Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

TRC10

sebdavis wrote: »

I am a huge Larmour fan. But both players got a half in Italy and to be fair to Earls he came out better of the two

Did he? Based on what? Earls walked in a try from a yard out, but apart from that his only significant involement was (another) kick out on the full.

Larmour looked much more lively in the first half, had some good carries and a good offload for a try.

theVersatile

TRC10 wrote: »

Larmour looked much more lively in the first half, had some good carries and a good offload for a try.

And got thrown aside like a skittle for the Italian try...

TRC10

theVersatile wrote: »

And got thrown aside like a skittle for the Italian try...

To be fair, he said when he was younger he tried to base his game on Earls.

OneLungDavy

Slightly disappointing Kelleher, Kilcoyne and Larmour are not starting but otherwise I think it's a very good team with lots to be optimistic about.
Beirne at 6 again, Conan and Baird off the bench. We have buckets of ability in our back 5.
Delighted to see Furlong starting again, and looking sharp.
JGP starting at 9.

We will win this.

.ak

sebdavis wrote: »

I am a huge Larmour fan. But both players got a half in Italy and to be fair to Earls he came out better of the two

I'd disagree with that. Larmour was very good, especially in open play, linked up with a lot of our back 3 from both sides of the pitch.

Eod100

Good to see Stander get his 50th cap.

leakyboots

I'd have Larmour instead of Lowe but otherwise that's pretty much as expected. I predict a ground out victory (for us)

Former Former Former

OneLungDavy wrote: »

Slightly disappointing Kelleher, Kilcoyne and Larmour are not starting but otherwise I think it's a very good team with lots to be optimistic about.
Beirne at 6 again, Conan and Baird off the bench. We have buckets of ability in our back 5.
Delighted to see Furlong starting again, and looking sharp.
JGP starting at 9.

We will win this.

I think we will too.

yerrahbah

Murray hasn't played in a while.

Maybe 25 mins off the bench to get him up to speed

Scratchly

sebdavis wrote: »

I am a huge Larmour fan. But both players got a half in Italy and to be fair to Earls he came out better of the two

Earls usually "looks better" because he does so little he doesn't risk making visible mistakes. He's a sit and wait player while Lowe and Larmour go looking for work. In his 40 mins in a drubbing of Italy he made 8m from 4 runs for example. Only front rowers ran less than him.

Larmour was far more active in showing for the ball and creating opportunities yet missed one tackle so he was "poor".

sebdavis

Scratchly wrote: »

Earls usually "looks better" because he does so little he doesn't risk making visible mistakes. He's a sit and wait player while Lowe and Larmour go looking for work. In his 40 mins in a drubbing of Italy he made 8m from 4 runs for example. Only front rowers ran less than him.

Larmour was far more active and yet missed one tackle so he was "poor".

I didn't say Larmour was poor.

Scratchly

sebdavis wrote: »

I didn't say Larmour was poor.

Point still stands. Earls looks better because he doesn't get involved enough to make many mistakes. He just sits on his wing and waits for the ball.

CMcsporty

yerrahbah wrote: »

Murray hasn't played in a while.

Maybe 25 mins off the bench to get him up to speed

This is tongue in cheek!!

aloooof

Scratchly wrote: »

Earls usually "looks better" because he does so little he doesn't risk making visible mistakes. He's a sit and wait player while Lowe and Larmour go looking for work. In his 40 mins in a drubbing of Italy he made 8m from 4 runs for example. Only front rowers ran less than him.

Larmour was far more active in showing for the ball and creating opportunities yet missed one tackle so he was "poor".

Not all "missed one tackle" stats are made equal. Lowe, especially with some of his decision making, and to a lesser extent Larmour against Italy, have missed tackles that have directly lead to tries. That's significant, even moreso in a position like wing where a missed tackle is more likely to lead to a try.

Whatever your opinion of Earls is, he's clearly a better option defensively than Larmour and Lowe. That would presumably be a big part in Farrell's decision to opt for Earls.

sebdavis

Scratchly wrote: »

Point still stands. Earls looks better because he doesn't get involved enough to make many mistakes. He just sits on his wing and waits for the ball.

If it was me in the IRFU I wouldn't have resigned Earls to be honest, with Larmour, Balacoune, etc etc etc we have plenty of options and really we need to push youth.

Just based on Italy game, which of course I could be wrong, I can understand why they went with Earls over Larmour.

