Ireland v England, 10/02/13

[Maverick1987]

Plus I assume he'll get cited for that stamp on whoever it was' ankle

I would expect so . It was pretty stupid tbh . Not saying that in the last 4 hours Healy has turned iron a crap scrummager but this isn't the first time he's lost his head . don't want it happening at a crucial time in the lions tour

 

[big ginger 8]

I would expect so . It was pretty stupid tbh . Not saying that in the last 4 hours Healy has turned iron a crap scrummager but this isn't the first time he's lost his head . don't want it happening at a crucial time in the lions tour

He wasn't really getting out scrummaged though Garces had some strange interpretations.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Come back now you little ****.

Only messing. Although if England go on and win a slam, the bandwagoners will be unlike anything this forum has ever seen and I may leave for a while.

Anyway, today's match... Heaslip showed he's not familiar with being a captain, he tried to lead by example and when he started to play badly he had no plan B.
BO'D was mad to think he could play an international rugby match the day his first child was born.
England were much better coached.
O'Brien was Ireland's only player who showed up and put himself up for Lions 6 or 7 position.
Didn't really see much in the Healy incident although I only saw one angle.\
England still have a long way to go before winning the slam.
If Kidney plays O'Gara one more time in a green jersey he should be shot, Madigan is the man for the job for the rest of the 6n.

 

[nosevi]

and England was just England: waiting for the hot-blooded Irish to commit a stupid foul and pretty boy Farrell shows off his new hair gel and kicks in the 3's.

Hi all, totally new to the forum and been reading the thread with interest.

Yoe, mate, you're totally and utterly missing the point. This new England squad are far from the finished article, long way to go, but they are getting their head round one thing the England 2003 squad knew and that is how to win matches. In 2003 the guys knew how to blow sides away if the conditions, opposition etc allowed it but they also knew how to grind opponents down and let Wilco kick the points if that was what was going to work. Martin Johnson was a bloody awful coach (and I'm a big fan of his) but he was a superb captain, the two are not the same thing, he simply knew how to read a game and win regardless of where or who he was up against. 'Winning ugly' became the watch word in 2003 but no matter whether you put a fierce rush defence with a big pack in front of them, or a tallented, fluent and open attacking side were the opposition, they worked out how to win on the day.

This England squad shows a hell of a lot of promise, not because they play an open, expansive game every time, but because they know when to do that (and beat the best team in the world at it not that long ago) but they also know when a totally different game is the answer.

You're saying the game was dull. Yes it was, it was deathly dull and as a neutral I would be asking for my money back about now. But dull was what was required and the England team executed 'dull' about as well as anyone could hope for. They soaked up everything Ireland could throw at them and chipped away at the score board. It was what was required. If you don't recognise this I'm going to go out on a limb and say you've never played Rugby at a high, or even moderately high, level.

Going to be really blunt but France have come unstuck for one reason (well, maybe about 5 or 6 but one main reason). When plan A isn't working they don't have a plan B. They've got all the tallent in the world but they seem incapable of adapting to the situation. Martin Johnson was an awsome captain because, along with some of the other senior players around him he knew how to read a game and as a result win no matter what. Some of the new England squad are just starting to show they can do the same - Owen Farrell 'over-ruling' Robo at the death and putting it in the corner rather than risking a counter attack from a missed penalty shot at goal tells me he's one of them.

Don't begrudge England playing whatever style of rugby they want if it results in a win. In 2003 the management had huge posters that said "Winning is why we are here" all over the England hotel which they used as a base for their training camps. Winning is why this England team are here as well; entertaining French supporters isn't

 

[Amiga500]

O'Brien was Ireland's only player who showed up and put himself up for Lions 6 or 7 position.

Rory Best and Kearney did their chances no harm at all.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Rory Best and Kearney did their chances no harm at all.

As soon as I posted that I realised I'd forgotten Best. Kearney however did some awful kicks and played stupid rugby all round, Halfpenny and Hogg were better this week.... and last.

 

[Peat]

Nosevi - Magnificent post.

Cmac - Don't blame BOD's daughter; that man's driven, I strongly doubt there was anything wrong with his frame of mind, but there was nothing he could do on a crap day in an unprepared team that couldn't generate decent ball. He tackled himself to a standstill, got injured, then tackled some more.

Kidney really has to go. Really, really has to go.

edit: You're right about Kearney though.

 

[Big Ewis]

Hi all, totally new to the forum and been reading the thread with interest.

Yoe, mate, you're totally and utterly missing the point. This new England squad are far from the finished article, long way to go, but they are getting their head round one thing the England 2003 squad knew and that is how to win matches. In 2003 the guys knew how to blow sides away if the conditions, opposition etc allowed it but they also knew how to grind opponents down and let Wilco kick the points if that was what was going to work. Martin Johnson was a bloody awful coach (and I'm a big fan of his) but he was a superb captain, the two are not the same thing, he simply knew how to read a game and win regardless of where or who he was up against. 'Winning ugly' became the watch word in 2003 but no matter whether you put a fierce rush defence with a big pack in front of them, or a tallented, fluent and open attacking side were the opposition, they worked out how to win on the day.

