Ulster Rugby 2018-19

First topic message reminder :

https://www.606v2.com/t68145-ulster-rugby-2017-2018-part-2


Last thread was at risk of self combusting, so started a new one for you. 


Bye.

I'd said before the game that a decent performance was my bare minimum requirement from that game and the lads definitely gave that. Clermont at home are a test that few would pass and at the moment I reckon even the great Leinster would struggle to some away with anything.
The subject of taking the points are not whilst being frustrating at the time is a bit of a moot point. Had they taken the points instead of going for the lineout with the first penalty then everything after that would have transpired completely differently and the other opportunities likely wouldn't have happened. That's the old butterfly effect at work again.

What really grinds my gears were the high tackles and at least one obvious neck-roll that were ignored as well as the hit on Luke Marshall that seemed to be a shoulder to the head. More maddening was when the ref stopped play because of a Clermont injury. Hendi pulled the ref on this - pointing out that this happened twice in home match. Three times in two matches with miracle recoveries by Clermont players who all were able to play on! Yes we were awarded the scrum but at that stage our scrum was not exactly a weapon. One last ref gripe for me was Raka's try. The ref and asst. ref both agreed that the on-field decision was no try, the TMO overruled despite nothing being clear and obvious. Did it touch the whitewash? I couldn't say definitively that it had, not clear and obvious IMO so revert to the on-field decision. I know, I'm clutching at straws but when you're attempting to win at the Marcel Michelin you don't need decisions like that battering you.

Right, crying over, it was still a good performance, one that shouldn't dent the group confidence. Onwards and upwards and a 5 pointer against Bath please !!

Was very frustrated with Hendo's calls to go for the corner on Saturday, but seems like it was the plan, with Hendo stating that three points would not put Clermont under pressure.

Don Alfonso wrote:Was very frustrated with Hendo's calls to go for the corner on Saturday, but seems like it was the plan, with Hendo stating that three points would not put Clermont under pressure.

I wonder whose call the first one was? I understand taking three if there has been a lot of grind, tired legs and the game is proving tight and a slog.
The first three points came very early on in the game -in 2nd minute - and if I remember right we had gotten into their 22 with relative ease. If ever there was a time to throw caution to the wind it was surely then - the game had barely started - a try could have really set the tone, built confidence and put substantial worry and doubt in Clermont's head.

Also... I'd be much more in favour of going for the lineout if we could actually win our own lineouts at a higher rate - that needs sorted!

Also... Faddes... I'm not sure he's much better than any other senor squad player - and I'm now thinking he shouldn't be keeping acadamy players out of senior gametime when injuries strike. He's squad filler. Would not renew that contract.

Can this Ulster team win the European Cup, sorry but I don't think so. They threw everything at CA in the first half and were a bit unlucky not to be more then a score clear at half time, but the second half showed a marked difference in class. Clermont simply had a stronger pack, better half backs, a Massif Central midfield, far more pace in the back three and a superior bench.

In Ulster's favour, Clermont still have a European Cup monkey on their back and it was Henderson's mistake not to take every point in the first half to increase its weight. The first penalty quietened the crowd, Cooney's try had the most fickle French supporters wavering, and a couple more penalties would have seen the old doubts flooding back. Clermont had no misgivings about closing the gap with penalty kicks and in doing so wrested the momentum from Ulster before the break.
It could also be argued that if Ulster had kicked for goal they were encouraging Clermont to do the same with a tit for tat penalty contest, and that would have been a better strategy to keep the scoreboard closer for longer. If Henderson stated Ulster HAD to score tries, he (or McFarland) was already conceding that Ulster didn't have the defence to keep the game tight. So, far from demonstrating confidence in Ulster's scoring prowess, going for the corners highlighted a lack of confidence in defence.

This is the second year in a three year turnaround programme. Ulster can still make the quarters in Europe and the playoffs in the League - in that light, so far so good.

The Great Aukster wrote:
This is the second year in a three year turnaround programme. Ulster can still make the quarters in Europe and the playoffs in the League - in that light, so far so good.

I agree, I mean that said anything can happen in a one off game and if Ulster could progress as a top seed, I could see us in with an outside shot. Even on the road with a decent draw we can go beyond the QF.

However if you look at the top 4-5 teams - Leinster, Sarracens, Racing, Clermont.. maybe Toulouse, they just have so much more strength in depth, quality and firepower.

Realistically I think Ulster are in that next crop of teams like Munster and Exeter that could go well but need a bit of good fortune and probably home advantage to really have a shot of winning. We just need a bit more ruthlessness to get the bonus points.

