Nick Easter : France won't stop England Grand Slam

First topic message reminder :

As far as confidence goes, Nick Easter has it.

There will be no Lions hang over for England he predicts, who will defy history by taking the six nations. France are in turmoil and in decline so he says today.

Bold prediction, writing off the French. Is he speaking the truth? Or smarting from England's 2011 exit at the hands of the same foes?

http://nzh.tw/11187689

"That is not going to happen, the state [French] rugby is in. With the players they have got...what was it last year, two wins?"

He goes on to predict not just an England win but an England grand slam.

"That game at Twickenham is potentially the decider. I think it's England's time - it's been a long time since they won a slam,"

He clearly believes that only France are capable of stopping England however unlikely - interesting stuff.

GunsGerms wrote:

Cyril wrote:Where is the Irish confidence coming from, Guns? I think perhaps you are the one overrating your side.

Have they Ireland improved? Played well against NZ (and lost again) but looked just as woeful when Australia smashed them as in some games in the last 6 Nations.

England were in control away in Ireland last time. I think it'll be a wider margin at HQ.

We have a very good record v England for a start. I already said that Ireland are behind England in terms of favorites for the championship. However, lets not forget who was the only team to beat last years favorites away from home too and the only team to push NZ to the wire in 2013. Ireland will always have big games in them and I believe that this will be one of them. I dont think any team will get a GS.

Not recently you haven't. Last 3 (2 in 6Ns) are England wins.

Also if we're doing team vs team comparisons (that don't really mean a lot). England beat Australia. Ireland were taken apart by them.

Guns Germs you've lost the last two matches to England - home and away. That's not a good record.

Ireland might well save their best performance for England but in terms of consistency England are arguably the most consistent side in the NH.

Ireland are erratic as shown in the AIs. Almost beating NZ but getting hammered by the Aussies.

If you play like you did vs NZ then yes you can beat England but if you play like you did vs the Aussies.....

ChequeredJersey wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Last time Ireland played England it was a one score game. It was very close and Ireland have improved since then. Sometimes I wonder where England confidence comes from.

That was in Ireland where we have struggled and was in awful conditions, of course it was close

the conditions werent awful at all???

If the conditions weren't awful then I don't want to go to Ireland in bad weather!

I think using a third party national team as a relative benchmark has been widely discredited.

Ireland were closer to NZ than England, but England beat Australia and Ireland lost, whereas NZ beat Australia in the last 10 outings (or whatever it is) shows how the logic just doesn't apply.

I think only head to heads count, although maybe a trend in recent form against all opposition may be relevant.

Ireland have shown enough recently against all comers to show they are capable of beating anyone - but also capable of capitulating horribly. And the very fact that England did beat NZ last year just goes to show how the form book and preconceptions are often meaningless.

Schmidt has brought something new to Ireland and it will be interesting to see what results it yields...one could say they are due.

GunsGerms wrote:

beshocked wrote:GunsGerms England are not overrated though. 4th in the world. Should be deservedly one of the favourites in the 6 nations.

It was a one score game in Ireland, that's an away match for England.

The confidence for England comes from beating the best side in the world in 2012, running the same side relatively closely in 2013, being the only NH side in the AIs to beat the Aussies in 2013, winning 8 out of 10 6 nations games in the last 2 years.

England have been consistently a difficult side to beat except for Wales and the South Africans in the last two years.

I am not sure where your confidence of an Irish win at Twickenham comes from to be honest.

I have already explained the rational for my prediction.

Sorry Gunsgerms but I don't think it's rational.

Of course Ireland can win if they bring their A game but they are not a consistent side. England are a consistent side. England are a higher ranked side who win more matches than Ireland and are playing at home. Logically this would point to an England win.

Ireland are capable of winning of course but will likely start as underdogs and deservedly so.

Ireland will also need to find an answer to England's forward power and defence.

beshocked wrote:Guns Germs you've lost the last two matches to England - home and away. That's not a good record.

Ireland might well save their best performance for England but in terms of consistency England are arguably the most consistent side in the NH.

Ireland are erratic as shown in the AIs. Almost beating NZ but getting hammered by the Aussies.

