Anglo Saxons 23 - 17 Irish Wolfhounds

First topic message reminder :

The scorers:

For England Saxons:
Tries: Spencer, Waldrom
Con: Burns 2
Pen: Burns 3

For Irish Wolfhounds:
Tries: Kearney, O'Leary, Zebo
Con: Madigan

Are there any IQ props playing abroad who are of any use? Timmy Ryan used to play for Newcastle, is he any addition?

Don Alfonso wrote:Had he been fit, I would have played Declan Fitzpatrick ahead of Archer. He's not fantastic, but he's better than that mess at scrum-time.

Yeah, he's got more experience. To be honest, it's not that bleak. Paddy McAllister and Declan Fitzpatrick are injured. Fitzpatrick is a journeyman pro, but a better scrummager than other options (namely Stephen Archer and Adam Macklin). Long term those are two of three guys who need time invested in them along with Jamie Hagan. Hagan is more experienced and more developed than Archer so what's the story with him not playing? On the loosehead side McAllister is very promising, he'll do rightly in time.

I think they are playing a long game here with the props, learning lessons over instant results. They've exposed Archer to a level of rugby he's not ready for in a meaningless game. He'll learn from it hopefully.

It's been said like but Ireland have real lack of depth in front row and at 10. I think Mcallister and Hagen are best options outside the top 3 but I would be very apprehensive to see them in the seniors, same with madigan. There were some very promising performances but If anything this game has just made me nervous about the health of sexton, rog, Healy, Ross and court.

I'm absolutely certain that Court will be asked to play tighthead and Buckley recalled ahead of Archer. But yeah, 3 acceptable props- and Court isn't even good at playing tighthead. If we had a better situation he would be allowed to focus on playing loosehead where he belongs. No margin for error.

Notch do you reckon international rugby having only 1 prop on bench is a good or bad thing for Ireland?

A bit of both really. We're obsessed with moulding Tom Court into something he's not, trying to get our props to cover both sides of the scrum when the provinces (who can name 2 props on the bench) don't have to worry about the 'utility' prop. That's bad.

But who wants to go to Paris or London and see two specialist scrummaging props warming up to take the place of two specialist scrummaging props? That's worse for us.

But those are selfish reasons. I do wish they'd standardise it, even if it is to Irelands detriment. It'd be to the advantage of test match rugby. Two problems with that that mean it probably won't happen. 1) North/South divide. SANZAR don't want it (or at least NZ and Aus don't- I imagine the Pumas and the Boks could go for it.) And the much bigger problem 2) How this will affect developing rugby nations, particularly at World Cup time.

Havent read the thread yet as i dont want to colour my initial reaction. Apologies if this is Irish centric.

Wilkinson - Torrid time in the scrum as expected. I think he does admirable work in the loose but isnt challenging Healy, Court and fitness permitting, McAllister
Varley- Lineout was decent from what i remember and showed up reasonably i though. Part of a front row that got beasted. 3rd choice hooker
Archer- All experience for him but he is getting reamed at this level. Unfortunate for the first two penalties as Mullan had his hand on the ground first but i hope BJ works his magic on him as there is a long way to go.
Tuohy- Decent showing without being spectacular. Cant say he will have done enough in that game to oust DOC or Ryan.
McCarthy- See above
Muldoon- I thought the Irish backrow was decent. He was a dog at the breakdown. Unfortunate that we have so many good backrowers.
Henry- A very good performance. His strength in the tackle has improved so much and he won a couple of turnover. Should be in the squad of 30 and should be in the matchday for me.
Ruddock- Couple of decent carries but i think he lacks some physicality for a man his size.
Boss- Shockingly bad i thought.
Keatley- Really rather poor as well.
Zebo- Showed he has the spark required but butchered a try even if the 'tackle' on him was illegal. Became peripheral but definitely one for the future.
Spence- Not bad for his first game in a month. Nothing breathtaking mind you and wont force his way into the main squad.
O'Malley- No issues with his physicality in defence i thought. Maybe needs more in attack but looked good to me.
Kearney Jr- Best back on the pitch for me. Looked accomplished in everything he did. Unlucky not to have a brace.
Duffy- Bit meh. Not his best game and will not get anymore caps but there to help the youngsters

I missed the last 5 mins but TOL improved things . Madigan made some mistakes. Toner was ok. Dont recall anyone else in fairness.

