• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Ireland v Australia

Status
Not open for further replies.

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.
 

mxyzptlk

Colin Windon (37)
I thought Folau was off his game covering the high balls. A year ago, he would have committed to taking so many more of the balls that were between two players or that both he and Foley (or someone else) could have reached.

He owned this area previously and currently he's not committing immediately so we're getting into a bit of a mess. Ireland did well to cause this confusion by placing the kicks well between players.
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
expecting some sort of brilliant Wallaby win over Ireland reeks of delusion and claims to undeserved entitlement.


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.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
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.
 

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.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
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.

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)
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.


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
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
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.

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 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.

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.


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.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
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.



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)
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.


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)
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.


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.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
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.

There is no obligation for players to release anyone after a collaspsed maul. The obligation to release is after tackles and in rucks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top