Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

If he was the best player then yeah, why not?

Exactly this

If the World Cup was next month, then 34 year old James Lowe would absolutely be the best choice available.

A year from now, maybe, maybe not, but the decision has been made and there’s very little wiggle room in terms of his replacements.

Tommy O'Brien is currently injured so there really isn't any other player who I can think of that would displace Lowe on a starting 15 tomorrow.

As far as I'm aware, TOB could be available this weekend?

But I'm not gonna disagree that Lowe would absolutely be an asset to this team, particularly in the event of injuries.

I just don't think he's a definite starter or best choice available if we have everyone fit. And I'd also add, he's not a good fit for the 23 jersey. He either starts or doesn't get into the squad, imo.

I don't agree he's been in major decline but his pace has declined. Pace was never his strongest point, but you could see the decline in a few instances this year. His play near the touchline is still excellent, fending, footwork, getting the kick/pass away. I feel like he used to come off his wing more often than he has this season. Popping up in the centre was a real advantage which he's doing less of this season.

He hasn't fallen off a cliff but I think some decline is noticeable while some aspects of his game are still excellent. It would be extraordinary if he didn't decline at 33 compared with 30.

But it's not as simple as "would Ireland be better with Lowe?"

It's "how much is the IRFU prepared to pay based on their prediction of what James Lowe will bring to the table next year?" Excatly the same as every other player. No-one got James Lowe onto an aeroplane at gunpoint. They offered him a contract he wasn't happy with.

This is an organisation that has unfettered, intimate knowledge of Lowe's medical history, current training stats and ongoing niggles and issues. We can talk about recent injuries, form, health as a bunch of subjective folk on an internet forum, but the IRFU actually knows - has numbers, consultant's reports etc. That's not to say they can't get it wrong, or that folk on here can't try to make the case that the IRFU has misjudged.

But this idea that there's one question to be answered - would (or might) James Lowe's presence in an Ireland squad at the RWC 2027 improve their chances? - just isn't true. If you follow that reductio ad absurdum logic, every player gets paid exactly what they want, so they agree sign contracts and you have a bankrupt governing body.

So they have to weigh up how much money they're prepared to stake versus what they think James Lowe will bring to the table. And James wanted more money.

Yeah, but the IRFU were a big stakeholder in his contract discussions, and if it is the case that, as has been widely reported (and not refuted), they substantially cut the PONI top up payment to a near-negligible level (while simultaneously they're imposing the 40% cost charge on the CCs this season), then they certainly made it extraordinarily difficult for him to be renewed.

It's hard not to argue players (and their agents) will take a very wary view of +1 style amendments onto contracts going forward, and there will be a knock on impact from this too.

Nothing about the manner in which it is described they have handled this process reflects particularly well on the IRFU.

People are saying Baloucoune because it frees up TOB and Hansen to move over.

Personally, I'd have any combination of those 3 ahead of Lowe. Tho the injury issues are a concern.

I don't understand why people are mentioning Balacoune like as if he's an option for replacing Lowe. Lowe plays exclusively on the left and Balacoune is exclusively on the right.

Theory is that Baloucoune maintains form and fitness and nails down the 14 jersey, thus Hansen or TOB can move across to the left.

Great on paper, but a) relying on Baloucoune (or TOB) to remain injury-free is a serious risk and b) it assumes one or both of the others can step up on the left.

We have other decent options too, JOB for instance, but no one with the proven quality of Lowe. Jamie Osborne has probably played 11 more than TOB, come to think of it. Maybe there's still hope for Stockdale but I think he's run out of road.

This might be the right call, and if we're that strapped for cash, then it probably is, it's just a departure from long-standing practice.

A bigger issue, which needs to be addressed and probably warrants a thread of it's own, is why is the IRFU seemingly struggling for cash?

It is frankly unbelievable to me that the Rugby World Cup is allowed to chug along in its current guise without material push back from the Tier 1 rugby nations.

All of the Tier 1 nations run a loss in the season in which they participate in the RWC.

It's not like the tournament itself is loss making; World Rugby have generated in excess of €350m of revenue (estimated to have earned €500m from the 2023 tournament in France), and north of €200m in profits from each of the last four tournaments.

World Rugby do make some distributions back to participating nations, but for Ireland that sum has averaged €7-10m per RWC Cycle, where Ireland have typically lost c. 2x that from participating.

World Rugby capture almost all of the commercial revenue from the tournament, and then redistribute these funds across the global game.

This all sounds logical in theory, but there has to be questions over how sustainable the model is when you consider how precarious the financial model is in a lot of the Tier 1 nations?

For me, you have the following key considerations:

• The Tier 1 teams create the product, and it seems clear there remains a strong demand for the product.
• The participating unions bear the costs to develop players etc
• The tournament is actually a financial burden on participating countries

I fully get the argument that without the redistribution from the tournament the likes of Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Georgia, Portugal, Uruguay & Namibia would struggle even further, but that has to weighed against the very live financial struggles of a lot of the Tier 1 nations too.

I'm not proposing you fully rip up the script from the existing, but there needs to be more of a rebalancing IMO.

Completely agree with this. Coming back from what I understand was the most profitable RWC to date (happy to be corrected) to sit down and work out what cuts need to be made is insane.

Another big issue - which we can't do a whole pile about in the short-term - is the capacity of the Aviva as compared the other teams in the 6 Nations.

If you look at the average attendances of the 6 Nations just gone, we are an order of magnitude away from the other nations.

(*this is also when Wales are at an historic low, and France didn't have every game in the Stade de France this season)

Yeah, but the "loss" attributable to the Women's game is an investment in growing that game (arguably the same could be said of World Rugby's distributions to Tier 2 and lower rugby nations). That's the IRFU's clear remit - they aren't a profit maximising entity, the goal is to grow the game, and there is scope and potential for the Women's game to grow materially (the attendances in the 6N this year were huge positives in this regard).

The contrast is, as I've shown, the Rugby World Cup itself is a profitable tournament; there is fan demand for tickets, broadcaster demand to show the games, commercial demand from sponsors to be attached, and nations are prepared to pay significant sums to host it (because of the economic benefits they derive). It's just the entities that arguably actually generate all those profits don't see the benefits of it, and are themselves facing cut backs from their precarious financial situation.

In itself, another reason for the budgetary squeeze.

Those figures are incredibly stark though. The lowest attendance in the 6N. I mean, the SRU and FIR won't be charging for tickets what the IRFU charges, but still…

England get more bums on seats when they have two home 6N games than we are capable of when we have three. Oof.