England v Ireland Autumn Nations Cup | 21.11.20 KO 15:00 | RTE 1 Read Post #5

AbusesToilets

Niallof9 wrote: »

and yeah, who was a coach involved in a lot of that? this was a continuation of the same crap. you are kidding yourself if you think it wasn't. also you sound like you belong in the 90's...ah sure its the best we can do. **** that. there's a huge discrepancy now between some of the bluster on the Leinster thread and the complete denial here. as if the two are mutually exclusive.

Yea, that's not what I said. We failed to take advantage of a marked improvement. That's a world away from some "ah sure, didn't we give it a lash" ****e.

Clegg

I don't think were dominated up front so much as we were completely outfoxed tactically. England seemed to know exactly where we would attack. We ran into double or triple team tackles too often for it to be coincidence.

molloyjh

I think this game ultimately boiled down to our midfield simply not being the right midfield for the occasion. Sadly it was about our only real option. We needed to keep the ball moving out of contact. Running into them over and over was playing to their strengths. But Byrne at 10 is not the guy to get 2 or 3 touches in a passage of play. He's not challenging the gainline either. And then neither Aki nor Farrell are distributors in any meaningful way.

We needed more creativity in the 10-12-13 combo than we had. Our forwards did a decent enough job in the loose for the most part, as evidenced by our possession, but we simply had no clue what to do with the ball when we had it. The width and variety of runners that we had seen in other games disappeared.

Its worth noting that we were missing Kilcoyne, Furlong, Sexton, Henshaw, Ringrose and Larmour. You'd think most of those would have been able to add something to that Irish side today. Throw in Leavy and Carbery and the 23 looks very, very different. Would we have been able to show something more as a side on the day with those in there?

We need to start thinking about what we want from this Irish side? We can't have ourselves in a situation where if Ringrose is injured we only have direct runners in the centre. We're already severely limited in 10 options outside of an aging Sexton. We need more playmaking options in midfield. We also need to consider the ball carrying in the back row. Is Doris the answer there? I'm not sure. Do we have any strong ball carriers to bring in?

We are not going to beat teams up the way we did 2-3 years ago. We need to find another way. I think Andy Farrell is doing that. But we need to start looking at the personnel we have to do that job. I said before that I think we are facing a fallow period for Irish rugby. That's okay, every country goes through that (except maybe, maybe NZ). But we still need to make sure we remain as competitive as we can.

Paul Weller

Clegg wrote: »

I don't think were dominated up front so much as we were completely outfoxed tactically. England seemed to know exactly where we would attack. We ran into double or triple team tackles too often for it to be coincidence.

This is the Donald Trump not losing the election post of this matchthread ...

Clegg

Paul Weller wrote: »

This is the Donald Trump not losing the election post of this matchthread ...

Like, if you have a point to actually raise with the content of what I've posted then say so rather than trying to make a pithy comment.

We had plenty of territory and plenty of possession and pressurised the English defence enough that they conceded penalties which led to lineouts 5 metres from their line. Our forwards didn't back down from theirs. Our plays were simply highly telegraphed.

The celebrations of the england players when they won turnovers in the second half was such a sickened though. Jonny may ffs

Paul Weller

Clegg wrote: »

Like, if you have a point to actually raise with the content of what I've posted then say so rather than trying to make a pithy comment.

Your post is the actual antithesis of what actually happened

Bazzo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The celebrations of the england players when they won turnovers in the second half was such a sickened though. Jonny may ffs

Definitely deserved a warning from the ref :pac:

gally74

molloyjh wrote: »

I think this game ultimately boiled down to our midfield simply not being the right midfield for the occasion. Sadly it was about our only real option. We needed to keep the ball moving out of contact. Running into them over and over was playing to their strengths. But Byrne at 10 is not the guy to get 2 or 3 touches in a passage of play. He's not challenging the gainline either. And then neither Aki nor Farrell are distributors in any meaningful way.

We needed more creativity in the 10-12-13 combo than we had. Our forwards did a decent enough job in the loose for the most part, as evidenced by our possession, but we simply had no clue what to do with the ball when we had it. The width and variety of runners that we had seen in other games disappeared.

