Scotland v Ireland

**OneRedArmy** · 06/03/2007, 2:11 PM

Time will tell but MASSIVE missed opportunity imho to broaden the squad in advance of the World Cup.

Every other top 6 nation (France, South Africa, ABs etc) have been heavily using squad rotation for the last 6 months to ensure they have at least 2 players in each position with recent big match experience.

Eddie picking the same team shows a lack of confidence in the other squad players and crucially ignores what other top coaches have realised, ie that given the hugely physical nature of the game as its played today and with the non-stop nature of a World Cup with one game following close to another, injuries are inevitable.

Lets face it, Scotland are crap. If we are as good as we think we are and have any aspirations of beating France and Argentina, our 2nd XV should be able to beat them comfortably.

I would've made at least 5 or 6 changes.

**paul_oshea** · 06/03/2007, 2:29 PM

ok what would those changes be? what can he learn about fringe players that he doesnt already know? paddy wallace, mick odriscoll, trimble, reddan, murphy, flannery, boss bar injury ), cullen who else? thats the bones of a second 15......they have all played and showed what they are capable of.

What winning will do is add a 3rd triple crown in 4 years, give an extra boost to the morale and confidence of the team, along with creating a tighter 15 in terms of experience and match practice. we dont have the players capable of rotation like the ABs, so ensuring our BEST team has as many games under their belt as possible is essential, along with a big winning streak and winning mentality. we missed that against france, shows we are still missing a few things.

**OneRedArmy** · 06/03/2007, 2:42 PM

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

ok what would those changes be? what can he learn about fringe players that he doesnt already know? paddy wallace, mick odriscoll, trimble, reddan, murphy, flannery, boss bar injury ), cullen who else? thats the bones of a second 15......they have all played and showed what they are capable of.

What winning will do is add a 3rd triple crown in 4 years, give an extra boost to the morale and confidence of the team, along with creating a tighter 15 in terms of experience and match practice. we dont have the players capable of rotation like the ABs, so ensuring our BEST team has as many games under their belt as possible is essential, along with a big winning streak and winning mentality. we missed that against france, shows we are still missing a few things.

A triple crown isn't worth toffee when we claim to be in the top 3 in the world.

What do we know about the players above? Very little against top class opposition.

Our reserve fly half played against a scratch team made up of the some of the weakest sides in international rugby.

What we also know is that unless a decent cover centre is developed (Trimble imho) we are screwed if O'Driscoll gets injured (see French game). How many games has he played in the centre?! Repeat that comment for 2nd row, prop and a few other positions.

I'll say it again, injuries are a given in the World Cup and every other top team has realised this, whilst we're stuck in the last millenium with Eddie only recently working out that you don't need to be injured to bring on a replacement.

**finlma** · 06/03/2007, 3:18 PM

It would be ridiculous to change the team - I agree with Mr. O'Shea. It would be offensive to Scotland and the competition and we would probably loose just like we did a few years ago. It would be stupid to get complacent. Scotland will be giving everything and I reallly don't see us winning by more than 15 points with our strongest team.

I don't think anyone can question what Eddie does - look at what he has achieved.

**pete** · 06/03/2007, 4:02 PM

He is limited in the areas he can make changes although i'd like him to make changes earlier when game already won in future.

He could still have brought in the likes of Flannery, Neil Best & trimble off the bench.

There is not even half decent cover at Prop, Second Row, Out Half & Centre. Simon Best, Mick O'Driscoll & Paddy Wallace are not good enough.

**paul_oshea** · 06/03/2007, 4:35 PM

He is limited in the areas he can make changes although i'd like him to make changes earlier when game already won in future.

Yes, I would agree with this also.

**Student Mullet** · 06/03/2007, 6:42 PM

Prop, centre and out half* are the positions we have no cover for and there's little Eddie can do about it, we don't have the number of players other countries do.

Trimble isn't going to learn much from a single game at centre, if we were going to go down that route he'd play there for his province a bit, you don't learn your trade in a tripple crown decider. Even the two games against dross teams in the WC would a better place to do it. At the moment Shaggy has some experience there and is our emergancy cover and in the absence of a decent third choice, that's what we'll have to make do with.

*I don't include 2nd row because I think Leo Cullen's choice of club would be soon forgotten if we actually needed him and O'Kelly is still on the go.

**OneRedArmy** · 06/03/2007, 7:52 PM

How can Paddy Wallace isn't good enough when he's only had one cap and he was Man of the Match?! How do we know? He doesn't play at out half for Ulster regularly but he's our 2nd choice, so he needs more than one international game against poor opposition.

To whoever thinks Horgan is a better centre than Trimble, I honestly don't know what to say. Horgan has neither the change of direction, rugby brain and vision, nor good enough pass off both hands to be a world class centre. He's a great winger but that means nothing in the centre. Trimble does, ask anyone involved in Irish rugby and they recognise his talent.

When was O'Kelly or O'Driscolls last cap in the second row?

I think people on here are much too easily sucked into the spin.
Lets be honest, the Triple Crown stopped being important the year France joined and made it 5 Nations. Ireland have FAILED over the last 5 years by consistently being among the best 2 teams and not winning a single championship, never mind Grand Slam.

Ask the players privately, ask commentators and players from other countries and they will tell you that we have underachieved as a nation and lack the killer instinct.

We are a small nation with a small playing pool and this World Cup is a golden chance for us to get to the Final.

Having watched every home Ireland test for the guts of 15 years and been to a fair percentage of the away ones, we are easily capable of beating every team apart from New Zealand.

But you don't do that with XV men. You don't even do it with 20. We know our best XV, but it will be the performance of replacements and squad players who determine how well we do in the World Cup.

**paul_oshea** · 07/03/2007, 8:48 AM

We are a small nation with a small playing pool and this World Cup is a golden chance for us to get to the Final.

its not really though, i mean we would have to overcome new zealand or france to do that, and that is no mean feat....no matter how good or side, one because france are at home, and will be on fire come that match and 2. the all blacks are way ahead of anyone at this present time, so if we fail to beat france, which isnt a bad result if its close, we will finish where we normally finish i.e. quarter final place

**OneRedArmy** · 07/03/2007, 8:58 AM

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

its not really though, i mean we would have to overcome new zealand or france to do that, and that is no mean feat....no matter how good or side, one because france are at home, and will be on fire come that match and 2. the all blacks are way ahead of anyone at this present time, so if we fail to beat france, which isnt a bad result if its close, we will finish where we normally finish i.e. quarter final place

We will most likely need to beat Argentina, France, Italy/Scotland and South Africa to get to the final.

Are you telling me beating France is beyond our ambition?

**OwlsFan** · 07/03/2007, 9:11 AM

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

A triple crown isn't worth toffee when we claim to be in the top 3 in the world.

Disagree. Triple crowns aren't as important as they used to be but are achievements nonetheless. Win what you can and let ratings look after themselves. I remember a time when they were like gold dust in the rugby world.

**pete** · 07/03/2007, 9:54 AM

The Triple Crown is meaningless. Who celebrates winning 3 from 5 games?

A win over Scotland is important bas a win but only fools would celebrate the Triple Crown. If Ireland celebrate on Saturday will show lack of ambition.

**paul_oshea** · 07/03/2007, 10:09 AM

its a barometer really, a measure, whatever you want to call it, two years ago pete you wouldn't have been saying that, but because we have won it a few times now we feel we are above it and it isnt much of an achievement, i wonder if you were to ask england at the start of this tournament would they be happy with a triple crown, i reckon they would have bit yer hand off......knowing that a triple crown would realistically mean 4 wins too.....

Are you telling me beating France is beyond our ambition?

not in the slightest, but its the same big ambitoin of beating them in teh grand slam which we havent done. What i am trying to say is, i beleive we have a tough run in, even if we lost to france which wouldnt say we are not in the top 3, we would then have new zealand. whereas if we had an easier draw, we could have had any of england, south africa or australia, which would be far easier overcome than a quarter against NZ and then end up in the same position as all other world cups, plus a far easier run in to the final.....because if NZ perform to the level at which they can in the world cup we will NOT beat them.

**OneRedArmy** · 07/03/2007, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

i wonder if you were to ask england at the start of this tournament would they be happy with a triple crown, i reckon they would have bit yer hand off......

That point is as relevant as asking the Italians or the Scots would they be happy with 3 wins. Of course they would because they are poor sides.

As we showed, England aren't fit to lace our boots.

You are under-selling the ability of this Ireland team hugely.

I stick to my point, I'll be disappointed with anything other than getting to the final of the World Cup. Time to shed the happy loser mentality and achieve our potential before the current playing pool slips into retirement.

**OwlsFan** · 07/03/2007, 2:55 PM

Originally Posted by pete

The Triple Crown is meaningless. Who celebrates winning 3 from 5 games?

A win over Scotland is important bas a win but only fools would celebrate the Triple Crown. If Ireland celebrate on Saturday will show lack of ambition.

The "home nations" and most rugby fans must be all fools then because they have been celebrating it for over a century and even give a trophy now. Of course it is an achievement to beat the other 3 "home nations", especially for a Gaelic football/hurling nation like ours where rugby is way down the pecking order. Nothing wrong in celebrating it but that doesn't mean it's very important.

**pete** · 07/03/2007, 3:07 PM

Originally Posted by OwlsFan

The "home nations" and most rugby fans must be all fools then because they have been celebrating it for over a century...

But there was only 4 teams in the competition for many years before France was added. No other competition in the world would give a trophy for winning 3 from 5 games. The new trohpy has more to be with commercial hype that sport.

The winner of Scotland v England also gets a trophy.

**OneRedArmy** · 07/03/2007, 3:17 PM

Originally Posted by pete

But there was only 4 teams in the competition for many years before France was added. No other competition in the world would give a trophy for winning 3 from 5 games. The new trohpy has more to be with commercial hype that sport.

The winner of Scotland v England also gets a trophy.

The winner of England v Ireland gets a trophy as well nowadays.

Agree with you Pete, its a non-entity and ther players feel the same way.

FFS they celebrated the end of Lansdowne after the Pacific Islands game with more excitement than they have the last few Triple Crowns.

**OneRedArmy** · 07/03/2007, 3:20 PM

Originally Posted by OwlsFan

The "home nations" and most rugby fans must be all fools then because they have been celebrating it for over a century and even give a trophy now. Of course it is an achievement to beat the other 3 "home nations", especially for a Gaelic football/hurling nation like ours where rugby is way down the pecking order. Nothing wrong in celebrating it but that doesn't mean it's very important.

I also find your repeated reference to the "home nations" equally as archaic as the Triple Crown.

We've all moved on and we're Europeans now*!!

*although beating England still has its special pleasures.

**finlma** · 07/03/2007, 4:04 PM

Originally Posted by pete

The Triple Crown is meaningless. Who celebrates winning 3 from 5 games?

That's like saying winning the league is pointless. Who celebrates winning 33 from 40 games?

For a country like Ireland to win 3 Triple Crowns in 4 years is a magnificant achievement. I've been there for 2 of them and let me tell you its far from meaningless if you follow rugby.