Ireland and Tactics - What are they? What should they be? What could they be?

anonymous_joe

So... Today...

Let's at least try and learn from this humiliation.

New Zealand play fast, high intensity rugby, with a lot of creative freedom. Offloading is key, set pieces are ignored.

Now. Ireland.

We play an astonishingly structured game. We rely heavily on lineouts especially for attacking platform. We kick almost everything. Added to that, we've sacrificed scrummaging, and given up on counter attacking.

Ireland in the last few seasons have become a byword for kicking and shíte rugby. We are the least attractive international side to watch bar Scotland and Italy.

Players like Tommy Bowe, Trimble, Earls, etc are not used in an attacking sense to anywhere near their potential. We rarely if ever pass the ball. O'Gara does nothing but kick, Tomás O'Leary does nothing but kick (we all saw what happened today when he passes ) so we dramatically underuse our attacking resources.

So what do we do? Do we continue playing the same way? Do we go for a dramatic shift in style? Our we making the most of the resources we have?

Risteard

anonymous_joe wrote: »

...

Simple Rugby tbh. I'm not suggesting that we go out and run the ball from our own line but less emphasis maybe on calls and more on playing with heads up.

Kearney is capable of counter-attacking (unfortuneately his hands turn to glue when he does so) but he can break tackles, too often his first option is to kick.

IMO the likes of Earls, Fitzgerald, Trimble,Bowe, Murphy and Kearney are very capable of running the ball back and counter attacking.

It's not necessarily all offloading but it's just keeping the ball. As my coach at school said 'If you have the ball, how can they score?.'

I mean the new interpretations at the breakdown favour the attacking team so as long as you have decent support you should be capable of winning the ball back and hopefully getting quick ball.

Another thing I've noticed a lot of French teams doing is if they're in the 22 and the ball is slow, just sit back and drop-kick it. If you have ****e ball and the defence is set, grab 3 points.

Rugby when you get down to the nuts and bolts is a simple game to play. Do the basics right and effectively. Use and hold the ball intelligently instead of kicking it away all the time.

That's my take on it anyway.

thehighground

anonymous_joe wrote: »

So... Today...

Let's at least try and learn from this humiliation.

New Zealand play fast, high intensity rugby, with a lot of creative freedom. Offloading is key, set pieces are ignored.

Now. Ireland.

We play an astonishingly structured game. We rely heavily on lineouts especially for attacking platform. We kick almost everything. Added to that, we've sacrificed scrummaging, and given up on counter attacking.

Ireland in the last few seasons have become a byword for kicking and shíte rugby. We are the least attractive international side to watch bar Scotland and Italy.

Players like Tommy Bowe, Trimble, Earls, etc are not used in an attacking sense to anywhere near their potential. We rarely if ever pass the ball. O'Gara does nothing but kick, Tomás O'Leary does nothing but kick (we all saw what happened today when he passes ) so we dramatically underuse our attacking resources.

So what do we do? Do we continue playing the same way? Do we go for a dramatic shift in style? Our we making the most of the resources we have?

The stats don't support your theory about kicking and passing. Have a look

http://www.scrum.com/scrum/rugby/match/103843.html

anonymous_joe

Risteard wrote: »

Simple Rugby tbh. I'm not suggesting that we go out and run the ball from our own line but less emphasis maybe on calls and more on playing with heads up.

Kearney is capable of counter-attacking (unfortuneately his hands turn to glue when he does so) but he can break tackles, too often his first option is to kick.

IMO the likes of Earls, Fitzgerald, Trimble,Bowe, Murphy and Kearney are very capable of running the ball back and counter attacking.

It's not necessarily all offloading but it's just keeping the ball. As my coach at school said 'If you have the ball, how can they score?.'

I mean the new interpretations at the breakdown favour the attacking team so as long as you have decent support you should be capable of winning the ball back and hopefully getting quick ball.

Another thing I've noticed a lot of French teams doing is if they're in the 22 and the ball is slow, just sit back and drop-kick it. If you have ****e ball and the defence is set, grab 3 points.

Rugby when you get down to the nuts and bolts is a simple game to play. Do the basics right and effectively. Use and hold the ball intelligently instead of kicking it away all the time.

That's my take on it anyway.

I do agree with you on holding the ball. We don't seem to want the ball anymore. It doesn't make sense really.

And yeah, Kearney's hands annoy the bejesus out of me. Certainly though, a side with Bowe, Trimble, Earls, Fitzgerald, D'Arcy, Paddy Wallace, Geordan Murphy, O'Driscoll, Kearney (not even getting to the likes of Ferris, Wallace, Heaslip and so on) should not be so unwilling to run with the poxy ball.

thehighground wrote: »

The stats don't support your theory about kicking and passing. Have a look

http://www.scrum.com/scrum/rugby/match/103843.html

Ironic really. :P

I hope you know what I mean though. We seem to lack the desire to run and attack from anywhere, and to play a more unstructured game. We're too focused on strict kicking games, and so on.

