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

.ak

bilston wrote: »

Undoubtedly, however I forgot he was playing on Sunday such was his impact.

Talking of future Lions 13s there are some good young OCs around. JJ, Henshaw and Bennett could all be vying for the 13 jersey in a couple of years time, but right now it would be hard to look past Davies and Tuilagi.

Actually when Tuilagi returns where will JJ fit into Lancaster's plans?

Personally I'd have Tuilagi and JJ together.

Not really sure Davies will be in the picture, unless Gatland is coach again. He hasn't done much since the Lions tour. He's been okay-ish for Clermont... He's no Rougerie

Neil3030

England

Madigan at 12, D'Arcy at 13 for the next Lions tour for me.

.ak

Neil3030 wrote: »

Madigan at 12, D'Arcy at 13 for the next Lions tour for me.

Zeebs at FB?

molloyjh

.ak wrote: »

Zeebs at FB?

Fitzy.

Neil3030

England

.ak wrote: »

Zeebs at FB?

Nah after his performance on Sunday I'm going to switch him to the blindside.

bilston

.ak wrote: »

Personally I'd have Tuilagi and JJ together.

The English midfield could be very strong in the years to come. A maturing Ford who will be the best in the world in the future IMO and then a fit Tuilagi plus Joseph with Watson out wide is pretty exciting. Obviously St Joe will find a way to stop them of course but that is pretty exciting.

Neil3030

England

bilston wrote: »

The English midfield could be very strong in the years to come. A maturing Ford who will be the best in the world in the future IMO and then a fit Tuilagi plus Joseph with Watson out wide is pretty exciting. Obviously St Joe will find a way to stop them of course but that is pretty exciting.

And behind that pack, they could be a serious force.

Fireball07

Swiwi. wrote: »

The scrum-half remains a poor box kicker

More wisdom from George Hook :rolleyes:

I think he's world class. One of us is wrong...

Also, always fun to read the pre-match team assessments with the benefit of hindsight

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/sixnations/11441868/Ireland-v-England-player-head-to-head-who-comes-out-on-top.html

As you'd expect the England tight 5 is more highly rated than the Irish one. It's one area I think English journalistis are consistently myopic. They always believe they have some sort of amazing front-row, they tend to put a huge emphasis on the scrum when assessing their players. Some of the backline assessments are also interesting. Sexton a 9 but Ford an 8. Joseph a 9. They scored it evens before the match anyways...

I don't know a scrum-half better at box kicks in the world than Murray. He's not always perfect, but it is a difficult skill to execute brilliantly all the time.

bilston

Fireball07 wrote: »

I don't know a scrum-half better at box kicks in the world than Murray. He's not always perfect, but it is a difficult skill to execute brilliantly all the time.

He sometimes lacks a bit of distance I suppose but then that may be deliberate. Even though it appears they haven't travelled that far we seem to retain possession 50% of the time, and the other 50% we have the opposition going backwards even if they get hold of the ball.

CIARAN_BOYLE

England

Fireball07 wrote: »

I don't know a scrum-half better at box kicks in the world than Murray. He's not always perfect, but it is a difficult skill to execute brilliantly all the time.

Maybe Pienaar when he wants to be and is allowed to be.

bilston wrote: »

He sometimes lacks a bit of distance I suppose but then that may be deliberate. Even though it appears they haven't travelled that far we seem to retain possession 50% of the time, and the other 50% we have the opposition going backwards even if they get hold of the ball.

It has to be shorter than maximum to be contestable.

English Lurker

Swiwi. wrote: »

In the making
Could be

I like my players graded on how they are actually not what they might become.

He could well be a 9/10 player. I don't think he's that currently, and certainly didn't really shine on Saturday, if compared to 6/10 Payne or 8/10 Henshaw.

*cough* I dislike defending Fleet Street, but those ratings were clearly based on for as much as ability (and as much again on delusion) and Joseph was in hot form. And any centre can be shut down if you beat his pack and panic his half-backs, as happened to Joseph.

But yes, this is mainly a matter of the media's classic propensity for talking up the first shoots of spring like they just won everything. Watching the praise lavished on him over the last few weeks has made me equal parts apprehensive and angry. He's simply not at that place yet. Wonderful talent, I hope it sticks, but a couple of good games so far. Retrying Tuilagi and Joseph is a clear course of action but I'm dubious as to whether it will work.

When we come to it, the idea that there's *only one* area where England's rugby media are consistently myopic, is, well... c'mon Swiwi, you're smarter than that :pac:


Also, for what its worth, Murray's box kicking was often 5 feet too far forwards against England, but he is clearly a fantastic proponent of the art.


Finally winding down enough to consider England's performance here. I have to say, without wishing to run down Ireland's performance at all, England first shot themselves in the foot, then calmly unloaded the second barrel into the other. Some of the mistakes were at least partially due to opposition pressure - but when your lock ignores the ref shouting "White, give" to keep standing offside, well, that's not really pressure. That's idiocy. And when your full-back marks the catch rather than grounding the ball when in his own try area, you might give a little credit to the chaser for maybe affecting his thinking, but you'd like to think an international could spot the bad idea there for himself regardless. And on. And on. Anthony Watson going for the ball in a clearly offside position, again, not hugely opposition pressure... but then it was good defensive play and a big hit from Sexton that resulted in Ford mucking up that situation and offering up the opportunity. So, mix. Fantastic pressure from the Irish at many points. But you're meant to show a lot more than the English players do when it came on.

And on and on and on and on. Winning a test match against opposition of serious quality while making so many errors is simply impossible. I thought England did alright in the first half, mistakes put us aside but it looked in the balance, but the mistakes continued and panic set in until our bench/no Sexton gave us an edge... at which point we still made plenty of mistakes. Also, throughout the game, our support of the ball carrier was put to shame by Ireland's work. It remains a consistent failing. Our back three were well beat - Goode is fantastic at working out where to be to take the kick and hopeless once he gathers. Our tight five did not get the hoped for advantage.

I see a fair few positive remarks about England but I don't share them. This appears to be England's plateau. Enough talent and guts to make a match of it against top sides, but far too many weaknesses to hope to challenge them properly. Doesn't look like changing soon enough.

I'm undecided as to whether to wish you luck against Wales... obviously it'd be nice to have a shot at winning the Championship... but, well, Wales.

Swiwi.

One final comment. There seems to be this idea that if you can't tell if it's a forward pass on TV, well the ref should have gone to the TMO. If Joubert was 100% certain that the last pass from 36 to Nowell was forward, I see absolutely no reason why he should go to the TMO. TV cameras are not always in the perfect spot to get it right, and the ref might well have been. It's happened a bit in SXV recently too, where the ref is 100% sure of his call, it looks uncertain from the didgy camera angles, and then everyone is up in arms that the TMO wasn't involved.

errlloyd

English Lurker wrote: »

Anthony Watson going for the ball in a clearly offside position, again, not hugely opposition pressure...

I have a tiny bit of sympathy for Watson here, he couldn't see it, there is at least a reasonable chance it was ripped and went backwards off an Irish hand. It is also possible that if it went directly forward off Ford, and not back off Ford forward off Goode he was onside (I'd have to check again).

It's one of the less stupid versions of that penalty I have seen in a while. It is ridiculous for us (Irish) to say that Ford, Watson and Nowell all mishandling kicks in the first 2 minutes is because we're great. It's not. All 3 were under pressure, and that makes us good, but those players should have handled those kicks. If our players had messed up in those positions I'd have been angry at my players.

molloyjh

Swiwi. wrote: »

One final comment. There seems to be this idea that if you can't tell if it's a forward pass on TV, well the ref should have gone to the TMO. If Joubert was 100% certain that the last pass from 36 to Nowell was forward, I see absolutely no reason why he should go to the TMO. TV cameras are not always in the perfect spot to get it right, and the ref might well have been. It's happened a bit in SXV recently too, where the ref is 100% sure of his call, it looks uncertain from the didgy camera angles, and then everyone is up in arms that the TMO wasn't involved.

