NEWS: Darcy out for next 6 weeks

First topic message reminder :

www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby

Darcy is out for the next six weeks after the ankle injury he picked up in the HCup final. He will miss the Scotland, Connacht and first French game. He will be back around 6 weeks time but we can't be sure if he will be fit and/or ready for matches against Franch and England in Dublin.

One would assume his place will be taken by Wallace, with possibly mcFadden getting a run out or even Bowe/Earls.

Ferris also didn't train and continues with rehab.

Sin é wrote:Do we not have enough ball carriers in the forwards?

Notch's point about Paddy Wallace being a second player maker.

Do we need a second playmaker at 12. All that would happen is that the outhalf would pass the ball to Wallace who will pass it or run and recycle. If he passes it to 13, are you just slowing the whole thing down. Most 10s should be well able to pass to 13 directly.

You need your 12 to be able to punch a few holes in the opposition's defence imo.

That depends entirely on the 10. O'Gara doesn't threaten the gainline, his style doesn't complement a playmaking 12 at all and is much better paired with a hard-running 12.

If your 10 likes to play on the gainline and run the ball, having a second playmaker is very useful because a) the defence won't drift onto 12 and b) he will be at the bottom of more rucks. So Wallace is a good foil for Humphreys or Sexton, and a poor foil for O'Gara imo.

Kearney is shoite.
Most overrated player to ever wear an Irish jersey.

Just wanted to get my point accross.

Notch wrote:

Sin é wrote:Do we not have enough ball carriers in the forwards?

Notch's point about Paddy Wallace being a second player maker.

Do we need a second playmaker at 12. All that would happen is that the outhalf would pass the ball to Wallace who will pass it or run and recycle. If he passes it to 13, are you just slowing the whole thing down. Most 10s should be well able to pass to 13 directly.

You need your 12 to be able to punch a few holes in the opposition's defence imo.

That depends entirely on the 10. O'Gara doesn't threaten the gainline, his style doesn't complement a playmaking 12 at all and is much better paired with a hard-running 12.

If your 10 likes to play on the gainline and run the ball, having a second playmaker is very useful because a) the defence won't drift onto 12 and b) he will be at the bottom of more rucks. So Wallace is a good foil for Humphreys or Sexton, and a poor foil for O'Gara imo.

But Sexton would be able to either a) pass the ball out to his 13 (skip pass) or b) off-loading if he runs himself. Not to sure if Sexton makes too many breaks at international level. BOD has played all his best rugby with a hard running 12.

red_stag wrote:

Sin é wrote:Do we not have enough ball carriers in the forwards?

We may well do. Its something to take into account.

We could always try David Wallace out there He'd be grand for pace.

Point on ball carriers. No I don't think we have enough because neither of our centres are ball carriers, our 2nd rows are not ball carriers and Best is not a ball carrier. We're very reliant on our back row for ball carrying and thankfully we have some of the best ball carriers around in O'Brien, Wallace, Ferris and Heaslip.

This is one area where Trimble really adds value as he offers himself as another ball carrier which compensates for our lack of a crash ball centre.

I agree with Notch on the midfield playmaker comments.

roddersm wrote:Point on ball carriers. No I don't think we have enough because neither of our centres are ball carriers, our 2nd rows are not ball carriers and Best is not a ball carrier. We're very reliant on our back row for ball carrying and thankfully we have some of the best ball carriers around in O'Brien, Wallace, Ferris and Heaslip.

This is one area where Trimble really adds value as he offers himself as another ball carrier which compensates for our lack of a crash ball centre.

I agree with Notch on the midfield playmaker comments.

I think you should check the dratted stats before claiming that one.

http://www.espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/match/114130.html

Sin é wrote:

roddersm wrote:Point on ball carriers. No I don't think we have enough because neither of our centres are ball carriers, our 2nd rows are not ball carriers and Best is not a ball carrier. We're very reliant on our back row for ball carrying and thankfully we have some of the best ball carriers around in O'Brien, Wallace, Ferris and Heaslip.

This is one area where Trimble really adds value as he offers himself as another ball carrier which compensates for our lack of a crash ball centre.

I agree with Notch on the midfield playmaker comments.

I think you should check the dratted stats before claiming that one.

http://www.espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/match/114130.html

Let me guess these stats will show that a non munster player is an ineffective ball carrier in comparison to a Munster player?

Just to make it clear sin before you have a coronary, I'm not suggesting that Earls shouldn't start.....

roddersm wrote:

Sin é wrote:

roddersm wrote:Point on ball carriers. No I don't think we have enough because neither of our centres are ball carriers, our 2nd rows are not ball carriers and Best is not a ball carrier. We're very reliant on our back row for ball carrying and thankfully we have some of the best ball carriers around in O'Brien, Wallace, Ferris and Heaslip.

This is one area where Trimble really adds value as he offers himself as another ball carrier which compensates for our lack of a crash ball centre.

I agree with Notch on the midfield playmaker comments.

I think you should check the dratted stats before claiming that one.

http://www.espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/match/114130.html

Let me guess these stats will show that a non munster player is an ineffective ball carrier in comparison to a Munster player?

Just to make it clear sin before you have a coronary, I'm not suggesting that Earls shouldn't start.....

ha, ha. The stats actually show that Trimble is not as effective as Tommy Bowe, whom you seem to have forgotten about (both were the wingers against England).

Sin

You should no better. The ball carrying statistics of a back three are misleading due to the fact that they frequently receive the ball in space. This is why Full Backs primarily top these statistics for running the ball back. It doesnt measure how effective they are carrying the ball in traffic so the point about ball carriers is still effective. The stat that would best show it is 'tackles broken' but again it doesnt measure how many men were sucked in etc. The best out of that lot is 'Defenders beaten' but again there is more than one way to do this.

I thought about all of that. I excluded Earls in the comparisions because he was playing fullback. I also had a look at how well Earls did on the same wing against Wales (and he did ok - beating 5 defenders - kick/pass/run = 2/2/10. MR=75). Fairly similar to Tommy Bowe's stats.

http://www.espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/match/114127.html

There is no reason to believe that Trimble is a superior ball carrier than either Bowe or Earls, which is what rodders was claiming.

There is reason to believe for Rodders though. Its all opinion and my point was that your stats dont really measure the argument. Another point i would state is that when rodders refers to 'ball carriers' i assume (and i may be wrong) that we are talking about guys that truck it up neither of which Earls or Bowe really are. Dont get me wrong i am not suggesting they cant but why would you run through people when Bowe cuts ridiculous lines and Earls is capable of running rings around most people.

I take from Rodders point that Trimble is different to Earls and Bowe because he is more likely to take the ball in a crowded midfield and take 2/3 players over the gainline. I may be reading it wrong but thats what i took of it. If you ask me i would prefer trimble in that situation. But it depends entirely on our FB situation

Currently i would expect all of the aforementioned to go to the RWC as they do offer different things to the backline and i suspect Deccie will give Earls a run at 15 with Bowe and Trimble in the warm ups. If Earls can show in a couple of games that he is comfortable under the high ball in those games i think Deccie may be reluctant to change the back three from the England game. If he isnt suited to it i would expect Kearney to come in with trimble benching and Earls to wing.

Those stats look weird,Sean O'Brien only carried 13 metres in the whole game?Ross,O'Callaghan and O'Connell between them had 15 touches of the ball and never made one metre,I'd have to rewatch the game to confirm but that doesn't seem like it can be right.

ASLS

The stats are never 100% right but they arent so far wrong either. Wally was a freak in that game although Donncha should have pretty good stats

Standulstermen wrote:There is reason to believe for Rodders though. Its all opinion and my point was that your stats dont really measure the argument. Another point i would state is that when rodders refers to 'ball carriers' i assume (and i may be wrong) that we are talking about guys that truck it up neither of which Earls or Bowe really are. Dont get me wrong i am not suggesting they cant but why would you run through people when Bowe cuts ridiculous lines and Earls is capable of running rings around most people.

I take from Rodders point that Trimble is different to Earls and Bowe because he is more likely to take the ball in a crowded midfield and take 2/3 players over the gainline. I may be reading it wrong but thats what i took of it. If you ask me i would prefer trimble in that situation. But it depends entirely on our FB situation

Thanks stand thats exactly what I'm trying to say. Trimble is more powerful and aggressive than most of our other wingers and is very effective crashing into midfield and getting over the gainline and taking out defenders. This gives us another ball carrying option and helps free up space for others.

I'm sure sin will find some stats to prove I'm talking nonsence though .

Gibson there is far more evidence that Wallace is the back up 12 than there is that Kearney, Trimble and Bowe are first choice back three - not least because of Earls.

The trouble with Sin e's stats are that Earls poor positioning caused problems in his early 6N games caused problem. Basically he did n't get into the correct position to make tackles. BOD by contrast puts himself into positions where he stifles attacks. Thats the problem with statistics.
I do not see Earls as BOD's replacement - a back three player for me.

D'Arcy will travel if fit - he has to. We have boxed ourselves into a corner regarding the no 12 shirt.

"The trouble with Sin e's stats are that Earls poor positioning caused problems in his early 6N games caused problem. Basically he did n't get into the correct position to make tackles. BOD by contrast puts himself into positions where he stifles attacks."


I wouldn't get too excited about BOD's defending these days. He had a truly horrible first 40 minutes defensively against Northampton in the HC final. I'd say his rush defense these days is becoming increasingly high risk.

funnyExiledScot wrote:"The trouble with Sin e's stats are that Earls poor positioning caused problems in his early 6N games caused problem. Basically he did n't get into the correct position to make tackles. BOD by contrast puts himself into positions where he stifles attacks."


I wouldn't get too excited about BOD's defending these days. He had a truly horrible first 40 minutes defensively against Northampton in the HC final. I'd say his rush defense these days is becoming increasingly high risk.

Thats a fair comment but I think you have to consider that he played that game on practically one leg. Overall O'Driscoll's defence has been superb this season, as always and he's played some excellent rugby. It was pretty concerning to see him beaten one on one so easily but I'd be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt in this instance due to his injury.

roddersm wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:There is reason to believe for Rodders though. Its all opinion and my point was that your stats dont really measure the argument. Another point i would state is that when rodders refers to 'ball carriers' i assume (and i may be wrong) that we are talking about guys that truck it up neither of which Earls or Bowe really are. Dont get me wrong i am not suggesting they cant but why would you run through people when Bowe cuts ridiculous lines and Earls is capable of running rings around most people.

I take from Rodders point that Trimble is different to Earls and Bowe because he is more likely to take the ball in a crowded midfield and take 2/3 players over the gainline. I may be reading it wrong but thats what i took of it. If you ask me i would prefer trimble in that situation. But it depends entirely on our FB situation

Thanks stand thats exactly what I'm trying to say. Trimble is more powerful and aggressive than most of our other wingers and is very effective crashing into midfield and getting over the gainline and taking out defenders. This gives us another ball carrying option and helps free up space for others.

I'm sure sin will find some stats to prove I'm talking nonsence though .

Easy to figure out how successful a ploy this is by looking at the number of carries by how far the ball is carried and then check the number of successful offloads. A sledgehammer isn't needed to crack a nut.

Rodders, why don't you find a few stats to back-up your opinion and prove that it is not just based on Ulster player bias. No doubt I'll be accused of being anti-Ulster (as I have in the past), but for the record, I think Trimble is a very good winger, is experienced, but is after Bowe & Earls in the pecking order.

I hope you're right - if not Cooper and the Aussie centres will make hay. Against such skillful opposition, he'll have to time his defensive interventions to perfection not to get horribly exposed.

As you rightly say, generally his defense was still a strength last season. Hopefully it was down to injury.

I agree with Rodders and geoff,

You can't rely on stats because there are too many variables in rugby. You could in soccer. I think rugby takes a bit of independent analysis and thought.

I see Earl's as a back 3 player too.

I hope earls gets a run at fullback. Also hope Jones does. If Earls does well at fullback I'd start him there but still bring Jones. If Earls doesn't work out at 15 then I'd bring Joens and probably Murphy.

Trimble is the kinda player who could take the ball on and suck in defenders. Darcy does it to varying degrees of success and we need someone who can do that kind of work.

I agree with Notch I love the idea of a second playmaker at 12. Means trimble does have to play though really.

I don't think Darcy will be match fit at all. He will have the France Ireland game at the Aviva (if he gets selected for that match) to prove himself and then the squad gets announced.

This is obviously ruling out any setbacks. Looking at Darcy's previous injuries back to 2004 he has always had set backs.
I don't see him making it myself but agree that he could.

funnyExiledScot wrote: I wouldn't get too excited about BOD's defending these days. He had a truly horrible first 40 minutes defensively against Northampton in the HC final. I'd say his rush defense these days is becoming increasingly high risk.

As stated not even close to being match fit. If he hadn't been a final he would not have played

I don't like this reliant on stats thing. It can be really misleading I think.

Pete - I don't think its reliance. Think its just an interesting look. You'd need stats over a whole season to make any sort of analysis.

Sin I don't need stats to prove that Trimble is bigger and more powerful than Earls and more aggressive at taking the ball into contact. I couldn't give a monkeys if you or anyone else accuses me of Ulster bias as it's as plain as day to anyone with even close to 20/20 vision.

There are no stats in the world that will convince me that Earls is as affective on the crash ball as Trimble or taking the ball into contact. That is not to say Trimble is better than Earls but he has different strengths, ones that I think are very useful given the dynamics or our side and the lack of size of some of our other backs.

Sometimes the ability to regularly get 2 metres across the gainline against an organised defence is as important as the ability to run 50 metres up the pitch if someone puts you into space so you can't just cite stats as conclusive evidence for everything.

I did not say Trimble was above Earls and/or Bowe in the pecking order!!!!

Earls on current form would be the 1st name in the teamsheet in the back 3 for me but I think our back 3 against England looked very balanced. Trimble ran hard and direct taking out defenders and Bowe and Earls were able to open England up.

There is an argument for starting with a specialist fullback, in which case I would move Earls to 11 and drop Trimble probably but I think our best chance against Australia is to attack in which case I would have a back 3 of Trimble, Earls and Bowe.

Stats schmats. If it was a case of needing a winger to burst through a tackle to score, I would pick Trimble. If it was a case of needing to take a man on the outside, Earls. They have different styles but there's not much between them.

Stats won't tell you that, the stat you would want is metres made in contact.

I couldn't get too animated about one getting picked ahead of the other. I'm sure they'll both see gametime in the warm-ups and competition.

I think it's just there's a lot of things that stats hide. Maybe someone has completed 12/14 passes but the passes have been behind the player or above head height or something.
Maybe someone completed 8/8 tackles but lost a lot of yards in each of the tackles.

That trucking it up the middle thing probably wouldn't look very good in stats. No offloads, few metres gained. Few if any tackles beaten but at the same time it may have sucked in 3 defenders and be a very positive action

"There is an argument for starting with a specialist fullback, in which case I would move Earls to 11 and drop Trimble probably but I think our best chance against Australia is to attack in which case I would have a back 3 of Trimble, Earls and Bowe."


I agree with this. I thought Earls looked good at 15 against England, and if D'Arcy doesn't make it and Paddy Wallace does end up at 12, then having two stronger running wingers as options to me looks the better balance.

Kearney has clearly struggled to recapture top form this season, and Earls looked good at 15. Personally, despite the long and heated debate on here as to his merits at 13, I think Earls will ultimately settle as a back three player, equally at home at wing or full back. I'd even go as far to say that full back could be potentially his best position, and ultimately where he settles for Ireland.

funnyExiledScot wrote:and Paddy Wallace does end up at 12.

Ah feS don't even joke about that kinda thing

geoff998rugby wrote:Gibson there is far more evidence that Wallace is the back up 12 than there is that Kearney, Trimble and Bowe are first choice back three - not least because of Earls.

The trouble with Sin e's stats are that Earls poor positioning caused problems in his early 6N games caused problem. Basically he did n't get into the correct position to make tackles. BOD by contrast puts himself into positions where he stifles attacks. Thats the problem with statistics.
I do not see Earls as BOD's replacement - a back three player for me.

D'Arcy will travel if fit - he has to. We have boxed ourselves into a corner regarding the no 12 shirt.

I'm fully aware that BOD is the lynchpin in Ireland's (& Leinster's defence) and he has this licence to shoot out and stiffle attacks.

There must be a problem with all wingers wearing the No. 11 shirt as they all seem to average about the same number of tackles per match (approx. 5). Whoever wears the No. 14 jersey generally doesn't have to defend as much. For instance, Earls (playing 11) made 19 tackles (missing 1) in this 6Ns and (Bowe/McFadden) made 13 tackles in the first four games, missing 1. For the record, BOD made 28 tackles and missed 2 in these same games. D'Arcy made 46/3 - does that mean that BOD's positioning was poor because D'Arcy had to make so many tackles in the first 4 games?

If you go back to when Earls had a full game at centre against Wales (his first 6Ns season), he made just 2 less tackles than BOD did. Earls 11/0, BOD 13/2.

Apart from anything else, Munster had one of the best defences in Europe in the Group Stages when Earls was in the centre. Defence in the 13 channel wasn't the reason that Munster missed out on the knockout stages of the HCup.

funnyExiledScot wrote:I agree with this. I thought Earls looked good at 15 against England, and if D'Arcy doesn't make it and Paddy Wallace does end up at 12, then having two stronger running wingers as options to me looks the better balance.

Yeah, if you have Wallace you want people making runs off him in midfield. I think D'Arcy will make it and be first choice mind you. They've nailed their colours to the mast re. the 12 jersey and they'll give D'Arcy every chance.

There's more to defending at 13 than just making tackles though and that's where the stats can't shed any light.

Darcy probably had to make that many tackles in the first two games because Italy play quite a narrow game and France off first phase and sometimes second like to hit it up the middle to create space for their backs on the openside.

I think Earls still needs to prove that he can deal with the high ball and all the defensive fullback stuff to play 15. I'd be quite happy with him there if he could show us that in the warm up games.

Does anyone know if Kearney has gone to play in S.Africa yet? Can't remember for which franchise.

No, he never did go. He's back in Ireland training with the squad.

Sin é wrote:
There must be a problem with all wingers wearing the No. 11 shirt as they all seem to average about the same number of tackles per match (approx. 5). Whoever wears the No. 14 jersey generally doesn't have to defend as much. For instance, Earls (playing 11) made 19 tackles (missing 1) in this 6Ns and (Bowe/McFadden) made 13 tackles in the first four games, missing 1. For the record, BOD made 28 tackles and missed 2 in these same games. D'Arcy made 46/3 - does that mean that BOD's positioning was poor because D'Arcy had to make so many tackles in the first 4 games?

It is not surpising that D'arcy would make more tackles and the 12 channel is going to get attacked much more often than further out. It has nothing to do with positioning.

Like wise on the wings. It depends which direction the opposing team attack so these stats say very little about the defensive strength and weaknesses of the players mentioned.

Hmmm, would have liked it if he had gone would have got him some game time and maybe taught him a thing or two being in a different set up.

Yeah not pleased by this

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:There's more to defending at 13 than just making tackles though and that's where the stats can't shed any light.

Darcy probably had to make that many tackles in the first two games because Italy play quite a narrow game and France off first phase and sometimes second like to hit it up the middle to create space for their backs on the openside.

I think Earls still needs to prove that he can deal with the high ball and all the defensive fullback stuff to play 15. I'd be quite happy with him there if he could show us that in the warm up games.

Does anyone know if Kearney has gone to play in S.Africa yet? Can't remember for which franchise.

D'Arcy tackle Stats for 6ns: England 13/1; Wales 13/0;Scotland 11/1; France 9/1; Italy 7/0. DOC/backrow put in a big tackling shift against the Italians.

Earls is about 4th choice fullback in Munster (last season after Jones, Warwick, Hurley, Murphy, Howlett).

Kearney was on 'Miriam' with Heaslip last Saturday night. Don't think he is going to SA.

Sin é wrote: Defence in the 13 channel wasn't the reason that Munster missed out on the knockout stages of the HCup.

No it wasn't but conversely that doesn't mean Earls is Irelands next 13.

What's with the he made 43 or something tackles in the first two games in relation to then?

roddersm wrote:

Sin é wrote:
There must be a problem with all wingers wearing the No. 11 shirt as they all seem to average about the same number of tackles per match (approx. 5). Whoever wears the No. 14 jersey generally doesn't have to defend as much. For instance, Earls (playing 11) made 19 tackles (missing 1) in this 6Ns and (Bowe/McFadden) made 13 tackles in the first four games, missing 1. For the record, BOD made 28 tackles and missed 2 in these same games. D'Arcy made 46/3 - does that mean that BOD's positioning was poor because D'Arcy had to make so many tackles in the first 4 games?

It is not surpising that D'arcy would make more tackles and the 12 channel is going to get attacked much more often than further out. It has nothing to do with positioning.

Like wise on the wings. It depends which direction the opposing team attack so these stats say very little about the defensive strength and weaknesses of the players mentioned.

I'm entirely in agreement with you there. Geoff seems to think that Earls positioning is wrong because he isn't making as many tackles as BOD who is in the centre

When has he said this? Sin your getting annoying with all these stats which can be great but can also be very misleading

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:When has he said this? Sin your getting annoying with all these stats which can be great but can also be very misleading

Agreed. Put the top trumps away and start watching rugby.

geoff998rugby wrote:

Sin é wrote: Defence in the 13 channel wasn't the reason that Munster missed out on the knockout stages of the HCup.

No it wasn't but conversely that doesn't mean Earls is Irelands next 13.

Who said anything about him being Ireland's next 13? At the moment he is the main centre backup for the world cup. My point is that Earls's defence is as good, if not better than any of the other options at 13 after BOD.

Sin é wrote:
D'Arcy tackle Stats for 6ns: England 13/1; Wales 13/0;Scotland 11/1; France 9/1; Italy 7/0. .

Theres the trouble with official stats - D'Arcy definitely missed at least 1 tackle against Italy. Officially it, apparantly, it didn't happen

funnyExiledScot wrote:

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:When has he said this? Sin your getting annoying with all these stats which can be great but can also be very misleading

Agreed. Put the top trumps away and start watching rugby.

So, how often have you seen Keith Earls play this season in the centre? Have you watched him live?

Kearney was on 'Miriam' last Saturday night. If he was going to South Africa, surely he would have said it.

Anyway, why would the SA's help Ireland now - its not like it would be to just get him fit for domestic competition. We could be meeting SA in the world cup.

geoff998rugby wrote:

Sin é wrote:
D'Arcy tackle Stats for 6ns: England 13/1; Wales 13/0;Scotland 11/1; France 9/1; Italy 7/0. .

Theres the trouble with official stats - D'Arcy definitely missed at least 1 tackle against Italy. Officially it, apparantly, it didn't happen

Since humans are involved, I suppose you could just as easily be mistaken as whoever did the stats.

Of course there are going to be inaccuracies, but they generally are not that far off. By the way, they are not just done for our amusement.

Sin é wrote: My point is that Earls's defence is as good, if not better than any of the other options at 13 after BOD.

No it isn't. Your point seems to vary from post to post but ultimately tends to revolve around the fact that Earls(or some other Munster player) can do no wrong and is the best at every possible rugby skill and if there are any weaknesses in the Ireland side then they can't be down to a Munster player because the stats always prove that they are infallible.

To summerize then Earls is the best winger (crash ball and every other aspect), 2nd best centre bar BOD (though he never ever misses tackles) but despite apparantly being by far the best player in both attack and defence in the Ireland squad, he is not the best 15 but the 5th best 15 in Munster (probably because that might mean taking Felix Jones Ireland spot).

Does that sound about right??

Agreed but they are one of manner factors to take into account and I have no doubt any coach will watch two players and thing that one made 13 tackles and missed none, whislt that one made 11 tackles and missed 2 therefore I'll pick the former. If he thinks the later is the better player he will pick him simple as that.

roddersm wrote:

Sin é wrote: My point is that Earls's defence is as good, if not better than any of the other options at 13 after BOD.

No it isn't. Your point seems to vary from post to post but ultimately tends to revolve around the fact that Earls(or some other Munster player) can do no wrong and is the best at every possible rugby skill and if there are any weaknesses in the Ireland side then they can't be down to a Munster player because the stats always prove that they are infallible.

To summerize then Earls is the best winger (crash ball and every other aspect), 2nd best centre bar BOD (though he never ever misses tackles) but despite apparantly being by far the best player in both attack and defence in the Ireland squad, he is not the best 15 but the 5th best 15 in Munster (probably because that might mean taking Felix Jones Ireland spot).

Does that sound about right??

jaipers, Rodders - maybe you should have a look in the mirror - after rereading your comments on Trimble & Wallace before condemning me for knowing that Earls (& Jones) are very fine players. Earls in particular is very versatile. Kidney seems to rate him as well if you look at how the selections worked out for the 6Ns. The reason why I think he is BOD's backup is because he is the only player available to Ireland who has played consistently in that position at the highest club level over the last 2 years.

Am I not allowed disagree with the comments that his defence is poor. Earls has also had a particularly strong finish to his season at wing.

I'd be happy enough with Earls at Fullback - the problem is though he has only played there once in the last year. Considering that most the Munster backs can play a couple of positions, it is surprising that he hasn't been put there by them. Maybe its because they think Warwick & Jones are better.

How about proving to me your motive for wanting Earls at fullback is because that means Trimble will be on the wing and Paddy Wallace will be in the centre if Kearney or D'Arcy are not fit?

Don't be silly lads, there's no need for interprovincial bunfights.

Earls is a fine player, I do feel we could be exposed at outside centre if BOD is injured because there's no-one really ready to step in. Earls or McFadden would be my choices but I would most of all like to see Earls remaining in the back three where he is most effective.

Sin é wrote:
jaipers, Rodders - maybe you should have a look in the mirror - after rereading your comments on Trimble & Wallace before condemning me for knowing that Earls (& Jones) are very fine players. Earls in particular is very versatile. Kidney seems to rate him as well if you look at how the selections worked out for the 6Ns. The reason why I think he is BOD's backup is because he is the only player available to Ireland who has played consistently in that position at the highest club level over the last 2 years.

Am I not allowed disagree with the comments that his defence is poor. Earls has also had a particularly strong finish to his season at wing.

I'd be happy enough with Earls at Fullback - the problem is though he has only played there once in the last year. Considering that most the Munster backs can play a couple of positions, it is surprising that he hasn't been put there by them. Maybe its because they think Warwick & Jones are better.

How about proving to me your motive for wanting Earls at fullback is because that means Trimble will be on the wing and Paddy Wallace will be in the centre if Kearney or D'Arcy are not fit?

1) I think Earls and Jones are fine players too and if you can point out were I have suggested they aren't then I'll be happy to clarify my comments.

2) No one has suggested his defence is poor. However you will have a hard time convincing most reasonable thinking rugby fans that he is a better defender than BOD at 13. You are probably right that he is the back up but that is more down the the failure of the management to try anyone else there than Earls being suited to the position.

3) Please read my last umpteen million posts (or even just my previous one) to see my opinion regarding Trimble and Irelands back 3 dynamics, which have nothing whatsoever to do with Paddy Wallace.

So, we can agree

1) That I've reason to believe that Earls & Jones could win a place on merit and its not just my Munster bias?

2) There have doubts been expressed about his defence and in particular his positioning (i.e., not defending as much as he should be because of his poor positioning). At no stage have I claimed that he is a better defender than BOD - I've used stats on tackles made when he did play in the centre, that he put in as many tackles as BOD does.

3) Read my post. You don't always need a hammer to crack a nut.


The issue with not trying out anyone at 13 is probably more down to Blooding Sexton with similar surroundings and the fact that the Vice Captain missed so much time to injury last season. Then with the indifferent form, it wasn't a good time to be rotating your captain.