• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Spring Tour: New Zealand vs Ireland - 3rd Test. (23/6/2012, 07:35 GMT)

Yes obviously but saying are players are bad instead of they played bad is not how we should be going on.
 
In comparison to the All Blacks they are bad. No point lying about. Surely two stuffings are enough to prove they're not in the same class.
 
In comparison to the All Blacks they are bad. No point lying about. Surely two stuffings are enough to prove they're not in the same class.

Again that's different. Saying outright the players are bad is wrong, your local thirds are probably bad not international level players. Yeah they've been outclassed completely and utterly in two of the tests doesn't mean we don't still have some players who are quality.
 
Again that's different. Saying outright the players are bad is wrong, your local thirds are probably bad not international level players. Yeah they've been outclassed completely and utterly in two of the tests doesn't mean we don't still have some players who are quality.


Sorry, you're right. They're all class. How could I ever have thought differently.

Irish people over rate their players. I'm guilty of it myself on occasion. We put out at least 6 players who aren't up to international standard. They're bad players at this level. Get over it.
 
It's the biggest defeat for Ireland... 60-0! :(
Last weekend Ireland could win and today... Rugby, Rugby and Rugby!! :)
 
I think the whole of the NH overrates the players, especially the backs.

JD is seen as a top centre in the NH, in the SH he'd probably struggle to make a Super Rugby side
 
Sorry, you're right. They're all class. How could I ever have thought differently.

Irish people over rate their players. I'm guilty of it myself on occasion. We put out at least 6 players who aren't up to international standard. They're bad players at this level. Get over it.

It's not just Irish people in case you haven't noticed. I didn't say they're all class World XV quality etc.etc. Who were the 6 players in your opinion Murray and Wallace I'll agree immediately there's a few others I might guess that you'll say and possibly agree. However I believe not up to the standard required is different to simply being a bad player which another matter entirely. A lot of revisions and changes need to be made to the team but your constant pessimism just sickens me.
 
I think it's more that our players aren't conssistently good enough at this level! In my opinion its key partnerships which are breaking down the team. In defence for example the 12 and 13 partnership has been weak in all but the second test. Individually ours ayers have the skill set and talent in most positions but as a team we (for the majority of time) our very disjointed with a lack of direction. Players like Murray and Sexton clearly see to complete different ways playing the game.
 
Here we go, let the SH-Good-NH-bad begin. Nowt like a broad brush generalisation to describe a single match.
 
Last edited:
I think it's more that our players aren't conssistently good enough at this level! In my opinion its key partnerships which are breaking down the team. In defence for example the 12 and 13 partnership has been weak in all but the second test. Individually ours ayers have the skill set and talent in most positions but as a team we (for the majority of time) our very disjointed with a lack of direction. Players like Murray and Sexton clearly see to complete different ways playing the game.

Well in fairness the partnership in the first test was it's first match, the second match partnership have been together for yonks and todays contained Paddy Wallace.
 
It's not just Irish people in case you haven't noticed. I didn't say they're all class World XV quality etc.etc. Who were the 6 players in your opinion Murray and Wallace I'll agree immediately there's a few others I might guess that you'll say and possibly agree. However I believe not up to the standard required is different to simply being a bad player which another matter entirely. A lot of revisions and changes need to be made to the team but your constant pessimism just sickens me.


Constant pessimism? It's called realism mate, this Irish team has given me very little to feel good about over the past 4 years. Just because I don't do that thing you do every bloody week of going "actually as the game approaches I'm feeling more confident" doesn't make me a pessimist, it means I'm able to look at a game rationally without any patriotism or wishful thinking blinding me.
 
Here we go, let the SH-Good-NH-bad begin. Nowt like a broad brush generalisation to describe a single match.

Well seeing that the SH have won every game this series (bar Scotland :p) it seems that SH is good and NH is bad
 
Constant pessimism? It's called realism mate, this Irish team has given me very little to feel good about over the past 4 years. Just because I don't do that thing you do every bloody week of going "actually as the game approaches I'm feeling more confident" doesn't make me a pessimist, it means I'm able to look at a game rationally without any patriotism or wishful thinking blinding me.

No there is a difference between realism and pessimism. Yeah I'm a glass half full type. To me calling the players bad without qualifying it is wrong. I'm going to use this example and I'm sure you'll pick some hole in it as you love to do. Do you not think me saying you're a bad physicist is different to saying you're a bad physicist compared to Albert Einstein. Quite clearly there are plenty of things about me that annoy you and vice versa guess I've spent enough time on this thread on this matter I'm sure we'll be having it again in an inevitable fix it thread.

EDIT: Also "the last four years" did include 09 which is pretty much considered the best ever year for Irish rugby.
 
Last edited:
Here we go, let the SH-Good-NH-bad begin. Nowt like a broad brush generalisation to describe a single match.


Yeah.... except that the people arguing the two sides of the argument are both from the NH.....


Ooops!!
 
Well seeing that the SH have won every game this series (bar Scotland :p) it seems that SH is good and NH is bad
no, what we have in real terms (not the ******** IRB rankings system which is as equally flawed as the politics of the sport itself) is:


1. NZ
2. Everyone else (pick your own order of SA, Eng, Ire, Wal & Fra)
7. Oz (narrow home wins over a gutless Welsh side, not a patch on their 6N form, is nothing to be excited about)
8. Sco
9. Arg
10. Ita
 
no, what we have in real terms (not the ******** IRB rankings system which is as equally flawed as the politics of the sport itself) is:


1. NZ
2. Everyone else (pick your own order of SA, Eng, Ire, Wal & Fra)
7. Oz (narrow home wins over a gutless Welsh side, not a patch on their 6N form, is nothing to be excited about)
8. Sco
9. Arg
10. Ita
Wow that 7th ranked team seem to have done quite well against those ranked above them in recent times!
 
Well in fairness the partnership in the first test was it's first match, the second match partnership have been together for yonks and todays contained Paddy Wallace.

Who's problems that? If we were a consistent top class team then these partnerships would be interchangeable. It shows how much even Kidney over rates player. Look at Earls how in hell can anyone think he is capable at this level in 4 different back positions. Look at the New Zealand team. Even in the first test with Carter and Smith making their first start together, it looked like they had been playing with each other for years. That is clearly because both players understand their roles within the team and the objectives of it in relative terms..... On the other hand Ireland have no clue!
 

Latest posts

Top