Tigers vs Saracens

[BFG]

Regarding the penalty try or not. Regardless of my red, white and green specs here, I'd like the refs give these 50/50 calls in favour of the attacking side. Teams are very well coached these days and players are well conditioned so defences can often survive 20 phase attacks. So I think when I team does make that breakthrough any attempts by a defensive team should be heavily even harshly punished. Sure, the ref couldn't be 100% sure the runner would have got over. In fact who knows what might happen, he may not catch it, he may screw up the grounding. Fact is a defender is going to have to come from behind and make an extraordinary tackle and it was a very cynical knock on. I am not particularly having a go at Dickson who I actually thought had a good game. I think a subtle change of emphasis would hopefully force players to make cynical fouls like this. Another one they mentioned on the TV was when playing advantage for a penalty defences will often make a cynical second penalty to save a try and not get a yellow.

Apologies beforehand as that often seems to be required these days for holding an alternative opinion, but I simply canno't agree with that suggestion.
Just run with the correct amount of depth and pass the ball at the correct time.
When I played there was no deliberate knock on, it was just a knock on, and forward passes were always penalised, therefore we did not have this silly situation where players actually ran too flat because they can get away with a forward pass and the other player passing the ball too late to encourage the knock on even more.
The entire scenario is now cynical and the drift away from the original foundations of the game is responsible.

[DingDong]

And I still find it football-esque how so many are calling for the coaching staff to be wiped out given how long they've had at it.

The reality is Murphy has been coaching for years under Cockerill, Mauger and O'Connor. What's he been doing? skills? attack? backs? whatever he's developed/learn't there is absolutely zero evidence of a team progressing.

Look how Phil Blake transformed our defence virtually overnight and saved Cockerill's neck for another season, it is possible to change or at least show some signs of improvement in a short space of time if you're good enough. At the moment we're backing a 3-legged horse which is ok if you want to compete in 3-legged races (asr in Tigers case 15- versus 13), and only then do we have a chance to finish a dull set of phases - but still not win the game.

We have the talent and the facilities, what we don't have is synergy in the squad, and that is more important at times than talent as proven by Worcester at Welford Road on their last two visits. Synergy is created by coaches and imparted into players who believe in their coaches ethos and game plan to deliver with confidence. Tigers as a squad once again lacked confidence and creativity and aside from the scrum we look like individuals wondering what to do next. Murphy possibly could be a good coach one day, but at the moment he is so out of his depth and reliant on individuals to keep the team alive.

[DeadlyDunc]

Regarding the penalty try or not. Regardless of my red, white and green specs here, I'd like the refs give these 50/50 calls in favour of the attacking side. Teams are very well coached these days and players are well conditioned so defences can often survive 20 phase attacks. So I think when I team does make that breakthrough any attempts by a defensive team should be heavily even harshly punished. Sure, the ref couldn't be 100% sure the runner would have got over. In fact who knows what might happen, he may not catch it, he may screw up the grounding. Fact is a defender is going to have to come from behind and make an extraordinary tackle and it was a very cynical knock on. I am not particularly having a go at Dickson who I actually thought had a good game. I think a subtle change of emphasis would hopefully force players to make cynical fouls like this. Another one they mentioned on the TV was when playing advantage for a penalty defences will often make a cynical second penalty to save a try and not get a yellow.

Apologies beforehand as that often seems to be required these days for holding an alternative opinion, but I simply canno't agree with that suggestion.
Just run with the correct amount of depth and pass the ball at the correct time.
When I played there was no deliberate knock on, it was just a knock on, and forward passes were always penalised, therefore we did not have this silly situation where players actually ran too flat because they can get away with a forward pass and the other player passing the ball too late to encourage the knock on even more.
The entire scenario is now cynical and the drift away from the original foundations of the game is responsible.

Surely the point is that (for once) we did make the pass at the right time because a combination of BOC and White would have run unchallenged from the 22 under (or to the side of the posts) but Earle slapped the ball down to prevent said pass going to hand.

If we'd have passed earlier Earle could have tackled BOC who would then have had pressure to pass/tip it onto White and then everyone would have criticised Owen (?) for not committing the last man.

The point is not that, as i say for once, make the most of the opportunity its that a cynical play from Earle wasn't penalised to a penalty try. There was no way we wouldn't have scored from a 22 with a fast back rower clear and with our sub scrum half on his shoulder to run a blocking line if cover was coming from mid-field. Lowoski is quick but he was on the other side of the attack and may have got back to make contact but not to stop forward momentum or to stop a pass to White.

It was a stone wall penalty try but the officials chose to interpret the distance to the line as being 26m and therefore too far out to be 100% sure.

