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.

Ok Scotland to usurp England at HQ, who else is calling it?

SimonofSurrey wrote:
200 days from the next RWC I know who I'd rather be, provided I can keep my 21+ fit.

Yes, but we enjoy the adventure we're having - and there'll be undoubted dips....but it's a hell of a ride so far. For me, being on the Schmidt train is the perfect place to be and I've been on it since he began his Leinster job five or so years ago.

As for the craic. That's what I kinda meant. We don't hate arguing. We love it. We're happy doing it. We create it if it isn't already happening by throwing out a line or two that we know will get a bite - ''Payne is f**king useless', as an example

No, we enjoy the wins and are sad at losses. But the genuine fun of both is the arguing and bullschitting in the aftermath.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Ok we all know France are in a terrible state at the moment and we all know they could even have the final say on the outcome so it's all gut feeling and speculation at moment.

It better be!  Because if you knew what was going to happen you'd be compelled to tell your pals here in 606 land, so they could put a bet on and become multimillionaires

Congrats to Ireland who were much the superior side.

As for England more worrying than a poor performance was the fact it was a very muted and almost dis-interested performance.  The game plan seem to be to copy what Ireland were doing, but to do it less well.  Ireland had the best kicker and the best catchers, but England continued to kick the ball.  It never seemed likely that they would ever beat Ireland that way

England’s strength lay in getting the backs running with the ball, but this never really materialized except a bit in the last ten minutes.  This was partly due to Ireland dominating the break-down. England at present are not a resilient or smart team.

I thought Goode gave a very typical performance, no worse that many of the others, but he cannot really run the ball back at international level.  Nowell was OK, but I am not sure he went that much better than May would have gone.  Vunipola was the best of our starting forwards, but plays very differently to Morgan, he plays very close to the breakdown and was more like a blindside.  He can do this fairly well but I would like to see him more in the open spaces than try to push through three or four forwards.

Having Burrell at inside centre is a bit of insurance for Ford, but I wonder if having someone like Slade there, would at least move the ball faster?

Not using Cipriani was strange given that England needed to do something different, but maybe indicative of the coaching.

If Ireland do get tripped up in Cardiff, I'll be exceptionally nervous for the final game in terms of the championship outcome. Not that I think that we'll do likewise in Edinburgh, but I can see Twickenham, where Scotland are usually so bad, yielding a sheaf-load of points to the guys in white, to the point that they could have a pretty useful points lead overall. It might then just be a matter of beating France at Twickers, rather than scoring loads against them, which they would be favourites to accomplish. Wales would then probably need to stick at least 30 on Italy in Rome or Ireland about 15 on Scotland away, neither of which are guaranteed.

Best if we just win in Cardiff, really.

BTW.  It's a pity we don't know for definite that was Paul O'Connell's last International in Dublin.  He deserved the same 'over-blown' send off O'Driscoll had - but in a sense, if that is his last time down that tunnel as an International player then it was a fitting way to go.

To seek out his kid - a little black haired fella???? - and the giant walks down that tunnel with the little chap walking in front of him.

I always take non-playing memories with me from Six Nations, moments that happen on the side or expressions on players faces before a game.  That's my 2015 moment already.

captain carrantuohil wrote:If Ireland do get tripped up in Cardiff, I'll be exceptionally nervous for the final game in terms of the championship outcome. Not that I think that we'll do likewise in Edinburgh, but I can see Twickenham, where Scotland are usually so bad, yielding a sheaf-load of points to the guys in white, to the point that they could have a pretty useful points lead overall. It might then just be a matter of beating France at Twickers, rather than scoring loads against them, which they would be favourites to accomplish. Wales would then probably need to stick at least 30 on Italy in Rome or Ireland about 15 on Scotland away, neither of which are guaranteed.

Best if we just win in Cardiff, really.

cc,

That's how I feel it may go and given I thought England had France away I think it could swing even more in their favour now I realise its at Twickers.

