Six Nations: England v Ireland - Post Match Discussion

First topic message reminder :

10 February 2013,
Lansdowne Road, Dublin

Ireland 6 - 12 England

Ireland:

Pens: O'Gara (44'. 57')

England:

Pens: Farrell (2', 28', 63', 65')

Half-time: 0 - 6

Attendance: 51,000

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Watching the game away from the real-time tension I actually thought England were more comfortable than the score-line suggests. We had to soak up a lot of pressure but Ireland didn’t really look like they’d breach our defence, even when we were down to 14 men. Manu’s missed opportunity was a bit disappointing, I know the ball bounce badly for him, but he hesitated a bit and didn’t seem to commit fully to taking it – maybe down to lack of match fitness.

Having said that the team stats are interesting. England lost 3 scrums (to Ireland’s 0) – not sure if these were down to Cole’s ankle/Haskell at lock/14 men -, lost 4 LOs (to 3), conceded 14 penalties (to 11), missed 11 tackles (to 3), and made 0 line breaks (to 3). Funny things – stats. Mind you the BBC stats don’t include handling errors (England ~5 to Ireland ~500).

Barney,

Here's ESPN's stats on the game; Ireland v England

Attacking
58% (56%/61%) Possession (1H/2H) 42% (44%/39%)
57% (58%/55%) Territory (1H/2H) 43% (42%/45%)
3 Clean breaks 0
11 Defenders beaten 3
1 Offloads 1
73 from 77 (94.8%) Rucks won 45 from 47 (95.7%)
8 from 9 (88.9%) Mauls won 4 from 6 (66.7%)
14 Turnovers conceded 7

Defensive
68/3 Tackles made/missed 101/11
95.8% Tackling success rate 90.2%
Set pieces
4 won, 0 lost (100.0%) Scrums on own feed 7 won, 3 lost (70.0%)
15 won, 3 lost (83.3%) Lineouts on own throw 9 won, 4 lost (69.2%)
Discipline
11 (0) Penalties conceded (Freekicks) 14 (1)
0/0 Yellow/red cards 1/0

similar game to the Eng v SA game in dec Bilt..

SA was the cooler team.. England the aggresor.. SA wins out!

yappysnap wrote:
Before he gets slated much more remember Heaslip was very good last week, and aside from appalling technique under the high ball was alright yesterday (certainly better then his opposite no8). Ferris is needed badly as the posturing guy at 6 looked uninterested in playing rugby. When is Ferris back anyone?

No he wasn't. He made 3 metres in the whole game and was comfortably outplayed by his opposite number last week too.

His control at the base is excellent but his pace is gone making him fairly ineffective in attack and his leadership is very poor when we are under pressure. He frequently loses his head when things are going against him (Red Card v NZ, RWC v Wales) and is a poor captain.

yappysnap wrote:My confidence has gone up from this game.

I'll have to go with this. England are beginning to show that they aren't just a one trick pony. Obviously in perfect weather conditions they are looking to play an expansive running game but that just wouldn't have worked yesterday in those conditions and both players and management showed the required composure in the dirge of a bad weather pressure cooker.

The physicality was on another level as well, from both teams, i'm actually surprised there wasn't more on the FT injury list - and i suspect that as this week progresses both sides will see more niggles crop up as the dust settles.

mystiroakey wrote:similar game to the Eng v SA game in dec Bilt..

SA was the cooler team.. England the aggresor.. SA wins out!

Pretty much spot on Mystir.

AlastairW wrote:

yappysnap wrote:My confidence has gone up from this game.

I'll have to go with this. England are beginning to show that they aren't just a one trick pony. Obviously in perfect weather conditions they are looking to play an expansive running game but that just wouldn't have worked yesterday in those conditions and both players and management showed the required composure in the dirge of a bad weather pressure cooker.

The physicality was on another level as well, from both teams, i'm actually surprised there wasn't more on the FT injury list - and i suspect that as this week progresses both sides will see more niggles crop up as the dust settles.

Haskell tweeted this morning saying he's never ached so much after a game! Did look intense out there at times.

