Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

World Cup - The Lessons Learnt

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Daithi View Post
    ditto small mobile opensides, hookers, outhalfs and centres.

    the game has bulked up out of all proportion imho, and this makes top tests more bish, bash, boom than fast dash vvroom which is a big pity IMHO. great Players & footballers of yesteryear like Phil Bennett, Barry John, Paul Dean, Keith Crossan, etc, etc, wouldn't get near an international side these days as their skill sets of creating & exploiting space have been replaced by strength in the tackle and rucking ability. That is a loss.
    Richie McCaw is 6' 2". Pocock 6'. Dane Coles 6'. Conrad Smith 5' 11". Dan Carter 5' 10". Matt Giteau 5' 10". Santiago Cordero 5' 9".

    They seem to do okay.
    Ceterum censeo INM irrumandum esse.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Thomond78 View Post
      Richie McCaw is 6' 2". Pocock 6'. Dane Coles 6'. Conrad Smith 5' 11". Dan Carter 5' 10". Matt Giteau 5' 10". Santiago Cordero 5' 9".

      They seem to do okay.
      Richie McCaw, Pockock &/or Coles are hardly small are they now?

      the others listed are all great little players but lets face it they are the exception to the rule these days. Just look at the average height & weight of the Welsh, SA &/or Irish backline for instance? its bish, bash, boom , tackle, ruck and rumble stuff.
      ____________________________________________
      Munster were great when they were Munster.

      alas they are just north munster now.......
      ____________________________________________

      Comment


        Originally posted by Daithi View Post
        Richie McCaw, Pockock &/or Coles are hardly small are they now?

        the others listed are all great little players but lets face it they are the exception to the rule these days. Just look at the average height & weight of the Welsh, SA &/or Irish backline for instance? its bish, bash, boom , tackle, ruck and rumble stuff.
        So, what works is the teams that aren't in the finals because they lost to the teams with smaller, more skilful players?

        McCaw, btw, is the same height as Josh Kronfeld and Michael Jones. Pocock shorter than David Wilson or Willie O. That's going back nearly quarter of a century.
        Last edited by Thomond78; 27-October-2015, 12:36.
        Ceterum censeo INM irrumandum esse.

        Comment


          Originally posted by Thomond78 View Post
          So, what works is the teams that aren't in the finals because they lost to the teams with smaller, more skilful players?

          McCaw, btw, is the same height as Josh Kronfeld and Michael Jones. Pocock shorter than David Wilson or Willie O. That's going back nearly quarter of a century.
          you're definitely debating like a lawyer here imho, i.e. selective & disingenous

          you picked a handful of smaller players from some of the sucessful nations but equally NZ have their huge winger guy, Aus have Mitchell& AA Cooper and a whole load of other 6'+, 100kg+ huge, physical flyers. They are not easy to defend against unless you're closer to their size.

          Even calling guys like Richie McCaw at 6'2" and 106kg and David Poccock at 6'0 and 104 kg 'small', that is a very subjective (mis)use of that word for these athletic titans tbh

          p.s. even guys like Earls are being regarded as too small for outside centre these days, ditto Cave, who knows maybe that's why our formulaic, criteria driven coach did not want to select them!?
          Last edited by Daithi; 27-October-2015, 13:15.
          ____________________________________________
          Munster were great when they were Munster.

          alas they are just north munster now.......
          ____________________________________________

          Comment


            No, Daithi, I'm pointing out your generalisation as to what works and their being no place for the smaller and skilful just isn't born out by this RWC. When there's that many counter-examples in the best teams, you really shoulg pause.

            Average male height in NZ, btw, is 5' 10". Many ABs are at or below that. Drew Mitchell is 5' 11" and 92kg. Earls 5' 10" and 92 at the moment.

            There's plenty of room for the smaller, faster, skilful players and it works. We just choose not to use them.
            Last edited by Thomond78; 27-October-2015, 13:26.
            Ceterum censeo INM irrumandum esse.

            Comment


              Originally posted by Daithi View Post
              you're definitely debating like a lawyer here imho, i.e. selective & disingenous

              you picked a handful of smaller players from some of the sucessful nations but equally NZ have their huge winger guy, Aus have Mitchell& AA Cooper and a whole load of other 6'+, 100kg+ huge, physical flyers. They are not easy to defend against unless you're closer to their size.