To be honest the only player i could see challenging for the squad v Wales in Henry and even then i would be fairly surprised to see him make it. Plusses for Kearney jr and O'Malley though.

I think its a genetic thing, there just aren't that many big powerful >19st guys around and the fact that most of our players are playing schoolboy rugby until they are 18 doesn't help.

Its worrying and embarressing how our guys get shunted around so easily. We're barely able to win our own ball. Its a grave situation.

Ten is not a big worry imo. Madigan is pure class and Keatley is suffering from a lack of gametime. IHumph is better than Keatley and there's Jackson and McKinney on the horizon. Things aren't that bad.

Ah Stand come on man Henry did not have a great game! His hands let him down on a couple of occaisions.

Ruddock was the pick of the backrowers and I thought Tuohy played very well and may well make the senior squad.

Agree with rodders at 10 we have options at prop the situation is grave. Why was Hagan not included tonight for Ireland?

Yea it really is ridiculous that it's not standardised, if we're not trying to pretend court is atighthead we're pretending Buckley is a loosehead! I just don't see what other options we have. Mcallister to a tightness is ridiculous! If the international rules dont change We need to force players to play on both sides at club level because we don't have players comin through who can!

roddersm wrote:Ah Stand come on man Henry did not have a great game! His hands let him down on a couple of occaisions.

Ruddock was the pick of the backrowers and I thought Tuohy played very well and may well make the senior squad.

I thought Henry was very good. Not in attack maybe but i thought Ruddock was the worst of our backrowers. Looks underpowered for me. Just goes to show how different two people can view the same thing. I dont think you can mention chris henry handling and then absolve dan tuohy.

I'm not worried about 10 long term but wouldn't be too keen on madigan turn out this six nations. Just doesn't quite have the authority to boss a heineken cup game yet never mind a six nations game. Don't get me wrong I think he will be international class but right now I'd still rather paddy Wallace!!!

I think Ruddock was both good and bad. Mostly good, but I understand what Stand means about his lack of physicality. Ruddock seems to have a dynamic quality to him that I didn't think he had, he seems rather agile. He made some powerful carries, and some good tackles, but he also at times got knocked back and missed some. I think he has some real potential but he needs to show consistency.

Thought Henry was brilliant, he is such a nuisance these days. I love watching him and his cynical play. He also made a few good carries and some big tackles. His handling wasn't great, but he was so destructive elsewhere. Thought Spence was solid, but unspectacular, which is to be expected. Really needs his chance at 13. EOM proved me wrong with his defence today, hope he continues to do so. Also thought Tuohy was brilliant at times, but once again needs to do it more consistently.

Henry's link play let him down. But then, most of the team did poorly in this regard. Based on what I saw his job taking the ball into contact, defending and at the breakdown was done well. And the backrow in general did well behind a retreating scrum. But too many knock ons and a few loose passes.

His core job he did well, but it's also the role of a 7 to provide continuity and keep moves going in attack. He's done that well for Ulster but he did not back that up tonight. So a mixed bag from Henry.

Also, to me Ruddock looks smaller than he has previously been. At his young age this can be sorted, but he is rather small for an 8 at this level. Apparently he is about 103kg. With him, POM, and Ryan, possibly a next generation of back-rowers?

6) Ruddock/O'Mahony
7) Ryan
8) O'Mahony/Ruddock

I'd love to see that in a Wolfhounds game!

Standulstermen wrote:Havent read the thread yet as i dont want to colour my initial reaction. Apologies if this is Irish centric.

