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

Niallof9

Faugheen wrote: »

Let’s just let them all go for whatever money they want and weaken the provinces why don’t we?

You have absolutely zero foresight here. If you bend the rule for one player then it opens the floodgates for many of them to leave.

If you want to play for Ireland you play in Ireland. It’s a rule that has kept all the best players at the provinces and I, as a Leinster fan, much rather it that way because I support my province before I support my country, and I’m sure I speak for a lot of people when I say that whether they’re from Dublin, Limerick, Belfast or Galway.

Why would you risk that for someone who is past it (SOB), not that good (Zebo) or someone who isn’t a nailed on starter (Aki)? It makes absolutely zero sense and anyone who wants to see this is a selfish fan, rather than a fan of Irish Rugby.

Irish Rugby isn’t just about the national team. The sooner some people realise that the better.

Your last point is true. We have gone too Irish focused, i'll agree. I said make it 50 caps or so if needs be. I'm not saying its a good thing, only that it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as bizarre. Most of my arguments can be found on my posts. They sort of fit together. For one i believe we have hamstrung ourselves too much with the provincial system. And without cutting deals like NZ have done with Harlequinns say, it will only get worse as more and more huge talents come online. You can see it in Connacht;so instead of certain Leinster lads joining they take punts on lads.

Instead of say Abladze or Byrne playing champions cup they sit on benches while Connacht hand lads like Healy and Niyi great opportunities. Which is brilliant but also makes no sense, I just don't understand it. Thats on top of the CC thing. Obviously we need strong squad and players don't want to move, i get that. But look at Kelleher's move back east. Crazy.

Take Rob Kearney; the guy should have went to France two years ago. For the good of himself and Irish rugby. Now he won't and im certain he'll get a start in the six nations and hang on like a bad smell for another few years. We have Sexton saying he'll play till he's 40. I love Jono, played with the guy, a Mary's clubmate but theres not a hope that is good for anybody. With each passing year the higher money is making it more difficult to make these hard decisions both for the player and the IRFU. We can't transfer them out so unless somebody sits them down and saids its time, then the Best debacle of playing at 37 on a central contract will continue.

Podge_irl

Niallof9 wrote: »

What other nations only give 11 or so central contracts? And they are hardly going to the best of the best.

Wales National Dual Contracts?

Niallof9 wrote: »

I understand how they work which is why i think they should remove the central contract notion and just say they are provincial and pay them whatever. The CC idea is pr puff that must, surely have an impact on morale. If the injuries can now be protected do the same with contracts.

What PR puff? They don't announce them, you have to decipher who is on them from the exact wording of the press release.

It is a way of removing the highest paid players off the provincial books essentially - not much more.

Niallof9

Podge_irl wrote: »

Wales National Dual Contracts?



What PR puff? They don't announce them, you have to decipher who is on them from the exact wording of the press release.

It is a way of removing the highest paid players off the provincial books essentially - not much more.

Wales, really? Wales with four of their squad in England and past players gone abroad? And yeah exactly the press releases specifically mention IRFU. That should be done away with.

Podge_irl

Niallof9 wrote: »

Wales, really? Wales with four of their squad in England and past players gone abroad? And yeah exactly the press releases specifically mention IRFU. That should be done away with.

Eh, yes Wales. Because they wanted to stop their players going abroad but the regions couldn't afford to keep them. So they brought in special contracts for the highest paid players to reduce the burden on the regions and in order to keep them in Wales.

Sound at all familiar?

They are clearly not a "PR puff piece" because there is no PR behind them. Without digging into it I wouldn't even know who has one and who doesn't.

Niallof9

Podge_irl wrote: »

Eh, yes Wales. Because they wanted to stop their players going abroad but the regions couldn't afford to keep them. So they brought in special contracts for the highest paid players to reduce the burden on the regions and in order to keep them in Wales.

Sound at all familiar?

They are clearly not a "PR puff piece" because there is no PR behind them. Without digging into it I wouldn't even know who has one and who doesn't.

Yeah this all stems from the idea that Irish rugby "dies" and the notion is bizarre, if we allow these lads go abroad...see the problem with this? I mean i'm also pro privatization of the provinces or at least part funding but Wales also allow players go abroad. Hell, even if the IRFU came out and said it i'd have less of an issue. The whole hidden unwritten rule is f ****ing stupid cloak and daggers. Ditto what your describing with the contracts. I'm sure Rhys Ruddock knows how much more POM earns than him for example. Do away with CC and make them wholly provincial, backboned by private investment like Sexton and the irfu.

Whatever we are doing, in a World context, for Ireland, it isn't working.

And people dismissing stuff out of hand, will be (like they were this year)wrong in a few years.

Podge_irl

Niallof9 wrote: »

Yeah this all stems from the idea that Irish rugby "dies" and the notion is bizarre, if we allow these lads go abroad...see the problem with this?

I haven't commented on letting Irish players go abroad, just on your rather weird view on what central contracts are.

Personally I wouldn't have a massive problem with a rule catered to allow players move abroad in the last couple years of their career. Realistically though, for most players the last couple years of their career they should probably be being phased out of the national team anyway. But I'm also perfectly fine with the current situation and the rules brought in by e.g. Wales and South Africa are structured as they are because they already had too many players out of the country to make anything else feasible. Having their regions be **** and bleed players isn't the masterplan of the WRU.

Niallof9

jacothelad wrote: »

The rule wasn't broken for Sexton. It didn't 'apply' when he went to France. Guys like Geordan Murphy, Simon and Guy Easterby and Johne Murphy were selected while playing outside Ireland. The decision to only use home based players was introduced while Sexton was abroad and it is a sound one for two reasons.



1) It makes our provinces likely to be stronger, more successful and therefore more lucrative as they should have the top players available. This 'reason' is massively diluted by how infrequently some of the better players play in the League.


2) The players are always available for Ireland training camps.

But as SOB said recently, there is no written rule. Its exactly the reason the IRFU should just come out and bloody say it.

I think the one way we'll see players going abroad but being considered for Irish selection is London Irish.

By all accounts that looks like our foothold in the prem and I think we'll see Irish players rotating over to them more regularly moving forward.

Niallof9

Yeah the London Irish link needs to be explored. Even loan options

aloooof

Niallof9 wrote: »

So can you explain the continued selection of out of form central contract holders, consistently going back to Eddie's time? And i said squad selection, not team. Anyway a central contract, even without a clause (whic i agree doesn't likely exist) guarantee them a berth in nearly every case.

So you're admitting a clause guaranteeing them selection likely doesn't exit? Progress of a kind.

As an example of a player who didn't make the squad while on a central contract - Jack McGrath.

aloooof

Niallof9 wrote: »

With each passing year the higher money is making it more difficult to make these hard decisions both for the player and the IRFU. We can't transfer them out so unless somebody sits them down and saids its time, then the Best debacle of playing at 37 on a central contract will continue.

What you're saying doesn't map to reality. We have a number of examples of players saying that once they hit 30, their contract offers from the IRFU diminished greatly. Gordon D'Arcy, for example.

Podge_irl

Niallof9 wrote: »

But as SOB said recently, there is no written rule. Its exactly the reason the IRFU should just come out and bloody say it.

It has been said. It has been explicitly stated that if you go abroad your chances of selection and much, much worse.

No one good enough to actually test how definitive the "rule" is has actually gone abroad however. Maybe if James Ryan went abroad they would consider it - but I highly doubt we will ever find out.

Niallof9

aloooof wrote: »

So you're admitting a clause guaranteeing them selection likely doesn't exit? Progress of a kind.

As an example of a play who didn't make the squad while on a central contract - Jack McGrath.

I just said who's to say it doesn't. Like the moving abroad disqualification doesn't exist, officially. We just don't know what goes on.

Yeah there is a few examples.

I don't know its a good problem to have. I think Penny, Jimmy O'Brien, Doris, Casey, Harry Byrne among a few others will really put it to the test. We have already seen the wrong decision made (Keanrey and Best) in the last few weeks, one which has been argued for years. Maybe it will naturally align and players will get phased out.

We will see in the six nations how the players react. It will be exciting for that alone. The CC players need huge seasons.

aloooof

Niallof9 wrote: »

And people dismissing stuff out of hand, will be (like they were this year)wrong in a few years.

We're dismissing the notion that centrally contracted players have clauses guaranteeing them selection. Because it's nonsense. And it'll still be nonsense in a few years.

Faugheen

Niallof9 wrote: »

Take Rob Kearney; the guy should have went to France two years ago. For the good of himself and Irish rugby. Now he won't and im certain he'll get a start in the six nations and hang on like a bad smell for another few years. We have Sexton saying he'll play till he's 40. I love Jono, played with the guy, a Mary's clubmate but theres not a hope that is good for anybody. With each passing year the higher money is making it more difficult to make these hard decisions both for the player and the IRFU. We can't transfer them out so unless somebody sits them down and saids its time, then the Best debacle of playing at 37 on a central contract will continue.

I don’t understand the Kearney point. It was only in the World Cup that anyone legitimately put up their hand to take the 15 jersey off Kearney. Until then, numerous people had a chance to stake their claim and every time he wasn’t in the team he was missed.

Even with Larmour’s form in the World Cup, Kearney was also playing well. It’s a complete nonsense point. How many times in the last 24 months did Larmour get a go at full-back to disappoint? Be dismissed as ‘not good enough’? How much better did we look when Kearney came back into the team?

There are players you could point the finger at such as Kearney, Sexton or Best but nobody under them put a solid claim in to start week-in, week-out ahead of the incumbents. Only recently has Larmour put his hand up.

It’s very easy to criticise the central contracts issue but now we’re in a situation at hooker where we hope Ronan Kelleher is the real deal or one of Scannell or Herring step up big time. That’s not Best’s fault nor is it the IRFU’s. Scannell, Herring and Cronin were given plenty of chances but ultimately none of them impressed. Even at 37 Best was still the best option we had. Likewise Carbery, Carty or Byrne at out-half.

Niallof9

aloooof wrote: »

We're dismissing the notion that centrally contracted players have clauses guaranteeing them selection. Because it's nonsense. And it'll still be nonsense in a few years.

Dismissing the moving abroad stuff....

readyohyeah

Excuse me for butting in but does anyone know if there is an ongoing review into the failures of the previous regime? Consistent failures at the world cup going for a few decades now. There should be a group set up to review, evaluate and make recommendations if this has not already been set up. I think a group will find that mollycoddling the players has benefits but it also has serious downsides. When the going gets tough at world cups, our players go missing. We can't continue to repeat the same mistakes and expect better results. I think opening up things will help. Let players leave and still play for Ireland. Selections will be made on form, you have to perform for your team, be that in Ireland, England, France or wherever. Players will have to fight for their place on their club team first of all and they have to play well to be considered for selection. They will be battle-hardened and more prepared for international rugby at the highest level. It works for other countries, our system has continuously failed. I think it's time we pursue a new route.

Podge_irl

I think playing Best ultimately was a mistake, but it was incredibly clear that Schmidt simply did not trust the other options for hooker (and not without reason) and took a calculated risk that Best could make it to the world cup. It just didn't work out.

Niallof9

Faugheen wrote: »

I don’t understand the Kearney point. It was only in the World Cup that anyone legitimately put up their hand to take the 15 jersey off Kearney. Until then, numerous people had a chance to stake their claim and every time he wasn’t in the team he was missed.

Even with Larmour’s form in the World Cup, Kearney was also playing well. It’s a complete nonsense point. How many times in the last 24 months did Larmour get a go at full-back to disappoint? Be dismissed as ‘not good enough’? How much better did we look when Kearney came back into the team?

There are players you could point the finger at such as Kearney, Sexton or Best but nobody under them put a solid claim in to start week-in, week-out ahead of the incumbents. Only recently has Larmour put his hand up.

It’s very easy to criticise the central contracts issue but now we’re in a situation at hooker where we hope Ronan Kelleher is the real deal or one of Scannell or Herring step up big time. That’s not Best’s fault nor is it the IRFU’s. Scannell, Herring and Cronin were given plenty of chances but ultimately none of them impressed. Even at 37 Best was still the best option we had. Likewise Carbery, Carty or Byrne at out-half.

I disagree completely. Larmour should have been selected, did enough.

And Cronin is in the bad books with Joe, its well known. If he's good enough to be Leinster hooker he's bloody good enough to be Irish hooker. Best was a mistake. There was no way the man should have been playing in the World Cup. Herring isn't good enough. Ronan does look the real deal so thats promising. I'd cap him in the 6 Nations.

I was waiting for the "if they're good enough they'll start". It's patently untrue in our system going on decades. Quinlan, Cullen, Jennings, O'Connor, Sexton himself, Ross, Brennan, Murphy, TOH and so on. Conway in the stands another one. A ****ing joke and i just hope Farrell comes in and changes it. But all we hear from certain people is there will be none. Jerry Flannery recently saying it will/should be the same. It's mind boggling. Best, as good as he could be on a given day, is an example of it, he wasn't fit to tie Wood's, flannery's shoe lace. But once Flannery was gone, he was in squads and suddenly one day he was an undroppable captain. And Cronin got such a bad deal. Like loads of lads Best got a pass, and Cronin among others was held up to some other standard. In any other country Cronin's running ability gets him a start, a criminal underuse of a unique talent...**** thrower yeah, but as Wood has admitted himself he couldn't hit a cow's arse with a banjo.

Niallof9

readyohyeah wrote: »

Excuse me for butting in but does anyone know if there is an ongoing review into the failures of the previous regime? Consistent failures at the world cup going for a few decades now. There should be a group set up to review, evaluate and make recommendations if this has not already been set up. I think a group will find that mollycoddling the players has benefits but it also has serious downsides. When the going gets tough at world cups, our players go missing. We can't continue to repeat the same mistakes and expect better results. I think opening up things will help. Let players leave and still play for Ireland. Selections will be made on form, you have to perform for your team, be that in Ireland, England, France or wherever. Players will have to fight for their place on their club team first of all and they have to play well to be considered for selection. They will be battle-hardened and more prepared for international rugby at the highest level. It works for other countries, our system has continuously failed. I think it's time we pursue a new route.

Yeah there is one going on at the minute. A waste of time i think as its pretty clear what went on and what is still going on. You are completely correct of course.

We had people argue on here, with a straight face, that form doesn't matter. They backboned many a Kearney v whoever debate. In my previous guise I couldn't take it.

cadaliac

Niallof9 wrote: »

If he's good enough to be Leinster hooker he's bloody good enough to be Irish hooker.

Here we go.

cadaliac

Niallof9 wrote: »

Yeah there is one going on at the minute. A waste of time i think as its pretty clear what went on and what is still going on. You are completely correct of course.

We had people argue on here, with a straight face, that form doesn't matter. They backboned many a Kearney v whoever debate. In my previous guise I couldn't take it.

Right.

Faugheen

Niallof9 wrote: »

I disagree completely. Larmour should have been selected, did enough.

And Cronin is in the bad books with Joe, its well known. If he's good enough to be Leinster hooker he's bloody good enough to be Irish hooker. Best was a mistake. There was no way the man should have been playing in the World Cup. Herring isn't good enough. Ronan does look the real deal so thats promising. I'd cap him in the 6 Nations.

