Ireland 2016 Squad

First topic message reminder :

So what would you like to see for the 6 nations and end of season tour of South Africa? Who would you like brought in and left out? Les Kiss and POC are gone, the only definites..


Players I think should be brought in to the squad or considered:
Olding - Utility back
McCloskey - center
Garry Ringrose - center
Marmion - scrum half
Luke McGrath - scrum half
Dave O'Callaghan - blindside
Sherry - hooker
Josh Van Der Flier - openside
Dan Leavy - backrow
Jack Conan - 8
Jack O'Donoghue - 8
Cj Stander - 8
Ross Moloney - lock
Marty Moore - tighthead
Matt Healy - winger
Cathal Marsh  - outhalf
Andrew Trimble - winger

Some of the best young (except Trimble) players in Ireland to consider.

Come on FES havent you been on this board recently? It has to be Earls at 13

funnyExiledScot wrote:

What have I done??

nothing FES, just there has been a hefty debate (the kind of debate that normally involves artillery fire) regarding Payne vs Earls at 13, and you stroll in with that high-faluting idea!

You're grand, we welcome contributions from all posters of all nationalities.

<Adds fES' name to the list>
<Shifty Eyes>

Anyway, about McCloskey. It's been incredibly dispiriting watching his game develop as the season has gone on. At the start of the season he was throwing lots of brilliant offloads, and through no fault of his own many were resulting in knock-ons- not because it was the wrong decision to throw the offload, a number of these would have resulted in tries if taken cleanly, but because the receiving players were fumbling the ball or not expecting the offload. The apotheosis of this was against the Scarlets were he would have broken them right open with quality offloads on a couple of occasions if Luke Marshall could just catch the ball. As the season goes on, we're seeing less and less offloads out of the tackle from him as a result.

Players need to be looking for those offloads and expecting them from him and staying on his shoulder. Since we've failed to do that, he's being used as a safety first crash ball option.

It's incredibly depressing to see a natural offloader playing down to the level of the players around him. It's not enough to have guys who can offload. We need the support play and awareness from the players around them to capitalise. Otherwise, they'll just end up taking contact and the pedestrian centre play will continue.

Marshes wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

What have I done??

nothing FES, just there has been a hefty debate (the kind of debate that normally involves artillery fire) regarding Payne vs Earls at 13, and you stroll in with that high-faluting idea!

Well for what it's worth I'd be on the Earls side of that debate were it a straight shoot between those two options.

Payne is an odd one. He built his reputation at 15 and then once qualified was shunted to 13. I've yet to see him play as well at 13 than he did at 15, and it was those performances at 15 that caught the eye. It was a very "English rugby" sort of thing to do......

Payne must have realised that his best chance to get capped internationally was at 13 with Brian O'Driscoll retiring.

Now you have gone and done it FES, with your unbiased view. Next you will be accused of being Sin e in disguise.

Interesting defence of McCloskeys recent form. Its the other players who are making him look decidedly average.

ME-109 wrote:
Now you have gone and done it FES, with your unbiased view. Next you will be accused of being Sin e in disguise.

Unbiased view, great isn't it. It completely highlights the hypocrisy of certain posters on here who are quick to their strawman arguments of provincial bias accusations but when the same comments come from supporters of all provinces and other countries, those comments are deemed acceptable and open for debate.

I state again, Ireland do have the players with the ability to make offloads in contact and break open defence's. Happy days ahead for Ireland if these players are to continue their natural development and not forced to play an overly defensive orientated game both at provincial and International level.

Think dementedmole is bang on in his comments about the Irish centres, he says what I would say about Payne and Earls in a more articulate fashion than I have managed.

http://dementedmole.com/2015/11/07/ireland-rwc-2015-report-card-part-5-centres/

It's very rare that I read an article I agree with so much, particularly the point made by the mole and by BOB that losing our back lines organisers and leaders at 10 and 13 handicapped our ability to fix our defensive alignment during the quarter-final (and yes, we have to look at individuals who missed tackles and the defence coaching too but with some organisers you at least have the chance to fix it on the pitch). This is also a very fair assessment;

"Payne is not blessed with twinkling toes and outrageous acceleration but he is smart, and has become a solid, physical footballer with an awareness of his position’s requirements. What should be of concern to Irish rugby is that there were very few alternatives to Payne with these attributes."

