Scotland vs Ireland, 4th Feb 2017, Murrayfield, 2:25, RTÉ 2

Rightwing · 05-02-2017 04:51PM

Nathanael Great Kangaroo wrote: »

Heaslips nomination for player of the year means nothing Driscoll and parasse never winning it sums up how silly that award is.

Any other straws?

He was poor yesterday, no doubt about that. Doesn't really matter who plays the next day however.
Conor O Shea is managing to do the almost impossible: making Italy worse than they were before he arrived.

Buer · 05-02-2017 04:52PM

irishbucsfan wrote:

What is our back row missing? Not sure balance is an issue at all tbh

Individually they were all ok. I don't think we can point the finger at any of them really aside from Heaslip and Stander making a couple of sloppy errors. All tackled well and carried well. They gave us plenty of clean quick ball also which our halfbacks did not use well.

its_phil · 05-02-2017 04:55PM

Buer wrote: »

Individually they were all ok. I don't think we can point the finger at any of them really aside from Heaslip and Stander making a couple of sloppy errors. All tackled well and carried well. They gave us plenty of clean quick ball also which our halfbacks did not use well.

The ball was anything but clean and quick yesterday.

irishbucsfan · 05-02-2017 04:57PM

its_phil wrote: »

The ball was anything but clean and quick yesterday.

What was it then? Thought it was fine for us in between our unforced errors at the set piece and in defense.

wittycynic · 05-02-2017 04:59PM

Buer wrote: »

The stats are simple facts regarding how they performed and what they did on the pitch.

The impression of those players was good without having to consult the stats. Heaslip made a couple of bad errors but it was obvious to anyone watching that he was doing a massive amount of carrying and was getting us forward particularly in the first half when our more powerful carriers were struggling.

Kearney and Zebo were showing for the ball repeatedly and making their presence felt. Kearney's try saving hit was a massive moment.

The statistics simply go hand in hand with the overall performance of the players and contradicts your assessment.

If you're looking at guys who failed to perform then you look at Jackson, Toner, Earls, Best and Henderson. They struggled badly to impose themselves on the game when we needed to get a hold of the game. Their overall showings simply weren't good enough.

What, in your opinion, were the reasons we lost yesterday, and do those reasons include decisions on selection?

Buer · 05-02-2017 05:00PM

its_phil wrote:

The ball was anything but clean and quick yesterday.

We had a huge number of rucks in their territory with clear ball in the second half. We have it on a plate a number of times.

Scotland did a decent job but certainly not a situation where we need to look at our back row for their breakdown work.

twinytwo · 05-02-2017 05:00PM

A lot of the bandwagoners need to get their head out of their asses. No matter how good joe is, no matter how good or bad we play... we will not win every game we play.. even the ABS cant do that.

Players will have bad days, it happens. On anotherday we would have spanked Scotland off the pitch.

They went out with a game plan, executed it and won, just about.

twinytwo · 05-02-2017 05:02PM

wittycynic wrote: »

What, in your opinion, were the reasons we lost yesterday, and do those reasons include decisions on selection?

The gray brothers and defending way too narrow in the first half?

Jackson needed to drop a ball or two behind the Scots defensive line as well.

Neil3030 · 05-02-2017 05:02PM

So that was a disappointing result to say the least. Scotland defended very aggressively and took their chances well, but we played into their hands by being so laborious and predictable in attack. For me, the blame is shared between Murray and Jackson for not getting runners onto the ball in the right places. We also barely box kicked, and did little by way of territorial kicking and grubbers. That just let Scotland blitz all day long, knowing that the ball was likely going to a forward in midfield. If I were Henshaw I'd also be having a quiet word with Jackson about the amount of times he took the ball right to the line before firing it at his head, a foot and a half in front of the onrushing defender.

The lineout was obviously the other huge factor. We need another option in there to take the pressure off. I'd ideally want to see POM come in, but the problem is who do you then drop? Assuming all back fit for the next match, perhaps we revert back to a POM-SOB-Heaslip backrow with CJ on the bench for some ball-carrying impact. This would also allow Ryan to bench ahead of Dillane.

its_phil · 05-02-2017 05:02PM

Buer wrote: »

We had a huge number of rucks in their territory with clear ball in the second half. We have it on a plate a number of times.

Scotland did a decent job but certainly not a situation where we need to look at our back row for their breakdown work.

Breakdown work is a 14 man issue, not a 3 man issue so I agree there. But far too many times Murray had to scramble to get that ball back

05-02-2017 05:03PM

its_phil wrote: »

The ball was anything but clean and quick yesterday.

Scotland were getting away with hands on the ball illegally on the deck (we were too). However generally we were securing rucks fine but for this, and if the ref isn't interested in pinging these things we need to work around it.

Both teams slowed up ball, but Scotland could deal with it as they were moving the ball before contact to go wide whereas we were trying to play through midfield with our carriers.

We should have had a fall back plan and we should have played the ref better by getting in his ear. We absolutely should have scrummed at every opportunity in the first 40.

Loads of mistakes. Maybe hubris but who knows.

Heaslip Kearney and Ringrose being the fall guys for a certain section of posters is nothing new. That Heaslip and Kearney were our best forward / backs yesterday speaks volumes about the perspective of these posters.

Buer · 05-02-2017 05:03PM

wittycynic wrote:

What, in your opinion, were the reasons we lost yesterday, and do those reasons include decisions on selection?

Badly prepared and lack of concentration from the start. Sloppy execution at set piece. Back line taking the ball far too deep. Defensive alignment and work rate across the team was not good enough.

In terms of personnel, Sexton and Payne would have made a massive difference in our attack and defence respectively.

Most of these issues were corrected at half time but the damage was done well before that.

sydthebeat · 05-02-2017 05:03PM

Rightwing wrote: »

He was poor yesterday, no doubt about that. Doesn't really matter who plays the next day however.
Conor O Shea is managing to do the almost impossible: making Italy worse than they were before he arrived.

Not that I like doing it but the majority of relevant media had Heaslip as our best back row yesterday, and something I'd agree with. Stander and sob had more standout moments but not only could you see the the organising Heaslip was doing but you could also clearly hear him consistently on the refs Mic.

The case for our back row being imbalanced rests with the obvious issues we had with it, slow scrappy crap ball as it flankers were being used as truckers.

.ak · 05-02-2017 05:08PM

wittycynic wrote: »

You thought he had a good day out so? A potent attacking threat with ball in hand?

You do realise he made the most metres ball in hand, most defenders beaten?

He was our best in the back three, easily.

Rightwing · 05-02-2017 05:13PM

sydthebeat wrote: »

Not that I like doing it but the majority of relevant media had Heaslip as our best back row yesterday, and something I'd agree with. Stander and sob had more standout moments but not only could you see the the organising Heaslip was doing but you could also clearly hear him consistently on the refs Mic.

The case for our back row being imbalanced rests with the obvious issues we had with it, slow scrappy crap ball as it flankers were being used as truckers.

I'd have put SOB marginally ahead of the other two. But Heaslip has been a fine player for us, so I would be in no rush dropping him even if he was poor, because I didn't see anyone great in green yesterday.

But the reality is, we can play anyone we like next week. Italy are shockingly poor.

sydthebeat · 05-02-2017 05:17PM

Rightwing wrote: »

But the reality is, we can play anyone we like next week. Italy are shockingly poor.

I'm more interested in how we play than who plays. If love to see some more speed in our back three but I'm not sure that's physically possible unless Conway comes in for someone.

Just more precision and adventure.

05-02-2017 05:19PM

Rightwing wrote: »

Italy are shockingly poor.

Italy panicked in the last 30 minutes when a potential win started to get away from them. Wales just lost out on the one likely chance of a winning TBP.

Italy were a lot better. I've never seen them as structured in defence as they were. They have reverted to basics but it made them competitive for 60 minutes against a tier 1 team. There is a decent turnaround here and it should be acknowledged.

Ireland are not so much better than Scotland that we can heavily under perform and still expect to win. Were not the All Blacks.

I'd like if we got the smash to the jaw we got but came away with 4 points and not 1. That would have been heartening and kept things on track.

Rightwing · 05-02-2017 05:23PM

sydthebeat wrote: »

I'm more interested in how we play than who plays. If love to see some more speed in our back three but I'm not sure that's physically possible unless Conway comes in for someone.

Just more precision and adventure.

Definitely agree. We have to become more adventurous, the BP system is good that way.

Alpha_zero · 05-02-2017 05:25PM

Buer wrote: »

Individually they were all ok. I don't think we can point the finger at any of them really aside from Heaslip and Stander making a couple of sloppy errors. All tackled well and carried well. They gave us plenty of clean quick ball also which our halfbacks did not use well.

I don't know what game you were watching, our back row was underwhelming and very ineffective

Rightwing · 05-02-2017 05:27PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Italy panicked in the last 30 minutes when a potential win started to get away from them. Wales just lost out on the one likely chance of a winning TBP.

Italy were a lot better. I've never seen them as structured in defence as they were. They have reverted to basics but it made them competitive for 60 minutes against a tier 1 team. There is a decent turnaround here and it should be acknowledged.

Ireland are not so much better than Scotland that we can heavily under perform and still expect to win. Were not the All Blacks.

I'd like if we got the smash to the jaw we got but came away with 4 points and not 1. That would have been heartening and kept things on track.

I'd like to think you are right.
The new system won't won't suit Italy. They'll end the campaign with 0 points. They are way off the pace, how the hell did they beat the boks?

wittycynic · 05-02-2017 05:32PM

.ak wrote: »

You do realise he made the most metres ball in hand, most defenders beaten?

He was our best in the back three, easily.

I don't, nor will I ever, buy into ESPN match stats as a good or reliable judge of how a player performed. I sincerely doubt any coach does either. Stats like these may, if accurate, demonstrate what a player did. They will not demonstrate what a player failed to do.

I've spent long enough watching rugby to know what a good performance does and doesn't look like. He was far from the only culprit yesterday, but he was poor.

05-02-2017 05:33PM

Rightwing wrote: »

I'd like to think you are right.
The new system won't won't suit Italy. They'll end the campaign with 0 points. They are way off the pace, how the hell did they beat the boks?

The BoKs are good players with an average coach and no belief. The systems and administration around rugby in SA have been politicised and the players are either consciously or subconsciously protesting against this with their actions on the pitch.

Italy may well come out with 0 points but I thought they looked like an ok Pro12 team with a decent coaching setup as opposed to what they have been.

The actual squad is probably weaker than they have had in a while so it was a better performance.

I think we'll hose them next week mind.

wp_rathead · 05-02-2017 05:33PM

Rightwing wrote: »

I'd like to think you are right.
The new system won't won't suit Italy. They'll end the campaign with 0 points. They are way off the pace, how the hell did they beat the boks?

Bigbok here in 3,2,1 to blame quotas

Buer · 05-02-2017 05:36PM

wittycynic wrote:

I sincerely doubt any coach does either.

There's a huge amount of statistical analysis done by coaching teams. It's a significant factor.

.ak · 05-02-2017 05:37PM

wittycynic wrote: »

I don't, nor will I ever, buy into ESPN match stats as a good or reliable judge of how a player performed. I sincerely doubt any coach does either. Stats like these may, if accurate, demonstrate what a player did. They will not demonstrate what a player failed to do.

I've spent long enough watching rugby to know what a good performance does and doesn't look like. He was far from the only culprit yesterday, but he was poor.

Then you have confirmation bias. Anyone with a pair of eyes could see he was making yards and countering well.

Your loss, I suppose.

wittycynic · 05-02-2017 05:37PM

Buer wrote: »

There's a huge amount of statistical analysis done by coaching teams. It's a significant factor.

That I agree with. What I don't agree with is looking at ESPN's metres run stat and then claiming a player had a good game off the back of it.

CMOTDibbler · 05-02-2017 05:38PM

wittycynic wrote: »

I don't, nor will I ever, buy into ESPN match stats as a good or reliable judge of how a player performed. I sincerely doubt any coach does either. Stats like these may, if accurate, demonstrate what a player did. They will not demonstrate what a player failed to do.

Are you trying to put Kitman Labs and their ilk out of business? :pac:

Yes you can over rely on stats. But dismissing them as irrelevant is either an admission that you can't actually apply them to what you saw or to inform yourself of what you missed. Or perhaps deny them in order to push an agenda.

If you're going to dispute the stats, then do so with at least some other supporting evidence.

First Up · 05-02-2017 05:43PM

irishbucsfan wrote:

What is our back row missing? Not sure balance is an issue at all tbh

All similar in style. All good at it but leaves us without a genuine open side.

Plus none of the current three can get off the ground so we don't have a line out tail option. The Scots knew that and were able to load the middle on our ball - to good effect.

wittycynic · 05-02-2017 05:51PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Are you trying to put Kitman Labs and their ilk out of business? :pac:

Yes you can over rely on stats. But dismissing them as irrelevant is either an admission that you can't actually apply them to what you saw or to inform yourself of what you missed. Or perhaps deny them in order to push an agenda.

If you're going to dispute the stats, then do so with at least some other supporting evidence.

Look, I don't have any agenda. I consider myself to be pretty neutral when it comes to Irish provincial rugby. I try to support all the provinces and get to as many games as I can. I've always found the idea of backing a player to the hilt because he comes from your province utterly bizarre. If anything I'd be more critical of players I knew better as I'd be able to see more clearly when they're performing below their best.

As for other supporting evidence. The only way I could do that would be to do a Murray Kinsella job of trawling through the footage of the game, creating gifs to point instances where I felt Kearney was out of position or took the wrong option but frankly that's very time consuming. In any case the same people who have been defending Kearney for years will just ignore everything I have to say, so it would be a lot of effort wasted. The only evidence I proffer is my own impression having watched the game. I consider that more valuable than a number of isolated statistics.

For what it's worth I don't consider Kearney to be a bad player. He was the best full back in the northern hemisphere, in my view, from about 2009 to 2012. From then on he hasn't been anywhere close, notwithstanding a couple of great performances in the past five years. Past ability means little to me though, you're only as good as your last game and I don't consider that he had a good one. I understand others have a different impression, so I'll leave my comments on him at that.

its_phil · 05-02-2017 05:53PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

What was it then? Thought it was fine for us in between our unforced errors at the set piece and in defense.

If not clean and quick, then dirty and slow. It's an area Joe Schmidt teams are usually in and out in just over 3 seconds and a great weapon.

But yesterday it wasn't that fast and Ireland struggled to break the set Scottish defence in the first half

Scotland vs Ireland, 4th Feb 2017, Murrayfield, 2:25, RTÉ 2

Comments