Who's going to win the the Heineken Cup?

First topic message reminder :

I'll start with the odds:
http://www.oddschecker.com/rugby-union/club-rugby/heineken-cup/winner

Stuttering Ireland have to salvage something from their RWC campaign and then deliver many fit and able bodies back to the cause for the Provinces.

England and France have their resources more distributed but the main contenders are heavily exposed.

Given a bad RWC - it might be Wales' turn?

Your not being too optimistic at all mate. Could all happen. For Tigers, Sarries and Saints definately. The rest will take some doing but Toulouse are not what they were, so why not? Its why I love this Cup!

Also, I forgot Biarritz. They are not bad either. And beware Treviso at home... Man, its such high-level really.

Gibson wrote:Your not being too optimistic at all mate. Could all happen. For Tigers, Sarries and Saints definately. The rest will take some doing but Toulouse are not what they were, so why not? Its why I love this Cup!

Also, I forgot Biarritz. They are not bad either. And beware Treviso at home... Man, its such high-level really.

The Tigers have spent ten years without the big pot. And don't really look like getting close again just yet.

Gibson wrote:Dont Bath have a fella called Donald in? Anyway, we have history with them. All good. I retract my statement. Im always worried in the HC. Think Aironi and Biarritz. Think LI at the RDS. Think the Castres disaster... Don't think

Montpellier 1st up, could easily be the banana-skin. Its true. Warriors will be tough away as well. As will Bath.

Gibbo, I often think about that night and LI at the RDS, some craic, pure class.

red_stag wrote:Good points beshocked. Saints aren't good enough IMO. An easy run last year that won't be repeated this time around. Tigers are the team I expect. Agree about Gloucester and Quins. Saracens aren't a bad shout either and London Irish should be aiming quarter finals with the pool they're in.

Stag, ffs ssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. London Irish are rubbish and will be lucky to finish 4th in the pool.

The London Irish pool is interesting. They're in with Cardiff, Racing Metro and Edinburgh. How will Cardiif do? How seriously will Racing take it? Will they all take points off each other?

LDCPete wrote:

Gibson wrote:Dont Bath have a fella called Donald in? Anyway, we have history with them. All good. I retract my statement. Im always worried in the HC. Think Aironi and Biarritz. Think LI at the RDS. Think the Castres disaster... Don't think

Montpellier 1st up, could easily be the banana-skin. Its true. Warriors will be tough away as well. As will Bath.

Gibbo, I often think about that night and LI at the RDS, some craic, pure class.

red_stag wrote:Good points beshocked. Saints aren't good enough IMO. An easy run last year that won't be repeated this time around. Tigers are the team I expect. Agree about Gloucester and Quins. Saracens aren't a bad shout either and London Irish should be aiming quarter finals with the pool they're in.

Stag, ffs ssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. London Irish are rubbish and will be lucky to finish 4th in the pool.

It was Pete. Took a month to get that broad happy grin of yer fisog. I was stunned, but happy for you as well. Mixed feelings. Good times man. Good times. At the Twickers rematch too. I think ye could make the QF's btw. If we meet in them... pints? You are going for them btw. I'll pay.

Find it hard to get interested tbh. Doesn't start until November this year. Thats a long way off- 8 Pro12 matches and a whole World Cup in between now and then.

But my tip is another title for Guy Noves and Toulouse. Don't see much challenge from the Irish this year as we'll be hit proportionately harder by the RWC.

Gibbo, you know if it's Leinster v London Irish at any stage I'm in like flynn mate.

Actually London Irish vs. Any of the Irish provinces and I'm there mate.

LDCPete wrote:Gibbo, you know if it's Leinster v London Irish at any stage I'm in like flynn mate.

Actually London Irish vs. Any of the Irish provinces and I'm there mate.

Would be great to see you at Ravenhill mate. Pints would defo be on me

Am dying for a trip to Ravenhill Rava, and I definitely owe you a my friend.

The Tigers have spent ten years without the big pot. And don't really look like getting close again just yet

Yeah not like they were in a final a couple of years ago and paid the price for not having a specialist fly half available is it, not like we were in the final on the verge of a hattrick a couple of years before that either (DAMN PESTS!). Tigers could get quite far again this season if they can keep everybody fit and in form which seemed an impossibility last season. Not looking to great with Newbs and Crane already having big injuries but we have squad depth and a scaveging openside for the first time in years and there has been added pace and penetration to the backline with hopefully a fit Geordan Murphy as well.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

The Tigers have spent ten years without the big pot. And don't really look like getting close again just yet

Yeah not like they were in a final a couple of years ago and paid the price for not having a specialist fly half available is it, not like we were in the final on the verge of a hattrick a couple of years before that either (DAMN PESTS!). Tigers could get quite far again this season if they can keep everybody fit and in form which seemed an impossibility last season. Not looking to great with Newbs and Crane already having big injuries but we have squad depth and a scaveging openside for the first time in years and there has been added pace and penetration to the backline with hopefully a fit Geordan Murphy as well.

I hope so Sam. I'm just keeping my expectations low

Done a bit more thinking and I'm looking at Tigers, Leinster, Clermont as the 3 favourites.

Its a shame the 3 French clubs who have recruited best IMO won't be in the Heineken Cup:

Toulon - Giteau, Armitage, Bakkies Botha, Bastareau, Mason and Tillous-Borde amongst others and the amazing names they have.

Stade Francais - Contepomi, Warwick, Kelleher, Sackey, Milloud, Lyons and Wright amongst others.

Bayonne - Heymans, Rokocoko, Tialata, Chrisholm, Lauaki and Phillips amongst others.

Feckless Rogue wrote:Gibson, here's some reasons why I think Leinster play better than Ireland

1. Psychology. Leinster have no mental weakness. They believe they're the best and they'll win any game, anywhere, against anyone if they play well enough. Ireland have mental hangups. The French, the "All Blacks". They also seem to let doubt creep in when they're not beating weaker teams.

2. Coaching. Cheika and Schmidt have transformed Leinster. Foreign idea's, from foreign coaches and players, fusing with Irish ones is a good thing. Our whole setup is more innovative than the conservative English or the insular French. I really want Ireland to have a head coach from Australia or New Zealand. They are the best coaches in the world if you ask me. And there can be no accusations of provincial bias.

3. Support. The provinces get fanatical support. When they're losing the fans roar louder to encourage them. When Ireland are losing the stadium falls quiet, as the fans are already deciding who's fault it is. Usually someone from another province.

4. Test rugby is harder. Leinster are playing clubs. Ireland are playing the very best players from each country.

Another reason Feckless, which is linked to point 2, is that Leinster are very adaptable and Ireland aren't.

Leinster seem to be able to adapt to whatever the opposition throw at them, they can play a tight game or a fast offloading game and seem to know which to play when. When it's needed Schmidt will make tactical subsitutions to change the game. The HEC final was a classic example when he changed the backrow and Leinster were also able to change their scrummaging tactics.

Ireland by comparison just plod away with plan A whether it's working or not until Kidney makes his predetermined 62min half back rotation by which time the game has usually got away from Ireland.

Stag not many people have tipped Munster, do you think they are in with a shout this year?

The HEC final was a classic example when he changed the backrow and Leinster were also able to change their scrummaging tactics.

It did help that the Saints completely ran out of gas though that was also due to careful pre match planning (i.e. resting first team players) by Leinster and not by Saints.

roddersm wrote:Stag not many people have tipped Munster, do you think they are in with a shout this year?

I expect us to get out of the pool. However I beleive we need home advantage in quarter and semi to win it.

A late January signing would be a great gee up for the team I'm not expecting that we'll do it however. David Wallace's injury really doesn't help. I'd think that next season we'll be much better equipped.

roddersm wrote:

Feckless Rogue wrote:Gibson, here's some reasons why I think Leinster play better than Ireland

1. Psychology. Leinster have no mental weakness. They believe they're the best and they'll win any game, anywhere, against anyone if they play well enough. Ireland have mental hangups. The French, the "All Blacks". They also seem to let doubt creep in when they're not beating weaker teams.

2. Coaching. Cheika and Schmidt have transformed Leinster. Foreign idea's, from foreign coaches and players, fusing with Irish ones is a good thing. Our whole setup is more innovative than the conservative English or the insular French. I really want Ireland to have a head coach from Australia or New Zealand. They are the best coaches in the world if you ask me. And there can be no accusations of provincial bias.

