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?

Voted Ireland. We won the 6 Nations, and with only a narrow defeat to a very good England side on their own turf.
We can't know if England would have beaten us in Dublin, but my opinion is that Ireland would shade it.
Two very good sides with room for improvement. Not much between them at all really, but with the RWC looming England are ahead of us in terms of development, and having a fairly settled team.
We can catch up....I hope.

GunsGerms wrote:

Cyril wrote:I know you'll have to take my word for it but, trust me, winning the World Cup feels a lot sweeter than winning the 6 Nations.

Im sure it does. How does getting your first triple crown in 10 years feel? Must be good no?

Touché sir

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:
I did and I am proud to lay claim to it. Still not sure I am right though.

There is no right or wrong answer. Its meant to promote debate.

GunsGerms wrote:

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?

Our only undroppable player is Jonathan Sexton. POC can be replaced by Tuohy as proved v Scotland, Darcy by Marshall as seen in the Scotland game too and Ross has been replaced in every game fairly well (except v France) by Marty Moore.

Sexton by contrast has become our only indispensible player IMO.

You made replacements versus a rubbish Scot side and weren't shown up - what does that prove?

About as meaningful as Yarde having a stormer versus Argentina, which you dismissed.

Lets be honest... the triple crown only came into existence as a viable trophy because the French were too damn good.

French taken another title.... ok, lets create one so that at least the best of the rest can claim some silverware.

Bit harsh on Scotland. They werent replacements anyway. Tuohy and Marshall both started v Scotland. Donnacha Ryan also deputised very well for POC last year. Ireland had a very good record in the lineout with him making the calls.

Also against Wales POC only played 60 minutes.

I'll gladly have England named the better team. They can have the perch and expectation of lazy media from here to the RWC. Ireland have plenty of areas to improve before we get to the RWC and should be concentrating on that instead of believing there are already the complete article.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:I'll gladly have England named the better team. They can have the perch and expectation of lazy media from here to the RWC. Ireland have plenty of areas to improve before we get to the RWC and should be concentrating on that instead of believing there are already the complete article.

Im actually quite please to say that we all know Lancaster wont let the players get lazy at all. This squad has a real good work ethic and attitude...

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

beshocked wrote:England are higher ranked than Ireland. England have won 3 in a row vs Ireland. England have beaten a tri nations side more recently than Ireland. England have been the more consistent side.

Irish fans might say they are better because they got a higher points difference than England in this year's 6 nations. You could argue they got that due to 3 home games including the two weakest sides,Scotland and Italy.

That's about the only plus in Ireland's favour. More starting Lions I suppose too though that's a bit of a hollow point when you think of the amount of Lions the Welsh have.

As harsh as it is I can't really see a logical argument for Ireland being better.

You been reading my previous posts again Beshocked? Although I did say three weakest sides including that lot to the west but still attached. Didn't get a bite though as it is technically France.

Nope sorry I didn't read your previous post on the topic. I came to that conclusion by myself.

I would say the IRB rankings are a fair reflection. England 4th, Ireland 5th. Ireland aren't far off but they are indeed below us and deservedly so.

Even though Ireland won the 6 nations I would say this is the pecking order in the NH in terms of who is the best at the moment:

1.England
2.Ireland
3.Wales
4.France

5.Scotland
6.Italy



Ireland - congratulations on winning the 6 nations. well done for having a superior points difference.  

At Twickenham:

Ireland = England - 3

Therefore given home advantage statistically = +5 points

Ireland then are better by 2 points at Twickenham and by 7 at Lansdowne making Ireland moral Triple crown champions.

Now that's what I call irrefutable logic at last, rodders.

Based on where Ireland were 12 months ago to where we are today I would say we have definitely improved more than any other team in the NH. The 6ns is a good snapshot of where the various teams are currently so based on that then I would put Ireland as marginally better than England at this time (not only does the 6ns table not lie the stats overall for the 6ns show a team on a sharp improvement curb). Losing to England was close in Twickers and given he way the English players celebrated I think it shows a certain element of relief in winning.

The next 12 months will be interesting for both teams, I think the strength in depth for Ireland is now more obvious than ever before when you look at the main three provinces.

So Ireland currently better..

The question is how do you want to reason this.

