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

durkadurka

Justin - is there any info on why the pitch is still so bad, six weeks on from the Leinster Munster game, when Lady Gaga was apparently to blame?

Its just not acceptable in a modern stadium IMO.

totallegend

OK, I hope the bullsh*t storm has subsided a bit so here's my take on the game for anyone who cares.

Firstly, media watch; Thornley's piece this morning says that Ireland were outmuscled by experience, despite the fact that the Boks team was as inexperienced at Test level as ours. In the Indo, Hook proposes dropping D'Arcy, moving Sexton to 12 and playing ROG at ten. Nuff said really.

As for Ireland, a lot has been made of letting a nine-point lead slip but in reality, they did nothing in the first half to really merit that lead and it was SA indiscipline that got them there. A Boklash* was inevitable in the second half and Ireland just didn't have the answers.
(*I have just trademarked the work Boklash)

Kidney's team selection didn't backfire and, as expected, most of the newer guys were well able for it.

Zebo did nothing wrong, I think that's the fairest way of putting it. Solid under the high ball, showed quick feet in traffic and was by no means a problem at FB. If I had to pick holes in his game, I'd say that he missed touch with a couple of clearance kicks (I think one led directly to SA's last score), but overall he was fine. Not good enough to dispel any further debate around the jersey but if he plays against Argentina, there won't be many dissenters. I'd like to see Dave Kearney or Craig Gilroy get the nod against Fiji to explore options though.

Earls, much like Zebo, was OK at centre. It wasn't a vintage day for the Ireland backs en masse and while Earls showed in flashes, I thought that they were the sort of skills that mark him out as a great winger, not necessarily as a top-class 13, e.g. his pace and eye for a gap. A decent showing but the debate over who O'Driscoll's successor will be is not over by a long way.

D'Arcy was very good in the first half but visibly tired in the latter stages of the second half. His game has always been about his immense physical power but the Boks will always be the most physical of teams and D'Arcy probably should have been taken off earlier than he was (but with McFadden coming on, more on that later).

The wingers did OK, not much more to be said.

Sexton looked imperious at times and worryingly uncertain at others. His place-kicking was top-notch but his overall direction of the backline was somewhat lacking. Whether this is his fault or the backs coach's fault is up for debate. He didn't attack the line as much as usual but the Boks defence was rock solid all day so perhaps there wasn't much to be gained from that.

Murray did better than a lot of us expected, mainly because his service was quicker than normal. His box-kicking from defence was very good but he kicked away possession in attacking positions twice and that was the wrong option. He is still too slow getting to the base of the ruck.

The front row were pretty heroic I thought. Nothing more needs to be said about Healy, Strauss was excellent after a couple of lineout wobbles in the first half but I thought Mike Ross had a great game. He scrummaged to his usual standard but he carried very well too, supposedly his weak point. He should have been taken off ten minutes before he was, however.

McCarthy was a revelation. He tackled his heart out and he should be nailed down for the Argies. Ryan was very good too, missed one or two tackles but overall a good showing.

Henry and POM were solid if unspectacular. POM conceded a couple of soft penalties but that's what backrowers do, Henry did everything that was asked and went looking for work, very encouraging. Heaslip was too quiet for my liking. I wouldn't blame him for the yellow card; any of a number of players could have been binned and he was just unlucky to be singled out, but his overall performance was just a bit muted. Only the players can tell us what he was really like as captain but I don't think you could say he led by example.

The Bench:
Not much to say really, no-one let the side down but no-one really made an impact, one great scrum from Bent. I'd give out about ROG kicking away possession with the clock in the red, but what's the point?

Kidney:
Forced into "bold" selections in the starting XV by necessity rather than any actual desire to develop his squad, he did show some balls by picking Kilcoyne, Bent and Henderson. Unfortunately, he didn't have the strength of his convictions to follow through on it.

When Heinke van der Merwe trotted off the Boks bench, alarm bells should have been ringing for Kidney and Smal. VdM is a serious scrummager at the best of times but against a visibly tired Ross, things were always going to go badly. That it took so long to bring on Bent was not a good reflection on the coaches.

The horsesh*t tactic of bringing on O'Gara for D'Arcy with five minutes to go was an insult to both players and to Sexton. It has never worked (despite what we are told by Thornley about the second test in NZ) and it never will because ROG is not an international 10 and Sexton is not an international 12. When you've a ready-made 12 on the bench in Fergus McFadden, it's even more ridiculous. Well, we reaped what Kidney sowed with the very last play of the game. Fair enough, the chances of Ireland scoring a try down the left wing with their last attack were very slim, but when you kick the ball to a South African player, those chances go from slim to zero.

There was a total lack of direction and ambition in Ireland's play. Fair enough, preparations were probably a bit disjointed but Kidney has spent a lot of time with these players, both this season and over the last few years, but they looked like strangers out there. It's not good enough.

Every player out there gave it his all but on an individual basis. There was no coherence, no discernible plan. It reminded me of the RWC game against Australia in some respects; tackle, tackle, swarm over the breakdown, hope for penalties, win the game. But that doesn't win matches; once SA regrouped at half-time, we were finished.

Fishooks12

totallegend wrote: »

OK, I hope the bullsh*t storm has subsided a bit so here's my take on the game for anyone who cares.

Firstly, media watch; Thornley's piece this morning says that Ireland were outmuscled by experience, despite the fact that the Boks team was as inexperienced at Test level as ours. In the Indo, Hook proposes dropping D'Arcy, moving Sexton to 12 and playing ROG at ten. Nuff said really.

As for Ireland, a lot has been made of letting a nine-point lead slip but in reality, they did nothing in the first half to really merit that lead and it was SA indiscipline that got them there. A Boklash* was inevitable in the second half and Ireland just didn't have the answers.
(*I have just trademarked the work Boklash)

Kidney's team selection didn't backfire and, as expected, most of the newer guys were well able for it.

Zebo did nothing wrong, I think that's the fairest way of putting it. Solid under the high ball, showed quick feet in traffic and was by no means a problem at FB. If I had to pick holes in his game, I'd say that he missed touch with a couple of clearance kicks (I think one led directly to SA's last score), but overall he was fine. Not good enough to dispel any further debate around the jersey but if he plays against Argentina, there won't be many dissenters. I'd like to see Dave Kearney or Craig Gilroy get the nod against Fiji to explore options though.

Earls, much like Zebo, was OK at centre. It wasn't a vintage day for the Ireland backs en masse and while Earls showed in flashes, I thought that they were the sort of skills that mark him out as a great winger, not necessarily as a top-class 13, e.g. his pace and eye for a gap. A decent showing but the debate over who O'Driscoll's successor will be is not over by a long way.

D'Arcy was very good in the first half but visibly tired in the latter stages of the second half. His game has always been about his immense physical power but the Boks will always be the most physical of teams and D'Arcy probably should have been taken off earlier than he was (but with McFadden coming on, more on that later).

The wingers did OK, not much more to be said.

Sexton looked imperious at times and worryingly uncertain at others. His place-kicking was top-notch but his overall direction of the backline was somewhat lacking. Whether this is his fault or the backs coach's fault is up for debate. He didn't attack the line as much as usual but the Boks defence was rock solid all day so perhaps there wasn't much to be gained from that.

Murray did better than a lot of us expected, mainly because his service was quicker than normal. His box-kicking from defence was very good but he kicked away possession in attacking positions twice and that was the wrong option. He is still too slow getting to the base of the ruck.

The front row were pretty heroic I thought. Nothing more needs to be said about Healy, Strauss was excellent after a couple of lineout wobbles in the first half but I thought Mike Ross had a great game. He scrummaged to his usual standard but he carried very well too, supposedly his weak point. He should have been taken off ten minutes before he was, however.

McCarthy was a revelation. He tackled his heart out and he should be nailed down for the Argies. Ryan was very good too, missed one or two tackles but overall a good showing.

Henry and POM were solid if unspectacular. POM conceded a couple of soft penalties but that's what backrowers do, Henry did everything that was asked and went looking for work, very encouraging. Heaslip was too quiet for my liking. I wouldn't blame him for the yellow card; any of a number of players could have been binned and he was just unlucky to be singled out, but his overall performance was just a bit muted. Only the players can tell us what he was really like as captain but I don't think you could say he led by example.

The Bench:
Not much to say really, no-one let the side down but no-one really made an impact, one great scrum from Bent. I'd give out about ROG kicking away possession with the clock in the red, but what's the point?

Kidney:
Forced into "bold" selections in the starting XV by necessity rather than any actual desire to develop his squad, he did show some balls by picking Kilcoyne, Bent and Henderson. Unfortunately, he didn't have the strength of his convictions to follow through on it.

When Heinke van der Merwe trotted off the Boks bench, alarm bells should have been ringing for Kidney and Smal. VdM is a serious scrummager at the best of times but against a visibly tired Ross, things were always going to go badly. That it took so long to bring on Bent was not a good reflection on the coaches.

The horsesh*t tactic of bringing on O'Gara for D'Arcy with five minutes to go was an insult to both players and to Sexton. It has never worked (despite what we are told by Thornley about the second test in NZ) and it never will because ROG is not an international 10 and Sexton is not an international 12. When you've a ready-made 12 on the bench in Fergus McFadden, it's even more ridiculous. Well, we reaped what Kidney sowed with the very last play of the game. Fair enough, the chances of Ireland scoring a try down the left wing with their last attack were very slim, but when you kick the ball to a South African player, those chances go from slim to zero.

There was a total lack of direction and ambition in Ireland's play. Fair enough, preparations were probably a bit disjointed but Kidney has spent a lot of time with these players, both this season and over the last few years, but they looked like strangers out there. It's not good enough.

Every player out there gave it his all but on an individual basis. There was no coherence, no discernible plan. It reminded me of the RWC game against Australia in some respects; tackle, tackle, swarm over the breakdown, hope for penalties, win the game. But that doesn't win matches; once SA regrouped at half-time, we were finished.

Literally agree with everything you say (although I did think we played a little better in the first half than you allude to), especially in relation to how the players went.

Fantastic post

durkadurka

Well played totallegend, very fair and balanced.

Shelflife

Fishhooks we had the best available team out, its a smokescreen that Kidney hides behind on a regular basis and when its used its an insult to those who are playing in their place.
Ah sure what would you expect when I have to pick Zebo,Mccarthy,Strauss,O Mahony and Earls in the centre.

There will always be injuries and SA were missing quiet a few as well remember.

My point on the McCarthy substitution was that Ryan had just been concussed just 6mins previously and logic would have dictated that you would take him off.

Kidney made back changes on time yet left Strauss and Ross on way too long, they too should have been changed on the 60 mark as well.

As for bringing on Rog with 5mins left, well as TL said its an insult to the players.

Fireball07

I've disagreed with totallegend a few times in the buildup to the game but I agree with pretty much everything he said above. Excellent post. (a few minor quibbles but nothing worth arguing over )

justsomebloke

have to disagree with the point about Ross. Ross was always going to left on the field longer then he should have been due to the fact that we had a complete unknown entity on the bench. Bent coming on any sooner could of been a disaster if he hadn't of been as competant as he was

Mr.Applepie

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.

No change in the pack until the 70th minute against a team as physical as SA? It is only better then before because it used to be non-existent (Cullen on for 5secs etc. etc.)

Granted a change in the backs was a good idea to see if something could be created but he needed to freshen up the pack as they were getting hammered at that stage.

PhatPiggins

totallegend wrote: »

Sexton looked imperious at times and worryingly uncertain at others. His place-kicking was top-notch but his overall direction of the backline was somewhat lacking. Whether this is his fault or the backs coach's fault is up for debate. He didn't attack the line as much as usual but the Boks defence was rock solid all day so perhaps there wasn't much to be gained from that.

1. Not much to say really, no-one let the side down but no-one really made an impact, one great scrum from Bent. I'd give out about ROG kicking away possession with the clock in the red, but what's the point?
2. When Heinke van der Merwe trotted off the Boks bench, alarm bells should have been ringing for Kidney and Smal. VdM is a serious scrummager at the best of times but against a visibly tired Ross, things were always going to go badly. That it took so long to bring on Bent was not a good reflection on the coaches.

I thought Bent did really well all things considered.

What I thought was the 'sporting moment' of the game was when VdM fresh on the pitch made ribbons of a knackered Ross. The Bok's with their usual 'we are the masters of the universe' OTT celebrations where going nuts congratulating VdM and rubbing it into the Irish FR. VdM looked like a guy who scored against his old team, no celebration and head down. Thought he showed a lot of class there.

Shelflife

justsomebloke wrote: »

have to disagree with the point about Ross. Ross was always going to left on the field longer then he should have been due to the fact that we had a complete unknown entity on the bench. Bent coming on any sooner could of been a disaster if he hadn't of been as competant as he was

Well that just shows you the absurdity of having an unknown entity on the bench i the first place, we have no idea what hes like in the flesh ahh sure bejasus and begorrah sure lets throw him straight into the international team
(sarcasm directed at mgmt not jsb).

You need to have a bench that could effectively take the field after 2mins if someone was injured.

CatFromHue

We have no idea what he's like but he has been training with the team for two weeks now and so the management will have got to test him out. I've no doubt they would have done opposed scrum sessions too so I don't think he is a complete unknown.

artvandelay48

I thought Zebo looked lively but he missed too many touches for it not to be intentional. I counted at least four missed touches; it had to have been an intentional strategy, which, if it was, is a shocking lack of faith in our lineout. Fair enough we couldn't handle the lineout maul in the second half but we were missing our touches right from the start of the game.

I seem to recall a reluctance to kick for touch in the wales 6N game last year. Anyone else have the same recollection?

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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

Where did I ever say you could or should remove them from the equation? All I've been saying is that you can't (or at least shouldn't) rely solely on penalties. If you try to and lose you can't really have any complaints.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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?

I said in a previous post that the game plan we employed would be fine as long as there was a little it more to it at times. When they were a man down and we had a line-out mid-way between their 22 and 10m line we should have had attacking options that amounted to more than a couple of high balls. We didn't. I never suggested we try and play like NZ for 80 mins. But a bit more invention at a couple of key moments might have helped. We should have had a few moves in the back pocket that, if the time was right, we could have utilised. The overall plan of territory would still have applied for 90%+ of the game. But we need to be able to take advantage of opportunities as they arise. We weren't able to take advantage of an extra man on Saturday and ended up just handing possession back to them a number of times. That's not good enough.

Kiss isn't so new the the role of attack coach that he can be absolved of blame. He may have been double jobbing for a while, but he still had some experience in the role before being made full-time in it. I said before the game that I'd take a 3 point loss (the extra point makes no odds) as long as we saw some movement in the right direction. If we had a limited number of set moves that the guys weren't able to execute successfully you could at least say there was something there to build on. On Saturday there was nothing that I saw to suggest we've made any inroads in our attacking game.

irishbucsfan

artvandelay48 wrote: »

I thought Zebo looked lively but he missed too many touches for it not to be intentional. I counted at least four missed touches; it had to have been an intentional strategy, which, if it was, is a shocking lack of faith in our lineout. Fair enough we couldn't handle the lineout maul in the second half but we were missing our touches right from the start of the game.

I seem to recall a reluctance to kick for touch in the wales 6N game last year. Anyone else have the same recollection?

Not every clearance kick is intended to find touch. That has nothing to do with our lineout, just a reading of the game.

artvandelay48

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Not every clearance kick is intended to find touch. That has nothing to do with our lineout, just a reading of the game.

Granted but when you expected him to find touch, he didn't. Not sure about his reading the game but a normal "reading" of the game is when the ball is in your 22, you find your touch, no?

irishbucsfan

artvandelay48 wrote: »

Granted but when you expected him to find touch, he didn't. Not sure about his reading the game but a normal "reading" of the game is when the ball is in your 22, you find your touch, no?

Not really, not when the opposition have failed to make a single line break in the entire match and their only threat has come from mauling after a lineout.

We wanted them as far down the field as we could possible get them.

artvandelay48

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Not really, not when the opposition have failed to make a single line break in the entire match and their only threat has come from mauling after a lineout.

We wanted them as far down the field as we could possible get them.

We did this from the start though, they only got their lineout maul going in the second half.

irishbucsfan

artvandelay48 wrote: »

We did this from the start though, they only got their lineout maul going in the second half.

So then well done to whoever made the call in the first place

Foxtrol

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Not really, not when the opposition have failed to make a single line break in the entire match and their only threat has come from mauling after a lineout.

We wanted them as far down the field as we could possible get them.

Seeing as a number of Murrays box kicks from inside the 22 went into touch then it either means that either himself or Zebo weren't singing from the same hymn sheet (wouldnt be the first time for two irish players) or one of them was making errors.

irishbucsfan

Foxtrol wrote: »

Seeing as a number of Murrays box kicks from inside the 22 went into touch then it either means that either himself or Zebo weren't singing from the same hymn sheet (wouldnt be the first time for two irish players) or one of them was making errors.

Which kicks were errors then?

Do you not think that box kicking from a scrum or ruck (where the opposition back 3 is more organised) and box kicking when receiving the ball at 15 might possibly have two different intended outcomes?

Foxtrol

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Which kicks were errors then?

Do you not think that box kicking from a scrum or ruck (where the opposition back 3 is more organised) and box kicking when receiving the ball at 15 might possibly have two different intended outcomes?

I wasn’t saying they were errors but rather showing that from the point you were making they don’t seem to go hand in hand. Why not find touch from a kick by a player with a bigger boot and a better angle due to fear of their lineout and maul but then kick to touch on a box kick (which is normally designed to be chased) from a narrower angle and higher trajectory for less distance which meant SA were getting an opportunity to set up, “their only threat”, a maul much closer to the Irish line.

I’m not saying there isn’t a time for both but they can’t be married by your logic as to why Zebo was not making touch.

irishbucsfan

Foxtrol wrote: »

I wasn’t saying they were errors but rather showing that from the point you were making they don’t seem to go hand in hand. Why not find touch from a kick by a player with a bigger boot and a better angle due to fear of their lineout and maul but then kick to touch on a box kick (which is normally designed to be chased) from a narrower angle and higher trajectory for less distance which meant SA were getting an opportunity to set up, “their only threat”, a maul much closer to the Irish line.

I’m not saying there isn’t a time for both but they can’t be married by your logic as to why Zebo was not making touch.

The Murray box kicks that went to touch that you're referring to (there was two that I remember) both came directly after restarts and one of them was arguably meant to stay in play (Trimble was under it, just crept out). The other was from the very edge of the 22 in the middle of the field, so understandable why it was put into touch,

Zebo's kicks were coming from all over. Some made touch some were clearly intended not to. Most of them resulted in positive outcomes for Ireland. One of them would have seen Ireland with the ball on the halfway line if Earls hadn't tried his silly chip, another led to one of our penalties.

The logic follows pretty simply if you take the kicks individually in context of the match. Well the logic follows if you aren't going out of your way to find as many flaws as possible!

Foxtrol

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The Murray box kicks that went to touch that you're referring to (there was two that I remember) both came directly after restarts and one of them was arguably meant to stay in play (Trimble was under it, just crept out). The other was from the very edge of the 22 in the middle of the field, so understandable why it was put into touch,

Zebo's kicks were coming from all over. Some made touch some were clearly intended not to. Most of them resulted in positive outcomes for Ireland. One of them would have seen Ireland with the ball on the halfway line if Earls hadn't tried his silly chip, another led to one of our penalties.

The logic follows pretty simply if you take the kicks individually in context of the match. Well the logic follows if you aren't going out of your way to find as many flaws as possible!

I agree with your comment on taking each kick individually in the context of the match but I however dispute your initial opinion that they were avoiding touch due to fear of the SA maul as players would then be going out of their way to avoid making touch anywhere near the Irish half, which was not the case. To be honest aimless kicking is a regular sight with Ireland a large part of Kidneys tenure, I don’t think it was a game specific tactic.

irishbucsfan

Foxtrol wrote: »

I agree with your comment on taking each kick individually in the context of the match but I however dispute your initial opinion that they were avoiding touch due to fear of the SA maul as players would then be going out of their way to avoid making touch anywhere near the Irish half, which was not the case. To be honest aimless kicking is a regular sight with Ireland a large part of Kidneys tenure, I don’t think it was a game specific tactic.

