6 Nations - Ireland v England (Part 2)

First topic message reminder :

Part 1 - https://www.606v2.com/t68214-6-nations-ireland-v-england-2nd-feb-2019

Details:

Date: Saturday 2nd February 2019
Time: 16:45 GMT
Location: Dublin, Aviva Stadium
Media Coverage: ITV, TV3, BBC (highlights only), Radio 5Live


Officials


Referee: Jérôme Garcès (France)
Assistant 1: Romain Poite (France)
Assistant 2: Alexandre Ruiz (France)
TMO: Glenn Newman (New Zealand)



Teams

Ireland

15 Robbie Henshaw, 14 Keith Earls, 13 Garry Ringrose, 12 Bundee Aki, 11 Jacob Stockdale, 10 Johnny Sexton, 9 Conor Murray; 1 Cian Healy, 2 Rory Best, 3 Tadhg Furlong, 4 Devin Toner, 5 James Ryan, 6 Peter O'Mahony, 7 Josh van der Flier, 8 CJ Stander.

16 Sean Cronin, 17 Dave Kilcoyne, 18 Andrew Porter, 19 Quinn Roux, 20 Sean O'Brien, 21 John Cooney, 22 Joey Carbery, 23 Jordan Larmour


England

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).

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).

LondonTiger wrote:NZ are also always fighting against geography. There is a lot of travel involved for both the 4Ns and SR. Allied to the low population and crowds, especially for international games, can never compare. RFU probably make as much money from a single home game as NZRU do from a whole season.

The drain on playing talent probably hurts NH rugby more than NZ. This sounds stupid, but first it is very rare for the best ABs to leave. Sure there were rumours about Retallick, but these seem to have crashed and burned while the money being discussed is far more likely to have broken Sale than using local players would. Crowds do turn out for superstars, but TBH most of the local population would never have heard of Retallick. Sale are a side who have produced a lot of players and regularly see them leave. For a while Wasps seemed to be using them as an academy, now it is IRFU

So instead of taking the stars, we tend to take the second, third string players and imo overpay for them. Or we take journeymen who are cheap. Either way it ends up weakening the sides and their bonds with the fans. It is my opinion but that very few of the big name signings have provided value for money.

Meanwhile NZ is able to give game time to younger players earlier and they develop to be much better than the largely backup players they replace. I know it is horrible when a bunch of your favourites leave, but you can either wallow in self pity or enjoy the new bunch.

Where NH rugby has really benefitted is the influx of coaches raising the playing standards. Sadly they have not raised the standards of our coaches. Yet NZ have also benefitted. Hanson and Henry returned as better coaches than when they left, and help develop the next generation of coaches. Some of whom will also come and partake in the NH finishing school.

Henry didnt return as a better coach when he returned. He certainly didnt become a better coach as a result of his oe.

He was winning everything before he left. School, Auckland and the Blues, won with them all. The guys the greatest coach ever to coach the game. If anything his reputation took a hit coaching Wales and the Lions. He was always going to be AB coach.

Well you aren't going to convince anyone that if Gatland or Schmidt go back to NZ they wont be returning as much better coaches that when they originally left NZ. Henry and Hanson were both hit and miss in the NH which is fine. As Schmidt says everyone's luck runs out at some point.

Henry didn't add anything through his experiences in the nh? I find that hard to believe. Anyone half decent takes something from their experiences.

eirebilly wrote:

Cyril wrote:Taylor man, surely it should be New Zealand that needs not look at itself. NZ is known primarily (only?) on a world scale for rugby. Pay your players what they are worth. If your economy can’t afford it then accept they will go elsewhere.

Actually, New Zealand is known for a lot more than just Rugby, they are world class in many sports such as cricket, netball, hockey, sailing etc. I would say that along with Australia, they are a naturally sport orientated nation. There is only so much money to be distributed across all these sports and it has to be shared proportionally.

Yes very sporting lot, we dabble in many of the sports most do. Ko was world womens no. 1 golfer for a while. Parkers had a few boxing bouts. Val adams was shot queen for a while, her brother stephen is doing ok at OC thunder in the NBA. Our track cyclists arent bad. Many Kayaking golds at the O’s over the years. A couple of Americas cups. Some of those kinda stood out with not a lot behind them. Ko for instance is the only nz womens golfer ive ever heard of recently. Some sports we suck at. Tennis for one. A McEnroe drubbing over chris lewis wimbledon final in 83 our most recent ‘success’

I think to some extent theres too much rugby for us all to get along to every match.mitre ten, super rugby, bledisloe, RC, June tours. Youd easily get 15 -20 matches a year in Wellington or Auckland from that lot. We dont have the population to get 40,000 along to every one of those.

