Ireland- Player ratings/Analysis/Thougthts

First topic message reminder :

Hi all,

Happy Sunday.
Watched the game back again and have been reading all the stuff on some of the other threads. And thought I'd give my 2c and all that jazz.

I want to say that I was really impressed with the team. Considering how many players we were missing I think it was a great effort, in a way I think we deserved to win, but well done to Scotland who had more ball.

Court: 6.5
Played quite well, scrum held up better than I expected it too. He was in there for a few turn overs and I saw him holding a lot of Scots in the tackle. He didn't do much carrying but whenever he was involved in a turnover he shifted the ball well and cleverly.
Cronin: 4
I think this was a huge chance which he blew. He fell off a few tackles, he got stripped of the ball a few times. Didn't carry well or run those great support lines he can run. Lineout was ok, as was scrum. But was disappointed with him.
Buckley: 5.5
Didn't carry that much or effectively. Didn't show the slick offloading that he can showcase. Was good in the wrap up tackles due to his strength and could see he was a good lifter in the lineout too.
Cullen: 6.5
Varied the lineout calls really well IMO. Did a lot of donkey work and defended well too. Hardly touched the ball in attack but that is testement to how much he was doing in the trenches.
Ryan: 6
Good in the trenches with Cullen. Hardly ran the ball either though, would have liked to have seen more of him here. Felt he was solid and did what he did well but was hoping for more.
McCarthy:6
Did well enough. Bought in to the defensive structure well and it suited him. Carried more than other forwards. Really enjoyed watching him play. Good hands on turnovers too. Good in the air when called upon too. Showed his versatility too.
Ronan: 4.5
Showed good hands at times but passed before contact too often. Didn't link like a natural 7. Was anonymous for most of the game. Wasn't that evident in defence either. Awful kick on turnover.
Leamy: 7
Great showing in defence managing to lift attackers off the ground and hold them there. Should have taken on more carrying himself. Discipline was good. Did quite well in the rucks also. Did well off a few messy scrums also.
O'Leary: 4.5
His passing was still a bit laboured at times and took a while getting the ball out of the rucks on occassions. His defence wasn't as good as it should have been either, big missed tackles on Lamont and Beattie. Some very good box kicks some not so good ones. Passing from offloads was surprisingly poor.
Sexton: 6.5
Didn't have much ball what he did have he used well. He distributed well and made good decisions. 2 poor kicks to touch however. Great defence and led the defensive line well. Made one or two nice breaks to offload to support runners. Kicked from floor well too
Fitzgerald: 7
Looked like a livewire with ball in hand. Showed good feet and hands at times. Did kick the ball too often though without a doubt, some were very clever some not so much. Good defence and good rucking too to disrupt and win Scottish ball.
Wallace: 6.5
Held against Morrision well. Didn't let him break the line and stopped offloads too. Used his feet well off scrums and lineouts but rarely made breaks except off a Sexton offload. Great hands to release the wings on a number of occasions. Kicked well too (at times)
McFadden: 5
Disappointed in him. Made a lot of tackles and did well in defence but shot out of the line twice and was punished with a linebreak and a try. Didn't really offer anything in attack, didn't have much ball but should have offered more. Knocked on too many times.
Trimble: 6.5
Made a few good breaks and found O'Leary and Fitzgerald with good offloads. Think he could have been more physical in defence after his first 10mins. Good in the air from kicks. Ran well and hard too but didn't get enough ball and maybe should have come off his wing looking for more.
Kearney: 8
Not one of his biggest fans but was very impressive. Chased kicks excellently. Joined the line well. Showed good hands and feet in drawing players and passing. Should have scored a try on his return. Claimed high balls well. Defended well too. Very good performance.

Subs:
Boss upped the tempo when he came on and got forwards running onto the ball rather than taking it static. McLaughlin was exceptionally physical when he came on too and really showcased what he can bring to the team. Horan, Hayes, Fla and MOD didn't really add much.

Notes:
Defence was excellent that strategy worked so well. The Scottish rarely got quick ball and we caused a lot of turnovers. On these turnovers we generally did quite well getting it to wingers or other backs who pushed the ball behind the Scots or made ground up the flanks. We didn't go through enough phases however.
The pack and TOL in conjuction didn't win enough quick ball and we rarely were going forwards. There weren't enough players in the pack who were able to put the head down and make serious yards and get the ball back quickly. Sexton tried a lot to get guys outside him working and to some success and managed to get the back 3 into some space. We could have done with McFadden crashing it up more effectively and Wallace making a few more yards with his feet.
Out lineout wasn't that bad either, we competed on their throw and won some of their ball at times. On our throw we did ok, but what few set plays we used off off the top ball were quite ineffectual. Scrums were ok but no more. Two early engagements in a row were a bit silly. But considering it was a first choice Scottish pack against our make shift pack I thought we did pretty well.

