This is my take.
It's incredibly harsh to criticise the 10's for a lack of game management when there are this many handling errors, turnovers, inaccuracies and penalties being given away elsewhere, to the point that we went over 3 phases only once in the 1st half and 4 times in the 2nd.
It's almost impossible to have any continuity or game management in that context.
in fairness, the OH debate was a live issue even before the game and the performances of both Crowley and especially Frawley meant it was always going to remain a hot topic.
I haven’t seen anyone blame either player for the defeat. Everyone knows it’s the penalties that killed us, but “should we try to concede fewer penalties this week?” isn’t going to be a particularly insightful debate.
If the OH, whoever he is, is a passive bystander who lets the game unfold around him and just does his best with the ball he’s given, then that is not our long term solution at OH. That’s why it’s an interesting discussion, we are looking for someone who can get us out of the sort of hole the forwards dug for us on Friday.
Some of the lineout turnovers
If we were going 7,8,9 phases and the 10 was "letting the game unfold around him" and just "doing the best with the ball he was given", this point would make a lot more sense.
Even if the forwards were being beaten but were retaining slow ball, you might have a point. But we were constantly turning it over.
I'm not sure what you expect Crowley to do when we didn't get it beyond 3 phases once in the first half, for example.
My point makes perfect sense, you just don’t agree with it.
If you think Crowley played well and there’s nothing to discuss, that’s fine, but I’d say you’re in a minority of two - and the other guy is not Andy Farrell, so I think it’s relevant to discuss. It’s made even more relevant by the abject performance of the guy who replaced him.
I’ve said it about ten times now, the next level for Crowley is showing he can turn a game around. We haven’t seen that yet, we certainly didn’t see it on Friday, and until we do, the discussion is going to keep coming up.
Turn a game around? We were literally winning when he left the field. If any of the following go better across the team - many of which I'm not sure what you expect Crowley to do about - It'd give Crowley a better platform, and I'd expect him to play better.
Crowley had one handling error himself, and one missed tackle I think. But the majority came from… not-Crowley.
Even if 2 or 3 of them improve, it'll give him a better platform.
These are entirely fundamental things we need to fix in what was our poorest performance in years. If they improve, then maybe criticise Crowley for his lack of game management.
But when the team literally can't go beyond 3 phases, it's very harsh.
I understand arguments like "he needs to do it behind a pack going backwards, or off dirty slow ball". But we weren't even getting that, because we were turning it over so much.
One area where Crowley needs to improve on from last weekend is his contestable kicking. They were just that bit too long and left the chaser flapping at the ball with a hand rather than actually getting under it.
Happened a lot of restarts when Keenan was chasing, but was never in a realistic position to catch it. Especially when he was jumping against 6'5 Jordie Barrett.
We won a few pens from New Zealand blocking our chasers run so we know we can kick good contestables. Just wasn't done frequently enough.
Andrew Trimble (in commentary) with no axe to grind actually praised Crowley for his contestables
Completely disagree tbh. I had a look back at his contestables. (Fwiw, Frawley had an awful attempt at one that lead to a NZ try, iirc)
Time
Type
Comment
00:36
Exit inside 22.
Too Long, Hansen can't compete. His poorest kick, imo.
10:17
Re-start
Really good kick, just outside 22, Keenan competes. McIntyre: "Really well weighted by Crowley, equally so dealt with expertly by Barrett".
13:40
Free-kick off scrum
Bomb into 22 for Ringrose. Decent kick, Ringrose seems to check his run and slightly mistimes the trajectory.
18:28
Contestable off turnover
Brilliant kick. Hansen competes at half-way but NZ hold onto it.
29:06
Really good kick, lands just outside 22, Keenan competes. McIntyre: "Crowley gave him every possible chance, it was really well taken again"
29:27
Contestable off kick-return
A touch too long, Hansen bumped on his way to compete.
37:56
Too long, his 2nd poorest kick imo, but it's not a bad kick; Keenan is able to immediately make the tackle. Trimble: "We'll see Hugo Keenan going after this re-start, the last 2 Jack Crowley couldn't have done more"
40:00
Good kick, goes wider, Lowe prevented from competing and we win a penalty.
48:44
Really good kick, lands just outside 22, Keenan competes McIntyre: "Crowley's re-start again, plenty of hangtime on it but Keenan unable to get here"
Just because we don't win the ball back doesn't mean it's a poor kick.
I've learned this isn't an appeal to authority, so here goes, this was echoed on Second Captains:
Simon Hick: I thought [Crowley's] kicks wide and high were quite good, it’s just that the NZ fielding was quite good too. Thornley: It was excellent, they were brilliant in the air. Hick: Quite a few re-starts.. Thornley: Were brilliant
Simon Hick: I thought [Crowley's] kicks wide and high were quite good, it’s just that the NZ fielding was quite good too.
Thornley: It was excellent, they were brilliant in the air.
Hick: Quite a few re-starts..
Thornley: Were brilliant
Turn a game around? We were literally winning when he left the field
This is an astonishingly simplistic response.
By this logic - and I use that term loosely - none of the errors the forwards made in the first 55 minutes matter either, so what’s the big deal? Since the forwards got even worse in the last 25, does Frawley get a pass too?
If you believe the guy needs the ball on a silver platter to play well - and that’s your assertion, not mine - then questions are going to remain.
If you believe the guy needs the ball on a silver platter to play well - and that’s your assertion, not mine
I suggest you go back and re-read my post, which I've added to, because this is not at all what I was asserting. For example:
My argument isn't that he needs it on a silver platter. My argument is that he wasn't even getting dirty or slow ball. In fact, he wasn't getting any ball.
As evidenced by the fact that….. we only went over 3 phases once in the first half. That's shocking.
I've watched the game a few times now and I disagree. Especially with the point on restarts. Looping kicks which leaves Keenan flapping in the air with one hand against Jordie Barrett just isn't a contestable.
I'm not heaping a major criticism on Crowley here either. It's just an area that needs to be improved. Along with our squads ball handling, lineout work etc etc.
He had 5 re-starts:
I think you're way off on this one, Clegg.
picking out Crowley as the scapegoat makes as much sense as picking Frawley.
Our forwards as a unit were completely out played and as a result we lost the game and I include all 13 forwards in that
our lineout was poor on both ours and theirs and we were out muscled at the breakdown. New Zealand went after the two most important things that are vital to how we win games.
There was no plan B and that’s worrying.
I was a bit surprised Ireland went for exactly the same restart kick every (?) time. If you're kicking you have the advantage of knowing beforehand where the ball's going. And the opposition can only tell just before the kick by the kicker's body shapes. But if they go same place all the time there's no element of surprise, no need for NZ to adjust on the fly. Once NZ demonstrated they were dealing with that kick well would it have been better to vary it?
We did; 3 were just outside the 22, one went wide to the 5m line and one went deeper into the 22 (which, the more I look at it, the less I think it was a poor kick, and was actually intended).
I'd have to check what Frawley did.
What makes posters think that even if we won every restart that we would have retained those balls while turning over every other ball we had throughout the game. In the first half we retained the ball only once to go through 3 phases.
I don't think people are necessarily scapegoating Crowley, I just think there's way too much emphasis on him on here.
Long and short of it, here's the story of the game:
Realistically, how much of the responsibility of that lies with Crowley or Frawley? Very little.
Genuinely curious if anyone has more individual player stats from the game? Usual sources don't have anything.
EDIT: Updated to add some additional stats.
In fact, he wasn't getting any ball
Really? You’ve provided a very long list of contestable kicks up above. If you genuinely believe he played well then that’s OK, I just disagree. Or if you think he gets a pass because the forwards were rubbish, that’s OK but I also disagree. If you don’t think it matters that Andy Farrell expressed concern about it, fair enough, but again, I disagree.
If we’re exempting Crowley from criticism for our inability to string phases together, ok, but that absolutely isn’t the standard by which test level out-halves are judged. That simply isn’t how it works.
Really? You’ve provided a very long list of contestable kicks up above.
I have indeed. 5 of them were re-starts, 4 of which from NZ scores. I wouldn't exactly suggest that as a good strategy for us getting the ball to Crowley more.
Aaaaand you dodged the substantive point of my post.
Let’s try a different tack. Do you think Jack Crowley played well on Friday?
Maybe, Crowley should be tripping Aki & Ryan so they're out of play and he gets and retains the balls that they knocked on. Maybe he should now feed the ball into the scrum so that JGP isn't penalised for not feeding the ball quick enough.
Maybe he now needs to call and directly participate in our lineouts to ensure we win those.
Argentina have named their team for Friday, and it's strong:
Pablo Matera straight back in at blindside following suspension, Guido Petti back in the second row. Santi Carreras back on the bench following injury.
They've a lot of pace and power in this team - two of the best flankers in world rugby IMO, and a really dangerous back three with huge pace and offloading ability.
Argentina:
15 Juan Cruz Mallia, 14 Rodrigo Isgro, 13 Lucio Cinti, 12 Matias Moroni, 11 Bautista Delguy, 10 Tomas Albornoz, 9 Gonzalo Bertranou, 8 Joaquin Oviedo, 7 Juan Martin Gonzalez, 6 Pablo Matera, 5 Pedro Rubiolo, 4 Guido Petti, 3 Joel Sclavi, 2 Julián Montoya, 1 Thomas Gallo
Replacements:
16 Ignacio Ruiz, 17 Ignacio Calles, 18 Francisco Gomez Kodela, 19 Franco Molina, 20 Santiago Grondona, 21 Gonzalo Garcia, 22 Santiago Carreras, 23 Justo Piccardo
The speculation seems to suggest that Crowley will start, with Prendergast on the bench.
I think he did fine. Not brilliantly, not poorly. Better than some here are suggesting. Significantly better than some are suggest with regards his kicking.
But I think it's difficult to get a proper judge on his running of the attack / game-management when we just couldn't get beyond 3 phases, or get any ball because of the significant amount of issues in a significant amount of other areas.
Now, 2 questions in return:
I think he did fine. Not brilliantly, not poorly.
Great, thanks. I don’t agree.
He’s doing grand but hopefully he can kick onto another level in the next year or two.
This is it for me.
Some people I feel have unrealistic expectations of Crowley. He is not like any of his predecessors in the sense that he never "won" his spot in the team. He never beat out the incumbent. Crowley is starting for Ireland because Sexton retired, Crowley would still be sitting on the bench if Sexton was still playing.
Sexton beat out ROG, ROG beat out Humphreys, Humphreys beat out Elwood. By the time these lads were getting starts they were unquestionably the finished article. Crowley never managed to do this.
Crowley is the best-of-the-rest right now, but he's not the finished article. He's going to make mistakes, he's going to have games where he is iffy.
The only pretender who has any hope of getting ahead of Crowley is Prendergast, and he still has some way to go. The other pretenders all have lower ceilings or are known to be not good enough already.
We just have to stick with him and hope it works out, or else hope that Prendergast turns out to be good.
Complains about me dodging a substantive point.
Dodges my substantive point.
Cheers…
I'd go one step further, there are some posters that seem to be comparing Crowley to what Sexton and ROG were like at their peak. We may never have an outhalf as good as them again, the hope is we will.
“Do you think the number of times Crowley kicked is indicative of how often we got him the ball to operate with (as you seemed suggest)?” is not a substantive point.