The most worrying and frustrating thing about Ireland is how much this side struggles when we aren't getting across the gainline.... it was the same against SA in the autumn. Our carriers were just running against bigger men and getting isolated, then we just panic and kick the ball away or spin it wide and get in even more trouble.

Murray and ROG are big culprits but the problems were across the board.

We had loads of territory and possession and just failed to turn it into points.

Englands defence needs to take a lot of credit but our poor execution and composure on the ball was a huge factor in the result yesterday too.

I don't blame any player for dropping the odd high ball under pressure yesterday.. Heaslip is not at fault for that.

But he personally gave away 3 penalties yesterday... I think 2 of which were kicked.

He looked a little out of sorts yesterday and that spread through the team. Healy's actions in the 1st half looked like a man who had lost the plot a little, like he was wound up. England had their number.

Ireland dominated possession but on a day like that it was probably not wise to keep the ball... Ireland proved that by numerous unforced errors.

I personally didn't think ROG did much wrong. He kicked ok and I don't think Sexton would have done any better.... for me I'd want ROG in those conditions over any other FH in world rugby.

ROG got caught in possession a couple of times and conceded several turnovers and penalties. He shipped BOD a hospital pass in our 22 which led to an England scrum on our 10 metre line.

His kicking range is gone and his reactions now are too slow for international rugby.

Heaslip knocked on two balls under no pressure.

The game went as soon as sexton went off in real terms. Our pack would have had to mince England to gain the penalties ROG needed to kick the win. Realistically that was never going to happen and chit to England, yesterday wasn't a great performance from them but I suspect it's just another tick in a box of things they want to accomplish en route to 2015.

For Ireland I thought Healy comfortably got the better of cole in the scrum t he will miss a significant amount of time for the stamp which was inexcusable. We held up better in the set piece than I thought but in truth our kicking game was woeful and made Alex Goode look like Muliana. In fairness to ROG had he been kicking against pur back three he might have had some joy but the positioning of Brown, Goode and Ashton was exemplary.

Sadly ROG was shown up yesterday. He played so far behind the gainline it was impossible to generate go forward. He wasn't alone though. We lack ball carriers with fez missing and O'Brien doing a massive amount of donkey work. I would bring Henderson onto the bench, Marshall in at 12 and a new 10 in should Sexton be injured. I expect to maybe see Marshall get a chance but other than that I don't expect much difference from the XV that was on when Sexton went off

England's set piece was poor overall.

The scrum was shaky but fortunately good control from Wood helped matters.

Tom Youngs had another shocker at the lineout like he did vs South Africa. The Saints combo of Hartley,Lawes and Wood shored things up in the lineout.

England didn't actually in my opinion build up too much pressure or momentum. Making too many silly mistakes when in good positions like Parling dropping the ball and of course the lineout.

On the other hand England did seem to be a lot more effective in the kicking battle withYoungs, Brown,Goode and Farrell. Aided by the inability of the Irish to catch the ball.

Defensively though England kept Ireland out relatively comfortably plus England have to be given credit for not giving Sexton/O Gara too many kickable penalties.


I have been critical of B.Youngs many times but I thought he had an excellent game. Controlling proceedings and showing he has more to his game than initially thought. I think he's maturing and adapting which is good to see. Been a good start to the 6 nations for him. Him and Farrell are starting to work as a effective halfback combo now.

had the pitch been more stable I thought England would dominated at the scrum, it looked to me we were pushing forward in the first half, shame the ref didn't see it. The stability was non-existent thanks to the pitch. In the second half we got worse though. wonder why?

Agree with Beshocked,

Lawes and Hartley had really good games off the bench, helped secure the lineout and Hartley helped stabalise the scrums. Lawes put himself about well. I wouldn't be upet to see both of them start.

If Morgan is still out and Wood is to continue at 8 how about Lawes at 6? He is a true old fashioned 6 when he plays there and would give us a bit more bite against the very large French pack (and I think he's quicker then Hask or Wood), he's also said he prefers playing flank to lock.

damage_13 wrote:had the pitch been more stable I thought England would dominated at the scrum, it looked to me we were pushing forward in the first half, shame the ref didn't see it. The stability was non-existent thanks to the pitch. In the second half we got worse though. wonder why?

As far as I could see, the edge in the scrum swung back and forth through the game. A lot was down to who had the edge between former clubmates Marler and Ross. In the first half, Marler repeatedly got under Ross and Rossy was popping up a lot (and getting away with it more than he should have). He came back out for the second half with a slightly different technique - starting lower, I think - and the greater heft of the Irish tight five started to tell. I think Marler is on a steep learning curve. He seems to have the core ability to execute Rowntree's plan, but does not yet have the experience to adapt when a more experienced TH starts deploying the tricks of the trade. It probably doesn't help that he's got a very clean technique - the long bind means he drives straight and isn't directly preventing the TH from binding. It keeps most club level THs honest, but International level ones have better ways to cheat...

Biggest worries for me were england inability to carry the ball forward in anyway other than Brown running from deep till he hit first tackler and the disaster area that was the set piece (refereeing aside)
This was though much more like a traditional first weekend game with both teams intent on stopping the other winning rather than playing their own game, combined with some good old fashioned thuggery (well done Marler, Hartley and Ashton for not flipping out for a change).
Great result for England, but a bit of a comedown after the last two games....especially when you consider Ireland were hard hit by injuries (although Im not sure how much good ball Zebo wouldve seen a fit POC wouldve been very handy and Sexton going off a definite blow)

On another day England couldve lost that. It was much more like the England we saw last year, very workmanlike but clueless of how to get their backs into the game. I dont believe they defended that brilinatly either, just Ireland lost the kicking battle and were equally as bereft of ideas going forward.

I think it was tricky to put Youngs in there however.

Firsly he's a new cap this season... unexperienced. Most of all he's played what 20 games in first class rugby as a hooker? He's still learning his craft.

The conditions suited a natural hooker, someone who played in that situation many times over and being away from home meant that self belief and leadership esp. in cruicial position of Hooker is always required.

Did you see how low Best was throwing the ball.... he knew conditions were poor and front man lineouts would dominate. The jumpers were catching the ball at their midrift not above their heads.

Youngs very rarely used the front and was going for middle variations... the extra flight and air time meant the wind had a lot more say in the success and it proved so.
Part of this should have been down to the person making the lineout calls though... Parling runs that no?

Is there any news on Ben Morgan?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Biggest worries for me were england inability to carry the ball forward in anyway other than Brown running from deep till he hit first tackler and the disaster area that was the set piece (refereeing aside)
This was though much more like a traditional first weekend game with both teams intent on stopping the other winning rather than playing their own game, combined with some good old fashioned thuggery (well done Marler, Hartley and Ashton for not flipping out for a change).
Great result for England, but a bit of a comedown after the last two games....especially when you consider Ireland were hard hit by injuries (although Im not sure how much good ball Zebo wouldve seen a fit POC wouldve been very handy and Sexton going off a definite blow)

On another day England couldve lost that. It was much more like the England we saw last year, very workmanlike but clueless of how to get their backs into the game. I dont believe they defended that brilinatly either, just Ireland lost the kicking battle and were equally as bereft of ideas going forward.

PSW England played to the conditions. It wasn't a day suited for running rugby. England used their superior kicking game to their advantage. When you have the likes of Farrell,Brown and Goode in your backline you might as well use their strengths.

I wouldn't worry too much. It's one game.

I though England were excellent. Only worries would be their inability to defend the rolling maul and their set piece maybe let them down at times but they executed a very good gameplan and were deserving winners.

Unlike previous England sides in Dublin the Irish players and crowd weren't able to rattle them and they showed much better composure than Ireland, especially when Haskell went to the bin.

They werent nearly as good at it as some are trying to make out though, and in far worse conditions teams have been able to conjure more go forward than england did. Not just the backline but the forwards too, the big ball carriers are needed for a tight game to be truely effective...England didnt get front foot ball from the forward drives, did badly in the mauls, missed 10% of their tackles, struggled to retain and get possession, and lost the set piece battle.

Its just as well they had 5 good kickers on the pitch, because frankly they had little else to offer. They look more comfortable when teams are playing open against them (New Zealand, Scotland). In this case they bare scrapped through against a beat up Ireland who went to bed 42 minutes through their last game.

Sure its great that they managed to win the danger fixture, but had the Ireland of two years ago turned up I believe the result couldve been even more embarrassing. Ive seen them play better and lose (SA)

There Is definitely a toughness about this England that we havent seen for a while. That stems from he coach IMO an in fairness robshaw too

PSW don't underestimate how tough it is to win this match. England hadn't beaten Ireland in Ireland since 2003.

Personally I didn't see much from Sexton when he was on the pitch. He would have likely been more effective than ROG but for all we know England might have upped their game.

England noticeably played better with Haskell in the bin. England beat up Ireland too - it was a very physical encounter. BOD wasn't comfortable at all. Most of these Irish guys are very experienced yet they seemed to be out of ideas. With superior territory and possession Ireland should have won the game but they didn't.

I think England have a lot more to offer. Remember this England side is still relatively inexperienced.

the best thing to take is watching our players not losing our heads..

This was a crunching and highly stressfull game. Healy went flipping crazy.. Could anyone imagine Haskell and ashton being so calm 2 years ago!!

SL has respect everywhere atm.. and long may it last..

But i am a little bit hesitant like PSW.. We couldnt gain yards like we normally do.. I know this could well be just ireland playing with insane intensity.. but all the same we didnt look as strong out there as we have done in the previous 3 games..

But then whats the point playing well against SA and losing.. SA played the right game and won.. just like we did this time v Ireland.

So I am either seriously optimistic or not sure... Well either way we have won in dublin..

starting to get a little bit scared of france..

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:They werent nearly as good at it as some are trying to make out though, and in far worse conditions teams have been able to conjure more go forward than england did. Not just the backline but the forwards too, the big ball carriers are needed for a tight game to be truely effective...England didnt get front foot ball from the forward drives, did badly in the mauls, missed 10% of their tackles, struggled to retain and get possession, and lost the set piece battle.

Its just as well they had 5 good kickers on the pitch, because frankly they had little else to offer. They look more comfortable when teams are playing open against them (New Zealand, Scotland). In this case they bare scrapped through against a beat up Ireland who went to bed 42 minutes through their last game.

Sure its great that they managed to win the danger fixture, but had the Ireland of two years ago turned up I believe the result couldve been even more embarrassing. Ive seen them play better and lose (SA)

I think there are certianly more positives to take away from this game than you're giving England credit for PSW. The conditions were extremely tough, and the environment very hostile.

Ireland weren't that beaten up. Sure Sexton got injured and Zebo went off too, but they had a wealth of experience to bring on in O'Gara whose game suited the conditions really well. He didn't step up to the mark. You could also say England were missing their starting loosehead in Corbs, so the injuries weren't all one sided.

The Ireland side of 2 years ago turning up? Well, I don't understand that point. If the England of 10 years ago had turned up, it too would have been a different game. Moot point.

Anyway, I'm not saying it was a immaculate performance by England, but there are more positives.

Credit to Ireland. They were uncompromising in their physicality, and it was a real forward's battle. They've certainly uncovered a few gems recently in O' Mahony, McCarthy and Zebo, and I'm finally starting to see the best of Ryan.

beshocked wrote:PSW don't underestimate how tough it is to win this match. England hadn't beaten Ireland in Ireland since 2003.

Except for the previous time they played Ireland in Ireland, which they won.

Ireland also played better in the 05,07,09 (its was only 3 in a row, doesnt sound quite as hyperbolic as "not in over a decade")

On one hand you say they were brilliant, then point out that Ireland were off colour but should have won the game and then make excuses for the England performance.
Which was it?
Do you agree that England didnt look especially great or not?

Well done yeah they did the job and won the toughest fixture on this years list. But lets not try and pretend it was some awesome gladitorial battle between to giants of the modern game at the height of their powers. England can play better in that kind of match, and have (and lost). I dont beleive it really suits them to be in trench warfare, they looked stronger in more open games.

Totally agree stand and beshocked.

This Ireland side is devoid of ideas. Sexton kicked away when we had a big overlap on a turnover. At one point a huge hole opened for D'arcy but he didn't have the legs or confidence to run into it... 5 seasons ago he'd have ran the length of the field.

