Leinster Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread VI: End of the MOC [Revenge of the STH]

total former

stephen_n wrote: »

Personally I think that's an over simplification of what happens, the difference between Ireland and Leinster isn't just the halfbacks or lack of leadership, yes there's a big drop down in quality between Sexton and Goperth or Reddan and Murray but when Reddan came on for Ireland that was far less noticable. Game management involves using the options available, it's hard to manage anything if after 3 phases you have players standing as first receivers and I mean standing. A consistent problem all season is players taking the ball standing still and getting hit behind the gain line, you may say that's poor decision making by the scrumhalf, I'd say it's lack of patterns, we know how to get the ball through 3 phases, then it's "heads up rugby". With Ireland it takes a lot more phases to reach that point, the variations have been worked through, the attacking pods are in place and players know where they have to be for the next phase. Yes our halfbacks have been poor at times but it's hard to pick good options when you don't have runners.

See, that's just telling me that you think the coach is crap. I know you think he's crap. I'd like to discuss something else, just for a little while.

I'm trying to get at the reasons why we so often get into a position from where we should be able to drive on and win only to let it slip away. If we consistently get ourselves into the lead, then we must be doing something right at some point, and - brace yourself - maybe the coach is also doing something right. But why can we not hold that lead?

.ak

stephen_n wrote: »

Kirchner kicked one of those didn't he? or was that another one.

Actually you could be right!

stephen_n

total former wrote: »

See, that's just telling me that you think the coach is crap. I know you think he's crap. I'd like to discuss something else, just for a little while.

I'm trying to get at the reasons why we so often get into a position from where we should be able to drive on and win only to let it slip away. If we consistently get ourselves into the lead, then we must be doing something right at some point, and - brace yourself - maybe the coach is also doing something right. But why can we not hold that lead?

Then transversely you're saying Reddan, Goperth and Boss are crap. I'm not saying the coach is crap, I'm saying what has been happening consistently in every game this season, yes our halfbacks have been a problem but they dong operate in a vacuum. You say its lack of leadership, I said it's not that simple, there's more too it, you extrapolate from that somehow the coach is crap, my point is it's both a coaching and playing problem.

irishbucsfan

Kirchener's kicking was pretty poor, there was one off his left boot that he played straight into the hands of the Dragons on the other side of the field, it was a bizarre selection, they ended their return on our 10 meter line, which was deeper than where he kicked it from. Just really poor selection and value from a kick. Strauss turned it over soon afterwards, but it was another example of our kicking game failing us. It was a serious problem across the board in that game.

EDIT: Oh yeah, that Strauss turnover lead to the Kirchner kick over the dead ball line. So effectively Kirchner with two kicks in a row took us from having possession in the Dragon's half to defending a scrum outside our 22...

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

Then transversely you're saying Reddan, Goperth and Boss are crap. I'm not saying the coach is crap, I'm saying what has been happening consistently in every game this season, yes our halfbacks have been a problem but they dong operate in a vacuum. You say its lack of leadership, I said it's not that simple, there's more too it, you extrapolate from that somehow the coach is crap, my point is it's both a coaching and playing problem.

What elements of it do you think are a coaching problem and what elements of it do you think are a player problem?

total former

stephen_n wrote: »

Then transversely you're saying Reddan, Goperth and Boss are crap. I'm not saying the coach is crap, I'm saying what has been happening consistently in every game this season, yes our halfbacks have been a problem but they dong operate in a vacuum. You say its lack of leadership, I said it's not that simple, there's more too it, you extrapolate from that somehow the coach is crap, my point is it's both a coaching and playing problem.

I said it's lack of leadership, poor game management and poor tactical use of subs by the coach. You seem to miss about 80% of what I post.

molloyjh

.ak wrote: »

Actually you could be right!

Hey!

molloyjh wrote: »

Although wasn't one of those long kicks out on the full from Kirchner, where he landed it way too far infield?

.ak

stephen_n wrote: »

Kirchner kicked one of those didn't he? or was that another one.

Actually I'm surprised nobody else spotted this!

total former

.ak wrote: »

Actually I'm surprised nobody else spotted this!

Meh, we'd spend half our lives pointing out the errors in your posts...

Those kicks on the full absolutely killed us though, there was also that one that (I think) Reddan kicked, judged it perfectly but Prydie was able to catch with one foot in touch and set us back about 40 metres again.

And then their first try came from a freakishly long kick to touch that got them from their own 22 to our 5-metre line in one go.

leakyboots

Read the last ten pages with interest. I think what Leinster are seeing is what happened with Munster under the latter years with Tony McGahan - a coach with a great team breaking up/in decline.

