England v Ireland. Twickenham. Sat 9th Mar, 16:45. RTE2

Shehal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121874810#Comment_121874810

Well you are trying to twist them. The evidence I've provided is pretty conclusive about who has the more talented players, the u20 stats show that even at a young age the Irish players are superior to their English/French counterparts which shows it isn't some anomaly at test level, its a common trend.

Well it's hard to tell as I need to see what players each country would consist of.

Why would I, most of the u20s this year haven't played test rugby.

Ireland u20s most successful u20 6N run is literally the last 5 years...I'm not just picking and choosing, I'm pointing out the most relevant u20s side's to date.

joseywhales

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121875014#Comment_121875014

Yes you picked the last 5 years because it is the best their most successful run, that is what I have said.

Even though the last 5 years does not represent the pool of players that make up the senior team, 2007-2020 does. You are cherry picking the last 5 years even though only 2 of those are relevant at all and you are ignoring the previous 16.

Do I need to say it again?

The last 5 years of u20s results is not very relevant to the current senior squad.

Deusexmachina

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121874275#Comment_121874275

Well, I could be wrong but it felt like there was a considerable drop off in performance levels when we used Murray and Henderson. And I am not sure Henshaw is as effective as Ringrose either. So - yes we have replacements but no, they are not all at the same level.

Dubinusa

Lot's of head scratching and whinging. Seriously boys, we lost to a better hungrier team! We pull up our kaks and we go again v the globetrotters next week.

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121874602#Comment_121874602

That table is a bit distorted by France not picking all of their best players at that level. We saw in the U20 WC a more accurate picture of where the teams are at.

Shehal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121875126#Comment_121875126

They had enough of their best players available for the game in Cork, they even had Gaillton and Bielle-Bierrey in their team then. Not an excuse.

Shehal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121875052#Comment_121875052

We were dreadful even before they came on. There was no drop off and there hasn't been a drop off in any of the previous matches from the bench. They absolutely are bar possibly Healy, obviously some are better than others but for the most part its about as good a bench as you could ask for bar the fact it was a 6/2 split.

BoardsMember

Between Heaslip on RTE and Darcy on ITV we really have the ex-Leinster utterly shite commentators covered.

Shehal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121875038#Comment_121875038

I picked the last 5 because the last 5 are the most relevant to where we are at now. It just so happens that it coincides with our run at senior level.

I'm not cherry picking, in fact that's exactly what you are doing now. Isnt just funny though how the u20s stats seems to almost paint a perfect picture about where everyone is now? Ireland clearly first, France clearly 2nd but with England starting to nip on their heals and then Italy making progress. It's also a sign of things to come.

joseywhales

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121875165#Comment_121875165

And yet there are no players in the Ireland senior squad from the last two years of u20s six nations squads. How are they relevant?

I don't know what to say if you don't understand that the exploits of current 21 year olds has no relevance on the exploits of the current senior team.

Don't you think 2007-2020 is the relevant period to calculate potential for the current senior squad who all played u20s rugby from 2007-2020?(For the third time)

Again we are trying to compare potential to outcome and you are trying to use the outcome (current senior performance) to prove the potential(coincides with latest 5 years of u20s performance) it's a classic case of correlation not equal causation, unless you are saying that time moves backward?

klose

We were poor and England were good, both teams with some missed kicks, fine margins and England got over the line (deservedly so on the whole you’d say)

Henderson coming on and giving away two penalties and Murray’s senseless box kicking, perhaps time to shake things up a bit more and say thanks and good luck to some of the old guard, it is year 1 of the next World Cup campaign so no better time to start then now.

Shehal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121875323#Comment_121875323

You see when you have to explain you're point like this then you've failed at you're argument. All the evidence I've point to you is as clear as day and coincides with what we are currently seeing at test level.

Deusexmachina

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121875143#Comment_121875143

Do you not agree that Murray and Henderson were poor?

Shehal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121875477#Comment_121875477

They played poor but they weren't much better than who they replaced, Murray is more complex because there was a rejig in the backline but Henderson while poor he wasn't much worse than who he replaced.

joseywhales

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121875468#Comment_121875468

Sorry, when I have to explain that your evidence is irrelevant then I've failed at my argument? Lol

Your evidence is not relevant.

Shehal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121875612#Comment_121875612

It's very relevant, it show's where each country is currently at in their rugby development. Bare in mind the u20 argument was just one part of it, I've shown you 2-3 other factors that when you tie it all together it paints a pretty picture of where each team is at.

joseywhales

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121875636#Comment_121875636

So it is relevant, would the fact that France have won the last 3 u20s rugby world cups be relevant then?

I'm not cherry picking of course, I'm just taking the last 3

ersatz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121873573#Comment_121873573

England were recently in a WC semi final having been in the previous final, in the years you point to Ireland were coming off barely having won any games in the previous decade and they were still 4 years off a grand slam. If England continue to lose to poor sides while occasionally wining against decent sides, you have a point, otherwise there's no comparison. We'll see how the rest of the season goes.

Shehal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121875678#Comment_121875678

Recent data is relevant, using old data you're going to sound like a Welsh fan. France winning 3 WC's is relevant just like Ireland winning 3 championship's in 5 years. What it suggests is both nations are the strongest nations in the world going forward in Europe at least. But like I said earlier u20s is only one aspect of data that determines where everyone is at.

joseywhales

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121875738#Comment_121875738

But why 5 years, when very few of those players (Joe McCarthy, a couple of others maybe) have any impact on the senior team.

Surely 15 years would be the correct range and without the last two years?

Is this fact, something you are ever going to accept?

This was your easiest point to disprove and it's so obvious now that it's wrong because your data sample insufficiently represents the player group but you won't accept it, it makes me wonder if I continue the discussion and address the other points, whether you would ever accept when you are incorrect under any circumstances. And would it be worth my time or the annoyance of other posters who have to read this over and over. I think it is not.

Shehal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121875876#Comment_121875876

The reason is it show's the health of rugby in each country. It also show's what's likely to transpire for the foreseeable future.

I wont because its garbage, if you have to go back 15 years to find data for something like this then something's wrong with you're point.

The issue is the burden of proof is on you're end because you're end results (I.e saying England/France are more talented) is not reflected at senior or u20 level, so with that being the case you're the one who'll need to prove why England/France are more talented because if they are why arent they winning?

joseywhales

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121876016#Comment_121876016

My statement was that if anything Ireland is over performing rather than underperforming. If we look at the last 15 years of u20s rugby, Ireland is not in the top two teams in the world. 15 years is the most relevant period as it includes all years from cian healy to Joe McCarthy, who can contribute to the player group. Therefore based on just that evidence Ireland is over performing.

Furthermore despite you dismissing it, player depth does matter, not just the squad of 23 as you claim. Ireland is not in the top 4 of numbers of professional players. Ireland is not in the top 4 of budgets. Ireland is not in the top 3 of club rugby. You claimed that super rugby is rubbish by comparison to European rugby without any evidence, even though I imagine the crusaders would seriously challenge Leinster.Ireland has 4 professional teams, 2 of which perform at a good level in europe but they do not completely dominate English clubs and they probably perform below the best French clubs. The south African clubs are new to the competition, we will see but I imagine they will also challenge Irish clubs in Europe. None of this suggest that Ireland have the 2nd highest potential I'm the world. The fact that they are performing at that level indicates that they are over performing.

Now I can argue these points all day but you won't accept that 15 years of data that contributed to the current playing group is more relevant that the previous 5 years of data that is represented by about 3 players. And if you can't accept that, what is the point?

Shehal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121876223#Comment_121876223

Yes see this is you again picking and choosing data, like I said if you are going to go back 15 years for data then you've failed the argument

The issue here is you are confusing quantity with quality, yes England might have more registered players but quality wise there is a big dip. That's being reflected in recent u20s side which is why England for example are struggling at test level to bring through players. The whole club rugby point is nonsense and I think you know it, its been proven for years. Crusaders should focus on winning a game first before worrying about challenging anyone in the NH never mind Leinster, now Crusaders are the example of a overachieving side...lose Robertson and look what happens. Leinster do completely dominate English teams, when was the last time one beat them?

I wont accept it because the further back you go the less weight it holds, the last 5 years is the most relevant as like I said it indicates the strength of each union from the bottom up.

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121875133#Comment_121875133

They handily thumped us in the WC last season. The fact that they often have their top U20 lads playing in the Top14, where our equivalents are in academies, attests to the difference

joseywhales

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121876368#Comment_121876368

"If you have to go back 15 years then you've failed your argument"

Why? Do players between the ages of 24 and 37 not exist in senior rugby?

What relevance is last years u20s team? How many are playing for Ireland seniors this year?

This is pointless.

Leinster is not a country by the way.

What's connachts and ulsters record?

If you make four clubs from the English premiership, how would they perform do you think?

Shehal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121876420#Comment_121876420

Well you have because like I said the further you go back the less relevant the information is. Also surely the evidence is out there for all to see, is it much of a coincidence that NZL's slide started when their u20s started sliding, France's improvement when their u20s started winning trophies, Ireland consistency and massive improvement in quality of rugby when their u20s started improving...all that is from what we've seen in the last 5 years.

The point is you again made the mistake of confusing quality and quantity, yes England have alot of decent sides that might compete in the URC but they have no side that can go toe to toe with Leinster and that's the issue. The rugby they have in the premiership is enough to ensure they finish ahead of Wales Italy Scotland etc but against the big boys like Ireland or France that's where the lack of top end quality lets them down.

Shehal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121876398#Comment_121876398

And yet lost in Cork with a similar team, shows why judging one game is not usually a good way of assessing where teams are at but data over a longer period. Like I said previously bar Tuilagi and their starting 9 they had everyone available that they had during the JWC plus the two I mentioned who they DIDNT have at the RWC/

joseywhales

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121876471#Comment_121876471

The senior performance should follow the 20s performance with about a 5 year delay, if the 20s are consistent for about a ten year period because that is the pool of talent available to a senior selection. The last two years of 20s has no effect because those players are not mature enough to impact senior rugby usually. Now the management and coaching might improve for both at the same time but this just means that they are utilizing the potential better and are having better outcomes, i.e. over achieving. Which is the goal of any person in any walk of life, to over achieve.

Shehal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121876636#Comment_121876636

The last 2 years yes but I've gone back 5 years which ironically coincides with Ireland's improvement in 2021.

The simple fact of the overall matter is that if you did a combined team from either country the majority would be Irish, in England's case only 2-3 would make an Irish starting team, in France it would be a little closer but Ireland would still have at least 8-9 and probably more. So based on that Ireland are exactly where they should be which is at the top of the three and that is exactly where they are.

joseywhales

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121876715#Comment_121876715

I think you are confusing potential with outcome. You are saying the Irish players have performed better in recent history, so they are better players, I agree but the English senior panel and selection pool may have greater potential, in which case they are under achieving their potential and Ireland is over achieving thier's. The best approximate measure we could come up with was u20s achievement v senior achievement because they had the same input ingredient, the same men. 15 years covers all of those men from cian healy up, on average over 15 years we are worse than the second best u20s team in the world. We are using world rankings as the best measurement of outcome for the senior team. They are 2nd. Therefore they have improved between u20s and senior which would indicate that they are over achieving their potential. Well done Irish rugby, lol.