Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

UAEguy2020

aloooof wrote: »

It doesn't solely determine it. But it does have an impact. You seem really dismissive of this, but an example, stretched to the extreme, to illustrate the point.

Say there was a country called TwentyThreeland. Population: 23. I'm going to go out on a limb and say they'd never win a Rugby World Cup.

Ofcourse I am because if it had a big impact why don’t we have a England + France dominated championship every year for as long as time? Because it should be common knowledge at this point that population doesn’t really matter, what matters is 23 on 23.



If all 23 of them are top class rugby players I’d
say they would have a great chance.

UAEguy2020

Louis Friend wrote: »

What a very strange post.

Of course population, and more importantly playing population are hugely relevant.

Not really if you make the most of you’re resources. Ireland churn out enough talent for this not to be a deciding factor and anyone who tries to make it as such is just using it as an excuse to accept mediocrity. It’s evidently clear that the Irish team isn’t playing anywhere near its potential (the backline play is actually a piss take how badly they play) and the Irish coaching staff is clearly not getting most out of the group and we as a public should expect more and until this is fixed there is little point making excuses time after time as it’s just distracting us from the actual problem and if we don’t fix our problems we are doomed in 2023 even if we had 70m people.

TRC10

UAEguy2020 wrote: »

Not really if you make the most of you’re resources. Ireland churn out enough talent for this not to be a deciding factor and anyone who tries to make it as such is just using it as an excuse to accept mediocrity. It’s evidently clear that the Irish team isn’t playing anywhere near its potential (the backline play is actually a piss take how badly they play) and the Irish coaching staff is clearly not getting most out of the group and we as a public should expect more and until this is fixed there is little point making excuses time after time as it’s just distracting us from the actual problem and if we don’t fix our problems we are doomed in 2023 even if we had 70m people.

Exactly this

Strength in depth is great and all, but at the end of the day you can only field 23 players. If Wales can get to a semi in 2 of the last 3, theres no excuse for us.

P.Walnuts

Am I actually reading that playing population doesn't affect the quality of a national team?

salmocab

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Am I actually reading that playing population doesn't affect the quality of a national team?

It’s your own fault for reading some of the posts.

dublin49

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Am I actually reading that playing population doesn't affect the quality of a national team?

I would think if all other variables are relatively similiar population will be a significant factor in determining the success of a team but national obsession,an expectation of Excellence /Heritage will largely mitigate any disadvantage a country gets from size of population.The All Blacks have these factors and the Welsh to a lesser extent but we don't so we are at a disadvantage to England & France based on population,

Must love hardship

Is the team for the Italy match to be announced at lunch time today?

stephen_n

UAEguy2020 wrote: »

Ofcourse I am because if it had a big impact why don’t we have a England + France dominated championship every year for as long as time? Because it should be common knowledge at this point that population doesn’t really matter, what matters is 23 on 23.



If all 23 of them are top class rugby players I’d
say they would have a great chance.

England and France between them have won the championship 13 out of the last 20 years. Exactly how dominant would you require them to be?

evil_seed

Must love hardship wrote: »

No project players included.

In 2009 we had none in the starting 15.
2018 we had 2 start most games.. now we could have 5. Maybe thats the reason we are getting progressively worse.

Maybe

Hi Franno

theVersatile

Food for thought: if boards.ie was around twenty years ago, what would some of the anti-import Billy Burns detractors have thought of Kevin Maggs?

Scratchly

Must love hardship wrote: »

Is the team for the Italy match to be announced at lunch time today?

It's usually done on Thursdays.

Must love hardship

Scratchly wrote: »

It's usually done on Thursdays.

I thought that too but then I read this:

https://www.sixnationsrugby.com/2021/02/23/when-are-the-guinness-six-nations-round-3-team-announcements/

Which says lunch time today. Article must be wrong with no leaks in the papers.

theVersatile

The "This Week on Munster Rugby" article also says we hear news from Irish camp ahead of the Italy game today.

stephen_n

Must love hardship wrote: »

I thought that too but then I read this:

https://www.sixnationsrugby.com/2021/02/23/when-are-the-guinness-six-nations-round-3-team-announcements/

Which says lunch time today. Article must be wrong with no leaks in the papers.

According to RTE the team is only being announced internally today and that usually happens a day before the official announcement.

Farrell had been announcing earlier when he first started as head coach. I think it changed though as they want to keep things competitive as long as possible. So don’t let the players know until as late as is possible.

Fantasyland guff here most of the last week, last few weeks in fact and very little of it worth engaging with.

The reality of this weekend is that a loss would likely result in Farrell losing his job. Farrell is picking the team and he is under pressure for not just a win but a performance. He is going to pick a team he thinks will win and perform.

I don't recall England rotating a whole bunch for this game and they were at home. It would be nice to be in a position to rotate (and I suspect we could win with a less experienced squad) but I just don't see us taking much if any chances given were 2 losses from 2.

I expect our starting 15 will be more or less full strength with Murray and Sexton (if fit) getting the nod. We might see a little bit of rotation on the bench but I think it's more likely this game will be used as a platform for the following two fixtures.

FACECUTTR

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Fantasyland guff here most of the last week, last few weeks in fact and very little of it worth engaging with.

The reality of this weekend is that a loss would likely result in Farrell losing his job. Farrell is picking the team and he is under pressure for not just a win but a performance. He is going to pick a team he thinks will win and perform.

I don't recall England rotating a whole bunch for this game and they were at home. It would be nice to be in a position to rotate (and I suspect we could win with a less experienced squad) but I just don't see us taking much if any chances given were 2 losses from 2.

I expect our starting 15 will be more or less full strength with Murray and Sexton (if fit) getting the nod. We might see a little bit of rotation on the bench but I think it's more likely this game will be used as a platform for the following two fixtures.

If we were in contention for a grand slam or a championship it still would have been a full strength side being put out. I really hope they have a good game and the team can kick on and shake off the poor performances of late. If we get into a dogfight it will be messy and the media would be all over the coaching ticket. A loss and its game over for Farrell.

UAEguy2020

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Am I actually reading that playing population doesn't affect the quality of a national team?

It’s not the deciding factor or anywhere near as big a factor as some on here try to make out, it’s one of a number of factors that we fixate on for some reason but as has been shown for decades it’s not a deciding factor in the long run as it’s 23 v 23.
If it did why aren’t England the dominant force in world rugby?

UAEguy2020

stephen_n wrote: »

England and France between them have won the championship 13 out of the last 20 years. Exactly how dominant would you require them to be?

There’s a difference between winning the championship and dominating the championship...

jacothelad

dublin49 wrote: »

I would think if all other variables are relatively similiar population will be a significant factor in determining the success of a team but national obsession,an expectation of Excellence /Heritage will largely mitigate any disadvantage a country gets from size of population.The All Blacks have these factors and the Welsh to a lesser extent but we don't so we are at a disadvantage to England & France based on population,

Another factor to consider is how player numbers are counted. The numbers of 'participants' shown for Ireland are very misleading. It averages out at about 500 players per club. Counting just about every primary school kid who has ever heard the word 'rugby' serves no real purpose but distorts the true situation.

hahashake

Most important factor is the pipeline of top level U20 athletes who also have played the sport from a relatively young age with decent coaching. Total playing numbers don't matter nearly as much if they don't fit into that category. However total playing numbers will probably mean there is more money to be invested in that pipeline.

UAEguy2020

dublin49 wrote: »

I would think if all other variables are relatively similiar population will be a significant factor in determining the success of a team but national obsession,an expectation of Excellence /Heritage will largely mitigate any disadvantage a country gets from size of population.The All Blacks have these factors and the Welsh to a lesser extent but we don't so we are at a disadvantage to England & France based on population,

And no population won’t play a significant factor, it’s a nice excuse and all but history has shown that this isn’t the case, it’s A factor but sayings it’s a significant factor is not backed up by any evidence we have seen in the past.

Surely Ireland being up there sort of kills you’re argument stone dead.

The public may have low expectations but the Irish rugby union thankfully do have an expectation of excellence which ensures Ireland mitigate that disadvantage of population. Hence why they had no problem slamming the Irish team in 2019 while the public just made up cliched excuses as always.

ionadnapokot

Sexton yest
"We were changing in and out a lot [at training] today so selection is still up for grabs.

"No team has been announced in this environment yet and it really adds to training because guys are competing with each other and guys are fighting for places.

"The team will be announced [internally tomorrow] and then it will be over to Rome and hopefully we’ll get a good performance and a good result."

Sexton is 100% starting v Italy
I laughed when i saw that it now makes sense again to delay the team announcement!

UAEguy2020

hahashake wrote: »

Most important factor is the pipeline of top level U20 athletes who also have played the sport from a relatively young age with decent coaching. Total playing numbers don't matter nearly as much if they don't fit into that category. However total playing numbers will probably mean there is more money to be invested in that pipeline.

Plus having a smaller population means it’s easier to weed out the the lesser players and isolate the strong ones and get them in academies.

