England U20s - 33-9 Ireland U20s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEi4Ubx8cpI

Sounds like another good result for the England U20s.

Good to see Itoje and Tompkins on the score sheet again.

Correction - another bad one for Ireland.

England were too physical. There was a pushover try as well wasnt there?

GunsGerms wrote:England were too physical. There was a pushover try as well wasnt there?

Correction - we weren't physical enough.

I said it a few weeks back.  England is one of the examples of the level you have to be at in this category.  
That's the level.  And if Ireland want to compete in the category, then they have to wise up and say the present isn't nearly enough.  We have to try to bridge the gap between standards at U20 and standards at Senior.
Whether we'll ever have players in sufficient numbers to attempt that is one argument, and an understandable one.  But saying 'we're fine - we can compete at this level' - like I heard those few weeks ago from some posters - is just burying our head in the sand.  We're not fine - our U20 level does not equate close enough to our Senior level standards.

The scoreline didn't reflect the game at all. Ireland were much the better team for the majority of the game our passing, movement and general attack were much better and at around the 60th mark Ireland had 54% possession in the English 22.  but too many times stupid mistakes cost us big time. 2 tries were butchered in the second half alone. Also our scrum was dominant which was great considering what happened in the Wales game.

Also England's first try clearly should not have stood there was a clear tug back on the 9 jersery which would explain how a 6 out ran a 9... which had us down 13-0 after just 10 mins or so but after that we dominated. It was the lack of experience that cost us but I fully expect this team to come good come JWC. There was a lot of good play from the Irish in that game.

SecretFly wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:England were too physical. There was a pushover try as well wasnt there?

Correction - we weren't physical enough.

I said it a few weeks back.  England is one of the examples of the level you have to be at in this category.  
That's the level.  And if Ireland want to compete in the category, then they have to wise up and say the present isn't nearly enough.  We have to try to bridge the gap between standards at U20 and standards at Senior.
Whether we'll ever have players in sufficient numbers to attempt that is one argument, and an understandable one.  But saying 'we're fine - we can compete at this level' - like I heard those few weeks ago from some posters - is just burying our head in the sand.  We're not fine - our U20 level does not equate close enough to our Senior level standards.

The u20s will never be anywhere near the seniors as the gap is so big between the two levels. Look at Conway and Macken they were stars of the U20s but they are stuggling to make it in the pro game. Jake Heenan captained the NZ u20s and he is now playin for Connacht...and so on.

This isn't a new phenomenon, England have always been dominant in underage rugby. they have a better system and a way, way bigger pool to pick from. I fully believe we are closing the gap each year and that shows as we beat them at this stage last year and could have easily won this game too.

Leinsterfan4life the contact with the no 9 was minimal. Maro was just trying to get the ball. You expect Maro to just let your man get to the ball first. Your man was in his way. Plus Maro is a 2nd row - why should he allow a 9 to outmuscle him?

Not sure how you can say you are closing the gap when you did worse than last year.

33-9 and you claim Ireland were the better side? I suppose it's fair enough - you can be the moral victors.

SecretFly wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:England were too physical. There was a pushover try as well wasnt there?

Correction - we weren't physical enough.

I said it a few weeks back.  England is one of the examples of the level you have to be at in this category.  
That's the level.  And if Ireland want to compete in the category, then they have to wise up and say the present isn't nearly enough.  We have to try to bridge the gap between standards at U20 and standards at Senior.
Whether we'll ever have players in sufficient numbers to attempt that is one argument, and an understandable one.  But saying 'we're fine - we can compete at this level' - like I heard those few weeks ago from some posters - is just burying our head in the sand.  We're not fine - our U20 level does not equate close enough to our Senior level standards.

+1

I said for much of the game we were the better side. England were more clinical and experienced. Like I said 33-9 is not a fair reflection on how the game went.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:The scoreline didn't reflect the game at all. Ireland were much the better team for the majority of the game our passing, movement and general attack were much better and at around the 60th mark Ireland had 54% possession in the English 22.  but too many times stupid mistakes cost us big time. 2 tries were butchered in the second half alone. Also our scrum was dominant which was great considering what happened in the Wales game.

Also England's first try clearly should not have stood there was a clear tug back on the 9 jersery which would explain how a 6 out ran a 9... which had us down 13-0 after just 10 mins or so but after that we dominated. It was the lack of experience that cost us but I fully expect this team to come good come JWC. There was a lot of good play from the Irish in that game.

Interesting take on things there.

Clearly bias take on things though

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Clearly bias take on things though

Heh, I wasn't going to mention that  

SecretFly wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:England were too physical. There was a pushover try as well wasnt there?

Correction - we weren't physical enough.

I said it a few weeks back.  England is one of the examples of the level you have to be at in this category.  
That's the level.  And if Ireland want to compete in the category, then they have to wise up and say the present isn't nearly enough.  We have to try to bridge the gap between standards at U20 and standards at Senior.
Whether we'll ever have players in sufficient numbers to attempt that is one argument, and an understandable one.  But saying 'we're fine - we can compete at this level' - like I heard those few weeks ago from some posters - is just burying our head in the sand.  We're not fine - our U20 level does not equate close enough to our Senior level standards.

Nothing wrong with it, fly. Its not really about winning at this level but about payer development. Over the last number of years the Ireland side has been far better in the JWC. Thats when the grounds harden and Ruddock has more time to pick the best players. lso the players are on a steep learning curve.


Last year Irelan beat England but it was the flukiest win of the season. I said it last year! England got a man sent off early but still dominated up front and should have won. Last weekends game was a closer contest with Ireland dominating for periods. They were excellent up until they got to the lin where they buchered numerous chances. England were very clinical and scored somegood breakaway tries.


You could say England went into defensive mode but still Ireland played very well. Ross Byrne was the stand out player on the pitch and Dooley was probably the stand out forward.


All in all I was much happier wth that result than the last result. Englnd will be one of the favourites for the JWC again and Ireland will be very hard to beat too.

profitius wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:England were too physical. There was a pushover try as well wasnt there?

Correction - we weren't physical enough.

I said it a few weeks back.  England is one of the examples of the level you have to be at in this category.  
That's the level.  And if Ireland want to compete in the category, then they have to wise up and say the present isn't nearly enough.  We have to try to bridge the gap between standards at U20 and standards at Senior.
Whether we'll ever have players in sufficient numbers to attempt that is one argument, and an understandable one.  But saying 'we're fine - we can compete at this level' - like I heard those few weeks ago from some posters - is just burying our head in the sand.  We're not fine - our U20 level does not equate close enough to our Senior level standards.

Nothing wrong with it, fly. Its not really about winning at this level but about payer development. Over the last number of years the Ireland side has been far better in the JWC. Thats when the grounds harden and Ruddock has more time to pick the best players. lso the players are on a steep learning curve.


Last year Irelan beat England but it was the flukiest win of the season. I said it last year! England got a man sent off early but still dominated up front and should have won. Last weekends game was a closer contest with Ireland dominating for periods. They were excellent up until they got to the lin where they buchered numerous chances. England were very clinical and scored somegood breakaway tries.


You could say England went into defensive mode but still Ireland played very well. Ross Byrne was the stand out player on the pitch and Dooley was probably the stand out forward.


All in all I was much happier wth that result than the last result. Englnd will be one of the favourites for the JWC again and Ireland will be very hard to beat too.

+1 that England team had loads of players from the last JWC so they were very experienced and it showed. A big positive was the scrum where we dominated and after the Wales game nobody would have thought that would be possible. Dooley is yet another in a long line of very promising props.

I've said all all this team will come good come JWC time.

I wonder whether Billy Burns will ever take the field for England alongside Billy Twelvetrees and Billy Vunipola.

This is actually a more inexperienced (and younger) England squad than in recent years - only 3 players from JWC final XV and 3 more from the bench turned out in this game, and only a couple more from last year's wider squad..

The scoreboard in the end did flatter England, but there'll be plenty to take out from this game for them to work on.

With Joel Conlon winning MOM, could there be a Billy Joel in England's back row in the future?

England didn't play well and still won convincingly. I was pleased with the way they adapted - in particular the scrum was completely dominant by the end having really struggled in the first half. As the coaches said, loads more to come from this group, which is a young group even by u20s standards. My biggest concern would be the FH options.