Tigers v Leinster (H) - Champions Cup - Saturday 20th January 2024 - KO: 3-15pm

[Rugbygramps]

Old adage that a kick is only as good as its chase. There were at least a couple of occasions v Leinster that we had Lowe pinned in a corner after a box kick but through his own quality and strength he got out of them, other lesser wingers may not.

Unfortunately the games of kick tennis between 22s has now become part of the game

[KiwiTig]

I don't quite get the negativity about this one... I felt we played well against arguably the best club/international team in the world.

It got a lot more difficult once Reffell and Chessum were injured, but we just can't afford to have the strength in depth to have like for like replacements.


In case anyone's interested we actually only needed to make 5 more tackles than Leinster did, which means that the defeat wasn't for lack of trying to run the ball. We also missed fewer tackles than Leinster, which is really impressive - our defence was exceptional.

Unfortunately, they won 11 turnovers to our 2 (3 if you count the perfectly good one that Tommy was bizarrely penalised for!).

Our lineout success rate was better than Leinster's, despite that poor throw from Montoya, and our scrum held up well. Heyes didn't have it all his own way, but I felt he had a very strong game.

We kicked LESS than Leinster - no, really. Crucially, we only kicked 662 metres, whereas Leinster managed 1162m. That resulted in the 53% territory that gave them the platform to win the game.

We also only conceded 9 penalties - exceptional discipline against a team like Leinster, and again testimony to our defensive performance.

Leinster were far more accurate and clinical when opportunities arose, after the first 10 minutes, but it would be absurd if that was not the case when you consider the consistency of their squad and the familiarity between their players - 99% of the group have been playing together with the same style of play for their whole careers. Albeit with a change in defensive structures this season.

The turning points were Leinster's first 10 points being gifted by the ref, Pollard's missed kick to touch and the injuries to Refell and Chessum. On another day, that would have been a very close game.

I'm not trying to say we deserved to win, but that it was a very encouraging performance that we as fans should be proud of. We showed that, with most of our pack fit, we can compete with the best - even if not yet for a full 80 minutes.

The whole "we kick too much" accusation just needs to disappear, because it's demonstrably a load of nonsense.

Pollard did not kick well from hand, but he did do a lot of good things both with and without the ball. Unfortunately, kicking from hand is probably the most important thing to get right these days.

Agreed

[Rugbygramps]

I feel Mckellar is very honest in his post game assessments and agree with him when he said that performance would have beaten most other sides

[GB72]

I suppose the way I look at it is that if Ireland beat England or any other international side by that margin then it would not be seen as a disgrace or even a surprise. The disappointment is only in that it could have been even better from us.

[Tiglon]

I suppose the way I look at it is that if Ireland beat England or any other international side by that margin then it would not be seen as a disgrace or even a surprise. The disappointment is only in that it could have been even better from us.

Ireland beat England 29-10 last summer, albeit at home.

I think that performance is good enough to win 95% of Premiership matches.

[fentiger]

We're looking at small margins, unfortunately they become magnified when we know how close we came! I'm in the same camp as another poster who reminded us how good we were looking when Alan Dickens was with us, what continues to kill us is the upheaval in coaching staff.

[Scuttle]

I suppose the way I look at it is that if Ireland beat England or any other international side by that margin then it would not be seen as a disgrace or even a surprise. The disappointment is only in that it could have been even better from us.

I have been thinking similar in the last few days. If Saturday's performance is what Ireland can do (they should be better but I think Tigers played well in many areas) then if Borthwick whips England into shape with a half decent attacking plan..... oh wait, hang on, hmm!?

[LE18]

Sorry Tiglon but my view is we do kick too much, statistics might not agree but its the quality of the kicks that count and our ability to chase or win the high balls is not as good as the opposition's currently. We usually kick in an emergency, too pressured to run it so we have to kick and generally hope that they knock on or on occassions win the ball, but our tactic is telegrahed mainly. It doesnt help that our handling is poor.

