Leinster Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread V

Tox56

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Of course I can see a difference to that. What I'm asking you is what is that difference and I'm hoping you might shed some light as to it's importance.





Do you really think Fitzgerald is in need of a rest?

Why do you think it's important to have a blanket policy to decide a case like this instead of allowing the provincial medical team the opportunity to make a decision the fitness and suitability of players availability, as we see in every other country? Is it because you think it leads to less injuries, it improves their conditioning, do you prefer the national team to be prioritised heavilly over the Pro 12? I don't understand why you think this should be taken out of the hands of the Leinster S&Cs?

Maybe they take it out of the provincial staff's hands, but it's definitely not a blanket policy, in that they still take things case by case. There were 7 Leinster players starting the Scotland game. We got back 2, and I think most would agree based on their respective levels of recent gametime and fitness those were the two common sense would suggest we get back. And we did. Some of our bench players are starting (Madigan, Reddan, Moore), or on the bench (Cronin), or not involved at all (McGrath, the one bench player with by far the most recent gametime). I'm pretty confident they take every player individually when making decisions/orders like this

Honestly, at the very least I understand why Fitzgerald is getting rested. I think this is prevention of a problem than a reaction to one, as I said above, if he starts this week and next week (and he definitely will start next week) thats 8 of the last 9 games

.ak

total former wrote: »

Don't think anyone disagrees with the notion of resting players, but a bit of flexibility given the impending HC QF would been welcome, that's my only beef with it.

Yeah... I kinda left out an important 'not' in my post. :P

Quint2010

.ak wrote: »

I just don't get that...

Excuses? He's answering a question! In the same way Joe did before him...

Yes my point is that MOC is trying to play the game that if/when Leinster lose tonight he can point the finger and say-well I told you so. Its terrible to hear from a coach. He should be building up the players he has at his disposal not knocking them saying he wish he had different players. Its quite clear MOC doesnt believe in the players taking the pitch tonight after his comments. Its a given that internationals would make the team better. Why does he have to make it obvious and talking his existing players down?

molloyjh

.ak wrote: »

I'm not going to reply to all your points molloy just because I think you missed my point.

I agree the players SHOULD be rested, however the structure of the system is not practical for both international and provincial success. It's based on a bygone age of having just small handful of centrally contracted players rested.

I think resting should be implemented, but for me it should be specific to windows because of scheduling issues and instead should be based on X amount of minutes played.

I'm assuming that should say that it shouldn't be to specific windows given how the rest of it was phrased? If not then don't bother reading on....

But you need to do it on a windowed basis for a number of reasons. Not all games are equal for starters. Do you think the Welsh game was anywhere near the level of intensity that we saw in, say, the Scarlets game? And so do you think both should be treated the same way? I don't. The September period will never be as tough on players as the October period (due to European games) which won't be as tough as the November period (due to the AIs).

Then you have the individual player. Comments have been made elsewhere related to Dippys recent performances and that the increased game time he's had this season has possibly led to a certain amount of fatigue. Different players are impacted in different ways and each need to be assessed and judged on an individual basis. Guys coming back off injury have to be assessed differently to guys who haven't been injured in some time. Guys with a history of a particular problem need to be managed differently to guys who don't have specific issues.

There is no one size fits all. We're in the age of real professionalism where this stuff has to be treated as a science with all the complexity and nuances that involves.

From that perspective I partially agree with IBF about the blanket ban being a bad idea. In this case, with the 6 day turnaround, I'm ok with it in the main (Fitz being a possible exception). But overall it does need to be a really tightly managed and player specific programme, which by my understanding it is, or at least is becoming.

EDIT: I see you've edited your post. Phew, I was worried I was missing the point utterly there.....

total former

Actually, I notice now that next season there will be again be three weeks between the final 6N game and the EPCR knockouts, so this could be a very short-lived issue.

molloyjh

total former wrote: »

Actually, I notice now that next season there will be again be three weeks between the final 6N game and the EPCR knockouts, so this could be a very short-lived issue.

