Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

sprucemoose wrote: »

yet again, not the point i was making. your original post was 'You just know Conway will start on the right wing...This thread could be ugly this time on Thursday', my question (which ive explained already) was as to why you would bring conway into it rather than just stating you wanted RB to start

Ok that post was a bit tongue in cheek.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think many people here woud see it as a big missed oppurtunity if Conway starts over RB v the States.

Conway is relevant to the discussion because its either him or RB who'll be starting.

I was making a case for RB to start. And in doing so, I pointed out that Conway hasn't been at his best. If that's "dragging Conway down" well...sorry

Former Former Former

TRC10 wrote: »

Ok that post was a bit tongue in cheek.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think many people here woud see it as a big missed oppurtunity if Conway starts over RB v the States.

Conway is relevant to the discussion because its either him or RB who'll be starting.

I was making a case for RB to start. And in doing so, I pointed out that Conway hasn't been at his best. If that's "dragging Conway down" well...sorry

Is it totally out of the question that both would start? Larmour is gone, Stockdale and S Daly both got decent minutes against Japan.

salmocab

TRC10 wrote: »

Ah here, nobody is deciding who should be in the team or claiming they won't watch games, and I can't help but sense an heir of superiority in this post..

I was referring to a poster during the WC which was quite clear in my post and it did indeed happen. Not sure what your sensing but it’s not superiority.

sydthebeat

Former Former Former wrote: »

Is it totally out of the question that both would start? Larmour is gone, Stockdale and S Daly both got decent minutes against Japan.

both could easily start.. especially if farrell takes the view that "everyone deserves a go"

conway could just as easily start at FB, resting Keenan. Daly to the bench as hes got loads of minutes already and didnt look that sharp.

errlloyd wrote: »

I am almost certain I am being baited here.

But Roux has signed for Toulon, so should not be picked.

Well, personally, I think foreign-based players should be considered come World Cup time. Ireland could do with the boost in squad strength. Having players who actually play in the country the RWC is being held in could be especially useful.

I think not considering them for selection outside of World Cups would be enough to incentivise the overwhelming majority to stay at provinces.

salmocab wrote: »

This nonsense keeps happening, people decide who should be in a team, talk it up for weeks to the point where they’ve basically decided it’s a sure thing, then when it doesn’t happen they are going on like shiny new toy has been dropped.

salmocab wrote: »

I was referring to a poster during the WC which was quite clear in my post and it did indeed happen. Not sure what your sensing but it’s not superiority.

"This nonsense keeps happening"

What nonsense exactly? Wanting Ireland to do well at the next world cup and hoping we don't waste opportunities to blood new talented players who could be key players at the world cup when the current 1st choice player in his position who won't be at the world cup.

That nonsense?

salmocab

TRC10 wrote: »

"This nonsense keeps happening"

What nonsense exactly? Wanting Ireland to do well at the next world cup and hoping we don't waste opportunities to blood new talented players who could be key players at the world cup when the current 1st choice player in his position who won't be at the world cup.

That nonsense?

The nonsense in the rest of the sentence after the comma

TRC10 wrote: »

"This nonsense keeps happening"

What nonsense exactly? Wanting Ireland to do well at the next world cup and hoping we don't waste opportunities to blood new talented players who could be key players at the world cup when the current 1st choice player in his position who won't be at the world cup.

That nonsense?

I for one think you have been perfectly reasonable in your argument.

Since he's already been in against stiffer opposition, Conway playing in this game doesn't improve him as an option for the future, whereas if you pick Baloucoune he could get his foot in the door and be a better option than he is now for bigger games in the future.

salmocab wrote: »

The nonsense in the rest of the sentence after the comma

And do you think that it's "nonsense" to think Baloucoune should start v the USA?

sprucemoose

sydthebeat wrote: »

conway could just as easily start at FB, resting Keenan

id like to see that tbh, but hes rarely there for munster now so i doubt it. maybe if addison is injured he could be there but id imagine he'll be primarily a winger going forward now that zebo is coming back to munster

Richie_Rich89 wrote: »

I for one think you have been perfectly reasonable in your argument.
Since he's already been in against stiffer opposition, Conway playing in this game doesn't improve him as an option for the future, whereas if you pick Baloucoune he could get his foot in the door and be a better option than he is now for bigger games in the future.

i know what you mean, but by that logic you could argue it doesnt matter if RB plays against USA since theyre poor

salmocab

TRC10 wrote: »

And do you think that it's "nonsense" to think Baloucoune should start v the USA?

No and I never said it was

[Deleted User]

Not convinced by Shane Daly at all anyway

How many tries in total has Baloucoune scored for Ulster? Just wondering.

salmocab wrote: »

No and I never said it was

Well in that case I apologise.

