Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…303304306308309…332

Comments

  • Options
    #9152
    kig
    Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭kig


    He will only start making better decisions as he becomes more experienced, and for that he needs to play 10 every week. I agree he has made a mess of things more often than not, but at this point he is the only realistic successor to Sexton. Keatly & Jackson are very limited, they may be better decision makers at the moment but only because they play at 10 every week. It's a big loss to irish rugby and I would have liked to see him move to Munster or Connaught, he could have done great things for them.


  • Options
    #9153
    Teferi
    Registered Users Posts: 6,320 ✭✭✭Teferi


    LorMal wrote: »
    MOC didn't pick him. His 'opportunities to show what he could do' were extremely limited under MOC. However, he played very well for Leinster under Schmidt.
    Given your scathing opinion of Madigan, how come Bordeaux are signing him? They are stupid, non?

    His time at 10 under MOC is actually fairly equal to Gopperth when you take into account Ireland camps and competitions.


  • Options
    #9154
    TICKLE_ME_ELMO
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    The argument that MoC didn't pick Madigan so he was never given the chance to show what he could do implies that MoC was selecting his teams based on something other than best team available. It's entirely possible that MoC picked Gopperth over Madigan because he was the better 10. Also, I'm fairly sure it was Smith brought Gopperth in when Sexton decided to leave so MoC obviously wasn't the only one who didn't think Madiagn was an automatic replacement for Sexton 2 years ago.


  • Options
    #9155
    Triumvirate
    Registered Users Posts: 161 ✭✭Triumvirate


    Madigan started 13 games at outhalf in MOC's first season. The claim that he didn't pick him doesn't really stack up. In those games, he certainly didn't do much to push his case forward, either. The argument for Madigan often takes the form of:

    1. MOC didn't pick him (He picked him starting 13 games at outhalf in his first season) which then goes to....
    2. He never gave him a consistent run though (5 of those 13 came in a row) which then goes to....
    3. How could he perform playing under such a poor coach.

    Madigan is a really talented player but I don't know of another player who people are as sensitive and defensive about. It's not like he has set the world alight under Cullen or under Schmidt in green either. He had one really good season which is several years ago. I wish him all the best and he'll leave a hole in the squad as he's probably one of the best reliable back up outhalves around and seriously versatile. But he'd be an average starting outhalf for a ECC contending team.


  • Options
    #9156
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,762 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    LorMal wrote: »
    MOC didn't pick him. His 'opportunities to show what he could do' were extremely limited under MOC. However, he played very well for Leinster under Schmidt.
    Given your scathing opinion of Madigan, how come Bordeaux are signing him? They are stupid, non?

    If you were really arsed with having a reasonable discussion you'd factor in all the positive things I say about Madigan as well. He has a great skill set but he just doesn't have the head to be the "general" on the pitch. If he plays in a position or with a team that has someone else as the "general" then he can shine. I think at 12 as a second five-eight he could be very good. Or if Bordeaux have their 9 running the show he could shine there as well. It's about understanding how to maximise a players positives while minimising his negatives. If you can get the most from his skill set while not exposing his decision making he's a very talented guy. If you expose his decision making he's very limited.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9157
    aimee1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,290 ✭✭✭aimee1


    http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/35201170

    Healy hearing tomorrow


  • Options
    #9158
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    molloyjh wrote: »
    If you were really arsed with having a reasonable discussion you'd factor in all the positive things I say about Madigan as well. He has a great skill set but he just doesn't have the head to be the "general" on the pitch. If he plays in a position or with a team that has someone else as the "general" then he can shine. I think at 12 as a second five-eight he could be very good. Or if Bordeaux have their 9 running the show he could shine there as well. It's about understanding how to maximise a players positives while minimising his negatives. If you can get the most from his skill set while not exposing his decision making he's a very talented guy. If you expose his decision making he's very limited.

    You make 'decision making' sound like some sort of secret ability available to only the few. If I understand correctly, it is the ability to choose the right option (kick, pass, run) in open play and under pressure. Very often, this ability to choose the right options is limited by directions from the coach (based on his game plan). We saw that in the WC with Murray, for example.
    I believe MOC played a game plan which was defense oriented and very limited in scope. Gopperth played to order, Madigan tended not to - either unable or unwilling to adapt. MOC prefered Gopperth and picked him whenever possible.
    I think Madigan will shine with
    1. a sustained run at 10
    2. the support and confidence of his coach
    3. an attack oriented game plan suited to his skill set
    I believe he is a potentially world class 10 but has been in the wrong place at the wrong time for too long.
    Lets see. Wont be the first time I am wrong.


  • Options
    #9159
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »
    The argument that MoC didn't pick Madigan so he was never given the chance to show what he could do implies that MoC was selecting his teams based on something other than best team available. It's entirely possible that MoC picked Gopperth over Madigan because he was the better 10. Also, I'm fairly sure it was Smith brought Gopperth in when Sexton decided to leave so MoC obviously wasn't the only one who didn't think Madiagn was an automatic replacement for Sexton 2 years ago.

    A few assumptions there. I would argue that MOC picked Gopperth because he suited his game plan more than Madigan. (I remember we commented on here about Madigan looking - and sounding - seriously frustrated and annoyed on the pitch at the beginning of the MOC reign).
    Schmidt did bring Jimmy in but he was announced as a back up to Madigan, not the other way round.
    However, I do admit that Madigan failed to respond to that challenge effectively.


  • Options
    #9160
    .ak
    Registered Users Posts: 30,308 Mod ✭✭✭✭.ak


    LorMal wrote: »
    A few assumptions there. I would argue that MOC picked Gopperth because he suited his game plan more than Madigan. (I remember we commented on here about Madigan looking - and sounding - seriously frustrated and annoyed on the pitch at the beginning of the MOC reign).
    Schmidt did bring Jimmy in but he was announced as a back up to Madigan, not the other way round.
    However, I do admit that Madigan failed to respond to that challenge effectively.

    When was Gopperth announced as a backup to Madigan?

    I remember Buer made a good point at the time of the signing; I'm paraphrasing but he mentioned at the time that someone of Jimmy Gopperth wasn't coming to Leinster to pick splinters out of his arse. That was a pretty unpopular opinion at the time but the only argument against it at the time was opinion. I don't recall the branch alluding to anything regarding who would be first choice.


  • Options
    #9161
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    aimee1 wrote: »
    http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/35201170

    Healy hearing tomorrow

    There has been some screw up here and now there appears to be some kind of agenda to be honest. This should have been dropped after the appeal.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9162
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    .ak wrote: »
    When was Gopperth announced as a backup to Madigan?

    I remember Buer made a good point at the time of the signing; I'm paraphrasing but he mentioned at the time that someone of Jimmy Gopperth wasn't coming to Leinster to pick splinters out of his arse. That was a pretty unpopular opinion at the time but the only argument against it at the time was opinion. I don't recall the branch alluding to anything regarding who would be first choice.

    From the Leinster site:

    Commenting on the move, Leinster Head Coach Joe Schmidt said: "We are delighted that Jimmy has put pen to paper on a deal and we believe that he will be an excellent foil for Ian Madigan, bringing added depth and experience to the out-half position when he joins this summer.

    Not back up but counterpart perhaps? Certainly not replacement!


  • Options
    #9163
    .ak
    Registered Users Posts: 30,308 Mod ✭✭✭✭.ak


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    There has been some screw up here and now there appears to be some kind of agenda to be honest. This should have been dropped after the appeal.

    Was there an appeal? I thought he was clear to play pending an appeal? Because they messed up so much there was no official ruling to appeal, so it was delayed? Or has that happened?

    Either way it'll probably end in just a warning but they already have egg on their face. It's been a farce.

    Although I'm firmly in the unpopular camp in terms of I don't even think it warranted a yellow card in the first place.

    On a more positive note I think he's been improving, getting back to his best.


  • Options
    #9164
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    .ak wrote: »
    Was there an appeal? I thought he was clear to play pending an appeal? Because they messed up so much there was no official ruling to appeal, so it was delayed? Or has that happened?

    Either way it'll probably end in just a warning but they already have egg on their face. It's been a farce.

    Although I'm firmly in the unpopular camp in terms of I don't even think it warranted a yellow card in the first place.

    On a more positive note I think he's been improving, getting back to his best.

    Yeah he is getting back. Even when off form he keeps getting ahead of McGrath, shows just how good he is considered to be by all selectors around him.

    Shouldn't be a ban, but afaik he was given 2 weeks, appealed successfully but they wanted to have another hearing then under a weaker sanction.

    Not sure who to blame so I'm just going to continue to be angry at the French in general for feigning injury and demanding faux justice.


  • Options
    #9165
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    LorMal wrote: »
    A few assumptions there. I would argue that MOC picked Gopperth because he suited his game plan more than Madigan. (I remember we commented on here about Madigan looking - and sounding - seriously frustrated and annoyed on the pitch at the beginning of the MOC reign).
    Schmidt did bring Jimmy in but he was announced as a back up to Madigan, not the other way round.
    However, I do admit that Madigan failed to respond to that challenge effectively.

    Any evidence one is tempted to show, whether for or against Madser, from his Leinster MOC time, should be thrown out of court. It is just too tainted by the MOC miasma to have any credibility, or use discussing him.


  • Options
    #9166
    former total
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭former total


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Yeah he is getting back. Even when off form he keeps getting ahead of McGrath, shows just how good he is considered to be by all selectors around him.

    Shouldn't be a ban, but afaik he was given 2 weeks, appealed successfully but they wanted to have another hearing then under a weaker sanction.

    Not sure who to blame so I'm just going to continue to be angry at the French in general for feigning injury and demanding faux justice.

    He never appealed successfully. His appeal was never heard.


  • Options
    #9167
    TICKLE_ME_ELMO
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    LorMal wrote: »
    A few assumptions there. I would argue that MOC picked Gopperth because he suited his game plan more than Madigan. (I remember we commented on here about Madigan looking - and sounding - seriously frustrated and annoyed on the pitch at the beginning of the MOC reign).
    Schmidt did bring Jimmy in but he was announced as a back up to Madigan, not the other way round.
    However, I do admit that Madigan failed to respond to that challenge effectively.

    My point is that there is an argument some people like to fall back on, that Madigan was never given a chance by MoC to show what he could do. As someone else pointed out he played as much as Gopperth in MoC's first season in charge, so he was given as fair a shot as Gopperth was. The following season he played less, or certainly less at 10, which to me implies Gopperth was who MoC wanted at 10 and Madigan was not. Some people seem to not want to accept the fact that MoC was picking the best possible team available to him and Madigan was not considered the best possible option at 10. To say MoC didn't give him a chance to prove himself implies he was written off from day one and never actually given any opportunity to prove his worth, which was clearly not the case.
    And as others have pointed out Gopperth wasn't back up to Madigan, he was a "foil" which seems to be how it played out in that first season given they had about equal opportunity at 10.


  • Options
    #9168
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »
    My point is that there is an argument some people like to fall back on, that Madigan was never given a chance by MoC to show what he could do. As someone else pointed out he played as much as Gopperth in MoC's first season in charge, so he was given as fair a shot as Gopperth was. The following season he played less, or certainly less at 10, which to me implies Gopperth was who MoC wanted at 10 and Madigan was not. Some people seem to not want to accept the fact that MoC was picking the best possible team available to him and Madigan was not considered the best possible option at 10. To say MoC didn't give him a chance to prove himself implies he was written off from day one and never actually given any opportunity to prove his worth, which was clearly not the case.
    And as others have pointed out Gopperth wasn't back up to Madigan, he was a "foil" which seems to be how it played out in that first season given they had about equal opportunity at 10.

    Are you sure about your facts? Did Madigan play the same amount of games at 10 in MOCs first year?
    I doubt it.


  • Options
    #9169
    wise7
    Registered Users Posts: 485 ✭✭wise7


    LorMal wrote: »
    You make 'decision making' sound like some sort of secret ability available to only the few. If I understand correctly, it is the ability to choose the right option (kick, pass, run) in open play and under pressure. Very often, this ability to choose the right options is limited by directions from the coach (based on his game plan). We saw that in the WC with Murray, for example.
    I believe MOC played a game plan which was defense oriented and very limited in scope. Gopperth played to order, Madigan tended not to - either unable or unwilling to adapt. MOC prefered Gopperth and picked him whenever possible.
    I think Madigan will shine with
    1. a sustained run at 10
    2. the support and confidence of his coach
    3. an attack oriented game plan suited to his skill set
    I believe he is a potentially world class 10 but has been in the wrong place at the wrong time for too long.
    Lets see. Wont be the first time I am wrong.
    But at 10 it is first, always and last about decison making. Madigan is, as many have agreed, an outstanding rugby player with great individual flair. But there's the thing, he is primarily ''an individualist''. A good 10 involves those players (who in turn recognise the 10 knows what he is doing) and take up positions in better space but within range of a pass. The 10 hits the one (s) he feels are best positioned to either breach the line, transfer effectively and basically gain valuable ground that can lead to fast continuity rugby. When running is not a viable option than the tactical kick either 'up & under', directed 'kick-chase' for the three quarters or finding touch deep in oppposition territory are all part of his bag. Being able to execute is critical but knowing when to do what is even more important. In two words its called ''game management'' and is only deliverable by a great reader of the game as it unfolds. That is what decison making at 10 is about and it is a special skill set. After that place kicking by the 10 is a bonus.


  • Options
    #9170
    thomond2006
    Registered Users Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    Cian Healy is out of contract I believe, he signed a three year deal starting 2013/14. I'm intrigued to see how this plays out, given Jack McGrath has shown he is good enough to start ahead of him.


  • Options
    #9171
    Teferi
    Registered Users Posts: 6,320 ✭✭✭Teferi


    thomond2006 wrote: »
    Cian Healy is out of contract I believe, he signed a three year deal starting 2013/14. I'm intrigued to see how this plays out, given Jack McGrath has shown he is good enough to start ahead of him.

    Yeah, it's an interesting one. On his day, a fit and healthy Cian Healy is one of the best players in the world however he is injury prone, has two dodgy ankles and has what could generously be called a mixed bag over the last 2 seasons. His stock isn't as high as it could be so he may not get the offer he wants from the IRFU.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9172
    TICKLE_ME_ELMO
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    LorMal wrote: »
    Are you sure about your facts? Did Madigan play the same amount of games at 10 in MOCs first year?
    I doubt it.

    Someone posted stats the other day in relation to Madigan and Gopperth. Think they said Madigan started at 10 a total of 13 times that season and 5 of them were consecutive.


  • Options
    #9173
    vienne86
    Registered Users Posts: 17,075 ✭✭✭✭vienne86


    Teferi wrote: »
    Yeah, it's an interesting one. On his day, a fit and healthy Cian Healy is one of the best players in the world however he is injury prone, has two dodgy ankles and has what could generously be called a mixed bag over the last 2 seasons. His stock isn't as high as it could be so he may not get the offer he wants from the IRFU.

    He certainly has been nowhere near his former self since coming back from injury, but I thought he was much better in the Toulon match. The next few weeks could have a big bearing on his negotiations.


  • Options
    #9174
    ssaye2
    Registered Users Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭ssaye2


    Healy suspended 2 weeks
    On Lr site due back 11 Jan and can appeal


  • Options
    #9175
    lotmc
    Registered Users Posts: 216 ✭✭lotmc


    Cuan Healy gets a 2-week ban for striking with the knee against Toulon.

    Given that he limped off against Munster, he probably won't miss anything due to the ban.


  • Options
    #9176
    TICKLE_ME_ELMO
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    I don't understand this whole Healy thing. He was cited for one thing after the match, found not guilty of it but then banned for something else, which was appealed and then what? Was he cited again for the other thing? It's all very confusing.


  • Options
    #9177
    ssaye2
    Registered Users Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭ssaye2


    Can paste link more details Lr site


  • Options
    #9178
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Farce + Agenda = Fargenda (c)


  • Options
    #9179
    aimee1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,290 ✭✭✭aimee1


    TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »
    I don't understand this whole Healy thing. He was cited for one thing after the match, found not guilty of it but then banned for something else, which was appealed and then what? Was he cited again for the other thing? It's all very confusing.

    http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2015/1231/757013-cian-healy/

    cited for charge A, appealed because he was found guilty of a lesser charge B. Appealed and found guilty and banned for two weeks. He hurt his knee last weekend so probably wont mean anything. But smacks of a farce really


  • Options
    #9180
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »
    Someone posted stats the other day in relation to Madigan and Gopperth. Think they said Madigan started at 10 a total of 13 times that season and 5 of them were consecutive.

    Whereas Gopperth?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9181
    TICKLE_ME_ELMO
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    LorMal wrote: »
    Whereas Gopperth?

    Had something similar, as I said in a previous post.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement