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.

beshocked wrote:Secretfly if you just look at the last two it's 1 apiece but if you look at the last 5 it's 4 to England.

Depends how you want to look at the stats.

Depends how long you want to go back to look for comforting numbers. I've already gone back to the exact start of the 6N. Not because I think it informs today but because some people choose to ignore full stats when isolating certain stats - like that 4 from 5 one. Go back further and find me the Irish 4 from 5 record. Not too far back, is it?

Schmidt wasn't coach when the first three defeats were taking place. This is a new Irish team - just like Lancaster has created a new England team. That's one apiece between those two outfits.

beshocked wrote:

Ireland's attack is still something that needs a lot of work - with their territory and possession it was quite dull to be honest. With the amount of things going in Ireland's favour they should have won by more than 10.

And they very nearly did but for the fact that England are a bloody good side and held them up...twice?  Won't England be inclined to try to hold up other good sides they meet in the future?  Good work in holding us up and out.

beshocked wrote:
Ireland won ultimately because they stopped English momentum all over the pitch - what happens if Ireland can't manage that?

We haven't been asked that question yet.  England now have.  But before Sunday's game I don't think England contemplated what they'd do if their game was stopped.  All we can do is wait to see what Ireland will do when they can't manage their game.

beshocked wrote:
Will England be that emphatically beaten in almost every aspect of the game next time? I am not so sure.

Well yes, we'll see.  But then Ireland were probably saying the same after last year's game.  "Will England beat us next game?  Not so sure"

beshocked wrote:
It's not good if you are English but at least the flaws and cracks have been laid out for all to see.

The Irish weaknesses have not yet.

True.  You've been made aware of areas that perhaps need improving.  And that's a good exercise going into a World Cup.  As for Irish weaknesses?  Well that's the role of the opposition to find them, not us.  Next with the opportunity to find them is Wales, then Scotland.  I can see a few already but then I'm sure so can Schmidt.

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:Secretfly if you just look at the last two it's 1 apiece but if you look at the last 5 it's 4 to England.

Depends how you want to look at the stats.

Depends how long you want to go back to look for comforting numbers.  I've already gone back to the exact start of the 6N.  Not because I think it informs today but because some people choose to ignore full stats when isolating certain stats - like that 4 from 5 one.  Go back further and find me the Irish 4 from 5 record.  Not too far back, is it?

Schmidt wasn't coach when the first three defeats were taking place.  This is a new Irish team - just like Lancaster has created a new England team.  That's one apiece between those two outfits.

Nail on head.

quinsforever wrote:love the confident chat. but...

big difference between beating england in dublin in round 3 of the 6 nations, and beating England at Twickenham in the RWC semi-final

Really? You think its easier to catch a high ball at twickenham?

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:
Ireland won ultimately because they stopped English momentum all over the pitch - what happens if Ireland can't manage that?

We haven't been asked that question yet.  England now have.  But before Sunday's game I don't think England contemplated what they'd do if their game was stopped.  All we can do is wait to see what Ireland will do when they can't manage their game.

Well the thing is England have been asked this before and can't find the answers - SA have done it a number of times, Wales did in 2013, NZ have done it, France have done it and now we have too.

Pretty much all the pundits called it before the game - if Irelands pack stands up then they win. If England don't get that physical dominance up front then they have no plan b and I don't believe Lancaster has the nous to develop one now. That is why they won't win the RWC, and in my opinion why I'd back us to beat them in a RWC SF.

What they do have is real grit - I thought we'd pull away when we had the 16 point lead so you can't totally count them out at home but its England who have to go away and find answers if the want to make a RWC final and not us.

We were nt good due to Irelandd ue to ourselves as ive acknowledged. Are we that far away if say the lineout isnt lost? Burrell finds the overlap? Twelvetrees pass isnt flagged. Ifs and buts but...I think we wont win the wc as these lapses happen but we re capable of beating anyone.

rodders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:
Ireland won ultimately because they stopped English momentum all over the pitch - what happens if Ireland can't manage that?

We haven't been asked that question yet.  England now have.  But before Sunday's game I don't think England contemplated what they'd do if their game was stopped.  All we can do is wait to see what Ireland will do when they can't manage their game.

Well the thing is England have been asked this before and can't find the answers - SA have done it a number of times, Wales did in 2013, NZ have done it, France have done it and now we have too.