Its worth noting that we were missing Kilcoyne, Furlong, Sexton, Henshaw, Ringrose and Larmour. You'd think most of those would have been able to add something to that Irish side today. Throw in Leavy and Carbery and the 23 looks very, very different. Would we have been able to show something more as a side on the day with those in there?

We need to start thinking about what we want from this Irish side? We can't have ourselves in a situation where if Ringrose is injured we only have direct runners in the centre. We're already severely limited in 10 options outside of an aging Sexton. We need more playmaking options in midfield. We also need to consider the ball carrying in the back row. Is Doris the answer there? I'm not sure. Do we have any strong ball carriers to bring in?

We are not going to beat teams up the way we did 2-3 years ago. We need to find another way. I think Andy Farrell is doing that. But we need to start looking at the personnel we have to do that job. I said before that I think we are facing a fallow period for Irish rugby. That's okay, every country goes through that (except maybe, maybe NZ). But we still need to make sure we remain as competitive as we can.

WOW you must think you can win a game without a set piece.... rock on with that,

Kraftwerk

Paul Weller wrote: »

This is the Donald Trump not losing the election post of this matchthread ...

He's not wrong. Every attack in their half Ireland were met with double tackles plus poach and ultimately got turned over. I don't think they were outsmarted as much as they played into England's hands though. The attack got very basic once they got into the English half and they were expecting it.

molloyjh

gally74 wrote: »

WOW you must think you can win a game without a set piece.... rock on with that,

Our scrum was fine, we had 100% success there. They did a number on our line out but that need not have cost us the game. If you want to discuss this stuff them I'm all for it. But if all you want is snipe then this is as far as I go.

lawrencesummers

thebaz wrote: »

Farrell seams a sound man - a great rugby player , and great defensive coach , but I said it when he got the job , he should never have got it - we will go backwards under him, and certainly not progress.

This is progress, we lost by one point less than the last time, and didn’t forget we were beaten by 42 points a little over a year ago by the same team.

PhlegmyMoses

Was very similar to Leinster Saracens, which is basically a proxy Ireland England game. I liked that we finally tried to kick a bit against the rush defence even if execution wasn't always great. Happy that the scrum recovered itself against what is probably the best scrum around. But the lineout is a shambles and isn't getting better. All hookers are struggling, all receivers are struggling. This is a mechanics issue rather than a single player problem.

Clegg

England were deserving winners in the end so no issues there. But when you see Roux get penalised for throwing a player out of a ruck yet nothing is whistled for this you feel hard done by.

https://twitter.com/TwitchCarbon/status/1330177925807820801?s=09

almostover

One thing that has infuriated me about Irish rugby over the last 2 years is us giving up very kickable penalties to get ourselves into the game. Those decisions are normally followed up by either a cheap turnover, a lineout malfunction or 20 phases of one out runners to win another penalty. Today's game hinged on that. Granted England scored a good first try. We then win a 70% kickable penalty, on Ross Byrnes good side about 35-40m out from goal. Anyone with aspirations of being an international fly half would fancy a shot at it. No, instead we kick to the corner, overthrow the lineout and end up 12-0 down. Why we didnt just have a shot at goal is beyond me. Worst case is we miss and we have 14 players facing the return from England. Sexton is often guilty of this too. You have to get on the scoreboard as soon as you have the chance at this level of rugby

TomsOnTheRoof

TomsOnTheRoof wrote: »

His calling of the lineout was rubbish

I disagree with most of your post but will just highlight this specific complaint as to why.

With not long more than an hour since the completion of the game, I'm not sure how you've gone back through each lineout to assess where blame lay between the call, the throwers and the jumpers.

I thought Ryan gave away one really silly penalty and one somewhat understandable one. They are complaints I'm pretty comfortable making based on pretty obvious transgressions.

There is a lot more to disentangling and assessing the failures at the lineout. I think your calling of the lineout might be slightly more rubbish than Ryan's

PhlegmyMoses

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The celebrations of the england players when they won turnovers in the second half was such a sickened though. Jonny may ffs

I'm not going to get salty over that but that did seem off to me. Was trying to remember a time when I saw a team celebrate every single good thing that happens for them.

Paul Weller

Kraftwerk wrote: »

He's not wrong. Every attack in their half Ireland were met with double tackles plus poach and ultimately got turned over. I don't think they were outsmarted as much as they played into England's hands though. The attack got very basic once they got into the English half and they were expecting it.

But .he's saying we were outsmarted!

Bazzo

molloyjh wrote: »

Our scrum was fine, we had 100% success there. They did a number on our line out but that need not have cost us the game. If you want to discuss this stuff them I'm all for it. But if all you want is snipe then this is as far as I go.

I would say the lineout is the single biggest contributor to what lost the game. Convert any of the 3(?) early kicks to the corner and that's a very different game. Their second try which was their only 7 pointer also came from one of those lineouts.

Our scrum got minced in the first half, I don't think anybody would deny that.

I think it's fair to say molloy that those were probably both bigger issues than our midfield today. But yes agreed we should have seen more creativity in the midfield, don't think Byrne helped there at all to be honest, big improvement when Burns came on.

Movementarian

lawrencesummers wrote: »

This is progress, we lost by one point less than the last time, and didn’t forget we were beaten by 42 points a little over a year ago by the same team.

Thats a bit of a stretch. England have employed the exact same tactics against us 3 times in a row and we haven't adapted to them.

We had 60% territory and possession, we made 65 or something tackles to their 280 or so. Our missed tackle percentage was like 10% and theirs was 2%. 13-12 penalty count in out favour. Based on those stats we should have won the game.

England were perfectly happy to let us have all the ball we wanted and knew we wouldnt break them down. This was a defensive training session for them, they didn't even need to get the attack going.

almostover

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Was very similar to Leinster Saracens, which is basically a proxy Ireland England game. I liked that we finally tried to kick a bit against the rush defence even if execution wasn't always great. Happy that the scrum recovered itself against what is probably the best scrum around. But the lineout is a shambles and isn't getting better. All hookers are struggling, all receivers are struggling. This is a mechanics issue rather than a single player problem.

Very true Re the lineout, it looks amateurish. Our movement, jumping and lifting is all over the place. The hooker throwing poorly compounds it. For Englands second try it was a minuscule overthrow by Kelleher, the late lift in the lineout there is what cost us. James Ryan is a fabulous player but he has a lot to learn. He needs to become the leader of that lineout and orchestrate it the way Paul O'Connell did

ToddDameron

Paul Weller wrote: »

But .he's saying we were outsmarted!

Why don't you try to articulate your point in a few sentences instead of petty one liners, you know, like an adult would do?

lawrencesummers

Movementarian wrote: »

Thats a bit of a stretch. England have employed the exact same tactics against us 3 times in a row and we haven't adapted to them.

We had 60% territory and possession, we made 65 or something tackles to their 280 or so. Our missed tackle percentage was like 10% and theirs was 2%. 13-12 penalty count in out favour. Based on those stats we should have won the game.

England were perfectly happy to let us have all the ball we wanted and knew we wouldnt break them down. This was a defensive training session for them, they didn't even need to get the attack going.

England have better players than us, bigger stronger, smarter and they have better coaching than us plus they have a more settled familiar team than us.

Before the game I said that very few if any Irish players would get into that English team, after watching it I’m sure that none would.

They are just better than us, the scoreboards suggest we have closed the gap slightly.

Paul Weller

ToddDameron wrote: »

Why don't you try to articulate your point in a few sentences instead of petty one liners, you know, like an adult would do?

My post was a factual reply, not a retort

lawrencesummers

lawrencesummers wrote: »

This is progress, we lost by one point less than the last time, and didn’t forget we were beaten by 42 points a little over a year ago by the same team.

so we can look forward to a win in about 2029 to 2031 going on that trend?

It's always good to have something to look forward to.

Bazzo

Bazzo wrote: »

I would say the lineout is the single biggest contributor to what lost the game. Convert any of the 3(?) early kicks to the corner and that's a very different game. Their second try which was their only 7 pointer also came from one of those lineouts.

