Tour to NZ 2022

[leinsterforever]

I can't get on board with your reading of it, Dave. I was looking at Regulation 8. A player has to be eligible to represent "the senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team, the next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team and the senior National Representative Sevens Team of the Union".

This team that's on tour is the senior fifteen-a-side National Representative team of the Irish Union. So to be selected to represent the team a player must be Irish eligible.

[leinsterforever]

The Maori can select whoever they like. They're not the senior, 2nd or 7s representative team of a union.

[ronk]

And we can select who we like to play the Maori but we can't bring an ineligible player on tour.

[leinsterforever]

Tho opposition dictates whether or not someone is captured by facing them. Their status doesn't mean eligibility rules can be thrown out of the window by a senior or second representative team of a union.

[Dave Cahill]

I can't get on board with your reading of it, Dave. I was looking at Regulation 8. A player has to be eligible to represent "the senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team, the next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team and the senior National Representative Sevens Team of the Union".

This team that's on tour is the senior fifteen-a-side National Representative team of the Irish Union. So to be selected to represent the team a player must be Irish eligible.

I know what you're saying, and you're 100% right, but the Maori all blacks are not a representative team - they're an invitational side, so you can choose to give the game as much weight or not as you like. Now, I would consider the Maori All Blacks to be an international side and I would cap players who play against them and as such I'd stick with Regulation 8. But thats a matter of choice. For example, MAB aren't covered by regulation 9 - player release (confirmed in 2016 when Eagles played them the day before we beat the All Blacks and the Eagles were unable to secure player release because exhibition games aren't covered by the regulation and ultimately thats what all games involving invitational sides are)

[ronk]

I think you need to be more realistic about where Healy's game is at the moment. Clearly we would have had his decline in mind when moving Porter across and the Leinster coaches didn't put him on until the dying moments of the game on Friday even though Porter was hardly ripping up any trees. He's gone from being first choice for Ireland to not even being trusted off the bench for his club when it matters.

I think we just flat out disagree. I'm talking about the Cian Healy who played 25 games this season (6 tries) including 7 internationals and starts in March against England and Scotland.

I like Loughman, I've been as positive about him as maybe anyone on this board. He's uncapped and a little bit lucky to be on the tour. He's not Ireland's number 2 loosehead.

I'm not talking up Loughman btw. Maybe that's a moot point because there aren't many options but I don't think he's demanding the jersey, the problem is I don't think Healy is either.

I don't really think appearances is something that justifies you backing Healy. For a start, how did the scrum go in that start against England? Secondly, would you use appearances as a reason to pick Joey? He's one of my favourite players but Healy's decline is undeniable unfortunately. Personally I don't think there's much chance he'll make the World Cup and don't really think he'll be in the first choice 23 for Leinster by the end of next season. I'd love if he proves me wrong but you'd have to be blind not to see that as being a possibility based on the last few months. You can be as optimistic as you like but the reluctance to bring him on last Friday spoke volumes.

You used gametime to support saying he shouldn't be on the tour though.

How often he's been selected, who he's been picked ahead of and by who he's been picked fit with a declining but useful player, not someone whose form has fallen off a cliff.

Leo left Toner out, Cronin got in due to injuries but wasn't used much. Leo wasn't sentimental this season and he had good alternatives to Healy. He just didn't pick them.

His limited gametime behind Porter shows that there's a gap between Healy and Porter. But he's been picked ahead of everyone else too.

Joey is an exceptionally bad example of selection on form. Healy is the opposite, there's no political argument for picking him. He doesn't even have a central contract.

If you're right and Healy is in a decline that will see him drop out of the Leinster 23, it's still the right call to bring him now. This is an important tour.

If Loughman had still been available for Leinster last weekend I still would have picked Healy. Right now I'd still have Byrne ahead of him and I think Faz would too. But Faz is giving Loughman a shot at making the next step. And the next step is Byrne, not Healy.

[leinsterforever]

I can't get on board with your reading of it, Dave. I was looking at Regulation 8. A player has to be eligible to represent "the senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team, the next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team and the senior National Representative Sevens Team of the Union".

This team that's on tour is the senior fifteen-a-side National Representative team of the Irish Union. So to be selected to represent the team a player must be Irish eligible.

I know what you're saying, and you're 100% right, but the Maori all blacks are not a representative team - they're an invitational side, so you can choose to give the game as much weight or not as you like. Now, I would consider the Maori All Blacks to be an international side and I would cap players who play against them and as such I'd stick with Regulation 8. But thats a matter of choice. For example, MAB aren't covered by regulation 9 - player release (confirmed in 2016 when Eagles played them the day before we beat the All Blacks and the Eagles were unable to secure player release because exhibition games aren't covered by the regulation and ultimately thats what all games involving invitational sides are)

But do the opposition even come into it as regards eligibility for your team? We could say it's not the senior representative side of the IRFU versus the ABs as well then, and select whoever we want against them too, no?

[Dave Cahill]

But do the opposition even come into it as regards eligibility for your team? We could say it's not the senior representative side of the IRFU versus the ABs as well then, and select whoever we want against them too, no?

The opposition definitely come into it - WR sanctions these games according to a global schedule - there is also a list of the teams that when they (or their next senior teams) play each other are considered to be official matches. The list is basically all the affiliated unions, their next senior teams, the Lions and (bizarrely) the PIRA team.

Yes, we could call it an Ireland XV or Combined Provinces or Emerging Ireland - all of these have been used in the past. I doubt the ABs would be best pleased though! Nor indeed would they be pleased if we didn't put out a representative-y team against the MAB. I'm not suggesting we would, or should - just that if we really really wanted to, we could within the regulations.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

You used gametime to support saying he shouldn't be on the tour though.

How often he's been selected, who he's been picked ahead of and by who he's been picked fit with a declining but useful player, not someone whose form has fallen off a cliff.

Leo left Toner out, Cronin got in due to injuries but wasn't used much. Leo wasn't sentimental this season and he had good alternatives to Healy. He just didn't pick them.

His limited gametime behind Porter shows that there's a gap between Healy and Porter. But he's been picked ahead of everyone else too.

Joey is an exceptionally bad example of selection on form. Healy is the opposite, there's no political argument for picking him. He doesn't even have a central contract.

If you're right and Healy is in a decline that will see him drop out of the Leinster 23, it's still the right call to bring him now. This is an important tour.

If Loughman had still been available for Leinster last weekend I still would have picked Healy. Right now I'd still have Byrne ahead of him and I think Faz would too. But Faz is giving Loughman a shot at making the next step. And the next step is Byrne, not Healy.

Can you point me in the direction of where I said he shouldn't be on the tour?

I'm not actually sure if you're taking the piss or not with that first sentence but I'll take it in good faith for the moment and just repeat that the reluctance to bring him on is an indication of his decline, and that's backed up by what I've seen from him. How would you actually explain it otherwise? It's Cian Healy, at any other stage (even when he was carrying his injury circa 2014/15?) in the last 15 years he would have got more time off the bench than he did last Friday. What has changed recently other than form? If you can think of another reason why he didn't then please share.

We clearly see, or want to see, different things and I don't want to hammer the guy so won't go on about it. He's an all time great and I hope he comes back strong next season.

[hugonaut]

The list is basically all the affiliated unions, their next senior teams, the Lions and (bizarrely) the PIRA team.

I thought the PIRA team had been decommissioned?

Ba-dum tish!

I'm here all day, ladies and gents.

[ronk]

Loughman is in the Ireland squad.

Are the people who were suggesting that Healy be left at home seriously considering that Loughman should be 17 for the NZ tests?

I think you need to be more realistic about where Healy's game is at the moment. Clearly we would have had his decline in mind when moving Porter across and the Leinster coaches didn't put him on until the dying moments of the game on Friday even though Porter was hardly ripping up any trees. He's gone from being first choice for Ireland to not even being trusted off the bench for his club when it matters.

Several posters did it earlier. And you did it here when you called me unrealistic in response to me disagreeing with people who said he shouldn't have toured.

[ronk]

I don't really think appearances is something that justifies you backing Healy.

And here...

[ronk]

You used gametime to support saying he shouldn't be on the tour though.

How often he's been selected, who he's been picked ahead of and by who he's been picked fit with a declining but useful player, not someone whose form has fallen off a cliff.

Leo left Toner out, Cronin got in due to injuries but wasn't used much. Leo wasn't sentimental this season and he had good alternatives to Healy. He just didn't pick them.

His limited gametime behind Porter shows that there's a gap between Healy and Porter. But he's been picked ahead of everyone else too.

Joey is an exceptionally bad example of selection on form. Healy is the opposite, there's no political argument for picking him. He doesn't even have a central contract.

If you're right and Healy is in a decline that will see him drop out of the Leinster 23, it's still the right call to bring him now. This is an important tour.

If Loughman had still been available for Leinster last weekend I still would have picked Healy. Right now I'd still have Byrne ahead of him and I think Faz would too. But Faz is giving Loughman a shot at making the next step. And the next step is Byrne, not Healy.

Can you point me in the direction of where I said he shouldn't be on the tour?

I'm not actually sure if you're taking the piss or not with that first sentence but I'll take it in good faith for the moment and just repeat that the reluctance to bring him on is an indication of his decline, and that's backed up by what I've seen from him. How would you actually explain it otherwise? It's Cian Healy, at any other stage (even when he was carrying his injury circa 2014/15?) in the last 15 years he would have got more time off the bench than he did last Friday. What has changed recently other than form? If you can think of another reason why he didn't then please share.

We clearly see, or want to see, different things and I don't want to hammer the guy so won't go on about it. He's an all time great and I hope he comes back strong next season.

And here's you saying that you're repeating it in the same post where you imply that you didn't say it.

You asked, I'm not having a go at anyone.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

You used gametime to support saying he shouldn't be on the tour though.

How often he's been selected, who he's been picked ahead of and by who he's been picked fit with a declining but useful player, not someone whose form has fallen off a cliff.

Leo left Toner out, Cronin got in due to injuries but wasn't used much. Leo wasn't sentimental this season and he had good alternatives to Healy. He just didn't pick them.

His limited gametime behind Porter shows that there's a gap between Healy and Porter. But he's been picked ahead of everyone else too.

Joey is an exceptionally bad example of selection on form. Healy is the opposite, there's no political argument for picking him. He doesn't even have a central contract.

If you're right and Healy is in a decline that will see him drop out of the Leinster 23, it's still the right call to bring him now. This is an important tour.

If Loughman had still been available for Leinster last weekend I still would have picked Healy. Right now I'd still have Byrne ahead of him and I think Faz would too. But Faz is giving Loughman a shot at making the next step. And the next step is Byrne, not Healy.

Can you point me in the direction of where I said he shouldn't be on the tour?

I'm not actually sure if you're taking the piss or not with that first sentence but I'll take it in good faith for the moment and just repeat that the reluctance to bring him on is an indication of his decline, and that's backed up by what I've seen from him. How would you actually explain it otherwise? It's Cian Healy, at any other stage (even when he was carrying his injury circa 2014/15?) in the last 15 years he would have got more time off the bench than he did last Friday. What has changed recently other than form? If you can think of another reason why he didn't then please share.

We clearly see, or want to see, different things and I don't want to hammer the guy so won't go on about it. He's an all time great and I hope he comes back strong next season.

And here's you saying that you're repeating it in the same post where you imply that you didn't say it.

You asked, I'm not having a go at anyone.

Honestly one of the craziest posts I’ve ever replied to…read the next word after the bolded part…

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I don't really think appearances is something that justifies you backing Healy.

And here...

You can back him for selection and still see that he’s declining. They aren’t mutually exclusive.

[ronk]

Can you point me in the direction of where I said he shouldn't be on the tour?

I'm not actually sure if you're taking the piss or not with that first sentence but I'll take it in good faith for the moment and just repeat that the reluctance to bring him on is an indication of his decline,
...
Honestly one of the craziest posts I’ve ever replied to…read the next word after the bolded part…

"On". I'm familiar with that word. And it matches the context of "on" in the earlier paragraph and in the actual discussion. Now maybe that's not the meaning you intended to convey, but that doesn't make anyone who disagrees with you crazy and frankly I think it's beneath you to take such an extreme tone. It's surprising and disappointing, but the worst thing is the topic that animated you thus.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Can you point me in the direction of where I said he shouldn't be on the tour?

I'm not actually sure if you're taking the piss or not with that first sentence but I'll take it in good faith for the moment and just repeat that the reluctance to bring him on is an indication of his decline,
...
Honestly one of the craziest posts I’ve ever replied to…read the next word after the bolded part…

"On". I'm familiar with that word. And it matches the context of "on" in the earlier paragraph and in the actual discussion. Now maybe that's not the meaning you intended to convey, but that doesn't make anyone who disagrees with you crazy and frankly I think it's beneath you to take such an extreme tone. It's surprising and disappointing, but the worst thing is the topic that animated you thus.

The topic hasn’t animated me at all but the tabloidesque partial quoting and the need to clarify something as clear as that post was just extremely tedious.

I’d rather have been debating the reasons other than his decline that Healy didn’t come on earlier but I note that you still haven’t offered one.

Anyway, no point carrying this on and you’re right I didn’t need to be a dick about it so apologies.

[desperado]

Was fairly happy with the squad till someone pointed out that Doak wasn't there .
Faz obviously see's something in HB, he certainly not there on form. He's put a line through the names of RB and Burns and he's right too. They are not international level and lets face it, apart from Johnny, no one is. Pretty soon we'll have to get by, for the first time this century without a top 10.
That's why I'm suprised Doak isn't there. His game can take presure and decision making off the 10s.

HB will come good. If he stays injury free.

[ronk]

The topic hasn’t animated me at all but the tabloidesque partial quoting and the need to clarify something as clear as that post was just extremely tedious.

I’d rather have been debating the reasons other than his decline that Healy didn’t come on earlier but I note that you still haven’t offered one.

Anyway, no point carrying this on and you’re right I didn’t need to be a dick about it so apologies.

It's been an emotional few weeks. Apology accepted. Healy has declined, I see that. His gametime shrunk in the big games almost as soon as Porter moved (after moving back to loosehead). He got 5 minutes against NZ, 8 minutes against France. Porter is an unusually mobile prop with a good engine.

Healy is the 2nd best loosehead in Ireland, based on his form this season. How much he's declined (more than we all would like) isn't as relevant as the fact that he's still the 2nd best loosehead. The 3rd choice is injured. There are plenty of candidates for 4th choice, I think Byrne is locked in. Multiple posters lost sight of that and suggested that Healy shouldn't have been selected for the tour at all.

Healy probably should have come on earlier than 2 minutes to go against the Bulls. He got 18 minutes against La Rochelle and 25 against Glasgow. Cronin didn't get on at all and Ruddock got 11 minutes and yet he played well for 141 minutes touring the Sharks and the Stormers.

Scoring 6 tries for the season is a hint that he's still contributing in open play.

Maybe next season the situation will change. Someone will bolt or his form will decline further, or maybe even both. Ed Byrne is an underrated player, why wouldn't he make a step up. Maybe Wycherley, why not. Maybe Boyle will be early. Maybe Healy will still be number 2.

[RoboProp]

The topic hasn’t animated me at all but the tabloidesque partial quoting and the need to clarify something as clear as that post was just extremely tedious.

I’d rather have been debating the reasons other than his decline that Healy didn’t come on earlier but I note that you still haven’t offered one.

Anyway, no point carrying this on and you’re right I didn’t need to be a dick about it so apologies.

It's been an emotional few weeks. Apology accepted. Healy has declined, I see that. His gametime shrunk in the big games almost as soon as Porter moved (after moving back to loosehead). He got 5 minutes against NZ, 8 minutes against France. Porter is an unusually mobile prop with a good engine.

Healy is the 2nd best loosehead in Ireland, based on his form this season. How much he's declined (more than we all would like) isn't as relevant as the fact that he's still the 2nd best loosehead. The 3rd choice is injured. There are plenty of candidates for 4th choice, I think Byrne is locked in. Multiple posters lost sight of that and suggested that Healy shouldn't have been selected for the tour at all.

Healy probably should have come on earlier than 2 minutes to go against the Bulls. He got 18 minutes against La Rochelle and 25 against Glasgow. Cronin didn't get on at all and Ruddock got 11 minutes and yet he played well for 141 minutes touring the Sharks and the Stormers.

Scoring 6 tries for the season is a hint that he's still contributing in open play.

Maybe next season the situation will change. Someone will bolt or his form will decline further, or maybe even both. Ed Byrne is an underrated player, why wouldn't he make a step up. Maybe Wycherley, why not. Maybe Boyle will be early. Maybe Healy will still be number 2.

This. Especially when you take into account he has so few minutes and still has 6 tries under his belt. He's not at Penny levels of tries scored per minutes on (that word again ), but he's not a million miles off. I get what LRIP is saying Healy is past his best; at his best he was Ireland's greatest LH by some margin, now he still has a heckuva lot more to offer than the alternatives (on the bench) and that's the nuts and bolts of it.

I'm glad everyone Ronk and LRIP have made amends, our first season sans silverware in sometime...this must be how our country cousins must feel.