Ireland Squad Discussion

Continuing on from Ireland Squad Announcement Thread.

Schmidt has a pop at McCloskey. McCloskey had the cheek to offload the ball twice.

“Stu got into the game a little bit in the second half and showed the big, strong carrier he can be for us. I think there was a couple of times that he probably needed to take care of the ball a little bit better, he was a little bit loose.

Yeah that's having a pop alright, some good performances from the debutants and we're still showing great ambition.This team will be very dangerous when it clicks, it feels like the early stages of Schmidts time with Leinster, I can't wait until we get it right. Lots to be excited about for the future.

It was interesting that in the second half we played so much better but still lost it 15-7....a lot of things to be positive about. Lots of buts though. The next two games will be informative.

A very annoying game to lose. A few points:

Can we finally all admit that we are miles away from a conservative gameplan, and closer to headless chicken "run from within our 22" stuff?

Defence is our biggest issue. IRFU shagged up massively. I hope Farrell brings in a blitz defence. It would do wonders for our psych to hammer the hammer again in big games.

The team picked was the best available team outside of Jackson for bench.

On the match thread people were saying JS has been found out/goaded into a more expansive game by Eddie and the media. People want to have their cake and eat it. Either we try and play expansive and it looks Poopie and we lose for awhile or we play to our traditional strenghts and win more then lose but people complain its boring. JS is bringing in an expansive game. It won't work for awhile. Patience.

wolfball wrote:A very annoying game to lose. A few points:

Can we finally all admit that we are miles away from a conservative gameplan, and closer to headless chicken "run from within our 22" stuff?

Defence is our biggest issue. IRFU shagged up massively. I hope Farrell brings in a blitz defence. It would do wonders for our psych to hammer the hammer again in big games.

The team picked was the best available team outside of Jackson for bench.

On the match thread people were saying JS has been found out/goaded into a more expansive game by Eddie and the media. People want to have their cake and eat it. Either we try and play expansive and it looks Poopie and we lose for awhile or we play to our traditional strenghts and win more then lose but people complain its boring. JS is bringing in an expansive game. It won't work for awhile. Patience.

Wolf I feel like you might be more accepting of the current attempt as a Connacht fan. Ireland are currently attempting to open up the gameplan a bit, and it will pinch for a while, but if we can get the players thinking in that mindset, the rewards are good rugby and capable team. Defence will come once we have a dedicated coach for it. I'm massively encouraged by the amount of linebreaks we have been making.

Connacht made a commitment to expand the skill set of the team when Lam came in and I would say it is paying dividends not only for Connacht but for Ireland.

Dead right. Patience is the word.

Marshes wrote:
Wolf I feel like you might be more accepting of the current attempt as a Connacht fan. Ireland are currently attempting to open up the gameplan a bit, and it will pinch for a while, but if we can get the players thinking in that mindset, the rewards are good rugby and capable team. Defence will come once we have a dedicated coach for it. I'm massively encouraged by the amount of linebreaks we have been making.

Connacht made a commitment to expand the skill set of the team when Lam came in and I would say it is paying dividends not only for Connacht but for Ireland.

Dead right. Patience is the word.

Yeah, i wrote unclearly above, I think the expansive plan is the right direction generally, just was confused by our move to width within our 22, compared to their 22.. have also been frustrated lately by people claiming we are playing non-expansive.

On Connacht I am literally besides myself with excitement. On the connacht supporters forum, someone created this (i added the ospreys line):



But off topic

So who should start the next game?

I was very impressed by VDF, Dillane and McCloskey yesterday, thought that they all stood up well and did not look out of place at International level. I would like to see the McCloskey Henshaw pairing remain for the rest of the tournament.

I was one of the people wanting a more expansive game but not inside Irelands 22, that was madness.

Disappointed as I am with the loss, there were enough positives out there that gives me a good feeling for the future.

I would like to see Jackson and dillane start and maybe gilroy.
Would like cj at 8 but who do we have to play 6?
Zebo or Payne to 15
Maybe belham onto the bench

carpet baboon wrote:I would like to see Jackson and dillane start and maybe gilroy.
Would like cj at 8 but who do we have to play 6?
Zebo or Payne to 15
Maybe belham onto the bench

Ruddock in at 6. VDF at 7 and CJ at 8. TOD back on the bench. Though Wouldn't begrudge TOD a start and VDF on the bench.

Marshes wrote:

wolfball wrote:A very annoying game to lose. A few points:

Can we finally all admit that we are miles away from a conservative gameplan, and closer to headless chicken "run from within our 22" stuff?

Defence is our biggest issue. IRFU shagged up massively. I hope Farrell brings in a blitz defence. It would do wonders for our psych to hammer the hammer again in big games.

The team picked was the best available team outside of Jackson for bench.

On the match thread people were saying JS has been found out/goaded into a more expansive game by Eddie and the media. People want to have their cake and eat it. Either we try and play expansive and it looks Poopie and we lose for awhile or we play to our traditional strenghts and win more then lose but people complain its boring. JS is bringing in an expansive game. It won't work for awhile. Patience.

Wolf I feel like you might be more accepting of the current attempt as a Connacht fan. Ireland are currently attempting to open up the gameplan a bit, and it will pinch for a while, but if we can get the players thinking in that mindset, the rewards are good rugby and capable team. Defence will come once we have a dedicated coach for it. I'm massively encouraged by the amount of linebreaks we have been making.

Connacht made a commitment to expand the skill set of the team when Lam came in and I would say it is paying dividends not only for Connacht but for Ireland

Dead right. Patience is the word.

I could be wrong. But patience does not win matches. only scoring more points than the oppotion win matches.

Wonderfully insightful. Thank you.

wolfball wrote:A very annoying game to lose. A few points:

Can we finally all admit that we are miles away from a conservative gameplan, and closer to headless chicken "run from within our 22" stuff?

Defence is our biggest issue. IRFU shagged up massively. I hope Farrell brings in a blitz defence. It would do wonders for our psych to hammer the hammer again in big games.

The team picked was the best available team outside of Jackson for bench.

On the match thread people were saying JS has been found out/goaded into a more expansive game by Eddie and the media. People want to have their cake and eat it. Either we try and play expansive and it looks Poopie and we lose for awhile or we play to our traditional strenghts and win more then lose but people complain its boring. JS is bringing in an expansive game. It won't work for awhile. Patience.

No, there doesn't need to be an either-or here. What I was expecting to see from Schmidt was the same clever territorial dominance we exert on the game and pressure the opposition set piece and force mistakes. We have become extremely good at it and it has won us a lot of games. The problem has always been that our attack is blunt, but what I was hoping to see was this slowly improving as we bring in a few new faces and as we improve the basics. Patience is absolutely required here as this will have take some time. The basics are not good enough.

Now obviously our set piece is going to be weaker given the injuries etc but we have apparently traded these things that once made us great for rugby suicide. The worrying thing seems to be that Schmidt is almost trying to fool the opposition by running the ball when they expect us to kick. Why on earth would he do this whenever our kicking game has been so successful over the years? We tried to throw the ball out wide in our own 22 and it usually resulted in a weaker kick anyway. As we advanced into opposition territory we kept things narrow. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

As for our defence, the less said the better. It is such a high risk defensive strategy and it is extremely taxing on the players. Very passive, very risky. It was only going to end one way when Billy Vunipola was given a few metres to build momentum. Or when the English back three was given space. I hope that Farrell can bring in an aggressive defence that closes down the space.

All in all these issues are rather worrying but I was excited for the new caps and I hope they start the remaining games.

I know that I have been a big critic of Rob Kearney's form of late but I thought he put in a decent shift yesterday. That said, if Payne is fit I would like to see him start at 15 next match to give McCloskey and Henshaw more game time together.

There's no flair or imagination allowed in Ireland's attack. Doesn't matter what the kicking or passing stats say, Ireland's problem is theyre painfully predictable and very easy to defend against.


They seem to rely on pre programmed moves to break down the opposition. That's only going to happen once or twice in a game. What then? The rest of the time it's over and back, no look up, head down and drive the legs into contact. Ruck and repeat.


At least they tried to attack from their own 22. That was good. People are complaining about that but look what I just wrote about being predictable. You have to look at the overall picture.


