England v Ireland St Patricks Day 2012

Tox56

Podge_irl wrote: »

To be fair, it's as much because Isa is much better winger then Rob.

Well that's it, it depends what way you look at it.

irishbucsfan

Which makes you wonder... If Shane Horgan was fit, who would start?

Fireball07

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Which makes you wonder... If Shane Horgan was fit, who would start?

Kearney and Nacewa both definitely would, imo. And I think Luke Fitz would be ahead of Horgan if he was in top form. Though maybe not.


As for Jones...I think his form towards the end of last season meant he was close to pushing Kearney for the starting 15 jersey. Kearney probably would have got the nod but Jones was playing some great rugby and I think he was the most in-form outside back in Ireland at the time. (bar maybe Trimble)


And if he's fit, I'd definitely start in him one of the Autumn games. Certainly not a big drop-off in quality and the experience of playing against NZ will do him good.

dougieruggie

Fireball07 wrote: »

he was the most in-form outside back in Ireland at the time. (bar maybe Trimble)

Shane Horgan was far and away the most in form back in Ireland at the end of last season. He was quite simply awesome.

walshb

teednab-el wrote: »

Tottally agree with all of this. Ireland don't have the balls or arrogance to win grand slams and we were damn lucky to win in 2009. Thank you Steven Jones. .

Exactly my point. Even when we win we can't enjoy it. Making lame excuses like above. Never mind the fact that we outscored Wales two tries to zero, and that we were the better team throughout that game, OH, and that we won 4 matches before the slam match.

Tox56

walshb wrote: »

Exactly my point. Even when we win we can't enjoy it. Making lame excuses like above. Never mind the fact that we outscored Wales two tries to zero, and that we were the better team throughout that game, OH, and that we won 4 matches before the slam match.

I disagree with stuff the current team is doing, but I don't share the beliefs of the person you quoted. So this "we" certainly isn't for us all.

snow mad

Tox56 wrote: »

Exactly, he's such a good player if he is being moved of out of his best position (imo) for somone on a consistent basis, it says a lot about Kearney.

i think it says more about the irfu:D

phog

Tox56 wrote: »

Exactly, he's such a good player if he is being moved of out of his best position (imo) for somone on a consistent basis, it says a lot about Kearney.

I think you may be missing my point.

I think Isa is a much better fullback than ROB, better in atttack and defence, however, you lose less by playing Isa on the wing than playing Rob on the wing. So it says a lot more about Isa than it does about Rob.

Ardillaun

Tox56 wrote: »

I don't know, I used to think Tuilagi was relatively slow, but he was really able to motor for that first try v France. Earls is undoubtedly faster, but how much faster, and how much of an impact it will have, will be interesting to see.

I've seen Manu Tuilagi run round players for Leicester - his pace against the French and in one of the pre-RWC games was impressive. He's not that slow and he's trying to add some variety to his game as well with a bit of kicking. This isn't a Denis Hickie/Wendell Sailor match-up (although Sailor did score in that RWC 2003 match). Earls will have his hands full.

England should give their centres a few games to settle and get used to each other. It looks like a solid pairing.

Ardillaun

nerd69 wrote: »

kearney>foden>a healthy felix jones>brown>dave kearney>hurley just my opinion hurleys a very talented player and hes big for a fullback but where very deep at fb at the mo earls and fitz should be in there somewhere aswell

At the moment, Kearney is in excellent form at full back but he definitely has less pace than Foden. I hope Ireland limit the opportunities for England to demonstrate that fact on the weekend.

Tox56

phog wrote: »

I think you may be missing my point.

I think Isa is a much better fullback than ROB, better in atttack and defence, however, you lose less by playing Isa on the wing than playing Rob on the wing. So it says a lot more about Isa than it does about Rob.

I get that but Leinster are hardly short in the wing, if they wanted to drop Rob they could. I probably agree it's more Isa, but Rob is starting for a reason.

Fireball07

Tox56 wrote: »

I get that but Leinster are hardly short in the wing, if they wanted to drop Rob they could. I probably agree it's more Isa, but Rob is starting for a reason.

I think the point is that Kearney is better at full-back than Kearney/Carr are on the wing, as good as they are themselves. And in his current form, you couldn't drop him.

Tox56

Fireball07 wrote: »

I think the point is that Kearney is better at full-back than Kearney/Carr are on the wing, as good as they are themselves. And in his current form, you couldn't drop him.

Well that's sorta what I'm getting at.

I have a feeling this is going round in circles.

teednab-el

walshb wrote: »

teednab-el wrote: »

Tottally agree with all of this. Ireland don't have the balls or arrogance to win grand slams and we were damn lucky to win in 2009. Thank you Steven Jones. .

Exactly my point. Even when we win we can't enjoy it. Making lame excuses like above. Never mind the fact that we outscored Wales two tries to zero, and that we were the better team throughout that game, OH, and that we won 4 matches before the slam match.

Thats questionable. Ireland got 2 tries but Wales almost outscored us. Ireland did their best to hand over the game to Wales. I suppose you are correct that we should enjoy it because I gurantee you we won't see another slam in our time. Ireland just haven't the belief, even if we had beaten France, England, Wales, Scotland and we only had Italy to beat at HOME for the Slam, we would somehow fcuk it up as the Irish rugby team are somehow the mother of all fcuk ups. You won't be seeing that with England Wales and France for sure.

