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

Happyman42

aimee1 wrote: »

There is a great pic on irish times website of that steal. POM and Toner in the air.

Where? Was looking for it there and can't see it. :mad:

Mahatma Geansai

.ak wrote: »

Madigan's kicking from hand was, and always has been, terrible. But I felt with ball in hand he was very good. He tried to play too much like johnny and not enough like himself.

He's the least suited of all our OHs to Joe's gameplan. I wouldn't be surprised to see him usurped by Keatley, due to his greater control of the game from 10. I think he'd be best suited turning his attention to 12.

shuffol

I thought England made a mistake not going for points with the penalty with a minute left. If they scored it the game would've restarted and they'd have a shot at a draw. Once they kicked for touch the clock was gone.

bilston

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

He's the least suited of all our OHs to Joe's gameplan. I wouldn't be surprised to see him usurped by Keatley, due to his greater control of the game from 10. I think he'd be best suited turning his attention to 12.

I was thinking about this though. Sexton is a brillant kicker of the ball, Madigan isn't (obviously a great place kicker), however Jackson is a great passer of the ball but his territorial kicking needs work so I don't think he suits Schmidt's gameplan either which leaves Keatley or puts a lot of pressure on Murray.

crisco10

shuffol wrote: »

I thought England made a mistake not going for points with the penalty with a minute left. If they scored it the game would've restarted and they'd have a shot at a draw. Once they kicked for touch the clock was gone.

Would have limited them to a draw tho. A quick try would have given them a shout at another try for the win. Very long shot but more positive.

PS: I too cant find that pic in the Irish times!

.ak

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

He's the least suited of all our OHs to Joe's gameplan. I wouldn't be surprised to see him usurped by Keatley, due to his greater control of the game from 10. I think he'd be best suited turning his attention to 12.

Well incidentally he looked like coming on for henshaw at one stage so his versatility will probably keep him on the bench.

crisco10

.ak wrote: »

Well incidentally he looked like coming on for henshaw at one stage so his versatility will probably keep him on the bench.

In many ways, he is perfectly suited to the 22 Jersey. Look at the Italy game, Schmidt preferred to keep Mads on the bench and parachute Keatley into starting role.

Bridge93

England

.ak wrote: »

Yeah that's a fair point, however it does matter where that weight is situated. Toner and Ross aren't very good carriers. We use our openside and 8 as primary, so really when you play a game with Murphy and TOD in those roles you're at a disadvantage. As a side note I thought they were incredible yesterday, considering what was asked of them, but to put in context on tod's first carry we got gobbled up. Guys like vinny, Haskell, dousatoir, picamoles are all big units and carry the weight where it's needed most. Out of our first choice backrow only sob has the weight and dynamism to break the gain line. We have some monster front rows but we don't produce big flankers like other countries do.

His name his Ian Henderson and he looks about 12 years old. Not built like one mind you! Although I see his future for Ireland at lock where he is probably more needed.

Jett Gorgeous Key

Jett Gorgeous Key wrote: »

There was plenty of time left, was a good call imo.

13 minutes left when the kick was taken.

If they construct another 3 point opportunity within the next 3 minutes they are still left needing to score twice (and one of those scores being a try) to win the game in 10 minutes.

Unless they thought Ireland would cough up 4 penalties inside 13 minutes in a game where their discipline had been excellent.

Just couldn't make sense of it. Had it been on 60mins, maybe, but not when you're needing just a little under point a minute remaining.

Mahatma Geansai

.ak wrote: »

Well incidentally he looked like coming on for henshaw at one stage so his versatility will probably keep him on the bench.

He doesn't offer significantly more versatility than Keatley is the thing. Versatility from our 22 wouldn't be as essential with Fitz at 23 and Earls at 13 anyway.

slingerz

bilston wrote: »

I was thinking about this though. Sexton is a brillant kicker of the ball, Madigan isn't (obviously a great place kicker), however Jackson is a great passer of the ball but his territorial kicking needs work so I don't think he suits Schmidt's gameplan either which leaves Keatley or puts a lot of pressure on Murray.

TBF I reckon Hanrahan is the most akin to Sexton in terms of the way he plays the game and is the only one with the potential to reach the same level as Sexton over time. Pity Munster arent keeping him and using him at 10 full time

.ak

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

He doesn't offer significantly more versatility than Keatley is the thing. Versatility from our 22 wouldn't be as essential with Fitz at 23 and Earls at 13 anyway.

I think he does, if you look at the total caps in other positions Madigan actually offers a lot more experience in other positions. But kicking aside I thought he offered great impact. Really hit the line well, gained yards and distributed well. He actually needed to trust his own game a little more:

aimee1

crisco10 wrote: »

Would have limited them to a draw tho. A quick try would have given them a shout at another try for the win. Very long shot but more positive.

PS: I too cant find that pic in the Irish times!

Jump.jpg

Bridge93

England

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

He doesn't offer significantly more versatility than Keatley is the thing. Versatility from our 22 wouldn't be as essential with Fitz at 23 and Earls at 13 anyway.

If Keatley was comfortably the better 10 I would agree. But when there's not a huge amount between them and they're only going to come on if Sexton is injured I feel the more versatility the 22 has elsewhere is still as telling as it is without Earls and Fitz.

Anybody have any word on Payne actually?

Buer

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

He doesn't offer significantly more versatility than Keatley is the thing.

He does. It's not even open for argument. Keatley has played other positions in years gone by but hasn't had any regular appearances in any other position aside from outhalf in a long time.

I'll take Keatley over Madigan any day as an outhalf but the versatility argument isn't even debatable.

aimee1

Buer wrote: »

Madigan didn't have a great game when he came on but didn't lack for effort. He tackled well and, when he took contact, fought for a couple of yards he shouldn't have made. But his general play just isn't up to scratch. The kick on the full missed by a good bit and his line kicking was very conservative. You got the impression that he was very nervous about missing touch again.

His line kicks were good, not greedy, look at the scotland game, last few minutes.

Baggy Trousers

aimee1 wrote: »

Jump.jpg

Wow, great picture!

awec

aimee1 wrote: »

His line kicks were good, not greedy, look at the scotland game, last few minutes.

He could have got quite a few more metres comfortably. They were a bit too conservative.

.ak

Yeah he defo didn't want to over cook another kick so was consverative.

awec

There was one in the second half where we only made about 10 metres off a penalty. Could easily have gone double that!

awec

awec wrote: »

There was one in the second half where we only made about 10 metres off a penalty. Could easily have gone double that!

Was that kicking to the right?

Another that Zebo or Kearney should have struck!

crisco10

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Wow, great picture!

It is. Effectively a one man lift from McGrath on Dev. That's some lift.

Although, to be a pedant; I'm almost 100% sure that was the steal on the 22m line after the steal on the 5m line.

I think Dev was lifted by SOB and POM for the 5m steal.

sydthebeat

England

To be fair, Ford's kicks to touch from pens were particularly conservative as well

crisco10

crisco10 wrote: »

It is. Effectively a one man lift from McGrath on Dev. That's some lift.

Although, to be a pedant; I'm almost 100% sure that was the steal on the 22m line after the steal on the 5m line.

I think Dev was lifted by SOB and POM for the 5m steal.

I actually don't think there is much of a lift there! Look at McGrath's arms, they're away to the side, unless he's just thrown Dev up and let go he can't really be being that effective!

And yeah, POM was important in the 5m steal.

Baggy Trousers

sydthebeat wrote: »

To be fair, Ford's kicks to touch from pens were particularly conservative as well

Yes indeed, I thought the same.

Dravokivich

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

He's the least suited of all our OHs to Joe's gameplan. I wouldn't be surprised to see him usurped by Keatley, due to his greater control of the game from 10. I think he'd be best suited turning his attention to 12.

