My Fellow Irish Fans Do Any Of You Really Beleive We Can Win It This Year

First topic message reminder :

Because i do.

Not only on paper imho we have the second best team in the world behind NZ but i really believe that this will be the tourney we finally reach our potential as a team with it being BOD's and POC swangsong so to speak

On the basis that Ireland only have to beat one of SA and Australia, not both, to reach the SF, I would suggest their chance are reasonable at least.

Of course Italy and others in the group have to be put to the sword but the SF is a realistic possiblity.

I do not believe for one moment we have the depth/consistancy to beat one of those and win a SF and win a Final but a SF place - why not ?

I have been under the impression since I joined 606 that the weslh were the most passionate supporters.

Either nobody told them about 606v2, or my assessment was premature and the Irish are indeed more passionate.

Thank goodness those Henson articles have disappeared

greybeard wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:

greybeard wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:

greybeard wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:I personally think that we have a 50% chance of winning against South Africa as the only two outcomes are to win or to lose. 50/50.

That's like saying if a lady is choosing between me and Brad Pitt I'm in with an excellent chance.

Still one or the other and it's a chance.

One or the other, but not equal chances.

Why not?

If Ireland play, say, Kazakhstan in rugby, is there a 50/50 chance of Kazakhstan winning?

Two outcomes (ignoring the draw) aren't necessarily weighted equally.

They are if you don't look at it subjectively with pre-conceived notions. You can look at it other ways if you wish but that is how I choose to look at it. Oh and I'd fancy my chances against Brad Pitt. He might be more stunning looks wise but I think I have a few things up my sleeve that might win out.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:In fairness, Rodders, you followed up a horrible performance in a horrible match against Wales with a storming display against England in your last two games. That doesn't suggest consistency.

Australia followed up a defeat to Somoa with a victory over South Africa.

South Africa followed up a loss to Scotland by pummelling England at twickenham in the Autumn.

Maybe these sides aren't too consistant either or perhaps these patronising comments only get thrown at Ireland when they don't perfrom to the same level every week?

I would suggest that the the only consistantly impressive side in World rugby right now are NZ and the fact that Ireland have never dropped below 6th in the IRB rankings or dropped below 3rd in the 6N suggests that we are far from inconsistant.

Rodders,

In 2008, we finished 4th.

biltongbek wrote:I have been under the impression since I joined 606 that the weslh were the most passionate supporters.

Either nobody told them about 606v2, or my assessment was premature and the Irish are indeed more passionate.

Thank goodness those Henson articles have disappeared

We're as passionate as the rest. I think on here though, we are much more vocal but I suppose that's the same everywhere for Irish people.

You're good writers too Munsty... always worth a read!

MBTGOG wrote:

greybeard wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:

greybeard wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:

greybeard wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:I personally think that we have a 50% chance of winning against South Africa as the only two outcomes are to win or to lose. 50/50.

That's like saying if a lady is choosing between me and Brad Pitt I'm in with an excellent chance.

Still one or the other and it's a chance.

One or the other, but not equal chances.

Why not?

If Ireland play, say, Kazakhstan in rugby, is there a 50/50 chance of Kazakhstan winning?

Two outcomes (ignoring the draw) aren't necessarily weighted equally.

They are if you don't look at it subjectively with pre-conceived notions. You can look at it other ways if you wish but that is how I choose to look at it. Oh and I'd fancy my chances against Brad Pitt. He might be more stunning looks wise but I think I have a few things up my sleeve that might win out.

If you ever open a bookies let me know!

greybeard wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:

greybeard wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:

greybeard wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:

greybeard wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:I personally think that we have a 50% chance of winning against South Africa as the only two outcomes are to win or to lose. 50/50.

That's like saying if a lady is choosing between me and Brad Pitt I'm in with an excellent chance.

Still one or the other and it's a chance.

One or the other, but not equal chances.

Why not?

If Ireland play, say, Kazakhstan in rugby, is there a 50/50 chance of Kazakhstan winning?

Two outcomes (ignoring the draw) aren't necessarily weighted equally.

