Heineken Champions Cup Final 2023

[enby]

Ha, snap M na gC

[cormac]

Three week ban for Mike. Will be cut to two if he attends tackle school. Will miss a couple of Samoa games in July.

[Blueberry]

On a other note might help if we ran a few real life drop goals during the season in some dead / well over games....as I have a feeling if we meet LAR again there won't be much between us again.....

Didn't NZ do just that after they lost to France in 2007?

They made it a key part of their training targets. We (and Ireland) should do same. The squidge analysis on the last few minutes captures well how Ross was trying to setup a pod near the posts for a drop...but gibson park kept flicking it out wide. In fairness, those wide passes by park nearly worked. Keenan almost got in and Ringrose slipped when there was a walk-in overlap outside him. soo effing close!

So difficult to watch those last few phases....there was no lack of "dog" there...fine feckin margins as the cliche goes.

Last few phases prior to the red card are a bit of nightmare, fine margins is right. The Ringrose slip, missing Lowe open on the blind v Hastoy post the documented Baird / JGP slow ball, hands on the deck probably from LAR, Mike's clearout !! Deary me.

But yes JGP seemed to have forgotten about drop goals, it's never really been in our DNA anyway but winning endless games by 30 pts doesn't help I suppose. I think every dead game next year v the Dragons or Zebre or some Premiership side we should knock over 2 drop goals just for practice once the bonus point is secure

[MylesNaGapoleen]

Squidge has a really interesting analysis of last few mins on his YouTube. Basically he says that JGP and Ross were on entirely different pages with JGP going for try and Ross trying to drop back to pocket but having to do a couple of clearouts to ensure retention of ball. When Colombe is being treated for his "injury" Ross calls a 15 man huddle presumably to set up drop goal pattern from scrum that never was. This all is evidence that all the talk about Ross bottling drop goal is complete shite. Have a look:

https://youtu.be/oaugXs8hBfQ

yeah, you're right. actually, there are some great insights from squidge on the rest of the game too. In fairness to JGP, it was whipping wide passes that undid the LAR defense in the first half...and almost worked twice in the dying minutes...once to keenan...who almost made it and another to ringrose out wide with an overlap. He lost his footing when taking the pass but there was a walk-in try outside ringrose at that point.

It still stings...but I'm less down about it after watching that last 5 minutes again. We gave it all...LAR slowing the ball at the try line breakdowns was impressive at that late stage. The red card clearly came out of frustration...LAR were so good at slowing down ball...and I, with leinster-tinted glasses on, can see a few clear penalties, for us, in the run up to the red card.

I think we have the quality to be there, or thereabouts, for the final again next year and I'm hoping it's the same finalists. Fair play to LAR for their win on saturday but we will go again.

[Oldschool]

So what's the wishlist for next season in terms of selection and tactics.
1. Practice DGs
2. 6-2, bench split, seriously most French teams are doing this and we need to be doing the same in all our games, Note to Faz.
3. For big games- selecting unfit players should be avoided.
4 - 10 feel free.

[FtD]

I think it's highly likely that we had some DG moves in their locker - it would be totally illogical if they didn't. We practiced them in school at JCT level. I just think a part of it is that they were highly conscious of not wanting to score too quickly so as to leave too much time on the clock for La Rochelle, and the inevitable penalty they'd have milked from us.

Disagree on the 6-2 bench split - it leaves you too stretched in the backline with any type of injury. Toulouse in the semi against us a perfect example of how it can badly backfire on you.

[RoboProp]

Listened to the Rugby Pod and Andy Goode said he's never experienced an atmosphere like it at a rugby match. Gerky Borin'me must have wax in his ears. No surprise, the utter scruff

F**k it anyway, we go again!

[Flash Gordon]

So what's the wishlist for next season in terms of selection and tactics.
1. Practice DGs
2. 6-2, bench split, seriously most French teams are doing this and we need to be doing the same in all our games, Note to Faz.
3. For big games- selecting unfit players should be avoided.
4 - 10 feel free.

The bench split wasn't the issue at all. You need an alternative 9 and 10 as they are so crucial and Charlie was good and improved things when he came on. Recall Toulouse ended up with the best scrum half in the world playing 10 and one of the best 10's in the world playing 12.

Not sure about unfit players, maybe you're talking about Furlong? Thought we did ok in the scrum, he wasn't carrying I guess but I'd rather have had the backs doing that occasionally.

[blaker]

I don't like the use of the term 'dog' in this context. It strikes me of rehashing the old 'ladyboys' trope using more common vernacular.

And it ends up meaning whatever you want it to mean to explain something after the fact. Leinster work as hard and are usually as smart as any team out there.

For 2 years in a row the same 2 best teams in the tournament met in the final. If we'd won one or both people might say that we have more dog. They were close games that could have gone either way, on multiple occasions.

La Rochelle have a different game and they were able to play their game for crucial chunks of both finals. Their way is built more for tight games. In NFL terms we're a spread run option team, they're smashmouth play action.

We won 4 finals, we beat lots of good teams, it's a system that works. We can refine it but we can't pivot. It's also a system that breaks. We need to be able to hold our attacking shape better than defences can. So it's sensitive to wasting possession against possession teams, it's sensitive to referees tolerating slowing down the ball illegally. A team with a dominant scrum doesn't sweat a few knock ons. Slow ruck ball isn't an issue if you were going to box kick anyway.

Last year we couldn't get turnovers to exit. This year we got the turnovers but we failed to exit. We're not a team that are bad at exiting, we were unlucky and we needed to be better.

Lack of dog would be when gaps start appearing after multiple phases because some players start getting back on their feet slower. To me doggedness is when you keep giving up easy ball to the front to take away a different attack.

We didn't lose because another team had more emotional energy. We lost a game so tight that every explanation is right, partly. Scrum, defensive lineout, lineout maul, handling, exit kicks, discipline, midfield defence, breakdown, tactical kicking, depth, early injuries, goal kicking, powerplays, giving up advantage etc., we'd have won if any of them had been significantly better.

If we'd won, they'd be learning lessons to come at us again.

The game wasn’t tight. Sorry I agree with you almost all the time but the game was only tight because we didn’t deliver.

Much of the analysis across this thread ignores the fact that we were leading 17-0 at one stage. It’s a disgrace we lost this game

[chrismcc]

The game wasn’t tight. Sorry I agree with you almost all the time but the game was only tight because we didn’t deliver.

Much of the analysis across this thread ignores the fact that we were leading 17-0 at one stage. It’s a disgrace we lost this game

The game was tight. There was one point in it. That's irrefutable. The first 30 minutes weren't tight in leinsters favour the last 50 weren't tight on la rochelles favour bur rugby is played over 80 minutes and it was tight over 80 minutes. You can't cherry pick time periods. It's like when reports say the last 15 minutes put a a gloss on the score. The last 15 minutes are part of the game. The score after 80 is what counts. Sorry that's just a bugbear of mine

[ronk]

So what's the wishlist for next season in terms of selection and tactics.
1. Practice DGs
2. 6-2, bench split, seriously most French teams are doing this and we need to be doing the same in all our games, Note to Faz.
3. For big games- selecting unfit players should be avoided.
4 - 10 feel free.

The bench split wasn't the issue at all. You need an alternative 9 and 10 as they are so crucial and Charlie was good and improved things when he came on. Recall Toulouse ended up with the best scrum half in the world playing 10 and one of the best 10's in the world playing 12.

Not sure about unfit players, maybe you're talking about Furlong? Thought we did ok in the scrum, he wasn't carrying I guess but I'd rather have had the backs doing that occasionally.

If Furlong was unfit, we still probably prefer that to the alternative.

[Oldschool]

So what's the wishlist for next season in terms of selection and tactics.
1. Practice DGs
2. 6-2, bench split, seriously most French teams are doing this and we need to be doing the same in all our games, Note to Faz.
3. For big games- selecting unfit players should be avoided.
4 - 10 feel free.

The bench split wasn't the issue at all. You need an alternative 9 and 10 as they are so crucial and Charlie was good and improved things when he came on. Recall Toulouse ended up with the best scrum half in the world playing 10 and one of the best 10's in the world playing 12.

Not sure about unfit players, maybe you're talking about Furlong? Thought we did ok in the scrum, he wasn't carrying I guess but I'd rather have had the backs doing that occasionally.

If Furlong was unfit, we still probably prefer that to the alternative.

Fact, however unfit doesn't necessarily mean injured.

[Flash Gordon]

The game wasn’t tight. Sorry I agree with you almost all the time but the game was only tight because we didn’t deliver.

Much of the analysis across this thread ignores the fact that we were leading 17-0 at one stage. It’s a disgrace we lost this game

The game was tight. There was one point in it. That's irrefutable. The first 30 minutes weren't tight in leinsters favour the last 50 weren't tight on la rochelles favour bur rugby is played over 80 minutes and it was tight over 80 minutes. You can't cherry pick time periods. It's like when reports say the last 15 minutes put a a gloss on the score. The last 15 minutes are part of the game. The score after 80 is what counts. Sorry that's just a bugbear of mine

Exactly right. Sometimes commentaries can get a bit silly. Another bug bear for me is post match commentary regarding discipline. "we wouldn't have lost without a yellow/red card" or just because of penalties. Discipline is part of the game too. We might well have scored at the end, Big Mike gave away a penalty, it was a penalty, he shouldn't have done it.

[blaker]

The game wasn’t tight. Sorry I agree with you almost all the time but the game was only tight because we didn’t deliver.

Much of the analysis across this thread ignores the fact that we were leading 17-0 at one stage. It’s a disgrace we lost this game

The game was tight. There was one point in it. That's irrefutable. The first 30 minutes weren't tight in leinsters favour the last 50 weren't tight on la rochelles favour bur rugby is played over 80 minutes and it was tight over 80 minutes. You can't cherry pick time periods. It's like when reports say the last 15 minutes put a a gloss on the score. The last 15 minutes are part of the game. The score after 80 is what counts. Sorry that's just a bugbear of mine

Exactly right. Sometimes commentaries can get a bit silly. Another bug bear for me is post match commentary regarding discipline. "we wouldn't have lost without a yellow/red card" or just because of penalties. Discipline is part of the game too. We might well have scored at the end, Big Mike gave away a penalty, it was a penalty, he shouldn't have done it.

Perhaps I should rephrase. The game SHOULD NOT have been tight. It was tight because we woefully failed to manage the position we found ourselves in. Of course one should consider the game as a whole but if you’re 17 nil up then the game is over. We allowed the game become tighter than it should have been. Now evidently we weren’t playing the Renford Rejects and LAR have agency in this but 17-0 should be bulletproof.

[Bigdickenergy]

Disagree on the 6-2 bench split - it leaves you too stretched in the backline with any type of injury. Toulouse in the semi against us a perfect example of how it can badly backfire on you.

It definitely favours the more powerful teams and it honestly wouldn’t surprise me in the future to see some teams go with a 7/1 split on the bench if you have a couple of your backs that can cover multiple positions. An entire front, 2 second rows and 2 back rows. Just bludgeon a smaller team to death with an entirely new pack. Again would depend on back line versatility though.

[jezzer]

Squidge has a really interesting analysis of last few mins on his YouTube. Basically he says that JGP and Ross were on entirely different pages with JGP going for try and Ross trying to drop back to pocket but having to do a couple of clearouts to ensure retention of ball. When Colombe is being treated for his "injury" Ross calls a 15 man huddle presumably to set up drop goal pattern from scrum that never was. This all is evidence that all the talk about Ross bottling drop goal is complete shite. Have a look:

https://youtu.be/oaugXs8hBfQ

Having finally found the guts to watch it, my feeling is that nobody set the gameplan when we finally got up the pitch.

JGP, who picked a terrible time to have a bad game, was looking for the try. The ball needed to be kept in the middle of the park for either a drop goal or pen and JGP just kept flinging it wide to one-out runners. It kept pulling us out of position.

I wouldn't put that on Byrne. But did think that he was unbelievably passive all game.

The kicking for territory was a preplanned tactic. No question about it. The way teammates were consistently aligned behind the kicker showed they were never genuine options to get it. One of the tactical failings imo. LAR could drop 2 or 3 knowing we weren't going to run it back. They could also charge the kicker and not get caught out of position.