It wasn't just to avoid the maul, that was just an example. Our kicking game was dominant in the first half despite rarely going for touch.

Watch the game again and note what happened after all those "aimless" kicks. We invariably got the ball back in a much better position. Especially when Kirchener was involved, and that's who those "aimless" kicks were directed towards more often than not.

Rover Random

Just a couple of thoughts on the game.

Backline.

Murray was good, box kicked well, good physicality and made some decent breaks. Also quickened his pass.
People saying Earls wasn't great need to look at who was playing inside him and also factor in the complete lack of creativity in the backline. He made some good breaks with very poor service and was quite decent in defence.
I honestly haven't a clue what Les Kiss is doing to earn his crust.
Zebo was solid and played well enough.
Bowe had a good game.
Trimble was disappointing.

Pack.

Front row had a good first half and Bent did ok when he came on.
McCarthy was immense, our best player by a long shot.
Ryan mixed the good with the bad.
Henry had a good game and deserves another shout.
POM and heaslip were bad. POM made too many errors and gave away one or two soft penalties. Heaslip would want to work on his ball carrying big time.

Regarding the sin bin, this was moronic. South Africa were going to score the try and to give away the penalty in the hope of stopping it was foolish in the extreme. Giving away a penalty that close to the line is a yellow card offence and possibly a penalty try. We should have done our best to contain the maul, failing that if they scored we should have concentrated on replying with a score from the restart rather than going down to 14 and hemorrhaging points. Heaslip would want to wise up.

monkeybutter

We have to face facts, an average team playing average rugby, with no greats (Woods and BOD in recent years for Ireland) to win it for us. No go to man.

There was no one to do this, no one was going to stop this man on the day

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7HvT-OREoM

and no one was going to deny this man even after flutey tried to knock him out with a shoulder charge

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp8v8m0_93c

danthefan

monkeybutter wrote: »

We have to face facts, an average team playing average rugby, with no greats (Woods and BOD in recent years for Ireland) to win it for us. No go to man.

Bolded bit is very generous.

Scioch

Considering who we were missing though and the size of the SA side we did well I think. We were never going to tear them apart or put a score on em. Great introduction and experience for some of the guys.

Looking forward to seeing more guys gets a run next week and come next 6 nations we should have the big guns back with a lot more depth. Only position I'd be worried about is centre, could do with another option at SH too. Hopefully Cave and Marshall will get some time in the next couple games and do enough just to be seen as viable options come the 6 nations.

I wont hold much hope of being anything other than average while Kidney is there but at least we know the next guy will have a nice big pool of players to select from to try and fashion us a decent side.

CoDy1

ballygowan1 wrote: »

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.

No, not mad and also not deluded. Talk soon.

totallegend

Not sure how well this will come out, but attached is a screen grab of the final play of the game; ROG (with ball in hand in the picture) has six Irish guys outside him, with four SA defenders covering across. If ROG takes the ball on and fixes the first defender, then we're looking at six on three and potentially the first overlap we created all day.

On what planet is kicking the ball the right option?

Shelflife

TL you also left out the fact that the clock was red, that in itself should mean do not kick the ball away

Unfortunately we also kicked the ball away twice during the SA yellow card period, one by murray and once by sexton, allowing them to kick the ball out of the danger zone and into touch thus running down the clock on the sin bin.

Maybe im wrong , but surely you should hang onto the ball when you have a numerical advantage.

Rogs effort was the ultimate brain fart, but its not the first time hes done it --
last lions tour i believe.

Lelantos

Shelflife wrote: »

TL you also left out the fact that the clock was red, that in itself should mean do not kick the ball away

Unfortunately we also kicked the ball away twice during the SA yellow card period, one by murray and once by sexton, allowing them to kick the ball out of the danger zone and into touch thus running down the clock on the sin bin.

Maybe im wrong , but surely you should hang onto the ball when you have a numerical advantage.

Rogs effort was the ultimate brain fart, but its not the first time hes done it --
last lions tour i believe.

Perhaps he had watched the 75 minutes previously where we hadn't managed to break thru the Saffers defence & decided to try something different. Put the ball over their heads & hope our onrushing backs could run onto the ball & race clear. Not likely to happen, but the only reason I can think for him to try this.

irishbucsfan

It was an absolutely senseless kick. Madness. I can only think he was going mad watching the way we were playing the game and then just lost control when he got onto the pitch. Threw away any chance we had of winning the game. Bah humbug

CatFromHue

totallegend wrote: »

Not sure how well this will come out, but attached is a screen grab of the final play of the game; ROG (with ball in hand in the picture) has six Irish guys outside him, with four SA defenders covering across. If ROG takes the ball on and fixes the first defender, then we're looking at six on three and potentially the first overlap we created all day.

On what planet is kicking the ball the right option?

I was pretty pissed off that ROG kicked it too but I think it would have been tricky to carve out an overlap. Look at how flat our attacking line is and, I could be wrong, weren't there a few forwards in the Irish line. It's also a solid SA defensive line with three guys coming from the ruck to enable a drift. There also isn't a huge amount of space for the Irish guys to work in (standing so flat doesn't help here either)

Also working an overlap is pretty much dead to the international game beyond a 2 on 1 or 3 on 2 at the most.

Rover Random

It was quite an idiotic thing to do (kicking the ball back) but you can't blame him for losing us the game. We didn't look like scoring all day and at least he tried something. The game was lost in the 10 min that Heaslip was off the field. We conceded ten points, the lead and lost any momentum we had. The fact that our fly halve did not control the game and the back row lacked physicality going forward also contributed to our demise.

goreyguy

considering they scored right after heaslip went off, there was no really way it could have been avoided apart from better defending.. at that point its about damage control and only 3 more points were scored down to 14.

Rover Random

goreyguy wrote: »

considering they scored right after heaslip went off, there was no really way it could have been avoided apart from better defending.. at that point its about damage control and only 3 more points were scored down to 14.

Fair point, but I would say that just after conceding a try it is paramount to have your captain on the field. It is his job to settle the team, especially one so young and inexperienced, and to refocus them. It's also a killer psychologically to lose your captain and then have the lead drastically cut. In my opinion, when you are that close to the line if you can't stop a maul by fair means then you are better off conceding the points rather than losing a player and inevitably conceding them anyway. Albeit there are exceptions but that would be my general rule of thumb.

goreyguy

its difficult, was Heaslip punished for his own personal infraction or for continuous team infractions in trying to stop them scoring?

But i'd agree in a situation like that, is it better to concede and only try to stop them legally? Or should you risk trying to stop them illegally and be punished even more severely.

Obviously after that not having your captain is a problem, especially with a generally inexperienced team on the field.

Fireball07

Does anyone know who became captain when Heaslip was in the sinbin?

goreyguy

Fireball07 wrote: »

Does anyone know who became captain when Heaslip was in the sinbin?

Hasn't come out to date IIRC

Rover Random

goreyguy wrote: »

its difficult, was Heaslip punished for his own personal infraction or for continuous team infractions in trying to stop them scoring?

But i'd agree in a situation like that, is it better to concede and only try to stop them legally? Or should you risk trying to stop them illegally and be punished even more severely.

Obviously after that not having your captain is a problem, especially with a generally inexperienced team on the field.

I think most of the time you are better off to just concede the points but there are exceptions. Giving away professional fouls that close to the line is foolish most of the time. With regards to it being a team or individual penalty I'm not sure.

With regards rogs kick at the end it seems stupid because it didn't work but bod did the same against England when we won our first triple crown a couple of years ago and it ended up leading to Shane horgans famous try sometimes a team won't be expacting it and it works well sa delt with it but the level of abuse he's getting for its a bit ott

corny

goreyguy wrote: »

its difficult, was Heaslip punished for his own personal infraction or for continuous team infractions in trying to stop them scoring?

I'm not 100% but didn't Barnes say 'you were the last one to infringe so you get 10 minutes' or something to that effect.

Realistically he could have picked out anyone. Collapsing, playing the ball on the ground, in from the side.... we were guilty of all of it.

fitz

corny wrote: »

I'm not 100% but didn't Barnes say 'you were the last one to infringe so you get 10 minutes' or something to that effect.

Realistically he could have picked out anyone. Collapsing, playing the ball on the ground, in from the side.... we were guilty of all of it.

Given SA had twice the penalty count at the time, imo, he should have just awarded the penalty try and left it at that. Thought the card was harsh.

Most of my thoughts on the game have already been stated by others.
Kidney still can't pick the players to suit the game.
Reddan should have started to run SA around the park for 60 minutes.
Murray is improving, but he's still not as quick to rucks or as consistent with his passing.

Did anyone else notice pretty much all of his passes went to the receivers head? Just slowed things down.

The loss was no one players fault though...Kidney and his coaches remain unable to make the most of the resources they have. It's such a waste.

Heroditas

Miller Steep Loudspeaker wrote: »

With regards rogs kick at the end it seems stupid because it didn't work but bod did the same against England when we won our first triple crown a couple of years ago and it ended up leading to Shane horgans famous try sometimes a team won't be expacting it and it works well sa delt with it but the level of abuse he's getting for its a bit ott

It's nearly seven years ago to be fair and a bit different.
The English defenders were rushing right up in O'Gara's face and there was an acre of room behind them. On Saturday, the SA defence were hanging back and letting us run up dead ends at the end.

bamboozle

found it very frustrating watching agains the head on monday night, we were attacking so tight with so much space out wide to be utilised, especially in the first half.

pickarooney

Was anyone else frustrated by the complete lack of momentum of the receivers? I don't recall one single time when the ball was passed off the back of the ruck to a moving forward. Surely this is basic stuff? It's hard to see how they were ever going to make significant inroads into the defensive line when running with ball in hand from a standing start.

DeDoc

CatFromHue wrote: »

Also working an overlap is pretty much dead to the international game beyond a 2 on 1 or 3 on 2 at the most.

Another team playing in black less than 24 hours after our boys managed many instances of putting away 5 on 4s etc

Just as pertinent in that picture is that O'Gara is taking the ball almost 10 metres behind the gainline and appears to be shipping the ball sideways. Watch the All-blacks anytime they have an overlap. The first receivers role is crucial - he has to run at the inside shoulders of the defenders to fix the line before releasing. If he does that and the next receiver does likewise, then the above picture transforms from a 6 on 4 into a 4 on 2 (plus a few cover defenders, all forwards coming across from the ruck). Put it this way, were that the ABs you'd be fancying them to score a try more often than not from that situation

For anyone who thinks the scoreline might change if they watch it again!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPeEriOyRr0

JustinDee

DeDoc wrote: »

Another team playing in black less than 24 hours after our boys managed many instances of putting away 5 on 4s etc

Just as pertinent in that picture is that O'Gara is taking the ball almost 10 metres behind the gainline and appears to be shipping the ball sideways. Watch the All-blacks anytime they have an overlap. The first receivers role is crucial - he has to run at the inside shoulders of the defenders to fix the line before releasing. If he does that and the next receiver does likewise, then the above picture transforms from a 6 on 4 into a 4 on 2 (plus a few cover defenders, all forwards coming across from the ruck). Put it this way, were that the ABs you'd be fancying them to score a try more often than not from that situation

NZ's modus operandi is based on speed of ball from contact area. Pivot takes ball deep and advantage seized upon with regards to options, . That's NZ's big strength in attack apart from a grasp of simple basics: speed. A lot of Carter's or Cruden's attacking role is using keen distribution skills at any depth, rather than taking first-time ball to the line. This is how NZ tend to be able to counter-attack with interest once an opposition energy levels and/or concentration drops as a result of incessant hammering on the floor (not always via legal methods but what the hey, we're used to this by now).

In defence, slowing down opposition while committing to ruck, instead of looking not to have to commit. This allows defensive line to form in plenty of time to pick a man or a pocket and ensuing counter to follow. Again, speed is vital. Very hard to defend against 80 minutes of this when it is carried out with good handling and nous.

Sounds simple doesn't it? lol
It actually is. The difficulty is matching it physically out there on the field.