Kinda alluding to this season when teams can say they're off on the race towards the World Cup for definite with no excuses as they go.  Win and you're okay so far.  Lose and you have serious questions with little time left to answer them.
But I'm not smug.... too many teams are asking questions of us in the end, when we've generally been a stronger second half team than a first half one.  So we're not out of any woods ourselves and beating these top 4 or 5 sides is always going to be a roll of the dice towards the end of a game.  Not comfortable, just enough - for now.

rodders wrote:

quinsforever wrote:love the confident chat. but...

big difference between beating england in dublin in round 3 of the 6 nations, and beating England at Twickenham in the RWC semi-final

Really? You think its easier to catch a high ball at twickenham?

high ball is not what won that game. you and the media are guilty of viewing this as key, when really it wasnt. was silly penalties gave ireland 16 points out of their 19 in needless situations.

and there would be less likelihood of reffing howlers agaisnt england when the crowd is at HQ...

http://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/opinion-englands-late-disallowed-try-could-be-the-decisive-moment-in-this-years-six-nations/15911

quinsforever wrote:

http://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/opinion-englands-late-disallowed-try-could-be-the-decisive-moment-in-this-years-six-nations/15911

You DO realise that the game should have been over by then anyway????  Now there's controversy had England scored a 'late' try. Look up the clock mischief that nearly helped England's cause.

No 7&1/2 wrote:We were nt good due to Irelandd ue to ourselves as ive acknowledged. Are we that far away if say the lineout isnt lost? Burrell finds the overlap? Twelvetrees pass isnt flagged.  Ifs and buts but...I think we wont win the wc as these lapses happen but we re capable of beating anyone.

I don't disagree with that - but if you look at most big games, they hinge on a lineout here, a penalty there, a knock on, an injury. If Jared Payne had of held Sextons pass I wouldn't have to listen to endless drivel for 3 weeks about how boring we are....(joke)..

England can beat anyone on their day - no doubt about it but the question remains still can they beat anyone when its not their day? - when they don't have the ball, when they aren't getting the edge the expect? when things aren't going to plan - can they win when the backs are to the wall?

NZ consistently do it, and for my mind - except at Twickenham last season and in the narrow loss to the ABs in 2013 - Ireland are doing it, grinding out tight games, absorbing pressure for long periods and coming out the other side unphased. That's why I feel positive about what we are doing - not because we are playing great rugby, because we are achieving great results, without it.

The one question about Ireland, that is valid for me, is if we go behind by a few score can we manufacture the scores to come back? We been in that position yet under Schmidt - namely because we aren't conceding many points.

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

http://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/opinion-englands-late-disallowed-try-could-be-the-decisive-moment-in-this-years-six-nations/15911

You DO realise that the game should have been over by then anyway????  Now there's controversy had England scored a 'late' try

so 2 big mistakes makes it all ok?

horrendous call also for the nick easter "knock on" which clearly went backwards when england were on the irish 22 in the last 10 minutes.

england did not deserve to win at all, but there was some poor officiating at the end that largely went in ireland's favour. that is what is meant by home advantage. it is not a fiction.

quinsforever wrote:

rodders wrote:

quinsforever wrote:love the confident chat. but...

big difference between beating england in dublin in round 3 of the 6 nations, and beating England at Twickenham in the RWC semi-final

Really? You think its easier to catch a high ball at twickenham?

high ball is not what won that game. you and the media are guilty of viewing this as key, when really it wasnt. was silly penalties gave ireland 16 points out of their 19 in needless situations.

and there would be less likelihood of reffing howlers agaisnt england when the crowd is at HQ...

http://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/opinion-englands-late-disallowed-try-could-be-the-decisive-moment-in-this-years-six-nations/15911

The silly penalties were a direct result of Sexton picking out Ford with the high ball and putting pressure on him, which we did all afternoon. If England hadn't of conceded so many penalties in their half then perhaps we'd have won by a more reflective score.

And although Maths isn't my strong point, unless a try is worth 11 points (maybe at Twickenham it is) you still would have lost.

Largely went in Ireland's favour? Can't say I agree with that at all.

Haskell could have been sin-binned early on for blatant not rolling away when we were putting you under huge pressure.
O'Mahony was very harshly pinged for holding on in the English 22 after around 20 minutes.
O'Mahony again seemed to have won a fair turnover in the 2nd half only for Joubert to give the penalty and thus 3 points the other way.

The last call may or may not have been the right call by the book but Brian Moore was certainly bemused by Joubert's decision. The point is you only remember the incidents that tell your story, both sides have legitimate grievances.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned the real man of the match.

quinsforever wrote:
england did not deserve to win at all, but there was some poor officiating at the end that largely went in ireland's favour. that is what is meant by home advantage. it is not a fiction.

considering the officials were oblivious to Haskell and Robshaw leading the defensive line from a metre in front of the ruck for 60 mins I don't think much went in Irelands advantage.

secretfly - you can if and but till hell freezes over but the bottom line is over the whole 80 minutes Ireland did a number on England and England couldn't find the answers. Some of the missing returnees will make a difference but it's a worry that on a day where 1/ Hartley did his best Steve Thompson imitation at lineouts and 2/ a front row of Cole-Hartley-Marler couldn't put one over on their oppos, there was no apparent ability to adapt. SL also won no friends for keeping Cipriani on the bench when the situation cried out for a left field gamble to turn round an otherwise inevitable slide to defeat.

As for Ireland, they will be more than a very good team if and when they come back from a deficit early in a game against one of SH3 in a one off knock out game away from Dublin.

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

http://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/opinion-englands-late-disallowed-try-could-be-the-decisive-moment-in-this-years-six-nations/15911

You DO realise that the game should have been over by then anyway????  Now there's controversy had England scored a 'late' try

so 2 big mistakes makes it all ok?

horrendous call also for the nick easter "knock on" which clearly went backwards when england were on the irish 22 in the last 10 minutes.

england did not deserve to win at all, but there was some poor officiating at the end that largely went in ireland's favour. that is what is meant by home advantage. it is not a fiction.

I'm outlining a Mistake that you didn't care to mention or probably didn't even know about.  Fact is the game should have been over two full minutes before it was whistled.  And you point out an event that might have gone against England but that should never have happened in the real world had RIGHT been imposed in the first place.  Sloppy time keeping by officlals.  We've had enough crap with ballboys scoring tries against us. We've had more than enough 'poor officiating' drop us in the past and we had to stomach it.

So why not just be gracious and say you lost this one, as we lost the one last year in Twickers.  That's all that matters.  Let's both move on to the games ahead?

SimonofSurrey wrote:secretfly - you can if and but till hell freezes over but the bottom line is over the whole 80 minutes Ireland did a number on England and England couldn't find the answers.

To me?

To Quins?

rodders wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

rodders wrote:

quinsforever wrote:love the confident chat. but...

big difference between beating england in dublin in round 3 of the 6 nations, and beating England at Twickenham in the RWC semi-final

Really? You think its easier to catch a high ball at twickenham?

high ball is not what won that game. you and the media are guilty of viewing this as key, when really it wasnt. was silly penalties gave ireland 16 points out of their 19 in needless situations.

and there would be less likelihood of reffing howlers agaisnt england when the crowd is at HQ...

http://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/opinion-englands-late-disallowed-try-could-be-the-decisive-moment-in-this-years-six-nations/15911

The silly penalties were a direct result of Sexton picking out Ford with the high ball and putting pressure on him, which we did all afternoon. If England hadn't of conceded so many penalties in their half then perhaps we'd have won by a more reflective score.

And although Maths isn't my strong point, unless a try is worth 11 points (maybe at Twickenham it is) you still would have lost.

No.

haskell not rolling away first minute - 3 points
attwood offside - 3 points
ford running ball out of our own 22 after we won a turnover (not a high kick) led to accidental offside following knockon
burrell isolated in our own 22 when he should have passed ( england had 3 man overlap vs 1 irish defender) after we got ball from our own lineout - 3 points
jj high tackle on winger gave murray the chance for his chipkick try

16 points. not a single one from ford catching the high ball or being targeted by sexton.

there is an excessive focus on the "high ball" in the media, and on here from some posters. It was well executed, but it wasnt really that threatening. the reason for this is that the high ball cant gain you too much yardage or it outdistances your chasers. the point of high ball is to regather and give yourselves a platform to attack from on the edge of the 22. Ireland never once turned a regather into points. I would also argue that had we had brown or watson at FB, at least one of the overkicked high balls would have led to an english score as opposed to Goode's jink-splat maneuvre.

rodders wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:We were nt good due to Irelandd ue to ourselves as ive acknowledged. Are we that far away if say the lineout isnt lost? Burrell finds the overlap? Twelvetrees pass isnt flagged.  Ifs and buts but...I think we wont win the wc as these lapses happen but we re capable of beating anyone.

