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

jm08

clsmooth wrote: »

Much different in my opinion. The main thing is players who are on the bench will get decent game time off the bench, not just 5-10 minutes at the end of a game which has already been won. Squad players will start against Romania and Canada and have a chance to push for the bench. Every team should know the majority of their first team by now. The alternative is to be like England, where not even Lancaster seems to know his best 15.

Felix Jones would not agree with you - 23 minutes of playing time in the 6Ns, the only unused sub v. Scotland (Eoin Reddan got 1minute) and even less time than Felix Jones overall (19 mins). Iain Henderson usually got about 10-15 minutes when Toner was completely wrecked.

stephen_n

I think we all know what the best 15 is, but we haven't seen any player under perform yet and hold their place. I don't think Joe would pick on sentiment, if a player wasn't performing in training, they'd do well to hold their place, regardless of hierarchy. We have seen the bench options rotate to suit games in the 6N, the likes of TOD and Murphy swapping in and out, I
Think it's considerably different than the Eddie scenario, which is probably what's driving the consistent level of performance, there are no free rides.

total former

clsmooth wrote: »

Much different in my opinion. The main thing is players who are on the bench will get decent game time off the bench, not just 5-10 minutes at the end of a game which has already been won. Squad players will start against Romania and Canada and have a chance to push for the bench. Every team should know the majority of their first team by now. The alternative is to be like England, where not even Lancaster seems to know his best 15.

Perhaps, although I'd expect the first XV to start as a unit in either the Romania or Canada game, and bench players got very little game time in the 6N apart from the front row.

I suppose it will all depend on how the results go.

bilston

total former wrote: »

So, one of the main criticisms of the 2007 world cup preparation was that the starting XV was cast in stone and that the remaining players were disillusioned and unhappy.

Is it any different this time? With the exception of left wing (maybe), no one has any realistic prospect of breaking into the first team.

I know Eddie took it too far with separate training schedules etc, but it would be interesting to know how guys feel knowing they're traveling purely to make up the numbers.

Bench players probably feel they have more chance of impacting the game under Joe. There seems to be complete trust in the wider squad now than there was eight (8!!!) years ago. It does help that Joe has a lot more depth to work with but it has to be said he has has nurtured a lot of that depth over the last two years.

One other point in terms of the inclusivity of the squad, in 2007 Eddie literally kept the 1st XV and the rest of the squad half a world apart! I couldn't see Schmidt doing that.

clsmooth

total former wrote: »

So, one of the main criticisms of the 2007 world cup preparation was that the starting XV was cast in stone and that the remaining players were disillusioned and unhappy.

Is it any different this time? With the exception of left wing (maybe), no one has any realistic prospect of breaking into the first team.

I know Eddie took it too far with separate training schedules etc, but it would be interesting to know how guys feel knowing they're traveling purely to make up the numbers.

Much different in my opinion. The main thing is players who are on the bench will get decent game time off the bench, not just 5-10 minutes at the end of a game which has already been won. Squad players will start against Romania and Canada and have a chance to push for the bench. Every team should know the majority of their first team by now. The alternative is to be like England, where not even Lancaster seems to know his best 15.

total former

So, one of the main criticisms of the 2007 world cup preparation was that the starting XV was cast in stone and that the remaining players were disillusioned and unhappy.

Is it any different this time? With the exception of left wing (maybe), no one has any realistic prospect of breaking into the first team.

I know Eddie took it too far with separate training schedules etc, but it would be interesting to know how guys feel knowing they're traveling purely to make up the numbers.

stephen_n

total former wrote: »

If we're still top 4 when the next RWC seedings are decided, then we'll all be paying very close attention.

Well yes there is that alright! Mind you it's rare that the top 8 seeds change, so we aren't likely to get that much of an easier group one way or the other. Though avoiding SH opposition would improve our chances of topping the group.

total former

stephen_n wrote: »

Jesus rankings are such a non event, I suppose there will always be some but most wouldn't really pay that much attention? Surely!

If we're still top 4 when the next RWC seedings are decided, then we'll all be paying very close attention.

aimee1

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/six-nations/clubs-and-provinces-to-receive-4m-from-irelands-six-nations-success-31452140.html

stephen_n

Jesus

rankings are such a non event, I suppose there will always be some but most wouldn't really pay that much attention? Surely!

bilston

stephen_n wrote: »

Nobody is going to remember in ten years time, we were 2nd in the world but they'd sure as hell remember if we won the RWC!

I think you'd be surprised!

.ak

stephen_n wrote: »

Nobody is going to remember in ten years time, we were 2nd in the world but they'd sure as hell remember if we won the RWC!

Really? Check out the first thread on the forum.

stephen_n

Nobody is going to remember in ten years time, we were 2nd in the world but they'd sure as hell remember if we won the RWC!

molloyjh

Awesomeness wrote: »

Im sure there will be a few.

So what if we won the world cup, so what if we beat New zealand by 25 points in the final. We are still not number 1 and if earls hadn't knocked that ball on it could have 32

Fixed that for you. Because let's face it even that is true.

Awesomeness

padser wrote: »

To be fair, if we win the RWC, I doubt we will give a toss what our ranking is.....

Im sure there will be a few.

So what if we won the world cup, so what if we beat New zealand by 5 points in the final. We are still not number 1 and if earls hadn't knocked that ball on it could have 12

padser

andymx11 wrote: »

Not that it matters in the slightest but I was just looking at the points difference between 1st and 2nd in the world rankings- serious difference there. Not entirely sure how exactly they calculate it but is there a chance that even if we won the World Cup we could still sit in second (even taking account of the double points awarding for WC games)?

To be fair, if we win the RWC, I doubt we will give a toss what our ranking is.....

Noopti

errlloyd wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/michael-bent-bounces-back-after-overcoming-early-struggles-1.2315199

Nice little article about Michael Bent there. Leinster fans on here have really come to appreciate Bent. In reality he's Leinster's fourth choice tighthead and third choice loosehead, but there have been a lot of crap signings since that have not worked out. Here is a guy who came over, got nothing but ****, ultimately got dropped to the As and had every reason to "get home-sick" or just finish out his contract and leave, but he's still here. If he gets picked as the 5th man, it'll be only as a 5th man, a man there for a crisis. But he's doing a job no one else in this country can do, so I wouldn't spite him a plane ticket for being a kiwi.

100% THIS

molloyjh

errlloyd wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/michael-bent-bounces-back-after-overcoming-early-struggles-1.2315199

Nice little article about Michael Bent there. Leinster fans on here have really come to appreciate Bent. In reality he's Leinster's fourth choice tighthead and third choice loosehead, but there have been a lot of crap signings since that have not worked out. Here is a guy who came over, got nothing but ****, ultimately got dropped to the As and had every reason to "get home-sick" or just finish out his contract and leave, but he's still here. If he gets picked as the 5th man, it'll be only as a 5th man, a man there for a crisis. But he's doing a job no one else in this country can do, so I wouldn't spite him a plane ticket for being a kiwi.

The guy was an unsung hero for Leinster last season. Filled in on both sides and did well when we had some serious injury issues. I never liked how he got treated when he arrived so I was absolutely delighted for the guy last season when he basically gave his detractors the two fingers in the best way possible. Would love to see him make the plane because this time it would be on merit and people would need to start acknowledging that.

errlloyd

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/michael-bent-bounces-back-after-overcoming-early-struggles-1.2315199

Nice little article about Michael Bent there. Leinster fans on here have really come to appreciate Bent. In reality he's Leinster's fourth choice tighthead and third choice loosehead, but there have been a lot of crap signings since that have not worked out. Here is a guy who came over, got nothing but ****, ultimately got dropped to the As and had every reason to "get home-sick" or just finish out his contract and leave, but he's still here. If he gets picked as the 5th man, it'll be only as a 5th man, a man there for a crisis. But he's doing a job no one else in this country can do, so I wouldn't spite him a plane ticket for being a kiwi.

The Rape of Lucretia

connachta wrote: »

Are you seriously thinking about winning it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs91vdyu_dw

connachta

bilston wrote: »

Why shouldn't we be thinking about winning it? You can bet your bottom dollar that England, Australia and South Africa all think they can win and we have beaten all those sides in the last 10 months so of course we can win.

Everybody knows the main issue isn't those countries you quoted, but another we haven't beaten yet in our entire rugby history:rolleyes:
But yes some slim doubts instilled even if that little proud island
http://www.balls.ie/rugby/new-zealand-respect/302484

bilston

connachta wrote: »

Are you seriously thinking about winning it... a first semifinal would be great..

Why shouldn't we be thinking about winning it? You can bet your bottom dollar that England, Australia and South Africa all think they can win and we have beaten all those sides in the last 10 months so of course we can win.

andymx11

connachta wrote: »

Are you seriously thinking about winning it... a first semifinal would be great..

Yea I think it's possible but that's not why I asked the question.

andymx11

errlloyd wrote: »

It would depend on New Zealand results. If they lose to a bunch of second tier nations and go out in the pools, while we win every game by 15 points, we'd surely overtake them.

I wonder which of those scenarios is more likely to happen!!

connachta

andymx11 wrote: »

Not that it matters in the slightest but I was just looking at the points difference between 1st and 2nd in the world rankings- serious difference there. Not entirely sure how exactly they calculate it but is there a chance that even if we won the World Cup we could still sit in second (even taking account of the double points awarding for WC games)?

Are you seriously thinking about winning it... a first semifinal would be great..

errlloyd

andymx11 wrote: »

Not that it matters in the slightest but I was just looking at the points difference between 1st and 2nd in the world rankings- serious difference there. Not entirely sure how exactly they calculate it but is there a chance that even if we won the World Cup we could still sit in second (even taking account of the double points awarding for WC games)?

It would depend on New Zealand results. If they lose to a bunch of second tier nations and go out in the pools, while we win every game by 15 points, we'd surely overtake them.

andymx11

Not that it matters in the slightest but I was just looking at the points difference between 1st and 2nd in the world rankings- serious difference there. Not entirely sure how exactly they calculate it but is there a chance that even if we won the World Cup we could still sit in second (even taking account of the double points awarding for WC games)?

baaba maal

I read somewhere that the Welsh scheduled four warm up games instead of three to compensate for the loss of the November Internationals - but I think they said on the BBC that the stadium was full on Saturday partly because they sold a geansai load of cheap tickets for it.

connachta

thomond2006 wrote: »

Rogby eh?

3 seconds to edit, and you're already on my back...:pac:

thomond2006

Rogby eh?