[2019 Six Nations] Ireland vs England (02/02/2019)

[Reiser99]

The main difference for me was simply the intensity of defence and it does represent a change of ethos. For far too long defensive "discipline" appears to have been the primary concern, rather than dominating the contact. Consequently as opposed to watching something like the tide coming in as a well drilled but passive line conceded ground, we were treated to England players hammering their opponents backwards. This isn't a risk free tactic as every now and then someone will miss one. However, what it achieved yesterday allowed all the good things that subsequently happened. Irish players weren't able to get into any effective pattern as often they were being smashed into the turf, hard. The weight of the tackles making ball-retention, ball presentation and offloading all the more difficult. It changes everything. Carriers have to be more worried about ball retention and to a degree self-preservation than thinking about intricate patterns and fancy offloads. Every chance to smash someone was taken. Even the Curry on one Earls was marginal.

I disagree, I think this has always been England's tactic from Day 1 with EJ. Our first run under him was built around smashing the opponents back. However it failed once teams realised that England didn't commit to the breakdown, preferring to reset their line. This gave quick ball and allowed teams to take the hit, recycle quickly and expose gaps in the England defence. The difference yesterday was Curry. He was the exact player fans have been calling for who consistently disrupts the breakdown. Yes others mix in as well, but it was his job to be constantly challenging for the ball and it stopped the Irish get consistent quick ball to build anything from. He's not going to be there all the time, but he is so much better than any of the 6.5's we've had recently at disrupting the breakdown.

 

[big ginger 8]

According to the BBC 'Ireland have now lost the last 21 games in which they were more than a point behind at half-time.' If that's true it's a bit of a worrying stat and does lend support to the idea that Ireland struggle to chase games. As I said I think Ireland's game plan is about being in control, having a generally solid defence, low penalty count to avoid giving away easy points and striking when there is the opportunity. I can understand the point Hanley makes about an X factor to turn a game on it's head when needed.

This stat is poor enough journalism. Ireland have only lost 14 games under Schmidt and he's been in charge since 2013. 3 of those games we were also in the lead or drawing at the half.

I do think or ability to chase games that get away from us is poor but it's not all that often we let teams get in that position, especially post 2015. It could be addressed but not to the detriment of what has actually given us success.

 

[Reiser99]

This stat is poor enough journalism. Ireland have only lost 14 games under Schmidt and he's been in charge since 2013. 3 of those games we were also in the lead or drawing at the half.

I do think or ability to chase games that get away from us is poor but it's not all that often we let teams get in that position, especially post 2015. It could be addressed but not to the detriment of what has actually given us success.

At no point does the stat say under Joe Schmidt, so I'm not sure how your stat of only losing 14 games under Schmidt disproves it or makes it poor journalism. I'm currently going through the list and while there are couple of games Ireland have lost after being in front, I can't see anything to contradict the statement that when they have been more a point behind they haven't won. I would say I'll write them all up, but hey you're claiming the statements false so prove the statement is false.

If you're trying to imply that only the fourteen games under Schmidt count, which is debatable, then by that fact it just means that under Schmidt Ireland have lost the last 11 games where they were behind by more than a point. If you take away the 3 that Ireland were winning/drawing then that means they were losing at halftime in the others, therefore back to the behind and end up losing run.

 

[Jimbo]

Outstanding performance no doubt about it but the worrying thing still remains no Vunipolas, can England win the collision without them and ultimately win games, they were a constant all the way through the winning streak and absent or rediscorving form post injury all the way through the bad patches, Manu clearly made an impact too and made Aki look very average, I know this comes across as very negative but I still think we are yet to find a plan B without those.

 

[Reiser99]

Also if you want me to prove on my end I will end up posting scores like this, so be warned.

FT: Italy 22 15 Ireland HT: Italy 9 6 Ireland

 

[Jimbo]

Also if you want me to prove on my end I will end up posting scores like this, so be warned.

FT: Italy 22 15 Ireland HT: Italy 9 6 Ireland

Are England the only team in the six nations to never have lost to Italy?

 

[Reiser99]

Are England the only team in the six nations to never have lost to Italy?

Yep, though Ireland have only lost once.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Yep, though Ireland have only lost once.

They beat us two or three times in the 90s as well, before they were in the tournament obviously.

