Ireland Team Talk XI: Team of nervoUS MOD warning Post 1

Shefwedfan · 26-10-2019 10:44am

Faugheen wrote: »

Actually I would argue that it was too much detail. The players couldn’t really think for themselves.

It’s called sarcasm :-)

Clegg · 26-10-2019 10:59am

We've heard all about how the Ireland loss last November prompted a New Zealand rebuild. They're going to do the same once the loss to England is confirmed. They had their attacking structure dismantled by England's defence. England knew exactly when NZ were going wide and lined them up for the huge smash. The NZ double pivot at 10/15 doesn't work when you're going backwards and the defence knows you'll pass. In some ways it's the same as our victory against them. Once you take away their ground superiority and make them move backwards, even their skills fail them.

When Farrell comes to make his mark on the squad I can see him loosening the strings somewhat and encouraging more offloads. But this 10/15 pivot won't work when you don't have dominance up front. I don't think we have the forwards to use it.

Niallof9 · 26-10-2019 11:01am

An eng Wales final.... lol some heads here will explode

Niallof9 · 26-10-2019 11:03am

Delighted for English rugby. All that guff over the years regarding bosh merchants, Irish infallible etc. when they were building for these moments on the global stage not releasing dvds over November wins. drico picking a combined eng/ ire selection had one English player. Media saying England missing Andy Farrell. All laughable. Instead of banning media they open it up creating documentaries for the fans. Instead of relying on one Rock or Michaels they have a range of diverse backgrounds playing.
But like Liverpool like to say...Ireland are more. We don't have a team, we have us...
the hype train has been killed stone dead. And it was an English team that did it. Fair play
attacking rugby wins the day. Width, footwork, offloads, power, pace. The polar opposite of Ireland

Rebelbrowser · 26-10-2019 11:04am

I wonder will Vodafone do any honest analysis of that ad campaign's success or otherwise? I suspect it is literally losing them customers in return for an undoubtedly big outlay.

edgecutter · 26-10-2019 11:04am

Take a bow Jones. Superb set up with great ball skills, Ireland need to move to this type of game and hopefully bring guys in that can play it.

edgecutter · 26-10-2019 11:07am

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

I wonder will Vodafone do any honest analysis of that ad campaign's success or otherwise? I suspect it is literally losing them customers in return for an undoubtedly big outlay.

Who cares. They sponsor the team and like us all, they probably thought we would go all the way.

Clegg · 26-10-2019 11:09am

Ireland can't play the way England just did imo. We don't have the power carriers they do. The Vunipola's and Tuilagi are obvious examples. But Curry and Underhill and monsters too.

There's certainly a lot of scope for us to offload and link attacks like we saw today. Ringrose, Larmour, Stockdale, Carbery etc are all natural footballers and would love the chance to cut loose. But that's all predicated on front foot ball which we haven't been able to generate enough of this year. It'll be a balancing act which Farrell will have to figure out.

26-10-2019 11:15am

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

I wonder will Vodafone do any honest analysis of that ad campaign's success or otherwise? I suspect it is literally losing them customers in return for an undoubtedly big outlay.

It's actually very hard to attribute exact success metrics to a TV campaign (as opposed to online where everything is measured) but yes they absolutely will try to work out the ROI of their sponsorship.

Niallof9 · 26-10-2019 11:17am

Oh now we don't have the carriers...why do we play a power game so?

it can be argued yes we don't have the 3 lads u mention we also don't help ourselves picking such deficient carriers...POM being an obvious example.

We have power athletes (not at that level of course) left out of the squad altogether. Its also obvious looking at the body shapes , and Aki admitted, that Ireland lost weight. Best, Furlong, Stander looked much lighter. Totally wrong approach. NZ similarly look a bit too lean.

McCloskey, Farrell , Byrne , Lowe, Stockdale , Henshaw all massive backs

Rebelbrowser · 26-10-2019 11:23am

edgecutter wrote: »

Who cares. They sponsor the team and like us all, they probably thought we would go all the way.

Even if we were winning its an unctious ad campaign. Its a lot worse when we aren't.

tryagain · 26-10-2019 11:24am

We peaked to early this NZ team have just showed they were not like previous NZ teams we made them look good we peaked last year that England team are good but we were not far off them last few years our players need to work on the mentally of game as I fear we can't deal with expectation .

