Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

I’m not a fan of it. The Molecast today had an interesting piece about it - had the view it’s just adding another layer of complexity and subjectivity into the game, and putting the ref front and centre again.

It’s too much of a reward for a team kicking away possession IMO. There were loads of games at the weekend where a chaser just barges into the back of another player and gets a penalty (James Lowe did it right off the start of the second half, and we ultimately scored a try from a kick he wasn’t going to be in position to realistically compete for, and Jack Dempsey had an even more egregious one in the Scotland-SA game.

I don’t get the point of it. There was already a rule there if you changed your line to obstruct / block a chaser that worked fine.

It’s just too punitive for me for something so innocuous and subjective.

Wellity wellity wellity - after being told multiple times this week that Andy Farrell wasn’t criticising Jack Crowley and was just criticising the team - Farrell specifically singled out Crowley in today’s team announcement.

Asked about his decision to stick with Crowley after taking him off after 57 mins in last week’s defeat to the All Blacks, Farrell said the out half was one of a contingent of players who he’d kept faith with despite their poor performances.

And then, later in the piece:

”Jack, along with quite a few of our players, would have been hoping for a better performance.

Some of them are lucky enough to get another chance to do that and others are coming in and some of them played pretty well themselves, but there were too many people not at their best last week and we’re hoping for everyone to improve, not just Jack.

Obviously, the control of the game is something that Jack would be open and honest about of wanting to step up a little bit this weekend but we’ve certainly seen that in training this week.”

I can’t wait to hear how this will be spun.

For the record, once again, I’m not saying he was our worst player or anywhere close to it on Friday night and I’ve never said that. I’m not saying he was primarily responsible etc for our poor performance. I was simply saying he didn’t play well, which he didn’t. Not saying he should be dropped or anything like that.

Now, the guy whose opinion matters more than anyone on this topic, and who knows directly what he was expecting to see from Crowley last Friday night is clearly and unambiguously saying the same thing.

Surely that puts this one to bed.

mod: warned. Misrepresenting an article to bait other posters.

For me it’s a good rule change

Currently the scrum and line out offer the best attacking opportunities, I think this new rule will offer teams good attacking options from broken play when teams learn how to kick and recover.

also When a player kicks it is up, the opposing teams players need to worry about getting back onside before they contest the play. Simply stay out of the way and there is no penalty.

There will be more kicking but is it not a good thing if it can help break down defences and if there is more kicking could that be a positive when it comes to dealing with trying to nullify the advantages some rugby nations have with the absolute giants they have playing for them. The new rules will hopefully speed up the game.

Yea seriously! So what dr knowall

I'd start Prendergast but I also understand why Crowley has been selected. It's a personal opinion.

it’s becoming awfully hard to sieve through the crap to get to decent posts. Can we keep it short and unrepetitive as recasting what someone says with a word change doesn’t add anything. Use the ‘thanks’ if you agree to someone else’s post.

It's become such a tedious hyperbolic chore of "how dare you critise my province / provinces player"

Where have I said anything remotely like this? I've simply stated my opinion that I don't think Crowley was poor.

We've always had sea gulls in here during and immediately after games, why aren't they challenged immediately after they post rather than used as hyperbolic evidence days after?

I voiced my opinion at the time on Friday night:

I expect to see a few changes next week in the 23. But still expect it to be 10. Crowley 22. Frawley

I mean, you haven't even quoted them properly alooof, so they will not get a notification that your quoting them to allow them to respond. Is that because you don't actually want them.to?

I think you're reading too much into this. By way of example, you didn't quote me either. I'm sure there was no ill motive on your part.

I agree with the notion that you want more attacking rugby, and I think what they intended here was for more contested catches, and tap backs etc, that will lead to more broken play opportunities.

But, over the first weekend of games, I think it just led to a lot more kicking (not what I watch rugby to see) and some teams kind of cynically trying to milk penalties.

There were already rules there around players having to retreat and get onside etc, and not interfere overtly with chasers, but I feel where they've landed with this version now is a step too far.

I pretty much said exactly that on Friday evening:

Classic case of "you're never as good as they say you are when you win, and never as bad as they say you are when you lose" for me, I'd say on both a team level and an individual level for the likes of Crowley and Frawley, say.

We need to see a lower penalty count and error count across the board at the weekend. And an improved scrum and lineout platform. And more accuracy at the breakdown.

So much went wrong that an improvement, even in a couple of areas, should lead to an improvement across the board.