Ireland v Scotland, 15 August

First topic message reminder :

  
IRELAND v SCOTLAND
15 August 2015
KO: 17:00 local
Aviva Stadium, Dublin

Live on Sky Sports at Notch's house

Referee: Pascal Gaüzère (France)
Assistant Referees: [TBC]
TMO: [TBC]

A. Head to Head

130 Played 130
59 Won 66
5 Drawn 5
66 Lost 59
1,416 Points 1,420

B. Recent Form

21 March 2015
BT Murrayfield Stadium, Edinburgh
10 – 40 to Ireland

2 February 2014
Aviva Stadium, Dublin
28 – 6 to Ireland

24 February 2013
Murrayfield Stadium, Edinburgh
12 – 8 to Scotland

10 March 2012
Aviva Stadium, Dublin
32 – 14 to Ireland

6 August 2011
Murrayfield, Edinburgh
10 – 6 to Scotland

27 February 2011
Murrayfield Stadium, Edinburgh
18 – 21 to Ireland

20 March 2010
Croke Park, Dublin
20 – 23 to Scotland

C. Teams

IRELAND

15. Simon Zebo (Cork Constitution/Munster)
14. Tommy Bowe (Belfast Harlequins/Ulster)
13. Jared Payne (Ulster)
12. Gordon D'Arcy (Lansdowne/Leinster)
11. Luke Fitzgerald (Blackrock/Leinster)
10. Ian Madigan (Blackrock/Leinster)
09. Isaac Boss (Terenure/Leinster)

08. Sean O'Brien (UCD/Leinster) capt
07. Chris Henry (Malone/Ulster)
06. Jack Conan (Old Belvedere/Leinster)*
05. Dan Tuohy (Ballymena/Ulster)
04. Devin Toner (Lansdowne/Leinster)
03. Mike Ross (Clontarf/Leinster)
02. Sean Cronin (St Mary's College/Leinster)
01. Dave Kilcoyne (UL Bohemians/Munster)

16. Richardt Strauss (Old Wesley/Leinster)
17. Michael Bent (Dublin University/Leinster)
18. Nathan White (Connacht)*
19. Paul O'Connell (Young Munster/Munster)
20. Jordi Murphy (Lansdowne/Leinster)
21. Eoin Reddan (Old Crescent/Leinster)
22. Paddy Jackson (Dungannon/Ulster)
23. Dave Kearney (Lansdowne/Leinster)

SCOTLAND

15 Ruaridh Jackson  (Wasps)
14 Sean Lamont  (Glasgow  Warriors)  
13 Richie Vernon  (Glasgow  Warriors)  
12 Peter Horne  (Glasgow  Warriors)  
11 Tim Visser  (Harlequins)
10 Greig Tonks  (Edinburgh  Rugby)
09 Henry Pyrgos  CAPTAIN  (Glasgow  Warriors)

01 Ryan Grant  (Glasgow  Warriors)  
02 Fraser Brown  (Glasgow  Warriors)  
03 Jon Welsh  (Newcastle  Falcons)
04 Jim Hamilton  (Saracens)  
05 Grant Gilchrist  (Edinburgh  Rugby)
06 Blair Cowan  (London  Irish)
07 Hugh Blake  (Glasgow  Warriors)
08 David Denton  (Edinburgh  Rugby)  

16 Ross Ford  (Edinburgh  Rugby)
17 Gordon Reid  (Glasgow  Warriors)
18 Mike Cusack  (Glasgow  Warriors)
19 Rob Harley  (Glasgow  Warriors)
20 John Barclay  (Scarlets)  
21 Sam Hidalgo-­Clyne  (Edinburgh  Rugby)
22 Duncan Weir  (Glasgow  Warriors)  
23 Matt  Scott  (Edinburgh  Rugby)

No point in discussing who is in or out. Joe knows..endof

I was a little harsh on Henry alright.

Madigan was severely handicapped by Boss but he showed some class to create 2 tries.

Guys just looking at some of the stats that have come out.  For all the talk of Payne being poor - like in the 6N he is a defensive brick wall.  He made 13 tackles today and missed 0.  Whilst he didn't offer that much going forward - I would attribute most of that to those inside him giving him no ball - he doesn't put a foot wrong in what is widely regarded as the hardest position to defend.

PS:

I realize I said Payne was poor enough above - but like the 6N, I think he is being directed to play a primarily defensive game. With Sexton and Henshaw inside him again we will see more in attack from him as we started to see towards the end of the 6N.

Strong performance from scotland who I felt were unlucky not to win. From a scotland point of view there are lots of positives to take from the game.
Looked a lot more competitive especially at the breakdown. Tackling was very good, can't remember many missed tackles by scotland. Line out functioned pretty well.
Passing looked a lot crisper especially from Horne. Managed to get good width getting visser and lamont into the game who both looked threatening. Visser unlucky not to get closer to the line when Zebo tripped him.
Jackson put in a decent performance from fullback, defended well and looked sharp with ball in hand. More prominent than Tonks.

The backrow gelled well together, good balance between the three and competed very well again the Irish backrow.
Hugh Blake had a very good game, excellent work rate and offered himself in attack, carrying and making yards especially in wide channels.
Fraser brown threw in well at line out and worked hard around the pitch. Didn't feel the second rows or props really imposed themselves.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Disappointing to hear we were crap under the high ball, especially since we were so bad in the 6N - obviously haven't learnt our lessons. High ball catching is a relatively easy skill to work on too.

Was it because we didn't have a proper fullback?

It was a bit pick and mix and just not up to the standard it should be. But there were several real howlers, where one Scottish player seemed to want to wait for the ball to bounce first then tap it back. Visser took one very good highball but he also stuffed a few up as well. Seymour, Hogg, maitland are much better under the ball in my opinion. I think it's still a real issue, losing 70-80% of the 50-50 battles Is obviously not ideal. Need to be more aggressive in that area of the game, at moment they look really uncomfortable.

Jackson did alright considering he doesn't really play FB but he was way off international standard. I'd be sceptical of using him as a back up full back, Tonks, maitland and Hogg are better options really.

I couldn't fault the players for their efforts, they clearly tried hard and I thought they would get hammered but they fought well and dictated play for large parts of the game.

But, simple errors at the breakdown, weak scrum, poor defence against the driving maul.. Lots to focus on as they buildup towards the Japan game.

Vern cotter will be pretty pleased
that was scotland c.
the 2 best players on that pitch were both scots.
why worry about these guys ??
apart from front row we have the edge , and by a margin highlighted by the c team today
well done

Irish backs were shoit btw. Zebo MOM -you are having a feckin laugh! Wish we had their front row mind.

Denton and Vernon were excellent. No real failures for Scotland apart from Hamilton who was woeful, as usual. He goes and Gilchrist stays . Horne also good along with Sean L- belied his years tbh

With regard to the above two posts - we have our first choice half backs in Murray and Sexton to come into the team.  Our first choice 12 in Henshaw to come in and probably still our first choice fullback in Kearney to come in.  2 or 3 starters in the backline (Payne at 13, potentially Bowe at 14 though some think Trimble will start ahead of him and Zebo who will probably start somewhere)..... with our third choice half backs (Madigan and Boss) and Fitzgerald and D'Arcy who aren't going to get on the plane.

As for the front row you've mentioned- that was our third choice loosehead (Kilycoyne behind Healy and McGrath) second or third choice hooker in Cronin (behind Best and possibly Strauss) and first choice tighthead.

Unlucky Scotland - if Zebo had been yellowed for an obvious trip on Visser when it looked like he was the last player between Visser and the line it could have been a different result.

Match highlights:

[quote="alive555"]Vern cotter will be pretty pleased
that was scotland c.
the 2 best players on that pitch were both scots.
why worry about these guys ??
apart from front row we have the edge , and by a margin highlighted by the c team today
well done
[/quote

                                         

                                         
                                                                 What a difference a day makes
                                                                            ♪            ♫           ♪                
                                                                      Twenty-four little hours

Artful_Dodger wrote:With regard to the above two posts - we have our first choice half backs in Murray and Sexton to come into the team.  Our first choice 12 in Henshaw to come in and probably still our first choice fullback in Kearney to come in.  2 or 3 starters in the backline (Payne at 13, potentially Bowe at 14 though some think Trimble will start ahead of him and Zebo who will probably start somewhere)..... with our third choice half backs (Madigan and Boss) and Fitzgerald and D'Arcy who aren't going to get on the plane.

As for the front row you've mentioned- that was our third choice loosehead (Kilycoyne behind Healy and McGrath) second or third choice hooker in Cronin (behind Best and possibly Strauss) and first choice tighthead.

We have 12 better players to come in. Only Visser Cowan and Denton are first choice, most of the others wont even be in the squad, so that really was scotland c there . Really should have won too.

