Beating Ireland in World Cup

Tim Robbins · 21-08-2007 5:36pm #1

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. What do people think is the best tactical way to beat Ireland in the WC?

I say:

1. Breakdown is crucial, Ireland never play well with slow ball.
2. Scrummage as much as possible. I think Hayse has come on a lot in scrummaging, not sure about Horan though. If I was pack leader, I seriously considering calling for scrums as opposed to free kicks, or kicking for the lineout on the 5.
3. Use an in - out defense. No point using a rush defense against Drico and Dárce, they step off it easily. I would go for an in - out drift defense.
4. Aim for parity in the lineouts. I don't think O'Connell, O'Callaghan and Easterbunny can be torn apart here.
5.Ireland's weakest tacklers are:
O'Gara, Murphy, Stringer. Aim for all players.
6.Tell your 7, to ignore Stringer completly and hassel O'Gara as much as possible.

Snickers Man · 21-08-2007 5:55pm

Way too over elaborate.

Keep It Simple Stupid.

1. Bop O'Gara on the chin with a good high and late tackle early in the game. (or choke him out of it if you get him near the bottom of the ruck)

Not that he's brilliant or anything like, but he's a good reliable international class out half and he's the only one Ireland has.

If and when we play New Zealand I'll take any price anyone wants to lay that O'Gara won't make it to half time. They don't pussy foot around those Kiwis, nor do they leave anything to chance and there ain't no way they are going to risk being the first New Zealand team to fail to reach the semis and the first New Zealand team to lose to Ireland. Both of which would happen if we were to overcome them which COULD happen given a level playing field and a bit of luck.

2 Pick a big pack and stick to a pick and drive game. Don't kick the ball at these Irish backs. They have way too much of a cutting edge to risk defending against needlessly.

3 Agree with what you say about Stringer. The only way he'd ever score a try from a blindside break was if the opposition removed the blindside wing and told the blindside flanker to stay bound at the scrum no matter what.
(known in the trade as "Doing a Biarritz")

4 Pick a good kicker and take your points at scrum time (binding irregularities) and ruck time (offside, offside, offside again).

Tim Robbins · 21-08-2007 6:14pm

Snickers Man wrote:

Way too over elaborate.

Your's sound more elaborate than mine!

gosplan · 21-08-2007 8:36pm

Tim Robbins wrote:

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. What do people think is the best tactical way to beat Ireland in the WC?

Convince them they're favourites

Stev_o · 21-08-2007 9:08pm

Bully them at the breakdowns and play it out wide thats where things might start happening. Then pray some team outside the top10 manages to injure a key player.

Diamondmaker · 21-08-2007 9:57pm

Tim Robbins wrote:

Your's sound more elaborate than mine!

Both perfect plans IMO. Can a mod now please remove this thread so as we dont make it too easy for the competition!:D

Inquitus · 21-08-2007 9:58pm

Best way to beat us is to murder us upfront, do what Leicester did to Munster at Thomond. It's not an easy thing to do, and our lads had a big off day that day, and the knowledge that they could get away with losing in the back of their minds. It's definately where our weak spot is, get the pack on the back foot, at scrumtime and in the loose, pile the pressure on ROG and we are in for a tough day.

I don't think anyone in the world game can dismantle our Lineout, our half back axis is good as long as the pack has parity, and I'd pick our backline over pretty much any the world has to offer, but if they don't get the ball, it all counts for nowt.

Inqui

Tim Robbins · 22-08-2007 9:21am

What defensive system is best to use against Ireland?
1. In - out
2. Out - out
3. Rush
4. Bananna

I say in - out if Drico is playing, rush if Horgan ends up in the center.

daveirl · 22-08-2007 9:35am

This post has been deleted.

Snickers Man · 22-08-2007 10:37am

Tim Robbins wrote:

Your's sound more elaborate than mine!

to summarise:

1 Take O'Gara out of it early
2 Play pick and drive
3 Kick your points

Tim Robbins · 22-08-2007 10:43am

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Teams tend to stick to one.
In the VI nations France used Rush againsts us, and England used Bannana.
But you're still playing so probably know more than me, so give us your comments.

kevmy · 22-08-2007 10:52am

In fairness though O Gara is pretty tough and needs to be seriously taken out of it (ie. illegally) so you have to way up the cost of taking O Gara out. That means don't let Richie McCaw take him out.

dulpit · 22-08-2007 11:12am

Agree with what others say, target O'Gara early and often... If he's gone Ireland are a different team... Does anyone think Ireland would have a chance against the likes of France or the All Blacks with Paddy Wallace at no.10???

Kalashnikov_Kid · 22-08-2007 12:11pm

dulpit wrote:

Agree with what others say, target O'Gara early and often... If he's gone Ireland are a different team... Does anyone think Ireland would have a chance against the likes of France or the All Blacks with Paddy Wallace at no.10???

I dont think so. He can barely kick to touch and hasnt shown an ability to tactically control a game from 10 at international level. I read an article in last Sunday's Tribune that still suggested that Eddie would give Humphreys a ring before doing anything else, in the event of O'Gara being injured. Yeah I know its only the Tribune but I think that could easily happen. Please God we wont find out for sure.

High&Low · 22-08-2007 12:21pm

Scotland targetted O'Gara in this year's six nations (not counting the alleged choking). There were about 4 or 5 late tackles/challenges on him in the first half, O'Driscoll and O'Connell hit back at the challengers and O'Gara still managed to score all of Ireland's points that day. He is not that soft a target...

kevmy · 22-08-2007 1:46pm

dulpit wrote:

Does anyone think Ireland would have a chance against the likes of France or the All Blacks with Paddy Wallace at no.10???

No-one except Paddy Wallace's Ma.

We need ROG at full fitness but IMO we also need O' Connell, Drico, Hayes and Stringer (certainly if ROG is playing the partnership between the two is highly overlooked IMO) to be fully fit.

Of the major nations we are the ones most vulnerable to injury/suspension

Tim Robbins · 22-08-2007 1:49pm

High&Low wrote:

Scotland targetted O'Gara in this year's six nations (not counting the alleged choking). There were about 4 or 5 late tackles/challenges on him in the first half, O'Driscoll and O'Connell hit back at the challengers and O'Gara still managed to score all of Ireland's points that day. He is not that soft a target...

I don't buy into this targetting players thing. You hit people as often as you can, as hard as you can. That's rugby.
If you try to stamp on someone's knee or head, you might get away with it but it could also ruin your own career.

gosplan · 22-08-2007 1:59pm

Tim Robbins wrote:

I don't buy into this targetting players thing. You hit people as often as you can, as hard as you can. That's rugby.

Watch it happen if we meet the All Blacks.

First few attacking runs of theirs will be drives straight into O'Gara to test him.

When he gets the ball, one goes high, one goes low and CRUNCH!!!

Punchbowl · 22-08-2007 2:01pm

Are you getting all this Mr Henry?

Stev_o · 22-08-2007 2:13pm

gosplan wrote:

Watch it happen if we meet the All Blacks.

First few attacking runs of theirs will be drives straight into O'Gara to test him.

When he gets the ball, one goes high, one goes low and CRUNCH!!!

Well there isnt much wrong with it you know any backrow player will always test the opposition 10 at the start of the game and try to get him to have a nightmare game. Not sure about going to illegal high tackle but yes most backrow will go for the big double hits to get him down, just the way the position has been looked at since the olden days.

Now if ROG had Wilko's tackling my god would he piss off those backrows

Tim Robbins · 22-08-2007 3:20pm

gosplan wrote:

Watch it happen if we meet the All Blacks.

First few attacking runs of theirs will be drives straight into O'Gara to test him.

When he gets the ball, one goes high, one goes low and CRUNCH!!!

Which is legal and any player who gets a hospital pass or stands still with the ball will get creamed. It is Rugby.

daveirl · 22-08-2007 4:01pm

This post has been deleted.

Snickers Man · 22-08-2007 5:04pm

kevmy wrote:

In fairness though O Gara is pretty tough and needs to be seriously taken out of it (ie. illegally) so you have to way up the cost of taking O Gara out. That means don't let Richie McCaw take him out.

I think the Blacks would fancy their chances of beating us even with 14 men if O'Gara wasn't playing, so they could well get some forward monster to take him out. And, who knows, they could even get away with it. They are past masters at intimidating referees.

Not to mention citing commissioners with planes to catch.

kevmy · 22-08-2007 5:22pm

Snickers Man wrote:

I think the Blacks would fancy their chances of beating us even with 14 men if O'Gara wasn't playing, so they could well get some forward monster to take him out. And, who knows, they could even get away with it. They are past masters at intimidating referees.

Not to mention citing commissioners with planes to catch.

Ah well IMO we're already fcuked if we have to play NZ in the quarters - it means we've already failed to beat the French (or the Argies) - if thats the case we haven't a bollixing notion of beating them.

Only other place we can play them is the final and I don't think even the All Blacks would risk being down to 14 men (even for 10 mins) by going blatantly and illegally after ROG - it means too much to them. Now if it just happened normally in the game we would be rightly screwed

Stev_o · 22-08-2007 5:29pm

Snickers Man wrote:

I think the Blacks would fancy their chances of beating us even with 14 men if O'Gara wasn't playing, so they could well get some forward monster to take him out. And, who knows, they could even get away with it. They are past masters at intimidating referees.

Not to mention citing commissioners with planes to catch.

Again why do people think that teams enter the pitch with a predefined plan to injure a play. Trust me it rarely happens. Ask any player who has played at any level who injured a opposition and they'll say that it just happened out of the blue they didnt say in their mind "Great chance to remove a player here" they just go and do things without thinking and SOMETIMES it results in the opposing man getting injured. If you dont like it grow up and play football because injuries are expected in rugby you can prepare for them you just gotta make do

Tim Robbins · 22-08-2007 5:30pm

Snickers Man wrote:

I think the Blacks would fancy their chances of beating us even with 14 men if O'Gara wasn't playing, so they could well get some forward monster to take him out. And, who knows, they could even get away with it. They are past masters at intimidating referees.

Not to mention citing commissioners with planes to catch.

In the second test in 2006, they deliberately targetted O'Gara's weak tackling and sent McCallister right down at him. It was like watching an U14 player trying to tackle an U18 player.

zAbbo · 22-08-2007 6:32pm

Tim Robbins wrote:

In the second test in 2006, they deliberately targetted O'Gara's weak tackling and sent McCallister right down at him. It was like watching an U14 player trying to tackle an U18 player.

While McCallister doesn't look big, he's got 50lb's on ROG, while being a bit shorter. Some nice bulking there, he's probably the heaviest NZ back as well.

Steffano2002 · 22-08-2007 7:20pm

Diamondmaker wrote:

Both perfect plans IMO. Can a mod now please remove this thread so as we dont make it too easy for the competition!:D

Too late. I sent Bernard laporte the link to this thread and he printed it...

zAbbo · 22-08-2007 7:39pm

Steffano2002 wrote:

Too late. I sent Bernard laporte the link to this thread and he printed it...

Doesn't mean he'll read it

If Laporte knew what he was at, France would be a team to be reckoned with

Inquitus · 22-08-2007 7:42pm

kevmy wrote:

Ah well IMO we're already fcuked if we have to play NZ in the quarters - it means we've already failed to beat the French (or the Argies) - if thats the case we haven't a bollixing notion of beating them.

Only other place we can play them is the final and I don't think even the All Blacks would risk being down to 14 men (even for 10 mins) by going blatantly and illegally after ROG - it means too much to them. Now if it just happened normally in the game we would be rightly screwed

QFT, assuming we beat Argentina, our RWC hinges on the France game in Paris. We will either limp out in the Q/F or have a better than evens chance of making the Final imo, all depending on that one result.

dan719 · 22-08-2007 7:44pm

gosplan wrote:

Watch it happen if we meet the All Blacks.

First few attacking runs of theirs will be drives straight into O'Gara to test him.

When he gets the ball, one goes high, one goes low and CRUNCH!!!

