Ian Madigan

by GoodinTightSpaces Wed 08 Oct 2014, 11:07 am

i think most leinster fans would agree that Ian Madigan has probably been our best attacking player this year, the spark of the leinster team particularly when playing at 12. while i think he has been great there this year, scoring tries, creating tries and been fairly solid in defence i wonder what peoples thoughts would be to push him out to 13. i think wiht that bit extra room he could flourish into a fantastic 2nd centre.

I am well aware that he has been pushed around the back line over the last few years and as a leinster fan i would prefer to see him at 10. but i wonder what people feel about the possiblity at 13 for leinster.

by GoodinTightSpaces Wed 08 Oct 2014, 11:13 am

for the record i'm not saying he should move to 13 i just want to see what peoples thoughts on it would be.,

by Submachine Wed 08 Oct 2014, 11:28 am

He's such a talent that he could and has played in almost every position in the backline. Personally I think his biggest attribute is his passing range and I would much rather he played 10 than anywhere else.
Just looking at his slight frame (in comparison with other centres) I'm always fearful of him picking up an injury in the centre chanels taking on some of the really big guys at speed. He does have excellent defensive technique but sooner or later you get a bang at centre and a bit off extra padding makes a huge difference. Bulking up would probably take the edge off his speed so I say NO.
Give the guy a run at 10. Give Jimmy a bit of bench time and use Macken, Darcy, Reid, Coughlan and all them other fellas at centre.

by GoodinTightSpaces Wed 08 Oct 2014, 11:45 am

i agree, i see 10 as his best position also, far better distributor and kicker than jimmy. for some reason MOC prefers Jimmy

by SecretFly Wed 08 Oct 2014, 12:09 pm

10 might be his best position (I'm personally not so certain - and neither is he it seems) But anyway, 10 Might be his best position but if Leinster intend getting the most out of him in the next number of seasons, and if Sexton is back next year, then I think it fruitless that he'd be left in 10 where it's either him or Sexton on the field but never both.

Both is what you'd want if you were a coach that wanted to go places. Plus, I think he himself regards himself as more a 12/13 player. Now players don't always get their positions and aspirations spot on, but I guess he knows his skills and probably is certain where his blood is up and where he himself feels he can best make an impact.

Plus even in an Irish context - he's too good to be an eternal bencher for either Sexton or Jackson. So if his future is elsewhere in order to best utilise him then the experience in those other areas are needed now

But we'll see what transpires.

by Don Alfonso Wed 08 Oct 2014, 2:03 pm

If Joe can require Ulster to play Payne at 13, why can he not require MOC to play MAd-dog at ten?

by GoodinTightSpaces Wed 08 Oct 2014, 2:10 pm

thats a good question. Joe was interviewed before the match and there did seem to be a hint of frustration that madigan wasnt playing more regularly at 10.

by ME-109 Wed 08 Oct 2014, 2:30 pm

Am a big fan of him. His first season at 10 he was excellent and I would have picked him for Ireland even then. No idea what the story is now. He should be playing at 10 full stop imho.

by GunsGerms Wed 08 Oct 2014, 2:59 pm

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:i agree, i see 10 as his best position also, far better distributor and kicker than jimmy. for some reason MOC prefers Jimmy

Its beyond a joke at this stage. Would be happy to see MOC and Gopperth move on.

by Don Alfonso Wed 08 Oct 2014, 3:04 pm

The rest of this season and next for MOC, isn't it?

I think Madigan is over-hyped, but there's no doubting he's a talented player.

by kunu Wed 08 Oct 2014, 4:08 pm

I think he's a 10, but should continue to learn to play 12. He's only 2 or 3 years younger than Sexton, so he'll never get time to develop as a 10. At 12 he can make use of his good passing game, as well as his brilliant sniping ability. There's no one better in Ireland at exploiting gaps in a defence from close range.

I don't see him as a 13 though. While his defence is fine, its not good enough to play him in the game's most defensively complicated position. I think he made a defensive read error for the All Blacks' winning try last Autumn. Unfortunately I can't check as I've banned myself from ever rewatching that game. furious

by Sin é Wed 08 Oct 2014, 4:17 pm

Don Alfonso wrote:If Joe can require Ulster to play Payne at 13, why can he not require MOC to play MAd-dog at ten?

Schmidt recruited Goppert (and O'Connor) because he doesn't rate Madigan as a 10.

by asoreleftshoulder Wed 08 Oct 2014, 4:19 pm

Sin é wrote:
Don Alfonso wrote:If Joe can require Ulster to play Payne at 13, why can he not require MOC to play MAd-dog at ten?

Schmidt recruited Goppert (and O'Connor) because he doesn't rate Madigan as a 10.

Really?Can you give a source for that?

by kunu Wed 08 Oct 2014, 4:21 pm

Sin é wrote:
Don Alfonso wrote:If Joe can require Ulster to play Payne at 13, why can he not require MOC to play MAd-dog at ten?

Schmidt recruited Goppert (and O'Connor) because he doesn't rate Madigan as a 10.

and because Sexto was packing his bags

by Sin é Wed 08 Oct 2014, 4:28 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Don Alfonso wrote:If Joe can require Ulster to play Payne at 13, why can he not require MOC to play MAd-dog at ten?

Schmidt recruited Goppert (and O'Connor) because he doesn't rate Madigan as a 10.

Really?Can you give a source for that?

Schmidt was still at Leinster when both were recruited.

by Sin é Wed 08 Oct 2014, 4:30 pm

kunu wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Don Alfonso wrote:If Joe can require Ulster to play Payne at 13, why can he not require MOC to play MAd-dog at ten?

Schmidt recruited Goppert (and O'Connor) because he doesn't rate Madigan as a 10.

and because Sexto was packing his bags

... and he wanted a controlling outhalf.

by asoreleftshoulder Wed 08 Oct 2014, 4:36 pm

GunsGerms wrote:
GoodinTightSpaces wrote:i agree, i see 10 as his best position also, far better distributor and kicker than jimmy. for some reason MOC prefers Jimmy

Its beyond a joke at this stage. Would be happy to see MOC and Gopperth move on.

