Ireland Squad Discussion

First topic message reminder :

Continuing on from Ireland Squad Announcement Thread.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Final point as regards Schmidt's judgement, when Dillane got into the squad it was a surprise and nobody was calling for his inclusion. Schmidt saw that he was up to the standard needed and gave him his chance,maybe he looks at players like Gilroy, Heavy and ToH and sees something that makes him think they aren't good enough . Why you think you are a better judge of talent than he is astounds me.

To be fair that isn't entirely accurate. Firstly, Ultan Dillane was mentioned as a potential squad option a few times on the Irish Six Nations thread on these forums and a few of the fans had noticed his potential quite early on. Secondly, the only reason that Schmidt brought him into the squad was because of significant injuries to our second row options and our lack of depth was badly exposed. Had this not been the case we wouldn't have seen Dillane featuring in an Irish match day squad for a number of years.

I think the biggest joke will be when we see the Henshaw-Payne axis yet again. I mean, have either of them played in those positions since the Six Nations?

JmD wrote:His attempts at rationalising are ridiculous. Roux isn't even the best "tighthead lock" in Connacht, never mind in Ireland. Don't even get me started on the "test performance" garbage. Has Joe watched any tests that Dave Kearney has played in this season? Did he have his eyes shut for the whole Argentina game?

Well who is the best tighthead lock in Connacht and is he available?

The lack of excitement over these games is palpable.

Personally think we're on a hiding to nothing over there with our tight five and, to a lesser extent, back row being in the state its in. And like the Six Nations arguing over the positions where we have a lot of choice is somewhat besides the point. Matt Healy will get called up now, maybe even picked, will probably struggle to perform as we have used a game plan which is more suited to a winger like Dave Kearney or McFadden; hence, their selection. What people seem to want is a major reconstruction of our entire rugby philosophy at this level. Something I hope to see happen myself, but will probably take all four provinces to be playing in that style before the national team follows. Otherwise you're trying to implement something completely new in two week preparation windows. In the interim I'm quite pleased with the way we tried to play in the Six Nations. Again, we were undermined more by our pack than anything else but I think the backs did pretty well and we tried to play some quite expansive rugby. Green shoots.

I think the biggest issue is how risk averse the IRFU themselves are, and the constant pressure to get results. Schmidts selection policy is no less conservative than his predecessors and you'd have to think there's a reason for that. Last coach to really experiment was Gatland and he got shafted for his troubles. But I'd like to ask; what do we want to see on this tour? What kinds of selections, tactics and results are going to reassure you all we are heading in the right direction?

Personally I don't think we go down there and take a lot of big risks ball in hand, because our scrum is just so, so shaky and if we are conceding scrums in our own 22 it could get ugly for us and the game could slip away. We drew with Wales and lost to France because we got trapped scrummaging in our own 22 and they just ground us into the dirt. I feel like we could have easily won both games with a solid scrum. And so I think we need a smart territorial kicking game and a smart chasing game to stay with South Africa and actually, dare I say it, Kearney the younger might be the better choice for that than a young Connacht flyer...

Was good to see that Schmidt interview - does answer a few questions and assurance that he has at least been closely monitoring many of the Connacht squad.

I get what you're saying Notch but the theme is always negative - all about trying to neutralise the opposition's strengths rather than playing to our own strengths and giving them something to think about.
I don't think our pack is any worse than Scotland's yet they do look more threatening in attack than us - there is still room for expansive gameplans at Test level (even in NH) and room for players like Healy and Gilroy rather than Dave K and McFadden.
Towards the end of the 6N there was an obvious order to play with more width on tempo however it frustrated me that we reverted to the one-pass rugby when in the opposition 22 - seemed rather contradictory.
The main issue for me is that centre partnership - Henshaw and Payne are a good defensive unit but the one game Henshaw played 13 against England he looked a lot more dangerous. I've nothing against Payne but I think he's blocking the development of some younger centres and while he's very impressive at full back for Ulster I don't think it would translate to Test level.

Don't think our pack is quite as bad as you make out, as long as there are no further injuries of course. The return of Henderson will be a welcome boost although not sure where he will fit in the back row - unless CJ switches to openside. Only real issue is tighthead in my opinion - Mike Ross offers virtually nothing in open play but to be fair to him his scrummaging is still holding up well.

theslosty wrote:I get what you're saying Notch but the theme is always negative - all about trying to neutralise the opposition's strengths rather than playing to our own strengths and giving them something to think about.

But is our ball in hand game a strength? We tend to make a lot of pretty basic errors and our basic skills aren't great when it comes to passing and offloading. Thats why I say I believe we need to see all our provinces play an offloading game before it translates to international level.

I would feel that the reason we play the way we have played under Schmidt is because he's come in and specifically tailored a game plan to our strengths.

It'll shift, gradually, to being more expansive. But South Africa away wouldn't be my idea of a nice easy series for us to experiment in. I'd like to see us be smart and brave.

So, let's say we go with:

McGrath
Best
Ross
Ryan/Dillane
Toner/Henderson

Is that a weak tight 5? I'm not so sure that is a fair assessment. The back row however is going to be an issue, specifically in terms of what combination we go for. I say we go for Henderson, Stander and Heaslip together. Imbalanced, yes, but powerful enough to combat an abrasive SA pack.

Andy Farrell has the right attitude. Ireland should be expecting to go to SA and not just win one match, but the series.

Proper order.

I feel like Ross shores it up- significantly- but he's not an 80 minute player and the second row isn't great at all. Hopefully its Henderson and Ryan, which has the makings of a really useful partnership.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Final point as regards Schmidt's judgement, when Dillane got into the squad it was a surprise and nobody was calling for his inclusion. Schmidt saw that he was up to the standard needed and gave him his chance,maybe he looks at players like Gilroy, Heavy and ToH and sees something that makes him think they aren't good enough . Why you think you are a better judge of talent than he is astounds me.

To be fair that isn't entirely accurate. Firstly, Ultan Dillane was mentioned as a potential squad option a few times on the Irish Six Nations thread on these forums and a few of the fans had noticed his potential quite early on. Secondly, the only reason that Schmidt brought him into the squad was because of significant injuries to our second row options and our lack of depth was badly exposed. Had this not been the case we wouldn't have seen Dillane featuring in an Irish match day squad for a number of years.

I think the biggest joke will be when we see the Henshaw-Payne axis yet again. I mean, have either of them played in those positions since the Six Nations?

He was mentioned 4 times before he was called up.Twice on the first page where a guy said "who's the young Connacht lock,he looks good" and someone answered "Ultan Dillane".That's hardly a real call to see him in the squad.Then Notch named him as 5th lock in an extended squad he would have picked.Then Pete named him in his full squad.4 mentions and not one mention of his strengths,weaknesses. 3 of those mentions were just a simple wrinting of his name and the other one was "who's the big lump from Connacht?".That doesn't really seem like many people noticed his potential early on to me.Schmidt did and then threw him in against England on his debut,we have seen Schmidt keep players on the bench if he doesn't rate them so I think you're opinion that Dillane wouldn't have got a chance is wrong if he was happy to give him an extended run in Twickenham for his debut.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:He was mentioned 4 times before he was called up.Twice on the first page where a guy said "who's the young Connacht lock,he looks good" and someone answered "Ultan Dillane".That's hardly a real call to see him in the squad.Then Notch named him as 5th lock in an extended squad he would have picked.Then Pete named him in his full squad.4 mentions and not one mention of his strengths,weaknesses. 3 of those mentions were just a simple wrinting of his name and the other one was "who's the big lump from Connacht?".That doesn't really seem like many people noticed his potential early on to me.Schmidt did and then threw him in against England on his debut,we have seen Schmidt keep players on the bench if he doesn't rate them so I think you're opinion that Dillane wouldn't have got a chance is wrong if he was happy to give him an extended run in Twickenham for his debut.

"The defence rests, your Honour."


A+ for research

rapidsnowman wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:He was mentioned 4 times before he was called up.Twice on the first page where a guy said "who's the young Connacht lock,he looks good" and someone answered "Ultan Dillane".That's hardly a real call to see him in the squad.Then Notch named him as 5th lock in an extended squad he would have picked.Then Pete named him in his full squad.4 mentions and not one mention of his strengths,weaknesses. 3 of those mentions were just a simple wrinting of his name and the other one was "who's the big lump from Connacht?".That doesn't really seem like many people noticed his potential early on to me.Schmidt did and then threw him in against England on his debut,we have seen Schmidt keep players on the bench if he doesn't rate them so I think you're opinion that Dillane wouldn't have got a chance is wrong if he was happy to give him an extended run in Twickenham for his debut.

"The defence rests, your Honour."


A+ for research

I was that guy on the first page. Do I win something?

No, but you may be called as a witness.

Oooo best polish my shoes then

Pot Hale wrote:

JmD wrote:His attempts at rationalising are ridiculous. Roux isn't even the best "tighthead lock" in Connacht, never mind in Ireland. Don't even get me started on the "test performance" garbage. Has Joe watched any tests that Dave Kearney has played in this season? Did he have his eyes shut for the whole Argentina game?

Well who is the best tighthead lock in Connacht and is he available?

Aly Muldowney

Pot Hale wrote:Andy Farrell has the right attitude.  Ireland should be expecting to go to SA and not just win one match, but the series.

Proper order.

I told him to say that to rile the 606 Natives

...and Hook.

Rumours Sexton is out.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Final point as regards Schmidt's judgement, when Dillane got into the squad it was a surprise and nobody was calling for his inclusion. Schmidt saw that he was up to the standard needed and gave him his chance,maybe he looks at players like Gilroy, Heavy and ToH and sees something that makes him think they aren't good enough . Why you think you are a better judge of talent than he is astounds me.

To be fair that isn't entirely accurate. Firstly, Ultan Dillane was mentioned as a potential squad option a few times on the Irish Six Nations thread on these forums and a few of the fans had noticed his potential quite early on. Secondly, the only reason that Schmidt brought him into the squad was because of significant injuries to our second row options and our lack of depth was badly exposed. Had this not been the case we wouldn't have seen Dillane featuring in an Irish match day squad for a number of years.

I think the biggest joke will be when we see the Henshaw-Payne axis yet again. I mean, have either of them played in those positions since the Six Nations?

He was  mentioned 4 times before he was called up.Twice on the first page where a guy said "who's the young Connacht lock,he looks good" and someone answered "Ultan Dillane".That's hardly a real call to see him in the squad.Then Notch named him as 5th lock in an extended squad he would have picked.Then Pete named him in his full squad.4 mentions and not one mention of his strengths,weaknesses. 3 of those mentions were just a simple wrinting of his name and the other one was "who's the big lump from Connacht?".That doesn't really seem like many people noticed his potential early on to me.Schmidt did and then threw him in against England on his debut,we have seen Schmidt keep players on the bench if he doesn't rate them so I think you're opinion that Dillane wouldn't have got a chance is wrong if he was happy to give him an extended run in Twickenham for his debut.

I did say a few times on purpose. I know it wasn't much, but on these forums alone a few people included him as a potential option, as you have pointed out. That is more accurate than "nobody". The main point however was that Schmidt doesn't exactly deserve a great deal of credit for bringing Dillane in. There were not many options left and we really were clutching at straws at that stage. I think it is quite a stretch to imagine that Schmidt would have would have given Dillane a chance had all the other options been fit. Injury quite clearly forced his hand.

Don Alfonso wrote:Rumours Sexton is out.

The rumour is Sexton and the Kearney brothers (Fitz we already know about), with possibly Healey, Gilroy, TOH coming in     ......... and Madigan

Should be an exciting press conference

Edit: I know what it looks like, but I wouldn't be happy if Sexton can't make it ....... honestly

Well- there goes the tour...

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/sexton-ruled-out-of-sa-tour-report/

Will be good experience for Jackson, but a massive blow.

Sexton is out of sorts and could do with the rest - he's a few more knocks from hanging up the boots, this tour is the last thing he needs.

This is great opportunity for Jackson, although what chances Madigan gets the start?

Hmmm.............. seems some boys were making their pacts with the Devil.

I'd actually be taking Steenson ahead of Madser.

Anyway, that's a load off Joe's shoulders.  He'll be breathing a sigh of relief.  I won't be his fault no more when the boys come home with their tails between their legs..

Journalists feverishly looking for comment as the Irish team come through arrivals: "Joe!!  Joe!!  What went wrong Joe!!"
Joe: "Don't ask me.  The best, slickest, fastest, smartest players in Ireland are coming through behind me.  They'll tell you.  I'm already on my holidays."

Maybe Sexton is out because they're worried he'll get punished by the new 'feigning injury' laws

rodders wrote:Sexton is out of sorts and could do with the rest - he's a few more knocks from hanging up the boots, this tour is the last thing he needs.

This is great opportunity for Jackson, although what chances Madigan gets the start?

Sexton was in fantastic form,he's a massive lost,our best player playing some of the best rugby of his career.This idea that he's a few inuries away form retirement is also just idle speculation.

The positive thing from this is that Jackson goes into the tour as first choice 10,he gets a full build up whereas if this happened closer to the 1st Test we would have spent a lot of valuable training time with Sexton gone down the drain.

toml wrote:Maybe Sexton is out because they're worried he'll get punished by the new 'feigning injury' laws

Classy post.

It would be a good jesture to Steenson. He deserves a call up, he has been the best outhalf in the Jeff this past season. It wouldn't be a choice for growing a squad for the future, but neither would taking madigan.

... so out of a backline of sexton/teo/ringrose/dk/rk/fitz selected for the most important game of the season on reflection 2/3rds of that backline were crocked going into a game against a team with an in form backline on a wide pitch in great weather conditions.... and my assessment of Cullen goes back two steps once again.

toml wrote:Maybe Sexton is out because they're worried he'll get punished by the new 'feigning injury' laws

Ouch! Steady. It was a just a semi final game...someone had to lose...

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

I did say a few times on purpose. I know it wasn't much, but on these forums alone a few people included him as a potential option, as you have pointed out. That is more accurate than "nobody". The main point however was that Schmidt doesn't exactly deserve a great deal of credit for bringing Dillane in. There were not many options left and we really were clutching at straws at that stage. I think it is quite a stretch to imagine that Schmidt would have would have given Dillane a chance had all the other options been fit. Injury quite clearly forced his hand.

I think it's a stretch to think that he wouldn't have given him a chance.If he saw enough in him to pitch him in against England when the game was still winnable on his debut,then I think he'd almost certainly have given him a run in the last two games no matter what.Schmidt might have been forced to include him in the squad due to injuries but he wasn't forced to put him on the pitch,he could have stuck Dave Foley on the bench as he's already capped him,or he could have waited and only gave Dillane a token 2-5 minutes at the end of the match.
Schmidt absolutely deserves credit for picking him and more importantly trusting him with gametime.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

rodders wrote:Sexton is out of sorts and could do with the rest - he's a few more knocks from hanging up the boots, this tour is the last thing he needs.

This is great opportunity for Jackson, although what chances Madigan gets the start?

Sexton was in fantastic form,he's a massive lost,our best player playing some of the best rugby of his career.

I don't agree. He's place kicked well and been kicking quite well out of hand too but his attacking play has been predictable, bar a few flashes of brilliance and he has really struggled with contact, needing regular on field treatment after almost every heavy collision.

His attacking play has been excellent,he was our only threat against Ulster in Ravenhill.He started countless attacks but was let down by his midfield in getting the ball any further,the same against Connacht,he spotted that Connacht flooded the backfield to stop us kicking so we ran it from deep in our half several times but pedestrian passing from T'eo in particular meant that when the ball reached the winger the defense just drifted on to him.His defense when he tackled McCartney from behind and stopped him putting the ball down was unbelievable,no outhalf has a right to do that to a hooker.
I think he has been playing unbelievable rugby the last few months,even in the games where the pack played poorly and he got no good ball he was fantastic,never looking under pressure.

It's water under the bridge.  Time to get behind the guys that are going.

Still same expectation.  The goal doesn't change.  Pressure is still on.  A win at the very least.  But a series win - like Farrell says, why not have that as the true goal.

So it suddenly doesn't become a shot to nothing simply because Sexton and a few more regular guys are missing.  The same pressures now apply to the newer boys.

I'm going 3-nil to the boys in green.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:It would be a good jesture to Steenson. He deserves a call up, he has been the best outhalf in the Jeff this past season.  It wouldn't be a choice for growing a squad for the future, but neither would taking madigan.

Would Johnny Holland be in with a shout? Looked a natural and a step up from Keatley, couldn't hurt his development to go to SA

I'd rather Holland get picked over Steenson

Just goes to show how poor the depth is after Jackson that Madigan still gets in despite heading overseas...

Sexton was getting in when he went overseas but then again he is the golden child

...for a reason.

I find it hard to believe Madigan would be the No.1 replacement even with Joe's blue tinted specs. Surely he's the versatile bench-man that's needed to cover a number of slots. He can't be that AND the starting fly-half can he?
Logic can't see beyond Jackson as the default replacement but I've lost faith in logic. Steenson can't possibly be dropped into the squad regardless of his form in the Jeff.

marty2086 wrote:Sexton was getting in when he went overseas but then again he is the golden child

And for good reason. No other Irish 10 came close to his level when he decided to move- Madigan is already behind Jackson, never mind Sexton.

The other rumours flying about are that the Kearney brothers are both going to be ruled out. If Rob was carrying an injury that puts his recent performances into perspective because he hasn't looked up to it at all. But if Zebo isn't going to travel, Fitzgerald is out and both Kearneys are out, then we'll have little choice but to drop Payne or Henshaw back to 15 surely- either that or start someone like O'Hallornan. I would say Luke Marshall is in a good position to come into the midfield if Jackson is selected, they gel well together.

Probably looking at;

9. Murray
10. Jackson
11. Earls
12. Henshaw
13. Marshall
14. Trimble
15. Payne

Notch wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Sexton was getting in when he went overseas but then again he is the golden child

And for good reason. No other Irish 10 came close to his level when he decided to move- Madigan is already behind Jackson, never mind Sexton.

The other rumours flying about are that the Kearney brothers are both going to be ruled out. If Rob was carrying an injury that puts his recent performances into perspective because he hasn't looked up to it at all. But if Zebo isn't going to travel, Fitzgerald is out and both Kearneys are out, then we'll have little choice but to drop Payne or Henshaw back to 15 surely- either that or start someone like O'Hallornan. I would say Luke Marshall is in a good position to come into the midfield if Jackson is selected, they gel well together.

Probably looking at;

9. Murray
10. Jackson
11. Earls
12. Henshaw
13. Marshall
14. Trimble
15. Payne

Would it not make a lot more sense for Henshaw and Marshall to swap places?

SecretFly wrote:Hmmm.............. seems some boys were making their pacts with the Devil.

I'm not happy about Sexton being out, but it might be for the better. He is our best 10, but it does look as though he can't take the hits right now, and the break might give him the time needed to recover. Another positive is that Jackson will get much needed game time at Test level, although it isn't ideal that it's against SA on their own turf. Assuming he starts the games, and not Madigan....

Apparantly Joe has asked Girvan Dempsey to come out of retirement.

I was wondering what the consensus is on a Dillane/Henderson 2nd row. Dillane looked a dynamic carrier in the loose against Leinster and with Henderson would give you plenty of options against the Boks. Ryan would be the bench 2nd row as Toner is not an impact sub.

As for your 10 and 3 situation going forward, is Madigan or Moore more important with both abroad? I like what Steenson is btw but Madigan is a more versatile talent to have in the squad.

Is Keatley or a Connacht 10 good enough to be a 3rd fly half?

Healy, Gilroy, TOH and Madigan all in to replace Sexton the Kearneys and Fitzgerald.

Barring Sexton, form players are coming in to replace out of form ones

From balls.ie

Ireland were hit with some major injury blows in the last week with first Luke Fitzgerald, and then Johnny Sexton being ruled out of the tour with South Africa before they'd even got on the plane. Fitzgerald was ruled out with a knee injury, and Sexton has had surgery on a shoulder problem.

Joe Schmidt confirmed the worst about Sexton when he addressed the media today at Carton House. The Ireland head coach also announced the replacements for the injury players - bringing up Connacht winger Matt Healy and Bordeaux outhalf Ian Madigan, as expected. Simon Zebo hasn't done enough to persuade Schmidt that he's back following keyhole surgery at the end of Munster's season.

Schmidt also issued an update on the Kearney brothers who both shipped injuries in the last week in training. Both Kearney has been ruled out, with Craig Gilroy and Connacht full-back Tiernan O'Halloran being called up.

It will be interesting to see who will start at full-back with both Simon Zebo and Rob Kearney ruled out.

..you hope.  

Let's see how these form players fare at International.  I wish them all the best...and hope we screw two wins out of them at least.  
But it's a little early to be comparing Pro12 form with International away from against South Africa.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Notch wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Sexton was getting in when he went overseas but then again he is the golden child

And for good reason. No other Irish 10 came close to his level when he decided to move- Madigan is already behind Jackson, never mind Sexton.

The other rumours flying about are that the Kearney brothers are both going to be ruled out. If Rob was carrying an injury that puts his recent performances into perspective because he hasn't looked up to it at all. But if Zebo isn't going to travel, Fitzgerald is out and both Kearneys are out, then we'll have little choice but to drop Payne or Henshaw back to 15 surely- either that or start someone like O'Hallornan. I would say Luke Marshall is in a good position to come into the midfield if Jackson is selected, they gel well together.

Probably looking at;

9. Murray
10. Jackson
11. Earls
12. Henshaw
13. Marshall
14. Trimble
15. Payne

Would it not make a lot more sense for Henshaw and Marshall to swap places?

Henshaw has been playing 12 for Ireland and Marshalls been 13 for Ulster this season.

Isn't Marshall left footed too?

Hazel Sapling wrote:I was wondering what the consensus is on a Dillane/Henderson 2nd row. Dillane looked a dynamic carrier in the loose against Leinster and with Henderson would give you plenty of options against the Boks. Ryan would be the bench 2nd row as Toner is not an impact sub.

As for your 10 and 3 situation going forward, is Madigan or Moore more important with both abroad? I like what Steenson is btw but Madigan is a more versatile talent to have in the squad.

Is Keatley or a Connacht 10 good enough to be a 3rd fly half?

Neither Dillane or Henderson have the experience to call the lineout, so one of Toner or Ryan will have to start.

Not a chance that Steenson will get a call up - he has been out of the system for far too long. This is Jackson's big chance, though I think he should really have gotten more time than he has. At least the Boks don't have Pienaar playing who would know all his strengths and weaknesses.

Keatley just needs to go away and get his head right. The Connacht 10 has played for the USA.

SecretFly wrote:..you hope.  

Let's see how these form players fare at International.  I wish them all the best...and hope we screw two wins out of them at least.  
But it's a little early to be comparing Pro12 form with International away from against South Africa.

Fair point, but since those seasoned internationals have shown absolutely no attacking promise for the last few months in the pro12, then what hope have they against SA. We're not going to beat them if we can make ground and score