The defending reminded me of those defeats against Wales a few years back. Very passive and let Vunipola build up momentum before they tried to tackle him. Thank God Farrell is coming with a more aggressive defence.


Lineouts have gone to pot lately. People talk about Toner being the main lineout man but last year it was POC and POM. Toner is too slow. Best throwing isn't great either.

Don't actually think our attack was that bad, what I thought was bad was some of our decision making and skills but we engineered several very good line breaks. I would have liked to see McCloskey used in a more direct fashion against Ford and Farrell instead of attacking the wide channels- I guess we were trying to outflank their rush defence but they coped well with that. But Henshaw (who looked better in attack one out) was unlucky not to get in at the corner for what would have been a very good try, Kearney and Earls made some good breaks and if we up our support play and handling I can see this back line getting plenty of tries in the future. I think some of those decisions to run from deep wouldn't look so bad if it wasn't for some truly atrocious hospital passes; our execution of basic skills is just too inconsistent, a malady shared by most teams in this competition.

My main criticism would be of our passive defence, which is predictably an issue given the defence coach situation. Not that aggressive line speed doesn't have its vulnerabilities against a very smart England side but giving them the front foot was going to be hugely energy sapping. I would also criticise us wfor losing three line outs in attacking positions, which is unforgivable- Bests throwing was a little wobbly but there was no movement in our lineout whatsoever and we were slow off the ground. Very disappointing stuff, very easy to read and predict and subsequently defend.

I was quite disappointed with Heaslip, Toner and Trimble and it might be time to see Stander at 8 and Zebo on the wing. Maybe even Dillane to start up front because Toner isn't even running the lineout well and as I said is slow off the ground. I don't think he offers much anymore. We're really missing O'Mahony as well as O'Connell.

Mixed performance I thought.  I struggle to blame the coach when international players can't catch a ball on the opposition 22 in dry conditions (regardless of the pass being imperfect, the should still take it). The second row wasn't great, neither was Heaslip and, though this may be an unpopular opinion here,I think Best is a much better player than he has shown in the last 3 games.

The lineout was a shambles, it was an area I thought we would dominate vs Kruis and Itoje.  Maybe that was why Sexton was reluctant to kick for territory?

I've seen a few people criticise Sextons form but haven't seen any convincing reasons?  I think he has been imperious form since his games vs Ospreys and Bath pre-tournament and himself and Stander have been our best players.  He has defended well, kicked fantastically and made breaks in every match that have not been trailed by the rest of the backs.  I would support him being rested in favour of PJ now though.


What does worry me is that Ireland seem to lack a bit of the nasty edge necessary to keep the opposition in check.  The Munster/Ireland forwards of the noughties wouldn't allow players like Sexton to be targeted in the way he was against France without dealing out a bit of return punishment.  SOB, Healy and POM are needed back.

Joe has asked the public to stick with the team and keep the faith.  Well, I'm up for that.  We have little to lose now over the next season or two.  

We have to give these players the space to fail as they learn how to win - and as we'd all admit, it's only in the losing that these Irish players will become harder in their determination to push the reputation of losers off their back.  Being under the kosh is often the very ingredient needed to form the basis of a new vicious and potent backbone forcing the team back into contention.  
That's the aspect of yesterday I enjoyed most - when their backs were to the wall and they might have been expected to implode completely, they came to life emotionally and drove forward as a unit - the will not to be humiliated became the solidifying element it very self.... the collective determination not to turn into whipping boys became the Captain.

So we can talk patterns and plans and strategy all we like, but all along one of the very biggest things this team under Schmidt has most missed most often is that emotional drive either to fight back at or kill off the opposition.  Yes, they've had one or two games where that ingredient was alive in buckets (I'm remembering especially New Zealand and Australia games in the past) but too little.

So some are critical of those that are critical of the lack of an expansive game?  What we're doing right now offers a certain degree of hope, yes.  The will is there - it seems - yes.  I alluded last year to it perhaps being thus given that Paulie is now gone - and really a certain style of rugby was needed for Paulie that wasn't exactly conducive to free running moves aided and abetted by mobile and fleeting forwards.  So the team was kinda necessarily more attritional, phase operated stuff in the past.
Now it might be showing tendrils of willingness to introduce more expansion...but BOY!, nobody can deny that for the moment it looks at the most elementary levels of development still.  It's excruciatingly awkward and tense in the attempts.  It's not nearly fluid enough or naturally instinctive enough yet to be lauding it as approaching anything close to Leinster in their heyday yet.  It's miles away from there yet.

But I do hope fans keep the faith - and more importantly I hope Joe keeps the faith.  Keep plotting to free up this team in an attacking sense, even through the painfully slow and non-crisp passing, and the bewilderingly plethora of amateurish knock-ons, and this striking inability to collect balls in the air with any sense of confidence anymore.

The GAA boys need to be brought into camp again to teach the ways of high fielding that seem to have drifted away from this team year upon year.

I am not against Joe but yesterday did prove one thing. Many players that had been overlooked when being in top form that were only given a look in due to injuries performed excellently and proved they were more than up to the challenge of International rugby. England at home is a very tough place to debut but these lads can hold their head high.

It showed me a level of poor man management from him, something that had irked me for a while.

Italy in 2 weeks will be the defining moment for him in my opinion, if the new lads are again overlooked for the returning players and Ireland put in a dismal performance then I will not be happy.

Given McCloskey was name checked by Schmidt at the end of the game for protecting the ball (not sure what that was a reference to) i would not expect to see him feature if Payne is fit.

And that would be a mistake. McCloskey is the best 12 in the country and Henshaw the best 13, let them play together.

eirebilly wrote:And that would be a mistake. McCloskey is the best 12 in the country and Henshaw the best 13, let them play together.

I thought they were ok for a new centre partnership with a new debutant, but I think they are still only potentially the best 12 and 13 in the country. Neither of them troubled the England midfield one bit and their defence was way too passive.

I think Henshaw has regressed (like Zebo) under Schmidt. Watch the same happen with McCloskey.

The whole team were passive in defence, not just the centre pairing. To me, they are currently the best pairing and almost certainly a pairing for Ireland for years to come.

I thought that both were decent in attack given the passes they were receiving. Both certainly made some good ground.

The reason why they used that defence is more than likely because of the inexperience of the midfield. You need to know your stuff for the blitz defence and to effectively employ shooters.

The real mistake though was in the selection of JvdF at 7 against England. He is just too lightweight yet to deal with all that power and physicality, especially if you have Heislip there. A back row of POM, Jordi Murphy & TOD were far more effective last year against England.

JvdF looks to be a real prospect and he showed he has a big game mentality and is very fast, but he needs to improve his work on the ground and his physicality to be an international 7.

I actually thought that JvdF had a very solid game and thought he brought a fair bit of physicality there as well. I feel that Toner is the one currently being carried in the forwards.

Ireland have not really blitzed defences even when Payne is at 13 so not really sure that McCloskey being there as a debutant is the reason for the passive defence.

eirebilly wrote:I actually thought that JvdF had a very solid game and thought he brought a fair bit of physicality there as well. I feel that Toner is the one currently being carried in the forwards.

Ireland have not really blitzed defences even when Payne is at 13 so not really sure that McCloskey being there as a debutant is the reason for the passive defence.

Billy I absolutely agree on Toner. It was a bad game by his standards yesterday fair enough, but I don't think he has the required dynamism and athleticism that other nations have in their second rows. I know the cupboard is pretty bare at the minute, but for me Ryan and Dillane for the last two games. Thing is then I don't know if Toner brings much impact from the bench, so having him outside the 15 doesn't wash either. Henderson and Dillane is the future there, great physicality and carrying threat.

Toner I think just takes too long to get moving, understandably it takes a while to transmit me the messages from brain to legs and get lumbering, often by the time he arrives he is too late, and then doesn't even hit the rucks or tackles that dominantly. He works hard in fairness to him, but i don't know if that is the required cut.

The main excuse for him being in there in the first place is his ability as a lineout operator, but even in that we have been notably inconsistent in this area last three games. England and France both stole ball off us from very strong lineout positions. I don't know if that is throwing or calls or a combination of both, but it needs to be addressed.

Sin é wrote:

eirebilly wrote:And that would be a mistake. McCloskey is the best 12 in the country and Henshaw the best 13, let them play together.

I thought they were ok for a new centre partnership with a new debutant, but I think they are still only potentially the best 12 and 13 in the country. Neither of them troubled the England midfield one bit and their defence was way too passive.

That was our best centre combination this year - McCloskey gives us something going forward and Henshaw showed he is a better 13 than 12
Not there fault our 2nd row and Backrow were 2nd best in every department and that Kearney and Trimble were poor in the back three

majesticimperialman wrote:

Marshes wrote:

wolfball wrote:A very annoying game to lose. A few points:

Can we finally all admit that we are miles away from a conservative gameplan, and closer to headless chicken "run from within our 22" stuff?

Defence is our biggest issue. IRFU shagged up massively. I hope Farrell brings in a blitz defence. It would do wonders for our psych to hammer the hammer again in big games.

The team picked was the best available team outside of Jackson for bench.

On the match thread people were saying JS has been found out/goaded into a more expansive game by Eddie and the media. People want to have their cake and eat it. Either we try and play expansive and it looks Poopie and we lose for awhile or we play to our traditional strenghts and win more then lose but people complain its boring. JS is bringing in an expansive game. It won't work for awhile. Patience.

Wolf I feel like you might be more accepting of the current attempt as a Connacht fan. Ireland are currently attempting to open up the gameplan a bit, and it will pinch for a while, but if we can get the players thinking in that mindset, the rewards are good rugby and capable team. Defence will come once we have a dedicated coach for it. I'm massively encouraged by the amount of linebreaks we have been making.

Connacht made a commitment to expand the skill set of the team when Lam came in and I would say it is paying dividends not only for Connacht but for Ireland

Dead right. Patience is the word.

I could be wrong. But patience does not win matches. only scoring more points than the oppotion win matches.

Micheal Owen is that you?

geoff999rugby wrote:

Sin é wrote:

eirebilly wrote:And that would be a mistake. McCloskey is the best 12 in the country and Henshaw the best 13, let them play together.

I thought they were ok for a new centre partnership with a new debutant, but I think they are still only potentially the best 12 and 13 in the country. Neither of them troubled the England midfield one bit and their defence was way too passive.

That was our best centre combination this year - McCloskey gives us something going forward and Henshaw showed he is a better 13 than 12
Not there fault our 2nd row and Backrow were 2nd best in every department and that Kearney and Trimble were poor in the back three

I thought Kearney wasn't too bad in the second half actually, made some deceent runs, but still doesn't offer what Payne does.

geoff999rugby wrote:

Sin é wrote:

eirebilly wrote:And that would be a mistake. McCloskey is the best 12 in the country and Henshaw the best 13, let them play together.

I thought they were ok for a new centre partnership with a new debutant, but I think they are still only potentially the best 12 and 13 in the country. Neither of them troubled the England midfield one bit and their defence was way too passive.

That was our best centre combination this year - McCloskey gives us something going forward and Henshaw showed he is a better 13 than 12
Not there fault our 2nd row and Backrow were 2nd best in every department and that Kearney and Trimble were poor in the back three

Sorry Geoff but that is nonsense. Ireland were clueless in defence largely because Payne wasn't there. Sure McCloskey showed in the second half that he is hard to stop and he has more to come. Maybe if he had been picked against Wales (as he should have been) he would have been integrated into the side by now but if Ireland persist on this route they could easily lose the last two.

I \agree about the locks particularly but don't understand why you single out Kearney and Trimble in the back three as Earls and Zebo did nothing of note and were far less involved in the game.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Sorry Geoff but that is nonsense. Ireland were clueless in defence largely because Payne wasn't there. Sure McCloskey showed in the second half that he is hard to stop and he has more to come. Maybe if he had been picked against Wales (as he should have been) he would have been integrated into the side by now but if Ireland persist on this route they could easily lose the last two.

I \agree about the locks particularly but don't understand why you single out Kearney and Trimble in the back three as Earls and Zebo did nothing of note and were far less involved in the game.

Ireland have been poor in defence even when Payne is playing, this is more to do with the approach rather than the organising of the backs... McCloskey was not found wanting in defence or attack.

I agree that I don't feel that Kearney had a bad game, I actually felt he played much better and looked to be regaining some of his former form. Trimble was a bit out of sorts but how can you say that Earls did nothing of note? He had little ball to work with but was always offering. He had a very decent game regardless of the lack of opportunities he had...

I thought Earls had a good game, surely one of the busier players on the day.
Kearney on the other hand offers very little IMO. He may well be somewhere near his best form but when that includes constantly running at the contact instead of looking for the gaps then it's not good enough. Zebo came on and offered even less, his best position is on the wing. How we've gotten this far without Payne even being tried at full back is beyond me, it's not like we have international class players players in that position.
The debutants never looked out of place and certainly put their hands up to be retained in the side.

Anyone else think Murray should be dropped? He obviously a really good player but his pass has been quite poor this six nations both in terms of speed and accuracy.

Everything speeds up so much when Reddan comes on.

The Great Aukster wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

Sin é wrote:

eirebilly wrote:And that would be a mistake. McCloskey is the best 12 in the country and Henshaw the best 13, let them play together.

I thought they were ok for a new centre partnership with a new debutant, but I think they are still only potentially the best 12 and 13 in the country. Neither of them troubled the England midfield one bit and their defence was way too passive.

That was our best centre combination this year - McCloskey gives us something going forward and Henshaw showed he is a better 13 than 12
Not there fault our 2nd row and Backrow were 2nd best in every department and that Kearney and Trimble were poor in the back three

Sorry Geoff but that is nonsense. Ireland were clueless in defence largely because Payne wasn't there. Sure McCloskey showed in the second half that he is hard to stop and he has more to come. Maybe if he had been picked against Wales (as he should have been) he would have been integrated into the side by now but if Ireland persist on this route they could easily lose the last two.

I \agree about the locks particularly but don't understand why you single out Kearney and Trimble in the back three as Earls and Zebo did nothing of note and were far less involved in the game.

Your entitled to your opinion but I cannot agree.
The defence is too passive and narrow with or without Payne and with McCloskey we offer more in attack.

Didn't mention Earls because he was so much better than the other two who started in the back three

GunsGerms wrote:Anyone else think Murray should be dropped? He obviously a really good player but his pass has been quite poor this six nations both in terms of speed and accuracy.

Everything speeds up so much when Reddan comes on.

Not so certain it needs to be so dramatic as a drop but I've been rattling on for a few years now about the notion that Murray's obvious 'physicality'  in his position (grateful for it and his tries   ) has much too often blinded fans to his glaring weakness - plodding, telegraphed distribution that allows defences to form before us much much too easily.

Our backs (such as they are) and even our more aggressive line breaking forwards - and Sexton too (such as his current form is) - they all NEED quick ball to function more effectively against fit and agile defensive sides.  You'll go nowhere in this modern game if the scrumhalf doesn't appreciate the need for quick delivery and quick instincts.
And don't come back at me anyone about the 'quality of the ball' his forwards aren't winning for him at the breakdowns.  It's him, it's his rhythm - even when the ball is sitting under his feet, the lack of zip is killing anything we might have even in a mediocre attack game.

Now, the burning frustration I always have about this is that it should never be a personal issue for Murray to simply decide to come with his own chosen rhythm to the International game.  The essence of best practice in modern rugby is for the scrumhalf to be first resource point of tempo and momentum.  That first choice of tempo is not the forwards job and it's not the 10's job, nor the 12's, 13's, 14's or 15's primary job.  Number 9 is Central to team tempo because he controls it.  If the 9 is a natural 'luller' then the backs and forwards (such as they are) are left waiting to play their part.  Nothing can happen unless the ball is in play.  Even if the forwards and/or backs are churning to a fast individual tempo - the overall result of their efforts is negated if the machine keeps missing a gear when the 9 keeps slowing and stalling in his distribution game.

Therefore, rather than say that Murray needs to be dropped, I'd simply question where is the coaching that should be identifying that anything we pretend to do in attack needs first and foremost to start with an alert and furiously high tempo driven 9.  Murray needs to be bluntly told by the coaches that he must improve on his distribution skills and the tempo he brings to his role - through a full 80.  He simply must - any gameplan we would ever hope to have in the future will require it.  It's a coaching issue, not personal stubborn rhythm decision by one individual player.  Coaches need to coach.

GunsGerms wrote:Anyone else think Murray should be dropped? He obviously a really good player but his pass has been quite poor this six nations both in terms of speed and accuracy.

Everything speeds up so much when Reddan comes on.

I would actually like Marmion to start the last two games. The tournament is over as a competition for Ireland so why not throw him in there for experience?

Healy when he came on for Jack Mac looked a pale shadow of what he once was and J Cronin and Buckley must be wondering what they have to get into the 23. Quite simply, Healy's ball carrying and not his scrummaging is why he was on the Irish team in the first place and if he can't carry like he once did then get better scrummagers into the 23. Best's defensive work was solid but his lineouts and his understated style of captaincy are a worry. Ross did well at TH and overall the front row coped well in the tight. The worry is though when Ross hangs his boots and if Moore is frozen out by the IRFU for daring to take the queen's shilling. Moore is far and away our best TH after Ross although Furlong has time on his hands to develop his game

Other than that, thought all the newbies did well after slowish starts in the case of McCloskey and VDF. Dillane's cameo was sensational and as somebody said earlier the prospect of Dillane and Henderson in the second row is very tasty. Thought Ryan did pretty well - but not well enough to get on the Torygraph's team of the 6N this weekend although Toner's limitations around the pitch were crystal clear _ I'd give him the next two games to see if he can contribute more than a 6'11" presence in the line out. A year or two down the road Dillane and Henderson may (should?) be our starting second row and can't see Toner as an impact sub. When all our back row are fit then POM-SOB-CJ starting line-up with VDF on the bench looks very good - I don't think Heaslip justifies his place any more.

SH is still Murray and whoever, with Joe still apparently fixated on Reddan and leaving Marmion to stew out west. Can't figure that out - I'd have Marmion and Luke Mac ahead of Reddan any day. Jackson has to be given a start - probably against Italy - to give Sexton a rest and also to show that the way he has developed at Ulster can be replicated in green. He even seems to have improved his goalkicking no end.

Won't happen but I'd leave Kearney out for the Italy game and start Henshaw at 15. Kearney was just about ok v England but we need more that a steady eddie who can catch the high balls and then runs straight into traffic. Just look at the options Hogg gives Scotland when he runs back and Halfpenny for Wales (when he's fit). A centre combo of McCloskey and Ringrose with Earls and Zebo on the wings is at least an option that should be tried. Matt Healy deserves a runout but I don't think you could have two new caps in the three-quarter line.

On the bench , J Cronin or Buckley at LH, Cronin at hooker, Furlong at TH, Dillane again at lock although maybe bringing him on a bit earlier. Ruddock for back row, Marmion, Jackson and try Payne for 23 (he can cover FB and 12/13. Not saying this is a definitive selection but Joe has to start some experirements and against a poor Italy team seems the best place to start.

brennomac wrote: Kearney was just about ok v England but we need more that a steady eddie who can catch the high balls and then runs straight into traffic.

........ even that aspect of his game is more miss than hit these days.

Again, Kearney is the kind of player that you look at (and you've nailed the observation of most rugby fans "straight into traffic" - all game every game) and you'd really question is Joe not seeing this? And if he is seeing what we are seeing is he not fretting that his 15 can't ever impose himself from the rear on most games he plays now? - but instead shows always how little confidence he has in himself to make a break that he prefers hit contact as soon as the chance is provided to him.

I'm reminded of poor Ray Houghton, who was a great wee man for the efforts he put in but who fell to the ground an awful lot just as he and the ball were in the right place to attempt a score.... I think Ray lacked a lot of belief in himself at times and almost involuntarily took the fall for fear of the great responsibility on him to knock the ball into the net.

Kearney looks a player who has lost confidence in himself.......... practically becoming Geordan Murphy Mark 2 in an Irish shirt.

The opposition always know that kicking the ball to Kearney will usually result in a decent territory gain. They don't even have to have that strong of a chase employed.

Wait for the high ball to Kearney,
canter towards Kearney,
No need to chase the player, Kearney will run to you for the tackle,
yardage gained,
repeat as needed.

Good article here.
Jamie Heaslip 6/10 man. http://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/jamie-heaslip-ireland-england/67466?utm_content=buffer91f00&utm_medium=Social+organic&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

Heaslip's always been the solid man at 8 who won't let you down bar the odd knee to an AB's head. We do need other options there and could do with finding a real brute to take the jersey. I can't see what's wrong with Jamie being rested and Stander taking over for the last 2 matches. It's no slight on Mr Heaslip but he's not the future of the 8 shirt and there's nothing like striking while the iron's hot.

SecretFly wrote:

brennomac wrote: Kearney was just about ok v England but we need more that a steady eddie who can catch the high balls and then runs straight into traffic.

........ even that aspect of his game is more miss than hit these days.

Agree - he's their totally on reputation. Enough is enough, I'm all for sticking to the tried and tested if its working but the old reliable aren't even reliable anymore.

This waffle about us not being far off is rubbish. We've lost 4 on the bounce,  3 times from being in front, which was a great strength in recent seasons.

We're repeatedly getting taken apart in the wide channels and really struggling to score tries. I'd say we are pretty far off the top 5/6 teams many of whom are playing with younger, less experienced sides and new coaching teams.

If Joe goes for experience and age then he must get results.

Time to clear out some of the aging players who aren't performing at any level in favor of guys who at least are playing good stuff at club/provincial level.  

Team for remaining games -

15 Payne
14 Gilroy
13 Ringrose
12 McCloskey
11 Healy
10 Jackson
9 Stringer
8 Stander
6 Ruddock
7 VDF
5 Dullane
4 D Ryan
3 Ross
2 Best
1 McGrath

Bench:  Buckley,Herring,Furlong,J Ryan, O'Donague, Murray, Steenson, Henshaw.

"Agree - he's their totally on reputation. Enough is enough, I'm all for sticking to the tried and tested if its working but the old reliable aren't even reliable anymore."

Agreed and yet Joe won't budge from playing players who are well past their sell by date. He really is starting to morph into Eddie O'Schmidt. If I see the likes of McFadden in an Irish shirt again I really will lose all faith in Joe's abilities.

We badly need a few enforcers. Far too meek and mild. Look how quickly DOC is in there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apQjksnwBjI

Sin é wrote:We badly need a few enforcers. Far too meek and mild.

Agree with this.

Henderson and Stander are going to be key for Ireland going forward for that very reason - like what I say of Dillane though.

Heaslip takes a lot of unfair criticism but to be brutal honest at 8 he is now some way behind the competition - Vunipola, Parisse and Falateau are playing at a different level.

Aside from POM, we have too many calm gentlemen alright. Schmidt is a reserved sort of guy and I think we'll really benefit from Farrell coming in, not just in defence, but additionally he'll endorse a more aggressive mindset.

Wasn't convinced by Mccloskey. He looked grand, he understandably took a while to grow into the game, and he didn't prove, in my opinion, to be the missing ingredient to our attack, nor a general improvement from what Henshaw did over the other 2 games by any means. I'd agree that potentially he is our best 12, but isn't yet our best for these games. That said, I'd start him against Italy and Scotland in a heartbeat. Thought Zebo looked good when he came on too. He's got to start.

JVDF looked ok, a bit small, but not out of his depth. Dillane looked fresh and up for it. BOD & Toland on Off the Ball suggested that Schmidt would benefit from picking more players from Connacht's deck. Healy perhaps could make a real impact. I can understand the reservations some may have about him playing internationally- Fionn Carr was also tearing up the try scoring records at Connacht a few years back.

Seriously Kunu? McCloskey unconvincing whilst Zebo looked good? Really? Zebo looked good?

Hah, yeah! Maybe I've missed something. I've only watched the game once, can't bring myself to watch it again, but I thought he at least was looking to get involved whenever he could. He probably touched the ball more times than Mccloskey during his 15-20 minutes on the pitch. Again, I could have an alcohol screwed recollection of all of this, but I thought Zebo offered the sort of threat that we were sorely missing once he came on.