Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread V

Zzippy

Pink Fairy wrote: »

Bleyendaal missed a whole year thru injury, Munster at no point looked to cancel his contract, they are investing time and money in the player, so yes, he's the long term thinking, esp as he becomes IQ when his contract is up for renewal,

Wouldn't be much use to players if clubs cancelled contracts just because they got injured. It is an occupational hazard, after all, connected with exactly what they're contracted to do.

Clearlier

Redgirl82 wrote: »

I would love to keep Madigan at Leinster but this is not the Leinster thread it is the Ireland thread.

As this is the Ireland thread the best thing for Ireland is to have Madigan playing week in week out in Rabo & Champions cup. He is not going to get this at Leinster. He won't either be guaranteed it at Bristol/Quins or Bordeaux.

So for Ireland the best thing for Madigan is for him to move to Munster where he will be playing week in week out and get the experience he will need for next few years as Ireland builds towards World Cup.

Maybe a strange idea but why don't you discuss Ireland on the Ireland thread....

You're missing the point. Madigan would probably play the same role at Munster as he does at Leinster. Sure, Keatley isn't at the same level as Sexton but he's much more of a game manager and I'd put money on Madigan ending up in the same situation as the last two years at Leinster when Sexton was at Racing.

case885

How often do you see a player getting a career threatening injury while he was playing with another team, different story if he got injured playing with Munster.

Redgirl82

Pink Fairy wrote: »

But what people fail to realize is he won't be playing week in and week out at Munster either

So who is going to play?

Bleyendaal? he could up and leave next week if a French club come calling

b.gud

Pink Fairy wrote: »

Bleyendaal missed a whole year thru injury, Munster at no point looked to cancel his contract, they are investing time and money in the player, so yes, he's the long term thinking, esp as he becomes IQ when his contract is up for renewal,

Will he be IQ though? If he had arrived when planned he would be but because of the injury didn't he have a big delay in actually arriving in Ireland, like 6-8 months. If that was the case it wouldn't be until 6-8 months into another contract before he becomes IQ

Redgirl82

Clearlier wrote: »

You're missing the point. Madigan would probably play the same role at Munster as he does at Leinster. Sure, Keatley isn't at the same level as Sexton but he's much more of a game manager and I'd put money on Madigan ending up in the same situation as the last two years at Leinster when Sexton was at Racing.

Keatley isn't a patch on Madigan and never will be.....

Pink Fairy

Pink Fairy wrote: »

Bleyendaal missed a whole year thru injury, Munster at no point looked to cancel his contract, they are investing time and money in the player, so yes, he's the long term thinking, esp as he becomes IQ when his contract is up for renewal,

Just because they've invested up to this point, doesn't mean they should keep throwing money into the well and in fairness, they aren't going to cancel his contract because of injury.

Pink Fairy wrote: »

But what people fail to realize is he won't be playing week in and week out at Munster either

If he goes to Munster then he will be your first choice 10 next season, no doubt about it.

Redgirl82

Pink Fairy wrote: »

Bleyendaal missed a whole year thru injury, Munster at no point looked to cancel his contract, they are investing time and money in the player, so yes, he's the long term thinking, esp as he becomes IQ when his contract is up for renewal,

Has Bleyendaal at any stage come out and say he wants to play for Ireland? has he given any indication that he will willing to spend the rest of his near future at Munster?

Not anything that I have seen. So just wondering why you keep saying he is long term and he will be IQ etc? He never once said he would from anything I have seen

Standar said from day 1 he was looking toward Ireland Qualified and to play for Ireland......

case885

Deleted User wrote:

If he goes to Munster then he will be your first choice 10 next season, no doubt about it.

Like he was last season with Leinster? If the IRFU are so worried about him starting at fly half then why didn't moc pick him last year. Also it's very marginal between Madigan and Keats, bleyendaal is probably better than both if he can get a run of games.

phog

Redgirl82 wrote:

So for Ireland the best thing for Madigan is for him to move to Munster where he will be playing week in week out and get the experience he will need for next few years as Ireland builds towards World Cup.

How many games did he start at OH at Leinster over the last two seasons?

It would have been great for Ireland if he'd been allowed play at OH with Sexton in Paris. Strange how his development becomes important two years later.
There's an argument that could be made to leave him at Leinster and learn from Sexton.

phog

phog wrote: »

How many games did he start at OH at Leinster over the last two seasons?

It would have been great for Ireland if he'd been allowed play at OH with Sexton in Paris. Strange how his development becomes important two years later.
There's an argument that could be made to leave him at Leinster and learn from Sexton.

Eh.. Gopperth would be starting in Munster right now too...?

former total

Maybe there's more going on at Munster than we know about? Bleyendall has had a rough time of it, maybe he's decided to go home.

It's also very likely (IF THIS RUMOUR IS TRUE) that Foley is on board. I can't see IRFU ramming a player down a provincial coach's throat like this.

Redgirl82

phog wrote: »

How many games did he start at OH at Leinster over the last two seasons?

It would have been great for Ireland if he'd been allowed play at OH with Sexton in Paris. Strange how his development becomes important two years later.
There's an argument that could be made to leave him at Leinster and learn from Sexton.

I think a lot of things that where done over the last 2 seasons would like to be forgot by all Leinster fans. The rugby was shocking and this was down to MOC game plan but that is discussion for Leinster forum

The development of all Irish players has always been important. If you can remember back a few months the relationship between Ireland and MOC was not the best and I think this did not help him when coming to end of season discussion with Leinster.

It was mentioned that part of the Cullen hire for Leinster was he made a very strong case that it could bring forward the young ireland players and blood them into the team.

At the moment Leinster have Sexton, Madigan, Marsh and Byrne who are trying to get the 10 jersey. At the WC Marsh had some great games and really could do with been back up to Sexton.

So if Madigan moves to Munster, he will be starting 10 and then that will free up spot for Marsh and Byrne to fight over on Bench as back up to Sexton

For Ireland team this is perfect as they will have Sexton, Madigan and Jackson all starting at 10 for the province and then have some good young players trying to break into the team. I don't know enough about young lad at Connacht to comment on him

Without Madigan who will Munster have? Keatley who is not anywhere close to Irish team and a non-Irish player who has not declared for Ireland. This is no good to Ireland. They only have 4 teams to feed into Ireland so it makes perfect sense to move Madigan to Munster

No idea why this is not clear as day to everyone?

Clearlier

Redgirl82 wrote: »

Keatley isn't a patch on Madigan and never will be.....

Really? Why did Schmidt select Keatley ahead of Madigan against Italy in the 6 nations then?

Your opinion is fine obviously but it's not widely held. My estimation is that Madigan is a better rugby player but Keatley is a better outhalf. That said I don't get to see an awful lot of either but if you stuck up a poll I'd be shocked to find that your opinion was held by even a large minority. Most people have them fairly even with both having relative strengths and weaknesses.

molloyjh

Pink Fairy wrote: »

But what people fail to realize is he won't be playing week in and week out at Munster either

That remains to be seen. Nobody can predict who would or wouldn't be starting either way.

former total wrote: »

Maybe there's more going on at Munster than we know about? Bleyendall has had a rough time of it, maybe he's decided to go home.

It's also very likely (IF THIS RUMOUR IS TRUE) that Foley is on board. I can't see IRFU ramming a player down a provincial coach's throat like this.

Foley already said they would be open to the idea AFAIK.

Triumvirate

I think people are putting too many hopes in the Bleyendaal basket. He hasn't done much in his career to suggest he's anything special or a strong ECC level starter. He struggled in a far stronger Crusaders side when he did get his opportunities. I'd put him at a very similar level to Keatley and Madigan but a poorer goal kicker than Madigan.

Pink Fairy

Zzippy wrote: »

Wouldn't be much use to players if clubs cancelled contracts just because they got injured. It is an occupational hazard, after all, connected with exactly what they're contracted to do.

My point exactly, yet others are suggesting that his contract isn't worth the paper its written on as he might be off, or that because he's had that injury Munster are looking to dump him which as we can see from their treatment of the player is patently not true.

CMOTDibbler

Clearlier wrote: »

Really? Why did Schmidt select Keatley ahead of Madigan against Italy in the 6 nations then?

Your opinion is fine obviously but it's not widely held. My estimation is that Madigan is a better rugby player but Keatley is a better outhalf. That said I don't get to see an awful lot of either but if you stuck up a poll I'd be shocked to find that your opinion was held by even a large minority. Most people have them fairly even with both having relative strengths and weaknesses.

Keatley started against Italy for much the same reasons as Paddy Jackson would have started had he been fit. Madigan is/was seen as the best bench option as he covers more positions than either Jackson or Keatley.

molloyjh

Pink Fairy wrote: »

My point exactly, yet others are suggesting that his contract isn't worth the paper its written on as he might be off, or that because he's had that injury Munster are looking to dump him which as we can see from their treatment of the player is patently not true.

Or that you simply can't plan a long term strategy around a guy who has started 2 games in a year and who you haven't been able to effectively judge as a result. You have no idea how good, bad or indifferent Bleyendaal will be for Munster. You can't know. And so building a long term plan around him would be pure and utter madness. You don't even know if he'll be fit in 2 weeks time or if he is how he will perform. If Munster really are using him as their long term plan at 10 then you need a big clear out in those decision making positions. Because that's a punt, it's not a plan.

Clearlier

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Keatley started against Italy for much the same reasons as Paddy Jackson would have started had he been fit. Madigan is/was seen as the best bench option as he covers more positions than either Jackson or Keatley.

If Schmidt thought that Madigan was a better option at that time than Keatley he would have started him. I think that it's very possible that Foley would make the same decision.

Also, Madigan is a better bench option not just because of his versatility but also because he has the ability to make a real impact on the game. As I said earlier I think that his best position is as an impact sub. IMO he'll need to go to a second tier English or French side to get a starting role. I hope that he stays with Leinster.

Redgirl82

Pink Fairy wrote: »

My point exactly, yet others are suggesting that his contract isn't worth the paper its written on as he might be off, or that because he's had that injury Munster are looking to dump him which as we can see from their treatment of the player is patently not true.

Again I ask has Bleyendaal at any stage said he wants to qualify for Ireland?

Clearlier

Redgirl82 wrote: »

Without Madigan who will Munster have? Keatley who is not anywhere close to Irish team and a non-Irish player who has not declared for Ireland. This is no good to Ireland. They only have 4 teams to feed into Ireland so it makes perfect sense to move Madigan to Munster

No idea why this is not clear as day to everyone?

Well, we've been trying to explain why but I'm not sure that it's getting through.:) Mostly it's because there aren't many who agree with you about the quality of Madigan. He's a good rugby player but he's not a great outhalf. In the right circumstances he can look absolutely outstanding - one of the best players on the planet but he hasn't got the know how to direct a game when it isn't going for him. He's got a lot of great qualities, outstanding place kicker, strong elusive runner, solid tackler, great mental strength but the first thing that you look for in an outhalf is game management and it's probably his weakest area. I remember clear as day the first time that I saw Sexton play for Leinster. He came on for Contepomi who as usual was doing his best to win the game by himself, running everything that was outside his own 22 and sometimes from within it too. The opposition back 3 had given up worrying about the kick for territory. Sexton came on and rifled the ball up the touchline. 2 minutes after he came on we were attacking in the opposition 22. Contepomi for all of his attributes played a game of rugby, Sexton manages a game of rugby. Madigan plays the game, he doesn't manage it.

He'd probably be a bench player for all of the Irish provinces at the moment - the only difference at Munster compared to Leinster being that the gap between him and the starting player would be much smaller and he might have a chance at getting the starting role.

Bazzo

There seem to be just a few fans here who are vehemently against it. Objectively I don't think anyone in their right mind would call Keatley as good/better than Madigan. Saying he couldn't get ahead of Gopperth is a complete straw man as Gopperth is also much better than Keatley and the first choice out half at Wasps.

It would definitely be best for Ireland to have their second choice out half playing rugby week in week out and in the 10 jersey(I have no doubt he'd get ahead of Keatley quite quickly).

All the Munster fans I know that I spoke to yesterday agree and are delighted with the idea of the move. Most of them recognise that Keatley really just isn't cutting it and Bleyendaal has spent over a year injured so there's nowhere even close to a guarantee that he will come good. And even if he does, what's encouraging him to stay?

Seeing as the wording seems to be that he'll be given a central contract I can't see why people in here are so strongly against the idea? You're basically being given Ireland's 2nd choice outhalf free of charge. If ye don't want him I'd happily take him at Connacht any day of the week.

RogerThis

Mads would suit Connacht game plan under Lam than Munster game play under Foley. He would be a class act at Connacht.

