Ireland v England - Post-match warmdown

First topic message reminder :

        
Ireland 19 - 9 England

A continuation of the match thread.

Be respectful please. Your mothers would be proud.

Well done to Ireland. An excellent example of where good discipline, everyone knowing their job, and game management can get you. I found it a slightly dull game to watch for some reason, probably because Ireland just subdued England. For me this game was completely decided at the ruck. Murray played well but he had a cushioned ride. Ireland took the ball into a ruck and a second later well protected ball was there on a platter for him. England took the ball in and were constantly getting disrupted and slowed down.

It's no more complicated than that for me, they sucked the life out of England with error free technically proficient rugby... It didn't make for a great spectacle but the pressure created frustration and errors in the opposition. It felt like England barely saw the ball for long periods.

Well played Ireland - other than for the last 10 minutes or so you simply executed better than we did.

My perceptions:
Scrums were pretty much even until Ross was subbed, then England had a slight advantage, but not so much as to cause Ireland problems

Line-out. IIRC, Ireland lost one when Toner failed to catch a good throw, while England lost 3 or 4 including the critical one after kicking the penalty to the corner.

Breakdown - Ireland held the upper hand, especially in disrupting England ball.

Kicking / Chasing - Again, Ireland's kicking was more accurate and their chase more intense. As a few others have noted, we seemed to miss Johnny May's pace and willingness to pursue the ball. Have to say Ireland are very good at making it difficult for the chaser to get to the player catching the ball by having a number of players loitering (legally) in the area in front - not obstruction, just mean that the chaser can rarely run straight .

Discipline - Already highlighted that Attwood and Haskell in particular gave away several penalties at the breakdown (and one of Ireland's kicks at goal came from Robshaw being penalised for holding on when Jordi Murphy clamped the ball and Attwood as the first English player to the ruck missed taking him out).

I think it is the first time that it has been obvious that the England pack is missing a few first choice players, in particular Lawes and Launchbury (and Brown). Wouldn't necessarily have made the difference between winning and losing, but probably a bit in the performance level.

Payne was fine. He did everything that was asked of him. I was never a fan of his inclusion in the Ireland squad but he has never let us down in all the games he has played so I think he has earned his stripes so far.

+1 dummy half

I really hope Ireland do go on and win it, and I hope England have learned a valuable lesson for the remainder of the 6 nations and their world cup build up.

beshocked wrote:I thought Ford was very poor - simply because he failed to give England any structure or control.

Hard for any 10 to do that when the pack are on the end of thumping. Hartley, Marler, both locks, Haskell - all absent.

Ford played well all considered. Youngs was much worse and needed to take more responsibility for territory.

I haven't watched the game yet, but well done Ireland.

Frustrating to read from an England point of view that we're making the same errors and losing out in the areas where we thought we were a year ago or 2 years ago and not much has changed

offload wrote:

beshocked wrote:I thought Ford was very poor - simply because he failed to give England any structure or control.

Hard for any 10 to do that when the pack are on the end of thumping.  Hartley, Marler, both locks, Haskell - all absent.

Ford played well all considered.  Youngs was much worse and needed to take more responsibility for territory.

Hartley's line outs are a long way from where we are used to, and he wasn't much cop elsewhere. But Marler was surely one of the better players? Not that that is saying much

Hartley needs to be dropped too.

Just looking at the ESPN stats

England made a stack of tackles, but missed a lot more
made/missed
Attwood 19/1
Kruis 16/1
Haskell 17/1
Robshaw 15/3  
Billy    13/1
(Nowell 1/2)

Oh yes - and Goode - 6 turnovers  

Pete330v2 wrote:I do like a laugh on a monday morning and the critics of Jared Payne (the usual suspects by the way) are giving me plenty to smile about. Payne, whilst not setting the world on fire as we are used to with out 13 shirt, has been more solid that I expected him to be and hasn't been found wanting. However, the fact that he isn't even the best 13 at Ulster still knarls me and I can't help but feel that, as has been said, he would be better utilised off the bench which may even allow us to see him at 15 where he has looked world class.

