Scarlets at home, 25/01 7.35pm

[backrower8]

Could I hazard a guess that Deegan attended Michael's and Doris didn't? An inspired guess.

That said, I would like to see Doris @ 6 and Deegan @ 8 trialled.

Regardless of where he went, yeah REALLY, I think it is clear that Deegan's skillset offers something quite different in his position over regular 8s who can truck it up hard like Doris can. Deegan breaks defences through angles, footwork and great hands and offloading - and so is a game changer of a player. But don't take my word for it, he was Junior World Player of the Year in the same squad as Ryan, Stockdale and Porter so must have something.

To be honest I still haven't seen enough of Doris but he definitely has not lived up to the billing that went to another level last Summer post JRWC. I hope he continues to develop. It is his first season in Seniors.

[backrower8]

You'd pick objectively better players over slightly worse players? That's a BIG statement!

And you need to slow down and see when somebody is having a laugh.

[OTT]

Could I hazard a guess that Deegan attended Michael's and Doris didn't? An inspired guess.

That said, I would like to see Doris @ 6 and Deegan @ 8 trialled.

Regardless of where he went, yeah REALLY, I think it is clear that Deegan's skillset offers something quite different in his position over regular 8s who can truck it up hard like Doris can. Deegan breaks defences through angles, footwork and great hands and offloading - and so is a game changer of a player. But don't take my word for it, he was Junior World Player of the Year in the same squad as Ryan, Stockdale and Porter so must have something.

To be honest I still haven't seen enough of Doris but he definitely has not lived up to the billing that went to another level last Summer post JRWC. I hope he continues to develop. It is his first season in Seniors.

You are sort of contradicting yourself there by on the one hand wanting us to take Deegan's JWPOTY into account but then say Doris has not lived up to his billing that went to another level post his JRWC last summer. Would that not mean that Deegan was massively hyped as well and has not lived up to his JWPOTY billing? Seems like you want to hold the hype against one of them but want to use it to fuel the ability of the other.

What I think is that these two players are absolutely brilliant young players, I think Leinster see that and want one of them to make it as a 6 so we can hold onto them both. I don't think either of them have reached anywhere near their ceiling but because Leinster have made a conscious decision to play both of them from such a young age we naturally have these discussions. If they both played elsewhere Deegan would probably have a few appearances and Doris would be pushing hard on the 'A' bench. I would hate to lose either of them because their potential is massive but it is a real fear.

[backrower8]

Could I hazard a guess that Deegan attended Michael's and Doris didn't? An inspired guess.

That said, I would like to see Doris @ 6 and Deegan @ 8 trialled.

Regardless of where he went, yeah REALLY, I think it is clear that Deegan's skillset offers something quite different in his position over regular 8s who can truck it up hard like Doris can. Deegan breaks defences through angles, footwork and great hands and offloading - and so is a game changer of a player. But don't take my word for it, he was Junior World Player of the Year in the same squad as Ryan, Stockdale and Porter so must have something.

To be honest I still haven't seen enough of Doris but he definitely has not lived up to the billing that went to another level last Summer post JRWC. I hope he continues to develop. It is his first season in Seniors.

You are sort of contradicting yourself there by on the one hand wanting us to take Deegan's JWPOTY into account but then say Doris has not lived up to his billing that went to another level post his JRWC last summer. Would that not mean that Deegan was massively hyped as well and has not lived up to his JWPOTY billing? Seems like you want to hold the hype against one of them but want to use it to fuel the ability of the other.

What I think is that these two players are absolutely brilliant young players, I think Leinster see that and want one of them to make it as a 6 so we can hold onto them both. I don't think either of them have reached anywhere near their ceiling but because Leinster have made a conscious decision to play both of them from such a young age we naturally have these discussions. If they both played elsewhere Deegan would probably have a few appearances and Doris would be pushing hard on the 'A' bench. I would hate to lose either of them because their potential is massive but it is a real fear.

I can't follow your first but agree with most all of your second paragraph. I am not sure that Leinster are trying to manufacture a 6 from between them since they have only played the guy less likely to fit that position in the role. I think they are forcing Deegan to tighten up by playing him somewhere, at 6, that doesn't give access to as much ball-in-hand.

[hugonaut]

Doris looks to my untrained eye a better bet as an 8 than Deegan, who was quiet.

It is still too early (forwards aged 20 & 22,with 18 months between them) To my trained eye the opposite is the case. Deegan has exceptional moves and hands and a knack for scoring tries that will benefit a team the more touches he gets. That points to 8. Whereas Doris has more power which also suits 6.

