Defining a team's chance to win the Rugby World Cup

First topic message reminder :

A few months before the start of a world cup people start speculating on the odds of each team to win the Rugby World Cup, and though some factors are vital to take in consideration for success at the World Cup there are also historical values to be considered.

The path to a rugby world cup final is always a result of what happened at the pool stages and therefor the draw is of utmost importance to evaluate the path and opponents to win the cup.

In this upcoming rugby world cup there are two distinctive paths that will most likely play out, the one with New Zealand and South Africa and the other without them.

Why Should the path through them be avoided at all costs? Well regardless of form, coaches or injuries, these are the two sides who not only historically have been the two best teams over the last hundred years, but they also have a far suprior win ratio during world cups than any other team, both sit on 83% Australia sit in the third position as far as win ratio's are concerned.

For those teams who have historically struggled to beat South Africa, New Zealand and Australia it is vital that Australia are either eliminated during the pool play or at least relegated to the second position in their pool.

This will create a mirror image of the knock out matches of 2011 where the three Southern Hemisphere nations landed in the same side of the draw and left the other side open to a Northern Hemisphere indaba.

I believe when looking at historical facts that no Northern Hemisphere team will make the final if they landed on the wrong side of the draw, purely because beating the Southern Hemisphere giants in successive matches during the Rugby World Cup has never materialised.

So, in my humble opinion if Australia does land up in the SA and NZ half, the race is wide open for any team ranked in the top 8 or so to make the RWC final.

Predicting the outcome of a RWC final is of course an entirely different animal

No. Look at the rankings if you want to know that; then argue if they re reliable.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No it doesnt. Thats the beauty of cups the best team doesnt always win. Look at Man City vs Wigan a couple of years back.

So define the word 'best' as in your dictionary...

My definition is the team that wins is the best, if Ireland win the RWC they will have been the best team at the RWC, it really is as simple as that.

Best in this sense for me would be over a period of time. NZ are the best team I doubt anything at the WC will change that in most peoples eyes. Individual wins mean little. Its fantasic to win the world cup but it doesnt mean you re the best in the world.

I agree 7 1/2, to win the RWC may require a team to win only two difficult games and in knock-out rugby anything can happen - far too flimsy evidence to pronounce a team as being the 'best', but that doesn't stop them being Champions though.

Group A really is the key Group and it would be unwise to discount ANY side in that Group.
Fiji have the nearest thing to Jonah Lomu in there side and every RWC has a surprise side.

Frankly after the group stage last 8 and 4 should be chosen by lot that way you would`nt
have sides finessing results.i.e France to obtain an easier path to the final.

Assuming NZ and SA win there Groups runner up in A will face SA not any easy task the
winner of that will face France,Ireland,or NZ in the SF.

As has been proven the Ref or TMO can make any one of match a lottery stats mean
nothing in knockout rugby.

Good to see the 1st excuses coming out emack!

Welshmushroom wrote:Big call notch.  I certainly wouldn't predict a pool winner in England's, Australia's & Wales group.  One bad result could end their hopes right out of the gate for any of those three.  Pressure on England will be immense to top the group.

Injuries could factor in that pool as well and to be honest if England happen to lose Ford for example at Fly half it could potentially end any chances they have of getting into a final.  In any other position England look in fairly good shape so could weather any losses but a Ford injury could spell disaster for Lancaster.  Farrell is far to one dimensional and even though he kicks his points will probably hamper them.  Cips probably wont even be there either.  It will be the same for Wales & Australia's key players too and possibly even more so as they don't have the strength in depth in the forwards that England can call on.

If England lose that second match against Wales at home, I don't think they will even qualify. So there are a whole bunch of hurdles to overcome.  

Disagree with this completely. You say Farrell is one dimensional - that one dimension was enough to be involved in wins over the likes of France,Wales,Ireland,New Zealand and Australia. The only major scalp eluding him is SA. If he's as poor as you make out then surely he would have been such a liability that none of these wins would be possible?

