Ireland v England - Post-match warmdown

by **George Carlin** Sun 01 Mar 2015, 5:03 pm

First topic message reminder :

Ireland v England - Post-match warmdown - Page 12 Irelan13

Ireland 19 - 9 England

A continuation of the match thread.

Be respectful please. Your mothers would be proud.

by SecretFly Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:14 pm

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

I think it was you old chap

That's right....................... Shocked

................................. I did say it!

That's how innocent fecks get hung. I'm saying no more. Talking here is dangerous.

by quinsforever Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:16 pm

here's one

GunsGerms wrote:On paper winning the grand slam this year will be a similar if not marginally easier task to getting to the WC final for Ireland.

To get to final we need to win:

Group: Canada, Romania, Italy, France,
Likely 1/4: Argentina
Semi: Wales/England or Aus.

We have already consecutively beaten all of those teams except Canada and Romania who we have not played.

We have won v France, Italy and Argentina home and away, Wales home and away and Aus and England at home. We havent played Australia away in a few years but beat them at the last WC and we are the only team in the six nations to have a positive record v England including a significant amount of wins in Twickenham.

In theory we will have to play less tough games than winning a grand slam but perhaps crucially all games will be at neutral venues execpt if we face England.

by Gooseberry Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:17 pm

Im quite enjoying this furious row with everyone insisting they agree with each other.

by SecretFly Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:17 pm

Marshes wrote:

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

Why "hate"?

Call it...............................emmmmmmmmmmmm..................................................... curiosity. Some posters have expressed a - curiosity - about Payne. Wink

606 dictionary:

Payne - to be curious about or downright hate.

oh well, I did try.

by quinsforever Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:19 pm

and another. England going into RWC2003 had been world number 1 ranked side for 2 years, yet Ireland if they win the 6N, even on points difference are even stronger?

yeah, i reckon that falls into the "near foregone conclusion" bracket

rodders wrote:
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.

How did England manage it in 2003 then? Because at that point they'd never did it when it matters?

For my mind - if we win the 6N again, we will be in a stronger position than England were heading into '03. Back to back champions having beaten everyone in succession bar NZ, who we to lost by a hairs breadth. That is a black mark, but that is a good thing - a final target to aim for, for this side.

I'm not saying we'll do it but every ingredient is there in my mind. Remember Joe's Leinster were an anomaly in Irish sport - a team comfortable with being favourites as well as underdogs, driven by process improvements rather than fixated by results or trophies - that is why they kept winning and why Ireland now are winning, and why I believe we will keep winning until a better team beats us, because I don't believe this side will beat themselves under Joe.

Black marks that went against Irish sides in the past - choking, inconsistency, mental frailties and lack of depth have been almost eradicated. I believe we'll be even better come September with players like Ruddock, Henry, Trimble, Heaslip to come back and Healy and O'Brien are still way off top fitness.

The only team I believe are capable of that on NH soil right now is NZ but I'm there to be proved wrong in 2 weeks time. If we beat Wales and Scotland then rightly we should be considered amongst the favourites for the RWC.

by **rodders** Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:19 pm

Here's one what - that's a concise and accurate summary of the task facing Ireland at the RWC?

by Gooseberry Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:21 pm

lets not get ahead of ourselves, you have to beat Italy first. chin

by Rory_Gallagher Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:23 pm

quinsforever wrote: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.

Of course there is home advantage but to suggest that the referee tipped in Ireland's favour because of it is unfair. There are some crucial calls that went against us as well, namely the penalties against O'Mahony. They resulted in points for Ireland when they should have been a chance to clear the lines for Ireland - even more crucial to the game therefore than a pass at the half way line.

BTW - I don't resent you at all lad! Hug

by Rory_Gallagher Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:24 pm

quinsforever wrote:and another. England going into RWC2003 had been world number 1 ranked side for 2 years, yet Ireland if they win the 6N, even on points difference are even stronger?

yeah, i reckon that falls into the "near foregone conclusion" bracket
rodders wrote:
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.

