The IRISH RUGBY thread

[Applesisapples]

That may be true, but I know enough about the All Blacks to know that 3 would never have been enough.

It wouldn't have been 3! It would have been 8! That's two scores, the same amount of scores as if they had been 12 points up! Bloody hell, Cian Healy was right. The horseshit that surrounds the 'All Blacks' is ridiculous. This is the country that went 24 years without winning the World Cup and flopped over the finishing line in the most undignified manner possible when they finally did. Next time, we should tell them to stick their haka up their hole. No doubt that will be viewed as making them angry and used as they reason the beat us 60-0 but they usually do that anyway and at least we'll have the satisfaction of telling them to stick their haka up their hole.

Yes I know that, I was talking about the value of the next score, if you actually read my posts you'd understand that. I stand by what I said. However it is easy to do that when you are not the one making the calls in real time. Good Irish performance and wheter you and I agree or not won't take away from that.

[deiseach]

Yes I know that, I was talking about the value of the next score, if you actually read my posts you'd understand that. I stand by what I said. However it is easy to do that when you are not the one making the calls in real time. Good Irish performance and wheter you and I agree or not won't take away from that.

You haven't explained why you are so certain that NZ would have gotten two scores in the time remaining (which they didn't!) yet think taking a low-percentage play to get a two score lead would have been so much better than taking a high-percentage play to go two scores ahead.

[Applesisapples]

Yes I know that, I was talking about the value of the next score, if you actually read my posts you'd understand that. I stand by what I said. However it is easy to do that when you are not the one making the calls in real time. Good Irish performance and wheter you and I agree or not won't take away from that.

You haven't explained why you are so certain that NZ would have gotten two scores in the time remaining (which they didn't!) yet think taking a low-percentage play to get a two score lead would have been so much better than taking a high-percentage play to go two scores ahead.

Why do I need to explain it?

[deiseach]

Yes I know that, I was talking about the value of the next score, if you actually read my posts you'd understand that. I stand by what I said. However it is easy to do that when you are not the one making the calls in real time. Good Irish performance and wheter you and I agree or not won't take away from that.

You haven't explained why you are so certain that NZ would have gotten two scores in the time remaining (which they didn't!) yet think taking a low-percentage play to get a two score lead would have been so much better than taking a high-percentage play to go two scores ahead.

Why do I need to explain it?

Because, for the reasons I have outlined, it would be a stupid choice.

[J OGorman]

Yes I know that, I was talking about the value of the next score, if you actually read my posts you'd understand that. I stand by what I said. However it is easy to do that when you are not the one making the calls in real time. Good Irish performance and wheter you and I agree or not won't take away from that.

You haven't explained why you are so certain that NZ would have gotten two scores in the time remaining (which they didn't!) yet think taking a low-percentage play to get a two score lead would have been so much better than taking a high-percentage play to go two scores ahead.

Why do I need to explain it?

why not? You are rigidly sticking to your guns without really explaining why. Sexton nailed the penalty, we go 8 up meaning NZ need a converted try and either a penalty or a drop kick. Doable but not very likely. We go for a try (remember we werent getting much change out of the NZ defence in the entire second half), fail to get a try, leave NZ with needing only a try to draw and a converted try to win...all hypothetical, but the 3 points on offer, when the game was in the melting pot, was really the only option for a team who didnt look close to scoring a try at that stage (the players were pretty much out on their feet)

[trileacman]

Applesisapples.

You're talking through your hole, best to stop digging.

[Applesisapples]

Yes I know that, I was talking about the value of the next score, if you actually read my posts you'd understand that. I stand by what I said. However it is easy to do that when you are not the one making the calls in real time. Good Irish performance and wheter you and I agree or not won't take away from that.

You haven't explained why you are so certain that NZ would have gotten two scores in the time remaining (which they didn't!) yet think taking a low-percentage play to get a two score lead would have been so much better than taking a high-percentage play to go two scores ahead.

Why do I need to explain it?

Because, for the reasons I have outlined, it would be a stupid choice.

Well I disagree for the reasons I outlined that the All Blacks were always likely to get enough scores to beat 8 points given the heroic efforts Ireland had put in.

[AZOffaly]

If we had gone for a try and failed, we would be crucifying o'connell. It was a no brainer. Go for the points and get ahead by more than a converted try. There was only 7 remaining or something like that. Cup Rugby.  The debate to go for a try while simultaneously killing some clock would have a bit more merit if it was a difficult kick.

