Zinzan Brooke again...

Noopti

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/7759789.stm

It's hard to know how far Ireland can go in the competition but I do fear that they are too reliant on Paul O'Connell, Brian O'Driscoll and Ronan O'Gara. I've always felt Ireland are not that far ahead of Scotland and are hit-and-miss in these big tournaments.

I mean, his articles on the BBC are mostly rubbish, but c'mon. Ireland not that far ahead of Scotland?
Is he basing this on the autumn internationals or on form over the past 4 years. Even if he is just basing it on the AI's, it still doesn't hold much water.

The gap is just too wide and you have to remember that Australia, New Zealand and South Africa came to the UK off the back of a long hard season.

Yes, they have come over after a full season of rugby, so they are more together, fitter and "in the zone" so to speak. How he can use this as further proof for the SH superiority I don't know.
The NH teams are only starting their season, and usually when they travel down to the SH for the test in the summer they come much closer to beating the SH teams. Coming off the back of a season is a plus, not a negative.

His general opinion that the SH is superior is of course correct, but some his details are bordering on ridiculous. Rant over.

ThomasH

Don't take it too serious.

I don't always like or agree with Zinzan Brooke's biased columns but he is right a lot of the time.

Ireland not that far ahead of Scotland?

It's hard to tell because Ireland was excellent in 2006 and then fell apart in 2007 so some of this remarks are correct in there is no consistency.

Yes, they have come over after a full season of rugby, so they are more together, fitter and "in the zone" so to speak. How he can use this as further proof for the SH superiority I don't know.

Very easy. The fact that the SH won 19 from 20 tests. Both SA and Aus were average but still came out on top. Also, when was the last time a NH team have won down south after their long season? Coming close to beat a SH team and actually beat them is two different things.




He also mentions:

But both Ireland and Italy will be quietly confident of progression to the
knockout stages.

meaning that anything good can happen on the day for ireland.

His general opinion that the SH is superior is of course correct, but some his details are bordering on ridiculous. Rant over.

Don't read his blogs then anymore, he gets paid to talk on a site to those who want to share similar views.

Don't take it too seriously. It's not a matter of life and death.

anonymous_joe

In fairness we've never made a big splash over that side of the world.

They'll always concentrate on England, because England's the motherland, etc. They really do hate England. Wales have recently-ish one two Grand Slams, whereas Ireland have been overall the second best team in the 6 Nations since its inception, and yet haven't won it once. We're the New Zealand of the 6 Nations in that regard. :P

No-one will respect us until we win something, until then they can happily denigrate us, because we're not good enough to throw their words back at them.

Chucky the tree

Noopti wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/7759789.stm



I mean, his articles on the BBC are mostly rubbish, but c'mon. Ireland not that far ahead of Scotland?
Is he basing this on the autumn internationals or on form over the past 4 years. Even if he is just basing it on the AI's, it still doesn't hold much water.

Why not? Last time we played them we beat them by a point. We're only a place above them in the rankings.

I dont think there is much between Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales. Wales are the best out of that group, but a WC like showing in the 6nations wouldnt suprise me. The french are the typial french, it's so hard to rank them. Huge potential to be class but they make a balls of/dont seem arsed most of the time. I'd lump the Argies and SA in with them aswell. Aus and NZ are a in the top group I think.

It can change very easily though.

Noopti wrote: »

Yes, they have come over after a full season of rugby, so they are more together, fitter and "in the zone" so to speak. How he can use this as further proof for the SH superiority I don't know.
The NH teams are only starting their season, and usually when they travel down to the SH for the test in the summer they come much closer to beating the SH teams. Coming off the back of a season is a plus, not a negative.

His general opinion that the SH is superior is of course correct, but some his details are bordering on ridiculous. Rant over.

I definitly strongly disagree with this. Coming over at the end of the season is alot harder. By this stage your body is wrecked, you have your 2week sun holiday booked, your swim trunks packed and your hawian skirts freshly ironed and the only thing in the way is a couple of Int friendlies, sorry test matches, against a bunch of minnows. They also shouldnt be fitter, if the Nh lads are at peak fitness after 2 months of being back they really need to take a strong hard look at there fitness regimes(but I think there are at full fitness, baring injuries etc).

