Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

1171517161718172017211834

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,918 ✭✭✭snotboogie


    Thats kind of my point, finishing 4th 10 years ago was worth more as there were 4 competitive teams. Our loss on Thursday was our worst in 23 years in the 6 nations. If we were competitive I wouldn't be concerned but we were annihilated.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,360 ✭✭✭✭Clegg


    Furlong is back in full training as well. We'll need him to get at least 30 minutes against Italy if we want him to be ready for England the week after.



  • Administrators Posts: 56,514 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Italy at +19 and France at -30 is free money IMO.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,938 ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    ireland are going through a crisi of identity really. Are we to continue with a poor kick chase strategy (no speed, no physicality) or do we return to multi phase style against a pack which is willing to tackle itself to death?

    Very much this. It's hard to say what we're good at, at the moment. Either offensively or defensively.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 293 ✭✭jimbob955


    i thought it was one of the worst performances i have seen in a green jersey!

    Yet we all know he will be picked again v Italy! Why?

    1. He is on a CC and simply must play
    2. Andy will give the lads from Paris, the chance to right the wrongs
    3. He has too much credit in the bank from previous performances
    4. He adds bulk to our scrum
    5. He adds cohesion
    6. Who else would you pick in his place? Edogbo? No way, Edogbo has never played international rugby before. Too risky to try him in a must win game v Italy.


  • Advertisement
  • Subscribers, Paid Member Posts: 45,283 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 326 ✭✭Rayray98


    That’s true, I mean finishing 4th isn’t worth **** either way but like you said it’s worse now.

    It was a disaster, but what matters more than ever is how we bounce back. If we respond well and have a good rest of the tournament I’m willing to look past it as a one off disaster class.


    Yes we lost to France last year, NZL & SA in the autumn but what we saw on Thursday was head and shoulders a worse performance.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,117 ✭✭✭jem


    I agree totally, Jack Conan did well when he came on. and possibly pushing dorris . I have said it before and I will say it again Farrell had badly let down both crowley and Prendergast. He should have allowed the latter to build experience and bulk up and learn how to tackle with Leinster for a couple of years. And dropping Crowley has I believe damaged the confidence of Crowley. At this stage I thing he should tell prendergast that he needs miles on the clock with Leinster and that Crowley will be his 10 for the rest of the season and go with it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭ionadnapóca


    Harsh but true. 1 game. I'd have called him into squad (at least) with his brother.

    Shake it up.

    Farrell should wield the axe if he believes the players lacked "fight" & "intent" in Paris.

    Never has a team selection v Italy had such a story to tell.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,666 ✭✭✭SaoPaulo41




  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 33,782 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    It is amazing to me how much some people seem to think Jack Crowley is a giant baby who must be mollycoddled to get good performances out of him.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,024 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    And dropping Crowley has I believe damaged the confidence of Crowley. At this stage I thing he should tell prendergast that he needs miles on the clock with Leinster and that Crowley will be his 10 for the rest of the season and go with it.

    If dropping Crowley damaged his confidence, wouldn't dropping Prendergast have the same effect?

    Come on, this is all nonsense. If a player can't handle being dropped and it destroys his game, then he's not cut out for test rugby and we're better off finding that out sooner rather than later. If people really think Crowley really went to pieces after being dropped (which I don't believe for a second), people might think this is a defence but it's actually the most damning criticism of him that anyone could muster.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 42,966 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Well you see I wouldn't start Crowley but he's the best bench option because he can cover other positions. For me Crowley isn't good enough either.

    I'd start Harry Byrne, he isn't the answer either but he's a steadier hand. He'll do nothing magical but he won't make big errors like the other two.

    I'm very interested to see how Frawley dies with Connacht. If he gets a run of games as starter he could improve a lot. No guarantees but I've always felt he never got a fair shot with Leinster.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,863 ✭✭✭sprucemoose


    nobody is saying JC needs to be mollycoddled, just that maybe dropping a player who was playing quite well at the time (and had just put in a very good performance v. Argentina) for someone who was unproven at test level may have had a bad effect. the fact that he barely got any gametime at 10 in last years 6Ns up to the italy game definitely didnt help things too. id also argue that in the long-term it probably hasnt done SP much good either as it was probably too early for him

    imo the best thing for everyone involved would have been for JC to have started the 6Ns last year with SP getting some good gametime off the bench at 10



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,863 ✭✭✭sprucemoose


    to be fair i wouldnt see that as the worst idea (picking URC players), although fairly unlikely imo



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,594 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    Crowley was surpassed by Prendergast because the latter can run the attack Farrell wants more effectively. It's as simple as that. Crowley struggles to impose structure on games, whereas that's probably Prendergast's strongest attribute.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 326 ✭✭Rayray98


    For me starting Prendergast at 10 and Crowley at 15 is a must.


    I was watching back the France game, mercy be upon me, but paying closer attention to the final 30 minutes it’s noticeable how much more comfortable Ireland are with ball in hand than they were in the previous 50. The other point I noticed, and it’s backed up with watching abit of Leinster this season, is how much more comfortable Prendergast is at 10 when he has a 2nd 10 on the field to play with.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,938 ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    On the evidence of last Thursday, it seems that we're veering much more towards a kicking-loads-kick-early strategy, where running an attack and putting structure on the game is far less important.