Taylorman wrote:Miaow youre off on your own tangent with this, and does everyone drop their own lenses when commenting here. Aah, that would be ‘no’. And I se Retallick is touted to join Sale next year so at 27, one of our favourite rugby sons os off to join yet another club nobody here knows or cares anything about. Thats great for he and his family but my role here is as a fan so i fail to understand how you dont see how that pees us off. The NH see super and RC rugby as tv shopping and anyone who isnt thick as a plank would know that it would be annoying to see dozens of players tread north every year, so our only reprieve is to laugh at the quality you turn out yourselves.

It's true that I'm going off on a tangent to a point but it started because you said this game lacked technical abiliy. But you're wrong.

I then tried to explain why technical ability can relate to all sorts of things but your response was to say 'yeah but the ABs wouldn't play that way'. Which is a weird response and if anyone else spoke like that on this forum they'd be laughed at - it's a weird frame of reference to bring up.

Also, if you're basing your opinions of the NH on RUMOURS AND PAPER TALK then it says it all...

Taylorman wrote:

Cyril wrote:‘We don’t make good watchers’

Given that NZ has a population pushing 5 million, has rugby as far and away it’s number one sport and is basically known around the world for rugby it’s a bit of an embarrassment if it can’t sustain itself. Sounds like the population need to start getting out there and start pumping money into the sport if they want to keep players at home.

Is the union just resting on its laurels? Could government funding help? Does there need to be a publicity drive to get the nation back in love with its sport? More Hakas? Fewer hakas? Free booze? Extra childcare? Doughnuts for all?

Really? Five milions a lot is it? First Id heard.

Similar population to Ireland and Scotland, albeit Rugby competes with more popular sports in both. As mentioned above, population not as much of an issue as geography is - and proximity to larger populations. Scotland and, less so, Ireland benefit from being so close to the 65 odd million people in England. But then NZ benefit from the other Pacific Islands' genetically blessed and skillful players as I mentioned before in ways the NH largely hasn't done until very recently.

Also, it's crazy to say with any seriousness that Henry (and Hansen?) learnt nothing from coaching international rugby in the NH. There is almost no way to quantify what he learnt, but as 7.5 says, it's almot guaranteed that he learnt quite a lot from the experience - I'm going to say you're projecting your own opinions here that makes everything else you're saying pretty dubious.

In fact the population of England is 54 million, all of whom play football save the 25 in the current England squad.

When rugby went professional in 1995, the population of New Zealand was 3.7 million. Today, it is up to 4.8 million. If crowds are so difficult to attract, that the Mitre 10 now has to give tickets away for a final between Auckland and Canterbury, then it isn't down to there being too few people in the country.

If you want to read the official review of rugby at secondary school level in New Zealand, then here it is:

http://files.allblacks.com/community-rugby/NZR-Secondary-School-Report-Executive-Summary.pdf

Rugby has always been a community sport, and it is a big concen if it no longer plays that role in its traditional strongholds. Olivier Magne was quoted recently saying he feared that the connection at local level was being lost in France, too.

You are all forgetting that of the 54M English people, 3 million are from Europe, therefore not English, Another 5 Million or so are Asian or of Asian decent and do not have a clue what rugby is about and of the other 46 Million 40Million have Irish, Scottish or Welsh ancestry and often choose to play for the country of their heritage rather than birth, look at the numbers of players in the Scots and Welsh sides that were born and often raised in England.

We have a much smaller pool of players to choose from than the basic stats suggest.

I didn't much take to Ronan O'Gara as a player but I enjoy listening to him talk about his experience as a player.

That's what I was saying too in terms of sport and participation. It's a society-wide thing though - community as we knew it has changed immensely in the last 30-40 years for various reasons. The internet has had a huge effect on changing how and why people group/bond together and the activities they do. Looks like it's not just a European problem but, generally, a 'developed' country issue in general.

I do think there is a big difference between the amateur and the pro game now though. The infrastructure in the NH is extending that - just as with football, most people play 5 a side rather than 90 minutes on a Sunday, and the academies there pick up players from 5, 6 to 11 years of age, and they go on to make up a bulk of pro footballers, even if in the lower levels.

It also can't be dismissed how variable/poor the standard of amateur sport can be in Britain. Does anyone remember/see a satirical sporting blog on cricket a few years ago, from the perspective of an Australian? Might have been a facebook thing - a lot to do with the drinking/sledging side of the game. It ripped into English cricket as being a shocking standard, and I think that's probably true for large parts of amateur rugby as well. It's definitely changed in the last 15 years - generally, most people are more clued up about lifting and nutrition and getting healthier or more built, but I'm not sure standards and skills have increased massively in that time. Particularly when its played in mostly poor conditions.