The fact that these Autumn int are just before the 6N is another huge plus for the NH sides. Players should be out fighting for their places in that and using these games as a chance too show what they have. This is less so for the SH teams as the TN is another 9 months away and they'll more oppurtunities to prove themselves.

ThomasH

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I dont think there is much between Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales. Wales are the best out of that group, but a WC like showing in the 6nations wouldnt suprise me. The french are the typial french, it's so hard to rank them. Huge potential to be class but they make a balls of/dont seem arsed most of the time. I'd lump the Argies and SA in with them aswell. Aus and NZ are a in the top group I think. It can change very easily though.

Wales are not in the same group as Eng, Sco and Ire - they are in a league of their own and getting better. They way they attack and defend is far better than anything I've seen so far from a 6N team.

Aus and NZ in top group? Based on what exactly?

ThomasH

They also shouldnt be fitter, if the Nh lads are at peak fitness after 2 months of being back they really need to take a strong hard look at there fitness regimes(but I think there are at full fitness, baring injuries etc).

I think the fitness levels also have to do with the new ELVs. The game is played at a much faster rate and SH have mentioned that the games are quicker during the S14. Fast forward to the AI and some NH have mentioned that the games were a bit quicker than they expected.

Chucky the tree

ThomasH wrote: »

Wales are not in the same group as Eng, Sco and Ire - they are in a league of their own and getting better. They way they attack and defend is far better than anything I've seen so far from a 6N team.

Aus and NZ in top group? Based on what exactly?

League of there own? I hope you dont mean ahead of Aus, NZ or even SA? They probaly are ahead of Ireland, Scotland and England. Hard to say if they are better then the French.

I'd base it on the Tri-nations and the Autumn internationals. SA are certainly up there aswell.

Chucky the tree

ThomasH wrote: »

I think the fitness levels also have to do with the new ELVs. The game is played at a much faster rate and SH have mentioned that the games are quicker during the S14. Fast forward to the AI and some NH have mentioned that the games were a bit quicker than they expected.

Is there anything the ELV's are being blamed for? I thought the ELVs were also to blame for the increase in kicking? you'd think more kicking would make it easier on players fitness wise.

ThomasH

Chucky the tree wrote: »

League of there own? I hope you dont mean ahead of Aus, NZ or even SA? They probaly are ahead of Ireland, Scotland and England. Hard to say if they are better then the French.
QUOTE]

Nah, ahead in the 6N I meant.

Is there anything the ELV's are being blamed for? I thought the ELVs were also to blame for the increase in kicking? you'd think more kicking would make it easier on players fitness wise.

It is indeed, never seen so much kickin before in my life. I for one believe if they change the kicking rule too something like "if a player kicks and don't get a first touch of it it should be a free kick to the other team" that way players are forced to chipkick and touch the ball first which in a lot of cases will be 50/50. Either way the senseless kicking will be reduced and game will even be more quicker.

Chucky the tree

ThomasH wrote: »

Chucky the tree wrote: »

League of there own? I hope you dont mean ahead of Aus, NZ or even SA? They probaly are ahead of Ireland, Scotland and England. Hard to say if they are better then the French.

Nah, ahead in the 6N I meant.

I think if the French took it seriously they'd win it.

Noopti

ThomasH wrote: »

Don't take it too seriously. It's not a matter of life and death.

Ah c'mon now, I wasn't taking it that seriously.
And I know I don't have to read it, but everybody didn't bother to read anything that irked them it would be a far less educated world!

Serenity Now!

Noopti wrote: »

I mean, his articles on the BBC are mostly rubbish, but c'mon. Ireland not that far ahead of Scotland?
Is he basing this on the autumn internationals or on form over the past 4 years. Even if he is just basing it on the AI's, it still doesn't hold much water

Zunzen might be a crap tipper but he does know the game.
What is there to suggest Ireland have been that far ahead of Scotland over the past couple of seasons?

