Scotland v Ireland.

Dubinusa

I would like to see us implement a broader attack. Just watched Englands highlights from the weekend and watching them grubber kick through the defensive line was incredible.
They constantly had France in sizes and sevens. They created momentum by using this ploy.
Remember, the used similar tactics against us.
A varying approach to attack, would keep defending teams on the back foot and probably save Sexton from taking a physical beating.
Mixing up crash ball runners with grubbers in behind seems to be a good way to gain territory and cause disarray in the backfield.
Box kicking is easy to defend, as it's been our plot for so long.

thebaz

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Will you stop taking all my posts personally.
Surely you should play the best players in the more important games and rotate where possible in the games against the weaker sides?

Well don't call me arrogant - my opinion differs to you - accept it

sydthebeat

It's not rocket science to know to kick through when the opposition are playing two centers on the wings and a winger at full back.

The execution was perfect however....and allowed by having the power game up front.

The Lost Sheep

thebaz wrote: »

Well don't call me arrogant - my opinion differs to you - accept it

I said your viewpoint about this issue was arrogant. Not that you are. There's a clear difference.

FrancieBrady

evil_seed wrote: »

Now you're confusing yourself. Is Sexton kicking the ball or passing the ball. You're a nonsense!

This is an excuse for a player making a late hit. If he tackles after the ball is gone - it's a foul. Sexton should benefit from that. He is 'better' than the tackling player.
If he is too fast for the opposing player then just like a winger he should not be impeded by foul play.

evil seed wrote:

He brings the ball so close to the line, in both hands, and delays the pass so long, the defender has to commit to the tackle. If the defender doesn't commit, Sexton will more than likely make a line break and that's the last thing you want to do.

thebaz

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I said your viewpoint about this issue was arrogant. Not that you are. There's a clear difference.

ok, fair eneogh - anyway its 6 months away , just think Carberry starting against Scotland might be a good call - a lot can happen in 6 months - so utter speculation at this stage

Jewelers

thebaz wrote: »

ok, fair eneogh - anyway its 6 months away , just think Carberry starting against Scotland might be a good call - a lot can happen in 6 months - so utter speculation at this stage

so you think japan are a walk over ?

thebaz

Jewelers wrote: »

so you think japan are a walk over ?

Did I say that ?

for what its worth I'd play Sexton against Japan . - again, its just pure speculation

The Lost Sheep

thebaz wrote: »

ok, fair eneogh - anyway its 6 months away , just think Carberry starting against Scotland might be a good call - a lot can happen in 6 months - so utter speculation at this stage

Why when we should be playing our first choice against the top side in the group?
Do you think New Zealand will rest their main outhalf against South Africa or Australia theirs against Wales?

thebaz wrote: »

Did I say that?

for what its worth I'd play Sexton against Japan . - again, its just pure speculation

But not Scotland or Samoa. Our strongest opponent in group stage and possibly our second strongest? How does that make sense?

thebaz

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

But not Scotland or Samoa. Our strongest opponent in group stage and possibly our second strongest? How does that make sense?

I said definitly not play Sexton against Samoa , cause ther tradition of big-hits - Sexton will be at the end of career and I belive will need to be nursed through the tournament - the big game for me will be the quarter , and I'd like a fully fit Sexton for that massive game.

The Lost Sheep

thebaz wrote: »

I said definitly not play Sexton against Samoa, cause ther tradition of big-hits - Sexton will be at the end of career and I belive will need to be nursed through the tournament - the big game for me will be the quarter , and I'd like a fully fit Sexton for that massive game.

I dont see any way Sexton will be nursed through the tournament. He doesnt play like that. Yes having Sexton in good form for the quarters is needed but you dont want him undercooked/not having had serious test beforehand

Yeah_Right

thebaz wrote: »

not sure of any player in the modern game targetted as much as Sexton , even in media - yes its a sign of a quality player , but I would like to see the better players on the pitch rather than injured on the sidelines - and as have said prevoiously I can not see Johnny last our complete WC campaign, without some protection

Saint Richie was targeted more than Sexton and by actual illegal play. Carter, Wilkinson, Larkham all played with big targets on their chests and all copped more than their fair share of big (legal) hits and cheap shots.

ROG was targeted in a different way. The big ball carriers ran straight at him time and time again.

All the best players get targeted and as long as it's legal, I have no issue with it. Same as when Glasgow targeted Murray by targeting his standing leg when he was box kicking. They were trying to negate a major weapon of his. As long as there's arms and it's not late, it's fine.

flatface

Farrell doesn’t get the same big hits as Sexton, plays deeper and kicked a lot more so far in the 2 games, works for him and the England performance so far. He should have been MOTM for both games really. I know Sexton draws the tackle before passing but does he need to do it so often?

Steve

flatface wrote: »

I know Sexton draws the tackle before passing but does he need to do it so often?

You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
There are several reasons he got player of the year, staying back from the game line wasn't one...

flatface

Steve wrote: »

You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
There are several reasons he got player of the year, staying back from the game line wasn't one...

Yeh but it’s more likely Sexton is going to end up a broken egg than Farrell at the moment.

Anjobe

flatface wrote: »

Yeh but it’s more likely Sexton is going to end up a broken egg than Farrell at the moment.

Farrell has been roughed up plenty of times in the past, opponents think he's a hothead and try to provoke him. The difference between the two of them so far in this championship is that Farrell has had an armchair ride behind a dominant pack, and hasn't had to put himself on the line yet.

Steve

flatface wrote: »

Yeh but it’s more likely Sexton is going to end up a broken egg than Farrell at the moment.

JS has been broken before, he knows the risks and the rewards and is not afraid to push the boundaries. That'd why he is considered the best.

Jewelers

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Saint Richie was targeted more than Sexton and by actual illegal play. Carter, Wilkinson, Larkham all played with big targets on their chests and all copped more than their fair share of big (legal) hits and cheap shots.

ROG was targeted in a different way. The big ball carriers ran straight at him time and time again.

All the best players get targeted and as long as it's legal, I have no issue with it. Same as when Glasgow targeted Murray by targeting his standing leg when he was box kicking. They were trying to negate a major weapon of his. As long as there's arms and it's not late, it's fine.

correct :cool:

Dubinusa

Just watched it back for the 3rd time.
Conan was very good. He made some dominant tackles and carried hard. I think he could play top tier test rugby fairly well.
Kilcoyne was brilliant for his cameo. He's explosive like Cronin. Very handy off the bench.
POM was better than I had originally thought he was.
He was a non factor last week and he put that performance to bed.
Healy was great, Best was good and Roux did as asked.
Furlong was good and Ryan was very good. I think we take him for granted a little bit. His work rate is astounding.
SOB was also very good. He put in a top level shift.
Murray was poor! No question about it. Aki was also poor.
Both of them are playing way below their normal standards.
Kearney was good. Not as good as the 1st time around.
His line breaks were fine, but he doesn't seem to know what to do once he's passed the defensive line. He also missed a couple of highballs that I didn't notice the 1st time I watched the match. He was lucky not to be pinged for a shoulder charge also. But, he was very good.
Stockdale is immense. Just insanely goid.
Farrell was good. He's a big unit and he fits the system. I would like to see him at 12!
Earl's has pace, he embarrassed the youngster chasing down Russell.
Carbery was ok. Some poor decisions and he made a balls off a grubber in the 1st half. He went down to collect and ended up kicking the ball back towards our try line.
His kicking off the tee is scary good right now.
He must be at 95% the past 2 months. Incredible form.
He needs more time and must start at least 2 matches for the remaining games. Italy and France would be ideal.
The 2nd half was interesting to watch. We applied our game plan and turned the screw. We never looked like creaking. The pack took control and Scotland did6have a sniff.
Dillane was brilliant. I hope he gets to start v Italy.

antietam1

[PHP][/PHP]

Basil3 wrote: »

Don't think I'll ever agree with the viewpoint that a professional rugby player goes out to deliberately injure another.

Cannot believe you said ever.

antietam1

antietam1 wrote: »

[PHP][/PHP]
Cannot believe you said ever.

Well you better believe it.

If they go out with the intent of injuring another player, that would make them an UNprofessional rugby player

mangobob

Basil3 wrote: »

Well you better believe it.

