[November Tests 2016 EOYT] Ireland vs. Australia (26/11/2016)

[profitius]

On a positive note it's good to see Henderson back. Hopefully we'll see some of his big carries.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

As I said you don't agree but equally alot would. I'd massively disagree as would many that Kearney is any bit useful these days attacking and I think Payne is as good aerially as many others would. I'm not trying to argue anything by way. Just saying I feel Kearney isn't up to it and cause of tries lately at times. Alot agree with me alot disagree. You see it differently and thats fair enough.
And while I accept you disagree. If you fail to accept alot of people don't think that then you've your head buried in sand. As I say you may not agree but there is a belief amongst alot what I'm saying. Or are you saying I'm 1 of only 5 or so people everywhere saying Kearney should be gone?
Equally don't remember Schmidt's head ever being called for. Alot may disagree with his style at times but never remember his head being called for even after 6 Nations. Only time his job was on line was lately when he was considering.

From the Ireland v Italy thread http://www.therugbyforum.com/thread...Nations-Round-4-Ireland-vs-Italy-(12-03-2016)

****IF SO**** F88k off Schmidt

Your at the same $h|te as Kidney and O'Sullivan before you. If you are gonna keep this up, maybe better to part ways with the IRFU now.




Ryan, Sexton, Trimble and Zebo shouldn't be in the team, with Sexton the only one in the squad.

Its hard to fathom. BTW, the rumours are McFadden on the bench. I think Schmidt has lost the plot if all this is true.

Everything I've heard of or observed of the IRFU would indicate a fairly conservative organisation that desires 6N success and prize money above all other things; give every coach the same demands, and that's a mould of sorts.

I would also hazard the guess that a coach with an eye on a SR job in 2017 might not be too bothered with building something long term as long as his CV remains ok-looking.

Dropping McCloskey would be absolute insane and that's only the tip of the rancid looking iceberg.

Edited to add: From a solely Ulster point of view, Schmidt out.

I was looking forward to this match, but now I don't care really. The Irish pack, I am happy with, but the back line is dull. England and Scotland put Italy to the sword but at this stage I'd like Italy to win.

Give me a backline of: Murray, Jackson, Earls, Henshaw, McCloskey, Gilroy, Payne

The game is going places, ironically we nown need to kick more effectively. We had some great linebreaks in the England game and it's just working on the next phase after the break that's needed to turn this into a potent team. We're missing Luke Fitz hugely though, I don't think we have a wing as intelligent and quick as he is.

...

That's a pretty narrow view, you can play ball in hand rugby without flashing the ball wide all the time, something Ireland don't do well. Ireland can be very dangerous in the centres, and break through the 12-13 channel more than most sides do, it's a style of play that needs more accuracy and impetus to what is been shown right now but the potential is there and it requires as many strong ball carriers as possible.

....

I think it'll be clearer what he's doing come the Summer tour and EOYT, This six nations or South Africa will be Payne's last hurrah, VDF will be no. 20 with a fit backrow, Dillane will probably be no. 19 going forward. Stander will be the starting 8 soon enough.

A team of McGrath, Best, Ross, Toner, Henderson, POM, SOB, Stander, Murray, Sexton, Earls, Henshaw, Ringrose (or McCloskey/Henshaw), Fitzgerald, Kearney
Cronin, ????, Moore, Dilland, VDF, McGrath, Jackson/Madigan, Zebo Is in the works for the next 12 months and that's a formidable side with seriou potential for growth.

This six nations has been a bit **** but in terms result but there are positives there that people aren't seeing.

I obviously didn't see Fitz early retirement, the emergence of Carbery or Furlong and thought Heaslip's, Trimble's and Payne's legs will go eventually but damn if I'm not good. (This was a week after VdF's and Dillane's debuts!)

 

[munstermuffin]

From the Ireland v Italy thread http://www.therugbyforum.com/thread...Nations-Round-4-Ireland-vs-Italy-(12-03-2016)










I obviously didn't see Fitz early retirement, the emergence of Carbery or Furlong and thought Heaslip's, Trimble's and Payne's legs will go eventually but damn if I'm not good. (This was a week after VdF's and Dillane's debuts!)

Again they're heated comments after a match. And just on here.
Still doesn't say anything about Kearney point.
Equally if we loose to Aus and have a poor 6 Nations how'd you rate the 13 months from Feb2016 to Mar2017?