If you play like you did vs NZ then yes you can beat England but if you play like you did vs the Aussies.....

I think though in fairness the Irish players do try harder at provincial level than the English boys do and are often tired in the 6N and AI's....might be if both sides were fresh we'd see different results.

Just a bit of rain. If anything that would have suited England more than Ireland.

Agree with GE, only results between the two teams facing each other is relevant.

There are too many ifs, buts, conditions, referees, players that vary to compare results against other teams.

Biltong wrote:Agree with GE, only results between the two teams facing each other is relevant.

There are too many ifs, buts, conditions, referees, players that vary to compare results against other teams.

You're just saying that because yous always spank them Bilts.....   

The old clash of styles thing plays into as well.

Both England and Ireland managed to strangle NZ up front and cause a few problems at the scrum. Against each other that forward cohesion may cancel out to a certain extent and the game will be decided elsewhere - like in the accuracy of the finishing from the outside backs, or the penetration in the mid-field, or lineout accuracy, or goal kicking or discipline or something.

Just checked and it was Wee weeing down with rain. Generally we'd call that awful conditions...

rodders wrote:

Biltong wrote:Agree with GE, only results between the two teams facing each other is relevant.

There are too many ifs, buts, conditions, referees, players that vary to compare results against other teams.

You're just saying that because yous always spank them Bilts.....   

  No mate, it is true.

I don't even worry about the IRB rankings to decide whether we can beat a team or not.

I only look at results against each to decide whether we have an ascendancy or not.

Sorry gloriousempire. What's your point? Don't need to use a 3rd party anyway - England have beaten Ireland in the last 6 nations matches home and away.

GunsGerms the conditions were poor.

Rodders that's funny. Not true though. Many irish players are wrapped in cotton wool.

NZ don't like to commit players to the rucks - so if you commit players you'll beat them - simple, its as easy as saying 'norovirus'....can't understand why so few teams have worked it out.

GunsGerms wrote:Just a bit of rain. If anything that would have suited England more than Ireland.

Yeah but funnily enough games in the rain tend to be closer than those in the dry

GloriousEmpire wrote:The old clash of styles thing plays into as well.

Both England and Ireland managed to strangle NZ up front and cause a few problems at the scrum. Against each other that forward cohesion may cancel out to a certain extent and the game will be decided elsewhere - like in the accuracy of the finishing from the outside backs, or the penetration in the mid-field, or lineout accuracy, or goal kicking or discipline or something.

I hope not. Up the jumper will do

beshocked wrote:

Sorry Gunsgerms but I don't think it's rational.

Of course Ireland can win if they bring their A game but they are not a consistent side. England are a consistent side.  England are a higher ranked side who win more matches than Ireland and are playing at home. Logically this would point to an England win.

Ireland are capable of winning of course but will likely start as underdogs and deservedly so.

Ireland will also need to find an answer to England's forward power and defence.

They arent yet but Irelands squad depth has improved considerably since Ireland last played and lost in Twickenham. On that occasion Ireland had one international class tighthead, Mike Ross, who left the field injured only to be replaced by a loose head Tom Court. For that reason our scrum was destroyed.

However, this time around for example we have three international class players in almost every position. At tighthead, Ross, Moore and Archer are all good enough etc.

Yes last years six nations Ireland were very inconsistent but we were also very unfortunate with injuries whereas England or Wales werent hit as hard for example. For the Italy game we were missing over 15 international capped players. How can you be consistent with so many guys missing? A bit of luck is always a factor when it comes to injuries but I cant see Ireland having the same problems they had last year.

England may be one dimensional and predictable but they do it so well. Ireland have been and will continue to be, flash in the pan type of team until Schmidt turns them into a consistent team. Until that has been done I wont have much confidence in beating England in England.

beshocked wrote:
Rodders that's funny. Not true though. Many irish players are wrapped in cotton wool.

It's been statistically proven through anecdotal evidence that Irish players are tireder come the internationals - we're also older and need more rest...

ChequeredJersey wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Just a bit of rain. If anything that would have suited England more than Ireland.

Yeah but funnily enough games in the rain tend to be closer than those in the dry

Maybe Ireland would have won if the game was dry, you never know. Ireland beat Wales by playing an expansive game scoring some very nice trys out the back.

rodders wrote:NZ don't like to commit players to the rucks - so if you commit players you'll beat them - simple, its as easy as saying 'norovirus'....can't understand why so few teams have worked it out.

Totally agree with that, but it isn't as simple as that.

If you don't balance the numbers at the ruck right, you will find their style of avoiding rucks will play into their hands with too many numbers on attack. And that is where they catch you, their adaptability on field is what makes them beat SA more often than not, we do have the players to beat them, but their number one advantage over us is their intelligence in reading the match situation and knowing how to adapt. Be it at the breakdown, open field or tactical kicking.

Their ability to shift the point of attack is also second to none

rodders wrote:

beshocked wrote:
Rodders that's funny. Not true though. Many irish players are wrapped in cotton wool.

It's been statistically proven through anecdotal evidence that Irish players are tireder come the internationals - we're also older and need more rest...

What is the average age of the Ireland squad? im sure it isnt much older than any other squad.

Nachos Jones wrote:England may be one dimensional and predictable but they do it so well. Ireland have been and will continue to be, flash in the pan type of team until Schmidt turns them into a consistent team. Until that has been done I wont have much confidence in beating England in England.

Yes there is no question that they do do it well. They have also become a lot craftier under Lancaster. Dan Cole in particular was very very effective at the dark arts in the last 6n. Very good at slowing ball down, collapsing mauls and getting away with certain things. Highly rated player IMO.

GunsGerms wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Just a bit of rain. If anything that would have suited England more than Ireland.

Yeah but funnily enough games in the rain tend to be closer than those in the dry

Maybe Ireland would have won if the game was dry, you never know. Ireland beat Wales by playing an expansive game scoring some very nice trys out the back.

Maybe, but my point is regardless of which team may have won, you don't expect to thrash a team, even one you may be better than, when it's wet, so I don't think much can be read into the closeness of that match

GunsGerms wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Sorry Gunsgerms but I don't think it's rational.

Of course Ireland can win if they bring their A game but they are not a consistent side. England are a consistent side.  England are a higher ranked side who win more matches than Ireland and are playing at home. Logically this would point to an England win.

Ireland are capable of winning of course but will likely start as underdogs and deservedly so.

Ireland will also need to find an answer to England's forward power and defence.

They arent yet but Irelands squad depth has improved considerably since Ireland last played and lost in Twickenham. On that occasion Ireland had one international class tighthead, Mike Ross, who left the field injured only to be replaced by a loose head Tom Court. For that reason our scrum was destroyed.

However, this time around for example we have three international class players in almost every position. At tighthead, Ross, Moore and Archer are all good enough etc.

Yes last years six nations Ireland were very inconsistent but we were also very unfortunate with injuries whereas England or Wales werent hit as hard for example. For the Italy game we were missing over 15 international capped players. How can you be consistent with so many guys missing? A bit of luck is always a factor when it comes to injuries but I cant see Ireland having the same problems they had last year.

Do you seriously think your frontrow is good as England's?

Oh right - the whole injury excuse. Wondering when that one would appear!

England's frontrow is its strenght but Ireland's isnt a weakness. A frontrow of Healy, Best and Ross would stand up to any in the world. Fairly confident of that.

To be honest I think Healy is better than Corbisiero or vunap and Best is probably better than Youngs (is he first choice hooker?) England have better depth in the front row but Irelands isnt bad now. A front from of McGrath, Cronin/Strauss, Moore would do fine v England IMO.

Dan Cole is Englands star man in the front row in my opinion.

Yet if Adam Jones does it then its a devalued Wales win   

If you say so Gunsgerms.   

Hartley is first choice hooker.

As an Irishman of course you would think your frontrow are deities. 

Swapping in Lawes and Hartley for Parling and T.Youngs makes the England front five a lot more formidable.

Yes Hartley is first choice, of course. The front row v Aus was Vunap, Youngs and Cole. Thats what I was thinking of.

You are being silly now. What do you think of the England front row v Irelands?

