Ireland Tour of USA & Canada

First topic message reminder :

Ok so we're headed over for a two test tour of Canada and USA. Personally I think that there is little to be gained from such a tour. A once off match with USA and another with the Canadians but ce la vie.

The point is who do we want to see out there. We will have some guys on Lions Tour - I suspect Healy, Best, O'Connell, O'Brien, Sexton, O'Driscoll, Bowe and Kearney.

Other guys - like Mike Ross - I wouldn't bother bringing on tour. The man is currently invaluable as we have no depth. Giving him the Summer off rugby increases his longevity and also allows us to find new options.

Our objectives simply should be:

- To win both games
- To find new options in centre
- To find new options at tighthead
- To find new options at fullback
- To play for the full 80 minutes (like against Fiji)

I would be looking at the following team:

01 David Kilcoyne
02 Sean Cronin
03 Stephen Archer

Kilcoyne and Archer were our backups in the 6 Nations and I think its logical we give them a go. Sherry would be a good choice in that it makes an all Munster front row but I think its important to get our props used to scrummaging with a different hooker.

04 Donnacha Ryan
05 Mike McCarthy

Assuming that Paul O'Connell makes the Lions, why not keep our lock pairing from the 6 Nations. We need to make changes in other positions so some continuity is important.

06 Iain Henderson
07 Tommy O'Donnell
08 Jamie Heaslip (c)

Not a popular captain this is a good tour for Heaslip to become the leader he needs to be. The "grown ups" of the team are gone or rested, this is the chance he gets to prove his merits. I think O'Donnell is a better #7 than Peter O'Mahony who I think would make a good bench player. We need to learn how to use a bench and O'Mahonys aggression will raise the intensity whenever he is introduced.

09 Kieran Marmion
10 Ian Madigan

The all Ulster pairing of Marshall and Jackson is probably the more likely given they were ahead in the 6 Nations and already know each others game (especially with Marshall playing at 12). However I think Madigan needs to go into the Summer as the leading flyhalf and Marshall to me is the ideal #21. Its why he looks so good for Ulster, he comes in and changes the pace of the game attacking the fringes of the breakdown like Care does for England. Marmion has been a stand out player for Connacht starting every game and deserves to start. Let Murray have a break along with Reddan and Boss - we know what these guys can do.

12 Luke Marshall
13 Darren Cave

It makes sense. We always knew it really. He hasn't got bags of pace and he ain't the next O'Driscoll but he is an outside centre (a very difficult position to develop). There aren't many out and out #13s in world rugby, why ignore the only proper one we have outside of BOD. He's done the business for Ulster and sandwiched between Marshall and Gilroy he should be in his comfort zone delivering what we saw them do against Fiji. Marshall has been a good introduction during the 6 Nations and should continue in the role.

11 Simon Zebo
14 Craig Gilroy
15 Robbie Henshaw

Regardless of whether Kearney makes the Lions Tour I think its important to see Henshaw start at 15. We badly need options at fullback, we've seen Zebo at 15 but realistically Henshaw should play there. Zebo and Gilroy have I think always looked great for Ireland and should add competition when Bowe returns.

Heaslip shouldn't have been nailed on for a good 18 months, the way he is playing now he deserves to be but having any player nailed on in any side is ridiculous, sure we're giving out about the same thing with Warburton and the Lions.

POM is playing outstanding rugby at 6, I wouldn't want to move him from there, SOB has shown he can do a decent job across the backrow (at 7 he is only alright for me). I think SOB is more flexible, that's it POM could do a good job at 8 but with Stander and Coughland there is no way I want him playing there.

I would like to see:

6) Henderson
7) O'Brien
8) Heaslip

Close to the Ferris, O'Brien, Heaslip back row we had. With Heaslip back to form, would it work?

It's got decent balance, but I don't think they will compete well at the breakdown, although having guys like Best and/or BOD in the team will help in that department, depends on who else is there, they would do well in the lineout and carrying question makrs over the breakdown, offensively and defensively for me.

I think SOB is great at 7 in the right setup. Probably best at 6 though.

Thomond wrote:It's got decent balance, but I don't think they will compete well at the breakdown, although having guys like Best and/or BOD in the team will help in that department, depends on who else is there, they would do well in the lineout and carrying question makrs over the breakdown, offensively and defensively for me.

O'Brien and Heaslip are very good at the breakdown. Hendy makes a lot of turnovers through the choke tackle.

All 3 are capable of playing defensively or offensively.

