Would Ireland beat England on neutral territory at the RWC?

First topic message reminder :

This - to me - would be the ultimate test of strength for the Home Nations sides.

A resurgent England against a confident Ireland would be one hell of a contest.

I hope it happens.

I also think Samoa beating Australia has had an adverse effect on our chances against them.

Thomond wrote:Stag,that's what I think. Maybe it's because there is an extremely large Irish contingent on here but we are getting talked up on these boards.

Thomond who is talking Ireland up? Portnoy has specifically asked a question related to Ireland. How do you expect people to answer? I haven't seen any unreasonable or unrealistic suggestions put forward by any of the Irish posters.

Rodders, what he is saying is that it is generally accepted that Ireland beating SA or Aus is one of the better chances of an upset.

People often suggest that Ireland are a dark horse but it is said so often that it makes that impossible to be true.

Like if you get loads of people who say "X is a good player and under rated". Paradoxically he IS rated.

Same thing here.

roddersm yes in between world cups we have been poor for 8 years. Haven't beaten South Africa for 7 years - that is poor. No slam in that time period yes I call it poor. Poor is all relative. If you look at our player base and resources then yes it is. Not beating you Irish much at all is awful too.

In world cups in that time period - 2003 - won, 2007 - finalists. Not bad. We are a much better side in world cups for whatever reason.

I just think it's funny when you talk yourselves up when you had a poor 6 nations bar one good result.

The so called incredible Argentinian world cup record consists of:

1987 - Pool stages
1991 - Pool stages
1995 - Pool stages
1999 - quarter finals
2003 - Pool stages
2007 - 3rd place

Like the French the Irish are in awe of the Argentinians because of their poor record against them.

Like if you get loads of people who say "X is a good player and under rated". Paradoxically he IS rated.

Same thing here.

Dont get that at all Stag ta bron orm.

Actually luckless I expect us to have a good world cup. We have a good chance of topping the pool.

Our likely opponents would be France if we reach the quarters. We are not in awe of them unlike other teams. If we get past them our likely semi opponents are the weakest of the tri nations, Australia who we like playing.

1 quarter,1 semi,2 finals and 1 win shows we will probably have a good world cup.

Rodders,the fans are talking Ireland up! We're always saying how we have a shot at everything and how we could go far in the tournament.

Sorry, beshocked, I deleted my last post.

beshocked wrote:1 quarter,1 semi,2 finals and 1 win shows we will probably have a good world cup.

Either that or you're due a bad World Cup!

Paradoxes are deep and complex Boyne I confuse myself sometimes!

Beshocked below is England WC record with their IRB ranking and preceding 5/6 Nations performance.

1987 - Quarter Finals 5N Wooden spoon
1991 - Finalist GS Winners
1995 - 4th place 5N Champions
1999 - quarter finals 5N 2nd place
2003 - Winners (IRB 1st) GS Winners
2007 - Finalist (IRB 7th) 6N 3rd place

Only once did England exceed expectations and that was in 2007. I know you'd like to believe this myth that England perform better in World cups but the reality is that in 2 out of the 3 times you reached the Final you did so as GS winners and as the top European side. In fact in 1995 and 1999 you underacheived based on the expectations going into the WC. England were also favourites to beat Australia in the 1991 final.

Roddersm I think it is pretty clear England perform well in world cups.Going by your little theory anything below semis would be underperforming as we are the current 6 nations champions.

If everything goes by world rankings we will reach the semis.

I don't think anyone will beat New Zealand.

Ireland are a consistent side floating around 4th-6th with potential to be greater. Need to get the monkeys off the back though.

beshocked wrote:
Ireland are a consistent side floating around 4th-6th with potential to be greater. Need to get the monkeys off the back though.

A fair comment. We still are not comfortable with favourites tags and I think France and All Blacks are still games that we go into not fully confident of winning.

beshocked wrote:Roddersm I think it is pretty clear England perform well in world cups.Going by your little theory anything below semis would be underperforming as we are the current 6 nations champions.

