Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen
Options
Comments
-
ClanofLams wrote: »There are plenty more examples. I posted that one twice. I haven't seen it too much otherwise on here. That you don't want to discuss a perfect example of Ireland's current struggles is unsurprising.
Part of the solution long term? Unlikely at best. Worthy of a place in the squad currently is the discussion and the fact that some posters react so badly to any questioning of the coaches is frankly bizarre.
What is there to discuss? He shouldn't have kicked it, it was a rubbish bit of play. Anything to add?
Question the coaches all you want. Two losses from two means they should be questioned. I just think this idea that Carty has been treated badly is bananas.
If someone can explain why someone like Keenan or Doris can come from nowhere, either internationally or provincially, and breeze past established players to claim the jersey, but others need a "fair crack" of repeated chances, then please enlighten me.0 -
The problem here is you want it to be one thing or the other. At no point had anyone said the coaches are infallible. In fact we've all said literally the opposite. But yet here you are saying it anyway.
Read my posts back. The point I made was that I don't see much of a difference between the 3 back ups so don't see what the fuss is about overall. If it was Carty selected over Byrne or Burns then I'd be saying the same thing. It's not about the coaches being right, it's about not really seeing a clear right or wrong to the call.
So can we please move away from the BS strawman stuff now?
With respect molloyjh, have you posted a single criticism of Schmidt or Farrell in the past two and a half years? I doubt either you or Former Former has, I read this thread fairly regularly and haven't seen any. I'm not trying to be rude, I just don't understand the mindset.
I mean I could understand it for Schmidt given his record with Leinster & Ireland but that it has carried over to Farrell is just strange.0 -
ClanofLams wrote: »Part of the solution long term? Unlikely at best. Worthy of a place in the squad currently is the discussion and the fact that some posters react so badly to any questioning of the coaches is frankly bizarre.
There is only room for so many players in the squad though. Question the coaches all you want, but as far as I am concerned whether Carty, Burns or Byrne is in there makes little difference as they are all different shades of meh.0 -
siltirocker wrote: »No but I find when judging players capabilities at test rugby reviewing their opportunities in test rugby is inarguably the best metric to measure it on.
Its the only thing you or I have to go on. But decisions aren't being made democratically by the general public. They are being made by coaches with access to information you don't have. Like public health policy during a pandemic. Theres certain stuff we're not privy to and/or don't understand. Therefore our opinion is of limited use. If coaches don't already have a very, very good idea on players abilities to make the step up before actually giving them game time then they aren't doing their job. But remember, it's their job. Your ability to understand or opinion of their decisions matters every but as much as mine. Which is not at all.0 -
Must love hardship wrote: »With people calling for Catts head who would the most likely replacement be, if there was another change with the backs/attack coach?
Felipe contepomi
Stephen Larkham
Jared payne
Nigel Carolan
Girvan Dempsey
What other options may be available?
Payne is defence coach. Soper is replacing Peel as attack coach.0 -
Advertisement
-
Its the only thing you or I have to go on. But decisions aren't being made democratically by the general public. They are being made by coaches with access to information you don't have. Like public health policy during a pandemic. Theres certain stuff we're not privy to and/or don't understand. Therefore our opinion is of limited use. If coaches don't already have a very, very good idea on players abilities to make the step up before actually giving them game time then they aren't doing their job. But remember, it's their job. Your ability to understand or opinion of their decisions matters every but as much as mine. Which is not at all.
I completely agree. I do. I had people I know in the squad, and the stuff you hear.
I was pointing out though that, although not necessarily you, other posters here today were making points based on his test appearances that were wide of the mark.
Poster A: Carty has done nothing in Irish green.
Poster B (me): He has.
Poster C (you): What we see on the pitch isn't everything.
I get that it isn't everything. But that's not what's been debated. You threw around that strawman yourself too. Even if it was inadvertent.0 -
Former Former Former wrote: »What is there to discuss? He shouldn't have kicked it, it was a rubbish bit of play. Anything to add?
Question the coaches all you want. Two losses from two means they should be questioned. I just think this idea that Carty has been treated badly is bananas.
If someone can explain why someone like Keenan or Doris can come from nowhere, either internationally or provincially, and breeze past established players to claim the jersey, but others need a "fair crack" of repeated chances, then please enlighten me.
I'm not bothered going to find them but there are plenty of other examples of poor attack. It's been a problem for quite some time now. The addition of Mike Catt was questioned at the time it was made and now looks a poor decision. That's on Farrell.
