England v Ireland St Patricks Day 2012

Podge_irl

Deleted User wrote: »

bar the warm ups, I doubt there's been an unforced change since he's been our head coach

Except at bloody 10.

Leslie91 wrote: »

DK's selection strategy i.e. keep picking the same lads no matter what is reaching Eddie O'Sullivan proportions.

DK's selection strategy reached EOS proportions years ago.

JustinDee

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Who do you think Tony McGahan and co will pick at 4 and 5 for theirs?

In a discussion about d'Arcy and the centres, posters are saying that he isn't good enough and that the Irish selectors should drop him for a player who doesn't displace him in his provincial team.

Tox56

JustinDee wrote: »

In a discussion about d'Arcy and the centres, posters are saying that he isn't good enough yet is good enough and that the Irish selectors should drop him for a player who doesn't displace him in his provincial team.

D'Arcy wouldn't be playing his 4th international match in as many weeks by the time the HEC Quarters come around.

People sometimes downplay the effect this has, but his schedule means a 32 year old will not be anywhere near as effective as he could be, and probably will be by the time of the HEC.

A fresh, rested McFadden is (in my opinion) a superior player to an exhausted D'Arcy.

JustinDee

Tox56 wrote: »

D'Arcy wouldn't be playing his 4th international match in as many weeks by the time the HEC Quarters come around.

People sometimes downplay the effect this has, but his schedule means a 32 year old will not be anywhere near as effective as he could be, and probably will be by the time of the HEC.

A fresh, rested McFadden is (in my opinion) a superior player to an exhausted D'Arcy.

If he was exhausted, unfit to play and therefore a liability to the backline, he wouldn't be picked in the first place.

irishbucsfan

JustinDee wrote: »

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Who do you think Tony McGahan and co will pick at 4 and 5 for theirs?

In a discussion about d'Arcy and the centres, posters are saying that he isn't good enough and that the Irish selectors should drop him for a player who doesn't displace him in his provincial team.

That's not logical though when DOC doesn't have to be first choice to start for Ireland directly ahead of the guy who is. Your argument is flawed.

totallegend

JustinDee wrote: »

In a discussion about d'Arcy and the centres, posters are saying that he isn't good enough and that the Irish selectors should drop him for a player who doesn't displace him in his provincial team.

No. You are deliberately misrepresenting my post in order to defend Kidney's selection.

I did not say that D'Arcy is not good enough; I said that his form for Ireland is not good enough and is not to the same standard of his form for Leinster. Therefore, he should not be picked for Ireland.

JustinDee wrote: »

In a discussion about d'Arcy and the centres, posters are saying that he isn't good enough and that the Irish selectors should drop him for a player who doesn't displace him in his provincial team.

So by your logic, DK was wrong to pick DOC ahead of Ryan for the first few games? Glad we have that cleared up.

Tox56

JustinDee wrote: »

If he was exhausted, unfit to play and therefore a liability to the backline, he wouldn't be picked in the first place.

He clearly isn't dead on his feet, but at his age he won't be as explosive or dynamic as he could be.

Otacon

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Who do you think Tony McGahan and co will pick at 4 and 5 for theirs?

DOC and DR?

BoardsMember

totallegend wrote: »

Yeah, exactly my point; his form for Leinster is fine but is not being replicated in a green jersey, for whatever reason.

Yeah, I know why people say this, but I think his form slump in a green jersey has been largely overstated. He's made some high profile and very disappointing errors for sure, but I think his game has overall been pretty stronf & reliable. I certainly dont think there is another fit 12 playing at 12 that should get in in front of him for the England game, whatever about taking over from him over the course of the summer tour and beyond.

JustinDee

totallegend wrote: »

No. You are deliberately misrepresenting my post in order to defend Kidney's selection.

I did not say that D'Arcy is not good enough; I said that his form for Ireland is not good enough and is not to the same standard of his form for Leinster. Therefore, he should not be picked for Ireland.

So by your logic, DK was wrong to pick DOC ahead of Ryan for the first few games? Glad we have that cleared up.

None of what I posted was misrepresentation. d'Arcy being good enough to be selected if fit, is the point I was making. Thats why Leinster obviously think along the same way as the Irish selectors with regards inside centre.

CiaranMT

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Who do you think Tony McGahan and co will pick at 4 and 5 for theirs?

POC *should* be back so I'd go with him and Dryan.

smurphy29

There's a lot riding on this game. While it looks harsh and almost fantical to say 'lose this game and it's a bad season', that's the situation we find ourselves, because of the defeat to Wales.

If we win, we finish second in the log and can reflect on a decent campaign, and can probably harbour a few regrets that we didn't go and win the thing.

Lose and it's a mid-table finish and our worst serise since... you know the one, when Eddie got fired afterwards. Two wins against the weakest opponents in the competition coupled with an absolute minimum of squad development would be a poor campaign.

Anyone saying 'we rarely beat France' is just making excuses. This has been a thoroughly abject, unfit and badly picked French team, and they were there for the taking in Paris.

molloyjh

JustinDee wrote: »

There is no difference.
The game vs England is NOT a development or trial game. Ditto for the Leinster game v Cardiff. It is in fact, as has been pointed out many times, hugely important. Paraphrasing yourself, a "precious" game taking place in a year where seedings are decided for the next RWC.

Losing to England at the weekend would have very little impact on our seeding. Of course that assumes that by introducing new talent or whatever we would lose. Losing to NZ in the summer will have an equally negligible impact on our seeding. The Scotland game was the important one in that respect, and possibly one or two of the AIs.

That said I really am getting annoyed at this excuse as well. I don't want us struggling at the back end of the second tier. I want us going out there and beating England with a positive game plan proving that we can get ourselves back into the first tier, regardless of how little that will matter if we do that this time next year.

walshb wrote: »

Are you saying that the only reason we were in with a chance of beating France was because they were woeful?

I think the point was that because the French were/are so poor we should have won. That doesn't mean that's the only way we could have done it, just that given the opposition a win should be expected.

BoardsMember wrote: »

Yeah, I know why people say this, but I think his form slump in a green jersey has been largely overstated. He's made some high profile and very disappointing errors for sure, but I think his game has overall been pretty stronf & reliable. I certainly dont think there is another fit 12 playing at 12 that should get in in front of him for the England game, whatever about taking over from him over the course of the summer tour and beyond.

I wouldn't agree with dropping Darce either. But if we're going to replace him at 60 mins doing so with McFadden probably makes more sense than moving Sexton in there.

JustinDee wrote: »

None of what I posted was misrepresentation. d'Arcy being good enough to be selected if fit, is the point I was making. Thats why Leinster obviously think along the same way as the Irish selectors with regards inside centre.

But you're entire point about Darcy could (and arguably should) be made about Ryan.

JustinDee

molloyjh wrote: »

But you're entire point about Darcy could (and arguably should) be made about Ryan.

Not when I see why either do get selected.
I'm not saying O'Callaghan should step aside as he has shown he is more than capable of doing the job. Others are saying d'Arcy is finished and should step aside for McFadden for the reason of just giving him gametime. I'm not. I'm saying he is still able to excel, if fit.

molloyjh

JustinDee wrote: »

Not when I see why either do get selected.
I'm not saying O'Callaghan should step aside as he has shown he is more than capable of doing the job. Others are saying d'Arcy is finished and should step aside for McFadden for the reason of just giving him gametime. I'm not. I'm saying he is still able to excel, if fit.

Fair enough, but your initial post on the topic simply asked who the provincial coach would select. Given that Darcy and Ryan would be selected by theirs you can see where the confusion is coming from...you could have just said this originally?

walshb

molloyjh wrote: »

I think the point was that because the French were/are so poor we should have won. That doesn't mean that's the only way we could have done it, just that given the opposition a win should be expected.

.

Eh, the opposition were the French. Not Romania or Canada. Even a below par French team are a handful. Maybe not a handful to NZ, but will be to Ireland.

How were, or are, they so poor? How did they ever get to the WC final? Poor my arse. We could have won, I agree, but far from a certainty. There was only 2 scores in it at half time. Yes, we stood back and didn't seem to really go for it, but the French played very well in the second 40 mins. They deserved the win I thought.

So, because we were ahead and looking good at half time it is being said that this was more to do with France being woeful than us being good. This view always seems to do the rounds when Ireland somehow do well in rugby. Not saying we played brilliant, and not scoring a single point in the second half was poor, but we didn't get a draw because France were so poor. We got a draw because we freaking earned it.

molloyjh

walshb wrote: »

Eh, the opposition were the French. Not Romania or Canada. Even a below par French team are a handful. Maybe not a handful to NZ, but will be to Ireland.

How were, or are, they so poor? How did they ever get to the WC final? Poor my arse. We could have won, I agree, but far from a certainty. There was only 2 scores in it at half time. Yes, we stood back and didn't seem to really go for it, but the French played very well in the second 40 mins. They deserved the win I thought.

So, because we were ahead and looking good at half time it is being said that this was more to do with France being woeful than us being good. This view always seems to do the rounds when Ireland somehow do well in rugby.

I was just clarifying someone elses point...

walshb

molloyjh wrote: »

I was just clarifying someone elses point...

I know, I know. Didn't intend the post to come across as aggressive towards you. Just stressing my views on the issue. I just get a bee in my bonnet whenever I hear excuses being made when those lads, who give their all to the country, win a match.

bm1993

Jesus, some awful sh1te being talked here. The fact that England invented rugby and have a bigger population is completely irrelevant, by that logic they would beat NZ out the gate :rolleyes:.

At the end of the day, we hammered them last year, a beating I think reflected the gulf in class between the teams. So if they were to beat us this year it would show that either they have improved significantly, we have regressed significantly or a mixture of the two. IMHO it's a mixture of the two, while they have improved they are still a fairly ordinary outfit and I will be very disappointed if we don't win.

The_Kew_Tour

walshb wrote: »

I know, I know. Didn't intend the post to come across as aggressive towards you. Just stressing my views on the issue. I just get a bee in my bonnet whenever I hear excuses being made when those lads, who give their all to the country, win a match.

Well all sports in this country professional wise would give it there all.

It's one of the most overused, and boring phrases I hear from Rugby fans in this country.

11 points lead and not being able to defeat the French when they had them on ropes happens all too often for this country and listening to people actually happy on RTE panel and from fans you have to wonder are people happy with second best. You would not see the Welsh being happy with that, hence why they have won so much more then Ireland.

The days of moral victories should be well gone, but not it seems by some way.

JRant

If we lose this one, which could happen, will the IRFU start looking at the management set-up?
Hard to see how not considering it would be yet another set back in terms of overall results.

Fishooks12

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Well all sports in this country professional wise would give it there all.

It's one of the most overused, and boring phrases I hear from Rugby fans in this country.

11 points lead and not being able to defeat the French when they had them on ropes happens all too often for this country and listening to people actually happy on RTE panel and from fans you have to wonder are people happy with second best. You would not see the Welsh being happy with that, hence why they have won so much more then Ireland.

The days of moral victories should be well gone, but not it seems by some way.

Actually it's happened only once

Before two weeks ago we had never even lead at half time in Paris during the six nations

But don't let facts get in the way of a rant

danthefan

While we beat England last season, they won the 6N, they got to the same stage of the RWC as us and they are having a better 6N than us this season. Not sure I'm especially confident.

walshb

bm1993 wrote: »

Jesus, some awful sh1te being talked here. The fact that England invented rugby and have a bigger population is completely irrelevant, by that logic they would beat NZ out the gate :rolleyes:.
.

It has a lot of relevance, and the fact that we, a nation of 5-6 million, can beat and be competitive with a nation like England and France, who have far more going for them in terms of pool depth, money and devotion to the game, says a lot about our talent as a small country. Rugby is a massively influential and important game to England.

It's not near as important here. So, I think it's ****e not to acknowledge this fact. Some folks here seem to think we should be entitled to beat these bigger countries. And, when we don't, we get slated. It's ludicrous.

BTW, rugby in NZ is every bit as sacred and revered as GAA is here. Same for Wales and Rugby.

