nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Steve

Continuing on from the previous thread....

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

salmocab

RichieRich89 wrote: »

I think the backrowers in the squad should be:

6s: Ruddock, McKeon
7s: Reidy, van der Flier
8s: Conan, Murphy

just to be crystal clear Mc Keon ahead of POM and Reidy ahead of SOB?

[Deleted User]

RichieRich89 wrote: »

I think the backrowers...

That's a very interesting selection that we should definitely quote a number of times and discuss / disagree with for a few pages.

b.gud

RichieRich89 wrote: »

I think the backrowers in the squad should be:

6s: Ruddock, McKeon
7s: Reidy, van der Flier
8s: Conan, Murphy

Glad someone finally had the balls to say what we've all been thinking. Those 3 Lions back rows are way overrated and should be nowhere near the Irish squad :rolleyes:

RichieRich89

I think the backrowers in the squad should be:

6s: Ruddock, McKeon
7s: Reidy, van der Flier
8s: Conan, Murphy

[Deleted User]

Carbery, Conway, Aki, Henshaw, Stockdale, Sexton, Murray, Stander, VdF, SOB, Toner, Henderson, Furlong, Best, McGrath

Something like that. If Best isn't fit replace as needed. I think Ringrose is out so not sure who to go with at 13, guess it'll be Aki. I don't think he's hit the heights of Connacht's league winning season ever since.

[Deleted User]

turnikett1 wrote: »

Well obviously we haven't had a chance to see Ringrose that was bad writing on my part. POM hasn't been great tbf, but the rest haven't been bad (or particularly special) or what do you think? Bare in mind I've only had to chance to see 2 games of Munster and Leinster each this season so perhaps my judgement is a bit skewed.

Still from what I've seen this looks like the squad that would be picked. Intensity levels will be ramped up under Ireland/Schmidt, they always are. I'd say it's one of the better looking squads we've had in a few years.

Id say you are certainly close to the mark even with limited view time so fair play on that.

The one thing that might throw us all for a bit of surprise is that there are no seeding issues at play between now and the World Cup so Joe might look to bed in some new formations.

I'd say the build up to 2019 begins now effectively so there might be further changes.

I could well see Porter on the bench by way of example.

turnikett1

errlloyd wrote: »

I don't really think any of those players are even close to being in form. It's not that I disagree with your selection, but definitely disagree with your assessment.

Well obviously we haven't had a chance to see Ringrose that was bad writing on my part. POM hasn't been great tbf, but the rest haven't been bad (or particularly special) or what do you think? Bare in mind I've only had to chance to see 2 games of Munster and Leinster each this season so perhaps my judgement is a bit skewed.

Still from what I've seen this looks like the squad that would be picked. Intensity levels will be ramped up under Ireland/Schmidt, they always are. I'd say it's one of the better looking squads we've had in a few years.

[Deleted User]

turnikett1 wrote: »

Possible South Africa selection.....

Very few games this season allow for a true assessment of form. Running in tries against the Kings tells you very little. The interpro games, the Ulster v Scarletts games are all reasonable indicators and this weekend will be the best indicator.

As for your selection, it's hard to know with some of the players. Zebo if fit I'd have ahead of Carbery at full back. Stockdale v Conway is an interesting one too.

I'd also be putting VDF as first choice back row currently, with SOB moving to 6 if fit and Stander at 8.

Don't think Scannell is quite as bolted on at Hooker as people think. He was poor at the weekend, Munster's line out is a shambles.

Might also be a bit early for Ringrose. I don't see him dropping in for his first game back in a full test against the South African's.

Think the second test was a blip personally, All Blacks well below par and gave a sucker a fair chance. I think we'll win with a bit of room to spare.

Former Former

Zebo will be there if fit. Luke Marshall won't be within 100 miles of the 23. I don't think Ringrose will be back, expect Aki at 13.

errlloyd

turnikett1 wrote: »

Possible South Africa selection?

Ringrose
Henshaw
Murray
Stander
SOB
POM

IMO that looks like a fine team full of in-form players. .

I don't really think any of those players are even close to being in form. It's not that I disagree with your selection, but definitely disagree with your assessment.

turnikett1

Possible South Africa selection?

Carbery
Conway
Ringrose
Henshaw
Earls
Sexton
Murray
Stander
SOB
POM
Toner
Henderson
Furlong
Scannell
McGrath

Cronin, Healy, Ryan, Treadwell, VDF, Marmion, Marshall, Stockdale

IMO that looks like a fine team full of in-form players. Some more so than others. Some playing very well this season, no one playing awfully. If we can outmuscle their pack (it'll be tough) then I have faith in that back 3 to do some magic. I reckon this will be a high scoring game for both sides. Within reason anyways.

RichieRich89

Zzippy wrote: »

Take the forward pass talk to the relevant match thread lads. Off topic here.

