Danthemanhere wrote: » There's the starting line up 30 and under who definitely could be available for the next world cup. Other players will come in and emerge, some of these will lose form and get injured but we don't need wholesale changes to build for the next world cup. What we do need is a change in game plan.
Niallof9 wrote: » ah here will you ever piss off with this angle its ****ing tired. Its my own opinion. I've seen that yeah and it has nothing to do with it. In any case its a good thing as thornley was becoming a mouth piece for IRFU propaganda because of access issues and the team turning against criticism like happened with David Kelly in New Zealand in 2012 - spoiler..i have some skin in the game. The IRFu are doing a piss poor job with a two man media team. We have over saturation of media now as well. Look i'm only referencing them as people like yourself sort of twist the critics and paint us as the crazy outsiders or minority. In fact people like yourself, the superfan are the minority. Its sport...criticism is valid..deal with it. i said he's under serious pressure....and he is if we don't win on Saturday. And the media that i love to reference will frame this exact narrative and usually it does actually increase the pressure. If we lose on Saturday, by 15 or more points, on top of Japan, six nations, thrashing by England...Andy Farrell as assistant coach and ever increasing responsibility, he has a huge part in it and will be under serious, serious pressure as he was in 2015. And he won't be able to go back to the well of chicago or 2018 as the last frame of reference will be the failure of 2019 World Cup. If he wins the World Cup he will get a justified 15 year contract. The players as i have explained in detail get a pass from me. One way Farrell can redeem himself if the above transpires is by expanding our playbook and looking at new options. If he wins a grand slam doing the same thing, fair enough but i think we'll be right back here in 2023. Maybe even Mike Catt will be announced as the heir. Like i said i will gladly trade looking like a fool for a win on Saturday
Danthemanhere wrote: » Kilcoyne 30 Scannell 27 Furlong 26 Ryan 23 Henderson 27 O Mahony 30 Van Der Fier 26/Leavy 25 Standar 29 Conan 27 Murray 30 Carbery 23 Stockdale 23 Aki 29 Farell 26 Ringrose 24 Conway 28 Lowe 27 Larmour 22 There's the starting line up 30 and under who definitely could be available for the next world cup. Other players will come in and emerge, some of these will lose form and get injured but we don't need wholesale changes to build for the next world cup. What we do need is a change in game plan.
aloooof wrote: » What if we lose by 13 on Saturday, and he just makes the following changes for the 6 Nations: - Larmour and Scannell starting. - Conway into the 23 jersey. - Carbery starting against Scotland and Italy. - Changes in the backrow, but only because of injury. but retains the rest of the squad, and we win 4 out of 5 matches. Would you consider that a success?
Shefwedfan wrote: » I was waiting for the reference to podcast or press Quick one, you do realize the press have it in for everything IRFU at the moment because they started up their own channel and media. It was discussed in-depth on a couple of the podcasts. You miss that one? Ever since that decision the press have flicked....so making reference to the press saying a new appointment is wrong is probably not the best source I have mentioned this a few times but seems your incapable of making up your own mind so will leave you to it..... P.S. yes you are calling for him to be sacked.....before we have even finished the current World Cup, what is that about?
Niallof9 wrote: » well i disagree if it ends badly on Saturday. Badly for me is not being competitive on the day on top of Japan defeat and all that on top of everything that happened after the win against New Zealand. If that transpires and he makes some change as i said i'll applaud it and be happy. Incremental change is seeing more options been tried and not just going with the undroppables. Like if Larmour isn't the 15 on the opening day of the Six Nations i think he'll have lost already. Kearney is the right man for Saturday but his race is run now in green.
Niallof9 wrote: » And some plonkers will defend the status quo to the death (as we saw in soccer with the FAI and Mick now), when its clear to 99 per cent of people that something is wrong and change is needed. Nobody wants anybody sacked but some of us want to see real change, particularly after defeat to Japan. Look i hope to **** we win on saturday and Farrell comes in on a high, the players love him and he has free reign. But we probably all know its a bridge too far. And then we have to turn back to what happened. We lost to Japan and Andy Farrell's fingerprints were all over it. So four years for Farrell regardless of results :rolleyes: good luck with that Its a results game. So either the IRFU give him freedom to change things and say don't worry about placing or its about results and we finish poorly regardless doing the same stuff and then what? For me the former is acceptable if players are picked on form and not international contracts. The latter would make me switch off altogether. The problem with Catt is it seemed rushed and poorly judged. We have better coaches in the provinces and while Italy play a little better, its ****ing Italy. Its a giant step up. I'm hardly a lone voice here. Catt's appointment at the time was muted and questioned by more than one scribe. Coaches pathway? what happened to that? There's already people looking at the succession plan as a reason. While people dismiss the Schmidt leaving thing and cite Gatland...Pivac isn't sitting in on the Welsh team as well is he now. Its a mistake and rushed for me; typical like rewarding former coaches and soccer managers before tournaments with new contracts. so away with calling people plonkers. Hopefully it all works out on Saturday and people like me come off looking very very foolish.
aloooof wrote: » You're stating this as if these are the only 2 possible outcomes. What happens if he begins some incremental change, and remains competitive? Imo, there's plenty of time within a 4 year cycle to make changes. It doesn't require wholesale changes from day one.
Niallof9 wrote: » Its a results game. So either the IRFU give him freedom to change things and say don't worry about placing or its about results and we finish poorly regardless doing the same stuff and then what?
Niallof9 wrote: » I'm not for 4 year cycles at all. I think its foolish, particularly as we seem to fail at most World Cups. I completely disagree, lose on Saturday (i hope we don't) and he already is under serious pressure. He's the assistant coach. If it didn't count why did he get the heave with England...cause he's part of it. So he's already under the kosh. He needs to be bold, and i would certainly back him then if he took that path. IF he continued on with the same 14 minus best that would be probably it for me.We need some change. Continuing on if this squad gets defeated on Saturday will not go down well with anybody. There will be serious repercussions imo as the reality sets in about losing to Japan and the destiny that followed that loss etc, and that we were looking for a South Africa quarter (as difficult as that would be, they aren't as good as people are making out) No way some of the lads can stay in. Conway deserves a decent shout, Larmour becomes first choice. More game time for Joey. Hooker. Healy looks wrecked but is still World Class. So look yeah it picks itself at times. But we need to really look at some lads in competitive games. Leavy to come back. Thankfully after 2016/17 Joe did become more of a risk taker in selection.
Shefwedfan wrote: » The problem with Ireland and you see it already here, Farrell hasn’t even taken over, Catt is not even part of the team and some plonkers already have the knives out for them How are you supposed to do anything and build a team if they lose one game and everyone wants them sacked? They get them sacked, ask them what coach they wants and it’s always some provincial bias c**p and it’s xyz, not because they are good enough, it’s because they played or worked with one province The IRFu should say Farrell is in for next 4 years, end of story and let him build the team.
ClanofLams wrote: » I don’t see anyone arguing for the status quo in terms of the exact same players. Some of the players you mention will break though just as you point out Furlong and Ryan did, etc. They broke through because they were the best options available not with the World Cup in mind. People are sceptical of a four year plan. As I said I don’t recall any country doing it and countries who target success every year in the 6N (England/Wales) have done well in World Cups so I don’t see much wrong with that approach. Whilst you may laud Farrell for risk taking, the public reaction would be very different. If he suddenly dropped everyone unlikely to make France in ‘23 and came fourth in the six nations, he would be under immediate pressure.
Niallof9 wrote: » And whats wrong with that. Defeat to Japan and now because of that abject failure, perhaps New Zealand hardly quantifies as a success. So Farrell has to hit the ground running, unless we achieve our minimum target of a semi. Jesus lads some scary talk on here. Seems like you guys have forgotten the emergence of people like Furlong (no starts in 2015 wc) and Ryan (only distant talk), Stockdale, Larmour, Ringrose etc. Loads of players could be viable options by 2023 - Penny, Deegan, wycherley by 2, Kelleher, Baird, Doris, Milne, French, Healy, Casey, COB, Frawley and god knows who else and thats not even taking into consideration Lowe, Gibson Park, Marshall, Butler etc and then you have people Joe didn't fancy like McCloskey and one or two others. Can we stop with all the denial. There will be big changes over the coming years. And Farrell will be lauded if he did take a few chances. We need to forget four year cycles and we need to rejig the central contracts. But we 100 per cent need to freshen things in the coming 18 months. I can't believe there is people even suggesting sticking with the status quo. Its mind boggling. As much as i'm willing Ireland to win on Saturday in our heart of hearts we all know whats going to happen. As QUinlan said losing to Japan (as good as they turned out) will be a stain on this World Cup if we go out at quarters. If we do manage a semi, Andy Farrell can come into the top job with plenty of good will and time. The basis of a good team is there. Conway, Dillane, Larmour, Joey (maybe fullback) all should get their head in the coming year regardless. Since the days of Eddie we've had far too many undroppables.
thomond2006 wrote: » The backrow will be interesting. POM and Stander are at an age and field position where their participation in 2023 is questionable. Rhys Ruddock has been good when called upon but he is also in the same age bracket.
Squidgy Black wrote: » Summer tours and Autumn internationals are generally the platform for coaches to do that, it's rare you'll see changes for the 6 Nations unless through injury or a player really stepping up at provincial level. I'm willing to put money on posters moaning come 6 Nations time that Farrell has stuck with a lot of the current team and have expected an overhaul of the squad with young players.
The Lost Sheep wrote: » I dont see it happening but it would be great if we did try something different in a world cup assuming we dont win at the weekend. How much more would it be worth if we did go further in a world cup and didn't do as well in 1/2 6 nations??
ClanofLams wrote: » I don’t really think so, there isn’t many in Ireland who haven’t gotten a chance over the last four years. Either way only a coach with serious credit in the bank would have the leeway to do that. Farrell can’t sacrifice results with some four year plan in mind because there’s a reasonable chance he wouldn’t be there in ‘23 if he did that.
touts wrote: » I actually suspect Sexton may well retire after this world cup. He has struggled with injuries and just doesn't seem to enjoy playing anymore which makes me think he is playing in pain. Plus he has a history with concussion that isn't exactly ideal. One more hard bang on his head and he could be forced into retirement. He may be sensible enough not to wait until that happens. So far from being an option at FB. Carberry could we'll be our first choice Number 10 by the six nation's in February.
Dubinusa wrote: » Still think Carberry is our best option at 15. But Larmour is coming along nicely. Addison has great potential and after that there's a couple of young lads who may step up. Jake Flannery? Sylvester from Leinster and possibly switching someone like Ringrose to fb.
The Lost Sheep wrote: » maybe we do need to. Not like we've done it before. Far better chance to really look at others if you start further away from the tournament with dar greater ability to look at players, playing styles etc.
razorblunt wrote: » Sort the FB position out, Conway - Larmour - TOH. I hope they all get a proper look in. Kearney's on a further 1 year contract but I wouldn't let him darken the door of training sessions. I'd love to see the likes of Deegan - Penney - Dorris get a go too. Lots of scrum half options around too, I don't think McGrath is ahead of the likes of Cooney, Marmion, Blade and presumably Gibson-Park will be IQ soon too? Overall though, I just hope there's more to this one many out static take and jog then flop to the floor.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d3e92925f7bde702415f91ea088d4f7a.svg)
