World Rugby Rankings

First topic message reminder :

Current World Rankings

IRB Rankings at
http://www.worldrugby.org/rankings#mru

Fixtures according to http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/fixtures/_/league/180659/

Best odds for each result category from a range of bookies as at http://www.oddschecker.com/rugby-union/six-nations

Code:



Saturday, March 18

Scotland v Italy 12:30 PM -- BT Murrayfield, Edinburgh

sco (on 82.18 points) at home -vs- ita (on 71.17 points)

If sco win by 1-15 points 0.000 82.18 71.17 No
If sco win by more than 15 0.000 82.18 71.17 No
If result is a draw 1.000 81.18 72.17 No
If ita win by 1-15 points 2.000 80.18 73.17 No
If ita win by more than 15 3.000 79.18 74.17 No

Scotland (1/16)
Draw (66/1)
Italy (15/1)

France v Wales 2:45 PM -- Stade de France, Saint-Denis

fra (on 81.21 points) at home -vs- wal (on 82.16 points)

If fra win by 1-15 points 0.795 82.00 81.36 Yes
If fra win by more than 15 1.193 82.40 80.97 Yes
If result is a draw 0.205 81.00 82.36 No
If wal win by 1-15 points 1.205 80.00 83.36 No
If wal win by more than 15 1.807 79.40 83.97 No

France (8/13)
14:45TV
 

France (8/13)
Draw (25/1)
Wales (13/8)

Ireland v England 5:00 PM -- Aviva Stadium, Dublin

ire (on 83.18 points) at home -vs- eng (on 91.02 points)

If ire win by 1-15 points 1.484 84.66 89.54 No
If ire win by more than 15 2.226 85.41 88.79 No
If result is a draw 0.484 83.66 90.54 No
If eng win by 1-15 points 0.516 82.66 91.54 No
If eng win by more than 15 0.774 82.41 91.79 No

Ireland (6/4)
Draw (25/1)
England (9/13)



Original thread:
https://www.606v2.com/t12724p950-irb-world-rankings-part-1


Sources:
Fixtures : http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/fixtures/4776295.stm
IRB Rankings : http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/match/fixtures/international.html
Rankings explanation : http://www.irb.com/rankings/explain/index.html
Rankings archive : http://www.irb.com/rankings/archive/index.html
Fixtures : http://www.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/current/match/scores/recent.html

Online calculator (Courtesy of Robbo277 (thanks)) : http://www.lassen.co.nz/pagmisc.php#hrh

beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms

Why else would you not play SA in SA then? You're one of the only top tier NH sides ducking SA.

You've only toured SA a handful of times - pretty obvious you're avoiding them.

About time you tour SA - you've put it off long enough.

This is nonsense beshocked, Ireland are ducking SA but playing them in SA next year? Wales have only player in SA three more times, by next summer that will be equal.

All very interesting.

But are extended debates on the relative merits of refs and national player resources relevant to this article?

They both seem worthy of separate posts to me.

You play those sports but it's not as if you're actually very good except at golf.

Your record is 4 losses in the last 5 games vs England. You can hark about the past if you like but won't help.

Seems like you want to hark on about being ranked 2nd in the world but want to ignore the losses to England.

I do actually agree that England should be better than they are but Ireland do have advantages that should not be ignored - like massive catchment areas, less competition, more co operation with international and club rugby, smaller player pool meaning players picked gain more experience. Also the players are wrapped in cotton wool more.

beshocked wrote:You play those sports but it's not as if you're actually very good except at golf.

Your record is 4 losses in the last 5 games vs England. You can hark about the past if you like but won't help.

Seems like you want to hark on about being ranked 2nd in the world but want to ignore the losses to England.

I do actually agree that England should be better than they are but Ireland do have advantages that should not be ignored - like massive catchment areas, less competition, more co operation with international and club rugby, smaller player pool meaning players picked gain more experience. Also the players are wrapped in cotton wool more.

Sounds like sour grapes from you, beshocked. Get a grip man. There's no silverware awarded for world rankings.

P.s We're also not bad at road racing, boxing and MMA.....

Beshocked no offence but you I dont think you know much about the cultural popularity of Gaelic games in Ireland and how it can compare to the popularity of football in England in a rugby context. So I'm not going into that.

But on smaller versus larger talent pools being better, they both have their pros and cons, but IMO a larger talent pool in more likely to bring consistent success. Ireland are doing well now, but will always have a higher likelihood of crisis positions (eg tighthead most recently). England also have advantages and strengths within their system, as does most every union.

Finally, I'm not sure why you are harping on about England's bone-shudderingly superior record versus Ireland here either, do you just want to be told that you are good? It has been very close between both teams in the last few years, don't tie yourself in knots over the rankings

Anyway, back on topic...

After being mauled by NZ does that do much to the Aussie ranking points? I'm guessing not because of points differential and the game being in NZ.

beshocked wrote:You play those sports but it's not as if you're actually very good except at golf.

Your record is 4 losses in the last 5 games vs England. You can hark about the past if you like but won't help.

Seems like you want to hark on about being ranked 2nd in the world but want to ignore the losses to England.

I do actually agree that England should be better than they are but Ireland do have advantages that should not be ignored - like massive catchment areas, less competition, more co operation with international and club rugby, smaller player pool meaning players picked gain more experience. Also the players are wrapped in cotton wool more.

??

I wonder what you'd be saying had England reached one of their highly publicised targets for their run-in to the WC.  I think the number they had set themselves for last year to be in a perfect position for their home WC was the number 2.
Had they achieved it, I guess you'd be here saying that it only proves how much more superior England are to their little neighbours, proving once again that more competitiveness in a real man's League and a larger playing pool allows English players to operate at a professional level far in advance of the rest.

Funny old gyme.

Perhaps secretfly but they haven't. England don't employ the best coaches so it's not surprising.

Lancaster is ironically like his England team - consistent, pretty good but not going to be the best in the world any time soon. He does some good things but also some baffling things which cost England opportunities to win silverware like putting flankers on at no 8, FBs on the wing, starting a youngster vs France away for his first cap, taking off his best players, poor bench selections.

Marshes yes you are right - bigger and smaller pools have their advantages but it's a weakness for England because it's tougher to identify who to give the international caps to. Smaller player pool means less depth but means more experience and allows that talent to be nurtured and improve.

I feel like England should be picking a very talented player like Itoje for the England warm up games but because he's English he's not given the opportunity - if he was Welsh or Scottish he would stroll into their 31 squad. They wouldn't squander talent like him. It's a failure of the coaching and the system itself.

As for mentioning England's record vs Ireland - it was because Gunsgerms was puffing out his chest and saying how good Ireland are against England which isn't true.

Ireland deserve to be higher ranked because you've been the better side over the last 2 years in terms of wins against all sides.

Munchkin I guess you could say I am frustated that England aren't better than they are - credit where's credit is due though Ireland have used their advantages well and deserve to be highly ranked and higher than England.

Haha no..... I was responding to some one who said England had a really good record v Ireland. That isnt really true though particularly in the 6 nations. 9 v 7 head to head in favour of Ireland.

Ireland are realistically only joint 2nd best at the moment with Australia and England. SA and Wales marginally third IMO.

Well 4 wins in the last 5 suggests a good record vs Ireland recently.

Doesn't mean it will stay that way though.

I agree there's not much between 2-6 though would say that Wales are slightly below the others.

beshocked wrote:Well 4 wins in the last 5 suggests a good record vs Ireland recently.

Doesn't mean it will stay that way though.

I agree there's not much between 2-6 though would say that Wales are slightly below the others.

Surely SA too. 4 wins in 12 games or something. Thats dreadful.

I don't think the SA fans will be too pleased about being grouped together with Wales Guns

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I don't think the SA fans will be too pleased about being grouped together with Wales Guns

Tough. I know that England have a dreadful record v SA but Wales beat them the last time they played them. If you lose 7 out of 12 games you cant expect to be considered a world beater. Wales have lost 6 of their last 12 games so Id say they are even enough at the moment.

beshocked wrote:Perhaps secretfly but they haven't. England don't employ the best coaches so it's not surprising.

Lancaster is ironically like his England team - consistent, pretty good but not going to be the best in the world any time soon. He does some good things but also some baffling things which cost England opportunities to win silverware like putting flankers on at no 8, FBs on the wing, starting a youngster vs France away for his first cap, taking off his best players, poor bench selections.

Marshes yes you are right - bigger and smaller pools have their advantages but it's a weakness for England because it's tougher to identify who to give the international caps to. Smaller player pool means less depth but means more experience and allows that talent to be nurtured and improve.

