Leinster Senior Squad 2017/2018

[Ruckedtobits]

I would have thought the IRFU's commitment to the Pro 14 with all that that entails and envisages would be predicated upon the Irish provinces being as successful as possible in it as well as in the ERCC. The IRFU doesn't just have its eye on the gate and the TV income from Test rugby but also from the latest version of the Celtic League, with which they hope to compete with the English and the French. Or am I missing something?......

Commitment to participation in a successful competition which makes a significant contribution to the overheads and support of four teams and ensures the development of players to National team level is a long way from the sort of hunger and ambition for victory that the Club participating in that competition should have.

Other than the objectives outlined above the IRFU are absolutely agnostic about Provincial success in either competition they play in. The main stream of IRFU financial support is the 6N competition and sales of debenture Stand tickets in Aviva. These two objectives drive everything else in Irish rugby.

Neither of those objectives have any rugby relevance to our Province, our Club, other than the prioritising of the National Team to the current degree may be, needlessly, depriving our players and us, the fans, of the opportunity of winning trophies.

It may be needless, if our total playing roster was to be made available without constraints more often than has been the case. If we cannot acheive success under those conditions, we need a new coaching team. But for so long as they have to operate with current IRFU selection and playing constraints, we cannot fairly judge whether the absence of success is their fault, or a function of the split loyalties which prevails at present.

[artaneboy]

Disagree with that conclusion @molloyjh. Based on the quantity and quality of our player production and development we should be in League and Cup finals every season. We have provided a higher % of players to our National Squad that any other team in Europe for the past three seasons. Our National team have been ranked 3rd or 4th in World rankings during that period.

Toulouse dominated French and European rugby for a decade with a lesser number of international players (but more overseas players), so the model exists to emulate.

Glasgow and Connacht won Pro12 titles with smart innovative coaching. But, IMO, Pivac's success with Llanelli last season, in both style and timing, was coaching right up to the Joe Schmidt level. Saracens, Clermont, Castres, Toulon and Racing have all won trophies at the top level and coaching and team mental preparation has been the key of each triumph.

Leinster has the components to acheive Toulouse-like success but our coaching and big-match preparation must be more focussed on winning trophies than on international player development. The IRFU will not and does not share this objective and it can only come from within Leinster. All stakeholders, and I include fans, must emphasise and demand this success and not be merely satisfied with great success in player development.

It is possible to dominate a sports code for a prolonged period, if you have the resources and the leadership from the top. Not necessarily bombastic leadership, but effective, ruthless leadership as demonstrated in hurling by Kilkenny, in football by Dublin, in soccer by Real Madrid, in Water Polo by Hungary, in NFL by The Packers and the 49'ers.

Detailed player development, allied to internal competition, coupled with focussed motivation and deep-seated ambition seem to be the key ingredients that each of the great successful teams in any code exhibited. We have a number of the key elements, but without them all together, peaks and troughs shared across many teams will be the norm. But it needn't be that way and Leinster have many of the necessary elements in place. But do we have the deep-seated ambition at the leadership levels throughout the Province - CEO, Professional Board, Leinster Executive Committee, and above all, the Coaching Team and Playing Squad.

Ambition for Provincial success will never come from the IRFU. It can only come from within the Province, STH, and other supporters, media, sponsors, Clubs. These are the key stakeholders and they must demand success from all of the leadership groups noted above. Ambition requires sacrifice of other elements, being liked or not getting hurt. Ruthless ambition rejects everything placed in its way in the acheivement of success.

Spot on. Titles and trophies are essential and we need ruthlessness and ambition for the club for that to happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hugonaut]

For Ireland, the provinces and the players. It benefits none of them.

Saying the provinces play an active role in the player management system is like saying the pig plays an active role in the hens bacon and eggs!

It's difficult to know if our player welfare system is a case of 'The Emperor's New Clothes', because the vast majority of recent rugby writing on health & fitness of players [over the last three years or so] has concerned head injuries and concussion. Not many people have written about boring things like broken bones, soft-tissue injuries and game minutes.

The IRFU haven't come out with empirical data that proves that their player management system is better than the RFU's. Maybe they consider it beneath them, but I'm not sure if the system pans out as well as its defenders suggest. If you consider that the IRFU's union-based system is one side of the argument, and the RFU's club-based system is the other side – and given that to this point there were nominally the same number of games in each regular season, i.e. 22 in league + 6 in cup – then there should be quite a bit of evidence to back up the player welfare system.

To play devil's advocate:

A] Chris Robshaw played in 69 [67+2] first class games/excluding Anglo-Welsh cup for Quins since the start of the 2013-14 season, and 39 [39+0] for England in the same period [source: http://www.itsrugby.co.uk/player-intern ... -5301.html ] for a total of 108 games [106+2];
B] Sean O'Brien has played in 29 [25+4] first class games/excluding B&I Cup for Leinster in the same period, and 23 [20+3] for Ireland [source: http://www.itsrugby.co.uk/player-intern ... -5350.html ] for a total of 52 games [45+7].

They both play roughly the same position, are roughly the same size [Robshaw 188cm and 102-106kg/O'Brien 188cm & 108kg], and roughly the same age [Robshaw 31/O'Brien 30]. It's an apples-for-apples comparison over a decent sample size of four full seasons.

Robshaw has played in more than twice as many games and started more than twice as many games as SOB; the former is playing under the "money-first/win at all costs" regime of English club rugby and the latter is in the "we look after the players/it's the bigger picture" IRFU regime.

Injuries and injury-causing events are unpredictable in collision sports.

[artaneboy]

The lions tour once every four years. What about the other three years? What the Lions tour has done is shine a light on the Irish player management system and highlighted its lack of merit or real benefit and emphasised how passive the position of the provinces is in it

No- the Lions is an unnecessary further blow on an awkward but acceptable bruise. We signed up for the Club/ Country dichotomy- but not to the four-year circus.

I will agree the player management system is far from perfect, and players should simply play more for their clubs. But the demands of the Lions both after- and I believe even before, has hampered our selection unnecessarily. Even by your own logic, it has added to the drag that the ireland system has imposed on our selection capacity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[riocard911]

I would have thought the IRFU's commitment to the Pro 14 with all that that entails and envisages would be predicated upon the Irish provinces being as successful as possible in it as well as in the ERCC. The IRFU doesn't just have its eye on the gate and the TV income from Test rugby but also from the latest version of the Celtic League, with which they hope to compete with the English and the French. Or am I missing something?......

Commitment to participation in a successful competition which makes a significant contribution to the overheads and support of four teams and ensures the development of players to National team level is a long way from the sort of hunger and ambition for victory that the Club participating in that competition should have.

Other than the objectives outlined above the IRFU are absolutely agnostic about Provincial success in either competition they play in. The main stream of IRFU financial support is the 6N competition and sales of debenture Stand tickets in Aviva. These two objectives drive everything else in Irish rugby.

Neither of those objectives have any rugby relevance to our Province, our Club, other than the prioritising of the National Team to the current degree may be, needlessly, depriving our players and us, the fans, of the opportunity of winning trophies.

It may be needless, if our total playing roster was to be made available without constraints more often than has been the case. If we cannot acheive success under those conditions, we need a new coaching team. But for so long as they have to operate with current IRFU selection and playing constraints, we cannot fairly judge whether the absence of success is their fault, or a function of the split loyalties which prevails at present.

I find it hard to believe that the TV rights and the gate from eight Ireland matches a year - 6 Nations and AIs; two or three of which take place away - earn the IRFU more money than the TV money and gates for the four provinces playing collectively around a 100 games a season. Leinster alone just about sell out Lansdowne Road twice or more each season. I'm in total agreement, that the IRFU should be doing more to assist the provinces and was under the impression - incorrect as it may be - that the transformation of the Pro 12 into the Pro 14 was an attempt to address the issues that have us Leinster fans annoyed with the national set up.

[Dave Cahill]

Another comparison is Sexton and O'Brien inside and outside the system.

