Tigers vs Saracens

[jgriffin]

This was because forward passes were punished, not theorised over and allowed for arcane reasons

Sorry to labour a point here but you seem to be saying that forward passes are now being allowed/not punished. Am I summarising correctly?

I understand the wider point that players now often pass flatter than they ever did. Which in turn creates more opportunity for an interception. But I don't see the relevance to a deliberate knock on. What BFG seems to be saying is that players shouldn't be allowed to pass flat. And that to avoid deliberate knock ons players should only pass diagonal backwards. Seems to be totally wrong thinking IMO. The advent of flatter passing is mirrored by the defensive improvements in the game and the professionalism which is striving for perfection. I love a good flat pass that splits the defence myself.

I don't know how obtuse you can get but you're doing a good job so far. Pointing out that very few knock downs happened when the old backs game used diagonal except the mishandling or lost in tackle type. Once you go flatter, and defences are up quickly from virtual offside, you will get more chance of interceptions, fumbles and deliberate knock-ons. As for the forward pass argument, that has been resolved into the camp that says 'did it end up nearer the tryline than the passer' and those who go into at least two versions of the 'relative movement' proposition. I am personally of the former, having been of the latter.

PS 'voice of the crumbie' thanks for good perspective which has cheered me up

[Dangerous4]

Just why is it that we don't start playing decent rugby until we are too far behind to win? It is just so predictable, frustrating, and annoying. Whatever happened to our competing for a whole 80 minutes?

[DeadlyDunc]

I generally like to consider things for a while before commenting post match as I find I'm either too exuberant in victory or too critical in defeat.

So, having reflected on yesterday, my observations are as follows.

Playing against the club which has the most strength in depth in the premiership
We managed 100% success at scrum
We managed 100% success in the lineout even with Tom Youngs playing (Who's responsible for this Mark Bakewell? Looking at some of the comments in this post clearly not him. So who?)
We scored two good tries from rolling mauls and managed to repel Saracens maul, winning turnovers against it a couple of times. (Who's responsible for this Mark Bakewell, Brett Deacon? Looking at some of the comments in this post clearly not them. So who?)
We were awarded a total of 3 tries but crossed the Saracens line several more times of which at least one should have been awarded.
Saracens had to result to blatant cheating hence the 2 sin binnings to stay in the game. There should have, to my mind, been at least one more for repeated infringements in the Saracens 22 but Dickson bottled it. This shows how much pressure Tigers put them under for long periods of the game.
We did not succumb, as we have in the past, to repeated "pick and go" attempts at try scoring but managed to repel them all. Might this point to evidence of a defensive system developing?
The tries we conceded which were excellently taken by Saracens were down to individual errors which I concede are a concern.
Our less than first choice backline crossed the tryline 3 times (2 disallowed in the first half and one from a delicate grubber from Owen finished nicely by Smith).
We managed to pick ourselves up and show the old Tigers fighting spirit.
On another day with the rub of the green and more correct refereeing we'd have been going home with a win.

My hope for the team and coaching staff is that they can build on this especially with the input of our returning "stars". Adding George Ford, Ben Youngs, Jonny May, Manu, Matt Toomua and Taf into the current mix has to be good for us. Add in a returning Ellis Genge with the likes of Telusa and Mat Tait to come back later on things may not be so bad as some on here would have us believe.

I agree wholeheartedly and by no reason do I think it’s perfect but it is demonstrably improving and a work in progress.

I can’t say I know too much about attack coaching but every expert seems to suggest we play off 9 almost exclusively at the moment so perhaps that is the area where we need to offer some invention and vary it up.

That said, I just thought it was nice to see a Tigers team go through multiple phases holding onto the ball and not coughing it up in contact every other carry.

Murphy/Bakewell/Deacon should take credit for the areas we are improving in as long as it is sustained and not followed by a drop to standards at Glocs.

[strawclearer]

I generally like to consider things for a while before commenting post match as I find I'm either too exuberant in victory or too critical in defeat...

...Add in a returning Ellis Genge with the likes of Telusa and Mat Tait to come back later on things may not be so bad as some on here would have us believe.

A considered, reasoned and constructive opinion-piece - you have no place on here!

[drc_007]

I think we need to keep the performance in perspective.

If you compare the Saracens starting lineup on Sunday with the team that opened their European campaign in Glasgow there were only 5 players in both starting 15.

Alex Goode
Alex Lozowski
Brad Barritt
Will Skelton
Michael Rhodes

I suspect it would be foolhardy to read much into the packs performance against a Saracens pack missing M Vunipola, George, Koch, Kruis, Itoje, B Vunipola. Let's see how things go in the next few games and then judge performance.

[voice of the crumbie]

I generally like to consider things for a while before commenting post match as I find I'm either too exuberant in victory or too critical in defeat...

...Add in a returning Ellis Genge with the likes of Telusa and Mat Tait to come back later on things may not be so bad as some on here would have us believe.

A considered, reasoned and constructive opinion-piece - you have no place on here!

Thanks, Strawclearer. That's why I don't post as often as some.

[Scuttle]

memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=378i6

And if you read McCall's post match comnent the describes 2 of the tries as individial. They were scored yes, but he clearly does not think they came from a dominant Saravens. I think there was plenty to see to give enouragement.

[mol2]

Not sure Tait would be in the starting 15 if the other backs were fit. Would he displace Vianu or Holmes from full back? Or Manu or Eastmond from the centres?

We have been fortunate that Cole has been with us during the Autumn internationals so we have coped in the pack which is probably why we manage to come back into matches as we wear down the opposition pack.

Unfortunately we seem to miss too many tackles to have a chance of catching up. A mixture of flaws in the defensive structure and poor individual technique in the tackle.

[MikeR]

After rewatching the Match some things seemed better and somethings worse .Generally the forwards were much improved , even our maul defence was better and the lineout was very good - we didn't try one of those long throws in the whole game . I really am not sure that the defence of the backs is any better - in any bit of open play they are skinned alive - Owen particularly poor yet again . The more I watch him , the more I see that Joe Ford should be nowhere near our 1st team squad - below par in every department .

[RagingBull]

Defence was excellent for 60 minutes which is more than we have done for most of the season.
But that 20 minutes was horrendous and all started from a kick to nothing and a lucky try and our heads just went and so did any structure.

Murphy and Deacon did seem to help settle the ship for the 2nd half though which is credit to them becuase in recent weeks that would have continued.

Bristol away will be a good test, against a team that likes to throw it around.

[ourla]

Pointing out that very few knock downs happened when the old backs game used diagonal except the mishandling or lost in tackle type.

Yep, I acknowledged that.

Once you go flatter, and defences are up quickly from virtual offside, you will get more chance of interceptions, fumbles and deliberate knock-ons.

Ignoring the underline text because it's supposition I acknowledged that.

The question is what point are you making?

As for the forward pass argument, that has been resolved into the camp that says 'did it end up nearer the tryline than the passer' and those who go into at least two versions of the 'relative movement' proposition. I am personally of the former, having been of the latter.

So, I'll ask again.. are you saying O'Connor's pass was forward?

I'm not deliberating being obtuse. I thought there was no doubt the pass was good, that it was a knock on and the only question was did the player have any expectation of catching the ball (if not deliberate knock on and yellow) and did it prevent a try being scored (if it did, then penalty try). All this talk about the form of the pass is something BFG and yourself have brought into the equation and seem to suggest there is more to it. And I don't quite understand why - whether you think the laws were not implemented, are being interpreted wrongly or are plain wrong.

[strawclearer]

As a full back from 'yesteryear'...

As the last line of defence when faced with two attackers running towards me, there were three options:

Option 1: Tackle the ball carrier

Option 2: Second guess the pass and tackle the potential receiver

Option 3: Wait wait wait - and try to intercept the pass

I invariably chose the first option. Unless the attackers drifted or got too close to each other or passed the ball close enough for me to intercept, they were bound to score. If they screwed up and I was able to slap the ball down - for a knock-on - more fool them! Why should I be penalised for their inadequacy?

Why complicate the laws with 'was it slapped up or down?'; 'would a try have been scored?'; 'was there a genuine attempt to catch the ball?'

They screwed up - he knocked it on - scrum!

[ourla]

Why should I be penalised for their inadequacy?

Why complicate the laws with 'was it slapped up or down?'; 'would a try have been scored?'; 'was there a genuine attempt to catch the ball?'

It's a fair question or set of questions (and perhaps what BFG and jgriffin were getting at). And I actually have no technical argument against it. Yes, it would make the laws simpler and yes once players adjusted it may not make much difference. That said, in my head, it will make it easier for defenders and in the modern era I wouldn't want to encourage that. Could be worth trialing though. Someone should email World Rugby!

[jgriffin]

As a full back from 'yesteryear'...

As the last line of defence when faced with two attackers running towards me, there were three options:

Option 1: Tackle the ball carrier

Option 2: Second guess the pass and tackle the potential receiver

Option 3: Wait wait wait - and try to intercept the pass

I invariably chose the first option. Unless the attackers drifted or got too close to each other or passed the ball close enough for me to intercept, they were bound to score. If they screwed up and I was able to slap the ball down - for a knock-on - more fool them! Why should I be penalised for their inadequacy?

Why complicate the laws with 'was it slapped up or down?'; 'would a try have been scored?'; 'was there a genuine attempt to catch the ball?'

They screwed up - he knocked it on - scrum!

Would be much better than now. and please let's have the same for passing.

[DingDong]

Why complicate the laws with 'was it slapped up or down?'; 'would a try have been scored?'; 'was there a genuine attempt to catch the ball?'

They screwed up - he knocked it on - scrum!

Slapping up or down has never been the issue here, a player can do both and as long as he has "a realistic chance of catching the ball" that then simply determines whether it is a scrum or PK. To knock the ball on without gathering it can be cynical which happens more often than not, so that negativity needs erasing from the game. A player chooses to intercept, and in attempting to do so it is high risk which gets high rewards - ie an interception or a PK.