Masterplan New Zealand, an expert analysis of Ireland vs Australia

Last night on Masterplan New Zealand in SA, there was an analysis done by coaches Heineke Meyer (Bulls Coach), Allistair Coetzee (Stormers coach) of the Ireland vs Australia test and it was truly enlightening to listen to some experts providing an informative opinion on exactly why Ireland did so well in that match.

Scrums.
They showed clips from the 36 minute mark where on an Ireland scrum, Elsom, Samo and McMalman, all three of them had there heads up and barely binding did nothing to push in the scrum. It only went worse from there. Now if your back row is not even attempting to help the tight five, there is simply no chance for the tight five to keep a scrum going forward. This led to loss of confidence. The scrums ultimately cost Australia 9 points in penalties.

The other mistake the props made when the ground started turning soft from the rain, they didn’t adjust their footing as they set up for the hit, and once your footing is set, on wet ground you can’t change your footing because you will simply slip, and having an incorrect footing meant they were done and dusted.

Lineout
With Polota-Nau at hooker for the Wallabies and not known to be a renowned line out thrower the territorial game was something Ronan O’Gara exploited to the full when he came on, the Irish were very confident in kicking the ball out as they could contest the lineout with Polota- Nau not being the most accurate and could expect some errors from him.

Kicking to the back three.
Roana O’Gara in particular were very accurate with his deep kicks, ensuring he kicked the ball out and the Australian back three couldn’t run the ball back at them.

Defence.
They were very complimentary on how the Irish kept the ball tackler in the air and turned it into what we now call the choke tackle and got a number of turnovers in that manner.

Breakdowns.
Basically this was the same comment on when SA played Wales. Where the SH teams have to show daylight after the tackle (the tackler and tackle assist) before going into the breakdown to contest the ball, the NH teams do not do that. The Stormers coached by Allistair Coetzee, effectively clapped their hands as a show to the referee that there is daylight before going into the ruck.
Now this was not a criticism of Ireland, it was a criticism of Australia not managing to read the referee and being able to adjust to how it was officiated. South Africa after the Wales match, had essentially the same problem and were flummoxed as well in regards to the “daylight” issue.

Quade Cooper.
It seems that they believe quade cooper has quite a number of limitations as a fly half. Although they acknowledge the fact that when he is given space, he will run circles around most, his tactical nous or execution of basic flyhalf tasks are under par. With Ireland not providing him with that space his tactical execution of the chip kick, no look passes etc was far below standard.

Overall it was good to hear what coaches thought of the game and how they analysed it. What did come out of this was how important the forward packs are. You must have a strong tight five, your back row must be able to read how the referee officiates the breakdowns, and if you can’t win the tight exchanges and dominate the breakdowns, you basically stand very little chance of winning the world cup.

This is basically what Wayne Smith echoed in my earlier post. The Irish have established a template for winning rugby.

My take is you can take so much from a game and it appears in Oz case they contributed to it through not competing in some areas so one game can only tell you so much. But it will be interesting where things go from here.

Australia have always attempted to have props that act as extra flankers and generally get by on the penalty count at scrum time. Interesting that the oz scrum went well in the tri nations, admittedly with some currently missing players. However it seems the NH is getting some reward for traditional props, although the Irish scrum is only average in NH terms.
The breakdown remains a mess though with Ireland not staying on their feet, as much as this creating a maul tactic at the tackle which created some disquiet with fans during the 6N by holding players around the neck.
England did Ireland a favour when Wallace got injured last month as it has created a very bruising back row which like to create havoc and makes it difficult to ref with the often result of refs waving play on. If Ireland continue to get SH refs they could be very successful in this tournament.

wrong thread, sorry

interesting read, thanks for the post

Recwatcher wrote:England did Ireland a favour when Wallace got injured last month as it has created a very bruising back row which like to create havoc

I think you are doing Wallace a massive diservice here. He has been an outstanding player for us, maybe our best and most consistant performer and has been our main goto guy for the last few years.

There is no way we are stronger without Wallace. He's as key for Ireland as Pocock is for Australia.

roddersm wrote:

Recwatcher wrote:England did Ireland a favour when Wallace got injured last month as it has created a very bruising back row which like to create havoc

I think you are doing Wallace a massive diservice here. He has been an outstanding player for us, maybe our best and most consistant performer and has been our main goto guy for the last few years.