Anyway, onwards to retaining the title and upwards to the RWC

This is all I have been saying. I just think that he is a better 15 than 13 and would suit Ireland better by covering several backline positions from off the bench instead of Felix Jones. His playing style at 13 has been solid defensively but going forward, he plays exactly how you would expect a 15 to play, not a 13. Its no attack on him, its an observation of mine.

Several posters have knocked me for this opinion and accused me of hating him simply because he was born in New Zealand which I think is extremely poor. One of the posters (Exiled Gael) gave me abuse, because he didn't even know that Payne was actually a 15 learning to play 13, calling me nuts and lacking any rugby knowledge for suggesting that Payne get some game time at 15.

I think people are being a tad harsh on Marler. He's been very solid this tournament and whilst I think England expected him to do better against Ross, he does get through a shift. I still think Corbisiero is a better player, but with his injury record you do really need some other options.

Attwood for me needs to contribute more. His Dad at the Sunday Times, Stephen Jones, keeps on banging on about how nasty and physical he is, but the reality does seem to fall somewhat short. I actually think Kruis has been the mroe effective of the two, but in any case Launchbury and Lawes should not be losing sleep.

As an England fan, we were completely outplayed in the first half and were lucky to be just 6 points down. In truth we didn't get into the game until we were 19-3 down, and it's always going to be tough chasing that away from home. Had Sexton stayed on and Ireland shown a more ruthless streak, it could have been closer to the 30-3 against Wales than the 19-9 it finished.

Ireland did well to hold the scrum and then their forwards dominated the loose. The England front row didn't do all that much outside of the set piece. Attwood was poor and Kruis was okay (nothing more) for me. Haskell and Robshaw was anonymous and Vunipola was probably the pick of an otherwise bad bunch in the forwards.

Always hard to gauge the backs when your forwards are being dominated, but the phrase headless chickens springs to mind, with two penalties conceded for picking the ball up from an offside position, Burrell giving away a penalty in the shadow of his own posts and Twelvetrees playing NFL when we were picking and going around the fringes. Mike Brown was a big miss. Not pinning this all on Goode, but he was.

It's hard to work out where do we go from here. Should we stick with the same side who beat Wales and Italy and should beat Scotland and France at home? Then look at our options ahead of the World Cup? That would probably be the way I'd go. Possibly a couple of changes though.

I'd bring Lawes onto the bench if he's fit, in place of Croft. I'd be tempted to try out Vunipola at 6 and Easter at 8 at the end of one of the last two games, to see how Billy goes in that position, thinking about a possible starting back row of Vunipola, Robshaw and Morgan for the World Cup.

I'd possibly also switch Hartley and Youngs. Hartley's line-outs haven't been spot on and that's his main selling point over Youngs. I'd give Youngs a couple of games to stake his claim and give Hartley something to prove before the World Cup.

The backs would probably get another chance, with the exception of bringing Brown back in for Goode if he is fit. I don't think chopping and changing too much in the back division would benefit us, the incumbents need more experience and players like Care, Farrell and Tuilagi all have enough experience to come back in for the World Cup warm-ups if they are fit and on form.

TightHEAD wrote:Hartley needs to be dropped too.

To be replaced by Tom Youngs? Even though Hartley had a bad game, Youngs was zero improvement and I think even conceded a penalty within seconds of being on the field. Hartley is still the best option for England in my opinion, 1 bad game does not make him a bad player.

I think the lineout was poor mainly because of the personnel. Atwood is decent but not on his own, few are. Lawes had Wood as a counter-jumper. Kruis needed to take more jumping responsibility (although he was the best forward by far on Sunday).

I think England now have to weigh up the use of someone like Haskell... he offers a lot of go to ball but its at a price... a little bit of indiscipline and a reduced lineout threat.
I still think Croft is the best of Haskell and Wood. He offers pace and is the best front jumper in the game but he isn't the best ball carrier into the tight.

I think England need to get to their destructive best and that should mean bringing back Corbisiero, Lawes (who I'm told by mates) played very well this week and Croft.
They will lose a bit of go to without Haskell but he should be kept

I also think if you play Ford you seriously have to play Farrell at 12... he's simply not strong enough with his kicking and you can't expect him to win any shootouts with any kicker of test note. Until he can kick from anywhere in his half England will lose these sort of matches as for the first 60 mins games are often about those who take the opportunities for 3 and those that don't. Either that or play Farrell at 10 and tell Ford to go to the gym, do squats or take a 50kg backpack to some sanddunes and start doing hill sprints.