Our scrum got minced in the first half, I don't think anybody would deny that.

I think it's fair to say molloy that those were probably both bigger issues than our midfield today. But yes agreed we should have seen more creativity in the midfield, don't think Byrne helped there at all to be honest, big improvement when Burns came on.

I agree with Molloy to be honest - the ball was dying with Ross Byrne because we had no invention in mid field, no second pivot and without seeing the stats I suspect we had few line breaks or clean breaks.

The ball kept going to Byrne or a generally static forward. England won gainline in defence all game - and a lot of the mountain of tackles they made were on backs who were receiving the ball stationary. They'll be in bits tonight, I'd say Keenan is black and blue.

It shows how reliant we are on Sexton. It also shows that we can have Byrne, Farrell and Aki in the wider squad but I don't think we can have them all on the pitch at once. Back three were rarely brought into the game unless they fielded.

The lineout killed us because it both took away scoring opportunities but also repeatedly cost us territory. The scrum held up MUCH better than I expected. Like I'm delighted with how it went frankly, I thought we'd be in trouble but we managed it well thanks to a supremely physical performance by Porter and Healy being able to last 10 minutes longer than normal. Credit to the bench - they kept up the good show and Bealham is playing his best in green - as is Roux.

But for all our possession we repeatedly wasted ball in contact and a lot of our kicking from hand was poor to average. Byrne at the end very nearly kicked a penalty the wrong side of the flag.

We had big limitations on our performance but the lineout and lack of shape and creativeness in mid field were the architects of our defeat.

TomsOnTheRoof

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I disagree with most of your post but will just highlight this specific complaint as to why.

With not long more than an hour since the completion of the game, I'm not sure how you've gone back through each lineout to assess where blame lay between the call, the throwers and the jumpers.

I thought Ryan gave away one really silly penalty and one somewhat understandable one. They are complaints I'm pretty comfortable making based on pretty obvious transgressions.

There is a lot more to disentangling and assessing the failures at the lineout. I think your calling of the lineout might be slightly more rubbish than Ryan's

Yes there are various areas where a lineout can malfunction. However we knew before the game that Kelleher's ability to hit his targets past two is suspect. Consequently it was on Ryan to ensure that we called to the front and make life easy on our hooker and also give us a better chance to secure set piece ball. Our first lineout today was a throw between 4 and 6 and it went crooked. After that, considering what happened in France, it should have been obvious that the primary concern was to secure possession.

Ryan shouldn't be a sacred cow who is immune to criticism. He was very poor today in most aspects of his game and his captaincy and the lineout was one such facet. God forbid Roux put in a performance like that. He'd not see the inside of a national squad again. Like I said earlier, Ryan has bundles of natural talent but it's time for him to pull the finger out.

cson

almostover wrote: »

One thing that has infuriated me about Irish rugby over the last 2 years is us giving up very kickable penalties to get ourselves into the game. Those decisions are normally followed up by either a cheap turnover, a lineout malfunction or 20 phases of one out runners to win another penalty. Today's game hinged on that. Granted England scored a good first try. We then win a 70% kickable penalty, on Ross Byrnes good side about 35-40m out from goal. Anyone with aspirations of being an international fly half would fancy a shot at it. No, instead we kick to the corner, overthrow the lineout and end up 12-0 down. Why we didnt just have a shot at goal is beyond me. Worst case is we miss and we have 14 players facing the return from England. Sexton is often guilty of this too. You have to get on the scoreboard as soon as you have the chance at this level of rugby

Agree with this, we seem to have a very acute case of try line fever. I think there's a balance to be struck between going for it and taking the easy points. For the past 2ish years now, we always seem to go for it.

lawrencesummers

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Before the game I said that very few if any Irish players would get into that English team, after watching it I’m sure that none would.

Doris, Ryan, Porter and POM on today's form would be in the equation. Doris did quite a bit with terrible ball in particular.

lawrencesummers

glasso wrote: »

so we can look forward to a win in about 2029 to 2031 going on that trend?

It's always good to have something to look forward to.

Judging by the last 3 games against them we won’t be beating them anytime soon alright and we are bringing in far more young players than they are so it’s either going to take a marked increase in our ability or a marked decrease in theirs and that kind of change doesn’t happen quickly.

sydthebeat

good job its a nothing competition

lawrencesummers

Deleted User wrote: »

Doris, Ryan, Porter and POM on today's form would be in the equation. Doris did quite a bit with terrible ball in particular.

Are you saying you would pick Doris over Billy.

Go on.


POM over underhill.

Your having a Laugh

Ryan was comprehensively schooled by itoje, and he didn’t play any better than launchbury.


If Eddie Jones had the pick of the two match day squads we would be lucky to have a few subs

TomsOnTheRoof

TomsOnTheRoof wrote: »

Yes there are various areas where a lineout can malfunction. However we knew before the game that Kelleher's ability to hit his targets past two is suspect. Consequently it was on Ryan to ensure that we called to the front and make life easy on our hookern.

I would suggest that if you think it's this simple then you might not be in a position to point fingers of blame. England have one of the best lineouts (defensive and attacking) in the world and if you think they can't deal with the ball repeatedly going to the front of the line out then you are out of your mind.

Given that they repeatedly didn't jump defending inside their 22 I suspect we'd have been mauled straight into touch.

TomsOnTheRoof wrote: »

Ryan shouldn't be a sacred cow who is immune to criticism.

Certainly not - I criticised him in the very post you replied to. But there is a difference between valid criticism and calling him rubbish based on a perception that you've backed up with 'why didn't they just throw it to the front'.

My original point stands, Ryan's biggest failings today were a couple of messy or stupid penalties but large parts of his game and efforts were top drawer. Is he playing as well as 2018? Certainly not - but then the entire pack is no where near that level and part of being at your best is being surrounded by people backing up your efforts.

There is a reason Alun Wyn Jones often looks average for Ospreys.

PhlegmyMoses

almostover wrote: »

Very true Re the lineout, it looks amateurish. Our movement, jumping and lifting is all over the place. The hooker throwing poorly compounds it. For Englands second try it was a minuscule overthrow by Kelleher, the late lift in the lineout there is what cost us. James Ryan is a fabulous player but he has a lot to learn. He needs to become the leader of that lineout and orchestrate it the way Paul O'Connell did

Yeah Ryan definitely needs to get to where POC was, but POC wasn't there yet at 23. He was also part of an incredible Munster pack and had a lot of stability around him. Ryan for Ireland has been trying to run this lineout with a revolving cast of hookers with none of them claiming the starter jersey and various different players in the pack with him.

This lineout issue is bigger than one player and the coaches need to figure this out imo.

Just as an aside as I cant be arsed to write a separate post. I think what left me optimistic about today is that there was some progress. When we got smashed by England the last few times we got dominated physically. We looked broken at the ends of those games. Ireland were in the physical encounter today and thats not why we lost. The lineout can't stay that bad forever, some younger players had some good runs today and the effort on display was huge even if the Engoish had our number tactically.

lawrencesummers

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Are you saying you would pick Doris over Billy.

Go on.


POM over underhill.

Your having a Laugh

Ryan was comprehensively schooled by itoje, and he didn’t play any better than launchbury.


If Eddie Jones had the pick of the two match day squads we would be lucky to have a few subs

I'd have put Doris ahead of Tom Curry and left Vunipola at 8.

Ryan wasn't 'comprehensively schooled' by itoje and I thought Launchbury had a largely forgettable game. POM probably not as effective as Underhill but then again - Underhill was stealing ball with gainline advantage - POM put in a huge shift but within a pack that just wasn't as effective.

As a unit the English pack is better - but you seem to ignore the work rate some of the Irish forwards put in.

PhlegmyMoses

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Are you saying you would pick Doris over Billy.

Go on.


POM over underhill.

Your having a Laugh

Ryan was comprehensively schooled by itoje, and he didn’t play any better than launchbury.