              Even calling guys like Richie McCaw at 6'2" and 106kg and David Poccock at 6'0 and 104 kg 'small', that is a very subjective (mis)use of that word for these athletic titans tbh

              p.s. even guys like Earls are being regarded as too small for outside centre these days, ditto Cave, who knows maybe that's why our formulaic, criteria driven coach did not want to select them!?
              It's not all about size Daithi. Tackling technique goes a long long way. Any defender who hits and guy with his shoulder from the waist down is going to stop him. The amount of force you put behind it is up to you. Felix Jones is a classic example. He his considered slightly built for a modern rugby player yet he constantly punches above his weight in the collisions. Purely because he gets low and aims for the mid-riff/waistline area. He tackles like you were taught at 10 years of age. Obviously there are exceptions like Savea. You just try and go as low as possible with him and hope he doesn't bounce you. Van Der Westhuizen is probably the best example during the 1995 RWC final. He marked Lomu out of the match with a brilliant man marking defensive effort.
              He's a guy who gets up at six o'clock in the morning regardless of what time it is.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Thomond78 View Post
                There's plenty of room for the smaller, faster, skilful players and it works. We just choose not to use them.
                It's happened to us fairly often though that a larger team can create space running at us and forcing two players to make a tackle - if they do that over a few phases you're probably going to have 14 running at 13 defenders at some point. On the all blacks they've the odd small player but they've also got enough large ones on the pitch at the same time that they can truck it up. We don't have many power carriers in tight to start with with (a not knackered) henderson, (a fit) healy, henshaw and (a not suspended) sob as the prime candidates. If we lose on or two of them then the opposition can quite happily double tackle them and if we don't get quick ball we're kind of ****ed. Argentina had a few small and skillful players (their half backs and back 3 were crackers) but they still had enough big carriers to totally overpower us unfortunately.

                You're right that there's room for the small ones but they need to be given space to work in by the bigguns.
                The system is dead! Long live the process!

                Comment


                  Originally posted by joconnell View Post
                  It's happened to us fairly often though that a larger team can create space running at us and forcing two players to make a tackle - if they do that over a few phases you're probably going to have 14 running at 13 defenders at some point. On the all blacks they've the odd small player but they've also got enough large ones on the pitch at the same time that they can truck it up. We don't have many power carriers in tight to start with with (a not knackered) henderson, (a fit) healy, henshaw and (a not suspended) sob as the prime candidates. If we lose on or two of them then the opposition can quite happily double tackle them and if we don't get quick ball we're kind of ****ed. Argentina had a few small and skillful players (their half backs and back 3 were crackers) but they still had enough big carriers to totally overpower us unfortunately.

                  You're right that there's room for the small ones but they need to be given space to work in by the bigguns.
                  The Bus and Milner Skudder being the prime duo. One you cant catch and the other you cant really stop.
                  I am the million man.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by joconnell View Post
                    It's happened to us fairly often though that a larger team can create space running at us and forcing two players to make a tackle - if they do that over a few phases you're probably going to have 14 running at 13 defenders at some point. On the all blacks they've the odd small player but they've also got enough large ones on the pitch at the same time that they can truck it up. We don't have many power carriers in tight to start with with (a not knackered) henderson, (a fit) healy, henshaw and (a not suspended) sob as the prime candidates. If we lose on or two of them then the opposition can quite happily double tackle them and if we don't get quick ball we're kind of ****ed. Argentina had a few small and skillful players (their half backs and back 3 were crackers) but they still had enough big carriers to totally overpower us unfortunately.

                    You're right that there's room for the small ones but they need to be given space to work in by the bigguns.
                    Ben Smith and Juan Imhoff are both 85 kgs. They make yards consistently with ball in hand. They run at pace, attack the gain line and pick gaps. For me there is just no substitute for pace.
                    He's a guy who gets up at six o'clock in the morning regardless of what time it is.

                    Comment


                      Argentina's backline were nearly a stone on average lighter than Irelands and they ran rings around the Irish players. Irelands pack was heavier also but Argentina had a simple solution to stop any momentum.. the chop tackle.


                      The thing is, if you're going to pick smaller players you have to play a different type of game. Basically a faster game, and what you also need to do that are skillful players to be able to throw the ball around better. NZ have a mix of sizes but they've one thing in common. All are highly skillful.


                      Matt Healy has been the best Irish winger in the pro 12 in the last year. He is very fast, can kick, a good pass and vision to spot opportunities. He is that small either but for some reason doesn't get a look in under Schmidt. Maybe his aerial ability isn't good enough but its a pity because the positives outweigh the negatives IMO.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by redherring View Post
                        Ben Smith and Juan Imhoff are both 85 kgs. They make yards consistently with ball in hand. They run at pace, attack the gain line and pick gaps. For me there is just no substitute for pace.
                        Yep, but the argentinians play behind a pack with serious carriers in the second and back row - for multi phase play they can keep lining up bullocking runner after bullocking runner until there's space to let the nippy feckers run riot. The all blacks have two huge carriers in nonu and savea to start with and then they bring on sonny bill. Again their second and back row are serious carriers and Coles has serious gas similar to cronin.

