Ireland vs England Feb 23, 3pm Twickenham

partyguinness

vetinari wrote: »

They're still lucky kicks though.
In both cases the defender should be touching it down for a 22 dropout.
That's not to say England weren't the better team but it did make a massive difference to the game.

If Sexton had made those kicks twice and say Stockdale touched down everyone would be on here hailing the genius of Sexton and Farrell would be lauded like some Roman Emperor. But when the opposition do it it's just 'lucky'.

partyguinness

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51608349

Completely different take on the 'lucky' kicking adopted by England,.

prawnsambo

partyguinness wrote: »

If Sexton had made those kicks twice and say Stockdale touched down everyone would be on here hailing the genius of Sexton and Farrell would be lauded like some Roman Emperor. But when the opposition do it it's just 'lucky'.

Well we had a very similar situation back in 2018 when Garry Ringrose scored. Rob Kearney challenged in the air for a kick that was aimed just left of the posts, the English player fumbled it and Garry Ringrose just got to it and scored the try. And that was considered lucky, certainly by me and iirc most people on the match thread.

partyguinness

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well we had a very similar situation back in 2018 when Garry Ringrose scored. Rob Kearney challenged in the air for a kick that was aimed just left of the posts, the English player fumbled it and Garry Ringrose just got to it and scored the try. And that was considered lucky, certainly by me and iirc most people on the match thread.

But did people criticize the general principle of the kick for being a waste of possession and just down to Ireland running out of ideas with ball in hand like what is being leveled at England here?

I always considered it is part and parcel of the game and executed by players that hell of lot more about the game than any of us ever will.

aloooof

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well we had a very similar situation back in 2018 when Garry Ringrose scored. Rob Kearney challenged in the air for a kick that was aimed just left of the posts, the English player fumbled it and Garry Ringrose just got to it and scored the try. And that was considered lucky, certainly by me and iirc most people on the match thread.

I don't think it's as simple as saying it was lucky,m tho? Good kicking puts you in a position to get lucky, targeting a specific player in the process. In both cases, it was clearly identified as a tactic.

The first try on Sunday resulted because Larmour was slightly out of position. (This, along with it holding up just before the try line caused some hesitation). England identified that, executed well and made the most of it.

The kick to Kearney was also a really good kick, landing just outside the try line and targeting Anthony Watson under high ball. Ireland identified that, executed well and made the most of it.

What you're describing as lucky to me seems like part of the gameplan.

Podge_irl

Stuart Hogg's screw up against England wasn't seen as amazing English play, it was seen as Stuart Hogg's screw up.

How anyone could view kicking the ball away in the oppo 22 when it is completely covered by the defence who just have to put their hands out to catch it on the full in-goal, but that player inexplicably decides to not catch it as anything other than lucky is just bizarre to me.

The first kick through was a well-spotted hole in the defense for sure, but again 9 times out of 10 that is easily covered and a waste of possession. The Stockdale one is covered 99 times out of 100.

aloooof

Podge_irl wrote: »

How anyone could view kicking the ball away in the oppo 22 when it is completely covered by the defence who just have to put their hands out to catch it on the full in-goal, but that player inexplicably decides to not catch it as anything other than lucky is just bizarre to me.

I don't think that's accurate tho. The reason for the hesitation from Sexton, imo, is because it held up and he didn't want to carry it over the try line. It was a brilliantly weighted kick. That's not luck.

Podge_irl

aloooof wrote: »

I don't think that's accurate tho. The reason for the hesitation from Sexton, imo, is because it held up and he didn't want to carry it over the try line. It was a brilliantly weighted kick. That's not luck.

I'm referring to the Stockdale one there.

The Sexton one was much better worked by England.

nigeldaniel

Reading through a good number of posts here I can not understand why a small number of posters are so hard on Jonny and Jacob. Very smart kicks caught them out early in the game. England got very lucky with the bounce of the ball and Ireland did not. It's hardly necessary for people to go at the guys as though they do not know what we are all thinking. Some comments on media elsewhere are just plain nasty and uncalled for. No one in the Ireland team needs to be told how disappointed we all are. How about some understanding and kindness instead.

prawnsambo

partyguinness wrote: »

But did people criticize the general principle of the kick for being a waste of possession and just down to Ireland running out of ideas with ball in hand like what is being leveled at England here?

I always considered it is part and parcel of the game and executed by players that hell of lot more about the game than any of us ever will.

I hate it. That's probably a personal opinion, but it smacks of being unable to break down a defense and simultaneously a better than 50/50 chance of ceding possession and territory. This relating to kicks in or near the 22, in case that wasn't clear. There's clearly a time and place for a well judged kick or grubber, but grubbers especially are a complete lottery. They can sit up in any direction as they slow down and make complete fools of the chasers.

lawred2

prawnsambo wrote: »

I hate it. That's probably a personal opinion, but it smacks of being unable to break down a defense and simultaneously a better than 50/50 chance of ceding possession and territory. This relating to kicks in or near the 22, in case that wasn't clear. There's clearly a time and place for a well judged kick or grubber, but grubbers especially are a complete lottery. They can sit up in any direction as they slow down and make complete fools of the chasers.

yeah but put behind in the right space with chasers like Johnny May - I think sometimes it's a greater than 50:50

partyguinness

prawnsambo wrote: »

I hate it. That's probably a personal opinion, but it smacks of being unable to break down a defense and simultaneously a better than 50/50 chance of ceding possession and territory. This relating to kicks in or near the 22, in case that wasn't clear. There's clearly a time and place for a well judged kick or grubber, but grubbers especially are a complete lottery. They can sit up in any direction as they slow down and make complete fools of the chasers.

I can see your point in that it turns 100% possession in hand to 50/50. Fair enough in itself. But at the same time I think it is a very narrow way of looking at it and there is more than one was to skin a cat. It does work both ways in that the defender is made to look the fool. Hating it is a bit strong. Seeing it as an admission of defeat is a tad OTT.

sydthebeat

aloooof wrote: »

England not great? That was pretty much as comprehensive a 12 point victory as I've seen.

england werent great..
thats what makes our performance so disappointing.

They beat us up in every aspect of forward play... every single one.. .yet only scored one try in that manner. Their other two tries came from irish mistakes.

if you looked at the stats after youd think ireland were well in that game... 61% possession and 59% territory.... but thats because england were happy to leave us with the ball and just keep hitting us hard.

they were extremely good at one aspect of the game.... and in truth the game was over by half time.... but i certainly wouldnt describe their overall rugby performance as 'great'

i said straight after the game that they should be kicking themselves that the didnt get a TBP as they were so vastly dominant... but the reason they didnt is because they didnt have the nous to get in behind other than battering.

prawnsambo

lawred2 wrote: »

yeah but put behind in the right space with chasers like Johnny May - I think sometimes it's a greater than 50:50

Sometimes. And it worked out twice for England on Sunday. But they also kicked at least twice before that and it came to nothing. In fact (and I'm not sure if this was before or after) they tried another grubber and it rebounded and we got possession behind the gain line through Stander (I think).

partyguinness wrote: »

I can see your point in that it turns 100% possession in hand to 50/50. Fair enough in itself. But at the same time I think it is a very narrow way of looking at it and there is more than one was to skin a cat. It does work both ways in that the defender is made to look the fool. Hating it is a bit strong. Seeing it as an admission of defeat is a tad OTT.

In or near the 22 I hate it. I suppose it's a strong word, but it's not just what the outcome is for the attacking team. It also tells the defending team that they are being effective. I'd have to watch the game again (not sure I'm up for that ) but I'm under the impression that they kicked less of those speculative kicks in the second half. According to the stats, they kicked 11% of their possession and we kicked 6%. Iirc, we got the square root of feck all out of our kicks, so when Sexton said he thought we probably should have kicked more, I suspect that he's acknowledging the return percentage is low and more kicks may have borne fruit.

Granny15

prawnsambo wrote: »

I hate it. That's probably a personal opinion, but it smacks of being unable to break down a defense and simultaneously a better than 50/50 chance of ceding possession and territory. This relating to kicks in or near the 22, in case that wasn't clear. There's clearly a time and place for a well judged kick or grubber, but grubbers especially are a complete lottery. They can sit up in any direction as they slow down and make complete fools of the chasers.

