Ireland - What Next

First topic message reminder :

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 don't think Jennings has the pace or the physicality to play international. He was also 2nd choice to Keith Gleeson for Leinster until he retired.

SOB wasn't getting his game with Leinster either (behind Kevin McLaughlin). Then he had his leg break last year as well. Really only got going with Leinster this time last year.

But honestly we are speculating as he never did get much of a chance. Wasn't Jennings still overseas while Gleeson was here? I am just wondering what is so different from being part of the best european backrow, to being on the international stage with the same backrow. It has never been tried.

Gibbo don't be talking shoite now. He either won the six nations, beat Australia and developed a squad, or he didn't. Saint Deccie did, so leave him alone!! This against his original grain thing as well? I'm sick to death of hearing people go on about how Deccie is conservative. Did he bring Hayes to the world cup? Did he every re-introduce Horan after the grand slam (and don't tell me you think Court is that much better than him that it couldn't have been an option)? Is Fla not the second best hooker on our island (when he's fit, admittedly not something that occurs often)? Leamy I have no answer for (jaysus the lad tries though) and insult David Wallace again and there's war ya big WUM! Saint Heaslip would have been lucky to have made the bench during the world cup had Wally been fit. Bottom line, he omitted TOL and Fitz from the squad completely, as well as the above, he isn't conservative and he doesn't have that "grain" attached to him.

I love this "accept the mediocrity as the norm" thing as well. Is it mediocre for Ireland (IRELAND) to get to a quarter final and challenge for the six nations every year for the last decade? Is that really mediocrity for a country our size and with the level of interest the sport has on our island? I know the meaning of the word implies that we're just average but, for me, mediocrity for Ireland is coming 3rd/4th in the six nations and getting smashed in a quarter final, or not getting there at all. That would be average for our team and anything above that, and we have got above that consistently, would be far above mediocrity. I put it to you sir that, just like our lovely Fianna Fail politicians, you've lost the run of yourself. Why should we do any better than we have done? We have no divine right to. So you go accept that or else adopt the Netherlands in football if success is that important to you

That may come across as overly harsh, (in fact I'm certain it has done since I'm 90% sure you were being a smarta*$) but I'd like to justify it by saying I'm only in the door, felt like a rant and am seriously hungry!

Rory_Gallagher wrote:But honestly we are speculating as he never did get much of a chance. Wasn't Jennings still overseas while Gleeson was here? I am just wondering what is so different from being part of the best european backrow, to being on the international stage with the same backrow. It has never been tried.

No, when Jennings came back from Leicester (07-08 season), Gleeson was still first choice No 7 for Leinster.

I don't think it matters who he is playing with if he can't get to the breakdown quick enough. The other thing is that he seems to get injured every second game.

As for being the best backrow in Europe - surely that has to do with combinations. Not every club has an international backrow anyway - for example - Northampton's backrow for the HC was Calum Clarke, Phil Dowson & Roger Wilson.

We picked Jennings OBrien Heaslip in a warmup game. Think it was France.

On the mediocrity thing, yes this group of players has already achieved more then any other group of players to ever play for Ireland and that in itself is a major thing. But if you look at the players and ask, Could they have done better and could they do better? I think for most people the answer would be yes. The huge amount of success at provical level has not translated to the Ireland national side.

In the so called "golden generation" Ireland have 1 Grand Slam and I think it is 3 Triple Crowns. We have been very unlucky at some points but a lack of composure on a few critical moments has cost us at least 2 further 2 Six nations. At two World Cups we have benn shockingly bad apart from one brilliant match against Oz.

So can we really call that fulfilling this team potental? Make up your own minds but for me the answer is me is a resounding no.

red_stag wrote:We picked Jennings OBrien Heaslip in a warmup game. Think it was France.

I am almost certain that is wrong, they have definitely not played together for Ireland.

EDIT: Turns out I checked the wrong France game lineup, in the second fixture of the warm ups it turned out they did. I stand corrected, apologies!

mrsuperclear wrote:Gibbo don't be talking shoite now. He either won the six nations, beat Australia and developed a squad, or he didn't. Saint Deccie did, so leave him alone!! This against his original grain thing as well? I'm sick to death of hearing people go on about how Deccie is conservative. Did he bring Hayes to the world cup? Did he every re-introduce Horan after the grand slam (and don't tell me you think Court is that much better than him that it couldn't have been an option)? Is Fla not the second best hooker on our island (when he's fit, admittedly not something that occurs often)? Leamy I have no answer for (jaysus the lad tries though) and insult David Wallace again and there's war ya big WUM! Saint Heaslip would have been lucky to have made the bench during the world cup had Wally been fit. Bottom line, he omitted TOL and Fitz from the squad completely, as well as the above, he isn't conservative and he doesn't have that "grain" attached to him.

I love this "accept the mediocrity as the norm" thing as well. Is it mediocre for Ireland (IRELAND) to get to a quarter final and challenge for the six nations every year for the last decade? Is that really mediocrity for a country our size and with the level of interest the sport has on our island? I know the meaning of the word implies that we're just average but, for me, mediocrity for Ireland is coming 3rd/4th in the six nations and getting smashed in a quarter final, or not getting there at all. That would be average for our team and anything above that, and we have got above that consistently, would be far above mediocrity. I put it to you sir that, just like our lovely Fianna Fail politicians, you've lost the run of yourself. Why should we do any better than we have done? We have no divine right to. So you go accept that or else adopt the Netherlands in football if success is that important to you

That may come across as overly harsh, (in fact I'm certain it has done since I'm 90% sure you were being a smarta*$) but I'd like to justify it by saying I'm only in the door, felt like a rant and am seriously hungry!

As long as yer happy in yer nappy Super.. that's all that really matters in the end.

P.S. I have long adapted Nederland as my choice football team. I like to watch football. I have supported Leinster for over 20 years because I like to watch rugby. I have supported Ireland's National rugby team for 40 years, because I am a self-flaggelating, sado-masochist.

I blame Red Stag. WUM.

Irish Curry wrote:On the mediocrity thing, yes this group of players has already achieved more then any other group of players to ever play for Ireland and that in itself is a major thing. But if you look at the players and ask, Could they have done better and could they do better? I think for most people the answer would be yes. The huge amount of success at provical level has not translated to the Ireland national side.

In the so called "golden generation" Ireland have 1 Grand Slam and I think it is 3 Triple Crowns. We have been very unlucky at some points but a lack of composure on a few critical moments has cost us at least 2 further 2 Six nations. At two World Cups we have benn shockingly bad apart from one brilliant match against Oz.

So can we really call that fulfilling this team potental? Make up your own minds but for me the answer is me is a resounding no.

The Irish provincial teams are successful because they have a large concentration of internationals playing for them and are competing against teams who don't have so many. Teams with high concentration of internationals (or ex-internationals from SH) like Toulouse are always there or thereabouts. Northampton have about 5 internationals - Leinster have about 12+. When an Irish team faces England, they are competing against 23 internationals, not 5.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

red_stag wrote:We picked Jennings OBrien Heaslip in a warmup game. Think it was France.

I am almost certain that is wrong, they have definitely not played together for Ireland.

EDIT: Turns out I checked the wrong France game lineup, in the second fixture of the warm ups it turned out they did. I stand corrected, apologies!

He also started against Russia with Heaslip & Ferris in the World Cup.

[quote="Sin é"][quote="Irish Curry"]On the mediocrity thing, yes this group of players has already achieved more then any other group of players to ever play for Ireland and that in itself is a major thing. But if you look at the players and ask, Could they have done better and could they do better? I think for most people the answer would be yes. The huge amount of success at provical level has not translated to the Ireland national side.

In the so called "golden generation" Ireland have 1 Grand Slam and I think it is 3 Triple Crowns. We have been very unlucky at some points but a lack of composure on a few critical moments has cost us at least 2 further 2 Six nations. At two World Cups we have benn shockingly bad apart from one brilliant match against Oz.

So can we really call that fulfilling this team potental? Make up your own minds but for me the answer is me is a resounding no.[/quote]

The Irish provincial teams are successful because they have a large concentration of internationals playing for them and are competing against teams who don't have so many. Teams with high concentration of internationals (or ex-internationals from SH) like Toulouse are always there or thereabouts. Northampton have about 5 internationals - Leinster have about 12+. When an Irish team faces England, they are competing against 23 internationals, not 5.

