It's a game of inches.....

moycullen14

Came across a replay of the qf on tv last night and watched it from the start of the second half to the 3rd welsh try. God, it was painful. What struck me was how it all seemed to turn on one or two incidents.

The two lost line outs - both best's fault. The most galling thing was that we had turned over two good Wales attacks - the hard work was done.

In the two phases prior to the phillips try, both Wynn jones and philips had tried to go through the middle and almost made it. Hindsight is wonderful but you could see Phillips raise his head and look down the blind side immediately prior to the break - why wasn't darcy a yard further out???

Earls running back the kick from halfpenny and tossing the ball to redden - you knew it was over then.....

Had the penalties been kicked in the first 20, I'm convinced we would have won.

I thought after Saturday that ireland had been comprehensively beaten. On second viewing I thing the match was a helluva lot closer than that. Irelands mistakes were all either in the wrong place or Wales - fair play to them - really capitalised on them.

MyKeyG

moycullen14 wrote: »

Came across a replay of the qf on tv last night and watched it from the start of the second half to the 3rd welsh try. God, it was painful. What struck me was how it all seemed to turn on one or two incidents.

The two lost line outs - both best's fault. The most galling thing was that we had turned over two good Wales attacks - the hard work was done.

In the two phases prior to the phillips try, both Wynn jones and philips had tried to go through the middle and almost made it. Hindsight is wonderful but you could see Phillips raise his head and look down the blind side immediately prior to the break - why wasn't darcy a yard further out???

Earls running back the kick from halfpenny and tossing the ball to redden - you knew it was over then.....

Had the penalties been kicked in the first 20, I'm convinced we would have won.

I thought after Saturday that ireland had been comprehensively beaten. On second viewing I thing the match was a helluva lot closer than that. Irelands mistakes were all either in the wrong place or Wales - fair play to them - really capitalised on them.

I couldn't agree more. Why did Bobo leave a raging gap at the flank of the scrum to allow Stringer in for a killer try in the 06 HC Final? Unless you're watching a top eight team against a minnow, invariably, not always, a Rugby game can turn on a sixpence.

Even on the first viewing I thought Wales looked strong but they weren't rolling over us. Like you said it was barely a handful of moments that put the game in Wales favour not least of all four Irish lads standing around. In fact it's one reason a friend told me he couldn't get into rugby. He felt the winning of a game more often than not had more to do with capitalising on mistakes rather than actual proactive play. Now I think he was exaggerating but their may be some truth to it! I mean look at the England v France game. France appeared to be rolling over them but how many times did you say to yourself 'woah England are back in this!'?

By the by people are saying France only ever have one good game in them at the WC. I think they will crush Wales. Just my opinion.

GerM

You're dead right. It is a game of tiny margins and if you make these errors at this level, you cannot win. All our tries conceded in this tournament can be traced back to small individual errors. Eradicate those and you don't lose. I think the lost line out is a combination of errors. It wasn't a perfectly on the money throw from Best but POC would have won it. He's the only explosive jumper we have and DOC is far slower into the air. I can only hope that we weren't trying to call ball off the top with DOC. Anyway, to look at the tries conceded in the tournament, they're almost exclusively of our own doing.

USA try - Poor decision from D'Arcy and an intercept pass
Russia first try - Kearney knocks on to hand possession to Russia. They go off the scrum, break our defensive line and go over.
Russia second try - Leamy throws wild blind pass causing knock on that leads to scrum at which Buckley is penalised. Russia punt into our territory, go wide, McFadden shoots and we're on to a loser from there.
Wales first try - Earls knocks on handing possession back from which Wales drive down the field with fantastic precision and go over in the corner.
Wales second try - Line out lost giving Wales possession and they work their way into our 22 before a defensive lapse lets them in.
Wales third try - Reddan knocks on after Earls offload. Welsh scrum from which they go through a few phases and engineer a mismatch and break our defensive line before going over.

