Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Beating Ireland in World Cup

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    redmca
    Closed Accounts Posts: 115 ✭✭redmca


    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.


  • Options
    #33
    Steffano2002
    Registered Users Posts: 5,918 ✭✭✭Steffano2002


    zabbo wrote:
    If Laporte knew what he was at, France would be a team to be reckoned with ;)
    True enough! :D


  • Options
    #34
    Danie Gerber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭Danie Gerber


    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.


  • Options
    #35
    shaneor
    Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭shaneor


    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.


  • Options
    #36
    gosplan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭gosplan


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    gosplan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭gosplan


    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.


  • Options
    #38
    Danie Gerber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭Danie Gerber


    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.


  • Options
    #39
    Sangre
    Registered Users Posts: 12,153 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    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.


  • Options
    #40
    Danie Gerber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭Danie Gerber


    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.


  • Options
    #41
    gosplan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭gosplan


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Danie Gerber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭Danie Gerber


    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.


  • Options
    #43
    Stev_o
    Registered Users Posts: 9,249 ✭✭✭Stev_o


    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


  • Options
    #44
    Sangre
    Registered Users Posts: 12,153 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    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.


  • Options
    #45
    Danie Gerber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭Danie Gerber


    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.


  • Options
    #46
    Danie Gerber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭Danie Gerber


    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.


  • Options
    #47
    gosplan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭gosplan


    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.


  • Options
    #48
    gosplan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭gosplan


    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.


  • Options
    #49
    Sangre
    Registered Users Posts: 12,153 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    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.


  • Options
    #50
    Danie Gerber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭Danie Gerber


    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.


  • Options
    #51
    LostinBlanch
    Registered Users Posts: 2,908 ✭✭✭LostinBlanch


    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.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement