6 Nations - IRELAND v ENGLAND 2nd Feb 2019

First topic message reminder :

6 Nations

IRELAND v ENGLAND

Saturday 02 February 2019 16:45 GMT

Aviva Stadium, Dublin

Maybe a little early but I for one can not wait for this fixture. 2nd vs 4th.

The 6 Nations is officially the BEST rugby competition........................In the World.

England starting XV (485 caps)

15 Elliot Daly (Wasps, 25 caps), 14 Jonny May (Leicester Tigers, 40 caps), 13 Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs, 17 caps), 12 Manu Tuiagi (Leicester Tigers, 27 caps), 11 Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs, 29 caps), 10 Owen Farrell (Saracens, 65 caps), 9 Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 80 caps); 1 Mako Vunipola (Saracens, 51 caps), 2 Jamie George (Saracens, 32 caps), 3 Kyle Sinckler (Harlequins, 17 caps), 4 Maro Itoje (Saracens, 26 caps), 5 George Kruis (Saracens, 27 caps), 6 Mark Wilson (Newcastle Falcons, 8 caps), 7 Tom Curry (Sale Sharks, 5 caps), 8 Billy Vunipola (Saracens, 36 caps).

Finishers (206 caps)

16 Luke Cowan-Dickie (Exeter Chiefs, 7 caps), 17 Ellis Genge (Leicester Tigers, 5 caps), 18 Harry Williams (Exeter Chiefs, 15 caps), 19 Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 68 caps), 20 Nathan Hughes (Wasps, 18 caps), 21 Dan Robson (Wasps, uncapped), 22 George Ford (Leicester Tigers, 51 caps), 23 Chris Ashton (Sale Sharks, 42 caps).

yappysnap wrote:Shame Clifford got that head knock and is ruled out. I was hoping to see him on the bench.

I guess we'll have
Shields/Wilson (I think EJ will pick Shields)
Curry
Vunipola

What does Shields bring? Whats his usp?

Brought up in NZ so of course he's better. *sigh....

BamBam wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Cokanasiga and Shields took full part in training today. Clifford sent home after suffering a head knock in training.

Clifford just has 0 luck

When's he fit, so too will Robshaw be and he'll be further away from a squad place. It is the worst luck for him. I was hoping he'd get a run off the bench to see what he can do and possibly cement his place.

Good tackler. Carries well. Offers front of lineout jumper to try and negate POM. Supposedly a good leader hard to really quantify.
Nothing out of the ordinary for an international 6.

yappysnap wrote:Shame Clifford got that head knock and is ruled out. I was hoping to see him on the bench.

I guess we'll have
Shields/Wilson (I think EJ will pick Shields)
Curry
Vunipola

What does Shields bring? Whats his usp?

His beard?

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:"There's debates to be had in several positions (locks, Wilson/Shields, centre and where Daly plays) but the most significant change there is Mako and especially Billy being back in the side. You could:

"Shuffle around Lawes, Itoje, Kruis and Launchbury depending on personal opinion but it wouldn't affect the side much.
- Quibble over Wilson, Shields or Robson at blindside. Personally I think Wilson has earnt a stint but again not a huge difference.
- Change centre partnerships, without Joseph back to full form and fitness I don't think changes available would make a wholesale difference.
- Discuss the merits of Brown at fullback, shoehorning Daly into the side, etc. Again lots of back three option with different merits but not a gulf between them."

King_Carlos, I know EJ talked about playing Nowell as a 7, but I don't thin Robson is really of the right build, 30 years ago possibly. Personally I would fit Robshaw into that slot.

I was thinking about George Robson, WPI. Sure he was a lock and retired after this seasons varsity game with Oxford but he always had the hard nosed, all court game of a traditional blindside.

Apparently the England squad will be cut to 25 some time today.

Some thoughts in the Times News paper that Mark Wilson will start at 6 on Saturday...

Would that be a physical 6 to try and compete with POM?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Some thoughts in the Times News paper that Mark Wilson will start at 6 on Saturday...

