Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

wittycynic

stephen_n wrote: »

If you couldn’t see progress in the last two games. Then I would suggest you’re not watching the games or at least you’re not paying much attention. Except to what you want to see.

I haven't seen any progress in the last two games. If there are green shoots of evolution in there that I am incapable of seeing, and I sincerely hope that's the case, I'll be delighted to see them come to fruition.

However the truth, as far as I can see it, is that we have regressed since Farrell took over. The results seem to bear out. And unfortunately I don't think we will meaningfully improve until, at a minimum, Farrell and Catt are replaced.

Sadly, I don't expect the IRFU will take that step and, like Kidney, I think they'll just let his contract run out.

It's difficult to be much more constructive because I don't think the issue is selection. It seems to be that the players are not being sent out with a gameplan that is actually capable of breaking down their opponents' defences.

We've scored two tries so far in the championship, neither of which have come through execution of a gameplan. One was a moment of individual brilliance, one was a moment of brilliant opportunism.

But reliance on those sorts of moments is not something we can build an attack strategy around.

Burkie1203

Am hearing that a few players have signed one year contracts but several have set their stall out for 2 years and IRFU are saying no.

Niallof9

oh boy this could get messy if true. Heads also can't be at the races.

dublin49

The overwhelming consensus before the match was France are a better team then us right now.How does this immutable fact get so readily forgotten in the post match analysis.With brillant players ,you get brillance at times,good players give you a level of competence and flaky players make mistakes when under pressure.We have mostly good players.I have never understood how before a match we accept it will be an upset if we win and then after that same match the analysis switches to a host of " if onlys".I could see how on another day we would have won that match but I also understand if France are the better team then statistically they are more likely to win than us,and so it was.

leakyboots

To be fair to our attack I thought we seem to have brought our wingers a *little* bit more into the game. Earls in particular had been getting little to no ball in the past few games. He popped up in field very early on in the game too if I remember rightly.

Both him and Lowe got more ball with a bit of ground in front of them. Earls made one super break where he beat a couple of guys and showed some nice footwork in tight space in the first half. Lowe and JGP had that nice linkup at the end as well as our try chance where Lowe was very unlucky. I know the jury's out on if Keenan did right or wrong but for me he should have done better.

Our wingers are both good finishers who we really should be looking to exploit but the back play at the moment doesn't really allow for it. Someone had some wide angle shots from Murray Kinsella showing this, a long/skip pass and hands and then there's serious ground to be made if we are clever enough to spot and execute.


That being said, if Stockdale and Larmour are both fit I'd start both of them against Italy. We know what Earls can do and I'm not sold on Lowe defensively at all at all.


Early days on POC's influence but the setpiece looks to have tightened up no end and I've noticed a marked improvement on our defensive. Gas that our try came off a lineout that went wrong, but we'll take it - Kelleher did well to finish.

stephen_n

Niallof9 wrote: »

i have answered this. Of course its improvement. Our scrum and lineout is fantastic atm. But pray tell, under who's watch did it fall apart?

Kudos to Farrell or whomever to bringing in extra help. But whomever didn't do the appointments in the first place fupped up (nucifora maybe). Look at all of France's coaching team.

So from a very **** base since Japan, and bad start, yes its improved.

Niallof9 wrote: »

progress!? come on now, its just not true.

So either there is or progress or there isn’t. If you want to focus on one aspect of the game and say there isn’t progress then that’s fine. It’s very easy to say there is no progress. If you want to ignore the areas there are progress in.

Lost Ormond

Dubinusa wrote: »

Our attack is blunt and looks poor. We don't seem to play what's in front of us. We do have the players but, there has to be a confidence issue or even a coaching problem. The garryowens won't work against top level sides. In saying that, I think we can fix these issues. Maybe Catt is not the coach that can do it. I think that the poor play is really exacerbated by the loss to Wales.
If we had won that match, I think we are not gnawing our fingers. But, as it stands, this tournament is done and dusted for us and the focus should be on our attacking structure. I believe we will beat Italy comfortably. We could beat Scotland and England will be interesting. Farrell should be given time. He's had some bad run of luck and although I wasn't chuffed about his appointment, I think he can fix the problems.
Besides, what or who is the alternative? It's obviously a crap position to be in and he will be feeling the pressure. I would say that if he is fired, Nucifora should also get the boot. Nucifora is the general manager and this is also his problem. I would love to see Leo in Nucifora's position.
I think if we beat Italy and Scotland and go into the England fixture with confidence, anything can happen. It's worth remembering that we have been gash for over 2 years and we are improving. Our scrum is solid, the line out is getting better and new players have been brought in.