I don't think Gopperth is as bad as some people make out but he's suffering in peoples eyes because MoC is showing such double standards between himself and Madigan.Last year I could understand him playing Gopperth ahead of Madigan even if I didn't agree with it however this year Gopperth has been awful and keeps getting the nod,I suppose the injury problems at centre have contributed to that but Gopperth is directly costing us 7 points a game at this stage with intercepts and loose kicks.

There comes a point when he has to be dropped and we work D'Arcy and Macken in the centre.

by asoreleftshoulder Wed 08 Oct 2014, 4:37 pm

Sin é wrote:
asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Don Alfonso wrote:If Joe can require Ulster to play Payne at 13, why can he not require MOC to play MAd-dog at ten?

Schmidt recruited Goppert (and O'Connor) because he doesn't rate Madigan as a 10.

Really?Can you give a source for that?

Schmidt was still at Leinster when both were recruited.

So?

by kunu Wed 08 Oct 2014, 4:40 pm

Sin é wrote:
kunu wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Don Alfonso wrote:If Joe can require Ulster to play Payne at 13, why can he not require MOC to play MAd-dog at ten?

Schmidt recruited Goppert (and O'Connor) because he doesn't rate Madigan as a 10.

and because Sexto was packing his bags

... and he wanted a controlling outhalf.

We can only guess. One clear reason he had for bringing Gopperth over was he needed another out half, and didn't think Cathal Marsh was ready for the step up. He had no choice but to bring in another outhalf.

by Sin é Wed 08 Oct 2014, 4:49 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Sin é wrote:
asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Don Alfonso wrote:If Joe can require Ulster to play Payne at 13, why can he not require MOC to play MAd-dog at ten?

Schmidt recruited Goppert (and O'Connor) because he doesn't rate Madigan as a 10.

Really?Can you give a source for that?

Schmidt was still at Leinster when both were recruited.

So?

So, Schmidt signed Jimmy Guppert (& McCarthy as well).

Do you seriously think he didn't have a say in O'Connor bearing in mind that everyone in Leinster think Schmidt is God?

by Sin é Wed 08 Oct 2014, 4:50 pm

kunu wrote:
Sin é wrote:
kunu wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Don Alfonso wrote:If Joe can require Ulster to play Payne at 13, why can he not require MOC to play MAd-dog at ten?

Schmidt recruited Goppert (and O'Connor) because he doesn't rate Madigan as a 10.

and because Sexto was packing his bags

... and he wanted a controlling outhalf.

We can only guess. One clear reason he had for bringing Gopperth over was he needed another out half, and didn't think Cathal Marsh was ready for the step up. He had no choice but to bring in another outhalf.

Of course Sexton needed to be replaced, but Gopperth is Schmidt's 'type' of outhalf.

by thebandwagonsociety Wed 08 Oct 2014, 4:52 pm

While he has good tackling technique, he is also on the small side (like many Leinster produced backs) so medium to long term longevity would have been a question mark.

Also, Sexton moving on was probably figured as an issue/possibility quite early in the season, Madigan might have had a couple of games at outhalf under him but I wouldn't have said he had a great CV at the start of that season when they probably made the decision to reach out for Gopperth.

As it was there was a kid coming through who had to retire early (name escapes me) but did he lose sight in one eye or something which created a bit of a gap between Sexton and the next player coming out of the academy. Madigan at the time was more of a full back option but started to get chances at outhalf once injuries/that retirement took its toll on rotation.

Man I must have had a drinking problem back then, it all seems so fuzzy.

by thebandwagonsociety Wed 08 Oct 2014, 4:57 pm

Sin é wrote:
kunu wrote:
Sin é wrote:
kunu wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Don Alfonso wrote:If Joe can require Ulster to play Payne at 13, why can he not require MOC to play MAd-dog at ten?

Schmidt recruited Goppert (and O'Connor) because he doesn't rate Madigan as a 10.

and because Sexto was packing his bags

... and he wanted a controlling outhalf.

We can only guess. One clear reason he had for bringing Gopperth over was he needed another out half, and didn't think Cathal Marsh was ready for the step up. He had no choice but to bring in another outhalf.

Of course Sexton needed to be replaced, but Gopperth is Schmidt's 'type' of outhalf.

'Type' of outhalf? I don't think Joe has enough of a record as a coach to start trends like that. He had Brock James when he was backs coach at ASM and Sexton at Leinster who is also Ireland. He has only handled two franchise outhalfs.

by thebandwagonsociety Wed 08 Oct 2014, 5:00 pm

If I was Madigan, inside centre is the perfect opportunity for him at both Leinster and with a shout at Ireland (just a shout) going forward. Sextons size at 10 probably allows Leinster to get away with a relatively small inside centre.

by Sin é Wed 08 Oct 2014, 5:03 pm

thebandwagonsociety wrote:
Sin é wrote:
kunu wrote:
Sin é wrote:
kunu wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Don Alfonso wrote:If Joe can require Ulster to play Payne at 13, why can he not require MOC to play MAd-dog at ten?

Schmidt recruited Goppert (and O'Connor) because he doesn't rate Madigan as a 10.

and because Sexto was packing his bags

... and he wanted a controlling outhalf.

We can only guess. One clear reason he had for bringing Gopperth over was he needed another out half, and didn't think Cathal Marsh was ready for the step up. He had no choice but to bring in another outhalf.

Of course Sexton needed to be replaced, but Gopperth is Schmidt's 'type' of outhalf.

'Type' of outhalf? I don't think Joe has enough of a record as a coach to start trends like that. He had Brock James when he was backs coach at ASM and Sexton at Leinster who is also Ireland. He has only handled two franchise outhalfs.

Em, he dumped Carlos Spencer at the Blues for Tasesa Lavea Laugh

He has said that he would prefer if Madigan was more like Mehrtens than Spencer Laugh

by GoodinTightSpaces Wed 08 Oct 2014, 5:09 pm

Sin é wrote:
thebandwagonsociety wrote:
Sin é wrote:
kunu wrote:
Sin é wrote:
kunu wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Don Alfonso wrote:If Joe can require Ulster to play Payne at 13, why can he not require MOC to play MAd-dog at ten?

Schmidt recruited Goppert (and O'Connor) because he doesn't rate Madigan as a 10.

and because Sexto was packing his bags

... and he wanted a controlling outhalf.

We can only guess. One clear reason he had for bringing Gopperth over was he needed another out half, and didn't think Cathal Marsh was ready for the step up. He had no choice but to bring in another outhalf.

Of course Sexton needed to be replaced, but Gopperth is Schmidt's 'type' of outhalf.

'Type' of outhalf? I don't think Joe has enough of a record as a coach to start trends like that. He had Brock James when he was backs coach at ASM and Sexton at Leinster who is also Ireland. He has only handled two franchise outhalfs.

Em, he dumped Carlos Spencer at the Blues for Tasesa Lavea

He has said that he would prefer if Madigan was more like Mehrtens than Spencer

i'm sure that is in the context of controling a game which for me is Madigans weakness as a 10.

As for the Spencer thing this is something you have talked about before, Schmidt was backs coach and while he may have had a part in the decision to drop any player the head coach ultimately makes that decision.

by kunu Wed 08 Oct 2014, 5:13 pm

Sin é wrote:
kunu wrote:
Sin é wrote:
kunu wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Don Alfonso wrote:If Joe can require Ulster to play Payne at 13, why can he not require MOC to play MAd-dog at ten?

Schmidt recruited Goppert (and O'Connor) because he doesn't rate Madigan as a 10.

and because Sexto was packing his bags

... and he wanted a controlling outhalf.

We can only guess. One clear reason he had for bringing Gopperth over was he needed another out half, and didn't think Cathal Marsh was ready for the step up. He had no choice but to bring in another outhalf.

Of course Sexton needed to be replaced, but Gopperth is Schmidt's 'type' of outhalf.

I didn't watch Gopperth at Newcastle, but If you take Sexton as Schmidt's type of out half (which you should, as he's easily the out half whom Schmidt has shown the most favour for during his career) - you've got a quick, solid passer, very good defender, old school kicker who uses his head, is naturally clever, and passionate. He is good at reading the game, but not great and it has been an area of criticism in the past.

Gopperth is a surfer dude who likes to have a run before a pass and is below par defensively. He has never shown a particular ability to control a game for Leinster, and has been absolutely awful at it more times than not - see last week's game. Unless Gopperth went through a radical change upon joining Leinster, I'd say Madigan is more of a Schmidt type out half (good passer, defender, and well drilled), and Gopperth was brought in to give Schmidt an option, but not to replace him.

by GunsGerms Wed 08 Oct 2014, 5:16 pm

thebandwagonsociety wrote:While he has good tackling technique, he is also on the small side (like many Leinster produced backs) so medium to long term longevity would have been a question mark.

I have heard Madigan being described as small before but he isnt really small at all if you look at the best OHs around the world. If anything he is average height and weight for a top class OH.

Ian Madigan - 5'11, 91kg
Aaron Cruden - 5'9, 82kg
Pat Lambie - 5'10, 87kg
Morne Steyn - 6'0, 91kg
Quade Cooper - 6'1, 92kg
Bernard Foley - 6'0, 90kg
Beauden Barrett - 6'1, 92kg
Jonny Sexton - 6'2, 92kg
Owen Farrell - 6'2, 96kg
Dan Carter - 5'10, 94kg

by Sin é Wed 08 Oct 2014, 5:29 pm

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:
Sin é wrote:
thebandwagonsociety wrote:
Sin é wrote:
kunu wrote:
Sin é wrote:
kunu wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Don Alfonso wrote:If Joe can require Ulster to play Payne at 13, why can he not require MOC to play MAd-dog at ten?

Schmidt recruited Goppert (and O'Connor) because he doesn't rate Madigan as a 10.

and because Sexto was packing his bags

... and he wanted a controlling outhalf.

We can only guess. One clear reason he had for bringing Gopperth over was he needed another out half, and didn't think Cathal Marsh was ready for the step up. He had no choice but to bring in another outhalf.

Of course Sexton needed to be replaced, but Gopperth is Schmidt's 'type' of outhalf.

'Type' of outhalf? I don't think Joe has enough of a record as a coach to start trends like that. He had Brock James when he was backs coach at ASM and Sexton at Leinster who is also Ireland. He has only handled two franchise outhalfs.

Em, he dumped Carlos Spencer at the Blues for Tasesa Lavea

He has said that he would prefer if Madigan was more like Mehrtens than Spencer

i'm sure that is in the context of controling a game which for me is Madigans weakness as a 10.

As for the Spencer thing this is something you have talked about before, Schmidt was backs coach and while he may have had a part in the decision to drop any player the head coach ultimately makes that decision.

Jimmy Gopperth = Tasesa Lavea

Rugby: Cursed by the reign of king Carlos
5:30 AM Sunday Mar 11, 2012

Carlos Spencer played some magical rugby for the Blues but it all started to go wrong for the team when he was replaced in 2005.

They talked in Boston of the curse of the Bambino, the 86-year period of failure because the Red Sox sold Babe Ruth.

Maybe the time has come for Aucklanders to be talking about the curse of Carlos - as surely it can't be coincidence that the Blues have made mediocrity a habit since they pushed their sensationally gifted play-maker into the arms of Northampton in 2005.

If only they had treasured what they had, their history might not make such sorry reading.

Spencer was outrageous in 2003; angels sung in his head and even Midas himself would have marvelled at the first five's alchemist's touch.

Winning the title was a formality - the only doubt was for how long Spencer could touch the stars.

It felt in those heady days of magical rugby as if the Blues could live there forever and Super Rugby would sit in their pocket for an eternity.

But that grip proved more fragile than anyone realised and the last tenuously clinging finger was prised free in 2005.

That was the beginning of the end; the year it all started to go wrong.

New backs coach Joe Schmidt never got Spencer at all. The two men had different views, different ideas and by the end of March the relationship was hanging by a thread.

Spencer was accused of not following the game plan and out he went - replaced by Tasesa Lavea. Suddenly the Blues were adrift at sea, where they have roamed like zombie pirates since. They had an itchy foot but rather than scratch it - they chopped it off.

Which rational judge of talent could have believed in Lavea ahead of Spencer? The great man was only 29 when they let him go - short of confidence but not talent.

He had rugby left in him and, had the Blues been patient, they could have nursed him back to form and who knows, Spencer may have been around for another five years and the Blues may have won more titles.

Every champion side in Super Rugby history has had a champion first five: Spencer, Andrew Mehrtens, Stephen Larkham, Daniel Carter, Morne Steyn and Quade Cooper.

That's the list and it is indisputable; Steyn might appear an anomaly but he's brilliant in a limited scope and his particular skills are integral to the way the Bulls play. The first question any Super Rugby coach aspiring to win the title should ask: do they have a first five who could sit credibly on that list?

Clearly the Blues haven't asked that or deluded themselves if they have.

In a way, the Blues have been doubly cursed by their own folly; not only have they been knocked off their perch, they haven't been able to exorcise the ghost of Spencer from their No 10 jersey.

It is sadly a shirt no one really wants to wear and those who have been brave enough, simply haven't been good enough. Hours, days, weeks even could be spent dissecting the anatomy of the Blues' failure since 2003 but any thesis could be reduced to one line - they haven't had a first five good enough to steer them to a title.

Were they ever title contenders with Lavea at 10 - a player they posted to the Chiefs in 2007 only to take back two years later despite being even less certain about him then than they were when they let him go.

On the eve of the 2009 competition, he had hardly set the bar particularly high. "If I perform, then there will not be so much rubbish thrown at me," he told NZ Rugby World. "But if I don't perform and the Blues lose, then I guess it's Lavea's fault again."

The Blues took him back only because they lacked confidence in their first choice - Jimmy Gopperth. They'd picked him up from the Hurricanes' discard pile and got what they paid for. That didn't deter them from shopping in the bargain bins.

Stephen Brett was hauled out of Christchurch after the Blues had unsuccessfully tried to recruit a series of bigger names.

They tried Dan Carter and he was probably more flattered than tempted. Jonny Wilkinson and Juan Martin Hernandez were supposedly on the shopping list.

Brett was brave. Brett was at times penetrative and visionary but he had this incurable ability to commit costly errors.

A beauty queen prone to acne is not a beauty queen.

The only season in the last seven when the Blues had a potentially title-winning No 10 was 2008. That was the one season Nick Evans played for the Blues and he arrived in form as the only All Black to have enhanced his standing at the World Cup. Incredibly, the Blues used him more at fullback than at first five.

Even perennial optimists will be struggling to believe 2012 is going to end the curse.

The Blues can and probably will turn their season around.

They may end up sneaking into the play-offs but it's a stretch to see them winning.

It comes back to that same question: who in their current squad can be added to that hall of first five fame?

Gareth Anscombe is not of that calibre - not yet anyway - and with the best will in the world, nor is Michael Hobbs.

What about Piri Weepu - is he a title-winning 10? He's gifted, can read the game and kick goals. There's enough there to be intrigued but, against the best sides, can Weepu break the line?

Perhaps the most damning evidence that the Blues will fall short yet again is that it isn't even clear who their best first five actually is.

No side has ever won the championship by experimenting with their selections at No 10, yet that is exactly what the Blues are likely to do.

"Obviously Carlos left some big shoes to fill and no one has really done anything consistently since and that is a challenge for Gareth, Piri and I, whoever goes out there each week to put the boys in good positions on the park," said Hobbs before the team left for South Africa.

The curse of Carlos - it is a real and present danger.

by GoodinTightSpaces Wed 08 Oct 2014, 5:34 pm

i always say gopperth as a back up to madigan under schmidt to be honest not as the starter. if Schmidt didnt rate madigan he would not have played him in his last year as coach with leinster.

if you want to turn this into another one of your schmidt bashing threads can i suggest you start one

by kunu Wed 08 Oct 2014, 5:45 pm

As much as I'd like Madigan to be a like for like substitute for Carlos Spencer, he simply isn't- they're not on the same level of unpredictability, which was Schmidt's problem. He also does the things schmidt loves, things people on this board love to point out - hits rucks, makes his tackles, etc. He's very well drilled, to the point of being too well drilled, and is an extremely hard worker. Anyone who lives around Clonskeagh will be used to seeing him practicing kicks for hours out on the UCD astro pitch. I really doubt Schmidt didn't think he could control Madigan, which was his problem with Spencer.

by Sin é Wed 08 Oct 2014, 5:52 pm

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:i always say gopperth as a back up to madigan under schmidt to be honest not as the starter. if Schmidt didnt rate madigan he would not have played him in his last year as coach with leinster.

if you want to turn this into another one of your schmidt bashing threads can i suggest you start one

I think you are wrong. Gopperth was brought in to be a starter. The Blues got rid of Lavea as Schmidt went to Clermont. Guess where Lavea turned up in 2009? Yep, back with his old pal Schmidt in Clermont.

by asoreleftshoulder Wed 08 Oct 2014, 10:57 pm

Sin é wrote:
asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Sin é wrote:
asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Don Alfonso wrote:If Joe can require Ulster to play Payne at 13, why can he not require MOC to play MAd-dog at ten?

Schmidt recruited Goppert (and O'Connor) because he doesn't rate Madigan as a 10.

Really?Can you give a source for that?

Schmidt was still at Leinster when both were recruited.

So?

So, Schmidt signed Jimmy Guppert (& McCarthy as well).

Do you seriously think he didn't have a say in O'Connor bearing in mind that everyone in Leinster think Schmidt is God?

I have no idea if he had anything to do with O'Connor signing,but seeing as this thread is about Madigan I don't see the relevance of bringing it up.

You still have given no proof that Gopperth was signed to take over from Sexton,it's just something you made up so you could quote that old article you have printed out and hung in a frame on your bedroom wall.

by GunsGerms Thu 09 Oct 2014, 10:12 am

There isnt anyone who loves a good conspiracy theory more than Siné.

by SecretFly Thu 09 Oct 2014, 12:28 pm

In the interests of circumstantial fairness Wink

- circumstantial evidence about Madigan, and Schmidt's opinion of him at 10, would tend to agree with Sin's reading about Gopperth.

