Ireland V France

First topic message reminder :

   
IRELAND v FRANCE
14 February 2015
KO: 17:00
Aviva Stadium, Dublin

Referee: Wayne Barnes (RFU)
AR1: Nigel Owens (WRU)
AR2: Stuart Berry (SARU)
TMO: Graham Hughes (RFU)

IRELAND

15 Rob Kearney
14 Tommy Bowe
13 Jared Payne
12 Robbie Henshaw
11 Simon Zebo
10 Johnny Sexton
9 Conor Murray

1 Jack McGrath
2 Rory Best
3 Mike Ross
4 Devin Toner
5 Paul O'Connell (c)
6 Peter O'Mahony
7 Sean O'Brien
8 Jamie Heaslip

16 Sean Cronin, 17 Cian Healy, 18 Martin Moore, 19 Iain Henderson, 20 Jordi Murphy, 21 Isaac Boss, 22 Ian Madigan, 23 Felix Jones

FRANCE

15 Scott Spedding
14 Yoann Huget
13 Mathieu Bastareaud
12 Wesley Fofana
11 Teddy Thomas
10 Camille Lopez
9 Rory Kockott

1 Eddy Ben Arous
2 Guilhem Guirado
3 Rabah Slimani
4 Pascal Papé
5 Yoann Maestri
6 Thierry Dusautoir (c)
7 Bernard Le Roux
8 Damien Chouly

16 Benjamin Kayser, 17 Uini Atonio, 18 Vincent Debaty, 19 Romain Taofifenua, 20 Loann Goujon, 21 Morgan Parra, 22 Rémi Talès, 23 Rémi Lamerat

*****
This is an interesting battle, and very much a case of brains v brawn.
French flair is long gone, they now rely on the likes of Bastareaud and their pack of overweight lumps to get over the line.
Ireland are very much a team of robots, Joe gives instructions on how to dismantle a team like IKEA gives instructions on how to make a cupboard. With the right personnel in Sexton, SOB and the likes of Heaslip at the helm, they should be able to devour the French fatties like they're the last square of a Kinder Bueno.
All logic points to an Irish victory, but as so often happens the French defy logic.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:BTW for the record I am a huge Schmidt fan. I just have my concerns about our ability to win the competition currently. The England game is going to answer a lot of questions for me personally. And I really really hope I am proved wrong.

You might be proven wrong in a right kinda way though, Rory.

Meaning, maybe the old gameplan  (that has some of us a tad nervous) is the same one he'll use to scupper England.  And maybe we'll be bloody surprised at how simple he makes the limited plan look in the success stakes against them.

I mean to say, maybe Schmidt will feel comfortable enough with the usual do-a-little-and-defend-it plan that he'll prove you right in thinking the gameplan is too passive but he'll still win - which of course will make you wrong in thinking it won't be enough to beat England?  

That bastareaud Schmidt! - I tell you, I think he plots the downfall of all of us as he lies in bed awake with his stats and performance charts.  I'd say he even reads Sin's posts and giggles as he once more gives Zebo his strict NO-ZEEZOOMBOB orders.

Even with his fans, Schmidt likes to play the mind games. My head hurts.

Sin é wrote:Rory, you know Henderson, don't you? Did you hear what BOD had to say about him last week? What do you think of that?

(Said he was a very talented player etc. etc. but a poor trainer and didn't know the calls and that he won't last with Schmidt if he carries on like that).

Sin, I asked you this before - but how do you think BOD might have been made aware of that detail? Is there a traitor in camp spreading back-room gossip to BOD about a fellow player? I'm just not clear how BOD could know the details of this unless some sly dog is dishing him details. BOD wouldn't exactly have been a man too worried about the details of that part of the game. he often laughed about not having much time for the big lad's details.
And if BOD is being fed backbiting stuff from the camp then he himself is being perhaps a little disloyal to the ethos in transmitting those little backroom growlings to the public.

It was a poor French team. And we failed to make one line break, scored no tries, butchering our one chance of one, and we were hanging on at the end.