They are if you don't look at it subjectively with pre-conceived notions. You can look at it other ways if you wish but that is how I choose to look at it. Oh and I'd fancy my chances against Brad Pitt. He might be more stunning looks wise but I think I have a few things up my sleeve that might win out.

If you ever open a bookies let me know!

Don't you worry yourself, I understand business doesn't work on my odds and they'd be changed for purpose

Linebreaker wrote:You're good writers too Munsty... always worth a read!

Why thank you. Hopefully one day I'll be one of them as well.

Biltong I don't know why this is such a big issue for you.

- Ireland would be underdogs if facing SA or Aus
- Underdogs sometimes win
- Ireland could win
- If they did it would be an upset
- It is by no means an impossibility

Its really very simple.

I would say all rugby supporters are Passionate.

Some however are Passionate to the point of fanaticism.

Passion wears many guises : wit, humour, knowlege, banter, optimism.

Most of these tags can be allocated here, one thing 606v2 has an advantage over the original 606 is it feels more like a community.

By that I mean it's easier to associate users with a particular style of writing all differant but all valid none the less. I think that is the greates advantage of v2 over the original.

MBTGOG wrote:Rodders,

In 2008, we finished 4th.

OK Munsty no need to get bogged down in the detail here....

I agree with roddersm. Ireland are consistent. Never reached lofty heights like winning a world cup or consistently beating SH sides. On the other hand never really been through a proper form slump.

Certainly more consistent than the Welsh who have two slams in between numerous 4ths and 5ths.

Since the 6 nations began in 2000, Ireland have picked up 1 championship win, Wales 2,England 4 and France 5.

4 triple crowns for Ireland though.

Also consistent in constantly beating England but constantly losing to France.

roddersm wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:Rodders,

In 2008, we finished 4th.

OK Munsty no need to get bogged down in the detail here....

Firstly WOW some of you really need to get laid getting all tense and stressed because i said Tourney lol

Secondly why are so many of you so negative we have a great team and are due a good TOURNEY and are coming off the back off a great win against England why not believe we can do well this year

Irish,

I agree that we have a very good side. Not great as they need to achieve more still.

In sport, you're not due anything otherwise, no one else would win a World Cup bar New Zealand.

red_stag wrote:Biltong I don't know why this is such a big issue for you.

- Ireland would be underdogs if facing SA or Aus
- Underdogs sometimes win
- Ireland could win
- If they did it would be an upset
- It is by no means an impossibility

Its really very simple.

You know, even if South Africa had a good coach and a coherent gameplan I'd be more afraid of them. It's really a case if you stop their big ball carriers and wait for them to kick the ball away you have a chance.

I definitely think South Africa are nowhere near their potential as a side and that means I'm not afraid of them. I would say they would be favourites, but they're really not scary anymore. New Zealand are scary. South Africa have looked beatable since 2009. Ireland have been even more beatable.

Therefore I view South Africa as favourites in any hypothetical game, but with a good chance of an upset.

Beshocked I agree with all of that. There is no doubt Ireland have to step up a level to reach the SF or Final of this WC. The only real debate is how far they have to step up and whether they can or not.

I'm hopeful that we can based on the players we have and how we have performed at times this season. I can see why others are sceptical but we will have to wait and see what happens.

All is not perfect with in Irish rugby by any stretch but there are plenty of positives too and I just hope we can give a good account of ourselves this time. If we get KO'd by a better team then I'll have no complaints if we play to our potential.

Rodders, apologies if my comment came across as patronising. What I was trying to show is that consistency can be interpreted in different ways. Your reply demonstrated that too!

red_stag wrote:Biltong I don't know why this is such a big issue for you.

- Ireland would be underdogs if facing SA or Aus
- Underdogs sometimes win
- Ireland could win
- If they did it would be an upset
- It is by no means an impossibility

Its really very simple.

Look i understand the irish are very proud of those three wins, but whenever there is a debate about whether the irish can beat the springboks they bring up those three wins at home. They conveniently omit any other part of their record against us.

It would be the same if I only brought up the three wins against NZ in 2009.

Or the last 10 tests we won 5 and they won 5.

But when i look at the professional era, all of a sudden our record goes to 30%.

Just a bug bear of mine.

No probs Luckless Didn't mean to go off on one either...

Rob B wrote:

I guess the main difference with France is Australia are ranked 2. Samoa played a B side - they would have wiped a lot of sides that day, including Ireland and England at full strength as they played probably their best game in history. If you want a benchmark, look at Wallabies recent results against the All Blacks:: 28-49; 10-20; 22-23; 26-24. Have a look at the game this August 6 - World Cup Final preview....

Seriously arrogant to suggest that Samoa would wipe the floor with Ireland and England's first team. I think the more obvious conclusion is that Australia's squad depth isnt particularly impressive. Samoa played very well but a better team wouldn't have allowed them play so well. Ireland usually hammer Samoa.

Biltong I think we can all be guilty of having selective memories at times...

roddersm wrote:Biltong I think we can all be guilty of having selective memories at times...

To true, that is how we remain positive about our team's chances.

biltongbek wrote:

red_stag wrote:Biltong I don't know why this is such a big issue for you.

- Ireland would be underdogs if facing SA or Aus
- Underdogs sometimes win
- Ireland could win
- If they did it would be an upset
- It is by no means an impossibility

Its really very simple.

Look i understand the irish are very proud of those three wins, but whenever there is a debate about whether the irish can beat the springboks they bring up those three wins at home. They conveniently omit any other part of their record against us.

It would be the same if I only brought up the three wins against NZ in 2009.

Or the last 10 tests we won 5 and they won 5.

But when i look at the professional era, all of a sudden our record goes to 30%.

Just a bug bear of mine.

I don't think we could beat South Africa in South Africa either.

World Cup isn't being played there though. I'd feel we may well have the home crowd on our side in NZ. And those are our last three meetings, of course they are relevant.

I think we could beat SA in SA. Why not. Last time we played there in a two test series I think it was tight enough. We have a a two/three test series coming up. I fancy our chances to win one.

leinsterbaby wrote:I think we could beat SA in SA. Why not. Last time we played there in a two test series I think it was tight enough. We have a a two/three test series coming up. I fancy our chances to win one.

Yeah but the ground is very hard in South Africa.... and Ireland dont have the pedigree in rugby world cups...

Biltong can I ask which of my points do you disagree with:

- Ireland would be underdogs if facing SA or Aus
- Underdogs sometimes win
- Ireland could win
- If they did it would be an upset
- It is by no means an impossibility

I couldn't give a fiddlers about what Ireland were like in the 1980s - to me it has no bearing. The more recent games have more relevance. However South Africa would be favourites. A few home wins for us wouldn't change that.

I don't quite understand your point to be honest. Thats its nonsense to claim that Ireland could beat South Africa?

Would the home crowd support Ireland against South Africa? Why so? I get the impression that 3n teams have an "us" identity going on. As in us vs them, SH v NH. NZ supporters would also in my experience hold South Africa in high regard because of their record against them.

I have to say that I was amazed today to find that this debate was still going on. Everyone that i have spoken to in Ireland thinks that getting to the semi final would be the best that we could expect/hope for and on this forum i have only come across two who disagree. (I wonder about the age of these posters. I was more optimistic at 20 too.)

I have yet to hear anyone in Ireland say that Ireland have a good shot at winning it this year. Nobody.

I'm thinking about placing a bet on Ireland getting to the final because the odds are 25 to 1 on them doing so, in Ireland. But i'm not crazy enough to put money on our side winning no matter what the odds. I think that Ireland deserve the number 4 ranking and that the have room to improve.

The only person that i know who asked me if i thought Ireland could win the world cup was a soccer fan who heard of Leinster's win and never watches rugby. I think that says it all.

I'm not really fussed about winning the thing, if they go out, leave everything on the field and get beat by a better team we'll walk away with far more than we did from '07.

I've no doubt we can contain the bigger teams for most of the game and maybe even take a scalp or two but I think the team is too unsettled for us to go the distance. Although our backrow would match upto any in the world, there's just too many questions over our backline for them to represent a consistent threat and put a cricket score against any team.

red_stag wrote:Biltong can I ask which of my points do you disagree with:

- Ireland would be underdogs if facing SA or Aus
- Underdogs sometimes win
- Ireland could win
- If they did it would be an upset
- It is by no means an impossibility

I couldn't give a fiddlers about what Ireland were like in the 1980s - to me it has no bearing. The more recent games have more relevance. However South Africa would be favourites. A few home wins for us wouldn't change that.

I don't quite understand your point to be honest. Thats its nonsense to claim that Ireland could beat South Africa?

Stag, i am getting the impression you are misunderstnading me.

Find me a statement where I said it is nonsense that Ireland could beat SA.

I said very politely if I may add, I can't see ireland win the world cup, having to beat in route 1 australia and then new Zealand, or route 2, beat SA and New zealand if they lost to Australia.

The only place I disagreed with you today was to remind you of stats could be selective.

I also reminded you that Ireland have only beaten SA at home, not away.

With SA being in a bit of a conundrum with many injured and out of form players it could add to your chances, but all I am saying is hope is one thing and odds are another.

Intotouch wrote:Everyone that i have spoken to in Ireland thinks that getting to the semi final would be the best that we could expect/hope for and on this forum i have only come across two who disagree

Well ROG thinks we can win it but I can't guess who the other one is?

Biltong,

Gentleman you certainly are. No argument with that. Maybe I am misundersanding you.

Stats are certainly selective BUT we have a group of players more used to beating SA than losing to them.

Stag, it all starts there. Remember SA had a sequence of 6 or 7 losses vs england before the 2007 world cup.

Jake White's goal was to win against england in Europe before the world cup, and now we have won 7 in a row against them.

Intotouch wrote:The only person that i know who asked me if i thought Ireland could win the world cup was a soccer fan who heard of Leinster's win and never watches rugby. I think that says it all.

No need to bring the OP into this

The players believe we can. That's good. That's their job. I'd say players from all the top 6/7 nations believe they can win this thing.

success is about being beaten,beaten,and beaten again but never wavering from the road your traveling!
winning is about believing.

leinsterbaby wrote:

Rob B wrote:

I guess the main difference with France is Australia are ranked 2. Samoa played a B side - they would have wiped a lot of sides that day, including Ireland and England at full strength as they played probably their best game in history. If you want a benchmark, look at Wallabies recent results against the All Blacks:: 28-49; 10-20; 22-23; 26-24. Have a look at the game this August 6 - World Cup Final preview....

Seriously arrogant to suggest that Samoa would wipe the floor with Ireland and England's first team. I think the more obvious conclusion is that Australia's squad depth isnt particularly impressive. Samoa played very well but a better team wouldn't have allowed them play so well. Ireland usually hammer Samoa.

Did you watch the game? I did and I watched all Ireland's games last year and based on their 6N form overall, I have no doubt Samoa would have beaten Ireland last week. Maybe the squad depth is the correct conclusion. But what was posed is that if Samoa beat Australia it follows Ireland should as well. That's a long bow. Australia rested 7 players and currently have 8 first 15 players injured. That's an entire team.

Ireland usually hammer Samoa? In the last game in 2010, Ireland won 20-10 with their A team. It was 13-10 half way through the second half. Do you call that a hammering? Maybe it is for Ireland.

mr-bryns-attitude wrote:success is about being beaten,beaten,and beaten again but never wavering from the road your traveling!
winning is about believing.

nah
Success is about achieving your goals no matter what they are.
Winning is about scoring more points than the others.
Your is about indicating possession. You're is about abbreviating you are.

C'mon You Irish wrote:Because i do.

Not only on paper imho we have the second best team in the world behind NZ but i really believe that this will be the tourney we finally reach our potential as a team with it being BOD's and POC swangsong so to speak

Second best team in the world behind New Zealand. Ehhhhhh WTF, have you been drinking, or smoking?

What ever it is man i suggest you stop it right this very moment.

Yes Ireland are higher in the world rankins than England, but too say that Ireland are the SECOND BEST TEAM IN THE WORLD, sooooo sorry man but you are deluded.

majesticimperialman wrote:Second best team in the world behind New Zealand. Ehhhhhh WTF, have you been drinking, or smoking?

