AI: Ireland v South Africa; Aviva Stadium, Sat 10 Nov [MOD WARNING POST #1160]

Ardillaun

I see Hook described de Villiers as 'slow' in the Sindo.

phog

jamiedav2011 wrote: »

But for what reasons?

This is a non discussion as far as I'm concerned, for the reasons highlighted above.

Your whole argument is based on 'I think we had sorted our lineout by then too'?!

My whole argument is based around I thought he didn't have the distance and as it transpired for whatever reason yesterday and in NZ he didn't.

You said one of the reasons for not going down the line was because our lineout was misfiring, I'm saying by the time that penalty came we had our LO sorted.

BTW, if it a non discussion why did you bring it up again?

phog

Stats from the game.

From ruckinggoodstats.com also on twitter as @ruckinggoodstats

Edited to add: Some charts here from the same source.

Clareman

phog wrote: »

Stats from the game.

From ruckinggoodstats.com also on twitter as @ruckinggoodstats

Edited to add: Some charts here from the same source.

That is 1 of the poorest formatted presentation I've ever seen.

Banbridgeman2

Fishooks12 wrote: »

A potential try is now a crash ball that as mistimed? And Bowe still had two defenders to beat and 40 meters to go for his "potential try"

and apparently Zebo "refused to pass".Pathetic the lengths people are going to flame Munster players at this stage by some posters who wouldn't breath a word if it was a player from their own province putting in the same shift

Could you stop playing the provincial card ALL THE TIME? Funnily enough I've criticized Trimble in this very thread so there goes your theory.

jamiedav2011

phog wrote: »

My whole argument is based around I thought he didn't have the distance and as it transpired for whatever reason yesterday and in NZ he didn't.

You said one of the reasons for not going down the line was because our lineout was misfiring, I'm saying by the time that penalty came we had our LO sorted.

BTW, if it a non discussion why did you bring it up again?

Well because I'm replying to you obviously!

Jaysus no need for the snippiness.

Your lineout theory is tentative at best I think, and anyway, as you say yourself, if Sexton thought he had the distance then he should back himself. End of.

thomond2006

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Good god, I need a break from this forum. The provincial bull**** is just pathetic a this stage

So many non truths and complete hyperbole in that post that even Neil Francis circa 2005 would call it far fetched

Adios

Fishooks12 wrote: »

A potential try is now a crash ball that as mistimed? And Bowe still had two defenders to beat and 40 meters to go for his "potential try"

and apparently Zebo "refused to pass".Pathetic the lengths people are going to flame Munster players at this stage by some posters who wouldn't breath a word if it was a player from their own province putting in the same shift

Fishooks says adios....

...posts again 15 minutes later!

.ak

The provincial BS has gone far enough. I'm also sick of people using it as a scape-goat when a player is criticised. Everyone's got an opinion folks, doesn't mean there's an alterior motive. A lot of people are very, very lucky to get away with not receiving bans - you know who you are.

I'm closing this thread. If someone wants to continue the discussion regarding the match PM me and I'll reconsider opening it again.

.ak

Okay, I presume we've all cooled down? I'll open the thread again - but there won't be anymore warnings. If you find yourself banned don't be surprised.

.ak wrote: »

This warning is also valid for this thread, FYI.

Banbridgeman2

Well Cave has to start at 13 against Argentina after that game. How many chances is earls going to get? He's mid twenties now and still doesn't look like he'll be anything above decent. Just too mistake prone (and that's not solely based on today)

Shelflife

One of the red herrings that we need to dismiss us the number of 1st teamers we were missing. At any given time there will be players out. SA were also missing players.
We had our best available team out yesterday. We never looked like scoring a try . We needed quick ball, yet persisted in popping the ball up to Healy time and time again.
SA were poor yet still beat us comfortably in the end.
That's 5 in a row with a 64-0 thrown in there as well.
Not looking forward to the arg game at all.

Fireball07

Shelflife wrote: »

One of the red herrings that we need to dismiss us the number of 1st teamers we were missing. At any given time there will be players out. SA were also missing players.
We had our best available team out yesterday. We never looked like scoring a try . We needed quick ball, yet persisted in popping the ball up to Healy time and time again.
SA were poor yet still beat us comfortably in the end.
That's 5 in a row with a 64-0 thrown in there as well.
Not looking forward to the arg game at all.

It was only 60-0, wasn't it?

It was bad enough without adding an extra 4 points on



Anyway... yeah, I don't hold out much hope until we get a change in management tbh. I really don't think any personnel changes will make a whole load of difference.

phog

jamiedav2011 wrote: »

Well because I'm replying to you obviously!

Jaysus no need for the snippiness.

Your lineout theory is tentative at best I think, and anyway, as you say yourself, if Sexton thought he had the distance then he should back himself. End of.

The kick landed short of the line, so was probably a few meters short of going over the post. Collected by SA and booted to touch for a lineout to us in line with where we kicked the pen from. We won the LO and made about 20mtrs before being penalised for not using the ball after taking it into a maul.

Had we gone dow the line imaging making those 20mtrs from around their 22.

phog

Clareman wrote: »

That is 1 of the poorest formatted presentation I've ever seen.

Some are visually poor but they're good ststs. I know Jackman uses his stats for some of his media work.

chancer12

Away for w/end and missed match. Available anywhere?

Fireball07

chancer12 wrote: »

Away for w/end and missed match. Available anywhere?

RTE Player

http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10085469/

chancer12

RTE Player doesn't go beyond the ads, anywhere else?

sjwpjw

bbc iplayer

Cpt_Blackbeard

chancer12 wrote: »

Away for w/end and missed match. Available anywhere?

This should work. Haven't watched it myself though.

chancer12

Total gent, thanks so much!

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

We wouldn't be back to square one. Lambie and Kirchener were both kicking poorly (as we knew they would). We were winning kicking battles in the first half. We'd have possession from a fresh set piece, and able to reorganise ourselves and crucially not concede a penalty (which is conceding both possession and territory).

That game plan is not reliant on the pack bullying anyone. It would only be reliant on that if you wanted to stay in their 22 for 15 phases attempting to push them over the line, something we shouldn't have done either. It's reliant on a strong kick chase and good kicking (both things we had). It worked well in the first half. It stood more chance of working than relying on our attack anyway.

The difference between the sides yesterday was that we didn't get anything out of the 10 minutes Pieterson was in the bin and then their try in the second half. For the period that JPP was in the bin we kicked a few times but SA kept us outside their 22 the whole time by fielding kicks and returning them between their 22 and 10m line. For as much as our half backs were "controlling things" at that stage, it also enabled SA to keep us at arms length. We never threatened their 22 in those 10 minutes. Sexton did miss a penalty though.

Their try came from a kick chase that Bowe couldn't quite collect. He got his hands to it but wasn't able to hold on. That opened up play enough for SA to make 20m or so and they ended up winning a penalty. And instead of settling for 3 points they went for the corner. They obviously had identified an opportunity to attack us off the line-out and backed themselves. I think regardless of the Heaslip binning they looked good for a try at that point. The kicking strategy there had back-fired and allowed SA get into a threatening position. But it also showed a massive difference in attitude. They were willing to back themselves. We didn't seem to be at all.

All this talk of our kicking game is all predicated on the fact that we could have gotten scores from it. While we did in the first half there was never any guarantee of it prior to kick off. It is simply tossing a coin. Hoping we can gain the territory and SA will concede (and the ref award) penalties in kickable positions, and that at the end we'll come out the right side. The kicking game shouldn't be used solely on the off chance that we might get enough penalties out of it to win the match. If we approach a game with that game plan we deserve to lose. And there was absolutely zero evidence out there to suggest we were doing anything different.

irishbucsfan

It's predicated on the fact we can score points while executing the game plan correctly, and more importantly prevent the opposition from being anywhere near a scoring position. And we scored all of our points while we were executing and held them to 3. Very simple.

It's a game plan used all over the globa at all levels of the game. It's not even questionable. I'm not sure if you play or are involved with a club or school, but in absolutely every competition there are teams who are reliant on the kicking game in certain matchups. It's a vital aspect of the game when you can't guarantee continuous possession (IE, for Ireland against 2/3rds of our international opposition).

I mean, how else could we beat South Africa when they dominate our forwards in individual matchups? There's no other way I know of.

EDIT: Also, how they scored their try really is irrelevant. Surely you can see that? They are a different team to us.

Burgo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sn3sQoKtIU

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's predicated on the fact we can score points while executing the game plan correctly, and more importantly prevent the opposition from being anywhere near a scoring position. And we scored all of our points while we were executing and held them to 3. Very simple.

It's a game plan used all over the globa at all levels of the game. It's not even questionable. I'm not sure if you play or are involved with a club or school, but in absolutely every competition there are teams who are reliant on the kicking game in certain matchups. It's a vital aspect of the game when you can't guarantee continuous possession (IE, for Ireland against 2/3rds of our international opposition).

I mean, how else could we beat South Africa when they dominate our forwards in individual matchups? There's no other way I know of.

EDIT: Also, how they scored their try really is irrelevant. Surely you can see that? They are a different team to us.

I never said we needed to score the same way they did, just that they backed themselves to do something. We never backed ourselves to do anything really.

There were a few times Zebo came into the line taking on an inside ball and was met by 2 defenders. He was never going to get through them. But that was because we had no decoy runners. It was blatantly obvious where the ball was going. Throw in Earls or Trimble into that mix running a different line and Zebo could well have made a break. Between that and with someone like Earls, Trimble or Bowe on his shoulder we had options with ball in hand. We didn't have to spend the game doing it, but if we did it effectively once or twice it could have paid dividends.

You said "It's predicated on the fact we can score points while executing the game plan correctly" but where, other than penalties, were those points going to come from?

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

I never said we needed to score the same way they did, just that they backed themselves to do something. We never backed ourselves to do anything really.

There were a few times Zebo came into the line taking on an inside ball and was met by 2 defenders. He was never going to get through them. But that was because we had no decoy runners. It was blatantly obvious where the ball was going. Throw in Earls or Trimble into that mix running a different line and Zebo could well have made a break. Between that and with someone like Earls, Trimble or Bowe on his shoulder we had options with ball in hand. We didn't have to spend the game doing it, but if we did it effectively once or twice it could have paid dividends.

Well our attacking game is quite flawed currently, but there have been changes to the setup and we were missing almost half a starting XV. So I'm not going to blame Kiss for that in his first game as a dedicated attacking coach.

I never said our attacking game isn't flawed. In fact it's exactly that reason I'm saying that Sexton and Murray should have avoided relying on it. Instead of just constantly shoveling the ball out until we conceded penalty after penalty. It's their job to make these calls.

You said "It's predicated on the fact we can score points while executing the game plan correctly" but where, other than penalties, were those points going to come from?

The most important source of the points would be penalties! You can't just remove them from the equation! :pac:

Outside of that you have a few options. Contestable kicks (cross field kicks, chips and grubbers), early phases from set pieces and also early phases from turnovers. That's what you're relying on. We got none of that from Sexton or Murray in the 2nd half. We just got stale predictable passing. The half backs were giving the forwards nothing.

I have no idea how you think Ireland are supposed to approach a game against South Africa? Just throw the ball around and attack out wide?

liammur

phog wrote: »

The kick landed short of the line, so was probably a few meters short of going over the post. Collected by SA and booted to touch for a lineout to us in line with where we kicked the pen from. We won the LO and made about 20mtrs before being penalised for not using the ball after taking it into a maul.

Had we gone dow the line imaging making those 20mtrs from around their 22.

Very well outlined. Just what I was thinking at the time.

What we needed was an intelligent player (e.g. axel foley) to tell him what to do.

rrpc

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I mean, how else could we beat South Africa when they dominate our forwards in individual matchups? There's no other way I know of.

We've done it in the past, against England in 2011 and to a lesser extent Oz in the RWC.

Quick recycle or offload, change the point of attack, recycle and keep the tempo up until you've run the defence ragged and get mismatches in defence.

It requires absolute concentration, the SH shadowing the ball carrier and a forward ready to support so the SH can get the ball away before the ruck has really formed.

irishbucsfan

rrpc wrote: »

We've done it in the past, against England in 2011 and to a lesser extent Oz in the RWC.

Quick recycle or offload, change the point of attack, recycle and keep the tempo up until you've run the defence ragged and get mismatches in defence.

It requires absolute concentration, the SH shadowing the ball carrier and a forward ready to support so the SH can get the ball away before the ruck has really formed.

Sorry but against Oz and England we absolutely dominated the physical encounters. Especially Australia.

rrpc

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Sorry but against Oz and England we absolutely dominated the physical encounters. Especially Australia.

It wasn't absolute domination, they just didn't get a chance to bully us. With much the same team on both sides, England absolutely minced us this year.

ballygowan1

CoDy1 wrote: »

Heaslip had an outstanding first half and also played the captains role perfectly. I do think the yellow card was clinical but some are saying it was a team card?? not so sure what that means tbh. Was Heaslip at fault or not?

An outstanding first half? Are you mad? That is complete utter rubbish. He had a shocker.

The amount of times he hung out in the wing and avoided doing the hard stuff has very noticable. These are the things you miss out on wit TV cameras.

Thats is just my take on it. There is no way he is captain materiel unless he is helping the boys with their clothes and haircuts.

irishbucsfan

rrpc wrote: »

It wasn't absolute domination, they just didn't get a chance to bully us. With much the same team on both sides, England absolutely minced us this year.

Against Australia it was very one-sided in the tight exchanged because of the players they were missing.

Against England, (they game is up on youtube if you want to see it I think) their pack had been completely underperforming under Johnson for ages. We took them apart up front (especially in that now famous scrum at the very beginning of the game). We could never have played against South Africa the way we did against England or Australia.

Also it wasn't much the same team. 2 completely different second rows, 3 completely different back rows, 2 completely different half backs, 2 completely different centers, and one different winger. The only players that they had in common was Foden, Ashton and the front row.

Heroditas

ballygowan1 wrote: »

The amount of times he hung out in the wing and avoided doing the hard stuff has very noticable. These are the things you miss out on wit TV cameras.

Quite simply untrue.
It really does seem like there's a concerted campaign growing against Heaslip, mainly due to nonsense spouted by several alleged "journalists" in the last year or two.

ballygowan1

Heroditas wrote: »

Quite simply untrue.
It really does seem like there's a concerted campaign growing against Heaslip, mainly due to nonsense spouted by several alleged "journalists" in the last year or two.

There is no campaign. It is just certain fans cannot see what is going on and what is actually expected from a number 8.

The guy is not a leader and hasnt played well for Ireland for 2 years. He was a great player back in 2008/2009 but those days are gone.

Heroditas

ballygowan1 wrote: »

Thats is just my take on it. There is no way he is captain materiel unless he is helping the boys with their clothes and haircuts.

And a nice healthy dose of provincial stereotyping as well.
If someone said a Munster lad was captain only because he's useful for helping lads choosing tractors or doing bacon and cabbage (I could post a lot worse), they'd be hauled up on a charge of trolling.

Fireball07

Heroditas wrote: »

And a nice healthy dose of provincial stereotyping as well.
If someone said a Munster lad was captain only because he's useful for helping lads choosing tractors or doing bacon and cabbage (I could post a lot worse), they'd be hauled up on a charge of trolling.

The "clothes and haircuts" comment is obviously trolling, you don't have to take it seriously.


Heaslip had a good first half, and a quieter second half, like everyone else. We possibly were lacking more leaders, I mean losing your 3 mean leaders is a big blow for any team but I think Heaslip did okay.

irishbucsfan

It's nice to see George Hook is still educating the casual fans though.

