6 Nations - IRELAND v ENGLAND 2nd Feb 2019

First topic message reminder :

6 Nations

IRELAND v ENGLAND

Saturday 02 February 2019 16:45 GMT

Aviva Stadium, Dublin

Maybe a little early but I for one can not wait for this fixture. 2nd vs 4th.

The 6 Nations is officially the BEST rugby competition........................In the World.

England starting XV (485 caps)

15 Elliot Daly (Wasps, 25 caps), 14 Jonny May (Leicester Tigers, 40 caps), 13 Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs, 17 caps), 12 Manu Tuiagi (Leicester Tigers, 27 caps), 11 Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs, 29 caps), 10 Owen Farrell (Saracens, 65 caps), 9 Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 80 caps); 1 Mako Vunipola (Saracens, 51 caps), 2 Jamie George (Saracens, 32 caps), 3 Kyle Sinckler (Harlequins, 17 caps), 4 Maro Itoje (Saracens, 26 caps), 5 George Kruis (Saracens, 27 caps), 6 Mark Wilson (Newcastle Falcons, 8 caps), 7 Tom Curry (Sale Sharks, 5 caps), 8 Billy Vunipola (Saracens, 36 caps).

Finishers (206 caps)

16 Luke Cowan-Dickie (Exeter Chiefs, 7 caps), 17 Ellis Genge (Leicester Tigers, 5 caps), 18 Harry Williams (Exeter Chiefs, 15 caps), 19 Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 68 caps), 20 Nathan Hughes (Wasps, 18 caps), 21 Dan Robson (Wasps, uncapped), 22 George Ford (Leicester Tigers, 51 caps), 23 Chris Ashton (Sale Sharks, 42 caps).

Okie dokes.

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Doesn't matter. You fall the wrong side and minimum effort to move you're going to get done.
Joseph called up to the squad for Ireland.

Refs rarely dish out yellows as quickly as Barnes did in that instance. He tends to let the big occasion get to him though and makes impetuous and inconsistent decisions as a result.

Refs chicken out. A cynical offence less than a metre from the line should always be an instant YC, as given to Itoje in the AIs. Too many refs give far too many final warnings they encourage cheating.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Pay per hour is relevant. Of course it is. Why would you expect two people who do the same job to be happy with the same pay if one only works 3/5 of the hours of the other. The football comparison is a red herring. Women's football isn't as popular a product as men's where as women's tennis arguably is as popular as mens or at least the gap between the two isn't as large.

Plus women because they play less sets have more of a chance to participate in doubles or mixed doubles tournaments during which they can ear even more than men.

I don't agree with women being paid the same (because they don't generate the same) but training is work. Not just match length.

Interesting point, however, they don't get paid for training. I also do training for my job, courses in my own time and don't expect to get paid for it but it does enhance my chances of earning more in work. As I see it matches and tournaments are their job, training is what they do to ensure they make the most possible in their job.

I don't think pay per hour is relevant. Federer doesn't get paid less if he beats someone in straight sets.

I sit in an office and get paid on a monthly basis for being in situ for my contracted hours. I may work longer hours, or even work hard and produce quality output, but my contractual wage isn't actually conditional on either of those things (considerations of bonus and/or my ongoing position at the company aside).

I guess in a sport like rugby, there are similarities. You get paid a contracted wage and you turn up for training and games. In that respect, I don't honestly see how clubs have a legal argument for paying male players more than female, if they even pay female players at all. Unless they can successfully argue that male rugby player and female rugby player are sufficiently different roles.

To my knowledge, tennis is slightly different as you're not contracted by Wimbledon or Roland Garros or whatever organisation. I don't think you get paid for training or playing, you get prize money based on how well you do in tournaments. So it's not the same base pay for hours served equation, as it is output based. So it comes down to how tournament organisers want to split their prize pots. I can see the argument of saying male matches have more spectators and gross more, but again I think it comes down to that aspirational element of trying to elevate the female game to the level of the male game - firstly in how it is perceived and secondly in quality. For you could say that women's tennis is worse than men's, but if you cut half their prize money and half the women's tennis players had to go semi-pro, you would definitely see a drop-off in quality.

robbo277 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Pay per hour is relevant. Of course it is. Why would you expect two people who do the same job to be happy with the same pay if one only works 3/5 of the hours of the other. The football comparison is a red herring. Women's football isn't as popular a product as men's where as women's tennis arguably is as popular as mens or at least the gap between the two isn't as large.

