Luke Fitzgerald and Keith Earls.

First topic message reminder :

So with Luke back to his best, and showing just why he was so highly rated when he first came on the scene, he has to be one of the first names on both Leinster and Ireland's team sheet. The question is, where does he play? He has played everywhere from 11-15, and has stated himself his favourite position would be 15. However, he did not do well there during the 6 nations (however, could this be down to bad form in general?). Currently he is playing on the wing.

Then we have Keith Earls, another talented player. He is very dangerous, with more natural pace than Fitz, except he probably isn't just as creative, or as good a distributor. He is definitely a better finisher though, as he shown plenty of times during the RWC. He also has played everywhere from 11-15. Currently he is playing 13.

So here we have the situation of 2 very talented players, who are both utility backs, and possibly haven't selected their best position. Many people think they are both wingers, however Fitz may not have the raw pace needed. Earls to me looks like a definite back 3 player, yet some think his best position might be 13.

My solution would be to swap their positions, put Earls back on the wing for Munster, and move Fitz to 13 for Leinster. I think this will be both of their best positions. I am sure many will disagree with this though, so my question is where will they feature for both province and country?

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:
My brother and I were thinking last night, can anyone name a modern day centre pairing smaller than Darcy and Bod?

McFadden and O'Malley

roddersm wrote:

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:
My brother and I were thinking last night, can anyone name a modern day centre pairing smaller than Darcy and Bod?

McFadden and O'Malley

Smaller? No, actually the same for height. But you're on the button if you read 'smaller' as weight - Mcfadden and O'Malley are lighter by.... 1 stone. Although over the Christmas period and with him being off and all, and drinking and eating a little more than usual, O'Driscoll has probably shifted the scales even more in favour of his pairing!!

This is my favourite clip of Keith Earls:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG12OYiHZRc

Here's mine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdkuVKAm15c&feature=related

SecretFly wrote:
Smaller? No, actually the same for height. But you're on the button if you read 'smaller' as weight - Mcfadden and O'Malley are lighter by.... 1 stone.

OK by my logic if they are equal in height and lighter in weight then that makes them smaller....unless we're talking about something else here?....

roddersm wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
Smaller? No, actually the same for height. But you're on the button if you read 'smaller' as weight - Mcfadden and O'Malley are lighter by.... 1 stone.

OK by my logic if they are equal in height and lighter in weight then that makes them smaller....unless we're talking about something else here?....

well, my .... em humourous point (at least I thought it was humourous at the time).... was that the combined 1 stone McFadden and O'Malley lack could be quickly rectified with a few turkey dinners ... oh and a little fine aging too!