Ireland Winning Tours of Australia 1967, 1979 AND 2018

Artful_Dodger wrote:

RiscaGame wrote:Enjoyed watching that, bar having to listen to Robson again. Very enjoyable series. Congratulations to Ireland.

I think he's a great commentator if its a dour Pro14 affair in terrible conditions. But for a game like this you just want him to shut up. Especially when you can't hear a conversation between Sexton and the ref leading to the Folau yellow cause he is blabbering on. I say that as a fellow Ulster man to Robson. He needs to stop talking some of the time.

The Great Aukster wrote:Biggest laugh for me was when the officials were ruling on whether Stockdale had touched the ball, and Pocock says to the referee "penalty try?".

The Great Aukster wrote:Biggest laugh for me was when the officials were ruling on whether Stockdale had touched the ball, and Pocock says to the referee "penalty try?".

Collapse2005 wrote:Ireland players need to stop whinhing to refs a bit. Both Murray and Sexton guilty. Ireland are the most carded team in world rugby per penalty conceded so that needs to be addressed by sucking up to refs more.

Collapse2005 wrote:Thought scannell had a fine tour. Looked a bit green on one or two occassions but did some great work. The throw to Stander for the try was exceptional. Credit.

Kearney annoyed me with a terrible attempt of a tackle for the Aussie try. He was decent as usual overall though.

Sexton world player of the year 2018?

SecretFly wrote:
I'm sure there have been times when really good Irish players have had that sinking feeling about their 'aloneness' in so-so Irish teams.  They wouldn't have admitted it but they'd have been concerned that there wasn't enough quality to make any big sustained inroads in many competitions.  Now in the present, each player can look around him and see quality to his right and to his left.  That confidence that they will be supported by players of similar quality adds oodles to confidence levels and allows a year like this one to happen.

theslosty wrote:I don't think we can win the RWC with Rob at 15. In fairness to him he's had a decent season and was top class 4 or 5 years ago but several elements of his game have declined. His aerial game while still strong is not as dominant as it used to be and I think Conway is at least as good in the air while offering more attacking threat. His counter-attack these days does simply not cut it at this level - you would be wary of kicking long to the likes of Folau, Ben Smith, McKenzie, le Roux, Hogg, Liam Williams, Minozzi etc. but you know with Kearney there's little risk of being caught. It's not even his inability to break the line which is the issue, he never seems to find even a soft shoulder and instead gets crunched by the first tackler putting our breakdown on the back foot. His defence is usually physical and brave but still has an uncanny knack of making the wrong decision nearly every time when faced with a one-on-one.

The obvious deficit in Ireland's game is the lack of precision in the backline. First of all I believe Ringrose is becoming a crucial player in that he has an elusiveness that none of our other centres possess. Watching the Australia or NZ attack it is apparent to me they play with a speed that our backline lacks. I'm not referring to footspeed but their ability to put the ball through the hands at pace. A couple of our backs, most notably Kearney, seem to require a couple of steps and a moment to look up before releasing their pass and so the few line breaks we create generally come off structured moves. This is probably my biggest argument for trying out another 15 as Rob is just too slow and too predictable when he comes into the line.

I was glad to see Larmour get 20 minutes or so at full back as I think that was his first chance there in an Ireland jersey. The wing does not look like his natural position to me as despite having incredible feet his straight-line speed is not especially remarkable.

To conclude, bringing in Larmour or possibly Conway at 15 would be a risk but a necessary one imo.

Sin é wrote:Folou copped a one match ban. Think he is appalling.

George Carlin wrote:Well done to Irish rugby generally - it all came together this year and with such a good academy and club structure in place, it looks set to continue. No other home nation I would root for in the same way.

Geen sport voor watjes wrote:

George Carlin wrote:Well done to Irish rugby generally - it all came together this year and with such a good academy and club structure in place, it looks set to continue. No other home nation I would root for in the same way.

Are we back to WW1?

George Carlin wrote:

Geen sport voor watjes wrote:

George Carlin wrote:Well done to Irish rugby generally - it all came together this year and with such a good academy and club structure in place, it looks set to continue. No other home nation I would root for in the same way.

Are we back to WW1?

SecretFly wrote:It's not that it's controversial really, it's just that a sovereign State doesn't see a word, invented by someone else a long way back, even further back than the SaxonEnglish invasion of GB, as an identifier of self.  A State gets to call itself what it wants - and the Southern bit of this island chooses Ireland for the thing we live in that's surrounded by water... not Ireland as a sub division of something else (British), just Ireland.  Mexico gets to call itself Mexico, it doesn't need America in the title.  The UK gets to call itself the UK, it doesn't need France or Mainland Europe in the title. 

I like it that way.  Now if only I could persuade my fellow Irish men to also get rid of the sub heading 'European'   .  It's funny too that a geographical identity is often hijacked by politico Imperialists to strongly hint at ownership rights, so let's not be coy about why an Island's name is obviously mixed in with "propaganda in schools"... propaganda in schools everywhere, not just in the schools of the auld Emerald Isle.

Anyway, the moral of the story is that just because the Romans (or probably moreso the ancient Greeks) named the islands as a group and called them 'British' etc.... doesn't require a whole new generation thousands of years later to bow or curtsy to that ancient name.  It's better off that peoples name themselves rather than have it pressed upon them by remote and casual Mediterranean observers.

Now let's discuss the British West Indies, and there's a bunch of islands a LONG LONG way from "home", aren't they................

The Oracle wrote:At the same time it’s not easy to just call yourself (I.e. call your country) what you want to either. Just look at the trouble in Mecedonia currently.

The Great Aukster wrote:

SecretFly wrote:It's not that it's controversial really, it's just that a sovereign State doesn't see a word, invented by someone else a long way back, even further back than the SaxonEnglish invasion of GB, as an identifier of self.  A State gets to call itself what it wants - and the Southern bit of this island chooses Ireland for the thing we live in that's surrounded by water... not Ireland as a sub division of something else (British), just Ireland.  Mexico gets to call itself Mexico, it doesn't need America in the title.  The UK gets to call itself the UK, it doesn't need France or Mainland Europe in the title. 

I like it that way.  Now if only I could persuade my fellow Irish men to also get rid of the sub heading 'European'   .  It's funny too that a geographical identity is often hijacked by politico Imperialists to strongly hint at ownership rights, so let's not be coy about why an Island's name is obviously mixed in with "propaganda in schools"... propaganda in schools everywhere, not just in the schools of the auld Emerald Isle.

Anyway, the moral of the story is that just because the Romans (or probably moreso the ancient Greeks) named the islands as a group and called them 'British' etc.... doesn't require a whole new generation thousands of years later to bow or curtsy to that ancient name.  It's better off that peoples name themselves rather than have it pressed upon them by remote and casual Mediterranean observers.

Now let's discuss the British West Indies, and there's a bunch of islands a LONG LONG way from "home", aren't they................

The propaganda taught in schools applies equally to both sides of the border - travel a few miles and see the difference in text books.

Mexico can politically call itself whatever it wants, but it cannot force that choice on others when referring to it. Geographically, Mexico can be accurately described as part of the 'Americas' or 'Central America' whether they like it or not.

It is incredible that anyone from Ireland should consider the designation given to a country as not being "controversial, really". Nomenclature has caused little but controversy on both sides of the border. The term 'Ireland' can mean different things to different people - the Republic of Ireland, the Irish free state, Éire, Eire, Poblacht na h-Éireann, Erin, the Emerald Isle etc. and does it represent 26 or 32 counties? There are a million inhabitants of the six counties in the 'North of Ireland' / 'Northern Ireland', who were taught in school that the land they are living on is geographically part of the group of islands collectively know as the 'the British Isles'. When a neighbouring sovereign State denies that association, are they not being just as 'politico Imperialist' as those suggesting Ireland is part of the British Isles?

The BWI are close to the Dutch, French, Spanish and Portuguese West Indies, but apart from the Bermuda sevens aren't big into rugby - perhaps that discussion should be for the cricket board?

Pot Hale wrote:

The Oracle wrote:At the same time it’s not easy to just call yourself (I.e. call your country) what you want to either. Just look at the trouble in Mecedonia currently.

That’s unintentionally funny.

Pot Hale wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

SecretFly wrote:It's not that it's controversial really, it's just that a sovereign State doesn't see a word, invented by someone else a long way back, even further back than the SaxonEnglish invasion of GB, as an identifier of self.  A State gets to call itself what it wants - and the Southern bit of this island chooses Ireland for the thing we live in that's surrounded by water... not Ireland as a sub division of something else (British), just Ireland.  Mexico gets to call itself Mexico, it doesn't need America in the title.  The UK gets to call itself the UK, it doesn't need France or Mainland Europe in the title. 

I like it that way.  Now if only I could persuade my fellow Irish men to also get rid of the sub heading 'European'   .  It's funny too that a geographical identity is often hijacked by politico Imperialists to strongly hint at ownership rights, so let's not be coy about why an Island's name is obviously mixed in with "propaganda in schools"... propaganda in schools everywhere, not just in the schools of the auld Emerald Isle.

Anyway, the moral of the story is that just because the Romans (or probably moreso the ancient Greeks) named the islands as a group and called them 'British' etc.... doesn't require a whole new generation thousands of years later to bow or curtsy to that ancient name.  It's better off that peoples name themselves rather than have it pressed upon them by remote and casual Mediterranean observers.