 

[Reiser99]

They beat us two or three times in the 90s as well, before they were in the tournament obviously.

Yeah, I was referring only to 6N's losses, though I suppose James' question wasn't based purely on 6N's. Tbh I've been thinking about the impact of professionalism and how over the last 20-25 years we've seen some big changes. Before professionalism it was mainly amateur with some unions putting more money into the national side than others. However since then most leagues/clubs/unions have been trying to balance it so that it produces results on a national level. At the start it could be argued that the wealthier unions dominated because they had more resources and it enabled their players to develop more. However since then other unions have found models that work for them. I think Ireland especially have got a set up that really develops players. Others like England haven't and so haven't made as much progress, which is why the game and the 6N's is far more open now. It will be interesting to see how the next 10 years goes, because other countries are also trying hard to develop these structures and the game could open up even more.

Italy I feel as an example tried too hard to develop and win games, which they weren't really in a position to do consistently. Yes they got the occasional upset, but that's it really. They have got a lot of heritage players from abroad over the years, which I don't begrudge, but I do wonder how much it cost them to bring those players to Italy and if that money could have been used at grass roots level to develop the game in Italy instead. (I may be completely wrong here though if anyone knows more about it)

 

[Leinster Fan]

At no point does the stat say under Joe Schmidt, so I'm not sure how your stat of only losing 14 games under Schmidt disproves it or makes it poor journalism. I'm currently going through the list and while there are couple of games Ireland have lost after being in front, I can't see anything to contradict the statement that when they have been more a point behind they haven't won. I would say I'll write them all up, but hey you're claiming the statements false so prove the statement is false.

If you're trying to imply that only the fourteen games under Schmidt count, which is debatable, then by that fact it just means that under Schmidt Ireland have lost the last 11 games where they were behind by more than a point. If you take away the 3 that Ireland were winning/drawing then that means they were losing at halftime in the others, therefore back to the behind and end up losing run.

It's poor journalism because it's using games that are obviously irrelevant to create a narrative. I think there's definitely something to it but let's not try and pretend that games played eight years ago by different players under different coaches are in any way relevant.

 

[Reiser99]

It's poor journalism because it's using games that are obviously irrelevant to create a narrative. I think there's definitely something to it but let's not try and pretend that games played eight years ago by different players under different coaches are in any way relevant.

I disagree about poor journalism. If they came out and said Ireland are unable to fight back when losing games and don't have any fighting spirit when losing or something like that, then maybe. However they are stating a fact which is relevant to the result and based on Schmidt's reign, 11 of those 21 games have come under him, which is still a stat in itself. It's more highlighting that Ireland have won most of their games by getting a lead and controlling the game and if you disrupt that then you can win. Yes you can say there are lies, damn lies and statistics. However while one statistic does not mean everything it doesn't mean it isn't relevant or useful.

My argument is that Ireland have built a game plan around controlling the pace of the game, strong defence and excellent discipline and I felt Hanley's point about needed an x-factor to turn a game had some merit. I felt this stat supported that view in some way. It doesn't mean that Ireland have a major issue or they can't come from behind. It does mean that their game plan is set up more though for getting a lead and keeping a lead than coming from behind. Yes that is how it should be, but to be the best you also need to find ways to win when losing and even under Schmidt, that seems to be something Ireland struggle to do at the moment. But hey maybe next week Scotland will be 20-0 up and Ireland will come back to win proving me wrong.

 

[Jimbo]

I disagree about poor journalism. If they came out and said Ireland are unable to fight back when losing games and don't have any fighting spirit when losing or something like that, then maybe. However they are stating a fact which is relevant to the result and based on Schmidt's reign, 11 of those 21 games have come under him, which is still a stat in itself. It's more highlighting that Ireland have won most of their games by getting a lead and controlling the game and if you disrupt that then you can win. Yes you can say there are lies, damn lies and statistics. However while one statistic does not mean everything it doesn't mean it isn't relevant or useful.

My argument is that Ireland have built a game plan around controlling the pace of the game, strong defence and excellent discipline and I felt Hanley's point about needed an x-factor to turn a game had some merit. I felt this stat supported that view in some way. It doesn't mean that Ireland have a major issue or they can't come from behind. It does mean that their game plan is set up more though for getting a lead and keeping a lead than coming from behind. Yes that is how it should be, but to be the best you also need to find ways to win when losing and even under Schmidt, that seems to be something Ireland struggle to do at the moment. But hey maybe next week Scotland will be 20-0 up and Ireland will come back to win proving me wrong.

Maybe but I can't see Scotland being as competitive this six nations as the last couple, I think they have too many injury's I don't think it's an Exaggeration to say that Hamish is as important to their game plan as Bill V is to us, not to mention the other injuries, I think a combination of that and with yesterday's defeat Ireland might just blow them away.

 

[big ginger 8]

At no point does the stat say under Joe Schmidt, so I'm not sure how your stat of only losing 14 games under Schmidt disproves it or makes it poor journalism. I'm currently going through the list and while there are couple of games Ireland have lost after being in front, I can't see anything to contradict the statement that when they have been more a point behind they haven't won. I would say I'll write them all up, but hey you're claiming the statements false so prove the statement is false.

If you're trying to imply that only the fourteen games under Schmidt count, which is debatable, then by that fact it just means that under Schmidt Ireland have lost the last 11 games where they were behind by more than a point. If you take away the 3 that Ireland were winning/drawing then that means they were losing at halftime in the others, therefore back to the behind and end up losing run.

Also if you want me to prove on my end I will end up posting scores like this, so be warned.

FT: Italy 22 15 Ireland HT: Italy 9 6 Ireland

It's poor journalism because it doesn't give proper context and can easily lead to conclusions that aren't relevant or possibly correct. I didn't say it's not true but going back to the 2013 6N and beyond is not really relevant, in fact there's a decent argument that everything from the 2015 WC and before is irrelevant to this iteration of the Irish team. It's an interesting stat but on reflection it's not as informative as it first appears. It doesn't say how many tests it spans, how long that time period is or how it compares to other nations. I'd imagine most teams lose games that they were losing at an advanced stage of the game. The by more than one point is also important because it allows them to ignore a match vs Argentina on Schmidt's first summer tour as we were losing by one at the half before coming back. That's actually a decent point to start the stat from and would have given them 10 matches in a row under Schmidt where losing at halftime I believe, but that wouldn't have been as eye catching.

Bringing up six year old results to to embarrass me is more funny than anything. Yeah it was at the time a bad day for Irish rugby but it was also the final nail in the coffin of the Kidney regime and gave us Schmidt. It was also a game PO'M ended up playing wing which is pretty funny.
Here's the team from that day:

Ireland: (15-9) Kearney; Gilroy, O'Driscoll, L Marshall, Earls; Jackson, Murray; (1-8) Healy, Best, Ross; McCarthy, D Ryan; O'Mahony, O'Brien, Heaslip (c).

Replacements: Kilcoyne, Cronin, Archer, Toner, Henderson, P Marshall, Madigan, Fitzgerald.

Maybe you can see why it's not especially relevant to this Ireland squad. None of the coaching staff are still on board and only 10 of the 23 have any chance of being in the world cup squad. We also lost three backs in the first half which might explain an inability to comeback here.

Under Schmidt the teams that have beaten us when leading by one or more at the half are England, Australia, NZ, SA,, Wales and Argentina i.e. teams that are usually pretty good and not really apt to lose the lead they've built.

Ireland have also won the last 24 games they've been up at the half. The last Ireland lost when up at the half was against South Africa in the second test on the summer tour of 2016. Maybe it's possible that teams are up at the half tend to be up for a reason and are usually able to kick on from there.

So yeah I believe it's poor journalism because it fails to give proper context. It's like saying cancer rates have gone up hugely in the last 50 years and ignoring the people are living longer and therefore more likely to develop cancer.

 

[Leinster Fan]

I disagree about poor journalism. If they came out and said Ireland are unable to fight back when losing games and don't have any fighting spirit when losing or something like that, then maybe. However they are stating a fact which is relevant to the result and based on Schmidt's reign, 11 of those 21 games have come under him, which is still a stat in itself. It's more highlighting that Ireland have won most of their games by getting a lead and controlling the game and if you disrupt that then you can win. Yes you can say there are lies, damn lies and statistics. However while one statistic does not mean everything it doesn't mean it isn't relevant or useful.