I asked the question on MFans back then, and I'll ask it here again as I don't see it mentioned much - have you considered that the players simply aren't good enough? Some of it down to quality, some of it down to age and form? When our pack was getting beaten up in the scrum, poor centres (remember Sammy TT!), ROG/Stringer on the wane... retirement of fellas like Leamy, Quinny and Wallace... a large section of fans seemed to refuse to admit it was in front of them.

Lose fellas like BOD, Isa, Sexton, Cullen and couple in a drop off in form by D'Arcy, Jennings... even Rob K recently.. anyway -

I think ye're very well stocked at front row. A real boon, the envy of many/all teams

Toner needs a good partner. Don't know have Douglas/Denton done it for me. Mike Mac is very ordinary.

Backrow - Well stocked. First choice is very good but thereafter... some of the young lads coming through are quite hyped and maybe aren't at the level people think they are at (not saying they won't reach that level, just that they're not there yet) - case in point Jordi Murphy, who put in a great shift in the Six Nations but is prone to falling off tackles in league matches. I think Conan could be a real superstar. I don't think Ruddock's injury has helped much in the run in in fairness. Dom Ryan not up to it. But it's an excellent back row choice ye have.

Scrumhalves - I don't think ye have an 80 minute player there any more. Reddan can come on for 15-20, ditto Boss. But they're both 35. McGrath... is his passing up to it? Maybe the time next season has come to blood him and let him sink or swim.

Outhalf - Jimmy can attack quite well but is poor under pressure. That said, I actually think he's been given a bit of a bad rep in recent times, he looks like (along with Luke F) the only one to try and give any impetus to the backline. Madigan has been proven to be a maverick in the 10 jersey who lacks proper game management and probably needs to find a home somewhere else on the team (he's one of my favourite players to watch incidentally, very exciting on the ball but not a 10. I think he's more talented than say Keatley, but I'd want Keatley running my backline). I don't think Isa is the answer.

Centre - Teo looks like a good signing, but he's still bedding in. I don't know think ye've anything else like the required quality after him. Massive issues here.

Wings - Fanning and Dave K are very ordinary players. I know people will say strike rate isn't everything, but yere wings don't score a lot of tries at all - I include Luke F in that - and he's the shining light in the back three. Ditto Ferg McF, good player but not a great strike rate.

FB - Rob K's form has regressed in the past season and a half/two seasons. Perhaps some might disagree with me on that but I genuinely think it has - look at what the other fullbacks in the Six Nations offer and what Rob does now.

I think there's quite a bit of surgery required and Leinster have not recruited well in the past couple of years. Bringing back Isa ain't the answer either. As Total Former said, some serious leaders have departed the squad or can't perform like they used to.

For all the criticism of MOC, he doesn't make players drop balls, miss one-up tackles, fail to spot massive overlaps. Perhaps he's not the coach for Leinster, but I don't think any coach could do too much with the squad as is.

If anything I think the pack have underperformed - between the front row, backrow and Toner ye have a brilliant bunch of grunts - who have underperformed as a collective, not beating teams up. I'd be asking more questions of Cullen to be honest, gotten off lightly. Skills seem to have fallen off big time - Richie Murphy?

And in spite of all the above, cup rugby has thrown up stranger results than Leinster beating Toulon this weekend. Wasps showed the way by going wide and moving them around the pitch.

I do think Clermont are a bigger test the form they're in, they look fearsome.

molloyjh

total former wrote: »

I said it's lack of leadership, poor game management and poor tactical use of subs by the coach. You seem to miss about 80% of what I post.

I think we'd need to do a bit more analysis on it. For example there's a big difference between having a 1 point lead, a 5 point lead, a 10 point lead and a 20 point lead. We've blown a few 10-20 point leads, but are most of the games where we were ahead ones where we were leading by a single score? If so I'm not sure quite how relevant the topic is.

It certainly seems from my very limited recollection that we often change how we play once we build up a lead in games. I'll never understand why you would do that. Why not just push on? Instead we seem to resort to trying to play territory more than we had been when we were building up the lead. If we have been doing this regularly (and it's possible that my recollection is incorrect obviously) then surely it's a tactical approach. Otherwise you'd imagine the coaches would be at pains to stress that we stop doing it.

What's everyone else's recollection of these games? Are we building up and then giving away big leads or are we just edging out in front and therefore easy to reign back in? And if it's the former are we really resorting to sitting on leads once we have them?

molloyjh

.ak wrote: »

Actually I'm surprised nobody else spotted this!

