Ireland game plan

knight_of_cake

hello to everybody first i suppose,
and now my point

the "game plan" we are trying to play and we have hear an awful lot from the irish camp about this new way of playing; a wide open game that if it works will open up teams. but for me anyways looking at the irish team playing the last three games, it looks like they play a very structured game and what is happening is that team see it and stop us form making ground, then we try and force it which leads to a turnover and us giving away penalties when scrambling our defensive back.

and i dont see why we are doing this and i mean setting up pods of three plays beside a ruck and taking up to a minute to pass it to them, its clear we dont have the biggest pack either. pointless in my mind anyways.

during the seocnd have of the scotland game just before the ogara try we played some great rugby and what i noticed was that we ran at inside shoudlers passed and used wally and obrien not beside rucks but in the middle of the field,and pulled the scots around the pitch.

so i guess my point is that we dont need this "game plan" if we play what in front of us, rugby is simple and doesnt need to be so overly structure in attack anyways like we seem to be doing at this moment in time.

anonymous_joe

Our game plan is fine. It's our discipline that's a worry.

anonymous_joe

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Our game plan is fine. It's our discipline that's a worry.

I think that they're both a function of each other tbh.

I'm quietly happy with how we're progressing. Rome wasn't built in a day, and we've shown plenty of flashes of brilliance.

Its a gameplan that will no-doubt result in errors, and turnovers, and silly penalties as a result of trying to stop those turnovers, but the more familiar that the players and team around them get with the game, the less we will see these errors, and the more we will see Ireland scoring tonnes of trys!

"It's a funny thing, luck. The harder I practiced, the luckier I got." - Gary Player

knight_of_cake

but the thing is most of the tries we have got have been from picking and driving and from what i watch we find it very hard to get in behind teams, due to being too structured and predictable....only that small period in the second half against the scots before ogara try, when we played simple rugby did we make serious ground.

Correct, but rugby is a strategy game, a la chess. If we don't have the other elements to our game, and use them, then we become predictable and easy to defend against. The reason the pick and drives worked was because their defence had to stretch out in preparation for the ball moving wide.

A lot of rugby attacks are like boxing, fake one move, and when they've set their defence for it, you switch to another that counteracts their defence.

twinytwo

maybe its just me but there seems to be too much arsing around in rucks. If they rucked clean over the ball instead of flopping into it we might get even quicker ball and less chance of giving away a stupid peno.

corny

Our 'gameplan' definitely isn't fine for me. ROG kicked the leather off the ball last week so i don't know where this new gameplan was in evidence. From what i saw we kicked in behind the Scots and put them under pressure. They're not the greatest so they crumbled. Heaslips try came O garas kick in behind Paterson, Reddans try came from O' Garas beautiful kick in behind N Walker (they made a mess of their lineout.) Point is none of our scores are coming from passages of expansive play. In fact we're not going forward at all when the ball goes wide, we're normally smashed behind the gainline by defences who know whats coming. Sure EOS had us playing a game infinitely more creative in nature (2007 6N's for example).

The coaching team pay lip service to a lot of things in the media but its all nonsense if you don't see it on the pitch. For me when we go wide, we go backwards because there's no variation. We just go sideways for the sake of it. There's no runners cutting back on the angle, we have a centre capable of getting hands free in the tackle but offloading is that rare it seems forbidden and the outhalf wrap around seems the only set piece move the backs know. Maybe what twinytwo says has merit in that quicker ball might create the space we're looking for but tbh i've resigned myself to the fact Alan Gaffney is from a different school to the likes of Joe Schmidt.

swan82

Just watching a bit of the Blues v Sharks and its staggering how slow we are in the NH intensity wise.

For the attacking game plan to work (that the tri nations teams play) you need serious quick ruck ball.
Instead of jut securing the ball we should be driving straight through and blasting the opposition at ruck time,same could be said for defensive rucks also.

Leinster show this at Heineken level,they play so fast that the opposition players cannot live with the pace,mainly because most teams dont have as many international players as they do,so arent used to it.

Unfortunately when the Irish players play for Ireland they seem to play at the same speed which works well in Heineken but not at international level.

Alan Gaffney is the main problem Ireland have,you saw at the end of Cheika's era Leinster played boring rugby and this seemed to be because gaffney's back play was out of date and not working,Leinster have got rid of him and thrived while Ireland are stuck with him.