Eradicate mistakes and you win matches. It's a simple sport.

slowburner

You can't eradicate mistakes and luck in rugby - the ball is oval

pickarooney

For all the complaints about us not kicking the penalties, nobody seems to be able to accept the fact that we were a whisker away from a try on a couple of occasions. If SOB had not been held up by (Williams?) on the line we'd all be applauding the courage of the lads in going for the kill.

redved

pickarooney wrote: »

For all the complaints about us not kicking the penalties, nobody seems to be able to accept the fact that we were a whisker away from a try on a couple of occasions. If SOB had not been held up by (Williams?) on the line we'd all be applauding the courage of the lads in going for the kill.

This and the BOD knock-on at the line were crucial.
If either had been converted I believe we would/could have won. if only..........

steve9859

All that is true. Ireland did have some opportunities to put themselves in a position to win the match.

But looking at it at a high level, and with a relatively neutral perspective given that I am an England supporter (lets not go there!), the better team won, and I don't think anyone can deny that. Wales were sharper and more physical at the breakdown in general. Games do hinge on moments, and it is worth picking those out, but it would be a mistake to focus purely on a couple of moments and not look at all at the general theme.

It was indeed a game of inches, but in general it was an inch to Wales at every breakdown. And as Al Pacino said..."when you add up all those inches, then that's the difference between winning and losing.....between living and dying....."

I don't remember the match particularly at this stage, but when debates focus on the missed opportunities of one side as a justification for how they would otherwise have won, missed opportunities by the other side are often overlooked.

And don't forget, execution is part of the game. It's nothing to do with luck

moycullen14

Never suggested for a minute that Ireland were unlucky or that they deserved to win. They weren't and didn't. My point is that you cannot abstract beyond the result - they're was nothing preordained or coherent about it -Ireland failed on a number of key plays/decisions and lost - had they not they might have won. There is no more to it than that. Journalists and pundits filling reams of newsprint on how gatland out-thought kidney and how this is an indictment on the so-called golden generation is a lot of cant.

steve9859 wrote: »

All that is true. Ireland did have some opportunities to put themselves in a position to win the match.

But looking at it at a high level, and with a relatively neutral perspective given that I am an England supporter (lets not go there!), the better team won, and I don't think anyone can deny that. Wales were sharper and more physical at the breakdown in general. Games do hinge on moments, and it is worth picking those out, but it would be a mistake to focus purely on a couple of moments and not look at all at the general theme.

It was indeed a game of inches, but in general it was an inch to Wales at every breakdown. And as Al Pacino said..."when you add up all those inches, then that's the difference between winning and losing.....between living and dying....."

I don't remember the match particularly at this stage, but when debates focus on the missed opportunities of one side as a justification for how they would otherwise have won, missed opportunities by the other side are often overlooked.

And don't forget, execution is part of the game. It's nothing to do with luck

MyKeyG

pickarooney wrote: »

For all the complaints about us not kicking the penalties, nobody seems to be able to accept the fact that we were a whisker away from a try on a couple of occasions. If SOB had not been held up by (Williams?) on the line we'd all be applauding the courage of the lads in going for the kill.

I think that's the overall point of the thread! That games turn on single decisions. That people complain one decision wasn't taken over another is a nonsensical debate in hindsight so you're right there.

MyKeyG

steve9859 wrote: »

the better team won, and I don't think anyone can deny that. Wales were sharper and more physical at the breakdown in general.

Well that's another argument but of similar ilk. It's easy to look the better team when your opponent has capitulated. I believe Ireland lost more than Wales won. A fine line maybe but that was not the Ireland team that rattled Australia and gave both Russia and Italy a lesson in Rugby.

Irelands WC reminds me a little of Munsters 09 HCup campaign. In the five games leading up to the semi final with Leinster, Munster had scored an average of four tries per game against strong opposition Leinster hadn't scored a try in I believe at least their three previous games. Now there are those who would say Munster played like an AIL team in that match and there are those who would say Leinster made them look like one. The truth is it's all in the opinion of the beholder.

Saying that all the best to Wales but I still think France have found their form and will crush them.

profitius

By far the most disappointing thing about the defeat was the manner of it. Psychologically Wales won hands down. The out thought the Irish and when the pressure came on Ireland made too many mistakes.