Fireball07

Tox56 wrote: »

Well that's sorta what I'm getting at.

I have a feeling this is going round in circles.

Yeah, I think we're all in agreement really

Kearney is class, Nacewa is class and they both have to play.

stephen_n

Tox56 wrote: »

I don't know, I used to think Tuilagi was relatively slow, but he was really able to motor for that first try v France. Earls is undoubtedly faster, but how much faster, and how much of an impact it will have, will be interesting to see.

I don't think tuallagi lacks pace I think he lacks speed of thought and that he can be exposed defensively in his positioning by someone with pace who can step!

walshb

teednab-el wrote: »

Thats questionable. Ireland got 2 tries but Wales almost outscored us. Ireland did their best to hand over the game to Wales. I suppose you are correct that we should enjoy it because I gurantee you we won't see another slam in our time. Ireland just haven't the belief, even if we had beaten France, England, Wales, Scotland and we only had Italy to beat at HOME for the Slam, we would somehow fcuk it up as the Irish rugby team are somehow the mother of all fcuk ups. You won't be seeing that with England Wales and France for sure.

Yes, they did almost score us, with 6-7 penalties. So it was close, big deal. We won fair and square, and yet we have these sad excuses. It sounds like it annoyed you that we won?

Maybe we will not ever win another slam, but doesn't that make your view and opinion of the ONE we did win even more bizarre and begrudging?

15 lads break their balls delivering a grand slam to this country, after 60 plus years waiting, and this is the kind of reaction to it?

Said it before, we take the good out of everything!

teednab-el

walshb wrote: »

teednab-el wrote: »

Thats questionable. Ireland got 2 tries but Wales almost outscored us. Ireland did their best to hand over the game to Wales. I suppose you are correct that we should enjoy it because I gurantee you we won't see another slam in our time. Ireland just haven't the belief, even if we had beaten France, England, Wales, Scotland and we only had Italy to beat at HOME for the Slam, we would somehow fcuk it up as the Irish rugby team are somehow the mother of all fcuk ups. You won't be seeing that with England Wales and France for sure.

15 lads break their balls delivering a grand slam to this country,

Never knew they had a pair with all the Slams they left after them in the 2000's. That's a typical stuck up Irish supporter response from you. Ah yeah Ireland have been a great team, we should be proud.

rrpc

teednab-el wrote: »

Never knew they had a pair with all the Slams they left after them in the 2000's. That's a typical stuck up Irish supporter response from you. Ah yeah Ireland have been a great team, we should be proud.

And England under Woodward 'bottled' three slams in a row before eventually getting it right in 2003 only to 'bottle' it again in 2004 after winning the World Cup.

It's the nature of the tournament. Luck, the number of away games, the improving form of each nation as the tournament progresses, injuries and a plethora of other factors come together to deny you a slam. Wales are the only team that can win one this year and there's no guarantee that they will.

desertcircus

Otacon wrote: »

danthefan wrote: »

And Toner might be pushing for a start if POC loses form.

There are a few ahead of Toner IMO. Jones is next behind Kearney as a FB, also IMO.

There shouldn't really be anybody definitely ahead of Toner after POC and Ryan. I can see a case for Tuohy, Caldwell and McCarthy, but it's very much debatable.

snow mad

teednab-el wrote: »

Never knew they had a pair with all the Slams they left after them in the 2000's. That's a typical stuck up Irish supporter response from you. Ah yeah Ireland have been a great team, we should be proud.

and would you say new zealand teams over the years lack balls after all rwc's they have left behind them. some of the posts here make me sick if you dont like
irish team then dont watch them a team needs supporters not pessimists

Otacon

desertcircus wrote: »

There shouldn't really be anybody definitely ahead of Toner after POC and Ryan. I can see a case for Tuohy, Caldwell and McCarthy, but it's very much debatable.

Which is why IMO appears twice in my post. :pac:

Fishooks12

snow mad wrote: »

and would you say new zealand teams over the years lack balls after all rwc's they have left behind them. some of the posts here make me sick if you dont like
irish team then dont watch them a team needs supporters not pessimists

This guy has been posting nothing but negativity without any real fact to back up his claims for the last few weeks

He even said Sexton couldn't kick a while back :rolleyes:

Fishooks12

:cool:

teednab-el wrote: »

Never knew they had a pair with all the Slams they left after them in the 2000's. That's a typical stuck up Irish supporter response from you. Ah yeah Ireland have been a great team, we should be proud.

Yes we should be proud

Irish rugby is in fantastic health, how many times have Munster or Leinster given us fantastic days in Europe? The national team may be under-performing as a whole but they've also put in some huge performances for memorable days like beating Australia and England last year

The only one that sounds stuck up here is you

walshb

rrpc wrote: »

And England under Woodward 'bottled' three slams in a row before eventually getting it right in 2003 only to 'bottle' it again in 2004 after winning the World Cup.

