Ireland Attack.

First topic message reminder :

Clearly this is a weakness in the current irish team. It was frankly embarrassing to watch us get knocked further and further back so close to the welsh try line. It has already been said that if Ireland are far behind, they will find it very hard to get back into the game. This will kill us against better teams that are clinical with their chances in attack, if we do not have any way of generating points ourselves other than to force penalties.

Our tactical kicking game so far has been very good and for the most part it has been wonderfully executed, however we need to create more try scoring opportunities. We seemed to look much more dangerous when Eoin Reddan came on and quickened the service, and a lot of the substitutions generally did make an impact (not to sound too cliche) but whatever it was, the service at the breakdown was much quicker and players were taking the ball at pace. We need to do this for the full game and not just switch on at the end.

I am a big fan of Connor Murray, but there is a time and a place for marshalling the forwards into position, or preparing for a good box kick, and a time to just get the ball out quick and catch the opposition defence off guard. With the speed of service currently the opposition has far too much time to get into position and adjust to our attack. Murray needs to improve here, big time. On the occasions where we inevitably do have slow ball, we need options who can create space with very little themselves, or just power through the gain line.

It will be interesting to hear people's thoughts on how this can be achieved, what personnel changes should be made (if any) or even if people do not think it is a weakness at all and just a knee jerk reaction to the loss.

Have to agree with Nachos for once. Wales were never behind in the whole match. Every time we nearly drew level they managed to get down and get another penalty or a drop goal.

We made pass after pass but how many of them were to a man who had space to run into or had men free on the outside? Even when Wales were defending tight to the line they had an element of control, blunting our attack.

Just thinking about the English experience with a new (and very different to the preceding) coach over the last few years. It has been a struggle even if we have been moving ever upwards, but the first and easiest things to fix seemed to be attitude and defense. First of all we became a very hard team to play against, all the attacking stuff has taken a good couple of years to develop, and, as ever, is promising but still a work in progress. The fact that we had any decent attack at all to start with was largely because we had a fit Manu.

SecretFly wrote:I see our kicking and chasing stats as good because other sides (pre-Wales) were crap at competing there or defending there.  So we choose to read - 'Great wins'.

But go back and look at the fluffs.  Don't just look at the good catches and claims - look at the giving-hope-a-chance tricks when players went for balls with their eyes off the ball, heads down, grasping , clasping, fingering.

It wasn't all sweet.  The Sweetest Kick and Chase this season by far was coming from Wales.  Resolute - confident - courageous, determined to do it right - eyes on the ball all the way.

We're really not even the best at our alleged Best Bit.  We're not.  If I thought we were, I'd say so.

But sure we all said at the start Wales would be hard to beat in the air, so we didn't use the high ball, we chipped over the midfield and kept the ball in hand more (for about 10 million phases).

In contrast we thought Wales would run and that Henshaw and Payne would have to shut down Roberts...but they didn't Wales kicked and beat us in the air.

I don't think this game went to plan - we were outsmarted and in the end outfought....given how good Wales are I don't think there is any great shame in that....but we did furstratingly fail to be clinical when we had chances to win and this need looked at critically.

Even in the end when Reddan came on, we had a real chance to win but blew it by trying to run out of our own half when we had plenty of time left at 20-16 and then conceded a soft penalty.

There were 2 big moments in this game - the pass to Healy when he knocks on with 3 men outside him ready to walk in a try and Wales go up the other end and score (10-14 point shift) and then conceding the Penalty at 20-16 when Wales were out on their feet with 9 min to go. You could add Williams tackle on Bowe too.

Really fine margins and on another day we'd be gearing up for a slam - paradoxically if Stephen Jones kick went a few metres further we'd never have the 09 slam  -it's swings and roundabouts.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

I think the fact that Wales had set a new Six Nations record with 250 tackles tells you all you need to know and indeed proof that you are wrong.

England lost by 10 points. Pressure or not they were never going to win.

Equally France were pretty limp in attack for most of the game and looked pretty lost. Ireland in no way had to endure anything remotely close to the onslaught they put on Wales in the last 10 minutes. So no your comments are clearly not correct.

No it shows just how much pressure Ireland were forcing on Wales at the end, just as France and England did to Ireland in the closing stages. The tackle count stats is great but there was a very similar closing stages in all three matches whereby the side leading were closing out the match and the sides behind were applying great pressure.

