[Deleted User] wrote: » I think Thomond has a point lads.
irishbucsfan wrote: » We both kicked the ball. Argentina kicked it as well. Because that's what rugby teams do. New Zealand kicked the ball a similar number of times on Saturday.
mfceiling wrote: » Lads enough of the facts. You'll never beat opinion with facts.
molloyjh wrote: » Nobody has said that. Absolutely nobody. Please just stop.
Podge_irl wrote: » In the last 6N the Wales game was the only match where Ireland's kicking percentage was greater than their opponent's.
Podge_irl wrote: » Argentina didn't do anything remotely fancy in that quarter final. Our defence was incredibly narrow and relied on slowing ball down in midfield. Basically every single one of our most important players for slowing down ball or killing moves in midfield was injured and Argentina simply ran around us. They weren't playing some kind of kung fu, mystical rugby. They took us on the outside repeatedly and effectively. Ireland don't defend like that anymore
thomond2006 wrote: quotes
Padraig121 wrote: » Well that's your opinion, mine is that I think it will be exposed against the top teams at the world cup.
Padraig121 wrote: » 9 of Ireland's 14 tries came against Italy. Stats can come misleading.
molloyjh wrote: » Um, I am? I've cited clear examples of similar moves used at Leinster and Ireland. I've quoted stats relating to the Argentina game. I've given solid examples of things that I'm talking about such as the Ross/Best shooter example..... This is categorically incorrect. Go to the 6 Nations homepage (here). At the bottom is a set of stats from the last 6Ns. Here's 2 of them for you: Most carries: Ireland (844) Most passes: Ireland (1,094) Now, if our main tactic is to kick the ball, how exactly do we do that and carry it more than anyone else and pass it more than anyone else?
Interested Observer wrote: » We've played all the top teams since the RWC and beaten all of them.
Padraig121 wrote: » Exactly, we kicked it away and then when we had to attack we just couldn't do it to anywhere near the level Argentina could. They taught us a lesson in attacking play, a lesson we haven't learned from it seems!
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.
Padraig121 wrote: » All people are saying is that Leinster played exactly as Ireland do
irishbucsfan wrote: » We kicked the ball 30 times in that game from hand. Argentina kicked it 22 times.
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.
Interested Observer wrote: » Why on earth would Carbery for example move to Connacht?
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.
Padraig121 wrote: » ....southern hemisphere teams....
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: » Leinsters main tactic was not the garryowen under Schmidt. Ireland's main game plan is the garryowen. This is undeniable.
Interested Observer wrote: » Nobody is giving any evidence. "Leinster were more explansive" "No they weren't" "Yes they were"
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.
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6081e4655739e0887aaf16222f88b015.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dd23f423fe14831a2a84d9f17c825ecc.svg)