Nucifora has done a fairly good job. Who would you replace him with.
What background does Leo Cullen have that makes him anywhere near suitable to be high performance director. There is nothing in his background to suggest he is suitable.
We do need to change/improve our attack

Wegians89

I really want to see a back row of Coombes, leavy and Doris, looks like it could be a long wait yet

VANG1

Leavy out for season. JGP in Ian McGee Hans lions team. So all you experts do you know more than 2 times lions coach! Also both centres. He’s impartial not like some experts on here. Maybe we’re not that bad, cheer up.

TRC10

Lads. You're never as bad as you think when you lose, and you're never as good as you think when you win. The reaction to yesterdays game is ridiculously hysterical. We lost because our attack was blunt and we made a couple of individual defensive errors in wide areas. That's literally it.

Everyone said before the game that we had no chance and France would win well. You can't then come out and call for the coaches head when you lose by 2 points.

Yes our attack was poor and I do think a new attack coach is needed. But you cannot deny there has been clear tangible improvements in scrum, lineout and the breakdown. Yes its 0 from 2, but you know full well that doesn't tell the full story so stop using it as a stick to beat Farrell with because those are 2 games we shouldnt even have won.

And let's put this to bed. If Keenan holds on any longer, he gets nailed by the defense coming across. He runs an ark because Burns' pass pushed him out and because he needed to to get away from the defense. It wasnt a simple 2 on 1.He did everything 100% right. So stop looking for a scapegoat.

tgdaly

Those stats from Twitter from a few pages back made for very interesting reading:


Last in tries scored with 2 (even Italy have 3)
2nd last points scored with 29 (28 for Italy)
2nd last with average metres made per carry with 2.8
2nd last with clean line break with 11
Joint last offloads completed: 6
1st in kicks from hand: 76
2nd last in tackling percentage: 84%
1st in turnovers conceded: 34

I know there's an old saying "you can use statistics to prove anything", but throw those together with the eye test and it's a pretty grim picture

tgdaly

tgdaly wrote: »

Those stats from Twitter from a few pages back made for very interesting reading:


Last in tries scored with 2 (even Italy have 3)
2nd last points scored with 29 (28 for Italy)
2nd last with average metres made per carry with 2.8
2nd last with clean line break with 11
Joint last offloads completed: 6
1st in kicks from hand: 76
2nd last in tackling percentage: 84%
1st in turnovers conceded: 34

I know there's an old saying "you can use statistics to prove anything", but throw those together with the eye test and it's a pretty grim picture

Well in this case the stats line up pretty well with what we see in front of our faces, our attack is absolute garbage.

Paul Smeenus

tgdaly wrote: »

Those stats from Twitter from a few pages back made for very interesting reading:


Last in tries scored with 2 (even Italy have 3)
2nd last points scored with 29 (28 for Italy)
2nd last with average metres made per carry with 2.8
2nd last with clean line break with 11
Joint last offloads completed: 6
1st in kicks from hand: 76
2nd last in tackling percentage: 84%
1st in turnovers conceded: 34

I know there's an old saying "you can use statistics to prove anything", but throw those together with the eye test and it's a pretty grim picture

Kelleher's try was very well taken, and he did brilliantly, but it was a complete fluke. Our co-ordinated attack is mince, my friends.

I'm mostly giving this place a miss at the moment because it's running over with bile and a lot of what might charitably be called "blue sky thinking" about our performances and what we should do. But I had to chime in because I think those top two stats in particular are where the issues lie. I know we were down to 14 for most of the Wales game, but even then... France scored against us when they were down to 14.

wittycynic

TRC10 wrote: »

Lads. You're never as bad as you think when you lose, and you're never as good as you think when you win. The reaction to yesterdays game is ridiculously hysterical. We lost because our attack was blunt and we made a couple of individual defensive errors in wide areas. That's literally it.

Everyone said before the game that we had no chance and France would win well. You can't then come out and call for the coaches head when you lose by 2 points.

Yes our attack was poor and I do think a new attack coach is needed. But you cannot deny there has been clear tangible improvements in scrum, lineout and the breakdown. Yes its 0 from 2, but you know full well that doesn't tell the full story so stop using it as a stick to beat Farrell with because those are 2 games we shouldnt even have won.

And let's put this to bed. If Keenan holds on any longer, he gets nailed by the defense coming across. He runs an ark because Burns' pass pushed him out and because he needed to to get away from the defense. It wasnt a simple 2 on 1.He did everything 100% right. So stop looking for a scapegoat.

Ah here. No one is calling for coaches to be replaced because we lost to France by two points. Those who think Farrell and Catt, at least, should go hold that opinion because this is the latest in a string of consistently poor performances and results since their appointment. In particular our attack has never looked like much under their tenure.

I don't think many are being too hard on Keenan. He should have done better and passed a little later. It's not the be all and end all. The fact that we could only generate one try scoring chance in 80 mins is what's really frustrating.

Keenan also wasn't helped by the fact that he has very little pace. He's certainly our most secure option at full back but you'd love someone there with more zip in attack.

TRC10

wittycynic wrote: »

Ah here. No one is calling for coaches to be replaced because we lost to France by two points. Those who think Farrell and Catt, at least, should go hold that opinion because this is the latest in a string of consistently poor performances and results since their appointment. In particular our attack has never looked like much under their tenure.

I don't think many are being too hard on Keenan. He should have done better and passed a little later. It's not the be all and end all. The fact that we could only generate one try scoring chance in 80 mins is what's really frustrating.

Keenan also wasn't helped by the fact that he has very little pace. He's certainly our most secure option at full back but you'd love someone there with more zip in attack.

Has anyone actually watched the clip. The defense is on top of Keenan. If he holds on a second longer he gets nailed and then everyone is definitely hanging him out to dry. So he's damned if he does, damned of he doesn't. And Keenan is not slow in any sense of the word. I dont understand the obsession with criticising Keenan.

When Larmour plays 15 he gets criticised for not being solid enough. And when Keenan played 15 he gets criticised for not being "zippy" enough. Its ridiculous. Keenan is not slow in any sense of the word. His running style might give that illusion because he tends to glide as opposed to Larmour who is more explosive. But he certainly does not lack pace. I maintain Keenan did everything 100% correct there.

molloyjh

tgdaly wrote: »

Those stats from Twitter from a few pages back made for very interesting reading:


Last in tries scored with 2 (even Italy have 3)
2nd last points scored with 29 (28 for Italy)
2nd last with average metres made per carry with 2.8
2nd last with clean line break with 11
Joint last offloads completed: 6
1st in kicks from hand: 76
2nd last in tackling percentage: 84%
1st in turnovers conceded: 34

I know there's an old saying "you can use statistics to prove anything", but throw those together with the eye test and it's a pretty grim picture

I wouldn't use those stats as direct comparisons with other teams. England and France have both played Italy and we played 65 mins of one of our games with 14 men. Both of those facts will taint any direct comparison.

While we are average a low metres per carry, we are also beating defenders. While our kicking number is high, our kicking percentage is actually low. There are a few interesting things in there which suggest we are retaining possession well but paradoxically turning it over a lot. It's hard to read a whole lot purely from the stats.

It would be interesting, for example, to know where we are beating defenders. Is it predominantly in the wider channels? We seem to be using width to stretch teams and create space on the edges. If we are beating defenders there mainly then perhaps that's a sign that this approach has merit. But if we are doing it infield more then maybe its a sign that it doesn't.

I dont have time these days to watch games back, which I really need to do to form more accurate opinions on what going on. One watch, in the heat of the moment as it were, isnt always the best for critical analysis.

dub_skav

TRC10 wrote: »

Has anyone actually watched the clip. The defense is on top of Keenan. If he holds on a second longer he gets nailed and then everyone is definitely hanging him out to dry. So he's damned if he does, damned of he doesn't. And Keenan is not slow in any sense of the word. I dont understand the obsession with criticising Keenan.

When Larmour plays 15 he gets criticised for not being solid enough. And when Keenan played 15 he gets criticised for not being "zippy" enough. Its ridiculous. Keenan is not slow in any sense of the word. His running style might give that illusion because he tends to glide as opposed to Larmour who is more explosive. But he certainly does not lack pace. I maintain Keenan did everything 100% correct there.

I think Keenan could see that it wasn't an ideal "overlap" situation, so he got the ball to the finisher to give him as much time to do his thing as possible.

Once Lowe had the ball he did brilliantly, using all his power and it almost worked out.

TRC10

dub_skav wrote: »

I think Keenan could see that it wasn't an ideal "overlap" situation, so he got the ball to the finisher to give him as much time to do his thing as possible.

Once Lowe had the ball he did brilliantly, using all his power and it almost worked out.

Yes thank you. 100%. People think it was a simple 2 on 1 l, which it wasnt. Dulin was never going to commit to Keenan, because he knew his cover was flying across. If Dulin committed, it would have been an awful decision and Dulin is a good defender.

Burkie1203

tgdaly wrote: »

Those stats from Twitter from a few pages back made for very interesting reading:


Last in tries scored with 2 (even Italy have 3)
2nd last points scored with 29 (28 for Italy)
2nd last with average metres made per carry with 2.8
2nd last with clean line break with 11
Joint last offloads completed: 6
1st in kicks from hand: 76
2nd last in tackling percentage: 84%
1st in turnovers conceded: 34

I know there's an old saying "you can use statistics to prove anything", but throw those together with the eye test and it's a pretty grim picture

Gameplan hasn't really shifted much.

Stander last week. Acres of space and he made a beeline for the nearest red Jersey. Ireland in a nutshell.

Like there is a 10m gap to the left of TF and half the Irish side are in that area. So he had plenty of support. This seems to be a mindset fixed into the minds of players.

wittycynic

TRC10 wrote: »

Has anyone actually watched the clip. The defense is on top of Keenan. If he holds on a second longer he gets nailed and then everyone is definitely hanging him out to dry. So he's damned if he does, damned of he doesn't. And Keenan is not slow in any sense of the word. I dont understand the obsession with criticising Keenan.

When Larmour plays 15 he gets criticised for not being solid enough. And when Keenan played 15 he gets criticised for not being "zippy" enough. Its ridiculous. Keenan is not slow in any sense of the word. His running style might give that illusion because he tends to glide as opposed to Larmour who is more explosive. But he certainly does not lack pace. I maintain Keenan did everything 100% correct there.

Of course people watched the clip. They've just come to a different conclusion about whether he got the most out the situation. Most people think he didn't do enough, and that's right i think.

Larmour got criticised at 15 for Ireland for not being solid enough because he wasn't solid enough. He just made too many defensive errors to be a reliable international 15. Keenan has many excellent qualities as a player but he's not particularly pacey and you'd ideally like more of an attacking threat from full back.

aloooof

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Gameplan hasn't really shifted much.

Stander last week. Acres of space and he made a beeline for the nearest red Jersey. Ireland in a nutshell.

Like there is a 10m gap to the left of TF and half the Irish side are in that area. So he had plenty of support. This seems to be a mindset fixed into the minds of players.

It was from a kick return; Sexton and Keenan are only players behind him. All the other players are in front of him, so in what way is that support?

We use CJ for kick return for a reason. He sat Faletau down on this phase. Sexton even seems to be directing him for where to go.

For all those reasons, I think you're being overly harsh on CJ here. If the example was from phase play, I could understand it a bit more, but this seems like a poor example to me.

Burkie1203

aloooof wrote: »

It was from a kick return; Sexton and Keenan are only players behind him. All the other players are in front of him, so in what way is that support?

We use CJ for kick return for a reason. He sat Faletau down on this phase. Sexton even seems to be directing him for where to go.

For all those reasons, I think you're being overly harsh on CJ here. If the example was from phase play, I could understand it a bit more, but this seems like a poor example to me.

There is 8 Irish players in shot. By the time Faletau hits the ground there is 4 irish players within 1-2m all behind him and in a position to latch or clear out a ruck. Thats more then enough support to attack the space and not the man IMO.

The mindset in the team is set to seek contact. The stats on runs so far (322) for a gain of 900m (France are 191 for 858m) backs that up.

In that particular play stander did well, he had ample support. But the default setting for players is killing us in an attacking sense

aloooof

Burkie1203 wrote: »

There is 8 Irish players in shot. By the time Faletau hits the ground there is 4 irish players within 1-2m all behind him and in a position to latch or clear out a ruck. Thats more then enough support to attack the space and not the man IMO.

The mindset in the team is set to seek contact. The stats on runs so far (322) for a gain of 900m (France are 191 for 858m) backs that up.

In that particular play stander did well, he had ample support. But the default setting for players is killing us in an attacking sense

That may well be true but I don't think Stander's kick return there is a good example of it.

And 8 players in shot isn't support if 6 of them are ahead of the ball. If the players are only behind him by the time Faletau hits the ground, they're too late to have been considered support, imo. By then he has Tipuric hanging off him, and players are still retreating.

If it's the default setting then an example in general phase play would be far better than on kick-return, imo, when the retreating players are facing the wrong way.

Hands Like Flippers

stephen_n wrote: »

When Keenan was running straight back during the AI’s and end of last years six nations. He was getting criticized for losing his support and getting turned over. He is now choosing a point of contact where there is support. Really is a case of you are screwed if you do and screwed if you don’t.

Apples & oranges.

Wasn't me.

He wasn't tying in his defender and/or was eating up the winger's space but sure best not to say anything.

TRC10

wittycynic wrote: »

Of course people watched the clip. They've just come to a different conclusion about whether he got the most out the situation. Most people think he didn't do enough, and that's right i think.

Larmour got criticised at 15 for Ireland for not being solid enough because he wasn't solid enough. He just made too many defensive errors to be a reliable international 15. Keenan has many excellent qualities as a player but he's not particularly pacey and you'd ideally like more of an attacking threat from full back.

What is Keenan not doing in attack that he should do? I'd bet hes faster than Larmour over 100m, just Larmour has better acceleration. His up and under game is good. He often beats the first man and makes good yards on kick returns. His link up play is much better than Larmour. Hes also our top try scorer since his debut. What's he not doing?

VANG1

You bet he’s quicker over 100m, his link up play is better. Pure speculation, He has never scored any of the spectacular tries and never will. If you want us to break defences you need speed of the mark, aks Kolbe.

Lost Ormond

TRC10 wrote: »

What is Keenan not doing in attack that he should do? I'd bet hes faster than Larmour over 100m, just Larmour has better acceleration. His up and under game is good. He often beats the first man and makes good yards on kick returns. His link up play is much better than Larmour. Hes also our top try scorer since his debut. What's he not doing?

Speed over 100m is completely irrelevant. The only connection a 100m time should have with rugby is 100m happens to be the max length a pitch can be from try line to tryline.
For the most part 100m time is irrelevant and its all about 10m/40m times as they are far more relevant to the game. Its all about the acceleration and getting up to speed in 10 metres or 40metres ie scoring off plays/phases 10/20/30metres from the opposition try line

ersatz

Overall yesterday did show a lot of improvement in forward play which has been poor now for a couple of years, maybe that's POC or maybe it's payoff for stuff going on for longer but it's very welcome. The bluntness in attack is the next challenge for the coaches and the team. There was definitely a head space thing yesterday that expressed itself as a lack of ambition or aggression in attack, especially on turnover ball. One example here were JGP fields a French box kick and he and Lowe do their thing up the sideline. What's interesting is that Henshaw and (I think) Kelleher are really well positioned to support the break but don't act with the required urgency to get onto GP's shoulder for an inside pass or any potential offload when he's tackled. He looks around for someone but there's noone there. That's a head thing that rarely happens with NZ or France or even Italy. They make the most of any break.

https://twitter.com/ultimaterugby/status/1361069081730961408

Podge_irl

I can only assume Henshaw is carrying some injury there? Otherwise his slow jogging up the sideline is criminal.

its_phil

ersatz wrote: »

Overall yesterday did show a lot of improvement in forward play which has been poor now for a couple of years, maybe that's POC or maybe it's payoff for stuff going on for longer but it's very welcome. The bluntness in attack is the next challenge for the coaches and the team. There was definitely a head space thing yesterday that expressed itself as a lack of ambition or aggression in attack, especially on turnover ball. One example here were JGP fields a French box kick and he and Lowe do their thing up the sideline. What's interesting is that Henshaw and (I think) Kelleher are really well positioned to support the break but don't act with the required urgency to get onto GP's shoulder for an inside pass or any potential offload when he's tackled. He looks around for someone but there's noone there. That's a head thing that rarely happens with NZ or France or even Italy. They make the most of any break.

https://twitter.com/ultimaterugby/status/1361069081730961408

It doesn't show it in that clip but am I the only one who thinks it was poor from JGP in the end after some good work. He doesn't fight to get back in field and set up a ruck keeping the ball alive. In the end he attacks the French outside shoulder and gets pushed into touch easily.