Noopti

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Zunzen might be a crap tipper but he does know the game.
What is there to suggest Ireland have been that far ahead of Scotland over the past couple of seasons?

This is why:



Forget one season, over the past 8 years we have been way ahead of Scotland. It is that consistency that makes us a far better team. Yes, we are going through changes now, but that does not negate the fact that Scotland have been, and by all accounts still are, pretty useless. They may have run SA close, but in my view that was a complete anomoly. They have improved, but they will still be fighting against Italy and probably England at the bottom of the 6N table next year.

If Ireland played Scotland, and both teams played to their absolute best of their ability then I could only see one outcome. A handsome victory for Ireland.

Serenity Now!

ThomasH wrote: »

It is indeed, never seen so much kickin before in my life. I for one believe if they change the kicking rule too something like "if a player kicks and don't get a first touch of it it should be a free kick to the other team" that way players are forced to chipkick and touch the ball first which in a lot of cases will be 50/50. Either way the senseless kicking will be reduced and game will even be more quicker.

*sigh*........allow me to explain something here.........
The above is a popular myth these days, spread by pundits with either very short memories indeed or who are unwilling to actually analyse honestly.
The main reason that a team kicks upfield is to get out of their own quarter.

Why is this?
Because they do not want to contest the ball via a ruck in this area.

How come?
Because rucks are now much more contestable instead of being guaranteed stages of possession for the attacking team. No sealing. Entering a ruck off feet or not through the gate is not tolerated. Much easier to give a penalty away or lose the ball.

Damn! Which Law Variation is causing this?
None. There isn't one variation of the ruck laws. There are no ruck ELVs. A lot of pundits you will read, hear or see on TV will always use the Super14 or TriNations as "doomsaying-oh-woe-betide-the-game-etc" examples. One small problem however. These competitions trialled 29 law variations. The biggest influence in that set of variations was the free-kick for ruck infringements except not entering the gate. Now there are 13 law variations in operation and the Super14 & TriNations adopt this group of variations when the 2009 season starts for them.
The laws are reviewed in March by the unions and IRB and then a final collection of laws is implemented into the game by the end of July/August 1st.

So if the ruck law hasn't been touched, what's going on?
These laws have always been in existance, ThomasH. Certain elements have been overlooked but this has led to the game being a negative and cynical affair with the ball either out of play or hidden in non-contested phases.
What has resulted however is that certain teams are not taking risks with the ball and prefer to keep hoofing it until the opposition makes a mistake. My view is that if a team takes these risks, it will pay off. A team's game can still be based on kicking for the corners if the talent or stamina is limited. Better still, with counterrucking on the rise again, more forwards will have to commit to the rucks and therefore more space for moving the ball. Flatlines in attack are not the bloody way to go about this. Dummy runners, one line deep and one shallow with fewer defenders to run against makes for a better game. A sort of fit version of the game of the 70s and 80s. If teams keep playing ping-pong between back threequarters however then they deserve to lose.
A team that plays to the laws will win. A team that plays pre-IRB-directive rugby will get trounced. A player looking up at ref after being hauled up for jumping off feet onto the ruck like they've just started playing the game is not only pathetic but the player's fault and no-one else's......not even the lawmakers of the game :rolleyes:

Noopti

Serenity Now! wrote: »

So if the ruck law hasn't been touched, what's going on?

What has changed is that referees were told (I think it was a couple of seasons ago) to be much stricter with regards to the breakdown area.

Serenity Now!

Noopti wrote: »

Forget one season, over the past 8 years we have been way ahead of Scotland. It is that consistency that makes us a far better team. Yes, we are going through changes now, but that does not negate the fact that Scotland have been, and by all accounts still are, pretty useless. They may have run SA close, but in my view that was a complete anomoly. They have improved, but they will still be fighting against Italy and probably England at the bottom of the 6N table next year.

If Ireland played Scotland, and both teams played to their absolute best of their ability then I could only see one outcome. A handsome victory for Ireland.

Over the past couple of seasons, Ireland won well at home, lost by ten in Edinburgh, won by a point and won by about 5 or 6 in the one before that.
That would suggest things were pretty close between the teams.

