Heineken Champions Cup Final 2023

[RoboProp]

I did and I agree. We lack the "dog" - as he put it - that gets teams over the line. Ireland seems to have it, thankfully. Hopefully Nienebar brings it into leinster.

No he wont. You're born with dog IMHO. You either have it in you or you don't
Porter has it, Ryan has it, JVDF has it.

I don't know what dog means. We didn't lose this game because we didn't front up or chicken out of contests. We lost it because we aimlessly kicked the ball back to the best team in Europe at carrying the ball for long periods of the game. And also because we lacked a bit of leadership at key moments, the final drive being the biggest case in point.

Nail on head.

[MylesNaGapoleen]

I don't know what dog means. We didn't lose this game because we didn't front up or chicken out of contests. We lost it because we aimlessly kicked the ball back to the best team in Europe at carrying the ball for long periods of the game. And also because we lacked a bit of leadership at key moments, the final drive being the biggest case in point.

It's nothing to do with chickening out of anything. Drico described it as an additional hunger or desire you often associate with underdogs who are really up against it - hence the phrase "dog". Leinster are more like the all blacks of the 90s and 00s - exceptionally talented, well coached, unafraid of everyone and like Ireland, are not underdogs. LAR played like underdogs yesterday, thanks to ROGs poetic license about function rooms, eye contact and other bollix, even though they are an exceptionally good team.

In the final phases, instead of going for a drop..Leinster trusted the process, they trusted their talent and (having watched it back a few times) were undone with clear penalty calls on the LAR line. Earlier, we fluffed a few exits (Lowe & JGP) and gifted them possession..as you point out. I guarantee you, nobody would be talking about leadership issues if we got the penalty we should have on their line and slotted it over.

[JohnB]

One can have all the “dog”, “pashun”, “drive” or whatever one wants to call it but if it isn’t allied to “smarts” it isn’t going to count for very much. Our 2nd half on Saturday was a melange of poor decisions and poor execution which ultimately sank us unfortunately.

[MylesNaGapoleen]

One can have all the “dog”, “pashun”, “drive” or whatever one wants to call it but if it isn’t allied to “smarts” it isn’t going to count for very much. Our 2nd half on Saturday was a melange of poor decisions and poor execution which ultimately sank us unfortunately.

agreed. a few exits went straight into touch...I recall 3 in particular that gifted possession back.

[artaneboy]

No he wont. You're born with dog IMHO. You either have it in you or you don't
Porter has it, Ryan has it, JVDF has it.

Fair point.

I disagree. You can build aggression into a group. For a sporting example, the formerly freewheeling Donegal footballers suddenly started thinking they were the baddest gang on football street in 2011 (the year of the infamous SF against Dublin). They won the all Ireland in 2012.

This is true. Excellent analogy.

You can be born with dog: SOB, Porter, Leavy; or you can acquire dog: VdF, Ryan. We are not that far off, but we need to work on it. Suddenly Nienaber looks the right coach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ruckedtobits]

Drico was very insightful and subtly direct on OTB last night. Possibly the most telling I have ever heard from him in commenting on an Irish team.

He diplomatically called out Ross Byrne, suggesting that he is not adequate for Ireland at RWC knock-out stages. He also called out the team, despite being more talented and deeper than the 2011-12 crop, as not being a great team, because greatness is judged by eking out the championships - Heineken Cup Championships that is.

He also fairly pointedly said that Paulie is next in line for Ireland coach role whenever that is and hinted that the idea of Paulie and ROG sharing the coaching ticket is not the slam dunk that pouplist opinion sees it as. He is not taken in by the ROG hype machine and didn't hesitate to put it on the public record that he thought ROG planned a good bit of his media tactics (aka shithousery - my words). We all now he does but the media never point to or challenge how ROG the Golden Goose keeps delivering for them.

It was quite a telling interview alright.

Also, someone mentioned his apearances on OTB as evidence of how much ROG likes to be available to the media. I think that is true, but there are two things going on here. One is that I think ROG is paid to do OTB and it also fits into his PR strategy of creating a tsunmai of popular opinion that forces the IRFU to appoint a coach who does not sit well with the IRFU's style (respect for the values of the game - which would be part of their pitch to sponsors) and who is currently not within the coaching ticket, which is the preferred succession route.

ROG's ambition, narcissistic persona and strategy has him, the IRFU, the Irish public (he is thinking wider than rugby public) and Irish rugby itself on a collision course.

+1
Good summary of BO'D's views & RO'G's persona and media tactics.

[theghost]

Re dog etc ,it's drive isn't it ,it's will to win and leadership,willing to put your head on the line and fight,Dan leavy what a loss to ye and Ireland had it in spades.

Where I think leinster fell down crucially was in the Final 10 mins.
3 times inside the 22 jgp had opportunities to set up a winning dg yet Ross never gave him that opportunity.
Very similar to nz years ago in a world cup sf v france ,leinster kept looking for a try.
The question I have in my head all week was, did the management and team decide this pre game.
In modern game it's,all about a few key moments ,was this scenario discussed beforehand ,ie what do we do in last few mins if a point or 2 behind .
Fair play to them they backed themselves to get over but it ultimately failed, I was screaming at the TV go for a,dg.
I think if js or Ryan were on the field that leinster would have gone that route.
RB is for me a good steady 10 but he is not someone that I see nailing his colours to the mast and saying get me in position and I will get the job done ,for me he stayed wide on each occasion where dropping into pocket could have won the game.
Small margins ,commiserations on the result ,its a tough one to lose and at home as well ,been there many a time with munster ,never easy and you would feel for the players .

[enby]

Charlie has so much dog he must almost bark. It was a massive mistake not to put him on earlier

[artaneboy]

Re dog etc ,it's drive isn't it ,it's will to win and leadership,willing to put your head on the line and fight,Dan leavy what a loss to ye and Ireland had it in spades.

Where I think leinster fell down crucially was in the Final 10 mins.
3 times inside the 22 jgp had opportunities to set up a winning dg yet Ross never gave him that opportunity.
Very similar to nz years ago in a world cup sf v france ,leinster kept looking for a try.
The question I have in my head all week was, did the management and team decide this pre game.
In modern game it's,all about a few key moments ,was this scenario discussed beforehand ,ie what do we do in last few mins if a point or 2 behind .
Fair play to them they backed themselves to get over but it ultimately failed, I was screaming at the TV go for a,dg.
I think if js or Ryan were on the field that leinster would have gone that route.
RB is for me a good steady 10 but he is not someone that I see nailing his colours to the mast and saying get me in position and I will get the job done ,for me he stayed wide on each occasion where dropping into pocket could have won the game.
Small margins ,commiserations on the result ,its a tough one to lose and at home as well ,been there many a time with munster ,never easy and you would feel for the players .

Indeed, Dan Leavy will be missed for the next 10 years, no matter who else comes through. A unique talent.

Incidentally he was surprisingly frank in his recent Off the Ball interview in his attitude to Herbst subsequent to the injury. Not impressed by the South African’s lack of contact, not to broach remorse afterwards.

Whatever about the intent or otherwise of the then Ulster prop, his careless (at best) and callous (otherwise) failure to make contact is hard to understand or excuse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[backrower8]

No he wont. You're born with dog IMHO. You either have it in you or you don't
Porter has it, Ryan has it, JVDF has it.

Fair point.

I disagree. You can build aggression into a group. For a sporting example, the formerly freewheeling Donegal footballers suddenly started thinking they were the baddest gang on football street in 2011 (the year of the infamous SF against Dublin). They won the all Ireland in 2012.

"Porter has it, Ryan has it, JVDF has it"...and Sheehan & Kelleher & Doris have it too...Tadhg when fit.

There's plenty of dog in this team and we showed plenty of it when bossing LAR in the opening half hour and we showed great dog in our rearguard action for the second half.

What let us down was our poor exits/kicking and an inability to change things up tactically, to show LAR a different picture...to play a Plan B. They copped to how we weren't going to run it, probably because we were scared of them at the breakdown, and they put huge pressure on our kickers and that worked. They pressured us and we didn't dare to pressure them by playing phases.

Allowing Skelton, of all people, to harvest the lineout in the second half was another example of us not changing tack to compete in the air and put pressure on LAR.

We also ran out of steam against a much more powerful 23 who had a 6:2 bench that they could use tactically. Three of our changes were for injuries to marquee players including our best enforcer at the 30m mark and our largest starter on 44m. So we were a bit curtailed in using our bench tactically and when we did it was too little too late.

Although Ngatai coming on for Robbie might have been as good as a tactical change as by then Robbie had made 11 tackles in 62 mins and was on course for 15 if he did the full 80. Baird for Conan @ 60m and Kelleher for Sheehan @ 69m were both too late imho. I would have wanted Baird's power and Doris ability at #8 from 45m and Kellher on at 60m.

We didn't use Healy or McGrath until 78m & 79m. I fail to see the point of that, especially with an exhausted team. Either both are internationals/super-experienced pros who can do a good job earlier instead of players who are spent or they are not. Bringing players of huge pedigree on at 75m+ is BS and surely damaging to their self-esteem and ergo their potential to deliver a pivotal moment. JGP was out on his feet as he was targeted in the 2nd half and he needed to be subbed off at about 60/65, not 79.

LAR with a much larger pack and a 6:2 split, replaced 75% of their pack with 6 fresh forwards across 18 minutes in the 2nd half, from 51 mins to 69 mins. The score remained at 26:20 throughout this period, only clicking to 26:27 on 73m. Meanwhile we replaced 50% of our pack in 39m (from 30m to 69m, taking in HT. Healy's 2 mins at 78m don't count).

No wonder Skelton can play 80m when the second half took 54.5 mins to play out. Alldritt is the only other of their fwds to do 80 while we de facto had 4 including 2 front 5 players (Porter, Molony, VDF & Doris). In the second half alone (leaving aside Healy and Luke coming on as replacements and Antonio replacing Colombe at 78/9m) there were a total of 17 stoppages (6 substitution stoppages, 1 stoppage for a LAR try-conversion, 2 stoppages for yellow cards, 1 very long stoppage for a red card/Colombe injury, 2 stoppages for LAR injuries (just short of 3 mins for Skelton who had his boot strapped and just over a minute for Botia's cramp) and 5 penalties leading to either kicks or lineouts. 54.5 mins is 36% additional time. The first half took 43.5 mins.

LAR didn't even use their two back replacements as their backs were uninjured and made just 30 tackles in total, while our starting backs made 58! An average of 8 versus 4 each. JGP & Henshaw had 11 each, with Ross Byrne on 10 & Ringer on 8, compared to K-B on 8, Hastoy 6, Danty 2(!!) & Seuteni just 5. That's 40 versus 21 for the inside backs with 19-7 in the centres showing just how little pressure we brought to bear bar high kicking metres, apparently 1,000+ metres.

Poor exits, a lack of variety in our play/plan B and injuries to key forwards and being mentally uptight are the reasons we lost on the field.

Not having the right cattle (enough big men) due to our rugby model,not deploying our bench effectively and a lack of inner belief are the off-field failings.

Out of everyting I believe that our lack of inner belief, especially against this opponent is what hurt us the most. Yes we started well, until we got punched in the face and our inability to react says it all for me. Under a different coaching ticket I think we get it done at least once in 3 finals...(plus a semi and a QF against the same 2 teams and one second row on 4 of those 5 occasions).

[desperado]

Everyone here on the last 60 pages could do better than listen to Brian O'Driscoll today on Newstalk. Theres been reams and reams of blaming everyone, anything, else and that is becoming the Leinster way. Loosing from such a start, at home, in our situation is GUBU, Northamptonesque, if you will. RoG pointed at our jaw and said I will hit you there and knock you out two weeks ago (also 12 months ago) and here we are.

Going in on the players is harsh and it is never going to happen on our fans forum. Our back row and our half backs are not leaders and it kills me to say this. I really thought this was the game when Gary assumed Johnnys mantle, for me he has been incredible all season, but he did not. Being battered in the center will take that away from a man. I am the same sickened boat as everyone else but this was it, this was the fifth star. Leinsters internationals will be primed for Team Ireland next year, we have no solution at out half. I love Ross but he's not making test or european teams outside our bubble - and that leads to broader soul searching.

It may have been touched on but this is a psychological issue that maybe, possibly Neinebar can fix. These boys and men are among the most talented in Europe but when the pressure is on, the real pressure, we do not have what it takes to get it over the line without Johnny, and he's gone. I esteem Hugos opinion here most of all and I await the podcast, but the prevailing opinion that sure its only one point, we are okay guv, after consistent losses in crucial games since 2018, I would hope puts paid to that.

We go again. The players dont need to change but the grit, and the comfort, does. (and also the scrum and jackal/turnover threat but thats coachable)

agree with all of this. I dream of Leavy. We need more than a bit of dog also. Baird, Doris, VDF ... too nice. I was never going to say it prior to the final, but it was like the bad angel on your shoulder whispering in your ear. This group performed and delivered as part of an Irish team, like no other has even come close to before. The angel/devil (my mirror OS!) asked in a whisper: is the difference the ownership and solving of the constant problems test level throws at you that is ingrained in these players by Farrell as part of a group. It's different to what has been done at LR over Stus reign, which essentially has been delivering a consistent level of skill, and ingenuity par excellence - but maybe lacking in the 'resilience stakes. Stu did talk about comfortable in chaos, but how often do we get those situations at Leinster. I think Farrell goes beyond that, he's said as much - he almost seeks it out, he continually talks and wants the group to take ownership and deliver when under ridiculously challenging situations. To him the footballing skills are a given now; and everything is focused on not just being 'comfortable' in chaos - but reveling in it. The devil asked me, as I worried about Stu's overall record (and I'm talking back to Eng days) - would you swop for Farrell in that dressing room for that final? Don't get me wrong; I admire and appreciate what Stu and Leo did for Leinster, but not delivering the HC this year in particular, having stormed into a 17-0 lead wasn't good enough. Both finals came down to the last crucial few minutes; so similar it's uncanny. Last year they were camped on our line, needing a try to come from behind; this year we were camped on their line, needing only a score to win. To say we couldn't keep calm heads, comfortable or thriving in chaos (take your pick), and deliver that score says a lot. It will be interesting what Nienebar brings.

[Blueberry]

So finally plucked up the courage to watch it again. Most of the failings have been well covered and we can see the poor kicks, failure to execute at the end (Lowe could have walked in at one point if we had seen him), failure to take the drop goal etc, challenge the lineouts, failure to go wide and through some phases in the second half the few times we had it...etc etc. It should never have got to this though after that start.

Bottom line is we weren't good enough on the day. Question is why ? We have the skills, we have the talent etc.

I can only see it as a mental block, a failure to kill the game dead when we had them on the ropes and make sure they couldn't get back up. Other posters have mentioned lack of dog and perhaps that is it but for me it's that uber competitive killer instinct which is missing which a hyper competitive leadership pod brings. With Ryan off and no J10 we didn't seem to have it and it is bizarre. Well covered by other posters but our failure to have regular close games perhaps a factor there.

For me it all started going wrong after the first LAR try and while for the first 12 mins I was sitting there going WOW, as soon as that try went in we seemed to start to shift. It was too easy a score and self doubt came back and I am not sure we recovered. Demons back.

I know we kicked the two penalties to take it out to 23-7 but the response there was kill the game and go to the corner both times. Be utterly ruthless and vicious and close it out. We got hit and needed to hit back. The penalties were weak calls.

At 23 -14 in the stadium I was extremely concerned and it was very quiet around us and so it turned. Second half was a car crash and a mental one. Only when we went behind did we wake up again.

It felt like we were hanging on from 17-7 though.

Solution has to come from coaching and leadership structures which instill a higher pitch of aggression and confidence in our rugby but also a less protective selection process towards the business end of the season, we cant wrap lads in cotton wool in semi finals. While the LAR defeat hurts big time it is ridiculous that we aint in the URC final and that was entirely our fault with an ovely protective selection.The pain of this defeat has to be the primary motivator now and we have a lot of mental work ahead.

Perhaps the change in the coaching ticket will add a bit more of this killer instinct but we just have to be more ruthless, more aggressive and less protective and if that means shipping some more injuries so be it.

In summary have we been a little too carefully managed ?

[LeinsterLeader]

So finally plucked up the courage to watch it again. Most of the failings have been well covered and we can see the poor kicks, failure to execute at the end (Lowe could have walked in at one point if we had seen him), failure to take the drop goal etc, challenge the lineouts, failure to go wide and through some phases in the second half the few times we had it...etc etc. It should never have got to this though after that start.

Bottom line is we weren't good enough on the day. Question is why ? We have the skills, we have the talent etc.

I can only see it as a mental block, a failure to kill the game dead when we had them on the ropes and make sure they couldn't get back up. Other posters have mentioned lack of dog and perhaps that is it but for me it's that uber competitive killer instinct which is missing which a hyper competitive leadership pod brings. With Ryan off and no J10 we didn't seem to have it and it is bizarre. Well covered by other posters but our failure to have regular close games perhaps a factor there.

For me it all started going wrong after the first LAR try and while for the first 12 mins I was sitting there going WOW, as soon as that try went in we seemed to start to shift. It was too easy a score and self doubt came back and I am not sure we recovered. Demons back.

I know we kicked the two penalties to take it out to 23-7 but the response there was kill the game and go to the corner both times. Be utterly ruthless and vicious and close it out. We got hit and needed to hit back. The penalties were weak calls.

At 23 -14 in the stadium I was extremely concerned and it was very quiet around us and so it turned. Second half was a car crash and a mental one. Only when we went behind did we wake up again.

It felt like we were hanging on from 17-7 though.

Solution has to come from coaching and leadership structures which instill a higher pitch of aggression and confidence in our rugby but also a less protective selection process towards the business end of the season, we cant wrap lads in cotton wool in semi finals. While the LAR defeat hurts big time it is ridiculous that we aint in the URC final and that was entirely our fault with an ovely protective selection.The pain of this defeat has to be the primary motivator now and we have a lot of mental work ahead.

Perhaps the change in the coaching ticket will add a bit more of this killer instinct but we just have to be more ruthless, more aggressive and less protective and if that means shipping some more injuries so be it.

In summary have we been a little too carefully managed ?

As someone who was disappointed we didn't go stronger (or at least take a few more chances in the selection) against Munster I think I have be be fair to the management and say that they were 'damned if they do damned if they don't' in relation to that selection. Had we have gone stronger against Munster and shipped 3 or 4 key injuries it would have most definitely been used by people on here, other Leinster supporters and the media to beat the management if and when they lost to LAR.

Look we'd all love another game on Saturday but lets be honest, it would be a really bad conciliation prize after last week (albeit better then nothing). I think the fact too that this was an 'Aviva' final meant everything was always going to go into that one basket. If the final had of been elsewhere the thought process might have been different (maybe not).

Another thing which hasn't been talked about much was that LAR really lucked out in the way the fixtures fell. They were never likely to need to win that game the week before and then have two weeks after the final until your league knockout was a nice run. Where on the other hand had we of won we would have been going semi-final-final in 3 weeks. That was always going to be tough. I'm not trying to use that an excuse for the way things played out but they are facts and my point is that if our run in was the same as LARs I think out selection policy may have been different.

[Ruckedtobits]

So finally plucked up the courage to watch it again. Most of the failings have been well covered and we can see the poor kicks, failure to execute at the end (Lowe could have walked in at one point if we had seen him), failure to take the drop goal etc, challenge the lineouts, failure to go wide and through some phases in the second half the few times we had it...etc etc. It should never have got to this though after that start.

Bottom line is we weren't good enough on the day. Question is why ? We have the skills, we have the talent etc.

I can only see it as a mental block, a failure to kill the game dead when we had them on the ropes and make sure they couldn't get back up. Other posters have mentioned lack of dog and perhaps that is it but for me it's that uber competitive killer instinct which is missing which a hyper competitive leadership pod brings. With Ryan off and no J10 we didn't seem to have it and it is bizarre. Well covered by other posters but our failure to have regular close games perhaps a factor there.

For me it all started going wrong after the first LAR try and while for the first 12 mins I was sitting there going WOW, as soon as that try went in we seemed to start to shift. It was too easy a score and self doubt came back and I am not sure we recovered. Demons back.

I know we kicked the two penalties to take it out to 23-7 but the response there was kill the game and go to the corner both times. Be utterly ruthless and vicious and close it out. We got hit and needed to hit back. The penalties were weak calls.

At 23 -14 in the stadium I was extremely concerned and it was very quiet around us and so it turned. Second half was a car crash and a mental one. Only when we went behind did we wake up again.

It felt like we were hanging on from 17-7 though.

Solution has to come from coaching and leadership structures which instill a higher pitch of aggression and confidence in our rugby but also a less protective selection process towards the business end of the season, we cant wrap lads in cotton wool in semi finals. While the LAR defeat hurts big time it is ridiculous that we aint in the URC final and that was entirely our fault with an ovely protective selection.The pain of this defeat has to be the primary motivator now and we have a lot of mental work ahead.

Perhaps the change in the coaching ticket will add a bit more of this killer instinct but we just have to be more ruthless, more aggressive and less protective and if that means shipping some more injuries so be it.

In summary have we been a little too carefully managed ?

Disagree with very little of this. Watching (and remembering) knock-out games in rugby and various other sports, it has always struck me that winning teams seem, more often, to surprise their opponents at some critical point in the game.

It can validly be argued that Leinster surprised LAR in the opening 12 minutes. However, we never surprised them, tactically, thereafter. I believe they surprised us by attacking the short-side repeatedly with big runners in the second half. This was their, effective, response to our opposition to their maul and probably contributed to our tackle count more than any other factor.