England beat Ireland, but both teams won the same number of matches, and Ireland had a better points differential, but England is higher ranked by the IRB ranking system, but then Ireland won the Six Nations.

So which aspect do you weight heaviest?

Biltong wrote:The question is how do you want to reason this.

England beat Ireland, but both teams won the same number of matches, and Ireland had a better points differential, but England is higher ranked by the IRB ranking system, but then Ireland won the Six Nations.

So which aspect do you weight heaviest?

The one that favours Ireland obviously.

Biltong wrote:The question is how do you want to reason this.

England beat Ireland, but both teams won the same number of matches, and Ireland had a better points differential, but England is higher ranked by the IRB ranking system, but then Ireland won the Six Nations.

So which aspect do you weight heaviest?

Which do you weigh heaviest?

My perception is SH teams always consider England to be the biggest threat in the NH because they have won a WC before regardless of current form.

How do you see it?

What is the neutral stadium suggested? Could play to either side's strengths, for example in Murrayfield the impact of a scrum and the ability to play loosely is negated. In SA, the high-altitude environment would favour kicking etc

Me-109 of course you would say that Ireland are currently better. You're a biased Irishman.

I do agree that Ireland have improved more - from 5th place last year with 1 win,1 draw and 3 losses to 1st with 4 wins and 1 loss is the biggest improvement. From 5 tries to 16 too.

That's the only bit I agree with though.

And you're not a biased Englishman???

The English are never biased

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:The question is how do you want to reason this.

England beat Ireland, but both teams won the same number of matches, and Ireland had a better points differential, but England is higher ranked by the IRB ranking system, but then Ireland won the Six Nations.

So which aspect do you weight heaviest?

Which do you weigh heaviest?

My perception is SH teams always consider England to be the biggest threat in the NH because they have won a WC before regardless of current form.

How do you see it?

My way is simple, do we have the wood over an opponent currently, yes or no. In SA's case we have the wood over every team bar NZ.

No matter whether we win or lose a tournament that involves other teams.

So what is your recent record over England?

Not good but there were signs in the match this year that that may change next year with a game in Dublin.

Over the last decade our record has been pretty good. Even when Ireland were terrible in the 90s they were also able to defeat england on occasion so I would be confident we could reverse the trend next year.

Im sure you would also be encouraged by a 3 point loss to NZ in Eden park for example?

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:The question is how do you want to reason this.

England beat Ireland, but both teams won the same number of matches, and Ireland had a better points differential, but England is higher ranked by the IRB ranking system, but then Ireland won the Six Nations.

So which aspect do you weight heaviest?

Which do you weigh heaviest?

My perception is SH teams always consider England to be the biggest threat in the NH because they have won a WC before regardless of current form.

How do you see it?

Surely tri nations sides would see England as a bigger threat because England have a overall better record vs tri nations sides and recently too.

Me-109 okay I'll bite. What is your argument for Ireland being better based on?

So Biltong - you think France are better than England?

ME-109 wrote:Based on where Ireland were 12 months ago to where we are today I would say we have definitely improved more than any other team in the NH. The 6ns is a good snapshot of where the various teams are currently so based on that then I would put Ireland as marginally better than England at this time (not only does the 6ns table not lie the stats overall for the 6ns show a team on a sharp improvement curb). Losing to England was close in Twickers and given he way the English players celebrated I think it shows a certain element of relief in winning.

The next 12 months will be interesting for both teams, I think the strength in depth for Ireland is now more obvious than ever before when you look at the main three provinces.

So Ireland currently better..

Just for Beshocked again....

ME-109 wrote:So Biltong - you think France are better than England?

what is their recent record?

Of the last 4 matches who won how many?

ME-109 wrote:

ME-109 wrote:Based on where Ireland were 12 months ago to where we are today I would say we have definitely improved more than any other team in the NH. The 6ns is a good snapshot of where the various teams are currently so based on that then I would put Ireland as marginally better than England at this time (not only does the 6ns table not lie the stats overall for the 6ns show a team on a sharp improvement curb). Losing to England was close in Twickers and given he way the English players celebrated I think it shows a certain element of relief in winning.

The next 12 months will be interesting for both teams, I think the strength in depth for Ireland is now more obvious than ever before when you look at the main three provinces.

So Ireland currently better..

Just for Beshocked again....

