Over Harsh on Leinster

Amazotheamazing

If the players are good enough then they are under-achieving, and they deserve criticism.

or

The players are good enough, but the coaches can't get the best from them, Leinster coaches deserve criticism.

or

The players are over-rated and not up to it. The press deserves criticism for building them up.

Whatever way you want to look at it, the HEC is in it's 14th year, and Leinster have only briefly looked capable of winning it. Does that failure merit criticism?

anonymous_joe

TarfHead wrote: »

Do good teams get beaten up by teams they're 'still better than' ?

All the time. It happens in every sport. Leagues would be very dull otherwise.

The Leinster back line may have had better potential than their counterparts in Castres, but they didn't execute, so potential is academic.

But that's not the point - people are complaining because they know of that potential.

Leinster lost a game they should won. Munster won a game they should have lost.

Munster earned their praise; Leinster earned their criticism.

Ignoring Munster, I've criticised Leinster too. I think the team is nowhere near achieving what it could and should do.

louthandproud wrote: »

Don't think anyone would argue with the quality of Leinster's players, on paper they should have maximum points given the poor standard of the rest of their group.

Although Neil Francis was probably a bit OTT in his criticism in the tribune yesterday and last week (don't know what the rest of the pundits have been saying) it seems to me his criticism is born out of frustration that the above set (weather all fit or not ) should be doing better given their on-paper pedigree. They do seem to have touch of Ireland'itus (whatever that is) right now. However if they can go and win at Wasp's they still have abig chance to redeem themselves.

And really I don't think harsh criticism can do too much harm at this point, perhaps if they read some of it they might wake up and smell the coffee and start playing for the team, same goes for Ireland. Jury is still out on Munster at the moment they seem to do just enough but still aren't playing anything close 80 minutes of their potential game, or even half of it, they will also need to be careful or their European title might be gone sooner than expected.

I think Ireland-itis has caught a hold on a few players alright. Even some non-Irish ones. :P

Currently, Leinster reminds me a bit of Arsenal. I know cross sport analogies are a bit weak, but the similarity is that there's loads of talent, but no killer instinct/will to win/passion/delete as applicable.

I think all 4 Irish provinces would benefit hugely from objective criticism. I've seen little of it in the media.

Traditionally, Connact get ignored, Ulster get little coverage, and then Munster get the most coverage (most successful, have most fans) which usually talks about passion etc, while Leinster get lots of coverage talking about not quite making it. I've never really seen any indepth examination of any of the provinces, talking about how and why they play the way they do.

In fact, the renaissance at Ulster that seems to be taking place I've seen nothing of, while Munster and Leinster get the same old clichés no matter what happens, and then Connacht are as usual being ignored. Seems all quite pointless.

Tim Robbins

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Hot favouirtes? In who's eyes? 14 men or not, Munster looked dead and buried at the end of that match, but they managed pull the win out, that's what was so impressive. Leinster should of cruised to victory against Castes, but they didnt. Are you telling me that was a good Leinster performance on friday?

It's easier to beat 14 men at home than 15 men away.
Usually.

The problem with the thin line of success and failure when it comes to the HEC Munster have always crossed that line, while Leinster have always fell just short of it. Even as a reletively neutral Munster fan it's frustrating too see, If I was a Leinster fan I'd be doing my nut.

Munster have been the better team most of the time. I don't have a problem with that. What annoys me far more is the way the media seem to lap it up for Munster, praise them for winning games that they should no way loose.
And for giving Leinster a very hard time, telling them their failures unless they win every match.

Tim Robbins

stan smith wrote: »

anybody read the tribune last sunday on the leinster match.neil francis really went all out on leinster.twas some good journalism.

That's a bit sad. Just if a hack goes all out on a team, it makes it good journalism?

Amazotheamazing

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That's a bit sad. Just if a hack goes all out on a team, it makes it good journalism?

Well what do you want to hear?

That Healy isn't up to HEC rugby yet? That Toner and Mal are too lightweight, the Elsom is here for the paycheck, that Jennings is a shadow of his former self, that Heaslip has been in a slump since the summer, that Whitaker is a waste of a contract, that Sexton can't kick goals, that Contepomi can't control games, that Fitz isn't a 12, that BOD isn't fit, that Kearney isn't a winger?

What level of criticism is fair?

Tim Robbins

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Whatever way you want to look at it, the HEC is in it's 14th year, and Leinster have only briefly looked capable of winning it. Does that failure merit criticism?