Farrell can stand toe to toe with Sexton, something that Ford is unable to do. Would worry that Ireland would bully Ford again if Ireland play England in the RWC.

In most games I would be comfortable seeing Ford start ahead of Farrell but against Ireland not so much.

Farrell has a physical presence that means it's difficult for opposition to bully him. Sure he's not the most dynamic 10 in the world but when he's form he's good enough to control a game.

The likes of Ireland and Saracens this season have shown that Ford can be bullied.

emack2 who is supposedly Fiji's Lomu equivalent?

How on earth was Ford bullied? What is this standing toe to toe thing, they're not fighting!

beshocked wrote:
emack2 who is supposedly Fiji's Lomu equivalent?

I suppose that the Tahs winger that signed for Glasgow (sorry but cant spell his name properly, at least kiwis get the ones with easy neames to remember !)

No 7&1/2 wrote:How on earth was Ford bullied? What is this standing toe to toe thing, they're not fighting!

There was an impression that Sexton had physically bested Ford during the match with a couple of heavy tackles. In a direct comparison, I think you would say Sexton looked the more intimidating physical player. Which might be fair enough when you have 8 years and 3 stone on someone.

I do agree with Beshocked though - Farrell would not have been treated like that. Sexton had not tried to do that to him in the previous 3 meetings between the two, it came across as if Sexton was trying to bully Ford - let him know who is boss. If you read Sextons book he states how in 2012 Farrell was very confrontational towards him, and Sexton wrote just because his Dad was hard doesn't make junior hard too.

If you do watch the Ireland England match again from this year, you would see a couple of occasions where Ford eludes players with ease. It wasn't Ford who let England down that day.

There was one big hit Sexton made on Ford and Ford as he always does bounces up not making a fuss. As Ben Youngs dumped Roberts on his backside in the Wales game can we say Ben Youngs bullied him? Also doesn't make sense for the Saracens game as there was certainly no 'bullying' there. Personally I'm not that bothered if the fly half can make huge tackles (though it's a bonus) rather than just be effective which Ford is. Stepping up and going toe to toe can have it's draw backs like when Farrell should have received a yellow in the final as well.

no 7 & 1/2 he was overwhelmed by Ireland. Ireland put all sorts of pressure on Ford. Sexton even individually smashed Ford to display his superiority. Sexton's influence was clear - even more so when he went off as Ireland lost their shape.

They are fighting. 10 vs 10 is an important head to head in rugby union. Sexton won the h2h hands down. Sexton towered over Ford like a colossus.

Wales brought Sexton down to earth in the next round but that's another game.

I personally do not want Sexton having an opportunity to do that against Ford again.

Sexton has never been able to display that amount of dominance against Farrell. This is because Farrell can physically match Sexton and Ireland.

To bully the bullies you need bullies! Which is why a player like Lawes was missed too.

Farrell and Lawes are bullies. Not likable but are effective in their roles.

Sarries beat Saints in the AP semi finals because they outbullied another bully. Burger repeatedly smashed Saints' players for example. England lack a flanker who can currently take the fight to the opposition like that though Worsley and Moody used to do that.

One of Saints' main enforcers, Lawes was kept quiet.

Bath in the AP final could not stand up to the bullying from Sarries.

Pressure,pressure,pressure.


The issue England has is a lack of leadership/that enforcer. It's why there's so much talk about a big 6. England lack a Martin Johnson who though known as a good leader also had a nasty streak.

Robshaw in my opinion is like Alastair Cook (England cricket team) - both well spoken blokes who are nice and very good at their sport, well respected but not the most inspirational captains in the world.

This England team could suffer from a lack of leadership and that ability to bully teams IMO.

England pack is good but it's not exactly monstrous. It doesn't strike the same fear into the opposition that the 2002-2003 one did.