Switch Youngs and hartley. 2nd row has functioned well up to now. Billy at 6 might work but would be more likely to with the open field work of Launchberry and Lawes. I think we need more of a general purpose player (although BV is improving in that respect)

I'd seriously think about dropping Burrell for 36. I think we found out yesterday that May needs to come back, and Goode needs to go back to club rugby forever

[quote="
I'd bring Lawes onto the bench if he's fit[/quote]

Have to say, I thought Lawes looked really sharp for Saints this weekend.

Nachos Jones wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Hartley needs to be dropped too.

To be replaced by Tom Youngs? Even though Hartley had a bad game, Youngs was zero improvement and I think even conceded a penalty within seconds of being on the field. Hartley is still the best option for England in my opinion, 1 bad game does not make him a bad player.

It hasnt been one bad game though. Last year he was the best hooker in the 6N and didnt miss a lineout. Maybe this is because Lawes has been missing but this year we have lost a few lineouts, and its not like he is tearing things up elsewhere.

lostinwales wrote:Just looking at the ESPN stats

England made a stack of tackles, but missed a lot more
made/missed
Attwood 19/1
Kruis 16/1
Haskell 17/1
Robshaw 15/3  
Billy    13/1
(Nowell 1/2)

Oh yes - and Goode - 6 turnovers  

Irelands tackle rate was poorer (82% vs 89%)

Id say englands big problem was not protecting and supporting Nowell and Goode when they were fielding and returning kicks and letting them get isolated despite often making good ground, and also the penalty count. Ireland also completely shut down Jospeh, no great shock teams have got wise to him and how England have been able to exploit his strengths.

The vast number of missing players hurt their bench depth too.

FES agreed. One thing that Kruis did well on two occasions was to disrupt the Irish maul without giving away a penalty.

fa0019 there is no way that Farrell should play at 12 - he offers no running threat in that position.

lostinwales are you saying that Goode got turned over 6 times? I am not convinced by that.

lostinwales wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Hartley needs to be dropped too.

To be replaced by Tom Youngs? Even though Hartley had a bad game, Youngs was zero improvement and I think even conceded a penalty within seconds of being on the field. Hartley is still the best option for England in my opinion, 1 bad game does not make him a bad player.

It hasnt been one bad game though. Last year he was the best hooker in the 6N and didnt miss a lineout. Maybe this is because Lawes has been missing but this year we have lost a few lineouts, and its not like he is tearing things up elsewhere.

Not so sure that his throws were that bad, Ireland (POM especially) read them very well. Robshaw was making some very questionable line out calls which fell right into Irelands hands.

I actually think that Lancaster has really hopped into Hartley about his discipline and he seems to er more on the safe side than his natural aggressive game and that has affected him a lot.

Tom Youngs..... are you on the peruvian marching powder???

Unless you want an inferior scrum, a 50/50 lineout, a ball carrier who gets held up often and someone who gives away a lot of penalties sure go ahead. He's simply not test class, never has been, never will be.

Put 2 behemoths beside him and behind him and sure he looks ok in the scrum but come the big sides, the ARG, the SA he will fail.

England have given him enough goes to realise that whilst Hartley is not the very best, he's still way ahead of Youngs and why is anyone still pining for a mighty mouse hooker???
How many times do we have to see someone say... oh but he's so good in the loose.

Schalk Brits = 10 times the player youngs will ever be and he only got 5 caps for the boks. There is a clear reason why. Lee Mears.... thats the real reason why Vickery got smashed in 2009. He was about 3st lighter than his counterpart. Shane Bryne, the list is endless. You need warriors at 2 not ballet dancers.

He's a luxury player only, when lineout dominance is guaranteed and scrums are easy. Everywhere else he's a complete liability.

Hartley also had only 1 target man... there is no surprise where England throw their ball without Woods, Croft or Lawes in the side... Its Atwood 9/10.

And the problem with Attwood being first option is that he's too heavy to get really high, so makes it tougher for the thrower.

fa0019 against Wales England used Robshaw a fair bit.