* The year they won the inaugural Celtic League, they were far better than Munster and lost to Leicester because they were plagued with injuries.
* Another year Williams took us to the semis and we would have won if Spooner was fully fit.
* The year we lost to Munster in Semi's was a great year. We played some outstanding Rugby and lost to arguably the best 10 man team ever to play club Rugby.
* The first year or second year of the Cup we made the semi's.

Only one team out of 24 can win it. Yes Munster are better, have been better and they deserve kudos for that. But the Leinster bashing, of what are an Irish team, producing great Irish Rugby players is out of line.

Who cares if most of them went to private schools. There's tonnes of great Rugby clubs around the province and if anyone wants to play the sport there's club within reach. No-one's going to turn you away because you don't wear boat shoes. Any time someone comes into the Rugby forum here looking for a club, look at all the the positive help the get. No-one says no private school, no game.

So let's just stop the moaning and try to look at some positives.

Tim Robbins

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Well what do you want to hear?

That Healy isn't up to HEC rugby yet? That Toner and Mal are too lightweight, the Elsom is here for the paycheck, that Jennings is a shadow of his former self, that Heaslip has been in a slump since the summer, that Whitaker is a waste of a contract, that Sexton can't kick goals, that Contepomi can't control games, that Fitz isn't a 12, that BOD isn't fit, that Kearney isn't a winger?

What level of criticism is fair?

Objective journalism usually balances positives with negatives. When you hear only negatives, it's just a rant.

There's always a positive in every story and there's always a negative in every story.

If I read something that is just all negative or all positive, I get very suspicious.
W.r.t. to Leinster bashing, I just don't think it's fair. Some of tripe completely ignores obvious positives. It's unfair to people involved with Leinster Rugby whether they be player, fan, coach etc.

anonymous_joe

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Objective journalism usually balances positives with negatives. When you hear only negatives, it's just a rant.

There's always a positive in every story and there's always a negative in every story.

If I read something that is just all negative or all positive, I get very suspicious.
W.r.t. to Leinster bashing, I just don't think it's fair. Some of tripe completely ignores obvious positives. It's unfair to people involved with Leinster Rugby whether they be player, fan, coach etc.

A lot of people have bought into Munster because of the success. Every journalist knows that. Added to that, there's a lot of people who'll happily stick the boot into Leinster because they're still perceived as the elitist D4 types. Mocking them's popular sadly.

Podge_irl

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

That Healy isn't up to HEC rugby yet? That Toner and Mal are too lightweight, the Elsom is here for the paycheck, that Jennings is a shadow of his former self, that Heaslip has been in a slump since the summer, that Whitaker is a waste of a contract, that Sexton can't kick goals, that Contepomi can't control games, that Fitz isn't a 12, that BOD isn't fit, that Kearney isn't a winger?

I don't agree with the Toner thing, but that aside that's a reasonably accurate assessment, which is depressing.

I think people need to ignore the criticism of Leinster and praise of Munster thing - it's always going to happen. Had Leinster been in the same position as Munster I imagine the general gist of articles would be that they nearly ****ed up as opposed to grinding out a win when they should have lost (and quite frankly, I can't imagine many Munster fans were happy with game).
Whatever is said about the Leinster game, and however close they were to winning it, none of that hides the fact that the performances have been poor almost all year. Leinster were not good against Castres at home, regardless of the scoreline. They'll get out of the group, but if they don't improve its all academic as they aren't going to go very far.

thehighground

I read Franno's piece in the Tribune and thought he was just over the top. I also heard Trevor Brennan who was at the match on Sports Call and he was defending Leinster with fairly constructive criticism.

Not all press is negative (from Irish Times Friday 12 Dec).

Leinster are the real deal so get on at 6 to 1
There was serious moaning after Leinster's win last week, but there was still plenty to cheer, writes Liam Toland

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2008/1212/1228864714969.html

In my opinion, it looks like no one is capable of coaching Leinster - too many coaches have failed at this stage. The Leinster players, if they are as good as they think they are, need to start looking at themselves at this stage.

Cheika (along with Gaffney) have done their best and failed (even with getting out of their group). I think a Jake White (rather than a Matt Williams) type coach who would take no nonsense and inspire confidence might be the answer at this stage.

