[su_dropcap style=”flat” size=”4″]I[/su_dropcap]s it possible to think that Munster should be disappointed not to pick up a bonus-point win here but, at the same time, be fairly happy with the win they got all the same? Can both of those things be true? On the one hand, stretches of the first three-quarters of the contest showed a consistent inability to build continuous pressure on Quins in a way that would have produced the try-scoring opportunities that could have lead to a four-try bonus point.
Would.
Could.
Two big words there.
On the other hand, Munster’s drive to secure the winning of this game, driven as it was by the energy and quality of young players aged 22 and under, was hugely encouraging and, injury allowing, should inform selection next week. There’s a temptation in the aftermath of games like this to write off the quality of the opposition – salt in the wound left by no bonus point – but I think that would be unfair to Harlequins who played quite well and approached the game with a physicality that I think they thought would produce a bit more for them than it did.
We also can’t discount the weather’s effect on proceedings, which people hate hearing about, but it played a factor in how the game was played all the same. A stiff, swirling breeze, consistent downpours before and during the game – they play a part in how a game is played, like it or not.
This isn’t new. It’s the same almost every winter in Limerick at this point.
The wind played havoc with parts of the game in different measures. A few kicks went long, a few shots at goal were yanked away from the target and kicking for territory carried a little more risk (wind taking you off course) than it did reward (a greasy surface adding momentum after landing). The rain made hanging onto passes with any kind of velocity on them a tricky enough endeavour, especially in traffic, but even with that, I think Munster will be disappointed with the quality of their handling overall.
If I was to judge Munster’s work with the ball in hand, I would focus on the things we could have reasonably expected to see from Harlequins before the game and how we managed to exploit that in-game. For me, that was Marcus Smith’s defensive blitz on set-piece and phase play.
I don’t think we used this as well as we could have when we had (1) good field position and (2) good lineout possession to work with.
Have a look at the below examples.
In my opinion, only one phase attacked Smith effectively – Murray’s direct pass to Farrell. The rest of the example were muddled and pretty classic “caught in two minds” work that didn’t utilize the compression around Smith’s mini-blitz or effectively attack the space behind the blitz itself. The worst of both worlds, in some ways.
Healy’s first offensive set was probably the best use of Smith’s mini-blitz off the lineout and it wasn’t even that complex an action. He simply drew the compression and then released the ball out to De Allende for a wide skip pass to Earls.
I feel that we could have used this tendency of Smith a little better and a little more effectively. Some of that came down to poor execution, some of it came down to an abnormal amount of lineout flubs; the weather (and overcompensation for the weather) played a part here but they were opportunities missed all the same.
Some of the issues seemed to be “rust”. Here are two examples of what I mean by that. On the first example, I think Murray was expecting Conway to be running an inside option line closer to Hanrahan by the time he released the ball from the maul. The play doesn’t make sense otherwise.
The second example looked like a pretty complex double runner blindside feint with Conway tailing off at the last minute to hit the corner of the maul but it looks like the route accuracy is a little off. Whatever happens, the inside pass isn’t where it needs to be for O’Byrne at the moment when that was a viable option.
I also felt that this moment could have been used better. The call is to roll this to De Allende for an inside pass to Conway on a diagonal run but I would look for better animation from Farrell on the initial crash decoy.
Could we have hit Farrell as an option here? I know we called a different play but you can see the Smith mini-blitz again with Tapuai sagging behind him – that was a perfect hit route for Farrell when Smith is passive. Even a little more animation from Farrell could open up a gap for Conway half a second later.
That isn’t to say we didn’t play some nice stuff at times – we absolutely did.
Here are a few nice examples of how we blended tight forward interplay to create space and penalty opportunity while playing the conditions pretty well.
Pretty good stuff and it was far from isolated but Quins did an excellent job of hanging onto the ball – especially in the third quarter – and that limited our offensive minutes.
I wrote before the game about Harlequins “deep” ball and I thought we handled it pretty well, up until we didn’t.
The first example is good – Conway steps into the passing lane in the deep, flow space and gets a stop on the ball.
The second example is less good – Conway got hands-on Murley but couldn’t get a stop on the ball. The break that happened in the aftermath of that miss lead to a try that was ultimately disallowed for a forward pass in the buildup but it’s exactly what Quins look for on these deep phases.
Rory Scannell made an excellent read on the last example to cut off the looped runner before the ball could get to Smith. Can you remember Munster getting hands-on Smith in a meaningful way during this game? That’s Quins’ deep ball working as it’s supposed to.
Whether or not this game was a missed opportunity won’t really become apparent until round three of this year’s tournament because, for the most part, we cannot deal directly with all the team’s we are competing with. If we can’t pick up a losing bonus point away to Clermont, beat them in Thomond Park and then do the same to Harlequins in the Stoop a week later we won’t be in the Champions Cup playoffs and that would be true regardless of whether we landed four or five points in this game. As it was, it was a good win against tough, well-drilled opponents.
Notable Players
I spoke before the game about how JJ Hanrahan needed a big one in this game. That might not reflect the reality in the camp but it does reflect the perception outside the camp. I think Hanrahan started the game quite well – he showed some smart kicking and decision making – but the missed kick to touch from close range seemed to shake his confidence. The wind was squally, the ball was greasy and he’s far from the only #10 to kick an important penalty dead but that doesn’t change the reality that you need to nail those.
A few minutes later, he compounded the error on the kickback from Quins by (1) going for a contestable garryowen with the wind blowing in his face, (2) drawing two backfield runners/defenders with him and (3) slicing the kick.
Look, it happens, but those are small moments that add up to big moments. The lost territory here rolled into 12 minutes of Harlequins possession where they missed out on 13 points off the tee and through a disallowed try. It’s an example of the weight of responsibility sitting on the #10’s shoulders and how small errors in sequence can lead to bigger moments that cost you.
This was the poorest I’ve seen Andrew Conway play in a while. Is it system rust? Conway was playing in a different system and role set last week but came into a big Champions Cup week with a lot of lines to catch up on and he looked a little off on a few occasions offensively speaking. His missed tackle on Murley for Quins try (and the break that lead to the disallowed try) were completely uncharacteristic but it added to his below-average rating here.
I thought Keith Earls and Mike Haley had very solid games. Both men were unlucky in a few try-scoring opportunities and they were rock solid under the high ball in difficult fielding conditions.
James Cronin isn’t far off from being the best loosehead in the country at the moment given the way he’s been performing this season and this game was another example. His scrummaging and breakdown aggression were a major factor in this win. Very good stuff.
I thought Josh Wycherley, Fineen Wycherley and John Ryan had a big impact off the bench at the set-piece and in the tight exchanges.
I was particularly impressed with Josh Wycherley who didn’t look a bit out of place at this level. Fineen Wycherley had one iffy moment on a gimmick lineout play but I loved his aggression, athleticism and power off the bench. The role-set he’s building is particularly unique and he’s still years away from reaching his peak physically.
Gavin Coombes could have been forgiven for being a bit nervous ahead of this one. European debut and all that. But, like everything else, he smashed it.
His footwork, handling and sheer raw power in contact are massively encouraging, especially on a day when there wasn’t a shortage of off the ball shots going around. Coombes already has a presence on the field – he handles himself like a senior player and he’s playing like one. When he took over at #8 he seemed to grow in stature even more and his heavy contact try, with multiple defenders hanging off him like cans behind a wedding car, is turning into Classic Coombes. Next week will be another big test for him but the Skibbereen Hammer hasn’t been found wanting yet and I don’t expect it here either. Superb.
Craig Casey brought excellent energy, bite and accuracy off the bench. He’s like a shot of adrenaline straight into the heart – you can’t ignore him when he’s on the field. He’s already playing like a captain – it’s only a matter of time, you feel, before it’s an official designation.
Do you think that someone in Harlequins thought that Ben Healy was soft? It’s the only reason I can think of for the marked change in Quins’ defensive behaviour when Healy came on the field.
Is he soft? Well, after taking a dog of a late shot from Alex Dombrandt, Healy lined up a 53m penalty and banged it over nice and casual, like he wasn’t kicking in incredibly difficult conditions for elite goalkickers.
After another hilarious meme by Joe Marler a few minutes later, he dusted himself off, kept playing and, when Craig Casey was taken out in the air by Marcus Smith, Ben Healy fired the resulting penalty right into the corner. Munster scored a few minutes afterwards. Soft? If Quins thought they could stop Healy from playing, they were dead wrong. Maybe try that one again, lads.
This was the Tadhg Beirne that tore through Europe for the Scarlets a few seasons ago – a complete athlete. Beirne isn’t just a handy guy for breakdown turnovers. If that was the only thing he was good at, he’d be a one-note flash in the pan, no he’s far more than that. Why define him as a “second row”? Why limit him with a preconceived notion of that a number on the back of a shirt means.
He defies shirt numbers in games like this. He can steal ball at the breakdown like a “7”. He’s got the pace and handling of a “13”. He’s got the scrummaging and lineout creds of a “5”. He can kick the ball like a “10”. All that adds up to a five-star performance for Tadhg Beirne. He was unrelentingly excellent here and was a massive factor in the win. ★★★★★
The Wally Ratings: Harlequins (H)
The Wally Ratings explainer page is here.
Players are rated based on their time on the pitch, if they were playing notably out of position, and on the overall curve of the team performance. DNP means the player did not feature and N/A means they weren’t on the pitch long enough to warrant a fair rating.
| Names | Rating |
|---|---|
| James Cronin | ★★★★ |
| Kevin O'Byrne | ★★★ |
| Stephen Archer | ★★★ |
| Jean Kleyn | ★★★ |
| Tadhg Beirne | ★★★★★ |
| Gavin Coombes | ★★★★ |
| Peter O'Mahony | ★★★ |
| CJ Stander | ★★★ |
| Conor Murray | ★★★ |
| JJ Hanrahan | ★★ |
| Keith Earls | ★★★★ |
| Damian De Allende | ★★★★ |
| Chris Farrell | ★★★ |
| Andrew Conway | ★★ |
| Mike Haley | ★★★★ |
| Rhys Marshall | ★★★ |
| Josh Wycherley | ★★★★ |
| John Ryan | ★★★★ |
| Fineen Wycherley | ★★★★ |
| Jack O'Donoghue | ★★★ |
| Craig Casey | ★★★★ |
| Ben Healy | ★★★★ |
| Rory Scannell | N/A |
