Matts gone

[Raydollard]

Of course I could be wrong, but I kinda remember Madigan getting player of the year in 2013 when he was truly outstanding at out half. And I also remember that he replaced Sexton at outhalf during the 6N this year when we were champions; that might make him Joe's second choice at outhalf. But then I may be dreaming and none of this happened.

As I have posted throughout the past two seasons, O'Connor has undoubtedly dumped on Madigan from the off and based his team around the fulcrum of the useless Gopperth with disastrous results.

[artaneboy]

but stands danger of becoming the Rodney Marsh of Leinster Rugby. And for those who don't remember that talented wastrel- that's not good... Not saying Ian is a wastrel, mind!

He wasn't that bad in 1967.

Like Madigan, he did many wonderful things. The issue was always whether he could consistently do more prosaic things that further the team's cause! But I don't want to overplay the Rod-Ian analogy- Ian is a very good player- but he's not the neglected messiah some claim. That's all.

[goreyguy]

Interesting to note that several of Leinsters senior players had approached MOC mid season and told him he wasn't tough enough; and that MOC had previously been told that he wasn't bringing through the junior players.

[Andrew097]

Dont know how a thread about Matts gone turns in to a slagging of Madigan. I always though Madigan was developing nicely Johnny went, Schmidt signed a outhalf and I though a pretty clever move a non International which ment like Isa we would have a key player for the international period. But Schmidt went upstairs and Matt then did nothing to develop any outhalf not least Madigan. Right down to playing one outhalf for an entire season, I dont think I have seen anything like that in any other team.
Matt has gone and part of the reason is they were playing badly and Matt never changed a thing. Certainly no backs have looked like they have improved over the last two seasons.
I'm intrested to see Jimmy for the Baas Baas as I'm sure Deans will not have him sitting in the pocket kicking. I'm also sure that Schmidt would have rotated Madigan and Goppert far more and certainly would not have played one to the exclusion of the other.

[nc6000]

BTW who did Joe want to play at 10 for Leinster, for the last two seasons?

If Joe wanted Madigan starting at 10 for Leinster he would have been starting at 10 for Leinster.

[Oldschool]

BTW who did Joe want to play at 10 for Leinster, for the last two seasons?

If Joe wanted Madigan starting at 10 for Leinster he would have been starting at 10 for Leinster.

I disagree and I've already explained why earlier in this thread.

[fourthirtythree]

BTW who did Joe want to play at 10 for Leinster, for the last two seasons?

If Joe wanted Madigan starting at 10 for Leinster he would have been starting at 10 for Leinster.

I'm sure Joe wants his first choice 12 starting week in and week out for Connacht yet there he is: playing 13 outside Bundi Aki.

It's not that simple. I would be pretty sure that Schmidt would have liked Madigan at 12 for Leinster wearing his Irish hat.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Interesting to note that several of Leinsters senior players had approached MOC mid season and told him he wasn't tough enough; and that MOC had previously been told that he wasn't bringing through the junior players.

As a matter of interest, did you copy that from another forum?

About 6 posts down here: http://forum.planetrugby.com/viewtopic. ... art=168640

[artaneboy]

Dont know how a thread about Matts gone turns in to a slagging of Madigan.

Because people try to define Matt's value in terms of his selection of Ian at 10 and bring it up all the time! Just like you decided to wade in with your own partial take on it....

[Peg Leg]

Dont know how a thread about Matts gone turns in to a slagging of Madigan.

Because people try to define Matt's value in terms of his selection of Ian at 10 and bring it up all the time! Just like you decided to wade in with your own partial take on it....

Is Raydollard, people?

[artaneboy]

Dont know how a thread about Matts gone turns in to a slagging of Madigan.

Because people try to define Matt's value in terms of his selection of Ian at 10 and bring it up all the time! Just like you decided to wade in with your own partial take on it....

Is Raydollard, people?

One hopes! Just joshing Ray....

[Andrew097]

Can anybody name a 10 that has played to the exclusion of another 10 for an entire season in any of the three leagues. It's a weird way to run a team and does not make sense. But we see many justify it when it's difficult to justify but that is only one area Matt was strange in his decision making and tactics often.
Leinsters performance over the two seasons went backwards. Injuries, player avaiability, basic skills, retirements, stupid fans, player accountablity, give him time, bad ref calls, all these things were used by many to defend Matt but they are really only excuses.

[artaneboy]

Can anybody name a 10 that has played to the exclusion of another 10 for an entire season in any of the three leagues. It's a weird way to run a team and does not make sense. But we see many justify it when it's difficult to justify but that is only one area Matt was strange in his decision making and tactics often.
Leinsters performance over the two seasons went backwards. Injuries, player avaiability, basic skills, retirements, stupid fans, player accountablity, give him time, bad ref calls, all these things were used by many to defend Matt but they are really only excuses.

... and still you keep it going. Okay I'll go this far.

Almost all clubs in all of the leagues have preferred options at 10. Jimmy was Matt's choice. Keatley is Foley's, Jackson's is Doak's, etc. Jimmy had an injury-free run that precluded the need to change the out half position much.

But when Ian did start at 10 by Matt's choice, he was invariably less than persuasive in setting out a claim for the shirt. It's that simple; no conspiracy- no grudge on Matt's part.

Whatever reasons Leinster failed this year and blame can be attached to Matt, not picking Ian Madigan in your 'fantasy rugby team' position was not not one! Can we leave it at that on this thread?

[Donny B.]

According to Murray Kinsella it was MOC who ultimately decided to leave. Leinster were prepared to have him see out his contract.

http://www.the42.ie/matt-oconnor-leinst ... 8-May2015/

Don't really buy that spin to be honest. I think if the management had wanted him, he would have stayed.
He had the players and the media on his side, if it wasn't for those pesky supporters!
And I have it on good authority that the move to push him out started after the defeat to Toulon.


I don't follow Super Rugby too much anymore but are the Reds that stuck for a coach that they want to take a fella who was effectively sacked two years into his first head coach role?

Maybe they are, but I would suspect he'd pick up a gig in the Aviva Premiership sooner.

Peter O'Reilly's piece in yesterday's Sunday Times confirms the spin that it was "mutual" was total bullshite.
MOC was sacked and was "flabbergasted" that his job was even in doubt.

The problem seemed to be that he wanted to be the players' friend rather than a coach.
Terrible performances were just accepted, no one ever got a bollocking, not even privately.
Even the senior players approached him during the season and told him he needed to be harder on players, but he just ignored them and kept going the same way.
He made his own bed and I'd be amazed if he got another head coach job anytime soon. Doesn't seem to be cut out for it.

[LeinsterLeader]

According to Murray Kinsella it was MOC who ultimately decided to leave. Leinster were prepared to have him see out his contract.

http://www.the42.ie/matt-oconnor-leinst ... 8-May2015/

Don't really buy that spin to be honest. I think if the management had wanted him, he would have stayed.
He had the players and the media on his side, if it wasn't for those pesky supporters!
And I have it on good authority that the move to push him out started after the defeat to Toulon.


I don't follow Super Rugby too much anymore but are the Reds that stuck for a coach that they want to take a fella who was effectively sacked two years into his first head coach role?

Maybe they are, but I would suspect he'd pick up a gig in the Aviva Premiership sooner.

Peter O'Reilly's piece in yesterday's Sunday Times confirms the spin that it was "mutual" was total bullshite.
MOC was sacked and was "flabbergasted" that his job was even in doubt.

The problem seemed to be that he wanted to be the players' friend rather than a coach.
Terrible performances were just accepted, no one ever got a bollocking, not even privately.
Even the senior players approached him during the season and told him he needed to be harder on players, but he just ignored them and kept going the same way.
He made his own bed and I'd be amazed if he got another head coach job anytime soon. Doesn't seem to be cut out for it.

Well if that be true I think its as much an indictment on the players. After so much success for a majority of the squad that they still felt they needed someone to shout at them in order to get them to move their arse does not reflect well on them I think

[olaf the fat]

Peter O'Reilly's piece in yesterday's Sunday Times confirms the spin that it was "mutual" was total bullshite.
MOC was sacked and was "flabbergasted" that his job was even in doubt.

The problem seemed to be that he wanted to be the players' friend rather than a coach.
Terrible performances were just accepted, no one ever got a bollocking, not even privately.
Even the senior players approached him during the season and told him he needed to be harder on players, but he just ignored them and kept going the same way.
He made his own bed and I'd be amazed if he got another head coach job anytime soon. Doesn't seem to be cut out for it.

Club owners in England or Aus wont have had to watch our shite performances or see us go from the best rugby in Europe to mid table hybrid rugby league nothingness.

His positive column + excuses column on the oul CV will seem OK.

Year 1 - League winners, cup away semi final - top players leaving and retiring
Year 2 - Cup home semi final & SF lost in extra time to eventual cup winners - injury crisis, player management, Irish call ups

Now, we know there is a whole other side to the last 2 seasons, but lots of club owners in England would be happy with last 2 seasons results.
Also Leinster were lucky unearthing 2 great coaches in a row, they are rare and the best will be keeping an eye out for an International job post world cup.

Hopefully we can get someone to put us back on the right road now.

[The Doc]

Madigan is undoubtedly Joe's second choice number 10.

Which is why he started him against Italy in the Six Nations, when his first choice number 10 was injured.

Judging on selections - it appears the Madigan is currently Joe's first choice "bench" 10. If Sexton starts, Madigan on the bench. If Sexton doesn't start, Madigan probably remains on bench and Keatley (or whoever) comes in. But he doesn't being Keatley on the bench ahead of Madigan.

Probabaly a reflection on his ability to cover positions and kicking options - and the fact that he may have gaps in "game management". Or is seen as being better closing off a agme - or even that his unpredictability offers something if needed.

But I don't think you can claim Schmidt would choose to put an inadequate option on the bench - especially if there are other optiosn out there. He obviously rates him to some extent.

[Dave Cahill]

Judging on selections - it appears the Madigan is currently Joe's first choice "bench" 10. If Sexton starts, Madigan on the bench. If Sexton doesn't start, Madigan probably remains on bench and Keatley (or whoever) comes in. But he doesn't being Keatley on the bench ahead of Madigan.

Probabaly a reflection on his ability to cover positions and kicking options - and the fact that he may have gaps in "game management". Or is seen as being better closing off a agme - or even that his unpredictability offers something if needed.

But I don't think you can claim Schmidt would choose to put an inadequate option on the bench - especially if there are other optiosn out there. He obviously rates him to some extent.

I don't think he's inadequate by any means - one guy on the bench covering three positions at the standard that Madigan is at? Thats a huge huge bonus to have - it gives the coach so much more flexibility with the rest of his bench selection.

[simonokeeffe]

Can anybody name a 10 that has played to the exclusion of another 10 for an entire season in any of the three leagues. It's a weird way to run a team and does not make sense. But we see many justify it when it's difficult to justify but that is only one area Matt was strange in his decision making and tactics often.
Leinsters performance over the two seasons went backwards. Injuries, player avaiability, basic skills, retirements, stupid fans, player accountablity, give him time, bad ref calls, all these things were used by many to defend Matt but they are really only excuses.

Keatley, Russell, Jackson, Biggar, Priestland, Anscombe (when he arrived), Gopperth

Myler, Ford, Goode, Evans, Cipriani, Geraghty

not defending MOC's judgement call here but 10 is just the most rigidly selected position, very rarely rotated much, Exeter only team I can think of that has rotated 10 shirt much
in terms of budget/signing 2 even players its hard to do and a top 10 the biggest spend by necessity

[offshorerules]

Anyone else think Franno's piece about his sacking was speculative bshit at best?