Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

Yeah I don't want a 10 at the bottom of many rucks. But I also don't want a 10 to not carry the ball into contact for feat of being in a ruck. I do want the 10 to be a threat to the defence and to fix a defender close to the ruck to cover the 10 in case they decide to carry into contact. I think Sam does that to a fair extent when he carries close to the defence before passing.

I think he doesn't like the physical side of the game with or without the ball.

He does a decent job of fixing the defender without ever taking the ball into contact. I'd prefer if he was dn actual threat of running through a defender occasionally, but given his physique, that's very unlikely.

I've noticed the defenders don't even bother to committ to him (put in a late/marginal tackle on him). They cover him and as soon as he passes, they drift away to cover the defence. So it's not like he's taking the defender completely out of the play, but he does a decent job when he carries close to the line. Before passing

A huge problem here is sample size.

Like, we probably all got a bit carried away with Prendergast's performances in December/January/February when it looked like he could do it all. A few bad displays sucked the wind out of his sails and we're still trying to figure out what his actual level is. We likely won't know for quite a while yet.

Similarly, when Crowley was given the jersey and we won the 6N, the assumption was that he was now the long-term solution, but again, the more we saw, the less certain that looked and pretty soon he lost the jersey. No-one really knows what his true level is either.

So now we're at the point where every match is going to be hyper-analysed but the reality is that it we won't know where we really stand until at least the end of the season, if even then.

that skillset is not deemed desirable in preference to the fundamentals of 10 play. 

Again, no one is saying it's in preference, at the expense of the fundamentals of 10 play. People are saying it is in addition.

Predictably - some (@alooof ) are going to claim, but if you swapped them how do we know the numbers wouldn't be reversed

I wouldn't want to disappoint you, FTD! ;) Btw, there's a reason it's predictable.

To not give him credit for just how potent Leinster's attack is just not being honest in this situation.

This is a strawman. I haven't not given him credit ("not being honest", eh?). He absolutely deserves some credit, of course he does. But does he deserve so much credit that comparing Munster's total tries vs Leinster's total tries is indicative of anything particularly meaningful when the difference in quality of the teams is so wide? No.

I mean, it's not too many pages ago you said the following of Crowley in the England game this year:

we scored two tries with Crowley on the field and two with him off the field. Crowley had a negligible involvement in either try (zero involvement in one of them).

Yet by your above logic, we should be crediting Crowley because Ireland had a better try-scoring rate in his time on the pitch than Prendergast.

It doesn't make any sense. But sure, "not being honest"…

Yeah good problem to have. Ringrose is only 30 and will be 33 at the world cup. So he's probably good to go. Without injuries I'd imagine Osborne and Gavin will have to share time at 12 rather than 13 and I'd imagine Osborne will get most of that time.

I hope they move on from Aki but I presume they'll start him against NZ next month and take it from there. If I had to bet I'd say Osborne will start ahead of Aki in the 6N

I actually think longer term I'd reverse those two - don't think Osborne has the out and out pace for thirteen or the breaking ability and his offloading ability and kicking ability can be better utilised at 12, whereas I think Gavin's opportunity at Connacht will come at 13 and he should have all the traits to be a good option at 13, he has plenty of pace.

If it's not aimed at me, that's fine (to be fair it was at the end of a paragraph that start with "@aloooof"), but all I ask is that you don't get ad-hominem. I'm not being any more dishonest than you are in this discussion.

Prendergast might well steer an attack better, but I think 1) on the evidence of this season it's something Crowley is improving at, and 2) it's also worth pointing out that we've completely changed how we attack; he's more suited to the type of attack we're now trying to implement. (And for me, unless Prendergast significantly improves his defence it won't matter; the upsides won't outweigh the downsides).

And fwiw, a bigger sample size doesn't automatically mean the 10 is more directly involved in the tries scored. Add in the disparity in the quality of the teams involved, and I don't think it tells us anything particularly meaningful whatsoever tbh. If, for example, you put Prendergast into the Zebre team, do you suddenly expect them to have the same try-scoring rate as Leinster? Of course not.