You have said the same about Tadgh Beirne not being good enough in the past, referencing the view of coaches, best Irish player in Cardiff ten days ago. Not saying that Beirne will be a starter long term or anything but he clearly has ability. I'm not saying Jack Carty should be a starter either but that he is worthy of a squad place. Especially given Sexton's injuries and the skill set Carty has.
You say 'question the coaches all you want' a few people question the selection of the back up and third choice ten and you are here saying Carty got plenty of chances. It's pointed out he didn't and you or molloyjh reference camp time - in other words look the coaches know best, don't be questioning that selection.0 -
Doris is a no brainer. Keenan? no idea. imo he's done quite well but people are being really quick to annoint him as the second coming. he has a long way to go. Larmour has got stick despite looking like one of our most electrifying back in the last decade along with Stockdale.
On the face of it many of the coaches, the sytem and a shed load of our fans our conservative and would choose your Dempseys over your Murphys. There's a load of fans who wouldn't.
Many of the critics take issue with the inconcistency shown. Picking a Keenan out of the blue but letting other in form players drop out or go stale. baffling0 -
Former Former Former wrote: »What is there to discuss? He shouldn't have kicked it, it was a rubbish bit of play. Anything to add?
Question the coaches all you want. Two losses from two means they should be questioned. I just think this idea that Carty has been treated badly is bananas.
If someone can explain why someone like Keenan or Doris can come from nowhere, either internationally or provincially, and breeze past established players to claim the jersey, but others need a "fair crack" of repeated chances, then please enlighten me.
Enlightenment is a destructive process.
You're not ready for that yet!
After the Scotland game perhaps0 -
There is only room for so many players in the squad though. Question the coaches all you want, but as far as I am concerned whether Carty, Burns or Byrne is in there makes little difference as they are all different shades of meh.
yet when an alternative is suggested who appears to have a better ceiling than any of them, its "too soon", "wait till he has European experience", "wait till he ousts his brother" etc
i dont believe any of burns, R Byrne or Carty.. has the ability to become a top level international 10. We dont know what joey carberys form will be like coming back from his injury.
the choice is wait it out until sexton himself decides hes had enough, or plan for the future today, in a competition we now cannot win.0 -
Advertisement
-
The average age of the squad to prep for Italy is 28. This is becoming extremely worrying at this stage. Irelands next games after March could be in November. If Farrell had any intention if having H.Byrne or Casey in involved, he would have had them involved in as much preparation as he could for the game. I've defended Farrell a lot here in the last couple of weeks. But he had a meaningless games (with no prize money on the line) last November and he refused to succession plan then. And now with Italy (who have shipped 50 and 40 points respectively) when the 6 nations is over, here we are wheeling out a nearly 36 year old out half (who isnt even our best 10 anymore) against a team who havent won a game in 6 years. Farrell is literally hindering our world cup Hope's more and more every week. The ironic thing is, nobody would care if we lost to Scotland and England, if it was with a team who will improve and get better. But hes picking a team that is on a downward curve every week.0
-
ClanofLams wrote: »With respect molloyjh, have you posted a single criticism of Schmidt or Farrell in the past two and a half years? I doubt either you or Former Former has, I read this thread fairly regularly and haven't seen any. I'm not trying to be rude, I just don't understand the mindset.
I mean I could understand it for Schmidt given his record with Leinster & Ireland but that it has carried over to Farrell is just strange.
In short yes. I criticised the inclusion of only 2 LHs in the 6Ns squad quite strongly only a couple of weeks ago for example.
But here's the thing, to criticise any decision you should first try and understand it. Otherwise what exactly are you criticising? Do you even know? For example, why does Farrell not want Carty in the set up? What areas of his game does he see as not being up to scratch? If you don't know the answer to that then do you actually know what you are really disagreeing on? Sure, the end decision is the obvious answer, but Farrell has reached that decision for a reason. And he isn't the first coach to do so. Is it Cartys inconsistency? If so then how you disagree with the decision might be different from how you would if he didn't trust Cartys kicking from hand or from the tee or his ability to pass off his weak hand etc etc.
The reason you don't see me being critical of decisions very often is because I try to understand them first. And generally there is good reason for the decisions. That doesnt always make the decision right or mean I always agree, but its not like they are deliberately selecting inferior players or selecting guys to piss people off or that they have provincial biases or anything like that. There's a reason. So I try to understand what that reason is. Let me give you some examples...
POM was selected on the bench in the opener of the 2020 6Ns. If you are bothered you can go back and look at my take on that. But in short I didn't agree with it. However I did see the logic in it. Our bench lacked leadership and he brought that in spades. He had previous for being an impact sub, especially at line out time. So there were a few logical reasons for his inclusion. His form at the time was poor though so while I figured I understood it, I didn't agree with it. But by understanding it, I didn't get too bothered by it either. I was able to simply say "I get it, but I don't agree". And believe me that's better for the blood pressure than getting pissed off!
Another example is Cooneys non-selection. I haven't commented much on that at all. The reason being that I don't understand the logic. And as a result I don't really know how to disagree with it. Is it that he's too old and doesn't bring the experience a player of his age should? Maybe. Is there something going on behind the scenes in camp that has him out of favour like a disagreement on how we play or something? Possibly. But because I can't put my finger on why I think Cooney is excluded its hard to challenge the decision, because I don't know what it's based on.
At the end of the day these coaches are pros. They've more info, more exposure, more experience and are vastly more qualified to make these decisions than I am. So that means I should take heed of their decisions and recognise that there's a logic there. None of that means they can't be wrong or should always be trusted or that I will always agree. It just means that I have to consider the (strong) possibility that they know better than me and treat their decisions with the appropriate amount of respect as a result. And by doing so I tend to have a more chilled out take on this stuff. After all, I'm not going to be able to change it. So why get overly stressed about it if I don't have to? It's only a game.0 -
Doris is a no brainer. Keenan? no idea. imo he's done quite well but people are being really quick to annoint him as the second coming. he has a long way to go. Larmour has got stick despite looking like one of our most electrifying back in the last decade along with Stockdale.
On the face of it many of the coaches, the sytem and a shed load of our fans our conservative and would choose your Dempseys over your Murphys. There's a load of fans who wouldn't.
Many of the critics take issue with the inconcistency shown. Picking a Keenan out of the blue but letting other in form players drop out or go stale. baffling
Who has been anointing him as the second coming?? I've seen lots of posts that say pretty much the same as you; i.e. that he's done quite well, has been extremely solid, has taken to Test level quite well. And yet you still seem aggrieved.
As for the inconsistencies with in-form players. Earlier you were bemoaning the exclusion of Aki, McCloskey, Farrell and Dillane etc. They would have to have been included at the expense of Henshaw and Beirne, who are amongst our 2 most in form players over the last month or so.
Imo, your arguments betray bigger inconsistencies than anything else on here, tbh.0 -
-
This is exactly the kind of mindset that puzzles me on here. Two completely different sets of coaches in 2 completely different set-ups did not see JJ as starting 10 material. Yet instead of even considering that they may have had good reason for that, maybe by seeing the weaknesses in his game, you insist that the weaknesses came about because of the coaches.
Now I'm not saying that isn't true. Maybe it is. But it certainly seems far more logical to me that both sets of coaches saw the flaws in his game that we have all since seen and decided against making him first choice 10 because of those flaws. Not that the flaws came about because he wasn't selected.
The thing that puzzles me is the level of confidence people have in assertions like these. You have a fraction of the information that these coaches had. You have nothing even remotely like their experience or their expertise. They are infinitely more qualified to identify a players ablities, weaknesses, ceiling etc. Yet there is no doubt in your mind that you know better than they do. Where does that confidence come from? What's so special about you that you know more than these guys?
I find this a pretty odd perspective to take. Of course coaches are more likely to make correct calls over selection than any one of us spectators are, they see a lot more of the players, but when it comes to the most important metric, matchday performance, we all get largely the same information about the player.
Whether or not JJ would have made it as a top quality out half or not is not really the heart of the issue. The real question is, did the IRFU do everything it reasonably should have done to assist the development of what was one of this country's most promising young players into a top quality out half?
The answer I think is pretty obviously no.
I remember the him leaving quite clearly, and it was widely regarded at the time to have resulted from a failure by Munster and the IRFU to offer sufficient opportunities for game time at 10 for his development. Neither wanted him to leave, but neither were prepared to give him the assurances he felt he needed to develop as a 10.
We'll never know the reasons he didn't kick on the way he could have, but the Irish set up certainly didn't help, or give him confidence they would have aided him in that regard.
That had to go down as a serious failure of Irish Rugby.