There are question marks there, for me, they have never played together, and what looks great on paper doesn't always work, Anscombe found that out. Heaslip is good at the breakdown but doesn't always work hard therem it's an area where he can improve for sure. SOB isn't a natural groundhog and that's where he can fall down when doing offensive breakdown work in my mind, I wouldn't be surprised if it did work but you would need a couple of games to get it going and with the competition in the Irish backrow, one bad game and you might get dropped.

I think Joe needs to sit down with Sean and Jamie and work out exactly what is the best way to use the pair of them. I think they are the two guys who will most likely be in the backrow and the final flank position is up for grabs.

If Sean is allowed carry (which is what he is best at) then either Heaslip needs to do the dirty work or you need someone who will. McLaughlin has shown that he can do that for Leinster and I think Henry could do this job as well.

This would mean that SOB could carry i the tight whereas Heaslip can work further out from the ruck.

It's not as if Henry can't carry or Heaslip and O'Brien can't do the dirty work but in terms of primary roles this could really work IMO.

Hendo/SOB/Heaslip will leave us with the same issue and that is that Heaslip will be doing to much ground work and not enough linking the play.
Hendo for all his talent needs to improve his workrate

I think balance wise SOB/Henry/Heaslip would be excellent but then POM might be harshly done by there. I would prefer to see SOB revert back to 6 though i think. There are a few prospects at 7 that look very useful and i would rather they complimented rather than replaced SOB.

I agree that POM is much more suited to 8 than SOB. Less powerful ballcarrier but quicker and better hands ala Parisse and Heaslip. Also he's only slightly lighter than Jamie.

There are soo many combinations its mindboggling. I would personally like to see SOB at 6, a fetcher at 7, and either Jamie or POM at 8 depending on form.

I fear that we don't have a fetcher good enough but I would be happy with a backrow of : 6.POM 7.SOB 8.Jamie

I was really excited about Hendo and still am but he shouldn't be mentioned until he nails down a starting place at Ulster, same goes for Gilroy.

Leavy does look the real deal and if we are lucky he may be good enough for the WC. Perhaps we should accept that we do not have 7's in the same league as McCaw, Pocock, Tipuric, Dusatoir, but we could balance it out with better 6's 8's and 2nd rows (dose it work like that), or just use a different gameplan.

gleesonisgod wrote:I agree that POM is much more suited to 8 than SOB. Less powerful ballcarrier but quicker and better hands ala Parisse and Heaslip. Also he's only slightly lighter than Jamie.

There are soo many combinations its mindboggling. I would personally like to see SOB at 6, a fetcher at 7, and either Jamie or POM at 8 depending on form.

I fear that we don't have a fetcher good enough but I would be happy with a backrow of : 6.POM 7.SOB 8.Jamie

I was really excited about Hendo and still am but he shouldn't be mentioned until he nails down a starting place at Ulster, same goes for Gilroy.
Leavy does look the real deal and if we are lucky he may be good enough for the WC. Perhaps we should accept that we do not have 7's in the same league as McCaw, Pocock, Tipuric, Dusatoir, but we could balance it out with better 6's 8's and 2nd rows (dose it work like that), or just use a different gameplan.

Hasnt done trimble any good.

I don't entirely agree with that. The back row should all be able to carry when required in the game, and pretty much all irish back rowers are capable of it. The Munster back row has looked very good, all 3 are good ball carriers, all 3 can do the dirty work when required, although some are better at certain things than others. O'Donnell is better in open space, where Coughlan is better in the tighter exchanges. O'Mahony can do both, and he is a fantastic line-out forward. In both attack and defence, all 3 are a fantastic combination.

What matters is how the irish back row link together. Both Heaslip and O'Brien are fantastic ball carriers, and very good on the ground in my opinion, with O'Brien needing to work on keeping the penalties down. He is still very underrated as a groundhog though. Makes a lot of turnovers (at least as many as Warburton I would say).

If Heaslip is used to carry, O'Brien must be on his shoulder in support and ready to clear out or take the offload. Visa versa if Heaslip is carrying. Plus some games will require them both to carry less and do more of the donkey work. It all depends on the game plan, and the team they are playing. Thankfully Schmidt seems to be a coach that factors in different opposition and conditions, then makes his selections and tactics to suit that game.

Standulstermen wrote:Hendo/SOB/Heaslip will leave us with the same issue and that is that Heaslip will be doing to much ground work and not enough linking the play.
Hendo for all his talent needs to improve his workrate

I think balance wise SOB/Henry/Heaslip would be excellent but then POM might be harshly done by there. I would prefer to see SOB revert back to 6 though i think. There are a few prospects at 7 that look very useful and i would rather they complimented rather than replaced SOB.

Who do you see with potential here, Stand?

We are talking a couple of years minimum but Gilsenan and especially Leavy have been touted. The latter looks born to the role but we will see.

If we consider why SOB was put to 7 it was because Ferris at that time was the better 6 and we wanted to accomodate our 3 best backrows. He has made an impressive go at it but i would rather read about SOB punching holes in the opposition defence rather than turnovers he has made. If he is stuck in a ruck with his arse in the air he isnt getting the ball in wider channels where (with a coherent attacking structure) he can do damage. we have had SOB at 6 and 7 and POM likewise.

i still believe that our tight five is behind that of other nations and we are too heavily reliant on our backrow and i think we have been that way for a while.

Standulstermen wrote:We are talking a couple of years minimum but Gilsenan and especially Leavy have been touted. The latter looks born to the role but we will see.

If we consider why SOB was put to 7 it was because Ferris at that time was the better 6 and we wanted to accomodate our 3 best backrows. He has made an impressive go at it but i would rather read about SOB punching holes in the opposition defence rather than turnovers he has made. If he is stuck in a ruck with his arse in the air he isnt getting the ball in wider channels where (with a coherent attacking structure) he can do damage. we have had SOB at 6 and 7 and POM likewise.

i still believe that our tight five is behind that of other nations and we are too heavily reliant on our backrow and i think we have been that way for a while.

I disagree completely with that I must say. Healy, Best, POC, and I thought McCarthy looked good for us. Besides that we haven't seen much else besides kilcoyne and Court who haven't played badly for us, neither has Strauss. Toner and DOC should not have played for us in the last year.

Standulstermen wrote:We are talking a couple of years minimum but Gilsenan and especially Leavy have been touted. The latter looks born to the role but we will see.

If we consider why SOB was put to 7 it was because Ferris at that time was the better 6 and we wanted to accomodate our 3 best backrows. He has made an impressive go at it but i would rather read about SOB punching holes in the opposition defence rather than turnovers he has made. If he is stuck in a ruck with his arse in the air he isnt getting the ball in wider channels where (with a coherent attacking structure) he can do damage. we have had SOB at 6 and 7 and POM likewise.

i still believe that our tight five is behind that of other nations and we are too heavily reliant on our backrow and i think we have been that way for a while.

I think you are completely spot on here Stand. Though I do think we relied on SOB too much for carrying and he was therefore ineffective in the 6 nations. We basically used him as a battering ram, but I think he is actually better as a support runner, making big carries in midfield. Our tight 5 should be making the hard yards, and we don't seem to have the guys for that really.

I have been impressed with Gilsenan in previous U20 games, but I have never seen Leavy yet. What is so impressive about him? I have heard him mentioned a lot recently.

I think the backrow options are plentiful and I hope Schmidt rotates them more. Heaslip should not be guaranteed his place anymore.

Since a few weeks before Lions selection Heaslips performances have increased dramatically which means he was probably going through the motions for much of the season.

Of the last 2 seasons at U20 level Leavy, Gilsenan and Conan looked the best backrows. Leavy is certainly living up to the hype.

I see Henderson maybe as a long term second row. His weight and height advantage is a disadvantage too in the backrow because its hard to get low and keep up the workrate etc. No harm playing him there for the time being but why not team him up with POC a bit next season.

Leavy looks a natural 7 with a great eye forn turnovers. He looks wiry but seems to be very strong in the tackle too and seems comfortable enough ball in hand. Serious prospect imo.

Gleeson

When you look at the mobility of Launchberry, parling, Romano, Whitelock, Etzebeth, Gray, Evans our lock options are seriously poor. Obviously POC wasnt available for the 6N and that was a huge issue but Ryan and McCarthy are not mobile. They are warriors but i dont think they hit enough rucks at that level. Healy is good. Ross is a passenger and Rory is a worker but during the 6N we were carrying 2/3 players in our tight five.

Yes Ross being a passenger goes without saying but besides that I think everyone put a good shift in.

We beat the Welsh, French, and Scottish packs, and did enough against England (beat them well in the set piece), so I really can't see how we're carrying anyone.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I don't entirely agree with that. The back row should all be able to carry when required in the game, and pretty much all irish back rowers are capable of it. The Munster back row has looked very good, all 3 are good ball carriers, all 3 can do the dirty work when required, although some are better at certain things than others. O'Donnell is better in open space, where Coughlan is better in the tighter exchanges. O'Mahony can do both, and he is a fantastic line-out forward. In both attack and defence, all 3 are a fantastic combination.

What matters is how the irish back row link together. Both Heaslip and O'Brien are fantastic ball carriers, and very good on the ground in my opinion, with O'Brien needing to work on keeping the penalties down. He is still very underrated as a groundhog though. Makes a lot of turnovers (at least as many as Warburton I would say).

If Heaslip is used to carry, O'Brien must be on his shoulder in support and ready to clear out or take the offload. Visa versa if Heaslip is carrying. Plus some games will require them both to carry less and do more of the donkey work. It all depends on the game plan, and the team they are playing. Thankfully Schmidt seems to be a coach that factors in different opposition and conditions, then makes his selections and tactics to suit that game.

I completely agree with both these statements and think they are semi-ignored (or at least not mentioned in relation to our backrow often enough).

Also SOB is showing some serious vision/passing skills in the red of the Lions. He showed off some really gorgeous long passes against Western Force and is jumping it at first receiver a lot and playing that screen pass to the flyhalf behind an on-coming forward on the charge. In the game this morning he was showing off some seriously quick hands, I was really, really impressed. A lot of time he got himself between the centres or between the flyhalf and centre. He was very comfortable even when the defense brought the heat

gleesonisgod wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:We are talking a couple of years minimum but Gilsenan and especially Leavy have been touted. The latter looks born to the role but we will see.

If we consider why SOB was put to 7 it was because Ferris at that time was the better 6 and we wanted to accomodate our 3 best backrows. He has made an impressive go at it but i would rather read about SOB punching holes in the opposition defence rather than turnovers he has made. If he is stuck in a ruck with his arse in the air he isnt getting the ball in wider channels where (with a coherent attacking structure) he can do damage. we have had SOB at 6 and 7 and POM likewise.

i still believe that our tight five is behind that of other nations and we are too heavily reliant on our backrow and i think we have been that way for a while.

I disagree completely with that I must say. Healy, Best, POC, and I thought McCarthy looked good for us. Besides that we haven't seen much else besides kilcoyne and Court who haven't played badly for us, neither has Strauss. Toner and DOC should not have played for us in the last year.

I don't think our front 5 are that great either I must say. I think we kind of have it backwards. Other countries use their powerful tight 5 to carry a lot of the time and use their quicker backrows to get to the breakdown early creating quick ball. This means that they have a good platform to attack. Here is the simple formula which is cyclic.

A positive carry --> means support players run on to the ruck rather than back to it --> that creates quick ball --> that creates a less organised defense --> that creates the opportunity for another positive carry --> etc

What Ireland do is:

Use their powerful backrow to carry. Their tight 5 are not mobile enough to all the breakdowns so more of the backs have to. That means that some of the tight five end up in the spaces where backs would be looking for the ball in space. It also slows down the attack.

"Their tight five" does NOT include Cian Healy


Joe needs to get our front five doing more in attack as our front five should be carrying with in 5/10 metres of the ruck and making the harder yards. Our backrow (and Healy) should be carrying a little further out.

BASICALLY it boils down to one thing.....either our tight 5, need to be more effective carrying in the tight and get us some quick ball OR they need to become better ball players and be mobile enough to get in to the wider spaces to support our backrow and outside backs.

gleesonisgod wrote:Yes Ross being a passenger goes without saying but besides that I think everyone put a good shift in.

We beat the Welsh, French, and Scottish packs, and did enough against England (beat them well in the set piece), so I really can't see how we're carrying anyone.

maybe in the first 40 but we were seriously outclassed by all (bar maybe scotland although the points tell another story) in the 2nd half of every game. It was depressing watching england ramp up the intensity after 55/60 minutes and close out that game with ease. We were also fortunate wales were so bad in that first 40 that we put as many points on them as we did.

Standulstermen wrote:

gleesonisgod wrote:Yes Ross being a passenger goes without saying but besides that I think everyone put a good shift in.

We beat the Welsh, French, and Scottish packs, and did enough against England (beat them well in the set piece), so I really can't see how we're carrying anyone.

maybe in the first 40 but we were seriously outclassed by all (bar maybe scotland although the points tell another story) in the 2nd half of every game. It was depressing watching england ramp up the intensity after 55/60 minutes and close out that game with ease. We were also fortunate wales were so bad in that first 40 that we put as many points on them as we did.

It's odd though isn't it that we'd consider ourselves to have one of the best Looseheads in world rugby in Healy and one of the best locks in the world in O'Connell and yet our front 5 isn't that great

There was an interesting article about the NZ tour last summer and one of the criticisms regarding POC was that he was used far too much as a ball carrier in open play, when his real strengths lie in the tight exchanges. The discussion was also about how Ireland aren't using their tight 5 properly, i.e. to produce good quality ball (both at the set piece and in open play) for the backs.

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:

gleesonisgod wrote:Yes Ross being a passenger goes without saying but besides that I think everyone put a good shift in.

We beat the Welsh, French, and Scottish packs, and did enough against England (beat them well in the set piece), so I really can't see how we're carrying anyone.

maybe in the first 40 but we were seriously outclassed by all (bar maybe scotland although the points tell another story) in the 2nd half of every game. It was depressing watching england ramp up the intensity after 55/60 minutes and close out that game with ease. We were also fortunate wales were so bad in that first 40 that we put as many points on them as we did.

It's odd though isn't it that we'd consider ourselves to have one of the best Looseheads in world rugby in Healy and one of the best locks in the world in O'Connell and yet our front 5 isn't that great

POC wasnt playing in the 6N though. Undoubtedly the man has an effect on those around him aswell. We desperately need new blood coming through there though.

I think those are valid issues as well Rory

I'd agree with both of those points Rory, I don't think POC, Ross or Best (to a much lesser extent) should have their hands on the ball off slow phase ball beyond 7 metres either side of the ruck. They are our weakest ball carriers.

On a side note, or rather going back to point, it seems the lads in Canada have been struck down with a bad dose
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/stomach-bug-cramping-ireland-s-style-in-toronto-1.1424912

Anyone know when the team gets announced or if there is any more news on the illness in camp?

Personally I am hoping for

Kilcoyne-Sherry-Hagan
McCarthy-Tuohy
Henderson-POM-Henry
Marmion-Madigan
Olding-Cave
Trimble-Henshaw-McFadden

Strauss-Court-Ross-Toner-TOD-Boss-Jackson-Jones

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:Anyone know when the team gets announced or if there is any more news on the illness in camp?

Personally I am hoping for

Kilcoyne-Sherry-Hagan
McCarthy-Tuohy
Henderson-POM-Henry
Marmion-Madigan
Olding-Cave
Trimble-Henshaw-McFadden

Strauss-Court-Ross-Toner-TOD-Boss-Jackson-Jones

I've long said that this tour should be used to give Jackson and Madigan roughly equal gametime and see who comes out the better with a view to establishing a pecking order for the autumn- so I hope we see the Marshall-Jackson partnership promoted to the starting XV and Marmion and Madigan on the bench. But I agree with you everywhere except the halves and maybe fullback- don't see much harm in giving Felix Jones a run for the exact same reasons as I want to change the 10s. Giving two players in a position a shot and whoever does better stays in the squad for the autumn.

Don't disagree with you Notch, I guess I think Madigan is a better option than Jackson over the course of the last year and thus want him to get more gametime in the Irish set up.

Just a different way of looking at things really.

Any idea when the squad is announced??

If its like last week it will be 10pm tomorrow night.

I've read journos tipping that Andrew Trimble and Paddy Jackson are to come into the side (like here) but what would be a really interesting call is to go for a Jackson-Madigan midfield axis.

Think mad dog needs to get the most gametime, no disrespect to jackson. The guy is twenty four now, still has the potential to become better than sexton. He needs the most gametime he can get, but he also needs to get Joe to shut Kiss up about his 'real outhalf' nonsense.

Ledge-

POM was saying that last week they spent most of the time working on defense and that this week has been mainly about offense. So that should help.

I'd agree that Madigan both needs (and deserves) the game time more than Jackson but playing the two together is also an option, not sure I want to see Madigan playing 12 more than necessary however.

Also, if he is in there he is depriving a real 12 the opportunity to develop (Olding)

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:Ledge-

POM was saying that last week they spent most of the time working on defense and that this week has been mainly about offense. So that should help.

I'd agree that Madigan both needs (and deserves) the game time more than Jackson but playing the two together is also an option, not sure I want to see Madigan playing 12 more than necessary however.

Also, if he is in there he is depriving a real 12 the opportunity to develop (Olding)

Why does he need or deserve it more? Barely a fagpaper between the two on provincial form this season with Madigan ahead on the basis of his goal kicking, give them both a shot and then we can look back on this tour and see the evidence of who deserves what for ourselves.

Notch wrote:

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:Ledge-

POM was saying that last week they spent most of the time working on defense and that this week has been mainly about offense. So that should help.

I'd agree that Madigan both needs (and deserves) the game time more than Jackson but playing the two together is also an option, not sure I want to see Madigan playing 12 more than necessary however.

Also, if he is in there he is depriving a real 12 the opportunity to develop (Olding)

Why does he need or deserve it more? Barely a fagpaper between the two on provincial form this season with Madigan ahead on the basis of his goal kicking, give them both a shot and then we can look back on this tour and see the evidence of who deserves what for ourselves.

Sorry Notch but I have no idea how you can come to that conclusion if you have seen the two players this season.  Madigan has been in sublime form for Leinster while Jackson has had a mixed bag all season.  Do you honestly believe what you just typed?  If so, I have no idea what games you have been watching.

We have short, short memories.

Jackson was in sensational form before christmas and it was only really after Saints at ravenhill that his form dipped.

No question that Madigan has been standout since but are we seriously suggesting we should be depriving the more experienced 21 year old of gametime at the expense of a 24 year old when our starting 10 (who is comfortably better than both) is 27. We should not be about what is doing the best for Ian Madigans development but what is better for the national team. I see absolutely no reason to deprive either of gametime and to suggest doing it smacks of what has brought us to the point in the 6N were we had to throw a 21 year old in his first full season into the 6N.

For what its worth i think Madigan is currently ahead but what are these tours about if not developing depth? Is that not what we wanted? or is it only so long as it aids our provinces players?

Notch wrote:

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:Ledge-

POM was saying that last week they spent most of the time working on defense and that this week has been mainly about offense. So that should help.

I'd agree that Madigan both needs (and deserves) the game time more than Jackson but playing the two together is also an option, not sure I want to see Madigan playing 12 more than necessary however.

Also, if he is in there he is depriving a real 12 the opportunity to develop (Olding)

Why does he need or deserve it more? Barely a fagpaper between the two on provincial form this season with Madigan ahead on the basis of his goal kicking, give them both a shot and then we can look back on this tour and see the evidence of who deserves what for ourselves.

I don't think this tour will have that much bearing at all.Schmidt will pick the player who's on form and who can deliver what he wants so I doubt that he'll be overly worried how either player performed on this tour.I'd treat this purely as a good chance for less established  players to become more comfortable in the international setup.

I agree that Jackson deserves a shot at 10 on this tour as well as Madigan, that isn't my argument, but I have no idea how anyone could possibly think Madigan and Jackson have been close with regards to form this season.  Unfortunately Jackson had a real dip in form for a large portion of the season, where Madigan seemed to take the news of Sexton moving away as his chance to shine in the 10 shirt.

Madigan is right now the better player by a big margin to be honest.  Jackson is only 21 though and his potential is huge.  However lets not pretend that he is as good as Madigan right now.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Notch wrote:

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:Ledge-

POM was saying that last week they spent most of the time working on defense and that this week has been mainly about offense. So that should help.

I'd agree that Madigan both needs (and deserves) the game time more than Jackson but playing the two together is also an option, not sure I want to see Madigan playing 12 more than necessary however.

Also, if he is in there he is depriving a real 12 the opportunity to develop (Olding)

Why does he need or deserve it more? Barely a fagpaper between the two on provincial form this season with Madigan ahead on the basis of his goal kicking, give them both a shot and then we can look back on this tour and see the evidence of who deserves what for ourselves.

Sorry Notch but I have no idea how you can come to that conclusion if you have seen the two players this season.  Madigan has been in sublime form for Leinster while Jackson has had a mixed bag all season.  Do you honestly believe what you just typed?  If so, I have no idea what games you have been watching.

Incidentally I think Jackson should start this week but there is surely no doubt which of the two players has had the finer season. Was Jackson mentioned as a potential Lion?
As regards to Madigan at 12, I think it is a strong option in the short term to potentially have Madigan operating inside Sexton and BOD, perhaps not maybe Marshall is stronger. Regardless, Madigan's future is most probably at 10 and Olding's rise would also be obstructed.
A lot of potential in the 10-12 channel with Madigan, Jackson, Marshall, Olding and Hanrahan but currently no stand-out successor to BOD, unless Marshall could convert to 13?

I've been watching the league games where Jackson came out better head to head, or the Heineken Cup games where Jackson played a leading role. I wouldn't put a lot of store in that opinion Rory to be honest with you. Madigan had the edge for a few months, Jackson had the edge before that but over the course of September to June its pretty even.

I think that if you were to pick 5 Ulster games with Jackson at 10 and 5 Leinster games with Madigan at 10 at random and really analysed their respective contributions you would find that there is very, very little between the two in terms of general play and I stand by that opinion. Jackson has a better kicking game from hand and is a better organiser. Madigan has a better running game and is more creative. Both are pretty outstanding passers of a rugby ball. It's nonsense to try and talk down Jacksons season- he has gone from rookie to general for Ulster in a very short space of time and he's become one of the key players we can't cope with losing.

What you would find is that Madigan is a much better goal kicker at present which is why I've already stated he has an edge in selection and deserves to be second choice but as I've said I support rotation on this tour to actually settle the question based on form in the green shirt. It's not about what they can do in the Pro12 surrounded by experienced players and team mates they have been playing with for years. It's about what they can do with a completely new set of calls, potentially new combinations and only a week to prepare.

