The Munster Team Talk Part V Thread - Pashun within

Zzippy

New thread as old one is creaking at the seams. Old thread is here

All Munster-related talk in here. The usual rules apply. Play nice!

former total

Well actually, they are. They are breaking their own league rules (which they signed up for) on salary caps, which is allowing them to sign more and better players than they should be able to afford. In addition, the inability/unwillingness of PRL to do anything about it is impacting on other clubs' and provinces' ability to retain their best players.

Whatever breach occurred is dealt with now and the investigation is closed. Time to move on.

For years, the English clubs complained that the Irish provinces were being subsidised by the national team and were signing better players than they ever could. We all dismissed it as sour grapes because the provinces were doing so well. Now the shoe is on the other foot and it ain't going to change any time soon.

It's time for big decisions from the IRFU. Even if the Earls story doesn't come to fruition, something has to change. Either they find the cash to pay the players more, or we give up on trying to keep people here and accept the consequences of that.

grumpymunster

Sadly I think asset stripping will become the way of things to our detriment. No doubt secretly BT and Sky are delighted at the make up of the knock-out stages of the European Cup (possibly more BT than Sky who always seemed to be partial to what the Provinces brought to the Heineken Cup) as viewing figures in England are most likely going to be better. I know BT is a British company and that is supposed to include Scotland and Wales but no point kidding ourselves here the audience is England really.

Where does that leave Munster then, well not in a good place really between poor coaching and a potential loss of higher profile players this is going to be a difficult ship to turn.

grumpymunster

Sadly I think asset stripping will become the way of things to our detriment. No doubt secretly BT and Sky are delighted at the make up of the knock-out stages of the European Cup (possibly more BT than Sky who always seemed to be partial to what the Provinces brought to the Heineken Cup) as viewing figures in England are most likely going to be better. I know BT is a British company and that is supposed to include Scotland and Wales but no point kidding ourselves here the audience is England really.

Where does that leave Munster then, well not in a good place really between poor coaching and a potential loss of higher profile players this is going to be a difficult ship to turn.

digzy

What were the 'family reasons ' alluded to in the article?

CatFromHue

I wonder if contract length is the deciding factor here.

Moore got 3 years, it was reported he was only offered 2 in Ireland, and Earls is reported to also have been offered a 3 year deal.

CatFromHue

I wonder if contract length is the deciding factor here.

Moore got 3 years, it was reported he was only offered 2 in Ireland, and Earls is reported to also have been offered a 3 year deal.

aimee1

digzy wrote: »

What were the 'family reasons ' alluded to in the article?

Was his child sick a few years ago ?? Maybe that has something to do with that quote

Mahatma Geansai

CatFromHue wrote: »

I wonder if contract length is the deciding factor here.

Moore got 3 years, it was reported he was only offered 2 in Ireland, and Earls is reported to also have been offered a 3 year deal.

If the IRFU only offered Keith a 2 year deal then they have some significant explaining to do. This situation, if it comes to pass, is solely on Nucifora's head.

Mahatma Geansai

aimee1 wrote: »

Was his child sick a few years ago ?? Maybe that has something to do with that quote

I think we would be better off avoiding to speculate on the heath of Earls' young family.

Iang87

Family issues could also be one opportunity for a better pay packet than he could get off Munster/IRFU. Its a job at the end of the day. If you have to sacrifice 3 years not living in Ireland for something that could give you a great footing for your retirement then why not.

I think the question that needs to be asked is Why would the players want to stay? Ignore all these wonderful magical things that fans think like hometown club etc. If you can make a fair chunk more playing at a higher level in a better league with chances of actually winning competitions then why stay. These are professional sportsmen at the end of the day.

I think he's right to go if he goes anyway. I'd like to see him stay but unfortunately the way Irish rugby is being ran i'd want off that sinking ship aswell

Mahatma Geansai

Brendan Filone wrote: »

Anyone else find it strange that this deal came out of nowhere so soon after Andy Farrell joined the Munster set-up?

How do you mean?

Do you think Earls is running away from Farrell, or Farrell gave a glowing recommendation of Earls to Saracens? While the second option is plausible, the best clubs in Europe will always be looking for the best players in Europe.

CMOTDibbler

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

If the IRFU only offered Keith a 2 year deal then they have some significant explaining to do. This situation, if it comes to pass, is solely on Nucifora's head.

How? I mean how can you point your finger at one individual without any knowledge of the situation or the constraints that they are operating within?

The reality is that the IRFUs coffers are not bottomless. They have to balance the books because there isn't some millionaire owner prepared to bail them out every time someone comes calling with a big offer for an Irish player.

The upward pressure on player's salaries must be massive at this stage. Every time there's a contract up, the price must be going up as well.

Blackclaret

As they say you must cut your cloth to your measure. No amount of forelock pulling is going to change anything , essentially an existential crisis, is Munster rugby more than just the provincial squad and the glory of the great days past, if so back to the clubs , stand up and fight.

Larbre34

The IRFU really don't have to explain 2 year deals. They are the norm. They cannot afford that commitment on a widespread basis, or the associated insurances. An exception was made for Sexton, but Earls is not that valuable.

jm08

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

I think we would be better off avoiding to speculate on the heath of Earls' young family.

Keith is quite open about supporting an unusual/little known of health support group on his twitter account.

aimee1

jm08 wrote: »

Keith is quite open about supporting an unusual health support group on his twitter account.

Thats what i was referring to. Thats how i knew about it.

jm08

Larbre34 wrote: »

The IRFU really don't have to explain 2 year deals. They are the norm. They cannot afford that commitment on a widespread basis, or the associated insurances. An exception was made for Sexton, but Earls is not that valuable.

The IRFU would need to up their game then and come up with some better ways of retaining players. Its obviously an issue with players (i.e., James Cronin hanging in there for a 3 year deal).

I don't see the point of why the IRFU are insistent on 2 year deals. What is the difference to the IRFU if giving a player in his 20s a 3 year deal rather than a 2 year one.

As for saying that 'insert any player name 'is not that valuable' is not going to promote player loyalty to remaining in Ireland.

former total

Larbre34 wrote: »

The IRFU really don't have to explain 2 year deals. They are the norm. They cannot afford that commitment on a widespread basis, or the associated insurances. An exception was made for Sexton, but Earls is not that valuable.

O'Brien recently signed a 3-year deal, Healy is on one, Heaslip, Payne, Rob Kearney, Bowe, plenty of others I'm sure.

Not to mention all the project players who arrive off the plane straight into a three year deal...

Buer

Earls plays a position we are well covered in. He is not a certain starter for the national side and is probably best described as a match day 23 player. He has a poor injury history. He turns 29 at the start of next season and will be pushing 32 at the end of a 3 year deal. He plays a position where there's generally a notable drop in impact when players get past the 30 mark.

Whilst I'm a big fan of Earls and personally want him in the Irish starting team, I would not advocate a 3 year deal for him. Saracens can be quite frivolous with their contract offers and that's fine; they're entitled to do what they want. If I was Earls I'd struggle to turn down such an offer which will financially secure him for a long time. But Irish rugby should think long and hard before offering someone in his particular scenario a 3 year deal.

awec

former total wrote: »

O'Brien recently signed a 3-year deal, Healy is on one, Heaslip, Payne, Rob Kearney, Bowe, plenty of others I'm sure.

Not to mention all the project players who arrive off the plane straight into a three year deal...

Yea, two year deals won't cut the mustard any more. We might not be able to match the money of English clubs but we need to be realistic here in terms of contract length. 3 years seems very reasonable for any proven talent.

jm08

Buer wrote: »

Earls plays a position we are well covered in. He is not a certain starter for the national side and is probably best described as a match day 23 player. He has a poor injury history. He turns 29 at the start of next season and will be pushing 32 at the end of a 3 year deal. He plays a position where there's generally a notable drop in impact when players get past the 30 mark.

Whilst I'm a big fan of Earls and personally want him in the Irish starting team, I would not advocate a 3 year deal for him. Saracens can be quite frivolous with their contract offers and that's fine; they're entitled to do what they want. If I was Earls I'd struggle to turn down such an offer which will financially secure him for a long time. But Irish rugby should think long and hard before offering someone in his particular scenario a 3 year deal.

Aging, injury prone players like Tommy Bowe and Rob Kearney hasn't stopped them getting central contracts. In fact the age and injury profile of all those backs on central contract (i.e., Trimble as well) isn't good. Luckily we can depend on Dave Kearney to call on.

jm08

Buer wrote: »

Earls plays a position we are well covered in. He is not a certain starter for the national side and is probably best described as a match day 23 player. He has a poor injury history. He turns 29 at the start of next season and will be pushing 32 at the end of a 3 year deal. He plays a position where there's generally a notable drop in impact when players get past the 30 mark.

Whilst I'm a big fan of Earls and personally want him in the Irish starting team, I would not advocate a 3 year deal for him. Saracens can be quite frivolous with their contract offers and that's fine; they're entitled to do what they want. If I was Earls I'd struggle to turn down such an offer which will financially secure him for a long time. But Irish rugby should think long and hard before offering someone in his particular scenario a 3 year deal.

Bowe is 32 and injury prone and nearly 34 for his next deal.
Trimble is 32 and injury prone.
Rob Kearney is 29 and recently signed a 3 year deal.

Earls hasn't lost any of his pace and you could say he actually has less miles on the clock which Saracens will definately benefit from.

There really isn't that many talented back 3 players as you think. While Dave Kearney can do a job, Earls is probably our best winger/utility back now.

edit: don't know what happened there. Seem to have lost the first post so reposted a new one!

case885

Buer wrote:

Earls plays a position we are well covered in. He is not a certain starter for the national side and is probably best described as a match day 23 player. He has a poor injury history. He turns 29 at the start of next season and will be pushing 32 at the end of a 3 year deal. He plays a position where there's generally a notable drop in impact when players get past the 30 mark.

When you compare it to bowes 3 year deal which commenced when he was 31 its not that ridiculous, I think earls is more important to the national team than bowe is now too.
Schmidt seems to rate him very highly also.

Buer

jm08 wrote: »

Aging, injury prone players like Tommy Bowe and Rob Kearney hasn't stopped them getting central contracts. In fact the age and injury profile of all those backs on central contract (i.e., Trimble as well) isn't good. Luckily we can depend on Dave Kearney to call on.

I disagreed with both of them getting 3 year deals. However, both were certain starters for Ireland when they signed. That's a huge difference. Earls isn't as important to Ireland.

Buer

case885 wrote: »

When you compare it to bowes 3 year deal which commenced when he was 31 its not that ridiculous, I think earls is more important to the national team than bowe is now too.
Schmidt seems to rate him very highly also.

Yup. Shouldn't have been given it but Bowe's profile was on a completely different level to Earls'.

jm08

Buer wrote: »

I disagreed with both of them getting 3 year deals. However, both were certain starters for Ireland when they signed. That's a huge difference. Earls isn't as important to Ireland.

Keith Earls is a certain starter for Ireland at the moment considering the age profile and injury status/record of the rest of the contenders.

He is the only back that started all rugby world cup games last autumn. despite there being lots of cover available.

Buer

jm08 wrote: »

Bowe is 32 and injury prone and nearly 34 for his next deal.
Trimble is 32 and injury prone.
Rob Kearney is 29 and recently signed a 3 year deal.

Earls hasn't lost any of his pace and you could say he actually has less miles on the clock which Saracens will definately benefit from.

There really isn't that many talented back 3 players as you think. While Dave Kearney can do a job, Earls is probably our best winger/utility back now.

edit: don't know what happened there. Seem to have lost the first post so reposted a new one!

You shouldn't equate Keith Earls not being given a 3 year deal to me advocating others getting them. None of them should (unless it's a good deal financially for the IRFU).

As I've said elsewhere, however, Kearney and Bowe are on a different level to Earls in terms of individual achievements and profile. Even their marketing value is on a totally different level to Earls.

I vaguely recall a former player (Quinlan?) saying he felt some players were taken advantage of by the IRFU as they were seen as homebirds who would never leave. I do wonder if Earls falls into this category. He always struck me as someone that would never leave Munster.

awec

Bowe was a level above Earls and possibly one of Ireland's greatest ever wingers. It's not surprising he got three years.

That said, I think Earls should be offered 3. Anyone who is of the proven standard and isn't too old (28 is young) should be offered 3 years.

If we can't match them on money we need to at least be willing to offer the security of time!

Buer

jm08 wrote: »

Keith Earls is a certain starter for Ireland at the moment considering the age profile and injury status/record of the rest of the contenders.

He is the only back that started all rugby world cup games last autumn. despite there being lots of cover available.

He's a certain starter in your opinion and I would say that's not too widespread.

I'd put him as a probable starter for Ireland. He couldn't get into the 23 last year when he came back from injury and was starting in the RWC due to injuries. He does not sit in that bracket of players who are straight into the team at all.

aimee1

jm08 wrote: »

Bowe is 32 and injury prone and nearly 34 for his next deal.
Trimble is 32 and injury prone.
Rob Kearney is 29 and recently signed a 3 year deal.

Earls hasn't lost any of his pace and you could say he actually has less miles on the clock which Saracens will definately benefit from.

There really isn't that many talented back 3 players as you think. While Dave Kearney can do a job, Earls is probably our best winger/utility back now.

edit: don't know what happened there. Seem to have lost the first post so reposted a new one!