In general, I feel like society is losing the communal aspects that made life worth living/made people feel part of something bigger than them - religion, sport, holidays and festivals, even the jobs people used to have. Thatcher came in at a time when a lot of people believed they could be middle class, and a lot more people are these days, at least in some ways (not going to last long though by the looks of things) - but social media hasn't replaced the geographical communal bonds people had that were lost when that social change happened. Community is drawn down identity rather than location online, by and large. Sport feels like an anachronism a lot of the time - because it is mostly a pointless activity. Being just a supporter online feels particularly pointless - it lacks the visceral feeling you get when you're young and first becoming a 'fan', as well as when at a game when older.

The whole of the internet seems obsessed with the ways in which 'Western' civilisation is changing/declining, and finding all sorts of things and people to blame. But to me at least, it's clear that a lot of the reasons people are unhappy is down to the fact that communal spirit is all but gone. The 'promise' of individual wealth and prestige (or even celebrity?) that a lot of people hope for and value is now increasingly less likely as the balance of geopolitical power shifts away from the Anglocentric world. I can distinctly remember so many people growing up wanting to be famous - how insane that sounds in hindsight, yet how powerful the appeal is, and how successful American-style capitalism has used things like films and merchandise to change what people attach their hopes and values to. No doubt in my mind that one of the biggest losses during my lifetime is the sense of community - expressed through collective activity and celebration. Sport is integral to that. From fathers screaming at their 6 year old's referee, to paying £100+ to see Wales play in the 6Ns, sport has completely changed from the 'golden period' of post-WW2 as something meaningful and unifying. Now it's just something else to consume - which Tman might be right about, Europe perhaps does consume sport better than NZ does.

miaow wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Cyril wrote:‘We don’t make good watchers’

Given that NZ has a population pushing 5 million, has rugby as far and away it’s number one sport and is basically known around the world for rugby it’s a bit of an embarrassment if it can’t sustain itself. Sounds like the population need to start getting out there and start pumping money into the sport if they want to keep players at home.

Is the union just resting on its laurels? Could government funding help? Does there need to be a publicity drive to get the nation back in love with its sport? More Hakas? Fewer hakas? Free booze? Extra childcare? Doughnuts for all?

Really? Five milions a lot is it? First Id heard.

Similar population to Ireland and Scotland, albeit Rugby competes with more popular sports in both. As mentioned above, population not as much of an issue as geography is - and proximity to larger populations. Scotland and, less so, Ireland benefit from being so close to the 65 odd million people in England. But then NZ benefit from the other Pacific Islands' genetically blessed and skillful players as I mentioned before in ways the NH largely hasn't done until very recently.

Also, it's crazy to say with any seriousness that Henry (and Hansen?) learnt nothing from coaching international rugby in the NH. There is almost no way to quantify what he learnt, but as 7.5 says, it's almot guaranteed that he learnt quite a lot from the experience - I'm going to say you're projecting your own opinions here that makes everything else you're saying pretty dubious.

And who isnt projecting there opinions here? Its just me is it? The call was they returned as ‘better’ coaches. Who said they learned nothing?

I agree they returned as different coaches but in terms of technical ability henry always had it in spades. He would have learned from the experience, but a better coach, nah. No evidence of that. And hansen? How on earth did he return a better coach? Said because eight whole years later as understudy to henry with the ABs that he finally became AB coach and was then successful? Even after that long stint we were dubious so how his welsh experience rather than eight years under henry made him better i dont know. His welsh career was the pits. Thats just ridiculous. And you talk about opinions.

And the NH benefit far more from the Pacific Islands than we do because they pick them up largely after weve trained them a kitted them with a professional career for the north to buy ready made off the shelf. Many of the Samoan squad were born in NZ and are playing in the north. Go figure. It is the island sides that benefit from nz rugby, because thats where they learn the game. If anything it is they they poach from us, as your lot do. But hey...weve more than enough to go around, and still, despite all that, retain the no. 1 spot.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:You are all forgetting that of the 54M English people, 3 million are from Europe, therefore not English, Another 5 Million or so are Asian or of Asian decent and do not have a clue what rugby is about and of the other 46 Million 40Million have Irish, Scottish or Welsh ancestry and often choose to play for the country of their heritage rather than birth, look at the numbers of players in the Scots and Welsh sides that were born and often raised in England.