Nilther

My main concern is are the tactics wrong or are the players not implementing the tactic correctly?

Example: In todays game, when Ireland kicked ball away it seemed never to be to touch. If this was the tactic someone needs a smack on the head, it just invites NZ back three to run back and usually they do it very well. If it wasn't a tactic then ROG, Kearney and any others who kicked poorly need a smack in the head. (Note: todays game is a poor example what with it being a write-off after the Red.. France in the 6N this year is another example.)

As for looking forward, I would like to see improved lines of running from set plays. All we seem to have is skip to ODriscol or D'arcy truck it up. If you look at NZ in a set piece move there's superb lines being run by everyone. Gaffney needs to get the thumb out.

Also, improvement of offloading is necessary. None of this stupid throwing the ball away in the tackle looking for an offload that's not on.

danthefan

The stats there say Sexton passed the ball as many times as ROG.

thehighground

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Ironic really. :P

I hope you know what I mean though. We seem to lack the desire to run and attack from anywhere, and to play a more unstructured game. We're too focused on strict kicking games, and so on.

You want us to be Wales, Right?

anonymous_joe

thehighground wrote: »

You want us to be Wales, Right?

Interesting point.

I'd prefer if we were more like New Zealand. We have good enough backs and mobile backrow forwards to play high intensity rugby. Add to that, our recent strategy of sitting back and defending will not be sustainable with the new tackle laws. It gives more momentum to the attackers, and given that teams like Australia, New Zealand and so on are so happy to run at us, gifting them the ball with errant kicking and offering little attacking threat will do us no good.

I mean, let's look at it this way - we're going to be playing Australia in the World Cup - would you want to let a team with Quade Cooper, Genia, O'Connor, Giteau and so on run at you with impunity?

Teg Veece

I think people can talk all they want about playing an offloading game, putting the ball through the hands more instead of kicking for territory etc. but the biggest factor is just the physicality of the players.

Every time an All Black player hit the Irish defence he made yards and sucked in 2 or 3 players. The Irish attackers, in contrast, were often knocked backwards.
The All Blacks could afford to commit less players to the rucks and just fan out across the pitch whereas the Irish players had to pile in players to ensure they got the ball back which meant the Kiwis could frequently double team an Irish ball carrier.

Until Ireland can match New Zealand physically, then you can discuss game strategies till the cows come home but it's not gonna make much difference.

thehighground

danthefan wrote: »

The stats there say Sexton passed the ball as many times as ROG.

And whats your point? Sexton was on the pitch 10 mins and he didn't make a tackle.

The relevant stats to this thread show that Ireland kicked about the same amount as the ABs and that Ireland passed a lot more than they did.

thehighground

Teg Veece wrote: »

I think people can talk all they want about playing an offloading game, putting the ball through the hands more instead of kicking for territory etc. but the biggest factor is just the physicality of the players.

Every time an All Black player hit the Irish defence he made yards and sucked in 2 or 3 players. The Irish attackers, in contrast, were often knocked backwards.
The All Blacks could afford to commit less players to the rucks and just fan out across the pitch whereas the Irish players had to pile in players to ensure they got the ball back which meant the Kiwis could frequently double team an Irish ball carrier.

Until Ireland can match New Zealand physically, then you can discuss game strategies till the cows come home but it's not gonna make much difference.

Very good post. The ABs are just bigger, stronger & faster. Mushy was probably the only one who could match them for strength.

irishbucsfan

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Interesting point.

I'd prefer if we were more like New Zealand. We have good enough backs and mobile backrow forwards to play high intensity rugby. Add to that, our recent strategy of sitting back and defending will not be sustainable with the new tackle laws. It gives more momentum to the attackers, and given that teams like Australia, New Zealand and so on are so happy to run at us, gifting them the ball with errant kicking and offering little attacking threat will do us no good.

I mean, let's look at it this way - we're going to be playing Australia in the World Cup - would you want to let a team with Quade Cooper, Genia, O'Connor, Giteau and so on run at you with impunity?

It's an interesting topic. I should say I haven't been able to watch the NZ game yet, so I can't comment on that.

I don't think we could ever be "like New Zealand." I don't think our forwards have the natural strength to be able to sit with possession for a large period of time with enough comfort to prevent mistakes. Opposition like SANZAR nations and France/England have larger forwards who have more ability/success on the ground, so long periods of attacking play are not something I think we'll see from Irish teams, or something we should be looking at as "plan A" if we want to win.

