England or Ireland - who is the better team?

First topic message reminder :

Both team had key injuries to top class players so that isnt a factor.

Both teams were involved in the Lions tour so fatigue doesnt figure.

Despite the media's obsession with age the majority of Ireland's best players are all quite young.

England are ranked 4th and Ireland 5th and they beat Ireland by 3 points in Twickers but Ireland won the championship.

Not next year, not last year, right now the question is who is the best team?

Depends how soon the red mist descends upon Healy, and if the ref has the cajones to go against his Dublin-based masters.    <tin hat>

I love these post 6N discussions, it’s good this year cuz they usually involve Wales. Anyhoo, controversial I know but I'm gonna go for France. Now hear me out - England beat Ireland, but France beat England. Know what I mean.

Metal Tiger wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Scratch wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:Who does everybody here think would win a fight between Batman and Spiderman?

Boring

A Great White and a Polar Bear

Boring

Mickey and Minnie

Boring

GloriousEmpire and RainbowWarrior.

Not Saint then?

Sorry Saint, still a bit player in the game.

This 6N it has to be Ireland, both England and Ireland played Wales at home and France away. Ireland tonked Wales where as England had a good win with two soft tries. Against France Ireland won, end of story. I left out Italy and Scotland as they have no strength in depth and fade through the championship as we saw in the last games.

ME-109 wrote:Beshocked, so you're not biased then....you just didn't see the 6ns..har har..brilliant. You never cease to amaze me..

Me-109 I just cannot understand the argument for Ireland being better - you have lost to England 3 times in a row, are ranked lower in the IRB rankings, have won less matches than England in the AIs and 6 nations (even if you just include the 6 nations the wins/losses is equal).

Your argument for being better has been based upon superior points difference in the 6 nations (that's it). Oh and having a coach who has been in the role less time than Lancaster.


glamorganalun so you're just going to ignore the England vs Ireland match?  

All this oh well England only beat Ireland by 3 points, we beat Ireland last year too and the year before that. 3 wins in a row.

Not much between them. England have the edge in recent head to head matches and would go into a neutral venue relatively confident. Ireland have more experience and currently better at dealing with pressure games like the French one.

But both 'edges' are liable to change. I would argue that England are improving very rapidly at the moment, but are highly dependent on players such as Care.

Lostinwales we'll see how Ireland cope without BOD the GOD. Both England and Ireland have had absentees.

What would you call a pressure game?

beshocked wrote:

ME-109 wrote:Beshocked, so you're not biased then....you just didn't see the 6ns..har har..brilliant. You never cease to amaze me..

Me-109 I just cannot understand the argument for Ireland being better - you have lost to England 3 times in a row, are ranked lower in the IRB rankings, have won less matches than England in the AIs and 6 nations (even if you just include the 6 nations the wins/losses is equal).

Your argument for being better has been based upon superior points difference in the 6 nations (that's it). Oh and having a coach who has been in the role less time than Lancaster.


glamorganalun so you're just going to ignore the England vs Ireland match?  

All this oh well England only beat Ireland by 3 points, we beat Ireland last year too and the year before that. 3 wins in a row.

You Beat us,
France Beat you,
Which is Best, I haven't a clue,
But we Beat Wales,
Twice in a row,
Did it make us Best in Europe?
The Welsh say "NO!"



So Barney the Dinosaur sums it up finally.  Thank you Barney - now f**k off, you big purple pervy git!

Poorfour wrote:Actually, I think Yarde was missed more than Corbisiero or Cole. Marler is not the destructive scrummager that a fully fit Corbisiero can be, but the new engagement suits him and he has become a purveyor of brutal tackles close to the ruck. We won't know until Cole is back whether his struggles in the scrum were down to the early stages of his disc trouble, but Wilson did enough against Ireland and had Jenkins in all sorts of trouble.

England seem to have decided that they can't really be bothered with scrums anyway. They were under pressure there in three games out of 5 but were still ahead on most stats. The decisive score against Ireland came from a scrambled pass off the back of a mangled scrum.

May looked a bit lost at international level and Nowell made a few too many mistakes. Yarde looked pretty much at home even on his first cap.

