shootermacg wrote: » You have a lot of moving parts that haven't played together before and haven't played for a while either. I think you have to:
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.
Bazzo wrote: » At this stage I'm not sure if it matters if Sexton is the better player, if one of the other players will actually benefit from the game time then we need to be selecting them.
molloyjh wrote: » What does that mean though? Does that mean that of the games they play sees them improve? How could anyone possibly know if that game time would make them better or not? And what if it doesn't? Are we sacrificing short term results in vain? How is that good for anyone then? And how would it impact everyone else in thr set-up?
aloooof wrote: » Which is exactly what we did yesterday, to be fair.
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.
AbusesToilets wrote: » The next best Flyhalf is stuck in exile for dubious reasons, while the team struggles. Carberry is wasted at 10.
Richie_Rich89 wrote: » Why? He's not some 16 year old who has never played professionally. And the World Cup is more than two years away.
Richie_Rich89 wrote: » Conor looks set to start for the Lions in South Africa. What more do you want?
Dave_The_Sheep wrote: » It wasn't a debate. It was a conversation about who might take Sexton's spot after he stops playing. As it happens that conversation has gone on far too long to be comfortable, because a) Sexton is still the best fly half in the country and b) none of the potentials have come close to declaring themselves the heir-in-waiting. We've two years left til 2023 and nobody has their hand up. From the provinces: a) Connacht - Jack Carty, has had a good few chances now and doesn't appear to have impressed the coaching staff. Hit and miss, probably has the highest potential to play well, but equally has a bad floor for making gaffes. The Finn Russell of Ireland fly halfs, and I don't want Finn Russell as my fly half if I expect to win consistently. Feel bad for him though. b) Leinster - Ross Byrne has had a few caps and has had a rough time of with some very rough starts against England in Twickenham and a start against a far superior France where he did OK, but I think it's fair to say he's a very good Heineken Cup player, but perhaps international games might be a step too far if we're to have serious aspirations. Nevertheless, probably the most solid option, bar maybe option d1) - Harry Byrne, far too green. He's not in the picture for 2023. It's just not happening. c) Munster -Joey Carbery. I'm not convinced at him at 10, never have been. He was anointed the heir apparent, but was a far better 15 at Leinster prior to his (totally voluntary) move to Munster. He's been scuppered by injury but even in his regular periods he's not excelled or even been solid. Today against Japan was really not his best game by a long shot. He's going to need a lot of gametime at 10 to get up to speed, and even then I'm not sure it'll work out. d) Ulster - Madigan, it's not happening. Love the man, but it's not a thing. - Billy Burns, a good player, but not without his faults. Like Ross B, he's solid without being spectacular. More flashy, better passer than Ross B, better runner, worse kicker generally (tactically solid though). It's between Ross B and Billy B for 2023 for me. I don't see Joey panning out, but I would be f*cking delighted to be proven wrong. If Sexton is still playing internationally in 2023, it's a bad indictment of Irish rugby. I wouldn't put it past him trying though, the mad bast*rd.
Dave_The_Sheep wrote: » If we had a world class 9, I think we could live with Billy or Ross B, but we don't.
TRC10 wrote: » I don't know how you figure he's never looked like he'll be good enough. He was absolutely on fire for Munster before he got his injury issues. To the point where there was genuine debate over who would start 10 in 2019.
TRC10 wrote: » I don't know how you figure he's never looked like he'll be good enough. He was absolutely on fire for Munster before he got his injury issues. To the point where there was genuine debate over who would start 10 in 2019. If Carbery gets a solid pre season and a good run of games early next season and can find form again, there's not a lot between him and the current Sexton IMO. In other words, I don't think he is a blatantly worse player. I also don't believe playing Carbery for the rest of the year would lead to worse results. Have you seen our fixture list? USAx2 Japan, Moana Pasifica and NZ.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
