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?

Ireland don't have this!

http://store.rfu.com/stores/rfu/products/product_details.aspx?pid=151251&portal=E1LMM4ER&DCMP=EMC-RFUE1LMM4ER

Rankings?  I already mentioned them.  England 4th since November.  Was 3rd before November.
Ireland up to 5th now from 8th before November.  

I've already said which Nation I feel has the best Team.  You'll be delighted I agree with you.  But Ireland have moved most in the rankings since November - more than anyone. Lancaster has a year's head start on us.

Scrumpy wrote:Ireland don't have this!

http://store.rfu.com/stores/rfu/products/product_details.aspx?pid=151251&portal=E1LMM4ER&DCMP=EMC-RFUE1LMM4ER

Yeah well................... we........................... if we.............................. You're not playing fair now, Scrumpy.

SecretFly wrote:Rankings?  I already mentioned them.  England 4th since November.  Was 3rd before November.
Ireland up to 5th now from 8th before November.  

I've already said which Nation I feel has the best Team.  You'll be delighted I agree with you.  But Ireland have moved most in the rankings since November - more than anyone.  Lancaster has a year's head start on us.

The teams from 1 to 3 are a lot tougher to beat than the teams are from 8 to 5th, I can assure you. Lancaster may have had a head start on Scmitt, but lets look at it another way, who inherited the more experienced team?

Jimpy wrote:
 
The teams from 1 to 3 are a lot tougher to beat than the teams are from 8 to 5th, I can assure you. Lancaster may have had a head start on Scmitt, but lets look at it another way, who inherited the more experienced team?

Lancaster inherited dead wood. Any coach worth his salt would have thrown the scrabble tiles back in the box.

Jimpy wrote:
 

SecretFly wrote:Rankings?  I already mentioned them.  England 4th since November.  Was 3rd before November.
Ireland up to 5th now from 8th before November.  

I've already said which Nation I feel has the best Team.  You'll be delighted I agree with you.  But Ireland have moved most in the rankings since November - more than anyone.  Lancaster has a year's head start on us.

The teams from 1 to 3 are a lot tougher to beat than the teams are from 8 to 5th, I can assure you. Lancaster may have had a head start on Scmitt, but lets look at it another way, who inherited the more experienced team?

You're telling us??!!!  We know all about it,Scrumpy  But at least when you shove up to 4th or 5th, you have a chance to get into the top three if you beat one of them.  So you're in the right territory.  Ireland,for now, are in the right territory - though the side we have in Summer won't allow us to make much headway.

On your other point - the more experienced inherited team will now have to be phased out bit by bit leaving Schmidt with even more work on his hands than Lancaster who is already bedding down his newbies.  Plus, the Irish team in recent years have been 'experienced' at losing.  Not much of an inheritance really in financial terms

GunsGerms wrote:

Jimpy wrote:
 
The teams from 1 to 3 are a lot tougher to beat than the teams are from 8 to 5th, I can assure you. Lancaster may have had a head start on Scmitt, but lets look at it another way, who inherited the more experienced team?

Lancaster inherited dead wood. Any coach worth his salt would have thrown the scrabble tiles back in the box.

He did, and began again. So, i'm not sure what your point is, England are still ranked higher than Ireland who've had relative stability over the same period of time.

Jimpy wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Jimpy wrote:
 
The teams from 1 to 3 are a lot tougher to beat than the teams are from 8 to 5th, I can assure you. Lancaster may have had a head start on Scmitt, but lets look at it another way, who inherited the more experienced team?

Lancaster inherited dead wood. Any coach worth his salt would have thrown the scrabble tiles back in the box.

He did, and began again. So, i'm not sure what your point is, England are still ranked higher than Ireland who've had relative stability over the same period of time.

My point is it doesnt take a genius to work out he needed to make wholesale changes. Whats your point?

Schmidts changes may not have been completely in personel but there have been wholesale changes to how those players have been used and the results Schmidt has got from them. You can only play the hand you are dealt.

