Tour to NZ 2022

[wixfjord]

Who is the powerful scrummaging hooker that we're not selecting?

Who is the test level TH lock that we're not selecting?

[OTT]

*** Edited by mod ***

[munster#1]

Who is the powerful scrummaging hooker that we're not selecting?

Who is the test level TH lock that we're not selecting?

It’s not a case that we are not selecting particular players, as that would just be an opinions based discussion that would likely end in a childish disagreement.

I’m thinking more at a core level, that we don’t look to develop them.

If you are selecting hookers based on their ability to play a highly mobile game, and are advising hookers on the periphery that that is what you want from your hookers, then our limited pool of hookers will concentrate on developing that aspect of their game in lieu of bulking up to be a powerful scrummager.

Same with Locks. None of our locks are particularly short, or notably shorter than most international locks, but we want them to be highly mobile, which means none of them are going to look to bulk up to, let’s say 125-130kg

By creating a culture to select players to play a certain way, it encourages young players, established players and potentially coaches to become/create a round peg to fit that round hole.

Have you an alternative view?

[wixfjord]

Who is the powerful scrummaging hooker that we're not selecting?

Who is the test level TH lock that we're not selecting?

It’s not a case that we are not selecting particular players, as that would just be an opinions based discussion that would likely end in a childish disagreement.

I’m thinking more at a core level, that we don’t look to develop them.

If you are selecting hookers based on their ability to play a highly mobile game, and are advising hookers on the periphery that that is what you want from your hookers, then our limited pool of hookers will concentrate on developing that aspect of their game in lieu of bulking up to be a powerful scrummager.

Same with Locks. None of our locks are particularly short, or notably shorter than most international locks, but we want them to be highly mobile, which means none of them are going to look to bulk up to, let’s say 125-130kg

By creating a culture to select players to play a certain way, it encourages young players, established players and potentially coaches to become/create a round peg to fit that round hole.

Have you an alternative view?

So what's the point in saying 'we select hookers who are underpowered' and we should sacrifice mobility at hooker & TH if there's not a player with that criteria to slot in?

You could easily bring in Niall Scannell and John Kleyn to that 23 in the morning. Bigger, more set piece oriented players.

I don't think anyone in their right mind believes that that selection choice would improve the team or bring us closer to beating NZ away from home.

It's a moot point.

You have to work with the playing pool you have and make the most from them, which is why Farrell has purposefully gone down the route of skilled, athletic forwards who can handle and interact with backs over the last 12 months.

This has reaped rewards.

The emergence of Kelleher/Sheehan, the move of Porter and the selection of Doris in particular, along with JGP, Lowe, Hansen in the backline have allowed Ireland play a far more attack oriented game, get more power into the team and avoid reliance on 1-2 players to do all the carrying, as was the case at the end of the Schmidt era.

People complained that we were too one dimensional and Farrell has changed the team around to now be more attack minded and offload oriented.

A retrenchment to a less attacking, more forward/set piece based game bringing in forwards who aren't as skillful and are picked on size is a backwards step.

We need to tighten up our scrum and lineout a lot. That should come from our forwards coach improving the high calibre of players that are in the 23.

But also, Porter, Kelleher, Furlong, Beirne/Ryan, Henderson, Doris, VDF, Conan/Coombes is about as powerful a front 5 as you could hope for.

Dan Sheehan is 17 and a half stone. He certainly doesn't need 'bulking up'.

[munster#1]

Who is the powerful scrummaging hooker that we're not selecting?

Who is the test level TH lock that we're not selecting?

It’s not a case that we are not selecting particular players, as that would just be an opinions based discussion that would likely end in a childish disagreement.

I’m thinking more at a core level, that we don’t look to develop them.

If you are selecting hookers based on their ability to play a highly mobile game, and are advising hookers on the periphery that that is what you want from your hookers, then our limited pool of hookers will concentrate on developing that aspect of their game in lieu of bulking up to be a powerful scrummager.

Same with Locks. None of our locks are particularly short, or notably shorter than most international locks, but we want them to be highly mobile, which means none of them are going to look to bulk up to, let’s say 125-130kg

By creating a culture to select players to play a certain way, it encourages young players, established players and potentially coaches to become/create a round peg to fit that round hole.

Have you an alternative view?

So what's the point in saying 'we select hookers who are underpowered' and we should sacrifice mobility at hooker & TH if there's not a player with that criteria to slot in?

You could easily bring in Niall Scannell and John Kleyn to that 23 in the morning. Bigger, more set piece oriented players.

I don't think anyone in their right mind believes that that selection choice would improve the team or bring us closer to beating NZ away from home.

It's a moot point.

You have to work with the playing pool you have and make the most from them, which is why Farrell has purposefully gone down the route of skilled, athletic forwards who can handle and interact with backs over the last 12 months.

This has reaped rewards.

The emergence of Kelleher/Sheehan, the move of Porter and the selection of Doris in particular, along with JGP, Lowe, Hansen in the backline have allowed Ireland play a far more attack oriented game, get more power into the team and avoid reliance on 1-2 players to do all the carrying, as was the case at the end of the Schmidt era.

People complained that we were too one dimensional and Farrell has changed the team around to now be more attack minded and offload oriented.

A retrenchment to a less attacking, more forward/set piece based game bringing in forwards who aren't as skillful and are picked on size is a backwards step.

We need to tighten up our scrum and lineout a lot. That should come from our forwards coach improving the high calibre of players that are in the 23.

But also, Porter, Kelleher, Furlong, Beirne/Ryan, Henderson, Doris, VDF, Conan/Coombes is about as powerful a front 5 as you could hope for.

Dan Sheehan is 17 and a half stone. He certainly doesn't need 'bulking up'.

Well I am just making a counter to the argument that our issues lie with our props, which I don’t see as the issue.

It may be viewed as a backward step by some to have our Hookers and TH locks bulk up which will likely have a negative impact on their mobility, but it would be far from a negative backwards step imo.

If a team does not have a strong platform to attack from, such as lineout and scrum, then all of the skill in the world will be nullified as you end up either with slow sloppy ball, you end up getting turned over, or you get pinged for penalties.

Schmidt was brilliant at getting the balance, he selected the likes of Best and Scannell at hooker, as they did the nuts and bolts of their position well, but we’re nowhere near the level of Sheehan or Kelleher in the loose.

He was also fond of bringing in TH locks who could hold up a scrum, while also not being great around the park.

The game continuously evolves, but one constant is that a team needs to be able to compete up front if they want to earn the right to throw the ball around.

[suisse]

I thinn it will be bitterly disappointing if Sexton starts on Saturday. I'm not a doctor and I don't know Sexton's medical history. I also don't think it is Farrell's job to stand down players he's entitled to select because the HIA 1,2 and 3 rules are silly.

But if Sexton starts then there's no point ever calling up other 10s again. Have a 6-2 split with a SH and OB as subs. There is no faith or confidence in the other players. The result is a foregone conclusion. Ireland are going to lose. Does Sexton have to play?

[Oldschoolsocks]

Who is the powerful scrummaging hooker that we're not selecting?

Who is the test level TH lock that we're not selecting?

It’s not a case that we are not selecting particular players, as that would just be an opinions based discussion that would likely end in a childish disagreement.

I’m thinking more at a core level, that we don’t look to develop them.

If you are selecting hookers based on their ability to play a highly mobile game, and are advising hookers on the periphery that that is what you want from your hookers, then our limited pool of hookers will concentrate on developing that aspect of their game in lieu of bulking up to be a powerful scrummager.

Same with Locks. None of our locks are particularly short, or notably shorter than most international locks, but we want them to be highly mobile, which means none of them are going to look to bulk up to, let’s say 125-130kg

By creating a culture to select players to play a certain way, it encourages young players, established players and potentially coaches to become/create a round peg to fit that round hole.

Have you an alternative view?

So what's the point in saying 'we select hookers who are underpowered' and we should sacrifice mobility at hooker & TH if there's not a player with that criteria to slot in?

You could easily bring in Niall Scannell and John Kleyn to that 23 in the morning. Bigger, more set piece oriented players.

I don't think anyone in their right mind believes that that selection choice would improve the team or bring us closer to beating NZ away from home.

It's a moot point.

You have to work with the playing pool you have and make the most from them, which is why Farrell has purposefully gone down the route of skilled, athletic forwards who can handle and interact with backs over the last 12 months.

This has reaped rewards.

The emergence of Kelleher/Sheehan, the move of Porter and the selection of Doris in particular, along with JGP, Lowe, Hansen in the backline have allowed Ireland play a far more attack oriented game, get more power into the team and avoid reliance on 1-2 players to do all the carrying, as was the case at the end of the Schmidt era.

People complained that we were too one dimensional and Farrell has changed the team around to now be more attack minded and offload oriented.

A retrenchment to a less attacking, more forward/set piece based game bringing in forwards who aren't as skillful and are picked on size is a backwards step.

We need to tighten up our scrum and lineout a lot. That should come from our forwards coach improving the high calibre of players that are in the 23.

But also, Porter, Kelleher, Furlong, Beirne/Ryan, Henderson, Doris, VDF, Conan/Coombes is about as powerful a front 5 as you could hope for.

Dan Sheehan is 17 and a half stone. He certainly doesn't need 'bulking up'.

Watched moneyball the other night, imho this is the approach that Farrell is taking.

Why are we picking this guy? Because he gets over the gainline

[ronk]

So what's the point in saying 'we select hookers who are underpowered' and we should sacrifice mobility at hooker & TH if there's not a player with that criteria to slot in?

You could easily bring in Niall Scannell and John Kleyn to that 23 in the morning. Bigger, more set piece oriented players.

I don't think anyone in their right mind believes that that selection choice would improve the team or bring us closer to beating NZ away from home.

It's a moot point.

Maybe view it as it's the right and sensible selection, but it feels wrong and would be wrong if it wasn't actually right in this case.

[ronk]

Watched moneyball the other night, imho this is the approach that Farrell is taking.

Why are we picking this guy? Because he gets over the gainline

Sheehan is obviously a stand out player, even to people who don't like him. He's not moneyball.

Moneyball would be about someone like Molony or Ross Byrne. Looks like they're not good enough but are actually highly effective players who are underrated by people who rate the type of athleticism that Dan has.

It's a wider conversation with Sheehan that highly inopportune right now with 2 of the top 3 hookers in Ireland out.

Before the tour I felt that the 4th place hooker was so far back that there was no point in development/tour minutes.

[riocard911]

Whitelock - failed HIA - and his replacement second row - Covid - both out for this Saturday's match:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/all-bl ... 1656976542

[the spoofer]

I listened to the Molecast at lunchtime. It was the one from the morning of the Maori game. They really should be getting a wider audience as the provide more insight into Irish rugby than the talking heads on the other podcasts that are floating around.

Then again, they would have to dop the "fuc.s"

[allezlesverres]

You could easily bring in Niall Scannell and John Kleyn to that 23 in the morning. Bigger, more set piece oriented players.

I don't think anyone in their right mind believes that that selection choice would improve the team or bring us closer to beating NZ away from home.

I agree completely with Munster#1 about the lack of focus on the role of the rest of the pack in Ireland's recent poor scrummaging. We have 2 excellent, truly world class props and we should be competitive if not dominant at scrum time when they are both on the pitch. I don't think the reason we are struggling is down to the props. I agree with Munster #1 that part of it is a Hooker issue and a very big part of it is in the second row. Dealing with the Hooker point first, I think Sheehan's game in the loose is outstanding but he isn't as strong a scrummager as eg Scannell. I'd still pick Sheehan, but you just have to accept your scrum being weaker is part of the cost of getting the best in other areas of the pitch.

The bigger issue is second row. Ryan is a decent scrummaging lock (he isn't as powerful as Henderson, or i think Toner) but is not a one man powerhouse. He can't compensate for the lack of power coming through on Beirne's side. Beirne just isn't an international standard lock in scrummaging terms. He is a 4/6 hybrid (better at 6 for my money) but isn't specialised in either position. Don't get me wrong, I think Beirne is brilliant and I'd be trying to find a way to get him in the team, but the cost of having him at lock is that the scrum (and maul) are that bit weaker.

I think the problem we are seeing is that we have a combination of weaker scrummaging options and when you put them all in the same pack, we can't compensate for them all.

For my money, I'd stick with Sheehan - he will come into his own in the scrum with time (Rory Best's best scrummaging came much later in his career).

In the second row, I don't think Kleyn is the answer - but that doesn't mean it isn't the right question. Schmidt identified the problem in the last world cup cycle and whilst the Kleyn experiment didn't work, I think Schmidt was right about it being a weak point in the scrum.

[paddyor]

I think the problem is clearly porter at LH. That’s when things started to go very wrong. There’s blood in the water now and teams are trying all sorts and not always getting called on it. Priso got caught in the HCC final for eg.

[ronk]

Schmidt was brilliant at getting the balance, he selected the likes of Best and Scannell at hooker, as they did the nuts and bolts of their position well, but we’re nowhere near the level of Sheehan or Kelleher in the loose.

He was also fond of bringing in TH locks who could hold up a scrum, while also not being great around the park.

The game continuously evolves, but one constant is that a team needs to be able to compete up front if they want to earn the right to throw the ball around.

Schmidt picked Cronin, a lot. He picked Best because he was a damn good rugby player. If he had Kelleher and Sheehan available he'd pick them, maybe not ahead of Best at his peak.

If Kelleher were fully fit, he'd probably have started. If Henderson had been fit then he might have looked at Beirne at 6 or off the bench.

Ireland's gameplan is built around having players comfortable on the ball in every position, or nearly every position if we have to settle for that. We can't afford to give that up easily.

[ronk]

I think the problem is clearly porter at LH. That’s when things started to go very wrong. There’s blood in the water now and teams are trying all sorts and not always getting called on it. Priso got caught in the HCC final for eg.

Or it's Ronan Kelleher. Injured early against France and La Rochelle (the only 2 games he lost this season), out against England.

Sheehan is young. He's been good for us but he's still a bit raw to be carrying the load with other hookers out.

[wixfjord]

You could easily bring in Niall Scannell and John Kleyn to that 23 in the morning. Bigger, more set piece oriented players.

I don't think anyone in their right mind believes that that selection choice would improve the team or bring us closer to beating NZ away from home.

I agree completely with Munster#1 about the lack of focus on the role of the rest of the pack in Ireland's recent poor scrummaging. We have 2 excellent, truly world class props and we should be competitive if not dominant at scrum time when they are both on the pitch. I don't think the reason we are struggling is down to the props. I agree with Munster #1 that part of it is a Hooker issue and a very big part of it is in the second row. Dealing with the Hooker point first, I think Sheehan's game in the loose is outstanding but he isn't as strong a scrummager as eg Scannell. I'd still pick Sheehan, but you just have to accept your scrum being weaker is part of the cost of getting the best in other areas of the pitch.

The bigger issue is second row. Ryan is a decent scrummaging lock (he isn't as powerful as Henderson, or i think Toner) but is not a one man powerhouse. He can't compensate for the lack of power coming through on Beirne's side. Beirne just isn't an international standard lock in scrummaging terms. He is a 4/6 hybrid (better at 6 for my money) but isn't specialised in either position. Don't get me wrong, I think Beirne is brilliant and I'd be trying to find a way to get him in the team, but the cost of having him at lock is that the scrum (and maul) are that bit weaker.

I think the problem we are seeing is that we have a combination of weaker scrummaging options and when you put them all in the same pack, we can't compensate for them all.

For my money, I'd stick with Sheehan - he will come into his own in the scrum with time (Rory Best's best scrummaging came much later in his career).

In the second row, I don't think Kleyn is the answer - but that doesn't mean it isn't the right question. Schmidt identified the problem in the last world cup cycle and whilst the Kleyn experiment didn't work, I think Schmidt was right about it being a weak point in the scrum.

But that's what I've said too.

We clearly would benefit from a strong scrummaging hooker and a 22 stone at #5.

Unfortunately Irish rugby doesn't have that currently.

What we do have is two absolutely brilliant young hookers and Iain Henderson.

So the focus should be on mitigating scrum & lineout issues (lineout in particular should be well capable of being fixed) and continuing to hone our attacking game which has caused problems for some of the best teams in the world in the last 12 months NOT trying to throw out the approach which we've been building and therefore disimproving our overall attacking threat.

[wixfjord]

So what's the point in saying 'we select hookers who are underpowered' and we should sacrifice mobility at hooker & TH if there's not a player with that criteria to slot in?

You could easily bring in Niall Scannell and John Kleyn to that 23 in the morning. Bigger, more set piece oriented players.

I don't think anyone in their right mind believes that that selection choice would improve the team or bring us closer to beating NZ away from home.

It's a moot point.

Maybe view it as it's the right and sensible selection, but it feels wrong and would be wrong if it wasn't actually right in this case.

That's some mad hatter riddle sh!t right there! What exactly does that mean in English?

[wixfjord]

Well I am just making a counter to the argument that our issues lie with our props, which I don’t see as the issue.

It may be viewed as a backward step by some to have our Hookers and TH locks bulk up which will likely have a negative impact on their mobility, but it would be far from a negative backwards step imo.

If a team does not have a strong platform to attack from, such as lineout and scrum, then all of the skill in the world will be nullified as you end up either with slow sloppy ball, you end up getting turned over, or you get pinged for penalties.

Schmidt was brilliant at getting the balance, he selected the likes of Best and Scannell at hooker, as they did the nuts and bolts of their position well, but we’re nowhere near the level of Sheehan or Kelleher in the loose.

He was also fond of bringing in TH locks who could hold up a scrum, while also not being great around the park.

The game continuously evolves, but one constant is that a team needs to be able to compete up front if they want to earn the right to throw the ball around.

So again, simple question - who do you bring in at hooker and TH lock at the moment to improve this?

[munster#1]

Well I am just making a counter to the argument that our issues lie with our props, which I don’t see as the issue.

It may be viewed as a backward step by some to have our Hookers and TH locks bulk up which will likely have a negative impact on their mobility, but it would be far from a negative backwards step imo.

If a team does not have a strong platform to attack from, such as lineout and scrum, then all of the skill in the world will be nullified as you end up either with slow sloppy ball, you end up getting turned over, or you get pinged for penalties.

Schmidt was brilliant at getting the balance, he selected the likes of Best and Scannell at hooker, as they did the nuts and bolts of their position well, but we’re nowhere near the level of Sheehan or Kelleher in the loose.

He was also fond of bringing in TH locks who could hold up a scrum, while also not being great around the park.

The game continuously evolves, but one constant is that a team needs to be able to compete up front if they want to earn the right to throw the ball around.

So again, simple question - who do you bring in at hooker and TH lock at the moment to improve this?

That is a simple question, and one that I would be more than happy to engage with you on were we having a pint.
But unfortunately I know better than provide an answer to a question like that on here, as I would risk far worse comments than the one that OTT has already directed towards me for just posting in this thread.

[Flash Gordon]

Interesting conversation but I'm not sure it's the right one. We are quite deliberately playing a fast paced game requiring high skill levels. We are deliberately and choicefully not playing a saffer style physical game because we can't do it as well as South Africa. This is the way Leinster play and it's the game plan Ireland have been working since last summer - it's the one that brought us a clean sweep in the Autumn. Similarly, it was the game plan that had the All Blacks on the rack in the first quester till we made 2 or 3 executional errors in the game plan and gifted them the match.

That doesn't mean the game plan was wrong it means that the execution of the game plan was poor. It was pretty clear that the All Blacks were worried about us because of the way they had seen us play previously. You bring in a big scrummaging hooker, props and locks and you will struggle to play that game plan. Yes we lost 3 scrums but so did the All Blacks - the scrum wasn't thee reason we lost the game, we had possession and territory the primary issue was what we did with the ball and to be honest most of those issues were in the backline. Similarly for Leinster the scrum wasn't the reason we lost to La Rochelle or why we didn't with the URC.

I'm hoping that we use the rest of the series to work on the tactical direction we have been working over the last year, the direction that fairly comfortably beat the All Blacks last Autumn.