I think that's purely down to the RWC. The AP will have to schedule their season differently around the RWC and that is having knock-on effects on pretty much everything AFAIK. They'll be back to this seasons schedule there-after. They've also done away with the play-offs giving the extra spot to the Champions Cup winners because the season has been pushed out and play-offs would interfere with the June 2016 internationals (or vice versa).

.ak

We're all talking about Fitz no starting as a major thing, but for me it's Healy. He's been making cameos off the bench and has played feck all rugby this season - just because he starts instead of comes off the bench in Edinburgh all of a sudden we can't start him despite being released. That sort of thing just seems short sighted.

Quint2010

Scotland ,with all their internationals straight back in were white-washed. Ireland with all their players rested were 6N champions. There has to be some correlation? Ireland will be serious contenders for the World Cup. Scotland will be lucky to get out of their group.

molloyjh

.ak wrote: »

We're all talking about Fitz no starting as a major thing, but for me it's Healy. He's been making cameos off the bench and has played feck all rugby this season - just because he starts instead of comes off the bench in Edinburgh all of a sudden we can't start him despite being released. That sort of thing just seems short sighted.

You could also make the case that he's coming back off injury too though and needs to be managed a little differently as a result. Would the IRFU be as strict if there wasn't a Euro QF next week? Probably not. Healy is likely to start in most of Leinster's games after this week, if not all of them.

Also, would it be as strict if it was a 7 day turnaround? Possibly not. A 6 day turnaround could easily be the difference between a couple of guys starting/benching and not.

As I said though I'm in agreement to an extent with IBF on the blanket ban thing, but I also think in this particular scenario given a 6 day turnaround it isn't that big an issue.

molloyjh

Anyway, as I said my issue here is the scheduling and the fact that MOC is complaining about the wrong thing. The clash of last years finalists should not be happening 6 days after Super Saturday. It just shouldn't. Had MOC complained about that I'd be behind him all the way.

.ak

molloyjh wrote: »

Anyway, as I said my issue here is the scheduling and the fact that MOC is complaining about the wrong thing. The clash of last years finalists should not be happening 6 days after Super Saturday. It just shouldn't. Had MOC complained about that I'd be behind him all the way.

He has complained about that before - I guess the issue is he can't change that, but he can certainly change the outlook of the IRFU even if it is through media pressure.

irishbucsfan

.ak wrote: »

He has complained about that before - I guess the issue is he can't change that, but he can certainly change the outlook of the IRFU even if it is through media pressure.

The outlook of the IRFU is actually behind both issues ultimately. That's why the pressure needs to be pushed in that direction

thomond2006

Where's Nakarawa? I was looking forward to seeing him again. He was insanely good when he came on in the Pro12 final.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The outlook of the IRFU is actually behind both issues ultimately. That's why the pressure needs to be pushed in that direction

The IRFU are one part of a greater whole when it comes to setting the fixtures. But don't let that stop you getting the boot in. And if the issue is about the scheduling then talk about the scheduling. The thing is he isn't talking about the scheduling at the moment. So that's a red herring.

I don't get the complaints from people here tbh. I've already mentioned Heaslip, but Rob Kearney (who was injured for our opening 2 Euro games this season) has played 18 games so far this season. That compares to Leinster's 23. Now I'm already on record as saying that Gopperth has been hugely overplayed this season given that he's played in all 23 games and he doesn't have to play at international level which is clearly more demanding. It makes no sense to increase the game time Rob is getting. None.

Heaslip is on 18 games despite being injured for the Wales game (and so should by rights be on 19 games now).

Jack McGrath, despite being injured for 2 weeks earlier in the season and being suspended for 3 weeks in January, has played 17 games.

I'd love to know where those who are complaining about the player welfare generally think the line is. At the moment the plan seems to be around 21-22 regular season games + provincial knock-out games. So anywhere really from 26-27 games per season. So you're only talking about internationals rested for around 6-7 games per season on average. In a season that has anywhere from 28-33 games provincially that's essentially 80% availability.

total former

molloyjh wrote: »

The IRFU are one part of a greater whole when it comes to setting the fixtures. But don't let that stop you getting the boot in. And if the issue is about the scheduling then talk about the scheduling. The thing is he isn't talking about the scheduling at the moment. So that's a red herring.

