• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Ireland v England, 10/02/13

yoe91 said:
I agree with nick's whole comment, but these two parts are interesting especially.
English fans are more defensive than I'd thought. It seems ANY remark at all that belongs to the realm of criticism rather than complimenting will, de facto, be attacked.

And second: English fans (for the more extreme, possibly more immature ones) have this disgusting tendency of blowing wins out of proportion. It's like they're glad their side wins so they can rub it in your face for a long time, depending on how big the win; 10 years later, a lot are STILL talking about their RWC for e.g.
It's like they'll take (those narrow-minded fans) a win to basically justify why they think they're the superior race, will start throwing stuff like the British Empire and how England hasn't been invaded in a millennium etc...

Those, of the more extreme, but there's a stem of that on this very forum.
And btw, since we're at this, I'd like to come clean. I try to get rid of stereotypes the most I can, honestly, genuinely. But it's things like that that make me want to see England not succeed too much. I don't mind a few wins, but as soon as they get on a streak, or beat a big team or pull smt rare (win in Ireland); from the actual ppl in life, to ppl online generally, to this very forum I find, to lots of English media, there's this typically English thickness and hostility...like they're the masters of the world because they won a Rugby match...

EDIT: if I'm with an English friend and we're watching a match (even France England) and England win, and the guy's totally fairplay about it, and there really is nothing there in the back of his mind, no problem. But there is a great number of those other English fans...there really, really is; nothing to do with clichés or nothing.

Edit 2:


Wasn't aware it was that unclear. Hope this above comment makes sense because there sure is a lot of truth in it.
Click to expand...


Hmm, I will respond because I feel your comment was a little aimed at me. I took exception to your "talent" comment because you stated what is an opinion as fact. Essentially that England do not have the players or creativity of Wales and Ireland. If disagreeing with this makes me arrogant, so be it. I read alot of the thread since the game ended and English people projecting their supposed superiority complex wasn't what I saw. In any walk of life you will find people who shall we say lack intelligence but I hope that people with intelligence have enough to realise everyone is an individual.
Also I hope you see the irony in starting sentences with "England fans this or that" then ending with "I try to get rid of stereotypes".
 
As I said before, new on here, but it is quite entertaining. :)

Between kiwis who moan about how England play then say they want to see England loose no matter how they play, other British sides who think England have no talent but loose against them anyway and French supporters criticising English fans in general, this from the only nation on earth who regularly boo and jeer their own side if it's not doing well, it's all quite interesting to the uninitiated. :) Just mucking about but do you see where I'm coming from?

England are moving forwards, nothing more, but it's encouraging to see. If they keep doing it by 2015 we might be able to put our hand up as a serious contender. It's good to see as an England supporter, why negativity from other nations? Come out, beat us (which will happen soon I'd say, no way it'll all be plain sailing) then tell us we're crap. In the mean time why not let us enjoy how our boys seem to be moving forward?

Yoe, you seem like a nice chap, what you got against England supporters?
 
Good post Nick, I understand your position better and whilst I disagree with a few things, I agree with plenty too.

The thing I most agree with is about the way the teams were trying to play with ball n hand - running at players rather than gaps. I felt it was particularly true of backs. The overriding theme was fear of losing, which is a typical feature of six nations clashes against bitter rivals, though worse for the weather. That manifested itself in players never trying to go anywhere without support, and therefore the backs were trying to keep it close to the pack. Hence we saw cut-back lines from 36 quite often which went nowhere except back to Heaslip and co. Now, whether this is a problem in oue backline dynamic, or a tactical issue, it remains to be seen. Because against Scotland we didn't play like that. The ball went through the hands, wider, more often. I just think for this game we'd been coached to keep it close to contact and the pack for support. However, in th case of Goode's stuttering lines confusing noone but hmself, I think thats a selection issue and that Brown should be close to replacing him. In defense of this which may seem harsh, Goode has been out injured and Scotland was his first game back, we shouldnt exect players to be right back on it after injury. So as I say, if our back-play, for example, had been like it was yesterday against Scotland, I think we'd all be more gloomy about it. There's also very much a consensus that the centre partnership we've had thus far has been just a holding partnership, with Tuilagi back in sooner or later. This point about it beng a choosen approach to keep support close and commit backs to the breakdown to ensure good ball, certainly doesn't dispel your point, because then the question is 'Why such a negative approach?' I don't really have an answer to that, except that I'm glad we're stll in a position where we can win the tournament! I have to agree, I don't think yesterdays game was entirely down to the weather, I think its a mix of that plus tactical approaches based on fear of losing. Its not healthy, I grant, but I can definitely tell you it matche the fear of losing I had when I woke up testerday!

