Munster Meltdown!!!

[Russ]

What's the "F" for beside Botha ?

Assume it means either full or final

Full being that Smith who is the same colour may not be capped by his country

Final in that he is old and past it and retiring at the end of the year, or in the final year of contract

[BR]

Fatty

[BaggyTrousers]

I couldn't give a shíte. If there are any players who are upset about this they should f-ck off and join their local creche rugby club and they won't be missed.

Societal infantilization has already gone too far. I wonder at times if we are determined to regress as far as ending up as unicellular organisms such is the level of preciousness and sensitivity every time someone says something we don't like or critically analyses anybody in a way we don't agree with. The Indo of course loves this kind of ballix the 10th rate excuse for a media publication, generally only apportioned any credibility by half witted apes and folk in various stages of insanity, that it is.


Any player worth a w-nk will get on with their job, same as the rest of us do. Anyone who is looking for Paradise will just have to wait.

Top post Shan, I concur 100%, barring a slight quibble with your long term expectation of "Paradise".

Storm in a D cup, loads of wenkbegs getting excited about nothing, notwithstanding the clusterballix of the chube who disseminated the email. Players are of course aware that they will be critically assessed by the management, goes with the job.

Indeed, though I don't believe it was a deliberate leak, it could be advantageous in that those who are now aware that they aren't considered approaching "ligind" status will feel some heat to start impressing. If they succeed in dispelling the current assessment Munster win. If they don't, they are clearly not up to it & can be dispensed with, Munster win.

No lose situation for Munster either way. Wonder who will be next to see it as a viable management tool?

[Russ]

Can just see Eddie Murphys notes beside the following

PAULIE - LIGIND
DONKEY - LIGIND
FOLEY - LIGIND
RAGDE - BRING HIM BACK

REST - tom kite

[BaggyTrousers]

Dont understand why Hurley is coded red

I think in the bottom picture the colour refers to contract type?

Green = Ireland, Red = Munster, blue = project and yellow = NIQ. Purple = break glass in case of emergency/chube

Sorted

[mikerob]

What's the "F" for beside Botha ?

Foreign? (= non-Irish qualified, not a project)

[Russ]

What's the "F" for beside Botha ?

Foreign? (= non-Irish qualified, not a project)

But not beside Andrew Smith?

[BR]

What's the "F" for beside Botha ?

Foreign? (= non-Irish qualified, not a project)

But not beside Andrew Smith?

Has Smith a eligible cap though?

[Russ]

What's the "F" for beside Botha ?

Foreign? (= non-Irish qualified, not a project)

But not beside Andrew Smith?

Has Smith a eligible cap though?

No. Which is what i mentioned abovd

[BR]

[Has Smith a eligible cap though?

No. Which is what i mentioned abovd

So he's not proper foreign

[Russ]

[Has Smith a eligible cap though?

No. Which is what i mentioned abovd

So he's not proper foreign

So I am led to believe.
Must have got dogs abuse in that email for not being proper foreign

I am inclined to believe that he is signed on a contract shorter than a project contract and thus not considered a project, but could turn into one

[mikerob]

My thoughts were they weren't planning to hang on to Smith for the 3 years needed to be IQ so he was an "F", not a "P".

[Deckard]

I couldn't give a shíte. If there are any players who are upset about this they should f-ck off and join their local creche rugby club and they won't be missed.

Shan, I think this misses the point about the significance of the whole episode - it's nothing to do with players with upset feelings, I think there are three problems (2 big, one small).

Firstly, legal ramifications - there is a reason why Fitzgerald immediately sought legal advice, and followed their recommendation to run it by the data protection body, and that reason is prima facie evidence potentially in support of a number of constructive dismissal cases.. People saying this is a storm in a teacup and will blow over are sorely deluded - Fitzgerald will be cacking bricks from now until at least the end of the contract cycle, and I would guess he already knows this will cost Munster money (and Munster of all sides can ill afford any more expenses).

Secondly, the impact on trust and team morale. Again there's a fallacious argument used by some commentators, saying that robust criticism is all part of pro sports, the players will have heard all this one-to-one in any event, so what's the big deal. The huge distinction is the veil of confidentiality that surrounds such feedback - this has been breached, and trust given up like that is not easily regained.. It is a completely different kettle of fish, for example, for Axel to tell a player, let's call him J, that his lifestyle is 'sloppy' during a frank tete-a-tete - than for a management figure to email the entire squad with Axel's view that he has a sloppy lifestyle, even if this is a view that would widely be held among the squad. It's not necessarily what is being said, it's the fact that it's being said at all in this way - there is a reason after all that in every team (or business) in the world, feedback like this is given in confidentiality, not in front of everyone else.

