The Rugby Championship

First topic message reminder :

It starts again tomorrow. As ever the interest will wane quickly if the ABs resume their usual dismantling of all opposition. They look extremely strong with Retallick and Whitelock back in harness. Their strength in depth at 10 is frightening. The Aussies do have Pocock back, but hard to look beyond another comfortable AB win.

Argentina away in SA will be interesting I think. SA look like they are improving and Argentina play some good rugby - one to watch I think.

Hoping that somebody pushes the ABs and an Aussie win tomorrow would be the perfect tonic for the tournament, however unlikely that is.

You say weak but Ireland were underwhelming in Australia where they scraped home in an unconvincing series win whilst England lost their series to SA. November will be a good test though given these teams only seem to play well at home.

Collapse2005 wrote:I think that you might be getting a bit carried away Taylorman based on a weak enough Rugby Championship, no?

The real test for the ABs will be in November.

As opposed to a strong 6N? Where one got done 3-0 here, the other lost in SA and the winner won 2 by 4 and 5 points and lost one by 9 in Oz.

Real test? Don't see it myself. Only one team I see winning, and easily at that, and it aint any of the Nov. teams

While I agree with our NZ friends that Irish fans are a bit deluded/crazy about their chances against NZ, I do think the NH sides will, at home, provide a sterner test than than Aus, SA and Arg.

I do agree that Schmidt’s defensive, no risk style could begin to struggle.

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:I think that you might be getting a bit carried away Taylorman based on a weak enough Rugby Championship, no?

The real test for the ABs will be in November.

As opposed to a strong 6N? Where one got done 3-0 here, the other lost in SA and the winner won 2 by 4 and 5 points and lost one by 9 in Oz.

Real test? Don't see it myself. Only one team I see winning, and easily at that, and it aint any of the Nov. teams

New Zealand are certainly favourites but Collapse has a point. The Rugby Championship pits the All Blacks against teams currently rated 5th, 7th and 9th in the world. Ireland, England and France are 2nd, 4th and 8th.

NZ tend to beat every side in the rugby championship by on average 20 plus points for the last 4 years but has closer tests against the top NH sides and the odd loss to Ireland and the Lions but whatever dream on Taylorman.

NZ haven't lost a rugby championship game since the dead rubber championship before the RWC in 2015 when it is claimed that Hanson was intentionally creating scenarios for the ABs to struggle in games. Come on surely its a bit of a joke at this stage?

I also think the format of the tournament is ludicrously biased toward NZ. They play every year one away game just across the ditch in Australia followed by three home games against Australia, SA and Argentina. The championship is over and all teams bar NZ have flown half way around the world before NZ even step on a long haul flight. Joke of a tournament. How about a bit of rotation to level the playing field?

By the time NZ play the bulk of their away games everyone else has given up.

The ABs beat 6Ns teams by 20 plus points on average so that’s not really justification for calling the RC a joke. If anything, the RC teams have a higher winning percentage against the ABs than 6N teams so maybe playing NH teams is also a joke.

Collapse2005 wrote:

NZ haven't lost a rugby championship game since the dead rubber championship before the RWC in 2015 when it is claimed that Hanson was intentionally creating scenarios for the ABs to struggle in games. Come on surely its a bit of a joke at this stage?

Absolute rubbish. Hansen only did that in pool play in the WCup. Where do you get this stuff from. At most all we did was rest a couple of key or recovering players. We lost that series because we weren't the better team on the day.

And the reason SA and Oz are so depleted is because the north have bought up their most experienced players so you deny their best teams on the filed from the start by hiding them in those silly little outhouse clubs dotted around the countryside.

Their absence has allowed the NH sides to win more tests. From memory there are least 500 former test playing Bok, Wallaby or AB's currently playing in the NH.

Now you see how your teams would go if you had to send 500 test players from the 6N south to play. You'd be 100 nil'd every test.

The NH are successful simply because of the massive resourcing, IP, coaching and player input from the south. You're buying up the south, youre not outplaying them. You never have.

And what do we get in return? A kicking coach at the Crusaders...well whoop de do.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:I think that you might be getting a bit carried away Taylorman based on a weak enough Rugby Championship, no?

The real test for the ABs will be in November.

As opposed to a strong 6N? Where one got done 3-0 here, the other lost in SA and the winner won 2 by 4 and 5 points and lost one by 9 in Oz.

Real test? Don't see it myself. Only one team I see winning, and easily at that, and it aint any of the Nov. teams

New Zealand are certainly favourites but Collapse has a point. The Rugby Championship pits the All Blacks against teams currently rated 5th, 7th and 9th in the world. Ireland, England and France are 2nd, 4th and 8th.

Yep. Too bad the ABs aren’t playing the No.3 ranked team this year.... I think they’d really struggle!

mikey_dragon wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:I think that you might be getting a bit carried away Taylorman based on a weak enough Rugby Championship, no?

The real test for the ABs will be in November.

As opposed to a strong 6N? Where one got done 3-0 here, the other lost in SA and the winner won 2 by 4 and 5 points and lost one by 9 in Oz.

Real test? Don't see it myself. Only one team I see winning, and easily at that, and it aint any of the Nov. teams

New Zealand are certainly favourites but Collapse has a point. The Rugby Championship pits the All Blacks against teams currently rated 5th, 7th and 9th in the world. Ireland, England and France are 2nd, 4th and 8th.

Yep. Too bad the ABs aren’t playing the No.3 ranked team this year.... I think they’d really struggle!

Theyve struggled for the last 65 years. Apprently there are pensioners in Wales who have not seen their team beat the All Blacks.

ebop wrote:The ABs beat 6Ns teams by 20 plus points on average so that’s not really justification for calling the RC a joke. If anything, the RC teams have a higher winning percentage against the ABs than 6N teams so maybe playing NH teams is also a joke.

Eh no they don't. ABs vs Ireland under Joe Schmidt the aggregate score is a 2 point win for the ABs over 3 matches. That is a significant difference to rugby championship side results. The ABs have also been dodging England lately so hard to tell what the outcome would have been there.

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

NZ haven't lost a rugby championship game since the dead rubber championship before the RWC in 2015 when it is claimed that Hanson was intentionally creating scenarios for the ABs to struggle in games. Come on surely its a bit of a joke at this stage?

Absolute rubbish. Hansen only did that in pool play in the WCup. Where do you get this stuff from. At most all we did was rest a couple of key or recovering players. We lost that series because we weren't the better team on the day.

And the reason SA and Oz are so depleted is because the north have bought up their most experienced players so you deny their best teams on the filed from the start by hiding them in those silly little outhouse clubs dotted around the countryside.

Their absence has allowed the NH sides to win more tests. From memory there are least 500 former test playing Bok, Wallaby or AB's currently playing in the NH.

Now you see how your teams would go if you had to send 500 test players from the 6N south to play. You'd be 100 nil'd every test.

The NH are successful simply because of the massive resourcing, IP, coaching and player input from the south. You're buying up the south, youre not outplaying them. You never have.

And what do we get in return? A kicking coach at the Crusaders...well whoop de do.

You sound quite bitter. Maybe coming to play in the NH is more attractive to rugby players than the other way around? Can you really fault such players?

There are two Irish players playing in New Zealand at the moment. Oliver Jaeger and Harrison Brewer, both from the Leinster academy. Oliver Jaeger is a decent prop who has started on a number of times from the Crusaders.

Even if you are right re the 2015 rugby championship surely 0 losses since then is fairly clear evidence that the quality of opponent isn't exactly earth shattering and the fact that games against the top NH opposition does tend to be closer.

The thing that alot New Zealand people are ignoring is that they are doing nothing to stop them becoming like Brazil and Argentina of rugby. All I see is the All Blacks focusing on we are great people want to play us and pay us for the privilege. It is telling the 4 pro teams are playing an Extra AI against each other rather than a SH team. Be prepared for NZ to make changes to the overseas rule before the 2023 WC

As the inter league European competitions grow the money gap becomes bigger. South African people have already said them get access to them the money is more than Super Rugby can offer.