Oh Rodders, Scotland to beat England at Twickers. No. Just No. Their record there, even when they had great sides against garbage ones, is just too bad to be true. Two wins in 77 years? Makes Ireland look like favourites whenever they go to Paris.

I'd like to ask the Scottish forwards politely to do something that they haven't for the last two games against England and actually turn up. If they do, it will be competitive enough that England shouldn't win the whole 6N on points, whatever happens in Cardiff. If they don't, it could get messy.

Don't you just love it when Ireland beat England and suddenly become contenders for the RWC!

How can a team that has NEVER beaten the All Blacks or even reached a semi-final win a World Cup - who are the English journos trying to kid?

The Great Aukster wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Both Penney and Foley have preferred Keatley to Hanrahan. That looks like they weren't prepared to risk writing-off a season while JJ learned his trade "on the job". Hanrahan is all about potential and an exciting prospect in attack but has never convinced me of his ability to run a tactical defensive game. He has all the skills (like Madigan) but has yet to gain the maturity to make a top 10.

Why should Connacht have yet another new 10 foisted on them, when they also are trying to settle their side into a rhythm? I think Saints are actually a great fit for Hanrahan as he will have generally good ball to play with and plenty of time to make his decisions in the slower-paced AP. He also will have zero pressure as Myler's understudy and earn more money to boot!

That's the thing, its a myth that JJ cant run a tactical game. He has done on many occasions, its one of the reasons Northampton wanted him for. Not only can he attack from nowhere but he can run a very good tactical game when needed. He was/is in a Munster team with POM and POC who have taught him very well how to do this.

The reason I said Conn, was because I would have loved to have seen him build up a partnership and understanding between him and Marmion (ala Stringer ROG).

The key word was "defensive" in the phrase "tactical defensive game". The sort of game where Munster are losing and everyone's under pressure. Where ROG used to drive the team up-field and everyone would know he'd inevitably knock over a last minute drop goal. Given that the Saints have Myler who is the tactical defensive archetype, why would JJ's ability to play that game be a reason to sign him?
I have watched a fair bit of Munster on TV over the past two seasons and there have been occasions when they have been losing but have obviously missed any of the 'many occasions' when JJ has been at 10 and he has given the team the direction to turn around the game. Presumably Penney and Foley also missed these or do they just prefer Keatley for some unknown illogical reason?

He is a good kicker from hand. Little tactical decisions will come with experience and experience is something he isn't getting at Munster. Under Penney he used to start a lot of games at 10 and Keatley moved to 12 so Penney saw him as a 10. Foley is doing things the other way around.

England could beat Scotland well. Look at the players on both sides. How many Scottish players would make the England team? Possibly only Hogg and their 12. Ritchie Gray is out for that match.

The Great Aukster wrote:Don't you just love it when Ireland beat England and suddenly become contenders for the RWC!

How can a team that has NEVER beaten the All Blacks or even reached a semi-final win a World Cup - who are the English journos trying to kid?

If they can keep 3 or 4 key players fit they most certainly are.

The Great Aukster wrote:Don't you just love it when Ireland beat England and suddenly become contenders for the RWC!

How can a team that has NEVER beaten the All Blacks or even reached a semi-final win a World Cup - who are the English journos trying to kid?

Best one was by Guscott, who thinks Wales will have too much for Ireland in the Millennium but we'll inevitably have too much for everyone in Twickenham.  
Now that's a bunch of logic that I'm missing but it might have something to do with him needing Wales to beat us at the Millennium and thus giving them a pep talk.

They COULD very well do us in Cardiff.  That's not what I'd be laughing at - it's how he gets us to a potential WC final after playing a hatful of away games but the next one is a bridge too far for us.

The Great Aukster wrote:Don't you just love it when Ireland beat England and suddenly become contenders for the RWC!

How can a team that has NEVER beaten the All Blacks or even reached a semi-final win a World Cup - who are the English journos trying to kid?

I guess they are just applying the same criteria to us as they do with England... before they beat Australia all the talk was how Stuart Lancaster needed to shape up or ship out, then they get that win and a win away in Cardiff and suddenly Grand Slam talk was in the air. Talk of using the Ireland game as a springboard to World Cup success.

England are either never as bad or never as good as they would lead you to believe, and I'd take their opinions on Ireland with the same pinch of salt!

I think the comments about us are genuine (I mean genuine opinions).  And maybe we shouldn't always run away from such compliments.

I believe they are genuine in their thoughts about Ireland's chances based on the game we play and how rigid and consistent we've become at playing it.  That 'hard to beat' factor.

So, I accept the comments as genuine compliments from the English.  Of course that will all change closer to the World Cup itself when all talk will swing back to the regular contenders - NZ, AUS, SA and England.
We might get a mention once or twice as dark horses.  But then, that's all we will be until we prove otherwise.

But I'm personally not remotely interested in the details of the World Cup yet.  All it's about now is the Now.  Each game - seeing improvements if we can, sorting out those little niggles that sometimes make us suffer a little too much in the last parts of games etc.  The here and now - and it a bloody comfortable and humble place to be.

I don't want to keep this argument going. I never used the word 'hate' and you should stop inferring that I did. That is factually inaccurate. Either quote where I expressly used that term of retract it. I also only used the word 'offensive' on one occasion when I stated that I found your allegation that I referred/implied that you were racist to be offensive. Being offended is subjective. Therefore that is all the proof you require. Again, if you can expressly quote where I used the word 'offensive' elsewhere then do so.

Feel free to expressly quote in a private message as I do not wish to engage any further in this forum.

I have also countered your argument on at least two occasions with regards to Payne's position and your inconsistent approach to players being in or out of position. You have chosen not to engage with that because your argument is fundamentally inconsistent, as it is with offloading. You apply different standards to different players based on opinions which are not based on any evidence, just your 'observations', such as they are. That is unfair and not credible. It would be like me saying O'Mahony had a poor game on Sunday because I didn't see him doing anything, that he didn't make many tackles or carry the ball many yards. While the stats might suggest a small kernel in there somewhere, a unbiased view of the game would suggest that is utter nonsense. However even Payne's stats make a mockery of you. I have nothing more to add, it is a case of res ipsa loquitur.

The Great Aukster wrote:Don't you just love it when Ireland beat England and suddenly become contenders for the RWC!

How can a team that has NEVER beaten the All Blacks or even reached a semi-final win a World Cup - who are the English journos trying to kid?

Well we've never won back to back 6n titles or 13 games in a row before but you have to start somewhere. Given the draw I'd say the RWC looks very winnable for us. In fact at this stage I'd be disappointed to be runners up.

profitius wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Both Penney and Foley have preferred Keatley to Hanrahan. That looks like they weren't prepared to risk writing-off a season while JJ learned his trade "on the job". Hanrahan is all about potential and an exciting prospect in attack but has never convinced me of his ability to run a tactical defensive game. He has all the skills (like Madigan) but has yet to gain the maturity to make a top 10.

Why should Connacht have yet another new 10 foisted on them, when they also are trying to settle their side into a rhythm? I think Saints are actually a great fit for Hanrahan as he will have generally good ball to play with and plenty of time to make his decisions in the slower-paced AP. He also will have zero pressure as Myler's understudy and earn more money to boot!

That's the thing, its a myth that JJ cant run a tactical game. He has done on many occasions, its one of the reasons Northampton wanted him for. Not only can he attack from nowhere but he can run a very good tactical game when needed. He was/is in a Munster team with POM and POC who have taught him very well how to do this.

The reason I said Conn, was because I would have loved to have seen him build up a partnership and understanding between him and Marmion (ala Stringer ROG).