Wilkinson - Torrid time in the scrum as expected. I think he does admirable work in the loose but isnt challenging Healy, Court and fitness permitting, McAllister
Varley- Lineout was decent from what i remember and showed up reasonably i though. Part of a front row that got beasted. 3rd choice hooker
Archer- All experience for him but he is getting reamed at this level. Unfortunate for the first two penalties as Mullan had his hand on the ground first but i hope BJ works his magic on him as there is a long way to go.
Tuohy- Decent showing without being spectacular. Cant say he will have done enough in that game to oust DOC or Ryan.
McCarthy- See above
Muldoon- I thought the Irish backrow was decent. He was a dog at the breakdown. Unfortunate that we have so many good backrowers.
Henry- A very good performance. His strength in the tackle has improved so much and he won a couple of turnover. Should be in the squad of 30 and should be in the matchday for me.
Ruddock- Couple of decent carries but i think he lacks some physicality for a man his size.
Boss- Shockingly bad i thought.
Keatley- Really rather poor as well.
Zebo- Showed he has the spark required but butchered a try even if the 'tackle' on him was illegal. Became peripheral but definitely one for the future.
Spence- Not bad for his first game in a month. Nothing breathtaking mind you and wont force his way into the main squad.
O'Malley- No issues with his physicality in defence i thought. Maybe needs more in attack but looked good to me.
Kearney Jr- Best back on the pitch for me. Looked accomplished in everything he did. Unlucky not to have a brace.
Duffy- Bit meh. Not his best game and will not get anymore caps but there to help the youngsters

I missed the last 5 mins but TOL improved things . Madigan made some mistakes. Toner was ok. Dont recall anyone else in fairness.

To be honest the only player i could see challenging for the squad v Wales in Henry and even then i would be fairly surprised to see him make it. Plusses for Kearney jr and O'Malley though.

I'd agree with most of you ratings there. It is really disappointing that no one really stuck there hand up and demanded to make the 22 for the Wales game. Archer and Wilkinson went as expected, I know the saying is that it is good for a prop to be destroyed early in their career so that they can learn from the experience and come back better for it but this will never happen for Archer if he gets one game once in a blue moon, gets destroyed and then does play again for a month. If he is too make it he will need a run of games in a row but where will he ever get it. Tuohy was marginally better than McCarthy but as you say the real second row winners were Doc and Ryan. Ruddock still seems under powered when carrying.

Boss was absolutely appalling as was Duffy. Keatley was slightly better but he seems to be really low on confidence at the minute. The young backs seem to have a lot of potential. Kearney won't be in contention for the six nations but did well enough to merit inclusion on the New Zealand tour.

I think we need players to do the dog work to free up SOB and Fez. Obviously our first choice backrow picks itself at the minute but i would have Henry and O'Mahoney ahead of Jennings.

I dont think Deccie will be seriously contemplating changes though.

Out of any of our backrow choices, SOB is doing the best job at the breakdown though.

Standulstermen wrote:I think we need players to do the dog work to free up SOB and Fez. Obviously our first choice backrow picks itself at the minute but i would have Henry and O'Mahoney ahead of Jennings.

I dont think Deccie will be seriously contemplating changes though.

Heaslip will do the donkey work.

Just to be clear im not advocating changing from Ferris, SOB, Heaslip!!!!

valjester wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:I think we need players to do the dog work to free up SOB and Fez. Obviously our first choice backrow picks itself at the minute but i would have Henry and O'Mahoney ahead of Jennings.

I dont think Deccie will be seriously contemplating changes though.

Heaslip will do the donkey work.

They all share the role though. SOB is the best of the three at turning over and slowing down ball. Heaslip I think has been playing better lately because SOB has developed into this role very nicely.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

valjester wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:I think we need players to do the dog work to free up SOB and Fez. Obviously our first choice backrow picks itself at the minute but i would have Henry and O'Mahoney ahead of Jennings.

I dont think Deccie will be seriously contemplating changes though.

Heaslip will do the donkey work.

They all share the role though. SOB is the best of the three at turning over and slowing down ball. Heaslip I think has been playing better lately because SOB has developed into this role very nicely.