I think as regards the way we criticise our players and priase them interchaneably, for a start in the last few months we've been on a learning curve in terms of the merits of certain players. Farrell, Brown, and Parling have gradually showed more and more elements of their games which have removed some of the doubts we had - whch I think were valid doubts as we had little evidence, say before Scotland, that Farrell could attack the gain-line to any extent at all. I've also learnt that I don't completely hate Mike Brown , and that Parlings also probably our best carrying lock because of the lines he runs. I think part of the mixture between criticism and praise has been because we've managed to win games - sometimes impressively and with flair - despite having neither a genuinely good centre partnership, or a sensible approach to the back 3. So its an appreciation that we do have more potential that makes us abuse our players sometimes! Also, it is genuinely possible for a player to be good and bad in equal measure, but its not always entirely the players fault, as with Browns positioning not being quite perfect since hes not usually on the wing.
 
Saintjay said:
England fans seem happy with the win at all costs, stick it up your jumper rugby.
Click to expand...
I think (hope?) that that's not fully true. To aspire to be the best in the world, we need players which can switch between territorial and expansive rugby and England do have the players for this. For example, Farrell/Barritt is a much more specialised territorial-game 10-12 axis, but Burns-Twelvetrees can play the territorial game to about the same standard (you lose out on defense, but gain in having a good second kicking option), whilst at the same time offering a much better attacking game.

Bar hooker, the pack is fantastic, particularly when Corbisiero is fit. But I worry that the pack will bully NH teams in the Six Nations, but when the SH teams come to town, the pack will be matched and the backline exposed. It's because team-wide winning performances in the six nations save players who are underperforming from the chop, but then they are exposed when the SH come around. Sharples had one test to prove himself in the autumn and was dropped straight after for his defensive flaws because he was in a losing team against a SH team. Brown took over and has shown nothing more than what Sharples had shown, also being a clear defensive frailty, but is saved because "you don't change a winning team". I don't rate Brown or Goode, I think Youngs is making some good noise, but his box kicking is still not the best. Barritt is a very good specialised player, but Twelvetrees is only slightly worse in defense, but offers a much bigger armory - turnovers, distribution, a kicking option, good line attacker etc. Are all of these worth less than a 5% difference in their tackle completion rate?

I hate to criticise my team when they are winning, but I think that the good times will be followed by problems if we are not prepared to make changes and react to form even when we are winning. In one sense, the worst thing to happen during MJ's reign was to win twice against Australia in 2010 - it cemented places in the team for a number of uninspiring players up until the end of MJ's term.
 
Aristodemus said:
Hmm, I will respond because I feel your comment was a little aimed at me. I took exception to your "talent" comment because you stated what is an opinion as fact. Essentially that England do not have the players or creativity of Wales and Ireland. If disagreeing with this makes me arrogant, so be it. I read alot of the thread since the game ended and English people projecting their supposed superiority complex wasn't what I saw. In any walk of life you will find people who shall we say lack intelligence but I hope that people with intelligence have enough to realise everyone is an individual.
Also I hope you see the irony in starting sentences with "England fans this or that" then ending with "I try to get rid of stereotypes".
Click to expand...

Well I can't remember what you specifically said, so I'm not sure you were part of whom I was aiming at.
And I made the effort to mention "some" fans, "those" fans.
OF COURSE I understand not all ppl from one country are the exact same and all that, but there are obvious tendencies from one people to the next.
And you were mentioning fact VS opinion:
it's beyond opinion that there is a strong attitude, or position; from the educated or lower classes (some of both); from the English that they're above the rest. And in stead of taking a win for what it is, will blow things out of proportion instantaneously and kindly explain to you they're the superior race.

THAT, you cannot take away. I've seen it, read it, heard of it so often in 26 years (well, in my "conscious" life) it's just simply an acquired reality to my understanding of the world. I won't go by that as a systematic rule, and immediately interpret what every single Englishman says with that in mind - but there's been enough evidence of it that it's simply a cold hard fact, that progressively cemented harder and harder through the years.
The media is a fantastic tool, or medium, to understand that. The media gives the ppl what they want, and English ppl (the avg. bloke ?) want to hear about the glory of their nation, how great they are at rugby...etc...in the most serious way. Superlatives, adjectives like "glorious" and what not...
trust me, you may be like a fish in a bowl, I'm not saying have have no objectivity at all, surely you're a clever guy, but trust me...England is very, very....VERY peculiar when analyzing other European nations, or just nations altogether.
 
So just for the record........England have no talented players and the only reason they win is because the other team play badly or England play not to lose (dont know what that means must mean playing for a draw). The fans are all arrogant/childish/over confident and we have no chance of winning the grand slam because Ireland, France and Wales all have better players and we can only play 10 man rugby.

Right OK then
 
Parling you cannot fault him, his consistency and workrate in the loose AND lineout management is great. Would be a better team with Lawes and JL? but i am not sure who would run the lineout???:huh:? I just think compared to the other locks parling lacks that strength, lets be honest he ain't built like eben etzebeth is he? does JL and PArling scare other forwards, probably not.
 
Last edited:
Tallshort said:
So just for the record........England have no talented players and the only reason they win is because the other team play badly or England play not to lose (dont know what that means must mean playing for a draw). The fans are all arrogant/childish/over confident and we have no chance of winning the grand slam because Ireland, France and Wales all have better players and we can only play 10 man rugby.

Right OK then
Click to expand...
Great! We all agree then.





























































​LOL
 
The talent/skill debate is r******d. The the thing about skill is that you generally need talent to pull it off. But the thing about talent is that you need some skill in order to be talented. It really is that simple...

Or have i had too much Jager on a Monday night? :rolleyes:

On another note. How the hell are we going to survive two weeks to get to the next round!!
 
yoe91 said:
THAT, you cannot take away. I've seen it, read it, heard of it so often in 26 years (well, in my "conscious" life) it's just simply an acquired reality to my understanding of the world. I won't go by that as a systematic rule, and immediately interpret what every single Englishman says with that in mind - but there's been enough evidence of it that it's simply a cold hard fact, that progressively cemented harder and harder through the years.
The media is a fantastic tool, or medium, to understand that. The media gives the ppl what they want, and English ppl (the avg. bloke ?) want to hear about the glory of their nation, how great they are at rugby...etc...in the most serious way. Superlatives, adjectives like "glorious" and what not...
trust me, you may be like a fish in a bowl, I'm not saying have have no objectivity at all, surely you're a clever guy, but trust me...England is very, very....VERY peculiar when analyzing other European nations, or just nations altogether.
Click to expand...

Is it just me or is anyone else reading this with a Monty Pythonesque French accent? :)

I'm taking the ****, Yoe, but look, what do you expect? England is very peculiar when ..... , the English do this, the English do that. If you're implying that other nations aren't arrogant then you've lead a very sheltered life my friend (not being nasty, 'my friend' is being friendly :)) Look I've lived in several coutries throughout the world, been on ops with Kiwis, Ausis, yanks, Your chaps, Germans, Italians, Dutch, Canadians, multiple Arabian countries and that's just for starters, the list goes on for quite a way. If you think other nations aren't arrogant then frankly you can't have been outside your own front door step, or at least not with your eyes open. We've got a long way to go before we catch up to our friends across the pond, many of whom are my friends, as a nation though, serious arrogant. Spent quite a bit of time in France, their National pride is absolutely no different to ours and regularly comes out as arrogance - no issue with that, you've got a lot to be proud about. Don't believe me? The International language of Air Traffic is English, accepted throughout the world as frankly, we've got to have a standard way of comunicating...... except when French controllers refuse to speak English. In my particular trade practically everywhere we've always measured pressure in millibars (or inches in US dominated areas) but the French have repeatedly refused to convert so now we have to give it in hectopascals ....... the conversion of which is 1 to 1 ie 996 millibars is 996 hectopascals. They were just being bloody awkward because the hectopascal is French. You are an incrediably proud nation and at times just as arrogant as us......... which I have absolutely no issue with with at all. You're also generally a nice bunch of people. Well, you are when you're not being arrogant anyway. :)
 
Tallshort said:
So just for the record........England have no talented players and the only reason they win is because the other team play badly or England play not to lose (dont know what that means must mean playing for a draw). The fans are all arrogant/childish/over confident and we have no chance of winning the grand slam because Ireland, France and Wales all have better players and we can only play 10 man rugby.

Right OK then
Click to expand...

There's a word for when people exaggerate someone's comment / arguement to ridiculous lengths in order to change it's result and make it worse than it is. Please don't do that, it's silly and irritating.
 
Last edited:
Shall we get back to rugby? reading this thread is pretty painful for anyone who isn't English or Irish, and i'm guessing it's not much better for those who are either. I don't want to not read it, because i'm interested in what people have to say about the respected teams, but it's still annoying. Oh and the word 'arrogant' has become completely overused, particularly when used in ironic terms. STOP IT! The English seem more arrogant because they have more bandwagoners/more supporters which makes it easy to spot English trolls.