Now let's discuss the British West Indies, and there's a bunch of islands a LONG LONG way from "home", aren't they................

The propaganda taught in schools applies equally to both sides of the border - travel a few miles and see the difference in text books.

Mexico can politically call itself whatever it wants, but it cannot force that choice on others when referring to it. Geographically, Mexico can be accurately described as part of the 'Americas' or 'Central America' whether they like it or not.

It is incredible that anyone from Ireland should consider the designation given to a country as not being "controversial, really". Nomenclature has caused little but controversy on both sides of the border. The term 'Ireland' can mean different things to different people - the Republic of Ireland, the Irish free state, Éire, Eire, Poblacht na h-Éireann, Erin, the Emerald Isle etc. and does it represent 26 or 32 counties? There are a million inhabitants of the six counties in the 'North of Ireland' / 'Northern Ireland', who were taught in school that the land they are living on is geographically part of the group of islands collectively know as the 'the British Isles'. When a neighbouring sovereign State denies that association, are they not being just as 'politico Imperialist' as those suggesting Ireland is part of the British Isles?

The BWI are close to the Dutch, French, Spanish and Portuguese West Indies, but apart from the Bermuda sevens aren't big into rugby - perhaps that discussion should be for the cricket board?

In fairness, the Government of Ireland - its official name as recognised by the UK and EU - says that British Isles is inappropriate as a description of the two countries of UK and Ireland.  And that has been accepted by the British government.   The Irish constitution still states that the name of the state is Éire or Ireland in the English language.  Republic of Ireland or Irish Republic is not the official name of the country.  

Pot Hale wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

SecretFly wrote:It's not that it's controversial really, it's just that a sovereign State doesn't see a word, invented by someone else a long way back, even further back than the SaxonEnglish invasion of GB, as an identifier of self.  A State gets to call itself what it wants - and the Southern bit of this island chooses Ireland for the thing we live in that's surrounded by water... not Ireland as a sub division of something else (British), just Ireland.  Mexico gets to call itself Mexico, it doesn't need America in the title.  The UK gets to call itself the UK, it doesn't need France or Mainland Europe in the title. 

I like it that way.  Now if only I could persuade my fellow Irish men to also get rid of the sub heading 'European'   .  It's funny too that a geographical identity is often hijacked by politico Imperialists to strongly hint at ownership rights, so let's not be coy about why an Island's name is obviously mixed in with "propaganda in schools"... propaganda in schools everywhere, not just in the schools of the auld Emerald Isle.

Anyway, the moral of the story is that just because the Romans (or probably moreso the ancient Greeks) named the islands as a group and called them 'British' etc.... doesn't require a whole new generation thousands of years later to bow or curtsy to that ancient name.  It's better off that peoples name themselves rather than have it pressed upon them by remote and casual Mediterranean observers.

Now let's discuss the British West Indies, and there's a bunch of islands a LONG LONG way from "home", aren't they................

The propaganda taught in schools applies equally to both sides of the border - travel a few miles and see the difference in text books.

Mexico can politically call itself whatever it wants, but it cannot force that choice on others when referring to it. Geographically, Mexico can be accurately described as part of the 'Americas' or 'Central America' whether they like it or not.

It is incredible that anyone from Ireland should consider the designation given to a country as not being "controversial, really". Nomenclature has caused little but controversy on both sides of the border. The term 'Ireland' can mean different things to different people - the Republic of Ireland, the Irish free state, Éire, Eire, Poblacht na h-Éireann, Erin, the Emerald Isle etc. and does it represent 26 or 32 counties? There are a million inhabitants of the six counties in the 'North of Ireland' / 'Northern Ireland', who were taught in school that the land they are living on is geographically part of the group of islands collectively know as the 'the British Isles'. When a neighbouring sovereign State denies that association, are they not being just as 'politico Imperialist' as those suggesting Ireland is part of the British Isles?

The BWI are close to the Dutch, French, Spanish and Portuguese West Indies, but apart from the Bermuda sevens aren't big into rugby - perhaps that discussion should be for the cricket board?

In fairness, the Government of Ireland - its official name as recognised by the UK and EU - says that British Isles is inappropriate as a description of the two countries of UK and Ireland.  And that has been accepted by the British government.   The Irish constitution still states that the name of the state is Éire or Ireland in the English language.  Republic of Ireland or Irish Republic is not the official name of the country.  

Collapse2005 wrote:Why? Ireland describes the island of Ireland. Renaming Ireland southern Ireland and Northern Ireland would be idiotic when you can just call it Ireland.

You are comparing two fairly different things.

rodders wrote:I often wonder if they get offended in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea when people call it North Korea.