I think we should look to use the aerial ability of our players to pin teams back and try to win the territory battle. Both our 10s are great kickers out of hand and we also have ability there with our centers (BOD, Wallace, Earls, McFadden can all kick to some extent) and our fullbacks. Also, in Fitzgerald/Bowe/Kearney/Murphy we have back 3 players who are dominant in the air.

In order for that to work we need to regain our dominance in the lineout. Maybe that means looking at Cullen more, I don't know, but however we can we should look to get back to the days when we could challenge any team in the world on both our own possession and on theirs. If we're sure of winning our own ball and can win maybe 20% of the oppositions ball in dangerous positions then we can start scoring far more points, through Sexton's sure kicking (as it looks like he'll be our 10) or by taking the chances we're sure to get.

JustinDee

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Ireland in the last few seasons have become a byword for kicking and shíte rugby. We are the least attractive international side to watch bar Scotland and Italy

I would respectfully disagree with that and not out of bias either.
When Ireland get tries, its usually a back scoring them, even against negative sides like the two you mention and England or Argentina (two sides I will only watch if I have to).

You play to your strengths when up against quality opposition and if this means mixing up a territorial game & counter-attacking in a tight encounter with some set-piece eye-candy in order to win then personally I'm fine with that. People tend to forget the manner of a win once their team wins. When there is a loss, knee-jerk overreaction like some of the other posters in this forum for example tends to come to the fore.
All human nature however and is no different in any other sport.

toomevara

From todays Indo piece by Frankie Sheahan:

How do you beat New Zealand? This is the $64,000 question. In Munster, we gave it a good crack in 2008, so we learned a bit about what to do and also what not to do.

Firstly, you must put them under an incredible amount of pressure and play a structured game at your pace, not theirs. You cannot miss kicks for touch or throw loose passes. You cannot let them take quick taps or quick lineouts because this will allow them to increase the pace and create mismatches -- in other words, outside backs running at tight-five forwards.

You must own the ball and not give it away. Two of the most obvious ones for me though, and which became the biggest problems during the game, were defence and ball retention.

There is no doubt in my mind that the sending off of Jamie Heaslip and the sin binning of Ronan O'Gara were key moments because New Zealand scored 21 points in that period. However, the main area that really disappointed me was our defence and I would imagine that Les Kiss's defensive video session during the week will be like a scene from The Exorcist.

In defence, the idea is to first get organised and mark a man. You must then tackle the ball carrier and hold onto him -- if possible, at a height which will not allow him to pass it; then, finally, you must slow up the ball so that your defence can get organised for the next phase of play. We did not do any of these effectively and this allowed the All Blacks to look a far better side then I believe they are.

I must say that the body language of some of the players worried me before the kick-off. You may have noticed how relaxed, even complacent, they looked. Jamie Heaslip's departure should not be used as a smokescreen because even when he was on the pitch, New Zealand were allowed to run freely through holes and over the top of us and, more importantly, left with free arms to off-load the ball in contact.

Essentially thats how you do it...very simple in theory, devilish difficult in practice.

CatFromHue

thehighground wrote: »

Very good post. The ABs are just bigger, stronger & faster. Mushy was probably the only one who could match them for strength.

i think it may have been warren gatland who said that the southern hemisphere teams aren't fitter or stronger its that they play at a higher intensity.

if you look back at yesterdays game how many times did an irish forward take the ball standing and then move in to contact? it was alot id say.

whereas when you look at what the kiwis did they had runners coming at pace onto the ball, meeting a static irish defence.

this is a real area we can improve on that would reap huge dividends in my opinion

i must admit paul o connel is a demon for doing this

Arrogance

thehighground wrote: »

And whats your point? Sexton was on the pitch 10 mins and he didn't make a tackle.

Probably due to the fact that Sexton didnt have anyone run at him in those 10minutes.

Incredible to think though that in 10mins Sexton passed the ball as many times as ROG did in 70mins. I dont think anyone will deny that our backline looked at its most threatening when Sexton and Reddan came on. In the opening 5mins Sexton nearly set up 2 tries in both opposite corners. This guy needs to start, O'Gara to the bench.

JustinDee

toomevara wrote: »

Essentially thats how you do it...very simple in theory, devilish difficult in practice.

Its called the 'bleedin obvious' and is exactly as I said earlier, telling someone to run faster if they want to beat Usain Bolt.

phog

danthefan wrote: »

The stats there say Sexton passed the ball as many times as ROG.

and as many times as BOD.

thehighground

Arrogance wrote: »

Probably due to the fact that Sexton didnt have anyone run at him in those 10minutes.