England were 10 points behind?

France were very weak.

By contrast Ireland dominated all three teams in both the posession stats and territory stats.

I dont see where the debate is really. Seems very clear cut to me. Cant remember a time when a team went through 32 phases in an opposition team 22 or when a winning team has made as many tackles as Wales. Ireland certainly didnt have to defend anywhere near as much.

I am not suggesting Wales didnt look good for their win it seems quite clear cut or even obvious that Ireland came closer to winning v Wales than France or England did v Ireland.

Notch wrote:Have to agree with Nachos for once. Wales were never behind in the whole match. Every time we nearly drew level they managed to get down and get another penalty or a drop goal.

We made pass after pass but how many of them were to a man who had space to run into or had men free on the outside? Even when Wales were defending tight to the line they had an element of control, blunting our attack.

What exactly are you agreeing with him on?

LordDowlais wrote:

But do you agree with me SF ?

Do I agree that Sexton is not World Class?  No.

He's temperamental.  He's argumentative and let's his emotions get the better of him at times.  He's a perfectionist who demands the players around him do their bit to help his bit so that he can help others do their bit.

So he's petulant at times and sinks his head.  Biggar has some of that too if you watched enough of him over time  

But those 'weaknesses' make him the player he is when he's riding high.  But never ever overlook a 9 when talking about a 10.  People always do but it's a major fault.  A 10 shines when a 9 shines.  Murray had an off day too and might have been partially responsible for Sexton's off day.

But then - the off day was genuine pressure from the side with no World Class players in it (scientific evidence: game against England  )

GunsGerms wrote:

Notch wrote:Have to agree with Nachos for once. Wales were never behind in the whole match. Every time we nearly drew level they managed to get down and get another penalty or a drop goal.

We made pass after pass but how many of them were to a man who had space to run into or had men free on the outside? Even when Wales were defending tight to the line they had an element of control, blunting our attack.

What exactly are you agreeing with him on?

That Wales were just as comfortable winners against us as we were against France and England. There was only one moment I thought we were actually going to score, which resulted in the penalty try. The rest of the time we spent in their 22 I thought their defence was in control. There were chances passed up by Ireland for sure- but Wales were comfortable enough.

Notch wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Notch wrote:Have to agree with Nachos for once. Wales were never behind in the whole match. Every time we nearly drew level they managed to get down and get another penalty or a drop goal.

We made pass after pass but how many of them were to a man who had space to run into or had men free on the outside? Even when Wales were defending tight to the line they had an element of control, blunting our attack.

What exactly are you agreeing with him on?

That Wales were just as comfortable winners against us as we were against France and England. There was only one moment I thought we were actually going to score, which resulted in the penalty try. The rest of the time we spent in their 22 I thought their defence was in control. There were chances passed up by Ireland for sure- but Wales were comfortable enough.

Bizarre.

Going through 30+ phases isn't necessarily a good thing you know. It says more about the defending side than the attacking side. If you've gone over 15 phases in the 22 and made no ground then you're not attacking well and the defensive side is obviously exercising some level of control.

France looked much more likely to score in the last quarter against us than we did against Wales.

SecretFly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

But do you agree with me SF ?

Do I agree that Sexton is not World Class?  No.

He's temperamental.  He's argumentative and let's his emotions get the better of him at times.  He's a perfectionist who demands the players around him do their bit to help his bit so that he can help others do their bit.

Everyone has a slighly off day - the problem is we maybe don't have other leaders who can step up like in the past - BODs try and DG against England in 09 after ROGs nightmare with the boot, anyone?

Also when we were bashing at the Welsh line, I couldn't help thinking this is where BOD would have stepped in a took over. Fine margins are where the great players step up,

I think it would be unfair to judge Payne or Henshaw against this, as they are still learning, but that's the final ingredient we are missing to balance the team - some out wide who is a big personality.

rodders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I see our kicking and chasing stats as good because other sides (pre-Wales) were crap at competing there or defending there.  So we choose to read - 'Great wins'.

But go back and look at the fluffs.  Don't just look at the good catches and claims - look at the giving-hope-a-chance tricks when players went for balls with their eyes off the ball, heads down, grasping , clasping, fingering.

