Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

I think that makes sense. Rumours linking Ross with moves to both Montpellier and Leicester. At this point in his career it makes sense to go.

With Harry - something seems to have dramatically shifted behind the scenes last season. He actually got a good run of games when Ross was hurt, and largely did well in those games. I thought he was excellent away in LAR and in Leicester.

I've no doubt he was extremely frustrated when Ross came straight back into the team for the Leicester QF game, and his body language looked dreadful when he (and the whole team) turned in a stinker of a performance in Pretoria against the Lions, and it looks like it was around that time the fracture developed. He got a chance late on in the season up in Ulster too and was poor that night too, with some fatal errors. By season's end, he wasn't even brought in wider touring squad that went to SA for the Bulls semi final.

It's really frustrating how it's turned out for him, as I still think he's a really talented out half if he can get a run of fitness and consistent game time, but the bigger issues have consistently for me been issues of mentality and maturity with him.

In the cold light of day I think Farrell is making do with players already around until the end of this season before starting the changing of the old guard (POM, Healy, Murray, Henderson and possibly Aki and a couple of the 32/33 year olds too) next season to have a 2 year build up to the 2027 WC. I would think he may want to keep new players to the minimum this year and keep a large amount of experience as he wont be around himself for the 6N.

Having a group of new players have a bad 6 nations without a large amount of experience around could set a few of them back. So a holding pattern for this year with only a couple of new additions in positions where we are short, before next year filtering more new names into the squad

Frawley did really well in the NZ tour in 2022, then was marked out as one of the players they wanted to take a very close look at in the EI tour. Come the November 2022 tests, Frawley was named as one of three out-halves, ahead of Byrne and Crowley, then got injured, so he's been on the radar for a long time.

But I just don't see it. From a Leinster POV, I am really hoping that Prendergast steps up, and from an Ireland POV I hope that Prendergast steps up and Friday was a blip for Crowley.

To be fair to phog and leaky here, these posts came from 5 different posters:

The sooner Prendergast starts the better. Neither Crowley or Frawley have done anything to get the attack going

Crowley dreadful, Frawley beyond dreadful. Time to give Prendergast a shot.

Don't worry, our internationals 10s have just given Sam a massive push.

I'd have Prendergast at 10 for Argentina. Start to build a team around him.

it’s over for Crowley

Now, is that significant? I'm not sure but there definitely seems to be some swell of opinion for it which 1) I think would be a mistake and 2) overlooks bigger issues we had elsewhere.

Maybe so, but he's still not doing his own stuff well either. Take it up with the Head Coach if you want though, he's the one who made the comment, not me.

I missed the second part of your comment/rant earlier as it seems you edited it post originally posting:

Crowley was fine and suggestions that he was poor are nothing more than scapegoating. He wasn't responsible for his teammates knock ons and he certainly wasn't responsible for our pack's inability to protect our own ball at the breakdown. It's amazing that he's coming under so much scrutiny considering we have second rows who can't win their own ball at lineout time or clear out a ruck (but I'm told that's purely coaching despite Leinster being 9th and 10th in lineout success over the last two seasons in the league) and a hooker who's great in the loose but fast becoming a liability at set piece time.

Ireland lost due to a number of reasons on Friday but Jack Crowley wasn't one of them. Indeed, we were leading when Farrell called him ashore. The cynic in me believes that the disproportionate scrutiny his performance has received is nothing more than an attempt to distract from a number of poor performances from some of his more celebrated teammates. Crowley was our starting fly half in a championship victory yet despite achieving this in less than a year as a front line international some people are already looking to jettison him for the shiny new toy, a fella with less than 25 provincial starts. It would be funny if it weren't so painfully familiar and predictable.

He's not "coming under so much scrutiny" and isn't getting outsized scrutiny IMO. Virtually all the comments are slating the entire team, and most in agreement only a small handful of players emerged with any credit.

It's this kind of conspiracy nonsense and utter defensiveness to any perceived criticism that makes it difficult to have a reasonable conversation.

It wasn't. It came from Farrell & Co wanting the opportunity to play more A style games (we also played an A game against the NZ XV that winter), and a lack of potential opponents for them. The fact Toyota were prepared to essentially underwrite the cost of it was what made it work. It was definitely coincidental timing and they definitely would have thought it was a good chance to give Frawley game time at 10, but it wasn't arranged specifically for that purpose.

This is all very reminiscent of the chat re Catt in his early games though - distinctly remember "What is Catt doing? being asked in many quarters. Not saying Goodman is necessarily gonna achieve the same - but fan impatience is definitely the same

Yep. Give guys a chance, if they measure up great, if they don't, move on. That sounds like exactly what you want the coach to do?

It is. But it also doesn't then sound like the coach is a big fan of Frawley, when he is looked at after all these options, which is my only point here.

But it also doesn't then sound like the coach is a big fan of Frawley

I don't understand, the coach is clearly a massive fan of Frawley, far more than Leo Cullen ever was.

You're misremembering the sequence of things. For the NZ tour to 2022, Harry Byrne was the third OH, Frawley went as a centre. Byrne got injured, Frawley was thrown in at 10, and that's when he caught Farrell's eye, he did well against the Maori.

The guy got his chance, he took it, and we never bothered going back to H Byrne. Some players do that, others don't - just like Crowley got his chance a few months later when Sexton, Carbery and Frawley all got injured and he took his chance with both hands.

I don't understand, the coach is clearly a massive fan of Frawley, far more than Leo Cullen ever was.

Dude, I literally remember arguing with you on here when you claimed Schmidt wasn't a big fan of Zebo… despite Zebo starting loads of games for him. And you argued that was only down to a dearth of options.

But now you're trying to convince me that Farrell is a massive fan of Frawley? Despite Frawley only starting 1 game, and that at 15?

It makes no sense…. completely inconsistent.

You said Crowley played poorly which is the point I was addressing. When I asked you how you arrived at that conclusion you pointed me to remarks made by Farrell suggesting that the fly halves didn't manage the game as well as they should have.

My post was edited because this website is rubbish on android and constantly jumps about while I'm typing which caused me to submit my post mid-sentence.

I stand by my remarks that Crowley has come in for a disproportionate amount of criticism. I have seen plenty of posters on here call him out as having a poor game anda number of journalists too. This despite the stats I referenced above. I've not seen anyone here call out Ryan, McCarthy or Kelleher in a similar fashion despite the fact that they had poor games in the loose whilst also failing in their primary roles. They are as much to blame as Crowley for the loss (if not more so) yet I don't think I've seen them mentioned. I've seen O'Connell come in for plenty of criticism however (and rightly so).

As for your assertion that my post is a conspiratorial rant. Nonsense. In the past three days I've seen everything from Munster players being called mercenaries, to comments suggesting that a world cup winning lock is good enough for the world champions but not for us because of "systems". I've also seen posters suggest that our championship winning fly half should be jettisoned after less than a year as a starter in favour of a lad with less than 30 starts for his province. Players from other provinces are routinely dismissed on these boards. Supporters of those teams are condescended to and smugly informed that those players just aren't doing enough in club games/training/whatever and that the coaching staff know best. There's a reason boards is dead.

I didn't say he was there by default. I said him being tried - after Farrell tried lots of other options - is more suggestive of it being down to a dearth of options than it is to him being a "big fan".

I can't put it any simpler than that.

All these arguments you're putting forward could equally apply to Crowley, and they'd be equally wrong there too.

Again, this isn't comparing apples with apples. Crowley wasn't even in the Academy when Farrell took charge. Frawley had a senior contract.

Now, would you care to explain how you can square the claim that Schmidt wasn't a fan of Zebo, and he only started because of a dearth of options elsewhere, while simultaneously arguing Farrell is a big fan of Frawley?

No.

I don't see any merit in discussing the different treatment of different players, playing in different positions, by different coaches, seven years apart.