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.

Hood83 wrote:Do posters accept that people can think Ireland were much better on the day, but not a huge amount better overall? It's fine to disagree with this but I think at worst it's a point of debate. There weren't many England fans who thought we were better than the ABs in 2012, but most thought better on the day.

I'd venture there is exactly as many English saying we were worse on the day, not much in it in general though, as there were Irish saying exactly the same for Ireland last year.

Personally I'd say Ireland were clearly far better on the day and have moved a little ahead in general, but not that much. Perhaps we forgot to fill in the post-match 'We Lost So Are Obviously Vastly Inferior' forms.

 We're both slackers in the forms-filling department so.

Valid points all round Hood.  England had a right to be confident going into the game, and they've a right to look at their side and calculate that they have a handful of super-players who can be a handful for any side - including the top three (NZ, SA, AUS - ) - or should I say the 'normal' top three.

But I'll say about Ireland is that we've been suffering for a good few years under a coaching team that simply wasn't working.  Everyone knew how bad we were being coached, including our friends in Europe.

So it gets a little annoying - a tad, not much but a tad when it's repeated - that where once we were known as the Golden Generation (another title we didn't give ourselves and cringed at many times) - now we're kinda seen as a bunch of very normal players being carried along by a fantastically clinical and skilled coach (the BBC interviewer suggesting Schmidt was being far too modest when he tried to direct praise at the players themselves).  It's almost seen that Schmidt needs to write how-to-play-rugby pointers on a blackboard every time they go out to play.

That's actually fun imagery and even we Irish play with that one.  But the fact is Ireland are simply back close to where we left off in 2009 - a bloody good side with some bloody good (possibly not flashy) players and with the instincts for rugby to match any of our neighbours.  In short, being beaten by us is no shame - as being beaten by England is no shame.  Our players have a history of being good in the Six Nations - they didn't need Schmidt so much as they certainly needed simply a change of coach and a fresh start. That they very much did need.

England, Ireland and Wales are all capable of beating each other. Home advantage, injuries, refereeing, good days at the office, bad days at the office, all these things are enough to influence which team will run out winners on any given day. France, Scotland and Italy are a definite second division. The problem is that we're all way off the Abs and SA on their good days and the Abs even on their bad days. Clever coaching is not enough to win a world cup.

yes rodders, i would agree if murphy was supporting his own bodyweight. but he's not, its entirely resting on robshaws back, with his arm wrapped around, which is why he cant be dislodged.

again, not talking about it in the context of this match as ireland and england are generally the cleanest breakdown exponents of the home nations sides.

resting body weight on tackled played is a clear penalty yet rarely gets given. its okay to rest your weight on the tackled player if you arent competing for the ball, but as soon as you want to put hands on the ball you have to support your own bodyweight. drives me mad when i see it as its usually done by sides to severely slow down the ball or nick a penalty.

It's pretty standard fair for sports fans to debate their own teams shortcomings, the impact of officials etc more than the quality of the opposition. For every good break there's a missed tackle etc. I'm English, I'm more interested in discussing what we did wrong than what Ireland did right.

There is no sport in the world where the officials have a greater impact on the game.
There are usually several offences happening at once. Adapting your game to the referee is a crucial part of the modern game. Consequently, they're always likely to feature in post match debate.

I think Joubert is generally a fair ref and his mistakes are honest. Steve Walsh he ain't. England can't blame him for the loss on Sunday. He seemed pretty balanced to me. We can still debate the individual decisions though can't we? Isn't debate what forums are for?

The better team, by a distance, won. I also thought the Irish were unlucky to lose at twickenham last year. Despite that I don't think there's much between the sides... Better game management and discipline mainly. But that's the difference between a good team and a good group of individuals... An area where Ireland clearly have an edge over England at the moment in my view.

quinsforever wrote:yes rodders, i would agree if murphy was supporting his own bodyweight. but he's not, its entirely resting on robshaws back, with his arm wrapped around, which is why he cant be dislodged.

again, not talking about it in the context of this match as ireland and england are generally the cleanest breakdown exponents of the home nations sides.

resting body weight on tackled played is a clear penalty yet rarely gets given. its okay to rest your weight on the tackled player if you arent competing for the ball, but as soon as you want to put hands on the ball you have to support your own bodyweight. drives me mad when i see it as its usually done by sides to severely slow down the ball or nick a penalty.

Could I, hand on heart, look over footage of all the games played by Lancaster's side and never come across an English player doing it?

Could I?  Would you have faith in me doing that and coming up with a complete negative, quins?

It's just very problematic to isolate issues - and question them, and name players when we all know that if people did the research there is always - always - examples of those same issues pertinent to their own side.  Bringing up the issues therefore loses traction.

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:yes rodders, i would agree if murphy was supporting his own bodyweight. but he's not, its entirely resting on robshaws back, with his arm wrapped around, which is why he cant be dislodged.

again, not talking about it in the context of this match as ireland and england are generally the cleanest breakdown exponents of the home nations sides.

resting body weight on tackled played is a clear penalty yet rarely gets given. its okay to rest your weight on the tackled player if you arent competing for the ball, but as soon as you want to put hands on the ball you have to support your own bodyweight. drives me mad when i see it as its usually done by sides to severely slow down the ball or nick a penalty.

Could I, hand on heart, look over footage of all the games played by Lancaster's side and never come across an English player doing it?

Could I?  Would you have faith in me doing that and coming up with a complete negative, quins?

It's just very problematic to isolate issues - and question them, and name players when we all know that if people did the research there is always - always - examples of those same issues pertinent to their own side.  Bringing up the issues therefore loses traction.

you're missing the point again. lets forget that it happened in the ireland game. pretend it never happened. pretend instead it was in Fra v Wales. this particular issue is not being refereed properly. the question i am asking is whether players can attach to the tackled man on the ground and compete for the ball.

should probably be on a separate thread as you obviously cant discuss it without taking it personally. irrespective of the 5 disclaimers i made about it not being pertinent to the ire v eng game.

MissBlennerhassett wrote:England, Ireland and Wales are all capable of beating each other. Home advantage, injuries, refereeing, good days at the office, bad days at the office, all these things are enough to influence which team will run out winners on any given day. France, Scotland and Italy are a definite second division. The problem is that we're all way off the Abs and SA on their good days and the Abs even on their bad days. Clever coaching is not enough to win a world cup.

Thats where things arent business as usual. Theres been periods where Wales have slipped into that bracket but for along time now the French English and Irish have always been assumed to be in the mix  for the title. I cant recall an extended period since I started following rugby in the 80s when France werent contenders. But it will now most likely be 4 bottom half finishes in a row ( and a 2 loss year before that), including a 6th place. The French are now firmly a losing side in this competition, off the back of a predicted period of dominance following their slam. With Italy and England away fixtures 5th or even 6th place is possible.
Given the quality dominance of their club game in Europe and history youd expect them to at least accidentally win a few games here and there even with bad coaching. Part of it must be the attitude of the players to international rugby, which is very sad. The odd bad year is forgiveable, but it does seem we do know which France will turn up now...the limp one.



Meanwhile England Ireland continue to do battle for the side most likely to get disappointingly humped by a Sanzar in the world cup they were supposed to win with Wales valiantly snapping at their heels.

rodders England were rubbish because you stopped English momentum. Credit to Ireland for their gameplan which worked a treat. You can interpret England's high penalty count and turnover count as great Irish play or poor English rucking and discipline. Personally I think it's a bit of both - Ireland deserved to win as you were better on the day.

On one hand you can say it was a shocking English lineout or equally you could say it was a good Irish lineout steal.

I don't think I can call it a good English performance when we gave away 13 penalties, 23 turnovers, had a poor lineout and struggled to hold onto the ball.

Of course Ireland should get credit for their tactics against England.

MissBlennerhassett wrote:England, Ireland and Wales are all capable of beating each other. Home advantage, injuries, refereeing, good days at the office, bad days at the office, all these things are enough to influence which team will run out winners on any given day. France, Scotland and Italy are a definite second division. The problem is that we're all way off the Abs and SA on their good days and the Abs even on their bad days. Clever coaching is not enough to win a world cup.

SA obviously haven't had a good day against Ireland in a long time in that case because in the last 6 meetings they have won 2 by very small margins. I dont think they are much better if better at all than Ireland.

We have never played them in the WC and probably wont until the final in 2015 if we do get that far.

quinsforever wrote:
you're missing the point again. lets forget that it happened in the ireland game. pretend it never happened. pretend instead it was in Fra v Wales. this particular issue is not being refereed properly. the question i am asking is whether players can attach to the tackled man on the ground and compete for the ball.

should probably be on a separate thread as you obviously cant discuss it without taking it personally. irrespective of the 5 disclaimers i made about it not being pertinent to the ire v eng game.

You see there's the point, quins.  No I can't discuss it without seeing your - even subconscious - agenda of trying to prop up the idea with Irish names and footage and queries and all such that Ireland ran lucky and played on the line of legality, and got lucky with decisions etc.

You Are posting in a post-Ireland v England thread - you know where you are.  And every GENERAL point you want to make about rugby in GENERAL becomes a reason to outline the topic by using references to the Irish v England game.  Everything that needs to be stamped out seems to have benefitted Ireland?

So no - I can debate general theory with the best of them but you absolutely know what you're doing in each point you bring up - going over the Irish performance with a fine tooth comb and finding areas that had the ref been sharper eyed, had general rules been applied more strictly in all games, had things been done by the book, the result might have gone the other way.  
That's your continuing theme. Deny it if you will but it's there.

So if it's genuinely a general theme on general parts of the game that need tidying up.  Then do a few paragraphs on the offside rule.  Do a few on the English player who was lucky not to get a yellow card (Brian Moore's opinion, not mine) when Ireland were right on their tryline.

Some paragraphs on the overall niggles at the rules from both sides would be balance.

"Thats where things arent business as usual. Theres been periods where Wales have slipped into that bracket but for along time now the French English and Irish have always been assumed to be in the mix  for the title. I cant recall an extended period since I started following rugby in the 80s when France werent contenders."

These seem strange comments given that Wales and France have won 3 Grand Slams and a championship over the past 10 years compared to Irelands 1 GS and England's solitary Championship and no GS.

oversensitive much?

if you cant objectively help answer the laws question i posed, then why not just leave it? its only you who keeps making it all about ireland.

beshocked wrote:

Of course Ireland should get credit for their tactics against England.

tactics which only work if you have the required skillsets. See the difference between the french kicking game and Irelands.
Ireland are blessed with good footballers, as they traditionally been thanks to the culture driven by Gaellic and often cross over of players.

England conversely seem to be stacked with factory built lean hulks of averageness, who lack the aggressive nastiness of proper white orcs.
Some of Englands tactics have worked well for them, such as seeking to retain possession and play the phases, refusing to commit men to rucks who will only give away penalties etc.


Anyway OI think the agreed point here is that theres no gulf between the top of the 6 nations teams, and that those teams are capable of beating the lower Sanzras.

But we are still kidding ourselves if we think England/Ireland wont be relying on SA to turn the All Blacks over for them at the world cup.

You can make that two grand slams pretty soon.

RubyGuby wrote:"Thats where things arent business as usual. Theres been periods where Wales have slipped into that bracket but for along time now the French English and Irish have always been assumed to be in the mix  for the title. I cant recall an extended period since I started following rugby in the 80s when France werent contenders."

These seem strange comments given that Wales and France have won 3 Grand Slams and a championship over the past 10 years compared to Irelands 1 GS and England's solitary Championship and no GS.

Yes, it is strange Ruby, that France slides up and down the graph and Wales bounces up and down. I'd like us to bounce more and catch a few more Slams but we're unfortunately a slider team - no big lifts, usually no massive falls,

Fair points.

But the way I see it is - England play the way the play, Ireland analyzed it and came up with the answers - classic example is Toner pinching the lineout - this wasn't a shocking throw, it was what England always do in the same position, throw to the tail - the difference is Ireland were better prepared having analyzed it and having Toner at the the tail.

They analyzed that the back 3 all defend really deep and that Ford stand in front on the wing and isolated him again and again, and put him, rather than Nowell under pressure.

Again Ireland had a really good exit strategy, which they use against every team - Zebo into midfield, two carries to the 22 and a box kick and chase and not once could England put them under any pressure or adapt.

Only Sexton going off brought England into the game because he was controlling everything and England had no answer, and if they played tomorrow they still would have none because they play the same way every time.

To say they did or didn't do something different on Saturday is just sour grapes - both sides knew what was coming but one had the answsers the others didn't.

quinsforever wrote:oversensitive much?

if you cant objectively help answer the laws question i posed, then why not just leave it? its only you who keeps making it all about ireland.

Rubbeesh. Try again. Offside rule next.

So bad call by Attwood for the lineout, perhaps with a our 1st choice of Lawes and Launchbury would have added something? They don't always throw to the tail the breakdown of front middle and back was varied through last year and England had the best lineout (at least statistically, and personally I thought it was good quality as well).

The kicks were well directed but it wasn't always Ford, Nowell and Goode were coming under a lot of pressure; again perhaps if Brown was there to ensure a greater threat running it back?

England's discipline allowed Ireland easy exits at times where pressure should have come on.

There were missed opportunities for England as well, very deep overlap from Burrell.

To say we can't discuss these points and just bow to Ireland isn't going to happen.

Again I'd say Ireland were brilliant on Sunday and well worth their win.

RubyGuby wrote:"Thats where things arent business as usual. Theres been periods where Wales have slipped into that bracket but for along time now the French English and Irish have always been assumed to be in the mix  for the title. I cant recall an extended period since I started following rugby in the 80s when France werent contenders."

These seem strange comments given that Wales and France have won 3 Grand Slams and a championship over the past 10 years compared to Irelands 1 GS and England's solitary Championship and no GS.

When last was there two seasons in a row where England or Ireland havent finished in the top 3? Wales have had extended periods where they have been out of the running, especially in the 200-2004 era where they were distinctly second division. Pulling out "but Wales win lots of grand slams" doesnt change that theres also periods when they have been mediocre in 6 nations history, and that going into the championships people have assumed they will be also rans (including their own fans). Sandwiched amongst Wales wins are a run of two last places and a 4th. At the start of the 6 nations they regularly struggled. Its not unknown for them to have extended bad runs. Can I explain that more clearly?
The point I was making if you can see passed the chip on your shoulder is that its a huge shift in mainstream thinking to see France as a bottom half side. But thats what they seem to firmly be now. Bottom place is far from impossible this year again, which really is a huge shift in the balance of power considering, as you pointed out, they have regularly won titles not just in the 6 nations but through history ...its not since the early 50's they will have gone this long without one.
Their struggles represent a fundamental shift.

rodders wrote:Fair points.

But the way I see it is - England play the way the play, Ireland analyzed it and came up with the answers - classic example is Toner pinching the lineout - this wasn't a shocking throw, it was what England always do in the same position, throw to the tail - the difference is Ireland were better prepared having analyzed it and having Toner at the the tail.

They analyzed that the back 3 all defend really deep and that Ford stand in front on the wing and isolated him again and again, and put him, rather than Nowell under pressure.

Again Ireland had a really good exit strategy, which they use against every team - Zebo into midfield, two carries to the 22 and a box kick and chase and not once could England put them under any pressure or adapt.

Only Sexton going off brought England into the game because he was controlling everything and England had no answer, and if they played tomorrow they still would have none because they play the same way every time.

To say they did or didn't do something different on Saturday is just sour grapes - both sides knew what was coming but one had the answsers the others didn't.

england have far more ability to vary their play with this set of backs than they have had since 2003. and certainly vastly more than last year. thats why with less possession england beat more defenders and made more breaks than english sides have done in recent memory. and more than ireland did on sunday, although those stats are meaningless if you lose.

toner was only able to excellently steal the lineout after robshaw foolishly declined to kick the 3 points.

you say, and have posted here, that irish pressure and kicking to ford caused all the penalties england conceded. i say, that bad decisions and poor discipline contributed to 16 of ireland's points. ireland played well, but they needed help that england appeared happy to provide to keep the scoreboard moving. irish pressure contributed, but so did needless mistakes from white.

rodders wrote:Fair points.

But the way I see it is - England play the way the play, Ireland analyzed it and came up with the answers - classic example is Toner pinching the lineout - this wasn't a shocking throw, it was what England always do in the same position, throw to the tail - the difference is Ireland were better prepared having analyzed it and having Toner at the the tail.

They analyzed that the back 3 all defend really deep and that Ford stand in front on the wing and isolated him again and again, and put him, rather than Nowell under pressure.

Again Ireland had a really good exit strategy, which they use against every team - Zebo into midfield, two carries to the 22 and a box kick and chase and not once could England put them under any pressure or adapt.

Only Sexton going off brought England into the game because he was controlling everything and England had no answer, and if they played tomorrow they still would have none because they play the same way every time.

To say they did or didn't do something different on Saturday is just sour grapes - both sides knew what was coming but one had the answsers the others didn't.

Rodders can't argue with that but England should have anticipated how Ireland would play and react to it. Ireland's tactics were well executed but they weren't exactly groundbreaking innovation - we knew what was going to happen but England had no answer.

England should have adapted - e.g. kicking to Zebo wasn't working so why keep kicking it to him. Kick chase isn't good enough - get the boot up the backside from the coaches or players.

As I say credit to Ireland for winning but I do think England could have performed better.


Gooseberry I agree skillsets are important but that means you should pick the correct players and use them wisely.

E.g. Haskell is meant to be a ball carrier surely? He wasn't used much vs Ireland.

Why did they keep kicking to Zebo on the restart anyway? Didnt get that tactic. Surely you should keep your opponent guessing?

no idea on the restarts.

i think england wanted ireland to kick to them. i reckon those young backs fancied their chances of tearing up the broken field. thats why i think they didnt mind kicking long knowing kearney would airbomb it back.

problem is with that tactic there were too many knock-ons, too many soft penalties, and not enough composure on the rare occasions england did get possession in the first half.

guess only those in the dressing room will know what the tactics were

Gooseberry - How far back do you want to go. Wales were unable to compete between 1990--2004 due to their players going North and it's taken the last 10 years to stabilise things - We knew we were shoite in that era, instead of a midfield of Jiffy, Bateman and Gibbs, who were all playing for Great Britain we had Tom, Dick and Harry, 3rd string players - It's just a strange assumption that you put England on that pedestal when they have won 1 championship in 12 years - We're used to this sort of bias but it's always worth mentioning. Another assumption I have is that I thought it was about winning these things and not coming 2nd or 3rd or has that changed - If there are prizes for coming 2nd then I will concede as you are certainly the masters of that one All France need is a Southern Hemisphere coach and then we can all look out so I wouldn't rule them out completely and I believe they still might have something to say in this years 6 Nations

Gunsgerms I agree. Certainly if a tactic is failing you adapt, if it is working you keep doing it. Ireland's kicking kept working so they kept doing it.

I just think it was naively thinking that Zebo would eventually drop the ball.

quinsforever you are right but 9-3 score half time you would think the English coaches would talk to the players and get them to adapt.

Yeah it doesnt matter what you tactics are if you dont have the skills to see them through, and england certainly suffered there. the reverse for Ireland, they played a game to their strengths and executed it.

Despite all that England were never fully out of the game.

RubyGuby wrote:Gooseberry - How far back do you want to go. Wales were unable to compete between 1990--2004 due to their players going North and it's taken the last 10 years to stabilise things - We knew we were shoite in that era, instead of a midfield of Jiffy, Bateman and Gibbs, who were all playing for Great Britain we had Tom, Dick and Harry, 3rd string players - It's just a strange assumption that you put England on that pedestal when they have won 1 championship in 12 years - We're used to this sort of bias but it's always worth mentioning. Another assumption I have is that I thought it was about winning these things and not coming 2nd or 3rd or has that changed - If there are prizes for coming 2nd then I will concede as you are certainly the masters of that one All France need is a Southern Hemisphere coach and then we can all look out so I wouldn't rule them out completely and I believe they still might have something to say in this years 6 Nations

It was a discussion about top and bottom half teams who were strong contendors for the title, not about who wants to turn it into the same tired old england wales bickering.

Englands inability to turn their consistent 4-1 seasons into titles is another discussion altogether.

It still doesnt make what I said in any way factually incorrect. And yes I specifically was going back a long way to make the point about history. So please stop trying to pick a fight on this. "We" to are all to used to the Welsh taking offence at anyone pointing out that they do go through periods where they struggle. despite that no one is amazed when they do (small nation etc). yes perhaps its a perception issue that many underate Wales, that again is part of the point I was making.

For the French to have an extended slump is historically unusual, you have to go back 60 years to find a run form this bad. Thats quite something surely?

GunsGerms wrote:Why did they keep kicking to Zebo on the restart anyway? Didnt get that tactic. Surely you should keep your opponent guessing?

It would be disappointing from an England point of view they failed to adapt when things like that didn't work. The good news for England fans is that can be fixed. The bad news is they have been flattering to deceive for a while now. They're clearly a Top 5 side, I just feel that sometimes England haven't showed a real hard edge in some big games and this was another. When things have gone wrong for them they've not shown that they are capable of adapting on the fly.

I thought Ireland played 50 really, really good minutes in this game but had long periods were we went off the boil and our accuracy, so there was a potential chance to make us really pay in that time. It wasn't spectacular from Ireland, at times the execution and intensity was very hard to live with but that wasn't maintained over 80 minutes so England will worry they didn't punish that more.

Murray will be disappointed he went asleep for Vunapola's break up the field for example.

Swings and roundabouts. England had a try disallowed this year because of a forward pass but won the match last year with a try that included a forward pass - it all balances out in the end...

Perhaps someone who is a proponent of the vector analysis could enlighten me on the following points:
1. If a player is running with the ball and throws the ball vertically when confronted with an on-rushing defender, the momentum of the ball would carry the ball over the defenders head and therefore isn't a forward pass. So why shouldn't the player just be allowed to catch it himself?

2. If the pass wasn't taken and the ball went to ground, it is likely a knock-on would have been given. Does the knock-on law need changed?

3. If a player is running backwards towards his own line and he gives a pass to his fullback who is running forwards then even if the 15 is behind the passer the referee by definition will know that the pass must have been forward to counteract the differential in the vectors. Should he rule the pass forward in that circumstance?

It is truly amazing given the number of games, the number of passes in every game and the need to compute the vector velocities and accelerations of the players and the ball relative to the referee that the officials get so few of these wrong.

If that was the case Auckster and a team did indeed win a match with a try scored in that specific manner and fashion, could we then say with a degree of certainty that is was a "Well earned Vectory"

When you look back over the game.  Our endgame becomes a very serious issue.  This breathless fall-away towards the end is in need of serious work.  

When the subs came on they didn't really apply an impetus to put the tiring players back in a mood to go beyond the fatigue threshold again.  Unlike England who always get new genuine breath when their bench show up, and tired players get a boost to go back on the hunt again.

Of course there might have been the Sexton-off factor but that's an insult to England. They genuinely felt they could steal it at the end if they put their minds to it - and they were giving it a good shot.

It's easy too to see that we've been lucky (unlucky?) that the opposition have had to come at us in the end.  So again, we don't really know what we've got if we have to do the chasing at the end.  But for now - I hope they're working hard on analysing that energy dip at the end and trying to manage energy levels more accurately to be there fully engaged with mind and body at the end.

It doesn't matter if they're given or disallowed - this late try catch-out on us is becoming a habit and needs solving and stopping.

1. struggling to visualise how that one works, especially after the collision between player and on-rushing defender as the ball flies over both their heads

see min1.30 on this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

2. if the pass wasnt forward (motion of hands not towards opposition deadball area)then it wouldnt be a knock-on either, as knock-ons and passes are mutually exclusive. also it's only a knock-on once it hits the ground. if original player regathers it its not a knock on.

3. no. forwards in the laws is by reference to the opposing teams goal line, not which direction the player is facing.

For me this match was inevitable and timely. I applaud Lancaster and his coaching team for all the good work they have done, but it is apparent to many that England are still a long way off from becoming a Grand Slam or RWC winning team. Winning a Grand Slam would have been nice, but misleading and would have falsely reassured England that everything was on the right path. Realistically we are looking at post this RWC for some success. England really do not know what their strongest XV is and I don't really blame anyone for that. Injuries have removed several key players, whilst others had selection and did not do the business. Whilst not wanting to throw the baby out with the bath water England are slightly back at the drawing board for me. The trick now is selecting the right combination of players and Lancaster has been unlucky in this regard. Launchbury and Lawes were the first choice, but now we clearly have Attwood right up there and Kruis has been a real find. The problem is that it is now too close and too late for players to be learning from harsh defeats when we are so close to a RWC. We need our first choice team playing these matches and not the back ups. It is great that Kruis has been through this process, but as he won't play in the RWC knock out matches unless injuries strike and therefore this is wasted time for England in terms of RWC preparation. We have wingers who are very young and one of them does not have a great strike rate even in the premiership. Of course they are not going to win us a RWC, which means we will need to adopt a more pragmatic approach. Lancaster has tried several wingers and it is a shame that none have really cemented a place with world class performances. Personally I favour Wade as at least he puts points on the board. And then there is the issue of where to put Manu when he returns and I believe he must be in the side. As he is an out and out 13 that means a clash with JJ, who has looked really great. Maybe JJ and Wade on the wings with Burrell and Manu in the centres? Harsh on Watson, but I think he is more a squad player than a starter. At this point England can only move in one direction and that is to develop the side as best it can. Of course we would love to have a settled side aiming for Grand Slam glory, but we are not and we need to learn from the lessons and come back fighting.

quinsforever wrote:1. struggling to visualise how that one works, especially after the collision between player and on-rushing defender as the ball flies over both their heads

see min1.30 on this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

2. if the pass wasnt forward (motion of hands not towards opposition deadball area)then it wouldnt be a knock-on either, as knock-ons and passes are mutually exclusive. also it's only a knock-on once it hits the ground. if original player regathers it its not a knock on.

3. no. forwards in the laws is by reference to the opposing teams goal line, not which direction the player is facing.

What if they threw it clearly backwards and a strong wind blew it onto their foot then over the crossbar?

Gooseberry wrote:

quinsforever wrote:1. struggling to visualise how that one works, especially after the collision between player and on-rushing defender as the ball flies over both their heads

see min1.30 on this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

2. if the pass wasnt forward (motion of hands not towards opposition deadball area)then it wouldnt be a knock-on either, as knock-ons and passes are mutually exclusive. also it's only a knock-on once it hits the ground. if original player regathers it its not a knock on.

3. no. forwards in the laws is by reference to the opposing teams goal line, not which direction the player is facing.

What if they threw it clearly backwards and a strong wind blew it onto their foot then over the crossbar?

Legal. Perfect drop

GunsGerms wrote:
POM conceded almost half of all Ireland's penalties/frees so he didnt have his best day either.

Not a popular opinion in the comments section here I see.

http://www.the42.ie/analysis-ireland-england-rucks-1971929-Mar2015/

He can't help himself...Murray now as well..

profitius wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:
POM conceded almost half of all Ireland's penalties/frees so he didnt have his best day either.

Not a popular opinion in the comments section here I see.    

http://www.the42.ie/analysis-ireland-england-rucks-1971929-Mar2015/

And people wonder why the press only print lies /distortions? Its because its what people want.

quinsforever wrote:1. struggling to visualise how that one works, especially after the collision between player and on-rushing defender as the ball flies over both their heads

see min1.30 on this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

2. if the pass wasnt forward (motion of hands not towards opposition deadball area)then it wouldnt be a knock-on either, as knock-ons and passes are mutually exclusive. also it's only a knock-on once it hits the ground. if original player regathers it its not a knock on.

3. no. forwards in the laws is by reference to the opposing teams goal line, not which direction the player is facing.

1. The clip shows a player lofting the ball and the ball going forwards. Is it that hard to visualise him catching it again? Is that OK in your interpretation?

2. If the ball goes forward on the ground from a player that is generally deemed to be a knock-on irrespective of the direction of his hands, chest, head or whatever it came off and also irrespective of whether the player ends up ahead of where he lost contact. So if the receiver doesn't catch the ball and it goes to ground is that a knock-on?

3. This point could require a retreating player to pass the ball backwards in relation to his direction of travel (i.e. forwards in reference to the opposing team's goal line) in order for it to overcome the momentum that would otherwise take it behind the fullback he is attempting to pass to. It's the same scenario as in an attacking situation, same shape of pass and everything - it's the receiver who just happens to be running the other way. So should that be called a forward pass?

The Great Aukster wrote:

quinsforever wrote:1. struggling to visualise how that one works, especially after the collision between player and on-rushing defender as the ball flies over both their heads

see min1.30 on this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

2. if the pass wasnt forward (motion of hands not towards opposition deadball area)then it wouldnt be a knock-on either, as knock-ons and passes are mutually exclusive. also it's only a knock-on once it hits the ground. if original player regathers it its not a knock on.

3. no. forwards in the laws is by reference to the opposing teams goal line, not which direction the player is facing.

1. The clip shows a player lofting the ball and the ball going forwards. Is it that hard to visualise him catching it again? Is that OK in your interpretation? AS THEY MAKE CLEAR, THE BALL WAS NOT "THROWN" FORWARDS, HENCE ITS FINE. IN PRACTICE PRETTY HARD TO THROW IT BACKWARDS OVER YOUR OWN HEAD, SOMEHOW AVOID YOUR ONRUSHING DEFENDER AND ALSO SOMEHOW LEAP BACKWARDS TO THEN CATCH IT. IF ANYONE CAN DO IT I SAY FAIR PLAY YOU'VE EARNED THE RIGHT TO PLAY ON!

2. If the ball goes forward on the ground from a player that is generally deemed to be a knock-on irrespective of the direction of his hands, chest, head or whatever it came off and also irrespective of whether the player ends up ahead of where he lost contact. So if the receiver doesn't catch the ball and it goes to ground is that a knock-on? NO. IT'S A PASS. THAT DIDNT GO TO HAND. IF IT WAS A KNOCK-ON (NOT A PASS, BUT DID GO FORWARDS) AND A PLAYER ON YOUR OWN TEAM CAUGHT IT THAT WOULD BE A PENALTY FOR ACCIDENTAL OFFSIDE. IF ITS NOT TOUCHED THEN ITS JUST A KNOCK ON. ARE YOU TROUBLED BY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PASS (WHETHER FORWARD OR NOT) AND A KNOCK-ON?

3. This point could require a retreating player to pass the ball backwards in relation to his direction of travel (i.e. forwards in reference to the opposing team's goal line) in order for it to overcome the momentum that would otherwise take it behind the fullback he is attempting to pass to. It's the same scenario as in an attacking situation, same shape of pass and everything - it's the receiver who just happens to be running the other way. So should that be called a forward pass?

NO, HE WOULD JUST HAVE TO RELEASE THE BALL A LONG TIME BEFORE HIS TEAMMATE GOT TO HIM. THESE ARE THE MOST COMMON FORWARD PASSES ACTUALLY, WHERE SOMEONE CRABS SIDEWAYS AND SLIGHTLY BACK, AND THEIR TEAMMATE CRASHING THROUGH NEEDS THE BALL OFFLOADED IN FRONT OF THEM IN ORDER TO BREAK THE LINE. IS ALWAYS A FORWARD PASS, BUT OCCASIONALLY MISSED AS THE BALL OFTEN ONLY TRAVELS A METER OR LESS.

rodders wrote:Fair points.

But the way I see it is - England play the way the play, Ireland analyzed it and came up with the answers - classic example is Toner pinching the lineout - this wasn't a shocking throw, it was what England always do in the same position, throw to the tail - the difference is Ireland were better prepared having analyzed it and having Toner at the the tail.

They analyzed that the back 3 all defend really deep and that Ford stand in front on the wing and isolated him again and again, and put him, rather than Nowell under pressure.

Again Ireland had a really good exit strategy, which they use against every team - Zebo into midfield, two carries to the 22 and a box kick and chase and not once could England put them under any pressure or adapt.

Only Sexton going off brought England into the game because he was controlling everything and England had no answer, and if they played tomorrow they still would have none because they play the same way every time.

To say they did or didn't do something different on Saturday is just sour grapes - both sides knew what was coming but one had the answsers the others didn't.

that line out was under thrown though which gives the opposition a big help in stealing it.

Love how Poopie everyone is saying England are due to losing a game away at Ireland by 10 points

The only people saying England are poopie are England - I think they are a very good side but made to look poopie for 60 min by Ireland's tactics and defence.

Obviously I'm delighted we won and won so well but after rewatching it I'm even happier.While we didn't get much payoff from our attempts at attacking rugby this is the first time in a while that we've made noticeable efforts to actually try and attack.

From SoB firing out a long pass in the first minute,the nice little setpiece move that got Henshaw through a gap and Sexton using the wraparound with Payne in the buildup to the try we showed touches of ambition.I don't expect huge improvement in the last 2 games but come the World Cup when Schmidt has a full preseason and four warmup games plus 2 handy pool games to work with the players I really have high hopes that we'll see some really good rugby from this team.

rodders wrote:The only people saying England are poopie are England - I think they are a very good side but made to look poopie for 60 min by Ireland's tactics and defence.  

Rodders

I do not think that England are poopie at all. However like you say England was made to look very poopie for 60 odd minutes.

I still cannot understand why England have started all 3 games so far with the same tactic, and that is getting off to a slow start and going behind on the score board......and giving away tooo many penalties in goal kicking range.

This has to change. Is the reason for this because of the players that are injured? Maybe maybe not. But in all honesty we cannot use that as an excuse.

I don't think their tactic is to start slowly and concede points?! You make it sound like their under instructions to give the other team a head start

majesticimperialman wrote:

rodders wrote:The only people saying England are poopie are England - I think they are a very good side but made to look poopie for 60 min by Ireland's tactics and defence.  

Rodders

I do not think that England are poopie at all. However like you say England was made to look very poopie for 60 odd minutes.

I still cannot understand why England have started all 3 games so far with the same tactic, and that is getting off to a slow start and going behind on the score board......and giving away tooo many penalties in goal kicking range.

This has to change. Is the reason for this because of the players that are injured? Maybe maybe not. But in all honesty we cannot use that as an excuse.

i have a feeling that potential pressure from returning players went to the head of haskell (3 pens) and attwood (2 offsides in front of ruck back foot!) and this contributed to their slight over-eagerness and bad judgement. burrell too is under pressure from 36 and barritt and he didnt have a great game either decision-making wise.

but in general i am a fan of having competition for the jersey. let people stake their claim match by match for the next few leading up to RWC.

One thing what I found strange on Sunday was the way (for a long time at least) they persisted in kicking to Zebo. They had obviously identified him as a potential weakness but it was clear after the first few attempts that he was coping well.

bedfordwelsh wrote:One thing what I found strange on Sunday was the way (for a long time at least) they persisted in kicking to Zebo.  They had obviously identified him as a potential weakness but it was clear after the first few attempts that he was coping well.

Like I said earlier. Irish 606ers did their patriotic duty on that one. We've never given Zebo a break in two years. And it paid off.

Notch wrote:I don't think their tactic is to start slowly and concede points?! You make it sound like they're under instructions to give the other team a head start

Luring them into a false sense of security. A cunning plan from bomber baldrick.