The Dew Drop Inn Virtual Rugby Pub

First topic message reminder :

Welcome to the virtual rugby pub - a place where you can come in for a sly beverage and discuss whatever's on your mind, or just eavesdrop on the regulars if you fancy a break from all the rugby chat.

The only rule in this pub is one of mutual respect for everyone in it, oh and no defacing the Tommy Bowe photo on the bar. That's a banning offence

So pull up a chair....what'll it be?




Last Pub: https://www.606v2.com/t10923p950-the-dew-drop-inn-virtual-rugby-pub#353840

nottins wrote:
When and against which other sides in the last 8 years have Ireland produced a big game(s) against ?

We've beaten SA and Australia several times and come closer to beating NZ both home and away than any of the other home nations in that period. Most notably the 2005 tour over two test when we were leading after 70 min before conceding a late try and in 2008.

Wales have been a better side than England for much of the last 8 seasons so I consider our favourable record against them every bit as significant as our record against England.

To be honest only one performance against England stand out as a "big performance" and that was at Croke park in 2007, most of the others were 1 score games that could have went either way.

nottins wrote:

roddersm wrote:
I don't think it means anything in terms of predicting things moving forward. I'm just using it as a counter arguement to dispel this idea that we are an inconsistant side who only produce a big game once in a blue moon, usually against England.

When and against which other sides in the last 8 years have Ireland produced a big game(s) against ?

Like I said I would say over the last three seasons it would be;

France 2009
South Africa 2009
England 2010
Wales 2010
England 2011

have been our best performances over the last few years, and the best performance of any of them was probably against France. We do have a good record of producing the goods against England its true. But across the last eight years, which isn't really relevant, I would say our best performances were against Australia and South Africa in 2006.

Nottins, please do remember the pub is really for friendly debates

Notch wrote:
Nottins, please do remember the pub is really for friendly debates

Aw come on Notch notts was just asking a question. You could easily have singled me out for sticking an angry face on the end of my earlier post.

Notch wrote: But across the last eight years, which isn't really relevant, I would say our best performances were against Australia and South Africa in 2006.

Add Australia 2003, NZ 2005(6?), NZ and Australia 2008 and England 2007 to the list and you've got yourself a deal

Just want to say that my belief we'll do well in the World Cup is based more on faith in this team rather than anything else.

And I will win that pint off you Asbo!

MBTGOG wrote:Just want to say that my belief we'll do well in the World Cup is based more on faith in this team rather than anything else.

And I will win that pint off you Asbo!

Booger, can't even remember what the bet was, you'll have to remind me!

I still can't find an avenue into this conversation.

I need sleep..

Maybe not Asbo, but among Scottish rugby fans there's a certain miserabilist tendency I've found. Not amongst the ones on this board so much mind!

And, you know, part of that is undoubtedly the fact you were really bad when I was there compared to a side which was very tough in the early nineties. The Matt Williams era was not a great time to be a Scottish rugby fan it's true.

But I didn't like this tendency to pessimism every Six Nations. I like the fact everyone goes into the Six Nations feeling capable of winning the thing. Every year there are four or five teams capable of winning it.

I think there was a certain perverse joy being taken in the badness of the Scottish rugby side around that time- a self-fulfilling prophecy of awfulness.

What I call pessimism is more likely depressed realism. After all, I confidently predicted that Ireland would win the Slam in 2008 just minutes after we exited the last World Cup to a pub full of bemused Scottish fans. And of course we were nowhere near good enough to come close to that in hindsight (although we didn't have to wait too much longer).

But I like that attitude more. I get a lot of enjoyment from being a rugby fan, and part of that is because for as long as I can remember next season has been our season

I'm just a fountain of boundless optimism. I'm always sure we're on the verge of turning the corner.

roddersm wrote:

Notch wrote: But across the last eight years, which isn't really relevant, I would say our best performances were against Australia and South Africa in 2006.

Add Australia 2003, NZ 2005(6?), NZ and Australia 2008 and England 2007 to the list and you've got yourself a deal

No, we lost those games. No way any game where you lose should be considered a great performance, unless you're a club side playing against the All Blacks and you lose by a point in Eden Park or something. Not a test side versus another test side.

We're long past the stage of 'great moral victories'.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:Just want to say that my belief we'll do well in the World Cup is based more on faith in this team rather than anything else.

And I will win that pint off you Asbo!

Booger, can't even remember what the bet was, you'll have to remind me!

I think it was as long as Ireland play a match at the World Cup, I win the bet

mickyt wrote: I still can't find an avenue into this conversation.

I need sleep..

Just write that you think Ireland will do well and someone will tell you we won't and you'll feel part of the club then.

Morning all....did the gym this morning and then forgot my towel so had to borrow one from work! Hope all are well. Still deciding whether to take this ticket for tomorrow or not......i'll echo you kiwi: T.F.I.F.!!

MBTGOG wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:Just want to say that my belief we'll do well in the World Cup is based more on faith in this team rather than anything else.

And I will win that pint off you Asbo!

Booger, can't even remember what the bet was, you'll have to remind me!

I think it was as long as Ireland play a match at the World Cup, I win the bet

Oh right, that sounds ... completely unfamiliar!! You'll have to do better than that, my friend!

Ireland are capable of doing very well at this World Cup, no doubt about it. Another half-a-dozen sides are also capable of doing very well. The only question - and this is why we watch sport - is which teams actually will do well.

Thats a fair point Notch. However I'm not talking about moral victories, in fact I don't think there is any such thing.

However in pure performance terms that was the best I've seen an Irish side play. Often the result and performance are not dependant on one another and down to luck or the relative quality of the opposition.

Pushing the AB's to the limit on their home soil requires a much higher level of performance than beating Italy (with respect) at home.

I suppose it comes down to whether you are ego or task orientated I suppose

roddersm wrote:Thats a fair point Notch. However I'm not talking about moral victories, in fact I don't think there is any such thing.

However in pure performance terms that was the best I've seen an Irish side play. Often the result and performance are not dependant on one another and down to luck or the relative quality of the opposition.

Pushing the AB's to the limit on their home soil requires a much higher level of performance than beating Italy (with respect) at home.

I suppose it comes down to whether you are ego or task orientated I suppose

Nonsense, I've been feasting on them for years!!!

luckless_pedestrian wrote:Ireland are capable of doing very well at this World Cup, no doubt about it. Another half-a-dozen sides are also capable of doing very well. The only question - and this is why we watch sport - is which teams actually will do well.

Aha, concise and straight to the point. I think the early signs are good. But... who the feic knows?

I don't think a little blind faith is a bad thing. I'm not saying we're gonna win the thing, just that we can take a scalp of the Saffers or Aussies.

I'm not worried about having a little faith in my team. We're rugby fans, not rocket scientists. For all the painstakingly boring arguments over the minutiae of selection and so on, we're all just along for the ride and hopefully have a bit of craic along the way.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:Just want to say that my belief we'll do well in the World Cup is based more on faith in this team rather than anything else.

And I will win that pint off you Asbo!

Booger, can't even remember what the bet was, you'll have to remind me!

I think it was as long as Ireland play a match at the World Cup, I win the bet

Oh right, that sounds ... completely unfamiliar!! You'll have to do better than that, my friend!

In all seriousness, I bet that Ireland would beat the USA AND Russia. No, only joking again, just Russia!

roddersm wrote:Thats a fair point Notch. However I'm not talking about moral victories, in fact I don't think there is any such thing.

However in pure performance terms that was the best I've seen an Irish side play. Often the result and performance are not dependant on one another and down to luck or the relative quality of the opposition.

Pushing the AB's to the limit on their home soil requires a much higher level of performance than beating Italy (with respect) at home.

I suppose it comes down to whether you are ego or task orientated I suppose

Rodders,

I'm sure it was you, could be mistaken though, but you said the victory against Italy was better than the performance against France just for the fact we won one and lost the other.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Nonsense, I've been feasting on them for years!!!

Ha ha me too, I'm an Ulster supporter too you know

Right, pwdi over (not really a pwdi, just went to have my hair cut).

ASBO, who are you kidding? Ireland in the second tier! FFS.

Notch, how can you have peaks without troughs! FFS

Micky T, you come in here and expect to be spoonfed, just read it you lazy feicer! FFS

Lucky, I havn't forgotten that comment, I don't Flip like roses unless theyre the chocolate ones, OK?

As to the rest of you, you can just Flip off, no offence meant like.

MBTGOG wrote:
Rodders,

I'm sure it was you, could be mistaken though, but you said the victory against Italy was better than the performance against France just for the fact we won one and lost the other.

Er I don't recall actually, if I did then that was obviously my ego talking

If you're asking me now, I thought they were both poor performances, all things considered, but obviously the result was better against Italy.

Glas a du wrote:
Micky T, you come in here and expect to be spoonfed, just read it you lazy feicer! FFS

But I don't wanna

roddersm wrote:

We've beaten SA and Australia several times and come closer to beating NZ both home and away than any of the other home nations in that period. Most notably the 2005 tour over two test when we were leading after 70 min before conceding a late try and in 2008.

You've beaten South Africa 3 times, well done, seriously, but only beaten Australia once. Coming close to beating NZ is still a loss though, great performance or not.

roddersm wrote:Wales have been a better side than England for much of the last 8 seasons so I consider our favourable record against them every bit as significant as our record against England.

2 Grand Slam years apart, they have finished 4 or 5th in the 6N. Twice out of 8 seasons doesn't make them better for much of the last 8 seasons, does it ? I could produce the win/lost ratio of both sides if you wanted to prove my point even more ?

So, no big performances against France outside of 2009.

Stop grumbling T and get reading!!

Notch wrote:
Nottins, please do remember the pub is really for friendly debates

I believe I am providing friendly debate

Coming close to beating NZ is still a loss though, great performance or not.

To be fair, you asked about big performances not results.

But I don't wanna

Ahh, come and have a cwtch with Mam in the siawl.

Watch out, Micky T, 'siawl' is Welsh for dungeon!

MBTGOG wrote:

Coming close to beating NZ is still a loss though, great performance or not.

To be fair, you asked about big performances not results.

You're right, I did. But surely a great performance should actually lead to a win ? All the other games rodders mentioned, Ireland did actually win. (I think)

notts (sorry glas I'm on my way out the door) I've answered your question the best I can. Your point is that Ireland have produced their best performances against England and I am saying that bar Croke park 2007 our best performances in recent years have not necessarily come against England at all.

I am not going to dissect every performance but we have certainly performed better than we did against England in the 6n albeit not this season yet.

Glas luring someone into a dungeon.....the regieme begins!!

nottins wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:

Coming close to beating NZ is still a loss though, great performance or not.

To be fair, you asked about big performances not results.

You're right, I did. But surely a great performance should actually lead to a win ? All the other games rodders mentioned, Ireland did actually win. (I think)

Great performances and victories are not mutually exclusive, though they pair up more often than not. What happens sometimes though is you just come up against a better team. As Kidney says, there are 4 possible outcomes in a game. You win, you draw, you lose and you get get beaten. In this scenario, we were beaten.

When I am King, you will be first to be wrapped up in a siawl.

nottins wrote:
But surely a great performance should actually lead to a win

Not necessarily but thats a different debate. Sometimes they go hand in hand but there are other factors that influence a result beyond the performance like luck, the referee, the opposition performance,individual error, the bounce of the ball etc.

Glas a du wrote:When I am King, you will be first to be wrapped up in a siawl.

I think it would be an interesting place if you were king.

Sorry Rodders I'm with Nottins on this one. For whatever reason when we play England there is a real step up in performance.

Yeah, but your only as good as you're last game.

roddersm wrote:

nottins wrote:
But surely a great performance should actually lead to a win

Not necessarily but thats a different debate. Sometimes they go hand in hand but there are other factors that influence a result beyond the performance like luck, the referee, the opposition performance,individual error, the bounce of the ball etc.

My definition of a great performance is one when you leave the stadium thinking; nothing could have changed the result today. Not only beating a team, but beating them entirely convincingly so that the losing side can have zero complaints about the result regardless of any of those factors you list. Whether you are on the receiving end or you are the delighted victor, it's clear that everything went well and the winning side dominated the game to a certain extent.

Notch wrote:
My definition of a great performance is one when you leave the stadium thinking; nothing could have changed the result today. Not only beating a team, but beating them entirely convincingly so that the losing side can have zero complaints about the result regardless of any of those factors you list. Whether you are on the receiving end or you are the delighted victor, it's clear that everything went well and the winning side dominated the game to a certain extent.

I concur.

Glas a du wrote:Yeah, but your only as good as you're last game.

So that means Wales and Ireland are Poopie ?

Notch wrote:

roddersm wrote:

nottins wrote:
But surely a great performance should actually lead to a win

Not necessarily but thats a different debate. Sometimes they go hand in hand but there are other factors that influence a result beyond the performance like luck, the referee, the opposition performance,individual error, the bounce of the ball etc.

My definition of a great performance is one when you leave the stadium thinking; nothing could have changed the result today. Not only beating a team, but beating them entirely convincingly so that the losing side can have zero complaints about the result regardless of any of those factors you list. Whether you are on the receiving end or you are the delighted victor, it's clear that everything went well and the winning side dominated the game to a certain extent.

What happens where your team probably plays the best game it ever has yet still loses because the other team is just better?

WillyGilly wrote:Sorry Rodders I'm with Nottins on this one. For whatever reason when we play England there is a real step up in performance.

Right were's that feckin foe button...

Notch I agree. The ideal scenario is to have a great result and performance. However a team/athlete/coach does not have control over the result only their own performance. Sometimes that is sufficient to get the desired result but sometimes it isn't because of other determining factors.

A great result does not equal a great performance and vice versa.

What happens where your team probably plays the best game it ever has yet still loses because the other team is just better?

You shake their hands and say well done, no quarter was given and the best team on the day won. I look forward to next time.

Notch wrote:My definition of a great performance is one when you leave the stadium thinking; nothing could have changed the result today. Not only beating a team, but beating them entirely convincingly so that the losing side can have zero complaints about the result regardless of any of those factors you list. Whether you are on the receiving end or you are the delighted victor, it's clear that everything went well and the winning side dominated the game to a certain extent.

I'd agree mostly, but I think there has to be leeway for other types of greatness. England's WC win was a great performance, so was Australias. That game went back and forward for two hours and only a DG separated them in the end.

Glas a du wrote:

What happens where your team probably plays the best game it ever has yet still loses because the other team is just better?

You shake their hands and say well done, no quarter was given and the best team on the day won. I look forward to next time.

Ideally that should happen every time.

MBTGOG wrote:
What happens where your team probably plays the best game it ever has yet still loses because the other team is just better?

Then there's not much you can do about it except analyse your own performance to find ways to further improve. Remember you can always improve

MBTGOG wrote:

Glas a du wrote:When I am King, you will be first to be wrapped up in a siawl.

I think it would be an interesting place if you were king.

Scary more like!!

MBTGOG wrote:

Notch wrote:

roddersm wrote:

nottins wrote:
But surely a great performance should actually lead to a win

Not necessarily but thats a different debate. Sometimes they go hand in hand but there are other factors that influence a result beyond the performance like luck, the referee, the opposition performance,individual error, the bounce of the ball etc.

My definition of a great performance is one when you leave the stadium thinking; nothing could have changed the result today. Not only beating a team, but beating them entirely convincingly so that the losing side can have zero complaints about the result regardless of any of those factors you list. Whether you are on the receiving end or you are the delighted victor, it's clear that everything went well and the winning side dominated the game to a certain extent.

What happens where your team probably plays the best game it ever has yet still loses because the other team is just better?

That's called Scotland rugby

Will read back in a mo'

Anyway - BIG SCREEN - https://www.606v2.com/t6249-penfro-s-live-tv-guide-for-the-next-few-days-updated-friday-12-08-2011-1122