Leinster and scrumhalf development

[ronk]

Cooney was blessed in retrospect that he was replacing Pienaar. Ulster were used to being led by the scrumhalf.

For Carbery's early starts for Ireland a lot of that responsibility was taken away by Murray. He didnt do any tactical kicking. It was a benefit to have the reliability of Murray but the cost in terms of predictability for a defence that can adjust is too much to bear. It fits as one of the reasons we regressed in 2019.

Park is someone who has changed his style after coming to Leinster. Irish teams go too easily into a holding pattern if the scrumhalf is on the bottom of a ruck. But that gives up the momentum from a half break by a scrumhalf. It's the legacy of Stringer, he didn't break but he was always there.

Theres no real point of eliminating the bottleneck at 10 by adding another playmaker if the scrumhalf is a bottleneck anyway.

Conservative play is why we can't develop elite scrumhalves (except by accident). It's being coached out of players and some of this feeds back from fans. If an Irish 9 taps and it's only half successful they get hammered. Don't take chances unless they turn their backs. Example being the end of the first half of the last Heineken Cup final.

[mildlyinterested]

Care to expand? Struggling to see the tie in.

We play with a single dominant play-maker at No10 in Sexton. If you played him with a No9 who makes decisions on a fairly high proportion of prime ball [the way Cooney plays for Ulster, or Dupont plays for France, or Mike Phillips played for Wales] then I think you would have a big personality clash.

I have a huge amount of time for Sexton, but there is no doubt he is extremely demanding, and at times I think he can be overly critical and bad-tempered to the point where there is no positive to it. When things aren't going well, his body language on the pitch is pretty iffy. Because he is such a good player and has been so successful, you take the rough with the smooth. Also, by all accounts that is just the way he is, the way he has been, he's not going to change an awful lot and he's not a bad guy in the round. However, the idea that you have to be super narky to be successful is easily disproved by Dan Carter and Jonny Wilkinson.

In any case, I think Luke McGrath has gone into a shell a little bit over the last couple of years and has become more conservative. I put a portion of that down to him trying to become more of a 'smooth' scrum-half [like Graham Bachop or Aaron Smith] than a 'bustling' scrum-half [like Justin Marshall or TJ Perenara], when he naturally tends towards the latter category.

Reddan was smooth, Boss was bustling. Bossy scored four tries in each of his first four seasons - he was always taking on ball and challenging fringes. Reddan scored none - he was always trying to avoid being tackled or scragged so that his ruck-to-ruck times were as fast as possible and he could pass that time on, largely to his outhalf, to make decisions against a time-stretched defense.

I think Sexton basically wants McGrath to play more like Reddan, who he had and still has a very good relationship with, and with whom he played an incredibly successful stretch with at Leinster. That's not McGrath's optimal style. And because Sexton is such a dominant personality in the group, and because McGrath is eight years younger than him rather than five years older than him, and because Nucifora f*cked us by shipping Carbery out and aborting what was looking like a very effective two-playmaker system, our style has gone back to being really reliant on the No10. We don't have a decision-maker outside Sexton, and a guy who could be a decision-maker inside him is not really encouraged to be.

If you play with a second play-maker in the backline, i.e. Carbery for the second half of the 2016-17 and the 2017-18 season at fullback for Leinster, or Owen Farrell at No12 for the Lions 2017 test series, then you're still operating in a system where Sexton gets the prime ball, but he has a release valve outside him: he can afford to take a risk, get tackled and caught up in a ruck, because [especially with Farrell], he knew there was a quality decision-maker and ball-player to guide the team around if he was on the deck. Sextons's grumpy, but he knows how to play in a team and he wants to win - if that's how the team is set up to play by a coach he respects, that's the way he'll play it.

However, if we tried to put 2019-20 John Cooney into our team at scrum-half now, I'd say himself and Sexton would be eating the heads off each other at training every single afternoon. I'd imagine Sexton would think that Cooney is taking way too much out of good ball way too often. Cooney has been leading Ulster around by the nose for two and a half seasons, and has played the best rugby of his career that way, so why would he want to change?

Now, maybe that's all a load of ol' boll*x, but that's what I think.

Thanks.

McGrath still scores a decent amount of tries, but I'd have to look into deeper to see if they come with Sexton or without.

[mildlyinterested]

Leinster U20 scrumhalves
Ben Murphy(Pres Bray/Clontarf)
Rob Gilsenan(St. Michaels/UCD)
Will Reilly(Portloaise RFC/MU Barnhall)
Matthew Cullen(Blackrock)

Murphy made AIL debut for Tarf and featured sparingly off the bench for Irish 20's. After being the best 9 in last years SCT, Gilsenan missed ireland u18 and u19 interpros with injury and returned to impress for UCD U20 before injury again interrupted his season. Reilly was starting 9 for Barnhall throughout the season. Cullen started at 9 for Rock in the cup.

Leinster U19 scrumhalves
Conor Duggan(Castleknock)
Oisin Devitt(Clongowes)
Michael Moloney(Blackrock)

Duggan & Devitt were standout players in the cup. Duggan having been involved with irish u18 at christmas. Moloney was sub 10 for Rock's only appearance but had been in with ireland u18 at christmas.

Leinster u18 schools scrumhalves
Fintan Gunne(St. Michaels)
Harry MacGoey(Clongowes)
Conor Tracey(St. Marys)

Gunne started for Michaels as a 4th year and was impressive after playing leinster u18 schools last summer. MacGoey and Tracy were the sub 9's for their schools.

Leinster u18 clubs scrumhalves
Culann Carbery(Athy RFC)

Carbery played leinster u18 clubs last summer and returns this summer.

[wixfjord]

One of McGrath's best performances this season was a very archetypal 'Boss' like performance - against Treviso away.
Sexton wasn't playing that day either.

[mildlyinterested]

setup a great try here against Lyon with a snipe and offload:

https://youtu.be/Bu8ZWn7nNi8?t=35

memory of season has gotten a bit hazy but wouldn't have considered Luke to be having a poor season.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Sorry Hugo but I don't think that's true at all of Luke this season. Myself and many others were saying that it didn't really matter which scrumhalves went to the World Cup because they'd all be expected to serve Johnny in the way you're talking about and I'd agree that Luke wasn't playing his natural game this time last year but it's been a different story since Japan. I've said it loads of times on here that his break is back and there was a game at the RDS a few months (sorry, can't remember which one) where lots of us were talking about how he was setting the tempo and so much of the play was off him.

He's also always been really good at organising the forwards and doesn't seem to have any issue with keeping it tight and barking at them for a while. Now maybe Johnny has an input with that but I certainly wouldn't say Luke had gone into his shell when he was still doing that.

For me he's been playing far more like the player he was in school or at under 20's level this season. I have a feeling that either he realised that his break had gone, that he looked at Cooney and thought he should be more selfish too, or a coach plead his case, but I would also hope that a coach has realised that one way to get more out of Johnny now is to have more of a threat from 9. It's a much bigger problem with Ireland of course (especially since Murray's form went out the window) but we saw it against Saracens last year too. It's just easier to swallow Johnny up now that he doesn't have the pace of old.

[hugonaut]

Sorry Hugo but I don't think that's true at all of Luke this season. Myself and many others were saying that it didn't really matter which scrumhalves went to the World Cup because they'd all be expected to serve Johnny in the way you're talking about and I'd agree that Luke wasn't playing his natural game this time last year but it's been a different story since Japan. I've said it loads of times on here that his break is back and there was a game at the RDS a few months (sorry, can't remember which one) where lots of us were talking about how he was setting the tempo and so much of the play was off him.

He's also always been really good at organising the forwards and doesn't seem to have any issue with keeping it tight and barking at them for a while. Now maybe Johnny has an input with that but I certainly wouldn't say Luke had gone into his shell when he was still doing that.

For me he's been playing far more like the player he was in school or at under 20's level this season. I have a feeling that either he realised that his break had gone, that he looked at Cooney and thought he should be more selfish too, or a coach plead his case, but I would also hope that a coach has realised that one way to get more out of Johnny now is to have more of a threat from 9. It's a much bigger problem with Ireland of course (especially since Murray's form went out the window) but we saw it against Saracens last year too. It's just easier to swallow Johnny up now that he doesn't have the pace of old.

Fair enough. Luke was also playing injured for the second half of last year which impacted on his general play. I have these couple of memories in my mind from the World Cup when he just looked so hesitant, like a golfer standing over the ball with no faith in his swing. They have probably assumed too much influence in my thinking.