Would that be a physical 6 to try and compete with POM?

Though it also says if Shields is not fully recovered.

lostinwales wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Shame Clifford got that head knock and is ruled out. I was hoping to see him on the bench.

I guess we'll have
Shields/Wilson (I think EJ will pick Shields)
Curry
Vunipola

What does Shields bring? Whats his usp?

Brought up in NZ so of course he's better. *sigh....

Thats hardly a USP in the England team is it ....

LondonTiger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Some thoughts in the Times News paper that Mark Wilson will start at 6 on Saturday...

Would that be a physical 6 to try and compete with POM?

Though it also says if Shields is not fully recovered.

Ah don't point facts out LT...Wilson to start. He's way better than Shields.

With Mitchell's recent comments about Shields suffering from not having an off season (though did he not start late with Wasps?).

John Mitchell wrote:He has had to manage a long period of rugby. Once he settles you will see an outstanding footballer come forward

Always easy to read too much into a statement, but it does sound that Mitchell at least has been disappointed with what we have seen from the Kiwi loose forward so far. Perhaps they may look to "rest" him for this game? It woudl still shock me not to hear Eddie announce him in the team though.

Interesting to hear the thoughts of some of the Irish pundits last night on RTE, they seem very apprehensive about this one and wary of England's power game and the threat from the likes of Billy V, Itoje, Tuilagi etc.

That's kind of stating the obvious but Ireland have matched up pretty well recently in the physicality stakes, getting the edge at Twickenham last year and handling the English club sides pretty well in the champions cup for a second consecutive season.

That said I think Bath and Toulouse did find a bit of a template to trouble Leinster, that England can look at. Ireland's game plan does rely on keeping players on their feet and using good technique at the breakdown to secure the ball with one or 2 players.

However if a team can really attack the breakdown and force them to commit more numbers and slow the ball down it does impede that multi phase game that they like to play.

Personally I'm still pretty confident, I think Ireland just need to bring their usual game plan whereas England need something extra but Ireland do traditionally take one or 2 games to click. If England can get a fast start then could force Ireland to chase the game and make mistakes, rather than patiently grind the opposition down.

One thing is that this will be absolutely brutal. The weather will be pretty cold and the bench will be a big factor for both sides.

England haven't scored a try in Dublin for 8 years.

That's mental.

I be delighted if Shields starts, Wilson is the better player and would cause us more trouble

I see the English times is suggesting we will target "hot head" Farrell on Saturday.
Complete tosh. But fun to see the English press get all excited

munkian wrote:England haven't scored a try in Dublin for 8 years.

That's mental.

 7 1/2 years 

To be fair so far just 3 matches in that period and Ireland have only scored 2 tries in the same games.

LondonTiger wrote:

munkian wrote:England haven't scored a try in Dublin for 8 years.

That's mental.

 7 1/2 years 

To be fair so far just 3 matches in that period and Ireland have only scored 2 tries in the same games.

You are the ones calling the Irish boring

Nope, John Mitchell is saying their style will be to bore us to death. As a kiwi with a big mouth (something I guess you have had to put up with for 11 years )  he will make these statements.

I will admit that over that time period we have at times been a team with a pretty toothless attack. Lancaster, bar the odd game, struggled to get a coherent attack going, while under Jones we have looked pretty impotent against good defences.

Last 3 years in 6 Nations:

Ireland 49 tries, conversions 41, Penalties 27, DG 2
England 43 tries, conversions 27, Penalties 37, DG 0
Wales 38 tries, conversions 35, penalties 37, DG 0
Scotland 36 tries, conversions 27, penalties 37, DG 0
Italy 26 tries, conversions 19, penalties 15, DG 2
France 23 tries, conversions 18, penalties 47 , DG 1


Read into that what you will.

LondonTiger wrote:Nope, John Mitchell is saying their style will be to bore us to death. As a kiwi with a big mouth (something I guess you have had to put up with for 11 years )  he will make these statements.

I will admit that over that time period we have at times been a team with a pretty toothless attack. Lancaster, bar the odd game, struggled to get a coherent attack going, while under Jones we have looked pretty impotent against good defences.

I think that comment won't bother Ireland. Clearly Ireland's game is built around retaining the ball for long phases and tiring the opposition, keeping them pegged in their own half and applying pressure, which might be boring to some - especially if you are defending it.

If there is criticism it's that probably Ireland still don't score enough points to go with their superiority but I think that is something that will come in time with some of the new outside backs coming through. Right now there is probably no one other Stockdale or Larmour, Addison potentially, that opposition would really fear with the ball in hand.

LondonTiger wrote:Last 3 years in 6 Nations:

Ireland 49 tries, conversions 41, Penalties 27, DG 2
England 43 tries, conversions 27, Penalties 37, DG 0
Wales 38 tries, conversions 35, penalties 37, DG 0
Scotland 36 tries, conversions 27, penalties 37, DG 0
Italy 26 tries, conversions 19, penalties 15, DG 2
France 23 tries, conversions 18, penalties 47 , DG 1


Read into that what you will.

Is England's conversation rate very low considering Farrell is an excellent kicker?

That's about a 60ish% for conversions. Are those stats right?

carpet baboon wrote:Is England's conversation rate very low considering Farrell is an excellent kicker?

Perhaps England score more tries in the corners?

LondonTiger wrote:Last 3 years in 6 Nations:

Ireland 49 tries, conversions 41, Penalties 27, DG 2
England 43 tries, conversions 27, Penalties 37, DG 0
Wales 38 tries, conversions 35, penalties 37, DG 0
Scotland 36 tries, conversions 27, penalties 37, DG 0
Italy 26 tries, conversions 19, penalties 15, DG 2
France 23 tries, conversions 18, penalties 47 , DG 1


Read into that what you will.

I will then. In that period Ireland got 26 tries vs Italy, two matches were at home, no5 that that mattered. the next highest was 17.
Contrast that with Irelands away tries vs non italy sides in that period...0, 1, 3, 0, 0, 3.

Much different picture.

England are better but similar.

A very different picture when you drill down.

Italy is blowing out the stats so much theyre almost unuseable.

The away performances are tight, something that will be concerning in September.

Taylorman wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Last 3 years in 6 Nations:

Ireland 49 tries, conversions 41, Penalties 27, DG 2
England 43 tries, conversions 27, Penalties 37, DG 0
Wales 38 tries, conversions 35, penalties 37, DG 0
Scotland 36 tries, conversions 27, penalties 37, DG 0
Italy 26 tries, conversions 19, penalties 15, DG 2
France 23 tries, conversions 18, penalties 47 , DG 1


Read into that what you will.

I will then. In that period Ireland got 26 tries vs Italy, two at home. the next highest was 17.
Contrast that with Irelands away tries vs non italy sides in that period...0, 1, 3, 0, 0, 3.

Much different picture.

England are better but similar.

A very different picture when you drill down.

Italy is blowing out the stats so much theyre unuseable.

I read that Ireland and England are nearly always ruthless against Italy, Wales less so.

Stats will only take you so far. I've seen Exeter drive over from a yard 3 times then maul a 4th try etc yet some see that as boring too.
The comment by Mitchell basically says they're very efficient and good at what they do. Doesn't mean they can't cut loose.

Taylorman wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Last 3 years in 6 Nations:

Ireland 49 tries, conversions 41, Penalties 27, DG 2
England 43 tries, conversions 27, Penalties 37, DG 0
Wales 38 tries, conversions 35, penalties 37, DG 0
Scotland 36 tries, conversions 27, penalties 37, DG 0
Italy 26 tries, conversions 19, penalties 15, DG 2
France 23 tries, conversions 18, penalties 47 , DG 1


Read into that what you will.

I will then. In that period Ireland got 26 tries vs Italy, two matches were at home, no5 that that mattered. the next highest was 17.
Contrast that with Irelands away tries vs non italy sides in that period...0, 1, 3, 0, 0, 3.

