Leinster v Munster Build Up Thread

JMSE

JMSE wrote: »

Anyone know what age qualifies as 'junior' for aviva tickets. Want to buy a family option ('2 adults and 2 juniors)??

Put their names into the Leinster team thread along with their ages and if Irishfan9 and RichieRich start demanding their inclusion in the Leinster 23 then they are at least 9 months too old for the 'junior' age bracket.

RichieRich89

I think Munster should go with Hanrahan at 10 on Saturday. Hanrahan's a dream of a player. If things go his way, and his coaches' ambition levels match his own, I think he could quickly overtake Bleyendaal, Keatley and Carbery. And then only an injury-prone Sexton stands in the way of him becoming the main man for Ireland.

Buer

RichieRich89 wrote: »

Hanrahan's a dream of a player. If things go his way, and his coaches' ambition levels match his own, I think he could quickly overtake Bleyendaal, Keatley and Carbery.

If my auntie had balls, she'd be my uncle. Hanrahan has never convinced at 10 despite being given opportunities. He couldn't get past Keatley or Myler, neither of whom are top players. He could be a very solid 12 but Munster have a very similar player in that role already in Scannell.

Never has an established player had so much smoke blown up their arse based on so little. To put it in context, JJH has still only ever started 7 European games.

Erik Shin

Buer wrote: »

If my auntie had balls, she'd be my uncle. Hanrahan has never convinced at 10 despite being given opportunities. He couldn't get past Keatley or Myler, neither of whom are top players. He could be a very solid 12 but Munster have a very similar player in that role already in Scannell.

Never has an established player had so much smoke blown up their arse based on so little. To put it in context, JJH has still only ever started 7 European games.

Agreed, he's our version of Luke Fitz

Buer

Erik Shin wrote: »

Agreed, he's our version of Luke Fitz

I expect better from you.

irishbucsfan

Erik Shin wrote: »

Agreed, he's our version of Luke Fitz

Former Former

I really hope that Hanrahan stays at 12, it just looks like his natural fit. I know he wants to play 10 but long term I think he should stay at 12.

Lads! you won't believe this.

I was down in Limerick there yesterday and by complete chance ended up at Munster's training session.

So Murray is losing the plot showing Sweetnam how not to be caught out twice in a row by exactly the same move off the back of a 5m defensive scrum. Murray ends up getting caught up badly in a tackle and is injured. It doesn't seem too serious but Rassie isn't happy and as a precaution tells him to hit the showers.

OUT OF NOWHERE Joe Schmidt comes thundering across the pitch. It's mad because he wasn't even meant to be there that day. He's sprinting flat out, going faster than Zebo shouting at Conor to get back on the pitch.

He arrives over to Rassie and starts demanding that he continues to play Murray despite his worsening injury. Rassie tries to argue but Joe threatens to call Nucifora if Rassie doesn't comply.

So Murray ends up finishing training but you can see his injury was getting worse. Entirely Joe's fault now if he isn't available this weekend.

thomond2006

Poor.

What won't be poor is the match preview to be posted on Friday afternoon between myself and molloyjh.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

Lads! you won't believe this.

I was down in Limerick there yesterday and by complete chance ended up at Munster's training session.

So Murray is losing the plot showing Sweetnam how not to be caught out twice in a row by exactly the same move off the back of a 5m defensive scrum. Murray ends up getting caught up badly in a tackle and is injured. It doesn't seem too serious but Rassie isn't happy and as a precaution tells him to hit the showers.

OUT OF NOWHERE Joe Schmidt comes thundering across the pitch. It's mad because he wasn't even meant to be there that day. He's sprinting flat out, going faster than Zebo shouting at Conor to get back on the pitch.

He arrives over to Rassie and starts demanding that he continues to play Murray despite his worsening injury. Rassie tries to argue but Joe threatens to call Nucifora if Rassie doesn't comply.