Incredible to think though that in 10mins Sexton passed the ball as many times as ROG did in 70mins. I dont think anyone will deny that our backline looked at its most threatening when Sexton and Reddan came on. In the opening 5mins Sexton nearly set up 2 tries in both opposite corners. This guy needs to start, O'Gara to the bench.

If you look at the stats O'Leary did most of the passing. Another way of looking it it is that Reddan passes a lot more to his FH (and doesn't kick at all!).

Sexton didn't have Dan Carter as his opposite number either and that was Cruden's first cap. Ireland scored two tries when Carter went off. And the All Blacks still managed to score a try as well when Sexton & Reddan came on, despite all the AB newbies.

Arrogance

thehighground wrote: »

If you look at the stats O'Leary did most of the passing. Another way of looking it it is that Reddan passes a lot more to his FH (and doesn't kick at all!).

Sexton didn't have Dan Carter as his opposite number either and that was Cruden's first cap. Ireland scored two tries when Carter went off. And the All Blacks still managed to score a try as well when Sexton & Reddan came on, despite all the AB newbies.

Are you trying to lay the blame for a NZ try on Sexton and Reddan? I just want to clear that up because it looks like you are which is completely ridiculous.

I do agree though that Reddan was a reason for the improvement too.

Arrogance

phog wrote: »

and as many times as BOD.

Outhalfs generally pass more than 2nd centres.

profitius

People forget that the golden generation didn't have high skill levels generally. The likes of Shane Horgan won nearly 70 caps because he was big and fast. The Irish forwards always go to ground to recycle the ball which suits the other teams fine.

Theres also this negative belief that taking risks are bad. In the HEC semi final Mushy got criticised because he threw a risk pass to ROG when Munster HAD to take risks. Thats typical of Irish and British rugby with the exception of Wales. And its the Welsh who have the best ball skills in Europe in terms of playing numbers.

You have an under 20 squad at the world cup that was sent out to play a conservative game. They just kicked the ball away all the time.

Arrogance

Kind of disheartening that Ireland's 'golden generation' could only accomplish being the fourth best team in Europe in the last 10 years. England, France and Wales have all been better.

thehighground

Arrogance wrote: »

Are you trying to lay the blame for a NZ try on Sexton and Reddan? I just want to clear that up because it looks like you are which is completely ridiculous.

I do agree though that Reddan was a reason for the improvement too.

Just pointing out its a team game really. O'Leary does very good cover defense as he has the physicality and the pace to do it. Tackling Props is no bother to him when they are near the try line.

Now, can you admit that Dan Carter is more of an attacking threat than Cruden?

Arrogance

thehighground wrote: »

Just pointing out its a team game really. O'Leary does very good cover defense as he has the physicality and the pace to do it. Tackling Props is no bother to him when they are near the try line.

Now, can you admit that Dan Carter is more of an attacking threat than Cruden?

Could you just answer the question rather than being evasive. Are you implying that had O'Leary been on the pitch then NZ wouldnt of scored the try they did when Reddan was on? Yes or no will suffice. Also last time I checked O'Leary made an illegal high hit on a prop on the try line.

Also of course Dan Carter is more of an attacking threat than Cruden but how that affects O'Gara's ability to pass the ball I dont know.

danthefan

Arrogance wrote: »

Could you just answer the question rather than being evasive. Are you implying that had O'Leary been on the pitch then NZ wouldnt of scored the try they did when Reddan was on? Yes or no will suffice. Also last time I checked O'Leary made an illegal high hit on a prop on the try line.

Also of course Dan Carter is more of an attacking threat than Cruden but how that affects O'Gara's ability to pass the ball I dont know.

TOL was directly responsible for one of the NZ tries with his rubbish passing.

thehighground

Arrogance wrote: »

Could you just answer the question rather than being evasive. Are you implying that had O'Leary been on the pitch then NZ wouldnt of scored the try they did when Reddan was on? Yes or no will suffice. Also last time I checked O'Leary made an illegal high hit on a prop on the try line.

Its not as simple as a yes or no. Tomas O'Leary is a far better defender and far more physical and has better pace than Reddan.

Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4wKr3DgynA&feature=related

and this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM5c77ENMzw

And have you no sense of humour with regard to the illegal tackle?

Also of course Dan Carter is more of an attacking threat than Cruden but how that affects O'Gara's ability to pass the ball I dont know.

You said that Sexton & Reddan were better against the All Blacks. Facts are they weren't playing the same team. O'Gara v. Carter. Sexton v. Cruden. When Carter went off, Ireland scored two tries.

The fact that O'Gara didn't have his hands on the ball to pass it might also be the reason. (I.e., O'Leary's passing and kicking are more varied than Reddans).

