Ireland Team Talk/Gossip/Rumour Thread VIII - ** MOD NOTE POST #4781 **

connachta

awec wrote: »

I’d sign him.

You should be happy with Cooney, but indeed a decent bencher he would be...

thomond2006

awec wrote: »

I’d sign him.

If you can sign him in a playing/ mentoring role to Cooney then go for it.

Buer

awec wrote: »

I’d sign him.

If he was as useful in a playing or mentoring capacity he wouldn't have just been let go by his 6th team in 6 years.

Don Kiddick

Buer wrote: »

If he was as useful in a playing or mentoring capacity he wouldn't have just been let go by his 6th team in 6 years.

He did an interview recently where he reckons he's fitter now than 15 years ago and he wants to continue playing....
He's not looking to sit on the bench or mentor guys just yet ... he'll have another year, maybe 2 in England I would think.

Former Former

thomond2006 wrote: »

If you can sign him in a playing/ mentoring role to Cooney then go for it.

Cooney is 27 (28 before the season is out). You can't sign someone to 'mentor' him.

Under no circumstances should any province sign Stringer.
Edit: maybe some horrendous injury crisis...

thomond2006

Former Former wrote: »

Cooney is 27 (28 before the season is out). You can't sign someone to 'mentor' him.

Under no circumstances should any province sign Stringer.
Edit: maybe some horrendous injury crisis...

Yikes, my mistake. I had it in my head that Cooney was 24/25.

Interested Observer

Cooney doesn't need any mentoring, he's doing just fine.

Rigor Mortis

Interested Observer wrote: »

Cooney doesn't need any mentoring, he's doing just fine.

No, but Stringer would be a far better reserve than Marshall.

thomond2006

Interested Observer wrote: »

Cooney doesn't need any mentoring, he's doing just fine.

I didn't say he wasn't doing fine to be fair.

Anyway now that Cooney's age has been clarified for me, there's no use for Stringer in any of the provinces.

stephen_n

thomond2006 wrote: »

I didn't say he wasn't doing fine to be fair.

Anyway now that Cooney's age has been clarified for me, there's no use for Stringer in any of the provinces.

Well if Ulster don’t sign a 10 and Cooney ends up playing there, then Ulster could certainly use a good 9.

Squidgy Black

stephen_n wrote: »

Well if Ulster don’t sign a 10 and Cooney ends up playing there, then Ulster could certainly use a good 9.

It would be an absolute shocker of a decision to shunt Cooney into 10. Fair enough playing there in a pinch or covering from the bench, but to play him there full time would be crazy. He's starting to build up a real run of form at 9, he's a mediocre 10 at best. And the options at 9 below him are worse than the likes of McPhillips playing 10 with a solid 9 to support him.

Peregrine

I'd rather see 9. Cooney 10. McPhillips than 9. Marshall 10. Cooney, 9. Cairns 10. Cooney, or 9. Shanahan 10. Cooney. Basically, please don't play Cooney at 10.

*remembers that it's Les*

Oh. Right.

nerd69

prawnsambo wrote: »

Vern Cotter?

Would he want the France job

nerd69

It'd be unreal to somehow get stronger that 100th Irish cap

thomond2006

nerd69 wrote: »

It'd be unreal to somehow get stronger that 100th Irish cap

Nah. Let's not do a Martyn Williams on it. It's a pity he didn't make 100 though.

nerd69

thomond2006 wrote: »

Nah. Let's not do a Martyn Williams on it. It's a pity he didn't make 100 though.

Prob unfair to keep a cap from one of the younger guys anyway 99 caps is just a shame

The Lost Sheep

nerd69 wrote: »

Prob unfair to keep a cap from one of the younger guys anyway 99 caps is just a shame

He didnt end on 99. Stringer has 98 so it would be two games.

nerd69

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

He didnt end on 99. Stringer has 98 so it would be two games.

Well **** so he did never mind so

prawnsambo

nerd69 wrote: »

Would he want the France job

It's a bit of a poisoned chalice alright, but Cotter is an experienced guy who wouldn't go into it all starry eyed. He's probably one of the most successful and experienced coaches based in France. Language wouldn't be an issue and he would know a lot of the players already. I'd be afraid of a France team with him at the helm tbh.

stephen_n

_Tyrrell_ wrote: »

It would be an absolute shocker of a decision to shunt Cooney into 10. Fair enough playing there in a pinch or covering from the bench, but to play him there full time would be crazy. He's starting to build up a real run of form at 9, he's a mediocre 10 at best. And the options at 9 below him are worse than the likes of McPhillips playing 10 with a solid 9 to support him.

I’d agree, but it’s Ulster we are talking about. Allowing the situation arrive that their main 10 is leaving, after playing nearly every minute possible for the last four months, giving no real game time to any other 10 is a far more shocking decision and one which makes Cooney at 10 seem a very conceivable outcome. Personally I think it would be a disaster for Cooney, who’s really flourishing with game time at 9 and is going to be pushing McGrath and Marmion for the bench spot.

awec

Can you please explain how not playing players who are absolutely not good enough is a shocking decision?

Do you think all it takes is giving these lads a run out for the senior team to make them into semi-decent players?

The reason we signed Lealiifaano in the first place is the alternatives were ****. We would have to be pretty damn thick to sign a good 10 and then play our rubbish ones on a semi-regular basis.

When CL leaves we either need Jackson back or another signing. There is absolutely no way Ulster could have avoided being in that situation. Throwing the likes of Herron or McPhillips in more is not going to magically make them up to the task of running the show at the business end of the season.

Ciaran-Irl

awec wrote: »

Can you please explain how not playing players who are absolutely not good enough is a shocking decision?

Do you think all it takes is giving these lads a run out for the senior team to make them into semi-decent players?

The reason we signed Lealiifaano in the first place is the alternatives were ****. We would have to be pretty damn thick to sign a good 10 and then play our rubbish ones on a semi-regular basis.

When CL leaves we either need Jackson back or another signing. There is absolutely no way Ulster could have avoided being in that situation. Throwing the likes of Herron or McPhillips in more is not going to magically make them up to the task of running the show at the business end of the season.

You must have missed the memo. Players only get better with gametime. Training is irrelevant. If players can't do the basics in training, that only tells you that they haven't had enough gametime.

aloooof

Ciaran-Irl wrote: »

You must have missed the memo. Players only get better with gametime. Training is irrelevant. If players can't do the basics in training, that only tells you that they haven't had enough gametime.

Eh, what?!

molloyjh

prawnsambo wrote: »

nerd69 wrote: »

Would he want the France job

It's a bit of a poisoned chalice alright, but Cotter is an experienced guy who wouldn't go into it all starry eyed. He's probably one of the most successful and experienced coaches based in France. Language wouldn't be an issue and he would know a lot of the players already. I'd be afraid of a France team with him at the helm tbh.

Experienced yes. Successful? With one of the best sides in Europe for years he won what exactly? I’m really not at all convinced that Cotter is as good as people say. Other than that single T14 title he won nothing at all with a Clermont side that was easily one of the top 2 sides in Europe for half a decade.

People have spoken about Clermont’s bottle and natural ability to lose big games, but it’s not like they were a club of local lads all with the same issues stemming from the same place or an ingrained culture they’ve always known. With the collection of players they had he should have been able to get more from them.

He did okay at Scotland leading them to 5th, 4th and 4th in the 6Ns but also having a good win rate relative to previous coaches. But the SRU still decided not to keep him on. Montpellier are doing well now, but with a squad like theirs it’d he hard not to.

I’m sure Cotter is a good coach, but I’m not at all convinced he’s as good as some think. Is he really able to get the most out of a squad in difficult circumstances? Or has he been at the helm of some very good teams and not been able to get them over the line?

molloyjh

aloooof wrote: »

Ciaran-Irl wrote: »

You must have missed the memo. Players only get better with gametime. Training is irrelevant. If players can't do the basics in training, that only tells you that they haven't had enough gametime.

Eh, what?!

I don’t think Ciaran is being entirely serious with that post.

prawnsambo

molloyjh wrote: »

Experienced yes. Successful? With one of the best sides in Europe for years he won what exactly? I’m really not at all convinced that Cotter is as good as people say. Other than that single T14 title he won nothing at all with a Clermont side that was easily one of the top 2 sides in Europe for half a decade.

People have spoken about Clermont’s bottle and natural ability to lose big games, but it’s not like they were a club of local lads all with the same issues stemming from the same place or an ingrained culture they’ve always known. With the collection of players they had he should have been able to get more from them.

He did okay at Scotland leading them to 5th, 4th and 4th in the 6Ns but also having a good win rate relative to previous coaches. But the SRU still decided not to keep him on. Montpellier are doing well now, but with a squad like theirs it’d he hard not to.

I’m sure Cotter is a good coach, but I’m not at all convinced he’s as good as some think. Is he really able to get the most out of a squad in difficult circumstances? Or has he been at the helm of some very good teams and not been able to get them over the line?

Clermont have always been very competitve whilst he was in charge. Perhaps not in silverware, but they certainly challenged on both fronts under Cotter. Two European finals and four T14 finals, winning one. They also won a Challenge Cup under Cotter. They were only knocked out by the biggest teams in Europe: Toulon, Saracens and Leinster .

The record number of home wins came under Cotter as well.

Clegg

I think Cotter was a victim of timing when it came to the Scotland job. He did a lot to develop their style of play and has brought through a decent group of internationals. But Townsend was looking to move on from Glasgow and the SRU desperately needed to keep him in the system.

bilston

awec wrote: »

Can you please explain how not playing players who are absolutely not good enough is a shocking decision?

Do you think all it takes is giving these lads a run out for the senior team to make them into semi-decent players?

The reason we signed Lealiifaano in the first place is the alternatives were ****. We would have to be pretty damn thick to sign a good 10 and then play our rubbish ones on a semi-regular basis.

When CL leaves we either need Jackson back or another signing. There is absolutely no way Ulster could have avoided being in that situation. Throwing the likes of Herron or McPhillips in more is not going to magically make them up to the task of running the show at the business end of the season.

I agree in principle with this. But at the same time I'd be keen to see more of McPhillips before writing him off completely. He actually looked pretty sharp on Sat when he did a chance. Of course Connacht had eased off and the game was up, but I'd like to see a bit more of him.

Sure aren't we signing Soponga for next season if things don't go well for certain parties in the next few weeks?

Peregrine

awec wrote: »

Can you please explain how not playing players who are absolutely not good enough is a shocking decision?

Do you think all it takes is giving these lads a run out for the senior team to make them into semi-decent players?

The reason we signed Lealiifaano in the first place is the alternatives were ****. We would have to be pretty damn thick to sign a good 10 and then play our rubbish ones on a semi-regular basis.

When CL leaves we either need Jackson back or another signing. There is absolutely no way Ulster could have avoided being in that situation. Throwing the likes of Herron or McPhillips in more is not going to magically make them up to the task of running the show at the business end of the season.

I don't disagree but can you please explain how pushing a scrum half out to 10 to play alongside a rubbish 9 isn't a shocking decision?

I just haven't written off McPhillips yet and would prefer to see him outside Cooney than Cooney at 10 with Marshall inside. Yes, Ulster needs to sign a 10 because you absolutely can't bank on McPhillips coming through even if he isn't as bad as you say he is. I just havn't been holding out much hope that they will find one though. If the rumours about Ross Byrne are true then Ulster will have signed a solid young 10 for next year who can only get better.

Interested Observer

The scrum half touches the ball so many more times than anyone else that a competent 9 is more important than a competent 10 imo. If Cooney is the best 9 and the best 10 available then put him at 9.