So Murray ends up finishing training but you can see his injury was getting worse. Entirely Joe's fault now if he isn't available this weekend.

irishfan9

Buer wrote: »

I expect better from you.

based on his posting history you really shouldn't

thomond2006

Former Former wrote: »

I really hope that Hanrahan stays at 12, it just looks like his natural fit. I know he wants to play 10 but long term I think he should stay at 12.

With Taute's injury he's like to play there at times this season.

Erik Shin

irishfan9 wrote: »

based on his posting history you really shouldn't

*Cough" *cough" pot.... kettle ...*cough*

Buer

So, back to the game at hand. This game will probably be the first encounter that could have significant ramifications on Irish selection in a month.

The big talking area is the back row. The most likely back row right now would be Stander, SOB and POM based on profile and the fact that it was the back row chosen in the last 6N game. But Conan has been playing very well since then including in green all be it against lesser opposition.

There are multiple options available to Schmidt. Can VDF force his way into the plans once more? A lot will depend on what back row Leinster select this coming weekend. Surprisingly, VDF has never started against Munster. I would guess that this weekend will be his first outing with SOB and Conan making up the back row. I think Ruddock will have to make do with a spot on the bench.

If I was selecting the team, I'd probably go with Ruddock and Murphy both on the bench. In fact, with Carbery on the field, I'd be very tempted to go with a 6/2 split and give us a big impact in the second half when the lack of game time for POM and Stander will tell a little and the back row depth isn't as strong.

That would leave JGP and McFadden as our backline subs with Adam Byrne and DK starting on the wings. It's a risk but this game hasn't been won in the back line in a decade.

RichieRich89

Former Former wrote: »

I really hope that Hanrahan stays at 12, it just looks like his natural fit. I know he wants to play 10 but long term I think he should stay at 12.

Hanrahan's got it all as a 10. I don't know why you'd stick him at 12 where the less strong elements of his game (physicality/tackling) would be more of an issue. Keatley would be much more suited to filling in at inside centre if an extra body is needed there. Hanrahan's a pure outhalf. Reminds me a bit of Kyle.

irishfan9

RichieRich89 wrote: »

Hanrahan's got it all as a 10. I don't know why you'd stick him at 12 where the less strong elements of his game (physicality/tackling) would be more of an issue. Keatley would be much more suited to filling in at inside centre if an extra body is needed there. Hanrahan's a pure outhalf. Reminds me a bit of Kyle.

I'd say you seen loads of Kyle.

irishbucsfan

Buer wrote: »

So, back to the game at hand. This game will probably be the first encounter that could have significant ramifications on Irish selection in a month.

The big talking area is the back row. The most likely back row right now would be Stander, SOB and POM based on profile and the fact that it was the back row chosen in the last 6N game. But Conan has been playing very well since then including in green all be it against lesser opposition.

There are multiple options available to Schmidt. Can VDF force his way into the plans once more? A lot will depend on what back row Leinster select this coming weekend. Surprisingly, VDF has never started against Munster. I would guess that this weekend will be his first outing with SOB and Conan making up the back row. I think Ruddock will have to make do with a spot on the bench.

If I was selecting the team, I'd probably go with Ruddock and Murphy both on the bench. In fact, with Carbery on the field, I'd be very tempted to go with a 6/2 split and give us a big impact in the second half when the lack of game time for POM and Stander will tell a little and the back row depth isn't as strong.

That would leave JGP and McFadden as our backline subs with Adam Byrne and DK starting on the wings. It's a risk but this game hasn't been won in the back line in a decade.

I'd subscribe to your newsletter

Is Leavy injured still?

Former Former

RichieRich89 wrote: »

Hanrahan's got it all as a 10. I don't know why you'd stick him at 12 where the less strong elements of his game (physicality/tackling) would be more of an issue. Keatley would be much more suited to filling in at inside centre if an extra body is needed there. Hanrahan's a pure outhalf. Reminds me a bit of Kyle.

Literally no coach in his career has thought this.

Former Former

Liam Lively Ultrasound wrote: »

Is Leavy injured still?

Yeah, not expected back until November.

irishfan9

Hanrahan is a flawed 10, just like Carbery.

Anatom

I watched him playing at 10 for UL Bohs the other week. He was pretty solid at that position, quick too.

irishfan9

Anatom wrote: »

I watched him playing at 10 for UL Bohs the other week. He was pretty solid at that position, quick too.

flawed outhalves are fine at AIL level, hell they can do a job at pro 14 level.. but at the highest level of the game - europe/international they get found out.

mfceiling

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You can almost see an injury shadowing him on the wing.

RichieRich89

Former Former wrote: »

Literally no coach in his career has thought this.

How do you know what Ruddock and Penney thought of him? Hanrahan was coming along just fine until his upward curve hit the roadblock that was Anthony Foley's coaching. He then had a couple of years in the wilderness in England, which, looking at Marty Moore and Ian Madigan, doesn't necessarily tell much about ability. Now, he's home and hopefully back on track to get to the elite level he looks capable of.

Clegg

mfceiling wrote: »

You can almost see an injury shadowing him on the wing.

I can see Rob Kearney perfectly fine.

molloyjh

RichieRich89 wrote: »

How do you know what Ruddock and Penney thought of him? Hanrahan was coming along just fine until his upward curve hit the roadblock that was Anthony Foley's coaching. He then had a couple of years in the wilderness in England, which, looking at Marty Moore and Ian Madigan, doesn't necessarily tell much about ability. Now, he's home and hopefully back on track to get to the elite level he looks capable of.

Assumption player is good based on further assumptions that other players are good, regardless of evidence suggesting otherwise for all related players.....

aloooof

RichieRich89 wrote: »

How do you know what Ruddock and Penney thought of him? Hanrahan was coming along just fine until his upward curve hit the roadblock that was Anthony Foley's coaching. He then had a couple of years in the wilderness in England, which, looking at Marty Moore and Ian Madigan, doesn't necessarily tell much about ability. Now, he's home and hopefully back on track to get to the elite level he looks capable of.

I remember seeing stats on this previously in terms of % starts. Under Penney there was roughly a 55/45 Keatley/JJ split, under Foley is was around 80/20 or more, so it did seem Penney favoured him more than Axel.

Having said that, I still don't think he should or will start on Saturday.

irishbucsfan

RichieRich89 wrote: »

How do you know what Ruddock and Penney thought of him? Hanrahan was coming along just fine until his upward curve hit the roadblock that was Anthony Foley's coaching. He then had a couple of years in the wilderness in England, which, looking at Marty Moore and Ian Madigan, doesn't necessarily tell much about ability. Now, he's home and hopefully back on track to get to the elite level he looks capable of.

Ruddock and Penney would have played him at 10 if they thought he had it all as a 10. Instead, at u20s, Hanrahan didn't play 10 until Jackson was pulled from the squad. He was very good at 10 in that tournament, but certainly you'd expect him to actually be playing 10 for someone if it was thought he's as good as it as you are saying.

RichieRich89

molloyjh wrote: »

Assumption player is good based on further assumptions that other players are good, regardless of evidence suggesting otherwise for all related players.....

No. You've got that wrong. I'm saying that not setting the world alight in England doesn't prove he's a bad player. Me thinking he's good comes from watching him play for Ireland U20s, Munster and Emerging Ireland

RichieRich89

RichieRich89 wrote: »

How do you know what Ruddock and Penney thought of him? Hanrahan was coming along just fine until his upward curve hit the roadblock that was Anthony Foley's coaching. He then had a couple of years in the wilderness in England, which, looking at Marty Moore and Ian Madigan, doesn't necessarily tell much about ability. Now, he's home and hopefully back on track to get to the elite level he looks capable of.

To be fair you're just dismissing a pretty significant chunk of his career here as irrelevant when discussing his ability as a 10.

He was in the wilderness in England - what does that even mean? Is it some sort of excuse for him not being able to oust Stephen Myler from the 10 spot in Northampton?

Former Former

RichieRich89 wrote: »

How do you know what Ruddock and Penney thought of him? Hanrahan was coming along just fine until his upward curve hit the roadblock that was Anthony Foley's coaching. He then had a couple of years in the wilderness in England, which, looking at Marty Moore and Ian Madigan, doesn't necessarily tell much about ability. Now, he's home and hopefully back on track to get to the elite level he looks capable of.

I know that Ruddock preferred Paddy Jackson at out-half and Hanrahan at 12.

I know that Penney preferred Ian Keatley at out-half, it was never even close; no disrespect to Keatley, he's game, he's OK, but he's incredibly limited. For a guy "who has it all" as a ten not to be able to displace Keatley, it doesn't add up.

I know you get all riled up whenever anyone isn't creaming their pants about a young player, so please rest assured that I think Hanrahan is a very, very good player - just that he is better suited to 12.

RichieRich89

aloooof wrote: »

I remember seeing stats on this previously in terms of % starts. Under Penney there was roughly a 55/45 Keatley/JJ split, under Foley is was around 80/20 or more, so it did seem Penney favoured him more than Axel.

Having said that, I still don't think he should or will start on Saturday.

I think He played a similar number of games in Foley's first year as in Penney's last year. But a lot of the gametime under Foley was at fullback. He was being played out of position as well as not being allowed to kick on in terms of getting more gametime than under Penney

Former Former

aloooof wrote: »

I remember seeing stats on this previously in terms of % starts. Under Penney there was roughly a 55/45 Keatley/JJ split, under Foley is was around 80/20 or more, so it did seem Penney favoured him more than Axel.

Having said that, I still don't think he should or will start on Saturday.

Not really. When it came to Europe (after ROG retired), Penney picked Keatley at 10 in every single game.

molloyjh

A single start at 10 in his first season under Penney against Zebre. 11 in his second season. All in the league. Not a single one in Europe. Only 3 games against big opposition too (2 vs Glasgow and 1 vs Ospreys). The other starts were against Italian sides (3 starts), Dragons, Cardiff (2 starts), Connacht & Scarlets.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of a guy who Penney believed had it all.

EDIT: 3 starts at 10 under Foley, 3 at 12 and 5 at 15.

RichieRich89

irishfan9 wrote: »

Hanrahan is a flawed 10, just like Carbery.

If Hanrahan has one flaw, I think it's that he's too good a rugby player. He's capable of playing fullback and 12, which can lead to coaches messing him around. Sometimes it's better to be a one position player, like Ross Byrne.

molloyjh

RichieRich89 wrote: »

If Hanrahan has one flaw, I think it's that he's too good a rugby player. He's capable of playing fullback and 12, which can lead to coaches messing him around. Sometimes it's better to be a one position player, like Ross Byrne.

Yeah that's JJs issue. He's just TOO good.

irishbucsfan

RichieRich89 wrote: »

If Hanrahan has one flaw, I think it's that he's too good a rugby player.

:D:D

Erik Shin

Former Former wrote: »

I know that Ruddock preferred Paddy Jackson at out-half and Hanrahan at 12.

I know that Penney preferred Ian Keatley at out-half, it was never even close; no disrespect to Keatley, he's game, he's OK, but he's incredibly limited. For a guy "who has it all" as a ten not to be able to displace Keatley, it doesn't add up.

I know you get all riled up whenever anyone isn't creaming their pants about a young player, so please rest assured that I think Hanrahan is a very, very good player - just that he is better suited to 12.

aloooof

Former Former wrote: »

Not really. When it came to Europe (after ROG retired), Penney picked Keatley at 10 in every single game.

I'm just saying Penney favoured him more than Axel, not saying Penney favoured him over Keatley. He was still pretty young when under Penney as well.

I do wonder if Johnny Holland didn't have to retire, would JJ have been signed back.

RichieRich89

molloyjh wrote: »

A single start at 10 in his first season under Penney against Zebre. 11 in his second season. All in the league. Not a single one in Europe. Only 3 games against big opposition too (2 vs Glasgow and 1 vs Ospreys). The other starts were against Italian sides (3 starts), Dragons, Cardiff (2 starts), Connacht & Scarlets.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of a guy who Penney believed had it all.

EDIT: 3 starts at 10 under Foley, 3 at 12 and 5 at 15.

Yeah? That's how you bring through a young player? Ronan O'Gara is a huge admirer of Hanrahan. He'd know a thing or two about outhalf play.

irishbucsfan

RichieRich89 wrote: »

Yeah? That's how you bring through a young player?

I dunno, maybe we should ask Dan Carter?

irishfan9

Leinster rugby still trying to recover from the meltdown that was the scarlets game.

If they are as headless as they have appeared for most of this season, they will be beaten.

Pack has a lot of big names with big reputations but often plays soft and lacks killer instinct and attitude.

Is this Leinster team too comfortable? Often appears that way.

Are they well coached?

molloyjh

RichieRich89 wrote: »

Yeah? That's how you bring through a young player? Ronan O'Gara is a huge admirer of Hanrahan. He'd know a thing or two about outhalf play.

Warning! Warning! The Goalpost Are Shifting! Warning!

The fact is that at no time has Hanrahan been promoted over another option at 10 in any of the senior set-ups he's been in. And he hasn't been stuck behind world class options. He's got a lot of skills and talent. But skills and talent are only a part of what makes a great 10. Madigan for example is a talented player, but doesn't have the top 2 inches for 10 at elite level.

molloyjh

irishfan9 wrote: »

Leinster rugby still trying to recover from the meltdown that was the scarlets game.

If they are as headless as they have appeared for most of this season, they will be beaten.

Pack has a lot of big names with big reputations but often plays soft and lacks killer instinct and attitude.

Is this Leinster team too comfortable? Often appears that way.

Are they well coached?

The issues at Leinster started before the Scarlets game. The Ulster game was a bit of a mess too. That said, fans and commentators of the game can often be too quick to build up and tear down teams. The truth is that Leinster are a bloody good team who have great depth. They are still susceptible to messy performances when they don't get the cohesion and consistency of selection right. Which was an issue at the end of last season and the start of this.

The sky isn't falling.

irishfan9

molloyjh wrote: »

The issues at Leinster started before the Scarlets game. The Ulster game was a bit of a mess too. That said, fans and commentators of the game can often be too quick to build up and tear down teams. The truth is that Leinster are a bloody good team who have great depth. They are still susceptible to messy performances when they don't get the cohesion and consistency of selection right. Which was an issue at the end of last season and the start of this.

The sky isn't falling.

No one said the sky was falling, just addressing real concerns about this current Leinster team.

Which have the ability to win games based on having more talent that their opposition, they rarely beat teams due to be being better coached or out thinking their opponents.

irishbucsfan

irishfan9 wrote: »

they rarely beat teams due to be being better coached or out thinking their opponents.

Please expand on this

irishfan9

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Please expand on this

they often play sloppy rugby, making basic errors and poor decisions.

Have you not been watching this season?

molloyjh

irishfan9 wrote: »

No one said the sky was falling, just addressing real concerns about this current Leinster team.

Which have the ability to win games based on having more talent that their opposition, they rarely beat teams due to be being better coached or out thinking their opponents.

Wow, that's a pretty epic way to utterly ignore the vast bulk of the post.....

irishbucsfan

irishfan9 wrote: »

they often play sloppy rugby, making basic errors and poor decisions.

Have you not been watching this season?

Obviously I have. Where have they been outcoaches, specifically? "Sloppy rugby" "Basic errors" "poor decisions" doesn't really mean anything.