As Madigan came on, I suggested to a couple of guys the reason why, was due to him not being required to kick for territory at that point of the game. With his Passing or Running with the ball being primarily hand to hand, it means our players are closer together and better placed to defend a counter attack if we were to lose the ball. As opposed to being spread around the field if there was a kicking game on from the OH.

crisco10

Deleted User wrote: »

I actually don't think there is much of a lift there! Look at McGrath's arms, they're away to the side, unless he's just thrown Dev up and let go he can't really be being that effective!

And yeah, POM was important in the 5m steal.

True, not much tension in McGraths arm's either. Given Dev's elevation; I suspect McGrath (probably with a little help from best) threw Dev up and sort of caught him again.

molloyjh

Went into Cassidys on Camden St for just the 1 after the game. I should have taken today off because who the hell was I kidding when I said just the 1!?

First off the flag bearing was class. We were meant to be behind the band for it but there was a problem with the placement of the painted RBS logo so we ended up directly in behind the players. The noise levels for the anthems was just amazing out on the pitch. It was a really class start to the whole thing. Unfortunately I wasn't able to get to my seat until after we'd gone 6-0 up, but it was a pretty small price to pay.

As for the game I am still shocked that we dominated up front the way that we did. I haven't watched it back but it seemed that the English pack just didn't turn up to the level we would have expected. 98.3% ruck success is surely all but unheard of at this level. And that with 2 3rd choice back rows on for an hour of it. It was a hugely impressive display from the lads, I don't want to take away from it, but surely there was an element of England not performing too?

A couple of moments stood out in the game for me. The first was England going to the corner at 6-3 down. They'd just done a number on us in the maul and I'm sure they looked at that and thought they were on for a try off the line-out. And I'm sure we thought that too and figured getting someone in the air was important. Although we did that against SA as well didn't we, i.e. challenged the throw 5m from our line? That steal from Dev was a huge moment in the game. It pretty much made a statement saying that we weren't letting them in.

Murrays mistake at the back of the scrum for Vuniploas break could have been a lot more damaging had it not been for Bowes defensive line between Vunipola and Nowell (???). He prevented any kind of pass being made there and forced Vunipola into the kick. Ireland got a little lucky when England were on our line but ended up getting pinged for running into their own man. It was obviously the right call, but had they gotten a score there it would have been a very, very different game. The decision to go for the posts at 19-3 was probably the right one as they needed to get points on the board. They couldn't come away from that situation with nothing. However the decision to go for the posts at 19-6 baffled me a bit. They needed 2 converted tries to draw level and only had 12 minutes left. Even after Ford landed the penalty they needed 2 tries to win it and were down to 11 minutes. A try from that passage would have given them more momentum than a penalty and they absolutely required it. I thought that was totally the wrong call.

Zebos huge tackle on Watson and the subsequent turnover in the build up to the try was massive as well. Zebo rightly nailed him. It was great, and there were a few times where we did look to take advantage on turnover ball to the point I felt it would inevitably lead to a score for us (we won twice as much turn over ball as they did). Then there was Sextons hit on Ford that almost seemed like Johnny was putting him in his place.

I'm looking forward to watching it back now. I thought to a man Ireland were fantastic with Henshaw again proving that he is the real deal. He beat 6 defenders (more than anyone else on the pitch), carried more than any of our other backs (only POM carried more than him in green), won 2 turnovers (equalling Dan Cole as joint highest on the day), was our top tackler again and that try was very well taken. He has easily been our stand-out player of the tournament so far and if he keeps going like this he'll be something special.

As for our game I thought we seemed to be developing it compared to previous weeks. It looks to me anyway that we're adding to it each week with players becoming more and more familiar with each other. We're not making giant leaps, but we are growing slowly. We haven't sacrificed efficiency and that clinical execution in the search for a more expansive and "pretty" game, which is only right. But we are getting better, and still being as accurate as we go. It's hugely encouraging that we're here, the only unbeaten team in the Championship and on a run of 10 straight wins (with some of those against top teams) and we are still improving, and believe we can still improve. We haven't peaked yet and we are still an incredibly tough team to beat and a team that knows how to win. Anyone not happy with that needs a reality check!

