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 IV

RoundBox11

Pairing Luke Marshall with Cave in the centre and Payne at fullback could be really good for the wolfhounds backline. They should know each other inside out. Then Gilroy could be on one wing.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

vienne86

I wonder how Mike McCarthy is. I think he was staying in camp even with his concussion. We're a bit short on locks.

Quint2010

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Its a possibility but I have my doubts due to the injuries at lock (foley, mccarthy, tuohy, ryan) we don't want to see our three best locks on the field at the same time.

More likely to see Ruddock or SOB risked or Murphy or TOD retained at 7

Just think we need Hendersons physicality. He is such an abrasive player. Hear what you are saying about the second rows though. SOB won't be fit so maybe Ruddock will start in place of TOD and go with the back row that started against Aus/SA.

aimee1

Quint2010 wrote: »

Anyone think we could see a backrow of Henderson, POM and Heaslip next weekend?

i dont see too many changes

McGrath, Best, Ross
Toner, POC
POM, Jordi, Heaslip
Murray, Sexton
Zebo, Henshaw, Payne, Bowe, Kearney

We are missing 4 locks, so Henderson will cover there. I think Jordi brings a bit more physically then TOD so Jordi to start with TOD on bench.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Quint2010 wrote: »

Anyone think we could see a backrow of Henderson, POM and Heaslip next weekend?

Its a possibility but I have my doubts due to the injuries at lock (foley, mccarthy, tuohy, ryan) we don't want to see our three best locks on the field at the same time.

More likely to see Ruddock or SOB risked or Murphy or TOD retained at 7

Quint2010

Anyone think we could see a backrow of Henderson, POM and Heaslip next weekend?

bilston

thomond2006 wrote: »

I think Payne is still first choice 13 at Ulster, he has just been injured since November?

He played FB against Toulon but then we rested Bowe and Gilroy for that match so Ludik had to play on the wing. Then Ludik got injured so Payne really had to play 15 against Leicester, as it turned out both he and Cave were excellent in that particular match! It would have been interesting if Ludik had been available for Leicester.

We won't really know who is first choice now until the end of March!

UnitedWeStand

Do You Even Squat wrote: »

Did anyone get a shiver down their spine when George Hook mentioned "loyalty" today with regards to Schmidt's selection of the centres? It just echoed the Kidney era. God knows we dont want to go down that road again. Payne gets little game time in the 13 jersey after the AIs and looked pretty average in the games he has played at 13 but somehow gets back in the starting lineup. Fitzgerald rips teams apart in a poorly coached team with disillusioned players inside and outside of him and doesn't even get a look in for the 13 shirt, let alone the match day 23. I know this has been debated to death but what use is Jones in the 23 jersey? He's an average Champions Cup player and is a specialist full back. It's pretty obvious Joe likes him, for whatever bizarre reason which frightens me. Now it's pretty obvious Payne is a top class 15, no point in arguing about it, but he hasnt set the world alight at 13. The sensible thing is to have him, Earls or Zeebs at 23 (with either of Earls or Zeebs starting, until Trimble returns). Payne>Earls>Zeebs in terms of quality imo. If the centre combo still stands by the Wales game, I wouldnt be too optimistic about our chances at the RWC and beyond.

If JS was about loyalty D'Arcy would be there. Payne ' s had only two games at 13 for Ireland. How that can be seen as loyalty is beyond me

rrpc

phog wrote: »

I've no issue with Joe having faith in Payne but what he doesn't have is time, if Payne isn't getting enough gametime at centre for Ulster can Joe continue to select him there. He dropped Madigan for the same reason, just wasn't getting enough gametime at outhalf.

To be fair, he gave Madigan a chance to prove himself in the Wolfhounds game, a chance that Madigan didn't really grasp. Nobody was terribly surprised when Keatley got the spot.

George Hook

He has no loyalty to D'arcy.

I am pleased with yesterdays performance, though conservative it all seemed to be part of the plan and I don't think we showed the other teams any of our plays.

CIARAN_BOYLE

thomond2006 wrote: »

I think Payne is still first choice 13 at Ulster, he has just been injured since November?

He has played fifteen since he came back from injury (mainly due to other injuries mind you)

thomond2006

Hard for me to have a balanced view on Jared Payne since I can't stand the idea of project players. He probably needs more time and space on the ball to work his magic which is why fullback is more suitable for him. I expect him to still be there for the French match at least, when Earls and Fitzgerald play in the Pro12 on the break weekend then there might be a change.

I think Payne is still first choice 13 at Ulster, he has just been injured since November?

phog

errlloyd wrote: »

I think a year ago Jared Payne was one of the most naturally creative footballers on this island. What he offered ulster was the option of an attacking fullback who could move the ball. He has the skills for centre, he's just a little undercooked, Joe having some faith isn't all bad.

