Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú.co.uk

A Tale of Two Countries

  • Andrew Cotter - Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Sport commentator
  • 6 Mar 07, 10:01 AM

Andrew Cottersco_badge.gifire_badge.gif "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.......... It was the spring of hope it was the winter of despair"

Two teams will meet at Murrayfield on Saturday travelling on very different paths in the rugby world.

As impressive as was,

And as much as Ireland expect two straightforward victories to end their Six Nations, Scotland are contemplating two likely defeats.

So how can you possibly compare these two sides?

Because they are not so very different at all. And they demonstrate perfectly the ebb and flow of sporting success.

How empires rise and fall. You can have it for a while and then it is gone. Left for others to savour.

And for a long time in the modern era, Ireland sat and watched as others, including Scotland, enjoyed success.

There were just glimpses of Irish triumphs - leading his side to the Triple Crown in 1982, and the title three years later when gave them victory over England at Lansdowne Road.

But Ireland have also known many years of hardship. Between 1986 and the last Five Nations in 1999, Ireland were frequently to be found in the bottom two of the table.

In roughly the same period, Scotland claimed a couple of Grand Slams, were a whisker of a Gavin Hastings' boot away from a World Cup final, and won that final Five Nations.

Between 1988 and 2000, Ireland didn't beat Scotland once.

While in 1999, - the ultimate sin for a major rugby nation - after defeat to Argentina in Lens. But in truth, both Scotland and Ireland had turned a corner; Scotland to head off down a dark alleyway and Ireland were on the path to better things.

The two sides’ meeting in 2000 was a watershed. Ireland - with the likes of O'Gara, Horgan, Stringer, Hayes and Easterby all making their debuts - and the order had clearly changed.

Ireland celebrating their 2006 Triple Crown


So why the turnaround?

Well, the one thing you really can't compare between the two is the financial state of the respective Unions.
Scottish rugby has been hamstrung by deciding to build a modern stadium just before professionalism changed the game.

Ireland waited and waited.... and waited a bit longer until was practically falling down. A solid footing on the playing side of things had been established before redevelopment commenced and a sizeable 191 million Euro chunk of those rebuilding costs will be provided by the Irish Government.

Good fortune of course. But luck is always part of sporting success.

The key thing to note is that Scotland, despite a parlous state of affairs at the moment, are essentially similar rugby creatures, just in very different states of health.

Both populations are similar. Scotland with just over 5 million to a combined Republic of Ireland / Northern Ireland headcount of 5.6 million.

On both sides of the Irish Sea rugby is far from the number one sport. Trailing football and Gaelic sports in Ireland and a long way behind football in Scotland.

Yes there are nearly twice the number of rugby players in Ireland, but with the right attitude, development and investment, those figures could come closer, just as Scotland could match Ireland's success.

Perhaps not now. Perhaps not even in the next five or ten years with the Scottish purse so empty. But it is achievable nonetheless.

Towards the end of writing this article I have discovered similar sentiments (frankly explained in much clearer fashion) from the excellent Irish writer Brendan Fanning who tells

Something which is chronicled in much greater detail in his book 'From There To Here'.

So take heart Scotland fans, even amidst what may well be great green celebrations in Edinburgh for a second successive Triple Crown on Saturday.

Fortunes can, and do turn around in sport and failure, even over a period of years can become prolonged success.

For beleaguered Scotland, Irish rugby offers lessons. Irish rugby offers hope.


Comments  Post your comment

  • 1.
  • At 12:37 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Michael wrote:

I think your missing a far bigger point that Ireland have a far more talented camp of players then Scotland
I Think That mite be the answer. The structures one thing the talent is the other

  • 2.
  • At 12:40 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Stephen Ash wrote:

Wales offers hope to Scotland. For many years we developed a team that won the Grand Slam against all the odds. With injuries hitting us and the Mike Ruddock scandal we have let that slip, but it is always possible to turn things around in sport.

  • 3.
  • At 12:42 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Greg wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Scotland consider Centralised Contracts, things may change!
But the big problem is that Scotland's Magniers League Teams can't attract crowds, unlike in Ireland so our Union (IRFU) has clearly adjusted to Professional Era successfully.

  • 4.
  • At 12:51 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Bruce wrote:

Interesting article. All sports go through cycles for the national teams, much like the English Football side, who seem to have the players, but not the glue to make it happen. Scottish rugby is in a similar situation. Some top class players, but they haven't got the run of form that's expected, and hoped for. Are some of the poor performances down to the glue not quite having set? Or do spankings from Italy come from a very real weakness in the side, and the Union itself?

The results mean everything, poor form means, poor attendance, and that probably means an even bleaker financial future.

I myself am worried, but more knowledgeable people than me might have something better to say.

  • 5.
  • At 01:01 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • gfrazer wrote:

Comment #1, it is you who is missing the point. It is precisely because of the structures in place in Irish rugby that we have produced the players of the immense quality we have done over the last few years.

  • 6.
  • At 01:05 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Eoin Lyons wrote:

I think Scotland are not as weak as people have made out. Their results have been very inconsistent but they are capable of playing very well. The beat a good French side and England in Murrayfield last year. I thought their performance against Wales looked good this year. Okay, they couldn't cross the try line but they never looked like losing a game they were underdogs for.

Teamwise they have a pretty decent pack with a good backrow - even missing Jason White. When a quality player like Hogg can only get on the bench that says something. Paterson is the best kicker in world rugby at the moment. Cusiter, despite is mistakes last week, is a world class half. Scotland have a good lineout and decent scrum.

I think the difference between the teams is two or three world class players, and experience, and probably the defence. Ireland have more caps and more experienced players in key locations (out half being the most obvious). The provincial experience of the team is there too. The defence is very mean. The team is probably the fittest in the 6 nations with the most favourable injury profile.

Either way, I expect Scotland to confound the critics and put in the good performance, but ultimately fall short of a win. Ireland are chasing siverwear and know how to win. It will be a special day as only the Ireland Scotland game can be whether it be in Edinburgh or Dublin. See you all in Edinburgh!

  • 7.
  • At 01:26 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • angus wrote:

#1 Michael - no one's doubting the fact that man for man the Irish team are more talented than the Scots at the moment but what the article is saying that 'empires rise and fall' - indeed that is the very essence of sport. Scotland will come good again, likewise Ireland may not have at their disposal the array of talent they currently have. I for one will be at the game on saturday and am always happy to greet the Irish who (unlike other nations) do not gloat when winning. They, like the Scots have humility, a virtue others could do with adopting.

  • 8.
  • At 01:35 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Chuck wrote:

What amazes me the most is that 9-15 that played against Scotland in 2000 is the exact same 9-15 that will start this Saturday with the exception of D'Arcy in for Mullins. That continuity has helped Ireland a lot (even if the backs still could do with cutting loose more often in International rugby).

  • 9.
  • At 01:37 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Kenny wrote:

How about this...

In 1993 the SRU rebuilt Murrayfield through private funding - debentures and bank loans.

In 2007, the IRFU are receiving circa 75% of the funding to rebuild Landsdowne Road.

Scotland started the professional era with one, neigh two, hands tied behind their back.

The IRFU didn't have a financial burden entering the professional era and as such have been able to invest properly.

If the roles were reversed, I would confidently predict that the roles would be reversed.

Like everything in life - money makes the world go round.

  • 10.
  • At 01:41 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Michael wrote:

I think your missing a far bigger point that Ireland have a far more talented camp of players then Scotland
I Think That mite be the answer. The structures one thing the talent is the other

  • 11.
  • At 01:42 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Doug Taylor wrote:

Interesting article Andrew. I do feel however the SRU should be following the Irish example OUTSIDE Scotland.

I SENT THIS TO THE SCOTTISH RUGBY UNION on 01/09/2006 after reading on the SRU website about Frank Haddon's proposed visits to 'Scottish Academies'.
-----------------
Dear SRU

Re Frank Haddon's coaching technique sessions around no doubt 'top' schools and clubs
in Scotland.

What is going on with Scottish Exiles? They now almost do not exist! Why?

There are thousands of talented rugby playing teenagers and students south of the border and
elsewhere who qualify to play for Scotland.

Quote Frank Haddon... "In Scotland we have to take advantage of the fact that we are
small in terms of numbers".

We should be taking advantage of the fact that we (Scotland) are potentially
huge in terms of numbers.

We are only small in terms of foresight.

The IRFU have got it right. Look to Kevin Mags, Rob Henderson and the Easterby brothers.
The latter from my adopted town of Harrogate, North Yorkshire who qualify via grandparents.
At Harrogate RUFC now we have 2 under 18 players with Irish exiles who will definately be pushing
for full Ireland u 19's this season.
Granted we have a promising young man (Harry Duthie) who played u 18's for Scotland last
season, but we have more at this club alone.

Many other 'Scottish' players qualify to traipse down or up to Northampton for a 'sifting' session at
their own/parents expense and time. Many chose not to, as did Harrogate Colts(u'19's) captain
who decided to lead his team in the last 16 of the National Colts Cup. A great prospect who will now
probably be discarded by Scotland and will look to go as far he can with the English regime.

The Irish set up contrasts hugely with ours insomuch as they are proactive and they take care of
the talent they have spotted.

Is it all about finance? We must invest now in all available talent to keep Murrayfield full in the future. Sow and then reap.

Your comments would be very much appreciated.