I was surprised to see that this is the first time that the coaches have selected a backrow with both players starting - Deegan at N6 and Doris at No8. I thought this had happened before, but it turns out that when Doris has been selected as a starter, it has been with Deegan in the No20 jersey: @ Cardiff, vs Ospreys, @ Dragons, vs Connacht.

Deegan has actually played in lots more games than Doris this season: 14 [6+8/587 mins] compared to 8 [5+3/431 mins]. It's not like he has been sidelined in the same manner as Peter Dooley was last year [2+7 for 285 mins]. It's pragmatic to assume that they will both continue to be heavily involved over the next two months and then their appearances will drop off as Ruddock, Conan, O'Brien come back into the mix following the Six Nations.

However, the Deegan/Doris scenario is the one topic over any others I'd like to sit down and discuss with the coaches to hear their thinking on the subject. To me, Doris has the tools to play No6 and No8, whereas Deegan doesn't fit the mould of a typical blindside at all and isn't all that effective when he plays there. That doesn't mean that Deegan is a worse player than Doris - Josh van der Flier is a super openside, but you wouldn't play him at No8. Rugby is a game with numerous positional quirks.

It'd make more sense to me to prioritise selection of Deegan at No8 and Doris at No6 [somewhat at the expense of Josh Murphy, it must be said] in terms of progressing both players along complementary lines rather than one at the expense of another. I think the coaches have needlessly created a 'quarterback controversy' over the backup No8 position.

When you look at the depth chart at backrow purely in terms of starts [rather than appearances or minutes], it actually seems quite incoherent after the first rank:

No8: Conan [9 starts/673 mins]; Doris [5 starts/365 mins]; Deegan [3 starts/204 mins]; O'Brien [2 starts/119 mins]; Leavy [1 start/54 mins]
No7: van der Flier [10 starts/679 mins]; Leavy [4 starts/320 mins]; Penny [4 starts/303 mins]; Ruddock [2 starts/160 mins]
No6: Ruddock [9 starts/633 mins]; Murphy [6 starts/350 mins]; Deegan [3 starts/235 mins]; Leavy [1 start/80 mins]; O'Brien [1 start/61 mins]

Conan, JVDF and Rhys are out front at their respective positions - given this season's form and fitness, few would argue with that. Next up are Doris at No8, Leavy at openside and Josh Murphy at blindside ... not a combination that many on the board would suggest as Leinster's second string backrow. From a choice of the remaining players, it'd be Deegan at No8, Leavy at No7 and O'Brien at No6 for me. It's also strange for me to see Deegan as our nominal third choice blindside, because I don't believe that he has a future in the position. Doris hasn't started a single game at blindside, which again strikes me as odd.

As an aside, it's interesting to see that Leavy has started games in all three positions this season, and that Sean O'Brien hasn't started at No7 [his nominal position] at all. When we needed a No8 for the away fixture against Wasps, we skipped two players on our depth chart [Doris and Deegan] to bring in O'Brien.

[backrower8]

I was surprised to see that this is the first time that the coaches have selected a backrow with both players starting - Deegan at N6 and Doris at No8. I thought this had happened before, but it turns out that when Doris has been selected as a starter, it has been with Deegan in the No20 jersey: @ Cardiff, vs Ospreys, @ Dragons, vs Connacht.

Deegan has actually played in lots more games than Doris this season: 14 [6+8/587 mins] compared to 8 [5+3/431 mins]. It's not like he has been sidelined in the same manner as Peter Dooley was last year [2+7 for 285 mins]. It's pragmatic to assume that they will both continue to be heavily involved over the next two months and then their appearances will drop off as Ruddock, Conan, O'Brien come back into the mix following the Six Nations.

However, the Deegan/Doris scenario is the one topic over any others I'd like to sit down and discuss with the coaches to hear their thinking on the subject. To me, Doris has the tools to play No6 and No8, whereas Deegan doesn't fit the mould of a typical blindside at all and isn't all that effective when he plays there. That doesn't mean that Deegan is a worse player than Doris - Josh van der Flier is a super openside, but you wouldn't play him at No8. Rugby is a game with numerous positional quirks.

It'd make more sense to me to prioritise selection of Deegan at No8 and Doris at No6 [somewhat at the expense of Josh Murphy, it must be said] in terms of progressing both players along complementary lines rather than one at the expense of another. I think the coaches have needlessly created a 'quarterback controversy' over the backup No8 position.

When you look at the depth chart at backrow purely in terms of starts [rather than appearances or minutes], it actually seems quite incoherent after the first rank:

No8: Conan [9 starts/673 mins]; Doris [5 starts/365 mins]; Deegan [3 starts/204 mins]; O'Brien [2 starts/119 mins]; Leavy [1 start/54 mins]
No7: van der Flier [10 starts/679 mins]; Leavy [4 starts/320 mins]; Penny [4 starts/303 mins]; Ruddock [2 starts/160 mins]
No6: Ruddock [9 starts/633 mins]; Murphy [6 starts/350 mins]; Deegan [3 starts/235 mins]; Leavy [1 start/80 mins]; O'Brien [1 start/61 mins]

Conan, JVDF and Rhys are out front at their respective positions - given this season's form and fitness, few would argue with that. Next up are Doris at No8, Leavy at openside and Josh Murphy at blindside ... not a combination that many on the board would suggest as Leinster's second string backrow. From a choice of the remaining players, it'd be Deegan at No8, Leavy at No7 and O'Brien at No6 for me. It's also strange for me to see Deegan as our nominal third choice blindside, because I don't believe that he has a future in the position. Doris hasn't started a single game at blindside, which again strikes me as odd.

As an aside, it's interesting to see that Leavy has started games in all three positions this season, and that Sean O'Brien hasn't started at No7 [his nominal position] at all. When we needed a No8 for the away fixture against Wasps, we skipped two players on our depth chart [Doris and Deegan] to bring in O'Brien.

I do think this excellent post would offer maximum value to the forum if it was posted in the Backrow Options thread instead.

I agree with the need to try Doris at 6 and Deegan at 8. That said, we should be careful about prejudicing Josh Murphy's role at 6 altogether. My sense is that Doris and Murphy have a lot in common but that Doris is a better footballer and possibly reader of a game. You would also have to wonder how Murphy's advanced stage of Med School studies and then internship (next year I think) won't blunt his rugby career (I know the Dr Phil Precedent says it is possible).

[leinsterforever]

I can only assume that they're trying to get Deegan to improve his game in the nitty-gritty aspects by forcing him to do the heavy lifting of a blindside. He's not really suited to it at all. He's a thoroughbred, not a workhorse

[hugonaut]

I do think this excellent post would offer maximum value to the forum if it was posted in the Backrow Options thread instead.

I agree with the need to try Doris at 6 and Deegan at 8. That said, we should be careful about prejudicing Josh Murphy's role at 6 altogether. My sense is that Doris and Murphy have a lot in common but that Doris is a better footballer and possibly reader of a game. You would also have to wonder how Murphy's advanced stage of Med School studies and then internship (next year I think) won't blunt his rugby career (I know the Dr Phil Precedent says it is possible).

Doris showed at U20s level that he has the massively important ability to break the gainline. He was playing against his peers then and largely dominating. He's doing pretty well this year [69 carries for 200m - 2.89m/carry] for a lad of 20 in his first year of senior rugby. He's only going to get better.

From reading a few interviews with him, I know he's a big fan of Kieran Read. Read played No6 almost exclusively for the first three seasons of his career - 59 of his 63 starts for the Crusaders/Canterbury in Super Rugby/NPC were at blindside between 2006-09 [source: http://www.itsrugby.co.uk/player_5334.html ].The late Jerry Collins went the other way as an All Black, started as a No8 and found his best position as a No6. I just don't really understand the plan that Cullen and Lancaster have for both players – do they want Doris as their No8 and Deegan as their No6 in the same team? Seems counter-intuitive to me.

Josh Murphy is a good player, clever, tough and a good lineout option – very like Kev McLaughlin. But he hasn't got much pace and he's not a gainline breaker as a carrier. That just makes him intrinsically less valuable as a blindside. Breaking tackles and getting through the defensive line is so important, and always has been in rugby. It's cynical/pragmatic, but we can afford to sit on Murphy a little because a] there won't be three other provinces promising him the world if he moves to them; and b] he's got loads on in terms of his other career, medicine.

If we can't keep all our young backrows, I'd rather sacrifice Murphy and Connors, as good as they are, ahead of Doris, Penny and Deegan. I want to see those three guys in Leinster colours for the short, medium and long term. They're massive talents.

[ronk]

In a RWC year 9 senior backrows is not a lot. Injuries have been taking a toll.

Before knockouts and international duties there is an average of 720 minutes on the pitch per backrow. That goes up to approx 850 for a full club season. It's a bit less to go around than everyone would ideally want but A games, AIL and internationals make up some.

Even Josh Murphy has 6 starts so far.

At the weekend there were 4 players unavailable with Ireland + Leavy who would have been. Connors is gone for the season so we had 3 backrows left. Not every week is the same but so what, a squad has to cover every week. We put 2 locks on the bwnch and left one there.

[mildlyinterested]

FYI Connors is back running so hopefully he plays sometime this season.

[etak252]

No chance of winning World Cup with Kearney at full back.

Idiotic statement

Hmm it is only an opinion . Maybe Rob is injured or maybe Joe is thinking along the same lines. Maybe not quite an idiotic statement after all.