Check Sexton's passing when playing with O'leary - For the game against SA. Sexton was 14/14/3; O'Leary 13/45/10.

danthefan

So TOL has to go, simple.

thehighground

danthefan wrote: »

So TOL has to go, simple.

Neither scrum halves are complete. You have to weigh up whether you want a pacy, physical scrumhalf or someone with a marginally better pass. With Heaslip off the pitch, there is no way Reddan could have been put on earlier as the pack was going to struggle without Heaslip anyway.

It will be interesting to see who starts against the Maori who will also be very physical.

Reddan might do well against Australia.

Kiwi_knock

We need to improve what we do with the ball. We are not a team that can retain the ball for lots of phases, we prefer to let the opposition come at us. The great thing about NZ is that their 1-15 will make ground when given the ball, you can not say that about Ireland. We rely to heavily on certain players to make the yards, the opposition know who they are and have them marked and lined up for the tackle. The lines we run with ball in hand are dreadful sometimes, very predictable. Run straight into opposition and set up the ruck. Very rarely to the back look to run different lines and actually try and look for gaps to expose the defence. Most teams have figured out Ireland and our approach, we have to change otherwise it could be a disastrous 6N and World Cup.

Nilther

I don't really think we have any scrum halves up to the required level which is disappointing.

TOL is infuriating to watch, he just doesn't have the brain of a scrum half. Seems to love taking contact around the ruck while 4 forwards watch him. I mean come on Tomas, give it to them to truck up!

Reddan has blown hot and cold all season. Don't think he ever really did enough to dislodge TOL. Maybe when Kidney finally rests on Sexton as first choice Reddan will also move up the pecking order.

If I had to pick right now I'd pick Reddan and give him another run at this level, see if he ups his game.

anonymous_joe

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's an interesting topic. I should say I haven't been able to watch the NZ game yet, so I can't comment on that.

I don't think we could ever be "like New Zealand." I don't think our forwards have the natural strength to be able to sit with possession for a large period of time with enough comfort to prevent mistakes. Opposition like SANZAR nations and France/England have larger forwards who have more ability/success on the ground, so long periods of attacking play are not something I think we'll see from Irish teams, or something we should be looking at as "plan A" if we want to win.

Heaslip, Ferris, David Wallace - all of them love to run with the ball. All our comfortable with it. We underestimate our own abilities.

Also, we often have bigger heavier packs than other countries. What we lack is technique and, to be blunt, aggression. Props like Barcella and Domingo are far more mobile and visible than our own equivalents.

Our second rows also have a habit of being a little bit short on grunt (in relative terms here, this isn't a dig) and oriented more towards the lineout, which we tend to dominate.

I think we should look to use the aerial ability of our players to pin teams back and try to win the territory battle. Both our 10s are great kickers out of hand and we also have ability there with our centers (BOD, Wallace, Earls, McFadden can all kick to some extent) and our fullbacks. Also, in Fitzgerald/Bowe/Kearney/Murphy we have back 3 players who are dominant in the air.

In order for that to work we need to regain our dominance in the lineout. Maybe that means looking at Cullen more, I don't know, but however we can we should look to get back to the days when we could challenge any team in the world on both our own possession and on theirs. If we're sure of winning our own ball and can win maybe 20% of the oppositions ball in dangerous positions then we can start scoring far more points, through Sexton's sure kicking (as it looks like he'll be our 10) or by taking the chances we're sure to get.

Our obsession with and reliance upon the lineout worry me. Ireland score an obscence amount of our tries from lineouts. The problem though, has become one of reliance.

We're like a football team that can only score from freekicks, corners and penalties. It's great to have the ability to score from lineouts, we need to learn to play without them again though. Look at the talent of our backline, first choice right now we could have;

A Scrum Half - Sexton
D'Arcy/Wallace - O'Driscoll
Fitz/Kearney/Bowe/Earls/Trimble

All of those players can run with the ball in hand, all have the eye for gaps, etc, and some have the pace/nous to take advantage of those gaps. We need to do this more often.

JustinDee wrote: »

I would respectfully disagree with that and not out of bias either.
When Ireland get tries, its usually a back scoring them, even against negative sides like the two you mention and England or Argentina (two sides I will only watch if I have to).

You play to your strengths when up against quality opposition and if this means mixing up a territorial game & counter-attacking in a tight encounter with some set-piece eye-candy in order to win then personally I'm fine with that. People tend to forget the manner of a win once their team wins. When there is a loss, knee-jerk overreaction like some of the other posters in this forum for example tends to come to the fore.
All human nature however and is no different in any other sport.

An enormous amount of the tries our backs score come from set plays. Our backline is up there with the best in the world, namely, France, South Africa, Wales, Australia and New Zealand in terms of individual skill, etc. We do not give it the freedom to play like any of those teams.

thehighground wrote: »

Very good post. The ABs are just bigger, stronger & faster. Mushy was probably the only one who could match them for strength.

Thing is though - they're actually not.

Rob Kearney v Dagg - Both our fast enough, strong enough and talented enough
Bowe v Jane - Bowe's not weaker or slower or worse
BOD v Smith - Ok, Smith does have the physical edge, but barely, not quite as good mentally, but in all honesty I think BOD, Fourie and Smith are equal enough
D'Arcy v Stanley - Is D'Arcy weak slow and so on? Stanley was shíte ffs.
Trimble v Joe - Trimble of all players is amongst our backs amongst the most powerful. He's big fast and strong.
ROG v Carter - Ok, you're right here, ROG is slower, weaker and smaller than every international out half.
O'Leary v Cowan - O'Leary might be a shíte scrum-half but he's fcuking quick, fcuking strong and seriously dangerous with ball in hand.

So the reality is, we only think we're weaker and smaller. And it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If we played with the same intensity as the ABs more regularly, our players would be dominating quite a few of those battles.

CatFromHue wrote: »

i think it may have been warren gatland who said that the southern hemisphere teams aren't fitter or stronger its that they play at a higher intensity.

if you look back at yesterdays game how many times did an irish forward take the ball standing and then move in to contact? it was alot id say.

whereas when you look at what the kiwis did they had runners coming at pace onto the ball, meeting a static irish defence.

this is a real area we can improve on that would reap huge dividends in my opinion

i must admit paul o connel is a demon for doing this

Intensity is key - we don't seem to like it. If you had, merely as an example, a guy like Brian O'Driscoll running at you constantly, always seeking to test your defence, always hitting you quickly and never taking a break, how the hell would you cope?

Not once did New Zealand sit back and wait to take a penalty or lineout, they always look for quick ones, try to take quick tap penalties and so on. If you've got great attacking players, why let a team (especially one who can defend, i.e. us) organise that same defence?

danthefan wrote: »

So TOL has to go, simple.

Doesn't he just? Unless he learns to pass, we will not be able to play any attacking rugby, and the momentum has gone back towards teams taht can play with ball in hand over teams that rely more on kicking.

thehighground

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Thing is though - they're actually not.

Rob Kearney v Dagg - Both our fast enough, strong enough and talented enough
Bowe v Jane - Bowe's not weaker or slower or worse
BOD v Smith - Ok, Smith does have the physical edge, but barely, not quite as good mentally, but in all honesty I think BOD, Fourie and Smith are equal enough
D'Arcy v Stanley - Is D'Arcy weak slow and so on? Stanley was shíte ffs.
Trimble v Joe - Trimble of all players is amongst our backs amongst the most powerful. He's big fast and strong.
ROG v Carter - Ok, you're right here, ROG is slower, weaker and smaller than every international out half.
O'Leary v Cowan - O'Leary might be a shíte scrum-half but he's fcuking quick, fcuking strong and seriously dangerous with ball in hand.

Thats less than half the team. You would need to compare the forwards really -bringing up an old cliche - forwards win games .... etc.

D'Arcy is no Hendo or Jamie Roberts! BOD has to spot a gap, run around players as he is quite small really - whereas the first choice ABs run over everyone.

anonymous_joe

thehighground wrote: »

Thats less than half the team. You would need to compare the forwards really -bringing up an old cliche - forwards win games .... etc.

D'Arcy is no Hendo or Jamie Roberts! BOD has to spot a gap, run around players as he is quite small really - whereas the first choice ABs run over everyone.

Smith can't run over anyone, nor can Dagg, they're both tiiiiiiiiiiny.

I do appreciate where you're coming from, but even amongst our pack, lads like Heaslip, Wallace, Ferris... They're fast, powerful and good with ball in hand too. Same can be said about lads like O'Brien waiting in the wings.

sock puppet

If size and strength was all that mattered Australia would barely win a game. They do have some very pacey players though, whereas guys like O'Driscoll, Darcy and Kearney aren't all that fast in comparison.

thehighground

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Smith can't run over anyone, nor can Dagg, they're both tiiiiiiiiiiny.

I do appreciate where you're coming from, but even amongst our pack, lads like Heaslip, Wallace, Ferris... They're fast, powerful and good with ball in hand too. Same can be said about lads like O'Brien waiting in the wings.

Nonu can run over people. Dagg didn't have to put in the tackles that Kearney did yesterday on much bigger players. Has Dagg become first choice now ahead of Muliani?

Problem was 2/3 of those players you mention weren't of much use yesterday for various reasons.

