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

.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.

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.

[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

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.

.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.

.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.

[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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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)

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

smiley_face wrote: »

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.

EX-AC-TLY:)

irishbucsfan

connachta wrote: »

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)

Ah right I see. So you've no faith in Kilcoyne or Bent, so I suppose that leaves us with Denis Buckley. I sense a pattern here...

total former

smiley_face wrote: »

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.

I know what was meant, I just can't see any logic behind it.

Six props is a total waste of seats on the plane, but if six were to go, it's a certainty that one of them will be Michael Bent.

connachta

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Ah right I see. So you've no faith in Kilcoyne or Bent, so I suppose that leaves us with Denis Buckley. I sense a pattern here...

No, as I said, I'd really want Buckley in the West we need him despertatly

irishbucsfan

connachta wrote: »

No, as I said, I'd really wants Buckley in the West we need him despertatly

So if we took 6 props then but you don't think Buckley should travel who should the props be?

connachta

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So if we took 6 props then but you don't think Buckley should travel who should the props be?

He should but that's clear he (highly probably) won't and I'm pleased with that. So Killer and Bent BUT the latter must absolutely focus on playing LH 100%, trainnig sessions, Wales, England, Canadoumania (:P). That's the best way to put pressure on Killcoyne and have a really contested spot behind McGrath.
Then 3 specialist props on the other side, Furlong is approximately in the same position than Buckley, so I guess White is the logical call (even if, once more, I would not be delighted in a Connacht perspective)

Teferi

Zzippy wrote: »

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...

Ah, he could cover 9 against the likes of Canada no problem. Obviously I wouldn't want to see him playing 9 in the crunch games but it kind of makes sense if we're only bringing two 9's and trying to save space. Boss or Marmion are only a puddle jump away if one of the actual 9's gets injured heading into the knockouts or big pool games.

total former

connachta wrote: »

He should but that's clear he (highly probably) won't and I'm pleased with that. So Killer and Bent BUT the latter must absolutely focus on playing LH 100%, trainnig sessions, Wales, England, Canadoumania (:P). That's the best way to put pressure on Killcoyne and have a really contested spot behind McGrath.
Then 3 specialist props on the other side, Furlong is approximately in the same position than Buckley, so I guess White is the logical call (even if, once more, I would not be delighted in a Connacht perspective)

Furlong is injured and has not been considered at all. Buckley is just not picked. He absolutely will not be called up.

connachta

total former wrote: »

Furlong is injured and has not been considered at all. Buckley is just not picked.

Yaeh that's why I said approximately. Both have 1-2% chance to go

connachta

That's clarifying nothing, a fit Furlong could have disappointed Schmidt more than Buckley

total former

connachta wrote: »

That's clarify nothing, a fit Furlong could have disappointed Schmidt more than Buckley

WTF?

Genuinely baffled.

connachta

No, you will never know what would have happened. But enough of that, it's pointless.

Zzippy

Teferi wrote: »

Ah, he could cover 9 against the likes of Canada no problem. Obviously I wouldn't want to see him playing 9 in the crunch games but it kind of makes sense if we're only bringing two 9's and trying to save space. Boss or Marmion are only a puddle jump away if one of the actual 9's gets injured heading into the knockouts or big pool games.

Nope, I'm not having it. If Murray gets injured v Italy, for instance, we either have Madigan on the bench covering 9 vs France ( :eek: ) or we call up Boss/Marmion, which means Murray is gone for the rest of the tournament.

Absolutely crazy to take that risk, can't see Joe doing it tbh.

total former

connachta wrote: »

No, you will never know what would have happened. But enough of that, it's pointless.

Well, we know Furlong was in the squad and Buckley wasn't so we could guess at what would have happened.

But yes, pointless.

smiley_face

total former wrote: »

I know what was meant, I just can't see any logic behind it.

Six props is a total waste of seats on the plane, but if six were to go, it's a certainty that one of them will be Michael Bent.

I don't think it's a waste of space to bring 6 props, considering Italy and France are strong in that department, not to mind Argentina and New Zealand.

My preference, assuming Healy is out,
would be McGrath, Kilcoyne, Buckley
and Ross, Moore, White.

But to be fair there are better people to judge props that I, so perhaps Bent is better than Buckley, or indeed White, I couldn't say.
Also Furlong was injured and got cut early on, so can't see him making a come-back before squad selection.

My guess is there will be surprises, so will just have to watch the Wales match and wait and see for the announcement next Monday.
Also James Cronin was unlucky to be injured and couldn't get a chance to impress, but maybe if there were an injury he could be in line for a call-up also.

Teferi

Zzippy wrote: »

Nope, I'm not having it. If Murray gets injured v Italy, for instance, we either have Madigan on the bench covering 9 vs France ( :eek: ) or we call up Boss/Marmion, which means Murray is gone for the rest of the tournament.

Absolutely crazy to take that risk, can't see Joe doing it tbh.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm simply laying out where the logic may be coming from.

Wang King

connachta wrote: »

France will overwhelm us at scrumtime:mad:
Please Joe, bring back Tony Buckley

That's better!!!