RugbyRebels

Len wrote:He fell into that too. Just kidding. That was high as fuck.

If Peyper had checked his inbox for directives from the IRB this week then a couple of All Blacks could have been in real trouble.

Mellsblue wrote:This is a bloody good test match.

Very much looking forward to England at the Aviva in the 6 nations.

Yes. People throwing themselves about. Great stuff.

Wow

16th man wrote:

Len wrote:He fell into that too. Just kidding. That was high as fuck.

If Peyper had checked his inbox for directives from the IRB this week then a couple of All Blacks could have been in real trouble.

Very pithy.

16th man wrote:

Len wrote:He fell into that too. Just kidding. That was high as fuck.

If Peyper had checked his inbox for directives from the IRB this week then a couple of All Blacks could have been in real trouble.

I changed his password. Tee hee.

Thats not to say Ireland would win. They only just made 1 line break.

Great hard nosed game. Ireland gave it a good thrash, given that they lost three key players in Sexton, Henshaw and Stander. O'Brien lasted the pace better than anticipated and looked like his old self,Van der Flier is a real live wire and Ringrose did not look out of place. Furlong shaping up as a tremendous TH and he's only 23. Great AB defence all game.

I thoroughly enjoyed that. Proper hard fought test match. Ireland just fierce for the full 80, and if they had managed to nab a try they would have gone berserk. ABs defence was superb though. Our loosies took a bit of a schooling, which is a project for Hansen. We need a big-hitting minter at 6. England Ireland in the 6N shaping up to be quite tasty.

Hopefully the two teams enjoyed a couple of shandies together afterwards.

Enormously frustrating game. We just weren't clever enough. We weren't clever enough with the ball and we weren't clever enough to adjust to the refereeing.

The big difference was the midfield. Ireland got no change whatsoever, they were constantly faced with a wall of black, whilst NZ made some telling line breaks. How much of that was losing Sexton and Henshaw, with a young 13 playing at 12, and how much to do with NZ tactics is difficult to say but it was, for me, a crucial factor.

Also, why is Cane picked ahead of Savea?

Mellsblue wrote:The big difference was the midfield. Ireland got no change whatsoever, they were constantly faced with a wall of black, whilst NZ made some telling line breaks. How much of that was losing Sexton and Henshaw, with a young 13 playing at 12, and how much to do with NZ tactics is difficult to say but it was, for me, a crucial factor.

Also, why is Cane picked ahead of Savea?

Small eyes and cruel bloodless lips.

Mellsblue wrote:
Also, why is Cane picked ahead of Savea?

I think for the same reason EJ doesn't touch Kvesic. They trust Cane not to lose in contact, whether going back in defence or getting over their ball to protect it.

morepork wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:The big difference was the midfield. Ireland got no change whatsoever, they were constantly faced with a wall of black, whilst NZ made some telling line breaks. How much of that was losing Sexton and Henshaw, with a young 13 playing at 12, and how much to do with NZ tactics is difficult to say but it was, for me, a crucial factor.

Also, why is Cane picked ahead of Savea?

Small eyes and cruel bloodless lips.

Heh.

It seems that some of your countrymen are a little more one-eyed about this test than the fine Irish members of this boards:

http://news.rugbypass.com/view/irish-fa ... lacks-game

Honestly, you get one win over us and some of you think you're now entitled to carry on like Welshmen. It's a poor look, Ireland, poor look.

Lizard wrote:It seems that some of your countrymen are a little more one-eyed about this test than the fine Irish members of this boards:

http://news.rugbypass.com/view/irish-fa ... lacks-game

Honestly, you get one win over us and some of you think you're now entitled to carry on like Welshmen. It's a poor look, Ireland, poor look.

Quite. I'm still just happy that Ireland unexpectedly but convincingly humped yer arse a couple of weeks ago in Chicago and got the monkey off our back.
From what I see, most genuine Ireland rugby fans who know a bit about the game, would acknowledge that, despite 60+% possession and territory, Ireland was not able to unlock the tremendous AB defence and score a try, while NZ took their chances and were worth the win. I did think Pyper had a poor game all round (and not his first one) but was not responsible for the Ireland loss.
A hard-fought two match series that ended in a draw. Pity there is not a decider with two fully fit teams going at it full bore.

Aye. Bloody good series it was. I don't mind the lack of decider. It will make the next test we have pretty tasty, too.

Lizard wrote:It seems that some of your countrymen are a little more one-eyed about this test than the fine Irish members of this boards:

http://news.rugbypass.com/view/irish-fa ... lacks-game

Honestly, you get one win over us and some of you think you're now entitled to carry on like Welshmen. It's a poor look, Ireland, poor look.

Yep. As SomethingAwful forums Rabbi T White put it:





Neither of those were even given penalties. Please continue on about the unfair reffing.

To be fair he gave ye a try instead of the penalty for the bottom one..

Could've been a penalty try, and it's actually preposterous that he wasn't carded, let alone cited for it.

I agree that it could have been a penalty try - only could, mind and then only because Pyper is so fecking feeble.

1st things 1st, Beaueuaudeuan didn't ground the ball, so no try scored. Pyper should have backed what he was seeing and not be swayed by the bloke in the portacabin. 2nd things 2nd, to compare the wrapping of arms and legs by Sexton in the chase with the full-on arm-swinging shyte that Pyper allowed to pass as tackles is grasping at straws. But then again, so was Sexton's efforts to stop Barrett scoring and so are Irish attempts to suggest that Pyper was responsible for us losing a test match that, despite the lion's share of possession, we never looked like winning. Pyper has form with failing to ref the brutality out of a French side that set out to push the limits against us in Paris last year, so we probably have more of a beef against him that any of your lads.

It was a hard fought test and you lot deserve to be able to enjoy the winning of it. No complaints from this Paddy.

There were too many high shots from the All Blacks. As well as the ones that were penalised, there were probably one or two more that should have been penalised, and a further two or three that could have been penalised.

I think the cited offences were appropriately dealt with on the day, so shouldn't receive further sanction. But I also think our careless tackling technique overall put us at risk, and it may be that we pay a price in the judiciary that we got away with on the field, to a certain extent.

cashead wrote:Could've been a penalty try, and it's actually preposterous that he wasn't carded, let alone cited for it.

citings are reserved for possible red card offences. sexton's tackle was high, but nowhere near a red.

cane's could have been, under the new directives. clearly shoulder to head.

i think fekitoa is unlucky to be cited.

I hereby claim the moral victory

I would like to claim a pyrrhic victory, but I'm not sure its worth the effort.

hellovating wrote:
i think fekitoa is unlucky to be cited.

Unlucky feckitoa, right enough.