This could be the last world cup of SH dominance with all the contracts up for renewal.

Collapse2005 wrote:

ebop wrote:The ABs beat 6Ns teams by 20 plus points on average so that’s not really justification for calling the RC a joke. If anything, the RC teams have a higher winning percentage against the ABs than 6N teams so maybe playing NH teams is also a joke.

Eh no they don't. ABs vs Ireland under Joe Schmidt the aggregate score is a 2 point win for the ABs over 3 matches. That is a significant difference to rugby championship side results. The ABs have also been dodging England lately so hard to tell what the outcome would have been there.  

You’re a cherry picker. 3% success over history, that’s the real stat, and it’s no joke.

And who deals in aggregate scores?

Such feverish delight in wishing doom and gloom on the greatest rugby nation on the planet.  Kinda sad that people gloat (trying to cloak it some) that they might finally see the end of New Zealand dominance in their lifetimes by adding oodles of money into the pot and 'stealing' all skills and knowledge up to the North.

Sometimes it's just embarrassing to be from the NH.  The greed to have the best of everything right outside your doorstep without having to step on a plane really.  What a stale over-view of a nice planet.

ebop wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

ebop wrote:The ABs beat 6Ns teams by 20 plus points on average so that’s not really justification for calling the RC a joke. If anything, the RC teams have a higher winning percentage against the ABs than 6N teams so maybe playing NH teams is also a joke.

Eh no they don't. ABs vs Ireland under Joe Schmidt the aggregate score is a 2 point win for the ABs over 3 matches. That is a significant difference to rugby championship side results. The ABs have also been dodging England lately so hard to tell what the outcome would have been there.  

You’re a cherry picker. 3% success over history, that’s the real stat, and it’s no joke.

And who deals in aggregate scores?

You are really thick Ebop aren't you? Cherry picking is absolutely relevant to the subject being discussed, whether at present the North or the SH tournaments provide a bigger challenge to NZ or not. We aren't talking about over the whole course of history.

An aggregate score gives you an indication as to how close matches between two sides are over a period of time. Jeez dude you are slow.

Aggregate score!!

Mate, take your solitary win and cherish it like it’s something significant. Think about it whilst you mull over what 3% actually means.

Whilst we’re cherry picking, what was the aggregate score the last time Ireland played the ABs in NZ?

So Ireland drew with Australia in the latest June series with an aggregate score of 0 points. Meanwhile, the ABs smoked Australia a few months later by an aggregate difference of 53. Can only assume Ireland weren’t much chop to only score an aggregate of zero points. Is that how aggregate scores work?

If we do some basic aggregate mathematics, the ABs are 53 points better than Ireland when pegged against Australia.

ebop wrote:Aggregate score!!

Mate, take your solitary win and cherish it like it’s something significant. Think about it whilst you mull over what 3% actually means.

Whilst we’re cherry picking, what was the aggregate score the last time Ireland played the ABs in NZ?

So Ireland drew with Australia in the latest June series with an aggregate score of 0 points. Meanwhile, the ABs smoked Australia a few months later by an aggregate difference of 53. Can only assume Ireland weren’t much chop to only score an aggregate of zero points. Is that how aggregate scores work?

If we do some basic aggregate mathematics, the ABs are 53 points better than Ireland when pegged against Australia.

You really are quite thick aren't you? Why bother responding to posts if you are unable to address the actual comment made. You just make a fool of yourself.

Your point is that you actually think a 2pt aggregate points difference actually means something, lol. You keep going on about it and it’s ridiculous. The record under Schmidt is 2-1 and Ireland haven’t set foot in NZ yet. They did go to Australia and draw the series by zero points on aggregate though. France were ahead of England in the 6Ns and we beat them up in June. Australia drew with Ireland on aggregate. SA beat England. And you’re trying to say 6Ns is where it’s at....ummm, no

ebop wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

ebop wrote:The ABs beat 6Ns teams by 20 plus points on average so that’s not really justification for calling the RC a joke. If anything, the RC teams have a higher winning percentage against the ABs than 6N teams so maybe playing NH teams is also a joke.

