Analysis: Munster’s kicking game
Our resident analyst breaks down the Munster kicking game in their Champions Cup semi-final against Saracens.
By conceding 26 points on Saturday, Munster allowed Saracens to score more points against them than all but one other team this season. They scored just ten points, the joint lowest number all season.
The red train, which had been rumbling towards an, arguably, surprising quarter final slot, jumped into gear to destroy Toulouse before coming to a spluttering halt, on the weekend, against Saracens. Munster are not a team, this year, who have played expansive and flowing rugby.
In the last three European games before this one, they have kicked 24, 30, and 28 times and passed just 91, 119, and 117 times, that’s despite leading the possession stats in each game.
Unfortunately for the Irish province, we found out what happens when an immovable object meets an immovable object. Saracens feed off turnover ball and broken field play, and Munster’s desire to continually kick the ball away fattened up the London team. The Irish team kicked the ball away 37 times, to just 94 passes and 84 runs – fly half Tyler Bleyendaal kicked the ball 14 times and passed it just four.
This was a game plan set up to neautralise the threat posed by Saracens, but in doing so, Munster played straight into their hands. This article will look at how Munster limited themselves as the game progressed and how the Sarries’ marauding defence carried them home.
The first thing we will look at is how Sarries stood off at the breakdown and drew the Irish in to create lots more space for counter attacking. We looked at this in more detail a few weeks ago, before I went on holiday and sat in a darkened room to think about how I’d so poorly predicted Jonny Gray’s involvement with the Lions back in January.
In this clip, Munster continue to pour men into the breakdown, despite the fact that Mauro Itoje is the only person there for Saracens.
When Duncan Williams, scrum-half, does pass it away, the attack is so narrow that Itoje can slow the ball down again at the next ruck. By committing so many men to the ruck, the ensuing kick opens up more counter attacking options.
The kick first attitude of Williams was in evidence very early in the game. In the below example, Munster have broken through the Saracens defence and are beginning to look threatening. But Williams’ kick has zero chase and is far too long to challenge Alex Goode.
Like a stopped clock, the Munster kicking game occasionally got it right, as in the below example. But, the context of this example, is that Munster have just received a kick and they are only just in their own half. Against previous opposition in the competition, they would have tried to string some phases together here and posed an attacking threat.
This isn’t intended purely as a dressing down of Munster’s decision to kick as often as they did. The fact is that Saracens are a threat when they turn the ball over and Munster made the rational decision that they could accept the risk of having the ball turned over close to the Saracens line, as in the example below, but weren’t prepared to do it much further towards their own line.
The work of the Saracens defence to repel phase after phase, before snatching the ball, in their own 22, infected the Munster thinking. In the example below, Billy Vunipola steals the ball after ten phases of Irish pressure where the attack really went nowhere, it’s these examples of failures which really created the later thinking to kick everything away.
The Munster attack then very swiftly changed to one held together by speculative kicks, as below. This isn’t a bad kick by Bleyendaal, but they don’t win the ball back and they then lose all that hard earned ground thanks to a great clearing kick by Richard Wigglesworth.
That was replicated in the second half with yet more hopeful kicking. The example below almost works – Sean Maitland drops the ball but there’s no yardage gained.
That immediately leads to the next example which is yet another kick from Bleyendaal. The kick is well collected by Keith Earls, but they gain exactly zero yards and it’s the equivalent of a long pass. However, it obviously carries more risk than a long pass.
In the final example, we’re moving just one breakdown later. This time, it’s a kick by Duncan Williams. As you can see, the kick is far too long and puts Goode under no pressure once again. Despite those three kicks, and the small margin of error that comes with them, Munster have ended up back in their half following the 22 drop out.
Conclusion
As every rugby captain and coach says during the pre-match chat, first up tackles matter. By keeping a strong defence and stealing Munster ball as soon as they got into a promising attacking position, Saracens sowed the seeds for the kick fest that the game turned into.
Saracens live off turnover ball and broken field play, but they were playing a team who were happy to cede the ball over easily and, although this didn’t fit directly with the London club’s game plan, they have too much ability not to take advantage of it.
It’s impossible to know what Munster could have done if they had stuck to the game plan that had carried them to the semi-final, and a high PRO12 position. But they will undoubtedly be frustrated at how they neglected to spread the ball wide and turned the dynamic back three into a static group, sent out to catch high ball after high ball.
Lions Implications
For each article leading up to the Lions, I’ll be having a brief look at what we’ve discussed in the article means for the squad. In this case, Gatland will be very happy to see the ruck work done by Billy Vunipola, Mako Vunipola and Mauro Itoje.
All three are likely starters, and if he has men who can turn over the ball throughout the pack, it gives him much more flexibility with his back row. For example, he may choose a heavier ball carrying six and seven to stick the Lions on the front foot without sacrificing the ability to slow the ball down on the ground.
Alternatively, he may choose a six and seven who are better at the lineout, Tipuric and O’Mahony for example. Whichever he chooses, having players who can turn the ball over spread across the pack, is never a bad thing.