[2015 Six Nations] Ireland vs England (Round 3)

[Ragey Erasmus]

George Ford on today:

https://twitter.com/EnglandRugby/status/572100051930988544

The right attitude but I'm beginning to wonder if some areas England are actually learning. I've always felt our breakdown work was below the standard of the top teams and we consistantly seem to be slower to the breakdown than the opposition. It really is infuriating seeing a forward decide to charge the line and nobody else reacts, instead hanging back about 5-10 meters behind until well after contact has been made. It's all very well keeping yourself as a passing option but you need to secure the damn thing first. Burrell standing off and doing absolutely nothing to help Ford when he took the very first Irish kick is a perfect example.

England don't do kick chases and we are poor at the breakdown. The upside is our set piece can be very good. Today though it went to pieces and England with it. Couldn't win the scrum and when we got into a good lineout position, we butchered it twice in a row. Also Ireland showed, discipline wins and loses games. More than once the Irish got out of their 22 because we would do something stupid.

 

[j'nuh]

Preistland was the 1st chocie welsh fly half at the time, he was flitting between Biggar and Priestland so it was unlikely he coudl take his secodn chocie 10 when Sexton was the best 10 int he world and Farrell had just had a break through season with England.

I like biggar, i would have taken him over Farrell as well

Priestland is to Biggar what Hook was to Jones: the "style over substance option".

I think Biggar is a very big part of the good side of Wales. Good kicking game, great in the air, doesn't shy away defensively. Maybe not a massive running threat, but does well at controlling a game. I think Gatland is after a running threat at 10 though. You can tell from the way he tried to keep ushering Priestland back into the role, and the way Anscombe has come into the picture.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

The right attitude but I'm beginning to wonder if some areas England are actually learning. I've always felt our breakdown work was below the standard of the top teams and we consistantly seem to be slower to the breakdown than the opposition. It really is infuriating seeing a forward decide to charge the line and nobody else reacts, instead hanging back about 5-10 meters behind until well after contact has been made. It's all very well keeping yourself as a passing option but you need to secure the damn thing first. Burrell standing off and doing absolutely nothing to help Ford when he took the very first Irish kick is a perfect example.

England don't do kick chases and we are poor at the breakdown. The upside is our set piece can be very good. Today though it went to pieces and England with it. Couldn't win the scrum and when we got into a good lineout position, we butchered it twice in a row. Also Ireland showed, discipline wins and loses games. More than once the Irish got out of their 22 because we would do something stupid.

That's a spot on review of the way england play!

Until we support our runners it's always going to be difficult to ruck properly.

I don't think we have improved overall as a team from 3 years ago really.

 

[Peat]

Priestland is to Biggar what Hook was to Jones: the "style over substance option".

I think Biggar is a very big part of the good side of Wales. Good kicking game, great in the air, doesn't shy away defensively. Maybe not a massive running threat, but does well at controlling a game. I think Gatland is after a running threat at 10 though. You can tell from the way he tried to keep ushering Priestland back into the role, and the way Anscombe has come into the picture.

You can see why - a running 10 brings the most out of Roberts by keeping the defence uncertain. Priestland's hot run of form was vital to the 2011 WC run personally. Given how much Biggar's come on though, there's a far higher bar there for Priestland, or Anscombe, or Patchell or whoever.

 

[goodNumber10]

Well even more depressed about that this morning

On watching it again (painful) I think their front 5 absolutely smashed us, and that in turn effected the breakdown - meant Robshaw and Haskell were tied up a lot more so we lost any ability to punch and clear.

I said before but on England's ball Ireland were incredible, everyone expects the choke tackle so we sent runners isolated to avoid creating mauls, but they actually did the opposite and took everyone low and then flooded the breakdown with numbers resulting in England getting done or the ball becoming unplayable and turned over.

I think the line out call was awful - not going for the line out that was cool, but the choice to go to a rear jumper 5 metres out. It's not off the top so why? Just go front jumper, get in front of your oppo and rumble.

Goode, he is fine under the high ball and well positioned but unlike Brown or Foden he doesn't return the ball on the ground - he just hoofs it long.

Back to the kick offs, i'm still at a loss as to why we did not split their forwards and kick straight down the middle? Make them come out of their 22 and split the field (harder kick for Sexton and takes away the box kick from Murray as his chasers are too spread out).

Taking off JJ for 36, they should have moved Cipriani to 15, or took Goode off JJ to wing and Watson to 15 were chasing a game, lets be bold. Although, again, I bet Cipriani was quietly pleased not to get on in that.

Got to say I was gutted watching it again.

- - - Updated - - -

Priestland is to Biggar what Hook was to Jones: the "style over substance option".

I think Biggar is a very big part of the good side of Wales. Good kicking game, great in the air, doesn't shy away defensively. Maybe not a massive running threat, but does well at controlling a game. I think Gatland is after a running threat at 10 though. You can tell from the way he tried to keep ushering Priestland back into the role, and the way Anscombe has come into the picture.

Well i am a fan of solid all round 10's as opposed to show Ponies, Biggar is solid. He does the basics very very well, and he understands international rugby better than any 10 int he NH other than Sexton (IMHO), he was invisible against England because Wales completely capitulated.

 

[thechosenfamily]

Mr. Moore has long been one of my favourite pundits/commentators I know he's not everyone's cup of tea but I think he's generally fair to both teams, just wish I didn't have to Eddie 'whichever decision wouldn't benefit the English' Butler.

But yeah fair article pretty much how I saw the game.

As he is mine, very fair and knowledgeable.

Sorry ff topic but on the other side of the coin somebody need to get hold of Jiffy at the BBC, he is getting more and more biased in his commentary on Saturday he was nauseating.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Well even more depressed about that this morning

On watching it again (painful) I think their front 5 absolutely smashed us, and that in turn effected the breakdown - meant Robshaw and Haskell were tied up a lot more so we lost any ability to punch and clear.

I said before but on England's ball Ireland were incredible, everyone expects the choke tackle so we sent runners isolated to avoid creating mauls, but they actually did the opposite and took everyone low and then flooded the breakdown with numbers resulting in England getting done or the ball becoming unplayable and turned over.

I think the line out call was awful - not going for the line out that was cool, but the choice to go to a rear jumper 5 metres out. It's not off the top so why? Just go front jumper, get in front of your oppo and rumble.

Goode, he is fine under the high ball and well positioned but unlike Brown or Foden he doesn't return the ball on the ground - he just hoofs it long.

Back to the kick offs, i'm still at a loss as to why we did not split their forwards and kick straight down the middle? Make them come out of their 22 and split the field (harder kick for Sexton and takes away the box kick from Murray as his chasers are too spread out).

Taking off JJ for 36, they should have moved Cipriani to 15, or took Goode off JJ to wing and Watson to 15 were chasing a game, lets be bold. Although, again, I bet Cipriani was quietly pleased not to get on in that.

Got to say I was gutted watching it again.

- - - Updated - - -



Well i am a fan of solid all round 10's as opposed to show Ponies, Biggar is solid. He does the basics very very well, and he understands international rugby better than any 10 int he NH other than Sexton (IMHO), he was invisible against England because Wales completely capitulated.

Agreed - am more bummed out about it today.
Whilst failure to execute is the players' responsibility, I'm feeling rather alarmed by Lancasters decision making.
With things going poorly, take off Joseph and bring on Twelvetrees....was that supposed to win us the game!?
Not bringing on Cipriani at any point.
No back 3 cover
No specialist lock cover
I don't get Lancaster's fetish for having two 8's in the squad.Its like he learned the lesson from Wales 2013 but took it too far.
The presence of Goode in the squad.

...
Let's go back further....
Drawn out perserverance with Ashton and playing full-backs on the wings, with Goode the first choice 15.
A back-row of 3 6's, no carrying or breakdown ability between them.
Mouritz Botha.

Gatland may be a *****, but he's right to say that Lancaster doesn't know his best team and sometimes it shows.

 

[Jbobo]

As he is mine, very fair and knowledgeable.