GeordieFalcon wrote:One question for irish fans.
I think they actually dont have an old a team as everyone makes out...but they do have a couple of older guys who are critical to the team. Darcy, O'Connell, possibly Ross at TH.

Now are the guys coming through now that can replace them?

The one that would worry me most is Ross - Martin Moore has featured a lot in the 6N from the bench and did well but he did struggle against France. Fitzpatrick is always injured so we do need Ross to be capable of 50-60min for a couple of seasons yet.

O'Connell and to a lesser degree D'arcy are still key men and contracted until the RWC but we have options coming through. Lock is pretty competitive with Toner, Touhy, Donnacha Ryan, Mike McCarthy and Ian Henderson there and Luke Marshall is pushing D'arcy very hard for his starting spot at 12.

I think we are looking good with the succession planning for once.

This debate is getting a bit pointless, but one more roll of the dice. The teams are almost inseparable at the moment, but the coaches have very different "to do lists":

Schmidt: Get more consistency in NH results; start winning against the SH; keep coming up with game plans to beat the better sides (hint: "don't kick it to Brown" probably isn't enough against England); reintegrate returning players, who are mostly in positions where you already have strong candidates; find decent replacements for the likes of Ross; work out how to keep POC and D'Arcy in one piece; replace BOD.

Lancaster: Stop losing one NH game a year; maintain competitiveness with NZ and beat SA; keep adding to the gameplan (more attack, fewer butchered chances); pick a backup fly half and find them some gametime; find an understudy to Robshaw; sort out the Youngs brothers' form; find better ways to use the bench.

I am not sure whose list I would like to have. Ireland have the more experienced base to work from, but the flip of that is that they have to fill some big boots. England have less experience but in most positions there are two or more credible international players.

And just to state it again, because I don't think it's been given enough weight in this discussion: England started the game in France with a backline that I am pretty sure had, from 9-15, fewer caps in total than BOD has on his own, including 3 debutants and only the 10-12 combination had played together before. From 6 minutes they had 1 player out of position and by the end of the game they had several. That's not an excuse, it is what it is, but that backline had about 25% more caps by the end of the tournament. That's a big differential, and it's borne out in a steadily step up in performance England were better versus Ireland than versus France, and better versus Wales than versus Ireland, and they were better versus Italy than versus Scotland.

rodders
a couple of things

You list a few options as replacements for POC, and all have done reasonably well at international level already, but for me none are at POC's level (borderline world class at his best). It's the problem England struggled with post 2003 - you are replacing a great player with a good one (maybe a very good one if you are lucky).

Re Ross and Moore - I think Moore was slightly flattered by England's scrum, in that he wasn't particularly driven backwards. However, while Ross was on you enjoyed dominance in the scrum and that definitely faded with the replacements. Moore was also against Mako V, who is not noted for his scrummaging, rather than Marler who is much improved in that area. (Having said that, the dominance earlier on was from Healy shoving a half-fit Dave Wilson all over Twickenham, while Ross simply anchored his side)

Poorfour wrote:
And just to state it again, because I don't think it's been given enough weight in this discussion: England started the game in France with a backline that I am pretty sure had, from 9-15, fewer caps in total than BOD has on his own, including 3 debutants and only the 10-12 combination had played together before. From 6 minutes they had 1 player out of position and by the end of the game they had several. That's not an excuse, it is what it is, but that backline had about 25% more caps by the end of the tournament. That's a big differential, and it's borne out in a steadily step up in performance England were better versus Ireland than versus France, and better versus Wales than versus Ireland, and they were better versus Italy than versus Scotland.

France's winning try came from a debutant too.

Poorfour

It's a good point about the inexperience of England. If you think they had few caps against France, have a look at the starting XV for Ireland last year - the whole 15 had fewer caps than BOD and ROG combined (and actually had the oddity of having more caps on the bench than in the starting XV, mainly courtesy of Flood and Haskell).

I agree that there is little to choose between the two sides, and that they have different things on their 'to do' lists over the next year or so.

Fickou wasn't debuting but he was still a newbie.

England have found Ireland to be particularly easy to beat of late. So surprised this question has been asked really.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Fickou wasn't debuting but he was still a newbie.

Also, he wasn't on the pitch from the outset, and I am pretty sure that the French backline, while unsettled, had more experience together than its English counterpart. But the conversation isn't about France, who defy all rules of logic when it comes to selection, tactics, motivation, coaching and performance. You can argue the case for pretty much anything you want, and its complete opposite, if you use France as your example. Remember Bernard Laporte's response to being asked why France could play so well one moment and so poorly the next: "We're France".

England are a bit more conventional. My point is just that playing away from home, in the first round of the tournament, against a top tier side, with a new halfback pairing, a new centre pairing and a new back three... whatever the performance, you shouldn't give it full weight if you're looking for a trend.

GunsGerms wrote:

Poorfour wrote:
And just to state it again, because I don't think it's been given enough weight in this discussion: England started the game in France with a backline that I am pretty sure had, from 9-15, fewer caps in total than BOD has on his own, including 3 debutants and only the 10-12 combination had played together before. From 6 minutes they had 1 player out of position and by the end of the game they had several. That's not an excuse, it is what it is, but that backline had about 25% more caps by the end of the tournament. That's a big differential, and it's borne out in a steadily step up in performance England were better versus Ireland than versus France, and better versus Wales than versus Ireland, and they were better versus Italy than versus Scotland.

France's winning try came from a debutant too.

Hardly surrounded by them though was he?

I agree. I'd be confident about beating France this weekend away if were playing them. That said if the team still had as much experience as the 1 in that 1st week I'd still expect England to win more than they would lose against that French team.

On the caps thing in general, Lancaster has a slide he uses in which he compares the number of caps England have vs the number of caps their opponents have. There has not been a single game in his tenure to date where England have been the more experienced side. That should be a serious disadvantage in closing out games, because experience really counts at those moments.

englandglory4ever wrote:England have found Ireland to be particularly easy to beat of late. So surprised this question has been asked really.

England?  

Most everyone has been finding it easy to beat Ireland of late.  How many times do Irish people themselves have to admit that before people take us seriously?  An Irish fan admitting they've been crap in recent years?  Does not compute.  Fans don't act this way.  They must be bluffing even though it's the truth.

England haven't been alone in easily beating us 'of late' - ask Scotland and Italy.

But not this year did you find it easy.  Not this year in HQ did you find it easy.  Lancaster knew the real deal and that's why he did a mini river-dance of delight when you won.  He knew he had been in a serious, serious game at HQ

So 'of late' you've had three years over us.  Ireland had three before that.  We'll see how easy it is next year.

SecretFly wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:England have found Ireland to be particularly easy to beat of late. So surprised this question has been asked really.

England?  

Most everyone has been finding it easy to beat Ireland of late.  How many times do Irish people themselves have to admit that before people take us seriously?  An Irish fan admitting they've been crap in recent years?  Does not compute.  Fans don't act this way.  They must be bluffing even though it's the truth.

England haven't been alone in easily beating us 'of late' - ask Scotland and Italy.

But not this year did you find it easy.  Not this year in HQ did you find it easy.  Lancaster knew the real deal and that's why he did a mini river-dance of delight when you won. He knew he had been in a serious, serious game at HQ

So 'of late' you've had three years over us.  Ireland had three before that.  We'll see how easy it is next year.

He looked just as delighted last year in Dublin, in fact, I think he's looked very happy every time England won during his tenure. What do you want him to do? slide off to the dressing room sulking? I think it was more relief this year if anything as the scoreboard flattered Ireland somewht i'd say....

Jimpy wrote:

He looked just as delighted last year in Dublin, in fact, I think he's looked very happy every time England won during his tenure. What do you want him to do? slide off to the dressing room sulking? I think it was more relief this year if anything as the scoreboard flattered Ireland somewht i'd say....

I don't want him to do a blessed thing Jimpy except enjoy himself - and the Ireland game was extra special this year. Even the English media recognised the extra bounce of delight in a usually restrained figure. Nope he knew he was up against a real team this year when he saw Ireland behead Wales without working up a sweat.... so the delight was that his side had beaten a real side that 'tested' his side at home. Go over his words in the aftermath. There was nothing easy about Ireland this year at HQ, Jimpy.

I'd say he recognised that after Ireland beat Wales, that Ireland were the only remaining credible opposition...   

lostinwales wrote: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.

I do agree that Manu had a successful cameo. but i would much rather he had taken off Twelvtrees than Burrell.

I would love to have seen what them 2 could have done together.

Ireland arent a team, they are a bunch of Leinstermen and some other people. Apparently   

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Ireland arent a team, they are a bunch of Leinstermen and some other people. Apparently   

All Irish anyway.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Ireland arent a team, they are a bunch of Leinstermen and some other people. Apparently   

Correct. All the more reason why such a divided bunch of in-fighting tribal warriors winning a Championship is such a feat. If Munster, Ulster and Leinster actually start kissin' and cuddlin' (highly unlikely!) then the world better watch out.   

Jimpy wrote:I'd say he recognised that after Ireland beat Wales, that Ireland were the only remaining credible opposition...   

Yeah...Schmidt likes that England gave him a tough game too. Two good smoke-outs (the one against France too) will help him organise the future better. He'll be sending a Thankyou card to Lancaster in the next few days.

SecretFly wrote:
Correct.  All the more reason why such a divided bunch of in-fighting tribal warriors winning a Championship is such a feat.  If Munster, Ulster and Leinster actually start kissin' and cuddlin' (highly unlikely!) then the world better watch out.   

If only they could be more like Warburton and all consider themselves British eh





(PS please dont take that as an attempt to inflame or seriously suggest the Irish are/should be British ...although it is daft to tack &Irish onto the Lions name :p)

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote: ...although it is daft to tack &Irish onto the Lions name :p)

Thats a very British thing to say. Very unreasonable thing to say, if you stop and think about it for two seconds.

"How about a team that combines the best of Australia and New Zealand rugby, the best players from two sovereign countries in one great team! Let's call them... the Australian Lions! Yep, that ought to do it."

Do me a favour!

Notch wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote: ...although it is daft to tack &Irish onto the Lions name :p)

Thats a very British thing to say. Very unreasonable thing to say, if you stop and think about it for two seconds.

"How about a team that combines the best of Australia and New Zealand rugby, the best players from two sovereign countries in one great team! Let's call them... the Australian Lions! Yep, that ought to do it."

Do me a favour!

Yeah, all British people say the same thing and think the same way. That comment is just as 'correct' as omitting 'Irish' from the Lions title.

Hmmmm....................... Lions nameification taking off again?

No wonder I say we should all do our own thing from here on in. You can't be havin' a Welsh coach deciding to Internationally retire an Irish GOD live on air in Oz!!!!!!!!!!!

Ain't nobody got time for that!

PS............... why can't you peoples that be lovin' the Lions simply call them that? The Lions - it doesn't need Irish OR British. The Lions. Simples, as the meekat says.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
Correct.  All the more reason why such a divided bunch of in-fighting tribal warriors winning a Championship is such a feat.  If Munster, Ulster and Leinster actually start kissin' and cuddlin' (highly unlikely!) then the world better watch out.   

If only they could be more like Warburton and all consider themselves British eh





(PS please dont take that as an attempt to inflame or seriously suggest the Irish are/should be British ...although it is daft to tack &Irish onto the Lions name :p)

Daft? why? it is daft to acknowledge that the national origin of the participants?

What is daft, nay ignorant, is to make the statement in the first place. Must be another attempt for people to find their truth.

dummy_half wrote: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).

Saints play just about the fastest paced game in the AP. When Kahn Fotuali'i came to Saints, he was a recognised as one of the best 9's in world rugby, Dickson's time was done, the plodder wouldn't get a look in. Kahn was played and then Dickson, Dickson was judged to be the play that could keep up the tempo best. Admittedly he will not break like Care, but he spots the opportunity just as quick to score as Care did against Wales and he moves the ball on just as quick from the ruck/maul. He has also scored his fair share of sniping tries. what he lacks in sheer pace of 10 m he makes up for defensively, he is a fantastic defensive 9, better than any other 9 in the AP that I have seen.

Totally agree about the Burrell sub, The form 12 in the AP playing out of position and still out playing legends like BOD and up and coming legends (so my assistant tells me) like JD gets taken off rather than see what he and Manu could do and how well they communicated. Just think what we might miss if they do hit it off, two 17 + stone centres that have skills as well as braw,n that have shown that they have the skills and intelligence to run the right lines, burn people off on the outside or just run right through them. When will we find out now?

I'd say England are strongest marginally but I don't think the injuries this 6 nations are evened out as one of the early posts suggested.

For England to lose the first choice loose head and tight head (both lions), their one lions 2nd row in Parling, and back rower in Tom Croft plus Tuilagi not to mention both wings and our first choice 8 for the last 2 games is a serious test.

Imagine Ireland without their equivalent players - no Healy, no Ross, no O'Connell, no O'Brien (ok missing anyway), no Heaslip, no O'Driscoll, no Tommy Bowe (again missing) and AN other first choice wing missing.

I accept that the likes of Parling has probably now been overtaken but he's still a very good player and the only Eng 2nd row to be Lion in the summer. In some respects it's done Eng a massive favour testing other options but you add these players in and at the very least Ireland wouldn't have had the nudge in the scrum.

Well-Past-It, Dickson is a very fine scrum half, but I would say he is not the scrum half that England needs right now. He's not a creator in the same mould as Care, and you said yourself that he doesn't threaten the line in the same way. A top class international backline needs a running threat in the inside backs to hold the defence. Care adds that - an element of unpredictability that buys time for Farrell and Twelvetrees. If one of them could also do it, he'd be less essential, but they don't yet.

Ford is different and I could see Dickson and Ford working well together - possibly better than Care and Ford would. Ditto if Burns finds his form. Likewise if Burrell or Manu moved to 12. But I think a Dickson / Farrell / Twelvetrees backline would allow the defence to drift outwards too quickly. As things stand, I'd expect Youngs to move back into contention if he finds some form.

General broadcast: Can we give the "x was one of England's Lions" line a rest? Gatland's Lions selection was not a conventional Lions selection. It seems pretty clear that he picked players to fill specific roles in his gameplan, rather than the traditional "pick the best players and then work out a gameplan around them." Fair play - it worked (just) - but to my mind having been a 2013 Lion is not necessarily an indication that you're the best player for your team's current style of play. Unless you are Welsh.

Wow big debate to see who is 2nd and 3rd best ahead of France in the NH.

Notch wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote: ...although it is daft to tack &Irish onto the Lions name :p)

Thats a very British thing to say. Very unreasonable thing to say, if you stop and think about it for two seconds.

"How about a team that combines the best of Australia and New Zealand rugby, the best players from two sovereign countries in one great team! Let's call them... the Australian Lions! Yep, that ought to do it."

Do me a favour!

True, it should have been called the United Kingdom Lions when it was set up   

It was the British Lions because it started before Irish independence. It wasn't a big deal then. Back in those days yes there was Welsh, Scottish & Irish nationalism but nothing like we see today. Shock horror... until the easter rising, the majority of those in Ireland favoured staying within the union.

Watch the 1966 football world cup final and ask yourself if you can find a single St George's cross amongst the fans.

They sung GSTQ before every lions test right up to 1989. When did they become known as the British & Irish lions?? 2001 I think.

It is right that its called the British and Irish lions now and perhaps it should have changed earlier but at the time of creation and for a long while after, the name was suitable.

rainbow-warrior wrote:Wow big debate to see who is 2nd and 3rd best ahead of France in the NH.

You're right, we should start another debate about the mighty 6th placed team and how that in all likelihood, that will be the pinacle of their world standing.... (still, as long as you beat the English eh?).

dummy_half wrote:rodders
a couple of things

You list a few options as replacements for POC, and all have done reasonably well at international level already, but for me none are at POC's level (borderline world class at his best). It's the problem England struggled with post 2003 - you are replacing a great player with a good one (maybe a very good one if you are lucky).

Re Ross and Moore - I think Moore was slightly flattered by England's scrum, in that he wasn't particularly driven backwards. However, while Ross was on you enjoyed dominance in the scrum and that definitely faded with the replacements. Moore was also against Mako V, who is not noted for his scrummaging, rather than Marler who is much improved in that area. (Having said that, the dominance earlier on was from Healy shoving a half-fit Dave Wilson all over Twickenham, while Ross simply anchored his side)

Hi DH,

POC is world class and as an individual won't be replaced anytime soon - as you say none of the aforementioned players have come anywhere close to him at his best. Donnacha Ryan perhaps coming closest in recent seasons. However on current form POC is still close to his best or at least able to still perform at his best in big games - therefore he doesn't need to be replaced this side of the RWC. The other guys are all improving so there is some depth there at lock, so I'm not overly worried.

Ross is a problem for sure but Moore is only 22. We need more options at TH, although our options are better than at any time I can remember but not good enough - there's very little margin for injury and the Argentina tour is very important to assess the other options in the front row.

fa0019 identities can be an odd one.

Look at Scotland - pushing for independence. If they do get independence what would the team be called?

TheWelsh,Irish Scottish and English Lions? The Wise Lions for short?

I still lament the demise of the county of Lancashire - more relevant to rugby league than union. I mention it because boundaries change like identities.

fa0019 wrote:It was the British Lions because it started before Irish independence. It wasn't a big deal then.

But it represented the United Kingdoms of Britain and Ireland, not just Britain...so should be called the united Kingdoms Lions to avoid upsetting the Irish.   

fa0019 wrote:They sung GSTQ before every lions test right up to 1989. When did they become known as the British & Irish lions?? 2001 I think.

It is right that its called the British and Irish lions now and perhaps it should have changed earlier but at the time of creation and for a long while after, the name was suitable.

Yeah they were rebranded as the B&I Lions in 2001 at the behest of Keith Wood and Donal Lenihan.

Thank god they ditched that better together anthem they used in 05 through.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

fa0019 wrote:It was the British Lions because it started before Irish independence. It wasn't a big deal then.

But it represented the United Kingdoms of Britain and Ireland, not just Britain...so should be called the united Kingdoms Lions to avoid upsetting the Irish.   

No we are happy enough just to have more Irish Lions than English ones on the last couple of tours.

fa0019 wrote:until the easter rising, the majority of those in Ireland favoured staying within the union.

As our 500 hundred years of invasion, war, revolt, famine, emigration, evictions, plantations and serfdom to Anglo Landlords attest to. Don't tell us our history fa0019 - and certainly not the revised one that bases itself on fantasy polls that never happened.

GunsGerms wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

fa0019 wrote:It was the British Lions because it started before Irish independence. It wasn't a big deal then.

But it represented the United Kingdoms of Britain and Ireland, not just Britain...so should be called the united Kingdoms Lions to avoid upsetting the Irish.   

No we are happy enough just to have more Irish Lions than English ones on the last couple of tours.

Guns, you're like an Irish version of Scratch  

Thanks Cyril. I thought I was an Irish version of you?

You are all Irish and Welsh versions of each other.

Only the Poms are slightly better at the minute.   

GunsGerms wrote:Thanks Cyril. I thought I was an Irish version of you?

I thought Bono was the Irish Cyril?