A better comparison might be the strike rates of Ireland in the 2024 6 Nations with Crowley vs Ireland in the 2025 6 Nations with Prendergast, with broadly the same team around them. It's a comparatively small sample size but imo tells us more than comparing strike rates of Munster vs Leinster, for the reason I've spelled out above. (I might actually look into that if I get the chance).

Couple of open questions with Keenan out and, from there, what to do with Osborne. The straightforward selection could be to put Osborne at 15. But I wonder is there a small chance Hansen could go to 15, putting TOB on the wing, and this then opens you up to put Osborne at 12.

It'd be a lot of changes and shuffling, but that has the look of an exciting backline tbh.

Can Faz sticking with Aki/Henshaw/Ringrose for Autumn.

Agree. Like, Gavin, Forde and Cooney are all great prospects but that's all they are right now. I think moving beyond McCloskey as first replacement and giving one of these lads a go against Japan is a good first step.

I would prefer to see Hansen get a go at FB and try Osborne in the centre. I think getting Hansen and TOB on the pitch at the same gives us the most attacking options, even if Mack might not be the safest pair of hands at the back.

EDIT: intended to reply to @Yeah_Right

I think this is a flaw with @FtD v2's analysis tbh; I'd love to see the breakdown of mins vs Tier 1/2 Nations. And also there's no deeper dive into the minutes beyond the initial debut cap, or, say, the reason for any changes e.g. injury vs retirement vs actual rotation.

For example, Rassie played 47 different players in the Rugby Championship. Farrell played 31 in the 6 Nations. Now, the point about playing pool comparison are absolutely valid. But that can be the case AND people can think Farrell is still on the conservative side.

Stats I've posted on here before; in the 19 Tier 1 Tests prior to the 2023 RWC, we had gave ~40 minutes to back-row players outside the 4 incumbent players. Doris played every minute of all 4 AI's last season. VdF started every game. Craig Casey got 22 mins vs Tier 1 opposition.

Age profile is also a consideration; this is a graph I previously posted with regards breakdown of minutes by Age bracket for Ire vs NZ from - I think - last season. The essential difference is that we were putting minutes into guys 34+ that NZ were putting into 24-27.

I'd love to see a complete deep-dive on it tbh, but the time and effort it'd take (and the audience it'd appeal to) means it's unlikely imo.

I don't have the breakdown of minutes v Tier 1 / 2 nations etc, and the "reason" piece would be relatively subjective.

Of the 49 new caps awarded by Farrell since Jan 2020, 24 (48%) of those players went on to earn 5 caps or higher subsequently, 14 (29%) players earned 10 caps or higher since and 10 players (20%) have earned over 20 caps since.

Only 9 players (18%) earned 1 cap only (3 of those were capped v Portugal, another v Georgia, and some further back).

On a similar analysis of South Africa's new caps over the same time period:

20 players (54%) earned 5 caps or more, 13 (35%) earned 10 caps or more and 6 (15%) earned 20 caps or more. 9 players (24%) of the South Africans earned a solitary cap (2 of them this summer, rest all further back).

To me, this doesn't support a view that Farrell is awarded a glut of token caps with nothing beyond it, and shows a relatively good level of turnover in the squad.

The lions tour came at a bad time on that front. After the World cup disappointment, and with sexton going, we had a new 10 coming in and needed to get some positivity into that squad again. There was good reason not to totally overhaul the squad immediately. I know some people will disagree but I can see the reasoning and apparently so did Farrell. Then there was a tough SA tour so that was never going to be very experimental.

That November was probably an opportunity to experiment. He put a few new faces in against Fiji (and stockdale came back for the first time in a while) and Prendergast got a start (his first?) against Australia. Maybe more could have been done during that time.

But since then Farrell has been away. Realistically the 6N probably wouldn't have been wildly experimental, but it would have been very bold of an interim coach to totally change things up. A summer with more meaningful tests could have been useful though. Even another game against the likes of Fiji or something would have given the coaches something to rate performances against.