Getting back to the topic - do wI think that the England pack can bully SA and NZ? No probably not. The aim of England IMO is to find some more physicality and leadership in the future - perhaps the 606v2 fan favourites Slater or Burgess could do this or perhaps the new media darling, young gun Itoje...

Perhaps this can be found before the RWC. I hope so because I feel that England need to find a bit of extra physical edge. Haskell seemed to be able to fit this against Wales but played poorly in the subsequent games IMO. He was particularly poor vs Ireland.

beshocked wrote:He was particularly poor vs Ireland.

Understatement of the year. Between running into the post v Wales, giving away a stupid penalty for kicking the ball when lying at the ruck v Ireland (which he also did in the same fixture in 2013 and got sin-binned) and then tripping the French player, he must have directly cost England around 20 points. We only needed 6.

It will be interesting to see how Ford gets on v Ireland when Lawes, Launchbury and Wood are available, plus Brown at full-back. At lot more aggression available there for me.

whocares wrote:

beshocked wrote:
emack2 who is supposedly Fiji's Lomu equivalent?

I suppose that the Tahs winger that signed for Glasgow (sorry but cant spell his name properly, at least kiwis get the ones with easy neames to remember !)

Taqele Naiyaravoro. Or 'Big Tacky' as he will shortly become known in Glasgow.

Ford didn't play as well as Sexton but he wasn't bullied. He certainly wasn't against Saracens when he had a good game. At least you acknowledge that Lawes was a big miss now though and the packs performance should certainly be considered about the ireland games. Lets face it if Farrell played in that ireland gaem he would have come off second best as well.

The problem with the Ireland game for me, was it exposed that England don't have a plan b.

When plan A is not working, as Ireland were suffocating the life out of us, we couldn't change the tactics to counter them.

Yup, but I'm also going to throw in the fact we were missing quite a lot of our first choice pack. I personally wouldn't mind playing Ireland when they have their 4th and 5th choice locks playing.

Thank you MichaelT. It was the team letting down England not just Ford. I am only singling out Ford because Sexton quite clearly overshadowed him - Sexton was also named man of the match. Ford didn't get much help from his pack - I accept that but there were aspects of Ford's game that were well below par like his restarts and the kick chase in general was very poor. 10 is of course one of the most pivotal positions on the field in my opinion.

Ireland dominated possession and territory - unfortunately the 10 must take some responsibility for the poor direction from England.

When your pack is struggling you need a 10 to help put some pressure on the opposition. England couldn't build any momentum because they struggled to win the kicking battle and played most of the game on the back foot.

No 7 & 1/2 It seems as if Ford he can do no wrong in your eyes. I am surprised you're not saying that Ford outplayed Sexton going by your comments! If Ford is on the losing side he cannot take any responsibility for the loss!

You never know about Farrell - he might well have given England some much needed physicality and doggedness they missed on the day. England have never lost to Ireland with Farrell at 10.

Geordiefalcon exactly. Every man and his dog knew what Ireland were going to do before the match but England had no answer.

Farrell would make no difference to a team very much 2nd best across the board. All I'm saying is Ford wasn't bullied. he certainly wasn't against Saracens when he had a pretty good game. It really doesn't matter if Farrell hasn't lost against Ireland given that was the best they have played against us for a while. If you're having to rely on your 10 for physicality you've already lost.

You're trying to make out that when under pressure Ford crumbles, he doesn't, he's actually very good. The way he plays the game shows that. It's not as if Farrell is always cool as a cucumber either. The Wales slaughter from a few years ago where they did to our pack what Ireland did shows that.

Both Ford and Farrell are very good players you don't have to try and slant things towards Farrell without offering a bit of balance thats all.

I think that Farrell is clearly the more combative and overly aggressive player but I'm not sure that I would read much into that.
You could always argue conversely that Ford is more likely to stay calm when provoked.