Main positives

a) Kearney and to a less extent Fitzgerald and Ryan
b) Excellent defence
c) Winning turnovers

Main negatives

a) No phase play
b) Very little forward momentum
c) Very little creativity ( a handfull of moments aside)

What are your thoughts?

Leamy is a bit like Paddy Wallace IMO. A decent game isn't enough. They have too many critics and a masive performance was needed.

Wouldn't completely agree Stag, there are other good options in place of Leamy, not so much wallace.

I thought he joined the line pretty well. I have been one of Kearney's biggest critics over the last 2 years and I was delighted by his performance, Gibson is gonna appear outta nowhere now!!!!

I mean to satisfy the fans Pete. With Darcy out I'm happy for Wallace to start but like Leamy he has his critics.

Yes that is true. Was really hoping for a big game from Wallace but he never really got the chance to show us what he can do. I suppose great players create those chances themselves (to an extent)

red_stag wrote:Leamy is a bit like Paddy Wallace IMO. A decent game isn't enough. They have too many critics and a masive performance was needed.

Sorry Stag I just don't see the comparison. We don't have many centre options and Wallace did far better than a lot of his critics have been making out. His performance may not have been massive but it compared favourably to anything Gordon D'arcy has done in the past season, in attack and defence. He also did better than the guy many are calling for to take his place, McFadden.

Wallace didn't do enough that I wouldn't like us to look at other options, like Earls or Bowe at 13 but he certainly did enough to secure the 12 shirt if D'arcy doesn't recover, if we don't look at those options. It was McFadden and not Wallace who needed the massive game and he didn't produce it.

By comparison we have massive depth in the backrow and Leamy didn't do anything to advance his case. He looks like a hard working journeyman to me and nothing like the player he was.

Front Row: Cronin looked out of his depth. Not much to say on the 2 props.

2nd row: Played well and both deserve to go.

Back row: I thought Leamy played well. He was everywhere. Ronan and
McCarthy to be released.

1/2 backs: Hard to say. TOL looked quite slow. Is it because of the comeback? I is he capable of speeding it up? Murray for Bordeaux please.

Centers: Both of them needed to play well. Neither of them did. On this performance I would trust neith of them against the big boys. Particularly Wallace. Bad mistake by McFadden. He will get nowhere until he relegates Darce to the bench at Leinster.

Back 3: Kearney looking good. After all the abuse he got on here (Tayto), he will go and might just make the starting 15. Fitz looked sharp enough, but still, brainfarts persist. Trimble, strong as per.

The Leamy / Wallace thing is nothing to do with options. Wallace is 2nd choice 12. Leamy is maybe 5th choice backrow.

BUT both players have critics who see the glass as half empty rather than half fully when they play.

Cronin was a HUGE disappointment. He really had an awful, awful game. His defence was very poor IMO and he got the ball stripped from him too easily too.

Ronan was pretty bad too.

TOL was slow service wise but the pack weren't helping matters at all. his defence also got wrecked a few times. Fell off a few tackles.

Wallace didn't have a bad game just not an amazing one

I'm not a fan of Cronin. He has flattered to deceive for quite a while.

I thought Leamy did well.

He made more than 4 times as many metres than anyone else in the pack and thought he stood up well in defence. I'd like to see him in a stronger back row and see how he stands up in that.

I really like the guy but he has not played well in an Irish shirt to the same extent as for Connacht. Maybe he isn't truely ready for the step up.

Was a very bad game from him though

MBTGOG wrote:I thought Leamy did well.

He made more than 4 times as many metres than anyone else in the pack and thought he stood up well in defence. I'd like to see him in a stronger back row and see how he stands up in that.

Agree.

red_stag wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:I thought Leamy did well.

He made more than 4 times as many metres than anyone else in the pack and thought he stood up well in defence. I'd like to see him in a stronger back row and see how he stands up in that.

Agree.

Havent we seen him in a stronger back row though? If we need to see anyone with the 1st teamers its Jennings.

red_stag wrote:I'm not a fan of Cronin. He has flattered to deceive for quite a while.

I thought Cronin played well stag. The lineout functioned very well and he did ok in the lose if nothing spectacular. He didn't do enough carries and knocked on a few times but I thought he was solid enough for someone who's hardly played at this level.