Of the last four 6n, rob kearney had played every minute bar being replaced once in the final few minutes. He had an injury in 2013 on the lions tour and missed a few leinster games earlier ib season do i dont think its fair to say he is injury prone

Buer

awec wrote: »

Bowe was a level above Earls and possibly one of Ireland's greatest ever wingers. It's not surprising he got three years.

That said, I think Earls should be offered 3. Anyone who is of the proven standard and isn't too old (28 is young) should be offered 3 years.

If we can't match them on money we need to at least be willing to offer the security of time!

The IRFU is a business and can't just hand out deals with that approach. You have to cut your cloth accordingly. There's a rake of players who are at the proven standard in the back row. Should they all be given 3 year deals? The IRFU would be destroying themselves financially to have 6 or 7 guys on 3 year deals for one area of the team.

Giving security of time is the same as the money unless you're putting in a clause to review/terminate in the event of injury in which case the player isn't going to want the deal anyway.

You can't hand out deals like that to guys who are significant injury risks. For context, Luke Fitzgerald, who people view as arguably the biggest injury disaster in Irish rugby, has more pro appearances than Earls.

Buer

aimee1 wrote: »

Of the last four 6n, rob kearney had played every minute bar being replaced once in the final few minutes. He had an injury in 2013 on the lions tour and missed a few leinster games earlier ib season do i dont think its fair to say he is injury prone

He has had his ups and downs but has been far more available than Earls. Kearney had a bad run around 2010 - 2012 but has been pretty consistent otherwise.

He's 18 months older and has 239 pro appearances. Earls has 167.

jm08

Buer wrote: »

As I've said elsewhere, however, Kearney and Bowe are on a different level to Earls in terms of individual achievements and profile. Even their marketing value is on a totally different level to Earls.

I vaguely recall a former player (Quinlan?) saying he felt some players were taken advantage of by the IRFU as they were seen as homebirds who would never leave. I do wonder if Earls falls into this category. He always struck me as someone that would never leave Munster.

I'd suggest that Earls has a very important marketing value to the IRFU as a young guy from a socially deprived area - far more valuable to spreading the game than two guys with private school backgrounds.

A lot of Kearneys and Bowe's achievements are down to luck (teams they were playing for) and fitness. (By the way, Bowe hasn't made it past a QF in the Heineken Cup though).

former total

jm08 wrote: »

A lot of Kearneys and Bowe's achievements are down to luck (teams they were playing for) and fitness. (By the way, Bowe hasn't made it past a QF in the Heineken Cup though).

Holy f**k. What a statement. Just downright nasty.

Teferi

I would argue that some don't understand market value and where value proposition comes from.

jm08

Buer wrote: »

He has had his ups and downs but has been far more available than Earls. Kearney had a bad run around 2010 - 2012 but has been pretty consistent otherwise.

He's 18 months older and has 239 pro appearances. Earls has 167.

Luke Fitz has had a load of niggly injuries which meant he kept missing a game here and there. You will also find that with international obligations you miss a lot of club games (whether being due back late from touring etc).

Earls had two ops, prior to which he seemed to be nursing himself along. Since then (touch wood) he has been flying it.

Something similar happened to Brian O'Driscoll I think - very injury prone there for a while with hamstring injuries - once he got his strength & conditioning sorted, he seemed fine.

awec

jm08 wrote: »

I'd suggest that Earls has a very important marketing value to the IRFU as a young guy from a socially deprived area - far more valuable to spreading the game than two guys with private school backgrounds.

A lot of Kearneys and Bowe's achievements are down to luck (teams they were playing for) and fitness. (By the way, Bowe hasn't made it past a QF in the Heineken Cup though).

Sorry jm08, but I feel I have to point out that this sort of thing is complete nonsense and is exactly the sort of muck that sees threads on this forum descend into page after page of provincial mud slinging.

On that note, please don't be throwing any more of these sort of insights of yours out onto this thread.

jm08

former total wrote: »

Holy f**k. What a statement. Just downright nasty.

Whats nasty about that? If Bowe was playing with Leinster he too would have a few Heineken Cups. If Sergio Parisse was playing with Ireland he would have more grand slams than Jamie Heaslip.

aimee1

jm08 wrote: »

A lot of Kearneys and Bowe's achievements are down to luck (teams they were playing for) and fitness. (By the way, Bowe hasn't made it past a QF in the Heineken Cup though).

RK's achievements are down to him being a very good player, and a very important part of highly successful leinster and ireland teams over a 7-8 season span. He was ERC player of the year in 2012 .......

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

I'd suggest that Earls has a very important marketing value to the IRFU as a young guy from a socially deprived area - far more valuable to spreading the game than two guys with private school backgrounds.