We'll see.

beshocked wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:The question is how do you want to reason this.

England beat Ireland, but both teams won the same number of matches, and Ireland had a better points differential, but England is higher ranked by the IRB ranking system, but then Ireland won the Six Nations.

So which aspect do you weight heaviest?

Which do you weigh heaviest?

My perception is SH teams always consider England to be the biggest threat in the NH because they have won a WC before regardless of current form.

How do you see it?

Surely tri nations sides would see England as a bigger threat because England have a overall better record vs tri nations sides and recently too.

Me-109 okay I'll bite. What is your argument for Ireland being better based on?

Im sure NZ will not take Ireland too lightly. If you look at the last 10 games Ireland's recent record v SA is better than Englands.

GunsGerms wrote:Not good but there were signs in the match this year that that may change next year with a game in Dublin.

Over the last decade our record has been pretty good. Even when Ireland were terrible in the 90s they were also able to defeat england on occasion so I would be confident we could reverse the trend next year.

Im sure you would also be encouraged by a 3 point loss to NZ in Eden park for example?

Last decade is too long. You need to look at current coaches and players. Australia had the wood over us as recent as 2011, sonce then we have changed coaches and players, we have thumoed them by20 or more in three matches since then, losing only one.

Future performances is guesswork, the promising performances of this year has no relevance on the future, except for giving hope, but the OP says "who are the best" that means currently. It doesn't ask who will be best next year.

2 all....why just four games though...why not more

For example SA/France is 2 all, if you take five games into account its 3-2 to France

GeordieFalcon wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:I'll gladly have England named the better team. They can have the perch and expectation of lazy media from here to the RWC. Ireland have plenty of areas to improve before we get to the RWC and should be concentrating on that instead of believing there are already the complete article.

Im actually quite please to say that we all know Lancaster wont let the players get lazy at all. This squad has a real good work ethic and attitude...

I agree with you. The lazy media will be having a field day but Lancaster seems an appropriate man at the helm. That coaching ticket is maturing very nicely. I also think that Hartley, Lawes and Care are delivering solid performance of the highest level without the 'youthful enthusiasm'/'brain_far_ts' of previous seasons. Browns improvement from previous years is remarkable.

I'd also say that Ireland is probably just about a season behind England in squad development though Lancaster has had more time than Schmidt to get his squad in order. The target has to be to peak for the RWC. Can England deal with hype starting this far out!?

AS for which side is better out of ireland and England (I said Ireland on the poll), until next 6 Nations and then the RWC, it's utterly irrelevant and just dick measuring

Biltong wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Not good but there were signs in the match this year that that may change next year with a game in Dublin.

Over the last decade our record has been pretty good. Even when Ireland were terrible in the 90s they were also able to defeat england on occasion so I would be confident we could reverse the trend next year.

Im sure you would also be encouraged by a 3 point loss to NZ in Eden park for example?

Last decade is too long. You need to look at current coaches and players. Australia had the wood over us as recent as 2011, sonce then we have changed coaches and players, we have thumoed them by20 or more in three matches since then, losing only one.

Future performances is guesswork, the promising performances of this year has no relevance on the future, except for giving hope, but the OP says "who are the best" that means currently. It doesn't ask who will be best next year.

Well a very tight game in England that both teams had chances to win suggests there isnt much in it head to head but hey Ireland did win the championship so head to head isnt the only factor that counts is it?

Wow, dick isn't censored...

ChequeredJersey wrote:AS for which side is better out of ireland and England (I said Ireland on the poll), until next 6 Nations and then the RWC, it's utterly irrelevant and just dick measuring

Snap I went for Ireland too.  

beshocked wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:The question is how do you want to reason this.

England beat Ireland, but both teams won the same number of matches, and Ireland had a better points differential, but England is higher ranked by the IRB ranking system, but then Ireland won the Six Nations.

So which aspect do you weight heaviest?

Which do you weigh heaviest?

My perception is SH teams always consider England to be the biggest threat in the NH because they have won a WC before regardless of current form.

How do you see it?

Surely tri nations sides would see England as a bigger threat because England have a overall better record vs tri nations sides and recently too.

But how the SH nations see England has no relevance to who is better between England and Ireland.

Yu need to look at them in isolation. The question is not which team is the biggest threat to the SH, the question is who is the better team between England and Ireland, which implies, their respective record against each other.

