Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

You're confusing two separate issues.

The initial complaint was that Farrell didn't get Crowley to where he needed to be. It seems to me that the only reason Crowley was at the RWC at all was because Farrell reached down the Munster depth chart a year earlier and brought him into the Ireland set-up. I don't expect people to actually give Farrell credit for this, but hammering him for it seems harsh tbh.

Now, it's a separate issue as to whether, having brought Crowley to the point where he was named on the bench for a RWC QF, he should have brought him on in the last few minutes. That's a lot more subjective and we can only speculate how it might have gone had Crowley come on. Maybe it was a mistake, maybe it would have made no odds, either is entirely possible, and again, your position on this probably depends on your broader opinion of Farrell.

Assuming Sexton can play 80 and back to back games for 4 or 5 weeks isn’t realistic

He didn't. Sexton only played 45 minutes the week prior to the NZ game, Crowley got 35. Funny how that's forgotten. And there was no game the week prior to that.

Crowley did not lead us to our biggest win in France. He was part of the team that won. If you read some of the player ratings he didn't play a particularly good part compared to most of the rest of the team. And we then went on to lose against England.

Jack Crowley - 6

Early kick behind was charged down for a cheap turnover. Too much on a grubber, soon after. Not a great start. Missed a simple penalty that would have made it 13-0. Nailed his toughest conversion, from the touchline, after Nash’s try. Unlucky to be penalised when fairly contesting a high ball.

Jack Crowley – 7

The novice out-half carried and passed well but too many kicks out of hand were misjudged or poorly executed. But he never let it bother him. Kicked 13 points including three conversions from the sideline.

10. Jack Crowley – 6

Crowley seemed lost at times at the Stade Velodrome, with poor kicking choices costing Ireland on occasion. Was a spectator for Damian Penaud’s try just before halftime, although it was as much a system failure as poor positioning on his behalf.  Against that, he showed he can mix it will ball in hand, a short pass to Beirne putting the big lock away for Ireland’s second try. His decent kicking form off the tee in the second half saved him from a 5.

The deciding factor in that match was France played the majority with 14 men.

It's more the fact that is used as if he is undroppable because he lead Ireland to the 6 nations win that year. We had the same win/loss ratio the following year with Sam at 10.

What Sexton brought to the table is his ability to run the team and drive them around the pitch ensuring all the other players are doing their job. Even if he is gassed I would rather have him on the pitch doing that than Crowley where I feel game management is one of the weaker aspects of his game.

I get that a lot of people will disagree with me and that is fine. They are allowed to be wrong.

There have been plenty of people lamenting the fact that SP was picked ahead of Jack after he "lead" Ireland to a 6 nations win. Don't try pretend there wasn't.

Oh player ratings, the most objective and fool proof way of analysing player performance. Why go by stats or the evidence of my own eyes when I can defer all judgement to individuals who peddle clichés for a living.

Crowley scored more than a third of our points that day. If that's not stepping up and leading then what is? There's also the fact that you don't put 38 points on a team, especially France at home, with a misfiring fly half.

Yes we lost to England but we also won the tournament with Crowley as our starting fly half. Sexton was 26 before he was our starting 10 and Ireland finished third in the table (2011 6 Nations). This was after 18 months of fighting it out with O'Gara for the jersey. I suppose we should have just dumped Sexton there and then.

It's laughable the standards which crowley is being held to. Even when he is a key part in us winning a 6 Nations people still find fault, despite our trophy cabinet being pretty bare historically speaking.

I mean this isn't exactly true either tho Podge, is it?

Since I'm not allowed reference old posts on here, how about a Second Captains podcast at the time that variously described Prendergast as "wonderboy, the anointed, the great man".

And there were plenty of other establishments at the time saying similar. There was plenty of stuff that was way more adulatory than you're willing to admit here.

My point? There was stuff that went over the top from both sides. Let's not pretend it was only coming from direction.

Then maybe use the search feature for the phrase "Prendergoat"…

Your claim that the pro-Prendergast side were completely rational in comparison to the absolutist pro-Crowley side is simply not true. It's just not.

There are some fair points here syd but I'd respond with the following:

Yes, every other player was out on their feet. But we had used all the other substitutes. We actually had a replacement for Sexton - the only one left unused.

I haven't claimed it was some kind of terrible catastrophe, but I do think it was the wrong decision.

I'm loathe to watch it back, but my recollection is that what really got us up the field was a combination of some excellent carries from the likes of Conan, and the All Blacks knowing we needed a try so were comfortable ceding some territory in order to be able to go after the poach when the occasion arose, to essentially win the game. (I'd argue you often seem teams make compartatively more ground than they have done for the rest of the game with the clock inching towards the red in that exact scenario).

Ian Foster afterwards called it a "cut-and-paste attack, doing the same sort of things".

I'm not convinced that a lot of what Sexton did, couldn't have been done by Crowley. However, I am convinced that Crowley would have brought a far stronger running threat.

To be clear here - I'm not saying Crowley would have won us the game. But there's a credible argument he could have been better than Sexton.

If pundits in the media can say "wonderboy, the annointed, the great man" about him, it's not at all clear to me why you think posters on here would be far more rational about it…..

I can't recall anyone arguing it was a slam dunk to pick him.

I absolutely can but I'm prevented from quoting those posts due to the mod warning.

Leinster fans use the term “Prendergoat” ironically in the hope it might wind up Munster fans.

And it works clearly