Johnny Sexton played 15 from a possible 40 Leinster and Ireland games last season, Sean played 16 from 40 (plus half a B&I cup game). Both players have developed a reputation for being injury prone (and in Johnnys case are targeted because of a perceived fragility, thus making that reputation self fulfilling).

But outside of the cosseting embrace of the IRFU Sean was able to start 5 games, and Johnny was able to bang out 7 games in just over a month in the toughest tour in rugby.

[Dave Cahill]

No- the Lions is an unnecessary further blow on an awkward but acceptable bruise. We signed up for the Club/ Country dichotomy- but not to the four-year circus.

I will agree the player management system is far from perfect, and players should simply play more for their clubs. But the demands of the Lions both after- and I believe even before, has hampered our selection unnecessarily. Even by your own logic, it has added to the drag that the ireland system has imposed on our selection capacity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, I didn't realise you had started following rugby before 1888

[leinsterforever]

For Ireland, the provinces and the players. It benefits none of them.

Saying the provinces play an active role in the player management system is like saying the pig plays an active role in the hens bacon and eggs!

It's difficult to know if our player welfare system is a case of 'The Emperor's New Clothes', because the vast majority of recent rugby writing on health & fitness of players [over the last three years or so] has concerned head injuries and concussion. Not many people have written about boring things like broken bones, soft-tissue injuries and game minutes.

The IRFU haven't come out with empirical data that proves that their player management system is better than the RFU's. Maybe they consider it beneath them, but I'm not sure if the system pans out as well as its defenders suggest. If you consider that the IRFU's union-based system is one side of the argument, and the RFU's club-based system is the other side – and given that to this point there were nominally the same number of games in each regular season, i.e. 22 in league + 6 in cup – then there should be quite a bit of evidence to back up the player welfare system.

To play devil's advocate:

A] Chris Robshaw played in 69 [67+2] first class games/excluding Anglo-Welsh cup for Quins since the start of the 2013-14 season, and 39 [39+0] for England in the same period [source: http://www.itsrugby.co.uk/player-intern ... -5301.html ] for a total of 108 games [106+2];
B] Sean O'Brien has played in 29 [25+4] first class games/excluding B&I Cup for Leinster in the same period, and 23 [20+3] for Ireland [source: http://www.itsrugby.co.uk/player-intern ... -5350.html ] for a total of 52 games [45+7].

They both play roughly the same position, are roughly the same size [Robshaw 188cm and 102-106kg/O'Brien 188cm & 108kg], and roughly the same age [Robshaw 31/O'Brien 30]. It's an apples-for-apples comparison over a decent sample size of four full seasons.

Robshaw has played in more than twice as many games and started more than twice as many games as SOB; the former is playing under the "money-first/win at all costs" regime of English club rugby and the latter is in the "we look after the players/it's the bigger picture" IRFU regime.

Injuries and injury-causing events are unpredictable in collision sports.

Some players are more injury-prone than others, though. So it's difficult to make accurate comparisons. How many games has Manu Tuilagi played over the last four years, for example?

Corbisiero's comments a while back, with him saying that he was often under pressure to play even when not fully fit, were telling.

My biggest gripe with the player management scheme and the IRFU sometimes telling provincial coaches who to pick is that it means there could be a sort of delayed recognition by the national coach of quality performances by new players for provinces because existing players have effectively been backed for the whole year.

[Peg Leg]

For Ireland, the provinces and the players. It benefits none of them.

Saying the provinces play an active role in the player management system is like saying the pig plays an active role in the hens bacon and eggs!

It's difficult to know if our player welfare system is a case of 'The Emperor's New Clothes', because the vast majority of recent rugby writing on health & fitness of players [over the last three years or so] has concerned head injuries and concussion. Not many people have written about boring things like broken bones, soft-tissue injuries and game minutes.

The IRFU haven't come out with empirical data that proves that their player management system is better than the RFU's. Maybe they consider it beneath them, but I'm not sure if the system pans out as well as its defenders suggest. If you consider that the IRFU's union-based system is one side of the argument, and the RFU's club-based system is the other side – and given that to this point there were nominally the same number of games in each regular season, i.e. 22 in league + 6 in cup – then there should be quite a bit of evidence to back up the player welfare system.

To play devil's advocate:

A] Chris Robshaw played in 69 [67+2] first class games/excluding Anglo-Welsh cup for Quins since the start of the 2013-14 season, and 39 [39+0] for England in the same period [source: http://www.itsrugby.co.uk/player-intern ... -5301.html ] for a total of 108 games [106+2];
B] Sean O'Brien has played in 29 [25+4] first class games/excluding B&I Cup for Leinster in the same period, and 23 [20+3] for Ireland [source: http://www.itsrugby.co.uk/player-intern ... -5350.html ] for a total of 52 games [45+7].

They both play roughly the same position, are roughly the same size [Robshaw 188cm and 102-106kg/O'Brien 188cm & 108kg], and roughly the same age [Robshaw 31/O'Brien 30]. It's an apples-for-apples comparison over a decent sample size of four full seasons.

Robshaw has played in more than twice as many games and started more than twice as many games as SOB; the former is playing under the "money-first/win at all costs" regime of English club rugby and the latter is in the "we look after the players/it's the bigger picture" IRFU regime.

Injuries and injury-causing events are unpredictable in collision sports.

My first thought on reading that was that SO'B has missed more than most and that maybe Heaslip [190cm 112kg]
would be a sterner test case (from the same source): in the same period he played for Leinster in 63 games [58+5] and 38 times for Ireland [37+1]. Total 101 [95+6].
Very similar figures which is impressive in Robshaw's case as he's been compared to the worlds first professional rugby cyborg.

[curates_egg]

No- the Lions is an unnecessary further blow on an awkward but acceptable bruise. We signed up for the Club/ Country dichotomy- but not to the four-year circus.

I will agree the player management system is far from perfect, and players should simply play more for their clubs. But the demands of the Lions both after- and I believe even before, has hampered our selection unnecessarily. Even by your own logic, it has added to the drag that the ireland system has imposed on our selection capacity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, I didn't realise you had started following rugby before 1888

You're arguing yourself into knots with that type of facetiousness.
Prior to player welfare, players gave their all in games for club(province) and country to try and get selected. Now - it seems - the headline players use the system to get themselves into peak form and fitness for the Lions. Sexton and O'Brien are, of course, the two most obvious examples of this. But I would say Henshaw also used the system to manage himself for the Lions. It didn't work out for him but I think you could make that argument looking at his season for us.
Prior to player welfare, the playing time for the Lions wouldn't have mattered so much as regards the availability of players for their clubs(provinces) the following season.

The main difference is that you blame Schmidt/Nucifora for the entire problem and exonerate the players. I blame the system, and think some players also use it in a way that is detrimental to the provinces.
If the system works - and as Hugo observes, there is no evidence for it - then, as an Ireland fan, I could stomach it.
I am not a "Lions fan" though. I therefore find the use of the system to benefit the Lions (and Lions players) to the detriment of their province to be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

[simonokeeffe]

Youd have to go crunch some serious numbers and compare a lot more than one or two, but ignore Hartley as he is always suspended

[Dave Cahill]

No- the Lions is an unnecessary further blow on an awkward but acceptable bruise. We signed up for the Club/ Country dichotomy- but not to the four-year circus.

I will agree the player management system is far from perfect, and players should simply play more for their clubs. But the demands of the Lions both after- and I believe even before, has hampered our selection unnecessarily. Even by your own logic, it has added to the drag that the ireland system has imposed on our selection capacity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, I didn't realise you had started following rugby before 1888

You're arguing yourself into knots with that type of facetiousness.
Prior to player welfare, players gave their all in games for club(province) and country to try and get selected. Now - it seems - the headline players use the system to get themselves into peak form and fitness for the Lions. Sexton and O'Brien are, of course, the two most obvious examples of this. But I would say Henshaw also used the system to manage himself for the Lions. It didn't work out for him but I think you could make that argument looking at his season for us.
Prior to player welfare, the playing time for the Lions wouldn't have mattered so much as regards the availability of players for their clubs(provinces) the following season.

The main difference is that you blame Schmidt/Nucifora for the entire problem and exonerate the players. I blame the system, and think some players also use it in a way that is detrimental to the provinces.
If the system works - and as Hugo observes, there is no evidence for it - then, as an Ireland fan, I could stomach it.
I am not a "Lions fan" though. I therefore find the use of the system to benefit the Lions (and Lions players) to the detriment of their province to be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

The players are employees. They do what they are told by their employers.

This is part of the problem I have with the system, though its an aside from the fact that I don't think it actually works, I think it damages the reputation of the players when you have guys that are fit to play sitting out important games for no apparent reason

[Laighin Break]

I think a lot of this debate is driven by a lack of clarity from within the IRFU and provinces. The old Strategic plans had very specific objectives for the provinces in terms of winning Heineken Cups and Celtic Leagues do these documents even exist any more?

The other thing playing on my mind is the evolution of rugby to a place where only the elite matter. The debate on international vs provincial involves the belief that the national team is prioritised (which I think is clearly true) but this seems to be evolving to clearer DEPRIORITISATION of provincial rugby - particularly the league though we also see elite players not participating in the Champions Cup. This Elitist ethos is a real danger to the long term future of the game - you see it now in schools and clubs. Unless you're a contender for a professional contract you're out of the game. And when you are, you have to adopt a professional approach to life. You can see this becoming like American Football where participation elites play and everyone else watches.

For me the IRFU needs to hold itself accountable for development and success at all levels of the game not just because I believe this to be the right thing to do but the belief that the international game will always be the be all and end all of rugby is absolutely not necessarily a given.

Of course the national team is prioritised, who is saying it's not? Indeed it should be, it's where all the money comes from. It will take an enormous swing in the game for international rugby ever not to be the 'be all and end all'.

As Leinster fans we forget that the foremost reason our province exists is to provide better players for Ireland. That's not going to change any time soon, whether we like it or not.
.

That last sentence is part of what I believe could be changed - if all Leinster stakeholders demanded it. Those stakeholders include STH's, Sponsors, Media, Leinster Executive Committee, CEO etc. They also include many Leinster fans, who incidentally are also the purchasers of almost 70% of all IRFU tickets - a figure previously conceded by the Union.

If the Leinster stakeholders were as noisy as those down south were in demanding to be bailed out of their debt, the decisions made by Schmidt and Nucifora would be different and the control that Leo, Girv and Bomber could exert over all players in the Leinster Squad wouls be altered. That control might include ommiting players with central contracts who don't appear to compete hard enough for their places wearing a Leinster jersey. That's the evidence which emerges from Kilkenny, Dublin, Real Madrid.

IMO, it's time to push the envelope on Leinster's ambition and National player welfare. The Game time played by our players on a Lions Tour - once every four years- proves that some have the capacity to play more than they do in the other three years. They should do so in Blue, if they prove they have the appetite still. If not, our Coaches must have the right to select some of those younger players who are showing they have the talent and hunger to seek wins and trophies for Leinster.

I think Dublin would be the IRFU in your analogy.

[Dave Cahill]

I find it hard to believe that the TV rights and the gate from eight Ireland matches a year - 6 Nations and AIs; two or three of which take place away - earn the IRFU more money than the TV money and gates for the four provinces playing collectively around a 100 games a season. Leinster alone just about sell out Lansdowne Road twice or more each season. I'm in total agreement, that the IRFU should be doing more to assist the provinces and was under the impression - incorrect as it may be - that the transformation of the Pro 12 into the Pro 14 was an attempt to address the issues that have us Leinster fans annoyed with the national set up.

So did I, but the OLSC were given a presentation at the time that Eamon Ryan was trying to list the 6 Nations and, whilst no doubt skewed towards the Unions point of view, the money that the Irish team pulls in is astronomical. It was orders of magnitude more than I imagined it would be. The 6 Nations and our participation in it is the ATM that drives Irish rugby almost entirely.

