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

[Peat]

What Henry said. Ireland are incredibly good at what they do but there is a missing dimension which will let them down against teams of a certain skill level. Right now, the only team at that level is NZ, and SA on a good day, so I doubt that's bothering too much right now.

 

[Captain Robshaw]

---

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Excellent post. Have to agree completely. We were noticably slower and down on intensity yesterday. Hartley is there for his set piece but if our kicking game is off the boil and our errors count is high we won't see the benefits.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

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.

I disagree to an extent, Ireland were incredibly predictable yesterday too. Did they do anything we didn't really expect? We all knew they were going to play a heavy kicking game looking to controll territory and put our wingers under pressure with a good chase. We knew they would play for penalties and that is exactly what Ireland did. The difference is, with Wales we adapted our play to counter the Welsh game plan whilst with Ireland we did the exact opposite, we changed our game plan to be heavy on aimless kicking, EXACTLY what the Irish would have wanted. Going through the forwards with good support play is what would have had the Irish under pressure, and when we did it we got some results. The thing is we did it very rarely. Schmitt isn't such a mastermind, the Irish gameplan is pretty much the same every time. What Ireland do well is the execute it consistantly accurately and give away very few penalties.

Ireland are basically using the same tactics England used when they won the world cup, scores don't matter, simply control the game and strangle the opposition then take whatever points come your way. It's ugly but effective.

 

[valley commando]

Armitage plays 7...

Cips has been overlooked for so long because to be quite frank he wasn't up to it for many years after he broke his ankle and has only just really started to play himself back into contention. He up until recently was more like Henson than Hook.

Cips and Ford are probably about equal currently, difference between the two is Ford still has potential to be an even better players whereas Cips has probably reached his.....reality however is if he hadn't retired last season Wilkinson is still probably the best English fly-half out there....maybe still the world (just watch the European Cup final last year).

---Updated---

Apparently I'm wrong about Armitage....

He has played at 7 and 8.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

He has played at 7 and 8.

But he's a 7 and this is where he's been talked about for England. Not needed as an 8.

 

[Every Time Ref]

I do see where you're coming from. Why was nobody anywhere near Vunipola when he made that break? Clearly not on the same page.

My instinct when that happened was to shout "Where the is Ford?" It wasn't a case of being on the same page as such (the opportunity for the break kind of fell in his lap slightly unexpectedly), more a case of reading the play. Ford should have seen where he was going and been haring across the ground to support on his right shoulder just as Youngs was supporting on his left (although someone, I think Murray, ran a good defensive line to block off that pass). Thinking about it now, Haskell was also presumably in a perfect position to follow him from the angle the scrum turned, so should have been there too. I certainly don't blame Vunipola for kicking - the Youngs pass wasn't on, and there was no other pass on nor supprot to ruck over him if he went to ground. Through no fault of his own he had zero options and he had to pick one.

More generally, although that particular situation was a slightly unusual one in terms of how Vunipola ended up there, players getting isolated because others weren't reading the play and getting on their arses to clear them out was a far too common theme of England's play on Saturday.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree to an extent, Ireland were incredibly predictable yesterday too. Did they do anything we didn't really expect? We all knew they were going to play a heavy kicking game looking to controll territory and put our wingers under pressure with a good chase. We knew they would play for penalties and that is exactly what Ireland did. The difference is, with Wales we adapted our play to counter the Welsh game plan whilst with Ireland we did the exact opposite, we changed our game plan to be heavy on aimless kicking, EXACTLY what the Irish would have wanted. Going through the forwards with good support play is what would have had the Irish under pressure, and when we did it we got some results. The thing is we did it very rarely. Schmitt isn't such a mastermind, the Irish gameplan is pretty much the same every time. What Ireland do well is the execute it consistantly accurately and give away very few penalties.

Ireland are basically using the same tactics England used when they won the world cup, scores don't matter, simply control the game and strangle the opposition then take whatever points come your way. It's ugly but effective.

Yep. I think the word "predictable" is often overused, or at least wrongly used. More often than not it just means having a clear, identifiable gameplan - which is a good thing (and probably something England are missing, by-the-by, as I think someone noted in this thread before KO). Basically, when a team with a clear, identifiable gameplan wins it's called "structure", when they lose it's called "predictable". Most often the difference between the two is down to accurate execution, and the skill of the players involved. That's why Ireland are the best team in the northern hemisphere right now.

 

[ncurd]

This is going to sound like English arrogance mainly because there's a distinct wiff about what I'm about to say.

