Ireland v France [build up thread]

total former

If we went down fighting in a good showing against a French team hitting form, then gave NZ a damn good fight in the QF but still lost, I wouldn't regard a QF as a failure.

The 2011 QF exit, now THAT was a failure.

walshb

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Did you ever play sports ���� This isn't me having a go but I'm just shocked that your level of expectancy and/or your sense of what Ireland should be targeting in this tournament is. Never mind the fact you are effectively saying now, we are not going to win because the bookies say other teams are more likely so I font care when we go out!

Again I'm not having a go but if Joe Schmidt picked up an inkling of that mindset coming from one of his own players (even coaches) they would probably be dropped immediately.

My level of expectancy is spot on. I don't expect us to win this tournament. If that's puzzling then so be it. They should play to win, and play as hard as they can, but I don't expect a win.

No game from here on in is an expected win. Anybody saying otheriwse is well off the mark. The French match will be very tight, one that I hope we win, but am not expecting us to win. Expecting in my vernacular means it will very much happen.

rrpc

shrapnel222 wrote: »

And France went on and bottled it in Paris against a horrible England side in what could arguably be called the worst semi final ever.

It's funny old game alright. France seem to consider England their bogey team; every six nations, it's 'le crunch' game for them.

The Talking Bread

Your main point though relates to the fact that you would sooner see us lose a q/f than a final? That's baffling and defeatist? Sure why are we even here then? If you focus on the pain of losing rather than the ability you have to succeed you will get nowhere in life in my opinion!

That Irish team has the ABILITY to win the world cup. It will take some extreme effort and maybe a bit of luck but it's there? Same with NZ, Oz, SAF, FRA and Wales. If you apply a fear factor defeatist attitude that diminishes your chance hugEly.

The truth is. Ireland can beat France Sunday, I'd go as far as saying it's 50:50. They then can beat Argentina. More likely than unlikely.
Oz are more than likely next. That game is too far away to call at this stage. On form they are favourites. But Ireland have two big games to build momentum.
IF they did win that game you are in a WC final. And you aren't there for no reason.

Podge_irl

The Talking Bread wrote: »

The truth is. Ireland can beat France Sunday, I'd go as far as saying it's 50:50.

I, and the bookies, would go a good deal further than that.

leakyboots

dub_skav wrote: »

I agree with a lot of what you say, but I'm sorry this just isn't true.
One man making 38 tackles against New Zealand is certainly "showing up".

One of the all-time great, if not THE all-time great World Cup performance by an individual.

Was sickened for France after that match, and NZ fans booing Dusatoir's interview... very poor form. Thought France were robbed blind in that match.

walshb

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Your main point though relates to the fact that you would sooner see us lose a q/f than a final? That's baffling and defeatist? Sure why are we even here then? If you focus on the pain of losing rather than the ability you have to succeed you will get nowhere in life in my opinion!

That Irish team has the ABILITY to win the world cup. It will take some extreme effort and maybe a bit of luck but it's there? Same with NZ, Oz, SAF, FRA and Wales. If you apply a fear factor defeatist attitude that diminishes your chance hugEly.

The truth is. Ireland can beat France Sunday, I'd go as far as saying it's 50:50. They then can beat Argentina. More likely than unlikely.
Oz are more than likely next. That game is too far away to call at this stage. On form they are favourites. But Ireland have two big games to build momentum.
IF they did win that game you are in a WC final. And you aren't there for no reason.

I think you have misinterpreted me. Whether we lose a QF or final we are still losers. I don't see a huge difference between the two. Nothing defeatist at all. You have the France match at 50-50. That's fair. I would have it 52-48 in our favour. It backs my point that all matches from here on in are not expected wins, but possible wins. Nothing close to expected at this stage.

I would love us to win, but I'm not stupid. There are favourites in events for a reason. That is life. This WC is no different. Use being 4th-5th favourites is for a reason, one that I agree with. That's not defeatist, it's reality. And, yes, on our day and with a bit of a rub of the green we could go all the way. I never said otherwise.

shuffol

captbarnacles wrote: »

In 1999 it was just French brilliance rather than NZ playing badly. I agree in 2007 NZ bottled it and abandoned their passing game for short pick and drives which the French handled comfortably.

