awec wrote: » 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.
Paul Smeenus wrote: » Are we sure it wasn't just different people with different opinions?
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
shootermacg wrote: » Does Andy have any other thoughts on players, that you might relate to us?
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.
Faugheen wrote: » Would be tough for Farrell really since he’s probably third choice 13.
Paul Smeenus wrote: » I know he's not one of the cool kids, but Hume has looked very good.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
JJJackal wrote: » Thats true - never sure about him though. He is a massive man
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.
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.
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
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)
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.
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.
Utah_Saint wrote: » Same thing happened to Marshall at Ulster....
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.
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?
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?
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/ad289898c0c6dda7e667bf900ae26d0c.svg)