How did England manage it in 2003 then? Because at that point they'd never did it when it matters?

For my mind - if we win the 6N again, we will be in a stronger position than England were heading into '03. Back to back champions having beaten everyone in succession bar NZ, who we to lost by a hairs breadth. That is a black mark, but that is a good thing - a final target to aim for, for this side.

I'm not saying we'll do it but every ingredient is there in my mind. Remember Joe's Leinster were an anomaly in Irish sport - a team comfortable with being favourites as well as underdogs, driven by process improvements rather than fixated by results or trophies - that is why they kept winning and why Ireland now are winning, and why I believe we will keep winning until a better team beats us, because I don't believe this side will beat themselves under Joe.

Black marks that went against Irish sides in the past - choking, inconsistency, mental frailties and lack of depth have been almost eradicated. I believe we'll be even better come September with players like Ruddock, Henry, Trimble, Heaslip to come back and Healy and O'Brien are still way off top fitness.

The only team I believe are capable of that on NH soil right now is NZ but I'm there to be proved wrong in 2 weeks time. If we beat Wales and Scotland then rightly we should be considered amongst the favourites for the RWC.

Haha nice try. thumbsup

by quinsforever Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:27 pm

what nice try? i just re-posted his quote. it's on page 10 if you want to read if for yourself.

by Nachos Jones Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:27 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Marshes wrote:

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

Why "hate"?

Call it...............................emmmmmmmmmmmm..................................................... curiosity. Some posters have expressed a - curiosity - about Payne.

606 dictionary:

Payne - to be curious about or downright hate.

oh well, I did try.

Payne and Earls do have one thing in common... Anyone mentioning their abilities, even in the most innocent of ways, is going to be severely misquoted on this site... Very Happy

by **rodders** Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:28 pm

quinsforever wrote:and another. England going into RWC2003 had been world number 1 ranked side for 2 years, yet Ireland if they win the 6N, even on points difference are even stronger?

England had to go down to the SH and do something they'd never managed - we have to do it at Twickenham. England were known as perennial chokers under Woodward up until winning the slam, this Irish side could well be back to back champions and several players have done the slam in '09. England previously went out in 1999 in the QF, in the UK - Ireland also previously went out in the QF, in NZ. England had won 12 in a row going into the RWC, if we win the slam we've won 12 in row.

Yes I'd say we're in a similar position - maybe a stronger one if we in the slam again.

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:29 pm

It's at the point you say Ireland are in better shape than England were in 2003 that gets me.

1. You didn't trounce us away from home having eased through the 6 nations showing next to no fallabilities.

2. You haven't beaten New Zealand while being down to 13 men for 8 minutes, defending scrum after scrum on your own try line.

3. You haven't thrashed South Africa and Wales in the build up to the tournament while cementing yourselves as clear favourites and comfortably the best team in the world.

4. You're not going to end the current 6 nations with a points difference of +127

5. The 6 nations isn't even over yet and a loss to Wales will make the win over England fairly meaningless.

I could go on and on Rodders but I think you get the point.

by SecretFly Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:29 pm

quinsforever wrote:here's one
GunsGerms wrote:On paper winning the grand slam this year will be a similar if not marginally easier task to getting to the WC final for Ireland.

To get to final we need to win:

Group: Canada, Romania, Italy, France,
Likely 1/4: Argentina
Semi: Wales/England or Aus.

We have already consecutively beaten all of those teams except Canada and Romania who we have not played.

We have won v France, Italy and Argentina home and away, Wales home and away and Aus and England at home. We havent played Australia away in a few years but beat them at the last WC and we are the only team in the six nations to have a positive record v England including a significant amount of wins in Twickenham.

In theory we will have to play less tough games than winning a grand slam but perhaps crucially all games will be at neutral venues execpt if we face England.

Run my scan over that. It comes back negative for 'foregone conclusion' quins. Sorry.

by quinsforever Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:32 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:
quinsforever wrote: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.

Of course there is home advantage but to suggest that the referee tipped in Ireland's favour because of it is unfair. There are some crucial calls that went against us as well, namely the penalties against O'Mahony. They resulted in points for Ireland when they should have been a chance to clear the lines for Ireland - even more crucial to the game therefore than a pass at the half way line.

BTW - I don't resent you at all lad!

i never once hinted or said that the referee tipped the result in irelands favour. england werent good enough on the day, simple. but those were pretty bad calls in the last 5 minutes, one after the other, which is exactly when i made my comment.

by Pot Hale Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:33 pm

quinsforever wrote: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.

So there were 5000 refs as well as 15,000 English fans - jeez did any Irish fans get in at all?

by SecretFly Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:35 pm

rodders wrote:
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.

How did England manage it in 2003 then? Because at that point they'd never did it when it matters?

For my mind - if we win the 6N again, we will be in a stronger position than England were heading into '03. Back to back champions having beaten everyone in succession bar NZ, who we to lost by a hairs breadth. That is a black mark, but that is a good thing - a final target to aim for, for this side.

I'm not saying we'll do it but every ingredient is there in my mind. Remember Joe's Leinster were an anomaly in Irish sport - a team comfortable with being favourites as well as underdogs, driven by process improvements rather than fixated by results or trophies - that is why they kept winning and why Ireland now are winning, and why I believe we will keep winning until a better team beats us, because I don't believe this side will beat themselves under Joe.

Black marks that went against Irish sides in the past - choking, inconsistency, mental frailties and lack of depth have been almost eradicated. I believe we'll be even better come September with players like Ruddock, Henry, Trimble, Heaslip to come back and Healy and O'Brien are still way off top fitness.

The only team I believe are capable of that on NH soil right now is NZ but I'm there to be proved wrong in 2 weeks time. If we beat Wales and Scotland then rightly we should be considered amongst the favourites for the RWC.

Scanned that too. Sorry - it's another negative, quins. There is no way either of those posts goaded and taunted the English by saying Ireland winning at Twickenham come the World Cup against England is a foregone conclusion.
'It's doable' is all I read. And in theory, it is.

by quinsforever Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:39 pm

rodders wrote:
quinsforever wrote:and another. England going into RWC2003 had been world number 1 ranked side for 2 years, yet Ireland if they win the 6N, even on points difference are even stronger?

England had to go down to the SH and do something they'd never managed - we have to do it at Twickenham. England were known as perennial chokers under Woodward up until winning the slam, this Irish side could well be back to back champions and several players have done the slam in '09. England previously went out in 1999 in the QF, in the UK - Ireland also previously went out in the QF, in NZ. England had won 12 in a row going into the RWC, if we win the slam we've won 12 in row.

Yes I'd say we're in a similar position - maybe a stronger one if we in the slam again.

thats utterly delusional. england had beaten NZ at home in NZ 3 months before RWC2003. With 13 men on the pitch at one point. Ireland have never beaten them. ever. That was the mother of all statements of intent.

I can only assume you didnt follow rugby back then or werent aware of how dominant England were?

2001-2003 england only lost 1 match to a SH side, againt SA in SA. they notched up 4 wins vs SA, 4 wins vs AUS and 2 wins vs NZ.

and you still think ireland are at least as likely to win RWC as that England side?

by **rodders** Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:40 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's at the point you say Ireland are in better shape than England were in 2003 that gets me.

1. You didn't trounce us away from home having eased through the 6 nations showing next to no fallabilities.

2. You haven't beaten New Zealand while being down to 13 men for 8 minutes, defending scrum after scrum on your own try line.

3. You haven't thrashed South Africa and Wales in the build up to the tournament while cementing yourselves as clear favourites and comfortably the best team in the world.

4. You're not going to end the current 6 nations with a points difference of +127

5. The 6 nations isn't even over yet and a loss to Wales will make the win over England fairly meaningless.

I could go on and on Rodders but I think you get the point.

England were on the slide heading into '03.

We'd beaten England in 02 so that team wasn't infallible and all the 3 SH teams were pretty weak back then although it was a mighty effort what they did in summer 02.

The SA team we beat in the Autumn would have wiped the floor with those sides - the current ABs would have beaten them all in the same day.

by quinsforever Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:42 pm

SecretFly wrote:
rodders wrote:
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.

How did England manage it in 2003 then? Because at that point they'd never did it when it matters?

For my mind - if we win the 6N again, we will be in a stronger position than England were heading into '03. Back to back champions having beaten everyone in succession bar NZ, who we to lost by a hairs breadth. That is a black mark, but that is a good thing - a final target to aim for, for this side.

I'm not saying we'll do it but every ingredient is there in my mind. Remember Joe's Leinster were an anomaly in Irish sport - a team comfortable with being favourites as well as underdogs, driven by process improvements rather than fixated by results or trophies - that is why they kept winning and why Ireland now are winning, and why I believe we will keep winning until a better team beats us, because I don't believe this side will beat themselves under Joe.

Black marks that went against Irish sides in the past - choking, inconsistency, mental frailties and lack of depth have been almost eradicated. I believe we'll be even better come September with players like Ruddock, Henry, Trimble, Heaslip to come back and Healy and O'Brien are still way off top fitness.

The only team I believe are capable of that on NH soil right now is NZ but I'm there to be proved wrong in 2 weeks time. If we beat Wales and Scotland then rightly we should be considered amongst the favourites for the RWC.

Scanned that too. Sorry - it's another negative, quins. There is no way either of those posts goaded and taunted the English by saying Ireland winning at Twickenham come the World Cup against England is a foregone conclusion.
'It's doable' is all I read. And in theory, it is.

read my post about england going into RWC2003. if Ireland are in better shape to win RWC than that England side, then that's a bolder claim than merely "near foregone conclusion" of beating lowly 4th ranked England.

by **rodders** Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:44 pm

quinsforever wrote:
and you still think ireland are at least as likely to win RWC as that England side?

Yes, I do how many times are you going to ask me? If the RWC was in Australia I'd say no chance but its in England, we've a soft draw and seem to be peaking at just the right time.

by quinsforever Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:44 pm

rodders wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's at the point you say Ireland are in better shape than England were in 2003 that gets me.

1. You didn't trounce us away from home having eased through the 6 nations showing next to no fallabilities.

2. You haven't beaten New Zealand while being down to 13 men for 8 minutes, defending scrum after scrum on your own try line.

3. You haven't thrashed South Africa and Wales in the build up to the tournament while cementing yourselves as clear favourites and comfortably the best team in the world.

4. You're not going to end the current 6 nations with a points difference of +127

5. The 6 nations isn't even over yet and a loss to Wales will make the win over England fairly meaningless.

I could go on and on Rodders but I think you get the point.

England were on the slide heading into '03.

We'd beaten England in 02 so that team wasn't infallible and all the 3 SH teams were pretty weak back then although it was a mighty effort what they did in summer 02.

The SA team we beat in the Autumn would have wiped the floor with those sides - the current ABs would have beaten them all in the same day.

you do spout some cr4p. england of 2003 only had to play the other sides of 2003. which they did in an utterly dominant way. You claimed ireland of today are at least as likely to win RWC today as england of 2003.

so basic logic tells me that you have claimed that Ireland of today are at least as dominant against other international teams today as England were against teams of 2003.

pretty funny.

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:47 pm

rodders wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's at the point you say Ireland are in better shape than England were in 2003 that gets me.

1. You didn't trounce us away from home having eased through the 6 nations showing next to no fallabilities.

2. You haven't beaten New Zealand while being down to 13 men for 8 minutes, defending scrum after scrum on your own try line.

3. You haven't thrashed South Africa and Wales in the build up to the tournament while cementing yourselves as clear favourites and comfortably the best team in the world.

4. You're not going to end the current 6 nations with a points difference of +127

5. The 6 nations isn't even over yet and a loss to Wales will make the win over England fairly meaningless.

I could go on and on Rodders but I think you get the point.

England were on the slide heading into '03.

We'd beaten England in 02 so that team wasn't infallible and all the 3 SH teams were pretty weak back then although it was a mighty effort what they did in summer 02.

The SA team we beat in the Autumn would have wiped the floor with those sides - the current ABs would have beaten them all in the same day.

A team so much on the slide, we beat Australia and New Zealand home and away, inflicted a record defeat on South Africa, waltzed through the 6 nations but the current Ireland team are in a better position despite doing none of that.

Everything is relative, your relative position right now is nowhere near as strong as ours was in 2003, it's foolish to think otherwise.

England won't win the world cup just like Ireland won't win the world cup, neither team is good enough.

by Marshes Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:49 pm

quinsforever wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:
quinsforever wrote: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.

Of course there is home advantage but to suggest that the referee tipped in Ireland's favour because of it is unfair. There are some crucial calls that went against us as well, namely the penalties against O'Mahony. They resulted in points for Ireland when they should have been a chance to clear the lines for Ireland - even more crucial to the game therefore than a pass at the half way line.

BTW - I don't resent you at all lad!
i never once hinted or said that the referee tipped the result in irelands favour. england werent good enough on the day, simple. but those were pretty bad calls in the last 5 minutes, one after the other, which is exactly when i made my comment.

Not trolling quins, but what were the bad calls in the final five? The first try call with offside was spot on I thought. Still haven't seen a replay of the Nowell one so can't say! Maybe it's being suppressed censored

Were there others? Like I said I think they balanced out. England had two penalties on their try-line in the first 7 minutes that later in the game might have been yellow.

by Nachos Jones Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:49 pm

rodders wrote:
England were on the slide heading into '03.

We'd beaten England in 02 so that team wasn't infallible and all the 3 SH teams were pretty weak back then although it was a mighty effort what they did in summer 02.

The SA team we beat in the Autumn would have wiped the floor with those sides - the current ABs would have beaten them all in the same day.

Wow rodders, that's a very big statement to make. I would disagree with you there.

The Aussie side was full of class, Burke, Latham, Giteau, Mortlock, Flately, Larkham and Greegan to name a few.
The AB's had Nonu, Umanga, Howlett, Mealamu, Kelleher, young Carter to name but a few
SA were maybe not as strong as other years but were no walk overs.

by quinsforever Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:50 pm

rodders wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
and you still think ireland are at least as likely to win RWC as that England side?

Yes, I do how many times are you going to ask me? If the RWC was in Australia I'd say no chance but its in England, we've a soft draw and seem to be peaking at just the right time.

have to admire your optimism.

i'm not even sure ireland will beat France in the group. and if they do at what physical cost.

bookies dont agree with you

england 5.5/1
ireland 10.5/1

by quinsforever Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:54 pm

Marshes wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:
quinsforever wrote: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.

Of course there is home advantage but to suggest that the referee tipped in Ireland's favour because of it is unfair. There are some crucial calls that went against us as well, namely the penalties against O'Mahony. They resulted in points for Ireland when they should have been a chance to clear the lines for Ireland - even more crucial to the game therefore than a pass at the half way line.

BTW - I don't resent you at all lad!
i never once hinted or said that the referee tipped the result in irelands favour. england werent good enough on the day, simple. but those were pretty bad calls in the last 5 minutes, one after the other, which is exactly when i made my comment.

