Here's what you said:
Probably worth noting that one game against third tier opposition does not absolve a career of mediocrity, in the eyes of any reasonable observer at least.Absolutely bizarre discussion. Anytime the word “molecast” pops up you know things are going to take a weird turn.
Probably worth noting that one game against third tier opposition does not absolve a career of mediocrity, in the eyes of any reasonable observer at least.
Absolutely bizarre discussion. Anytime the word “molecast” pops up you know things are going to take a weird turn.
Which was is response to:
The Molecast mentioned it in their latest episode, but the A Team backline was streets ahead of the main team's one. TOB is the only player I'd say would make a combined team imo, and that's only if he was playing at 11. Crazy to me that Baloucoune isn't playing this Nov. Picking Stockdale ahead of him is crazy.
There is no reading of this where your "career of mediocrity" quote isn't directed at Baloucoune.
But by all means feel free to clear this one up. Who exactly are you claiming had a "career of mediocrity"?
It's overly harsh (and absolutely standard fare from you…)
While I hate to stifle a lively debate, I never said Baloucoune had had a career of mediocrity. Note the absence of quotes.
Now, you might ask yourself, why is a certain poster claiming that I did, and completely out of the blue with zero context? If you can figure it out, you're a smarter man than me.
But if TOB has come in and played really well, then why did the idea of Baloucoune getting more gametime in Nov lead to the OP mentioning "career or mediocrity".
Again, it's just way too harsh, imo.
I can't say what he would have said about Tommy O'Brien - but I would have said exactly the same.
I'd extend that also to guys like Tom Ahern, Harry Byrne, Alex Soroka, etc. These are all guys who have looked for a long time like they have the skillset to be international players, but simply haven't been able to realise their potential because of constant injury issues.
It's not their fault, but it is the reality unfortunately.
The internet blows minds. There is no grand conspiracy. Take a step back
He's simply answered the question (a leading, loaded question) he was asked, and defending one of his players.
It was a perfectly reasonable question; questions about Prendergast's tackle technique and defence are going to come up because they are so at odds with all all other aspects of his game.
That doesn't make it leading or loaded, even if Farrell thinks it is.
That reads way more like "a career blighted by injury" than "a career of mediocrity".
Here's the point; would the same poster have said the same about Tommy O'Brien prior to this season? I don't believe he would.
It's way too harsh on Baloucoune in a way he's never willing to be of other players.
Yeah, fair enough if that's your view of him, but I wouldn't really share it.
I don't really get him as a player. He's a nice footballer, but he's just not athletic or explosive enough for me to justify his size. I'd have just as much concern about him being asked to defend in international rugby as I would Sam Prendergast. The specific issues might not be the same, but the net result probably would be.
It's not a harsh comment on Baloucoune - it's not his fault, but that's the reality of his career to this point relative to his talent. He's had a horrendous time of it with injuries.
You would have thought after his 21/22 season where he scored 9 tries (including a hat trick in an away win in Toulouse) that the sky was the limit for him, but he's struggled so much to get on the field the last few years its hard to have any kind of sunny view on his career.
Jimmy O'Brien, by contrast, to me is a guy who is far less talented than Baloucoune, but has tended to make the most of the opportunities he's gotten.
As I've said, a huge slice of that is luck, but unfortunately that's just the way things are.
Tbh, I think all of that is a completely fair comment on JOB.
But it just completely jars when as recently as last week, when someone suggested Baloucoune should be more involved this November, your take was that he had "a career of mediocrity".
One reads as pretty fair and one reads and very, very harsh tbh.
But the argument has never been "what goes on in training doesn't count, even if we can't see it".
The argument has been "even tho we don't see the players in training, it doesn't mean we haven't seen enough of them to not have an informed opinion on who we think should start".
That's a completely different argument.
There's also the argument that training doesn't have anywhere near as much full contact as a match. That's all valid when offering an opinion that on selection that doesn't match Farrell's.
How is it silly to question a player's obvious weakness? The dogs in the street are mentioning it, his most ardent supporters talk about it, why should a journalist ignore? It's only a few weeks ago, fans from his own province was talking about Sam being overtaken by Harry Byrne because of Sam's defensive frailties.
