Ian Madigan

First topic message reminder :

I've just been watching the highlights of Leinster v Treviso again and decided to start this thread discussing the young outhalf from Leinster,his prospects at club and international level.

Madigan has proven himself far quicker than I would have thought possible,he benefitted from an injury to Matt Berquist but has grabbed his opportunity with both hands and has now started regularly in the Rabo and has got decent gametime in the HC.

This season he has a try scoring record that a winger would be proud of and his passing is phenomenal,he can fire quick flat passes over nearly half the width of the pitch which allied to his running game is a deadly combination,defend narrow and he can put his wingers into space,defend wide and he can find a gap himself.

The only question marks I can see is over his kicking game,from hand he seems to have a good boot but time will tell how effective he is.He is 4th choice kicker at Leinster so needs more experience of kicking under big game conditions but from the little I've seen it shouldn' be a problem.

Anyway what are others opinions of him and how far do you think he could go in the game?

Wait a minute rodders, are we agreeing? I thought we were disagreeing! Anyway we've gone way off topic.

Here's the a link to the Leinster v Treviso highlights. Madigans try is at 0:56. And watch Madigans pass at 3:53. He could be a scrumhalf with his passing.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Since when was Cuthbert so highly rated??

Not rating him highly - just that he is massive as well. LOL.

Feckless Rogue wrote:Wait a minute rodders, are we agreeing? I thought we were disagreeing! Anyway we've gone way off topic.

I've no idea anymore, quite often I don't even agree with myself.....

roddersm wrote:

profitius wrote:
The problem was we kicked to them from the very start of the match.

Not the match that I watched. We started very well but after Davies made that break on about 5 min from the lineout we were under the cosh for most of the 1st half, rarely getting out of our half. It was a miracle we were ahead at half time.

We actually had a much better 2nd half but were 2nd best in that half too. Apart from the lineout, restarts and breakdown we were marginally inferior in every aspect but the main difference was how many yards Wales big carriers were able to make compared to us.

Yes but theres a reason why we were stuck in our own half, because we kept kicking the ball away. I remember saying at half time Ireland have to stop kicking the ball away.

roddersm wrote:Feckless I agree with all of that but the bottom line is the Wales management are putting out a better squad of 22 with a better gameplan and superior conditioning than we are with (in my opinion) inferior overall resources.

We played terrible dumb rugby. I've gone so far as to describe it as idiotic. Wales are better in some areas. One area is the kicking from hand. So what do Ireland do, kick it to them and what happens, they kick it twice as far back. What do Ireland do, kick it to them, what happens, they kick it twice as far back. It happened in last seasons 6 nations too when Ireland decided to play a cautious kicking game and got beat because of their negative tactics.

Kicking also handed them possession to constantly pound the small Irish midfield. And to make matters worse the defense stood off their big runners, just to make things a little easier for them.

I agree with that too profitus but its a chicken and egg situation. If you can't make ground with the ball then you have to kick it, especially in your own half.

I do agree that in the few occaision that we did get into Wales half we inexplicably kicked the ball away too.

What Ireland should have done was attack Wales from deep and just keep possession more. After a few phases with players out of position etc they could then kick the ball in behind Wales in a variety of ways to keep them guessing. Ireland looked dangerous with ball in hand and were making some line breaks but they only played that sort of rugby in the Welsh third of the pitch.

Fair points anyways I'm bored of discussing Madigan so I'll leave yous to it....

Five pages of posts and about 3 of them are about Madigan

Obviously we adapted the wrong gameplan in the kicking game agaisnt Wales the last two times. But the players have to shoulder some blame aswell. The ability to adapt on the field is what wins you matches. It won Dublin the all-Ireland last year. Every gameplan has some holes in it. Your coaches can only do so much. The players are getting off far too easy.

Thomond wrote:Obviously we adapted the wrong gameplan in the kicking game agaisnt Wales the last two times. But the players have to shoulder some blame aswell. The ability to adapt on the field is what wins you matches. It won Dublin the all-Ireland last year. Every gameplan has some holes in it. Your coaches can only do so much. The players are getting off far too easy.

Were they allowed to adapt to the changes? One of the coaches came out after the match and said they should have kicked more so you can imagine what was said at half time.

What do you mean were they allowed? You see something is not working you change it yourself, if you don't have the cojones to do that then something is wrong.

Thomond wrote:What do you mean were they allowed? You see something is not working you change it yourself, if you don't have the cojones to do that then something is wrong.

I mean was it in the gameplan or not. Its likely they were told to kick more at half time. They're not going to do the opposite.