England had players they could have thrown to but didn't use them like Kruis and Robshaw.

gooseberry I agree  a player sometimes can only be as good as their support - e.g. if player X makes a break or beats a defender you need someone there or it will be a turnover or penalty to the opposition. Too often England didn't seem to get quick enough to the breakdown or put in enough numbers.

Look at Burrell's penalty - 3 Irishman swarmed him - they attacked in large numbers at the breakdown and reaped the benefits.

England players made breaks but the support was close to non existent. When England made breaks last year there were players make the supporting runs to exploit it.

beshocked wrote:FES agreed. One thing that Kruis did well on two occasions was to disrupt the Irish maul without giving away a penalty.

fa0019 there is no way that Farrell should play at 12 - he offers no running threat in that position.

lostinwales are you saying that Goode got turned over 6 times? I am not convinced by that.

ESPN stats. Its stats so not always reliable but can be a strong indicator of where things go wrong.

So Goode turned over 6 times, Watson and Nowell 3 times each, Burrell twice, and Ford twice. (oh - just looked 36 twice as well)

I don't think ESPN stats for turnovers are just losing the ball directly, think it includes knock ons etc, but haven't seen the game to know if they are remotely accurate

beshocked... i think you're right about the support play. There were no pods, no real organisation about who would get the ball who would support. There was no one on the shoulder either for the offload or the ruck defence.... its poor rugby.
Here in the SH they run in pods all the time because when a man drops they immediately offload because that is when the breaks appear. If not possession is retained.
Can you recall a single moment when England took the ball into contact and a player would flip a pass before crashing to the ground yesterday? The last player I recall who ever did that regularly was Mike Catt... who learnt his rugby in SA.

lostinwales wrote:

beshocked wrote:FES agreed. One thing that Kruis did well on two occasions was to disrupt the Irish maul without giving away a penalty.

fa0019 there is no way that Farrell should play at 12 - he offers no running threat in that position.

lostinwales are you saying that Goode got turned over 6 times? I am not convinced by that.

ESPN stats. Its stats so not always reliable but can be a strong indicator of where things go wrong.

So Goode turned over 6 times, Watson and Nowell 3 times each, Burrell twice, and Ford twice. (oh - just looked 36 twice as well)

Ok well if Farrell is not playing then in the 50/50 games England will have a 70% kicker with a 40 metre range vs a 80% kicker with a 50 metre range... and 50/50 games are now NZ, SA, AUS, FRA, IRE and WAL. More often than not, without complete forwards dominance England will lose. There is no alternative other than playing Farrell at 10.

fa0019 I agree. I think as you say it's an area we are still behind the SH in.

http://www.espn.co.uk/six-nations-2015/rugby/match/180687.html

Lostinwales I guess you can have your own interpretation of those stats.

Fantasticbarnsmell wrote:Is it customary to complain about the ref, because Joubert did a fine job with that game all things considered... Not sure why all the bleating.

yup - I thought he did well

Pete330v2 wrote:I do like a laugh on a monday morning and the critics of Jared Payne (the usual suspects by the way) are giving me plenty to smile about. Payne, whilst not setting the world on fire as we are used to with out 13 shirt, has been more solid that I expected him to be and hasn't been found wanting. However, the fact that he isn't even the best 13 at Ulster still knarls me and I can't help but feel that, as has been said, he would be better utilised off the bench which may even allow us to see him at 15 where he has looked world class.

Anyway, onwards to retaining the title and upwards to the RWC

Strange post there, Pete. The critics are wrong but could be right?

Nachos Jones wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:I do like a laugh on a monday morning and the critics of Jared Payne (the usual suspects by the way) are giving me plenty to smile about. Payne, whilst not setting the world on fire as we are used to with out 13 shirt, has been more solid that I expected him to be and hasn't been found wanting. However, the fact that he isn't even the best 13 at Ulster still knarls me and I can't help but feel that, as has been said, he would be better utilised off the bench which may even allow us to see him at 15 where he has looked world class.

Anyway, onwards to retaining the title and upwards to the RWC

This is all I have been saying. I just think that he is a better 15 than 13 and would suit Ireland better by covering several backline positions from off the bench instead of Felix Jones. His playing style at 13 has been solid defensively but going forward, he plays exactly how you would expect a 15 to play, not a 13. Its no attack on him, its an observation of mine.