Your still ignoring the fact that Ireland kicked about the same amount of ball as the ABs and passed it a lot more yesterday.

You should also check out the Ireland v. SA game stats.

thomond2006

thehighground wrote: »

Nonu can run over people. Dagg didn't have to put in the tackles that Kearney did yesterday on much bigger players. Has Dagg become first choice now ahead of Muliani?

Muliaina broke his trumb in the Super 14, he's supposed to be back in time for the Tri Nations IIRC.

thehighground

sock puppet wrote: »

If size and strength was all that mattered Australia would barely win a game. They do have some very pacey players though, whereas guys like O'Driscoll, Darcy and Kearney aren't all that fast in comparison.

I think its a combination of size, strength & pace. Thats why O'Leary is first choice sh (so people may as well get used to it).

More than likely Kidney will stick to him as he needs to improve his passing.

anonymous_joe

thehighground wrote: »

Nonu can run over people. Dagg didn't have to put in the tackles that Kearney did yesterday on much bigger players. Has Dagg become first choice now ahead of Muliani?

Problem was 2/3 of those players you mention weren't of much use yesterday for various reasons.

Your still ignoring the fact that Ireland kicked about the same amount of ball as the ABs and passed it a lot more yesterday.

You should also check out the Ireland v. SA game stats.

When and where you pass are important though.

And Dagg's not first choice yet. Looks like he will be though. Nonu's the only massive first choice AB back.

In terms of skill, pace, etc, some of our guys are easily the equal of their AB equivalents, so I don't think we should be so averse to taking lessons in how to play from them.

sock puppet

thehighground wrote: »

I think its a combination of size, strength & pace. Thats why O'Leary is first choice sh (so people may as well get used to it).

More than likely Kidney will stick to him as he needs to improve his passing.

It's not everything though. Not even close. Haskell struggles to get into the English team. With everyone fit Trimble probably wouldn't even make the 22. Tuohy is well down the pecking order too with guys like Cullen and MOD ahead of him. These are also positions where size and strength is important. It is much less so at scrumhalf.

Sangre

Nothing wrong with a structured set-piece focus game. Only problem is one of our set pieces, the scrum, is just awful. If Ireland had the same authority on the scrum as we do on the line out we'd be an extremely difficult team to beat.

danthefan

thehighground wrote: »

I think its a combination of size, strength & pace. Thats why O'Leary is first choice sh (so people may as well get used to it).

More than likely Kidney will stick to him as he needs to improve his passing.

Might as well stick Ferris at SH if they're the most important attributes for a SH.

thomond2006

danthefan wrote: »

Might as well stick Ferris at SH if they're the most important attributes for a SH.

Maybe even Fla, I recall an Ireland match where his passes from the base were crisper than TOL's.

anonymous_joe

Sangre wrote: »

Nothing wrong with a structured set-piece focus game. Only problem is one of our set pieces, the scrum, is just awful. If Ireland had the same authority on the scrum as we do on the line out we'd be an extremely difficult team to beat.

True. I'd almost look at it as South African rugby on the one hand, versus Australian or New Zealand's rugby being the models we should seek to follow.

As you said, we've no scrum, it seems odd that we're so set-pieced focussed with only one set piece.

Judgement Day

Strings is your only man - we've tried the rest now let's go back to the best. Reddan is good on his day, Issac Boss (I) still haven't seen enough of and TOL makes 'two-steps' Whitaker look like Speedy Gonzalez and his passing yesterday has to rate amongst his worst ever. Strings will only be 33 when the World Cup comes around. Is there any chance for him?:(

dmcc13

thehighground wrote: »

The stats don't support your theory about kicking and passing. Have a look

http://www.scrum.com/scrum/rugby/match/103843.html

I didnt check the stats because my computer is as slow as tomás o'learys decsion making but if thats stats based on todays game surely you realise that obviously we passed and ran alot more....we were forced into catch up rugby if we had kept on kicking i would be walking to irfu headquaters demanding a sacking

dmcc13

thehighground wrote: »

Very good post. The ABs are just bigger, stronger & faster. Mushy was probably the only one who could match them for strength.

I honestly think thats an old argument i think the mismatches were more glaring than the phsycality....its just creative players playing heads up rugby...carter on mod for example...or players looking to hit soft shoulders whereas certain irish players look to the tackler and fall to the deck straight away!!Thats not physicallity thats rugby intelligence.

dmcc13

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's an interesting topic. I should say I haven't been able to watch the NZ game yet, so I can't comment on that.

I don't think we could ever be "like New Zealand." I don't think our forwards have the natural strength to be able to sit with possession for a large period of time with enough comfort to prevent mistakes. Opposition like SANZAR nations and France/England have larger forwards who have more ability/success on the ground, so long periods of attacking play are not something I think we'll see from Irish teams, or something we should be looking at as "plan A" if we want to win.