Luke Marshall and Fitzgerald desperately need to come in...maybe Paul Marshall and Madigan on the bench.

Earls looked the best of the backs yesterday. BOD was better than D'arcy but needs someone to do the running for him now and D'arcy for all his effort and defensive ability can't.

Watch the game again without the tension. I thought England were relatively comfortable (even when a man down, and later without a proper lock and an 'ankled' Cole, plus an unlucky bounce and hesitant Manu) and played as much as was necessary. When England 2003 or SA 2007 (final) played like that it was called smart controlled rugby. They did enough.

Sorry PSW I should have said in the 6 nations.

A warm up game for the world cup was a win but nowhere near as important.

Cutting a long story short - England won a tough encounter.

True rodders.

We don't know what England would have done with ball in hand because of limited possession and territory plus with the ball we had we preferred to kick it because of the conditions.

You play to your strengths. England with the superior kicking game did just that.

No worries BS I also just realised I was talking sh1t anyway by forgetting the 6nations 2011

Ultimate internet fail, trying fact check someones argument to death then getting it wrong yourself

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Watch the game again without the tension. I thought England were relatively comfortable (even when a man down, and later without a proper lock and an 'ankled' Cole, plus an unlucky bounce and hesitant Manu) and played as much as was necessary. When England 2003 or SA 2007 (final) played like that it was called smart controlled rugby. They did enough.

I have no problem with the style, but this was no England c. 2003 performance....thats my point.
Those teams dominated scrums lineouts and mauls and had forwards taking the ball...forward. They also had backs capable of hurting any opposition when given the chance. This England side...didnt.

They got away with a win here in a style of game that doesnt show their best. Its no disgrace to not be a perfect side or attain the standards of the golden age, Im just a bit bemused to find people sucked into thinking this was some kind of super human performance simply because other (heavily slated) England sides have lost against better opposition in similar circumstances.

I dont see anything that England did in this game we didnt already know they were capable of from last years 6 nations and the SA game. What we did see was the set piece fall apart, england give away a lot of penalties and Ashtons "tackling". Thank god for all ROGs experience getting him selected to be the bench option rather than a kid at the top of their game (like Farrell)

Thought England gave a pretty good demonstration of how to play ten man rugby in appalling conditions. I could count on one hand the number of times the ball went out past second receiver. This was the Right Way to Play in tht weather.

Well done to all for keeping a calm head too. Well, all in white. Is Healey being cited?

There are so many things to say about that Irish performance but I don't know about you Rodders, I just cant be bothered to talk about it. Kidney doesn't learn from his mistakes tactically and in his selections. Just as we have lost to Wales on the previous three occasions we have demonstrated how easy we are to defend against. Get the defensive line up quickly and we will be too clueless to do anything. England played perfectly fine. They offered absolutely nothing in attack and still won the match. They didn't even really have to work that hard for it either. The score flattered us and England's victory was well deserved. I'm not sure how Robshaw won man of the match. He put in alot of work but I thought Parling was absolutely outstanding.

It is exactly the performance I envisaged. Kidney has castrated his players from using their brains in a match. You see Ulster and Leinster invariably being able to change tactics when the going gets tough to win matches they should have lost. Ireland have not done that once since 2010. I'm glad you picked up on D'Arcy Rodders because I was screaming at him there. Even though he has lost alot of his gas that was a gaping hole, and even if he had have been tackled he could have created an overlap and a chance for Gilroy and Kearney (I think) to break.

Other than that we'll let the usual crowd of provincial infighters do their usual on ROG (embarrassing and sad), Healy (thuggery), Heaslip (the most underperforming Irish players since the last Lions tour now captain), unbalanced backrow (expecting Healy and Best to do the breakdown work so three backrowers can carry the ball ineffectually- how badly do we miss David Wallace?), refusal to change centres when D'Arcy offers no creativity, etc, etc, etc.

The biggest thing though I noticed was the booing of Farrell when kicking. I hate it. Its footballesque behaviour. I was sitting with my dad and some of his friends watching the match and they were all talking before it about how at the height of the Troubles England came across the play Ireland in Dublin when Scotland and Wales refused. Most of us know about it- it was a brave and incredibly important gesture. Then to hear supposedly 'respectful' fans booing the English kicker shows absolutely no class.

