I don't think anyone has said he's absolutely the right guy to play outhalf if Sexton isn't available either.
What people have rightly said is that there is a lot of recency bias in people's analysis of Byrne & Crowley's respective seasons. Byrne had a really good and solid season. He steered Leinster to some really big wins, including blowing away Toulouse in a European Cup semi final. He was poor in the final IMO, and is a classic example of a guy with a relatively high floor but low ceiling.
Jack Crowley by contrast, was poor enough at 10 for decent chunks of the season, and then finished it (granted when the games mattered more) in a good fashion, with two or three very good displays in big games.
Definitely the form guide is trending towards Crowley, and from my own perspective, I feel like Crowley is the more talented player who looks like he'll be in or around the Irish 10 shirt for the foreseeable future.
But, it's definitely not outrageous to suggest there isn't much between them right now. They've gotten there in different ways, and Crowley is the younger guy with more room to grow and improve, but if Byrne is still in the 22 shirt (assuming Sexton is fit) or the 10 shirt (assuming he isn't) come the RWC, then it will likely be more about what happens in camp over the next few months than what has happened in the season just gone by.
Can you quote these posts laying the blame on Byrne for the exit strategy? I didn’t see any. I saw plenty blaming JGP and Lowe though.
I dont know about Aki 23. I know farrell is a fan of a centre in the 23 jersey especially if ringrose is 13.
But i think Crowley 22 and JOB 23 covers the whole backline.
Byrne 22 and Aki 23 requires a major reshuffle if a winger/ full back goes down.
really?
the general consensus is the problems were the exits of JGP and Lowe mainly. Byrnes kicking game was quite good in that game.
Interesting commentary in some posts around Byrne, some saying he is absolutely the right guy to play outhalf if Sexton is not available and more laying the blame on him for Leinster's exit strategy in their loss to LAR in the ERC final.
Leinster's exits were an absolutely massive issue and the losing of the game. Obviously from a LAR point of view their maul won them the game, but it was Leinster's terrible kicks giving them the maul opportunities. ROG isn't going to say LAR won because Leinster can't kick the ball
People keep talking the same tired narrative, without actually assessing what happened.
What @[Deleted User] is saying is absolutely the case - there were multiple times in the second half where the Leinster forwards stifled the LAR maul, won jackal turnovers on the deck, or stopped their big ball carriers dead in their tracks (one incredible tackle from Sheehan on Botia is particularly memorable here).
The difference in this game to a typical game was bad decisions and bad execution by the backs (and half backs in particular) in failing to exit properly. Had Leinster not botched 5 big exit attempts in the second half (or if they'd been rewarded with a penalty instead of just winning the turnover when Sheehan, Henshaw, JGP, Ngatai and Doris all got on the ball in that crucial window) then they would have been able to get some crucial territory and alleviate pressure on the pack.
By consistently botching the exits, they just handed territory and possession right back to LAR.
Outside of the scrappy enough try LAR scored in the second half, they created very very little, and it's hard to think of many gilt edged chances they botched or anything like that. They huffed and puffed a lot in the Leinster half, but really didn't create anything.
There's kind of bit of revisionism being written here about a Leinster side that while they finished the season in a disappointing way, are still unquestionably the second best team in Europe, and who have been right in the mix at the death in the last two European finals, despite playing relatively poorly in both games.
What areas do you think Byrne is better? And what areas do you think Crowley is? How how does the relate to how Ireland play overall? Or the balance of the bench selection?
Someone earlier said, if we were chasing the game, they'd want Crowley coming off the bench. Absolutely. If you need a spark of magic, or someone to streak through a gap in a tired defence, then that ain't Ross Byrne, it's Crowley.
But what if we want the out-half to close out the game? Or to come on after 10 minutes when Sexton gets concussed again? What if we want someone to keep the shape of the team, get the forwards into the positions they need to be in, and keep the backline moving? Then maybe Byrne is the guy you want. Crowley has certainly shown encouraging signs he can do this, but 'signs' are all they are.
I honestly don't think Farrell will pick his bench for versatility, he's shown no inclination to do so up to now. I think he'll pick the 22 that he thinks is the second-best out-half. Crowley's ability to play 12 doesn't matter if Bundee Aki is wearing 23, as he almost certainly will be.
On the notion that a few decisions by the backs were the primary problem, Leinster need to draw the right lessons here. They’ve been beaten up front by the same team twice. The closeness of the score flattered them the second time round.
I can only take from this that you think territory is relatively meaningless in rugby.
Nope.
...so will leave it there.
Yep.
Yes - LAR got plenty of return from mauling inside or around the Leinster 22. Are you saying that mauling from halfway or deeper would have rendered the same result?
I would imagine both teams were fatigued, Leinster's pack looked to have more legs in the closing 10 minutes, despite two players (JGP, Lowe) costing them massive territory and possession for much of the previous 40 minutes.
And La Rochelle didn't gift Leinster anything, Leinster produced three well worked tries, it doesn't work both ways at all? The kicking failures were entirely on Leinster and all were taken under relatively little pressure.
maul had the biggest impact.
Don't particularly agree, but you are still completely ignoring the fact that LAR's maul on five occasions were as a result of territory gained through uncharacteristic mistakes by Leinster. I don't know whether you are just choosing to ignore this, but I think I've been clear enough so will leave it there.
I think you've missed the context. It wasn't in their own half, because Leinster didn't clear their lines.
My point is that, some of those kicks were deep in Leinster territory, so even if Leinster do clear their lines, the LAR put in is still in the Leinster half. I think that's objectively true.
Nonsense. Leinster gifted massive territory repeatedly through poor kicking, and gifted possession to go with it by kicking out on the full.
And LAR gifted Leinster a 3-try head start. That works both ways.
If people want to believe that had no impact in a one point game that's up to them.
I never said it had no impact. My point is I think the maul had the biggest impact.
By your own admission, LaR "got plenty of return from their maul" so mauling it form closer to half-way (even a decent clearance will leave opposition around half-way) wouldn't have been a waste of time at all.
And you saw no signs of fatigue in the way Leinster attacked in that period of time?
The territory (and possession) stats don't suggest it was in their own half tho.
And if Leinster do clear the lines, given the position some were taken from, Leinster still find themselves well in their own half or even close to their 22. That pressure builds.
If a team wants to waste their time mauling inside their own half good for them.
There was another stat I heard in the wake of the game where from the 30th minute to the 72nd minute, Leinster had single-number rucks in the LAR half. (It might have been 2). That's as dominant as I've ever heard.
If a team wants to waste their time mauling inside their own half good for them. From 72 minutes until the whistle Leinster were fully on the attack (as exhausted as they were from LAR's 'Maul heavy' strategy) and but for a failure to take a drop goal and Al'alatoa getting himself sent off the match could have gone the other way and no one would be talking about the LAR Maul.
Not sure about that. Clearing your lines is a massive help. But if you then don't compete and let their maul come back at you repeatedly, you're pretty much flogging your forwards and/or risking penalties, just in a different part of the pitch.
If Ireland and or Leinster simply clear their lines effectively then a 'maul heavy' strategy gets you nowhere either way.
When you suggest it's a big blot on Byrnes copy book for not taking control of the game. I think more of the blame falls on JGP's shoulders.
He completely ignored Byrnes attempts to work the ball in field for the drop goal. Had poor kicks and he facilitated a back line that made a total of 9 passes outside him all by hisnout half.
He can be very good when his team is on the front foot and supplying him with quick ball.
But he can be absolutely headless under pressure.
Tbf, I think Aloooof's post had an implicit caveat that Sexton was injured for Leinster in the final, and would therefore be injured in the hypothetical setting where a similar maul-heavy strategy were used against Ireland. In that case, we would have a lot more options than Leinster did.
I really don't think I have misrepresented it tbh. Here's another quote I've previously made on it.
Rog, a coach known for his honesty, has named-checked the maul as what won them the game. More down to how much it sapped Leinster forwards rathe than the advances they made on the maul themselves.
The 2nd part is pretty much exactly what ROG is saying.
La Rochelle got plenty of return from their maul, was a big weapon for them.
We facilitated it with two sliced clearances and three kick outs on the full. Nothing handed the 1 point win more to LAR than those 5, uncharacteristic mistakes. Our pack got tired out by our backs having a collectively poor enough day and it's a big blot in Byrne's copybook that he didn't take control of the match.
The biggest missing player wasn't POM, Beirne or Hansen - it was Sexton.
Byrne and Crowley will likely duke it out for the next half season / season and Crowley will start to pull away from there (provided both aren't overtaken by someone else). I'd have no issue either being back up in the RWC, I would have an issue with Sexton not being available.
As for ROG, he plays the game - says what he thinks he needs to. I'd imagine he was full of praise for his forward coach and former team mate Donnchadh Ryan and it's good management to pass around the praise rather than claim it.
In my view Leinster lost that game more than La Rochelle won it.
I hadn't seen the quote but I think you've misrepresented it somewhat.
He acknowledges that the maul was largely unsuccessful - and they didn't get the ball back mostly because Leinster disrupted it. The maul taking Leinster's legs and that being the winning of the game is simply something I will disagree with him on and nothing will change my mind on that.
one of his big, momentum changing moments
Euphemism of the century! 😂
EDIT: also to add to that list - Murray's box kicking.
You can apply the same thing to the Leinster v Munster game, where the ball in play time was huge. Yes, it wasn't Leinster first choice, but the system was the same, and plaeyrs had been switching in-and-out seamless during the season.
From an Ireland context, I think Beirne, POM and Mack Hansen all would've added something different that could've made a difference.
Reading between the lines (and I appreciate this is the Ireland thread, so I'll spin it in that direction): There's a style of attacking play employed by both Ireland and Leinster, with a heavy emphasis on forward pods and how they move the point of attack and generate space for the backs. Tire out those forwards with a lot of mauls, and the evidence (from the Heino final) is that forward dynamism greatly reduces, and likewise did Leinster's back play. So even though different reasons have been highlighted for Leinster losing, you can tie them all together, i.e., the reduced passing and poor exits. They can all be traced back to the damage done by the LaR maul. Leinster did really well to stop the maul on most occasions without conceding penalties, but I think that won them battles at the expense of the war. The ensuing fatigue hurt them elsewhere a lot more.
Ireland may have different ways of coping with such an approach, for e.g., we'll definitely compete at lineout.
The quote from ROG for those interested, talkng about LAR inaccuracies.
How many mauls did we not get the ball back off of, even tho the maul won us the game, because we took Leinster's legs completely, they were drunk after 60 minutes.
The man was clearly trolling. Couldn't be trusting him with the big Cork grin on his face.
The logic is pretty solid tbf.
You've just won a back-to-back European Cup.
You're asked what won you the game.
You're obviously going to lie and say it was the maul because.... reasons?
He's been a very naughty boy according to some quarters. It's great stuff!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/ddb508ca3281bbcc5001177dc26332a1.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/8a022abb175d445f2b5b8a1c545f3d3f.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6081e4655739e0887aaf16222f88b015.svg)