As it happens he's doing okay for himself at the moment, and I wouldn't see much of a difference between him and either of our out halves that played at the weekend.
The fact is, coaches make mistakes, have biases and blindspots, develop attachments and have their favourites amongst certain players. Other players are have brilliant skillsets that don't suit the way a particular coach likes to set up.
I'd be very relectant to completely defer to coaches' judgements on players, in large part because they're only human and get it wrong a lot of the time. They're more informed, but they're far from perfect.
Also, if we did that we'd have little to talk about on here.0 -
I respectfully disagree, tbh. Did you see the match thread this week, for example?
That's probably because he picked a squad of 27/28 year olds who have hit their ceiling. I think the first half performance last week was the best we've seen under Farrell. Theres been a lot I'm improvements this year from last year (scrum, lineand breakdown all vastly better). But because on paper its 2 losses, and the improvements weren't in the areas certain people want, they're unhappy.
Let's be honest, if come 2023, our half backs are Gibson Park (31) and Billy Burns (29) were in trouble. Both good players, but we're unlikely to win a knockout game with them at 9 and 10. Cooney (33) and H.Byrne (24) on the other hand, that's a halfback pairing that we could do something with.0 -
Who has been anointing him as the second coming?? I've seen lots of posts that say pretty much the same as you; i.e. that he's done quite well, has been extremely solid, has taken to Test level quite well. And yet you still seem aggrieved.
As for the inconsistencies with in-form players. Earlier you were bemoaning the exclusion of Aki, McCloskey, Farrell and Dillane etc. They would have to have been included at the expense of Henshaw and Beirne, who are amongst our 2 most in form players over the last month or so.
Imo, your arguments betray bigger inconsistencies than anything else on here, tbh.
what are you on about? those players are part of my point. all were in form at some stage and not really truly backed. Henshaw is only back in form now, he was given lots of leeway to get there. i wonder why. Was he that good against France? Beirne is thriving now but again coaches dicked around with him a fair bit. also i'd possibly take him at 6 instead of POM.
Many have been. Keenan has been good. solid. Looks safe under the highball. Not huge pace, not slow. Looks ok with ball in hand. He's very calm and he's seems an excellent reader of the game and in defence. He's the 15 atm fine, no problem. But we tend to overhype solid performances in this country. Yet when we have a player capable of the extraordinary we seek comfort in the ordinary. Its clear with Larmour and Stockdale. The former seems to have lost all his spark. And then thats all before you take into account what people are saying. Certain players don't get that benefit of fair judgement or the rub of the green for whatever reason. I've made my stance known on this and have been attacked over it.
I can just never get my head around how some players have always gotten a pass and others haven't. And on top of that the idea that the coaches know it all isn't true. AS i said before on here i know a coach involved and i told the story of Jordan Conroy and the fact that Easterbuy couldn't believe that he was only playing sevens. Different coaches at all levels have different opinions. Its well known Zebo and Joe didn't see eye to eye. I've heard Cronin was the same. So no matter what they did they were never getting past that issue.
Coaches and the system are nowhere near perfect and will make mistakes.
I can only say hopefully some people start waking up soon if it goes tits up in the next 3 games.0 -
In short yes. I criticised the inclusion of only 2 LHs in the 6Ns squad quite strongly only a couple of weeks ago for example.
But here's the thing, to criticise any decision you should first try and understand it. Otherwise what exactly are you criticising? Do you even know? For example, why does Farrell not want Carty in the set up? What areas of his game does he see as not being up to scratch? If you don't know the answer to that then do you actually know what you are really disagreeing on? Sure, the end decision is the obvious answer, but Farrell has reached that decision for a reason. And he isn't the first coach to do so. Is it Cartys inconsistency? If so then how you disagree with the decision might be different from how you would if he didn't trust Cartys kicking from hand or from the tee or his ability to pass off his weak hand etc etc.
The reason you don't see me being critical of decisions very often is because I try to understand them first. And generally there is good reason for the decisions. That doesnt always make the decision right or mean I always agree, but its not like they are deliberately selecting inferior players or selecting guys to piss people off or that they have provincial biases or anything like that. There's a reason. So I try to understand what that reason is. Let me give you some examples...
POM was selected on the bench in the opener of the 2020 6Ns. If you are bothered you can go back and look at my take on that. But in short I didn't agree with it. However I did see the logic in it. Our bench lacked leadership and he brought that in spades. He had previous for being an impact sub, especially at line out time. So there were a few logical reasons for his inclusion. His form at the time was poor though so while I figured I understood it, I didn't agree with it. But by understanding it, I didn't get too bothered by it either. I was able to simply say "I get it, but I don't agree". And believe me that's better for the blood pressure than getting pissed off!
Another example is Cooneys non-selection. I haven't commented much on that at all. The reason being that I don't understand the logic. And as a result I don't really know how to disagree with it. Is it that he's too old and doesn't bring the experience a player of his age should? Maybe. Is there something going on behind the scenes in camp that has him out of favour like a disagreement on how we play or something? Possibly. But because I can't put my finger on why I think Cooney is excluded its hard to challenge the decision, because I don't know what it's based on.
At the end of the day these coaches are pros. They've more info, more exposure, more experience and are vastly more qualified to make these decisions than I am. So that means I should take heed of their decisions and recognise that there's a logic there. None of that means they can't be wrong or should always be trusted or that I will always agree. It just means that I have to consider the (strong) possibility that they know better than me and treat their decisions with the appropriate amount of respect as a result. And by doing so I tend to have a more chilled out take on this stuff. After all, I'm not going to be able to change it. So why get overly stressed about it if I don't have to? It's only a game.
Of course coaches have more information. Nor would I suggest any coach is deliberately biased etc - every coach obviously wants the best results.
Everyone here has access to the most important information on here however - on pitch performances. There's a reasonable argument about whether or not Carty should be in the squad and I don't think people just assuming the coaches are correct adds much to the conversation. Especially when they do so in a rather dismissive manner and especially when Farrell's judgment is evidently questionable (eg Mike Catt) in other areas.
Ireland have not played to their potential since 2018. Our attack is incredibly limited by design it appears, which frankly is a far bigger issue than back up ten. At this stage how anybody believes Andy Farrell is the best coach to take Ireland to the World Cup is beyond me. Hopefully I am wrong and Ireland 'click' over the next month but I doubt it.0 -
That's probably because he picked a squad of 27/28 year olds who have hit their ceiling. I think the first half performance last week was the best we've seen under Farrell. Theres been a lot I'm improvements this year from last year (scrum, lineand breakdown all vastly better). But because on paper its 2 losses, and the improvements weren't in the areas certain people want, they're unhappy.
Let's be honest, if come 2023, our half backs are Gibson Park (31) and Billy Burns (29) were in trouble. Both good players, but we're unlikely to win a knockout game with them at 9 and 10. Cooney (33) and H.Byrne (24) on the other hand, that's a halfback pairing that we could do something with.
I agree to a large extent with the points you're making, but just from my experience on here, I think that regardless of what Farrell (or any coach) does, there'll always be a cohort who will be outraged / shout "disgraceful" etc.0 -
wittycynic wrote: »I find this a pretty odd perspective to take. Of course coaches are more likely to make correct calls over selection than any one of us spectators are, they see a lot more of the players, but when it comes to the most important metric, matchday performance, we all get largely the same information about the player.
Whether or not JJ would have made it as a top quality out half or not is not really the heart of the issue. The real question is, did the IRFU do everything it reasonably should have done to assist the development of what was one of this country's most promising young players into a top quality out half?
The answer I think is pretty obviously no.
I remember the him leaving quite clearly, and it was widely regarded at the time to have resulted from a failure by Munster and the IRFU to offer sufficient opportunities for game time at 10 for his development. Neither wanted him to leave, but neither were prepared to give him the assurances he felt he needed to develop as a 10.
We'll never know the reasons he didn't kick on the way he could have, but the Irish set up certainly didn't help, or give him confidence they would have aided him in that regard.
That had to go down as a serious failure of Irish Rugby.
As it happens he's doing okay for himself at the moment, and I wouldn't see much of a difference between him and either of our out halves that played at the weekend.
The fact is, coaches make mistakes, have biases and blindspots, develop attachments and have their favourites amongst certain players. Other players are have brilliant skillsets that don't suit the way a particular coach likes to set up.
I'd be very relectant to completely defer to coaches' judgements on players, in large part because they're only human and get it wrong a lot of the time. They're more informed, but they're far from perfect.
Also, if we did that we'd have little to talk about on here.
I really feel like I'm banging my head against a wall here. I was challenging the certainty of the assertion that the only reason JJ didn't make it was that his coaches let him down. This despite the body of evidence of at least 3 different coaching setups across 2 different teams in different countries and leagues all coming to the same conclusion about the guy.
Now let me be clear, I dont know if the coaches were the problem. Maybe they were. Maybe they were part of the problem. Maybe JJ was never going to cut it. I haven't a clue. It seems most likely the latter given the limited evidence available to us but that doesn't mean a thing really. My issue here was this level of certainty over something nobody can be certain about. This idea that random Internet punters like you and I know better than numerous pro coaches. Yes, sometimes they'll get it wrong. Of course they will. They're human. But to not even conceive that they may have gotten this one right just seems odd given what we know.0 -
Advertisement
-
That's probably because he picked a squad of 27/28 year olds who have hit their ceiling. I think the first half performance last week was the best we've seen under Farrell. Theres been a lot I'm improvements this year from last year (scrum, lineand breakdown all vastly better). But because on paper its 2 losses, and the improvements weren't in the areas certain people want, they're unhappy.
Let's be honest, if come 2023, our half backs are Gibson Park (31) and Billy Burns (29) were in trouble. Both good players, but we're unlikely to win a knockout game with them at 9 and 10. Cooney (33) and H.Byrne (24) on the other hand, that's a halfback pairing that we could do something with.
Cooney has consistently not been picked by several international coaching teams.
The more he doesnt play for Ireland the better he appears to be getting. He has been called up at various stages and not been picked. Perhaps its that he isnt good enough to be regular starter for international rugby.
Are we really going to be that bit better at winning a knock out game if Cooney is picked when he hasnt ever really shown he can stay in an irish jersey long term despite plenty of chances.
Harry Byrne has no right to be in irish selection debates until he is consistently playing in bigger games for his province be it interpros or europe.0 -
ClanofLams wrote: »I don't think people just assuming the coaches are correct adds much to the conversation.
Nobody is doing that. And constantly saying it not only doesn't add anything to the conversation, it's actively derailing and destroying it. I mean a few of us have literally told you that we do not believe this to be true. I took time out to explain where I'm coming from and explicitly stated in that how I fundamentally do not believe what you've said here. And yet here you are, saying it again. Why? A conversation requires an element of listening and if you're repeatedly told that people don't believe this, yet repeatedly fall back on it, then how are we actually having a conversation at all. It's just 2 people talking at each other. And what's the point of that?0 -
Lost Ormond wrote: »Harry Byrne has no right to be in irish selection debates until he is consistently playing in bigger games for his province be it interpros or europe.
I agree and, in a few years time, he will be competing with Healy and/or Crowley.0 -
Lost Ormond wrote: »Harry Byrne has no right to be in irish selection debates until he is consistently playing in bigger games for his province be it interpros or europe.
There havent been European games for him to play in. He came off the bench v Montpeliier. Then got injured in the warm up before the game he was due to start in. The last 2 group games were cancelled. Why does everyone have this romantic, wishful idea that a player has to play X european games or Y interpro games before they're eligible for selection.
I've said this before, Leinster are the best team in Europe and thus have a completely different agenda to Ireland. They have no reason to rush Harry Byrne. They dont have a world cup in 2 years that they desperately need to blood a new 10 for. I've seen every minute of professional rugby Harry Byrne has played and he is clearly good enough to be involved. And he has he highest ceiling of all the 10s on this island. The idea that he has to jump through these hoops even though hes clearly good enough is silly.0 -
sydthebeat wrote: »yet when an alternative is suggested who appears to have a better ceiling than any of them, its "too soon", "wait till he has European experience", "wait till he ousts his brother" etc
i dont believe any of burns, R Byrne or Carty.. has the ability to become a top level international 10. We dont know what joey carberys form will be like coming back from his injury.
the choice is wait it out until sexton himself decides hes had enough, or plan for the future today, in a competition we now cannot win.
Oh I'm all aboard the "just throw Harry in there" train. But its also a perfectly legit point that he has sod all experience and has mostly displayed evidence of vast potential rather than anything else. Players have been thrown into test rugby too quickly before and it has not helped. In contract it didn't seem to do J Ryan any more. Its not a one size fits all thing.
I have no problem with Sexton playing for another year and Harry Byrne then taking over though. I couldn't care less that BB/RB/JC aren't getting more game time because none of them are particularly great.0 -
what are you on about? those players are part of my point. all were in form at some stage and not really truly backed. Henshaw is only back in form now, he was given lots of leeway to get there. i wonder why. Was he that good against France? Beirne is thriving now but again coaches dicked around with him a fair bit. also i'd possibly take him at 6 instead of POM.
