Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

Fredinho

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

These shock journos only have jobs because people read and react. Mostly negatively but occasionally positively. But they react nonetheless.

Don't read. Don't react. My life is much better for it ha

I'd have to agree with you there. I used to think Stephen Jones in the Times could never write anything complimentary about Irish Rugby but then the likes of Francis, McKenna and a few others came along and couldn't write anything unless it was a completely opposed view to most other people.

If you do that on here you're censured but these guys are paid to do it as a job.

Amazing to think that once decent papers like the Times and the Independent are now stooping to the levels of the red tops.

irishbucsfan

The Inbetween is mine wrote: »

Just saw an Indo headline by Neil Francis....he's gone down the Ewan McKenna route unfortunately, ...
Can't play for Ireland unless you're Irish or have an Irish passport...and a pic of CJ front and centre in the article

You're going to have to be resident in Ireland for 5 years now before becoming eligible under the new world rugby rules. Which would also make you eligible for Irish citizenship.

If I was writing awful articles for an intellectually dishonest sports section, now would be a really excellent time to start saying exactly that. In a few years when everyone who becomes eligible for Ireland is also an Irish citizen through the sheer accident of world rugby's rules lining up with the Irish state's rules, I could pretend my article made a difference.

sebdavis

Fredinho wrote: »

I think the first mistake you made was assuming that Francis would ever be any other way about it. Rather than say I don't agree with project players as is well known and wish CJ well in choosing his health, family and faith above a game he went on the attack and dragged Jack Conan into to make a point.

CJ Stander since the day he arrived in the country immersed himself in the culture of Munster and Irish Rugby. When he got the call to Ireland he embraced it with both hands, learned the national anthem of our country (a foreign language to him) and belted it out. More than can be said for many from this island and also any almost every other project player that's been brought into a green jersey.

CJ's reputation in the game is of a gentleman, a warrior and a player that plays with a smile on his face and yet most if the D4 media couldn't wait to have a pop at him. Shame on us as a country that can't recognise the terrific work that someone not from these shores who came here, worked their arses off, represented us with distinction and now put his families needs above his own. Typical begrudgery

You are aware the majority if not the whole rugby department in RTE are Munster fans? if that is the D4 you are talking about.

The Indo is in Dublin 1.

sebdavis

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You're going to have to be resident in Ireland for 5 years now before becoming eligible under the new world rugby rules. Which would also make you eligible for Irish citizenship.

If I was writing awful articles for an intellectually dishonest sports section, now would be a really excellent time to start saying exactly that. In a few years when everyone who becomes eligible for Ireland is also an Irish citizen through the sheer accident of world rugby's rules lining up with the Irish state's rules, I could pretend my article made a difference.

Was the 5 year thing not delayed because of Covid?

Thornely calling it O'Mahony (edit : auto correct) in and Beirne to Second Row.

I somewhat hate that decision if that's the way it turns out.

1. Making two changes to accommodate one injury, and
2. the change involves shifting one of your most effective players from the position he has been playing, and
3. moving him to a position which he simply does not suit (against good opposition), and
4. doing this as part of re-introducing a player who has not been involved in test rugby for 6/7 weeks...

Talk about compounding a problem.

What would be wrong with picking a second-row to replace a second-row?

I'm not excluding that POM could go out and give a man-of-the-match display, just like he did, eh, 4 years ago against this opposition, but that possibility is not a basis for picking him in response to an injury to a second-row.

wittycynic

kilns wrote: »

It seems inevitable that POM will start in Saturday. Fir me personally that is the wrong and a conservative call to make. Is POM going to improve the side, yes as an extra lineout jumper and potential to jackal one or two balls. However, I believe he will weaken our pack as in my opinion he is a luxury player that we cannot afford to carry, he does not carry the ball, his tackling is usually the lowest of all the pack, he is much less physical than other 6s. I don't buy into this crap about passion and leadership, that's not good enough when other areas of your game are not up to scratch and simply there are better players vying for the position. The English back row will have a field day against him I think.

In my opinion it's players like him, Sexton and Murray who will hold Ireland back and stop Irelanx progressing their game to a more fluid type of game to which we want to play. Why do I say they will hold us back? POM offers no dynamisium and carries no threat when Ireland are going forward, Murray is just too slow at getting the ball away and kills any attacking threat we may have, Sexton is regressing which is natural and is a Sexton near the end of his game going to change his game to facilitate a culture change, hopefully Carbury comes back to full fitness and someway close to his best.

Having said all that Ireland will probably win on Saturday in the last minute from a POM turnover which goes to Murray who scores in the corner and Sexton kicks the difficult conversion

We are none of us professional coaches, but all of them that POM has played under seem to rate him as a starter and believe the team is stronger with him in it. And I doubt they're basing these decisions off amorphous concepts like leadership. Their stats and analysis likely suggest he does particular jobs better than anyone.

I've always found the criticism of POM strange, a bit like the criticism of Heaslip. I might buy into it if a string of provincial and national coaches didn't rate them so highly. POM's place might be under threat with the likes of Ryan (which would avoid drafting Beirne into second row), Doris, and Leavy were all fit and playing their best rugby, but that's impossible to say.

What I do know is that other currently fit options like Conan really haven't shown much at international level to suggest they should be preferred to POM.

I would love to see Baird start, as he has a huge amount of talent, but throwing him in against an England team with their tails up is a sink or swim type move. Would rather him come on from the bench, get some game time in the summer and autumn series, and push to start next year's championship.

But he'll have to push hard to get ahead of Henderson and Ryan.

sydthebeat

sebdavis wrote: »

Was the 5 year thing not delayed because of Covid?

changed from 1st Jan 2021 to Dec 31st 2021

irishbucsfan

sebdavis wrote: »

Was the 5 year thing not delayed because of Covid?

Yes, but its still coming

irishbucsfan

ecoli3136 wrote: »

Thornely calling it O'Mahony (edit : auto correct) in and Beirne to Second Row.

I somewhat hate that decision if that's the way it turns out.

1. Making two changes to accommodate one injury, and
2. the change involves shifting one of your most effective players from the position he has been playing, and
3. moving him to a position which he simply does not suit (against good opposition), and
4. doing this as part of re-introducing a player who has not been involved in test rugby for 6/7 weeks...

Talk about compounding a problem.

What would be wrong with picking a second-row to replace a second-row?

I'm not excluding that POM could go out and give a man-of-the-match display, just like he did, eh, 4 years ago against this opposition, but that possibility is not a basis for picking him in response to an injury to a second-row.

Tadgh Beirne started 2 games in this championship in the second row and played pretty well?

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Tadgh Beirne started 2 games in this championship in the second row and played pretty well?

Would you pick him against England in the Second Row

Not sure what to take from the Wales game given POMs sending off. Nothing really. He played very well in a 7 man pack where he was essentially required to cover a missing backrow.

The France game, I thought he looked under-powered for a second row.

aloooof

Burkie1203 wrote: »

And what if Henderson or Beirne go off after 5 minutes. And Baird comes on. Why have Baird in the squad at all so?

If that happens it'd be a really unfortunate, yet really unlikely, outcome.

I think it's pretty reasonably for coaches to have an idea of how much game time they want to expose young players to. They'll obviously be aware that there's an element of risk* towards that plan with regards early injuries to other players.

But it's too black and white to extrapolate that to "why bother having them in the team", imo.

(*risk is too strong, but you get my meaning).

irishbucsfan

ecoli3136 wrote: »

Would you pick him against England in the Second Row

Yes, absolutely. He's the next best second row available.

TRC10

wittycynic wrote: »

We are none of us professional coaches, but all of them that POM has played under seem to rate him as a starter and believe the team is stronger with him in it. And I doubt they're basing these decisions off amorphous concepts like leadership. Their stats and analysis likely suggest he does particular jobs better than anyone.

I've always found the criticism of POM strange, a bit like the criticism of Heaslip. I might buy into it if a string of provincial and national coaches didn't rate them so highly. POM's place might be under threat with the likes of Ryan (which would avoid drafting Beirne into second row), Doris, and Leavy were all fit and playing their best rugby, but that's impossible to say.

The coaches aren't infallible. They get selections wrong and have done in the past.

On Heaslip, those who wanted him to be replaced by O'Mahony in 2017 were all proven right when he did replace him and immediately outperformed him.

kilns

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes, absolutely. He's the next best second row available.

and the best 6 available too, that's the conundrum

thomond2006

Beirne's jersey number doesn't matter.

irishbucsfan

kilns wrote: »

and the best 6 available too, that's the conundrum

POM was in good form there in the Autumn, so I don't really see that as a conundrum

UAEguy2020

Yeah it appears the safe option is to pick the back row who cost us this championship with his moment of madness in the first game...when will we learn?

irishbucsfan

TRC10 wrote: »

The coaches aren't infallible. They get selections wrong and have done in the past.

On Heaslip, those who wanted him to be replaced by O'Mahony in 2017 were all proven right when he did replace him and immediately outperformed him.

If you have enough self-confidence and lack any real ability to interpret what you're seeing, you'll prove yourself right every time.

yerrahbah

https://twitter.com/RuaidhriOC/status/1372487190333292545

eagle eye

UAEguy2020 wrote:

Yeah it appears the safe option is to pick the back row who cost us this championship with his moment of madness in the first game...when will we learn?

Either you have an agenda or you really haven't a clue if you think POM shouldn't be starting.

TRC10

eagle eye wrote: »

Either you have an agenda or you really haven't a clue if you think POM shouldn't be starting.

"If you don't agree with my opinion, you don't have a clue"

kilns

eagle eye wrote: »

Either you have an agenda or you really haven't a clue if you think POM shouldn't be starting.

and to be fair its a bit extreme to say someone hasnt a clue if they believe POM shouldnt be starting because there are legitimate reasons for that call

irishbucsfan

I really wouldn't have an issue with Baird starting, in fact it'd be very exciting. But given how we are looking to play at the moment, I think POM suits so I'd expect that selection. Replaces Ryan's threat in the defensive lineout, and has been really strong at the opposition breakdown. If we go back to our kicking game against England I think POM and Beirne could cause them quite a lot of problems.

TRC10

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I really wouldn't have an issue with Baird starting, in fact it'd be very exciting. But given how we are looking to play at the moment, I think POM suits so I'd expect that selection. Replaces Ryan's threat in the defensive lineout, and has been really strong at the opposition breakdown. If we go back to our kicking game against England I think POM and Beirne could cause them quite a lot of problems.

I think POM will be on the bench. With either Baird or Conan starting. I don't think Farrell can justifiably leave out any of the guys playing well for a guy who hasn't played in 7 weeks. I just don't think it will happen.

UAEguy2020

eagle eye wrote: »

Either you have an agenda or you really haven't a clue if you think POM shouldn't be starting.

Yeah we need all our liabilities....I mean leaders...starting.

kilns

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I really wouldn't have an issue with Baird starting, in fact it'd be very exciting. But given how we are looking to play at the moment, I think POM suits so I'd expect that selection. Replaces Ryan's threat in the defensive lineout, and has been really strong at the opposition breakdown. If we go back to our kicking game against England I think POM and Beirne could cause them quite a lot of problems.

How are we looking to play the game at the moment thats a good question, if we plan to box kick all day and keep it tight and reduce the games to set pieces then yes I agree POM and Murray are your men, although it is a very limited game as I am sure if you agree

However, if we want to play a more expansive game, which we seem incapable of at the moment but still may try, then POM is not your man and we require more dynamic players who bring more to the table and Murray is just too slow now

theVersatile

Don't think Bundee in the centre is the right call. His discipline has been poor in his last few Connacht games - giving away vital penalties in kick able positions against Benetton and Munster (even if he rectified the Benetton situation). Mind Farrell didn't exactly tear up the ground underneath him last time we played England so it's a tough call. My Munster bias would've put Farrell in, but Bundee has his positives too.

Don't buy the "we're moving Beirne out of his best performing position to accommodate" argument. Isn't that exactly what we did after the Wales game, where we shoehorned Beirne in at 6 to accommodate Ryan and Henderson? And Beirne was robbed of MOTM in that Wales game (still have no clue how Prop Wyn Jones won that one).

I'd have POM on the bench myself if Doris was available, but it's hard to exclude him with him gone. Conan and Ruddock are solid if unspectacular but POM has been ahead of them both the entire tournament and I don't think the suspension changed that.

Murray into the XV, if he's fully fit, is the right call. I don't buy the argument made after the Scottish game that England will gobble up our kicking game either. Our kicking game had them back wheeling when we last played them, we then seemed just to deviate from it for no reason. And that was with Ross Byrne at 10. As much as some will hate to hear this, the contestable kicking game is the way to go in my opinion unless our back line magically becomes French calibre (which realistically won't happen). Bring in JGP then if we're chasing the game and need a spark.

England are there to be beaten - the Scottish game told us that. I think it would take a complete capitulation for us to get spanked like some people are expecting. A loss is likely, but I don't think a heavy one is on the cards.

irishbucsfan

TRC10 wrote: »

I think POM will be on the bench. With either Baird or Conan starting. I don't think Farrell can justifiably leave out any of the guys playing well for a guy who hasn't played in 7 weeks. I just don't think it will happen.

I mean, Baird has had a handful of minutes off the bench for Ireland. Maybe that'll come into it, but I'd be surprised if POM isn't in good condition, its not like he's been injured.

irishbucsfan

kilns wrote: »

How are we looking to play the game at the moment thats a good question, if we plan to box kick all day and keep it tight and reduce the games to set pieces then yes I agree POM and Murray are your men, although it is a very limited game as I am sure if you agree

However, if we want to play a more expansive game, which we seem incapable of at the moment but still may try, then POM is not your man and we require more dynamic players who bring more to the table and Murray is just too slow now

I wouldn't be picking Murray just to play that game anyway.

But I would expect (perhaps I'm wrong, I doubt it) that's a huge part of how we'll play in our own half again.

TRC10

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I mean, Baird has had a handful of minutes off the bench for Ireland. Maybe that'll come into it, but I'd be surprised if POM isn't in good condition, its not like he's been injured.

Baird has been our reserve 2nd row the last 2 games. And in both games he's come on dome everything that's been asked of him and more. Now we have an injury in the 2nd row and he's earned his shot. He also has buckets of potential and England won't know much about him. They know all about POM and his weaknesses.

We were right to start POM in the Wales game because he was the form back row coming into the tournament. But now he's been out for 7 weeks and there are 3 or 4 guys playing better. I know he hasn't been injured but match fitness is a thing.