I thought your "this nonsense keeps happening" post was in response to me.

shootermacg wrote: »

How many tries in total has Baloucoune scored for Ulster? Just wondering.

15 in 29 games

TRC10 wrote: »

15 in 29 games

Pretty good return alright.

For what it's worth I think Baloucoune will start. Conway has nothing to prove in a game vs the US. I'd imagine he's in the squad to touch base and give a few tips to the youngsters.

TRC10 wrote: »

15 in 29 games

Kind of bonkers when you see Gavin Coombes has 15 tries in 22 appearances

shootermacg wrote: »

Kind of bonkers when you see Gavin Coombes has 15 tries in 22 appearances

So what you're saying is...

We should play Coombes on the wing?

sprucemoose wrote: »

i know what you mean, but by that logic you could argue it doesnt matter if RB plays against USA since theyre poor

Not really, because he'd still be playing for Ireland, getting used to the systems and gelling with international regulars.

Yeah_Right

Richie_Rich89 wrote: »

I think I would go with:

1. Peter Dooley
2. Ronan Kelleher
3. Finlay Bealham
4. Quinn Roux/Jean Kleyn
5. James Ryan
6. Fineen Wycherley
7. Josh van der Flier
8. Caelan Doris
9. Jamison Gibson-Park
10. Joey Carbery
11. Jacob Stockdale
12. Stuart McCloskey
13. James Hume
14. Robert Baloucoune
15. Hugo Keenan

16. Rob Herring
17. Edward Byrne
18. Tom O'Toole
19. Ryan Baird
20. Gavin Coombes
21. Craig Casey
22. Harry Byrne
23. Tom Daly

Daly covering the centres. Wing covered by Hume or Gibson-Park switching there. And fullback covered by Carbery.

I think they should switch Ryan to loosehead lock and call in Kleyn or preferably Roux to play tighthead lock.

Holy crap!! Richie names a team with no O'Briens. What is the world coming to?? ðŸ˜œ

molloyjh

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Holy crap!! Richie names a team with no O'Briens. What is the world coming to?? ðŸ˜œ

And in fairness there are only 2 guys (3 if you count Roux and Kleyn separately, but I'm a nice guy so I didn't) there who aren't in the squad too.

molloyjh wrote: »

And in fairness there are only 2 guys (3 if you count Roux and Kleyn separately, but I'm a nice guy so I didn't) there who aren't in the squad too.

Who's the other?

Richie_Rich89 wrote: »

I think I would go with:

1. Peter Dooley
2. Ronan Kelleher
3. Finlay Bealham
4. Quinn Roux/Jean Kleyn
5. James Ryan
6. Fineen Wycherley
7. Josh van der Flier
8. Caelan Doris
9. Jamison Gibson-Park
10. Joey Carbery
11. Jacob Stockdale
12. Stuart McCloskey
13. James Hume
14. Robert Baloucoune
15. Hugo Keenan

16. Rob Herring
17. Edward Byrne
18. Tom O'Toole
19. Ryan Baird
20. Gavin Coombes
21. Craig Casey
22. Harry Byrne
23. Tom Daly

Daly covering the centres. Wing covered by Hume or Gibson-Park switching there. And fullback covered by Carbery.

I think they should switch Ryan to loosehead lock and call in Kleyn or preferably Roux to play tighthead lock.

Ireland pick 4 as looseside lock and 5 as tightside lock.

So Ryan 4, Kleyn 5.

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Ireland pick 4 as looseside lock and 5 as tightside lock.

So Ryan 4, Kleyn 5.

I prefer 4 as tighthead lock. Thorn and Bakkies Botha wore 4 for the All Blacks and Springboks, respectively.

Richie_Rich89 wrote: »

I prefer 4 as tighthead lock. Thorn and Bakkies Botha wore 4 for the All Blacks and Springboks, respectively.

Yeah, South Africa also reverse the numbers of their flankers.
I wonder what the background is to that, maybe rebelling against the anglophone teams?

Richie_Rich89 wrote: »

I prefer 4 as tighthead lock. Thorn and Bakkies Botha wore 4 for the All Blacks and Springboks, respectively.

And they were both LH locks no?

Were Ali Williams and Matfield not the TH locks for their respective teams?

I'm not an expert on forwards so I could be talking ****e.

Brad Thorn played tighthead lock for Leinster when they won the Heineken Cup in 2012, but he wore number 5 that day.

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Yeah, South Africa also reverse the numbers of their flankers.
I wonder what the background is to that, maybe rebelling against the anglophone teams?

The lock numbering isn't the same deal as with their flankers, I don't think. 4 is usually the th lock around the world, I think? That was always my perception anyway, until Schmidt introduced the th lock at 5 thing. Certainly, I was used to the primary lineout jumper (who is more often the loosehead lock) wearing 5.

I don't really know about the origins of the blindside wearing 7 in South Africa.