Eh no they don't. ABs vs Ireland under Joe Schmidt the aggregate score is a 2 point win for the ABs over 3 matches. That is a significant difference to rugby championship side results. The ABs have also been dodging England lately so hard to tell what the outcome would have been there.  

You’re a cherry picker. 3% success over history, that’s the real stat, and it’s no joke.

And who deals in aggregate scores?

We're talking about how strong teams are now. Going back 100 years has no relevance for this discussion.

Like right now? That’s what I’ve been doing, pointing out to Mr Aggregate-man that Ireland are about as good as Australia using his currency. Do you deal in aggregates profitius? Pretty odd ball stuff ain’t it.

You're only as good as you're last game....

Do you REALLY think this is the greatest Ireland team?that the past means nothing?the 1948 side
with Jackie Kyle was great to not to mention the sides in the 70`s with Willie john McBride.What
one wants is consistent ruling for each act not sorted by a ref or tmo`s whim.
The Lions were ahead for only 3 minutes in recent series in 3 matches,Aus won the home match
in 2015 [which I predicted at the time]as I predicted Ireland loss as well.When the bledisloe was on the
line it was a different story.

I wonder if Hansen will ask his players about post RWC plans then ignore or marginalize those players.

alanmackie6 wrote:Do you REALLY think this is the greatest Ireland team?that the past means nothing?the 1948 side
with Jackie Kyle was great to not to mention the sides in the 70`s with Willie john McBride.What
one wants is consistent ruling for each act not sorted by a ref or tmo`s whim.
The Lions were ahead for only 3 minutes in recent series in 3 matches,Aus won the home match
in 2015 [which I predicted at the time]as I predicted Ireland loss as well.When the bledisloe was on the
line it was a different story.

I wonder if Hansen will ask his players about post RWC plans then ignore or marginalize those players.

This is easily the best Ireland team ever. There's always been exceptional individuals like Kyle, McBride, Gibson and  O'Driscoll but even though they have half the numbers of NZ they are stronger than they have ever been.

alanmackie6 wrote:Do you REALLY think this is the greatest Ireland team?that the past means nothing?the 1948 side
with Jackie Kyle was great to not to mention the sides in the 70`s with Willie john McBride.

It's fair to ask whether you can really compare players and teans across generations. More so than football or cricket, rugby has changed a good deal as a sport, especially during the professional era.

Still, if you are going to do it at all, then it's not hard to make a claim for this current Ireland side, based on what they have achieved so far. Only three Irish sides have managed a Grand Slam (1948, 2009 and 2018), and only one of them has beaten the All Blacks. If they had done nothing else, then that would still surpass anything managed by other Irish team.

By what criteria do you consider this a great side,has it gone 18 games unbeaten?you scraped a series
v Aus ,losing one.You did a grand slam,and beat the Boks so have Scotland,wales,England,when you
beat the best side in the world.
On a regular basis who ever that is at any given time,do a couple more grand slams ,reach the SF in a RWC regularly then start shouting.
In the Autumn you may well beat the AB`s in Nov do it again and again THEN i`ll agree with you.

alanmackie6 wrote:By what criteria do you consider this a great side,has it gone 18 games unbeaten?you scraped a series
v Aus ,losing one.You did a grand slam,and beat the Boks so have Scotland,wales,England,when you
beat the best side in the world.
On a regular basis who ever that is at any given time,do a couple more grand slams ,reach the SF in a RWC regularly then start shouting.
In the Autumn you may well beat the AB`s  in Nov do it again and again THEN i`ll agree with you.

I'm not Irish, it's not my team.

You seem to have moved the goalposts. First you asked "Do you REALLY think this is the greatest Ireland team?" but now you are asking why I claimed this is one of the greatest rugby teams ever.

