Its odd that we trusted a 22 year old that had barely played knockout rugby at second row but not crowley
Again this garbage about him being passenger. He was no more a passenger than he was at the death in Paris. Directing the team is a critical role and one that he was elite at
He was certainly elite at directing teams but no, he wasn't really contributing much in the dying minutes of the QF.
You've reduced the difference to "who could run faster" which is overly simplistic.
Otherwise we'd have been asking for Rhasidat Adeleke to come on...
No, the argument being put forward is that Crowley's running ability could've been a game changer, compared to what Sexton provided. Phog and others want to denigrate Sexton as a passenger, because he wasn't a running threat anymore. It's a deliberately obtuse argument, that wants to devalue the contribution he made in those moments, to big up Crowley.
If he wasn't contributing much, then no one else was either.
Out of interest, who do you think on the Irish team was contributing much in the dying minutes of the QF?
presuming youre talking about the drop goal to win the game in Paris in 2018?
that was 5 and a half years previous, not really a good comparison
possibly, but not definitely
So much chat here about the last sequence of the 1/4F that I went back and had a look. By my count in 35 phases Sexton passed 15 times, each of them a decent pass and around ten of them that made metres. A lot of players were out on their feet as that passage unfolded, including Beirne, Sexton and Doris. Conan and Murray were still motoring as were JOB, Ringrose, Killer, Beadhlam and Aki. I was of the opinion that Farrell should have brought on Crowley, and he might have had opportunities to run and make yards but looking again I'm to sure we were missing that in that passage. Aki, Ringrose and Conan all made multiple carries for yards and often off a Sexton pass. Much as Sexton just did the basics the same could be said for Connor, solid and no mistakes but also uninspired and pedestrian. Honestly in that passage you're looking for an NZ mistake for a penalty or a line break. We had a couple of half breaks but their defence was impeccable and they made no mistakes.
We had one unused sub, an outhalf, the outhalf on the field was wrecked.
Why turn this into something it's not
Was a below par Sexton better than a fresh Crowley in that QF?
Farrell obviously thought so. I would be in agreement with him, in that instance.
Stop! Show me, where I have bigged up Crowley in any of this discussion. I'm pretty sure the only times I've mentioned him was to state he was an unused sub.
Id think similar of henserson vs mccarthy but lads where out on their feet. That game was ppayed at a million miles an hour
It’s a fair question. You’re saying the man he should have replaced wasn’t contributing a lot. So I was interested to see who you thought actually was contributing a lot but your lack of answer wasn’t unexpected.
I wonder if Farrell considered getting him on for Aki or Keenan. Some fresh legs in a slightly wider channel would have been an option too.
Sexton was the oldest player on the field, he was in a pivotal role, it was obvious to everyone watching he was struggling.
Why try turn this into something it's not
I’ve not turned it into anything. It’s a discussion platform. You’ve made a statement about a player not contributing much and I was interested to see who you considered to be contributing and you decided not to answer as it doesn’t seem to fit your narrative.
Your question in returns not really relevant though is it? Who else was contributing dosent affect the conversation
The rest are irrelevant, we hadn't a sub for them, the other subs we had were used.
You've repeatedly called him a passenger and said he wasn't contributing anything at that point. You're pushing a narrative that Farrell was wrong to leave him on, instead of bringing on Crowley.
I can see the argument for Crowley, I don't want to come across as knocking him. I think Farrell made a calculated choice to leave Sexton on, and I agree with that
It's hardly far fetched to think it was a mistake to leave Sexton on. Fresh legs matter, JOB isn't as good as Hansen but his impact was huge off the bench in that game.
And none of that is bigging up Crowley which is what you claimed I did
I'm glad we can agree that there was an argument for bringing on Crowley.
I've read bottles of shampoo that are less tedious than this conversation.
That’s not true. Crowley played quite a bit at 12 and 15 for Munster last year. JGP has covered wing superbly for Ireland in the past, players can play different roles and cover different positions. Could he have come on elsewhere?
Farrell obviously felt Sexton’s experience was a better bet with the game in the balance. But your narrative is that Sexton was the ‘oldest player’ on the pitch and contributing little. You don’t seem to know who actually was contributing so you’ve avoided the question or you’ve decided it doesn’t matter as you seem to think Crowley is only capable of covering 10.
I've told you, a few times that it's irrelevant.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but given that that 22 year old was largely at fault for the game ending penalty that's not a great argument.
Its not an argument
I love how so many here are so sure of how completely hypothetical situations would have gone.
What a completely pointless discussion
We know that we lost, we know that Crowley wasn't used, so it's very reasonable to suggest that bringing on Crowley couldn't have made anything worse than what actually happened, while providing the chance that fresh legs and a fresh approach in thd last 10 minutes could have led to a different outcome
Its boards its all pointless.
Crowley's Achilles Heel is that his way below the standard required off the kicking tee to be considered even an adequate international 10. His admirers can try & sugar coat it all they like but his stats are poor & they will continue to cost Ireland in important games. He is just NOT a kicker that Ireland can rely upon currently to slot those goals & conversions.