[/quote]

Yes but these teams have many players who have few or no caps for SH countries and have been deemed sub standard for say the ABs. That hardly means they are that much behind our players, look at players like Warwick and Nacewa, Warewick never played for Oz and never will, yet Ireland would have had him at the bench at least if he had not played at under-20s. Nacewa never played for the ABs as he was somewhat mislead by Fiji but how many times would he have played for New Zealand? Not many. These types of players are littered around europe so judging teams by how many internationals they have is not a valid arguement.

Ah I'm always happy Gibbo Words can't bring me dowwwwwwwwn Ah, I was actually born in Dutchland so they're my second team too. Love being an orangeman every second summer when there's a tournament on! :O Would like to think I won't have to be this summer but I wouldn't put much money on us going to Polkraine...

I know what you're saying about the mediocrity Irish Curry but, despite the success at provincial level, the sum of our parts is, in my opinion, not deserving of having an expectation of getting to a semi final and winning multiple grand slams. We're just not good enough to expect doing that. Could we do so and do we have potential to do so? Sure, but I just feel it's more likely that at least five other countries will do better than us on a regular basis notwithstanding our so called golden generation. Therefore calling it mediocre when we don't achieve that is far off the mark to me. Just because you don't achieve your full potential doesn't mean you're mediocre. Competing against very good teams and coming painfully close (Wales in the 1/4 and France in 07) doesn't make our team mediocre. Semantics maybe but I just think calling us mediocre based on such results is insulting to both the opposition and ourselves and is also wrong in fact.

I never called them mediocre I just said they have not furfilled their potential, other posters said that.

[quote="Irish Curry"]

Sin é wrote:

Irish Curry wrote:On the mediocrity thing, yes this group of players has already achieved more then any other group of players to ever play for Ireland and that in itself is a major thing. But if you look at the players and ask, Could they have done better and could they do better? I think for most people the answer would be yes. The huge amount of success at provical level has not translated to the Ireland national side.

In the so called "golden generation" Ireland have 1 Grand Slam and I think it is 3 Triple Crowns. We have been very unlucky at some points but a lack of composure on a few critical moments has cost us at least 2 further 2 Six nations. At two World Cups we have benn shockingly bad apart from one brilliant match against Oz.

So can we really call that fulfilling this team potental? Make up your own minds but for me the answer is me is a resounding no.

The Irish provincial teams are successful because they have a large concentration of internationals playing for them and are competing against teams who don't have so many. Teams with high concentration of internationals (or ex-internationals from SH) like Toulouse are always there or thereabouts. Northampton have about 5 internationals - Leinster have about 12+. When an Irish team faces England, they are competing against 23 internationals, not 5.

Yes but these teams have many players who have few or no caps for SH countries and have been deemed sub standard for say the ABs. That hardly means they are that much behind our players, look at players like Warwick and Nacewa, Warewick never played for Oz and never will, yet Ireland would have had him at the bench at least if he had not played at under-20s. Nacewa never played for the ABs as he was somewhat mislead by Fiji but how many times would he have played for New Zealand? Not many. These types of players are littered around europe so judging teams by how many internationals they have is not a valid arguement.

Think we might be agreeing here really (that Leinster & Munster have more internationals on their team than other teams). For example, in the HC final Leinster had 11 internationals with more than 20 caps each. Only one of their players (Strauss) was not capped. The 2nd best team in Europe had 6 internationals - most with less than 20 caps (Foden, Ashton, Tonga'uiha, Hartley, Mujati, Lawes). The Irish provinces have a higher concentration of internationals than other clubs - thats why they do well in European competition.

I do agree that they have more internationals then other times, thats fairly obvious. But what I'm saying is that just because they have less internationals doesn't mean they have less quality.

Gibson wrote:

Didn't want him starting, never mind getting rid of him now. Looks like I was roysh. Again. As per.

At least fortune has favoured him. Injuries and big dips in form have helped him develop this team. He's lucky if nothing else.

If I ruled the IRFU, he'd be gone. He failed.

