Leinster Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread.

Benny Cake

Edit out the "Munster scumbags" & "Limerick Gang" references and you've got a good post there...

thomond2006

Jackass, we need you on our podcast when Munster play Leinster in April.

Seriously. Half the guys on here would pay to hear it!

[Jackass]

Benny Cake wrote: »

Edit out the "Munster scumbags" & "Limerick Gang" references and you've got a good post there...

Apologies, no offence meant.

I'm not calling Munster the club or players scumbags, when I say they acted LIKE slippy little scumbags, I refer to underhand tactics / robbing / poaching - and as for the "M" gang sign, that's just a joke at the hand sign in the photo, not implying anything.

I have to stress, I speak my mind about issues, but I'm not being personal or trying to insult anybody, and I do say certain things in jest, and maybe that doesn't come across, but I don't ever go out to insult anybody, I promise.

Benny Cake

[Jackass] wrote: »

Apologies, no offence meant.

I'm not calling Munster the club or players scumbags, when I say they acted LIKE slippy little scumbags, I refer to underhand tactics / robbing / poaching - and as for the "M" gang sign, that's just a joke at the hand sign in the photo, not implying anything.

I have to stress, I speak my mind about issues, but I'm not being personal or trying to insult anybody, and I do say certain things in jest, and maybe that doesn't come across, but I don't ever go out to insult anybody, I promise.

I never doubted you for a second Jackass... You're just a cuddly likle puppy at heart

profitius

Jackass, you might not want to hear this but Munster success forced Leinster to catch up.

jacothelad

profitius wrote: »

Jackass, you might not want to hear this but Munster success forced Leinster to catch up.

Caused them to aspire perhaps - unless of course Ulster forced Munster to succeed.

CatFromHue

jacothelad wrote: »

Caused them to aspire perhaps - unless of course Ulster forced Munster to succeed.

Connacht gave Ulster the belief though

20 September 1997
20:00 Bordeaux-Begles 9 – 15 Connacht Stade Andre Moga

11 October 1997
15:00 Northampton Saints 15 – 20 Connacht Franklin's Gardens

tolosenc

profitius wrote: »

Jackass, you might not want to hear this but Munster success forced Leinster to catch up.

Because Leinster never wanted to win anything up till then?

Podge_irl

profitius wrote: »

Jackass, you might not want to hear this but Munster success forced Leinster to catch up.

Indeed. I think the semi-final in Lansdowne in 2006 was the best thing to ever happen to Leinster.

tolosenc

CatFromHue wrote: »

Connacht gave Ulster the belief though

20 September 1997
20:00 Bordeaux-Begles 9 – 15 Connacht Stade Andre Moga

11 October 1997
15:00 Northampton Saints 15 – 20 Connacht Franklin's Gardens

Connacht - the engine room of Irish Rugby!

tolosenc

Podge_irl wrote: »

Indeed. I think the semi-final in Lansdowne in 2006 was the best thing to ever happen to Leinster.

Combined with 2009 in Croker.

Excercision of demons, destruction of inferiority complex/Munster myth.

Podge_irl

tolosenc wrote: »

Combined with 2009 in Croker.

Excercision of demons, destruction of inferiority complex/Munster myth.

The difference in Leinster in between is striking. If you look at the pack for the Toulouse and Munster games in 06 it is laughably bad. The '09 victory was based on severe aggression in the breakdown area. Personally, I think the ML victory in '08 was the real watershed moment for Leinster - they won that league almost entirely through their forwards.

While it may be a somewhat contentious point, I do think that Leinster currently are a better, more all-round team then Munster ever were.

[Jackass]

Hmmm. Strange comment. I think winning that day and going on to beat a mediocre Biarritz team (being generous - but not much worse than Northampton 2011 though, who didn't overcome much to reach a final) would have been better.

By your logic, was losing a home semi-final to Perpingan in 2003, when we were outrageous favourites with the bookies to lift the Heineken Cup that year the best thing to ever happen us?

I think getting our act together is the best thing that ever happened to us, and that has nothing to do with anybody, other than players like O'Driscoll, D'Arcy, Contempomi, Horgan, D'Arcy, Jennings, Cullen, even Corrigan (who was gone by HEC winning) and coaches like Cheika and Schmidt.