Plus women because they play less sets have more of a chance to participate in doubles or mixed doubles tournaments during which they can ear even more than men.

I don't agree with women being paid the same (because they don't generate the same) but training is work. Not just match length.

Interesting point, however, they don't get paid for training. I also do training for my job, courses in my own time and don't expect to get paid for it but it does enhance my chances of earning more in work. As I see it matches and tournaments are their job, training is what they do to ensure they make the most possible in their job.

I don't think pay per hour is relevant. Federer doesn't get paid less if he beats someone in straight sets.

I sit in an office and get paid on a monthly basis for being in situ for my contracted hours. I may work longer hours, or even work hard and produce quality output, but my contractual wage isn't actually conditional on either of those things (considerations of bonus and/or my ongoing position at the company aside).

I guess in a sport like rugby, there are similarities. You get paid a contracted wage and you turn up for training and games. In that respect, I don't honestly see how clubs have a legal argument for paying male players more than female, if they even pay female players at all. Unless they can successfully argue that male rugby player and female rugby player are sufficiently different roles.

To my knowledge, tennis is slightly different as you're not contracted by Wimbledon or Roland Garros or whatever organisation. I don't think you get paid for training or playing, you get prize money based on how well you do in tournaments. So it's not the same base pay for hours served equation, as it is output based. So it comes down to how tournament organisers want to split their prize pots. I can see the argument of saying male matches have more spectators and gross more, but again I think it comes down to that aspirational element of trying to elevate the female game to the level of the male game - firstly in how it is perceived and secondly in quality. For you could say that women's tennis is worse than men's, but if you cut half their prize money and half the women's tennis players had to go semi-pro, you would definitely see a drop-off in quality.

Clubs can quite easily justify paying rugby players different wages. The men play in matches which generate more income so they can justify playing larger wages. In the same way in my business I paid salespeople based on their income generation. The law requires work of equal value to be paid the same. It does not require equal pay for either equal time or effort.

If women players were to take up a legal challenge and in the unlikely event of them winning the obvious response is for professional rugby to become a mixed sex, equal opportunities game. Of course no women would be remotely good enough to make the grade as a professional player.

Exiledinborders wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Pay per hour is relevant. Of course it is. Why would you expect two people who do the same job to be happy with the same pay if one only works 3/5 of the hours of the other. The football comparison is a red herring. Women's football isn't as popular a product as men's where as women's tennis arguably is as popular as mens or at least the gap between the two isn't as large.

Plus women because they play less sets have more of a chance to participate in doubles or mixed doubles tournaments during which they can ear even more than men.

I don't agree with women being paid the same (because they don't generate the same) but training is work. Not just match length.

Interesting point, however, they don't get paid for training. I also do training for my job, courses in my own time and don't expect to get paid for it but it does enhance my chances of earning more in work. As I see it matches and tournaments are their job, training is what they do to ensure they make the most possible in their job.

I don't think pay per hour is relevant. Federer doesn't get paid less if he beats someone in straight sets.

I sit in an office and get paid on a monthly basis for being in situ for my contracted hours. I may work longer hours, or even work hard and produce quality output, but my contractual wage isn't actually conditional on either of those things (considerations of bonus and/or my ongoing position at the company aside).

I guess in a sport like rugby, there are similarities. You get paid a contracted wage and you turn up for training and games. In that respect, I don't honestly see how clubs have a legal argument for paying male players more than female, if they even pay female players at all. Unless they can successfully argue that male rugby player and female rugby player are sufficiently different roles.

To my knowledge, tennis is slightly different as you're not contracted by Wimbledon or Roland Garros or whatever organisation. I don't think you get paid for training or playing, you get prize money based on how well you do in tournaments. So it's not the same base pay for hours served equation, as it is output based. So it comes down to how tournament organisers want to split their prize pots. I can see the argument of saying male matches have more spectators and gross more, but again I think it comes down to that aspirational element of trying to elevate the female game to the level of the male game - firstly in how it is perceived and secondly in quality. For you could say that women's tennis is worse than men's, but if you cut half their prize money and half the women's tennis players had to go semi-pro, you would definitely see a drop-off in quality.