If I was an England fan, I would probably focus on the fact that Ford is much better with ball in hand and makes broken field runs of a kind which I have never seen Farrell make. Both are excellent and any international side would be lucky to have either of them but I think that that I know whom the future is if England want to play a fast attacking game through Joseph and Co.

One of my bugbears with the Ireland match was that Ford was constantly kicking to the place that May would of been had he been playing.

no 7 & 1/2 I didn't see the Saracens game which is a shame as that's now being used against me.

You and I will never agree - you believe Ford can do no wrong - you believe he can never be pressured or bullied. If this was the case then he would outplay every opposition and his team would win every match. The reality is that this has not happened.

Not saying under pressure he crumbles in every situation - he wobbled vs Wales in the first half but had a strong 2nd half, bar the Ireland game he had a very good 6 nations. He has shown remarkable composure for a young man but even an experienced 10 like Sexton buckles under pressure like he did vs Wales.

Oh I know that Farrell is far from cool as a cucumber - I acknowledge when he plays poorly - I have criticised his very poor form in the last year or so for example. I've said a few times when he should have not started games - AIs and vs Munster for example.

It's in the last few games - a confidence booster vs LW and the semis and final which have helped Farrell find some form.

I am not the one who thinks Ford can do no wrong.


Anyway back on topic - I would worry about England playing Ireland in a WC semi final with Ford as 10 unless he can show he's learnt from his humbling in Ireland.

Farrell learnt from his humbling in Wales - the next year he helped England defeat Wales at Twickenham.

My main point is that England should not be overly worried if Ford is injured because Farrell has strengths that Ford does not.

England can absorb injuries better than other teams - this is why I think England will top their pool.

Wales have lost Jonathan Davies, England have lost Tuilagi - I believe that Wales will be hurting more.

England have many advantages going into Pool A.

Stop trying to paint me like that beshocked, I don't see Ford as a deity but he wasn't bullied by Sexton or Farrell.

beshocked wrote:

Wales have lost Jonathan Davies, England have lost Tuilagi - I believe that Wales will be hurting more.

We won't be hurting that much from losing our most overrated player. Scott Williams has been better all season, arguably so has Tyler Morgan.

Gwlad wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No it doesnt. Thats the beauty of cups the best team doesnt always win. Look at Man City vs Wigan a couple of years back.

So define the word 'best' as in your dictionary...

My definition is the team that wins is the best, if Ireland win the RWC they will have been the best team at the RWC, it really is as simple as that.

Best in this sense for me would be over a period of time. NZ are the best team I doubt anything at the WC will change that in most peoples eyes. Individual wins mean little. Its fantasic to win the world cup but it doesnt mean you re the best in the world.

Of course you are at that time and place; you've beaten all comers on an equal footing to become Champions of the world, QED you are the best in the world.

That relies on the assumption that every game of rugby is won by the best team in it at the time, which I don't anyone would consistently subscribe to. Wales were a better team than France in RWC 2011 for example, but circumstances on the day meant they lost the semi-final to them.

beshocked wrote:You and I will never agree - you believe Ford can do no wrong

I haven't read 7 & 1/2 arguing that. I think he's just taking issue with your theory that Ford was outmuscled against Ireland and Saracens, and his game suffered as a result. If you didn't actually see the Saracens match - I might be misunderstanding what you wrote - then it's not unfair to bring that up if you are passing judgement on how the game went.

Personally, I think Ford kicked poorly from hand against Ireland, albeit some of his efforts down Zebo's throat seemed to be part of a coaching plan which failed. I don't think he was put off his stride by the physicality of the game. He went reasonably well against Saracens, and was a big reason Bath threatened to come back. Elsewhere, his team mates were fumbling ball and making poor decisions, while Saracens were getting things right across the board.

Rugby fan I can't be bothered talking about it anymore. If no 7 & 1/2 wants to keep believing that Ford is infallible I can't stop him. My efforts to persuade him that it's not the case have been futile.

If something doesn't work you adapt. It's what far too many teams and players don't do.

Which of course I've never said but just keep repeating it beshocked.

no 7 & 1/2 your comments seem to point to this. On 3 occasions - you do not believe that Ford was outplayed.

You say that Ford was not outmuscled/bullied by Ireland or Saracens - what happened then? I don't remember Ford leading England or Bath to victory with a man of the match display. Instead it was Farrell and Sexton who were the man of the match on the day.

I guess it's debatable whether Farrell deserved the award but Sexton clearly earnt it.

You say that Ford did not get outplayed by Goode last season despite Goode helping orchestrating the Saracens victory from 10.

I am sure you'll give me the same bollox about armchair rides - it's irrelevant. Goode,Farrell and Sexton took the opportunities given to them.  They made the most of being on the front foot and in Farrell's case a slice of luck (did score a try from that).

You might say to me that the win isn't relevant - disagree. It's very important. The whole point is to win the game. Sexton was the match winner, Farrell was the match winner, Goode didn't win the man of the match but was very close.

They won their h2h.

To do this they needed to outplay their opposite number which they did. I wouldnt say Goode outmuscled Ford but he did outplay him.

Perhaps I am wrong to say Farrell bullied Ford - he did win the man of the match though.

Sexton most definitely did bully Ford though.

Ford in all three of these games failed to stamp his authority on the match in comparison to his opposite numbers for whatever reason.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR2bU_Abx3Y

Sexton smashes Ford which lead to an Irish penalty.

Sexton was miles better than Ford in the Ireland match who was head and shoulders the best player. You can search for something I've said contrary to that but you won't find it. Indeed you will find me saying the only reason we came back into the match was Sexton going off. I'd refute any suggestion he was bullied all day and all night. He receives more than his fair share of big hits as he plays much flatter than the majority of fly halfs, he gets up and continues.

You're completely right I would throw the match result isn't the be all and end all of an individuals performance. Ford didn't play badly in any of the 3 games you mention. I'd disagree that Goode was better than him bar place kicking in that first one but he wasn't the best fly half in either of the others (given Farrell stayed on the pitch).

It's a Poopie load easier to outplay someone who is the sole kicker in the backline and getting pounded by your backrow every time they get the ball.

But that's suggesting that it's about more than just two players playing their role in the team Can't allow that.

Hackneyed Clichés of the thread #4:

Deity (again)

Bullied

Collossus

no 7 & 1/2 he wasn't allowed to play his best, he wasn't allowed to impose his team's gameplan - I would say that's him being bullied.

What would you call badly? Is 5 or 6/10?

Doesn't matter if Ford was 5 or 6/10 because Sexton was a 9, Goode was an 8. From the match report sounds like Farrell was 8/10.

Hammerofthunor yes there are more than two players on the pitch but 10 is one of the most influential positions.

If Goode was an 8 so was Ford. I'd say he was 7 out of 10 in both others, Sexton was a 9 as I think he put 1 out on the full otherwise he was flawless. Farrell about an 8 as he shaded it, strange though as he could have ended up with a 6!

Language like bullied and rattled etc just doesn't ring true to me as it insinuates that Ford didn't like or couldn't put up with the physical stuff which I just don't recognise in his performances.

In fairness to Ford though, in that tackle he does look to off-load to Goode, who knocks on and then Watson picks it up from an offside position. I don't think the penalty is down to Ford. Just one of several bad decisions around the 10m line England made that day. It was a good tackle, but Ford looked to keep the ball alive.

As much as I cheered Sexton during the Lions, I went off him this year. I think it was the fist pump after he scored his penalty against England in the first minute. I thought it was pathetic.

no 7 & 1/2 Ford did not play as well as Goode.

At least now you're acknowledging that Sexton and Farrell performed better than Ford on the day - that's progress.

Well evidently he didn't deal with the physical stuff well enough.

MichaelT it's still a Ford error as the offload to Goode is poor and not anticipated. It still lead to an Irish penalty.

MichaelT wrote:. I think it was the fist pump after he scored his penalty against England in the first minute. I thought it was pathetic.

I thought maybe I had missed sexton mocking england in that game so I just watched the moment you cited... If you thought that was pathetic, (a player looking down running away from the opposition, to himself, getting himself pumped after his first score) how do you feel about the "celebrations" of certain english wingers? Equally pathetic?

Please stop making stuff like that up beshocked. I have never said Ford played better than either.

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 Ford did not play as well as Goode.

At least now you're acknowledging that Sexton and Farrell performed better than Ford on the day - that's progress.

Well evidently he didn't deal with the physical stuff well enough.

MichaelT it's still a Ford error as the offload to Goode is poor and not anticipated. It still lead to an Irish penalty.

That's also incredibly patronising.

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 he wasn't allowed to play his best, he wasn't allowed to impose his team's gameplan - I would say that's him being bullied.

What would you call badly? Is 5 or 6/10?

Doesn't matter if Ford was 5 or 6/10 because Sexton was a 9, Goode was an 8. From the match report sounds like Farrell was 8/10.

Hammerofthunor yes there are more than two players on the pitch but 10 is one of the most influential positions.

And their performance can be (often is) heavily influenced by the performance of the rest of the team and that of the opposition.  That basically means it's pointless trying to compare two players without taking that into consideration (especially over a single game). See Wilkinson against France in 2002 when Betsen smothered him.

EDIT: Oh and personally there's no way I'd say Farrell played better than Ford in the final. Not problem with people disagreeing, of course.

wolfball wrote:

MichaelT wrote:. I think it was the fist pump after he scored his penalty against England in the first minute. I thought it was pathetic.

I thought maybe I had missed sexton mocking england in that game so I just watched the moment you cited... If you thought that was pathetic, (a player looking down running away from the opposition, to himself, getting himself pumped after his first score) how do you feel about the "celebrations" of certain english wingers? Equally pathetic?

How did I know someone was going to say this. How predictable. No, I don't think the 'Ash-splash' is pathetic. Don't think it is when any player does a swan dive. But scoring a try is a world away from scoring a penalty in the first minute of a game when you're at home and was from zero pressure - frankly a stupid penalty by the opposition as opposed to self-created pressure. It was all about the timing for me. At the end of the match to win a game? No problem. At the start, 2 mins in to go 3-0 up? Pathetic.

I think its harsh to ciriticsie one player for a defeat. Individuals may make the odd mistakes (ala Nowell in France ) , but its a team that loses the game.

I wouldnt say Ford was bullied Beshocked...I would say the England pack (injuries irrelevant) was taught a lesson which resulted in giving Ford limited time and space. I don't think an in form Farrell would have handled it any better.

That's the reason I feel we don't have a plan B.

MichaelT it's only English players who are not allowed to celebrate.

Shane Williams for example was never criticised for his over the top antics.

http://www.rugbydump.com/2014/08/3829/the-top-5-worst-celebrations-in-rugby-history

I like this link.

Beshocked - I think resorting to saying x played better than y because x's team beat y's team is a bit disingenuous; you know better than that.

Ford was not as good as Sexton in the Ireland game, but no-one was as good as Sexton in that game; just one of those days. Saying as a broad point that Ford 'is unable to stand toe-to-toe with Sexton' on the basis of one game is silly and not an argument you'd put up with if it was used against a Saracens player.

I'd disagree that Farrell was any better than Ford in the AP final this year, the MotM award, which is basically one commentator's unconsidered opinion, notwithstanding. The difference in that game was the pressure of the Saracens defensive line and the set-piece. Farrell was decent but didn't do anything spectacular and should have been yellow carded very early on.

Hammerofthunor yes it can be influenced by the rest of the team but 10 is a position where there is more control.

Geordiefalcon Ford was not the only player at fault but he did make errors that contributed to the defeat.

Thomh it's not as straightforward as that but if player X has a better platform than player Y then he should perform better which in the case of Sexton vs Ford he did.

It depends whether you feel that Ford could have done more in the position he was in or if you thought he performed really well. Personally I felt he could have done more.

Someone needed to organise the kick chase better - arguably not just Ford's responsibility but then whose was it?

Primary job of a fly half is to control the game.

beshocked wrote:...Thomh it's not as straightforward as that but if player X has a better platform than player Y then he should perform better which in the case of Sexton vs Ford he did.

It depends whether you feel that Ford could have done more in the position he was in or if you thought he performed really well. Personally I felt he could have done more.

Someone needed to organise the kick chase better - arguably not just Ford's responsibility but then whose was it?

Primary job of a fly half is to control the game.

I don't think too many would really disagree with anything you've written there. It's when you wrote above about Ford being bullied and outmuscled by Sexton that you saw your opinion questioned, since that's not really how most of us remember the game.

beshocked wrote:

Thomh it's not as straightforward as that but if player X has a better platform than player Y then he should perform better which in the case of Sexton vs Ford he did.

It depends whether you feel that Ford could have done more in the position he was in or if you thought he performed really well. Personally I felt he could have done more.

Someone needed to organise the kick chase better - arguably not just Ford's responsibility but then whose was it?

Primary job of a fly half is to control the game.

On the bold bit, I'm afraid you've lost me. I think my post was ambiguously worded. What I meant was about using the result as justification for thinking that a particular player outplayed his opposite. You're saying that being given a better platform by the team results in a better performance for the player, such as in Sexton v Ford.

Surely if the difference in performance resulted from the platforms they were each given then that can't be held against Ford? I just think you're slightly using the fact that Ford's teams have lost a couple of big games as evidence that he personally played badly, which I don't think is fair especially in the case of the AP final where he didn't have a bad game at all, but was part of a team whose lineout and scrum went badly and who got flustered by Saracens' immense defence.

I'm not arguing that Ford outplayed Sexton at all, but it's one game and his first ever away start for England.

MichaelT wrote:

wolfball wrote:

MichaelT wrote:. I think it was the fist pump after he scored his penalty against England in the first minute. I thought it was pathetic.

I thought maybe I had missed sexton mocking england in that game so I just watched the moment you cited... If you thought that was pathetic, (a player looking down running away from the opposition, to himself, getting himself pumped after his first score) how do you feel about the "celebrations" of certain english wingers? Equally pathetic?

How did I know someone was going to say this. How predictable. No, I don't think the 'Ash-splash' is pathetic. Don't think it is when any player does a swan dive. But scoring a try is a world away from scoring a penalty in the first minute of a game when you're at home and was from zero pressure - frankly a stupid penalty by the opposition as opposed to self-created pressure. It was all about the timing for me. At the end of the match to win a game? No problem. At the start, 2 mins in to go 3-0 up? Pathetic.

It may be predictable, because your viewpoint is so silly. You just have no consistency in your views, which is grand, just now we know. I think its terrible when irish wingers (like, but not limited to Zebo) do silly try celebrations (there's your consistency beshocked, its not an anti-english conspiracy). Getting one's self pumped up in a match (its ireland-england 6 nations, no pressure? are you new to rugby? ) is a pretty common aspect of rugby, and one that I cannot imagine anyone finding "pathetic". but live and learn, the people ya meet on the internet eh?

MichaelT wrote:As much as I cheered Sexton during the Lions, I went off him this year. I think it was the fist pump after he scored his penalty against England in the first minute. I thought it was pathetic.

I did a fist-pump just now when I handed a client that long, boring document that I've resented every minute of working on.

Come on man- a player doing a small fist pump after getting the nerves of the first kick of the game in a massive game out of the way is pathetic? It seems par for the course!

If any group of players 'over-celebrate' then it's certainly England players. It's apparent at every age group too.