Montpellier vs Ulster

[John_e_boy]

So what is the story with all these bench appearances for Henderson?

IRFU player welfare programme?

Carrying some kind of knock?

I can't help thinking that using him as an impact sub after 50-60 minutes still gives your opponents the best part of the game to avoid facing your strongest pack. Especially given Henderson's ball-carrying skills and extra lineout option if needed.

I simply don't understand it, but I guess I'm oldskool - you start with your strongest team and hope the subs don't drop the tempo when they get on.

John; this assumes that Henderson has a place in Ulster's best pack (or, more accurately, Ulster's best pack for this game). I do not buy that assumption. Henderson plays a game that fans like to see and he's young. I think there is, based on these two things, a tendency to overrate his contribution to date. Yes, he is an almighty carrier of the ball - he has pace and power in the loose and always seems to get over the gainline in the right. He also has big question marks over his discipline (in part, this can be chalked down to youthful enthusiasm, I'm sure).

An away game in France against a team with a monster pack who will look to rumble and win penalties is, therefore, not necessarily the best opposition against whom to play Henderson. Henderson may give away penalties and he will certainly take the ball into contact. These are two things that Ulster may wish to avoid, particularly early in the game. Keep the heavyweight Montpellier pack moving, tire them out, then spring someone like Henderson from the bench to punch through the holes left by tired legs. To me, this would be a sensible approach.

So, let's look at Ulster's preferred selection, which would have been Williams at 8 and Wilson at 6. Williams is a big beast of a ballcarrier but he also has a plethora of skills, particularly his offloading, that would suit him well to the gameplan one expects Ulster to play. Wilson, who prefers to play at 8, brings the host of technical and handling skills of an 8 into this game, so again, fitting with the game Ulster may wish to play. In the absence of Williams, Diack is played at 6. Diack is also a converted 8 with plenty of skilful attributes, particularly very good hands and good linking play, which again will help the ball moving. First, he would, therefore, be the most direct replacement for Williams, with Wilson moving to 8, thus causing the least disruption to how Ulster have, probably, been preparing to approach this game. Second, his discipline is rarely questioned.

In this respect, I would say that Diack is the right call and is the better of the two players for this game. I don't think, yet, that Iain Henderson has a place in Ulster's strongest pack on any given day but I think this is particularly pertinent for the game on Saturday.

Good points made of course. I guess it comes down to the coach's gameplan and this would explain that. On the other hand, the coaching style that I'm more used to (in my playing days) was to play your team's strengths first and foremost and to think about neutralising your opposition second. The theory being, I guess, your strength is their weakness.

But again, amateur rugby coaching vs top level professionals. I see the difference. I see Saturday's game being really tight and the opportunities of breaking the gainlain/passing a defender with ball in hand will be limited, which is why I'd prefer to see someone like Henderson who could be doing exactly what the defensive strengths of Diack probably won't.

Anyway, it's going to be another nerve-wracking 80 minutes for sure.

And I'm still in a state of shock after watching Wasps v Bayonne last night. Fitzgibbon refereed very well - ergo he's just biased against Us

[CIMANFOREVER]

So what is the story with all these bench appearances for Henderson?

IRFU player welfare programme?

Carrying some kind of knock?

I can't help thinking that using him as an impact sub after 50-60 minutes still gives your opponents the best part of the game to avoid facing your strongest pack. Especially given Henderson's ball-carrying skills and extra lineout option if needed.

I simply don't understand it, but I guess I'm oldskool - you start with your strongest team and hope the subs don't drop the tempo when they get on.

+1 I'm all for going for broke and see what happens.. get ahead and stay ahead. Hendo after 60 min no good if we're 20 points down.

[ruckover]

Dear Lawwwwwwrd above ... what did we do to deserve thon?

It could have been a hell of a lot worse fleg and at least the guys know what he is like.

Yes.
A good young referee who has always refereed our games well.

He's a couple of mares so far this season though. Apparently he completely lost the plot in the Treviso v Munster game and a week earlier he was heavily biased towards the Ospreys in their match against Leinster at the RDS, and I definitely thought Leinster were very hard done by. Not sure about him right now.

I'll never forgive him for giving Sarries the line-out they scored from last season in the Heineken Cup quarter-final whenever one of their guys clearly touched it no more than three feet in front of him.

[Neil F]

Good points made of course. I guess it comes down to the coach's gameplan and this would explain that. On the other hand, the coaching style that I'm more used to (in my playing days) was to play your team's strengths first and foremost and to think about neutralising your opposition second. The theory being, I guess, your strength is their weakness.

But again, amateur rugby coaching vs top level professionals. I see the difference. I see Saturday's game being really tight and the opportunities of breaking the gainlain/passing a defender with ball in hand will be limited, which is why I'd prefer to see someone like Henderson who could be doing exactly what the defensive strengths of Diack probably won't.

Anyway, it's going to be another nerve-wracking 80 minutes for sure.

I can certainly see benefits to both approaches (and starting either player). As an Ulster fan, it's great to by able to have this discussion, frankly. In the purest horses for courses approach, I would have gone for Diack, as well but I can see why people want to see Henderson. Henderson is exciting to watch and, although I only really get to see Ulster on the TV these days, you can hear the excitement from the crowd when Henderson gets the ball in space. At the same time, his method of play, inevitably, will result in the ball going to ground more than Diack's would. Ulster have a bigger and more powerful pack than one would believe from reading this forum (and reading the media) this week but I don't think it's as big and powerful as Montpellier's. It is, however, significantly more mobile and using that advantage is the only way I can see Ulster winning the game. To do that, the ball needs to keep moving and, after Wilson and Williams, I believe Wilson and Diack are the pair to achieve that.

Of course, I don't quite follow CIMAN's logic; if Ulster are 20 down with 20 to go, the difference will not have been one player, or the selection of Diack over Henderson. As I said right back in my first post in this thread, I don't think Henderson will help Ulster win the game in the first 60 anymore than Diack will. He will, however, help Ulster win the game in the last 20 in a way that Diack cannot.

[UpAtSix]

At the same time, his method of play, inevitably, will result in the ball going to ground more than Diack's would.

I think some stats would be pretty useful at this stage; to my mind, Diack and Henderson carry the ball into contact roughly the same amount of times (when playing at 6). I think we sit up and take notice when it's wee Hendy crashing it up, though, giving the impression that he carries into contact more than he does.

I reckon it's unfair to base Henderson's exclusion on any of his (few) shortcomings. Diack has been a very effective player for the last season or two, and his lineout experience, support play, work rate and general dog work has earned him some plaudits. You're right in that it is a horses for courses call; I think the selection shows we are investing wholesale in a high-tempo, lung-busting first half to wear down the Montpellier pack. Diack slots in well into that style of play as he has a great engine and can get over the ball effectively.

[Cracker]

I have every confidence in Diack. He's a strong player and will do a good job. I think its great when a player like Williams is injured that we still have choices to make for the back row.

[promsandwich]

So what is the story with all these bench appearances for Henderson?

IRFU player welfare programme?

Carrying some kind of knock?

I can't help thinking that using him as an impact sub after 50-60 minutes still gives your opponents the best part of the game to avoid facing your strongest pack. Especially given Henderson's ball-carrying skills and extra lineout option if needed.

I simply don't understand it, but I guess I'm oldskool - you start with your strongest team and hope the subs don't drop the tempo when they get on.

John; this assumes that Henderson has a place in Ulster's best pack

100% Neil. Talented kid. Should be a great player in time. Whatever his talents he hasn't played enough this season to start.

[John_e_boy]

and to think we're discussing our backrow options with the likes of Ferris and Williams injured, plus Wannenburg still in our recent memories in an Ulster shirt...

[Neil F]

I think some stats would be pretty useful at this stage; to my mind, Diack and Henderson carry the ball into contact roughly the same amount of times (when playing at 6). I think we sit up and take notice when it's wee Hendy crashing it up, though, giving the impression that he carries into contact more than he does.

Fair point - some stats would be useful (as long as Baggy isn't about...). My previous postings are based on my own perceptions of watching Ulster, not backed by hard facts. My perception, however, is that Henderson seeks to take the ball into contact because he has the power to get through the gap often enough, or at least to draw in a couple of defenders to take him down. Diack, in some ways at least, seems to seek to avoid contact (indeed, the rather unfair reputation he had for being "soft" a few seasons back may have stemmed from this). Not that I think Diack deliberately makes a poorer decision in order to avoid contact, just that he only seems to take the ball into contact when nothing else is on. My perception is that Diack's first instinct seems to be to keep the ball moving and that is not the case with Henderson.

I reckon it's unfair to base Henderson's exclusion on any of his (few) shortcomings. Diack has been a very effective player for the last season or two, and his lineout experience, support play, work rate and general dog work has earned him some plaudits. You're right in that it is a horses for courses call; I think the selection shows we are investing wholesale in a high-tempo, lung-busting first half to wear down the Montpellier pack. Diack slots in well into that style of play as he has a great engine and can get over the ball effectively.

Largely agreed - my intention was never to run down Henderson's contribution; more to highlight that Diack offers something different (and in the Montpellier case, something more in my opinion) than Henderson. Diack had a great season under Anscombe last season and is selected on merit.

[CIMANFOREVER]

I can certainly see benefits to both approaches (and starting either player). As an Ulster fan, it's great to by able to have this discussion, frankly. In the purest horses for courses approach, I would have gone for Diack, as well but I can see why people want to see Henderson. Henderson is exciting to watch and, although I only really get to see Ulster on the TV these days, you can hear the excitement from the crowd when Henderson gets the ball in space. At the same time, his method of play, inevitably, will result in the ball going to ground more than Diack's would. Ulster have a bigger and more powerful pack than one would believe from reading this forum (and reading the media) this week but I don't think it's as big and powerful as Montpellier's. It is, however, significantly more mobile and using that advantage is the only way I can see Ulster winning the game. To do that, the ball needs to keep moving and, after Wilson and Williams, I believe Wilson and Diack are the pair to achieve that.

Of course, I don't quite follow CIMAN's logic; if Ulster are 20 down with 20 to go, the difference will not have been one player, or the selection of Diack over Henderson. As I said right back in my first post in this thread, I don't think Henderson will help Ulster win the game in the first 60 anymore than Diack will. He will, however, help Ulster win the game in the last 20 in a way that Diack cannot.

Not sure I agree regarding the influnce of one player, but maybe I overexaggerted regarding the 20 points.

Simply put Neil, I believe we need our lairiest pack out to start. I understand the reasoning for Diack, altho I don't agree with it this time round. Diack is not a particularly offensive tackler- Hendo is- he knocks players backwards. And I believe thats the game we'll need to be involved in with a big Pells pack. Tackling the player to ground will not be enough.
The presumption also that we'll move their pack around is based on the assumption we win enough ball to do so. We need the deck stacked in our favour, and that to me is Hendo over RD on this occasion- in particular reference to Pell carriers being knocked backwards, the ability to create turnover ball, making them lose yards, turning a big pack, fighting for every inch of turf etc.. This won't be pretty.
Also, Hendo going forward means Pells aren't going forward. The counter argument on using Diack for a more mobile game, linking and moving the Pells pack about has merits, but Hendo isn't exactly Deccie Fitzpatrick, and on balance, I think we'll need his hits and game breaking over Diacks link play. I also think Hendo will marginally strengthen the scrum on the blindside over Diack,(I'm reasoning it'll be open and blind, as we don't have the personell to play left and right, whereas Pells do.) But that's personal opinion and gut feel.
A tiring Pell pack would be as equally susceptible to RD's mobility than Hendo's blasting if we are indeed intent on running them about the park. Add in Afoa, Olding, Allen etc.. and there's potent artillery. But we need to be in touch at 60 min. and with all our aces from the start, bar Afoa it seems (again, I disagree, but MA has set a precedent, so fair enough.)

[Neil F]

CIMAN; an interesting post and in part, I do agree with the logic that Ulster need to secure the ball, first. But, perhaps with the monstrous counter-rucking of Ferris an exception, I don't think there's been much to choose, in that regard, between any of the players who have played (regularly) in Ulster's blindside shirt. I can see the point about Henderson being a more powerful tackler but I think that is also where the big questions about Henderson's discipline really arise. And that is something Diack has in his armoury that Henderson doesn't. Largely, I agree, though - perception of this choice relates to how one perceives the relative strengths of each player. It is, I suspect, a very tight call - even if Diack is the wrong choice, I don't think it's the wrong choice by the distance the tone of some of the posts earlier in this thread would suggest.

I think that what we can agree on is that we do not want to see Ulster getting into an arm wrestle with Montpellier. First, I'm not sure that's an arm wrestle that Ulster can win and, second, because I think Ulster are better than that. In Henry and Best, Ulster have two excellent ball winners when the game is tight and I think (or perhaps hope) that this will be enough to allow Ulster to impose their own gameplan on Montpellier, rather than sitting back and trying to contend with what Montpellier bring to the table. This is the one area where I think Ulster fans consistently underrate Ulster - in their ability to impose their game on the opposition. Selection should, therefore, be based on how Ulster want to play, not on how they think they can best live with the opposition.