This England squad shows a hell of a lot of promise, not because they play an open, expansive game every time, but because they know when to do that (and beat the best team in the world at it not that long ago) but they also know when a totally different game is the answer.

You're saying the game was dull. Yes it was, it was deathly dull and as a neutral I would be asking for my money back about now. But dull was what was required and the England team executed 'dull' about as well as anyone could hope for. They soaked up everything Ireland could throw at them and chipped away at the score board. It was what was required. If you don't recognise this I'm going to go out on a limb and say you've never played Rugby at a high, or even moderately high, level.

Going to be really blunt but France have come unstuck for one reason (well, maybe about 5 or 6 but one main reason). When plan A isn't working they don't have a plan B. They've got all the tallent in the world but they seem incapable of adapting to the situation. Martin Johnson was an awsome captain because, along with some of the other senior players around him he knew how to read a game and as a result win no matter what. Some of the new England squad are just starting to show they can do the same - Owen Farrell 'over-ruling' Robo at the death and putting it in the corner rather than risking a counter attack from a missed penalty shot at goal tells me he's one of them.

Don't begrudge England playing whatever style of rugby they want if it results in a win. In 2003 the management had huge posters that said "Winning is why we are here" all over the England hotel which they used as a base for their training camps. Winning is why this England team are here as well; entertaining French supporters isn't

Good read, but I'm not missing the point though, "mate". That's exactly what I'm saying !! Everybody, it seems, in this tournament will have to just sit there and look at England claim it when they're not the 1st or even 2nd, or in fact 3rd most talented team in the tournament. It's an annoying thought, but props to England, they're good...and whether "entertaining French supporters isn't what England is about", well it certainly isn't ! And it never has been... I'm not bitter, if England win the tournament I won't have this spiteful feeling in my gut like "why I oughta...!", it's just it's silly to see teams like Ireland and France who can set the world on fire with beautiful tries just not perform because of stupid little fkng mistakes, lack of composure and then lose matches because of details. We haven't been blown out yet, we just lose because of silly little things when our nature is of such a higher caliber, and much much higher quality than those two games.

So that's the frustrating thing with watching England play. They play simple, gathered rugby. Wait for a foul somewhere, kick the penalty, good. Forwards gain some field, close enough they'll score the try. And ppl start thinking "well, if it's that simple, why don't we play like that ?" - well coz the English are amongst the best in the world at doing that !!..
So we just have to sit there, and watch the pragmatic but good England squad beat, say, France so regularly...(who have that big potential...).
I'm not being confrontational here, I'm just letting you know how it is in my mind.

 

[Maverick1987]

Good read, but I'm not missing the point though, "mate". That's exactly what I'm saying !! Everybody, it seems, in this tournament will have to just sit there and look at England claim it when they're not the 1st or even 2nd, or in fact 3rd most talented team in the tournament. It's an annoying thought, but props to England, they're good...and whether "entertaining French supporters isn't what England is about", well it certainly isn't ! And it never has been... I'm not bitter, if England win the tournament I won't have this spiteful feeling in my gut like "why I oughta...!", it's just it's silly to see teams like Ireland and France who can set the world on fire with beautiful tries just not perform because of stupid little fkng mistakes, lack of composure and then lose matches because of details. We haven't been blown out yet, we just lose because of silly little things when our nature is of such a higher caliber, and much much higher quality than those two games.

So that's the frustrating thing with watching England play. They play simple, gathered rugby. Wait for a foul somewhere, kick the penalty, good. Forwards gain some field, close enough they'll score the try. And ppl start thinking "well, if it's that simple, why don't we play like that ?" - well coz the English are amongst the best in the world at doing that !!..
So we just have to sit there, and watch the pragmatic but good England squad beat, say, France so regularly...(who have that big potential...).
I'm not being confrontational here, I'm just letting you know how it is in my mind.

Just so you know you are doing crap in this nations because A. Michalak got picked and B. because too many of your player quite honestly look disinterested .
England aren't playing boring rugby they are doing what needs to be done to win . Played alot of running rugby in the first game . Today's weather just didn't allow it . Not sure way your excuse would be in the first game on a fine day France were simply clueless

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Also, Conor Murray more than made up for having a good game last week.

 

[Largejanner]

Don't begrudge England playing whatever style of rugby they want if it results in a win. In 2003 the management had huge posters that said "Winning is why we are here" all over the England hotel which they used as a base for their training camps. Winning is why this England team are here as well; entertaining French supporters isn't

They`ll never understand the English mentality as regards rugby in the rest of NH nosevi, the Celts can only do moral victories not real ones over SH teams and the french, well they`re just french.:lol:

 

[Groundhog]

They`ll never understand the English mentality as regards rugby in the rest of NH nosevi, the Celts can only do moral victories not real ones over SH teams and the french, well they`re just french.:lol:

Ha, yes, when have any other Northern Hemisphere team actually won anything. Us English, well we don't accept anything but success and you know when you go to Dublin on a wet day that suit the Micks and beat their "high flying, best ever team" with a "visionary" as their coach well you can win just about anything. I've said it before and I'll say it again, RWC2015 is ours to lose.

 

[nosevi]

Good read, but I'm not missing the point though, "mate". That's exactly what I'm saying !! Everybody, it seems, in this tournament will have to just sit there and look at England claim it when they're not the 1st or even 2nd, or in fact 3rd most talented team in the tournament. It's an annoying thought, but props to England, they're good...and whether "entertaining French supporters isn't what England is about", well it certainly isn't ! And it never has been... I'm not bitter, if England win the tournament I won't have this spiteful feeling in my gut like "why I oughta...!", it's just it's silly to see teams like Ireland and France who can set the world on fire with beautiful tries just not perform because of stupid little fkng mistakes, lack of composure and then lose matches because of details. We haven't been blown out yet, we just lose because of silly little things when our nature is of such a higher caliber, and much much higher quality than those two games.

So that's the frustrating thing with watching England play. They play simple, gathered rugby. Wait for a foul somewhere, kick the penalty, good. Forwards gain some field, close enough they'll score the try. And ppl start thinking "well, if it's that simple, why don't we play like that ?" - well coz the English are amongst the best in the world at doing that !!..
So we just have to sit there, and watch the pragmatic but good England squad beat, say, France so regularly...(who have that big potential...).
I'm not being confrontational here, I'm just letting you know how it is in my mind.

Nothing controntational at all there, but what you seem to be saying is that England don't have the talent but play smart? I'd debate that a tad. What is Rugby all about? Strong pack to secure quick possession, number 10 with vision and a game to match, centres who can get over the gain line (guile or brute force, matters not much of the time), wingers and preferably a full back with some pace, and a seriously solid defence is never a bad thing. Every team needs to improve, that's sport, but point out the weak link in the England chain at the moment, because I'm struggling a bit. Experience was a snag but it might only be a matter of time.

The other teams in the 6 nations at the moment can stand toe to toe with this particular England squad in several areas, out do them in some, but they are struggling to get all the aspects of the game on the pitch at the same time. What England seem to be doing is recognise how to 'take them on at their own game' (look at tactics vs the All Blacks vs tactics vs Scotland vs tactics vs Ireland), and find the weak link in the opposition. Soaking up pressure against the All Blacks would have been a catastophe, it simply wouldn't have worked and we had to take them on at their own game which meant lots aggression at the break down, fast ball and give it out wide. Anything less than a seriously fast kick chase game was going to be a mistake. Against Ireland you're not playing against the same individual brilliance (one or two exceptions maybe), you're playing against a side who work as a team and fashion tries through some very clever team play. As a result you want a far more measured approach to defence in particular and this effects the tempo of the game. You soak up the pressure, frustrate them then get the guy with the "hair gel" to knock the points over. It's not a lack of talent; it's the ability to play your opponent.

Don't make the mistake of thinking England will play the same way against, for instance, the French. The game will be at a far higher tempo, rush defence will be employed and the attack will be far wider and faster. Manu will start and if Freddie is in your line up he better be ready for him hitting that channel. Why? Because this is how England will counter the individual flair of the French, target their weaknesses and put them on the back foot. Please say you're not going to tell me the French play well on the back foot?

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Good read, but I'm not missing the point though, "mate". That's exactly what I'm saying !! Everybody, it seems, in this tournament will have to just sit there and look at England claim it when they're not the 1st or even 2nd, or in fact 3rd most talented team in the tournament. It's an annoying thought, but props to England, they're good...and whether "entertaining French supporters isn't what England is about", well it certainly isn't ! And it never has been... I'm not bitter, if England win the tournament I won't have this spiteful feeling in my gut like "why I oughta...!", it's just it's silly to see teams like Ireland and France who can set the world on fire with beautiful tries just not perform because of stupid little fkng mistakes, lack of composure and then lose matches because of details. We haven't been blown out yet, we just lose because of silly little things when our nature is of such a higher caliber, and much much higher quality than those two games.

So that's the frustrating thing with watching England play. They play simple, gathered rugby. Wait for a foul somewhere, kick the penalty, good. Forwards gain some field, close enough they'll score the try. And ppl start thinking "well, if it's that simple, why don't we play like that ?" - well coz the English are amongst the best in the world at doing that !!..
So we just have to sit there, and watch the pragmatic but good England squad beat, say, France so regularly...(who have that big potential...).
I'm not being confrontational here, I'm just letting you know how it is in my mind.