Yup, can't argue too much there Hookie.

PSW it's unrealistic to compare this England to the 2003 lot yet! They need to do more - e.g. beating the SH sides consistently. Winning a GS would prove they have the mettle to go onto greater things.

You should be heartened that England still won the game despite the flaws you mentioned.

England showed against Scotland and NZ what they can do when the forwards dominate. The forwards won't dominate in every game.

I thought the backs overall managed to admirably handle the situation despite their pack not giving them a good platform.

You would think the more experienced players like Kearney,Darcy,BOD,ROG,Sexton etc would rule the roost but they didn't.

In contrast it was England's backs who looked more assured.

The 2003 side were quite old and had a huge amount of experience. This is a young side which will have its ups and downs but has a lot of potential.

England fans should feel positive but need to give this side and players a chance to grow. Beating NZ in the autumn was a big milestone and this was another.

2 years out from the RWC they are at a good stage in their development relative to a lot of other sides.

Well, well, well.............. put a spin on that game!

We've already heard some of it in post game interviews...and we'll hear a bundle more in the next two weeks as the dry rot crawling through Ireland Inc continues apace and the apologists rattle off the "Keep it in the Dressing Room" rubbish.

I knew the game was over as the Irish players emerged from the tunnel for the second half - in their own stadium, listening to their own crowd trying to encourage them. Dead eyes, no renewed hope, a desert wind of ideas swirling around in empty heads.

They had no answers but the usual gaping holes in any kind of 80 minute period of rhyme and reason and played out once again all the boringly predictable ones - the lack of a creative thought in design, a hollow continuing trust and yearning in the instinctive individual talents of a chosen few to take the team through games against well rehearsed, well tutored, well coached sides.

A wing and a prayer is the fuel Ireland runs on and, once again, England, along with others in recent years, has called its bluff - and didn't really have to do anything exceptional or strenuous to take the 12 points they needed to close down the game. All they needed was the absolute belief (behind the scenes) that Ireland were nowhere close to being as good a side as we've been trying to pretend we are on those one or two days every year that we 'click'.

The joke has run its course. These players and this present coaching team have become allergic to each other in real terms. The natural end to the relationship must come. Even a winning Cheika and a winning Leinster knew they had to separate to give each other renewed hope that the divorce might re-energise both. This joined-at-the-hip freefall of Irish coaching reputation and Irish player reputation is excruciatingly painful to watch. And any Irish person who claims it's not painful...well, they're closet masocists and should stick to the 40 Shades of Grey fiction stuff and stop commenting on rugby.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Watch the game again without the tension. I thought England were relatively comfortable (even when a man down, and later without a proper lock and an 'ankled' Cole, plus an unlucky bounce and hesitant Manu) and played as much as was necessary. When England 2003 or SA 2007 (final) played like that it was called smart controlled rugby. They did enough.

I have no problem with the style, but this was no England c. 2003 performance....thats my point.
Those teams dominated scrums lineouts and mauls and had forwards taking the ball...forward. They also had backs capable of hurting any opposition when given the chance. This England side...didnt.

They got away with a win here in a style of game that doesnt show their best. Its no disgrace to not be a perfect side or attain the standards of the golden age, Im just a bit bemused to find people sucked into thinking this was some kind of super human performance simply because other (heavily slated) England sides have lost against better opposition in similar circumstances.

I dont see anything that England did in this game we didnt already know they were capable of from last years 6 nations and the SA game. What we did see was the set piece fall apart, england give away a lot of penalties and Ashtons "tackling". Thank god for all ROGs experience getting him selected to be the bench option rather than a kid at the top of their game (like Farrell)

I think we need to look at this in the context of the squad's experience and evolution.

It took SCW's England - a very experienced squad - 4 years to learn how to adapt their game properly to different teams and conditions. People have been comparing Sunday's match to the 2003 game in Dublin, but I think a more apt comparison would be to the 2000 game in Murrayfield. A similarly hostile environment, similarly foul conditions, a similar point in the RWC cycle. Scotland in 2000 were not as individually talented as Ireland in 2013 (though they were the 1999 5N Champions) but were better coached, but the 2000 England squad was already vastly more experienced than the 2013 version.

On that day, England were completely outthought and outmanoeuvred by the Scots. On Sunday, England coped with everything Ireland threw at them. It's also worth comparing this year with last year. England ground out 2 wins, surprised the French with counter-attacking and exploited Ireland's lack of depth at tighthead but didn't have a fully functioning attacking game even in good conditions. A year later, they have an attacking game that works when conditions are OK, but it's asking a bit much to expect them to have it fully functioning when the ball's a bar of soap.

Even the much more experienced Irish backline struggled with the conditions - and were put off by England's defensive pressure. To expect exciting back play from a team with fewer than 250 caps between them and less half a game playing with that XV on the pitch is a bit much.

I think we've seen enough to know that a) the coaches are pretty smart at designing gameplans that will work for the opposition and conditions; b) the squad are actually better at picking them up and executing than the 2003 squad were at the same phase of their development; c) there's enough evidence of improvement to believe that they will learn how to play a more exciting game in all weathers - given time.

Ireland looked clueless with ROG at 10, that was the turning point for me. Sure he can kick for touch, but thats it. Hes nowhere near good enough at this level anymore.

England have something about them at the moment, you just felt they were the team who could pick up a gear if they needed to on the weekend. They dont have any real weaknesses to their game, and they're figuring out how to play the conditions/the occasion very well. I dont think we should underestimate how much of their clear-headed-thinking has come from the belief that beating NZ gave them. They've kicked on alright.

ROG didn't even kick to touch well. That's how far gone he is. It isn't his fault, it is kidneys.

When you look at how deep O'Gara was standing and consider that he still had to rush things he clearly isn't up to the international game anymore. The likes of Jackson and madigan may not be up to it right now either but with exposure they can become options. Given his age, O'Gara doesn't have that anymore. He will continue to get worse and worse

Standulstermen wrote:ROG didn't even kick to touch well. That's how far gone he is. It isn't his fault, it his kidneys.

When you look at how deep O'Gara was standing and consider that he still had to rush things he clearly isn't up to the international game anymore. The likes of Jackson and madigan may not be up to it right now either but with exposure they can become options. Given his age, O'Gara doesn't have that anymore. He will continue to get worse and worse

Kidney disease is no joke. My cat died from it.

your poor cat.. maybe you should have put it down before he died a terrible painfull death.. same goes for kidney and all by the sounds of it

Poorfour wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Watch the game again without the tension. I thought England were relatively comfortable (even when a man down, and later without a proper lock and an 'ankled' Cole, plus an unlucky bounce and hesitant Manu) and played as much as was necessary. When England 2003 or SA 2007 (final) played like that it was called smart controlled rugby. They did enough.

I have no problem with the style, but this was no England c. 2003 performance....thats my point.
Those teams dominated scrums lineouts and mauls and had forwards taking the ball...forward. They also had backs capable of hurting any opposition when given the chance. This England side...didnt.

They got away with a win here in a style of game that doesnt show their best. Its no disgrace to not be a perfect side or attain the standards of the golden age, Im just a bit bemused to find people sucked into thinking this was some kind of super human performance simply because other (heavily slated) England sides have lost against better opposition in similar circumstances.

I dont see anything that England did in this game we didnt already know they were capable of from last years 6 nations and the SA game. What we did see was the set piece fall apart, england give away a lot of penalties and Ashtons "tackling". Thank god for all ROGs experience getting him selected to be the bench option rather than a kid at the top of their game (like Farrell)

I think we need to look at this in the context of the squad's experience and evolution.

It took SCW's England - a very experienced squad - 4 years to learn how to adapt their game properly to different teams and conditions. People have been comparing Sunday's match to the 2003 game in Dublin, but I think a more apt comparison would be to the 2000 game in Murrayfield. A similarly hostile environment, similarly foul conditions, a similar point in the RWC cycle. Scotland in 2000 were not as individually talented as Ireland in 2013 (though they were the 1999 5N Champions) but were better coached, but the 2000 England squad was already vastly more experienced than the 2013 version.