3. Support. The provinces get fanatical support. When they're losing the fans roar louder to encourage them. When Ireland are losing the stadium falls quiet, as the fans are already deciding who's fault it is. Usually someone from another province.

4. Test rugby is harder. Leinster are playing clubs. Ireland are playing the very best players from each country.

Another reason Feckless, which is linked to point 2, is that Leinster are very adaptable and Ireland aren't.

Leinster seem to be able to adapt to whatever the opposition throw at them, they can play a tight game or a fast offloading game and seem to know which to play when. When it's needed Schmidt will make tactical subsitutions to change the game. The HEC final was a classic example when he changed the backrow and Leinster were also able to change their scrummaging tactics.

Ireland by comparison just plod away with plan A whether it's working or not until Kidney makes his predetermined 62min half back rotation by which time the game has usually got away from Ireland.

Stag not many people have tipped Munster, do you think they are in with a shout this year?

It also helps that Leinster have Nacewa, their most creative player, available to them.

I think you are glossing over some of Leinster's failings which are similar to Ireland - they don't travel to France very well, just like Ireland (Toulouse) in '10. Then losing to the Ospreys at home in the same season for the Magners Final. Under Schmidt they did very well against French opposition last season (including his old club which he obviously would know a lot about!), but lost 2 out of their 3 games against their old nemesis when away from home.

I think the 62 min half back sub only took place in the last season & warmup games. I don't see anything wrong with that if you are trying to get different player combinations together and players match fit and prepared to start or close out a game.

As for Munster, I think we will get out of our group, but I don't see us getting a home QF in that group and that will probably be the end of it. David Wallace is a massive loss.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

The HEC final was a classic example when he changed the backrow and Leinster were also able to change their scrummaging tactics.

It did help that the Saints completely ran out of gas though that was also due to careful pre match planning (i.e. resting first team players) by Leinster and not by Saints.

The saints didn't run out of gas it was knocked out of them. Leinster had played a number of big matches in a row without resting players and a lot of their team were involved in the 6N. They also had a tougher run to the final so if anyone could have played the tired card it was Leinster, especially after playing the 1st 40min without the ball.

Saints problem was that their game is built around forward domination, some of it through illegal scrummaging and when they are matched in that department they don't have a plan B. Leinster were a better side so the tired excuse is one of the most pathetic I've ever heard in the history of rugby. I've lost a lot respect for Mallinder since.

That said I think the Saints will be stronger next season again and Munster will have a tough job winning that pool.

Saints aren't a great team IMO. Cardiff, Edinburgh, Castres and then home matches against Ulster and Perpignan. Thats probably the easiest Heineken Cup run I've ever seen. Although they turned in a massive first half they still lost comfortably against Leinster.

Sin é wrote:
I think you are glossing over some of Leinster's failings which are similar to Ireland - they don't travel to France very well, just like Ireland (Toulouse) in '10. Then losing to the Ospreys at home in the same season for the Magners Final. Under Schmidt they did very well against French opposition last season (including his old club which he obviously would know a lot about!), but lost 2 out of their 3 games against their old nemesis when away from home.

I think the 62 min half back sub only took place in the last season & warmup games. I don't see anything wrong with that if you are trying to get different player combinations together and players match fit and prepared to start or close out a game.

Sin Ireland don't travel anywhere well these days, in fact we don't play well at home either.

Irelands failings are that we have barely won a game in two seasons and were lucky to win some of the ones we had.

Leinster have been the best side in Europe and have played some sensational rugby and the magners final apart have found a way to defeat all comers when it matters.

Ireland and Leinster share many of the same players and that is where the comparison ends. In fact if you throw the likes of Bowe, Ferris, Trimble, O'Connell, ROG, David Wallace (pre injury), Earls etc. into the mix Ireland should be far better than Leinster but the fact that they aren't says a lot about the respective coaching teams.

The current Ireland team would be able to win a Heineken Cup- no doubt about it.

Do you think Toulouse are anywhere near as good as France? Or Leicester as good as England? Of course not. Test level, despite what we may think, is a good bit harder than Heineken Cup rugby. Leinster have a much higher proportion of seasoned internationals than most club sides from England and France. Our provinces have an advantage but when we step up to the national level that advantage dissipates.

Or Leicester as good as England?

If Leicester were allowed their England contingent and England had to do without the likes of Cole, Deacon, Croft, Youngs, Flood and Manu then I'd back Tigers all day.

Probable line ups;
1.Ayerza vs Sheridan - tie
2.Chuter vs Thompson - England
3.Castro vs Stevens - Tigers
4.Deacon vs Lawes - tie
5.Parling vs Palmer - Tigers (if Parling hadn't been injured last season he would be at the RWC)
6.Croft vs Haskell - Tigers
7.Salvi vs Moody - tie
8.Crane vs Easter - tie
9.Youngs vs Care - Tigers
10.Flood vs Wilkinson - tie
11.Tuilagi vs Cueto - Tigers
12.Allen vs Hape - Tigers
13.Manu vs Tindall - Tigers
14.Tait vs Ashton - England
15.Murphy vs Foden - tie

I'd back Tigers at the set piece and in the backs.

Not a hope in the world that Murphy is on a par with Foden.

red_stag wrote:Not a hope in the world that Murphy is on a par with Foden.

I agree, he's far better than Foden

Notch, sorry but thats a lame excuse. It's not just about the level but the quality of rugby, Leinster play fantastic rugby and Ireland can barely win a lineout or pass a ball.

I hate to break this to you but the level of rugby in the HEC in the past few seasons is light years ahead of the level of the 6N. I'd back Toulouse or Leinster to win a GS any day.

Familiarity plays a part too Rodders - Schmidt or McLaughlin or McGahan train daily with their players. Kidney and co don't.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

If Leicester were allowed their England contingent and England had to do without the likes of Cole, Deacon, Croft, Youngs, Flood and Manu then I'd back Tigers all day.

But England would have those players. It's a moot point. England play at a higher pace and intensity than Leicester. At their best, the top club sides (including, on occassion, Leicester) play at something that comes close to test match intensity and hence gain an advantage over the other sides At test level... there is no advantage to be gained. Everyone is playing at a higher level.

roddersm wrote:Notch, sorry but thats a lame excuse. It's not just about the level but the quality of rugby, Leinster play fantastic rugby and Ireland can barely win a lineout or pass a ball.

I hate to break this to you but the level of rugby in the HEC in the past few seasons is light years ahead of the level of the 6N. I'd back Toulouse or Leinster to win a GS any day.

You hate to break this to me? What, do you think I'm a living in a cave?

No, I think I stand by my opinion thanks. Level of performance pulled off by France at the AVIVA far surpasses Heineken Cup rugby. Australia, New Zealand, the Springboks...? England? All far better than the top Heineken Cup sides. Ireland are playing some awful rugby, but against far superior opposition than Leinster face, at a higher pace and under far greater pressure. You'd be hard pressed to look at the teamsheet of any side Leinster faced and say it's better than a top 5 test side. Yes, Ireland are struggling right now but that doesn't make the level or quality of opponent they face better than HC. We are particularly struggling to gel together as a side.

Sorry Notch but playing Scotland, Italy and even Wales is not a higher standard of Rugby than against the top HEC games.

Ireland the way they have been playing would not be able to live with Toulouse, Leicester or any of the top HEC sides.

The level of rugby in the Leinster v Toulouse game and many others was far higher than anything in the 6N this year. It was faster, more intense and the quality of the rugby was infinitly better than the error strewn durge we get in the 6N.

Obviously the level of the Tri nations is far higher again but in terms of European rugby the HEC is the pinacle right now.

Are you seriously suggesting that Ireland poor performances are down to the pressure the opposition are putting on them and Leinsters performances are down to weaker opposition?

That Saints scrum would have ground the Irish pack into the dirt and I'd back Toulouse, Clermont and the Tigers to beat this Irish side easily the way we've been playing.

Rodber on Charvis : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avpZVejwGyg

(needs referring to the Ask the Ref sticky - borderline)

red_stag wrote:Familiarity plays a part too Rodders - Schmidt or McLaughlin or McGahan train daily with their players. Kidney and co don't.

Thats true stag but Ireland in the past 18 months are still much weaker than the sum of their parts.

Eddie O'Sullivan had us performing far better (2007-8 apart) with a far more limited group of players than Kidney has at his disposal now.

Kidney has better access to his players than most international coaches.

roddersm wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that Ireland poor performances are down to the pressure the opposition are putting on them and Leinsters performances are down to weaker opposition?

No, but I'm suggesting that Ireland could beat all the teams Leinster faced. In fact, if all of those players in Ireland colours were in a provincial set-up we'd expect them to dominate the competition. If you don't believe that the pressure England and France exerted on the Irish breakdown and set piece was a factor in us losing our way then... thats bizarre. Game was won and lost by our losing the upperhand at the breakdown. We get quick ball, we can play rugby. We offer nothing when the ball is slowed down. The Six Nations was poor, but that has little to do with it now we see all the other NH teams peaking at the right time in a RWC year.

I think test rugby is a different level. You have to come into a team and gel together very quickly- not like a settled provincial side with tried and tested combinations that work together every week- you face harder opposition, and the psychological pressure is much greater. The quality of rugby in the HC is closer to test level than ever before but the very top teams in this World Cup are on an entirely different level to Heineken Cup sides.

Really it's comparing apples and oranges, the two are completely different. But it gets my goat when people expect provincial success to translate instantly into international success.

I think the coaching team at Leinster is doing a far better job than their national equivalents. That doesn't mean Leinster would survive at test level.

Notch I think we agree on some points.

I do believe Leinster are playing far better than Ireland and are a better side despite Ireland having a bigger and better pool of players available.

I don't think the current Irish side, the way they have been playing would have won last years HEC.

I agree that England and France put huge pressure on Ireland but it was Irelands inability to adapt and deal with that pressure that contributed to the defeats.

England did not play that well in Lansdowne, certainly nowhere near as well as Toulouse in march and the pressure that Irelands pack were under was not as severe as Leinsters against the Saints.

I don't believe that provincial success should necessarily leads to National success but it should help and I believe that if the Leinster coaching team was in charge of this Ireland squad they would be playing far better than they are, of that I have no doubt.

I agree, he's far better than Foden

I did try for a sembelance of an unbias view but if push came to shove I'd have Geordan over Foden ever day of the week in a Tigers team. The Tigers backline and the majority of the attacking patterns were created with Geordan in mind as an additional play maker, without him in the team Tigers backline just isn't as effective. He also has far superior footballing skills to Foden who seems unable to do anything other than run until someone tackles him.

But England would have those players. It's a moot point. England play at a higher pace and intensity than Leicester.

I was trying to get at if it was played as an actual game rather than theoretical one Tigers would win if they were allowed the EQP on their books and not England. Tigers did use to play friendlies against the Baabaas and occasionally England. Tigers academy has a pretty good record against England age groups as well.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

I agree, he's far better than Foden

I did try for a sembelance of an unbias view but if push came to shove I'd have Geordan over Foden ever day of the week in a Tigers team.

Just to clarify sam I was joking although Murphy was pretty impressive against England. Murphy is a much better footballer and although I don't watch him much for the tigers these days I'd rather have Foden due to his pace and strength. I'd have Nacewa ahead of both though ....

I forget a lot of you guys are Celtic League watchers and so don't watch as much AP/GP as I do.

Nacewa reminds me of a young Geordan Murphy and I'd have him over the pair of them currently. Geordan's passing, catching and kicking skills are far above what Foden has to offer. Years are starting to effect his legs though they were pacy enough to track back and stop Manu adding further gloss to the score in Dublin. I suppose I've spent a good portion of my life watching Geordan do magical things in a Tigers shirt, tends to stick with you. Foden seems to get by on speed, step and low centre of gravity I would really like to see him add some weapons to his arsenal and develop a kicking game and use his creative side more often.

roddersm wrote:Notch I think we agree on some points.

I do believe Leinster are playing far better than Ireland and are a better side despite Ireland having a bigger and better pool of players available.

I don't think the current Irish side, the way they have been playing would have won last years HEC.

I agree that England and France put huge pressure on Ireland but it was Irelands inability to adapt and deal with that pressure that contributed to the defeats.

