- Paul Fennessy reports from Richmond Park
SHAMROCK ROVERS BOSS Stephen Bradley has hinted the club could lose talented teenage defender James Furlong in the coming days.
The 17-year-old Ireland underage international is highly regarded at Rovers and has already made his first-team debut, featuring against Dundalk last April.
The player’s impressive performances have prompted links with clubs across the water, and a recent RTÉ report suggested he was set to join Championship side Fulham.
And after seeing his team beat St Patrick’s Athletic 2-0, Bradley was asked whether he hoped the club could hold on to the youngster.
“James will have a decision to make,” he said. “He’s a great kid. He’s worked really hard. He’s doing well, so obviously there’s interest. But whatever he decides will be right for him, it’s his decision. If he keeps working hard, he has a chance.”
Should he move across the water, Furlong would follow in the footsteps of another Rovers academy graduate, Gavin Bazunu, who completed a move to Manchester City earlier this year.
The Hoops, meanwhile, have also brought a few players into their squad in recent days, with UCD pair Neil Farrugia and Gary O’Neill joining along with Cork City striker Graham Cummins, though all three were ineligible last night.
“You’re really happy, because when you’re speaking to them, Gary, Neil and Graham, obviously other clubs are interested in them and you’re not sure which way it’s going to go. You’re delighted to get the three of them in. They’ll definitely add to the team and the squad. They improve us. So I’m looking forward to them getting involved this week.
“UCD allowed Neil and Gary to come early, which is good. So I’ve got to know the players really well. And Graham’s in since Saturday.”
Of the hard-fought 2-0 victory over St Pat’s, Bradley expressed satisfaction and felt his team have not been playing as badly as a run of one point from their last three games has suggested: “Without being at our best, I thought we were pretty comfortable and deserved to win the game.
Our performances have been really good, so there’s never been any worry — we just have to keep doing what we’re doing. On Friday, we had five or six really good chances to win the game [against Dundalk] and we didn’t. Tonight, we probably had three and we take two of them — that’s just the way it’s been at the moment.
“I thought we were good tonight all over, but we weren’t at our levels. I think you could see Friday had taken a bit out of the legs. We were a little bit sloppy in our decision-making and our passing.
“We knew [after the second goal] the game was over and it was just about keeping our shape, keeping the ball in front of us really.”
The42 is on Instagram! Tap the button below on your phone to follow us!
Crazy decision. Completely accidental clash of heads.
A five game ban for this is outrageous. How is a decision like that arrived at. It was clearly accidental.
Cant watch the clips because I’m in Australia ffs. But the fans I’ve spoke to say it’s a yellow a most and even that’s harsh. Any truth to this??
@Dara: no
@Dara: Do they not have YouTube in Australia ?
Shameful decision. Warranted a yellow card at best. He’ll be badly missed for the ECC games where his brawn and explosive speed would have levelled things up for Connacht.
Whatever about whether it was right or wrong, how can they suspend 1 week off the 6 week ban for ‘remorse’ when the red card was challenged? Surely that is a prime indication that not alone was there no remorse but the feeling was that it wasn’t even a red card. This incident aside, I would be concerned that the judicial process is flawed on that basis.
His biggest mistake was not being Owen Farrell.
I think he’s a lucky lad to only get 5 weeks, accidental or not he clearly didn’t learn his lesson from the last high shot.
@Jim Demps: I don’t think people here understand. The tackler has an obligation to tackle safely. Accidental or not he has made head to head contact which could have been avoided. The player doesn’t dip in fact he may even come up a little at impact. It’s a clear red and when it’s your second of the season 5 weeks seems lenient.
@Jim Demps: It was an accidental clash of heads after the attacking player changed his running line. I think 5 weeks is harsh, I’d love to see how they arrived at this decision. He does need to lower his tackle height though. Owen Farrell only got 5 weeks for tackle on Charlie Atkinson and in terms of intent those tackles are like chalk and cheese. With Farrells tackling track record it should have been far longer.
@Jayme Mc Goldrick: yeah that’s it. Accidental or not the outcome is still a dangerous tackle. I get why people are annoyed, I’d probably be the same if it was a munster player but it’s not like it’s a new rule, a head shot has never been legal.
@MacEoin.T: I think the decision is pretty clear, he got 6 weeks the first time and it was reduced to 3 for having a clear record. He then got 6 weeks this time and didn’t get the reduction for having a clear record. If anything I’d be saying he didn’t deserve the one week reduction given he clearly hasn’t learnt his lesson.
@Jim Demps: Out of interest, does a player get a clear record at the beginning of each season or is it a pro career duration timeframe?
@MacEoin.T: I know in the amateur game in Ireland they look at your records for 5 years so I assume it’s probably something similar. They definitely don’t get a clean slate at the start of the season anyway. Punishing repeat offenders more harshly I think is a good way to go. Like if Papalli gets sent off again for another high shot I’d say he could be looking at 10+ weeks.
@Jim Demps: he’ll be back in time for the game against Munster on the 9th of January Jim. We’ll get a proper look at him in action then.
@Jim Demps: Would you stop Jim, Farrell got the same ban for trying to take Atkinson’s head off and you’re arguing the Papali’i deserves the same? You’re dreaming lad.
@Paddy Kennedy: I’m not arguing anything, I’m saying that’s how it works. Farrell actually got a 10 week ban reduced by half for a first offence. Farrells was worse and he got a bigger ban, papalli is in the dock for the second time in four games and gets less of a reduction. It’s fairly straightforward
@David Finn: great stuff, hopefully he takes the time between now and then to learn how to tackle in Union. He’ll be a serious player once he irons out those mistakes.
@Paddy Kennedy: It was Farrell’s first red so he got more lenient treatment. The fact that Farrell should have had plenty of reds in recent seasons can’t be taken into account.
Players & coaches have to understand how seriously World Rugby is taking head injuries and act accordingly. That means a lower body position in any potential tackle situation.
Clearly difficult to get it right all the time so some players will get unlucky from time to time. Lack of intent doesn’t seem to be a mitigating factor.
Crazy biased decision.
That makes no sense. How the ref made out he led with his head is beyond me. The attacking player steps and papali has to change direction to make the tackle, their heads collide. 5 games is ridiculous.
Outrageous decision! Ref & TMO bottled it!!
I really don’t understand all the comments arguing that this is somehow disproportionate. It was a clear red card, it was clear he was going to get a significant ban and if he doesn’t learn how to tackle lower he’s going to miss more games than he plays. Crazy decision by Connacht to contest this and I’d argue you shouldn’t get a reduction if you contest the decision, as you’re clearly not remorseful if you think you didn’t commit an offence.
The hypocrisy on this forum , when it was Peter O Mahony deliberately targeting someone’s head in the ruck with his shoulder a few weeks ago (imo, is much worse than an accidental clash of heads) people here were saying ‘he was frustrated’ and ‘playing on the edge’!