England vs Ireland, Part 2

First topic message reminder :

For continuing discussion of Ireland vs England in Round 3 of the Six Nations

Previous thread; https://www.606v2.com/t51752-england-vs-ireland

Ireland have released various players to the provinces; starting for Ulster against the Scarlets on Friday are Paddy Jackson, Luke Marshall, Darren Cave and Iain Henderson. Leinster have named Jack McGrath, Sean Cronin, Martin Moore, Mike McCarthy, Rhys Ruddock, Jordi Murphy, Eoin Reddan, Ian Madigan and Fergus McFadden in their team to face Newport-Gwent Dragons. Tommy O'Donnell and Felix Jones will feature for Munster.

There's a lot of competition, mainly for the spots on the bench and possible starts later in the tournament. Can Madigan oust Paddy Jackson? Can Jordi Murphy or Rhys Ruddock force their way in ahead of Tommy O'Donnell? Can McFadden or Simon Zebo force their way into the back three? Who will replace the injured Dan Tuohy; Iain Henderson, Mike McCarthy or Donnacha Ryan? The latter is back from injury and likely to play some part for Munster.

Dan Tuohy has been ruled out of the tournament while Keith Earls, Luke Fitzgerald and Tommy Bowe are still injured and everyone is praying Johnny Sexton doesn't pick up a knock; he's expected to be riding the pine for Racing Metro.

Any English posters want to update us on their squad?

They've won 57 lineouts in 2 games - really?!?

jelly wrote:They've won 57 lineouts in 2 games - really?!?

Actually that was last year.

"steals to Englands 4,"


I thought England stole 5 just against Scotland?


"They have won 57 whereas England have won 52"


what in only 2 games -






Everyones stats seem way off.

GunsGerms wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:I know you are wumming slightly guns. But even if you weren't its a home world cup. So even if we were a third rate team the target would still be 2015

How am I "wumming"? I said England's target was the world cup. England also have the hardest group out of all groups. Home or not they face two teams that are more than capable of beating England in Twickers. Nothing contraversial there.

you said we shouldn't target the world cup.

No I said Englands group and previous WC suggests they shouldnt target the WC in response to one of Cyril's "lighthearted" posts. If you read back you will see that my opinion is that Lancaster is very much targeting the WC. He will be under enormous pressure to preform at a home WC.

sorry i dont get it

was it a wum or is that what you actually think?

damngoodOvalball wrote:Ireland should win this at a canter. All England fans can realistically afford to hope for is that the team use their status as significant underdogs to play a carefree attacking game and give us something to cheer for.

Its a collection of callow and frankly sub standard youths (with a couple of decent if not world class players) against the battle hardened flair of Ireland. A david and goliath mismatch. Thank god its a twickers otherwise we would be in serious sword-putting-to territory.

As we keep saying.. Walsh isn't playing...so not it won't be.

I dont buy the whole blaming ref stuff - even walsh.

Change your game plan if it isn't working.

Almost every ref tries to be one thing(including walsh) and that is consistent throughout the game..

mystiroakey wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:I know you are wumming slightly guns. But even if you weren't its a home world cup. So even if we were a third rate team the target would still be 2015

How am I "wumming"? I said England's target was the world cup. England also have the hardest group out of all groups. Home or not they face two teams that are more than capable of beating England in Twickers. Nothing contraversial there.

you said we shouldn't target the world cup.

No I said Englands group and previous WC suggests they shouldnt target the WC in response to one of Cyril's "lighthearted" posts. If you read back you will see that my opinion is that Lancaster is very much targeting the WC. He will be under enormous pressure to preform at a home WC.

sorry i dont get it

was it a wum or is that what you actually think?

You seem to be missing the key part. Read the whole sentence. Feel free to read back to see what my opinion on what Lancaster is targeting.

Was just bouncing off Cyril for a laugh.

mystiroakey wrote:"steals to Englands 4,"


I thought England stole 5 just against Scotland?


"They have won 57 whereas England have won 52"


what in only 2 games -






Everyones stats seem way off.

If you look at the stats for lineouts won on opposition ball Englands adds up to 3 (2 for Lawes and 1 for Robshaw). I can't remember the game verbartim but could the other 2 have been crooked feeds?

http://www.espn.co.uk/six-nations-2014/rugby/match/180668.html

Remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_ixoDI7Lfk

"Thats the ****ing second time you fat ****!"

Notch wrote:Remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_ixoDI7Lfk

"Thats the ****ing second time you fat ****!"

Surely this was Flannery's finest hour?