If Ireland play the All Blacks perhaps Eddie would do the clever thing(again) and slot O'Gara in at full back for defensive scrums around the middle of the park. At breakdowns position become pretty much irrelevant anyway.

redmca · 23-08-2007 11:15am

dan719 wrote:

If Ireland play the All Blacks perhaps Eddie would do the clever thing(again) and slot O'Gara in at full back for defensive scrums around the middle of the park. At breakdowns position become pretty much irrelevant anyway.

I recall seeing O'Gara scrum down at No 8 with Leamy in the 10 position in defensive scrums for Munster (obviously not for 5 metre scrums etc). Could do worse .......

I agree with most who say that most injuries are random, ask Shane Horgan.
Also, with so much TV coverage, the citing risks are a lot greater for anyone with ideas of doing deliberate (Bayonne type) damage to an opponent.

Steffano2002 · 23-08-2007 11:40am

zabbo wrote:

If Laporte knew what he was at, France would be a team to be reckoned with

True enough!

Danie Gerber · 23-08-2007 11:53am

In the modern game no team takes the field with a view to "taking a player out". Too much to lose. Never mind yelow cards, it's the citing process and suspensions that are the real problem. They do however most definately target certain players in terms of pressure. It's often the 10 that gets targetted. Not to injure the player neccesarily but to rattle them, put them off their stride or disrupt their rythm and confidence.

Players in the Irish team that are normally targets are ROG, BOD and Stringer.

Teams playing AB's often target Carter and niggle and pester McCaw because when McCaw gets frustrated and irritated he gives away penalties. Also, when he's frustrated he doesn't seem to be half as effective because he starts playing the oppo as apposed to the ball.

Burger for the Boks are the same. So is Chabal for the French and Corry for England.

As for defence, the rush defence was created especially to combat players like Darcy and BOD. That's the defence I would use against them. Cut down space and don't give them room to step or time to spot the gaps.

In/out or drift defenses are better against the likes of England who don't have line breakers in midfield. Just shepperd them toward the touch line or tackle whoever takes up the crash ball.

shaneor · 23-08-2007 1:26pm

redmca wrote:

I recall seeing O'Gara scrum down at No 8 with Leamy in the 10 position in defensive scrums for Munster (obviously not for 5 metre scrums etc). Could do worse .......

I think our scrum would be under enough pressure from the ABs without replacing a No 8 with a back!

IMO the worries about O'Garas defense are a bit exaggerated. He's certainly no Wilkinson but he's improved a lot over the last year or so.

gosplan · 23-08-2007 1:52pm

Tim Robbins wrote:

Which is legal and any player who gets a hospital pass or stands still with the ball will get creamed. It is Rugby.

Obviously!!

All I'm saying is that I believe the All Blacks would target him and I think they will. I'm not saying injure or choke or spear-tackle, just focus on slamming into him particularly as they believe that to be one of his and therefore Ireland's weakpoints.

I haven't said it's dirty or illegal play or anything.

gosplan · 23-08-2007 1:55pm

Danie Gerber wrote:

In the modern game no team takes the field with a view to "taking a player out". Too much to lose.

I gotta disagree with this given the context of O'Driscoll's Lions tour injury.

It doesn't happen too often and IMO no-one will do it in a world cup but it does happen.

Danie Gerber · 23-08-2007 2:01pm

There's no way that Tana Umaga (maybe Mealamu) intended to "take BOD out" that day. It was exactly what I said in my previous post. He was targetted in terms of trying to intimidate him, put him off his stride and knock his confidence. They got a hold of him in the maul and dumped him. Did they huddle up before the maul and said to one another "ey look, there's Brian, you take one leg, I'll take the other and let's see if we can brake his neck!"

No, you can't seriously believe that they intended to end his tour.

Anyway, Umaga is hard, but very fair rugby player. Never seen him play dirty before that incident. t was heat of the moment stuff and the citing officials at the hearing saw it that way as well.

Sangre · 23-08-2007 2:20pm

Danie Gerber wrote:

As for defence, the rush defence was created especially to combat players like Darcy and BOD. That's the defence I would use against them. Cut down space and don't give them room to step or time to spot the gaps.

If you use a rush defense against Ireland be prepared to see the fall fly over your head until you start slowing down. When you have someone who can kick out of hand like ROG then an out and out rush defense is going to be punished, a lot.

Danie Gerber · 23-08-2007 3:39pm

You're dead right. If you employ a rush defense you anticipate that the opposition will start kicking for position to beat it. That's not a problem as long as you have a solid fulback to clear the kicks and a strong line-out to secure posession if these kicks you refer to go into touch.

But what you do achieve is firstly, Ireland are kicking away posession and secondly, since they're no longer running the ball up, BOD and Darcy can't do any damage.

Mission accomplished.

gosplan · 23-08-2007 3:59pm

Danie Gerber wrote:

They got a hold of him in the maul and dumped him.

Exactly. This can have different effects though. One being rattling a player and getting under his skin, another being injuring a player.

There's no way going into an (illegal) tackle that you can estimate exactly what kind of damage you're going to do to a player.

You can't say 'I'm going to give this guy a ruptured whatever and six weeks on the sidelines' but you can say 'I'm going to hurt him' which may or may not have those effects.

Danie Gerber · 23-08-2007 4:17pm

gosplan,

I gaurantee you that half of all challenges at international level, being legal or not are carried out with an attitude of "I'm going to hurt this guy". If all you want to do is force the opposition player to stop running with the ball then you should be playing tag-rugby instead.

At the same time not all illegal tackles are done with an attitude of "I'm going to hurt this guy" either.

My point is that it is highly unlikely any rugby player tackles an opposition player, legaly or otherwise thinking "I'm gonna hurt this guy so bad he can't play rugby anymore. Umaga and Mealamu (imo) didn't think that way either and there's no point trying to argue otherwise. Just not true.

Stev_o · 23-08-2007 4:34pm

Right gosplan go out and play a match right. After 20 minutes say in your head "Im going to get this opposition 10 and take him completely out". In all my years of playing iv never EVER have a thought in my head that says anything like that or what you described. Simply people just do things. In rugby you wont notice your mind and thoughts you just do things instinctively. I broke a lads leg in a semi final that all the opposition would have thought i did it on purpose when the real story was i was trying to prevent him breaking and ended up obstructing him leading him to fall over and break his leg.

In the heat of the moment in rugby you dont think you just do. When you think you loose seconds and thus that ll get you injured. All im saying is that most players that do bigs hits on someone will do it because their instinct tells them that it needs to be done at this very moment to stop the opposition and loosen their flow of play

Sangre · 23-08-2007 4:43pm

Danie Gerber wrote:

You're dead right. If you employ a rush defense you anticipate that the opposition will start kicking for position to beat it. That's not a problem as long as you have a solid fulback to clear the kicks and a strong line-out to secure posession if these kicks you refer to go into touch.

But what you do achieve is firstly, Ireland are kicking away posession and secondly, since they're no longer running the ball up, BOD and Darcy can't do any damage.

Mission accomplished.

Well firstly you're assuming that ROG will kick it to touch rather then just chip it over the centres between them and the fullback causing them to scramble back. Either Ireland can retrive possession while their defence isn't set or the opposition will be on the back foot.

Secondly if your wings aren't taking part in the out and out rush then a few skip passes means our wings are away with huge room. The centres are far from our only attacking threat. I'm happy to skip darcy and BOD if it gives Hickie some room to turn on the after burners.
If the wings are rushing then you've fullback who is trying to cover the whole pitch. Not something you want considering ROG is one of the game's best out of hand kickers. If he doesn't directly go for touch he'll put the fullback under big pressure and might result in them giving away penalties in their own half, which ROG will duly slot over. Finally, if ROG does aim for the touches then you'll have to compete will possibly the best lineout in the wolrd.

Basically a full rush defence will probably leave you spending a lot of the match under pressure in your own half/22, which no team wants.

Danie Gerber · 23-08-2007 5:28pm

I'm not assuming he will kick it out of touch all the time which is why I made the point about a solid fullback.

During the rush defense the fullback normally positions himself closer to the defending line and behind the rushing centres for two reasons, fielding the chip, and sweeping any attackers breaching the rushing line. Once the attacking backline is away the blindside wing also drifts accross behind your fullback to cover.

Full rush defending systems are rare. The wing almost always covers the line. You rush inward closing down 10, 12, 13. If the ball get to the wing you've failed and then the likes of Hickie can be dangerous.

