Cavan Forum

Cavan Seniors

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post


Replying To Loughduff Lad:  "Fair enough on the away or home slant, I was looking at it at simply drawing them at all which is of course more probable than 1 in 6. I get you now

Also, what happened to the reciprocal arrangement? I thought it was meant to be next time you play each other, it stitches. We had them at home 2019, and away 2020. Stands to reason we should be at home this time"
The chances of Drawing Monaghan were 1 in 3

drumalee11 (USA) - Posts: 266 - 06/11/2023 12:58:22    2511737

Link

Replying To drumalee11:  "The chances of Drawing Monaghan were 1 in 3"
Yes. That was my point above. The 3 probabilities was playing Monaghan, playing Derry, or not being drawn in this round. I wasn't considering the home/away angle

Loughduff Lad (Cavan) - Posts: 2335 - 06/11/2023 13:26:14    2511746

Link

Replying To drumalee11:  "I don't think they were good enough to win the WC.

They were however good enough to get past the Quarter Finals.

Ireland would not have beaten SA if pollard was in the squad. They had nightmare on the kicking tee that night. Pollard never missed a kick all tournament.

If they met them again who knows what would have happened but on the evidence we seen at the WC Ireland were ranked anywhere from 3rd to 5th."
Of course they were good enough to win it. We were one of the 4 best teams there, just happened that those 4 met in 2 quarter finals. Now they might not have won it if they got past the quarter, but they would be good enough

Ireland also turned down a lot of kicks too. Too simplistic to say they'd have won with Pollard on the pitch. They'd have adjusted their game if he was, and we'd have taken points etc They planned for what was there and won it. It's that simple

You also have to consider that they took some very long low % kicks. And off one of those, the ball came off the post and they scored their try from it. So far far too simplistic to say Libbock lost them that game and Pollard would have won it when he did other things happened on the back of those. Simple facts are we did win it

Loughduff Lad (Cavan) - Posts: 2335 - 06/11/2023 13:30:00    2511749

Link

Replying To Loughduff Lad:  "Of course they were good enough to win it. We were one of the 4 best teams there, just happened that those 4 met in 2 quarter finals. Now they might not have won it if they got past the quarter, but they would be good enough

Ireland also turned down a lot of kicks too. Too simplistic to say they'd have won with Pollard on the pitch. They'd have adjusted their game if he was, and we'd have taken points etc They planned for what was there and won it. It's that simple

You also have to consider that they took some very long low % kicks. And off one of those, the ball came off the post and they scored their try from it. So far far too simplistic to say Libbock lost them that game and Pollard would have won it when he did other things happened on the back of those. Simple facts are we did win it"
I'm not sure if i fully agree Pollard was the difference between them winning and losing the WC.

If Pollard was not on the pitch I don't think they'd have won either of their 3 knockout games either. His kicks were crucial in all 3 games.

Fair enough Ireland might still have beat South Africa if Pollard was playing on that day. But the reality is it was not a do or die game. When South Africa were faced with absolute adversity in the quarters and semis they pulled it out of the bag. When it wasn't do or die they didn't win and that is no coincidence. South Africa are the ultimate knockout rugby team and Ireland are not. Hence why they've won as many World Cups as Rugby Championships.

However lets not take away too much from the Ireland team, they were inches away from a semi, and a final really as they would have beat Argentina. But the reality is they didn't win and it was a massive missed opportunity.

drumalee11 (USA) - Posts: 266 - 06/11/2023 14:13:01    2511759

Link

Replying To drumalee11:  "I'm not sure if i fully agree Pollard was the difference between them winning and losing the WC.

If Pollard was not on the pitch I don't think they'd have won either of their 3 knockout games either. His kicks were crucial in all 3 games.

Fair enough Ireland might still have beat South Africa if Pollard was playing on that day. But the reality is it was not a do or die game. When South Africa were faced with absolute adversity in the quarters and semis they pulled it out of the bag. When it wasn't do or die they didn't win and that is no coincidence. South Africa are the ultimate knockout rugby team and Ireland are not. Hence why they've won as many World Cups as Rugby Championships.

However lets not take away too much from the Ireland team, they were inches away from a semi, and a final really as they would have beat Argentina. But the reality is they didn't win and it was a massive missed opportunity."
I think Pollard did allow them to play a certain type of game, and meant they could target scrums and such to get penalties and do what they needed to get over the line. Telling though how the semi went when they hooked Libbock after 30 mins. They were doing a bit of making it up as they went along based on what happened. It worked for them, but jeez it was tight going. Fell over the line in ways, even in NZ missing 2 kicks 2nd half that would have won them the final. Again, the tight margins between those 4 teams was so tight. Any of the 4 could have won it.

Ireland do need to learn that knockout rugby alright. I'd still say that they did better this time, in that they were in the game at the end which we were not usually (since 91 at least). As much as that hurt, they'll learn from that for 27. France and Ireland have the squad make-ups and talent coming through to both be there again. Hard to know which way NZ and SA will go. Both need to learn alright. It was hugely tight this time though,a nd they just about lost tight games. They're not far away

Conscious that we're blocking up Senior thread with rugby chat. They had a chance to win this, and were rightly one of the favourites and were very close even with a loaded draw. That's all. I'm going to leave it there

Loughduff Lad (Cavan) - Posts: 2335 - 06/11/2023 15:48:28    2511787

Link

Replying To Loughduff Lad:  "I think Pollard did allow them to play a certain type of game, and meant they could target scrums and such to get penalties and do what they needed to get over the line. Telling though how the semi went when they hooked Libbock after 30 mins. They were doing a bit of making it up as they went along based on what happened. It worked for them, but jeez it was tight going. Fell over the line in ways, even in NZ missing 2 kicks 2nd half that would have won them the final. Again, the tight margins between those 4 teams was so tight. Any of the 4 could have won it.

Ireland do need to learn that knockout rugby alright. I'd still say that they did better this time, in that they were in the game at the end which we were not usually (since 91 at least). As much as that hurt, they'll learn from that for 27. France and Ireland have the squad make-ups and talent coming through to both be there again. Hard to know which way NZ and SA will go. Both need to learn alright. It was hugely tight this time though,a nd they just about lost tight games. They're not far away

Conscious that we're blocking up Senior thread with rugby chat. They had a chance to win this, and were rightly one of the favourites and were very close even with a loaded draw. That's all. I'm going to leave it there"
Agree with you there.

SA tend to live on the edge and it could be interpreted as making it up as they go along, they're definitively not afraid to make big calls though. The games in a very healthy place in both France and Ireland in contrast to a lot of countries. Hopefully either can win it in 2027 for the sake of a Northern Hemisphere winner again.

Anyways back to the football as you said.

drumalee11 (USA) - Posts: 266 - 06/11/2023 17:08:45    2511806

Link