England v Ireland, 5 September

First topic message reminder :

  
ENGLAND v IRELAND
5 September 2015
14:30 BST
Twickenham, London

Live on Sky Sports 1

Referee: Nigel Owens (Wales)
Touch judges: Romain Poite (France) Leighton Hodges (Wales)
Television match official: Shaun Veldsman (South Africa)

A. Head to Head

129 Played 129
74 Won 47
8 Drawn 8
47 Lost 74
1,484 Points 1,056

B. Recent Form

1 March 2015
Aviva Stadium, Dublin
19 – 9 to Ireland

22 February 2014
Twickenham, London
13 – 10 to England

10 February 2013
Aviva Stadium, Dublin
6 – 12 to England

17 March 2012
Twickenham, London
30 – 9 to England

27 August 2011
Aviva Stadium, Dublin
9 – 20 to England

19 March 2011
Aviva Stadium, Dublin
24 – 8 to Ireland

27 February 2010
Twickenham, London
16 – 20 to Ireland

C. Teams

ENGLAND

15. Mike Brown (Harlequins, 38 caps)
14. Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby, 10 caps)
13. Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby, 12 caps)
12. Brad Barritt (Saracens, 22 caps)
11. Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby, 15 caps)
10. George Ford (Bath Rugby, 12 caps)
09. Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 48 caps)

01. Joe Marler (Harlequins, 32 caps)
02. Tom Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 23 caps)
03. Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers, 51 caps)
04. Geoff Parling (Exeter Chiefs, 24 caps)
05. Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 39 caps)
06. Tom Wood (Northampton Saints, 37 caps)
07. Chris Robshaw (captain, Harlequins, 38 caps)
08. Ben Morgan (Gloucester Rugby, 28 caps)

16. Jamie George (Saracens, 1 cap)
17. Mako Vunipola (Saracens, 22 caps)
18. Kieran Brookes (Northampton Saints, 11 caps)
19. Joe Launchbury (Wasps, 23 caps)
20. Billy Vunipola (Saracens, 18 caps)
21. Richard Wigglesworth (Saracens, 22 caps)
22. Owen Farrell (Saracens, 30 caps)
23. Sam Burgess (Bath Rugby, 1 cap)


IRELAND

01. Jack McGrath (St. Marys College/Leinster)
02. Rory Best (Banbridge/Ulster)
03. Mike Ross (Clontarf/Leinster)
04. Devin Toner (Lansdowne/Leinster)
05. Paul O'Connell (Young Munster) (capt)
06. Peter O'Mahony (Cork Constitution/Munster)
07. Sean O'Brien (UCD/Leinster)
08. Jamie Heaslip (Dublin University/Leinster)

09. Conor Murray (Garryowen/Munster)
10. Johnny Sexton (St. Mary's College/Leinster)
11. Dave Kearney (Lansdowne/Leinster)
12. Robbie Henshaw (Buccaneers/Connacht)
13. Jared Payne (Ulster)
14. Tommy Bowe (Belfast Harlequins/Ulster)
15. Simon Zebo (Cork Constitution/Munster)

16. Richardt Strauss (Old Wesley/Leinster)
17. Tadhg Furlong (Clontarf/Leinster)
18. Nathan White (Connacht)
19. Donnacha Ryan (Shannon/Munster)
20. Chris Henry (Malone/Ulster)
21. Eoin Reddan (Old Crescent/Leinster)
22. Ian Madigan (Blackrock College/Leinster)
23. Darren Cave (Belfast Harlequins/Ulster)

No he virtually dropped it but someone else cleared up the mess.

People know i am not a fan of Owen Farrell but yesterday, aside from his goal kicking, he was terrible. He is not a play making 10 and i am still firm in my belief that Cipriani should have been in the squad.

eirebilly wrote:People know i am not a fan of Owen Farrell but yesterday, aside from his goal kicking, he was terrible. He is not a play making 10 and i am still firm in my belief that Cipriani should have been in the squad.

