ireland try a few things and lose v Scotland and it will be another over reaction only this time it will be Farrell should be sacked etc

Sure according to some on here there's nothing wrong, there's nothing we could do to improve and 2019 just didn't happen. We should just avoid saying anything critical.

These posts are gas. It is such patronising scutter. Retrospectively trying to downplay expectations, throwing out little soundbites and trying to insinuate that anyone who has a problem with the way the team has gone recently just doesn't get it. Give us all a break.

Faugheen

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

Are we sure it wasn't just different people with different opinions?

You would want to have your head in the sand if you don’t think Irish rugby fans aren’t fickle.

Six Nations 2018: ‘oh Farrell should start at 13 in future. Ringrose shouldn’t walk back in.’

Ringrose walks back in v Scotland (after injuries), puts on a masterclass. Wins a Grand Slam and the double with his province.

Fast forward to this year, same again after one performance from Henshaw against Wales. Blown out of the water by Ringrose again.

And now the same people creaming themselves over Henshaw’s performance against Wales want him dropped.

No patience, and fickle as f*ck.