Can Ireland beat France?

First topic message reminder :

With France having lost three games in a row (Italy, Wales, England), they are now on the road to face Ireland.

One side of the argument suggests that France are "due a win" while the other says that they are on the ropes and a new look Irish side can add to their misery.

Can Ireland beat this French team?

Munchkin wrote:

VictorU3 wrote:They should have stayed at Croke Park the atmos there always seemed to be buzzing on the TV.

It's a fairly new construction though, and I think just needs to be lived in awhile. Bit like a new house I suppose.
Ireland are unpredictable at the moment. If we turn it on we can beat most. We should have beat England (even though we didn't play well), and, even more so, we should have beat Scotland. Stupid basic errors costing us each game.
I can't call this game at all. If Ireland get the basics right, and play with intensity then I believe they will win. That's a big 'if' for this Ireland side...

Don't you mean that "you would have liked them to have beaten England"? Makes sense now.

100%beefy wrote:This is a MUST win for both sides, but Michalak's selection is a parody....Ireland will attack his channel all day.

I think Ireland's home advantage shoud tell but France must have one performance up their sleeve.

Irish defeat will signal the end for Kidney next weekend.

Well I'm not saying they're not capable of two (that's more Ireland's territory, the one seismic game a season effort)...but on the idea that France needs one performance up their sleeve, I think they've already had one - the England game. No they didn't win - and their coach had a part to play in that - but they didn't need the win to suggest that was one pretty good, mentally involved and hot effort after their beginning of the season.

Ireland really haven't had a full 80 minute game yet. They're all over the place tactically...but if the hound is in them for one unbeatable game (per season!!) this could be it. Who genuinely knows...I don't.

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

VictorU3 wrote:They should have stayed at Croke Park the atmos there always seemed to be buzzing on the TV.

It's a fairly new construction though, and I think just needs to be lived in awhile. Bit like a new house I suppose.
Ireland are unpredictable at the moment. If we turn it on we can beat most. We should have beat England (even though we didn't play well), and, even more so, we should have beat Scotland. Stupid basic errors costing us each game.
I can't call this game at all. If Ireland get the basics right, and play with intensity then I believe they will win. That's a big 'if' for this Ireland side...

Don't you mean that "you would have liked them to have beaten England"? Makes sense now.

I think he means with proper preparation and some actual coaching, we should have beaten England.... but playing the way we're playing for the last three or so years (rudderless), we didn't have a hope in hell! I think that's how it goes

"Don't you mean that "you would have liked them to have beaten England? Makes sense now."

Of course I would have liked Ireland to beat England , but no, I was fairly clear. I believe Ireland should have beaten England. I'm not knocking England. They are a good side under SL, and I believe could become a great side in time, but as France exposed; they are not there yet.

With better coaching, preparation and players Ireland could have beaten England. It cannot be denied.

Having said that even though the two games England won against Ireland and France were pretty close I think they were fairly comfortable towards the end of both games.

I just don't see how Ireland "should" have beaten England. The weather was shocking making a real assessment very tricky, but England have shown both in 2012 and 2013 that they have more in the locker than Ireland by simply having better players in most positions. The only area where we were bested (marginally) was the scrum, but in the loose, breakdown, defesively and as an attacking threat, England were simply the better side.

"I think he means with proper preparation and some actual coaching, we should have beaten England.... but playing the way we're playing for the last three or so years (rudderless), we didn't have a hope in hell! I think that's how it goes [/quote]"

'Rudderless' It does seem that way doesn't it. A new coaching ticket, and onwards and upwards....I hope...

Not a hope that Ireland should have beaten England. On another day maybe when injury and weather didnt go against us but on the day England deserved their win. We played a game plan not suited to the elements which was our own fault. England played what was in front of them and not their fault we lost Sexton and Zebo to injury.

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:With better coaching, preparation and players Ireland could have beaten England. It cannot be denied.

Having said that even though the two games England won against Ireland and France were pretty close I think they were fairly comfortable towards the end of both games.

Yes, England have a good bench. No doubt, although I would argue that Englands win over France was more a case of really poor substitutions by France than quality substitutions by England. Maybe England would have gone on to win regardless. I don't know, but France had the upper hand by some distance in that first half.

red_stag wrote:Not a hope that Ireland should have beaten England. On another day maybe when injury and weather didnt go against us but on the day England deserved their win. We played a game plan not suited to the elements which was our own fault. England played what was in front of them and not their fault we lost Sexton and Zebo to injury.

Nobody is saying that England didn't deserve their win, stag. Just that errors, such as crumbling under the high ball, poor line-outs, ect, cost us the game. Stupid stuff, and rightly punished for it. If I had have been an England fan I would have been laughing my socks off.