If Schmidt intended Gopperth to be only a back-up 10 to Madigan (if indeed Schmidt ever intended to be around in that year anyway, which is highly debateable!) but if Schmidt did employ Gopperth as simply a back-up and intended to get bang for buck at 10 mostly from Madigan, then you'd ask yourself why Madigan wasn't Numero 2 in Irish camp behind Sexton? If Madigan is a more inventive/unpredictable yet trustworthy force of energy at 10 than Jackson, if he's a 10 Schmidt wanted to continue the high-jinx bizz at top-shot Leinster, then why has he seemed to be a pretty vague, even vaguely uncertain number 3 choice instead so far? Don't cough up anything about Provincial politics now in defence of Schmidt's decisions. Schmidt was employed to win, not to play Provincial politics with the International side. Madigan seems very much third choice 10 at the moment.

The circumstantial evidence seems to suggest Schmidt did have reservations about Madigan in that specific 10 role, thus the arrival of Gopperth.

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 09 Oct 2014, 12:40 pm

SecretFly wrote:In the interests of circumstantial fairness - circumstantial evidence about Madigan, and Schmidt's opinion of him at 10, would tend to agree with Sin's reading about Gopperth.

If Schmidt intended Gopperth to be only a back-up 10 to Madigan (if indeed Schmidt ever intended to be around in that year anyway, which is highly debateable!) but if Schmidt did employ Gopperth as simply a back-up and intended to get bang for buck at 10 mostly from Madigan, then you'd ask yourself why Madigan wasn't Numero 2 in Irish camp behind Sexton? If Madigan is a more inventive/unpredictable yet trustworthy force of energy at 10 than Jackson, if he's a 10 Schmidt wanted to continue the high-jinx bizz at top-shot Leinster, then why has he seemed to be a pretty vague, even vaguely uncertain number 3 choice instead so far? Don't cough up anything about Provincial politics now in defence of Schmidt's decisions. Schmidt was employed to win, not to play Provincial politics with the International side. Madigan seems very much third choice 10 at the moment.

The circumstantial evidence seems to suggest Schmidt did have reservations about Madigan in that specific 10 role, thus the arrival of Gopperth.

Pretty simple to understand that Schmidt didn't have Jackson at Leinster and if he did then he'd have picked him.Madigans place in the Irish pecking order has nothing to do with how Schmidt would have dealt with Madigan and Gopperth.

by GoodinTightSpaces Thu 09 Oct 2014, 12:44 pm

i would have thought both Jackson and Madigan were both 2 behind sexton in the irish camp. Madigan after all did play the last game of the 6 nations.

for me Jackson is a sligthly better 10 at the moment and he is certainly better the Jimmy G.

saying that i dont think looking at where madigan stands in the Irish set up has an relevance on JG signing for leinster. fact of the matter Leinster needed a new 10 when sexton left, and i am sure that they wanted to sign the best player they could to challenge Madigan. whether Schmidt was looking at Goppert as the starting 10 or not it is all speculation and nothing more.
for someone in particular it another excuse to show that he really dislikes the current irish head coach.

by Don Alfonso Thu 09 Oct 2014, 12:44 pm

SecretFly wrote:In the interests of circumstantial fairness - circumstantial evidence about Madigan, and Schmidt's opinion of him at 10, would tend to agree with Sin's reading about Gopperth.

If Schmidt intended Gopperth to be only a back-up 10 to Madigan (if indeed Schmidt ever intended to be around in that year anyway, which is highly debateable!) but if Schmidt did employ Gopperth as simply a back-up and intended to get bang for buck at 10 mostly from Madigan, then you'd ask yourself why Madigan wasn't Numero 2 in Irish camp behind Sexton? If Madigan is a more inventive/unpredictable yet trustworthy force of energy at 10 than Jackson, if he's a 10 Schmidt wanted to continue the high-jinx bizz at top-shot Leinster, then why has he seemed to be a pretty vague, even vaguely uncertain number 3 choice instead so far? Don't cough up anything about Provincial politics now in defence of Schmidt's decisions. Schmidt was employed to win, not to play Provincial politics with the International side. Madigan seems very much third choice 10 at the moment.

The circumstantial evidence seems to suggest Schmidt did have reservations about Madigan in that specific 10 role, thus the arrival of Gopperth.

Mmmm. I think you're getting caught up in defining them by differing syles and approaches to their role, rather than just straighforward quality.

Jackson is a better ten than Gopperth or Madigan (although he hasn't gotten going this season). That Madigan is not no. 2 for Ireland does not mean it follows that He is not better than Gopperth.

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 09 Oct 2014, 12:48 pm

Don Alfonso wrote:
SecretFly wrote:In the interests of circumstantial fairness - circumstantial evidence about Madigan, and Schmidt's opinion of him at 10, would tend to agree with Sin's reading about Gopperth.

If Schmidt intended Gopperth to be only a back-up 10 to Madigan (if indeed Schmidt ever intended to be around in that year anyway, which is highly debateable!) but if Schmidt did employ Gopperth as simply a back-up and intended to get bang for buck at 10 mostly from Madigan, then you'd ask yourself why Madigan wasn't Numero 2 in Irish camp behind Sexton? If Madigan is a more inventive/unpredictable yet trustworthy force of energy at 10 than Jackson, if he's a 10 Schmidt wanted to continue the high-jinx bizz at top-shot Leinster, then why has he seemed to be a pretty vague, even vaguely uncertain number 3 choice instead so far? Don't cough up anything about Provincial politics now in defence of Schmidt's decisions. Schmidt was employed to win, not to play Provincial politics with the International side. Madigan seems very much third choice 10 at the moment.

The circumstantial evidence seems to suggest Schmidt did have reservations about Madigan in that specific 10 role, thus the arrival of Gopperth.

Mmmm. I think you're getting caught up in defining them by differing syles and approaches to their role, rather than just straighforward quality.

Jackson is a better ten than Gopperth or Madigan (although he hasn't gotten going this season). That Madigan is not no. 2 for Ireland does not mean it follows that He is not better than Gopperth.

