Ireland vs England, Sunday 1st March 3pm; RTE/BBC

theboy1

shuffol wrote: »

Isn't it great how we did and we were missing 4 backrows by halftime. Murphy did what he was picked for, head in every ruck.

5 if you want to include ferris.

Yep Murphy really surprised me, hard as nails.

shuffol

S12b wrote: »

Henshaw missed a fair few tackles towards the end but they were all in broken play chasing kicks and the like....he was clearly shagged and had nothing in the tank.

He was rock solid in the 12 channel throughout, not just making hits, but making dominant hits. He also beat 6 defenders, more than any other player this weekend!!

Few Connacht fans talking on twitter, apparently Mark McHugh was the last Connacht player to score for Ireland.....just to explain why some of us might be getting a tad carried away with Robbie's performance!!

He's the new BOD, shows up in every facet of play, skills are a fraction of what he brings to the cause.

theboy1

Bridge93 wrote: »

I would agree with that but sadly this is becoming rarer in the modern game. If people are holding out for that and want to win tournaments it just won't happen. The issue is more with rugby as a sport than Ireland i feel

Oh absolutely, note I didn't include any World Cup matches in my examples. Cup winning rugby is rarely attack minded but instead built on defence.

Exceptions to this of course..

But I think it would be unfair to state a guy is a proper supporter or 'purist' just because he likes low scoring games.

tritriagain

Bridge93 wrote: »

I would agree with that but sadly this is becoming rarer in the modern game. If people are holding out for that and want to win tournaments it just won't happen. The issue is more with rugby as a sport than Ireland i feel

Without a doubt it is the game and not just Ireland. I am delighted Ireland are winning and it makes the slog games easier to watch.but as a game if something is not done soon to encourage open attacking play the game will become very one dimensional. I read on boards not so long ago a suggestion to put a weight cap on teams and I laughed when I read it but now I'm not so sure. Will we ever see someone breakthrough and score 3 tries against France ala O'Driscoll again. I would hate to think that sort of magic will not happen again.

awec

There was two lads from Ulster beside me in the stand. When the anthem was being played one of them whipped out a sheet of paper with the lyrics written out phonetically.

"sheena feena fall..... Chasing Conny around the field"

Lapin

Warren Gatland

Gits_bone wrote: »

Thanks for making stuff up. I'd rather you didn't do it in future thanks.

Making stuff up -

Gits_bone wrote: »

People were in here saying it was the best match of the tournament. It was an ugly match but we won and that's why they were saying it was the best.

Attacking play was non existent. Neither set of backs made an impact on the game in an attacking sense. 2 broken lines all game from the naked eye. Very few offloads.

A lot of us on this thread were calling it the game of the tournament long before the final whistle. We didn't need the hindsight of the final score to make our minds up for us.

walshb

tritriagain wrote: »

3 tries against France ala O'Driscoll again. I would hate to think that sort of magic will not happen again.

It happened once. Not like it was ever a regular occurrence. We have a pretty poor record vs. France over the past 25 years or so. That win in 2000 was one in a million. Brilliance. May never see it in our lifetime again. Magic is a subjective term in Rugby and many other combat sports.

Bridge93

England

theboy1 wrote: »

Oh absolutely, note I didn't include any World Cup matches in my examples. Cup winning rugby is rarely attack minded but instead built on defence.

Exceptions to this of course..

But I think it would be unfair to state a guy is a proper supporter or 'purist' just because he likes low scoring games.

Oh yeah no doubt, everyone has different tastes. I think everyone enjoys the running, open games but I'd hope all fans can appreciate the spectacle games like today are.
My original point was in response to what appeared to be folk complaining about today's games as being boring etc. I myself as I suspect everyone would, would prefer if we were playing like the ABs.

LeinsterDub

We are at one end of a cycle. In 2007 wc the then irb make changes in encourage attacking rugby. In 2008/9 people argued it went to far. 2010/11/12 the balance seemed right. Now we are getting defensive again.

It swings in roundabouts.

Bridge93

England

LeinsterDub wrote: »

We are at one end of a cycle. In 2007 wc the then irb make changes in encourage attacking rugby. In 2008/9 people argued it went to far. 2010/11/12 the balance seemed right. Now we are getting defensive again.

It swings in roundabouts.

They were talking about this on Down the Blind Side podcast a few weeks ago. Hopefully it is rectified to a balanced level.

ThisRegard

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It swings in roundabouts.

This made me smile, not because it was a typo or autocorrect, but because I just finished watching the "putting women on a pedal stool/damp squid" IT Crowd episode.

duckysauce

England

metrosity wrote: »

And it was greasy weather too. You're not going to see too much magic from any team in that weather.

clear as **** there today

tritriagain

walshb wrote: »

It happened once. Not like it was ever a regular occurrence. We have a pretty poor record vs. France over the past 25 years or so. That win in 2000 was one in a million. Brilliance. May never see it in our lifetime again. Magic is a subjective term in Rugby and many other combat sports.[/quote

I don't mean Ireland against France in isolation. I mean in general. Open play and try scoring will become a lost art if players keep getting bigger. Don't get me wrong as a past 2nd row I love the battles but I also love watching players like o Driscoll Shane Williams mike brown etc. An enviorment has to be created where these skills are rewarded and not dampened.

rudiger2.0

English Lurker hit the nail on the head when he talked about Joubert's reffing of the breakdown i.e he would let it play out longer than most. Thought Murphy was exceptional and would have had 4/5 turnovers with another ref. Joubert was consistent though.

Somebody mentioned Kearney's ill-judged drop at goal but I was screaming for it (South of France 2012 anyone?) Didn't work out this time.

There was a point when England were on top and we knocked on from a kick. Someone (I'm guessing Watson) was away and Best made an unbelievable tackle when he had no right to. Could have easily been a try and a huge momentum changer.

Great performance all round. We should be less pessimistic going to Wales.

errlloyd

tritriagain wrote: »

I don't mean Ireland against France in isolation. I mean in general. Open play and try scoring will become a lost art if players keep getting bigger. Don't get me wrong as a past 2nd row I love the battles but I also love watching players like o Driscoll Shane Williams mike brown etc. An enviorment has to be created where these skills are rewarded and not dampened.

Lots of the worlds best try scorers are playing right now. Chris Ashton would be one example of a man with an outrageous try scoring record who isn't that big, Ben Smith is another, he's lighter than BOD.

I believe it is video analysis and defensive organisation and not size that is making the game tighter.

iroced

Great win for Ireland. Not a bad defeat for England. It was not a great game in terms of "entertainment" but in terms of intensity, jeez what a gap with yesterday's games!!!

England actually impressed me. I mean Ireland was great as long as Sexton was on the pitch. Gave a lesson to England in the line-out, rucking and defence. Murray was great. Very quick to dictate his pace to the game and a typical scrumhalf inspiration on your try. England were constantly under pressure but they held on. In a game where they've been globally dominated, to finish just 10 pts behind (and could have been closer had they been a little more patient towards the end) is noteworthy. England finished very strong :eek:. That's maybe something Ireland have to work on. 2 games in a row where you're struggling towards the end. Could cost you in the future.

So after that game

1. I'm afraid England will give us the thrashing I was expecting in the Aviva (I actually realise now how much your bogey team we are to you because you seemed so much at ease today, if you had played the same 60 mins against us, you would have crushed us) because England is good and we are bad and we're not England bogey team at all, it's actually the opposite.
   
   
2. we have rationally no chance at the WC against you. You're several years ahead of us as a team, there's absolutely no way we can level that gap in 6 months. I'd just cite one example that stroke me about your clever playing. On Vunipola break. He had Young on his left but Tommy Bowe quickly made a brilliant defensive run (in the space between them) to avoid the pass which eventually ended in the annihilation of England's try chance. This play should be shown and taught in every single rugby school. I always liked and highly rated Bowe but this action was phenomenal. Looked like a detail. But the kind of detail that make you win a game!

MikeSD

No matter how much the "balance seemed right" from 2010-2012, I would rather not return to those years of going nowhere.

degsie

Wonder why there were so many empty seats in the stadium.

spiralism

metrosity wrote: »

Noone knows rugby like the AB's. As a nation they punch way over their weight in sports generally, way more than Ireland even.

Ireland suffers from the David and Goliath syndrome with England on it's shoulder.
Even though, Ireland have in my opinion better players in most positions, pound for pound than England, there will always be that complex with many Irish people.

It's a pity, as we're just better than them right now and there will always be periods in history when we're better than them, just have to put them to the sword, and cut out their spin doctors.

True, for instance NZs cricket team is also favourite to win the (currently ongoing) world cup this year. Their mentality towards sport is really admirable.

I'd like to think it's changing though. I was worried we wouldn't win today because it would signal them becoming a bogey side since Lancaster took over but we were superb. We've beaten everyone of the top 10 except for the ABs under Schmidt now and have two straight wins against France...are we finally starting to achieve our potential?

errlloyd

spiralism wrote: »

I'd like to think it's changing though. I was worried we wouldn't win today because it would signal them becoming a bogey side since Lancaster took over but we were superb. We've beaten everyone of the top 10 except for the ABs under Schmidt now and have two straight wins against France...are we finally starting to achieve our potential?

We are over-achieving for a nation with 4 professional teams and England and France are greatly underachieving considering they have probably 15 in England and 26 in France.

Can't remember who was asking or where, but Zebo's catch against 4 England players is at 17:45

SaveOurLyric

Positives :
- we won: and have a grand slam in our sights and arent afraid to talk about it
- we have two complete front rows capable of high international level
- any worries about our post BOD/Darce centre situation are over. The discussion is over other than for 24th man or the minnow games in the world cup
- Zebo will hold his spot. Worked hard, tackled, chased, and caught. He really worked on the the work-ons. Kudos. Will hold off the challenges of McFadden and D Kearney. Only Trimble could displace him now.
- Paulie might still have one or two more immense games for us in the W Cup.
- rucking is outstanding now, particularly to induce penalties
- fitness levels and focus of effort and concentration for the full 80 are excellent
- Jones showed why he is needed on the bench.



Negatives :
- back row injuries are becoming a real problem. Tank likely out for the remainder means Ruddock must be brought up to speed for the Welsh game. Or really consider starting Henderson at 6.
- we take too long to get the kicks in sometimes. 44 in the game is good, but should be up near 60. Can take 4-5 pick-and-gos sometimes to have the right chaser pods ready. And thats too long. It is costing us a penalty opportunity or two per game.
- there is still a tendency to try a couple of backs moves per game which are aimed at line breaking rather than moving the point of the breakdown around to setup the next kick-chase. This needs to be curbed.
- Kearney did not kick and chase enough, and gets caught with the ball too quickly - needs to kick earlier.

Micky Dolenz

I'll sleep easy tonight knowing all is well in the world. enjoy the good times Lads.

Dick Turnip

errlloyd wrote: »

We are over-achieving for a nation with 4 professional teams and England and France are greatly underachieving considering they have probably 15 in England and 26 in France.

Whatever about the French and English side of that argument, I don't really buy it that we are over achieving for a nation with only 4 teams.

SA & NZ only have 5 each, was only 4 until around 10 years ago.
Australia only got their 5th team 3 or 4 years ago.
Wales only have 4 teams.

errlloyd

I lol'd.

ESPN has us at something like 98% ruck retention, which is outlandish.

errlloyd

Dick Turnip wrote: »

Whatever about the French and English side of that argument, I don't really buy it that we are over achieving for a nation with only 4 teams.

SA & NZ only have 5 each, was only 4 until around 10 years ago.
Australia only got their 5th team 3 or 4 years ago.
Wales only have 4 teams.

NZ, SA and now Australia have a second tier domestic league that is also professional (NZ ITM, SA Currie Cup). The equivalent of if our Ulster Bank league was fully pro. I accept that it was only recently introduced in Aus after failing before, but they have also benefited from Rugby League. I also happen to believe Wales are over performing.

SaveOurLyric

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Positives :
....
- Jones showed why he is needed on the bench.

...

Care to elaborate on this one?

Zebo, Murphy and TOD have massively gone up in my estimation today. I thought they were all overrated.

wp_rathead

Yes Robbie made a whopping 14 tackles and scored the try..
But another stat worth noting was he beat 6 Defenders - most by any player on the pitch

we love you Robbiiieee

S12b

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Positives :
- we won: and have a grand slam in our sights and arent afraid to talk about it
- we have two complete front rows capable of high international level
- any worries about our post BOD/Darce centre situation are over. The discussion is over other than for 24th man or the minnow games in the world cup
- Zebo will hold his spot. Worked hard, tackled, chased, and caught. He really worked on the the work-ons. Kudos. Will hold off the challenges of McFadden and D Kearney. Only Trimble could displace him now.
- Paulie might still have one or two more immense games for us in the W Cup.
- rucking is outstanding now, particularly to induce penalties
- fitness levels and focus of effort and concentration for the full 80 are excellent
- Jones showed why he is needed on the bench.



Negatives :
- back row injuries are becoming a real problem. Tank likely out for the remainder means Ruddock must be brought up to speed for the Welsh game. Or really consider starting Henderson at 6.
- we take too long to get the kicks in sometimes. 44 in the game is good, but should be up near 60. Can take 4-5 pick-and-gos sometimes to have the right chaser pods ready. And thats too long. It is costing us a penalty opportunity or two per game.
- there is still a tendency to try a couple of backs moves per game which are aimed at line breaking rather than moving the point of the breakdown around to setup the next kick-chase. This needs to be curbed.
- Kearney did not kick and chase enough, and gets caught with the ball too quickly - needs to kick earlier.

Why do you think this? My view, he'll be playing against Wales, as will Sexton.

Bridge93

England

How exactly did Jones show why he is needed? I thought today proved the complete opposite with the re-jig we had to do.

19543261

England

Bridge93 wrote: »

Rugby in general has an issue with how it's going towards physicality over skill

This is such a load of crap, sick of hearing it now. If you even gave it a couple seconds thought you'd realize it doesn't even make sense. Why would either be exclusive? Size and strength aren't at the expense of speed/footwork or foresight/ingenuity.

Bridge93

England

19543261 wrote: »

This is such a load of crap, sick of hearing it now. If you even gave it a couple seconds thought you'd realize it doesn't even make sense. Why would either be exclusive?

Did I say either were exclusive?

19543261

England

Bridge93 wrote: »

Did I say either were exclusive?

What are you saying then?

Bridge93

England

19543261 wrote: »

What are you saying then?

I probably short handed too much but I said That rugby is moving in a direction where teams are backing size and physicality which has been to the detriment of skill and flare whatever it may be called.
I'm not saying it does not exist anymore but rather than the norm at the highest level it is increasingly becoming a treat to see. Still room for those flare players but the window is getting smaller as defences get tighter and men get bigger.
Size and power seem to be seen as the safe choice.
You're not going to tell me, players aren't larger, injuries aren't more common and that teams like the French in the 90's are still around (NZ and Oz I already touched on as the last two top teams to demonstrate it)

duckysauce

England

iroced wrote: »

Great win for Ireland. Not a bad defeat for England. It was not a great game in terms of "entertainment" but in terms of intensity, jeez what a gap with yesterday's games!!!

England actually impressed me. I mean Ireland was great as long as Sexton was on the pitch. Gave a lesson to England in the line-out, rucking and defence. Murray was great. Very quick to dictate his pace to the game and a typical scrumhalf inspiration on your try. England were constantly under pressure but they held on. In a game where they've been globally dominated, to finish just 10 pts behind (and could have been closer had they been a little more patient towards the end) is noteworthy. England finished very strong :eek:. That's maybe something Ireland have to work on. 2 games in a row where you're struggling towards the end. Could cost you in the future.

So after that game

1. I'm afraid England will give us the thrashing I was expecting in the Aviva (I actually realise now how much your bogey team we are to you because you seemed so much at ease today, if you had played the same 60 mins against us, you would have crushed us) because England is good and we are bad and we're not England bogey team at all, it's actually the opposite.
   
   
2. we have rationally no chance at the WC against you. You're several years ahead of us as a team, there's absolutely no way we can level that gap in 6 months. I'd just cite one example that stoke me about your clever playing. On Vunipola break. He had Young on his left but Tommy Bowe quickly made a brilliant defensive run (in the space between them) to avoid the pass which eventually ended in the annihilation of England's try chance. This play should be shown and taught in every single rugby school. I always liked and highly rated Bowe but this action was phenomenal. Looked like a detail. But the kind of detail that make you win a game!

England actually impressed you--- how are you saying that -- Vinny was good and Robshaw was then he said go for line instead of points -- his IQ is below the norm and he has shown this recently -- that move put us up big time -- they ****ed up thereeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee :cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:

Bridge93

England

I thought Dan Coles was pretty good for England. He was quite visible in the loose (even excluding the head clash incident.)

duckysauce

England

Bridge93 wrote: »

I thought Dan Coles was pretty good for England. He was quite visible in the loose (even excluding the head clash incident.)

see him at the end of the match -- non stop moaner :rolleyes: like the rest of the team

mg1982

Bridge93 wrote: »

I probably short handed too much but I said That rugby is moving in a direction where teams are backing size and physicality which has been to the detriment of skill and flare whatever it may be called.
I'm not saying it does not exist anymore but rather than the norm at the highest level it is increasingly becoming a treat to see. Still room for those flare players but the window is getting smaller as defences get tighter and men get bigger.
Size and power seem to be seen as the safe choice.
You're not going to tell me, players aren't larger, injuries aren't more common and that teams like the French in the 90's are still around (NZ and Oz I already touched on as the last two top teams to demonstrate it)

I would say the exception are Australia especially and New Zealand. We see the way the aussies can play in the november international against Ireland when they were 19-0 down and came back to lead 21-19 by half time. That was some of the most scintillating rugby i have seen granted they eventually lost the game. But only the Aussies and the All Blacks can play like that nowadays.

duckysauce

England

degsie wrote: »

Wonder why there were so many empty seats in the stadium.

place was full == didn't see one empty seat

where were you seating
'??

Swiwi.

iroced wrote: »

England finished very strong :eek:. That's maybe something Ireland have to work on. 2 games in a row where you're struggling towards the end. Could cost you in the future.

Ireland's gameplan (unless there is a Plan B...which there may well be...) would be in trouble if chasing a lead, especially towards the end of a game. You cannot box-kick your way to catch-up a deficit.
Had England crossed the chalk with 10 minutes left, would have been an extremely nervy end to the game.

Ireland have declared their hand very early in the season, despite knowing full-well what Ireland's tactics would be, England were quite inept early on at dealing with them. It will be interesting to see if Wales have learnt anything.

As for the Earls/Fitz vs other people debate, neither are known for their kick chase, not helped by being relatively short players. In 2011 NZ deliberately chose Kahui & Jane over Rococoko & Sivivatu because the former two players were much better aerially. Schmidt seems to have made a similar choice, and IMO Zebo has looked better than Bowe at this style of game. Zebo is not going anywhere, so people leaving him out of their RWC 23s might want to think again. Where Trimble fits into all of this will be interesting.

total former

The issue with the game plan is that it's incredibly energy-sapping and some fall off in intensity is inevitable. The kick chase towards the end of the match was definitely a bit slower and that gave England more breathing space to play rugby. It's compounded by the reluctance to make substitutions until absolutely necessary.

Tox56

total former wrote: »

The issue with the game plan is that it's incredibly energy-sapping and some fall off in intensity is inevitable. The kick chase towards the end of the match was definitely a bit slower and that gave England more breathing space to play rugby. It's compounded by the reluctance to make substitutions until absolutely necessary.

I thought the prop substitutions were timed perfectly, and Madigan was called as soon as there was any doubt about sexton. The only issue I'd have with the bench is that Henderson could have been called a bit earlier, and the fact that jones is there at all

Tox56

Swiwi. wrote: »

Ireland's gameplan (unless there is a Plan B...which there may well be...) would be in trouble if chasing a lead, especially towards the end of a game. You cannot box-kick your way to catch-up a deficit.
Had England crossed the chalk with 10 minutes left, would have been an extremely nervy end to the game.

Ireland have declared their hand very early in the season, despite knowing full-well what Ireland's tactics would be, England were quite inept early on at dealing with them. It will be interesting to see if Wales have learnt anything.

As for the Earls/Fitz vs other people debate, neither are known for their kick chase, not helped by being relatively short players. In 2011 NZ deliberately chose Kahui & Jane over Rococoko & Sivivatu because the former two players were much better aerially. Schmidt seems to have made a similar choice, and IMO Zebo has looked better than Bowe at this style of game. Zebo is not going anywhere, so people leaving him out of their RWC 23s might want to think again. Where Trimble fits into all of this will be interesting.

The thing with playing this gameplan is that any plan B we do have will in theory be more effective when we do use it because nobody will be expecting it.

Also Fitz is 6'1, so he's relatively big for a winger. Not known for his kick chase I'll grant you

SaveOurLyric

Tox56 wrote: »

The thing with playing this gameplan is that any plan B we do have will in theory be more effective when we do use it because nobody will be expecting it.

Also Fitz is 6'1, so he's relatively big for a winger. Not known for his kick chase I'll grant you

At the moment, no one has figured out how to counter our plan A. So no need for a plan B. Plan A is very effective, and they will be working at getting even brtter at it. More kicks per game will mean more time in the opposition half and so more chances to induce kickable penalties, launch recoverable contestables, and even less chance for the opposition to score.
Id say the ABs are studying us very closely at the moment.

Fitz has tge size but not the game. Although Joe im sure has him working on his fielding. His stepping and counterattacking are just not attributes of use to us anymore. Earls is even less relevant, because he is small.

Those not seeing themerit of Jones are still thinking old style wings/centres/fullbacks. The rejigging with Bowe to the centre is no disruption at all. The skill set required inthis strategy is the same from 11-15. And yes, its a skill set vry much accented towards what is traditionally a full back (a catching, chasing, tackling one, not a Blanco, Cullen, Gallagher running style one). So Jones is the man to do that job for us. Introducing Fitz or Earls anywhere in the backs in that situation would be the disruptive move.

yosser hughes

thomond2006 wrote: »

He was badly exposed for pace by Vunipola of all people at one stage.

Gits_bone

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

At the moment, no one has figured out how to counter our plan A. So no need for a plan B. Plan A is very effective, and they will be working at getting even brtter at it. More kicks per game will mean more time in the opposition half and so more chances to induce kickable penalties, launch recoverable contestables, and even less chance for the opposition to score.
Id say the ABs are studying us very closely at the moment.

Fitz has tge size but not the game. Although Joe im sure has him working on his fielding. His stepping and counterattacking are just not attributes of use to us anymore. Earls is even less relevant, because he is small.

Those not seeing themerit of Jones are still thinking old style wings/centres/fullbacks. The rejigging with Bowe to the centre is no disruption at all. The skill set required inthis strategy is the same from 11-15. And yes, its a skill set vry much accented towards what is traditionally a full back (a catching, chasing, tackling one, not a Blanco, Cullen, Gallagher running style one). So Jones is the man to do that job for us. Introducing Fitz or Earls anywhere in the backs in that situation would be the disruptive move.

World Cup is what counts and every team will be looking at us. Where was the versatility everyone spoke about pre game? Maul - kick chase. That is Ireland. Our tactics were found out at the last world cup.

And anyone talking about France as anything to shout about should really look at their record. They have only won 7 of their last 18 in the championship.

aimee1

Bridge93 wrote: »

How exactly did Jones show why he is needed? I thought today proved the complete opposite with the re-jig we had to do.

Its the one selection I find bizarre. Fitz or Earls can cover 11-15 without rearranging the backline.

aimee1

mg1982 wrote: »

I would say the exception are Australia especially and New Zealand. We see the way the aussies can play in the november international against Ireland when they were 19-0 down and came back to lead 21-19 by half time. That was some of the most scintillating rugby i have seen granted they eventually lost the game. But only the Aussies and the All Blacks can play like that nowadays.

the aussies are in a way having to play that way to compete at home for public support who are more used to less stop-start games in League and Rules, and more recently soccer.

.ak

English Lurker wrote: »

On slightly more sober reflection, I think the most impressive thing about today's Irish performance is that it was the same things as happened the game before... and before that... and the autumn... I can't think there's any coaches love more than consistency, being able to know what players will do, and Schmidt's really got that. Feel the try was a good example of that - its the sort of opportunism and quick thinking you get from Murray every match.

Bit of chat before the game about the Irish tight five being a little out of sorts, won't be before the next one. Feel Rory Best in particular deserves singling out for industry and just being bloody difficult to play again but they all did well.

Henshaw I think came of age today - not just due to the try (although everyone will say it) or the support run and toe poke that led to Alex Goode's wonder escape - but the footwork, the physicality with which he met Vunipola. I know he's been doing that stuff, he just seemed to be doing it that little bit better.

Will be interesting to see you against Wales - think your biggest enemy that day will be the pressure, for all most of this Ireland team have plenty of final experience.



I apologise for being a bore on the subject but we're not bigger than you. The Ireland team that played Italy was heavier than the England team that played Wales, albeit by 5kg. I am, alas, too lazy to work out accurate figures for today but given the largely unchanged nature of the teams I doubt they were much more than 5kg off each other either way.

Just on the weight thing.. The problem is toner and Ross skew our weight considerably. Our back row are quite small.

Heroditas

S12b wrote: »

Few Connacht fans talking on twitter, apparently Mark McHugh was the last Connacht player to score for Ireland, back in 03 against Tonga???.....just to explain why some of us might be getting a tad carried away with Robbie's performance!!

Do you mean as in scoring a try? Didn't Gavin Duffy score one after that or was he with Quins at the time?
Quite an amazing length of time though.