RugbyRebels

Still septic wrote:
The issue with our defence is its been worked out already, we cede easy yards at the side of the breakdown, but defend in more numbers wider, l

Weird way to word it , 4 tries in 4 games and that’s actually

1 from a cross field kick starting in 22
1 from a chip over the defence starting from half way
1 from a great kick return from a turnover in our 22 and a shit kick away
1 from first phase ball

In 320 mins of rugby , what you have highlighted is France identifying that attacking narrow with fast ruck ball will suck defenders in , what France failed to do was generate any quick wide ball from it that they could use

Its difficult to say what would have happened with France because after 4 mins they were down a player, after 15 they were down their mercurial fly half and after 35 they were down a TH.

They seemed to have no attack strategy after the 10 went off

whatisthejava wrote:

Still septic wrote:
The issue with our defence is its been worked out already, we cede easy yards at the side of the breakdown, but defend in more numbers wider, l

Weird way to word it , 4 tries in 4 games and that’s actually

1 from a cross field kick starting in 22
1 from a chip over the defence starting from half way
1 from a great kick return from a turnover in our 22 and a shit kick away
1 from first phase ball

In 320 mins of rugby , what you have highlighted is France identifying that attacking narrow with fast ruck ball will suck defenders in , what France failed to do was generate any quick wide ball from it that they could use

Its difficult to say what would have happened with France because after 4 mins they were down a player, after 15 they were down their mercurial fly half and after 35 they were down a TH.

They seemed to have no attack strategy after the 10 went off

We've always conceded yards easily. It appears the Tandy system is more resilient to it/missed tackles than the Taylor system. The big test will be home it holds up after teams have had more game tape to review and decide how to try and pick it a part.

They'd have been fucked on a Saturday. Nearly 200 tackle attempts is a lot.

RE the Gatland insinuation. I don't think it was that intentional. Kicking the ball dead and chip throughs on the wing that could have been kept in play & put france under a lot of pressure is just simply poor execution. As for the kicking to the back - giving France that much time on the ball again points towards poor execution. I don't see Halfpenny, Williams, Biggar et al kicking like that.

If it was the game plan it was not well executed. The fact that Weir was kept off until 77 minutes also suggests that isn't the case.

Generally think weir was kept off because Hastings was doing so well. Got to keep the faith now he is showing what he can do

Where do you find all these tackle stats? I’d be interested to know if our scrum half is more involved defensively than under the previous, more porous regime.

General Zod wrote:Where do you find all these tackle stats? I’d be interested to know if our scrum half is more involved defensively than under the previous, more porous regime.

https://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/matchstats ... gue=180659

We still missed 20odd tackles. Price attempted 11.

These stats are sometimes a little out but they are usually there or there abouts.

40 odd metres carried in the pack combined?! 21 of those from Rambo? WTF?

Certainly doesn’t feel like there were 23 clean breaks in that game either.

Big D wrote:

General Zod wrote:Where do you find all these tackle stats? I’d be interested to know if our scrum half is more involved defensively than under the previous, more porous regime.

https://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/matchstats ... gue=180659

We still missed 20odd tackles. Price attempted 11.

These stats are sometimes a little out but they are usually there or there abouts.

Cheers. I’m not sure, but it looks like the scrum half is getting in the way more if the first up man does miss a tackle. Can’t remember Laidlaw being in such a position as often, but I think that’s a deliberate thing we are doing now, rather than any reflection on Laidlaw.

Have also read elsewhere a theory that the fringe defence looks poor because they are deliberately letting a man go a yard or two on his own as then he’s easier to isolate. Not sure about that.

whatisthejava wrote:

In 320 mins of rugby , what you have highlighted is France identifying that attacking narrow with fast ruck ball will suck defenders in , what France failed to do was generate any quick wide ball from it that they could use

Its difficult to say what would have happened with France because after 4 mins they were down a player, after 15 they were down their mercurial fly half and after 35 they were down a TH.

They seemed to have no attack strategy after the 10 went off

nothing much to disagree with there. France had identified it because it was there in the earlier games. A more focussed 15 man team might have exploited it very differently. Other teams will have watched with interest.

we should reflect on this - despite being a man up for 65 of the 80mins, we lost heavily in possession and territory stats.
we scored 3 tries
one from mucking up our own lineout, and 2 from the french sub 10 coming out of the line and leaving a dog leg (and missing a tackle). We won't get many easier tries, didn't really have to work too hard for them

It was a good display and win. But loads of issues remaining

General Zod wrote:
Cheers. I’m not sure, but it looks like the scrum half is getting in the way more if the first up man does miss a tackle. Can’t remember Laidlaw being in such a position as often, but I think that’s a deliberate thing we are doing now, rather than any reflection on Laidlaw.

Price plays and defends pretty much as he does for Glasgow. He is also being used as a narrow rush defender to try and intercept (as wales did to us!)

we used to hide Laidlaw during opposition phases

The number of tackles Hastings was involved in is another matter. Too many

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:RE the Gatland insinuation. I don't think it was that intentional. Kicking the ball dead and chip throughs on the wing that could have been kept in play & put france under a lot of pressure is just simply poor execution. As for the kicking to the back - giving France that much time on the ball again points towards poor execution. I don't see Halfpenny, Williams, Biggar et al kicking like that.

If it was the game plan it was not well executed. The fact that Weir was kept off until 77 minutes also suggests that isn't the case.

seems you have never watched Wales then. Or understood the limits on kicking direct to touch and how much more difficult it is to bounce it out

Gatland tactics were to kick deep and ask you to either run from deep (and he trusted his defence), or kick it back and gamble you will lose yards on he exchange and wales get the throw in, Ireland do a lot of similar stuff. Of course sometimes they will go for touch, but there is a reason far far more kicks at top level do not make touch than do

Weir was kept off because Hastings was going very well, TBH he was only ever coming on earlier if Hastings was injured

Big D wrote:
We've always conceded yards easily. It appears the Tandy system is more resilient to it/missed tackles than the Taylor system. The big test will be home it holds up after teams have had more game tape to review and decide how to try and pick it a part.

They'd have been fucked on a Saturday. Nearly 200 tackle attempts is a lot.

we have given up yards too easily. Was worse a few seasons back. We have tended to do soak tackles rather than knock 'em back. But under Taylor we also put more into the ruck and fringe, which left us very vulnerable if the opposition did get the ball wide after a few phases. Now we want them to go wide and suffocate them, but it leaves a soft fringe. Also as we saw leaves us very vulnerable to a counter ruck on our possession

200 tackles when we were a man up most of the game. Almost rope-a-dope

Ross. S wrote:

wanderingjock wrote:

Ross. S wrote:
The Jocks winning has zero impact on my happiness other than Wales remain GS holders. I'm just enjoying winding Tigs up with his own arrogance

Except they've already lost that.. You do understand the difference between winning a grand slam and winning the 6 nations??

The topper on the trophy remains the latest winner of a GS, No GS this year so the 3 feathers remain where they belong, Maybe you were not aware since Scotland has never put that thistle utop the trophy....

Nah, just I don't see that as being relevant. Winning a grand slam is really difficult, given the nature of the rivalries, the way the games can go in such a tournament. I have just never viewed it as something that carries on into the following tournament. In that case, I think some congratulations should be offered to the England team of 1928, who were grand slam champions for 20 years. Impressive!

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:RE the Gatland insinuation. I don't think it was that intentional. Kicking the ball dead and chip throughs on the wing that could have been kept in play & put france under a lot of pressure is just simply poor execution. As for the kicking to the back - giving France that much time on the ball again points towards poor execution. I don't see Halfpenny, Williams, Biggar et al kicking like that.

If it was the game plan it was not well executed. The fact that Weir was kept off until 77 minutes also suggests that isn't the case.

Id agree, with the kicks over the dead ball line, they were mistakes, the players body language suggested that, but is why folk talk about great players, they pull out something miraculous. It is skill and talent, but it isn't the norm, running up and trying to dribble a rugby ball at full pace, with an international team bearing down is hard, that's why some stand out. On a different day we don't get the lucky bounce for the hooker that scores a try... On most we don't. Ha. A little like bouthier's try against Wales. But they all count

Just listening to the Brian Moore podcast - he reckoned that another defensive tactic we employed was to try and keep the attacking man vertical so that it was more different for france’s big men to bulldoze through and generate quick ball. When it wasn’t there for them, they struggled. I agree.