Ireland - What Next

In a recent exchange with Mr Gibson (the poster) with regards to what DK should do next in terms of the teams development Gibbo has consistently argued that DK should drop everyone who is more than likely not going to be around for the 2015 WC and start playing youngsters or new players in the national team. This is regardless of how well the geriatrics are doing. His arguement is that even if we come fourth or fifth in the 6ns for a couple of years we will eventually see the team develop. I guess you could take Australia as a recent arguement for this or even Wales to an extent.

My problem with this is as follows.
1. We already have a well structured player development approach as follows...
Clubs -> Provincial Academies -> Provincial A -> Pro12 League -> HC -> A Internationals (occasional) -> Full International.

For me regardless of how old someone is (young or old) if they are good enough they should start. For example everyone says DOC should be dropped now. But if he is the best lock then he should play. If Ryan or others are not getting his position in the Munster HC team then this is a no brainer. The same for BOD, Darcy and others.

The other aspect is the commercial side. The 6ns is the IRFUs bread and butter it builds the interest in the team and the support. As with EOS, DK has the same pressure which is to do well in the 6Ns, imagine a couple of years experimenting (cos thats what it is) with bad results = poor attendances for some games which would have a knock on effect for November internationals and overall support for the game.

In addition if you look at the Welsh and Aus approach. The players the coaches picked were the best players in those positions. Including McFadden now because he is possibly the way forward while Leinster still pick a Darcy/BOD combo is farcical.

I never like dropping all the players who will not be around in 4 years and starting again - as that assumes the best players now will still be the best in 4 years time. After all using wales as a template - they could hardly have picked North, Priestland and Faletau in 2007. (Nor England with Lawes/Tuilagi/Youngs)

It is much better to change a team organically if it is not fundamentally broken.

If you are good enough then you are both old enough and young enough. I say pick the best player - if it is even then looking at potential becomes important. If you throw a bunch of kids in then actually that may be harmfull to development versus phasing players in when their performances warrant inclusion.

Drop em all I say. Drop em all and let them earn their places through Rabo and HC.

If Barnes in Munster is having a better season than O Driscoll in Leinster, play Barnes. ect ect

I would agree with Gibson here. There are a few of the Irish internationals that will not be going to the next RWC, and there are a few lads out there now who could do with the international experience.

That said I can also see the gain in keeping some old heads around the squad, but just as mentors, and not as first choice players. For example McFadden should be looking at getting game time in the centre sooner rather than later, even though BOD has been a rock for years. And by doing it now, BOD will still be there to turn to if the brown stuff hits the fan.

But 4 years is a long time in rugby. Anything can happen.

Also I don't see why the World Cup needs to be the total focus when building a team. There are 4 6 nations championships to contend before it comes around again. There are a dozen Autumn internationals and however many tour games. Surely all of these are very important....they are test matches.

I believe in the organic method. If a players desire is still there AND he is still the best player available then pick him.

DOD wrote:In a recent exchange with Mr Gibson (the poster) with regards to what DK should do next in terms of the teams development Gibbo has consistently argued that DK should drop everyone who is more than likely not going to be around for the 2015 WC and start playing youngsters or new players in the national team. This is regardless of how well the geriatrics are doing.

The issue for me is that often, the opposite is what actually happnens. The geriatrics are not dropped regardless of how poorly they are doing (with the exception of TO'L). Players have bad game after bad game, and then pull a reasonable or quite good one out of the bag, and then phrases such as "played themselves into form" are bandied about. Or "big game players". And we coveniently forget how bad they were.

Who are these geriatrics playing well of which you speak? Are there any more than a handful? I don't think so, and I think that's why we failed to make the semis in the RWC. Again.

I think there is a more complex problem here alright.

I agree with DOD on nearly every point. And the ideal would be that the "clubs to provincial to intenational" could somehow be made into a frictionless promotion system.

But the problem is that, as we all know from the controversies of the last few years, the system is not frictionless. Players with big names tend to cause inertia in selection as managers (quite reasonably I should add) expect them to "pull out" a big game even if their form has not been so great in previous "less-important" games. So certain players with potential never get the proper "big-game" time that they require to make mistakes and rapidly improve. Irish players tend to be international novices at a much older age than with other teams (but perhaps this is not such a bad thing overall?). Managers also tend to see the short term benefit of choosing an older-head for the purposes of winning crucial games... far more than they see the negatives of leaving younger players on the side-line for a few more games/years.

So yeah. In principle I'm for the idea of "the best players choose themselves". But in practice I'd also somewhat agree with Gibson: that there needs to be a greater conscious effort to integrate players into the team on the basis of potential... as well as picking the player who is the best one to win you the next game.

Don Alfonso wrote:
The issue for me is that often, the opposite is what actually happnens. The geriatrics are not dropped regardless of how poorly they are doing (with the exception of TO'L). Players have bad game after bad game, and then pull a reasonable or quite good one out of the bag, and then phrases such as "played themselves into form" are bandied about. Or "big game players". And we coveniently forget how bad they were.

Beat me to the punch by 2 mins!

IMO the idea of a 4 year cycle is hogswash. The Lions tour breaks it up and I think a team cycle lasts no more than 18-24 months.

I agree with points DOD makes. If your good enough, your old enough is a common saying. There's another one, if your good enough, your young enough too.

People who show it for the province should get the reward.

One thing I've noticed as a neutral to all this is exactly the point made by Don Alfonso earlier. I'll stick my neck out and use BOD as an example. He was superb but for quite some time has been merely dependable. The occasional flash of what once was simply isn't enough at the highest level and I'm afraid that in my humble opinion he has shown only glimpses of his past exellence for years now.
But the thought of him only playing a bit part in this RWC? Inconceivable in most Irish eyes.
This is an unfortunate trend that continues over the Irish sea to England and also until recently Wales....

100% agreed, Stag.

But there are players who aren't good enough, but are old enough, and that seems to be all that's required from them.

I concur totoally with your last point. It's not happening, though. Instead, in several instances, people who showed it for their provinces or for Ireland in past seasons are getting the reward.

I knwo you've said before you don't think these things should be based solely on form - experience is vital. I agree. But the balance isn't right, and for me the proof is in the fact that we've had only one good, passionate performence in the last six months.

ultra wrote:One thing I've noticed as a neutral to all this is exactly the point made by Don Alfonso earlier. I'll stick my neck out and use BOD as an example. He was superb but for quite some time has been merely dependable. The occasional flash of what once was simply isn't enough at the highest level and I'm afraid that in my humble opinion he has shown only glimpses of his past exellence for years now.
But the thought of him only playing a bit part in this RWC? Inconceivable in most Irish eyes.
This is an unfortunate trend that continues over the Irish sea to England and also until recently Wales....

Well there is a counter-argument there ultra: back-line play is as much about defence, experienced coordination and positioning as it is about speed, acceleration and attacking brilliance. Ireland clearly did not go into this world cup with the intention of blistering the opposition with tries. From a year or so ago they set their stall out to have a smothering blanket defence and sneak one or two tries. This, for me, was the only possible explanation for Darcy still being in the side. His combination with BOD was seen to be much more dependable than the other options...

Don Alfonso wrote:100% agreed, Stag.

But there are players who aren't good enough, but are old enough, and that seems to be all that's required from them.

I concur totoally with your last point. It's not happening, though. Instead, in several instances, people who showed it for their provinces or for Ireland in past seasons are getting the reward.

I knwo you've said before you don't think these things should be based solely on form - experience is vital. I agree. But the balance isn't right, and for me the proof is in the fact that we've had only one good, passionate performence in the last six months.

No the balance isn't right at the minute. I don think people accept "form" as being too quick a term. However if a guy is badly out of form, he should be winning it back in the Pro 12.

Agreed. But there is a list of senior players for whom that will never, ever happen. That's the problem.

red_stag wrote:

Don Alfonso wrote:100% agreed, Stag.

But there are players who aren't good enough, but are old enough, and that seems to be all that's required from them.

I concur totoally with your last point. It's not happening, though. Instead, in several instances, people who showed it for their provinces or for Ireland in past seasons are getting the reward.

I knwo you've said before you don't think these things should be based solely on form - experience is vital. I agree. But the balance isn't right, and for me the proof is in the fact that we've had only one good, passionate performence in the last six months.

No the balance isn't right at the minute. I don think people accept "form" as being too quick a term. However if a guy is badly out of form, he should be winning it back in the Pro 12.

Like this last line Stag. I would love to see this begin to happen for two reasons: 1) As we've all agreed, it will lead to a good bit more fluency in international selection BUT 2) It will equally up the importance of all Pro12 games which up to now have seemed like an irrelevance or even a distraction when big games are approaching.

Yes it is. I'd like to think dropping Tomas O'Leary and Luke Fitz was the start of things to come.

I do think a lot of things like form, age, etc are grossly exaggerated and if we acted as some suggest we have more change that liveremont.

Balance is the key.

Nos na Gaoithe wrote:

ultra wrote:One thing I've noticed as a neutral to all this is exactly the point made by Don Alfonso earlier. I'll stick my neck out and use BOD as an example. He was superb but for quite some time has been merely dependable. The occasional flash of what once was simply isn't enough at the highest level and I'm afraid that in my humble opinion he has shown only glimpses of his past exellence for years now.
But the thought of him only playing a bit part in this RWC? Inconceivable in most Irish eyes.
This is an unfortunate trend that continues over the Irish sea to England and also until recently Wales....

Well there is a counter-argument there ultra: back-line play is as much about defence, experienced coordination and positioning as it is about speed, acceleration and attacking brilliance. Ireland clearly did not go into this world cup with the intention of blistering the opposition with tries. From a year or so ago they set their stall out to have a smothering blanket defence and sneak one or two tries. This, for me, was the only possible explanation for Darcy still being in the side. His combination with BOD was seen to be much more dependable than the other options...

I think we're agreeing here. This is what Ireland, (and england etc etc), went into the tournament to do. The question was where to go from here and I honestly believe that this plan A/Plan B doesn't quite cut it. Ireland were close to 'something' but seemed to have set too much preference in dependability and yup D'Arcy/BOD combo says to the oppostion coaches 'ok, they're gonna be tough to break but...'
I want to see a rugby world where Ireland, Eng, scot, Wales are travelling down south believing they're going to win but we all have or have had a safety first mentality and we know how that ended.....Keep BOD in the camp, on the bench, sharing his vast knowledge and insight. Start him when the game plan calls for it, don't when it doesn't. (and I apologise just for using O'Driscol as an example but he is the most high profile)

For me, the bottom line is that it doesn't seem to matter who's playing best in any given position in the provinces - it's whether the established player is actually playing poorly.

A good, established player can be doing a decent job at their province, and a younger player can be ripping the place up for their province, and the younger player will have to wait.


Lievremont is a good cautionary example of the dangers of chopping and changing at a schizophrenic rate, though.

red_stag wrote:IMO the idea of a 4 year cycle is hogswash. The Lions tour breaks it up and I think a team cycle lasts no more than 18-24 months.

I agree with points DOD makes. If your good enough, your old enough is a common saying. There's another one, if your good enough, your young enough too.

People who show it for the province should get the reward.

Fair points. However when you head into the RWC you don't want a 3rd or half of your starting team with only a season or so of real competitive International rugby under their belt.

Players need experience of big games, winning and losing and the earlier they start getting that then the better position we will be in come 2015. And when I say big games I mean 6N games and tests against the SH teams, not tests against the tier 2 nations and caps coming of the bench for 10 min.

BOD, D'arcy, DOC etc. will not be there in 2015 so their replacements like Spence, McFadden, O'Malley etc. need to be playing 80 min against the top sides sooner rather than later.

What we need to start seeing very soon is that when there are key on field descisions to be made that it's Sexton, Heaslip, Best, Murray, SOB etc. that are making the calls and not BOD,POC and ROG otherwise we will be fecked when these guys retire.

ultra wrote:
I think we're agreeing here. This is what Ireland, (and england etc etc), went into the tournament to do. The question was where to go from here and I honestly believe that this plan A/Plan B doesn't quite cut it. Ireland were close to 'something' but seemed to have set too much preference in dependability and yup D'Arcy/BOD combo says to the oppostion coaches 'ok, they're gonna be tough to break but...'
I want to see a rugby world where Ireland, Eng, scot, Wales are travelling down south believing they're going to win but we all have or have had a safety first mentality and we know how that ended.....Keep BOD in the camp, on the bench, sharing his vast knowledge and insight. Start him when the game plan calls for it, don't when it doesn't. (and I apologise just for using O'Driscol as an example but he is the most high profile)

Yep. And no need to apologise to anyone here regarding BOD... no sentimentality here. If his time is up, it's up. But his replacement needs to be an all-rounder not just quicker. I mentioned Darcy because he would seem to be the much more obvious example for most Irish supporters. And his selection also more clearly points out what the Irish management must have been thinking.