England did not play that well in Lansdowne, certainly nowhere near as well as Toulouse in march and the pressure that Irelands pack were under was not as severe as Leinsters against the Saints.

I don't believe that provincial success should necessarily leads to National success but it should help and I believe that if the Leinster coaching team was in charge of this Ireland squad they would be playing far better than they are, of that I have no doubt.

You keep comparing Ireland to Leinster at different periods of their season. Ireland looked just as good against England in the 6Ns as Leinster looked (in the 2nd half) against Northampton in the Heineken Cup final.

The Leinster backrow didn't have a great outing against France in the Aviva and that wasn't even France's first choice backrow (and the team had a fine selection of Leinster players). The previous week against France, I'd argue that the team, with a 2nd choice Irish backrow had a better outing).

By the way, if you claim tiredness is not allowed as an excuse for Northampton's loss to Leinster, what do you think of Leinster's performance in the Magners Final? (conceeding 3 tries and being kept tryless)?

PS - please don't mention who Leinster's opponents were - I just want to know what you made of the performance since you have ruled out tiredness as an excuse?

Sin é wrote:
By the way, if you claim tiredness is not allowed as an excuse for Northampton's loss to Leinster, what do you think of Leinster's performance in the Magners Final? (conceeding 3 tries and being kept tryless)?

PS - please don't mention who Leinster's opponents were - I just want to know what you made of the performance since you have ruled out tiredness as an excuse?

I thought Munster won fair and square and tiredness wasn't an excuse for Leinster any more than it was for Saints. I thought Leinster played ok actually although they weren't at their best and Munster were the better side on the day.

roddersm wrote:

Sin é wrote:
By the way, if you claim tiredness is not allowed as an excuse for Northampton's loss to Leinster, what do you think of Leinster's performance in the Magners Final? (conceeding 3 tries and being kept tryless)?

PS - please don't mention who Leinster's opponents were - I just want to know what you made of the performance since you have ruled out tiredness as an excuse?

I thought Munster won fair and square and tiredness wasn't an excuse for Leinster any more than it was for Saints. I thought Leinster played ok actually although they weren't at their best and Munster were the better side on the day.

There is a difference between tiredness and 3 days on the pi$$.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

roddersm wrote:

Sin é wrote:
By the way, if you claim tiredness is not allowed as an excuse for Northampton's loss to Leinster, what do you think of Leinster's performance in the Magners Final? (conceeding 3 tries and being kept tryless)?

PS - please don't mention who Leinster's opponents were - I just want to know what you made of the performance since you have ruled out tiredness as an excuse?

I thought Munster won fair and square and tiredness wasn't an excuse for Leinster any more than it was for Saints. I thought Leinster played ok actually although they weren't at their best and Munster were the better side on the day.

There is a difference between tiredness and 3 days on the pi$$.

Most of those players would not have been on the urine for 3 days (exceptions I'd say would have been Healy & Heislip). I just can't see BOD, Ross, Cullen, Nacewa, Sexton among others as going on the urine for 3 days. Too many of them would have wanted to impress Declan Kidney. Healy & Heislip would have been the only two (outside of BOD) who would have been sure of his place in the world cup.

I've seen the pics. Also bumped into Bod and Tommybow in a boozer about 36 hours after the England 6N game. Looked like they had been on the lash ever since.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:I've seen the pics. Also bumped into Bod and Tommybow in a boozer about 36 hours after the England 6N game. Looked like they had been on the lash ever since.

3 days running though? They should be able to recover after a night or two. Whatever about Tommy Bowe, I'd be surprised at BOD drinking a lot, now that he is married. Maybe its because he isn't used to drinking anymore that he looked so bad!

They should have been ok if they were on the dry from about Wednesday anyway.

roddersm wrote:

Sin é wrote:
By the way, if you claim tiredness is not allowed as an excuse for Northampton's loss to Leinster, what do you think of Leinster's performance in the Magners Final? (conceeding 3 tries and being kept tryless)?

PS - please don't mention who Leinster's opponents were - I just want to know what you made of the performance since you have ruled out tiredness as an excuse?

I thought Munster won fair and square and tiredness wasn't an excuse for Leinster any more than it was for Saints. I thought Leinster played ok actually although they weren't at their best and Munster were the better side on the day.

So, you think that Leinster played ok, yet a club team played better than them in a game that could have given them an incredible double title! Do you think they would be able to win a 6Ns then, considering they would have to play 5 games on the trot and might come across France or even Italy showing a bit of form on a one-off basis?

Sin é wrote:
So, you think that Leinster played ok, yet a club team played better than them in a game that could have given them an incredible double title! Do you think they would be able to win a 6Ns then, considering they would have to play 5 games on the trot and might come across France or even Italy showing a bit of form on a one-off basis?

OK back up the truck sin. Prior to the Magners final Leinster lost to Munster and beat The Tigers, Toulouse, Ulster and Northampton. The rugby they played along the way was much better than Ireland have played this year and most of that opposition played better than a lot of the teams Ireland have faced.

Munster are a top side and beat Leinster twice this season on merit. I know you are trying to twist my words here to make out I am contradicting myself but I'm not.

The point is that I believe that Leinster are a better side than Ireland and playing better rugby despite Ireland having mostly better players and more depth. The fact that Munster beat them in the Magners final doesn't disprove this and if anything it supports my point about the quality and depth that Ireland have.

Rodders - but the opposition Leinster play is also not as good as England, France, South Africa etc

My point is that if Leinster had to travel to either Welford Rd, or Toulouse they might not have won, just like they lost their away games to Munster (and incidentally, Munster lost its away game to Leinster). The Millenium was neutral (though I think there were probably more Leinster supporters there).

Now, with the 6Ns, you don't have home and away games and so its much harder to win the tournament.

red_stag wrote:Rodders - but the opposition Leinster play is also not as good as England, France, South Africa etc

How do you think Scotland and Italy would do in the Heineken Cup.I don't think either would have much chance of winning it and I think Leinster would beat both of them with something to spare.

Ireland with a better squad of players than Leinster have struggled against both these teams in the last few years and there is no excuse for it.

red_stag wrote:Rodders - but the opposition Leinster play is also not as good as England, France, South Africa etc

In my opinon it is stag or thereabouts at least and in some cases better. Toulouse and Leiscester certainly played better than SA did in the Autumn, France did in the 6N or England did last weekend.

Also, these are the top sides, Ireland have struggled and been beaten by teams far inferior to these sides over the last 18 months and certainly sides weaker or playing worse than many of the top HEC teams.

Yes but you look at the likes of Scotland and Italy. Ireland have underperformed but it is the likes of France, South Africa, England, Australia, New Zealand etc who are the constant thorn in our paw at the minute.

Can I ask do you think Leinster would beat any of these teams in a full test match.

Sin é wrote:My point is that if Leinster had to travel to either Welford Rd, or Toulouse they might not have won, just like they lost their away games to Munster (and incidentally, Munster lost its away game to Leinster). The Millenium was neutral (though I think there were probably more Leinster supporters there).

Now, with the 6Ns, you don't have home and away games and so its much harder to win the tournament.

The difference is that when Leinster lose they still look like a good team that knows what they're doing.Ireland don't even when they win.When Leinster losing away to Clermont,we were all reasonably happy as it was a good performance and the players had played close to the best of their abilities.Compare this to Ireland beating Italy in Rome,I would say if anything Leinster had the tougher opposition but the Irish display was so disappointing not because the game was close but because the players are capable of so much better.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

red_stag wrote:Rodders - but the opposition Leinster play is also not as good as England, France, South Africa etc

How do you think Scotland and Italy would do in the Heineken Cup.I don't think either would have much chance of winning it and I think Leinster would beat both of them with something to spare.

Ireland with a better squad of players than Leinster have struggled against both these teams in the last few years and there is no excuse for it.

Yeah thats what I'm getting at. I'm glad someone else noticed.

red_stag wrote:Yes but you look at the likes of Scotland and Italy. Ireland have underperformed but it is the likes of France, South Africa, England, Australia, New Zealand etc who are the constant thorn in our paw at the minute.

Can I ask do you think Leinster would beat any of these teams in a full test match.

No I don't think they'd beat them,I do however feel like they'd perform to the maximum of their abilities.I can't say the same for Ireland.