Leinster Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread VI: End of the MOC [Revenge of the STH]

armchaircoach

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I dont see the wisdom in letting Teo leave, it'd be a huge hole that no one in the squad or academy can fill based on any sort of evidence. If we sign a replacement we are getting into the unknown quantity scenario and it begs the question of why we would sign a league player, develop him and then let him leave as he comes good(and is a step closer to being IQ and freeing up a place in the squad for another NIQ). Not resigning Teo makes zero sense.

I don't think it will be a case of leinster not offering Teo an extention, rather that he might decide to move somewhere else for trophys, or back to Auz and league because he wants to go home.

Exclamation Marc

errlloyd wrote: »

Ben Teo is a more useful player than Garry Ringrose right now.

I don't really get why people don't think he's a 12. I think he's a very similar build and has a very skillset to a lot of 12s knocking around these days. (Fofanna, SBW, D'Allende, Roberts), in terms of being a gainline winning, offloading, ten protecting: twelve. As opposed to Reid who is the Giteau, mold. Either is fine.

I think he should absolutely be kept, I think having 3 class players for 2 positions should be what we aim for, and I think he should get used to playing either centre position.

But Ringrose will never be a 'more useful' player unless he gets game time. If Te'o were to stay, there might be an argument there but as far as I know Te'o wants to return home so I think it would be better to give Ringrose a run in the team in what appears again to be an underwhelming year.

Think you're right though, IF it's down to a choice of keeping him or not and it's at Leinster's end, he should definitely be kept on.

errlloyd

Manufactured Miracle wrote: »

But Ringrose will never be a 'more useful' player unless he gets game time.

This is absolutely correct. And if this were a league game against dragons I'd be all for giving the lad game time. But this is our most important of the season. We lose and that's curtains really. Teo has been our best player this season.

.ak

errlloyd wrote: »

If barely a year ago he was able to make the switch between two completely different codes of rugby, I think a year later he might be able to handle standing 8 metres closer to the outhalf.

Probably not fair on him beginning that in the European Cup, but long term I see him as a 12.

errlloyd wrote: »

Ben Teo is a more useful player than Garry Ringrose right now.

I don't really get why people don't think he's a 12. I think he's a very similar build and has a very skillset to a lot of 12s knocking around these days. (Fofanna, SBW, D'Allende, Roberts), in terms of being a gainline winning, offloading, ten protecting: twelve. As opposed to Reid who is the Giteau, mold. Either is fine.

I think he should absolutely be kept, I think having 3 class players for 2 positions should be what we aim for, and I think he should get used to playing either centre position.

Whilst he has all the natural abilities to play 12, he wouldn't be ready to shift inside yet.

Inside centre is a much more demanding role, you have less time to make decisions and you take so much contact.

For all of Ben's size the lad has a lot of flair too, he loves to switch to a soft shoulder using nimble feet and he loves making those big reads when you have that little more time in the outside channel.

Whilst we see a guy with size and good hands we automatically assume that's a 12, but to be honest I'm glad we're not pigeonholing players. He's a fantastic 13 and it's really working out for us, it's the exact opposite of the Sam burgess fiasco.

If, down the road, he sticks it here with us then maybe when he's 100% comfortable in the midfield he can shift in.

Scythica

If Ringrose was at 13 would you be confident in him facing what i assume will be a Eastmond - Joseph 12 13 effectively enough?

(Not really seen Ringrose play too much, so don't know much about defensive capabilities, I'd like to see him play anyway as he seems a real talent.)

vienne86

errlloyd wrote: »

This is absolutely correct. And if this were a league game against dragons I'd be all for giving the lad game time. But this is our most important of the season. We lose and that's curtains really. Teo has been our best player this season.

You've nailed it for me here. I am very excited about Ringrose, but I wouldn't start him in this of all matches.

irishbucsfan

If Te'o is available then we don't need Ringrose.

The real missed opportunity was last weekend where we missed the quality of Te'o and also missed the opportunity to hand experience to Ringrose by our own design.

Ringrose should be on the bench this week with Te'o starting and McFadden back to his rightful position on the wing.

Clegg

Still think we'll go down the conservative route and pick Boss/Reddan and have Dom Ryan in the squad. It's a big call for Leo. He's a young coach with not much experience and may feel more comfortable with the tried and tested players even though they're clearly not up for it anymore.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If Te'o is available then we don't need Ringrose.

The real missed opportunity was last weekend where we missed the quality of Te'o and also missed the opportunity to hand experience to Ringrose by our own design.

Ringrose should be on the bench this week with Te'o starting and McFadden back to his rightful position on the wing.

If it had been close last week and a Wasps forward trampled through Ringrose to score the winning try we'd be lamenting having him on the field. Having him on the field wouldn't have mattered when our tackling was such a major factor in the loss and it's not his area of strength.