Both have started 2 games, if the media made a silly comment about any player liek they have about Sam Im sure you would get the same response from Farrell
It was a comment made so the media could start the same Sam v Jack nonsense again and Farrell called them out on it.
'Burns a great player' Well I never thought I would read those words.
Farrell on Prendergast, "his ability as an out-half far outweighs any work-ons".
Also says that Tom Farrell has been excellent in training and is like "chalk and cheese" compared to when he was in camp a few years ago, so maybe we can finally accept that what goes on in training does actually count for something even if we can't see it.
That's not a bad idea, means both out halves are given equal game time and the chance of either getting injured is low so there's a benefit there to both province and country. I think a slightly better strategy would have been to split those games, one outhalf gets games 1 and 3, the other gets games 2 and 4
Prendergast's last run in the 6N reminds me of Billy Burns in the 2020 6N. A few er... cock-ups were had but overall a great player with a lot of potential!
At the time I was one of the ones calling for Burns to be given more of a chance, let him grow, let him develop, but he was dropped like a burning coal by the coaches. I felt this was hugely unfair
It would be hypocritical of me to argue for Prendergast not to be given that same chance that I felt Burns should have been given
If that was the case wouldn't he have started all the games?
I think he'd act the very same way as regards anybody in the squad.
Last year it looked like Sam was the man but Crowley starting against New Zealand suggested it's not a done deal for either of them.
You are aware by replying you are "biting"
All you had to say was you have no good answer and just throwing your toys out of pram because your favourite is not starting
How does it indicate that?
You're reading into it (and not for the first time) the message you want to read.
I think Farrell's tetchiness yesterday in his reply about Sam's defensive frailties indicates that Sam is his No1 and Jack is the No2, which in one way is probably no harm as it tells the players themselves where they stand in his view.
The post I responded to asked who JGeP was. Not me. So I'm not sure why you jumped on my post.
Anyway I'm going to leave it here as I know you'll argue away about this and ruin the thread.
Is Crowley suffering more as a bench option as he can cover more options than SP and in what may become an attritional game that will be important.
Farrell putting a centre at 23 is like Rassie going 7-1. It's fine until it goes wrong, and then it will go catastrophically wrong. It introduces the potential for pushing multiple players out of their best positions due to the limitations of Aki or Henshaw, and a top team could really punish us.
I did. You asked who is JGeP. That's JGP minus the e.
Please don't tell me that you couldn't work that out.
A centre on the bench has worked out well for Farrell in the past. Aki spent years coming on and making hay.
Crowley's out of hand kicking in Chicago might have hurt him, you could say no-one was firing and the pack was under pressure but some of those kicks were pressure free and just inaccurate. Against the ABs it cost us a lot of territory and against the bokkes it's very dangerous. But let's face it, there's very little between these two 10s at the moment. They both have discrete upsides in their games but other than SPs defensive lapses their respective strengths and weaknesses are exagerated. I expect the jersey to go back and forth and both to get a ton of experience over the next couple of seasons. We can move on to debating the merits of whoever pops up as number 3, as they may have something to say about the WC.
I really liked seeing Conan and Doris on the field together. People will object to Doris at 7 but against the likes of SA that is a model back row, VDF coming off the bench is the cherry on top.
Perfect example of what I was saying...
Nope, not biting thanks all the same.
Crowley started the first two games
What did you think of his performances in both those games?
If both players are going after the 10 role, four games, two starts each, would that not make it fairly even?
Deniability. That's why. "But he got x minutes" - like we had to listen to all through the 6 nations. No mention that they were mostly out of position. Its become a habit with this Ireland setup, - when in doubt, pick the Leinster player, and throw the Munster player in some other position so that they can keep him as an injury backup or slate his performances and drop him. "Beirne at 6" until "Big Joe" got injured. Its sickening.
Aye, but according to reports Hansen is carrying a knock himself so full back cover may be needed as well.
Anyway it is what it is now, but it is one of Farrells little selection quirks. Sure he did it with the Lions in the 1st Test as well when he had any number of options available to him.
That's fair enough, but let's not pretend this isn't a long running preference of Farrell. It is not a situational decision.
