Will McCall learn the lion's lesson

fox · Post by **fox** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:31 pm

Have been reading some of the posts concerning the lions down under. A lot seems to have been written blaming woodward and hitting shane wiliams on lack of tackling ability. I feel this is narrow and short sighted and misses the central point about why a group of 44 international standard players have been thorougly taught a rugby lesson by the Blacks.

Throughout the history of the game all-black rugby success has been based on doing the basics to an exceptionally high standard, under the most extreme pressure. After super 10/12 started they lost this - its back. Will ulster learn this lesson? Every NZ player seems to be able to pass off both hands, set the ball up in correct fashion, offload in the tackle, make textbook tackles.

Which brings me to ulster. Watching the first game of the season last summer it was noticeable that our plyers were much bigger and better conditioned than the season before. That said it was noticeable throughout the season that some of our players have lamentable basic rugby skills. In some cases they simply aren't able to perform the basics at all, in others its the pressure thing.

It seems that in the northern hemisphere professionalism means getting players bigger as quickly as possible. In the southern hemisphere this extends to the skills of the game. It shows. Charlie Hodgson should have been the lions 10. Why? Because he is the best player. Can't make big tackles? Fine, cover for him. Most teams practice defensive patterns with 14 anyway, whats the difference? Wiliams is small? Fine don't use him as an off the inside shoulder runner - you don't have cohen so don't pretend you do. Blitz defence so the the big guy doesn't get a run at him. Its not rocket science. They used to say a good little un will always beat an average big un. It hasn't changed. just put more confidence in the little uns with skill.

cjp · Post by **cjp** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:41 pm

Have to agree to most of that, the AB's do everything at pace and their basics are superb all passes in front etc.

McCalls problem I feel was he had too many old friends in the squad and he needed to be groomed for a few years before taking it on. I would say Galway will take over at Munster but he will learn his trade with Shannon and then possibly Connacht before taking the post.

Freddie Benson · Post by **Freddie Benson** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:50 pm

yeah agree with that

did you hear Dallaglio on the hightlights

programme?
basically said that the players disagreed with Larder's defensive plans for dealing with NZ.

not only does it say a great deal about the squad 'unity' and 'togetherness' and all that pr bs, but also the old cliche holds true - great players (in any sport) don't need much coaching.

oh to have McGeechan and Ruddock coaching the Test team

cjp · Post by **cjp** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:56 pm

Those two with Ford as defence coach we would have had a good chance, McGeechs has done what we all thought was impossible, getting RO'G to look good in attack.

There was no way they could unite 45, they couldn't unite in NZ last time, or in Aus in 2001.

colinh · Post by **colinh** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:31 am

It is all very fine and dandy saying that you can cover for players like Williams but the French found several ways around the Welsh defence and brushed him aside. The problem becomes more compounded when you have a centre that misses tackles ie Henson. I do not think you can afford to carry players who cannot tackle at any professional level. If you do and the Lions did and indeed it cost them 2 tries on Williams' side you have to have the ability to score. This is something the Lions lacked. There was no attacking threat save for Peel in the first ten minutes.

Outside of that there was nothing. Thomas telegraphed his runs everytime like an u13 player. Henson was out of his depth while Wilkinson gave his all but it was not good enough. The only back to look as if he had a right to be there was Lewsey.

In the pack we had at least parity in the set pieces and were very agressive in the loose but McCaw at al out thought the Lions in the loose with not so clever of the ball stuff but they got away with it. The main difference was in the backs and the loose play where the ball skills were inspirational. However as you righly say we seem to be obsessed with bulk whereas the real requirement is pace. Remember when you were at school and it was hammered in to you. Take the ball at pace. It has not changed a bit from those cold frosty paying fields to the Test series. All of the world class players always did this. Take it at pace and the skills will come with it because you think at a faster rate and your motor neurons react accordingly. Asd you say not exactly rocket science.

Like you I hope Mark McCall takes a good look. The problem with Ulster last season was the forwards and their coach. But I would hope that Justin Harrison has a big input there and puts sniffer where he belongs and that is anywhere but near the Ulster players. Maybe I am being a bit harsh there but I think we are saying mainly the same thing.

Colin

colinh · Post by **colinh** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:32 am

Agree Freddie, you cannot treat players like management modules like we do in the 6 nations. They have to be allowed to play what they see in front of them.

Colin

fox · Post by **fox** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:13 pm

Interesting colin that you allude to u13 players. In NZ they structure their youth around size/weight rather than age. This means that wee skilful men do not spend their first 3 years in the sport getting run over by guys who while bigger at the time, have much less potential.

Its very hard to say to a 13 year old who is getting his brad pitt knocked in that it'll all be alright in 3 or 4 years time. additionally it is hard to get a big 13 year old to work hard on his basics as every time he picks up the ball and runs he scores!

The NZ system would seem to get around this!

colinh · Post by **colinh** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:33 pm

Maybe we should have a look at that here. As you said I think we have moved away from the defining principles of the game of speed and explosiveness to bulk.

Colin

barney · Post by **barney** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:09 pm

Interesting article in yesterday's Times. On page 2 the relative contributions of the coaching team and the players towards England's RWC 2003 victory are debated.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 17,00.html

colinh · Post by **colinh** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:20 pm

I saw that too Barney. Back to the point that players are not management modules. The coaches job is o gel the players into a team and let them get on with it.

Colin

cjp · Post by **cjp** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:33 pm

While the coach has to gel the players you also have to have the captain and other characters in the squad who can gel them all together. Sorry if i keep referring back but the behind the scenes thing of the 97 tour showed the characters and how they became so united, I doubt this tour's video will show anywhere near as much unity.

Mid-Terrace · Post by **Mid-Terrace** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:51 am

It's been said that a good coach is one who can get the best out of his players and, far from doing this, I don't think our coach has got the best players out at times never mind getting the best out of them???