The key word was "defensive" in the phrase "tactical defensive game". The sort of game where Munster are losing and everyone's under pressure. Where ROG used to drive the team up-field and everyone would know he'd inevitably knock over a last minute drop goal. Given that the Saints have Myler who is the tactical defensive archetype, why would JJ's ability to play that game be a reason to sign him?
I have watched a fair bit of Munster on TV over the past two seasons and there have been occasions when they have been losing but have obviously missed any of the 'many occasions' when JJ has been at 10 and he has given the team the direction to turn around the game. Presumably Penney and Foley also missed these or do they just prefer Keatley for some unknown illogical reason?

He is a good kicker from hand. Little tactical decisions will come with experience and experience is something he isn't getting at Munster. Under Penney he used to start a lot of games at 10 and Keatley moved to 12 so Penney saw him as a 10. Foley is doing things the other way around.

JJ does have the ability to adjust to a defensive tactical game, he is Munster through and through and playing with leaders like POC and POM he not only has composure but an excellent ability to read games and adjust to the situation, he is in no way simply and out and out attacker. As Profitus said, he is also a very good kicker and had he been shown more faith at Munster would have developed even more. I am still unsure as to why he left and I am not sure of the attempts to keep him at Munster but I can say that I am still really upset at him leaving.

I would say Ireland have very little chance of winning the world cup, without home advantage that pragmatic style of play won't get you very far and is far too one dimensional to overcome the All Blacks. To be honest I think South Africa will knock you out in the Semi's.

rodders wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Don't you just love it when Ireland beat England and suddenly become contenders for the RWC!

How can a team that has NEVER beaten the All Blacks or even reached a semi-final win a World Cup - who are the English journos trying to kid?

Well we've never won back to back 6n titles or 13 games in a row before but you have to start somewhere. Given the draw I'd say the RWC looks very winnable for us. In fact at this stage I'd be disappointed to be runners up.

It will be very tough but I do believe that a semi final is very much a possibility. At the moment, without making Ireland world beaters, Schmidt has made Ireland a very difficult team to beat and that may be the key come the RWC.

Have to say that this Irish side is reminding me a bit of the English side (minus the 'greater than thou' attitude) that won a GS and then went all the way to the final in 91 and maybe should have won it. Pragmatic, aware of their roles in the side, difficult to beat or score tries against. I don't much care that they're not the easiest on the eye just now - let-downs like 2007 RWC are still too fresh in the mind and I honestly think that this time, there will be no getting ahead of itself for this team.

Winning only has one dimension though.  Nobody says you have to have 22% strike running from deep, 33% accurate breakdown technique, 14% top level scrum etc etc.

It's winning that counts and very few finals or indeed many of the serious rounds of rugby at a world cup are runaway run-every-which-way games  The more serious games tend to be the most pragmatic games as they have to be when two strong sides meet.  Neither side wants to lose, each side wants to win.  So much riding on it that things slow down and become very coy.

The most open 'multidimensional' games actually take place in the Pools when space is easier to come by.

How many dimensions have England?

Would be great for world rugby if Ireland win RWC.

But given they have to get through France, sa, then eng (hopefully), they will truly deserve the trophy if they do get there

Will see how we attack in the World Cup warm-ups and the opening two games against Canada and Romania... I think we will explore a lot of different options in those games but I think the game we saw yesterday is more of a template for the quarters and hopefully the semis.

I'm looking forward to seeing us bring back the expansive style we deployed sat times in 2013 and 2014 when appropriate.

Notch wrote:Will see how we attack in the World Cup warm-ups and the opening two games against Canada and Romania... I think we will explore a lot of different options in those games but I think the game we saw yesterday is more of a template for the quarters and hopefully the semis.

I'm looking forward to seeing us bring back the expansive style we deployed sat times in 2013 and 2014 when appropriate.

What do you think Ireland need to do to achieve this expansive style?

Yeah.  People might get a nasty surprise if they keep saying and thinking Ireland can't do the sexier stuff.  They didn't stop knowing how to offload.  It's simply something that has been commanded to stop.  You don't get such paltry offloading stats match after match unless it's basically outlawed.  
When will it/might it make a reappearance?  Just when the opposition side least expect it?