[AZOffaly]

Yes I know that, I was talking about the value of the next score, if you actually read my posts you'd understand that. I stand by what I said. However it is easy to do that when you are not the one making the calls in real time. Good Irish performance and wheter you and I agree or not won't take away from that.

You haven't explained why you are so certain that NZ would have gotten two scores in the time remaining (which they didn't!) yet think taking a low-percentage play to get a two score lead would have been so much better than taking a high-percentage play to go two scores ahead.

Why do I need to explain it?

Because, for the reasons I have outlined, it would be a stupid choice.

Well I disagree for the reasons I outlined that the All Blacks were always likely to get enough scores to beat 8 points given the heroic efforts Ireland had put in.

Sorry, that makes no sense. If they were always going to beat 8 points, they were probably always going to beat 12. They are not superhuman. Get the 3 points, win the restart and you would have won the game. Time would have beaten New Zealand.

[Applesisapples]

Applesisapples.

You're talking through your hole, best to stop digging.

No need to be rude. You don't agree thats fine. Unfortunately we have no way of finding out who is right. But having watched this All Blacks team over the last few years they always do what is needed to win. On Sunday after the penalty miss they knew a converted try was required. Had they needed an additional score the dynamic of the game would have changed as would the urgency. There is no way of knowing for sure if that is the case. Last time I looked it was OK to have an opinion that doesn't match yours...or am I missing something? Try not to resort to insults though it smacks of desperation.

[deiseach]

Well I disagree for the reasons I outlined that the All Blacks were always likely to get enough scores to beat 8 points given the heroic efforts Ireland had put in.

If you think they'd have gotten 8, you must also think they'd have gotten 14. Ireland might as well have just given up when they won the penalty and saved themselves the bruises.

[Applesisapples]

If we had gone for a try and failed, we would be crucifying o'connell. It was a no brainer. Go for the points and get ahead by more than a converted try. There was only 7 remaining or something like that. Cup Rugby.  The debate to go for a try while simultaneously killing some clock would have a bit more merit if it was a difficult kick.

As he missed it it is fair to assume with the added pressure it was a difficult kick even for a player like Sexton.

[thewobbler]

Yes I know that, I was talking about the value of the next score, if you actually read my posts you'd understand that. I stand by what I said. However it is easy to do that when you are not the one making the calls in real time. Good Irish performance and wheter you and I agree or not won't take away from that.

You haven't explained why you are so certain that NZ would have gotten two scores in the time remaining (which they didn't!) yet think taking a low-percentage play to get a two score lead would have been so much better than taking a high-percentage play to go two scores ahead.

Why do I need to explain it?

Because, for the reasons I have outlined, it would be a stupid choice.

Well I disagree for the reasons I outlined that the All Blacks were always likely to get enough scores to beat 8 points given the heroic efforts Ireland had put in.

I don't honestly believe there is a captain, coach or goal kicker in the world who would back up your strategy. Staying more than one score ahead in the closing stages is basically the golden rule of seeing a game out.

What you're suggesting is the same as taking on the difficult black when the blue puts your opponent needing snookers. The only situation that makes this the right shit is if you're on for a 147. Ireland weren't on for a 147, this was a scrap.

[AZOffaly]

If we had gone for a try and failed, we would be crucifying o'connell. It was a no brainer. Go for the points and get ahead by more than a converted try. There was only 7 remaining or something like that. Cup Rugby.  The debate to go for a try while simultaneously killing some clock would have a bit more merit if it was a difficult kick.

As he missed it it is fair to assume with the added pressure it was a difficult kick even for a player like Sexton.

It was a percentage play. You can't legislate for a top international kicker missing a 90% shot.

[Applesisapples]

Well I disagree for the reasons I outlined that the All Blacks were always likely to get enough scores to beat 8 points given the heroic efforts Ireland had put in.

If you think they'd have gotten 8, you must also think they'd have gotten 14. Ireland might as well have just given up when they won the penalty and saved themselves the bruises.

Not so I thought at that stage they could have got over the line. I'm not blaming O'Connell...read my posts I accept that the decision is easy from here and two days later. Toner probably was most culple of any for his stupidity in giving away the penalty.