I don't disagree with that - but if you look at most big games, they hinge on a lineout here, a penalty there, a knock on, an injury. If Jared Payne had of held Sextons pass I wouldn't have to listen to endless drivel for 3 weeks about how boring we are....(joke)..

England can beat anyone on their day - no doubt about it but the question remains still can they beat anyone when its not their day? - when they don't have the ball, when they aren't getting the edge the expect? when things aren't going to plan - can they win when the backs are to the wall?

NZ consistently do it, and for my mind - except at Twickenham last season and in the narrow loss to the ABs in 2013 - Ireland are doing it, grinding out tight games, absorbing pressure for long periods and coming out the other side unphased. That's why I feel positive about what we are doing - not because we are playing great rugby, because we are achieving great results, without it.

The one question about Ireland, that is valid for me, is if we go behind by a few score can we manufacture the scores to come back? We been in that position yet under Schmidt - namely because we aren't conceding many points.  

Im not sure Ireland are head and shoulders above the rest of the nh.

rodders wrote:

quinsforever wrote:
england did not deserve to win at all, but there was some poor officiating at the end that largely went in ireland's favour. that is what is meant by home advantage. it is not a fiction.

considering the officials were oblivious to Haskell and Robshaw leading the defensive line from a metre in front of the ruck for 60 mins I don't think much went in Irelands advantage.

you mean the 5 penalties that haskell and attwood conceded between them? those ones that the ref missed?

i saw a couple of instances of POM and POC offside in the backline that didnt get picked out because half the crowd wasnt yelling "offside" into the touch judges ear.

SimonofSurrey wrote:As for Ireland, they will be more than a very good team if and when they come back from a deficit early in a game against one of SH3 in a one off knock out game away from Dublin.      

Well Australia were 3-0 up when we beat them in NZ in 2011, does that count? When did England last manage it?

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

http://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/opinion-englands-late-disallowed-try-could-be-the-decisive-moment-in-this-years-six-nations/15911

You DO realise that the game should have been over by then anyway????  Now there's controversy had England scored a 'late' try

so 2 big mistakes makes it all ok?

horrendous call also for the nick easter "knock on" which clearly went backwards when england were on the irish 22 in the last 10 minutes.

england did not deserve to win at all, but there was some poor officiating at the end that largely went in ireland's favour. that is what is meant by home advantage. it is not a fiction.

I'm outlining a Mistake that you didn't care to mention or probably didn't even know about.  Fact is the game should have been over two full minutes before it was whistled.  And you point out an event that might have gone against England but that should never have happened in the real world had RIGHT been imposed in the first place.  Sloppy time keeping by officlals.  We've had enough crap with ballboys scoring tries against us.  We've had more than enough 'poor officiating' drop us in the past and we had to stomach it.  

So why not just be gracious and say you lost this one, as we lost the one last year in Twickers.  That's all that matters.  Let's both move on to the games ahead?

i have been gracious all along towards ireland, and indeed was in this post. My highlighting of home advantage impacting reffing decisions is to maybe suggest that at HQ the advantage would be to England in that respect. IRB recognises this advantage and makes home advantage worth an extra 3 ranking points in calculatinf rankings. And in context ireland and England are about 1.5 points apart currently.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

rodders wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:We were nt good due to Irelandd ue to ourselves as ive acknowledged. Are we that far away if say the lineout isnt lost? Burrell finds the overlap? Twelvetrees pass isnt flagged.  Ifs and buts but...I think we wont win the wc as these lapses happen but we re capable of beating anyone.

I don't disagree with that - but if you look at most big games, they hinge on a lineout here, a penalty there, a knock on, an injury. If Jared Payne had of held Sextons pass I wouldn't have to listen to endless drivel for 3 weeks about how boring we are....(joke)..

England can beat anyone on their day - no doubt about it but the question remains still can they beat anyone when its not their day? - when they don't have the ball, when they aren't getting the edge the expect? when things aren't going to plan - can they win when the backs are to the wall?

NZ consistently do it, and for my mind - except at Twickenham last season and in the narrow loss to the ABs in 2013 - Ireland are doing it, grinding out tight games, absorbing pressure for long periods and coming out the other side unphased. That's why I feel positive about what we are doing - not because we are playing great rugby, because we are achieving great results, without it.

The one question about Ireland, that is valid for me, is if we go behind by a few score can we manufacture the scores to come back? We been in that position yet under Schmidt - namely because we aren't conceding many points.  

Im not sure Ireland are head and shoulders above the rest of the nh.

I'm not sure anyone said they were.

Fair enough.

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

http://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/opinion-englands-late-disallowed-try-could-be-the-decisive-moment-in-this-years-six-nations/15911

You DO realise that the game should have been over by then anyway????  Now there's controversy had England scored a 'late' try

so 2 big mistakes makes it all ok?

horrendous call also for the nick easter "knock on" which clearly went backwards when england were on the irish 22 in the last 10 minutes.

england did not deserve to win at all, but there was some poor officiating at the end that largely went in ireland's favour. that is what is meant by home advantage. it is not a fiction.

I'm outlining a Mistake that you didn't care to mention or probably didn't even know about.  Fact is the game should have been over two full minutes before it was whistled.  And you point out an event that might have gone against England but that should never have happened in the real world had RIGHT been imposed in the first place.  Sloppy time keeping by officlals.  We've had enough crap with ballboys scoring tries against us.  We've had more than enough 'poor officiating' drop us in the past and we had to stomach it.  

So why not just be gracious and say you lost this one, as we lost the one last year in Twickers.  That's all that matters.  Let's both move on to the games ahead?

You are aware that it isn't fact and they said from the start that the timekeeping issue had been resolved at the time so the extra two minutes is a fallacy created by the Irish Independent?

It's great dreaming of beating the All Blacks in the RWC final. But looking past France is pointless. Anyway I'm pretty nervous about Wales in Cardiff.

quinsforever wrote:My highlighting of home advantage impacting reffing decisions is to maybe suggest that at HQ the advantage would be to England in that respect. IRB recognises this advantage and makes home advantage worth an extra 3 ranking points in calculatinf rankings. And in context ireland and England are about 1.5 points apart currently.

If I went back to last year would I find you outlining the Home advantage rule then?  It's only worth mentioning when the game is in Ireland?

The fact is Home Advantage doesn't dictate who wins.  The game does.  The game relies on points scored.  And the team with most points wins.  You seem to suggest "don't think you're better than us just because you won - the difference between us was home advantage rules"

If that belief makes you feel better about it then so be it.  But I remember people suggesting Ireland didn't really win the 6N last year because the team that beat them was England who only missed out on points.  No Home Advantage interfered with that theory when it was doing the rounds

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

http://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/opinion-englands-late-disallowed-try-could-be-the-decisive-moment-in-this-years-six-nations/15911

You DO realise that the game should have been over by then anyway????  Now there's controversy had England scored a 'late' try

so 2 big mistakes makes it all ok?

horrendous call also for the nick easter "knock on" which clearly went backwards when england were on the Irish 22 in the last 10 minutes.

england did not deserve to win at all, but there was some poor officiating at the end that largely went in ireland's favour. that is what is meant by home advantage. it is not a fiction.

That was not on the 22! It was barely over the halfway line! Dead right it was back but it wasn't the chance you make it out to be. It came during a succession of knock-ons from England. See below unless you are talking about a different moment. By and large the ref was fairly even.

quinsforever wrote:No.

haskell not rolling away first minute - 3 points
attwood offside - 3 points
ford running ball out of our own 22 after we won a turnover (not a high kick) led to accidental offside following knockon
burrell isolated in our own 22 when he should have passed ( england had 3 man overlap vs 1 irish defender) after we got ball from our own lineout - 3 points
jj high tackle on winger gave murray the chance for his chipkick try

16 points. not a single one from ford catching the high ball or being targeted by sexton.

The reason all these penalties were so kickable is because of where they happened on the field. And the reason they happened were they did is because Ireland controlled the territory for the entire first 50 min - until Sexton went off. They controlled it by targeting the space Ford was stood in because England were protecting him - it was a deliberate tactic that England couldn't adapt too, hence they were pinned in their own half, where they had no exit strategy (other than try and run it out) and repeatedly conceded penalties under pressure.

Haskell was offside because he's slowing the ball down. Ford and Burrell were smashed by Sexton trying to run out of the 22 which led to two penalties. These didn't happen by chance and weren't down to home referring....if you knock on in the tackle and your mate picks it up its a penalty any where you play.

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:My highlighting of home advantage impacting reffing decisions is to maybe suggest that at HQ the advantage would be to England in that respect. IRB recognises this advantage and makes home advantage worth an extra 3 ranking points in calculatinf rankings. And in context ireland and England are about 1.5 points apart currently.

