Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread III

Options
19899101103104335

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,116 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    It would be funny if Munster won the HC the same year as an Ireland team dominated by Leinster won the 6N, with Leinster having won the same year Ireland won the GS with a heap of Munster guys.

    Funny and possibly telling. A championship would surely demand a lot of energy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,822 ✭✭✭Morf


    Swiwi. wrote: »
    Just in time for the final, so :pac:

    Has Beaver cleared his schedule yet?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭Swiwi.


    Morf wrote: »
    Has Beaver cleared his schedule yet?

    Lightning doesn't strike twice...there is no way NZ would win another RWC with Sir Stephen at the helm. It would be nice for DC to go through a tournament uninjured, but not holding my breath. Still hoping it's France and not Ireland that NZ meet in Cardiff. Assuming the ABs don't lose to Argentina in pool play :eek:


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,975 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    Morf wrote: »
    Has Beaver cleared his schedule yet?

    It will be Colin Slade's turn to step up and be the hero next year after so many injuries and false dawns.
    I believe he will get the call while on a spear-fishing trip in the north Atlantic the week of the final. They will send a chopper for him and the 10 tuna and 12 marlins that he has caught. These will be used to feed the ABs that week to prevent any repeats of the food poisoning that constantly plagues them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭Swiwi.


    Yeah_Right wrote: »
    It will be Colin Slade's turn to step up and be the hero next year after so many injuries and false dawns.
    I believe he will get the call while on a spear-fishing trip in the north Atlantic the week of the final. They will send a chopper for him and the 10 tuna and 12 marlins that he has caught. These will be used to feed the ABs that week to prevent any repeats of the food poisoning that constantly plagues them.

    Assuming we make the final :o


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,806 ✭✭✭b.gud


    Some interesting facts in the statistical analysis of the 6 nations.

    http://www.irishrugby.ie/news/31466.php


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,931 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Wait how did we score tries every 7 minutes? We scored 16 tries over 5 games so that should be 1 every 25 minutes? The same weird calculation seems to be used for how often we conceded tries.


  • Registered Users Posts: 29 drohanzy


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Wait how did we score tries every 7 minutes? We scored 16 tries over 5 games so that should be 1 every 25 minutes? The same weird calculation seems to be used for how often we conceded tries.

    Could be every 7 mins we had possession of the ball maybe


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭ScissorPaperRock


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Wait how did we score tries every 7 minutes? We scored 16 tries over 5 games so that should be 1 every 25 minutes? The same weird calculation seems to be used for how often we conceded tries.
    drohanzy wrote: »
    Could be every 7 mins we had possession of the ball maybe

    Or maybe the time for which the ball is in play?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭Oregano_State


    Or maybe the time for which the ball is in play?

    Nope. I tried that, it comes out at just over 11.5mins per try.

    I reckon it's based on the amount of time we had possession, like drohanzy said. Seems a pretty arbitrary way of working it out though.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,131 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    I reckon it's based on the amount of time we had possession, like drohanzy said. Seems a pretty arbitrary way of working it out though.

    Not really. It took us 6 minutes of possession to score. It took the opposition 20 minutes of possession to score against us. There are certainly other ways of looking at it but I guess it helps to show how effective you were with the ball.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭ScissorPaperRock


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    Not really. It took us 6 minutes of possession to score. It took the opposition 20 minutes of possession to score against us. There are certainly other ways of looking at it but I guess it helps to show how effective you were with the ball.

    I think it's a qualification that should be made clear though. It's misleading otherwise.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭former legend


    I think it's a qualification that should be made clear though. It's misleading otherwise.

    In fairness, it's clear in the IRB document but the IRFU webpage messes it up a bit.


  • Registered Users Posts: 910 ✭✭✭Ciaran-Irl


    <Pedant alert>

    If you're going to write a paper like that, you really should figure out the difference between least and fewest.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,997 ✭✭✭Grimebox


    Ciaran-Irl wrote: »
    <Pedant alert>

    If you're going to write a paper like that, you really should figure out the difference between least and fewest.

    That's one of those things I really don't care about. The meaning is exactly the same.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭prospect


    b.gud wrote: »
    Some interesting facts in the statistical analysis of the 6 nations.

    http://www.irishrugby.ie/news/31466.php

    Interestingly, Ireland Facts:
    - Their back three were least likely to kick possession.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,806 ✭✭✭b.gud


    prospect wrote: »
    Interestingly, Ireland Facts:
    - Their back three were least likely to kick possession.

    Ya that one stood out to me too


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,926 ✭✭✭jacothelad


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Wait how did we score tries every 7 minutes? We scored 16 tries over 5 games so that should be 1 every 25 minutes? The same weird calculation seems to be used for how often we conceded tries.

    Maybe they mean one try every 7 minutes that the game was actually in play. There are huge sections of the game when you neither team can possibly score by any means so it makes sense.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,926 ✭✭✭jacothelad


    Grimebox wrote: »
    That's one of those things I really don't care about. The meaning is exactly the same.

    It isn't the same.
    Less means - smaller in amount not in number, not so much of something or even of poorer quality or even = minus.
    e.g. An amorphous serving of custard in a bowl could have less than you might like. You would never think "Hey, I've got fewer custard in my bowl than i want." If on the other hand, you were given 6 bowls of custard and I got 9 bowls you could say I got fewer bowls than Jaco.

    Fewer means not as many. You could say "I got less beer in my glass than I should have." You would never say " I got fewer beer in my glass than I should have" unless of course you were wrong and had too much beer in which case - happy days. :D Ulster for example had fewer players on the pitch than Saracens. They certainly didn't have less players unless you weighed them or were describing the quality of their ability - and you would also be wrong.:D


  • Administrators Posts: 53,652 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    jacothelad wrote: »
    It isn't the same.
    Less means - smaller in amount not in number, not so much of something or even of poorer quality or even = minus.
    e.g. An amorphous serving of custard in a bowl could have less than you might like. You would never think "Hey, I've got fewer custard in my bowl than i want." If on the other hand, you were given 6 bowls of custard and I got 9 bowls you could say I got fewer bowls than Jaco.

    Fewer means not as many. You could say "I got less beer in my glass than I should have." You would never say " I got fewer beer in my glass than I should have" unless of course you were wrong and had too much beer in which case - happy days. :D Ulster for example had fewer players on the pitch than Saracens. They certainly didn't have less players unless you weighed them or were describing the quality of their ability - and you would also be wrong.:D
    What does amorphous mean then?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,997 ✭✭✭Grimebox


    jacothelad wrote: »
    It isn't the same.
    Less means - smaller in amount not in number, not so much of something or even of poorer quality or even = minus.
    e.g. An amorphous serving of custard in a bowl could have less than you might like. You would never think "Hey, I've got fewer custard in my bowl than i want." If on the other hand, you were given 6 bowls of custard and I got 9 bowls you could say I got fewer bowls than Jaco.

    Fewer means not as many. You could say "I got less beer in my glass than I should have." You would never say " I got fewer beer in my glass than I should have" unless of course you were wrong and had too much beer in which case - happy days. :D Ulster for example had fewer players on the pitch than Saracens. They certainly didn't have less players unless you weighed them or were describing the quality of their ability - and you would also be wrong.:D

    I understand that the difference is countable vs uncountable quantities. You are correct. I should have said previously that you understand what the person is trying to say regardless of which is used. I'm rather pedantic against people who are pedantic with grammar. Anyway this is wildly off topic


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,253 ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    I couldn't care fewer about all this!


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭Oregano_State


    awec wrote: »
    What does amorphous mean then?

    Basically non-structured or non-crystalline.


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,308 Mod ✭✭✭✭.ak


    Eoin wrote: »
    I couldn't care fewer about all this!

    Indeed. The less we talk about this the fewer it makes sense to the topic at hand. Me good at English.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭ScissorPaperRock


    ^^^ I think .ak is broken


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,131 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    I can't notice any difference from his usual posts...


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,887 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    ^^^ I think .ak is broken

    He needs LESS trouble to deal with and FEWER troublesome posters


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,926 ✭✭✭jacothelad


    Riskymove wrote: »
    He needs LESS trouble to deal with and FEWER troublesome posters
    Bazinga. party.gif


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭prospect


    Eh, so...

    How about them Rugby stats?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    b.gud wrote: »
    Ya that one stood out to me too

    What's really interesting is the pre-feed collapses. It seems Wales were an utter disaster here this year. If you include them then 43% of scrums collapsed before the feed. Exclude them and this drops to 29%. They accounted for 28 of 49 pre-feed collapses. That 57%! :eek:

    Also the use of the TMO has shot up, from 7 try referrals in 2013 to 17 in 2014 - an increase of 242%.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement