Ireland vs England, Sunday 1st March 3pm; RTE/BBC

19543261

England

Bridge93 wrote: »

Rugby in general has an issue with how it's going towards physicality over skill

This is such a load of crap, sick of hearing it now. If you even gave it a couple seconds thought you'd realize it doesn't even make sense. Why would either be exclusive? Size and strength aren't at the expense of speed/footwork or foresight/ingenuity.

Bridge93

England

19543261 wrote: »

This is such a load of crap, sick of hearing it now. If you even gave it a couple seconds thought you'd realize it doesn't even make sense. Why would either be exclusive?

Did I say either were exclusive?

19543261

England

Bridge93 wrote: »

Did I say either were exclusive?

What are you saying then?

Bridge93

England

19543261 wrote: »

What are you saying then?

I probably short handed too much but I said That rugby is moving in a direction where teams are backing size and physicality which has been to the detriment of skill and flare whatever it may be called.
I'm not saying it does not exist anymore but rather than the norm at the highest level it is increasingly becoming a treat to see. Still room for those flare players but the window is getting smaller as defences get tighter and men get bigger.
Size and power seem to be seen as the safe choice.
You're not going to tell me, players aren't larger, injuries aren't more common and that teams like the French in the 90's are still around (NZ and Oz I already touched on as the last two top teams to demonstrate it)

duckysauce

England

iroced wrote: »

Great win for Ireland. Not a bad defeat for England. It was not a great game in terms of "entertainment" but in terms of intensity, jeez what a gap with yesterday's games!!!

England actually impressed me. I mean Ireland was great as long as Sexton was on the pitch. Gave a lesson to England in the line-out, rucking and defence. Murray was great. Very quick to dictate his pace to the game and a typical scrumhalf inspiration on your try. England were constantly under pressure but they held on. In a game where they've been globally dominated, to finish just 10 pts behind (and could have been closer had they been a little more patient towards the end) is noteworthy. England finished very strong :eek:. That's maybe something Ireland have to work on. 2 games in a row where you're struggling towards the end. Could cost you in the future.

So after that game

1. I'm afraid England will give us the thrashing I was expecting in the Aviva (I actually realise now how much your bogey team we are to you because you seemed so much at ease today, if you had played the same 60 mins against us, you would have crushed us) because England is good and we are bad and we're not England bogey team at all, it's actually the opposite.
   
   
2. we have rationally no chance at the WC against you. You're several years ahead of us as a team, there's absolutely no way we can level that gap in 6 months. I'd just cite one example that stoke me about your clever playing. On Vunipola break. He had Young on his left but Tommy Bowe quickly made a brilliant defensive run (in the space between them) to avoid the pass which eventually ended in the annihilation of England's try chance. This play should be shown and taught in every single rugby school. I always liked and highly rated Bowe but this action was phenomenal. Looked like a detail. But the kind of detail that make you win a game!

England actually impressed you--- how are you saying that -- Vinny was good and Robshaw was then he said go for line instead of points -- his IQ is below the norm and he has shown this recently -- that move put us up big time -- they ****ed up thereeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee :cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:

Bridge93

England

I thought Dan Coles was pretty good for England. He was quite visible in the loose (even excluding the head clash incident.)

duckysauce

England

Bridge93 wrote: »

I thought Dan Coles was pretty good for England. He was quite visible in the loose (even excluding the head clash incident.)

see him at the end of the match -- non stop moaner :rolleyes: like the rest of the team

mg1982

Bridge93 wrote: »

I probably short handed too much but I said That rugby is moving in a direction where teams are backing size and physicality which has been to the detriment of skill and flare whatever it may be called.
I'm not saying it does not exist anymore but rather than the norm at the highest level it is increasingly becoming a treat to see. Still room for those flare players but the window is getting smaller as defences get tighter and men get bigger.
Size and power seem to be seen as the safe choice.
You're not going to tell me, players aren't larger, injuries aren't more common and that teams like the French in the 90's are still around (NZ and Oz I already touched on as the last two top teams to demonstrate it)

I would say the exception are Australia especially and New Zealand. We see the way the aussies can play in the november international against Ireland when they were 19-0 down and came back to lead 21-19 by half time. That was some of the most scintillating rugby i have seen granted they eventually lost the game. But only the Aussies and the All Blacks can play like that nowadays.

duckysauce

England

degsie wrote: »

Wonder why there were so many empty seats in the stadium.

place was full == didn't see one empty seat

where were you seating
'??

