Are Ireland too small for test rugby success?

Simple enough question mainly aimed at the Irish backs.

One of Wales main asset was physicality in the backs. When the go forward ball of 6 foot 4 inch centre Jamie Roberts failed to yield much dividends, Wales simply used the similar sized George North to maximum effect. On the other wing Alex Cuthbert towered at 6 foot 6 inches - the same height as Paul O'Connell!!!! Mike Phillips at scrumhalf added massive physicality and again is a big big specimen for a scrumhalf. Even the "smaller" Welsh backs of Jonathan Davies and Scott Williams are as big if not bigger than the biggest we have available.

With O'Driscoll in the team, we have been able to survive but I really think that Irish backs especially our centres are way too small to truly take on the competition they face. When someone like Roberts, North etc got the ball they could pass around the Irish, run around the Irish or run THROUGH the Irish. We have talented backs but that final option simply wasn't available to us.

Next weekend we take on France a team who prides itself on its big backs also - over the years the likes of Rougerie, Jauzion, Malzieu, Traille and Poitrenaud have all been 6 foot 3 and physical monsters, their size often forgotten due to the fantastic running and passing ability that compliments their size well.

Is the reason for this a schools issue. Certainly when I was a nipper the big lads played forwards and the small fellas played as backs. I am speculating here but I am guessing that in Wales and France where there is a flair rugby culture more and more people want to be in the backs which leads to these backs who are bigger than some of our forwards.

Whatever the reason, it hurt Ireland badly at the weekend and could continue to do the same. Are Ireland big enough for test rugby success?

I don't think we are too small for success but I think we will continue to struggle against the likes of Wales who have big powerful strike runners in the 3/4s.

It was always going to be the case that if we couldn't deny Wales posession and quick ball then we were going to struggle defensively and that is how it panned out .

There's no need to panic but we need to look at this going forward.

I though D'arcy and McFadden both played well actually and Sexten shored up the 10-12 channel. That was an improvment from the RWC.

People are being far too negative.

Way to early to say.

Get the tactics right first - when the opposition is bigger you dont play a drift defence you play a blitz defence. Hit them before they get a head of steam.

Also you don't kick aimless balls down field which allow them to counterattack.

Our tactics were a joke

You are both right about tactics.

When I say success I don't mean that we will lose every match around but I don't see us capable as things stand of going 5-6 matches on the trot without our lack of physicality not being an issue.

The problem Geoff right from the first half is that each Wales carrier was taking 2 or 3 defenders to bring down so our defence was always going to be breached out wide at some point.

We couldn't get out of our half or contain Wales in theirs.

Wales were simply better than us. We could have won but were we the better side? No.

The modern game favours size. When you have size, skill and pace it's hard to stop. The smaller very skilful player will still have a place but I think this will be the exception. I can't see the trend reversing.

Agree with Geoff - not kicking the ball to George North would have been a start.

Agreed Geoff. There is an argument to say our top three 13's were injured but I doubt if cave would have been picked anyway. We haven't planned for life without BOD and the situation that McFadden finds himself in at 26? Is ridiculous. Never been a regular starter at provincial level and never been started in one position long enough to know where to play him.

Is he a 12, a 13 or a wing. I don't know.

roddersm wrote:The problem Geoff right from the first half is that each Wales carrier was taking 2 or 3 defenders to bring down so our defence was always going to be breached out wide at some point.

We couldn't get out of our half or contain Wales in theirs.

Wales were simply better than us. We could have won but were we the better side? No.

It was taking 2/3 defenders to take them down because we were allowing them to get up a head of steam - that is why we should not have played a drift defence

We didn't get out of our half because as soo nas we got the ball we kicked it down their back threes throat.
We should have kicked for touch and pressurized their dodgy lineout.

To be honest tactics that would have suited ROG rather than Sexton

Pat McCabe and Anthony faainga won a tri nations with oz and they aren't massive. Add in JOC and AAC in that back line and it isn't huge.

I dont think it is a massive issue I just don't think the centres we have available to us at present are that good.

If you are looking at things based on a size issue then whitten and spence or Farrell and spence would be your pick. Can't be judged on that. D'arcy and BOD were massively physical which probably accounts for the shape they are now. D'arce isnt up to it anymore.

Australia are a good example.

However if you are small then you need to be exceptionally smart, skillful and quick to compensate for the lack of size.

You can be big and average and still be very effective but unfortunately our players are small and average at this level.

All that power from North and JD2 made it look like Roberts had a quiet match.

I think that was the trick. Ireland were expecting Roberts to bash everytime he had the ball but he actually passed it quite a lot.

However big a player is, if you take his legs away he's not going anywhere. Too many players go too high in the tackle these days and make it more likely they'll be bumped off.

Are we too small for test rugby success? No.
Are the backs we played at the weekend too small? No.
Did we play the right tactics to be successful at the weekend? Most definitely not.

Murray, Sexton, Bowe, Trimble and Kearney are all big enough, not huge players but no shrinking violets. McFadden and Darcy are a small center partnership but had they closed down the Welsh attack earlier they wouldn’t have looked as bad.

"However big a player is, if you take his legs away he's not going anywhere. "

Agreed they will be brought down but with their arms free they have the offload option available. Still very difficult to stop a side with backs like wales have no matter how much you stand up for the small player. Big is generally better. Get over it.

gnollbeast wrote:All that power from North and JD2 made it look like Roberts had a quiet match.

I think that was the trick. Ireland were expecting Roberts to bash everytime he had the ball but he actually passed it quite a lot.

I disagree slightly. I think Ireland planned and were ready for Roberts but Wales changed it up and brought in north to great effect. They changed their line out in the 2nd half too as POC was getting the best of it in the first. Thinking as you go and making the defence think was what worked. Priestland spotted mike Ross on the blindsided for the first try which made tommy Bowe make a decision. The half second of hesitation on tommys part meant priestland was able to get the pass off. Good, heads up rugby and ultimately showed to be a chasm between the two teams in this regard.

Lads you guys are over reacting a lot. Yesterday was a very close game against two evenly matches opponents.

Yes we must'n forget that it took a foul tackle by Ireland to gift the game to wales in the last few minutes.

maestegmafia wrote:Lads you guys are over reacting a lot. Yesterday was a very close game against two evenly matches opponents.

I agree. That was the two best sides in the 6N yesterday, by a distance too. I can't believe the overreaction. A year ago we beat Italy by a point in our opener.

Only watching with half an eye while helping youngest with school project. However I felt that Ireland should have won the game, but for some seriously bad "thinking".

They had the better of the forward exchanges in the tight and for me won the breakdown battle (though not by much).

The then proceeded to kick the ball aimlessly so often it was unbelievable. Poor kicking (and in the main poor chasing) allowed wales to bring the big men in to play.

I agree it was all down to tactics but from both teams. Ireland's drift defence coupled with Wales backs starting the attack from deeper than usual gave the likes of roberts and north time to build up speed. Also Ireland's aimless kicking didn't help.

In terms of size, no I don't think there is a problem for Ireland and remember this was a close game which you could have won. I think you guys did miss BOD though.

As others have already commented, no, I don't believe that Ireland's backs are too small, but you have to adapt your tactics to deal with physically imposing oppo. France are an interesting one, combining large (Rougerie, Malzieu, etc.) with small (Medard, Fofana, Clerc etc.)

Great responses lads. Real food for thought.

Fofana is big enough Asbo.

5'10", 14+ stone - not a giant in toady's world

Height, weight blah blah blah -

None of this rubbish actually matters atm. Everyone is thinking of these wild theories of why Ireland are not performing. The size of our centres has nothing to do with it at all.

Ulster played with Humphreys, Wallace and Cave against Rogerie, Fofana amd Malzieu and did fine.

Size has nothing to do with it.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:5'10", 14+ stone - not a giant in toady's world

Is that a Neighbours spin-off?

who was that 6ft 6in irish centre that came on for the u20's on friday night? probably the tallest centre i've ever seen!

I agree with the comments mostly. Ireland played it all wrong defensively. They should definitely have blitzed Wales rather than drifted.

I was amazed at times when Wales were going forwards the ball had got as far as JD and the Ireland midfield was still 10 yards off us rather than in our faces making it difficult. If they had shot up quickly, firstly, it would not have allowed our strike runners the head of steam and secondly, it would have put the Wales attack under more pressure due to less time and hence force mistakes.

The Irish midfield is a little small but Wales do have an unusually large number of giants at the moment. Not many teams can call on 19 and 21 year old wingers who are 6'3 and 6'6 along with a 6'4 centre and 6'3 scrum half. Halfpenny looks tiny at 5'10 in that backline.

If you are playing a big team like Wales the key is the defensive line speed. Size is only of any real benefit when a players gets up a head of steam. If the defensive line is quick then a smaller player can get a far better body position to drive than that of the taller player - they can get in low and drive up - the SH teams do not have the benefit of big backlines they just have a solid techique for dealing with bigger players. The AB's have always been incredibly strong defensively - but as you can see below - huge they aint!
Conrad Smith 6 ft 1 in
Ma Nonu 6 ft
Zac Guildford 6 ft
Isreal Dagg 6 ft 1 in
Richard Kahui 6 ft 3 in
Corey Jane 6 ft
Dan Carter 5 ft 10 in
Peri Weepu 5 ft 10 in

When we came out to play in those leprachaun outfits then the writing was on the wall....

DOD wrote:When we came out to play in those leprachaun outfits then the writing was on the wall....

pioden gorllewin wrote:who was that 6ft 6in irish centre that came on for the u20's on friday night? probably the tallest centre i've ever seen!

That was Chris Farrell. He's a promising player, but obviously if he does make it it will be a good few years down the line.

A back is a back and you meet him. If not weekly in Pro12, then intermittently in HC or if not there, then spasmodically at International.