No it is clear that England have performed well in world cups when they have had the team to do so in relation to the other teams. On 3 occaisions they have underperformed 1991, 1995 and 1999; Once they went further than expected (2007) and once they performed as expected (2003).

Therefore I put it to you that you are talking nonsence when you say that England perform better in World Cups.

As the 5th ranked team this time anything beyond the QF's would be exceeding expectations in my opinion but based on the draw I think England are well placed to do so.

roddersm wrote:Therefore I put it to you that you are talking nonsence when you say that England perform better in World Cups.

Its clearly not nonsense. They have performed better. That is a fact. In the last 24 years we have only made it to a quarter final. They have been in 3 World Cup Finals and have been crowned World Champions. Clearly they have done better than us.

However what you are saying is that usually these were logical results as they had a good team, which I agree. But it is obviously not nonsense that they have done better than us in World Cups in the past.

P.S - I don't hold a great deal of store on previous world cups.

red_stag wrote:
Its clearly not nonsense. They have performed better. That is a fact. In the last 24 years we have only made it to a quarter final. They have been in 3 World Cup Finals and have been crowned World Champions. Clearly they have done better than us.

Stag I don't mean better than us, of course they have. I mean better than they themselves do outside of world cups which is what Portnoy and others have stated.

roddersm you can't keep moving the goalposts to suit your needs!

Ok so by your logic we have performed well in world cups because other teams have been worse than ours. When they have had the team? Why haven't other sides had the teams to perform well in world cups?

I would say one final and one world cup win is better than our form in between the last two world cups.

I will try and explain it you slowly. England are the highest ranked team in their pool. This would give the expectation that they should top the pool as well as the fact they are the 6 nations champions.

If they win the pool they are likely to play 6th in the world (France) who they have beaten 4 times in the last 5 encounters. Beating them in two consecutive world cups. Also France are ranked below England so obviously by your logic are worse.

England are 6 nations champions with a great world cup pedigree. A semi final spot at least is the expectation.

If you actually won the 6 nations, beat France and Wales then you could claim to be better than England. As things stand I believe you are equal despite not being as successful in the last 12 months.

Ah right I get you. Then yes I agree with you. If anyone has that opinion it is based completely on 2007

red_stag wrote:

A fair comment. We still are not comfortable with favourites tags and I think France and All Blacks are still games that we go into not fully confident of winning.

Hell fire Stag!

That's some claim. I'm sure your comment isn't supposed to come across as it reads.

(Which is ridiculous.)(Not to say arrogant.)

As I keep on saying, Ireland have no track record to speak of below the equator.

And if you come or ever come to Twickers fully confident of winning, then you are delusional. Nobody does that unless England are at a very low ebb - and even then it's difficult except for elite sides (which Ireland have never been).

After reading through the 5 pages of this thread, all I can say is that I hope England and Ireland do meet.

It would be a cracker of a match and about as much fun as on here!

Portnoy wrote:And if you come or ever come to Twickers fully confident of winning, then you are delusional. Nobody does that unless England are at a very low ebb - and even then it's difficult except for elite sides (which have never been).

That's a bit much, no?

I mean the Irish players have gone to Twickenham confident of winning and have won more than they've lost in recent history. It's never easy to beat England there, but the one time we went there without any confidence we were slaughtered.

We have gotten a few very good results over there precisely because we are no longer intimidated to play in London. Paris, yes. Southern Hemishere, yes. Twickenham it honestly seems like the players fancy their chances when we go over there.

Portnoy HOW is it arrogant. My point is that when we play France or NZ in particular it doesn't matter who the players are we seem to be at a disadvantage. We have a monkey on our back with these teams. Its nothing to do with England.

beshocked wrote:roddersm you can't keep moving the goalposts to suit your needs!

Ok so by your logic we have performed well in world cups because other teams have been worse than ours. When they have had the team? Why haven't other sides had the teams to perform well in world cups?