Heroditas

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's nice to see George Hook is still educating the casual fans though.

Ah bless him, he has to be useful for something. I haven't seen any of the TV coverage form the game yesterday (due to being at it and not particularly inclined to watch the game again) but I reckon I'll be able to spot a few Hookisms around the water cooler tomorrow

Some day I hope to wander onto the training pitch of my club in the depths of winter wearing a shirt babbling "we have to fix the scrum" to our head coach.
It'll go down well!

Shelflife

Cupla ceist about the use of the bench.

In what was a very physical game, we waited until Ross and Strauss were out on their feet in the 71st and 75th mins until we replaced them. We left Healy on for the full 80 even though he had been knocked out early in the 2nd half.(admitittedly Healy was still going well)

We replaced Mccarthy who was having a blinder in the 71st min and left on Ryan who had to be led off the pitch 6 mins earlier.

Henderson got a 10min run and seriously whats the point in changing the outhalf with 5mins to go ?

It takes a few mins to get to the pitch of a game after coming off the bench.

There seems to be little faith in the bench or where there is there seems to be a pre ordained move in spite of whats happening on the pitch ie: Mccarthy going off instead of Ryan.

It just seems to be very poor tactical use of the bench.

Mr.Opti

Shelflife wrote: »

We replaced Mccarthy who was having a blinder in the 71st min and left on Ryan who had to be led off the pitch 6 mins earlier.

There seems to be little faith in the bench or where there is there seems to be a pre ordained move in spite of whats happening on the pitch ie: Mccarthy going off instead of Ryan.

McCarty was very good and was very surprising that he went off. The only reason I can think of (that Ryan stayed on) is Ryan is more of a leader. (Before people start giving out about that comment watch the Heineken Cup against Edinburgh namely when Munster scored a try and he made everyone hurry back into their own half to get another try, telling Keatley to hurry up and kick it into touch for the last try etc...

Fireball07

While I don't doubt that Ryan is a bit of a leader, McCarthy is fairly inspirational too.

I think the reason is more likely that McCarthy had given absolutely everything, he looked dead on his feet when he came off. Don't think that one was necessarily the wrong decision.

Would have brought Cronin, Bent and Henderson on a lot earlier though.

.ak

Heroditas & ballygowan1 banned for one week.

Mr.Applepie

Mr.Opti wrote: »

McCarty was very good and was very surprising that he went off. The only reason I can think of (that Ryan stayed on) is Ryan is more of a leader. (Before people start giving out about that comment watch the Heineken Cup against Edinburgh namely when Munster scored a try and he made everyone hurry back into their own half to get another try, telling Keatley to hurry up and kick it into touch for the last try etc...

Could have been because Ryan calls the lineout.

The use of the bench was pathetic but I'm used to that with kidney now. SA brought in their subs slowly throughout the 2nd half and you could see the fresh legs was really having an effect.

Ireland brought on 3 players @70 & ROG @ 75. 10mins too late in my opinion.

Benny Cake

Mr.Applepie wrote: »

Could have been because Ryan calls the lineout.

The use of the bench was pathetic but I'm used to that with kidney now. SA brought in their subs slowly throughout the 2nd half and you could see the fresh legs was really having an effect.

Ireland brought on 3 players @70 & ROG @ 75. 10mins too late in my opinion.

I love a good Kidney bash as much as the next man but in fairness the use of the bench was significantly better than before.
Mcfadden came on for Trimble at 58 mins
Reddan for Murray at 61 mins
Then O'Callaghan, Bent & Henderson all came on at 70 mins with ROG coming in after 75 mins.

Tox56

Kidney has clearly been told/has realised how poor his use of the bench was in the past, and he is getting better, but bringing on ROG at 75 mins was a bit pointless.

JustinDee

ballygowan1 wrote: »

There is no campaign. It is just certain fans cannot see what is going on and what is actually expected from a number 8.
The guy is not a leader and hasnt played well for Ireland for 2 years. He was a great player back in 2008/2009 but those days are gone.

