Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

Also not surprising to see everything under the sun being done to deflect from 7 missed tackles.

Look, over there!!

There was a legitimate point to be made about Crowley’s defensive performance yesterday. But that’s not what you did. 

You picked one game to compare him to Prendergast. And are now complaining when people… do the exact same thing? Ya…

My reply was - I thought obviously - meant facetiously. 

Why? Because one game in isolation doesn’t tell us anything about any player, let alone by comparison with another. 

But I’m pretty certain any examination of the stats over a reasonable sample size will show Crowley as a better defender. 

For example, he, last week, was the joint highest tackler in the game. The Ulster game during the season, he made 18 tackles. That’s kinda nuts for a 10. 

I’d be willing to bet Prendergast could go his entire career without making that many tackles in a single game. (And that’s fine; it’s not the primary thing you want from your 10)

But also a large part of the reason for why he has higher tackle numbers is because of where he’s entrusted to defend from. 

All of that is part of a larger, good-faith discussion when comparing Crowley and Prendergast. But I don’t believe that’s why you posted what you did here. 

you leinster guys are hilarious…

he's the only weak link out of fridays 23.

but circle the wagons.

unfortunately I am am massive furlong fan, and I want him to win the Euro cup..

There has been a lot of blinkered nonsense posted here in the last few weeks but this tops it.

Completely and utterly strange behaviour.

I think some are so overly or unrealistically positive that it invites negativity for a sense of balance , particularly where it’s a cross reference to Crowley

I mean, this isn't exactly true either. There's literally a post in the Leinster thread today about how Prendergast is the best 10 in Ireland "and it's not even close".

Which has picked up some likes along the way including from, ironically… For Petes Sake.

In what way is that not "overly or unrealistically positive"?

You think I couldn't produce the same for Crowley?

Or even some that are "overly or unrealistically positive" about Prendergast?

There's nonsense posted from both sides. Your suggestion that it's only coming from one direction is… lets go with "horsesh*t".

You believe Crowley gets as much hatred (and that's exactly what it is) as Prendergast?

If you say 'yes', then you're either lying or you're not actually paying any attention.

It's painful watching people bend themselves over backwards to slate Prendergast even after he plays well.

Go back through my posts and find any post where I have slated Crowley disproportionately in my defence of Prendergast, and you'll see that I am not one of those very few.

Now, I feel you are attacking me rather than my posts, so I'm going to stop replying.

Good night.

I see you are incapable of answering my very simple question of who gets more disproportionate hatred.

Just as I suspected. Someone else not interested in having a conversation.

When you start calling out those who chat sh*te about Prendergast, I'll entertain what you have to say. However you're not. You're happy to let them do it.

For the OP to blather on like being overly and unrealistically positive about Prendergast is an overriding theme of this board is absolutely untrue. I'll stand by that.

Don't bother replying back to me unless you answer the very simple question I've asked above.

I don't think either of them get disproportionate hatred on here; there's plenty of non-good-faith posts to go around from all angles these days, alas. Which is why I think portraying one side as squeaky-clean and the other as purveyors of "horsesh*t" is just plain wrong.

I also don't understand why you think anyone is obligated to "call out" anyone. Or why you need to use such emotive language; what kind of reaction do you expect?

Imagine Prendergast has an off day from the tee and someone posted this:

Prendergast down for a 46% kick success. I thought his point of difference was his kicking?

Would that be credible? Cos that’s exactly what you’re doing.

If you had come in and said “Crowley with an unusually poor defensive performance this weekend, it’s normally his point of difference” I don’t think anyone would’ve had an issue.

The full context being that was a discussion comparing Crowley and Prendergast in that individual game. I literally said as much earlier in the thread,:

To be fair, I was responding to a request to compare them exclusively on this game.

And engaged in the discussion and gave plenty of reasoning throughout the whole thread. For example:

The place kicking, the stats bear that out. Tho Prendergast showed character to respond and convert the most difficult of his 3.

The kicking from hand is much more qualitative, naturally. But, especially early on, even Prendergast's long exit kicking looked aimless, and allowed England territory and field position. He rarely hit grass, iirc (tho I’d have to watch it back). Crowley’s had one or 2 too long also, but contestables seemed much more… contestable. Bear in mind this is one area that it was seen as Prendergast outright having the upper hand on Crowley.

That's the context. That's literally the opposite of the exact same thing. The exact same thing would've been posting a 2-liner like the following:

Prendergast down for a 33% kick success. I thought his point of difference was his kicking?

(Word count: 192, I'm disappointed with myself).

Sooooooooooooo. Why did Ireland form drop during this Six Nations? Players all doing well following the conclusion of said competition. Coaching and tactics would be my assessment. Defence and Attack.