Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

If it's really basic maths then surely you should divide the tries scored & conceded by the minutes the player played to yield a points scored & conceded per minute playing for each outhalf? That would be an objective measure imho.

Regardless. any comparison will yield similar results imho.

The facts are, Ireland scored significantly less tries with Sam Prendergast starting at 10 in 2025. They also conceded far more points when SP was playing then.

And equally in 2024, Ireland scored significantly more tries with Jack Crowley starting at 10. They also conceded far less points when he was playing versus, when SP was playing outhalf in 2025. These are the facts, whether you like them or not.

That's the best apples v apples benchmark we have to date for the relative performance of these outhalves imho. Unsurprisingly (for me), it indicates Crowley is the better player when in form.

QED

Agree entirely. It's baked into the total caps and minutes (or lack thereof) of those new caps, which was always going to be far more indicative of things than the number of debuts given in that time.

I know some posters here think (incorrectly) that I hate Farrell, but the scale of the difference has surprised me tbh. We've been objectively giving materially fewer of the available minutes to new caps than our competitors.

Now, there may well be reasons for why. But lets not pretend that we're not.

its all a bit ifs and buts to be honest when it comes down to it

id argue between the three lions 10s and the two irish options, FS would be the most likely to guide the team to winning the rwc, followed by either JC or SP. for me, neither Russell or MS are going to do much in a tight game that is going down to the wire (FR went missing at the end of the 2nd lions test and they only won due to Keenan stepping up)

i think the lions selection(s) say something about farrell's thinking around 10 but not everything all the same. having said that, back in march i was 100% sure SP was going to be touring and probably end up starting the tests

This is pretty unfair on Jack Crowley. If he hadn't been undeservedly imo shoved aside for Prendergast, he'd have had two seasons as starting outhalf. If he was in anyway decent in this years six nations, he'd have gone on the Lions.

It's pretty obvious that Farrell thought Prendergast was much further along in his development that he was.
His intent was probably for Prendergast to burst on the scene, look great, then pick him for the Lions.

yeah, i think that game along with being mixed at best against wales and france in the 6N probably meant it would have looked like bias to pick him

agreed on FR being more reliable than in the past but for me he still goes missing in the important moments. at the end of the 2nd lions test he just let the play unfold around him and shied away from the responsibility of going for a drop goal whereas someone like an ogara/ sexton/ wilkinson/ carter/ farrell/ ford would have grabbed things by the scruff of the neck - id put F Smith, Crowley and Prendergast in that bracket too to be honest

Kilgallen worth a shot and shout

The Prendergast v Crowley stuff is pointless. Harry Byrne will be starting 10 at the next World Cup.

It's interesting to see how effortlessly the criticism of Farrell can switch back and forth between slating him for picking the flakey, unproven out-half who can't tackle over the safer pair of hands, and "OMG he's so conservative", and that people don't see any contradiction between these two positions.

I fully appreciate I'm more supportive of Farrell than others here, but the assertion that he's conservative is opinion and perspective, it absolutely is not fact. If you do not think he is a good coach, then 'conservative' is an easy criticism to make because there are indeed plenty of players you can point to who continued to play well past their best.

But for a counter-point, here are some very relevant examples of non-conservatism.

• Jamison-Gibson Park - from Leinster second choice to Ireland first choice to best SH not called Antoine in the world.
• Caelan Doris - displaced POM for his test debut in Farrell's first ever 6N game.
• Mack Hansen - parachuted in from nowhere despite looking very ropey in his early Connacht outings
• Jamie Osborne - test debut in SA at a position he had barely played for his province
• Joe McCarthy - very raw and bit of a liability, displaced Ryan and Henderson
• James Lowe - nuff said really

There are plenty more, those are just the most obvious and of course, plenty of these generated huge criticism as well.

