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

hahashake

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Over the past few days a lot of posters have commented on Leinster struggling to beat giant french packs like La Rochelle and playing against the RSA teams and their giant packs next season will help them in Europe. So I looked at the numbers.
Both packs on Sunday were over 900kg. So neither pack was small. La Rochelle had a bit over 20kg on Leinster or 2.5kg per player. Not a huge difference. With both Skelton and Antonio at 140kg it means the rest of the Leinster players were probably bigger than their counterparts.
The Leinster bench was bigger than the La Rochelle bench.

I think the "monster french pack" thing has been repeated so often that the myth has become the truth without actually being reality. Powerful? Yes. Bigger? Not necessarily.

Only quibble, and this is a minor one that I've seen and heard many times over the last few days: It's Atonio not Antonio. He's not Italian.;)

Buer

You can't really ignore the fact that the La Rochelle pack had three big units that repeatedly drove into Leinster and made yards. Aldritt is the smallest of the three but is still a back rower of over 18 stone.

We can compare the overall pack weights but that isn't really accounting for the fact that Devin Toner is comfortable the heaviest Leinster forward and in no way explosive.

Aldritt and Skelton carried 32 times in the game. The other 6 forwards carried 29 times. It doesn't matter that some of the other guys aren't as powerful when their role is to support, look for the offload or clear out.

The only guy Leinster had who was able to match the La Rochelle combination of size and power was Conan who was the second most successful carrier on the field behind Skelton. But he wasn't as impactful and was making his carries in his own half.

The size thing certainly isn't the only reason Leinster lost. The biggest reason by far, to my mind, is the breakdown battle where La Rochelle dominated through their designated fetchers. But the impact that Skelton had in the loose was massive too and that is something that is largely as a result of his physical size.

Yeah_Right

Buer wrote: »

You can't really ignore the fact that the La Rochelle pack had three big units that repeatedly drove into Leinster and made yards. Aldritt is the smallest of the three but is still a back rower of over 18 stone.

We can compare the overall pack weights but that isn't really accounting for the fact that Devin Toner is comfortable the heaviest Leinster forward and in no way explosive.

Aldritt and Skelton carried 32 times in the game. The other 6 forwards carried 29 times. It doesn't matter that some of the other guys aren't as powerful when their role is to support, look for the offload or clear out.

The only guy Leinster had who was able to match the La Rochelle combination of size and power was Conan who was the second most successful carrier on the field behind Skelton. But he wasn't as impactful and was making his carries in his own half.

The size thing certainly isn't the only reason Leinster lost. The biggest reason by far, to my mind, is the breakdown battle where La Rochelle dominated through their designated fetchers. But the impact that Skelton had in the loose was massive too and that is something that is largely as a result of his physical size.

So it was about power and not size. Conan and Adrit are pretty much the same size yet one made much more of an impact than the other. Skelton has always been a big lump but only in recent years has developed the power and fitness to be effective. Leavy isn't huge for a modern loose forward but I don't think anyone could argue he isn't powerful.

My point is people obsessing over size when power and explosiveness is the issue.

FrannoFan

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Over the past few days a lot of posters have commented on Leinster struggling to beat giant french packs like La Rochelle and playing against the RSA teams and their giant packs next season will help them in Europe. So I looked at the numbers.
Both packs on Sunday were over 900kg. So neither pack was small. La Rochelle had a bit over 20kg on Leinster or 2.5kg per player. Not a huge difference. With both Skelton and Antonio at 140kg it means the rest of the Leinster players were probably bigger than their counterparts.
The Leinster bench was bigger than the La Rochelle bench.

I think the "monster french pack" thing has been repeated so often that the myth has become the truth without actually being reality. Powerful? Yes. Bigger? Not necessarily.

I always think the irish stats are pretty unreliable. Remember seeing dominic ryan down as 6'3 and when you saw him in person was nowhere near that.

Ryan and toner might have weight on the scales but just look at their body types. Both quite gangly/limby sort of guys. Contrast that to the bulls/sharks/stormers forwards and it's all chesty size.

I really don't think stats illustrate the issues that our forwards have.

Richie_Rich89

I thought Dominic Ryan was 6'4''?

If size was everything then Montpellier would do better every year with Paul Willemse in their side. Then again, there's truth to the saying "a good big 'un will beat a good small 'un".

At the end of the day, La Rochelle play smart rugby, which allows their physical players to get into the game and be influential.

I've seen some people citing the supposed size difference as the reason Leinster's maul was ineffective while LAR made good ground, but Leinster's maul hasn't been a weapon against Munster either in recent times, and you don't hear people saying Munster are too big and physical for Leinster.

Whenever this question of Irish players being too small comes up I can't help but think of Eddie Jones's Japan defeating the Springboks. I don't think any Irish side has to overcome such a physical disparity as that.

Dubinusa

Leinster struggled at the breakdown. They were quiet poor and didn't clear rucks out. The size difference is an aspect, but Leinster have beaten bigger sides before. Ultimately, Leinster have aging, less effective players, Fardy and Toner, and threw an inexperienced lock, Baird into the 6 shirt when Ruddock went off. Baird was poor and I think added very little. I believe the coaching team got the squad wrong.

Former Former Former

Dubinusa wrote: »

Leinster struggled at the breakdown. They were quiet poor and didn't clear rucks out. The size difference is an aspect, but Leinster have beaten bigger sides before. Ultimately, Leinster have aging, less effective players, Fardy and Toner, and threw an inexperienced lock, Baird into the 6 shirt when Ruddock went off. Baird was poor and I think added very little. I believe the coaching team got the squad wrong.

In fairness, there were so many injuries that the coaching team had very few options in squad selection.

ionadnapokot

FrannoFan wrote: »

I always think the irish stats are pretty unreliable. Remember seeing dominic ryan down as 6'3 and when you saw him in person was nowhere near that.

Ryan and toner might have weight on the scales but just look at their body types. Both quite gangly/limby sort of guys. Contrast that to the bulls/sharks/stormers forwards and it's all chesty size.

I really don't think stats illustrate the issues that our forwards have.

It was basically just Antonio & Skelton looking like they were against U12s
Ably supported by Bourgarit....and backed by Botia.

Leinster had Furlong

salmocab

Just reading on otb bit of an interview with Lancaster where he talks about signing a forward from overseas, nothing definite just saying he thinks there’s room for an Elsom/Thorn/Fardy type signing.

BoardsMember

Yeah_Right wrote: »

So it was about power and not size. Conan and Adrit are pretty much the same size yet one made much more of an impact than the other. Skelton has always been a big lump but only in recent years has developed the power and fitness to be effective. Leavy isn't huge for a modern loose forward but I don't think anyone could argue he isn't powerful.

My point is people obsessing over size when power and explosiveness is the issue.

Split hairs much? 🀣

ionadnapokot

salmocab wrote: »

Just reading on otb bit of an interview with Lancaster where he talks about signing a forward from overseas, nothing definite just saying he thinks there’s room for an Elsom/Thorn/Fardy type signing.

X Factor player would be special.
There must be a plethora of Fijians or Polynesians that would fit the 6/4 mould.
Not as if Leinster are struggling in the back row though!
Would the IRFU give it the OK? Doubt it.

BoardsMember

ionadnapokot wrote: »

X Factor player would be special.
There must be a plethora of Fijians or Polynesians that would fit the 6/4 mould.
Not as if Leinster are struggling in the back row though!
Would the IRFU give it the OK? Doubt it.

They need to be powerful though, not just big.

Juventu4

salmocab wrote: »

Just reading on otb bit of an interview with Lancaster where he talks about signing a forward from overseas, nothing definite just saying he thinks there’s room for an Elsom/Thorn/Fardy type signing.

Anybody come to mind that's a realistic signing? Don't watch enough Southern Hemisphere Rugby.

Squidgy Black

Juventu4 wrote: »

Anybody come to mind that's a realistic signing? Don't watch enough Southern Hemisphere Rugby.

Sitaleki Timani has had a decent year for the Force, although he only returned back to Australia from France so I dunno if he'd be too keen to jet off for another year or so

salmocab

Juventu4 wrote: »

Anybody come to mind that's a realistic signing? Don't watch enough Southern Hemisphere Rugby.

The thing is I doubt many would have thought Elsom/Thorn or Fardy were realistic signings before they were announced or at least were talked about.
Leinster are one of the biggest clubs in the world and that would be a big draw for a lot of players even if it’s likely they could earn more elsewhere.
I’m not convinced we need a big signing although I’d not turn one down.

the baby bull elephant

Don't think the actual quotes from Lancaster suggest we have another signing coming. He was asked about an overseas signing and said he wouldn't mind one but that it would be something you have to persuade the higher ups of.

salmocab

the baby bull elephant wrote: »

Don't think the actual quotes from Lancaster suggest we have another signing coming. He was asked about an overseas signing and said he wouldn't mind one but that it would be something you have to persuade the higher ups of.

Yeah I paraphrased when I wrote it, he was just saying he thought there was room for one. Nothing at all definite or even close to it.

sydthebeat

Brodie Retallick is at a loose end

arsebiscuits1

sydthebeat wrote: »

Brodie Retallick is at a loose end

While it would never happen, Brodie Retallick would be worth a huge amount of ticket sales alone.

Surely there's a lot of people out there who if they were 50/50 about going to a game would be swayed by getting a chance to see him play

irishbucsfan

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

While it would never happen, Brodie Retallick would be worth a huge amount of ticket sales alone.

Surely there's a lot of people out there who if they were 50/50 about going to a game would be swayed by getting a chance to see him play

The idea of signing someone for ticket sales right now feels totally bizarre!

arsebiscuits1

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The idea of signing someone for ticket sales right now feels totally bizarre!

Even as I typed it I was thinking "going to games? Those were the days"

Clegg

Furlong, Porter, Conan and Henshaw are Lions. Feel a bit for Ringrose and Ryan as they picked up injuries and poor form at the worst possible time. Before this season I would've had both as locks to start the first test.

I'm surprised at the lack of Sexton also. He's getting on a bit and picks up injuries, but every other 10 in the squad has their issues. Russell can't be trusted not to make a mess of things at key moments, Farrell is a better 12 and I just don't rate Bigger as a top quality test flyhalf. Thought Johnny would've been brought again as he's the only other 10 they have who has experience of winning a Lion's series.

Dubinusa

I do wonder if Leo and Stu think the selection was wrong. Hindsight is great, I suppose, but watching the team fall off for large portions of Sundays match and then putting some reserves in at 70 minutes can't sit well with them?
I wonder what they were thinking when Ruddock went off early? Clearly, Fardy was not thought of as a 6 and Baird was chucked into the fire. I also wonder what thoughts went through their minds watching Luke have a fairly poor game after a good run of form? When Ruddock went off, I thought we were in trouble. The make up of the back row and the dynamics changed. As a unit I thought they were at sea.
But then, what if's and 2nd guessing are worthless atm. I always have thought that coaches never publicly 2nd guess themselves and I think privately they are focusing on what selections they made.

Podge_irl

Clegg wrote: »

Furlong, Porter, Conan and Henshaw are Lions. Feel a bit for Ringrose and Ryan as they picked up injuries and poor form at the worst possible time. Before this season I would've had both as locks to start the first test.

I'm surprised at the lack of Sexton also. He's getting on a bit and picks up injuries, but every other 10 in the squad has their issues. Russell can't be trusted not to make a mess of things at key moments, Farrell is a better 12 and I just don't rate Bigger as a top quality test flyhalf. Thought Johnny would've been brought again as he's the only other 10 they have who has experience of winning a Lion's series.

Sexton can't be trusted to actually play. I think he's quite probably still the best 10 available but his actual availability is pants.

Clegg

There's a good chance that Porter will given the 18 jersey for the first test. When was the last time Ireland had two test Lions quality tightheads?

Some seriously good work has gone into developing players in that area.

awec

Clegg wrote: »

Furlong, Porter, Conan and Henshaw are Lions. Feel a bit for Ringrose and Ryan as they picked up injuries and poor form at the worst possible time. Before this season I would've had both as locks to start the first test.

I'm surprised at the lack of Sexton also. He's getting on a bit and picks up injuries, but every other 10 in the squad has their issues. Russell can't be trusted not to make a mess of things at key moments, Farrell is a better 12 and I just don't rate Bigger as a top quality test flyhalf. Thought Johnny would've been brought again as he's the only other 10 they have who has experience of winning a Lion's series.

If I was Sexton I'd probably just retire now tbh. Doesn't seem much point going through another season when you consider his game time is likely to be lower than ever.

Quin_Dub

awec wrote: »

If I was Sexton I'd probably just retire now tbh. Doesn't seem much point going through another season when you consider his game time is likely to be lower than ever.

Retiring now would just seem petulant , not that I'm saying it would be ,but that would be the perception.

I'd say he'll see out next season and then go , and maybe retire from International Rugby earlier than that.

hold my beer

If this head knock isn't serious (you'd wonder though with him being out at least 3/4 weeks) then he'll do the last season for sure. If it's any way serious, or suspected to be serious, I can see him retiring myself.

VANG1

My advice would be to hang up his boots in good health. He has his whole life and a new career ahead of him, as well as a young family.

durthacht

awec wrote: »

If I was Sexton I'd probably just retire now tbh. Doesn't seem much point going through another season when you consider his game time is likely to be lower than ever.

But his earning potential for the next year as a rugby player is probably considerably more than any other career option he may have, and rugby is probably a more fun profession for him than any any other career option he may have.

As long as he is healthy, playing well, and having fun then he may as well keep going.