I would say one final and one world cup win is better than our form in between the last two world cups.

Of course I can move the goal posts! England fans do it all the time!

One WC final is better than your form between the last two WC's. Your form leading up to the 2003 WC was better than your form in the tournament.

To be fair to Ireland Portnoy they do have a very good recent record against England even at Twickers.

The other sides in the 6 nations should be rightly intimidated but not the tri nations.

You should always be confident of victory even if it sometimes silly to believe so.

As it stands of the 6 nations sides in my opinion

England/Ireland/France - all equal due to rock paper scissors
Wales
Scotland
Italy

In terms of chances at the RWC to get furthest

England/France
Ireland
Wales/Scotland
Italy

beshocked wrote:
England/Ireland/France - all equal due to rock paper scissors
Wales
Scotland
Italy

In terms of chances at the RWC to get furthest

England/France
Ireland
Wales/Scotland
Italy

+1

Portnoy wrote:
And if you come or ever come to Twickers fully confident of winning, then you are delusional. Nobody does that unless England are at a very low ebb - and even then it's difficult except for elite sides (which Ireland have never been).

You really do display a higher class of wummary Portnoy! I do hope you stay on here

Twickenham is of course a very tough place to win and Ireland have had their fair share of luck in the victories we've had there in recent times but I think we can approach a match there with a reasonable level of confidence although certainly less so than at Landsdowne.

Theres a generation thing with the fans. I've only really followed international rugby since around 2000.

I've seen Ireland beat England in 2001, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011. By contrast I can count on one hand the number of times we've lost to them.

Beating England isn't a big deal to me. But to my fathers generation it is massive.

Notch/Stag,

Every English-speaking nation of any substance not only wants to beat England, but they really want to beat England. It's a cross we'll have to bear in perpetuity.

Maybe, I mis-read Stag's post, but it sounded like it did convey the sentiment of arrogance.

Un-founded arrogance/confidence indeed. Neither of you would go to Oz or Joburg with the scales tipped towards confidence over apprehension would you?

The only time I ever felt confident going to the SH was in '03.

But apart from that I have never been confident of beating a SH side before or since.

Portnoy wrote:Stag,
Every English-speaking nation of any substance not only wants to beat England, but they really want to beat England. It's a cross we'll have to bear in perpetuity.

Please don't tell me my views on England. What makes you say I want my team to really them.

Its a bit like wanting to be a pantomime villain. To me England are simply another team.

Portnoy wrote:Notch/Stag,

Every English-speaking nation of any substance not only wants to beat England, but they really want to beat England.

Not only them but ones like Wales too

Portnoy wrote:Notch/Stag,

Every English-speaking nation of any substance not only wants to beat England, but they really want to beat England. It's a cross we'll have to bear in perpetuity.

Honestly Portnoy, us Kiwis worry more about beating the Aussies than England. In any sport. Unless we're without substance of course
Last time I looked the Americans weren't too bothered about sport vs England either

Well said Kiwi.

We don't worry about England that much either... a couple of losses in rugby and cricket here and there.

Thank goodness for that! Those wins have breathed life into these sports. Otherwise it would have been very boring - and this thread wouldn't be half as interesting.

Portnoy wrote:Un-founded arrogance/confidence indeed. Neither of you would go to Oz or Joburg with the scales tipped towards confidence over apprehension would you?

But thats the thing Portnoy; if we had a record of winning consistently over there we would. We've won multiple games in Twickenham. We haven't won in the SH or in Paris for a long time.

That's why it's not unfounded. If you look at the last eight years our record in Twickenham is played 4, won 3. Whereas our record in Paris is played 5, won 0. And our record in Australia is played 3, won 0.

So it's been significantly easier for us to get results away against England than it is when we come up against the top teams in World Rugby over the last 8 years. It;s just easier to win at Twickenham for us than any of the other top teams home grounds and I'm not saying that to be a WUM- look at the stats.

Portnoy wrote:Notch/Stag,

Every English-speaking nation of any substance not only wants to beat England, but they really want to beat England.

I've got to say, it's not a big deal for me anymore. Beating France, New Zealand, Australia etc. would be a really big deal for me. Well winning any test match is a big deal, but we don't put England up on a pedestal as the team to beat because we've sort of overcome our mental willies about facing them.

It was a massive deal for me to beat England in 2004, but now it's not on the same level. It's no longer 'a giant killing'. If anything we've become used to seeing us go into these games as favourites at times. Beating France or New Zealand would prompt a massive celebration in a way that beating England or Wales doesn't I'm afraid.

red_stag wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Stag,
Every English-speaking nation of any substance not only wants to beat England, but they really want to beat England. It's a cross we'll have to bear in perpetuity.

Please don't tell me my views on England. What makes you say I want my team to really them.

Its a bit like wanting to be a pantomime villain. To me England are simply another team.

So where did the team's performance come from in Dublin?

No spirit in Cardiff and mediocre shows everywhere else.

Portnoy wrote:Notch/Stag,

Every English-speaking nation of any substance not only wants to beat England, but they really want to beat England. It's a cross we'll have to bear in perpetuity.

Actually I really want to beat every team we play. Don't you think it's a tad arrogant to suggest that other teams attach some special significance to beating England? Unless there is something at stake like a GS or Triple crown I'd much rather beat one of the SH trio as they are the yardsticks by which teams measure themselves, not England.

Linebreaker I am pretty sure if you played England in test cricket now it wouldn't end well for the Kiwi side! As you say though you aren't really a rival in either sport. England are much stronger in test cricket. The All blacks are much stronger in rugby.

Our biggest rivalry is with the Aussies in both. The Aussies can't be best pleased with results in recent cricket and rugby matches against us.

beshocked wrote:Linebreaker I am pretty sure if you played England in test cricket now it wouldn't end well for the Kiwi side! As you say though you aren't really a rival in either sport. England are much stronger in test cricket. The All blacks are much stronger in rugby.

Our biggest rivalry is with the Aussies in both. The Aussies can't be best pleased with results in recent cricket and rugby matches against us.

Errm, Beshocked, Linebreaker is an Aussie

Kiwireddevil wrote:
Errm, Beshocked, Linebreaker is an Aussie

roddersm wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Notch/Stag,

Every English-speaking nation of any substance not only wants to beat England, but they really want to beat England. It's a cross we'll have to bear in perpetuity.

Actually I really want to beat every team we play. Don't you think it's a tad arrogant to suggest that other teams attach some special significance to beating England? Unless there is something at stake like a GS or Triple crown I'd much rather beat one of the SH trio as they are the yardsticks by which teams measure themselves, not England.

Quite a few people on here and in the public eye have said that beating England has a special significance. Surely it's arrogant to think no-one else does simply because you don't

red_stag wrote:Theres a generation thing with the fans. I've only really followed international rugby since around 2000.

I've seen Ireland beat England in 2001, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011. By contrast I can count on one hand the number of times we've lost to them.

Beating England isn't a big deal to me. But to my fathers generation it is massive.

I can count to 12 on one hand

roddersm wrote:

Kiwireddevil wrote:
Errm, Beshocked, Linebreaker is an Aussie

Thing is beschocked, when we beat you...we really beat you - 76-0, Ashes 5-0 spring to mind.

When you beat us; it keeps the rivalry alive and allows you to rebuild your confidence.

roddersm wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Notch/Stag,

Every English-speaking nation of any substance not only wants to beat England, but they really want to beat England. It's a cross we'll have to bear in perpetuity.

Actually I really want to beat every team we play. Don't you think it's a tad arrogant to suggest that other teams attach some special significance to beating England? Unless there is something at stake like a GS or Triple crown I'd much rather beat one of the SH trio as they are the yardsticks by which teams measure themselves, not England.