A lot of Kearneys and Bowe's achievements are down to luck (teams they were playing for) and fitness. (By the way, Bowe hasn't made it past a QF in the Heineken Cup though).

Maybe the two most prejudicial paragraphs I've ever read on here?

I'd reply but I'm still too annoyed about my bad luck preventing me from getting European Rugby / Six Nations medals. If only I was lucky, I would have gotten them for free!

thomond2006

jm08 wrote: »

Whats nasty about that? If Bowe was playing with Leinster he too would have a few Heineken Cups. If Sergio Parisse was playing with Ireland he would have more grand slams than Jamie Heaslip.

If my aunt had balls...

jm08

awec wrote: »

Sorry jm08, but I feel I have to point out that this sort of thing is complete nonsense and is exactly the sort of muck that sees threads on this forum descend into page after page of provincial mud slinging.

On that note, please don't be throwing any more of these sort of insights of yours out onto this thread.

My point is that more than one person makes up a team and without for instance a fine collection of fine players, even the great Paul O'Connell would not have been able to manage the success that he has.

Put Keith Earls or Tommy Bowe into that successful Leinster team and they two would have a few Heineken Cup medals.

Mahatma Geansai

Whatever about the rest of it, I don't really see whats so controversial about stating that a player's trophy haul is related to the team they play for. Leo Cullen has more Heineken cups than Paul O'Connell, but that doesn't mean that he was half the player that POC is/was.

Trophies won is not a good measure of an individual in a team game.

Mahatma Geansai

Whatever about the rest of it, I don't really see whats so controversial about stating that a player's trophy haul is related to the team they play for. Leo Cullen has more Heineken cups than Paul O'Connell, but that doesn't mean that he was half the player that POC is/was.

Trophies won is not a good measure of an individual in a team game.

jm08

Teferi wrote: »

I would argue that some don't understand market value and where value proposition comes from.

Do you mean getting bums on seats, selling jerseys or making ads for the National Dairy Council?

Mahatma Geansai

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

Whatever about the rest of it, I don't really see whats so controversial about stating that a player's trophy haul is related to the team they play for. Leo Cullen has more Heineken cups than Paul O'Connell, but that doesn't mean that he was half the player that POC is/was.

Trophies won is not a good measure of an individual in a team game.

That's not the point though.

Was it just luck that Leo trained hard for years and made the starting Leinster team? Was it just luck that his influence and leadership contributed massively to those victories?

It's the suggestion that these people are "lucky" as opposed to other things like... I don't know, talent or hard working maybe?

And yes, I don't doubt that had O'Connell made the Leinster squad he would have a larger trophy cabinet at this stage, but that's his loss.

leakyboots

This is neither here nor there...but I always make a point of looking at the mascot's favourite player in the programme - Zebo & Earls are the two that appear time and time again

aimee1

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

Whatever about the rest of it, I don't really see whats so controversial about stating that a player's trophy haul is related to the team they play for. Leo Cullen has more Heineken cups than Paul O'Connell, but that doesn't mean that he was half the player that POC is/was.

Trophies won is not a good measure of an individual in a team game.

But its no coincidence that RK [and Heaslip for example] have over a sustained spell won multiple major titles, and gone on two lions tours apiece. If they had only 1 HEC and 1 6N then it can be considered a fluke or whatever, but it simply put is more of an indication of them being very good players central to multiple success

Munster won two HEC but when some of that great side retired/moved on they stopped winning HEC titles. Was it the players who left that made POC the player he was, or was he the man around whom the team was built [im not comparing RK to POC btw]. 3-4-5 separate successful sides containing RK and JH indicates they have been very good and important members of those sides.

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not the point though.

Was it just luck that Leo trained hard for years and made the starting Leinster team? Was it just luck that his influence and leadership contributed massively to those victories?

It's the suggestion that these people are "lucky" as opposed to other things like... I don't know, talent or hard working maybe?

And yes, I don't doubt that had O'Connell made the Leinster squad he would have a larger trophy cabinet at this stage, but that's his loss.

But was Leo more hard working than say Rory Best who hasn't a lot at club level (1 celtic league).

Lets not forget I was responding to Buer who claimed this:

Originally Posted by Buer
As I've said elsewhere, however, Kearney and Bowe are on a different level to Earls in terms of individual achievements and profile. Even their marketing value is on a totally different level to Earls.

The highlighted bit is what I would seriously take exception too (which has got nothing to do with achievement or playing ability).

jm08

leakyboots wrote: »

This is neither here nor there...but I always make a point of looking at the mascot's favourite player in the programme - Zebo & Earls are the two that appear time and time again

Those 2 guys inspire young kids to play the game and want the jerseys.