I think people are being way to harsh here. What is the criticism based on stag?

Boyne wrote:

red_stag wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:I thought Leamy did well.

He made more than 4 times as many metres than anyone else in the pack and thought he stood up well in defence. I'd like to see him in a stronger back row and see how he stands up in that.

Agree.

Havent we seen him in a stronger back row though? If we need to see anyone with the 1st teamers its Jennings.

Not since he has fully gotten over his injury.

He was one of our worse players Rodders.

He missed a few tackles (quite feebly I might add) he didn't carry enough or well enough.

You are very right re: the lineout though I was pleasantly surprised with that.

red_stag wrote:The Leamy / Wallace thing is nothing to do with options. Wallace is 2nd choice 12. Leamy is maybe 5th choice backrow.

BUT both players have critics who see the glass as half empty rather than half fully when they play.

I think it's more about expectations stag. Leamy was such an awesome player 4 or 5 seasons ago I think people expect a bit more than a solid, hardworking performance. I certainly don't want to see him fail, in fact I was really looking forward to see how he'd go given the media reports of how fit he was.

You have to take the performance in the context of how a player's rivals are doing and for me Leamy is miles of what the likes of Heaslip, Wallace, SOB, Ferris and even jennings are producing or have recently produced, whereas Paddy Wallace's performance, whilst not being spectacular by any stretch compared favourably with anything D'arcy has produced this season.

I think the back 3 were solid in the game for the most part.

Our centres looked weak and that pairing needs either Darcy or BOD to work ok and both to work well. Wallace pipped McFadden in performance there and this puts McFadden down the pecking order a little bit now.

Sexton was ok without being great. TOL had a decent game but remains very slow in producing ball (even when 3-4 forwards clear out the ruck well and had it on a plate for him). Boss came on but didn't give enough impact to move his name up the depth chart in what is a open position.

Considering it was an Irish backrow without Jennings, SOB, 1F, Wallace or Heaslip, I thought were were very close to parity with the scottish back row. McCarthy was the standout performer for me and has moved his name out of the 'extended squad/tackle bag holder' category I would have had for him and into the 'possibles' category just beside names like Leamy. For a debut he was not out of his depth one bit.

Cullen and Ryan I think nudged the second row contest over their counterparts and solidified their positions as 3rd & 4th in the squad.

Front rows had a tough day at the office. Court did ok but no better. Cronin didn't really much. Buckley did his usual cameo. Flannery back in the green jersey was great to see.

We showed no real attack in the game. Whether it is a ploy to not try out attacking moves and focus the first game on defense and set piece work I don't know. Defense was strong, our scramble was good but the late try took the gloss off that side of the performance.

We spent too long in possession giving slow ball to static forwards and going back to ground to recycle again. It was either a decision by management to give ball time to the forwards to see what they can do (which wasn't much), forwards stepping in the way of ball reaching Sexton (sacrilige) or some other reason which completely escapes me.

Our fitness seemed very good. The players don't look like gym monkies but seem in perfect shape for a high intensity flowing game plan.

So overall, only the first game. The probable squad members did ok (with those returning from injury showing well), a couple of possibles put their hands up (McCarthy), defense looks well drilled into the whole squad, fitness seems to be in good shape. A lot of positives to take away from what was a dull game for large parts.

Big game next week, should be much closer to what people think as first team with a small hint of experimentation (I hope).

roddersm wrote:What is the criticism based on stag?

I think he's had quite a few chances. He has more caps than the likes Donnacha Ryan, Shane Jennings, Sean O'Brien, Kevin McLaughlin, Mike Ross, Fergus McFadden. He is always eager and is likeable. But I think he is over eager and is prone to errors. Didn't front up as a ball carrier yesterday, didn't see enough of him defensively or clearly out the rucks. To me Flannery and Best are comfortably the match day hookers.

roddersm wrote:
Val, I've said elsewhere I got it wrong on Leamy. After reviewing the stats I realise he carried a lot more than I thought. I don't agree he was our best player though.

Why do you feel the pack lacked leadership? The lineout was excellent and the scrum was solid too. We dominated the breakdown and slowed down the scottish pack and produced quick ball for ourselves. I really am baffled by this criticism of our pack.

I'm not sure what all these mistakes were by Fitzgerald? His defence was superb and he produced some lovely bits of skill in attack. That cover tackle on Lamont was as good as any you'll see and saved a certain try.