Swiwi.

iroced wrote: »

England finished very strong :eek:. That's maybe something Ireland have to work on. 2 games in a row where you're struggling towards the end. Could cost you in the future.

Ireland's gameplan (unless there is a Plan B...which there may well be...) would be in trouble if chasing a lead, especially towards the end of a game. You cannot box-kick your way to catch-up a deficit.
Had England crossed the chalk with 10 minutes left, would have been an extremely nervy end to the game.

Ireland have declared their hand very early in the season, despite knowing full-well what Ireland's tactics would be, England were quite inept early on at dealing with them. It will be interesting to see if Wales have learnt anything.

As for the Earls/Fitz vs other people debate, neither are known for their kick chase, not helped by being relatively short players. In 2011 NZ deliberately chose Kahui & Jane over Rococoko & Sivivatu because the former two players were much better aerially. Schmidt seems to have made a similar choice, and IMO Zebo has looked better than Bowe at this style of game. Zebo is not going anywhere, so people leaving him out of their RWC 23s might want to think again. Where Trimble fits into all of this will be interesting.

total former

The issue with the game plan is that it's incredibly energy-sapping and some fall off in intensity is inevitable. The kick chase towards the end of the match was definitely a bit slower and that gave England more breathing space to play rugby. It's compounded by the reluctance to make substitutions until absolutely necessary.

Tox56

total former wrote: »

The issue with the game plan is that it's incredibly energy-sapping and some fall off in intensity is inevitable. The kick chase towards the end of the match was definitely a bit slower and that gave England more breathing space to play rugby. It's compounded by the reluctance to make substitutions until absolutely necessary.

I thought the prop substitutions were timed perfectly, and Madigan was called as soon as there was any doubt about sexton. The only issue I'd have with the bench is that Henderson could have been called a bit earlier, and the fact that jones is there at all

Tox56

Swiwi. wrote: »

Ireland's gameplan (unless there is a Plan B...which there may well be...) would be in trouble if chasing a lead, especially towards the end of a game. You cannot box-kick your way to catch-up a deficit.
Had England crossed the chalk with 10 minutes left, would have been an extremely nervy end to the game.

Ireland have declared their hand very early in the season, despite knowing full-well what Ireland's tactics would be, England were quite inept early on at dealing with them. It will be interesting to see if Wales have learnt anything.

As for the Earls/Fitz vs other people debate, neither are known for their kick chase, not helped by being relatively short players. In 2011 NZ deliberately chose Kahui & Jane over Rococoko & Sivivatu because the former two players were much better aerially. Schmidt seems to have made a similar choice, and IMO Zebo has looked better than Bowe at this style of game. Zebo is not going anywhere, so people leaving him out of their RWC 23s might want to think again. Where Trimble fits into all of this will be interesting.

The thing with playing this gameplan is that any plan B we do have will in theory be more effective when we do use it because nobody will be expecting it.

Also Fitz is 6'1, so he's relatively big for a winger. Not known for his kick chase I'll grant you

SaveOurLyric

Tox56 wrote: »

The thing with playing this gameplan is that any plan B we do have will in theory be more effective when we do use it because nobody will be expecting it.

Also Fitz is 6'1, so he's relatively big for a winger. Not known for his kick chase I'll grant you

At the moment, no one has figured out how to counter our plan A. So no need for a plan B. Plan A is very effective, and they will be working at getting even brtter at it. More kicks per game will mean more time in the opposition half and so more chances to induce kickable penalties, launch recoverable contestables, and even less chance for the opposition to score.
Id say the ABs are studying us very closely at the moment.

Fitz has tge size but not the game. Although Joe im sure has him working on his fielding. His stepping and counterattacking are just not attributes of use to us anymore. Earls is even less relevant, because he is small.

Those not seeing themerit of Jones are still thinking old style wings/centres/fullbacks. The rejigging with Bowe to the centre is no disruption at all. The skill set required inthis strategy is the same from 11-15. And yes, its a skill set vry much accented towards what is traditionally a full back (a catching, chasing, tackling one, not a Blanco, Cullen, Gallagher running style one). So Jones is the man to do that job for us. Introducing Fitz or Earls anywhere in the backs in that situation would be the disruptive move.

yosser hughes

thomond2006 wrote: »

He was badly exposed for pace by Vunipola of all people at one stage.

Gits_bone

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

At the moment, no one has figured out how to counter our plan A. So no need for a plan B. Plan A is very effective, and they will be working at getting even brtter at it. More kicks per game will mean more time in the opposition half and so more chances to induce kickable penalties, launch recoverable contestables, and even less chance for the opposition to score.
Id say the ABs are studying us very closely at the moment.

