Lions 2017 [MOD WARNING IN OP]

awec · 19-04-2017 03:09PM

molloyjh wrote: »

But what exactly does that mean? Does that mean he plays the same way with different numbers on his back, does he vary his game substantially in each position? What? The above is a nothing point by itself I'm afraid. Jack Conan plays 6 and 8 for example, but he's nowhere near as versatile a player as Heaslip is who only ever plays 8.

It means he is a number 8.

How many games has Heaslip played in his career at somewhere other than 8? Is Heaslip a 7? No. Is Heaslip a 6? No. Can Heaslip vary his game at number 8? Sure.

But he is still only a number 8. This is like trying to argue that Conor Murray is versatile because he can kick it and run it and vary it up when needs be and sure he could do all that at 10 as well or something.

Podge_irl · 19-04-2017 03:09PM

molloyjh wrote: »

awec wrote: »

Well Moriarty can play across the back row and Heaslip cannot. There's not much more to it than that.

But what exactly does that mean? Does that mean he plays the same way with different numbers on his back, does he vary his game substantially in each position? What? The above is a nothing point by itself I'm afraid. Jack Conan plays 6 and 8 for example, but he's nowhere near as versatile a player as Heaslip is who only ever plays 8.

But Jack Conan only plays at 6 because he can't get past Heaslip at 8. In a lot of these cases their versatility is simply a case of not being the first choice in the primary position but potentially offering more than the first choice in another. Besides there are plenty of 6 options available - I doubt that's what would put him ahead of heaslip.

Of course this is a somewhat pointless hypothetical argument. The best kind!

19-04-2017 03:13PM

awec wrote: »

It means he is a number 8.

How many games has Heaslip played in his career at somewhere other than 8? Is Heaslip a 7? No. Is Heaslip a 6? No. Can Heaslip vary his game at number 8? Sure.

But he is still only a number 8. This is like trying to argue that Conor Murray is versatile because he can kick it and run it and vary it up when needs be and sure he could do all that at 10 as well or something.

Honestly, have you read what you just wrote?

Conor Murray IS versatile. He can kick from the tee, he can kick from hand, he can carry well, he is a good defender, he can snipe well from around the breakdown. That he does this with a single number on his back is what makes him versatile.

Heaslip has the engine of a 7 in that he constantly covers huge yardage to be in a support position. He can carry as first receiver and guarantee clean fast ball, he can also carry in the wider channels. He has excellent hands and is strong on the deck both in and not in possession. He is the exact opposite of being a "one trick pony" and does it all from 8 because there has never been a reason to move him.

It goes without saying that when Heaslip has a strong Autumn series or 6N often from match to match there are different attributes of his play that stand out. He is the model of versatility. It makes no difference what number he plays with as he has all the requirements of blindside, openside and 8 in his repertoire.

irishbucsfan · 19-04-2017 03:14PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Honestly, have you read what you just wrote?

Conor Murray IS versatile. He can kick from the tee, he can kick from hand, he can carry well, he is a good defender, he can snipe well from around the breakdown. That he does this with a single number on his back is what makes him versatile.

Heaslip has the engine of a 7 in that he constantly covers huge yardage to be in a support position. He can carry as first receiver and guarantee clean fast ball, he can also carry in the wider channels. He has excellent hands and is strong on the deck both in and not in possession. He is the exact opposite of being a "one trick pony" and does it all from 8 because there has never been a reason to move him.

It goes without saying that when Heaslip has a strong Autumn series or 6N often from match to match there are different attributes of his play that stand out. He is the model of versatility. It makes no difference what number he plays with as he has all the requirements of blindside, openside and 8 in his repertoire.

I have to defend awec here and ask did you read his original point?

His point is that Moriarty covers across the back row. Heaslip does not.

Pretty straight forward really...

awec · 19-04-2017 03:15PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Honestly, have you read what you just wrote?

Conor Murray IS versatile. He can kick from the tee, he can kick from hand, he can carry well, he is a good defender, he can snipe well from around the breakdown. That he does this with a single number on his back is what makes him versatile.

Heaslip has the engine of a 7 in that he constantly covers huge yardage to be in a support position. He can carry as first receiver and guarantee clean fast ball, he can also carry in the wider channels. He has excellent hands and is strong on the deck both in and not in possession. He is the exact opposite of being a "one trick pony" and does it all from 8 because there has never been a reason to move him.

It goes without saying that when Heaslip has a strong Autumn series or 6N often from match to match there are different attributes of his play that stand out. He is the model of versatility. It makes no difference what number he plays with as he has all the requirements of blindside, openside and 8 in his repertoire.

This argument is just surreal now. Virtually every single rugby player on the planet is versatile going by this new definition.

GymJim · 19-04-2017 03:15PM

pickarooney wrote: »

It was a direct response to the suggestion that Payne would get in the NZ squad. What's not to understand?

Fair enough, I had understood it differently. Agree with that then, suggestion Payne would get in NZ squad ridiculous hence his move to Ireland

awec · 19-04-2017 03:17PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Or you'll have been proven wrong. Again. :pac:

Impossible.

19-04-2017 03:18PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I have to defend awec here and ask did you read his original point?

His point is that Moriarty covers across the back row. Heaslip does not.

Pretty straight forward really...

I'm making the point that Heaslip doesn't need to play across the backrow with different numbers on his back to demonstrate that he is capable of playing different roles across the backrow. He is arguably the most versatile backrower in Europe despite only wearing the one jersey.

kilns · 19-04-2017 03:18PM

thomond2006 wrote: »

SOB is lucky to be going. Someone like Watson could have gotten in there instead.

*runs*

The same could be said for POM based on just one game

Buer · 19-04-2017 03:19PM

awec wrote: »

Impossible.

When Payne lines out at 13 and Henderson lines out at lock for the Lions, it shall be a great, great day.

awec · 19-04-2017 03:21PM

Buer wrote: »

When Payne lines out at 13 and Henderson lines out at lock for the Lions, it shall be a great, great day.

I am warming to the notion of Henderson at lock. It may just be as the result of coaching but he seems to have lost some of the explosiveness that is required for the back row and has been turned into a meat head built for the engine room.

Payne at 13 though? Never.

Former Former · 19-04-2017 03:21PM

Heaslip was definitely in the mix with the season he's had. A definite tourist, no, but a strong possible.

So who knows? If he'd been part of a much improved Ireland display against England and a pretty dominant Leinster display against Wasps, he'd have been very hard to ignore.

GymJim · 19-04-2017 03:21PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I have to defend awec here and ask did you read his original point?

His point is that Moriarty covers across the back row. Heaslip does not.

Pretty straight forward really...

But pretty much every other backrower is versatile and can play across the back row besides Vunipola. There does seem to be an aversion to positional specialists in these squads for some reason however, what is perhaps more important for the ultimate test team is having the best player in each position rather than the most versatile - that should be the bench player. I honestly don't think Heaslip would be in the test 23 but would certainly start the mid week games at 8. Will Moriarty be guaranteed this? My sense is it is more likely that Ehnderson will start those at 6 and Faletau at 8 than Moriarty

I'd actually find it more likely that Faletau rather than Moriarty wouldn't have made the squad has Heaslip been fit. Moriarty is a starter over him for Wales already

19-04-2017 03:22PM

awec wrote: »

This argument is just surreal now. Virtually every single rugby player on the planet is versatile going by this new definition.

Nope and it's the core of what you don't seem to understand. There is a difference between being able to do a variety of things and being able to do all those things to an equally high standard. Heaslip is the player he is because he excels across the core disciplines of back row play and not just one or two aspects whilst being proficient elsewhere.

The benefits of this are obvious, the downside is that he doesn't have the raw carrying of the likes of Vunipola and he isn't as strong on the deck as Warburton.

The only other player who I would consider similar to Heaslip is Parisse who would be first choice for every club and country in Europe.

GymJim · 19-04-2017 03:27PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope and it's the core of what you don't seem to understand. There is a difference between being able to do a variety of things and being able to do all those things to an equally high standard. Heaslip is the player he is because he excels across the core disciplines of back row play and not just one or two aspects whilst being proficient elsewhere.

The benefits of this are obvious, the downside is that he doesn't have the raw carrying of the likes of Vunipola and he isn't as strong on the deck as Warburton.

The only other player who I would consider similar to Heaslip is Parisse who would be first choice for every club and country in Europe.

I agree, the argument that the number on a players back rather than the collective skill set of the trio is more important makes little sense. Heaslip has the broadest skill set for an 8 you'll find. Better able to carry out the core expected skills of a 6 or 7 than the likes of Vunipola, Faletau or Moriarty. Of course, for example, he is less powerful than Vunipola but contributes massively in both attack and defence in ways Vuniploa can't due to athleticism and stamina

awec · 19-04-2017 03:28PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope and it's the core of what you don't seem to understand. There is a difference between being able to do a variety of things and being able to do all those things to an equally high standard. Heaslip is the player he is because he excels across the core disciplines of back row play and not just one or two aspects whilst being proficient elsewhere.

The benefits of this are obvious, the downside is that he doesn't have the raw carrying of the likes of Vunipola and he isn't as strong on the deck as Warburton.

The only other player who I would consider similar to Heaslip is Parisse who would be first choice for every club and country in Europe.

Yea, Heaslip can play in different ways but you are never, ever going to bring him on at #7 or at #6 so really this argument is a massive waste of time.

He cannot cover across the back row as evidenced by the fact that he never has.

We have invented a new form of versatility to fit the narrative here. Gone are the days of versatile players being your Madigans, Ashley-Coopers or your Itojes, who can and do play multiple positions, now versatile players are ones who can merely play their own position in a variety of ways which must include the majority of professional players.

Podge_irl · 19-04-2017 03:37PM

awec wrote: »

He cannot cover across the back row as evidenced by the fact that he never has.

While I get your point I disagree with this line of logic. It's evidence that he's always been the best option at number 8, which is not the same thing.

I guess where the line of disagreement is coming down is partly on deciding what an ability to cover means. I would have no real qualms at putting heaslip at 6.

Christy42 · 19-04-2017 03:38PM

awec wrote: »

Yea, Heaslip can play in different ways but you are never, ever going to bring him on at #7 or at #6 so really this argument is a massive waste of time.

He cannot cover across the back row as evidenced by the fact that he never has.

We have invented a new form of versatility to fit the narrative here. Gone are the days of versatile players being your Madigans, Ashley-Coopers or your Itojes, who can and do play multiple positions, now versatile players are ones who can merely play their own position in a variety of ways which must include the majority of professional players.

I think the point is to compare his versatility to Moriarty, not AAC.

Moriarty could never play multiple positions. He simply did the same thing no matter the number on his back and can't seriously claim versatility as a strength. Imagine sticking Kearney at 7. Aside from scrums he would still spend the full match acting like a 15 as that is what he does. He could even have a good game overall and make a load of breaks but he would not be acting like a 7. Simply having him wear the number would not turn him into a 7.

Being able to implement a number of different game plans is a form of versatility as well but one I feel is worthless with Gatland at the helm.

19-04-2017 03:39PM

awec wrote: »

Yea, Heaslip can play in different ways but you are never, ever going to bring him on at #7 or at #6 so really this argument is a massive waste of time.

He cannot cover across the back row as evidenced by the fact that he never has.

We have invented a new form of versatility to fit the narrative here. Gone are the days of versatile players being your Madigans, Ashley-Coopers or your Itojes, who can and do play multiple positions, now versatile players are ones who can merely play their own position in a variety of ways which must include the majority of professional players.

Except 10 and 15 are two very different positions (and some of the people you have mentioned struggled when out of their core position). You can be a versatile player without having to change the number on your back.

Back row positions overlap much more significantly in what they do and some teams don't play with a "specialist" in each position. Heaslip has never changed jersey because I don't think there has ever been a need for it. He's changed his function within a team countless times not just in a season but within a single match.

awec wrote: »

so really this argument is a massive waste of time.

No one is forcing you to reply.

molloyjh · 19-04-2017 03:43PM

awec wrote: »

Yea, Heaslip can play in different ways but you are never, ever going to bring him on at #7 or at #6 so really this argument is a massive waste of time.

He cannot cover across the back row as evidenced by the fact that he never has.

We have invented a new form of versatility to fit the narrative here. Gone are the days of versatile players being your Madigans, Ashley-Coopers or your Itojes, who can and do play multiple positions, now versatile players are ones who can merely play their own position in a variety of ways which must include the majority of professional players.

Hang on there now a second. Back up the truck.

You said he was more versatile than Heaslip. I asked in what way. Now for me, saying that someone has played across the back row doesn't by definition make them more versatile. Jack Conan has played across the back row more than Heaslip but there is simply no way he is a more versatile player.

This discussion (and it is a discussion as my question was a genuine one) is muddied by the fact that the back row positions aren't really as definitive as they once were. Heaslip has shown that he can vary his game from 8. That versatility is no more or less real just because the number on his shirt hasn't changed. The opposite is also true. Just because the number on the back of a players shirt is different it doesn't mean they are playing in a hugely different way than they otherwise would. Players like Conan have shown that they can do a job in other positions (because they can't force their way ahead of the incumbents) without showing anywhere near the same level of versatility on the pitch. I was simply asking was Moriarty one of these.

At the end of the day a back row player can be more versatile in one position than another in multiple positions. So using the jerseys worn as the source of the logic can be massively deceptive. All I'm asking is whether Moriarty is truly versatile or not. If he plays the same way across all back 3 positions then that would be the utter antithesis of versatility.

kilns · 19-04-2017 03:45PM

I think it is a silly argument about Heaslips versatility. When he first came on the scene he was a typical No. 8 making much more carries than he does now. He has since adopted his game to make up for the deficencies in the games of O'Brien, Stander and O'Mahony and he does a very fine job of it letting them get on with what they are stong at. It doesnt matter what number you wear on your back but he I would argue he does the work of a 6, 7 and 8 all in one game and he will only be sorely missed when he is gone, even by those who have no time for him (god only knows why)

P.Walnuts · 19-04-2017 03:45PM

Not reading 20 pages since midday but I see people are assuming Payne is there as a 13 and not 15...