The wins are great. We're hard to beat which is great. But going on current form England will teach us a lesson in our own home ground unless we see a huge improvement. Because unlike France or Italy, England are very good. And unlike South Africa in the Autumn, England are very motivated.

It's completely understandable why people are worried. Even though it seems strange to be moaning after a 6 Nations title and a nine game winning streak.

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:Rory, you know Henderson, don't you? Did you hear what BOD had to say about him last week? What do you think of that?

(Said he was a very talented player etc. etc. but a poor trainer and didn't know the calls and that he won't last with Schmidt if he carries on like that).

Sin, I asked you this before - but how do you think BOD might have been made aware of that detail?  Is there a traitor in camp spreading back-room gossip to BOD about a fellow player?  I'm just not clear how BOD could know the details of this unless some sly dog is dishing him details.  BOD wouldn't exactly have been a man too worried about the details of that part of the game.  he often laughed about not having much time for the big lad's details.  
And if BOD is being fed backbiting stuff from the camp then he himself is being perhaps a little disloyal to the ethos in transmitting those little backroom growlings to the public.

I have no idea. Here is the podcast where he says it.

http://www.newstalk.ie/player/podcasts/Off_The_Ball/The_Friday_Night_BODcast/76179/2/munster_iain_hendersons_nickname_birthday_presents

Starts at about 6 minutes in.

Yeah, sin.  Seems very casual and relaxed in delivery - but very pointed in the focus on those calls.  Kept emphasising that bit.  So he's hearing things from camp.  Either Schmidt himself or some of his past teammates.

Still, I think he'd be best stick to keeping his inside info to himself more and if he needs to allude to it, just smother it in generalities without pinpointing a single young player.  He's still a hero to these guys.  Let's not turn it into a zero by being too critical in a coaching sense of players he doesn't coach.

Surely he's going by last years Six Nations campaign when he was in the team with Henderson?

I'm not too concerned to be honest. He's competitive, he wants to start, he'll get better at it because he has to. He has uncoachable physicality- and clearly he's no pariah to Schmidt who has consistently used him as an impact player whenever he's available.

I don't think he is hearing things from camp because that podcast is from before the start of the 6nations.

I wouldn't worry too much about what he said ... look at Zebo now - Joe's best ruck resourcer

Schmidt needs Hendo because of all the injuries. It would be interesting to know what would happen if one or two of Tuohy, D Ryan or Foley were available.

That said, his role isn't as technical as other players. He basically seems to get told to get off the bench and smash everything for 15 minutes. Certainly there isn't much to it apart from 'engage beast mode'

I hope to see him start since Heaslip is out, I'm not convinced that replacing Heaslip with either Jordi Murphy or bringing in O'Donnell and moving O'Brien or O'Mahony to 8 is the way to go, neither of those players has the physical presence we need. I'd like to see Henderson destroying some rucks, but expect he'll once again be an impact sub.

Notch wrote:Surely he's going by last years Six Nations campaign when he was in the team with Henderson?

How does he know Henderson hasn't improved since then?  He doesn't because he couldn't, unless he's being told Henderson hasn't.  
He's talking about the present because he's hearing about the present in whispers coming out to him.  I just don't doubt that.  He has too many old friends lurking still in there for him to be relying on last year's news.

I don't mind him criticising performances in games - he has a pundit's right to see what he sees in games and speak accordingly.  It's just the knowing knowingness of his tone that I wouldn't like him to keep going at long term.  He's out of the backroom details for the time being.  Let the coaches coach, BOD.

Sin é wrote:Schmidt needs Hendo because of all the injuries. It would be interesting to know what would happen if one or two of Tuohy, D Ryan or Foley were available.

I doubt they'd be ahead of him for the bench. We know how big Schmidt is on players who can change the game plan when they come off the bench and players who are versatile and can play in several positions and Henderson ticks both boxes. I don't think he would be trusted to start ahead of those players but just because they'd start ahead of them doesn't mean they'd bench ahead of him.