Munster winning the Heineken Cup has about as much relevance to Leinster winning the Heineken Cup as winning the world cup and two finals in a row by England has had on Ireland, Scotland and Wales's world cup winning campaigns.....oh....wait....

Yes the bar in Irish rugby was being raised through professionalism, and Munster were (after Ulster, and when RTE gave us all the live matches) the first to benefit in Europe, but I wouldn't be as arrogant as to claim that Ulsters massive improvement over the last couple of seasons was down to Leinster...

Podge_irl

[Jackass] wrote: »

I think getting our act together is the best thing that ever happened to us

So do I. I think losing that semi-final was a big reason that happened.

Munster won two HECs with a much more limited team and game-plan, but that massively stagnated their growth as a team imo. Their current fall from grace is due in no small part to not looking to their big failings because of a measure of success.

jacothelad

Podge_irl wrote: »

So do I. I think losing that semi-final was a big reason that happened.

Munster won two HECs with a much more limited team and game-plan, but that massively stagnated their growth as a team imo. Their current fall from grace is due in no small part to not looking to their big failings because of a measure of success.

You mean........no longer 'Munster by the Grace of God,? Surely not.

Joking aside it's not much of a fall - perhaps a slight trip.

Fireball07

Podge_irl wrote: »

So do I. I think losing that semi-final was a big reason that happened.

Munster won two HECs with a much more limited team and game-plan, but that massively stagnated their growth as a team imo. Their current fall from grace is due in no small part to not looking to their big failings because of a measure of success.

I don't entirely agree with this.

A "measure of success" seems like a bit of an understatement, I mean...it was 2 Heineken Cups in 3 years, they were the best team in Europe. I don't think winning Heineken Cups stagnated their growth as such... that's what they were there to do.

Poor planning for the future and the ignoring of the academy is what did it but I don't think that's just down to the success they had. Whether they won 2 HCs or not, everyone knew that players like ROG couldn't last forever. Nobody can. As certain key players hit a decline, so did Munster.


And this stagnated growth so far has led to 2 semi-final appearances and being knocked out at the group stage since. Which isn't all that bed...it's still much better than 90% of teams in Europe.

jm08

Podge_irl wrote: »

So do I. I think losing that semi-final was a big reason that happened.

Munster won two HECs with a much more limited team and game-plan, but that massively stagnated their growth as a team imo. Their current fall from grace is due in no small part to not looking to their big failings because of a measure of success.

i bet there are a few teams around who would like munster's fall from grace. they just won all of their games in the pool stages of the heineken cup and got top seeding.

Podge_irl

Ok, fall from grace is perhaps a bit harsh. And yes, it was a lot more then a "measure" of success. Munster won the HEC playing very limited (though very effective) rugby. Though slightly simplistic, the notion of Munster playing forwards rugby and Leinster playing backs rugby was largely accurate around 2006. Rugby being the game it is, Munster were always going to win out there, but there were severe deficiencies in their backs. They won two HECs because they had an utterly phenomenal pack. Their style of play also really needed a strong, direct runner at 12 which they haven't had since Halstead left. They simply weren't able to adapt when some of those players started falling away though. Leinster were so thoroughly annihilated in the forwards around 2006 that they simply had to go away and completely change their approach. They had that license to do that because there was so clearly a massive problem with the team. Their failure to get through their pool in '08 was massively disappointing but part of the whole process. Munster have glossed over their problems for far too long.

Quint2010

profitius wrote: »

Jackass, you might not want to hear this but Munster success forced Leinster to catch up.

So we give all the credit for Leinster's success to........Munster:)

BoardsMember

Podge_irl wrote: »

Ok, fall from grace is perhaps a bit harsh. And yes, it was a lot more then a "measure" of success. Munster won the HEC playing very limited (though very effective) rugby. Though slightly simplistic, the notion of Munster playing forwards rugby and Leinster playing backs rugby was largely accurate around 2006. Rugby being the game it is, Munster were always going to win out there, but there were severe deficiencies in their backs. They won two HECs because they had an utterly phenomenal pack. Their style of play also really needed a strong, direct runner at 12 which they haven't had since Halstead left. They simply weren't able to adapt when some of those players started falling away though. Leinster were so thoroughly annihilated in the forwards around 2006 that they simply had to go away and completely change their approach. They had that license to do that because there was so clearly a massive problem with the team. Their failure to get through their pool in '08 was massively disappointing but part of the whole process. Munster have glossed over their problems for far too long.

That's an accurate take on what's happened alright. But the bigger picture is that teams go through periods of dominance, decline, rebuilding. The impressive thing about Munster this year is that, supposedly in a period of rebuilding, they have won all their HEC matches, and look to be hitting their stride nicely in time for second half of HEC. Then again, they may have peaked in that match against NH, it certainly would have been better to have had that game with a few more ahead, to carry momentum from it.

totallegend

Wow, this thread has gone down a weird tangent.

I think the change in Leinster's fortunes has one cause; Michael Cheika.

The team he took over in 2005 was the archetypal Leinster, flashy backs but with a serious lack of edge in the forwards. We achieved what is possibly still our greatest victory in his first year, away to Toulouse, but that forward pack had Brian Blaney, Will Green, Bryce Williams and Cameron Jowitt starting with David Blaney, Ronnie McCormack and Niall Ronan on the bench. With respect to all involved, none of them would get near the current squad. Ironically enough, playing for Toulouse that day was possibly the hardest man ever, Trevor Brennan, who never really established himself at Leinster.

Cheika played a massive role in bringing a real steel to the team, both through his coaching and the acquisition of players like Stan Wright, Ollie le Roux, Rocky Elsom, CJ Van der Linde and bringing Cullen and Jennings home. He was helped by the Leinster development structure unearthing gems like Heaslip, O'Brien and Healy but Cheika was never afraid to give young guys like that a run.

As mentioned earlier, the league win of 2008 was achieved almost entirely through the forwards. The turning point for Leinster was not the 2009 HC semi-final but the win in Musgrave Park in late 2007 in absolutely atrocious weather. It was an arm wrestle between the forwards and Leinster dominated completely.

I just went back and checked there and of the forwards who started against Munster in the 2006 semi, only Mal O'Kelly and Jamie Heaslip were still starting 15 months later in Musgrave, that's a massive changing of the guard and things just took off from there.

Schmidt has done great things since he arrived but the donkey work was done by Michael Cheika. Credit also to Kurt McQuilkin for making the Leinster defence pretty much impenetrable.

jm08

Podge_irl wrote: »

Ok, fall from grace is perhaps a bit harsh. And yes, it was a lot more then a "measure" of success. Munster won the HEC playing very limited (though very effective) rugby. Though slightly simplistic, the notion of Munster playing forwards rugby and Leinster playing backs rugby was largely accurate around 2006. Rugby being the game it is, Munster were always going to win out there, but there were severe deficiencies in their backs. They won two HECs because they had an utterly phenomenal pack. Their style of play also really needed a strong, direct runner at 12 which they haven't had since Halstead left. They simply weren't able to adapt when some of those players started falling away though. Leinster were so thoroughly annihilated in the forwards around 2006 that they simply had to go away and completely change their approach. They had that license to do that because there was so clearly a massive problem with the team. Their failure to get through their pool in '08 was massively disappointing but part of the whole process. Munster have glossed over their problems for far too long.

munster didn't get out of their pool last year and got knocked out of the amlin - a bit of a wake-up call similar to what happened to leinster in 08.

munster are really facing two big problems which they will have to deal with in the next 2 years. losing o'gara and the need for a top class tighthead. the situation at inside centre isn't going to be as difficult to solve as those two positions.

the rua tipoki and mafi combination were not the hard running direct type that halstead was and were equally effective.

Fireball07

Podge_irl wrote: »

Ok, fall from grace is perhaps a bit harsh. And yes, it was a lot more then a "measure" of success. Munster won the HEC playing very limited (though very effective) rugby. Though slightly simplistic, the notion of Munster playing forwards rugby and Leinster playing backs rugby was largely accurate around 2006. Rugby being the game it is, Munster were always going to win out there, but there were severe deficiencies in their backs. They won two HECs because they had an utterly phenomenal pack. Their style of play also really needed a strong, direct runner at 12 which they haven't had since Halstead left. They simply weren't able to adapt when some of those players started falling away though. Leinster were so thoroughly annihilated in the forwards around 2006 that they simply had to go away and completely change their approach. They had that license to do that because there was so clearly a massive problem with the team. Their failure to get through their pool in '08 was massively disappointing but part of the whole process. Munster have glossed over their problems for far too long.