MyKeyG

profitius wrote: »

By far the most disappointing thing about the defeat was the manner of it. Psychologically Wales won hands down. The out thought the Irish and when the pressure came on Ireland made too many mistakes.

I'm sorry but IMHO this concept of 'out thinking your opponent' in Rugby is a little farcical. You go about your business or you don't. You make the best of the situation with ball in hand or you don't, you attack the oppositions offence or you sit back and let them run at you. I know that sounds like a simplistic definition but my point is that with all due respect I don't rate this out thinking your opponent in ANY game.

GerM

MyKeyG wrote: »

I'm sorry but IMHO this concept of 'out thinking your opponent' in Rugby is a little farcical. You go about your business or you don't. You make the best of the situation with ball in hand or you don't, you attack the oppositions offence or you sit back and let them run at you. I know that sounds like a simplistic definition but my point is that with all due respect I don't rate this out thinking your opponent in ANY game.

And that's part of the reason we lost. As someone else described it, we tried to chop down a tree with a hammer and Wales used a blade. They beat us tactically, devised a plan and executed it preventing us from breaking through whilst exposing our weaknesses and focussing their attack on our weak points defensively. To think it's just a matter of doing your best when you get the ball is very simplistic; the player should know what he's trying to achieve when he gets the ball. The Welsh defence was excellently prepared and a lot of thought had gone into shutting us down and forcing ROG to take the ball on or kick it away to a well prepared back three.

MyKeyG

GerM wrote: »

And that's part of the reason we lost. As someone else described it, we tried to chop down a tree with a hammer and Wales used a blade. They beat us tactically, devised a plan and executed it preventing us from breaking through whilst exposing our weaknesses and focussing their attack on our weak points defensively. To think it's just a matter of doing your best when you get the ball is very simplistic; the player should know what he's trying to achieve when he gets the ball. The Welsh defence was excellently prepared and a lot of thought had gone into shutting us down and forcing ROG to take the ball on or kick it away to a well prepared back three.

Again with all due respect starting your statement with 'we tried to chop down a tree with a hammer and Wales used a blade' contradicts the rest of your point. It's basically saying we made a balls of our approach while Wales kept their heads. I still don't see how it can be applied to out thinking us, it relates more to us not thinking at all!

Ireland lost on Sunday because their lineout was crap, their scrum wasn't nearly as solid as it was in previous games and our defence was shaky. At one stage a Welsh player was allowed to run through five Irish gombeens looking out their mouths while he went over for a try.

Your analysis of the game I compare to a general who carefully and tactically plans an assault on a castle, my analysis is more comparable to the castle opening it's gates and saying 'come on in'.

Like I said Rugby is a funny game there are always different opinions and analyses so we may have to agree to differ on our little debate. Games can turn on a six pence and a weaker team can win ugly. That's why we all love the game.

.ak

I think what GerM is saying is we didn't think, where as Wales did. More so prior to the game. So they went into it with a proverbial blade, and we went into it with a hammer.

Rugby is an extremely complex sport, and the idea of working these complexities in the 'heat of battle' is unlikely. Whilst there is an element of doing the best you can with ball in hand (BOD is probably the best example), if you went into a match without pre-determined plans you will struggle. The game is played at a very high pace, and the human brain just won't be able to deal with changing the complex game plans of rugby whilst on your feet, or when the ball comes to hand suddenly.

The issue that was evident with Ireland on saturday was they just had one plan, and couldn't cope with trying to change it midway through the game.

In my opinion Wales had them beat before stepping onto the pitch. They had a superior game plan and stuck to it.

steve9859

I completely agree that the idea that Gatland outfoxed DK is way overdone. But it is disingenuous to say that the result of the match was just down to the result of some man on man battles, and some moments in the match.

there are some key decisions that a coach makes in the run up to a match. A couple of them are
1: how to tackle. Eg, Ire v Aus there was a strategic aim to hold men up. Wales had a strategic aim of chopping the ankles and bringing the man down fast
2: how many bodies to commit to rucks

Those are the kinds of decisions Gatland had to make as coach and they are decisions that he absolutely got right, thereby laying the groundwork for the win. After that there are the individual battles and key moments. The coaches shape the approach, and Gatland got that spot on, but it isn't rocket science, and posters are right to point out that the praise heaped upon him is a little overdone

MyKeyG

.ak wrote: »

I think what GerM is saying is we didn't think, where as Wales did. More so prior to the game. So they went into it with a proverbial blade, and we went into it with a hammer.

My point is Wales didn't have to think. I wonder if they even had to resort to any pre match plan at all.

Rugby is an extremely complex sport, and the idea of working these complexities in the 'heat of battle' is unlikely. Whilst there is an element of doing the best you can with ball in hand (BOD is probably the best example), if you went into a match without pre-determined plans you will struggle. The game is played at a very high pace, and the human brain just won't be able to deal with changing the complex game plans of rugby whilst on your feet, or when the ball comes to hand suddenly.

Come on now we're talking about a team made up of the most decorated players in the Northern Hemisphere at club level since 06. The points in your previous statement should not and I believe do not apply here.

The issue that was evident with Ireland on saturday was they just had one plan, and couldn't cope with trying to change it midway through the game.

That just proves my point it was an Irish failing not Welsh excellence.

In my opinion Wales had them beat before stepping onto the pitch. They had a superior game plan and stuck to it.

Wales didn't need a game plan.

In my defence I did say I was being simplistic but it was just to make the point that what Ireland were capable of on the pitch was much more than what we saw. Of course rugby is a complex game I don't dispute that, I've played it for many years but I didn't see the Welsh 'blade' myself in as much as I saw an Irish capitulation. If Gatland did indeed out think Kidney it wasn't a difficult task so I think he's being credited with a bit much. It wasn't planning, strategy or forethought that forced Ireland to drop balls, lose line-outs, miss tackles and opt to drive instead of kick.

My ultimate point is and my mind is not for turning. Wales did not win...Ireland lost!

GerM

MyKeyG wrote: »

My point is Wales didn't have to think. I wonder if they even had to resort to any pre match plan at all.

Wales didn't need a game plan.

My ultimate point is and my mind is not for turning. Wales did not win...Ireland lost!

You're entirely disregarding Wales obvious plan of shooting up out wide to cut ROG off and isolate him forcing him to either put boot to ball or take it into contact. They made a concentrated plan to tackle themselves and Ireland to standstill by taking us low and not trying to drive us back, trusting their defence to soak up the pressure and Ireland to punch themselves out. Their tackle counts were absolutely massive. It was very, very close but it worked and we were completely jaded by the 50th minute. On attacking first phase look how deep Roberts took the ball with a backrow player on his shoulder to drive into contact and combat the Irish choke tackle. George North, their right winger, swapped at kick off and played left wing to eliminate the Irish tactic of isolating Williams and Bowe. No game plan?

Wales were the better team. They won due to doing their homework, taking their chances and preventing us from breaking them down. To say that they're only in the semi-finals due to us throwing it away is disingenuous and incorrect.

The strongest boxer in the world will always study even the most average opponent.

People who think that you can just go out and play the same game every week, and beat every team with the same approach are miles off the truth.

Wales got it right, but we made it exceptionally easy for them to do so. Ignoring their strengths(back 3 with pace and great kicking options, tenacious defence around the 10m channels at the breakdown, fantastic rush defence, really good with the ball in hand, fiercely competitive at phase play) and playing directly into them was either pure arrogance or abject naivety.

irishbucsfan

MyKeyG wrote: »

My point is Wales didn't have to think. I wonder if they even had to resort to any pre match plan at all.

Come on now we're talking about a team made up of the most decorated players in the Northern Hemisphere at club level since 06. The points in your previous statement should not and I believe do not apply here.

That just proves my point it was an Irish failing not Welsh excellence.

Wales didn't need a game plan.

In my defence I did say I was being simplistic but it was just to make the point that what Ireland were capable of on the pitch was much more than what we saw. Of course rugby is a complex game I don't dispute that, I've played it for many years but I didn't see the Welsh 'blade' myself in as much as I saw an Irish capitulation. If Gatland did indeed out think Kidney it wasn't a difficult task so I think he's being credited with a bit much. It wasn't planning, strategy or forethought that forced Ireland to drop balls, lose line-outs, miss tackles and opt to drive instead of kick.

My ultimate point is and my mind is not for turning. Wales did not win...Ireland lost!

I think you're VASTLY over-simplifying things. It's not Junior Cup rugby.

phog

GerM wrote: »

And that's part of the reason we lost. As someone else described it, we tried to chop down a tree with a hammer and Wales used a blade. They beat us tactically, devised a plan and executed it preventing us from breaking through whilst exposing our weaknesses and focussing their attack on our weak points defensively. To think it's just a matter of doing your best when you get the ball is very simplistic; the player should know what he's trying to achieve when he gets the ball. The Welsh defence was excellently prepared and a lot of thought had gone into shutting us down and forcing ROG to take the ball on or kick it away to a well prepared back three.

GerM wrote: »

You're entirely disregarding Wales obvious plan of shooting up out wide to cut ROG off and isolate him forcing him to either put boot to ball or take it into contact. They made a concentrated plan to tackle themselves and Ireland to standstill by taking us low and not trying to drive us back, trusting their defence to soak up the pressure and Ireland to punch themselves out. Their tackle counts were absolutely massive. It was very, very close but it worked and we were completely jaded by the 50th minute. On attacking first phase look how deep Roberts took the ball with a backrow player on his shoulder to drive into contact and combat the Irish choke tackle. George North, their right winger, swapped at kick off and played left wing to eliminate the Irish tactic of isolating Williams and Bowe. No game plan?

Wales were the better team. They won due to doing their homework, taking their chances and preventing us from breaking them down. To say that they're only in the semi-finals due to us throwing it away is disingenuous and incorrect.

The stats on Scrum.com dont back this up, ROG received the ball 31 times, kicked it on 7 occasions, ran it 4 times and made 18 meters and passed it 20 times, he was turned over once.

BOD received the ball 20 times, kicked it 3 times, passed it 9 and ran it 8 but was turned over 4 times.

Our ball carrier SOB ran the ball 12 times against Australia and made 45 meters, this time around he ran it 22 times but only made 24 meters.

It's bit simplistic to say Wales marked ROG and that was the reason we lost, they marked Ireland and were well up for it.

MyKeyG

GerM wrote: »

To say that they're only in the semi-finals due to us throwing it away is disingenuous and incorrect.

So you're saying we approached the Wales game with the same intensity, composure, surety and competency that we did in our pool games?

profitius

phog wrote: »

The stats on Scrum.com dont back this up, ROG received the ball 31 times, kicked it on 7 occasions, ran it 4 times and made 18 meters and passed it 20 times, he was turned over once.

BOD received the ball 20 times, kicked it 3 times, passed it 9 and ran it 8 but was turned over 4 times.

Our ball carrier SOB ran the ball 12 times against Australia and made 45 meters, this time around he ran it 22 times but only made 24 meters.

It's bit simplistic to say Wales marked ROG and that was the reason we lost, they marked Ireland and were well up for it.

They didn't target ROG directly. They targeted the space outside him to cut down his options forcing him to run.

GerM

MyKeyG wrote: »

So you're saying we approached the Wales game with the same intensity, composure, surety and competency that we did in our pool games?

Intensity? Yes. Composure? No given our decision making. Competency? Yes but Wales didn't allow it to impact on the game.

We were second best tactically. We played into the Welsh hands with our approach. As widely reported, the Welsh were pleased to see ROG on the team sheet. They knew exactly how to nullify him and that once they cut off his outside ball, he would do exactly as they expected. Our point of attack was predictable and we couldn't vary things to ask enough questions of their defence. It was a close run thing. The Welsh plan nearly didn't pay off as they can only make so many tackles and if SOB had grounded that ball early on then it would have been a different game. Alas, he didn't and the Welsh line held and we were exhausted in the final third of the game.

MyKeyG

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I think you're VASTLY over-simplifying things. It's not Junior Cup rugby.

Well my goodness there's me thinking it was:D

And your own contribution is???

MyKeyG

GerM wrote: »

Intensity? Yes. Composure? No given our decision making. Competency? Yes but Wales didn't allow it to impact on the game.

We were second best tactically. We played into the Welsh hands with our approach. As widely reported, the Welsh were pleased to see ROG on the team sheet. They knew exactly how to nullify him and that once they cut off his outside ball, he would do exactly as they expected. Our point of attack was predictable and we couldn't vary things to ask enough questions of their defence. It was a close run thing. The Welsh plan nearly didn't pay off as they can only make so many tackles and if SOB had grounded that ball early on then it would have been a different game. Alas, he didn't and the Welsh line held and we were exhausted in the final third of the game.

Ok let's change the tack a little, because it's clear we don't agree on whether Wales won or Ireland lost. What should plan B have been? And don't say Johnny Sexton for the love of all that's holy.

phog

profitius wrote: »

They didn't target ROG directly. They targeted the space outside him to cut down his options forcing him to run.

So they did that on 4 occasions, as he only ran the ball 4 times.

GerM

phog wrote: »

It's bit simplistic to say Wales marked ROG and that was the reason we lost, they marked Ireland and were well up for it.

phog, I'm not saying that at all. It's an example of how the Welsh had analysed us tactically and forced us to play the game on their terms. ROG, as our pivot, was just an obvious element of it and they forced him down certain paths on several occasions, notably within their own 22 when he was forced to run it. I'm not having a go at him; it was the tactics.

As an aside, turnovers doesn't necessarily mean that a player is turned over. It generally doesn't. It includes knock ons or passes to ground.

phog

GerM wrote: »

Intensity? Yes. Composure? No given our decision making. Competency? Yes but Wales didn't allow it to impact on the game.

We were second best tactically. We played into the Welsh hands with our approach. As widely reported, the Welsh were pleased to see ROG on the team sheet. They knew exactly how to nullify him and that once they cut off his outside ball, he would do exactly as they expected. Our point of attack was predictable and we couldn't vary things to ask enough questions of their defence. It was a close run thing. The Welsh plan nearly didn't pay off as they can only make so many tackles and if SOB had grounded that ball early on then it would have been a different game. Alas, he didn't and the Welsh line held and we were exhausted in the final third of the game.

Wales made 150 tackles and we only had to make 100.

irishh_bob

moycullen14 wrote: »

Came across a replay of the qf on tv last night and watched it from the start of the second half to the 3rd welsh try. God, it was painful. What struck me was how it all seemed to turn on one or two incidents.

The two lost line outs - both best's fault. The most galling thing was that we had turned over two good Wales attacks - the hard work was done.

In the two phases prior to the phillips try, both Wynn jones and philips had tried to go through the middle and almost made it. Hindsight is wonderful but you could see Phillips raise his head and look down the blind side immediately prior to the break - why wasn't darcy a yard further out???

Earls running back the kick from halfpenny and tossing the ball to redden - you knew it was over then.....

Had the penalties been kicked in the first 20, I'm convinced we would have won.

I thought after Saturday that ireland had been comprehensively beaten. On second viewing I thing the match was a helluva lot closer than that. Irelands mistakes were all either in the wrong place or Wales - fair play to them - really capitalised on them.

we played dumb footy , wales were made to look very good

GerM

MyKeyG wrote: »

Ok let's change the tack a little, because it's clear we don't agree on whether Wales won or Ireland lost. What should plan B have been? And don't say Johnny Sexton for the love of all that's holy.

Don't be silly.

Johnny Sexton AND Eoin Reddan. :pac:

In all seriousness, ROG could have played the game that was required but Sexton is better equipped. Regardless of which of them, we needed to mix the play up as much as possible. Vary distribution and use decoys on multi-phase ball pulling Wales around and making the holes appear as we did earlier in the tournament. We had to be unpredictable. We couldn't let them line up our carriers as they did. Wales forced us down tunnels which we ran down and they waited, slowed down our ball, took us down and, eventually, the mistakes would come. I would have liked to have seen us prod the ball in behind their midfield a couple of times and see their two massive centres turn like buses with Bowe on the charge through. Put up one or two bombs on their 22 and use Kearney to attack it.

It's all well and good saying this now, for all I know, we still wouldn't have won and above game plan not clicked at all.

GerM

phog wrote: »

[/B]Wales made 150 tackles and we only had to make 100.

I know. We exhausted ourselves running and going and huffing and puffing trying to hammer Wales into submission. We, for want of a better phrase, punched ourselves out. Wales took us low and put us to ground quickly which was less exhaustive for them. It nearly didn't work for them but each time they were at breaking point they managed to get the rub of the green like BOD knocking on or SOB being held up.

phog

GerM wrote: »

I know. We exhausted ourselves running and going and huffing and puffing trying to hammer Wales into submission. We, for want of a better phrase, punched ourselves out. Wales took us low and put us to ground quickly which was less exhaustive for them. It nearly didn't work for them but each time they were at breaking point they managed to get the rub of the green like BOD knocking on or SOB being held up.

and I think that's the point of this thread, a game of inches and what ifs.

steve9859

phog wrote: »

GerM wrote: »

Intensity? Yes. Composure? No given our decision making. Competency? Yes but Wales didn't allow it to impact on the game.

We were second best tactically. We played into the Welsh hands with our approach. As widely reported, the Welsh were pleased to see ROG on the team sheet. They knew exactly how to nullify him and that once they cut off his outside ball, he would do exactly as they expected. Our point of attack was predictable and we couldn't vary things to ask enough questions of their defence. It was a close run thing. The Welsh plan nearly didn't pay off as they can only make so many tackles and if SOB had grounded that ball early on then it would have been a different game. Alas, he didn't and the Welsh line held and we were exhausted in the final third of the game.

Wales made 150 tackles and we only had to make 100.

Well, that was part of gatlands plan. Tackle at the ankles to bring the man down, commit no-one to the ruck, thus have the bodies to protect the fringes and fan out, thereby allowing Ireland the ball, but with defenders in their face and nowhere to go. The highlights afterwards picked out numerous times when Ireland had 3 men in the ruck to Wales' one. If that isn't an illustration of tactics winning a match, I don't know what is!

castie

Cant believe this hasnt gotten in here yet...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO4tIrjBDkk

moycullen14

steve9859 wrote: »

Well, that was part of gatlands plan. Tackle at the ankles to bring the man down, commit no-one to the ruck, thus have the bodies to protect the fringes and fan out, thereby allowing Ireland the ball, but with defenders in their face and nowhere to go. The highlights afterwards picked out numerous times when Ireland had 3 men in the ruck to Wales' one. If that isn't an illustration of tactics winning a match, I don't know what is!

The point of the thread is not about whether Wales had superior and effective tactics (they had) but how games turn on specific incidents. Analysis of how and why both teams played the way they did has been done to death on the main match thread. In this match - and a lot of others (SA/OZ too) - the result swung on a few incidences and the post-match analysis rationalising the result on the basis of tactics/hunger/whatever is misplaced. I suppose you can't fill 1500 words on the match by saying Ireland lost two lineouts, failed to mind the blind side, didn't convert 3-4 try-scoring opportunties and lost - otherwise they would have won.

Sometimes the simple stuff is just that - simple.

Not all matches are like that - but a lot more are than is commonly accepted.

I guess I just believe in the randomness of nature, not the big themes.

steve9859

moycullen14 wrote: »

The point of the thread is not about whether Wales had superior and effective tactics (they had) but how games turn on specific incidents. Analysis of how and why both teams played the way they did has been done to death on the main match thread. In this match - and a lot of others (SA/OZ too) - the result swung on a few incidences and the post-match analysis rationalising the result on the basis of tactics/hunger/whatever is misplaced. I suppose you can't fill 1500 words on the match by saying Ireland lost two lineouts, failed to mind the blind side, didn't convert 3-4 try-scoring opportunties and lost - otherwise they would have won.

Sometimes the simple stuff is just that - simple.

Not all matches are like that - but a lot more are than is commonly accepted.

I guess I just believe in the randomness of nature, not the big themes.

But lack of conversion was down to the pressure. I don't buy the idea that the results of matches at this level is effectively random, which is what you are saying.