Ulster squad additions

First topic message reminder :

All things relating to Ulster squad changes

No I agree with your points stand but generally I think there is too much assumption that Pienaar in particular can carry the can....yes he carried Humph a lot but not always as some are suggesting.

I just haven't seen enough to convince me that Jackson is ready to be 1st choice 10 all season.

He had a poor U-20's tournament and bar a decent game against Leinster and some good defensive work he hasn't done much this season.

I am happy to be proved wrong and hopefully will feel differently after the HEC final.

clivemcl wrote:Out of interest, at this stage, how much is Anscombe consulted? Or not at all? Is it possible that Anscombe has been doing his homework on our squad and he's lifted the phone and gave his backing to Jackson.

As sad as I am to see Brian leave, Jackson couldnt hope for a better qualified coach for him personally in what will be a massive season for him.

Look at Gareth Anscombe, Obviously he is coached by the Blues, but I'd say you could attribute some of his talent and ability to words of wisdom from his old man!

Don't want my post to get lost on the previous page!

Rodders, whether you are right or wrong, the story goes the IRFU won't allow an NIQ 10. You should blame Humph, he has forced the situation. Jackson will do his best.

rodders wrote:No I agree with your points stand but generally I think there is too much assumption that Pienaar in particular can carry the can....yes he carried Humph a lot but not always as some are suggesting.

I just haven't seen enough to convince me that Jackson is ready to be 1st choice 10 all season.

He had a poor U-20's tournament and bar a decent game against Leinster and some good defensive work he hasn't done much this season.

I am happy to be proved wrong and hopefully will feel differently after the HEC final.

rodders are you talking JWC or 6N?

Last year in the JWC I dont think any Irish players acquitted themselves very well partly down to the rotation Ruddock used but in the 6N he captained a very good team close to a grand slam and was one of the best players in the team

No ones saying hes ready but we have trust the coaching setup in that they must believe they have seen enough to throw him in as they may see next season as a transition into a new regime under Anscombe and that he can fail and make mistakes to an extent but ultimately it is about him learning and maturing

Its not about Pienaar carrying the can. Its just about him doing what he does as a 9. getting jackson the best service. He wont get the same when he plays with marshall of course but Marshall/Humph axis was bloody brutal during the RWC anyway so i dont see how we lose anything with Jackson there.

Jackson was actually pretty decent in the U20's bar his kicking. managed the game against scotland beautifully particularly. His kicking seems to have improved and he wont be first choice anyway.

I think our gameplan was massively conservative in the semi final so i wouldnt judge him on that. In the 2nd half in particular it was a case of ' give ball to forwards, steam roller edinburgh, kick penalty'. it worked but it doesnt allow for your ten to look great.

I think starting a Pro 12 game will be completely different. you cant judge him as the last few pro12 games have been dead rubbers essentially.

Im not saying you are wrong by the way. I just think its about time we found out. As Maximus Decimus would say ....
"The time for half measures and talk is over"

A wee drop-goal to win the heineken final will do wonders in settling our concerns...

Justice 10 Jackson!

Since theres a lull, did anyone see the point I made about Anscombe?

clivemcl wrote:Out of interest, at this stage, how much is Anscombe consulted? Or not at all? Is it possible that Anscombe has been doing his homework on our squad and he's lifted the phone and gave his backing to Jackson.

As sad as I am to see Brian leave, Jackson couldnt hope for a better qualified coach for him personally in what will be a massive season for him.

Look at Gareth Anscombe, Obviously he is coached by the Blues, but I'd say you could attribute some of his talent and ability to words of wisdom from his old man!

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:Geoff for a start I would get rid of McComish, Diack, Brady and Barber. I would also have a real think about Ian Humphreys. I know that books have to be balanced and I am a realist here. All I am saying is that there are older players, past their best, or players who are never going to get any better, that could make way before Faloon. Faloon is talented and we have all seen it. Maybe putting a bit more effort in rather than simply shipping him is the way forward.

Diack and Brady clearly more talented forwards than Faloon if you've been paying attention. I'll give you McComish but Humphreys and Barker are leaving anyway- mainly due to huffing about not being picked enough I gather.

Notch wrote:
Diack and Brady clearly more talented forwards than Faloon if you've been paying attention.

Diack is a talented barsteward. His hands are delightful. Look at him at the tail of the lineout. One handed takes, knocked on on a platter for the 9. He is just too bloody nice in contact. The Robbie Diack of Autumn/Winter 2010 was a top player. If we get him back then i would be delighted.

Faloon has only shown up in flashes since his breakthrough season but by god he is a cracking link man when he shows up

How is it a fact that Ulster aren't allowed to sign a NIQ 10 when Leinster were allowed to sign Berquist?

Ulster undoubtedly need backrow cover but they are a couple of injuries away from crisis point, whereas they are one injury away from crisis at half back. They have been lucky with Pienaar not being injured this year.

If Ulster sign a marquee NIQ backrow, who out of Ferris, Henry or Wilson loses out in the HEC? If he isn't a big name then why not just play Birch, Henderson, Joyce, McComb, Tuohy, Gallagher etc.?

I suppose if Ruan gets injured they can always sign a short contract NIQ player?

rodders wrote:If Pienaar or Wallace get injured or have international call ups then Jackson will be sandwiched between Marshall and Spence and this is what he needs to be judged against.

This is what I am judging him against, not playing rugby by numbers outside Pienaar.

I hope to Christ not. He'll be between Marshall and Marshall. I notice no-one has addressed the crux of the matter;

Notch wrote:I think we're weaker without a Humphreys who wanted to be here and wanted to play his rugby here. I don't think he does want to be here and if he's mentally checked out and wants to leave, then holding him to the last year of his contract doesn't make much sense because how well is he going to play under those circumstances anyway?

You have to deal with the reality of the situation which is Humphreys just doesn't look motivated to work on his game anymore and if he isn't, if he wants out, he's going to not be producing the kind of rugby he has in the past. Surely in that situation, it's best to cut our losses and look to the future?

I think we could have Jackson play for the Ravens for two years and learn nothing whilst we tried to persevere with a want away Humphreys or a NIQ 10 and then he comes through, same level as he's at now, except Pienaar is gone and Wallace is retired. And it's harder for him then because those guys are gone.

We're going to have to take the plunge on Jackson sooner or later; might as well do it now when we have experienced players around him.

rodders wrote:

Notch wrote:
Diack and Brady clearly more talented forwards than Faloon if you've been paying attention.

I don't believe Faloon is a player who's capable of performing consistently at Pro 12 level- too much of a one-trick pony. Weak tackler, penalty liability at the breakdown, rarely has a positive impact on breakdowns, not physical enough in defence or attack. It's harsh, but its true.

Stephen Ferris once said Faloon was the hardest tackler in the side and players try and avoid him in training.

All good opensides are penalty liabilities. It comes with the role.

Faloon hasn't played well enough this year but to say he isn't exceptionally talented is nonsence.

The Great Aukster wrote:
Ulster undoubtedly need backrow cover but they are a couple of injuries away from crisis point, whereas they are one injury away from crisis at half back. They have been lucky with Pienaar not being injured this year.

If Ulster sign a marquee NIQ backrow, who out of Ferris, Henry or Wilson loses out in the HEC? If he isn't a big name then why not just play Birch, Henderson, Joyce, McComb, Tuohy, Gallagher etc.?

That would be my thinking too.

There is a middle ground of signing. There arent just world beaters or journeymen. Pedrie fell perfectly into that category and someone like Deysel could do likewise. It isnt just Richie McCaw or Nick williams if you catch my drift.

Birch, Henderson, Joyce, McComb have never made and HEC squad iirc. They would be an injury away from it with our current options. they also probably have less than 20 league starts between them all. Solid options for the Pro 12. Not yet ready for Heineken. Lets see how the season progresses with them at pro 12 level.

Faloon is talented Rodders. Wouldnt add the exceptionally part just yet. When you consider how hard he hit in his breakthrough season he really has gone backwards in that department.

rodders wrote:Stephen Ferris once said Faloon was the hardest tackler in the side and players try and avoid him in training.

All good opensides are penalty liabilities. It comes with the role.

Faloon hasn't played well enough this year but to say he isn't exceptionally talented is nonsence.

All good opensides get away with it. When its all penalties and no turnovers it shows his limitations.

I know Ferris did say that, it used to be true, it's just exceptionally hard to reconcile that with the lightweight thats brushed off so easily in contact we've seen in the last two years. Do we really want guys on our payroll who just coast through the season, going backwards at a rate of knots, who aren't good enough to represent Ulster and show no signs of improving? We already have one Mike McComish...

This is why we so desperately need another NIQ backrow. One injury and we had to play Faloon in a HC semi-final, a game in which he was a total passenger. Ferris is an injury waiting to happen. It's not rocket science.

MOTM awards aren't worth the paper they are written on

Paddy Jackson has a good U-20's tournament.

Diack has far more talent than Faloon - the frustration is he doesn't always show it.

Both Faloon and Humphreys have been poor this year - a large part of the reason they are going.

Berquist has already been explained - I bet none of the three senior provinces would be allowed to sign a NIQ 10 now - even as cover. Why keep going on about an option that is not available.

I would hardly say Marshall at 9 and Pienaer at 10 is a crises if Jackson is injured.

Pienaer and Wallace will not be carrying Jackson they will be providing a high level experience to help his development.

It seems clear that some wish to see Humphreys retained and others are happy to give Jackson his head.

Count me most definitely in the latter camp

Geoff I am very happy to see Jackson get his chance, I'm just not happy with the alternatives if Jackson for whatever reason needs rotated/rested/dropped or gets injured.

Rodders, Pienaar at 10 or Paddy Wallace at 10 isn't anything to lose sleep over.

Me neither really. But the alternatives are two young Ulster born outhalves. We have to make do with what we have. I don't think its worth bringing in a NIQ to sit on the bench behind him, especially when we so desperately need a backrow forward.

clivemcl wrote:Rodders, Pienaar at 10 or Paddy Wallace at 10 isn't anything to lose sleep over.

Against the likes of Aironi maybe not but against anyone else I'd be reaching for the valium clive! ....

Really? Pienaar has played at 10 for the Springboks. He's certainly capable of slotting in there and doing well at HEC level.

Aye but is Paul Marshall capable of slotting in at that level??

Don't really like the look of Pienaar at 10 to be honest Notch. He's pretty predictable, vulnerable defensively and nowhere near as good as he is at 9.

Pienaar is probably our best player so moving him from his best position isn't ideal in my opinion.

Notch wrote:Me neither really. But the alternatives are two young Ulster born outhalves. We have to make do with what we have. I don't think its worth bringing in a NIQ to sit on the bench behind him, especially when we so desperately need a backrow forward.

Notch, I've always thought the IRFU should contribute something to encourage the talent to spread between the provinces. Some sort of cash incentive to players to move to other provinces where they lack in certain positions.

There are backrowers who could get more gametime up north but can't be tempted whether through loyalty or the tax thingy. If the IRFU are serious about strategically strengthening the national team, should they not play a bigger role in helping us with an IQ backrow?

Whats the point in limiting the NIQs if there is simply no worthy IQ alternative?

Agreed Clive. rodders I have my doubts over whether Marshall is which is why I'm raging about the loss/lack of development of Ian Porter.

But let's be fair; Marshall was class at Welford Road. Other games he's been awful. We need him to become more consistent.

Well to be fair on Marshall, don't judge him too harshly on the Munster game. They knew it wasnt overly important and his elbow is playing up again, he probably wanted to make sure he made it for the squad on final day.

No, very true. You should never jump to conclusions on a player based on his first game back after injury.

Having watched a bit of the LV Cup and how English clubs use it would it be a good idea to use the B&I Cup or find some alternative to it so that young guys can more game time in a more competitive environment?

Did Notch just agree with me two posts in a row??

clivemcl wrote:Did Notch just agree with me two posts in a row??

...well done?

Notch wrote:Agreed Clive. rodders I have my doubts over whether Marshall is which is why I'm raging about the loss/lack of development of Ian Porter.

But let's be fair; Marshall was class at Welford Road. Other games he's been awful. We need him to become more consistent.

Notch - While I'm also disappointed over the loss of Porter too, I understand the rationale for the decision. I'm trying to look at the bigger picture rather than each addition/loss on it's own particular merits. With Pienaar & Marshall already on our books, Porter was very unlikely to get any exposure to 'big games' if he stayed at the club. Essentially, he'd be standing still in terms of his development so long as both Ruan & Marshall are at Ulster. So the question I ask myself is, would I rather Porter or Marshall leave? Simple answer really....

Re: Marshall - in my opinion, his inconsistency is a direct consequence of his lack of game time. I think Anscombe will try to address that by giving him more starts in the Pro 12.

Re: blooding young players vs. holding on to Humphreys, Faloon, Whitten, etc. It's all about balance. I think we have a nice core of experienced players in the forwards, even when Best/Ferris/Court/(Tuohy? Henry?) are away on international duty, but are more exposed to the absence of Trimble/Bowe/(Cave?) in the backs. The return to fitness of Jarrod Payne will be extremely important to us next season. But I'm firmly in the 'play Jackson as much as possible' camp.

Like Geoff mentioned, I think Irish provinces and international teams are sometimes too slow to develop their home-grown players. Munster have been forced to do it this season due to the loss of some key forwards and I think they'll be much better for it in the long run. We probably need to find out, one way or the other, if the likes of Jackson, Luke Marshall, Henderson, Annett, Gaston, etc. can make the grade or not.

There is an understanding re Porter and McKinney that they are going for 2 years to develop their game in the belief that the AIB cannot fulfill that role.

Ulster will be looking to bring them back if they have kicked on.
This is different from the likes of Whitten, Faloon, Kyriacou who have gone with no plans to return - which doesn't mean they won't of course

geoff998rugby wrote:There is an understanding re Porter and McKinney that they are going for 2 years to develop their game in the belief that the AIB cannot fulfill that role.

Ulster will be looking to bring them back if they have kicked on.
This is different from the likes of Whitten, Faloon, Kyriacou who have gone with no plans to return - which doesn't mean they won't of course

Geoff - if so, then I'm very happy with that type of arrangement. It helps us manage our current squad size (i.e. reducing the difficulty associated with having too many players not getting enough game time - and also the wage bill, of course!!) while maintaining an open dialogue with those that leave in the hope that they will return as fully developed high quality players. Sounds good to me....

On another point, any idea what the senior management (specifically Humph & McL) think about the future prospects of McComish, McComb and Stevenson? It appears to me that McComish has been very disappointing (albeit there may not have been high expectations anyway) while McComb is looking like an unfulfilled talent (i.e. all the physical tools but just can't bring them to bear on the field of play!).

I get the impression that you rate Stevenson quite highly? I think he displays alot of effort but he's not dynamic enough for the modern game - i.e. he compares unfavourably to Tuohy and (the otherwise unproven) Henderson. It'll be interesting to see what Anscombe thinks of him and whether or not he can get more out of him.

Without trying to second-guess what will happen when Cowboy arrives at Ravenhill, I think he'll favour the more dynamic players in the squad. That'll be very positive for the likes of Macklin, Tuohy, Birch, Henderson & Diack but less so for Stevenson & Wilson. What do you think?

geoff998rugby wrote:Berquist has already been explained - I bet none of the three senior provinces would be allowed to sign a NIQ 10 now - even as cover. Why keep going on about an option that is not available.

Sorry Geoff where is this explained? Why were Leinster allowed to sign a NIQ 10 but Ulster aren't?

Some posters believe that Ulster have reached the HEC final on the strength of the backrow. Wannenburg has been replaced by Wilson and Faloon by Birch. Those are two fairly like for like replacements and a few of the fringe players have got some valuable experience this season, so overall the backrow is at least as strong as it was this year. It is one injury away from having to play Diack who has plenty of caps and experience.

OTOH the half backs are an injury to Pienaar away from having to play Jackson and Marshall. Small Paul is fine with Ruan outside him to run the show - the brain farts are all but eliminated. Would Paddy really be able to come in and dictate to PM how to play?

While I understand the reason for letting certain players go, the 10 situation has got people running rings. Humph Jnr saw the writing on the wall and asked if he could go early, which management agreed. As most of us agree Humph Snr is a very shrewd operator and will have a back up plan to this situation. Some of us may think he is barking, but he hasn't gone wrong yet.

Faloon a stronger tackler than Ferris? I do not believe that...

The Great Aukster wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:Berquist has already been explained - I bet none of the three senior provinces would be allowed to sign a NIQ 10 now - even as cover. Why keep going on about an option that is not available.

Sorry Geoff where is this explained? Why were Leinster allowed to sign a NIQ 10 but Ulster aren't?

I have said we will not be allowed to sign a NIQ 10. I know that for a fact - your choice whether you choose to be believe me or not what else can I say.

I think Berquist may well have been a potential project which as I mentioned elsewhere we may be allowed to sign - although I would still be doubtful.

I will go further and suggest it may be a long time before we see a province signing a NIQ TH again.

The current crop may well be the last we will see for a while.

The Great Aukster wrote:Some posters believe that Ulster have reached the HEC final on the strength of the backrow.

I amongst them- the first choice backrow trio. We've been incredibly lucky with injuries of course. We basically rely on our first choice three lasting 80 minutes every game and no-one gets injured over the course of the season.

I obviously believe we need more numbers in the backrow, you don't- neither of us is going to change our minds based on anything the other says. So I'm going to leave it.

geoff999rugby wrote:I will go further and suggest it may be a long time before we see a province signing a NIQ TH again.

This implies that the IRFU guidelines do not extend to one NIQ per position. If an NIQ 10 isn't allowed either it seems very disingenuous of the IRFU to publish these guidelines with no intention of sticking to them. Which ones are they serious about?

Notch wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Some posters believe that Ulster have reached the HEC final on the strength of the backrow.

I amongst them- the first choice backrow trio. We've been incredibly lucky with injuries of course. We basically rely on our first choice three lasting 80 minutes every game and no-one gets injured over the course of the season.

I obviously believe we need more numbers in the backrow, you don't- neither of us is going to change our minds based on anything the other says. So I'm going to leave it.

Where did I say that Notch? I have been saying since Pollock retired that Ulster need another seven. Ulster have converted Henry and he is now very effective there, Faloon didn't live up to expectation and Birch (like Jackson) should have had more time on the pitch. However Ulster have survived this season using Faloon and Diack in addition to the Test three without the world falling apart.

What I believe is that with only one Test class half-back who can run the game, Ulster are far more exposed if he gets injured than in the backrow. I'd certainly change my mind if there was any supporting logic to do so.

The guidelines are being renegotiated - remember that meeting west of Dublin just before Christmas.

My guess, and it is only that it will be something like:

The provinces will be allowed to nominate a player, maybe two, they want to keep as long as they want
Only 4 NIE total and no NIQ in 2 positions (TH and 10 now (subject to change)).

One thing I am certain of is the final agreement will not be as published and there will have to be give and take on both sides.

The Great Aukster wrote: What I believe is that with only one Test class half-back who can run the game, Ulster are far more exposed if he gets injured than in the backrow. I'd certainly change my mind if there was any supporting logic to do so.

If you know any test class half backs who are IQ and prepared to play for Ulster please give Humphreys a call - as he would be delighted

geoff999rugby wrote:
If you know any test class half backs who are IQ and prepared to play for Ulster please give Humphreys a call - as he would be delighted

I'm sure he's already been on ancestry.com

geoff999rugby wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote: What I believe is that with only one Test class half-back who can run the game, Ulster are far more exposed if he gets injured than in the backrow. I'd certainly change my mind if there was any supporting logic to do so.

If you know any test class half backs who are IQ and prepared to play for Ulster please give Humphreys a call - as he would be delighted

As you well know there aren't any, that's why if Ulster are to improve it would have to be an NIQ.

Everyone wants the same thing here - a strong Ulster and a strong Ireland. I know I've pressed you to see why the IRFU won't allow a NIQ 10 at Ulster, but that's because I can't believe the IRFU can possibly think it's a great idea to drop Paddy Jackson in at the deep end with no safety net. Ulster did that with NOC and it didn't work, and probably scuppered any chance he may have had to be Test class.

Madigan did far better at Leinster this season because the expectation on him was so low and he was ready to move up. Berquist was long term injured and with Ian McKinley having to retire, nobody expected Madigan to do anything so by doing better than expectation his confidence rocketed. It will be interesting to see how Madigan does next season when expectations will be far higher.

Gilroy came in when Emerick failed. He was a revelation because he wasn't afraid to back himself and there was no fear of failure. This season has been a different story with a far more hesitant CG being nowhere near as effective - until the last few weeks where he's suddenly starting to back himself again. Confidence is really important to performance.

Jackson does indeed have a cool head and is well grounded, but he's human too and not immune to criticism. It would have been far more preferable to have let him play and learn his game without the added pressure of being centre stage. Given the unlikely occurrence of Ulster signing a half decent 10 I'd actually play him at 12 more than 10 at the start of next season and would certainly consider playing Wallace at 10 to facilitate that. PaddyJ could migrate to 10 when he's ready. I'd rather write off a season and develop the young players than write off the players before they're ready.

Spot on Aukster .

PJ Has to play 10.it is his position. We don't have the luxury of shoehorning him into learning pro rugby in a position which he won't occupy long term and in which we need to be giving Luke Marshall and chris Farrell gametime.

It isn't ideal but humph Jr wanted out so what can you do. We are always a couple of injuries away from being in a bit of bother. By denying marshall and Farrell time we are just postponing the problem in a different position. Pienaar ain't a bad back up. Not ideal, but ideally jackson will come good. That's the faith that is being put in him.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Notch wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Some posters believe that Ulster have reached the HEC final on the strength of the backrow.

I amongst them- the first choice backrow trio. We've been incredibly lucky with injuries of course. We basically rely on our first choice three lasting 80 minutes every game and no-one gets injured over the course of the season.

I obviously believe we need more numbers in the backrow, you don't- neither of us is going to change our minds based on anything the other says. So I'm going to leave it.

Where did I say that Notch? I have been saying since Pollock retired that Ulster need another seven. Ulster have converted Henry and he is now very effective there, Faloon didn't live up to expectation and Birch (like Jackson) should have had more time on the pitch. However Ulster have survived this season using Faloon and Diack in addition to the Test three without the world falling apart.

What I believe is that with only one Test class half-back who can run the game, Ulster are far more exposed if he gets injured than in the backrow. I'd certainly change my mind if there was any supporting logic to do so.

Well we can't have both. Let me rephrase what I said; I believe it's a priority we get a good backrower in and you believe the halfbacks are the priority. I've considered your logic, but for me the arguments about bringing Jackson through quicker are more compelling. I believe he needs to be starting Heineken Cup games at 10 alongside Pienaar next season. He needs to be blooded when we have experienced players at 10 and 12, before they leave the club, retire or go into decline.

When discussing the merits of the decision of the managment I think it makes far more sense to discuss what they can do within the constraints of the dictates from Dublin i.e no IQ 10. You can wish all you want a NIQ 10 isn't coming. It is with that in mind any decision made should be viewed.

I just picked up on UiK question above. Stevenson is rated highly by me and also by the coaching staff. He does a lot of work at the breakdown (the proverbial unseen work) - he typically visits the breakdown 3x more than Tuohy for example. You need one of you locks to do that. He is considered key to the starting 23.


McComb and McCromish by comparison are seen as squad fillers and are only kept on till a promising youngester comes through in their positions.
At an, educated, guess Stevenson is on 3 times the salary of the other two.