It sounds like damning with faint praise until you think; well who else in Ireland is capable of doing the basics well at outside centre? The fact Payne can do the basics is what sets him apart as his competitors generally can't. It's a sorry state of affairs but I would go so far to say that of all our outside backs Henshaw is the only other player who has a grasp of the basics of the 13 position and the requisite physical attributes to thrive at this level. Cave is, as later pointed out, a cracking centre at provincial level but a little bit slower and a little bit less physical than he'd need to be to make the step up.

I guess my views on Payne are reflective of the fact that I prize intelligence and decision making with and without the ball higher than anything else when it comes to centre play. I acknowledge you need to have some measure of pace and some measure of power and besides his leadership qualities thats why Payne has beaten Cave to international recognition, but power and pace without intelligence is not enough.

Now if we can get people running support lines off Henshaw and Payne, we'll see their value in the Six Nations and I think that partnership will grow through the tournament. I hope that Earls is just the man to capitalise on it, coming off his wing. I fell like if we give Henshaw and Payne more options when they are carrying they both have the skills and intelligence to recognise them and use them.

Really! This is the Demented Mole who is always banging on about Peter O'Mahony's low tackle count. The guy has a defensive mindset. Thats the big problem with Schmidt's selections. He is terrified of any guys who have a bit of spark about them. Nothing has changed since his Blues days and Carlos Spencer.

We just had a 6Ns of Payne & Henshaw. Payne could not make a line break if they were to play there for a million years.

I'm with you on Payne Sin e, although perhaps don't hold as stark an opinion. He's a clever player and a good footballer, but I still see his skillset best suited to 15. He'll do a job, and will have a low error count, but I'm not convinced he'll take Ireland to the next level.

I'm advocating McCloskey/Henshaw which is clearly a much bigger risk. I'd also like Zebo and Gilroy on the wings, and think both could be used really effectively off the wings to add a bit of sparkle to what would be a very physical and direct pair of centres. I'm clearly coming from a very different perspective to Schmidt!

See, line breaks are a red herring.

Of course all line breaks are useful but it's not what selection at outside centre should be based on. If it opens up, of course thats an excellent bonus but let's leave aside defence for a moment and look at the bread and butter of a centres role when the team is in possession.

1) Taking the ball on when there is nothing on and making three, four, five yards so the attack can start again.
2) Picking the right passes and making the right decisions on the ball to create space for the players around you to attack.
3) Making half-breaks and keeping the hands free for an offload and giving it when appropriate to avoid having to go through a ruck.

There's no doubt I think we could get more offloads away from our centres and I would like to see it tried more instead of having them focused on the first two points, but I think he has the strength and game awareness to do all of that. Whereas no-one else actually does those basic things to the same standard bar Henshaw. We play a possession based, multi-phase game and our centres role is to run hard lines when needed and to move the ball wide when needed which I think both have been excellent at. The good thing about this partnership is we know they can play that game, they can play an offloading game, they can play a passing game and they are well able to learn their roles for whatever set plays Schmidt comes up with- it's our most flexible midfield by far which is why I can't see major changes in the short term barring injuries.

This idea that the 13 is there to make line breaks is the reason we have players like Keith Earls shoehorned into the position. It's actually a very small part of the job because let's face it, this isn't the Pro12- at 13 you're only going to get a chance to make a clean break once or twice a game, unless the players inside you create that gap and opportunity for you and you're running at space. At which point I would still rather have Payne or Henshaw as I think they would be more likely to make the right decision after making the initial break.

I keep reading about Payne doing the basics right and his awareness being outstanding.

I really have not seen this myself aside from in defence where he is a rock.

In attack he crabs sideways dragging defenders with him when offloading was the better option.

His kicking game during his appearances in the RWC was extremely poor (we all know the DTH try) especially when Ireland won turnover ball and he held on to it for way too long when an early kick ahead would almost have certainly led to a try instead he kicked straight into a player only for the ball to go out.

His offloading is not as good as many people would have you believe either.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think that he is a very talented player and has/can certainly do a defensive job at 13 but nothing more. I believe he would be far better suited to 15.

Maybe Payne should sign for South Sydney Rabitohs too.....

Notch wrote:See, line breaks are a red herring.

Of course all line breaks are useful but it's not what selection at outside centre should be based on. If it opens up, of course thats an excellent bonus but let's leave aside defence for a moment and look at the bread and butter of a centres role when the team is in possession.

1) Taking the ball on when there is nothing on and making three, four, five yards so the attack can start again.
2) Picking the right passes and making the right decisions on the ball to create space for the players around you to attack.
3) Making half-breaks and keeping the hands free for an offload and giving it when appropriate to avoid having to go through a ruck.

There's no doubt I think we could get more offloads away from our centres and I would like to see it tried more instead of having them focused on the first two points, but I think he has the strength and game awareness to do all of that. Whereas no-one else actually does those basic things to the same standard bar Henshaw. We play a possession based, multi-phase game and our centres role is to run hard lines when needed and to move the ball wide when needed which I think both have been excellent at. The good thing about this partnership is we know they can play that game, they can play an offloading game, they can play a passing game and they are well able to learn their roles for whatever set plays Schmidt comes up with- it's our most flexible midfield by far which is why I can't see major changes in the short term barring injuries.

This idea that the 13 is there to make line breaks is the reason we have players like Keith Earls shoehorned into the position. It's actually a very small part of the job because let's face it, this isn't the Pro12- at 13 you're only going to get a chance to make a clean break once or twice a game, unless the players inside you create that gap and opportunity for you and you're running at space. At which point I would still rather have Payne or Henshaw as I think they would be more likely to make the right decision after making the initial break.

I only mentioned linebreaks because Payne is so poor at it. At least Henshaw doesn't go sideways across the pitch eating up all the space.

How many rucks does Payne hit? Earls is usually first there and rated as one of the most effective ruckers not just from the backs, but the forwards as well. We all know Joe likes his ruck resourcers

Your vision of the perfect centre is based on a geriatric Brian O'Driscoll, when he lost his legs made a big deal of turning the outside centre into the position that organises the defence. And even if they are the defence organiser, a few allowances should be made when thrown into the role when not rehearsing for it.

I'm kinda quickly tiring now of the Payne show.... not him, I'm sure he's a nice fella.

But this idea that it's kinda natural logic to assume he's good enough to be in one of the positions he keeps getting mentioned for (13/15) - "well if he doesn't get 13, he's a natural for 15 or vice versa" - I'm not fully sold on the either/or of it.

Maybe Payne just has to accept that he's yet another good 'utility' style player that's handy in a few positions but not exactly world-shatteringly explosive in either?

Maybe the search simply continues...both for 13 and a replacement 15. Maybe Payne just has to accept sitting at the back of the bus with Zebo, Madigan, Cronin and Fitz - the Nearly-Made-It men who keep finding themselves on a not-good-enough bench.

Sin é wrote:Really! This is the Demented Mole who is always banging on about Peter O'Mahony's low tackle count. The guy has a defensive mindset. Thats the big problem with Schmidt's selections. He is terrified of any guys who have a bit of spark about them. Nothing has changed since his Blues days and Carlos Spencer.

We just had a 6Ns of Payne & Henshaw. Payne could not make a line break if they were to play there for a million years.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/world-cup/comment/isa-nacewa-joe-was-totally-different-when-he-came-to-leinster-31539922.html

Isa Nacewa wrote:I first came across Joe in 2004 when he was assistant coach of Bay of Plenty under Vern Cotter, and they beat my Auckland team. Joe had massive success with a club that wasn't considered contenders.

Then in 2005, he was backs coach with the Blues in Super Rugby, and I got selected for the first time. I had never encountered any coaching like I got from him. It just blew my mind, how much I learned.

But that Blues team underperformed. I think it was difficult for Joe coming in. Maybe because he didn't have the playing pedigree, or because he came from Bay of Plenty, and not a top-status club. . . there's a lot of politics in New Zealand rugby.

That Blues team had the likes of Carlos Spencer, Doug Howlett, Joe Rokocoko, Mils Muliaina - pretty much the All Blacks backline at the time. We had a hell of a lot of strong personalities in that team.

Joe challenged guys' thinking. He was ahead of the game, and I don't think we as players in New Zealand were ready for him. I was soaking it all in, but there were seasoned All Blacks - players who had been leading the way for so long - who weren't willing to learn as much. That season was average.

As soon as he left to go to Clermont as No 2 in 2007, I realised how much I missed him and his detail. It was hard for the next guy to fill those shoes.

One problem at the Blues was that didn't have full control of the attack. He couldn't put forward his whole philosophy as he would have liked.

