How long at the very top?

pickarooney

It seems there are an awful lot of players who come out of nowhere, have a fantastic season or two then slip back into mediocrity. There are some obvious exceptions who can still produce consistently strong performances after 100 caps but even then you can usually spot that the player is no longer at the top of his game and is often there because there's no adequate replacement, or even out of sentimentality or leadership reasons rather than sporting ones.

It's actual incredible that any human being can go out and get hammered about the pitch week after week, year after year and still be able to walk and talk normally and I can't help wondering if a lot of today's veterans won't have major health problems later on.

Coaches are forever faced with the impossible task of pleasing the public who want success now and success in the future, thus having to choose the right moment to bring in young players while phasing out the old, but unless you have a constant production line of top-level talent you run the risk of forever building without ever completing a team.

Ideally, at international level at least, I suppose you want to arrive at a point where you have a four-year development cycle with new players having time to reach their peak just when you need them. But how do you go about ditching a team that's won a World Cup in order to bring in the next generation?

CatFromHue

pickarooney wrote: »

how do you go about ditching a team that's won a World Cup in order to bring in the next generation?

I suppose for most teams who win it their players tend to move to Europe fairly quickly after it. Even with England there were a fair few players who retired so it's never been a huge problem.

For Ireland because our pool of players is much smaller than most of the big 5 it's hard to gauge how long should a player be at the top for. In NZ for example other than say Carter and to a lesser extent McCaw they have very real alternatives for nearly all their positions. We don't have this so our players play longer for Ireland than players for other International teams.

To win a 100 caps is such a huge achievement though. It's approx 10 years starting for Ireland which is unbelievable really just on general wear and tear let alone form.

CIARAN_BOYLE

CatFromHue wrote: »

To win a 100 caps is such a huge achievement though. It's approx 10 years starting for Ireland which is unbelievable really just on general wear and tear let alone form.

Just to give an example of the achievment no NZer has won a 100 caps

endabob1

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Just to give an example of the achievment no NZer has won a 100 caps

To be fair that is because a lot of them have 2/3 year sabbaticals in France or Japan where they can earn a lot more money

CatFromHue

I think Richie McCaw is on track to get it in a game or two.

Muliana is on 97/98? So he should get it too. Unless Henry goes for Dagg at full back.

GerM

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Just to give an example of the achievment no NZer has won a 100 caps

That's a good indication of the level of competition and willingness of the coaches to cull someone they don't see as performing to the required standard. Only McCaw, Carter and Muliaina will probably make the 100. The fact that we have so many players in or around the 100 mark is more representative of our refusal to select other players. 3 or 4 players have hit the 100 mark in the past 2 years. If Horan hadn't have been injured, he could be at about 90 now which is remarkable given he was't first choice until about 2005. POC will hit 100 undoubtedly. DOC will come close despite not being first choice until about 2005. Wallace would be there if he wasn't injured throughout his career. Stringer might still make it on 98. Other players like D'Arcy and Leamy have amassed large amounts also despite playing fairly badly for significant stretches of their international careers.

Our players have big counts when it comes to caps but if they played for other countries, BOD would be the only one to have reached 100 and POC would probably be the only other one to get there along will Wallace perhaps if he had been fit.

pickarooney

I honestly don't think BOD would have reached 100 caps elsewhere, at least not in Aus/NZ. For a lot of his 114 caps it would have been better to have someone else in there both to save on wear and tear on our best asset and to ensure a replacement after he's gone.

John Hayes, much as we loved him, hit the ton without ever really being a top-level player. I know we were scarce on options but what did we gain by playing him every game as opposed to trying to find one for the future?

CatFromHue

Who would have been BOD's or Hayes alternatives?

As long as you're better than the next guy you get the start. In theory anyway.

GerM

pickarooney wrote: »

I honestly don't think BOD would have reached 100 caps elsewhere, at least not in Aus/NZ. For a lot of his 114 caps it would have been better to have someone else in there both to save on wear and tear on our best asset and to ensure a replacement after he's gone.

John Hayes, much as we loved him, hit the ton without ever really being a top-level player. I know we were scarce on options but what did we gain by playing him every game as opposed to trying to find one for the future?

Fair point on BOD. He has played in a lot of dead rubber over the years that there was no need to have him involved in. Samoa, Fiji in the RDS, Pacific Islands etc should all have had the likes of McFadden, Earls or even Cave making a case for themselves. He'd probably have about 20-30 caps less today. He would be close on the 100 though come the end of his career though I think. Hayes, as dedicated a servant as he was, wouldn't have 70 caps for another top tier country. All other nations had tightheads that were, for a few seasons at least, considered significantly better.

GerM

CatFromHue wrote: »

Who would have been BOD's or Hayes alternatives?

As long as you're better than the next guy you get the start. In theory anyway.

True but there was no point playing him in a good number of games over the past 4 or 5 years. His involvement against Fiji in the RDS for example was a pointless exercise. Canada in Thomond Park was the same. Wasted caps when we could have tried something new. Cave was playing some very good stuff a couple of years ago but never got a look in despite there being calls at the time. Spence now is in a similar position and I hope he gets a start in the next 12 months or it really will be ridiculous.

CatFromHue

I always feel though to get the best feel for a young/new/inexperienced player he has to play in a game where there are some first team players and not a team of new players.

Say for the Fiji game in 09 the outhalf and scrum half were the newbies (Sexton and Reddan) and for the Canada game Luke fitz at 12, Earls at 15, and Kearney at 11 would have been the newbies. To get a proper feel for how the these guys would/will perform they have to play with members of the starting 15. I feel changing the 13 for both of these games would make the back line too unrecogniseable from anything that would play in a first choice team. In the end you'd learn little about the new guys and how they fit in.

bamboozle

Donncadh Ryan, 1 HC start, 10 international caps...

GerM

CatFromHue wrote: »

I always feel though to get the best feel for a young/new/inexperienced player he has to play in a game where there are some first team players and not a team of new players.

Say for the Fiji game in 09 the outhalf and scrum half were the newbies (Sexton and Reddan) and for the Canada game Luke fitz at 12, Earls at 15, and Kearney at 11 would have been the newbies. To get a proper feel for how the these guys would/will perform they have to play with members of the starting 15. I feel changing the 13 for both of these games would make the back line too unrecogniseable from anything that would play in a first choice team. In the end you'd learn little about the new guys and how they fit in.

It's a fair point, CFH. I'd agree that new lads cannot be parachuted en masse or it will be to their detriment. I'd be happy to see 4 or 5 youngsters given a run in these games though. The matches mentioned above all had significantly experienced sides. A lot of older heads like Leamy, Cullen, Horgan etc. mixed in with the first choice players and only one or two lads being given a run to develop. Reddan and Kearney had been first choice for a 6N by the time these games came. We had nothing to lose by throwing in a couple more youngsters. In Ireland, you have to absolutely hammer on the door for selection before being acknowledged. Earls, Fitz and Murray are the only players that have been given an opportunity in recent years without showing top form over a long period and even then, Fitz had to wait 2 years for his next start after his debut.