We have a much smaller pool of players to choose from than the basic stats suggest.

England obviously has a lot fewer than 54m people to choosefrom but those are some pretty crazy reasons. Asian people know nothing about rugby?

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Another 5 Million or so are Asian or of Asian decent and do not have a clue what rugby is about

Oh yes we do ! Well, we being me. And some would argue I still don't have a clue

Nah, guys like Dallaglio, Andy Farrell and Kieran Bracken who could have played for Ireland chose England. Owen Farrell whose birth name was Owen O'Loughlin could have lined out for Ireland had his dad chosen Ireland? Who knows.

Nick Kennedy, Shane Geraghty, Dean Ryan and Austin Healy I'm sure have Irish roots somewhere.

Collapse2005 wrote:Nah, guys like Dallaglio, Andy Farrell and Kieran Bracken who could have played for Ireland chose England. Owen Farrell whose birth name was Owen O'Loughlin could have lined out for Ireland had his dad chosen Ireland? Who knows.

Nick Kennedy, Shane Geraghty, Dean Ryan and Austin Healy I'm sure have Irish roots somewhere.

His birth name? Do you mean his mother's maiden name? She's the sister of the GB league player, Sean O'Loughlin

Rugby Fan wrote:When rugby went professional in 1995, the population of New Zealand was 3.7 million. Today, it is up to 4.8 million. If crowds are so difficult to attract, that the Mitre 10 now has to give tickets away for a final between Auckland and Canterbury, then it isn't down to there being too few people in the country.

If you want to read the official review of rugby at secondary school level in New Zealand, then here it is:

http://files.allblacks.com/community-rugby/NZR-Secondary-School-Report-Executive-Summary.pdf

Rugby has always been a community sport, and it is a big concen if it no longer plays that role in its traditional strongholds. Olivier Magne was quoted recently saying he feared that the connection at local level was being lost in France, too.

Oh look the Auckland thing was a one off promotional thing to give back to Auckland supporters after years and years of failing sides. Auckland fans havent had much to support over the years particularly with players being stripped away left right and centre. You can be the doom and gloom of it all but personally I think Aucklands about to have one of its better years.

BamBam wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Nah, guys like Dallaglio, Andy Farrell and Kieran Bracken who could have played for Ireland chose England. Owen Farrell whose birth name was Owen O'Loughlin could have lined out for Ireland had his dad chosen Ireland? Who knows.

Nick Kennedy, Shane Geraghty, Dean Ryan and Austin Healy I'm sure have Irish roots somewhere.

His birth name? Do you mean his mother's maiden name? She's the sister of the GB league player, Sean O'Loughlin

Yeah that's his name on his birth cert. His parents were sixteen so he was just given his mums name.

Taylorman wrote:

miaow wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Cyril wrote:‘We don’t make good watchers’

Given that NZ has a population pushing 5 million, has rugby as far and away it’s number one sport and is basically known around the world for rugby it’s a bit of an embarrassment if it can’t sustain itself. Sounds like the population need to start getting out there and start pumping money into the sport if they want to keep players at home.

Is the union just resting on its laurels? Could government funding help? Does there need to be a publicity drive to get the nation back in love with its sport? More Hakas? Fewer hakas? Free booze? Extra childcare? Doughnuts for all?

Really? Five milions a lot is it? First Id heard.

Similar population to Ireland and Scotland, albeit Rugby competes with more popular sports in both. As mentioned above, population not as much of an issue as geography is - and proximity to larger populations. Scotland and, less so, Ireland benefit from being so close to the 65 odd million people in England. But then NZ benefit from the other Pacific Islands' genetically blessed and skillful players as I mentioned before in ways the NH largely hasn't done until very recently.

Also, it's crazy to say with any seriousness that Henry (and Hansen?) learnt nothing from coaching international rugby in the NH. There is almost no way to quantify what he learnt, but as 7.5 says, it's almot guaranteed that he learnt quite a lot from the experience - I'm going to say you're projecting your own opinions here that makes everything else you're saying pretty dubious.

And who isnt projecting there opinions here? Its just me is it? The call was they returned as ‘better’ coaches. Who said they learned nothing?

I agree they returned as different coaches but in terms of technical ability henry always had it in spades. He would have learned from the experience, but a better coach, nah. No evidence of that. And hansen? How on earth did he return a better coach? Said because eight whole years later as understudy to henry with the ABs that he finally became AB coach and was then successful? Even after that long stint we were dubious so how his welsh experience rather than eight years under henry made him better i dont know. His welsh career was the pits. Thats just ridiculous. And you talk about opinions.

Na, of course not, there are some dog turd posters on here, but you seem to be a sensible/well reasoned poster (and rare in that you're not UK/ROI based) so it's frustrating when you resort to what is, effectively, ABs elitism instead of 'seeing' the discussion for what it is.

I have no idea what you do for a job/in life, but a growth mindset is one that means you learn from just about everything you can. It's a bit of a cliche, and used by corporate types as a hollow buzzword, but basically every experience is an opportunity to gain now skills/knowledge/experience, and to keep pushing forwards to do that. If Henry or Hansen hadn't improved as international coaches after their first stint as international coaches then that would be unbelievably unlucky/inept/unlikely. To even suggest that might be true is insane. It's a hard thing to quantify either way - results are a starting point, but by no means the be all and end all - but to think that either of them didn't 'grow' in any meaningful way as a result of coaching overseas is just crazy. It's not an either/or. He hasn't become 'good' just because he was Wales coach or Henry's understudy. As with Lancaster, just because you don't see value or evidence of coaching doesn't mean he isn't' a 'good' coach. In fact - what are your standards for that?

Let's try this. It's going to be a bit patronising but I'm not sure you're getting it.

Imagine riding a bike. Some people might grow up around pro cyclists. Some in a community where cycling is common. Maybe someone grows up in a bike shop. Maybe some people have supportive parents who encourage them to cycle from a young age with their friends. Maybe some have no knowledge of cycling, are put off from it because it's scary. Perhaps there are no bikes where some people live.

Now think when you first started to ride a bike. Some people are 'naturally' better than others. Some people learn quicker, have their stabilisers off sooner, than others. Some can ride, harder, faster, longer than others. Some fall off and never get back on. Others do get back on until they're happy with their level. Some people end up riding for the rest of their lives, to and back from work. Others use it as exercise; some leisure; some as a career.

Now imagine you're young again. 6 years old. You've been riding your bike for a year. It's sports day, and there's a bike race. Everyone's watching, cheering you or your competitors on. Perhaps it goes really well; perhaps it doesn't.

Through all of that, experience has played a massive part, even when things haven't gone well. Whether it's the pressure, or the acceptance of failure in growth, you learn from experience, just as H&H did in Wales.

Now, in terms of technical coaching ability? Very hard to quantify. Coaching itself isn't riding a bike - you're not in control at all, with so many variables and lack of personal involvement on the field itself. Do you mean tactical approach in terms of 'technical' coaching? Do you mean the way they present information, or manage their squads? Technical ability on the field is a lot easier the quantify and it feels like you've shifted to goalposts to make the same point again - that because NZ has the best all round skillset among its players, nothing the NH does is worth considering as relevant. Which is nonsensical and the more enlightened thinkers in the pro game will not believe that.

Collapse2005 wrote:Well you aren't going to convince anyone that if Gatland or Schmidt go back to NZ they wont be returning as much better coaches that when they originally left NZ. Henry and Hanson were both hit and miss in the NH which is fine. As Schmidt says everyone's luck runs out at some point.

Yes Schmidt and gats are different. They didnt have the pedigree that henry already had, who, regardless of his wales experience, was always going to be NZ coach when he returned. Wales was to get experience while the current tenures played out. Gats and Schmidt have put their hand up because of their northern experience.

But to suggest Hansen became better rather than due to his eight years as understudy to henry is absurd. No way hansen could have walked into the AB job the same way henry did on return. He was nowhere near AB coach material at that point. In fact his welsh experience proved that.

I'd wager a fair few Irish players have English/Scottish ancestry and could have played for them too. What's all this obsession with genetics? Weird!

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Well you aren't going to convince anyone that if Gatland or Schmidt go back to NZ they wont be returning as much better coaches that when they originally left NZ. Henry and Hanson were both hit and miss in the NH which is fine. As Schmidt says everyone's luck runs out at some point.

Yes Schmidt and gats are different. They didnt have the pedigree that henry already had, who, regardless of his wales experience, was always going to be NZ coach when he returned. Wales was to get experience while the current tenures played out. Gats and Schmidt have put their hand up because of their northern experience.

But to suggest Hansen became better rather than due to his eight years as understudy to henry is absurd. No way hansen could have walked into the AB job the same way henry did on return. He was nowhere near AB coach material at that point. In fact his welsh experience proved that.

I brought up the NH tenure of Henry and Hansen. I did not say they got the AB jobs because of those stints, but implied that the experience gained improved them as coaches. Both made some serious f ups while up here, but learned from them.