The Great Aukster wrote:


Zebo 8 - Like SOB was unfamiliar with his position and he messed up a couple of link moves either passing too early or too late - Shaggy called it right after the game. He showed that he can play 15 though and I really liked the way he is starting to look around him to see where he is needed - one time Boss made a daft run with no support and Zebo piled in to secure the ball which was good awareness.

This I do not agree with. He had Fitz outside him and called his line early in the match but Fitz came inside for whatever reason. Later in the game he had a pass to Fitz whilst being clobbered so you cant really blame Zebo that. Personally I thought that Zebo put in a better performance at 15 than what I have seen from Kearney in a long while.

alive555 wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:With regard to the above two posts - we have our first choice half backs in Murray and Sexton to come into the team.  Our first choice 12 in Henshaw to come in and probably still our first choice fullback in Kearney to come in.  2 or 3 starters in the backline (Payne at 13, potentially Bowe at 14 though some think Trimble will start ahead of him and Zebo who will probably start somewhere)..... with our third choice half backs (Madigan and Boss) and Fitzgerald and D'Arcy who aren't going to get on the plane.

As for the front row you've mentioned- that was our third choice loosehead (Kilycoyne behind Healy and McGrath) second or third choice hooker in Cronin (behind Best and possibly Strauss) and first choice tighthead.

We have 12 better players to come in. Only Visser Cowan and Denton are first choice, most of the others wont even be in the squad, so that really was scotland c there . Really should have won too.

I would argue Visser has been absolute s h i t in a Scotland jersey this year, so I am not sure he would be first choice. Also Denton has had a long spell off with injury (and being a bit poo as well). However he seems to injury and poo free now.

Jeez what have they done to Cusack, barely looked bigger than Grant when he came on, another average scrummager in the making...

As I said my hooky stream went awol early in the second half; 've seen the tries in highlights but
(a) how did the Mighty Coo fare?
(b) was Barclay good enough to make the 31?
(c) was Rob Harley better than Hagrid?
(d) did anyone else see long making a pass in the lead to Cowan's try and a scoring pass for Hornee's? Or am I getting delusional?

Full game:

https://youtu.be/tkWx72GXapA

eirebilly wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:


Zebo 8 - Like SOB was unfamiliar with his position and he messed up a couple of link moves either passing too early or too late - Shaggy called it right after the game. He showed that he can play 15 though and I really liked the way he is starting to look around him to see where he is needed - one time Boss made a daft run with no support and Zebo piled in to secure the ball which was good awareness.

This I do not agree with. He had Fitz outside him and called his line early in the match but Fitz came inside for whatever reason. Later in the game he had a pass to Fitz whilst being clobbered so you cant really blame Zebo that. Personally I thought that Zebo put in a better performance at 15 than what I have seen from Kearney in a long while.

Agree that the first instance you mention was Fitzgerald's fault, there's no way he should have cut back in.

We'll have to disagree with the second one. Zebo had just beaten a man and had drawn the second, but his natural instinct was to try and beat the second man rather than pass - which he should have done. I think he knew so too as later in the game he passed far too early without drawing the tackler. A couple of minor mistakes and something that will get better the more he plays from infield.

The Great Aukster wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:


Zebo 8 - Like SOB was unfamiliar with his position and he messed up a couple of link moves either passing too early or too late - Shaggy called it right after the game. He showed that he can play 15 though and I really liked the way he is starting to look around him to see where he is needed - one time Boss made a daft run with no support and Zebo piled in to secure the ball which was good awareness.

This I do not agree with. He had Fitz outside him and called his line early in the match but Fitz came inside for whatever reason. Later in the game he had a pass to Fitz whilst being clobbered so you cant really blame Zebo that. Personally I thought that Zebo put in a better performance at 15 than what I have seen from Kearney in a long while.

Agree that the first instance you mention was Fitzgerald's fault, there's no way he should have cut back in.

We'll have to disagree with the second one. Zebo had just beaten a man and had drawn the second, but his natural instinct was to try and beat the second man rather than pass - which he should have done. I think he knew so too as later in the game he passed far too early without drawing the tackler. A couple of minor mistakes and something that will get better the more he plays from infield.

This instance you refer to I also believe was the fault of Fitz, he was not running a good supporting line so Zebo had to use his instincts and try to beat the man. Its very easy to also loose confidence in your winger if he has not been running good supporting lines. On several occasions, Zebo was calling Fitz's line but was being ignored so the breakdown in communication between the two was not Zebo's fault.

eirebilly wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:


Zebo 8 - Like SOB was unfamiliar with his position and he messed up a couple of link moves either passing too early or too late - Shaggy called it right after the game. He showed that he can play 15 though and I really liked the way he is starting to look around him to see where he is needed - one time Boss made a daft run with no support and Zebo piled in to secure the ball which was good awareness.