I feel like England should be picking a very talented player like Itoje for the England warm up games but because he's English he's not given the opportunity - if he was Welsh or Scottish he would stroll into their 31 squad. They wouldn't squander talent like him. It's a failure of the coaching and the system itself.

As for mentioning England's record vs Ireland - it was because Gunsgerms was puffing out his chest and saying how good Ireland are against England which isn't true.

Ireland deserve to be higher ranked because you've been the better side over the last 2 years in terms of wins against all sides.

Munchkin I guess you could say I am frustated that England aren't better than they are - credit where's credit is due though Ireland have used their advantages well and deserve to be highly ranked and higher than England.

Itoje would be in for Wales and Scotland because they don't have the depth England do. Not really squandered, just not quite good enough.

New OP.

And hopefully less bickering.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

beshocked wrote:Perhaps secretfly but they haven't. England don't employ the best coaches so it's not surprising.

Lancaster is ironically like his England team - consistent, pretty good but not going to be the best in the world any time soon. He does some good things but also some baffling things which cost England opportunities to win silverware like putting flankers on at no 8, FBs on the wing, starting a youngster vs France away for his first cap, taking off his best players, poor bench selections.

Marshes yes you are right - bigger and smaller pools have their advantages but it's a weakness for England because it's tougher to identify who to give the international caps to. Smaller player pool means less depth but means more experience and allows that talent to be nurtured and improve.

I feel like England should be picking a very talented player like Itoje for the England warm up games but because he's English he's not given the opportunity - if he was Welsh or Scottish he would stroll into their 31 squad. They wouldn't squander talent like him. It's a failure of the coaching and the system itself.

As for mentioning England's record vs Ireland - it was because Gunsgerms was puffing out his chest and saying how good Ireland are against England which isn't true.

Ireland deserve to be higher ranked because you've been the better side over the last 2 years in terms of wins against all sides.

Munchkin I guess you could say I am frustated that England aren't better than they are - credit where's credit is due though Ireland have used their advantages well and deserve to be highly ranked and higher than England.

Itoje would be in for Wales and Scotland because they don't have the depth England do. Not really squandered, just not quite good enough.

no 7 & 1/2 It is an opportunity squandered. He is good enough - just Lancaster made the wrong decison.

Lancaster makes mistakes.

Ireland have a better coach than England - it helps. It's partly why Ireland are higher ranked than England.

Maybe they do have a better coach, Itoje is good enough for internationals in my view also. But I don't think he's as good yet as the guys in the squad and some outside of it, at either 6 or 2nd row. Even if he is it's close and not a major error.

no 7 & 1/2 what more does he need to do in your eyes?

In terms of lock and backrow options the selections of Lancaster are uninspirational.

Players needs experience to improve.

Lancaster has taken some risk by picking Slade and Burgess and you know what it might pay off but he hasn't really done the same in the forwards. Don't count LCD and George because we both know that Lancaster's 1st,2nd and 3rd choice would be Hartley,Youngs and Webber if Hartley didn't have a brain fart.Lancaster wanted to leave out George.

It will be hard to gauge how much of an error it is because Lancaster didn't pick him but personally I feel that it's a big mistake.

Few better opportunities to try out a new player than warm ups.

I can't be too bothered going back through his early games to see who he gave debuts to it's a relatively young pack he's given chances to isn't it? Mako, Marler, Billy, Wood, Launchbury, LCD, George he's given chances to them, or at least more chances to establish themselves in most cases. Kvesic as well I suppose. You think Itoje is better than which 2nd rows and which of Wood and Haskell currently?

Would have picked him ahead of Kruis, Attwood and Clark.

Don't particularly rate Attwood, Kruis is fine but feel that Itoje has much more potential.

Haven't seen anything to suggest Clark is marked for greatness.

Itoje offers something different.

When I say hasn't done much in the forwards I am talking about the RWC squad.

George doesn't count as Lancaster wanted to leave him out - only circumstances have forced him to pick him, same with LCD.

Totally agree with all the potential remarks, Clark seems to be in for 7 cover though and Itoje hasn't yet broke into the 2nd row for Saracens, would be a bit of a jump and a bit of risk to me.

Yup he hasn't done much in the forwards for the WC but they are a young group.

no 7 & 1/2 pretty sure it's you who said that Itoje played 6 and lock in the AP final. He's quite clearly a player trusted by Mccall to play in either position. He's in the first team - he's broken in. It's not a big jump. Wasted opportunity.

Wouldn't call it a particularly young group of backrowers. Only Billy is under the age of 25. One of his backrow is 37.

He did play at 6 and 2nd row in the final yes, played pretty well as well. He's not considered by McCall as better than Kruis though is he? It's not a big jump to international level? I'd have to disagree there myself. I can see him starting on the bench in the 6Ns but at the moment he's not got a great deal of experience and he's not at the level the others are. We can disagree of course but surely you can admit it's not a major error of leaving out a player who is head and shoulders better than his competitors?

You don't pick a WC squad on potential, there's no room for error or carrying players.

Itoje isn't as good as Haskell, Wood, Kruis, Attwood. These are his main competitors for a spot.

Due to him playing most of his games at 6 you could argue he's directly up against Haskell & Wood and he's 100% near their level YET.

Sgt Pooly yet England are happy to carry Clark,Burgess and Slade....

Are Slade and Burgess not picked on potential?

Haskell or Wood - no, Kruis and Attwood - wouldn't say Kruis or Attwood are above him enough to outweigh his potential. You say potential means nothing - rubbish - a player can only hope to fulfil their potential with gametime.

Well obviously Itoje needs an opportunity - you don't understand. If you don't give youngsters game time then they don't improve. How can Itoje prove himself at international level unless you pick him.

no 7 & 1/2 well obviously Mccall wants to accomodate both if he can. I have watched both players together in the same team - I don't feel that Kruis is at a higher level than Itoje. The only difference is Kruis has more international experience. You don't hear me advocating Kruis anywhere near the same level as Itoje because I rate Itoje higher.

No more a big jump for Itoje than it would be the likes of Clark,Burgess and Slade.

They have tons of rugby union international experience....

In terms of potential Itoje is head and shoulders above the competition IMO.

You're argument against Itoje is he's not good enough because Lancaster didn't pick him - that's a bad argument because I believe it's a mistake.

You say he's not experienced enough - he's got an AP medal - played in big matches in Europe and the AP this season,captained the LV team to victory and he's played for the Saxons. It's not as if he's only had 1 match.

You say he's not good enough - well surely that's subjective - personally think if he's good enough to hold his own against tough opposition like Clermont,Racing Metro,Bath and Saints he's not doing too badly at all. Not claiming he's the finished article by the way.

If it was a choice of giving Kruis,Attwood or Clark more caps or giving Itoje a go I would pick Itoje every time in a RWC warm up match.

It's an inspirational pick vs the same old boring predictable ones.

I think he would have the same effect on the forwards that Watson and Joseph have on the backs - breathe a bit of life and fresh air into the predictable forwards selection.

Where to start there Beshocked......

Inspirational or boring picks - you pick your best options, Itoje is not a better option than those selected ahead of him.

Players don't improve hugely in a few warm ups or WC games. This simply boils down to Itoje not being good enough, it's really that simple.

Lancaster got him in, took a look and decided he wasn't ready. I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest he's a better player than those selected ahead of him.

Sgt Pooly you and I have a different definition of "best" it seems.

Do you pick someone who could be better than the players you already have or do you just pick the same old players?

You don't think it helps Slade and Burgess to play in the warm ups?

Seems hypocritical to advocate them but not Itoje.

Experience and gametime is very useful.

Itoje is good enough - just Lancaster made a mistake - it's really that simple.

Well no you wouldn't seen anything to suggest he's a better international player because Itoje wasn't given the opportunity - duh....

Quite a few people think that Burgess is a 6 not a 12 - kind of shows that Lancaster and the fans don't necessarily agree.

I didnt say hes not good enough for the international game just not good enough to displace those 2nd rows, not based on Lancaster but from what Ive seen. Again I didnt say he didnt have enough experience for him to be considered but it will come into the consideration. I don think its hypocritical to say give Slade a chance either as it would depend on relative strengths of position.

Fair enough if you believe hes already a better player than Kruis and Attwood though.

"Do you pick someone who could be better than the players you already have or do you just pick the same old players? "

No, you pick the best players.

"Itoje is good enough - just Lancaster made a mistake - it's really that simple."

You stand alone here. SL looked at him and deemed him not good enough, I agree.