Not sure if it was his first cap or not but in his first game of the AI's he definitely didn't look at home! He made a few fumbles, dropped a high ball and threw some poor passes.

His one good piece of play was blocking the tj's view of Mike Brown catching the ball in touch.

I think he will be better then May or Nowell but we have so little to go on at the moment and he definitely hasn't done enough to be called experienced.

I wouldn't swap Irelands position for Englands personally.

We are 6N champions, deservedly imo having scored more tries, conceded less and generally dominated all the stats over 5 games.

I think we have a much better coaching team, with more scope to improve given the rebuilding phase we are in under the new management.

We have 3 provinces in the HEC KO stages, are dominating the Rabo and have a huge amount of talent and depth building  just in time for the RWC next year, so things are looking very good all round.

England could well argue to be the better side currently, because of the head to head and rankings, but I'm pretty happy with were we are at and confident about what can be achieved over the next 2 seasons with this side. After 5 seasons chasing our tails we are back on the right road again.

beshocked wrote:Lostinwales we'll see how Ireland cope without BOD the GOD. Both England and Ireland have had absentees.

What would you call a pressure game?

Most of the world was telling us we didn't even need him before this 6N began.  We were told that he was holding us back and that we should be blooding an alternative and that we'd pay the price of clinging to a geriatric that Gatland had the good sense to drop from the Lions.  
He held us back all the way to a title.  So with a waster like that to carry through a tough tournament for sentimentality's sake, we're bound to be in a better state now that we've finally offloaded the self-loving auld eejit

Both teams had good tournaments but both need to improve in certain areas.

England to do list:
-More cohesive and effective backs. England make most of their mistakes in the backs and while there was lots of improvements here during the 6n it is still the area where they can make most improvements. More creativity, precision and incision required.
-Replacing Dan Cole. Wilson did well during the 6 nations, the more time he gets the stronger the England squad becomes at front row.

Ireland to do list:
-Goal kicking. Find a back up kicker for Sexton or find a coach who can improve his pressure goal kicking. It isnt good enough. Not by a long shot.
-Test out a few new centre options on the summer tour and reasess the backs as a unit.
-Mental approach. More composure and better decision making when under pressure is required. Need to learn how to finish teams off rather than sit back and defend the lead.

The Saint wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Scratch wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:Who does everybody here think would win a fight between Batman and Spiderman?

Boring

A Great White and a Polar Bear

Boring

Mickey and Minnie

Boring

GloriousEmpire and RainbowWarrior.

Not Saint then?

Naaah.... I find some of your wind ups quite funny.

I think the 6 Nations table just about got it right - Ireland by a whisker.

If both sides met on neutral turf in a WC knock-out fixture, I really wouldn't want to call it.

What I will say is this. Ireland are more dependent on a small core of players than England, and I feel that England could cope better with injuries than Ireland, as a generalisation. I also query how losing BOD will affect Ireland over the next 12 months. Poems have been written about his leadership qualities, so time will tell how that loss will affect the side (and who his replacement at 13 will be).

I'd throw in England are in slightly better shape now then when we met Ireland. Wilson has proven his fitness now and not really worried when Thomas comes off the bench as he's been very solid in the scrum (surprisingly from what I'd heard about him previously). Twelvetrees confidence is up after 2 very fine displays, Nowell is getting better and is off the mark with his try. The bench is stronger as well in my opinion for having a dedicated 10 there and Tuilagi lurking.

We've got arguably our best midfielder back in the squad who we relied on for most of our attacking impetus and Ireland have lost their best midfielder.

I would also say that although the 6 nations is a great tournament and I wouldn't change a thing about it it doesn't necessarily conclusively prove the best team as you don't play each team home and away but just gives indications.

I can categorically say that both are inferior to NZ. And SA.

For all the rest there's Moral Mastercard.   

funnyExiledScot wrote:
I also query how losing BOD will affect Ireland over the next 12 months. Poems have been written about his leadership qualities, so time will tell how that loss will affect the side (and who his replacement at 13 will be).

I didn't want to say it whilst the great man was still around but I believe we'll be better and much more potent in attack.... lets face it the magic mans legs were gone and Jared O'Payne would have walked those 2 tries in that BOD couldn't finish.... thank you and goodbye Brian .... .

rodders wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:
I also query how losing BOD will affect Ireland over the next 12 months. Poems have been written about his leadership qualities, so time will tell how that loss will affect the side (and who his replacement at 13 will be).

I didn't want to say it whilst the great man was still around but I believe we'll be better and much more potent in attack.... lets face it the magic mans legs were gone and Jared O'Payne would have walked those 2 tries in that BOD couldn't finish.... thank you and goodbye Brian .... .

I never thought I'd see the day.....watch out for lightening bolts from on high!

England or Ireland - who is the better team?

To be honest there isn't a lot between them but England I feel have the more potential to kick on whilst Ireland may struggle to replace a few faces.

I'd rather be an England supporter at the mo.

Theres pretty much nothing between them.

Cant believe this pointless thread is still ongoing.

Forgive me Brian!

GeordieFalcon wrote:Theres pretty much nothing between them.

Cant believe this pointless thread is still ongoing.

If its pointless why are you posting on it?

England are the better Team.  In that it's a much more fluid engine, with all the parts well oiled. It's English so the BSA standards are of the highest quality and it's Roll Royce engineering is a thing of beauty.
Ireland is more like a hungry tiger.  A tad erratic, a tad bad tempered at times, a tad uncontrolled in places, a little weak still from the long hunger it endured in the last few years under a different coach.
But it's now had a little feed and acquired the taste for meat again.  Energy has been renewed.  So now it doesn't have to lunge so much but lurk in the long grass and wait for prey to pass by.

It's hard to know though where we'll go from here as a few hunters with a guns could still end the building hope.

rodders wrote:Forgive me Brian!

Brian I'm sure will....................................................

Me though.......................................  

beshocked wrote:Lostinwales we'll see how Ireland cope without BOD the GOD. Both England and Ireland have had absentees.

What would you call a pressure game?

I was trying to think what was the best way of putting things. After all England have shown they are very good at coming back when behind on points. But the reason why I think Ireland won the championship and not England is that they had enough experience and composure (and maybe a little luck) to hold out against France at the end of their match when England did not when they played France.

It was England's first game and they have obviously moved on though. I'd like to think that the England that ripped Italy apart would have done for France in style

lostinwales

Spot on regarding the performances in France - England in their first game were slow starting and then failed to take their opportunities in the middle of the second half and finally lacked the toughness to close out the match. Ireland, later in the series, did just enough.

Another consideration - England played Scotland at Murrayfield. OK, so 20-0 was quite a convincing scoreline, but Farrell missed iirc 4 shots at goal because of the atrocious underfoot conditions, and we also failed to capitalise on a few other opportunities. On a different day and a different pitch that victory could have been much better from a points difference perspective.

I think the answer to the original question is that, as things stand, there is 2/3rds of naff all difference in quality between Ireland and England. As England fans we generally seem to be happy with the progress made this season by what is still in the main an inexperienced and young team, and are optimistic for the future leading towards the RWC. Ireland fans seem similarly happy and optimistic that their blend of young and experienced players will continue to perform well and improve under the new coaching setup.

Roll on next year - could be a classic 6Ns, especially as I can't see France or Wales playing as poorly again.

dummy_half wrote:lostinwales

Spot on regarding the performances in France - England in their first game were slow starting and then failed to take their opportunities in the middle of the second half and finally lacked the toughness to close out the match. Ireland, later in the series, did just enough.

Another consideration - England played Scotland at Murrayfield. OK, so 20-0 was quite a convincing scoreline, but Farrell missed iirc 4 shots at goal because of the atrocious underfoot conditions, and we also failed to capitalise on a few other opportunities. On a different day and a different pitch that victory could have been much better from a points difference perspective.

I think the answer to the original question is that, as things stand, there is 2/3rds of naff all difference in quality between Ireland and England. As England fans we generally seem to be happy with the progress made this season by what is still in the main an inexperienced and young team, and are optimistic for the future leading towards the RWC. Ireland fans seem similarly happy and optimistic that their blend of young and experienced players will continue to perform well and improve under the new coaching setup.

Roll on next year - could be a classic 6Ns, especially as I can't see France or Wales playing as poorly again.

Based on how England played France I felt that England should win that kind of game 9 times out of 10. The problem is when the 1/10 happens.

I suppose it also depends how stupid tactical decisions by the respective coaches are factored in. E.g. Stuart Lancaster's inability to use the bench properly. Either not having effective cover or taking off form players for the sake of it.

You can destroy a team's momentum with poor tactical changes like Lancaster has shown vs NZ,France and Italy. To be honest I think it's cost England dear in all those matches.

Case in point - T.Youngs comes onto the pitch and instantly loses a lineout, destroying England's momentum.

Lancaster's inability to learn from these key flaws in his strategies is worrying.

You could tell the dissatisfaction with Lancaster's bench strategy, just from the reaction of Burrell being taken off.

Instead of taking off Twelvetrees who hadn't trained properly during the week, he takes off Burrell...

dummy_half wrote:
I think the answer to the original question is that, as things stand, there is 2/3rds of naff all difference in quality between Ireland and England. As England fans we generally seem to be happy with the progress made this season by what is still in the main an inexperienced and young team, and are optimistic for the future leading towards the RWC. Ireland fans seem similarly happy and optimistic that their blend of young and experienced players will continue to perform well and improve under the new coaching setup.

Roll on next year - could be a classic 6Ns, especially as I can't see France or Wales playing as poorly again.

Exactly. Both sides have scope for improvement but plenty of things to feel positive about based on the past few months.

England have a very young team who are getting better and gaining experience. Ireland have a relatively new coaching team, plus some quality players to integrate into the side in the coming months. Both sides have plenty of reason to believe next year will be better than this one.

beshocked wrote:I suppose it also depends how stupid tactical decisions by the respective coaches are factored in. E.g. Stuart Lancaster's inability to use the bench properly. Either not having effective cover or taking off form players for the sake of it.

You can destroy a team's momentum with poor tactical changes like Lancaster has shown vs NZ,France and Italy. To be honest I think it's cost England dear in all those matches.

Case in point - T.Youngs comes onto the pitch and instantly loses a lineout, destroying England's momentum.

Lancaster's inability to learn from these key flaws in his strategies is worrying.

You could tell the dissatisfaction with Lancaster's bench strategy, just from the reaction of Burrell being taken off.

Instead of taking off Twelvetrees who hadn't trained properly during the week, he takes off Burrell...

Burrell's response was a good thing but has no relevance to the quality of Lancaster's decision making (Manu certainly made an impact). I think there are signs that Lancaster is getting a little smarter here - e.g. Care staying on almost all the time after that first game. I think the issue in the Italy game was more about getting some fringe players on the pitch than focusing on the result.

We have discussed the make up of the subs bench endlessly, and there is definite room for improvement.

15 year 6N records.

England 2061 points - 214 tries.

Ireland 1833 points - 188 tries.




Atm - nothing between them.

I think the Care replacement against france was pretty sensible. Coming back from injury and not 100% fit players are more liable to suffer setbacks etc. We view everything with hindsight but the fact is players should be able to come on and keep the momentum going. What would be saying about lancasters judgement if he'd left Care on and he'd suffered a set back picking up/aggravating the old injury and he'd been ruled out for the tournament?

Hound of Harrow wrote:15 year 6N records.

England 2061 points - 214 tries.

Ireland 1833 points - 188 tries.




Atm - nothing between them.

Also England have only won two more games than Ireland against all opposition in the 6 nations since it started. Obviously they have two more titles too.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think the Care replacement against france was pretty sensible. Coming back from injury and not 100% fit players are more liable to suffer setbacks etc. We view everything with hindsight but the fact is players should be able to come on and keep the momentum going. What would be saying about lancasters judgement if he'd left Care on and he'd suffered a set back picking up/aggravating the old injury and he'd been ruled out for the tournament?

You are right that would have been bad, but when Dickson came on I did think at the time that we were going to lose from there, and for once I was right...

As has been mentioned a few times, for all the talk about Brown's all round excellence we could survive without him. Right now without Care I think we would struggle. (And from the last few years I never expected to say that).

If Youngs was back on form I would feel less worried, but Dickson at international level gives me no confidence at all.

no 7 & 1/2 disagree. I don't think taking Care off was sensible, ditto taking off Hartley. I thought it was a poor decision at the time too. Yes Care might have picked up an injury but because he was taken off it contributed to England losing an opportunity to the GS on the first weekend.

lostinwales how often do you see players being that visibly frustated from being taken off? Focussing on the result? You mean trying to win the 6 nations on points difference?

If the game was just about giving subs a run out then Ford should have been given longer than 10 minutes.

I couldn't tell if Lancaster was looking to chase down the points difference or not.


You don't seem to acknowledge that Lancaster made errors. He did not take responsibility for this.

As to why I keep mentioning it. It's a big flaw of Lancaster's that needs addressing. Getting it right will be crucial to England's progress. It has cost England dear - he must fix it. Until Lancaster shows that he has learnt from his mistakes, it will stay an issue worth mentioning. Some of you are in denial of it's importance.

How do we know it contributed though beshocked? He might have been injured a minute later. He may have gifted an intercept try.

Would you propose no subs are used until a player is visably underperforming in case the replacement doesn't perform as well?

Burrell vs Italy. Its the first time he has been substituted and he is a hungry hungry guy. It would be disappointing if he had been happy to be taken off. But its not Lancaster's job to manage the game to keep Burrell happy. Manu did have a pretty successful cameo

I am not saying that there are no issues here, but I am saying Lancaster is showing some signs of improving.

no 7 & 1/2 England lost much needed momentum. Only need to see a lost lineout from T.Youngs to see that.

surely it's a case by case basis? Surely it's common sense to leave on a player if they are playing well and not visibly tiring/injured.

In the case of Hartley/Care, you are swapping key players for ones who lack the same positive impact.

Swapping Billy with Morgan is fine because they are both dynamic players. Time and again Morgan has proven his worth for England, as has Billy.

T.Youngs has been consistent in his poor lineout work. Bringing him on has ruined the lineout.

I know it's funny to say but substitutes should really be about bringing on players if the starters are injured/not playing well surely?

Bringing on players can disrupt the momentum of a side/the coherency and understanding. That's a problem.

It does worry me a little bit that you don't seem to understand that there is a problem that needs addressing.

Both teams finished on equal points but England beat Ireland convincingly despite the meagre scoreline. An obstruction by poc made it respectable for Ireland. England with their young side will be much the happiest as they look to have far more potential. Sorry Ireland but that's the truth.

Manu did a good job when he came on, so it was a successful replacement in that respect. And I think Burrell's anger was positive too, I like to see hungry players like that - just as long as it doesn't become frustration.

However where I think it was a mistake, is that it told us nothing. Moving Burrell (our form centre of the tourney) to his natural 12 position to accommodate Manu at 13 may have told us something however, and would have been a decent intro to a partnership many want to see tested.

T Youngs is interesting. vs Italy the first line out was bad but otherwise went well and he certainly added something in the loose. It is an issue, but given his general level of success at throwing at club level there does seem to be a lack of coordination in the England lineout as a whole.

I don't know what proportion of his line out failures are due to poor throwing (e.g. too long/short/ not straight) or due to poor timing or jumping by the forwards.

Lawes/Wood/ Hartley works extremely well as we know but then they play together all the time. I am just wondering if a good part of Young's failings are actually down to calling by the saintly Lawes. If that is the case then its a problem that can definitely be fixed

It will be interesting to see if there are similar problems if a different hooker is brought in.

In hindsight all this angst about substitutions is irrelevant to England. They are rightly focused on the big one in 2015 so giving match time to subs to increase depth is essential. If that's at the expense of a 6n game then so be it.

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 England lost much needed momentum. Only need to see a lost lineout from T.Youngs to see that.

surely it's a case by case basis? Surely it's common sense to leave on a player if they are playing well and not visibly tiring/injured.

