Heineken Round 2 Gloucester Away Sat Dec 19 3:15pm

[justinr73]

No need to beat ourselves up about it.

The worst bit was the first try when nobody could make a tackle.

[Bobbievee]

No need to beat ourselves up about it.

The worst bit was the first try when nobody could make a tackle.

yep; my point is that poor tackling at the beginning, and poor ball retention at the end cost us the game....irrespective of the refereeing decisions. To compete at the top level we need to get these details sorted.
Even Edinburgh, defending a 1 point lead against Sale, managed to protect it with legal ball retention for the final 3 minutes.

[jean valjean]

The reality is that both leinster and munster would have won that game at a canter. We aren't at the level yet to compete in a Heineken qf so concentrate on the league and a potential run in the challenge Cup if we can make it. Fully expect us to do a number on Gloucester in the return fixture providing we get marcell and a lock back.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[Marco]

I’m not sure we’re so far away and it was insightful to see what it meant to the Gloucester lads to win, we were a scalp, no doubt and remember that effectively both sides were only shooting at best for the Challenge Cup at the start. I remember a few close losses in Europe by Munster and Leinster, before they clicked. Convinced Dan is the right coach, a couple of key recruits needed in the pack to sustain the momentum. Btw anyone know if Reidy picked up something, he was strangely subdued?

[Big-al]

Ulster need a few backrows coming through or we're back to the mess we were in when Henry retired.

[launish116]

Ulster need a few backrows coming through or we're back to the mess we were in when Henry retired.

Ulster needed a few back rows coming through last season.

[Bart S]

Would like to see one of the young backrow trio of McCann, Allison or Marcus Rea given a start against Connacht, alongside a couple of the seasoned pro’s (2 from Marcell, Jordi and Reidy, depending upon availability).

[rumncoke]

I have lectured well and you my fellow addicts are learning the key to success in rugby is the back row.

The back row are the best carriers of the ball and the best initial defence and final defence. Securing the ball 'set piece" is the task of the front row and second row -- the back row are tasked with winning.

The first try was a shambles by Ulster -- rectified and the tackling improved the mistake , the big mistake,was the failure to close the game with 2 minutes on the clock . The options were either to stick -up the shirt or lose it into touch making them try to come up the pitch. the latter, with that referee would more than likely ended in the same result -- a penalty.

Thus the mistake was to maintain trying to attack with the ball rather than run the clock down -- with a wet ball -- which is where a wise old captain comes in ( it would never have happen with Muller or Best ) Before Ulster's last put in there should have been a head to head -- talk by the captain . But with that referee a penalty for anything was possible at that stage of the game.

( It may seem I am being harsh on the man -- but my opinion of him is not based on his decisions but the manner in he which applied them ---the delay in decision making in favour of Ulster ( Penalty try -- Stockdale's knock on ) and the haste to show three yellow cards against Ulster -- two of which were harsh -- O Connors and McIlroys -- (I actually think that penalty try was given because McIlroy whispered something when shown the red -- study the look the look of the ref at McIlroy after he has given him the red) > The nature of the question to the TMO -- 'would he have scored had the ball gone to hand' there were actual three - or four questions possible --
1/ was it a forward pass ? 2 / was the knock on dilberate 3/ could the receiver have knock the ball on the same manner as McIlroy and 4 would he have scored answer to the 1/ 50/50,, 2/50/50 , 3/ 50/50 4-/ depends on 1/2/3 and then his failure to review the last try --- which of course was a match decider.)

[Cap'n Grumpy]

[Off the Top]

Well said that man!

[turko]

Would like to see one of the young backrow trio of McCann, Allison or Marcus Rea given a start against Connacht, alongside a couple of the seasoned pro’s (2 from Marcell, Jordi and Reidy, depending upon availability).

Totally agree we need to get McCann involved. He surely is the future? Let’s just get him in there now as he has a lot to learn.....what better time to do it than with MC on the pitch with him.

[rumncoke]

Captain the only reason Leinster and Munster have been so successful over the years is because of the quality of their back rows -- when was the last time you would have swopped an Ulster back for a Munster one and Leinster backs have enjoyed a reputation due to key players (BoD and Sexton) but their superiority over those of Ulster is not that evident.

granted the front five of both Munster and Leinster have also been better then Ulsters but in terms of winning the set piece possession there is actually little difference, Ulster's set piece has usually been reasonable ( providing referees know the game )

[justinr73]

The only reason?

Really?

Just because Baggy isn’t around to point out you’re talking horlix, please don’t assume the rest of us (apart from Bobbie apparently) aren’t thinking it.

[Cap'n Grumpy]

Rumn, I will concede that even a stopped clock is right twice a day and that from time to time you do make valid points.

Difficult to read or comprehend due to your inability to use punctuation etc, but still valid points .... sometimes.

No one on this forum disagrees over the importance of a back row.

Let me educate you - lecture you if I may, but I suspect that you, a long term addict are incapable of learning well from anyone.