I've no issue with Joe having faith in Payne but what he doesn't have is time, if Payne isn't getting enough gametime at centre for Ulster can Joe continue to select him there. He dropped Madigan for the same reason, just wasn't getting enough gametime at outhalf.

errlloyd

I think a year ago Jared Payne was one of the most naturally creative footballers on this island. What he offered ulster was the option of an attacking fullback who could move the ball. He has the skills for centre, he's just a little undercooked, Joe having some faith isn't all bad.

OldRio

Hook? The spouting's of the ill informed?
I find the use of the mute button a great companion when George is in the pulpit.

sydthebeat

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Hook did say it. And I think its true there is an element of loyalty with Schmidt within a campaign. Sure, the like of O'Brien or Sexton coming back from injury will see players dropped without doubt. But for closer calls, I think he does have a tendency to leave a man in place unless he is making mistakes, and reward execution of Plan Joe. Someone playing out of their skin probably has to wait for an injury or the next campaign to get a chance.

Coaching selection shocker, picks player who doesn't make mistakes and implements his game plan as he would like it, culminating in a 92% win rate. ....

Oh the travesty !!!

rrpc

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Hook did say it. And I think its true there is an element of loyalty with Schmidt within a campaign. Sure, the like of O'Brien or Sexton coming back from injury will see players dropped without doubt. But for closer calls, I think he does have a tendency to leave a man in place unless he is making mistakes, and reward execution of Plan Joe. Someone playing out of their skin probably has to wait for an injury or the next campaign to get a chance.

That's not loyalty though, that's pragmatism. Loyalty would be sticking with a player even though he's not playing well. Changing out players because there's a possibly better player waiting in the wings is a gamble. You'd need to be very sure that the replacement would provide an improvement (such as with SOB and Sexton).

SaveOurLyric

vienne86 wrote: »

I missed that 'loyalty' quote from Hook and I'm glad I did. That drove me round the twist with Kidney.....e.g. picking DOC (of whom I am a fan and admirer BTW)

Hook did say it. And I think its true there is an element of loyalty with Schmidt within a campaign. Sure, the like of O'Brien or Sexton coming back from injury will see players dropped without doubt. But for closer calls, I think he does have a tendency to leave a man in place unless he is making mistakes, and reward execution of Plan Joe. Someone playing out of their skin probably has to wait for an injury or the next campaign to get a chance.

vienne86

Do You Even Squat wrote: »

Did anyone get a shiver down their spine when George Hook mentioned "loyalty" today with regards to Schmidt's selection of the centres? It just echoed the Kidney era. God knows we dont want to go down that road again. Payne gets little game time in the 13 jersey after the AIs and looked pretty average in the games he has played at 13 but somehow gets back in the starting lineup. Fitzgerald rips teams apart in a poorly coached team with disillusioned players inside and outside of him and doesn't even get a look in for the 13 shirt, let alone the match day 23. I know this has been debated to death but what use is Jones in the 23 jersey? He's an average Champions Cup player and is a specialist full back. It's pretty obvious Joe likes him, for whatever bizarre reason which frightens me. Now it's pretty obvious Payne is a top class 15, no point in arguing about it, but he hasnt set the world alight at 13. The sensible thing is to have him, Earls or Zeebs at 23 (with either of Earls or Zeebs starting, until Trimble returns). Payne>Earls>Zeebs in terms of quality imo. If the centre combo still stands by the Wales game, I wouldnt be too optimistic about our chances at the RWC and beyond.

I missed that 'loyalty' quote from Hook and I'm glad I did. That drove me round the twist with Kidney.....e.g. picking DOC (of whom I am a fan and admirer BTW) when he was well beyond is best before date. I just don't think Schmidt operates like that at all. Whenever I hear him interviewed, particularly about his selections, I get this strong sense of egality and fairness.

We have played one match in a tough series of five. We are going to need a lot more that 15 good players, and there will inevitably be some chopping and changing is some positions. While I would love to see Fitz (and others) get a run, I am sure that it will happen if it is supposed to happen.

Clegg

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Minimum of fuss ? Zero cut in attack against the weakest team in the championship. Based on todays performance, compare to Scotland - the second weakest team in the championship : is it a stretch to say that all 7 backs were more threatening and superior to their Irish counterparts ? Thinking not.

Minimum of fuss as in the team bossed the Italian's from start to finish. Obviously the execution was poor as evidenced by a very slow first half, but we were playing to a game plan which worked quite well I thought.

Ireland improved in the second half and would've racked up a few more scores if not for some poor handling errors. We lacked two brilliant players in Heaslip and Sexton who are fundamental to the way we attack and Murray was quite rusty at times too. With a game under his belt and the other two to return I think we'll imprive by quite a bit. I can understand being frustrated by the game but we really weren't at 100% by any means.