Wait Aki was not truly backed?? Chris Farrell has gotten game time under Farrell. Even then mentioning as well McCloskey... they can't all get game time!
Henshaw was ok against France. But he was plenty good enough against Wales to deserve to be retained. Were you calling for him to be replaced before the French game or is this just Monday morning quarter-backing?0 -
I really feel like I'm banging my head against a wall here. I was challenging the certainty of the assertion that the only reason JJ didn't make it was that his coaches let him down. This despite the body of evidence of at least 3 different coaching setups across 2 different teams in different countries and leagues all coming to the same conclusion about the guy.
Now let me be clear, I dont know if the coaches were the problem. Maybe they were. Maybe they were part of the problem. Maybe JJ was never going to cut it. I haven't a clue. It seems most likely the latter given the limited evidence available to us but that doesn't mean a thing really. My issue here was this level of certainty over something nobody can be certain about. This idea that random Internet punters like you and I know better than numerous pro coaches. Yes, sometimes they'll get it wrong. Of course they will. They're human. But to not even conceive that they may have gotten this one right just seems odd given what we know.
The only people banging their heads are the ones replying and reading your stuff. Beyond infuriating. you've been completely wrong for some time and clanoflams has shown you up in this argument0 -
Wait Aki was not truly backed?? Chris Farrell has gotten game time under Farrell. Even then mentioning as well McCloskey... they can't all get game time!
Henshaw was ok against France. But he was plenty good enough against Wales to deserve to be retained. Were you calling for him to be replaced before the French game or is this just Monday morning quarter-backing?
you think McCloskey has gotten a fair crack?
He was excellent against Wales. But thats the problem, he followed it up with a fairly average performance.
He's been in the side more often than not and you could say for some time he hasn't been performing.
But this is part of my point. Anyway some of you guys don't listen or don't want to talk reality. Henshaw gets years of passes and goodwill and Jack Carty or Cooney get dicked over. As i said i believe central contracts play a huge part of it. The pecking order is set and it becomes near impossible to break it. It just enforces bias and a good face theory type of mentality. As i said no doubt will see Keenan get that golden ticket.
Its beyond pointless. there is no getting through to you. and then we have molloy saying clanoflams doesn't listen or whatever.
And then we look foolish cause nobody is really saying Henshaw and Ringrose aren't the preferred partnership. We're arguing people aren't getting fair cracks. Like the form 9 and ten aren't even in the bloody squad ffs.
YOu only have to look at the farcical nature of Ruddock getting his first 6 nations start at the weekend. its indefensible.0 -
ClanofLams wrote: »Of course coaches have more information. Nor would I suggest any coach is deliberately biased etc - every coach obviously wants the best results.
Everyone here has access to the most important information on here however - on pitch performances. There's a reasonable argument about whether or not Carty should be in the squad and I don't think people just assuming the coaches are correct adds much to the conversation. Especially when they do so in a rather dismissive manner and especially when Farrell's judgment is evidently questionable (eg Mike Catt) in other areas.
To be fair, I don't think people are doing that. The issue is more the reverse imo; that some posters are assuming / asserting that they are correct without qualification.
(Just to be clear, I don't include you in that, you've been very reasonable).0 -
Advertisement
-
Nobody is doing that. And constantly saying it not only doesn't add anything to the conversation, it's actively derailing and destroying it. I mean a few of us have literally told you that we do not believe this to be true. I took time out to explain where I'm coming from and explicitly stated in that how I fundamentally do not believe what you've said here. And yet here you are, saying it again. Why? A conversation requires an element of listening and if you're repeatedly told that people don't believe this, yet repeatedly fall back on it, then how are we actually having a conversation at all. It's just 2 people talking at each other. And what's the point of that?
I referenced the coaches having more information in my answer.
You have repeatedly referenced Carty's time in camp in defence of the decision which means I interpret your comments as the coaches are correct because of that camp time/additional info?
What you took out of my post in quoting me is far more important as I said. Andy Farrell added Mike Catt to the coaching ticket, a decision that was viewed as questionable at the time and looks frankly bad now. It understandably leads to questions about his judgment.
Ireland's attack is very limited, seemingly by design. In truth it has been for years now. The view that Andy Farrell is the best coach to lead Ireland to the World Cup is an increasingly difficult one to support. Barring a major turn around in the next month, he will leave this six nations under severe pressure, at best.0
Advertisement