It's the nature of the tournament. Luck, the number of away games, the improving form of each nation as the tournament progresses, injuries and a plethora of other factors come together to deny you a slam. Wales are the only team that can win one this year and there's no guarantee that they will.

Absolutely. I think some here think we should be just showing up and that is enough to win titles and slams. As I pointed out, the top 4 teams are all neck and neck. No easy or guaranteed wins home or away. Then when we lose a match to one of the top three the moaning and slagging starts.

walshb

teednab-el wrote: »

Never knew they had a pair with all the Slams they left after them in the 2000's. That's a typical stuck up Irish supporter response from you. Ah yeah Ireland have been a great team, we should be proud.

Nothing at all to do with being stuck up. It's called praisng and enjoying your country when they bring you a slam after 60 years' waiting. It's about not moaning and whingeing when we actually do deliver the goods, do perform and do win a title. Yet you cannot even muster up any priase or happiness even when we do win, perform and achieve. You're still looking at it from a negative point of view. Odd to say the least. Even George Hook wouldn't display that kind of bitterness and negativity after a fantastic GS in 2009.

JustinDee

teednab-el wrote: »

Never knew they had a pair with all the Slams they left after them in the 2000's

Plenty of backbone in those players. If you've ever trained with, played against or worked with them, you'd see that a lot clearer. They're great international players in the top echelon of the game.
Thats the difference between them and you.

I hate that people feel the need to insult players to critically assess them.

It renders their posts almost unreadable.

I've had a go at plenty of players, managers etc solely for the reason that in my estimation they are underperforming / not good enough / makeing too many mistakes etc.

But simply calling a team callous etc is a waste of everyone's time. If you want decent debate / discussion of things, you've got to realise that there's manners and etiquette involved.

eg
"Conor Murray is ****e" - causes the average poster to skip through, the Conor fans to take exception, and the thread to go to muck
"Conor Murray isn't the right man to play the gameplan that we've seen give us the best results in the past 3 years. We need someone snappier, and we need to realise that taking risks isn't necessarily a bad thing. Of course there will be times when they don't work out. But this low risk, no reward game that we've been trying hasn't garnered results. Murray's strengths don't lie in a quick game with few breaks in play. He's not the fastest scrum half (decision making wise) and his instincts look to be curbed by a conservative approach that has been fostered through the ages at his club. We've seen them trying to turn this around recently, and we're going to see Murray growing into a new gameplan in coming years, but at the moment, he's not the right man". - This kind of opinion can actually be discussed etc.

Fishooks12

Deleted User wrote: »

I hate that people feel the need to insult players to critically assess them.

It renders their posts almost unreadable.

I've had a go at plenty of players, managers etc solely for the reason that in my estimation they are underperforming / not good enough / makeing too many mistakes etc.

But simply calling a team callous etc is a waste of everyone's time. If you want decent debate / discussion of things, you've got to realise that there's manners and etiquette involved.

eg
"Conor Murray is ****e" - causes the average poster to skip through, the Conor fans to take exception, and the thread to go to muck
"Conor Murray isn't the right man to play the gameplan that we've seen give us the best results in the past 3 years. We need someone snappier, and we need to realise that taking risks isn't necessarily a bad thing. Of course there will be times when they don't work out. But this low risk, no reward game that we've been trying hasn't garnered results. Murray's strengths don't lie in a quick game with few breaks in play. He's not the fastest scrum half (decision making wise) and his instincts look to be curbed by a conservative approach that has been fostered through the ages at his club. We've seen them trying to turn this around recently, and we're going to see Murray growing into a new gameplan in coming years, but at the moment, he's not the right man". - This kind of opinion can actually be discussed etc.

Here here

It's all to easy to come on and say something like "one grandslam with our golden generation, bunch of bottlers is all we are, happy to be losing and supporting bottlers"

Most of these posts aren't even backed up by any analysis other than a lazy cheap shot at the players as a whole

budhabob

Deleted User wrote: »

I hate that people feel the need to insult players to critically assess them.

It renders their posts almost unreadable.

I've had a go at plenty of players, managers etc solely for the reason that in my estimation they are underperforming / not good enough / makeing too many mistakes etc.

But simply calling a team callous etc is a waste of everyone's time. If you want decent debate / discussion of things, you've got to realise that there's manners and etiquette involved.

eg
"Conor Murray is ****e" - causes the average poster to skip through, the Conor fans to take exception, and the thread to go to muck
"Conor Murray isn't the right man to play the gameplan that we've seen give us the best results in the past 3 years. We need someone snappier, and we need to realise that taking risks isn't necessarily a bad thing. Of course there will be times when they don't work out. But this low risk, no reward game that we've been trying hasn't garnered results. Murray's strengths don't lie in a quick game with few breaks in play. He's not the fastest scrum half (decision making wise) and his instincts look to be curbed by a conservative approach that has been fostered through the ages at his club. We've seen them trying to turn this around recently, and we're going to see Murray growing into a new gameplan in coming years, but at the moment, he's not the right man". - This kind of opinion can actually be discussed etc.

Well said, I'm more of a reader of the board (and really enjoy it), but this type of approach would certainly improve things massively...especially for someone like me too lazy to post