Thomond wrote:What do you mean were they allowed? You see something is not working you change it yourself, if you don't have the cojones to do that then something is wrong.

So now it's not Kidney's fault. It's the fault of the players for not disobeying his rubbish gameplan! The Kidney fans excuses are starting to stretch to breaking point now.

Feckles I don't think thats what he is saying.

To me thats putting words in Thomonds mouth and is just unhelpful.

A successful team has enough self confidence and nous to think on its feet and recognise the difference between being patient in their approach and knowing it will eventually pay off and having to try something unexpected.

Sexton did it very well in the Six Nations last year against England. He had a penalty inside his own 22 and lined up a kick to touch. Instead he tapped, ran and passed it wide to Bowe and Earls who attacked down the wing. Ireland scored a try within 2 minutes of this.

The conventional tactic was to kick to touch when you have a penalty from that position. Instead he used his initative.

Where was that initative from ANY player against Wales?

Stag, conveyed my point with greater clarity. When things are going wrong on the pitch, the coaches are of no use. It's up to the players at that time.

The game against England was misleading, we were always on the front foot because we tore into them, we had the impetus and we took our chances when they came up. Against Wales we (the entire team) invited them to play infront of us. Much harder to mix things up and influence the game when you haven’t put in enough work to create those chances.

The Australian and England teams we beat were fairly weak mentally and didn't fancy the breakdown scrap and rolling up their sleeves. We were able to dominate them physically up front and then break them down with relentless pressure.

Wales are a different kettle of fish these days, stronger mentally and more confident and physically fitter and more powerful than us in a lot of areas.

Even when we beat Wales in the past they would crumble under physical pressure. Not any more. They've always had high skill levels but lacked physicality and mental strength but no so any more.

I don't buy that lads.

I watch Munster suffer the same fate against Scarlets who had some seriously big units such as Sean Lamont, George North & Jonathan Davies in the backline.

However ROG completely altered how he attacked. He stopped passing, he stopped doing garryowens. Instead he chipped over the top twice, grubber kicked in behind them and varied his game confusing them.

It left the Welsh deciding whether to shoot up and attack him, to hold their line in case of a chip/grubber kick or have their back 3 deep to deal with a long kick to touch.

Without ROG, Munster would have lost to Scarlets of that I'm certain.

However this type of thing isn't happening internationally at the moment.

Stag, that further reinforces the opinion that there is either no game plan at international level, or players are being asked to rigidly stick to a game plan that doesn’t work.

roddersm wrote:The Australian and England teams we beat were fairly weak mentally and didn't fancy the breakdown scrap and rolling up their sleeves. We were able to dominate them physically up front and then break them down with relentless pressure.

Wales are a different kettle of fish these days, stronger mentally and more confident and physically fitter and more powerful than us in a lot of areas.

Even when we beat Wales in the past they would crumble under physical pressure. Not any more. They've always had high skill levels but lacked physicality and mental strength but no so any more.

Flip me rodders, Wales aren't that good like it is as if you think they are best in the world these days!

They have some big ball carriers, and they play a very simple game. Scotland held them at bay for ages and did much better than us, yet made silly mistakes and ended up with 13 men, which ended up being their downfall. So far any of the big teams have been able to deal with Wales. Whether it was close or not, the point still remains that Wales haven't beaten them. I fear the likes of France a LOT more than Wales, and I would rather Ireland emulate France's play than Wales'. I think Wales are in for a defeat soon, and they will be found out and be left like Ireland. Devoid of any tactics. If their big runners get shut down, what else do Wales have to offer? Not much IMO.

A ig guy does nothing if you tackle him low and are up to meet him in defence. It's not rocket science, like. Up in their faces and you should have little problems. You give him space they will kill you, it's basic physics:


Force= Mass X Acceleration

I think even some of the players are buying into the hype about North (the next Lomu etc) and will hang back as he runs at them, and you can literally see the fear in their faces. Meet him head on, go low, hit hard. He will go down and he will feel it too. The scots did that a few times.

I remember at school there was a centre nobody could tackle. Everyone knew who he was apart from me, and everytime he had the ball they knew how hard he was to tackle, and he was pretty infamous around different schools. Most couldn't get him down and he scored a few times. I came on as a sub, and he ran full steam into me. I just did what I always did, hit low and hit hard. He knocked the ball on and everyone was shocked and thought he was going to barrel through me.

Probably a rubbish example, but the point is mentality in the tackle, or with the ball, or in any part of rugby is a huge factor. I didn't know how good this guy was, all I knew was I had to get him down. North knows he will get through these players he runs at. The players need to know they will hit him hard and put him on the floor. Otherwise they will come second best.