Grubbers in open play is a tactic that works very well (I'm thinking France in the 90's) but is completely unused tactic by Ireland. I'd say of the small percentage of grubber kicks that we do actually use 99% of them are aimed to pin the opponent back by putting them in touch. None to open play to allow the winger beat his opposite number for pace.

prawnsambo

Granny15 wrote: »

Grubbers in open play is a tactic that works very well (I'm thinking France in the 90's) but is completely unused tactic by Ireland. I'd say of the small percentage of grubber kicks that we do actually use 99% of them are aimed to pin the opponent back by putting them in touch. None to open play to allow the winger beat his opposite number for pace.

BOD used to take them a lot. Latterly only Henshaw really springs to mind and possibly Ringrose the odd time. Somebody had a go at one against England on Sunday, can't remember who, but it bounced back off the defence and we ended up scrambling ten metres back.

partyguinness

Twickenham 2006- my all time favourite sporting moment. Shane Horgan in the corner having started in their own 22.

Who can recall ROG's chip and chase from well inside his own half and Ryle Nugent's orgasm at the conversion.

Or Tommy Bowe's try against Wales in 2009- another chip and chase.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

BOD used to take them a lot. Latterly only Henshaw really springs to mind and possibly Ringrose the odd time. Somebody had a go at one against England on Sunday, can't remember who, but it bounced back off the defence and we ended up scrambling ten metres back.

The grubber by Youngs showed good vision and was well executed into a big gap in behind and between larmour and sexton.

Sexton should have dealt with it fairly comfortably as the bounce he got was not that bad but he took his eye off it and made a balls of it.

aloooof

aloooof wrote: »

I don't think it's as simple as saying it was lucky,m tho? Good kicking puts you in a position to get lucky, targeting a specific player in the process. In both cases, it was clearly identified as a tactic.

The first try on Sunday resulted because Larmour was slightly out of position. (This, along with it holding up just before the try line caused some hesitation). England identified that, executed well and made the most of it.

The kick to Kearney was also a really good kick, landing just outside the try line and targeting Anthony Watson under high ball. Ireland identified that, executed well and made the most of it.

What you're describing as lucky to me seems like part of the gameplan.

You have no idea if this is true or not, and if we are dishing out blame he's a very very distant third behind whoever vacated their post in the backfield and Sexton.

sydthebeat

The fact that Larmour would have gotten to that ball ahead of any english player tells me that automatically he wasnt out of position.

The guy has some intense speed and because of this he can 'stretch the elastic' more than say RK currently could.

prawnsambo

Brixton Tasty Uniform wrote: »

You have no idea if this is true or not, and if we are dishing out blame he's a very very distant third behind whoever vacated their post in the backfield and Sexton.

The vacation of the backfield happened one ruck earlier. It was Sexton (in the sweeper position) and Murray on the wing.

aloooof

Brixton Tasty Uniform wrote: »

You have no idea if this is true or not...

Of course we don't know for certain, but I'm happy to defer to Murray Kinsella on this. He admits himself we can't know for certain, but he has done a lot of analysis on it in this article. It's well worth a read.

In hindsight, Larmour will probably feel he should have been in a more central starting position behind the ruck here [as indicated below], rather than this far across to his right.

Brixton Tasty Uniform wrote: »

...and if we are dishing out blame he's a very very distant third behind whoever vacated their post in the backfield and Sexton.

I'm not laying blame. The whole point of my post was that I don't think it's accurate to state the kick was lucky.

Space at point of kick


Kick angled to right also. Sexton did well to turn quickly.


Larmour slows up to leave the ball gathering attempt to Sexton

prawnsambo

sydthebeat wrote: »

The fact that Larmour would have gotten to that ball ahead of any english player tells me that automatically he wasnt out of position.

The guy has some intense speed and because of this he can 'stretch the elastic' more than say RK currently could.

Well it's not just whether he would have got to the ball or not. There's the question of whether the kick would have been attempted and then even if it had, he was the clear option to collect it and would have got there a lot sooner than Farrell who Sexton could have run a blocking line on. Ford was farther back and only came into the picture because of Sexton's mishandling of the ball. I'm not for a minute suggesting this could or would happen, just when you start getting into hypotheticals, there are so many factors that come into the equation.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well it's not just whether he would have got to the ball or not. There's the question of whether the kick would have been attempted and then even if it had, he was the clear option to collect it and would have got there a lot sooner than Farrell who Sexton could have run a blocking line on. Ford was farther back and only came into the picture because of Sexton's mishandling of the ball. I'm not for a minute suggesting this could or would happen, just when you start getting into hypotheticals, there are so many factors that come into the equation.

True. Youngs was certainly less likely you would have said to attempt this is if Larmour was in a more central position.

partyguinness

Remember it was only the 8th minute with no score on the board. Pop one into the space for 3 runners see what happens. Result. It was pre planned move that worked out.

Alternate scenario Sexton gathers and spins a rushed kick into touch deep inside his own 22. England have a line out in Ireland's 22 and momentum. Net gain.

partyguinness

partyguinness wrote: »

Remember it was only the 8th minute with no score on the board. Pop one into the space for 3 runners see what happens. Result. It was pre planned move that worked out.

Alternate scenario Sexton gathers and spins a rushed kick into touch deep inside his own 22. England have a line out in Ireland's 22 and momentum. Net gain.

Alternate scenario, ball gets dotted down and its a 22 drop out. Possession wasted.

partyguinness

Deleted User wrote: »

Alternate scenario, ball gets dotted down and its a 22 drop out. Possession wasted.

As I said it was only the 8th minute so why not. It worked out.

They were not chasing a score in the 78th min.

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

Alternate scenario, ball gets dotted down and its a 22 drop out. Possession wasted.

How often do attacks come to nothing?
Your argument is to try nothing because, percentage wise, they dont work out.

Do you even sport?

sydthebeat

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well it's not just whether he would have got to the ball or not. There's the question of whether the kick would have been attempted and then even if it had, he was the clear option to collect it and would have got there a lot sooner than Farrell who Sexton could have run a blocking line on. Ford was farther back and only came into the picture because of Sexton's mishandling of the ball. I'm not for a minute suggesting this could or would happen, just when you start getting into hypotheticals, there are so many factors that come into the equation.

as a full back.. giving the picture that a kick is open, in the knowledge that you have the afterburners to cover the ground to touch it down... is actually a good ploy if it comes off.

Im not say thats what happened, (all hypothetical) as we'll never know... but its still a fact that Larmour got to the pitch of the kick.. and it was a good kick too.

For all the talk about whether the kicks were "lucky" or not to result in tries it must be remembered that England had Ireland pinned down in their own 22 or own half for pretty much the entire first 40 minutes.

That was the determining factor and I think that they would have found a way to turn this dominance into scores if these plays didn't work out as they did.

From the way that the English runners were so smartly following up on the kick it does seem very much a planned tactic.

partyguinness

GreeBo wrote: »

How often do attacks come to nothing?
Your argument is to try nothing because, percentage wise, they dont work out.

Do you even sport?

There does seem to be some posters here who have a very black and white almost religious obsession about what should and should not be done on the pitch and anything that might be a bit different or edgy is just completely mind blowing.

"But but.....but he should not be making such kicks because the percentages say otherwise." or

"England were lucky because they really should not have made that kick"

It's a little weird actually

Interestingly over the years Irish teams have been criticized for being over coached, predictable and sticking too rigidly to certain formulas.

The most successful and exciting teams over the years are the ones that try new things and play unpredictably and not sticking slavishly certain styles. It has been Ireland's downfall at every WC in the professional era- playing league football in the cup competition and simply not being able to adapt on the pitch.

prawnsambo

partyguinness wrote: »

As I said it was only the 8th minute so why not. It worked out.

They were not chasing a score in the 78th min.

This is probably the most relevant factor. It was early in the game and plenty of time to try stuff. I often noticed under Joe Schmidt that we would invariably kick penalties to the corner in the first half and at the posts in the second. Incidentally, Murray Kinsella noted that we switched to a 13-2 defense in the 22 in the second half. Twice bitten.

As an aside, I much prefer these kinds of discussions after a game. You always learn something from them.

partyguinness

glasso wrote: »

For all the talk about whether the kicks were "lucky" or not to result in tries it must be remembered that England had Ireland pinned down in their own 22 or own half for pretty much the entire first 40 minutes.

That was the determining factor and I think that they would have found a way to turn this dominance into scores if these plays didn't work out as they did.

From the way that the English runners were so smartly following up on the kick it does seem very much a planned tactic.

I was watching it in England with English supporters. I cannot remember the last time I thought this during a 6N game but I saw the clock at 32min and said "We need to get to half time ASAP".

partyguinness

partyguinness wrote: »

As I said it was only the 8th minute so why not. It worked out.

They were not chasing a score in the 78th min.

Absolutely, just don't diminish the most likely outcome

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

How often do attacks come to nothing?
Your argument is to try nothing because, percentage wise, they dont work out.

Do you even sport?

Yep, try nothing, that was my point

Ardillaun

partyguinness wrote: »

There does seem to be some posters here who have a very black and white almost religious obsession about what should and should not be done on the pitch and anything that might be a bit different or edgy is just completely mind blowing.

"But but.....but he should not be making such kicks because the percentages say otherwise." or

"England were lucky because they really should not have made that kick"

It's a little weird actually
.

Given England’s utter dominance on the field, I would have expected them to be able to keep the the ball in hand but those little kicks behind the defence worked well against us, as they did last year. From the point of view of the game in general, it’s good to see space created through accurate kicking.

partyguinness

We mentioned that this essentially the same Irish team as the WC so instant turn around in fortunes not to be expected.

Likewise, this is essentially the same England team (minus the the Vunipolas) that gave IMO one of the best performances that I have ever seen in beating NZ a few months ago.

Let's not be too hard on the team.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2020/feb/24/irelands-backline-were-spooked-by-englands-effort-and-attitude

Dubinusa

I thought we were pensive and apprehensive at the start. England bought it to us in spades and we had no answer. Poor preparation? No real alternative from the shellacking of last year. Our predictable patterns were so easily read and defended. I think England with the attacking style they used showed us a good platform to start with.
Mixing up the attack leaves defenses hesitant. I think the only way for us to have gained any semblance of parity on Sunday would have been to kick for territory. Time and time again Murray box kicked right to the defense with no pressure on them. That was the same script as last year's! Why not skip a pass to Stockdale or Larmour and then put in a kick that turns England around and gives us something to chase and hit hard?
Even a spark of hard hitting rucks going forward could change the mindset of both sides. England like all sides , are a different animal with pressure on. We failed to apply any decent kick chase or territorial kicks during the 1st half.
It seems like our lads get shellshocked when they are under the gun. But, Sexton was abysmal. The other lads may have been thinking "wtf" as they watched him struggle. He should have been yanked at half time, along with Toner and Murray. Farrell and company were outcoached for this one. It boggles the mind to see it. We knew England would be brutally physical and yet... no semblance of a response.

Hands Like Flippers

prawnsambo wrote: »

Thanks. That's the exact instance I was referencing. It would be great if refs actually started doing this. I can understand that it's difficult as he has to see the right picture; body weight supported, hands on the ball and not the ground and the tackled player still holding on. All while players are piling in and whether a ruck was formed or not. But it would certainly reduce the injury count if they at least reacted a bit quicker.

Surely the penalty is for not releasing not for putting hands on the ball. This was discussed a while back on the general forum. The jacklar has to be able to survive a clear out if it arrives quickly. Often the issue is the defender makes no effort to rip the ball whilst the tackled player has in fact released therefore no penalty should be awarded.

prawnsambo

Hands Like Flippers wrote: »

Surely the penalty is for not releasing not for putting hands on the ball. This was discussed a while back on the general forum. The jacklar has to be able to survive a clear out if it arrives quickly. Often the issue is the defender makes no effort to rip the ball whilst the tackled player has in fact released therefore no penalty should be awarded.

Yes it is. But you get players still moving in the tackle, so not releasing is really a movable feast. And if nobody is challenging for the ball, releasing it isn't a problem.