General Rugby Discussion

molloyjh

its_phil wrote: »

I wouldn't judge England on their away form. They are very strong at home and all their games are going to be there. I can't not see them winning their group with home advantage and then they will have one of Scotland/Samoa/Japan waiting for them in the quarter finals. Semi-final in Twickenham against one of Ireland/France/Argentina, you would have to say they'd be favourites for a place in the finals.

A good few of those games against the SH were at home. All 3 SH sides beat them in Twickenham since Lancaster took over as did Wales. In fact if you look at the top 5 sides in the world excluding England we are the only ones who haven't won in Twickenham since Lancaster took over.

I'd expect them to qualify from their pool, but they'll need to win it to get past the QFs.

errlloyd

OldRio wrote: »

John Beattie was making the point that the structure of English Rugby does not help the national team. 1 English win in the last number of years of the six nations. A good point and worth discussing I thought. RFU v Clubs, player contracts and welfare etc.

No no no no. Matt Dawson's response was churlish. I paraphrase 'All those winners would swap a World Cup win over a six nations win'
Yes Matt of course they would, but address the point that Beattie made.

Interesting radio/podcast.

molloyjh wrote: »

Someone needs to explain to Dawson that there have been 2 RWCs since England won it and that it was nearly 12 years ago now. It has absolutely zero relevance in any debate about international rugby today. And everything we've seen so far would suggest that England are not going to win the RWC 2015.

I wouldn't write them off completely but they would have to be outsiders at this stage surely? They been comprehensively beaten quite a few times over the last few years. We did it in the 6 Nations this year, New Zealand did it in the summer and Wales in the 2013 6 Nations absolutely murdered them. They've a poor record against SH sides under Lancaster with 0/5 against SA, 1/6 against NZ and 2/3 against Oz. That's 3 wins from 14 against SH sides.

The could turn things around but as they stand I don't think they are a tournament winning side.

This probably isn't Dawson's argument, BUT, I believe he is right. The reason England's club structure isn't helping too much at international level isn't because they are producing less high quality professionals than us (because of foreign players) that is madness, England have 12 professional teams, even if they all only started 5 English players, they'd still have more pros playing each week than Ireland.

So the problem isn't that they have too few pros, the problem is that their starting internationals are spread too thinly and that damages team chemistry. It is the same problem as France.

So, why does the comparison between a World Cup and a 6 Nations come in? Well their structure has weaknesses at 6 nations time, because they don't get enough time together to gel. However, that weakness is nullified because they spend weeks in World Cup camp. Ireland's advantage (drawing players from fewer teams therefore having increased chemistry) is also nullified in world cup time.

thomond2006

I don't really buy the 'foreign players are ruining our international team' argument. First of all there are enough English qualified players starting every week to make up a squad (to put it mildly) and the foreign players around them are improving the standard of the matches they play every week. Also with 12 top tier clubs in England, if an English player is being blocked from (more) appearances by a foreign player, there are 11 other clubs he can move to where he could get more gametime.

its_phil

molloyjh wrote: »

A good few of those games against the SH were at home. All 3 SH sides beat them in Twickenham since Lancaster took over as did Wales. In fact if you look at the top 5 sides in the world excluding England we are the only ones who haven't won in Twickenham since Lancaster took over.

I'd expect them to qualify from their pool, but they'll need to win it to get past the QFs.

That's a fair point but I think England have kicked it up quite a few notches since Lancaster took over. Also just knowing they are capable of beating Australia in their own backyard more often than not would make them a favourite for the semis IMO. Not claiming they're guarenteed a semi but they have so much going in their favour with a quality side, that I think the odds are in their favour.

molloyjh

errlloyd wrote: »

This probably isn't Dawson's argument, BUT, I believe he is right. The reason England's club structure isn't helping too much at international level isn't because they are producing less high quality professionals than us (because of foreign players) that is madness, England have 12 professional teams, even if they all only started 5 English players, they'd still have more pros playing each week than Ireland.

So the problem isn't that they have too few pros, the problem is that their starting internationals are spread too thinly and that damages team chemistry. It is the same problem as France.