I think the 'feedback' (to be generous) will have different effects on different players - for example the broadly favourable comments about Keatley, laced with some mild constructive criticism, could quite conceivably be a boost. But it's all too easy to see how the slating that some of the squad members cop could simply give rise to resentment, lack of motivation, disenchantment etc.

Thirdly, and less importantly, there is something very amateruish about the whole affair - not just the dumbass leak in the first place, the document itself is riddled with typos, and I've only seen the couple of screenshots on imgur, so maybe there is more, but as feedback goes its pretty unenlightening stuff.. Purely qualitative, with no evidence of hard info behind the judgments, it boils down to a hasty grab-bag of subjective impressions of various parts of each player's game/life. It's a long way away from the kind of ongoing analysis I would have expected from a pro rugby management team - certainly not the kind of dirty washing that anyone at Munster would have wanted aired..

[Russ]

Thanks to Axel we can now rank his team selection, and if needs be, deduce how Munster see the opposition.

Edinburgh, they see as a 2.21 team, that is they have selected their 2.21 strength team.
If we include the subs, we see a 2.31 team.

Absolutely brilliant. Cheers Axel!
1 3
2 N/A
3 1
4 2
5 3
6 2
7 4
8 2
9 3
10 1
11 1
12 1
13 2
14 2
15 4
16 3
17 4
18 2
19 2
20 1
21 2
22 4
23 2



Average XV 2.214285714
Average 23 2.318181818

[BaggyTrousers]

I couldn't give a shíte. If there are any players who are upset about this they should f-ck off and join their local creche rugby club and they won't be missed.

Shan, I think this misses the point about the significance of the whole episode - it's nothing to do with players with upset feelings, I think there are three problems (2 big, one small).

Firstly, legal ramifications - there is a reason why Fitzgerald immediately sought legal advice, and followed their recommendation to run it by the data protection body, and that reason is prima facie evidence potentially in support of a number of constructive dismissal cases.. People saying this is a storm in a teacup and will blow over are sorely deluded - Fitzgerald will be cacking bricks from now until at least the end of the contract cycle, and I would guess he already knows this will cost Munster money (and Munster of all sides can ill afford any more expenses).

Secondly, the impact on trust and team morale. Again there's a fallacious argument used by some commentators, saying that robust criticism is all part of pro sports, the players will have heard all this one-to-one in any event, so what's the big deal. The huge distinction is the veil of confidentiality that surrounds such feedback - this has been breached, and trust given up like that is not easily regained.. It is a completely different kettle of fish, for example, for Axel to tell a player, let's call him J, that his lifestyle is 'sloppy' during a frank tete-a-tete - than for a management figure to email the entire squad with Axel's view that he has a sloppy lifestyle, even if this is a view that would widely be held among the squad. It's not necessarily what is being said, it's the fact that it's being said at all in this way - there is a reason after all that in every team (or business) in the world, feedback like this is given in confidentiality, not in front of everyone else.

I think the 'feedback' (to be generous) will have different effects on different players - for example the broadly favourable comments about Keatley, laced with some mild constructive criticism, could quite conceivably be a boost. But it's all too easy to see how the slating that some of the squad members cop could simply give rise to resentment, lack of motivation, disenchantment etc.

Thirdly, and less importantly, there is something very amateruish about the whole affair - not just the dumbass leak in the first place, the document itself is riddled with typos, and I've only seen the couple of screenshots on imgur, so maybe there is more, but as feedback goes its pretty unenlightening stuff.. Purely qualitative, with no evidence of hard info behind the judgments, it boils down to a hasty grab-bag of subjective impressions of various parts of each player's game/life. It's a long way away from the kind of ongoing analysis I would have expected from a pro rugby management team - certainly not the kind of dirty washing that anyone at Munster would have wanted aired..

Fundamentally disagree with the vast majority on that but won't going into it chapter and verse.

I'm not sure what you would have them commit to what appears a working paper that will change, perhaps weekly more likely monthly but certainly change for most players as the season progresses, if you are talking concrete statistical analysis of perfromance, just imagine what an unwieldy "document" you could make of that for a squad of 40ish players.

When talking of amateurishness, you appear to be assuming that this document is all they have to work from, I'd imagine it is purely a handy-sized snapshot for the coaching team to work on.

Where I absolutely agree with you is the potential for it to be used by some chube whose contract they want to terminate, then again were I judging such a matter I think I would be tempted to treat it as what I believe it to be, a working document, admittedly with some fairly personal stuff but essential a record of required "work ons" for the players.

Then again, what would I know? Eh?