Snipe Watson wrote:Can a chap not enjoy his sabbatical without having to correct egregious errors?
In discussing decoy runners and the like we're missing the point. Notwithstanding the apparently random selection policy in the backline, particularly at centre, debating the quality of our backline play is a distraction, because our bad back play is a symptom, not the root of the problem.
We rarely gain parity at the breakdown and that is the long and short of it. Our tackling is weak and our contesting of the ball lacks aggression (It reeks of rugby league). Too many carry badly with poor technique and they don’t protect the ball in contact. We’re too easy to stop, slow down and turn over.
Poor with the ball and poor without the ball, resulting in knock-ons, turnovers and slow ball. Any backline in the world would struggle under those circumstances playing with bad ball and continually on the back foot.
Until the forwards start to do their jobs effectively, we will be second or third rate. Once they supply the backs with consistently decent ball and at speed, the backs will rediscover their mojo and we can go places. Otherwise expect more of the same.
Snipe Watson wrote:Can a chap not enjoy his sabbatical without having to correct egregious errors?
In discussing decoy runners and the like we're missing the point. Notwithstanding the apparently random selection policy in the backline, particularly at centre, debating the quality of our backline play is a distraction, because our bad back play is a symptom, not the root of the problem.
We rarely gain parity at the breakdown and that is the long and short of it. Our tackling is weak and our contesting of the ball lacks aggression (It reeks of rugby league). Too many carry badly with poor technique and they don’t protect the ball in contact. We’re too easy to stop, slow down and turn over.
Poor with the ball and poor without the ball, resulting in knock-ons, turnovers and slow ball. Any backline in the world would struggle under those circumstances playing with bad ball and continually on the back foot.
Until the forwards start to do their jobs effectively, we will be second or third rate. Once they supply the backs with consistently decent ball and at speed, the backs will rediscover their mojo and we can go places. Otherwise expect more of the same.
Who are you and what have you done with the daft aul grumpy git that helps me drown my sorrows with the Great Unwashed on match night. If you want to pretend to post as Snipe you shouldn't have been so sensible!
Always ask yourself, "What would Big Rodney do"... And every time the answer is... "Eat It"
Snipe Watson wrote:Can a chap not enjoy his sabbatical without having to correct egregious errors?
In discussing decoy runners and the like we're missing the point. Notwithstanding the apparently random selection policy in the backline, particularly at centre, debating the quality of our backline play is a distraction, because our bad back play is a symptom, not the root of the problem.
We rarely gain parity at the breakdown and that is the long and short of it. Our tackling is weak and our contesting of the ball lacks aggression (It reeks of rugby league). Too many carry badly with poor technique and they don’t protect the ball in contact. We’re too easy to stop, slow down and turn over.
Poor with the ball and poor without the ball, resulting in knock-ons, turnovers and slow ball. Any backline in the world would struggle under those circumstances playing with bad ball and continually on the back foot.
Until the forwards start to do their jobs effectively, we will be second or third rate. Once they supply the backs with consistently decent ball and at speed, the backs will rediscover their mojo and we can go places. Otherwise expect more of the same.
Liz Fraser wrote:
Dave you can't blame Ethel for the quality of tea.
Other tea bags were sold out and she's had to make do with the best available.
Need to be very careful what we say about teabagging with legal action pending.
I heard Ethel's tea licks balls.
NEVER MOVE ON. Years on, I cannot ever watch Ireland with anything but indifference, I continue to wish for the imminent death of Donal Spring, the FIRFUC's executioner of Wee Paddy & Wee Stu, and I hate the FIRFUCs with undiminished passion.
Snipe Watson wrote:Can a chap not enjoy his sabbatical without having to correct egregious errors?
In discussing decoy runners and the like we're missing the point. Notwithstanding the apparently random selection policy in the backline, particularly at centre, debating the quality of our backline play is a distraction, because our bad back play is a symptom, not the root of the problem.