So, why does the comparison between a World Cup and a 6 Nations come in? Well their structure has weaknesses at 6 nations time, because they don't get enough time together to gel. However, that weakness is nullified because they spend weeks in World Cup camp. Ireland's advantage (drawing players from fewer teams therefore having increased chemistry) is also nullified in world cup time.

Ah I don't know about that. What combinations did we have that were familiar with each other provincially? It doesn't really matter if your TH and FB play for the same team, it's about the relevant combinations.

And the English team isn't spread across 12 teams. Looking at the starting XV Ireland selected from 5 teams and England from 7 in Round 5 of the 6 Nations. That's not hugely different at all.

its_phil

molloyjh wrote: »

Ah I don't know about that. What combinations did we have that were familiar with each other provincially? It doesn't really matter if your TH and FB play for the same team, it's about the relevant combinations.

And the English team isn't spread across 12 teams. Looking at the starting XV Ireland selected from 5 teams and England from 7 in Round 5 of the 6 Nations. That's not hugely different at all.

Really it's 3 for Ireland. Henshaw only one from Connacht and Sexton has spent longer at Leinster than Racing over course of career.

errlloyd

molloyjh wrote: »

Ah I don't know about that. What combinations did we have that were familiar with each other provincially? It doesn't really matter if your TH and FB play for the same team, it's about the relevant combinations.

And the English team isn't spread across 12 teams. Looking at the starting XV Ireland selected from 5 teams and England from 7 in Round 5 of the 6 Nations. That's not hugely different at all.

I take your point, it may have been historically more beneficial than it is now. I think every overlap you get in the pack is beneficial because it makes it more likely what ever role you have in the loose for your club, you also have at national level.

There are some examples of our backs not clicking which may not have happened last season, I am thinking of the two times a screen runner got in the way, against France and Scotland.

But maybe it also to do with depth. Murray and Sexton have played together a lot by necessity, young and ford have pretty much never played together. Neither of them were in the team last year. They will gel better at the world cup than they did this 6n, Murray and Sexton probably won't.

bilston

I was listening to the programme in the car last night and John Beattie came out with an interesting point that Ireland had maybe been playing their cards close to their chests throughout the tournament with the WC in mind. He argued that because of the situation we had to show our hand (or more than we would have liked) against Scotland. He highlighted SOB's first try as an obvious example. He reckoned Joe would have been annoyed they had to do that. I'm not sure whether I agree with that or not but it was interesting all the same.

As for Matt Dawson, at one point it sounded like him and Brian Moore were going to have a right old ding dong. They may have been talking about James Haskell at the time. Dawson felt that Haskell was knackered and should have been replaced by Lancaster, Moore believed Dawson was trying to pass the blame from Haskell to Lancaster for the YC. Dawson wasn't best pleased with the old bulldog. Moore mightn't be a spring chicken anymore but I don't fancy Dawson's chances in that particular contest.

CatFromHue

I heard that bit and didn't think Dawson was making any sense.

If you're knackered you're knackered no matter what your top level of fitness is.

molloyjh

its_phil wrote: »

Really it's 3 for Ireland. Henshaw only one from Connacht and Sexton has spent longer at Leinster than Racing over course of career.

Well if you want to discount Henshaw because he is just one guy then by that logic you should discount Haskell and B Vunipola as they were the only reps from Wasps and Sarries respectively. So England are down to 5 teams now....

its_phil

molloyjh wrote: »

Well if you want to discount Henshaw because he is just one guy then by that logic you should discount Haskell and B Vunipola as they were the only reps from Wasps and Sarries respectively. So England are down to 5 teams now....

Not disagreeing with your point, just putting some context on Ireland

OldRio

errlloyd wrote: »

This probably isn't Dawson's argument, BUT, I believe he is right. The reason England's club structure isn't helping too much at international level isn't because they are producing less high quality professionals than us (because of foreign players) that is madness, England have 12 professional teams, even if they all only started 5 English players, they'd still have more pros playing each week than Ireland.

So the problem isn't that they have too few pros, the problem is that their starting internationals are spread too thinly and that damages team chemistry. It is the same problem as France.