Regarding not kicking for points,  I totally agree that tactic, Schmidt used it a lot as well, as does Leinster currently. Rather that take 3 and then give the ball back, it is better to just keep a dangerous and powerful team like Clermont pegged down in their half and starve them of possession and territory, even if you don't score.  

The point about our lineout is a fair one but I suppose you have to back yourself to win your throw. Worst case is you concede and force the team to play out or kick.

The bottom line is we have lost the head to head with Clermont 6 -4, which is nothing to be ashamed off but it shows the level we need to get to. To be in the game right to end though was real positive and a home win next week would be a great result overall.

The 'goal or corner' decision is circumstantial.
Against a team like Clermont with a flaky EC history, scoreboard pressure could have unnerved them and more importantly the crowd. Maybe against someone like Racing who want to joué joué, keeping them contained could be more effective, but for how long?

Rory Best got a lot of criticism for his lineout throw, but now that he's not there, suddenly the accuracy is missing (looks like that's going to be a problem at Test level too). However even when Ulster win lineouts in the red zone they have limited options to score.
1. Maul the ball over, which is fine against smaller or disorganised packs - Clermont were neither
2. Spin the ball off the top and hope someone breaks a one on one out wide - Clermont's defence was breached but not from that sort of play.
It's fine to keep Clermont contained in their 22 but if Ulster can't score set-piece tries and turn down penalty or DG chances, all they've done is take a few minutes off the clock and that doesn't win games.

This ref and his assistants are morons, he gets pushed in the back off the ball, ti doesn't matter if he changes his line or not, he can run wherever he wants so long as he is not in front of the ball carrier and preventing a tackle

Why did that take so long, that was a clear red card from every angle

Maybe the TMO had to check the score at the Stoop first!

So away to Toulouse.
Mid table in the top14 but will be a tough game at there place.

Think we can do it though

Have a feeling Ulster will do it.  Leinster have their bloody jinx side lined up again, who are mad as hell and they ain't takin' it no more -even after Leinster's perfect season so far.  They might be out next round.
There ain't no justice in the woyld!

SF - surely Saracens is the perfect team to get? You wouldn't want to claim a title that didn't have them on the vanquished list in the run up.

Well what to make of that, great to get the result and qualify but pretty worrying how badly we struggled up front. Granted Ross Kane is 3rd choice but even when O'Toole was on our scrum was struggling. The line out once again was a big issue.

I wonder if Farrell will be questioning his front row choices now.

That aside we did well to close it out without any sort of platform but that was one of our worst performances so far this season. Tough draw away to Toulouse but if nothing else it is another learning opportunity.

Re Leinster I think they are most vulnerable just after the 6N when they are integrating their internationals back in. Saracens have nothing to play for in the league now but agree getting them out of the competition earlier is better than meeting them in the final.

I think the winner of this probably plays Racing in the final.

I think Ulster did pretty well to get the result despite not having much of a platform to work off.
Bath were really up for it and things were happening for them including little rubs of the green such as that bounce of the ball for the try. That combined with the fact that Ulster didn't perform as expected left everyone feeling a little short-changed but we're in the last 8 so we can't be too negative.
I do think we can take that Toulouse team with a lot of ifs and buts but it's definitely doable. Exciting times indeed.

Yeah I agree, I think I was a bit harsh above. Real concerns with the set piece but given the pressure we did well to get the result we needed.

I do worry a bit that the Irish teams did benefit from some RWC fatigue/hangover in the English and to a lesser extent the French sides and that we might be seeing a correction as the season progresses.

Leinster are deserved favorites but I think they aren't as far ahead of their rivals as the pool stage results might indicate.

BOD was blethering away yesterday on BT Sport and of course said that the quarters were the best place to get Saracens as they are so good at grinding out semi finals and finals etc. An odd comment I thought as they are pretty good at all forms of knockout rugby. Is he a little concerned? I'd think Leinster coach, player and fan will be somewhat concerned. Saracens, for all the recent press, are still a force to be reckoned with at Allianz Park or the Aviva. I still think Leinster will win but if ever there's a game to end their winning streak, that's it.
BOD also commented on the romance of having such a good Toulouse side in Europe and said that we'd hopefully see them progress beyond the quarter finals. In other words, BOD, true to form, hopes Ulster loses. I hate the little sod (I have many words that I usually use to describe him but sod will do for here).

Just to balance that out somewhat, Pete.  I was reading something in the Guardian recently, either about Saracens or Ulster...but anyway, in the comments section, one guy said he made a recent trip to Ulster and that many Ulster fans were very nice and gracious to him and were interested in hearing his take on the Saracens relegation drama.  He said the people he talked to made him quite certain that if Saracens and Leinster met in the playoffs, they'd be rooting for Saracens. (Maybe the Ulster boys were just bluffing and being kindly to the English stranger - maybe)

Anyway, it saddened me to hear it verbalised .... just as it saddens me if BOD or his ilk were making it apparent they didn't want Ulster to advance.  I think too that I heard Bull Hayes' wife on radio 'joking' that Lansdowne would be full of Munster fans up to cheer on Saracens.

I can never get it.  Can't compute the logic.  Yes, the burning rivalries are fine when Provinces meet but for Christ's sake, at the beginning of the year I usually want three things in rugby - an Irish Province winning Pro14 (if not Leinster then any of the other three), in Europe, the very same.... and then an Irish Six Nations in between.  It never varies.  If Leinster don't make it and Ulster do...not a chance I'd wish another side to beat them either in a semi or the final. Ulster will represent me then.

SecretFly wrote:Just to balance that out somewhat, Pete.  I was reading something in the Guardian recently, either about Saracens or Ulster...but anyway, in the comments section, one guy said he made a recent trip to Ulster and that many Ulster fans were very nice and gracious to him and were interested in hearing his take on the Saracens relegation drama.  He said the people he talked to made him quite certain that if Saracens and Leinster met in the playoffs, they'd be rooting for Saracens. (Maybe the Ulster boys were just bluffing and being kindly to the English stranger - maybe)

Anyway, it saddened me to hear it verbalised .... just as it saddens me if BOD or his ilk were making it apparent they didn't want Ulster to advance.  I think too that I heard Bull Hayes' wife on radio 'joking' that Lansdowne would be full of Munster fans up to cheer on Saracens.

I can never get it.  Can't compute the logic.  Yes, the burning rivalries are fine when Provinces meet but for Christ's sake, at the beginning of the year I usually want three things in rugby - an Irish Province winning Pro14 (if not Leinster then any of the other three), in Europe, the very same.... and then an Irish Six Nations in between.  It never varies.  If Leinster don't make it and Ulster do...not a chance I'd wish another side to beat them either in a semi or the final. Ulster will represent me then.

SF I've never once heard a single person in rugby circles ever claim that they'd support any English side, let alone the much despised Saracens over Leinster. Either that particular Saracens fan was being lied to by said bluffers or they're stretching the truth themselves. Obviously Belfast based Ulster fans might be somewhat different (whish I doubt), I've only heard unsavoury comments at Ravenhill perhaps twice in all the years I've attended and they came from people who were clearly not lifelong rugby fans.
I for one support Ulster, closely followed by Leinster, then Munster and last but never least Connacht. I know I am not in a minority for doing so.
I'm not sure who the Saracens fan in question was talking to but just because they go to Ravenhill and wear an Ulster top etc., it doesn't mean they are rugby fans as there're a lot of blow-ins that disappear as soon as Ulster lose a few matches.

Stu called up to Ireland squad. Hope he forces his way Into 23 but get a feeling he may be holding tackle bags

Well deserved for McCloskey, he should have been in the first squad.

Re:Bod, I wouldn't take much of what he says on BT at face value, I think he plays to the audience.

He clearly can't hide his Leinster bias but I think aside from that is very keen to play to the mainly british audience, as well as peddle BT's anti pro 14 agenda.

rodders wrote:Well deserved for McCloskey, he should have been in the first squad.

Re:Bod, I wouldn't take much of what he says on BT at face value, I think he plays to the audience.

He clearly can't hide his Leinster bias but I think aside from that is very keen to play to the mainly british audience, as well as peddle BT's anti pro 14 agenda.

That's even worse - the asskissin' two faced nincompoop!

I have to say I understand that the Pro14 is the "competition" but they do take more than is needed digs at it.
It's almost like the PRL has given them a list of talking points to trot out

Sarries (regardless of Cap misdemeanours) are surely still a more likeable ‘club’ than Ulster though, given their recent history?

Cyril wrote:Sarries (regardless of Cap misdemeanours) are surely still a more likeable ‘club’ than Ulster though, given their recent history?

Does this half-witted, puerile, annoyance have this on perpetual cut & paste?

Pete330v2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:Sarries (regardless of Cap misdemeanours) are surely still a more likeable ‘club’ than Ulster though, given their recent history?