And finally, I've spoken before about our developing squad depth but my God yesterday really did highlight that. Healy pacing on the sidelines desperate to get on and do some damage, Moore with a turnover in his first few minutes, TOD who played probably 30 minutes more than was planned at least coming in and doing everything that could have been asked of him and more. When you think we have guys like Tuohy, Ruddock, Henry, Heaslip, Trimble, Earls and Fitzgerald all either injured or coming back from injury it's a ridiculously positive time for Irish rugby. Roll on Wales. It'll be tough to go away there and get a result, but similarly it will be tough for them to try and figure out how to break us down.

aimee1

awec wrote: »

He could have got quite a few more metres comfortably. They were a bit too conservative.

Just had quick look at Madigans penalty touchfinders

53 min. 10 metres infield, 5m inside Irelands half
Lineout 6-7 metres inside englands 22

61 min. Middle of pitch. 8 metres inside irelands half.
Lineout about midway between halfway and 22. A bit conservative but from middle of pitch, safety first.

76 min. 10 metres infield, 3-4m inside Irelands half
Lineout about middway between halfway and 22. A bit conservative but resulting play was in penalty range but ireland gave away a penalty

The last one he was right to make sure IMO. Close the game out.

.ak

.ak wrote: »

I think he does, if you look at the total caps in other positions Madigan actually offers a lot more experience in other positions. But kicking aside I thought he offered great impact. Really hit the line well, gained yards and distributed well. He actually needed to trust his own game a little more:

How many opportunities are we going to give Madigan at Leinster to trust his own game until we realise that's he's just not as good as his apparent potential has made him out to be

errlloyd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How many opportunities are we going to give Madigan at Leinster to trust his own game until we realise that's he's just not as good as his apparent potential has made him out to be

Hopefully more than 3. Madigan has gone backwards since 2013, no doubt about it. That doesn't mean he can't return.

English Lurker

molloyjh wrote: »

Murrays mistake at the back of the scrum for Vuniploas break could have been a lot more damaging had it not been for Bowes defensive line between Vunipola and Nowell (???).

It was Ben Youngs. Big credit to Bowe - and all the other Irish players, Vunipola was surrounded by green shirts.

donfers

I know he's the man we all love to hate but Stephen Jones of the Sunday Times is spot on when commenting on his twitter feed the following

"Lots of coverage re England's indiscipline, gave away too many pens. Sorry, but most pens are conceded due to pressure from superior team"

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

Was that kicking to the right?

Another that Zebo or Kearney should have struck!

Yep, kicking to the right.

errlloyd

errlloyd wrote: »

Hopefully more than 3. Madigan has gone backwards since 2013, no doubt about it. That doesn't mean he can't return.

Perhaps I phrased that question incorrectly. I think that Madigan has reached his potential.

Swiwi.

errlloyd wrote: »

Hopefully more than 3. Madigan has gone backwards since 2013, no doubt about it. That doesn't mean he can't return.

It's over. Madigan is not going to make it as a great 10. People keep hoping. Someone like Byrne will step up and Madigan will just fade into the background.

Pudsy33

Swiwi. wrote: »

It's over. Madigan is not going to make it as a great 10. People keep hoping. Someone like Byrne will step up and Madigan will just fade into the backround.

He will hardly disappear. It's a strange one. Some people think he's a world beater, and others think he's a useless show pony. The truth is somewhere in the middle. He wont become a world class 10 at this stage but he's still a very handy player to have on the bench. He offers versatility and genuine impact from the bench. Until a top class back up to Sexton shows up (i suspect Jackson will be this sooner rather than later) he is still a very important member of that squad.

