sam16111986 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 5:16 pm
LE18 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 5:10 pm
Tiglon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 10:04 am
Oh, and while we're at it, La Rochelle also kicked more than we did when we faced them.
And we were only asked to make 2 more tackles than they were, so we ran the ball plenty too.
They just absolutely obliterated us physically.
We.
Don't.
Kick.
Too.
Much.
Rant over.
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.
