Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

I’m not a fan of 6-2 for us. I don’t think Baird coming on for VDF was going to be a difference maker. We needed somebody more destructive at the breakdown.
And I also would have liked to see more of Crowley at OH over the tournament. But selection decisions and cards went against him.

All I did was respond to a guy saying he had a mediocre game.

I'm picking him out. My only post right after the game, I didn't post during the game, was that all the backs were at best poor and that I'd put the loss more on them than the forwards.

I'll go through the starters.

Nash was horrendous as was McCarthy. Prendergast was awful. I could give Osbourne the same grade but he deserves a little credit for busting his backside.

Prendergast hit many kicks too long. He had a lot of bad passes with the hospital pass to VDF and the intercept try the ones that stand out to me. Defensively he was terrible.

Yes there were a number of bad performances.

Reading the thread I'm seeing lots of criticism of O'Mahoney and most Irish players in their thirties, besides Beirne.

Then there's the Munster crew focusing on Prendergast as they have done every game.

It's been fair all through to criticise his defensive performance. It's also been fair to criticise his goalkicking which is below 70%. For most games he's been excellent offensively with ball in hand.

As for the other players you mention. I'd say POM and Henshaw were poor, as was VDF who you don't mention.

Bealham was also poor and Sheehan wasn't much better. Porter was average. The only two players who played well were Doris and Beirne.

JGP and Aki were average, they weren't near their usual high standards, they were the second and third best backs after Keenan.

This Ireland team have been sliding towards this defeat since thrashing France last year. Each game has shown a slight deterioration over the preceding game. This is what happens to sides over time. As Mike Tyson said, "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." Ireland got whacked by a more physical side. Our inability to score with all that pressure in the first 20 really told the tale of what was to unfold. I don't normally criticise or comment on individual players but Joe McCarthy isn't anywhere nearly as good as his press would have us believe and he appears to have the rugby I.Q. of the Beano.

Honest question. Do people genuinely believe that Munster fans wouldn't rally behind Prendergast if he was playing at a genuinely world class level? Sheahan, Lowe, Doris, etc have long been accepted as one of our own players in green since they broke out on the scene (some minor teething issues with Lowe's defence aside). Do people genuinely think that we wouldn't do the same for Sam if he was actually playing to a decent standard?

Admittedly, there were a good few inflammatory comments in the match thread and I completely understand the defensiveness around those - I'd be the first person to call them out if they were directed at a Munster player and I'll wholeheartedly admit to that. This muck-tier posting like "ugh he's stinking the place out" and "take him off (after twenty minutes)" and that sort of lark just offers nothing and is designed solely to piss people off, so I've no issue with people calling that out.

However, I also think that some legitimate concerns and doubts from our higher quality posters have been quickly shut down as "Oh, the Munster fans are having a go at him again" and "They're mad that Crowley isn't the man" - when in reality they have an honestly held good faith opinion that Sam just isn't playing that well.

I think there is a decent discussion to be had if it's treated with the right respect - but that comes from both sides. The pro-Sam party have to be open to other opinion once it is well founded, while the anti-Sam party have to not devolve into inflammatory hyperbole. The chances of us actually getting that - probably very little, but it's worth hoping for.

Ireland 25 South Africa 24.

I think it would take a whole season of Sam tearing it up with consistent 10 out of 10 performances for that to be the case. He was never going to be perfect this tournament. He is too young and inexperienced and the step in intensity from provincial to international level was always going to be a learning curve for him to adapt to.

But there are a cohort of posters who refuse to admit that he has any positive aspects to his game. Offensively he has been very good this tournament. Defensively he has been poor.

France's breakdown work and linespeed left no options for Sam or JGP to play good passes. Jack may well have been better suited to the game as he would have survived contact better. But I think it would have just ended up with Jack at the bottom of rucks more often and wouldn't really have changed the game in a meaningful way.

Sometimes it is hard to see the legitimate posters from the trolls. I have no issue with people preferring Crowley. It is a valid take. But Sam was not the reason for the defeat against France and was surrounded by players not playing well. It was an entire team failure and some posters are trying to make him the scapegoat. Which I am pushing back against.

If Lowe, Hansen, Ringrose were all available and Bundee didn't get a kick in the head. And we didn't give up 2 yellow cards it could have been a completely different game. If all you are changing is Jack instead of Sam it would have been the same game.

I'd thank this post twice if I could. Genuinely thoughtful. Some responses, if I may.

Do people genuinely believe that Munster fans wouldn't rally behind Prendergast if he was playing at a genuinely world class level? 

In fairness, "world class level" is a big ask for a young guy in his first 6N and I don't think too many people would say he's been at that level at all, I certainly wouldn't. He's had some outstanding moments, some absolutely shocking moments, but on the whole it's been a successful enough experiment. I don't agree that he isn't playing to a decent standard, "decent" is exactly the word I'd apply to his 6N.

On the flip side, Crowley is not world class either and has not been playing at his best, so there was an opening for someone to come in.

Sheahan, Lowe, Doris, etc have long been accepted as one of our own players in green since they broke out on the scene

It's slightly more nuanced because not only is Prendergast seen as the embodiment of Leinster bias, media influence, etc, his selection is coming at the expense of the first Munster-developed player to become first-choice for Ireland in over a decade. Sheahan forced out Kelleher and Herring, Lowe took Stockdale's spot, Doris arrived right as Stander was retiring, so for Munster fans each of those was a wash. This is a straight Leinster-for-Munster swap. That's my amateur psychology take on it.

For most fans, getting their province's guys into the national team is a big deal, of course it is. You can see how unhappy people were that Hansen was brought back in over Nash despite some sketchy form, and then again with Osborne, but out-half is the key position and having your guy there is massive, and now that is at risk.

when in reality they have an honestly held good faith opinion that Sam just isn't playing that well.

That's absolutely fine, but it's the internet, the middle of the road opinion tends to get drowned out by the more triggering opinions. I'm as guilty as anyone of over-reacting to bonkers takes like "this is public bullying of Crowley" or "Sexton is calling the shots here". Equally, people on the pro-Sam side have made way too much of "that" spiral kick and some of his long passes, exquisite as they might look in slow-mo.

It's really unfortunate that we're in a Lions year and this adds a whole other dimension to the arguments. It would probably be a lot better if we were talking about who'd have the jersey for the tour to Argentina.

how did Clarkson do when he came on, only noticed he was on at the end.

cos he was absolutely mangled in the scrum against Wales.

not sure he was on long enough to see much. but he didn't look a prospect against Wales.

The scrums went down not back after he came on. Who knows if he was to blame or not. At one Gardener told france to use it for about 30 seconds before they finally decided to move the ball. Should have been turnover

Law 19: Scrum: When the scrum is stationary and the ball has been available at the back of the scrum for three-five seconds, the referee calls “use it”. The team must then play the ball out of the scrum immediately.

Also, penalties are habitually awarded when a team is gonig forward, but it is not in the laws. A penalty is awarded when someone is illegal in the scrum. Its not illegal to have a weaker scrum. If it goes down and everyone is legal its not a penalty

Well it does in fact point to consistency in the analysis on here, in that there will always be people quick to pin everything on the 10 and never make allowances that no 10, bar perhaps Carlos Spencer who had other glaring weaknesses, could excel in a team that was massively losing the contact. We actually place too much on the 10 as fans without seeking to understand the shape of the game

I've no idea what your last paragraph has to do with an assessment of Clarkson.

You literally say there "penalties are habitually awarded" - what happens to everyone else "habitually" will happen to Clarkson.

I thought Clarkson backpedalled on the TH side and then collapsed, which hadn't happened with Bealham on. I do take your point about every scrum collapse not being a penalty. It's a fair point. But the French scrum was the one continuing to push trying to milk the penalty, and from my reading, Clarkson was folded.

Maybe fairer to say I didn't see anything to reassure me after the Wales debacle rather than assuming fault.

RTE news : Furlong and Hansen give Ireland injury boost

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2025/0310/1501247-furlong-and-hansen-give-ireland-injury-boost/

Furlong should not play.

Honestly what's the big gain with playing him v Italy at this stage for Ireland?