Wake up, and be grateful that this country can beat and can perform ever so well against the likes of England. Face it, we are not the best, and shouldn't really be either. And, it has nothing to do with settling for second best. We simply aren't the best rugby team in the world, but we sure can hold our own and we always put up a great fight.

Last year we did beat them well, when many said they would beat us. But, they too have hammered us many times, so why is it that we should feel down and annoyed and despondent should we fail to beat them at twickenham on Saturday?

If countries like England and NZ took up GAA as a secondary or third sport, and were competitive with us, then maybe I'd get worried a bit. But, we as a rugby nation are not near as devoted as NZ or England are to the game.

teednab-el

danthefan wrote: »

While we beat England last season, they won the 6N, they got to the same stage of the RWC as us and they are having a better 6N than us this season. Not sure I'm especially confident.

I still think the white jersey will bring the best out of the Irish. Still if Ireland win it won't mean sweet fcuk all to us. We are not going to win the 6nations so might be best for us to get a bit of a hiding to get rid of current management.

Fishooks12

teednab-el wrote: »

I still think the white jersey will bring the best out of the Irish. Still if Ireland win it won't mean sweet fcuk all to us. We are not going to win the 6nations so might be best for us to get a bit of a hiding to get rid of current management.

If I hear this once more I think I'll stop posting here

walshb

walshb wrote: »

It has a lot of relevance, and the fact that we, a nation of 5-6 million, can beat and be competitive with a nation like England and France, who have far more going for them in terms of pool depth, money and devotion to the game, says a lot about our talent as a small country. Rugby is a massively influential and important game to England.

It's not near as important here. So, I think it's ****e not to acknowledge this fact. Some folks here seem to think we should be entitled to beat these bigger countries. And, when we don't, we get slated. It's ludicrous.

BTW, rugby in NZ is every bit as sacred and revered as GAA is here. Same for Wales and Rugby.

Wake up, and be grateful that this country can beat and can perform ever so well against the likes of England. Face it, we are not the best, and shouldn't really be either. And, it has nothing to do with settling for second best. We simply aren't the best rugby team in the world, but we sure can hold our own and we always put up a great fight.

Last year we did beat them well, when many said they would beat us. But, they too have hammered us many times, so why is it that we should feel down and annoyed and despondent should we fail to beat them at twickenham on Saturday?

Inferiority complex much?

walshb

Deleted User wrote: »

Inferiority complex much?

No, common sense. We don't win as many sprint titles in the Olympics as the U.S. Is that also an inferiority complex. We don't win as many boxing medals as Cuba. Is this an inferiority complex?

Tox56

walshb wrote: »

It has a lot of relevance, and the fact that we, a nation of 5-6 million, can beat and be competitive with a nation like England and France, who have far more going for them in terms of pool depth, money and devotion to the game, says a lot about our talent as a small country. Rugby is a massively influential and important game to England.

It's not near as important here. So, I think it's ****e not to acknowledge this fact. Some folks here seem to think we should be entitled to beat these bigger countries. And, when we don't, we get slated. It's ludicrous.

BTW, rugby in NZ is every bit as sacred and revered as GAA is here. Same for Wales and Rugby.

Wake up, and be grateful that this country can beat and can perform ever so well against the likes of England. Face it, we are not the best, and shouldn't really be either. And, it has nothing to do with settling for second best. We simply aren't the best rugby team in the world, but we sure can hold our own and we always put up a great fight.

Last year we did beat them well, when many said they would beat us. But, they too have hammered us many times, so why is it that we should feel down and annoyed and despondent should we fail to beat them at twickenham on Saturday?

If countries like England and NZ took up GAA as a secondary or third sport, and were competitive with us, then maybe I'd get worried a bit. But, we as a rugby nation are not near as devoted as NZ or England are to the game.

Anyway, maybe you should look at the team we have at our disposal, and then say how many members of our 15 you would swap for their English alternative.

Fishooks12

walshb wrote: »

No, common sense. We don't win as many sprint titles in the Olympics as the U.S. Is that also an inferiority complex. We don't win as many boxing medals as Cuba. Is this an inferiority complex?

No but we win many more medals than countries with much bigger populations than us in boxing. And boxing is not exactly a hugely popular sport here

Kind of puts a hole in your theory