I'm not really surprised to hear he's not a great trainer, to be honest, because at every level up to test level he's just been freakishly overpowered compared to his opponents. In school or for the U20s or even for Ulster he hasn't needed to train hard because he has such a big advantage physically he can still turn in match winning performances without much preparation. That will need to change for him to fulfil his full potential.

SecretFly wrote:

Notch wrote:Surely he's going by last years Six Nations campaign when he was in the team with Henderson?

How does he know Henderson hasn't improved since then?  He doesn't because he couldn't, unless he's being told Henderson hasn't.  

Well, when that podcast was recorded Henderson hadn't been in an Ireland squad since the Argentina tour for a start. So it can only be based on last seasons form.

It would be some inside source to be telling him how Henderson is training in this years Six Nations squad before the squad was even named, never mind before they met up for the first time.

Notch wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Notch wrote:Surely he's going by last years Six Nations campaign when he was in the team with Henderson?

How does he know Henderson hasn't improved since then?  He doesn't because he couldn't, unless he's being told Henderson hasn't.  

Well, when that podcast was recorded Henderson hadn't been in an Ireland squad since the Argentina tour for a start. So it can only be based on last seasons form.

Yeah, I had posted my last post before I heard Sin say that.

I still say when he's out, keep the criticisms to actual games not training details.

Simon Zebo said that Tony McGahan was on his case the whole time because he wasn't training properly. McGahan wouldn't play him until he did. ROG said something similar about him. Apparently McGahan was very tough with him (and Zebo is greateful now). All part of growing up. Maybe that is what young Hendo needs.

Paul O'Connell won't have much time for him if he doesn't 'get into' his detail!

SecretFly wrote:

Notch wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Notch wrote:Surely he's going by last years Six Nations campaign when he was in the team with Henderson?

How does he know Henderson hasn't improved since then?  He doesn't because he couldn't, unless he's being told Henderson hasn't.  

Well, when that podcast was recorded Henderson hadn't been in an Ireland squad since the Argentina tour for a start. So it can only be based on last seasons form.

Yeah, I had posted my last post before I heard Sin say that.

I still say when he's out, keep the criticisms to actual games not training details.

People are wondering why he isn't starting. This is why its interesting to know.

Sin é wrote:

Paul O'Connell won't have much time for him if he doesn't 'get into' his detail!

AHA! You're warming to the robotic stuff, Sin. You're weakening!!!!

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Paul O'Connell won't have much time for him if he doesn't 'get into' his detail!

AHA!  You're warming to the robotic stuff, Sin.  You're weakening!!!!

Swotting up on lineouts isn't robotic. Its actually the opposite!

Sin é wrote:

People are wondering why he isn't starting. This is why its interesting to know.

There are a lot of those guys though waiting in line under Der Fuhrer....non starters.  TOD will have been surprised his detail didn't allow him to start against France, won't he?

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Paul O'Connell won't have much time for him if he doesn't 'get into' his detail!

AHA!  You're warming to the robotic stuff, Sin.  You're weakening!!!!

Swotting up on lineouts isn't robotic. Its actually the opposite!

It's robotic, Sin. Systems, systems, systems...knowing your detail. Homework.

You won't screw yourself out of this one.....

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Paul O'Connell won't have much time for him if he doesn't 'get into' his detail!

AHA!  You're warming to the robotic stuff, Sin.  You're weakening!!!!

Swotting up on lineouts isn't robotic. Its actually the opposite!

It's robotic, Sin.  Systems, systems, systems...knowing your detail.  Homework.

You won't screw yourself out of this one.....

Nope. Lineout homework entails the player analysing the opposition lineout for example.

It would be robotic if Joe Schmidt said that there was a blanket ban to compete on the opposition throw, or that every lineout was to become a maul.

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Paul O'Connell won't have much time for him if he doesn't 'get into' his detail!

AHA!  You're warming to the robotic stuff, Sin.  You're weakening!!!!

Swotting up on lineouts isn't robotic. Its actually the opposite!

No, because having a clear game plan and knowing your role in inside out isn't robotic in any facet of play. Players are not given just one option by the coaches, they are encouraged to think for themselves and execute different set plays or options depending on the situation.