If Eddie Jones had the pick of the two match day squads we would be lucky to have a few subs

But we would have said the same about the Irish and English squads two years ago. This is all recency bias and doesn't really speak to the quality of each player. Ireland in general are not in good form and don't have a functioning system right now. This doesn't lend itself to players being on top of their game and outshining their counterparts.

thomas 123

Clegg wrote: »

England were deserving winners in the end so no issues there. But when you see Roux get penalised for throwing a player out of a ruck yet nothing is whistled for this you feel hard done by.

https://twitter.com/TwitchCarbon/status/1330177925807820801?s=09

I can tell you why it’s not a high tackle, the ball carrier placed his head inside the tacklers arms.

How else could he have tackled? He let Keenan off the ground(as he should have) and keenan decided to stick his head into him.

TomsOnTheRoof

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I would suggest that if you think it's this simple then you might not be in a position to point fingers of blame. England have one of the best lineouts (defensive and attacking) in the world and if you think they can't deal with the ball repeatedly going to the front of the line out then you are out of your mind.

Given that they repeatedly didn't jump defending inside their 22 I suspect we'd have been mauled straight into touch.

Ryan shouldn't be a sacred cow who is immune to criticism.

Certainly not - I criticised him in the very post you replied to. But there is a difference between valid criticism and calling him rubbish based on a perception that you've backed up with 'why didn't they just throw it to the front'.

My original point stands, Ryan's biggest failings today were a couple of messy or stupid penalties but large parts of his game and efforts were top drawer. Is he playing as well as 2018? Certainly not - but then the entire pack is no where near that level and part of being at your best is being surrounded by people backing up your efforts.

There is a reason Alun Wyn Jones often looks average for Ospreys.[/quote]

We put the ball to the front once. We secured that one. Anytime we threw long we ended up with problems. It doesn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that maybe the smart thing to do would have been to try a few more balls to 2, especially considering what happened against France. Saying that maybe you are right, maybe Ryan was top drawer today besides the stupid penalties, his work at set piece and his performance as captain.

lawrencesummers

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd have put Doris ahead of Tom Curry and left Vunipola at 8.

Ryan wasn't 'comprehensively schooled' by itoje and I thought Launchbury had a largely forgettable game. POM probably not as effective as Underhill but then again - Underhill was stealing ball with gainline advantage - POM put in a huge shift but within a pack that just wasn't as effective.

As a unit the English pack is better - but you seem to ignore the work rate some of the Irish forwards put in.

I’m not ignoring the work rate any Irish player put in, I just don’t think possibly with the exception of Porter than any Irish player outplayed their opponent, and if Porter did it was by very very little.

Ryan was manhandled by Itoje all day long. Itoje does way better at the breakdown, tackle and lineout. There is a stark difference in their ability. Ryan is very good but Itoje is a far better player.

As a unit the English backrow have a far better balance than ours. They carry better, tackle better and operate in setpiece better. Their individual strengths complement each other while our backrow players are jack of all trades and masters of none going by today’s performance.

WoollyRedHat

Andy Farrell is renowned for his defensive mindset. but not for attacking creativity. Mike Catt is our attacking coach but his CV is not good enough to beat an expertly skilled English defensive setup. Eddie Jones decided he wasn't of sufficient standard when he came in in 2015 and subsequently sacked him. He then moved on to Italy and failed to excel there despite small glimpses of progress in attack. He doesn't have the plaudits to lead attack/ forwards for level we would like to be at. I think if AF wants to show he is serious about remoulding the national team and making them competitive again, he needs to fire Matt Catt and replace him with someone with bona fide plaudits.

lawrencesummers

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Ryan was manhandled by Itoje all day long. Itoje does way better at the breakdown, tackle and lineout. There is a stark difference in their ability. Ryan is very good but Itoje is a far better player.

Itoje had the luxury of being part of an attacking unit that constantly won collisions. Ryan was playing against more than just Itoje, Itoje just happens to be their best forward (and certainly the best forward on the field today).

There isn't a whole lot between them, put Itoje into the Ireland team and Ryan into the English team and you wouldn't be writing the above.

WoollyRedHat

awec wrote: »

It was rubbish phase play. It took a moment of magic from Earls.