I'd agree on stag with regards to leamy and fans perceptions. Leamy seemed to be the only forward willing to carry aggressively into the scottish pack and wasn't helped by playing in a backrow with ronan and mccarthy. McCarthy was brilliant defensively but I can't remember him carrying the ball once.
Leamy was also very effective at holding the scottish forwards up in the tackle to create a maul.
We got very little of the ball and when we did the pack didn't use it very well imo, cullen and others went into contact upright and from a standing start making it to easy for the scots to defend.
Fitz had a few poor kicks and was caught out defensively on one occasion. I'm not criticising him too much, I just think that a lot of the ratings have been over the top. Fitz was outshone by trimble in the match and is probably 4th choice winger. In saying that he looks to be coming back into form and if he gets back to 09 form, I'd be happy to have him in the squad.

roddersm wrote:

red_stag wrote:I'm not a fan of Cronin. He has flattered to deceive for quite a while.

I thought Cronin played well stag. The lineout functioned very well and he did ok in the lose if nothing spectacular. He didn't do enough carries and knocked on a few times but I thought he was solid enough for someone who's hardly played at this level.

I think people are being way to harsh here. What is the criticism based on stag?

Cronin just hasn't lived up to the hype. For someone who is supposed to be great in open play, he knocks on an awful lot. Yesterday he needed to make some carriers but he didn't and he wasn't really evident in defence either. I was really disappointed because I had expected so much more from him.

I don't know I think preformed perceptions must be affecting peoples judgement.

For me there were no awesome performances but there were no poor ones either. Some players exceeded expectations and others were a bit disappointing but overall it was a very positive performance given it was an experimental team and it was our first game out after the break.

I though Fitz was better than people are making out. Trimble did ok but was a bit sloppy with his handling and will have to do better to get on the plane I think. kearney had an excellent comeback.

McFadden did ok overall but not enough to move up the pecking order and Wallace proved he is a capable stand in for D'arcy and not the weak link people have made out. The half backs did ok but not great.

The tight 5 all exceeded expectations and although the backrow was well below the level of our 1st choice, Ronin and McCarthy got some experience that will stand them in good stead.

Val, on the winger front at the moment I think it is very even after Bowe. Trimble, I think, is slightly ahead of Earls and Fitz but unfortunately would be trying to take Bowe's jersey and that probably won't happen only for injury should it happen (lets pray not). On the other side it is Earls and Fitz. Fitz did ok, hopefully Earls gives a good account next week ( I assume he will start). One of these is probably starting against Oz, the other is probably on the bench. I just hope that if Earls is playing better he gets his start and doesn't get the bench spot just because he can cover more positions if needs be (being a great utility option can really damage a players chances of starting a game).

I have to say I thought Fitz was better than Trimble. Yes he kicked a lot but some of his kicks were beauts.

Also I saw McCarthy carry a few times and he didn't do too badly really.

roddersm wrote:I don't know I think preformed perceptions must be affecting peoples judgement.

People just have different opinions.

McFadden did rush up a little too early for the try we conceded, but paddy was aware and was in the process of drifting out to cover when Morisson purposefully blocked him. I know it happens all the time, but Scotland are estatic about scoring a try like that, but it only happened with a little cheating. fact.

That aside, the backs should really have created more. Defense is one thing, but that backs display would not phase at least 10/12 teams involved in the world cup.

Perhaps TOL didn't help, and the inability of the forwards to maintain and produce the ball.

I will publicly state that Fitz proved me wrong, and I'm very happy to have him go on the plane perhaps as a starting player. Kearney also was a relief to some concerns I had!

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Val, on the winger front at the moment I think it is very even after Bowe. Trimble, I think, is slightly ahead of Earls and Fitz but unfortunately would be trying to take Bowe's jersey and that probably won't happen only for injury should it happen (lets pray not). On the other side it is Earls and Fitz. Fitz did ok, hopefully Earls gives a good account next week ( I assume he will start). One of these is probably starting against Oz, the other is probably on the bench. I just hope that if Earls is playing better he gets his start and doesn't get the bench spot just because he can cover more positions if needs be (being a great utility option can really damage a players chances of starting a game).

Earls was the best Irish winger from the six nations on last year. If Ireland are to beat australia, I really think we need him and bowe on top form. I'd say earls is ahead of trimble at the moment and unless earls has a complete nightmare when he gets his chance I'd expect him to start. But as you say his versatility could become a problem for him. He may start at 13 this weekend and in the world cup in games when bod is rested which may harm is form.

red_stag wrote:

roddersm wrote:I don't know I think preformed perceptions must be affecting peoples judgement.

People just have different opinions.

Of course they do but I'm amazed at the discrepencies in peoples views. I'll admit I got it wrong on a bit on Leamy but I think some people must have had widely differing expectations of the players and team in this game. Everyone bar Leamy,Sexton and perhaps Trimble probably did at least as well as I would have expected and as team we were far more cohesive than I would have thought we would be given the lack of gametime together.

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:I have to say I thought Fitz was better than Trimble. Yes he kicked a lot but some of his kicks were beauts.

Also I saw McCarthy carry a few times and he didn't do too badly really.

Trimble was a lot more involved imo and seemed to go looking for work. Fitz played well but he kicked 7 times and only passed twice. Some of his kicks were good but two were appalling and another two he should have passed to kearney who has a bigger boot and would have made touch. Fitz played a lot better than recently and I think he has put a lot of pressure on mcfadden who is probably unlikely to make it now.

McCarthy carried five times for five metres. He was brilliant in defence but I though he could have done more in attack. Then again most should of done more in attack.

red_stag wrote:Leamy is a bit like Paddy Wallace IMO. A decent game isn't enough. They have too many critics and a masive performance was needed.

Leamy seems to have got some decent press.

Denis Leamy was outstanding in the eight jersey, and, although you could argue that, with the exception of the half-backs, this was the Irish second XV, they contained Scotland.

John Beattie in the BBC -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/johnbeattie/2011/08/little_given_away_in_first_rou.html

Denis Leamy 7/10

Will certainly travel, most likely as Heaslip's back-up, and as such this was a valuable opportunity to stake a claim for the starting position. Brought the fight to a strong Scottish back-row but has a way to go.

Jim Glennon: http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/jim-glennons-player-ratings-2841990.html



Neil Francis even! http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/unendurable-mediocrity-of-the-lowest-order-2841974.html

It is true that Ireland were looking to fill a vacancy but none of yesterday's back row would have got into a shadow squad of a Super 15 franchise. Leamy, to his credit, playing with a better back row around him, is still able to compete at international level.

Anybody else disappointed with Buckleys carrying and workrate? He scrummaged and tackled well but I'd have expected a bigger game from him to put himself back in the frame. Court was more prominant in attack than the big guy.

He really is an enigma.

roddersm wrote:Anybody else disappointed with Buckleys carrying and workrate? He scrummaged and tackled well but I'd have expected a bigger game from him to put himself back in the frame. Court was more prominant in attack than the big guy.

He really is an enigma.

Buckley was his usual self. He made an absolute mess of any scottish ruck he could be bothered to attack. Unfortunately with his workrate that works out at about every 5th one.

Sin some of those ratings are just bizarre. How McFadden gets the highest score in the backline (7.5) by glennon but Wallace and Fitzgerald get 6.5 is just beyond me. I can only presume he didn't bother watching the game.

I won't even bother looking at Francis comments.

roddersm wrote:Sin some of those ratings are just bizarre. How McFadden gets the highest score in the backline (7.5) by glennon but Wallace and Fitzgerald get 6.5 is just beyond me. I can only presume he didn't bother watching the game.

I won't even bother looking at Francis comments.

Glennon is a Leinster cheerleader (being a former player & coach) so I take what he has to say about Leinster players with a pinch of salt.

I'd listen to his comments about what he says about players outside of Leinster though (but they will never be as good as Leinster players)!

Having watched the game again, McFadden had a decent enough game tbh.

Ha ha did indeed read Francis article and I'm gad I did:

"Luke Fitzgerald looked like a peacock trapped in a turkey pen"

brilliant!! Francis is good for a laugh if nothing else!

Sorry for harping on, but I have yet to read one critic or neutral (Scottish fan) to have a good word to say about Wallace.

I too would like to see Leamy again in a better backrow. However, I don't really like him at 8. I would prefer to see him at 6. Say if Ferris and Heaslip were both out, I would go for Leamy at 6 and O'Brien at 8.

I think the criticism of Leamy is a bit harsh; although I was slightly underwhelmed I would like to see him play again. I agree on Cronin.

Boyne wrote:Sorry for harping on, but I have yet to read one critic or neutral (Scottish fan) to have a good word to say about Wallace.

Well, at least you're sorry.

Boyne wrote:Sorry for harping on, but I have yet to read one critic or neutral (Scottish fan) to have a good word to say about Wallace.

