I think O'Sullivan said that Ireland failed to ruck properly on friday which seems to be an admission he had no traditional open side...
Printable View
I think O'Sullivan said that Ireland failed to ruck properly on friday which seems to be an admission he had no traditional open side...
Err...not exactly Pete. It takes more than one man to hit a ruck to get clean ball.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
The third man in (traditionally the openside) acts as a bridge with the real rucking power coming behind.
We are typically a mediocre rucking side at the best of times (when compared with say the Scots and Kiwis who have always been able to ruck with incredible speed). We rely on continuity of play and keeping the ball alive, as any time the ball goes to ground Stringer invariably spends a lot of time waving his hands and generally looking like a little boy lost whilst the ball squeezes its way out.
I agree that we protected the ball poorly on the ground but there's no way Eddie will admit that not having an openside cost us after spending a fortnight telling anyone who would listen why the position doesn't exist anymore.
An openside has very little correlation to your rucking performance. In fact, he probably has nothing at all to with it
I stand corrected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soko
I know open side flankers are not designated for ruck but I think you will open find them first to the breakdown on the ground at the edges of legality. I suppose I would be thinking of someone like Richie McCaw.
I think these criticisms might be a tad pre-mature. Nobody played up to the mark, and probably didn't so so deliberately. A lot of experimental stuff was tried out there that simply will not happen in France. O'Driscoll and Horgans return to that side will be enormous, and Wallace's absence cannot be overstated. They will make a huge difference to that side. If Wallace isn't fit, I would go with a back row of Easterby, Quinlan and Leamy. But I don't think Eddie will.
The big changes to that team should be Flannery to start at hooker and Horgan and Carney to be our wingers. Hickie is finished at this level.
Bit of Munster bias there joe?Quote:
Originally Posted by joeSoap
Best is acknowledged as a considerably better scrummager than Flannery (to the extent a hooker influences the scrum), so God help our scrum without him based on Friday. He's as good in the lineout and his tacklecount is as high, the only area Flannery wins is in ball carrying. Flannery is better used as an impact sub imho.
I would substitute Best for Easterby in your alternative backrow, but I really hope Wally is fit.
As for Hickie, he was Ireland's best back in the 6 nations!!!! Carney can't even be sure of his running angles yet.
Best is a better scrummager, but only marginally so, and when you have props like Marcus and to a lesser extent Hayes who simply are not international class scrummagers, then Best's ability there is nullified. He is not as good in the lineout...he averages 2 penalties a game for delaying the throw in and it is statistically proven we lose more lineouts with Best than Flannery. I hope my criticisms of Horan and Hayes don't interfere with my Munster bias...;)Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
I believe Best to be too one dimensional, good and all as he is as a hard man. Quinny offers more line out options, and is a better all round footballer. His indiscipline is a concern though.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
O'gara scored more tries than Hickie as did Dempsey during the six nations. Both were more effective than him so I can't see how you can say Hickie was our best player,.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
As for Carney, I would have no worries at all about his running lines.
Best was poor against Italy so can only imagine how he will get chewed up by the Argentinians & French. I prefer Flannery as he offers far more around the pitch & is better line out thrower.
Dropping Hickie for Carney would be insanity. :eek:
I think O'Sullivan has messed up the preparation so much that he has little option but to play his strongest team from the first game. With no reserves worth talking about they may be battered & bruised even if they make it through to the quarter finals.
If Ireland do not make semi final they will be permanently drawn against Argentina.
How exactly? Hickie hasn't exactly set the world alight, is losing a bit of pace and clearly is losing his appetite for the game...so much so that he's retiring completely from it at a pretty young 31.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Carney was a world class rugby league star who had Union experience prior to playing league. He is faster than Hickie over 60 yards, stronger physically, and has done nothing at all wrong in his caps to date or his Munster appearances. The running angles of a winger aren't rocket science to pick up and he has done that more than satisfactorily in my opinion.
The only advantage Hickie brings to the gane ahead of him right now is in his kicking.
Carney has done nothing in Rugby Union yet to suggest he should be first choice for Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by joeSoap
Better players than him have failed to adapt to from League to Union.
I like Carney as a player but would would prefer to stick with the tried and tested Hickie. Give Carney 20 minutes against Namibia and Georgia and see how he gets on.
Well, he scored an intercept try against Argentina where he sprinted threequarters of the pitch and couldn't be caught to score.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
He has defended and attacked very well in those tests against the Argies.
He has scored tries for Munster in his Magners League appearances, played, tackled, kicked well and his lines of running were spot on.
I wouldn't call that nothing. I'd say it's an exceptional start to his career.
Hickie, as great a servant as he has been, doesn't want to play anymore. At 31. That doesn't inspire me with confidence.
For what it's worth...Carney imo won't even see grass during this world cup. Of course, he will start with Hickie in the big games, and for the Namibia and Georgia, if he is experimenting out wide, he'll probably go with Murphy and Trimble ahead of Carney.
My point is that Carney represents the best option we have as an out and out modern day winger. Big, strong, lightening quick and knows how to score.
The countdown begins....2 days to Armageddon.
Predictions: France to win it.
In all honesty i can't see New Zealand not winning. They are a fine side with plenty of cover so even injuries won't stop them. South Africa, France and Ourselves are the next 3 best teams.
We are in a dreadful situation with the pools and having to beat either France or New Zealand to make the semi finals. In all honesty i reckon we have a great chance of doing that. We were minutes away from winning the grand slam last year, easily beat Australia and South Africa at home last Autumn and gave New Zealand two excellent games in thier own backyard last summer, we have the big game experience now - i just hope we can play well under pressure and hopefully fulfill the potential we have, our first XV is as good as anyones and if we beat the French we will have unbelieveable support from then on. Here's hoping for a few great performances and a little bit of luck then!
Ireland are too reliant on the O'Gara O'Driscoll & O'Connell triad, if one of them fails to show up there's Big trouble, also the front row is too weak to contest with the better packs, France & the Pumas will push them all over, could win the group and make the semi's or could finish third in the group, who knows?
All Blacks, peaked in March, too much expectation, still on paper the best team but I have some doubts, and more pertinently I think they do too....
The Boks, on paper the challengers a great set of backs and as always an awesome set of forwards, possibly weakest at half back with too much changes in the last year. Like the all-blacks they suffer from the weight of expectation in a rugby obesessed country, also very poor travellers, should beat England and should be in the mix but they could blow up at any point, not a safe bet.
France on home soil should be the Northern hemishperes chance and they have the happy knack of peaking at the right time but like Ireland they could be found out if one or 2 big players are missing for crunch games.
Australia, now here's the thing, always get it right for the big ones, last world cup they were p!ss poor in the build up, still made and could/should have won the final, 12 months ago were looking ragged beyond belief now after a decent tri-nations they look rock solid defensively and whatever about match winners they've won the world cup before relying on a good defence, these are the real value bet imho.
France or South Africa for me.
The weight of expectation will kill the AB's again.
As for Ireland, who knows? What is clear is that we aren't the second best team in the world like we thought we were last Christmas.
France were excellent value at 9/1 but now in to 6/1 :(
Can't believe SA are as low as 5/1 & Australia 10/1. Do Australia have a hard draw? I rate them higher than SA although both probably have the best defences.
Oz have Wales in their group in Cardiff so perhaps that may have something to do with the odds. The winners of the OZ group play the runners up in the SA group.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
So the Aussies beat Wales & then play Samoa or England. Seems an easy enough route to the semi to me. They supposed to play NZ in the semi & then probably SA/France in the Final. 10/1 looks good value to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by beautifulrock