I didn't.

And presumably Alan believes the england side is great after their run. Fair play to him.

The England side that went unbeaten for 18 matches was undoubtedly a great side,I was once
accused of being a computer just spewing out stats.
So NZ are by the book the best team in the history of the game,75 % win rate overall since 1903
anywhere,that reduces to 99% at home.
Australia have beaten Nz more times than any other,because they`ve played them more than
anyother.SA are the closest to them win/loss.
I agree with people who say the RC is weighted in Nz`s favour,1 away fixture then 3 at home means
it`s all over by the away legs often enough.
In many ways the 6Ns is a better comp because its more unpredictable IF Ireland played Nz 3 times
a year every year then i`m sure they would have beaten them before.
In the RWC nearly all sides are at full strength which is a fairer guide,do I consider a team inferior
because they`ve never won an RWC.
NO I don`t EJ is now coming up against the club before country syn drome,NZ on the other hand
are the pinnacle of a very big pyramid where the shirt means every thing

Rugby Fan wrote:

alanmackie6 wrote:By what criteria do you consider this a great side,has it gone 18 games unbeaten?you scraped a series
v Aus ,losing one.You did a grand slam,and beat the Boks so have Scotland,wales,England,when you
beat the best side in the world.
On a regular basis who ever that is at any given time,do a couple more grand slams ,reach the SF in a RWC regularly then start shouting.
In the Autumn you may well beat the AB`s  in Nov do it again and again THEN i`ll agree with you.

I'm not Irish, it's not my team.

You seem to have moved the goalposts. First you asked "Do you REALLY think this is the greatest Ireland team?" but now you are asking why I claimed this is one of the greatest rugby teams ever.

I didn't.

Exactly RF. Alan is changing the goalposts. I suspect he was responding to my post when I said "This is easily the best Ireland team ever."

No other Ireland team has beaten the ABs, won a test in SA, won a three test series in Aus and a GS, with a squad of players larger than ever. Their next targets in things they have never done before is to beat the ABs in Dublin and make the semi-finals of the RWC.

NO i`m not the overhyping of ireland on the strength of a single AB win ,does not mean
i`m changing the goalposts.SA and Aus are very weak currently

So why are the Irish sides of the 70s better than this one alan.

And the English system is aroubd club s and country. Personally think it's the way to go with constant revaluation of what that should look like.

When you consider Englands massive advantages in cash,resources etc .and the fact most of
the premier teams are in massive debt,sorry but IF you want England to be truly great.
ALL the time then the Test side should come first,last,and always.

This Ireland would be the strongest I’ve seen but can’t comment pre mid-80s. How they go after Schmidt leaves will be interesting to see. A good 1-2 years here and there is all very well but it’s the question of can they keep it up and can they blood new players to keep it up. And what’s this stuff I hear about Irish rugby players getting tax breaks? That place is like the Cayman Islands but with more moss.

No its a partnership Alan. And per person england probably has the least resources

ebop wrote:This Ireland would be the strongest I’ve seen but can’t comment pre mid-80s. How they go after Schmidt leaves will be interesting to see. A good 1-2 years here and there is all very well but it’s the question of can they keep it up and can they blood new players to keep it up. And what’s this stuff I hear about Irish rugby players getting tax breaks? That place is like the Cayman Islands but with more moss.

This Irish team will be judged by its performance in the world cup. As ranked number two they should be at a minimum in the final. And theyve never even been to a semi.

NZ were rubbished for the years they were the best team between world cups, so will Ireland be judged on that basis. As 6 N champs they blew it in 2015. They have that hurdle to overcome. Semi is now not good enough.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

NZ haven't lost a rugby championship game since the dead rubber championship before the RWC in 2015 when it is claimed that Hanson was intentionally creating scenarios for the ABs to struggle in games. Come on surely its a bit of a joke at this stage?

Absolute rubbish. Hansen only did that in pool play in the WCup. Where do you get this stuff from. At most all we did was rest a couple of key or recovering players. We lost that series because we weren't the better team on the day.

And the reason SA and Oz are so depleted is because the north have bought up their most experienced players so you deny their best teams on the filed from the start by hiding them in those silly little outhouse clubs dotted around the countryside.

Their absence has allowed the NH sides to win more tests. From memory there are least 500 former test playing Bok, Wallaby or AB's currently playing in the NH.

Now you see how your teams would go if you had to send 500 test players from the 6N south to play. You'd be 100 nil'd every test.

The NH are successful simply because of the massive resourcing, IP, coaching and player input from the south. You're buying up the south, youre not outplaying them. You never have.

And what do we get in return? A kicking coach at the Crusaders...well whoop de do.

You sound quite bitter. Maybe coming to play in the NH is more attractive to rugby players than the other way around? Can you really fault such players?

There are two Irish players playing in New Zealand at the moment. Oliver Jaeger and Harrison Brewer, both from the Leinster academy. Oliver Jaeger is a decent prop who has started on a number of times from the Crusaders.

Even if you are right re the 2015 rugby championship surely 0 losses since then is fairly clear evidence that the quality of opponent isn't exactly earth shattering and the fact that games against the top NH opposition does tend to be closer.

Yeah fair enough was a but of a grumpy one. Agree that Ireland seem to be doing the right things from a player development perspective. Sharing IP and resources is a good thing, it just tends to be too heavily one way at the moment. NH rugby does less with more where NZ particularly do more with less in terms of its quality of rugby in that we can afford to have many very high quality, experienced players playing offshore yet still maintain a mostly winning position.

Carter and Cruden would make any test squad in the world when they left for the NH. No other side can afford to lose that calibre of players. Remove both Sexton and Murray amd Ireland would be a shell of what it is now.

Nz remainex the best team even when going out of those world cups early. Think you misunderstood some of the choking comments. It meant that nz did as much to butcher their own chances as the opposition beating them. Just because you went out doesn't mean you werent the best. In a similar way should ireland go out to Australia or wales ( likely opponents) it doesn't necessarily mean either are better overall.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Nz remainex the best team even when going out of those world cups early.  Think you misunderstood some of the choking comments. It meant that nz did as much to butcher their own chances as the opposition beating them. Just because you went out doesn't mean you werent the best. In a similar way should ireland go out to Australia or wales ( likely opponents) it doesn't necessarily mean either are better overall.

In our experience as fans, it made all the difference. Youre not really the real number one until you are both ranked no. 1 and are World cup champs. Its a fickle world but reality is unless youre both there are those that say you may have the ranking but its at the games showpiece is where youve gotta perform, and likewise you may have the trophy but the ABs, or whoever it is at the time are the number one ranked side.

By having both theres not a lot to complain about.

Different things. I think the ranking system is a little subjective anyway in relation to how good teams are so not definitive. And the world cup just tells you who the world champions are. Take england in 2004. Number 1 in the world and world champions. But the team itself in 2004 had lost a key men and weren't the best. Needs to be an overall view imo.

Chris Rattue gave an interesting interview on rugby on off the ball last week. He is convinced that Joe Schmidt is the best coach in the world but Ian Foster will be the next ABs coach.

He also reckons that only Ireland, SA and England can challenge the ABs mainly because they have better or equivalent packs than NZs. He suggested Ireland's pack is better than NZs but NZs backs are way ahead of everyone else's on the whole. Can say I disagree.

I reckon Ireland do have marginally a better pack than NZ at the moment (based on last head to heads) but it will be interesting to see if that's still the case come November.

Rattue talks utter bilge at times,if every one`s fit Nz have the best pack in world rugby,England please
not that myth again.Ireland it`s arguable but given parity up front they`ll kill you incidentally despite
not having won so many trophies.Ireland currently is NOT the best Ireland side i`ve seen in my65
plus years.

If you’re ever unsure who the best side in the world is, just check with Alan who he’s supporting that week.