Yeah pretty easy to understand that.

by toml Thu 09 Oct 2014, 12:54 pm

Sin é wrote:
GoodinTightSpaces wrote:i always say gopperth as a back up to madigan under schmidt to be honest not as the starter. if Schmidt didnt rate madigan he would not have played him in his last year as coach with leinster.

if you want to turn this into another one of your schmidt bashing threads can i suggest you start one

I think you are wrong. Gopperth was brought in to be a starter. The Blues got rid of Lavea as Schmidt went to Clermont. Guess where Lavea turned up in 2009? Yep, back with his old pal Schmidt in Clermont.

This is what I've heard as well

Gopperth as been babysitting the 10 jersey for Sexton
Joe is delighted Jonny is coming home, unfortunately Madigan has never been trusted at the top level and I doubt he ever will.
He is a fantastic attacking player on the front foot.
He is not that great a player when his pack is on the back foot.

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 09 Oct 2014, 12:58 pm

toml wrote:
Sin é wrote:
GoodinTightSpaces wrote:i always say gopperth as a back up to madigan under schmidt to be honest not as the starter. if Schmidt didnt rate madigan he would not have played him in his last year as coach with leinster.

if you want to turn this into another one of your schmidt bashing threads can i suggest you start one

I think you are wrong. Gopperth was brought in to be a starter. The Blues got rid of Lavea as Schmidt went to Clermont. Guess where Lavea turned up in 2009? Yep, back with his old pal Schmidt in Clermont.

This is what I've heard as well

Gopperth as been babysitting the 10 jersey for Sexton
Joe is delighted Jonny is coming home, unfortunately Madigan has never been trusted at the top level and I doubt he ever will.
He is a fantastic attacking player on the front foot.
He is not that great a player when his pack is on the back foot.

Heard where,if you've been listening to the likes of Sin then you'll hear all sorts of unsubstantiated bs.

by LeinsterFan4life Thu 09 Oct 2014, 12:59 pm

Gopperth was brought in to be a backup to Madigan but he hit the ground running when he got here. He must of been playing the best rugby of his career as he was brilliant up until before the 3rd round of the HC.

Madigan failed to impress in the limited starts giving to him by MOC so MOC went with the safe option in starting JG. It's all starting to backfire now however.

by Submachine Thu 09 Oct 2014, 2:00 pm

toml wrote:
Sin é wrote:
GoodinTightSpaces wrote:i always say gopperth as a back up to madigan under schmidt to be honest not as the starter. if Schmidt didnt rate madigan he would not have played him in his last year as coach with leinster.

if you want to turn this into another one of your schmidt bashing threads can i suggest you start one

I think you are wrong. Gopperth was brought in to be a starter. The Blues got rid of Lavea as Schmidt went to Clermont. Guess where Lavea turned up in 2009? Yep, back with his old pal Schmidt in Clermont.

This is what I've heard as well

Gopperth as been babysitting the 10 jersey for Sexton
Joe is delighted Jonny is coming home, unfortunately Madigan has never been trusted at the top level and I doubt he ever will.
He is a fantastic attacking player on the front foot.
He is not that great a player when his pack is on the back foot.

This kind of remark gets bandied about quite a bit a bit like "unseen work". Who are the the magical 10's who aren't affected by slow ball coming from a dominated pack? Please explain the techniques used in outhalfery which allow a 10 to play with equal aplomb whether behind a dominant or submissive pack of forwards?

by SecretFly Thu 09 Oct 2014, 2:20 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
SecretFly wrote:In the interests of circumstantial fairness - circumstantial evidence about Madigan, and Schmidt's opinion of him at 10, would tend to agree with Sin's reading about Gopperth.

If Schmidt intended Gopperth to be only a back-up 10 to Madigan (if indeed Schmidt ever intended to be around in that year anyway, which is highly debateable!) but if Schmidt did employ Gopperth as simply a back-up and intended to get bang for buck at 10 mostly from Madigan, then you'd ask yourself why Madigan wasn't Numero 2 in Irish camp behind Sexton? If Madigan is a more inventive/unpredictable yet trustworthy force of energy at 10 than Jackson, if he's a 10 Schmidt wanted to continue the high-jinx bizz at top-shot Leinster, then why has he seemed to be a pretty vague, even vaguely uncertain number 3 choice instead so far? Don't cough up anything about Provincial politics now in defence of Schmidt's decisions. Schmidt was employed to win, not to play Provincial politics with the International side. Madigan seems very much third choice 10 at the moment.

The circumstantial evidence seems to suggest Schmidt did have reservations about Madigan in that specific 10 role, thus the arrival of Gopperth.

Pretty simple to understand that Schmidt didn't have Jackson at Leinster and if he did then he'd have picked him.Madigans place in the Irish pecking order has nothing to do with how Schmidt would have dealt with Madigan and Gopperth.

Pretty simple that Schmidt knows what a 'perfect' 10 is more than most coaches in Ireland these last number of years. He knows it because he had him. He also knows it because rather than Schmidt adapting to Sexton when he came to Leinster - Schmidt used Sexton to be one of his surgical lances in his gameplan. Schmidt moulded Sexton - so not only does he instinctively know a good 'quality' 10 - he also knows what he wants from them to effect his methods.

So, you're telling me Schmidt couldn't get Jackson... and so Madigan was his only go-to option in the hiring and firing department with his (Schmidt's) record and Leinster's record, and knowing how central a top 10 is to his gameplans??? He settled for Madigan because he couldn't get or didn't have Jackson?

That to me is you suggesting Schmidt settled for third best. It suggests to me you think he intended to fight less hard for Europe in the following years. Schmidt? Lessening his ambitions?
Such a belief would only strengthen the circumstantial doubts in Schmidt's mind from the outset. He didn't/doesn't have sufficient confidence in Madigan at 10. That's all I'm postulating on, and that's all the your line of 'he didn't have Jackson' confirms.

But I'd go further and repeat that Schmidt knows what he wants in a 10 and it's he who hired Gopperth... AND, it's been confirmed here by another that Gopperth hit the ground running (if you were a betting man you might say 'just as Schmidt predicted').
I go further still and ask how much better would Gopperth have been had he linked up with the man who initially wanted him - Schmidt himself? How much sharper might he have been even in that first season? We all do the 'legendary' stuff about how Schmidt improves players. I'm sure Schmidt had seen enough of Gopperth to know he was a player he could improve on. But that wasn't to be.

So everyone says Gopperth is shyte this year. Hmmm............... ain't many of the Leinster players? Who is coaching them? What might he have been like into his second year with Schmidt? What might Leinster have been like? As bad as now? You all underplay Gopperth's natural ability and fail to acknowledge that many of us now see the strategic limitations of the coach - where have we heard that before? A coach holding the creative instincts of players back?

Schmidt knew what he saw in Gopperth... I'll trust his judgement. That player is still there operating under the lacklustre O'Connor conditions, but I'd advance the theory that Gopperth was the replacement for Sexton and the player meant to sustain Leinster's competitiveness into Europe.

by SecretFly Thu 09 Oct 2014, 2:24 pm

Don Alfonso wrote:
SecretFly wrote:In the interests of circumstantial fairness - circumstantial evidence about Madigan, and Schmidt's opinion of him at 10, would tend to agree with Sin's reading about Gopperth.

If Schmidt intended Gopperth to be only a back-up 10 to Madigan (if indeed Schmidt ever intended to be around in that year anyway, which is highly debateable!) but if Schmidt did employ Gopperth as simply a back-up and intended to get bang for buck at 10 mostly from Madigan, then you'd ask yourself why Madigan wasn't Numero 2 in Irish camp behind Sexton? If Madigan is a more inventive/unpredictable yet trustworthy force of energy at 10 than Jackson, if he's a 10 Schmidt wanted to continue the high-jinx bizz at top-shot Leinster, then why has he seemed to be a pretty vague, even vaguely uncertain number 3 choice instead so far? Don't cough up anything about Provincial politics now in defence of Schmidt's decisions. Schmidt was employed to win, not to play Provincial politics with the International side. Madigan seems very much third choice 10 at the moment.

The circumstantial evidence seems to suggest Schmidt did have reservations about Madigan in that specific 10 role, thus the arrival of Gopperth.

Mmmm. I think you're getting caught up in defining them by differing syles and approaches to their role, rather than just straighforward quality.

Jackson is a better ten than Gopperth or Madigan (although he hasn't gotten going this season). That Madigan is not no. 2 for Ireland does not mean it follows that He is not better than Gopperth.

It might not necessarily follow that Madigan is not better than Gopperth but it's as good a premise as any to say that it does - which continues to be my premise. It's certainly as good as your seeming proof that Jackson is better than Gopperth. Wink

Opinions, ain't the sweet.

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 09 Oct 2014, 2:53 pm

SecretFly wrote:
asoreleftshoulder wrote:
SecretFly wrote:In the interests of circumstantial fairness - circumstantial evidence about Madigan, and Schmidt's opinion of him at 10, would tend to agree with Sin's reading about Gopperth.

If Schmidt intended Gopperth to be only a back-up 10 to Madigan (if indeed Schmidt ever intended to be around in that year anyway, which is highly debateable!) but if Schmidt did employ Gopperth as simply a back-up and intended to get bang for buck at 10 mostly from Madigan, then you'd ask yourself why Madigan wasn't Numero 2 in Irish camp behind Sexton? If Madigan is a more inventive/unpredictable yet trustworthy force of energy at 10 than Jackson, if he's a 10 Schmidt wanted to continue the high-jinx bizz at top-shot Leinster, then why has he seemed to be a pretty vague, even vaguely uncertain number 3 choice instead so far? Don't cough up anything about Provincial politics now in defence of Schmidt's decisions. Schmidt was employed to win, not to play Provincial politics with the International side. Madigan seems very much third choice 10 at the moment.

The circumstantial evidence seems to suggest Schmidt did have reservations about Madigan in that specific 10 role, thus the arrival of Gopperth.

Pretty simple to understand that Schmidt didn't have Jackson at Leinster and if he did then he'd have picked him.Madigans place in the Irish pecking order has nothing to do with how Schmidt would have dealt with Madigan and Gopperth.

Pretty simple that Schmidt knows what a 'perfect' 10 is more than most coaches in Ireland these last number of years. He knows it because he had him. He also knows it because rather than Schmidt adapting to Sexton when he came to Leinster - Schmidt used Sexton to be one of his surgical lances in his gameplan. Schmidt moulded Sexton - so not only does he instinctively know a good 'quality' 10 - he also knows what he wants from them to effect his methods.

So, you're telling me Schmidt couldn't get Jackson... and so Madigan was his only go-to option in the hiring and firing department with his (Schmidt's) record and Leinster's record, and knowing how central a top 10 is to his gameplans??? He settled for Madigan because he couldn't get or didn't have Jackson?

That to me is you suggesting Schmidt settled for third best. It suggests to me you think he intended to fight less hard for Europe in the following years. Schmidt? Lessening his ambitions?
Such a belief would only strengthen the circumstantial doubts in Schmidt's mind from the outset. He didn't/doesn't have sufficient confidence in Madigan at 10. That's all I'm postulating on, and that's all the your line of 'he didn't have Jackson' confirms.

But I'd go further and repeat that Schmidt knows what he wants in a 10 and it's he who hired Gopperth... AND, it's been confirmed here by another that Gopperth hit the ground running (if you were a betting man you might say 'just as Schmidt predicted').
I go further still and ask how much better would Gopperth have been had he linked up with the man who initially wanted him - Schmidt himself? How much sharper might he have been even in that first season? We all do the 'legendary' stuff about how Schmidt improves players. I'm sure Schmidt had seen enough of Gopperth to know he was a player he could improve on. But that wasn't to be.

So everyone says Gopperth is shyte this year. Hmmm............... ain't many of the Leinster players? Who is coaching them? What might he have been like into his second year with Schmidt? What might Leinster have been like? As bad as now? You all underplay Gopperth's natural ability and fail to acknowledge that many of us now see the strategic limitations of the coach - where have we heard that before? A coach holding the creative instincts of players back?

Schmidt knew what he saw in Gopperth... I'll trust his judgement. That player is still there operating under the lacklustre O'Connor conditions, but I'd advance the theory that Gopperth was the replacement for Sexton and the player meant to sustain Leinster's competitiveness into Europe.