Hard to play a passing game when you've lost both your fly halves to injury, despite that they would've won if it weren't for Barnes's howler.

walshb

Podge_irl wrote: »

I, and the bookies, would go a good deal further than that.

It's not a deal further. It's a fairly close call. Ireland are favourites, but not by all that much.

dub_skav

leakyboots wrote: »

One of the all-time great, if not THE all-time great World Cup performance by an individual.

Was sickened for France after that match, and NZ fans booing Dusatoir's interview... very poor form. Thought France were robbed blind in that match.

While I agree with you, his 38 tackle (plus 1 try) performance actually was rewarded, with victory in 2007.

So, while you assert that his performance in 2011 was the greatest, I give you his 4 year younger self:

Edit: Yes I do have a bit of a man crush for Thierry

UnknownSpecies

walshb wrote: »

I think you have misinterpreted me. Whether we lose a QF or final we are still losers. I don't see a huge difference between the two. Nothing defeatist at all. You have the France match at 50-50. That's fair. I would have it 52-48 in our favour. It backs my point that all matches from here on in are not expected wins, but possible wins. Nothing close to expected at this stage.

I would love us to win, but I'm not stupid. There are favourites in events for a reason. That is life. This WC is no different. Use being 4th-5th favourites is for a reason, one that I agree with. That's not defeatist, it's reality. And, yes, on our day and with a bit of a rub of the green we could go all the way. I never said otherwise.

By that logic, going out during the group stages an equal achievement to going out in a QF or SF? How can you not see that progressing to a SF ie. further than we have ever gone before, isn't a huge deal for Irish rugby? It's a benchmark to build on going forward. If we get knocked out in the QF, it'll do absolutely no good to anyone.

dub_skav

The naysayers seem to be looking at this from 20 year hindsight.
Winning this week, would be great and give us a great feeling of excitement building up to next week. Winning next week would have me jumping out of my seat and ridiculously excited for the next week, you can see where I'm going here.

Live for now, in the moment, not in Paddy Power or a historical wikipedia page. The greatest victory is the one coming over the horizon.

The Talking Bread

walshb wrote: »

I think you have misinterpreted me. Whether we lose a QF or final we are still losers. I don't see a huge difference between the two. Nothing defeatist at all. You have the France match at 50-50. That's fair. I would have it 52-48 in our favour. It backs my point that all matches from here on in are not expected wins, but possible wins. Nothing close to expected at this stage.

I would love us to win, but I'm not stupid. There are favourites in events for a reason. That is life. This WC is no different. Use being 4th-5th favourites is for a reason, one that I agree with. That's not defeatist, it's reality. And, yes, on our day and with a bit of a rub of the green we could go all the way. I never said otherwise.

Trust me if Ireland get to a WC final they are not losers. Not in the sense that we lose another quarter final. It's about expectancy, standards and ability and once we fall below all or any of those thresholds and exit the WC on that basis we are losers.





I think you just have a different sporting mindset to me and I'd assume most and that's fair enough. No point discussing it!

Thanos

The more i think about it, the more I wonder will we see Toner start with Henderson on the bench as an impact sub............?

My thinking is that France have a good line out and Joe will want to make sure we win our ball early on. Also having two impact subs like Henderson and Cronin would be a big boost later on.
Also thinking Healy may start this one to give some support to SOB for go forward ball.

For the record I think Henderson is playing much better then Toner just think Joe might go in another direction.

walshb

The Talking Bread wrote: »

I think you just have a different sporting mindset to me and I'd assume most and that's fair enough. No point discussing it!

Haven't a clue what you mean here. I have said nothing different to you. Great achievement if we get to the semis or final. I don't expect a WC win. The term loser is correct. It's not meant to be taken in a derogatory fashion.

Our only disagreemenet is the level of achievement with a QF position as opposed to a SF position. I don't see the big difference.

I have conceded that getting to the final is significant compared to crashing out at QF stage

total former

Just stuck 50 quid on Ireland -2.0. I'm getting both over-excited and over-optimistic, and it's still only Thursday.