SaveOurLyric

Interested Observer wrote: »

Wasn't especially happy watching the game but it's a decent win, they rarely threatened, we were miles off our best XV, so you'd have to take it and move on. Need a big improvement for next weekend though.

A crucial one, but many probably only one back missing from a perfectly healthy squad (yes he might prefer Trimbers to the Zeebster, but many would say X-Factor is a better option anyway).
So we looked all over the shop due to our pack ?

SaveOurLyric

Clegg wrote: »

The more I think about it, the more content I am with todays performance. We weren't at 100% but we beat Italy with minimum fuss and will welcome back two of our best players for the French game. I'm also assuming we were holding back some of our set plays with France in mind so we didn't show our hand.

Minimum of fuss ? Zero cut in attack against the weakest team in the championship. Based on todays performance, compare to Scotland - the second weakest team in the championship : is it a stretch to say that all 7 backs were more threatening and superior to their Irish counterparts ? Thinking not.

[Deleted User]

Wasn't especially happy watching the game but it's a decent win, they rarely threatened, we were miles off our best XV, so you'd have to take it and move on. Need a big improvement for next weekend though.

Clegg

The more I think about it, the more content I am with todays performance. We weren't at 100% but we beat Italy with minimum fuss and will welcome back two of our best players for the French game. I'm also assuming we were holding back some of our set plays with France in mind so we didn't show our hand.

Do You Even Squat

Did anyone get a shiver down their spine when George Hook mentioned "loyalty" today with regards to Schmidt's selection of the centres? It just echoed the Kidney era. God knows we dont want to go down that road again. Payne gets little game time in the 13 jersey after the AIs and looked pretty average in the games he has played at 13 but somehow gets back in the starting lineup. Fitzgerald rips teams apart in a poorly coached team with disillusioned players inside and outside of him and doesn't even get a look in for the 13 shirt, let alone the match day 23. I know this has been debated to death but what use is Jones in the 23 jersey? He's an average Champions Cup player and is a specialist full back. It's pretty obvious Joe likes him, for whatever bizarre reason which frightens me. Now it's pretty obvious Payne is a top class 15, no point in arguing about it, but he hasnt set the world alight at 13. The sensible thing is to have him, Earls or Zeebs at 23 (with either of Earls or Zeebs starting, until Trimble returns). Payne>Earls>Zeebs in terms of quality imo. If the centre combo still stands by the Wales game, I wouldnt be too optimistic about our chances at the RWC and beyond.

sydthebeat

I really think fitz would tear bastareaud a new one if he faced off against him. There were holes all over that French back line today.

Quint2010

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

But nursed back is what, not playing games ? How do you know it was rushed ?

No...nursed back is 20 mins here, 30 mins there. Even for Leinster A and Clontarf if that's who he is affiliated to. Build up his match fitness and not just his fitness. Ease him back in.

phog

Tox56 wrote: »

? If anything they'd be more likely to play him against France if they had the chance than in a game against Italy that they know they should win regardless. They wouldn't have named him to start if he wasn't ready, I think he was perfectly capable of playing just unlucky

He was named to start so that he could get a run out and be subbed when he had no more to offer. Joe said as much after the team was announced. I think his game time today was all about getting him ready for France and that is why I think he'd have been rested today if we had France today and Italy next week. Anyway, the important thing is that he's not out injured again

SaveOurLyric

Quint2010 wrote: »

Point is he has been out for so long he should have been given game time with Leinster. Build up his match fitness. He played for 50 minutes last weekend and in the warm up today he had a reaction. Is it purely a coincidence that he barely plays for a year has 50 minutes game time and then suffers another injury? He should have been nursed back.

But nursed back is what, not playing games ? How do you know it was rushed ?

Quint2010

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

He has been rushed back ? He hasnt played in a year.
Is he more likely to tweak a hamstring warming up for Ireland than if he were turning out for 50 minutes for Leinster or a game for Carlow even ?
Or has an 'rush' to get him back mean he has put pressure on the rest of his body now that the shoulder is OK ?

Point is he has been out for so long he should have been given game time with Leinster. Build up his match fitness. He played for 50 minutes last weekend and in the warm up today he had a reaction. Is it purely a coincidence that he barely plays for a year has 50 minutes game time and then suffers another injury? He should have been nursed back.

.ak

Regarding sob I wouldn't think anyone is rushing him back. The shoulder is 100% I'd say. The thing is when you get a long lay off like that the hardest thing to get right is the legs. The running, stepping, falling, sprinting etc is very hard on the legs, and you often see it with players after a long lay off. It could feel worse than it was. We might well see him in the 23 for France... Although I doubt it, and Schmidt would've wanted to see him play this game first.