Prediction for the rest of the tournament - I think England will win the tournament if Wales fail to inflict heavy defeats on Italy and/or Scotland, something which i'm doubting. However, if Wales do win comfortably and end up with a higher points difference than England then we could win the tournament. Furthermore I think if Ireland can gain some dominant wins then they could sneak in ahead of England and Wales.

As it is, i see the table finishing as follows:

England - 8
Wales/Ireland - 8
France - 4-6
Scotland - 2
Italy - 2

I basically can see it being Either between England/Wales/Ireland based on points difference, but this all depends most probably on how France perform for the rest of the tournament.

Sure, this week has been disappointing in terms of exciting running rugby, but i can't remember the last time it has been this open in a long long time.
 
Last edited:
to win a world cup you need a strong pack, good kicker and backline with size and pace to burn .example in 2003 england had a strong pack ,wilkinson and cohen ,robinson,greenwood etc.In 2007 South Africa had a monsterous pack,percy montgomery and habana and JDV etc.In 2011 New Zealand had a strong pack,would of had Carter if not for injury and a brilliant backline including Isreal Dagg and the superstar that is Sonny-Bill Williams.
 
All fair Jbobo. I think it'll be close as well. The next round will be interesting though and I wouldn't want to make any predictions before it.
 
I think England will beat Italy and France, lose to Wales, but win the 6N. I think Scotland will beat Ireland or Wales (not both) and lose to France. I think Ireland will lose to France and beat Italy.

England
Scotland/Wales
France
Ireland
Italy
 
TRF_nickdnz said:
I think I'm ganna bake myself a little cake when England lose a game, because terms like "progessed as a team", "playing clever rugby", "winning ugly" and the mention of the 2003 team (which I'll add was a decade ago), will swiftly be replaced with "poor coaching decisions", "playing the same old style", "same old 10 man rugby". It's marvalous how winning three games in a row makes the English superior to everyone - but one loss makes them the worst team ever.
Click to expand...

Probably. We're no more immune to our emotions than other teams.

However, we're unlikely to be playing 10 man rugby unless it suits the occasions - although people will no doubt complain. And there probably will be poor coaching decisions when next we lose a game - in fact, I think there's some poor coaching decisions going on now, but they pale besides the very big ones they are getting right. But I imagine not getting them right will probably result in losing some games, at which point they'll be mentioned. However, right now, they are getting enough big decisions right, that I feel fairly happy we'll win more than we'll lose.

Not saying this about every Englishmen to be fair, some a very level headed - but there are plenty which seem to get a bit ahead of themselves. It was only a few months ago that the English were saying Robshaw was a terrible captain who made stupid choices, Farrell was a guy who was only in the team cause of his dad, Ashton couldn't tackle a paraplegic on stilts, Youngs was the worst halfback in the Premiership, Farrell had no attacking game, Tuilagi can't pass the ball, Alex Goode only has a kicking game, Brown can't defend on the wing etc, etc, etc. Now they're the team everyone in Europe should aspire to be.
Click to expand...

Ashton still can't tackle, I'm stunned by what they've done with Youngs and Farrell, Goode doesn't have much more than a kicking game although he's an odd one tbh, and if Ireland had been able to set Gilroy off at Brown over dry ground a bit more I think we could have seen some ugly stuff, etc.etc. There's still an awful lot of flaws. Probably always will be. Flaws can be masked in the right setting - or at least some can. Personally I think our back three needs a shake-up, but that's mildly besides the point at the moment.

Let me expand on my argument properly

You, insofar as I can see, are concentrating solely on tactical and technical ambition and deficit. Because we did not go for the biggest win possible, because we did not make the best use of space and our kicking game we could, you see an exposed fault line in English rugby which will be repeated again and again. Which, in fairness, it has been, and probably will continue to do so. However, I see three - four - big things wrong with your argument.

You're ignoring the Scotland game. Six Nations game, old enemies, traditionally tight match - the conditions are good and England seek to exploit good ball time and time again. You could pick out plenty of flaws with our execution in that game, but I do not see how you can criticize the ambition. In light of the long standing traditions of English rugby, you have a point. In light of recent form under Lancaster, the Ireland game was an aberration with a clear and noticeable cause, and should be treated as such.