Another thing (you can ask the AB's about this), skip-passing while your under pressure to get the ball to the wings almost never works smoothly. It's the stuff of intercept tries that... (Habana has made a career of it).

The way to beat the rush defense is not kicking the ball away, neither is it skip-passing to the wings, it's varying the backline play so that the rush defense can't line-up against you properly. Change the angle of the attack. Bash up with your forwards. Keep the ball close to the heavies and then maybe use the blindside on second or fourth phase. Remember the rush defensive line is sitting right on the off side line ready to "rush". Go blindside and you will have space. Fourth, fifth, sixth phase and that rush defensive line is nowhere in sight.

If what you said "a full rush defence will probably leave you spending a lot of the match under pressure in your own half/22, which no team wants", is true, why then does so many (most) teams employ a version of it at some or other time. It does work (first and second phase attack), but you have to do it right.

Danie Gerber · 23-08-2007 5:36pm

And one more thing. Kicking into touch is kicking away posession no matter how you look at it.

Ireland have a good line-out but O'Conell and Co won't take too many opposition throw-inns against Matfield, Ali Williams, Chris jack, Dan Vickerman, Nathan Sharpe or Pelous for that matter.

gosplan · 23-08-2007 9:04pm

Danie Gerber wrote:

My point is that it is highly unlikely any rugby player tackles an opposition player, legaly or otherwise thinking "I'm gonna hurt this guy so bad he can't play rugby anymore. Umaga and Mealamu (imo) didn't think that way either and there's no point trying to argue otherwise. Just not true.

It is highly unlikely and I've agreed with you. People do aim to hurt people but most of the time it's within the rules. The reason some tackles are illegal is because catching someone head high or driving them neck first into the ground can really hurt them.

I'll agree that these things happen in the heat of the game and that's always going to happen but it was suspicious happening so early in the first game.

gosplan · 23-08-2007 9:11pm

Stev_o wrote:

All im saying is that most players that do bigs hits on someone will do it because their instinct tells them that it needs to be done at this very moment to stop the opposition and loosen their flow of play

I agree with this two. Big hits are the aim of the game.

We'll disagree all day but all I'm saying is that by targeting BOD so early in that first match they were trying to hurt him.

I'm not sure that they wanted to actually put him out of the game but when you try to hurt someone in that manner you have to accept that it's a real possibility.

The fact that it was an immediate 'pick him up and neck first into the ground' makes me believe it was premeditated. Sure they probably wanted him to play on but they should have lined him up and hit him within the rules then.

Sangre · 24-08-2007 9:54am

During the rush defense the fullback normally positions himself closer to the defending line and behind the rushing centres for two reasons, fielding the chip, and sweeping any attackers breaching the rushing line. Once the attacking backline is away the blindside wing also drifts accross behind your fullback to cover.

If the fullback is closer to the defensive line then boot it over his head and chase hard and fast. This forces him to kick it into touch so we keep possession and make a few yards.

I'm not really disagreeing with your points but I don't think a rush is the best defense against Ireland. Although clearly the best defense against the Irish backs is slow ruck ball.

p.s im not saying a good rush defense won't dampen our backs im trying to say that most teams are leaving themselves too open against ROG doing it.

Danie Gerber · 24-08-2007 12:51pm

Fair enough, but in my opinion a well thought out rush defense is the best defence against Ireland. The alternatives are more risky to my mind and by that I mean giving BOD and Darcy room and space.

There's ways and means to overcome every defensive pattern, if there wasn't nobody would ever score off first phase posession yet it happens. But if I was the opposition coach against Ireland, I would get my defense right up in the faces of BOD and Darcy even before the ball gets to them, get my fullback or blindside wing to cover the chip and cover and let the openside wing field the longer and touch kicks.

I know that all sound very simple when it's not but it's what I would do. Same again if the opposition was the AB's.

LostinBlanch · 24-08-2007 9:54pm

Hasn't tonights game shown how to beat us/

We only got out of jail thanks to a homer* of a ref!

*More D'Oh than Odyssey and Illiad.

Beating Ireland in World Cup

Comments