And he hasn't a clue how to take this team forward in the modern era. No idea. Why? Because it is completely alien to him. The days(his days) - of basic 10 man rugby are over. He is out of his depth at this level.

I can't understand why supposed educated, young & aware posters cannot see that too.

One day, ye will see the Light.

Do you honestly feel that Ireland are now worse off for having DK run the show than they were when EOS ran the show?

I am not accepting mediocrity either but fail to see how Ireland have been mediocre under DK
Ireland now have very healthy competition for spots over most of the team. They won a GS and reached the 1/4 final of a RWC only being beaten by a Welsh side in a rich vein of form at the time.
I feel that DK is doing the right thing, he will look to the future and i believe that he is the right man for the job.

I agree with Gibbo. The rest of you need to be enlightened.

In what way Glas?

Do you also feel that DK is doing a bad job, if so why? Surely you have your own views on the matter?

eirebilly wrote:
Do you honestly feel that Ireland are now worse off for having DK run the show than they were when EOS ran the show?

I do yes. I think we were a much better team under EOS with a much smaller pool of top players. From 2004 - 2007 Ireland were on a consistant upward curve. There was expectation going into every 6N that we would win and I always felt we could beat any side. EOS did a lot of things right: Making BOD captain, implementing the pre-season fitness programs etc. tactically he was not the best and his man management was poor but I always felt he had a clear strategy of what he was trying to achieve.

We've never hit the heights of 2006-7 under Kidney. Performances have been up and down like a yoyo since 2009 and for every big performance there have been 3 or 4 mediocre ones.

Didn't get to say this yesterday but on Kidney, as much as I've been impressed by him I wouldn't be upset to see him leave.

He has put an excellent structure in place but I'm not sure he knows best how to utilise it. What is make or break IMO is who he hires as attacking coach.

He has created excellent depth in nearly every position. He has created an atmosphere the players are comfortable in. He has got a win down in South Hemisphere and done the 6 Nations Grand Slam.

However he wants us to play a game that neither he as head coach nor Gaffney as attacking coach could deliver. The fact Gaffney has left has filled me with hope. This must be his priority now.

Kidney, imo is living off the Grand Slam a small bit. Since then we have and after our unbeaten streak in 2009 we have sliped backwards really except the odd brilliant performance like England or Austraila.

I'm not saying get rid of him but if he doesn't deliver in the Six Nations, well I think his position should be looked at.

Its actually the Summer Tour to NZ that I will be judging Kidney on, if its a disaster then a behind closed doors decision should be made to not renew his contract.

Why go to the hassle of paying compensation, dealing with the media, causing a rift amongst fans when instead they can pat Kidney on the should say "thanks for the RWC but we are going to go with someone new now". A new candidate would have 2 years to prepare for RWC which is ideal lenght of time IMO.

I agree with Stag,

while I want to see some development in the 6n

-Ryan/POM, Spence, Hagan/Wilkinson, Gilroy, Keatley involved in 30 man squads
-Ryan, Ryan/POM, Keatley, McFadden, Jones getting game time

I think that the Summer tour ultimatley is where more experimentation/blooding is required.

For example against some midweek teams I'd love to see an Irish team like this just so we have an idea of what these guys can do and if they excel try them out either against the AB's or in AI's.

Wilkinson/McCallister-Cronin-Hagan
Toner-DOC
Ruddock-Leamy-Dom Ryan/POM
TOL-Keatley
Wallace-Spence
Carr-Jones/Kearney-Gilroy

Wilkinson/McCallister-Sherry-Tuohy-Ryan/POM-Boss-O'Malley-Conway

Bear in mind that 22 players will have played a game 3/4 days earlier so that rules out a lot of others.

My test team would be

Healy-Best-Ross
Ryan-POC
Ferris-Heaslip-SOB
Murray-Sexton
McFadden-BOD or BOD-Bowe
Earls-Jones/Kearney-Bowe/Trimble

Court-Cronin- DOC-Ruddock/POM/Ryan-Reddan-ROG-Trimble/Kearney

The thing that i dont get with that plan stag, is that you say that Ireland should blood new players on the tour but that Kidney has to succeed.

Surely by bloodening new players he is going to have limited sucess straight away thus not succeed?

