Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ulster V Munster - Match Thread- 7.05pm - BBCNI/NI

Options
1…5678911»

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Bowe was a lot better than I gave him credit.


  • Options
    #303
    Clegg
    Registered Users Posts: 16,950 ✭✭✭✭Clegg


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Leinster had less possession but won comfortably against Munster 3 weeks ago.

    Tbf I think that kind of supports Molloys point. Leinster were happy to give Munster possession because they knew they'd get it back soon enough because Munster were woeful with ball in hand. They made a mess of any possession they had and looking at last night's match not much has changed.


  • Options
    #304
    Interested Observer
    Registered Users Posts: 13,051 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    thomond2006 wrote: »
    I think for now we can happy enough with good results. It's no use being in peak form in October. Equally that was a result earned by a largely second string lineup with little to no experience on the bench that won't play together in a life or death game. We don't need this side to look the part, just to keep results ticking over.

    I would imagine a Munster fan would be quite satisfied with an away win in Ravenhill under those circumstances and rightly so. I know two tries were scored but systematically the defence was really good, Ulster huffed and puffed for the entire second half and got nowhere.

    We need to talk about the Ulster pack though. There's no depth there at all and even the first choice pack is fairly poor these days. It really does a disservice to all the talent in their backline.

    Clegg wrote: »
    Tbf I think that kind of supports Molloys point. Leinster were happy to give Munster possession because they knew they'd get it back soon enough because Munster were woeful with ball in hand. They made a mess of any possession they had and looking at last night's match not much has changed.

    Yes Leinster had less possession and territory that Connacht last night but that's fine really.


  • Options
    #305
    phog
    Registered Users Posts: 24,085 ✭✭✭✭phog


    Clegg wrote: »
    Tbf I think that kind of supports Molloys point. Leinster were happy to give Munster possession because they knew they'd get it back soon enough because Munster were woeful with ball in hand. They made a mess of any possession they had and looking at last night's match not much has changed.

    A but like Munster so, happy to give Ulster the ball knowing we'd eventually get it back and score more than them.


  • Options
    #306
    Clegg
    Registered Users Posts: 16,950 ✭✭✭✭Clegg


    phog wrote: »
    A but like Munster so, happy to give Ulster the ball knowing we'd eventually get it back and score more than them.

    That may be so but the first half simply can't be ignored in how awful it was from a skills perspective.

    Munster dominated that first half yet were trailing at half time because their basic handling skills failed them completely. Which we've been told is easily fixable yet they've had this issue for years so whats the problem?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    budhabob
    Registered Users Posts: 4,845 ✭✭✭budhabob


    Only just watched the match there. Since the Leinster game munster look more organised, better defensively and with a reduction in individual errors. Given its Erasmus' first season, im happy with incremental improvements.

    As for the game itself, poor enough gamebut exciting all the same. Scannell, sweetnam and JOD all had cracking games.


  • Options
    #308
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    phog wrote: »
    Clegg wrote: »
    Tbf I think that kind of supports Molloys point. Leinster were happy to give Munster possession because they knew they'd get it back soon enough because Munster were woeful with ball in hand. They made a mess of any possession they had and looking at last night's match not much has changed.

    A but like Munster so, happy to give Ulster the ball knowing we'd eventually get it back and score more than them.

    In the second half yes, in the first half no. In the first half it was the polar opposite. That's been my whole point all along. It's a factual point that really isn't hard to grasp. What is the issue here?


  • Options
    #309
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    phog wrote: »
    Clegg wrote: »
    Tbf I think that kind of supports Molloys point. Leinster were happy to give Munster possession because they knew they'd get it back soon enough because Munster were woeful with ball in hand. They made a mess of any possession they had and looking at last night's match not much has changed.

    A but like Munster so, happy to give Ulster the ball knowing we'd eventually get it back and score more than them.

    In the second half yes, in the first half no. In the first half it was the polar opposite. That's been my whole point all along. It's a factual point that really isn't hard to grasp. What is the issue here?


  • Options
    #310
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    phog wrote: »
    Clegg wrote: »
    Tbf I think that kind of supports Molloys point. Leinster were happy to give Munster possession because they knew they'd get it back soon enough because Munster were woeful with ball in hand. They made a mess of any possession they had and looking at last night's match not much has changed.