Notch wrote:

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Paul O'Connell won't have much time for him if he doesn't 'get into' his detail!

AHA!  You're warming to the robotic stuff, Sin.  You're weakening!!!!

Swotting up on lineouts isn't robotic. Its actually the opposite!

No, because having a clear game plan and knowing your role in inside out isn't robotic in any facet of play

When the role is limited, it is robotic - i.e., offloads or passing is not allowed, never do anything risky. It very negative.

Sin é wrote:

Notch wrote:

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Paul O'Connell won't have much time for him if he doesn't 'get into' his detail!

AHA!  You're warming to the robotic stuff, Sin.  You're weakening!!!!

Swotting up on lineouts isn't robotic. Its actually the opposite!

No, because having a clear game plan and knowing your role in inside out isn't robotic in any facet of play

When the role is limited, it is robotic - i.e., offloads or passing is not allowed, never do anything risky. It very negative.

I don't think that is the game plan, I think there is a hell of a lot more variety than that and the players are actually being empowered to make choices on the field.

Notch wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Notch wrote:

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Paul O'Connell won't have much time for him if he doesn't 'get into' his detail!

AHA!  You're warming to the robotic stuff, Sin.  You're weakening!!!!

Swotting up on lineouts isn't robotic. Its actually the opposite!

No, because having a clear game plan and knowing your role in inside out isn't robotic in any facet of play

When the role is limited, it is robotic - i.e., offloads or passing is not allowed, never do anything risky. It very negative.

I don't think that is the game plan, I think there is a hell of a lot more variety than that and the players are actually being empowered to make choices on the field.

Eh, 2 offloads in the tournament so far I think says differently. If they are being empowered to make choice, its the safe option is the only choice.

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Paul O'Connell won't have much time for him if he doesn't 'get into' his detail!

AHA!  You're warming to the robotic stuff, Sin.  You're weakening!!!!

Swotting up on lineouts isn't robotic. Its actually the opposite!

It's robotic, Sin.  Systems, systems, systems...knowing your detail.  Homework.

You won't screw yourself out of this one.....

Nope. Lineout homework entails the player analysing the opposition lineout for example.

It would be robotic if Joe Schmidt said that there was a blanket ban to compete on the opposition throw, or that every lineout was to become a maul.

No, it doesn't work Sin.. The comparison doesn't work.  

Schmidt analyses the opposition - then the homework - based on the opposition - not based on a generalised blueprint of a generalised top ranked rugby team.  

That's why different sides with differing gameplans keep (for now) running into the non yielding Irish brick wall.  Strict adherence to very particular plans designed to defeat very specific teams.

The distinction you make between lineout homework and Joe's robotic coaching only serves to elucidate Joe's coaching methods.  Methodical analysis of the opposition... just like Paulie does.

Meanwhile, Henderson is a hippy who likes freeform, man.  Likes to work out where the lineout ball might go on the instinct of the day.  He's in Zebo's camp.  Ain't nobody got time for school books and rulers, man.  Just gimmie the ball, dude.  

I think Joe and Paulie are actually probably cramping Henderson's style.  Sucking the 'creativity' out of him, brother

Not sure what the argument is about. The blueprint from Joe is non-negotiable the team adhere to it...we win (isnt that what its all about). Isnt that why Fly and the blue rinsed brigade wanted Joe in the first place...nothing to do with the so called scintillating rugby (courtesy of Cheika).

Anyhow winning is everything. It might be boring and wimbledonesque in terms of how we play but results are everything...

Here is the recent team meeting and game plan discussions...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXa9tXcMhXQ

Sin é wrote:

Eh, 2 offloads in the tournament so far I think says differently. If they are being empowered to make choice, its the safe option is the only choice.

Why the obsession with offloads?

In the last 30 years we have only beaten France by 7 points or more three times.

Schmidt formulated a winning and fairly diverse game plan which was executed well by the players.

We have improved in virtually all areas, the only area that still needs improvement is running attacks in the backs.

All in all the improvement has been astonishing. It tends to be causual fans that judge a team by the frills only.