"Seems hypocritical to advocate them but not Itoje."

Where have I advocated these players?

You pick your best players, Itoje isn't better than Haskell or Wood.

no 7 & 1/2 I think Barritt and Burrell are as good as centres as Attwood and Kruis are 2nd rows. If anything I would say Barritt's a better player than both (difficult to compare positions I know). Joseph has been performing very well for England.

Well Attwood hasn't impressed, always thought he was a bit overrated, Kruis has been okay for England but he's not exactly been that good. Think that Itoje is basically on par with them already.

Itoje is one of the best players in England- he's proven that. If you or Lancaster can't see that well I can't help either of you.

Lancaster makes mistakes - that's pretty obvious - I have mentioned many of them.

Haskell and Wood aren't the only players he would be competing with.

Anyway we've gone over this enough.

Lancaster has made a big mistake IMO and that's that.

Well Burgess offers a similar skill to Barritt but isnt as good for me, hes there to try and replicate the physical centre missing through Tuilagi. Centre is the most open set of positions for me. You could only say Tuilagi and Joseph have really shone there and Joseph only broke through recently. Wouldnt say itsa n area of strength like 2nd row.

Think Id personally prefer to see him a bit more at 2nd row before putting him a wc spot where others have shown they can cope well. His lineout needs a little work I think and he may be physically lacking a little bit to play next to a Lawes or Parling.

"Itoje is one of the best players in England- he's proven that. If you or Lancaster can't see that well I can't help either of you."

No he isn't.

Attwood can lead a line. I'm not overly sold on Kruis but Sarries and England think he's a better 2nd row than Itoje, I'm happy to agree.

Itoje can mostly be judged at 6 and he's nowhere near Wood or Haskell.

If he was good enough, he'd be in.

It still cant be a big mistake as youve just said hes basically on par.

Beshocked has a very thin argument here, he basically stands alone in his opinions.

no 7 & 1/2 don't know unless you try him.

Sgt Pooly you been under the deluded impression that Lancaster does not make mistakes. He is human.

Yes he is.

As I said before Mccall wants to accomodate Kruis and Itoje.

It's not just Wood and Haskell he is competing with - we've gone over this.

He is good enough - just Lancaster is making a mistake.

It's a big mistake because he's practically on par already and with more gametime and experience he'll surpass both by enough that even you and Sgt Pooly would notice IMO.

You pick a player on what they can bring - Itoje brings athleticism,lineout ability,power and leadership all in one player.

Missed opportunity. Anyway I have done it to death - I think he's one of the most talented forward prospects in a long time I think it's a travesty that England have not picked him.

I like Kruis but I don't think he's got the spark that Itoje has.

He is a fantastic prospect but you re now saying practically on par with ie not as good. Not sure his lineout or power for a 2nd row are top drawer yet either. He ll bring it from the bench in the 6Ns.

Pick him now as he ll develop more long term from the experience basically even if we lose something short term. Ill leave it there.

He's a great prospect but to suggest he's on par or better than the players in the squad is wide of the mark.

I think Itoje will fit right in at international level. Just think he's the kind of player who takes on the challenge and does what he has to do.

Sgt Pooly We talked about this a few months ago too and you belittled Itoje like you are now - he is now an AP winner - I said to you watch his progression. 20 year old U20 captain winner to AP winner - he's made the transition. He's taken on the best in the AP and has shown that he can more than hold his own.

Needed the opportunity now. Not waiting till the 6 nations. It slows down his development. It's a waste IMO.

We want players who we think can excel at international level. I think Itoje will. Some players are mediocre internationals but some players I believe that the potential to get to another level.

It's about identifying those who will make a higher level and picking them and I personally think Itoje is one of them.

Not utilising one of the brightest young talents is short sighted in my opinion.

From what I've seen he's ready to make the transition to international level.

Yes, as you keep saying. If he was good enough NOW, he'd be in the squad. Let's put this one to bed, nobody agrees with you and it's getting boring.

He is good enough now. Just Lancaster is making a mistake like he has on numerous occasions which have been costly.

Lancaster is human - he makes mistakes.

Rankings Lads............................ rankings.

Not team selection news...

secretfly the relevance is that it affects the rankings. It's the poor mindset from England and the coaches that keeps them from being higher up the rankings. Not picking the best players is not good enough. Having mediocre coaches who make silly mistakes is not good enough.

Only England would handicap themselves by not picking the best players and giving long contracts to mediocre coaches.

Ireland are higher up the rankings because you utilise your resources more effectively.

Schmidt also easily beat Lancaster tactically in the last Ireland vs England game.

Every man and their dog knew what Ireland and Schmidt would do but England had no answer.

If England have aspirations to be higher up the rankings they need to adapt as well as do other things.

You're like a really boring, broken record on this thread Beshocked. Just let it go will you.

Can't wait for Itoje to play well in the next 6 Nations after another 6 months experience and the changing of the guard in England terms, just to see beshocked come back and rub this conversation in all of your faces

beshocked wrote:secretfly the relevance is that it affects the rankings. It's the poor mindset from England and the coaches that keeps them from being higher up the rankings. Not picking the best players is not good enough. Having mediocre coaches who make silly mistakes is not good enough.

Only England would handicap themselves by not picking the best players and giving long contracts to mediocre coaches.

But how long has that being going on?  Since the last time England won the WC?  Coach after coach after coach.

Now, when that is repeated so often with largely the same results, do you actually blame each and every coach for not getting the best out of the players available or do you try out an idea that perhaps the players reached certain levels in England but have struggled to rise that few notches higher (always the toughest part in any struggle, those final few steps)?  

You can't keep blaming individual coaches.  They all came from different backgrounds, had differing mindsets about how the game should be played - and they all were always surrounded by other coaches - many many of them - all specialists in their own fields, all wanting to transfer all their knowledge - many of them coming from different sporting disciplines too to help out.
So England have never lacked in the expertise or funding available to get the very best out of their teams.  It's far too complex to land all that then at the feet of a handful of Head Coaches who are blamed for being the wrong guy at the wrong time.

Me - I'd very much add you to the reasons why it all went wrong in the years after that WC victory, Shocked.   No - not you personally - but fans and media and that ever dreaded fermenting mood of Impatience.  
Public opinion has often driven the constant changes of coaches - and that meant that continuity of approach seldom gets time enough to gel and become effective.  For me Martin Johnson was actually doing okay and getting there slowly but of course he was sacrificed because a few players decided to throw little people around a barroom and one jumped from a moving ferry.  Yes - madness.  But Johnson could have been given time then to add the much needed discipline required to his growing mixture.  But nope, the coach gets the blame for the eejit players and falls on his sword.  Impatience.

Lancaster seems to have a plethora now of top grade athletes that can play hard and fast all day - so we'll see where he gets to.  But if it's less than the English media and fans demand then I assume yet again his contract will be torn up and another coach with another style and different player preferences will be asked to start all over again.

I like the fact that even when England have been in the doldrums they've still been pretty much on a par with the other 6 Nations sides while they were enjoying their 'Golden Years'.

There, I've said it!

Secretfly

That's the problem though - Johnson should have never been picked in the first place. He did okay for a rookie but he was not one of the best coaches in England.

2011 RWC was a mess. England limped past Argentina and Scotland and went out to a mediocre French team.

Surely you want to see the team improving? England have been steadly 4th-6th under Lancaster.

Yes perhaps fans expectations are high but surely there should be some.

RFU are the richest rugby union in the world, England do have 12 AP clubs to pick players from. Got to utilise our advantages.

It's the top two inches that England have struggled with - no GS since 2003. Psychlogically have struggled vs SA.

I would have more patience if England won a GS under Lancaster or beat SA.

Those two weaknesses of England need to be extinguished.

England U20s have been one of the best in the last few years now - the players coming through is not an issue. It's about picking the best.

Cyril wrote:I like the fact that even when England have been in the doldrums they've still been pretty much on a par with the other 6 Nations sides while they were enjoying their 'Golden Years'.

There, I've said it!

On par really? I recall England getting hammered by Ireland a few times in the last ten years. There is no such thing as golden years. Between 2010 and 2013 there was a lot of hype around Ireland's golden generation coming to an end.

Back to back six nations in 2014 and 2015 suggests there was no golden generation but rather a steady growth of talent and rugby infrastructure/governance over the last 20 years in Ireland.

I'd say overall head to heads it's all about equal for England in 10 + years where we've been pretty rubbish. u20s are coming through now and we should start to see some real improvement in the next 2-3 years. Right now alot of the key players with potential are slightly raw.