Ireland v France, 25th Feb 2017, Aviva Stadium, 4:50pm, RTÉ 2/ITV

CMOTDibbler

molloyjh wrote: »

God only knows really. That's what it looked like, but it would have been utterly worthless to them so I've no idea what they thought they were at.

It's just pragmatic play. There's three points on offer and seven minutes to try and get some more. A try wouldn't do it for them, but it just makes the chase a bit easier. Another penalty or drop goal and then it's an unconverted try needed to win.

stephen_n

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

It's just pragmatic play. There's three points on offer and seven minutes to try and get some more. A try wouldn't do it for them, but it just makes the chase a bit easier. Another penalty or drop goal and then it's an unconverted try needed to win.

Or a suggestion they didn't believe they had a try in them and were settling for the losing bonus point. They weren't likely to get better field position for a try at that point, if they got the try it would have been far easier to try force a penalty or at least get field position for a DG.

molloyjh

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

It's just pragmatic play. There's three points on offer and seven minutes to try and get some more. A try wouldn't do it for them, but it just makes the chase a bit easier. Another penalty or drop goal and then it's an unconverted try needed to win.

There was 5 minutes left in the game. They had spent almost none of the second half in our 22. Taking the 3 meant that they needed a try and 1 other score to win. There wasn't enough time to get that after the penalty. It was either stupidity or a staggering lack of ambition. They basically threw away any chance of winning the game and therefore any chance of winning the tournament with that decision. Going to the corner would have possibly meant getting nothing from the game (which they did in the end anyway) but also could have meant getting back within a score and putting the pressure firmly back on us. Instead they chose not to try and win the game.

CMOTDibbler

molloyjh wrote: »

There was 5 minutes left in the game. They had spent almost none of the second half in our 22. Taking the 3 meant that they needed a try and 1 other score to win. There wasn't enough time to get that after the penalty. It was either stupidity or a staggering lack of ambition. They basically threw away any chance of winning the game and therefore any chance of winning the tournament with that decision. Going to the corner would have possibly meant getting nothing from the game (which they did in the end anyway) but also could have meant getting back within a score and putting the pressure firmly back on us. Instead they chose not to try and win the game.

It was kicked over just as the match clock went to seventy-three minutes. There was time for us to get a penalty as well and kick it over still with five minutes of playing time left.

If they were able to hold onto the ball, there could have been as much as ten minutes or even more, left for them.

molloyjh

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

It was kicked over just as the match clock went to seventy-three minutes. There was time for us to get a penalty as well and kick it over still with five minutes of playing time left.

If they were able to hold onto the ball, there could have been as much as ten minutes or even more, left for them.

I think that's a real stretch tbh. There were 7 minutes to go when he kicked it fair enough, but then once the game restarted there'd be less than that again. They'd be taking the ball well inside their own half and they had really badly struggled at that point to make any inroads into our half. They'd have 6 minutes of regular time to get a try and 1 other score from deep in their own half. That's a big ask for a team that had almost an hour between their last 2 scores.

Plus the penalty was in the 22. A kick to touch would have had them 5m out. When you need a try with such little time left and you're given that territory and possession you have to make use of it. Especially when its been at a premium all game. Ultimately they'd still have needed 2 kicks at goal or a try to win, but it's easier to get the territory for 2 kicks at goal or 1 try than it is for 1 kick at goal and a try.

CMOTDibbler

molloyjh wrote: »

I think that's a real stretch tbh. There were 7 minutes to go when he kicked it fair enough, but then once the game restarted there'd be less than that again. They'd be taking the ball well inside their own half and they had really badly struggled at that point to make any inroads into our half. They'd have 6 minutes of regular time to get a try and 1 other score from deep in their own half. That's a big ask for a team that had almost an hour between their last 2 scores.

Plus the penalty was in the 22. A kick to touch would have had them 5m out. When you need a try with such little time left and you're given that territory and possession you have to make use of it. Especially when its been at a premium all game. Ultimately they'd still have needed 2 kicks at goal or a try to win, but it's easier to get the territory for 2 kicks at goal or 1 try than it is for 1 kick at goal and a try.

Seven minutes is a long time in a rugby match. You're chasing a lead, you take the points on offer and try and get more. A lineout in the 22 when they'd been having problems in that set piece was in no way guaranteed to give them a try. At best a 50/50 shot. Better to be pragmatic about it and see what the next seven minutes brings than risk it on a percentage shot and come away with nothing and with no change in the scoreboard.

I had no issue with it at the time and still don't.

shootermacg

I remember thinking that was a good choice myself. Take the confirmed 3 points and hope for more. Better than say, getting the try in the corner off a maul and missing the tough conversion. But like all decisions it's open to debate.

iroced

bilston wrote: »

I just remember being relieved when they opted for the 3 points. I think it was a very bad call on their part, just typically French to be honest!

Can you explain to me what "typically French" means please?

-

As for the game, found it was a pretty poor game overall. I found Ireland pretty poor and was surprised by it. You kept doing the same thing over and over again. Don't know why you did not try more your nice attacking passing game, with dummy double passing ("passe redoublée", don't know how you call it) (your tried it 2/3 times and were close to scoring each time). Alas, we were even poorer. Concerningly poor...

Our games in November and in England were encouraging. Our last 2 are clearly a couple of steps backwards...

As I said many times, Novès is no magician and after 8 years of nonsense and ages of even bigger nonsense at the head of our federation, what else can we expect?

errlloyd

iroced wrote: »

Can you explain to me what "typically French" means please?

As for the game, found it was a pretty poor game overall. I found Ireland pretty poor and was surprised by it. You kept doing the same thing over and over again. Don't know why you did not try more your nice attacking passing game, with dummy double passing ("passe redoublée", don't know how you call it) (your tried it 2/3 times and were close to scoring each time).

I presume by "typically French" he just meant slightly unconventional. I guess French teams get a reputation for making decisions that Anglophone teams would not make. Like for instance the final game in the 2015-16 champions cup pool when Morgan Parra opted to tap quickly instead of going for goal when a penalty would have been enough for them to top the pool!

I'd say the Redoublee as you call it, is what Irish people call the "loop" or "wrap" and Jonny Sexton calls "running the backling" . I was also disappointed with our ability to score. Just before halftime I was particularly frustrated with our lack of return from several visits to the red zone.

France were not as good as week 1 or 2. Still our largest 6 nations victory over ye since 1975, happy with that.

CMOTDibbler

iroced wrote: »

As for the game, found it was a pretty poor game overall. I found Ireland pretty poor and was surprised by it. You kept doing the same thing over and over again. Don't know why you did not try more your nice attacking passing game, with dummy double passing ("passe redoublée", don't know how you call it) (your tried it 2/3 times and were close to scoring each time). Alas, we were even poorer. Concerningly poor...

The weather was the casue of the much tighter approach to the game imo. Once it started spilling down, the options out wide were no longer on really. The error count was pretty massive, over 70 combined errors in the match. A lot of that was down to a greasy ball and a slippery pitch.

molloyjh

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Seven minutes is a long time in a rugby match. You're chasing a lead, you take the points on offer and try and get more. A lineout in the 22 when they'd been having problems in that set piece was in no way guaranteed to give them a try. At best a 50/50 shot. Better to be pragmatic about it and see what the next seven minutes brings than risk it on a percentage shot and come away with nothing and with no change in the scoreboard.

I had no issue with it at the time and still don't.

How though, if you're potentially going to struggle to score a try when you're in the opposition 22 (or 5m from their line), can you back yourself to score one from inside your own half? That 3 points was useless without a try. So surely bag the try first because you're not guaranteed a better opportunity to get it.

I'd agree that 7 minutes can be a long time in rugby, but by the same token you can't look at the final 7 minutes in isolation of everything that happened before it. And as I said it wasn't even 7 minutes by the time the game restarted.

Ardillaun

Here's the L'Equipe ratings link:
https://www.balls.ie/rugby/lequipes-player-ratings-for-ireland-vs-france-359940

CMOTDibbler

molloyjh wrote: »

How though, if you're potentially going to struggle to score a try when you're in the opposition 22 (or 5m from their line), can you back yourself to score one from inside your own half? That 3 points was useless without a try. So surely bag the try first because you're not guaranteed a better opportunity to get it.

