Anglo Saxons 23 - 17 Irish Wolfhounds

by maestegmafia Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:10 pm

First topic message reminder :

The scorers:

For England Saxons:
Tries: Spencer, Waldrom
Con: Burns 2
Pen: Burns 3

For Irish Wolfhounds:
Tries: Kearney, O'Leary, Zebo
Con: Madigan

by **Notch** Sun Jan 29, 2012 7:41 pm

His lineage?

He has two Irish parents who emigrated to England in the 80s if thats what you mean.

by ME-109 Sun Jan 29, 2012 7:42 pm

geoff999rugby wrote:Well I took great comfort in some decent performances - the threes all looked shap, TOL was excellent and Henry, Tuohy and McCarthy put in decent stints.

Yes there were some rank performances the starting half backs, the front row and Duffy but these games are about finding players who have the potential to step up - by my maths 8 Irishmen, at least, did that.

Oh oh Geoff. You're in trouble now. You are not from Munster and you said TOL was excellent Erm

by **Notch** Sun Jan 29, 2012 7:44 pm

Well, to be fair O'Leary was a distinct improvement over Boss in the second half. Not the stuff of legend but a good shift!

The last thing we need to do is turn the boy into a scapegoat. Just because elements of his game haven't been great doesn't mean he should fall off the map.

by Cumbrian Sun Jan 29, 2012 7:55 pm

Pot Hale wrote:Anyone read Stephen Jones report of the match? For a Welsh-born journalist, he sure knows how to barrack for England. I love the Iceland cricket team reference.

"Saxons crush tame Wolfhounds

As a match and an occasion, this was less than tumultuous. The splendid Exeter crowd became animated just twice — when it was announced that Exeter Chiefs had won at Wasps and when Tom Johnson, the local hero, came on in the second half. He really should have started.

But if you were prepared to wait for your thrills, they arrived in a quieter fashion. This was a valuable exercise for English rugby, and it proved again that among the barrage of England fixtures at all levels and age groups, they should arrange more Saxons fixtures.

However silly the name, the concept of England A games is of far more use to man or beast or selectors than anything else.

As a collective, England will be mad that they allowed a mediocre Ireland team to score three tries when they had hardly any pressure on the England line. The Wolfhounds sneaked over completely against the run of the match on all three occasions.

Yet if the Saxons could not underline their superiority on the scoreboard, then at least they pushed some individuals and units to the fore. England’s scrummage was dominant, and even if a victory over any Irish team in the scrum is of the same significance as a win over the Iceland cricket team, that should not detract from the excellence of Matt Mullan and Paul Doran-Jones up front.

They scrummaged their opposite numbers to distraction, and Doran-Jones was far busier around the field than England’s starting props have been for some years.

There were any number of England locks of note on view, with Kearnan Myall impressing even more than the two starters. If you add the coolness of young Ben Spencer at scrum-half and the exuberance of Matt Hopper and authority of Billy Twelvetrees in midfield, you have good news all the way.

Yet the two most interesting Englishmen were Thomas Waldrom (well, a Kiwi- Englishman) and Delon Armitage. Waldrom has his detractors, but he was arguably England’s most influential player and their best carrier.

Armitage is in a kind of career rehab after some grim disciplinary moments, but at his best, he is a very intelligent player and it must be hoped that he banishes his temper.

England established themselves when Spencer scuttled over after a steaming forward drive and they sealed the match when Waldrom scored from a ricochet after the inconsistent Freddie Burns chipped through. England trooped off to bemoan their soft defence, but also to celebrate some progress."

They've disowned him haven't they? laughing

Hang on, I've just read that... Did he actually think 36 had a good game?

Hang on, Hang on... Kearnan Myall was pretty anonymous to my mind... The starting SR's were much better... Or so it seemed to me?

Hang on, hang on, hang on... 'progress' is a little strong isn't it?

by Pot Hale Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:28 pm

Portnoy wrote:What's Tuohy's lineage?