He owes Mike Brown a try for that miss pass attempt. I say Brown should call it in when we play Sarries this year

englandglory4ever wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:I wonder how Madigan is feeling after being knocked back in to last week by Burgess?  England nearly scored a try from that tackle.

i assume you noticed Burgess's other contributions which were rather less than stellar? The missed tackle, the knock on and the forward pass?

I thought Tom Youngs forward pass was much worse. It cost us a try. Cole missed a tackle too. Oh and Ben Youngs let the ball just slip out of his hands with no one near. In fact all the Leicester players were less than stellar weren't they.

Not sure if the forward pass cost England a try or not since it took an extraordinary effort just to get the ball down without going into touch.
I say that because I thought May was too far forward and should have been further behind Youngs to receive a proper pass. If that was the case, and May is a step behind where he was, he might or might not have scored. In my opinion, based upon where May was, Youngs should have eaten the ball and not made the bad pass. Blame to both.

englandglory4ever wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:I wonder how Madigan is feeling after being knocked back in to last week by Burgess?  England nearly scored a try from that tackle.

i assume you noticed Burgess's other contributions which were rather less than stellar? The missed tackle, the knock on and the forward pass?

I thought Tom Youngs forward pass was much worse. It cost us a try. Cole missed a tackle too. Oh and Ben Youngs let the ball just slip out of his hands with no one near. In fact all the Leicester players were less than stellar weren't they.

Point out to me where I have claimed they played really well and that is a valid comeback.

Cole seemed to struggle in the scrums, but was good at he breakdown.
Tom Youngs did a massive defensive shift, but possibly underthrew a couple of lineouts we still secured.
Ben Youngs was looking sharper and with Ford ran the backs well in the first half. Yes he dropped the ball when trying to make a pop pass, well cleared up by his brother I think.

Overall their performances were average to pretty decent.

Would be interested to see your appraisal of your man over all he did rather than the single highlight reel moment.

I admire Burgess a lot and want him to succeed as much as anybody but to dismiss the opinion of Guscott the best centre i've ever seen play for England is incredibly biased. It's got to be said that Slammin' Sam was poor when he came on yesterday, a couple of fumbles and a forward pass, the hit he put on Madigan doesn't undo all that.

Listening to Joe Smidth yesterday after the game he said Ireland may not have been (match fit) surely every in the Ireland team/squad should be match fit by now?

Well, guys have only had one or two games. Like I've been saying all along the target is to hit our stride a month from now going into the Italy game. That has to be borne in mind.

majesticimperialman wrote:Listening to Joe Smidth yesterday after the game he said Ireland may not have been (match fit) surely every in the Ireland team/squad should be match fit by now?

Well some of them had more time than others. What he said was that he was trying to manage gametime - I assume towards the Italy and French games. So in relation to the team planning he said players (some of them) would still have been off the pace of such an International level that England brought to the occasion. England are doing their own systems and own fitness regimes and I assume they've chosen to have players in prime condition for a longer period.

They need to. If we had Fiji, Wales and Australia in our group we'd be the same.

I guess I mean I think England are just being English.  They have left no stone unturned in preparation, either in overall fitness levels or in on field techniques and patterns.  They seem to be and you'd expect them to be ready to do battle at the most professional level and they have the extra burden/opportiunity of it being a Home world cup and all the pressure that will be from their expectant public.

So I think they'll have had a much more detailed preparation time than most sides going into this period...even more than Wales or Australia.  They'll have their systems down to Olympic Military Precision and from there it'll be up to the world to see if it's been enough.

I've said before now that I don't think many sides will actually match England or Wales for scientific preparation - I certainly think Ireland have a different philosophy and in those terms actual matches play a big part in getting us on song.

LondonTiger wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:I wonder how Madigan is feeling after being knocked back in to last week by Burgess?  England nearly scored a try from that tackle.

i assume you noticed Burgess's other contributions which were rather less than stellar? The missed tackle, the knock on and the forward pass?

I thought Tom Youngs forward pass was much worse. It cost us a try. Cole missed a tackle too. Oh and Ben Youngs let the ball just slip out of his hands with no one near. In fact all the Leicester players were less than stellar weren't they.

Point out to me where I have claimed they played really well and that is a valid comeback.

Cole seemed to struggle in the scrums, but was good at he breakdown.
Tom Youngs did a massive defensive shift, but possibly underthrew a couple of lineouts we still secured.
Ben Youngs was looking sharper and with Ford ran the backs well in the first half. Yes he dropped the ball when trying to make a pop pass, well cleared up by his brother I think.

Overall their performances were average to pretty decent.

Would be interested to see your appraisal of your man over all he did rather than the single highlight reel moment.

I didn't say you did say they played really well did I. But what you did do was imply that Burgess faults were worse than everyone else's.

Considering he was on the pitch for a far shorted period and during a decisive part of the game they were worse and potentially more damaging but they turned out not to be.

englandglory4ever wrote:
I didn't say you did say they played really well did I. But what you did do was imply that Burgess faults were worse than everyone else's.

Nope. I did though imply that his one good thing was actually outweighed by the things he did not do very well. Just to try and counter your insistence on ignoring anything and everything he does that is not perfect.

I am fully prepared to accept that Sam has some world class facets that translate into Union just as well as League. However he needs to be more involved than he can ever be at centre - where frankly his lack of speed and experience can leave him exposed.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Considering he was on the pitch for a far shorted period and during a decisive part of the game they were worse and potentially more damaging but they turned out not to be.

So if they weren't damaging what's the point? I think the point is that a number of people just don't like Burgess for whatever reason and like to stab him in the back at every opportunity. Eg. He throws a forward pass so they get on his case when the tiddler Youngs throws one and Farrell throws one, both try scoring passes but only Burgess gets called out. He virtually flattens Madigan which action very nearly leads to a try and no one .mentions it. Seems there are some nasty jealous people about to me.

LondonTiger wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:
I didn't say you did say they played really well did I. But what you did do was imply that Burgess faults were worse than everyone else's.

Nope. I did though imply that his one good thing was actually outweighed by the things he did not do very well. Just to try and counter your insistence on ignoring anything and everything he does that is not perfect.

I am fully prepared to accept that Sam has some world class facets that translate into Union just as well as League. However he needs to be more involved than he can ever be at centre - where frankly his lack of speed and experience can leave him exposed.

Sorry I think you are completely wrong and thankfully so do the England coaches. Leaves you a bit isolated I think but hey ho I guess that being with him and watching him train and to be so impressed that he is selected above Burrell counts for nothing.

englandglory4ever wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Considering he was on the pitch for a far shorted period and during a decisive part of the game they were worse and potentially more damaging but they turned out not to be.

So if they weren't damaging what's the point? I think the point is that a number of people just don't like Burgess for whatever reason and like to stab him in the back at every opportunity. Eg. He throws a forward pass so they get on his case when the tiddler Youngs throws one and Farrell throws one, both try scoring passes but only Burgess gets called out.  He virtually flattens Madigan which action very nearly leads to a try and no one .mentions it. Seems there are some nasty jealous people about to me. 

Nobody has any issues with him. He just didn't play very well against Ireland. 
Neither 36 not Burrell are in good enough form to feel truly aggrieved that he was picked and he did well vs France but he simply wasn't that good yesterday in areas that are meant to be his strengths, so it seems simply bizarre to big him up based on his play yesterday.

englandglory4ever wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Considering he was on the pitch for a far shorted period and during a decisive part of the game they were worse and potentially more damaging but they turned out not to be.

So if they weren't damaging what's the point? I think the point is that a number of people just don't like Burgess for whatever reason and like to stab him in the back at every opportunity. Eg. He throws a forward pass so they get on his case when the tiddler Youngs throws one and Farrell throws one, both try scoring passes but only Burgess gets called out.  He virtually flattens Madigan which action very nearly leads to a try and no one .mentions it. Seems there are some nasty jealous people about to me.

I think Farrell has got his fair share of criticism for his horrendous pass, far more than the perceived criticism you think Burgess has received, May contributed to the Young one by not holding his line properly. There are no jealous people on here just a bunch of objective posters you have a problem with for having the temerity to criticise Burgess in any way. The hit on Madigan was big but Bowe (I believe) had already over run making the turnover inevitable. Quite clearly you only see what you want to see.