So lets have some merit-based competition for places. We talk about how new coaches should pick on form and promote competition for places but when it comes down to it- are we willing to see it happen even if it affects our favourites? I think if Jackson takes to the field at the weekend knowing a bad game means he'll drop down the pecking order and Madigan sitting out thinking the next time he gets the chance he's in the same boat means we get to see which man is capable of finding that extra gear to really grab the shirt and keep it. And thats what we need to actually be a competitive side again.

Bring on the competition for places.

As for Madigan for the Lions- the value of that is determined by who is mentioning it!

Does the Twelvetrees call up not illustrate the folly of it- The Lions coaches can't watch every game in every tournament. Their analysis and discussion will have focused on four windows. Heineken Cup group stages, Autumn Tests, Heineken Cup quarters, Six Nations. Rightly or wrongly, Madigan didn't play in enough big games to be considered. I actually think he would do very well over there but it wouldn't be good for him in the long run. He should be concentrating on trying to breakthrough with Ireland on this tour.

I feel like Madigan is getting a bit overhyped. I can see the same thing happening with Iain Henderson too, people are suggesting he should be fasttracked ignoring we're still working out where he should play! It happened with Craig Gilroy for a while and Luke Marshall seems to be the latest (absence makes the heart grow fonder). Sometimes we all need to take a deep breath.

Notch wrote:As for Madigan for the Lions- the value of that is determined by who is mentioning it!

Does the Twelvetrees call up not illustrate the folly of it- The Lions coaches can't watch every game in every tournament. Their analysis and discussion will have focused on four windows. Heineken Cup group stages, Autumn Tests, Heineken Cup quarters, Six Nations. Rightly or wrongly, Madigan didn't play in enough big games to be considered. I actually think he would do very well over there but it wouldn't be good for him in the long run. He should be concentrating on trying to breakthrough with Ireland on this tour.

Gatland certainly saw Madigan at his best in the Amlin so I'm sure he was taken into some consideration - yes he would have perhaps been a gamble but I'm pretty sure selecting Jackson would have been a massive shock that nobody saw coming - then again Matt Stevens is currently in Australia...

Perhaps Madigan himself is overhyped since he has little international experience but his performances last season deserve all the praise they should get. I'm not discussing who is the better option for Ireland or even who is the better player but let's be frank here Madigan's performances last season were in a different league to Jackson's - only Leinster player on Rabo team of the year says a lot.

What you say about fast tracking youngsters is true Notch but its just so hard to take a deep breath sometimes

Notch wrote:

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:Ledge-

POM was saying that last week they spent most of the time working on defense and that this week has been mainly about offense. So that should help.

I'd agree that Madigan both needs (and deserves) the game time more than Jackson but playing the two together is also an option, not sure I want to see Madigan playing 12 more than necessary however.

Also, if he is in there he is depriving a real 12 the opportunity to develop (Olding)

Why does he need or deserve it more? Barely a fagpaper between the two on provincial form this season with Madigan ahead on the basis of his goal kicking, give them both a shot and then we can look back on this tour and see the evidence of who deserves what for ourselves.

There was more than a fagpaper between them. Madigan is well ahead from what I saw of the season just gone and I'm a neutral. Also, Pienaar helps out Jackson a lot in terms of game management. 


I do think Jackson was over criticised though. He made some mistakes but he is obviously very talented and what I like about him is he seems to have time on the ball and can pick out a pass. He is just 20 or 21 years old so he'll improve and become a more consistent player over time. 


Hopefully JJ Hanrahan has a good season with Munster. There isn't much between himself and Keatley and like Jackson I think Hanrahan will need a few seasons to become more consistent. With Sexton being 27/28 one things clear, Ireland isn't short of 10s these days!  A few years back ROG went to the world cup with Paddy Wallace as his backup.

Profitius wrote:Hopefully JJ Hanrahan has a good season with Munster. There isn't much between himself and Keatley and like Jackson I think Hanrahan will need a few seasons to become more consistent. With Sexton being 27/28 one things clear, Ireland isn't short of 10s these days!  A few years back ROG went to the world cup with Paddy Wallace as his backup.

I feel like thats the problem. We're so used to only having one decent option we literally can't deal with the idea that we have two 10s of different styles and roughly equivalent quality... and thats behind our first choice. We all used to get on fine when Ireland was lucky to have 15 international quality players. Now we have at least 30 we've gone off the deep end! 

