Pro 12: Leinster V Scarlets RDS 7.35 Fri 17 Feb, TG4

rrpc

RuggieBear wrote: »

probably to get them game time as they've been mostly being training with/benching for ireland.

This to me is always the worry when he senior players come back from prolonged ireland duty...players have to get used to how their provinces play

Especially these days when the provinces are playing well and the Ireland team are playing like drains :rolleyes:

GerM

rrpc wrote: »

Just read in today's Times, Joe Schmidt saying McFadden was dog tired after two heavy fitness sessions with the Ireland camp. He also said that it was hard to get the lads to click as a unit with players coming in and going out.

It's a fairly valid point. We normally play the Scarlets in the 6N during the week we get our internationals back and we never beat them well. We've struggled over the line now for the third year in a row. It's hard for a disjointed set up to click well. 6 or 7 of the lads starting last night have been involved in the Irish set up and haven't been training with Leinster and it showed. A lack of cohesion in the handling and lines. It will click with a bit more time together. One or two lads in the back will make a difference. Sexton and Heaslip alone will make a massive difference to things there just in terms of composure in the backs and forwards.

PhatPiggins

smurphy29 wrote: »

Ah I'm not buying that to be honest. I think the whole country is suddenly obsessed with huge backs after the Welsh defeat. Leinster have put on plenty of good performances in the rain - think of the home win against Saracens when we scored six tries last year.

We just played a bit... crap.

Sexton, BOD and Horgan played in that game. Swap them for Madigan, O'Malley and Carr and thats a big reduction in physicality.

I'm not obsessed with the size of backlines but we should acknowledge that its becoming increasingly prevalent especially with the like of France and Wales who have big and skillful backs.

profitius

PhatPiggins wrote: »

Sexton, BOD and Horgan played in that game. Swap them for Madigan, O'Malley and Carr and thats a big reduction in physicality.

I'm not obsessed with the size of backlines but we should acknowledge that its becoming increasingly prevalent especially with the like of France and Wales who have big and skillful backs.

I don't agree with big backlines either. Australia have a small backline and they're better than the Welsh backline.

Big backs are slower to turn and have a smaller workrate.

GerM

PhatPiggins wrote: »

Sexton, BOD and Horgan played in that game. Swap them for Madigan, O'Malley and Carr and thats a big reduction in physicality.

I'm not obsessed with the size of backlines but we should acknowledge that its becoming increasingly prevalent especially with the like of France and Wales who have big and skillful backs.

Sexton is the same weight as Madigan and BOD is only a slightly heavier than Carr. It's a case of using your size and technique. Scarlets had Newton and Williams in their back line last night both of whom are lightweight and below 14 stone. Kearney was the most powerful looking back on show last night and is shy of 14 stone. French back line is mostly light enough players who are around 14 stone.

Bulk is pretty useless if you can't use if effectively and there are few enough that can. The current Welsh back line are freakish and are generally the exception for a back line. NZ have several average enough blokes in Smith, Dagg and Jane. Australia's back line are full of pacey, smaller blokes.

In Trimble, Rob Kearney and Bowe, Ireland have backs that are over 6ft and 15 stone. They simply don't use their bulk effectively.

PhatPiggins

GerM wrote: »

Sexton is the same weight as Madigan and BOD is only a slightly heavier than Carr. It's a case of using your size and technique. Scarlets had Newton and Williams in their back line last night both of whom are lightweight and below 14 stone. Kearney was the most powerful looking back on show last night and is shy of 14 stone. French back line is mostly light enough players who are around 14 stone.

Bulk is pretty useless if you can't use if effectively and there are few enough that can. The current Welsh back line are freakish and are generally the exception for a back line. NZ have several average enough blokes in Smith, Dagg and Jane. Australia's back line are full of pacey, smaller blokes.

In Trimble, Rob Kearney and Bowe, Ireland have backs that are over 6ft and 15 stone. They simply don't use their bulk effectively.

Exactly, its how you use them that counts. You have one example of the English backline that lined out against Ireland in last years 6N's and Wales in the last two games against us.