I was waiting for the "if they're good enough they'll start". It's patently untrue in our system going on decades. Quinlan, Cullen, Jennings, O'Connor, Sexton himself, Ross, Brennan, Murphy, TOH and so on. Conway in the stands another one. A ****ing joke and i just hope Farrell comes in and changes it. But all we hear from certain people is there will be none. Jerry Flannery recently saying it will/should be the same. It's mind boggling. Best, as good as he could be on a given day, is an example of it, he wasn't fit to tie Wood's, flannery's shoe lace. But once they and Sheahan were gone he was in squads and suddenly an undroppable captain.

Kearney and Larmour were both playing well, so I don’t know why it was the case that Larmour 100% had to start. Why didn’t he show that form earlier in the season when we were trying people out at 15?

Up until the World Cup, Kearney was still by far and away our best 15 because none of the others that were tried out put their hand up.

Cronin stank the place out anytime he started for Ireland. His best performances in green were off the bench and even then his line out was poor. He simply never replicated his form for Leinster to Ireland so why should he start when he was given chance after chance? When it came down to it, Best was the best of a very average bunch. All the others were given enough chances and they all failed.

Conway is a point I can accept. He should not have been in the stands because Stockdale (in particular) and Earls weren’t doing the business.

However, when it comes to our centrally contracted players, either they were still playing well (in the case of Kearney) or none of the alternatives were playing well when the incumbent was out of form (Sexton, Best).

There was one game where Best’s darts were criticised and in that game he won all his line-outs. Some players are ok a hiding to nothing. I’m not saying Best was the best hooker in the world but who staked a claim to take the jersey off him? Absolutely nobody.

aloooof

Niallof9 wrote: »

I disagree completely. Larmour should have been selected, did enough.

And Cronin is in the bad books with Joe, its well known. If he's good enough to be Leinster hooker he's bloody good enough to be Irish hooker. Best was a mistake. There was no way the man should have been playing in the World Cup. Herring isn't good enough. Ronan does look the real deal so thats promising. I'd cap him in the 6 Nations.

Ah, stop. Every coach is going to pick who they think is the best selection. They're under too much pressure for results.

Niallof9 wrote: »

I was waiting for the "if they're good enough they'll start". It's patently untrue in our system going on decades. Quinlan, Cullen, Jennings, O'Connor, Sexton himself, Ross, Brennan, Murphy, TOH and so on. Conway in the stands another one.

The players you've listed as hard-done by for selection all played during the most successful period of Irish rugby. It's not like we greatly suffered because of their omissions.

Niallof9 wrote: »

A ****ing joke and i just hope Farrell comes in and changes it. But all we hear from certain people is there will be none. Jerry Flannery recently saying it will/should be the same. It's mind boggling.

Do you have an exact quote of what he said? Cos I would wager it's a lot more nuanced than what you're claiming.

Niallof9 wrote: »

Best is an example of it, he wasn't fit to tie Wood's, flannery's shoe lace. But once they and Sheahan were gone he was in squads and suddenly an undropapble captain.

Best did decline during the last year, but you're completely mis-representing how good a player and captain he was for us for a long period.

Honestly, a lot of your posts are completely scatter-gun and almost impossible to follow.

Niallof9

Faugheen wrote: »

Kearney and Larmour were both playing well, so I don’t know why it was the case that Larmour 100% had to start. Why didn’t he show that form earlier in the season when we were trying people out at 15?

Up until the World Cup, Kearney was still by far and away our best 15 because none of the others that were tried out put their hand up.

Cronin stank the place out anytime he started for Ireland. His best performances in green were off the bench and even then his line out was poor. He simply never replicated his form for Leinster to Ireland so why should he start when he was given chance after chance? When it came down to it, Best was the best of a very average bunch. All the others were given enough chances and they all failed.

Conway is a point I can accept. He should not have been in the stands because Stockdale (in particular) and Earls weren’t doing the business.

However, when it comes to our centrally contracted players, either they were still playing well (in the case of Kearney) or none of the alternatives were playing well when the incumbent was out of form (Sexton, Best).

There was one game where Best’s darts were criticised and in that game he won all his line-outs. Some players are ok a hiding to nothing. I’m not saying Best was the best hooker in the world but who staked a claim to take the jersey off him? Absolutely nobody.