I think you're not being fair on the tactical front. We played what was in front of us and, I believe, modified our tactical intent based on what was in front of us and what was happening. For me, having a team that can recognise and exploit a tactical opportunity is a huge plus, and one of the encouraging things I took out of Sunday's game. To go through the tactics - for me, arguably Ireland's biggest weapon in that game was Dublin. 40,000+ plus baying Irishmen driving their team on can be a hell of a thing. The Aviva may not naturally lend itself to such, but it can be a very loud place at the right times. Even without that home factor, Ireland are still a team rather driven by emotion (imo) and not giving them something to get themselves going was the right tactic walking in there. Contain them, don't let them get worked up. In terms of the psychological factors of the encounter, that was the key, and attacking play which could go wrong was even riskier than normal in that context. Also, I believe the England team and management would have looked at the two benches and felt very confident that they could open up a lead when legs get tired and we unleashed a lot of international quality while they had a lot of has-beens, might-bes and barely a game changer amongst them. And I think looking back, the subs did make a big impact.

When we saw that they were, for want of a better term, nervous, that they were making lots of errors, to me it made perfect sense to step up the containment strategy. Don't let them get a score to settle themselves. Do force them to play rugby and wait for the error that will give you points. For forty minutes, aided by Sexton's absence, we executed that perfectly. Those were our tactics and given how many England sides have fallen prey to Dublin, I believe they were the right ones, particularly in light of Ireland playing poorly. Would we have done the same against New Zealand in Twickenham in the same weather conditions? I do not believe so. We played the conditions and the opposition right. That gives me heart.

Also, a natural corollary of that strategy was we didn't have much ball. I've said our performance against NZ and Scotland was born of mountains of good ball. We didn't have that Sunday. We possibly did squander a few opportunities with it, but there was nothing like the same surfeit of attacking possibilities. And that's not just because we kicked a lot. Our set piece wobbled.

Finally, maybe something I haven't been clear enough because I've been distracted by accusations of tactical ineptitude, but the big gigantic plus to me was entirely on the mental side. A huge amount of rugby, particularly at the top level where margins between player skill are increasingly small, come down to having a team that believes in themselves and the game plan. I've already said Ireland simply don't have that. I thought England might have it, but I wanted proof. Games in Twickenham, well, doubt remains. A rainy day in Dublin was a perfect proving ground. I thought England showed a tremendous amount of composure, particularly when down to 14, and an excellent team ethic. It really is making a difference. I thought we had it after we completely smashed New Zealand's revival in the autumn, I now feel fairly sure about it. I believe the mental strength and cohesion shown on Sunday - and I can't overstate Dublin as a hostile arena for English rugby - is one of the vital building blocks of any great team. It is a foundation stone. I feel we have the foundation stones in place, I think we show a growing ability to play the game as it unfolds, and we've shown some nice attacking rugby on better days. That is a solid basis for some confidence.

And, it will (probably) get better. In terms of quality, man for man, England are not a stand-out team in this tournament. We're sort of near the top, although probably not there, but there's four teams that can match us. If we beat them it will be, as some have suggested, due to the superior team ethic coming from Lancaster as much as anything. But going back to the 6N last year, playing the likes of Dowson and Botha, we have a clear improvement in terms of quality in the team. That team should probably have come fourth or third. It came second. This team should probably be in the mix. Next year? We still have an awful lot of young players coming through, players whose domestic form suggests they're as good as the players already playing for England, and whose overall skillset offers more. An awful lot of them won't make it, but I expect to see another 3 or so fully included into the team by next 6N - probably Burns, a winger and a back row. Maybe a young tighthead on the bench.

When I talk about my confidence in England based on that match, it is because I see a gigantic amount of potential which could do great things given the right environment. The Dublin victory gave me a huge amount of belief about the right environment being provided in terms of morale and espirit d'corps. That is the crux of it. The tactics are frankly irrelevant to that - although, yes, given the context I think we showed a fair amount of tactical nous. But even if we hadn't, I'd still be pretty dang happy. Because the heart shown was the big factor. That's what I wanted to see.


Finally - yoe, I can't comment on the Englishmen you met; but please don't judge us by our press. As someone who makes a livelihood out of reading newspapers, the English/British press offers a very skewed and warped perspective of how we think, how we act, and how we are.
 

Similar threads

TRF_Olyy
[2024 Six Nations] England vs Wales - 10/02/24
36 37 38
Replies
748
Views
26K
Vieux Talonneur
Vieux Talonneur
TRF_Olyy
[2024 Six Nations] France vs Ireland - 02/02/24
12 13 14
Replies
278
Views
12K
Jimbo
J
A
England V Ireland March 9 2024 Six Nations
Replies
0
Views
737
AliC@t
A
T
2024 Tickets England v Ireland Six Nations
Replies
1
Views
1K
AliC@t
A
R
Lyon - England v France
Replies
1
Views
472
TommiG88
T

Latest posts

Top