About 26/27 I think. Born in Great Britain, sired by Bill out of Mandy, stabled at Hartpury, before being put out for Gloucester, then Exeter, then Ulster. Went on the Many-Injured Tour down under a couple of years ago and created a new fastest scoring substitute record for an Irish player - 40 secs after he came on, picked up ball and went over the line in the middle of being murdered by New Zealand. Has been very useful for Ulster this season and his coach thought he was deserving of a squad place for the 6N.

by PJHolybloke Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:29 pm

miteyironpaw wrote:We won by the margin of one dubious try and were out scored and out played in the back line by a large margin of class.

Those banging on about the merits of banahan need to get a grip. Similarly twelvetrees who was utterly out of is depth. Armitage too did himself no favours, he was given a lot of ball by stray Irish kicking from hand and did naught with it.

I just don't feel this was a victory that came with many positives.

I've read your posts on this thread and I can only conclude that either you don't have anything constructive to say - because you haven't got a clue - or you're a WUM; in either eventuality, have a nice life, I was right the first time. BE. Anglo Saxons 23 - 17 Irish Wolfhounds - Page 6 3610695981

Anglo Saxons 23 - 17 Irish Wolfhounds - Page 6 3610695981

by miteyironpaw Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:32 pm

Or you could conclude that I have a different and yet valid opinion to your own PJ. Personally, I've read what you believed and while I didn't agree with you, I could see you genuinely believed it and took the time to express your thoughts constructively and eloquently.

Just because we disagree, I'm not sure there's really a reason to try to chase me out of town like some kind of wild west Sheriff by dismissing me and belittling my posts as clueless or deliberately attempting to cause mischief. Is there?

Perhaps I'm not expressing my point as clearly as you are able, and hence you are left imagining that I'm taking the mickey.

by Hood83 Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:33 pm

I thought we (England) were pretty abject to be honest, and not much more than a good scrum. Without that, i think we would have struggled. In my opinion, these things stood out:

1. Matt Garvey is the best ball carrier in England. A big claim maybe, but he is the only player i know who consistently breaks the gain line and always requires more than one player to bring down. For a big man he also has a pretty fine work-rate. As i've said before, i think he should have walked into the EPS.

2. We can scrummage. But for everything said about Mullan and PDJ, i still don't feel our props are as mobile or as active as others. I thought both props and Gray were decent, and the latter should be in the EPS for me, but perhaps are a step down from top international class.

3. We are awful at the breakdown. Just awful. Ireland battered us here. And this stems from another problem for me...

4. We have no visible intensity. I don't mean shouting or screaming, but Ireland hit every breakdown about twice as fast and hard as we did.

5. Freddie Burns looks decent with a good blend of kicking and passing. Spencer has improved from when i first saw him and thought he was grossly overrated, but still needs a LOT more gametime before he's ready for internationals.

6. Twelvetrees, the 'Great 12 Hope' is no such thing. Crap distribution, far too inconsistent. I've seen him enough to think this is not going to get any better.

Basically, take out the scrum and we're roggered. So perhaps we've learnt nothing! I know this sounds sensationalist to say all this, we won after all, and i wasn't expecting much else given the limited time players and coaches have had together. But i did want to see us hit some rucks with more intent. All in all, a bit underwhelming.

by miteyironpaw Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:41 pm

I agree with your points Hood, but for me there is a larger source of disappointment. I hope PJ has the patience to humour me here, I assure you I have no intention to wind any one up.

Surely the point of the Saxons is to develop players for the national side, and to trial players and styles that might be slightly too avant garde or perhaps just raw to go straight out in a full blown international where it really counts.

Now our problem in England is that we know we have strength and depth to allow us to play a very limited set-piece oriented game that no longer wins test matches. We need to adapt our thinking, our selection and our game plans.

What I found most disappointing about the game was that the only thing the Saxons showed was yet more depth in the areas we already know we are secure in. A great scrum? Yes, thanks we have one. The ability to drive a line out and grind out a try provided we can get away with some sly blocking? Thanks, again we're all stocked up there.

What we wanted was, as you say, Twelvetrees (or anyone) to shine on the stage and show he is ready for the next level, that we might dream of a functional back line able to unleash our potent back three. It didn't happen.

What we wanted was a commited, intense performance at the breakdown freeing quick ball and an obvious awareness and intelligence to attack the Irish at the crucial times to ensure a turn over. We didn't get it.

We wanted those taking a saddle at the last chance saloon, Armitage, Banahan et. al. to show they are game breakers. These guys should be shining like beacons at this level. They didn't.

This is why I'm not happy with the win.

by HammerofThunor Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:44 pm

I've got a feeling Stephen Jones is building people up so he can take them down. He's generally worse than Stuart "look at me" Barnes

by PJHolybloke Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:48 pm

Mitey, you've offered nothing resembling a constructive insight into last night's game, all I've read from you is complaints.

We clearly disagree, but whilst I have laid out reasonable arguments as to why I disagree with you, you haven't really offered anything but naysaying in return.

I'm no sheriff and this ain't no Wild West, but if we take that analogy a step further, let's look at this as a classic revenge Western.

You shot my pa (Banahan) for no reason, so now I'm gonna shoot you.

See where I'm coming from now?

by majesticimperialman Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:53 pm

Hood83

I do agree with you about not hitting th breakdown fast enough, England used to be good at this sort iof thing, but since 2003 England rugby world cup, we dont seem to do this any more.

Yes we was out played by Ireland and out scored in the try department,but like i said before on here, it is not the amount of trys that a team scores that wins the game, it is the amount of points on the board that counts. And the England Saxoson scored more points that the Irish Wolfhounds.

by munkian Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:58 pm

Or he doesn't agree with you so you are writing him off as a WUM. The game seemed a but pointless to me , nothing was developed , nothing new tried , just re hilighted that England are good at bullying weaker scrum, can't/won't compete at the break down and that Banahan is not up to International rugby

by miteyironpaw Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:02 pm

I had no idea you were related PJ. Sorry if your feelings were hit in the cross fire. But when I see our team out scored try-wise by a team we dominated from first phase it makes me wonder (as I thought I'd stated clearly and constructively above) what the future has in stall for the national side who have failed to move on from a solid set piece in a decade now despite apparently having the raw potential to do so.

Ditto what munkian just said.

by PJHolybloke Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:03 pm

And there we have the crux of it majestic, no backrow - first or second choice, that's where the problem is and always has been since the Holy Trinity hung up their boots.

We can't expect continuity between forwards and backs until we have a 6-7-8 that can secure quick ball or win turnovers at the contact area.

Incidentally, a totally solid front row wouldn't go amiss either.

The Saxons weren't so much dominant last night, as fortunate to come up against a sub-standard Wolfhound offering.

by miteyironpaw Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:06 pm

There, we all agree. After all.

by PJHolybloke Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:20 pm

So if the problem was so obvious to you Mitey, why single out Banahan?

Surely your first port of call should have been why the hell are England picking Waldrom?

by miteyironpaw Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:27 pm

PJHolybloke wrote:So if the problem was so obvious to you Mitey, why single out Banahan?

Surely your first port of call should have been why the hell are England picking Waldrom?

Just a reminder, I said :

"It brought a tear to me eye! A dominant England forward performance, harking back to the glory of 2003, as we dubiously stamped our authority by pulling the wool over the referees eyes for the first score, lucking out completely for the second and then generating penalty after penalty at the set piece and breakdown, somehow, whilst blatantly off-side, or off our feet; whilst offering almost nothing in the back line. England, are back! If only every game was called that way.

Banahan should never be allowed near another England shirt."

Note I mentioned the dominance up front, the fortuituous nature of our two tries, the lack of modern technique at the breakdown and the failure of the backline to function as a unit. I singled out Banahan in exasperation and then fell into a despair that prevented me from going on. I could equally have singled out any of the other last-chance-salooners like Monye or more likely Armitage.

If you've been participating in both the threads on this topic, you'll notice that my first post-game comment was about Waldrom, and how he is not an international 8. And my further comments on the Stephen Jones thread realting to this matter.

In fact the only thing I wrote that you appear to have read, is the comment on Banahanm which you've chosen to treat context free as some kind of personal attack on your belief system.