The Talking Bread

walshb wrote: »

Haven't a clue what you mean here. I have said nothing different to you. Great achievement if we get to the semis or final. I don't expect a WC win. The term loser is correct. It's not meant to be taken in a derogatory fashion.

Our only disagreemenet is the level of achievement with a QF position as opposed to a SF position. I don't see the big difference.

I have conceded that getting to the final is significant compared to crashing out at QF stage

Ah no I amn't knocking your opinion down. I am merely saying I can't digest it. And yes I imagine a lot of what you are saying may be hard to say over a forum without it looking defeatist.

But my overall point is. Ireland have the ABILITY to go extremely far in this WC. Honestly, I would be more disappointed if we lose to France Sunday having not put in 100% rather than I would be estatic if we won the whole thing?

Do you get me? Like you I am well aware the likelihood is we won't win the WC. No one can doubt that. Evenue at this stage the likelihood for a team like NZ is that they have a better chance of not winning it rather than winning it. It's simple maths as there are 7 obstacles remailing . However it's about making your best way home and avoiding the harder obstacles as you go along.

But the more you win the less daunting each next obstacle becomes. (Cheesy metaphoric non sense, aside!!)

I just think the term losers has to be used in the derogatory mainstream sense to compare our mindsets with regard what stage Ireland exit at.

If Ireland exit the q/fs having not met their dtandards they are losers. You can only lose something you already have.
Ireland don't have the Web Ellis to lose. But they have the ability and standards to win it. So the pain for me would be losing that ability and dropping those standards.

Very hard to explain over a boards forum! Apologies for the waffle and I am not knocking your mindset down, or what I think your mindset is.

Shall we leave it there?

aimee1

total former wrote: »

Just stuck 50 quid on Ireland -2.0. I'm getting both over-excited and over-optimistic, and it's still only Thursday.

Odds?

total former

aimee1 wrote: »

Odds?

Standard handicap odds, 10/11.

Ireland are 4/6 for the outright win, France 13/10.

The Talking Bread

aimee1 wrote: »

Odds?

10/11.

The Talking Bread

total former wrote: »

Standard handicap odds, 10/11.

Ireland are 4/6 for the outright win, France 13/10.

Your better bet there would be 15/8...... Ireland to win between 1 and 10 points. Either way I hope you are 48 euro up come Sunday evening for obvious reasons ☺

walshb

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Ah no I amn't knocking your opinion down. I am merely saying I can't digest it. And yes I imagine a lot of what you are saying may be hard to say over a forum without it looking defeatist.

But my overall point is. Ireland have the ABILITY to go extremely far in this WC. Honestly, I would be more disappointed if we lose to France Sunday having not put in 100% rather than I would be estatic if we won the whole thing?

Do you get me? Like you I am well aware the likelihood is we won't win the WC. No one can doubt that. Evenue at this stage the likelihood for a team like NZ is that they have a better chance of not winning it rather than winning it. It's simple maths as there are 7 obstacles remailing . However it's about making your best way home and avoiding the harder obstacles as you go along.

But the more you win the less daunting each next obstacle becomes. (Cheesy metaphoric non sense, aside!!)

I just think the term losers has to be used in the derogatory mainstream sense to compare our mindsets with regard what stage Ireland exit at.

If Ireland exit the q/fs having not met their dtandards they are losers. You can only lose something you already have.
Ireland don't have the Web Ellis to lose. But they have the ability and standards to win it. So the pain for me would be losing that ability and dropping those standards.

Very hard to explain over a boards forum! Apologies for the waffle and I am not knocking your mindset down, or what I think your mindset is.

Shall we leave it there?

But you have the French match at 50:50. I am almost the same. So, a loss vs. France means we play NZ. Likely they beat us. You then label us losers? But not loseres if we lose to NZ in a final?

I would apply the term loser after a loss to France, as this match is important for us to win (avoiding a QF likley loss vs. NZ), and is IMO more winable than a NZ match in the QFs. If we cannot beat France then we likely will not beat NZ.

I know, a bit confusing. In a nutshell the French match is a very tight affair that decides our path. Two scenarios: We win, and we have a good chance at beating Argentina to progress. Not definite, or close to, but good chance. If we lose to France our chances become slimmer when meeting NZ @ QFs.