This I do not agree with. He had Fitz outside him and called his line early in the match but Fitz came inside for whatever reason. Later in the game he had a pass to Fitz whilst being clobbered so you cant really blame Zebo that. Personally I thought that Zebo put in a better performance at 15 than what I have seen from Kearney in a long while.

Agree that the first instance you mention was Fitzgerald's fault, there's no way he should have cut back in.

We'll have to disagree with the second one. Zebo had just beaten a man and had drawn the second, but his natural instinct was to try and beat the second man rather than pass - which he should have done. I think he knew so too as later in the game he passed far too early without drawing the tackler. A couple of minor mistakes and something that will get better the more he plays from infield.

This instance you refer to I also believe was the fault of Fitz, he was not running a good supporting line so Zebo had to use his instincts and try to beat the man. Its very easy to also loose confidence in your winger if he has not been running good supporting lines. On several occasions, Zebo was calling Fitz's line but was being ignored so the breakdown in communication between the two was not Zebo's fault.

I agree with Aukster if we're thinking of the same moment. Do you know at what time in the game this was?

As for Payne, he is so solid in defense but brings next to nothing in attack. I am still not sure if this is a Scmidt tactic or not but it worries me.

You could argue that in yesterdays game he was not helped by having Madigan and D'Arcy there but he has done this in pretty much all Ireland games he has played. Earls easily looked the better option at 13 than him based on the two matches played but I stand firm in my belief that Cave 12 and Henshaw 13 is Irelands best center pairing.

I still cant believe that people are seeing Madigan as cover for 12 at this level, ok he has attacking skill but his defensive positioning is awful. Paddy Jackson is streaks ahead of him as a 10 as well so I think he would be very lucky to make the cut.

I will have to re-watch and give you a time Munchkin but the only good line I saw Fitz run the whole game was for his try which he took very well.

Do Scottish fans really feel that Visser is a good winger? He can finish but is awful under the high ball and seriously lacks commitment at times.

eirebilly wrote:I will have to re-watch and give you a time Munchkin but the only good line I saw Fitz run the whole game was for his try which he took very well.

Do Scottish fans really feel that Visser is a good winger? He can finish but is awful under the high ball and seriously lacks commitment at times.

That's the dilemma we have - his try scoring record is incredible but he is a complete passenger in every other aspect!

At the other end of the spectrum is Sean Lamont who tackles well, works his nuts off and is very physical but has a horrific try scoring record for a winger.

Who do you go for?

Artful_Dodger wrote:Guys just looking at some of the stats that have come out.  For all the talk of Payne being poor - like in the 6N he is a defensive brick wall.  He made 13 tackles today and missed 0.  Whilst he didn't offer that much going forward - I would attribute most of that to those inside him giving him no ball - he doesn't put a foot wrong in what is widely regarded as the hardest position to defend.

PS:

I realize I said Payne was poor enough above - but like the 6N, I think he is being directed to play a primarily defensive game.  With Sexton and Henshaw inside him again we will see more in attack from him as we started to see towards the end of the 6N.

Completely agree. contrary to some opinions, Payne had a good game. In fact when you consider the amount of missed tackles throughout the team you could say Payne had a great game.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

eirebilly wrote:I will have to re-watch and give you a time Munchkin but the only good line I saw Fitz run the whole game was for his try which he took very well.

Do Scottish fans really feel that Visser is a good winger? He can finish but is awful under the high ball and seriously lacks commitment at times.

That's the dilemma we have - his try scoring record is incredible but he is a complete passenger in every other aspect!

At the other end of the spectrum is Sean Lamont who tackles well, works his nuts off and is very physical but has a horrific try scoring record for a winger.

Who do you go for?

I would easily have Lamont over Visser myself. Visser will be (has been regularly) targeted with kicks and will cost Scotland. In big games, you need winger who can compete under the high ball and defend solidly, this Visser cannot do.

For the record, I do not believe that Payne had a bad game. I simply believe that he has much more to offer in attack that he has shown so far for Ireland, thus the question as to whether or not it is a tactic from Schmidt.

On the two games so far, I believe that Earls has shown more attacking incentive and played the better of the two but neither should be first choice 13, that's Henshaw's in my opinion.

eirebilly wrote:I will have to re-watch and give you a time Munchkin but the only good line I saw Fitz run the whole game was for his try which he took very well.

Do Scottish fans really feel that Visser is a good winger? He can finish but is awful under the high ball and seriously lacks commitment at times.

Yes, perfect timing for his try. No worries, eirebilly. I can check it myself later. It's just that there is one incident when I'm fairly sure Zebo could have and should have passed to Fitz, but would need another look to be certain.

eirebilly wrote:For the record, I do not believe that Payne had a bad game. I simply believe that he has much more to offer in attack that he has shown so far for Ireland, thus the question as to whether or not it is a tactic from Schmidt.

On the two games so far, I believe that Earls has shown more attacking incentive and played the better of the two but neither should be first choice 13, that's Henshaw's in my opinion.

But does showing more attacking incentive and less defensive ability really mean he's the better player? I don't think Schmidt would agree. I don't anyway

I wonder if Schmidt will be pulling Zebo aside and having a word with him about the trip on Visser, another day and another ref might have deemed that a yellow or even red for intentional foul play.

eirebilly wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

eirebilly wrote:I will have to re-watch and give you a time Munchkin but the only good line I saw Fitz run the whole game was for his try which he took very well.

Do Scottish fans really feel that Visser is a good winger? He can finish but is awful under the high ball and seriously lacks commitment at times.

That's the dilemma we have - his try scoring record is incredible but he is a complete passenger in every other aspect!

At the other end of the spectrum is Sean Lamont who tackles well, works his nuts off and is very physical but has a horrific try scoring record for a winger.

Who do you go for?

I would easily have Lamont over Visser myself. Visser will be (has been regularly) targeted with kicks and will cost Scotland. In big games, you need winger who can compete under the high ball and defend solidly, this Visser cannot do.

I suppose the counter argument is what is the point in being solid yet unspectacular if you're struggling as a team to score points. We've had plenty solid yet unspectacular players over the years! Plus, Visser has missed high balls and tackles but I can't remember it massively influencing the result of games.

Saying that, until he works on his weaknesses his place is always going to be in doubt. Given that he's always had these weaknesses I can't see it happening any time soon!

Yep, the trip was blatant. Silly boy. I would be surprised if Schmidt lets that one slide. Can you imagine that happening v France?

Munchkin wrote:

eirebilly wrote:For the record, I do not believe that Payne had a bad game. I simply believe that he has much more to offer in attack that he has shown so far for Ireland, thus the question as to whether or not it is a tactic from Schmidt.

On the two games so far, I believe that Earls has shown more attacking incentive and played the better of the two but neither should be first choice 13, that's Henshaw's in my opinion.

But does showing more attacking incentive and less defensive ability really mean he's the better player? I don't think Schmidt would agree. I don't anyway

For me, Earls gets a battering from people for his supposed defensive weakness'. He is actually not as bad as some would have you believe, ok Payne is better defensively but he has nothing on Earls in attack and speed and in my opinion that out weighs any supposed defensive frailties Earls may have.

For me, as said earlier, Henshaw is the best 13 in Ireland and he is being misused at 12. He is as good as Payne defensively and almost as good as Earls in attack so for me, he is the complete 13 package.

Munchkin wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:Guys just looking at some of the stats that have come out.  For all the talk of Payne being poor - like in the 6N he is a defensive brick wall.  He made 13 tackles today and missed 0.  Whilst he didn't offer that much going forward - I would attribute most of that to those inside him giving him no ball - he doesn't put a foot wrong in what is widely regarded as the hardest position to defend.

PS:

I realize I said Payne was poor enough above - but like the 6N, I think he is being directed to play a primarily defensive game.  With Sexton and Henshaw inside him again we will see more in attack from him as we started to see towards the end of the 6N.

Completely agree. contrary to some opinions, Payne had a good game. In fact when you consider the amount of missed tackles throughout the team you could say Payne had a great game.

Payne did fine in that he made all his tackles. But he could have done a lot more in organising the defence and provide a bit of leadership in the backs.

Munchkin wrote:

eirebilly wrote:For the record, I do not believe that Payne had a bad game. I simply believe that he has much more to offer in attack that he has shown so far for Ireland, thus the question as to whether or not it is a tactic from Schmidt.

On the two games so far, I believe that Earls has shown more attacking incentive and played the better of the two but neither should be first choice 13, that's Henshaw's in my opinion.

But does showing more attacking incentive and less defensive ability really mean he's the better player? I don't think Schmidt would agree. I don't anyway

Payne v Earls is very tough and it depends what Schmidt is looking for and in particular whether versatility matters more than excelling in that player's intended main position.

Payne is a better 15 than Earls, but Earls offers more in the midfield. I always think that Earls might break a game open offensively but I never think that Payne will. That said, I understand the comments that Payne looks better defensively and if you had Henshaw and Payne in the middle, then nothing much would get past that. Conversely, you need some razzle dazzle in midfield and you need centre partners who compliment each other.

In short, someone smarter than me needs to figure it out.

I see what you are saying RDW but Visser would be a major concern for me.

I don't think Earls offers more in attack than Payne to be honest. Once Payne gets past the first man, he's much more likely to be able to find the final pass to finish the move off. Which will hopefully be to Earls screaming down the wing.

I honestly think the Payne versus Earls debate is a moot point, as we don't have two wingers better than Earls so he's not going to be available to play centre. What's more threatening in attack- Earls with Fitzgerald, Zebo or Kearney on the left wing or Payne with Earls on the left wing? Seems obvious tbh.

Communications was very poor in the backs yesterday. No one was talking. Kearney & Jones are talkers and last week you could see Keith Earls organising the defence.

Zebo is good enough to cover fullback for the last 5 minutes or so or against Romania*, but he needs a lot more gametime at fullback to become a top one.

* I don't think Canada will be as easy as people think.

Sin é wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:Guys just looking at some of the stats that have come out.  For all the talk of Payne being poor - like in the 6N he is a defensive brick wall.  He made 13 tackles today and missed 0.  Whilst he didn't offer that much going forward - I would attribute most of that to those inside him giving him no ball - he doesn't put a foot wrong in what is widely regarded as the hardest position to defend.

PS:

I realize I said Payne was poor enough above - but like the 6N, I think he is being directed to play a primarily defensive game.  With Sexton and Henshaw inside him again we will see more in attack from him as we started to see towards the end of the 6N.

Completely agree. contrary to some opinions, Payne had a good game. In fact when you consider the amount of missed tackles throughout the team you could say Payne had a great game.

Payne did fine in that he made all his tackles. But he could have done a lot more in organising the defence and provide a bit of leadership in the backs.

Do you think so? Genuine question. Can you provide an example? With Darcy inside him and Madigan at 10, I'm not sure he could have done much more.

eirebilly wrote:I see what you are saying RDW but Visser would be a major concern for me.

It is for us too and Seymour and Maitland are our first choice - both excellent all rounders. Maitland also struggles for tries though - it is a running joke with us Edinburgh fans towards the weegies that our tighthead prop scores more tries than Maitland!

Maitland is a big injury doubt though so it will come down to Visser or Lamont most likely.

Notch wrote:I don't think Earls offers more in attack than Payne to be honest. Once Payne gets past the first man, he's much more likely to be able to find the final pass to finish the move off. Which will hopefully be to Earls screaming down the wing.

I honestly think the Payne versus Earls debate is a moot point, as we don't have two wingers better than Earls so he's not going to be available to play centre. What's more threatening in attack- Earls with Fitzgerald, Zebo or Kearney on the left wing or Payne with Earls on the left wing? Seems obvious tbh.

Once Payne gets past the first man? Not seen that much at all. Earls is far more offensively minded than Payne, not sure how you see it that Payne is offensively minded at all to be honest.

eirebilly wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

eirebilly wrote:I will have to re-watch and give you a time Munchkin but the only good line I saw Fitz run the whole game was for his try which he took very well.

Do Scottish fans really feel that Visser is a good winger? He can finish but is awful under the high ball and seriously lacks commitment at times.

That's the dilemma we have - his try scoring record is incredible but he is a complete passenger in every other aspect!

At the other end of the spectrum is Sean Lamont who tackles well, works his nuts off and is very physical but has a horrific try scoring record for a winger.

Who do you go for?

I would easily have Lamont over Visser myself. Visser will be (has been regularly) targeted with kicks and will cost Scotland. In big games, you need winger who can compete under the high ball and defend solidly, this Visser cannot do.

Billy - as one of Ulster's favourite sons (Tommy Seymour) is nailed on for the right wing slot with Hogg at 15, one of the most often debated topics amongst Jock posters over the past year has been the Maitland v Visser Conjecture. Here goes:

Arguments for Maitland - wonderfully smart player, superb link man, good judgement of percentages, good under the high ball given his time as a full back, solid defensively.

Arguments against Maitland - try scoring record seems low for an international winger, sometimes needs to back himself more instead of trying to find a colleague, not as dominant a player as you might like, prefers full back to wing.

Arguments for Visser - you just cannot argue with domestic strike rate like that, can make something out of nothing, very strong going forward, good straight line speed for an international winger.

Arguments against Visser - can be one dimensional, defensively is bafflingly poor for a man of his size, will shoot out of the line for intercepts that are not on - exposing colleagues, not dependable under the high ball, no real range of passes.

And so the world turns. The argument goes that Scotland have waited so long for a winger who can actually get over the whitewash, that it would be ludicrous to ignore Visser. It's the Shane Williams Argument - who gives a sh!te about defensive frailties when you are in other respects a match winner. The counter argument is that Scotland as a whole is more likely to make chances with Maitland playing - who cares whether it is him who finishes them off?

Of course, of Maitland does not recover from his shoulder injury in time for the 31 August squad cut, then the argument is entirely academic and the big Dutch diddy will travel.

Munchkin wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:Guys just looking at some of the stats that have come out.  For all the talk of Payne being poor - like in the 6N he is a defensive brick wall.  He made 13 tackles today and missed 0.  Whilst he didn't offer that much going forward - I would attribute most of that to those inside him giving him no ball - he doesn't put a foot wrong in what is widely regarded as the hardest position to defend.

PS:

I realize I said Payne was poor enough above - but like the 6N, I think he is being directed to play a primarily defensive game.  With Sexton and Henshaw inside him again we will see more in attack from him as we started to see towards the end of the 6N.

Completely agree. contrary to some opinions, Payne had a good game. In fact when you consider the amount of missed tackles throughout the team you could say Payne had a great game.

Payne did fine in that he made all his tackles. But he could have done a lot more in organising the defence and provide a bit of leadership in the backs.

Do you think so? Genuine question. Can you provide an example? With Darcy inside him and Madigan at 10, I'm not sure he could have done much more.

Payne doesn't talk on the pitch (and neither did anyone else yesterday). Like say sorting out the defensive line, if there are defensive gaps, someone should be shouting to fill them (you would always see Brian O'Driscoll very vocal). Kearney & Jones are both vocal.

I actually thought Madigan did well yesterday (considering who he had on either side of him).

George Carlin wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

eirebilly wrote:For the record, I do not believe that Payne had a bad game. I simply believe that he has much more to offer in attack that he has shown so far for Ireland, thus the question as to whether or not it is a tactic from Schmidt.

On the two games so far, I believe that Earls has shown more attacking incentive and played the better of the two but neither should be first choice 13, that's Henshaw's in my opinion.

But does showing more attacking incentive and less defensive ability really mean he's the better player? I don't think Schmidt would agree. I don't anyway

Payne v Earls is very tough and it depends what Schmidt is looking for and in particular whether versatility matters more than excelling in that player's intended main position.

Payne is a better 15 than Earls, but Earls offers more in the midfield. I always think that Earls might break a game open offensively but I never think that Payne will. That said, I understand the comments that Payne looks better defensively and if you had Henshaw and Payne in the middle, then nothing much would get past that. Conversely, you need some razzle dazzle in midfield and you need centre partners who compliment each other.

In short, someone smarter than me needs to figure it out.

And me

My question is really what comes first? The razzle dazzle or the defence? I would say without doubt the defence before razzle dazzle although both is what you would hope for. It could be that Payne does have more to offer but is playing strictly to orders. Don't know.

Obviously Earls is more dangerous than Payne in space with maybe one man to beat but it would be a nonsense wasting him at outside centre when 90% of your job there is crash ball and get it back quickly to create space for the guys with pace out wide. And when you do get through the midfield defence where do you want him to be- making the initial break where he needs to find his support runner, or being that support runner? Really you're not looking for those major line breaks every phase. If you make 10 yards and get hauled down thats fantastic because that makes it hard for the opposition defence to reset itself and at that point- thats where you want the ball to get to a player like Earls coming from deeper.

In the really tight test matches where the defence is properly organised your outside centre is only going to get through the midfield defence completely cleanly about once every couple of games and at that point it's his job to find a supporting runner so it's more important that he

a) Have the ability to make yards in contact and be generally hard to take down
b) Be able to link well with the players outside and inside him
c) Have the awareness to know when to give the pass and what pass to choose

Also, if we move Earls inside we have to pick a left winger who is not as good as him to fill his place. He's the second best winger in the squad. Seems mad not to use him there.

Munchkin wrote:

George Carlin wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

eirebilly wrote:For the record, I do not believe that Payne had a bad game. I simply believe that he has much more to offer in attack that he has shown so far for Ireland, thus the question as to whether or not it is a tactic from Schmidt.