Clubs can quite easily justify paying rugby players different wages. The men play in matches which generate more income so they can justify playing larger wages.  In the same way in my business I paid salespeople based on their income generation.  The law requires work of equal value to be paid the same. It does not require equal pay for either equal time or effort.

If women players were to take up a legal challenge and in the unlikely event of them winning the obvious response is for professional rugby to become a mixed sex, equal opportunities game. Of course no women would be remotely good enough to make the grade as a professional player.

Right, taking the first point first. The law does not require "work of equal value" to be paid the same. It's equal pay for equal work. Equal value is one way of determining equal work. As is "like work". Rugby player, regardless of sex, would probably constitute like work, and a female rugby player would have a case for saying that they perform like work.

like work - this is where the works involves similar tasks which require similar skills, and any differences in the work are not of practical importance.

Whatever you think of women's rugby, the job description is literally the same, which makes it like work.

To justify any difference in pay or other terms, the employer must be able to demonstrate that there are significant differences of practical importance in the work actually performed. For example, level of responsibility, skills, the time at which work is done, any necessary qualifications or training required, or the amount of physical effort involved.

This is where the legislation may allow for discrepancies in pay, but it would come down to judgement whether there are significant differences of the practical importance. I guess the league profile and income generated could be a factor there.

(all quotes from: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/what-equal-work)

Onto the second point, regarding professional rugby's potential response to such a case. I don't know why so many people see equality in sport as a challenge to be resisted. Does it matter if women get paid as much as men? I'm not sure why it prompts such a reaction from so many people. Essentially, these are sportspeople dedicating their life to maximising their ability. Being paid less is being told their time and efforts aren't as valuable, even if they reach the top of their game.

Probably because womens rugby is abysmal to watch. If enough people wanted to watch it it would be reflected in their pay. Some womens sports are good to watch but not rugby.

Collapse2005 wrote:Probably because womens rugby is abysmal to watch. If enough people wanted to watch it it would be reflected in their pay. Some womens sports are good to watch but not rugby.

One reason women's sport may be at a lower level than men's is the financial input into the men's game. Look at the professional pathway in men's rugby vs women's rugby. England pay their women's team, but the clubs aren't fully professional and there are no professional academies. The player pool is also so much smaller because girls in society aren't encouraged to play rugby (changing now). It's currently not a level playing field. The solution isn't wait until the women's game pick up and then start paying them equal money, that financial playing field needs to be levelled. Starting with paying the top players a fair wage so they can become full time professionals, setting up academies and investing in the grass roots girls game.

Collapse2005 wrote:Probably because womens rugby is abysmal to watch. If enough people wanted to watch it it would be reflected in their pay. Some womens sports are good to watch but not rugby.

Also explains why wages are lower in Wales

robbo277 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Probably because womens rugby is abysmal to watch. If enough people wanted to watch it it would be reflected in their pay. Some womens sports are good to watch but not rugby.

One reason women's sport may be at a lower level than men's is the financial input into the men's game. Look at the professional pathway in men's rugby vs women's rugby. England pay their women's team, but the clubs aren't fully professional and there are no professional academies. The player pool is also so much smaller because girls in society aren't encouraged to play rugby (changing now). It's currently not a level playing field. The solution isn't wait until the women's game pick up and then start paying them equal money, that financial playing field needs to be levelled. Starting with paying the top players a fair wage so they can become full time professionals, setting up academies and investing in the grass roots girls game.

The trouble is that even if every women player had the best coaching virtually none would attain the level of a male professional player because they lack power and on average have worse spatial processing and hand eye coordination. In sport most people want to watch the best not the best of the half of the population that are less suited to the sport. Even in sports with the greatest equality such as tennis that still applies. The men's tour has larger viewing figures than the women's tour and so larger prize money. Due to political pressure, at Grand Slam events the money may be the same for both sexes but the audiences are typically larger for men's matches.

I am all for women's sport, disabled sport, indeed sport for everyone. It is great that the RFU can subsidise the women's international team but it is unrealistic to expect that professionalism will ever go much lower down or spread to all countries.

robbo277 wrote:
Onto the second point, regarding professional rugby's potential response to such a case. I don't know why so many people see equality in sport as a challenge to be resisted. Does it matter if women get paid as much as men? I'm not sure why it prompts such a reaction from so many people. Essentially, these are sportspeople dedicating their life to maximising their ability.

The problem is pretty obvious. In the unlikely event of case being successful women would be being paid very large salaries based only on the work and effort of the male players whose efforts produce the income. The clubs unfortunate enough to have a women's team in those circumstances would fold as they would not be able to compete for salaries with male only clubs.

robbo277 wrote:Being paid less is being told their time and efforts aren't as valuable, even if they reach the top of their game.

As for "being paid less is being told their time and efforts aren't as valuable" their efforts are clearly less valuable as they produce a tiny fraction of the income that the male players generate.

The idea that reward should be based on time and effort is ludicrous. In business I was not interested in my employees effort or hours worked. Business is about income generated and profit.

Did I start this men v women thing???

Enough!

Back to the war between Ireland and England please! Let's have some decorum on this thread!

SecretFly wrote:Did I start this men v women thing???

Enough!

Back to the war between Ireland and England please!  Let's have some decorum on this thread!

AS A MAN MY OPINIONS ON WOMENS SPORTS ARE VERY IMPORTANT AND WELL INFORMED WHETHER SOLICITED OR NOT. MAKE THIS FORUM GREAT AGAIN.

Will England men get enough funding to create a hard border wall and keep the Irish on their side of the try line?

robbo277 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Probably because womens rugby is abysmal to watch. If enough people wanted to watch it it would be reflected in their pay. Some womens sports are good to watch but not rugby.

One reason women's sport may be at a lower level than men's is the financial input into the men's game. Look at the professional pathway in men's rugby vs women's rugby. England pay their women's team, but the clubs aren't fully professional and there are no professional academies. The player pool is also so much smaller because girls in society aren't encouraged to play rugby (changing now). It's currently not a level playing field. The solution isn't wait until the women's game pick up and then start paying them equal money, that financial playing field needs to be levelled. Starting with paying the top players a fair wage so they can become full time professionals, setting up academies and investing in the grass roots girls game.

Financial input comes from success. Irish womens hockey team received significantly increased funding after they made the hockey world cup and rightly so. By and large sport or companies in general must pay for themselves or sustain themselves at the level that the interest in their game generates. I think we live in a generation where people think that handouts and concessions solve everything.

Robbo, no they wouldn't. Why do players get paid different amounts then? Surely that's "like for like work". News flash, communism didn't, doesn't and never will work.

"Right, taking the first point first. The law does not require "work of equal value" to be paid the same. It's equal pay for equal work. Equal value is one way of determining equal work. As is "like work". Rugby player, regardless of sex, would probably constitute like work, and a female rugby player would have a case for saying that they perform like work"

the-goon wrote:Robbo, no they wouldn't. Why do players get paid different amounts then? Surely that's "like for like work". News flash, communism didn't, doesn't and never will work.

"Right, taking the first point first. The law does not require "work of equal value" to be paid the same. It's equal pay for equal work. Equal value is one way of determining equal work. As is "like work". Rugby player, regardless of sex, would probably constitute like work, and a female rugby player would have a case for saying that they perform like work"

Jesus was a communist. Pretty much the whole Christian faith is on a par with communism.
That's worked pretty well

Everyone's equal but some are more equal than others.

the-goon wrote:Robbo, no they wouldn't. Why do players get paid different amounts then? Surely that's "like for like work". News flash, communism didn't, doesn't and never will work.

"Right, taking the first point first. The law does not require "work of equal value" to be paid the same. It's equal pay for equal work. Equal value is one way of determining equal work. As is "like work". Rugby player, regardless of sex, would probably constitute like work, and a female rugby player would have a case for saying that they perform like work"

I'm ready to leave this discussion at this point, but what I'm suggesting is hardly communism.

Some decent points have been raised, some not so decent points also. The idea that women should be paid less than men because their product "is worse" will never sit right with me. The fact that the product is less supported is an issue, but the fix is to invest equally in the two games (or if anything accelerate investment in the women's game because there is the most growth potential), not to treat one as naturally superior to the other.

Anyway, that's my opinion. If I haven't changed yours I'm not going to. Let's move on.

Ok, Robbo. You are free to ignore reality.

I have had this discussion with my teenage daughters in the past. We came to the conclusion that within gender segregated team sports Male and Female athletes are not doing the same job thus the Equal Pay Act would not apply.

Back onto Ireland vs England news: Rory Best and Owen Farrell played a game of Connect Four at the Six Nations launch. I believe Rory Best won, although I haven't seen the full video. From the clip I saw though, Farrell's thumb appears to be moving freely, so I'd take a loss here if it meant a win in 10 days.

EDIT: Farrell won off an unforced error from Best.

https://twitter.com/IrishRugby/status/1088054215233044482

robbo277 wrote:Back onto Ireland vs England news: Rory Best and Owen Farrell played a game of Connect Four at the Six Nations launch. I believe Rory Best won, although I haven't seen the full video. From the clip I saw though, Farrell's thumb appears to be moving freely, so I'd take a loss here if it meant a win in 10 days.

EDIT: Farrell won off an unforced error from Best.

https://twitter.com/IrishRugby/status/1088054215233044482

Just as well it wasnt Hartley as Captain, he wouldve got his finger stuck in hole.

Gooseberry wrote:Just as well it wasnt Hartley as Captain, he wouldve got his finger stuck in hole.

Wow...

Or Wilkinson he can only count in threes

Gooseberry wrote:Or Wilkinson he can only count in threes

Not so. I was at his return from injury against Scotland in 2007, in which he counted in 2s, 3s, 4s and 5s, resulting in a 42-20 win with a personal haul of 27 points across all four methods of scoring.

robbo277 wrote:

the-goon wrote:Robbo, no they wouldn't. Why do players get paid different amounts then? Surely that's "like for like work". News flash, communism didn't, doesn't and never will work.

"Right, taking the first point first. The law does not require "work of equal value" to be paid the same. It's equal pay for equal work. Equal value is one way of determining equal work. As is "like work". Rugby player, regardless of sex, would probably constitute like work, and a female rugby player would have a case for saying that they perform like work"

I'm ready to leave this discussion at this point, but what I'm suggesting is hardly communism.

Some decent points have been raised, some not so decent points also. The idea that women should be paid less than men because their product "is worse" will never sit right with me. The fact that the product is less supported is an issue, but the fix is to invest equally in the two games (or if anything accelerate investment in the women's game because there is the most growth potential), not to treat one as naturally superior to the other.

Anyway, that's my opinion. If I haven't changed yours I'm not going to. Let's move on.

Investment in the men's game comes from the revenue it generates. In Ireland the womens game is already subsidised by the mens game as they both fall under the IRFU and the mens game generates all the money which is more than enough of a hand out. Contrary to popular opinion women aren't hard done by.

I'm scratching my head at the 4s poor four.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm scratching my head at the 4s poor four.

PourFour can remember when drop goals were worth 4 points?

Ah!

It's right there in the answer: four different methods of scoring (try, conversion, drop goal and penalty) - all scored by Jonny on the day. Though admittedly the try looked a bit of a dodgy decision, there was no way the ref was going to begrudge him the perfect comeback.

miaow wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Just as well it wasnt Hartley as Captain, he wouldve got his finger stuck in hole.

Wow...

'Dylan Hartley is the best f*ck in the world...'

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

miaow wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Just as well it wasnt Hartley as Captain, he wouldve got his finger stuck in hole.

Wow...

'Dylan Hartley is the best f*ck in the world...'

Personal experience LP?

I had never realised Northampton lasses were so gorgeous

Poorfour wrote: Though admittedly the try looked a bit of a dodgy decision, there was no way the ref was going to begrudge him the perfect comeback.

Guess Sexton wasnt playing then

Gooseberry wrote:

Poorfour wrote: Though admittedly the try looked a bit of a dodgy decision, there was no way the ref was going to begrudge him the perfect comeback.

Guess Sexton wasnt playing then

He was, Goose. He got two extra penalty attempts on that final 3 pointer that won the game - remember that?

SecretFly wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

Poorfour wrote: Though admittedly the try looked a bit of a dodgy decision, there was no way the ref was going to begrudge him the perfect comeback.

Guess Sexton wasnt playing then

He was, Goose.  He got two extra penalty attempts on that final 3 pointer that won the game - remember that?

Ah so he was able to get the batphone working for the last penalty award then

three chances at the one strike is pushing it with the ref...but I think they just about got away with it

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

miaow wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Just as well it wasnt Hartley as Captain, he wouldve got his finger stuck in hole.

Wow...

'Dylan Hartley is the best f*ck in the world...'

Personal experience LP?

I couldn't possibly comment....

just thought i'd contribute to this thread by congratulating Ireland on the win....


it would be a massive upset if England beat them in Ireland.

You know Ireland are dull when England are playing sexy rugby in comparison.

It ain't going to be a classic.

I have not met a dull Irishman yet, come to think of it, not met a stupid one either. Now Englishmen...……………………..best not said,

nathan wrote:just thought i'd contribute to this thread by congratulating Ireland on the win....


it would be a massive upset if England beat them in Ireland.

Thanks for that, I would tend to agree.

Ireland v England six nations head to head makes for interesting reading:

19 matches, 8 wins to England 11 to Ireland. England have only two wins in Dublin in 9 attempts, one of those wins was in 2003 by their dream team the other was the worlds most boring game in history when Ireland finished 5th in Declan Kidney's last season. In the same period Ireland have recorded 4 wins in Twickers. England have a positive record against all other 6n sides.

The omens don't look great for England but who knows.

Collapse2005 wrote:

nathan wrote:just thought i'd contribute to this thread by congratulating Ireland on the win....


it would be a massive upset if England beat them in Ireland.

Thanks for that, I would tend to agree.

Ireland v England six nations head to head makes for interesting reading:

19 matches, 8 wins to England 11 to Ireland. England have only two wins in Dublin in 9 attempts, one of those wins was in 2003 by their dream team the other was the worlds most boring game in history when Ireland finished 5th in Declan Kidney's last season. In the same period Ireland have recorded 4 wins in Twickers. England have a positive record against all other 6n sides.

The omens don't look great for England but who knows.

I said a while ago that this is probably too early in the recent England cycle to challenge, but that Ireland will have to be at their best.

Still - it has been a long time since either Billy or Manu have been properly involved, and both players will be hard to contain if they get enough ball. (It is always the 'if' of course..)

munkian wrote:You know Ireland are dull when England are playing sexy rugby in comparison.

It ain't going to be a classic.

I'd say Wales, if they get their pace up and accuracy up, they'll score five or six beauties in a real game for the Rugby League fans

But don't miss the Real Rugby Union game of the weekend. You won't anyway. The hits, filth, passion and fury will be on the richter scale. No ribbons or bows but tie down your TV and enjoy.

SecretFly wrote:

munkian wrote:You know Ireland are dull when England are playing sexy rugby in comparison.

It ain't going to be a classic.

I'd say Wales, if they get their pace up and accuracy up, they'll score five or six beauties in a real game for the Rugby League fans

But don't miss the Real Rugby Union game of the weekend.  You won't anyway.  The hits, filth, passion and fury will be on the richter scale.  No ribbons or bows but tie down your TV and enjoy.

Pot - Kettle with your pick and go game

munkian wrote:You know Ireland are dull when England are playing sexy rugby in comparison.

It ain't going to be a classic.

It will be hard to match the Wales/Australia classic from the autumn, but we can dream.

munkian wrote:You know Ireland are dull when England are playing sexy rugby in comparison.

It ain't going to be a classic.

But not dull enough to attract some Welsh interest to the thread though?

England have the attacking players to cause Ireland a lot of problems. So i'm not overly concerned there - we can score tries and points....IF WE GET DECENT BALL.

So for me it comes down to:
a) Englands Defence. Can it stay rock solid - for 80mins - im not convinced

b) Englands Pack / and specifically the breakdown. Can England match Ireland there.
Ireland are fast and brutally aggressive there.

When we went on our winning run, we had Haskell, Kruis, Itoje, Mako etc absolutely smashing the sh!t out of the breakdown, fast aggressive clear outs etc etc.
That has gone to absolute pot over the last year etc and we look like a bunch of clueless primary school girls in that area.
We need to be aggressive, fast and clever - put our head where it hurts to have any chance of winning. (Underhill missing could be a blow in that regards)

We can get a win, but it will take one hell of a performance to do so, and im not sure we are capable of that yet, with so many positions returning from injury or still up for grabs.

munkian wrote:You know Ireland are dull when England are playing sexy rugby in comparison.

It ain't going to be a classic.

The best thing about the 6Ns is reading the results in a newspaper