Granny15 wrote: » Kearney had a free ride at the beginning of his pro career due to some effective promoting of him as a player and online bullying to get him through the system faster. The coaches at the time listened to this bile.
Thanos wrote: » Any know the time needed to recover from a fractured wrist?
irishbucsfan wrote: » What do you mean by expansive?
Interested Observer wrote: » Nobody is giving any evidence.
Padraig121 wrote: » Well mostly I mean that the first option wasn't always to kick. The kick and catch tactic was used but not nearly as much as with Ireland. Leinster ran it far more frequently.
Clegg wrote: » Expand
Buer wrote: » You keep on saying that without actually giving any evidence. For context, Nacewa as a thirty-something scored more tries in the two seasons since returning to Leinster than he did in his 3 years at his peak under Schmidt. Luke Fitzgerald needed a map to find the try line. BOD scored 9 tries in 3 years under Schmidt. We played highly skilled rugby mixing backs and forwards but that is not necessarily expansive.
Buer wrote: » People have given multiple examples of where tries were coming from, how Leinster's line breaks were created etc. Surely that's evidence?
Padraig121 wrote: » Ireland's main game plan is the garryowen. This is undeniable.
Padraig121 wrote: » Leinsters main tactic was not the garryowen under Schmidt. Ireland's main game plan is the garryowen. This is undeniable.
Padraig121 wrote: » Accuracy and ruthlessness yes but with a danger that they could score a try from anywhere. Yes there was set piece moves but it was far more expansive than we see with Ireland.
Padraig121 wrote: » No, we were exposed by an attacking game plan that we just couldn't live with. Kicking the ball to them continuously was exposed very badly. It was a 20+ point defeat wasn't it?
Padraig121 wrote: » We weren't able to attack them! We only had one game plan and it failed, miserably. We're repeating the same mistakes!
Interested Observer wrote: » The first option for Ireland isn't to kick either. This is a myth. We don't really kick any more or less than our peers at international level.
irishbucsfan wrote: » Ireland's first option isn't always to kick. Leinster kicked plenty of ball on first phase as well. Especially away from home or in tight games (look at important away European games, off the top of my head Sarries away in 2011 or Llanelli the following season in that game where Maule skinned Drico). Because the coach is a pragmatist and is good at putting teams on the field who use the ball efficiently, most of the time.
Padraig121 wrote: » It's our main tactic. Murray and Sexton do it more than most and definitely more than southern hemisphere teams. Argentina didn't kick it much when they ripped us apart.
Padraig121 wrote: » Leinster kicked but it wasn't the main tactic. It won't work against the top teams at the world cup. We've seen that already.
Interested Observer wrote: » Nobody is giving any evidence. "Leinster were more explansive" "No they weren't" "Yes they were"
Padraig121 wrote: » ....southern hemisphere teams....
molloyjh wrote: » Of course things appeared to be more expansive. As I said earlier we had an international quality side playing at club level. It was always going to be easier to find space and exploit it with Leinster than with Ireland. Because at international level the space isn't there to the same degree. You can't just ignore what opposition sides bring to the table when talking about how we play. Take for example the strike running of Rob Kearney. At Leinster he was excellent at it and often made yardage there. At international level not so much because there's less room and the defence tends to be a lot better. He tried it against SA the week before last and was stopped on the gain line. Same move, different result. Because it is played at a different level. You simply can't translate the success at Leinster directly over to Ireland. Our defence was found wanting. We missed 23% of our tackles. And they were just the ones we attempted. At one stage our midfield shooters were Best and Ross. When that happens its very easy for opposition sides to get into the wider channels because they are pretty much unopposed in midfield. Joe Schmidt sides have almost always been happy to give the opposition the ball, knowing that we can back our defence and be clinical when we have the ball. It was that way at Leinster too. We really are not. At all. But you keep stating it as fact without really being able to address any of the more detailed and analytical posts to the contrary. If you can't back up what you're saying with anything then maybe reconsider what you are saying.
Interested Observer wrote: » Why on earth would Carbery for example move to Connacht?
Buer wrote: » You should go back and watch games like Leinster away to Bath or Glasgow in the HEC under Schmidt at our peak. We crushed them up front and kicking for field position. Brutal games to watch but highly effective, accurate performances.
irishbucsfan wrote: » We kicked the ball 30 times in that game from hand. Argentina kicked it 22 times.
Padraig121 wrote: » All people are saying is that Leinster played exactly as Ireland do
irishbucsfan wrote: » In some games it absolutely was the tactic. When it needed to be. Because that's what you do when you're a smartly coached team. And it absolutely has worked for teams at the world cup in the past. There is no reason it won't work so long as your defense is extremely competitive, as ours is right now.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dd23f423fe14831a2a84d9f17c825ecc.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6081e4655739e0887aaf16222f88b015.svg)
