Clermont v Ulster Saturday Dec 11 5:30pm (UK Time)

[Cap'n Grumpy]

The opinion that Lowry Is not big enough to play out half is still valid

You are right Rumn - the opinion that Lowry isn't big enough to play outhalf is valid, and I defend your right to that opinion 100%.

It is absolutely and completely 100% valid for you to have and to express that opinion . . . even though it's wrong.

[Soda]

Well that was fantastic wasn't it?
I'll admit I was sceptical after Leinster but I'm starting to believe.

Can't wait for Friday.


Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[UlsterNo9]

Awaits incoming.

I don't think you'll get the barrage you're expecting, Burns has shown in spades he's capable on more than enough ocassions for me, he just needs to do it consistently. Whatever about his spluttering in attack as of late (playing high risk), he is potentially the biggest cog in the wheel for all that is going right when we don't have the ball, he is very much calling the defensive line.

What is not coming off for him in attack is the more high risk stuff, playing on the edge of his skill set. If you take that out and he plays well within his undouted skill set and always plays the safe pass or kick we as a team do not create opportunities. Coaching staff appear more than happy with his performances shown by the amount of game time he is being given. I think he has started every game.

I do still think we need another 10, Madigan is not the future and I think Lowry is making full back his position. I honestly don't know where Curtis fits in and theres nothing in the academy excites me at out half. What I do see in the academy is a scrum half in Connor McKee that has ability in spades.

[Cap'n Grumpy]

Awaits incoming.

I don't think you'll get the barrage you're expecting, Burns has shown in spades he's capable on more than enough ocassions for me, he just needs to do it consistently. Whatever about his spluttering in attack as of late (playing high risk), he is potentially the biggest cog in the wheel for all that is going right when we don't have the ball, he is very much calling the defensive line.

What is not coming off for him in attack is the more high risk stuff, playing on the edge of his skill set. If you take that out and he plays well within his undouted skill set and always plays the safe pass or kick we as a team do not create opportunities. Coaching staff appear more than happy with his performances shown by the amount of game time he is being given. I think he has started every game.

I do still think we need another 10, Madigan is not the future and I think Lowry is making full back his position. I honestly don't know where Curtis fits in and theres nothing in the academy excites me at out half. What I do see in the academy is a scrum half in Connor McKee that has ability in spades.

Cheers Connor . . . . I mean No9

[John_e_boy]

I missed the Leinster game due to commitments with the Mrs, but tuned in to watch thon dross against the Sea Eagles.

So how do we regroup after a thoroughly amazing away victory and ensure we play consistently?

With performances like yesterday or in the RDS, we should really be dispensing with the Saints with relative ease... should being the key word.

[justinr73]

It’d be nice if we can come up with a couple of strike moves to utilise the pace of Burns. He’s surprisingly rapid.

[allezlesverres]

What a game, what a result. I'm delighted to have lost my disloyal bet against ulster. The pre match predictions about our scrum were well founded but somehow weren't as costly as they could have been. Hume and lowry were brilliant. Thor was excellent - very much a galvanising force in the team (and he was all the more impressive considering he had hardly met the team before playing). I disagree with all the BB hate. He blows hot and cold sure but is not the busted flush some make out he is.

[Cap'n Grumpy]

I missed the Leinster game due to commitments with the Mrs, but tuned in to watch thon dross against the Sea Eagles.

PEDANTRY ALERT:

Ospreys are Sea Hawks or Fish Hawks. They're not eagles.







Oops - sorry, I forgot we don't do facts on these here forums.

[Dave]

The victory came inspite of BB with a world class display from John Cooney. Most of the decision making comes from 9. Let's be honest Clermont made more mistakes in the end. BB made quite a few. There were many exceptional performances in the Ulster side last night, which mitigated Burns. If Nathan Doak had made the mistakes Billy did there would be apoplexy on here. Not much mention of Doak's try saving intervention either.

Billy's passing really isn't great. McCloskey was having to check his run, he should be coming onto it at pace. Short passing is OK but passing at greater length not great. Defensively liable at times. His kick passing is probably better than his passing out of hand. He's capable of a line break but we don't see it enough to say he's a running 10.

You can't make the broad assumption that he must be good because we won. If anyone thinks he is a quality 10, demonstrate this with a convincing agrument using examples of onfield positives. I'm happy to change my mind if I'm missing something.

I would like to see more of Lowry at 10. The issue is that he has become so darn good at 15 now. You miss that ability to pop into the line in the outside channels if he has to do the donkey work at 10. Without Addison the fullback options are limited, however.

In addition, I thought that Rea jnr was excellent. He was just a nuisance at every breakdown. Although he didn't always get his hands over the ball, he stayed on his feet long enough to be a stubborn issue to be dealt with. Very reminiscent of Chad Henry. A few decent carries also. Some of us have been calling for his inclusion for a time. Timoney again improves year on year. Nailed on starter at present. Treadwell was very good. A much better carrier than Carter. Scrummaging issues remain without Marty but great to see JMcG continue his return.

[Setanta]

"Ulster clash 'a brilliant opportunity' as Saints bid to bounce back
Lewis Ludlam says Saints must see Friday night's trip to Ulster as 'a brilliant opportunity' as they bid to bounce back from their big defeat to Racing 92."

I do hope the powers that be highlight this article to the players: the job is only half done. Brilliantly half-done!

I know it is hopeless to argue when minds are made up. However Burns controlled the first half well. Rather than, as some suggest onsocial media, looking for a new out-half, be grateful we have Madigan and Lowry in the wings and indeed when Addison and Stockdale return I would like to see Lowry get a run at ten.

[Cap'n Grumpy]

You can't make the broad assumption that he must be good because we won. If anyone thinks he is a quality 10, demonstrate this with a convincing agrument using examples of onfield positives. I'm happy to change my mind if I'm missing something.

If yer referring to what I wrote, try reading again Dave.

I said we didn't win those two matches with a poor outhalf. I didn't say he was a quality 10. I said he hasn't set the world on fire (or something of that ilk) and that he had a decent game, and I stand by that,

It seems to some on here that unless a player is world class, he must be poor, with nothing in between. Unfortunately Ulster aren't in any position to have a squad full of world class players and we have to fill it with those who are available. Sometimes that means a decent player who doesn't deserve to be slagged off just because he's not world class.

Would I like us to have a world-class 10? You bet I would, but it ain't gonna happen any day soon, so for now, I for one am happy to applaud BB when he plays to his potential, and to be critical when he plays below it, but I certainly don't expect him to play like Dan Carter, or even Paddy Jackson, more's the pity.

[Dave]

You can't make the broad assumption that he must be good because we won. If anyone thinks he is a quality 10, demonstrate this with a convincing agrument using examples of onfield positives. I'm happy to change my mind if I'm missing something.

If yer referring to what I wrote, try reading again Dave.

I said we didn't win those two matches with a poor outhalf. I didn't say he was a quality 10. I said he hasn't set the world on fire (or something of that ilk) and that he had a decent game, and I stand by that,

It seems to some on here that unless a player is world class, he must be poor, with nothing in between. Unfortunately Ulster aren't in any position to have a squad full of world class players and we have to fill it with those who are available. Sometimes that means a decent player who doesn't deserve to be slagged off just because he's not world class.

Would I like us to have a world-class 10? You bet I would, but it ain't gonna happen any day soon, so for now, I for one am happy to applaud BB when he plays to his potential, and to be critical when he plays below it, but I certainly don't expect him to play like Dan Carter, or even Paddy Jackson, more's the pity.

I wasn't referring to you specifically. I have outlined why I don't rate him. If you do, go ahead and tell us why. We don't have to agree of course, but perhaps I will learn something from your perspective. I haven't read anyone slagging him off for being not world class, that certainly wasn't my point so I have no response to that.

[Cap'n Grumpy]

I have outlined why I don't rate him. If you do, go ahead and tell us why. We don't have to agree of course, but perhaps I will learn something from your perspective. I haven't read anyone slagging him off for being not world class, that certainly wasn't my point so I have no response to that.

The impression I get is if someone's not world class, then they're rubbish, which I just don't get.
I presumed you were referring to me when you wrote "You can't make the broad assumption that he must be good because we won".
I never said he was good - I said he was decent. He certainly wasn't bad - we wouldn't have won if he had been. It took a team performance and that includes No10. Of course all that is relative to where you set the benchmark.

I think we are in agreement that we all want a better player than Billy as our first choice 10 - I'm just saying it's not gonna happen and getting behind Billy and pushing him to keep playing his best is better than slagging him off. Let's be honest, if we had him as our #10 understudy, he's probably as good as many teams' backup outhalf and better than some.

That's where I rate him. If you don't rate him at all that's your choice.

[rumncoke]

Lowry at out half is not a case of ability it is sadly a case of survivability and those who want him to play out half are putting the needs of the team before the welfare of the player .

[John_e_boy]

Re: Lowry at 10 or 15

What happens when Addison comes back. Isn't he the first choice 15 when fit?

I agree that Lowry has been excellent at 15