CMOTDibbler

Clearlier wrote: »

If Schmidt thought that Madigan was a better option at that time than Keatley he would have started him. I think that it's very possible that Foley would make the same decision.

I don't think we can extrapolate much from one match against Italy in the 6N. The decision to start Keatley could have as easily been an opportunity to see was he a viable long term option as backup or as a one off to cover a single match after which Sexton would have been back. Madigan does suffer from his versatility, but he's still got a fair few more international caps than Keatley.

Clearlier wrote: »

Also, Madigan is a better bench option not just because of his versatility but also because he has the ability to make a real impact on the game. As I said earlier I think that his best position is as an impact sub. IMO he'll need to go to a second tier English or French side to get a starting role. I hope that he stays with Leinster.

Madigan started a lot of matches for Leinster whilst Joe was in charge. He was expected to be first choice when Gopperth came but MOC decided otherwise. Not sure if that's more a reflection on MOC than Madigan.

former total

Redgirl82 wrote: »

Again I ask has Bleyendaal at any stage said he wants to qualify for Ireland?

It's unlikely Munster would have signed him if he had ruled it out from day 1, and he certainly wouldn't have got a three-year contract.

Where he stands on it currently, we've no idea.

case885

Copeland- Ulster
Marshall- Munster
If nucifora was enticing these players to switch then it would be great outcome for all involved.
This ah you to Ulster and Ross to Connacht is a waste of time if he's trying to push that through.

awec

Be surprised if Marshall actually moved to Munster. He's more likely to go across to England if he leaves Ulster.

There's no real incentive for these guys to switch province, they're unlikely to be playing test rugby anyway.

MarinersBlues

Surely Nucifora's role is to distribute the central contracts.
The only way he could influence where players go is if they are on a central contract.

He can hardly tell any player or province what to do unless the IRFU have skin in the game.

Noopti

The IRFU have "skin in the game" regardless of whether the player(s) in question is on a central contract.

Pink Fairy

Bottom line, Madigan would be a liability, if he wants to move, fine, but with 3 no10's at Munster already, he's not actually needed.
Good bye, good luck, sling your hook

sydthebeat

Pink Fairy wrote: »

Bottom line, Madigan would be a liability, if he wants to move, fine, but with 3 no10's at Munster already, he's not actually needed.
Good bye, good luck, sling your hook

if what madigan needs to become a top class 10 (which he has already shown flashes of), is more consistent games in that position, then his ceiling is already way above keatley, bleyendaal and scannell.

should he develop into a top class 10, then everybody wins

and its very apparent that munster need a top class 10.

Keatley has had his opportunity in consistent games but has proved to be just as inconsistent as madigan, and is worse off the tee.
Tyler has the skillset, as shown by his IRB junior player of the year nominee, but hasnt done it yet at the highest level yet, due to both age and injury.
Rory is an unknown quantity at this stage, but certainly has age on his side to develop at A level, and have occasional 22 appearances

Madigan's haircut doesn't suit Munster

awec

sydthebeat wrote: »

if what madigan needs to become a top class 10 (which he has already shown flashes of), is more consistent games in that position, then his ceiling is already way above keatley, bleyendaal and scannell.

should he develop into a top class 10, then everybody wins

and its very apparent that munster need a top class 10.

Keatley has had his opportunity in consistent games but has proved to be just as inconsistent as madigan, and is worse off the tee.
Tyler has the skillset, as shown by his IRB junior player of the year nominee, but hasnt done it yet at the highest level yet, due to both age and injury.
Rory is an unknown quantity at this stage, but certainly has age on his side to develop at A level, and have occasional 22 appearances

Madigan will never become a top class 10.

sydthebeat

awec wrote: »

Madigan will never become a top class 10.

Madigan has never yet been in a position where he was the 'top dog' and never had a decent run of consistent games at 10, so i think its very presumptuous to say he will never be a top class 10.

If you had have said "hes never shown anything to suggest he can be a top class 10" id probably agree. But hes still only 26.

id like to make that call after 1 full season with him at 10

former total

sydthebeat wrote: »

Madigan has never yet been in a position where he was the 'top dog' and never had a decent run of consistent games at 10, so i think its very presumptuous to say he will never be a top class 10.

If you had have said "hes never shown anything to suggest he can be a top class 10" id probably agree. But hes still only 26.

id like to make that call after 1 full season with him at 10

I'd be leaning towards agreeing with awec, but I also agree with the above. Madigan has been in a Catch 22 in that he needs regular time at 10 to develop, but isn't developed enough to displace the other guy and get that game time.

It would be great to see if he could kick on, he's not too old by any means.

Zzippy

I think awec is right, he will never be top class, but at the same time he is better than what Munster have and too good to be sitting on the bench behind Sexton all the time. He'll probably kick on a bit, but will never reach the heights some people expect, and won't be as bad as some on here are making out.

former total

Canada confirmed as the tier 2 opponent on November 12th, 2016.

So, should we open the debate on who should play 10 for that game?

bilston

former total wrote: »

Canada confirmed as the tier 2 opponent on November 12th, 2016.

So, should we open the debate on who should play 10 for that game?

David Humphreys

aimee1

leo varadkar was on the radio there a few minutes ago talking about the pending legislation on alcohol sponsorship. it is to be banned by the sounds of things from middle of next year.

phog

aimee1 wrote: »

leo varadkar was on the radio there a few minutes ago talking about the pending legislation on alcohol sponsorship. it is to be banned by the sounds of things from middle of next year.

I saw a tweet earlier today and it was basically saying the legislation has been watered down and the main losers with be sports organisations and it hasn't really tackled the problem.

So it sounds like the government has looked at this with an election in the horizon and has ignored the elephant in the room which our attitude to drink in this country.

They seem to think if you stop sponsorship and charge more and everything will be alright.

aimee1

phog wrote: »

I saw a tweet earlier today and it was basically saying the legislation has been watered down and the main losers with be sports organisations and it hasn't really tackled the problem.

So it sounds like the government has looked at this with an election in the horizon and has ignored the elephant in the room which our attitude to drink in this country.

They seem to think if you stop sponsorship and charge more and everything will be alright.

yeah banning advertising around pitchside/goalposts/on halfway was mentionned but not advertising in other parts of arena

jacothelad

aimee1 wrote: »

yeah banning advertising around pitchside/goalposts/on halfway was mentionned but not advertising in other parts of arena

So Guinness Pro12....where does that fit in?

Zzippy

jacothelad wrote: »

So Guinness Pro12....where does that fit in?

Like in France with the H Cup, it will be known as the G League in ROI. Playoff places in the G league will henceforth be known as G spots...

b.gud

Zzippy wrote: »

Like in France with the H Cup, it will be known as the G League in ROI. Playoff places in the G league will henceforth be known as G spots...

The Italians always finish last but can never get the G spot

sydneybound

former total wrote: »

Canada confirmed as the tier 2 opponent on November 12th, 2016.

So, should we open the debate on who should play 10 for that game?

Happy to see their playing a tier two team in November. They should play in tier two team in November and another in June.

World Rugby should enforce that all Tier 1 nations have to play two tier 2 matches a year. We need to build on improved tier 2 nation performances from the world cup and kick on with their progress.

aimee1

jacothelad wrote: »

So Guinness Pro12....where does that fit in?

Big G around the centre spot

The Lost Sheep

sydneybound wrote: »

Happy to see their playing a tier two team in November. They should play in tier two team in November and another in June.

World Rugby should enforce that all Tier 1 nations have to play two tier 2 matches a year. We need to build on improved tier 2 nation performances from the world cup and kick on with their progress.

The lower ranked sides need more than that though. They need regular competitions and we need to get rid of the tiered system if the likes of Georgia etc are to really improve.

stephen_n

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

The lower ranked sides need more than that though. They need regular competitions and we need to get rid of the tiered system if the likes of Georgia etc are to really improve.

I'm not entirely sure regular hammerings would do that much good either. Though there definitely should be a relegation/promotion to the 6N at this stage, though that might cause sponsorship problems if France got relegated.

The Lost Sheep

stephen_n wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure regular hammerings would do that much good either. Though there definitely should be a relegation/promotion to the 6N at this stage, though that might cause sponsorship problems if France got relegated.

If relegation was in place it would cause issues for any side that went down and sponsorship would be an issue if sides other than France got relegated.
6Ns brings in most of the income for the unions involved so there wont be changes.
Im fairly sure games on a more regular basis would benefit these sides than not playing "tier 1" sides from one world cup to the next, or close enough to that