Ireland vs England Feb 23, 3pm Twickenham

For all the talk about whether the kicks were "lucky" or not to result in tries it must be remembered that England had Ireland pinned down in their own 22 or own half for pretty much the entire first 40 minutes.

That was the determining factor and I think that they would have found a way to turn this dominance into scores if these plays didn't work out as they did.

From the way that the English runners were so smartly following up on the kick it does seem very much a planned tactic.

partyguinness

GreeBo wrote: »

How often do attacks come to nothing?
Your argument is to try nothing because, percentage wise, they dont work out.

Do you even sport?

There does seem to be some posters here who have a very black and white almost religious obsession about what should and should not be done on the pitch and anything that might be a bit different or edgy is just completely mind blowing.

"But but.....but he should not be making such kicks because the percentages say otherwise." or

"England were lucky because they really should not have made that kick"

It's a little weird actually

Interestingly over the years Irish teams have been criticized for being over coached, predictable and sticking too rigidly to certain formulas.

The most successful and exciting teams over the years are the ones that try new things and play unpredictably and not sticking slavishly certain styles. It has been Ireland's downfall at every WC in the professional era- playing league football in the cup competition and simply not being able to adapt on the pitch.

prawnsambo

partyguinness wrote: »

As I said it was only the 8th minute so why not. It worked out.

They were not chasing a score in the 78th min.

This is probably the most relevant factor. It was early in the game and plenty of time to try stuff. I often noticed under Joe Schmidt that we would invariably kick penalties to the corner in the first half and at the posts in the second. Incidentally, Murray Kinsella noted that we switched to a 13-2 defense in the 22 in the second half. Twice bitten.

As an aside, I much prefer these kinds of discussions after a game. You always learn something from them.

partyguinness

glasso wrote: »

For all the talk about whether the kicks were "lucky" or not to result in tries it must be remembered that England had Ireland pinned down in their own 22 or own half for pretty much the entire first 40 minutes.

That was the determining factor and I think that they would have found a way to turn this dominance into scores if these plays didn't work out as they did.

From the way that the English runners were so smartly following up on the kick it does seem very much a planned tactic.

I was watching it in England with English supporters. I cannot remember the last time I thought this during a 6N game but I saw the clock at 32min and said "We need to get to half time ASAP".

partyguinness

partyguinness wrote: »

As I said it was only the 8th minute so why not. It worked out.

They were not chasing a score in the 78th min.

Absolutely, just don't diminish the most likely outcome

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

How often do attacks come to nothing?
Your argument is to try nothing because, percentage wise, they dont work out.

Do you even sport?

Yep, try nothing, that was my point

Ardillaun

partyguinness wrote: »

There does seem to be some posters here who have a very black and white almost religious obsession about what should and should not be done on the pitch and anything that might be a bit different or edgy is just completely mind blowing.

"But but.....but he should not be making such kicks because the percentages say otherwise." or

"England were lucky because they really should not have made that kick"

It's a little weird actually
.

Given England’s utter dominance on the field, I would have expected them to be able to keep the the ball in hand but those little kicks behind the defence worked well against us, as they did last year. From the point of view of the game in general, it’s good to see space created through accurate kicking.

partyguinness

We mentioned that this essentially the same Irish team as the WC so instant turn around in fortunes not to be expected.

Likewise, this is essentially the same England team (minus the the Vunipolas) that gave IMO one of the best performances that I have ever seen in beating NZ a few months ago.

Let's not be too hard on the team.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2020/feb/24/irelands-backline-were-spooked-by-englands-effort-and-attitude

Dubinusa

I thought we were pensive and apprehensive at the start. England bought it to us in spades and we had no answer. Poor preparation? No real alternative from the shellacking of last year. Our predictable patterns were so easily read and defended. I think England with the attacking style they used showed us a good platform to start with.
Mixing up the attack leaves defenses hesitant. I think the only way for us to have gained any semblance of parity on Sunday would have been to kick for territory. Time and time again Murray box kicked right to the defense with no pressure on them. That was the same script as last year's! Why not skip a pass to Stockdale or Larmour and then put in a kick that turns England around and gives us something to chase and hit hard?
Even a spark of hard hitting rucks going forward could change the mindset of both sides. England like all sides , are a different animal with pressure on. We failed to apply any decent kick chase or territorial kicks during the 1st half.
It seems like our lads get shellshocked when they are under the gun. But, Sexton was abysmal. The other lads may have been thinking "wtf" as they watched him struggle. He should have been yanked at half time, along with Toner and Murray. Farrell and company were outcoached for this one. It boggles the mind to see it. We knew England would be brutally physical and yet... no semblance of a response.

Hands Like Flippers

prawnsambo wrote: »

Thanks. That's the exact instance I was referencing. It would be great if refs actually started doing this. I can understand that it's difficult as he has to see the right picture; body weight supported, hands on the ball and not the ground and the tackled player still holding on. All while players are piling in and whether a ruck was formed or not. But it would certainly reduce the injury count if they at least reacted a bit quicker.

Surely the penalty is for not releasing not for putting hands on the ball. This was discussed a while back on the general forum. The jacklar has to be able to survive a clear out if it arrives quickly. Often the issue is the defender makes no effort to rip the ball whilst the tackled player has in fact released therefore no penalty should be awarded.

prawnsambo

Hands Like Flippers wrote: »

Surely the penalty is for not releasing not for putting hands on the ball. This was discussed a while back on the general forum. The jacklar has to be able to survive a clear out if it arrives quickly. Often the issue is the defender makes no effort to rip the ball whilst the tackled player has in fact released therefore no penalty should be awarded.

Yes it is. But you get players still moving in the tackle, so not releasing is really a movable feast. And if nobody is challenging for the ball, releasing it isn't a problem.