Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

Fwiw, I've added the following too @FtD v2; minutes played for new caps since RWC 2023, as a % of the total minutes available. And how much more all other countries are giving vs Ireland. (Which essentially eliminates any skewing based on the differing number of games played by team).

So, as I expected, the number of new caps being comparable to other teams, doesn't at all tell the full picture when you delve into the number of minutes for those new caps:

Based on this - do you still think that:

Data again doesn't really support [that Andy Farrell has gotten more conservative] by comparison to other teams.

I'm genuinely interested in your answer to this.

Which is a very small tick in his favour. He is a **** defender. But he is not the only **** defender.

You decided that caps awarded is a direct measure of “conservatism” because it fits your argument

I mean, how else do you suggest we measure conservatism of selection other than…. say…. the actual caps and minutes of those selections?

It also assumes that everyone has the same need to find new players. Did Wales pick more new guys than us because they’re so adventurous and cavalier or because they’re in absolute freefall?

All you're essentially doing here is admitting that Wales are less conservative. Which is exactly my point. I've said from the outset, there may be some reasons for that. And that can be the case and I can still think we're too conservative.

But bear in mind I was responding to a post that claimed the data didn't show we're less conservative than other nations - we literally, objectively are. I was indeed also responding to a post that claimed the following also, so you might forgive me if I'm a bit prickly on this one, FFF.

It must be great to almost never actually bring any analysis to the table but **** on the work that is done consistently.

On this:

I’m surprised but delighted to hear that because it seems like we argue about him a lot more than occasionally during the autumn.

You'll notice I mentioned particularly during the Autumn, not exclusively during the Autumn. That I have criticisms of him doesn't mean I hate him or think he's a bad coach.

how else do you suggest we measure conservatism of selection

I suggest we don't measure it at all. My whole point is that it's unmeasurable; it is an abstract concept that means different things to different people.

All you're essentially doing here is admitting Wales are less conservative.

No. They have to pick more new players now precisely because they held on to the old guard for so long. So by your definition, they are both conservative and not conservative; Schrodinger's taffs, if you will. They also have to contend with players taking themselves out of national contention by moving to England, which we do not.

Ireland don't need to pick a raft of new players because a) the age profile of the squad is generally good and b) we're reasonably succcessful. Your contention is that not picking large numbers of new players can only be explained by conservatism; there are two alternative reasons.

I'm a bit prickly on this one

fair enough but I'm not responsible for other people's posts.

doesn't mean I hate him or think he's a bad coach

Pretty sure I didn't use the word hate, but you do seem to criticise him a lot, including for the Lions series win. It is hard for me to see what positives you think he brings.

I suggest we don't measure it at all. My whole point is that it's unmeasurable; it is an abstract concept that means different things to different people.

Yet you didn't make that point to FTD when he posted loads of stats about new caps, right? Indeed you thanked that post, when you thought it supported your position.

Now, since I've added the total caps and minutes of those debutants, it's "we shouldn't measure it at all"?

They have to pick more new players now precisely because they held on to the old guard for so long. So by your definition, they are both conservative and not conservative; Schrodinger's taffs, if you will.

Not at all the point I'm making.

In 2023 6N's they were too conservative holding on the old guard. I defended Farrell here, when others said he was too conservative, likening us to Wales. The posts are all there. You can see them if you so wish.

Wales were too conservative back then. And now are being less conservative. Ireland are the opposite of that. It's literally the point I've made since the start of this; that more recently, Farrell has become more conservative.

All of that is completely congruent, independent of your misapplication of Schrodingers.. whatevers.

Ireland don't need to pick a raft of new players because a) the age profile of the squad is generally good and b) we're reasonably succcessful.

Two points. 1) I haven't suggested we need to pick a raft of new players. What I have suggested is that we need to some freshness in the squad and in the minutes for other players. The stats support that. And 2) I disagree that the age profile of the squad is generally good. POM, Murray and Healy retiring will have helped that, but we stuck with them too long. But we have a lot of players, many from our starting 15 or 23 that will be 30+ come the next 6 Nations.

Pretty sure I didn't use the word hate

Not this time at least, but fair enough.

but you do seem to criticise him a lot, including for the Lions series win.

I didn't criticise him for the Lions series win. I mean here is what I literally said:

I think it’s possible to acknowledge that Farrell deserves credit for the series win while also thinking that, on expectations, the Lions under-performed and under-delivered.

And therein lies the issue anytime any criticism of Farrell comes up on here.

The differences here are relatively negligible though, and the fact we've played the least number of games in that period is highly relevant. The method you have for "normalising" for this looks pretty flawed to me.

The two great outliers in the data set are Australia and France.

Australia were in catastrophic free fall for a period of time - and have been essentially fully rebuilt as a side.

Of the other - France, as @Former Former Former has better articulated than me; their data is hugely skewed by the fact that the agreements with FNR effectively precludes their front liners from touring in the summer. The impact of that heavily rotated French selection impacts the NZ numbers too - 29% of their total numbers come against France. 44% of all the minutes NZ awarded to these new caps came against the French, Japan or Fiji.

The Irish numbers are similarly impacted - we awarded 51% of those minutes on the summer tour, but this is where I think your stat on 'normalising' the data or averaging it over the same period is inaccurate - almost all of the teams in this data set award these minutes much more heavily in summer tests etc than games in competition.

So, while Ireland have played less games than peers over that period, it's also important to note the type of games we've played less too - it's test games in the summer window etc. For example: the last two summers we've only played 4 total games - 2 of those a very difficult test series against SA, and the other two the soft tour this summer to Georgia and Portugal. By contrast - Scotland played 4 summer games in 2024 (Canada, USA, Chile and Uruguay) and 2 in 2025 (Fiji and Samoa), England played 3 summer games in 2024 (Japan and NZ x2) and 3 summer games in 2025 (Argentina x2 and USA) etc.

As expected - in the softer games over this summer - we awarded a lot of minutes - an average of 635 mins in those two games. If we'd played another game in each of the last two summers, then the likelihood is our number increases by around 1,200 minutes or so, at which point the difference is even more negligible.

If we had done like Scotland or Wales over the last two summers, and not had a more difficult tour against SA, then equally our numbers would be even higher again.

A similar dynamic with a few of the teams is that a handful of players who established themselves account for a disproportionate amount of the minutes, i.e. the top 3 French players by minutes (Leo Barre, Theo Attissogbe and Mickael Guillard) account for 36% of all the new French cap minutes. Even larger dynamic with NZ - top 3 (Wallace Sititi, Billy Proctor & Cortez Ratima) account for 51% of all the new minutes. Ireland aren't different in this respect - our top 3 (Sam Prendergast, Jamie Osborne and Tom Clarkson) also account for 51% of all the minutes.

I don't necessarily think the data is as conclusive as you are making it out to be and I don't think with any semblance of a deep dive, it supports your theory that there is a significant difference between the teams, particularly when you exclude for outliers.

It's not an apples with apples comparison at all.

It doesn't look like I did thank that post, but even if I did;

a) there are many reasons why someone would thank a post, you cannot assume that a 'thank' is a ringing endorsement of every word therein

b) that's a slippery slope for the discussion in general, if every 'thank' is considered as such. I'm not sure any of us would stand over every word of every post we've ever thanked. Slightly creepy to be keeping score too.

Most likely I was just glad of someone else with a positive and non-pessimistic outlook.

And I'm sorry, dress it up however you want, but saying a team "under-performed and under-delivered" is criticism.

I'm baffled as to why we're dancing around this issue. It's OK to think a coach is not good, it's a valid opinion.

Look fair enough, FFF, and I don't expect it to mean it's a ringing endorsement of every word within, but literally every word within the post (here) was singularly stats about new caps showing how Farrell isn't conservative. It's completely valid to point out you didn't see the need to mention we shouldn't measure it at all there.

You might indeed want to have a positive and non-pessimistic outlook, I absolutely understand anyone having that view with regards the rugby team they support, but that's the whole point of stats - to provide a dispassionate overview of what's actually going on, independent of how you might like to feel. You like Schrodinger, but how about a bit of Keynes of a Friday; "When the facts change, I change my mind".

And on the Lions, what part of the sentence "the Lions under-performed and under-delivered vs expectations" would you disagree with?

Genuinely interested in your thoughts on the above stats and this whole conversation, YR. (Tho I wouldn't blame anyone if they didn't want to get involved….)

In which case, I'll ask again - what outliers should I exclude that would convince you?

Is the stat that we'd want to see then going to be something like "(total number of caps given to new players/number of games played by that team)/number of debutant players" ?

and then maybe "(number of minutes played by new players/number of games played by that team)/Number of debutant players".

you could adjust those and limit it all to "meaningful matches" or "against tier 1 teams" etc if there's a big discrepancy.

Well you're the one determined to make a big declarative statement - you've said a few times Andy Farrell is a more conservative selector, and you've based this thesis entirely on the minutes essentially awarded to new players in 2024 and 2025.

I don't think the data supports that:

• Ireland have capped a broadly comparable number of players in that window, the range is tight (15 new caps by NZ to 21 by England).
• The French data is not comparable. Each of the last two seasons they've essentially left all of their front liners at home due to contractual reasons. It's only logical if we had done similar - or if we'd had two tours similar to the one this summer, then our numbers would be much more comparable.
• As my post above this shows, the Scottish data tells you nothing really - only that they've played a lot of poor Tier 2 teams and thrown out a lot of caps in those games.
• The Kiwis have actually used less new players than us over the period in question, and brought in a new head coach in 2024.
• The Aussies brought in a new head coach in 2024, and were at rock bottom immediately prior to the start of this data set (lost to Fiji, hammered by Wales, given real scares by Portugal & Georgia in the RWC). They had a lot of players move overseas, and have essentially fully rebuilt.
• The Welsh have had two new coaches since then, and have won 1 game in the past 2 years. Hardly a surprise they're scratching around willing to try virtually anything.
• I haven't drilled into the England numbers, but they equally appointed a new head coach less than 12 months before the RWC, and have had a lot of transition and turmoil.

The team with the most coaching continuity, similar to Ireland, over the period in question, the Boks, are arguably more conservative in their selections, especially given the breadth of their player pool by comparison to Ireland.

You are consistently ignoring the fact that the vast majority of teams appear to award new caps in bunches during the summer test windows, and we have played at least two games less of those games than any other team in the dataset.

On this point:

fwiw, your reading of the "disproportionate amount of minutes" to the top 3 players is a misreading of the stats; because it's a function of the overall total. Whatever way you slice, on average,every new player is getting twice as minutes for France than Ireland, that's across the entire distribution. Not just the top 3. Which is kinda the whole point.

No, you're wrong on this too - it's irrelevant as to whether it's a function of the overall for that team, because it's specific to that team and in context. It still ultimately tells you the same fact - most teams are throwing out a good few new caps in this window (a range of 15-20 or so), and finding 3 or so guys who are making their first choice teams. In that regard, we are absolutely no different.

You're the one proposing to use the minutes awarded to new caps as this great big differentiator - but if the reality is that largely across the board these minutes are predominantly made up by 3 or so players per team, (i.e. New Zealand 51%, Ireland 51%, France 36% etc) then it really doesn't tell you a whole lot about the selection conservatism of the coaches.

You still haven't told me what outliers I should exclude. I think there's a reason for that.

This is the solitary take away from all of the detail in my last post?

I literally just gave you a lengthy post where I commented on all of the reasons why your data is flawed, so take it that way if you want - exclude France (because they rest all their front liners in summer), and exclude Australia, Wales, NZ & England for new coaching tickets (a point you yourself made earlier on the thread when comping Rassie to Farrell).

So who does that leave, Scotland and South Africa? You've done nothing to show we're more conservative than them, arguably the opposite.

Primary objective of any Lions tour is a series win and they delivered with a game to spare. 

Absolutely, and I've said he deserves credit for it.

The discussion here after the third test was hilarious, that the best measure of the series was what happened in the dead rubber match, not the games that happened while the outcome was still in question.

To by completely clear - and a similar point you made earlier - you'll note that wasn't an argument I made.

Pre-tour expectations might have been for a 3-0 win against a ragged Australia but a lot of people under-estimated how good Australia would be. Two weeks after the third test, they went to Johannesburg and put 38 points on the Springboks.

So the facts very obviously changed but not everyone seemed to change their mind. What would Keynes make of that?

And I think it's fair to point out my comment was posted before that Test in Johannesburg. Keynes was good but he couldn't see the future. But yes, in retrospect, I think it's fair to say the Lions win does look more positive, post-Rugby Championship.