With that said, McGrath and Sexton have only played 117 mins together for Leinster this season - 56 mins against Treviso on 16 Nov, and 61 mins against Lyon the following week [23 Nov]. Considerably less than two full matches; actually closer to 80 minutes than 160 minutes. So I would suggest that that has had a bearing on how McGrath is playing.

I think Luke plays a game that is more natural to him when he plays with Ross Byrne and they are a more comfortable partnership, being much closer in age and experience. To be frank, I don't think of Sexton and McGrath as a partnership at all. When I think of Sexton in a partnership, it's with Reddan first, then Murray. That is a completely subjective opinion, of course.

Sexton is still worth the candle, in my opinion. As it stands, I would still rather have Sexton in my team than Ross Byrne, even if it's a case of McGrath/SEXTON, rather than McGrath/Byrne.

[wixfjord]

I've always thought JGP was a more natural partner to Sexton than McGrath. (Not saying that means he should be our starting #9 btw...!)

[LeRouxIsPHat]

With that said, McGrath and Sexton have only played 117 mins together for Leinster this season - 56 mins against Treviso on 16 Nov, and 61 mins against Lyon the following week [23 Nov]. Considerably less than two full matches; actually closer to 80 minutes than 160 minutes. So I would suggest that that has had a bearing on how McGrath is playing.

That's a fair point, no guarantee my view on Luke's play holds true when they're playing together, but I think the change was so noticeable that I'd be hopeful that it does. Plus as I said it's imperative that Leinster and Ireland both offer more of a threat off nine to create more space for Johnny and those outside him.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I've always thought JGP was a more natural partner to Sexton than McGrath. (Not saying that means he should be our starting #9 btw...!)

Himself and Ross seem to have a good understanding as well. JGP is funny one because he has games where his service is really slick and he plays the Reddan role really well, but then he has so many moments where he does his own thing and I reckon he'd be a nightmare to play with i.e. guys run great lines close to the ruck but then he hangs onto it and goes himself instead of just giving a simple pop. At this stage I think the impact sub role will always suit him best.

[ronk]

I dont think Joe can be underestimated. Cooney didnt make the RWC. Under him Ireland didn't go for offloads much but instead focused on a quick recycle. To execute on this you needed a disciplined scrumhalf who could keep the ball moving and you need a very low error count. You can't build over 20 phases often without that reliability.

There are obvious advantages to that approach but I think we're stronger if we can mix it up.

[Workhorse]

I dont think Joe can be underestimated. Cooney didnt make the RWC. Under him Ireland didn't go for offloads much but instead focused on a quick recycle. To execute on this you needed a disciplined scrumhalf who could keep the ball moving and you need a very low error count. You can't build over 20 phases often without that reliability.

There are obvious advantages to that approach but I think we're stronger if we can mix it up.

This point often comes up but I don't see much merit in it at all when you consider that while he was in charge of Leinster we were throwing offloads left right and centre and numerous players have come out and rubbished the narrative that they were told not to offload in Ireland camp. "look after the ball" and "don't offload" are two very different phrases that people seem to use interchangeably for some reason.

If you want to look at a coaching philosophy impact then personally I'd say the post Schmidt pre Lancaster era in Leinster is where to look from hearing bits and pieces from people involved in Leinster before after and during that period that period was a real period where the senior management had a focus on players being solid and not making errors. Which personally I think is pretty evident in the academy production in those areas, the players that came out had in a lot of cases completely changed their game compared to when they went in, which for some is a good thing but for "flair players" seems to have been a bad thing

[hugonaut]

Park is someone who has changed his style after coming to Leinster. Irish teams go too easily into a holding pattern if the scrumhalf is on the bottom of a ruck. But that gives up the momentum from a half break by a scrumhalf. It's the legacy of Stringer, he didn't break but he was always there.

That's very interesting. I am not a fan of other players stepping into the scrum-half's role at a ruck if the real scrum-half is at the bottom of it. My opinion is that you should coach that out of your team entirely. If the scrum-half isn't there, you pick and go, pick and go, pick and go until he is there.