Not trolling quins, but what were the bad calls in the final five? The first try call with offside was spot on I thought. Still haven't seen a replay of the Nowell one so can't say! Maybe it's being suppressed

Were there others? Like I said I think they balanced out. England had two penalties on their try-line in the first 7 minutes that later in the game might have been yellow.

my bbc feed went wonky for the Easter disallowed try. so wasnt talking about that. only saw the Easter knockon (which clearly went backwards) and final try by Nowell (pass wasnt forwards, admittedly his foot may have gone into touch in act of scoring, but that should every time have been a tmo call not same squint eyed tj who though Easter's drop went forwards).

by this stage they didnt affect the result, but they may affect the 6N final standings if they go to points difference again.

by **rodders** Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:55 pm

quinsforever wrote:so basic logic tells me that you have claimed that Ireland of today are at least as dominant against other international teams today as England were against teams of 2003.

pretty funny.

We don't need to play the SH in their backyard so the lack of a result down there isn't the prerequisite it was for England back then. We've ticked all the boxes we need if we beat Wales and Scotland....bar one, we conceded an 83rd minute try in 2013 against the ABs.

That can't be rectified in time for the RWC but we can do everything else - 13 wins on the trot, a GS, beating SA and Australia - back to back against France. beating England, Argentina and Wales - every team we can play bar the ABs we've beaten. That's a good position to be in.

The players have won everything bar a RWC - as with Jonno and his boys this this is the next step to aim for, the only step to aim for. There are parallels whether you choose to see them or not.

by SecretFly Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:58 pm

quinsforever wrote:
read my post about england going into RWC2003. if Ireland are in better shape to win RWC than that England side, then that's a bolder claim than merely "near foregone conclusion" of beating lowly 4th ranked England.

That's an opinion that does not remotely call a final result against England. It's an opinion.

You ask a poster who claims that to back it up with details, reasoning, etc. You don't fire missiles claiming the guy is saying England need not turn up if they come up against Ireland in the WC.

It's an over-spin to suggest he's sneering or goading or taunting or insulting England.

by Marshes Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:58 pm

No point comparing this Ireland team to England of 2003, apples and Protestants. Winning or losing games won't make that comparison any sounder on either side.

What is clear is that this Ireland side has a couple of tests to go to be a truly great side, rather than a truly great Irish side. For me those tests are coming from behind to beat one of the big boys, show they have some backup plan for when kicking isn't working, beating NZ by hook or by crook, and at least a semi-final in the world cup.

But a championship and 10 game unbeaten streak is not a bad start..

by wolfball Tue 03 Mar 2015, 8:59 pm

Have to say I am loving the Meta-wumming.. Rodders, you auld pup ya...

But, honestly though, we should just have a feed of spud scraps discarded from the table of our mighty neighbour and feel delighted to have the opportunity to play them in 'HQ'...

by quinsforever Tue 03 Mar 2015, 9:00 pm

Nachos Jones wrote:
rodders wrote:
England were on the slide heading into '03.

We'd beaten England in 02 so that team wasn't infallible and all the 3 SH teams were pretty weak back then although it was a mighty effort what they did in summer 02.

The SA team we beat in the Autumn would have wiped the floor with those sides - the current ABs would have beaten them all in the same day.

Wow rodders, that's a very big statement to make. I would disagree with you there.

The Aussie side was full of class, Burke, Latham, Giteau, Mortlock, Flately, Larkham and Greegan to name a few.
The AB's had Nonu, Umanga, Howlett, Mealamu, Kelleher, young Carter to name but a few
SA were maybe not as strong as other years but were no walk overs.

i dont think he followed rugby back then. because if he did he would know what a silly claim he is making.

2003 6Nations slam decider, England vs Ireland in Dublin. score was 6-42 with england running in 5 tries.

now that is NH dominance to back up RWC winning ambitions.

by **rodders** Tue 03 Mar 2015, 9:05 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Everything is relative, your relative position right now is nowhere near as strong as ours was in 2003, it's foolish to think otherwise.

It depends on the yardstick you use. IRB ranking no - relative silverware yes and form going into the competition yes.

It's easy to get misty eyed about days gone by I suppose but Woodward's dominance, whilst entirely real, was very short lived and many doubts were there about that side heading into the RWC - that they were too old, had peaked a year early, that they were chokers, that they couldn't score tries. A poor Wales side played them off the park in the QF, which is forgotten.

by SecretFly Tue 03 Mar 2015, 9:10 pm

quinsforever wrote:
my bbc feed went wonky for the Easter disallowed try.

That was the officials re-correcting the not-wrong clock Wink

Happened in 911 too.

Presenter: "Oh that poor third building that fell too and all them people"
Editor: "It's still behind you and up. You spoke too soon. Keep talking and we'll take a break before anyone notices. We'll get back to you when it actually does fall like planned"

by **rodders** Tue 03 Mar 2015, 9:10 pm

quinsforever wrote:2003 6Nations slam decider, England vs Ireland in Dublin. score was 6-42 with england running in 5 tries.

now that is NH dominance to back up RWC winning ambitions.

I remember it well, in fact if it wasn't for Jonno lining up on the wrong side for the anthems and the ref missing a forward pass for greenwoods try (definitely refs are better now) it would have been a lot closer.

by SecretFly Tue 03 Mar 2015, 9:14 pm

Jesus...you have to be scoring 58-3 against England to have the electronic pass and seventeen digit code to talk big about yourself come the World Cup

But you only need to have lost by 10 to a second rate limited and toothless Ireland to claim the electronic pass by birth right?

Hmmmm..................... something doth be amiss.

by quinsforever Tue 03 Mar 2015, 9:15 pm

that England side of 2003, like the NZ side of now, often went behind to an early score, and always backed themselves to turn it around. That is the mark of a great side. results against everyone and winning the RWC while carrying the favourites tag and world number 1 ranking.

i am pleased for you that you think Ireland equally dominant in this era.

silverware in the habitually weaker NH competitions means p1ss all when it comes to having to play the SH big boys of world rugby at RWC time. Surely Ireland should know that already? triple crowns wasnt it in 2006 and 2007 then not making it out of the pool stage?

by SecretFly Tue 03 Mar 2015, 9:18 pm

Actually we were too talented to partake in 2007 if you read back over the official records, quins.

So we withdrew under duress. These things happen. We probably overtrained in the gobi desert too long and over-achieved on our 'detail'.

by quinsforever Tue 03 Mar 2015, 9:18 pm

SecretFly wrote:Jesus...you have to be scoring 58-3 against England to have the electronic pass and seventeen digit code to talk big about yourself come the World Cup

But you only need to have lost by 10 to a second rate limited and toothless Ireland to claim the electronic pass by birth right?

Hmmmm..................... something doth be amiss.

sometimes you lose me

most english fans on here are not even that confident on us qualifying from our group. hopeful yes, but no-one is even looking beyond the pool matches.

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 03 Mar 2015, 9:19 pm

rodders wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:Everything is relative, your relative position right now is nowhere near as strong as ours was in 2003, it's foolish to think otherwise.

It depends on the yardstick you use. IRB ranking no - relative silverware yes and form going into the competition yes.

It's easy to get misty eyed about days gone by I suppose but Woodward's dominance, whilst entirely real, was very short lived and many doubts were there about that side heading into the RWC - that they were too old, had peaked a year early, that they were chokers, that they couldn't score tries. A poor Wales side played them off the park in the QF, which is forgotten.

That's the benefit of having Robinson, Greenwood and Wilkinson in your side, you can underperform but moment of magic can change a game, little Jason ripped the Welsh apart with that one run and dependable Will was there to finish it off.

We couldn't score tries despite inflicting record defeat after record defeat on teams and it was the Aussie's banging on about the age of our back row despite them still being the best in world Rugby at the time.

The form of the sides is not relative at all, you've proven to be a very difficult team to be at home but your away form is not relative to our away form at the time. That dominance did exist, we beat everyone there was to beat home and away, that is why your position is not relative, you want to big up your nations hopes but be objective at the same time.

by **rodders** Tue 03 Mar 2015, 9:23 pm

quinsforever wrote:
silverware in the habitually weaker NH competitions means p1ss all when it comes to having to play the SH big boys of world rugby at RWC time.

How many big boys from the SH did you beat last time out, or does that mean p1$$ all too for the big boys?

by quinsforever Tue 03 Mar 2015, 9:28 pm

in the lead up to 2003, which is what you are comparing Ireland to, we beat them all, in every match in the previous 3 years apart from 1 tour game in South Africa.

in the last few years i think England havent lost to Australia, and have beaten the ABs once. that seems a fair reflection of where we are at. ie 4th ranked, just ahead of Australia, with ABs and SA some way in front.

based on that it would be very foolish for me to claim England's current team have anything remotely like as good a chance of winning RWC2015 as the 2003 lot.

or Ireland now apparently.

by **rodders** Tue 03 Mar 2015, 9:30 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
The form of the sides is not relative at all, you've proven to be a very difficult team to be at home but your away form is not relative to our away form at the time. That dominance did exist, we beat everyone there was to beat home and away, that is why your position is not relative, you want to big up your nations hopes but be objective at the same time.

Well that's not true though - you hadn't beaten France or SA away from Twickenham.

by Geordie Tue 03 Mar 2015, 9:33 pm

England wont get far this WC. Too many questionable facets to their game...and key positions still up in the air.

Likewise Ireland looked very impressive on Sunday BUT to stand a chance of winning the WC they must add some spark to that impressive controlling game they showed. Not a huge amount...because most WC's are not won by barrel loads of tries...but enough to cause any team trouble if they need to.

I said on Sunday and I say again...Wales v Ireland will be fasincating....

by **rodders** Tue 03 Mar 2015, 9:34 pm

quinsforever wrote:
in the last few years i think England havent lost to Australia, and have beaten the ABs once. that seems a fair reflection of where we are at. ie 4th ranked, just ahead of Australia, with ABs and SA some way in front.

based on that it would be very foolish for me to claim England's current team have anything remotely like as good a chance of winning RWC2015 as the 2003 lot.

Don't see how you can compare the current Ireland side to the current England one? You've lost to SA in the Autumn, us last week, got whitewashed in the summer, lost to a poor France side in Paris, lost to NZ, got pumped by Wales a few seasons ago... that's a bit deluded really.

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 03 Mar 2015, 9:38 pm

We did beat you last year and if you'd played New Zealand four times on the bounce you also would have lost four times, if you lose to Wales then there really is no difference between the teams or are you in fact just a WUM?

by Artful_Dodger Tue 03 Mar 2015, 9:40 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote: if you lose to Wales then there really is no difference between the teams

Except for the fact that we just beat you :/

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 03 Mar 2015, 9:42 pm

Artful_Dodger wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote: if you lose to Wales then there really is no difference between the teams

Except for the fact that we just beat you :/

Except we beat Wales and then we're left with a Mexican stand off.

by Marshes Tue 03 Mar 2015, 9:43 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:We did beat you last year and if you'd played New Zealand four times on the bounce you also would have lost four times, if you lose to Wales then there really is no difference between the teams or are you in fact just a WUM?

Ireland beat England in 2004 six nations at Twickers, don't think that put that team near the 2003 England team though..

by quinsforever Tue 03 Mar 2015, 9:47 pm

rodders wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:
The form of the sides is not relative at all, you've proven to be a very difficult team to be at home but your away form is not relative to our away form at the time. That dominance did exist, we beat everyone there was to beat home and away, that is why your position is not relative, you want to big up your nations hopes but be objective at the same time.

Well that's not true though - you hadn't beaten France or SA away from Twickenham.

you've got this backwards

ireland have never won against south africa away
ireland have never won against NZ home or away

the england team of 2003 did both

i think realistically,ireland should aim not to choke against france in the group match, and then pray to the heavens that England dont win their group. Any talk of the semi final or final in the irish camp will see egg on face...

by Sponsored content