Does this half-witted, puerile, annoyance have this on perpetual cut & paste?

Hes been running round every thread trying to get a reaction out of the "Celts"

Why is “Celts” in inverted commas? Is it a euphemism?

My point stands though. People have very short memories.

Please stop with the insults too. No need for that chaps.

Cyril wrote:Why is “Celts” in inverted commas? Is it a euphemism?

My point stands though. People have very short memories.

Please stop with the insults too. No need for that chaps.

If I recall correctly, the rules of a forum like this tend to say that passive-aggressive fcukwits who gets their kicks from posting inflammatory comments tend to get that kind of response.

If they haven't got anything useful to say, they should say nothing is a useful rule to abide by.

I think that’s Pot calling the kettle black there.

Oh the Brit Celts and Irish Celts are at it again, wot! There'll never be peace and reconciliation on these islands unless and until the Six Nations is done away with!

Cyril wrote:Why is “Celts” in inverted commas? Is it a euphemism?

My point stands though. People have very short memories.

Please stop with the insults too. No need for that chaps.

Maybe ‘Celts’ in inverted commas because the Irish, Scots and Welsh were never really related in any way, apparently, but are often grouped together as one.  ‘Celts’ was perhaps a lazy term to refer to those 3 separate groups of ‘others’.  Or something like that.

Cyril wrote:I think that’s Pot calling the kettle black there.

"Celttle"

Gooseberry wrote:

Cyril wrote:I think that’s Pot calling the kettle black there.

"Celttle"

Good one Goose . We'll keep you, for seasoning.

What's the thinking about the Off The Ball interview with Rory Best?

The first part, going into his involvement with the Jackson case, was quite raw.

SecretFly wrote:Oh the Brit Celts and Irish Celts are at it again, wot!  There'll never be peace and reconciliation on these islands unless and until the Six Nations is done away with!

I'd start with the Lions and work up.

Ireland's captain is practically a Brit Celt, through his ability rather than ancestry. His adeptness at kicking for the corners means he should be known as Angles Sexton.

The Great Aukster wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Oh the Brit Celts and Irish Celts are at it again, wot!  There'll never be peace and reconciliation on these islands unless and until the Six Nations is done away with!

I'd start with the Lions and work up.

Ireland's captain is practically a Brit Celt, through his ability rather than ancestry. His adeptness at kicking for the corners means he should be known as Angles Sexton.

Very good. Like that.

Rugby Fan wrote:What's the thinking about the Off The Ball interview with Rory Best?

The first part, going into his involvement with the Jackson case, was quite raw.

It was.  Clearly a lot of regret over his actions.   I agree with him about deleting social media - pity a lot more people couldn’t do the same.   Didn’t know that he grew up in Poyntzpass.

I can't say that I'm impressed with Besty. Whatever his agenda might be I don't know but he could and should have taken a leaf out of Jonny Petrie's book when questioned about something that nobody (bar that one half-way on here) wanted to see dragged back into the media. I just think the comments are as badly judged as he believes turning up as a character witness was.

There might be a few more tongue waggers due if he's going to shift a book next Christmas?

The question is, does his statement help or hinder sales?

The Great Aukster wrote:There might be a few more tongue waggers due if he's going to shift a book next Christmas?

The question is, does his statement help or hinder sales?

I don't read autobiographies of retired sportspersons myself. I find them utterly dull, badly written and filled with anecdotes that are mostly second hand if you've followed their career. If Rory is aiming to take pot shots at people using the kind of tongue wagging he's just been guilty of then I'd be even less likely to so much as look at his writings. He ended his career with the utmost dignity, a dignity that he's chipping away at by raking up that which is best left in the past.

You know in the news when you hear somebody did something awful, and a neighbour of the perpetrator is reported to say 'He seemed like a lovely guy'...
Well what's the difference here?

In a trial, as it stands, guilt has to be proven, and innocence is assumed up till that point.

Rory (and no character witness EVER) takes to the stand to claim either innocense or guilt - they simply paint the picture of the person as they knew them.

If you disagree with the whole idea of character witnesses, that's another story - but the media and liberal left effectively claim that by accepting the role, Rory is claiming either innocense or guilt. He is simply stating facts of his experience of the defendant up to that point.

One could argue that to refuse to accept such a role is to effectively hint at personal suspicions of guilt, and fear you may yourself be tarnished by association.
I mean, if it had went the other way, the media would have been saying 'Ireland captain cuts ties with teammate and refuses to stand by him and testify to his character'. And that would have influnced public opinion as much as taking the stand and speaking truthfully about how nice a person you always felt he was...