A lot of time that is a tactical change up [especially in mid-field] and you can surprise a team with it. I also think that launching a backline from static ball without a scrumhalf practically guarantees that whatever is planned is already f*cked. Also, if the whole team know that they're supposed to pick and go for at least two phases when the scrum-half is trapped, you can still keep your attacking tempo high.

[Workhorse]

That's very interesting. I am not a fan of other players stepping into the scrum-half's role at a ruck if the real scrum-half is at the bottom of it. My opinion is that you should coach that out of your team entirely. If the scrum-half isn't there, you pick and go, pick and go, pick and go until he is there.

A lot of time that is a tactical change up [especially in mid-field] and you can surprise a team with it. I also think that launching a backline from static ball without a scrumhalf practically guarantees that whatever is planned is already f*cked. Also, if the whole team know that they're supposed to pick and go for at least two phases when the scrum-half is trapped, you can still keep your attacking tempo high.

I could not disagree more with this philosophy.

You're not surprising anyone if you pick and go when there's on scrum half, and especially not if it's a set rule that you pick and go for x phases when there's no scrum half. Might work at u13s level (ironically one of the levels it would have least impact due to the relatively small position skills gap) but at pro level teams would know what's coming probably before you even do with the analysis that goes on and even at lower levels it'll be figured out pretty quickly and most teams operate on the assumption that there's a pick and go coming if the 9 isn't there anyway.

Even just having the option of hitting a one out pod is better because then defences have to at least contend with two (three if you count pick and go either side as 2) options and not just the one.

Leinsters current pick and go tactics actually currently has a built-in mechanism for the guy picking and going to his one man out instead if they see its on

[curates_egg]

If only we'd switched Madigan to 9

[ronk]

That's very interesting. I am not a fan of other players stepping into the scrum-half's role at a ruck if the real scrum-half is at the bottom of it. My opinion is that you should coach that out of your team entirely. If the scrum-half isn't there, you pick and go, pick and go, pick and go until he is there.

A lot of time that is a tactical change up [especially in mid-field] and you can surprise a team with it. I also think that launching a backline from static ball without a scrumhalf practically guarantees that whatever is planned is already f*cked. Also, if the whole team know that they're supposed to pick and go for at least two phases when the scrum-half is trapped, you can still keep your attacking tempo high.

I like that tactic sometimes, NZ are good at suddenly switching to it when defences are quick to fan and not resourcing rucks. Take what the defense gives you.

When scrumhalves have been caught it possession it's one way out of the hole. If you have no support and the ruck it about to be turned over it can be better to pass. More importantly, you don't want to waste quick ball. If a scrumhalf makes a half break and gets the defence on the back foot then they are often vulnerable. Not much point if the team makes 10m but has to box kick.

If the attacking team can't get quicker ball than the defence can set then the tactic is the wrong one for the moment.

[hugonaut]

I could not disagree more with this philosophy.

You're not surprising anyone if you pick and go when there's on scrum half, and especially not if it's a set rule that you pick and go for x phases when there's no scrum half. Might work at u13s level (ironically one of the levels it would have least impact due to the relatively small position skills gap) but at pro level teams would know what's coming probably before you even do with the analysis that goes on and even at lower levels it'll be figured out pretty quickly and most teams operate on the assumption that there's a pick and go coming if the 9 isn't there anyway.

Even just having the option of hitting a one out pod is better because then defences have to at least contend with two (three if you count pick and go either side as 2) options and not just the one.

Leinsters current pick and go tactics actually currently has a built-in mechanism for the guy picking and going to his one man out instead if they see its on

Fair enough, I recognise your point.

From my perspective, if a scrum-half has made a break, you're trying to push the pace, so I think the most important thing is that you force that tempo. You're keeping it close in, so your attacking shape doesn't have to move across the field or re-organise. All the scrum-half has to do is get off the ground as soon as he can and the ball should be pretty much still in front of him.

If everybody knows what they're doing once they see the scrum-half break, and it's doing a simple thing at pace that is just effort-based, I think you typically do well out of it. For me, that situation is all about coherency and effort. You've got a key decision-maker out of the game on the floor, so you want to simplify it. It should be like a well-practised fire drill: you hear the siren going, drop what you're doing and make for the exit.

I'd compare it to when we played the Scarlets in the semi-final two seasons ago. Tadhg Beirne had been a massive jackal threat all season. Everybody was [rightly] talking him up as a threat and similarly, there was a lot of talk about Leinster having to have a specific plan for him.

We did, and our plan was to put a lad in a blue scrum-cap at training [I think it was Will Connors, but I might be wrong] and have him dip for the ball loads ... and then our lads react like a crisis situation and pile into him at 100 miles an hour. And that's what they did in the game, whether it was Dev or Ringrose or Ferg or Cronin or Fardy [etc. https://www.the42.ie/analysis-leinster- ... 8-Apr2018/ ]. It was a simple, aggressive plan, and it worked. Lots of the rest of our game was very nuanced and highly evolved, but that part of the game was pretty much as old as rugby.

Wayne Pivac is a quality coach and smart enough to know that Cullen and Lancaster would be targeting Beirne. He had two other good jackals in his side in Barclay and Davies. So he very likely knew what was coming, knew Beirne was going to be a target and probably had a plan to bring his other jackals into the game more. But we had a simpler plan for that situation with fewer moving parts and a lot of conviction behind it.

So I would still believe that something basic can be very effective when everybody knows what to do and does it with urgency.

[leinsterforever]

That's very interesting. I am not a fan of other players stepping into the scrum-half's role at a ruck if the real scrum-half is at the bottom of it. My opinion is that you should coach that out of your team entirely. If the scrum-half isn't there, you pick and go, pick and go, pick and go until he is there.

A lot of time that is a tactical change up [especially in mid-field] and you can surprise a team with it. I also think that launching a backline from static ball without a scrumhalf practically guarantees that whatever is planned is already f*cked. Also, if the whole team know that they're supposed to pick and go for at least two phases when the scrum-half is trapped, you can still keep your attacking tempo high.

I like that tactic sometimes, NZ are good at suddenly switching to it when defences are quick to fan and not resourcing rucks. Take what the defense gives you.

When scrumhalves have been caught it possession it's one way out of the hole. If you have no support and the ruck it about to be turned over it can be better to pass. More importantly, you don't want to waste quick ball. If a scrumhalf makes a half break and gets the defence on the back foot then they are often vulnerable. Not much point if the team makes 10m but has to box kick.

If the attacking team can't get quicker ball than the defence can set then the tactic is the wrong one for the moment.

I think that's the key point. Hansen's mantra is 'get your options from the defence'.

Talk of non scrumhalves filling in and passing gets me thinking of the 2016 Pro 12 Final when Bealham stepped into scrumhalf just before O'Halloran's try (0:24 in the video).

[Workhorse]

Fair enough, I recognise your point.

From my perspective, if a scrum-half has made a break, you're trying to push the pace, so I think the most important thing is that you force that tempo. You're keeping it close in, so your attacking shape doesn't have to move across the field or re-organise. All the scrum-half has to do is get off the ground as soon as he can and the ball should be pretty much still in front of him.

If everybody knows what they're doing once they see the scrum-half break, and it's doing a simple thing at pace that is just effort-based, I think you typically do well out of it. For me, that situation is all about coherency and effort. You've got a key decision-maker out of the game on the floor, so you want to simplify it. It should be like a well-practised fire drill: you hear the siren going, drop what you're doing and make for the exit.

I'd compare it to when we played the Scarlets in the semi-final two seasons ago. Tadhg Beirne had been a massive jackal threat all season. Everybody was [rightly] talking him up as a threat and similarly, there was a lot of talk about Leinster having to have a specific plan for him.

We did, and our plan was to put a lad in a blue scrum-cap at training [I think it was Will Connors, but I might be wrong] and have him dip for the ball loads ... and then our lads react like a crisis situation and pile into him at 100 miles an hour. And that's what they did in the game, whether it was Dev or Ringrose or Ferg or Cronin or Fardy [etc. https://www.the42.ie/analysis-leinster- ... 8-Apr2018/ ]. It was a simple, aggressive plan, and it worked. Lots of the rest of our game was very nuanced and highly evolved, but that part of the game was pretty much as old as rugby.

Wayne Pivac is a quality coach and smart enough to know that Cullen and Lancaster would be targeting Beirne. He had two other good jackals in his side in Barclay and Davies. So he very likely knew what was coming, knew Beirne was going to be a target and probably had a plan to bring his other jackals into the game more. But we had a simpler plan for that situation with fewer moving parts and a lot of conviction behind it.

So I would still believe that something basic can be very effective when everybody knows what to do and does it with urgency.

For me there's a huge difference between a simple tactic and a simplistic tactic (I also think that there's a huge difference in how you approach the breakdown to how you approach general attacking play but that's a lot of typing to do). The Leinster plan for dealing with Beirne was really a plan for dealing with Scarlets as a whole as Scarlets game was basically built around their ability to slow down rucks and gain turnovers while Leinster thrive off quick ball, many people put a lot of stock on the focus on Beirne in the game but in reality Leinster were just doing what they normally do which is a natural counter to Scarlets tactic and if Beirne hadn't been on the pitch they likely would have done the same thing as they didn't over commit to the ruck to counter him they just put emphasis on getting there quickly and with aggression.
That tactic is simple but adaptable, if there's a poacher there fly in and get them out ASAP but if there isn't then its not needed to the same degree.

The idea that nobody but the 9 should pass from the base of the ruck is though in my opinion simplistic as it ignores the fact that there are many potential variables to the fact the 9 isn't available.

Generally in really generalised terms if the 9 has picked and gone themselves and got tackled one of two things have happened:
(First of all I should point out that your attacking shape being the same 1/2 phases later no matter what happens is not something that will happen bar maybe when camped on the oppositions line, maybe a 1 in 100 chance that will happen and if it does you've probably got a problem)

1) He's got smashed for little/no/negative gain.
This is worst case scenario, but the ball can still be quick or slow from it, depending how wide they went could change which forward pod hit it, how wide they went could also change how set the defense is either side, or how wide that defence is, by and large though the defence to the side the scrum half didnt go to is generally set while the other is scrambling to fill in the positions around the edge of the ruck, if they do this quickly and well or not changes so much in the decision making. Its hard to get this point across without visual aids but the gist is there's so many external factors that could influence what decision is right. Sometimes that could be a pick and go or two, sometimes it could be a pop to a pod just beside the ruck or it could be to hit the back line.

2)He's gone > 10 yard down the pitch, behind the first line of defence but in front of some line of defence or he wouldn't have been tackled.
In this scenario the defence is generally scrambling back and is broken but they're generally scrambling to the point of the tackle which would generally mean if they've go there quickly then the space is elsewhere and generally with a break like that your attacking set up has naturally changed completely too as has the area of the pitch you're in so what you want to do could change completely too.

Overall I hope that got my point across but its hard to do without visual aids but the general point is simple game plans are good, but saying that we're going to ignore all other factors and focus on just one and make a decision off that, that's simplistic and is not how the game works these days. Many people do analysis as if that's what teams have done but generally that for the benefit of the reader/viewer/however its being consumed and it's not how the team have actually approached it. Saying you should only pick and go from a ruck when there's no 9 is like saying you should always kick the ball when inside your own 22, will it do you any harm in that it won't cost you points immediately, probably not, but that doesn't mean it's the best decision for the situation or anywhere near it and at the highest level that's not going to cut it, you don't have to be old school France and throw the ball around at every opportunity and not know what you're doing next never mind the opposition knowing what you're doing but if you don't at least give the illusion of having options then you're done

[hugonaut]

Overall I hope that got my point across but its hard to do without visual aids but the general point is simple game plans are good, but saying that we're going to ignore all other factors and focus on just one and make a decision off that, that's simplistic and is not how the game works these days. Many people do analysis as if that's what teams have done but generally that for the benefit of the reader/viewer/however its being consumed and it's not how the team have actually approached it. Saying you should only pick and go from a ruck when there's no 9 is like saying you should always kick the ball when inside your own 22, will it do you any harm in that it won't cost you points immediately, probably not, but that doesn't mean it's the best decision for the situation or anywhere near it and at the highest level that's not going to cut it, you don't have to be old school France and throw the ball around at every opportunity and not know what you're doing next never mind the opposition knowing what you're doing but if you don't at least give the illusion of having options then you're done

Yes, you make very good points and have certainly got me thinking harder about it. I still think that there's value in having a 'go-to' option in that situation, but as you have pointed out, you can't be blind to the particular circumstances of a given situation. You play the game, not the pattern.