New Zealand vs Ireland RWC Quarter Final,19th October 2019 match thread.

vetinari

What are you waffling about?
Are you having some kind of brain freeze in relation to this?
Last years game was not a "friendly", it was a meaningful game.
Last weekends game was more meaningful as it was in the World Cup.
How is this difficult for you to understand?

Chivito550

Wasn't there some poster here saying NZ would beat England by 20, and Ireland only lost to them because they were unplayable?

LuckyLloyd

There are no excuses. When it counted, Ireland had nothing to offer - two world cups in a row. Everything in the middle of a cycle is rendered irrelevant by the World Cup. Yeah we hammered England in Twickenham to win a grand slam - who’s laughing now? Yeah we beat New Zealand last November - who gives a **** now?

I won’t be holding my breath that it will ever change.

tayto lover

vetinari wrote: »

What are you waffling about?
Are you having some kind of brain freeze in relation to this?
Last years game was not a "friendly", it was a meaningful game.
Last weekends game was more meaningful as it was in the World Cup.
How is this difficult for you to understand?

Ha ha.

“ All animals are equal but some are more equal than others “.

The truth is that we got up on our high horses because we won a meaningless game.

blueser

salmocab wrote: »

They’ve only beaten us twice when it matters

How many times have the countries met, "when it matters"?

Exclamation Marc

blueser wrote: »

How many times have the countries met, "when it matters"?

It always matters, that's the nature of the sport.

It matters more sometimes than others (ie world cup v test match have obviously different implications) but claiming some matches don't matter at all is at best, staggering ignorance and worst, fundamental stupidity.

But it helps intelligent posters at least determine who to stick on ignore.

Chivito550

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

There are no excuses. When it counted, Ireland had nothing to offer - two world cups in a row. Everything in the middle of a cycle is rendered irrelevant by the World Cup. Yeah we hammered England in Twickenham to win a grand slam - who’s laughing now? Yeah we beat New Zealand last November - who gives a **** now?

I won’t be holding my breath that it will ever change.

A grand slam isn't retrospectively deemed meaningless by failure at the World Cup. The same way Sonia's victory over Szabo to win gold at the European Championships isn't suddenly rendered meaningless because Szabo defeated her to gold in the Olympics 2 years later.

The test match win against NZ I agree with though.

salmocab

blueser wrote: »

How many times have the countries met, "when it matters"?

That was my point, it always matters.

Strazdas

Chivito550 wrote: »

A grand slam isn't retrospectively deemed meaningless by failure at the World Cup. The same way Sonia's victory over Szabo to win gold at the European Championships isn't suddenly rendered meaningless because Szabo defeated her to gold in the Olympics 2 years later.

The test match win against NZ I agree with though.

I would agree in theory but two bad failures at the World Cup does take a large amount of shine off the Joe Schmidt era.

He did many great things during his tenure, but those World Cups diminish them a bit.

LuckyLloyd

Chivito550 wrote: »

A grand slam isn't retrospectively deemed meaningless by failure at the World Cup. The same way Sonia's victory over Szabo to win gold at the European Championships isn't suddenly rendered meaningless because Szabo defeated her to gold in the Olympics 2 years later.

The test match win against NZ I agree with though.

Not meaningless, no. But England will have forgotten it entirely - their WC essentially expunges it from the record. And I think that cuts more the other way than we might like unfortunately.

Chivito550

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Not meaningless, no. But England will have forgotten it entirely - their WC essentially expunges it from the record. And I think that cuts more the other way than we might like unfortunately.

The grand slam win was 20 months ago. 20 months is an enormous time in sport and lots can happen. Thomas Barr missed out on an Olympic medal in Rio by 0.05 of a second and people were saying he'll have a big shot in Tokyo. Fast forward 20 months and there were 3 new lads on the scene who have redefined the event and are now 2, 3 and 4 on the all time list. Unless they fall over, he's not getting into the medals now.

You don't know what's ahead in sport. As a fan, you take the great moments as they come and enjoy them. Winning a slam in Twickenham on Paddy's Day was a huge moment. That achievement is not diminished because England have since improved and we've gone backwards. The Rugby World Cup is the biggest thing in this sport but its not the only big event. A grand slam is a big deal in rugby.

Henry Ford III

salmocab wrote: »

They’ve only beaten us twice when it matters

Only once actually. A week or so ago.

partyguinness

This is my comment in The Guardian on the 22 November 2018 after the NZ win:

"Oh God please stop these schoolyard inane rubbish about 'Who is the best in the world?'

Bearing in mind the 'world' in this context is at best 6-7 meaningful rugby playing nations...really.

Ireland are certainly the form team that is for sure and have beaten all before them and that is a credit to the systems and talent in place but it's the WC next year where it matters.

I was at the WC QF in 2015 in Cardiff....ok there were key players missing with injury as France and Ireland tried to kill each other to avoid NZ in the quarters but still....

Meaningless at this point and I really hope they have not peaked.

It suits Hanson down to the ground to throw all this stuff around and let NZ quietly go about their business.

While NZ will of course go into the WC as favorites no matter what may happen over the next 12 mts, NZ will be more than happy to sit back let everyone else go on about 'Ireland this Ireland that' taking some attention away."

Sadly they had peaked.