If I went back to last year would I find you outlining the Home advantage rule then?  It's only worth mentioning when the game is in Ireland?

The fact is Home Advantage doesn't dictate who wins.  The game does.  The game relies on points scored.  And the team with most points wins.  You seem to suggest "don't think you're better than us just because you won - the difference between us was home advantage rules"

If that belief makes you feel better about it then so be it.  But I remember people suggesting Ireland didn't really win the 6N last year because the team that beat them was England who only missed out on points.  No Home Advantage interfered with that theory when it was doing the rounds

i have always outlined the home advantage. have said many times i reckon its worth 5-10 points.

ffs fly, i only started this line of discussion because someone claimed beating England in dublin means beating them at HQ is a near foregone conclusion. if there is no home advantage, answer me this - why is it worth 3 points in IRB ranking points when they do their calculations?

rodders wrote:

The one question about Ireland, that is valid for me, is if we go behind by a few score can we manufacture the scores to come back? We been in that position yet under Schmidt - namely because we aren't conceding many points.  

Funny you should say this rodders. It something that has been worrying me for some time now. A few weeks ago, when I mentioned this, Fly and myself had a little chat and it also concerned him.

Ireland seem to have several plans on tactics of how to play to win but we are yet to see if they have one when behind (thankfully). As was my concerns with England, I have the same with Wales. If Ireland do go a couple of scores behind, playing headless attacking rugby without structure could see Wales put an even bigger score on Ireland. I am hoping that Schmidt will have some plan in place and I hope that the boys are getting drilled on expansive attacking play.

rodders wrote:

quinsforever wrote:No.

haskell not rolling away first minute - 3 points
attwood offside - 3 points
ford running ball out of our own 22 after we won a turnover (not a high kick) led to accidental offside following knockon
burrell isolated in our own 22 when he should have passed ( england had 3 man overlap vs 1 irish defender) after we got ball from our own lineout - 3 points
jj high tackle on winger gave murray the chance for his chipkick try

16 points. not a single one from ford catching the high ball or being targeted by sexton.

The reason all these penalties were so kickable is because of where they happened on the field. And the reason they happened were they did is because Ireland controlled the territory for the entire first 50 min - until Sexton went off. They controlled it by targeting the space Ford was stood in because England were protecting him - it was a deliberate tactic that England couldn't adapt too, hence they were pinned in their own half, where they had no exit strategy (other than try and run it out) and repeatedly conceded penalties under pressure.

Haskell was offside because he's slowing the ball down. Ford and Burrell were smashed by Sexton trying to run out of the 22 which led to two penalties. These didn't happen by chance and weren't down to home referring....if you knock on in the tackle and your mate picks it up its a penalty any where you play.    

oh you didnt try and do that

i never said any of the irish points were down to "home referring"

you claimed all the irish points came from pinpointing Ford under the high kick. which i showed to be not the case. one ruck offense, one forward offside, and twice england made the wrong decisions ball in hand from turnover and lineout in their own 22. nothing to do with ford being pinpointed by sexton. great rush defense cause ford some problems definitely. but not sextons kicking game per se

Marshes wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

http://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/opinion-englands-late-disallowed-try-could-be-the-decisive-moment-in-this-years-six-nations/15911

You DO realise that the game should have been over by then anyway????  Now there's controversy had England scored a 'late' try

so 2 big mistakes makes it all ok?

horrendous call also for the nick easter "knock on" which clearly went backwards when england were on the Irish 22 in the last 10 minutes.

england did not deserve to win at all, but there was some poor officiating at the end that largely went in ireland's favour. that is what is meant by home advantage. it is not a fiction.

That was not on the 22! It was barely over the halfway line! Dead right it was back but it wasn't the chance you make it out to be. It came during a succession of knock-ons from England. See below unless you are talking about a different moment. By and large the ref was fairly even.

cant see if thats the one i remember. maybe it was. given Easter's size it's only a couple of strides to the 22

quinsforever wrote:

ffs fly, i only started this line of discussion because someone claimed beating England in dublin means beating them at HQ is a near foregone conclusion. if there is no home advantage, answer me this - why is it worth 3 points in IRB ranking points when they do their calculations?

I am with you on this quinsforever, it is so far from a foregone conclusion that Ireland would beat England at Twickers. To me, there is very little between the teams and home advantage plays a factor.

quinsforever wrote:i have always outlined the home advantage. have said many times i reckon its worth 5-10 points.

ffs fly, i only started this line of discussion because someone claimed beating England in dublin means beating them at HQ is a near foregone conclusion. if there is no home advantage, answer me this - why is it worth 3 points in IRB ranking points when they do their calculations?

No one has said its a foregone conclusion - what has been said is it's a winnable game, a 50:50 one on the back of a draw against teams we are all ranked above - which has obviously offended your implicit superiority complex, that some people on this side of Irish sea don't see beating this English side at fortress twickenham as the suicide mission impossible you clearly do.

When you've won 10 on the bounce, and beaten all but one of your RWC rivals in succession, in a RWC year, its not unusual to feel positive about your chances...even if your team is a bunch of spud eating peasants.

quinsforever wrote:

rodders wrote:

quinsforever wrote:No.

haskell not rolling away first minute - 3 points
attwood offside - 3 points
ford running ball out of our own 22 after we won a turnover (not a high kick) led to accidental offside following knockon
burrell isolated in our own 22 when he should have passed ( england had 3 man overlap vs 1 irish defender) after we got ball from our own lineout - 3 points
jj high tackle on winger gave murray the chance for his chipkick try

16 points. not a single one from ford catching the high ball or being targeted by sexton.

The reason all these penalties were so kickable is because of where they happened on the field. And the reason they happened were they did is because Ireland controlled the territory for the entire first 50 min - until Sexton went off. They controlled it by targeting the space Ford was stood in because England were protecting him - it was a deliberate tactic that England couldn't adapt too, hence they were pinned in their own half, where they had no exit strategy (other than try and run it out) and repeatedly conceded penalties under pressure.

Haskell was offside because he's slowing the ball down. Ford and Burrell were smashed by Sexton trying to run out of the 22 which led to two penalties. These didn't happen by chance and weren't down to home referring....if you knock on in the tackle and your mate picks it up its a penalty any where you play.    

oh you didnt try and do that

i never said any of the irish points were down to "home referring"

you claimed all the irish points came from pinpointing Ford under the high kick. which i showed to be not the case. one ruck offense, one forward offside, and twice england made the wrong decisions ball in hand from turnover and lineout in their own 22. nothing to do with ford being pinpointed by sexton. great rush defense cause ford some problems definitely. but not sextons kicking game per se

One of your first comments after the game referred to how Joubert went with the home advantage for his refereeing decisions. And, just as I said then, it is exactly the sort of comment I would expect from you. Never a fair win against England. There is always some factor to make England look a little bit better, and the opposition a little bit worse.. It is a bit of a laugh though, so continue.

Can any of you Ulster fans inform me as to how Paddy Jackson is getting along? Is he still along way off?

Nachos Jones wrote:

rodders wrote:

The one question about Ireland, that is valid for me, is if we go behind by a few score can we manufacture the scores to come back? We been in that position yet under Schmidt - namely because we aren't conceding many points.  

Funny you should say this rodders. It something that has been worrying me for some time now. A few weeks ago, when I mentioned this, Fly and myself had a little chat and it also concerned him.

Yes it was your post that prompted me on this - its valid concern. The signs are that we don't look like we are going to manufacture many scores. That's one thing doesn't look to be in our locker, the way the ABs can. I think we can chip away at teams but a bit more firepower on the bench is probably needed.

Earls maybe, or Trimble would give us a bit more and Madigan is a bit out of sorts at the minute usually can do good things in attack. Until you're in this position though you can't be sure, but no complaints if we keep front running and closing out games.

quinsforever wrote:

ffs fly, i only started this line of discussion because someone claimed beating England in dublin means beating them at HQ is a near foregone conclusion. if there is no home advantage, answer me this - why is it worth 3 points in IRB ranking points when they do their calculations?

Who said that? I can't remember hearing anyone say that. If someone did say that, he's an idiot. But if someone said Ireland have as much potential to beat England in Twickenham as any other side that might try it in a World Cup or at any other time then there is nothing wrong with that statement. Those are the kind of statements I've been listening to. But point out for me the idiot who said winning in Twickenham against England would now be a foregone conclusion?

rodders wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:

rodders wrote:

The one question about Ireland, that is valid for me, is if we go behind by a few score can we manufacture the scores to come back? We been in that position yet under Schmidt - namely because we aren't conceding many points.  

Funny you should say this rodders. It something that has been worrying me for some time now. A few weeks ago, when I mentioned this, Fly and myself had a little chat and it also concerned him.

Yes it was your post that prompted me on this - its valid concern. The signs are that we don't look like we are going to manufacture many scores. That's one thing doesn't look to be in our locker, the way the ABs can. I think we can chip away at teams but a bit more firepower on the bench is probably needed.

Earls maybe, or Trimble would give us a bit more and Madigan is a bit out of sorts at the minute usually can do good things in attack. Until you're in this position though you can't be sure, but no complaints if we keep front running and closing out games.  

It was something I was hoping to see in the Italian game but sadly, without Sexton Ireland look a little one dimensional. Then with the French and England games, Ireland had decent leads and I was hoping to see small parts of that 'hopeful' planning implemented and take the game well away. Just to try it out...

It concerns me that Ireland (well against France they were under tremendous pressure in the last 10) hanging on for victories. That's why I am scared that there may not be a fixed plan in place for going behind. I agree 100% with you that some extra fire power from the bench may be needed.

SecretFly wrote: But point out for me the idiot who said winning in Twickenham against England would now be a foregone conclusion?

Totally agree fly..I mean I've been thinking it all right but would never say it out loud.

SecretFly wrote:winning in Twickenham against England would now be a foregone conclusion

I think it was you old chap  

rodders wrote: its a foregone conclusion

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

ffs fly, i only started this line of discussion because someone claimed beating England in dublin means beating them at HQ is a near foregone conclusion. if there is no home advantage, answer me this - why is it worth 3 points in IRB ranking points when they do their calculations?

Who said that?  I can't remember hearing anyone say that.  If someone did say that, he's an idiot.  But if someone said Ireland have as much potential to beat England in Twickenham as any other side that might try it in a World Cup or at any other time then there is nothing wrong with that statement.  Those are the kind of statements I've been listening to.  But point out for me the idiot who said winning in Twickenham against England would now be a foregone conclusion?

I'll make the search easier for everyone - no one said it.

Haven't seen much on here for Henshaw, but he was fantastic again. I feel his contribution at 12 shows us the weapon we have been missing in persevering with D'Arcy when there weren't many other options. I said before, if he playing at any other province he'd be lapping up 4 times the plaudits.

I can't remember who was complaining about Payne being a 15 in a 13 shirt aswell, but Henshaw brings all the fielding ability from his experience at full-back and GAA to the 12 shirt and has married the two skill-sets really well. For one so young he brings a very cool head. He made one great blitz tackle up on Burrell that stopped him getting the ball away when England had numbers, got up and won the turnover.

After rewatching the game aswell, I'm not sure where the Payne hate is coming from. He was very solid.

Henshaw and Payne have built up a great understanding together as well. I can't see them being broken up before the end of this Six Nations without an injury.

Marshes wrote:Haven't seen much on here for Henshaw, but he was fantastic again. I feel his contribution at 12 shows us the weapon we have been missing in persevering with D'Arcy when there weren't many other options. I said before, if he playing at any other province he'd be lapping up 4 times the plaudits.

I can't remember who was complaining about Payne being a 15 in a 13 shirt aswell, but Henshaw brings all the fielding ability from his experience at full-back and GAA to the 12 shirt and has married the two skill-sets really well. For one so young he brings a very cool head. He made one great blitz tackle up on Burrell that stopped him getting the ball away when England had numbers, got up and won the turnover.

After rewatching the game aswell, I'm not sure where the Payne hate is coming from. He was very solid.

He has been good at 12, but he is definitely better at 13 at least in attack. He gets more opportunity to exploit the space. Plus there are better 12s in Ireland to come back from injury.

Gooseberry wrote:

SecretFly wrote:winning in Twickenham against England would now be a foregone conclusion

I think it was you old chap  

rodders wrote: its a foregone conclusion

rodders wrote:

SecretFly wrote: But point out for me the idiot who said winning in Twickenham against England would now be a foregone conclusion?

Totally agree fly..I mean I've been thinking it all right but would never say it out loud.

You shut it, you Norn troublemaker!

I have to always tidy up after you

rory - assume you meant this post after the easter knockon and 36 pass were both ruled incorrectly as forwards?

"aviva's 50,00 refs getting the better of joubert too.

lets hope HQ has a similar impact on refs at RWC"

that seems to me the very definition of home advantage. you can take umbrage all you like, but its clearly part of the game and what goes around comes around. i dont resent the fact that joubert and his touch judge got two important calls plain wrong under pressure from a vociferous passionate home crowd. seems like you resent me hinting that england might benefit at HQ. strangely hypocritical.