John_C

Something that occurred to me after the game was that Leinster seemed to make all the mistakes they were criticised for not making last week. They assumed they had the game won when they went a score up and played risky moves from their own half. They also put an extra man or two (usually Rocky) into the attacking midfield, where they got a lot of stick last week, at the expense of protecting the ball.

It might just be my imagination but it reminded me a little of Stan's selecting his team on the basis of what the journo's called for. If Cheika's paying attention to the papers, that's worry me a lot more than the 3 points lost on Friday.

Chucky the tree

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Objective journalism usually balances positives with negatives. When you hear only negatives, it's just a rant.

There's always a positive in every story and there's always a negative in every story.

If I read something that is just all negative or all positive, I get very suspicious.
W.r.t. to Leinster bashing, I just don't think it's fair. Some of tripe completely ignores obvious positives. It's unfair to people involved with Leinster Rugby whether they be player, fan, coach etc.

So what postives did you take out of the performance on Friday?

John_C

Chucky the tree wrote: »

So what postives did you take out of the performance on Friday?

I think he's writing about Francis' article last weekend where he said Leinster has no chance to qualify from the pool and that no Leinsterman will travel with the Lions. That, to me, is pretty clear hyperbole, making things out to be much worse than they are.

sslazio11

premierstone wrote: »

Also an interesting side note - the two candidates for the captaincy of Ireland have now both let their teams down imo by playing when clearly not fit - O'Connell limping around croker and BOD was no where near fit enough to start on Friday night
quote]

That's not the captains letting the team down, that's management letting the team down. Kidney should have hauled O'Connell off 10 minutes sooner than he did, and if Driscoll clearly isn't fit, then why did Cheika select him? O'Connell and O'Driscoll are always going to want to play on, it's just their nature. Management should be the ones to see they're injured and haul them off. That's part of their job.

eigrod

Why do people get so worked up about what Francis writes.

He's a Dunphy wannabe. They write "of the moment". It's easy journalism, or lazy if you like.

Francis knows that when he's writing about Leinster that if he sticks the boot in, then all of Munster, Connaught & Ulster will be having a right giggle while all of Leinster will be completely irked.

Exactly the same as Dunphy, he'll stick the boot into ManU or Liverpool, knowing that its sheer entertainment value for those considerable numbers who are in the opposite camps while it'll bring an all too predictable response from those who support the team that he is sticking the boot into at a given time.

Chucky the tree

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's easier to beat 14 men at home than 15 men away.
Usually.



Munster have been the better team most of the time. I don't have a problem with that. What annoys me far more is the way the media seem to lap it up for Munster, praise them for winning games that they should no way loose.
And for giving Leinster a very hard time, telling them their failures unless they win every match.

Of course it's easier, still doesnt excuse the very poor performance on Leinster on friday.

John_C wrote: »

I think he's writing about Francis' article last weekend where he said Leinster has no chance to qualify from the pool and that no Leinsterman will travel with the Lions. That, to me, is pretty clear hyperbole, making things out to be much worse than they are.

Then he should entitle the thread "Francis over harsh on Leinster". Throwing the whole media under the bus because Neil francis goes off on one of his rants seems a bit OTT. Tbh, I'd never realised people actually paid attention to Neil francis.

crisco10

eigrod wrote: »

Why do people get so worked up about what Francis writes.

He's a Dunphy wannabe. They write "of the moment". It's easy journalism, or lazy if you like.

Francis knows that when he's writing about Leinster that if he sticks the boot in, then all of Munster, Connaught & Ulster will be having a right giggle while all of Leinster will be completely irked.

Exactly the same as Dunphy, he'll stick the boot into ManU or Liverpool, knowing that its sheer entertainment value for those considerable numbers who are in the opposite camps while it'll bring an all too predictable response from those who support the team that he is sticking the boot into at a given time.

Its so true. I read Franno every week but under no circumstances do i take him seriously. Without fail, all he does is try to be witty and sensationalist. Fun to read on a Sunday afternoon but to be taken with a pinch (or ton) of salt!

Chucky the tree

It's like George Hook multiplied by a thousand.

Serenity Now!

thehighground wrote: »

Cheika (along with Gaffney) have done their best and failed (even with getting out of their group)

If they progress further they have not failed. When/if they lose, they fail.

RuggieBear

Podge_irl wrote: »

I don't agree with the Toner thing, but that aside that's a reasonably accurate assessment, which is depressing.

I think people need to ignore the criticism of Leinster and praise of Munster thing - it's always going to happen. Had Leinster been in the same position as Munster I imagine the general gist of articles would be that they nearly ****ed up as opposed to grinding out a win when they should have lost (and quite frankly, I can't imagine many Munster fans were happy with game).
Whatever is said about the Leinster game, and however close they were to winning it, none of that hides the fact that the performances have been poor almost all year. Leinster were not good against Castres at home, regardless of the scoreline. They'll get out of the group, but if they don't improve its all academic as they aren't going to go very far.

that's just the thing....leinster have been poor all season. (I've said it every week now) Yet are criticised as if we should be in the running to win the HC. We are not. We have beaten Castre at home and Edinburgh away playing really poorly. We hammered a really poor wasps team. Tbh I reckon we will probably beat them inLondon too....because they are so bad at the moment.

Once in the quarters we will get well beaten by any half decent team....and then the knifes will be out again about bottling it when we never had a realistic chance in the first place.

Pshan

Tim Robbins wrote: »

* The year they won the inaugural Celtic League, they were far better than Munster and lost to Leicester because they were plagued with injuries.
* Another year Williams took us to the semis and we would have won if Spooner was fully fit.
* The year we lost to Munster in Semi's was a great year. We played some outstanding Rugby and lost to arguably the best 10 man team ever to play club Rugby.
* The first year or second year of the Cup we made the semi's.

Only one team out of 24 can win it. Yes Munster are better, have been better and they deserve kudos for that. But the Leinster bashing, of what are an Irish team, producing great Irish Rugby players is out of line.

Who cares if most of them went to private schools. There's tonnes of great Rugby clubs around the province and if anyone wants to play the sport there's club within reach. No-one's going to turn you away because you don't wear boat shoes. Any time someone comes into the Rugby forum here looking for a club, look at all the the positive help the get. No-one says no private school, no game.

So let's just stop the moaning and try to look at some positives.

Over the course of the championship only four teams have participated in it every year (Toulouse, Ulster, Leinster and Munster) of these four, Leinster are the only team never to have won it or even made a final, should this be a concern to the Leinster branch or the fans? Surely, making it out of the pool must be the minimum Leinster should be aiming to achieve each year.

Tim Robbins

Chucky the tree wrote: »

So what postives did you take out of the performance on Friday?

1. We got a bonus point in France. Go through the history of the Heineken Cup and you'll see we don't always get a bonus point in France.
This isn't a bad result considering the injuries we had.
2. Healy, Toney, Sexton - the next generation of Irish players all given valuable game time.

Tim Robbins

Pshan wrote: »

Over the course of the championship only four teams have participated in it every year (Toulouse, Ulster, Leinster and Munster) of these four, Leinster are the only team never to have won it or even made a final, should this be a concern to the Leinster branch or the fans? Surely, making it out of the pool must be the minimum Leinster should be aiming to achieve each year.

We've the highest attendance on average for the Celtic League, which we have also won twice. Ah but sure now it'll be :"but it's only the Celtic League".

If you fail to see postivies, any positive's at all, even Leinster's contribution to the Irish team, that's just one - eyed Leinster bashing.

dub_skav

I don't think the problem is anybody being harsh on Leinster, it's lazy stereotypes in journalism that are continually played into.

If Munster scraped past Treviso some people would be saying Munster do just enough/Munster win ugly etc. They would get criticism obviously but the slant would be they didn't perform but winning playing badly is a mark of champions.

On the flip side if Leinster were beaten by a full strength All Blacks side the slant in the media would be that with Leinster's players/resources they should have done better/underachieving Leinster etc.

It appears that a lot of articles are nearly pre-written and that is what annoys me. I want to read insightful journalism not the same ****e that I can hear watching the match down the pub.

premierstone

Tim Robbins wrote: »

We've the highest attendance on average for the Celtic League, which we have also won twice. Ah but sure now it'll be :"but it's only the Celtic League".

If you fail to see postivies, any positive's at all, even Leinster's contribution to the Irish team, that's just one - eyed Leinster bashing.

Where did he say there were no positives??? Neil Francis apart I see very little of this so-called one eyed Leinster bashing you refer to, all I see is a Leinster fan with a serious chip on he's shoulder who is paying far too much attention to sensationalist journalism.

Tim Robbins

premierstone wrote: »

Where did he say there were no positives??? Neil Francis apart I see very little of this so-called one eyed Leinster bashing you refer to, all I see is a Leinster fan with a serious chip on he's shoulder who is paying far too much attention to sensationalist journalism.