Don't think it was forward

Bridge93

RichieRich89 wrote: »

Y'all pay lip service to the momentum rule, without actually having a full appreciation for it. None of you probably even did Physics and Applied Maths in school

I actually did do both. Not that it's relevant. All you needs is eyes to see it was forward.

Edit Zzippy just posted apologies

Zzippy

Take the forward pass talk to the relevant match thread lads. Off topic here.

RichieRich89

Y'all pay lip service to the momentum rule, without actually having a full appreciation for it. None of you probably even did Physics and Applied Maths in school

RichieRich89

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Lol. The ball travelled forward straight from Farrells hand. Your deluded with the rest of your post.

You havent bothered to mention the length of the pass. The ball travelled 25m before Earls caught it. So of course Farrell was able to travel 5m forward.

Of course the time the ball is in the air, i.e. the length of the pass, is extremely important. I referenced that in a post above. But the only thing that ultimately matters is that Farrell travelled 5m forward in the same time the ball travelled 3.5m forward. I don't see why you'd make the excuse that Farrell was only able to travel forward substantially because the pass was in the air for a long time. You have look at the time Farrell is running for while the ball is in the air. It wouldn't make sense to compare any other time period

Erik Shin

Bridge93 wrote: »

I literally haven't seen anyone, anywhere else even discuss the pass as anything other than clearly forward. There's been zero debate on it.

Well d'uh! It was clearly perfect and there was absolutely no need to debate it obviously!

Bridge93

I literally haven't seen anyone, anywhere else even discuss the pass as anything other than clearly forward. There's been zero debate on it.

RichieRich89

Burkie1203 wrote: »

All the science and other stuff is just waffle. At no point was the pass even remotely flat. The ball went forward straight from Farrells hands.

He swung his hands further back (as you do in passing) after releasing the ball, which, a fraction of a second after release, makes it look as though the ball's ahead of the hands, which it is, but I don't think he actually propelled it towards the opposition try-line

Burkie1203

RichieRich89 wrote: »

Just watched it at 0.25 speed on youtube there. Ball ends up about three to three and a half metres ahead of where it was thrown. Farrell himself, without changing speed, ends up at least five metres ahead of where he threw it. Means he's moving forward faster than the ball, which implies it wasn't propelled forward.

Lol. The ball travelled forward straight from Farrells hand. Your deluded with the rest of your post.

You havent bothered to mention the length of the pass. The ball travelled 25m before Earls caught it. So of course Farrell was able to travel 5m forward.

Former Former

Farrell is a nice example of why the early Pro14 rounds count for nothing in Ireland selection. He looked sh*t hot against the rubbish teams while everyone is still getting warmed up, and then against Glasgow and Leinster, not so much.

So he still has a way to go to convince anyone that he's national team material. He has the raw materials, definitely, but when you look at the quality at 13 in Ringrose, Aki and Payne, you'd wonder where his chances will come.

MJohnston

Isn't there a Munster thread?

RichieRich89

Just watched it at 0.25 speed on youtube there. Ball ends up about three to three and a half metres ahead of where it was thrown. Farrell himself, without changing speed, ends up at least five metres ahead of where he threw it. Means he's moving forward faster than the ball, which implies it wasn't propelled forward.

Burkie1203

RichieRich89 wrote: »

It's impossible to make an absolute judgement obviously, but a long pass like that that's in the air for a long time can end up quite a long way in front of where it was thrown. If it was in the air for about one second, Farrell would only have had to be running at a speed of just over 5m/s for it to end up 5m in front. I don't think it was clearly forward.

All the science and other stuff is just waffle. At no point was the pass even remotely flat. The ball went forward straight from Farrells hands.

Bridge93

Two Munster fans behind me started laughing when they played the replay it was that far forward.

molloyjh

It was as forward as they come. Can't possibly see how anyone could argue the point.

No wait, this is the Internet. I take that back.

The Rape of Lucretia

Clear to some I guess then. Not clear to others.

RichieRich89

CatFromHue wrote: »

for it to travel forward 5m and not be a forward pass the player passing the ball has to be moving at high speed

Farrell wasn't moving that fast at all at all.

It's impossible to make an absolute judgement obviously, but a long pass like that that's in the air for a long time can end up quite a long way in front of where it was thrown. If it was in the air for about one second, Farrell would only have had to be running at a speed of just over 5m/s for it to end up 5m in front. I don't think it was clearly forward.

Burkie1203

RichieRich89 wrote: »

The ball can travel 5m forward without it being a forward pass. You do understand the momentum rule, don't you? It's simple physics

Yes. But Farrells hands were always passing the ball forward. It was 100% forward. It had nothing to do with Momentum or the ball drifting.

CatFromHue

for it to travel forward 5m and not be a forward pass the player passing the ball has to be moving at high speed

Farrell wasn't moving that fast at all at all.