In the case of Hartley/Care, you are swapping key players for ones who lack the same positive impact.

Swapping Billy with Morgan is fine because they are both dynamic players. Time and again Morgan has proven his worth for England, as has Billy.

T.Youngs has been consistent in his poor lineout work. Bringing him on has ruined the lineout.

I know it's funny to say but substitutes should really be about bringing on players if the starters are injured/not playing well surely?

Bringing on players can disrupt the momentum of a side/the coherency and understanding. That's a problem.

It does worry me a little bit that you don't seem to understand that there is a problem that needs addressing.

To be honest it's quite hard to argue against a view of saying that if care and hartley has stayed on the momentum would have stayed with us no matter what. We simply don't know that. There's peaks and troughs throughout games it may have just coincided with France throwing the kitchen sink in the last 15.

And wasn't the momentum really lost against Italy from the intercept try rather than the subs?

Youngs first throw in Italy was a massive overthrow of a back of the line target, but there was also a timing issue as no-one even jumped. After that he hit his man 3 or 4 times, but these were all to the front jumper - produced secure ball but nothing to work with for the backs. To be fair, we were so on top of the Italy set pieces that it didn't matter too much, as possession was coming back to us quickly enough.

I think we did suffer a serious drop in momentum with the replacements, but moreso because of Dickson (who was OK, but is never going to be as well suited to this type of rapid game as Care) and Johnson (simply not as good a player as Wood) than the others. we also lost a bit of shape and balance in the side.

I will though also add that Sarto's interception was even more important than I originally thought - he was the last defender and left with a 3 on 1, and gambled successfully on the interception. OK, Launchbury was passing to Mako V, but Nowell was outside and with a lot of open field in front of him. Could easily have been a 10 or 12 point swing on Sarto getting that ball or not.

I think Lancaster had made a bit of a rod for his own back by not using Ford against Ireland or for long against Wales, and so almost being forced to give him a bit more game time (even then is 10 minutes really that much use in this type of game?), and Manu was always going to come on for about 25-30 minutes (although I agree with others that Burrell should not have been the player to come off).

It really is very, very simple.

England are placed higher than Ireland in the World Rankings - which means that they've been a better team, against all comers, over an extended period of time, than Ireland.

With that little matter out of the way, and in addition, England have a better recent head to head against Ireland, and against SH teams (of quality). England consistently finish higher in the 6N table than Ireland (there are exceptions of course - like when Ireland won their first GS for 67 years   ).... So Ireland have suddenly looked good since last Autumn?

Big deal

England are better.

How appropriate that Jimpy did his 'recent' head to head.  I was just about to respond to Hound's comments with a head to head of my own.  I'll go ahead with it.

Hound of Harrow wrote:15 year 6N records.

England 2061 points - 214 tries.

Ireland 1833 points - 188 tries.




Atm - nothing between them.

Oh records is it, Hound?

You missed one

15 year 6N records

Head to Head.

England v Ireland 7 wins (5 Home - 2 Away)
Ireland v England 8 wins (5 Home - 3 Away)

Correct, nothing much between them.

SecretFly wrote:How appropriate that Jimpy did his 'recent' head to head.  I was just about to respond to Hound's comments with a head to head of my own.  I'll go ahead with it.

Hound of Harrow wrote:15 year 6N records.

England 2061 points - 214 tries.

Ireland 1833 points - 188 tries.




Atm - nothing between them.

Oh records is it, Hound?

You missed one

15 year 6N records

Head to Head.

England v Ireland 7 wins (5 Home - 2 Away)
Ireland v England 8 wins (5 Home - 3 Away)

Correct, nothing much between them.

Apart from the World rankings which prove that England are a better team of course.

For me the rankings just point at consistency over a prolonged period, England have been consistent for longer as they have had their manager for longer. Ireland are catching up though as shown in their six nations championship win, something Lancaster has failed to achieve to date. For that reason of course you could argue that despite the rankings Ireland have over taken England in terms of progression and time will tell if they will maintain their consistency to overtake England in the rankings too.

I would see a real opportunity for Ireland to win all summer tour games and potentially all November tests this year. England will probably struggle to win a game in NZ.