I must have been watching a different game on Saturday. They passed the ball around quite a bit (the match stats show Tigers made twice as many passes as Sarries), so you can't accuse them of a lack of endeavour. But it is all but impossible to pass round a press defence, particularly the way Saracens implement it. For me the forwards just failed to create any space for the backs to use. Sarries committed few players to the ruck, whereas Tigers had to commit more to win clean ball, consequently the defensive line pretty much always outnumbered the attack. I'd have thought the forwards would have attacked more round the fringe of the ruck to pull in a few defenders. Despite that, Goneva got close twice and should really have scored one (it looked easier to stretch out and score when he flung it back inside).
Yes you noticed that, so did I and so did the commentators, however the players and coaches either didn't or were unable to adjust the game plan to allow for it.
This inability to adjust to circumstances but rather continue with the same old, same old, is a feature of Tigers play book and often results in a loss to those teams that are sufficiently savvy and can match us physically and there are several teams in the prem that can do that.
To be honest with the extra weeks rest and with Saffas having HC matches either side of this one that was a pretty dire performance and result from Tigers. Tigers have certainly declined the last two seasons.
With the players we have leaving I have little optimism that next year will be any better, even with Mauger arriving.
Nowadays referees decide matches, players by how much.
I must have been watching a different game on Saturday. They passed the ball around quite a bit (the match stats show Tigers made twice as many passes as Sarries), so you can't accuse them of a lack of endeavour. But it is all but impossible to pass round a press defence, particularly the way Saracens implement it. For me the forwards just failed to create any space for the backs to use. Sarries committed few players to the ruck, whereas Tigers had to commit more to win clean ball, consequently the defensive line pretty much always outnumbered the attack. I'd have thought the forwards would have attacked more round the fringe of the ruck to pull in a few defenders. Despite that, Goneva got close twice and should really have scored one (it looked easier to stretch out and score when he flung it back inside).
Yes you noticed that, so did I and so did the commentators, however the players and coaches either didn't or were unable to adjust the game plan to allow for it.
This inability to adjust to circumstances but rather continue with the same old, same old, is a feature of Tigers play book and often results in a loss to those teams that are sufficiently savvy and can match us physically and there are several teams in the prem that can do that.
To be honest with the extra weeks rest and with Saffas having HC matches either side of this one that was a pretty dire performance and result from Tigers. Tigers have certainly declined the last two seasons.
With the players we have leaving I have little optimism that next year will be any better, even with Mauger arriving.
I think it also shows the impact that Manu can have on the game, his ability to power through a couple of tackles transforms even slow back foot ball. He also makes a big impact at the breakdown. Unfortunately Tigers don't seem to have changed their gameplay in his absence, we had Bai trying to emulate Manu but running into the tackle of Barritt for whom this was meat and drink.
jgriffin wrote:I am pleased to see that so many rely on their own view, not statistics nor probably a nuanced view of rugby - see Boy Dave's post for nuance and balance.
I have been a critic in the same way as Crumblies, as you know I believe that MOC crippled our progression with poor backs playbook and an abrasive personality. I am not the only poster on here who has been told by an ex-player how divisive and autocratic he was. Despite my view, and anecdotal evidence for it, statistics suggest it was a successful period for the club and one that many of the so-called 'superior' clubs would kill for. Consequently, I have to acknowledge, hopefully with humility, that an outsider would question my conclusions.
Performances are not just cyclical (good season, bad season)but fluctuate in the short-term; some events are unlikely (a WBP at Saffacens). Quins are an example of a team that have suffered a dip in form; Chiefs are having a good season, following a couple of indifferent ones; Bath remain arch-flaky; Stains are becoming erratic. It is perhaps a product of the salary cap, and in the nature of sport, that domination is not possible over an extended period of time.
My conclusion - statistically, Cockers has been unassailable. This season has highlighted concerns, the Board has acted as fast as they could - Phil Blake is strong evidence of that and a consequent improvement in play. The quest for a dominant DOR is illusory - they don't exist; Joe Schmidt is the nearest at present but he has always had top-line resources to draw on, we haven't, and we can't afford to.
I believe Cockers will go, almost certainly to France; exactly when? I'd put money on this summer, without fanfare, as likely as anything, but I think he will go before he is pushed, unless he has actually been pushed already. I do not think he will be replaced with anyone as committed, knowledgable and humble; be careful what you wish for.
I agree with all but the bit about Cockers leaving. I think his passion for the club will mean that it would require either a direct push or enough of a hint to make him look elsewhere and I can't see that happening before the end of next season when the new coaching set up has had a chance to shine.
I would be very surprised if we win the premiership this year as with the current injury book we're not the best team. Getting to the semis will be a real achievement. That said, if we do get so far, well, you never say never
Life can be unpredictable, so eat your pudding first!
I think we should make a distinction between our "back line" and our "attack".
Forwards, backs and centres carry the ball, when in possession; attacking is not just the remit of the backline.
Our attack is poor because we do not offer support to the carrier and we do not run lines behind the contact and we do not have an effective kick chase.
Sonny Bill Williams could not offload to someone who isn't there!!
My concern isn't with the individuals; you can still get results with "lesser" players if the structure and coaching is very good.
My concern is with the set up when we are in possession, particularly in a broken field. We are very predictable and the majority of premiership defences are savvy enough, nowadays, to nullify the obvious.