                        It's not as if any of the teams are fielding a full side of tiny, fast players- all of them have enough options to suck in defence or try and burst through a defensive line to allow all the wide play to be possible.
                        The system is dead! Long live the process!

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by joconnell View Post
                          Yep, but the argentinians play behind a pack with serious carriers in the second and back row - for multi phase play they can keep lining up bullocking runner after bullocking runner until there's space to let the nippy feckers run riot. The all blacks have two huge carriers in nonu and savea to start with and then they bring on sonny bill. Again their second and back row are serious carriers and Coles has serious gas similar to cronin.

                          It's not as if any of the teams are fielding a full side of tiny, fast players- all of them have enough options to suck in defence or try and burst through a defensive line to allow all the wide play to be possible.
                          Lot easier to pick holes in a defensive line if you're running at spaces not faces, and if the opposition have to decide if they're facing an offload or a ruck.
                          Ceterum censeo INM irrumandum esse.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by joconnell View Post
                            Yep, but the argentinians play behind a pack with serious carriers in the second and back row - for multi phase play they can keep lining up bullocking runner after bullocking runner until there's space to let the nippy feckers run riot. The all blacks have two huge carriers in nonu and savea to start with and then they bring on sonny bill. Again their second and back row are serious carriers and Coles has serious gas similar to cronin.

                            It's not as if any of the teams are fielding a full side of tiny, fast players- all of them have enough options to suck in defence or try and burst through a defensive line to allow all the wide play to be possible.
                            Australia's defense coped pretty damn well with the Argentinians. Ireland have all the ball carriers in the pack any other nation has. Ireland have a strong running 12 who can do damage. Ireland does not have a back three that will do what Imhoff, Mitchell, Smith, Habana or even a Watson or Seymour will do.

                            However, a back three or Earls, Zebo and Fitzgerald will hurt teams. They will also cause teams to rethink their defensive set-up because of their attacking threat. The Kearneys don't offer that and for all a brilliant finisher Bowe is he doesn't have that broken play running ability that Fitzgerald or Zebo does.
                            He's a guy who gets up at six o'clock in the morning regardless of what time it is.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by redherring View Post
                              Australia's defense coped pretty damn well with the Argentinians. Ireland have all the ball carriers in the pack any other nation has. Ireland have a strong running 12 who can do damage. Ireland does not have a back three that will do what Imhoff, Mitchell, Smith, Habana or even a Watson or Seymour will do.

                              However, a back three or Earls, Zebo and Fitzgerald will hurt teams. They will also cause teams to rethink their defensive set-up because of their attacking threat. The Kearneys don't offer that and for all a brilliant finisher Bowe is he doesn't have that broken play running ability that Fitzgerald or Zebo does.
                              I'd say the argies were in a similar situation after playing us as we were after playing france, they were pretty tired going into it compared to aus. Pocock, Hooper and Fardy did an amazing job wrecking any fast recycle they had against us too.

                              Fair point on the broken running though, I've read somewhere that kearney going for contact on the return is intentional - he's running it back to a place that the forwards already know and can be in place to clear out and ensure possession is retained. I'd rather have zebo running it back with earls and fitz off him, especially if they have enough time together as a unit to get to know each other's timings and depths. Foley, beale and giteau did this masterfully running off each other - madigan can play as a similar pivot.

                              Schmidt's game was all about accuracy and not giving the opposition the ball - apparently one of his previous issues with zebo was that he was a bit weak in going to ground and presenting the ball back cleanly. We've seen that having a miserly game wasn't enough to beat argentina. Admittedly we were missing four huge players but as you say a bit more adventure might help in cases where some of the reliable hard yard players aren't available.
                              The system is dead! Long live the process!

                              Comment


                                [QUOTE=redherring;1538607]Australia's defense coped pretty damn well with the Argentinians. Ireland have all the ball carriers in the pack any other nation has. Ireland have a strong running 12 who can do damage. Ireland does not have a back three that will do what Imhoff, Mitchell, Smith, Habana or even a Watson or Seymour will do.

                                However, a back three or Earls, Zebo and Fitzgerald will hurt teams. They will also cause teams to rethink their defensive set-up because of their attacking threat. The Kearneys don't offer that and for all a brilliant finisher Bowe is he doesn't have that broken play running ability that Fitzgerald or Zebo does.[/QUOTE
                                agreed , now as they say on liveline "talk to joe "
                                Still there's a light I hold before me
                                You're the measure of my dreams
                                The measure of my dreams.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X