"What a belt he's given it!"
"That was amazing!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jniAZEJn7fU

 just love that McClaren overdub. ' like 3 pounds of haggis'  

gregortree wrote: just love that McClaren overdub. ' like 3 pounds of haggis'  

Yep, it did fit rather well.

GunsGerms wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:I know you are wumming slightly guns. But even if you weren't its a home world cup. So even if we were a third rate team the target would still be 2015

How am I "wumming"? I said England's target was the world cup. England also have the hardest group out of all groups. Home or not they face two teams that are more than capable of beating England in Twickers. Nothing contraversial there.

you said we shouldn't target the world cup.

No I said Englands group and previous WC suggests they shouldnt target the WC in response to one of Cyril's "lighthearted" posts. If you read back you will see that my opinion is that Lancaster is very much targeting the WC. He will be under enormous pressure to preform at a home WC.

sorry i dont get it

was it a wum or is that what you actually think?

You seem to be missing the key part. Read the whole sentence. Feel free to read back to see what my opinion on what Lancaster is targeting.

Was just bouncing off Cyril for a laugh.

I know what your opinion is on what SL is targeting. I very much doubt there is one person on these boards or who follows English rugby doesn't also agree.

My question to you is very different!

Do you think SL is right to target the world cup, Or do you think he should concentrate on 6nations . What is your opinion on this. I dont want your opinion on what you think someone else's opinion is. Just your opinion

I just hope the game lives up to the hype. It's been billed as a big game. Let's hope both sides make it an absorbing contest.

To be honest so far I've been a bit disappointed in the quality of matches except for the France-England game. Too many one sided games so far.

Good thing about this weekend is that's it should be 3 relatively well matched games.

Oh it's all kicking off in my house now... My Daughters are now arguing over whether to support England or Ireland (They're half Irish)

I knew this Anglo Emerald Love-Fest was too good to last. 

 are we there yet ? where's part 3 ?

Metal Tiger wrote:Oh it's all kicking off in my house now... My Daughters are now arguing over whether to support England or Ireland (They're half Irish)

I knew this Anglo Emerald Love-Fest was too good to last. 

Metal Tiger perhaps they could alternate every year - as the game is played in England they should support England, when the game is played in Ireland they should support Ireland.

Loved up niceness still seen to be  breaking out though:
  from Love Bomber
"England rugby union coach Stuart Lancaster says Ireland's Brian O'Driscoll is the best centre he's ever seen ahead of the two sides' Six Nations clash on Saturday. "

see ! Bomber should have been the Lions coach

mystiroakey wrote:

I know what your opinion is on what SL is targeting. I very much doubt there is one person on these boards or who follows English rugby doesn't also agree.

My question to you is very different!

Do you think SL is right to target the world cup, Or do you think he should concentrate on 6nations . What is your opinion on this. I dont want your opinion on what you think someone else's opinion is. Just your opinion

Yes I think he is right to be honest because ultimately he will be judged as an England manager by how good he does in the WC particulalry because it is in England.

The one caveat to that is that he has not yet won the six nations as manager albeit he has probably hit every other target to date. I do think he would be willing to sacrifice this years championship to a certain extent in favour of squad progression for the WC while putting every second of preperation into this years championship as required to win it.

Key goals surely will be to beat Wales home and away over the next two years and get a championship win.

Notch wrote:I haven't seen a single English pundit who think Ireland will win. I have seen just one Irish pundit who thinks England will win.

Is there anyone on this thread who thinks their side will lose tomorrow?

I find this a very hard game to call. I think that the Micks will park their bus on the 22 with Sexton hoofing the ball long and hard whilst the Henries will try to smash the barriers down through the area of least resistance (i.e. the 12/13 channels).

I expect a good game but reckon that home advantage + Joubert's homer instinct to see England through by about ten.
Enthralling for the fan. Crap for the neutral.

gregortree wrote:Loved up niceness still seen to be  breaking out though:
  from Love Bomber
"England rugby union coach Stuart Lancaster says Ireland's Brian O'Driscoll is the best centre he's ever seen ahead of the two sides' Six Nations clash on Saturday. "

see ! Bomber should have been the Lions coach

Always with the digs at Gatland

gregortree wrote:Loved up niceness still seen to be  breaking out though:
  from Love Bomber
"England rugby union coach Stuart Lancaster says Ireland's Brian O'Driscoll is the best centre he's ever seen ahead of the two sides' Six Nations clash on Saturday. "

see ! Bomber should have been the Lions coach

BOD should consider the backlines that SL has chosen in the past before he considers that a compliment...

GunsGerms wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

I know what your opinion is on what SL is targeting. I very much doubt there is one person on these boards or who follows English rugby doesn't also agree.