Gonad · 26-10-2019 11:29am

tryagain wrote: »

We peaked to early this NZ team have just showed they were not like previous NZ teams we made them look good we peaked last year that England team are good but we were not far off them last few years our players need to work on the mentally of game as I fear we can't deal with expectation .

England were able for the physicality . The forwards won that game . Don’t think we would ever be able to match that English front 8 unless a few freaks come along . Anyone the size of Billy V coming outta Blackrock college ?

Clegg · 26-10-2019 11:37am

Gonad wrote: »

England were able for the physicality . The forwards won that game . Don’t think we would ever be able to match that English front 8 unless a few freaks come along . Anyone the size of Billy V coming outta Blackrock college ?

I'm gonna guess that we don't. But we could be using the players at our disposal so much better.

Iain Henderson had a relatively disappointing World Cup for instance. Played well against Scotland, but didn't put in a performance of similar quality after that. He's an excellent carrier when given the opportunity to run into the ball. One if the few players in the squad that can carry effectively against a set defence. Yet we never used him in that way. Healy and Furlong and decent carriers, but so much better when given the chance to run into the ball. But they didn't get the opportunity either.

Niallof9 · 26-10-2019 11:40am

https://www.rugbypass.com/internationals/teams/ireland/statistics

Look at Ireland's ruck numbers compared to Englands.

Acosta · 26-10-2019 11:42am

ionadnapokot wrote: »

They are still showing that fcucking phone add

It was cringeworthy to see so many use the hashtag on twitter during Ireland matches. Between that and not calling it Lansdowne rd, The Point, Musgrave Park etc. Stop giving massive corporations free advertising for christ sake.

Niallof9 · 26-10-2019 11:42am

Clegg wrote: »

I'm gonna guess that we don't. But we could be using the players at our disposal so much better.

Iain Henderson had a relatively disappointing World Cup for instance. Played well against Scotland, but didn't put in a performance of similar quality after that. He's an excellent carrier when given the opportunity to run into the ball. One if the few players in the squad that can carry effectively against a set defence. Yet we never used him in that way. Healy and Furlong and decent carriers, but so much better when given the chance to run into the ball. But they didn't get the opportunity either.

Well there has been a few lads who came out. What was his name again Victor....

Mushy, Hayes, trev, Wood, Toner, Mal, Wallace and so forth some absolute beasts we had.

Its a clear policy we are adopting lighter rugby players from school upwards. Nz do it as well. They have tons of Vunipolas, Tualagis but they want a hybrid loose game. Look at some of the names they left behind or even will never see an all blacks shirt again like the bus Savea etc

Aki lost one stone in camp.

We don't obviously have their depth or scope but lets not go back to this size, weather, dna malarky.

6am7f9zxrsjvnb · 26-10-2019 11:53am

It’s got nothing to do with tactics, strategies or ‘peaking’.
Farrell had the evil grin of a sadist during the haka. Rory Best was struggling to breathe .
Ireland are like the English soccer team. Plenty of impressive results,but when it comes down to the real tests they buckle every time...
Ireland will no doubt win a Grand Slam in 2022 and England will finish third or fourth in the table. The same people will say we’re in with a shout in 2023, and that England are finished....it’s the hope that kills you.

Squidgy Black · 26-10-2019 11:58am

Acosta wrote: »

It was cringeworthy to see so many use the hashtag on twitter during Ireland matches. Between that and not calling it Lansdowne rd, The Point, Musgrave Park etc. Stop giving massive corporations free advertising for christ sake.

There's no such thing as free advertising when it comes to sports. You might think it's free because they're not paying you to call it the Aviva, or Independent Park etc, but the companies are paying big money in naming rights to the Unions and clubs in the hope that you will refer to it as that. The more exposure they get, the more unions and clubs can then negotiate bigger sponsorship deals due to the reach and exposure it gains by companies making that large upfront investment.

Clegg · 26-10-2019 1:56pm

Did anyone hear Donal Lenihan on commentary earlier? Apparently Graham Henry was analysing the Ireland/NZ game and said 4 or 5 of the Irish players who started shouldn't have even been selected for the WC squad due to being too old and lacking form. There's probably a bit of sensationalism thrown in there for the TV, but obviously he's not wrong.

Rugby seems to be trending younger and younger. New Zealand knew that so refreshed their squad by bring in two new starting wings. They were rewarded with fine performances from Bridge and Reece. England noticed that too. Their focus was up front however. Great servants like Robshaw were jettisoned and replaced. In doing so Jones have been rewarded with excellence from the likes of Underhill and Curry. Aged just 23 and 22 respectively.