On Club form and on the basis of their last International match, Hartley is clearly first choice, Youngs isn't a bad 2nd choice to have though

Best has been pretty awful for the last season or two compared to his normal form.

As much as I dislike Hartley he's a good hooker.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Have to agree with you Cyril. The article's headline was a tad sensationalist. But this is the reaction the journalist wants though right? the quickly rising feeling of outrage that makes the reader lead into the article to find just what the brigand said...then read all the way to the bottom naively scanning for the enraging quote, only to find you've read their throw away article all the way through and ... where was that outrageous opinion?

I guess if journos just wrote headlines "Rugby Player Respects Opposition" or "Veteran England Star Has Reasonable Opinion" not many folks would read their rag.
Easter's dig at Frances two wins last year was a bit controversial though.

GE who writes your headlines then ? You seem to suck them in !

I've told you, GE is Rattue

The PODs are opening.  I hear the explosive metalic clips parting as we speak.  The cryogenic gas is escaping.  Some of the occupants have already their red eyes open.  One of them even has enough life back in his lungs to suck in a Darth Vader breath............  is that POD BOD's POD?!!  It can't be!!  His POD is usually sealed shut up until the very last day before the first game...and let me tell you, the stories of the poor drones who have to unwrap him from his heavy duty cotton wool cocoon - well, let's just say that if it's on a long time, it sticks in embarrassing places.

Anyway.... the Soldiers of Fortune are well on the way to being defrosted now.  Another season begins for them.  Most of them always want to know how Leinster are getting on first, both in the Pro12 and the HEC.  They have a shock in stock for them as regards the HEC and it's longwinded demise.

Even LESS season time next year, guys.  And longer in those blasted cryogenic cotton-wool sealed PODs!  Bonuses all round for that sacrifice.

So that's were the fly has been! He's been watching the Universal soldier series in prep for the 6N!

munkian wrote:Best has been pretty awful for the last season or two compared to his normal form.

As much as I dislike Hartley he's a good hooker.

Thats completely untrue. He was one of our top three performers last year. He was just terrible on the Lions tour albeit he never got to play with POC who he is used to throwing to. He was also ridiculously good v NZ.

Having him back is a big boost for Ireland.

I've been in one of them PODs myself, Rodders! Every army needs a good commander in the propaganda trenches!...far away from the shell fire.

beshocked wrote:If you say so Gunsgerms.   

Hartley is first choice hooker.

As an Irishman of course you would think your frontrow are deities. 

Swapping in Lawes and Hartley for Parling and T.Youngs makes the England front five a lot more formidable.

Beshocked, I await your analysis of the England front row v the Irish front row for reasons the English one is so much better.

rodders wrote:NZ don't like to commit players to the rucks - so if you commit players you'll beat them - simple, its as easy as saying 'norovirus'....can't understand why so few teams have worked it out.

Except that England, Ireland and France tried that, as did South Africa this year, and let me check - nope that's right - they ALL lost.

Well, if Corbs is fit, (purely at the scrum, all have different aspects of play they are good at in the loose but I'll admit right now Healy is the best there) Corbs>Healy>Mako=Marler (both underrated heavily here)>Ireland's other options. At hooker, Hartley=Best>Youngs=Cronin=Strauss for me. Cole>Ross (both sides second choices defs a way behind their first choices here). Lawes gives more grunt, in theory, than Parling, so evens in the second row. For me, it's close if Corbs is out but ours in he isn't. He is out, I assume, until after the Ireland match? So it should be close

GloriousEmpire wrote:

rodders wrote:NZ don't like to commit players to the rucks - so if you commit players you'll beat them - simple, its as easy as saying 'norovirus'....can't understand why so few teams have worked it out.

Except that England, Ireland and France tried that, as did South Africa this year, and let me check - nope that's right - they ALL lost.

yeah, but if we hadn't committed men to the ruck imagine how much we would have lost by. I'm being serious, I think if we let New Zealand get quick ball which not using that tactic probably would have led to, we would have been murdered

ChequeredJersey wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

rodders wrote:NZ don't like to commit players to the rucks - so if you commit players you'll beat them - simple, its as easy as saying 'norovirus'....can't understand why so few teams have worked it out.