If they go out with the intent of injuring another player, that would make them an UNprofessional rugby player

Really not sure about this at all tbh. It depends on your definition of "injure". If you mean the intent to inflict a career ending injury, then I would agree with you.

But physically dominating and hurting your opponent (legally and within the rules) to the point where he cant take anymore and injury forces him off the field? Oh yeah, I can absolutely see that as being a mindset. Even if not an outright intent, it would still be seen as a very pleasing outcome, especially if that player is a key man.

Rugby is and always has been (and I hope, always will be) a violent gladiatorial sport where aggression and physically dominating your opponent are integral parts of the game. Although there is a far greater focus on player welfare now and there are many things than you can no longer get away with in the modern game, nonetheless in many ways the physical aspect of the game is even greater in the professional era. No one is going to tell me that if Cian Healy or Billy V or Eben Etzebeth absolutely smash their opposing number to the point where they can no longer continue, that they would not derive a primal, visceral satisfaction from that outcome. Of course they would. They would love it.

I don't have the quote to hand, but I remember reading an interview with BOD a few years ago where he said something very similar, namely that you hit your opponent to hurt them, not simply to stop them in their tracks. He also got absolutely pulverised by Scott Williams in a 6 Nations game and it looked like he would have to be stretchered off. Miraculously he recovered and played on, but his first sentiments were to salute Williams for a near perfect tackle that absolutely emptied him. You don't think Williams had the intent of obliterating him in that moment? Ironically in that case it was Williams who broke himself in the course of that tackle, and Bod somehow continued. But you can see the effect on their team mates and even the crowd when a player puts in a monstrous hit - the team gets a massive lift and the crowd is brought to its feet with a roar. If your opponent gets broken in the process, so much the better. In this respect rugby is no different to any other physical sport and thats a big part of why many of us love it.

Nermal

Yeah_Right wrote: »

All the best players get targeted and as long as it's legal, I have no issue with it. Same as when Glasgow targeted Murray by targeting his standing leg when he was box kicking.

Is 'targeting the standing leg' legal? Trying to blow out someone's knee?

Former Former

Nermal wrote: »

Is 'targeting the standing leg' legal? Trying to blow out someone's knee?

Yes.

tmc1963

Good summary by Gregor Townsend on STV of the POM illegal hit on Hogg - he must be livid. There is an article in the Daily Mail suggesting that Hogg may miss the World Cup.

'Townsend felt the contact was worthy of a penalty, but referee Romain Poite played on, resulting in Ireland attacking the space vacated by Hogg and scoring the opening try of the match.

The Scotland boss said: "It is clearly a penalty and potentially worse, because a player has tackled someone without the ball and not used his arms to tackle.

"So it is really disappointing that it wasn't checked. It could have come back, because it led to the try and the TMO should have come in to check an incident that I am sure the referee was not 100% clear on at the time because it happened so quickly.

"Even more disappointing is that we lost the player who would have covered that kick, and then lost him for the rest of the game as well."

connemara man

The issue there for Townsend that in International rugby the TMO can't signal the ref, the ref has to call in him.

It was a directive for the November internationals and IMO is a bad move

tmc1963

connemara man wrote: »

The issue there for Townsend that in International rugby the TMO can't signal the ref, the ref has to call in him.

It was a directive for the November internationals and IMO is a bad move

I think you are correct for try decisions but I thought the TMO could come in at any time for foul play.

connemara man

tmc1963 wrote: »

I think you are correct for try decisions but I thought the TMO could come in at any time for foul play.

No the new directive came in in November.

It's mad because in the champions cup there's almost a constant dialogue.

tmc1963

connemara man wrote: »

No the new directive came in in November.

It's mad because in the champions cup there's almost a constant dialogue.

So, theoretically, take the scenario of a stamp to the head, missed by the ref, but obvious to the TMO.

The TMO has to say nothing and assume that the citing officer will deal with it?

connemara man

connemara man wrote: »

No the new directive came in in November.

It's mad because in the champions cup there's almost a constant dialogue.

What happens in the case of the ref asking the TMO to review something, and the TMO looking at something else in the passage of play? An example is the Scottish forward pass, Poite didn't look for it to be looked at, but the TMO was already looking at it during their conversation. I'm guessing one of the touch judges might have mentioned it?

connemara man

tmc1963 wrote: »

So, theoretically, take the scenario of a stamp to the head, missed by the ref, but obvious to the TMO.

The TMO has to say nothing and assume that the citing officer will deal with it?

Pretty much

For example the Hogg hit this week and the stamp in a ruck at another point, and the hit on Stockdale last week.

All of them in the champions cup could have been flagged by the TMO for the ref to check. But not in International rugby

connemara man

Basil3 wrote: »

What happens in the case of the ref asking the TMO to review something, and the TMO looking at something else in the passage of play? An example is the Scottish forward pass, Poite didn't look for it to be looked at, but the TMO was already looking at it during their conversation. I'm guessing one of the touch judges might have mentioned it?

If I remember correctly he was already in a dialogue with the TMO who can then make a suggestion, or the touch judge, I think on one occasion Best got him to check for a pass when the TMO was being called

razorblunt

The hand wringing and Maud Flanders tropes that are Scottish Rugby Twitter have now got to the "that was almost like a tip tackle".

I give up on them, I really do.

bilston

It makes for a tasty clash in Japan in a few months time.

It must be worrying for Scotland that their biggest pool rivals were able to go to their home ground bereft of a number of starters, lose their main talisman after 25 minutes, put in at best a 6 out of 10 performance and still win relatively comfortably.

troyzer

bilston wrote: »

It makes for a tasty clash in Japan in a few months time.

It must be worrying for Scotland that their biggest pool rivals were able to go to their home ground bereft of a number of starters, lose their main talisman after 25 minutes, put in at best a 6 out of 10 performance and still win relatively comfortably.

It's about where the two teams are at anyway. No surprises there.

A full Ireland team on form would have absolutely battered them.

razorblunt

bilston wrote: »

It makes for a tasty clash in Japan in a few months time.

It must be worrying for Scotland that their biggest pool rivals were able to go to their home ground bereft of a number of starters, lose their main talisman after 25 minutes, put in at best a 6 out of 10 performance and still win relatively comfortably.

I still have this constant nagging they'll beat us and it won't go away.

From chatting with the local fans here (who can actually discuss things and reason) their main concern and it's probably an Irish concern is the attritional nature of these games and that it might end up being a "win, but at what cost type scenario".

Bridge93

Scotland in fairness have a mountain of injuries that dwarfs what we were missing

Buer

Bridge93 wrote: »

Scotland in fairness have a mountain of injuries that dwarfs what we were missing

This is being fairly overlooked. And we still had real problems putting scores on the board despite this.

A fit and firing Ireland should comfortably beat Scotland but it's worth noting that with 10 minutes left to play Scotland were a converted try from being in front.

As far as we have come in terms of developing other options, we're still in massive trouble if we lose a couple of key players with Sexton being by far the most important at this point.

twinytwo

mangobob wrote: »

Really not sure about this at all tbh. It depends on your definition of "injure". If you mean the intent to inflict a career ending injury, then I would agree with you.

But physically dominating and hurting your opponent (legally and within the rules) to the point where he cant take anymore and injury forces him off the field? Oh yeah, I can absolutely see that as being a mindset. Even if not an outright intent, it would still be seen as a very pleasing outcome, especially if that player is a key man.

Rugby is and always has been (and I hope, always will be) a violent gladiatorial sport where aggression and physically dominating your opponent are integral parts of the game. Although there is a far greater focus on player welfare now and there are many things than you can no longer get away with in the modern game, nonetheless in many ways the physical aspect of the game is even greater in the professional era. No one is going to tell me that if Cian Healy or Billy V or Eben Etzebeth absolutely smash their opposing number to the point where they can no longer continue, that they would not derive a primal, visceral satisfaction from that outcome. Of course they would. They would love it.

I don't have the quote to hand, but I remember reading an interview with BOD a few years ago where he said something very similar, namely that you hit your opponent to hurt them, not simply to stop them in their tracks. He also got absolutely pulverised by Scott Williams in a 6 Nations game and it looked like he would have to be stretchered off. Miraculously he recovered and played on, but his first sentiments were to salute Williams for a near perfect tackle that absolutely emptied him. You don't think Williams had the intent of obliterating him in that moment? Ironically in that case it was Williams who broke himself in the course of that tackle, and Bod somehow continued. But you can see the effect on their team mates and even the crowd when a player puts in a monstrous hit - the team gets a massive lift and the crowd is brought to its feet with a roar. If your opponent gets broken in the process, so much the better. In this respect rugby is no different to any other physical sport and thats a big part of why many of us love it.

Except when the old man you try to obliterate gets back up and you go off....

Anjobe

razorblunt wrote: »

The hand wringing and Maud Flanders tropes that are Scottish Rugby Twitter have now got to the "that was almost like a tip tackle".

I give up on them, I really do.

Have a heart, how would you all feel if Sexton now has a repeat of the concussion issues he had a while ago as a result of the HIA on Sat and has to sit out for a few months? The seriousness of Hogg's injury was just unfortunate, but it was the result of a cynical takeout that went unpunished.

troyzer wrote: »

It's about where the two teams are at anyway. No surprises there.

A full Ireland team on form would have absolutely battered them.

Scotland can be a really frustrating team, excellent in one game then in the next it just doesn't come off, they try to force things maybe and the mistakes creep in. Saturday should have been a real opportunity for Scotland with Ireland there for the taking, but at their best you would expect Ireland to win comfortably.

razorblunt

Anjobe wrote: »

Have a heart, how would you all feel if Sexton now has a repeat of the concussion issues he had a while ago as a result of the HIA on Sat and has to sit out for a few months? The seriousness of Hogg's injury was just unfortunate, but it was the result of a cynical takeout that went unpunished.

Wait, wut?

Why does Sexton get brought back into everything?
My main issue is that they're going into "tip tackle" type comparisons which is just mental.

gerardk55

Is there any additional footage of the POM-Hogg incident?

Is it the incident at 9mins 10sec gone in the game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uY1ScwJqTk&t=1027s

Anjobe

razorblunt wrote: »

Wait, wut?

Why does Sexton get brought back into everything?
My main issue is that they're going into "tip tackle" type comparisons which is just mental.

Just saying it is understandable that Scottish supporters may be upset that their best player has suffered a long term injury because of a cynical cheap-shot, as would Irish supporters if that had happened to theirs.

bob mcbob

You know, I see a lot of comments on here about the "bad unsporting" Scottish fans which by implication is that the Irish are much better.

Well I have been going to Scotland v Ireland games for a long time and can see little difference between the fans. It is just easier to be more sporting when you are winning all the time.

The worst example I have and it really struck me was Croke Park 2010. During the game all the Irish fans were "keep quiet, respect the kicker" until ... 78 mins Scotland have a penalty to win the game and the level of whistling was intense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfSiu18itCw

You can hear for yourself, just after 5 mins in the attached.

Sangre

The Irish media and, by extension, a sizeable minority of Irish fans are pretty bad as a whole in terms of griping about losses, moaning about the ref, claiming injustice etc. We're really not in any position to point the finger at any other fans.

razorblunt

I think most of my issues are borne out of familiarity really.
I've been in Scotland for years now and I was a regular at most Scotland and Edinburgh games but it just wears you down over time.

There's a bit of a nasty streak in the crowds there I didn't like (not tarring all the fans with the same brush) most noted at Edinburgh games, granted it may have been the same folk but this year I've finally decided I'm done with them, with the exception of Irish provinces and decent opposition.

Anjobe

razorblunt wrote: »

I think most of my issues are borne out of familiarity really.
I've been in Scotland for years now and I was a regular at most Scotland and Edinburgh games but it just wears you down over time.

There's a bit of a nasty streak in the crowds there I didn't like (not tarring all the fans with the same brush) most noted at Edinburgh games, granted it may have been the same folk but this year I've finally decided I'm done with them, with the exception of Irish provinces and decent opposition.

As an Englishman in Ireland I can appreciate exactly where you're coming from!

Wheres Me Jumper?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They'll lift it for Le Crunch and England could suffer the jitters, nit unusual in rugby after investing a lot into a game.

another of your predictions frankie?

LOL:D