Wanting to beat and hoping to beat and expecting to beat are degrees of difference.

Ireland performed in one game only this spring. If the had shown any semblance of the attitude they displayed against England, they'd have won a GS.

It's attitude and fortitude that Ireland lack in the SH.

The Munster and Leinster players lack bottle down under - or so it seems.

I have to say all the Celtic nations and France do have an extra incentive to beat England. They all have a historical grudge which can give them some extra bite. Players from these nations have admitted as much plenty of times over the years. They do enjoy beating the English.

Stag is right though about the generations. The older generation of Irish people LOVE beating England. The younger generation are more used to beating them and its not much of a big deal. The younger generation have far less animosity towards England and the English anyway I reckon.

HammerofThunor wrote:
Quite a few people on here and in the public eye have said that beating England has a special significance. Surely it's arrogant to think no-one else does simply because you don't

Thunor I haven't seen anyone who isn't English (or maybe Welsh ...and Feckless ) state that beating England is more important than beating any other side.

Feckless Rogue wrote:I have to say all the Celtic nations and France do have an extra incentive to beat England. They all have a historical grudge which can give them some extra bite. Players from these nations have admitted as much plenty of times over the years. They do enjoy beating the English.

Oh we enjoy it alright, its just that they aren't currently a top team. As soon as they were on for a Slam it suddenly became a big deal to put them in their place and after that we're apathetic again. So we don't really look to them.

To be honest, before this thread I had given no thought to Ireland versus England. Lots of thought to Australia and South Africa, even France, because how we performa against them over the next few months will show how good we actually are.

Notch wrote:

Feckless Rogue wrote:I have to say all the Celtic nations and France do have an extra incentive to beat England. They all have a historical grudge which can give them some extra bite. Players from these nations have admitted as much plenty of times over the years. They do enjoy beating the English.

Oh we enjoy it alright, its just that they aren't currently a top team. As soon as they were on for a Slam it suddenly became a big deal to put them in their place and after that we're apathetic again. So we don't really look to them.

To be honest, before this thread I had given no thought to Ireland versus England. Lots of thought to Australia and South Africa, even France, because how we performa against them over the next few months will show how good we actually are.

+1

roddersm wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:
Quite a few people on here and in the public eye have said that beating England has a special significance. Surely it's arrogant to think no-one else does simply because you don't

Thunor I haven't seen anyone who isn't English (or maybe Welsh ...and Feckless ) state that beating England is more important than beating any other side.

Does it matter? I was talking a few isolated incidents (probably not in context) and extrapolating to a generalised view point. I thought that's what we were supposed to do.

All players prefer to beat the England. For evidence (as if any was needed), see the fact we keep losing. Since most teams aren't as good as us it must be because they raise their game when they play us. The current crop of Irish players must really hate us. It's a shame really.

Notch wrote:
To be honest, before this thread I had given no thought to Ireland versus England. Lots of thought to Australia and South Africa, even France, because how we performa against them over the next few months will show how good we actually are.

To be honest I'm not even thinking about South Africa Notch. Right now the only teams I really want to beat are the USA, Russia, Italy and Australia.

I would suggest that in Ireland (and potentially elsewhere) the people who really get a kick from beating England are the fairweather or casual fans to those who dont generally follow rugby. I think everyone got a kick out of the last result but that was more to do with the manner of the victory. i dont think anyone expected Ireland to do such a resounding number on england given what went on before in the 6N.

I may be setting myself up here but i genuinely cant see either england or ireland beating Australia in this RWC. Also at the minute i wouldnt call the Aussies the weakest of the tri nations. By the end of that tournament i expect their odds to not be much longer than NZ's

HammerofThunor wrote:
All players prefer to beat the England. For evidence (as if any was needed), see the fact we keep losing. Since most teams aren't as good as us it must be because they raise their game when they play us. The current crop of Irish players must really hate us. It's a shame really.

By that logic the Welsh and French boys must really love you then!