There was no world cup in 2009
Why?
So by that logic, Gavin Coombes is currently not good enough to play in a world cup. Nice one
What?
I think you missed a few steps
Coombes is an 8, he's played as an 8 his whole professional career. He covers lock, but if he was going to a world cup it would be as back row who can cover 2nd row, not 2nd row specialist
Haley is a specialist full back who could cover Wing if needed
You said that Kearney wasn't good enough to play in a world cup in 2009, because there wasn't a world cup in 09. Even though he was quite clearly good enough.
So using your logic, Gavin Coombes isn't good enough to play in a world cup. Nor is Hugo Keenan. Or Doris. Or Crowley.
It's debatable, at the very least.
"This season" covers a lot more than the last six weeks.
Haley is a good player who might be unlucky to miss out but he's not that good that's it's a great injustice.
Both Barrett backs do though, as does Thomas Ramos. There are tonnes of examples.
Ben Smith, Liam Williams, Isreal Dagg, Isreal Folau, Boffelli, Beale, to name but a few
Ange Capuozzo, Freddie Steward... I honestly think Haley is in a minority. Apart from Willie Le Roux there aren't many that spring to mind.
Because that's what he did before. Lowry was in the squad that toured NZ last Summer and played v the Maori, as well as starting at 15 for Ireland 'A' against the NZ XV.
Daly was called up already ahead of Haley early enough in Farrell's tenure. And he was at 15 for Emerging Ireland.
There's a fair body of evidence that he'll back the players who've been in before even if they aren't exactly lighting things up (in Lowry's case).
As long as Henshaw doesn't play at fb, we should be fine.
Not a lot of daylight based on what? Osbourne has a total of 2 pro starts at 15. Frawley also has 2 pro starts at 15. That’s it.
JOB makes sense but Haley could probably be there just to learn if he is needed. It really is only JOB who could credibly be expected to play 15 for Ireland if Keenan went down.
JOB is clearly a better fit for ireland than Haley btw. Haley’s best skill is his ability to carry it back hard and make yards. Ireland’s back three kick. Ireland don’t play anything like Munster.
It's doubtful Haley ever gets more than a handful of caps in his career, barring a massive injury crisis. Sometimes good players go unrewarded. I'm a big fan of Ruddock, who I think should've had a lot more caps but coaches wanted different players. Them's the breaks.
Even le Roux switches to ten quite frequently for SA.
Your first para is up there with some of the best responses I have seen on here. Exactly.
“Based on what” is actually superiority and entitlement.
You've answered the question perfectly though.
Bringing in a guy who's never even been in camp before, to be third choice (at best), "just to learn", would be a strange use of limited time and resources.
Imagine bringing players onto a training camp to learn.
What kind of lunacy is that?
It's not lunacy at all. Farrell has been bringing in young guys as development players into pretty much every squad since he arrived. He's been absolutely brilliant for not relying on provincial pecking orders or huge amounts of experience.
What isn't a great idea is bringing in a guy who isn't really needed and has had zero time with the Ireland set up ever, three months out from the RWC.
Correct me if I'm wrong but there's not a single player in the 42 who hasn't been in the squad before.
These players might be unlucky to lose out but they needed to be impressing long before now.
These players might be unlucky to lose out but they needed to be impressing long before now
I think there’s a pretty reasonable case that, say, Kleyn and Haley were impressing long before now.
They are not impressing the Irish coaches though. As neither have had any involvement under the current coaching setup. Which would suggest, they don’t display the talents required by Ireland. Doesn’t matter how much they impress within the Munster system, or how valuable they are to Munster.
Just another thing I was thinking about regarding the squad composition; the forwards are seemingly selected to have two full packs and a full bench with extra cover at hooker, and the backs are seemingly selected to have two complete back lines with two complete benches.
So I imagine there will be a lot of training practice where the two teams face each other, and players would be swapped around to foster familiarity with different combinations.
For example, Starting Team:
1. Porter, 2. Sheehan, 3. Furlong,
4. Beirne, 5. Ryan,
6. O'Mahony, 8. Doris, 7. Van der Flier.
9. Gibson-Park, 10. Sexton,
11. Lowe, 12. Henshaw, 13. Ringrose, 14.Hansen,
15. Keenan.
Replacements:
16. Stewart, 21. Blade, 22. Frawley, 23. Osborne.
Vs Second String Team:
1. Healy, 2. Kelleher, 3. Bealham,
4. Henderson, 5. McCarthy,
6. Baird, 8. Conan, 7. Prendergast.
9. Murray, 10. Crowley,
11. Stockdale, 12. McCloskey, 13. Aki, 14. Nash,
15. O'Brien.
16. Herring, 17. Kilcoyne, 18. O'Toole, 19. Treadwell, 20. Coombes, 21. Casey, 22. Byrne, 23. Earls.
I just wonder how they will train without collision injuries, and I’d imagine there will definitely be players called in as people will inevitably pick up muscle strains and short term injuries.
I imagine there will be a lot of classroom type sessions to make sure everyone knows their detail particularly those covering multiple positions.
I wonder when players are going into these camps, do they prepare by analysing the players they'll be competing with ? Would Kilcoyne be studying Furlong and Bealham trying to get a nudge against them? Baird studying Henderson and Beirne to see their tells in the lineout.
Yeah, but you could make the same observation about a heap of other guys who've missed out. I don't really want to focus on any specific players because people will get annoyed.
Farrell has invested a lot of time into building a deep squad and for new guys to be dropped in at this stage was probably going to require some extenuating circumstances. There's no one who's been so good as to DEMAND inclusion so they're all probably relying on injury, of which we have very few.
Stranger than playing guys who have barely played 15 at 15?
When did that happen? This is just a strawman.
Every few months - boards gets fascinated by a new phrase used in arguments and then parrots it as nauseum.
A while ago we had "false equivalence"
Then we had "not arguing in good faith"
Now, it appears "strawman" is the flavour of the day.
"If my Aunt had bollocks/wheels" also remains a timeless get of of jail free card to play when stuck in a sticky situation
I feel like I'm forgetting one too.
“You can’t have it both ways” is another.
I’d be fond of that myself, to be fair.
Frawley and Osbourne were mentioned as adequate cover at 15. They’ve barely played 15.
Look, I completely understand that argument at this late stage towards the RWC. Buts it’s been repeated a lot on here for all of Farrell’s tenure
Farrell has earned the benefit of the doubt but I just find it a very reductive argument because:
1) things may be a lot more marginal than they are impressing / not impressing. And
2) the incumbents are impressing (in the squad / 15). Until they’re not (out of the squad / 15). There’s room for discussion before that happens
Take Carbery as a prime example.
Or Conan. Injury gave him his opportunity vs England. Was he not impressing until that injury?
Or JOB, not doing what the coaches wanted from their starters until McCloskey‘s injury parachuted him in?
There’s obviously room for discussion there.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e7ef1946e92d84157dc464ad6c3ddaab.svg)