Ireland did that too in 2017/2018. Stockdale, Ryan, Porter, Carbery etc all played a part in the Grand Slam. Ryan and Stockdale were starting members. It just seems like we stopped introducing younger players a season too early. We found the players that worked and even though there was an attempt to develope a new style we didn't bring in new players to help with that.

Our younger players were the best performers this WC. I think Ringrose and Ryan were the best of the regular starters. Jordan Larmour played well whenever he got the chance too. I'm not advocating for a wholesale clearout of everyone 30 or over. But there's definitely something to be gained by exposing young players to test rugby.

Squidgy Black · 26-10-2019 2:23pm

Clegg wrote: »

Did anyone hear Donal Lenihan on commentary earlier? Apparently Graham Henry was analysing the Ireland/NZ game and said 4 or 5 of the Irish players who started shouldn't have even been selected for the WC squad due to being too old and lacking form. There's probably a bit of sensationalism thrown in there for the TV, but obviously he's not wrong.

Rugby seems to be trending younger and younger. New Zealand knew that so refreshed their squad by bring in two new starting wings. They were rewarded with fine performances from Bridge and Reece. England noticed that too. Their focus was up front however. Great servants like Robshaw were jettisoned and replaced. In doing so Jones have been rewarded with excellence from the likes of Underhill and Curry. Aged just 23 and 22 respectively.

Ireland did that too in 2017/2018. Stockdale, Ryan, Porter, Carbery etc all played a part in the Grand Slam. Ryan and Stockdale were starting members. It just seems like we stopped introducing younger players a season too early. We found the players that worked and even though there was an attempt to develope a new style we didn't bring in new players to help with that.

Our younger players were the best performers this WC. I think Ringrose and Ryan were the best of the regular starters. Jordan Larmour played well whenever he got the chance too. I'm not advocating for a wholesale clearout of everyone 30 or over. But there's definitely something to be gained by exposing young players to test rugby.

In some ways yes, we have a lot of players getting on in age, but also we don't have an awful lot of top level promising youth who haven't broken into the squad already.

Bar the likes of maybe Rob Lyttle, Lowry, Deegan, there hasn't been any young players tearing up the Pro14 that haven't been involved in the setup already.

Larmour/Stockdale/Ryan/Porter/Carbery were almost like the Irish rugby equivalent of the class of 92, where a group of top level stars broke through at the exact same time from the academies. We don't really have the player base compared to England to regularly have that sort of calibre player come through to pick from, there'll always be a position or two where the replacements will be a lower standard to the older vet.

shootermacg · 26-10-2019 2:37pm

Clegg wrote: »

Did anyone hear Donal Lenihan on commentary earlier? Apparently Graham Henry was analysing the Ireland/NZ game and said 4 or 5 of the Irish players who started shouldn't have even been selected for the WC squad due to being too old and lacking form. There's probably a bit of sensationalism thrown in there for the TV, but obviously he's not wrong.

Rugby seems to be trending younger and younger. New Zealand knew that so refreshed their squad by bring in two new starting wings. They were rewarded with fine performances from Bridge and Reece. England noticed that too. Their focus was up front however. Great servants like Robshaw were jettisoned and replaced. In doing so Jones have been rewarded with excellence from the likes of Underhill and Curry. Aged just 23 and 22 respectively.

Ireland did that too in 2017/2018. Stockdale, Ryan, Porter, Carbery etc all played a part in the Grand Slam. Ryan and Stockdale were starting members. It just seems like we stopped introducing younger players a season too early. We found the players that worked and even though there was an attempt to develope a new style we didn't bring in new players to help with that.

Our younger players were the best performers this WC. I think Ringrose and Ryan were the best of the regular starters. Jordan Larmour played well whenever he got the chance too. I'm not advocating for a wholesale clearout of everyone 30 or over. But there's definitely something to be gained by exposing young players to test rugby.

It's a weird one. I'm of the opinion that you need one or two wise heads in key positions. Billy Holland for Munster or Isa for Leinster come to mind.

But certainly not too many old heads. Connor Murray is currently 30, is it worth investing in him and keeping players of that age on a central contract? Or would it be better to give youth it's head?

Maybe central contracts should be annual. Sure we might lose players but on the flip-side we'd have a wider player base, should we choose to loosen up on the policy against players not playing in Ireland. There are arguments for and against.