So, why does the comparison between a World Cup and a 6 Nations come in? Well their structure has weaknesses at 6 nations time, because they don't get enough time together to gel. However, that weakness is nullified because they spend weeks in World Cup camp. Ireland's advantage (drawing players from fewer teams therefore having increased chemistry) is also nullified in world cup time.

Did you listen to the podcast ? Because Dawson didn't mention any of the above.

errlloyd

OldRio wrote: »

Did you listen to the podcast ? Because Dawson didn't mention any of the above.

No I didn't The very first line of my post stated that it probably wasn't what Dawson said. I agree with the sentiment, that England's structure is better for WCs than for 6Ns, but I have my own reasons.

Buer

Adam Jones signs for Quins.

Matt Symons elects to leave the Chiefs (the NZ ones) and join the Chiefs (the English ones).

Ollie Atkins also joining Exeter from Edinburgh. Bit of depth gone for them there and decent signings for Exeter.

thomond2006

Buer wrote: »

Adam Jones signs for Quins.

Once his Wales career was done he was always going to move.

Bridge93

http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/david-pocock-wont-captain-wallabies-greg-martin-20150324-1m6chi.html

This wouldn't be good to see in my opinion

WinnyThePoo

Bridge93 wrote: »

http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/david-pocock-wont-captain-wallabies-greg-martin-20150324-1m6chi.html

This wouldn't be good to see in my opinion

'It's the second time in six months Pocock has taken a public stance on an issue, after he was arrested in November for chaining himself to a digger in a protest against the opening of a coal mine inside a NSW state forest.'


Seems like a real leader and a superb flanker. Hopefully Greg Martin is wrong.

sydthebeat

Bridge93 wrote: »

http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/david-pocock-wont-captain-wallabies-greg-martin-20150324-1m6chi.html

This wouldn't be good to see in my opinion

greg martin is simply a professional troll who makes his living by controversial comments.

take ALL of that with a pinch of salt.

.ak

Respected rugby commentator Martin

... Ha.... Hahah.... HAHAHAAHHA...

.ak

It's more likely he won't captain the team due to the fact he's a broken winged man.

The fact he made a decision that most would shy against makes him even MORE likely a captain.

Kiwi_knock

I say the Aussie Rugby chiefs are sick at this stage of the controversy surrounding Australian rugby the last few years. Hardly ideal preparation for the world cup.

.ak

Kiwi_knock wrote: »

I say the Aussie Rugby chiefs are sick at this stage of the controversy surrounding Australian rugby the last few years. Hardly ideal preparation for the world cup.

Honestly if they were smart they should be billing it as something they're proud of, that the players and officials are capable of working together to weed out that sort of thing.

errlloyd

Pocock is such a hero easily my favourite player outside of Ireland. Him and his girlfriend have a marriage pact I believe (same as Pitt and Jolie) where they won't marry till its legal for everyone. He said to Joubert "there could be gay players out here" and he's right, far too many professional sportsmen never come out.

Anyway, potiger apologised, as rightly he should so I think it's fair to say mistakes were made and cleaned up.

errlloyd

Oh he also accepted the invitation from Sydney Convicts (the all gay team) to go and train with them for a day, which was pretty cool.

Wang King

Chris Henry is back for Ulster this weekend, that's great news

errlloyd

Brad Thorn being linked with the Reds for a Super Rugby return.

thomond2006

errlloyd wrote: »

Brad Thorn being linked with the Reds for a Super Rugby return.

He turned 40 last month. What a freak!

sydneybound

A 24 year old ref is having a desperate night at Franklin Gardens.

He's just red carded Nathan Hughes and potentially ruined a good game for a yellow card at most offence. By the way George North has had another bad concussion tonight after scoring two tries.

ouncer

After much criticism of the game of rugby as a whole (from most folks writing about the game of rugby) the last weekend of 6 nations rugby has turned the argument on its head. And yet the issue remains. First let's acknowledge it was a fantastic weekend of rugby. Every team in the reckoning simply opened up to play expansive rugby. It was exciting and simply great to watch.

So the question is asked if we can watch that type of rugby every weekend. Currently watching ulster game where players were falling like flies in the first 10 minutes.