The problem as I see it is that despite the massive disappointment against Wales... this was the first WC that Ireland really did compete with SH opposition. And really did look like they could challenge. So our "belief that we could win" (as you put it) was actually the result of our new emphasis on defensive physicality more than any aggressive attacking play. So I find it hard to completely dismiss that system. After all, the NZers won their first WC in 24 years with their most defensive WC displays ever. And Wales in the end, didn't actually beat any of the Big 3 SH teams or France.

So, while I'm for new blood and new talent... it should be equally about new defensive and physical talent (perhaps a la Roberts and North) rather than just picking those who seem the speediest and likely to score tries but are weak in team-play (a la Tuilagi or the Jason Robinson mode).

I often ponder this same predicament, and the answer is not easy. I too agree that you have to pick the best players regardless of age, but the big problem is that in an attritional impact sport like rugby, injuries impact the team to a huge extent. Your best players are likely to get injured at some point so when or how do you give a replacement the experience of test rugby, so that they can fill in when required, if you don't give them the chance in the first place.

Like DOD says there are huge pressures on coaches to do well. If we look at my team, Wales, in the past I've wondered how we can blood new youngsters. The 6N is the NH showpiece event, so you can't blood them there - it'll devalue the tournament and the sponsors and fans will go ape. The Autumn internationals are an important revenue stream so crowds will be affected by resting players and the SH teams will complain that we've cheapened the fixture and they're getting less gate receipts. Plus we''ll probably get trounced and that does no-one any good. Ditto for the summer tours down under. A development team, at the end of our season, is disrespectful to the SH teams and are likely to be annhilated by the 3 best sides in the world. The only game we usually have to blood youngsters is the one autumn game where we play a 'lesser' nation such as Fiji, Argentina, Canada, etc. However, by putting out a development team we've nearly always struggled as it is a scratch team. Ultimately, the coach then gets it in the neck again.

In Wales we've actually been 'lucky' to have a number of injuries to key players which has allowed some youngsters to come in and cement places. Gethin Jenkins' injury has allowed Paul James to develop into a fine loosehead. Matthew Rees' injury has allowed the much maligned Huw Bennett to come back into the fold, and the likes of Ken Owens and Lloyd Burns to stake a claim and get into the national team environment. Ryan Jones' injury and loss of form has opened up the door for Faletau (8) and/or Lydiate (6). Ditto Martyn Williams and Warburton, although the phaseing out due to age is also a key there. Shane Williams - George North, etc., etc.

I think this is where tournaments like the Churchill cup are great for offering some of the second choice players from the tier 1 nations that chance of international rugby against the 1st choice teams of some of the tier 2 and 3 nations. It's that stepping stone to international rugby, but without devaluing the fixtures of the national 1st team or upsetting the rhythm that the first team has by making huge changes for chage sake. The other option is the traditional tour to some of the developing nations, and I know a number of Welsh players have benefitted from the tours to Canada, USA and Japan in recent years. With the IRB imposing tours on us now, rather than our governing bodies picking the best ones, perhaps this will result in more opportunity for fringe players to get a chance.

I'll admit, it must be a huge headache for coaches. Especially ones without A teams, such as Wales...

Griff wrote:I often ponder this same predicament, and the answer is not easy. I too agree that you have to pick the best players regardless of age, but the big problem is that in an attritional impact sport like rugby, injuries impact the team to a huge extent. Your best players are likely to get injured at some point so when or how do you give a replacement the experience of test rugby, so that they can fill in when required, if you don't give them the chance in the first place.

Like DOD says there are huge pressures on coaches to do well. If we look at my team, Wales, in the past I've wondered how we can blood new youngsters. The 6N is the NH showpiece event, so you can't blood them there - it'll devalue the tournament and the sponsors and fans will go ape. The Autumn internationals are an important revenue stream so crowds will be affected by resting players and the SH teams will complain that we've cheapened the fixture and they're getting less gate receipts. Plus we''ll probably get trounced and that does no-one any good. Ditto for the summer tours down under. A development team, at the end of our season, is disrespectful to the SH teams and are likely to be annhilated by the 3 best sides in the world. The only game we usually have to blood youngsters is the one autumn game where we play a 'lesser' nation such as Fiji, Argentina, Canada, etc. However, by putting out a development team we've nearly always struggled as it is a scratch team. Ultimately, the coach then gets it in the neck again.

In Wales we've actually been 'lucky' to have a number of injuries to key players which has allowed some youngsters to come in and cement places. Gethin Jenkins' injury has allowed Paul James to develop into a fine loosehead. Matthew Rees' injury has allowed the much maligned Huw Bennett to come back into the fold, and the likes of Ken Owens and Lloyd Burns to stake a claim and get into the national team environment. Ryan Jones' injury and loss of form has opened up the door for Faletau (8) and/or Lydiate (6). Ditto Martyn Williams and Warburton, although the phaseing out due to age is also a key there. Shane Williams - George North, etc., etc.

I think this is where tournaments like the Churchill cup are great for offering some of the second choice players from the tier 1 nations that chance of international rugby against the 1st choice teams of some of the tier 2 and 3 nations. It's that stepping stone to international rugby, but without devaluing the fixtures of the national 1st team or upsetting the rhythm that the first team has by making huge changes for chage sake. The other option is the traditional tour to some of the developing nations, and I know a number of Welsh players have benefitted from the tours to Canada, USA and Japan in recent years. With the IRB imposing tours on us now, rather than our governing bodies picking the best ones, perhaps this will result in more opportunity for fringe players to get a chance.

I'll admit, it must be a huge headache for coaches. Especially ones without A teams, such as Wales...

Excellent post Griff. Puts it all in neatly in perspective.

Focussing on certain problems does ironically and inevitably lead to problems in other areas.

IMO you should never have to "blood" a player. 99% of time a young fella will be doing well and he will slot into the team.

If its last minute to a major tournament he is a bolter (happens rarely enough).

International A games mean that blooding players is done in A matches not full tests. The only thing you may need is someone experienced on pitch who knows the score if the player is likely to panic.

(e.g. if we brought Nevin Spence in for BOD it may be better to partner him with Darcy than with say McFadden)

The best teams always have the right blend of youth and experience. Remember Roberts and O'Driscoll in '09. One old and one young. The main thing was that they were both players with real class. And they were a better center combo than either Wales or Ireland had.

The coach should always try to look ahead and choose the right times to integrate young players into the team. But throwing all the youngsters in just because of their age wouldn't work. They have to be good enough for test level too. When the coach decides to start building his World Cup team (not necessarily 4 years out) then he should lean towards picking the younger player with the potential to be better a few years down the line.

But if you keep picking the older guys like EOS, then it's risky. An older players form can drop off within a season and never recover. He just starts to decline with age. And you don't want that to happen with a player with zero experience behind him.

To be fair to Deccie he did a better job of building a squad than any other Irish coach has. I criticized plenty of his selections but he had built a squad that could have made a semi final or final. But our team were not attacking well. I personally put that down to coaching. Ireland were in a position where most people think Kiss and Feek were doing a very good job. Smal had been criticized previously but had gotten the pack playing really well in time for the World Cup. But Gaffney never got any results really. Why don't we ever see individual coaches getting dropped and replaced in the middle of a world cup cycle? It seems that the whole coaching team stays for the duration of their contracts or they all get sacked together.

At the end of the day i think all of the home nations can look to the future with an amount of optimism, despite the RWC. Ireland have shown that they can take on and beat the big boys down south and from what I've seen have a reasonable amount of promising guys on the up. Wales have played some nice stuff with a younger side than I can remember and even england can look forward with relief, knowing that the decision regarding some of their 'untouchables' has been made for them and they can begin afresh with the youth at their availability.
Cleverer people than me will debate the mix of youth and experience but I honestly think the future's quite bright up here.
Now if only we could get the governing bodies to realise that too....

There is a good article in the Sunday Business Post explaining how important the 6Ns is to the IRFU. It also points out that there is no money for going to the World Cup (expenses are paid) and so the IRFU have just lost about €1m.

After Ireland getting to the quarter-finals of the World Cup, the IRFU is now hoping for a good Six Nations in 2012. This could be a potential windfall for the organisation.

Full article here .....

http://sbpost.ie/mediaandmarketing/tough-times-ahead-for-irfu-59114.html

and from Tommy Bowe in the Irish Times:

“A lot of the other guys that people are talking about hanging up their boots also want to carry on. At the World Cup they were in the best shape I’ve ever seen them at and they can definitely continue. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a very similar squad of players going forward with one or two younger players coming in as well.”

------
“We definitely have the young players coming through. Wales showed the way in the World Cup and their young players really stepped up to the plate. The only problem in Ireland is that when the stars go back to the provinces they always start. Maybe we need to give the youngsters more game time to blood them properly.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2011/1027/1224306558831.html

ultra wrote:At the end of the day i think all of the home nations can look to the future with an amount of optimism, despite the RWC. Ireland have shown that they can take on and beat the big boys down south and from what I've seen have a reasonable amount of promising guys on the up. Wales have played some nice stuff with a younger side than I can remember and even england can look forward with relief, knowing that the decision regarding some of their 'untouchables' has been made for them and they can begin afresh with the youth at their availability.
Cleverer people than me will debate the mix of youth and experience but I honestly think the future's quite bright up here.
Now if only we could get the governing bodies to realise that too....

Sorry ultra... in no way did I mean to take from Wales' performances in this WC. And I agree their future looks very bright. I was simply trying to say that Wales' achievements and Ireland losing to them in the 1/4 doesn't automatically mean that Ireland had the "wrong" defensive approach to the game and Wales the "right" attacking one. And that we should all head down South trying to outplay SH opposition with attacking rugby. In fact, if anything, I'd say it was equally Wales' increased defensive physicality that brought their game to a new level and a new consistency this WC.

Anyways, as you said... the WC has offered hope for both Wales and Ireland... and should not be all about the negatives.

I think both Wales & Ireland (v Australia) won both their games on defense.

In the Ireland v Wales game, Ireland had most the possession, they just couldn't do anything with it (mainly because of the lack of physicality in the midfield).

I also think that Ireland were tired (6 day turnaround) after a fairly physical game with Italy - so suffered a few lapses in defensive concentration that allowed the tries. In comparision, Wales had a fairly easy game against Namibia (I think) the week before.

[Sorry ultra... in no way did I mean to take from Wales' performances in this WC. And I agree their future looks very bright. I was simply trying to say that Wales' achievements and Ireland losing to them in the 1/4 doesn't automatically mean that Ireland had the "wrong" defensive approach to the game and Wales the "right" attacking one. And that we should all head down South trying to outplay SH opposition with attacking rugby. In fact, if anything, I'd say it was equally Wales' increased defensive physicality that brought their game to a new level and a new consistency this WC.
Anyways, as you said... the WC has offered hope for both Wales and Ireland... and should not be all about the negatives.


[/quote]

I absoloutely agree......if you find that perfect balance please share it! Wales were to my mind only ever going to be also rans....but very, very good ones. Average age of about 12 won't have helped. Ireland COULD have been contenders to win it, just think the average age of 50 was a bit much....and you mentioned NZ playing a defensive brand of english or SA rugby to win the final. They did, because they had to and they could. their players attack with flair, when required and defend in units like black walls, when required. That's why they're so damned good and that's what we, (NH), should be looking to do.
Oh, and btw, I'm not welsh, just liked quite a lot of what I saw from them..

Sin é wrote:I think both Wales & Ireland (v Australia) won both their games on defense.

In the Ireland v Wales game, Ireland had most the possession, they just couldn't do anything with it (mainly because of the lack of physicality in the midfield).

I also think that Ireland were tired (6 day turnaround) after a fairly physical game with Italy - so suffered a few lapses in defensive concentration that allowed the tries. In comparision, Wales had a fairly easy game against Namibia (I think) the week before.

It was Fiji actually, but you're right it wasn't the stern test we thought it would be! Still very physical though. And, we played them on the same day as you played Italy so it was the same turnaround! But in fairness, the Italy game was a bit harder than ours even though you won quite comfortably.





[/quote]

I think DOD's view is the correct one, but I do think we leave players who are playing poorly but have a reputation for being great in our team for too long. I think we do need to be a bit quicker in putting our second choice in if he is good and our first choice isn't performing

Feckless Rogue wrote: But Gaffney never got any results really. Why don't we ever see individual coaches getting dropped and replaced in the middle of a world cup cycle? It seems that the whole coaching team stays for the duration of their contracts or they all get sacked together.

Feckless, Gaffeny is leaving now and the rest are staying.

Just pick the best available players, forget about age. The 6 Nations is extremely important and not a development tournament. It's not like Ireland have won it that often they can disregard it.

The comparison in the initial post to Australia and Wales is wrong. The did NOT disregard the present for the sake of the future, they just stopped picking on experience and reputation, and picked the best players available. Ireland should do exactly the same.

Kidney should watch all the Irish players (including those not playing in Ireland) over the next few months, and then, and only then, pick the best ones for his squad. In doing so he should ignore both age, and the number of caps a player has.

Funnyexiled scot...when I compared with Aus/Wales I said that while the squads were young they were the best players for those positions or in their clubs/provinces..

I certainly wouldn't just discard all of the older players, although being an England fan then it you didn't want to pick POC against us in the 6N then that is fine by me.

What about Mike Ross? I think is now 31 years old so it's 50/50 if he will still be playing at the next world cup. It's taken a while for you to find an international class tight-head, do you want to just discard him now due to his age in 2015? It's not as though you have any other younger international standard tight heads demanding selection.

I agree with the majority of posters on here, start phasing the youngsters in now but don't just discard all the older experienced players en-masse. Not sure how much benefit it is to throw a team of youngsters together and watch them loose as they find their feet.

I admire the way Gatland went about bringing the younger players through. When you think of the Wales team you think of a young inexperienced team with the likes of Lydiate, Toby F, Warbarton, Preistland, North all in the very early stages of their international careers. However, mix these players with Jenkins, A Jones, Wyn-Jones, Phillips, Roberts & Shane Williams and the team still has plenty of experience. As others have stated, it's all about balance.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Just pick the best available players, forget about age. The 6 Nations is extremely important and not a development tournament. It's not like Ireland have won it that often they can disregard it.

The comparison in the initial post to Australia and Wales is wrong. The did NOT disregard the present for the sake of the future, they just stopped picking on experience and reputation, and picked the best players available. Ireland should do exactly the same.

Kidney should watch all the Irish players (including those not playing in Ireland) over the next few months, and then, and only then, pick the best ones for his squad. In doing so he should ignore both age, and the number of caps a player has.

+ 1.

I wouldn't be too worried about the 6N though as we're time enough for another GS until 2070.

I would go more towards Gibsons thinking on this one. I think we have almost become divorced from the concept of picking on form. Tommy Bowe (whilst being a great player) was nowhere near the form of Trimble last season or in the warm ups. Earls wasnt either but in fairness he was shifted about.

Tommy Bowe was however always going to start (did anyone doubt this?). whilst this isnt necessarily young v old it is symptomatic of irish rugby. We tend to pick on what players have done in the past over what they are currently doing. we still here that Luke Fitz is a test lion, that TOL was awesome in 2009, that Paddy Wallace was great in the summer tour 2008.

Obviously Kidney has shown signs he is getting it right but i think he needs help from the provinces. McLaughlin was great last season but this year he has gone conservative with an overly physical and uncreative midfield, a big number 12 on the wing instead of younger players and sticking with our older scrum half that makes TOL look like William Tell.

For the 6N. Lets get a young backrower in the 22 on the bench. Can it do any harm? Lets get either Bowe or Spence into 13, moving BOD in one. My preference is Spence as he has youth on his side and will learn more from it.
One of Gilroy or Conway or O'Halloran potentially pushing our established wingers would be great but not essential.

Lets see someone given the chance in the 2nd row (not saying drop DOC ). Tuohy or Ryan dependent on form. Could a younger prop push Court for the bench spot? If the form is there then lets do it.
Sexton getting the 10 shirt and keeping it is essential.

beyond that i dont think there is much on. If Sherry can continually improve that would be great.

don't think it's just about age - the number - though. Like it or not, if the position you play relays on pace and you've got a body that's taken 15 years of beatings, the speed simply isn't there anymore. If you play in the tight, needed more for strength and technique, well that can last a whole lot longer. Ireland as of now are solid, difficult and a handful for anyone but you just don't see them frightening many teams' trylines if they stay as is.

What do you do at times like this? Turn to Carwyn James. Keep a losing team and tinker with a winning team. If you need the older players to keep winning until you can bed a few youngsters in then so be it.

For all the madness of Marc Lievremont, he did achieve blooding newer players. Now of course I´m not suggesting DK adopt his mad-capped rotating. But getting the right balance between experience and youth is important. Ireland have already been doing this to some extent with ROG and Sexton. POC seems to be in the form of his life so it´d be madness to see him go. BOD might be a stretch at least at outside centre. Has anyone in Ireland contemplated putting him one in at 12 and giving a shout out to someone at 13 who would have the steady hand of BOD inside of him (no pun intended get your minds out of the gutter!). It certainly worked for Nonu and Umaga.

Other than that I already think there´s a nice blend of youth and experience in the team. To chuck out all the ageing wine and throwing in the non-vintage wine seems like a crazy idea in me. Mix it in and make it last. The future looks bright enough for Ireland. You have a 3 match series in NZ next year. You´ll need some wise heads for that for a start. Remember what happened in Australia when they sent a young team down there. I´ll give you 76 guesses.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote: BOD might be a stretch at least at outside centre. Has anyone in Ireland contemplated putting him one in at 12 and giving a shout out to someone at 13 who would have the steady hand of BOD inside of him (no pun intended get your minds out of the gutter!). It certainly worked for Nonu and Umaga.

We've been banging on about BOD moving to 12 and putting someone faster him outside for the past 3 seasons kia. Unfortunately the Irish selection panel haven't heard us .

Just took a look at who I'd want in my squad for the 6N there

Props: Healy, Ross, Court, Hagan*/Buckley
Hookers: Best, Cronin, Sherry*
Second Row: O'Connell, O'Callaghan, Ryan, Tuohy
Backrow: Ferris, O'Brien, Heaslip, Ryan*/O'Mahony*, Leamy/Ruddock
Scrumhalves: Murray, Reddan, Boss
Flyhalves: Sexton, O'Gara, Keatley*
Centres: O'Driscoll, McFadden, Spence*/Gilroy*
Back 3: Jones, Kearney, Trimble, Bowe, Earls
(possibly Carr instead of Gilroy form dependant)

Props: First 3 pick themselves. Depending on how Hagan goes at Leinster and if Buckley continues to unimpress they may chose to give the younger Hagan a bash.

Hookers: I don't think Fla will be playing again, and from what I have seen of Varley and Sherry, Sherry is better and has more potential.

Locks: I think Ryan has overtaken Cullen and I think Tuohy is a greater asset to have than Cullen. He is younger and a more modern style of lock IMO.

Backrow: I think Jennings may b overtaken by Ryan or O'Mahony as an out and out 7 as jenno has failed at international level to often. Leamy and Ruddock I think could be a close call, mostly dependant on how much game time Ruddock gets (I think he is class) and how well leamy does compared to last year.

Scrumhalves: I hope O'Leary challenges hard for this spot but can't see him getting in unless of injury or drastic form alterations.

Flyhalves: I think Keatley will take Wallace's place as long as he continues to show up well for Munster as he has in some/most of the Pro 12 games so far. The fact he can play 12+13+15 will help also.

Centres: I think McFadden will displace Darcy and therefore will be in the mix for 12 jersey (or 13 with BOD at 12). Spence in there if he shows what he showed last year plus some extra subtle skills hopefully. If no Spence Bowe to be in as a centre. Keatley and earls options too.

Back3: If Gilroy got on the squad I'd move Bowe (and not Earls) to centre/centre cover. No Fitzgerald, Shaggy, Conway or Murphy.

My Ireland Team to play Wales in the 6 nations:

Healy Best/Strauss Ross
POC Ryan
SOB Heaslip Ferris
Murray Sexton
BOD (IS) McFadden (OC)
Trimble Kearney Bowe

Why play an IC as an OC and drop one of the better players from the WC (at least he scores tries)

It ain't going to happen but I'd like to see something like:

15 Kearney
14 Trimble
13 Bowe
12 O'Driscoll
11 Earls
10 Sexton
9 Murray
8 Heaslip
7 SOB
6 Ferris
5 POC
4 Ryan
3 Ross
2 Best
1 Healy

Bench: Hagan, Strauss, Tuohy, POM, Reddan, Keatley, Spence/McFadden

Hopefully to actually play to at least 25% of our ability but sadly I think thats a bridge to far from there deadly 10% performances

DOD wrote:Why play an IC as an OC and drop one of the better players from the WC (at least he scores tries)

Cause he cant defend.

I would like the following.

15 Earls
14 Trimble
13 AN Other
12 O'Driscoll
11 Bowe
10 Sexton
9 Murray
8 SOB
7 Peter O'Mahoney
6 Ferris
5 POC
4 Ryan (once he gets the HC place from DOC)
3 Ross
2 Best
1 Healy

Boyne wrote:

DOD wrote:Why play an IC as an OC and drop one of the better players from the WC (at least he scores tries)

Cause he cant defend.

Yeah McFadden isnt the best really...

Boyne wrote:

DOD wrote:Why play an IC as an OC and drop one of the better players from the WC (at least he scores tries)

Cause he cant defend.

BTW I'm with DOD on this one! ...sorry Boyne