Ireland have a well-managed gameplan which wins them games and they execute almost flawlessly. The problem if much like Wales in that regard that gameplan appears to be flawed and has an air of vulnerability about it. Most teams will go into a game against these sides and think 'you know what if we play brilliantly today we'll win'. You don't get that feeling with the way SA and NZ play and to lesser extent England (who couldn't find consistency in a paper bag but when playing to their potential are brilliant). Look at the second half against Wales, the way England were playing even though the score was tight you felt there was absolutely no way Wales were getting back into the match. Ireland whilst incredibly good do not feel like they have that gear that ability to make teams look at the and go were simply not a chance have we? This might come from the fact they've not needed to find that gear so far but I don't see them having it. After beating England, Ireland should be looking at a nailed on grand slam this year but there's a ****ly bit in the back of your mind that says they still have to beat Wales. If England had won yesterday most people would think the slam was a dead cert.

That all said I do think they'll win the slam this year as I think they are a superior team to Wales and should beat them in Cardiff.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

My instinct when that happened was to shout "Where the is Ford?" It wasn't a case of being on the same page as such (the opportunity for the break kind of fell in his lap slightly unexpectedly), more a case of reading the play. Ford should have seen where he was going and been haring across the ground to support on his right shoulder just as Youngs was supporting on his left (although someone, I think Murray, ran a good defensive line to block off that pass). Thinking about it now, Haskell was also presumably in a perfect position to follow him from the angle the scrum turned, so should have been there too. I certainly don't blame Vunipola for kicking - the Youngs pass wasn't on, and there was no other pass on nor supprot to ruck over him if he went to ground. Through no fault of his own he had zero options and he had to pick one.

More generally, although that particular situation was a slightly unusual one in terms of how Vunipola ended up there, players getting isolated because others weren't reading the play and getting on their arses to clear them out was a far too common theme of England's play on Saturday.
.

Yeh, from 1 - 15 (but mainly 1 - 9) I want to see decision making coached more intensively. I agree that Vunipolas break was opportunistic and therefore difficult to support...but this fact aside, my biggest gripe really is that the carrier doesn't have an adequate awareness of support. The front row and Haskell are particularly susceptible to becoming isolated from what I've seen. Teams with a good breakdown ability will exploit that.

 

[Jbobo]

This is going to sound like English arrogance mainly because there's a distinct wiff about what I'm about to say.

Ireland have a well-managed gameplan which wins them games and they execute almost flawlessly. The problem if much like Wales in that regard that gameplan appears to be flawed and has an air of vulnerability about it. Most teams will go into a game against these sides and think 'you know what if we play brilliantly today we'll win'. You don't get that feeling with the way SA and NZ play and to lesser extent England (who couldn't find consistency in a paper bag but when playing to their potential are brilliant). Look at the second half against Wales, the way England were playing even though the score was tight you felt there was absolutely no way Wales were getting back into the match. Ireland whilst incredibly good do not feel like they have that gear that ability to make teams look at the and go were simply not a chance have we? This might come from the fact they've not needed to find that gear so far but I don't see them having it. After beating England, Ireland should be looking at a nailed on grand slam this year but there's a ****ly bit in the back of your mind that says they still have to beat Wales. If England had won yesterday most people would think the slam was a dead cert.

That all said I do think they'll win the slam this year as I think they are a superior team to Wales and should beat them in Cardiff.

The only arrogant part is the idea that there was 'absolutely no way Wales were getting back into the match'. Wales played poorly in the second half but much of the England 'dominance' defensively was due the fact that Wales were throwing single runners into the brick wall without support which made it simple for England to hold us up and win penalties. England's win was also based much on the errors of Wales, which is part of the reason why they were not able to nulify the Irish game plan - they were simply too accurate and England had little idea of how to stop them.

They are favorites against Wales, but i think they will find it much more difficult than they did against England as Wales have an effective Kicking game and can counter the Irish threat in the Air. The question is whether Wales have a plan to stop Ireland from choking us out of the game.

 

[valley commando]

But he's a 7 and this is where he's been talked about for England. Not needed as an 8.

He's still a better option at 8 than any option you have in the squad, had he gone to Bath he would have played 8 and untill recently was playing 8 for Toulon.

- - - Updated - - -

The only arrogant part is the idea that there was 'absolutely no way Wales were getting back into the match'. Wales played poorly in the second half but much of the England 'dominance' defensively was due the fact that Wales were throwing single runners into the brick wall without support which made it simple for England to hold us up and win penalties. England's win was also based much on the errors of Wales, which is part of the reason why they were not able to nulify the Irish game plan - they were simply too accurate.

They are favorites against Wales, but i think they will find it much more difficult than they did against England as Wales have an effective Kicking game and can counter the Irish threat in the Air. The question is whether Wales have a plan to stop Ireland from choking us out of the game.

I think we will beat Ireland, but with the points difference as they are and if the rerst of the games go to form Ireland will win the 6 nations, England 2nd and Wales 3rd all on 8 points.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

The only arrogant part is the idea that there was 'absolutely no way Wales were getting back into the match'. .

Ironically that was probably the least ironic part of the post.

Jiffy said exactly the same thing - the way Wales were playing, there did not seem to be any possible way they could get back in the game without a complete paradigm shift in approach that simply hasn't been seen under Gatland.
Where I would disagree with ncurd is that I'd say exactly the same thing about England yesterday - admittedly there were occasional sparks here and there, but largely, I didn't see any possible way we could get back in the game, given how we were playing and Ireland were responding.
As GN10 said above, sometimes its written in stone and you just can't see a team coming back into it.

Also, here's my arrogant English tip: If Wales manage to beat ireland (a sizeable 'if), England will take the championship on points difference in an ironic inverse of last year. I don't think there's anything controversial about this - it'll be close, but England have two home games now against the championships most 'troubled' sides.

 

[ncurd]

The only arrogant part is the idea that there was 'absolutely no way Wales were getting back into the match'. Wales played poorly in the second half but much of the England 'dominance' defensively was due the fact that Wales were throwing single runners into the brick wall without support which made it simple for England to hold us up and win penalties. England's win was also based much on the errors of Wales, which is part of the reason why they were not able to nulify the Irish game plan - they were simply too accurate and England had little idea of how to stop them.

They are favorites against Wales, but i think they will find it much more difficult than they did against England as Wales have an effective Kicking game and can counter the Irish threat in the Air. The question is whether Wales have a plan to stop Ireland from choking us out of the game.

Did look Wales like getting back into that match? Did England put a single foot wrong defensively in the second half? That's pretty much the definition of dominance. England didn't win because Wales played poorly they won because they completely stiffled Wales' only gameplan and look completely void of any ideas.

Contrast that with yesterday where England look like they could get back the match (with about 12mins to go) despite the scoreline.

He's still a better option at 8 than any option you have in the squad, had he gone to Bath he would have played 8 and untill recently was playing 8 for Toulon.

Yet he didn't go to Bath. We have to accept the rules Armitage isn't allowed to rock up 3 days before a game and play for England, he must be part of the squad. If he could get Toulon to release him England may actually play him but until he is available to train with squad it won't happen no point really speculating. I think the ultimate plan has been 6) Robshaw, 7)Armitage, 8)Haskell at least according to SCW and he knows abit about what makes an excellent back row.

---Updated---

Obviously some disagree with about England's ability to get the match all I'm really saying is England did show some flashes that they might manage it which is how they differed from Wales who showed nothing.

England won't win on points difference, I can't see us beating the Scottish well enough they always seam to raise their game against us (last year aside) and we'll struggle to really put either team to the sword.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

England won't win on points difference, I can't see us beating the Scottish well enough they always seam to raise their game against us (last year aside) and we'll struggle to really put either team to the sword.

meh, we are reasonably far behind Ireland on points, but if they lose to Wales - which they will have to do anyway for us to have a shot - then this will decrease - in short, Ireland have two away games and we have two home games. I generally agree about Scotland, but i think that if we head into the last day needing to win, we can do it well enough.

 

[Jbobo]

Did look Wales like getting back into that match? Did England put a single foot wrong defensively in the second half? That's pretty much the definition of dominance. England didn't win because Wales played poorly they won because they completely stiffled Wales' only gameplan and look completely void of any ideas.

Contrast that with yesterday where England look like they could get back the match (with about 12mins to go) despite the scoreline.Yet he didn't go to Bath. We have to accept the rules Armitage isn't allowed to rock up 3 days before a game and play for England, he must be part of the squad. If he could get Toulon to release him England may actually play him but until he is available to train with squad it won't happen no point really speculating. I think the ultimate plan has been 6) Robshaw, 7)Armitage, 8)Haskell at least according to SCW and he knows abit about what makes an excellent back row.

---Updated---

Obviously some disagree with about England's ability to get the match all I'm really saying is England did show some flashes that they might manage it which is how they differed from Wales who showed nothing.
.

Well Wales actually dominated England during the entire first half. That was something?