Sorry ff topic but on the other side of the coin somebody need to get hold of Jiffy at the BBC, he is getting more and more biased in his commentary on Saturday he was nauseating.

yawn. The fact that you think Brian Moore is fair makes me dubious about your views on the two main Welsh commentators tbh.

 

[thechosenfamily]

yawn. The fact that you think Brian Moore is fair makes me dubious about your views on the two main Welsh commentators tbh.

I said nothing about the other Welsh commentator did I?

 

[LiRFCMatt]

My post on the English individual performances with ratings, from here: http://fourballsblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/england-team-ratings-vs-ireland.html




1.Marler 6.5 - Made some big tackles and although the pack in general were out played, Marler kept coming back for more and showed good commitment, but sadly not much else.


2.Hartley 5.5 - Poor lineout, kept his discipline though and that is always something people are keen to pick up on when it comes to Hartley. Butchered some opportunities in the Irish 22 with the bad lineout at a time where momentum could have swung England's way.


3.Cole 7.5 - 28 metres made, 9 tackles, great use of the head. Our standout performer, although it wasn't too difficult to achieve that ***le. Couldn't dominate in the scrum but very effective in the loose.


4.Attwood 5.5 - 19 tackles that people seem to have forgotten about, but my god there was a lot missing from that man today, probably his worst performance of the seaspon.


5.Kruis 6 - Carried quite well, made some good tackles but again missed that special something that a player like Lawes or Launchbury can give you, England fans will now be desperate to see that second row combination back.


6.Haskell 5.5 - Made a lot of tackles, but couldn't turn the ball over, which we needed desperately. I spoke about how the battle of the breakdown would be crucial before the game here, and England were so much slower than the Irish, and with players such as Jordi Murphy and Rory Best being so dangerous over the ball this is an area that England desperately need to improve upon.

7.Robshaw 6.5 - Very good in defence again and the only person chasing kicks. The English kick chase was once again very poor, and although Robshaw gave it his all he couldn't make anything happen for the men in white.


8.Vunipola 7 - Carried well, 14 times in fact, and had one of his better games for England. People may criticize his kick through to when he broke away with Youngs outside him, but the pass wasn't on. I'd have liked to have seen the big man keep charging though, not many can stop him at full pace.


9.Youngs 5 - I'm usually a fan, not today, missed 1/3 of his tackles, looked quite good early on but really dwindled. The tempo was too slow and it was not a good game for the scrum half.


10.Ford 6 - Actually think he played just fine, good tackling for the most part, but given a masterclass as many predicted by the best fly-half in world rugby.


11.Nowell 6 - Made 1 tackle, missed 2. Unusually poor in the air, but threatening in attack. He did have one lapse in concentration that fortunately led to nothing as far as England were concerned, when he was meant to be guarding the right hand side of the ruck to allow a box kick for Youngs, he inexplicably moved at the last second which meant the scrum half was charged down.


12.Burrell 5.5 - Henshaw outplayed him yesterday, he didn't really seem to threaten at all, and performances like this will force Lancaster into yet another change in the centres, but the English centre partnership is a discussion I will post about later on this week.


13.Joseph 5 - Didn't look at all impressive against a well-organised side, but that is probably because he never saw the ball. Certainly not at fault for the loss, but England were crying out for a bit of JJ magic that never came.


14.Watson 5.5 - Good running, but not smart thinking and poor in the air. His game intelligence will improve with time, but needless penalties such as collecting a ball when you know your offside is really amateur and not expected at this level.


15.Goode 5.5 - Not as bad as people made out. 136 metres made, a lot of poor areas, especially in the air, but only as bad as the others around him.


A horrible day for English rugby, Ireland showed England up with their good kick chases, ability at the breakdown and their good discipline. England threw away a winnable game, but this will not shake them too much. There is a lot of time to grow, to improve, to bring players back from injury, and this England side should not be judged until crunch time, the home World Cup.

 

[Peat]

Agreed - am more bummed out about it today.
Whilst failure to execute is the players' responsibility, I'm feeling rather alarmed by Lancasters decision making.
...
No back 3 cover
...
I don't get Lancaster's fetish for having two 8's in the squad.Its like he learned the lesson from Wales 2013 but took it too far.
The presence of Goode in the squad.

The two 8s gives us big late game impact. It's worked before and Easter was very involved and useful. I have no issues with it tbh. Nor do I have a problem with covering full-back from the pitch in order to ensure there's real cover at 12. Just one of those compromises you sometimes have to make.

And with Foden and Brown out, Goode was the safest choice. It's time to find a better one, but we had precisely one player with significant international experience at 15 before that game. I suppose the real mistake was spending so long on Goode to begin with.

But yes, I'm being mildly pedantic here. He doesn't know his best 15 and is making bad decisions in search of it. In fairness, it's not entirely surprising a man with very little head coaching experience will flounder around looking for answers. Nor is it a surprise that the unit with the experienced international coach reaches a reasonable point of expertise before the unit with the non-experienced international coach.

It always struck me as a little odd that after appointing a rookie head coach and having to wait a good three years for him to show glimmers of anything, we decided to start the whole process anew. I sometimes think Bloodgate was a very bad day for all of English rugby, as Dean Richards might have been in place to take over if it hadn't.

Does Lancaster show any sign of learning? Not sure. I can't help but feel that Lancaster took some very solid foundations and then fractured them in search of a more ambitious style of play which we don't seem able to execute... meanwhile Schmidt's Ireland have reined in their ambition in some ways, but look so incredibly solid at the basics and more dangerous as a result.

 

[LiRFCMatt]

Credit where credit is due, Ireland keep winning, that is brilliant. But are any Irish fans curious as to why you aren't putting more points on teams? Italy... France... England... you outclassed them all? That England performance was one of the worst I have seen in a very long time, and it was a very good Irish performance, so why is it only a 10 point gap? England had chances to come back late on, and I fear for you guys that during the World Cup quarter finals for example, you can dominate a game but let a side back in to the match when they should be out of sight.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

The two 8s gives us big late game impact. It's worked before and Easter was very involved and useful. I have no issues with it tbh. Nor do I have a problem with covering full-back from the pitch in order to ensure there's real cover at 12. Just one of those compromises you sometimes have to make.

And with Foden and Brown out, Goode was the safest choice. It's time to find a better one, but we had precisely one player with significant international experience at 15 before that game. I suppose the real mistake was spending so long on Goode to begin with.

But yes, I'm being mildly pedantic here. He doesn't know his best 15 and is making bad decisions in search of it. In fairness, it's not entirely surprising a man with very little head coaching experience will flounder around looking for answers. Nor is it a surprise that the unit with the experienced international coach reaches a reasonable point of expertise before the unit with the non-experienced international coach.

It always struck me as a little odd that after appointing a rookie head coach and having to wait a good three years for him to show glimmers of anything, we decided to start the whole process anew. I sometimes think Bloodgate was a very bad day for all of English rugby, as Dean Richards might have been in place to take over if it hadn't.

Does Lancaster show any sign of learning? Not sure. I can't help but feel that Lancaster took some very solid foundations and then fractured them in search of a more ambitious style of play which we don't seem able to execute... meanwhile Schmidt's Ireland have reined in their ambition in some ways, but look so incredibly solid at the basics and more dangerous as a result.

I wouldn't mind having two 8's - and agree Easter did well - if it weren't for the fact that we have an inherent breakdown weakness by virtue of our back-row selection. If Armitage was playing at 7, I'd be less relucant to see an 8 on the bench. We also miss Launchbury A LOT, and without him Robshaw and Haskell were beaten on the floor hands down.

As for Goode...experience is nothing without the ability to back it up. Besides which, all our young players who've come into the set-up have done well despite a lack of experience, and I would have backed the slightly older Chris Pennell to do just fine. Also, I'm not convinced that Foden was ahead of Goode in Lancaster's mind, even if he hadn't got injured.





Can anyone walk me through multi-quoting? I can't work it out and its really irritating....

yawn. The fact that you think Brian Moore is fair makes me dubious about your views on the two main Welsh commentators tbh.

Why don't you think Moore is 'fair'?
We could all, myself included, be clearer what we object to in commentators.
Each of the main commentators wears a particular coloured hat - green, red, blue, white, light blue - and speaks with point of view. This is part of the model, and the BBC very deliberately tries to represent each country (except I feel France & Italy are often under represented.) There's nothing wrong with this general partisanship.
However, there needs to be a minimum expectation on the part of each commentator to show some sort of interest or understanding of other teams, to avoid the situation where each only commentates on what his team does rather than the game as a whole. Moore isn't a perfect human being, but I find him quite equitable and he shows understanding and appreciation of both sides in the game at hand. If anything, his weakness is he likes to be proven right, even if it means England do badly at something, and will then harp on about it.
The issue with Jiffy is not that he's Welsh, but more he doesn't really show much concern for the opposition, and tends to fall silent for large passages when Wales don't have the ball.
Personally my favourite is Andrew Cotter. That South African guy who covered Wales France was terrrrible.

 

[Jbobo]

I said nothing about the other Welsh commentator did I?

Aye fair douse, you didn't. Apologies

 

[Peat]

I wouldn't mind having two 8's - and agree Easter did well - if it weren't for the fact that we have an inherent breakdown weakness by virtue of our back-row selection. If Armitage was playing at 7, I'd be less relucant to see an 8 on the bench. We also miss Launchbury A LOT, and without him Robshaw and Haskell were beaten on the floor hands down.

As for Goode...experience is nothing without the ability to back it up. Besides which, all our young players who've come into the set-up have done well despite a lack of experience, and I would have backed the slightly older Chris Pennell to do just fine. Also, I'm not convinced that Foden was ahead of Goode in Lancaster's mind, even if he hadn't got injured.

May didn't... Nowell took a few games to find his feet for my money... Kruis made a few big costly mistakes in his first games... Watson I feel has yet to impose himself as any sort of attacking threat, Roko also had that problem - I could go on and on but I think our debutants have been making more mistakes than noted. End of the day - were any of us screaming that Goode was a mistake pre-match? Not many, and tbh while it's easy to spot what he does wrong, there were many other culpable men. I'm not going to blame him for it.

And yes, I suppose in the context of the team breakdown effort two 8s doesn't help, but we could have had prime Richard Hill and I'm not sure it would have helped that much. I am totally quibbling over detail though. And I think the two 8s vs. shaky breakdown does show a flaw of Lancaster - he doesn't seem to join up his thinking between units, he doesn't look at one part of the team and think "They do X but I need someone else to do Y". Rather, he seems to be "I value X over Y, this unit will do X as much as possible, and so will this unit, and this unit..."

What's confusing you about multiquote?

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Credit where credit is due, Ireland keep winning, that is brilliant. But are any Irish fans curious as to why you aren't putting more points on teams? Italy... France... England... you outclassed them all? That England performance was one of the worst I have seen in a very long time, and it was a very good Irish performance, so why is it only a 10 point gap? England had chances to come back late on, and I fear for you guys that during the World Cup quarter finals for example, you can dominate a game but let a side back in to the match when they should be out of sight.

Ireland haven't looked like losing a game after the 55 minute stage once this year, with only Australia and France looking like they could have beat them in the games they won last year, so not really. The only criticism I have of the team is they aren't as clinical as they should be, Ireland should have scores at least one more try yesterday but couldn't. It's the only area that I think would stop them from beating New Zealand where tries are definitely needed to win.

3 pretty comprehensive victories where the biggest leads have been 20, 12 and 16 points with the smallest winning margain being 7 doesn't sound as if they're letting teams back in to me. Considering the team aren't conceding tries I always feel when watching them that once they've got a lead of 8+ it's game over. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Ireland not concede another try in the championship, which would certainly guarantee them the most impressive grand slam since '03. That must be their goal as well no matter what anyone in the camp says!

 

[yaboyjj]

I actually thought Joseph was quite good- many times he did well in defense- often covering for other players (especially on the drift) and always seems to make the right decisions. Not his fault he wasn't given any good ball.

Hartley is woeful around the field (compare to Best, Coles, Moore et al.) and has to be dropped.

Ben Youngs is just not good enough, a slick pass is the no.1 priority for a scrum half.

Marler doesn't offer as much around the pitch as much as Corbs/Mako, if his 'point of difference' over Mako is not evident, then there is a case for him not even making the 23 when Corbs comes back.

Burrell is just not good enough.

The breakdown is, and has always looked less than average, and it seems that England rely on the pure power of Vunipola, Robshaw, Kruis, etc to blast players out, at every ruck it seemed touch and go whether they would clear out in time. Fundamentally I think speed to the breakdown is really bad.
Are questions going to re-emerge surrounding Robshaw? For all his heart and work rate, throughout his tenure, Englands back row has never looked balanced, and the big wins have always seemed to occur because of an individually brilliant performance from an individual or couple of individuals (Wood, Launchberry, Cole etc) rather than the cohesive work of a balanced pack.
I fear Robshaw- while being a great player- is there to the detriment of the pack as a whole, and is looking a bit like Lydiate in his style, ie. tackling and work rate is unquestioned, but unlike with Warburton+Faletau, England cannot make up for the fact that he is not quick enough, not a line-out option and not an exceptional ball carrier.

Let me underline this in a rather simplistic way.. looking at the back-rows of the top nations:

Lydiate, Warburton, Faletau. Although Lydiate is one dymentional, he is balanced by a proper scrounger and a good line-out option, both Warburton and Faletau are reasonably nippy and decent ball carriers.

Kaino, Mccaw, Read. Thats probably two good line-out options, at least two good carriers and plenty of speed

O'brian, Heaslip, O'Mahony. Two good ball carriers, at least 1 (probably two) good line-out options and plenty of speed.

Now England.....

We've typically had either:

Wood, Robshaw, Morgan or Haskell, Robshaw, Vunipola. The first has one good line-out option, but only Wood offers any semblance of speed or breakdown threat. The second has decent ball carriers, but no line-out option and they all have the speed and agility of a tank. It pains me because in the premiership there is a huge pool of talent, and yet the back-row seems to continually under-perform in at least one facet of play- and usually have to be bailed out by an exceptional lock pairing or individual brilliance on game day.

Now, the weak link is this: the two options at 8 so far, are of the tank variety (Morgan/Vunipola -until Hughes becomes EQ) which is fine, but you are already playing catch-up with NZ, Wales, Ireland in terms of speed/line-out, now coupled with an ever present Robshaw, this means that the no.6 essentially has to undertaken both the role of: great line-out option, good ball carrier and jackal threat, which is a pretty tall order (understatement of the year), and so I conclude that at present; Wood, Haskell, Ewers, Clarke and Croft, will all appear to be deficient in at least one aspect of play when pulling on the England shirt- which imo is not their 'fault', but that of the other two players employed in the 7 and 8 shirt.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

May didn't... Nowell took a few games to find his feet for my money... Kruis made a few big costly mistakes in his first games... Watson I feel has yet to impose himself as any sort of attacking threat, Roko also had that problem - I could go on and on but I think our debutants have been making more mistakes than noted. End of the day - were any of us screaming that Goode was a mistake pre-match? Not many, and tbh while it's easy to spot what he does wrong, there were many other culpable men. I'm not going to blame him for it.

And yes, I suppose in the context of the team breakdown effort two 8s doesn't help, but we could have had prime Richard Hill and I'm not sure it would have helped that much. I am totally quibbling over detail though. And I think the two 8s vs. shaky breakdown does show a flaw of Lancaster - he doesn't seem to join up his thinking between units, he doesn't look at one part of the team and think "They do X but I need someone else to do Y". Rather, he seems to be "I value X over Y, this unit will do X as much as possible, and so will this unit, and this unit..."

What's confusing you about multiquote?

I think most of us were screaming about Goode pre-match, though more in a resigned way? Actually I didn't post much in the lead-up to Ireland, to be fair..
For me, Watson has shown the ability to play at the level which makes my concern more about how he is being used and whether we're putting him in ' good situations on the pitch'. In fact, our inability to meaningfully involve each of Rokodugini, May, Nowell, Watson, speaks of a strategic issue.
Kruis - Yep, made a costly error rushing out the line against someone (can't remember) but I've found him a surprisingly suitable replacement for Launchbury, that is until yesterday afternoon when our rucking clearly suffered.

Again, just talking about all the wingers we've played makes my head spin and it reinforces the point that we don't know who to pick.
Watson; Nowell; May; Sharples(?); Tuilagi; Brown; Foden; Joseph; Wade; Yarde; Rokodoguni - These guys have all played wing under Lancaster and I may have omitted some.

You're right that we tend to scapegoat. However, Burrell and Attwood, both players I like a lot, had their worst games in an England shirt yesterday - so to be clear I don't think we can put this squarely on the likes of Goode and Youngs, but instead on some of our older and experienced players.
Talking of which, are we seeing any of that supposed experience from Haskell and Croft at the moment? I would say leadership is an issue when your team isn't getting the rub of the green. You need either of a few things; a leader to stabilise and rally the troops, a lucky call, or a piece of inspirational brilliance from a player. Yesterday we got neither, but most worryingly the only guy I saw doing any 'back slapping' whatsoever, was Kruis.

Was for multi-quote - what do I do after pressing the button?

 

[bw245]

Credit where credit is due, Ireland keep winning, that is brilliant. But are any Irish fans curious as to why you aren't putting more points on teams? Italy... France... England... you outclassed them all? That England performance was one of the worst I have seen in a very long time, and it was a very good Irish performance, so why is it only a 10 point gap? England had chances to come back late on, and I fear for you guys that during the World Cup quarter finals for example, you can dominate a game but let a side back in to the match when they should be out of sight.

I think you're wrong about England. It wasn't one of the worst. It looked bad because Ireland were miles ahead of them in every aspect of the game, and this is why England looked like they did yesterday. Wales don't have the mastermind that is Joe Schmidt, and while they're a good side, they're extremely predictable as Gats has a plan A and that is it. England could read Wales and therefore looked more impressive. They were maybe a bit off in the first half but affter half time they knew what to do, whereas Ireland aren't quite as readable. Yesterday, Schmidt was too much for this English side, which, apart from 2 or 3 changes (as we too have had to make), is the same side that played Wales.
I think Ireland's plan was to frustrate an experienced but impressive English side, which they did, and this resulted in penalties, and really there was no coming back after that.
As for Schmidt and us not putting points on teams - with the way we're playing, that isn't going to happen. England's defence was one of their strengths yesterday, and defence is something in rugby which is getting better with every team as the years go on. Joe Schmidt played completely different rugby last six nations, and this is because he had completely different players. He said he plays to his players' strengths. He puts together a game plan that will suit his players, and this is why, this season, the kicking game and breakdown have been dominant in our game. I think it's something like 7 or 8 players in the starting 15 yesterday played competitive Gaelic Football as a kid/teenager growing up, and Schmidt actually said that he is using that to his strengths, because this means we've an advantage over other teams with the high ball (just like Australia, who have a game called Aussie rules, which is very similar to GAA).

Anyway, I don't think that English side was poor yesterday. They made some poor decisions, yes, but I think against another team it would've been good. Ireland just were one step ahead.

 

[Peat]

After hitting the multiquote button? If you hit Post Reply, the selected quotes should appear in the Quick Reply window for you to reply to.

The rest - as GN10 points out, Nowell had got rather more involved than our other wingers. It's up to both player and management imo. Kruis rushed up against SA and knocked on against Wales - two tries right there (eventually). And, well, ok yeah none of us were happy with Goode, but I didn't think we were screaming for someone else, that was my point. But may be wrong. And yeah, Lanny might have played him ahead of Foden anyway, but we'll never know.

Leadership does definitely need to be looked at. Haskell, in particular, as a starter and club captain should be expected to provide some of that - ditto Hartley.

Incidentally, side note, I am slowly coming round to Kruis and beginning to see him as a potential long term first choice.