I don't get the complaints from people here tbh. I've already mentioned Heaslip, but Rob Kearney (who was injured for our opening 2 Euro games this season) has played 18 games so far this season. That compares to Leinster's 23. Now I'm already on record as saying that Gopperth has been hugely overplayed this season given that he's played in all 23 games and he doesn't have to play at international level which is clearly more demanding. It makes no sense to increase the game time Rob is getting. None.

Heaslip is on 18 games despite being injured for the Wales game (and so should by rights be on 19 games now).

Jack McGrath, despite being injured for 2 weeks earlier in the season and being suspended for 3 weeks in January, has played 17 games.

I'd love to know where those who are complaining about the player welfare generally think the line is. At the moment the plan seems to be around 21-22 regular season games + provincial knock-out games. So anywhere really from 26-27 games per season. So you're only talking about internationals rested for around 6-7 games per season on average. In a season that has anywhere from 28-33 games provincially that's essentially 80% availability.

I don't think the objection is around games per season or minutes per season (mine isn't, anyway), it's on the inflexibility of it.

irishbucsfan

Hahaha, of course I completely agree that scheduling is a complete red herring when discussing the articles. He isn't talking about scheduling, but rather player welfare policies. Then someone decided to criticise him for not talking about scheduling, because that's what he should be critcising supposedly. Fair enough, so someone said that he doesn't complain about scheduling because he is criticising things that he can affect (the outlook of the IRFU).

So I pointed out, directly afterwards, that actually that topic is related to both scheduling and player welfare (IE, I don't think it's the reason he's not discussing scheduling).

However supposedly I just did that to raise a red herring and to stick the boot in (I'm actually one of the IRFU's biggest defenders here on issues like NIE quotas, it's illogical/insane to think I am out to get the IRFU!). I suppose it just goes to show that nobody wins in an environment where the only reason you can imagine someone would disagree with you is that they have an ulterior motive.

molloyjh

total former wrote: »

I don't think the objection is around games per season or minutes per season (mine isn't, anyway), it's on the inflexibility of it.

As I've said I'm not 100% sure why Luke has been held back, and I do find that odd. Maybe it's a result of the programme being too inflexible, maybe they are managing something. I don't know. IBF could well be right, Leinster didn't rush Luke back in December so there's nothing to suggest they'd do so now. But then Leinster are playing a shorter term game than the IRFU. So who knows.

As for Healy, he's coming back from injury so I'd reckon the 6 day turnaround was prohibitive there. And I'd be less inclined to argue with that as much.

I do think that had our results to now been what they should have been this wouldn't be the big issue it is now though. We wouldn't be as dependent on the result to make the play-offs so with less of a need would come less of a fuss.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Hahaha, of course I completely agree that scheduling is a complete red herring when discussing the articles. He isn't talking about scheduling, but rather player welfare policies. Then someone decided to criticise him for not talking about scheduling, because that's what he should be critcising supposedly. Fair enough, so someone said that he doesn't complain about scheduling because he is criticising things that he can affect (the outlook of the IRFU).

So I pointed out, directly afterwards, that actually that topic is related to both scheduling and player welfare (IE, I don't think it's the reason he's not discussing scheduling).

However supposedly I just did that to raise a red herring and to stick the boot in (I'm actually one of the IRFU's biggest defenders here on issues like NIE quotas, it's illogical/insane to think I am out to get the IRFU!). I suppose it just goes to show that nobody wins in an environment where the only reason you can imagine someone would disagree with you is that they have an ulterior motive.

I was actually referring to your stance on the Unions role in the Pro12, not your stance on the IRFU in general. But thanks for making your point for you.....

stephen_n

Healy was limping coming off on Saturday (not unusual) but it may well be a factor.

Quint2010

stephen_n wrote: »

Healy was limping coming off on Saturday (not unusual) but it may well be a factor.

Tom Jones syndrome?..

Just did some quick arithmetic up there and if results go badly for us this evening we could not only be in for a huge uphill battle for the playoffs but more or less out of the running. If All the top 4 teams win this evening we could well be in trouble and it gets worse:

If Scarlets get a result against Edinburgh at home they play both Italian sides away and are at home to Dragons and Cardiff so could essentially push us for 5th place leaving us in awful trouble for seeding next season.

The only thing going in our favour is that Connacht have terrible fixtures coming up so are unlikely to put pressure on us even if the only fixture I'm confident in is Treviso at home.

total former

Deleted User wrote: »

Just did some quick arithmetic up there and if results go badly for us this evening we could not only be in for a huge uphill battle for the playoffs but more or less out of the running. If All the top 4 teams win this evening we could well be in trouble

Yeah, this is my point about the inflexibility of the system.

We all accept that we shouldn't be in such a tight spot in terms of making the playoffs, but we are. It's unfortunate scheduling that the EPCR quarter-finals are next weekend, but that's just the way of it.

But the IRFU are still imposing a situation in which we're denied our best players for the key game tonight and which hamstrings our preparation for the biggest game of the season next week.

So we could be in a situation in which we have our full-strength squad available for future games which are utterly meaningless.

Can anyone tell me that they're happy with that situation?

And I'll reiterate; I know we shouldn't be in this position in the league and I know the team we have out tonight should be capable of getting a result

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

Anyway, as I said my issue here is the scheduling and the fact that MOC is complaining about the wrong thing. The clash of last years finalists should not be happening 6 days after Super Saturday. It just shouldn't. Had MOC complained about that I'd be behind him all the way.

Fixture selectors can't be seen to move fixtures around to suit one particular team.

Leinster were handed a tough hand with this one. Just have to accept it and move on.

Unfortunately I think Leinster will lose tonight and depending on other results could really leave them in big trouble for the playoffs.

.ak

Personally I think we're more likely to win than lose, not saying losing is unlikely, I think there's a good chance we will lose but a better chance we'll win.

It'll be a tight afair. I'm not making excuses early but I think the team, especially the midfield, looks a bit disjointed and as such we'll see another disjointed performance. It is the RDS and whilst that meant nothing against Dragons I still reckon we're good enough at home to strong arm a side even if we're not playing champaign rugby.

Larbre34

I'm not optimistic about tonight, RTE preview is giving it to Leinster by 4, my own view would be the Warriors by about 8

dub_skav

.ak wrote: »

Personally I think we're more likely to win than lose, not saying losing is unlikely, I think there's a good chance we will lose but a better chance we'll win.

It'll be a tight afair. I'm not making excuses early but I think the team, especially the midfield, looks a bit disjointed and as such we'll see another disjointed performance. It is the RDS and whilst that meant nothing against Dragons I still reckon we're good enough at home to strong arm a side even if we're not playing champaign rugby.

You really are a glass containing less than 100% of its volumetric capacity of fluid kind of guy aren't you

TommyOM

IBF out of interest are you affliated with Matt O'Connor? Your constant excuses for him are breathtaking. I am curious because you seem to believe that Leinster's performances have absolutely nothing to do with the coach of the team which is silly.

irishbucsfan

TommyOM wrote: »

IBF out of interest are you affliated with Matt O'Connor? Your constant excuses for him are breathtaking. I am curious because you seem to believe that Leinster's performances have absolutely nothing to do with the coach of the team which is silly.

He is my Father and also my Uncle.

irishbucsfan

Seriously, though.

How is any of what I've said today an excuse for Matt O'Connor? I didn't say this because I don't really think it's relevant to us, but I actually think it's a mistake for him to allow this to be published on the day of a match (I'm fully subscribed to Joe's philosophy about negativity in the beginning of the week giving way to optimism by match day). I think he's right to say what he did, but I would prefer he did that on a Monday morning rather than in interviews to be published on matchday. But what was said is still completely valid, regardless of who or when.

Flipper22

irishbucsfan wrote: »

He is my Father and also my Uncle.

God Ted, I didn't think that was even possible

TommyOM

Just wake me up when this Matt O'Connor nightmare is over

thomond2006

TommyOM wrote: »

Just wake me up when this Matt O'Connor nightmare is over

Two great results against Munster this year. #justiceforMOC

LostArt

TommyOM wrote: »

Just wake me up when this Matt O'Connor nightmare is over

Enjoy that 15 month sleep!

thomond2006

I don't see why a case by case basis cannot be used in terms of giving players necessary rest. Why Fitzgerald cannot start is bizarre.

On another note, here is Bath's team for their match training session against London Welsh:

15 Tom Homer
14 Semesa Rokoduguni
13 Sam Burgess
12 Kyle Eastmond
11 Olly Woodburn
10 Ollie Devoto
9 Micky Young
1 Nick Auterac
2 Rob Webber
3 Kane Palma-Newport
4 Stuart Hooper (c)
5 Dominic Day
6 Carl Fearns
7 Alafoti Faosiliva
8 Leroy Houston

Replacements

16 Ross Batty
17 Beno Obano
18 Max Lahiff
19 Matt Garvey
20 David Sisi
21 Chris Cook
22 Matt Banahan
23 Horacio Agulla

None of the England players are involved.

EDIT: A quote from Kyle Eastmond wrt to London Welsh, this one is for you emmet:

Kyle Eastmond wrote:

The last time we played at the Kassam we got beat, so we're ready for Sunday. We know London Welsh are scrapping it out at the bottom of the league and what people say about them not having won yet this season, but if you take any team lightly in this league you'll pay the consequences. So we've been preparing for this match for the last two weeks.

.ak

TommyOM wrote: »

IBF out of interest are you affliated with Matt O'Connor? Your constant excuses for him are breathtaking. I am curious because you seem to believe that Leinster's performances have absolutely nothing to do with the coach of the team which is silly.

If you don't have anything decent to the add to conversation don't bother.

total former

Looks like Peter Stringer's race is run with Bath unfortunately, would have been good to see him get a decent reception at Lansdowne one last time.

molloyjh

total former wrote: »

Can anyone tell me that they're happy with that situation?

And I'll reiterate; I know we shouldn't be in this position in the league and I know the team we have out tonight should be capable of getting a result

I'm happy with the decisions that were made by the IRFU for the most part, yes. I'd be curious to know the logic re Fitz (less so Healy because of his injury and he didn't look great coming off last week) but that's about it.

I think the position we're in right now is highlighting an issue that, while still would be there, should never be this big a deal. As you've noted yourself. I'm not going to allow that to colour my opinion, and nor should the IRFU. The player welfare is there for the players and the national team, not for the provinces. So while there may be elements that could do with changing I actually don't think, in the context of this evenings game, those elements are a huge issue.

thomond2006 wrote: »

I don't see why a case by case basis cannot be used in terms of giving players necessary rest. Why Fitzgerald cannot start is bizarre.

On another note, here is Bath's team for their match training session against London Welsh:

15 Tom Homer
14 Semesa Rokoduguni
13 Sam Burgess
12 Kyle Eastmond
11 Olly Woodburn
10 Ollie Devoto
9 Micky Young
1 Nick Auterac
2 Rob Webber
3 Kane Palma-Newport
4 Stuart Hooper (c)
5 Dominic Day
6 Carl Fearns
7 Alafoti Faosiliva
8 Leroy Houston

Replacements

16 Ross Batty
17 Beno Obano
18 Max Lahiff
19 Matt Garvey
20 David Sisi
21 Chris Cook
22 Matt Banahan
23 Horacio Agulla

None of the England players are involved.

EDIT: A quote from Kyle Eastmond wrt to London Welsh, this one is for you emmet:

No easy games in the......ah you know the rest.

thomond2006

total former wrote: »

Looks like Peter Stringer's race is run with Bath unfortunately, would have been good to see him get a decent reception at Lansdowne one last time.

A quick look on Bath's website tells me both Young and Cook have made more appearances than Stringer this season.

total former

molloyjh wrote: »

I'm happy with the decisions that were made by the IRFU for the most part, yes. I'd be curious to know the logic re Fitz (less so Healy because of his injury and he didn't look great coming off last week) but that's about it.

I think the position we're in right now is highlighting an issue that, while still would be there, should never be this big a deal. As you've noted yourself. I'm not going to allow that to colour my opinion, and nor should the IRFU. The player welfare is there for the players and the national team, not for the provinces. So while there may be elements that could do with changing I actually don't think, in the context of this evenings game, those elements are a huge issue.

I'm happy with the decisions made by the IRFU for the most part too. My point is that the decision not to allow internationals to play tonight was made several years ago and doesnt take any account of the current situation. It didn't matter in previous years because this was usually a dud week anyway; in 2012, when Leinster were at our peak, we lost the first match after the 6N (at home, to the Ospreys), before rebounding to beat Munster in Thomond and then annihilating Cardiff in the QFs.

In the context of this evening's game, maybe it's not a big issue, but in the context of the season, it's massive. We're weakened tonight, that was always going to happen, but now we have the choice between fielding a similarly weakened team against Bath or bringing back in the big names, some of whom haven't seen a blue jersey in months and hoping to f**k they can gel. Either way, it's not ideal.

There should be more fluidity and responsiveness in the IRFU approach, I don't think that's a huge ask.

molloyjh

total former wrote: »

I'm happy with the decisions made by the IRFU for the most part too. My point is that the decision not to allow internationals to play tonight was made several years ago and doesnt take any account of the current situation. It didn't matter in previous years because this was usually a dud week anyway; in 2012, when Leinster were at our peak, we lost the first match after the 6N (at home, to the Ospreys), before rebounding to beat Munster in Thomond and then annihilating Cardiff in the QFs.

In the context of this evening's game, maybe it's not a big issue, but in the context of the season, it's massive. We're weakened tonight, that was always going to happen, but now we have the choice between fielding a similarly weakened team against Bath or bringing back in the big names, some of whom haven't seen a blue jersey in months and hoping to f**k they can gel. Either way, it's not ideal.

There should be more fluidity and responsiveness in the IRFU approach, I don't think that's a huge ask.

I understand your point of view. But I don't agree with it I'm afraid. The players have to be rested. So when do you propose that happen? They'll be back with Leinster this week getting back into the routines there the same way that the Bath internationals are being integrated back in at the moment. The only difference between us and them is the quality of the opposition (they are 4th but on the same points as Leicester so are in a race for the top 4 themselves). I don't agree that the IRFU should be reacting to this on a week by week basis. If Leinster can't get the results they need during the international windows then that is on Leinster. The player welfare program shouldn't have to adjust to account for that. That's not what it's there for and you're potentially working contrary the programme if you start doing that.

Bear in mind had we beaten Dragons and Scarlets (which we should have done) we'd be in second and we could absorb a potential loss here. That said we'd also be less concerned about losing too. So everything about the "issue" of player availability is hugely magnified by recent results and performances. The issue of guys not playing in blue until the QF is true of Bath as well so we're not at a major disadvantage there.

Mahatma Geansai

TommyOM wrote: »

Just wake me up when this Matt O'Connor nightmare is over

MOC has another year on his contract, so you'll have to endure another year of it at the very least.

Enjoy the hibernation.

Mahatma Geansai

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

MOC has another year on his contract, so you'll have to endure another year of it at the very least.

Enjoy the hibernation.

Some of us might enjoy it too! :pac:

Mahatma Geansai

He still has the dancing feet...

total former

molloyjh wrote: »

I understand your point of view. But I don't agree with it I'm afraid. The players have to be rested. So when do you propose that happen? They'll be back with Leinster this week getting back into the routines there the same way that the Bath internationals are being integrated back in at the moment. The only difference between us and them is the quality of the opposition (they are 4th but on the same points as Leicester so are in a race for the top 4 themselves). I don't agree that the IRFU should be reacting to this on a week by week basis. If Leinster can't get the results they need during the international windows then that is on Leinster. The player welfare program shouldn't have to adjust to account for that. That's not what it's there for and you're potentially working contrary the programme if you start doing that.

