A bit of perspective

[Roly]

We can win games of this magnitude because we believe that we can. We would have won on Sunday with only half the ambition and four times the improvement in quality of execution (basic skills). Why professionals of such standing have to be coached inecessantly in basic handling skills is frankly beyond me.

1) They are not machines.

2) It may have had something to do with the opposition.

Who were poor really. Unfortunately, Tigers were worse. Racing were able to defend so well because Tigers were predictable in attack. And they didn't adapt their game either when it was obvious they weren't going anywhere with Plan A.

That's game plan for me.

[Phil B]

1) They are not machines. Well we won't disagree on that. However what that has to do with an inability to handle the ball properly escapes me. These people are professionals - the basics ought to be second nature.

2) It may have had something to do with the opposition.

Not being able to catch the ball has something to do with the opposition?

Come on!

[Grimlish]

Who were poor really. Unfortunately, Tigers were worse. Racing were able to defend so well because Tigers were predictable in attack. And they didn't adapt their game either when it was obvious they weren't going anywhere with Plan A.

That's game plan for me.

I think you must be the only person watching who thought Racing were poor. Unambitious perhaps but poor, no! Racing's defence was superb (and ours was hardly much worse, bar the 3rd minute). Quite what the game plan is that can overcome and prevent a defence of that power and pace dominating I dont know. Do you? I can think of a tactic which might have been effective (chip/grubber kicks to turn the defence) but that runs the risk of causing even more turnover ball being conceded which we clearly didnt need, so I'm not surprised it wasnt attempted. We kicked enough ball away as it was.

I have no doubt that our handling errors were caused by a combination of the high quality defence and perhaps an over-eagerness to play on the edge, exacerbated by nerves/tension in a team inexperienced at this level, and by the fact of that 3rd minute try, causing us to chase it too soon.

That's not a game plan issue, its execution in the toughest of circumstances. To describe Racing as poor is a huge disservice to them (and to us).

[G.K]

1) They are not machines. Well we won't disagree on that. However what that has to do with an inability to handle the ball properly escapes me. These people are professionals - the basics ought to be second nature.

2) It may have had something to do with the opposition.

Not being able to catch the ball has something to do with the opposition?

Come on!

Yes it's true - Racing 92 cheated by being on the field and distracting them.

[Grimlish]

Well agreed they werent cheating but it is surely bizarre to suggest that their pace and power in defence couldnt affect us. Its what we've tried to do to others on many occasion over the years (and did pretty succssfully on Sunday too, hence their lack of ambition).

[beech]

We lost by 3 points which would have been a win if we hadn't given away 2 silly penalties and had another given against us at a scrum which was very doubtful. We made many other errors but these were crucial.

You mean the error that saw Dan Cole stand idly at the side of a ruck, which he could easily have contested, and watch Joe R pick up the ball and run straight past him to score what turned out to be a 7 point try, wasn't crucial in a 3 point loss?

No I was thinking of Dom Barrow playing the ball at a ruck when he was flat out in front of the referee and Tom Croft crossing.

[Grimlish]

We lost by 3 points which would have been a win if we hadn't given away 2 silly penalties and had another given against us at a scrum which was very doubtful. We made many other errors but these were crucial.

You mean the error that saw Dan Cole stand idly at the side of a ruck, which he could easily have contested, and watch Joe R pick up the ball and run straight past him to score what turned out to be a 7 point try, wasn't crucial in a 3 point loss?

If you are referring to the one and only Racing try then it wasn't Dan Cole who failed to be on guard duty but a combination of Fitz and Kitch, arguably Barrow too. And it wasn't Joe R who scored from a subsequent (well-guarded) ruck. But don't let the facts get in way, now will you?

[Bowden Tiger]

Last August, if you had told me that in a World Cup year, that we would make the European semi-final and be in a good position to make the play-offs, I would have donned the white coat. But we have, and at times playing some super rugby.
On Sunday we were against the meanest defence in Europe, and but for some very regrettable handling errors, we could quite easily have been in the Final.
Ask yourselves what was going through the Racing minds in that second half, when we could have scored 3 tries. We had nearly broken through, but they held on, just like we used to.

[The Boy Dave]

We had nearly broken through, but they held on, just like we used to.

This is happening year after year for me and at the heart of it is selection.
Every January the departures start to be announced and from then on the squad is no longer utilised to the full.
We have seen it this season with Pearce, Bell and Ghiraldini.
We saw it last season with Barbeiri, Scully, Mele, Bristow and Gibson hardly getting any gametime after news broke that they were moving on.
We had the same the year before that, out went Waldrom and Matera and even crowd favourite Mafi got benched for the semi against Saints, a one point game potentially thrown away out of spite.
The same will happen again next year.
It's been said before, you are either in or you are not.
It's boring year after year but more crucially it's devisive all round, IMVHO.

[jgriffin]

We had nearly broken through, but they held on, just like we used to.

This is happening year after year for me and at the heart of it is selection.
Every January the departures start to be announced and from then on the squad is no longer utilised to the full.
We have seen it this season with Pearce, Bell and Ghiraldini.
We saw it last season with Barbeiri, Scully, Mele, Bristow and Gibson hardly getting any gametime after news broke that they were moving on.
We had the same the year before that, out went Waldrom and Matera and even crowd favourite Mafi got benched for the semi against Saints, a one point game potentially thrown away out of spite.
The same will happen again next year.
It's been said before, you are either in or you are not.
It's boring year after year but more crucially it's devisive all round, IMVHO.

Sorry, that record is broken.
Waldrom was playing pants, Matera injured, Mafi had lots of personal issues and an injury AIR. Gibson got a fair bit of time, Mele didn't get back after having a couple of mares, Bristow never figured much (to my surprise), Ghiraldini was 'injured'.
This leaves us with Barbieri (was moving on very early in season AIR), Scully went of his own accord for a three year, not a one year contract; Pearce I am mystified about, Bell got a much better offer.
Once upon a time I had some inside information which indicated that favouritism, as with potty mouth, left to a large extent with MOC. None of this is inconsistent with the 'get the shirt and retain it, nor with the idea to have a core of players who will be here next year well versed in AM's style.

[Stu_F]

We had nearly broken through, but they held on, just like we used to.

This is happening year after year for me and at the heart of it is selection.
Every January the departures start to be announced and from then on the squad is no longer utilised to the full.
We have seen it this season with Pearce, Bell and Ghiraldini.
We saw it last season with Barbeiri, Scully, Mele, Bristow and Gibson hardly getting any gametime after news broke that they were moving on.
We had the same the year before that, out went Waldrom and Matera and even crowd favourite Mafi got benched for the semi against Saints, a one point game potentially thrown away out of spite.
The same will happen again next year.
It's been said before, you are either in or you are not.
It's boring year after year but more crucially it's devisive all round, IMVHO.

Sorry, that record is broken.
Waldrom was playing pants, Matera injured, Mafi had lots of personal issues and an injury AIR. Gibson got a fair bit of time, Mele didn't get back after having a couple of mares, Bristow never figured much (to my surprise), Ghiraldini was 'injured'.
This leaves us with Barbieri (was moving on very early in season AIR), Scully went of his own accord for a three year, not a one year contract; Pearce I am mystified about, Bell got a much better offer.
Once upon a time I had some inside information which indicated that favouritism, as with potty mouth, left to a large extent with MOC. None of this is inconsistent with the 'get the shirt and retain it, nor with the idea to have a core of players who will be here next year well versed in AM's style.

Could have sworn that Goneva has played pretty regularly recently!

[ourla]

We can win games of this magnitude because we believe that we can. We would have won on Sunday with only half the ambition and four times the improvement in quality of execution (basic skills). Why professionals of such standing have to be coached inecessantly in basic handling skills is frankly beyond me.

1) They are not machines.

2) It may have had something to do with the opposition.

Who were poor really. Unfortunately, Tigers were worse. Racing were able to defend so well because Tigers were predictable in attack. And they didn't adapt their game either when it was obvious they weren't going anywhere with Plan A.

That's game plan for me.

Once again I disagree. The plan wasn't wrong, it was the execution. Racing were also very good defensively.

[ourla]

1) They are not machines. Well we won't disagree on that. However what that has to do with an inability to handle the ball properly escapes me. These people are professionals - the basics ought to be second nature.

Professional footballers miss open goals, golfers miss short puts, tennis players net easy volleys.

2) It may have had something to do with the opposition.

Not being able to catch the ball has something to do with the opposition?

Come on!

So the opposition has no effect on how well we play?

[mol2]

Racing did not play well. Defended reasonably well, but defending is easier if the attackers drop the ball without putting a series of phases to test you.

The game was not 2 great teams going head to head in a tight technical contest. Our players will know that they let a real opportunity slip by.

On that form Sarries to win by 20 points in the final.

[TigerCam]

We lost by 3 points which would have been a win if we hadn't given away 2 silly penalties and had another given against us at a scrum which was very doubtful. We made many other errors but these were crucial.

You mean the error that saw Dan Cole stand idly at the side of a ruck, which he could easily have contested, and watch Joe R pick up the ball and run straight past him to score what turned out to be a 7 point try, wasn't crucial in a 3 point loss?

If you are referring to the one and only Racing try then it wasn't Dan Cole who failed to be on guard duty but a combination of Fitz and Kitch, arguably Barrow too. And it wasn't Joe R who scored from a subsequent (well-guarded) ruck. But don't let the facts get in way, now will you?

Having again looked at the game, Barrow left the gate open for Joe R to stroll through DC was in a good position. But hey-ho that was one mistake of many including 29 turnovers many of those unforced that cost the Tigers the game. Racings scramble defence was superb. If the 'what-ifs had been taken I reckon the Tigers would have been at least 20+ points to the good but they blew it. Game over move on there is the Wuss to hammer on Saturday.