You'll notice I also didn't think much of the officiating, which I believe was a bit random and probably allowed our lack of breakdown technical skills to be less penalised than they otherwise would had the same players been contesting, say, the RWC final. I'm a bit tired of the gnashing on the refs here though, so I'm letting it slide.

I'm not quite sure why you have instigated this personal attack, or had quite such an extreme reaction to my expressing an opinion which is clearly held by many others here.

Let's take a deep breath, and realise we're all on the same team here.

by Poorfour Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:27 pm

Mitey, I agree with your ambition for the Saxons, but let's also be realistic about where England and the Saxons are.

MJ largely used the Saxons as a holding pool for players he might want to promote to the EPS. Lancaster has taken out most of the superannuated squad players, and brought in a load of new faces. These guys have never played together before, and most of them had never played in a senior representative squad. Add to that that England have a longstanding issue at the breakdown (which I think Dean Ryan has correctly identified as not committing enough men, because the Prem penalises you for that), and that Lancaster needs a winning start for all sorts of reasons.

Are you going to get slick defence and fluid back moves under those circumstances? No. Is that a reason for wailing and gnashing of teeth? Not at this stage.

England had a very solid set piece oerformance and made it count. The defence was shaky, the breakdown needed readjustment and the backs did not have enough quick ball to show whether they're up to it. If nothing changes in the next couple of Saxons games, then it's a cause for concern. But I thought there was enough there to suggest that if the coaches can work out the kinks, this group could start to perform.

by miteyironpaw Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:34 pm

Fair points. Although to be honest this is a pretty high level.

I'd expect the players I'd selected to be able to work the ball wide when it did happen to be delivered quickly, rather than the sloppy inaccurate passing that allowed several promising attacking opportunities to implode with the ball passed limply into touch, or knocked on, or dropped cold or sent sailing well behind or above the intended target.

Seriously, this is just a basic that I'd expect at a very junior level of rugby. That's not about combinations or playing together, frankly no one was offering anything complicated to read. It was just failing to string a set of passes along a line. I expect guys to be able to draw and pass. To know when to use quick hands, and when to use a cut out pass. I'd expect a full back to know when to come into the line, when to counter attack and when to kick for territory or safety. I'd expect players to be giving each other options, even if the execution and timing wasn't there. I expect players to know not to take the ball into space if they know they will get isolated and leave a fragmented defensive line. When to pass to a player in a better position and when not to just off load to a guy who is about to get hammered. I didn't see any of that.

by PJHolybloke Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:58 pm

miteyironpaw wrote:
PJHolybloke wrote:So if the problem was so obvious to you Mitey, why single out Banahan?

Surely your first port of call should have been why the hell are England picking Waldrom?

Just a reminder, I said :

"It brought a tear to me eye! A dominant England forward performance, harking back to the glory of 2003, as we dubiously stamped our authority by pulling the wool over the referees eyes for the first score, lucking out completely for the second and then generating penalty after penalty at the set piece and breakdown, somehow, whilst blatantly off-side, or off our feet; whilst offering almost nothing in the back line. England, are back! If only every game was called that way.

Banahan should never be allowed near another England shirt."

Note I mentioned the dominance up front, the fortuituous nature of our two tries, the lack of modern technique at the breakdown and the failure of the backline to function as a unit. I singled out Banahan in exasperation and then fell into a despair that prevented me from going on. I could equally have singled out any of the other last-chance-salooners like Monye or more likely Armitage.

If you've been participating in both the threads on this topic, you'll notice that my first post-game comment was about Waldrom, and how he is not an international 8. And my further comments on the Stephen Jones thread realting to this matter.

In fact the only thing I wrote that you appear to have read, is the comment on Banahanm which you've chosen to treat context free as some kind of personal attack on your belief system.

You'll notice I also didn't think much of the officiating, which I believe was a bit random and probably allowed our lack of breakdown technical skills to be less penalised than they otherwise would had the same players been contesting, say, the RWC final. I'm a bit tired of the gnashing on the refs here though, so I'm letting it slide.

I'm not quite sure why you have instigated this personal attack, or had quite such an extreme reaction to my expressing an opinion which is clearly held by many others here.

Let's take a deep breath, and realise we're all on the same team here.

Because the major ineptitude in the England set up has nothing to do with Banahan but he's the only feckin player you put a feckin name on pal, that's why.

Stop pishing in the wind and name the real names.

Moody, captain? Not even the best 7 in England, not even an out-and-out 7.

Haskell? Fancy Dan more interestested in image than substance.

Fourie? Foreign import no-mark.

Waldrom? Likewise.

Croft? Great athlete, but not a genuine six by any measure.

Easter? So sloooooooow.

How in God's name do you expect any backline to profit off the scraps that lot is going to provide?

Every other major football playing nation has a genuine 6-7-8 balance except England.

England have been plugging holes in the backrow since 2003.

Give me a 7 who can get down and dirty where and when it matters, nick the ball and dish it out with hands of silk, hang off the back of the ball carrier and do it again, and again. and again.

Give me a 6 who can tackle like a machine, hit every ruck - ours or theirs - with an intent to do nothing else but make a difference, shield the shortside and stuff any fecker who trys a blindside dash into the second row of the stands. Who will recieve the ball and punch holes in the 8/10 channel where holes need to be without getting isolated or turned over, secure the ball and start another phase.

Give me an 8 who can control the ball at the base of the scrum, pick and go from a standing start with the explosive energy of a 17 stone whippet on speed, hit the gainline, get across it, suck in defenders and offload that killer ball where it will make the difference.

Until England have anything approaching that kind of setup in the backrow, everyone else is on a bit of a hiding, but especially the backs. OK? Do you understand now?

With all that being such a glaringly obvious failure of England teams for the last 8 years, you named a player that not only didn't have a bad game last night, but hasn't ever been embarrassed whilst wearing an England shirt, why would I not think of your comment as being out of order?

I've nothing against you personally, I don't have an axe to grind, but singling out Banahan was totally unjustified and illogical, whay are you surprised that I have a problem with that?

by miteyironpaw Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:15 pm

PJ. Please understand, there are two separate points.

#1 The Saxons as a whole, for the reasons I've given many times now, were not very promising, and showed no progress from my point of view.

#2 Banahan in particular, in my opinion, on a separate note, offers nothing and should be dropped from consideration even at Saxons level. He's not the answer to any problem England has right now. He's picked because of his size, but in practise he doesn't use his natural physcial assets in a constructive way in that he doesn't hold a tackle, consistently make ground, break the line, recycle effectively, or offload constructively, he has no kicking game, primitive distribution ability and is susceptible under the aerial attack, and thus conversely it appears that his size actually handicaps him from being a player with requisit guile, incision and acceleration to offer any threat at international level, even B-international level, apparently. Plodding is a word I'd use to describe him. Limited is another. Dull a third. A hydraulic ram needing regassing, might be my metaphor.

I could have gone on and listed other players in the same category, Armitage for starters, however in the particular post you've taken issue with, I didn't. For various reasons, mostly that I was hit by a wave of crushing depression and stinging anxiety that I might have to watch a toothless and blunt England wallow around in search of inspiration for yet another decade.

Finally, please don't call me pal. I find it agressive and unnecessary.

by munkian Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:29 pm

Bananaman and Waldron have been called up for the EPS squad , I kid Ye not.

And PJ, you are getting very aggro in defense of Banahan, are you his tattooist ?

by PJHolybloke Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:44 pm

Munkian, I just know what a player does when he does it, I guess I'm not on my own after all, Banahan will provide good, solid cover if needed.

Mitey, you're a WUM - honestly? "...please don't call me pal, I find it agressive (sic) and unnecessary." Anglo Saxons 23 - 17 Irish Wolfhounds - Page 6 3497602689

Anglo Saxons 23 - 17 Irish Wolfhounds - Page 6 3497602689

Try this... https://www.606v2.com/t2739-olympic-badminton-tickets#44709

by DaveM Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:04 am

So is the suggestion we shouldn't have pushed as hard as we could at the scrums, because in doing so we just reinforced what we already knew?

The front 5 and Waldrom had good games, this included in the loose where England's forwards outplayed their counterparts. We may have come off slightly worse at the breakdown, but I'd argue that it is impossible to win a game against a decent side if they 'batter' you at the breakdown and so that didn't happen. After-all, how many more breakdowns were there than scrums in that game, but if England hadn't made an inept and ill-judged attempt to run the clock down we'd have won by a convincing margin.

It wasn't a great performance by England, but I thought some of the poor passing was partly because the players took passes intended for others. That is exactly the sort of thing which improves as you become more familar with your colleagues. Spencer, Burns, Twelvetrees, Hopper - none of those player have ever played with any of the others. To expect them to be a smooth unit after 5 days training together when there was little quick ball is just unrealistic.

Basically there are some premature conclusiosn being drawn here (e.g Twelvetrees sisn't good enough for international level because he threw two poor passes in the game). Bottom line is that England won, and given how England - Ireland games have gone recently, at all levels other than u20, that's not a bad start to the international season. I hope and expect that the England Saxons backline will perform better against Scotland A.

by **rodders** Mon Jan 30, 2012 8:57 am

DOD wrote:
geoff999rugby wrote:Well I took great comfort in some decent performances - the threes all looked shap, TOL was excellent and Henry, Tuohy and McCarthy put in decent stints.

Yes there were some rank performances the starting half backs, the front row and Duffy but these games are about finding players who have the potential to step up - by my maths 8 Irishmen, at least, did that.

Oh oh Geoff. You're in trouble now. You are not from Munster and you said TOL was excellent

I thought TOL was very good when he came on too Shocked

.....the fact that he should really have been Paul Marshall shouldn't take away from that.... Whistle

by miteyironpaw Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:17 am

DaveM wrote:So is the suggestion we shouldn't have pushed as hard as we could at the scrums, because in doing so we just reinforced what we already knew?

The front 5 and Waldrom had good games, this included in the loose where England's forwards outplayed their counterparts. We may have come off slightly worse at the breakdown, but I'd argue that it is impossible to win a game against a decent side if they 'batter' you at the breakdown and so that didn't happen. After-all, how many more breakdowns were there than scrums in that game, but if England hadn't made an inept and ill-judged attempt to run the clock down we'd have won by a convincing margin.

It wasn't a great performance by England, but I thought some of the poor passing was partly because the players took passes intended for others. That is exactly the sort of thing which improves as you become more familar with your colleagues. Spencer, Burns, Twelvetrees, Hopper - none of those player have ever played with any of the others. To expect them to be a smooth unit after 5 days training together when there was little quick ball is just unrealistic.

Basically there are some premature conclusiosn being drawn here (e.g Twelvetrees sisn't good enough for international level because he threw two poor passes in the game). Bottom line is that England won, and given how England - Ireland games have gone recently, at all levels other than u20, that's not a bad start to the international season. I hope and expect that the England Saxons backline will perform better against Scotland A.

I disagree entirely. I didn't say there was anything wrong with the front 5 being dominant over the wolfhounds - I'm just saying that what we needed was to find dominance in the areas where we struggle, rather than where we're traditionally strong. I don't agree that the back line shambles was due to lack of familiarity. A majority of broken moves included passes that clearly weren't directed at a target at all - and like I said I didn't see a single set piece back line move executed that was anything other than shoveling the ball down the line. On counter attack we just didn't have a clue how to work the space that was available. It's not about lack of combinations it's about lack of awareness and lack of basic ability.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:19 am

DaveM wrote:To expect them to be a smooth unit after 5 days training together when there was little quick ball is just unrealistic.

Just as well the new look England has a whole two weeks to train together then Erm

by ME-109 Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:54 am

roddersm wrote:
DOD wrote:
geoff999rugby wrote:Well I took great comfort in some decent performances - the threes all looked shap, TOL was excellent and Henry, Tuohy and McCarthy put in decent stints.

Yes there were some rank performances the starting half backs, the front row and Duffy but these games are about finding players who have the potential to step up - by my maths 8 Irishmen, at least, did that.

Oh oh Geoff. You're in trouble now. You are not from Munster and you said TOL was excellent

I thought TOL was very good when he came on too .....the fact that he should really have been Paul Marshall shouldn't take away from that....

The issue with Marshall is clear. If he isnt the first choice for his province in that position he wont get picked. It is one of the rules/guidelines that is clearer than most. No point complaining.

by geoff998rugby Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:59 am

TOL and Boss aren't first choice either

by **rodders** Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:00 am

DOD wrote:
The issue with Marshall is clear. If he isnt the first choice for his province in that position he wont get picked. It is one of the rules/guidelines that is clearer than most. No point complaining.

Hmm neither TOL or Boss are 1st choice either....nor for that matter are Ruddock, O'Malley, Zebo, Hurley, Kearney, Keatley, Spence or Madigan, so maybe that guideline is not so clear...in fact maybe you even invented it DOD.. Wink

by red_stag Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:04 am

What exactly is problem with not picking Marshall.

Everyone was bellyaching about it before hand - Tomas O'Leary defies his critics and justifies his selection by turning in a top performance and yet still that isn't enough.

by **rodders** Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:08 am

The problem is that Marshall has been one of the standout players in Ireland this season.

We all know what TOL and Boss can do so why not give Marshall a chance?

He has a breaking ability that is light years ahead of any other scrum-half in the country and is in fantastic form.

by red_stag Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:11 am

Rodders, before the game I would have agreed that it was bad idea to have O'Leary instead of Marshall. However O'Leary turned in a super performance by all accounts - good move Deccie.

by formerly known as Sam Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:18 am

How in God's name do you expect any backline to profit off the scraps that lot is going to provide?

England have previously to know avail. In one of the warm up games against Wales England enjoyed something like 70% of possession. They had ball all day long, the issues they had were the backline including the likes of Tindall, Cueto and Banahan were useless. To much bosh and not near enough brains. The sad fact of the matter is if Flood and Youngs don't turn up then the English backline was not other source of creation, Ashton and Foden have brains and Manu will take the ball over the gainline all day but there really has been a short fall in class compared to other nations.

Banahan just isn't an international class winger. There's no side step, no real burst of acceleration though when he gets going he's fast and he just enters contact wrong. His lines off the shoulder of the 10 are nice and he is a real road block in defence (smash on Zebo was funny) but he needs to add more to his overall game.

Hang on, Hang on... Kearnan Myall was pretty anonymous to my mind... The starting SR's were much better... Or so it seemed to me?

Agree fully.

by **rodders** Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:18 am

No it wasn't Stag. The fact that TOL had a good game is neither here nor there. He's pushing 30 and already has plenty of caps. From an Ireland point of view its irrelevent and we know what he can do and can't do.

Playing Marshall alongside Madigan or Keatley would have been much more beneficial.

It's this kind of conservative approach that makes us doomed to be also rans and nearly men. Fortune favours the brave.

Why not play Toner and POM too? Very poor descisions imo.

by red_stag Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:21 am

Rodders he is 28. He isn't "pushing 30"

Honestly the whole country has gone loopers because Wales had a "young team" when we lost the quarter final.

What is wrong with playing a 28 year old??

Picking someone just because they are young is as damaging is picking people on reputation.

by **rodders** Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:24 am

Look it's not so much the age thing stag as the fact that we know what both Boss and TOL can do.

There was an opportunity to look at Marshall who has been outstanding this season.

by ME-109 Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:44 am

The problem for Marshall is that as long as a NIQ is getting picked ahead of him he will not get selected. That is clear - er Zebo and Hurley are first choice at the moment...

The problem with TOL for TOL haters is that they forget (or chose to forget) that at his best he is as good as Murray if not better and streets ahead of Redden. In Munster there might be some murmerings but generally speaking with the performances he has had if he started before Murray it would be seen as ok. Having both is a great option.

by ME-109 Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:45 am

roddersm wrote:Look it's not so much the age thing stag as the fact that we know what both Boss and TOL can do.

There was an opportunity to look at Marshall who has been outstanding this season.

Outstanding as the backup Scrumhalf....however I recall a lot of Ulster supporters moaning about him at the start of the season when he was quite poor.

by **rodders** Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:53 am

DOD wrote:The problem for Marshall is that as long as a NIQ is getting picked ahead of him he will not get selected. That is clear - er Zebo and Hurley are first choice at the moment...

The problem with TOL for TOL haters is that they forget (or chose to forget) that at his best he is as good as Murray if not better and streets ahead of Redden. In Munster there might be some murmerings but generally speaking with the performances he has had if he started before Murray it would be seen as ok. Having both is a great option.

Zebo and Hurley are not first choice, they are getting gametime due to injury the same way Marshall was earlier in the season.

TOL is not better than Murray or Reddan, not even close. Never has been and never will be.

It was a nice try that he scored and its good to see him play well but Marshall has been scoring and creating tries all season against better opposition.

by ME-109 Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:26 am

Well if Zebo and Hurley are not first choice who are that are fit. You are of course entitled to your opinion on TOL but his form in 09 is/was and will be streets ahead of redden.

Marshall has been scoring and creating tries in the Pro12...not in the HC where he isnt trusted clearly....

by **rodders** Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:31 am

Haven't watched much rugby this year have you DOD?

Marshall has created and scored tries in both the RABO and HEC. He's featured quite a bit and there have been calls to move Pienaar to 10 to accommodate him.

He created three against Aironi and scored against the Tigers for a start. How many has TOL scored this season?

by Rory_Gallagher Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:39 am

DOD wrote:The problem for Marshall is that as long as a NIQ is getting picked ahead of him he will not get selected. That is clear - er Zebo and Hurley are first choice at the moment...

The problem with TOL for TOL haters is that they forget (or chose to forget) that at his best he is as good as Murray if not better and streets ahead of Redden. In Munster there might be some murmerings but generally speaking with the performances he has had if he started before Murray it would be seen as ok. Having both is a great option.

Please explain that one to me - why on earth would he not be selected just because there is an NIQ in front of him? Zebo has Howlett in front of him when he isn't injured.

by geoff998rugby Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:41 am

Jones is first choice 15 for Munster

Going through the Wolfhounds team then Connacht players apart there were only 3 players - Tuohy, Henry and Varley who can be considered first choice starters for their Provinces.

This was a team of Connacht players and reserves from the other 3 Provinces.

Infact I have just checked the figures Marshall has had more game time this year than anyone selected in the backs for the Wolfhounds (except Duffy), and that includes the guys who came on as subs.

To justify his non selection in the light of these facts is just bizarre.

by Rory_Gallagher Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:47 am

DOD, please answer this honestly, have you seen Ulster much this season? If at all? Just judging by what you have said about the likes of Cave etc, and now Marshall, I am wondering whether you have seen them actually play before.

by **rodders** Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:49 am

Did Marshall score against Aironi too?

by ME-109 Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:07 pm

Hey guys write your postcards to the IRFU. The fact is he is behind an NIQ for the HC games and is not the first choice in that position. The fact that an NIQ is ahead of him is the problem here as long as that is the case he wont be considered. When Pienaar is moved to 10 to accomodate him and he gets a run then he will be considered..but not before then.

I havent seen Howlett or Jones play much...wonder why that is? First choice is the person in posession of the jersey. It doesnt look as if Howlett for example is going to be back this season (and probably unlikely next season).

by Rory_Gallagher Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:09 pm

You haven't actually given a reason why the fact an NIQ is in front of him is the reason he wouldn't be chosen. What is the difference between that and TOL being behind Murray? Also didn't answer about whether you have actually watched Ulster play much this season (if at all) Wink

by ME-109 Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:15 pm

Rory...like I said look at the way it goes...Nacewa is moved to the wing...for Kearney, Mike Ross previously with Stan Wright. As long as an NIQ is in the primary position then the player is not good enough for playing for Ireland...that is the way it is looked at. Regardless as to whether Marshall is scoring, tries for fun or whatever.

TOL gets almost equal game time to Murray...they are used interchangably at Munster. Plus TOL is still a good SH...

To reiterate before you go off topic...as long as Pienaar is preferred to Marshall for the HC team he will not get picked

by Sponsored content