Its more an observation on the game in general rather than specific reference to the game last night.

.ak

Reading back through the comments during the match I'm very surprised to see a lot of people thinking Ferg had a bad game? I thought he was solid, if not above that. Aside from his try (which was a stroke of luck imo), he was very dangerous with ball in hand. As GerM mentioned he still has a tendency not to pass left/inside, but for a player that rarely plays two games in a row in the same position, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt of not having those subtle skills a 12 needs to possess. In time, I think he could make an outstanding 12. He used his weight effectively last night, and his passes were crisp and he delivered some of the best quality cut-outs on the night. Couple of nice punts too (one quite lucky mind you).

The last kick of the game was impressive for more than just the fact it was a match winner - the wind had started to become very blustery, blowing from side to side rather than straight towards the south stand, and he had missed a couple previously which could've been playing on his mind, on top of that it was a 45+ meter kick I think, which would not normally be in his ideal range.

I thought EoM wasn't at his best (who was mind you?), he did seem to pick it up a bit in the second half, so I'd put that down to rustiness. When was the last game he started? Couple of butchered passes and he lost his awareness a couple of times, especially in that panicky phase on their 5m where he flung it at an on-rushing Devin Toner. Still, showed some great commitment in defense.

Infact, defensively I thought EoM and Ferg worked great as a unit. That's one aspect I was very interested in watching. A lot of the time EoM would use his pace to stop an attacking player from going outside, with Ferg coming in high, producing some possible turn overs. The two were fiercely aggressive in the breakdown, and at times it looked like they were a pair of small flankers pulling rucks apart.

With more game time I think they'd work amazingly well together as a unit.

Tox56

I too thought EOM was good defensively yesterday. Didn't do much in attack, but we know from previous matches he is more than capable there. He seems to have perfected the rush in defense to cut off the outside pass and taking man and ball. It is by no means an easy skill, and he executed it well several times. It is easy for it to go un-noticed, but it can be crucial.

I also think I'm right in saying he even got a turnover on the floor? Wasn't a great stream but I thought it was him. He was solid if unspectacular.

.ak

Tox56 wrote: »

I too thought EOM was good defensively yesterday. Didn't do much in attack, but we know from previous matches he is more than capable there. He seems to have perfected the rush in defense to cut off the outside pass and taking man and ball. It is by no means an easy skill, and he executed it well several times. It is easy for it to go un-noticed, but it can be crucial.

I also think I'm right in saying he even got a turnover on the floor? Wasn't a great stream but I thought it was him. He was solid if unspectacular.

He did yeh, and also Ferg broke through a ruck and forced the ball out and one stage. I thought they were pretty tireless at the breakdown. Impressive for someone who was labelled as 'dog tired' prior the match by his head coach.

Also great to see Locky's reaction after the kick went over. He ran over to the grandstand to celebrate to the fans, and seemed as ecstatic as the crowd. Great to see from a new captain.

GerM

He has become very good at reading the opposition defence. If McFadden could add EOM's reading of the game to his own performances he'd be a solid option at 13. More than one occasion, EOM read things nicely, shot up and killed the attack dead on or behind the gain line.

.ak, McFadden probably had an alright game overall. Not our best and not our worst player certainly. Our opinions were probably swung somewhat at the time by noticeable errors such as the skewed kick and the knock on in the first half. He always made yards in traffic and there was one fantastic counter ruck which led to a kick and chase by EOM.

.ak

GerM wrote: »

He has become very good at reading the opposition defence. If McFadden could add EOM's reading of the game to his own performances he'd be a solid option at 13. More than one occasion, EOM read things nicely, shot up and killed the attack dead on or behind the gain line.

.ak, McFadden probably had an alright game overall. Not our best and not our worst player certainly. Our opinions were probably swung somewhat at the time by noticeable errors such as the skewed kick and the knock on in the first half. He always made yards in traffic and there was one fantastic counter ruck which led to a kick and chase by EOM.

True, and that's kind of what I was getting at. I think all things considered it was a good game for him - he certainly wasn't our best back on display last night - I'd probably think Kearney or even Carr would get that title, even if Carr was out of position more than once. Knock-ons and scewed kicks are more down to luck and weather conditions than his actual game. Comments like these I felt were unfounded.

keith16 wrote: »

that was awful....mcFadden having a shocker..

Conas wrote: »

O'Malley and McFadden are having awful games in midfield. Dreadful hands by both. This area is going to be a serious problem for Leinster in the coming years, unless we find a 6ft 4 (16 stone) centre.

Also, surprised there hasn't been much bitching about Owens. I suppose it's because we won, and from a penalty. :pac: But in all seriousness, he was awful, I know we shouldn't have been in those situations, but he seriously let Scarlets away with murder. They were living on the wrong side of the ruck for most of the game, not rolling away, numbers just doddling around the ruck, interfering with the SH.. all in front of Nigel's eyes. I rarely get frustrated by ref's at matches, but I found myself screaming at him from time to time in frustration. The Strauss 'Off His Feet' call and Boss's 'Knock-On' were the icing on the cake for me...

Tox56

.ak wrote: »

True, and that's kind of what I was getting at. I think all things considered it was a good game for him - he certainly wasn't our best back on display last night - I'd probably think Kearney or even Carr would get that title, even if Carr was out of position more than once. Knock-ons and scewed kicks are more down to luck and weather conditions than his actual game. Comments like these I felt were unfounded.






Also, surprised there hasn't been much bitching about Owens. I suppose it's because we won, and from a penalty. :pac: But in all seriousness, he was awful, I know we shouldn't have been in those situations, but he seriously let Scarlets away with murder. They were living on the wrong side of the ruck for most of the game, not rolling away, numbers just doddling around the ruck, interfering with the SH.. all in front of Nigel's eyes. I rarely get frustrated by ref's at matches, but I found myself screaming at him from time to time in frustration. The Strauss 'Off His Feet' call and Boss's 'Knock-On' were the icing on the cake for me...

My biggest problem with Owens (and there were many), was the call at the scrum. He delivered the "touch pause engage" so slowly it was painful. I felt for the props having to hold back all that pressure, and there were several early engagements and resets as a result.

I don't know much about scrums, but surely a rhythmic "touch pause engage" delivered quickly will lead to less problems at the scrum? Even if that isn't possible, why do they have to pause so long between the "pause" and the "engage"? There might be a reason, as I said, I'm no expert.

JRant

Tox56 wrote: »

.ak wrote: »

True, and that's kind of what I was getting at. I think all things considered it was a good game for him - he certainly wasn't our best back on display last night - I'd probably think Kearney or even Carr would get that title, even if Carr was out of position more than once. Knock-ons and scewed kicks are more down to luck and weather conditions than his actual game. Comments like these I felt were unfounded.






Also, surprised there hasn't been much bitching about Owens. I suppose it's because we won, and from a penalty. :pac: But in all seriousness, he was awful, I know we shouldn't have been in those situations, but he seriously let Scarlets away with murder. They were living on the wrong side of the ruck for most of the game, not rolling away, numbers just doddling around the ruck, interfering with the SH.. all in front of Nigel's eyes. I rarely get frustrated by ref's at matches, but I found myself screaming at him from time to time in frustration. The Strauss 'Off His Feet' call and Boss's 'Knock-On' were the icing on the cake for me...

My biggest problem with Owens (and there were many), was the call at the scrum. He delivered the "touch pause engage" so slowly it was painful. I felt for the props having to hold back all that pressure, and there were several early engagements and resets as a result.

I don't know much about scrums, but surely a rhythmic "touch pause engage" delivered quickly will lead to less problems at the scrum? Even if that isn't possible, why do they have to pause so long between the "pause" and the "engage"? There might be a reason, as I said, I'm no expert.

Most refs these days have the same problem at scrum time. The amount of game time wasted on them is becoming an issue. Around the 70th min we had nearly 3 mins of setting and resetting scrums, its ridiculous tbh.
The thing about Owens reffing style is that he seems to make up his mind before kick-off as to which team he thinks are infringing.

roycon

PhatPiggins wrote: »

Leinsters backline were simply too small. In dry conditions their skill and speed can compensate but in the wet they are easily pressured.

I think your mixing up too small with not good enough

Ardillaun

GerM wrote: »

Sexton is the same weight as Madigan and BOD is only a slightly heavier than Carr. It's a case of using your size and technique. Scarlets had Newton and Williams in their back line last night both of whom are lightweight and below 14 stone. Kearney was the most powerful looking back on show last night and is shy of 14 stone. French back line is mostly light enough players who are around 14 stone.

Bulk is pretty useless if you can't use if effectively and there are few enough that can. The current Welsh back line are freakish and are generally the exception for a back line. NZ have several average enough blokes in Smith, Dagg and Jane. Australia's back line are full of pacey, smaller blokes.

In Trimble, Rob Kearney and Bowe, Ireland have backs that are over 6ft and 15 stone. They simply don't use their bulk effectively.

Smaller players can be highly effective if they are unusually strong and have good balance e.g. Tim Horan, Hipkiss, BOD as they can get under or around their opposition more easily. With that said, we have had a problem in matches over the last year with big backs making crucial plays against us e.g. North, Roberts, Rougerie. The French seem to nearly always have at least one big central back to draw defenders and run over a few and they are usually fast as well. Rougerie was even a serious problem for the All Blacks. Rob Kearney may be fairly big but he lacks the pace of a guy like Malzieu so that diminishes his momentum.

So weight, like speed, is not the be all and end all but it is an advantage in rugby.

Podge_irl

Ardillaun wrote: »

McFadden's kicks are dog ugly. They used to say a bumble bee's flight was physically inexplicable and I'm at a similar loss to explain how these low, ungainly, wobbly things ever go over. I know they do but he doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

Most accurate kicker in the league - that's plenty enough confidence for me. His kicks are ugly enough, but hitting them low like that means they're less affected by wind. Some of his kicking performances this season in terrible conditions were spectacular.

Leinster7

Guys, this whole big backs thing is nonsense. Really if you believe this I don't think you understand the game of rugby. This is not a personal attack...I'm just saying that if you believe size of our backs is the reason we lost to Wales can I suggest that you watch and learn more about the game because thats not the reason we lost.

I'd also like to point out some clear examples of why size isn't important:

Dan Carter , 5,10
Jonathan Sexton 6,3

Conrad Smith 6,1
Brian O'Driscoll 5,10

???!!

Once again...We didn't lose the game because of the size of our backs. Please educate yourself a little bit more on the game before saying such silly stuff.

Ardillaun

Leinster7 wrote: »

Guys, this whole big backs thing is nonsense. Really if you believe this I don't think you understand the game of rugby. This is not a personal attack...I'm just saying that if you believe size of our backs is the reason we lost to Wales can I suggest that you watch and learn more about the game because thats not the reason we lost.

I'd also like to point out some clear examples of why size isn't important:

Dan Carter , 5,10
Jonathan Sexton 6,3


Conrad Smith 6,1
Brian O'Driscoll 5,10

???!!

Once again...We didn't lose the game because of the size of our backs. Please educate yourself a little bit more on the game before saying such silly stuff.

Very basic point here. Nobody is saying that size is the only criterion to be considered when picking players but it has to be considered along with a multitude of other factors.

Ardillaun

Podge_irl wrote: »

Most accurate kicker in the league - that's plenty enough confidence for me. His kicks are ugly enough, but hitting them low like that means they're less affected by wind. Some of his kicking performances this season in terrible conditions were spectacular.

The stats are impressive, I have to admit but I remain unconvinced that his way of getting the ball over is robust and reproducible enough to be sustained for years to come.

durkadurka

Speaking of kicking, Fionn Carr has a big boot in him. I've seem him hit touch on the half way a few times from his own try line.

He had the wind with him the other day but I've seen him do it without the wind.