Planet Rugby Forum

Chuckles1188 wrote:Ireland are the very devil to beat when they outmuscle you, and they can summon the manic intensity to do that to literally any team at this point.

BUT.

They struggle to do it away from home. So I think England have a good shot.

We'll need to nullify them at the breakdown. My concern is that; both our personnel and game plan, play right into their hands.

ovalball wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Ireland are the very devil to beat when they outmuscle you, and they can summon the manic intensity to do that to literally any team at this point.

BUT.

They struggle to do it away from home. So I think England have a good shot.

We'll need to nullify them at the breakdown. My concern is that; both our personnel and game plan, play right into their hands.

Ireland play a highly prescriptive gameplan, with their high end performances (as noted above) generated through high intensity play. As such, I'd be amazed if England weren't able to match that intensity at home...and from there, the win should come.

I would caveat all that with the point that England, like Saffercens, rely heavily on the Vunipola brothers carrying...and so if they are both starting (and in form), then it's a nailed on home win for me.

Jeff the Bear wrote:

ovalball wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Ireland are the very devil to beat when they outmuscle you, and they can summon the manic intensity to do that to literally any team at this point.

BUT.

They struggle to do it away from home. So I think England have a good shot.

We'll need to nullify them at the breakdown. My concern is that; both our personnel and game plan, play right into their hands.

Ireland play a highly prescriptive gameplan, with their high end performances (as noted above) generated through high intensity play. As such, I'd be amazed if England weren't able to match that intensity at home...and from there, the win should come.

I would caveat all that with the point that England, like Saffercens, rely heavily on the Vunipola brothers carrying...and so if they are both starting (and in form), then it's a nailed on home win for me.

Agreed.

Ireland are very good at home. They were awful away from home , an awful Italian side excepted in last year's 6 Nations.

I think we'll win all home games convincingly but will be unconvincing winners in Paris and potentially heavy losers in Twickenham

danthefan wrote:I think we've been beaten so many times in Paris that the Irish fans on here won't feel all that much confidence before that match, despite how poor France are at the moment.

Well it's been discussed extensively before on this thread, I was just outlining how I see England as the favorite for the tournament despite their 2home/3away format. Let's face it: they can't lose to Italy, this Wales team won't win in Twickenham, it would be a shocker to lose an 80min Test match vs a fkng mess of a French national side, and they can afford the one joker card spent on Murrayfield and even that you'd think they should probably win, then it's back home to win that title on the final weekend.

Ireland could lose to France just on account it's the first game of the tournament, similar to what France nearly did to England last year (19-16), caught them cold, by surprise. A focused warmed up Ireland or England team are too well drilled later in the tournament, but on that first game France could catch em cold and always have the talent to compete for 80min. Still though, they're a shambles, and there for the taking. Ireland MUST win this first game, they don't have a choice.

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Nolanator wrote:

danthefan wrote:I think we've been beaten so many times in Paris that the Irish fans on here won't feel all that much confidence before that match, despite how poor France are at the moment.

Plus, they'll save their one semi-competent game for us.

Hard to know what Brunel will mean for them but under Noves I didn't think they were doing the old French routine of staggering inconsistency so much as being big, obstinate but also brainless week in and week out. So they'd have been a tough ask at home but certainly beatable. There's a possibility of a new coach bounce but tbh the issues with French rugby are so divorced from who is running the show that I'm not even confident about that. I thought JB checked out about 3 seasons before actually leaving Italy, but perhaps coaching his own country will make a difference. I have to say I was pretty astonished by his appointment.

Anyway, all told I think Ireland will beat France, but I'd hope and expect that England would beat Ireland at Twickenham. Suspect BPs or even points difference could decide it out of England, Ireland, and (and I can scarce believe I'm typing this but here we are) Scotland

He was Laportes no.2 at France.......its not so surprising.

paddyor wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Nolanator wrote:

danthefan wrote:I think we've been beaten so many times in Paris that the Irish fans on here won't feel all that much confidence before that match, despite how poor France are at the moment.

Plus, they'll save their one semi-competent game for us.

Hard to know what Brunel will mean for them but under Noves I didn't think they were doing the old French routine of staggering inconsistency so much as being big, obstinate but also brainless week in and week out. So they'd have been a tough ask at home but certainly beatable. There's a possibility of a new coach bounce but tbh the issues with French rugby are so divorced from who is running the show that I'm not even confident about that. I thought JB checked out about 3 seasons before actually leaving Italy, but perhaps coaching his own country will make a difference. I have to say I was pretty astonished by his appointment.

Anyway, all told I think Ireland will beat France, but I'd hope and expect that England would beat Ireland at Twickenham. Suspect BPs or even points difference could decide it out of England, Ireland, and (and I can scarce believe I'm typing this but here we are) Scotland

He was Laportes no.2 at France.......its not so surprising.

On rugby grounds though

The rugby grounds are hell be Laportes no 2 and Laporte has essentially reinserted himself I to the selection of the national team.

Ireland have a few new players and a good bit of depth. I think they have enough to go to Twickers with high hopes given they have 3 home games.

Stockdale, Leavy, Conan, Carberry, Conway etc

Looking very exciting.

Sissyfuss wrote:Ireland have a few new players and a good bit of depth. I think they have enough to go to Twickers with high hopes given they have 3 home games.

Stockdale, Leavy, Conan, Carberry, Conway etc

Looking very exciting.

Yeah , we’ve greater depth than ever in most positions and more of a threat out wide than in recent years hence why we’re fancied. Our away record in the 6N over the last 2 seasons is awful though as others alluded to . And if Sexton or Murray were to get injured it would severely weaken us .

England again for me

Nice of everyone to be so positive about Scotland's chances and it's hard to disagree that on current merit they are a Top-3 side. But getting there in all probability means a first win in Cardiff since 2002 and a first win at Murrayfield against England since 2008.

Ancient history maybe and the great thing about this team is that they are playing like there is no history - but still...

clydecloggie wrote:Nice of everyone to be so positive about Scotland's chances and it's hard to disagree that on current merit they are a Top-3 side. But getting there in all probability means a first win in Cardiff since 2002 and a first win at Murrayfield against England since 2008.

Ancient history maybe and the great thing about this team is that they are playing like there is no history - but still...

I’d be more concerned about your tight 5 and your ability to get quick ball than the weight of short term history. Your opponents will all be going out to squeeze you up front and deny you good possession for your dangerous backs. It will be your ability to cope with these tactics that will determine how successful you are , not your irrelevant recent records in the 6N

Conspicuous wrote:

clydecloggie wrote:Nice of everyone to be so positive about Scotland's chances and it's hard to disagree that on current merit they are a Top-3 side. But getting there in all probability means a first win in Cardiff since 2002 and a first win at Murrayfield against England since 2008.

Ancient history maybe and the great thing about this team is that they are playing like there is no history - but still...

I’d be more concerned about your tight 5 and your ability to get quick ball than the weight of short term history. Your opponents will all be going out to squeeze you up front and deny you good possession for your dangerous backs. It will be your ability to cope with these tactics that will determine how successful you are , not your irrelevant recent records in the 6N

This

clydecloggie wrote:Nice of everyone to be so positive about Scotland's chances and it's hard to disagree that on current merit they are a Top-3 side. But getting there in all probability means a first win in Cardiff since 2002 and a first win at Murrayfield against England since 2008.

Ancient history maybe and the great thing about this team is that they are playing like there is no history - but still...

actually, and this isn't a knock, the people who are being "positive" are only being positive romantically. It's a sweet ideal, the smaller team that's struggled hard over the years and perhaps didn't get its due on a few occasions, that's on the rise and plays expansive Rugby and out for scalps, that underrated darkhorse......they're not actually dangerous enough for those people to fear them (and therefor hate them) but they're good enough to produce incentive to back them up in that romantic sort of way. And everyone bar Italy could win this thing, it's within the realm of possibility. But what it comes down to is this: who are you going to bet money on for this tournament, and whoever you are the answer is A.England B.Ireland.