My argument is that Ireland have built a game plan around controlling the pace of the game, strong defence and excellent discipline and I felt Hanley's point about needed an x-factor to turn a game had some merit. I felt this stat supported that view in some way. It doesn't mean that Ireland have a major issue or they can't come from behind. It does mean that their game plan is set up more though for getting a lead and keeping a lead than coming from behind. Yes that is how it should be, but to be the best you also need to find ways to win when losing and even under Schmidt, that seems to be something Ireland struggle to do at the moment. But hey maybe next week Scotland will be 20-0 up and Ireland will come back to win proving me wrong.

Poor journalism might be a bit harsh, but that stat isn't really relevant even if there's some truth to the point it's conveying. I do think we struggle to come back into games, but I wouldn't say that we can't or don't by any means. It might be a bit of an issue but Leinster can definitely do it with a lot of the same players (although with a gameplan that involves a lot more risks and improvisation), so I don't see why couldn't if we worked at it.

As for X-Factor players who can turn a game around...well...

 

[Reiser99]

Fair enough let's just agree to disagree. I am definitely not saying that Ireland can't get back into games. However if your gameplan is structured around being in control and leading then my question is who do you want as replacements? Players who are great at continuing that start or players who can have a big impact if the game isn't going to plan. More food for thought than anything really.

 

[Leinster Fan]

Fair enough let's just agree to disagree. I am definitely not saying that Ireland can't get back into games. However if your gameplan is structured around being in control and leading then my question is who do you want as replacements? Players who are great at continuing that start or players who can have a big impact if the game isn't going to plan. More food for thought than anything really.

I think we had the right bench yesterday, we didn't use it when we should have. Cronin should have been on after 50, he offers much more than Best. SOB too, he's one of those players who can change a game. Cooney should have been on too, Murray was off the pace and Cooney transformed the Ulster-Leicester game a few weeks ago. Carbery should have been on at 15 at half time, or at 10 early in the second half. Probably should have changed up the props earlier too.

But I think we had the right players both to change a game or to potentially close one out, we just didn't use them.

 

[Reiser99]

I think we had the right bench yesterday, we didn't use it when we should have. Cronin should have been on after 50, he offers much more than Best. SOB too, he's one of those players who can change a game. Cooney should have been on too, Murray was off the pace and Cooney transformed the Ulster-Leicester game a few weeks ago. Carbery should have been on at 15 at half time, or at 10 early in the second half. Probably should have changed up the props earlier too.

But I think we had the right players both to change a game or to potentially close one out, we just didn't use them.

That's fair enough. I was disappointed and felt England switched off for the last try, but maybe it was more what Cronin and Cooney could have brought if played sooner.

 

[Nudger]

Slade with a Brace!

Best centre in the NH!

Lol

 

[Amiga500]

After sleeping on it, not too despondent today.

England beat us up on the ground in the pack - and from that everything else followed. If we'd a starting 8 of Healy, Cronin, Furlong, Ryan, Henderson/Beirne, SOB, Leavy, Stander that'd have worked out the English forward defense a lot harder - and narrower - so wouldn't have left the same big white wall across the pitch.

We have the players to perform better against what England brought yesterday. Joe's gonna learn. Question is, would our changes change the result or just the scoreline.

Either way, much better finding out now than in October.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

After sleeping on it, not too despondent today.

England beat us up on the ground in the pack - and from that everything else followed. If we'd a starting 8 of Healy, Cronin, Furlong, Ryan, Henderson/Beirne, SOB, Leavy, Stander that'd have worked out the English forward defense a lot harder - and narrower - so wouldn't have left the same big white wall across the pitch.

We have the players to perform better against what England brought yesterday. Joe's gonna learn. Question is, would our changes change the result or just the scoreline.

Either way, much better finding out now than in October.

Yeah, pretty much how I feel, I think 1-14 on another day would show up far better too, there's the players to beat anyone there, see NZ three months ago!

What I would like to see is more street smarts, I think where we conceded three tries NZ would concede between 3-13 points even when they're getting beaten up, we could do that and still lose but we'd have a punchers chance in the last 10-15 minutes unlike yesterday. I think that's more important than being comeback kings, that's not too realistic.