Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

Im working purely from memory so if that's what the stats say, so be it. I'd guess Ioane has played about a dozen matches for Auckland in total. Think he made the squad while still in high school and also the NZ 7s squad at the same time. 7s was his focus till the 2016 Olympics.

I think Nonu debuted for the ABs against England in 2003 on the wing. I know 2002 to 05 he seemed to mainly be a winger in Wellington and Hurricanes matches.

All this does show how hard it is to play midfield at international level. Took Nonu a long time to establish himself as a great 12 and even though Ioane was one of the best wingers in the world, he's still learning his trade as a 13 at international level despite having some experience. Big ask to put a kid like Moodie at 13 in a big RWC match against the number 1 team in the world.

No way on earth JVDF doesn't start. As talented as they are, POM and Beirne are glaciers in open field.

Were not going to beat South Africa at their own game. Stick with 5 - 3 split. Keep playing the fast tempo game that has brought so much success.

Etzebeth a doubt for Ireland.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/sep/11/south-africa-sweating-over-fitness-of-eben-etzebeth-ahead-of-ireland-clash

No citing for Kriel according to MK

https://www.the42.ie/jesse-kriel-citing-6165928-Sep2023/

Sorry but there's no planet on which Earls should be picked before Hansen

Planet nostalgia, in the rose tinted solar system.

Earls is in the squad on merit. No way he's ahead of Hansen on form. Let the media eupogise him when he's retired, but let's not get carried away. It's the media's job to add narrative and they way they talk about Earls at the moment, you'd be surprised to hear he's not in the starting team. Let the media sell the fairytale to the people who set that interested in rugby, but we don't have to buys it.

Earls is a class act on and off the field. Sound man by all accounts. But he isn't the first choice wing.

I think that is the worry. There is a good chance Earls will be in the 23 for the QF with the sequence of games we have.

He's not competing with Hansen, Daly or Nash though. He's competing with Stockdale and maybe Balacoune and Larmour. I'm not sure why people think Farrell is making this selection based on some sort of sentiment other than trying top pick the best guy available for the spot. If he felt one of the alternatives offered more to our chances of winning the World Cup then I have no doubt he would select them. He crunched the number and Earls' name came up. Honestly it amazes me that ppl think the coaches sat around and concluded that through Stockdale offers more on the field lets take Earls because people seem to like him. It's a bizarre take, there's no shortage of leaders, inspiration and popular lads in the group.

I know its been commented on but not by coaches. And McFadden is irrelevant to Earls place in the squad. I honestly think people feel like Earls is a special case because of his mental health struggles and his public profile and so he's included as some sort of mascot. Earls was brought on the NZ tour and was one of the few players who started games against both NZ teams. He was on the bench for the final test, missed the Autumn games and this years 6N through injury but was straight back in for the warmups. He has been consistently selected by Farrell injury permitting in the absence of Conway. Farrell prefers him to the alternatives! Why is this hard to understand? Yes people love him but there is absolutely no evidence that his popularity or personality has anything to do with Farrell's selection. But for some reason people feel like Earls isn't the player he was and so there must be some other reason for his selection. Honestly I feel like it's fed by a steady diet of media lifestyle puff pieces/late late show stuff and Ireland's current love affair with wearing your heart on your sleeve.

By comparing earls to McFadden, you are certainly trying to denigrate him. Who is saying he might break into the 23?

Please, anyone teach me that the difference between the high contact by Curry and Kriel who escaped citing.

Don’t see any difference myself.

Im curious have they set a precedent by not citing him and could curry point to the kriel one today at his appeal…and having it overturned.

Could any further similar clashes be also appealed and the kriel one used as precedent for it not been a red?

It they feel the kriel one doesn’t warrant a citing then they 100% must overturn curry’s red so at least there is consistency. Complete joke if they don’t.