For me, this is where Mauger will pay off: even with our current back line, he would make a difference.
With the likes of Betham, Mermoz & Le Roux (or similar) plus Camacho, Benjy, Manu, Allen, Loamanu, Betham, Bell, Morris, Burns, YBY etc, etc, in our back line next year, I am not giving up hope.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man
fentiger wrote:Billy Vunipola and Goneva have both been cited!
The case of Leicester Tigers' Vereniki Goneva, cited for striking Saracens' Kelly Brown with his forearm, will be dealt with by the chair via papers only, in agreement with the club and without the player present.
Read more at http://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/35 ... sR4DaBW.99
I have been attending Tigers games for nearly 20 years and never been part of any chat room but feel compelled to join now to express my concerns over the current situation with the team.
Although we have had success domestically we have become very much second rate in Europe since 2010. Only two loosing quarter finals in six seasons has been a very poor return England's biggest club and we don't look close to turning it around in the near future (I accept the Salary Cap issue but given the impact on the French team of big spending French clubs I am not in favour of its abolition). Tigers compare poorly to the results of Saints (2QF, 1F) and Saracens (QF, 2SF, F) under the same restrictions.
My main concern is over our style of play. It is great to have a consistently excellent front row and I have cheered as loudly as others when we have won important games due to the power of our scrum and 5m lineouts (although in the last 2 years we have regressed rapidly in this area). However we have almost become a one trick pony and lack a Plan B - having such a good platform should make it easier for a backs unit to function not harder. Over the last several years our backs play has been well below par and our play after the 2nd or 3rd phase appears to be almost devoid of any effective attacking ideas at all - we honestly look totally clueless at times! The Saracens game just highlighted problems that have been growing for a long time - we could probably have played for another 80 minutes without scoring a try. I understand that MOC probably deserves much of the blame for this but surely something should have been done sooner to address an issue that has been evident for several years.
Loosing several who go one to become key players at other clubs – Ford, Waldrom, 12trees and probably Selvie, Gibson this year – is another very major concern. Kay and Healy's comments on Saturday indicated as much.
We have been on a downward trend for several seasons and ultimately the responsibility must rest with the DOR and I feel it is time for change. I hope the addition of Mauger next year will help but it may well not be enough. This is not a response to one poor season more a reflection on the way the team has been heading for several years. We are England's biggest club at which some blips in form are to be expected occasionally – a sustained downward spiral is not.
I must have been watching a different game on Saturday. They passed the ball around quite a bit (the match stats show Tigers made twice as many passes as Sarries), so you can't accuse them of a lack of endeavour. But it is all but impossible to pass round a press defence, particularly the way Saracens implement it. For me the forwards just failed to create any space for the backs to use. Sarries committed few players to the ruck, whereas Tigers had to commit more to win clean ball, consequently the defensive line pretty much always outnumbered the attack. I'd have thought the forwards would have attacked more round the fringe of the ruck to pull in a few defenders. Despite that, Goneva got close twice and should really have scored one (it looked easier to stretch out and score when he flung it back inside).
Yes you noticed that, so did I and so did the commentators, however the players and coaches either didn't or were unable to adjust the game plan to allow for it.
This inability to adjust to circumstances but rather continue with the same old, same old, is a feature of Tigers play book and often results in a loss to those teams that are sufficiently savvy and can match us physically and there are several teams in the prem that can do that.
To be honest with the extra weeks rest and with Saffas having HC matches either side of this one that was a pretty dire performance and result from Tigers. Tigers have certainly declined the last two seasons.
With the players we have leaving I have little optimism that next year will be any better, even with Mauger arriving.
Not sure it's a 'playbook' or coaching issue - a playbook is more about set moves and calls. Attacking round the ruck is just what you do in the right moment. In other games the forwards have done that pretty well, they just looked off their game after the card and the injury to Marcos. Shipping 14 points in 10 minutes won't have helped.
Whether this represents a decline is very debatable. IMHO it's tough playing in a side with so many injuries in a couple of key positions, they have done pretty well in the circumstances. They remain in a very difficult position at 10, 12 and 13. At least Burns didn't get a knock on Saturday - if I were the coaches I would be saying a small prayer to the rugby gods every time he takes the ball into contact!
I do agree with you about Mauger next season, but not for the same reasons. He's moving from an assistant coaching role for Crusaders to head coach at Tigers - bound to be a steep learning curve. Which is why the board would be mad to change DoR at the same time, even if they thought they had the justification (also very debatable. And potentially quite expensive!).
Hi Tiger23. I think we’re all agreed it’s not been the best couple of seasons however many of us would dispute your statement that the club is operating under the same restrictions as Saracens!
Long term fans do have to cope with ups and down and domestically things don’t look as bad as 2002/3, 2003/4. I also find it difficult to reconcile the accusation of several years of decline when those years include at least one Championship winning season.
The ‘secret player’ article in May’s RW touches briefly but interestingly on the influence of fans, worth a look, basically it says Smudge was bullied at school and Tigerburnie has body odour. There is also a touching interview with Tom Youngs.
I am neither clever enough to understand nor stupid enough to play this game
Dayglow Mears and Ben all believe Vunipola has no case to answer (Rugby Tonight). Geneva after the play stopped, forearm to man on the ground, previous good behaviour 4 weeks reduced?
better watch out there are folk on here who will disagree with every point you made!