Kind regards

Doug Taylor
Harrogate (Born in Hawick)
--------------

  • 12.
  • At 01:49 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Gavin wrote:

Was just wondering if someone could confirm for me whether or not if Ireland win the remaining two games and England beat France, does the championship go to points differencs? Every where I look there is not a mention of it, as if France have already won due to the defeat of Ireland????

  • 13.
  • At 01:52 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Alex Schuster wrote:

Would agree with the previous poster that Ireland are currently a more talented team than Scotland. Not just in terms of their three or four world class backs, but, in overall terms, man for man, they are a superior cadre of players.

Admittedly, this does not mean that Ireland will definitely win on Saturday. As the Scotland-Italy game illustrated, interceptions, poor handling and the bounce of a ball can turn the tide of a match. But the likelihood is that Ireland will win. And usually (though not always) the bookmakers get it right and all of them have plumped overwhelmingly for Ireland in relation to this encounter. That said, however, I will not make predictions and will wait until 3.30 p.m. on Saturday to see how things unfold.

  • 14.
  • At 02:04 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Richard Simpson wrote:

The smaller nations, and by that I mean Scotland, Ireland and Wales are always going to suffer from cycles in the availability of talent. Ireland, at the moment, have I very excellent team with world-class players, but when these players retire will they have adequate talent to replace them.

In Scotland's case the answer was no. They were unable to replace very good players because as was pointed out in the original blog there is a small pool of players. I think Ireland are reveling at the moment in their success, as they should, but they should not assume, as the Welsh did, after the seemingly endless success of the 60's and 70's that success is a right.

There will inevitably be a downturn in their fortunes as there will be an upswing in Scotland's, but the natural good humour of the Irish should enable them to weather this until their fortunes improve, as
, again, they inevitable will.

Perhaps the real question is - why do England, with their large pool of players turn out such bad teams so regularly?

  • 15.
  • At 02:12 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Eamon Fitzpatrick wrote:

Gavin (Post 12), the reason its not mentioned is that England wont beat France, as much as I would love for France to lose to give Ireland a chance, I cant see it. England are really, really poor and France are, well, very good. Maybe, France will have a bad day and then maybe England might have a chance but I doubt it. I hope Im wrong. Should England win though then Ireland will have to finish the tournament with a better points difference and though I can see Ireland winning both games, tradition dictates that they wont repeat the 40+ points achieved in Croker and miss out on points like they did last year. Oh, by the way England would really need to stuff France and Wales to have any chance of winning the 6 Nations.. you never know the French may come down with bird flu or something!

  • 16.
  • At 02:16 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • luckyrugger wrote:

#3

Scotland do have centralised contracts.

  • 17.
  • At 02:19 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • isdubcib wrote:

Scotland are a third rate rugby nation so get used to it. I'm Welsh so I know what it's like to hunt for positives in what has basically been 30+ years of mediocraty. One respondent pointed towards victories against France and England last year...such people have short memories...Scotland coach Frank Hadden even admitted that when looking at the statistics there should only have been one winner in both of those games.

To their credit the Irish have really started to turn things around...You look at their players and I mean closely...they are all in amazing shape...similar to England players before the 2003 World Cup. The top players only play in the most important regional games...very few of the Munster 1st XV play in the Magners league...that's because the standard is so poor...they are kept for the big derby games or for the Heineken cup. This ensures that all the games they play are of a high intensity.

Good luck to Scoatland but stop dreaming...they have one good player and that's White. Cusiter and Patterson are nothing more than good club players. The person who posted that Patterson was the best kicker in world rugby has obviously not been watching Carter, Wilkinson or O'Gara.

  • 18.
  • At 03:01 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • honest tim wrote:

irish gentlemen

this is all very tedious

when you can finally manage to win a grand slam or reach a world cup semi final (let alone better) then please come and talk to the rest of us

triple crowns are merely confirmation that a team can't beat france - they are an admission of failure not success

get real

  • 19.
  • At 03:09 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Mick wrote:

I agree with this article. the fortunes of relatively small rugby nations are cyclical. What has been missed is that, to a large extent, Scotland has already turned the corner. Ok, they lost at home to Italy - but that was no reflection on ability. That was 3 moments of madness which left Scotland effectively starting a game 21 points down. Otherwise they played Italy off the park. They beat Wales comfortably and while losing to England, a few things went against them, such as Wilkinson's "try" when they were beginning to impose themselves on the game. They didn't play well against England, but decisions like that can turn games and clearly did.

I am not Scottish by the way. I am Irish - and the game on Saturday is no forgone conclusion.

  • 20.
  • At 03:11 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • brian wrote:

The acid test of the Irish structures will come when the present side breaks up, a process which will no doubt begin after the World Cup. The current structures have coincided with an unprecendented period of success at both international and Heineken Cup level for Irish sides- will the potential shortcomings of, say, central contracts suddenly become more visible if Ireland are struggling on the park? It's at least possible. Central contracts aren't a panacea (look at the England cricket team where there are endless arguments about how the relationship between club and country works and claims that centrally contracted players are playing enough/too much/ too little/the wrong sort of games) and those who think they'd solve all Scotland's problems need to ask why there was so much opposition when Matt Williams tried to introduce a "lite" version of the concept.

As far as the Scotland comparison goes, I think it's a little simplistic to blame all the problems on the cost of refurbishing Murrayfield. Few Unions made an entirely happy transition to the professional game- even the Southern Hemisphere ones had problems initially- but the SRU probably msde the biggest mess of all. Arguably they did so by being too attentive to what was going on across the water from Stranraer and failing to take account of the fact that, for instance, the Irish Provincial Championship had always bulked far larger in the scheme of things than the Inter-District one did in Scotland and that Irish clubs were apparently content to serve primarily as feeders for the Provinces and then the national team. In the process the SRU managed to alienate a lot of the grass roots at club level- one reason why the Scottish Districts are so miserably supported to this day. You need a very solid support base indeed to survive getting whipped three weeks in four and it just wasn't there after the rows surrounding the decision to focus elite rugby at District level. The only Scottish district with enough genuine identity to have pulled it off might have been the Borders, but when the pro game came in the SRU thought there was only money for two sides and going for the Borders would have meant Glasgow or (Heaven forfend) Edinburgh losing out. By the time a Borders side was created the damage had already been done. Arguably it would have made more sense to go down the Welsh road by building franchises on the back of the better supported and stronger club sides (Hawick/Melrose Reivers?).

I don't think one can just say "the wheel will turn". There's no reason in nature why it has to and demography alone is against Scotland here- very low birth rates mean that the number of kids playing any sport in the coming decades is going to be limited. Relying on the Scottish diaspora can help a bit but becoming totally reliant on the rejects of the English system who happen to have a Scottish granny is hardly a recipe for long term success. It's equally possible that Scottish rugby could go into a terminal downward spiral to the point at which the media money men start muttering that it's time they were replaced in the Six Nations by a better commercial proposition like Romania or Russia. Perhaps it needs the prospect of promotion/relegation between the Six Nations and the Six Nations B to scare the SRU into a bit of constructive thinking.


  • 21.
  • At 03:17 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • kenboss wrote:

lads talent is one thing, but i believe what is more important that god given talent is the ability to keep the talent fit and ireland are masters at it, and this is down to structures and centrally contracteed players, with the players vailable in ireland we could easily enter 2 -3 more teams in the magners league and this is evident when you see the quality of club rugby in ireland and the fact that our U20 previously U21 are all playing club rugby, which means there are no soft contracts given out an in the england scotland and wales, and it is this structure that makes things competitive with 3 fully fleged forces and the feeder provience in connacht- its ideal and more to the point its simple, what is worse is the fact the sky sports etc actually fool people into thinking that the premiership and the magners league is of a high standard which could not be further from the truth, this can be seen in the hoards of players returning to ireland

  • 22.
  • At 03:45 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • neyster wrote:

Although I've never been to Murrayfield, I read with some amazement on one of these blogs that the SRU do not have a licence to sell alcohol at Murrayfield befre, during and after a 6 Nations game.

Surely the SRU is cutting out a large amount of revenue that can be generated for them, themselves?

I would imagine currently many of the fans would turn up to Murrayfield shortly before the game and disappear quickly afterwards, in search of a pint or five to discuss the game and the result, as there is no beer served at the ground.

If there was the added attraction of beer being served at the ground, they may turn up earlier and hang around the stadium later enjoying the atmosphere. It may, heaven forbid, attract more fans who feel more comfortable with a drink when watching Scotland play. [Not saying Scotland is a nation of drinkers of course...]

Just a basic point, but one worth mentioning, especially if you've ever had to queue for one of the bars in and around the ground at Twickenham on a big match day.

How much revenue could this provide the beleagured SRU to plough into the grass roots levels, extra training facilities for the test side or exile 'trials' as highlighted in post 11 above.


Post 17 - I believe statistically Chris Paterson is the most successful kicker in world rugby at present.

  • 23.
  • At 03:52 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • gfrazer wrote:

honest tim - you're absolutely hilarious. It is true that Triple Crown wins are no substitute for Grand Slams, but "get real?" Precisely how many Triple Crowns have England won since 2003? Hmmm... thought so. Come to think of it, how many GAMES have England won since their 2003 World Cup victory? How many times have England beaten France since then? Answer to both - not many.

Get real.