Ireland may be taking a Ryanair approach and cut back on the fancy stuff but both are operationally highly sucessful and as a result I certainly support the current model. People will continue to look for faults in both entities though.

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Paul O'Connell won't have much time for him if he doesn't 'get into' his detail!

AHA!  You're warming to the robotic stuff, Sin.  You're weakening!!!!

Swotting up on lineouts isn't robotic. Its actually the opposite!

It's robotic, Sin.  Systems, systems, systems...knowing your detail.  Homework.

You won't screw yourself out of this one.....

Nope. Lineout homework entails the player analysing the opposition lineout for example.

It would be robotic if Joe Schmidt said that there was a blanket ban to compete on the opposition throw, or that every lineout was to become a maul.

No, it doesn't work Sin.. The comparison doesn't work.  

Schmidt analyses the opposition - then the homework - based on the opposition - not based on a generalised blueprint of a generalised top ranked rugby team.  

That's why different sides with differing gameplans keep (for now) running into the non yielding Irish brick wall.  Strict adherence to very particular plans designed to defeat very specific teams.

The distinction you make between lineout homework and Joe's robotic coaching only serves to elucidate Joe's coaching methods.  Methodical analysis of the opposition... just like Paulie does.

Meanwhile, Henderson is a hippy who likes freeform, man.  Likes to work out where the lineout ball might go on the instinct of the day.  He's in Zebo's camp.  Ain't nobody got time for school books and rulers, man.  Just gimmie the ball, dude.  

I think Joe and Paulie are actually probably cramping Henderson's style.  Sucking the 'creativity' out of him, brother

The All Blacks would do a similar amount of analysis as Ireland and they are not robotic.

Just like the U20s probably do a fair bit of analysis - but they have been given licence (as they say themselves) to play. Schmidt doesn't give that licence. The press keep asking Zebo is Schmidt curbing his attacking flair.

GunsGerms wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Eh, 2 offloads in the tournament so far I think says differently. If they are being empowered to make choice, its the safe option is the only choice.

Why the obsession with offloads?

In the last 30 years we have only beaten France by 7 points or more three times.

Schmidt formulated a winning and fairly diverse game plan which was executed well by the players.

We have improved in virtually all areas, the only area that still needs improvement is running attacks in the backs.

All in all the improvement has been astonishing. It tends to be causual fans that judge a team by the frills only.

Ireland may be taking a Ryanair approach and cut back on the fancy stuff but both are operationally highly sucessful and as a result I certainly support the current model. People will continue to look for faults in both entities though.

Lack of offloads indicates how the players are instructed to always play safe and do nothing risky.

Some coach is going to come up with a way of dealing with that though - like Wales did with Ireland at the last world cup.

Yes we have beaten a French team twice which has not got better than fourth over the last three years....by 7 points...

if by diverse you mean kick, tackle, resource rucks, run into opposing player...repeat ad naseum you are correct.

Improved in virtually all areas except for attacking....well er not sure about that but the main thing is we are winning. so I'll give you that point...

astonishing might be a little much but certainly its a winning team.

Sin é wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Eh, 2 offloads in the tournament so far I think says differently. If they are being empowered to make choice, its the safe option is the only choice.

Why the obsession with offloads?

In the last 30 years we have only beaten France by 7 points or more three times.

Schmidt formulated a winning and fairly diverse game plan which was executed well by the players.

We have improved in virtually all areas, the only area that still needs improvement is running attacks in the backs.

All in all the improvement has been astonishing. It tends to be causual fans that judge a team by the frills only.

Ireland may be taking a Ryanair approach and cut back on the fancy stuff but both are operationally highly sucessful and as a result I certainly support the current model. People will continue to look for faults in both entities though.

Lack of offloads indicates how the players are instructed to always play safe and do nothing risky.

Some coach is going to come up with a way of dealing with that though - like Wales did with Ireland at the last world cup.

No it doesnt. It means we are playing to an intellegent game plan based on our strengths. When you play a more structured low risk game plan against France and Australia history dictates that you have a much better chance of winning. Thats why England tend to beat them a lot.