We rarely gain parity at the breakdown and that is the long and short of it. Our tackling is weak and our contesting of the ball lacks aggression (It reeks of rugby league). Too many carry badly with poor technique and they don’t protect the ball in contact. We’re too easy to stop, slow down and turn over.
Poor with the ball and poor without the ball, resulting in knock-ons, turnovers and slow ball. Any backline in the world would struggle under those circumstances playing with bad ball and continually on the back foot.
Until the forwards start to do their jobs effectively, we will be second or third rate. Once they supply the backs with consistently decent ball and at speed, the backs will rediscover their mojo and we can go places. Otherwise expect more of the same.
+1
I don't really think you needed to intervene Snipe as no one is disputing your point that the forwards are producing shyte ball for the backs certainly during phase play.
Harking back to KOTHs original point, we are not running strike moves looking to line break despite having had opportunities to do it off of scrum ball.
If you are saying they have not had that platform I am just going to have to disagree with you and move on.
Liz... can I just say how sexy it is to have woman talk the finer details of the game.. so often when with my missus and her lady friends I have to listen what they wouldn’t do to poor Tommy and their ignorance shows because they repeatedly rate Tommy by saying they would give him one even if I think he has played quite well...
You should have volunteered for the woman’s committee it would have been a great PR exercise and the current incumbent I am told doesn’t even sit in the Chair because he lacks the most basic understanding of the ladies game... ps have u ever played ?
Thanks for those kind words Mr Cockatrice.
Yes I have played and I have coached womens rugby.
A lot of lip service going on currently in Ulster Rugby for both sees which is good to get out of my system on here I must say.
You vent yer spleen Liz Luv and fair play till ye. Ye won't find any of thon Miss O'Jinnists on here. As soon as you've finished the ironing and cleared up them dishes, you put down yer knitting and tell us what's on yer mind. Them hairdressers charge way too much to listen till ye, but we'll let ye talk fer hours and it doesn't even have to make sense e.g. Rum
Support the Team, not the regime Guinness is Good For You.
jean valjean wrote:As BOD keeps saying there are no such things as a decoy runner, they have to be an option for a pass as well in order to keep the defence interested. Too often we send someone up who clear as day isn't going to get the ball, which makes it so easy for the defender to ignore them and move to the next carrier. Janny the loop gets slagged a lot but at least there is some variation to leinsters game and it is done much closer to the gain line. At least we have a settled backline .
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
That's weird about BOD because I've heard him go into detail about set up plays which deliberately ultises decoy runners.
Decoy runners job is to sell the move and convince the oppositon they are getting the ball.
The reciever does the opposite and that's the idea and deception through body language and previous plays.
For a decoy runner to convince the oppositon he is getting the ball when he actually gets it makes obviously no sense.
However I don't think players run the same lines so positively if they don't know whether they are getting the ball or not.
I personally believe off first phase that "decoys" along with designated strike runners should be the employed and thereafter it's all about the options as BOD apparently describes, where defences are less organised.
This is becomes more about holding defences and creating room in limited space.
I just believe to refuse to use strike moves off first phase is denying a side genuine opportunity to line break and score when time and space is on offer.
I believe we are saying the same thing in a roundabout way. The decoy must appear to the defender to be an option hence making them check their line speed. I believe the likes of Leinster leave the option open for the ball carrier to decide to dummy the pass or actually give it. We need to get beyond concentrating soley on where we are supposed to be and play a bit more heads up.
Tender wrote:You vent yer spleen Liz Luv and fair play till ye. Ye won't find any of thon Miss O'Jinnists on here. As soon as you've finished the ironing and cleared up them dishes, you put down yer knitting and tell us what's on yer mind. Them hairdressers charge way too much to listen till ye, but we'll let ye talk fer hours and it doesn't even have to make sense e.g. Rum
Tender have you just been entered by Julian Simmons?