Leinster Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread IV

Tox56

Madigan must be injured or something, as much as I haven't been convinced by MOC surely his hands were tied in terms of starting Madigan in Toulon/bringing him off the bench. He only came on in Toulon as a last resort, didnt seem to be getting anywhere near normal power on his kicks and then didn't feature at all last week when the back up 10 was Noel Reid. He must be carrying something.

I still reckon MOC sees Madigan as the 10 with more potential and wanted to start him in Toulon after giving him so much time to prove himself the previous 2 weeks

Tox56

Also nice to see McGrath on the bench again, hopefully a very strong starting team (great to see Reid surrounded with experience, would have been perfect with SCM ahead of Fanning but you can't have everything) wraps up the BP and result early on and he'll get a good 20-25 minutes

molloyjh

Tox56 wrote: »

Madigan must be injured or something, as much as I haven't been convinced by MOC surely his hands were tied in terms of starting Madigan in Toulon/bringing him off the bench. He only came on in Toulon as a last resort, didnt seem to be getting anywhere near normal power on his kicks and then didn't feature at all last week when the back up 10 was Noel Reid. He must be carrying something.

I still reckon MOC sees Madigan as the 10 with more potential and wanted to start him in Toulon after giving him so much time to prove himself the previous 2 weeks

You're looking for these?

.ak

Anyone else think that looks like the 7-Up guy?

Tox56

molloyjh wrote: »

You're looking for these?

Yeah I suppose, the whole thing just seems too unbelievable to be true for me.

To go from trusting him to play all 80 minutes in the most important league game of the season to not even trusting him to come off the bench when things were going wrong in Toulon until there was literally no other option? And on the back of a fairly mediocre performance in that game Gopperth is pencilled in as definitive first choice?

Like, why wasn't Madigan in the squad last week when he otherwise packed the team with experience?

chancer12

Tox56 wrote: »

Madigan must be injured or something, as much as I haven't been convinced by MOC surely his hands were tied in terms of starting Madigan in Toulon/bringing him off the bench. He only came on in Toulon as a last resort, didnt seem to be getting anywhere near normal power on his kicks and then didn't feature at all last week when the back up 10 was Noel Reid. He must be carrying something.

I still reckon MOC sees Madigan as the 10 with more potential and wanted to start him in Toulon after giving him so much time to prove himself the previous 2 weeks

Seemed to be taking a full part in training and not mentioned in the bulletin for injury

.ak

chancer12 wrote: »

Seemed to be taking a full part in training and not mentioned in the bulletin for injury

In fairness when are either of those things an actual good reference? Ref Fitz.

Larbre34

Buer wrote: »

Kids are all off and the earlier kick off ties in with their availability. Parents will be delighted to get them out of the house to something.

In all honesty, I don't think the scheduling will affect the attendance much. I don't expect there to be a big showing because of the opposition and it being a bank holiday weekend though.

With the bars open Id expect a full house regardless!

Last time there was an A game against Munster on a Good Friday something like 5,500 turned up cos the bars were open

molloyjh

.ak wrote: »

In fairness when are either of those things an actual good reference? Ref Fitz.

Anything that we conclude will be nothing short of guesswork though as we've heard no official word at all. In fact we've heard no half decent rumour either. It's all just speculation on our part. Maybe he had a niggle, maybe he had a falling out with MOC, maybe MOC wanted to look at other options in other areas of the park, maybe he was being rested, maybe he had feckin' jury duty to attend, maybe, maybe, maybe....

In short I'm not sure you can blame people for assuming he was dropped any more than they can blame you for assuming he was injured.

stephen_n

Now we are assuming JG was injured and no one said for the month running up to the Toulon game and IM is injured now and nobody is saying anything, seems a bit odd tbh, just seems like an awful rotation policy by MOC really.

Kanrith

Hmmmm, this game would be much better for Madigan. Also BOD normally plays better with him starting than Goperth.

Heroditas

CatFromHue wrote: »

Luke Fitzgerald didn't make it this week, I'd forgotten about him til I red your post

They actually said "this game comes a week too soon for Luke Fitzgerald" on FM104 or 98FM at lunchtime. :rolleyes:

former legend

Just in case anyone needs to be reminded; Matt O'Connor has previously confirmed that Gopperth is his #1 and Madigan has a lot of developing still to do:
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/matt-o-connor-defends-selection-of-jimmy-gopperth-for-toulon-game-1.1754886

The reality is that Jimmy is a very experienced bloke who provides us with X. Ian is a young player who needs to get better at managing the front end of the game. It’s no bigger issue than that

I'd love there to be some neat explanation whereby Madigan has some niggling injury that kept him on the bench in Toulon but I don't think there is any.

stephen_n

former legend wrote: »

Just in case anyone needs to be reminded; Matt O'Connor has previously confirmed that Gopperth is his #1 and Madigan has a lot of developing still to do:
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/matt-o-connor-defends-selection-of-jimmy-gopperth-for-toulon-game-1.1754886



I'd love there to be some neat explanation whereby Madigan has some niggling injury that kept him on the bench in Toulon but I don't think there is any.

That still doesn't explain not playing Goperth for a month up to the game though.

Tox56

former legend wrote: »

Just in case anyone needs to be reminded; Matt O'Connor has previously confirmed that Gopperth is his #1 and Madigan has a lot of developing still to do:
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/matt-o-connor-defends-selection-of-jimmy-gopperth-for-toulon-game-1.1754886



I'd love there to be some neat explanation whereby Madigan has some niggling injury that kept him on the bench in Toulon but I don't think there is any.

As said above, the strangest thing by far is that Madigan played all 80 minutes in the 3 games before Toulon, including games against 2 of the top 4 in the league.

To not only drop out of the starting team, but to be not trusted as an alternative on the bench until it really was roll the dice time, is just bizarre.

Possible of course that Gopperth was always number 1 in MOC's mind, but if that was the case I'd find the preparation for the Toulon match pretty mind boggling.

And the other question I need answering in all this is why Madigan wasn't involved in the squad at all last week, which would have just been weird if he was fully fit

rockbeast

Hey,

I've two boozing passes/Leinster tickets, going for tomorrow if someone wants to take them off my hands.

Gratis, of course.:)

Anglesea Stand, Block B.

Two projects due on Tuesday, unfortunately:(

PM if you want them.

rugby addict

Hopefully Luke MCGrath gets 20 mins, Boss and Reddan are going to get auld someday soon

former legend

stephen_n wrote: »

That still doesn't explain not playing Goperth for a month up to the game though.

No it doesn't but if you read the article MOC didn't seem too worried about that aspect. Maybe he'd decided that Gopperth was the man and he didn't want to risk an injury to him against Munster?

rockbeast

former legend wrote: »

No it doesn't but if you read the article MOC didn't seem too worried about that aspect. Maybe he'd decided that Gopperth was the man and he didn't want to risk an injury to him against Munster?

Perhaps it should concern us that he didn't?

There's battle-hardened, battle-fatigued and then just plain battle-undercooked...

former legend

rockbeast wrote: »

Perhaps it should concern us that he didn't?

There's battle-hardened, battle-fatigued and then just plain battle-undercooked...

No, I wouldn't agree with his tactics at all, just that he did acknowledge it.

And Gopperth was the least of our problems in Toulon really.

Swan Curry

former legend wrote: »

No, I wouldn't agree with his tactics at all, just that he did acknowledge it.

And Gopperth was the least of our problems in Toulon really.

I understand you're a big fan of Gopperth and everything,but come on now.Gopperth gave the kind of performance that Madigan was being slated on these forums for earlier on in they year.I still think we would have lost if Madigan started,but Gopperth certainly made it easier for Toulon,and much more difficult for our backs.

rockbeast

former legend wrote: »

No, I wouldn't agree with his tactics at all, just that he did acknowledge it.

And Gopperth was the least of our problems in Toulon really.

Ah,you're correct, gopperth wasn't too bad - definitely not the worst.

Could have been better? Perhaps...

It will probably take 5 years for us to hear an account of what the actual tactics were for the Toulon game.

Who knows, maybe it'll turn out that the tactics were spot on and the players were just ineffective at executing the gameplan on the day....?

danthefan

Not arsed looking for the article again and I'm sure it was posted here at some point anyway but SOB absolutely slated the performances against Toulon in the Indo the other day. Basically said Leinster were crap.

rockbeast

danthefan wrote: »

Not arsed looking for the article again and I'm sure it was posted here at some point anyway but SOB absolutely slated the performances against Toulon in the Indo the other day. Basically said Leinster were crap.

In fairness, we all knew that:)

danthefan

rockbeast wrote: »

In fairness, we all knew that:)

Of course we did, just was fairly unusual to hear a player say it in public.

former legend

Swan Curry wrote: »

I understand you're a big fan of Gopperth and everything,but come on now.

No I'm not. I'd pick Madigan every time. You're confusing my statements of facts with opinion.

Where my opinion does come in is that we didn't lose because of Gopperth which you agreed with. We couldn't compete physically and got blown away at the breakdown. Playing Madigan would have made no difference to the outcome.

rockbeast

danthefan wrote: »

Of course we did, just was fairly unusual to hear a player say it in public.

It is, for sure. Quite refreshing too.

I'm glad Sean is able to (allowed to?) say that.

There has to be an honesty of endeavour and that, unfortunately, was sorely lacking in France.

If it wasn't recognised by the players and management, then I'd be (really) worried...

stephen_n

former legend wrote: »

No it doesn't but if you read the article MOC didn't seem too worried about that aspect. Maybe he'd decided that Gopperth was the man and he didn't want to risk an injury to him against Munster?

If it was just the Munster game, I'd get that completely, but more than a month with only 8 minutes is a different kettle of fish. Rotation is part of the game now but that's just not how it works at all. Who knows what's going on within the camp but to be honest I think neither JG or IM are performing to their abilities because of it.

rockbeast

stephen_n wrote: »

If it was just the Munster game, I'd get that completely, but more than a month with only 8 minutes is a different kettle of fish. Rotation is part of the game now but that's just not how it works at all. Who knows what's going on within the camp but to be honest I think neither JG or IM are performing to their abilities because of it.

Some coaches will always say - "he was going great guns in training"

Anyone that has played with a team should know there is always a few players that look a lot better than they are in training...

It's no secret that in any team sport the Bs often beat the As in training matches...

EDIT*** 1,000th Post - Congratulations to Rockbeast!! :-)

vienne86

Smashing morning here in Dublin - no wind and the sun is out. Bring it on!