Several posters have knocked me for this opinion and accused me of hating him simply because he was born in New Zealand which I think is extremely poor. One of the posters (Exiled Gael) gave me abuse, because he didn't even know that Payne was actually a 15 learning to play 13, calling me nuts and lacking any rugby knowledge for suggesting that Payne get some game time at 15.

I'm with you on this Nachos. The guy was an outstanding 13 in his last season with the Blues, one of the outstanding 13's in New Zealand for that matter. The ABs saw this and made moves to keep him at home as he was on the fringes of getting the black shirt. The thing is he hasn't come anywhere close to the level he showed back then. Whether his year out injured effected him or simply the way in which Ulster go about their game that doesn't suit his style at 13 it's hard to say. The fact remains he's a far better 15 and regularly ghosted defences seemingly at ease.
He's done well and not looked out of place at 13 for Ireland and the fact that he's persisted at 13 says Joe see's something more than us laymen. Maybe a well worked solo try against Wales will clinch the deal

SecretFly wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:I do like a laugh on a monday morning and the critics of Jared Payne (the usual suspects by the way) are giving me plenty to smile about. Payne, whilst not setting the world on fire as we are used to with out 13 shirt, has been more solid that I expected him to be and hasn't been found wanting. However, the fact that he isn't even the best 13 at Ulster still knarls me and I can't help but feel that, as has been said, he would be better utilised off the bench which may even allow us to see him at 15 where he has looked world class.

Anyway, onwards to retaining the title and upwards to the RWC

Strange post there, Pete.  The critics are wrong but could be right?

Na Fly, the critics I am referring to were saying that he's tom kite which he's not, he's just misunderstood

I wonder if the ruled out try at the end may have any bearing on the title. You would think Ireland have enough for Wales but you never know.

lostinwales wrote:I'd seriously think about dropping Burrell for 36. I think we found out yesterday that May needs to come back, and Goode needs to go back to club rugby forever

I disagree (Burrell vs 36), and I still feel that Kyle Eastmond as something to offer England.

May was dropped for having a couple of average games in a row, although I think he's in a different league to Nowell as an attacking threat. In fact I'd probably argue for Yarde over Nowell as well.

Brown would be my first choice 15, followed by Watson. I would put Christian Wade on the wing every time. If England aren't going to improve at the breakdown, then they need to become far more dangerous with the limited ball they have. Plenty sides have won games over the years based on the lesser share of possession, New Zealand and Australia have at times made an art form of it. It's what you do with it that counts, and England looked a little off the pace yesterday, although there were some fine running moments from Goode and Watson.

Nachos Jones wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:I do like a laugh on a monday morning and the critics of Jared Payne (the usual suspects by the way) are giving me plenty to smile about. Payne, whilst not setting the world on fire as we are used to with out 13 shirt, has been more solid that I expected him to be and hasn't been found wanting. However, the fact that he isn't even the best 13 at Ulster still knarls me and I can't help but feel that, as has been said, he would be better utilised off the bench which may even allow us to see him at 15 where he has looked world class.

Anyway, onwards to retaining the title and upwards to the RWC

This is all I have been saying. I just think that he is a better 15 than 13 and would suit Ireland better by covering several backline positions from off the bench instead of Felix Jones. His playing style at 13 has been solid defensively but going forward, he plays exactly how you would expect a 15 to play, not a 13. Its no attack on him, its an observation of mine.

Several posters have knocked me for this opinion and accused me of hating him simply because he was born in New Zealand which I think is extremely poor. One of the posters (Exiled Gael) gave me abuse, because he didn't even know that Payne was actually a 15 learning to play 13, calling me nuts and lacking any rugby knowledge for suggesting that Payne get some game time at 15.

Sorry, I can’t let this slide. I ‘abused’ you? Are you serious? Do you want some polish for that brass neck of yours? Anyone who disagrees with you seems to be ‘abusive’ in your eyes.

I have suggested your problem is because of his birth because it is not based on evidence or rational
understanding of the match. You have said that isn’t the case. I’m happy to accept that. However, your ‘observations’ are pure garbage. You can consider that to be abuse if you like after you called me a fool. Polish and brass neck son.

I watched Super 15 where Payne played 13 for the Blues so I’m quite aware of his background. I have also watched him play for Ulster at 13 this seasons on numerous occasions where he has been average. That said, Ulster are rather average and I would challenge anyone to play well beside Ian Humpheys and/or Paul Marshall. The great white hope at 12, Stuart Olding, hasn’t overly impressed playing outside that either.

I’m sorry that you do not have the comprehensive skills to understand the point that you said Payne was primarily a 15 who occasionally plays at centre so should not play 13. A valid opinion which I have no problem with. However, you argued that Earls (primarily a winger who can play centre) could replace him and that Zebo (primarily a winger who occasionally plays fullback) could play 15 shows an utter lack of consistency in logic or approach. Funny they are both Munster players and you support Munster. A pure coincidence I am sure.

On the RFU stats site, which is very good, he was listed as Ireland’s third most influential player. He made the second most metres in the Irish side on Saturday, constantly making it over the gainline and wasn’t turned over once. Against France, second most metres made. None of that was in broken play. Furthermore, if we are going to criticize him for not offloading then the whole side except for Murray and Toner should also face your peculiar logic. Your ‘observations’, such as they are, are not based on anything that is going on on the pitch. You have made your mind up on Payne before he steps out on the pitch. That is a real shame and shows your logic for what it is- flawed and lacking any rational analysis or logic.

Pete330v2 wrote:

Na Fly, the critics I am referring to were saying that he's tom kite which he's not, he's just misunderstood

Not sure I have seen many posters saying that he is Tom Kite. I said that he was letting Henshaw down yesterday by not being a great back up to him when Henshaw was making breaks. He was also not the best offloader in attack as well when he made breaks (maybe a Schmidt plan, I don't know).

He has been defensively immense for Ireland and nobody can fault him there at all. I just feel he plays more like a 15 than a 13 in attack.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I wonder if the ruled out try at the end may have any bearing on the title. You would think Ireland have enough for Wales but you never know.

You do never know 7&1/2 - especially when you have the Gatland factor and his ever increasing love of us.

But after the game I was taking a pop around some publications to get an overview of how the game was viewed by others - so I did a few of the English papers and looked at the comments beneath articles (they usually give a good idea)
...Jesus, when I went to Walesonline!  Now, there's another planet!   They certainly seem to think the win for Ireland means it's all over for their (Irish) hopes of a Grand Slam.  It's now Wales' to loose because we're overrated, the Millennium will be too oppressive for us to handle, their tails are up with the French victory........... and, well, it's curtains for us.

So yes, you never do know.

Nachos, when your comments aren't based on facts- like your comment that he was invisible yesterday in comparison to Henshaw, despite him making more yards in contact than him- you are always going to open yourself up to criticism on the basis of having some sort of bias or blindspot.

When you see a player answer his critics and have a very good game and then come on here and people are saying he did nothing, you have to wonder.

FES

Yes you can win but you still need be able to recycle,retain the ball and support the man.

Even if you pick Wade and he makes a break you need someone to help him whether that's a man on his shoulder or someone to prevent him being isolated.

Exiled Gael wrote:

Sorry, I can’t let this slide.  I ‘abused’ you?  Are you serious?  Do you want some polish for that brass neck of yours?  Anyone who disagrees with you seems to be ‘abusive’ in your eyes.

I have suggested your problem is because of his birth because it is not based on evidence or rational
understanding of the match.  You have said that isn’t the case.  I’m happy to accept that.  However, your ‘observations’ are pure garbage.  You can consider that to be abuse if you like after you called me a fool.  Polish and brass neck son.

I watched Super 15 where Payne played 13 for the Blues so I’m quite aware of his background.  I have also watched him play for Ulster at 13 this seasons on numerous occasions where he has been average.  That said, Ulster are rather average and I would challenge anyone to play well beside Ian Humpheys and/or Paul Marshall.  The great white hope at 12, Stuart Olding, hasn’t overly impressed playing outside that either.

I’m sorry that you do not have the comprehensive skills to understand the point that you said Payne was primarily a 15 who occasionally plays at centre so should not play 13.  A valid opinion which I have no problem with.  However, you argued that Earls (primarily a winger who can play centre) could replace him and that Zebo (primarily a winger who occasionally plays fullback) could play 15 shows an utter lack of consistency in logic or approach.  Funny they are both Munster players and you support Munster.  A pure coincidence I am sure.