It wasn't all sweet.  The Sweetest Kick and Chase this season by far was coming from Wales.  Resolute - confident - courageous, determined to do it right - eyes on the ball all the way.

We're really not even the best at our alleged Best Bit.  We're not.  If I thought we were, I'd say so.

But sure we all said at the start Wales would be hard to beat in the air, so we didn't use the high ball, we chipped over the midfield and kept the ball in hand more (for about 10 million phases).

What we had is no real Plan B.  Nothing designed to fully counter what Schmidt must have known would be a bad day for attempting 50/50 kick chases.  Wales are more than a 50/50 kick chase side... so yes, it would have been suicide.

I'm saying our best Plan A needs revision because we're no way the best side at it.  Plan A needs a removal van to take it away or it needs a slice of Welsh Plan B to join it - that is incisive, genuinely drilled attack patterns using depth and pace onto a ball (not from trying to utilise ball from static positions).

We couldn't break the Welsh defence because we're rusty at trying to do anything a little more dynamic from the backs.  Ireland needs a Plan B/Plan A allsorts bag of sweets that we use intermittently through a game to give genuine bite to attack.

We were close at the end.  It's pointless.  We would have won at the end had we been up to speed on how attacking sides attack from the backs.  We're not.  And we won't get through a WC without such a weapon.

Notch wrote:Going through 30+ phases isn't necessarily a good thing you know. It says more about the defending side than the attacking side. If you've gone over 15 phases in the 22 and made no ground then you're not attacking well and the defensive side is obviously exercising some level of control.

France looked much more likely to score in the last quarter against us than we did against Wales.

Exactly. The 'number' of phases whitewash the impotency of the attempts.

Well we did have a plan B, we just didn't implement well enough in the face of great Welsh defence.

I think its lazy to say we are one dimensional - I think we are the most adaptable side in the championship....just not good enough to win on Saturday.

Notch wrote:Going through 30+ phases isn't necessarily a good thing you know. It says more about the defending side than the attacking side. If you've gone over 15 phases in the 22 and made no ground then you're not attacking well and the defensive side is obviously exercising some level of control.

France looked much more likely to score in the last quarter against us than we did against Wales.

England and France scored 1 try between them against us and never went through as many phases because we turned them over at the breakdown, in other words didnt let them. Yes Wales neutralised us, there is no question but all the statistics back up my claim that Ireland came closer to making a breakthrough.

rodders wrote:Well we did have a plan B, we just didn't implement well enough in the face of great Welsh defence.

I think its lazy to say we are one dimensional - I think we are the most adaptable side in the championship....just not good enough to win on Saturday.

How anyone can say we had no plan B is mind boggling. When Reddan came on our approach to the game completely changed.

We were running against brick walls and being knocked back by them rodders. How the hell is that seen as - I even forget the word that was being used to describe our little jinks and sweet taps over the top - oh what was the word??? Something like 'inventive' or 'innovative'.

Innovative? We had the game won had we just had the sense, practice and drills done on the training field to play a better attack.

It is not rocket science. If Joe now thinks it is than he's over-complicating the difficulties of International. He's playing things far too cautious and has a hang up on the words 'tiny margins'.

The games are tiny margins because he's not giving his players the tools to simply attack like normal modern sides attack (look at England, look at wales, even look at Scotland)

It's not complicated - the blueprints are all over the place. The stubbornness of simply hitting rucks and returning to rucks and running back into rucks, and taking ball into contact, and facing a defender and running at him....... the stubbornness of that system is what lost us the game.

My ONLY hope, is that there is method in the madness. I still do have hope. But it's getting frustrating looking at us punch drunk ourselves into winning positions.

GunsGerms wrote:

rodders wrote:Well we did have a plan B, we just didn't implement well enough in the face of great Welsh defence.

I think its lazy to say we are one dimensional - I think we are the most adaptable side in the championship....just not good enough to win on Saturday.

How anyone can say we had no plan B is mind boggling. When Reddan came on our approach to the game completely changed.

Agree, and given we approached the game differently to Italy, England and France I'd say Reddan was plan D or E.

I though we almost too elborate at times and maybe Reddan should have came on 10 minutes earlier.

Some of the passed and flicks out of the rucks would have been sensational if they'd have stuck. The one Healy knock on actually was flicked under the player at the back of the ruck to catch the defence out - clever stuff if it had worked.

There was a treble switch in the first half that almost put Kearney through on the inside ball and getting O'Connell running off Sexton worked really well, as everyone assumed he was the decoy.

Every game theres been something different there.

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Taylorman wrote:he didn't look again

Was he looking at all on Saturday ? At one point, Murray passed him the ball and he had his back turned, the ball hit his outstreched arm and was judged to go backwards, when he is on his game he can be class, but on Saturday he was anything but class, that is why for my liking he will never be world class as some of the Irish on here would have us beleive.

Anyone can have a bad game, for my money he's the best fly half about, or if not then a very close second to Cruden, did you miss his games against France and England?

I'm not Irish either

I am not saying he not any good, he is one of the best in the 6N, but the way some of our Irish butties on here wax lyrical about him sometimes is a little wide of the mark to say the least. When he is on his game he is class, but he is prone to having a bad day at the office, which is why I would not call him world class like some people on here would have us beleive.

On here it is mostly non-irish people who are overhyping Sexton. I think you know that though.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

On here it is mostly non-irish people who are overhyping Sexton. I think you know that though.

No Rory - Sexton IS God - they're right about us thinking and knowing that. And he failed us!!!! Thus the 47 -6 scoreline.

rodders wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

rodders wrote:Well we did have a plan B, we just didn't implement well enough in the face of great Welsh defence.

I think its lazy to say we are one dimensional - I think we are the most adaptable side in the championship....just not good enough to win on Saturday.

How anyone can say we had no plan B is mind boggling. When Reddan came on our approach to the game completely changed.

Agree, and given we approached the game differently to Italy, England and France I'd say Reddan was plan D or E.

I though we almost too elborate at times and maybe Reddan should have came on 10 minutes earlier.

Some of the passed and flicks out of the rucks would have been sensational if they'd have stuck. The one Healy knock on actually was flicked under the player at the back of the ruck to catch the defence out - clever stuff if it had worked.

There was a treble switch in the first half that almost put Kearney through on the inside ball and getting O'Connell running off Sexton worked really well, as everyone assumed he was the decoy.      

Every game theres been something different there.

Agreed, but people don't look at the game so much as they look at the stats and the scoreline. I don't think this Irish team gets enough credit for their tactics and structures, unfortunately gain line success is the missing element in everything we do. Being more adventurous ball in hand would make little to no difference to our attack, might increase turnovers, because we aren't winning collisions.

Having watched the game again with the emotion taken out of it I'm far happier about the future of this team.

We started poorly and were losing the aerial battle but about 15 minutes in the team realised that Barnes wanted to see a game of Rugby League and we completely changed our approach.That's a great sign of adaptability and it didn't take going in at half time when they could think about it and get feedback from the coaches,the players made that change themselves.While our attack was blunt in the Welsh 22 and the lineout malfunctioned everything else was pretty good.We dominated possession and territory so I am very hopeful that over the summer we will fine tune the attacking structures.

Ireland have a great opportunity to set a record for the fewest tries scored by a Six Nations winning team if they take it on points difference

What did Kearney say in his recent interview...he said when the Irish players were in the zone (on the Welsh tryline) they needed more 'explosiveness'.

And that's it.  They need that word all around the park.  They are doing average intensity in all areas - and even when those areas are operating sufficiently they could still do with quite a bit more zip and 'explosiveness'.
Our kick chase has been lauded in the early games but I found it simply functional in disrupting the opposition - but Wales have shown how to use it as a weapon of terror - Biggar and Halfpenny in particular have been charging onto ball with a swagger that imbues confidence in their team.  Kearney needs to retrieve his dominance in the air - and that means he has to be braver - rise higher, think of only him and the ball - dominate.
Our backs, when running, move in tiny little hunched shouldered steps - stretch those damn legs guys...pump and create some momentum.  Bully, harass, give the opposition more to take down.
Kearney is right , it does need more explosiveness - but everywhere.  
Explosiveness would have won us the game - real Munster fury would have dragged us over that tryline - but we kept hitting at only 60% the intensity levels that assault needed.

We have Schmidt technique but we do seriously need to inject old style Irish bloodthirstiness into the mix.