Jimpy wrote:France will win this because they have no choice. Lose and they'll be exiled to Elba or something...

Ireland have too many injuries, and Kidney is starting to drop Howleyesque selection clangers.

France showed against England that they're clicking. Cut out the daft substitutions and they'll be more than a match for Ireland over the 80 minutes.

I would agree with you if PSA had kept the same line-up. According to The Guardianista's though:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/mar/07/six-nations-2013-france-ireland

Parra/Trinh-duc not starting

The BBC has Parra as starting, with Micholak coming in for Trinh-duc.

Ah, all speculation across the medja hacks. There's a surprise.

Parra.................. now there's a red flag to a bull that Irish players could use as incitement............ if they were genuinely interested in getting that head of steam up.

My worry is that the urge has left them to take emotion into their contests these days.

Does Parra have form with Ireland?

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:Does Parra have form with Ireland?

How long is a piece of string

Parra called Ireland 'cheats' back in 2010(?). I'm not sure he actually said anything particularly bad though.

Ireland can beat France but i dont believe they will.

France have the wood on Ireland for a while now.

Ireland are seemingly in confusion over 10 having dropped O'Gara.

BOD has said that the only reason Ireland lost to England was because he had had a baby so wasn't focussed. Presumably he still isnt.

France by 10

Parra said we're cheats yes.... said there was no reason to have respect for the irish team. And he said he always knows what to expect from Ireland. And has been a thorn in our side on playing day itself for far too long.

In short, he says he and France just have to turn up and Ireland do a few well known clown tricks infront of them and then get duly beaten.

If I were Ireland coach, if I were new Captain trying to motivate, if I were fresh young players with reputations to build...Parra would certainly be a man targeted for a nice day (legally!!) at the office. It's more than enough time that he was sent home with his tail between his legs.

Great little player! The basteraud!

"BOD has said that the only reason Ireland lost to England was because he had had a baby so wasn't focussed. Presumably he still isnt. "

sado

Triangulation wrote:

BOD has said that the only reason Ireland lost to England was because he had had a baby so wasn't focussed. Presumably he still isnt.

Quit stirring shyte, Tri. You won. ..and O'Driscoll didn't say a word of that.

Triangulation wrote:BOD has said that the only reason Ireland lost to England was because he had had a baby so wasn't focussed. Presumably he still isnt.

red_stag wrote:

Triangulation wrote:BOD has said that the only reason Ireland lost to England was because he had had a baby so wasn't focussed. Presumably he still isnt.

I believe what he said was that having the baby was a much bigger deal than the rugby and because of that he maybe wasnt as focused as he might have been and was certainly unable to provide the leadership that his team needed at the time. Nothing wrong with that at all.

We'll never know what would have happened had the day been sunny, the injury situation kinder and BOD been undistracted but despite the closeness of the scoreline Ireland were comprehensively beaten up on the day

Lostinwales,

Yes O'Driscoll said he wasn't as focused as usual. He certainly never said it was the "only reason Ireland lost".

I agree in full Ireland were comprehensively beaten on the day. England were more comfortable than the 6 points suggested.

Of course Ireland can win. The only things wrong with Ireland right now are attitude and the bit of vision to finish moves. Not since the first half against Wales have they put it together and what they got wrong against England was that their heads were in the wrong place. The aggression that should have gone into the rugby came out as niggly confrontation and it cost them the game. They stopped thinking. Against Scotland they had just lost all confidence in themselves.

PSA is doing his best to give them opportunities to win this selecting Freddie again. He's crazy. The only performance they have put in as yet was against England and maybe that was the best they have to offer this season. If PSA put out the team that started against us then they would be slight favourites in my mind but they aren't going to by all accounts and that tips it in Ireland's favour. Ireland by a score.

BTW, don't believe BOD would be arrogant enough to claim he was the difference between winning and losing against England.

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:I just don't see how Ireland "should" have beaten England. The weather was shocking making a real assessment very tricky, but England have shown both in 2012 and 2013 that they have more in the locker than Ireland by simply having better players in most positions. The only area where we were bested (marginally) was the scrum, but in the loose, breakdown, defesively and as an attacking threat, England were simply the better side.

England posed an attacking threat against Ireland? You sure? You don't think that rather than an attacking threat, England capitalized on Irelands errors?

Poor old BOD.

It's a bit like when David James (ex-Liverpool keeper) admitted that his poor performance was due to playing Tomb Raider all night.

Priceless stuff here;

http://joe.ie/rugby/six-nations/audio-gift-grubs-take-on-the-ogarakidney-situation-is-very-funny-indeed-0035114-1

England cruised through the game and easily took their scalp. And O'Driscoll wasn't the only thing wrong with Ireland on that day - not by a bloody long shot. So no excuses. England won the game without having to move into anything like their top gear. Ireland were pathetic in invention and intention.

That absolutely says nothing about the natural ability of either set of players (England are coached now to the highest levels by a competent set of coaches and Ireland are a ship with many holes in it trying to stay afloat and get to a homeport somewhere quick)

'Better players' would be a shot too far for me to swallow as regard English verses Irish. England have a better team, certainly - best in Europe at present.


And just to add O'Driscolls real words, lest some English prefer to believe, or choose to believe, Tri's version over ours:

"I don't even remember a lot of the game and I was in my own world for much of the time,
It was the sort of match that needed a bit of leadership from me but which I wasn't quite able to deliver as I usually would have hoped to have done. It was all quite bizarre. I didn't make any great errors but I didn't add a huge amount either. It was a day of extremes."

The ego of the man

Munchkin wrote:

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:I just don't see how Ireland "should" have beaten England. The weather was shocking making a real assessment very tricky, but England have shown both in 2012 and 2013 that they have more in the locker than Ireland by simply having better players in most positions. The only area where we were bested (marginally) was the scrum, but in the loose, breakdown, defesively and as an attacking threat, England were simply the better side.

England posed an attacking threat against Ireland? You sure? You don't think that rather than an attacking threat, England capitalized on Irelands errors?

There was some of that and a lot of England's dominance was to do with stopping Ireland getting any scoring chances. The closest (probably only) try scoring chance for Ireland was when Kearney had the ball and a lot of empty space infront of him, only to get taken out by a great Youngs tackle. In contrast Tuilagi came on for a few minutes did virtually nothing but still got into two situations where on another day he might have scored - the bad hack on following an Irish fumble (I believe) and the Farrell chip into the the Irish in goal area. It was a dreadful day for attacking rugby. It was a great day for playing for field position and knowing what to do with and without the ball. All that matters is scoring more points than the opposition.

Wowzers for some unknown reason PSA has picked Michalak at 10!!! http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/21698503

Notch wrote:Priceless stuff here;

http://joe.ie/rugby/six-nations/audio-gift-grubs-take-on-the-ogarakidney-situation-is-very-funny-indeed-0035114-1

EOS was hilarious

Thanks for that.

Jackson to start with Madigan on the bench. Also, Archer makes the bench as replacement tighthead.

Munchkin wrote:

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:I just don't see how Ireland "should" have beaten England. The weather was shocking making a real assessment very tricky, but England have shown both in 2012 and 2013 that they have more in the locker than Ireland by simply having better players in most positions. The only area where we were bested (marginally) was the scrum, but in the loose, breakdown, defesively and as an attacking threat, England were simply the better side.

England posed an attacking threat against Ireland? You sure? You don't think that that rather than an attacking threat, England capitalized on Irelands errors?

It was a close game - small margins at this level make all the difference - BOD was unusually quiet I thought. Could he have made the difference if fully focussed? Yeah, I think he could. He didn't, he had a bloody good reason for not being entirely on his game, and BOD not quite on his game is still a better than any other Irish option, or in my opinion any other centre in the NH right now. (with the possible exception of Fofana).

In answer to the OP - I think Ireland can, and will win. Looks like a great game, two great scrummaging teams, two of the best centres, and both seeing the game as a must win.

"There was some of that and a lot of England's dominance was to do with stopping Ireland getting any scoring chances. The closest (probably only) try scoring chance for Ireland was when Kearney had the ball and a lot of empty space infront of him, only to get taken out by a great Youngs tackle. In contrast Tuilagi came on for a few minutes did virtually nothing but still got into two situations where on another day he might have scored - the bad hack on following an Irish fumble (I believe) and the Farrell chip into the the Irish in goal area. It was a dreadful day for attacking rugby. It was a great day for playing for field position and knowing what to do with and without the ball. All that matters is scoring more points than the opposition.[/quote]"

Have you read the stats for that game? I agree though. At the end of it all that matters is the score, and England deserved their win outright.

Munchkin wrote:

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:I just don't see how Ireland "should" have beaten England. The weather was shocking making a real assessment very tricky, but England have shown both in 2012 and 2013 that they have more in the locker than Ireland by simply having better players in most positions. The only area where we were bested (marginally) was the scrum, but in the loose, breakdown, defesively and as an attacking threat, England were simply the better side.

England posed an attacking threat against Ireland? You sure? You don't think that rather than an attacking threat, England capitalized on Irelands errors?

Undoubtedly so and as I said it was difficult to learn much from the game due to conditions, but from the very few multi-phase attacks before the inevitable error, England looked a tad more threatening going forward. Anyways to say Ireland should have won seems a tad optimistic.

"Undoubtedly so and as I said it was difficult to learn much from the game due to conditions, but from the very few multi-phase attacks before the inevitable error, England looked a tad more threatening going forward. Anyways to say Ireland should have won seems a tad optimistic.[/quote]"

Looking back on it wouldn't be an optimistic consideration. I was certainly optimistic prior to the game though, but not overly so considering the second half of the Wales game, and the improvement in the England side. It was a home game, so I had Ireland slightly ahead.
Put it another way; Ireland did more wrong than England did right. That's not saying England had a bad game. England played the conditions well. It is saying that Ireland played well below their potential, and regardless of the weather.

I think the edge that England seem to have over their immediate rivals, and in particular Ireland, is having the wit to find the way to adapt their game and find solutions. I dont know if its on field leadership or coaching but in both the England and Scotland games Ireland didnt adapt and looked clueless in the last 10-20 minutes. Plan A didnt work and there was no plan B

SecretFly wrote:England cruised through the game and easily took their scalp. And O'Driscoll wasn't the only thing wrong with Ireland on that day - not by a bloody long shot. So no excuses. England won the game without having to move into anything like their top gear. Ireland were pathetic in invention and intention.

That absolutely says nothing about the natural ability of either set of players (England are coached now to the highest levels by a competent set of coaches and Ireland are a ship with many holes in it trying to stay afloat and get to a homeport somewhere quick)

'Better players' would be a shot too far for me to swallow as regard English verses Irish. England have a better team, certainly - best in Europe at present.


And just to add O'Driscolls real words, lest some English prefer to believe, or choose to believe, Tri's version over ours:

"I don't even remember a lot of the game and I was in my own world for much of the time,
It was the sort of match that needed a bit of leadership from me but which I wasn't quite able to deliver as I usually would have hoped to have done. It was all quite bizarre. I didn't make any great errors but I didn't add a huge amount either. It was a day of extremes."

The ego of the man

Well i can consider myself reprimanded!
Perhaps it was the headline that said " i wasn't focussed" and not the man himself. The gist of it all is that he was not fully focussed and as the great man says himself he was not able to give of his best. That is what he is saying. Now without wanting to be unkind there may be many reasons why any given player is not able to give of their best on a match day but what is the relevance of it now? OR am i missing something? Is this BOD's way of being accountable? No one can blame him for not being able to give of his all. It is not as if an apology is warranted is it?

I do question the need on his part to say anything at all.
Blame Stuart Lancaster for my comment on all this. If he put his team out a bit earlier i would be otherwise distracted.

lostinwales wrote:I think the edge that England seem to have over their immediate rivals, and in particular Ireland, is having the wit to find the way to adapt their game and find solutions. I dont know if its on field leadership or coaching but in both the England and Scotland games Ireland didnt adapt and looked clueless in the last 10-20 minutes. Plan A didnt work and there was no plan B

Absolutely agree, lostinwales. As another has said; Ireland appear rudderless at times. Lacking in a plan B, in invention, and in clear leadership.

Anyway

Good luck irish... I just think both teams look a bit clueless when it comes to closing things out

Its as 50/50 game as i can think off.

Last year I went for a 1pt victory to ireland..(it ended up being a draw)

this year a 1 pt victory to france.

I have a feeling there is a big chance of lighting striking twice..


Draw could happen again

[quote="Munchkin"]

lostinwales wrote:I think the edge that England seem to have over their immediate rivals, and in particular Ireland, is having the wit to find the way to adapt their game and find solutions. I dont know if its on field leadership or coaching but in both the England and Scotland games Ireland didnt adapt and looked clueless in the last 10-20 minutes. Plan A didnt work and there was no plan B

Absolutely agree, lostinwales. As another has said; Ireland appear rudderless at times. Lacking in a plan B, in invention, and in clear leadership.[/quote

I think it is all of the above and this is not scientific by any means and part hunch.....

I think we have a very intelligent forward pack.

Listen to how intelligent sounding and articulate Tom Wood is when he speaks for example.

We've got the smarts. We're well coached and we've got the right culture.

I can understand why the Irish need or want to find extraneous reasons (other than talent) for their loss to England.

The Irish have had the wood on us by and large for 8 years with the odd exception.

They've grown accustomed to beating us.