Ok, so England are the 4th best team in the tournament? Fair enough if thats your genuine feeling.

Yoe, I'm sorry but in your response to his post sums up that you are missing the point. England have played expansive games against Scotland, and fairly so against New Zealand. We've showed we can play rugby when the time is right, and that we can keep it tight when that suits. No matter how much you bluster and say, " fair play England are good at that", it becomes clear that you DO begrudge England winning an ugly game like today. The reasons for which I find unfathomable. England had the ball not that much today, at least not enough that can lead them to be decried for killing the game. France have yet to prove they can adapt, as nosevi put it well - is that something you applaud the French for?

Comparing the teams: Ireland look dangerous but play in a prosaic way that relies on excellent structure and mechanical precision to execute (NB thats not to say they don't have the players to do otherwise, they certainly do, just not the right coach)
Wales are playing rather predictably largely because of the ways they are using Roberts, Daies North, and the fact that Philips is Balls.
France are turning up as and when and it doesn't wash. Scotland look good abd baggage freee. Regardless how you rate England, youy simply cannot continue to use this stereotype of ENgland doing what they do best, waiting for mistakes etc, its old, its tired, and no longer approrpriate. England are playing the most 'modern' game of any of the teams in the emphasis on athletes and not 'fatties', and don't deserve to be decried for winning ugly.

For me, its oen of the most interesting tournaments for some time, with so many teams playing different with dynamics. I'm sorry but if you have a problem with how todays game turned out, you're either less knowledgeable abotu rugby, or much much much younger, than I originally assumed you were.

Also...if you use "mate"in those speech marks as a quote of someone, it DOES sound confrontational, I advise against it

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Comparing the teams: Ireland look dangerous but play in a prosaic way that relies on excellent structure and mechanical precision to execute (NB thats not to say they don't have the players to do otherwise, they certainly do, just not the right coach)

That is extremely harsh to be honest. Ireland created nothing today because we kicked incredibly stupidly and just as Sexton started playing well he tore his hamstring and we all saw what O'Gara was like. If anything you've described England, except with the right coach. I don't see how anyone can say Ireland are an uncreative side and it showed today that in **** conditions losing our best attacking back and our out-half we had no structure, the defence was tight as usual but we had no structure in attack and O'Gara is not capable of playing the kicking game he used to.

 

[big ginger 8]

I want to moan bu don't want to sound like an asshole so I'll post this **** instead.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

That is extremely harsh to be honest. Ireland created nothing today because we kicked incredibly stupidly and just as Sexton started playing well he tore his hamstring and we all saw what O'Gara was like. If anything you've described England, except with the right coach. I don't see how anyone can say Ireland are an uncreative side and it showed today that in **** conditions losing our best attacking back and our out-half we had no structure, the defence was tight as usual but we had no structure in attack and O'Gara is not capable of playing the kicking game he used to.

It's really not, Ireland have some of the greatest attacking talent in the tournament, but I don't feel Ireland play in the most free way. Kidney emphasis winning quck ball, and very skillful backs who can put the ball through the hands. It just so happens that Ireland also have very creative players who I really rate. But do you think that's being fully utilised under Kidney? I don't, but maybe you disagree. To spell it out, that first try against Wales was brilliant, and in it Sexton and BOD showed they are the most skillful in their position in the Northern hem... but does it make it creative? Apart from Bod's lovely pass, not really, its precise execution.

EDIT: just to be clear, I'm not sayign ENgland are way more creative than the other teams, I'm defending this idea that whereas the other top 3 are highly creative, England are still the 'type' which is boring forward dominance and high kickng percentages. Thats an old narrative and its pretty boring

 

[nosevi]

Cmac, I said something similar perhaps but not in quite the same way. Ireland are a fantastic team and they are inventive, the difference is they are inventive as a team - quick hands, superb lines, clever moves and the opposition is left standing, often looking a little silly. With the All Blacks you give one of them a bit too much room and he's gone then the support play is on his shoulder and it's bloody difficult to stop. With the Blacks the answer is don't give them any space 'individually' (think rush defence, blitzes, tearing down the pitch after every kick), with you chaps in the green the answer is don't give them any space 'as a team' (hold the line, cut down the space evenly, soak up the pressure). It's just a different tactic, Ireland play a different game to the Blacks and it requires a different responce.

Henry, I'll stop posting, we just keep posting the same suff over each other anyway

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Henry, I'll stop posting, we just keep posting the same suff over each other anyway

Stick around - best place to talk <STRIKE> about rugby </STRIKE> shite on tinternet!

 

[nosevi]

:lol:

Maybe, but don't want to upset our Gallic friends, what with talking common sense and stuff.