Has this been indicated in any way?

Surprised he got in anyway, and i'm leaning towards his versatility that got him the nod. If he starts a game of two at 15 I could really see him push the other two FB's for a test spot...

mfceiling · 19-04-2017 03:45PM

Rightwing wrote: »

Best is lucky to travel. Far too injury prone and very average at times

You are talking about the current Irish captain and 100+ international caps Rory Best?

awec · 19-04-2017 03:46PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Hang on there now a second. Back up the truck.

You said he was more versatile than Heaslip. I asked in what way. Now for me, saying that someone has played across the back row doesn't by definition make them more versatile. Jack Conan has played across the back row more than Heaslip but there is simply no way he is a more versatile player.

This discussion (and it is a discussion as my question was a genuine one) is muddied by the fact that the back row positions aren't really as definitive as they once were. Heaslip has shown that he can vary his game from 8. That versatility is no more or less real just because the number on his shirt hasn't changed. The opposite is also true. Just because the number on the back of a players shirt is different it doesn't mean they are playing in a hugely different way than they otherwise would. Players like Conan have shown that they can do a job in other positions (because they can't force their way ahead of the incumbents) without showing anywhere near the same level of versatility on the pitch. I was simply asking was Moriarty one of these.

At the end of the day a back row player can be more versatile in one position than another in multiple positions. So using the jerseys worn as the source of the logic can be massively deceptive. All I'm asking is whether Moriarty is truly versatile or not. If he plays the same way across all back 3 positions then that would be the utter antithesis of versatility.

That is exactly what it makes them, versatile. What other word is there for someone who can and does play multiple positions?

Heaslip doesn't cover 6 and 7. Moriarty does. Anything else is genuinely irrelevant. I don't think anyone would disagree that Heaslip is a better player than Moriarty but the fact he only plays #8 (and indisputable fact) undoubtedly will have counted against him even if he was fit.

molloyjh · 19-04-2017 03:46PM

awec wrote: »

That is exactly what it makes them, versatile. What other word is there for someone who can and does play multiple positions?

You're making the assumption that playing multiple positions means doing different things. In the back row it does not necessarily mean that.

19-04-2017 03:50PM

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Not reading 20 pages since midday but I see people are assuming Payne is there as a 13 and not 15...

Has this been indicated in any way?

Surprised he got in anyway, and i'm leaning towards his versatility that got him the nod. If he starts a game of two at 15 I could really see him push the other two FB's for a test spot...

I have him down primarily as a 15 but with an ability to cover 13.

Personally I think he is the ideal 23.

Former Former · 19-04-2017 03:53PM

Find myself in the weird position of agreeing with awec. Heaslip is an eight. He could do a job at 6 or 7, I've no doubt, but it's entirely theoretical.

A large part of that is down to the fact that, from day one, he's been comfortably the best 8 at Leinster. He never had to do the same shuffling around that other young guys have to do to get game time.

molloyjh · 19-04-2017 03:54PM

Former Former wrote: »

Find myself in the weird position of agreeing with awec. Heaslip is an eight. He could do a job at 6 or 7, I've no doubt, but it's entirely theoretical.

A large part of that is down to the fact that, from day one, he's been comfortably the best 8 at Leinster. He never had to do the same shuffling around that other young guys have to do to get game time.

To clarify, I'm not saying Heaslip could/would/should play any other position. I'm simply asking whether Moriarty is truly versatile. Nothing more. I honestly don't know, hence the question.

EDIT: I suppose a better way to phrase the question would have been to take Heaslip out of it altogether and ask whether Moriarty is the guy who moves around to accommodate others without being truly versatile or is he genuinely someone who can change his game to suit different roles.

Buer · 19-04-2017 04:05PM

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Not reading 20 pages since midday but I see people are assuming Payne is there as a 13 and not 15...

Has this been indicated in any way?

Surprised he got in anyway, and i'm leaning towards his versatility that got him the nod. If he starts a game of two at 15 I could really see him push the other two FB's for a test spot...

I would think that his experience, knowledge of NZ rugby, versatility and physicality all contributed.

I would expect him to be primarily a 13 on the tour. They've already brought Halfpenny, Hogg and Liam Williams (who has 17 test starts at fullback). On top of that, they've Anthony Watson who plays at 15 for his club for the most part of late.

I think Payne will go as a centre for the most part but I wouldn't be surprised to see him start one game at 15 given the demands of this tour. Even BOD started a game at 15 for the Lions once upon a time!

19-04-2017 04:06PM

Is there a breakdown of club any where?

Lions 2017 [MOD WARNING IN OP]

Comments