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; } } }

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

Clearlier

thomond2006 wrote: »

Scotland are inept. We should beat them comfortably.

I'm much more concerned about Scotland than Wales. They're on a strong upward curve at the moment. I thought that Jackson had a really bad game and they still would have won comfortably if they had a bit of composure when they got near the try line. They're not far away at all from being a good side. Wales on the other hand whilst offering a big physical challenge will make us answer much fewer questions. They have a particular thing about playing well against us and I think that they will but we'll still beat them. Scotland is a much bigger banana skin.

That's all to get ahead of ourselves though. England is a massive challenge. In Mike Brown (assuming he recovers in time) they have a man who can compete with Ireland under the high ball and there's no better set of forwards in an arm wrestle. We'll need improvements in several positions, Sexton's performance will have to go up another level, we'll also need SOB and POM to significantly improve although I thought POM had a much better second half against France. Payne need to start playing a bit more like a 13 in attack and ask some questions out wide. I see a much greater role for Henderson and Healy. Then there's the scrum where we could get absolutely minced. Ross was struggling against France come the second half and he hasn't exactly enjoyed facing Marler recently.

total former

We are superior to England in the front five and at half-back.

In the absence of Heaslip, they have the edge in the back row and in the three-quarters based on recent performances. Brown would be a big loss, Goode isn't the same league as him or Kearney.

kuang1

I expect to see a lot of Henderson against England. I reckon Joe has a plan for him.
He'll slot into the back row and get MOTM!!!
He should have come on a lot sooner last Saturday imho.

First Up

kuang1 wrote: »

I expect to see a lot of Henderson against England. I reckon Joe has a plan for him.
He'll slot into the back row and get MOTM!!!
He should have come on a lot sooner last Saturday imho.

Henderson would do a good job - excellent player. But if he starts, who covers the bench?

Tefral

First Up wrote: »

Henderson would do a good job - excellent player. But if he starts, who covers the bench?

Stick TOD in the bench. If Henderson comes off put POM back there and put TOD in the back row.

First Up

cronin_j wrote: »

Stick TOD in the bench. If Henderson comes off put POM back there and put TOD in the back row.

Who covers the 2nd row?

Podge_irl

First Up wrote: »

Who covers the 2nd row?

I guess Henderson would cover it from the pitch.

I don't see him starting.

rrpc

wittycynic wrote: »

To be fair though Scotland probably should have beaten Wales, and very well might have had it not been for a fairly moronic decision by the referee not to go to the TMO for the supposed knock on before their disallowed try. It would have put them three points behind with about six minutes to play, at home. I think i would have backed them at that stage.

To be fair to the referee he had already blown for the knock on before the try was scored, so checking it with the TMO would have been meaningless.

[Deleted User]

First Up wrote: »

Who covers the 2nd row?

Mike Mac would come onto the bench, but I still think we will look to have impact subs of Cronin, Healy, Henderson, Moore all come on at between 55 - 65 minutes and I think that would be formidable for any team to deal with.

While Murphy won't give us much go forward, certainly not in the way Henderson would, he is very solid defensively and impactful at the breakdown. I thought some of his tackling against France and Italy was exceptional and very athletic and it seems to be an area of his game that has come on over the last year despite injury.

If SOB has a big performance for us at 7 and we maintain parity with the English with our discipline maybe keeping us a bit ahead on the score board, then I think we have the bench to create one or two scoring opportunities in the last 20.

For what it's worth I think we match or best them in quite a few positions and with the game being played at home I hope we can pull off a win. It would be *massive* if we did win it, even if we slipped up in one of the last two games. This is a must win for England coming into the World Cup and the game they will have been targeting against the other most organised team in the 6N and the top ranked team in the tournament.

Going to be epic provided variables such as injury / refereeing don't spoil the contest.

First Up

Podge_irl wrote: »

I guess Henderson would cover it from the pitch.

I don't see him starting.

I don't either for the same reason. It would limit our cover options more than I would be comfortable with. Henderson can slot into 4,5,6,7 or 8 off the bench without changing anything else, whereas re-shaping the on-field pack would be disruptive.

Shero1985

I think it is fair to say that England would relish wet weather a lot more than Ireland. Would people agree?

Mahatma Geansai

A backrow of Henderson/POM/SOB would be much stronger than POM/Murphy/SOB, but I think that Joe will go with the latter. He doesn't appear to like playing his first choice players out of position, and bringing Murphy straight in for Heaslip would be less disruptive.

Mahatma Geansai

Shero1985 wrote: »

I think it is fair to say that England would relish wet weather a lot more than Ireland. Would people agree?

I'm not so sure. Ireland's gameplan is based around kicking contestables and one-outs in attack. We don't pass or offload the ball, so wet weather wouldn't greatly impact our attack. If anything, the rain will make our kicking game harder to defend against.

While the wet weather might suit England's power up front, it will limit their attack. They have looked to spread the ball and attack at pace thus far, and rain will make that more difficult.

First Up

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

I'm not so sure. Ireland's gameplan is based around kicking contestables and one-outs in attack. We don't pass or offload the ball, so wet weather wouldn't greatly impact our attack. If anything, the rain will make our kicking game harder to defend against.

While the wet weather might suit England's power up front, it will limit their attack. They have looked to spread the ball and attack at pace thus far, and rain will make that more difficult.

I don't expect to see the same tactics against England as against France. Kicking to those English backs would be a lot more risky, whatever the weather. We will see more ball in hand this time and the team will reflect that.

sullivlo

I think in wet weather our scrum would need to perform to a much higher standard. There will be more knock ons from a slippy ball - we can't let the English / Welsh / Scottish scrums bully us like the French did.

.ak

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

A backrow of Henderson/POM/SOB would be much stronger than POM/Murphy/SOB, but I think that Joe will go with the latter. He doesn't appear to like playing his first choice players out of position, and bringing Murphy straight in for Heaslip would be less disruptive.

Depends on the idea of 'stronger'. I think carrying and brute strength the former has advantage, but with the latter I think we'll have a stronger unit on the deck. Murphy's low centre of gravity means he can be an absolute nuisance on the deck and he's very powerful in that area. He was throwing around Frenchies like a mad man on Saturday and seemed very hard to shift off the ball. So we'll have POM, Murphy and SOB - all danger men on the floor. It'll be a frustrating day for the English.

Neil3030

No way Schmidt will keep his team playing such predictable rugby for a whole Championship. The kick-chase was effective against the Italians and French, but I doubt we'll see as much of it against the English back three. We'll still see kicks, but probably more grubbers and kicks for touch. I also suspect one of Healy or Henderson will start to give us more momentum on the first phase, alongside SOB.

This England team were the only team to beat us in the calendar year of 2014. I just can't imagine a universe in which Schmidt didn't learn from same.

Mahatma Geansai

.ak wrote: »

Depends on the idea of 'stronger'. I think carrying and brute strength the former has advantage, but with the latter I think we'll have a stronger unit on the deck. Murphy's low centre of gravity means he can be an absolute nuisance on the deck and he's very powerful in that area. He was throwing around Frenchies like a mad man on Saturday and seemed very hard to shift off the ball. So we'll have POM, Murphy and SOB - all danger men on the floor. It'll be a frustrating day for the English.

Best, POC, POM, and SOB are all already brilliant on the deck. Murphy is good at the breakdown, but he isn't at the level of what we already have in the pack. Henderson brings the powerful carrying and rucking which we currently lack to a certain degree. I'd put more importance on that required power than bringing in a player who is decent at the breakdown.

Also, Henderson is simply a much better player than Murphy. POM has captained Ireland from number 8 in the past, and he has a skill set which (greatly imo) surpasses any of our other forwards. It causes more disruption, but its a stronger unit and more suited to dealing with the English power.

jacothelad

I see Ritchie Gray is out for the rest of the season with an arm injury.

TommyOM

I am of the opinion that both Henderson and Murphy are actually performing to a higher standard at the moment than Peter O'Mahony. Both are definitely better 6s, O'Mahony might get the odd eye catching turn over but his tackling stats for a 6 in particular are worringly low.

But it seems that even a hint of criticism of Peter O'Mahony amounts to nothing short of treason these days. I think hes a good player but very overrated. I don't think hes the irreplaceable stalmart some make him out to be and I don't think he does his primary duties as a 6.

awec

Let me just nip this one in the bud right now. We've had this discussion loads of times. People don't want to read page after page of argument about who is or isn't overrated which will undoubtedly end in provincial bickering and someone getting carded.

[Deleted User]

jacothelad wrote: »

I see Ritchie Gray is out for the rest of the season with an arm injury.

If players on my fantasy six nations rugby team could stop getting injured I would be soo happy.

thomond2006

O'Mahony has developed into an outstanding player. Aside from the usual duties of a flanker he is one of the best lineout forwards in the country. I reckon he will be up there with the likes of David Wallace when he retires. He's still only 25 so there's still time for improvement in his game.

TommyOM

thomond2006 wrote: »

O'Mahony has developed into an outstanding player. Aside from the usual duties of a flanker he is one of the best lineout forwards in the country. I reckon he will be up there with the likes of David Wallace when he retires.

I'd argue that Henderson is a much more able lineout operator and is more effective at his primary duties at 6.

Podge_irl

By all accounts Henderson doesn't appear as impressive in training as in games and rightly or wrongly Schmidt puts an enormous emphasis on performance in training. I think Henderson is ultimately a better player than Murphy but I can understand the logic of benching Henderson from a number of different perspectives.

TommyOM

Podge_irl wrote: »

By all accounts Henderson doesn't appear as impressive in training as in games and rightly or wrongly Schmidt puts an enormous emphasis on performance in training. I think Henderson is ultimately a better player than Murphy but I can understand the logic of benching Henderson from a number of different perspectives.

What accounts are these?

Both Henderson and Murphy have performed better than O'Mahony in their cameos in my opinion. Murphy made more tackles in 20 minutes than O'Mahony did all game.

First Up

TommyOM wrote: »

I'd argue that Henderson is a much more able lineout operator and is more effective at his primary duties at 6.

I don't see Henderson and POM in direct competition. Both have their qualities and both are definitely good enough. Henderson may be a victim of his versatility as his cover for 2nd row makes him very tempting for the bench.

But if Schmidt opted for Henderson over Murphy I would not be upset. I really like watching him. But I would be surprised if POM was left out and I don't see him as bench candidate.

Mahatma Geansai

awec wrote: »

Let me just nip this one in the bud right now. We've had this discussion loads of times. People don't want to read page after page of argument about who is or isn't overrated which will undoubtedly end in provincial bickering and someone getting carded.

Sometimes these warnings require repeating...

TommyOM

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

Sometimes these warnings require repeating...

The warning was asking to refrain from a discussion about what players are or are not overrated. Not to refrain from a discussion about which players should start over others.

shuffol

If we go with a POM/SOB/Murphy backrow I think we'll stick with the kicking game. I can't see having much success getting over the gainline and so will be forced to kick quite a bit. What the 3 above offer is a very mobile unit who are suited to chasing kicks and trying to secure turnovers that way.