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

aimee1

phog wrote: »

As opening up gametime for Marsh & Byrne won't Madigan be in Irish camp as much as Sexton?

Yes but it means Leinster have to look at developing more backs and giving them more gametime

Podge_irl

phog wrote: »

Joe signed Gopperth because he hadn't much faith in Madigan

Joe signed Gopperth because otherwise Madigan would have been the only fly half of any reasonable level in the squad. It had nothing to do with not having faith in him.

As for starting Keatley - he was in better form at the time. So be it, it happens.

molloyjh

Podge_irl wrote: »

Joe signed Gopperth because otherwise Madigan would have been the only fly half of any reasonable level in the squad. It had nothing to do with not having faith in him.

As for starting Keatley - he was in better form at the time. So be it, it happens.

Yeah I don't think you can use one single game as a basis for forming any real conclusion on anything anyway.

At the end of the day this sort of movement was always going to happen once Nucifora was signed. And this is the first real test of that appointment and that strategy. It's done a lot in NZ AFAIK and seems to work there. It will have some issues, objections and what not in the early stages but should actually be a positive thing on the whole for Ireland and the provinces. Talent won't be centralised as much meaning the provinces as a whole get stronger while the national side benefits from more guys playing, more regularly and at a higher level. There will be discussions around the merits of individual players, but with a longer term view I reckon this has the potential to be hugely positive for Irish rugby.

jm08

Podge_irl wrote: »

Joe signed Gopperth because otherwise Madigan would have been the only fly half of any reasonable level in the squad. It had nothing to do with not having faith in him.

As for starting Keatley - he was in better form at the time. So be it, it happens.

He signed Gopperth because he likes his outhalf to control the game. By the way, Keatley said that Schmidt tried to bring him back to Leinster.

Keatley's form went to pot after Joe dropped him after the Italy game in the 6Ns.

former total

jm08 wrote: »

He signed Gopperth because he likes his outhalf to control the game. By the way, Keatley said that Schmidt tried to bring him back to Leinster.

Keatley's form went to pot after Joe dropped him after the Italy game in the 6Ns.

Lol. Just like Tommy O'Donnell the previous year. They're a sensitive bunch.

The reality is that Madigan is better than Keatley, or at least the national management think so. That Italy game was a single blip.

jm08

molloyjh wrote: »

Yeah I don't think you can use one single game as a basis for forming any real conclusion on anything anyway.

At the end of the day this sort of movement was always going to happen once Nucifora was signed. And this is the first real test of that appointment and that strategy. It's done a lot in NZ AFAIK and seems to work there. It will have some issues, objections and what not in the early stages but should actually be a positive thing on the whole for Ireland and the provinces. Talent won't be centralised as much meaning the provinces as a whole get stronger while the national side benefits from more guys playing, more regularly and at a higher level. There will be discussions around the merits of individual players, but with a longer term view I reckon this has the potential to be hugely positive for Irish rugby.

It hasn't worked particularly well for Auckland/Blues where both Nucifora and Schmidt operated from. New Zealand is completely different in that they have a lot of talent and can cope with players moving to France & England. Not sure Ireland have the talent to deal with those kind of numbers leaving.

jm08

former total wrote: »

Lol. Just like Tommy O'Donnell the previous year. They're a sensitive bunch.

The reality is that Madigan is better than Keatley, or at least the national management think so. That Italy game was a single blip.

Madigan is better than keatley with his place kicking. After that Keatley controls the game better.

leftleg

jm08 wrote: »

Madigan is better than keatley with his place kicking. After that Keatley controls the game better.

In terms of game control, they are both equally flaky and uninspiring; Madigan shades it with kicking from the tee easily.

leftleg

jm08 wrote: »

He signed Gopperth because he likes his outhalf to control the game. By the way, Keatley said that Schmidt tried to bring him back to Leinster.

Keatley's form went to pot after Joe dropped him after the Italy game in the 6Ns.

Link

Podge_irl

jm08 wrote: »

He signed Gopperth because he likes his outhalf to control the game.

Sure, that might be why he decided to sign Gopperth specifically, but the actual signing had nothing whatsoever to do with an appraisal of Madigan. Leinster had to sign another fly half one way or another.

former total

Gopperth has nothing to do with it. Joe signed Gopperth but we'll never know who the starting OH would have been if Joe has stayed on. I'd guess Gopperth, fwiw, but we don't know.

What we do know, beyond any doubt, is that Joe rates Madigan higher than Keatley.

jm08

leftleg wrote: »

Link

A product of Belvedere and the Leinster academy, Keatley admits: “Joe Schmidt even asked me would I go back to Leinster before I signed with Munster but I knew that the best thing for me and for my career was to come to Munster and I’ve no regrets about any of the moves I’ve made; going to Connacht and coming here, I’ve never had a regret. My dad said it to me ‘no matter what you decide to do, back it 100 per cent’, and that’s what I’ve done.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/pro12/ian-keatley-starting-to-reap-reward-after-investment-in-hard-slog-1.2222731

jm08

former total wrote: »

Gopperth has nothing to do with it. Joe signed Gopperth but we'll never know who the starting OH would have been if Joe has stayed on. I'd guess Gopperth, fwiw, but we don't know.

What we do know, beyond any doubt, is that Joe rates Madigan higher than Keatley.

We know the style of outhalf Schmidt likes and Madigan isn't that.

former total

jm08 wrote: »

We know the style of outhalf Schmidt likes and Madigan isn't that.

That's an interesting theory. Joe's repeated selection of Madigan would suggest otherwise but it's impossible to know.

My point is that, regardless of "style", we do know that Joe prefers Madigan to Keatley.

jm08

former total wrote: »

That's an interesting theory. Joe's repeated selection of Madigan would suggest otherwise but it's impossible to know.

My point is that, regardless of "style", we do know that Joe prefers Madigan to Keatley.

I seem to recall Schmidt answering some comments about Madigan's being the next Carlos Spencer where Schmidt responded he would prefer him to be the next Andrew Mehrtens.

Schmidt didn't prefer Madigan to Keatley in the last 6Ns when it came to starting a game.

Teferi

jm08 wrote: »

Keatley's form went to pot after Joe dropped him after the Italy game in the 6Ns.

Absolute lol. I love this meme. Keep it coming please.

Podge_irl

jm08 wrote: »

We know the style of outhalf Schmidt likes and Madigan isn't that.

No, we know he likes Sexton as he is the only outhalf Schmidt has ever consistently picked since he has been in Ireland.

He had Brock bloody James at Clermont.

aimee1

jm08 wrote: »

Madigan is better than keatley with his place kicking. After that Keatley controls the game better.

Madigan is a better defender too. Neither are going to be top class but they both have strengths and weaknesses which is why they are where they are

aimee1

jm08 wrote: »

Keatley's form went to pot after Joe dropped him after the Italy game in the 6Ns.

lol this is hilarious. Sexton back from his 12 week layoff was always going to start as soon as he was available. Even before the 6n we always knew that would happen and whoever played at 10 against Italy wasnt going to be wearing the 10 jersey a week later

jm08

former total wrote: »

Lol. Just like Tommy O'Donnell the previous year. They're a sensitive bunch.

The reality is that Madigan is better than Keatley, or at least the national management think so. That Italy game was a single blip.

Podge_irl wrote: »

No, we know he likes Sexton as he is the only outhalf Schmidt has ever consistently picked since he has been in Ireland.

He had Brock bloody James at Clermont.

Didn't he bring the player he dropped Carlos Spencer for when at the Blues to Clermont (I can't remember his name now). Don't think he lasted in Clermont as Schmidt left.

leftleg

jm08 wrote: »

I seem to recall Schmidt answering some comments about Madigan's being the next Carlos Spencer where Schmidt responded he would prefer him to be the next Andrew Mehrtens.

Schmidt didn't prefer Madigan to Keatley in the last 6Ns when it came to starting a game.

1 game your basing your whole arguement on 1 game whereas Madigan has been ahead of him internationally ever since.

Please stop

jm08

aimee1 wrote: »

lol this is hilarious. Sexton back from his 12 week layoff was always going to start as soon as he was available. Even before the 6n we always knew that would happen and whoever played at 10 against Italy wasnt going to be wearing the 10 jersey a week later

LOL. Of course we knew that. He was dropped out of the 23 though which would have done nothing for his confidence.

leftleg

jm08 wrote: »

LOL. Of course we knew that. He was dropped out of the 23 though which would have done nothing for his confidence.

Schmidt gave him a game to see how he would do; that was all; you seem to be off the idea that Keatley should have remained. Nothing he has done since assures me that he should be near the Ireland squad.

jm08

leftleg wrote: »

Schmidt gave him a game to see how he would do; that was all; you seem to be off the idea that Keatley should have remained. Nothing he has done since assures me that he should be near the Ireland squad.

Schmidt game him a game because he was the best option at outhalf v. Italy and he did well. I stated a fact that Keatley's form went to pot after he was dropped completely by Schmidt in the 6Ns.

Redgirl82

jm08 wrote: »

LOL. Of course we knew that. He was dropped out of the 23 though which would have done nothing for his confidence.

From your couple of comments I would hazard a guess you are a Munster fan and not a big fan of Mr Schmidt???

Redgirl82

jm08 wrote: »

Schmidt game him a game because he was the best option at outhalf v. Italy and he did well. I stated a fact that Keatley's form went to pot after he was dropped completely by Schmidt in the 6Ns.

Keatley form has nothing to do with the poor management team in Munster? :eek:

Edit, why are we discussing Keatley and Ireland on Leinster thread?

CMOTDibbler

jm08 wrote: »

Schmidt game him a game because he was the best option at outhalf v. Italy and he did well. I stated a fact that Keatley's form went to pot after he was dropped completely by Schmidt in the 6Ns.

He must be a very sensitive soul. He had no expectation of anything better than a bench spot once Sexton was fit and because he didn't get on the bench his form dropped? Despite the fact that Madigan is a more versatile sub?

jm08

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

He must be a very sensitive soul. He had no expectation of anything better than a bench spot once Sexton was fit and because he didn't get on the bench his form dropped? Despite the fact that Madigan is a more versatile sub?

So are you saying that say if you were promoted in your job and then lost your job uncermoniously even though you did well, it wouldn't bother you?

Apart from anything else, Keatley is a confidence player.

jm08

Redgirl82 wrote: »

Keatley form has nothing to do with the poor management team in Munster? :eek:

Edit, why are we discussing Keatley and Ireland on Leinster thread?

Because of the repercussions of Leinster's Ian Madigan being moved to Munster by Nucifora.

Podge_irl

jm08 wrote: »

So are you saying that say if you were promoted in your job and then lost your job uncermoniously even though you did well, it wouldn't bother you?

I've covered for my sick boss before and was utterly distraught when they expected me to go back to my usual job when she returned.