There is no way we are stronger without Wallace. He's as key for Ireland as Pocock is for Australia.

No he is not. Wallace is class but we have back up for him. Oz don't have back up for Pocock.

[quote="leinsterbaby"][quote="roddersm"]

Recwatcher wrote: Oz don't have back up for Pocock.

Oz don't have a backup for any of the starting 15...

leinsterbaby wrote:
No he is not. Wallace is class but we have back up for him. Oz don't have back up for Pocock.

Well thats not our problem really is it?

The point is that there's no way you could say we are better off without Wallace in our squad.

A lot of people were saying how badly Pocock was missed but to be honest Ireland's approach would have negated him anyway. They kept on their feet in the tackle and kept driving, and when Aussies got tackled they held the players up while pushing them back. Pocock is supreme on the ground but the ball never made it that far.

No but you could argue the team is marginally better but it would be a close call.

I wonder what the score would have been had David Wallace been available. I reckon he would have started and scored 15 tries.

Count yourselves lucky, Ozzie.

You tell them Boyne! And no Fla either!! FFS those boys got of lightly and they're still whinging about Pocock and Moore!

Because if Pocock, Moore, Mitchell, Ioane and Berrick barnes were there they would have scored 15 tries each.

biltongbek wrote:Because if Pocock, Moore, Mitchell, Ioane and Berrick barnes were there they would have scored 15 tries each.

...and if Bryce Lawrence wasn't ref and it wasn't raining it would have broken all records

I just saw it as a lack of depth, which is surely what the analysis is focusing on.

The areas that suffered were those with key men missing. I thought the Aussie back row weren't setting in the scrum because they were anxious to be quick from the mark over the wet turf. The absence of Pocock surely heightened their anxiety.

How many times has Ioane dug an Aussie team out of trouble this year with a bit of individual brilliance? Aside from which his work rate in defence is massive. For instance he was the second highest tackler and second highest carrier against Italy.

Truth is with Genia, Cooper, Ioane and Beale the Wallabies offer a multi-faceted attack which is very difficult to shut down because it comprises such variance. But remove one axis and suddenly you can start to isolate the threats a little more easily.

Add to this losing Moore from what we know to be sparse Aussie front row options and it's unsurprising we're talking about problems at the set piece.

I wonder though if Moore was out due to "illness" or because he couldn't face his home country on the rugby field. Blood, thickness and water and all that.

I just saw it as a lack of depth, which is surely what the analysis is focusing on.

......and a large dollop of good old Southern Hemisphere arrogance, n'est pas?

...Oh and if Shane Horgan had been available, he would have made the whole Australian team disintegrate with lazer beams from his hole and exploding bullets of mercury shot from his eyes.......

tellin ya

All I can say is thank Goodness the Ozzies didn't have to face the demigod George North as well, eh guys?

George North plays for Wales!?! I really hope France don't beat NZ then we might have to lose to Italy.

leinsterbaby wrote:George North plays for Wales!?! I really hope France don't beat NZ then we might have to lose to Italy.

Yes, hence the Ozzies didn't face him as well.

TheGreyGhost wrote:I just saw it as a lack of depth, which is surely what the analysis is focusing on.

The only depth the ozzies were lacking was depth of character. If Cooper and co don't like the rough stuff they should take up beach tag rugby.

If you are dumb enough to run upright into Sean O'Brien or Stephen Ferris you can't really expect to win quick ball can you?

It seems while all the analysts have been focussing on Irelands spoiling tactics and Australia's injury woes they seemed to have missed the fact that Ireland had more territory, possession, made more clean breaks and created had more try scoring opportunties over the 80min.

It wasn't just Ireland defence that caused Australia problems, Ireland also gave australia plenty of problems with the ball in hand.

biltongbek wrote:

leinsterbaby wrote:George North plays for Wales!?! I really hope France don't beat NZ then we might have to lose to Italy.

Yes, hence the Ozzies didn't face him as well.

Yeah but he is welsh, why would he play for Ireland.

Just messing with you Bill.

roddersm wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:I just saw it as a lack of depth, which is surely what the analysis is focusing on.

The only depth the ozzies were lacking was depth of character. If Cooper and co don't like the rough stuff they should take up beach tag rugby.

If you are dumb enough to run upright into Sean O'Brien or Stephen Ferris you can't really expect to win quick ball can you?

It seems while all the analysts have been focussing on Irelands spoiling tactics and Australia's injury woes they seemed to have missed the fact that Ireland had more territory, possession, made more clean breaks and created had more try scoring opportunties over the 80min.

It wasn't just Ireland defence that caused Australia problems, Ireland also gave australia plenty of problems with the ball in hand.

Saying they lack depth of character is a bit cocky and disrespectful now isn't it?

your clean breaks didn't really create any opportunities to score tries, in fact I am quite sure australia spent more time on your try line than you did on theirs.

And finally they analysed the key components of the match, they didn't discuss stats that are already for all to see. The idea of the program is for vierwers to understand the main reasons why a team has won or lost, and those were the key areas.

leinsterbaby wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

leinsterbaby wrote:George North plays for Wales!?! I really hope France don't beat NZ then we might have to lose to Italy.

Yes, hence the Ozzies didn't face him as well.

Yeah but he is welsh, why would he play for Ireland.

Just messing with you Bill.

That was more for the welsh supporters out there, as everyone was talking about players who could score 15 tries per match, i thought i will pre empt some welsh fanatic to put George's name to the list.

biltongbek wrote:
Saying they lack depth of character is a bit cocky and disrespectful now isn't it?

Saying that Australia lost because of players they were missing or because of breakdown skulduggery is disrespectful.

We played a lot of positive rugby with the ball in hand and have our own injury problems.

Bowe, Ross, and O'Driscoll all had clear scoring chances but were kept out by great last ditch Australia defence or the bounce of the ball. The only comparable chance Australia had was the Genia break and Coopers reverse pass which was intercepted by Bowe.

Murray had a try disallowed. Sexton also missed two straighforward kicks so there was a lot more to the victory than defence and breakdown spoiling tactics as some have suggested.

Have a lot of respect for Irish and their supporters, and I have never tried to belittle any sides we played against, win or lose.

Though not sure where all this sudden calling aussies arrogant and lacking in characters comes from, or that the players cannot take the rough stuff. Heck we play the boks and kiwis quite a few times and I don't think anyone can accuse them of being powder puffs.

For sure the Irish won Saturday, and won well. But it seems the win has encouraged some pretty nasty name calling to come out. And so what high ground supports the depth of character which is implied by saying aussies have a lack of it?

It is easy to pick on any country's press output and quote bits of it to say that was an arrogant piece, but press is press, and I think we can get as embarrassed of our press as other supporters are of theirs.

What started off as an interesting objective piece seems to have brought small island syndrome out, all over one win.

roddersm wrote:

biltongbek wrote:
Saying they lack depth of character is a bit cocky and disrespectful now isn't it?

Saying that Australia lost because of players they were missing or because of breakdown skulduggery is disrespectful.

We played a lot of positive rugby with the ball in hand and have our own injury problems.

Bowe, Ross, and O'Driscoll all had clear scoring chances but were kept out by great last ditch Australia defence or the bounce of the ball. The only comparable chance Australia had was the Genia break and Coopers reverse pass which was intercepted by Bowe.

Murray had a try disallowed. Sexton also missed two straighforward kicks so there was a lot more to the victory than defence and breakdown spoiling tactics as some have suggested.

rodders, i don't dispute the fact that Ireland played a very well tactically executed game. They outwitted Australia without any shadow of a doubt.

There is always more to a match than just the tight five and break downs, but the fact is these experts believe that is what WON the game for you, by totally negating the australian's strengths. surely you can't despute that.

Remember the aussies missed kicks as well.

Your nine points of penalty kicks came becuase of your scrum, and that was the biggest points contributor for you.

roddersm wrote:You tell them Boyne! And no Fla either!! FFS those boys got of lightly and they're still whinging about Pocock and Moore!

They should be glad Keith Wood and Simon Geoghegan retired!

OzT wrote:Though not sure where all this sudden calling aussies arrogant and lacking in characters comes from, or that the players cannot take the rough stuff. Heck we play the boks and kiwis quite a few times and I don't think anyone can accuse them of being powder puffs.

Yeah true. Sorry it was me who said that. I don't think the Australians lack character or physicality at all.

It seems there are many who are trying to discredit or belittle our performance but hey ho that will always happen with us. It was the same in March. If we lose we can't perform in the WC or are over the hill and if we win we're inconsistant or must have used some sort of skullduggery.

Whats wrong with skullduggery. Part and parcel at the ruck/scrum. Thats why McCaw is the best player.

red_stag wrote:Whats wrong with skullduggery. Part and parcel at the ruck/scrum. Thats why McCaw is the best player.

Spot the Munster fan...

roddersm wrote:

red_stag wrote:Whats wrong with skullduggery. Part and parcel at the ruck/scrum. Thats why McCaw is the best player.

Spot the Munster fan...

Guilty as charged. I actually took the skullduggery thing as a compliment. In the 6 Nations what were our two biggest issues - scrum and indiscipline.

Ironically we completely reserved the situation and used them to beat the Aussies. I love that.

No worries roddersm, I think all sides gets that on here.

As I have said in another post, Saturday we lost cause the Irish played with an intensisty and passion that seems to have been missing for a while. But Saturday the game plan was carried out with precision and the wallabies had no answer for it.

Lack of leadership and directions for the wallabies was on show then. I wonder if we had a skipper in the mode of Eales maybe we could have changed and adapted the game to suit at the time.... maybe after one of those times when the players gather behind our post waiting for something or another...

LOL!

Lack of leadership was huge - the whole captaincy debate was big and Giteau would have been a calming influence too I think.

Lack of depth and poor weather conditions were other factors for the Wallabies.

Ireland lost Jerry Flannery and David Wallace. Australia lost Stephen Moore and David Pocock.

You think so red_stag? Never thought of Giteau as a leader.

Wonder if Genia will take over the skipper mantle in a couple of years time? But someone on Saturday on the pitch had to grab the side and say look, we need to do something different, let'#s do this...

The same thing I feel happened in 2007 when the route one approach was not working, Dunnings had one of his off days, and we should just have spun the ball out every time.

I can't understand why people think Giteau is so sorely missed. He hasn't played well in a long time. He was involved in quite a lot of Australia's epic failures in recent contributing with some dour performances and from some people close to the team it seems Giteau is actually quite a disruptive character. Granted he has a lot of experience but he has never been captain material anyway.

red_stag wrote:Lack of leadership was huge - the whole captaincy debate was big and Giteau would have been a calming influence too I think.

Lack of depth and poor weather conditions were other factors for the Wallabies.

Absolutely on the 1st one stag. O'Connell, O'Driscoll and O'Gara when he came on were the difference I feel. They just seemed to have so much influence on the game. Rory Best and Sexton to a lesser extent. They just soaked everything the Australians through at them and never panicked whereas Australia seemed frustrated and rattled when Ireland strung phases together.

I don't think the weather conditions were a big factor because there was a fair bit of attacking play and relatively few handling errors.

I think you have a very inexperienced team especially in the backs and most especially in the centres.

You lost two important players, Elsoms leadership has been questioned for weeks, Horwill is new in the captains role and I really think Deans dropped ball with regards to Giteau.

To me a guy with 92 caps who kicks consistently well and has 2 previous World Cup campaigns under his belt is needed in your team.

Ashley Cooper was the only back who had actually been at a World Cup before. The forwards had a few guys around a while but overall the team needed leaders.

Sorry when I was agreeing with stag I meant on leadership. Not on Giteau. I agree with the others in that he's been poor lately and has become a bit of a disruptive influence.

Bring back George Gregan!

Oh no please!!! The talented, but mouthy git, cost us heapsa penalties and march backs, as well as penalty reversal when we've already won the penalty and he still keeps harassing the ref!!!

Giteau's kicking is suspect. He has been known to miss kicks in front of the posts to lose games. He's a good kicker but not a great one. He would make 0 difference. Barnes is a much better option IMO.

Last time of course when we lost to England at home!!! He never played after that game, did he? I don't think so, think that was his last game for the Wallabies

Ireland had that fiery look in their eyes all game long, the same one that they had against England in the 6ns. I think the Oz forwards physicality didnt match up to Irelands packs, over the whole game that was the difference for me. They just seemed to want it more (however cliche). The Oz player losses perhaps could have made the difference, but we'll never know.

Ireland on their day can beat anyone in the world

p.s a good read and its good to see the name of George North spreading around all threads, thanks for that Bill!

No the last time Giteau played was against Samoa, he played v England and v Scotland in those losses too. See the trend? He is not a loss at all.

Comfort wrote:p.s a good read and its good to see the name of George North spreading around all threads, thanks for that Bill!

I thought it would carry more weight if a non welsh poster added him to the mix.

Who's George North?

don't rightly know.

He is a myth.