I disagree. We don't have enough of an attacking game to break teams down repeatedly when we get into their 22. We had La Rochelle under pressure, down to 13 men and then our attack was to blunt to do the damage. Couple of bungled decisions in the wider channels, Pollard's poor crossfield kick was born of pure frustration.

Until we find a way for our ball carriers to be carrying into half gaps or solo defenders we won't beat these top tier sides.

La Rochelle managed it using trick plays off the lineout to send the hooker down the blindside at our 9 or Skelton on a peel round the side of the maul into our 10. Created the one on one tackle opportunity for the big guy to crash through. We're asking Weise to carry through two or three tacklers and when you play these top tier sides those tacklers are blooming monsters.

I think our kicking game was at least as good as La Rochelle's, perhaps better. They took their chances and we did not. I haven't seen the Leinster game yet but I imagine it's much the same.

LE18, no need to apologise for disagreeing with me. I accept I'm quite forthright with my views, sometimes perhaps too much so.

I completely agree that it's the quality of the kicks that counts. La Rochelle only kicked 3 more times than us, but made more than 200 additional metres from kicks.

It was even worse against Leinster - they kicked 5 times more than us and made 460(!) more metres.

In both cases that is a huge amount of extra territory just from kicking better (or from stronger positions under less pressure, perhaps) - nearly 5 lengths of the pitch against Leinster. You don't win many matches these days with stats like that, you just don't. The fact that La Rochelle also monstered us physically compounded the problem and lead to the big score.

Conversely, I felt we matched Leinster physically, at least for large parts of the game, but their better kicking gave them more territory and they are so much more clinical than us in the red zone - as they are compared to pretty much any other "club" side. Territory + accuracy = win.

La Rochelle also regained a large number of their kicks.

From my point of view, we were second best by some distance in almost every aspect of the game against La Rochelle. However, against Leinster we at least matched them for large periods and in many aspects. That gives me cause fir confidence in what McKellar and the team are building.

We all know the red zone accuracy is the hardest part to get right, and therefore it's usually the final piece in the puzzle of a successful team. Sale are still incredibly wasteful in the 22 (more so than us) after years of Sanderson, and the likes of Sarries were very much like we are now in the early days of Venter and McCall.

Tiglon, I want to agree with everything you say about the oppostion, they are/were so much better than us at retaining the ball one way or another, but I cannot advocate us kicking more, we are not good at it, if we gained from it I would agree but we dont, we kick ball away and just give it back to them to kick back at us but far better, we have to get better at something but against most teams we lose out by kicking.

[Tigerbeat]

Tigers need to be dominant at the breakdown and the backs need to have the confidence to run the ball. Trying to play the ball within your own 22 does come at a risk of being turned over and conceding penalties, and giving the opposition more opportunities to kick to the corners and become a threat.
Kicking to clear is played by all teams and does sometimes bring the knock on and if chased down well, gives more ground. Tigers have been pretty good defending in open play and have only been undone by some good moves from the opposition or a couple of bad passes from Tigers players.
As Rugbygramp stated, a kick is only as good as the chase.
As the team, play more together (same players) they will grow to know each others habits and grow in confidence to play more attacking rugby with even better results.
This season we have seen Tigers trying to play more expansive rugby but either due to opposition pressure or handling errors have failed to turn it into points.
In a World Cup year, with a large number of players away at the start, expectations are not realistic.
Expectations for next season should be for a good season with the players and coaches bedded in having had a full pre-season.

[Tiglon]

I disagree. We don't have enough of an attacking game to break teams down repeatedly when we get into their 22. We had La Rochelle under pressure, down to 13 men and then our attack was to blunt to do the damage. Couple of bungled decisions in the wider channels, Pollard's poor crossfield kick was born of pure frustration.

Until we find a way for our ball carriers to be carrying into half gaps or solo defenders we won't beat these top tier sides.

La Rochelle managed it using trick plays off the lineout to send the hooker down the blindside at our 9 or Skelton on a peel round the side of the maul into our 10. Created the one on one tackle opportunity for the big guy to crash through. We're asking Weise to carry through two or three tacklers and when you play these top tier sides those tacklers are blooming monsters.

I think our kicking game was at least as good as La Rochelle's, perhaps better. They took their chances and we did not. I haven't seen the Leinster game yet but I imagine it's much the same.

LE18, no need to apologise for disagreeing with me. I accept I'm quite forthright with my views, sometimes perhaps too much so.

I completely agree that it's the quality of the kicks that counts. La Rochelle only kicked 3 more times than us, but made more than 200 additional metres from kicks.

It was even worse against Leinster - they kicked 5 times more than us and made 460(!) more metres.

In both cases that is a huge amount of extra territory just from kicking better (or from stronger positions under less pressure, perhaps) - nearly 5 lengths of the pitch against Leinster. You don't win many matches these days with stats like that, you just don't. The fact that La Rochelle also monstered us physically compounded the problem and lead to the big score.

Conversely, I felt we matched Leinster physically, at least for large parts of the game, but their better kicking gave them more territory and they are so much more clinical than us in the red zone - as they are compared to pretty much any other "club" side. Territory + accuracy = win.

La Rochelle also regained a large number of their kicks.

From my point of view, we were second best by some distance in almost every aspect of the game against La Rochelle. However, against Leinster we at least matched them for large periods and in many aspects. That gives me cause fir confidence in what McKellar and the team are building.

We all know the red zone accuracy is the hardest part to get right, and therefore it's usually the final piece in the puzzle of a successful team. Sale are still incredibly wasteful in the 22 (more so than us) after years of Sanderson, and the likes of Sarries were very much like we are now in the early days of Venter and McCall.

Tiglon, I want to agree with everything you say about the oppostion, they are/were so much better than us at retaining the ball one way or another, but I cannot advocate us kicking more, we are not good at it, if we gained from it I would agree but we dont, we kick ball away and just give it back to them to kick back at us but far better, we have to get better at something but against most teams we lose out by kicking.

I agree we do not need to kick more, it is indeed the quality of kicks that hurt us vs Leinster. That 460 metres of kicking given up against them is 90% not through them kicking more, but by kicking better. With the likes of Lowe they also have players who chase very well and are very good at avoiding the chase when receiving.

Unfortunately, I don't believe we can kick less to avoid the issue - we simply have to kick better. You can't win matches without a good kicking game these days.

[Tigerbeat]

The teams that kick more are winning more is what someone said the other day. Tigers are kicking less that the opponents in most cases.

[Tiglon]

The teams that kick more are winning more is what someone said the other day. Tigers are kicking less that the opponents in most cases.

That's generally true, but what is most true is that the team that kicks the most metres is almost certain to win, particularly when the difference is as big as it was vs Leinster, because of the amount of territory it gives.

[Tigerbeat]

The teams that kick more are winning more is what someone said the other day. Tigers are kicking less that the opponents in most cases.

That's generally true, but what is most true is that the team that kicks the most metres is almost certain to win, particularly when the difference is as big as it was vs Leinster, because of the amount of territory it gives.

So.....lets kick more?

[ads]

The teams that kick more are winning more is what someone said the other day. Tigers are kicking less that the opponents in most cases.

That's generally true, but what is most true is that the team that kicks the most metres is almost certain to win, particularly when the difference is as big as it was vs Leinster, because of the amount of territory it gives.

So.....lets kick more?

Yes, if they're good kicks. If they're gonna be rubbish I'd say no....

[Big Dai]

The teams that kick more are winning more is what someone said the other day. Tigers are kicking less that the opponents in most cases.

That's generally true, but what is most true is that the team that kicks the most metres is almost certain to win, particularly when the difference is as big as it was vs Leinster, because of the amount of territory it gives.

So.....lets kick more?

Drop goals! Don't spend hours wasting energy thumping away at their goal line with half of Ireland offside and Sir giving nowt.

Back in the pocket, kick , repeat.