17 phases for no gain. We were getting smashed in every tackle.

It's crash test dummy tactics.

lawrencesummers

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

But we would have said the same about the Irish and English squads two years ago. This is all recency bias and doesn't really speak to the quality of each player. Ireland in general are not in good form and don't have a functioning system right now. This doesn't lend itself to players being on top of their game and outshining their counterparts.

I’m pretty sure that the best way to judge a player is on their recent performances and how they play versus their opposite number is precisely the way to speak to the quality of each player.

As a team England are better.
As individuals they are mostly all better players.

After being on the end of three consecutive beatings from them it’s futile to argue otherwise, and dont forget the worst of those three beating came under Joe Smidth, the man with the best “functioning system” we ever had apparently.

Time to take some hard medicine.

lawrencesummers

Deleted User wrote: »

Itoje had the luxury of being part of an attacking unit that constantly won collisions. Ryan was playing against more than just Itoje, Itoje just happens to be their best forward (and certainly the best forward on the field today).

There isn't a whole lot between them, put Itoje into the Ireland team and Ryan into the English team and you wouldn't be writing the above.

If my aunt had balls......

bilston

Clegg wrote: »

England were deserving winners in the end so no issues there. But when you see Roux get penalised for throwing a player out of a ruck yet nothing is whistled for this you feel hard done by.

https://twitter.com/TwitchCarbon/status/1330177925807820801?s=09

There was another one on Herring in the.final few minutes close to their line.

WoollyRedHat

thomas 123 wrote: »

Yawn, is Keenan? You have a fella scoring regularly against good opposition week in week out or a lad who’s 16 caps for Leinster in the last 4 years.

It’s brought up regularly because it’s true. Would Zebo make a difference today? Maybe not. Is he miles better than Keenan, yes he is.

Miles better, steady on.

ElisaAtWar

Ross had nothing to offer. Kelleher had a total disaster. So it was backfoot stuff all game. Credit to England, they fight for everything. Hugo did ok but he is not physically built for international rugby just yet. He needs a bit of time away from international rugby.

England as a team are imposing at the best of times. Itoge is a complete pain. He competes for everything. And while James Ryan tried to replicate Itoge, the real problem is our guys our not fast enough into the breakdown.

And on that count Cian Healy has really had his day. He is so slow around the breakdown he is virtually non existent. So when you have two of your front three underperforming so much it would have been difficult to expect any less than the defeat

PhlegmyMoses

lawrencesummers wrote: »

I’m pretty sure that the best way to judge a player is on their recent performances and how they play versus their opposite number is precisely the way to speak to the quality of each player.

As a team England are better.
As individuals they are mostly all better players.

After being on the end of three consecutive beatings from them it’s futile to argue otherwise, and dont forget the worst of those three beating came under Joe Smidth, the man with the best “functioning system” we ever had apparently.

Time to take some hard medicine.

You are right, England are currently the better team and their players are currently in better form. You will find very few arguments from anyone there.

But statements like "nobody would get into their 15 or 23", are completely redundant if these opinions constantly change with form.

Two years ago we were talking about Ireland in the same way that we are talking about England right now.

If the point you are trying to make is that England wouldn't want to change their winning formula right now and that their players are in better form, yeah no **** pal. But it seems like an utterly pointless discussion.

kingofthekong

ElisaAtWar wrote: »

Ross had nothing to offer. Kelleher had a total disaster. So it was backfoot stuff all game. Credit to England, they fight for everything. Hugo did ok but he is not physically built for international rugby just yet. He needs a bit of time away from international rugby.

England as a team are imposing at the best of times. Itoge is a complete pain. He competes for everything. And while James Ryan tried to replicate Itoge, the real problem is our guys our not fast enough into the breakdown.

And on that count Cian Healy has really had his day. He is so slow around the breakdown he is virtually non existent. So when you have two of your front three underperforming so much it would have been difficult to expect any less than the defeat

Who would you have picked at fullback that you think wouldve done better?

thomas 123

kingofthekong wrote: »

Who would you have picked at fullback that you think wouldve done better?

Zebo. He’s miles better. 😀