Ulster squad additions

First topic message reminder :

You did not imagine that - it was said. A few weeks ago too.

clivemcl wrote:Thing is, I hate* some of those Leinster players. And its because they are willing to be hated if it means winning. They are cocky, arrogant and cut-throat.

Are they like that because they win so much, or do they win so much because they are like that?

I remember fairly early on, Nacewa grabbing Ferris by the shirt and throwing him aside before giving him a split second to get onside at a breakdown.

I think leinster are capable of being pumped yet 100% level headed all in one.

Too many Ulster players are either one or the other.

I think the management is too worried about our players nerves and panic that we focus too much on playing down the ferocity of the occassion.

I might well be talking nonsense, I dont know the mood in the changing room!


* I may not actually mean hate in the way the dictionary defines it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/18143879?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

Folks - perhaps I've not properly explained myself and for that I apologise.

Are Afoa, Best, Ferris, etc. etc. superb rugby players? Yes, certainly...

Have they given their all for Ulster this season? Again, yes...

Did they deliver some excellent performances this season, incl. against Clermont (home & away), against Leicester, against Munster in Thomond? Again, yes, most definitely...

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:Are you really going to post at the end of a season with the effort these players have put in that they are the sort of players who shirk responsibility, cowards who take a backwards step?

No.

My comments were made as answers to the following questions which I asked myself on the way home from London on Sunday morning - specifically:

Do they have the combined mentality to be champions?
Who amongst them are the type of leaders who can impose themselves on a game when they are faced with a much better opponent?
Who among them is prepared to do whatever it takes to win?

If I were a Leinster fan, then I think I could answer all those questions in the affirmative. As an Ulster fan, I'm not so sure....


By the way, I apologise if my comments have offended anyone.... however, I'd appreciate if you'd go easy on the personal remarks.

geoff999rugby wrote:

Sin é wrote: [Court started two games this season at 3 - one was against the Scarlets just before the AIs and the 2nd game was in April against Connacht which was probably more down to Afoa's suspension than anything else.

On the question of the Connacht game you are plain wrong.

Ulster wanted to play Fitzpatrick and were told they had to play Court TH.
Even without Afoa Ulster were not allowed to play the TH they wanted to in that game.

Fitzpatrick didn't even make the bench (and Court was replaced at 56 mins by Macklin for 27 mins). Bearing in mind that Fitzpatrick has been out injured since November, you think they would have been happy to give him the 30 mins or so to give him gametime. Far more likely that they were giving him the extra week, because there was absolutely no logic in playing Court in the middle of April at 3 as there were no international tests coming up in the immediate future.

UlsterinKildare wrote:
My comments were made as answers to the following questions which I asked myself on the way home from London on Sunday morning - specifically:

Do they have the combined mentality to be champions?
Who amongst them are the type of leaders who can impose themselves on a game when they are faced with a much better opponent?
Who among them is prepared to do whatever it takes to win?

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but what you have stated is so monumentally wrong that it needs correcting. You certainly haven't offended me and no one is making personal attacks on you, just on what you said.

You have take one game in isolation and come to an erroneous conclusion. On Saturday I saw a young 20 year old out half have an absolute nightmare and who must have wanted the ground to swallow him out and still, not once, did I see him shirk responsibility. I saw a team who were completely outplayed continue to put their bodies on the line and give their all to get to a point, with 20 minutes to go, where they were within ten points of Leinster. I was in a bar where every single person there believed we could win that we were in with a shout of winning match from that position. That is not the hallmark of a team who failed to impose themselves or not prepared to do whatever it takes. It might be news to some Ulster fans, but despite being in the final I would suggest we aren't the second best team in Europe. Yet there we were, after beating Munster away from home in Europe, something not many teams can claim they have done in the professional age, and beating Clermont. In those matches we showed all the characteristics you claim we lack. Sorry, but what you claim is utter nonsense. It is purely a knee-jerk reaction based on one very disappointing performance. We were beaten by the better team who in probably 10 or 11 out of 15 positions are superior than us. To say it was character or general fortitude that caused us to lose is just so incredibly wrong.

Some people on here are far too tightly strung.

I tend to agree with Hooky UIK. That said, you lads certainly go for the jugular when you find someone who disagrees!

I think it's just the hurt of the final thats got to us. Don't read anything into it. We're all smarting and hurt. You're grand my Kildare-based friend.

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:You have take one game in isolation and come to an erroneous conclusion.

Sorry, but what you claim is utter nonsense. It is purely a knee-jerk reaction based on one very disappointing performance. We were beaten by the better team who in probably 10 or 11 out of 15 positions are superior than us. To say it was character or general fortitude that caused us to lose is just so incredibly wrong.

Hooky - I believe the type of questions that I'm asking are valid. In fact, I'd argue that they are exactly the type of questions that New Zealand rugby fans have asked themselves after every RWC between 1991 and 2007.... maybe it's just the answers that are difficult??

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:I saw a team who were completely outplayed continue to put their bodies on the line and give their all to get to a point, with 20 minutes to go, where they were within ten points of Leinster. I was in a bar where every single person there believed we could win that we were in with a shout of winning match from that position. That is not the hallmark of a team who failed to impose themselves or not prepared to do whatever it takes.

I disagree. You state that simply because Ulster "give their all" that it's "not the hallmark of a team who failed to impose themselves or not prepared to do whatever it takes".... that's patently not the case. Of course they tried - who would expect a team in a final not to try for goodness sake?!? - but my hypothesis (which you apparently misunderstand) is that they did not have the necessary mentality to be a championship side. My supposition is that the current team do not have the character to win games like those on Saturday. Hence, my initial post on this topic on Sunday evening about 'character' versus 'talent'.

Are Ulster talented? Yes. Did they "give their all" on Saturday? Yes. Did they have the right mentality to win that game (as demonstrated by their performance on the day)? No.

In my humble opinion, Saturday demonstrated (and actually so did the semi-final performance against Edinburgh, albeit to a lesser degree) that there are deeper issues in this team that need to be addressed before they will be capable of winning a European Cup. Those issues are not just related to whether or not Paddy Jackson will make the grade, or whether Roger Wilson is an improvement over Wannenburg.... it's something deeper rooted than that. It's about a team's mentality and character. That's what I'm questioning.

Notch wrote:I tend to agree with Hooky UIK. That said, you lads certainly go for the jugular when you find someone who disagrees!

I think it's just the hurt of the final thats got to us. Don't read anything into it. We're all smarting and hurt. You're grand my Kildare-based friend.

Thanks, Notch. It's all just a bit of banter really....

I don't think it's a mentality thing with Ulster,in fairness they managed to work the way back into the game and while we were winning with a decent cushion it was by no means decided until we released our bench.

If it was no subs 15 on 15 I think Ulster could win maybe 1 out of 5 or maybe 3 out of 10 if the 2 teams played each other enough but it was the strength of the Leinster bench that what made the scoreline what it was.

UlsterinKildare wrote:Hooky - I believe the type of questions that I'm asking are valid. In fact, I'd argue that they are exactly the type of questions that New Zealand rugby fans have asked themselves after every RWC between 1991 and 2007.... maybe it's just the answers that are difficult??

Don't get me wrong here, these are exactly the questions teams should be asking themselves whether they win or lose. That is not my issue at all.

UlsterinKildare wrote:but my hypothesis (which you apparently misunderstand)is that they did not have the necessary mentality to be a championship side. My supposition is that the current team do not have the character to win games like those on Saturday. Hence, my initial post on this topic on Sunday evening about 'character' versus 'talent'.

This is my problem with your hypothesis. You equate having this mentality with being able to carry it out as if B automatically follows A in your equation. That is far too simplistic. You comparison with New Zealand is the perfect example of this. Those All Blacks side were consistently the best team in the world, and under weight of expectation and when lesser sides raised their game they lacked the mentality and mental strength to see those games out.

We have seen consistently over the course of a season that this Ulster team clearly possess the mentality to impose themselves in knockout games where everything is on the line. We saw it against Munster for instance where much better teams than us have gone down there and been sent back, tails between their legs. You choice of the Edinburgh match is a poor example as under your thesis, if we lacked the key character and mentality to win high profile matches then this would have been a match we would have lost. Now, if we lost that match then I would have to agree in some respects with what you have said.

Why I have made a big deal out of Ulster 'trying' is exactly that- they tried to impose themselves on the game and failed. That has absolutely zero to do with mentality. Nothing whatsoever. If they lacked the mentality to do it, they would have noted in the first 15 minutes that they were failing and they would have backed away from the physical fight and abandoned their attempts. Ulster simply did not do that. They continued to try and impose themselves on the game. The reason they failed is not because they lacked a winning mentality or winning character, but that they lacked the ability to do so. We have seen more than enough that they possess the mentality to win big matches, but no amount of character makes up for a win inferior in almost every respect to Leinster. Now, if the match had have been a 50/50 call beforehand you would have a point, even more so if Ulster were favourites. You would also have a point if Ulster performed as Northampton did in last years final which was an utter capitulation in the second half. No amount of character can make up for a chasm in talent and ability.

UiK you seem to forget that this was unchartered territory for the majority of the Ulster team. No matter how much belief they had in themselves there are pressures surrounding the whole game, the smallest thing could throw out the players and their approach to it.

Don't forget Leinster and Munster went through hard times and tough defeats before getting to the top but they went throgh and learnt from it. The All Blacks in most World Cups including 2007 fell when the pressure was on but leanrt from it to build towards last year

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:Why I have made a big deal out of Ulster 'trying' is exactly that- they tried to impose themselves on the game and failed. That has absolutely zero to do with mentality. Nothing whatsoever. If they lacked the mentality to do it, they would have noted in the first 15 minutes that they were failing and they would have backed away from the physical fight and abandoned their attempts. Ulster simply did not do that. They continued to try and impose themselves on the game. The reason they failed is not because they lacked a winning mentality or winning character, but that they lacked the ability to do so. We have seen more than enough that they possess the mentality to win big matches, but no amount of character makes up for a win inferior in almost every respect to Leinster. Now, if the match had have been a 50/50 call beforehand you would have a point, even more so if Ulster were favourites. You would also have a point if Ulster performed as Northampton did in last years final which was an utter capitulation in the second half. No amount of character can make up for a chasm in talent and ability.

Hooky, Geoff, Marty & co - for the sake of everyone else's sanity on this forum, I'll stop now and just say that we obviously agree to disagree on the issue regarding the mentality and character of this bunch of Ulster players (not all of them, but the majority).

Instead, I'll save this to memory and will watch with interest how this same group of players perform next season and how they react to Saturday's defeat.

Some of you obviously believe that there is no problem with the players' character - as Hooky said "they failed ... not because they lacked a winning mentality or winning character, but that they lacked the ability to do so".

We'll see. Time will tell...

Notch made a very good post on another thread were he compared this Ulster side to the Leinster side which, lost to Munster in 2006.

Munster too took 3 attempts to lift the trophy.

I think UIK has made some fair points but lets wait and see how the team reacts to this next season. I believe we will be a much stronger side for this.

I don't think there is a problem with our desire, character or ability. Just our experience and our depth. And on Saturday, our tactics.

In fairness to UIK, if its not mentality, what else do you attribute Ulsters failings to? The failings being poor kicks which up till now have been mostly good kicks etc...

Pienaar putting out on the full, Jackson putting out on the full, Terblanche with some awful gary owens, Pienaar some poor box kicking. Also, like I've said many times, Ulster 1-14 do not like to challenge in the air for the ball. Terblanche occassionally does it.

There were clearly instances on saturday where we didnt do things we normally are capable of. Two possible reasons - Tiredness or mentality.

Lets be clear though, none of these in my view are the reason why we lost, they just gave us less of a chance against a rampant Leinster.

Sin é wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

Sin é wrote: [Court started two games this season at 3 - one was against the Scarlets just before the AIs and the 2nd game was in April against Connacht which was probably more down to Afoa's suspension than anything else.

On the question of the Connacht game you are plain wrong.

Ulster wanted to play Fitzpatrick and were told they had to play Court TH.
Even without Afoa Ulster were not allowed to play the TH they wanted to in that game.

Fitzpatrick didn't even make the bench (and Court was replaced at 56 mins by Macklin for 27 mins). Bearing in mind that Fitzpatrick has been out injured since November, you think they would have been happy to give him the 30 mins or so to give him gametime. Far more likely that they were giving him the extra week, because there was absolutely no logic in playing Court in the middle of April at 3 as there were no international tests coming up in the immediate future.

WRONG. This is not conjecture on my part I know it as a fact.
We are also trying to develop Macklin as he is seen as the long term solution to TH when Afoa goes.
Kidney wanted Tom Court to get his confidence back at TH in preperation for the summer tour - inspite of everything he was still seen as the bench prop.
The injury has scuppered that big time

clivemcl wrote:In fairness to UIK, if its not mentality, what else do you attribute Ulsters failings to?

We came up against a side better and more experienced than we were, that is why we failed ultimately.

Yes we lacked composure at key times. particularly Terblanche and Jackson but others like Trimble and even Pienaar too. We were simply second best in too many areas.

Remember though that none of our squad had ever played in a HEC final and most had never played in a game of this magnitude, whereas for quite a few of the Leinster squad this was their 3rd final. Despite the scoreline I think we gave a good account of ourselves and bar the last 10 minutes we were well in the game. There are fine margins between winning and losing.

I don't believe there is any mental weakness there, just a lack of experience and in some areas a lack of depth. Experience can't be bought and can only be gained by having experiences like saturday and as disappointing as it is everyone of our squad will be a better player for it.

Roll on next season. SUFTUM.

Yea but Rodders, the areas I highlighted such as poor kicking has nothing to do with the opposition. You said we lacked composure and then said we were simply second best. These are two separate unrelated things.

Truth is, if two/three of those kicks had been judged better (like they normally have been throughout the campaign), the game might have been entirely different.

There was roughly 10 instances where we either gifted possession back to them through kicking out on the full or giving poor gary owens/box kicks.

These cannot be attributed to Leinsters talent.

So for some on here to say mentality was irrelevant are simply trying to put a gloss on it.

To be clear, i'll say again, leinster were fantastic, but we made our job hard for ourselves by not doing what we have done well all season. (at times)

The occasion got to us. Like some said though, it was a hugely vital experience, and the occasion will hopefully get to us less second time round at the Aviva!

The occaision did get to some of our players but that does not mean they are mentally weak, just inexperienced at this level. How they respond to this next season will show us how strong and weak they are.

Weak players don't win at Thomond park or win HEC SFs in front of 40k expectant fans when they are overwhelming favourites. They don't come from behind to win against Clermont and biarritz and they don't get bonus point wins againt the Leicester tigers.

We're not quite where we all want to be, winning silverware, but we are moving in the right direction and faster than anyone could have expected a few seasons ago.

Bowe, Payne and Wilson coming in next year and a new coaching set up and we start the journey again, with older and more experienced players.

BELIEVE.

We actually played some really nice rugby, but Leinster were unbelievable. Every single error we made resulted in points, and there were too many.

But we didn't play badly when we had the ball, we were very dangerous and we stretched Leinster. That level of performance would see us beat a lot of teams in Europe.

Wallace and Cave were both very impressive too. It's such a very good partnership I find suggestions we might want to break it up baffling.

Notch wrote:
But we didn't play badly when we had the ball, we were very dangerous and we stretched Leinster. That level of performance would see us beat a lot of teams in Europe.

I agree with that.

Notch wrote:We actually played some really nice rugby, but Leinster were unbelievable. Every single error we made resulted in points, and there were too many.

But we didn't play badly when we had the ball, we were very dangerous and we stretched Leinster. That level of performance would see us beat a lot of teams in Europe.

Wallace and Cave were both very impressive too. It's such a very good partnership I find suggestions we might want to break it up baffling.

I agree. There were times in the first half particularly where we worried them. Our game plan was to play more open than maybe we had done previously and it was speed of the game maybe that was the deciding factor. Leinster put us under pressure with their fast hands. No way were we mentally deficient. I agree with Rodders on the capacity we showed in the previous games.
I think we should be massively proud of what this bunch of players have achieved in these past couple of years. We were very deserving to be in the final. Were there better teams who didn't make the final? Perhaps!

I really hope the fans give these guys some slack and that the expectations for next season aren't too high. I think we still need a couple more years to reach our potential. Will we be as good as this current Leinster team? Hard to say. Will Leinster be as good in two years time? Also hard to say.

rodders wrote:The occaision did get to some of our players but that does not mean they are mentally weak, just inexperienced at this level. How they respond to this next season will show us how strong and weak they are.

Weak players don't win at Thomond park or win HEC SFs in front of 40k expectant fans when they are overwhelming favourites. They don't come from behind to win against Clermont and biarritz and they don't get bonus point wins againt the Leicester tigers.

We're not quite where we all want to be, winning silverware, but we are moving in the right direction and faster than anyone could have expected a few seasons ago.

Bowe, Payne and Wilson coming in next year and a new coaching set up and we start the journey again, with older and more experienced players.

BELIEVE.

That would be my view

rodders wrote:

Notch wrote:
But we didn't play badly when we had the ball, we were very dangerous and we stretched Leinster. That level of performance would see us beat a lot of teams in Europe.

I agree with that.

Would any team have beaten Leinster on Saturday? They were ruthless and wanted it so badly if it wasn't Ulster playing we would ignore the mistakes and just say Leinster were too good

Notch wrote: Wallace and Cave were both very impressive too. It's such a very good partnership I find suggestions we might want to break it up baffling.

As I mentioned it might not be Ulster who want to break up the partnership but Kidney.

If we only see it twice next year I think that would be the logical conclusion - if we see it more often I would conclude it is an Ulster decision.

Rava wrote:I think we should be massively proud of what this bunch of players have achieved in these past couple of years. We were very deserving to be in the final. Were there better teams who didn't make the final? Perhaps!

I've never been so proud to be an Ulster supporter as I was on Saturday ... before and after the game .

And no I don't believe there were better teams who didn't make the final. We were the best team in our side of the draw and proved it in Thomond. Clermont were the second best side in the competition but had their shot at Leinster on home turf and came up short. We were fully deserving of our spot and everyone involved in Ulster rugby should feel exceptionally proud of that .

All sense this morning i see.

Just to open up another can of worms what do we think (if anything) that game showed us about the coaching ticket. From my perspective i dont think our attack is good enough.

I have read a fair bit on different forums about Doak and how he is seen as the best of the current coaching ticket etc etc but i have to say i am not enamoured with him. It is our defence that won us the semi and quarter especially.

I know anscombe said he would look at Doak and Bell and give them the chance before deciding but i have to confess feeling a tad more excited about the coaching change up when the possibility of a new backs coach was on the table.

If saturday was an audition for Doak, i (personally speaking) would not be hiring him. We made good yards and got good field position in the leinster 22 but only got through once which is a poor return imo. Interested to know if others think i am being harsh or is the criticism justified.

geoff998rugby wrote:

Notch wrote: Wallace and Cave were both very impressive too. It's such a very good partnership I find suggestions we might want to break it up baffling.

As I mentioned it might not be Ulster who want to break up the partnership but Kidney.

If we only see it twice next year I think that would be the logical conclusion - if we see it more often I would conclude it is an Ulster decision.

So Kidney feels it is necessary to mess up the provinces as well as the national side? That is so frustrating.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

Notch wrote: Wallace and Cave were both very impressive too. It's such a very good partnership I find suggestions we might want to break it up baffling.

As I mentioned it might not be Ulster who want to break up the partnership but Kidney.

If we only see it twice next year I think that would be the logical conclusion - if we see it more often I would conclude it is an Ulster decision.

So Kidney feels it is necessary to mess up the provinces as well as the national side? That is so frustrating.

I wouldnt be blaming kidney for anything just yet rory

I don't think he should have a say on who Ulster play/don't play. We have two very good centre partnerships already in Wallace/Cave and Wallace/Spence. No need to mix and match IMO.

Stand I'm not a massive fan of Doak but I wouldn't single him out for criticism based on Saturday's game when we were actually playing some of our best attacking rugby this season.
The reason we didn't get anything out of our good field positions were down to individual errors in turning the ball over and an fantastic Leinster defence.
For next season I want more of the same attack wise.

Stand its not easy to answer that. I thought we played some good stuff at times and stretched Leinster but just lacked the composure in their 22 to come away with points at times. If we had then who knows.

They also dominated the breakdown. They managed to turn us over and slow us down and in attack they had quick clean ball which makes it so much easier to attack. They were nearly always in control.

In defence and attack they were so much better drilled and organised but you are measuring yourself against the very best in the business so I wouldn't criticise our players or coaches....we just have to improve if we want to surpass them. Is Anscombe the answer? we'll find out next season I suppose but we do have things to work on.

Leinster were sensational in attack and defence and as a rugby fan you just have to applaud their squad, Joe Schmidt and their other coaches.

No it wasnt solely down to Doak and i didint want to imply that. we conceded 5 trys ffs so im not lauding Bell or having a right go. Personally i thought we didnt give PJ license to really take the bull by the horns in the same way you see Madigan get given at Leinster (albeit in games of far less stature).

My point really is that in spite of our mistakes we had ball in the leinster 22 on at least 6 occasions and we scored 1 try and 1 penalty. I know we are talking about playing leinster here and not just any old team but would a fresh approach in attack not be a good thing?

I should add im not canvassing for support in getting rid of these guys but just getting opinions. we have seen what it takes to be the best in europe. Obviously McL is off to the academy and we know little about anscombe but Bell and Doak have been with us for a while. Do we think they can help us reach that level?

I'm still pretty worried that we are struggling to find the right backrower. We like to think of Humphries as a magician in this department. He shouldnt be struggling!

Yikes.

I suppose struggling means we are determined not to settle on average players. We need someone of the caliber of Darcy. An unknown, but very talented and ultimately a very safe backup option.

I think we need a higher calibre than that. we need a player who can push Henry and Wilson and potentially usurp one of them as an HEC starter imo.

No way Stand. I dont want any more NIQ first teamers. I'm glad we are reducing by one. I want our Ulster lads to be top class. I'd far rather the new coach works with Henry and Wilson (and Diack Birch Henderson) and helps them improve.

We need depth, and i dont want that depth to come from poor/average players, but i dont believe an NIQ keeping our IQs out of the team will do us any favours in the long run.

Standulstermen wrote:My point really is that in spite of our mistakes we had ball in the leinster 22 on at least 6 occasions and we scored 1 try and 1 penalty.

I'd have to watch the game again but from memory there was the Jackson drop goal attempt when he had men outside.

Just before that we had manufactured a good overlap that was lost through slow ball and a poorly executed long pass.

Muller went for a scrum rather than taking 3 points with 10 or 11 minutes to go.

I'm not saying you are wrong but some of this was down to execution and composure and not coaching.

There has been a marked improvement in our attacking play this season although we do over elaborate at times.

I want an all irish team too but the reality is different from the dream clive.

The reality is that unless Diack mans up this NIQ signing will be a first teamer given that Ferris will hardly play in many games. A player of D'arcys calibre (and i like D'arcy) will mean that our backrow is fairly weak.

You cite Birch who is even smaller than Faloon was, Diack who has a mountain to climb to justify his contract and henderson who (from an irish perspective) should be developed at lock. Thats not to say they wont improve but it is gambling a lot.

You are assuming our IQ's are all going to be good enough. Im not so certain. Yes, ideally we would be looking at a Ferris, Henry, Wilson backrow but if we lose one i would prefer the next option is better than diack

Rodders

But what about the point of the post. Are you happy enough with Doak to continue or do you think we would benefit from a fresh perspective, given that the target is leinster. Thats all im asking. Im not trying to downplay Doaks role in what was an impressive season. Its like the McL argument. He has done a great job but a fresh approach might take us that extra yard we need.

Stand - Birch is bigger than Faloon by an inch and a few kgs I think. He has also looked much more physical in his cameo appearances.

I get what you are saying Stand. Hopefully Anscombe can develop these guys, but I take your point that an alternative to Ferris would be more than useful.

Out of interest, as a way of guaging your opinion on Diack, is Nick Williams better or worse?

Standulstermen wrote:
Rodders

But what about the point of the post. Are you happy enough with Doak to continue or do you think we would benefit from a fresh perspective, given that the target is leinster. Thats all im asking. Im not trying to downplay Doaks role in what was an impressive season. Its like the McL argument. He has done a great job but a fresh approach might take us that extra yard we need.

Stand I think we'd be a better team if Joe Schmidt was our coach. Any team would.

I think we've improved markedly under our current set up and changing coaches on it's own is not a silver bullet for improving....only if the new coach is better than the outgoing coach.

I heard a few people over the weekend say that Anscombe is not up to much and not very highly rated in NZ but I'll wait until the end of next season to judge if he's an improvement on Mclaughlin and co.

Squad rotation and player development are a couple of areas we need to improve on in my opinion.

Birch to my mind certainly doesnt look bigger than Faloon and if we are comparing Birchs breakthrough into the Ulster team to Faloons then the latters was much more impressive.

Thats not to say he cant be good. i hope he proves a valuable option at Pro12 level. Thats fair enough rodders. The idea with Anscombe though is that the coach takes on much more responsibility and Mullers weight is lessened somewhat (certainly thats the impression i got) and it looks very like he will have the same staff as McL at the minute.

Standulstermen wrote:

But what about the point of the post. Are you happy enough with Doak to continue or do you think we would benefit from a fresh perspective, given that the target is leinster. Thats all im asking. Im not trying to downplay Doaks role in what was an impressive season. Its like the McL argument. He has done a great job but a fresh approach might take us that extra yard we need.

Stand I'll be happy to let Anscombe have a bit of time with these guys (Doak & Bell) and gauge their worth. I have to add that I did feel they weren't up to the task earlier in the season (when we were discussing this previously) but everyone did seem to up their game a bit.
Long term if we are going to be the best team then perhaps we need to have the best coaches as well! Time will tell if they are already here

Rava wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:

But what about the point of the post. Are you happy enough with Doak to continue or do you think we would benefit from a fresh perspective, given that the target is leinster. Thats all im asking. Im not trying to downplay Doaks role in what was an impressive season. Its like the McL argument. He has done a great job but a fresh approach might take us that extra yard we need.

Stand I'll be happy to let Anscombe have a bit of time with these guys (Doak & Bell) and gauge their worth. I have to add that I did feel they weren't up to the task earlier in the season (when we were discussing this previously) but everyone did seem to up their game a bit.
Long term if we are going to be the best team then perhaps we need to have the best coaches as well! Time will tell if they are already here

Cheers Rava

I think a squad level NIQ is easy to find but at the same time I think the view is 'whats the point ?'. Nick Williams brings nothing to the party - my gut feeling is we have taken a look and said no thanks.

We honestly believed we would be able to retain Wannenberg - hence the flap.

Following the big "do" up on the hill last night yer man Ken Reid (UTV) tweeted

"Expect one more back-row Ulster signing before the new season. Chris Henry also expecting to be fit for Irish tour.#suftum"

I just hope we get someone good. We really do need another quality backrow.

Has Niall O'Connor been officially signed?

Notch wrote:I just hope we get someone good. We really do need another quality backrow.

Me too Notch, if theres one thing I hate its a shoite backrower.

I say we throw Muldoon in Niall O'Connors boot when he's on his way up.

Not sure, but welcome his return. It's purely to add depth and as much as I don't really rate him he is capable of taking the field in the Pro12 and being good enough. He will be brought out in the event of injuries/international call-ups

I'd rather we took our time getting this backrow signing right, because it's essential we get quality there. But I'll be worried until we announce it.

I dont like the way ken Reid said 'before the new season'. Thats like two months. Maybe he just meant itll be a new face when the season starts again. I hope they arent going to take that much time to find a backrower.