Ireland v South Africa (Sat 10th Nov, 17:30)

[suisse]

1. I do think that there is a one eyed view of Murray out there with some Leinster fans - his form is nowhere near as bad as being made out and the complaints about him generally don't actually stand up (Racing metro game aside) - it has just become a default position to complain about Murray (Similar to the way a lot of Munster fans complain about Heaslip - I'm harsh on Heaslip because I think he should be taking over the POC/BOD mantle and for a variety of reasons he isn't quite at that level - I'd still have him as one of the first names on the teamsheet though

I don't post on mf.com - but I do creep there a lot - and Murray has come in for some criticism from many of his own provincial fans too. I reckon a few of them think he should play for Ireland for the same reason you think many Leinster fans think he shouldn't, but I was surprised by the level of honest criticism he has received from some quarters on that website.

7. Suisse - maybe our current standing is just our natural position - btw we did progress since 2008, just have regressed - DK should have gone after the world cup but understandable that he didn't if you are actually objective about it

Is 10 months progression or a seriously long honeymoon period? irrespective of resources, is the best XV we can play that must worse than Wales' or England's? Or even Australia's? Should we be fighting off that Scotland team for 8th?

^ Whatever about that, can you please explain by what you mean here please: but understandable that he didn't if you are actually objective about it

I'm assuming the lunacy of, again, offering big contracts before the world cup and not having the cash/looking foolish to replace him immediately is the objective part? Or do we have to listen to "Ireland's best ever RWC" again? I'm genuinely curious as to how it is understandable he was not let go after the RWC.

[cormac]

I should probably clarify my point re Henderson and McCarthy. I don't have an issue with either, it's more that they both cover the same positions so why have both on the bench. I'd select DOC or Tuohy ahead of McCarthy and leave Henderson on the bench.

P.S. Declan, if you're not using McLoughlin at all, can we have him back for the Glasgow game?

[simonokeeffe]

that team looks picked on form not how management think

Bowe was fullback on management request last game he played, Zebo wasnt so can see them swapping, possible curveball of McFadden on wing ahead of Trimble
Fit/mostly fit ROG a shoe in ahead of Jackson
(I have a feeling Henderson more likely to start than Henry)

McCarthy was released back to Connacht at weekend so has to be DOC and Tuohy ahead of him
Court has played fairly well this year and outscrums Kilcoyne so

[Clermont]

Aside from the 2nd Test aberration, the worst performers in the summer tests were numbers 11-15 inclusive.

If only there were a reason for that, complete shot in the dark here, no way that it could actually happen, not at all in any way shape or form, like say the backs not getting any coaching until one of the players got sick of the ridiculousness of the situation and decided to take it on himself and pull a plays from his domestic playbook before the second test then one of the other players having a mickey fit about it and running to the coach whinging who of course backed the purple faced cry baby so there was again no coaching before the third test - not to mention any names of course and naturally enough that could never happen.

Hold on Dave, you can't just throw that sort of hand grenade into the room & hope to slip out quietly!
Tell us more!

[hugonaut]

Backrow - Again some predictable responses about POM - again generally wrong. He has made an impact every time he has played for Ireland and is a good selection - particukraly at 6 with Henry at 7, which is deserved. Heaslip needs a big game - will probably be required to do far more carrying in this team

Can't agree with that in the slightest.

O'Mahony got 22 mins off the bench against Italy on his debut and [unsurprisingly] struggled to get to the pace of the game; 15 minutes off the bench against France and made his tackles in a reasonable effort; made his first start against Scotland out of position at openside and had an up-and-down game, mixing some nice turnovers and handling with some badly missed tackles and conceded penalties; and then got 11 inconsequential mins against England when he [nor anybody else] could have any impact.

Then he started against New Zealand and was conspicuously the worst of the backrow in the first test; was dropped, came off the bench and did well in the second test and then was selected at No8 where he [like everybody else in green] had a mare.

That's been his impact so far - positive off the bench against NZ in the second test and starting against Scotland, decent if unspectacular against France, inconsequential against England and Italy, poor against NZ in the first and third tests.

Heaslip had a decent game in the first test and an exceptional game in the second test, before breaking his hand; going on the most recent test matches they've played O'Mahony 'needs' a big game far more than Heaslip does.

[TheBear]

The Welsh and Scottish teams have been announced; do we know when the Irish one is due to be announced?

