You'd certainly think he'd get some time there especially with Nikora out. Can't expect Parks to go the full 80 minutes game on game. I guess the crisis at centre has necessitated his move there and McSharry's return to full fitness will allow him to be used at flyhalf.

i see there an article with Ronaldson in the indo from last friday...

www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/ronaldson...romise-29670400.html

I thought he was solid enough again at 12, I get the impression Lam thinks he has what it takes.

still like to see him at 10 for a couple of games.

2 great kicks, were missing one though, anthony's attempted kick out of the stand, of the barrier and catches someone by surprise :ohmy:

I can't remember each penalty, but I'm pretty sure there were a couple that they kicked that were so close to the touch line they were never going to get a lineout on the 5m line.

Its an interesting issue because as said above all the top teams are doing it. There's a particular technique to appearing non-committed which in some cases involves running up to the player to block but by not moving their arms and stopping dead for instance the blocking player gets away with it even when the tmo is asked. Seems like it will have to be reviewed sooner or later if it keeps happening.

Also maybe I'm just making excuses but could Parks' penalty kicking have been intended with one eye on the Leinster game? Leinster's defence is massive atm and the game may be decided by either penalties or who has the better lineout/maul?

ummm, wrote: Yeah, I've had a look again. Stonewall penalty. Doesn't matter if the prop was being obliging. Muldowney peels all the way round to the front and wraps him up nicely, with the prop having no chance at reacting to Fifita.

When you put it like that, Muldowney does move into an offside position just before the pass is made behind him. Why didn't the Italians complain I wonder? Embarrassment?

Yeah, I've had a look again. Stonewall penalty. Doesn't matter if the prop was being obliging. Muldowney peels all the way round to the front and wraps him up nicely, with the prop having no chance at reacting to Fifita.

ummm, wrote:
Did anyone else think Fifita's try should have been a penalty against us?

No, have a look at it here:

www.ercrugby.com/eng/matchdaytv/?play=media&id=16672

Muldowney trots up to the first man in the line - probably with every intention of blocking him - and the Zebre player obligingly gives him a big old man hug. It's only obstruction if you stop the man from making/attempting a tackle, and since the Zebre player clearly had no idea Fafita had the ball (he seemed to be trying to wrestle Muldowney away from the forming maul), no penalty.

ummm, wrote: Did anyone else think Fifita's try should have been a penalty against us? Looked like we blocked the first man in the lineout as well as any NFL offensive lineman creating a gap for his running back.

The best teams do it all the time and get away with it

I remember being incensed in the Sportsground 2 years ago against Leinster when Jennings took Johnny O Connor out at the back of a lineout in midfield to stop him tackling Isaac Boss who made a clean break that eventually led to a Nacewa overlap and try. I thought it should have been our penalty and then when i watched it over I thought it was extremely clever play by Jennings. He just rolled back into JOC to stop him making a tackle.

So, hmmm. I'm in two minds after that game. First and foremost, though, it's a win. And an away win. We all know that we've frequently followed up a heartening home game with an absolutely pants away performance. So credit goes to the team there.

But we were lucky the team we were away to had such a shocker when it came to white line fever. They had plenty of good breaks and seemed to have next to no problem marching upfield when they put their minds to it. Our defence was excellent 5m from our own line, but we ended up there far too often. More inventive teams would have made us pay.

I know what people are saying about taking the kicks, but the penalties were on the touchlines for the most part weren't they? We'd have made sod all territory from which to attack at such acute angles.

17 Zebre turnovers would be punished by more effective sides and we really didn't make our dominance there tell. And we've gone from having one of the highest metres run stats to less than 200m this week. We're swinging from running all the time to kicking all the time, which makes me worried. 18 missed tackles? Ouch.

All in all, though, I'm happy. By the way, a glass that contains half liquid also contains half vapour, so it's always 100% full.

Did anyone else think Fifita's try should have been a penalty against us? Looked like we blocked the first man in the lineout as well as any NFL offensive lineman creating a gap for his running back.

Porterbelly wrote: Thought Browne was pretty non existent today

Needs to up his game and get stuck in

Completely disagree. Browne was superb. Again. I've said it before, I think he's our best 6.

sea_point wrote:
I dunno, it's a bit glass half full to be quibbling about the bonus point when prior to kick off most of us would have been just hoping for the win in any form.

So what? The game was effectively won after 60 minutes. Our lineout is our strongest weapon at the moment, both our tries came from it and Parks tactical kicking is spot on lately. It is working well for us so why not kick right in to the corner and push for the bonus point when it's clearly there for the taking? The same thing happened last season, sorry I can't remember which game (Treviso at home maybe?) but Parks continued to kick penalties when the match was won and I can't understand it. We have to be more ruthless if we are to be genuine contenders for second place in this group.

I agree with the rate of change of the first XV... cannot help when you are trying to get a new system ingrained in the team.

Also, I think that we need to try Fafita at number 8. He has the power to run well from the back, and even if his hands are not as good as George's we still need some first phase line gains.

I think the problem with patterns in the team and back play is the amount of injuries and changes that have been made. It will take time.

Good point. The team hasn't really had a chance to settle with all the injuries etc. Add that to a lot of new staff and faces and it was always going to take a while for it to click. Hopefully the team gets a run now without to many lay offs.

Winning is a habit lads....Any of us would have taken this before kick off!!

At home now against Zebre, I would feel if we have the game won, we will see a lot more focus to go for the bonus point.

I think the problem with patterns in the team and back play is the amount of injuries and changes that have been made. It will take time.

Only second row and half back have been fairly constant since the pre season. Thats a lot of upheaval in a new team. At least the squad is getting some players good experience, a la Sean Henry for example.

Hopefully can grow from here.

connachta wrote: Little debate guys. Did you also notice that Marmion NEVER picked any balls at the base of the scrum? I'm distured by this
1) Naoupu is not in his greatest form especially with pressure
2) Connaht lack of speed is a constance criticism, and this worsens it
3) 8-9 combination is too predictable and will be a godsend for Leinster and Toulouse

Brendan Leonard who was in opposition to Marmion is no slouch a canny and experienced operator, which is probably why they decided to get George to flip the ball from the base rather than have Kieran retrieve it. With Clarke/George/White etc they would have had experience of Leonards scrum defensive work and no doubt contributed to the tactics to neutralise him. In fairness it worked very well most of the time, Kieran was pretty comfortable.

Kudos to Rodney again this week, he was noticeable for not being noticeable. Whereas when he's having a disaster he full square and centre....

I've attached the stats from the ESPN site of the game....