On that day, England were completely outthought and outmanoeuvred by the Scots. On Sunday, England coped with everything Ireland threw at them. It's also worth comparing this year with last year. England ground out 2 wins, surprised the French with counter-attacking and exploited Ireland's lack of depth at tighthead but didn't have a fully functioning attacking game even in good conditions. A year later, they have an attacking game that works when conditions are OK, but it's asking a bit much to expect them to have it fully functioning when the ball's a bar of soap.

Even the much more experienced Irish backline struggled with the conditions - and were put off by England's defensive pressure. To expect exciting back play from a team with fewer than 250 caps between them and less half a game playing with that XV on the pitch is a bit much.

I think we've seen enough to know that a) the coaches are pretty smart at designing gameplans that will work for the opposition and conditions; b) the squad are actually better at picking them up and executing than the 2003 squad were at the same phase of their development; c) there's enough evidence of improvement to believe that they will learn how to play a more exciting game in all weathers - given time.

I dont expect or feel we need to achieve that, just playing 10 man rugby well would be fine. The problem I have is that this hasnt shown any real development from Englands first game under Lancaster, but has shown their set piece is vulnerable.
The tactical kicking was great, not a lot else was (even farrells goal kicking was flawed).

All teams are going to have good and bad days, I get that. What Im having a hard time understanding is how people are managing to paint one of their worst performances under Lancaster as some kind of heroic evolution toward godhood. To me it was a step back... we've played better 10 man rugby than that.
As it was England mugged a fantastic result anyway, thats just the way things go (see the SA game for the reverse)

Im much happier with the result than what England produced in terms of play.

Was far from a classic game, although this was clearly dictaed by the conditions. From an England perspective, I think the best thing we can say is that we found a way to win a hard-fought game - showed great mental toughness (especially during the sin binning, when we really cranked up the intensity) and suggests that the team learned something from the narrow loss to the Boks in the AIs.

There's no such thing as a bad win for an England side in Dublin.

I know it's a cliche to say that good teams win without playing well, but I think that pretty much sums up that game - we didn't offer very much in attack, although the defensive side of our game was excellent and we did a good job of keeping the game in the right areas for long periods, so giving Farrell enough shots at goal to win the match.

Oh, and just how many Robshaw clones were on the pitch? No way can one player cover that much ground and be involved in so many phases of the game.

Another good boost to the confidence and further evidence that we are moving towards being a good to very good side.

Barney McGrew did it wrote: My cat died from it.

Rubbish...hes the backs coach for England

I think next game we start with only 14 men and leave Haskell on the bench - it was probably our best 10 minutes of rugby on Sunday...

Most good to very good teams actually do prepare for the 14 man game. And they realise intensity and concentration levels have to go up accordingly. The imperative is there to not allow the one man disadvantage show on the opposition's scoresheet. SO????


What happens in modern games when a really good side gets taken down a man? They certainly don't sit back and try to defend manfully. That's much too risky a venture even though common sense prehaps suggests it to some as the best way. No, common sense is to attack. As you attack you stall your opponent's ability to attack. You eat into their attack time. And lo and behold, the 'defensive' attacking plan often becomes a full bodied true attack. The mind works wonders.

Now back to Ireland. They were the man down twice in the second half against Wales...and as bad teams do, they trusted the conservative approach of sitting into the trenches and waiting for the charges from the opposition.

If you're going to play a modern game of rugby in a new century at least the coaches should watch a few modern games and see how good sides cope, and what they choose to do when certain situations arise.
Ostritch logic will not suffice in the modern game of rugby.

SecretFly wrote:Ostritch logic will not suffice in the modern game of rugby.

Can't argue with that. If you're in that position it probably also means you've just been spear tackled. So, bad all round really.

The masterclass was England 2003 - Wellington vs the ABs

We went down to 13 men for the best part of 10 minutes with Dayglo and Back i think yellow carded.

We went upfield with a series of forward drives.

We won that period 6-0 i believe.

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Ostritch logic will not suffice in the modern game of rugby.

Can't argue with that. If you're in that position it probably also means you've just been spear tackled. So, bad all round really.

precisely Cyril... a man after my own theories!