In the Irish squad, he is consistently in top three tacklers, and has grabbed more turnovers than any other teammate. He's also a vital organiser/marshal in defence and a key lineout jumper.

What would be daft would be not realising the gravity of that yellow on Saturday. However, as can be quoted, he knows fully well the consquences.

As for "not a leader", I can only assume that you mean because of that yellow. His leadership qualities are there and links well with both established players and the newbies.

I'd say he'll thrive in this role. Monday morning match review then onwards.

Fishooks12

Shelflife wrote: »

One of the red herrings that we need to dismiss us the number of 1st teamers we were missing. At any given time there will be players out. SA were also missing players.
We had our best available team out yesterday. We never looked like scoring a try . We needed quick ball, yet persisted in popping the ball up to Healy time and time again.
SA were poor yet still beat us comfortably in the end.
That's 5 in a row with a 64-0 thrown in there as well.
Not looking forward to the arg game at all.

No Ferris, SOB, POC, Best, Kearney Fitzgerald

We didn't have anywhere near our best team out yesterday

Teferi

Benny Cake wrote: »

I love a good Kidney bash as much as the next man but in fairness the use of the bench was significantly better than before.
Mcfadden came on for Trimble at 58 mins
Reddan for Murray at 61 mins
Then O'Callaghan, Bent & Henderson all came on at 70 mins with ROG coming in after 75 mins.

I disagree. Healy and Ross were replaced about 5/10 minutes after they were already shagged.

Putting ROG on and moving Sexton to 12 for Darcy was absolutely pointless and has been shown to be a rubbish move anyway.

Deleted User

he said we had our best team available out there.

And we pretty much did, barring maybe a tiny swap at 13, but that would be more of a 'different' team and not a 'better' one.

Horribly predictable match tbh.

McCarthy was a monster, Strauss got the **** kicked through him at every opportunity and still held up for most of the game. Bent did grand off the bench.

On that subject...



bench
Kidney definition: The thing that lads not good enough to play sit on. Then when lads who are broken are really broken, I swap them with these guys.

Here's a post I made midweek.

Deleted User wrote: »

in terms of 'idealistic swaps'.

I'd have started McFadden instead of D'Arcy. Though I think/hope that would've been the case had BOD not been injured.
Cave instead of Zebo, Earls moves to 15, Cave at 13.

I'd have a bench worthy of changing a game instead of "filling a gap" / "doing a job" and other Kidney-isms too. (I'd also use them!)

Tuohy instead of DOC
Marshall instead of Reddan
Jackson instead of ROG
Zebo instead of McFadden on the bench.

55-65 mins could see us turn up the temperature pretty rapidly if we did it right...

Nothing ever changes, yet people still get annoyed when you post this stuff...

artvandelay48

JustinDee wrote: »

In the Irish squad, he is consistently in top three tacklers, and has grabbed more turnovers than any other teammate. He's also a vital organiser/marshal in defence and a key lineout jumper.

What would be daft would be not realising the gravity of that yellow on Saturday. However, as can be quoted, he knows fully well the consquences.

As for "not a leader", I can only assume that you mean because of that yellow. His leadership qualities are there and links well with both established players and the newbies.

I'd say he'll thrive in this role. Monday morning match review then onwards.

Exactly. I think people that think he has played poorly in the past two years is because we have been trying to accomodate our two most destructive forwards (SOB and Ferris) in a back row. As a result, Heaslip has clearly been instructed to do more of the grunt work than we would expect of a number 8 and less of his eye-catching runs. As a result, a quick look at his performance is that he has played poorly but a look at the stats clearly suggests otherwise.

Ask any supporter from another country and you'd get a much different impression of heaslip than in some parts on here.

Fishooks12

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing ever changes, yet people still get annoyed when you post this stuff...

I don't see who would get annoyed at such reasonable changes

I would say that I think it's all irrelevant anyway considering I think we wouldn't have beaten SA with everyone fit with that gameplan