Ireland v Australia
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
- Status
Tomikin
Michael Lynagh (62)
We just don't like his hair..
S'UP
Bill Watson (15)
Most of you are very hard markers, I thought we were ok to good and there was a team on the other side as well. It wasn't Wallabies v's dural U10's it was international rugby, the irish where there to win as well. As for replacements they are supposed to look better than the starting team, they are fresh, full of running against guys who have been out there for 60 to 70 minutes. would the bench look as good if they started, I guess we will never know unless there are changes, which i guess is your point.
Biffo
Ken Catchpole (46)
i thought the Wallabies were very good indeed, in context.
the quality of the Wallaby performance was not in who ran too high or in who went left when he should have gone right, or any such ubiquitous minutiae from any game of rugby.
the quality is shown by the result (loss by three points).
that performance should be judged as equal in rugby merit in a game against the World's number 3 team by three-year ratings, with outstanding recent form (smacked the Boks), terrific long term form (won 10 of their last 11 games), probably the best performance against the All Blacks in the last 2-3 years and champions of Europe.
expecting some sort of brilliant Wallaby win over Ireland reeks of delusion and claims to undeserved entitlement.
the quality of the Wallaby performance was not in who ran too high or in who went left when he should have gone right, or any such ubiquitous minutiae from any game of rugby.
the quality is shown by the result (loss by three points).
that performance should be judged as equal in rugby merit in a game against the World's number 3 team by three-year ratings, with outstanding recent form (smacked the Boks), terrific long term form (won 10 of their last 11 games), probably the best performance against the All Blacks in the last 2-3 years and champions of Europe.
expecting some sort of brilliant Wallaby win over Ireland reeks of delusion and claims to undeserved entitlement.
mxyzptlk
Colin Windon (37)
Ireland also placed a couple kicks out into space with no chasers. It almost looked like mis-communication at the time. So they both have something to work on.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
So you think form from 12 months ago is completely irrelevant? I'd say only if you don't think the Wallabies are as good as they were.
I'd say form from 12 months ago is largely irrelevant.
If it counted for more, it would be hard to imagine that Ireland would win the 6 Nations and win all their tests on the end of season inbound tour.
Clearly we're not playing as well as we did a year ago and Ireland are playing much, much better as evidenced by their number 3 ranking.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
But they're all related BH. If Australia defeated France and Ireland, it could very well be Australia 3rd and Ireland ranked 5th today. Before the weekend based on the fact it's about a 1.5pt swing for a close loss.
They've briefly taken 3rd when other teams have suffered poor losses. If they maintain leading into the World Cup then that's a more fair indication of their quality.
They've briefly taken 3rd when other teams have suffered poor losses. If they maintain leading into the World Cup then that's a more fair indication of their quality.
Biffo
Ken Catchpole (46)
almost exactly.
form from 12 months ago is highly relevant - results over three (?) years determine the rankings, with progressively less points for historic performances as they age.
the rankings show the overall merit of a team's play over the rankings period.
recent form is a pointer to a team's rising or falling in quality that will soon be shown up in rankings.
recent form is a strong pointer to which team is likely to win a game or match in the near future.
older form can show what a team is capable of doing.
a good case in point is that Ireland outplayed the All Blacks for 80 minutes last year - it is clearly capable of very high class play.
it's 120+ years since Pittsburgh Phil got rankings and form well correlated.
it's about 60 years since Phil Bull told the world how ratings and form and odds correlate.
it's 5 or 6 years since Alan Woods died, leaving USD 670 million won on the punt from the mid 1980s by applying ratings, old form and recent form.
form from 12 months ago is highly relevant - results over three (?) years determine the rankings, with progressively less points for historic performances as they age.
the rankings show the overall merit of a team's play over the rankings period.
recent form is a pointer to a team's rising or falling in quality that will soon be shown up in rankings.
recent form is a strong pointer to which team is likely to win a game or match in the near future.
older form can show what a team is capable of doing.
a good case in point is that Ireland outplayed the All Blacks for 80 minutes last year - it is clearly capable of very high class play.
it's 120+ years since Pittsburgh Phil got rankings and form well correlated.
it's about 60 years since Phil Bull told the world how ratings and form and odds correlate.
it's 5 or 6 years since Alan Woods died, leaving USD 670 million won on the punt from the mid 1980s by applying ratings, old form and recent form.
I agree it's all inter-related, but on any measure I don't think you can say that Ireland were anywhere near as good in 2013 as they have been in 2014.
The 3rd place ranking now is equal to their best ever.
Their worst ever ranking is 9th which is where they finished last year.
Biffo
Ken Catchpole (46)
Ireland is a very much better team now than it was a year ago.
coaching seems to have a lot to do with that, doesn't it?
if you really want to, you can calculate fairly accurately, how much (in points) the Ireland team has improved - and it's an objective calculation.
i am too lazy.
i prefer the vibe
cheers
That's not how the rankings system works.
It is updated after every match and the points awarded or subtracted based on the result of the game are based on the ranking points for each team prior to the match.
The home team is treated as if their ranking is 3 points higher than it is and more points are awarded and lost for results where the margin is greater than 15 points.
Biffo
Ken Catchpole (46)
i hadn't seen this when i wrote on rankings and form above.
very perceptive.
Ireland's ranking and recent form indicate that it is at an all-time high.
the vibe suggests the same.
as i note above, you can calculate very objectively (in points on the scoreboard) how much Ireland has improved and by how much it is above and below other teams.
i am far too lazy so to do.
Baldric
Jim Clark (26)
I watched this game and was left thinking the laws at the breakdown were just randomly applied. The part about needing to be on your feet to play the ball and also when a tackle becomes a ruck are two laws that were applied very well.
The last penalty to Ireland is a case in point.
But then what do I know.
The last penalty to Ireland is a case in point.
But then what do I know.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
But let's look at that.
2013
Vs Wales (Away) - Win
Vs England (Home) - Loss
Vs Scotland (Away) - Loss
Vs France (Home) - Draw
Vs Italy (Away) - Loss
Vs USA (Away) - Win
vs Canada (Away) - Win
Vs Samoa (Home) - Win
Vs Australia (Home) - Loss
Vs New Zealand (Home) - Loss
2014
Vs Scotland (Home) - Win
Vs Wales (Home) - Win
Vs England (Away) - Loss
Vs Italy (Home) - Win
Vs France (Away) - Win (2pts)
Vs Argentina (Away) - Win
Vs Argentina (Away) - Win
Vs Springboks (Home) - Win
The biggest difference seems to have been that in the 6 Nations, they still struggle on the road and have a good home record. They drew with France in 2013 and won by 2 points in 2014. Last year they had a terrible record by also had 3 away games in the 6 nations, losing 2 of them.
The Springboks win is probably the biggest indicator of improvement.
Are they a better team? Yes. Are they a 6 places better team? Doubtful. 9th was probably lower than they ever really were (Somewhat like Argentina who get stuck around 12 due to 6 games against top 5 teams every single year).
Biffo
Ken Catchpole (46)
sorry, i am thick today.
where did i say the rankings are not updated after every game and match?
where did i say that rugby merit is subject to +3 for the away team or -3 for the home team?
i am fairly sure that the rankings consider games or matches for only three years.
perhaps best i look at the IRB (oops, World Rugby) site and check the mechanics.
Biffo
Ken Catchpole (46)
yes
my bitching during the game was almost all about the Irish nor releasing the tackled Wallaby
Lorenzo
Colin Windon (37)
The irish have a strategy of trying to hold the ball carrier up to create a maul. When this fails, you often have bodies all around the ball.
My view is that refs - when the defensive maul attempt fails - should take a hardline on players around the ball. On saturday the ref awarded a scrum to us on our ball because the ball was unplayable - the reason it was unplayable was that they had 3 or 4 players trying to keep our player off the ground, and when he went to ground there was no way for the ball to come out.
My view is that refs - when the defensive maul attempt fails - should take a hardline on players around the ball. On saturday the ref awarded a scrum to us on our ball because the ball was unplayable - the reason it was unplayable was that they had 3 or 4 players trying to keep our player off the ground, and when he went to ground there was no way for the ball to come out.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
There is no obligation for players to release anyone after a collaspsed maul. The obligation to release is after tackles and in rucks.
- Status