No matter what the permuations I feel that the lads are never losers in the drogatory sense, because IMO from here on in nothing is approaching certainty or expecting. Argentina/NZ are both very tough matches. Slight favourites vs. Argentina, deserved underdogs vs. NZ. But, always winners as regards spirit and talent and team work. And there is nothing at all defeatist about this view. It's called competitive world sport from a realistic standpoint!

stephen_n

Did I miss the French team, surfing through this car crash thread? It was supposed to be announced today I thought?

MJohnston

stephen_n wrote: »

Did I miss the French team, surfing through this car crash thread? It was supposed to be announced today I thought?

Not announced yet - https://www.rugbyworldcup.com/match/14232#latest

They didn't announce last week for Canada until 2 days beforehand, wouldn't expect any different for this (aka tomorrow).

stadedublinois

stephen_n wrote: »

Did I miss the French team, surfing through this car crash thread? It was supposed to be announced today I thought?

Will be announced tomorrow 11h30 (French time)

JF100

Bonne Journee Everybody.
I have been reading these pages with ever increasing dismay.

There is a lack of clarity of thought and reason, to some of the posts here that beggars belief.
There is also a lack of respect for spelling, grammar and the English language itself, that makes trawling through some of this nonsensical drivel an even more unpleasant experience than it already would have been.

I had expected more from those on these pages; as most people here would have good analytical minds and be able to make lucid cases for specific selections or tactics.
That appears to have gone completely in the lead up to our most important match since the QF in 2011.
Perhaps it is a flaw of our national character...?

I cannot bear any more of this. I shall return on Monday ... (Much the wiser no doubt).

walshb

JF100 wrote: »

Bonne Journee Everybody.
I have been reading these pages with ever increasing dismay.

There is a lack of clarity of thought and reason, to some of the posts here that beggars belief.
There is also a lack of respect for spelling, grammar and the English language itself, that makes trawling through some of this nonsensical drivel an even more unpleasant experience than it already would have been.

I had expected more from those on these pages; as most people here would have good analytical minds and be able to make lucid cases for specific selections or tactics.
That appears to have gone completely in the lead up to our most important match since the QF in 2011.
Perhaps it is a flaw of our national character...?

I cannot bear any more of this. I shall return on Monday ... (Much the wiser no doubt).

Pointless rant without examples!

vienne86

JF100 wrote: »

Bonne Journee Everybody.
I have been reading these pages with ever increasing dismay.

There is a lack of clarity of thought and reason, to some of the posts here that beggars belief.
There is also a lack of respect for spelling, grammar and the English language itself, that makes trawling through some of this nonsensical drivel an even more unpleasant experience than it already would have been.

I had expected more from those on these pages; as most people here would have good analytical minds and be able to make lucid cases for specific selections or tactics.
That appears to have gone completely in the lead up to our most important match since the QF in 2011.
Perhaps it is a flaw of our national character...?

I cannot bear any more of this. I shall return on Monday ... (Much the wiser no doubt).

Thanks for dropping by!

iroced

Ardillaun wrote: »

I haven't been greatly impressed by Grosso in the WC so far.

He played only 1 game, his first ever in a WC. He ended up scoring a try. You have to give him more time.

sydthebeat wrote: »

OH GOD !!! sunday cant come soon enough if the last few pages are the type of drivel we've to put up with until then

:(:(:(

Is it... France driving all this panic :pac: ?

shrapnel222 wrote: »

And France went on and bottled it in Paris against a horrible England side in what could arguably be called the worst semi final ever.

This is actually the sorest memory in any WC for me. Cause' in 95 there was the whole Mandela-South-Africa-need-to-win thing and well we'll never know the story between Benazzi and the bloody fecking mud and 4 years ago well I can't be more proud of any of our games than this particular one. EVERYONE was seeing us lose (actually more demolished than just a defeat). We had struggled through the whole competition but managed to just do what was necessary to go through each time. NZ were at home. Maybe stronger than ever. They had laughed at us. And we went on and gave them a lesson. They even had to send McCaw "killing" Parra to make it easier. But Trinh-Duc stepped up to the task. I'm sure deep inside the New Zealand players know how they got the supreme title out of this game.

Back to the 2007 semi, Laporte got it all wrong and got (partly) sacked for it. How crazy was it to play the same tactics against England than the one we adopted vs New Zealand ??!!! England & New Zealand were probably the most opposite sides in terms of playstyle. It's beyond me how a pragmatic coach like Laporte did not understand/see that. Maybe he got carried away by the Quarter win. But what a disaster that game was. I feel we did not play it. In a way it's a bit like NZ in the final 4 years ago though our game had its deserved ending.

shuffol wrote: »

Hard to play a passing game when you've lost both your fly halves to injury, despite that they would've won if it weren't for Barnes's howler.

The major difference between 2011 and 2007 is that Barnes did not give us the win. Granted he did not see the forward pass but there was no other major issues during the game. NZ just bottled it. They had the lead but we came back. Dusautoir's try was a brilliant one. About their halves, McAllister is no clumsy player for a passing game. They were not just up to their standard on that day. And actually even the forward pass "incident", no NZ players complained about it in real time (they started to complain when they saw the slow motion replay after the game).
While in 2011, the most important person of the game was Joubert. Speaks for itself. e.g. McCaw was defending the rucks on the French side :pac: (even our players could not believe it).

Yeah_Right

iroced wrote: »

While in 2011, the most important person of the game was Joubert. Speaks for itself. e.g. McCaw was defending the rucks on the French side :pac: (even our players could not believe it).

Is that why one of the French players eye-gouged him?

This myth that Joubert handed the game to NZ is bs that has just snowballed over the years. I have watched that game 30 or 40 times in the last 4 years and don't see it. The French put in their best performance of the tournament but simply couldn't break the ABs down and couldn't kick their goals. McCaw was outstanding, as good as Dusatoire was in 2007.


Sorry I know it's completely off topic. I won't debate it here. Happy to do it else where.

irishbucsfan

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Is that why one of the French players eye-gouged him?

This myth that Joubert handed the game to NZ is bs that has just snowballed over the years. I have watched that game 30 or 40 times in the last 4 years and don't see it. The French put in their best performance of the tournament but simply couldn't break the ABs down and couldn't kick their goals. McCaw was outstanding, as good as Dusatoire was in 2007.

I think you're in a very very small minority on that one. I haven't seen the game in years but I was of the opinion that only one team was refereed on the day. I'm normally very reluctant to criticise any referee.

dub_skav

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I think you're in a very very small minority on that one. I haven't seen the game in years but I was of the opinion that only one team was refereed on the day. I'm normally very reluctant to criticise any referee.

Same as, haven't watched the game since, but my overriding memory is of Jerome Kaino committing multiple offenses in the one ruck in kicking range with minutes left. Joubert was terrible.

The Talking Bread

JF100 wrote: »

Bonne Journee Everybody.
I have been reading these pages with ever increasing dismay.

There is a lack of clarity of thought and reason, to some of the posts here that beggars belief.
There is also a lack of respect for spelling, grammar and the English language itself, that makes trawling through some of this nonsensical drivel an even more unpleasant experience than it already would have been.

I had expected more from those on these pages; as most people here would have good analytical minds and be able to make lucid cases for specific selections or tactics.
That appears to have gone completely in the lead up to our most important match since the QF in 2011.
Perhaps it is a flaw of our national character...?

I cannot bear any more of this. I shall return on Monday ... (Much the wiser no doubt).

Sigh........... With such condescending arrogance, you won't be missed! Perhaps more suited to Les Forum Francais

MJI

I'll go for the French, meaning we finish 2nd in the group, meaning we play The All Blacks next, meaning we're fcked.

sydthebeat

well im going to say that im quite confident that we are going to beat the french by the highest margin since 1st march 1975

and you can quote me on this when we do it!!

padser

Yeah_Right wrote: »

This myth that Joubert handed the game to NZ is bs that has just snowballed over the years. I have watched that game 30 or 40 times in the last 4 years and don't see it.
.

I'm so confused....

You watch the same game of rugby roughly 10 times a year....for 4 years! That's close to once a month.