Also saying that Wales had absolutely no chance of getting back into the match when they were still leading for the majority of the half, and when even I could see what was going wrong, it doesn't take a mastermind to understand that a change in fortune in a one score (until near the end) match could result from one moment of brilliance or a mistake from England. Assuming that England were invincible to our game plan and that we were never going to show anything is arrogant at it's height. England came up against a team which did not make the same mistakes Wales did, and were found out.

England were outplayed the whole game against Ireland, never looked like they had a chance.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Lots of work to do in this championship still. Cardiff isn't an easy place to go and we've come unstuck a few times against the Scots in recent years. We can win both games, but the job isn't nearly done.

 

[ncurd]

Hmmm obviously Wales need to win we're currently 21 points behind. I think, Wales if they win will do so on a small margin so lets say 5 points, at most unless we have a great day against Scotland we'll win by 10 points.

That would still put us 6 points behind and I can't see us beating France by more than Ireland beat Scotland regardless of where they are played.

I agree it's still doable but we'll need to be ahead after the next round of games. So I think it's pretty unlikely.

---Updated---

@Jobobo I'll just agree to disagree, I've discussed that game in great length previously. I will point out however that Wales only dominated in the first 10 minutes and their try in that time should of been disallowed....

 

[yaboyjj]

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.

Just to add to this...
The lock pairing can indeed supplement the work of the back-row in some aspects of the game (launch at the breakdown, or Parling taking on more line-out work) but I think that this idea is partially flawed, in that, rather than picking your best players in each position, you start picking them to cover the deficiencies in another player's game. The back-row should be a balanced unit in and of itself first and foremost.
Can England achieve this? yes
no.8 is a fixed position for now (untill Armitage or Hughes enter the fray) so that means no.6 and no.7 will ideally hold one good line-out option, one very good ball carrier (take pressure off no.8) and one 'quick' breakdown specialist. A quick glance at the options, and a more balanced row would probably look something like:
Wood, Ewers, Vunipola or Wood, Haskell, Vunipola
Clarke, Kvesic, Vunipola could even work (potentially light on carrying)

Long term? Wood, Ewers, Armitage or Kvesic, Ewers, Hughes etc
I think playing a number 8 that offers more than just carrying is potentially quite a big deal if England have to persist with Robshaw.
This is just off the top of my head though..

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Well Wales actually dominated England during the entire first half. That was something?

Also saying that Wales had absolutely no chance of getting back into the match when they were still leading for the majority of the half, and when even I could see what was going wrong, it doesn't take a mastermind to understand that a change in fortune in a one score (until near the end) match could result from one moment of brilliance or a mistake from England. Assuming that England were invincible to our game plan and that we were never going to show anything is arrogant at it's height. England came up against a team which did not make the same mistakes Wales did, and were found out.

England were outplayed the whole game against Ireland, never looked like they had a chance.

I've watched the game agian and no, Wales certainly did not dominate the first half at all. You dominated the first 10 minutes, that's it. When you consider the apparent dominance was down to the Welsh being allowed an illegal try, it suddenly doesn't look so great. Remove the try and England would have left the first half only 3 points behind. That try was the only time in the entire game Wales got within 5m of the English try line. England on the other hand got within 5m of the Welsh try line on 4 or 5 occassions.

Will be a bit of a cruel irony if England win the championship after losing to Ireland unlike last year where Ireland won despite losing to England.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Well Wales actually dominated England during the entire first half. That was something?

Also saying that Wales had absolutely no chance of getting back into the match when they were still leading for the majority of the half, and when even I could see what was going wrong, it doesn't take a mastermind to understand that a change in fortune in a one score (until near the end) match could result from one moment of brilliance or a mistake from England. Assuming that England were invincible to our game plan and that we were never going to show anything is arrogant at it's height. England came up against a team which did not make the same mistakes Wales did, and were found out.

England were outplayed the whole game against Ireland, never looked like they had a chance.

Wales had the advantage in the first half. In no way did you dominate anything.
When England lose, we're 'found out' - anyone else, and its simply a loss.
And you also suggest that England lived off Wales' mistakes...as if England didn't make such mistakes for Sexton to punish yesterday?

 

[ncurd]

Question in regards to points difference: Has anyone looked at England's 'try' at the end of the game? I was watching the game about 3 hours after the fact so didn't see any replays, it didn't look particularly forward to me and I wasn't too sure about the grounding however I was quite shocked the ref didn't bother checking with the TMO. That's potential 14 point swing at the end of the day.

Not saying that it deffo a try just it probably should of been looked at, and what do people think if it had was it a try?