Munster/Leinster - Intensity

[lovesthehardground]

Watched this game and marvelled at the intensity shown by both teams. The game seemed miles ahead of ours on Friday night. I know its not right to make a direct comparison but Ulster seem a fair way off producing a similar 80 minute display that both these teams showed on Saturday.

Can't help but feel our game plan is different from theirs and this is why we seem to show less intensity. But the one thing that struck me was while we seem to defend well our attcking plays are less effective. In footballing language we seem to be playing with one up front, looking to score from set pieces, rather than playing with 2 wingers and bombing forwrad at will.

Dont get me wrong I'd rather win matches than entertain if it comes down to a straight choice between the two but I am concerned that we are too defensively orientated to the detriment of developing a more attacking game plan. Maybe as our youngsters continue to grow so to will a more open attacking game book.

[mikerob]

The game was intense, but I don't understand your point about attacking play. There was only one try in the game so defences were well on top.

Leinster's try came from a well worked set piece move.

Munster's centre pairing aren't particularly good and offered no threat against BOD & D'Arcy, so maybe Munster thought they needed to get the ball to the wings, but it wasn't particularly effective. By the end Earls and Howlett were resorting to desperate chips through that only gave the ball back to the opposition.

On Friday it was interesting that both of Ulster's trys came from close-in breaks where maybe the Scarlets were expecting the ball to be moved out wider, so their defence closer in wasn't what it should have been. Given the amount of video analysis these days, if you are predictable, you are going to be easy to defend against.

[backawaygoonahead]

You need only look at Ulster's first try to see that there is plenty of thought and planning going on. It was a move with Trimble coming in BUT was he coming to take the ball as he often does in similar positions or was he a decoy ? What makes these situations scoring opportunities is having the players who are able to play what they see in front of them and react instantly as Humph did.

We will never know what was supposed to happen or if it did actually happen, but we do know that unlike Munster who are an excellent team we have a player with the wit and ability to react to a given situation and react to it. ROG has an abundance of talent but he doesn't have the blinding acceleration off the mark to do what Humph did - very few players do.

I think that there is something in the Munster/Leinster clash which will always make it full blooded but think you shouldn't get carried away with the thought that 100 mph makes brilliant rugby, exciting perhaps but in truth Munster didn't come close to manufacturing a back move with anything close to the quality that we produced occasionally but effectively.

Too many amateur pundits here waffle on about gameplans and I have yet to hear anyone outline theIr understanding of a "gameplan" and I'd love to hear someone describe in detail what Saint's "gameplan" is this week of all weeks. In my amateur understanding we have "systems & moves" for various set pieces whether lineouts for or against, same for scrums, formations for defence whether it be in our 22 or theirs and so on with set moves on attack etc etc then of course depending on weather conditions what type of kicking game you hope to employ but then the word "gameplan" is thrown in.

Please will somebody with a greater understanding of rugby please tell me what a gameplan is. My clearest concept is to win ever contest for possession, score tries, kick goals and accumulate more points than the opposing team. Can someone tell me where I'm obviously going wrong.

Whether or not we are any good I see this morning that aimless, gameplanless Ulster and their hapless coach who knows nothing of gameplans are now ranked 7th in Europe with Saints 12th and Leinster & Munster 1st & 2nd respectively.

[Rooster]

All sides have systems and moves and video analysis has got just about every side on a level footing except for when the opposition makes errors in defence etc but when you have a few players who chuck the manual out the window at times like ihumph and RP then you get the sort of trys that both have come up with at times this season, very hard to defend against and in no way can you plan ahead for them. Most of the time Ruan just plods along and passes the ball but a few times each match he see the oppertunity to make a dash for the line, you can't simulate those moves in training, andthat is what makes him dangerous, ihumphs is the same only takes far more risks, some work some don't but mentally they put far more worry into the opposition than knowing a crashball merchant is just going to run straight at you, that just takes strength to stop, and is easier to defend

[ColinM]

All sides have systems and moves and video analysis has got just about every side on a level footing except for when the opposition makes errors in defence etc but when you have a few players who chuck the manual out the window at times like ihumph and RP then you get the sort of trys that both have come up with at times this season, very hard to defend against and in no way can you plan ahead for them. Most of the time Ruan just plods along and passes the ball but a few times each match he see the oppertunity to make a dash for the line, you can't simulate those moves in training, andthat is what makes him dangerous, ihumphs is the same only takes far more risks, some work some don't but mentally they put far more worry into the opposition than knowing a crashball merchant is just going to run straight at you, that just takes strength to stop, and is easier to defend

Rooster, I think you'll find he glides along

[OneMore]

You need only look at Ulster's first try to see that there is plenty of thought and planning going on. It was a move with Trimble coming in BUT was he coming to take the ball as he often does in similar positions or was he a decoy ? What makes these situations scoring opportunities is having the players who are able to play what they see in front of them and react instantly as Humph did.