If it was me I wouldn't of even had Earls in squad, just down to age.

aloooof

sebdavis wrote: »

If it was me I wouldn't of even had Earls in squad, just down to age.

We shouldn't be discounting any player just based on age, tbh.

sebdavis

aloooof wrote: »

We shouldn't be discounting any player just based on age, tbh.

You have two options after a World Cup
1. Continue with players even if they are not going to make the next WC
2. Refresh the squad completely and players who clearly will not make the WC move them out

I am in camp 2. Not saying it is right/wrong. Just think we should examine because we have tried option 1 for every WC and got no further

In the case of Earls its not like he is miles ahead of the competition like he was in previous years

aloooof

sebdavis wrote: »

You have two options after a World Cup
1. Continue with players even if they are not going to make the next WC
2. Refresh the squad completely and players who clearly will not make the WC move them out

I am in camp 2. Not saying it is right/wrong. Just think we should examine because we have tried option 1 for every WC and got no further

In the case of Earls its not like he is miles ahead of the competition like he was in previous years

I agree, but that's a different argument to your original tho, about selection just based on age. Age should be a consideration, but it should be considered along with the alternatives available, current performance levels, balance with other selections etc.

I don't think we can afford to say "As soon as a player hits 33, they should be discarded", for example, that's the only pointed I wanted to make.

Former Former Former

Just checked and this is the first Six Nations game for which Conor Murray has ever been on the bench.

That's fairly significant IMO.

sebdavis

aloooof wrote: »

I agree, but that's a different argument to your original tho, about selection just based on age. Age should be a consideration, but it should be considered along with the alternatives available, current performance levels, balance with other selections etc.

I don't think we can afford to say "As soon as a player hits 33, they should be discarded", for example, that's the only pointed I wanted to make.

Going back to my point, if we go with option 2 and cut player who won't make the next WC I don't see a huge issue.
None of the players that would be dropped don't have an alternative playing at the 4 provinces.
Earls in this instance, Larmour, Balacoune and plenty other's are available to play on that wing.

We have failed at every WC in terms of progressing to the semi & final. We have tried between each WC the exact same strategy more or less. Why not try a new one and after the WC just take a look at older players, drop them and bring in younger replacements.

If it back fires so be it but it is something new, not trundle from one WC to another trying the same thing and ending up with the same result. Then wondering after the WC why it went wrong.

Dubinusa

I feel for Porter! He has been fantastic and I don't think Furlong has done enough to oust him. Although, Furlong did look to be humming along nicely since his return, I think Porter has been a little better.
It's great to see Baird included, but I think Dillane has been hard done by. He has been brilliant these past few weeks. Obviously, Baird is very highly rated and is looked on as a future star.
The inclusion of JGP imo, is the right call. I think we'll see more speed at the rucks and a faster pace to our play. Every side knows Murray and I would suppose there's a defensive plan to counter him. JGP and Sexton are team mates at Leinster so they're familiar with each other.
Larmour is probably recovering from his knock. So he probably isn't 100%. Just my guess. I reckon he was injured prior to Italy scoring the try.
I think the selection is what was expected. I'd have been surprised if it was different. My biggest surprise was Furlong starting. I didn't think Kelleher was getting the nod. I did think Stockdale may have gotten into the 23 shirt.
I think this will be very close. I can see us sneaking a win, but I can also see us losing. I think Scotland are much improved and could give us some heartburn.

Dubinusa

sebdavis wrote: »

Going back to my point, if we go with option 2 and cut player who won't make the next WC I don't see a huge issue.
None of the players that would be dropped don't have an alternative playing at the 4 provinces.
Earls in this instance, Larmour, Balacoune and plenty other's are available to play on that wing.

We have failed at every WC in terms of progressing to the semi & final. We have tried between each WC the exact same strategy more or less. Why not try a new one and after the WC just take a look at older players, drop them and bring in younger replacements.

If it back fires so be it but it is something new, not trundle from one WC to another trying the same thing and ending up with the same result. Then wondering after the WC why it went wrong.

While I do agree with you, it's been pointed out that the prize money is a huge driver of team selection. I would love to see several aging players put out to Pasteur, but could the union afford a really bad 6nations? Especially now, with the pandemic.
It's also worth noting that some of these older players, like Sexton are vastly better than the alternatives. Healy for example, looks his age and is probably just about finished as an international player, but nobody else has taken his place from him.
This time next year, I think most of the aging players will be either on the bench or completely gone from the squad.