What ever it is man i suggest you stop it right this very moment.

Yes Ireland are higher in the world rankins than England, but too say that Ireland are the SECOND BEST TEAM IN THE WORLD, sooooo sorry man but you are deluded.

To be fair the general population of 606v2 have concluded that lad isn't Irish so don't get too hung up on it. Although that obviously doesn't take away from his delusion ....

If Ireland beat Australia (very achievable) I can see them making the Final. After that my crystal ball clouds over. I felt Ireland underachieved in 2007, they have some great players and I think they will handle the NZ conditions well. I am predicting the top 3 teams will be NZ, England and Ireland (not necessarily in that order). I am a Kiwi of Irish extraction in the South Island.

Len, I think you are a bit loose in the hed.

Rob B wrote:

leinsterbaby wrote:

Rob B wrote:

I guess the main difference with France is Australia are ranked 2. Samoa played a B side - they would have wiped a lot of sides that day, including Ireland and England at full strength as they played probably their best game in history. If you want a benchmark, look at Wallabies recent results against the All Blacks:: 28-49; 10-20; 22-23; 26-24. Have a look at the game this August 6 - World Cup Final preview....

Seriously arrogant to suggest that Samoa would wipe the floor with Ireland and England's first team. I think the more obvious conclusion is that Australia's squad depth isnt particularly impressive. Samoa played very well but a better team wouldn't have allowed them play so well. Ireland usually hammer Samoa.

Did you watch the game? I did and I watched all Ireland's games last year and based on their 6N form overall, I have no doubt Samoa would have beaten Ireland last week. Maybe the squad depth is the correct conclusion. But what was posed is that if Samoa beat Australia it follows Ireland should as well. That's a long bow. Australia rested 7 players and currently have 8 first 15 players injured. That's an entire team.

Ireland usually hammer Samoa? In the last game in 2010, Ireland won 20-10 with their A team. It was 13-10 half way through the second half. Do you call that a hammering? Maybe it is for Ireland.

It wasn't Irelands A team. There were a good few players missing. Tom Court, Sean Cronin, Peter Stringer and Devon Toner for example were playing. None are first team players. It was a weak enough team. I watched the Oz game v Australia and Samoa were excellent but Oz were very poor. Perhaps Australia were just terrible and would have been beaten by anyone. Some of the tries were quite soft.

....Sorry Oz v Samoa

.... Paddy Wallace and Dennis Leamy also started. Neither first choice. Also Sean OBrien made his debut. Not even close to being Irelands A team.

mrsuperclear wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:Second best team in the world behind New Zealand. Ehhhhhh WTF, have you been drinking, or smoking?

What ever it is man i suggest you stop it right this very moment.

Yes Ireland are higher in the world rankins than England, but too say that Ireland are the SECOND BEST TEAM IN THE WORLD, sooooo sorry man but you are deluded.

To be fair the general population of 606v2 have concluded that lad isn't Irish so don't get too hung up on it. Although that obviously doesn't take away from his delusion ....

They may have decided he's not Irish but that doesn't make it true. There are signs that he's not but please don't go down the road where every idiot Irish poster is only pretending to be Irish. That way madness lies.

Speaking of idiot Irish posters has that Limerick guy who supports Swansea turned up? He was a card.

Yeah the truth is Australia is the second best team.

Rob B the team that started against Somoa only had 6 players who would make a full strength Ireland side for a crucial game in the World Cup. One of those, SOB, was making his debut. The team was not even close to being the A team.

As for our poster who is making silly claims on behalf of Ireland - it appears he is 19 and lives in England. Lets view his posts in that light

geoff998rugby wrote:Rob B the team that started against Somoa only had 6 players who would make a full strength Ireland side for a crucial game in the World Cup. One of those, SOB, was making his debut. The team was not even close to being the A team.

As for our poster who is making silly claims on behalf of Ireland - it appears he is 19 and lives in England. Lets view his posts in that light

Whether it was an A team or not, 10 points is hardly a hammering.