Total playing numbers in the long run mean very little especially at the highest level because everyone has a strong rugby culture and has enough quality players to field a strong team, maybe if you are talking about an Italy v Georgia for instance you would back Italy due to having more resources and the gap is even more important as you venture further down the rankings but when you get to the very highest level it doesn’t matter nearly as much as everyone has a strong group of rugby players and can all field strong 23’s meaning once you get here it largely comes down to how you make the most of the resources at your disposal.

Brief_Lives

In fairness ending the game with Sexton as a sub doesn´t make sense, we can´t tell how long he lasts in a game now, and we would be goosed if the starting outhalf had an injury...

him not playing against Italy is the sensible option, give the other 2 lads a go.

UAEguy2020

I would start Sexton but the change I would like to see is Casey at 9

I’m not calling for 10 changes or anything, what I’d like to see is about 3-4 changes just to freshen things up a little.

Eod100

Good to see Henderson get 2 year contract extension

https://twitter.com/IrishRugby/status/1364530666424201219

Dave_The_Sheep

This day in 2007, that game in Croke Park. The actual rugby felt secondary to the event, but it was still an incredible day as an Irish supporter for a whole variety of reasons.

I still re-watch this every once in a while.

Sanjuro

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

This day in 2007, that game in Croke Park. The actual rugby felt secondary to the event, but it was still an incredible day as an Irish supporter for a whole variety of reasons.

I still re-watch this every once in a while.

Andy Farrell played for England that day too

stephen_n

UAEguy2020 wrote: »

There’s a difference between winning the championship and dominating the championship...

Care to explain what you believe that difference is?

Lost Ormond

ersatz wrote: »

Rugby is huge in NZ but so are lots of other sports. There the top ten schools have produced 25% of all blacks, for the team of us if you exclude overseas players the number is much closer to 80 or even 90%. That's probably the biggest challenge for the national team, how to expand the playing base, and I'm not sure the IRFU/provinces are doing a great job honestly.

A better comparison for Ireland should be Wales rather than Eng/FR/SA. We have almost double the Welsh population and soccer is big there with a few pro teams competing for talented athletes (yes, it's not GAA). Ireland has 20% more rugby players than Wales, their pro teams are poor and the union does not control all of their international players. By any measure we should perform better than Wales but we don't, it's not even close in terms of the record books. Maybe some of our Welsh posters can ponder whether fans and pundits there would have reacted differently to Ireland's recent results against England and the WC capitulation to Japan and NZ had those been a pattern of Welsh performances over a few years. I suspect it would have been more impassioned than the resignation that accompanied those results here.

The IRFU and the provinces are doing a fairly good job and the numbers playing have increased a lot and numbers coming through from newer areas or areas that have strong tradition of playing but not necessarily bringing players through to top level of game is much better than before.

Connacht are doing a lot of excellent work to expand the playing pool and have increased their numbers by a huge amount through getting most schools playing rugby and then getting as many of those kids into clubs to play as well. Number of schools now competing is miles higher than it was before

They need to work to keep these numbers playing into adult rugby though

Ireland doesnt have 20% more adult rugby players than Wales though.

jacothelad wrote: »

Another factor to consider is how player numbers are counted. The numbers of 'participants' shown for Ireland are very misleading. It averages out at about 500 players per club. Counting just about every primary school kid who has ever heard the word 'rugby' serves no real purpose but distorts the true situation.

I dont think thats true though and they do list the primary school kids who get the development officer coaching sessions in a different section so you can get a real figure without including all those kids..

hahashake wrote: »

Most important factor is the pipeline of top level U20 athletes who also have played the sport from a relatively young age with decent coaching. Total playing numbers don't matter nearly as much if they don't fit into that category. However total playing numbers will probably mean there is more money to be invested in that pipeline.

Total playing numbers do matter though as more likely to have far better athletes the more you have playing. Getting more clubs and developing far beyond the top rugby schools will help considerably.

UAEguy2020 wrote: »

Plus having a smaller population means it’s easier to weed out the the lesser players and isolate the strong ones and get them in academies.

Total playing numbers in the long run mean very little especially at the highest level because everyone has a strong rugby culture and has enough quality players to field a strong team, maybe if you are talking about an Italy v Georgia for instance you would back Italy due to having more resources and the gap is even more important as you venture further down the rankings but when you get to the very highest level it doesn’t matter nearly as much as everyone has a strong group of rugby players and can all field strong 23’s meaning once you get here it largely comes down to how you make the most of the resources at your disposal.

No it doesnt. There is very little that can back that up. Having more playing will always help develop more players.