Much different picture.

England are better but similar.

A very different picture when you drill down.

Italy is blowing out the stats so much theyre almost unuseable.

The away performances are tight, something that will be concerning in September.

How about this then? Strategy. When you're away some smart sides absorb the 'anger' of the home side and are less effervescent themselves (coy rather than foolishly cavalier). Low scores... but wins nonetheless? Would that work as an explanation?

rodders wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Nope, John Mitchell is saying their style will be to bore us to death. As a kiwi with a big mouth (something I guess you have had to put up with for 11 years )  he will make these statements.

I will admit that over that time period we have at times been a team with a pretty toothless attack. Lancaster, bar the odd game, struggled to get a coherent attack going, while under Jones we have looked pretty impotent against good defences.

I think that comment won't bother Ireland. Clearly Ireland's game is built around retaining the ball for long phases and tiring the opposition, keeping them pegged in their own half and applying pressure, which might be boring to some - especially if you are defending it.

If there is criticism it's that probably Ireland still don't score enough points to go with their superiority but I think that is something that will come in time with some of the new outside backs coming through. Right now there is probably no one other Stockdale or Larmour, Addison potentially, that opposition would really fear with the ball in hand.
   

You cant blame him for getting bored of losing to Ireland.

I think Mitchell's comment was a compliment. Honestly.

He knows his rugby obviously. He's obviously studied Ireland now in more depth since coming onboard.

He knows Ireland's ranking. So I assume he doesn't mean Ireland are 'boring' because they can't play a more spicy game (anybody who watches Leinster play their brand know that's rubbish) - he's saying it's because that's the game they often choose to impose - as a tactic. And yes, sides that want to cut and dash DO get frustrated and tied up and feel the enthusiasm drain from their legs.

I wouldn't take offense at all. He's saying Ireland want to bore their opponents. That's the gameplan..or part thereof.

Not sure how many times Mitchell has been coach of a team that lost to Ireland, if ever.

LondonTiger wrote:Not sure how many times Mitchell has been coach of a team that lost to Ireland, if ever.

You'll be able to count more accurately after the weekend, Tiger

carpet baboon wrote:I see the English times is suggesting we will target "hot head" Farrell on Saturday.
Complete tosh. But fun to see the English press get all excited

Ireland doesn't "target" players in the same way that other teams most noticeably England do. To England "target" tends to mean late tackles, sly digs and anything to rough up or rattle a player. When England do it against Ireland it tends to backfire on them. Farrells late hit on Kearney last year for example lead to Ireland's first try. Really silly stuff.

Ireland "targeted" Retallick in November by rushing up in defense double teaming him in tackles to drive him back well behind the gain line, much more effective than the silly stuff that Owen Farrell tends to get involved in. Any opportunity to put him under pressure legally rather than any silly sly digs.

Stringer did say that Farrell is a player who is very positive when on the front foot but who can melt when frustrated. So, Stringer is not part of the Irish team makeup, but obviously he's hinting that Ireland will want to frustrate him as much as they can.

Why do people get so worked up about 'fight-talk'? It's all publicity. Sexton has his own buttons and undoubtedly, England will be trying to press his if they see an opportunity.

SecretFly wrote:Stringer did say that Farrell is a player who is very positive when on the front foot but who can melt when frustrated.  So, Stringer is not part of the Irish team makeup, but obviously he's hinting that Ireland will want to frustrate him as much as they can.

Why do people get so worked up about 'fight-talk'?  It's all publicity.  Sexton has his own buttons and undoubtedly, England will be trying to press his if they see an opportunity.

Farrell is an enigma, he is so influential on this England side that he tends to be involved in everything good but also everything bad about the side. For me he was as much as a lability as he was good against Ireland in Twickers last year. I suspect the needle in his game is something that Jones encourages but another coach might not.

king_carlos wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:"There's debates to be had in several positions (locks, Wilson/Shields, centre and where Daly plays) but the most significant change there is Mako and especially Billy being back in the side. You could:

"Shuffle around Lawes, Itoje, Kruis and Launchbury depending on personal opinion but it wouldn't affect the side much.
- Quibble over Wilson, Shields or Robson at blindside. Personally I think Wilson has earnt a stint but again not a huge difference.
- Change centre partnerships, without Joseph back to full form and fitness I don't think changes available would make a wholesale difference.
- Discuss the merits of Brown at fullback, shoehorning Daly into the side, etc. Again lots of back three option with different merits but not a gulf between them."

King_Carlos, I know EJ talked about playing Nowell as a 7, but I don't thin Robson is really of the right build, 30 years ago possibly. Personally I would fit Robshaw into that slot.

I was thinking about George Robson, WPI.  Sure he was a lock and retired after this seasons varsity game with Oxford but he always had the hard nosed, all court game of a traditional blindside.

I suspect that the odds on either of them playing in the backrow in this 6N are about the same, although slightly better than the odds of me playing anywhere.

Collapse2005 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Stringer did say that Farrell is a player who is very positive when on the front foot but who can melt when frustrated.  So, Stringer is not part of the Irish team makeup, but obviously he's hinting that Ireland will want to frustrate him as much as they can.

Why do people get so worked up about 'fight-talk'?  It's all publicity.  Sexton has his own buttons and undoubtedly, England will be trying to press his if they see an opportunity.

Farrell is an enigma, he is so influential on this England side that he tends to be involved in everything good but also everything bad about the side. For me he was as much as a lability as he was good against Ireland in Twickers last year. I suspect the needle in his game is something that Jones encourages but another coach might not.

Carbon copy of one Sergio Parisse. Tries to be part of everything... sometimes a hero... sometimes "Leave the f**king ball alone, Parisse! You're only getting in the way! Sit down for five minutes"

I think he has become a player that is beyond reproach in the side and England have become both overly reliant on him and overly influenced by him.

I think by contrast Ireland are also overly reliant on Sexton too but there are other equally influential players in the Ireland side.

Gooseberry wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Shame Clifford got that head knock and is ruled out. I was hoping to see him on the bench.

I guess we'll have
Shields/Wilson (I think EJ will pick Shields)
Curry
Vunipola

What does Shields bring? Whats his usp?

Brought up in NZ so of course he's better. *sigh....

Thats hardly a USP in the England team is it ....

ziiiing

miaow wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Shame Clifford got that head knock and is ruled out. I was hoping to see him on the bench.

I guess we'll have
Shields/Wilson (I think EJ will pick Shields)
Curry
Vunipola

What does Shields bring? Whats his usp?

Brought up in NZ so of course he's better. *sigh....

Thats hardly a USP in the England team is it ....

ziiiing

Well at least if rejected England players want to play international rugby they only have to travel a few miles west.

lostinwales wrote:

miaow wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Shame Clifford got that head knock and is ruled out. I was hoping to see him on the bench.

I guess we'll have
Shields/Wilson (I think EJ will pick Shields)
Curry
Vunipola

What does Shields bring? Whats his usp?

Brought up in NZ so of course he's better. *sigh....

Thats hardly a USP in the England team is it ....

ziiiing

Well at least if rejected England players want to play international rugby they only have to travel a few miles west.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FPTYtaiifE - particularly after the end of March! It's like an anthem on Brexit!



Agree wholeheartedly about Farrell. If he hadn't played behind big, bruising, largely dominant packs for his whole career, he wouldn't be considered half the player he is. Clearly his greatest strength is his mentality and desire to win, but he's a limited footballer. Still a very good player, but should never be considered world class or in the running for world player of the year in a position that relies on more than simply solidity and character. A bit like any team that loses their star player, and replaces them with a more balanced and ultimately better team, if Engand had the guts to stick with a proper 10-12 combination, they would probably play better as a unit. Still, a big asset for England and the way they play.