I've got no problems agreeing with that. Good post.

BoardsMember

totallegend wrote: »

The team he took over in 2005 was the archetypal Leinster, flashy backs but with a serious lack of edge in the forwards.

Is this right? I mean, I know it describes what they were at that time. But has it always been the case that Leinster have had no hard edge up front?

I have some doubts about it, based on my observation that a lot of peoples' knowledge of Leinster rugby doesnt seem to go back beyond the late 90s. This would include me, I'm not having a go, just pointing out that Leinster has been around for quite a long time, and I find it hard to believe that until Cheika arrived that it is accurate to describe the Leinster club/province as having snazzy backs and no hard edge up front. I reckon that is a more modern take on them and only accurate for describing them at a certain stage.

Of course, I may be completely wrong :D

profitius

Quint2010 wrote: »

So we give all the credit for Leinster's success to........Munster:)

A big part of Leinsters success now came from Munster. As I've said all along the standards in this country are rising all along. Munster set the standard and it forced the other teams to catch up. Now Leinster are the standard in terms of success and how they play the game and it forces Munster and Ulster to catch them. Its great for Irish rugby.

Munsters early success was no doubt helped by Ulster winning the cup. There was a time when even suggesting an Irish team could win in England was a bit laughable. Success changed that and if teams still had that attitude then they'd get nowhere.

smurphy29

totallegend wrote: »

Wow, this thread has gone down a weird tangent.

I think the change in Leinster's fortunes has one cause; Michael Cheika.

The team he took over in 2005 was the archetypal Leinster, flashy backs but with a serious lack of edge in the forwards. We achieved what is possibly still our greatest victory in his first year, away to Toulouse, but that forward pack had Brian Blaney, Will Green, Bryce Williams and Cameron Jowitt starting with David Blaney, Ronnie McCormack and Niall Ronan on the bench. With respect to all involved, none of them would get near the current squad. Ironically enough, playing for Toulouse that day was possibly the hardest man ever, Trevor Brennan, who never really established himself at Leinster.

Cheika played a massive role in bringing a real steel to the team, both through his coaching and the acquisition of players like Stan Wright, Ollie le Roux, Rocky Elsom, CJ Van der Linde and bringing Cullen and Jennings home. He was helped by the Leinster development structure unearthing gems like Heaslip, O'Brien and Healy but Cheika was never afraid to give young guys like that a run.

As mentioned earlier, the league win of 2008 was achieved almost entirely through the forwards. The turning point for Leinster was not the 2009 HC semi-final but the win in Musgrave Park in late 2007 in absolutely atrocious weather. It was an arm wrestle between the forwards and Leinster dominated completely.

I just went back and checked there and of the forwards who started against Munster in the 2006 semi, only Mal O'Kelly and Jamie Heaslip were still starting 15 months later in Musgrave, that's a massive changing of the guard and things just took off from there.

Schmidt has done great things since he arrived but the donkey work was done by Michael Cheika. Credit also to Kurt McQuilkin for making the Leinster defence pretty much impenetrable.

Good post, totallegend. I think that 2007/8 season was very important in Leinster's development - not just the win in Musgrave, which was fantastic, but a number of hard-fought wins on the road. Leinster were poor in Europe that year, losing all three away games in their pool, but that ML campaign sowed the seeds for the team we have today.

I also think it's the reason Leinster fans have a bit of time for the Magners/Rabo League. Munster fans never seem to have cared for it that much, they always made it clear that Europe was the be all and end all, but I think Leinster fans appreciate how important winning the Cider League was that year.

justsomebloke

BoardsMember wrote: »

Is this right? I mean, I know it describes what they were at that time. But has it always been the case that Leinster have had no hard edge up front?

