The UAFC

Inspector Brown wrote:Is there anybody on any of the UR committees who has the first clue about how to pick a coach for a professional rugby team?
We've had a succession of failures. Kiss has had more than enough time to turn things around so he needs to be replaced. Logan seems to be sitting in the middle of the mess so he can feck off too.
I've seen nothing to suggest that Peel has done anything brilliant with the backs either.
I have my doubts about JD as well.

Funny I was asking that today.

No young blood who know about modern day rugby and what’s involved in it.

To the rest of your points—I agree with everyone


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Food... didn’t see that coming as an excuse but interesting that somebody must have an issue with when the team eat.. of course in case professional sport these are the things that can make the difference.. for example in football you will find top teams training at the same time as games etc .. anyway food.

I don't think Ulster fans expect too much. We expect not to be taken for eejits and lied to eg "it'll be grand when Les gets here" or "his propping days are over" etc.

Our MO is ultimate disappointment. Take for example our new 10. Put all the rumoured names together and pick out the most underwhelming. But spin it out in the media for a couple of weeks.

How anyone expects world domination when courting the rejects of our more successful neighbours is beyond me. Leinster seem to have a pretty good record at talent spotting youngsters. Surely if we wanted to beat them we would be attracting their best players who simply would be busting to come here and win things? Simplistic I know but seriously why presently would anyone be attracted to come here and play other than £££.

Kiss isn't fully responsible for our current situation, but he clearly isn't getting a tune from this squad. If a coach is unable to get the squad to understand his complex system then a good coach changes the system and doesn't blame the players.

Donkey O'Callahan claiming Ulster looked unfit vs Leinster.

kingofthehill wrote:

Dave wrote:It is the defensive system that is causing confusion and chaos. Leinster played with linespeed we didn't. Which system is right/wrong? All defence coach gurus insist on linespeed no matter what system you play. As Gustard states: " it covers a multitude of sins". Also the idea of one player missing a tackle is ideologically wrong. It is the team that missed the tackle.

https://youtu.be/OJencUYieiU

That’s a very general view ‘all defence coach gurus insist on line speed no matter what system you play.’

Line speed comes when you have equal numbers or numbers up. This will generally come from the attack being within the 15m line and touchline.

Or

Slowing their ball down (through positive tackle) makes it easier for defences to get ‘square’ and numbered up with the attack allowing line speed.

‘Soft’ defence is a system. Numbers down

‘Drift’, ‘get square when numbers equal’, ‘tackle’.

Gustard is excellent, big thing for him is ‘bodies on feet’. Very simple mind frame.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All fair comment but what hasn't been mentioned is the all important gain line battle.
A rush defense will obviously get over the gain line quicker and provide impetus to keep an oppositon on the back foot.
If successful, moving the ball wider off the back foot becomes virtually impossible regardless of numbers.
Reversed if the defence concede the gain line it's impossible to apply a successful rush off the back foot and a cold defence has to be applied as a last resort.

Reference Australia down to 13 v Wales in the last world cup.
The Aussies rushed the Welsh for that period inside their own 22 and shut them out.
Despite being down on numbers they could afford to continually rush as they didn't concede the gain line.

Coaches now refer to defence as attacking without the ball as it can only be achieved realistically with rushing at every feasible opportunity winning shoulder battles and gain line collisions.
Any side which doesn't apply effective line speed where possible invites an opposition on to them, concedes gain lines and will therefore lose collisions and invite pressure as opposed to applying it.
They can't slow ball as a consequence giving less time to organise so defenders can be isolated and picked off at will by the oppositon.

Sound familiar?

For what it's worth, I asked this very question of a former and highly respected Ulster player after the match on Saturday.

His response was "Logan, he's a cancer"

Rovi Snave wrote:For what it's worth, I asked this very question of a former and highly respected Ulster player after the match on Saturday.

His response was "Logan, he's a cancer"

Ferris doesn’t count.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kingofthehill wrote:

Rovi Snave wrote:For what it's worth, I asked this very question of a former and highly respected Ulster player after the match on Saturday.

His response was "Logan, he's a cancer"

Ferris doesn’t count.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wasn't Ferris

I'm saying no more!!!

Says it all......

https://youtu.be/I87WVUhOnIM

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Liz Fraser wrote:

kingofthehill wrote:

Dave wrote:It is the defensive system that is causing confusion and chaos. Leinster played with linespeed we didn't. Which system is right/wrong? All defence coach gurus insist on linespeed no matter what system you play. As Gustard states: " it covers a multitude of sins". Also the idea of one player missing a tackle is ideologically wrong. It is the team that missed the tackle.

https://youtu.be/OJencUYieiU

That’s a very general view ‘all defence coach gurus insist on line speed no matter what system you play.’

Line speed comes when you have equal numbers or numbers up. This will generally come from the attack being within the 15m line and touchline.

Or

Slowing their ball down (through positive tackle) makes it easier for defences to get ‘square’ and numbered up with the attack allowing line speed.

