Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ireland Team Talk XI: Team of nervoUS MOD warning Post 1

Options
1…167168170172173…338

Comments

  • Options
    #5072
    kilns
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    aloooof wrote: »
    Or, more likely imo, maybe he doesn't believe to be inferior? There's no way Farrell is willfully picking what he believes to be an inferior team.

    In any case, a lot of the journo's got it wrong last week, so it's probably worth just waiting til the announcement; it wouldn't surprise me if it differs from the rumoured team.

    As i said we are the internet for a reason and not the head coach but it obvious to us that Murray is currently inferior to Cooney and POM offers very little going forward and therefore is a passenger in attack. So I wonder how Farrell sees them as he is the man who makes the decisions. We will see later today


  • Options
    #5073
    kilns
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    Former Former wrote: »
    Was there ever any chance of certain people giving Farrell a fair shake?

    It would appear not.

    I hope he will be great and I think he will bring our style of play on to another level eventually


  • Options
    #5074
    Interested Observer
    Registered Users Posts: 13,021 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    Faugheen wrote: »
    The problem here is the IRFU.

    Fans want change but unfortunately the IRFU budgets to finish at least third every year so it means Farrell has to resort to the tried and tested for the most part as he needs results immediately.

    How does picking the team that has lost against every decent team they've played in the past 12 months give us the best chance at immediate results though?


  • Options
    #5075
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,597 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Faugheen wrote: »
    The problem here is the IRFU.

    Fans want change but unfortunately the IRFU budgets to finish at least third every year so it means Farrell has to resort to the tried and tested for the most part as he needs results immediately.

    That's not a reasonable excuse. Firstly, he will never be axed in his first year no matter what, but more to the point he should be picking the team he thinks most capable of winning under that scenario. If he actually thinks that the rumoured team is the one most capable of winning then I would be annoyed.


  • Options
    #5076
    arsebiscuits1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,526 ✭✭✭arsebiscuits1


    Former Former wrote: »
    Was there ever any chance of certain people giving Farrell a fair shake?

    It would appear not.

    This.

    I want to see change as much as anyone else.

    But it takes time. Whether you liked or hated Joes system, it was there and still is there.

    In any walk of life if you want to make significant changes, you either incrementally do it in a layered approach mitigating risk, or you change everything immediately and risk categoric failure.

    Results driven business, I know what approach I'd take.

    People need to be more reasonable.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5077
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Have to say, this whole "we stand for something" shtick they keep coming out with in every interview is a bit cringe.


  • Options
    #5078
    Jump_In_Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Jump_In_Jack


    Faugheen wrote: »
    The problem here is the IRFU.

    Fans want change but unfortunately the IRFU budgets to finish at least third every year so it means Farrell has to resort to the tried and tested for the most part as he needs results immediately.

    That and the rankings for the next world cup will be made out at the end of this year, and we are currently 5th behind Wales and England, with France right behind us.

    Basically have to try our utmost in the Six Nations against those teams especially, and also to win every other match we can for the rest of this year.

    With that covered above, I think we will see at best a gradual introduction of new faces into the starting line-up.
    Perhaps a few in the 6 Nations (Cooney, Doris, Kelleher, Deegan), and perhaps another 1 or 2 for the summer tour (Burns, O'Donoghue), and another few for the November series (Baloucoune, Connors).
    Anyone else I'm forgetting? Any emerging talents in the backs?
    Shane Daly at Munster maybe?


  • Options
    #5079
    arsebiscuits1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,526 ✭✭✭arsebiscuits1


    Lineup for Kidneys final 6 nations game in charge:

    Healy
    Best
    Ross
    McCarthy
    Ryan
    POM
    SOB
    Heaslip
    Murray
    Jackson
    Earls
    Marshall
    BOD
    Gilroy
    Kearney

    How many of these players were phased out immediately during Schmidts time in charge?

