• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Transfers rumours

Now official since 9:23am this morning.
He's coming and our signing might no be just done yet :)

Haha......you signed this guy:
:p

(ok so he's much better than that, but it made me feel better...)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Haha......you signed this guy:
:p

(ok so he's much better than that, but it made me feel better...)


Yeah but he's a good player and isn't going to have to kick for us. But seen as New Zealanders don't want him we will take him happily :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah but he's a good player and isn't going to have to kick for us. But seen as New Zealanders don't want him we will take him happily :)

I was just messing with you :p He will probably be playing for Ireland in 3 years....
 
By going on that clip so far I doubt that.. we're pretty stocked on upcoming 10's and centres.
 
By going on that clip so far I doubt that.. we're pretty stocked on upcoming 10's and centres.

If Bleyendaal ever delivers on his potential he would make the Irish team. He was probably the best 10 we have ever had at U20 level... that's pretty impressive when you consider some of the 10's we have had in the last few years (Cruden, Anscombe, Barrett, Sopoaga etc). Of course there is no guarantee he will ever live up to this potential. He has been playing solid rugby the last few seasons, but hasn't been near as good as many had hoped.

I'm still a bit confused about Munster signing him as a 10/12. He has basically played no rugby at all at 12. He has never started there at any level that I'm aware of, and the last time I remember him shifting there during a game was at under 20 level. Obviously he has the physical attributes to be a successful midfield back (he's a big guy for a 10), but he would have a lot of learning to do if they want to develop him into a midfield option.....
 
If Bleyendaal ever delivers on his potential he would make the Irish team. He was probably the best 10 we have ever had at U20 level... that's pretty impressive when you consider some of the 10's we have had in the last few years (Cruden, Anscombe, Barrett, Sopoaga etc). Of course there is no guarantee he will ever live up to this potential. He has been playing solid rugby the last few seasons, but hasn't been near as good as many had hoped.

I'm still a bit confused about Munster signing him as a 10/12. He has basically played no rugby at all at 12. He has never started there at any level that I'm aware of, and the last time I remember him shifting there during a game was at under 20 level. Obviously he has the physical attributes to be a successful midfield back (he's a big guy for a 10), but he would have a lot of learning to do if they want to develop him into a midfield option.....

I think they'll play him 10. Keatley has played a fair bit of rugby at 12 over the last two seasons, I'd imagine he'll see a lot more time there. Bleyendaal should share the 10 jersey with Hanrahan.
 
Could Schmidt have had an influence on this if Keatley is moved more to a 12 role? He likes Madigan, Jackson is going well and then obviously there's Sexton. Add in Keatley who is doing very well and you could argue there is too many 10's going to be in the mix with not enough international experience individually.
 
Lads Keatley will be 10 and no doubt about that. Let's remember JJ there too. Tyler signed as a 12 as clearly said in press statement
 
Last edited:
Silly signing in my opinion, Ulster would have been a better place to go for Bleyendaal. Why play someone out of position rather than getting a proper 12



Any rumours as to where the USAP boys are going? James Hook interest me the most, if Leinster don't at least make an attempt to sign him they've missed a trick.
 
Silly signing in my opinion, Ulster would have been a better place to go for Bleyendaal. Why play someone out of position rather than getting a proper 12



Any rumours as to where the USAP boys are going? James Hook interest me the most, if Leinster don't at least make an attempt to sign him they've missed a trick.

I'm not sure on Hook if we're signing a back we need them to play 13 and Hook hasn't played there for a long time. Definitely worth a look if we can get him on the cheep though unlikely.
 
Any idea why on earth Munster signed a 10 to play 12 then?

Don't know exactly but he's been signed as 12. Keatley has been superb last few months so why move him. Even if we were JJ would've been there but he's signed as a 12. I know a lot about him but haven't seen a lot but people say he has played 12 in past. I suppose he was best of options available.
We are in talks with a 13, and another prop so I presume our squad is almost set but he may turn out to be a great 12 and this signing was triggered by we look most dangerous this year with a playmaking 12
 
Silly signing in my opinion, Ulster would have been a better place to go for Bleyendaal. Why play someone out of position rather than getting a proper 12



Any rumours as to where the USAP boys are going? James Hook interest me the most, if Leinster don't at least make an attempt to sign him they've missed a trick.

Mafi rumoured to be coming home :)
Hook last I heard was in talks with Lyon and the Dragons.
 
It is a strange signing by Munster but it could work out well. Even though he has not played at 12 it is possible he could flourish. Look at other NZ 10s, they seem quite at home in the 12 position.
 
On the Midi Olympique the Lyon owner has come out and said Hook isn't coming so it will be very interesting to see where he goes. :)
 
Jimmy Gopperth back to Newcastle Falcons heard it on the Newcastle Falcons forum any truth in it ?. :)
 

Latest posts

Top