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

Match Thread: Ulster v Connacht Fri 23/12/16 19.30 BBC NI/SS2

Options
12346»

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Neil3030
    Registered Users Posts: 17,065 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    A frustrating game to watch, from a neutral's perspective. Probably no point reading too much into it though, given all the injuries and rotation.


  • Options
    #153
    BeardySi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭BeardySi


    bilston wrote: »
    On the assumption you're a Connacht fan I have to laugh at your assertion that Ulster looked very ordinary tonight given they beat Connacht by 16 points! So what does that make Connacht...and don't talk to me about injuries given we were missing plenty of players as well

    Sub-par, totally disjointed with their backs in total disarray. What's your point? It's entirely possible to get a good win while looking average. An Ulster side at their best would have completely put us to the sword last night.


  • Options
    #154
    MarinersBlues
    Registered Users Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭MarinersBlues


    bilston wrote: »
    On the assumption you're a Connacht fan I have to laugh at your assertion that Ulster looked very ordinary tonight given they beat Connacht by 16 points! So what does that make Connacht...and don't talk to me about injuries given we were missing plenty of players as well

    Connacht were decent in the pack apart from when the hooker failed to do his job in the scrum a few times
    .
    The backs, particularly the centres who are very green and small, were completely dominated by yours, particularly McCloskey who really could have scored four tries on his own if he engaged his brain a bit. Is he able to do this? Genuine question: can he do more than bosh?

    Once we lost Bealham and Poolman any other top 8 pro12 team playing at home should have got the BP.

    If we had a kept our starting team out there I think we could have beaten ye. If we had one of Ronaldson/Aki or even Robb I'm very confident we would have.


  • Options
    #155
    MarinersBlues
    Registered Users Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭MarinersBlues


    bilston wrote: »
    So what does that make Connacht...and don't talk to me about injuries given we were missing plenty of players as well
    Seriously - matter how one eyed you are, you could not want an appraisal of your team while ignoring the injuries Connacht have.

    Putting together a team while choosing to manage some players time is completely different to putting an academy player and back row as backs cover on the bench while starting a winger and recent academy grad.

    If you just want to just say - "We beat the pro12 champions, who are flying it in Europe, by 16 points"
    ......
    actually no I'm fine with that. You can say that. I like it !!!! 😆😆


  • Options
    #156
    Digifriendly
    Registered Users Posts: 4,036 ✭✭✭Digifriendly


    MarinersBlues wrote: »
    Connacht were decent in the pack apart from when the hooker failed to do his job in the scrum a few times
    .
    The backs, particularly the centres who are very green and small, were completely dominated by yours, particularly McCloskey who really could have scored four tries on his own if he engaged his brain a bit. Is he able to do this? Genuine question: can he do more than bosh?

    Once we lost Bealham and Poolman any other top 8 pro12 team playing at home should have got the BP.

    If we had a kept our starting team out there I think we could have beaten ye. If we had one of Ronaldson/Aki or even Robb I'm very confident we would have.

    Ulster won comfortably and were never in danger of losing. It is quite an assumption to make that Connacht's starting team could have won the game.OK Bealham going off didn't help but Dillane coming on brought an improvement especially in the lineout for Connacht. I agree that Ulster should have got a BP and that Aki's absence was a major loss but don't forget that Ulster have been without Payne for some time now as well as Trimble and Olding.
    BTW Connacht have not won away from home in the Pro 12 since early March last season. Next weekend's match against Munster is now massive for them in terms of this competition for a defeat at home puts them in danger of missing out in the ECC for next season IMHO.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Utopia Parkway
    Registered Users Posts: 17,335 ✭✭✭✭Utopia Parkway


    Digifriendly wrote: »
    Next weekend's match against Munster is now massive for them in terms of this competition for a defeat at home puts them in danger of missing out in the ECC for next season IMHO.

    That game is close to being a write off already for Connacht given the horrendous injury profile. I'm sure they'll do their best but a squad can only absorb so many players being hurt.


  • Options
    #158
    former total
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭former total


    Connacht are currently 12 points adrift of a European spot. They have to win next week or their season is in serious danger of being over by January.


  • Options
    #159
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Are Connacht the Stade Français of the Pro12?


  • Options
    #160
    launish116
    Registered Users Posts: 2,438 ✭✭✭launish116


    Ulster definitely left a bonus point out there!

    Very impressed with Treadwell, can cover ground well and tracked back well! Shame on butchering a try! But definitely see potential! Hopefully clarke doesnt screw that up!


  • Options
    #161
    jacothelad
    Registered Users Posts: 5,922 ✭✭✭jacothelad


    launish116 wrote: »
    Ulster definitely left a bonus point out there!

    Very impressed with Treadwell, can cover ground well and tracked back well! Shame on butchering a try! But definitely see potential! Hopefully clarke doesnt screw that up!

    I think Roux saved a try rather than Treadwell butchered it. He has looked really great in the last 3 games and he's massive, quick for a big fella and has decent skills.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    jacothelad
    Registered Users Posts: 5,922 ✭✭✭jacothelad


    MarinersBlues wrote: »
    Connacht were decent in the pack apart from when the hooker failed to do his job in the scrum a few times
    .
    The backs, particularly the centres who are very green and small, were completely dominated by yours, particularly McCloskey who really could have scored four tries on his own if he engaged his brain a bit. Is he able to do this? Genuine question: can he do more than bosh?

    Once we lost Bealham and Poolman any other top 8 pro12 team playing at home should have got the BP.

    If we had a kept our starting team out there I think we could have beaten ye. If we had one of Ronaldson/Aki or even Robb I'm very confident we would have.

    Totally unrealistic and blinkered view of what occurred or was likely to happen. The result would have been exactly the same. Ulster didn't play at the top of their game with freezing rain, strong wind and a 5 day turnaround from a brutal game v. Clermont. Ulster blew at least 3 tries by Ludik, Pienaar and Treadwell. However, Connacht were never in with a sniff of winning and even their scrum was ineffective against Warwick and Rodders and the line out was mince. Even so, given the dire injury situation, Connacht managed to start the game with more starting 1st XV players than Ulster although in fairness that was by choice in Ulster's case.


    And Ulster did give you a fighting chance by starting Roger Wilson at 8.


  • Options
    #163
    MarinersBlues
    Registered Users Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭MarinersBlues


    Digifriendly wrote: »
    Ulster won comfortably and were never in danger of losing. It is quite an assumption to make that Connacht's starting team could have won the game.
    I didn't say would have, I said could have. When we got the try back it would have been very different if the starting team was still out there.
    Digifriendly wrote: »

    BTW Connacht have not won away from home in the Pro 12 since early March last season. Next weekend's match against Munster is now massive for them in terms of this competition for a defeat at home puts them in danger of missing out in the ECC for next season IMHO.

    That is precisely the context I'm using. Even with our full squad we probably are a top 6 team, not a top 4 team this year.

    Given the opposition, the Ulster team looked ordinary. Not terrible, not great, ordinary. We were the second best team, but not by as much as we should have been, because Ulster didn't take advantage.


  • Options
    #164
    MarinersBlues
    Registered Users Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭MarinersBlues


    jacothelad wrote: »
    Totally unrealistic and blinkered view of what occurred or was likely to happen. The result would have been exactly the same. Ulster didn't play at the top of their game with freezing rain, strong wind and a 5 day turnaround from a brutal game v. Clermont. Ulster blew at least 3 tries by Ludik, Pienaar and Treadwell. However, Connacht were never in with a sniff of winning and even their scrum was ineffective against Warwick and Rodders and the line out was mince. Even so, given the dire injury situation, Connacht managed to start the game with more starting 1st XV players than Ulster although in fairness that was by choice in Ulster's case.


    And Ulster did give you a fighting chance by starting Roger Wilson at 8.

    The point I was defending was that Ulster were ordinary. You are arguing with me by pointing out the extraordinary players ye didn't play and the ordinary ones ye did.
    Surely this supports my point rather than counters it.


  • Options
    #165
    Digifriendly
    Registered Users Posts: 4,036 ✭✭✭Digifriendly


    MarinersBlues wrote: »
    I didn't say would have, I said could have. When we got the try back it would have been very different if the starting team was still out there.


    That is precisely the context I'm using. Even with our full squad we probably are a top 6 team, not a top 4 team this year.

    Given the opposition, the Ulster team looked ordinary. Not terrible, not great, ordinary. We were the second best team, but not by as much as we should have been, because Ulster didn't take advantage.

    Yes I quoted you as could have not would have.

    I disagree about the point you make re the starting team being out there when Connacht got their try back. The game was already lost for them at that stage. To quote you exactly 'it would have been very different' is off the mark IMHO.

    BTW Jacothelad I was at Ravenhill last night and there was no freezing rain. A short sharp shower in the first half and that's all. It was cold but there was definitely no freezing rain.


  • Options
    #166
    MarinersBlues
    Registered Users Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭MarinersBlues


    Digifriendly wrote: »
    Yes I quoted you as could have not would have.

    Sorry, wrote that point poorly. What I meant was seeing that I was only using the word "could" saying :

    It is quite an assumption to make that Connacht's starting team could have won the game

    Is probably a bit over the top as saying "could" is hardly making an assumption as to what would have happened. A few of the replies from the Ulster fans have the effect of putting words in my mouth or inferring a meaning that isn't there.
    I'm not really interested in discussing semantics. I think I have spent enough energy justifying my single line, five word, fairly innocuous, throwaway sentence.

    Enjoy yer win.
    Happy Christmas!!
    :):)


  • Options
    #167
    leakyboots
    Registered Users Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭leakyboots


    Thought this was an awful match to watch, so many knockons. Surprised Ulster didn't manage the BP


  • Options
    #168
    connachta
    Registered Users Posts: 7,965 ✭✭✭connachta


    Zzippy wrote: »
    TeoReid wrote: »
    it was against Buckley for driving in on the angle. justified? probably.

    Only if Buckley actually was driving in, which he didn't seem to be, the Ulster scrum was wheeling around on the far side under pressure from Bealham
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djACiOlbjEg

    32:15 of the video. For me Ulster resisted to the initial pressure, and Buckley changed the direction of his push (boring in), he didn't complain to the ref after...


Advertisement