    The spine of that team was the same spine that won championships. I'm not sure who'd be arguing there and then that they should have been retained.

    Change is needed yes. But not for the sake of it


  • Options
    #5080
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,597 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Jump_In_Jack wrote: »
    That and the rankings for the next world cup will be made out at the end of this year, and we are currently 5th behind Wales and England, with France right behind us.

    Basically have to try our utmost in the Six Nations against those teams especially, and also to win every other match we can for the rest of this year.

    There is zero chance of us falling to 9th which is all that matters.


  • Options
    #5081
    Granny15
    Registered Users Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭Granny15


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Have to say, this whole "we stand for something" shtick they keep coming out with in every interview is a bit cringe.

    Would you prefer robots to represent us then?

    I personally think Farrell will be a good player motivator and saying things like this including the history sets a high bar for the players to live up to.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5082
    kilns
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    arsebiscuits1 wrote: »
    Lineup for Kidneys final 6 nations game in charge:

    Healy
    Best
    Ross
    McCarthy
    Ryan
    POM
    SOB
    Heaslip
    Murray
    Jackson
    Earls
    Marshall
    BOD
    Gilroy
    Kearney

    How many of these players were phased out immediately during Schmidts time in charge?

    The spine of that team was the same spine that won championships. I'm not sure who'd be arguing there and then that they should have been retained.

    Change is needed yes. But not for the sake of it

    I have not seen any one call for gutting the whole team and replacing them with a brand new shiny 15. I for one have called for 2 guys to go who I believe are holding the team back in a varierty of ways and Farrell did just that with POM by dropping him to the bench, Farrell was just unlucky with the Doris injury but Saturday alluded that a backrow of POM Stander and VdF continues to not work and a change is needed

    I still think Ireland under Joe were just a few tweaks away from getting back to their best and potentially winning the World Cup but alas it did not happen, I hope Farrell can add those few tweaks


  • Options
    #5083
    Jump_In_Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Jump_In_Jack


    arsebiscuits1 wrote: »
    Lineup for Kidneys final 6 nations game in charge:

    Healy
    Best
    Ross
    McCarthy
    Ryan
    POM
    SOB
    Heaslip
    Murray
    Jackson
    Earls
    Marshall
    BOD
    Gilroy
    Kearney

    How many of these players were phased out immediately during Schmidts time in charge?

    The spine of that team was the same spine that won championships. I'm not sure who'd be arguing there and then that they should have been retained.

    Change is needed yes. But not for the sake of it

    Agree with that point,
    IMO we should be starting a new 8 and 9 against Wales.
    My preference would be Deegan and Cooney.
    13 is between Aki, Henshaw, Farrell and Addison, all four have different strengths, so depends how we want our 13 to play against Wales, I'd like to see Addison there at some stage with Aki or Henshaw at 12. I don't think Earls should be moved to centre, would prefer he kept his focus on being the best winger he can be.
    Keep the rest of the team as they were.


  • Options
    #5084
    Jump_In_Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Jump_In_Jack


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    There is zero chance of us falling to 9th which is all that matters.

    No, it's important to try to get into the top 4 if possible.


  • Options
    #5085
    arsebiscuits1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,526 ✭✭✭arsebiscuits1


    kilns wrote: »
    I have not seen any one call for gutting the whole team and replacing them with a brand new shiny 15. I for one have called for 2 guys to go who I believe are holding the team back in a varierty of ways and Farrell did just that with POM by dropping him to the bench, Farrell was just unlucky with the Doris injury but Saturday alluded that a backrow of POM Stander and VdF continues to not work and a change is needed

    I still think Ireland under Joe were just a few tweaks away from getting back to their best and potentially winning the World Cup but alas it did not happen, I hope Farrell can add those few tweaks

    As do I. I think he will.