Zebo has said that he's enjoying the alternative way of winning.  He's really beginning to get a kick out of the grafting, ruck resourcing stuff.  But I think his happiness is because he's been made more aware of the theories around it.  I still think that team practice the more sexy openfield stuff in training....and as seriously and clinically as the stuff they now use to win games.  But when to use it?  That's Joe's bizz.

So you think that it is purely tactical Fly? In a way, I really agree but if Ireland are to play that expansive sexy rugby, its not only down to the backs. The forwards have to do there job as well and two key players I see in the forwards that that are crucial to that expansive play are SOB and Heaslip. Both have to be 100% match fit and on form.

Do? I don't think we need to do anything to be completely and truly honest. I think its something we already have in our locker that can be deployed when its necessary and appropriate. I think our tactics are down to a matter of choice not a lack of ability. I think that the coaches have chosen the game plan they think is hardest to counteract, as opposed to some who think we can't play another way. The way we play is about choice not limitations.

We've already proven we can play rugby like that- first half against the All Blacks, against Italy last year and even France in the last game we showed we can attack. Even the Kearney try against England in the Six Nations last year shows that we have some moves that can open teams up.

I think this year against Italy is the only example of us trying to attack and not succeeding due to a lack of accuracy at the breakdown. Even then, we only planned to attack in the last twenty minutes after maintaining possession for most of the preceding sixty- it was very pre-planned to spring Madigan off the bench and open up the game in the final quarter. I think that plan was undone by a change in the weather and failing to generate the necessary tempo in that opening sixty to run them off their feet and stop them coming back at us. I think the rain started around that time and we changed the plan.

I think that part of the reason we are using more pragmatic tactics is disruption in the back row. If you want to attack in international rugby you can only do it by playing at a very high tempo and we've taken some time to gel in the back row. I think ruck clearance is the main issue.

But Notch, tactics are fine but they can also easily become second nature to a team. Winning playing the way Oreland do now, is absolutely fine but it also may have the effect that players become rusty in other aspects, such as attacking play in big match scenarios.

This is not an attack on Schmidt, before people jump on me, its more a concern of mine. The Italy game highlighted just how rusty Ireland may become when focussing purely on the tactics deployed now. I don't believe its a back row issue.

I have said for a long time that I am scared that Schmidt may be 'over coaching' Ireland, just what Gatland has done to Wales in a way.

Nah, I don't think so.

You have to factor in a guy like Paul O'Connell too.  He isn't young but he's a talisman.  He isn't fast but he's full of grit.  If he's still playing International, then it's a no brainer that you use him, have him, be led by him.  

But if you use him, you have to be sensitive to the kind of gameplan he can realistically adapt to.  He's said it himself more than once that he's not the quickest around the field but as Nachos says, a genuine expansive game needs forwards that can play virtually equally as well as backs.  It's the NZ way, forwards are mobile, have pace, have slick handling and they join in the back moves rather than simply setting a platform for them.

So I think too our current gameplan is directed with a degree of sympathy for our Leader.  It's one he can play a full part in, one his age and limited mobility can cater for over an 80 minute period.  And for now, it isn't hampering us.

Notch wrote:Nah, I don't think so.

Ok...

Fly, as much as l love POC I do have to agree with you that he is not the youngest and quickest now. Still the leader and so influential so simply has to be there.

As funny as this may sound, but Schmidts tactics, to me anyway, seem to be towards developing a very mobile and attacking pack (ala the AB's) and that he may introduce the attacking back play later. I see this as a little dangerous now but could pay massive dividends come the RWC.

I know I criticise him but I do believe that he is building to something special, maybe I am just too impatient

The Great Aukster wrote:Don't you just love it when Ireland beat England and suddenly become contenders for the RWC!