However, if you try to play them at their game they will let rip and beat you as we witnessed in the second part of the first half v Australia or any number of our heroic defeats v France in the past.

We dont have centres with flair like Fofana or Joseph etc. at the moment anyway so the intellegent thing to do is to play to your strengths.

There is a bit of the actuary about Schmidt. His is a low risk strategy which has a range of returns against the top tier nations of around -7 to +7 points in any single game with a probability of that range in around 90% of games (10% may be outside of this).
We probably had a higher pendulum swing under previous coaches with the range coming in the -15 to +10 in 70% of games (30% of games -30 to +25). So to continue with the financial jibber jabber metaphor, Schmidt has vastly reduced the volatility of returns in our overall investment portfolio. By opting for a tiny percentage invested in high risk strategies such as offloads (equities) where the potential returns are higher and opted for a greater weighting in rucks, Mauls and tactical kicking ( government bonds, deposits and gold).
However he has not invested in any old bonds. Oh no, these are triple gilded German bonds with an underlying layer of Swiss banking coupons.
However, as we all know investment returns are cyclical and there comes a time when it's prudent to dip a toe back into other asset classes to guard against stagnation. So a small percentage of offloads, skip passes heel flicks and swagger may be added to the mix. Just enough that it could provide a little outperformance if the gamble pays off but not so much that it could bring the rest of the portfolio crashing to the ground.

Yes Ireland will definitely need to evolve and continue innovating. Otherwise they will stagnate as you say just like Gatland's wales.

We were lucky Parra wasn't playing from the start.  He was orchestrating his boys like a true conductor and he would have found more openings eventually had he 80 minutes to do so. So 7 ahead is a comfort cushion given to us by the French coach who is a fool for not realising Parra's strength.

And I'll repeat, our passive defence based game (get a little and sit on it) is effective for now - but it is in no way 'safe'.  There is nothing 'safe and secure' about it - even Schmidt himself gets the jitters - he admits it - it's a constant in his post-game chats.

So yes, great that we're winning more than we're losing but let's not over-do this whistling comfort-speak and pretend to ourselves that the coach himself doesn't feel the pressure of keeping a 'safe' defensively sound game chugging along.  He finds it bloody hard work - as do his players.  It's a lot of energy spent and it's always a white knuckle ride against the very best sides.

It does need more.  It does need a more cohesive honest attacking platform that lasts the pace and digs at the opposition just when they think we're going to settle back into defence.  We can't keep relying on a gameplan that simply invites waves of attack from the opposition.  We need that extra aggressive and ruthless ingredient in a world cup year.  

The question is when has Joe factored in its arrival?  The warm-up games?  Or the WC itself?  He knows it needs more dynamicism.  He himself knows it needs more.  When? - is the continuing question.

GunsGerms wrote:

We dont have centres with flair like Fofana or Joseph etc. at the moment anyway so the intellegent thing to do is to play to your strengths.

I have to disagree with this, both Henshaw and Payne (who believe is a better option at 15 than Kearney right now) both have the ability to be very creative and have bundles of flair but their directions are to play safety first. Its not the players, its the approach that makes them look only like defending machines.

As I said earlier in this thread, the backline I would have for England would be :

09 - Murray
10 - Sexton
11 - Zebo
12 - Olding/Fitz/Earls (possibly 13)
13 - Henshaw (possibly Earls with Henshaw moving to 12)
14 - Bowe
15 - Payne

This too me has a good balance, creativity, defence and some individual flair.

GunsGerms wrote:Yes Ireland will definitely need to evolve and continue innovating. Otherwise they will stagnate as you say just like Gatland's wales.

Really? Didn't you get right into me the other day when I suggested that Ireland were heading down the Gatland's Wales direction?

Nachos Jones wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Yes Ireland will definitely need to evolve and continue innovating. Otherwise they will stagnate as you say just like Gatland's wales.

Really? Didn't you get right into me the other day when I suggested that Ireland were heading down the Gatland's Wales direction?

You were being a right idiot for thinking that then though, Nachos

Today though, you may very well be a genius.

Every day is a new adventure in 606.

Sure now Fly, I seem to have built up this reputation where people just think I am idiot (fairness, I am most of the time ) but you are right, everyday on the 606 is an adventure

Nachos Jones wrote:Sure now Fly, I seem to have built up this reputation where people just think I am idiot (fairness, I am most of the time ) but you are right, everyday on the 606 is an adventure

An emotional rollercoaster.

Submachine wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:Sure now Fly, I seem to have built up this reputation where people just think I am idiot (fairness, I am most of the time ) but you are right, everyday on the 606 is an adventure

An emotional rollercoaster.

Only if you have emotions. I sold mine to the Devil about 10 years ago. I still pretend to have some when moaning about the Kidney years but nope, I prefer Joe's way. Robotics is the new way for me. Resistance is Futile.

Nachos Jones wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

We dont have centres with flair like Fofana or Joseph etc. at the moment anyway so the intellegent thing to do is to play to your strengths.

I have to disagree with this, both Henshaw and Payne (who  believe is a better option at 15 than Kearney right now) both have the ability to be very creative and have bundles of flair but their directions are to play safety first. Its not the players, its the approach that makes them look only like defending machines.

As I said earlier in this thread, the backline I would have for England would be :

09 - Murray
10 - Sexton
11 - Zebo
12 - Olding/Fitz/Earls (possibly 13)
13 - Henshaw (possibly Earls with Henshaw moving to 12)
14 - Bowe
15 - Payne

This too me has a good balance, creativity, defence and some individual flair.

I'd understand thr criticism if their were player left out who were doing something special but there isn't. Gilroy had a chance against the wolfhounds and Fitz and Earls are still finding fitness.

Joe has picked the most creative players we have available. If you look around the provinces we don't have players lighting up the place - and the ones who have come closest, and been scoring tries are in the side or on the bench.

The reality is that at international level there isn't the time or space on the ball -everything is defense driven and the set piece and breakdown dictate what sort of attacking platform you have.

Against France, we had next to no ball in the second half. In the first half we ran a lot of ball - but struggled with ball retention as we did against Italy and France were offside a lot in defence.

I think the selection and game plan is spot on and there is scope to improve with this group - if we get a good platform we will score tries but we have to continue putting the basics and foundations in place first - the fact that we are winning in the process is remarkable I think.

If Earls plays against the Scarlets next weekend, I'd say he will be in the mix for England (probably from the bench). He is looking very sharp now.

SecretFly wrote:

Submachine wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:Sure now Fly, I seem to have built up this reputation where people just think I am idiot (fairness, I am most of the time ) but you are right, everyday on the 606 is an adventure

An emotional rollercoaster.

Only if you have emotions.  I sold mine to the Devil about 10 years ago.  I still pretend to have some when moaning about the Kidney years but nope, I prefer Joe's way.  Robotics is the new way for me.  Resistance is Futile.

Robots do what they are told. You'd fit right in, in Joe's regime!

Sin é wrote:If Earls plays against the Scarlets next weekend, I'd say he will be in the mix for England (probably from the bench). He is looking very sharp now.

So is Dennis Hurley.

rodders wrote:

Sin é wrote:If Earls plays against the Scarlets next weekend, I'd say he will be in the mix for England (probably from the bench). He is looking very sharp now.

So is Dennis Hurley.

Yea he is in good form. Earls managed to offload successfully surrounded by 6 Cardiff players.

Sin é wrote:

rodders wrote:

Sin é wrote:If Earls plays against the Scarlets next weekend, I'd say he will be in the mix for England (probably from the bench). He is looking very sharp now.

So is Dennis Hurley.

Yea he is in good form. Earls managed to offload successfully surrounded by 6 Cardiff players.

Would love to see earls on the bench. think he offers more the Jones and i think he is far better than Zebo

Earls isn't big enough to be a Joe back 3 player.

rubbish, joe has played mcfadden there

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:rubbish, joe has played mcfadden there

Fergus isn't top of the Q for a back 3 place - he seems to be regarded as a utility/injury cover player more than anything else (edit: though I think Fergus has the physicality for it).