We're happy with Farrell, thanks very much. Its great to know he gets so under the skin of the inhabitants of Brexit central across the Severn bridge

miaow wrote:....
Agree wholeheartedly about Farrell. If he hadn't played behind big, bruising, largely dominant packs for his whole career, he wouldn't be considered half the player he is. Clearly his greatest strength is his mentality and desire to win, but he's a limited footballer. Still a very good player, but should never be considered world class or in the running for world player of the year in a position that relies on more than simply solidity and character. A bit like any team that loses their star player, and replaces them with a more balanced and ultimately better team, if Engand had the guts to stick with a proper 10-12 combination, they would probably play better as a unit. Still, a big asset for England and the way they play.

I am not disagreeing, and I do think it is hard to pick out outstanding parts of his game - even the kicking is generally good rather than amazing, zombie stare kick routine or no. But somehow he does end up central to the teams he plays for, from Saracens to the Lions, and he has achieved a great deal in doing so.

Absolutely lost. Which is why the enigma comments etc. a right on the money. Farrell is probably one of the few players you could say are, pretty much, at their 'peak'; look at other rugby players, or indeed people you know personally, and most people aren't 'maxxing out' their abilities. Farrell is. Cipriani, for instance, isn't. You can call mental strength an ability, yes, but I'm not sure it's an ability in the way being able to read a game is. If Cipriani was adopted by Andy Farrell at birth, I'm sure he'd be much more disciplined and focused from the start - but then you can make the argument that creativity and flair can be 'disciplined' out of a person. So who knows. In any case, Farrell is a weird one; Sky Sports etc. tried to make him the next Wilkinson for casual/non-fans to identify with. The poster boy. But he's not really good enough for that. I think most rugby fans, particularly outside England, recognise his strengths and his weaknesses.

Farrell's consistency, as much as anything, makes him vital to the teams he plays for. Well done to him.

Owen Farrell started his career in a back line operating behind a pack which included Mauritz Botha, Tom Palmer and Phil Dowson. All solid players, but hardly the stuff of a dominant eight. England's pack did play well against New Zealand in 2012 but you'd still have chosen most of the All Blacks over their English counterparts.

In short, Farrell didn't establish his international reputation through an armchair ride with a dominant England pack. That's revisionist rugby history.

The times I've seen Farrell struggle, are when he's playing injured, or when his team mates can't stick to the gameplan, usually through indiscipline. There really aren't many players if any, who can thrive in those circumstances.

However, I do think England rely too much on Farrell in one respect. Whether he's captaining or not, he's very vocal in the backline. It's less of a problem when he's doing it from flyhalf, since you expect that to some degree. From centre, though, it can crowd out input from everyone else. While their combination helped England to a record winning run, Geoge Ford arguably plays better when Farrell isn't outside him, because he hasn't got someone barking orders.

You do want people talking in the back line. Wilkinson benefitted from the input he got from Greenwood and, often, Catt but he wanted to know what they could see, not just tell him what to do. I have the impression - perhaps mistaken - that Farrell always wants players to do what he tells them. That isn't going to suit everyone else and, he's not always going to be right.

Greenwood. If there was one player I could choose to bring back from past England teams he'd be the one. More so even than Hill, JW, JR or Martin Johnson.

Farrell is class. It's going to take some player to force him out of the team. Ironically from what Ford has said it's Farrell who helps his game, able.to spot the chance and help direct Ford direct the play that way.

Congrats to rodders, who will represent the men (and women) in green as a new rugby moderator

Surprised I didn't get the call up. Congrats to Rodders all the same.

Close decision collapse. Both world class.

Collapse2005 wrote:Surprised I didn't get the call up. Congrats to Rodders all the same.

I championed your cause, sorry pal

No 7&1/2 wrote:Farrell is class. It's going to take some player to force him out of the team. Ironically from what Ford has said it's Farrell who helps his game, able.to spot the chance and help direct Ford direct the play that way.

I cant say I blame you for liking him, fans tend to like the passionate players. There has been lots of talk over here about how only 1 or 2 of Englands players would make the England team. However, I wouldn't be surprised if England fans feel the same way about our team.