Clegg · 26-10-2019 2:38pm

Squidgy Black wrote: »

In some ways yes, we have a lot of players getting on in age, but also we don't have an awful lot of top level promising youth who haven't broken into the squad already.

Bar the likes of maybe Rob Lyttle, Lowry, Deegan, there hasn't been any young players tearing up the Pro14 that haven't been involved in the setup already.

Larmour/Stockdale/Ryan/Porter/Carbery were almost like the Irish rugby equivalent of the class of 92, where a group of top level stars broke through at the exact same time from the academies. We don't really have the player base compared to England to regularly have that sort of calibre player come through to pick from, there'll always be a position or two where the replacements will be a lower standard to the older vet.

I agree that we don't have the depth of NZ or England. There isn't much more Schmidt could have done with regards to introducing young players. But we definitely had players in good form that weren't selected for the big games. Ruddock being the obvious one. Conway and Larmour had better campaigns than our starting wings as well.

Schmidt stuck with what he knew and what served him so well in the past. So I can't blame him for that. But going forward I hope we aren't so devoted to those who've done well in the past, to the detriment of what's going on in the present. I also hope we'll continue the push towards youth that Schmidt embraced a few years ago.

Shefwedfan · 26-10-2019 2:47pm

Rebelbrowser wrote: »

I wonder will Vodafone do any honest analysis of that ad campaign's success or otherwise? I suspect it is literally losing them customers in return for an undoubtedly big outlay.

Why would it lose them customer?

People really that sad they would change networks over an ad?

salmocab · 26-10-2019 2:50pm

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Why would it lose them customer?

People really that sad they would change networks over an ad?

I’d imagine a few said they would, big talking in front of people

Acosta · 26-10-2019 2:51pm

Squidgy Black wrote: »

There's no such thing as free advertising when it comes to sports. You might think it's free because they're not paying you to call it the Aviva, or Independent Park etc, but the companies are paying big money in naming rights to the Unions and clubs in the hope that you will refer to it as that. The more exposure they get, the more unions and clubs can then negotiate bigger sponsorship deals due to the reach and exposure it gains by companies making that large upfront investment.

Yes I am aware that they're not getting It for free from the owners of the venues, but they are getting it for free from fans that call venues insurance companies and phone networks which was was point. I just don't understand why people are such sheep when it comes.to these things.

AbusesToilets · 26-10-2019 3:57pm

shootermacg wrote: »

It's a weird one. I'm of the opinion that you need one or two wise heads in key positions. Billy Holland for Munster or Isa for Leinster come to mind.

But certainly not too many old heads. Connor Murray is currently 30, is it worth investing in him and keeping players of that age on a central contract? Or would it be better to give youth it's head?

Maybe central contracts should be annual. Sure we might lose players but on the flip-side we'd have a wider player base, should we choose to loosen up on the policy against players not playing in Ireland. There are arguments for and against.

This. They need to be performance based incentives, rewarding players who get selected for the national team. They shouldn't be used as a means to tie players down long term.

Give players a financial motivation to compete for a spot with the team, remove the pressure to select players just based on a contract.

Shefwedfan · 26-10-2019 4:29pm

shootermacg wrote: »

It's a weird one. I'm of the opinion that you need one or two wise heads in key positions. Billy Holland for Munster or Isa for Leinster come to mind.

But certainly not too many old heads. Connor Murray is currently 30, is it worth investing in him and keeping players of that age on a central contract? Or would it be better to give youth it's head?

Maybe central contracts should be annual. Sure we might lose players but on the flip-side we'd have a wider player base, should we choose to loosen up on the policy against players not playing in Ireland. There are arguments for and against.

No player in their right mind would sign annual contract....every single player would be gone in a few yeard

shootermacg · 26-10-2019 4:41pm

Shefwedfan wrote: »

No player in their right mind would sign annual contract....every single player would be gone in a few yeard

Plenty of players playing in Ireland and gasp, they aren't on central contracts.

salmocab · 26-10-2019 4:48pm

shootermacg wrote: »

Plenty of players playing in Ireland and gasp, they aren't on central contracts.

The top players earn more than the provinces could afford so it would make it more likely for them to have their heads turned from abroad as the Irish money wouldn’t be a guarantee. The system probably needs tweaking somewhat but putting the centrally contracted players back on provincial wage bill would mean less money for the bottom end of the squad.