Its only in the last few games where players have even been doing basics like sprinting back to provide support to deep runners when the ball is kicked to them,amatuer stuff tbh.

Also as has been said discipline is shocking and the players seem afraid to let the teams come at them and test their defence,Players like O'Callaghan,Best,Darcy etc seem unable to comprehend that you have to release the ball these days.

anonymous_joe

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that they're both a function of each other tbh.

I'm quietly happy with how we're progressing. Rome wasn't built in a day, and we've shown plenty of flashes of brilliance.

Its a gameplan that will no-doubt result in errors, and turnovers, and silly penalties as a result of trying to stop those turnovers, but the more familiar that the players and team around them get with the game, the less we will see these errors, and the more we will see Ireland scoring tonnes of trys!

"It's a funny thing, luck. The harder I practiced, the luckier I got." - Gary Player

They are, in some degrees, linked for definite.

However, other elements, (example, Healy deliberately walking behind a ruck very slowly and getting pinged) are products of silliness.

Add to that, while not Nige's greatest hour, (still a good ref, mind) we didn't adapt to what he wanted, and kept getting pinged for it. That's silliness more than a flawed gameplan.

corny wrote: »

Our 'gameplan' definitely isn't fine for me. ROG kicked the leather off the ball last week so i don't know where this new gameplan was in evidence. From what i saw we kicked in behind the Scots and put them under pressure. They're not the greatest so they crumbled. Heaslips try came O garas kick in behind Paterson, Reddans try came from O' Garas beautiful kick in behind N Walker (they made a mess of their lineout.) Point is none of our scores are coming from passages of expansive play. In fact we're not going forward at all when the ball goes wide, we're normally smashed behind the gainline by defences who know whats coming. Sure EOS had us playing a game infinitely more creative in nature (2007 6N's for example).

ROG didn't kick the leather off the ball at all. He made some very good kicks, and he also passed it.

As for our general play, the likes of O'Brien et al were tearing into and through the Scots for a good chunk of the second half, and with a little bit of luck we'd have been 30 or even 40 up on that Scottish side with no difficulty.

The coaching team pay lip service to a lot of things in the media but its all nonsense if you don't see it on the pitch. For me when we go wide, we go backwards because there's no variation. We just go sideways for the sake of it. There's no runners cutting back on the angle, we have a centre capable of getting hands free in the tackle but offloading is that rare it seems forbidden and the outhalf wrap around seems the only set piece move the backs know. Maybe what twinytwo says has merit in that quicker ball might create the space we're looking for but tbh i've resigned myself to the fact Alan Gaffney is from a different school to the likes of Joe Schmidt.

Gaffney's not as good as Schmidt, but we did offload a bit, POC carried better than I;ve ever seen him do, Bowe, Earls et al all made ok ground, O'Brien was phenomenal.

phog

corny wrote: »

Our 'gameplan' definitely isn't fine for me. ROG kicked the leather off the ball last week so i don't know where this new gameplan was in evidence. .

I answered this in another thread but here goes again, he kicked the ball 7 times, that's hardly leathering the ball. Some of those were kicks to get position in their 22, that's hardly a crime.

profitius

Regarding Gaffney, I never thought he was the best backs coach in the world but he's not too bad. Cheika turned Leinster into a forwards dominant team and neglected the back play to a large degree.

Some credit must go to Gaffney though. The Scots looked bamboozled at times trying to defend against Ireland. Ireland are developing a new style of play but against Scotland they varied their play more.

- They used the maul
- The used the pick and go
- They spread the ball wide
- The wingers were coming in off their wings
- ROG kicked in behind Scotland for territory

So the Scots were unsure what Ireland were going to do and that left gaps for Ireland to exploit. If Ireland ran everything they'd be predictable and easier to defend against unless they develop an Australian type game. New Zealand like to vary their game too.

Personally I was gald to see little box kicking from Ireland. Reddan had a fine game and controlled things much better than TOL. The chip over the defensive line could be used for defences that push up.

All in all Ireland looked like they knew what they were doing when attacking and the team looked comfortable doing it which is a big step forward.

twinytwo

profitius wrote: »

Regarding Gaffney, I never thought he was the best backs coach in the world but he's not too bad. Cheika turned Leinster into a forwards dominant team and neglected the back play to a large degree.

Some credit must go to Gaffney though. The Scots looked bamboozled at times trying to defend against Ireland. Ireland are developing a new style of play but against Scotland they varied their play more.

- They used the maul
- The used the pick and go
- They spread the ball wide
- The wingers were coming in off their wings
- ROG kicked in behind Scotland for territory

So the Scots were unsure what Ireland were going to do and that left gaps for Ireland to exploit. If Ireland ran everything they'd be predictable and easier to defend against unless they develop an Australian type game. New Zealand like to vary their game too.

Personally I was gald to see little box kicking from Ireland. Reddan had a fine game and controlled things much better than TOL. The chip over the defensive line could be used for defences that push up.

All in all Ireland looked like they knew what they were doing when attacking and the team looked comfortable doing it which is a big step forward.

id be happy to lose to both wales and england if it ment we sorted out the problems... and actually for once played to our potential in the WC. Alot of the older guys deserve to go out on a high.

corny

anonymous_joe wrote: »

ROG didn't kick the leather off the ball at all. He made some very good kicks, and he also passed it.

As for our general play, the likes of O'Brien et al were tearing into and through the Scots for a good chunk of the second half, and with a little bit of luck we'd have been 30 or even 40 up on that Scottish side with no difficulty.


Gaffney's not as good as Schmidt, but we did offload a bit, POC carried better than I;ve ever seen him do, Bowe, Earls et al all made ok ground, O'Brien was phenomenal.

I don't know the stats but it seemed to me ROG kicked a huge percentage of the ball he received. I'm not complaining mind you. Bar the botched re-start i can't think of a bad kick he made. He was excellent. I mention it only because it just doesn't tie in with the new expansive game plan nonsense we hear.

We did punch holes through Scottish tackling but come on, the Scots were absolutely feeble in their attempts both man on man and in their willingness to work in the line. Also most, if not all, of our line breaks didn't come from flinging the ball wide and exploiting overlaps so the original question of the new and improved expansive game plan still remains. Where is it and how does it better our team? We've been kicking and punching holes with our forwards for an age so there's nothing new there and i'll mention it again we produced a much higher quality of rugby with steady Eddie in charge.

Until i see evidence to the contrary my opinion is that Kidney/Gaffney aren't able to coach the good attacking rugby they talk about and i also think if we had a coach who could we'd be a much better side with the players we have.

corny

phog wrote: »

I answered this in another thread but here goes again, he kicked the ball 7 times, that's hardly leathering the ball. Some of those were kicks to get position in their 22, that's hardly a crime.

Its not a crime no but on checking bar Jackson (who was out of his depth anyway) he had by far the highest kick percentage of any of the outhalfs over the weekend. He kicked 7 and ran or passed 14. Thats kicking 50% of the time and thats huge. Flood 1 in 5, TD 1 in 4, Jones nearly 1 in 5, Parks 1 in 5 and ROG 1 in 2. Thats leathering the ball for me.

corny

corny wrote: »

Its not a crime no but on checking bar Jackson (who was out of his depth anyway) he had by far the highest kick percentage of any of the outhalfs over the weekend. He kicked 7 and ran or passed 14. Thats kicking 50% of the time and thats huge. Flood 1 in 5, TD 1 in 4, Jones nearly 1 in 5, Parks 1 in 5 and ROG 1 in 2. Thats leathering the ball for me.

basic maths fail unfortunately.

Kicking 7 and passing 14 = 21 opportunities with the ball, ~ 33% kicking

O'Gara didn't kick the leather off the ball, but as someone who was sitting directly in line with his kick that ultimately ended in our first try, he made an absolute balls of it and got incredibly lucky that Patterson made an even worse balls of defending it!. Don't tell the Scots though!

Sin a bhfuil

corny wrote: »

Its not a crime no but on checking bar Jackson (who was out of his depth anyway) he had by far the highest kick percentage of any of the outhalfs over the weekend. He kicked 7 and ran or passed 14. Thats kicking 50% of the time and thats huge. Flood 1 in 5, TD 1 in 4, Jones nearly 1 in 5, Parks 1 in 5 and ROG 1 in 2. Thats leathering the ball for me.

I posted this on the other thread, but I think this article might be better here.

Ireland by 10 if they manage their game well

RUGBY: Kicking gains territory and forces the defensive line downfield. When that line is less organised, then you attack, writes MATT WILLIAMS


When Ronan O’Gara came on against France he kicked the ball only once. That led to field position. The pressure was applied on the next lineout to regain possession and they showed the patience to go through the phases for Jamie Heaslip’s points.


Simple and effective. The ball is taken forward via kicking, close forward runners and wide runners. This is the essence of modern attacking rugby. Any nonsense about playing a running game without kicking does not merit discussion. Attacking rugby is about being unpredictable and capitalising on your opponent’s weaknesses. If you simply pass the ball wide, as Ireland have been guilty of far too often, you become predictable and easier to defend against. See the South Africa and Scotland defeats last year.


Leave that stuff to the Baa Baas.


Ireland kicked the ball 10 times in general play against France. New Zealand kicked the leather 24 times in beating the Springboks 34-10 last year.
Why? Kicking gains territory and forces the defensive line downfield. When that line is less organised, then you attack.
In boxing parlance, work your jab until the opportunity opens to unleash your big right hook and other combinations. Ireland are just brawling at the moment.


Ronan O’Gara has always had a great jab. His selection is correct as it keeps a very important debate alive. This game is suited to the ‘Old Bull’ in the initial stages anyway.
Now, looking at Sexton, his prodigious talent is obvious but we should also remember this is only his second full season as an international outhalf. He is a fast learner with all the necessary tools to survive at Test level (impressive runner, good distributor and fearless tackler – the total package really). However, from the evidence of the last four games Jonathan has played in a green jersey, Ireland have been playing a ball-in-hand game 40 metres from their own try line.


There has been much uneducated comment about Ronan’s selection. It should be noted that even though O’Gara kicked the ball to gain possession for Ireland’s third try against France, he then ran everything 30 metres from the French try-line and got a touch of luck for Heaslips try. For the last play, when Sebastien Chabal threw a terrible pass to give Ireland possession, O’Gara correctly ran and passed the ball only 20 metres from Ireland’s line for the final two minutes, until a handling error gave the French their victorious exit strategy.


Game management is about what card you play from the hand you are dealt. Ireland have been running the ball as a pre-determined plan, rather than identifying what is the best option available to them in each individual circumstance.


O’Gara will play what’s in front of him and Sexton will learn from watching him.


We also have to look at the scrumhalf when it comes to game management. O’Leary has been playing through a back spasm. This was obviously a factor in his passing technique dropping below its usual standards. Tomás’ running for his try was outstanding and while I admire him for toughing it out, the danger for a player taking the field injured is they will be judged on their performance as the general presumption will be he must be fit.


Eoin Reddan deserves another opportunity. I observed Eoin very closely in the Clermont fixture at the Aviva. His passing has noticeably improved this season. The Leinster coaching staff has assisted in Eoin’s technique having more pace and rhythm.


The scrumhalf should only run with the ball if they or the player one pass away is attacking the gainline. Otherwise, there should be no steps taken once they put hands on the ball.


If we look at the English halfbacks, Ben Youngs and Toby Flood, Youngs is providing fast and accurate passing for Flood, but he is also running to attack the second defender at a ruck. This is a direct imitation of George Gregan. Youngs has clearly profited under the tutelage of Leicester backs coach Matt O’Connor, who played with Gregan at the ACT Brumbies for many years.


Youngs created Chris Ashton’s try against Italy by taking an arched run, attacking the second defender. Flood took a pop pass into the gap and Ashton did the rest. This was pre-rehearsed.

more here


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2011/0226/1224290924411.html

That's a really really really very good piece of writing.

stephen_n

phog wrote: »

I answered this in another thread but here goes again, he kicked the ball 7 times, that's hardly leathering the ball. Some of those were kicks to get position in their 22, that's hardly a crime.

Out of how many times receiving the ball? I was surprised to hear that Sexton was only passed the ball 10 times in the French game. I also noticed that in the build up to ROG getting pinged just short of the Scots line, that was the first time he touched the ball in that attack. It seems like the new gameplan involves the outhalf being first receiver a lot less than before! ROG sat deeper and kicked a lot in the first half which was obviously the instruction and not I assume his choice, I can't understand this since our lineout is so poor now that we struggle to hold our own ball let alone attack opposition ball!

By the way who the hell is coaching our line out now having SOB jumping at 2?

profitius

corny wrote: »

We did punch holes through Scottish tackling but come on, the Scots were absolutely feeble in their attempts both man on man and in their willingness to work in the line. Also most, if not all, of our line breaks didn't come from flinging the ball wide and exploiting overlaps so the original question of the new and improved expansive game plan still remains. Where is it and how does it better our team? We've been kicking and punching holes with our forwards for an age so there's nothing new there and i'll mention it again we produced a much higher quality of rugby with steady Eddie in charge.

You must have been watching a different match from the rest of us. Maybe the Scots were made to look feeble! As I said earlier Ireland varied their gameplan and that stretched the Scottish defense meaning there were more gaps to exploit.

By the way Ireland had 7 line breaks at the weekend. Next best were England and Wales with 3 each. Then Scotland with 2 (I forget how many Italy had) and France had NONE. Not too bad in fairness.

profitius

Sin a bhfuil wrote: »

I posted this on the other thread, but I think this article might be better here.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2011/0226/1224290924411.html

Good article SAB!

Ireland kicked the ball 10 times in general play against France. New Zealand kicked the leather 24 times in beating the Springboks 34-10 last year.

Puts things into perspective. Sounds like an easy enough win and NZ have no problem kicking the leather off the ball if teams leave space by trying to stop the NZ running game.

stephen_n

profitius wrote: »

Good article SAB!



Puts things into perspective. Sounds like an easy enough win and NZ have no problem kicking the leather off the ball if teams leave space by trying to stop the NZ running game.

The NZ line out functions though!

profitius

stephen_n wrote: »

The NZ line out functions though!

They still made territory and maybe they tried to keep the ball in play instead of giving the lineout to Matfield and co.

corny

Deleted User wrote: »

basic maths fail unfortunately.

Kicking 7 and passing 14 = 21 opportunities with the ball, ~ 33% kicking

O'Gara didn't kick the leather off the ball, but as someone who was sitting directly in line with his kick that ultimately ended in our first try, he made an absolute balls of it and got incredibly lucky that Patterson made an even worse balls of defending it!. Don't tell the Scots though!

My abject failure at simple Maths aside:o he kicked far more than any other outhalf last weekend. He did kick the leather off it.

corny

profitius wrote: »

You must have been watching a different match from the rest of us. Maybe the Scots were made to look feeble! As I said earlier Ireland varied their gameplan and that stretched the Scottish defense meaning there were more gaps to exploit.

By the way Ireland had 7 line breaks at the weekend. Next best were England and Wales with 3 each. Then Scotland with 2 (I forget how many Italy had) and France had NONE. Not too bad in fairness.

The Scots were worse against us than they were against Wales and thats saying something. They fell off tackles with regularity. ROG, for example, waltzed through Ford and Paterson and he's hardly a strong ball carrier.

Yeah and France had 14 line breaks against Scotland and how many will we have against England? Just proves the Scots are feeble defenders really doesn't it.

Sin a bhfuil

corny wrote: »

My abject failure at simple Maths aside:o he kicked far more than any other outhalf last weekend. He did kick the leather off it.

Kicks from hand at the weekend (outhalfs)

O'Gara 7
Sexton 3 Ireland total 10

Jackson 9
Parks 6 Scotland total 15

Flood 5
Wilkinson 4 England total 9

Trin-Duc 7
Pallisson 2 French total 9

Stephen Jones 6 Wales total 6
Burton 4 Italy total 4

Considering that some of O'Gara's kicks could be considered as passes - like balls for Bowe to run onto, he isn't alone in leathering the ball. An example of leathering the ball would have been Sean Cronin at the end, or Luke Fitzgerald when he was in a sticky situation once or twice (and the correct thing to do!)

phog

stephen_n wrote: »

Out of how many times receiving the ball?

All the stats are here.

ROG - Kicked 7 times, passed 11 times and ran on 3 occasions, so he received the ball 21 times. So he kicked 33% of all he received.

Sexton - Kicked 3 times, passed twice and ran once, he received the ball 6 times. He kicked 50% of all he received.