Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] 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 [email protected]

New Zealand vs Ireland RWC Quarter Final,19th October 2019 match thread.

1686970717274»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,204 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    aloooof wrote: »

    That doesn't automatically make it meaningless to NZ tho, which you seem to be suggesting.


    As I said above, of course NZ took something from the game.

    Let's put it this way, would a victory have mattered more to Ireland or NZ?

    Naturally NZ want to win every game and did not set out to lose and no doubt were very disappointed. But if they had won I sincerely doubt the NZ public would have had a collective orgasm- it would have been regarded as proper order.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 9,920 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    As I said above, of course NZ took something from the game.

    Let's put it this way, would a victory have mattered more to Ireland or NZ?

    Naturally NZ want to win every game and did not set out to lose and no doubt were very disappointed. But if they had won I sincerely doubt the NZ public would have had a collective orgasm- it would have been regarded as proper order.

    Of course it would have. That's generally what happens when a favourite beats an underdog. That's exactly the point.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,875 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    I don't know why I'm torturing myself, but there's an article showing some of our ****-ups on the42.ie. For that Sexton/Kearney mess, what in the name of god was Kearney doing? Did he get lost? There was a massive gap for him to go through if he'd stayed 3m wider.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    If NZ had beaten Ireland I don't think they would have changed anything....everyone in NZ agrees that after the Ireland match they went back and review the whole plan and swapped it.....Barrett to 15 etc.....then used the next season to test it before the WC......

    No, the opposite of what you are saying happened. NZ had decided on the dual playmaker role with Barrett at 10 and McKenzie at 15. McKenzie got a serious injury, and they doubled-down on that plan, by bringing in Mo'unga to 10 and moving Barrett to 15.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    Considering Ireland got absolutely annihilated by NZ last Saturday and put in the worst performance of any of the QF teams, why the hell are people still banging on about last year's win? In that context, what does last years game mean anymore. As I said, yeah it was great to win but in the grand scheme of things it pales into insignificance.

    If NZ had won the game last November do you think they would be bleating on about 12 months later. No as they have bigger fish to fry and are better than that.

    "Never mind the two WC medals on the side board at home, sure we beat Ireland in the Aviva. We are great. Now bring on 3 in a row."


    It was end of year, both teams had more or less beaten everything in front of them all year. Ireland was the biggest fish to fry.....NZ take glee in knocking off any pretenders to their crown, I don't see why anyone thinks NZ just wanted to roll over and get bellies rubbed because it was last game of season.......



    NZ came over and everyone remarked how they got out of London straight after England game and went to Dublin early to get ready. They said whoever the winner was would be the real number 1 in the World....


    They took the game very serious and no idea how they would have reacted because they lost.

    The previous time they lost to Ireland they came into Dublin and absolutely battered the Irish team, no silky skills or anything. Taking the head off players seemed order of the day. Even talk to the Irish players on the field that day and they where surprised that suddenly NZ took Ireland serious.


    Ireland won the game, it was our second win over NZ and trying to degrade it now by calling it a "friendly" or that NZ where "tired" is just bulls**t to be honest.....


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,763 ✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    I don't know why I'm torturing myself, but there's an article showing some of our ****-ups on the42.ie. For that Sexton/Kearney mess, what in the name of god was Kearney doing? Did he get lost? There was a massive gap for him to go through if he'd stayed 3m wider.

    From looking at it, I think he was eyeing the gap, but Sexton was looking to move into in order to draw the outside defender, similar to how Savea ran his line later on. That would've put Kearney clear on the outside with a 2v1


  • Hosted Moderators Posts: 7,723 ✭✭✭fitz



    2 and a half phases on average to win back ball is frighteningly good.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,566 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    No point in trying to rewrite history.

    NZ lost to Ireland in 2 friendlies, and won big when it really counted.

    In reality bar a pair of blips they've always been a better rugby nation than Ireland and the emphatic nature of last weekends result only goes to rubber stamp that.

    It's no disgrace at all btw. Rugby Union is their national sport. If we had the players that play Gaelic games we might be considerably stronger.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,220 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    No point in trying to rewrite history.

    NZ lost to Ireland in 2 friendlies, and won big when it really counted.

    In reality bar a pair of blips they've always been a better rugby nation than Ireland and the emphatic nature of last weekends result only goes to rubber stamp that.

    It's no disgrace at all btw. Rugby Union is their national sport. If we had the players that play Gaelic games we might be considerably stronger.

    They’ve only beaten us twice when it matters


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,204 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    It was end of year, both teams had more or less beaten everything in front of them all year. Ireland was the biggest fish to fry.....NZ take glee in knocking off any pretenders to their crown, I don't see why anyone thinks NZ just wanted to roll over and get bellies rubbed because it was last game of season.......



    NZ came over and everyone remarked how they got out of London straight after England game and went to Dublin early to get ready. They said whoever the winner was would be the real number 1 in the World....


    They took the game very serious and no idea how they would have reacted because they lost.

    The previous time they lost to Ireland they came into Dublin and absolutely battered the Irish team, no silky skills or anything. Taking the head off players seemed order of the day. Even talk to the Irish players on the field that day and they where surprised that suddenly NZ took Ireland serious.


    Ireland won the game, it was our second win over NZ and trying to degrade it now by calling it a "friendly" or that NZ where "tired" is just bulls**t to be honest.....