On the two games so far, I believe that Earls has shown more attacking incentive and played the better of the two but neither should be first choice 13, that's Henshaw's in my opinion.

But does showing more attacking incentive and less defensive ability really mean he's the better player? I don't think Schmidt would agree. I don't anyway

Payne v Earls is very tough and it depends what Schmidt is looking for and in particular whether versatility matters more than excelling in that player's intended main position.

Payne is a better 15 than Earls, but Earls offers more in the midfield. I always think that Earls might break a game open offensively but I never think that Payne will. That said, I understand the comments that Payne looks better defensively and if you had Henshaw and Payne in the middle, then nothing much would get past that. Conversely, you need some razzle dazzle in midfield and you need centre partners who compliment each other.

In short, someone smarter than me needs to figure it out.

And me

My question is really what comes first? The razzle dazzle or the defence? I would say without doubt the defence before razzle dazzle although both is what you would hope for. It could be that Payne does have more to offer but is playing strictly to orders. Don't know.

“The best form of defense is attack.”

Earls, as Sin é sums up perfectly, is an excellent organiser of defensive lines and is particularly vocal, something that Payne seriously lacks. I am not saying that Payne is a bad 13, far from it, all I am saying is that I feel Earls is far more attacking minded and is not as bad defensively as some would have you believe.

Henshaw is the man that I want at 13 above Payne and Earls though as he is attacking minded, defensively excellent and also a good talker and organiser.

Sin é wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:Guys just looking at some of the stats that have come out.  For all the talk of Payne being poor - like in the 6N he is a defensive brick wall.  He made 13 tackles today and missed 0.  Whilst he didn't offer that much going forward - I would attribute most of that to those inside him giving him no ball - he doesn't put a foot wrong in what is widely regarded as the hardest position to defend.

PS:

I realize I said Payne was poor enough above - but like the 6N, I think he is being directed to play a primarily defensive game.  With Sexton and Henshaw inside him again we will see more in attack from him as we started to see towards the end of the 6N.

Completely agree. contrary to some opinions, Payne had a good game. In fact when you consider the amount of missed tackles throughout the team you could say Payne had a great game.

Payne did fine in that he made all his tackles. But he could have done a lot more in organising the defence and provide a bit of leadership in the backs.

Do you think so? Genuine question. Can you provide an example? With Darcy inside him and Madigan at 10, I'm not sure he could have done much more.

Payne doesn't talk on the pitch (and neither did anyone else yesterday). Like say sorting out the defensive line, if there are defensive gaps, someone should be shouting to fill them (you would always see Brian O'Driscoll very vocal). Kearney & Jones are both vocal.

I actually thought Madigan did well yesterday (considering who he had on either side of him).

Payne doesn't seem to chat much. Strange when you think that he captained Northland, but if he was playing as Schmidt wanted him to play, I don't doubt that he was, then surely that's enough. He isn't BOD.

Sin é wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

George Carlin wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

eirebilly wrote:For the record, I do not believe that Payne had a bad game. I simply believe that he has much more to offer in attack that he has shown so far for Ireland, thus the question as to whether or not it is a tactic from Schmidt.

On the two games so far, I believe that Earls has shown more attacking incentive and played the better of the two but neither should be first choice 13, that's Henshaw's in my opinion.

But does showing more attacking incentive and less defensive ability really mean he's the better player? I don't think Schmidt would agree. I don't anyway

Payne v Earls is very tough and it depends what Schmidt is looking for and in particular whether versatility matters more than excelling in that player's intended main position.

Payne is a better 15 than Earls, but Earls offers more in the midfield. I always think that Earls might break a game open offensively but I never think that Payne will. That said, I understand the comments that Payne looks better defensively and if you had Henshaw and Payne in the middle, then nothing much would get past that. Conversely, you need some razzle dazzle in midfield and you need centre partners who compliment each other.

In short, someone smarter than me needs to figure it out.

And me

My question is really what comes first? The razzle dazzle or the defence? I would say without doubt the defence before razzle dazzle although both is what you would hope for. It could be that Payne does have more to offer but is playing strictly to orders. Don't know.

“The best form of defense is attack.”

yep, and that always works...... <<<<<<<<<Sarcasm<<<<<<<<<<

Munchkin wrote:
Payne doesn't seem to chat much. Strange when you think that he captained Northland, but if he was playing as Schmidt wanted him to play, I don't doubt that he was, then surely that's enough. He isn't BOD.

I don't know where this comes from, because if you watch him for Ulster he is one of the most vocal players on the pitch.