Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mr Ruggleby" data-source="post: 929474" data-attributes="member: 41553">I don't really disagree with any of the picks above, other than Mako - who I think on his best day is better than Healy by some margin. The difference I think is that England have more players who if they have an absolute stormer, they can just take over a game because of their particular talents. As an example, Conor Murray is a miles better scrum half than Youngs and probably the best in the world. But what does him at 100% mean? Every box kick is perfect - 90% already are, service is perfect - most of the time it is, and so on.If Mako, Itoje, Billy and Manu are all 100% (which they almost never ever are individually, let alone collectively) they can take over a game. Ireland don't have many players like that; maybe Stockdale, maybe O'Brien. Sexton is already at about 90% in every game anyway which is why he is so good. I guess the point I'm doing a bad job of making is that if everyone did play at 100%, executed their skills perfectly etc. England have some players that can take things to a level that is just way above their Irish counterparts. Sexton is a better 10 than Farrell, but if they both execute at 100%, there isn't going to be a massive difference, neither is breaking 4 tackles and going the length. If Billy or Manu are firing, there probably aren't as devastating ball carriers anywhere else in the world, let alone in Ireland.It's basically a null point anyway, as I simply cannot see England ever playing close to that level of consistency - nor even the 70%+ that they would need to genuinely challenge for the world cup this year. But someone at the RFU should be breaking the bank to try and find a way (or a coach) to get there, because skills and talent are not the issue, regardless of what the tiring rhetoric coming out of NZ is...</blockquote>

Verification