Pro12: Munster vs Edinburgh, Sat 7 Sep 7:15pm; TG4/BBCALBA

phog

Tox56 wrote: »

In fairness to Dan at least he appreciated the absurdity of the argument

There was nothing absurd about the argument unless you actually mean Dan's post on the entire Edinburgh team might somehow have been behind ROM.

Tox56

phog wrote: »

There was nothing absurd about the argument unless you actually mean Dan's post on the entire Edinburgh team might somehow have been behind ROM.

Absurd as in who cares to what extent the flick was intentional?!

who_me

phog wrote: »

Good enough game but was that because we had more time on the ball and he was somewhat responsible in the defensive gaps for both their tries.

His passing was accurate and fast and generally took the right decision from the base of a ruck. If he kept this performance up throughout the season we'd all be happy.

A little bit harsh on him defensively. If someone misses a tackle on the edge of your 22 you're always going to struggle. For the second, ROM rushed out but didn't take his man, leaving a big gap in behind.

I think he's shown (both in this and the LI game) that if we get quick ruck ball he can be a menace. His pass is actually very quick and he was popping up to take offloads too. IMO, it's when the pace is slowed and the defence is pushing up quickly that he struggles, perhaps more so than Murray or Sheridan.

phog

who_me wrote: »

A little bit harsh on him defensively. If someone misses a tackle on the edge of your 22 you're always going to struggle. For the second, ROM rushed out but didn't take his man, leaving a big gap in behind.

I think he's shown (both in this and the LI game) that if we get quick ruck ball he can be a menace. His pass is actually very quick and he was popping up to take offloads too. IMO, it's when the pace is slowed and the defence is pushing up quickly that he struggles, perhaps more so than Murray or Sheridan.

Sorry, didn't mean to be harsh on him but he was sweeping across the field in both cases and never laid a finger on either player, as I say he was only partially responsible. I'd be delighted to get that performance on a regular basis.

Hurk

phog wrote: »

Good enough game but was that because we had more time on the ball and he was somewhat responsible in the defensive gaps for both their tries.

His passing was accurate and fast and generally took the right decision from the base of a ruck. If he kept this performance up throughout the season we'd all be happy.

I'm pretty sure he was off the pitch for the second try so you can't blame him for that.

athtrasna

Hurk wrote: »

I'm pretty sure he was off the pitch for the second try so you can't blame him for that.

There's always a way

phog

Hurk wrote: »

I'm pretty sure he was off the pitch for the second try so you can't blame him for that.

You're dead right, Murphy was wearing a white scrum cap too so it may have been him for the 2nd try. I was ever harsher on Williams then I had intended.

Hurk

phog wrote: »

You're dead right, Murphy was wearing a white scrum cap too so it may have been him for the 2nd try. I was ever harsher on Williams then I had intended.

I was at the game and I mixed himself and Murphy up multiple times. Both had very good games, in fairness.

athtrasna

Hurk wrote: »

I was at the game and I mixed himself and Murphy up multiple times. Both had very good games, in fairness.

In fairness what are non-pack players doing wearing scrum caps?

Howard Juneau

athtrasna wrote: »

In fairness what are non-pack players doing wearing scrum caps?

Johne Murphy has some scar tissue around his ears...Duncan Williams has an Ian Madigan haircut he wishes to keep hidden

Swiwi.

danthefan wrote: »

Not interested in getting into this, imo there's no way it was close to being intentional as I said, not too bothered if anyone thinks otherwise.

I don't think otherwise. It was pure fluke, and worked out well for Munster. But only the most one-eyed of fans would think it was crafted. One to entertain the grand-kids with in his twilight years, but Zebo it was not (even if I tongue-in-cheek insinuated the opposite during the match)

phog

Swiwi. wrote: »

I don't think otherwise. It was pure fluke, and worked out well for Munster. But only the most one-eyed of fans would think it was crafted. One to entertain the grand-kids with in his twilight years, but Zebo it was not (even if I tongue-in-cheek insinuated the opposite during the match)

The "I'm right and you're one eyed" if you disagree argument.

Swiwi.

phog wrote: »

The "I'm right and you're one eyed" if you disagree argument.

You're welcome to believe it was intentional and I will make no effort to convince you otherwise. We will remain entrenched on our views on this one. It's a pretty trivial matter so I won't agonise over it. For what it's worth it was still a nicely worked try either way.

phog

Swiwi. wrote: »

You're welcome to believe it was intentional and I will make no effort to convince you otherwise. We will remain entrenched on our views on this one. It's a pretty trivial matter so I won't agonise over it. For what it's worth it was still a nicely worked try either way.

And you're welcome to believe it was a pure fluke if that's your view but please don't call others who have counter argued with that viewpoint as one eyed.

phog

MR have put video highlights and some pics from the game on their site.

who_me

phog wrote: »

Sorry, didn't mean to be harsh on him but he was sweeping across the field in both cases and never laid a finger on either player, as I say he was only partially responsible. I'd be delighted to get that performance on a regular basis.

I've been plenty harsh on him in the past too (he is/was to me clearly 3rd choice) but I have to acknowledge he upped his game for this one. No sloppy passes, only counted one time he was slow getting to the breakdown; and got involved much more than usual. Even had a couple of nice reverse passes in succession late in the game to fox the defence.

Good to see a bit of swagger back, he's taken a lot of stick (guilty!) but ultimately we all want to see players in the Munster jersey do well.

phog

who_me wrote: »

I've been plenty harsh on him in the past too (he is/was to me clearly 3rd choice) but I have to acknowledge he upped his game for this one. No sloppy passes, only counted one time he was slow getting to the breakdown; and got involved much more than usual. Even had a couple of nice reverse passes in succession late in the game to fox the defence.

Good to see a bit of swagger back, he's taken a lot of stick (guilty!) but ultimately we all want to see players in the Munster jersey do well.

True.

He was always capable of the reverse pass and a break but last season he seemed to lose confidence and his passing to the first receiver really suffered.

As I said in an earlier post I hope he continues the form he showed last Saturday night for the season.

DDC1990

Not that my opinion is needed but I just feel that ROM over-ran the ball.

At some angles it looks like he tries to flick it with his boot, in others it looks like he's just running and it hits his heel.

I'd be on the side of accidental rather then genius.

Bogota

phog wrote: »

And you're welcome to believe it was a pure fluke if that's your view but please don't call others who have counter argued with that viewpoint as one eyed.

We would never do that phog, you are very fair when it comes to all things Munster :P

The overriding consensus on rugbydump among neutral fans is that there is no way that he intended to flick that into Coughlan's hands. I'd agree as do most people I've spoken to (and most people on here)

.ak

Enough of the jabs people. I think this is a topic we can safely not lose sleep over and move on from....

budhabob

Finally got to watch the game. Have to say there are so many positives....shame the weekends game isnt televised to follow progress.

phog

budhabob wrote: »

Finally got to watch the game. Have to say there are so many positives....shame the weekends game isnt televised to follow progress.

Keep in mind this was Edinburgh who hadn't a defensive coach up to a few weeks ago.

budhabob

phog wrote: »

Keep in mind this was Edinburgh who hadn't a defensive coach up to a few weeks ago.

I appreciate that, and the list of injuries they had also. But that can't take away from the type of play, and the performance of some of the new lads.

phog

budhabob wrote: »

I appreciate that, and the list of injuries they had also. But that can't take away from the type of play, and the performance of some of the new lads.

While the likes of Cronin & ROM deservedly got a lot of favourable comments I think Murphy and Williams had great games, Murphy was my MOTM.

phog

budhabob wrote: »

...shame the weekends game isnt televised to follow progress.

BTW - RTE will show highlights of Friday's game on Saturday at 5

Quint2010

ROG on Second Captains on RTE right now. Coming across very well. Talking about the whole him and Sexton affair and how they are friends now.

who_me

phog wrote: »

Keep in mind this was Edinburgh who hadn't a defensive coach up to a few weeks ago.

Very true. It's worth noting it was a continuation of the performances from the pre-season friendlies though, the same players have been shining and the same patterns working through each game.

phog

who_me wrote: »

Very true. It's worth noting it was a continuation of the performances from the pre-season friendlies though, the same players have been shining and the same patterns working through each game.

Actually we were talking about that today at work and someone jokingly said that the friendlies were tougher opposition

who_me

phog wrote: »

Actually we were talking about that today at work and someone jokingly said that the friendlies were tougher opposition

I didn't see the Gloucester game, but it's probably true of LI. We had a lot of sustained possession, but it was only in the last 10-15 minutes we started to cut through them.