Presuming Ed wrote:I'd wager a fair few Irish players have English/Scottish ancestry and could have played for them too. What's all this obsession with genetics? Weird!

Id say so too. Don't you find it interesting?

There are at least 3 Argentinian players that come from Irish heritage that I know of too.

Collapse2005 wrote:

BamBam wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Nah, guys like Dallaglio, Andy Farrell and Kieran Bracken who could have played for Ireland chose England. Owen Farrell whose birth name was Owen O'Loughlin could have lined out for Ireland had his dad chosen Ireland? Who knows.

Nick Kennedy, Shane Geraghty, Dean Ryan and Austin Healy I'm sure have Irish roots somewhere.

His birth name? Do you mean his mother's maiden name? She's the sister of the GB league player, Sean O'Loughlin

Yeah that's his name on his birth cert. His parents were sixteen so he was just given his mums name.

Learn something new every day

Taylorman wrote:And the NH benefit far more from the Pacific Islands than we do because they pick them up largely after weve trained them a kitted them with a professional career for the north to buy ready made off the shelf. Many of the Samoan squad were born in NZ and are playing in the north. Go figure. It is the island sides that benefit from nz rugby, because thats where they learn the game. If anything it is they they poach from us, as your lot do. But hey...weve more than enough to go around, and still, despite all that, retain the no. 1 spot.

Go figure? Dual nationality/heritage players are playing pro sport where they can make the most money? They then turn out for one of the national teams they're eligible for (or were picked prior to moving North)? What's there to figure? Who's doubting the fact that? What are you trying to say?

To even talk about poaching etc. is just weird. It's obviously a reciprocal thing. As I said, Maori and Pacifc Islanders are genetically blessed when it comes to rugby, they're just about the perfect build. It's no surprise to see the NH teams struggle at 7s relative to the PIs and Fiji in particular. NZ has benefited from Maori/PIs for years - from Nepia to the biggest rugby star ever who was of Tongan descent. This game, coming from the English upper classes, wasn't just a white sport in NZ and no doubt tactical/skill standards were pushed on collectively, irrespective of social standing. Culture does play a huge part in this, but so does genetics. The same can't be said for Britain, particularly England. In the modern age, these things are less relevant as the pro game irons out differences/is more cross-border (which you seem to have specific issue with), but we're all living on the foundations of history.

No doubt that as more and more PI/Maori players are playing for the ABs the standards have increased in recent years - just the pace and power of someone like Ioane or Fijian-born Naholo is rare to see in Euro-heritage players, whether in the SH or the NH. Just as it's rare to see a white person built like Nadolo or Tuilagi either. Add in a skill-based environment and you get someone like Nakarawa. Growing up having to 'deal' with big players will have made someone like Ben Smith, Beauden Barrett, and Conrad Smith much better and well rounded players than if they grew up in the NH.

There are so many other things to say about this but, clearly, talking about NZ as if it's this fixed, definable entity when talking about losing talent having 'taught' PIs the game doesn't quite make sense. It's not a one way thing. You seem to be a bit fixed in your thinking.

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Well you aren't going to convince anyone that if Gatland or Schmidt go back to NZ they wont be returning as much better coaches that when they originally left NZ. Henry and Hanson were both hit and miss in the NH which is fine. As Schmidt says everyone's luck runs out at some point.

Yes Schmidt and gats are different. They didnt have the pedigree that henry already had, who, regardless of his wales experience, was always going to be NZ coach when he returned. Wales was to get experience while the current tenures played out. Gats and Schmidt have put their hand up because of their northern experience.

But to suggest Hansen became better rather than due to his eight years as understudy to henry is absurd. No way hansen could have walked into the AB job the same way henry did on return. He was nowhere near AB coach material at that point. In fact his welsh experience proved that.

Is anyone arguing that? Or are you strawmanning?

miaow wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Well you aren't going to convince anyone that if Gatland or Schmidt go back to NZ they wont be returning as much better coaches that when they originally left NZ. Henry and Hanson were both hit and miss in the NH which is fine. As Schmidt says everyone's luck runs out at some point.

Yes Schmidt and gats are different. They didnt have the pedigree that henry already had, who, regardless of his wales experience, was always going to be NZ coach when he returned. Wales was to get experience while the current tenures played out. Gats and Schmidt have put their hand up because of their northern experience.

But to suggest Hansen became better rather than due to his eight years as understudy to henry is absurd. No way hansen could have walked into the AB job the same way henry did on return. He was nowhere near AB coach material at that point. In fact his welsh experience proved that.

Is anyone arguing that? Or are you strawmanning?

L tiger...’Hanson and Henry returned as better coaches than when they left,’ but hes now qualified that.

Hanson was a better coach after doing Wales. I did not say he did not improve further. Oh and wasn't he was understudy to Henry up here too.

We gain from having Kiwi coaches coming up here, but so do they, and when they return so does NZ rugby.

I'm not sure he needed to qualify it though. Think you misinterpreted it/read something that wasn't there.

Did I imagine it or did Nowell actually feature at 7 for England on the weekend. Mind funk.

Collapse2005 wrote:Did I imagine it or did Nowell actually feature at 7 for England on the weekend. Mind funk.

Yes. when Curry got yellow carded.

Yeah so anyway is it time to get the grand slam tee shirts printed off?

Red or white? We can discount blue.

White obviously

Sure why not.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Red or white? We can discount blue.

Dunno, depends when Hamish Watson comes back from injury for me. Scotland with him at 7 are a real danger. Wales having Italy this week is blessing for them, let's them settle in to the campaign after a shocker of a performance against France.

Grand Slam looks unlikely at the minute.

miaow wrote:

Taylorman wrote:And the NH benefit far more from the Pacific Islands than we do because they pick them up largely after weve trained them a kitted them with a professional career for the north to buy ready made off the shelf. Many of the Samoan squad were born in NZ and are playing in the north. Go figure. It is the island sides that benefit from nz rugby, because thats where they learn the game. If anything it is they they poach from us, as your lot do. But hey...weve more than enough to go around, and still, despite all that, retain the no. 1 spot.

Go figure? Dual nationality/heritage players are playing pro sport where they can make the most money? They then turn out for one of the national teams they're eligible for (or were picked prior to moving North)? What's there to figure? Who's doubting the fact that? What are you trying to say?

To even talk about poaching etc. is just weird. It's obviously a reciprocal thing. As I said, Maori and Pacifc Islanders are genetically blessed when it comes to rugby, they're just about the perfect build. It's no surprise to see the NH teams struggle at 7s relative to the PIs and Fiji in particular. NZ has benefited from Maori/PIs for years - from Nepia to the biggest rugby star ever who was of Tongan descent. This game, coming from the English upper classes, wasn't just a white sport in NZ and no doubt tactical/skill standards were pushed on collectively, irrespective of social standing. Culture does play a huge part in this, but so does genetics. The same can't be said for Britain, particularly England. In the modern age, these things are less relevant as the pro game irons out differences/is more cross-border (which you seem to have specific issue with), but we're all living on the foundations of history.

No doubt that as more and more PI/Maori players are playing for the ABs the standards have increased in recent years - just the pace and power of someone like Ioane or Fijian-born Naholo is rare to see in Euro-heritage players, whether in the SH or the NH. Just as it's rare to see a white person built like Nadolo or Tuilagi either. Add in a skill-based environment and you get someone like Nakarawa. Growing up having to 'deal' with big players will have made someone like Ben Smith, Beauden Barrett, and Conrad Smith much better and well rounded players than if they grew up in the NH.

There are so many other things to say about this but, clearly, talking about NZ as if it's this fixed, definable entity when talking about losing talent having 'taught' PIs the game doesn't quite make sense. It's not a one way thing. You seem to be a bit fixed in your thinking.

Yeah agree with most of that. Taight is about providing the competitive environment for them to thrive. The influx of PIs into NZ, many are third forth generation now, defintely meant Auckland, then NZ rugby became stronger. With a population explosion if all Pacific island people NZs demographics, including within rugby changed big time.

It was that marked that even as recently as the early 80s it was odd to see a Samoan in the Otago or Canterbury side. ‘Oh, he must have moved south from Auckland. Thats how rare it was here. Professionalism lifted the lid off fast. Pacific islanders spread their wings out of auckland like nobodys business.

The we started seeing them in oz league sides, and about ten years after pro rugby started, in the NH.

But without a doubt its the passion for the game they bought into here. The ABs were admired heavily by the island countries and they wanted to be a part of it.

The growth continues and now i believe 60% of Aucklands club senior sides are of PI ethnicity, despite Being less than half of aucklands population make up.

But within all that we have always put out great non PI players. Kirwan, meads, the whettons, fitzy, mccaw, retallick, fox, carter etc etc with several world player titles amongst those names.

Collapse2005 wrote:Yeah so anyway is it time to get the grand slam tee shirts printed off?

Probably time to put a warning call into the supplier that we might needs some made up at a couple of week's notice. Can start getting them printed after the Wales game.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Red or white? We can discount blue.