Andy Nicol repeadly said how good a player he was throughout the game. Even George Hook rates him. It seems there are very few neutrals when it comes to Wallace.

OK he's not Sonny Bill Williams but he's done very little wrong in an international jersey and the abuse he gets is way out of proportion to his performances and those of his teammates.

OK he's not Sonny Bill Williams

I'd agree with you on that one.

It’s unfair to judge the half backs and centers on that performance, they had no platform. The back 3 were able to manufacture some breaks, but when your back 3 are having to do it themselves you know improvements need to be made in the pack.

Ideally Kidney would have started a pack with more “probable’s” to give the backs a chance to gel.

Not sure what we can learn from this and take into the next game, because in all likelihood Dekkie will ring in the changes.

Totally agreed Mick. I've said I hope they keep the same two centres versus France. If they are poor with a first choice pack in front of them, then the criticism can start.

I'd say Earls and Bowe will come in anyway.

Notch wrote: I hope they keep the same two centres versus France. If they are poor with a first choice pack in front of them, then the criticism can start..

+1

Maybe we'll see O'Leary, Leamy, Ryan and Flannery get some game time against La Rochelle this Friday too. More gametime for them is a good thing.

Notch I think we'll be in big trouble against France if we don't play a natural 13. If BOD isn't fit then we'll have to go with Earls at 13 because that partnership between Wallace and McFadden just didn't work, mainly because McFadden isn't a 13. It would be suicide to go with the same midfield.

For me McFadden had a shot and didn't do enough. Its now the turn of others for a shot. at 13 anyway.
Due to his versatility he may get another run out on wing or at 12, but he's certainly more on the outskirts of the squad after Saturday, and I don't believe theres any value in him retaining the 13 shirt for france.

McFadden has played as much rugby in his career at 13 as he has at 12 rodders. I don't know where people are getting this idea that he is a specialist 12 from, as when he made his debut for Ireland A at 12 the big debate was whether he could make the transition from outside centre to inside centre. How short peoples memories are! It's only this past season he's really played a lot of rugby at 12. He's played all around the backline for Leinster.

I feel if he travels to this RWC he is much more likely to cover inside centre and wing, with D'Arcy and Wallace our options at 12. His most dangerous weapon is his outside break, his pace- we won't see what he can offer as a strike runner at 12 I feel.

Wallace/Earls would not disappoint me, but I would like to see those two together again.

Notch wrote:McFadden has played as much rugby in his career at 13 as he has at 12 rodders. I don't know where people are getting this idea that he is a specialist 12 from, as when he made his debut for Ireland A at 12 the big debate was whether he could make the transition from outside centre to inside centre. How short peoples memories are! It's only this past season he's really played a lot of rugby at 12. He's played all around the backline for Leinster.

I feel if he travels to this RWC he is much more likely to cover inside centre and wing, with D'Arcy and Wallace our options at 12. His most dangerous weapon is his outside break, his pace- we won't see what he can offer as a strike runner at 12 I feel.

Wallace/Earls would not disappoint me, but I would like to see those two together again.

He didn't even play that much rugby at 12 this year. I would say he had nearly an even amount of gametime between 13,12 and the wing.

clivemcl wrote:For me McFadden had a shot and didn't do enough.

To me this isn't really the way it should work. We build teams. It isn't a case of throw people in and instant results.

Notch if McFadden's most dangerous weapon is the outside break then we're in trouble because he didn't make a single line break or beat one defender against Scotland. If he can't beat Ansboro and Morrison then he won't worry France much.

I didn't see enough promising in the Wallace/ McFadden partnership to warrant wasting anymore gametime on it. I feel we need to look at our other options if BOD isn't fit.

red_stag wrote:

clivemcl wrote:For me McFadden had a shot and didn't do enough.

To me this isn't really the way it should work. We build teams. It isn't a case of throw people in and instant results.

Precisely. Having said that, Niall Ronan has had his shot

Great quote from Declan Kidney there.

"My job is to keep a level head and that's what I'll do. We've got things to work on. Had we conceded five tries I wouldn't be panicking about our defence, had we scored five tries I wouldn't be overly elated about our attack."

I love this guy. He is so chilled out. He is... incredibly chilled out!

roddersm wrote:Notch if McFadden's most dangerous weapon is the outside break then we're in trouble because he didn't make a single line break or beat one defender against Scotland. If he can't beat Ansboro and Morrison then he won't worry France much.

Yeah, but he never got quality ball to attack with. Neither did Wallace or Sexton. Thats why I want to see more of these players, in a stronger team, to make an informed judgement on them.