Irelands defensive system

Does anyone know exactly what Irelands defensive strategy is? Personally, I see a passive line angled back from the ruck offering huge amounts of space on the outside. No attempt to close the space, no line speed. In fact we more often go backward in the wide channels and try to shepherd the opposition toward the side-lines.
It is somewhat effective as evidenced by no try’s conceded yesterday and Peter O'Mahonys last ditch tackle is probably part of a great master plan but it scares the bejusus out of me.
In all of our build up games there has been rumours, hopes and prayers that we have more to offer in attack than we showed. I really hope that we've been hiding our best defensive plays as well because we get thumped by France and battered by Argentina if we continue to defend like this.

Expect a harder line next weekend. On occasions we revert to the drift defence against certain teams but for France and others we will (hopefully) use a more aggressive defensive system.

Keith Earls seemed to be thinking he was playing on the wing and standing 10 metres too deep rather than coming up in the line alongside Henshaw.

Do you not think all these things............. considering we talk about defensive structures being numbered and used in certain games................ do we not think that this 'standing' position of players is also part of something the coaches would have approved of in advance?

rodders wrote:Keith Earls seemed to be thinking he was playing on the wing and standing 10 metres too deep rather than coming up in the line alongside Henshaw.

That is why Schmidt will pick Payne at 13

Rush defense is what works best against france (specially with Michalak at 10). they do not seem how to kick above the 1st defensing line so you might as well only play one!

whocares wrote:Rush defense is what works best against france (specially with Michalak at 10). they do not seem how to kick above the 1st defensing line so you might as well only play one!

Yes, we'll keep that in mind, whocares.

geoff999rugby wrote:

rodders wrote:Keith Earls seemed to be thinking he was playing on the wing and standing 10 metres too deep rather than coming up in the line alongside Henshaw.

That is why Schmidt will pick Payne at 13

Just curious but do you think that Earls was doing that on his own account or part of an overall strategy?

I don't know, but as a strategy its hard to fathom from the outside.

ME-109 wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

rodders wrote:Keith Earls seemed to be thinking he was playing on the wing and standing 10 metres too deep rather than coming up in the line alongside Henshaw.

That is why Schmidt will pick Payne at 13

Just curious but do you think that Earls was doing that on his own account or part of an overall strategy?

Why would are strategy be to let the Italians run 15 meters before attempting to tackle them?

Payne organizes the outside backs defense so when he was out the communication between Earls and Henshaw wasn't there, is what I think was the issue.

It's hard to fathom why we would do that against Italy, unless its the greatest bait and switch of all time.

Yes maybe its a rouse to get the French to analyze us and target our midfield as the achilles heel, rather than beast us up the middle with their pack.

We'll then shoot the line and go for the intercepts or isolate Basteraud and Fofana and go for the turn over.

That would make sense.....if the French actually did analysis...

rodders wrote:

ME-109 wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

rodders wrote:Keith Earls seemed to be thinking he was playing on the wing and standing 10 metres too deep rather than coming up in the line alongside Henshaw.

That is why Schmidt will pick Payne at 13

Just curious but do you think that Earls was doing that on his own account or part of an overall strategy?

Why would are strategy be to let the Italians run 15 meters before attempting to tackle them?

Payne organizes the outside backs defense so when he was out the communication between Earls and Henshaw wasn't there, is what I think was the issue.

Given Joe's attention to detail you actually think that Earls (and the other backs) decided to play a drift defence or off the cuff seemed to play that way? That Kiss didnt have a direct contribution to how we played. If so you are even more of a spoofer than your posts appear to suggest.

Nothing wrong with a drift defense, the issue is the massive dog leg which let the attackers run 20 metres before attempting a tackle.

The idea of a drift is to push the team towards the touchline not let them run on-apposed.

Two things here. Can you give an example of when Italy made ground specifically through Earls and secondly can you answer whether you think this was something he specifically took on himself contrary to the coaches?

rodders wrote:

ME-109 wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

rodders wrote:Keith Earls seemed to be thinking he was playing on the wing and standing 10 metres too deep rather than coming up in the line alongside Henshaw.

That is why Schmidt will pick Payne at 13

Just curious but do you think that Earls was doing that on his own account or part of an overall strategy?

Why would are strategy be to let the Italians run 15 meters before attempting to tackle them?

I don't know. But a good person to ring might be Joe. If he's not in - Guns.

Payne is the better 13 defensively, Earls is the better 13 offensively.

Schmidt by instinct will pick Payne

Just for fun and because its another one of Rodders spoof posts...I looked through the whole game and there was one occasion when the whole backline was very passive in defence in the first half. Other than that the midfield defence was perfectly fine. Not one break. Drift defence worked fine overall.

Joe will pick Payne if fit as Henshaw/Payne are his preferred centre pairing and I have no problem with that but please Rodders stop making things up...

Rubbish. Earls was directly responsible for both of Italy's three tries on the night.

And the Oscar goes to...

ME-109 wrote:Just for fun and because its another one of Rodders spoof posts...I looked through the whole game and there was one occasion when the whole backline was very passive in defence in the first half. Other than that the midfield defence was perfectly fine. Not one break. Drift defence worked fine overall.

Ha there was 46 minutes between this post and your previous and you watched 80 minutes of rugby?

I hope our video analysts aren't pulling the wool over Joe's eyes like this!

Seriously though.  I think the players DID stick to a rigid plan.  I think they stuck too rigidly to it and it became hairy out there - but they were under orders and had enough trust to stick with it.
So defence worked in the way that was expected.

But I think the surprise for Joe and the team was that the attack didn't.  I think they had planned a first assault to get perhaps two or three tries and then fall back to 'safe' ground and trusted defending for pretty much all of the rest of the game, or at least until an end of game attempt to get more.  
But the attacking bite didn't manifest like it was expected to (hats off to the Italians) and therefore hatches and lids came down earlier than planned in terms of defending the slim lead - yet one more time.

We can't survive on this pattern for too much longer.  These slim lead defensive games are extremely draining on players. We won't hold out if we have nothing else.

Our defence was far to passive, particularly in the first half.
Line speed was too slow - it worked on the day because we were playing against Italy.

Do that against France, Argentina or New Zealand and it will be a very different result

rodders wrote:

ME-109 wrote:Just for fun and because its another one of Rodders spoof posts...I looked through the whole game and there was one occasion when the whole backline was very passive in defence in the first half. Other than that the midfield defence was perfectly fine. Not one break. Drift defence worked fine overall.

Ha there was 46 minutes between this post and your previous and you watched 80 minutes of rugby?

I hope our video analysts aren't pulling the wool over Joe's eyes like this!

Believe me it was easy to get it down to 46mins

What defensive system?