Was our 2009 performance better than 2007?

jayteecork

I don't think so.

I think that while both teams deserved the slam, I feel the performances of the 2007 team were better.

in 2007 we beat Wales 19-9, completely obliterated England and Italy, and snuck a win against Scotland. We lost to France in the cruelist fashion.

This year we again snuck a win against the Scots, were VERY luck to beat England, we beat Wales after we could so easily have lost, struggled against Italy and played well in patches in beating France.

Don't get me wrong I think Ireland deserved the slam this year but I think out overall standard of play wasn't as good as the team in 2007.

What's the opinion here?

Noopti

Ireland didn't "deserve" the Slam in 07 because we lost to France.

Ireland did deserve the Slam in 09 because we won every game.

So 2009 is the better performance.

If you want to discuss individual game performances, then I would argue that in 2007 we faced weaker Wales, England and Scotland sides then we did in 2009.

jayteecork

jayteecork wrote: »

I don't think so.

I think that while both teams deserved the slam, I feel the performances of the 2007 team were better.

in 2007 we beat Wales 19-9, completely obliterated England and Italy, and snuck a win against Scotland. We lost to France in the cruelist fashion.

This year we again snuck a win against the Scots, were VERY luck to beat England, we beat Wales after we could so easily have lost, struggled against Italy and played well in patches in beating France.

Don't get me wrong I think Ireland deserved the slam this year but I think out overall standard of play wasn't as good as the team in 2007.

What's the opinion here?

We played a different type of game back then.

Under Eddie we played a nicer brand and when we beat teams it was usually by a good margin.

Under Kidney we are more consitant but the margins are smaller and I would argue that we make it look harder work than it is.
When we have teams under the kosh under Kidney we seem to never go for the kill like under Eddie.If we did we would have racked up some nice scores but the play reflects Kidneys conservative nature.

sslazio11

jayteecork wrote: »

I don't think so.

I think that while both teams deserved the slam, I feel the performances of the 2007 team were better.

in 2007 we beat Wales 19-9, completely obliterated England and Italy, and snuck a win against Scotland. We lost to France in the cruelist fashion.

This year we again snuck a win against the Scots, were VERY luck to beat England, we beat Wales after we could so easily have lost, struggled against Italy and played well in patches in beating France.

Don't get me wrong I think Ireland deserved the slam this year but I think out overall standard of play wasn't as good as the team in 2007.

What's the opinion here?

The opinion here is that in 2009 we were unlucky not to beat England by more; were more than 7 points better than Scotland; I didn't see the France game so I don't know; we played a much much better Welsh team than in 2007 and should have won by more, we were the better team throughout the 80 minutes.

We played more freeflowing rugby in 2007, definitely, but as was pointed out, this team was set up differently. I think Ireland will be attempting a more expansive game next season.

Macsimus

Kai Echoing Telecommunications wrote: »

We played a different type of game back then.

Under Eddie we played a nicer brand and when we beat teams it was usually by a good margin.

Under Kidney we are more consistant but the margins are smaller and I would argue that we make it look harder work than it is.
When we have teams under the kosh under Kidney we seem to never go for the kill like under Eddie.If we did we would have racked up some nice scores but the play reflects Kidneys conservative nature.

Come on Goose, Eddie was hardly a maverick either at least Kidney has the cajones to give us a mini selection surprise every now and again.

If Rog had his kicking boots on against Eng then the overall tournament would not have felt so tight.

Surely the ELV's are affecting things as well??, as far as I saw no team played with much in the way of panache not even Lievremonts France and u could hardly call him a conservative coach

Im personally delighted with the way we played, we did a job on every team and I never (except maybe the last 30 secs in cardiff :eek:) felt we would lose one -

Also Kidney isn't in the job a yr, and Ireland hadn't won a slam in 62 yrs - hardly the time to have us playing barbarian style rugby

Macsimus

Macsimus wrote: »

Come on Goose, Eddie was hardly a maverick either at least Kidney has the cajones to give us a mini selection surprise every now and again.

If Rog had his kicking boots on against Eng then the overall tournament would not have felt so tight.

Surely the ELV's are affecting things as well??, as far as I saw no team played with much in the way of panache not even Lievremonts France and u could hardly call him a conservative coach

Im personally delighted with the way we played, we did a job on every team and I never (except maybe the last 30 secs in cardiff :eek:) felt we would lose one -

Also Kidney isn't in the job a yr, and Ireland hadn't won a slam in 62 yrs - hardly the time to have us playing barbarian style rugby

I didnt mean that in a negative way at all,we won the Grand slam!

Pointing out the difference in how different coaches set their teams up is not criticising a coach,jesus.
Kidney now coaches ireland,as an Ireland fan im entitled to crititique the way we play.

I coundnt agree with the bit I highlighted though,I am glad we won but I like rugby played a certain way but thats just a personal opinion.Everybody sees rugby in a different light,some like the way the defence is set,others like huge foward play and some people like barbarians style.

I think towards the end ,esp Wales you could see the style they want to play.Like the springboks a nice blend of foward work and back play which is good imo.Not relying to heavily on either type of play.

barnesd

jayteecork wrote: »

I don't think so.

I think that while both teams deserved the slam, I feel the performances of the 2007 team were better.

in 2007 we beat Wales 19-9, completely obliterated England and Italy, and snuck a win against Scotland. We lost to France in the cruelist fashion.

This year we again snuck a win against the Scots, were VERY luck to beat England, we beat Wales after we could so easily have lost, struggled against Italy and played well in patches in beating France.

Don't get me wrong I think Ireland deserved the slam this year but I think out overall standard of play wasn't as good as the team in 2007.

What's the opinion here?

Wales were a lot worse in 2007 than they are now, and we still beat them 2 tries to nil in Cardiff. We did more than sneak a win against the Scots this season, we dominated them in the 2nd half completely. We were excellent against France. We hammered Italy. We beat England narrowly, but again we were much the better team and the England that's shown up in this 6N has been a lot better than years gone by.

We've been better than every team we've played, deserved every win. My only criticism would be that in some games we should have put more points on the board. I also feel in the England and Italy games that ROG wasn't at his best, and this filters through the team somewhat. It's hard to look good when your OH isn't at his best.

Podge_irl

I think its kind of hard to judge. Had O'Driscoll been fit for the French game in 07 I'm pretty sure we would have won the slam back then. The current side is certainly more pragmatic and I would have more confidence in them grinding out a win, which is largely what they did this season. I don't think there would be much debate about which side played the prettier rugby - Ireland were occasionally a truly awesome side to behold playing rugby in 07.

Grand Slams rely a lot on luck as much as anything else - Ireland had it this year but didnt have it in 07. They're pretty different teams who approach the game differently, but I would put the overall performance as reasonably level, posibly nudging towards the 07 side.

Macsimus

Dont get me wrong, Im a Leinster man and like my heart attack rugby as much as the next man, so I agree with you from that point of view, I just felt this year was an opportunity not to be missed, and not to take risks. An opportunity to bury the pain and erect a confidence platform from which to build.

However your definitely right from the point of view that we would not beat the AB's or saffa's with our current style of play - the key to unlocking their defenses will be accurate offloading in the tackle, something which the lads dont seem to be able or allowed to do this yr

stephen_n

Two Different coaching teams, two different menatlity's and a hell of a lot of rule changes. I don't believe the 07 team would have been able to play rugby like they did against the defences in this years 6N and under the ELV's so it is very hard to compare like for like. Part of the reason this years tournament has been as alot of people put it poor, is because of the emphasis on defence in the NH rather than working on the offload in the tackle area I don't think the team 2 years ago was any better at that so couldn't see them playing running rugby anyway now!

Macsimus

stephen_n wrote: »

Two Different coaching teams, two different menatlity's and a hell of a lot of rule changes. I don't believe the 07 team would have been able to play rugby like they did against the defences in this years 6N and under the ELV's so it is very hard to compare like for like. Part of the reason this years tournament has been as alot of people put it poor, is because of the emphasis on defence in the NH rather than working on the offload in the tackle area I don't think the team 2 years ago was any better at that so couldn't see them playing running rugby anyway now!

not sure I agree with you there, they seemed to be capable of off loading when we hockyed the ozzies in Landsdowne prior to the 07 tourney

stephen_n

stephen_n wrote: »

Two Different coaching teams, two different menatlity's and a hell of a lot of rule changes. I don't believe the 07 team would have been able to play rugby like they did against the defences in this years 6N and under the ELV's so it is very hard to compare like for like. Part of the reason this years tournament has been as alot of people put it poor, is because of the emphasis on defence in the NH rather than working on the offload in the tackle area I don't think the team 2 years ago was any better at that so couldn't see them playing running rugby anyway now!

That exactly it and imo its futile.

Did you see the Blues v Chiefs game over the weekend.There is no way in hell any defence is gona stop them,the way they play.
We need to be improving our offloads and hit constantly driving foward in the ruck,rucking clean over them to get quick ball.

Unless we do that we will never beat any SH team.

Rucking in the NH is a joke,if you do it the SH way there is less likely to be penalties because they do it so fast and swiftly its done before the ref sees anything.They ruck straight over the player and the men supporting him,something we cant seem to do over here.

(Im talking about rugby in general in the NH,not just ireland)