Ireland v Wales

[ronk]

While it's important to blood players, do we really need a massive experienced squad of 30 players?

Did you learn a single thing from the 2007 World Cup?

First chance Kidney got, he's named an unchanged starting XV. I don't have a problem with that, but I'm not going to pretend we have an experimental side. Our depth has been improving, but it's still not great. I'm not even going to waste my time rebutting your examples of people who finally came in through injury or incumbents having dramatic losses in form. Were you biting your nails when Donnacha Ryan officially passed Mick O'Driscoll as 4th choice lock? Risky times.

Unless things change we'll have a 32 man squad at the WC, 23 match day squad leaves 9 players of depth (with standbys available). Last World Cup we probably had a panel of 25 players who were in ANY FORM of contention for selection. We could try it again and hope with our fingers crossed not to get any injuries, do you remember how much fun that was?

[Leinsterman]

Did you learn a single thing from the 2007 World Cup?

Yes lots.

I'm not going to pretend we have an experimental side.

Neither am I.

I'm not even going to waste my time rebutting your examples of people who finally came in through injury or incumbents having dramatic losses in form.

What difference does that make? The players have now been introduced.
If the replacement is no better than the incumbent, why would any coach bring in an untried replacement in a relatively big game.
I'm not aiming this at you but there are plenty of people who call for "rotation" and "experimentation" for what is apparently the sake of it.
As it stands, I feel Kidney is doing it the right way.
People seem to forget the 90s when players were introduced en masse and then discarded when they were found to be sh1te.

Were you biting your nails when Donnacha Ryan officially passed Mick O'Driscoll as 4th choice lock?

No

Unless things change we'll have a 32 man squad at the WC, 23 match day squad leaves 9 players of depth (with standbys available). Last World Cup we probably had a panel of 25 players who were in ANY FORM of contention for selection. We could try it again and hope with our fingers crossed not to get any injuries, do you remember how much fun that was?

We're highly unlikely to get a squad of 32 because it's debatable if we even have that many players good enough.
Not exactly brimming with talent at 3
9 is still a problem
Not a massive amount of depth at 12 either

Even if we have a squad of 32 "experienced" players, we're still going to be crossing our fingers that we don't get injuries because as it stands, the replacements might not be as good as the incumbents.

[ronk]

Well so far the following players have made their 6N debuts this year:
Healy
Ryan
McLaughlin
O'Brien
Sexton
Earls

Cronin will probably make his debut too.
That's a pretty decent amount of experimentation.

The whole argument of squad building is a bit of a false economy in my opinion.

Did you learn a single thing from the 2007 World Cup?

Yes lots.

I'm not going to pretend we have an experimental side.

Neither am I.

I'm glad that's nice and clear.

The point of an experiment is obviously to test a hypothesis: namely to find out which player is better at what level and what areas do they need to work on. Kidney himself has said that he wants a panel of 39 players contesting selection, so if someone gets injured he'll know what to expect and we can do as well as possible without hurting the team too much (if it doesn't hurt the team at all then why was that selection made in the first place).

We're bringing a 32 man squad, the question is will we fill that with good players or will we be paying people big money to sit on the bench and see New Zealand. Of course I'm not advocating that we rest BOD, we need him to beat Wales and they're going to be tough opponents. I do want to see us being more pro-active in making changes so that guys don't get splinters on the bench and then suddenly improve the team when they get a chance. When that happens it means you've been playing less than your strongest team and you didn't know it.

[Munsterboy]

While it's important to blood players, do we really need a massive experienced squad of 30 players?

Did you learn a single thing from the 2007 World Cup?

First chance Kidney got, he's named an unchanged starting XV. I don't have a problem with that, but I'm not going to pretend we have an experimental side. Our depth has been improving, but it's still not great. I'm not even going to waste my time rebutting your examples of people who finally came in through injury or incumbents having dramatic losses in form. Were you biting your nails when Donnacha Ryan officially passed Mick O'Driscoll as 4th choice lock? Risky times.

Unless things change we'll have a 32 man squad at the WC, 23 match day squad leaves 9 players of depth (with standbys available). Last World Cup we probably had a panel of 25 players who were in ANY FORM of contention for selection. We could try it again and hope with our fingers crossed not to get any injuries, do you remember how much fun that was?

If Kidney was being ultra-conservative he'd have reverted to Kearney at 15.

He's doing a solid job of balancing the development of younger/fringe players with winning 6Ns games (still extremely important to the IRFU and some of us supporters).

[Oldschool]

Well so far the following players have made their 6N debuts this year:
Healy
Ryan
McLaughlin
O'Brien
Sexton
Earls

Cronin will probably make his debut too.
That's a pretty decent amount of experimentation.

The whole argument of squad building is a bit of a false economy in my opinion.

Did you learn a single thing from the 2007 World Cup?

Yes lots.

I'm not going to pretend we have an experimental side.

Neither am I.

I'm glad that's nice and clear.

The point of an experiment is obviously to test a hypothesis: namely to find out which player is better at what level and what areas do they need to work on. Kidney himself has said that he wants a panel of 39 players contesting selection, so if someone gets injured he'll know what to expect and we can do as well as possible without hurting the team too much (if it doesn't hurt the team at all then why was that selection made in the first place).

We're bringing a 32 man squad, the question is will we fill that with good players or will we be paying people big money to sit on the bench and see New Zealand. Of course I'm not advocating that we rest BOD, we need him to beat Wales and they're going to be tough opponents. I do want to see us being more pro-active in making changes so that guys don't get splinters on the bench and then suddenly improve the team when they get a chance. When that happens it means you've been playing less than your strongest team and you didn't know it.

I have to say that last statement of yours is pure genious.

"When that happens it means you've been playing less than your strongest team and you didn't know it."

And it begs the obvious question "Why?"

And the obvious answers because you either:-
1. Didn't want to know or
2. Didn't try to find out.

[Oldschool]

While it's important to blood players, do we really need a massive experienced squad of 30 players?

Did you learn a single thing from the 2007 World Cup?

First chance Kidney got, he's named an unchanged starting XV. I don't have a problem with that, but I'm not going to pretend we have an experimental side. Our depth has been improving, but it's still not great. I'm not even going to waste my time rebutting your examples of people who finally came in through injury or incumbents having dramatic losses in form. Were you biting your nails when Donnacha Ryan officially passed Mick O'Driscoll as 4th choice lock? Risky times.

Unless things change we'll have a 32 man squad at the WC, 23 match day squad leaves 9 players of depth (with standbys available). Last World Cup we probably had a panel of 25 players who were in ANY FORM of contention for selection. We could try it again and hope with our fingers crossed not to get any injuries, do you remember how much fun that was?

If Kidney was being ultra-conservative he'd have reverted to Kearney at 15.

He's doing a solid job of balancing the development of younger/fringe players with winning 6Ns games (still extremely important to the IRFU and some of us supporters).

"If Kidney was being ultra-conservative he'd have reverted to Kearney at 15."

So that's why he stuck with Cullen in the second row?
Ah now i understand!

[Oldschool]

We should really be able to do a job on that pack. Doesn't look very strong at all and is missing some important players. Should be able to get some results against the likes of Hook at 13 in terms of his defending too. If we can keep them narrow and stop them keeping the ball alive they'll struggle. I'd be happy to see Roberts try and take the ball up all day.

i agree we will get through hook if o'leary will give quick ball and stop the box kicking our back-line should do well..... but we won't beat there pack up really cause hayes cant hold a scrum so that will be a target for them and if it goes wrong we have buckley another bad scrummager so see us been destroyed there....williams is one of the best 7's in the world specially in open play....just wonder how the line out will function cullen got done again by not been in there

I would think the scrum should be the only place where we'll be at a disadvantage up front and that could come as easily on Healy's side as Paul James is no world beater. Adam Jones is a much better prop. We should have the beatings of them in the line out and break down. Williams can only do so much on his own and, as I said, if we keep it narrow and prevent them from keeping the ball alive, he won't be able to link things and influence broken play.