  • 24.
  • At 04:00 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • David wrote:

Fortunes of small rugby nations are cyclical? What cycle are the All Blacks on then? Ok you could argue that its the premier sport in NZ but at just over 4 million population .... !? And Australia consistently turns out top union, league & cricket teams, swimmers, tennis players & athletes. The difference is that the UK does not have the same sporting culture or the ability to nuture & sustain talent. We (the home nations) should be achieving so much more but as far as I can tell there's less sport in school & more sports fields being turned into car parks, housing & supermarkets despite the politicians promises. Some local authorities even try to ban competitive sports in schools due to the potential damage to self-esteem. Pass the bucket!
Happily there is hope in the enthusiasm and commitment of volunteers in local clubs coaching kids across the home nations. And there is hope in that we all still turn out talented players - if the various unions can learn how to nuture & harness better (and Ireland seem to be leading the way) then we'll compete with the southern hemisphere more consistently. I think we are catching them up.
And incidentally I think English football is a classic case of poor coaching & nuturing. After 40 years they're churning out mainly one footed players with poor technique that sees them fail at the highest level - why? - because at age 11/12 they're already playing competitive matches on full size pitches where the ball spends more time in the air than on the floor.
Good heavens - I'm talking about football on a rugby forum - I'm sorry - I'll go and chastise myself now.
Ireland to win - just.

  • 25.
  • At 04:04 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Carling did do Di wrote:

As obnoxious as honest tim is I'm afraid he has a valid point.

Results speak louder than promise.

  • 26.
  • At 04:19 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Bill Mason wrote:

The age of the Irish team is a cause for concern, the starting 15 have an average age of almost 28, however I wouldn’t expect wholesale retirements after the world cup.

Ireland: G Dempsey; 31
S Horgan, 28
B O'Driscoll, 28
G D'Arcy, 27
D Hickie; 31
R O'Gara, 30
P Stringer; 29
M Horan, 29
R Best, 24
J Hayes, 33
D O'Callaghan, 27
P O'Connell, 27
S Easterby, 31
D Wallace, 31
D Leamy. 25
Replacements: J Flannery, 28
S Best, 28
M O'Driscoll, 28
N Best, 27
E Reddan,
P Wallace, 27
A Trimble. 22

  • 27.
  • At 04:20 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Stewart wrote:

Triple Crowns are a poor mans Grand slam

  • 28.
  • At 04:28 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • gfrazer wrote:

Well thankfully Ireland have promise & recent results to fall back on. How England would dearly love one of those plus-points. Might save them from having to recycle 35-year-olds.

  • 29.
  • At 04:46 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • fearghal wrote:

"As obnoxious as honest tim is I'm afraid he has a valid point.

Results speak louder than promise."

Yeah, but he's still really annoying.

  • 30.
  • At 05:08 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Bob wrote:

I think the last comment about sports is schools are very valid. All the home nations suffer from very poor investment in sports at school level. Only the lucky kids in prosperous areas get the facilities the deserve on the back of their parents investment. Where a large percentage of the potential is ignored. And increasingly sports fields are being fenced off for insurance purposes. This denies the kids the chance to develop their skills over the summer holidays.

  • 31.
  • At 05:30 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • philip wrote:

The fact that Ireland didn't beat Scotland between 1988 and 2000 is a statistical oddity akin to Ireland's inability to lose in Cardiff in the same era. Some of those games were pretty close. The gap between Ireland and Scotland post-2000 seems to be more profound. That said, I hope the irish players remember their last defeat to Scotland in September,2001. In retrospect, that was just as much a grand slam that got away as this year has been.

No repeat performance on Saturday, please!

  • 32.
  • At 05:43 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Brad wrote:

I was under the impression that Rugby just shaded Soccer in Ireland?
Gaelic games are the clear leader in sport over there but I did think it was followed by Rugby.
Can one of our Irish posters confirm?

  • 33.
  • At 06:02 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Paul wrote:

Have I missed something? Was there a surprise World Cup last year and I didn't see it? Since when have Ireland got SO good?!!

When Ireland win regularly in Auckland, Cape Town and Sydney; when Ireland consistently reach the semi-finals or final of World Cups; when Ireland replace one top generation with another; then lets talk about why they are a good template to follow. Until then, lets get real. Two years ago the media - in particularly the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú - made out Wales 'wonder' team was the future of rugby. Right.

Ireland has a good side. Good. That's all. When O'Gara puts over the winning kick to beat New Zealand in Paris and claim the World Cup, then I'll be impressed. Then Scotland need to start copying.

  • 34.
  • At 06:23 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Bar wrote:

Rugby is very much the fourth sport played for the most part by the wealth.
Gaelic Games Football & Hurling are the big two. Then soccer and then rugby a distant fourth.

The affluence of the rugby playing circles means rugby has a high profile than its rugby playing numbers justifies.

I say this as a big rugby fan not a bitter Shelbourne supporter (the Irish soccer league champions who are about to disappear due to bankruptcy)

  • 35.
  • At 06:24 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • David wrote:

To Post 32

As an irish sports fan,
I believe that your impressions are correct.

But the current state of irish soccer,
(in case you dont know cyprus put 5 past us to beat us and san marino nearly drew
with us scoring what was their 5th goal in 13 or so years)anyway the current Success of irish rugby will probably elevate it to the second most popular sport, gaa is played all over the country so that is obviously most popular.

  • 36.
  • At 06:59 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Brian wrote:

In response to post #32. Rugby is a not as widely played as soccer and is positively dwarfed by the GAA.

According to the IRB Ireland has 201 rugby union clubs; 25,000 pre-teen male players; 35,000 teen male players; 14,500 senior male players (total male players 74,500) According to the FAI there are over 180 000 people playing football in Irish football clubs and schools (Republic only. I don't have figures for Northern Ireland) By Contrast the GAA has over 2600 clubs which would all have at least one senior team and would possibly field a number of football and hurling teams. I cannot find a number for players but the gaa has over 800,000 members (not all playing members)

  • 37.
  • At 10:15 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Wee Man wrote:

Dishonest Tim (18) Stick your rubbish England side where the sun don't shine. You are such a gimp. Your World Cup was the path of least resistance, and your world champions have been awesome ever since. NOT!! Face it, for a country with as much rugby 'talent', you ARE retty awful. Read it and weep gimp boy, 43-13. Ireland weren't even playing that well, for the 4 tries that went over, there could have been another 5 at least. 1-15 average.


  • 38.
  • At 10:45 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Alastair Gillies wrote:

Honest Tim really ought to get real. If Ireland win the Triple Crown on Sat, it will be their third in four years. In fact, it will mean that in five years against the Home Nations ie 15 matches, they will have only lost twice (England 2003 and Wales 2005). That is a pretty impressive record, whatever 'Honest' Tim may say.

Yes Gavin, if England do beat France (and they might!) the Championship could well be decided on point difference - which makes it all the more surprising that Ireland finished the English match with Wallace kicking a penalty near the halfway line into touch. Reluctant as I am to criticise Ireland in any way after that magnificent performance, surely they ought to have run that penalty and perhaps scored another try - kicking a penalty into touch is what I would expect a team to do when they are only just winning. How galling it would be if Ireland were to miss out on the Championship by only a point or two.

  • 39.
  • At 11:55 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • graemieboy wrote:

totally agree with comment 33. ireland have been good for a few years bot not great. everyone raves about them,but i am yet to see them win a 6 nations or believe they will win one. france who are slated every year for not being their best still seem to keep winning,and that shows a real class side.whilst i love seeing the irish doing well,when they win a 6 nations,beat france or new zealand or get to the last 4 of a world cup then they can get carried away.

  • 40.
  • At 12:05 AM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • Tones wrote:

I was under the impression that this particular topic was about the contrasting fortunes of the Irish and Scottish national sides since the game of rugby turned professional. The article mentioned that Ireland have been performing quite well and Scotland quite poorly. There was no talk of potential world cup success or grand slams, just that if Ireland win on Saturday that there is a triple crown to be collected. Nobody was celebrating that achievement, it was just mentioned in passing.

Then, Honest I'm Dim dredges up his old "Ireland are a nothing side if they don't win grand slams or world cups" arguement, that he wheeled out as a security blanket after his team got thrashed in Croke Park. Wake up and smell the trampled roses Tim, no one likes a sore loser. If and when we want your irrelevant opinion, we probably won't ask for it!

  • 41.
  • At 12:55 AM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • dave wrote:

if you go around comparing teams to New Zealand, surely the only team that is better than good would be the New Zealand 'b' team whom actually beat the prefered world cup XV ? otherwise its all a case of good or ok or even poor

  • 42.
  • At 12:56 AM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • dave wrote:

if you go around comparing teams to New Zealand, surely the only team that is better than good would be the New Zealand 'b' team whom actually beat the prefered world cup XV ? otherwise its all a case of good or ok or even poor

  • 43.
  • At 02:00 AM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • liam meighan wrote:

For comment #32,
Gaelic sport (football, and hurling) are taught in most Irish primary schools. I remember seeing a news report of Irish P.E. teachers in England teaching their pupils the rules of these sports are they were excellent for hand /eye co-ordination, as witnessed by the O'Gara / Horgan try against England.
It really comes down to Physical Education being taught as a subject, and a love of sport instilled in children when they are young. Otherwise the only time they will taste defeat is in computer games, and all sports will be the loser, not just rugby.

  • 44.
  • At 04:17 AM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • AB Man wrote:

I admire many of the posters here who are taking a more realistic view of the Irish team - they are quite good at the moment, but not that good! They lost at home against the only real opposition in the 6N, got hammered at home by the AB's in the Autumn, and are very vulnerable to a few injuries - meaning they are lacking depth in key positions.

Many seem to be dreaming of an Ireland - NZ WC Final. The only way that can happen is if Ireland win their Group. If they come second in the Group, they will meet NZ in the QF round (probably). But, in my view, Ireland won't get beyond the Group stage - they won't beat France, and I would bet on Argentina beating them as well. Argentina are a very strong side - ran the AB's pretty close recently, and their 'B' team drew with the British Lions at Twickers a little while ago. For all Ireland's talent it would be a shame not to have them play in the Finals rounds, but I fear that BOD and his mates will be only watching come October!

  • 45.
  • At 06:05 AM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • seanbean wrote:

The irish have much more confidence in their sporting abilities. The Scottish celtic league sides have dismal support every week, we have less than 10,000 senior players (according to irb) and i never got rugby in PE at school. Ever.

No wonder we cant compete.

I think we could win on saturday but if its not followed up with a half decent performance against France then whats the point?

I live in New Zealand and i reckon almost any high school team could beat Scotland right now.

And i think its a disgrace that most kids in the central belt of scotland don't even know what shinty is. If the scottish people are not proud of their celtic identity then we might as well just be English. The Irish have their sporting heads firmly screwed on compared to us Scots.

  • 46.
  • At 09:23 AM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • honest tim wrote:

errr....... AB Man in post 44

if ireland got "hammered at home by the the AB's in the Autumn" everybody kept it very quiet. although if you check very carefully you might find that they didn't actually play at all and you're talking a complete load of rubbish.

we all know that there are two sets of laws in rugby - one for new zealand and a rather more stringent code for the rest of us. however, despite this little assistance, new zealand still can't manage ever to win a world cup apart from the silly little mickey mouse affair in 1987 without sa and against amateurs who fitted it in between their holidays etc. however, with your rather convenient "additions" to rugby history you seem to take this bias to a whole new level - congratulations!

anyway, in the words of george gregan after new zealand's most recent wc failure: "another four years, another four years.............

  • 47.
  • At 09:30 AM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • russ wrote:

It is interesting that, at a time when Scotland's football and rusgby teams are at a relative low, there is some success in other sports. If one looks at the Commonwealth games table Scotland performed better tnah New Zealand across a range of sports.

  • 48.
  • At 09:40 AM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • honest tim wrote:

errr....... AB Man in post 44

if ireland got "hammered at home by the the AB's in the Autumn" everybody kept it very quiet. although if you check very carefully you might find that they didn't actually play at all and you're talking a complete load of rubbish.

we all know that there are two sets of laws in rugby - one for new zealand and a rather more stringent code for the rest of us. however, despite this little assistance, new zealand still can't manage ever to win a world cup apart from the silly little mickey mouse affair in 1987 without sa and against amateurs who fitted it in between their holidays etc. however, with your rather convenient "additions" to rugby history you seem to take this bias to a whole new level - congratulations!

anyway, in the words of george gregan after new zealand's most recent wc failure: "another four years, another four years.............

  • 49.
  • At 09:46 AM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • Chuck wrote:

Comment #44 - You don't need to talk to us Irish about Argentina being a strong side, they have always given us a good run for our money. Lens '99 springs to mind (the lowest of low ebbs). Also, in recent memory, we have never beat them convincingly? RWC2003 was a close run thing and our last game against them, if I remember correctly, we won thanks to the boot of O'Gara. I'm always nervous playing against them and wasn't the least bit surprised when they beat England last autumn. Their team oozes class and have some of the best players in Europe playing for them. Pichot and Contempomi? That's probably one of the classiest 9&10 pairings in world rugby!

So basically, we don't need telling how strong they are as we know too well - probably more than most in fact. They've been a good side for a long time, not some overnight success.

  • 50.
  • At 10:10 AM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • Andrew Cotter wrote:

Thank you Tones (number 40).

As you say, I was more interested in the contrast in fortunes between the two countries since the game went professional and comparing how Scotland's slide has almost exactly matched Ireland's rise in the same era.

It is fascinating how decisions made 15 or so years ago are now bearing fruit for Ireland while Scotland are counting the cost (literally).

What I was asking was not whether Ireland are world-beaters, but whether Scotland, if they eventually do get the finances sorted out (a very big if) and if playing numbers can increase then could they match the success on the pitch which Ireland clearly have at the moment?

Is the 24 million pound debt the root of all problems for Scotland - i.e smaller playing numbers, absence of rugby in so many schools and, as Doug writes in post 11, a lack of a healthy exiles programme.

(And incidentally on that topic, London Scottish are two games away from a return to The National Leagues in England - two points clear of the rest. If there is a rugby Roman Abramovich out there, you could have a team in the Premiership in three years time)

  • 51.
  • At 10:24 AM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • Ireland Forever wrote:

AB man, get your facts right, Ireland didn't play the ABs in the Autumn, however we did run them close in NZ, much closer than any of the other Northern Hemisphere teams.

  • 52.
  • At 10:29 AM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • Ireland Forever wrote:

AB man, get your facts right, Ireland didn't play the ABs in the Autumn, however we did run them close in NZ, twice, much closer than any of the other Northern Hemisphere teams.

  • 53.
  • At 11:10 AM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • Liam wrote:

Post 44 is talking drivel.

As pointed out we didn't play AB in autumn and a third string Lions team drew with Arg in Cardiff.

I agree that Ireland's biggest challenge is going to be getting out of their group in the world cup. After that anything is possible. If I were a NZ I would be nervous about playing Ireland at Millenium where irish teams (national and provincial) have had some famous victories and great performances. The key is if ireland get out of the group of death how many of their top players will have "died" (metaphorically) after bruising clashes with France and Argentina. Our back up players - Trimble, Boss, Mick O'Driscoll, Wallace are great in a european context but vs NZ/Aus/SA am not so sure.

  • 54.
  • At 11:31 AM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • Bill Mason wrote:

49

Does Comtempomi not play at 12 for the puma’s?

  • 55.
  • At 12:31 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • Nick Johnson wrote:

Post 20. Excellent points. What will happen when the golden generation at present playing for Ireland retires (as is imminent; this WC is their final shot - as this side -to be realistic)? England's experience is salutory. A side on top of the world that peaked at the last possible moment, with a coach who had spent years getting the lads where he wanted them. Insert thick as a plank new coach, tear down any system that was developing and add a soupcon of players at the end of their careers and the whole thing imploded. The next two years will tell much about the central debate of this very interesting thread; how much is down to the players and how much to the system? Also how ruthless will Ireland be with Older Players? The ABs are and it shows; something tells me the Irish won't be.

  • 56.
  • At 12:35 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • Nick Johnson wrote:

Post 20. Excellent points. What will happen when the golden generation at present playing for Ireland retires (as is imminent; this WC is their final shot - as this side -to be realistic)? England's experience is salutory. A side on top of the world that peaked at the last possible moment, with a coach who had spent years getting the lads where he wanted them. Insert thick as a plank new coach, tear down any system that was developing and add a soupcon of players at the end of their careers and the whole thing imploded. The next two years will tell much about the central debate of this very interesting thread; how much is down to the players and how much to the system? Also how ruthless will Ireland be with Older Players? The ABs are and it shows; something tells me the Irish won't be.

  • 57.
  • At 01:43 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • Chuck wrote:

54

I think he plays both? He started at 10 vs England in Autumn but Todeschini came on for injured Tiesi so think they shifted Contempomi to centre, Todeschini to 10?

He can play at 10 or 12 I guess? Mind you, Todeschini at 10 is no slouch... So 9,10,12 isn't too bad!

  • 58.
  • At 01:51 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • ROG wrote:

Honest Tim, well in Cork they would call you a Langer.

Either Tim is a fat old couch potato with little or nothing to do but fester in his own sad existence, try wind people up and dwell on the past when he maybe had a life or else he is a young boy who hasn't discovered girls or masterbation and is likely never to. Actually I would say he is a mixture of all the above. A very sad individual is honest but dim tim!!

I think it best everybody on the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú blog ignore this very sad individual from now on. He is very much an empty vessel making a lot of noise We are wastng too much time on the petulant idiot already. Oh a Tim, not nice being in the 'second' divsion is it? Oh how the mighty have fallen.

Anyway nice blog Mr Cotter. All down to good management in the end but I am sure Scotland will get it right but they do need to curb the exodus at the present time.

  • 59.
  • At 01:54 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • andy wrote:

#7 angus. I presume that you mean the English (gloating!! get real, look at the blogs from the Irish since they beat us (england) it boarders on embarasing the amount of gloating. Why is it the celts give us a bad name. we are ultra competitive and for wotever reason (large playing base, good facilities or dare i say it natural talent) we expect alot from the national team and are always expecting a good result however the real England fans are gracious in defeat and ecstatic in victory as any rugby fan is irrelavant of place of birth, colour religion. However the same reaction gets perceived very differenly when another nation actually becomes competitive.

England will bounce back be sure of that.

As far as the article goes, structure and talent go hand in hand. Would be interesting to see what happened if in a make believe world 2 equal players were sent off to Ireland and Scotland and tracked?

  • 60.
  • At 01:56 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • Cormac wrote:

Why does everyone think this is an old Irish side? Of the team that played against England, five were 30+ with only John Hayes being over 31.

It's a very experienced side for sure (the team to start against Scotland has 736 caps between them) but it's not actually that old. A lot of the players made their debuts at a young age.

Of the 30+ players (David Wallace, Girvan Dempsey, Denis Hickie, John Hayes and Simon Easterby) there are players coming through to replace these guys. Only replacement issue is with Hayes as we have issues with props coming through.

  • 61.
  • At 01:59 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • georgegraham wrote:

I don't mind positive criticism of Scottish Rugby, but i do mind Welsh supporters coming on and telling ud how bad we are. I would point out, bad we may be, but we were still good enough to thrash you, no excuses accepted. For Scotland, Ireland and Wales, success and failure will always arrive in cycles but it ill behoves the Welsh to slag us off. From the Welsh golden era of the seventies, Welsh Rugby sunk into a near 20 year decline which saw home defeats from Romania,Canada and Samoa twice, failaure to make the WC quarter finals, anihailation by England reserves in Cardiff and a ninety point plus beating in South Africa. Scotland have had many down cycles, but nothing to rival this.Ireland, as has been pointed out, went 12 years without a win against Scotland, who could have predicted where Ireland would be now? We could field Hastings, Jeffrey,Calder, Rutherford, etc, etc, when Ireland had very little talent at all, but as i say, we go to a down cycle, Ireland go the opposite way, nothing is permanent. Ireland will not be successful for ever, Scotland and Wales will not be unsuccessful for ever. I believe there is eveidence of Scotland being on the start of an upswing,the Italy game was a complete freak with three intercept tries conceded in the first 5 minutes, the performance of the pack against Wales was a real positive.Remember that Dewey,Godman, Murray, Hamilton, Brown and Calum are all new to the 6N this season and will improve and while the exodus of players will do nothing for the improvement of our pro clubs, it will benefit the National side to have players playing for the likes of Stade Francais and Sale. Ireland should be too strong for on Saturday but there is no way Scotland are no-hopers, look forward to some good banter with the Irish fans.

  • 62.
  • At 02:03 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • Cormac wrote:

Why does everyone think this is an old Irish side? Of the team that played against England, five were 30+ with only John Hayes being over 31.

It's a very experienced side for sure (the team to start against Scotland has 736 caps between them) but it's not actually that old. A lot of the players made their debuts at a young age.

Of the 30+ players (David Wallace, Girvan Dempsey, Denis Hickie, John Hayes and Simon Easterby) there are players coming through to replace these guys. Only replacement issue is with Hayes as we have issues with props coming through.

  • 63.
  • At 02:04 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • Gareth McWilliam wrote:

I would just like to say that as a Scotland fan, do not doubt Scotlands ability to turn up on the day and play some good rugby. I predict we will get beat by Ireland but, as long as it's a better performance than against Itlay I'm happy. Come on Scotland!

  • 64.
  • At 02:06 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • georgegraham wrote:

I don't mind positive criticism of Scottish Rugby, but i do mind Welsh supporters coming on and telling ud how bad we are. I would point out, bad we may be, but we were still good enough to thrash you, no excuses accepted. For Scotland, Ireland and Wales, success and failure will always arrive in cycles but it ill behoves the Welsh to slag us off. From the Welsh golden era of the seventies, Welsh Rugby sunk into a near 20 year decline which saw home defeats from Romania,Canada and Samoa twice, failaure to make the WC quarter finals, anihailation by England reserves in Cardiff and a ninety point plus beating in South Africa. Scotland have had many down cycles, but nothing to rival this.Ireland, as has been pointed out, went 12 years without a win against Scotland, who could have predicted where Ireland would be now? We could field Hastings, Jeffrey,Calder, Rutherford, etc, etc, when Ireland had very little talent at all, but as i say, we go to a down cycle, Ireland go the opposite way, nothing is permanent. Ireland will not be successful for ever, Scotland and Wales will not be unsuccessful for ever. I believe there is eveidence of Scotland being on the start of an upswing,the Italy game was a complete freak with three intercept tries conceded in the first 5 minutes, the performance of the pack against Wales was a real positive.Remember that Dewey,Godman, Murray, Hamilton, Brown and Calum are all new to the 6N this season and will improve and while the exodus of players will do nothing for the improvement of our pro clubs, it will benefit the National side to have players playing for the likes of Stade Francais and Sale. Ireland should be too strong for on Saturday but there is no way Scotland are no-hopers, look forward to some good banter with the Irish fans.

  • 65.
  • At 02:08 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • Chuck wrote:

54 - he plays both, I believe. He started at 10 vs England in Autumn but when Tiesi was injured, Todeschini came on and it got shifted. Still, Todeschini is no slouch and a 9,10,12 of Pichot, Todeschini and Contempomi is not bad at all!

55 - Yes, it does look a bit worrying given the age of the players, particularly back division. But there is a lot of young talent waiting in the wings (excuse the pun).

Ulster - Trimble, Bowe are 23, Ferris is 22, Wallace, Boss and Wilson are the wrong side of 25 but will still do a job.

Leinster - Kearney is 21 and Fitzgerald is only 20 - can't wait to see them hit their prime. Heaslip is an outstanding back row prospect, too. Leo Cullen and Shane Jennings returning to Leinster next year will also be promising.

Munster - Manning (once qualified) is only 21 while Barry Murphy and Dowling (great finds last year) are 25 and will no doubt get a good decent number of caps for Ireland. Thomas O leary, too is a good prospect.

Connacht - Sorry Connacht fans but I'm not up to scratch with my youngsters there but know that Duffy is on his way back which will be a good move and heard a rumour Jonny O'Connor is returning, too? Fill me in on the youngsters please because I'm embarrassed by my ignorance!

So there you have it, some young(ish) irish prospects to kind of put the mind at rest! Just wish EOS would give some of them some time on the pine for last games although I'm sure they'll get a run out in Argentina and vs Italy and Scotland pre-world cup. I know there's not a lot of forwards there but given that most forwards are in their prime later on, I don't think there's too much to worry about for the time being. (touches wood).

  • 66.
  • At 02:09 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • Darren wrote:

Everyone seems to be talking about cycles like and how teams go up and down within them. The All Blacks don't, they've never gone to the lows Scotland are experiencing and Ireland experienced over a decade ago. They're constantly developing teams which is something Ireland has coped on to along with centralised contracts. Ireland recently named a group of 12 players who are all earmarked as the stars of the future. They already play with the provinces and Heineken Cup level and will be training with the senior squad to get used to that level and they are all quite young. When players do start to retire we will have replacements who can be gradually introduced. Non doubt more will be named either next year or the year after. We're not up there with the All Blacks but if we keep focusing in this manner of developing a national team we may reach their standing. But yes the money helps, imagine if Scotish Rugby or even Scotland had truly benefitted from North Sea Oil

  • 67.
  • At 02:10 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • Bill Mason wrote:

As I have shown above (post 26 ) while in general Ireland have an old team most of the lads still have a good four years in front of them. Strangely Irelands average age is the same as the England team that started the world cup final how ever there is a greater spread in the England 2003 team with guys in their mid twenties bringing the average down.

J Lewsey, 23
J Robinson, 29
W Greenwood, 31
M Tindall, 25
B Cohen; 25
J Wilkinson, 24
M Dawson; 31
T Woodman, 27
S Thompson, 25
P Vickery; 27
M Johnson 33
B Kay; 28
Richard Hill, 30
N Back, 34
L Dallaglio 31


While Ireland are unlikely to see O’Gara, Dempsey, Hickie, Wallace Easterby and Hayes in 2011, many of the 2007 squad, BOD, Darcy, O’Connell, Leamey et al, still have an other crack of the whip.

While there will certainly be changes to the Ireland team post world cup I would think it will be a gentle evolution compared to the England situation.

  • 68.
  • At 02:15 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • Bill Mason wrote:

As I have shown above (post 26 ) while in general Ireland have an old team most of the lads still have a good four years in front of them. Strangely Irelands average age is the same as the England team that started the world cup final how ever there is a greater spread in the England 2003 team with guys in their mid twenties bringing the average down.

J Lewsey, 23
J Robinson, 29
W Greenwood, 31
M Tindall, 25
B Cohen; 25
J Wilkinson, 24
M Dawson; 31
T Woodman, 27
S Thompson, 25
P Vickery; 27
M Johnson 33
B Kay; 28
Richard Hill, 30
N Back, 34
L Dallaglio 31


While Ireland are unlikely to see O’Gara, Dempsey, Hickie, Wallace Easterby and Hayes in 2011, many of the 2007 squad, BOD, Darcy, O’Connell, Leamey et al, still have an other crack of the whip.

While there will certainly be changes to the Ireland team post world cup I would think it will be a gentle evolution compared to the England situation.

  • 69.
  • At 02:38 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • andy wrote:

#7 angus. I presume that you mean the English (gloating!! get real, look at the blogs from the Irish since they beat us (england) it boarders on embarasing the amount of gloating. Why is it the celts give us a bad name. we are ultra competitive and for wotever reason (large playing base, good facilities or dare i say it natural talent) we expect alot from the national team and are always expecting a good result however the real England fans are gracious in defeat and ecstatic in victory as any rugby fan is irrelavant of place of birth, colour religion. However the same reaction gets perceived very differenly when another nation actually becomes competitive.