Look, it nearly worked. Having thought at the ground that Peyper rode us a bit, I actually realise now that he had a terrific game. Sure, Danty was in the side twice in the buildup to the Sauteni try, right in front of Jaco, but we had our let-offs too.

The defensive performance was magnificent and it was just a second of switching off around the ruck that let them in for the winning try. We folded too many to the openside and left the back door open.

All in all, an amazing performance from two great sides. One got its tactics spot on and one messed theirs up a bit. That was enough.

[chrismcc]

Perhaps I should rephrase. The game SHOULD NOT have been tight. It was tight because we woefully failed to manage the position we found ourselves in. Of course one should consider the game as a whole but if you’re 17 nil up then the game is over. We allowed the game become tighter than it should have been. Now evidently we weren’t playing the Renford Rejects and LAR have agency in this but 17-0 should be bulletproof.

Yeah that's fair enough. At 17 nil I felt confident but when James Ryan went off I just had this niggling feeling at the back if my mind but had thought 17 nil would be enough. Wonder do the players also get niggling doubts when losing such a talisman. Especially given the game he was having. The hit on skeleton before his head knock was huge. Must have been one of the 3 dominant tackles mentioned in the stats above.

[Oldschool]

Disagree on the 6-2 bench split - it leaves you too stretched in the backline with any type of injury. Toulouse in the semi against us a perfect example of how it can badly backfire on you.

It definitely favours the more powerful teams and it honestly wouldn’t surprise me in the future to see some teams go with a 7/1 split on the bench if you have a couple of your backs that can cover multiple positions. An entire front, 2 second rows and 2 back rows. Just bludgeon a smaller team to death with an entirely new pack. Again would depend on back line versatility though.

The IRB could insist on the split being 5-3. Just police it properly.

[FtD]

Disagree on the 6-2 bench split - it leaves you too stretched in the backline with any type of injury. Toulouse in the semi against us a perfect example of how it can badly backfire on you.

It definitely favours the more powerful teams and it honestly wouldn’t surprise me in the future to see some teams go with a 7/1 split on the bench if you have a couple of your backs that can cover multiple positions. An entire front, 2 second rows and 2 back rows. Just bludgeon a smaller team to death with an entirely new pack. Again would depend on back line versatility though.

The IRB could insist on the split being 5-3. Just police it properly.

Was having this debate with someone recently, but I don't actually think necessarily removing the gargantuan guys from the game (the 140kg+ guys) would in and of itself make the game appreciably safer. For the most part, these guys are impactful in tight carries and set pieces, but can rarely generate any semblance of speed / velocity to crash into guys.

The guys who are the most dangerous size in terms of the speed and force of collisions are flankers and centres - guys between 5ft 11 - 6ft 3, who are 108kg-118kg, but who are really quick with that.

I think there's an argument that if you do something to regulate out the really heavy guys, you'll just end up with even more guys with the rugby league build I described, and even more guys who can be involved in really nasty collisions.

[Oldschool]

It definitely favours the more powerful teams and it honestly wouldn’t surprise me in the future to see some teams go with a 7/1 split on the bench if you have a couple of your backs that can cover multiple positions. An entire front, 2 second rows and 2 back rows. Just bludgeon a smaller team to death with an entirely new pack. Again would depend on back line versatility though.

The IRB could insist on the split being 5-3. Just police it properly.

Was having this debate with someone recently, but I don't actually think necessarily removing the gargantuan guys from the game (the 140kg+ guys) would in and of itself make the game appreciably safer. For the most part, these guys are impactful in tight carries and set pieces, but can rarely generate any semblance of speed / velocity to crash into guys.

The guys who are the most dangerous size in terms of the speed and force of collisions are flankers and centres - guys between 5ft 11 - 6ft 3, who are 108kg-118kg, but who are really quick with that.

I think there's an argument that if you do something to regulate out the really heavy guys, you'll just end up with even more guys with the rugby league build I described, and even more guys who can be involved in really nasty collisions.

Then only allow 7 on the bench and a 5-2 split.
Or 8 on bench and only allowed use 7 with a 5-2 split.
There are solutions.