Tim Robbins wrote: » Even in referee'ing when you go up a level you're perception of time and space has to go up. Playing against England at 15, in a VI nations game when you haven't even played a Heineken Cup game there and you are just coming back from fitness is a risk. I thought a few times he did very well as they were targeting him, other times he just got caught out. I think, hindsight being twenty - twenty vision it would have been better to even play Joey, TOH, Conway or dare I say it Zebo there. But I think RH has the attributes to play that position. You could also say given the way England played yesterday, Farrel may have done better than Ringrose and even Ruddock better than O'Mahony but this is all hindsight being 20-20 vision.
Zzippy wrote: » He actually has played Heineken Cup games at fullback. Your other points all stand.
Tim Robbins wrote: » That was for Connacht thought right? His best season there was the centre partnership with Aki.
Former Former wrote: » It was a big risk by Joe and a brave call but ultimately it didn't pay off.
Former Former wrote: » The last of which was January 2014... Henshaw's skillset was never in question, but his reading of the game, positioning and marshalling of the other backs very much was. That's not something you can pick up quickly and it's not something you can learn in training. We've seen pro fullbacks go through their entire careers and not figure it out, it was a huge ask of Henshaw. The fact that he had previously been a fullback was basically meaningless. England played it very cleverly. I don't think they put any high balls down his throat, but there were lots of kicks in behind, putting the ball into space where the fullback should be sweeping up and they profited massively. It was a big risk by Joe and a brave call but ultimately it didn't pay off.
Jewelers wrote: » so you think if Rob was playing we would have won ?
irishbucsfan wrote: » Henshaw absolutely did not do fine. No one in the back 3 did fine. They were all atrocious for the time they were there. A disastrous day. All quality players and all will have huge contributions again in future, but a day to forget from the very first minute.
monkeybutter wrote: » The 3 Tongans just played brilliantly and showed why they were missed so much, so much stenght
Tigerandahalf wrote: » From what I saw on tv I thought he did ok. He did really well at scrambling back, picking up the ball and ensuring a defensive ruck could be formed. He did this on a couple of occasions when we were on the ropes.
Buer wrote: » The point is that a well positioned full back shouldn't be scrambling back just in time to set up a ruck. At test level, you'd be looking for them to be in a position to collect the ball and get some sort of forward momentum whether by returning with the boot or carrying. Henshaw wasn't really in a position to do that. When he did get back to the ball it was last ditch stuff where he was being swallowed up. For the Nowell try, England went for ball off the top in a line out and moved it into midfield. Farrell and Daly line up outside to the left of the ruck that Tuilagi sets up so Henshaw goes into a position to defend that wing. But when Youngs goes to the ruck to start the 3rd phase, they both swap immediately back to the near side leaving only a couple of forwards (and May way out on his own) on that side of the field. Henshaw reacts slowly and never identified that danger. They had Tuilagi, Farrell, Slade, Daly and Nowell all on the opposite side of the pitch to Henshaw who was jogging back over. You can see him circled below as Daly kicks the ball. Again, I don't want this to be a criticism of Henshaw, it's not his fault if he isn't able to read a test level attack from fullback having not played there for 4 years. But he was struggling significantly to be in a position where he could influence some big plays.
stephen_n wrote: » Even after Daly put the kick up he continued to jog. When the ball is touched down he has only covered half the distance from where he is to the try scorer.
vetinari wrote: » What I really don't understand is, what if the Henshaw selection was a success? Would he have played a few more games this six nations there at full back? And then gone back to Leinster and never played there again? And he would then be our top backup to Kearney? It's all so bizarre, how low an opinion must Schimdt have of Larmour, Conway and Addisson.
Wegians89 wrote: » Henshaw should stay at 15 for the next two matches at least. Schmidt is smarter than throwing the idea away after one game. There’s a number of factors that cost Ireland the game and made all the outside backs look terrible, mainly from. 1-10 Ireland didn’t play to their usual incredibly high standards. Also taking into account that henshaw has played flip all rugby this season, playing in a position he had to get back up to speed in, I’m sure joe will give him the opportunity to go again. Playing henshaw at 15 will take time but it will be worth it. Gives Schmidt a person he trusts on similar levels to Kearney to slot back to 15 if needed, gets three world class individuals on the pitch, and lets henshaw play in his favorite position. The English match wasn’t pretty but it’ll only improve. The only way I think henshaw won’t start at 15 next week is if both ringrose and earls are out. In which case henshaw at 13 with Kearney back at 15
Dubinusa wrote: » Watching the match back and I thought Henshaw was way off the pace. Very slow turning and even when running he looked slow. I think Addison would hgv ave done better, Larmour also. I would do it again. He couldn't possibly be any worse!.