Only thing I've got to pick up is the person who said Jackson defers to Pienaar in terms of game management. Very untrue. Jackson calls the plays for Ulster. When he wants the ball rom set piece, when he doesn't, and he organises the outside backs. Pienaar organises the forwards. Like any 9-10 partnership its a team but Jackson has the responsibility as he's the one with the better view from 10. Where Pienaar will take charge is in terms of getting us out of our 22- but he's so good at that, why wouldn't we we use him there? Attacking ball or midfield ball its Jackson calling the plays.

losty wrote:selecting Jackson would have been a massive shock that nobody saw coming

It might surprise you- but selecting Madigan would have been a massive shock to most of the rugby world too.

Notch wrote:I've been watching the league games where Jackson came out better head to head, or the Heineken Cup games where Jackson played a leading role. I wouldn't put a lot of store in that opinion Rory to be honest with you. Madigan had the edge for a few months, Jackson had the edge before that but over the course of September to June its pretty even.

I think that if you were to pick 5 Ulster games with Jackson at 10 and 5 Leinster games with Madigan at 10 at random and really analysed their respective contributions you would find that there is very, very little between the two in terms of general play and I stand by that opinion. [1] Jackson has a better kicking game from hand and is a better organiser. Madigan has a better running game and is more creative. Both are pretty outstanding passers of a rugby ball. It's nonsense to try and talk down Jacksons season- he has gone from rookie to general for Ulster in a very short space of time and he's become one of the key players we can't cope with losing [2].

What you would find is that Madigan is a much better goal kicker at present which is why I've already stated he has an edge in selection and deserves to be second choice but as I've said I support rotation on this tour to actually settle the question based on form in the green shirt. It's not about what they can do in the Pro12 surrounded by experienced players and team mates they have been playing with for years. It's about what they can do with a completely new set of calls, potentially new combinations and only a week to prepare.

So lets have some merit-based competition for places. We talk about how new coaches should pick on form and promote competition for places but when it comes down to it- are we willing to see it happen even if it affects our favourites? I think if Jackson takes to the field at the weekend knowing a bad game means he'll drop down the pecking order and Madigan sitting out thinking the next time he gets the chance he's in the same boat means we get to see which man is capable of finding that extra gear to really grab the shirt and keep it. And thats what we need to actually be a competitive side again.

Bring on the competition for places. [3]

1- I disagree with this. If you took all of Madigan's games (the ones at fullback and inside centre) then I'd agree with this but not the ones he played at flyhalf.

2- I can not accept that Jackson is a general for Ulster. I understand that Ulster would not be the same team without him but that is mainly due to being a great player. I do not think he is a general. I believe Pienaar has led the Ulster backline and when he has played badly Ulster's performances have dipped.

3- Completely agree with that but does Madigan being the better player not mean that he deserves the place?

Sure for all we know, one of them could be struck down with that bug and that would be decision made

I don't accept that there is that much difference between Madigan and Jackson is the crux. You can accept Jackson calls the plays or not- its what happens and senior players and coaches from within Ulster have confirmed it.

Now if Madigan had put his name on the shirt against the USA... beyond any doubt! Pete the crux is we don't need to be picking players on provincial form when we have a chance to assess what they can do in an Ireland jersey. It's so easy for Madigan to play well in Leinster. He enjoys the definition of an armchair ride when you consider the players he has around him at Leinster. You saw the step up against the USA. If one is considerably better than the other yeah- we're not having this argument between Ian Madigan and Niall O'Connor  I've never seen an outhalf as mature at Paddy Jackson at 21 but as remarkably accomplished his general game is he goalkicks like a 21-year old 10. Madigan is a brilliant running 10 and goalkicker who still has a lot to prove that he can thrive outside his comfort zone.

So let them battle it out. I do not favour one or the other, let them compete and the best man for the job will emerge.

Neither Madigan or Jackson will be proving themselves much at 10 with Ireland anyway, unless Sexton is injured.  Schmidt is already feeling the strain of the sequence of games he must start his tenure with. 
He has many players he has to get to know quickly and quite a few that he'll have to coach for a first time.  He'll be trying to make his life a little easier by picking a few certs that he's already familiar with.  So there might be one game in the Autumn series given to either Madigan or Jackson but they'll be proving themselves mostly back in their Provinces - in whatever positions they find themselves in......

calling the plays and running the game are two completely different things IMO. I feel that Pienaar runs Ulster's game but you would know Ulster better than I would.

I would be surprised if Jackson doesn't get the 10 shirt (based on that article you quoted) and obviously I will support him, he is a good player, but if I was coach I'd be giving Madigan as much time in a green shirt as possible.

Jackson is not as good as Madigan and has time to improve and then prove that he is.

Sure we'll see in about 24 hours I guess

Had a thought, what if the backline finished like this

Marmion-Jackson
Madigan-Henshaw
Trimble-Jones-McFadden

nom nom nom