This is new and strange to them.

(More) pure speculation here this time from me............if it had been dry in Dublin England would've won by more.

Tri, I read your peice...I won't reprint it here cause I'm off shortly.

He (O'Driscoll) gave an interview. You talk in one of those things I hear...unless you're Ferguson Anyway, he gave an interview about his thoughts on being a new Dad and the feelings it engenders in him...and given that the child turnd up just about the same time as the English game...he gave a few cents on the link between the two.

Read the full interview...it's a nicer, softer, cuddlier one than the outline you initially gave. But I accept the rethink on it by you.

Yes. PSA picking Michelak is just mad. They went to bits when he came on against England and was rubbish against Wales and Italy. Seems every coach has his blind spot.

Triangulation wrote:I can understand why the Irish need or want to find extraneous reasons (other than talent) for their loss to England.

The Irish have had the wood on us by and large for 8 years with the odd exception.

They've grown accustomed to beating us.

This is new and strange to them.

(More) pure speculation here this time from me............if it had been dry in Dublin England would've won by more.

Again, what you say might be true...but it'd be true for the very same reasons we lost in the wet...bad system in place at management level..I mean our coaching staff are proving they're consistently underperforming on tactics, strategy, preparation planning, player choices etc. Outsiders pretend not to see it, children in Bolivia, who don't watch rugby, would

Again - England - new coach - and a good one. Ireland - same coach as last time, and last time, - not proving good based on violently inconsistent performances. The amount of rain won't change that and not all us Irish fans claim the rain was the issue in the English game...most sensible ones know there was a hatful of reasons.

You constantly need approval to prove your worth, Tri. It's never enough that you won, it always has to be acknowledged by the vanquished before you're satisfied.

Well, you won..and deserved to and England is a pretty neat team in European terms right now..and you never know, they might get a habit of beating SH opposition too. We'll see. England are in a good position; Ireland are in a dreadful position. Ireland still have the players (individually) who can play real A grade rugby and have proven it in performances through the bad years (highest try scorers last year). With the right 'Lancaster' leading us, our fortunes, like England's, might rise.

We're down...not out.

SecretFly wrote:

Triangulation wrote:I can understand why the Irish need or want to find extraneous reasons (other than talent) for their loss to England.

The Irish have had the wood on us by and large for 8 years with the odd exception.

They've grown accustomed to beating us.

This is new and strange to them.

(More) pure speculation here this time from me............if it had been dry in Dublin England would've won by more.

Again, what you say might be true...but it'd be true for the very same reasons we lost in the wet...bad system in place at management level..I mean our coaching staff are proving they're consistently underperforming on tactics, strategy, preparation planning, player choices etc. Outsiders pretend not to see it, children in Bolivia, who don't watch rugby, would

Again - England - new coach - and a good one. Ireland - same coach as last time, and last time, - not proving good based on violently inconsistent performances. The amount of rain won't change that and not all us Irish fans claim the rain was the issue in the English game...most sensible ones know there was a hatful of reasons.

You constantly need approval to prove your worth, Tri. It's never enough that you won, it always has to be acknowledged by the vanquished before you're satisfied.

Well, you won..and deserved to and England is a pretty neat team in European terms right now..and you never know, they might get a habit of beating SH opposition too. We'll see. England are in a good position; Ireland are in a dreadful position. Ireland still have the players (individually) who can play real A grade rugby and have proven it in performances through the bad years (highest try scorers last year). With the right 'Lancaster' leading us, our fortunes, like England's, might rise.

We're down...not out.

After 8 years you'd want a little joy too yer fecker! Why dya have to be so damned reasonable man!? Feck. Youll be back i know it.

Personally, I think Kidney gets a raw deal. Ireland's problems aren't tactical but down to poor execution. The coach's tactics provided his team with 80% possession and territory against Scotland but the team couldn't score, there's only so much a coach can do.

France tend to be Irelands Ireland.

For the last few years Ireland tend to raise their game against Wales (who knows why) and all games are generally tight affairs, and both teams know how to play against the other.

France do a similar thing with Ireland, they seem to be able to pip the games even when underdogs, Ireland (until recently) were the dominant force in the 6N but were always in danger of the odd loss to both France and Scotland.

thebluesmancometh wrote:France tend to be Irelands Ireland.

For the last few years Ireland tend to raise their game against Wales (who knows why) and all games are generally tight affairs, and both teams know how to play against the other.

France do a similar thing with Ireland, they seem to be able to pip the games even when underdogs, Ireland (until recently) were the dominant force in the 6N but were always in danger of the odd loss to both France and Scotland.

???????????????