Leinster Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread XII (The Byrne Supremacy)

TRC10

FrannoFan wrote: »

They had steyn who has the skill set to cover 10, 12 or 15

I know they did but that's not the point.

They didn't have a "10" on the bench.

sydthebeat

TRC10 wrote: »

I know they did but that's not the point.

They didn't have a "10" on the bench.

steyn was their back up 10.

he has started test games at 10 before for the boks.
hes also started at 10 for montpellier and the cheetahs many times

Interested Observer

sydthebeat wrote: »

steyn was their back up 10.

he has started test games at 10 before for the boks.
hes also started at 10 for montpellier and the cheetahs many times

Yeah, I have no idea what TRC10 is talking about. How would you conclude Le Roux was their backup 10 for that match?

TRC10

sydthebeat wrote: »

steyn was their back up 10.

he has started test games at 10 before for the boks.
hes also started at 10 for montpellier and the cheetahs many times

Interested Observer wrote: »

Yeah, I have no idea what TRC10 is talking about. How would you conclude Le Roux was their backup 10 for that match?

Lad's you're both missing the point.

I know they had a "backup" 10.

I couldn't find Steyn's last test start at 10, but it was a long time before the world cup. He was used only at 12 since he came back to international rugby in 2018. I'm fairly sure they've used Le Roux there in emergencies before. But whoever was their backup, it doesn't change the point.

They had Jantjies in the squad, who is an out-and-out 10. And was their 2nd choice 10 for the world cup. They could have had him on the bench over Steyn, but they didn't. They had Steyn or Le Roux as cover and hoped Pollard wouldn't get injured.

If someone asked you what's Steyn's position, you wouldn't say 10, you'd say 12.

If someone asked what's Jantjies' position, you'd say 10 without hesitation.

I know he was their cover for that match. But they had a 2nd choice 10 (Jantjies), who they opted not to put on the bench.

sydthebeat

You can't say they didn't have a 10 on the bench when they had a guy who had started test games at 10 on the bench.

Whatever point you're trying to make, if that's your starting point, your simply wrong

aloooof

sydthebeat wrote: »

You can't say they didn't have a 10 on the bench when they had a guy who had started test games at 10 on the bench.

Whatever point you're trying to make, if that's your starting point, your simply wrong

Henshaw has started a test at full-back but I don't think anyone would call him a full-back. I think that's the only point TRC is trying to make.

TRC10

sydthebeat wrote: »

You can't say they didn't have a 10 on the bench when they had a guy who had started test games at 10 on the bench.

Whatever point you're trying to make, if that's your starting point, your simply wrong

I suppose it comes down to one's definition of a "10".

Pollard is a 10. Jantjies is a 10. Steyn is a centre/full back who has also played at 10 because he's a versatile good footballer. But hasn't played there at test level in a very very long time and would only be used there in an emergency.

Calling Steyn a 10 is like calling Keith Earls a centre.

sydthebeat

Francois Steyn was starting at 10 for montpellier in the Top 14 a year before the RWC 2019

whens the last time Henshaw started at 15 for club, or earls at 13 ?

they are in no way comparable

TRC10

sydthebeat wrote: »

Francois Steyn was starting at 10 for montpellier in the Top 14 a year before the RWC 2019

whens the last time Henshaw started at 15 for club, or earls at 13 ?

they are in no way comparable

I'd be careful when using the Top14 to tie a player to a position.

Etzebeth has played 6 for Toulon

Zebo has played 13 for Racing.

Uni Antonio has played 2nd row for La Rochelle

Basteroud has played 8 for Lyon

sydthebeat

TRC10 wrote: »

I'd be careful when using the Top14 to tie a player to a position.

Etzebeth has played 6 for Toulon

Zebo has played 13 for Racing.

Uni Antonio has played 2nd row for La Rochelle

Basteroud has played 8 for Lyon

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

aloooof

I had a quick look at the stats, just out of interest.

Steyn has 38 starts for SA. Only one of them came at 10, back in 2008.

He also has 29 appearances off the bench, only 5 of which came at 10. And 4 of those were in 2007 and 08.

(Stats from ESPN).

Pudsy33

TRC10 wrote: »

I'd be careful when using the Top14 to tie a player to a position.

Etzebeth has played 6 for Toulon

Zebo has played 13 for Racing.

Uni Antonio has played 2nd row for La Rochelle

Basteroud has played 8 for Lyon

Kolbe at 10

Podge_irl

If point is that Hawkshaw is a complete waste on the bench, then I agree.

molloyjh

Owen Williams is the second Worcester signing this week. So no Furlong. The dream of a Porter, Kelleher, Furlong, Baird and Ryan front five lives on....

FrannoFan

TRC10 wrote: »

Lad's you're both missing the point.

I know they had a "backup" 10.

I couldn't find Steyn's last test start at 10, but it was a long time before the world cup. He was used only at 12 since he came back to international rugby in 2018. I'm fairly sure they've used Le Roux there in emergencies before. But whoever was their backup, it doesn't change the point.

They had Jantjies in the squad, who is an out-and-out 10. And was their 2nd choice 10 for the world cup. They could have had him on the bench over Steyn, but they didn't. They had Steyn or Le Roux as cover and hoped Pollard wouldn't get injured.

If someone asked you what's Steyn's position, you wouldn't say 10, you'd say 12.

If someone asked what's Jantjies' position, you'd say 10 without hesitation.

I know he was their cover for that match. But they had a 2nd choice 10 (Jantjies), who they opted not to put on the bench.

Yea. But jantjies had failed you impress.
I think we can agree some players have the skill set to adequately cover a number of positions. Steyn is one of them. Aaron mauger was a 12 who could do a good impression of a 10. Steyn is similar.

SA recognized there game plan was tough on their pack in a tournament with a short turn around between games. They also knew they had an abundance of top top quality forwards.
Erasmus took a calculated risk by chancing no early injury to pollard vs keeping his front 8 fresh over tough back to back quarters/semis/final with little time to recover.

There is a reason a 5-3 split is preferred because in the absence of a player who can cover multiple positions it covers the risk of injury. Leinster went 6-2 at times this year because of an injury crisis.

I'm not sure we are in such a desperate situation again. Hawkshaw isn't great but if ross byrne gets injured are we better with him at 10 or ringrose with o'loughlin at 13?
Hawkshaw, henshaw, ringrose
Ringrose, henshaw, o'loughlin

O'loughlin been suspect at 13. Is he as likely to cost us the game there or hawkshaw at 10? That's essentially the question

TRC10

I agree with everything you said in the first 3 paragraphs. I never said Steyn couldn't cover 10, which is what a lot of people here seem to think I said.

My point was, they had a specialist 10 (Jantjies) who they could have put on the bench, but didn't. They trusted a player who could play 10, but who last started a test there 11 years ago.

As regards to Leinster's situation, if the match is in the balance, with more than 5 minutes to go and Byrne goes down, I think we're in serious trouble either way.

If we have Hawkshaw on the bench, he's only going to be used if there's an injury. Which basically means we only have 7 replacements (6 if O'Sullivan is on the bench).

If we leave Hawkshaw out and put O'Loughlin or an extra forward on the bench. We'll at least have 8 subs who can come on and make an impact. Yes we'd be relying on Ringrose to cover 10 if Byrne goes down. But either way, we're praying Ross doesn't get injured.

Both scenarios are far from ideal. Whatever Leo does, we're screwed if Ross gets hurt. At least with the 2nd option we have a full bench to use tactically.

I'd go for

16-Tracy
17-Byrne
18-Porter
19-Fardy
20-Baird
21-JGP/O'Sullivan
22-R.O'L
23-Kearney

or

16-Tracy
17-Byrne
18-Porter
19-Fardy
20-Baird
21-Penny
22-JGP/O'Sullivan
23-Kearney/R.O'L

VANG1

The answer is Frawley on the bench, great defender.

forzawexford10

Any latest news on when Will Connors will return from injury

FrannoFan

VANG1 wrote: »

The answer is Frawley on the bench, great defender.

Yea. That's who they will look to go with but he is injury plagued since January. Twice pulled out after being named to play etc.

Eod100

Odd timing after just rejecting Leinsters plan https://twitter.com/Elaine_Loughlin/status/1387465431489859601?s=19

Squidgy Black

Squidgy Black wrote: »

It's because it was proposed by Leinster and not by the government to be honest. Think they've made it pretty clear by now that they don't want to entertain any suggestions/discussions from anyone external.

Said it yesterday, only reason leinster's plan was rejected was because it wasn't the government that suggested it.

Wouldn't get the full credit for it themselves.

Eod100

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Said it yesterday, only reason leinster's plan was rejected was because it wasn't the government that suggested it.

Wouldn't get the full credit for it themselves.

Seems that way alright. Snakey out!

Former Former Former

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Said it yesterday, only reason leinster's plan was rejected was because it wasn't the government that suggested it.

Wouldn't get the full credit for it themselves.

It's because we're still in level 5.

If the government let Leinster do this, then the floodgates open for everyone else to open up to fans. And the government gets hammered for letting D4 elitist rugby fans go to matches while the ordinary people can't even visit their granny.

It was never going to work without the case numbers being a lot lower and vaccine rates a lot higher than they are.

It absolutely is not about who gets credit. Grow up ffs.

Eod100

Former Former Former wrote: »

It's because we're still in level 5.

If the government let Leinster do this, then the floodgates open for everyone else to open up to fans. And the government gets hammered for letting D4 elitist rugby fans go to matches while the ordinary people can't even visit their granny.

It was never going to work without the case numbers being a lot lower and vaccine rates a lot higher than they are.

It absolutely is not about who gets credit. Grow up ffs.

It was proposed for May though when country out of level 5. Seems like politicians were floating it for before end of this season. Maybe its for next season but not sure why would they mention it in context of easing restrictions over next few weeks. Think test crowds with antigen testing will happen sooner rather than later but maybe it will be GAA or LOI if not before end of Pro14 season.

Squidgy Black

Former Former Former wrote: »

It's because we're still in level 5.

If the government let Leinster do this, then the floodgates open for everyone else to open up to fans. And the government gets hammered for letting D4 elitist rugby fans go to matches while the ordinary people can't even visit their granny.

It was never going to work without the case numbers being a lot lower and vaccine rates a lot higher than they are.

It absolutely is not about who gets credit. Grow up ffs.

It wasn't proposed for the current restrictions though and was contingent on a partial reopening next month.

The government have now suggested that they should look at doing a test run, the day after rejecting a proposal for it.

Look, I haven't bashed the government at all throughout the restrictions but this absolutely is based on the government wanting credit for it and not listening to any external suggestions.

AdamD

Former Former Former wrote: »

It's because we're still in level 5.

If the government let Leinster do this, then the floodgates open for everyone else to open up to fans. And the government gets hammered for letting D4 elitist rugby fans go to matches while the ordinary people can't even visit their granny.

It was never going to work without the case numbers being a lot lower and vaccine rates a lot higher than they are.

It absolutely is not about who gets credit. Grow up ffs.

Leinster proposed it for next month and it was flat out rejected with no suggestions for anything in the future.

No doubt it my mind this government will be dragged kicking and screaming into any form of mass gathering, regardless of vaccination levels.

Former Former Former

AdamD wrote: »

Leinster proposed it for next month and it was flat out rejected with no suggestions for anything in the future.

That exact suggestion is spelled out very clearly in the article.

"When the epidemiological situation and public health regulations allow, it is intended to begin to host test events in the summer starting with limited numbers of spectators".

Sheep Shagger

Couldnt see this link anywhere...

https://www.the42.ie/leinster-rugby-proposal-or-safe-return-of-fans-5421679-Apr2021/

Trojan

If a team chooses not to have a backup 10 in the playing squad, as opposition coach you'd be crazy not to double down on pressuring on the starting 10.

Buer

Trojan wrote: »

If a team chooses not to have a backup 10 in the playing squad, as opposition coach you'd be crazy not to double down on pressuring on the starting 10.

"Pressuring"!

Although I would have said the exact same about Luke McGrath when we went to Exeter. I'm surprised they didn't give him a bit more attention. If he had gone off with 20-25 minutes left, I'd believe Exeter would be playing La Rochelle this weekend.