The other significant tactical move (but hardly a surprise) was running Danty as first receiver at Byrne. I counted five times, but on each occasion Ross conceded at least 5m and the gain line, even though Danty was ultimately tackled on four occasions.

Baird nor Molony never competed at No 2, or even No 1 - Connacht have consistently shown the value of turning over opposition ball. Ross was never able to bring Lowe into the play against their out-half. Keenan never received the ball as first receiver. We never threw a line-out over the top of a shortened line-out.

Each of these options contains an element of surprise, and, Yes, risk. But sometimes, and often in knock-out sport, risk must be part of your tactical approach.

In both of our Competitions, there is a night-and-day difference between the regular season and the semi-final / final. The gap is profound and we often appear unprepared for that gap. That is what Leo and Leinster must now focus on, even if it involves more risk.

[Blueberry]

So finally plucked up the courage to watch it again. Most of the failings have been well covered and we can see the poor kicks, failure to execute at the end (Lowe could have walked in at one point if we had seen him), failure to take the drop goal etc, challenge the lineouts, failure to go wide and through some phases in the second half the few times we had it...etc etc. It should never have got to this though after that start.

Bottom line is we weren't good enough on the day. Question is why ? We have the skills, we have the talent etc.

I can only see it as a mental block, a failure to kill the game dead when we had them on the ropes and make sure they couldn't get back up. Other posters have mentioned lack of dog and perhaps that is it but for me it's that uber competitive killer instinct which is missing which a hyper competitive leadership pod brings. With Ryan off and no J10 we didn't seem to have it and it is bizarre. Well covered by other posters but our failure to have regular close games perhaps a factor there.

For me it all started going wrong after the first LAR try and while for the first 12 mins I was sitting there going WOW, as soon as that try went in we seemed to start to shift. It was too easy a score and self doubt came back and I am not sure we recovered. Demons back.

I know we kicked the two penalties to take it out to 23-7 but the response there was kill the game and go to the corner both times. Be utterly ruthless and vicious and close it out. We got hit and needed to hit back. The penalties were weak calls.

At 23 -14 in the stadium I was extremely concerned and it was very quiet around us and so it turned. Second half was a car crash and a mental one. Only when we went behind did we wake up again.

It felt like we were hanging on from 17-7 though.

Solution has to come from coaching and leadership structures which instill a higher pitch of aggression and confidence in our rugby but also a less protective selection process towards the business end of the season, we cant wrap lads in cotton wool in semi finals. While the LAR defeat hurts big time it is ridiculous that we aint in the URC final and that was entirely our fault with an ovely protective selection.The pain of this defeat has to be the primary motivator now and we have a lot of mental work ahead.

Perhaps the change in the coaching ticket will add a bit more of this killer instinct but we just have to be more ruthless, more aggressive and less protective and if that means shipping some more injuries so be it.

In summary have we been a little too carefully managed ?

Disagree with very little of this. Watching (and remembering) knock-out games in rugby and various other sports, it has always struck me that winning teams seem, more often, to surprise their opponents at some critical point in the game.

It can validly be argued that Leinster surprised LAR in the opening 12 minutes. However, we never surprised them, tactically, thereafter. I believe they surprised us by attacking the short-side repeatedly with big runners in the second half. This was their, effective, response to our opposition to their maul and probably contributed to our tackle count more than any other factor.

The other significant tactical move (but hardly a surprise) was running Danty as first receiver at Byrne. I counted five times, but on each occasion Ross conceded at least 5m and the gain line, even though Danty was ultimately tackled on four occasions.

Baird nor Molony never competed at No 2, or even No 1 - Connacht have consistently shown the value of turning over opposition ball. Ross was never able to bring Lowe into the play against their out-half. Keenan never received the ball as first receiver. We never threw a line-out over the top of a shortened line-out.

Each of these options contains an element of surprise, and, Yes, risk. But sometimes, and often in knock-out sport, risk must be part of your tactical approach.

In both of our Competitions, there is a night-and-day difference between the regular season and the semi-final / final. The gap is profound and we often appear unprepared for that gap. That is what Leo and Leinster must now focus on, even if it involves more risk.

Yes you are so right as regards surprise and risk and it ties in with that killer instinct and you have nailed the target for Leo et Al. Getting across that profound gap......

[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.....

[ronk]

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.

[Dexter]

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.

Great post. Well said.

[MylesNaGapoleen]

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.

[enby]

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