I think we should look to use the aerial ability of our players to pin teams back and try to win the territory battle. Both our 10s are great kickers out of hand and we also have ability there with our centers (BOD, Wallace, Earls, McFadden can all kick to some extent) and our fullbacks. Also, in Fitzgerald/Bowe/Kearney/Murphy we have back 3 players who are dominant in the air.

In order for that to work we need to regain our dominance in the lineout. Maybe that means looking at Cullen more, I don't know, but however we can we should look to get back to the days when we could challenge any team in the world on both our own possession and on theirs. If we're sure of winning our own ball and can win maybe 20% of the oppositions ball in dangerous positions then we can start scoring far more points, through Sexton's sure kicking (as it looks like he'll be our 10) or by taking the chances we're sure to get.

Im sorry but this kind of thing infuriates me. Give good oppostion the ball and they will win. Theres a different way of playing possesion thenphysical attrition. If you have a great ball carriers with skill, then bloody well use them, dont let it get too the deck. Don't label the way you play but for godsake play to your strenghts!! Ball carriers are our stregths!!

It jsut means we have to up the speed, i dont mean individual speed, maybe tempo is a better word, and pick the team to apply it.

Kick for territory is absolute bollox in the current climate, have we learned nothing from the lions!!! Trust your players skill set and go after them and never sit back and wait for them to come at you!!

thehighground

dmcc13 wrote: »

I didnt check the stats because my computer is as slow as tomás o'learys decsion making but if thats stats based on todays game surely you realise that obviously we passed and ran alot more....we were forced into catch up rugby if we had kept on kicking i would be walking to irfu headquaters demanding a sacking

Of course I realise we passed and ran a lot more - thats why I put up to the stats. It was Joe who thinks we don't pass & run enough.

Your computer and Tomas o'Leary's decision making are not the only slow things around here

Dave Joyce

Interesting thread and after watching the U20's then I think there is most definately something MAJORILY WRONG when you see even the younger players persist with the most BS kicking game. Even with something as simple as the kick off/restart, they continually had McKinney kick the ball too far ahead with not enough height IN ALL THREE GAMES when it wasn't working AT ALL. No variation WHATSOEVER:

However, when we ran at the Puma's eg Eoin Griffen/Conway we made huge inroads and at times scored tries!!

I don't think we will EVER realise the potential of what we have at any level if this kind of crap persists. Why are players at all levels prevented from being creative, why does things always seem to have to go through the numbers/set piece.

Everyone has rightly said about the lack of depth in our squad, BUT then what are we doing about developing our squad, what is the purpose of the academies, underage structures if they are very very rarely given any opportunities. The Rhys Ruddock situ is a prime example of doing it the WRONG WAY IMHO.

Strings is your only man - we've tried the rest now let's go back to the best.

I agree and I thought he may have actually got a game after his performance against the Barbarians.

irishbucsfan

dmcc13 wrote: »

Im sorry but this kind of thing infuriates me. Give good oppostion the ball and they will win. Theres a different way of playing possesion thenphysical attrition. If you have a great ball carriers with skill, then bloody well use them, dont let it get too the deck. Don't label the way you play but for godsake play to your strenghts!! Ball carriers are our stregths!!

It jsut means we have to up the speed, i dont mean individual speed, maybe tempo is a better word, and pick the team to apply it.

Kick for territory is absolute bollox in the current climate, have we learned nothing from the lions!!! Trust your players skill set and go after them and never sit back and wait for them to come at you!!

Ball-Carrying isn't our strength at all. We have two, maybe three, players in the forwards who can attack effectively as a first reciever (Wallace, Heaslip and Healy). Apart from that the rest of the team are quite poor at it.

And any ball carrying ability we might have is made redundant by our players lack of comparable physical strength, becuase there's no point running at a big team if you're not going to be able to retain possession. If we consistently run the ball we will be turned over and pushed back.


The kicking game is the best way for us to shield that disadvantage. The problem with the kicking game is not a tactical one, it's a problem with execution. SHs are being asked to take box kicks more these days because coaches believe that there's advantages there (whether it's eliminating the risk of the charge down or creating a better angle) but I don't think our SHs have the kicking ability to make that tactic work. I think we should go back to allowing our 10s to take the clearance kicks, but Kidney/Gaffney know what they're doing.

The main problem with Irish rugby this year was in the set piece. If we can sort out our scrum and regain our competitiveness in the lineout we'll start looking more dominant. And now with Sexton in the team, if we can get possession from set pieces in the opposition's half then we will be more dangerous with the ball going forward than we have ever been in the professional era.