I'd agree that 7 minutes can be a long time in rugby, but by the same token you can't look at the final 7 minutes in isolation of everything that happened before it. And as I said it wasn't even 7 minutes by the time the game restarted.

But you're looking at it in isolation by suggesting they'd have got a better return by kicking to the corner. When all the evidence that came before was that they wouldn't.

That's why I'm saying it was the pragmatic decision.

I'd also add that I'm a firm believer in taking the points on offer and don't particularly like the way we're going for the try instead at the moment. There have been far too many failures to convert those opportunities to my mind.

Ardillaun

I think they should pay L'Equipe to rate our team in every match. It's judgements are refreshingly harsh.7 or 8 is unusual.

molloyjh

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

But you're looking at it in isolation by suggesting they'd have got a better return by kicking to the corner. When all the evidence that came before was that they wouldn't.

Well no, that's not quite what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that given how much difficulty they had getting into our 22 for the previous hour they should have been looking to take the opportunity to go for the try then. Because there was absolutely no guarantee, based on how the game had been going, that they'd have gotten an opportunity like that again. In fact quite the opposite, they were very unlikely to get into our 22 again. And since they needed a try they should have tried to take full advantage of one of the only opportunities they had in the game.

I'm not saying they would have scored. I'm saying they had a better chance of getting a try starting from inside our 22 (the kick to touch would have gotten within 5-10m of our line) than from starting inside their half. Had they been breaking into our 22 more often then maybe I'd have agreed with the kick, but they weren't.

iroced

molloyjh wrote: »

How though, if you're potentially going to struggle to score a try when you're in the opposition 22 (or 5m from their line), can you back yourself to score one from inside your own half? That 3 points was useless without a try. So surely bag the try first because you're not guaranteed a better opportunity to get it.

I'd agree that 7 minutes can be a long time in rugby, but by the same token you can't look at the final 7 minutes in isolation of everything that happened before it. And as I said it wasn't even 7 minutes by the time the game restarted.

I know we cannot seriously compare our 2007 team with our current one. But...

But, in a way, the scenarios of the games were a bit similar. We struggled against your tough defense just for Ibañez to give us a nice 13-3 lead with his breakthrough try. Slowly but surely, you came back (notably with a superb ROG try), you made us defend. You kinda controlled the second half. We did not have that many opportunities to score. And out of nowhere, we charged one last time from our last kick off and Vincent Clerc magic got us the win.

So Saturday, despite being a shamefully poor heritage of this 2007 team, we were only 10 pts behind with 7 mins to go knowing we'd been inches away of scoring a try in the first half. Your defense was tough, you made us struggle. But a mistake is always possible, particularly in the dying mins of a game. So a foul in a kickable position and we're 6 pts behind. And then even if there's only 1 min left on the clock, we "just" have to keep the posession and try to progress... In 2007, we never really looked like winning the game in the second half up to that late charge...

Now the HUGE difference is that our current team has not yet found its right balance, has no positive history on its back and above all has zero confidence. Our team back in 2007 was a machine compared with our current one.

molloyjh

iroced wrote: »

I know we cannot seriously compare our 2007 team with our current one. But...

But, in a way, the scenarios of the games were a bit similar. We struggled against your tough defense just for Ibañez to give us a nice 13-3 lead with his breakthrough try. Slowly but surely, you came back (notably with a superb ROG try), you made us defend. You kinda controlled the second half. We did not have that many opportunities to score. And out of nowhere, we charged one last time from our last kick off and Vincent Clerc magic got us the win.

So Saturday, despite being a shamefully poor heritage of this 2007 team, we were only 10 pts behind with 7 mins to go knowing we'd been inches away of scoring a try in the first half. Your defense was tough, you made us struggle. But a mistake is always possible, particularly in the dying mins of a game. So a foul in a kickable position and we're 6 pts behind. And then even if there's only 1 min left on the clock, we "just" have to keep the posession and try to progress... In 2007, we never really looked like winning the game in the second half up to that late charge...

Now the HUGE difference is that our current team has not yet found its right balance, has no positive history on its back and above all has zero confidence. Our team back in 2007 was a machine compared with our current one.

Yeah I'd have been genuinely worried about the 2007 side right up to the final whistle all right. But the 2017 side is a long way from that team. That 2007 side always had the ability to find that crucial score. Look at the Scotland game that won it for you that year for example. What we said about that French team was that you knew what you needed to do to win. You rarely did much more but rarely did much less.

This French side doesn't have that pedigree, at least not yet.

iroced

molloyjh wrote: »

This French side doesn't have that pedigree, at least not yet.

Oh no! We're far from it.

In a way, the roles are reversed. Despite not being impressed by your performance on Saturday, I found you looked calm and in control. As if you knew you were going to turn the game no problem. It was particulalrly blatant watching the players faces after something was scored. When Lamerat grounded it (and well it was very close to be a try in the end), your players were emotionless. Calm and at peace, confident that 10 pts at worse to overturn was nothing.
The collective belief your team has now built is maybe the harder things to compete against. Particulalrly from our losing-vicious-circle-dynamics perspective.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

mfceiling wrote: »

Italy won't beat them...Let's see what the bookies say and let's see you out your money where your mouth is.

No team will "hammer" France. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. The weather was poor and the game was never going to be anything other than a massive arm wrestle.

The loop pass works well and with decoy lines and runners causes indecision in defence and therefore will lead to line breaks.


Best played well and Toner and SOB were solid. RK didn't have a great game and Zebo had one to forget. Sexton played very well....kicked well, ran strongly and tackled well...did you see his drop goal? Actually mentioned in the Sunday Times today about how powerful he took the ball into contact as a kind of Fcuk You to the French who have targetted him in the past.

What game were you watching yesterday cause it sure as hell wasn't the same one as the rest of us.

what you posted above is the same i posted only differing only on sexton and the bonus.
neil francis has said it and horgan hinted at it and will be interesting what against the head panel say - ireland should have got the bonus.
also francis made a good point about the kick through for earls, wales and england might just move their attention to henshaw and that could totally negate our backline.

bilston

iroced wrote: »

bilston wrote: »

I just remember being relieved when they opted for the 3 points. I think it was a very bad call on their part, just typically French to be honest!

Can you explain to me what "typically French" means please?

-

As for the game, found it was a pretty poor game overall. I found Ireland pretty poor and was surprised by it. You kept doing the same thing over and over again. Don't know why you did not try more your nice attacking passing game, with dummy double passing ("passe redoublée", don't know how you call it) (your tried it 2/3 times and were close to scoring each time). Alas, we were even poorer. Concerningly poor...

Our games in November and in England were encouraging. Our last 2 are clearly a couple of steps backwards...

As I said many times, Novès is no magician and after 8 years of nonsense and ages of even bigger nonsense at the head of our federation, what else can we expect?

Typically French...non conformist...doing the unusual...I don't know, maybe I'm guilty of a stereotype...apologies if I've offended you...

pickarooney

Bruce Thundering Scavenger wrote: »

what you posted above is the same i posted only differing only on sexton and the bonus.
neil francis has said it and horgan hinted at it and will be interesting what against the head panel say - ireland should have got the bonus.
also francis made a good point about the kick through for earls, wales and england might just move their attention to henshaw and that could totally negate our backline.

Ringrose is just waiting for that to happen.

Ardillaun

iroced wrote: »

I know we cannot seriously compare our 2007 team with our current one. But...

Now the HUGE difference is that our current team has not yet found its right balance, has no positive history on its back and above all has zero confidence. Our team back in 2007 was a machine compared with our current one.

Back in those days, your backs getting the ball usually caused a jaysus moment for me. Space seemed to open up, especially for Clerc who had some sort of force field around him, and our lads would disappear when most needed.

From this distance, the French team looks poorly picked and coached right now. Is it that or the quality of the players?

Ardillaun

I'm sure somebody has remarked upon it already but Sexton's drop goal was sweetly struck, from 40 metres as well. Fairly far out for him?

.ak

Ardillaun wrote: »

I'm sure somebody has remarked upon it already but Sexton's drop goal was sweetly struck, from 40 metres as well. Fairly far out for him?

Nah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNAB4Ru7VwY

Ardillaun

.ak wrote: »

Ardillaun wrote: »

I'm sure somebody has remarked upon it already but Sexton's drop goal was sweetly struck, from 40 metres as well. Fairly far out for him?

Nah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNAB4Ru7VwY

Gorgeous. OK does any nerd know what would be his mean distance for drop goals? And has it declined?

swiwi_

Ardillaun wrote: »

I'm sure somebody has remarked upon it already but Sexton's drop goal was sweetly struck, from 40 metres as well. Fairly far out for him?

I loved that DG. Mainly because it brought back fond memories of another DG about 18 months ago

CMOTDibbler

Ardillaun wrote: »

Gorgeous. OK does any nerd know what would be his mean distance for drop goals? And has it declined?

He doesn't take that many. But if you look at that one and the one he took at the weekend, there's not much between them. That one just about cleared the crossbar, the one at the weekend ended up in the dead ball area iirc.

Buer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvCqqMH6qXY

Doesn't include some decent ones including the one against Bath in the HEC from just inside halfway. The Treviso one is my personal favourite. They had scored on 77 minutes and we got one shot to win it. Made no ground, shocking pass from Cooney and Sexton just lobbed it over from well out.

molloyjh

Buer wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvCqqMH6qXY

Doesn't include some decent ones including the one against Bath in the HEC from just inside halfway. The Treviso one is my personal favourite. They had scored on 77 minutes and we got one shot to win it. Made no ground, shocking pass from Cooney and Sexton just lobbed it over from well out.

What also stands out about that Treviso game is that they were beating a pretty strong Leinster side in front of a full, or near full, house. It's such a shame that they ended up ballsing it all up with that row with the FIR.

Also, I love how in a couple of those the opposition thinks they've exited their 22 and cleared the danger. Jonny just says "no you haven't". Must be a real kick in the nuts for defenders to think they've done the hard work and a real boost for his team mates.

Ardillaun

swiwi_ wrote: »

Ardillaun wrote: »

I'm sure somebody has remarked upon it already but Sexton's drop goal was sweetly struck, from 40 metres as well. Fairly far out for him?

I loved that DG. Mainly because it brought back fond memories of another DG about 18 months ago

In successive games, too. I saw one piece that claimed he only had 8 as an AB? They probably don't need them as much as other teams do.

Ardillaun

swiwi_ wrote: »

Ardillaun wrote: »

I'm sure somebody has remarked upon it already but Sexton's drop goal was sweetly struck, from 40 metres as well. Fairly far out for him?

I loved that DG. Mainly because it brought back fond memories of another DG about 18 months ago

In successive games, too. I saw one piece that claimed he only had 8 'in his entire career'? They probably don't need them as much down there.

iroced

What about THIS DG? He could have hit it in his own 22 :eek: :pac:

Ardillaun wrote: »

From this distance, the French team looks poorly picked and coached right now. Is it that or the quality of the players?

I won't judge Novès that quickly. he showed what he's capable of when you give him the time and I hope Laporte will give him this time.

Now, in terms of our players, I don't know... We certainly don't have the quality we used to have. But we do have potentially good players. A good example is Huget. He's been kinda useless so far. But he does have the potential to be a good player.

For me there are a couple of reasons that explain what you observed.

1. Never forget where we are coming from. 4 years of failed experimentations followed by 4 years of nonsense.

2. Too many games in top14. We lost Trinh-Duc, Novès' designed 10. We lost Fofana, our best centre. But, overall Top14 is not compatible anymore with modern international rugby. I remember when we faced the ABs at the last WC, Dusautoir had played the equivalent of an added full season to Richie McCaw. Lièvremont complained about it when he "had to" abandon his attacking philosophy for a more pragmatic and restrictive gameplan but I guess since we got a GS in 2010 with that style, no one really listened to him and anticipated that we were going the wrong way...

3. But the amount of games is one thing. The style is another key one. International modern rugby is attacking, putting up a lot of high intensity phases together. Top 14 is more physical but with a lot less high intensity phases. The only teams that are doing it a bit are leading (Clermont & La Rochelle) but still are a pale version of what we see at international level.

So. If you combine points 2 and 3, you understand why our players don't stay the distance when we face such high-intensity opposition. Because they're globally more tired by the amount of games and on top of it are also less used to this high-intensity tiring at top level. That's kinda square vicious circle :rolleyes:...
Add point 1 and we also have zero collective confidence after all these years of failure.
Therefore, even if we had Vincent Clerc at his best in the current team, he'd look like a headless chicken .


So. Improvements?
Well, Novès was a good first step.

Second step is a top14 revolution from top (change the championships set-up) to bottom (learn rugby differently in the academies and adapt to modern high-intensity playing). Of course, try not to have long-term 0 French players teams.

1. I've been battling it up for ages but I deeply think top 14 should be a top20 (so everyone is happy to be in the elite league) with 2 seeded pools of 10 teams (such that each pool is tight enough and there are not zillion of games). Then top2 for crossed semi-finals or top4 for crossed quarter-finals. Bottom 2 go down to keep it open or last one only if we want it more restrictive. Or there could be a play-off game between the second last of each pool with the 3rd and 4th of ProD2. Plenty of options for these modalities.
Maybe also draw the seeded teams in each pool each season or every 2/3/whatever seasons such that each team gets to (statistically) play every single other one.

2. Whithin our academies, learn modern rugby which is attacking, high-intensity and "daring". For this last one, I mean try the difficult pass, go for the offload. Every position, every player. They're not gonna learn it when they'll have turned pro. The game is far too conservative from a young age, like play safe, don't try the offload pass, especially if you're a forward, etc... etc... If we want our "flair" back, we can't accept such conservativeness in the way we learn rugby.

3. Even if it's contrary to European laws, try and find a way not to get teams packed with foreign players. Or at least there should be more and a clearer control over it. I know it's complicated (the richer clubs could easily buy all the best French players and the poorer clubs will be left with the second fiddles...) so maybe try and take more into account players from their own academies. Anyway, we should be able to sit around a table and discuss this with all the heads of French rugby and reach a compromise.

4. Oh but for that to happen of course, we need to sop this absolute stupid bulllsh*te neverending inner "war" between LNR & FFR. It's in the interest of everyone in France that they both work together and that both our domestic league AND the national side are doing well.

Jeez... I should have applied for FFR presidency :pac:...

stephen_n

I actually thought there were some great positives for the French in that game. The defence was excellent through out and didn't give in, right to the end. There was also a visible sense of togetherness in the team, which has been missing over the last few seasons. They looked very much like a team, rather than 15/23 players. The building blocks are there and given time I'd say Noves will make a good team out of it. That was not a day for an offloading game, which probably hampered France a lot more than it did us.

iroced

stephen_n wrote: »

I actually thought there were some great positives for the French in that game. The defence was excellent through out and didn't give in, right to the end. There was also a visible sense of togetherness in the team, which has been missing over the last few seasons. They looked very much like a team, rather than 15/23 players. The building blocks are there and given time I'd say Noves will make a good team out of it. That was not a day for an offloading game, which probably hampered France a lot more than it did us.

You're right. And I agree re-Novès. But I believe this won't be enough (I mean in theory our ambition is to win the RWC) so my points were more general and long-term . Just a quick example: when is the last time we beat a top side?

errlloyd

iroced wrote: »

You're right. And I agree re-Novès. But I believe this won't be enough (I mean in theory our ambition is to win the RWC) so my points were more general and long-term . Just a quick example: when is the last time we beat a top side?

In the last twelve months you've had a victorious tour to Argentina and beat Ireland in last year's 6n. So I guess. Those games.

stephen_n

iroced wrote: »

You're right. And I agree re-Novès. But I believe this won't be enough (I mean in theory our ambition is to win the RWC) so my points were more general and long-term . Just a quick example: when is the last time we beat a top side?

Winning a World Cup given how far things have slid, would be over optimistic. I think though with a really good outhalf, this team could be very good. Fofana is a big loss too, you could really do with him. Two years is a long time in rugby, Noves could have achieved a lot by the time the next RWC rolls around.

dub_skav

iroced wrote: »

You're right. And I agree re-Novès. But I believe this won't be enough (I mean in theory our ambition is to win the RWC) so my points were more general and long-term . Just a quick example: when is the last time we beat a top side?