[CIMANFOREVER]

CIMAN; an interesting post and in part, I do agree with the logic that Ulster need to secure the ball, first. But, perhaps with the monstrous counter-rucking of Ferris an exception, I don't think there's been much to choose, in that regard, between any of the players who have played (regularly) in Ulster's blindside shirt. I can see the point about Henderson being a more powerful tackler but I think that is also where the big questions about Henderson's discipline really arise. And that is something Diack has in his armoury that Henderson doesn't. Largely, I agree, though - perception of this choice relates to how one perceives the relative strengths of each player. It is, I suspect, a very tight call - even if Diack is the wrong choice, I don't think it's the wrong choice by the distance the tone of some of the posts earlier in this thread would suggest.

I think that what we can agree on is that we do not want to see Ulster getting into an arm wrestle with Montpellier. First, I'm not sure that's an arm wrestle that Ulster can win and, second, because I think Ulster are better than that. In Henry and Best, Ulster have two excellent ball winners when the game is tight and I think (or perhaps hope) that this will be enough to allow Ulster to impose their own gameplan on Montpellier, rather than sitting back and trying to contend with what Montpellier bring to the table. This is the one area where I think Ulster fans consistently underrate Ulster - in their ability to impose their game on the opposition. Selection should, therefore, be based on how Ulster want to play, not on how they think they can best live with the opposition.

Fair enough Neil. Agree it's marginal and probably down to personal preferences from either of us. I certainly wouldn't die in a ditch over this one, as it is a tight call, but my overarching concern is that we may not have the option other than a dogfight. If thats the case, we don't bring a knife to a gun fight. I really hope I'm wrong, and you're right in wanting us playing our game rather than countering theirs. Certainly, that seems to be MA's view, and he's got it right so far. Guess Sarries is still fresh in my mind however- a perfect example of my concern.

Re Chad and Rory, in loose play we effectively have two mobile groundhogs, Besty effectively another back row player in this regard. However, Ouedrego is some player too. The rucks and loose forward exchanges will be worth the price of admission alone.This could be titanic!

[Spiffsson]

So - the start-Hendo-or-not debate continues.
Philosophically, I favour the notion of starting your strongest team, imposing yourself on your opponents and trying to build up an early lead. This way you can try and avoid chasing the game late on when the efforts of subs, whether supersubs or not, may be just too late. A bird in the hand etc...... I rate Henderson comfortably ahead of Diack, who has the odd good game, but is normally not outstanding. Henderson should be getting more game time. He is too useful to Ulster to limit his appearance to 20-30 min per match. I wanted to see him start this one, especially in the absence of FN. His continued selection as a bencher will not be helping his starting selection for Ireland either.

[bazzaj]

Team announced:

(15-9): J Payne, A Trimble, D Cave, L Marshall, T Bowe, P Jackson, R Pienaar; (1-8): T Court, R Best, D Fitzpatrick, J Muller (Captain), D Tuohy, R Diack, C Henry, R Wilson; Replacements (16-23): R Herring, C Black, J Afoa, L Stevenson, I Henderson, P Marshall, S Olding, M Allen.

Looking at that team I'm happy enough with it. That lineup is good enough to stay in touch at least and the bench is good enough to win us the game. I'd have no problem with any of our subs coming on and believe each guy offers real impact off the bench.

Our back line and bench is better than Monpellier, the big question is can the forwards perform to a high enough standard to at least gain parity and let our backline do some serious damage.

I must say I'm confident about tomorrow!!

With Williams out, I'd have started Hendo at 6. Backrow looks lightweight without NW, and Diack in. Preferred to go hammer and tongs at the start and take their fire down. Think we're a bit outgunned in the pack without Hendo starting.
Altho with Diack in, presume we will attack their lineout.He'll need to earn his corn in the loose exhanges.

That back row is wrong wrong wrong.
Not a major ball carrier or offensive hitter there.
Everyone one can debate this issue as much as they like but the sooner Hendo and Williams get on the pitch the better.
Up till then its going to be the stuff of Canute.
Very much advantage Montpellier as I have said repeatedly, you need to front up from the off to have any chance in France.
Sorry to pish on everyones chips, I do hope I am wrong obviously but I will not be.
Really disappointed with that selection which had to be spot on and clearly is not.

[rorybestsbigbaldnoggin]

Where is the Ulster game being televised? It's not in the listings on Sky, although I presume it'll be available via Red Button.


So my question is, after talking to myself for a bit there - can a game that's only shown via Red Button be recorded to watch later? I'm out of the house until 6ish so wanna watch the match in full in the evening.


On other matters, have faith in Maak. It's a strong 15 and strong 23. SUFTUM