Richie_Rich89 wrote: » I rate Farrell, but I think the balance is off in the centre partnership. If you want Farrell at 13 I think you probably ideally need a Giteau-style 12 to bring him into the game. I would have gone for Hume at 13, myself, with Farrell or McCloskey at 12.
Richie_Rich89 wrote: » If Harry Byrne is fully fit I really can't see the point in persevering with Burns in the XXIII.
ec18 wrote: » what happens if larmour is the injury?
awec wrote: » Hume I am indifferent about, I am not sure he's really ready yet and wouldn't make an Ireland squad for tier 1 tests.
[Deleted User] wrote: » What channel is japan game on?
Golf Crazy Guy wrote: » Why is Daire "go easy" O'Brien not on RTE today?
TRC10 wrote: » RTE 2
Beechwoodspark wrote: » You’d imagine we should notch up a fairly big score today
Cosmo Kramer wrote: » Is it too early to start a conversation about who Farrell's replacement will be yet? Very difficult to see him coaching the team at the next World Cup so the sooner the change is made, the better as far as I'm concerned.
molloyjh wrote: » Who do people think will take over? How are they going to do better exactly? I mean surely people realise that we have some real issues at LH and 10 in particular but also that while we have a good back row we don't have any proper world class talents like SOB or Ferris or Heaslip. We simply aren't as good a side as some people think we are.
molloyjh wrote: » I know people want to see amazing rugby and convincing wins all the time, but we aren't entitled to that all the time. Our talent pool isn't where we would like it to be. We're going through a slight trough in that regard. That is always going to tell in performances and results. Sacking the coach won't change any of that.
molloyjh wrote: » I know people want to see amazing rugby and convincing wins all the time, but we aren't entitled to that all the time. Our talent pool isn't where we would like it to be. We're going through a slight trough in that regard. That is always going to tell in performances and results. Sacking the coach won't change any of that. EDIT: Also, Japan were good today. Heaven forbid some people give them the credit they deserve.
Downlinz wrote: » I mean part of the problem is we've made very little effort to try alternatives at those positions. Sexton still being flogged when he's nearly 36 and a shadow of the player he once was is actually appalling. It's the kind of desperation you'd associate with a tier 2 nation with a very weak player pool. We have the 4 best teams in the Pro 12 last season and IQ players are in 1 and 10 across them all, the idea that none of them could replace struggling veterans if given a few games to integrate first is actually ridiculous.
stephen_n wrote: » We have tried Byrne, Burns, Carty and now Carberry. None have been better than a waning Sexton. So do you believe if we just keep playing them, they will miraculously become good enough. While we are losing games. People are calling for Farrell’s head, while we are winning games. I can only imagine how Loud that shouting would become if we were losing more games. 4 best teams in the Pro 12, well whoopdy doo. We should have the best international team in the world on that basis. Despite the fact 2 of those teams couldn’t even make it out of the European Pools.
Former Former Former wrote: » This is the problem. There is an assumption that playing for a province means you're a test level player. That's just not the case. Like, the reason Sexton is still first choice is because no one is remotely near him, even at 36. He's missed plenty of games through injury the last few years and absolutely no one, Carbery incuded, has looked halfway capable of taking over. You can make the same point for most other positions in which an older player is still first choice. We spend so long bickering about whether player A is better than player B, we lose sight of the possibility that neither are good enough. I think we're in that situation for a lot of the wider squad. I don't think Farrell is getting the most out of them either BTW but we are looking at a lean few years I think.
Downlinz wrote: » I don't think you can judge a player's capability from a game here and there, someone needs to be backed for a run of games as the starting 10 and take it from there. It appears to be Carberry now and I hope that continues into the autumn and next 6 nations. I don't believe any of the options could be worse than a 36 year old Sexton and the kind of performances and durability he has been putting in lately so we have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
aloooof wrote: » You might have a point with durability but I disagree entirely in terms of performance. When fit, Sexton is still producing at a much higher level than we’ve seen from any of replacements, imo.
TRC10 wrote: » For now.... But he's 36 now, he can't string 3 games together, and sooner or later his performances won't be any better than what we have, at which point we'll have to start bedding in a new 10 from scratch. Carbery is the next best. And he needs to be backed from here on out IMO, with Sexton on the bench and H.Byrne getting minutes here and there. Carbery could potentially have 6 starts under his belt before the start of the 6N and Murray playing inside him. That's not bad at all. But he needs time. He seems to be playing within himself but that's natural as he's been out for so long. But he needs consistent games to rebuild his confidence.
molloyjh wrote: » So Ireland should play a worse player and get worse results in the hope that this worse player might be the best we have at some indeterminate point in the future despite not really looking like he'll ever quite be good enough? Sacrifice short term for long term loss? Carbery needs to get a run of games with Munster and show he has some form there before being installed as Irelands first choice 10 because he's the least worst when we ignore our best option.