Except that England, Ireland and France tried that, as did South Africa this year, and let me check - nope that's right - they ALL lost.

yeah, but if we hadn't committed men to the ruck imagine how much we would have lost by. I'm being serious, I think if we let New Zealand get quick ball which not using that tactic probably would have led to, we would have been murdered

Granted, it's a classic contest of styles. If a team like England can smother the break down and cut off the ball, then it limits attacking chances. Equally NZ like to kick a lot of possession for territory, so retaining the ball by committing huge numbers to each ruck and crabbing down the field slowly is a tactic that may work. However, as has been seen with 12 players in a ruck it's hard to create an attacking chance and *usually* the referee will penalise a ruck infringement on attack before you get too far. However, come across someone with an interesting perception of what constitutes a foul at an attacking ruck - for instance the Joubert "no defence, no foul" interpretation and it can get hairy.  However, I think the NZ coaching staff's complaint to the IRB may just have done enough to avoid that particular interpretation in the future.  Not having a whinge you understand - just pointing out what I perceive to be facts.

I'd prefer to see a more positive style from teams than just ruck flooding, field crabbing and hoping to pot penalties from 50 meters out. It's not much of a spectacle. I'd prefer it if teams focussed on getting their own quick ball and trying to do something with it. Something SA did to great effect in the classic match at Ellis Park. More of that please!

I think Ireland also showed that NZ are susceptible to very direct attack, where they took advantage of perhaps a lack of "mongrel" around the fringes. Maybe the sign of a tired team, a rotated squad, maybe, or maybe just missing the likes of a Kaino at 6 and a Brad Thorn in the second row.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

rodders wrote:NZ don't like to commit players to the rucks - so if you commit players you'll beat them - simple, its as easy as saying 'norovirus'....can't understand why so few teams have worked it out.

Except that England, Ireland and France tried that, as did South Africa this year, and let me check - nope that's right - they ALL lost.

yeah, but if we hadn't committed men to the ruck imagine how much we would have lost by. I'm being serious, I think if we let New Zealand get quick ball which not using that tactic probably would have led to, we would have been murdered

that comment is probably valid for all the other teams mentionned above. at least we somehow got the impression to be almost competitive with NZ!

Not that I think there was anything wrong with our approach to the breakdown, I think it was the right tactical approach and reasonably well executed even if it didn't pay off

The other problem with the breakdown flood of course, is that the players tend to get tired out by the increased work load, whilst NZ are happily kicking deep for large chunks of 60 minutes. I don't think it's coincidental that NZ have driven home the advantage quite late on in quite a few games. The forwards can't be arsed attenting any more rucks and have lost of yard of pace and half a shoulder in defence.

THe England game is like clockwork, as the Ireland game for much the same conclusion.

I seem to remember the game went away from England when they were no longer able to use either set piece to have a platform. Not to do with tiring but if your replacement hooker can't get a proper strike at the scrum or help to win a lineout you're going to struggle no matter what. p.s. you're still going with Easter not dismissing France.

I'd argue that England were in that position because they needed to make replacements. Hartley knackered himself hitting so many rucks and it was downhill from there.

Most of the 6N sides are a bit over-rated.

Wales are favourites but can’t beat an average Australia, even at home.

Ireland won a famous moral victory against the ABs and are now the danger side. But they didn’t, and they’re not.

France are always seen as the side that SHOULD win it – but have recently been beaten by everyone and regularly struggle against England (even when we’re pants).

And England could/could have fielded a side that included Dickson/Farrell/12T/Tompkins/Ashton/Goode/Brown – arguably the least scary back-line since 1933.

So that's mostly bald men fighting over a comb.

Leaving Scotland and Italy fighting over the title then?

Not really sure you get a bruised lung from being tired. England were in that position because their replacement hooker had a really bad game not because of the gameplan. Indeed you alluded to the fact that NZ were competing at the breakdown until later in the game (slow to play to the refs rulings for once) so they wouldn't be that tired from doing that. Plus England saved themselves from having to make as many tackles as New Zealand.