Steady Eddie has named the same team to play Scotland as faced England. Reddan onto the bench for the injured Boss is the only change to the 22. Think itâs the right decision myself, Tony Ward was arguing for giving a start to Neil Best, Flannery* and Trimble, and bringing Murphy back into the fold, to include guys & give them a shot, but Iâd rather see us finish off the Six Nations properly and give guys game-time in the summer and autumn internationals (actually for the summer games in Argentina I think we should leave our key players at home to avoid them being taken out before the World Cup).
In stark contrast, 10 changes to the English team, Wilkinson, Farrell and Vickery all injured, while Freshwater & Grewcock have been cut from the 22. Catt back in at 35, and anyone ever hear of Easter or Payne?
English team: J Lewsey (Wasps); J Robinson (Sale), M Tindall (Gloucester), M Catt (London Irish), D Strettle (Harlequins); T Flood (Newcastle), H Ellis (Leicester); T Payne (Wasps), G Chuter (Leicester), J White (Leicester), M Corry (Leicester), T Palmer (Wasps), J Worsley (Wasps), T Rees (Wasps), N Easter (Harlequins).
Replacements: L Mears (Bath), S Turner (Sale), L Deacon (Leicester), M Lund (Sale), S Perry (Bristol), S Geraghty (London Irish), M Tait (Newcastle).
I think Flanneryâs better than Best & should start for that reason but thatâs a separate argument.
Disappointing game and a disappointing performance. We werenât helped by the fact that Scotland were shite because we were clearly frustrated at our inability to put them away easily and it took them ages to get in front which sparked us into gear again.
Horgan had a poor game - making some awful decisions with the ball: he forced offloads that werenât on, he kicked badly and at the wrong times and he delayed passes too often.
Other than that nobody really stood out as playing all that badly - it was just a collectively bad effort, though DâArcy was excellent once again and Hayes put in a number of big hits. I think Rory Best probably played badly enough to give the jersey back to Flannery. His throwing in was inaccurate and he wasnât very prominent around the park.
Ulster will have plenty of work to do with Dewey on that performance. He turned the ball over a few times - including one crucial time at the end, and DâArcy burned him on the outside every time. Itâs no use having a battering ram if he canât offload or break tackles.
I suspect Ward and Thornley praise Rory Best just for the sake of being controversial. His throwing was awful today, two ruled crooked (I thought he as lucky only to be penalised twice for that) and one to the wrong man; and Flanneryâs always been better in the loose.
Looked at that OâGara incident again from all the angles, and while heâs down at the bottom of the ruck there doesnât appear to be a Scottish player near his neck, only the No 4 lying on his lower half. In fact John Hayes is lying on top of him. Also, who saw the incident? No Irish player reacted at the time as if theyâd seen anything untoward, and OâSullivan says himself he didnât see it, so the report could only be coming from OâGara himself, who was buried under Hayes & surely wouldnât have a proper view; much more likely in my opinion that someoneâs arm (Hayesâ probably) was pinned on top of him.
Crazy end to the Italy-Wales game, just watched the end of it again and White (the ref) clearly says âTen secondsâ and âTake it nowâ, and again âTen seconds leftâ just as Hook kicks. The clock on the TV (not sure if thatâs official) shows time as being up just as Hook kicks. But if there had been ten seconds left as Hook kicked, and noting that the linesmanâs flag goes up instantly, the fact that more than ten seconds passed as the Welsh walked to the line-out would be irrelevant, the line-out should have been taken. Thereâs more aspects to this I havenât figured out myself yet, but will look at it again tomorrow. Basically the officials fcuked up big time. But thought Italy deserved the win in any case.
Havenât seen much of the OâGara incident again but like you say Law it looked to be a worrying moment for him, and for Hayes who reacted to it, but there didnât seem to be much of a suggestion of foul play at the time.
Also agreed on Bestâs throwing - you could hear the crowd booing twice when the ball was clearly crooked but not picked up by the ref.
The Italy-Wales ending was awful refereeing. I donât think the referee is in charge of time anymore (he decides when to start and stop it, but there is someone else actually keeping track themselves) but he has a responsibility to get his facts right before he tells the players whatâs left.
Crazy referring alright in the Italy Wales game - Jenkins could lose his job on the head of that
Re Ireland game (man Iâm saying âreâ a lot recently) I genuinely think that Ward believed Best had a good game. He also thought both centres were âimmense againâ
What a bizarre weekend: cheering on blond-haired English wingers and outhalves as they come back from a 30-point drubbing by us to beat France. Will probably come down to points difference now, France are +42, weâre +38 and England are +13; France are home (to Scotland) & ourselves & England are away (to Italy & Rome). We play first, then France, then England. Since the result can so easily come down to points difference, all games should probably be at the same time, but it shouldnât make a difference: England are unlikely to make up the points deficit against us and France but the fact that theyâre playing after France should keep France honest. Itâs a big ask for us, but if we can put in a performance like the Australia or England ones we could put up a total to give us a great chance of our first title since 1985.
Yeah Iâd think weâve a cracking chance of winning the tournament but the order of play definitely works against us. Canât see England making up the points difference so it looks to me like a shootout between ourselves and France. We donât have much experience at this, and often struggle to put teams away when weâre expected to hammer them, so the bookies will probably favour France. That said I canât see us struggling two games in a row and I think weâll put the Italians away comfortably.
When there were only 2 games on (5 nations) I thiink the last games were usually played simultaneously but back then there wasnât even really a championship - there was no trophy for the winners for example I donât think.
TV now dictates it all, a couple of years ago they fixed the whole scheduling so it would end with France playing England under lights on the Saturday night I think it was. From memory the game was a dead rubber.
Dead right on the France-England game, Wales had already won the Grand Slam against us earlier that day.
For most of the 5 Nations it would have been much less of an issue anyway, as points difference wasnât used to determine the victor, rather the Championship was shared (around 1972/3 there was a season where each team won twice and there was a five-way tie).
I donât think the lack of a trophy is a big deal, the Triple Crown trophy is only two years old, and there is no trophy for winning a Grand Slam, but these have been no less valued for that. If we come out on top on Saturday the celebrations will be delayed but will be class.
Iâd say the likelihood is OâDriscoll given his familiarity with the rest of the pack and lineout calls with one of OâKelly or Hogan getting onto the bench, OâKelly if fit presumably.
Your comment abouts points difference Law was what I was trying to get at - basically either you won the grand slam/triple crown or the championship was shared more often that not. If Ireland won a triple crown and shared the overall championhsip it would be referred to as the âtriple crown seasonâ and there wouldnât be any reference really made to finishing joint top in the competition.
Anyone know the identity of the Scottish player who choked OâGara?
I dunno if we could gain publicity and notoriety by naming and shaming him like Eddie has refused to do. Maybe we could throw in an âallegedlyâ somewhere or make it obvious who it is without actually naming him by disclosing his club or position or something.
Think youâll be out of luck there Bandage, thereâs no evidence at all on the three video angles Iâve seen. Iâd just like to know who claims to have actually seen OâGara being choked: OâSullivan states he didnât see it, OâGara himself has said he didnât have a clue what was going on. Personally I find it much more likely that he swallowed his tongue with the force of the tackle.
Iâm going to suggest something very different here and itâs all based on EOS comment that ROG has the least idea because âhe went out like a lightâ.
Which of course he did because he was tackled hard, very hard by (I think) Nathan Hines, and in all probability he went out like a light when he hit the ground. The ruck then formed on top of him and as he was unconscious he was unable to breath and didnât know he wasnât breathing so he went blue. A nasty situation but one that can unfortunately happen in rugby. Now the thing is that EOS says that ROG was choked and weâre all talking about this, this put a very different slant on the fact that ROG was out for the count.
Because, if he was out because he was knocked unconscious as a result of a fair but hard tackle then really he shouldnât play next week and he shouldnât play for Munster in the QF as knocked out players have to miss time (is it 30 days? what is the rule here). So Eddie, quick of the mark comes out with his accusations I think even bearing the bad nature of the match an accusation that is nearly one of attempted murder is a bit much, but itâs got us all talking and we all now think that ROG was unconscious as a result of being choked (something that EOS says he didnât see, btw) rather than the more conventional hard tackle. The result for Eddie as I say is that ROG can play next week - and there is no replacement number 10, and ROG can play for Munster in the QF.
The big thing about this is though, that this is the second time this season that ROG has been knocked out on the field of play and the fact has been covered up and heâs played in the next match without taking time out. This is very bad for ROG and for Irish rugby that would take such risks with a player.
Interesting theory but itâs wrong I think.
Not sure of the other time being referred to but itâs factually wrong anyway. There was a 14 day concussion blanket which meant you couldnât play again within that timeframe if you were knocked out. This has since been replaced by the altogether more discretionary (but obviously medically sounder practice) of tests being conducted on the player. So the âbanâ on concussed players doesnât exist anymore and ROG will have to undergo medical examination anyway and a doctor will have to sign off on whether he is fit to take part next week or not.
Itâs a bit much suggesting that medical best practice is being ignored and ROGâs health is being jeopardised.
The comments about the Munster QF are also fanciful. When are those games - presumably outside the 14 day window? And why would Eddie OâSullivan go out of his way to secure his availability for Munster? Itâs a nice theory but your man got a bit carried away with the Leinster - Munster thing by speculating the HC games had anything to do with it, as though there was somehow a Munster hand in the deception too.
Is this actually the case? I thought the medical examination was only obligatory in the case of suspected concussion. In which case the conspiracy theory (for Rome, I agree the Munster element is a bridge too far) is still plausible imo.
The onus of declaring players fit is now on the team doctor. In the olden days they could rely on a hard and fast rule about concussion. These days if there is a suspicion of concussion the doctor must investigate and pass medical judgement. Itâs not a case of him giving ROG the all-clear because the media didnât find out about it. If the doctor wanted to lie he could just say âyeah he got concussion but heâs fine now.â I cannot imagine any doctor pretending he doesnât know that ROG was concussed just so he doesnât have to test him. The doctor (Gary OâDriscoll isnât it?) treated him on the park so heâll know whether itâs suspected concussion or not and will be obliged to act on it accordingly. If youâre suggesting heâll lie about whether concussion is suspected or not then why wouldnât he just lie about the results of his tests? Either way itâs malpractice and highly implausible IMO.