Ireland vs Wales, Six Nations 2016, Sunday 7th Feb, 2016. KO 3PMGMT

ClanofLams

Hagz wrote: »

O'Halloran is nothing more than a decent player enjoying a good run of form. He's never going to be a starter for Ireland and shouldn't expect to get more than 10 caps over the course of his career. That's the reality of the situation.

He's only 24 and the last year has been his first injury free run in a long time. He's certainly more than a 'decent player'. He's equally certainly a significantly better full back than Zebo at this moment in time at least. To be fair to Zebo the idea that he wasn't going to get exposed at FB in the six nations having played the position a couple of times in the last year and not since October was a very optimistic one.

CMOTDibbler

ClanofLams wrote: »

He's only 24 and the last year has been his first injury free run in a long time. He's certainly more than a 'decent player'. He's equally certainly a significantly better full back than Zebo at this moment in time at least. To be fair to Zebo the idea that he wasn't going to get exposed at FB in the six nations having played the position a couple of times in the last year and not since October was a very optimistic one.

O'Halloran is very good going forward, always beats a couple of defenders or more in a game and a try or try assist every so often as well. But I suspect his defence is what's letting him down. As good as he is for a couple of breaks or defenders beaten, he's also liable to getting isolated and turned over as well as missing a few tackles.

molloyjh

I'll need to watch that game again. I got a ticket last minute but it ended up being in a poor spot. Struggled to see a lot of what was really happening. So anything I have to say about player performances comes with that health warning.

Overall I'm happy enough with that. I had expected a narrow loss so a draw wasn't a bad result from that perspective. Given all the injuries we had and the fact that I was genuinely worried about our tight 5 there were some pleasing aspects to our performance. We struggled at set piece, probably more than I expected us to, but still won all our own scrums and only lost the 1 line-out (Wales lost 1 as well). And given how good the Welsh defence was (there was rarely any space to be had out there that we could use, either in their line or behind it) the fact we managed 7 line breaks to their 0 was really positive. Sexton looks to be coming into some really good form and it was no surprise that the Accenture player leaderboard had himself and Murray as the top 2 on the day. We needed those guys to perform and they did.

I thought Best was great. He got through a mountain of work and hit rucks like a man possessed at times. Toner too made a complete mess of a lot of the Welsh rucks by just getting his arms and legs in the way time and again. He was a complete nuisance there. I think we saw how effective that centre pairing are from a defensive perspective. Arguably the best centre combination in the competition got very little change from them at all. The ball wasn't getting wide very often when we were attacking but then the Welsh line was so well organised that I felt more often than not we were making the right decision taking it up. It may not have looked pretty but Wales gave us very few options in that regard. This all hampered how our back 3 looked. Instead we had to judge them primarily on their defensive work. Earls did well and Trimble for the most part was good. But his lack of pace in the lead up to the Welsh try was a worry. I was right on the try line there and he did look like he had lead in his boots. At the time I felt Zebo could have done more to get into a position to support Trimble because when Trimble got the ball he looked for the pass but Zebo was ahead of him. It's a hard one to call in real time though as Zebo may have had to consider the possibility of Trimble not collecting it.

Either way I think Zebo showed that he simply isn't a FB. He was beaten in the air too often (did he win a single aerial battle at all?) and far too easily. That kick out on the full was a terrible mistake. And the kick chase where he just completely missed his man was bafflingly bad. Then there was a kick up the middle towards the end that was simply dreadful. He did well with ball in hand, but some of the basics of FB play were beyond him. It's hard to be too critical of him for that because he is a winger who was playing FB, but I think we need to find another option. I wouldn't be too worried about him there against France if the need be as they won't be sending bombs his way, they just don't play like that, but against England we need Rob fit.

I found it hard to judge the back row from where I was because I couldn't really see who was doing what in the tight. Heaslip seemed very busy and made some good carries, as did Stander. CJ made a few mistakes but for his international debut he was pretty impressive overall. The impression I got of TOD was that he got through a lot of work but wasn't as effective at the breakdown as we needed him to be, which I think we all expected anyway.

Overall it's days like yesterday that Joe and his staff earn their coin. Missing a lot of starters, coming to terms with losing the best leader many of us have ever seen and having to play probably the toughest opponent in the 6Ns at the moment was a massive test. While we didn't win it I think we showed enough that we can be reasonably confident of our chances this year. If the weekend was anything to go by it's between ourselves and the Welsh, although I wouldn't be writing off England yet at all as they will get better by the week. That we have guys like SOB and Rob Kearney to bring back in to the side will give us a big boost. For all the incessant negativity that has surrounded Irish rugby for the last few months I think yesterday answered a lot of that. We didn't get "slaughtered" as some suggested we would. Wales didn't "find us out" as others suggested. I'd hope (but would not expect) that a lot of that crap can be put away for now off the back of that performance and in the knowledge that important players are coming back into the side.

MJohnston

molloyj wrote:

I thought Best was great. He got through a mountain of work and hit rucks like a man possessed at times. Toner too made a complete mess of a lot of the Welsh rucks by just getting his arms and legs in the way time and again

Actually there were a number of times I thought we committed too much to the breakdown when the Welsh were standing off. There were a couple when it seemed like we left the ball really exposed because the clearout was too effective

molloyjh

MJohnston wrote: »

Actually there were a number of times I thought we committed too much to the breakdown when the Welsh were standing off. There were a couple when it seemed like we left the ball really exposed because the clearout was too effective

I noticed that two or three times all right. Guys were clearing defenders out and going past the ruck. That's good on their ball, but not so much on our own. At the same time you've got to be confident that you'll have support behind you to protect the ball if you go beyond it, because sometimes you do need to make that big clear out.

kuang1

molloyjh wrote: »

I noticed that two or three times all right. Guys were clearing defenders out and going past the ruck. That's good on their ball, but not so much on our own. At the same time you've got to be confident that you'll have support behind you to protect the ball if you go beyond it, because sometimes you do need to make that big clear out.

Yeah I actually thought it was bizarre how the Welsh didn't commit to the rucks. Any pessimism I had before the game was mainly stemming from a fear that we would lose a lot of the ground battles, but there wasn't a whole lot of them.
Wales were keen to spread it wide a lot and I wonder did Gatland watch too many reruns of our Argentina game!

CMOTDibbler

kuang1 wrote: »

Yeah I actually thought it was bizarre how the Welsh didn't commit to the rucks. Any pessimism I had before the game was mainly stemming from a fear that we would lose a lot of the ground battles, but there wasn't a whole lot of them.
Wales were keen to spread it wide a lot and I wonder did Gatland watch too many reruns of our Argentina game!

I noticed that England were doing the same against Scotland, pretty much just the tackler involved in the ruck and the defence was getting set for the next phase. The only times Scotland looked like getting through was when they got good gain line and recycled quickly. Inevitably they'd run out of steam (or Laidlaw would) and the English defence would be set again and the Scots would just be going backwards.

It seems to be a standard defensive system now, to not resource the midfield rucks and wait for the ball to go wide and then go hammer and tongs looking for the turnover.

MJohnston

Btw I yelled with delight at seeing the lineout maul standoff pay off yet again. I love that our forwards have that kind of intelligence and patience.

CMOTDibbler

MJohnston wrote: »

Btw I yelled with delight at seeing the lineout maul standoff pay off yet again. I love that our forwards have that kind of intelligence and patience.

Me too. Looks like that's Jack McGrath's job to tackle the ball carrier.

A lot of locks don't transfer the ball until the engage. I wonder how that was missed by Wales.

errlloyd

MJohnston wrote: »

Btw I yelled with delight at seeing the lineout maul standoff pay off yet again. I love that our forwards have that kind of intelligence and patience.

I was actually really angry tbh - not at our forwards, but at the refereeing situation that was evident during that move.

When we stand off, we send McGrath around the back to tackle the ball carrier, which is fine, they get a ruck, they don't get a lineout happy days. You could almost saw we have nullified line out advantage, so it's a tie.

But in reality, as soon as the ball goes to the guy at the back, all McGrath should have to do is run into one of the guys at the front. Then it's truck and trailer / crossing / obstruction and we should get a penalty.

I think as soon as the ref sees the ball get to the back of a disengaged Maul it should be a penalty against the attacking team, because clearly there is intentional obstruction happening in front of him. Also if McGrath has to run around a bunch of opposition players to tackle the ball carrier it is quite clearly some form of crossing.

errlloyd

And actually, on that.

What is quite common these days is seeing one of the front men in the attacking maul dragging a defender in. Literally grabbing and pulling in. If an attacking player who is not the ball carrier is the first to initiate contact, it should be a penalty.

errlloyd

errlloyd wrote: »

I was actually really angry tbh - not at our forwards, but at the refereeing situation that was evident during that move.

When we stand off, we send McGrath around the back to tackle the ball carrier, which is fine, they get a ruck, they don't get a lineout happy days. You could almost saw we have nullified line out advantage, so it's a tie.

But in reality, as soon as the ball goes to the guy at the back, all McGrath should have to do is run into one of the guys at the front. Then it's truck and trailer / crossing / obstruction and we should get a penalty.

I think as soon as the ref sees the ball get to the back of a disengaged Maul it should be a penalty against the attacking team, because clearly there is intentional obstruction happening in front of him. Also if McGrath has to run around a bunch of opposition players to tackle the ball carrier it is quite clearly some form of crossing.

Pretty negative play though, would always prefer rules/spirit of play to favour attacking team/team in possession.

pickarooney

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Or an outstanding centre, or an outstanding 10

Or a humorous Lions lock partner for Johnny Gray.

Richard Hillman

It looks like literally nothing was learned from the world cup. We are still playing the same turgid rugby (maybe a little bit less of the box kick which could be due to the lack of R.Kearney)

Can't wait for the exact same inquest after the 2019 World Cup.

errlloyd

Basil3 wrote: »

Pretty negative play though, would always prefer rules/spirit of play to favour attacking team/team in possession.

If they form a maul legally there isn't a problem. Attempting to form a maul illegally is pretty much the definition of negative play.

kuang1

Richard Hillman wrote: »

It looks like literally nothing was learned from the world cup. We are still playing the same turgid rugby (maybe a little bit less of the box kick which could be due to the lack of R.Kearney)

Can't wait for the exact same inquest after the 2019 World Cup.

Looking forward to your next post then so!

CMOTDibbler

Richard Hillman wrote: »

It looks like literally nothing was learned from the world cup. We are still playing the same turgid rugby (maybe a little bit less of the box kick which could be due to the lack of R.Kearney)

Well there you go. You heard it here first; Rob Kearney is a scrum half.

Richard Hillman

Richard Hillman wrote: »

It looks like literally nothing was learned from the world cup. We are still playing the same turgid rugby (maybe a little bit less of the box kick which could be due to the lack of R.Kearney)

Can't wait for the exact same inquest after the 2019 World Cup.

Seven line breaks to their zero. Running from inside our own 22 a few times including after 80 minutes.

errlloyd

errlloyd wrote: »

If they form a maul legally there isn't a problem. Attempting to form a maul illegally is pretty much the definition of negative play.

Agree to disagree there. We know which tactic is used to catch the other out on a technicality.

Regardless, worrying about issues like that is missing the real issue of creating decent attacking play.

Richard Hillman

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Well there you go. You heard it here first; Rob Kearney is a scrum half.

Rob Kearney chasing and catching. Didn't think I would have to spell it out for you.

CMOTDibbler

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Rob Kearney chasing and catching. Didn't think I would have to spell it out for you.

Box kicks? The full back chasing box kicks?

Richard Hillman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Seven line breaks to their zero. Running from inside our own 22 a few times including after 80 minutes.

The box kicks were replaced by some running from the 22. A little bit of an improvement. Let's be honest though, it was only as soon as the 80 mins were up that we got the rugby we were demanding just 4 months ago.

Clegg

I don't think we can read much into the game in regard to tactics. Ireland didn't have a full squad to choose from so it was always going to be more difficult to play an attacking, running game which is what people seem to want. For that to work you need ball carriers to bust the gain line and right now we're missing three of our best in Healy, Henderson and O'Brien. Heaslip did an admirable job, but he isn't as good a carrier as those just listed and it was really down to himself and Stander to gain go forward. I really don't know what some people expect. SoB and Pom also showed in the world cup that they could draw the man and pass on contact which in theory opens holes in the defence. We didn't see that in the preceeding 6N either. So there was a change in the way we play. But with our primary ball playing forwards also gone it makes things that much more difficult to play this more expansive game.

I also think people have missed that we didn't play in the world cup the same way we did in the preceding six nations. On evidence from the world cup and the opening 6 Nations game there is more willingness to run the ball in certain situations. We had 5 clean line breaks compared to Wales' 0. It was an encouraging attacking performance I thought. Ireland still lacks cutting edge in the opposition 22. That's where they become far too direct. But in general there has been an improvement in attacking play.

Richard Hillman

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Box kicks? The full back chasing box kicks?

Ok fair enough, but was the reduction on box kicks the only thing we have improved on offensively since the world cup?

captbarnacles

We still lack the support for linebreaks that NZ or Aus would have. Can't help but think they would have scored from the Zebo link break in second half.

sydthebeat

Richard Hillman wrote: »

It looks like literally nothing was learned from the world cup. We are still playing the same turgid rugby (maybe a little bit less of the box kick which could be due to the lack of R.Kearney)
.

CMOTDibbler

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Ok fair enough, but was the reduction on box kicks the only thing we have improved on offensively since the world cup?

Box kicks aren't generally an offensive play. They are used as an exit strategy from your own red zone. The odd time they're used if the opposition back three are out of position and there's some easy territorial gain to be had, but that's very rare.

You might be thinking of garryowens which would be used more as an offensive weapon, but again they have only limited value against a good back three.

A good rugby team use all the weapons at their disposal against the opposition they face. You don't eschew garryowens or box kicks just because they may be 'unfashionable', you use them or discard them depending on what's in front of you. Most kicking options will depend on how good the back three are and how the opposition defensive line is set.

CMOTDibbler

One of the highlights of the match for me. Devin Toner using Alun Wynn-Jones as a springboard to block Gareth Davies' kick.

Teferi

Dev is actually just that tall all he had to do was lean over.

captbarnacles

Awesome. Needs gif!!!!!!!!