Mickado wrote:Stag, that further reinforces the opinion that there is either no game plan at international level, or players are being asked to rigidly stick to a game plan that doesn’t work.

I should hope so. Thats my point.

Rory fair play lad, I like the cut of your jib

I would say though that you can't really compare schoolboy or even club rugby to this level. Its not as simple as just going low, these players have amazing skill levels and phenomenal power and will simply offload out of the tackle if you take their legs.

Its very difficult to take guys like North, Davies and Roberts ball and man. They nearly always break the gainline and take out 2 or 3 defenders. As North showed he can take out a couple of defenders and still offload or wrestle the arms free and score.

Another point is that you don't want to allow these guys to hit the deck immediately as this produces quick ball.

"Going low" is great advice for real grassroots but at the top level he will simply offload out of the tackle.

But even the likes of North, Roberts and Davies can't ignore the laws of physics rodders if a guy is running at you very fast, and you take out their legs from under their bodies, they are going straight to the ground. Hopefully Ferris will show us the laws of physics in the tackle over the next few rounds of the 6 nations

red_stag wrote:"Going low" is great advice for real grassroots but at the top level he will simply offload out of the tackle.

Agreed, but going low AND hitting hard means he won't be offloading out of the tackle. You hit somebody hard enough, they will hit the ground before they can even react to what happened. Laws of physics once again.

Thats the point Rory. If you take their legs they will either offload to support runners or hit the deck and produce quick ball.

Neither of which you want as a defending team when the opposition has crossed the gainline.

Oh and just to clarify, I don't have a clue about physics. Just makes me sound like I know what I'm talking about

Rory - yes they will fall but these are professional players whose job it is to be hit hard. They are trained to react in these situations.

At club level yes I agree entirely but it isn't so easy - to do as you suggest you need to ensure a 2nd defender is on hand to take the support player.

No you are right about your physics but the dynamics of tackling and defence are much more complicated at this level than bringing your man down.

But the tackle must be made, whether they produce quick ball or not. Another tactic would be the old choke tackle, however I feel we should just hit low and hard, have a player there to compete and slow down the ball. Then they will be stopped in their tracks, and struggle to get quick ball.

Rory we didn't lose because of missed tackles, we lost because Wales got over the gainline with every carry.

But Rory you miss the point that even if you hit low and hard, at the very highest level a player can still just offload out.

At schools rugby or semi pro level hit low is fine. But that alone won't work for international rugby IMO.

Our centres missed plenty of tackles between them, and struggled to get any of them down. Our flankers had to assist. If you are right up in their faces, hitting them low and hard, these players will not get through, nor will they have the chance to offload. If you hit them phase after phase, you will wear them down. Be right back, sending Kidney my tactics

red_stag wrote:But Rory you miss the point that even if you hit low and hard, at the very highest level a player can still just offload out.

At schools rugby or semi pro level hit low is fine. But that alone won't work for international rugby IMO.

Actually stag I think at the highest level my point applies more than any other level. These are the most powerful athletes around. If they have their legs suddenly taken out from under them, they will hit the ground the hardest. Like I said that is just physics. They will hit the ground harder and quicker than any other person would. Unless they have extremely reactive brains, they will not have time to offload. If you simply go low, they will offload. If you hit them hard enough, they won't have time to think. You do see this in international rugby.

Mickado wrote:Stag, that further reinforces the opinion that there is either no game plan at international level, or players are being asked to rigidly stick to a game plan that doesn’t work.

How can you infer that Mickado. If anything it reinforces the point that the players are not capable of thinking on their feet...oh hang on you cant take that inference because God forbid that would mean criticising the players....

DOD the players seem capable of doing it for the provinces though.

Sorry Rory but you're wrong on this one. I played against GB student level RL players (a long time ago) and they practice offloading out of the tackle all day long, if you go for anything other than man and ball they will offload to the several well drilled support runners coming on their shoulder a la Ashton.

The fact that they are as strong as an ox and likely to bounce you off is neither here nor there, you have to go high to stop the offload and quick recycle.

I can't even imagine how powerful and skillful players are at this level but its not as simple as a leg tackle.

Agree with Rodders.

Don't think you have thought this through Rory.

roddersm wrote:Sorry Rory but you're wrong on this one. I played against GB student level RL players (a long time ago) and they practice offloading out of the tackle all day long, if you go for anything other than man and ball they will offload to the several well drilled support runners coming on their shoulder a la Ashton.

The fact that they are as strong as an ox and likely to bounce you off is neither here nor there, you have to go high to stop the offload and quick recycle.

I can't even imagine how powerful and skillful players are at this level but its not as simple as a leg tackle.

I'm not wrong though rodders. I am not simply saying to go for the legs though. And of course off-loading out of the tackle is taught week in week out. It is now a skill that is needed in the top level. However I am saying if somebody is running at you full pace, someone like North, who is very powerful, and you hit them low AND hard they will hit the ground extremely hard and fast. That is what happens, but only if you apply the force as the tackler. As I said these players can't overcome simple physics. They won't react fast enough if hit hard enough. I don't know how you would rather prevent them offloading but increase the chance of them getting through you, than just get them down. If they get through you they will still have those options, and there is one less defender to deal with. At least if they did offload, one attacker and one defender is nullified.

Just watch Lydiate for example, who tackles the old fashioned way. Or McCaw. Or Dusautoir. They do this every game and are known to be exceptional defenders.

Also a huge factor either of us have missed out on, is the context. A different tackle will suit a different situation.

Rory_Gallagher wrote: As I said these players can't overcome simple physics.

They don't have to overcome physics...everyone of Newtons laws are in their favour Rory! Its the defender that has the laws of physics against him, especially if he's smaller!

DOD wrote:

Mickado wrote:Stag, that further reinforces the opinion that there is either no game plan at international level, or players are being asked to rigidly stick to a game plan that doesn’t work.

How can you infer that Mickado. If anything it reinforces the point that the players are not capable of thinking on their feet...oh hang on you cant take that inference because God forbid that would mean criticising the players....

I'm inferring that because there's evidence to support that players can do it for their provinces. If they can all do it for their province (regardless of what province it might be) and they can't do it for Ireland then are you saying that our players are not good enough for international standard because the only option left is that the coaching tactics are hampering our players.

roddersm wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote: As I said these players can't overcome simple physics.

They don't have to overcome physics...everyone of Newtons laws are in their favour Rory! Its the defender that has the laws of physics against him, especially if he's smaller!

That is my exact point though rodders

If the tackler goes high, they will get brushed aside because the player with the ball is on their feet. 9 times out of 10 they will come second best. If they go hard and low, they will take out the players legs. And the player will hit the ground very hard. I don't know how that is hard to understand honestly, or why Stag you think I am the one not thinking this through.. if you MUST prevent the offload, or you are the last man in defence and they are drawing you in to make the pass, then going high is probably the best option.

Just thought of another brilliant example. Watch the Ulster/Leicester match and see how Cave deals with Tuilagi.

Or a better example, Trimble's tackle on the try line against Roberts! Trimble is another who makes these tackles often.

Well to be honest i would rather we hit them low and hard behind the gainline risking quickball or and offload then letting each ball carrier get over it again and again by standing off them.

at least make them play the risky stuff to score rather than offering them easy yards

Tackled low and tackled hard. Put the second tackler storming in at the ball.
You rush defense doing this and he doesn't get over the gainline. Let them recycle even, tackle low and hard again before the gainline and you are getting territory, their forwards are going backwards, it all starts to build in your favour.

We seemed to adopt the drift defense setup, letting them build up momentum. This might have been because 13 is key to closing off the outside option and Ireland had to switch from Earls to McF late enough into preparation. Even at Leinster, EOM plays as much 13 as McF and when he does, he calls the defense (even though he is a youngster). Instead, they seemed to default to the drift and then you have big wales backs falling forward into short Irish backs.

It would have been interest to see if the rush defense would have been used against the French.

The GAA phrase 'how fast can he limp!' springs to mind.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Tackled low and tackled hard. Put the second tackler storming in at the ball.
You rush defense doing this and he doesn't get over the gainline. Let them recycle even, tackle low and hard again before the gainline and you are getting territory, their forwards are going backwards, it all starts to build in your favour.

We seemed to adopt the drift defense setup, letting them build up momentum. This might have been because 13 is key to closing off the outside option and Ireland had to switch from Earls to McF late enough into preparation. Even at Leinster, EOM plays as much 13 as McF and when he does, he calls the defense (even though he is a youngster). Instead, they seemed to default to the drift and then you have big wales backs falling forward into short Irish backs.

It would have been interest to see if the rush defense would have been used against the French.

The GAA phrase 'how fast can he limp!' springs to mind.

+1

I have no idea why that is hard to understand, or how anyone is wrong for thinking that.

Rory I understand perfectly what you are saying. I just think you are over simplifying here.

You can't apply the same principals of tackling and defence at schoolboy, junior or amateur rugby, even at a good standard, to this level.