    But I can understand the logic to picking established players while trying to bed in a new system


  • Options
    #5086
    FrannoFan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,368 ✭✭✭FrannoFan


    Jump_In_Jack wrote: »
    No, it's important to try to get into the top 4 if possible.

    all a bit of a moot point with argentina a 3rd seed. first or second pot there is potential for a horror draw.

    all about what pool you are paired against and who you get in a quarters. we were always in trouble when paired with a pool with nz and SA


  • Options
    #5087
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,597 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Jump_In_Jack wrote: »
    No, it's important to try to get into the top 4 if possible.

    Why? What does it really matter?

    You want to avoid a group with the 9th seed - being 9th seed obviously makes this impossible but as long as you're top 8 then you have a shot. All getting into the top 4 achieved for us last time was guaranteeing a QF against one of NZ or SA. Bit of a **** "prize".


  • Options
    #5088
    kilns
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    arsebiscuits1 wrote: »
    As do I. I think he will.

    But I can understand the logic to picking established players while trying to bed in a new system

    I think the problem people would have is that these established players are clearly not good enough and its not in the last few weeks they have not been good enough, its been well over a year they have not been good enough and better alternatives are available.


  • Options
    #5089
    kilns
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    Why? What does it really matter?

    You want to avoid a group with the 9th seed - being 9th seed obviously makes this impossible but as long as you're top 8 then you have a shot. All getting into the top 4 achieved for us last time was guaranteeing a QF against one of NZ or SA. Bit of a **** "prize".

    In the end it was unlucky that being top seed in our group you ended up with the eventual winners. In other years you would get a team we would be confident of beating most days


  • Options
    #5090
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Jump_In_Jack wrote: »
    That and the rankings for the next world cup will be made out at the end of this year, and we are currently 5th behind Wales and England, with France right behind us.

    Basically have to try our utmost in the Six Nations against those teams especially, and also to win every other match we can for the rest of this year.

    With that covered above, I think we will see at best a gradual introduction of new faces into the starting line-up.
    Perhaps a few in the 6 Nations (Cooney, Doris, Kelleher, Deegan), and perhaps another 1 or 2 for the summer tour (Burns, O'Donoghue), and another few for the November series (Baloucoune, Connors).
    Anyone else I'm forgetting? Any emerging talents in the backs?
    Shane Daly at Munster maybe?

    James Lowe


  • Options
    #5091
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,597 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    kilns wrote: »
    In the end it was unlucky that being top seed in our group you ended up with the eventual winners. In other years you would get a team we would be confident of beating most days

    Well, its not particularly bad luck. If we end up in the top 4 we will be pushing one of the "traditional" top 4 into the second grouping. 50% of the time they will either end up in our group (making getting into the top 4 kind of irrelevant) or end up in the group we are scheduled to play in the QF (making topping our group kind of irrelevant).

    We topped the group in 11 and 15 and it didn't help much either. I just do not think it makes a meaningful difference.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5092
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    It is absolutely better to be in the top 4. That's not debatable. Not essential but certainly better.

    Being in the top 8 is critical.

    Being outside the top 8 gets very hairy.


  • Options
    #5093
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,233 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    kilns wrote: »
    I think the problem people would have is that these established players are clearly not good enough and its not in the last few weeks they have not been good enough, its been well over a year they have not been good enough and better alternatives are available.
    There are not that many better alternatives available though. There's definitely a case to be made for Cooney over Murray, but the better alternatives at 8 are Conan (injured), Doris (injured). leaving JOD, Deegan and Connors (untested at this level). There are arguments for and against various back options, but nothing convincing as yet. The only standout imo would be Addison, but where to slot him in is a bit of a conundrum.


  • Options
    #5094
    moritz1234
    Registered Users Posts: 140 ✭✭moritz1234


    Jump_In_Jack wrote: »
    No, it's important to try to get into the top 4 if possible.

    Ireland are currently not a Top 4 team. We are realistically 6th maybe 7th and I don't see that improving.


  • Options
    #5095
    Mr Tickle
    Registered Users Posts: 1,152 ✭✭✭Mr Tickle


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    There are not that many better alternatives available though. There's definitely a case to be made for Cooney over Murray, but the better alternatives at 8 are Conan (injured), Doris (injured). leaving JOD, Deegan and Connors (untested at this level). There are arguments for and against various back options, but nothing convincing as yet. The only standout imo would be Addison, but where to slot him in is a bit of a conundrum.

    Addison makes most sense off the bench for us at the moment I think. between himself, Larmour covering the wing, and Henshaw covering 12, we're well positioned to deal with any injuries. You could make a case for him starting at 13 with Henshaw on the bench too. Maybe his harder carrying off the bench would be more valuable.


  • Options
    #5096
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    moritz1234 wrote: »
    Ireland are currently not a Top 4 team. We are realistically 6th maybe 7th and I don't see that improving.

    We are 5th


  • Options
    #5097
    kilns
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    There are not that many better alternatives available though. There's definitely a case to be made for Cooney over Murray, but the better alternatives at 8 are Conan (injured), Doris (injured). leaving JOD, Deegan and Connors (untested at this level). There are arguments for and against various back options, but nothing convincing as yet. The only standout imo would be Addison, but where to slot him in is a bit of a conundrum.

    Deegan would be the most logical choice for 8 and why not expose him to this level. He will not do any less than POM going forward, yes he might not a win a turnover like POM will do but the attacking ability I think he would offer ahead of POM should outweigh this, especially against a team with the best defence in the world. You need to ask them questions going forward and sadly a guy like POM does not do that.

    Addison at 13 would be a good choice but is he fit yet for selection?


  • Options
    #5098
    Jump_In_Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Jump_In_Jack


    Deleted User wrote: »
    James Lowe

    Doesn't he qualify after the November series?


    Edit:
    Can't find an exact date anywhere online.
    He finished his season in 2017 with Tasman on 27th October 2017 in the Mitre 10.
    Found a few reports that he arrived in Leinster camp the middle of November, so perhaps he could be eligible for the 21st November against Japan?
    It depends when he started his residency.


  • Options
    #5099
    Interested Observer
    Registered Users Posts: 13,021 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    kilns wrote: »
    Deegan would be the most logical choice for 8 and why not expose him to this level. He will not do any less than POM going forward, yes he might not a win a turnover like POM will do but the attacking ability I think he would offer ahead of POM should outweigh this, especially against a team with the best defence in the world. You need to ask them questions going forward and sadly a guy like POM does not do that.

    Addison at 13 would be a good choice but is he fit yet for selection?

    No no it's too risky, you madman.


  • Options
    #5100
    Burkie1203
    Registered Users Posts: 11,190 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203


    Former Former wrote: »
    Was there ever any chance of certain people giving Farrell a fair shake?

    It would appear not.

    I am very willing to give Farrell a fair shake. I thought there was positive signs on Saturday of some more varied attacking play.

    However
    1. Scrum half is an issue. Plenty of people saying Murray was "solid". That's nowhere near good enough for a player of his ability.


    2. 1 ball carrier in backrow is an issue and has been for 15 months now



    I don't think we need wholesale changes. But we do need to change things up a bit to give opponents more to think about.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5101
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,233 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    kilns wrote: »
    Deegan would be the most logical choice for 8 and why not expose him to this level. He will not do any less than POM going forward, yes he might not a win a turnover like POM will do but the attacking ability I think he would offer ahead of POM should outweigh this, especially against a team with the best defence in the world. You need to ask them questions going forward and sadly a guy like POM does not do that.

    Addison at 13 would be a good choice but is he fit yet for selection?
    Yeah, Deegan probably the next in line, but that's just my opinion and would be happy enough if either of the other two were chosen. But they are untested at this level and that's a fact. However, there are very few players who get capped internationally for Ireland that don't go on to have a decent international career. So it's something the coaching teams have got more or less right over the years.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement