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

molloyjh

CatFromHue wrote: »

It is interesting look at past season appearances.

In 12/13, Schmidts last season, Cullen, Toner, Jennings, Kev McLaughlin, and Nacewa were in the list of 11+ starts.

In 11/12 the 11+ guys contained: Toner, Nacewa, H. van der Merwe, Ruddock, McLaughlin, Fitzgerald, EOM, Damien Browne, and Jennings.

Our 11+ guys this year are nowhere near as good as either of those years.

There are more of them though. 9 in 11/12, 5 in 12/13 and 12 in 14/15. Toner wasn't the player he is now 2-3 years ago and neither was Ruddock. Fitzgeralds form in a good chunk of 11/12 was pretty poor. Browne was solid without being particularly good. Even Isas form in 12/13 was a step below previous seasons. Break it up by position:

Prop
11/12: VDM
12/13: None
14/15: Bent
Verdict: Better than 12/13 but not as good as 11/12. Bent however does cover both sides.

Hooker
11/12: None
12/13: None
14/15: Strauss
Verdict: Better than previous seasons despite dip in form.

Lock
11/12: Toner, Browne
12/13: Cullen, Toner
14/15: McCarthy, Douglas
Verdict: Arguably better than 11/12 while not as good as 12/13.

Back Row
11/12: Ruddock, Locky, Jenno
12/13: Locky, Jenno
14/15: Ryan, Conan
Verdict: Definitely a step down from previous seasons.

Half Back
11/12: None
12/13: None
14/15: Gopperth
Verdict: Better than previous seasons despite not being great.

Centre
11/12: EOM
12/13: None
14/15: Madigan
Verdict: Better than 12/13 and worse than 11/12.

Back Three
11/12: Nacewa, Fitzgerald
12/13: Nacewa
14/15: Kirchner, Fanning, McFadden, D Kearney
Verdict: No individual comes close, but the fact that there are 4 options to 1 is a positive that balances it out.

If anything that could indicate that there was more consistency this season compared to previous seasons and that the consistency was across the park....

CatFromHue

If I were to offer you 1 season of those 11+ players which season would you pick?

When you pick a season you get all the 11+ players from that season.

molloyjh

CatFromHue wrote: »

If I were to offer you 1 season of those 11+ players which season would you pick?

When you pick a season you get all the 11+ players from that season.

I'd pick 11/12 in a heartbeat. But looking at it broken down like that I don't think there really is a huge amount between them all. And certainly nowhere near enough to even come close to explaining some of the turgid rubbish we've seen this season. Individually there is, but as a collective it's fairly close. 14/15 has slightly less talent spread out a bit more compared to 11/12 which has slightly more talent in a more concentrated selection of positions.

Tox56

CatFromHue wrote: »

If I were to offer you 1 season of those 11+ players which season would you pick?

When you pick a season you get all the 11+ players from that season.

This doesn't make any sense, what squad are you starting with? What positions need to be filled? How many players do you have already/how many do you need? Id take 11/12 above all but chosing between this season and 12/13 is impossible without any context, you're comparing 12 players with 5

CatFromHue

The guys who play 11+ games in the Pro12 are the core of the team in the Pro12.

Which group would you prefer to be the core of your team?

I'd defo go with 11/12. then 12/13, and 14/15 very much in last spot. I think there's a huge amount between the capabilities of the 11/12 and 12/13 players than the 14/15 players.

irishbucsfan

The places where you're listing "None" in previous years will often be places where there was more cover available from the first line. Bent may not have made it this year if Healy was fit for more Pro 12 games for example, so often the "None" slots would be preferable.

For example at 10 where we might have had Sexton starting Pro 12 games, we didn't lose league games when he was starting for very good reason.

Tox56

CatFromHue wrote: »

The guys who play 11+ games in the Pro12 are the core of the team in the Pro12.

Which group would you prefer to be the core of your team?

I'd defo go with 11/12. then 12/13, and 14/15 very much in last spot. I think there's a huge amount between the capabilities of the 11/12 and 12/13 players than the 14/15 players.

With the 14/15 players you get 12 out of the 15 players as your core, as opposed to 12/13 where the other 10 players are presumably frequently changing. The 14/15 players aren't so far behind that that point is irrelevant. Given how much the lack of consistency in selection excuse has been used this year I can't imagine how much disruption you would be looking at for so few players to play 11 games in 12/13

CatFromHue

I would very much prefer a strong core than a big core.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The places where you're listing "None" in previous years will often be places where there was more cover available from the first line. Bent may not have made it this year if Healy was fit for more Pro 12 games for example, so often the "None" slots would be preferable.

And if my auntie had balls....

Injuries happen. In a totally injury free season the internationals tend to only start about 6 games. So on the off chance that both Healy and McGrath stayed fully fit all season Bent still would have started 10 games. How many props go through a season uninjured though?

Either way the only point I'm making is that while the individual 11+ guys aren't as good this season the fact that there are so many more of them means that the overall quality of the 11+ isn't far off.

molloyjh

CatFromHue wrote: »

I would very much prefer a strong core than a big core.

I don't disagree with this. I'm simply saying that the increased number of players closes the gap in the overall quality and improves consistency. It doesn't make it better, but IMO it closes the gap enough to be worth pointing out.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

And if my auntie had balls....

Injuries happen. In a totally injury free season the internationals tend to only start about 6 games. So on the off chance that both Healy and McGrath stayed fully fit all season Bent still would have started 10 games. How many props go through a season uninjured though?

Either way the only point I'm making is that while the individual 11+ guys aren't as good this season the fact that there are so many more of them means that the overall quality of the 11+ isn't far off.

Im just giving context here for the sake of the little "game". You cant automatically pick the "None" option if the "None" option represented the difference of someone like Sexton play 10 games or someone like Madigan playing 12. It's not an automatic thing, it needs context.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Im just giving context here for the sake of the little "game". You cant automatically pick the "None" option if the "None" option represented the difference of someone like Sexton play 10 games or someone like Madigan playing 12. It's not an automatic thing, it needs context.

Absolutely. I'm assuming none of us are being hugely scientific about this, it's just a brief aside.

Dave_The_Sheep

.ak wrote: »

Fair enough, but I'm not really worried about offending anyone who thinks it's okay to make that sort of petition to get someone the sack in fairness. They're not fans in my book.

Oh, I couldn't care less about them either.

Just they're fans as well, sadly it's part of the growing fanbase Leinster has gained over the last 5 years. Hopefully they'll learn not to be total oiks in future.

gamma001

Good news on healy http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2015/0511/700342-leinster-issue-positive-update-on-healy/

stephen_n

CatFromHue wrote: »

I would very much prefer a strong core than a big core.

Since part of the supposed reason for our poor performance is lack of consistency of selection, it would appear the coaching staff value a big core.

CatFromHue

there's not a strong core to choose though

stephen_n

CatFromHue wrote: »

there's not a strong core to choose though

If you have 12 players playing 11+ matches in the league you should be able to get them to perform though, even if they're not all elite players. Obviously not having our elite players is going to effect performance but in terms of the Rabo should we need them?

CatFromHue

No my point is that the players just aren't as good as what we had before.

It doesn't matter what MOC does he can't turn Dom Ryan into Kev McLaughlin, Bent into H van der Merwe, or ZK into Nacewa. It's just not possible.

molloyjh

CatFromHue wrote: »

No my point is that the players just aren't as good as what we had before.

It doesn't matter what MOC does he can't turn Dom Ryan into Kev McLaughlin, Bent into H van der Merwe, or ZK into Nacewa. It's just not possible.

Which is why we absolutely cannot expect to be as good as we were, certainly. A drop in quality is to be expected given the roster. But given the consistency and quality we currently have then should we expect more than we're getting?

stephen_n

CatFromHue wrote: »

No my point is that the players just aren't as good as what we had before.

It doesn't matter what MOC does he can't turn Dom Ryan into Kev McLaughlin, Bent into H van der Merwe, or ZK into Nacewa. It's just not possible.

Which would matter in Europe but not against Dragons, Edinburgh, zebre or treviso. The Rabo may be more competitive now but not so much so that having 3 or 4 marginally better players available more often will impact majorly.

CatFromHue

I think we could be doing better all right but I also think the core of our Pro12 is significantly weaker than what we had under Schmidt.

It's not just 3 or 4 guys either it's 5 - 8.

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

Which would matter in Europe but not against Dragons, Edinburgh, zebre or treviso. The Rabo may be more competitive now but not so much so that having 3 or 4 marginally better players available more often will impact majorly.

I think that would actually matter far more against the Dragons than in Europe. These are the fringe guys we're talking about.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I think that would actually matter far more against the Dragons than in Europe. These are the fringe guys we're talking about.

The fringe guys were good enough to beat the Dragons twice last season. What's changed?

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I think that would actually matter far more against the Dragons than in Europe. These are the fringe guys we're talking about.

They aren't the fringe guys though, it's the ones who played 11+ league games, some are fringe, some certainly aren't. Though it's a moveable feast as Ruddock would have been fringe in 11/12 and so too would Toner.

irishbucsfan

Layla Young Goose-step wrote: »

The fringe guys were good enough to beat the Dragons twice last season. What's changed?

Nothing has changed, they should have been good enough to beat the Dragons twice this season as well. The players should be good enough to win 13 or 14 games a season, but they weren't this year.

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

They aren't the fringe guys though, it's the ones who played 11+ league games, some are fringe, some certainly aren't. Though it's a moveable feast as Ruddock would have been fringe in 11/12 and so too would Toner.

I'd call a fringe guy in this case someone who starts in the Pro 12 but doesn't start in Europe.

LostinBlanch

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Nothing has changed, they should have been good enough to beat the Dragons twice this season as well. The players should be good enough to win 13 or 14 games a season, but they weren't this year.

That's true, and if it's not the players then you have to look at the coaching. How many more unforced errors have we had this season compared to previous ones?

Would Schmidt have accepted us going backwards at such a rate of knots? Would Cheika? It certainly seems that MOC does, and therein lies the rub.

Also, does anybody think that under MOC, if we're unlucky enough to still have him, that new players will be encouraged to step up from the academy like we had in previous world cup years?

.ak

How does MOC accept it?

Hagz

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Would Schmidt have accepted us going backwards at such a rate of knots? Would Cheika? It certainly seems that MOC does, and therein lies the rub.

On what basis does it seem MOC is willing to 'accept' his team going backwards? That assumption is so damning on the man and so illogical that it can't be drawn simply from observing performances from the stands. Nobody can legitimately propose that Matt O'Connor is willing to accept his team regressing unless they have some level of inside knowledge. And more to the point, if someone posting on here had such inside knowledge then it would surely be known by the players, surrounding management and higher powers within Leinster, and Matt O'Connor would certainly no longer be within the set up. I'm assuming what you meant to say was that it 'seems' Matt O'Connor isn't capable of preventing the regression of accuracy from the players.

fitz

.ak wrote: »

How does MOC accept it?

I think the problem is that he seems to either be incapable or unwilling to change what he's doing in order to address the issues. It's not just this season, it started last season. Look at the Toulon game last year, how predictable we were in attack, and how we kept getting driven back...it's very much how we've played this year and the same things went wrong.

It's that definition of insanity saying...doing the same thing again and again, expecting different results. Either MOC is too stubborn to accept that what he's tried to do with the team is not working, or he's not able to adapt his approach to try and correct it.

Now, I know we can't expect much from press comments, but some of what he's come out with comes across as delusional tbh. "Huge positives" - seriously?