Match Thread: Scotland v Ireland, Murrayfield, Sat 2.30pm **See Mod Warning Post #1**

Pudsy33

Yeah the no showing up argument is completely ****e. France were shambolic and if England had defended semi-competently they would be champions.

Big Nelly

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Yeah the no showing up argument is completely ****e. France were shambolic and if England had defended semi-competently they would be champions.

100% agree, just a touch of sore losers off them.....

I did say to one of the guys that after 4 years of nearly men it is about time to start looking at themselves and not anyone else

Touched a bit of a raw nerve there

I also reminded one of the guys last year he said that France had not shown up for the Ireland match.....:P

BoardsMember

Ireland, England and Wales just playing each other still has Ireland winning. All won one, lost one. Ireland have a points diff of +3, Wales of +2 and England of -5.

.ak

BoardsMember wrote: »

Ireland, England and Wales just playing each other still has Ireland winning. All won one, lost one. Ireland have a points diff of +3, Wales of +2 and England of -5.

Interesting, that's close enough to the actual figures! Separating them on point differences no matter which way you spin it.

molloyjh

England lost the 6 Nations against Scotland. Scotland were there for the taking in Twickenham and England had 5 or 6 try scoring opportunities where they came away with nothing. The Scots were just as bad against us, we were just more clinical on the day than England had been. Had England run up the score they should have they would have been all but out of sight on the last day.

Of course that they conceded so much against France was a huge issue as well, but they were fighting a real uphill battle at that stage.

BoardsMember

.ak wrote: »

Interesting, that's close enough to the actual figures! Separating them on point differences no matter which way you spin it.

QED

.ak

molloyjh wrote: »

England lost the 6 Nations against Scotland. Scotland were there for the taking in Twickenham and England had 5 or 6 try scoring opportunities where they came away with nothing. The Scots were just as bad against us, we were just more clinical on the day than England had been. Had England run up the score they should have they would have been all but out of sight on the last day.

Of course that they conceded so much against France was a huge issue as well, but they were fighting a real uphill battle at that stage.

Well the head to head is interesting for me - the advantages of being at home to Scotland and Italy can't be overlooked.

I don't really subscribe to the idea that England 'lost' the championship, but rather Ireland won it - by doing what they needed to do, scoring a load of points and defending whilst doing it, even when losing against Wales.

molloyjh

.ak wrote: »

Well the head to head is interesting for me - the advantages of being at home to Scotland and Italy can't be overlooked.

I don't really subscribe to the idea that England 'lost' the championship, but rather Ireland won it - by doing what they needed to do, scoring a load of points and defending whilst doing it, even when losing against Wales.

Yeah but had England put another 15-20 on Scotland (which they could and possibly should have done) we would have gone into the last weekend needing to make up 20-25 points just to nudge ourselves in front. And that would have ignored whatever margin England managed on France after that.

We won it in Round 5, but England lost it in Round 4. Had they done what they should have done then we'd have been fighting a massively uphill battle and they'd have had a far greater advantage playing last than they really did.

.ak

molloyjh wrote: »

Yeah but had England put another 15-20 on Scotland (which they could and possibly should have done) we would have gone into the last weekend needing to make up 20-25 points just to nudge ourselves in front. And that would have ignored whatever margin England managed on France after that.

We won it in Round 5, but England lost it in Round 4. Had they done what they should have done then we'd have been fighting a massively uphill battle and they'd have had a far greater advantage playing last than they really did.

I still don't look it at like that if I'm being honest. It wasn't like the English were just tripping over their shoelaces, a lot of those tries were stopped because of very good Scottish scramble defence.

stephen_n

.ak wrote: »

I still don't look it at like that if I'm being honest. It wasn't like the English were just tripping over their shoelaces, a lot of those tries were stopped because of very good Scottish scramble defence.

With the acception of the first one Burrell butchered, that had nothing to do with good defense

SaveOurLyric

.ak wrote: »

And indeed Payne could play the rest of his games at 15, and Henshaw at 13.

Kinda funny that. But just goes to show it makes no difference and Joe will play them where he sees them being the biggest strength to our team.

Shows that our traditional thinking of the required attributes for the various back 5 positions is kinda obsolete in the modern and/or Joe Schmidt rugby.
6'1" and 15st, good and brave in the air, good tackling technique and defensive discipline, hard worker, and implement the team plan to the letter, are the requisits for this team. Speed, swerve, handling, guile, invention, are fine, but incidental and dont make up for any lack in the core requirements above.