The last point is fair. Cronin was terrible against Italy but some of the issues are well known such as the Marmion thing. Joe didn't get along with him like he didn't with a few others. McCloskey, Zebo all not his type of player in every sense there was others i have heard as well. As trimble said if you didn't play along in camp schmidt it was a very unpleasant place. And unforgiving. fair enough. He never really forgave TOD for not touring that summer. He didn't cut them completely but he never gave them a shot. And some of it is unforgivable, such as McCLoskey's exclusion.

For me personally though i want my rugby players doing more than the basics. its why Furlong is so good. Porter the same. Why Healy easily took back the jersey from a so so carrier in McGrath. This is what is so exciting about Kelleher, excellent basics and an impressive running game.

I disagree with Kearney but i won't go there. He did well to come back, was excellent in parts of 2018. But in the World Cup he wasn't good enough. He got a pass, as usual like ROG did in 2011 and one or two in 2015. Larmour should have started, along with Conway. Would have still lost the match but we'd be better for it.

aloooof

Niallof9 wrote: »

The last point is fair. For me personally though i want my rugby players doing more than the basics. its why Furlong is so good. Porter the same. Why Healy easily took back the jersey from a so so carrier in McGrath.

That's precisely the point tho. Any time Cronin started for Ireland, he didn't deliver on the basics. It doesn't matter how good he is with ball in hand if his darts and scrummaging aren't up to scratch.

Niallof9

aloooof wrote: »

That's precisely the point tho. Any time Cronin started for Ireland, he didn't deliver on the basics. It doesn't matter how good he is with ball in hand if his darts and scrummaging aren't up to scratch.

I'd argue having a hooker who can't carry is damaging to your team. Its one of the traditional, free roles, and carrying position. Best was an good thrower, an excellentscrummager and jackler. And leader of course. But yeah there was a dearth of options.

To bring it back to the present and Ireland, its why Kelleher is so exciting.

Faugheen

Niallof9 wrote: »

The last point is fair. Cronin was terrible against Italy but some of the issues are well known such as the Marmion thing. Joe didn't get along with him like he didn't with a few others. McCloskey, Copeland, Zebo all not his type of player in every sense. As trimble said if you didn't play along in camp schmidt it was a very unpleasant place. He never really forgave TOD for not touring that summer. He didn't cut them completely but he never gave them a shot. And some of it is unforgivable, such as McCLoskey's exclusion.

For me personally though i want my rugby players doing more than the basics. its why Furlong is so good. Porter the same. Why Healy easily took back the jersey from a so so carrier in McGrath. This is what is so exciting about Kelleher, excellent basics and an impressive running game.

I disagree with Kearney but i won't go there. He did well to come back, was excellent in parts of 2018. But in the World Cup he wasn't good enough. He got a pass, as usual like ROG did in 2011 and one or two in 2015. Larmour should have started, along with Conway. Would have still lost the match but we'd be better for it.

Who on Earth should Robin Copeland be playing instead of?

I’m sorry but he was never international class and I can’t take you seriously if you’re throwing his name among those who can feel hard done by.

TOH, Copeland (lol) and TOD are not as good as any of the other options. For all the good TOH can do in open space his basics are piss poor. Copeland I’ve already touched on and TOD was stuck behind Leavy, VDF, SOB and Jordi Murphy at 7. He had no luck with injuries.

Zebo left. He chose to leave. His ‘exile’ is completely self-imposed.

aloooof

Niallof9 wrote: »

I'd argue having a hooker who can't carry is damaging to your team. Its one of the traditional carrying players. Best was an excellent thrower, scrummager and jackler. And leader of course. But yeah there was a dearth of options.

To bring it back to the present and Ireland, its why Kelleher is so exciting.

Having a hooker who can't throw into the line out or scrummage is far, far more damaging.

sydthebeat

are we playing pin the tail on the donkey again??