Perhaps, if he mentioned positives I missed them.

Anyway you agree with me the journalism is sensationalist. So I've a chip on my shoulder for thinking that but you don't?

This is becoming a farce.

Chucky the tree

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Perhaps, if he mentioned positives I missed them.

Anyway you agree with me the journalism is sensationalist. So I've a chip on my shoulder for thinking that but you don't?

This is becoming a farce.

So one journalist = the media now?

Tim Robbins

Chucky the tree wrote: »

So one journalist = the media now?

It's rampant throughout the media imo. Maybe I'm delusional.

anonymous_joe

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's rampant throughout the media imo. Maybe I'm delusional.

You're not.

I think personally, it's not quite as bad as you think. I do however think that as has been mentioned previously, Leinster are the least popular team in the Irish media, mainly because so many people hail Munster as these salt of the earth heroes, battling the forces of injustice, and conversely view Leinster as overpayed primadonnas who lack grit/balls/whatever inane and tedious word you can find for this empty cliché.

Munster were overachieving a couple of years ago, but then, they had a great pack, and lots of the most successful teams play 10 man rugby. Leicester, England, Munster. It works, so fair play. Now though, with their recent signings, Munster are no longer overachieving, they're at the top level. Leinster will always be expected to be on a par with Munster, that won't be easy for them. However, player by player, the two squads are relatively similar - so people expect even more from Leinster.

For the record, I think both Munster and Leinster have played some awful rugby this season. The Montauban game and the Castres game would be great examples. They're two very strong teams, it's just that one has a lot of positives wrapped up in their game, whereas the other has a lot of negatives. That means a Munster game is usually a glass half full, whereas a Leinster game is half empty. If you follow...

premierstone

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Perhaps, if he mentioned positives I missed them.

Anyway you agree with me the journalist is sensationalist. So I've a chip on my shoulder for thinking that but you don't?

This is becoming a farce.

FYP and yes your right this thread is a farce, how it has anything to do with Munster is beyond me, why have you not mentioned Connaught or Ulster, there are 4 provinces in Ireland you know

anonymous_joe

premierstone wrote: »

FYP and yes your right this thread is a farce, how it has anything to do with Munster is beyond me, why have you not mentioned Connaught or Ulster, there are 4 provinces in Ireland you know

Connact are ignored full stop. Which is unfair.

Ulster aren't popular in this part of their country, because, well, they're a different province. The Belfast Telegraph et al would be more interested than the Dublin and Cork based media.

corny

dub_skav wrote: »

I don't think the problem is anybody being harsh on Leinster, it's lazy stereotypes in journalism that are continually played into.

If Munster scraped past Treviso some people would be saying Munster do just enough/Munster win ugly etc. They would get criticism obviously but the slant would be they didn't perform but winning playing badly is a mark of champions.

On the flip side if Leinster were beaten by a full strength All Blacks side the slant in the media would be that with Leinster's players/resources they should have done better/underachieving Leinster etc.

It appears that a lot of articles are nearly pre-written and that is what annoys me. I want to read insightful journalism not the same ****e that I can hear watching the match down the pub.

Thats it in a nutshell IMO.

premierstone

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Ulster aren't popular in this part of their country, because, well, they're a different province.

Different how exactly, same way as Leinster is a different province than Connaught or Munster is a different province than Leinster, you've lost me there, the fact is there are 4 provinces (cue the lyrics to that god awfull song ) in Ireland

anonymous_joe

premierstone wrote: »

Different how exactly, same way as Leinster is a different province than Connaught or Munster is a different province than Leinster, you've lost me there, the fact is there are 4 provinces (cue the lyrics to that god awfull song ) in Ireland

Because at the end of the day, most of the media is from the Republic of Ireland. And they care more about Munster and Leinster. Munster having a rake of fans, and Leinster being from the most populous part of the country. Add to that, Ulster have been underachieving for a few years, and there's not enough demand for them to receive coverage.

premierstone

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Because at the end of the day, most of the media is from the Republic of Ireland. And they care more about Munster and Leinster. Munster having a rake of fans, and Leinster being from the most populous part of the country. Add to that, Ulster have been underachieving for a few years, and there's not enough demand for them to receive coverage.

This is rugby not soccer?? No i accept what you meant about the demand and writing for your perceived audience, better leave this before it derails into an all out political soap box - but Ulster is in Ireland (sorry couldnt resist)

anonymous_joe

premierstone wrote: »

This is rugby not soccer?? No i accept what you meant about the demand and writing for your perceived audience, better leave this before it derails into an all out political soap box - but Ulster is in Ireland (sorry couldnt resist)

Ulster's in Ireland, but the rugby playing part's mainly outside of the Republic. And most of the Irish media's down here. ^^

That's all I meant.

Chucky the tree

anonymous_joe wrote: »

For the record, I think both Munster and Leinster have played some awful rugby this season. The Montauban game and the Castres game would be great examples. They're two very strong teams, it's just that one has a lot of positives wrapped up in their game, whereas the other has a lot of negatives. That means a Munster game is usually a glass half full, whereas a Leinster game is half empty. If you follow...

You admit this youself, yet you give out about the media highlighting the good points of the munster win and the bad points of the Leinster lose? While the Montauben performance was poor, with the extra game in hand I think the scenarios are a bit different. If Munster throw away a glorious oppurtunity of securing a QF place, and a probale home tie like Leinster did at the weekend you'd her the media going on about it.

Maybe the reason you dont see as much Munster bashing in the media is because in general Munster dont give them the oppurtunities that Leinster do? when was the last time Munster went out of the HEC by under performing? Compare that too Leinster who seem to do it on a near yearly basis.

Amazotheamazing

There is perception among Leinster fans that Munster and Leinster are two evenly matched teams, and should both be working at the same level. I'm not sure why this is?

anonymous_joe

Chucky the tree wrote: »

You admit this youself, yet you give out about the media highlighting the good points of the munster win and the bad points of the Leinster lose? While the Montauben performance was poor, with the extra game in hand I think the scenarios are a bit different. If Munster throw away a glorious oppurtunity of securing a QF place, and a probale home tie like Leinster did at the weekend you'd her the media going on about it.

Maybe the reason you dont see as much Munster bashing in the media is because in general Munster dont give them the oppurtunities that Leinster do? when was the last time Munster went out of the HEC by under performing? Compare that too Leinster who seem to do it on a near yearly basis.

Ok, I phrased that badly.

what I mean is this - I think Munster always get the glass half full approach in the media, and Leinster always get the glass half empty approach.

I know Munster have outperformed Leinster. I'm just saying that they rarely get criticised as much as the boys in blue even when they should. Let's face it, they almost lost to a team that was down to 14 men for most of the game on the weekend. And yet people hail it as Munster doing what they do best. Yes they won, but not well. Sometimes winning's not all.

I don't want this to sound like an attack on Munster, they're just the most obvious team to compare them too.

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

There is perception among Leinster fans that Munster and Leinster are two evenly matched teams, and should both be working at the same level. I'm not sure why this is?

History might have something to do with it. The two teams are suprisngly evenly matched on paper too. Munster outperform Leinster consistently, but as individuals there team really isn't that much better.

premierstone

anonymous_joe wrote: »

History might have something to do with it. The two teams are suprisngly evenly matched on paper too. Munster outperform Leinster consistently, but as individuals there team really isn't that much better.

Does this not then justify the perceived media bias towards Munster if they are consitently out performing a team of similar standard, while i admit it is unfair on Leinster to be continously compared to Munster its like you said yourself they're the most obvious comparison

anonymous_joe

premierstone wrote: »

Does this not then justify the perceived media bias towards Munster if they are consitently out performing a team of similar standard, while i admit it is unfair on Leinster to be continously compared to Munster its like you said yourself they're the most obvious comparison

But here's the thing - it's the question of being overly harsh. Leinster deserve some criticism for underachieving, but it's a bit excessive. A part of that comes down to the fact that Leinster are associated with a satirical character in Ross O'Carroll-Kelly - no-one's actually like that, but people will quite happily read about Leinster being a shower of primadonnas who aren;'t real men because it fits in with their prejudices.

Erin Go Brath

I don't subscribe to this nonsense about Leinster being the most unpopular team in the Irish media at all. This plucky salt of the earth types versus silver spoon, cappucino drinking, floppy haired types is just overplayed nonsense.

Munster currently have the respect becaue they've lifted the Heineken Cup twice in the last few years, whilst Leinster have consistantly failed in the big tests despite showing a lot of potential in the earlier rounds.
If/when leinster can win the Heinken Cup they'll be the media darlings, and the media will dump on Munsters underperformers!

premierstone

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

I don't subscribe to this nonsense about Leinster being the most unpopular team in the Irish media at all. This plucky salt of the earth types versus silver spoon, cappucino drinking, floppy haired types is just overplayed nonsense.

Munster currently have the respect becaue they've lifted the Heineken Cup twice in the last few years, whilst Leinster have consistantly failed in the big tests despite showing a lot of potential in the earlier rounds.
If/when leinster can win the Heinken Cup they'll be the media darlings, and the media will dump on Munsters underperformers!

Agree, cos god knows if there is one thing more fickle than fans its the media

Amazotheamazing

anonymous_joe wrote: »

History might have something to do with it. The two teams are suprisngly evenly matched on paper too. Munster outperform Leinster consistently, but as individuals there team really isn't that much better.

Are they really evenly matched on paper?

I don't think they are. I think this era's Munster team is a level above Leinster's, and I'm equally sure that that could change over the next few years given the strength of the various Leinster underage squads.

It's an interesting point about the various individuals though, rugby has never been a game for individuals, the most important skill a rugby player can have, imo, is the ability to play in a team.

Amazotheamazing

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Are they really evenly matched on paper?

I don't think they are. I think this era's Munster team is a level above Leinster's, and I'm equally sure that that could change over the next few years given the strength of the various Leinster underage squads.

It's an interesting point about the various individuals though, rugby has never been a game for individuals, the most important skill a rugby player can have, imo, is the ability to play in a team.

I think the teams are fairly evenly matched.If you said we could swap this minute I wouldnt.

As has been done before on this site,comparisons gave man for man your better in some aread and were better in others.

As for Leinster getting a harder time i the media,they most certainly do as Gerry Thornley pointed out on off the ball on monday.So its not just Leinster fans bitching,its plainly obvious for everyone to see tbh and any fan that doesnt think so is lying tbh.

Leinster have been called the Ladyboys by every journalist in ireland,they have constantly insinuated that the team lacks heart,the fans are wealthy arrogant snobs that every Leinster fan or player lives in D4 and looks down at everyone else at some point or another.
Can you imagine the uproar from Munster fans if they were called the Bog Hoppers every second week and their fans refered to as working class farmers,they would not be pleased .

After reading negative articles about Leinster for years in the paper,your left with a bitter taste in your mouth as a fan and I actually think it stokes an uneeded rivalry with Munster tbh.

anonymous_joe

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Are they really evenly matched on paper?

I don't think they are. I think this era's Munster team is a level above Leinster's, and I'm equally sure that that could change over the next few years given the strength of the various Leinster underage squads.

It's an interesting point about the various individuals though, rugby has never been a game for individuals, the most important skill a rugby player can have, imo, is the ability to play in a team.

On paper and so to be taken with a pinch of salt. :P

• 15. Keith Earls 15. Rob Kearney - Kearney
• 14. Howlett 14. Shane Horgan - Howlett
• 13. Tipoki 13. Brian O'Driscoll - O'Driscoll
• 12. Mafi 12. Gordon D'arcy - Dunno, d'arcy?
• 11. Dowling 11. Fitzgerald - Fitz
  
• 10. O'Gara 10. Contepomi - Close. Rog
• 9. O'Leary 9. Whitaker - Not Whitaker :P
  
• 8. Wallace/Diack 8. Heaslip - Munster
• 7. Ronan/Wallace 7. Shane Jennings - Jennings maybe
• 6. Quinlan 6. Rocky Elsom - Elsom
• 5. O'Connel 5. Mal O'Kelly - POC
• 4. O'Callaghan 4. Leo Cullen - Dunno
• 3. Hayes 3. CJ - van der Linde
• 2. Flannery 2. Jackman - Flannery
• 1. Horan 1. Stan Wright - Horan

Those are opinions, some of which are very much debatable. That's not the point. The point is, is there really that massive a difference?

Munster have about 6 first choice internationals in their pack and Leinster maybe 3 to 5.

Half backs, RoG versus Contepomi is very close, Whitaker's not as good as Munster's half backs.

In terms of the centres and the backs, I'd say Leinster would edge it, but then, packs are almost always more important. So there ya go, not that big a gap.

sm.org

Always bee the way hasn't it if we could get the Blue backs and the Red forwards to consistently play well together then we'd be in business.

anonymous_joe

anonymous_joe wrote: »

On paper and so to be taken with a pinch of salt. :P

• 15. Keith Earls 15. Rob Kearney - Kearney
• 14. Howlett 14. Shane Horgan - Howlett
• 13. Tipoki 13. Brian O'Driscoll - O'Driscoll
• 12. Mafi 12. Gordon D'arcy - Dunno, d'arcy?
• 11. Dowling 11. Fitzgerald - Fitz
  
• 10. O'Gara 10. Contepomi - Close. Rog
• 9. O'Leary 9. Whitaker - Not Whitaker :P
  
• 8. Wallace/Diack 8. Heaslip - Munster
• 7. Ronan/Wallace 7. Shane Jennings - Jennings maybe
• 6. Quinlan 6. Rocky Elsom - Elsom
• 5. O'Connel 5. Mal O'Kelly - POC
• 4. O'Callaghan 4. Leo Cullen - Dunno
• 3. Hayes 3. CJ - van der Linde
• 2. Flannery 2. Jackman - Flannery
• 1. Horan 1. Stan Wright - Horan

Those are opinions, some of which are very much debatable. That's not the point. The point is, is there really that massive a difference?

Munster have about 6 first choice internationals in their pack and Leinster maybe 3 to 5.

Half backs, RoG versus Contepomi is very close, Whitaker's not as good as Munster's half backs.

In terms of the centres and the backs, I'd say Leinster would edge it, but then, packs are almost always more important. So there ya go, not that big a gap.

15. Keith Earls 15. Rob Kearney - Kearney

14. Howlett 14. Shane Horgan - Howlett

13. Tipoki 13. Brian O'Driscoll - O'Driscoll

12. Mafi 12. Contepomi - Contepomi

11. Dowling 11. Fitzgerald - Fitz

10. O'Gara 10. Nacewa- Nacewa(better at running the ball)

9. O'Leary 9. Whitaker - both of munsters

8. Wallace/Diack 8. Heaslip - Walace

7. Ronan/Wallace 7. Shane Jennings

6. Quinlan 6. Rocky Elsom - Elsom

5. O'Connel 5. Mal O'Kelly - POC

4. O'Callaghan 4. Leo Cullen - Cullen

3. Hayes 3. CJ - van der Linde

2. Flannery 2. Jackman - Jackman

1. Horan 1. Stan Wright - Horan


I would have nacewa at 10 and i from what ive seen of him in the super 14 at 10 and at leinster at,i would choose him over rog,especially for the type of game we are trying to play.Obviously alot of people will disagree but as i say the team are trying to play different games and both 10's have their own strengths.

Contepomi at 12 is better than mafi.

I would have jackman over flannery.
I would also have cullen over DOC.

Personal opinions but if added up the total based on that its 10 for Leinster and 5 for Munster,as ive said thats my personal opinion and thats why I said i wouldnt swap.

premierstone

Louis White Antifreeze wrote: »

I would have nacewa at 10 and i from what ive seen of him in the super 14 at 10 and at leinster at,i would choose him over rog,especially for the type of game we are trying to play.Obviously alot of people will disagree but as i say the team are trying to play different games and both 10's have their own strengths.

Contepomi at 12 is better than mafi.

I would have jackman over flannery.
I would also have cullen over DOC.

Personal opinions but if added up the total based on that its 10 for Leinster and 5 for Munster,as ive said thats my personal opinion and thats why I said i wouldnt swap.

Dont worry about it Kid not too many down here would swap either

Podge_irl

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Are they really evenly matched on paper?

I don't think they are. I think this era's Munster team is a level above Leinster's, and I'm equally sure that that could change over the next few years given the strength of the various Leinster underage squads.

I don't think Leinster are as good a team as Munster (I don't think there is a massive amount in it, but definitely not as good). Mind you, the press and the general populace often seem to under-rate Munster and portray games as the local country boys against the big rich Europeans. Munster in the HEC has rarely been a David versus Goliath affair - they have a fully international 1-10 more often then not! Whereas for some reason Leinster are expected to compete when they quite frankly had (and unfortunately still have) some massive problems. Its amazing they got as far as they did in 2006 given the pack they had.

I'm a little less annoyed this time around because Leinster should be a lot better on paper at the moment given the improvements made to the pack (though scrummy is still a huge problem) so they definitely deserve criticism. Munster are receiving less criticism then Leinster did last week though. While Castres are clearly no Clermont, Leinster beat them comfortably while Munster struggled against 14 men! More then once Munster really should have been in a better position coming into the last game of the group stages, yet that's forgotten with another miracle match in Thomond (not that those games weren't impressive).