Ringrose will get plenty of experience this season, he also is going to need to last the season (he will likely start all games during the 6N). He is an unknown entity at senior European rugby and the Wasps game was a must win (lol).

I think he is being brought through pretty well this season, but starting in the pro12 is the way to do it. I don't have an issue if he did start a European game for what it's worth, I just don't think he is always going to be the best option ahead of experienced seniors who we know have delivered at that level.

TLDR: When injury has forced a number of risk selections throughout the team, you don't add to this by making unforced risk selections on inexperienced players.

awec

Scythica wrote: »

If Ringrose was at 13 would you be confident in him facing what i assume will be a Eastmond - Joseph 12 13 effectively enough?

(Not really seen Ringrose play too much, so don't know much about defensive capabilities, I'd like to see him play anyway as he seems a real talent.)

Good player but would definitely be targeted in the centre in European games.

Confidence in him would depend on who is beside him. If he's beside Reid then the guy has no hope because that's two blokes in the centre who are IMO not stellar defensively, if he were outside Te'o it's a different story.

molloyjh

Deleted User wrote: »

If it had been close last week and a Wasps forward trampled through Ringrose to score the winning try we'd be lamenting having him on the field. Having him on the field wouldn't have mattered when our tackling was such a major factor in the loss and it's not his area of strength.

Ringrose will get plenty of experience this season, he also is going to need to last the season (he will likely start all games during the 6N). He is an unknown entity at senior European rugby and the Wasps game was a must win (lol).

I think he is being brought through pretty well this season, but starting in the pro12 is the way to do it. I don't have an issue if he did start a European game for what it's worth, I just don't think he is always going to be the best option ahead of experienced seniors who we know have delivered at that level.

TLDR: When injury has forced a number of risk selections throughout the team, you don't add to this by making unforced risk selections on inexperienced players.

Of all of the issues we had last week, the guy we had in the 13 jersey was well and truly down the list. Ferg was there to shore up our defence and he did that job well, as we knew he would (despite comments on here that he was weak in that area). Ringrose might have done as well, but we simply couldn't have known whether he would or not. So starting him would always have been an added risk. One that I'd have been ok with if we had someone else at 12, but it was too much with Reid there.

errlloyd

molloyjh wrote: »

Of all of the issues we had last week, the guy we had in the 13 jersey was well and truly down the list. Ferg was there to shore up our defence and he did that job well

I don't think you can say "Ferg wasn't our problem last week because he defended well" when the problem we had last week was nothing to do with defense and all to do with attack. We had amazing possession, amazing territory even call ball retention and a team of great tacklers. Ferg didn't let us down in defense at all last week, but he offered nothing in attack.

molloyjh

errlloyd wrote: »

I don't think you can say "Ferg wasn't our problem last week because he defended well" when the problem we had last week was nothing to do with defense and all to do with attack. We had amazing possession, amazing territory even call ball retention and a team of great tacklers. Ferg didn't let us down in defense at all last week, but he offered nothing in attack.

Our single biggest issue in our attacking game last week was our unforced errors. Poor passes and knock ons in the main. How many of those did Ferg have a hand in? Second to that issue was the fact that our pack weren't winning collisions or the breakdown battle, again that had little to nothing to do with Ferg. While we may not have lost much ball we certainly weren't getting good quality ball with any kind of regularity. And you can't talk about amazing possession and amazing territory and then ignore the role that Ferg played in getting that. He didn't turnover ball any more than anyone else in the back line and he made good metres with ball in hand as well. He wasn't outstanding, but he certainly wasn't that much of an issue.

Also this idea that defence wasn't the issue kind of reminds me of Y2k. I've heard quite a lot since that NYE that the whole thing was nonsense and that nothing was ever going to happen. The logic for that train of thought was that nothing did happen so it was never an issue. Nothing happened because the right steps were taken before hand to ensure that it wasn't an issue on the day.

EDIT: Also I'm not saying Ferg was totally blameless, just that in the grand scheme of how the game went the person that we selected at 13 was by no means the winning or losing of the game. There were far too many other issues for that selection to have made a meaningful difference.

Interested Observer

I hope Ringrose starts anyway. He's been better this season than the likes of Dave Kearney and McFadden. I'll tell you what definitely won't work - picking the same players again.

ssaye2

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Hope the Te'o Fitzgerald partnership last longer this time around.

No Ringrose at all.

molloyjh

Boss....FFS Leo. Boss!?

Interested Observer

Interested Observer wrote: »

I hope Ringrose starts anyway. He's been better this season than the likes of Dave Kearney and McFadden. I'll tell you what definitely won't work - picking the same players again.

If the best team of players available was the same as the ones playing last week, then you invest in the belief that they will improve.

Every time a team plays poorly, people bang on that there should be wholesale changes but that rarely makes sense and in fact will lead to more mistakes and less continuity.

It was a bad day at the office, but it should galvanise and improve standards this week.

LostArt

Reddan dropped and no lock on the bench..

ssaye2

Bath Rugby team to face Leinster Rugby

15. Anthony Watson

14. Semesa Rokoduguni

13. Ollie Devoto

12. Kyle Eastmond

11. Matt Banahan

10. George Ford

9. Chris Cook

1. Nick Auterac

2. Rob Webber

3. Henry Thomas

4. Dominic Day

5. Dave Attwood

6. Matt Garvey

7. Francois Louw

8. Leroy Houston

Replacements

16. Ross Batty

17. Nathan Catt

18. Max Lahiff

19. Stuart Hooper

20. Alafoti Faosiliva

21. Niko Matawalu

22. Rhys Priestland

23. Tom Homer

molloyjh

So at least the centre issue isn't an issue now. And Isa is back too. So that's all good news. Boss starting and Dippy as lock cover though is very underwhelming. Would have rathered Molony on the bench to cover lock and anyone but Boss to start at 9. Other than that it's all good I suppose. Just hope the returning players are fully fit and ready to go. We need them to be.

awec

Francois Luow vs Jordi Murphy. Oh dear.

And Cian Healy is very fortunate to be starting this game.

Interested Observer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If the best team of players available was the same as the ones playing last week, then you invest in the belief that they will improve.

Every time a team plays poorly, people bang on that there should be wholesale changes but that rarely makes sense and in fact will lead to more mistakes and less continuity.

It was a bad day at the office, but it should galvanise and improve standards this week.

That back line was rubbish on paper and it was rubbish on the pitch. Wholesale changes to it should and thankfully it seems we have seen them. Dave Kearney is a very lucky boy.


Boss though, honest to god.

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

So at least the centre issue isn't an issue now. And Isa is back too. So that's all good news. Boss starting and Dippy as lock cover though is very underwhelming. Would have rathered Molony on the bench to cover lock and anyone but Boss to start at 9. Other than that it's all good I suppose. Just hope the returning players are fully fit and ready to go. We need them to be.

Can't but have my doubts to be honest.

I'm not really too worried about Boss at 9. He's do a job and we have plenty in our back line.

Our pack is the real worry. Ross is starting to look very off the pace, Cronin seems to have fallen back a bit form wise, Healy has been repeatedly poor so our front row worries me. Triggs is still an unknown entity. Ruddock... is he fit? Murphy was one of our worst players last week.

I dunno. We need to be on a different plane of existence to last week, or Bath need to have an absolute HOWLER.

Quint2010

No Ringrose at all?

Interested Observer

Quint2010 wrote: »

No Ringrose at all?

That's a shocker really.

Interested Observer

Interested Observer wrote: »

That back line was rubbish on paper and it was rubbish on the pitch. Wholesale changes to it should and thankfully it seems we have seen them. Dave Kearney is a very lucky boy.


Boss though, honest to god.

Of course wholesale changes should be made, we have better players to come back in. I was disputing the notion that changes should be made just because of a bad loss which get's thrown out every time one happens.

Dave Kearney was one of the better backs last week.

molloyjh

Interested Observer wrote: »

That back line was rubbish on paper and it was rubbish on the pitch. Wholesale changes to it should and thankfully it seems we have seen them. Dave Kearney is a very lucky boy.

Ah here, don't take into account that we were missing our 4 most important backs outside of 10 when making that point. Fitz, Te'o, Nacewa and Kearney were huge losses and you can't just gloss over that. All of the changes this week were bringing back in injured players so you can't say Leo has made wholesale changes.

Deleted User wrote: »

Can't but have my doubts to be honest.

I'm not really too worried about Boss at 9. He's do a job and we have plenty in our back line.

Our pack is the real worry. Ross is starting to look very off the pace, Cronin seems to have fallen back a bit form wise, Healy has been repeatedly poor so our front row worries me. Triggs is still an unknown entity. Ruddock... is he fit? Murphy was one of our worst players last week.

I dunno. We need to be on a different plane of existence to last week, or Bath need to have an absolute HOWLER.

A big issue last week was slow ball from the ruck. That's a staple of the Boss game even when our pack are providing him good, quick ball.

I agree on our front row. I'm hoping Cronin is just lacking on game time as Strauss was ahead of him in the RWC. And Healy has been showing gradual improvements over the weeks so fingers crossed that continues. The issue there is that the improvements have been just that. Gradual. If Moore can do the job in the scrum it may be worth considering making him first choice this season, but then he's only coming back from injury really himself still.

Murphy is a lucky guy after last week. I'd have started VDF myself. And I do worry about the fitness of those guys coming back in.

All that said there is still the bones of a good side there, even if the bench is a bit callow. I'd like to have seen Ringrose at 23 personally but I suppose that selection depends on who is more likely to pull up during the game. If it's Isa then Kirchner is the only real option I suppose.

Temperatures set to be ~ 3degrees at the Rec tomorrow