    A but like Munster so, happy to give Ulster the ball knowing we'd eventually get it back and score more than them.

    In the second half yes, in the first half no. In the first half it was the polar opposite. That's been my whole point all along. It's a factual point that really isn't hard to grasp. What is the issue here?


  • Options
    #311
    former total
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭former total


    molloyjh wrote: »
    It's a factual point that really isn't hard to grasp. What is the issue here?

    So you posted it three times to ram it home. Subtle...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    former total
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭former total


    Scannell's drop goal was a thing of beauty. Got an horrendous pass to his wrong side and he still stuck it over when a lot of other players would have taken contact and waited for a cleaner strike.

    However, if your team is happy to give the opposition the ball "knowing we'd eventually get it back and score more than them", and you need a 76th minute drop goal to do so, then the plan has not worked.


  • Options
    #313
    Interested Observer
    Registered Users Posts: 13,051 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    thomond2006 wrote: »
    During international windows, not life or death games that can make or break a season.

    I don't get this. The league points you can win during the international window are worth the exact same as you win outside the window. If Ulster happen to be struggling for a playoff in April/May then they can look back at losing at home to Munster as a part of that.


  • Options
    #314
    phog
    Registered Users Posts: 24,085 ✭✭✭✭phog


    molloyjh wrote: »
    In the second half yes, in the first half no. In the first half it was the polar opposite. That's been my whole point all along. It's a factual point that really isn't hard to grasp. What is the issue here?

    former total wrote: »
    Scannell's drop goal was a thing of beauty. Got an horrendous pass to his wrong side and he still stuck it over when a lot of other players would have taken contact and waited for a cleaner strike.

    However, if your team is happy to give the opposition the ball "knowing we'd eventually get it back and score more than them", and you need a 76th minute drop goal to do so, then the plan has not worked.


    The game lasts for 80mins, whoever is ahead at the end of the game wins. Being ahead or behind at any other time during the game is a tad irrelevant.


  • Options
    #315
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    phog wrote: »
    molloyjh wrote: »
    In the second half yes, in the first half no. In the first half it was the polar opposite. That's been my whole point all along. It's a factual point that really isn't hard to grasp. What is the issue here?

    former total wrote: »
    Scannell's drop goal was a thing of beauty. Got an horrendous pass to his wrong side and he still stuck it over when a lot of other players would have taken contact and waited for a cleaner strike.

    However, if your team is happy to give the opposition the ball "knowing we'd eventually get it back and score more than them", and you need a 76th minute drop goal to do so, then the plan has not worked.


    The game lasts for 80mins, whoever is ahead at the end of the game wins. Being ahead or behind at any other time during the game is a tad irrelevant.

    You really don't understand what I'm saying at all do you?


  • Options
    #316
    phog
    Registered Users Posts: 24,085 ✭✭✭✭phog


    molloyjh wrote: »
    You really don't understand what I'm saying at all do you?

    Every team has turnovers. What's the average for a Pro12 game? How many had Munster or Ulster on Friday night?


  • Options
    #317
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    phog wrote: »
    Every team has turnovers. What's the average for a Pro12 game? How many had Munster or Ulster on Friday night?

    That would be a no then. Because turnovers have literally nothing at all to do with anything that I said.


  • Options
    #318
    Felix Jones is God
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,160 ✭✭✭Felix Jones is God


    molloyjh wrote: »
    That would be a no then. Because turnovers have literally nothing at all to do with anything that I said.

    Youre trying to create an issue in your own mind...there is no issue, what youre saying is total gibberish tbf


  • Options
    #319
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Felix Jones is God wrote: »
    Youre trying to create an issue in your own mind...there is no issue, what youre saying is total gibberish tbf

    It really isn't, but sure whatever.....


  • Options
    #320
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,296 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Even a cursory glance through the posts makes it easy to understand that Molloy was saying that it's not a good sign for either team that they look better without the ball than with it.

    Where's the confusion?


  • Options
    #321
    Felix Jones is God
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,160 ✭✭✭Felix Jones is God


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    Even a cursory glance through the posts makes it easy to understand that Molloy was saying that it's not a good sign for either team that they look better without the ball than with it.

    Where's the confusion?

    You mean a stat? He would have us believe it's a huge concern....to suggest that is nonsensical gibberish...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,567 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    closed-sign.png


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement