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

LorMal

wise7 wrote: »

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.

Yes, I got that. Just think MOC had a game plan that migitated against creativiity (and corroded Leinsters approach to the game over time - we are still reaping the results - we will improve as his legacy influence wains).

LorMal

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

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

Dont think so.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

LorMal wrote: »

Dont think so.

Well, you've got 22 matches in a Pro 12 season. So let's assume all 13 of Madigan's starts at 10 were Pro 12, that leaves 9 matches for Gopperth. And then assume Gopperth started all European games that makes 6 in the pools, which brings us to 15 and then the QF which makes 16. Add in the playoffs and final in the Pro 12 that season and you've got 18.

13 starts v 18 starts is pretty evenly matched, I'd say.

wp_rathead

Deleted User wrote: »

Farce + Agenda = Fargenda (c)

How is it an agenda, he deserves his ban

former total

3 week ban, ie lowest point on the scale, reduced to 2 for good character.Fair enough I think.

Really hope they don't appeal the focking thing.

CatFromHue

bit mad he gets a reduction this time when they said he didn't warrant one the first time around

irishbucsfan

former total wrote: »

3 week ban, ie lowest point on the scale, reduced to 2 for good character.Fair enough I think.

Really hope they don't appeal the focking thing.

Probably a fair way to leave it. Possibly could argue it was mid-range but not conclusively. If he is injured then they'll probably not bother with the appeal.

Zzippy

Deleted User wrote: »

Farce + Agenda = Fargenda (c)

What agenda?






Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you...

Yeah_Right

IMO, Madigan is a bit like Nacewa. Very talented rugby player but not a great 10. They can both cover the position but I don't think it's their best position. I'd like to see Madigan at fullback or on the wing for a season. Otherwise at 12.

Stheno

I have another stupid question, we got flags in our supporters packs but no sticks to put them on. Where do you go to buy sticks?

vienne86

Stheno wrote: »

I have another stupid question, we got flags in our supporters packs but no sticks to put them on. Where do you go to buy sticks?

Plastic tubing in woodies. V cheap.

Triumvirate

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

13 starts v 18 starts is pretty evenly matched, I'd say.

And that's only after Gopperth started 6 of the last 7 games (having firmly out-performed Madigan as the season wore on) as Madigan not being available in November due to the autumn internationals. Madigan also played a couple of games at centre too due to injuries so a very evenly matched season, overall.

UnknownEntity

Stheno wrote:

I have another stupid question, we got flags in our supporters packs but no sticks to put them on. Where do you go to buy sticks?

Were you at the Toulon game in the Aviva? They had a flag under each group of seats purchased together and most people left their's behind after the game. I have about 6 or 7 flags now lying around at home.

LorMal

Triumvirate wrote: »

And that's only after Gopperth started 6 of the last 7 games (having firmly out-performed Madigan as the season wore on) as Madigan not being available in November due to the autumn internationals. Madigan also played a couple of games at centre too due to injuries so a very evenly matched season, overall.

Nonsense. Happy New Year.

CMOTDibbler

LorMal wrote: »

Yes, I got that. Just think MOC had a game plan that migitated against creativiity (and corroded Leinsters approach to the game over time - we are still reaping the results - we will improve as his legacy influence wains).

I'm not sure that MOC's game plan mitigated against creativity. Judging by his own statements and what players have said, his approach was to let the players "play what they see" and was largely unstructured (even so far as training being a bit lackadaisical time wise).

It was very much the antithesis of what Joe Schmidt did and resulted in a mess on the pitch where nobody really knew what they were supposed to be doing. All the structure that Joe had cultivated bled away over two seasons which is why the second season was worse than the first.

Paul Smeenus

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I'm not sure that MOC's game plan mitigated against creativity. Judging by his own statements and what players have said, his approach was to let the players "play what they see" and was largely unstructured (even so far as training being a bit lackadaisical time wise).

It was very much the antithesis of what Joe Schmidt did and resulted in a mess on the pitch where nobody really knew what they were supposed to be doing. All the structure that Joe had cultivated bled away over two seasons which is why the second season was worse than the first.

This. I know it runs counter to the popular narrative, and the fetishisation of Madigan's much-vaunted creativity, but it's actually crystal clear that the swing from one end of the spectrum, where as Heaslip so memorably put it, they played like robots, to the far end, where MOC wanted them to play heads-up rugby, was just too seismic a shift in culture. Schmidt had had systems in place for a number of years that they had perfected and relied on. When they were gone, they were out of practise in playing what was in front of them, and looked lost.

If MOC had come in after Cheika, and then Schimdt, there might have been very different assessments of each coach's ability.

LorMal

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I'm not sure that MOC's game plan mitigated against creativity. Judging by his own statements and what players have said, his approach was to let the players "play what they see" and was largely unstructured (even so far as training being a bit lackadaisical time wise).

It was very much the antithesis of what Joe Schmidt did and resulted in a mess on the pitch where nobody really knew what they were supposed to be doing. All the structure that Joe had cultivated bled away over two seasons which is why the second season was worse than the first.

Good point. I think that's fair.

aimee1

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

This. I know it runs counter to the popular narrative, and the fetishisation of Madigan's much-vaunted creativity, but it's actually crystal clear that the swing from one end of the spectrum, where as Heaslip so memorably put it, they played like robots, to the far end, where MOC wanted them to play heads-up rugby, was just too seismic a shift in culture. Schmidt had had systems in place for a number of years that they had perfected and relied on. When they were gone, they were out of practise in playing what was in front of them, and looked lost.

If MOC had come in after Cheika, and then Schimdt, there might have been very different assessments of each coach's ability.

I dont think the did play like robots under JS. I think they had a plan to give them the time and space to produce the good stuff. There was no point in being the "best passing team in europe" if the backs were getting some 125KG back rower/centre at the same time as the ball 10 yards behind the gainline. But as you said they went from having crystal clear idea of what to do under JS and then that all vanished under MOC.

JS also had a 10 playing the best rugby of his career, MOC had a good but somewhat limited Gopperth and an erratic Madigan, both of whom would have been far more productive under JS.

irishbucsfan

aimee1 wrote: »

I dont think the did play like robots under JS.

There was a direct quote from Heaslip where he said they played like robots but I think it sounds worse than he actually meant it

http://www.the42.ie/jamie-heaslip-leinster-matt-oconnor-1831620-Dec2014/

aimee1 wrote: »

JS also had a 10 playing the best rugby of his career, MOC had a good but somewhat limited Gopperth and an erratic Madigan, both of whom would have been far more productive under JS.

I think people hugely underrate just how important the loss of ability at 10 was under MOC.

Paul Smeenus

Yeah -"robots" is Heaslip's turn of phrase. Melodramatic, but also pejorative - it suggests he was keen on the new freedom, they just couldn't deliver on it.

CMOTDibbler

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

Yeah -"robots" is Heaslip's turn of phrase. Melodramatic, but also pejorative - it suggests he was keen on the new freedom, they just couldn't deliver on it.

"Not being as robotic" is the phrase he used which is a bit more nuanced really. The problem as I saw it was that everything went out the window including the accuracy that Joe brought. O'Connor was unstructured in his approach and it showed on the field. It's all very well giving players the 'freedom' to play football, but if you don't give them the skills or maintain them, then it's going to fall apart once they're under pressure on the pitch.

Joe's approach was much more structured. First get the skills up and maintain them, then build in different set plays for different scenarios and different oppositions and let the players implement those on the pitch as the game allows. It wasn't 'robotic' but there was always the impression of a well-oiled machine going through the gears.

Without constant use, the well-oiled machine just rusted up over the following two seasons.

Clegg

Ringrose is getting closer to the category of automatic selection player. He's coping with senior rugby so easily. I did notice that he was brushed off a tackle during the game so he may n ed to work on that. But his performances to date have been very impressive. VdF was very good again today. If say he'd be an automatic starter too, but Leinster's depth of quality in the backrow is very, very high.

Tox56

Clegg wrote: »

Ringrose is getting closer to the category of automatic selection player. He's coping with senior rugby so easily. I did notice that he was brushed off a tackle during the game so he may n ed to work on that. But his performances to date have been very impressive. VdF was very good again today. If say he'd be an automatic starter too, but Leinster's depth of quality in the backrow is very, very high.

I just don't think you can move SOB away from 7, and as good as VdF has been SOB is probably our best player full stop. Sucks for VdF and you wonder what will happen to both him and Leavy, you'd have to think there isn't room for all of them

whatawaster

Tox56 wrote: »

I just don't think you can move SOB away from 7, and as good as VdF has been SOB is probably our best player full stop. Sucks for VdF and you wonder what will happen to both him and Leavy, you'd have to think there isn't room for all of them

I'd rate them:

O'Brien/Heaslip>>Ruddock>>VDF>>Murphy>>Conan>>Leavy

Should be plenty of games for the likes of Conan, Leavy and VDF. At least 3 of those will be away for the 6N, probably 4 so they will get gametime then, and with injuries and rotation there should be plenty of gametime for everyone.

errlloyd

For the record, I thought Ryan was decent last week.

former total

errlloyd wrote: »

For the record, I thought Ryan was decent last week.

He was excellent. Tackled everything that moved, just like in his earlier days. Great breakdown work too.

Squidgy Black

Yeah Dippy's in there as well, not to be forgotten.

Tox56

whatawaster wrote: »

I'd rate them:

O'Brien/Heaslip>>Ruddock>>VDF>>Murphy>>Conan>>Leavy

Should be plenty of games for the likes of Conan, Leavy and VDF. At least 3 of those will be away for the 6N, probably 4 so they will get gametime then, and with injuries and rotation there should be plenty of gametime for everyone.

I think Leavy has huge potential but he hasnt really got the opportunity to show it yet, although he was very decent the last time I saw him whenever that was. Completely forgot about Conan honestly, I dont want to tempt fate with injuries etc, but we've got a bit of an issue in 2-3 years, the current guys should still be around while the younger guys are starting to enter their prime

errlloyd

At some point one of our flankers has to go up North tbh. And this is with the forced retirements of Jenno and McLaughlin.

CatFromHue

Clegg wrote: »

Ringrose is getting closer to the category of automatic selection player. He's coping with senior rugby so easily. I did notice that he was brushed off a tackle during the game so he may n ed to work on that. But his performances to date have been very impressive. VdF was very good again today. If say he'd be an automatic starter too, but Leinster's depth of quality in the backrow is very, very high.

What's good so far is that he looks to link up with other players.

Still very early days though