La Rochelle : quatre à six mois d'absence pour Bougarit

For example, a number of Ireland supporters have suggested Kinghorn is ‘defensively weak’. That’s patently false - or at least on the evidence of this 6N, he’s certainly no weaker there than Keenan is, who is presumably the comparative standard they’re using. Keenan was both shrugged off in contact, and beaten on the edge for pace, a number of times during this competition.

Equally, Scotland supporters arguing Kinghorn is the more capable ‘rugby player’ seem to have overlooked the (frankly sizeable) body of evidence demonstrating that Keenan is an excellent ball in hand distributor and decision maker. So that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny either.

I don’t think there’s all that much to choose between them, and either would be a strong choice. I think it would be really interesting from a pure rugby perspective to see Keenan playing a ‘Scotland-esque’ style of high tempo attacking rugby. Either coming into the line more routinely as first receiver, or being swung as a pendulum and getting the ball on the edge against a stretched defence.

That’s assuming Andy Farrell goes that route, of course. He may well just opt for his Ireland system instead, and populate it with the likes of Henshaw, Ringrose, Lowe and Keenan. I’m sure that would win the series. Quite what effect it might have on a Lions audience who were expecting something other than ‘Ireland on tour, but wearing red’ would remain to be seen.

As for the debate at FB, the only ‘eye test’ difference I feel exists is in the pace of rugby Kinghorn (Toulouse? Scotland?) tends to play. His passing/offload game feels crisper and higher tempo than Keenan’s - and as we saw in Paris, his pace and eye for a gap from deep are superior.

But again, that will only prove a decisive factor if Andy Farrell wants to play that way. If all he wants from his FB is to sit deep, field high balls, and mop up then there’s little between these two equally excellent players.