Leinster Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread V

awec

I am not sure about renewal yet.

.ak

Why do we have the best squad? What's the requirement? We have some wonderful test level players but people seem to put too much weight in international caps. Go past Healy, Heaslip, SOB, Fitzgerald, Rob Kearney and Toner and the players aren't world beaters. I just think we vastly over rate a lot of our players. There's some great guys coming through like Ruddock, Murphy and the props but generally a lot of our players are no better than the Williams and Dirksens and Webbs etc. the fact that Scarlets and ospreys were able to put out strong squads this weekend just goes to show we're not the only ones capable of putting out a strong second string XV

.ak

molloyjh wrote: »

Do they though? How many people have said that if MOC is replaced all of our problems will go away and we'll win European Cups again and everything will be dandy? From what I can see most people are saying MOC isn't doing a good enough job and should not be retained beyond this season because of this, which is totally different to what you're suggesting above.

It's not, because that's not what I suggested.

Unless people are actually saying that?

I'll get my season ticket for next year. To be honest I like going to the games for more reasons than just the actual game. Needless to say I prefer when we're winning, but I still like the trip out.

Will actually be getting an extra ticket this year as the little lad is old enough now to go to most of the games.

.ak

We could be finishing 12th and I wouldn't consider not getting my season ticket.

.ak

.ak wrote: »

Go past Healy, Heaslip, SOB, Fitzgerald, Rob Kearney and Toner and the players aren't world beaters

There are another 5 six nations medal winners on top of those above, we also have the strongest academy system in the pro12, maybe in Europe?

Michael Bent is a prime example, he is 3rd choice front row and would probably start for quite a few pro12 teams.

I do think we have the best first choice 15 and the best back up squad. Glasgow have a great squad but don't have the same depth at all.

I would switch out 2 maybe 3 of the Scarlets team at the weekend into the Leinster team. The Dragons team that came to the RDS, or the Treviso team that we drew with, would any of those guys get into our first choice 15?

As for whether another coach would do better. Depends on the coach, but we've gotten worse this season and gotten worse as the season has progressed so I'd be more inclined to do something about it now.

You would have to say that next season we can predict the standard that the coaching ticket will bring the team too based on the last 18 months and this standard is below what the team is capable of.

With a new coach it could worse, but at least it could also get better or variably stay the same.

At the very leaset we need to get a full time dedicated skills coach badly as this is one of the main issues. Secondly I think we probably need to replace Cullen. If we keep MO'C and Caputo then it should be because they are the best available having done a decent search.

Bridge93

.ak wrote: »

Why do we have the best squad? What's the requirement? We have some wonderful test level players but people seem to put too much weight in international caps. Go past Healy, Heaslip, SOB, Fitzgerald, Rob Kearney and Toner and the players aren't world beaters. I just think we vastly over rate a lot of our players. There's some great guys coming through like Ruddock, Murphy and the props but generally a lot of our players are no better than the Williams and Dirksens and Webbs etc. the fact that Scarlets and ospreys were able to put out strong squads this weekend just goes to show we're not the only ones capable of putting out a strong second string XV

We have the best squad because we have the most good players. Every point you out forward can be applied to every other team.

Too much weight on caps - well it's the easiest way to compare quality generally fairly across the board. Most other forms are unquantifiable or difficult to quantify. It could be argued irish caps are harder to pick up than others too due to depth across the provinces. Scotland only has two teams and one is crap so it's natural Glasgow will pick up a good few, the fact Scotland are poor is another issue.

Take out the best 6/7 players from the other squads and what is left? If we're applying it to ourselves we must apply it to ther teams. Take out Murray, POC, POM, Stander, Keatley, Earls and O Donnell and how good are munster compared to us?
What about Hogg, Russell, Seymour, DTH, Bennett, Murray, Nakarawa?
Webb, Biggar, Wynn Jones, Ardran, Tipuric, Lydiate, Walker?
Not as much as we have and I'd say our "best 7 players" our better than any other teams. Are the Ospreys/Glasgow etc world beaters below their top players if we are not?