How can a team that has NEVER beaten the All Blacks or even reached a semi-final win a World Cup - who are the English journos trying to kid?

Who says Ireland will have to beat NZ? We are on the other side of the draw. SA and England didnt even play NZ when they won the WC.

Ireland has just about beaten everyone else in the last 10 or so games.

GunsGerms wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Don't you just love it when Ireland beat England and suddenly become contenders for the RWC!

How can a team that has NEVER beaten the All Blacks or even reached a semi-final win a World Cup - who are the English journos trying to kid?

Who says Ireland will have to beat NZ? We are on the other side of the draw. SA and England didnt even play NZ when they won the WC.

Ireland has just about beaten everyone else in the last 10 or so games.

Guns, how dare you even think that NZ wont be in the final

quinsforever wrote:Would be great for world rugby if Ireland win RWC.

But given they have to get through France, sa, then eng (hopefully), they will truly deserve the trophy if they do get there

Ireland if they win their group face Arg not SA.

Nachos Jones wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Don't you just love it when Ireland beat England and suddenly become contenders for the RWC!

How can a team that has NEVER beaten the All Blacks or even reached a semi-final win a World Cup - who are the English journos trying to kid?

NZ

Who says Ireland will have to beat NZ? We are on the other side of the draw. SA and England didnt even play NZ when they won the WC.

Ireland has just about beaten everyone else in the last 10 or so games.

Guns, how dare you even think that NZ wont be in the final

NZ potentially face France and SA their bogey teams. There is a decent chance they will get knocked out.

Nachos Jones wrote:Fly, as much as l love POC I do have to agree with you that he is not the youngest and quickest now. Still the leader and so influential so simply has to be there.

As funny as this may sound, but Schmidts tactics, to me anyway, seem to be towards developing a very mobile and attacking pack (ala the AB's) and that he may introduce the attacking back play later. I see this as a little dangerous now but could pay massive dividends come the RWC.

I know I criticise him but I do believe that he is building to something special, maybe I am just too impatient

There you go.  That's roughly my swing on it.  Just like Schmidt knew he needed to respect O'Driscoll's limitations towards the end but still knew what O'Driscoll could give the side if 'managed' well.... so too he's in another situation where he's compelled to 'manage' the final months of Paulie's International career.  The gameplan must be sympathetic to that management strategy.  Paulie can be overlooked when people talk of Sexton and Murray and O'Brien and the influence they can bring.  But POC is still POC and Schmidt knows it.

So, yes, I see it as a system that has been developed for the now.  Not just for POC but he's a factor.  But I believe there is a lot more going down in the background as regards a more mobile game.  That's a longer term plan for now but I believe they do practice for it and prepare for it behind the scenes.

GunsGerms wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Don't you just love it when Ireland beat England and suddenly become contenders for the RWC!

How can a team that has NEVER beaten the All Blacks or even reached a semi-final win a World Cup - who are the English journos trying to kid?

NZ

Who says Ireland will have to beat NZ? We are on the other side of the draw. SA and England didnt even play NZ when they won the WC.

Ireland has just about beaten everyone else in the last 10 or so games.

Guns, how dare you even think that NZ wont be in the final

NZ potentially face France and SA their bogey teams. There is a decent chance they will get knocked out.

I know, it was just a tongue in cheek comment as you know that all of NZ are already plotting who they will beat in the final

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I would say Ireland have very little chance of winning the world cup, without home advantage that pragmatic style of play won't get you very far and is far too one dimensional to overcome the All Blacks. To be honest I think South Africa will knock you out in the Semi's.

Well we cant really face SA in the semis except if we come second in our group then beat NZ in the quarters.

SecretFly wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:Fly, as much as l love POC I do have to agree with you that he is not the youngest and quickest now. Still the leader and so influential so simply has to be there.

As funny as this may sound, but Schmidts tactics, to me anyway, seem to be towards developing a very mobile and attacking pack (ala the AB's) and that he may introduce the attacking back play later. I see this as a little dangerous now but could pay massive dividends come the RWC.

I know I criticise him but I do believe that he is building to something special, maybe I am just too impatient

There you go.  That's roughly my swing on it.  Just like Schmidt knew he needed to respect O'Driscoll's limitations towards the end but still knew what O'Driscoll could give the side if 'managed' well.... so too he's in another situation where he's compelled to 'manage' the final months of Paulie's International career.  The gameplan must be sympathetic to that management strategy.  Paulie can be overlooked when people talk of Sexton and Murray and O'Brien and the influence they can bring.  But POC is still POC and Schmidt knows it.

So, yes, I see it as a system that has been developed for the now.  Not just for POC but he's a factor.  But I believe there is a lot more going down in the background as regards a more mobile game.  That's a longer term plan for now but I believe they do practice for it and prepare for it behind the scenes.

I hope they really are. As I said before, winning like this is brilliant but is there a plan set in place to chase a game if Ireland fall behind? I would like to think so.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I would say Ireland have very little chance of winning the world cup, without home advantage that pragmatic style of play won't get you very far and is far too one dimensional to overcome the All Blacks. To be honest I think South Africa will knock you out in the Semi's.

Except for the fact that a pragmatic style of play is the only style that ever won the RWC.

I think we've a fantastic chance of winning and the RWC in England is as good as a home tournament. NZ are deserved favourites for the trounament but beyond that if it all goes to plan we should be favorites going in to every game up the the SF, where maybe a 50:50 game against England or Wales awaits.

Get past that and I'd fancy us in a final against NZ or SA at Twickenham - for me it's there to be won.

If England don't win it, I'd like Ireland to do it

Notch wrote:Do? I don't think we need to do anything to be completely and truly honest. I think its something we already have in our locker that can be deployed when its necessary and appropriate. I think our tactics are down to a matter of choice not a lack of ability. I think that the coaches have chosen the game plan they think is hardest to counteract, as opposed to some who think we can't play another way. The way we play is about choice not limitations.

150% spot on Notcho.

Wales, damn yis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wales!

Stop getting sidetracked by bloody dreams of world cups hoisted in the big hands of gooey Paulie who's breaking down in tears as a man in a suit called O'Driscoll walks up to congratulate him..... and.....    and .............. ............................................ this is too much emotion for me..... stop the camera please.  Turn off the camera please. Could we stop filming??....................................

Outside of Dublin I can't see Ireland beating any of New Zealand, South Africa, Australia or England while France and Wales will be 50/50's, I can't look past the SH again to be honest.

Jesus...this Dublin is a fine place.  Wasn't so long ago that it was the place we came home to to lose - badly

Maybe if we transport Dublin to London?   That's doable when the event is big enough and the Irish see the makings of a party.   All four million of us might decide that's the month to do the holidays. (and use the black market to be always the biggest contingent of any audience (we've done it before).... to make the guys feel right at home

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Outside of Dublin I can't see Ireland beating any of New Zealand, South Africa, Australia or England while France and Wales will be 50/50's, I can't look past the SH again to be honest.

We haven't lost to France in 4 years and have great records away to England and Wales, recent record against the Wallabies is pretty good too and quite a few of the side were part of the team that beat them down in NZ so not sure why you say we can't win outside Dublin. Only 2 sides we haven't beat outside Dublin are SA and NZ and we can only play either in the final.

I'm saying you can't win because you never have when it really matters in a world cup, beating teams in the autumn internationals will soon be forgotten when push comes to shove. Just like the Welsh, the Irish can't do it on the biggest stage, all the teams I said will beat you, have.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm saying you can't win because you never have when it really matters in a world cup, beating teams in the autumn internationals will soon be forgotten when push comes to shove. Just like the Welsh, the Irish can't do it on the biggest stage, all the teams I said will beat you, have.

2 years ago, I would agree with you but now I feel that Ireland are incredibly difficult to beat and have that extra belief that they can actually win.