[johnthegriff]

Your memory of Phil Blake i just not accurate. Yesterday we competed well, I said before the game that we had a slight edge in the forwards but that their backs were better and that proved to be the case. There were certainly errors that led to the Saracens tries but they were individual mistakes rather than the fault of the system. I was pleased that we did not let our heads drop and came back to compete in the 2nd half.
BFG and I were probably playing around the same time when there was no deliberate knock on, a mark could be called any where on the pitch and at scrum time the ball went in straight, times have moved on and rules have changed and refs should be consistent in their interpretation of the rules.
The squad are improving under Murphy, we are point ahead of where we were last season following the same matches, I predict we will finish higher in the league than last season although still behind Saracens and Exeter, top two the year after!

[BFG]

Regarding the penalty try or not. Regardless of my red, white and green specs here, I'd like the refs give these 50/50 calls in favour of the attacking side. Teams are very well coached these days and players are well conditioned so defences can often survive 20 phase attacks. So I think when I team does make that breakthrough any attempts by a defensive team should be heavily even harshly punished. Sure, the ref couldn't be 100% sure the runner would have got over. In fact who knows what might happen, he may not catch it, he may screw up the grounding. Fact is a defender is going to have to come from behind and make an extraordinary tackle and it was a very cynical knock on. I am not particularly having a go at Dickson who I actually thought had a good game. I think a subtle change of emphasis would hopefully force players to make cynical fouls like this. Another one they mentioned on the TV was when playing advantage for a penalty defences will often make a cynical second penalty to save a try and not get a yellow.

Apologies beforehand as that often seems to be required these days for holding an alternative opinion, but I simply canno't agree with that suggestion.
Just run with the correct amount of depth and pass the ball at the correct time.
When I played there was no deliberate knock on, it was just a knock on, and forward passes were always penalised, therefore we did not have this silly situation where players actually ran too flat because they can get away with a forward pass and the other player passing the ball too late to encourage the knock on even more.
The entire scenario is now cynical and the drift away from the original foundations of the game is responsible.

Surely the point is that (for once) we did make the pass at the right time because a combination of BOC and White would have run unchallenged from the 22 under (or to the side of the posts) but Earle slapped the ball down to prevent said pass going to hand.

If we'd have passed earlier Earle could have tackled BOC who would then have had pressure to pass/tip it onto White and then everyone would have criticised Owen (?) for not committing the last man.

The point is not that, as i say for once, make the most of the opportunity its that a cynical play from Earle wasn't penalised to a penalty try. There was no way we wouldn't have scored from a 22 with a fast back rower clear and with our sub scrum half on his shoulder to run a blocking line if cover was coming from mid-field. Lowoski is quick but he was on the other side of the attack and may have got back to make contact but not to stop forward momentum or to stop a pass to White.

It was a stone wall penalty try but the officials chose to interpret the distance to the line as being 26m and therefore too far out to be 100% sure.

But it wasn't a stone wall penalty try.
Where does it end? Should we not bother with conversions or penalties in front of the posts and just give the points because it's probable that they will be kicked successfully anyway!
The main point for me is that a whole new game has been created due to constant playing with the laws.
To anyone newer to the game I can understand the frustration and calls for another change in outlook, but my view is that it's the previous changes that have caused further issues.
Go back to playing how it should be played!
If O'Connor runs a bit deeper (no forward pass) and the passer gives it a split second sooner (no deliberate knock-on) then there is no issue.

[ourla]

Apologies beforehand as that often seems to be required these days for holding an alternative opinion, but I simply canno't agree with that suggestion.
Just run with the correct amount of depth and pass the ball at the correct time.
When I played there was no deliberate knock on, it was just a knock on, and forward passes were always penalised, therefore we did not have this silly situation where players actually ran too flat because they can get away with a forward pass and the other player passing the ball too late to encourage the knock on even more.
The entire scenario is now cynical and the drift away from the original foundations of the game is responsible.

If I am reading this correctly you are saying that players should be allowed to bat the ball down and it just be deemed a knock on?

So in this case you think it was our player fault for throwing a pass that could be batted down?

[ourla]

And I still find it football-esque how so many are calling for the coaching staff to be wiped out given how long they've had at it.

The reality is Murphy has been coaching for years under Cockerill, Mauger and O'Connor. What's he been doing? skills? attack? backs? whatever he's developed/learn't there is absolutely zero evidence of a team progressing.

Look how Phil Blake transformed our defence virtually overnight and saved Cockerill's neck for another season, it is possible to change or at least show some signs of improvement in a short space of time if you're good enough. At the moment we're backing a 3-legged horse which is ok if you want to compete in 3-legged races (asr in Tigers case 15- versus 13), and only then do we have a chance to finish a dull set of phases - but still not win the game.

