'They rub it in': Michael Hooper reviews All Blacks' win over Wallabies

Ok so you were just making a non-sequiteur. How helpful!

Earl lost against Australia recently. So did Itoje, Genge, Stuart, Tom Curry, Freeman, Lawrence, and Feyi-Waboso. Presumably you think none of them will start for the Lions?

It was true actually. Arteta hasn’t won much, nor slot. Pep has of course, and is a few years older. BUT - here’s the clincher: compare his trophy haul when he was THE SAME AGE AS your other examples! Boom. A vast difference exists in the ‘concrete’ examples you gave.

“*Football” Yeah, tell me your English without telling me. I’m Irish and our national sport is a very different code of football, alas the name is already taken. It will always be soccer to me.

The fact you have literally typed that you don’t know much about soccer then attempted to lecture others on it is almost impressive. Post-irony.

Actually I did use it separately. Remarkably you seemed to think I was talking about all-time win ratios (?). All 23 Irish players going, or something like that? Crazy. Did Earl not already play against Australia recently? As an 8? Did England win?

I’m guessing you have an England replica Jersey with ‘Earl ‘8’ written on it? It must be a great inconvenience that the lad may just be better as a 7. You’d have to get a new Jersey? Or maybe you don’t.

Either way, it’s a level of argument that is indulgent. Are you a bot?

I know what a paradox is. I also know that you haven’t offered any insight.

“the most successful manager in English soccer attained 90% of his trophy haul in an era that had unregulated spending”

*Football.

What does the lack of regulation of spending tell us about the relative merits of youth and experience? Hint: it tells us nothing.

You didn’t use it seperately. You started talking about 6N win ratios in response to me saying that you can’t just select players on the basis of their individual win ratios, which I said in response to the point you made about Earl’s win ratios. Try to keep up!

“So you agree a players 2023 form may not be the best marker for selection this time.”

Not sure how you infer that from what I said. I do agree, but it’s unrelated to what I said about Smith.

I mentioned win rates in relation to Earls club and test appearances relative to the positions he has played. I quite separately used the recent 6Nations win ratios of the home nations with relation to selecting a starting 15 for a Lions tour. None of this is complicated.

So you agree a players 2023 form may not be the best marker for selection this time. Wouldn’t the current season be better? As in 6Nations and club form?

You could perhaps google the term paradox?

I’ll give you a hint; the most successful manager in English soccer attained 90% of his trophy haul in an era that had unregulated spending…

“Historically the current 6Nations campaign in a lions tour year does tend to be impactful. It’s not a stretch to assume the squad is largely selected with the back-end of the domestic season left to confirm certain players, injuries aside.”

Farrell will select more players from the better teams. He won’t select on the basis of individual win rates, which is the claim you made that you are now walking back.

“For example, Marcus Smith had a very decent 2023 at #10”

Did he? He might have had some good club games but he made absolutely zero impact in test rugby, hence why he ended the year firmly third choice behind Ford and Farrell.

My argument around 8 and positional play was actually in reference to another player (and the subject of this article). I made the point that, comparatively, any men’s test player shy of 6’4” and 17.5st will struggle as a modern 8.

Historically the current 6Nations campaign in a lions tour year does tend to be impactful. It’s not a stretch to assume the squad is largely selected with the back-end of the domestic season left to confirm certain players, injuries aside.

For example, Marcus Smith had a very decent 2023 at #10. I doubt that two years later that will be a marker for him going on this tour, in that position? It’s not being selective with the time period.

I guess my general feeling in rugby is that most coaches seem to decline quite a bit when they hit 60, and to be coaching at the top level when you’re 65 or older is extremely rare. Maybe in american sports people have another 5 years, but that doesn’t seem like a massive difference.

Either way, I’m going to stick with my verdict that appointing Les Kiss at age 60 would be ok as a short term deal - but appointing him at 63 and expecting him to last 4 years would be foolish.

ok - so you agree. Experience is strongly correlated with age among the managers I named.

“Test rugby has no clear pattern of that.”

I agree. Different sports are different and patterns evident in one won’t necessarily be reproduced in others.

“Why would you dismiss a paradox? Contradictions are often revealing. Or is that too incoherent?”

If they can be revealing then explain what they reveal. You’re not close to making a point atm.

What are you arguing? You dismissed Earl as an 8 on the basis of the low win rate last year. So it makes no sense to suggest that on the basis of win rates IRE and ENG are equal. You can’t just randomly narrow the time period you’re interested in to only this year when it suits your argument.

Anyway, you can’t just select players on the basis of their individual win rates. If Farrell did that he would select 23 Irish players, because no English or Scottish players (apart from those on just 1 or 2 caps) will come close to having equal win rates.

Ok - if Beirne plays 6 then Earl won’t play 7.