With the 6 nations it was a simple equation. Chase a points total rather than 2 points for a win. For all the 6 nations games how many players were injured?.

So I propose a league where teams are designated on points for/points against stat. Would that make the overall game more exciting?

Hagz

North gets knocked out AGAIN.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmhsLwzF6U8

aimee1

sydneybound wrote: »

A 24 year old ref is having a desperate night at Franklin Gardens.

He's just red carded Nathan Hughes and potentially ruined a good game for a yellow card at most offence. By the way George North has had another bad concussion tonight after scoring two tries.

North to be stood down for the season maybe?

CatFromHue

Knee straight to the head, that's a bad one!

Buer

Have to wonder what the covering player was at. Didn't even try to avoid North.

matthew8

That was a red card for Hughes I believe. I guess players have to be very careful these days that card completely changed the game from Wasps being in a strong position to being hammered despite Wade scoring a hat trick. Hopefully the 2 can keep up the good attacking play away to Europe's best 2 sides.

CatFromHue

matthew8 wrote: »

That was a red card for Hughes I believe. I guess players have to be very careful these days that card completely changed the game from Wasps being in a strong position to being hammered despite Wade scoring a hat trick. Hopefully the 2 can keep up the good attacking play away to Europe's best 2 sides.

Kind of glad he got a red for that. The ball was well placed when he ran into him, if you can even say ran.

matthew8

CatFromHue wrote: »

Kind of glad he got a red for that. The ball was well placed when he ran into him, if you can even say ran.

I'm glad too, ignorance shouldn't be an excuse when a player does something so dangerous. Many say a red for that ruins the game but it's just unacceptable. Interesting to see if the English citing commission make Wasps go to Toulon without one of their stars.

errlloyd

I think red too, but there is absolute war over it online. What age was the ref?

Hagz

The video doesn't show enough to tell me whether it's red or not. Certainly looks quite careless but needs more context.

Buer

errlloyd wrote: »

I think red too, but there is absolute war over it online. What age was the ref?

24.

errlloyd

Rugby Banter page fb

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1075035555843623

CatFromHue

Hagz wrote: »

The video doesn't show enough to tell me whether it's red or not. Certainly looks quite careless but needs more context.

It's clear enough for me tbh.

Hughes has no need to do what he does, the ball is down, and it's so careless I'm thinking was it on purpose.

aimee1

CatFromHue wrote: »

It's clear enough for me tbh.

Hughes has no need to do what he does, the ball is down, and it's so careless I'm thinking was it on purpose.

i think he tried to kick the ball

CatFromHue

errlloyd wrote: »

Rugby Banter page fb

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1075035555843623

It doesn't look any better there.

I don't think Hughes can have any complaints.

matthew8

Can't believe the consensus is that it shouldn't be a red. Doesn't matter if it's not deliberate it's extremely dangerous play. Well done the inexperienced referee for not bottling it.

CatFromHue

aimee1 wrote: »

i think he tried to kick the ball

The ball was placed a good bit before he kicked him and seemingly you're not meant to kick the ball in that situation either.

Buer

At worst it's deliberate (I don't think it was). At best, it was pretty reckless and he can't argue with the red card. You can't swing a leg like that around a guys head, especially when the ball isn't even loose.

Hagz

I'm on the fence about whether its red or yellow but I definitely don't think it was on purpose. Hughes isn't that sort of player and his reaction indicates that it was an accident on his part.

The Lost Sheep

Definite red.
The situation was avoidable by the defender. Did he intend to. No.. but that doesn't matter.
Fair play to the referee for giving it. He asked his AR, TMO correct Qs and gave correct decision.

For those who said things like ruining a game. Not a hope. And who cares. Should red cards not be given when deserved?

awec

All the talk on facebook is people waffling about it being an accident. Irrelevant. It was dangerous play no matter what and IMO a certain red card.

It looks very dodgy to me. I am not convinced that what Hughes does is entirely natural in that situation.

entangled

Yeah, thought watching it first maybe he'd scrape by with a yellow, but the ref makes the point that you can't kick the ball out of the try scorer's hands (didn't know that) so the player has no excuse for having his feet/legs around there in the first place. Well refereed I think.