On the RFU stats site, which is very good, he was listed as Ireland’s third most influential player.  He made the second most metres in the Irish side on Saturday, constantly making it over the gainline and wasn’t turned over once.  Against France, second most metres made.  None of that was in broken play.  Furthermore, if we are going to criticize him for not offloading then the whole side except for Murray and Toner should also face your peculiar logic.  Your ‘observations’, such as they are, are not based on anything that is going on on the pitch.  You have made your mind up on Payne before he steps out on the pitch.  That is a real shame and shows your logic for what it is- flawed and lacking any rational analysis or logic.

I have zero problems with people disagreeing with me, it encourages debate. You have been very rude again in this post and in previous posts. Calling me 'Stupid', 'Lacking a rugby brain', 'Lacking understanding of rugby', 'Bizarre', accusing me of hating someone for being born in another country representing Ireland (in other words a racist) which is not true and showing Munster bias (when I am for dropping Felix Jones from the squad... A Munster player!!!) I hope you understand why I refer to that as being foolish.

Sorry but you also clearly didn't know about Paynes experience at 15 and it was only when I and others pointed it out that you took a back step.

I have explained my opinions with respect and in a reasonable manner, you unfortunately seem to take this as a personal attack and have an inability to debate by simply branding me things that I am not.

We lost to a very good Irish side that played extremely well. It started to go wrong with the two early soft penalties that took us from their 22 to ours. After that for 55 mins or so we never got into the game, never established ourselves - barely even had the ball for long long periods. What Ireland did there was say they are serious contenders for the World Cup, and show US the quality of play that is required at that level. Ford, Nowell, JJ, Watson, are all pretty new to International Rugby (Ford's only 12 for heavens sake!) and the more seasoned players got a reminder of the precision required in our play if we are to be serious contenders.

I've thought for some time that as a consequence of the problems that led to Lancaster's appointment, we were behind in our preparations for the World Cup. The injury crisis has only made this situation worse. We have to tighten up a great many aspects of our game very fast. Starting with stupid penalties.

SecretFly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I wonder if the ruled out try at the end may have any bearing on the title. You would think Ireland have enough for Wales but you never know.

You do never know 7&1/2 - especially when you have the Gatland factor and his ever increasing love of us.

But after the game I was taking a pop around some publications to get an overview of how the game was viewed by others - so I did a few of the English papers and looked at the comments beneath articles (they usually give a good idea)
...Jesus, when I went to Walesonline!  Now, there's another planet!   They certainly seem to think the win for Ireland means it's all over for their (Irish) hopes of a Grand Slam.  It's now Wales' to loose because we're overrated, the Millennium will be too oppressive for us to handle, their tails are up with the French victory........... and, well, it's curtains for us.

So yes, you never do know.

Ha. Mine is hope rather than expectation.

Let's cut to the chase.

Everyone is entitled to criticise any player they like on here, for whatever reason they want.  It's up to each individual to try and argue their points as persuasively as possible.

It's not a persuasive argument to say Payne isn't up to the job of 13 because he's a Kiwi.

I don't think I've seen Nachos ever say that's the reason.  But that's the reason that's being put on his plate and he's being forced to refute.

So let's keep to the issues and stop trying to judge inner thoughts.  Put it up to Nachos in detail why he's wrong in detail and let him argue the counter.  But let's not invent his theme for him.

Plenty of players have gotten far more grief than Payne on these pages over the years.  I've lived through even great ones being the butt of sometimes crude and savage humour.  I've seen O'Gara being ridiculed on these pages - by Irish fans!  And not only him. Many players from all Provinces have gotten the jackhammer.

Players get criticised here - that's their role in life - to play and be criticised by armchair pundits

And how often have we seen posters here shot down because they've brought 'Provincial tribalism' into the debate?  So let's not introduce it now.  Nachos is not referring to Payne's place of birth and he's not referring to his Province.  Don't make him defend himself against accusations he's not making.

Notch wrote:Nachos, when your comments aren't based on facts- like your comment that he was invisible yesterday in comparison to Henshaw, despite him making more yards in contact than him- you are always going to open yourself up to criticism on the basis of having some sort of bias or blindspot.

When you see a player answer his critics and have a very good game and then come on here and people are saying he did nothing, you have to wonder.

As I explained yesterday as well, yes I thought he was very bad and was invisible when Henshaw made his breaks when he should have been supporting him like any good 13. When Payne made his breaks, he made them like a 15 would, not looking for support but taking the contact and going to ground. I see no problem with that observation, I am far from being alone in that observation.

I did not say that he had a bad game, he in fact had a very solid game but there are things he does that concern me as to his ability as a 13 in this Irish side.

I just get very irate when I am accused of hating him simply because he was born in New Zealand which is simply not true. If people aren't able to comment and engage in debates without being accused of such things then this site has gone to mud.

beshocked wrote:FES

Yes you can win  but you still need be able to recycle,retain the ball and support the man.

Even if you pick Wade and he makes a break you need someone to help him whether that's a man on his shoulder or someone to prevent him being isolated.

Not if he scores

I've made the exact point you are on another thread - it's not always a players fault for being turned over. His fellow players have a responsibility there as well to get back and support (or support the break). Scotland used to have the same problem with Mike Blair. He was forever going "off script" and making breaks, and our lumbering pack and backs were bascially just standing around, hands on knees, waiting for the pre-determined make no ground pick and drives. He kept getting isolated but rarely his fault in my view.

Of course there's a judgment for the player in possession as well. If the player is at risk of getting isolated then a well placed kick is probably the best option.

Sorry, again I can't let that stand. I will review my other posts to see where if I called you stupid. I don't recall that. I may have called your opinion stupid which is different and would appear to be based on fact.

As for Payne playing 15, your post is factually inaccurate and there was no backtracking. I never suggested he never played 15. Never. That was not the argument as you know well.

Finally you made a serious allegation in your post that I inferred you were a racist. I have referred relevant posts of mine to a mod and would be grateful if Notch could also review my post so confirm that this allegation is utterly baseless and frankly downright offensive.

Exiled Gael wrote:Sorry, again I can't let that stand. I will review my other posts to see where if I called you stupid. I don't recall that. I may have called your opinion stupid which is different and would appear to be based on fact.

As for Payne playing 15, your post is factually inaccurate and there was no backtracking. I never suggested he never played 15. Never. That was not the argument as you know well.

Finally you made a serious allegation in your post that I inferred you were a racist. I have referred relevant posts of mine to a mod and would be grateful if Notch could also review my post so confirm that this allegation is utterly baseless and frankly downright offensive.

How else am I to see it then? Continually you have accused me of hating Payne simply because he was born in New Zealand when I have never ever done that. You are painting a picture of me which is frankly untrue and offensive to me.

I'm not sure I'm following this ill-tempered back and forth, but my view for what it's worth is that Payne is not much more than a holding operation at 13 for Ireland.

Good solid 15, but I'm not convined as an international 13.

Good news is that with Olding, Marshall, Cave, McCloskey, Sheridan, Earls, Fitzgerald and the possibility of Henshaw moving to 13 (or Trimble moving to 13 from the wing) Ireland are hardly short of alternatives should Schmidt decide to make a switch.

Nachos Jones wrote:

Notch wrote:Nachos, when your comments aren't based on facts- like your comment that he was invisible yesterday in comparison to Henshaw, despite him making more yards in contact than him- you are always going to open yourself up to criticism on the basis of having some sort of bias or blindspot.

When you see a player answer his critics and have a very good game and then come on here and people are saying he did nothing, you have to wonder.

As I explained yesterday as well, yes I thought he was very bad and was invisible when Henshaw made his breaks when he should have been supporting him like any good 13. When Payne made his breaks, he made them like a 15 would, not looking for support but taking the contact and going to ground. I see no problem with that observation, I am far from being alone in that observation.

So why does Henshaw get a free pass for not being in support of Payne when he broke the line, or criticised for taking contact and going to the ground to recycle the ball every time he made yardage? Or every other Irish back for that matter? The comments you make about him are all equally applicable to anyone wearing 11 to 15 and that is why people do not take your analysis seriously. I'm sorry, but its true.