[Golf Man]

1. I do think that there is a one eyed view of Murray out there with some Leinster fans - his form is nowhere near as bad as being made out and the complaints about him generally don't actually stand up (Racing metro game aside) - it has just become a default position to complain about Murray (Similar to the way a lot of Munster fans complain about Heaslip - I'm harsh on Heaslip because I think he should be taking over the POC/BOD mantle and for a variety of reasons he isn't quite at that level - I'd still have him as one of the first names on the teamsheet though

I don't post on mf.com - but I do creep there a lot - and Murray has come in for some criticism from many of his own provincial fans too. I reckon a few of them think he should play for Ireland for the same reason you think many Leinster fans think he shouldn't, but I was surprised by the level of honest criticism he has received from some quarters on that website.

I don't think that he should be picked on Saturday - I just think that his poor form and basic issues are completely completely overstated. We have as big problems all over the field but it seems to be a default for some people that Murray can be blamed for everything - it is simply not that simple

7. Suisse - maybe our current standing is just our natural position - btw we did progress since 2008, just have regressed - DK should have gone after the world cup but understandable that he didn't if you are actually objective about it

Is 10 months progression or a seriously long honeymoon period? irrespective of resources, is the best XV we can play that must worse than Wales' or England's? Or even Australia's? Should we be fighting off that Scotland team for 8th?

^ Whatever about that, can you please explain by what you mean here please: but understandable that he didn't if you are actually objective about it

I'm assuming the lunacy of, again, offering big contracts before the world cup and not having the cash/looking foolish to replace him immediately is the objective part? Or do we have to listen to "Ireland's best ever RWC" again? I'm genuinely curious as to how it is understandable he was not let go after the RWC.

Whether we like the style or not, we topped a group in the RWC for the first time ever, beat a SH side for the first time in a WC, beat a SH side in the SH for the first time in what 30 years. In the 5 times that we have reached the qf's two were almost by default (1987 and 1991) and in the other two we won the deciding game by 1 point (95 and 2003). In the last World Cup we won the deciding game, against Italy by 30 points.

We didn't perform in the quarter final - we have never performed in a WC qf.

It simply was, and cannot be claimed otherwise, our best WC performance ever (if also being our most disappointing in another way). Its easy to dismiss this arguement in the way that you have, but the facts are the facts

So in his first 3 years Kidney had delivered our first GS in 60 years and our best ever WC performance - this cannot be argued. In that sense it is understandable that he didn't leave - he had a lot of credit.

(This obviously doesn't consider performance and other results etc but there is an objective viewpoint that the other two achievements outweigh the rest)

[fourthirtythree]

The facts are it was an easy group (unlike the previous one which actually went to form by having us fail to qualify) and the draw opened up for us due to other results as well. We failed to capitalise on that. Beating Oz is the only big deal. And it's not like that's a rarity at the moment.

[Golf Man]

Backrow - Again some predictable responses about POM - again generally wrong. He has made an impact every time he has played for Ireland and is a good selection - particukraly at 6 with Henry at 7, which is deserved. Heaslip needs a big game - will probably be required to do far more carrying in this team

Can't agree with that in the slightest.

O'Mahony got 22 mins off the bench against Italy on his debut and [unsurprisingly] struggled to get to the pace of the game; 15 minutes off the bench against France and made his tackles in a reasonable effort; made his first start against Scotland out of position at openside and had an up-and-down game, mixing some nice turnovers and handling with some badly missed tackles and conceded penalties; and then got 11 inconsequential mins against England when he [nor anybody else] could have any impact.

Then he started against New Zealand and was conspicuously the worst of the backrow in the first test; was dropped, came off the bench and did well in the second test and then was selected at No8 where he [like everybody else in green] had a mare.

That's been his impact so far - positive off the bench against NZ in the second test and starting against Scotland, decent if unspectacular against France, inconsequential against England and Italy, poor against NZ in the first and third tests.

Heaslip had a decent game in the first test and an exceptional game in the second test, before breaking his hand; going on the most recent test matches they've played O'Mahony 'needs' a big game far more than Heaslip does.

I disagree with you on O'Mahonys debut - if I remember correctly he made an immediate impact - although I agree maybe I have overstated his impact

You are miles off the mark claiming that O'Mahony needs a "big game" more than Heaslip. O M<ahony has a total of three starts and 4 sub appearances. He is far far from teh finished product and may never be. Heaslip has 50 caps and 3 for the Lions and should be a real leader for this team, particularly with injuries that we have now

As I said earlier, I believe that Heaslip should be at the level of POC and BOD now- an absolute world class stand out performer - I don't believe that he is at that level.

If you truly believe that POM needs to "stand up and be counted" more than Heaslip does - it says an awful lot more about Heaslip than it does about POM.

This is a game (particulrakly if POC doesn't make it) for Heaslip to demand that everybody else get up to his level - it is a game for POM tp try to play well in

[Golf Man]

The facts are it was an easy group (unlike the previous one which actually went to form by having us fail to qualify) and the draw opened up for us due to other results as well. We failed to capitalise on that. Beating Oz is the only big deal. And it's not like that's a rarity at the moment.

Very easy to dismiss the result against Oz - simple fact was that we had never beaten a 3N team in the WC (after 5 previous attempts), and had won a total of 12 games in 76 attempts against 3N sides, with only 3 of those wins coming away from home (the last being 32 years previously). By any objective standards it was a huge huge win, which contributed to our first ever group win

BTW other results didn't open up the draw - our results did - by beating Australia, all the the 3N teams ended up on eh same side - all the other group positions were as expected

By any objective viewpoint it was our best ever WC - and given this is the ultimate test in international rugby, it is objectively not difficult to see why Kidney remained

[cormac]

Trying to claim RWC 2011 as our best ever World Cup is an idle boast. We still went out in an ignominious fashion at the quarter-final stages and we remain the only serious rugby nation not to reach a semi-final in seven attempts.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Trying to claim RWC 2011 as our best ever World Cup is an idle boast. We still went out in an ignominious fashion at the quarter-final stages and we remain the only serious rugby nation not to reach a semi-final in seven attempts.

That really is pathetic when you put it like that.

Still incredible to think that having beaten Australia he decided that the best way of beating Wales was to change the halfbacks.

[fourthirtythree]

By any objective viewpoint it was our best ever WC - and given this is the ultimate test in international rugby, it is objectively not difficult to see why Kidney remained

I think you are using the term "objective" to allow you to cherry pick some results rather than deal with the performance both of the team and most particularly of the management. Again we may be adding in a bit of post event revisionism as our failure to deal with Wales in the 6N after that and the way we were comprehensively out thought by their management colours the defeat at the time. Wales were, and still are a good team. We did the wrong things with the wrong selection to deal with them.

Australia personified sporting arrogance, I love their swagger and belief in their right to win, but it tipped into arrogance when the Irish team turned up doing what we always do and they hadn't prepared for it. That was not a professional performance from them. Our performances against Wales and in the 6N over the last couple of years have not been professional either. We have not prepared to win and therefore haven't.

[OTT]

If we are being objective (new buzz word) about the World Cup we went into it in absolutely shocking form we underperformed in our opening two matches particularly against the US both were against cack oposition. We beat Australia who were shite yes we played to an excellent game plan on the day the only one we seem to have that doesnt work any other day. We played very well against Italy who were brutal but fair is fair we put them to the sword. We played shite against Wales. Kidney's big call after Oz game dropping the half back's - was it a good call? objectively one would have to say it wasnt wouldnt they?

People talking about goodwill, the IRFU must have turned into a charity!!

[Golf Man]

By any objective viewpoint it was our best ever WC - and given this is the ultimate test in international rugby, it is objectively not difficult to see why Kidney remained

I think you are using the term "objective" to allow you to cherry pick some results rather than deal with the performance both of the team and most particularly of the management. Again we may be adding in a bit of post event revisionism as our failure to deal with Wales in the 6N after that and the way we were comprehensively out thought by their management colours the defeat at the time. Wales were, and still are a good team. We did the wrong things with the wrong selection to deal with them.

Australia personified sporting arrogance, I love their swagger and belief in their right to win, but it tipped into arrogance when the Irish team turned up doing what we always do and they hadn't prepared for it. That was not a professional performance from them. Our performances against Wales and in the 6N over the last couple of years have not been professional either. We have not prepared to win and therefore haven't.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the first paragraph - I am merely pointing out that objectively 2011 was our best WC performance - that cannot be argued - and it probably gave Kidney credit, where it realistically shouldn't have

I'm not entirely convinced by your second paragraph - I don't think its quite as simple as one team being less professional than the other. Also looking at the last two Wales Ireland 6N games they have been hugely affected by poor refereeing, albeit that we didn't play well, particukraky last year. In the WC they just did a number on us

Still incredible to think that having beaten Australia he decided that the best way of beating Wales was to change the halfbacks

Kidney's big call after Oz game dropping the half back's - was it a good call? objectively one would have to say it wasnt wouldnt they?

Just on a point of order he dropped Reddan and Sexton after the Aus game, for the Italy game, not the Wales game - we hammered Italy so, objectively you could say that his choice was correct - just saying is all

[Oldschool]

A credible source on Boards saying that this is the team, with ROG a maybe for the bench ahead of Jackson. Would be great if true. I'd quibble with a few selections, but broadly speaking, I'd be very happy with it.

15. Zebo
14. Bowe
13. Earls
12. D'Arcy
11. Trimble
10. Sexton (capt)
9. Murray

1. Healy
2. Strauss
3. Ross
4. Ryan
5. POC
6. POM
7. Henry
8. Heaslip

16. Cronin
17. Kilcoyne
18. Bent
19. McCarthy
20. Henderson
21. Reddan
22. Jackson
23. McFadden

In summary that's a lot of wrong calls by Dekko.
Go to another post if you've got this far and agree.

I don't think POC will make it and if he does we are doubly f^cked, because he won't be 100% or even close if you want to split hairs.
He looked extremely uncomfortable in training. DOC will get the call and I'll cut Dekko some slack on this one.
Zebo at 15 I don't believe is a runner, so it's likely to be Earls.
The only reason Dekko will pick Earls at 13 is to prevent Cave showing that he is a better option or at the least a viable option at 13.
Dekko has a lot of form on this kind of shenanigan selection - It leads to the "but there is no one else" type of scenario he and his predecessor were so fond of.
Murray is full of potential according to his fans. Murray has to be the most ponderous SH (including Bradley) that has ever played for Ireland.
I'm still waiting on him to discharge his potential - How many caps is it now?
Actually I looked up the spellchecker for Murray.
It came up with Moray which is a slippery eel - Didn't fit the bill.
It also came up with Murrain - A type of plague - No further comment required.
Trimble is well off the pace and I'm a fan, but he's now just a HEC level player.
The skill levels required are above him now unfortunately. EOS/Dekko selection policy passed him by, he never got a consistent run.
(And before anyone argues with that point, I'll add, like Murrain for example)
Of the first 15 POM over McL is wrong but probably the closest call and we all know what happens with close calls.

[hugonaut]

... going on the most recent test matches they've played O'Mahony 'needs' a big game far more than Heaslip does.

If you truly believe that POM needs to "stand up and be counted" more than Heaslip does - it says an awful lot more about Heaslip than it does about POM.

This is a game (particulrakly if POC doesn't make it) for Heaslip to demand that everybody else get up to his level - it is a game for POM tp try to play well in

I wrote what I meant.

Heaslip played well in his last two tests. O'Mahony didn't play well in the first NZ test, got dropped, did well off the bench in the second and then was very poor in the third. From their recent tests, Heaslip is the one who has good form.

Certainly Heaslip should bear more burden and expectation, he's a far more experienced player. I also have no real beef with O'Mahony being selected at No6 because I don't think Kev McLaughlin has started the season particularly well, Ferris and O'Brien are injured and Henderson is more of a test prospect than a test player at the moment. My issue was with what I saw as a biased/inaccurate* account of how well POM has performed at test level thus far.

*I've no doubt you might view me as biased/inaccurate as well.

[Oldschool]

... going on the most recent test matches they've played O'Mahony 'needs' a big game far more than Heaslip does.

If you truly believe that POM needs to "stand up and be counted" more than Heaslip does - it says an awful lot more about Heaslip than it does about POM.

This is a game (particulrakly if POC doesn't make it) for Heaslip to demand that everybody else get up to his level - it is a game for POM tp try to play well in

I wrote what I meant.

Heaslip played well in his last two tests. O'Mahony didn't play well in the first NZ test, got dropped, did well off the bench in the second and then was very poor in the third. From their recent tests, Heaslip is the one who has good form.

Certainly Heaslip should bear more burden and expectation, he's a far more experienced player. I also have no real beef with O'Mahony being selected at No6 because I don't think Kev McLaughlin has started the season particularly well, Ferris and O'Brien are injured and Henderson is more of a test prospect than a test player at the moment. My issue was with what I saw as a biased/inaccurate* account of how well POM has performed at test level thus far.

*I've no doubt you might view me as biased/inaccurate as well.

To be honest - If I were Heaslip and heard I was being discussed in the same breath as POM, I'd be disgusted.
Heaslip is Rolls Royce - POM is Ford Escort. And if you want an honest test think about this.

Which of the two above is most likely to make the Lions test team next year. One of them might not even make the squad.

[Golf Man]

To be honest - If I were Heaslip and heard I was being discussed in the same breath as POM, I'd be disgusted.
Heaslip is Rolls Royce - POM is Ford Escort. And if you want an honest test think about this.

Which of the two above is most likely to make the Lions test team next year. One of them might not even make the squad.

Deep

[Logorrhea]

I hate this time of year. Not only does Kidney drive me nuts, but the Munster swarm returns to dominate every single thread relating to the Irish team. You cant have a decent conversation without the usual gobshites spouting the usual nonsense about the usual liginds. Selection of said liginds is justified based on form/last years form/loyalty/ligindness/physicality/youth/age/experience/inexperience/versatility/speciality .... blah blah blah. Non selection of other non-ligind players is okay due to lack of form/loyalty/ligindness/physicality/youth/age/experience/inexperience/versatility/speciality.

The sooner this is over the sooner we can all get over our inevitable dissapointment and return to talking about proper rugby.