England will bounce back be sure of that.

As far as the article goes, structure and talent go hand in hand. Would be interesting to see what happened if in a make believe world 2 equal players were sent off to Ireland and Scotland and tracked?

  • 70.
  • At 03:31 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • brian wrote:

Fair enough, Cormac; I wasn't suggesting the Ireland side was ancient! In all honesty, though, I can't see it holding together in its present form much past the World Cup. Indeed one of the interesting issues (especially if they do well) will be how brave O'Sullivan or his successor will be over moving on to a younger generation of players- especially if the golden oldies don't want to go. In retrospect England failed to solve the conundrum of how to break up a winning side (admittedly one of the hardest things to do in sport) after 2003 and are still suffering in consequence. Having a lot of players much of an age can complicate things

Returning to the broader issue, it's ironic that the one thing the SRU ever did which was innovative and a bit daring- introducing a genuinely national club league system in the early 1970's, well before England or indeed Ireland- arguably turned out to be a disaster in that it strengthened the position of the clubs as against the Districts. Admittedly there were always those who thought that well placed figures in SRU committee structure never really got their heads round sides from outside the traditional charmed circle being able to get to the top table on merit (Inverness Highland in the 1970's and early 80's, Stirling County in the 1990's)- which went to envenom the club v district debate when it came.

  • 71.
  • At 03:43 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • honest tim wrote:

mr rog of post 58 fame

i would have thought, coming from cork, the one word you would have managed to spell correctly would have been masturbation

regarding england's position as a second division nation i wish they were that good

pog mo thoin

  • 72.
  • At 04:48 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • georgegraham wrote:

Off course cycles don't apply when you talk about NZ, they are the undisputed number 1 Rugby Nation on the planet for various reasons, no European team will ever match them in the long term and on a regular basis.I believe that the reason why NZ are so strong is down to the Maori/Tongan/Samoan influence. These people are just natural athletes as well as being huge, no European country can produce anything to match them, if we produce anyone with that size and strength,they usually are immobile, whereas these guys as well as being huge can run like the wind.

  • 73.
  • At 04:53 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • georgegraham wrote:

Off course cycles don't apply when you talk about NZ, they are the undisputed number 1 Rugby Nation on the planet for various reasons, no European team will ever match them in the long term and on a regular basis.I believe that the reason why NZ are so strong is down to the Maori/Tongan/Samoan influence. These people are just natural athletes as well as being huge, no European country can produce anything to match them, if we produce anyone with that size and strength,they usually are immobile, whereas these guys as well as being huge can run like the wind.

  • 74.
  • At 05:54 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • Mike Scott wrote:

Too much rubbish written here. I'm an Irish fan and want to set the record straight. But first, I agree with the original source of this blog. Scotland will of course get better vice versa.

I would love to say Ireland are world class but this is not the case. I would say we are a very decent team and deserve to be ranked in the top 5. Scottish football went through a down cycle and look at them now! Might qualify for Euro 2008 out of a group with Fanec & Italy! If you said that to Scottish upporters 4 years ago they would have laughed at the prospect of it...

I lived in Australia for 2 years and at all sports I found the facilities and time allocated to sport much more resourced then a country like Ireland. I think RUgby & Soccer organisations should look at more volinteers for youth level. The GAA is an Amateur sport for those who don't know and teams play in a pack stadium of up to 83000 fans then go back to work in their regular jobs on Monday. That for me says it all in terms of passion. Professionalism has improved Rugby in some ways but no matter what sport were talking about I think we should look at the social approach. I agree with some comments about video games taking over childrens weekends when really sport of some nature would be better. Anyone agree?

  • 75.
  • At 06:20 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • Lee wrote:

The thing that excites me about this match is the battle at outside centre between King Rollo and BOD. Its like an 80s cartoon revival.

  • 76.
  • At 06:29 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • rugbynotpolitics wrote:

Post 14: "why do England regularly turn out poor teams when they have such a large pool of players"?

1. Poor coaching standards
2. Poor refereeing standards
3. A doubling of player numbers in the last 5-6 years menas that already thin resources are spread thinner.

Increasing numbers so quickly means that quality (when coaching/refereeing do not keep up) suffers.

Large numbers means nothing when the development tools are of low quality.

  • 77.
  • At 07:29 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • Aodhoduinn wrote:

A simple fact, if Ireland lost 10 games in a row they would still fill their home games and they would not boo the team for losing. Munster would fill a stadium of 100,000 for the eurpean cup games. Irish rugby is well organised while the british teams are not. The young players coming up in Ireland are as good if not better than the current players. Its not a stroke of luck that Ireland are good, it starts at schools level.

  • 78.
  • At 08:52 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • Sticky wrote:

Alot of questions on this board relate to Ireland's investment in the future, once the current crop of players retire from the international stage.

Well currently, the Ireland U-20s squad have one match left in the U-20's 6 Nations (against Scotland who have lost every match so far)and a win on Friday in Falkirk will see them win the Grand Slam.

So, pretty good really.

The Triple Crown may be a poor man's Grand Slam, but you need to win it to win a Grand Slam, and since Scotland haven't since 1999 and England haven't since 2003, then Ireland have been a damn sightcloser than both to a Grand Slam in recent history. So perhaps it is better to remove the plank from ones own eye before rattling out the condescension.

  • 79.
  • At 09:12 PM on 07 Mar 2007,
  • Pete wrote:

Some good points here and some not so good!

I am an exiled scot. Lived in Ireland for 5 years and now living in NZ.

24 - Some good points made regarding development. Sport here is religiously taught in schools. It is simply not an option to opt out. Parents are incredibly involved in the school sports system, even coaching teams. My daughter went from doing hardly any sport in the northern hemisphere to being a sports nut.

In general terms of the blog I feel that as a small nation scoltand should not be afraid of looking abroad for succesful role models. I have often beleived that in footy we should be copying the dutch academy system, or copying the scandanavian systems. In rugby we should take the irish experience but should also model NZ.

I feel that the very roots of the game are the problem.In NZ the clubs are very well supported regionally. The franchises that compete in the S14 then have this club loyalty to fall back on. There is some similarity in the irish clubs and provinces. I feel that when the local level works the national level will take care of itself. I feel that this is the key rather than tinkering with how we contract players etc. Get the roots sorted and then move on to other areas.

73 - We also have some white Kiwis playing by the way! All players that put the shirt on are kiwi's. Been reading to many rants by stephen jones?

On one point of the upcoming game, I hear Parks is back. I can see a lot of people complaining about sore necks from looking skyward! Wish they'd give Paterson a decent run at 10.

The one other point I would make is that the one thing I am absolutely convinced of that impedes scottish sporting success is this, oh it's ok if we lose as long as we try hard. Rubbish. If you don't want to win and it doesn't hurt to lose any game then don't bother playing!

Just for once I'd rather we played bloody awful and won! Gallant losers are just that, losers.

Sorry about the length of the rant!

  • 80.
  • At 02:12 AM on 08 Mar 2007,
  • wrote:

I think Ireland will beat Scotland this weekend, we seem to have developed the killer instinct that the All Blacks,as by not taking the foot off the pedal toward the end (with the notable exception of the France game).
However Eddie O'Sullivan is slowely killing irish rugby, i know he has been are most sucessful coach, i wont argue with that, but he simply refuses to try frindge players. The same 15 everytime. We need to give younger players a chance on the big stage to develop, most of the team is not far off 30 or over.What will happen 3 or 4 years from now?

  • 81.
  • At 10:40 AM on 08 Mar 2007,
  • Stewart wrote:

comment 80 ~

Seems a lot of coaches would rather keep a successful tema and bail out leaving nothing for the next guy

Woodward
O Sullivan
Hadden
C Brown - ex scotland manager

The next gets the sh!t, so Ireland will plummet when certain players retire because theres no one there ready to step up

unlike teams like the AB who constantly blood new players

  • 82.
  • At 11:16 AM on 08 Mar 2007,
  • Philip Taylor wrote:

Not a bad article but factually incorrect in that Scotland's Grand Slams were in 1984 and 1990 and not between 1986 and 1999.

The SRU has two options to turn round Scottish Rugby, do nothing or do something. As the do nothing option does not appear to be working they must do something.

The SRU must clear the debt by approaching the Scottish Executive and the Lottery Fund, and any other source of hard cash that does not ask for involvement in the game.

The SRU must restructure the domestic game by getting rid of the poorly supported professional teams and replacing them with select teams. These select team will form the backbone of the professional game in Scotland and participate in the Magners Celtic League and European competitions. The amateur clubs will compete in the national competitions as they do today but will be supported by the SRU when they lose players to the professional select teams. Players picked for the select teams will be contracted to the SRU to play games as required. When not on professional duty the players will be required to support the club from which they are selected, either by playing or assisting with coaching.

The SRU must encourage and support its top players, ensuring that they have the best of everything including housing, transport, medical care and professional development facilities.

The SRU must encourage all supporters of the game to become involved at all levels by making the top games more accessible to recognised fans, either through the clubs or via a decent fan club.

The SRU must do something soon or Scottish Rugby will cease to exist as a professional sport.

  • 83.
  • At 01:37 PM on 08 Mar 2007,
  • ozscot88 wrote:

Post 74 I have lived in the land of OZ for the past 19 years and have to say that as a proud scotsman the thing that has most impressed me over this time is the amount of hard cash that both local and federal gov but into young kids sporting activities and facilities,is nothing short of outstanding....thats why australia excells at most things in the sporting field..if scotland got the kids away from the telly and outside into good sporting venue's with the coaches that are no doubt available it would turn things around in 10-15 years

scotland can still give it a shake come saturday if they keep it simple

  • 84.
  • At 03:10 PM on 08 Mar 2007,
  • Massif Heed wrote:

No 47 - Russ, Scotland's football team at a reative low? We may not have the world class individuals in there, but I don't recall us topping group tables with the world cup winners and runners-up in the past! Of course, this may only last a couple more weeks so we should milk it for all it's worth whilst it lasts.

  • 85.
  • At 03:23 PM on 08 Mar 2007,
  • Andrew Cotter wrote:

Hi Philip (No 82).

In my defence I did say ''roughly' the same period'

I'm all too aware that they were in 1984 and 1990 as I was at both Grand Slam clinching games.

I like your ideas on clearing the debt though, and clearly something has to be done, but I'm not sure The Scottish Executive looks too fondly on rugby.

Perhaps there are successful, Scottish, rugby-orientated businessmen out there (such as Brian Kennedy and Tom Walkinshaw) who could be persuaded.

But really, as you say, it's at a governmental, lottery level that the SRU really needs to find the help.

  • 86.
  • At 04:13 PM on 08 Mar 2007,
  • Charlie wrote:

If other Six Nations teams had had the cheek to host opposition in a crumbling, windswept wreck of a stadium claiming the dilapidation was a sign of 'atmosphere', then perhaps we'd all have seen a general increase in playing standards.

As it is, Scotland (as Andrew Cotter points out) et al invested in the rebuilding of old stadiums, or development of new ones, incurring large cost on the way.

For their long pocketed non-treatment of Lansdowne, and making fans pay to watch rugby in the worst sporting stadium in the developed world, the Irish shouldn't be too proud of themselves.

Oh and no 80 (Mark Fairman) - the fact that Ireland lost to France is the undeniable proof the Irish have NOT developed a killer instinct.

  • 87.
  • At 04:17 PM on 08 Mar 2007,
  • Stewart wrote:

The government cant help rugby because of west coast lobbying preventing any serious money into anythign bar football. never mind football can only be played by a certain size of person unlike rugby where all shapes and sizes are equally important.

The Scottish exec will watch rugby disapear and then wonder what happened to the £50 + million it generates each year.

All lottery money for the forseeable future is being redirect to London for the games which no one in Scotland seems that bothered about.

  • 88.
  • At 04:29 PM on 08 Mar 2007,
  • Scottish99 wrote:

Why does Frank Hadden keep playing Dan Parks at stand off and even when he is not picked he is replaced by Phil Godman who is not up to much either why not give the stand off position to Gordon Ross? Who for the last few season's has been playing a far higher standard of rugby in England and now France. I've noticed a few comment's saying that Scotland don't have big game player's well they do, it's just that they aren't getting picked and i can't understand why?

  • 89.
  • At 10:44 AM on 09 Mar 2007,
  • Geoff wrote:



Andrew, How about adding boss of Cairn Energy Bill Gammell to your list of potential rugby-orientated businessmen?

  • 90.
  • At 02:30 PM on 09 Mar 2007,
  • Anne-Marie wrote:

Several people have commented on the fact that the grass roots of sport means getting kids away from the TV and into sports arenas. I couldn't agree more, but have to say that since moving to Scotland a year ago we have seen so much more commitment here than in England to a huge variety of sport. My son plays five different sports now, by his own volition, as it is FUN. Before, I could hardly drag him outside - and it is colder up here! But the basis of this is threefold 1. people being prepared to coach, most of them volunteers, 2. having the sports facilities easily available in our nearest town and 3. my carting him here there and everywhere! Not my first choice of a wet and windy Sunday morning watching 11 year olds running about getting muddy on a rugby field in the middle of nowhere, but it is what parents HAVE to do - support their kids - if we don't do it, how can we expect others to? We also watch Scotland rugby religiously, win or lose, and he is desperate to play for his country, seeing it as an honour - and hopefully get paid!

When we lived in England, the school emphasis was firmly on the curiculum and sport did not feature highly in that. Since being in Scotland the children have been out of school for all kinds of sports activities even now my son is out for the afternoon playing (sorry) football. He did a whole day on rugby last term and couldn't believe his luck, rugby AND no school. We have to keep this kind of thing going, and as parents supporting the initiatives in school where we can because it makes all the difference where funding is short. We must make sure as well that the sports facilities are maintained for ALL kids, not just those who can afford them.

All fingers toes arms and legs crossed for Saturday - we never watch Scotland without!

  • 91.
  • At 03:13 PM on 09 Mar 2007,
  • Andy wrote:

Re No 6 - You reckon Scotland are just short of a few world class players???

Try picking a combined Ireland/Scotland team from Tomorrow's starting line ups. It might look something like this:-

Murphy
Paterson (only for his kicking)
BOD
D'Arcy
Hickie/Lamont/Horgan
O'Gara
Cusiter

Horan
Best
E Murray
O'Connell
O'Callaghan
Easterby
Leamy
Wallace

Dont see many Navy Blue jerseys in there I'm afraid!!!!

  • 92.
  • At 03:44 PM on 09 Mar 2007,
  • Gator wrote:

#87 Stewart,

I hate to differ...football is a game for all sizes....rugby was...but since the professional era players have gooten bigger and bigger...I don't see too many Tony Wards playing rugby today.

  • 93.
  • At 04:30 PM on 09 Mar 2007,
  • grandslamgav wrote:

I agree with message 88, Its got to be Gordon Ross for me, he must be wondering what he has done wrong!!

  • 94.
  • At 04:36 PM on 09 Mar 2007,
  • Stewart wrote:

#92 : What !!

Rob Dewey is 17 stone
Paterson is 12 stone
Godman is probally about 121 stone
E Murray is 20 stone

how many 20 stone footballers have you seen recently.

And how many ppl of prop sizes do you see playing football.

Football needs to sizes of people

tall skinny ones
and short skinny ones so it really is a game for the skinnys

unlike rugby that is a game for shortys - scrum half
tall fatties - 2nd row
tall skinnies - 2nd row
stocky ppl - back row
fast ppl wings


so whatever size you are and how ever much you way thers a position for rugby you will fit perfectly unlike football and most other sports apart from US football

  • 95.
  • At 09:33 PM on 09 Mar 2007,
  • Lee wrote:

# 21. I beg to differ. The structure of English Rubgy is the same now as it was when England won the world Cup. The Structure of Irish, Australian, New Zealand and French rugby is the same as when England and none of the aforementioned won the world cup.
The big difference is Talent. New Zealand have 40 palyers that would walk into any side in the world. England have none, Ireland have maybe 7. When the senior player such as O'Driscoll, O'Gara, Stringer, Horgan, O'Connell call it a day, there will be a dip in Irelands form and a big one. You're U20's are performing well , your A team is horrendous. By the time your U20's are getting regular Top level runs outs the game will be nose diving, beleive me I'm an Englishman and I know how it happenes.
Do you really think Graeme Henry would be lining a Wales team up to win a world cup, no chance, no talent like he's got in NZ. It's very little to do with anything but raw and uncovered talent.

  • 96.
  • At 02:28 AM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • Dave wrote:

I just hope that tomorrow we play to our strengths, this is not something we did against Italy as we spurned chance after chance to kick at goals. Instead we attempted to score tries, something that we have had difficulty doing since we last won the Championship last century. I am pleased that Chris Cusiter has been given another chance, but in dropping Phil Godman we have gone a step backwards, this is a young team with plenty of potential. Frank Hadden just has to have faith in these guys to produce the goods - the best way to do that is to ensure they all have a run of games to increase their confidence at this level.

  • 97.
  • At 01:41 PM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • Dugald wrote:

I can't believe Andy's comment in post 69 "we are ultra competitive" in reference to English sport. Ultra competitive is the last adjective one would reach for when seeking to describe England's performance in virtually any sport (and team sports in particular). In fact one of the endlessly fascinating aspects of England's contribution to sport is just how mediocre it is in the context of the size of the population and the resources, financial and otherwise, that are available. Nevertheless what England are superb at is making up sports (football, rugby, cricket and so on) - so perhaps England should play to its strength and focus on the development of new sporting events rather than trying to remain competitive in what is currently available. An acceptance of, even a focus on mediocrity would also remove the English obsession with staring in the mirror, trying to catch a glimpse of rapidly fading memories of isolated past successes.

  • 98.
  • At 02:10 PM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • Craig Robb wrote:

Referees eh!? All this talk of comparison between teams and the result of the contest comes down to one man and he's apparently from neither country! Brian O'Driscoll isa violent cheat. In any other sport he'd have been sent off for that kind of behaviour, for punching someone in the face, as it is he is just allowed to carry on without any personal penalty against O'Driscoll and Ireland go on and score. Such a shame that one man who shouldn't have any effect on the result can have such a pivotal one.

  • 99.
  • At 03:57 PM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • Mike Buckley wrote:

Craig Robb...did you watch the same game as I did? Did you not see the late tackle on O'Gara which O'Driscoll was infuriated with? A cheap jibe like "violent cheat" towards one of the world's greatest players smacks of sour grapes to me. If the game is too tough for you then don't play it.

  • 100.
  • At 04:46 PM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • brian wrote:

Dugald post no 67

Take a bow. That is perhaps the single greatest forum post I have ever seen on the internet. Pure gold.

  • 101.
  • At 06:30 PM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • Dave wrote:

I'm just glad to see Frank Hadden's reaction after the loss to Ireland, this idea that we should be pleased to lose by just a point at home to a stuttering Irish performance is totally out of touch with what this Scottish supporter thinks anyway. Hadden is right to expect more from Scotland when they are playing at home, having beaten France and England there last year. He was also right in saying that we gave Ireland too much respect, that is something you can never afford to do when playing against the back division they have. At least this time we gave ourselves a chance by taking the points on offer when they came.
Incidentally all this carping about the confusion over how much time was left in the Welsh game is pointless, it was unprofessional to go for touch anyway and it was the same mistake that Scotland kept making last week.

  • 102.
  • At 06:50 PM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • Tony wrote:

Was Hickie good enough for MOTM? I was at the game so difficult to judge (no replays etc). From where I was Sean Lamont was very good. Made lots of ground, some good kicks and chases and THAT TACKLE! Ouch!! Thank goodness the Scotland team that played last week didn't turn up today. Much improved and made me feel a bit better.

To whoever said Paterson is behind several other kickers in terms of how good he is - you're wrong. Statistically he is the best place kicker in the world at the moment.

  • 103.
  • At 07:14 PM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • Sean Kinsella wrote:


Craig Robb

So you missed the cheap and snide little shot on O'Gara that instigated the aggression from O'Driscoll?

Better sides find a way to play both your way AND theirs. Scotland handed us our try on a silver platter and then couldn't nail the match when they seriously believed the game was in the bag.

Irelands Triple Crown 2007 and thoroughly deserved overall to boot

  • 104.
  • At 07:34 PM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • Luke wrote:

I was surprised to see Hickie get it too... he wasn't the best irish back. i think Lamont was good today too. Raised the crowd (and team) every time he got the ball, Parks was very consistent too. I would've given man of the match to O'Connell, who was involved in most moves of the game.

I was at the game, good to see Scotland applying themselves more, but thought Ireland's attack was much too stuttered for success, and rucking and ball carrying from the ruck wasn't aggressive enough, as in the French game

  • 105.
  • At 07:55 PM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • kj frazer wrote:

I apologise for hi-jacking a Scotish-Irish forum but I can´t help myself:

2 weeks ago I upset a few of the Irish fans by suggesting that beating England really wasn´t something to get excited about these days. Some actually resorted to personal insults and quite nasty jibes simply because I didn´t share their belief that Ireland were now ´world class´ and able to challenge for the World Cup.

No disrespect to Scotland (having ancestory there myself) but I would think any potential World Cup winners would have won today by more than 1 point in a far more convincing manner.

But if some of the Irish lads still think think I am totally bias and ´mentally deficient´let me quote one of the best players Ireland ever had, Keith Wood:

´For me the truth of the whole thing is that Scotland gave Ireland every single point they got. It wasn´t really made by Ireland in any way, shape or form.´

World Cup?....Enjoy the quarter-finals lads.

  • 106.
  • At 08:47 PM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • Jack wrote:

I think there were again some good moves up front and in midfield from the Scots today but we still lack that penetrative punch in the red zone.

It was highlighted in the Welsh game and we got away with it but cost us today. We need a little more imagination and creativity where it counts and an avoidance of silly penalties in the last 5 minutes would also help. Frustrating but still enough evidence of some good seeds that could be sown in September.

On the welsh kicking in to touch topic i have to admire the Welsh for going for it. The cock up by the ref aside going for the winning score with 10 secs to go is more the spirit of the game isn't it, after all, we're not English !

  • 107.
  • At 08:53 PM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • Dave wrote:

A quick question - since Dan Parks had a kick charged down which led to a try, does this mean he's going to be dropped like Phil Godman, or do you have to do that in the first minute to lose your place in the team? Seriously though, maybe it's about time for Chris Paterson to be given a shot there, he's one of our better attacking players but it's hard to impose himself from the wing. Given how many good wingers we supposedly have also, his move would free up a position for someone to play along with Sean Lamont, who's been playing well for a long time (going back a long time but I would have even picked him for the Lions squad)

  • 108.
  • At 12:04 AM on 11 Mar 2007,
  • Hugh wrote:

A poor scrappy spectacle overall. Can't help wondering what it would have been like with a different referee.... J.J. maybe.

  • 109.
  • At 10:06 AM on 11 Mar 2007,
  • Sean Kinsella wrote:


KJ - Post 105

Didn't you predict a 25 point Irish victory over Scotland?

It's almost encouraging therefore, to read your pre-emptive opinions of Ireland's World Cup prospects

Are you saying that you wouldn't want (nor would celebrate) a Triple Crown?

And why does the Triple Crown become discredited if (for any reason) England don't win it?

Ireland have won the TC in 2004, 2006 and 2007 and we've done it with expansive and disciplined rugby. England could learn many lessons from the Emerald Isle (generally as well as with regard to rugby) but I very much doubt they would/will take such sentiment on board, as something about the English character doesn't appreciate defeat to the Irish, to say the least

SEAN

  • 110.
  • At 11:07 AM on 11 Mar 2007,
  • Johnny Farrell wrote:

kj frazer - please always feel welcome in any Scots-Irish forum... we (both nations) really need a good laugh and you gave us one. Enjoy the trip as much as you can- before you catch that first plane home

  • 111.
  • At 11:16 AM on 11 Mar 2007,
  • Johnny Farrell wrote:

Mike Buckley (Post 99) wrote:
"...did you watch the same game as I did? Did you not see the late tackle on O'Gara which O'Driscoll was infuriated with? A cheap jibe like "violent cheat" towards one of the world's greatest players smacks of sour grapes to me. If the game is too tough for you then don't play it."
Perhaps that question should be directed at BO'D and O'Gara?

  • 112.
  • At 11:26 AM on 11 Mar 2007,
  • Loquitur wrote:

Poor old jack (#106). A sensible post but his inferiority complex is so deeply ingrained in his psyche that can't help but include a jibe at the English - out of context, unrelated to the rest of his comments, and so, so sad!

Why can't you so-called "celtic" fringes just accept that the English stereotype that you love to hate is essentially a lot of tosh! Bringing attention to it so often just shows such a deep-seated insecurity!

Celebrate the differences between us all, but don't forget that over the centuries the so-called English were pushed ever westward and northwards by a succession of continental invaders. You could argue that that makes the present-day English largely continental European, and the Scots, Welsh and Irish more deep-rootedly English than they would like to admit!

As basically an Englishman with very deep Welsh roots and a hint of Scottish ancestry, I am proud of my mongrel status. Sad to say, I haven't yet found a travelling salesman in the Family who covered Ireland in his rounds! I revel in the Britishness of these off-shore islands but can appreciate and celebrate the differences bewteen us. These contrasts make us what we are!

Add Rugby to the mix, and we have a superb recipe for friendly rivalry and good natured social interaction. Highlight these traits, but please don't spoil these great blogs with so much anglophobia and at times implied racism (not Jack I hasten to add).

Let's hope the last round of 6N matches are memorable for the rugby played rather than for anything else - and may the best teams win!

France for the 6Ns and Ireland for the RWC! And England? Don't roll over today! Give us a positive sign for the future!

  • 113.
  • At 12:16 PM on 11 Mar 2007,
  • Roy Allen wrote:

Ireland did not play especially well, nor especially badly. They started well, but were dragged down by the Scots' excellent defence and dubious tactics in the ruck. The Scotland team, inferior man for man, needed a scrappy, messy game in order to compete. Unfortunately Ireland were unable, for large parts of the game, to overcome these tactics. They created chances, but failed to finish. But, in the end, they won.

Where does this leave Ireland's development? It is good that chances were created, and also that victory was secured. It was disappointing that promising breaks came to nothing. It wasn't a vintage performance, nor a disaster.

  • 114.
  • At 01:07 PM on 11 Mar 2007,
  • Micky Hogan wrote:


Hey Kj,
Dry those tears old bean- This Irish fan will be plugging for your chaps today against the French- Have been feeling a bit for your boys since that last massacre in Croke Park.
Irish rugby on a downward spiral after the W C- try telling that to Luke Fitzgerald, Shane Jennings, Andy Trimble, Rob Kearney, Gavin Duffy, Jamie Heaslip, the U 20`s (Triple Crown Winners/ potential Slam) Yep, looking pretty bleak alright!

  • 115.
  • At 01:03 PM on 12 Mar 2007,
  • Mike Buckley wrote:

Johnny Farell at 111.....BOD was standing up for his mate who been blindsided by a incoming Scot well after the whistle. I fail to see the logic of your comment. The previous poster had called BOD a "violent cheat". Standing toe-to-toe in this "tough game" with your opponent is not being a violent cheat. Besides....the whole thing was handbags anyway. Don;t know why I'm continuing with this.
As to those who somehow think one slightly bad day against an inspired and revved Scots team somehow deems Ireland instant WC quarter final exit fodder...... you really don't know rugby do you?

Post a comment

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them. Please note that submitting a comment is not the same as making a formal complaint - see this page for more details.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
    

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is not responsible for the content of external internet sites