Leinster Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread XII (The Byrne Supremacy)

AbusesToilets

TRC10 wrote: »

I don't mean to be pessimistic but I can't agree. I think we're a fair bit off right now.

I think our front 5 would get completely overun by Toulouse. Baille, Faumoina, the 2 Arnolds and Tekori (and that's with Marchand suspended). Healy and Toner really are on their last legs and i seriously doubt they'd be able to put it up to that lot. A part of me is glad we didn't have to see Kolbe up against James Lowe, I think that could have been ugly.

I think Porter moving back to LH will help a lot, and with Alaalatoa coming in we have a good 80mins at TH. Baird and Ryan as a 2nd row pairing I'm not so sure about. Baird has shown he has a bit to go in terms of development, and it's a small enough pairing compared to Toulouse and LAR's 2nd rows. We're crying out for a Thorn/Hines type player, but with 2 NIE locks at Munster and 1 at Ulster there's no chance of that happening.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that take. Bar Skelton, I thought we handled La Rochelle well enough. We had the nudge in the scrum. For me, the game was lost by the selection choices. In retrospect, Baird and Fardy weren't the right choices.

I dunno, I don't see Leinster butchering those opportunities in the Toulouse 22, and Bryne is nothing if not an excellent kicker.

Fruits and nuts anyway.

TRC10

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I'm not sure I'd agree with that take. Bar Skelton, I thought we handled La Rochelle well enough. We had the nudge in the scrum. For me, the game was lost by the selection choices. In retrospect, Baird and Fardy weren't the right choices.

I dunno, I don't see Leinster butchering those opportunities in the Toulouse 22, and Bryne is nothing if not an excellent kicker.

Fruits and nuts anyway.

Seriously? We got bullied off the park for 60 minutes. Sure we had a few decent scrums but in open play they absolutely dominated the gainline and the collisions, and thus the breakdown.

That, and our horrendous discipline meant they could just keep the scoreboard ticking over until we were dead and burried.

Dubinusa

I think trc is right. We were flogged pretty hard v LaRochelle. Physically we were 2nd best. That said, I thought Healy played his best match in a couple of years. The boys are getting on and it's plain to see that our selected off.
Losing Ruddock was massive. Baird didn't have any sort of impact. Toner really isn't at that level and neither is Fardy. If we selected the same squad v Toulouse, I think we'd come up short.
Next year will be interesting. I think Toner will see only pro 16 matches. If Healy is still starting, I reckon we won't win in Europe. Against sides like LaRochelle we need faster, harder and more physical players. If Porter does revert back to lh and goes well, I think we'll be fine. I am hoping that by some miracle Milne turns up ready to play Euro level rugby. He could be a top level player. Kelleher is doing well and an uninterrupted season for Ryan, could be the making of a serious contender.
The injury list aside, I don't think we'd have beaten LaRochelle. The campaign was disastrous for Doris and Ryan with the concussions. Losing Connors was a blow, but I doubt he would have made a difference.
Onward to next year. The Saffer sides will at least make the pro 16 interest. But, I really only care about the European cup.

Former Former Former

Meh. On another day we'd have won the physical battle against LAR.

VANG1

We have a lot of young forwards, they have grizzled highly experienced pack. We are going to be better next year with experience.

ShineyShiney

Dubinusa wrote: »

I think trc is right. We were flogged pretty hard v LaRochelle. Physically we were 2nd best. That said, I thought Healy played his best match in a couple of years. The boys are getting on and it's plain to see that our selected off.
Losing Ruddock was massive. Baird didn't have any sort of impact. Toner really isn't at that level and neither is Fardy. If we selected the same squad v Toulouse, I think we'd come up short.
Next year will be interesting. I think Toner will see only pro 16 matches. If Healy is still starting, I reckon we won't win in Europe. Against sides like LaRochelle we need faster, harder and more physical players. If Porter does revert back to lh and goes well, I think we'll be fine. I am hoping that by some miracle Milne turns up ready to play Euro level rugby. He could be a top level player. Kelleher is doing well and an uninterrupted season for Ryan, could be the making of a serious contender.
The injury list aside, I don't think we'd have beaten LaRochelle. The campaign was disastrous for Doris and Ryan with the concussions. Losing Connors was a blow, but I doubt he would have made a difference.
Onward to next year. The Saffer sides will at least make the pro 16 interest. But, I really only care about the European cup.

As a non Leinster fan but an admirer I'd say ye are in need of a top class winger, a back up 12/13 for when Robbie is out and a solid th lock.

Lowe and larmour have had poor enough seasons and while both have good points of difference a proven winger with straight line pace would be a useful addition.

The gap from Henshaw to the alternatives is huge imo at least 1 decent centre capable of playing at HC level is badly needed.

James Ryan is a super player but needs to be on the other side more often imo.

A little more luck on the injury side of things and ye will be there or there abouts.

Buer

TRC10 wrote: »

I mean more in open play. I agree that Healy is still a solid operator in the scrum. But he offers very little in the collision and often gets smashed behind the gainline. He's nowhere near as explosive as he once was and what was once a great strength of his has now become a weakness in his game.

He's certainly not as good as he was in open play but that's from a position as probably the best prop in the world around the park. He's now just solid. I think he gets a lot of discussion around his carrying these days purely because he's not what he was. I think it's an exaggeration to suggest his carrying is now a weakness. He has even pretty much eradicated the sloppy knock ons he used to come up with regularly.

Against La Rochelle, he made 16m from 11 carries. Pretty paltry stuff but it was still better than most of his colleagues and comfortably ahead of Furlong. His scrummaging is probably as good if not better than it ever was. As I posted earlier, he popped Atonio on their opening scrum. He did a right number on Sinckler in the 6N (the cameras all cut to Furlong who was celebrating on one big shove after the loosehead side did the damage).

He's absolutely on the wane and there's a problem for Leinster and Ireland staring us in the face but, looking at this season in isolation and potentially into next, I'm not worried about Healy too much. He has played some really decent stuff in the last couple of months.

The one area I'd really consider an issue is his defensive work where he's not nearly the force he once was and now is good for a missed tackle or two in most games whilst not making nearly as many as he used nor is he a breakdown threat anymore.

TRC10

ShineyShiney wrote: »

As a non Leinster fan but an admirer I'd say ye are in need of a top class winger, a back up 12/13 for when Robbie is out and a solid th lock.

We'll take Tom Daly and Thornbury back so :D:D

aloooof

Buer wrote: »

He's certainly not as good as he was in open play but that's from a position as probably the best prop in the world around the park. He's now just solid. I think he gets a lot of discussion around his carrying these days purely because he's not what he was. I think it's an exaggeration to suggest his carrying is now a weakness. He has even pretty much eradicated the sloppy knock ons he used to come up with regularly.

Against La Rochelle, he made 16m from 11 carries. Pretty paltry stuff but it was still better than most of his colleagues and comfortably ahead of Furlong. His scrummaging is probably as good if not better than it ever was. As I posted earlier, he popped Atonio on their opening scrum. He did a right number on Sinckler in the 6N (the cameras all cut to Furlong who was celebrating on one big shove after the loosehead side did the damage).

He's absolutely on the wane and there's a problem for Leinster and Ireland staring us in the face but, looking at this season in isolation and potentially into next, I'm not worried about Healy too much. He has played some really decent stuff in the last couple of months.

The one area I'd really consider an issue is his defensive work where he's not nearly the force he once was and now is good for a missed tackle or two in most games whilst not making nearly as many as he used nor is he a breakdown threat anymore.

He seemed to have a really high penalty count during the ANC, as far as I remember. Can’t recall the stats, but it seemed like he tidied that up during the 6 Nations.

ShineyShiney

TRC10 wrote: »

We'll take Tom Daly and Thornbury back so :D:D

Daly fits the bill alright but thornberry is very similar to what you already have, he's doing a good job of covering the th side but was at his best on the other side beside roux.

Thankfully both are signed up for now 😉

clsmooth

I thought Healy’s footwork before contact was good against La Rochelle. Scrum was very good considering he was packing up against about 290kg. He’s now a solid player at this level, not a weakness. Probably has another year or so left at the top level but it would be good to see someone put their hand up for the 1 jersey.

There doesn’t seem to be too many stand out LHs around these days. Wyn Jones had a good 6N. Vunipola was poor. His scrum basics have never been a strong point but his workrate and ball handling always made up for it. Not sure he’ll be the force he was through his 30s once his open field contributions diminish. Sutherland is decent.

AbusesToilets

TRC10 wrote: »

Seriously? We got bullied off the park for 60 minutes. Sure we had a few decent scrums but in open play they absolutely dominated the gainline and the collisions, and thus the breakdown.

That, and our horrendous discipline meant they could just keep the scoreboard ticking over until we were dead and burried.

I wouldn't agree. Ruddock going off, and having Baird as a replacement was a killer. He wasn't up task on the day, and Fardy wasn't doing much either. It was a far cry from the performance against Exeter, who I would consider just as physical as any other team in the comp.

For me, the issues with the breakdown were less about us getting blown away, and more to do with the refs interpretation. He was blowing almost immediately if a defender got hands near the ball. La Rochelle were just diving at the ball on the deck, and getting the calls. hard to play a tempo possession game in those circumstances.

TRC10

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I wouldn't agree. Ruddock going off, and having Baird as a replacement was a killer. He wasn't up task on the day, and Fardy wasn't doing much either. It was a far cry from the performance against Exeter, who I would consider just as physical as any other team in the comp.

For me, the issues with the breakdown were less about us getting blown away, and more to do with the refs interpretation. He was blowing almost immediately if a defender got hands near the ball. La Rochelle were just diving at the ball on the deck, and getting the calls. hard to play a tempo possession game in those circumstances.

That's how a lot of of refs interpret the breakdown these days. As much as I disagree with it, you have to play to the interpretation and present the ref with the picture he wants.

AbusesToilets

TRC10 wrote: »

That's how a lot of of refs interpret the breakdown these days. As much as I disagree with it, you have to play to the interpretation and present the ref with the picture he wants.

Yea, the lack of adaptation by us was a big disappointment. We need to be better at that.

molloyjh

TRC10 wrote: »

That's how a lot of of refs interpret the breakdown these days. As much as I disagree with it, you have to play to the interpretation and present the ref with the picture he wants.

Thats eased off a lot over the last several months. Few are as quick to blow as Carly is.

TRC10

molloyjh wrote: »

Thats eased off a lot over the last several months. Few are as quick to blow as Carly is.

True. But he wasn't interpreting it one way for us and another for LAR. His interpretation is his interpretation. LAR's adaptability combined with their collision dominance gave them a huge advantage at the breakdown.

molloyjh

TRC10 wrote: »

True. But he wasn't interpreting it one way for us and another for LAR. His interpretation is his interpretation. LAR's adaptability combined with their collision dominance gave them a huge advantage at the breakdown.

Agreed, he was consistent. As I said at the time, I have no issue with his performance other than the Lowe card. Unfortunately for us he just suited LAR more than us. They have more jackal threats and as Buer said before those penalties didn't only turn ball over and give them some possession and territory advantage, it also reduced ball in play time. Another ref and a different interpretation could have led to a very different game.

Dubinusa

Once a side is under the kosh and being dominated, the calls around the rucks will go against them, imo. Getting the breakdown and the referee right is a huge part of the game. Carly is a quick whistle and I think that's the way he usually is.
I'm not sure if putting Porter back at loosehead is the way to go. He may not be the answer. But the loose heads available now are not good enough.

TRC10

Dubinusa wrote: »

Once a side is under the kosh and being dominated, the calls around the rucks will go against them, imo. Getting the breakdown and the referee right is a huge part of the game. Carly is a quick whistle and I think that's the way he usually is.

Agreed.

Personally, I really dislike the way the breakdown and offside line is refereed currently (or not refereed, in the offside line's case). But unfortunately that's the way the game is currently, and the best teams are the ones that play to it.

There was once a time where you'd have 1 or maybe 2 turnovers in a game and they were huge moments like tries. Remember Heaslip v Toulouse in 2011. But now because of the rightful concern around head injuries, referees look to protect the jackler by giving him the penalty as soon as they get their hands on the ball so he's not subjected to clearout attempts, thus diminishing the contest at rucks.

That's why you see teams kicking so much these days. Because the longer you hold onto the ball, the more likely you are to give a penalty away. It's also gotten to the stage where making linebreaks actually puts you at a disadvantage. Because the ball carrier more often than not gets isolated and tunred over because by the time the support gets there to clearout, the penalty has already been given.

AbusesToilets

TRC10 wrote: »

Agreed.

Personally, I really dislike the way the breakdown and offside line is refereed currently (or not refereed, in the offside line's case). But unfortunately that's the way the game is currently, and the best teams are the ones that play to it.

There was once a time where you'd have 1 or maybe 2 turnovers in a game and they were huge moments like tries. Remember Heaslip v Toulouse in 2011. But now because of the rightful concern around head injuries, referees look to protect the jackler by giving him the penalty as soon as they get their hands on the ball so he's not subjected to clearout attempts, thus diminishing the contest at rucks.

That's why you see teams kicking so much these days. Because the longer you hold onto the ball, the more likely you are to give a penalty away. It's also gotten to the stage where making linebreaks actually puts you at a disadvantage. Because the ball carrier more often than not gets isolated and tunred over because by the time the support gets there to clearout, the penalty has already been given.

I really dislike the quickness to blow up a ruck when a defender isn't actually on the ball and just has hands in the general vicinity.

molloyjh

Yeah, I think WR is getting it badly wrong at the moment. The jackal interpretation as you mentioned is leading to less attacking rugby and more kicking. Line breaks and possession, particularly possession in your own half, are liabilities. The new 22 indirect kick trial is encouraging more kicking. The new ball held up over the line trial is now yet another kick.

The game is encouraging more kicking and more one out rugby. It is discouraging adventurous attacking rugby, line breaks and will likely lead to less tries. Its the polar opposite of what they should be doing. People have spoken about how Leinster have changed their game and become less ambitious. There's good reason for that.

pickarooney

TRC10 wrote: »

That's how a lot of of refs interpret the breakdown these days. As much as I disagree with it, you have to play to the interpretation and present the ref with the picture he wants.

It's a load of rubbish and ignores basic laws of rugby, IMO. Tackled players have a right to place the ball and a defender touching the ball isn't a penalty.

molloyjh

pickarooney wrote: »

It's a load of rubbish and ignores basic laws of rugby, IMO. Tackled players have a right to place the ball and a defender touching the ball isn't a penalty.

Does the ball carrier have the right to place the ball? Or is that just another interpretation? Is the law not that once you're tackled and go to ground you must release the ball?

Buer

molloyjh wrote: »

Does the ball carrier have the right to place the ball? Or is that just another interpretation? Is the law not that once you're tackled and go to ground you must release the ball?

You can play the ball immediately. That can be placing the ball back to your support or reaching out to the try line. But it's all open to intrepretation and it's only really penalised in more flagrant examples. We see multiple rucks in every game where a carrier goes to ground, hugging the ball and then reaches out to place it back to their scrum half after the ruck is secured.

pickarooney

molloyjh wrote: »

Does the ball carrier have the right to place the ball? Or is that just another interpretation? Is the law not that once you're tackled and go to ground you must release the ball?

You can place or play the ball (pass from the ground) immediately. Law 14.5 (d) states that the defender must allow the tackled player release or play the ball before playing it himself, otherwise it's a penalty against the defender. This is routinely ignored and refs instead 'give' a penalty as a reward to players putting hands quickly on the ball after a tackle, whether or not they try to play it.

I presume refs do this as otherwise defences would always be up in time to support the ball carrier if he was allowed place it and there would be barely any turnovers. However, defenders are allowed step over the ball and contest against arriving defenders on their feet. This type of contest is sadly lost to the game in favour of players throwing themselves into rucks and severely injuring one another.

AbusesToilets

All the issues in the breakdown stem from allowing hands on the ball on the deck. A blight on the game.

TRC10

AbusesToilets wrote: »

All the issues in the breakdown stem from allowing hands on the ball on the deck. A blight on the game.

And they can't change it because so many players have made a career out of that law.

If WR came out tomorrow and said "you can no longer handle the ball in a ruck", Curry, Itoje, Beirne, Willis, Cane would all be out of a job.

Neil3030

You already can't handle the ball in a ruck. These guys do their dirty business before the ruck forms.

Quin_Dub

Neil3030 wrote: »

You already can't handle the ball in a ruck. These guys do their dirty business before the ruck forms.

That is true , my big issue with current ruck interpretation is that they are giving turn-over penalties when the defender barely has contact with the ball.

To win a penalty the defender should have to be in a position to play the ball , getting a fingertip to the edge of the ball isn't them being unfairly prevented from playing the ball.

So many times a player is at full stretch over the tackled player and is just about touching the ball and there is not a chance in hell that they are in a position to lift the ball to play it , but they win the turn-over.

Similarly , they do penalise the "sweep" where the defender puts their hands on the ground past the ball and then "sweeps" up the ball as they stand up , so now tplayers are simply putting all their body weight on the ball through their hands using the ball to maintain their balance thus preventing the attacker lifting the ball.

But - If the defender actually tried to play the ball in that position they'd instantly lose their footing and be "off feet" and out of the game , but they are being given turn-over penalties from that position.


TL;DR - If you are not able to actually play the ball , it should not be a penalty.

AbusesToilets

Quin_Dub wrote: »

That is true , my big issue with current ruck interpretation is that they are giving turn-over penalties when the defender barely has contact with the ball.

To win a penalty the defender should have to be in a position to play the ball , getting a fingertip to the edge of the ball isn't them being unfairly prevented from playing the ball.

So many times a player is at full stretch over the tackled player and is just about touching the ball and there is not a chance in hell that they are in a position to lift the ball to play it , but they win the turn-over.

Similarly , they do penalise the "sweep" where the defender puts their hands on the ground past the ball and then "sweeps" up the ball as they stand up , so now tplayers are simply putting all their body weight on the ball through their hands using the ball to maintain their balance thus preventing the attacker lifting the ball.

But - If the defender actually tried to play the ball in that position they'd instantly lose their footing and be "off feet" and out of the game , but they are being given turn-over penalties from that position.


TL;DR - If you are not able to actually play the ball , it should not be a penalty.

Has roots in the refs not enforcing that a player should have their hips below their shoulders. Pretty sad that rucks in the amateur era were functionally better than they are in the professional era.