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

[Leonormous Boozer]

Argument - a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

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.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rug...e-to-be-assessed-ahead-of-australia-1.2882094

Hopefully, just precautionary. Lower limb tweaks per above article. It would be massive shame if we were denied SOB v Pocock.

 

[munstermuffin]

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

Couldn't call up Marshall due to playing tonight that is reason it's 2 Munster players called in.

Won't matter much as both are expected to pull through

 

[munstermuffin]

Argument - a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.

But can I ask where I tried argue with anyone. Simply offered an opinion and never once argued. You engaged on your own accord and not 1 point did I dispute with you. If so show me.

As I said you seem to have just wentbultra defensive. But I'd still like to see where my argument was. As you went to trouble of getting definition of it you should find examples easy here.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

But can I ask where I tried argue with anyone. Simply offered an opinion and never once argued. You engaged on your own accord and not 1 point did I dispute with you. If so show me

By offering contrasting views is how you entered the argument. An argument is not necessarily bad. Why are you on these boards if not to offer your opinion and back it up?

 

[munstermuffin]

By offering contrasting views is how you entered the argument. An argument is not necessarily bad. Why are you on these boards if not to offer your opinion and back it up?

Again I offered my own views and said I respect others may not agree and I not be right. And I backed up my reasons. But this board I come on to give an opinion not argue. But again I'm looking forward to you proving me wrong. Afterall it'd be a waste to show me a definition and get offended then not give me cause.

 

[corny]

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.

I don't accept that rationale at all tbh. You seem to be attributing a lot of value to things done poorly. You say Kearney is 'setting up a platform'...i call it simply getting tackled by the opposition and not making any ground. I can do that! Surely you can see there is nothing wrong with a player maybe finding a soft shoulder and getting over the advantage line. It doesn't affect the gameplan at all.

Also, the bit about not wanting to find space or break the line is ridiculous. Dan Carter can play a structured game, so can Andy Goode. You don't pick Goode because Carter can break the line and do special things. That in effect is what you're advocating here. Pick Kearney because he does certain things poorly...predictably poorly but still poorly.

Kearney chooses crap lines in attack btw, not decoy lines or runs for the good of the team. Chicago the exception....he is a poor runner who has little awareness when it comes to creating space (for himself and others), always has been. Like i said he is majestic under the high ball, has a good boot and is a very experienced player. He's not without value but others might offer a lot more.

Payne is 13 because Schmidt thinks he is a colossus defensively. He's right too. I can live with Payne at 13 tbh. Not enough credit is given to his work without the ball.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Again I offered my own views and said I respect others may not agree and I not be right. And I backed up my reasons. But this board I come on to give an opinion not argue. But again I'm looking forward to you proving me wrong. Afterall it'd be a waste to show me a definition and get offended then not give me cause.

If someone disagrees with your opinion do you not argue your point? Its obvious neither of us are passive enough to accept something we disagree with without evidence to back it up?!

Why do you think I'm offended by the way? What has happened is that i disagreed with you and have since been accused of getting offended when people disagree with me.

 

[munstermuffin]

If someone disagrees with your opinion do you not argue your point? Its obvious neither of us are passive enough to accept something we disagree with without evidence to back it up?!

Why do you think I'm offended by the way? What has happened is that i disagreed with you and have since been accused of getting offended when people disagree with me.

No not here because everyone see's positions different.
Now I'll ask this plain as day so as what I'm asking is going over you.
Where did I argue any point you made apart from offering points on why I think what I do.
Where did I massively disagree with you only state I respect your views and opinions accept you see it differently.
And when I said Kearney a poor tackler and that alot of people think he's past it. You tried to say x y z and majority are wrong. Isn't that kind of taking offence. If not I'm wrong and hold hands up there.
But I've not argued with anyone. And have asked you to show where I've simply said Alpha that point is a joke and your wrong etc. I'd even accept anything that doesn't clearly say it's my views

 

[profitius]

Kearney chooses crap lines in attack btw, not decoy lines or runs for the good of the team. Chicago the exception....he is a poor runner who has little awareness when it comes to creating space (for himself and others), always has been. Like i said he is majestic under the high ball, has a good boot and is a very experienced player. He's not without value but others might offer a lot more.

That sums him up. He has his good points but with ball in hand we have got much more dangerous players and its not like O'Halloran, Zebo and Payne are bad under the high ball either.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I don't accept that rationale at all tbh. You seem to be attributing a lot of value to things done poorly. You say Kearney is 'setting up a platform'...i call it simply getting tackled by the opposition and not making any ground. I can do that! Surely you can see there is nothing wrong with a player maybe finding a soft shoulder and getting over the advantage line. It doesn't affect the gameplan at all.

Look at our counter attack from a kick tomorrow, when Kearney receives the ball he'll have maybe one of Trimble and Earls with him, the rest of the team will be retreating, nothing wrong with that its how we set up defensively to put the oppositions halfbacks and midfield under immense pressure. It leaves Kearney with the option of trying to make something from nothing by going wide where the opposition have their most mobile players who'll attempt to force a turnover in a place where our retreating players are at their most spread out or back towards our pack and set up phase ball around the halfway line. Is that poor running or intelligent running? Its the same with him entering the line, he rarely does it as its not his strong point but when he does it'll be a hard out to in line when the backs are drifting a bit aimlessly, getting closer to the pack and getting over the gain line more often than not, poor or intelligent?

Also, the bit about not wanting to find space or break the line is ridiculous. Dan Carter can play a structured game, so can Andy Goode. You don't pick Goode because Carter can break the line and do special things. That in effect is what you're advocating here. Pick Kearney because he does certain things poorly...predictably poorly but still poorly.

Not a fair comparison whatsoever, it's more like trying to decide between RO'G and Carlos Spencer, one will break the line and do some great things but is liable to throw possession away, the other won't break the line but you can be sure he'll keep playing the game where the team needs to be playing it.

Kearney chooses crap lines in attack btw, not decoy lines or runs for the good of the team. Chicago the exception....he is a poor runner who has little awareness when it comes to creating space (for himself and others), always has been. Like i said he is majestic under the high ball, has a good boot and is a very experienced player. He's not without value but others might offer a lot more.

Again I disagree here, from 2009 until 2012 Kearney was a great attacker with the Lions, Ireland (at times) and Leinster, the difference between now and then is that rather than having 9's like Phillips and Reddan back when he could run he's had Murray and old Reddan, instead of backrows who follow play as closely as possible like Croft, Wallace, Jennings, younger Heaslip etc... he's had ball carriers and link players like O'Brien, current Heaslip, Ruddock, PO'M, instead of wings like Bowe, Williams, Fitzgerald, prime Isa, he's had older versions of Bowe and Isa, his brother, McFadden, Earls, Trimble etc... This obviously forces a different style of play because tries will have to be built rather than made from nothing and while his ball retention is second to none on this island I'll never be unhappy with his selection unless VdF, Gilroy and Luke McGrath somehow force their way into the starting XV.

Payne is 13 because Schmidt thinks he is a colossus defensively. He's right too. I can live with Payne at 13 tbh. Not enough credit is given to his work without the ball.

I agree with this and with our game built on ball retention and possession he should remain there and for all his attacking flair O'Halloran doen't have the basic defensive or aerial duties of a 15 down to knock Kearney just yet.

No not here because everyone see's positions different.
Now I'll ask this plain as day so as what I'm asking is going over you.
Where did I argue any point you made apart from offering points on why I think what I do.

That's arguing...

Where did I massively disagree with you only state I respect your views and opinions accept you see it differently.

When did I dismiss your opinion? I only offered reasons why I thought you were wrong.

And when I said Kearney a poor tackler and that alot of people think he's past it. You tried to say x y z and majority are wrong.

No I didn't...

 

[munstermuffin]

Offering points on why I think isn't arguing Alpha.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Offering points on why I think [something] isn't arguing Alpha.

It is by definition, not all arguments are hostile, aggressive or negative.

 

[munstermuffin]

It is by definition, not all arguments are hostile, aggressive or negative.

As I look back my original comments weren't even in reply to you. So like you replied to me and not once have I done anything remotely close to arguing. Then you throw definition of an argument up. Then when asked you go to clutching at straws a bit man. Come on seriously is that all you've got. As I said you might not agree but it opinions. You made comments there about Irelands counter tomorrow and Kearney. It may be correct but I 100% disagree with him being vital. Doesn't mean I'm right or that's an argument. And to back it up I simply believe others can fulfil that just as good and offer more elsewhere

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I agree 100%. I think in time Payne or TOH will oust Kearney. Some will disagree but I think he's done at this level. Marshall probably set himself back but future is Ringrose and Henshaw but 3 lads you mentioned are serious contenders too.

Biggest issue with PJ is he has thrown few intercept passes lately and Aus can hurt us if they get 1. But equally I think he's a very good guy to mix it and isn't afraid to step up. It's 100% correct call to start him. Carberry vs Quade in last 20 would be some crack though

You give your opinion.

Done at this level... Is that from Saturday onwards?

I disagree and ask for clarification, a sarcastic tone but that's just me.

You might not agree but he was at cause of few tries in Chicago and yes played well that game but 1 game doesn't change everything.
.

You offer your reason, one game not changing everything, as to why he shouldn't be playing at this level. This is the start of the argument which continued down this utterly ridiculous path.

 

[munstermuffin]

You give your opinion.

I disagree and ask for clarification, a sarcastic tone but that's just me.

You offer your reason, one game not changing everything, as to why he shouldn't be playing at this level. This is the start of the argument which continued down this utterly ridiculous path.

I answered my reasons with answer despite sarcasm and even say I accept you might not agree.
So again man you may have tried been sarcastic when you pur up a definition of argument. Now you've backtracked to a "technically arguing". All I'm asking is simply what the point is. Like can you accept alot of people don't think Kearney should be 15 despite what your saying and no need to keep digging.
As I said I answered you but never engaged so try again.

 

[munstermuffin]

And to pur simply I won't go back and forth over this. As I said I wasn't arguing and people can make up their own minds on it. But if you think I engaged in arguing and that fair enough.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

What's an argument muff?

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Bloody hell you Irish fans can start a fight in a phone box.

 

[munstermuffin]

What's an argument muff?

Being honest I'd consider full out trying to convince other person they're wrong.
But again I wasn't in it. As I said Alpha I respect your views and while I disagree massively on Kearney your a good poster.
So again I'll let people just view it as they will