We have the talent and the facilities, what we don't have is synergy in the squad, and that is more important at times than talent as proven by Worcester at Welford Road on their last two visits. Synergy is created by coaches and imparted into players who believe in their coaches ethos and game plan to deliver with confidence. Tigers as a squad once again lacked confidence and creativity and aside from the scrum we look like individuals wondering what to do next. Murphy possibly could be a good coach one day, but at the moment he is so out of his depth and reliant on individuals to keep the team alive.

But what you are arguing is that he should never have been appointed in the first place. Which I understand the argument for. But the board have chosen to give him that opportunity. And whatever you think of the board or Murphy surely he is owed some time to develop into the role, go through a recruitment phase and a pre-season before we come anywhere near judging him. I understand that will mean showing some patience and a bit of hope, which seems in very short supply these days.

[ourla]

But it wasn't a stone wall penalty try.

What that is what the ref said. If we did a survey of 10,000 non Tigers and Sarries fans and asked them do you think a try would have been scored yes or no, how many do you think would have said yes? If there was some doubt you'd expect a reasonable percentage to select no. But in this situation I doubt there would be more than handful.

If O'Connor runs a bit deeper (no forward pass)

Sorry are you saying O'Connors pass was forward?

[jgriffin]

Apologies beforehand as that often seems to be required these days for holding an alternative opinion, but I simply canno't agree with that suggestion.
Just run with the correct amount of depth and pass the ball at the correct time.
When I played there was no deliberate knock on, it was just a knock on, and forward passes were always penalised, therefore we did not have this silly situation where players actually ran too flat because they can get away with a forward pass and the other player passing the ball too late to encourage the knock on even more.
The entire scenario is now cynical and the drift away from the original foundations of the game is responsible.

If I am reading this correctly you are saying that players should be allowed to bat the ball down and it just be deemed a knock on?

So in this case you think it was our player fault for throwing a pass that could be batted down?

No he's just making the point that we used to run with more of a diagonal, unlike the flat lines today. This was because forward passes were punished, not theorised over and allowed for arcane reasons, and the opportunity to knock down a pass was far less anyway.
AIR Blake came in because we needed a good defence coach, at the time we were managing with 3 or 4 people when others had 6 plus. BoD not paying up!

[mol2]

Murphy needs to be allowed to build his own side and for that matter coaching staff. At present he has inherited O'Connor's side.
How much, if any, input he had in those signings remains to be seen.

What changes can he make mid-season to the playing staff is bound to be limited, and going forward by the duration of existing contracts and the salary cap and budget (whichever is the lower)

[TTRITH]

And I still find it football-esque how so many are calling for the coaching staff to be wiped out given how long they've had at it.

The reality is Murphy has been coaching for years under Cockerill, Mauger and O'Connor. What's he been doing? skills? attack? backs? whatever he's developed/learn't there is absolutely zero evidence of a team progressing.

Look how Phil Blake transformed our defence virtually overnight and saved Cockerill's neck for another season, it is possible to change or at least show some signs of improvement in a short space of time if you're good enough. At the moment we're backing a 3-legged horse which is ok if you want to compete in 3-legged races (asr in Tigers case 15- versus 13), and only then do we have a chance to finish a dull set of phases - but still not win the game.

We have the talent and the facilities, what we don't have is synergy in the squad, and that is more important at times than talent as proven by Worcester at Welford Road on their last two visits. Synergy is created by coaches and imparted into players who believe in their coaches ethos and game plan to deliver with confidence. Tigers as a squad once again lacked confidence and creativity and aside from the scrum we look like individuals wondering what to do next. Murphy possibly could be a good coach one day, but at the moment he is so out of his depth and reliant on individuals to keep the team alive.

But what you are arguing is that he should never have been appointed in the first place. Which I understand the argument for. But the board have chosen to give him that opportunity. And whatever you think of the board or Murphy surely he is owed some time to develop into the role, go through a recruitment phase and a pre-season before we come anywhere near judging him. I understand that will mean showing some patience and a bit of hope, which seems in very short supply these days.

I dont think Brett has enough experience to turn around a defence that is seemingly afraid of tackling. Bakewells impact after a good start hasn't been great so perhaps he should also be replaced.

In my mind, keep Boris but bring in a proper coaching set up. A forwards coach who can effectively coach the line out, a defense coach who can sort the breakdown (Worsley) and a an attack coach who is a dab hand at the backs.

Bring in a senior consultant to guide Geordan and lets see how it goes. But we cannot carry on in with amateur approach we have to coaching staff.

In argument of allowing him to build his own squad, he'll only be able to sign players if the Rugby Committee and Ged approve of them.

[DeadlyDunc]

The reality is Murphy has been coaching for years under Cockerill, Mauger and O'Connor. What's he been doing? skills? attack? backs? whatever he's developed/learn't there is absolutely zero evidence of a team progressing.

Look how Phil Blake transformed our defence virtually overnight and saved Cockerill's neck for another season, it is possible to change or at least show some signs of improvement in a short space of time if you're good enough. At the moment we're backing a 3-legged horse which is ok if you want to compete in 3-legged races (asr in Tigers case 15- versus 13), and only then do we have a chance to finish a dull set of phases - but still not win the game.

We have the talent and the facilities, what we don't have is synergy in the squad, and that is more important at times than talent as proven by Worcester at Welford Road on their last two visits. Synergy is created by coaches and imparted into players who believe in their coaches ethos and game plan to deliver with confidence. Tigers as a squad once again lacked confidence and creativity and aside from the scrum we look like individuals wondering what to do next. Murphy possibly could be a good coach one day, but at the moment he is so out of his depth and reliant on individuals to keep the team alive.

But what you are arguing is that he should never have been appointed in the first place. Which I understand the argument for. But the board have chosen to give him that opportunity. And whatever you think of the board or Murphy surely he is owed some time to develop into the role, go through a recruitment phase and a pre-season before we come anywhere near judging him. I understand that will mean showing some patience and a bit of hope, which seems in very short supply these days.

I dont think Brett has enough experience to turn around a defence that is seemingly afraid of tackling. Bakewells impact after a good start hasn't been great so perhaps he should also be replaced.

In my mind, keep Boris but bring in a proper coaching set up. A forwards coach who can effectively coach the line out, a defense coach who can sort the breakdown (Worsley) and a an attack coach who is a dab hand at the backs.

Bring in a senior consultant to guide Geordan and lets see how it goes. But we cannot carry on in with amateur approach we have to coaching staff.

In argument of allowing him to build his own squad, he'll only be able to sign players if the Rugby Committee and Ged approve of them.

The line out is going ok at the moment though both in attack and defence, we scored 2 tries from lineouts yesterday and caused them problems? Not sure what more you want as the improvement is growing weekly as Spencer, Kitchener etc come back into the 2nd row to replace back rowers like Williams who've been covering there.

[Leicestertinytiger]

The reality is Murphy has been coaching for years under Cockerill, Mauger and O'Connor. What's he been doing? skills? attack? backs? whatever he's developed/learn't there is absolutely zero evidence of a team progressing.

Look how Phil Blake transformed our defence virtually overnight and saved Cockerill's neck for another season, it is possible to change or at least show some signs of improvement in a short space of time if you're good enough. At the moment we're backing a 3-legged horse which is ok if you want to compete in 3-legged races (asr in Tigers case 15- versus 13), and only then do we have a chance to finish a dull set of phases - but still not win the game.

We have the talent and the facilities, what we don't have is synergy in the squad, and that is more important at times than talent as proven by Worcester at Welford Road on their last two visits. Synergy is created by coaches and imparted into players who believe in their coaches ethos and game plan to deliver with confidence. Tigers as a squad once again lacked confidence and creativity and aside from the scrum we look like individuals wondering what to do next. Murphy possibly could be a good coach one day, but at the moment he is so out of his depth and reliant on individuals to keep the team alive.

But what you are arguing is that he should never have been appointed in the first place. Which I understand the argument for. But the board have chosen to give him that opportunity. And whatever you think of the board or Murphy surely he is owed some time to develop into the role, go through a recruitment phase and a pre-season before we come anywhere near judging him. I understand that will mean showing some patience and a bit of hope, which seems in very short supply these days.

I dont think Brett has enough experience to turn around a defence that is seemingly afraid of tackling. Bakewells impact after a good start hasn't been great so perhaps he should also be replaced.

In my mind, keep Boris but bring in a proper coaching set up. A forwards coach who can effectively coach the line out, a defense coach who can sort the breakdown (Worsley) and a an attack coach who is a dab hand at the backs.

Bring in a senior consultant to guide Geordan and lets see how it goes. But we cannot carry on in with amateur approach we have to coaching staff.

In argument of allowing him to build his own squad, he'll only be able to sign players if the Rugby Committee and Ged approve of them.

Exactly, we always wax lyrical about trying to be the best club and team in the country, well that includes striving to have the best coaching set up.

We probably have one of the most amateur coaching set ups in the league, no offence intended to the current coaches.

Exeter have an experienced DOR and head coach who are proven in the premiership. Saracens, Wasps and Exeter all have experienced coaches with a settled coaching set up.

It feels like we’re trying to get a coaching team on the cheap and aren’t willing to pay for quality. Sadly it’s showing and I agree that bar Boris, no one else has earned their stripes so need to be replaced.

No one can I honestly think that Murphy, Bakewell and Deacon are the way forwards. We don’t just need a new coach, we need a new coaching team. The playing squad isn’t as bad as some people make out. Therefore the coaching can’t be up to scratch sadly.

[ourla]

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.

[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.

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.