I have some doubts about it, based on my observation that a lot of peoples' knowledge of Leinster rugby doesnt seem to go back beyond the late 90s. This would include me, I'm not having a go, just pointing out that Leinster has been around for quite a long time, and I find it hard to believe that until Cheika arrived that it is accurate to describe the Leinster club/province as having snazzy backs and no hard edge up front. I reckon that is a more modern take on them and only accurate for describing them at a certain stage.

Of course, I may be completely wrong :D

The late 90's is when Rugby turned professional though and most provincial rugby up until this era would of been mostly just inter pro games with a very limited amount of games. So it is really hard to compare a professional Leinster team playing playing near 30 games a year to one playing around 7-8 a year

CatFromHue

BoardsMember wrote: »

Is this right? I mean, I know it describes what they were at that time. But has it always been the case that Leinster have had no hard edge up front?

None of the below packs lacked a serious hard edge up front.

Leinster pack v Northampton Saints 2000/01 season
Reggie Corrigan, Shane Byrne, Emmet Byrne, Bob Casey, Mal O Kelly, Trevor Brennan, Liam Toland, Vic Costello.

Leinster pack v Toulouse 2001/02 season.
Reggie Corrigan, Shane Byrne, Emmet Byrne, Leo Cullen, Mal O Kelly, Eric Miller, Keith Gleeson, Vic Costello.

Leinster pack v Biarritz 02/03 season
Reggie Corrigan, Shane Byrne, Peter Coyle, Leo Cullen, Mal O Kelly, Eric Miller, Keith Gleeson, Vic Costello.

Losing Matt Williams in hindsight was terrible for Leinster. Ella and Kidney were both failures in their time at Leinster. Kidney moved back to Munster, this announcement was timed ridiculously bad, and Ella was moved on. Cheika when he took over, as what many people encounter when they take over an organisation that is its third head honcho in three years, took over a bit of a mess. This mess is what fed the saying that Leinster were rubbish up front. Then in the 2006 HEC Semi with Munster we came up against a Munster pack that was absolutely fantastic. We came up short and the rest is history.

totallegend

BoardsMember wrote: »

Is this right? I mean, I know it describes what they were at that time. But has it always been the case that Leinster have had no hard edge up front?

I have some doubts about it, based on my observation that a lot of peoples' knowledge of Leinster rugby doesnt seem to go back beyond the late 90s. This would include me, I'm not having a go, just pointing out that Leinster has been around for quite a long time, and I find it hard to believe that until Cheika arrived that it is accurate to describe the Leinster club/province as having snazzy backs and no hard edge up front. I reckon that is a more modern take on them and only accurate for describing them at a certain stage.

Of course, I may be completely wrong :D

Maybe 'stereotypical' would have been a better word than archetypal.

Either way, the team Cheika inheirited could not hack it in the forwards and he turned it around completely, to the point where Leinster could pretty much bully any team in Europe up front. It's that foundation which brought us success and I think it's important to credit Cheika accordingly.

funky penguin

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/0201/1224311046895.html

GAVIN CUMMISKEY

NEWS ROUND-UP: LEINSTER COACH Joe Schmidt has confirmed an approach for Brad Thorn, with the hope that Japanese club Fukuoka Sanix Blues will agree to allow the World Cup-winning All Black come to Dublin on a three-month deal.

It was revealed last weekend that Thorn is the main target to replace South African Steven Skyes, who returned home after an injury-cursed spell with Leinster. With the date of Leo Cullen’s return from an Achilles’ operation uncertain – although pencilled in as six to eight weeks – Leinster are operating with just three recognised secondrows, and just one who locks down behind the tighthead prop.

“With Damien Browne our only tighthead lock available, if he gets injured we have a problem,” said Schmidt. “Factor in Devin Toner has played more minutes than anyone else in the Leinster pack this season while Mark Flanagan, although doing really well, has just completed an engineering degree and he was injured a bit last year.

“The reason Brad Thorn came up is every other good lock is under contract at the moment. Sanix have contracted him for next year but really we just wondered out loud, what with the Japanese season ending for the next three months, if we could pick him up for that period with a short-term contract.

“It is still up in the air as I don’t know if Sanix would allow it. We have only spoken to Brad’s agent. There have been a couple of other names mentioned as well, but really it is a terrible time to be looking for a player so fingers crossed Leo comes through alright.”

Confirmation that we want Thorn.