Eh yeah obviously,of course he couldn't get Jackson for Leinster,how on earth would that happen?

by SecretFly Thu 09 Oct 2014, 3:05 pm

What are you meaning asoreleftshoulder? Are you telling me Schmidt didn't have Jackson, couldn't get Jackson or Jackson is irrelevant to the whole discussion?

Let's rephrase it for you then. He didn't have Jackson - who you and others think is better than Madigan? So that suggests Schmidt knew Madigan was number 3 choice at best...for Leinster... the team with high ambitions?

I repeat, that's my problem with the theory that Madigan was Schmidt's first choice 10 and Gopperth was only back-up. I suggest Gopperth was to be his considered first choice 10 and that Schmidt considered Gopperth certainly the equal to, if not better, than Jackson.

Back to Madigan as not first choice 10 even in Schmidt's Leinster and subsequently only his thrid choice 10 in Ireland.

by GoodinTightSpaces Thu 09 Oct 2014, 3:14 pm

SecretFly wrote:What are you meaning asoreleftshoulder? Are you telling me Schmidt didn't have Jackson, couldn't get Jackson or Jackson is irrelevant to the whole discussion?

Let's rephrase it for you then. He didn't have Jackson - who you and others think is better than Madigan? So that suggests Schmidt knew Madigan was number 3 choice at best...for Leinster... the team with high ambitions?

I repeat, that's my problem with the theory that Madigan was Schmidt's first choice 10 and Gopperth was only back-up. I suggest Gopperth was to be his considered first choice 10 and that Schmidt considered Gopperth certainly the equal to, if not better, than Jackson.

Back to Madigan as not first choice 10 even in Schmidt's Leinster and subsequently only his thrid choice 10 in Ireland.

that makes no sense at all?

so it is your opinion that Schimdt (assuming it was Schmidt who decided to sign him. do coaches in ireland decide what players to sign???) signed gopperth as the first choice 10 for leinster. how is madigan then 3rd choice. who else is ahead of him in Leinster for the 10 jersey.

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 09 Oct 2014, 3:18 pm

SecretFly wrote:1.What are you meaning asoreleftshoulder? Are you telling me Schmidt didn't have Jackson, couldn't get Jackson or Jackson is irrelevant to the whole discussion?

Let's rephrase it for you then. He didn't have Jackson - who you and others think is better than Madigan? 2. So that suggests Schmidt knew Madigan was number 3 choice at best...for Leinster... the team with high ambitions?

3. I repeat, that's my problem with the theory that Madigan was Schmidt's first choice 10 and Gopperth was only back-up. I suggest Gopperth was to be his considered first choice 10 and that Schmidt considered Gopperth certainly the equal to, if not better, than Jackson.

Back to Madigan as not first choice 10 even in Schmidt's Leinster and subsequently only his thrid choice 10 in Ireland.

..

1. Yes I'm telling you all of the above when with Leinster,Schmidt didn't have and couldn't get Jackson so he's irrelevant to the discussion.

2. What? Where are you coming up with this,who do you think he had ahead of Madigan at Leinster.

The pecking order at Leinster was Sexton,Madigan,Marsh.I think that when Sexton left he wanted Madigan to step up and recruited Gopperth as back up since he didn't feel Marsh was good enough to lead the team in the periods when Madigan would be away with Ireland or if injury struck.However I have nothing to base that belief on and nobody else you or Sin included have anything to base the opposite belief on.

3. You repeat what?I have no idea what you are talking about here.

by SecretFly Thu 09 Oct 2014, 3:31 pm

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:
SecretFly wrote:What are you meaning asoreleftshoulder? Are you telling me Schmidt didn't have Jackson, couldn't get Jackson or Jackson is irrelevant to the whole discussion?

Let's rephrase it for you then. He didn't have Jackson - who you and others think is better than Madigan? So that suggests Schmidt knew Madigan was number 3 choice at best...for Leinster... the team with high ambitions?

I repeat, that's my problem with the theory that Madigan was Schmidt's first choice 10 and Gopperth was only back-up. I suggest Gopperth was to be his considered first choice 10 and that Schmidt considered Gopperth certainly the equal to, if not better, than Jackson.

Back to Madigan as not first choice 10 even in Schmidt's Leinster and subsequently only his thrid choice 10 in Ireland.

that makes no sense at all?

so it is your opinion that Schimdt (assuming it was Schmidt who decided to sign him. do coaches in ireland decide what players to sign???) signed gopperth as the first choice 10 for leinster. how is madigan then 3rd choice. who else is ahead of him in Leinster for the 10 jersey.

It makes perfect sense...and perfect logic. It certainly makes more logic than everyone here saying Madigan is at best 3rd choice at International after Sexton and Jackson - and yet was to be 1st choice 10 at Leinster. And that's all under Schmidt! So keep that bit in mind. With Ireland, Madigan has proven to be at best 3rd choice overall as 10 under Schmidt.

Now, back to Leinster. Schmidt was the ambitous and driven coach of Leinster - didn't want to come to Leinster at all unless the players genuinely wanted to listen to him, do as he says and work hard to succeed. This is a coach that didn't want even second best for his team, let alone 3rd best. We still agree?

Yet here are some saying that Schmidt could look around him, see that Sexton was his best option but leaving, see that Jackson is his second Irish based option but taken... look around him even more to Europe and the SH....and still come to the conclusion that Madigan was his best option to keep for his ambitious Leinster and that he'd get in a guy called Gopperth to do a back-up roll?

So Gopperth under those conditions was even below Madigan as 10 - who was below Jackson, who was below Sexton and any number of European and SH options? I'm saying that suggests Schmidt was willing to see Leinster lose ground in Europe.
I'm countering that by saying Gopperth did in his first year what Schmidt already had planned for him in the beginning - that is play well enough to be first choice 10. Others seem to say Gopperth was a Schmidt second thought, I'm suggesting he wasn't..he was central to Schmidt's plans for keeping Leinster on top.

That's clear. It's not confusing. Madigan was to be Schmidt's seond choice Leinster 10 and became Ireland's third.

by Sponsored content