I think most of our forwards are decent at turning over ball to be honest.
If we start with a pack of
Healy Best Ross
Poc Ryan
Fez Sob Heaslip

the only one who doesn't turn over or slow down ball is Ross.
Most of our players are quite good at making a nuisance of themselves
at the breakdown.

Agreed, hence why Ireland don't need the natural 7. However SOB has really improved in that regard. Most of our pack seem to be able to share roles brilliantly.

PJHolybloke wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:Not at all PJ. When did I say that? It was in a separate paragraph. Are you aware what a paragraph means? It was merely a short extra thought that I felt needed no explanation other than watching the game, and I'll thank you to stop with the personal insults thanks, totally uncalled for.

You were begging for it! Banahan was right up there in terms of his attack, defence and overall workrate, Monye and Armitage were less impressive and they are Lions.

It seems to me like you belong to the club that thinks just because he's 6'7" and 18 stone he should be carving his way from one end of the field to the other, sheesh, honestly. He covers wing and centre, gets dropped to the Saxons and still puts in a better shift than the other two in the back three and you single him out for special mention.

Like I said.

No, I'd just like to see him offer something. He's slow, doesn't make meters, has a dubious tackling technique that should have been penalised if not carded, he's lazy in defensive alignment and has a poor work rate. Actually I think the ONLY reason he's picked is because he's 6'7'' and 18 stone, and if you're going to be picked on that basis then you at least need to take it to the line and be able to either offload in the tackle, or present well. He does neither. There are better options, even for the Saxons.

He's far from slow, consistently gets across the gainline, puts in big hits (some of which may be borderline from time-to-time), has a massive work rate always coming in off his line looking for graft when he's on the wing, his offload game is top drawer, he has great hands, he doesn't find space he creates it for others, he hits defensive rucks like the forward he used to be, he secures possession time and time again, rarely gets isolated.....

FFS, what more do you want from a player? Banahan does what's asked of him week in week out whether it be for Bath or England and he doesn't let anyone down.

There are two elements to his game that he could improve on, he could find himself a step and he could work on his kicking game.

You just expect him to have a tear up every time he gets the ball in hand, the subtleties of the game are clearly lost on you.

You are clearly watching a different Banahan than I am PJ. The guy I'm watching is a liability. We will have to agree to differ. But mark my words, England will never take our rightful place at the top of the world rankings so long as we persist with players picked based on promise that is never delivered.

I'm not a Banahan fan, but I thought he had a good game. Lucky to get away with barging Zebo into touch, but he's not the first to do that. Showed good hands on several occasions and generally broke the gainline.

The trouble is, he's inconsistent. He has as many games where he falls over in the tackle and gives away huge territory in defence as he does good ones. It may be down to finding his best position. I feel he plays better at centre than on the wings.

Banahan should not be anywhere near the English International setup, like other people have said , hes picked for his size, if he was 6 inches shorter he wouldn't get a game.

For England, I don't know how to judge the scrum really. Without wishing to be unkind, the Irish lads in the front row were disappointing and beating them up in the scrum didn't prove an awful lot.

I was pretty impressed with Garvey and was exasperated that he was taken off so soon. If I was picking, he'd have been in the England 1st team squad. He would give us some much needed grunt. Looking at him, it is difficult to believe he is only 24 though! Robson was excellent too, he put in a huge amount of work and tackled all day.

I though Gaskell looked incredibly under-powered. He seemed to get to the gain-line and wilt backwards like a very tall and thin tree. I thought it was an odd selection because of the debate that is going on about Tom Croft. Aside from a couple of nice pieces of play, I thought Saull was fairly anonymous. The Irish won the breakdown (again!) and that has got to be a bit of an indictment.

Thomas Waldrom added some much need go forward in the back-row, he at least made ground in contact.

Ben Spencer seemed incredibly mature, considering the circumstances. He needs to learn to get his box kicks away a little quicker though

Freddie Burns was okay, would like to see him take charge a bit more though. There was slow ball crying to be kicked for position, but England ended up crabbing left and right across the pitch until they lost the ball instead. He was lucky to get away with the daft little kick that Waldrom eventually scored from.

Twelvetrees flattered to deceive in my opinion. He's got a great passing game, but insists on throwing at least one bullet at the recipients shins.

Hopper didn't really have enough to work with, which is pretty frustrating considering that England had a good degree of front foot ball.

Monye had an okay game, he was strong in defence and good in the contact area, would have like to see him get the ball a bit more though.

Banahan, again... He was okay. He made a try saving 'tackle', but he didn't offer that much in attack.

Armitage just looked disinterested to me.

It certainly wasn't a game for the Saxons backs, and that's a shame because there were some talented boys in there.

I'd be happier as a Wolfhounds fan. Played some lovely stuff.

It's fairly clear that Banahan has a very small fan club.

Because of his size many people expect him to be bursting through midfield or storming down the wing bowling people over and using them as speed bumps in a Lomuesque manner.

Nobody does that in the professional era because all of the players are so well conditioned, we now see centres taking down backrow forwards as a matter of course.

Banahan offers continuity on go-forward ball, consistently gets across the gainline and rarely gets knocked off the tackle in defence. He does what he is asked to do, and as I mentioned earlier, if he had a step and a decent boot on him he'd still be in the EPS, if only for his ability to cover centre and wing at Test level without ever looking out of his depth, open your eyes, there aren't many of them out there.

As it happens he isn't in the EPS, and on a night where the Saxons' backs were somewhat under-employed, I fail to see how anyone could single out Banahan for being useless when he was better than at least two of the others.

When you have preconceived ideas of a player, you see what you want to see, and to rubbish him like he has been in a couple of posts above smacks entirely of that blinkered view.

That's all - oh, and personally, I couldn't care less if he never plays for England again, I'd rather have him down the Rec where he belongs and is appreciated for what he does.

EnglishReign wrote:It certainly wasn't a game for the Saxons backs, and that's a shame because there were some talented boys in there.

I'd be happier as a Wolfhounds fan. Played some lovely stuff.

but they lost?


What must an england team do to make an england fan happy!!!

Cumbrian wrote:For England, I don't know how to judge the scrum really. Without wishing to be unkind, the Irish lads in the front row were disappointing and beating them up in the scrum didn't prove an awful lot.

I was pretty impressed with Garvey and was exasperated that he was taken off so soon. If I was picking, he'd have been in the England 1st team squad. He would give us some much needed grunt. Looking at him, it is difficult to believe he is only 24 though! Robson was excellent too, he put in a huge amount of work and tackled all day.

I though Gaskell looked incredibly under-powered. He seemed to get to the gain-line and wilt backwards like a very tall and thin tree. I thought it was an odd selection because of the debate that is going on about Tom Croft. Aside from a couple of nice pieces of play, I thought Saull was fairly anonymous. The Irish won the breakdown (again!) and that has got to be a bit of an indictment.

Thomas Waldrom added some much need go forward in the back-row, he at least made ground in contact.

Ben Spencer seemed incredibly mature, considering the circumstances. He needs to learn to get his box kicks away a little quicker though

Freddie Burns was okay, would like to see him take charge a bit more though. There was slow ball crying to be kicked for position, but England ended up crabbing left and right across the pitch until they lost the ball instead. He was lucky to get away with the daft little kick that Waldrom eventually scored from.

Twelvetrees flattered to deceive in my opinion. He's got a great passing game, but insists on throwing at least one bullet at the recipients shins.

Hopper didn't really have enough to work with, which is pretty frustrating considering that England had a good degree of front foot ball.

Monye had an okay game, he was strong in defence and good in the contact area, would have like to see him get the ball a bit more though.

Banahan, again... He was okay. He made a try saving 'tackle', but he didn't offer that much in attack.

Armitage just looked disinterested to me.

Not unkind at all, in fact that was too kind if anything! I wish they were merely disappointing, but they were scarily bad. Shows how scarce Ireland are for good props (specifically tight-heads).

nathan wrote:

EnglishReign wrote:It certainly wasn't a game for the Saxons backs, and that's a shame because there were some talented boys in there.

I'd be happier as a Wolfhounds fan. Played some lovely stuff.

but they lost?


What must an england team do to make an england fan happy!!!

Fair point. Just wanted to see more rugby.

I watched a lot of it on a stream so wasnt the best quality. What did strike me about Hopper is that he never got the ball in any space - its hard to look good if you get hammered every time you put hands on the ball.

What also struck me was how the English forwards were generating fast ball a lot of the time - and hitting hard and making dents in the Irish lines. You have to give credit to the Irish 'scramble' defense but the sad part was not exploiting the disarray.

Not much more to say about the English backs - Monye looked great at some things - defense, kick chase and hitting rucks but hard to see how much he offered ball in hand. Banahan did what he does - as said above he does take a lot of stopping and he does do a great job of keeping the ball and making it available. He has a good history of making tries for others in internationals and another day he might have had more impact - but other than the 'impact' on Zebo he didnt add much.

A small positive from yesterday's match is the try scoring and overall defence by Ireland. Zebo could have had another try except for the illegal barge by Banahan (nicely done). Equally the opening try by Spencer was due in large part to Robson cleverly if somewhat blatantly holding Boss back from defending the space.

Now if they could only learn to scrummage......Ireland might do a little better

Welll considering Ireland carried Keatley and Archer we did pretty well with 13 men. The front row as a whole were very poor and that was the difference between the teams

I though McCarthy, Touhy and Henry were the pick of the forward. Muldoon is a decent Province payers but no more . Ruddock does some good things but doesn't give you 80 mins.

TOL really played well - hats off to him.
Spence and O'Malley were decent in the centre - especially O'Malley.
Zebo has real pace but made some errors and Duffy was poor.

Kearney was MOTM and the best back on the pitch - he was outstanding

We won by the margin of one dubious try and were out scored and out played in the back line by a large margin of class.

Those banging on about the merits of banahan need to get a grip. Similarly twelvetrees who was utterly out of is depth. Armitage too did himself no favours, he was given a lot of ball by stray Irish kicking from hand and did naught with it.

I just don't feel this was a victory that came with many positives.

geoff999rugby wrote:Welll considering Ireland carried Keatley and Archer we did pretty well with 13 men. The front row as a whole were very poor and that was the difference between the teams

I though McCarthy, Touhy and Henry were the pick of the forward. Muldoon is a decent Province payers but no more . Ruddock does some good things but doesn't give you 80 mins.

TOL really played well - hats off to him.
Spence and O'Malley were decent in the centre - especially O'Malley.
Zebo has real pace but made some errors and Duffy was poor.

Kearney was MOTM and the best back on the pitch - he was outstanding

+1

Pot Hale wrote:A small positive from yesterday's match is the try scoring and overall defence by Ireland. Zebo could have had another try except for the illegal barge by Banahan (nicely done). Equally the opening try by Spencer was due in large part to Robson cleverly if somewhat blatantly holding Boss back from defending the space.

Now if they could only learn to scrummage......Ireland might do a little better

A big part of the cleverness was that all the holding was being done by Boss. Robson noticed that Boss was well forward (verging on offside), and took a big step back looking for all the world like a big dumb second row staggering out of a ruck. If Boss had stepped back in line rather than try and drag him out of the way, he might have had a chance to make the tackle

it was a blatant block Poorfour.

Anyway I thought Zebo did show pace, but Kearney Jr. showed far more awareness of what's going on around him.

I never said it wasn't a block, but Robson did it in a way that would have made it very hard for the referee to spot what was happening.

Sounds like it was an old school English side choking the opposition up front? Fortunatly they dont have the players to do that in the first team anymore.

Anyone read Stephen Jones report of the match? For a Welsh-born journalist, he sure knows how to barrack for England. I love the Iceland cricket team reference.