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Not good but there were signs in the match this year that that may change next year with a game in Dublin.

Over the last decade our record has been pretty good. Even when Ireland were terrible in the 90s they were also able to defeat england on occasion so I would be confident we could reverse the trend next year.

Im sure you would also be encouraged by a 3 point loss to NZ in Eden park for example?

Last decade is too long. You need to look at current coaches and players. Australia had the wood over us as recent as 2011, sonce then we have changed coaches and players, we have thumoed them by20 or more in three matches since then, losing only one.

Future performances is guesswork, the promising performances of this year has no relevance on the future, except for giving hope, but the OP says "who are the best" that means currently. It doesn't ask who will be best next year.

Well a very tight game in England that both teams had chances to win suggests there isnt much in it head to head but hey Ireland did win the championship so head to head isnt the only factor that counts is it?

I was asked, how do I measure who is better than who, my values is mine, your values is yours.

If we win the RC but lose to NZ, I don't see us being better than NZ, even in 2007 when we won the RWC and they were knocked out and we temporarily took number one in the rankings did I believe we were better than NZ, we have to beat them regularly, more than what they beat us before I see us better than them.

But as I say, we each have our own manner lf measuring ourselves against others.

I like to keep it uncomplicated.

I think both teams have exactly the same goodliness at playing rugby as each other

In my opinion Billtong looking at head to head in isolation isnt always an accurate reflection of who is a better team. I assume that between the period of 2004 and 2009 you still believed that overall SA were better than Ireland despite the head to head being 3-0 to Ireland in that period?

Consistency and record against other teams is a fair consideration when making such comparisions.

ChequeredJersey wrote: it's utterly irrelevant and just dick measuring

Thats my appraisal of this thread too!

But for what its worth if Ireland and England played each other again tomorrow, I think the game would again be very close with the winner being a 50/50 call. Who the favourites are would be determined by home advantage. They won't be playing each other tomorrow though, they'll be playing each other in about 11 months when the situation will be different from now and different players will be involved hence why this thread is so irrelevant.

For me, it's really such a moot point since we have the trophy in our cabinet back at Lansdowne Road already; we were just about the best team in the tournament this year (most tries scored, fewest points conceded, only team to win away against a side that finished in the Top 4) so it's settled already. We have 5 test matches against Argentina (twice), Australia, Georgia and South Africa before we have to worry about England again so I don't really care about them right now.

Right now I only care about Ulster and the end to the club season in the Pro12 and Heineken Cup, and then maybe about how Joe Schmidt will deal with the tour to Argentina. No point looking backwards when you're moving forwards.

Feel free to ignore the thread if it isnt for you. Nobody is forcing anyone to post on it.

Me-109 your reasoning for why Ireland are better is definitely questionable.

Fair enough Gunsgerms vs South Africa. England's recent record vs South Africa is not good even though in overall records we have beaten South Africa 3 times as many as Ireland. Ireland didn't inflict on South Africa their heaviest ever defeat did they?

As for NZ - you've never beaten them. A side we beat 2 years ago. Admittedly you pushed them hard last autumn.

As for Australia - we beat them in our last encounter, you got thumped by them.

We perform better against the tri nations than Ireland in general.

Guns, that is why I say each person will measure it differently.

When Ireland won three in a row against Us I was peeved off to no extent. In my mind we aren't supposed to lose to Ireland, but no matter my expectations of us in relation to Ireland the reality was at that stage they were better than us.

I understand you say it is necessary to compare other opponents as well, but think about this.

Your team goes into a world cup and their QF is against a team that has beaten them over the past 4 matches, no matter whether you beleive you can win the match, your tension is sky high because kf that record, as opposed to a team that you have beaten the previous four times. You naturally have more belief that your team will win.

I wouldn't bother arguing over this. It takes a heck of a lot to convince England they might not be the best team (no WUM intended as per), and besides that it's daft as both are probably as good/bad as each other. There was 3 points in it at Twickenham and not much more in it for the championship. Then there's how both measure up to France in Paris and the mighty former champs at home. So yeah not a lot in it, however England are going to find it very difficult to look good in NZ this summer, where-as Ireland will probably walk all over Arg.

Better at what? Beating each other? Getting the best result out of playing every other team in a row? Winning this 6N? Winning next 6N? Winning a World Cup right now? Beating Morocco at home by the most points?

Better is a useless word without specific context. If I ask who the better tennis player is out of Djokovic or Nadal, you need to ask in terms of what- Who would win if they played each other? But their match-up favours one player over the other and when Rafa was beating Federer every time they played Federer was still world number 1 and the better player IMO. And where they play matters too- on clay Rafa is clearly better, but on indoor hard, Novak is. Is it across all tournaments across the year? Across just the big ones? Against every other opponent?

The poll question is too open to the interpretation of those voting to ensure we are all voting for the same thing

I don't really think we are arguing over it Saint, I think it is an interseting topic to see how each person measures who is better than who.

The Saint wrote:I wouldn't bother arguing over this. It takes a heck of a lot to convince England they might not be the best team (no WUM intended as per), and besides that it's daft as both are probably as good/bad as each other. There was 3 points in it at Twickenham and not much more in it for the championship. Then there's how both measure up to France in Paris and the mighty former champs at home. So yeah not a lot in it, however England are going to find it very difficult to look good in NZ this summer, where-as Ireland will probably walk all over Arg.

Yeah, but if we DO somehow beat NZ once or twice, we will look a lot better in comparison!

beshocked wrote:Me-109 your reasoning for why Ireland are better is definitely questionable.

Fair enough Gunsgerms vs South Africa. England's recent record vs South Africa is not good even though in overall records we have beaten South Africa 3 times as many as Ireland. Ireland didn't inflict on South Africa their heaviest ever defeat did they?

What and bringing up results from a decade ago is not questionable? I'm not sure why you have to crow back to the past often Beschocked, it's nowhere near relevant. The last two NZ results are probably a bit more relevant.

Biltong wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Not good but there were signs in the match this year that that may change next year with a game in Dublin.

Over the last decade our record has been pretty good. Even when Ireland were terrible in the 90s they were also able to defeat england on occasion so I would be confident we could reverse the trend next year.

Im sure you would also be encouraged by a 3 point loss to NZ in Eden park for example?

Last decade is too long. You need to look at current coaches and players. Australia had the wood over us as recent as 2011, sonce then we have changed coaches and players, we have thumoed them by20 or more in three matches since then, losing only one.

Future performances is guesswork, the promising performances of this year has no relevance on the future, except for giving hope, but the OP says "who are the best" that means currently. It doesn't ask who will be best next year.

Well a very tight game in England that both teams had chances to win suggests there isnt much in it head to head but hey Ireland did win the championship so head to head isnt the only factor that counts is it?

I was asked, how do I measure who is better than who, my values is mine, your values is yours.

If we win the RC but lose to NZ, I don't see us being better than NZ, even in 2007 when we won the RWC and they were knocked out and we temporarily took number one in the rankings did I believe we were better than NZ, we have to beat them regularly, more than what they beat us before I see us better than them.

But as I say, we each have our own manner lf measuring ourselves against others.

I like to keep it uncomplicated.

The reason why I don't think you can measure England vs Ireland just on it's own is because consistency is important. England have been more consistent than Ireland in the last 12 months or so. Something that bizarrely the Irish don't acknowledge.

England and Ireland both played the same opposition of Australia and NZ in the AIs. Ireland got thumped by Australia, England beat Australia. Both lost to NZ, Ireland did push NZ harder but they still lost.

Both England and Ireland won 4 out of 5 in the 6 nations but England have a better head to head vs Ireland in the last two home and away matches.

If it was a neutral venue I would back England to win because they have been the more consistent side in the last 12 months, plus their head to head vs Ireland. It's close - 4th vs 5th in the rankings reflects this.

Biltong wrote:I don't really think we are arguing over it Saint, I think it is an interseting topic to see how each person measures who is better than who.

It was aimed at the English and Irish, looks like the Irish may have taken Wales' place in the bun fight arena with England (but probably just for today).

Beschocked, I understand what you are saying, but as someone earlier suggested, the OP is an open wuestion that can be interpreted as you wish.

If we are talking who has the best record, then it is England.

Who is currently better, in my reasoning it is England if the have a better win ration than Ireland in the recent last over each other.

But in terms of the Six Nations, Ireland are the Champions, so then you would say they are the better team.