What other teams have two international front rows, 3 international second rows, 2 international backrows, granted weve an average midfield (still capped in places) but nearly 2 international back threes.

That was not the Scarlets second XV it was the majority of their firsts bar maybe 4 players one of who was subbing. Yet it was accepted here we were still comfortably stronger pre match on paper.

The Welsh will generally look stronger seen as half their national team aren't playing in Wales which frees the players up.

We have what 26/27 capped players in the squad. I think its fair to say we have the strongest squad. I know caps aren't everything and some are friendly caps/ages ago and so on but it at least shows a capability to play to a high level. Glasgow or Ulster, whoever may have better teams on people's personal opinions but we have a better squad.

BoardsMember

.ak wrote: »

Go past Healy, Heaslip, SOB, Fitzgerald, Rob Kearney and Toner and the players aren't world beaters.

Not looking for world beaters, its the Pro12.

molloyjh

.ak wrote: »

It's not, because that's not what I suggested.

Unless people are actually saying that?

Ah look I used a bit of hyperbole to emphasise the point, which clearly still stands. You said people reckon if we get rid of MOC then it'll fix our issues. They aren't saying that. They are saying MOC is an issue and they want to fix that issue by getting rid of him. The two things aren't even comparable.

19543261

.ak wrote: »

The issue I have is people think bringing in another coach will fix that.

When is a team under-performing the fault of the coach, then? How are distinguishing between that scenario and this?

If MOC and the players both bear responsibility, how will retaining MOC increase our chances at improving our performance? Maybe we can fire all the pla- oh, wait.

BoardsMember

I'd be really interested in knowing Sexton's opinion on the whole thing. I'd be pretty sure that if MOC is a significant part of the issue he'd already know having been in camp with the Leinster lads on multiple occasions. I wonder would he have come back to Leinster if he was being led to believe that MOC is hopeless. And if he wasn't but forms that opinion, you'd imagine MOC will be on borrowed time before long.

With Sexton back, and perhaps if we can get a quality scrum half, I think MOC would have absolutely no excuse if we weren't comfortably in the top 4 and playing decent rugby.

total former

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/mar/06/bath-sale-premiership-match-report

Seems like our QF opponents are having a rough enough time of it too, a dreadful game from reading the above report. Most notable points are that Sam Burgess is still struggling to convert to union and that TH prop Henry Thomas had to go off early on with a shoulder injury. With Paul James and David Wilson already ruled out, Bath might be seriously stretched for props by the time they arrive.

padser

19543261 wrote: »

When is a team under-performing the fault of the coach, then? How are distinguishing between that scenario and this?

If MOC and the players both bear responsibility, how will retaining MOC increase our chances at improving our performance? Maybe we can fire all the pla- oh, wait.

The player group bear responsibly for once off bad performances by the team.

Individual players bear responsibly for dips in their personal form.

The coach bears responsibility for a group of players consistently performing below their collective potential.

I repeat, the definition of a coaches job is to get the best performances possible from the resources at his disposal. MOC has consistently failed to do this. That's why we are closer to Connaught in the table than Glasgow.

wise7

I really find it difficult to believe that there is nothing short of unanimity on the issue that O'Connor should be fired. He is responsible for the lack of a potent game plan and the acceptance of sub-standard performances consistently from key players that he does have at his disposal.The mistakes by players and the breakdown in skill levels is hugely the responsibility of players themselves but if the coach does not enforce standards on the training ground then this is an inevitable consequence in matches. Get him out the gate, regroup and put it up to players that the performances to date are not just not good enough. Of course we need a whole new coaching ticket and for a club the size of Leinster that should not be an insurmountable challenge. In the interim there are some good internal caretaking options to plug the gap until the right personnel are recruited. Almost anything would be better than the appalling standards we have had to witness under this coach who is, as has been said by a few, simply the absolute the wrong man for this job.

vienne86

.ak wrote: »

We could be finishing 12th and I wouldn't consider not getting my season ticket.