Thats a serious question by way as I'm unsure how to answer.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Again they're heated comments after a match. And just on here.
Still doesn't say anything about Kearney point.
Equally if we loose to Aus and have a poor 6 Nations how'd you rate the 13 months from Feb2016 to Mar2017?

Thats a serious question by way as I'm unsure how to answer.

They were made prior to the Italian match and over a week after the England game.

All you said about Kearney was that many would disagree with me, how do I counter that? Its not a point!

 

[corny]

If Payne is non negotiable as a 15 i'd pick Zebo.

Other than 'people agree with me' i haven't heard a solid argument for Kearney being ousted so i'll try.

He is missing tackles a lot lately. He's never been a fabulous last ditch tackler anyway.
His pace is shot. I still have a vision of Elliot Daly (granted he's quick by any measure) burning him as if he were standing still in January for Wasps.
He's not a good attacker. Gets knocked backwards the majority of time he carries from fullback.
We're crying out for lads who can offer something with ball in hand in the backs.

Kearney not finished because he still has his strengths (exceptional under the high ball) but its time we considered others imo.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

If Payne is non negotiable as a 15 i'd pick Zebo.

Other than 'people agree with me' i haven't heard a solid argument for Kearney being ousted so i'll try.

He is missing tackles a lot lately. He's never been a fabulous last ditch tackler anyway.
His pace is shot. I still have a vision of Elliot Daly (granted he's quick by any measure) burning him as if he were standing still in January for Wasps.
He's not a good attacker. Gets knocked backwards the majority of time he carries from fullback.
We're crying out for lads who can offer something with ball in hand in the backs.

Kearney not finished because he still has his strengths (exceptional under the high ball) but its time we considered others imo.

Others have been considered, Zebo, Payne and O'Halloran have starts this year, granted he's had the most opportunities but Kearney has had two of our best three performances at 15 in Chicago and while being one of very few positives in Paris. Schmidt's current goal has to be a top seeding in the RWC and I think the fullback spot will be Kearney's until then because with the team set up like it is Kearney and Payne at 15 and 13 is our best use of what we have.

 

[munstermuffin]

They were made prior to the Italian match and over a week after the England game.

All you said about Kearney was that many would disagree with me, how do I counter that? Its not a point!

But my point is its a general view. Right or wrong alot think Kearney is a liability in team now. The point is fact I'm not arguing anything. You view it different and I respect that.

 

[munstermuffin]

Others have been considered, Zebo, Payne and O'Halloran have starts this year, granted he's had the most opportunities but Kearney has had two of our best three performances at 15 in Chicago and while being one of very few positives in Paris. Schmidt's current goal has to be a top seeding in the RWC and I think the fullback spot will be Kearney's until then because with the team set up like it is Kearney and Payne at 15 and 13 is our best use of what we have.

On this again many would say he was good in Chicago but again cost of 2 tries. And wasn't great in Paris in 6 Nations. O'Halloran gave a better display last week albeit against Canada. And while you say be a top seeding nation that is general facr that dropping Kearney enables this team to improve further and go better and it seems majority here think that Kearney at 15 and Payne at 13 isn't best use of what we have

 

[munstermuffin]

And for my views on it.
Kearney good in air yes.
Awful missed tackles
Poor attacking lines
Poor try acoring and assist record
Better alternatives in my eyes

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

On this again many would say he was good in Chicago but again cost of 2 tries. And wasn't great in Paris in 6 Nations. O'Halloran gave a better display last week albeit against Canada. And while you say be a top seeding nation that is general facr that dropping Kearney enables this team to improve further and go better and it seems majority here think that Kearney at 15 and Payne at 13 isn't best use of what we have

He didn't cost two tries, he was partly at fault for two, although I'd like to see any 15 cover the ground he had to and get Naholo for the first. I can guarantee Schmidt was worried more about the linebreaks than the Kearney's missed tackles, he also made Stander's try by cutting a great line through the D. How is that the general fact, please explain to me how we get better by dropping the 15 who is best suited to the game we are playing right now because I don't give a **** about what the majority think because the majority haven't been correct very often regarding Schmidt's selections.

 

[munstermuffin]

He didn't cost two tries, he was partly at fault for two, although I'd like to see any 15 cover the ground he had to and get Naholo for the first. I can guarantee Schmidt was worried more about the linebreaks than the Kearney's missed tackles, he also made Stander's try by cutting a great line through the D. How is that the general fact, please explain to me how we get better by dropping the 15 who is best suited to the game we are playing right now because I don't give a **** about what the majority think because the majority haven't been correct very often regarding Schmidt's selections.

Again we will agree to disagree on tries in Chicago. I think he was at fault and alot more like me do. Alot like you yhink different. You see it differently to me and I respect that.
A general fact. I'll put these out here and if I wrong on any point me out.
1. Alot agree with me in that Kearney should be dropped?
2. He offers very little in attack
3. I say it's a fact that many say dropping Kearney will improve team. Am I wrong saying that?
4. I respect you think Kearney is best suited to plan but I don't and others dont. Alot think Payne is and I think that is your issue here. People aren't agreeing with you.
5. You say majority aren't ever correct with Schmidt and your right. That doesn't always mean Schmidt is right. Or not.

As I asked if we loose next week and have poor 6 Nations it will be said by some. We beat a poor SA team and a very cocky NZ team without a 2nd row. I'm not saying that but saying that is what some critics will say. But again out of those 5 points please justbsimply say where I so wrong.
I'm not saying anyone right or wrong just what general view is but it seems you dislike people ain't agreeing with you.

 

[Amiga500]

From the Ireland v Italy thread http://www.therugbyforum.com/thread...Nations-Round-4-Ireland-vs-Italy-(12-03-2016)

And I stand by my comments.

A ridiculously conservative selection that didn't help development of fringe players at all.

Thankfully, there does now seem to be an attitude of bringing in new faces - perhaps a result of him not leaving to a Super Rugby job after all and now having a longer term investment in seeing the squad strengthen.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Again we will agree to disagree on tries in Chicago. I think he was at fault and alot more like me do. Alot like you yhink different. You see it differently to me and I respect that.
A general fact. I'll put these out here and if I wrong on any point me out.
1. Alot agree with me in that Kearney should be dropped?
2. He offers very little in attack
3. I say it's a fact that many say dropping Kearney will improve team. Am I wrong saying that?
4. I respect you think Kearney is best suited to plan but I don't and others dont. Alot think Payne is and I think that is your issue here. People aren't agreeing with you.
5. You say majority aren't ever correct with Schmidt and your right. That doesn't always mean Schmidt is right. Or not.

As I asked if we loose next week and have poor 6 Nations it will be said by some. We beat a poor SA team and a very cocky NZ team without a 2nd row. I'm not saying that but saying that is what some critics will say. But again out of those 5 points please justbsimply say where I so wrong.
I'm not saying anyone right or wrong just what general view is but it seems you dislike people ain't agreeing with you.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me at all, what annoyed me here was you "countering" my points by saying that 'a lot of people agree' followed by a broad statement, I'm not going to reply directly to that anymore. Anyway, you've made some points here so I'll reply.

1. Bad start.

2. Safety doesn't equal very little, when returning the ball its quite clearly Kearney's job to set up a platform for the team to attack from after. Its the same when he comes into the line, more often than not he notices the team drifting and runs an inner to get over the gainline and set up next phase ball. He avoids broken field play and is vital to keeping Ireland's play as structured as possible which heavily plays to our strengths.
The alternative that is continually being thrown out is 13. Ringrose 15. Payne. Is Payne objectively a better 15 than RK? Yes. Is Ringrose objectively a better 13 than Payne? Yes. So why don't I think thats a better combination? Look at our backrow, our 9 and our wings, these guys need structure, if we had a backrow who followed play like Hooper or Tipuric, if Murray could follow the ball like TJ Perenara and if Trimble and Zebo played more like Nehe Milner-Skudder I'd want Ringrose and Payne to break up the play as often as possible. As it stands however we have Mr. Dependable in Trimble and a wing 15 hybrid in Zebo, a backrow who beat other sides up but are always that half second too late to a tackle meaning they have to ruck rather than receive an offload and Murray whose weakness is the exact same thing. Broken play doesn't suit us, just look at the last try we conceded, therefore we need guys who can keep the game structured, Payne's and RK's ability to hold on to possession and find contact in places where we won't lose the ball is better for the side than the marauding runs of Ringrose and Payne that can get a player isolated with slightly lethargic support which we have at times.
So in my opinion while not being flashy like the people want, and who cares what the people want because they forget as soon as we start winning, Payne and Kearney is our best combo, followed by Ringrose and Kearney followed by Ringrose and Payne. Kearney currently occupies what I like to call the 'Heaslip position' among fans on this island, he performs a very specific role vital to the teams performance but because it doesn't produce a highlight reel some players with real weaknesses to their game (read Jack Conan or Tiernan O'Haloran) are somehow better options.

3. You said 'And while you say be a top seeding nation that is general facr that dropping Kearney enables this team to improve further and go better and it seems majority here think that Kearney at 15 and Payne at 13 isn't best use of what we have'. The second part of that sentence is back to 'the majority bla bla bla' but in the first part you make a pretty audacious claim stating that's general fact, its most certainly not.

4. There's something here I take issue to, not people disagreeing with me though.

5. Nothing there really.

And if people say that they'll be wrong and I'll happily tell them they're wrong and why they are.

Hope this clears everything up, please refrain from using 'a lot of people think' or 'the majority here believe' etc... when discussing any topic with me in the future.

- - - Updated - - -

And I stand by my comments.

A ridiculously conservative selection that didn't help development of fringe players at all.

Thankfully, there does now seem to be an attitude of bringing in new faces - perhaps a result of him not leaving to a Super Rugby job after all and now having a longer term investment in seeing the squad strengthen.

Stander, VdF, Dillane and Bealham all debuted in the last 6nations, look at tomorrow's 23. Had we lost that game Schmidt lost his job, nothing ridiculous about picking your strongest 23 for a tier 1 test match.

 

[Amiga500]

Stander, VdF, Dillane and Bealham all debuted in the last 6nations,

-Injury to POM
-Injury to SOB
-Injury to DR
-Not sure

Had we lost that game Schmidt lost his job, nothing ridiculous about picking your strongest 23 for a tier 1 test match.

******. At the time, it was a (generous) Tier 1.5 test match!

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

-Injury to POM
-Injury to SOB
-Injury to DR
-Not sure




******. At the time, it was a (generous) Tier 1.5 test match!

Did they deserve to start ahead of those guys at the time, or even now?

It was a six nations match, Schmidt was under huge pressure from the union to get third place, we were 7th in the rankings, he couldn't take risks.

 

[munstermuffin]

I don't mind people disagreeing with me at all, what annoyed me here was you "countering" my points by saying that 'a lot of people agree' followed by a broad statement, I'm not going to reply directly to that anymore. Anyway, you've made some points here so I'll reply.

1. Bad start.

2. Safety doesn't equal very little, when returning the ball its quite clearly Kearney's job to set up a platform for the team to attack from after. Its the same when he comes into the line, more often than not he notices the team drifting and runs an inner to get over the gainline and set up next phase ball. He avoids broken field play and is vital to keeping Ireland's play as structured as possible which heavily plays to our strengths.
The alternative that is continually being thrown out is 13. Ringrose 15. Payne. Is Payne objectively a better 15 than RK? Yes. Is Ringrose objectively a better 13 than Payne? Yes. So why don't I think thats a better combination? Look at our backrow, our 9 and our wings, these guys need structure, if we had a backrow who followed play like Hooper or Tipuric, if Murray could follow the ball like TJ Perenara and if Trimble and Zebo played more like Nehe Milner-Skudder I'd want Ringrose and Payne to break up the play as often as possible. As it stands however we have Mr. Dependable in Trimble and a wing 15 hybrid in Zebo, a backrow who beat other sides up but are always that half second too late to a tackle meaning they have to ruck rather than receive an offload and Murray whose weakness is the exact same thing. Broken play doesn't suit us, just look at the last try we conceded, therefore we need guys who can keep the game structured, Payne's and RK's ability to hold on to possession and find contact in places where we won't lose the ball is better for the side than the marauding runs of Ringrose and Payne that can get a player isolated with slightly lethargic support which we have at times.
So in my opinion while not being flashy like the people want, and who cares what the people want because they forget as soon as we start winning, Payne and Kearney is our best combo, followed by Ringrose and Kearney followed by Ringrose and Payne. Kearney currently occupies what I like to call the 'Heaslip position' among fans on this island, he performs a very specific role vital to the teams performance but because it doesn't produce a highlight reel some players with real weaknesses to their game (read Jack Conan or Tiernan O'Haloran) are somehow better options.

3. You said 'And while you say be a top seeding nation that is general facr that dropping Kearney enables this team to improve further and go better and it seems majority here think that Kearney at 15 and Payne at 13 isn't best use of what we have'. The second part of that sentence is back to 'the majority bla bla bla' but in the first part you make a pretty audacious claim stating that's general fact, its most certainly not.

4. There's something here I take issue to, not people disagreeing with me though.

5. Nothing there really.

And if people say that they'll be wrong and I'll happily tell them they're wrong and why they are.

Hope this clears everything up, please refrain from using 'a lot of people think' or 'the majority here believe' etc... when discussing any topic with me in the future.

- - - Updated - - -



Stander, VdF, Dillane and Bealham all debuted in the last 6nations, look at tomorrow's 23. Had we lost that game Schmidt lost his job, nothing ridiculous about picking your strongest 23 for a tier 1 test match.

So again because people disagree with you they wrong. Fair enough I will withdraw from argument. Guess it just me that see's people want Kearney dropped. Your trying to say my counter argument to this and that. I'm not even making an argument for anything just stating right or wrong. Alot want Kearney dropped. And you seem to take it personally in that because people don't rate him in way you do it drastically wrong. I pointed out 5 points and you have given essay back without saying is any wrong.

So I will ask 1 thing and answer yes or no?
Is there calls from alot of people across board questioning fullback position, regardless of what either of us think.

Like points 2-4 you've argued what you think is vital for a full back. I'd disagree with you. Doesn't mean your wrong or I am. Point 2 for example you've given a big long answer on why you think this structure is better etc. I don't agree it's best but again it seem your taking offence with fact I don't agree. And say majority etc. I'm not here trying to convince you your wrong as I said I just think Kearneyis a liability in team and holds us back a bit now. You disagree and thats fair enough.

But on original point it annoys you I've countered your points saying majority says etc.
It's a point because alot want Kearney dropped but possibly not for same reasons. I'm not even countering anyones point just stating it like this. If you did a poll and asked people to pick their irish 15. Would Kearney be in 60%+ of peoples team?
I'd say no. I may be wrong but that was my point

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

So again because people disagree with you they wrong. Fair enough I will withdraw from argument. Guess it just me that see's people want Kearney dropped. Your trying to say my counter argument to this and that. I'm not even making an argument for anything just stating right or wrong. Alot want Kearney dropped. And you seem to take it personally in that because people don't rate him in way you do it drastically wrong. I pointed out 5 points and you have given essay back without saying is any wrong.

So I will ask 1 thing and answer yes or no?
Is there calls from alot of people across board questioning fullback position, regardless of what either of us think

Where did I say people who disagreed with me were wrong? I said why I believe Kearney shouldn't be dropped and backed it up with analysis, this argument was between you and me so I don't care what other people think. You made two points and numbered 3 sentences that really had no meaning and I countered the points you made.

To answer your question, why does it matter in an argument between the two of us?

I think everything I've written has gone over your head to be honest.

 

[Groundhog]

O'Brien and Payne are both injury doubts so Scannell and O'Mahony have been pulled from Munster. Fully believe Scannell is capable of playing at this level if called upon.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Scannell-Ringrose, sexy enough. Schmidt obviously furious with Marshall's brainfarts against Canada.

 

[munstermuffin]

Where did I say people who disagreed with me were wrong? I said why I believe Kearney shouldn't be dropped and backed it up with analysis, this argument was between you and me so I don't care what other people think. You made two points and numbered 3 sentences that really had no meaning and I countered the points you made.

To answer your question, why does it matter in an argument between the two of us?

I think everything I've written has gone over your head to be honest.

But again I said I think he's a liability defensively and there's better options and that these options would serve team better as they'd offer more overall and that there is a large number of people who'd agree with me. You seemed to take offense despite me continuously saying it doesn't mean we right. Then you brought Schmidt argument in which I've never mentioned.
Also you said what has argument to do with it. Simplt because you decided to just argue that people who slam Kearney are wrong. 1 example being I think Kearney was at fault for 2 tries at least in Chicago and poor last week. You basically took it as I was saying your wrong as you disagreed. And when I said alot agreed with me you went on about majority this and that. Because I said aot agree with me.

Facts are this.
While you think Schmidt has blooded alot of guys greatly other will disagree as Amiga says it could've been forced.

While you think Kearney is best option. Alot will argue he's not even top 3.

Again you say alot of what you've wrote went over my head. It hasn't it's more I simply just don't agree.
I think Kearney is holding this team back being at 15 in defense and attack. You disagree and that fair enough