Joe was totally different when he came to Leinster - and I knew he would be, because I had spoken to mates at Clermont. I had heard he had developed a harder edge. I had also kept in touch with him.

He had more responsibility at Clermont, full control over the way they attacked - and they played some of the best rugby you'll see.

Just a snippet of what happened at the Blues from someone who was there,not idle speculation from a journalist.Since you are so fond of taking players opinion as gospel (Peter Stringer said this about Payne/Earls/whoever fits my agenda) surely you'll accept Nacewa's opinion as correct?

What we need is for Peter Stringer to write an opinion piece about Schmidt's mishandling of Carlos Spencer. Then we'll really be cooking

SecretFly wrote:
Maybe Payne just has to accept that he's yet another good 'utility' style player that's handy in a few positions but not exactly world-shatteringly explosive in either?

Maybe the rest of the players (and fans) need to accept that being indigenous isn't a factor in selection under Schmidt and will have to be better than Payne if they want to start.

Its not Payne's fault the local boys aren't up to the level.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Marshes wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

What have I done??

nothing FES, just there has been a hefty debate (the kind of debate that normally involves artillery fire) regarding Payne vs Earls at 13, and you stroll in with that high-faluting idea!

Well for what it's worth I'd be on the Earls side of that debate were it a straight shoot between those two options.

Earls is an odd one. He built his reputation at 11 and then once he asked was shunted to 13. I've yet to see him play as well at 13 than he did at 11, and it was those performances at 11 that caught the eye.

Not disagreeing on Payne, I se ehim at 15 long term too! If you edit your sentence above with Earls name in place of Payne's and their respective best positions it works just the same. I, like you, think Henshaw for 13, Payne for 15 and Earls for 11 is best use of resources

Sin é wrote:
Your vision of the perfect centre is based on a geriatric Brian O'Driscoll, when he lost his legs made a big deal of turning the outside centre into the position that organises the defence. And even if they are the defence organiser, a few allowances should be made when thrown into the role when not rehearsing for it.

Thanks for projecting your hang-ups about BOD et al. onto me. I actually don't think BOD was ever the perfect centre, even at his best, although when he was good in attack he was good in a way that meant his weaknesses never mattered. When he talks about centre play I tend to listen because he knows a lot more than me or anyone else on this board about it.

My idea of the perfect outside centre is actually Conrad Smith. At inside centre, my idea of the ideal player is Matt Giteau. Brains over brawn, intelligent players who have well-rounded skillets and read the game faster than their opposite numbers. Unfortunately we've never had that kind of quality in the centres except when we had a young BOD (i.e. pre-2007 RWC) who was able to rewrite the rules for himself. The fact that the centres have the most responsibility for organising the defence really has nothing to do with BOD and more to do with the fact that they naturally link the halfbacks to the back three.

I've also campaigned against players being used in positions I feel that they are less suited too. Some people used to suggest Stephen Ferris move into the second row, which I argued against, although there was never much of a risk of that happening. I used to argue against using Paddy Wallace at 10, or Tom Court at tight head even though I was a big fan of both players in their right positions. It's the same with Earls. I'm a big fan of Earls as a winger, a big detractor of Earls the centre.

You think I'm using some idea of what we had when BOD was around as the model for our centres and thats why I exclude Earls, because he's a 'different type of player'. Well he is a different type of player- he's a winger. I exclude him from the centre for that reason, because I know that he is more likely to hurt teams when he gets the ball in space, I know he has the pace to really pressurise opponents with his kick chase, I know he can take players on one on one in the wide channels, and I know it's much harder to mark him in wider channels. I also think he tries to hard to manufacture opportunities for himself at 13. He's instinctive and individualistic- great qualities for a predatory winger, less useful for a centre.

Yeah, how dare I and my fellow hypocritical posters accuse others of provincial bias, where on earth did we get those ideas from?

Sin é wrote:Really! This is the Demented Mole who is always banging on about Peter O'Mahony's low tackle count. The guy has a defensive mindset. Thats the big problem with Schmidt's selections. He is terrified of any guys who have a bit of spark about them. Nothing has changed since his Blues days and Carlos Spencer.

We just had a 6Ns of Payne & Henshaw. Payne could not make a line break if they were to play there for a million years.

When at 13 did Earls make a line break in the World Cup or in the warm ups? Against France Henshaw was making them in the 13 channel on the outside of Basteraud. Put Earls where him can make breaks by using his pace, his best position, on the wing.

SecretFly wrote:Maybe Payne just has to accept that he's yet another good 'utility' style player that's handy in a few positions but not exactly world-shatteringly explosive in either?

I accept that, but we're not at a level were we have many players who are world-shaterringly explosive.

Guys who are really top class in their positions internationally for me would be; Healy, Best, O'Brien and Sexton. Henderson has the potential. So we're going to be picking a lot of players for our first team who aren't 'world-shattering' for the foreseeable.

rodders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
Maybe Payne just has to accept that he's yet another good 'utility' style player that's handy in a few positions but not exactly world-shatteringly explosive in either?

Maybe the rest of the players (and fans) need to accept that being indigenous isn't a factor in selection under Schmidt and will have to be better than Payne if they want to start.

Its not Payne's fault the local boys aren't up to the level.

Maybe being indegon.... idygyn...inndiggy........ em, maybe being local enough isn't the issue and indogenius people shouldn't always be implying that it is.

And maybe the 'level' ain't worth being up to.

For the record, I've never had an issue with Payne.  He's fine for the time being.  The system is the current issue and the methods used to effect it.  Payne is the least of the issues around that current methodology.  


Another 'maybe'.  Maybe things will subtly change or even dramatically change now with Kiss gone.

BTW, what time frame will be on a replacement for Kiss?

Marshes wrote:

Sin é wrote:Really! This is the Demented Mole who is always banging on about Peter O'Mahony's low tackle count. The guy has a defensive mindset. Thats the big problem with Schmidt's selections. He is terrified of any guys who have a bit of spark about them. Nothing has changed since his Blues days and Carlos Spencer.

We just had a 6Ns of Payne & Henshaw. Payne could not make a line break if they were to play there for a million years.

When at 13 did Earls make a line break in the World Cup or in the warm ups? Against France Henshaw was making them in the 13 channel on the outside of Basteraud. Put Earls where him can make breaks by using his pace, his best position, on the wing.

World cup stats:

Carries over gainline: KEarls 24; JPayne: 13; RHenshaw: 22
Offloads: KE: 2; JP 2; RH:3
Clean Breaks: KE: 5; JP 3; RH: 1
Defenders beaten: KE: 9; JP: 4; RH: 9
Turnovers won: KE: 1; JP: 1; RH: 2.
Retained kicks: KE: 1; JP: 0; RH: 1

Metres carried: KE: 263m. JP: 147: RH: 115m.

So Henshaw was making breaks on the outside of Baustaraud, was he?

Notch wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Maybe Payne just has to accept that he's yet another good 'utility' style player that's handy in a few positions but not exactly world-shatteringly explosive in either?

I accept that, but we're not at a level were we have many players who are world-shaterringly explosive.

Guys who are really top class in their positions internationally for me would be; Healy, Best, O'Brien and Sexton. Henderson has the potential. So we're going to be picking a lot of players for our first team who aren't 'world-shattering' for the foreseeable.

Healy & Sexton are living on reputation now. Argentinians had no problem keeping Henderson very quiet. Not sure he has enough dog in him.

SecretFly wrote:

rodders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
Maybe Payne just has to accept that he's yet another good 'utility' style player that's handy in a few positions but not exactly world-shatteringly explosive in either?

Maybe the rest of the players (and fans) need to accept that being indigenous isn't a factor in selection under Schmidt and will have to be better than Payne if they want to start.

Its not Payne's fault the local boys aren't up to the level.

Maybe being indegon.... idygyn...inndiggy........ em, maybe being local enough isn't the issue and indogenius people shouldn't always be implying that it is.

And maybe the 'level' ain't worth being up to.

For the record, I've never had an issue with Payne.  He's fine for the time being.  The system is the current issue and the methods used to effect it.  Payne is the least of the issues around that current methodology.  


Another 'maybe'.  Maybe things will subtly change or even dramatically change now with Kiss gone.

BTW, what time frame will be on a replacement for Kiss?

The question really isn't the squad, the biggest question is whether Schmidt can learn from his mistakes and has the wit to change his coaching philosophy.

I really cannot figure out how Dave Kearney can be first choice winger over pretty much every other winger in Irish rugby.

Sin é wrote:

Notch wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Maybe Payne just has to accept that he's yet another good 'utility' style player that's handy in a few positions but not exactly world-shatteringly explosive in either?

I accept that, but we're not at a level were we have many players who are world-shaterringly explosive.

Guys who are really top class in their positions internationally for me would be; Healy, Best, O'Brien and Sexton. Henderson has the potential. So we're going to be picking a lot of players for our first team who aren't 'world-shattering' for the foreseeable.

Healy & Sexton are living on reputation now. Argentinians had no problem keeping Henderson very quiet. Not sure he has enough dog in him.

Then dear help the rest of the team, because he has more dog in him than the rest of the pack combined. Apart from Rory Best.

Sorry to distract from the provincial grumbles but you'll all be glad to know JJ Hanrahan is starting at 10 for Saints against the Scarlets

That is a good distraction, BamBam. Very happy to hear that!

Sin é wrote:

Marshes wrote:

Sin é wrote:Really! This is the Demented Mole who is always banging on about Peter O'Mahony's low tackle count. The guy has a defensive mindset. Thats the big problem with Schmidt's selections. He is terrified of any guys who have a bit of spark about them. Nothing has changed since his Blues days and Carlos Spencer.

We just had a 6Ns of Payne & Henshaw. Payne could not make a line break if they were to play there for a million years.

When at 13 did Earls make a line break in the World Cup or in the warm ups? Against France Henshaw was making them in the 13 channel on the outside of Basteraud. Put Earls where him can make breaks by using his pace, his best position, on the wing.

World cup stats:

Carries over gainline:  KEarls 24; JPayne: 13; RHenshaw: 22
Offloads: KE: 2; JP 2; RH:3
Clean Breaks: KE: 5; JP 3; RH: 1
Defenders beaten: KE: 9; JP: 4; RH: 9
Turnovers won: KE: 1; JP: 1; RH: 2.
Retained kicks: KE: 1; JP: 0; RH: 1

Metres carried: KE: 263m. JP: 147: RH: 115m.

So Henshaw was making breaks on the outside of Baustaraud, was he?

Well THE clean break, you know the one! It's one more than Earls made in that game with Basteraud moving like a parked car

Remember as well that Henshaw played two less games aswell against the minnows, while Earls was filling in where he should be

Notch wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Maybe Payne just has to accept that he's yet another good 'utility' style player that's handy in a few positions but not exactly world-shatteringly explosive in either?

I accept that, but we're not at a level were we have many players who are world-shaterringly explosive.

Guys who are really top class in their positions internationally for me would be; Healy, Best, O'Brien and Sexton. Henderson has the potential. So we're going to be picking a lot of players for our first team who aren't 'world-shattering' for the foreseeable.

Correct. But the simple truth is that if you want to reach the top four or five positions in the World of rugby Union now, then you do need a few 'world shattering' type players in a few positions..... and unfortunately they're in the centres and wings...and it's nice to have a pretty creative, forceful 15 as well.

I mean these aren't luxuries. They're requirements. If you don't have notable players in these positions with consistency of quality game by game by game, then you're lulling in the 7th to 9th positions.

We see the potential of our bruising linebreakers and/or breakdown specialists (Healy, Best, O'Brien and now Henderson) because that's the game we are currently and have played in the past. Swing the emphasis a tad and we'll unearth players that can play it sharper through the backs. Right now they're not being asked to. The emphasis needs fixing.

BamBam wrote:Sorry to distract from the provincial grumbles but you'll all be glad to know JJ Hanrahan is starting at 10 for Saints against the Scarlets

I now hope Saints marmalise Scarlets.... No bias or anything operating though.....

BamBam wrote:Sorry to distract from the provincial grumbles but you'll all be glad to know JJ Hanrahan is starting at 10 for Saints against the Scarlets

That is good news - at least one Irish player might do ok in the RCC....

BamBam wrote:Sorry to distract from the provincial grumbles but you'll all be glad to know JJ Hanrahan is starting at 10 for Saints against the Scarlets

Saw him against Saracens when he came on last week, seems to be doing well as an impact sub, would be great to see him nail down a regular starting position

Sin é wrote:

I really cannot figure out how Dave Kearney can be first choice winger over pretty much every other winger in Irish rugby.

Dog? Less smiles?

Its probably not a bad change, not sure how much you chaps catch of the Jeff but Saints have been pretty clueless for the first few games, Hartley has also been dropped so maybe a bit of a shake up from Mallinder to see if they can get going

Steenson seems to be going well at Exeter too.

To be honest there are probably better players outside the country than in it right now.

Since Schmidt and Anscombe left provincial rugby has gone down the toilet a bit - we're closer in quality to the Welsh than the Franglos.

SecretFly wrote:

Notch wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Maybe Payne just has to accept that he's yet another good 'utility' style player that's handy in a few positions but not exactly world-shatteringly explosive in either?

I accept that, but we're not at a level were we have many players who are world-shaterringly explosive.

Guys who are really top class in their positions internationally for me would be; Healy, Best, O'Brien and Sexton. Henderson has the potential. So we're going to be picking a lot of players for our first team who aren't 'world-shattering' for the foreseeable.

Correct.  But the simple truth is that if you want to reach the top four or five positions in the World of rugby Union now, then you do need a few 'world shattering' type players in a few positions..... and unfortunately they're in the centres and wings...and it's nice to have a pretty creative, forceful 15 as well.

I mean these aren't luxuries.  They're requirements.  If you don't have notable players in these positions with consistency of quality game by game by game, then you're lulling in the 7th to 9th positions.

We see the potential of our bruising linebreakers and/or breakdown specialists (Healy, Best, O'Brien and now Henderson) because that's the game we are currently and have played in the past.  Swing the emphasis a tad and we'll unearth players that can play it sharper through the backs.  Right now they're not being asked to.  The emphasis needs fixing.

Well without those bruising line breakers and breakdown specialists, you won't see anything new. The backs do need some space and momentum and that has to be generated from somewhere.

However I do agree that I would like to see the hard working, less flashy players in the pack doing the basics well and a more exciting backline who can reap the benefits of their hard work. Something akin to the game Argentina would play.

The big criticism of Earls used be his distribution. Funnily enough that seems to be excused for Payne. Who appears to be like a rabbit in headlights when it comes to passing.

Someone quoted demented mole as a source of knowledge on the situation. That's like chunky but without any intelligence

ME-109 wrote:The big criticism of Earls used be his distribution.

Nope that was just one of the criticisms, along with his poor defense and general lack of rugby nous.

ME-109 wrote:The big criticism of Earls used be his distribution. Funnily enough that seems to be excused for Payne. Who appears to be like a rabbit in headlights when it comes to passing.

Someone quoted demented mole as a source of knowledge on the situation. That's like chunky but without any intelligence

Care to give a reasonable argument as to why that is an apt analogy?What is the issue that the Munsterfans site has with dementedmole,you and Sin toe the party line with that site so admirably you should be able to give us some good examples of his crimes.

rodders wrote:

ME-109 wrote:The big criticism of Earls used be his distribution.

Nope that was just one of the criticisms, along with his poor defense and general lack of rugby nous.

He's also a ginger.

ME-109 wrote:The big criticism of Earls used be his distribution. Funnily enough that seems to be excused for Payne. Who appears to be like a rabbit in headlights when it comes to passing.

Someone quoted demented mole as a source of knowledge on the situation. That's like chunky but without any intelligence

Well, you seem to think that Payne has a problem with passing so I have to take that post with a pinch of salt!

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

rodders wrote:

ME-109 wrote:The big criticism of Earls used be his distribution.

Nope that was just one of the criticisms, along with his poor defense and general lack of rugby nouse - that and he's from Moyross.

He's also a ginger.

+1 for him in my book

Notch wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

rodders wrote:

ME-109 wrote:The big criticism of Earls used be his distribution.

Nope that was just one of the criticisms, along with his poor defense and general lack of rugby nous

He's also a ginger.

+1 for him in my book

Wait does that mean you're a ginger too,they didn't check that before they made you a mod?This place is going to the dogs.

I'm more of a burnt umber.

That explains the 'never suffer fools (or super intelligent folks     ) gladly' aspect of your character, Notch................

Although I never fixed you for a burnt umber for some reason.


That does it!  Competition time. Guess posters' hair colour!

Chunky is bald due to self-harming when angry.... but once had brown hair, a thick fringe and a big moustache............
Sin is baby oil bald due to fandom for Stringer
Rodders has a nice business man hair cut with a lotsa money twist
eirebilly has the word 'killer' shaved into the right side of his head to go with his snake in a fist tattoo that slides down his neck....

Notch wrote:I'm more of a burnt umber.

And to think I used to respect your opinion. I'm now firmly in the Earls for 13 camp now. Payne is rubbish, run him and Schmidt out of this country.

Foley for Ireland