One minute it's "there's no need to go to the TMO all the time, make a decision". Then when the ref makes a decision it's "why didn't you use the TMO ref!?". Lose-lose.

rrpc

errlloyd wrote: »

It's one of the less stupid versions of that penalty I have seen in a while. It is ridiculous for us (Irish) to say that Ford, Watson and Nowell all mishandling kicks in the first 2 minutes is because we're great. It's not. All 3 were under pressure, and that makes us good, but those players should have handled those kicks. If our players had messed up in those positions I'd have been angry at my players.

It's also true to say they knew what was coming long before the game but had no clue what to do about it. We also made it really difficult by having up to three chasers on the garryowens.

SaveOurLyric

Swiwi. wrote: »

One final comment. There seems to be this idea that if you can't tell if it's a forward pass on TV, well the ref should have gone to the TMO. If Joubert was 100% certain that the last pass from 36 to Nowell was forward, I see absolutely no reason why he should go to the TMO. TV cameras are not always in the perfect spot to get it right, and the ref might well have been. It's happened a bit in SXV recently too, where the ref is 100% sure of his call, it looks uncertain from the didgy camera angles, and then everyone is up in arms that the TMO wasn't involved.

Fully correct. The ref goes to the TMO when he is unsure. Not when the crowd is unsure. Otherwise what would you do? Go to the TMO is the crowd howls ? Or for every decision even if it is clear to him, just in case its not clear ?
Joubert was fully correct to make his decision, whether the decision itself was correct or not.

spiralism

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't understand them taking 3 points at 13 points down.

Robshaw said that he felt it was important at that stage to bring the game within two scores. Uh....

Podge_irl

spiralism wrote: »

Robshaw said that he felt it was important at that stage to bring the game within two scores. Uh....

Think he was asked about taking the points at 19-3 down. That made sense really. Taking them at 19-6 down did not, at all.

shuffol

Love it

http://balls.ie/rugby/video-no-sean-obrien-dont-worry-iain-henderson-job/at_pco=smlrebv-1.0&at_si=54f700656a24d1bc&at_ab=per-4&at_pos=0&at_tot=8

BoardsMember

shuffol wrote: »

Love it

http://balls.ie/rugby/video-no-sean-obrien-dont-worry-iain-henderson-job/at_pco=smlrebv-1.0&at_si=54f700656a24d1bc&at_ab=per-4&at_pos=0&at_tot=8

Yeah noticed that at the time, they were lucky to get the ball away.

I thought that was an example of a number of times in the game when we decided to attack a ruck through the middle really well, not at first arriving, but just to disrupt and pile through when they had observed that England had not committed enough to protecting. I love seeing guys decide, in numbers, that something is on and reacting together, a sign of great coaching.

accidentprone1

shuffol wrote: »

Love it

http://balls.ie/rugby/video-no-sean-obrien-dont-worry-iain-henderson-job/at_pco=smlrebv-1.0&at_si=54f700656a24d1bc&at_ab=per-4&at_pos=0&at_tot=8

Link didn't work for me, here it is for others in case they have a problem too


http://balls.ie/rugby/video-no-sean-obrien-dont-worry-iain-henderson-job/

irishbucsfan

shuffol wrote: »

Love it

http://balls.ie/rugby/video-no-sean-obrien-dont-worry-iain-henderson-job/at_pco=smlrebv-1.0&at_si=54f700656a24d1bc&at_ab=per-4&at_pos=0&at_tot=8

If I was from elsewhere in Europe, what would really scare me about Henderson is that Joe Schmidt looks at this player and decides he's not worth a starting place. Imagine what he's going to be capable of when he's starting for us regularly, and if that never happens imagine how good the guy ahead of him is going to have to be...

shuffol

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If I was from elsewhere in Europe, what would really scare me about Henderson is that Joe Schmidt looks at this player and decides he's not worth a starting place. Imagine what he's going to be capable of when he's starting for us regularly, and if that never happens imagine how good the guy ahead of him is going to have to be...

I love the end of it as he's just leaving the screen, never slows down, isn't content just to disrupt the ball but wants to bury the opposition into the ground.
He's become a lot nigglier since coming back from injury.

rrpc

https://twitter.com/Murray_Kinsella/status/572890659096551424

.ak

It's a serious drive from a tall man.

Buer

Henderson would have made one hell of an American football player given his explosive power and agility.

irishbucsfan

I enjoy just watching Coles on repeat in that clip. I could do it all day.

.ak

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I enjoy just watching Coles on repeat in that clip. I could do it all day.

Haha me too. And Wigglesworth's disapproving eyes.

CatFromHue

Good tackle from Moore too

Podge_irl

Was a good clearout too, not one of these dangerously stupid exocet missile impressions.

shuffol

That type of tackle is fast becoming Moores trademark. Gives a supporting player a great chance to get over the ball.

Greyian

Has anyone noticed this video going around a few sites:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYcv6CIAcGA

If you pause it at 0:35, it's pretty obvious that Goode is actually standing in touch before jumping for it. I can't see why anyone is disputing it being a lineout as a result...

Does it matter that he's in touch before jumping? I wouldn't have thought so

Tox56

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Does it matter that he's in touch before jumping? I wouldn't have thought so

I'm pretty sure it does, otherwise you could just stand in touch waiting for the ball to come and then tap it back in

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

Does it matter that he's in touch before jumping? I wouldn't have thought so

No, only matters where he lands.

Oh wait sorry yes, of course, he has to jump from and land in play (what I meant was that even if he was in when jumping it wouldn't matter as he landed in touch).

awec

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No, only matters where he lands.

Oh wait sorry yes, of course, he has to jump from and land in play (what I meant was that even if he was in when jumping it wouldn't matter as he landed in touch).

Do you have to land in-play too?

I thought that so long as you jump from in-play that it doesn't matter if you land elsewhere so long as you aren't touching the ball when you touch the ground in-touch.

total former

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Does it matter that he's in touch before jumping? I wouldn't have thought so

The rule is that if the ball crosses the line (which it does) then you have to land with both feet back in play, which he doesn't. The correct call was made.

awec

total former wrote: »

The rule is that if the ball crosses the line (which it does) then you have to land with both feet back in play, which he doesn't. The correct call was made.

Is that not just for if you land while holding the ball?

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

Is that not just for if you land while holding the ball?

No, any contact with the ball. Including if you jump and bat it back into play.

total former

awec wrote: »

Is that not just for if you land while holding the ball?

But in this case Goode starts off in touch, the ball is in touch and he lands in touch. How could it not be a lineout?

awec

total former wrote: »

But in this case Goode starts off in touch, the ball is in touch and he lands in touch. How could it not be a lineout?

The ball isn't in touch until it touches the ground in touch, right?

BBDBB

total former wrote: »

But in this case Goode starts off in touch, the ball is in touch and he lands in touch. How could it not be a lineout?

the art of levitation?

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

The ball isn't in touch until it touches the ground in touch, right?

No, if you jump from in play and bat the ball, then land in touch the ball is in touch. If you are in midair you have to land in play. Whether or not you're in play is decided by where you land.

I remember when I was playing at schools level there was a very explicit debate about this amongst us all and we all had to break out our laws, eventually had it settled by a ref!

sydthebeat

England

awec wrote: »

The ball isn't in touch until it touches the ground in touch, right?

No
The ball is also in touch when it touches something or someone which is also in touch. .... which would include goode in this case

Peregrine

If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the playing area otherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=19

Tox56

Nim wrote: »

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=19

Huh I didnt realise this at all, I thought Goode would have been ok if he'd started off from inside the field of play, but apparently not. Dont really understand what he was doing if so

durkadurka

Nim wrote: »

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=19

He didn't catch it

irishbucsfan

Tox56 wrote: »

Huh I didnt realise this at all, I thought Goode would have been ok if he'd started off from inside the field of play, but apparently not. Dont really understand what he was doing if so

Players often do it just to be chancers

rrpc

durkadurka wrote: »

He didn't catch it

But he was in touch and the ball crossed the line.

Dempsey

Nim wrote: »

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=19

He didnt catch it though, he played the ball whilst technically he was still on the field and before he was judged out of play, i.e. feet touching the ground.