Was Paddy's legal team trying to use UR? Probably. But you need to ask the question - were the jury really so simple as to think 'Well... i mean... if Rory Best says he was a good lad, I'll happily ignore the evidence!'.

I don't personally think he was wrong to take the stand - to me, it's just like giving any other type of evidence. As long as you are truthful - you've done your societal duty.

I do think he's considering future income when he gave that interview. He also is probbaly trying to learn lessons from recent awful interviews given by certain Princes.

Yes Clive.  If you're allowed defend yourself in court - and thankfully, we're still 'westernised' enough in this wacky world that such is indeed the case - if it's then allowable in court to have character witnesses who might present a general overview opinion of the defendant - then Rory did no wrong.  And people who might suggest that he made a mistake are opening themselves up to the accusation that their belief in the legal system sways from case to particular case.  

And always - Always - ask what you yourself would do under such circumstances?  

A good friend, an happy acquaintance, a likeable workmate - a relative - is accused of a serious crime.  You hear that they absolutely protest their innocence.  You are asked by their legal team to take the stand to be asked about your impressions of the defendant in the time you've known them.  You're not there to say or imply "He's innocent, m'Lord!" but merely to give an overview of your impressions of the person based on the question you will get asked.
Would you really put down the phone on his legal team with the muttered put down of: "Nope, won't do it.  FUk him."....?

SecretFly wrote:'...people who might suggest that he made a mistake...

I haven't followed this issue as closely as many of the rest of you but, on that specific point, Rory Best said in the interview he thought he made a mistake attending court, and regrets not getting legal advice from someone other than the defence team.

Rugby Fan wrote:

SecretFly wrote:'...people who might suggest that he made a mistake...

I haven't followed this issue as closely as many of the rest of you but, on that specific point, Rory Best said in the interview he thought he made a mistake attending court, and regrets not getting legal advice from someone other than the defence team.

Only response to that is that in my opinion he's mistaken in his present opinion... AND that his present attitude has been decidedly influenced by subsequent publicity and the opinions of Johnny Public.  It seems that he believes he was 'mistaken' because of ramifications and negative fall out, but was he mistaken in initial intent to offer a good word for a colleague and perhaps someone who was considered a friend?
Anyway, it's kinda my point anyway, Rugby Fan, that the weight of public opinion now potentially impedes the workings of the legal system.  If we in the social media world believe in guilt then guilt it is and 'defenders' are often attacked as viciously as the accused.  Present power of public opinion is only a few steps away from Lynch mobs.

Rugby Fan wrote:

SecretFly wrote:'...people who might suggest that he made a mistake...

I haven't followed this issue as closely as many of the rest of you but, on that specific point, Rory Best said in the interview he thought he made a mistake attending court, and regrets not getting legal advice from someone other than the defence team.

He regrets it now because I'm sure he wants to get into punditry and he knows the lefty loony's will be bringing this up at every chance they get to discredit him. This is poor form by Best to be honest.

I can be as belligerent as the next man in my opinions but I won't take sides here because I don't have a good grasp of what's at stake. I think my ignorance is why I was so surprised that the OTB interview with Best spent so long litigating the matter. I'd expected a chat reflecting on a worthy career, only to find a lot of it given over to the Jackson case, and whether Best had thrown shade at Schmidt after the World Cup.

I’d go so far as to say... if sexual related court cases were conducted behind closed doors, Paddy would have been able to confidently call upon tens of work colleagues who would have gladly taken the stand. And furthermore, if it had been a case carried out behind closed doors, and witnesses never revealed to the public I suspect Rory would not have these current feelings of regret.

Perhaps regretting the lack of paid job opportunities more than anything...

One more time. Rory did not and was not asked to testify to Paddy’s innocence. But his refusal to agree would have been a partial testifying of his suspected guilt.

IMO, character witnesses should be demanded to stand by the court, and instructed like anyone else to take an oath of honesty. Nobody does ‘wrong’ by being summoned by the powers that be, or by speaking the truth of what they know.

Coetzee and Cooney are both in the running for the EPCR European player of the year 2020. Not one but 2 Ulster players....not bad!

Cooney has got to be there or therabouts, been outstanding

BigGee wrote:Cooney has got to be there or therabouts, been outstanding

He definitely has been. I have to switch off my Ulster bias for this vote though, it's Vakatawa for me.