‘Soft’ defence is a system. Numbers down

‘Drift’, ‘get square when numbers equal’, ‘tackle’.

Gustard is excellent, big thing for him is ‘bodies on feet’. Very simple mind frame.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All fair comment but what hasn't been mentioned is the all important gain line battle.
A rush defense will obviously get over the gain line quicker and provide impetus to keep an oppositon on the back foot.
If successful, moving the ball wider off the back foot becomes virtually impossible regardless of numbers.
Reversed if the defence concede the gain line it's impossible to apply a successful rush off the back foot and a cold defence has to be applied as a last resort.

Reference Australia down to 13 v Wales in the last world cup.
The Aussies rushed the Welsh for that period inside their own 22 and shut them out.
Despite being down on numbers they could afford to continually rush as they didn't concede the gain line.

Coaches now refer to defence as attacking without the ball as it can only be achieved realistically with rushing at every feasible opportunity winning shoulder battles and gain line collisions.
Any side which doesn't apply effective line speed where possible invites an opposition on to them, concedes gain lines and will therefore lose collisions and invite pressure as opposed to applying it.
They can't slow ball as a consequence giving less time to organise so defenders can be isolated and picked off at will by the oppositon.

Sound familiar?

Nicely put, Liz. The more pressure you put on the opposition the more likely you will get turnover ball. A high percentage of turnover ball results in a score. It's a huge facet of the game where we have such little reward.

Nobody picking up on the topic of food and when the squad eat even though for some reason it was offered up by Rory when I wasn't aware it was being queried?

Is no one really interested in what the Pro Game Committee actually do ? I accept they didn't miss any tackles or collapse any scrums but they are from what I was advised the collective group that run this current shambolic mess... and what Logan will use as its not me it them excuse...

Two former European Cup winners including the current Operations Manager and the CEO headed by a previous Ulster Manager of long standing.. are. they running the PRO Game or is it all Logan..

Dave wrote:

Liz Fraser wrote:

kingofthehill wrote:

Dave wrote:It is the defensive system that is causing confusion and chaos. Leinster played with linespeed we didn't. Which system is right/wrong? All defence coach gurus insist on linespeed no matter what system you play. As Gustard states: " it covers a multitude of sins". Also the idea of one player missing a tackle is ideologically wrong. It is the team that missed the tackle.

https://youtu.be/OJencUYieiU

That’s a very general view ‘all defence coach gurus insist on line speed no matter what system you play.’

Line speed comes when you have equal numbers or numbers up. This will generally come from the attack being within the 15m line and touchline.

Or

Slowing their ball down (through positive tackle) makes it easier for defences to get ‘square’ and numbered up with the attack allowing line speed.

‘Soft’ defence is a system. Numbers down

‘Drift’, ‘get square when numbers equal’, ‘tackle’.

Gustard is excellent, big thing for him is ‘bodies on feet’. Very simple mind frame.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All fair comment but what hasn't been mentioned is the all important gain line battle.
A rush defense will obviously get over the gain line quicker and provide impetus to keep an oppositon on the back foot.
If successful, moving the ball wider off the back foot becomes virtually impossible regardless of numbers.
Reversed if the defence concede the gain line it's impossible to apply a successful rush off the back foot and a cold defence has to be applied as a last resort.

Reference Australia down to 13 v Wales in the last world cup.
The Aussies rushed the Welsh for that period inside their own 22 and shut them out.
Despite being down on numbers they could afford to continually rush as they didn't concede the gain line.

Coaches now refer to defence as attacking without the ball as it can only be achieved realistically with rushing at every feasible opportunity winning shoulder battles and gain line collisions.
Any side which doesn't apply effective line speed where possible invites an opposition on to them, concedes gain lines and will therefore lose collisions and invite pressure as opposed to applying it.
They can't slow ball as a consequence giving less time to organise so defenders can be isolated and picked off at will by the oppositon.

Sound familiar?

Nicely put, Liz. The more pressure you put on the opposition the more likely you will get turnover ball. A high percentage of turnover ball results in a score. It's a huge facet of the game where we have such little reward.

We'd probably only kick it away Dave

All too true, Liz.

rumncoke wrote:Kiss is an unlucky Coach the only quality player in the back row has been injured for 2 years his second best ( Henry ) is similarly afflicted frequently by injury .
Then add in the loss of two players to an outstanding legal matter and his best back to head aches he has definitely not been blessed by luck .

As Napoleon said give me lucky generals .

As others have pointed out he then selects Mix and Match back lines which hardly provide any basis to create the understanding necessary for a strong defence and as pointed out by someone else defence is not down to individuals it requires team work

Please someone locate a lucky général forget the structures the committees aren’t on the pitch.

It is like buying the idea that politicians can fix the NHS

Finite resources will never match infinite demand .
That the BBC consider waiting lists growing is news defeats me when the waiting lists start to fall will be news but I don’t expect to hear it my life time .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you comparing UR to the NHS. You're mental.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk