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

smiley_face

total former wrote: »

Your logic is all over the place. If Healy is gone, then the case for Bent is stronger, not weaker.

If Healy is uncertain but still in the squad, then there is an argument for bringing six props.

If Healy is out and we're bringing two fully fit looseheads, then it is utterly pointless bringing Buckley.

I think what was meant was that Bent is first choice backup if 5 props, as he covers two positions,
But if 6 props are taken we will just take the best 3 props in each position, and Bent may not be in the top 3 in either position,
despite being the top choice that can cover both.

connachta

Pudsy33 wrote: »

I have absolutely faith in Jack McGrath filling in for Healy at scrum time. Healy's ball carrying will be the thing we miss most.

Ok, but I've no faith at all in Bent and Killcoyne, above all if Bent is also occupied to prepare for TH. That's why I'd prefer 6 props instead of Darren Cave (assuming two SH are going)

total former

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Which journalists are saying he's been playing 9 in camp? I haven't seen that myself.

Peter O'Reilly said it in yesterday's ST, but he also said it was because a couple of the actual SHs were getting treatment for niggles.

Pudsy33

I have absolutely faith in Jack McGrath filling in for Healy at scrum time. Healy's ball carrying will be the thing we miss most.

Zzippy

.ak wrote: »

He's filled in there before and the talk is coming from the camp, apparently he's been filling in there in training sessions, so maybe not so crazy when we consider the 3rd scrumhalf is only ever gonna get 60 min at best.

It does probably mean Madigan would see a lot of game time though, and it may in turn put pressure on Sexton to play a lot of rugby...

It wouldn't be my choice, that's for sure, but it's not as crazy as it seems.

Why would it put pressure on Sexton when we have Jackson too? Jackson starts against Canada/Romania and benches in the other game, Sexton only has to play a few minutes in one and 60 mins in the other. He starts our big games anyway, so it's not a lot of rugby for him...

Are people seriously considering going to the WC with a 10/12 who's never played 9 at senior level bar a few minutes cover, covering 9 in an international WC game??!!! There are curveballs, and curveballs, and this is out of the park...

irishbucsfan

.ak wrote: »

A lot of people do see that, and that's fair enough, not everyone knows what's actually expected from a scrumhalf, or how they relate to that particular team.

But the talk is coming from journalists who say they're getting this info from the camp. And as I mentioned before, Madigan has stepped up into the 9 role before during games for emergency... and actually wasn't terrible.

Which journalists are saying he's been playing 9 in camp? I haven't seen that myself.

[Deleted User]

.ak wrote: »

A lot of people do see that, and that's fair enough, not everyone knows what's actually expected from a scrumhalf, or how they relate to that particular team.

But the talk is coming from journalists who say they're getting this info from the camp. And as I mentioned before, Madigan has stepped up into the 9 role before during games for emergency... and actually wasn't terrible.

I guess I don't have much of a memory for him filling in there and find it very surprising.

I generally work on the basis that World Cup =/= time to be trying new things.

.ak

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If we only had 2 9s in the squad then it would mean someone other than Reddan would need to play at 9 against Romania/Canada. People look at Madigan and see that his passing is technically good, and then assume he could cover scrum half. I guess to a lot of people playing scrum half = passing.

A lot of people do see that, and that's fair enough, not everyone knows what's actually expected from a scrumhalf, or how they relate to that particular team.

But the talk is coming from journalists who say they're getting this info from the camp. And as I mentioned before, Madigan has stepped up into the 9 role before during games for emergency... and actually wasn't terrible.

.ak

Deleted User wrote: »

Am I missing something with this Madigan to 9 talk?

Madigan covering 9 would be close to the top of a list of things I could in no way see happening bar complete emergency.

I am amazed it's even suggested..!

He's filled in there before and the talk is coming from the camp, apparently he's been filling in there in training sessions, so maybe not so crazy when we consider the 3rd scrumhalf is only ever gonna get 60 min at best.

It does probably mean Madigan would see a lot of game time though, and it may in turn put pressure on Sexton to play a lot of rugby...

It wouldn't be my choice, that's for sure, but it's not as crazy as it seems.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

Am I missing something with this Madigan to 9 talk?

Madigan covering 9 would be close to the top of a list of things I could in no way see happening bar complete emergency.

I am amazed it's even suggested..!

If we only had 2 9s in the squad then it would mean someone other than Reddan would need to play at 9 against Romania/Canada. People look at Madigan and see that his passing is technically good, and then assume he could cover scrum half. I guess to a lot of people playing scrum half = passing.

[Deleted User]

Am I missing something with this Madigan to 9 talk?

Madigan covering 9 would be close to the top of a list of things I could in no way see happening bar complete emergency.

I am amazed it's even suggested..!

irishbucsfan

If we bring 2 scrum halves there is NO way to call up am extra scrum half midweek unless they are replacing a genuinely injured player. That replacement has to be made 72 hours before a game and the player who is replaced can not rejoin the squad.

They can not "arrange" it for a lesser player to be left at home. Falvey would not risk his medical license for foolery like that and it would be an absolute disgrace is the IRFU expected him to.

So bringing 2 scrum halves means that we are basically rolling the dice on having the right players pick up an injury at the right time (and unless this is week 1 or 2 it will need to be one of our first choice 23) and then we are happy to lose that player for the remainder of the tournament. It's a huge risk and I don't think it's even remotely worth taking so that we can bring someone to play a game against Romania or Canada.

.ak

RoundBox11 wrote: »

Oh come on you know what I mean. He's not the type of coach to take unnecessary risks.

I'm not sure, to be honest, he's made a few big calls before in his time. I wouldn't have him penned as a conservative coach at all. If he feels it's right then ofcourse he'll have a good reason and he's not just throwing the dice, but a lot of his decisions have been 'out there', especially for Leinster (i.e; starting Boss away in what was probably our biggest game ever), and the majority of them paid off.

connachta

connachta wrote: »

Honnestly is wasn't at all the hidden reason. I'd prefer White/Buckley stay in the West. Just fairly prefer 6 specialist props than Bent and Cave.

And Molloyjh don't be such a prosecutor:pac:

RoundBox11

.ak wrote: »

The two things aren't comparable at all. One is taking a calculated risk with squad selection, the other is asking players not to risk possession in a game.

There was no 'no offloading' rule, but he did encourage players to do the basic thing over the flashy thing. Nobody was banned from expressing themselves. Zebo threw a dodgy offload in the AIs but was picked for the 1st team in the 6N for example.

Oh come on you know what I mean. He's not the type of coach to take unnecessary risks.

molloyjh

kingtiger wrote: »

Right lads, I have this from a very reliable source that has never steered me wrong

Healy is out of the WC!!!

Here is all the players cut from the provisional squad

Healy / Tuohy / Conan

Boss / Marmion / Gilroy / Reid / Felix Jones / Darcy / Cave

only bringing two Scrum Halves (Madigan in as cover)

kingtigers sources have been right to date so I believe this, as much as I don't want to....

.ak

RoundBox11 wrote: »

I find it totally nuts that a coach who had a 'no offloading' rule would take such a massive risk and only bring 2 scrum halves.

I just really don't see it

The two things aren't comparable at all. One is taking a calculated risk with squad selection, the other is asking players not to risk possession in a game.

There was no 'no offloading' rule, but he did encourage players to do the basic thing over the flashy thing. Nobody was banned from expressing themselves. Zebo threw a dodgy offload in the AIs but was picked for the 1st team in the 6N for example.

connachta

molloyjh wrote: »

If we're down to our 3rd choice prop in that case we're already goosed. And players can be replaced if they are injured so that can be managed to a degree. It's madness to fill an extra spot in the squad that's well covered to the detriment of at least 1, if not 2 or 3, other positions. We will be travelling with 5 props, no more. And it will be the right decision, even if it does mean leaving the Connacht man at home.

Honnestly is wasn't at all the hidden reason. I'd prefer White/Buckley stay in the West. Just fairly prefer 6 specialist props than Bent and Cave.

molloyjh

RoundBox11 wrote: »

In that case would definitely be taking Cave as the extra man considering both Earls and Zebo are better on the wing anyway so we already have wings well covered.

Although looking at it that way, having an extra slot to play around with makes leaving the third SH behind just seem mad to me

Yeah for me it's a choice between a back-up 12 or a third choice 9. I'm not sure I can call it either way really. We could get away with 2 scrum-halves and Mads as cover. We should be well enough ahead of Canada and Romania before the SH needs to be changed. Murray won't be taking part until Italy and if he's out for any more than 2 weeks he'll have to be replaced anyway. If that happens Redser will just need to manage 80 minutes.

It's a risk, but so is leaving the centres or back 3 a little light. For example if we play Henshaw in one of the earlier games and he gets injured we could be looking at Mads at 12 etc.

RoundBox11

I find it totally nuts that a coach who had a 'no offloading' rule would take such a massive risk and only bring 2 scrum halves.

