In the last two matches Ulster have played two of the better sides at imposing their game plan, Northampton and Leinster. However the defeats suffered in those games have very different causes.
Against Northampton the forwards met a BIG PHYSICAL PACK well versed in the dark arts of forward play and a referee who wasn’t, allowing much to go unpunished. They had a strong scrum and an efficient line-out. The Northampton backs were typical of English rugby, big power house ball carriers who tried to run through everything possessing very little guile and a disinterest in passing. This made the task of the both centres and back-row easier to define and made defending easier, tackle the man with the ball and support the tackler.
Leinster do not play the game the same way. Leinster are a side who run from deep, pass the ball and use either a wing, full back or “an outhalf run round” to create the overlap and relies on speed rather than power to break the gain line. This made the task of the defending Ulster back line and back-row somewhat different in so far as a double tackle defence could not be deployed in the same way as in the Northampton match and the back-row were committed to an across field defensive role rather than a tackle support role. The Leinster back-row could join the ruck going forward while the Ulster back-row was trying to join a ruck going backwards. This ensured Leinster had a quick recycle.
Playing both Cullen and Toner in the second row gives Leinster assured possession from the line-out but this is at the expense of the set scrum and the Leinster front row was in difficulties for most of the game.
It is because the opposition faced in these two matches play completely different game styles which makes the drawing of positives and negatives from the games a pointless exercise. Defensively in both games Ulster appeared to adopt a drift defence but the necessity to do so was different in both games – against Northampton it was to deploy a double tackle whereas against Leinster, the Leinster back-line was lying so deep a rush defence was impossible.
The foregoing draws me to the conclusion that against sides who pass the ball our defence is highly suspect especially in the 9 -10, 10 – 12 channels and out wide due to the lack a true No. 7.
In attack Ulster, all season, have a back-line which promises much but has failed to deliver and this maybe due to a number of factors but basically I feel it is down to a lack of space. How often this year have you watched the wing receive the ball and be forced to come inside? For me it has been too often to be an accident.
It is my opinion that it arises because firstly Pienaar has a long pass secondly Ian Humphreys fails to lie deep and frequently runs at an angle rather than straight, the consequence of which is he is forced to deliver a flat pass ( which is often adjudged forward ) or he is forced to grubber kick ( which again often rebounds off the opposition). These two things mean that if the ball is actually passed to the wing he is too close to the touchline. To be effective both Trimble and Danielli need space to run past the opposition, they are both sprinters not jinking side steppers.
If Cave is fit I would like to see a back-line of Marshall, Pienaar, Spence and Cave and a back three of Trimble, Gilroy and D’Arcy with Wallace on the bench performing a similar cover role for Ulster as he has done for Ireland .
On the UAFC message board someone commented that Wallace had made several good “half breaks” against Leinster which is a bit like saying of a dog “he’s a good guard dog but he doesn’t bark”. You either make a break or you don’t, there is no such thing as a half break and my major problem with Paddy has always been twofold – an inability to defend the gain line i.e. he yields yards in the tackle, and secondly he too frequently loses the ball in contact. Spence does not display these defects to the same degree.
Corrections, comments or questions?