I didn't say anything about blooding anyone - I think the concept of blooding players doesn't work and is ill thought out prior to shortly before the World Cup.

My priority is how the backline attack on this tour. I don't mind if we pick the likes of Shane Horgan, Tomas O'Leary or call Geordan Murphy out of returement.

However I suspect that young players will get selected and I think they will do well. They are the ones delivering at the minute. I think we will do well on the tour personally. The midweek games are vital to youth development IMO

I agree re: the young players, particularily in the centres as we seem to be lacking the physical exuberance and athleticism to get ourselves through gaps in midfield or even get over the advantage line meaningfully

Not sure if this has been mentioned but BOD has reinforced his desire to continue again today:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/rugby/heineken-cup/brian-odriscoll-irsquove-no-plans-to-hang-up-my-boots-16072512.html

Interesting to hear him admit that he's not as sharp or fast as he was.

But isnt picking young players to play at international level bloodening them? I always thought that was the case, including mid week games.

I am sorry stag but i really just dont understand what you want. You want to pick sides that are capable of winning but you also want to bring young players through. Surely by picking the young players on this tour they may have limited sucess and thus (not winning matches) and the tour may be deemed a failure and (in your words) DK is removed.

No Eirebilly, young players can be blooded but can also be the best option at the time. For instance Murray was blooded but he was also the best player we had and improved our chances of winning

I have been ridiculed because i suggested that BOD and D'Arcy be phased out (D'Arcy immediately) with new players coming in. I suggested that ROG be left out because (although more than good enough to compete) he is not the future. These are the only changes that i wanted at this stage and i dont see a problem with that.

Irelands problem in the past has always been clinging on to players for far to long so what on earth is wrong with a little progressive thinking? I would certainly sacrafice potential short term success for long term stability.

I have wantedall along that the young players be given a chance on this tour with a view to bloodening the young lads and getting them up to speed.

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:No Eirebilly, young players can be blooded but can also be the best option at the time. For instance Murray was blooded but he was also the best player we had and improved our chances of winning

Agree totally, i just dont get why i have been ridiculed for suggesting that there are players ready to step up and replace BOD and D'Arcy.
My ROG point being that he is not going to be around for much longer so why not start preparig for the future without him. Sexton is more than capable of taking up the mantle so why dont Ireland start introducing someone like Keatley to the set up now?

DK is in a difficult position for some and will be ridiculed for whatever he does.

If he picks teams on the tour that are stable and give Ireland a good chance of victory then he is being unimaginative, not preparing for the future and should go. If he picks young players and they dont perform immediately the tour will be deemed a failure and he should go...

This goes back to what I was saying the other day. I will go back to bullet points. It stops me rambling.

- I want the best players to play for Ireland. By best players I mean the team most likely to win. I don't care if that player is 20 or 30 or 35 years old.

- We have an International A side which should more than suffice for exposure. By blooding a players I take that to mean giving an inexperienced player a game just so that he will be ready in the future.

- I disagree that blooding (as I understand) it serves any purpose for us. We have three tests against the NZ All Blacks which is how we will be judged. In these games we pick our best players (see above). In midweek games we can try combinations that may work.

- The reason for this is that we will not have an Ireland A tournament that summer. They all travel to NZ.

- My barometers for a success tour are threefold. 1) Did our backline show invention and creativity? 2) Did we get a win against NZ? 3) Did we come out of the tour in a better place than heading into it?

If we get 2 out of those 3 I will be happy.

BOD is 32. That's 3 years younger than Shane Williams and Stephen Jones.

eirebilly wrote:

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:No Eirebilly, young players can be blooded but can also be the best option at the time. For instance Murray was blooded but he was also the best player we had and improved our chances of winning

Agree totally, i just dont get why i have been ridiculed for suggesting that there are players ready to step up and replace BOD and D'Arcy.
My ROG point being that he is not going to be around for much longer so why not start preparig for the future without him. Sexton is more than capable of taking up the mantle so why dont Ireland start introducing someone like Keatley to the set up now?

The reason I ridiculred the last day is your rationale for changes.

BOD and Darcy aren't really performing well internationall for quite a while. We have several other centres who are first choice for their teams.

ROG is performing well enough internationally. The only reason you want him gone is his age. That is the reason you were ridiculed.

Glas a du wrote:BOD is 32. That's 3 years younger than Shane Williams and Stephen Jones.

Hes 33 in January, 2 years younger than Williams. He's took more knocks and played more big games though.

Stag, Yes the age thing has a lot to with ROG and my calls for him to be replaced. He is not going to be around for much longer and it is a crucial position for Ireland. Sexton is in, can perform so why not bring someone like Keatley in now as a back up to Sexton.

Disagree all you want but i see no need for childish ridiculing when i have stated my points clearly. I have not belittled your comments but have treated them with respect.

Eirebilly and Stag

Obviously the tour to NZ is a while away but who would your 22 squads be as such for the Midweek games and Test games. Can't predict injuries or form etc but who would you be looking to choose?

Why is it childish. I disagree with your rationale entirely. I exaggerated a lot of your points and poked fun but why should I pretend to agree with you?

I would start Sexton for Ireland as I think he is a better player personally. However ROG on the bench ahead of Keatley is a no brainer. When Kealtey shows himself to be better he will play.

Sometimes that happens when players are very young. Other times it doesn't. My rebukes are not childish. I've been very clear in my mentality.

If ROG was the only 10 at international standard for Ireland then his age would not be a factor as he would need to stay. The thing is, Sexton is more than up to the task so why not show him the faith and bring a younger player into the fold as well.

ROG is not the way for Ireland going further right now.

red_stag wrote:Why is it childish. I disagree with your rationale entirely. I exaggerated a lot of your points and poked fun but why should I pretend to agree with you?

I would start Sexton for Ireland as I think he is a better player personally. However ROG on the bench ahead of Keatley is a no brainer. When Kealtey shows himself to be better he will play.

Sometimes that happens when players are very young. Other times it doesn't. My rebukes are not childish. I've been very clear in my mentality.

There, you have answered your own question. I have debated and have tried to understand your points without resorting to childish fun poking. I disagree with you but i see no need to resort to this. You could have shown me the same courtesy. Unfortunately you could'nt.

Pete, bear in mind I'm guessing who'll do well , who'll get a look in provincially etc. I would say something like:

Six Nations 22:
Healy, Best, Ross
Ryan, O'Connell
Ferris, Heaslip, O'Brien
Murray, Sexton
McFadden, O'Driscoll
Earls, Kearney, Bowe
Reserves: Cronin, Court, O'Callaghan, Jennings, Reddan, O'Gara, Trimble

First and Second Test Team Summer 22:
Healy, Best, Ross
Ryan, O'Connell
Ferris, Heaslip, O'Brien
Murray, Sexton
McFadden, O'Driscoll
Earls, Kearney, Bowe
Reserves: Cronin, Court, O'Callaghan, Jennings, Reddan, O'Gara, Spence

Mid Week Summer 22:
McAllister, Sherry, Hagan
Toner, Tuohy
Leamy, O'Mahony, Ryan
O'Leary, Keatley
Spence, Barnes
Fitzgerald, Jones, Carr
Reserves: Varley, Archer, Nagle, Ruddock, Boss, Wallace, Murphy

A lot of guesswork there.

Why are you angry about it Billy. We aren;t gonna have 3 pages of "Im right" "No Im right" without some banter.

I can assure you that I understand your point entirely and I understand the logic thats in it. However I disagree 100% with it, I find it needed and I firmly believe as I said already that its a knee jerk reaction to losing to a young Welsh side and the press coverage that their age received. I know thats an assumption on my part but I'm afraid thats the way it is.

I suggest don't take things personally. It is your argument I find fault with not you. And I will continue to debate this point in the same manner. I find it a silly way to think and feel I am obliged to say so.

ROG is performing well enough internationally.

He had a howler against Wales and we got knocked out the world cup though. Our two very best performances in the last two years have been against England and Australia. Sexton started both. He should be fully backed as our first choice flyhalf. He offers more in attack and defence.

On top of that ROG could have been brilliantly utilized as an impact sub, as we've seen him used very effective in that role. But Sexton missed some kicks and Kidney went for O'Gara against Wales. The same Wales who had shown us they know exactly how to neutralize O'Gara. Which they did.

Feckless, my point isn't really about ROG per say though as I've said IMO Sexton is the better player and should start. When ROG v Sexton rolls around Im in camp Sexton.

ROG is good enough to be the backup - comfortably good enough. Keatley COULD be. If Keatley starts performing consistently well and rivals him at Munster by all means get him in there.

HOWEVER the issue I take a problem with is dismissing him from the squad because of age. Thats it, thats the only problem.

EOS! EOS! Pleeeeeeease NO!

EOS had a seriously short sighted focus on his next game and no further, so he kept picking the same players and had zero cover for injury. Surprise, surprise when injury struck Ireland struggled because rookies had to be brought in with no experience. His policy may have been good enough to win three games for a Triple Crown but was ultimately exposed trying to win five for a GS.

The 09 GS team is far removed from O'Sullivans team. Guys like Bowe, Heaslip, Ferris and Kearney only got proper chances after the 07 debacle thanks to injuries and retirements.
Over the past two years Kidney has tried to redress Eddies neglect to build depth. That has inevitably resulted in inconsistency but has also resulted in some of the best performances from an Ireland team ever. Now nearly half of what most would select as the first choice team have been first capped by Kidney. That is revolutionary change from Eddie's team where only about four of his untouchables remain.

Kidney does need help with attacking strategy, so Gaffney goes - that also shows he has identified a problem and is addressing it.

IMO the most impressive thing about Kidney is his judgement of when a player is ready for Test level. He is slated for persisting with TOL too long but if he hadn't, imagine the pressure that Murray would have been under in the warm-ups? The Press were left in no doubt as to TOL's unsuitability for the RWC, and so couldn't sharpen their knives against young Murray supplanting him.

Another criticism of Kidney is his persistence with D'Arcy, and I have been on that bandwagon. However I can see why he stuck with him for the RWC. Firstly there was precious little competition either in ability or experience. Secondly he played as a defensive centre to partially cover the lack of a fetching openside and also because attacking backs moves had been declared extinct. I would criticise him if D'Arcy/BOD is still the centre partnership for the 6N as that area badly needs rethinking.

In terms of performances I think our wins against South Africa and Australia in 2006 were the best performances I've ever seen from an Irish team. But I agree EOS was terribly short sighted. And Kidney has built a squad. And to be fair to Deccie, Sexton kicked himself out of a starting spot while O'Gara kicked himself in. Almost every coach in the world would have selected O'Gara. I suspect Gatland or Deans would have gone for Sexton though if they were in Kidneys position.

I think Kidney is a good head coach. When I criticize him it's because I think he should do better. It's not that I think he's terrible

red_stag wrote:Pete, bear in mind I'm guessing who'll do well , who'll get a look in provincially etc. I would say something like:

Six Nations 22:
Healy, Best, Ross
Ryan, O'Connell
Ferris, Heaslip, O'Brien
Murray, Sexton
McFadden, O'Driscoll
Earls, Kearney, Bowe
Reserves: Cronin, Court, O'Callaghan, Jennings, Reddan, O'Gara, Trimble

First and Second Test Team Summer 22:
Healy, Best, Ross
Ryan, O'Connell
Ferris, Heaslip, O'Brien
Murray, Sexton
McFadden, O'Driscoll
Earls, Kearney, Bowe
Reserves: Cronin, Court, O'Callaghan, Jennings, Reddan, O'Gara, Spence

Mid Week Summer 22:
McAllister, Sherry, Hagan
Toner, Tuohy
Leamy, O'Mahony, Ryan
O'Leary, Keatley
Spence, Barnes
Fitzgerald, Jones, Carr
Reserves: Varley, Archer, Nagle, Ruddock, Boss, Wallace, Murphy

A lot of guesswork there.

I wouldn't disagree with those teams too much, would prefer someone else in there other than Jenno, think I would live happily if I didn't see him in Irish green again. Also would like Jones to be in the full test matchday squads in NZ.

My reasons for including Jennings on the bench:

1 - He covers 7. We have cover at 6 (D.Ryan) and 8 (O'Brien) but no cover at openside.

2 - O'Mahony hasn't done enough to convince me he is ready for the international game.

3 - I have doubts about David Wallaces ability to recover from this injury.