It's Hayes' job to lock the scrum, not Healy's, so don't go preparing the groundwork for the blame game in advance.

[Oldschool]

That's an interesting point actually and I understand where you're coming from but with silverware being on the line if we win the next 2 games, it's more reminiscent of a knock out tournament i.e. world cup and therefore, in my eyes, better experience for players then experimenting in the Summer or Autumn Internationals. I'd rather play a full strength team in the summer to increase our chances of a morale boosting win.

Food for thought there. Which boosts morale more? Beating Australia in Australia or winning a Triple Crown. Can't we do both? But then when does the experimentation start? We have the AI's and then the 2011 Six Nations. Normally I would put the Six Nations down as a chance to prepare for the World Cup but there is a full season break between the two so how useful would it really be to potentially throw that away to give players a run?

It's a tough call alright. Kidney put it brilliantly last year after announcing the team for Scotland: "When do you make changes?" which stumped pretty much everyone, me included. For me, it'd be about giving the players experience of playing in a pressure situation when the team is not at 100% and seeing how they cope. With Wales and Scotland, I think we can afford to rest one of PO'C or BO'D in either match and still come through and win, thereby showing the players they can dig out results without them should they need to at the World Cup.

I'd have no problem telling him, when ,where and how to make changes.
It's actually quite simple to figure out, I'm surprised he didn't get a full postbag the next day.
The first, most obvious and easy thing to do, being to use your bench as a development tool.

[Oldschool]

By our 6N standard, "experimentation" might go so far as to start two, or even three, of Buckey, Cullen, Jennings, Reddan, Paddy Wallace, O'Gara or Trimble against Scotland.

Well so far the following players have made their 6N debuts this year:
Healy
Ryan
McLaughlin
O'Brien
Sexton
Earls

Cronin will probably make his debut too.
That's a pretty decent amount of experimentation.

The whole argument of squad building is a bit of a false economy in my opinion.

Kidney is supposed to be building a team for the RWC in 2011. To win it, you must play 7 matches in 7 weeks.

If you discount a match against one of the minnows, you have 6 matches in that timeframe - that's one match more than the 6N schedule over a roughly similar time period.
While it's important to blood players, do we really need a massive experienced squad of 30 players?
Do we sacrifice a couple of 6N championships to blood players who will in all probability just play bit parts in a RWC campaign?
Do the IRFU want to go down this road when they themselves probably realise the best they can hope for is a semi-final spot?

Doesn't sound sustainable to me, particularly when we see how the squad has evolved over the last couple of seasons.
I admit there should perhaps be a bit of experimentation with other players at lock and 13 to cover O'Connell and BOD but apart from that, the strongest XV will be played 90% of the time, even in a RWC game.

Just to remove any intended or unintended spin from your post.
Only Sexton was picked by dropping another player (and even then only to the bench).
The rest were all as a result of injury.
Healy for Horan
O'Brien for Leamy
McLaughlin for OBrien/Leamy
Ryan for O'Callaghan
Earls for Fitzgerald

And Cronin for Flannery/Best as appropriate.

[ceemec]

i agree we will get through hook if o'leary will give quick ball and stop the box kicking our back-line should do well..... but we won't beat there pack up really cause hayes cant hold a scrum so that will be a target for them and if it goes wrong we have buckley another bad scrummager so see us been destroyed there....williams is one of the best 7's in the world specially in open play....just wonder how the line out will function cullen got done again by not been in there

I would think the scrum should be the only place where we'll be at a disadvantage up front and that could come as easily on Healy's side as Paul James is no world beater. Adam Jones is a much better prop. We should have the beatings of them in the line out and break down. Williams can only do so much on his own and, as I said, if we keep it narrow and prevent them from keeping the ball alive, he won't be able to link things and influence broken play.

It's Hayes' job to lock the scrum, not Healy's, so don't go preparing the groundwork for the blame game in advance.

I forgot that if Hayes does his job then Healy can't struggle whatsoever. I'm a firm believer Hayes should be dropped at this stage but your campaign against him and anyone that may suggest he's not the root of all Irish difficulties is becoming tedious.

[munster#1]

By our 6N standard, "experimentation" might go so far as to start two, or even three, of Buckey, Cullen, Jennings, Reddan, Paddy Wallace, O'Gara or Trimble against Scotland.

Well so far the following players have made their 6N debuts this year:
Healy
Ryan
McLaughlin
O'Brien
Sexton
Earls

Cronin will probably make his debut too.
That's a pretty decent amount of experimentation.

The whole argument of squad building is a bit of a false economy in my opinion.

Kidney is supposed to be building a team for the RWC in 2011. To win it, you must play 7 matches in 7 weeks.

If you discount a match against one of the minnows, you have 6 matches in that timeframe - that's one match more than the 6N schedule over a roughly similar time period.
While it's important to blood players, do we really need a massive experienced squad of 30 players?
Do we sacrifice a couple of 6N championships to blood players who will in all probability just play bit parts in a RWC campaign?
Do the IRFU want to go down this road when they themselves probably realise the best they can hope for is a semi-final spot?

Doesn't sound sustainable to me, particularly when we see how the squad has evolved over the last couple of seasons.
I admit there should perhaps be a bit of experimentation with other players at lock and 13 to cover O'Connell and BOD but apart from that, the strongest XV will be played 90% of the time, even in a RWC game.

Just to remove any intended or unintended spin from your post.
Only Sexton was picked by dropping another player (and even then only to the bench).
The rest were all as a result of injury.
Healy for Horan
O'Brien for Leamy
McLaughlin for OBrien/Leamy
Ryan for O'Callaghan
Earls for Fitzgerald

And Cronin for Flannery/Best as appropriate.

you are 100% right, there is no way in hell healy would of made the squad let alone play a team, and as for earls he would not of even played had he made the bench. only for injuries only sexton would of played.

also lets forget cullen who had 7 caps at the age of 30, and couldn't even make the squad until this season, same goes for flash in the pan reddan.

dk is doing a fairly good job, we look likely to win a second triple crown in a row and are still in contention for the 6n, all while bringing on 6 new caps and bringing 2 players back from the wilderness

[ronk]

"When that happens it means you've been playing less than your strongest team and you didn't know it."

And it begs the obvious question "Why?"

And the obvious answers because you either:-
1. Didn't want to know or
2. Didn't try to find out.

Why? Because it's what the fans want. Conservatism is low-risk low-reward. Take a risk on a player and it doesn't come off, Kidney will get it in the neck from fans. He has very little incentive to take risks in selection, only when circumstances are so highly favourable you'd be crazy to ignore them, do you try anything different.

Irish rugby selection will naturally tend to be more conservative than provincial selection --- rightly so, but there's a definite balance there. Leinster and Ulster have the odd bad game, but we gain the benefit of a stronger squad by bringing players through quicker than in Munster. People don't seem to understand that it's an unavoidable consequence of conservatism that you experience lower reward in the long term than a slightly more risky selection strategy; doesn't matter whether it's finance or business or education or engineering or rugby, the results are always the same.

England chop and change more but almost never think beyond the next match, very low risk --- and rubbish. France think longer term and occasionally they get bit on the ass when they're caught off guard, but they have a better team and better squad for when it matters.

It's not about making changes for the sake of making changes, that's not good management, it's about being open to changing the team and always looking at it. From that perspective Kidney was brilliant in selecting McLoughlin for the Italy game, he passed on other options like Quinlan or Best to hand McLoughlin his first cap starting against Italy. Anyone who'd been watching them play this season would be forced to come to the same conclusion though and McLoughlin is a more similar player to Ferris, and he'd been playing with Heaslip et al.

[sally]

I'm not one for conservative team selections, hell I'd start Ross against Wales, but there is a danger of overestimating the value of squad depth. In the last world cup the kiwis had a squad of two teams capable of challenging for the world cup - they lost to a fairly average French team. The Saffers, who won the bloody thing, possessed a second team barely capable of beating Connacht. The Argies finished 3rd with very limited depth also. Our failure had more to do with poor preparation and performance implosion than lack of depth - though not denying it still was an issue.

Anyway, Ross for 3 against Scotland, the campaign starts now.

[ronk]

I'm not one for conservative team selections, hell I'd start Ross against Wales, but there is a danger of overestimating the value of squad depth. In the last world cup the kiwis had a squad of two teams capable of challenging for the world cup - they lost to a fairly average French team. The Saffers, who won the bloody thing, possessed a second team barely capable of beating Connacht. The Argies finished 3rd with very limited depth also. Our failure had more to do with poor preparation and performance implosion than lack of depth - though not denying it still was an issue.

Anyway, Ross for 3 against Scotland, the campaign starts now.

When Ross is starting for Leinster he'll be more than good enough for Ireland.

Argentina were blown away in the semi because they were dead on their feet. Mightn't have made a difference, but they were screaming for more depth.

South Africa had a great squad with plenty of depth, they'd rested stars before touring and by no measure of the imagination did they have a weak squad. New Zealand losing had nothing to do with depth (except in so far as Luke McAllister is overrated), France were beaten by England because they didn't use their depth when they most needed it (playing the exact same team against England).

We were into the world cup basically accepting that we had no meaningful cover for Hayes, David Wallace or Ronan O'Gara. The backup plan was accepting defeat. I should include D'Arcy and O'Driscoll because Paddy Wallace wasn't regarded as a 12 at the tournament. In reality we didn't have cover beyond the 22 and we had actual competition for 2 places at the start of the tournament: hooker and fullback. At a stretch you can say that Reddan was in the running with Stringer but that was more down to some really poor play by Stringer and Trimble was competing on the wing. With the resources we had there were no excuses to be entering a World Cup in such a parlous state.

[Armchair]

GATLAND TELLS DELVE TO SEIZE CHANCE

By Andrew Baldock, Press Association Sport Rugby Union Correspondent

Wales boss Warren Gatland has labelled Gareth Delve's return to Test match rugby on Saturday as "a great opportunity" for the in-form Gloucester captain.

Away from the international arena, Delve is currently a subject of intense speculation about where he will play next season.

Newly-formed Australian Super 15 franchise Melbourne Rebels - England fly-half Danny Cipriani's destination in five months' time - and Cardiff Blues have both been linked with him.

There is also a possibility of him remaining at Gloucester, while Delve must balance any move to Melbourne with the likelihood it would end his World Cup selection hopes in New Zealand next year.

"There is a lot for him to play for over the next 12 or 18 months," said Gatland.

"It is a big game for him against Ireland on Saturday.

"He's very accurate in the way that he plays - he doesn't make a lot of mistakes - and he has led Gloucester well, being a big part of their turnaround in form.

"He is a big physical player who will give us some go-forward. It is a great opportunity for him to come in as a genuine number eight and hopefully take his chance.

"He has been unlucky in recent seasons with long-term injuries, and it is good to see him back playing."

Delve will replace injured Wales captain and number eight Ryan Jones at Croke Park, with flanker Martyn Williams taking over as skipper. Gatland, meanwhile, has recalled hooker Matthew Rees and lock Luke Charteris.

"The World Cup is a huge draw," admitted Delve.

"I haven't had the best of times with World Cups in the past, so the chance to possibly make one would be fantastic.

"I have been in the mix for the previous two World Cups and picked up injuries just beforehand.

"These (career) decisions have got to be based around fantastic opportunities that present themselves, but also big sacrifices.

"Some of these decisions are based around opportunities I will never actually get again, and that is what I am weighing up. That is why it is taking so long to come to a conclusion.

"Certainly, the World Cup and international prospects weigh massively on the side of staying here.

"I am seeing this for what it is. I have been called into the team this week to perform against Ireland, and if I do that then hopefully there is another chance for me the week after.

"In terms of international aspirations, I spent a long time maybe feeling a bit disappointed that while being involved with the squad for a long time I had never quite got that chance, that start.

"I have got a chance on Saturday that I am hugely looking forward to, and it is a case of looking at everything from a pretty wide angle and seeing what would be the best in the long term for my whole career."

[olaf the fat]

"I haven't had the best of times with World Cups in the past, so the chance to possibly make one would be fantastic.

was that a quote from Gatland or Delve

[Leinsterman]

Just to remove any intended or unintended spin from your post.
Only Sexton was picked by dropping another player (and even then only to the bench).
The rest were all as a result of injury.
Healy for Horan
O'Brien for Leamy
McLaughlin for OBrien/Leamy
Ryan for O'Callaghan
Earls for Fitzgerald

And Cronin for Flannery/Best as appropriate.

Or if Kidney was as neo-conservative as some wish to make out,
he could have picked Court instead of Healy
Best instead of O'Brien/Leamy/McLaughlin
O'Driscoll for O'Callaghan
Rijigged the backline by moving Bowe and restoring Shaggy instead of picking Earls.

[munster#1]

some people are on here comparing apples and oranges, you cannot compare ireland with any of the big four, we have around 350 professional players to choose from, around 35 of them of them play for a club that don't play HC. in this 6 n ireland have played 4 props, 2 hookers(will more than likely be 3) 4 second rows and 6 back rows, 2 SHs, 3 OHs, 2 inside centres, 2 outside, 3 wingers (will probably be 4) and 3 full backs, that means 2 people have had a run in all positions bar #8, and 3 in others. that's 28 players as it stands cronin will make it 29, who knows, for the scots we might make 30.
which given the fact we have only played 3 matches is impressive, injuries or not. ireland as a rugby nation will always struggle to produce big squads, especially as leinster and munster are above the niq law and ulster are signing a few niqs next season where as connacht have niqs playing where a player from the ail would have more ability.

bar bringing horan in instead of healy, any prop that is playing regularly for their province that is any good has played.
bar MOD all second rows near international standard have played. (casey is a non runner)
is their any more back rows in the country? (quinny is a non runner)
sh maybe boss has a case.
oh again we have used all our options
1st center all options used bar maybe downey for saints
2nd centre all options used as cave is in a dip at the moment
wings maybe hurley has a case but i wouldn't have him there
full back again all options used.

after the players that have already played we are down to players who are just about in the 22 or are barely ML standard.

we are in a championship that we could still win why would we play players who are way below 6n standard?

[the spoofer]

some people are on here comparing apples and oranges, you cannot compare ireland with any of the big four, we have around 350 professional players to choose from, around 35 of them of them play for a club that don't play HC. in this 6 n ireland have played 4 props, 2 hookers(will more than likely be 3) 4 second rows and 6 back rows, 2 SHs, 3 OHs, 2 inside centres, 2 outside, 3 wingers (will probably be 4) and 3 full backs, that means 2 people have had a run in all positions bar #8, and 3 in others. that's 28 players as it stands cronin will make it 29, who knows, for the scots we might make 30.
which given the fact we have only played 3 matches is impressive, injuries or not. ireland as a rugby nation will always struggle to produce big squads, especially as leinster and munster are above the niq law and ulster are signing a few niqs next season where as connacht have niqs playing where a player from the ail would have more ability.

bar bringing horan in instead of healy, any prop that is playing regularly for their province that is any good has played.
bar MOD all second rows near international standard have played. (casey is a non runner)
is their any more back rows in the country? (quinny is a non runner)
sh maybe boss has a case.
oh again we have used all our options
1st center all options used bar maybe downey for saints
2nd centre all options used as cave is in a dip at the moment
wings maybe hurley has a case but i wouldn't have him there
full back again all options used.

after the players that have already played we are down to players who are just about in the 22 or are barely ML standard.

we are in a championship that we could still win why would we play players who are way below 6n standard?

I agree with most of your post but personally I dont think that Shane Jennings is a worse player than Wallace and I would have picked him against Wales.

[Danthefan]

Jennings is completely underrated. He's taken Wallace to the cleaners more than once, how he hasn't been given a start for Ireland recently is a joke imo.