I think it's fair to say that we've been slightly more disrupted by the 6N than Bath...

molloyjh wrote: »

Bear in mind had we beaten Dragons and Scarlets (which we should have done) we'd be in second and we could absorb a potential loss here. That said we'd also be less concerned about losing too. So everything about the "issue" of player availability is hugely magnified by recent results and performances. The issue of guys not playing in blue until the QF is true of Bath as well so we're not at a major disadvantage there.

That's exactly my point. You're discussing why we're in this situation but the reality is that we are and some cognisance should be taken of that.

But more importantly, and this is what should have been recognised MONTHS ago, is that we have to go into a knockout game (a huge moneyspinner for the IRFU) with less than ideal preparation. Leinster were always the most likely province to make the knockouts and always the most likely to be bulk suppliers to the national squad. This issue didn't only crop up after the Dragons game, there's a very good reason the Munster v Leinster games were always scheduled before the QFs, so that both teams would be firing on all cylinders for the European knockouts. Is that no longer a good idea?

Would a bit of horsetrading been totally out of the question? For Leinster to say "look, Douglas is injured, let us play Toner this week and we'll rest him after the QF", is that outrageous? That Sean O'Brien has played three matches in the last 7 months, he can probably handle another one?

molloyjh

total former wrote: »

That's exactly my point. You're discussing why we're in this situation but the reality is that we are and some cognisance should be taken of that.

I don't think it should. That's Leinster's concern, not the IRFUs and the IRFU can't be looked upon to bail out a team that isn't doing the business themselves. As a province we have to deal with the consequences of our own actions, bitter and all a pill that may be to swallow at times.

total former wrote: »

But more importantly, and this is what should have been recognised MONTHS ago, is that we have to go into a knockout game (a huge moneyspinner for the IRFU) with less than ideal preparation.

I made a pretty big deal about this when the schedule for Europe was announced personally. We now have the choice of playing our players through 4 really big games in a row starting the provincial games just 6 days after winning the 6 Nations or giving the guys who worked their socks off for Ireland a break and potentially bringing them in undercooked into the Euro QF. I don't think either is ideal by any means and that's why I was so pissed off about the schedule last year.

Think about it, we'd be asking our internationals to play 7 huge games in 9 weeks with the possibility of another huge game 2 weeks later. That extra weeks rest is vital for teams that are made up predominantly of internationals and it gives the sides with less internationals a greater advantage (as though the likes of Toulon needed more!).

Not only that, but every game in the league from here on out for Leinster is vital. So do we rest the internationals against Dragons, a side who beat us in the RDS when the internationals were missing? How about away to Ulster? We barely drew with Treviso away and will likely need all 5 points there. Can we spare them for that game? Surely Edinburgh away would be safe? But then given our away record and the fact there's simply no way to know at this stage whether that will be vital or not.

total former wrote: »

Leinster were always the most likely province to make the knockouts and always the most likely to be bulk suppliers to the national squad. This issue didn't only crop up after the Dragons game, there's a very good reason the Munster v Leinster games were always scheduled before the QFs, so that both teams would be firing on all cylinders for the European knockouts. Is that no longer a good idea?

Perhaps it isn't. But that is not the fault of the player welfare, and at the risk of repeating myself it's not the concern of the player welfare either.

total former wrote: »

Would a bit of horsetrading been totally out of the question? For Leinster to say "look, Douglas is injured, let us play Toner this week and we'll rest him after the QF", is that outrageous? That Sean O'Brien has played three matches in the last 7 months, he can probably handle another one?

Seanie may be able to handle another one. Alternatively the medics might see it prudent in the longer term, i.e. the RWC, not to risk pushing him too hard in case it causes further problems. They have to think further down the line than just next week or next month. And the problem with horsetrading is that it opens up a bit of a pandoras box. Then you get the whole "ah but you bent the rules for him, now you have to for me" kind of thing. It's better to have stricter and more transparent rules than to fudge it all the time and end up pissing off everyone because you inevitably won't be treating everyone the same.

For example Munster aren't playing any of their starters from last week yet they have a rest weekend next week. What if we gave Toner a pass and they asked for a pass for Paulie? That kind of a thing will cause nothing but hassle.

total former

molloyjh wrote: »

I don't think it should. That's Leinster's concern, not the IRFUs and the IRFU can't be looked upon to bail out a team that isn't doing the business themselves. As a province we have to deal with the consequences of our own actions, bitter and all a pill that may be to swallow at times.

See, that gets us into a whole other debate about country v province. The IRFU would be "bailing Leinster out" by letting them select their own players? I know where you stand on that front, I have the opposite view so we'll leave it at that...

molloyjh wrote: »

I made a pretty big deal about this when the schedule for Europe was announced personally. We now have the choice of playing our players through 4 really big games in a row starting the provincial games just 6 days after winning the 6 Nations or giving the guys who worked their socks off for Ireland a break and potentially bringing them in undercooked into the Euro QF. I don't think either is ideal by any means and that's why I was so pissed off about the schedule last year.

Think about it, we'd be asking our internationals to play 7 huge games in 9 weeks with the possibility of another huge game 2 weeks later. That extra weeks rest is vital for teams that are made up predominantly of internationals and it gives the sides with less internationals a greater advantage (as though the likes of Toulon needed more!).

Not only that, but every game in the league from here on out for Leinster is vital. So do we rest the internationals against Dragons, a side who beat us in the RDS when the internationals were missing? How about away to Ulster? We barely drew with Treviso away and will likely need all 5 points there. Can we spare them for that game? Surely Edinburgh away would be safe? But then given our away record and the fact there's simply no way to know at this stage whether that will be vital or not.

Perhaps it isn't. But that is not the fault of the player welfare, and at the risk of repeating myself it's not the concern of the player welfare either.

Seanie may be able to handle another one. Alternatively the medics might see it prudent in the longer term, i.e. the RWC, not to risk pushing him too hard in case it causes further problems. They have to think further down the line than just next week or next month. And the problem with horsetrading is that it opens up a bit of a pandoras box. Then you get the whole "ah but you bent the rules for him, now you have to for me" kind of thing. It's better to have stricter and more transparent rules than to fudge it all the time and end up pissing off everyone because you inevitably won't be treating everyone the same.

For example Munster aren't playing any of their starters from last week yet they have a rest weekend next week. What if we gave Toner a pass and they asked for a pass for Paulie? That kind of a thing will cause nothing but hassle.

These are all reasonable points, but if I can cherrypick one:

But that is not the fault of the player welfare, and at the risk of repeating myself it's not the concern of the player welfare either.

"The player welfare" is not a machine or a computer programme that decides who can play when, it's Nucifora and Schmidt, pretty experienced guys who should be able to make a call on something or at least listen to an argument. If there are hard and fast rules about who can play when, well, there shouldn't be. Would I play Toner or Kearney tonight? No. Would I play O'Brien or Fitzgerald? Absolutely.

total former

But bringing it back to what kicked it all off, there are a lot of issues at play here and given Matt O'Connor's job might actually depend on the next two weeks, I think he's entitled to air his opinions on it.

molloyjh

total former wrote: »

But bringing it back to what kicked it all off, there are a lot of issues at play here and given Matt O'Connor's job might actually depend on the next two weeks, I think he's entitled to air his opinions on it.

Entitled, yes. Better off doing so, probably not. Personally I think he'd have been better off dodging the question today. As I said in the context of this game, off the back of a 6 day turnaround time, he's on a bit of a hiding to nothing. Especially on match day. Flag it post-match if he needs to, but on match day the messages should be positive ones about the game at hand. Something like:

"Availability is always going to be an issue 6 days after the 6 Nations and we're always in discussions with the IRFU on that. But for now it's about tonight's game and we have faith in the guys involved, many of whom are internationals themselves, to go out and get the job done."

Mahatma Geansai

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

He still has the dancing feet...

Jaysus...