My question to you is very different!

Do you think SL is right to target the world cup, Or do you think he should concentrate on 6nations . What is your opinion on this. I dont want your opinion on what you think someone else's opinion is. Just your opinion

Yes I think he is right to be honest because ultimately he will be judged as an England manager by how good he does in the WC particulalry because it is in England.

The one caveat to that is that he has not yet won the six nations as manager albeit he has probably hit every other target to date. I do think he would be willing to sacrifice this years championship to a certain extent in favour of squad progression for the WC while putting every second of preperation into this years championship as required to win it.

Key goals surely will be to beat Wales home and away over the next two years and get a championship win.

Thanks for the answer.

I think England in a way could be lucky to have had injuries- so his hand was a little bit forced.. But all the same.. He still could have gone with a more a attributional team set up

Girlfriend is half Irish, if we win I'll have to try not to be insufferable

ChequeredJersey wrote:Girlfriend is half Irish, if we win I'll have to try not to be insufferable

Take a love tip from Bomber. Tell her she is the best Irish girlfriend you ever knew.

FACT: only one World Cup winning side has ever won a 6N or even 5N in the 4 years beforehand.

ChequeredJersey wrote:FACT: only one World Cup winning side has ever won a 6N or even 5N in the 4 years beforehand.

Nearly every WC winning side has been relatively old to everyone else and has had a few world class key players with a lot of experience.

NZ '11: Smith, MCaw, Thorne, Mealamu. (and Carter for the group stages?)
SA '07: Smit, Matfield, Montgomery, Os du Randt.
Eng '03: Johnson, Hill, Back, Greenwood.

Is 2015 too soon for this England team? Is 2019 more realistic for them?

beshocked wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:Oh it's all kicking off in my house now... My Daughters are now arguing over whether to support England or Ireland (They're half Irish)

I knew this Anglo Emerald Love-Fest was too good to last. 

Metal Tiger perhaps they could alternate every year - as the game is played in England they should support England, when the game is played in Ireland they should support Ireland.

They will make the right choice I'm sure   

GunsGerms wrote:Is 2015 too soon for this England team? Is 2019 more realistic for them?

Why not both?

Almost managed two in a row in 2007.

Cueto's foot was NOT in touch

Cyril wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Is 2015 too soon for this England team? Is 2019 more realistic for them?

Why not both?

Almost managed two in a row in 2007.

Cueto's foot was NOT in touch

Do you think England will win both? Or either?

GunsGerms wrote:

Cyril wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Is 2015 too soon for this England team? Is 2019 more realistic for them?

Why not both?

Almost managed two in a row in 2007.

Cueto's foot was NOT in touch

Do you think England will win both? Or either?

I honestly have no idea!

They're one of (probably) 7 sides who reckon they have a good chance next year.

2019 - impossible to say.

GunsGerms wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:FACT: only one World Cup winning side has ever won a 6N or even 5N in the 4 years beforehand.

Nearly every WC winning side has been relatively old to veryone else and has had a few world class key players with a lot of experience.

NZ '11: Smith, MCaw, Thorne, Mealamu.
SA '07: Smit, Matfield, Montgomery, Os du Randt.
Eng '03: Johnson, Hill, Back, Greenwood.

Is 2015 too soon for this England team? Is 2019 more realistic for them?

The average age of the current England squad is 27. The Average age of the RWC squard in 2003 was 28 so England are maturing nicely in comparison.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/8955321/Graphic-average-age-and-caps-of-Rugby-World-Cup-winning-teams-and-how-England-might-compare-in-2015.html

Metal Tiger wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:FACT: only one World Cup winning side has ever won a 6N or even 5N in the 4 years beforehand.

Nearly every WC winning side has been relatively old to veryone else and has had a few world class key players with a lot of experience.

NZ '11: Smith, MCaw, Thorne, Mealamu.
SA '07: Smit, Matfield, Montgomery, Os du Randt.
Eng '03: Johnson, Hill, Back, Greenwood.

Is 2015 too soon for this England team? Is 2019 more realistic for them?

The average age of the current England squad is 27. The Average age of the RWC squard in 2003 was 28 so England are maturing nicely in comparison.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/8955321/Graphic-average-age-and-caps-of-Rugby-World-Cup-winning-teams-and-how-England-might-compare-in-2015.html

The average age of the first team is 25 though with no standout world class players or leaders in the mould of previous winners anyway. Agree?

i think there are plenty of world-class players- the problem is the natural leader. we dont have one.

if we did have a few then there is no way France would have beaten us first up.

GunsGerms wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:FACT: only one World Cup winning side has ever won a 6N or even 5N in the 4 years beforehand.