Why on earth would you do such a thing???

And.....having done it...... How can you miss the fact that Joubert misses about 5 infringements by in the last passage of play alone??

stadedublinois

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Is that why one of the French players eye-gouged him?

This myth that Joubert handed the game to NZ is bs that has just snowballed over the years. I have watched that game 30 or 40 times in the last 4 years and don't see it. The French put in their best performance of the tournament but simply couldn't break the ABs down and couldn't kick their goals. McCaw was outstanding, as good as Dusatoire was in 2007.


Sorry I know it's completely off topic. I won't debate it here. Happy to do it else where.

While this video doesn't prove beyond all doubt (though it does make a compelling argument) that Joubert favoured NZ it does show some terrible mistakes from him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXCQnL421WM

Yeah_Right

padser wrote: »

I'm so confused....

You watch the same game of rugby roughly 10 times a year....for 4 years! That's close to once a month.

Why on earth would you do such a thing???

And.....having done it...... How can you miss the fact that Joubert misses about 5 infringements by in the last passage of play alone??

Yes I have done. I love rugby. I happily watch my favourite past matches and that's one of my favourites. I had probably watched it a dozen times before the end of 2011.

And like I said, this was heading off topic so I won't debate it here.

hype101

JF100 wrote: »

Bonne Journee Everybody.
I have been reading these pages with ever increasing dismay.

There is a lack of clarity of thought and reason, to some of the posts here that beggars belief.
There is also a lack of respect for spelling, grammar and the English language itself, that makes trawling through some of this nonsensical drivel an even more unpleasant experience than it already would have been.

I had expected more from those on these pages; as most people here would have good analytical minds and be able to make lucid cases for specific selections or tactics.
That appears to have gone completely in the lead up to our most important match since the QF in 2011.
Perhaps it is a flaw of our national character...?

I cannot bear any more of this. I shall return on Monday ... (Much the wiser no doubt).

Not sure about that comma after 'reason' on the third line.

Yeah_Right

stadedublinois wrote: »

While this video doesn't prove beyond all doubt (though it does make a compelling argument) that Joubert favoured NZ it does show some terrible mistakes from him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXCQnL421WM

Yeah that's impartial :rolleyes:

I could put up a dozen videos showing how Barnes screwed the ABs in 2007 or documentaries on how they were poisoned in 1995 and you would all laugh at them.

Look if you want to debate it, start a thread.

rrpc

stadedublinois wrote: »

While this video doesn't prove beyond all doubt (though it does make a compelling argument) that Joubert favoured NZ it does show some terrible mistakes from him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXCQnL421WM

Or this one (you don't have to listen to Franno)

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

molloyjh

So Ireland are playing France this weekend, in a game not being refereed by Craig Joubert that is not happening in 2011 and doesn't feature any black jerseys. Just saying......

stadedublinois

stadedublinois wrote: »

While this video doesn't prove beyond all doubt (though it does make a compelling argument) that Joubert favoured NZ it does show some terrible mistakes from him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXCQnL421WM

Cheeky stamp very early on that isn't even mentioned

https://youtu.be/sXCQnL421WM?t=137

molloyjh

Folks why are we discussing a 4 year old game in the preview thread for a match this weekend?

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

Folks why are we discussing a 4 year old game in the preview thread for a match this weekend?

A tremendous question indeed, molloyjh.

Please refrain from discussing this historical game, and return thy thoughts to the issue at hand forthwith.

irishbucsfan

Ireland to win by 40 points

techdiver

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Ireland to win by 40 points

That's more like it!

Wouldn't it be lovely?!

UnknownSpecies

techdiver wrote: »

That's more like it!

Wouldn't it be lovely?!

Won't happen if Payne plays :pac:

corny

I want Ireland to win for the less obvious reason..... I think France can beat NZ in the quarter final.

Will Ireland win? I don't think so. France by 8.

The Talking Bread

corny wrote: »

I want Ireland to win for the less obvious reason..... I think France can beat NZ in the quarter final.

Will Ireland win? I don't think so. France by 8.

Nice logic there re France/NZ. Hopefully a few "minor physical knocks" for France in doing so also.....