We will never know what was supposed to happen or if it did actually happen, but we do know that unlike Munster who are an excellent team we have a player with the wit and ability to react to a given situation and react to it. ROG has an abundance of talent but he doesn't have the blinding acceleration off the mark to do what Humph did - very few players do.

I think that there is something in the Munster/Leinster clash which will always make it full blooded but think you shouldn't get carried away with the thought that 100 mph makes brilliant rugby, exciting perhaps but in truth Munster didn't come close to manufacturing a back move with anything close to the quality that we produced occasionally but effectively.

Too many amateur pundits here waffle on about gameplans and I have yet to hear anyone outline there understanding of a "gameplan" and I'd love to hear someone describe in detail what Saint's "gameplan" is this week of all weeks. In my amateur understanding we have "systems & moves" for various set pieces whether lineouts for or against, same for scrums, formations for defence whether it be in our 22 or theirs and so on with set moves on attack etc etc then of course depending on weather conditions what type of kicking game you hope to employ but then the word "gameplan" is thrown in.

Please will somebody with a greater understanding of rugby please tell me what a gameplan is. My clearest concept is to win ever contest for possession, score tries, kick goals and accumulate more points than the opposing team. Can someone tell me where I'm obviously going wrong.

Whether or not we are any good I see this morning that aimless, gameplanless Ulster and their hapless coach who knows nothing of gameplans are now ranked 7th in Europe with Saints 12th and Leinster & Munster 1st & 2nd respectively.

I would say a gameplan is the answer to the "how are we going to play?" kinds of questions. Should we tend to kick for territory, or run it from deep? Should we play a tight game for the first 30 minutes, then try to run the legs off them just before the break? Should we tend to use the rolling maul at every given opportunity, or should we feed the backline more? Their winger isn't the biggest, should we try and get Andy Trimble up against him 1-1 and use the cross-field kick?

I would say this sort of thing, in conjunction with a defensive "gameplan", would constitute "The Gameplan". I don't think it'd be fair to say that all of these sorts of things should be worked out as they go along during the 80 minutes - they may even be accused of having no gameplan.

OM

[backawaygoonahead]

Sorry Yinmare, not good enough, any fool could have produced that - no personal slight intended by the way, honest - but when this gameplan theme recurs here its always some oafs notion that it will sound impressive & knowledgable. I await some genius's concept of a detailed gameplan.

[Eggs]

I think that's right OneMore, and to bring it back to gooners post, a game plan is basically a plan for which of the "systems and moves" to use against a given opposition, taking into account their perceived weaknesses/strengths.

For me one of the things that makes the difference between a decent team and a great team is the ability to adapt. This has long been my problem with Sexton, he is very poor at changing strategy when the opposing team are not playing as expected (think vs France in 6N this year, that was the primary difference ROG made).

This is where we have piennar and iHumph, who are able to make sure we weather periods of opposition dominance, and adapt our 'gameplan' as necessary, whereas with lesser 9 and 10s teams have to wait till half time, or not at all!

(disclaimer- this is only my thoughts as another amateur, not claiming any expertise)

[backawaygoonahead]

Eggs: Still not the major document I have been awaiting, perhaps someone is working diligently as we speak. Your understanding is pretty close to my own, so unfortunately you must be wrong as I haven't the foggiest notion about the master gameplan people keep waffling on about

[OneMore]

Don't think you're going to find an answer in that case...

OM

[BR]

It may have been a case of having one eye on MK, but on Friday - every player (with the possible exception of BJ) was a second later than usual to the ruck. Perhaps that is where are southern cousins created the 'intensity'. We turned over a few balls, but were also turned over on a number of occassions. The situation leading to their 2nd try was a case in point. Gilroy took the ball into conatct and was supported by very up-right D'Arcy, Danelli & Trimble (IIRC); meanwhile the forwards were strung out in an impressive looking 3/4 line across the pitch. Result was RP was put under needless pressure and the intercept was taken.

I haven't seen the Munster game yet, but given the nature of this fixture in recent times, I'm not sure that the experience of Leinster would be holding-back even a little despite being a week away from the HEC QF. And sure Munster aren't worried about the Amlin. Hence the reported difference in intensity between the two games.

[againstthehead]

the issue is that Ulster hasn't matched the intensity shown by Leinster and Munster last saturday, all season! We've had a handful of very good performance but nothing what I would call outstanding.

[Rooster]

Nothing new as Leinster and Munster always knock the crap out of each other, was just a normal match for them.

[BR]

the issue is that Ulster hasn't matched the intensity shown by Leinster and Munster last saturday, all season! We've had a handful of very good performance but nothing what I would call outstanding.

Intensity-wise I'd say BOPB at Ravenhill was our best - and it had to be.

[Jackie Brown]

Think Munster may have done Leicester Tiggers a favour. Munster v Leinster is always at international intensity