I just really don't see it

The Lost Sheep

Larbre34 wrote: »

I thought for months that 2 SH's would be the way he would go, neither Boss nor Marmion deserve to travel especially.

I don't see why that adds up to a sixth prop, the reduction in the backs should enable one of Jones, D Kearney, McFadden, Trimble etc to travel, then if a replacement SH is needed mid-tournament, the under-performer in the outside backs can be sacrificed.

McGrath, Kilcoyne, Ross, White and Bent is enough.

2 SHs isn't really enough and is a huge risk. Players can only be replaced once named in the 31 if injured. You cant replace players for tactical reasons

Podge_irl

Larbre34 wrote: »

Technically no, but it could be arranged. In any case, if an SH is injured and we need another called up, its straightforward.

Except there is a 48 hour cooldown window and the injured player can't return. So what do we do if Murray gets a minor soft tissue injury and has to sit out for a week? Or if one of them tweaks something the day before a match.

It's not a good idea and I would be genuinely astounded if such a careful planner as Schmidt did it.

molloyjh

connachta wrote: »

Hell no, when you have utility backs who have experience to play centre, and when you'll face 3 of the best scrums by increasing order Italy, France and Argentina/N-Z

If we're down to our 3rd choice prop in that case we're already goosed. And players can be replaced if they are injured so that can be managed to a degree. It's madness to fill an extra spot in the squad that's well covered to the detriment of at least 1, if not 2 or 3, other positions. We will be travelling with 5 props, no more. And it will be the right decision, even if it does mean leaving the Connacht man at home.

Larbre34

Synode wrote: »

Can someone be replaced without being injured? Didn't think they could

Technically no, but it could be arranged. In any case, if an SH is injured and we need another called up, its straightforward.

RoundBox11

molloyjh wrote: »

Let's just look at the numbers for a second here:

5 props
3 hookers
4 locks
5 back rows
17 forwards

2 scrummies
3 out-halves (one who covers a load of other positions)
3 centres (Henshaw, Payne and Earls)
3 wingers (Fitz, Bowe and Trimble/D Kearney)
2 FBs (R Kearney/Zebo)
13 backs

That's 30 players in total. We've 1 more spot. The options are to bring a 6th prop, a 3rd SH, a 2nd dedicated inside centre or an extra outside back.

Of all of those options surely to God an extra prop is the bottom of the priority list when you have the option of a prop who can scrummage on both sides?

In that case would definitely be taking Cave as the extra man considering both Earls and Zebo are better on the wing anyway so we already have wings well covered.

Although looking at it that way, having an extra slot to play around with makes leaving the third SH behind just seem mad to me

connachta

molloyjh wrote: »

That's 30 players in total. We've 1 more spot. The options are to bring a 6th prop, a 3rd SH, a 2nd dedicated inside centre or an extra outside back.

Of all of those options surely to God an extra prop is the bottom of the priority list when you have the option of a prop who can scrummage on both sides?

Hell no, when you have utility backs who have experience to play centre, and when you'll face 3 of the best scrums by increasing order Italy, France and Argentina/N-Z

Thanos

aimee1 wrote: »

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fdejJGbaRV8/TCBHCFZUDVI/AAAAAAAAAws/BhTv5saQE3I/s1600/24.png

Now that's how to take one for the team........

aimee1

Thanos wrote: »

Nothing that a good old kick to the knee would not solve..........

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fdejJGbaRV8/TCBHCFZUDVI/AAAAAAAAAws/BhTv5saQE3I/s1600/24.png

molloyjh

Let's just look at the numbers for a second here:

5 props
3 hookers
4 locks
5 back rows

17 forwards

2 scrummies
3 out-halves (one who covers a load of other positions)
3 centres (Henshaw, Payne and Earls)
3 wingers (Fitz, Bowe and Trimble/D Kearney)
2 FBs (R Kearney/Zebo)

13 backs

That's 30 players in total. We've 1 more spot. The options are to bring a 6th prop, a 3rd SH, a 2nd dedicated inside centre or an extra outside back.

Of all of those options surely to God an extra prop is the bottom of the priority list when you have the option of a prop who can scrummage on both sides?

RoundBox11

kingtiger wrote: »

I will put 50 quid on it, want to take the bet?

all barring injuries v Wales

Hmm, I had a quick look back and it seems your source is usually right! Apologies in that case. That's terrible if Healy is gone so.

Does that imply that Trimble is in the 31 man squad so?

It makes me sad to think what our pack would be like for the world cup if we had Healy and Ferris starting and firing on all cylinders. We'd have the most powerful pack in the world!