"Saxons crush tame Wolfhounds

As a match and an occasion, this was less than tumultuous. The splendid Exeter crowd became animated just twice — when it was announced that Exeter Chiefs had won at Wasps and when Tom Johnson, the local hero, came on in the second half. He really should have started.

But if you were prepared to wait for your thrills, they arrived in a quieter fashion. This was a valuable exercise for English rugby, and it proved again that among the barrage of England fixtures at all levels and age groups, they should arrange more Saxons fixtures.

However silly the name, the concept of England A games is of far more use to man or beast or selectors than anything else.

As a collective, England will be mad that they allowed a mediocre Ireland team to score three tries when they had hardly any pressure on the England line. The Wolfhounds sneaked over completely against the run of the match on all three occasions.

Yet if the Saxons could not underline their superiority on the scoreboard, then at least they pushed some individuals and units to the fore. England’s scrummage was dominant, and even if a victory over any Irish team in the scrum is of the same significance as a win over the Iceland cricket team, that should not detract from the excellence of Matt Mullan and Paul Doran-Jones up front.

They scrummaged their opposite numbers to distraction, and Doran-Jones was far busier around the field than England’s starting props have been for some years.

There were any number of England locks of note on view, with Kearnan Myall impressing even more than the two starters. If you add the coolness of young Ben Spencer at scrum-half and the exuberance of Matt Hopper and authority of Billy Twelvetrees in midfield, you have good news all the way.

Yet the two most interesting Englishmen were Thomas Waldrom (well, a Kiwi- Englishman) and Delon Armitage. Waldrom has his detractors, but he was arguably England’s most influential player and their best carrier.

Armitage is in a kind of career rehab after some grim disciplinary moments, but at his best, he is a very intelligent player and it must be hoped that he banishes his temper.

England established themselves when Spencer scuttled over after a steaming forward drive and they sealed the match when Waldrom scored from a ricochet after the inconsistent Freddie Burns chipped through. England trooped off to bemoan their soft defence, but also to celebrate some progress."

Yes, a genuine Englishman would be too wise to bring up cricket this weekend. Aside from which, he probably mentioned "iceland" as opposed to Ireland Cricket team, which would have been a more obvious reference, given England's recent tendency to lose to Ireland at Cricket. (And the netherlands)...fumble fumble, I know Iceland! Great work Stevie.

Yes, not sure what he was talking about. Why he could think that Waldrom did a good job, perhaps because he lucked out and scored an unlikely try and SJ's analytical skills don't run much past picking men-of-the-match from the scorers roster.

It's typical of SJ, that he could fail to see the greater context of the game, and realise that this Saxon's squad was playing rugby circa 2003, hardly the kind of development game plan we want to springboard the 1st national representative side out of their slow extinction; the slow and inevitable fate of all dinosaurs who can't adapt.

nathan wrote:

EnglishReign wrote:It certainly wasn't a game for the Saxons backs, and that's a shame because there were some talented boys in there.

I'd be happier as a Wolfhounds fan. Played some lovely stuff.

but they lost?


What must an england team do to make an england fan happy!!!

We were poor- very, very poor. Incompetent at the set piece and halfbacks sucking momentum. And you won by 6 points. I don't see either side taking many positives from the game! The positive for England in strength in depth in the tight five- and that Monye, Armitage have pace and would remain a threat if they could get ball. But the execution was ponderous from England at times.

"Ponderous" Could suggest that eventually something good game of it. "At times" suggests they got it right at least once. What it was, was an unrelenting seige of dim witted sloppiness. I just can't believe players at this level failed to execute a single backline move fluently, and had so few ideas from the set piece, other than the decade old and predictable up-the-jumper. What are they doing in training? Motivational speeches and team building excercises?

Well I took great comfort in some decent performances - the threes all looked shap, TOL was excellent and Henry, Tuohy and McCarthy put in decent stints.

Yes there were some rank performances the starting half backs, the front row and Duffy but these games are about finding players who have the potential to step up - by my maths 8 Irishmen, at least, did that.

What's Tuohy's lineage?