Must love hardship

Based on whos currently in the squad.
Id have started:
Kelleher for Herring.
Conan for Stander.
Murray/Casey for JgP
Larmour for Lowe..

sebdavis

Dubinusa wrote: »

While I do agree with you, it's been pointed out that the prize money is a huge driver of team selection. I would love to see several aging players put out to Pasteur, but could the union afford a really bad 6nations? Especially now, with the pandemic.
It's also worth noting that some of these older players, like Sexton are vastly better than the alternatives. Healy for example, looks his age and is probably just about finished as an international player, but nobody else has taken his place from him.
This time next year, I think most of the aging players will be either on the bench or completely gone from the squad.

If you look at the players across the squad who would be cut. The only question I would have is over the replacement for Sexton. The other players its a throw up between them and alternatives to be honest.

Even with Sexton, if we had to push a Healy/H Byrne etc into the squad who knows if they could take a huge step up

Are we really going to end up with less prize money or worse results with other players in the team? its not like we are taking the 6 nations by storm. We have a win v Italy to show for ourselves this year. We could have won that with Ireland B

Last season we won at home v Scotland, terrible game. The game v Wales when Wales couldn't hit a barn door, then again v Italy. Lost both of the games v the top competition. Would we have done any worse with 3-4 new lads for those games?

aloooof

sebdavis wrote: »

Going back to my point, if we go with option 2 and cut player who won't make the next WC I don't see a huge issue.
None of the players that would be dropped don't have an alternative playing at the 4 provinces.
Earls in this instance, Larmour, Balacoune and plenty other's are available to play on that wing.

But again, that's different to your original point of dropping players just based on age; you're considering the alternatives here. Which is an approach I agree with.

Anyways, I'll leave it there.

kilns

Hopefully this is the start of the phasing Murray out of the team/squad, he is one player who living off a reputation and does not deserve to be in the matchday squad.

Disappointing to see Kelleher not starting and Kilcoyne too but in Kilcoynes case I think he would be a better sub to bring in than Healy in that he will make a bigger impact from the bench

Lowe is lucky to be in the team and Scotland will definitely target him, Earls too is a weak link as he is not the player he was a few years ago and doesnt carry a threat. At least Lowe carries a real threat going forward

yerrahbah

CMcsporty wrote: »

This is tongue in cheek!!

I guess is should have said get him some minutes ahead of the England game

crossman47

sebdavis wrote: »

You have two options after a World Cup
1. Continue with players even if they are not going to make the next WC
2. Refresh the squad completely and players who clearly will not make the WC move them out

I am in camp 2. Not saying it is right/wrong. Just think we should examine because we have tried option 1 for every WC and got no further

In the case of Earls its not like he is miles ahead of the competition like he was in previous years

What is this obsession with the WC? Its every four years and we won't win it. I firmly believe in picking your best team for each match - age not a factor.

crossman47

Dubinusa wrote: »

I feel for Porter! He has been fantastic and I don't think Furlong has done enough to oust him. Although, Furlong did look to be humming along nicely since his return, I think Porter has been a little better.
It's great to see Baird included, but I think Dillane has been hard done by. He has been brilliant these past few weeks. Obviously, Baird is very highly rated and is looked on as a future star.
The inclusion of JGP imo, is the right call. I think we'll see more speed at the rucks and a faster pace to our play. Every side knows Murray and I would suppose there's a defensive plan to counter him. JGP and Sexton are team mates at Leinster so they're familiar with each other.
Larmour is probably recovering from his knock. So he probably isn't 100%. Just my guess. I reckon he was injured prior to Italy scoring the try.
I think the selection is what was expected. I'd have been surprised if it was different. My biggest surprise was Furlong starting. I didn't think Kelleher was getting the nod. I did think Stockdale may have gotten into the 23 shirt.
I think this will be very close. I can see us sneaking a win, but I can also see us losing. I think Scotland are much improved and could give us some heartburn.

Whatever about Dillane, why is Thornberry not getting a look in. Hes been fantastic recently.

ersatz

That's a very good 23. I'd love to see murray come out fighting for his place in the second half and I'd also love to see something come of JGP/Lowe running with half chances. If we see better support lines from the rest of the team when those opportunities arise some exciting options might start to click. Add that to the improvement we've seen in forward play, happy days.