Buer

Swiwi. wrote: »

It's over. Madigan is not going to make it as a great 10. People keep hoping. Someone like Byrne will step up and Madigan will just fade into the background.

Pretty much. He will continue to have his fans but there's very little supporting evidence. He turns 26 next month. The time is fading to see if he makes it and approaching that people accept he's more of a Shane Geraghty than a Jonathan Sexton.

CIARAN_BOYLE

England

Buer wrote: »

Pretty much. He will continue to have his fans but there's very little supporting evidence. He turns 26 next month. The time is fading to see if he makes it and approaching that people accept he's more of a Shane Geraghty than a Jonathan Sexton.

I was going to say a Paddy Wallace. He will move around the backline for a few years trying to find a niche. I still think he is a great talent even if he is no Sexton.

Micky Dolenz

aimee1 wrote: »

Jump.jpg

Ha ha, you can actually see the snow on their heads that high up.

.ak

Deleted User wrote: »

How many opportunities are we going to give Madigan at Leinster to trust his own game until we realise that's he's just not as good as his apparent potential has made him out to be

Well let's get one thing clear; I don't rate Madigan as a 10. He's a decent 10, but not a great one. But under Schmidt he's always been a bit special, Schmidt very much encourages him to play his natural running game. I do think he makes a great 22. Jackson or Keatley just don't do it for me if you want a player to come on an ensure the tempo is very much kept up. In the same sense I'd want Reddan on the bench over Boss anyday.

He's a very special player, talent in spades, but he doesn't suit the kicking game we were playing yesterday. Instead, we had the lead, he should've just kept doing what he's good at; run the ball, and move it around the pitch. Which was my original point - he tried to play more like Sexton than Madigan.

Buer

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I was going to say a Paddy Wallace. He will move around the backline for a few years trying to find a niche. I still think he is a great talent even if he is no Sexton.

I'd say more Geraghty as both were hyped up hugely at a young age and were similar flair players, lacking the control aspect. Wallace never quite had the hype of the others, I think. Probably a better player than both, though, and ended up being a good international player who deserved more than his 30 caps. I don't think I'll ever be too comfortable at seeing Madigan starting crunch test matches in the way I was with Wallace.

Happyman42

Man, I would not tire of ruining players like this chances of playing in major comps with a long ban. He could clearly see the lad was injured.
https://vine.co/v/O2lpprP6tdi

Swiwi.

Pudsy33 wrote: »

He will hardly disappear. It's a strange one. Some people think he's a world beater, and others think he's a useless show pony. The truth is somewhere in the middle. He wont become a world class 10 at this stage but he's still a very handy player to have on the bench. He offers versatility and genuine impact from the bench. Until a top class back up to Sexton shows up (i suspect Jackson will be this sooner rather than later) he is still a very important member of that squad.

Not now Pudsy. I mean long term. Not hard to see Sexton and maybe Byrne become Leinsters options at 10 for example. His main asset is versatility which gives him his Irish bench spot.

Baggy Trousers

Happyman42 wrote: »

Man, I would not tire of ruining players like this chances of playing in major comps with a long ban. He could clearly see the lad was injured.

That's nasty. That was Henshaw right? Looked a serious ankle injury, how did he recover so well?

timaru89

Dirty from Hartley alright

Happyman42

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

That's nasty. That was Henshaw right? Looked a serious ankle injury, how did he recover so well?

Yep, Henshaw...he sees him stumbling and offering no threat whatsoever.

awec

Henshaw was walking across their defensive line. Injured or not you're always going to get shoved out of the way there.

Micky Dolenz

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yep, Henshaw...he sees him stumbling and offering no threat whatsoever.

I think it was more to do with being in the way and line of sight. Not a cool thing to do but I understand why a defending player would do it.

Happyman42

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I think it was more to do with being in the way and line of sight. Not a cool thing to do but I understand why a defending player would do it.

Any other player would get a begrudging pass on it, not this guy though.