    Prendergast is still a better kick from hand than Crowley, but that would make it marked less of a reason to selected Prendergast over him, particularly when we see the differences in their defence.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,938 ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    It's also amazing to me how many people don't seem to think it was a mistake by Farrell to put Crowley up for media duties on the week he was dropped, even if Crowley isn't a giant baby who must be mollycoddled to get good performances.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,863 ✭✭✭sprucemoose


    where was the evidence of that before crowley was dropped though? its debatable as to whether there is much evidence of that since then too to be honest but i dont think SPs performance in the Fiji game warranted him starting v Aus, especially seeing as JC played very well against Argentina. I'd argue SPs performance v Aus also didnt exactly warrant him being the de facto 10 for the 6Ns, seeing as alot of the talk was how Ireland's attack improved with JC at 10 - not that SP was terrible or anything in that game either.

    both are great 10s, both have weaknesses and both are getting an undue amount of flak from various sources - the people saying SP was awful on Thursday are just as wrong as those saying that JC has been 'beyond awful' for munster recently, the reality lies much more in that 'awful' should generally read 'average' or even 'below average'. as i've said before, i think SP becoming the starting 10 too early (imo anyway) will end up having long term negative effects for both JC and him, damaging both their confidence in different ways. whereas if SP had been given more time to get experience from the bench, it would probably have helped them both improve to a point where they are both at a much higher level than they are at today.

    its all a bit 'if my grandmother had wheels etc,' i suppose



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 42,966 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    The start of that second paragraph should be 'Neither are great 10s'.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,981 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    You can't run a team with a defensive hole in the middle of the field. I don't care whether it's Byrne or Crowley at 10 TBH.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 33,782 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    He wasn't playing quite well. He was pretty poor against NZ (and yes, obviously Frawley was much worse, but his international career basically ended that day), was playing pretty terribly for Munster and while he was good in the first half against Argentina, if I recall correctly he had a couple of howlers kicking out of hand. Being dropped after that should galvanise a player to do better, not to get worse.

    Now, I think he did get better, he was noticeably improved in January. And I think the argument that Farrell caused his poor form is basically doing him a massive, massive disservice.

    Prendergast has also clearly not been phased by playing for Ireland so young. There is zero indication it has done him any harm whatsoever, bar having to put up with a significant amount of bleating online that he hopefully ignores.

    Also, ultimately, people are overcomplicating this. Farrell clearly just thinks Prendergast is a better player. You can disagree with him, but that is simply what his decision boils down to.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 33,782 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    I think that was weird yes.

    Suggesting Farrell caused some kind of permanent damage with it is just silly though and would reflect incredibly poorly on Crowley were it true (which it isn't).



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 33,782 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Indeed. England probably have 4 10s who would all be better than either of them and France 3.

    On the plus side Scotland only have 1, and Wales zero. But that is already both of them struggling to get into the top 10.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,987 ✭✭✭Paddy_Mag


    Jalibert didnt cruise by prendergast. The Ireland defence was static because the scrum was under pressure, Jalibert ran onto the ball at pace without breaking stride and stepped back inside.

    Players will make mistakes, in this instance it was all about the French scrum giving their backs free reign. Not a lot any player would be able to do in that situation.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,863 ✭✭✭sprucemoose


    i disagree, neither are in great form at the moment but they both are both great players

    sorry but that is just absolute revisionism, he was not 'pretty poor' against NZ, ireland were leading while he was on the field and while it was far from a perfect game from JC, he was fine overall. the idea that he was playing badly for munster at the time is simply untrue also, his goalkicking was not good enough but his overly play was pretty decent



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,966 ✭✭✭almostover


    I agree it was a very poor performance.

    1. He should never have been given a CC when he was.
    2. Joe can be given that chance from the bench.
    3. Has he? Not in the last 12 months for Ireland has he anyway. Maybe for Leinster but certainly not Ireland.
    4. We seemed to cope fine without his bulk when James Ryan replaced him.
    5. Very questionable. Giving away needless penalties destroys cohesion.
    6. Edogbo not ready for a start, but ready for 20mins off the bench for sure. Same goes for Cormac Izuchukwu. Why not give them the no.19 jersey for a home game vs. Italy. And start Beirne and Ryan as the locks with Conan or Cian Prendergast at 6.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,966 ✭✭✭almostover


    Hard to argue with any of that really. The one thing I'll say in defence of Cian Prendergast is that he was very reliable in the lineout. We need a very good lineout forward in the 6 position at the moment with our recent lineout woes. Ryan Baird filled that role before his injury and I think Cian Prendergast suits it now.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,966 ✭✭✭almostover


    A little harsh with that. Granted Loughman isn't really a long term option but he did his job very well at set piece on Thursday after several years in the international wilderness. He's the fourth choice LH prop and did very well for someone that far down the pecking order. I do agree he was pedestrian enough in open play though.



Advertisement
Advertisement