Fitz has tge size but not the game. Although Joe im sure has him working on his fielding. His stepping and counterattacking are just not attributes of use to us anymore. Earls is even less relevant, because he is small.

Those not seeing themerit of Jones are still thinking old style wings/centres/fullbacks. The rejigging with Bowe to the centre is no disruption at all. The skill set required inthis strategy is the same from 11-15. And yes, its a skill set vry much accented towards what is traditionally a full back (a catching, chasing, tackling one, not a Blanco, Cullen, Gallagher running style one). So Jones is the man to do that job for us. Introducing Fitz or Earls anywhere in the backs in that situation would be the disruptive move.

World Cup is what counts and every team will be looking at us. Where was the versatility everyone spoke about pre game? Maul - kick chase. That is Ireland. Our tactics were found out at the last world cup.

And anyone talking about France as anything to shout about should really look at their record. They have only won 7 of their last 18 in the championship.

aimee1

Bridge93 wrote: »

How exactly did Jones show why he is needed? I thought today proved the complete opposite with the re-jig we had to do.

Its the one selection I find bizarre. Fitz or Earls can cover 11-15 without rearranging the backline.

aimee1

mg1982 wrote: »

I would say the exception are Australia especially and New Zealand. We see the way the aussies can play in the november international against Ireland when they were 19-0 down and came back to lead 21-19 by half time. That was some of the most scintillating rugby i have seen granted they eventually lost the game. But only the Aussies and the All Blacks can play like that nowadays.

the aussies are in a way having to play that way to compete at home for public support who are more used to less stop-start games in League and Rules, and more recently soccer.

.ak

English Lurker wrote: »

On slightly more sober reflection, I think the most impressive thing about today's Irish performance is that it was the same things as happened the game before... and before that... and the autumn... I can't think there's any coaches love more than consistency, being able to know what players will do, and Schmidt's really got that. Feel the try was a good example of that - its the sort of opportunism and quick thinking you get from Murray every match.

Bit of chat before the game about the Irish tight five being a little out of sorts, won't be before the next one. Feel Rory Best in particular deserves singling out for industry and just being bloody difficult to play again but they all did well.

Henshaw I think came of age today - not just due to the try (although everyone will say it) or the support run and toe poke that led to Alex Goode's wonder escape - but the footwork, the physicality with which he met Vunipola. I know he's been doing that stuff, he just seemed to be doing it that little bit better.

Will be interesting to see you against Wales - think your biggest enemy that day will be the pressure, for all most of this Ireland team have plenty of final experience.



I apologise for being a bore on the subject but we're not bigger than you. The Ireland team that played Italy was heavier than the England team that played Wales, albeit by 5kg. I am, alas, too lazy to work out accurate figures for today but given the largely unchanged nature of the teams I doubt they were much more than 5kg off each other either way.

Just on the weight thing.. The problem is toner and Ross skew our weight considerably. Our back row are quite small.

Heroditas

S12b wrote: »

Few Connacht fans talking on twitter, apparently Mark McHugh was the last Connacht player to score for Ireland, back in 03 against Tonga???.....just to explain why some of us might be getting a tad carried away with Robbie's performance!!

Do you mean as in scoring a try? Didn't Gavin Duffy score one after that or was he with Quins at the time?
Quite an amazing length of time though.

aimee1

Heroditas wrote: »

Do you mean as in scoring a try? Didn't Gavin Duffy score one after that or was he with Quins at the time?
Quite an amazing length of time though.

Duffy scored a try at murrayfield in about 10 years ago but he was at quins at the time

davegrohl48

We're the best side in the air and are now going with it strongly as our plan A. If we have an ambition of winning the RWC (and this team would) then it's the most effective tactics.
- we don't have outrageous speed in the backs
- we don't have too many ball carriers
That leaves us with this tactic which is very hard to counter. Bowe/Zebo/Kearney/Henshaw all very good in the air. So we're doing much better than average on restarts/box kicks/kicks to corner.
It's something that can't be developed to a Kearney/Henshaw level after your teenage years. The reading of the flight of a ball and last millisecond adjustment of hands mid air is not trainable into adult players to that level.
So it likely goes to a whole new level of execution the more competitive games we play like this.
BTW agree with poster, don't know why Kearney is not taking some of our right sided penalties to touch. Has a huge boot n could easily get 10 metres more every time than Sexton/Madigan.

Heroditas

hadoken13 wrote: »

Very true. Especially considering that most rugby clubs practice high fielding now.

To be fair, fielding was always a massive part of rugby when I took it up in the early 80s. Endless Garryowens were regularly a feature of Irish games as well with Mick Kiernan and Paul Dean putting snow on the ball for 80 minutes.
For some reason it seemed to ebb a bit later on but is most definitely a key part of the game again.

phog

yosser hughes wrote: »

He was badly exposed for pace by Vunipola of all people at one stage.

Public lashing for him in Stephen's Green today.

.ak

I thought all our players were immense. I can't say enough about henshaw. After first 20 I thought he was motm but he just kept impressing.

The only players that I thought were off the boil was Bowe and Payne. The latter for me just can't seem to offer any distribution or fix defenders, as a 13 he needs to be straightening, not running arcs into defenders.

As for all the comments about us playing negative rugby... I think you're being unfair to the English, I'm not sure why people think we can just open up teams like these at will? We ran some great moves out there, but the English defence was really good. We had a great high view of the game and every time we got smashed behind the game line we actually commented on how good the English defence was. England and France are good teams, England for me are just as good as us, I think it's ridiculous people expect us to somehow gut these teams open.

For a club game comparison I always think of the leinster v clermont semi, I said this game would play out the same - two teams capable of high tempo running rugby, but when two teams on great form meet each other it generally cancels that out. I felt even when we took the lead that England were still good enough to get back into the game. A great example was a millisecond lapse of concentration from Murray in their 22 resulted in a nearly try against us. That's the margins we're talking about. You don't cut teams like that apart with ball in hand. Having said that we certainly gave it a go.

Sexton, Murray and Henshaw were all sublime in attack. We need more from our back three though. I think we're missing Trimble the most, bowe's form has been iffy, coming in off blind and knocking on quite a few times and Zebo is having very little impact apart from his kick chase. Kearney was a monster in defence (how often do we say that?) but was a little wanting in his counters.

I know I bang this drum but someone like fitz or earls would make a massive difference with how we play off attacking ball. Both of them have made a career on that inside ball we seem to love.

wittycynic

Imperious performance by Ireland, especially in the third quarter where we were doing what they are renowned for, using the pack to blow opposition of the park.

I knew our backs would be solid and go well generally, but to do that to a fancied English group of forwards is a big scalp indeed.

Wales will find it tough to deal with us, especially as we are a major bogey team for them in Cardiff.

thomond2006

England

phog wrote: »

Public lashing for him in Stephen's Green today.

Vunipola made a meal of it by kicking the ball away. His support had a run-in on the wing.

Buer

As good as Henshaw was, I'd have undoubtedly given MOTM to Best. He has taken some flak (and deservedly) after the last game but he was superb yesterday. After 70 minutes there were 4 forwards for us who had played the entire game. POM and Murphy were gassed and their legs were gone. POC and Best though showed true class and phenomenal fitness. Best edges it for me for his breakdown work where he was flinging himself into the rucks for his full showing and also had a fine day in the set piece.

spiralism

Swiwi. wrote: »

Ireland's gameplan (unless there is a Plan B...which there may well be...) would be in trouble if chasing a lead, especially towards the end of a game. You cannot box-kick your way to catch-up a deficit.
Had England crossed the chalk with 10 minutes left, would have been an extremely nervy end to the game.

Ireland have declared their hand very early in the season, despite knowing full-well what Ireland's tactics would be, England were quite inept early on at dealing with them. It will be interesting to see if Wales have learnt anything.

As for the Earls/Fitz vs other people debate, neither are known for their kick chase, not helped by being relatively short players. In 2011 NZ deliberately chose Kahui & Jane over Rococoko & Sivivatu because the former two players were much better aerially. Schmidt seems to have made a similar choice, and IMO Zebo has looked better than Bowe at this style of game. Zebo is not going anywhere, so people leaving him out of their RWC 23s might want to think again. Where Trimble fits into all of this will be interesting.

Wales will play as they always play, we're gonna see classic Warrenball, same as ever. Given that Schmidt tends to alter his game plan depending on the opposition, i think (and certainly hope) that we won't kick the ball anywhere near as much against the Welsh. Kicking down the throat of Halfpenny and North is suicide.

vienne86

England

degsie wrote: »

Wonder why there were so many empty seats in the stadium.

I had a long hard look during just after the anthems - could not see one single solitary empty seat. Where did you see them?

But back to the match. God I slept well last night! It was fab. However, I am still puzzled by Jones' inclusion on the bench instead of Earls/Fitz. It took some re-jigging of the back line when he had to come on.