I was rolling my eyes at the general tone of your post - to say, and I quote, "I have lectured well and you my fellow addicts are learning the key to success in rugby is the back row" is not only highly inaccurate, but also very patronising. I refer of course to the first half of the sentence. Most of us know of the importance of the back row, but you only fool yourself if you think we learned that from you.

I wonder do you ever even read what others have written , and just as importantly, do you ever read what you have written.

I give one recent example to illustrate my point. I can guarantee that most people on this forum will immediately see what I mean, but I suspect that you do not. You wrote, "the only reason Leinster and Munster have been so successful over the years is because of the quality of their back rows"

That is not only incorrect, but also highly insulting to the other 12 players on the pitch at any time wearing the blue or the red.

It also contradicts your subsequent statement in the same post, and I quote, "granted the front five of both Munster and Leinster have also been better then Ulsters". So that being the case, can you still argue that the only reason for their success is because of their back row?

I won't lecture any more, and I certainly won't waste time on your comments about Leinster's and Munster's backs other than to say, we may not have liked O'Gara, O'Driscoll and O'Sexton for example, but would any of us have said that we wouldn't wish to have them in an Ulster team, (albeit for some that might be only if they were from Ulster, but that is a moot point). If we had Ulster players of their calibre at their peak, would you still be saying the only reason for Ulster's presumed success was because of our back row? Do you suggest that the whole outrage about the treatment of Paddy and Stu was needless, because dropping them from the squad should have been regarded as a blessing in disguise as we could have used the money saved to bring in better back-row forwards. After all, 10s and centres simply make up the numbers, while the back row win matches.

Finally by way of proof that you never read posts from others or indeed your own, Please go back to the comments I posted before your one starting with "Capt you are of course joking the referee is not just incompetent but dangerous". You then went on to lecture me (and presumably others) on some of the decisions the referee made during the match, but had clearly failed to see that I had made similar comments already before you did. (Stopped Clock Syndrome). You then went on to expound at length and pontificate on the reasons behind Ethan McIlroys red card, and why it should not have been a red card. I think I have finally found a possible reason you spout so much guff - either you have red-yellow colour vision deficiency, or you need to dramatically adjust the colour balance on your TV. Obviously that didn't affect you when playing, way back in the days when everything was in black and white (or sepia), but either way, it is affecting your watching of rugby matches in the full colour era. Capiche?

[flatpass]

Rumn, I will concede that even a stopped clock is right twice a day and that from time to time you do make valid points.

Difficult to read or comprehend due to your inability to use punctuation etc, but still valid points .... sometimes.

No one on this forum disagrees over the importance of a back row.

Let me educate you - lecture you if I may, but I suspect that you, a long term addict are incapable of learning well from anyone.

I was rolling my eyes at the general tone of your post - to say, and I quote, "I have lectured well and you my fellow addicts are learning the key to success in rugby is the back row" is not only highly inaccurate, but also very patronising. I refer of course to the first half of the sentence. Most of us know of the importance of the back row, but you only fool yourself if you think we learned that from you.

I wonder do you ever even read what others have written , and just as importantly, do you ever read what you have written.

I give one recent example to illustrate my point. I can guarantee that most people on this forum will immediately see what I mean, but I suspect that you do not. You wrote, "the only reason Leinster and Munster have been so successful over the years is because of the quality of their back rows"

That is not only incorrect, but also highly insulting to the other 12 players on the pitch at any time wearing the blue or the red.

It also contradicts your subsequent statement in the same post, and I quote, "granted the front five of both Munster and Leinster have also been better then Ulsters". So that being the case, can you still argue that the only reason for their success is because of their back row?

I won't lecture any more, and I certainly won't waste time on your comments about Leinster's and Munster's backs other than to say, we may not have liked O'Gara, O'Driscoll and O'Sexton for example, but would any of us have said that we wouldn't wish to have them in an Ulster team, (albeit for some that might be only if they were from Ulster, but that is a moot point). If we had Ulster players of their calibre at their peak, would you still be saying the only reason for Ulster's presumed success was because of our back row? Do you suggest that the whole outrage about the treatment of Paddy and Stu was needless, because dropping them from the squad should have been regarded as a blessing in disguise as we could have used the money saved to bring in better back-row forwards. After all, 10s and centres simply make up the numbers, while the back row win matches.

Finally by way of proof that you never read posts from others or indeed your own, Please go back to the comments I posted before your one starting with "Capt you are of course joking the referee is not just incompetent but dangerous". You then went on to lecture me (and presumably others) on some of the decisions the referee made during the match, but had clearly failed to see that I had made similar comments already before you did. (Stopped Clock Syndrome). You then went on to expound at length and pontificate on the reasons behind Ethan McIlroys red card, and why it should not have been a red card. I think I have finally found a possible reason you spout so much guff - either you have red-yellow colour vision deficiency, or you need to dramatically adjust the colour balance on your TV. Obviously that didn't affect you when playing, way back in the days when everything was in black and white (or sepia), but either way, it is affecting your watching of rugby matches in the full colour era. Capiche?
[/quote
As good a remedy as any when you can’t sleep...