Now, the other side of that is that our system is set up to be that way, and who is to say that if various things were redistributed then the earnings from other previously less performing sectors would increase

[Fireworks]

Right now and for the foreseeable future it probably suits the league for us to be under the player management rules. If we could pick our best 23 every week then I honestly think that we would be unplayable. We may get beaten the odd time in playoff games and some of the other top teams might get a win now and again but we could be looking at 5 points home and away from the bottom 6 or seven teams at least.

Our squad is good enough for us to put out two teams every week and have realistic expectations of both doing well. We are close to where we need to be to compete and dominate at the very top. Long may it continue.

[Dave Cahill]

Right now and for the foreseeable future it probably suits the league for us to be under the player management rules. If we could pick our best 23 every week then I honestly think that we would be unplayable. We may get beaten the odd time in playoff games and some of the other top teams might get a win now and again but we could be looking at 5 points home and away from the bottom 6 or seven teams at least.

Our squad is good enough for us to put out two teams every week and have realistic expectations of both doing well. We are close to where we need to be to compete and dominate at the very top. Long may it continue.

It doesn't suit the league though. Who, outside of Ireland, is going to shell out to see Jordan Larmour right now? The problem that, for example, the welsh have isn't that we beat them pretty regularly, its that we beat them with 'second string' teams. That means they can't sell tickets in the first place with the marquee names and then they have to explain why they're losing to a team without Sexton, O'Brien, Heaslip, McGrath, Furlong, 'Henrose' et al. It makes them look bad and they don't get to console themselves with the takings.

It keeps the league competitive to an extent, but I don't think it will help keep it going

[Dexter]

Right now and for the foreseeable future it probably suits the league for us to be under the player management rules. If we could pick our best 23 every week then I honestly think that we would be unplayable. We may get beaten the odd time in playoff games and some of the other top teams might get a win now and again but we could be looking at 5 points home and away from the bottom 6 or seven teams at least.

Our squad is good enough for us to put out two teams every week and have realistic expectations of both doing well. We are close to where we need to be to compete and dominate at the very top. Long may it continue.

It doesn't suit the league though. Who, outside of Ireland, is going to shell out to see Jordan Larmour right now? The problem that, for example, the welsh have isn't that we beat them pretty regularly, its that we beat them with 'second string' teams. That means they can't sell tickets in the first place with the marquee names and then they have to explain why they're losing to a team without Sexton, O'Brien, Heaslip, McGrath, Furlong, 'Henrose' et al. It makes them look bad and they don't get to console themselves with the takings.

It keeps the league competitive to an extent, but I don't think it will help keep it going

They're good points and probably point to a bit of dilemma: would it be better if the other teams were being consistently destroyed by a full strength, all International XV Leinster team, for example? I've no idea.

[blockhead]

Right now and for the foreseeable future it probably suits the league for us to be under the player management rules. If we could pick our best 23 every week then I honestly think that we would be unplayable. We may get beaten the odd time in playoff games and some of the other top teams might get a win now and again but we could be looking at 5 points home and away from the bottom 6 or seven teams at least.

Our squad is good enough for us to put out two teams every week and have realistic expectations of both doing well. We are close to where we need to be to compete and dominate at the very top. Long may it continue.

It doesn't suit the league though. Who, outside of Ireland, is going to shell out to see Jordan Larmour right now? The problem that, for example, the welsh have isn't that we beat them pretty regularly, its that we beat them with 'second string' teams. That means they can't sell tickets in the first place with the marquee names and then they have to explain why they're losing to a team without Sexton, O'Brien, Heaslip, McGrath, Furlong, 'Henrose' et al. It makes them look bad and they don't get to console themselves with the takings.

It keeps the league competitive to an extent, but I don't think it will help keep it going

That old Welsh complaint is a load of Boll*x!
Their attendance record's for the European games is only slightly higher than that for the Pro14. Scarlets for example had an ave of about 7,500 last season for the visits of Sarries, Toulon and Sale.
They just don't have a stong fanbase, end of story.

[simonokeeffe]

its back to old problem of Welsh "regional" rugby being built on sand

[mildlyinterested]

Noticed Ross Molony's stats were updated on the website to 6'6 and 111kg.