P.Walnuts · 26-10-2019 4:58pm

shootermacg wrote: »

Plenty of players playing in Ireland and gasp, they aren't on central contracts.

I would imagine a central contract is a good incentive to keep playing in Ireland though.

Rebelbrowser · 26-10-2019 5:12pm

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Why would it lose them customer?

People really that sad they would change networks over an ad?

Well nor would you imagine Vodafone thought their ad would directly lead to people changing their supplier either. Its all about the brand and creating goodwill towards it which in turn, over a large sample size, should lead eventually to more customers. Suffice it to say I, for one, am not feeling a whole lot of goodwill toward their brand everytime I see that ad or hear their tagline (or taglines! - through great committee thinking they ended up with two).

shootermacg · 26-10-2019 5:16pm

SA have loosened their stance on the away player rule. Maybe in the future we should too. It's a moot point anyway, we currently don't really have a glut of international class players coming through to the point where only having 4 teams becomes a bottle-neck.

shootermacg · 26-10-2019 5:22pm

If you go off to play in France/England, you miss out of tax breaks, sponsorship deals (some serious top up right there) and your career is shortened because basically you will be flogged.

is_that_so · 26-10-2019 5:27pm

shootermacg wrote: »

SA have loosened their stance on the away player rule. Maybe in the future we should too. It's a moot point anyway, we currently don't really have a glut of international class players coming through to the point where only having 4 teams becomes a bottle-neck.

SA players are basically in the same timezone and what they are losing is top quality talent. In our case it's more likely to be players unhappy with their place in the pecking order, players heading for the twilight of their careers or just greedy bast***s!

Squidgy Black · 26-10-2019 5:46pm

shootermacg wrote: »

SA have loosened their stance on the away player rule. Maybe in the future we should too. It's a moot point anyway, we currently don't really have a glut of international class players coming through to the point where only having 4 teams becomes a bottle-neck.

We definitely shouldn't, and it's completely different circumstances that lead South African players to leaving the continent altogether, not just money but also economic/political reasons that they wanted to move away. If you look at the 23 named for tomorrow, only 6/16 of the white players are playing their club rugby in South Africa.

shootermacg · 26-10-2019 5:56pm

is_that_so wrote: »

SA players are basically in the same timezone and what they are losing is top quality talent. In our case it's more likely to be players unhappy with their place in the pecking order, players heading for the twilight of their careers or just greedy bast***s!

Squidgy Black wrote: »

We definitely shouldn't, and it's completely different circumstances that lead South African players to leaving the continent altogether, not just money but also economic/political reasons that they wanted to move away. If you look at the 23 named for tomorrow, only 6/16 of the white players are playing their club rugby in South Africa.

I'm not sure what your points are here. What we have seen is players hanging on to their central contracts into old age. There's probably a happy medium
somewhere.

Don't forget people love playing for their province and country and sure, if they decide to leave in their 30's, that isn't a bad thing.

Squidgy Black · 26-10-2019 6:08pm

shootermacg wrote: »

I'm not sure what your points are here. What we have seen is players hanging on to their central contracts into old age. There's probably a happy medium
somewhere.

Don't forget people love playing for their province and country and sure, if they decide to leave in their 30's, that isn't a bad thing.

You said we should look at loosening our players playing abroad restrictions like South Africa. South Africa were pretty much forced to due to all the top talent leaving the country because of socioeconomic reasons as well as the money. England have a similar ruling on not playing anyone who plays outside their own system, Wales are now dumping money into trying to regain their players with central contracts.

Central contracts are only 3 years in length. If a player is on a central contract in his 30s, that's completely the IRFU's decision (including the coach) considering they'd have signed it only a year or two before hand. If a coach says they want X player to be a part of their plans for the world cup cycle, why on earth would we just let them walk away from the Irish system and miss out on training camps?

is_that_so · 26-10-2019 6:11pm

shootermacg wrote: »

I'm not sure what your points are here. What we have seen is players hanging on to their central contracts into old age. There's probably a happy medium
somewhere.

Don't forget people love playing for their province and country and sure, if they decide to leave in their 30's, that isn't a bad thing.

I think you're conflating different points. Mine is in relation to quality and by extension motivation for their moves. Sure let them go but there's a consequence to that.

Faugheen · 26-10-2019 6:43pm

shootermacg wrote: »

SA have loosened their stance on the away player rule. Maybe in the future we should too. It's a moot point anyway, we currently don't really have a glut of international class players coming through to the point where only having 4 teams becomes a bottle-neck.

If you ‘loosen’ the rule then more players leave the provinces.

People really have a hard time grasping that. I’m a Leinster fan before I’m an Ireland fan, like many others on here I’m sure with their respective province, and I want to see the best players playing for my province and against the best players on other provinces.

You want to play for Ireland you play in Ireland. The rule has worked and there’s nobody outside of the country it’s worth bending it for.

Sanjuro · 26-10-2019 7:21pm

Faugheen wrote: »

If you ‘loosen’ the rule then more players leave the provinces.

People really have a hard time grasping that. I’m a Leinster fan before I’m an Ireland fan, like many others on here I’m sure with their respective province, and I want to see the best players playing for my province and against the best players on other provinces.

You want to play for Ireland you play in Ireland. The rule has worked and there’s nobody outside of the country it’s worth bending it for.

Exactly this. I can't understand how this is still an argument. The IRFU aren't going to change the rule and they're correct in staying firm. Move on.

shootermacg · 26-10-2019 7:21pm

Faugheen wrote: »

If you ‘loosen’ the rule then more players leave the provinces.

People really have a hard time grasping that. I’m a Leinster fan before I’m an Ireland fan, like many others on here I’m sure with their respective province, and I want to see the best players playing for my province and against the best players on other provinces.

You want to play for Ireland you play in Ireland. The rule has worked and there’s nobody outside of the country it’s worth bending it for.

Should the means of production out strip the usage, then you sell the surplus. Anyway as I said it's a moot point, until we actually produce more players.

You'd have to think though, that the relative success of rugby in Ireland will see more youngsters taking it up.

irishbucsfan · 26-10-2019 7:24pm

shootermacg wrote: »

Should the means of production out strip the usage, then you sell the surplus.

That would only make sense if you get to choose which players stay and which players go. Its not a "surplus" if you can't afford to compete on wages. That's literally the entire reason the policy was brought in and nothing has changed.

The policy is fantastic. Its a huge part of why we punch above our weight.

shootermacg · 26-10-2019 7:35pm

From an Irish perspective, having a bigger pool of players should never been seen as a bad thing. Also, we have plenty of players who play for their provinces with no central contract, so maybe these players aren't quite the capitalists you make them out to be.

irishbucsfan · 26-10-2019 7:56pm

shootermacg wrote: »

From an Irish perspective, having a bigger pool of players should never been seen as a bad thing. Also, we have plenty of players who play for their provinces with no central contract, so maybe these players aren't quite the capitalists you make them out to be.

Why on earth would playing without a central contract mean that, totally irrelevant. It's not like the only people getting paid are those with central contracts

Having a bigger pool of players would be brilliant. But if the trade-off for that is our best players getting their heads turned then its really not worth it.

blinding · 26-10-2019 7:58pm

At least Owen Farrell can tell us ( Andy Farrell ) how England have become so good .

shootermacg · 26-10-2019 8:02pm

blinding wrote: »

At least Owen Farrell can tell us ( Andy Farrell ) how England have become so good .

It's simple really, they have a big pool of players and they all beat the crap out of each other until the cream rises to the top.

shootermacg · 26-10-2019 8:08pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Why on earth would playing without a central contract mean that, totally irrelevant.

Mean what Ireland having a bigger pool of players? It should be obvious, if you have 4 provinces and another 15 players playing outside Ireland, then you have more to pick from.

Isn't it the Irish team that generates the income anyway. The whole province thing became a bit of a farce when they stopped playing their first teams in the inter provincials.

connachta · 26-10-2019 8:09pm

The only Farrell deseving a talk tonight is Tom Farrell
Will be precisely 30 y.o and should be in RWC in 2023
TBF the rest of Connacht team looks light tonight, but Tom has a good chance to impress! Dillane may too.

irishbucsfan · 26-10-2019 8:30pm

shootermacg wrote: »

Mean what Ireland having a bigger pool of players? It should be obvious, if you have 4 provinces and another 15 players playing outside Ireland, then you have more to pick from.

Isn't it the Irish team that generates the income anyway. The whole province thing became a bit of a farce when they stopped playing their first teams in the inter provincials.

No, mean “they aren’t the capitalists” that I supposedly said they are

Ireland Team Talk XI: Team of nervoUS MOD warning Post 1

Comments