Point is - if you don't think he's a good coach, you can drag up Healy and POM and whoever else to call him conservative. It's already apparent that every time the word "Henshaw" appears in a press release, it'll be met with groans. On the flip side, if you think he's a good coach, then there's plenty of evidence of his adventurous selections and willingness to try things.

TLDR; people have made up their minds, and he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't for some posters, and others think he's doing a great job. But none of it is "fact", it's all perspective.

It's interesting to see how effortlessly the criticism of Farrell can switch back and forth between slating him for picking the flakey, unproven out-half who can't tackle over the safer pair of hands, and "OMG he's so conservative", and that people don't see any contradiction between these two positions.

It's not difficult. It's because him being less conservative in a few cases does not mean he's not more conservative more broadly across the whole squad. There's no contradiction here.

I fully appreciate I'm more supportive of Farrell than others here, but the assertion that he's conservative is opinion and perspective, it absolutely is not fact.

The statement that he has been more conservative than his peers since the RWC is, demonstrably, objectively true. How anyone can see the above stats I've posted and come to a different conclusion is absurd to me.

If you do not think he is a good coach…

I think he's an excellent coach. But I also think he is one that has erred on the side of conservatism more recently. And I think that's a mistake.

But for a counter-point, here are some very relevant examples of non-conservatism.

3 of the 6 you've mentioned made their debut 5 years ago. You're kinda making my point for me.

Point is - if you don't think he's a good coach…

Again, complete strawman. I think he's an excellent coach, who is occasionally (and particularly in the Autumn Internationals) too conserative. Not with regards his gameplan but with regards his selection policy.

that’s a criticism of his selection, not his conservatism.

The beneficiary of “ignoring” a competent player in Kleyn was the young, raw, utterly unproven Joe McCarthy.

Kleyn was the conservative call, Farrell went the other way.

Damned if he does…

Being conservative isn't necessarily bad, if we had won the last world cup by flogging the same group of players into the ground, no one would be complaining.

Yes maybe, but we really didn't come anyway near winning the last RWC by flogging the same group of players, did we?

In fact, we were beaten yet again in the QF, with the same group of players who looked fighting fresh v South Africa in the group stages, looking flat & off the pace against NZ. They looked flogged & played out. And the travesty of this was they were still probably the better side but they just didn't have it in the tank to win on the day (e.g. Tadhg Beirne practically ran himself to a literal standstill that day, & he's the Irish player with arguably the biggest engine!!)

The other tragic part of Ireland’s mammoth RWC effort failing at the QF stage yet again, was this same mistake had been made by other Irish coaches several times before AF repeated it e.g. Schmidt at RWC2015 wouldn't even use his subs bench fully within games, as well as not rotating in shadow players in lesser matches (e.g. Simon Zebo as a for instance). Similarly, EOS at RWC2007 infamously made the same classic 'flog your top XV to beyond exhaustion' Irish mistake also. So the learnings were there for AF to learn from, & rotate more against the minnows in the group stages , so that the top older players particularly could be a bit fresher come the knockout stages. But he didn't do it.... go figure hey!?

P.s. I think AF is a great coach, but I don't think he develops depth at the top level nearly enough. & I think he's often blinded by loyalty or stubbornness or both e.g. bringing Jack Conan to RWC2023, the repeated selection of Cian Healy to pension age practically, etc, etc, etc The non use of emerging players versus minnows is a particular frustration with AF's selection policies imho e.g. Fiji selection last year & the Japan selection this year will likely be the same.

I agree with the overall thrust of your post, LO - it obviously can't remotely all be pinned on Prendergast but just for the sake of accuracy on this:

I think if you were to look up stats it's likely that other lrish players may have had higher missed tackle counts as well.

Prendergast had the highest missed-tackle count of any player in the 6 Nations, with 18; not just Irish players.

What do you think had a bigger impact on the scoreline between Ireland v France in 2024 v 2025… the fact that we had a different outhalf or that in 2024 France played 3/4 of the game with 14 men and in 2025 we played 1/4 of the game with 14 men?