Setanta wrote:+1
I had hoped we would keep it under 50 but no surprise at all. Important thing is Iain and John are not badly injured; any news?
I think it is fair to be concerned or embarrassed when we lose by over 50 points and put out a side which had some rookies but was not the usual Christmas time kids outing to the RDS. Gilroy, Cave, Burns, Cooney, Warwick, hendy, AOC and Timoney all started and whilst 2 of them went off, the tone was well set already.
Thought an awful lot of the decision making by the players was shockingly bad last night. Take something as simple as kickoffs, if Munster were going to repeatedly run it back at you and you are down a ton of points why kick off short? Kick it long and put pressure on them in their 22.
kingofthehill wrote:Billy Burns has done nothing for me to suggest the 10 shirt is his. He doesn’t attack the line at all,just ships the ball on while static.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Which plays into the Munster strategy of having fast line speed. Additionally, having a muck 9 who doesn't know how to kick, adds to our problems. Billy Burns is a young inexperienced 10, he has to learn.
He is young, but not inexperienced. He has had plenty of games for Gloucester in the English top division over the past few years, where he often played well. I think he will do OK in Ulster as he beds in. But I want to see McPhillips get plenty of game time too.
Dan clearly thinks Burns is the man as he has given him all 5 starts when based on the end of last season, he at least had some kind of alternative option to try in McPhillips. Problem now is that we are running into a couple of “must win” games at home against Connacht and Tigers, so difficult to throw in McPhillips or Lowry for a first start under such roessure.
Whatever people may think about it being a happier squad this season (funnily enough i heard it was a happier squad as well at the start of last season) the size of that defeat will affect confidence. Around half the team that started last night would be pushing for places in our main starting xv this season and even when Hendy and Cooney were on a blind man could see we were going to get thrashed. We are now playing 2 games at home which we should win (no excuses) and losing one or other, followed by a likely drubbing at Racing will really risk a big fall in confidence.
Some fans may think we should write off Europe (and given squad depth there is logic to that) but we all know that will not happen for a variety of reasons (and indeed i imagine it would be very unpopular with the players). So given that we have 3 big games coming up a sudden change at 10 would indicate that Dan has maybe had a change of heart about Burns.
He will not change Burns now.
Next week will be as close to full strength as possible.
Lowry will get chances at 10 through the year. The annoying thing for him is that he’s so talented that he will be moved around different positions to accommodate others. Would love to see him get a chance in a full strength ulster team. His first touch from midfield scrum was the first time in 43mins that Ulster got a spark in the game.
kingofthehill wrote:Billy Burns has done nothing for me to suggest the 10 shirt is his. He doesn’t attack the line at all,just ships the ball on while static.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Which plays into the Munster strategy of having fast line speed. Additionally, having a muck 9 who doesn't know how to kick, adds to our problems. Billy Burns is a young inexperienced 10, he has to learn.
He is young, but not inexperienced. He has had plenty of games for Gloucester in the English top division over the past few years, where he often played well. I think he will do OK in Ulster as he beds in. But I want to see McPhillips get plenty of game time too.
Dan clearly thinks Burns is the man as he has given him all 5 starts when based on the end of last season, he at least had some kind of alternative option to try in McPhillips. Problem now is that we are running into a couple of “must win” games at home against Connacht and Tigers, so difficult to throw in McPhillips or Lowry for a first start under such roessure.
Whatever people may think about it being a happier squad this season (funnily enough i heard it was a happier squad as well at the start of last season) the size of that defeat will affect confidence. Around half the team that started last night would be pushing for places in our main starting xv this season and even when Hendy and Cooney were on a blind man could see we were going to get thrashed. We are now playing 2 games at home which we should win (no excuses) and losing one or other, followed by a likely drubbing at Racing will really risk a big fall in confidence.
Some fans may think we should write off Europe (and given squad depth there is logic to that) but we all know that will not happen for a variety of reasons (and indeed i imagine it would be very unpopular with the players). So given that we have 3 big games coming up a sudden change at 10 would indicate that Dan has maybe had a change of heart about Burns.
He will not change Burns now.
Next week will be as close to full strength as possible.
Lowry will get chances at 10 through the year. The annoying thing for him is that he’s so talented that he will be moved around different positions to accommodate others. Would love to see him get a chance in a full strength ulster team. His first touch from midfield scrum was the first time in 43mins that Ulster got a spark in the game.
Would like to have seen Lowry get some time at 10 last night and Burns play at fullback.
Given the next 3 games and particularly if we beat Tigers, then it could be Dragons in game 9 of the season before we see McPhillips or Lowry get any gametime at 10.
BR wrote:So Ulster have been cutting back in squad size. Is it time to forego the highly payed, big name imports and use the money to maintain a reasonable depth to the squad. In other words, if we can't have sufficient sthrength in depth, would you accept depth in favour of strength?
Would be a sound strategy. Question is though, where do we get the Ireland qualified depth from?
I was thinking Ulster would be the obvious place to look.
Didn't see the game but if Ulster where kicking short kick-offs --then you pick a target ( player to kick the ball to ) kick it slow and flat and swallow the B quickly . Long kicks against Munster last night were a non starter -- with Earls , Conway and Carberry to run from deep too much inexperience on the Ulster side for that .
Within this carapace of skepticism there lives an optimist
BR wrote:So Ulster have been cutting back in squad size. Is it time to forego the highly payed, big name imports and use the money to maintain a reasonable depth to the squad. In other words, if we can't have sufficient sthrength in depth, would you accept depth in favour of strength?
Would be a sound strategy. Question is though, where do we get the Ireland qualified depth from?
I was thinking Ulster would be the obvious place to look.
Well if you find any hidden depth currently reaiding in Ulster, as opposed to people making up the numbers (literally) then please let Bryn and Dan know asap.
Apologies if this has been answered above, I'm too depressed to read the whole thread. Is this Ulster's worst ever defeat or have we been worse at some time in the past?
solidarity wrote:Apologies if this has been answered above, I'm too depressed to read the whole thread. Is this Ulster's worst ever defeat or have we been worse at some time in the past?
So the stats for the season show we have been passing the ball more than any other team. So why are we so poor at creating gaps in the opposition defence. Is it lack of formidable forwards to suck in defenders, or do we just not have any attacking plays ?
I actually feel sorry for Stockdale and Henderson. Quality players in a festering pile of turd. Once the RWC is over, anyone with an ounce of ambition should be off to England or France.
Climb up onto the top of your house and start screaming: 'stand up for the Ulstermen, stand.......'
davejohnston wrote:So the stats for the season show we have been passing the ball more than any other team. So why are we so poor at creating gaps in the opposition defence. Is it lack of formidable forwards to suck in defenders, or do we just not have any attacking plays ?
No attacking plays because they have created no space. There is the odd fatboy taking the ball forward from the ruck, which is an improvement on previous seasons, but it is unstructured individual play and breaks down by the 3rd phase with a forced offload or isolated ball carrier. The backs are relying on an uprushing defender to slip or be seriously mistimed in order to make any ground. After that, it's heads-up rugby with no organised system.