Nearly every WC winning side has been relatively old to veryone else and has had a few world class key players with a lot of experience.

NZ '11: Smith, MCaw, Thorne, Mealamu.
SA '07: Smit, Matfield, Montgomery, Os du Randt.
Eng '03: Johnson, Hill, Back, Greenwood.

Is 2015 too soon for this England team? Is 2019 more realistic for them?

The average age of the current England squad is 27. The Average age of the RWC squard in 2003 was 28 so England are maturing nicely in comparison.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/8955321/Graphic-average-age-and-caps-of-Rugby-World-Cup-winning-teams-and-how-England-might-compare-in-2015.html

The average age of the first team is 25 though with no standout world class players or leaders in the mould of previous winners anyway. Agree?

It is true that we don't really have the stand out experiance & caps of this current Irish crop (or in comparison to the 2003 squad) As Ireland have a greater average age than the current England team they are definitely the bookies favourite as they are a seasoned & grizzled bunch ready to punish the kids at Twickenham (which for brevity as I will now refer to as "HQ" or the "Home of Rugby" as I know how much you all enjoy that   ). But have Ireland peaked too early again given their average squad age of 29?  

Tiger Ireland arent the bookies favorite? I dont mind the tag HQ. Its funny.

Metal Tiger wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:FACT: only one World Cup winning side has ever won a 6N or even 5N in the 4 years beforehand.

Nearly every WC winning side has been relatively old to veryone else and has had a few world class key players with a lot of experience.

NZ '11: Smith, MCaw, Thorne, Mealamu.
SA '07: Smit, Matfield, Montgomery, Os du Randt.
Eng '03: Johnson, Hill, Back, Greenwood.

Is 2015 too soon for this England team? Is 2019 more realistic for them?

The average age of the current England squad is 27. The Average age of the RWC squard in 2003 was 28 so England are maturing nicely in comparison.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/8955321/Graphic-average-age-and-caps-of-Rugby-World-Cup-winning-teams-and-how-England-might-compare-in-2015.html

The average age of the first team is 25 though with no standout world class players or leaders in the mould of previous winners anyway. Agree?

It is true that we don't really have the stand out experiance & caps of this current Irish crop (or in comparison to the 2003 squad) As Ireland have a greater average age than the current England team they are definitely the bookies favourite as they are a seasoned & grizzled bunch ready to punish the kids at Twickenham (which for brevity as I will now refer to as "HQ" or the "Home of Rugby" as I know how much you all enjoy that   ). But have Ireland peaked too early again given their average squad age of 29?  

Sorry... forgot the quote to back up the Irish age claim.

"In some respects Ireland go into tomorrow's match with the weight of expectation upon their shoulders. With more than 700 caps between them, their players - with an average age of 29 - are veterans of World Cups and Lions tours; England are the rookies, with an average age four years younger than their opponents, and still very much a work in progress, personified by the inclusion on the bench of 20-year-old George Ford."

Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/rugby/six-nations/57415/young-england-set-brawl-odriscoll-and-old-ireland#ixzz2tye47v8c

GunsGerms wrote:Tiger Ireland arent the bookies favorite? I dont mind the tag HQ. Its funny.

It makes me giggle too... last few years it's been less the spiritual home of rugby and more the haunted home of rugby   

Metal Tiger wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:FACT: only one World Cup winning side has ever won a 6N or even 5N in the 4 years beforehand.

Nearly every WC winning side has been relatively old to veryone else and has had a few world class key players with a lot of experience.

NZ '11: Smith, MCaw, Thorne, Mealamu.
SA '07: Smit, Matfield, Montgomery, Os du Randt.
Eng '03: Johnson, Hill, Back, Greenwood.

Is 2015 too soon for this England team? Is 2019 more realistic for them?

The average age of the current England squad is 27. The Average age of the RWC squard in 2003 was 28 so England are maturing nicely in comparison.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/8955321/Graphic-average-age-and-caps-of-Rugby-World-Cup-winning-teams-and-how-England-might-compare-in-2015.html

That article isn't the most relevant - none of Croft, Haskell, Flood, Ashton or Foden are likely to be starting. If you look at the likely starting England team in 2015, they will probably have just over 450 caps, assuming that each member of that XV gains around 10 more caps in the meantime. Furthermore, only Care, Cole and Hartley will possibly have more than 50 caps (barring a recall of the above). I'm not sure any of those players are really 'leaders' of the same calibre as those possessed by previous world cup winning teams.

mystiroakey wrote:i think there are plenty of world-class players- the problem is the natural leader. we dont have one.

if we did have a few then there is no way France would have beaten us first up.

Disagree. I think the likes of Hartley and Farrell are natural leaders. Both spiky and prone to a little bit of winding up the opposition but do command a bit of respect.

The problem vs France was that one was taken off and the other was suffering from cramp in the latter stages of the match. Similar sort of thing happened vs NZ with both going off.

You might disagree about Farrell but I think he has that natural spikiness on the field. Only need to look at his argument with Robshaw in that infamous South Africa incident to see that he's pretty outspoken.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26158048 - Jonny Wilkinson's thoughts on Farrell.

beshocked wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:i think there are plenty of world-class players- the problem is the natural leader. we dont have one.

if we did have a few then there is no way France would have beaten us first up.

Disagree. I think the likes of Hartley and Farrell are natural leaders. Both spiky and prone to a little bit of winding up the opposition but do command a bit of respect.

The problem vs France was that one was taken off and the other was suffering from cramp in the latter stages of the match. Similar sort of thing happened vs NZ with both going off.

You might disagree about Farrell but I think he has that natural spikiness on the field. Only need to look at his argument with Robshaw in that infamous South Africa incident to see that he's pretty outspoken.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26158048 - Jonny Wilkinson's thoughts on Farrell.

i think you are spot on, if farrel had remained fit - we wouldn't have lost.

but he is still not a 'world class leader' yet.

but as i did mention - If we had a few we wouldnt have lost.. The players had no idea what to do last 5 mins.. It was like a bunch of headless chickens. You need leaders all over if you want to be the best of the best

Apparently The Irish like a bit of sledging.
Most suitable in the midst the Winter Olympics.

A word in Harley's ear...?

mystiroakey wrote:i think there are plenty of world-class players- the problem is the natural leader. we dont have one.

if we did have a few then there is no way France would have beaten us first up.

Not sure that is why we lost...

ChequeredJersey wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:i think there are plenty of world-class players- the problem is the natural leader. we dont have one.

if we did have a few then there is no way France would have beaten us first up.

Not sure that is why we lost...

Well it was from where i was watching.

As soon as Farrell got injured there was no one to take up the mantle and organise others around each other.

If we had a couple more natural leaders we wouldn't have lost shape at the end. 

If it was a boxing match the English would have KO'd france. We were still fresh as daiseys, the French were half dead - yet they still got a try due to our bad positioning

ChequeredJersey wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:i think there are plenty of world-class players- the problem is the natural leader. we dont have one.

if we did have a few then there is no way France would have beaten us first up.

Not sure that is why we lost...

For me personally it boils down to 3 reasons for us losing.

i) Bounce of the ball. Sometimes it goes your way... sometimes it doesn't.
ii) Poor use of substitutes. We were in the driving seat at the peak of intensity. Emptying the bench was pointless and disrupted that.
iii) Last 10 we shut up shop and tried to defend a 5 point lead. Suicide. Although this may have been caused by ii)

Glad to say most of that seemed to be put right against Scotland.

Ireland are an entirely different beast though. The lads will have to be at their best for this one.

Still very confident for England tomorrow. Wilson will be fine; I don't expect him to last longer than fifty minutes though.

England by ten!

mystiroakey wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:i think there are plenty of world-class players- the problem is the natural leader. we dont have one.

if we did have a few then there is no way France would have beaten us first up.

Not sure that is why we lost...

Well it was from where i was watching.

As soon as Farrell got injured there was no one to take up the mantle and organise others around each other.

If we had a couple more natural leaders we wouldn't have lost shape at the end. 

If it was a boxing match the English would have KO'd france. We were still fresh as daiseys, the French were half dead - yet they still got a try due to our bad positioning

Wasn't that more relevant in that we effectively had 14 men and no Fly-half on the field?

ChequeredJersey wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:i think there are plenty of world-class players- the problem is the natural leader. we dont have one.

if we did have a few then there is no way France would have beaten us first up.

Not sure that is why we lost...

Well it was from where i was watching.

As soon as Farrell got injured there was no one to take up the mantle and organise others around each other.

If we had a couple more natural leaders we wouldn't have lost shape at the end. 

If it was a boxing match the English would have KO'd france. We were still fresh as daiseys, the French were half dead - yet they still got a try due to our bad positioning

Wasn't that more relevant in that we effectively had 14 men and no Fly-half on the field?

maybe. but we should have still been better organised

Don't let me down Ireland. I'm the only Irishman I know in lincoln. I'll be tore to pieces by my clients next week.

According to the RTE panel we are being love bombed by England. I agree it is annoying and smart from Lancaster because it gives us no extra motivation which traditionally we have always had v England. Swines.