Scotland need only focus on beating Wales in 5 weeks time. Which they're evidently capable of doing. Any talk before then of having a great year is premature - we're ever a nats crotchet away from propping up the table so let's not be hasty. And whoever said it is right - we need to front up in the forwards or we're toast.

Scotland vs England Match of the tournament.

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Conspicuous wrote:

clydecloggie wrote:Nice of everyone to be so positive about Scotland's chances and it's hard to disagree that on current merit they are a Top-3 side. But getting there in all probability means a first win in Cardiff since 2002 and a first win at Murrayfield against England since 2008.

Ancient history maybe and the great thing about this team is that they are playing like there is no history - but still...

I’d be more concerned about your tight 5 and your ability to get quick ball than the weight of short term history. Your opponents will all be going out to squeeze you up front and deny you good possession for your dangerous backs. It will be your ability to cope with these tactics that will determine how successful you are , not your irrelevant recent records in the 6N

This

Not really. Scottish must not get send off. Plz.

The 6N would be better than the RC but for the fact the ABs don't play in it. So many great match ups but the great team of rugby isn't in it.

Is this plum having a fit?

Even by his lamentably low standards, three successive spastic spasms is unusual.

henry wrote:Is this plum having a fit?

Even by his lamentably low standards, three successive spastic spasms is unusual.

I see the kid spewing on your Christmas pudding hit you very hard. Sorry to hear.

CrazyIslander wrote:

henry wrote:Is this plum having a fit?

Even by his lamentably low standards, three successive spastic spasms is unusual.

I see the kid spewing on your Christmas pudding hit you very hard. Sorry to hear.

Shut yer cnut.

henry wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote:

henry wrote:Is this plum having a fit?

Even by his lamentably low standards, three successive spastic spasms is unusual.

I see the kid spewing on your Christmas pudding hit you very hard. Sorry to hear.

Shut yer cnut.

I love the 6N but it aint got the best team in the world. And won only 1 WC. I love it nonetheless ya'll.

Dork Lard wrote:But what it comes down to is this: who are you going to bet money on for this tournament, and whoever you are the answer is A.England B.Ireland.

Well no, because of odds.

charltom wrote:

Dork Lard wrote:But what it comes down to is this: who are you going to bet money on for this tournament, and whoever you are the answer is A.England B.Ireland.

Well no, because of odds.

I take England @$2.88 though.

CrazyIslander wrote:

henry wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote:

henry wrote:Is this plum having a fit?

Even by his lamentably low standards, three successive spastic spasms is unusual.

I see the kid spewing on your Christmas pudding hit you very hard. Sorry to hear.

Shut yer cnut.

I love the 6N but it aint got the best team in the world. And won only 1 WC. I love it nonetheless ya'll.

Anyone who measures a tournament by the number of world cups despite the fact the 6 Nations is over 100 years older then the world cup really desn't have a valid point.

Ah, but patterns can emerge quickly and clearly if they are dominant enough eldanielfire.

Enzedder wrote:Ah, but patterns can emerge quickly and clearly if they are dominant enough eldanielfire.

And they can only truely represent the data points they cover when measuring eras with varying trends. And in the current trend the 4th best 6N side beat the 3rd best RC side so I know which tournament has more depth

International rugby is about who can beat the ABs. Anything else is irrelevant.

CrazyIslander wrote:International rugby is about who can beat the ABs. Anything else is irrelevant.

In your sad and shallow mind. I wonder what Players who represent Spain, Chile, Sweden, Germany, Holland, South Korea etc who will never face a tier one nation like alone the All Blacks don't think so. I think you'll find International rugby is about representing your country and has been so well before the All Blacks even existed. Of which the 6 Nations existed before the All Blacks ever played.

CrazyIslander wrote:International rugby is about who can beat the ABs. Anything else is irrelevant.

Dumbest comment of the year, congratulations

eldanielfire wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote:International rugby is about who can beat the ABs. Anything else is irrelevant.

In your sad and shallow mind. I wonder what Players who represent Spain, Chile, Sweden, Germany, Holland, South Korea etc who will never face a tier one nation like alone the All Blacks don't think so. I think you'll find International rugby is about representing your country and has been so well before the All Blacks even existed. Of which the 6 Nations existed before the All Blacks ever played.

It's not meant to be taken literally. But it's the pinnacle of test rugby.

CrazyIslander wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote:International rugby is about who can beat the ABs. Anything else is irrelevant.

In your sad and shallow mind. I wonder what Players who represent Spain, Chile, Sweden, Germany, Holland, South Korea etc who will never face a tier one nation like alone the All Blacks don't think so. I think you'll find International rugby is about representing your country and has been so well before the All Blacks even existed. Of which the 6 Nations existed before the All Blacks ever played.

It's not meant to be taken literally. But it's the pinnacle of test rugby.

Nah - I'd far rather that England won the 6N, than beat the ABs.

ovalball wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote:International rugby is about who can beat the ABs. Anything else is irrelevant.

In your sad and shallow mind. I wonder what Players who represent Spain, Chile, Sweden, Germany, Holland, South Korea etc who will never face a tier one nation like alone the All Blacks don't think so. I think you'll find International rugby is about representing your country and has been so well before the All Blacks even existed. Of which the 6 Nations existed before the All Blacks ever played.

It's not meant to be taken literally. But it's the pinnacle of test rugby.

Nah - I'd far rather that England won the 6N, than beat the ABs.

That's a given but the ABs are the elephant in the room. When they play everyone watches.

ovalball wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote:International rugby is about who can beat the ABs. Anything else is irrelevant.

In your sad and shallow mind. I wonder what Players who represent Spain, Chile, Sweden, Germany, Holland, South Korea etc who will never face a tier one nation like alone the All Blacks don't think so. I think you'll find International rugby is about representing your country and has been so well before the All Blacks even existed. Of which the 6 Nations existed before the All Blacks ever played.

It's not meant to be taken literally. But it's the pinnacle of test rugby.

Nah - I'd far rather that England won the 6N, than beat the ABs.

The fact that we played the ABs 30 times in what 140 years, I don't think we are that fazed about playing them, certainly not the pinnacle of my sporting year.

CrazyIslander wrote:

ovalball wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote:International rugby is about who can beat the ABs. Anything else is irrelevant.

In your sad and shallow mind. I wonder what Players who represent Spain, Chile, Sweden, Germany, Holland, South Korea etc who will never face a tier one nation like alone the All Blacks don't think so. I think you'll find International rugby is about representing your country and has been so well before the All Blacks even existed. Of which the 6 Nations existed before the All Blacks ever played.

It's not meant to be taken literally. But it's the pinnacle of test rugby.

Nah - I'd far rather that England won the 6N, than beat the ABs.

That's a give but the ABs are the elephant in the room. When they play everyone watches.

They really don't. The SH Rugby Championship is such a predictable bore fest I rarely ever bother watching it.

CrazyIslander wrote:International rugby is about who can beat the ABs. Anything else is irrelevant.

CrazyIslander wrote: That's a given but the ABs are the elephant in the room. When they play everyone watches.

You know what I meant.

CrazyIslander wrote: That's a given but the ABs are the elephant in the room. When they play everyone watches.

Except 6 Nation viewing figures are far higher then tests with All Blacks.

The All Blacks are an Australian obsession, maybe a saffer one as well, but not a Northern Hemisphere obsession. When the 6 Nations is on all teams want to win it. No one cares about anyone else not involved. I'd also say given the decline in SH rugby and the greater interest and viewerships of NH rugby your point is bunk. People aren't that interested in matching the ABs like you imply.

England need to beat Ireland, if they're building towards a bash at the RWC they've got to win big games when the other side is bang up for it.

message #2527204 wrote:

CrazyIslander wrote: That's a given but the ABs are the elephant in the room. When they play everyone watches.

To be fair, if the ABs fielded an elephant I think I’d probably watch.*

*unfortuantely Tameifuna was never capped