Serenity Now!

Noopti wrote: »

What has changed is that referees were told (I think it was a couple of seasons ago) to be much stricter with regards to the breakdown area.

That is a rhetorical question you are 'answering'. Did you actually read the whole post?

The reffing of rucks was instructed this year by the IRB in order to make them more contestable.

Noopti

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Over the past couple of seasons, Ireland won well at home, lost by ten in Edinburgh, won by a point and won by about 5 or 6 in the one before that.
That would suggest things were pretty close between the teams.

2006 6 Nations:
Ireland lost the championship on points difference. Scotland came 3rd.

2007 6 Nations:
Ireland lost the championship on points difference. Scotland came last

2008 6 Nations:
Ireland came 4th, Scotland came 5th.

So, over 3 years I would say Ireland have been more than a little ahead of Scotland. Head to Head is irrelavent imo, as overall results have more bearing on the form and ability of a team. So looking at the results of the past 3 years, the gap has closed (although 2007 was a very bad year for Ireland), but I would still hesitate to say Scotland are not that far behind Ireland.

Scottish rugby is far behind most in the NH, both at club, provisonal and international level.

Serenity Now! wrote: »

That is a rhetorical question you are 'answering'. Did you actually read the whole post?

The reffing of rucks was instructed this year by the IRB in order to make them more contestable.

Yes, I did read it. You only said they were more contestable and that it was easier to give a penalty away. I just simplified it by saying that it was because it was of stricter enforcement on the part of referees.

Snickers Man

Serenity Now! wrote: »

What is there to suggest Ireland have been that far ahead of Scotland over the past couple of seasons?

Results, dear boy, results.

23/02/2008 Ireland 34 13 Scotland Croke Park
11/08/2007 Scotland 31 21 Ireland Murrayfield
10/03/2007 Scotland 18 19 Ireland Murrayfield
11/03/2006 Ireland 15 9 Scotland Lansdowne Road
12/02/2005 Scotland 13 40 Ireland Murrayfield
27/03/2004 Ireland 37 16 Scotland Lansdowne Road
06/09/2003 Scotland 10 29 Ireland Murrayfield
16/02/2003 Scotland 6 36 Ireland Murrayfield
02/03/2002 Ireland 43 22 Scotland Lansdowne Road
22/09/2001 Scotland 32 10 Ireland Murrayfield
19/02/2000 Ireland 44 22 Scotland Lansdowne Road


Nine wins out of 11 for Ireland since the Six Nations started, (eight out of nine if you only include 6N matches). And that includes our seven biggest margins of victory over them.

Chucky the tree

Snickers Man wrote: »

Results, dear boy, results.

23/02/2008 Ireland 34 13 Scotland Croke Park
11/08/2007 Scotland 31 21 Ireland Murrayfield
10/03/2007 Scotland 18 19 Ireland Murrayfield
11/03/2006 Ireland 15 9 Scotland Lansdowne Road
12/02/2005 Scotland 13 40 Ireland Murrayfield
27/03/2004 Ireland 37 16 Scotland Lansdowne Road
06/09/2003 Scotland 10 29 Ireland Murrayfield
16/02/2003 Scotland 6 36 Ireland Murrayfield
02/03/2002 Ireland 43 22 Scotland Lansdowne Road
22/09/2001 Scotland 32 10 Ireland Murrayfield
19/02/2000 Ireland 44 22 Scotland Lansdowne Road


Nine wins out of 11 for Ireland since the Six Nations started, (eight out of nine if you only include 6N matches). And that includes our seven biggest margins of victory over them.

You missed out on the word "past couple" didnt you?

Snickers Man

Chucky the tree wrote: »

You missed out on the word "past couple" didnt you?

Would that be the "past couple" of seasons in which Scotland has finished bottom or level on points with the bottom team in the 6Nations? One flukey win in each season? And with the lowest or joint lowest try count in each season?

Their promising season in which they won three 6N matches for the only time ever was three seasons ago. Outside the definition of "last couple"