Why I oughta.....

molloyjh

total former wrote: »

Meh, we'd spend half our lives pointing out the errors in your posts...

Those kicks on the full absolutely killed us though, there was also that one that (I think) Reddan kicked, judged it perfectly but Prydie was able to catch with one foot in touch and set us back about 40 metres again.

And then their first try came from a freakishly long kick to touch that got them from their own 22 to our 5-metre line in one go.

So was it a case of the heads dropping once things looked like they were going against us then? I'd be really worried of that was the case as things like that will always happen. A good side should be able to regroup and not let it affect them. If we're allowing what is essentially the bounce of the ball dictate our form we're in serious trouble.

leakyboots

Also, this is poor form - https://twitter.com/MocMocout

EDIT: the irony of saying this here, but the internet really is a breeding ground for cranks. Some of Munster's so-called 'fans' who gave Duncan Williams dogs abuse on the MRSC facebook page was disgraceful - and he's actually been one of our most consistent players this season

total former

molloyjh wrote: »

So was it a case of the heads dropping once things looked like they were going against us then? I'd be really worried of that was the case as things like that will always happen. A good side should be able to regroup and not let it affect them. If we're allowing what is essentially the bounce of the ball dictate our form we're in serious trouble.

I was just observing that it's a funny old game etc. The bounce of the ball didn't dictate our form at all, we were the superior team in that match and a couple of very unlucky breaks set us back massively.

Yes, yes, yes, I know these things average out over the season, doesn't excuse our form etc etc etc.

total former

leakyboots wrote: »

Also, this is poor form -

That is seriously cringe-inducing. I'm ashamed that I follow the same team as those prats.

Anyone tweeting on that, following it or whatever can f**k right off in my opinion. Leinster are far better off without people of that ilk.

Fireball07

Buer wrote: »

He kicked one away later in the game badly but it very much looked like Reddan hit him with an unexpected pass which he wasn't expecting and was in a bad position to receive. He didn't have anyone close to him to use and ended up hacking it away. The alternative was get smashed and turned over.

That was definitely Reddan's fault, couldn't believe that decision. He took the ball out of the maul that was moving forward... perhaps he was told to use it but Gopperth wasn't expecting it all and had no choice at all.

leakyboots

total former wrote: »

That is seriously cringe-inducing. I'm ashamed that I follow the same team as those prats.

Anyone tweeting on that, following it or whatever can f**k right off in my opinion. Leinster are far better off without people of that ilk.

The week of a European Cup semifinal... the mind boggles. The exact polar opposite of 'support'

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

I think we'd need to do a bit more analysis on it. For example there's a big difference between having a 1 point lead, a 5 point lead, a 10 point lead and a 20 point lead. We've blown a few 10-20 point leads, but are most of the games where we were ahead ones where we were leading by a single score? If so I'm not sure quite how relevant the topic is.

It certainly seems from my very limited recollection that we often change how we play once we build up a lead in games. I'll never understand why you would do that. Why not just push on? Instead we seem to resort to trying to play territory more than we had been when we were building up the lead. If we have been doing this regularly (and it's possible that my recollection is incorrect obviously) then surely it's a tactical approach. Otherwise you'd imagine the coaches would be at pains to stress that we stop doing it.

What's everyone else's recollection of these games? Are we building up and then giving away big leads or are we just edging out in front and therefore easy to reign back in? And if it's the former are we really resorting to sitting on leads once we have them?

We were beating the Dragons by 14 points when we changed approach, they're not one score games.

The reason teams change approach is because it's far more manageable to play that way and also it's pretty much impossible to score 14+ points from inside your own half. But the problem is we can't get out of our own half. This is not a MOC thing, Joe Schmidt does the exact same thing with his own sides and so do many other teams, it's a perfectly acceptable approach to beating a team over 80 minutes of rugby when you're two scores ahead.

If you can get an opponent in a position where they have to attack from their own half with 30 minutes to go in a game (we were leading 22-8 after 50 minutes at the weekend) then you can put them in a place where you're going to really test their depth and organisation. There are very few teams in rugby who can attack well for 80 minutes, it puts a lot of pressure on the 10 and midfield. Lyn/Kinglsey Jones on the other side of the ball would do the same if the positions were reversed.

The problem comes when we're consistently unable to force 1st phase outside our own half, and we were utterly incapable of that, the question is not why we were playing the way we were, the question is why we're unable to do it successfully. When you look through where our territory is going, this season it's predominantly been down to bad execution in the kicking game and also quite often the lineout misfiring.

molloyjh

total former wrote: »

I was just observing that it's a funny old game etc. The bounce of the ball didn't dictate our form at all, we were the superior team in that match and a couple of very unlucky breaks set us back massively.

Yes, yes, yes, I know these things average out over the season, doesn't excuse our form etc etc etc.

I suppose what I'm saying is that we were superior until a couple of unlucky breaks. Those breaks would not have been the difference between winning and losing the game for most good sides, and probably wouldn't have led to us losing the game last season. If there's confidence there teams should be able to brush that stuff off. It gave some momentum to Dragons for sure, but we still seemed to almost fall apart after them. Is that a sign that there's serious confidence issues in the squad? I'm just thinking out loud really.....

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

We were beating the Dragons by 14 points when we changed approach, they're not one score games.

From a wider perspective I was just asking was the Dragons game the norm or the exception in terms of Leinster failing to close out games.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The reason teams change approach is because it's far more manageable to play that way and also it's pretty much impossible to score 14+ points from inside your own half. But the problem is we can't get out of our own half. This is not a MOC thing, Joe Schmidt does the exact same thing with his own sides and so do many other teams, it's a perfectly acceptable approach to beating a team over 80 minutes of rugby when you're two scores ahead.

If you can get an opponent in a position where they have to attack from their own half with 30 minutes to go in a game (we were leading 22-8 after 50 minutes at the weekend) then you can put them in a place where you're going to really test their depth and organisation. There are very few teams in rugby who can attack well for 80 minutes, it puts a lot of pressure on the 10 and midfield. Lyn/Kinglsey Jones on the other side of the ball would do the same if the positions were reversed.

The problem comes when we're consistently unable to force 1st phase outside our own half, and we were utterly incapable of that, the question is not why we were playing the way we were, the question is why we're unable to do it successfully. When you look through where our territory is going, this season it's predominantly been down to bad execution in the kicking game and also quite often the lineout misfiring.

I probably should have been a little clearer. Leinster don't seem to have the half-backs capable of implementing that territory game properly. So why try to play to our half-backs weaknesses like that? I get the idea, but if we've proven time and again to be poor at executing that then why persist with it?

thomond2006

leakyboots wrote: »

Also, this is poor form - https://twitter.com/MocMocout

EDIT: the irony of saying this here, but the internet really is a breeding ground for cranks. Some of Munster's so-called 'fans' who gave Duncan Williams dogs abuse on the MRSC facebook page was disgraceful - and he's actually been one of our most consistent players this season

I'm awaiting the tweet from that account organising a march on Anglesea Road.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

From a wider perspective I was just asking was the Dragons game the norm or the exception in terms of Leinster failing to close out games.



I probably should have been a little clearer. Leinster don't seem to have the half-backs capable of implementing that territory game properly. So why try to play to our half-backs weaknesses like that? I get the idea, but if we've proven time and again to be poor at executing that then why persist with it?

What other way would you suggest they should play?

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

What elements of it do you think are a coaching problem and what elements of it do you think are a player problem?

I think the lack of pattern play is a coaching thing, not saying it's a tactical thing, it's something that comes from repitition on the training ground. We go through phases and gain yards, then lose 10 or 20 yards by taking the ball standing still and getting hit behind the gain line. Now there's a player issue there, like Dom Ryan doing his deer in the headlights impression but it's too consistent to be just that. Too often Reddan/Boss/McGrath look up and that's the only option, if the team was sufficientlu drilled, that wouldnt be happening as often as it does. Teams that have patterns drilled into them don't break down after 3 or 4 phases like we consistently do. If Goperth is the problem and he's not calling the patterns correctly or the scrum halves are the problem, why isn't that being reflected in selections? Having said all that, lack of leadership from 9/10 is exactly what cost us against the Dragons. There was plenty of direction for about 40 mins, Goperth was pulling the strings and pre calling patterns, yet we failed to capitalise when the breaks came a few times because having stretched the defense, we again ended up crippling our momentum with static carriers.

stephen_n

total former wrote: »

I said it's lack of leadership, poor game management and poor tactical use of subs by the coach. You seem to miss about 80% of what I post.

That's funny cause you just ignored 100% of what I said.

total former

molloyjh wrote: »

I suppose what I'm saying is that we were superior until a couple of unlucky breaks. Those breaks would not have been the difference between winning and losing the game for most good sides, and probably wouldn't have led to us losing the game last season. If there's confidence there teams should be able to brush that stuff off. It gave some momentum to Dragons for sure, but we still seemed to almost fall apart after them. Is that a sign that there's serious confidence issues in the squad? I'm just thinking out loud really.....