Ill go red. England tend to tail off in the 6N

The lingering doubt about England is whether they can solve problems which turn up on the pitch. Everything went to plan against Ireland so no tweaking, or real on-field leadership was required. Our discipline was poor, however, and that will count more against us when play isn't going our way.

Rugby Fan wrote:The lingering doubt about England is whether they can solve problems which turn up on the pitch. Everything went to plan against Ireland so no tweaking, or real on-field leadership was required. Our discipline was poor, however, and that will count more against us when play isn't going our way.

Unless of course its farrells indiscipline, he gets a free pass.

Rugby Fan wrote:The lingering doubt about England is whether they can solve problems which turn up on the pitch. Everything went to plan against Ireland so no tweaking, or real on-field leadership was required. Our discipline was poor, however, and that will count more against us when play isn't going our way.

I disagree. I strongly doubt that an early Yellow Card was part of the plan [1]. Or going behind after Ireland’s try. Or having to replace Itoje with Hughes.

England faced a number of problems and coped with them pretty well. The final score line tends to make us forget that the game was close up until quite late on. England didn’t replace their front row until well after 60 minutes - which is an indicator of how intense the game was (and how much further Eddie has to go to trust his front row reserves fully)

What they didn’t face was a tactical problem they had to solve on the fly, because Ireland didn’t adapt their tactics. But you can’t legislate for that.

As for discipline, I think it’s fairer to say that Ireland’s discipline was astonishingly good (or Garces was rather lenient [2]) rather than that England’s was bad. The YC was frustrating but was partly a young player getting his timing very slightly off, and partly a ref who didn’t check the replay when he should have done (the tackle wasn’t high and Curry did wrap his arms, both of which were part of Garces’s justification for the card). England’s eventual penalty count was still in single digits, which is what international sides aim for and is a good result considering how close to the edge they were playing.

The lingering doubt for me is that England can’t maintain that style of play for a whole tournament. We will need to see different game plans for different opponents, and use of the wider squad, before I am confident that England are ready for the RWC.

——
[1] Though playing Nowell at 7 clearly was.
[2] An isolated Sexton holding onto the ball for dear life and still not getting penalised kind of summed it up for me...

Irelands dicipline is always good...

...except coincidently when Barnes refs.

That's only a relatively recent phenomenon though. And it's arguable the ABs halo effect - referees far less likely to penalise the 'dark arts' Ireland have now got a lot better at. Just look at this thread for accusations of bias from Garces (hardly an objective source, but the types of suggested infringments are telling).

Also agree with both PoorFour and RugbyFan. Things did come off surprisingly well for England, but that's why they deserve so much praise - they achieved that. Yet they did also deal with a few problems, including the yellow and then the second-row situation. Ireland failed to capitalise (did they score 3 or 6 points when Curry was off the field, can't remember - I know they scored the try just after he came back on, which sort of counts as the 5m lineout was gained with him off the field) and you have to praise England for that.

Barnes plays the laws at the breakdown much more consistently with how they're written. A lot of refs are much more relaxed. Perhaps it shows that Ireland are disciplined to how They are coached and much less disciplined at listening to refs?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Barnes plays the laws at the breakdown much more consistently with how they're written. A lot of refs are much more relaxed. Perhaps it shows that Ireland are disciplined to how They are coached and much less disciplined at listening to refs?

The Barnes thing with Wales was exactly that, the Welsh back row in particular Warburton have been very good at playing to the referee something Ireland haven't been as adept at doing.

oops just realised Im talking rubbish

Not even sure you can call it playing the referee. Warburton was argualy second in the world over the ball after Pocock for a good while, particularly once McCaw had retired. He's also a fairly puritanical, hard working sort of man - not saying the rest of the Welsh team was, and Warburton obviously had a good 'way' with refs, but that seemed genuine rather than 'playing' them.

PoM epitomises Ireland's back-row play. Until they have Tadgh Beirne in there, I'm not sure Ireland have a top drawer poaching threat who can play 'cleanly' and still dominate the tackle area with turnovers.

Love the idea that Barnes is so 'in' the heads of the Irish collective that even when he's not refereeing Ireland when they lose, he actually, really is refereeing them...

Ireland have a lot of threat over the ball but more spread through the pack. There are a couple of players though such as SOB and Sexton who are the more outspoken leaders who can act incredulous at decisions that could and maybe have been going their way previous weeks. Warburton was particularly good in assessing what the ref was saying and looking for and instead of throwing his hands up and saying inconsistent from.last week merely went right lets adapt and convince him we're listening (while obviously getting away with as much as possible). The often used phrase painting the picture for the ref can improve a teams discipline while actually not relating to how much your braking the laws!