Yeah, because Lancaster has never made mistakes out of loyalty or risky position-based ideas or sentiment *sarcasm*

So checker jersey knows more than SL and his coaches. Has he been in the England camp all these weeks and the selection meetings. I suspect not. So where does that leave him? Somebody who knows f all that's where.

You do realise the whole point of debate is to question things and Lancaster's decisions aren't above that. I don't post a lot on this section but know those who know their stuff like CJ or SecretFly, you however seem to know next to nothing and let your bias get in the way of every single debate, give it a rest.

Jaysus, i had to re-read these comments and make sure it was about England players and not the Irish. Nice impersonation of us Irish lads

I was thinking the same thing.

I decided to let them at it alone

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You do realise the whole point of debate is to question things and Lancaster's decisions aren't above that. I don't post a lot on this section but know those who know their stuff like CJ or SecretFly, you however seem to know next to nothing and let your bias get in the way of every single debate, give it a rest.

This is so full of assumptions and untruths I don't know where to begin. All I said that started this was that his hit on Madigan was big. Then a load of naysayers come on with' yeah but he was rubbish and shouldn't have been selected'. (words to that effect). I certainly won't give it a rest all the time people like you try to victimise Burgess for no good reason.

SecretFly wrote:
I was thinking the same thing.

I decided to let them at it alone

Bit of an eye opener as to how we look to the outside world at times

eirebilly wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
I was thinking the same thing.

I decided to let them at it alone

Bit of an eye opener as to how we look to the outside world at times

Sadly we can only ever aspire to bicker as much as you guys

englandglory4ever wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You do realise the whole point of debate is to question things and Lancaster's decisions aren't above that. I don't post a lot on this section but know those who know their stuff like CJ or SecretFly, you however seem to know next to nothing and let your bias get in the way of every single debate, give it a rest.

This is so full of assumptions and untruths I don't know where to begin. All I said that started this was that his hit on Madigan was big. Then a load of naysayers come on with' yeah but he was rubbish and shouldn't have been selected'. (words to that effect). I certainly won't give it a rest all the time people like you try to victimise Burgess for no good reason.

Where have I or anyone victimised him? Pointing out he didn't perform that well when he came on is objective instead of this guff you're coming out with.

I thought Burgess was pretty dire tbh. Everything he done in attack didn't come off and he was more a hindrance tbh

Sorry. Where has pointing out only one player's faults and ignoring others being"objective". That's victimisation in anybody's book. If you were to say something like Burgess made a horrendous forward pass but so did the more experienced union players like Farrell, Youngs, etc. Then that's objective.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I thought Burgess was pretty dire tbh. Everything he done in attack didn't come off and he was more a hindrance tbh

I agree with you. He did make mistakes. No problem with anyone having that opinion.

englandglory4ever wrote:Sorry. Where has pointing out only one player's faults and ignoring others being"objective".  That's victimisation in anybody's book. If you were to say something like Burgess made a horrendous forward pass but so did the more experienced union players like Farrell, Youngs, etc. Then that's objective.

Having been critical of a number of players, including Leicester ones, would love to know how that actually applies.

Or are you saying that every post being critical of a player should also repeat the criticism made of another player?

I apologise for getting peed off with your continuous campaign extolling only the things Sam does well, and you name calling any one and everyone who dares to challenge you. I apologise most of all to the rest of the board however for allowing us to be diverted from what was actually a promising step forward by the team.

I promise that from now on i will treat you with the respect I feel you deserve.

englandglory4ever wrote:So checker jersey knows more than SL and his coaches. Has he been in the England camp all these weeks and the selection meetings. I suspect not. So where does that leave him? Somebody who knows f all that's where.

