If you want a number that sums up Munster’s game against the Dragons, I would suggest that number is “42”. No, this isn’t a deep-cut reference to the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, it is the number of ineffective cleanouts Munster produced during the 23-17 loss to the Dragons in Round #2 of the United Rugby Championship.
For reference, that number was 25 last week. Remember that scrappy, narrow win over Connacht in Thomond Park last season? That had 14 ineffective cleanouts. I was under the mistaken impression that this week was better than last week when it came to the breakdown and, in one way – penalties conceded – it was, but when it comes to efficiency it was actually way, way worse.
It is impossible to win a game with a breakdown running as inefficiently as this.
MUNSTER’S OFFENSIVE RUCK WORK SCORE VS DRAGONS
- A Dominant Clean is an action that decisively secures possession when the ball carrier takes contact. A Dominant Clean does not have to be the first arrival at the breakdown but it is rewarded in the context of effectiveness. We will assign this action 3 points.
- A Guard Action is where a player plays a role in helping to retain possession after we have “re-won” the ball on the floor. Sometimes this can happen on a carry/ruck point where there is no active contention by the opposition. Let’s assign this action 2 points.
- An Attendance can be anything from standing as a “kick shield” on a ruck to adding a bit of bulk to ward against a counter-ruck. I’m marking this down as being worth 1 point.
- An Ineffective Action is a blown cleanout, a lean, a breakdown penalty or an action that I couldn’t see any direct benefit for. This will be worth -1 points.
| Dominant Clean | Guard Action | Attendance | Ineffective | Ruck Work Score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kilcoyne | 3 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 17 |
| Scannell | 2 | 8 | 4 | 5 | 16 |
| Archer | 2 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 12 |
| Kleyn | 5 | 1 | 3 | 10 | |
| F. Wycherley | 2 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 14 |
| O'Donoghue | 4 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 11 |
| O'Mahony | 5 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 30 |
| O'Sullivan | 4 | 15 | 2 | 44 | |
| Casey | 1 | 2 | |||
| Healy | 2 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Zebo | 1 | 4 | 4 | 3 | |
| Fekitoa | 2 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 17 |
| Goggin | 6 | 6 | 30 | ||
| Earls | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 | |
| Haley | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 11 |
| Buckley | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | |
| O'Connor | 1 | 4 | 11 | ||
| Knox | 3 | 2 | 1 | 11 | |
| Edogbo | 2 | 4 | 14 | ||
| Beirne | 4 | 7 | 2 | 20 | |
| Patterson | 0 | ||||
| Carbery | 0 | ||||
| Coombes | 2 | 1 | 7 |
TOP FIVE ORW SCORERS VS DRAGONS
- Jack O’Sullivan – 44 points
- Peter O’Mahony – 30 points
- Dan Goggin – 30 points
- Tadhg Beirne – 20 points
- Dave Kilcoyne – 17 points
Even these top five scores – with the exception of O’Sullivan and Goggin – struggled to meaningfully impact the game when you go ruck to ruck, as I did. Some of the elements of a new, high-tempo extended 3-3-1 are to “blame” for this, as is a pack that was missing primary ball carriers. Essentially, because we were struggling to punch holes consistently in the middle pod of three and off #9, our pod structure put pressure on other forwards to make effective entries. Lost collisions + wider pod “barrels” = stressed breakdown resources if the collision point isn’t nuked but that isn’t really an excuse – all it does is highlight how off the boil some players were.
The back row combination of Jack O’Donoghue, Jack O’Sullivan and Peter O’Mahony just didn’t work here, especially in combination with a relatively light second-row pairing for most of the game. The biggest element that was “off” in this pack build was O’Donoghue, who has produced two of the weakest games of his career two games in a row. In both games, he has looked uncomfortable and off-role with the positions he’s filling. He carried the ball six times – the same as O’Sullivan – but the breakdown completely bypassed him. Fineen Wycherley – a player only an inch taller and listed two KG heavier than O’Dongohue – had much of the same problems with ineffective ball carrying and none of the breakdown accuracy of last weekend’s game.
O’Mahony’s involvements were better than I initially thought but he suffered the same performance issues as he tends to in a pack that doesn’t have a lot of primary ball-carrying outlets. Dave Kilcoyne was the most effective of those ball-carrying outlets and, even then, he struggled to get the kind of purchase needed to affect the game for us.
O’Sullivan had a better game carrying the ball than it seemed, though, even if most of his work was almost “transition” like in that it was often around the fringes of a flow ruck or off a scrappy moment of Munster play. His breakdown work was pretty accurate – if a little Guard Action heavy for my liking – but overall he can be pretty happy with his performance.
I’ve downgraded O’Donoghue, Scannell and Wycherley to a ★ rating off the back of this Work Rate review, and upgraded O’Mahony to ★★★.