Will Wales cause all the other sides the same problems?

The game is not about always defending or having the players to defend - right now Wales have players fast enough to attack and big enough to defend. Okay, perhaps a plus - so how do you counter it? By going away from International for a few years to breed bigger backs in secret? Or buy in Irish grandparent big backs that might hopefully want to play for us?

You have to do only what you can do and that is still to score more than they do. If they have an advantage and it leads to tries - then tries win games. No point in technically manipulating ourselves to throw more resources at defence to stop them when their tryline is at the other end of the field.

My point is that we have players that can sustain a fast, explosive, incessantly high tempo game. Such a game when drilled right and when the philopsophy and belief is there to have it as the foundation blueprint, can break up any defence (impossible to be in two places at once, and when you have a ball and know how to distribute it, you can get to places quicker than defenders: ie, a ball travels faster )

Gatland believes in three things we're told. Size, fitness and pace. You have all three in as many positions as possible and you have something that might be tasty.

I say, 6'6" is still 6'6" - and that height is factually, through physics alone, more unstable than something shorter. Something shorter can manoeuvre sharper, has a smaller turning angle and unbalances far less often. You don't need height and bulk to get to their tryline just the structures and belief in the version of rugby that makes it possible.

We did it in small hints and then lost interest and went back to the day job of defending against their glorious free running giants.

Truly, if we're going to give up on the psychological battle as much as the physical one, we really are going to be underdogs for quite some time more.

Notch wrote:

pioden gorllewin wrote:who was that 6ft 6in irish centre that came on for the u20's on friday night? probably the tallest centre i've ever seen!

That was Chris Farrell. He's a promising player, but obviously if he does make it it will be a good few years down the line.

Farrell isn't that tall.. knock about 2 inches off that.

I don't think BOD would have had any difficulties coping with the size of the Welsh backs. Or Johnny Wilkinson, come to that.

And I don't think many other teams would invite such big backs to attack them at full speed for the entire 80 minutes either.

Feckless Rogue wrote:And I don't think many other teams would invite such big backs to attack them at full speed for the entire 80 minutes either.

Yeah that didn't help, the defensive linespeed wasn't good, we stood back to much. I think we were bullied to be honest. For two of the tries North took out 3 defenders. Phillips gave us problems all day, we just hung back off him.

I don't think it's as simple as that, Roberts will face Mcfadden in the HC, with maybe Henson or Hewitt beside him, and Cuthbert and James outside, will they bully the Leinster backline...? NO, despite it being very similar to the Irish backline!

roddersm wrote:

Feckless Rogue wrote:And I don't think many other teams would invite such big backs to attack them at full speed for the entire 80 minutes either.

Yeah that didn't help, the defensive linespeed wasn't good, we stood back to much. I think we were bullied to be honest. For two of the tries North took out 3 defenders. Phillips gave us problems all day, we just hung back off him.

Oh? First 'I agree' thing today, Rodders. You're coming round

I mean me...agreeing with you...fully ...not you agreeing with Feckless! Just to be clear

I have to disagree with secret fly, if your talking leversof big men and agility, it is only factually correct if muscle potential is regulated, in George Norths case it's his agility that does the job, Mcfadden knew exactly where North was going, until he turned on a sixpence and barrelled straight through him, also for his try, all 3 Irish defenders knew North was throwing himself into the corner, it was his change of direction that took 2 of the 3 by surprise, and they were unbalanced!

North is an athlete...not taking anything away from him. But put him in a real hot defending game (defending for Wales that is) being attacked in waves rather than in whimpers like we tried yesterday, then he and other taller men could have their height advantages used against them. That's my point.
In attack you are doing the orchestration and wrong footing (like he did on us) but all I can do is repeat the very same line for our backs if we actually used them in a cohesive manner: "in attack they would be doing the orcestration and wrong footing"

I have to disagree again, North is an excellent defender, who with such beleif in his own pace coerses the attacker to go exactly where he wants him, that tends to be to the outside, he rolls so many players into touch who tend to think they were almost away, infact Ashto tried it 3 times earlier this season to be marshalled comfortably, on the odd occasion they try to step inside his beleif in JD2 is such he rolls to pick someone else up, knowing the inside step from any attacker is a mistake.

When it comes to try line kinda chances I agree but the size issue certainly isn't detrimental defencively, if for Norths try it was Earls coming onto the try line and North Roberts JD2 defending would he have gone over, or would Shane Williams or Jason Robinson? NO!

My point is there are 2 types of defenders, dominant and passive, and it is much easier to be dominant if you are bigger, and match the attackers other attributes!

A good big'un will beat a good little 'un 10 times out of 10!

Well, we'll agree to disagree on that one and hopefully my point will be elucidated by another side...........unfortunately. He isn't infallible though...and if you don't have height, you still have to play the game - just a wiser version.

Agree totally, in general smaller players develop other attributes at a higher rate and to a higher standard because they need to... ala Shane.