Andy Farrell on Lions transition and why he's picked Sam Prendergast again

The big comparison in my mind would be the hype job around Harry Byrne, fantastic at club level excellent vision but couldn’t consistently operate at that level in Heineken Cup rugby or International rugby, Sam on the other hand while you can rightfully point out Fiji didn’t provide the most competitive opposition its also worth remembering he was in a much changed team on his second cap.

His skill execution is top notch even his spiral bomb that went out on the full was done under immense pressure but was inches away from being a highlight reel moment. His passing and his vision are excellent and the fact that he’s so young is what amazes a lot of us in Ireland.

I’m obviously blue lenses but it’s worth mentioning some of his detractors are very red biased and don’t like the idea of a Leinster wunderkid coming out of nowhere and usurping the guy they’ve been hyping.

Hopefully he has a breakout year with Leinster now, a few of us reckon by picking him to start Farrell is justifying putting pressure on Cullen to pick him more often from now on.

Like I said above I’ve been watching him play for a long while and the hype is very much justified, he could have it all cut short but his attitude is incredibly professional always has been and his skill level is off the chart, if he had a bit more pace he’d have the potential to have sextons brains and bods skills. I feel ridiculous saying that but he has the potential to be genuinely that good.

What cut Larmours career short in particular is that he had a very good step on him but his nuts and bolts skills weren’t up to par and once defences copped on and didn’t rush him or give him space to work with his effectiveness decreased he also had a season or two where he overbulked and lost a lot of pace he’s a strange case unfortunately.

I would hesitate to do so,as you have to tally the positives along with the negatives...

That Fiji game was a strange one. Ireland just seemed to smother them. and they made a lot of mistakes. Caleb Muntz did not get into the game to any great extent, apart from the one pice of brilliance. Also felt the Holly Davidson made some 50/50's against Fiji that gave Ireland momentum they might not have had. So I felt it was not a test of Sam playing in a tougher game.

Australia may well be a tougher test, though if Ireland play the way they did last week, could be a tough return to Dublin for Joe.

I guess the bottom line is that I am a Crowley man till Sam proves to me he is the best player at 10 for Ireland. And you are right in spades full...."Having Crowley there as well with both of them competing should help make them both reach their full potential."

Out of interest, where do you live in Ireland ?

This is only the 4th shot at a grand slam post 1984, be bullish about replicating what that side achieved. If you're going to fail, be aspirational about it.

You have named 7 springbok players over a period spanning 1996 - 2019.

NZ had between 6 and 8 players in their squad in the last year. And about that number going back some time now.

Totally different contexts.

The issue isn't about selection of players based on where they were born. The issue is around where they are playing their club rugby professionally.

I think this does make it tricky for NZ to changes it's eligibility rules to the extent that NZ may become a mere stepping stone for some of these youngsters to move to Europe and Japan soon after turning professional (or sooner). Particularly if they are overlooked. After being developed by your systems, for better money and better exposure.

SA has a surplus of players, and used eligibility criteria to strength it's performance and position in World Rugby (after dropping to 7th in the World). This in turn has had a positive impact on the overall industry in SA - which in turn will strengthen the financial position of rugby in SA over time. So long as the boks and the bok brand keep doing well!

What worked for SA won't necessarily work for anyone else.

Jake White also has an agenda - he has been outspoken about boks being selected from overseas - so while he calls himself a traditionalist, he wants to have more boks available to him. Which is completely understandable in the context of professional rugby, wanting to field the best players to win...

But then the Bulls Rugby Company must work on being more profitable and by extension having the budgets to pay top players better. Why should the players bare the brunt of market and economic conditions? Why should the players make economic sacrifices because of issues beyond there control? I don't think that's fair and smacks of exploitation.

I don't think NZ is ever going to change it's eligibility rules and that this debate is largely a non-issue.