Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

Interested Observer

Would have liked to have Balacoune in there but Coombes not starting is the real disappointment.

aloooof

TRC10 wrote: »

Englands 2 backs on the bench at the WC were Slade and Joseph, no natural cover at 15. But those 2 were the best impact players

I'd disagree with this; they had Daly playing 15 and Watson on the pitch. That was their 15 cover. It's akin to when they start Farrell and Ford at 10 and 12 and don't pick a fly-half on the bench. It doesn't mean they don't have cover for 10.

The larger point being that selections are often made with the whole make-up of the 23 in mind (amongst a myriad of other things, as my post with the tweet about Rassie alludes to) . In this case, it's likely made with an eye towards next week as well.

Imo, it can be reductive to compare 2 players and say "Balacoune should have been on the bench ahead of Daly", for example.

TRC10

aloooof wrote: »

I'd disagree with this; they had Daly playing 15 and Watson on the pitch. That was their 15 cover. It's akin to when they start Farrell and Ford at 10 and 12 and don't pick a fly-half on the bench. It doesn't mean they don't have cover for 10.

The larger point being that selections are often made with the whole make-up of the 23 in mind (amongst a myriad of other things, as my post with the tweet about Rassie alludes to) . In this case, it's likely made with an eye towards next week as well.

Imo, it can be reductive to compare 2 players and say "Balacoune should have been on the bench ahead of Daly", for example.

That's my point

You don't need Daly to cover 15 from the bench when Larmour is on the pitch

aloooof

TRC10 wrote: »

That's my point

You don't need Daly to cover 15 when on the bench when Larmour is on the pitch

Your point was that no other nation selects for versatility. It's just not true. Your example of SA has pretty much disproved this.

In any case, this is all on the assumption that he picked Daly for his versatility. Maybe Farrell thinks he's better than Balacoune.






*leaves thread*.

TRC10

aloooof wrote: »

Your point was that no other nation selects for versatility. It's just not true. Your example of SA has pretty much disproved this.

In any case, this is all on the assumption that he picked Daly for his versatility. Maybe Farrell thinks he's better than Balacoune.






*leaves thread*.

What I meant was, with other countries impact is the primary criteria for the bench, with cover being secondary

I don't think you should pick a 23 without having a contingency for each position, if you have to move players around or make a straight swap.

But impact should be the primary objective, but not at the expense of cover.

If S.Daly is in fact there for his versatility as ShooterMcGav suggested, we pick our bench for cover at the expense of impact.

TomsOnTheRoof

Don't know why Ulster fans are getting their knickers in a twist over Daly. Balacoune should be starting over Stockdale or Larmour. Daly is on the bench because he covers wing, fullback and 13. The issue is that Balacoune is missing out over two players whose form has been sketchy for a while.

sprucemoose

TRC10 wrote: »

That's just my point. You don't need 15 cover on the bench when you have Larmour in the starting team.

Steyn was probably a poor example as they went 6/2, but the England example was literally the perfect example

i think your definition of literally is a bit off.


and 15 is just one position. daly covers 11-15, i dont know of anyone else in the squad that can cover centre and wing (addison is gone), larmour played there for a while against england and did well but that was far from ideal all the same, so it makes sense that daly is in the squad (apart from the simple fact that he is a very good player of course).

TRC10 wrote: »

What I meant was, with other countries impact is the primary criteria for the bench, with cover being secondary

except your two examples contradicted this....

TRC10

sprucemoose wrote: »

i think your definition of literally is a bit off.


and 15 is just one position. daly covers 11-15, i dont know of anyone else in the squad that can cover centre and wing (addison is gone), larmour played there for a while against england and did well but that was far from ideal all the same, so it makes sense that daly is in the squad (apart from the simple fact that he is a very good player of course).

It's literally not.

Larmour is starting, he can play 13, 11, 14, 15.

Therefore, you can pick your replacement back (23) without having to worry about him being able to cover all those positions. Farrell can move into 12 as well.

Podge_irl

The selection is uninspiring but I am happy to wait and see what the US squad is before complaining.

sprucemoose

TRC10 wrote: »

Larmour is starting, he can play 13, 11, 14, 15.

Therefore, you can pick your replacement back (23) without having to worry about him being able to cover all those positions. Farrell can move into 12 as well.

ive played 9-15, doesnt mean i should be playing in half those positions however

and larmour isnt really 13 cover unless in an emergency

TomsOnTheRoof

TRC10 wrote: »

It's literally not.

Larmour is starting, he can play 13, 11, 14, 15.

Therefore, you can pick your replacement back (23) without having to worry about him being able to cover all those positions. Farrell can move into 12 as well.

Larmour can't cover 15. He's been given opportunities there in the past and hasn't taken them. It's also debatable whether he should be starting ahead of Balacoune. Same with Stockdale.

shootermacg

TRC10 wrote: »

It's literally not.

Larmour is starting, he can play 13, 11, 14, 15.

Therefore, you can pick your replacement back (23) without having to worry about him being able to cover all those positions. Farrell can move into 12 as well.

Just to point out a possible flaw in your logic, what if Larmour gets injured AND Big |Stu or Farrell is injured?

aloooof

TRC10 wrote: »

If S.Daly is in fact there for his versatility as ShooterMcGav suggested, we pick our bench for cover at the expense of impact.

Again, I'd suggest picking one player and claiming this is too reductive and black-and-white. Equally, it's a sample size of one match; again too reductive.

SA picked Steyn (versatility) so that they could have a 6-2 spit (impact). (Fwiw, I think Rassie was banking on Pollard being very durable). There's a balance to be had, and that goes across the entire 23.

And that's aside from other considerations like who may start next week, and others that we have zero knowledge about. For example, I'd be interested on your thoughts on the following?

https://twitter.com/rugby_ap/status/1403984323980795904

I'll leave it there anyways as otherwise this thread will morph into pages of us saying more-or-less the same thing in various different ways.

Brief_Lives

last 3 or 4 pages have been pathetic....

TRC10

shootermacg wrote: »

Just to point out a possible flaw in your logic, what if Larmour gets injured AND Big |Stu or Farrell is injured?

"What if player x, player y, and player z all get injured, ha gotcha!"

How is that a flaw in my logic?

TomsOnTheRoof wrote: »

Larmour can't cover 15. He's been given opportunities there in the past and hasn't taken them. It's also debatable whether he should be starting ahead of Balacoune. Same with Stockdale.

I don't think you understand what is meant by "cover"

nerd69

It's worth noting daly is not just being selected for his versatility he's also a cracking player. He's not gotten a start over earls and Conway the last few years hardly a reason to beat him. He played in a world cup final at 20s level he's a far better player than your giving him credit for. As I said I rate balcoune highly but you seem to have created a massive gap between them that's just not there at the moment

nerd69

TRC10 wrote: »

"What if player x, player y, and player z all get injured, ha gotcha!"

How is that a flaw in my logic?



I don't think you understand what is meant by "cover"

Not sure you understand how International squads are picked


Anyway I'm looking forward to it should be a cracking game

Former Former Former

As excited as I would be to see Hume, I think it's fair enough to give McCloskey and Farrell a run. I don't personally think they're good enough but they've had limited chances so let them have a crack at it.

Same with the wings, would be nice to see Baloucoune but it's not like Stockdale and Larmour are decrepit has - beens with nothing left to offer.

My major beef is John Ryan and if the sub prop is the biggest issue then we're doing OK.

P.Walnuts

Former Former Former wrote: »

As excited as I would be to see Hume, I think it's fair enough to give McCloskey and Farrell a run. I don't personally think they're good enough but they've had limited chances so let them have a crack at it.

Same with the wings, would be nice to see Baloucoune but it's not like Stockdale and Larmour are decrepit has - beens with nothing left to offer.

My major beef is John Ryan and if the sub prop is the biggest issue then we're doing OK.

You obviosly haven't been paying to attention to the last couple of pages

Apparently Larmour has been "dirt" for both Ireland and Leinster :pac:

sprucemoose

nerd69 wrote: »

It's worth noting daly is not just being selected for his versatility he's also a cracking player. He's not gotten a start over earls and Conway the last few years hardly a reason to beat him. He played in a world cup final at 20s level he's a far better player than your giving him credit for. As I said I rate balcoune highly but you seem to have created a massive gap between them that's just not there at the moment

Nail on the head

Dubinusa

Larmour dirt! Lol

Former Former Former

Genuine question : is Daly really that versatile? I don't think he's ever actually played in the centre? And very few at FB.

I'd imagine he's there as a winger first and foremost.

Yeah_Right

DonVito wrote: »

And Farrell is the man to shut off the wide attack? Farrell is running in mud. He got embarrassed by Jonny May.

He got embarrassed by Jonny May!! Well damn! Case closed. If you get embarrassed by Jonny May then your career as an international is over. I mean just look at Conrad Smith. May embarrassed him in the first 5 minutes of a match in Twickenham in 2014, Hansen dragged him from the field and he never played for the ABs again. Because he was clearly useless.

yerrahbah

Former Former Former wrote: »

Genuine question : is Daly really that versatile? I don't think he's ever actually played in the centre? And very few at FB.

I'd imagine he's there as a winger first and foremost.

In the 19/20 season he started more games at FB than he did on the wing.

In the 20/21 season every game he started bar 1 was on the wing.

He's down for 1 start at centre in 3 seasons.

awec

Former Former Former wrote: »

As excited as I would be to see Hume, I think it's fair enough to give McCloskey and Farrell a run. I don't personally think they're good enough but they've had limited chances so let them have a crack at it.

Same with the wings, would be nice to see Baloucoune but it's not like Stockdale and Larmour are decrepit has - beens with nothing left to offer.

My major beef is John Ryan and if the sub prop is the biggest issue then we're doing OK.

Is anyone calling for Hume to start?

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

Is anyone calling for Hume to start?

Yeah a couple are.

sprucemoose

Former Former Former wrote: »

Genuine question : is Daly really that versatile? I don't think he's ever actually played in the centre? And very few at FB.

I'd imagine he's there as a winger first and foremost.

He mainly was used at 12 by Con and played a load of underage rugby in the centre.

I'd imagine he's in the squad as a back three player but to cover centre if needed by injury

stephen_n

Former Former Former wrote: »

The most "established" team possible is

Kilcoyne Herring Bealham
Ryan Dillane
POM Doris VDF
JGP Carbery
Stockdale McCloskey Farrell Conway
Larmour

I mean, that's the worst case and it's hardly a stale line-up full of tired old has-beens. Drop one or two new caps in and it's downright thrilling.

Turned out to be a pretty good stab at the team.

Neil3030

Fairly established side makes sense since (a) Japan are good and (b) the priority needs to be getting Joey integrated into the system as a starting 10.

AdamD

awec wrote: »

Is anyone calling for Hume to start?

I am, but maybe I'm biased as I don't rate Chris Farrell whatsoever.