Where you put these players in the back 5 is almost by the way. The roles demanded of each of the back 5 are not that different from each other. Hence the irrelevance to Joe of where they play for their clubs. The speed merchant wing, the solid defensive full back, the crash ball off loading 12, the line breaking in yer face 2nd 5/8th type 12, the deft handling or outside breaking 13, are old tropes in Joes game. Those looking for such players (of whatever combination of preference you want, but somthing along the lines of a Murray-Sexton-Bowe-Madigan-Earls-Fitzgerald-Kearney backline), are diagreeing with Schmidt's coaching rather than his selection. The selection, for how he wants to coach them, is correct.

Hence, whatever Ulster people might feel, the likes of Gilroy are simply not in the frame anymore, and someone like Jones is. Similarly, Earls. Borderline option at centre. And behind Bowe, Fitzie, Trimble, Zebo, for a wing spot. Quite possible behind Dave K as well.

SaveOurLyric

molloyjh wrote: »

England lost the 6 Nations against Scotland. Scotland were there for the taking in Twickenham and England had 5 or 6 try scoring opportunities where they came away with nothing.

They should of course have racked up points there.
But I still feel it was fully in their hands on Saturday and they blew it. For me, they lost it there.

And Lancaster, who I have great regard for, was the big loser and got it wrong. Joe would have coached England to the championship on Sat.
They did not approach the game correctly. They set out from the kickoff as if they were already in the last 15 minutes of the game and needed 3 tries. They did not pay enough attention to defence first, and let the score come gradually and automatically by doing the right thing consistently. They played into French hands.
'System' could still have seen them take it in the last 20 mins, even with this bad gameplan. But they didnt have one of sufficient resilience or that the players trusted. In the real last 15 minutes they increasingly played like headless chickens rather than controlling the game and getting the not out of reach target against an already beaten team.

sydthebeat

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Speed, swerve, handling, guile, invention, are fine, but incidental and dont make up for any lack in the core requirements above.

Yeah, those were never attributes we would attest to a back line of sexton, darcy, bod, Fitzgerald, Horgan, nacewa, and Kearney

SaveOurLyric

sydthebeat wrote: »

Yeah, those were never attributes we would attest to a back line of sexton, darcy, bod, Fitzgerald, Horgan, nacewa, and Kearney

Sexton, Fitz, and Kearney are still in his picks.

For the others, he had to play with what he had. For Ireland he has a wider choice of top level players.
And Earls is no one-off like BOD.
Horgan is perfect Joe material and would be in the present team if he were in his prime.
We must see him develop, but I suspect, that with both in their primes, Joe would go for Henshaw over Darcy, though of course we will never know. He certainly isnt stretching himself to prolong Darcy's international career the way he did BOD.

stephen_n

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Sexton, Fitz, and Kearney are still in his picks.

For the others, he had to play with what he had. For Ireland he has a wider choice of top level players.
And Earls is no one-off like BOD.
Horgan is perfect Joe material and would be in the present team if he were in his prime.
We must see him develop, but I suspect, that with both in their primes, Joe would go for Henshaw over Darcy, though of course we will never know. He certainly isnt stretching himself to prolong Darcy's international career the way he did BOD.

The fact D'Arcy's form dipped considerably may be a factor in that, just a thought.

SaveOurLyric

stephen_n wrote: »

The fact D'Arcy's form dipped considerably may be a factor in that, just a thought.

I had not thought of that. Maybe its a factor yeh.

bilston

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Hence, whatever Ulster people might feel, the likes of Gilroy are simply not in the frame anymore, and someone like Jones is. Similarly, Earls. Borderline option at centre. And behind Bowe, Fitzie, Trimble, Zebo, for a wing spot. Quite possible behind Dave K as well.

I think it is fairly obvious at this stage that Schmidt doesn't seem to fancy Gilroy...at least for now...which is a shame as he is in brillant form but doesn't quite conform to the Schmidt way, hopefully he works on his game and no doubt Joe will have given him plenty of feedback. Working with Les Kiss full time next season will be a help to him.

Maybe after the WC as Bowe and Trimble start to get a bit older he will come more to the fore. Gilroy isn't small by the way, he is the same height as Trimble but a few kilos lighter.

CatFromHue

I don't think it's right to say Gilroy isn't fancied more that, even though his current form is good, he's not at the level of the other wing players.

.ak

Gilroy also had a pretty big dip in form. He seems to be getting back to his best, and looks to be adding a few kgs so you never know.