Which team was then Alan?
Given englands pack is in a stage where both props are just about to be replaced along with 6 and 7 I think there are too many questions unanswered to claim they are the best pack.
Nz pack looks immense with retallick there. Very beatable and beat upable. Without.

Oh Cyril my little troll where have you been hiding

alanmackie6 wrote:Rattue talks utter bilge at times,if every one`s fit Nz have the best pack in world rugby,England please
not that myth again.Ireland it`s arguable but given parity up front they`ll kill you incidentally despite
not having won so many trophies.Ireland currently is NOT the best Ireland side i`ve seen in my65
plus years.

Yes well that's the point, under Schmidt NZ have yet to kill Ireland. Their biggest win is by 12 points which is below their average win tally (1 point win and a loss make up the tally). Based on watching those games, scoreboard and general match stats I reckon Ireland have got the better hand over NZ in for forwards lately. Not suggesting all Irish forwards are better than NZs, some are, but rather as a unit including subs Irelands forwards have been stronger.

The win loss ratios suggest that this is the best Ireland side of all time if you define side as a side for the duration of a coaching ticket.

It is the same who is the plastic fan and needs to justify his support for a side the other side of the world by talking.down anyone challenging new zealand then.

alanmackie6 wrote:Ireland currently is NOT the best Ireland side i`ve seen in my65
plus years.

Why not tell us who you think is the best Irish side ever, and why?

The best All Black side I saw was the team which ended up losing the 1995 World Cup. Lomu seemed so different to anything we'd seen before, that the game would have been changed forever even if we hadn't adopted professionalism shortly afterwards. The other players around him were special too. I can look at that 1995 squad and still recognize all the names, which I can't say about many World Cup squads for any team, for any year.

For England, when I've had a few drinks, I even start thinking that Carling's team was better than the 2003 World Cup winners. I'm not saying they would win a head to head - even if such a thing was possible - simply that there was a great story with that side to go along with their successes and failures.

Welsh teams of the 70s never beat All Blacks but they were a thing of beauty at the time, and it was their players who drove the Lions win in New Zealand. Wales have won several Grand Slams in the professional era, and contributed a good deal to the three most recent Lions tours, but they've never been out of this world in the way I remember those old Welsh teams.

So, I'm onside with the idea that you don't have to rely on World Cups, rankings, unbeaten streaks or other such markers to make a judgement on greatness, but you do need to rely on some kind of criterion.

The last match v ireland in dublin all they could manage was penalties,and were well beaten 4 tries to zip.
Sam Barrett is an excellent lock and lf not yet as good as Retalick he isn`t far behind,best Ireland side
the 1959 side which wasback bone of the lions tour to NZ.
Arguably the best lions side to Nz ever only Don Clarkes boot the difference,Heinz 57 scored 22 tries still
a record.

Collapse2005 wrote:

alanmackie6 wrote:Rattue talks utter bilge at times,if every one`s fit Nz have the best pack in world rugby,England please
not that myth again.Ireland it`s arguable but given parity up front they`ll kill you incidentally despite
not having won so many trophies.Ireland currently is NOT the best Ireland side i`ve seen in my65
plus years.

Yes well that's the point, under Schmidt NZ have yet to kill Ireland. Their biggest win is by 12 points which is below their average win tally (1 point win and a loss make up the tally). Based on watching those games, scoreboard and general match stats I reckon Ireland have got the better hand over NZ in for forwards lately. Not suggesting all Irish forwards are better than NZs, some are, but rather as a unit including subs Irelands forwards have been stronger.

The win loss ratios suggest that this is the best Ireland side of all time if you define side as a side for the duration of a coaching ticket.

Yes though all three were offshore. Play another three here and it would certainly be more than 12. But hes done well, but until hes won a match of note... a world cup semi or better, or a test in NZ would qualify in my book, hes yet to prove himself. The loss in 2015 to last RC placed Argie is inexcusable in my opinion. That was either a coach, or a team, or both under pressure from Irelands poor record in quarter finals.

Sam Barrett is a country mile behind retallick. An insult to compare them. And rugby is about scoring more points than your opponent.