I don't think anyone would dispute that there is an issue with confidence at the moment but that's fixable too. This is why I'm optimistic about next season, I think most of our problems can be surmounted reasonably quickly.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

What other way would you suggest they should play?

Continue playing in the manner we had been as it was successful. If/when it becomes clear that the 10 is no longer able to implement that effectively then you either change your 10 or you alter your game plan to something the 10 is good at. Unfortunately we don't have another 10 because Gooperth has monopolised virtually all of the season in that shirt. As for what other game plan I honestly don't know. We've been so poor at so many things that it's hard to identify a game plan that we can implement to close out games. But perhaps it is just as simple as having Madigan on the bench and making better use of the replacements?

Surely you can't be advocating the deliberate implementation of a sensible tactic that we can't deliver on? One we're implementing so badly that it's costing us games?

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

I think the lack of pattern play is a coaching thing, not saying it's a tactical thing, it's something that comes from repitition on the training ground. We go through phases and gain yards, then lose 10 or 20 yards by taking the ball standing still and getting hit behind the gain line. Now there's a player issue there, like Dom Ryan doing his deer in the headlights impression but it's too consistent to be just that. Too often Reddan/Boss/McGrath look up and that's the only option, if the team was sufficientlu drilled, that wouldnt be happening as often as it does. Teams that have patterns drilled into them don't break down after 3 or 4 phases like we consistently do. If Goperth is the problem and he's not calling the patterns correctly or the scrum halves are the problem, why isn't that being reflected in selections? Having said all that, lack of leadership from 9/10 is exactly what cost us against the Dragons. There was plenty of direction for about 40 mins, Goperth was pulling the strings and pre calling patterns, yet we failed to capitalise when the breaks came a few times because having stretched the defense, we again ended up crippling our momentum with static carriers.

I watched the 2nd half against the Dragons again today, at no point at all were static ball carriers a problem for us. It just wasn't an issue.

The problem was our exit strategy compounded by very soft penalties conceded by our forwards (Marshall/Ryan/Murphy in succession right around the same point as Te'os sin binning. The same guys all missed crucial tackles).

We conceded 17 points in a short space of time and actually when we came out the other side of that we were quite aggressive and made good ground. Our attack wasn't an issue against the Dragons, and it certainly wasn't due to static carriers. (Sorry to focus on that one point)

molloyjh

total former wrote: »

I don't think anyone would dispute that there is an issue with confidence at the moment but that's fixable too. This is why I'm optimistic about next season, I think most of our problems can be surmounted reasonably quickly.

In theory yes absolutely. Unfortunately that was my position in the summer too. This season has seriously dented my confidence in that happening sadly.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

Continue playing in the manner we had been as it was successful. If/when it becomes clear that the 10 is no longer able to implement that effectively then you either change your 10 or you alter your game plan to something the 10 is good at. Unfortunately we don't have another 10 because Gooperth has monopolised virtually all of the season in that shirt. As for what other game plan I honestly don't know. We've been so poor at so many things that it's hard to identify a game plan that we can implement to close out games. But perhaps it is just as simple as having Madigan on the bench and making better use of the replacements?

Surely you can't be advocating the deliberate implementation of a sensible tactic that we can't deliver on? One we're implementing so badly that it's costing us games?

But you can't play that way for 80 minutes, there isn't a team in Europe who can play that way for 80 minutes and remain competitive over a season of rugby. That's just absolutely not an option and there is no team that plays like that, or has done so successfully in recent history.

The reason we can't make a change at 10 is because the replacement is even more incompetent in the problem areas, he even shows the same issues under Schmidt despite Murray being there. However I would be happy to consider starting Madigan at this stage if we have nothing left to play for (I like Gopperth but giving him game time gains us nothing long term), I'd actually be happier to do that, unless they want Madigan to play 12 to offer an option outside Sexton.

You HAVE to be able to play without the ball to win in the modern game, and that involves having a strong method of disposal. It's not an option to just ignore that part of the game. Abandoning it is not an option, the requirement is to fix it. The answer next season, as far as I'm concerned is the return of Sexton for all of our key games (injury permitting). The long term answer (which requires us to be able to do this with a 2nd string) is a new 9 (plus hopefully the emergence of McGrath) and development of a reliable alternative at 10 (hopefully Ross Byre). I see no reason why we can't get most of the way there next year.