Tad histrionic…

I don't claim to know more than Lancaster, but it is clear, with the benefit of hindsight, to see that he has made some serious selection errors in judgement i.e. Wood at 8, Brown at wing with Goode at FB, Goode at wing, Manu at wing etc These were queried at the time, and the queries turned out to be fair. Some other gambles have paid off a bit better. I think Burgess' selection is perfectly reasonable, he adds a bit and no 12 was putting their hand up to be selected ahead of him bar maybe Eastmond who offers something that doesn't fit the game plan for this world cup at all. However, he is not yet anywhere near world class at UNION. He played well vs France, very well. He did not play well this week, making one great hit that Barritt could have made on a much smaller and flaky player, a few drives for yardage but also missing a tackle due to positioning, knocked on a good offload and passed a ball forward. The last 2 in a dominant attacking position where we lost the opportunity to score.

Farrell's own awful pass was criticised by many, including, if you'll look, me specifically. We know that can be an issue for him. Brown also passed forward, just, and we know that can be an issue for him (at least he is passing these days) but that isn't his game. Youngs is a hooker, though he too was criticised for his pass forward and the fact there were 4 is worrying. Burgess however, is meant to be an excellent offloader, comes from League where handling is "apparently" better than Union and is playing at 12 where distribution is key.

To think he played well is pretty worrying to be honest, it was at the very best a mixed bag. But I am sure that he will do better and will learn. He can be an Int standard 12 in a year or so, and maybe he can get away with it as a bit part player this world cup and no doubt he can do fantastic things, though I would be terrified to see him line up against Fofana or Nonu or Giteau frankly. I do not disagree with his selection based on the last few matches. My main point was that you seem to be pretending, because it suits your agenda and adoration of a player, that Lancaster's judgement is flawless where it is demonstrably not. That is self-deception and that is something that should never be tolerated.

So maybe I do, as you eloquently put it, "know f all" but plenty of other people have questioned decisions too, and Guscott may not follow the club game very well and may say some odd things but actually tends to love on Bath and Bath players and probably knows more about success playing 12 at the top level than any other English centre bar maybe Greenwood, so he does not "know f all". I would also say that those who know me, have discussed rugby with me here or in real life or on FB or have played with me would say that for my biases and other failings I do not "know f all"or have a grudge against Lancaster, whom I admire greatly and think has been a good coach for us, or Burgess or any agenda in this area. I merely say what I see. Hope you're ok with that, and there's no need to get abusive just because I don't agree with your sam-tinted view

Guys! You've got to have opinions! Especially on an opinion site like this one. You can't shut down all debate with "the coaches know better". Maybe they do, but that's not the point.

donglewood wrote:Guys! You've got to have opinions! Especially on an opinion site like this one. You can't shut down all debate with "the coaches know better". Maybe they do, but that's not the point.

And there's been quite a lot of contrasting opinions on other performances with due respect and without accusing posters of "knowing f all"

No I'm not saying every post being critical of a player should criticize all others. Hell I do it myself. But unless you do you are not being "objective" are you. Eg. I don't like t Youngs but that's just my personal opinion. Most posts are just personal opinion.

englandglory4ever wrote:Sorry. Where has pointing out only one player's faults and ignoring others being"objective".  That's victimisation in anybody's book. If you were to say something like Burgess made a horrendous forward pass but so did the more experienced union players like Farrell, Youngs, etc. Then that's objective.

Think LT has been critical of several players and I have been scathing of Tom YOungs

I'm just glad Michael Gambon remains English. Phew.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:Sorry. Where has pointing out only one player's faults and ignoring others being"objective".  That's victimisation in anybody's book. If you were to say something like Burgess made a horrendous forward pass but so did the more experienced union players like Farrell, Youngs, etc. Then that's objective.

Think LT has been critical of several players and I have been scathing of Tom YOungs

If I (for example) want to have a go at someone, say for example sonny bill Williams for being a money chasing self promoting band wagon jumping pain in the backside, surely I can do that without having to criticise every other money chasing self promotion band wagon jumping pain in the backside? No?

Cyril wrote:I'm just glad Michael Gambon remains English. Phew.

Haha, yes!

What was the situation with Daniel Day Lewis though in the event of an England victory?

donglewood wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:Sorry. Where has pointing out only one player's faults and ignoring others being"objective".  That's victimisation in anybody's book. If you were to say something like Burgess made a horrendous forward pass but so did the more experienced union players like Farrell, Youngs, etc. Then that's objective.

Think LT has been critical of several players and I have been scathing of Tom YOungs

If I (for example) want to have a go at someone, say for example sonny bill Williams for being a money chasing self promoting band wagon jumping pain in the backside, surely I can do that without having to criticise every other money chasing self promotion band wagon jumping pain in the backside? No?

Yes of course you can. I do it myself frequently because it is my personal opinion. I don't try to claim either I or your goodself are being "objective". It seems that one individual calling another individual a useless waste of space is being objective on here to some people. I happen to think Sam Burgess is a good selection but others crucify me with all sorts of untrue, incorrect rubbish just because my personal opinion doesn't match with theirs..

Which nobody has ever done of course.

Sexton went off with what looked like cramp. Was it cramp? or was it some think else?

majesticimperialman wrote:Sexton went off with what looked like cramp. Was it cramp? or was it some think else?

Pretty sure it was cramp, Schmidt just being careful with such an important player

ChequeredJersey wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:Sexton went off with what looked like cramp. Was it cramp? or was it some think else?

Pretty sure it was cramp, Schmidt just being careful with such an important player

I hope it was for his sake to be honest. i do not want too see any player get injured this close before the tournament as even started.

majesticimperialman wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:Sexton went off with what looked like cramp. Was it cramp? or was it some think else?

Pretty sure it was cramp, Schmidt just being careful with such an important player

I hope it was for his sake to be honest. i do not want too see any player get injured this close before the tournament as even started.

I agree. Think we might see a lot of injuries during the tournament itself though, I'm afraid. Lots of players seemingly a bit rushed back and it's an attritional few weeks of ridiculously high intensity games

ChequeredJersey wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:Sexton went off with what looked like cramp. Was it cramp? or was it some think else?

Pretty sure it was cramp, Schmidt just being careful with such an important player

I hope it was for his sake to be honest. i do not want too see any player get injured this close before the tournament as even started.

I agree. Think we might see a lot of injuries during the tournament itself though, I'm afraid. Lots of players seemingly a bit rushed back and it's an attritional few weeks of ridiculously high intensity games

Agree. I am very pleasantly pleased and quite surprised England got through the warm-ups and training with no major injuries. Especially with players still recovering or just having recovered from major injuries. The likelihood of significant injuries during the RWC is pretty high. Shame for Wales. Hopefully the players recover to the fullest.

majesticimperialman wrote:Sexton went off with what looked like cramp. Was it cramp? or was it some think else?

I thing it was some think else.

It looked like cramp. If it was a tear he wouldve gone straight off after the first kick, hes not that stupid ( is he???)

SecretFly wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:I wonder how Madigan is feeling after being knocked back in to last week by Burgess?  England nearly scored a try from that tackle.

I don't know...how would you feel being knocked back by Burgess?

This idea that much smaller players should not be knocked back by a bulk of Burgess's size always draws a smirk from me.  What would we have expected?  That Burgess would bounce off him?  Madigan has been hit harder than that and he'll be hit harder again.

How long did it take for the welsh to stop harping on about henson vs tait?

It was a decent performance by England, and appeared to validate the vast majority of Lancaster's selection decisions.

For me there were a few areas of concern. The scrum creaked at times, Cole looked a bit lackadaisical.

The lineout has improved since Paris but it was 100% more by luck than judgement. George did well at hooker when he came on.

Ford can be mercurial, but he's lightweight and got isolated in possession too often. It pains me to say it but Farrell was better (more solid) but all creativity disappeared when he came on.

Burgess might have not been that impressive, but opposition backlines are clearly worried about him. He sucks in defenders and with a little finesse will make a super centre. Whether he's a 6 or not isn't really relevant, Lancaster is opting to include him in midfield.

England have good strength in depth, they certainly didn't lose anything by making substitutions.

I'll take that win, the score line flattered Ireland. No injuries to England is also a bonus. Could go all the way.