    And...........?


    So what. Would you trade that win last year for a WC SF?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭vetinari


    What are you waffling about?
    Are you having some kind of brain freeze in relation to this?
    Last years game was not a "friendly", it was a meaningful game.
    Last weekends game was more meaningful as it was in the World Cup.
    How is this difficult for you to understand?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    Wasn't there some poster here saying NZ would beat England by 20, and Ireland only lost to them because they were unplayable?


  • Registered Users Posts: 35,984 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    There are no excuses. When it counted, Ireland had nothing to offer - two world cups in a row. Everything in the middle of a cycle is rendered irrelevant by the World Cup. Yeah we hammered England in Twickenham to win a grand slam - who’s laughing now? Yeah we beat New Zealand last November - who gives a **** now?

    I won’t be holding my breath that it will ever change.


  • Registered Users Posts: 50,893 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    vetinari wrote: »
    What are you waffling about?
    Are you having some kind of brain freeze in relation to this?
    Last years game was not a "friendly", it was a meaningful game.
    Last weekends game was more meaningful as it was in the World Cup.
    How is this difficult for you to understand?

    Ha ha.

    “ All animals are equal but some are more equal than others “.

    The truth is that we got up on our high horses because we won a meaningless game.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,689 ✭✭✭✭blueser


    salmocab wrote: »
    They’ve only beaten us twice when it matters
    How many times have the countries met, "when it matters"?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭Exclamation Marc


    blueser wrote: »
    How many times have the countries met, "when it matters"?

    It always matters, that's the nature of the sport.

    It matters more sometimes than others (ie world cup v test match have obviously different implications) but claiming some matches don't matter at all is at best, staggering ignorance and worst, fundamental stupidity.

    But it helps intelligent posters at least determine who to stick on ignore.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    There are no excuses. When it counted, Ireland had nothing to offer - two world cups in a row. Everything in the middle of a cycle is rendered irrelevant by the World Cup. Yeah we hammered England in Twickenham to win a grand slam - who’s laughing now? Yeah we beat New Zealand last November - who gives a **** now?

    I won’t be holding my breath that it will ever change.

    A grand slam isn't retrospectively deemed meaningless by failure at the World Cup. The same way Sonia's victory over Szabo to win gold at the European Championships isn't suddenly rendered meaningless because Szabo defeated her to gold in the Olympics 2 years later.

    The test match win against NZ I agree with though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,220 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    blueser wrote: »
    How many times have the countries met, "when it matters"?

    That was my point, it always matters.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,657 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    A grand slam isn't retrospectively deemed meaningless by failure at the World Cup. The same way Sonia's victory over Szabo to win gold at the European Championships isn't suddenly rendered meaningless because Szabo defeated her to gold in the Olympics 2 years later.

    The test match win against NZ I agree with though.

    I would agree in theory but two bad failures at the World Cup does take a large amount of shine off the Joe Schmidt era.

    He did many great things during his tenure, but those World Cups diminish them a bit.


  • Registered Users Posts: 35,984 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    A grand slam isn't retrospectively deemed meaningless by failure at the World Cup. The same way Sonia's victory over Szabo to win gold at the European Championships isn't suddenly rendered meaningless because Szabo defeated her to gold in the Olympics 2 years later.

    The test match win against NZ I agree with though.

    Not meaningless, no. But England will have forgotten it entirely - their WC essentially expunges it from the record. And I think that cuts more the other way than we might like unfortunately.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Not meaningless, no. But England will have forgotten it entirely - their WC essentially expunges it from the record. And I think that cuts more the other way than we might like unfortunately.

    The grand slam win was 20 months ago. 20 months is an enormous time in sport and lots can happen. Thomas Barr missed out on an Olympic medal in Rio by 0.05 of a second and people were saying he'll have a big shot in Tokyo. Fast forward 20 months and there were 3 new lads on the scene who have redefined the event and are now 2, 3 and 4 on the all time list. Unless they fall over, he's not getting into the medals now.

    You don't know what's ahead in sport. As a fan, you take the great moments as they come and enjoy them. Winning a slam in Twickenham on Paddy's Day was a huge moment. That achievement is not diminished because England have since improved and we've gone backwards. The Rugby World Cup is the biggest thing in this sport but its not the only big event. A grand slam is a big deal in rugby.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,566 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    salmocab wrote: »
    They’ve only beaten us twice when it matters


    Only once actually. A week or so ago.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,204 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    This is my comment in The Guardian on the 22 November 2018 after the NZ win:

    "Oh God please stop these schoolyard inane rubbish about 'Who is the best in the world?'

    Bearing in mind the 'world' in this context is at best 6-7 meaningful rugby playing nations...really.

    Ireland are certainly the form team that is for sure and have beaten all before them and that is a credit to the systems and talent in place but it's the WC next year where it matters.

    I was at the WC QF in 2015 in Cardiff....ok there were key players missing with injury as France and Ireland tried to kill each other to avoid NZ in the quarters but still....

    Meaningless at this point and I really hope they have not peaked.

    It suits Hanson down to the ground to throw all this stuff around and let NZ quietly go about their business.

    While NZ will of course go into the WC as favorites no matter what may happen over the next 12 mts, NZ will be more than happy to sit back let everyone else go on about 'Ireland this Ireland that' taking some attention away."


    Sadly they had peaked.


Advertisement