I'll renew all right. I normally renew as soon as renewals open, but I have to admit I'm feeling slugish about it this year.....won't be dashing to renew tomorrow. Will probably wait till nearer payday.

Hagz

19543261 wrote: »

When is a team under-performing the fault of the coach, then? How are distinguishing between that scenario and this?

When is it most likely the fault of the coach?

When there aren't other major factors at play that would also result in a team under-performing, which would then lead the logical conclusion that it must be the fault of the coach.

CatFromHue

total former wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/mar/06/bath-sale-premiership-match-report

Seems like our QF opponents are having a rough enough time of it too, a dreadful game from reading the above report. Most notable points are that Sam Burgess is still struggling to convert to union and that TH prop Henry Thomas had to go off early on with a shoulder injury. With Paul James and David Wilson already ruled out, Bath might be seriously stretched for props by the time they arrive.

Not sure what to make of that as the 3 teams they lost to occupy 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in the table and they played 2 of them away too. So not an easy fixture list.

There's alot of pressure on Burgess too, he's still only started 6 games of Union after all.

total former

CatFromHue wrote: »

Not sure what to make of that as the 3 teams they lost to occupy 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in the table and they played 2 of them away too. So not an easy fixture list.

There's alot of pressure on Burgess too, he's still only started 6 games of Union after all.

Same number as Ben Te'o as it happens. It would be great to see them facing off in the QF.

The Lost Sheep

wise7 wrote: »

I really find it difficult to believe that there is nothing short of unanimity on the issue that O'Connor should be fired. He is responsible for the lack of a potent game plan and the acceptance of sub-standard performances consistently from key players that he does have at his disposal.The mistakes by players and the breakdown in skill levels is hugely the responsibility of players themselves but if the coach does not enforce standards on the training ground then this is an inevitable consequence in matches. Get him out the gate, regroup and put it up to players that the performances to date are not just not good enough. Of course we need a whole new coaching ticket and for a club the size of Leinster that should not be an insurmountable challenge. In the interim there are some good internal caretaking options to plug the gap until the right personnel are recruited. Almost anything would be better than the appalling standards we have had to witness under this coach who is, as has been said by a few, simply the absolute the wrong man for this job.

I don't think MOC was wrong person for the job. The losses in experience etc he lost on playing front was huge. Their was always going to be a drop off from previous coaches and it happened to be at end of some key players careers/others having left to other sides.
I don't see how you can say, unless you watch Leinster train on a very regular basis, that MOC doesn't enforce standards in training as that's f.... ridiculous argument.
Who exactly are you going to get in as a new coach and a new coaching ticket? Who do you want rid of other than MOC? If MOC, even with help of hindsight, was such a poor choice who would you have got in his place

stephen_n

Thats actually an interesting question, who will start at 13 for the QF, hardly be T'eo will it?

total former

stephen_n wrote: »

Thats actually an interesting question, who will start at 13 for the QF, hardly be T'eo will it?

Based on what we've seen so far, I wouldn't be outraged by it. It's a tough one because Luke has looked very good when he's played there. You'd assume Madigan will come back in at 12 (although I dread the prospect) which means only three jerseys for Luke, McFadden, Dave, D'Arcy, Te'o and Kirchner.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Te'o at 13 with Luke on the left wing, but it might be a bit early for him, guys like Joseph and Watson are going to exploit defensive gaps so everyone needs to know where they should be standing.

Personally, I'd play 11. Dave 12. D'Arcy 13. Luke 14. McFadden and leave Madigan on the bench.

Edit: and I'd probably leave Kirchner out of the 23 completely. I've been a big fan of his but he's in awful form.

BoardsMember

stephen_n wrote: »

Thats actually an interesting question, who will start at 13 for the QF, hardly be T'eo will it?

Was just thinking the same myself. Would much prefer Luke there myself.

irishbucsfan

padser wrote: »

Yes.

Because that's the very definition of the primary role of a coach. To get the best out of the players at his disposal. Any team playing below the sum of the potential of their players is, by definition, badly coached.

Leinster are, and have been for some time, playing way below the potential of the players we have. The responsibility for that lies with the coach. It must do, because that's the definition of his job.

Untrue. I have no idea how you've ended up thinking that's the case.

Take any top quality squad in world rugby. Remove their half backs, replace them with average half backs. Not even Joe Schmidt is going to get that team to play to it's potential, because everything starts from 9/10. And a team with a relatively poor 9/10 are going to play below the sum of the potential of their players regardless of their coach.

You want another example of how a good coach can be undone by bad halfback play? Well look at the Dragons team who beat Ulster today, they're coached by one of the better Welsh coaches (imo) in the business at the moment and it's led to a big improvement in Newport, his name is Lyn Jones (technically Kingsley Jones is their head coach, but Lyn Jones is MOC's equivalent in Newport). He left Ospreys a number of years ago having his merits as a coach questioned by some fans because those players were performing below their supposed standards. When Lyn left Swansea here is something that was said by a pundit at the time:

With the Ospreys' playing squad and the people they have behind the scenes they haven't had the results or the performances, they got to the quarter-final of the Heineken Cup, but lost to a poor Saracens side. That should never have happened to a squad of their calibre. Lyn did not get the best out of his players.

That sounds familiar doesn't it? To put it in perspective their backline included (at times) Hook, Henson, Shane Williams, Bowe and Lee Byrne. But that's strange, because at the moment Lyn Jones has a Dragons side playing beyond the sum of their parts at times. And in London he produced the same outcome in dragging LW into the Premiership. How can that be, is he a good coach or not? I thought a team playing below their potential is THE DEFINITION of a poorly coached team? So what's going on here?

It wasn't because the coach wasn't up to it (he's actually very popular with players he's coached). The problem was that his Ospreys team tried time and again to sort out their half-back issues and kept failing. They brought in a lot of big name foreigners across their squad but could never attract a quality 10. The Dragons still don't have outstanding quality in that position, they're hugely inconsistent because of that, however Jonathan Evans and Dorian Jones certainly completely outplayed the Ulster partnership today and that was a big part of their success, and a big part of why they played above the sum of their parts.

Now that's not to directly compare MOC and LJ. I'm just saying here that when a squad struggles to play to it's potential it's not always a sign of bad coaching. Not every position in the sport carries the same importance, and we are extremely weak at the single most important position on the pitch, and historically that has been the bottleneck that has caused many teams to play well below their potential. And as someone said above and as I have said a few times now, if that's our problem we'll know soon enough.

BoardsMember

It's also possible that Jones made mistakes, learned from them, and is applying more experience and knowledge with his current team. Any supporter of Saracens in 2005 would tell you he was poor, and not getting the most out of his team, whereas now he considered a very good coach. Which is it?

I agree that having poor half backs, or indeed half backs playing poorly (for which he might be somewhat to blame if the gameplan they are being asked to play is not working), is going to mean that the side as a whole is going to struggle to play to its potential. But that's ignoring the other arguments being posted again and again, the poor skill levels, issues at the ruck, lack of imagination in back play etc.

stephen_n

total former wrote: »

Based on what we've seen so far, I wouldn't be outraged by it. It's a tough one because Luke has looked very good when he's played there. You'd assume Madigan will come back in at 12 (although I dread the prospect) which means only three jerseys for Luke, McFadden, Dave, D'Arcy, Te'o and Kirchner.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Te'o at 13 with Luke on the left wing, but it might be a bit early for him, guys like Joseph and Watson are going to exploit defensive gaps so everyone needs to know where they should be standing.

Personally, I'd play 11. Dave 12. D'Arcy 13. Luke 14. McFadden and leave Madigan on the bench.

Edit: and I'd probably leave Kirchner out of the 23 completely. I've been a big fan of his but he's in awful form.

It's a fairly big step up though from what he's played in so far, Unless Madigan is being picked for his kicking, I'd imagine D'Arcy will start at 12, though I know many would prefer Reid but in terms of experience Id be shocked at T'eo starting that game. Hopefully not Madigan D'arcy 12 13 though.

CatFromHue

stephen_n wrote: »

It's a fairly big step up though from what he's played in so far, Unless Madigan is being picked for his kicking, I'd imagine D'Arcy will start at 12, though I know many would prefer Reid but in terms of experience Id be shocked at T'eo starting that game. Hopefully not Madigan D'arcy 12 13 though.

D'arcy has been doing well now he's gotten a run of games at 12 so I'd be happy with him starting.

wise7

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I don't think MOC was wrong person for the job. The losses in experience etc he lost on playing front was huge. Their was always going to be a drop off from previous coaches and it happened to be at end of some key players careers/others having left to other sides.
I don't see how you can say, unless you watch Leinster train on a very regular basis, that MOC doesn't enforce standards in training as that's f.... ridiculous argument.
Who exactly are you going to get in as a new coach and a new coaching ticket? Who do you want rid of other than MOC? If MOC, even with help of hindsight, was such a poor choice who would you have got in his place

First of all I believe Leinster management should have been on the ball a lot more to prevent the loss of Jonno Gibbes and Leo should never have been given the job without building his experience as a coach. So to answer your questions as to who should go, MOC, Caputo and Leo. Secondly it is not my job to hire the coach. There is a well paid management team in place to take that responsibility. Anyway it is a bit stupid to even ask anyone of us amateurs to speculate on who the next coach should be as we have no knowledge of availability and who is close to being out of contract in their present job. Finally I would say to you that you don't have to be hiding in the bushes in Belfield to see the dropped balls, kick outs on the full etc as the evidence is all too obvious on match day.

irishbucsfan

BoardsMember wrote: »

It's also possible that Jones made mistakes, learned from them, and is applying more experience and knowledge with his current team. Any supporter of Saracens in 2005 would tell you he was poor, and not getting the most out of his team, whereas now he considered a very good coach. Which is it?

I agree that having poor half backs, or indeed half backs playing poorly (for which he might be somewhat to blame if the gameplan they are being asked to play is not working), is going to mean that the side as a whole is going to struggle to play to its potential. But that's ignoring the other arguments being posted again and again, the poor skill levels, issues at the ruck, lack of imagination in back play etc.

Well he's never coached Saracens.

However I think the other issues we're having are mostly produced are a symptom of the same problem. We're consistently placed under huge pressure by the wrong option being taken. We consistenly don't dispose of the ball on time, which leads directly to unforced errors, breakdown penalties conceded etc. Under Schmidt we rarely went through 10 phases outside the opposition 22.

CatFromHue

Only one more Pro12 game before the ERC QF :eek:

Bridge93

At the height of the debate on him were his defenders not saying how decent Gopperth was as a rugby player? And now he's extremely weak?

Madigan in a pro12 sense is not extremely weak either.

Are we back to Gopperth is the root of the problem?

BoardsMember

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well he's never coached Saracens.

However I think the other issues we're having are mostly produced are a symptom of the same problem. We're consistently placed under huge pressure by the wrong option being taken. We consistenly don't dispose of the ball on time, which leads directly to unforced errors, breakdown penalties conceded etc. Under Schmidt we rarely went through 10 phases outside the opposition 22.

Sorry, meant Mike Ford. Not all coaches are good all the time, or bad all the time, and not all coaches are right for all clubs.

irishbucsfan

Bridge93 wrote: »

At the height of the debate on him were his defenders not saying how decent Gopperth was as a rugby player? And now he's extremely weak?

Madigan in a pro12 sense is not extremely weak either.

Are we back to Gopperth is the root of the problem?

I think Gopperth is a good player, but he has had some really bad days recently. I called for Gopperth to be given the 10 jersey regularly, it looks like I overrated him.

I don't rate Madigan as a 10 at this level except for his ability off the bench, he needs the game to go a very specific way for him to excel, and that's not something we're capable of as often with the league going the way it is. We knew this before MOC arrived however, for example: http://www.leinsterrugby.ie/team/results/8722.php

stephen_n

CatFromHue wrote: »

D'arcy has been doing well now he's gotten a run of games at 12 so I'd be happy with him starting.

Yes but at 12 not 13, Id like to see him at 12 with Luke at 13 for the QF, might not set the world on fire but will be a very solid platform.

matthew8

Gopperth's been very poor recently I feel but he's hardly useless if Wasps are signing him. I think he's an excuse for not being one of the top teams in Europe, but not an excuse for the very poor league form.

errlloyd

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I think Gopperth is a good player, but he has had some really bad days recently. I called for Gopperth to be given the 10 jersey regularly, it looks like I overrated him.

I don't rate Madigan as a 10 at this level except for his ability off the bench, he needs the game to go a very specific way for him to excel, and that's not something we're capable of as often with the league going the way it is. We knew this before MOC arrived however, for example: http://www.leinsterrugby.ie/team/results/8722.php

That whole team was terrible though. Compared to the one we put out on Saturday.

JPCN1

total former wrote: »

Same number as Ben Te'o as it happens. It would be great to see them facing off in the QF.

Yet to be convinced by Te'o, I don't think he's good enough to start.

irishbucsfan

errlloyd wrote: »

That whole team was terrible though. Compared to the one we put out on Saturday.

The problem was still at 10, the team outplayed Ospreys in a few areas but were put under huge pressure by our half backs. Just like on Saturday (actually I'd say our back row was thoroughly outplayed on Saturday, but that's another issue)

.ak

For me I'd be going with

Reddan
Gopperth
Dave Kearney
Darcy
Fitzgerald
McFadden
Rob Kearney

Boss
Madigan
Kirchner

I think Teo has exceeded expectations. For me anyway. You wouldn't guess he's played feck all union. But I don't think he's up for this level yet.

Alternatively you could start Madigan and put Teo on the bench, dropping Darce, if you wanted that sort of game.

padser

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Untrue. I have no idea how you've ended up thinking that's the case.

Take any top quality squad in world rugby. Remove their half backs, replace them with average half backs. Not even Joe Schmidt is going to get that team to play to it's potential, because everything starts from 9/10. And a team with a relatively poor 9/10 are going to play below the sum of the potential of their players regardless of their .

I've remove the rest of your post because you are essentially just repeat in the same point a couple of times.

You appear to have a fundamental misconception about what the potential of a team is. Obviously the potential of a group of players is determined by the sum of their collective abilities. If the half backs are useless, that feeds into the potential of the team.

Another example would be, if I have a team of world class players except I've Tony Buckley at tighthead then the overall potential of my team will be much reduced due to the fact my team can't scrummage.

I've no idea how someone can seriously argue that it's not the coaches job to get the group of players on his team to play to their potential. I would have thought that's a fairly uncontroversial statement. You've advanced absolutely no backup for the statement that it's "untrue", just repeatedly pointed out that the 9/10 are important players in rugby (which is of course true, albeit irrelevant)

irishbucsfan

padser wrote: »

I've remove the rest of your post because you are essentially just repeat in the same point a couple of times.

You appear to have a fundamental misconception about what the potential of a team is. Obviously the potential of a group of players is determined by the sum of their collective abilities. If the half backs are useless, that feeds into the potential of the team.

Another example would be, if I have a team of world class players except I've Tony Buckley at tighthead then the overall potential of my team will be much reduced due to the fact my team can't scrummage.

I've no idea how someone can seriously argue that it's not the coaches job to get the group of players on his team to play to their potential. I would have thought that's a fairly uncontroversial statement. You've advanced absolutely no backup for the statement that it's "untrue", just repeatedly pointed out that the 9/10 are important players in rugby (which is of course true, albeit irrelevant)

I think you've completely failed to understand exactly what I've said. I explained exactly why what you've said doesn't hold and you haven't addressed that really. I really don't think this discussion is going to go anywhere anyway given so many people have clearly made their minds up. We're not going to see any improvement until November/December either way.

dregin

The fact is that we don't have a top quality 10. I'm forgetting about the "MOC Out" argument until Sexton's back and we can remove the excuse of a dysfunctional half-back line from the equation.

molloyjh

dregin wrote: »

The fact is that we don't have a top quality 10. I'm forgetting about the "MOC Out" argument until Sexton's back and we can remove the excuse of a dysfunctional half-back line from the equation.

You don't need to have a top quality 10 to beat most sides in the Pro12 though. I agree that our half backs (not just our 10) are well below the quality we've been used to. That obviously has its impacts. But it shouldn't have this much of an impact. Gopperth isn't great, but he is good. We've seen plenty of examples of that. And we should expect our coach to be able to get good performances out of us as a result.

total former

dregin wrote: »

The fact is that we don't have a top quality 10. I'm forgetting about the "MOC Out" argument until Sexton's back and we can remove the excuse of a dysfunctional half-back line from the equation.

"Dysfunctional" is a bit strong but certainly Gopperth isn't in great form the last couple of weeks while the constant rotation (by necessity) of three very different scrum-halves isn't ideal by any means.

But Gopperth's form throws up a bit of a nightmare scenario for O'Connor; does he give Madigan a run at 10 against Glasgow, a week before the Bath game, meaning Gopperth won't have played for four weeks ahead of the QF? Reminiscent of last season...

.ak

dregin wrote: »

The fact is that we don't have a top quality 10. I'm forgetting about the "MOC Out" argument until Sexton's back and we can remove the excuse of a dysfunctional half-back line from the equation.

It's massive really isn't it. For example I thought the winning or losing against Scarlets was Jimmy... and I say that as a fan of Jimmy. He was really poor and his decision making was all over the place, but his cardinal sin was his organization in defence. He cost us two tries on first viewing.

There is no question in my mind that Madigan should be our first choice 10 for the rest of the season and for two reasons in particular.

1. Gopperth is having a run of bad form. There is no two ways about it and I thought he had an absolute mare at the weekend.

2. We are better off investing knock out cup rugby experience into a player we are going to be retaining who probably won't be any worse and may be a bit better than the current first choice 10.

I would be disappointed to see Gopperth starting at this stage either in the Pro12 or against Bath.

.ak

I wouldn't be thrilled to see Madigan dumped back at 10 when he actually hasn't played much rugby there.

At the end of the day, Gopperth on form is a better 10 than Madigan on form. So, if we're hoping either one can pull it out of the bag I'd rather put my chips on Gopperth.

connemara man

but next season won't Leinster be without both Sexton and Madigan for the most part of the season because of the world cup?

How can Sexton have that much of an impact when he'll barely be around?

.ak

connemara man wrote: »

but next season won't Leinster be without both Sexton and Madigan for the most part of the season because of the world cup?

How can Sexton have that much of an impact when he'll barely be around?

Because he'll be there for the pivotal games, and that's what matters. What he demands of the team will be lasting. We do need either Marsh or Byrne to step up unfortunately.

Maybe Isa is being signed as a 10 though. Which will be interesting. He's not a great 10, but maybe in his older years he'll be better there? Will be interesting.

Buer

connemara man wrote: »

but next season won't Leinster be without both Sexton and Madigan for the most part of the season because of the world cup?

How can Sexton have that much of an impact when he'll barely be around?

He's back for all ECC games and the bulk of the Pro12 season. The games he misses during the RWC are slightly offset by there not being any autumn tests meaning he's unavailable for about 4 more Pro12 games than usual.

Mostly though, he's probably the best outhalf in the world currently. He'd have a huge impact for anyone. He'll play 15-20 games for us, if he's fit.

Buer

.ak wrote: »

Maybe Isa is being signed as a 10 though. Which will be interesting. He's not a great 10, but maybe in his older years he'll be better there? Will be interesting.

The more I think about it, the less I can understand wanting to retain Kirchner if we sign Nacewa.

The bloke is not doing it for us sufficiently and has been a solid enough signing at best. If we procure a back three player for the season, keeping ZK does not make any sense.