Player numbers in Ireland

ddel

was shocked to find Wales has way less registered players than Ireland as I had been of the believe rugby was almost a national sport in Wales.

The IRB stats have Ireland with treble the Welsh playing numbers (50,000 versus 150,000). Some data is skewed (I think) by very high pre-teen and teen males players in Ireland along with more Female players in Ireland. Even still though, shocked with the numbers.

See links -

httphttp://www.irb.com/unions/union=11000003/index.html

http://www.irb.com/unions/union=11000003/index.html

Ben Hadad

You linked Wales twice.

Not surprised, it may be their national sport but they are too busy getting pissed and singing then playing rugby, a lot of them. Oh and mining as well, they like to mine as well.

ddel

Ben Hadad wrote: »

You linked Wales twice.

Not surprised, it may be their national sport but they are too busy getting pissed and singing then playing rugby, a lot of them. Oh and mining as well, they like to mine as well.

ooooops, sorry

irish stats
http://www.irb.com/unions/union=11000001/index.html

The_Kew_Tour

Ben Hadad wrote: »

You linked Wales twice.

Not surprised, it may be their national sport but they are too busy getting pissed and singing then playing rugby, a lot of them. Oh and mining as well, they like to mine as well.

lol

is that why they have won 8 more grand slams then us?

.ak

Tag is also huge in Ireland, and tag players are considered in those figures. I don't know how big tag is in Wales...

CatFromHue

I think the senior male players and the teen male players might be a better indication.

Ireland
Senior male: 25440
Teen male: 57867

Wales
Senior male: 22408
Teen male: 14500

New Zealand
Senior male: 27374
Teen male: 39317

Edit: Actually this doesn't make much more sense either!

WMitty

The info you seek is here - tks due to Giftof Gab for posting this

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74819060&postcount=1356

ambid

I think rugby being the national sport of Wales is overdone. Ospreys and Blues can barely sell 40% of their stadiums, which are close to sold out for the Swansea City and Cardiff City soccer matches.

I know they haven't really bought into the whole Welsh regions thing, but Cardiff Blues aren't a made up entity to the same extent as Ospreys and Dragons.

Pisco Sour

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yeSN53py7PI/TmXJ4UMiD1I/AAAAAAAAAgs/54kHw_zo9AY/s1600/IRB+Player+Numbers.jpg

Given the figures here England and France certainly punch significantly below their weight, as do Ireland to be perfectly honest.

Australia perform well given their playing numbers. New Zealand are astonishing. Practically the same playing numbers as us and they are streets above us and always have been.

Rugby is not a sport where we can call ourselves a small country and use that as an excuse. Ireland is a major player in rugby and is not perfoming to the level you would expect given the pool we have available to us.

CatFromHue

Until you see how the numbers are collected it's best to take them with some salt.

Tag rugby could well distort the playing numbers if they are included as there are loads of people who play it but wouldn't ever go near a rugby team.

davegrohl48

Very hard get accurate figures. You would think New Zealand has more teen players than we have. I would have thought something like at least 1 in 3 schools in New Zealand had a rugby team? That would put them well out ahead of us for teen players.
Anyone familiar if there are parts of New Zealand where rugby is not popular?

WeeBushy

Its also worth pointing out that Ireland has double the population of Wales (6mill in North + South of Ireland vs. 3mill in Wales).

profitius

CatFromHue wrote: »

I think the senior male players and the teen male players might be a better indication.

Ireland
Senior male: 25440
Teen male: 57867

Wales
Senior male: 22408
Teen male: 14500

New Zealand
Senior male: 27374
Teen male: 39317

Edit: Actually this doesn't make much more sense either!

If that was really the case then we'd be on level terms with NZ before too long. I think those numbers are exaggerated though. There are only a few schools playing rugby.

desertcircus

profitius wrote: »

If that was really the case then we'd be on level terms with NZ before too long. I think those numbers are exaggerated though. There are only a few schools playing rugby.

Think you're probably right there. One thing I'd like to see - but I doubt the information will ever get collected - would be the ages the people involved took it up. It's all very well and good having 25,000 adult male players compared to New Zealand's 27k, but I'd wager that 98+% of that 27,000 has been throwing a rugby ball since the age of five - and 80+% have probably not played any other sport competitively (with the obvious exception of rugby league, which doesn't exactly weaken the point). Compare that to Ireland, where even in the national team's recent past we've had Tomas O'Leary (started in secondary school and has a junior All-Ireland medal for hurling), Shaggy (played minor Gaelic football for Meath) and Hayes (didn't start rugby till he was eighteen). This isn't a slight on the players; just a recognition that the likes of Dan Carter and Ma'a Nonu have had up to ten years more time throwing the ball around to the exclusion of all other sports.

twinytwo

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

lol

is that why they have won 8 more grand slams then us?

Id put it down to back in the old days them coming up out of the mines on the weekends for beer, women and rugby... and them being as hard as nails.

MungBean

Would it be a case of Irish player numbers exploding over the last 5-10 years while Welsh and NZ numbers have always been pretty high ?

davegrohl48

Desertcircus posts a very true point.
Nez Zealands players would in the main be playing for alonger period of time.
Hence why the handling gap is never closed. They have many thousands of hours of practice of an advantage on most other nations.

irishh_bob

ddel wrote: »

was shocked to find Wales has way less registered players than Ireland as I had been of the believe rugby was almost a national sport in Wales.

The IRB stats have Ireland with treble the Welsh playing numbers (50,000 versus 150,000). Some data is skewed (I think) by very high pre-teen and teen males players in Ireland along with more Female players in Ireland. Even still though, shocked with the numbers.

See links -

httphttp://www.irb.com/unions/union=11000003/index.html

http://www.irb.com/unions/union=11000003/index.html

rugby is the national sport in wales but the population is no more than two million

irishh_bob

ambid wrote: »

I think rugby being the national sport of Wales is overdone. Ospreys and Blues can barely sell 40% of their stadiums, which are close to sold out for the Swansea City and Cardiff City soccer matches.

I know they haven't really bought into the whole Welsh regions thing, but Cardiff Blues aren't a made up entity to the same extent as Ospreys and Dragons.

its not in anyway overdone , its a fact , ive relatives in north wales and they are rugby mad , have no interest in soccer , north wales is the football heartland of wales , south wales is rugby heartland , wales is the one country in the uk where rugby is bigger than soccer

irishh_bob

04072511 wrote: »

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yeSN53py7PI/TmXJ4UMiD1I/AAAAAAAAAgs/54kHw_zo9AY/s1600/IRB+Player+Numbers.jpg

Given the figures here England and France certainly punch significantly below their weight, as do Ireland to be perfectly honest.

Australia perform well given their playing numbers. New Zealand are astonishing. Practically the same playing numbers as us and they are streets above us and always have been.

Rugby is not a sport where we can call ourselves a small country and use that as an excuse. Ireland is a major player in rugby and is not perfoming to the level you would expect given the pool we have available to us.

with ireland and new zealand , your not comparing like with like

new zealand doesnt have the GAA ( let alone soccer ) to hoover up the bulk of sporting talent

oh and rugby is new zealands religon

The Aussie

irishh_bob wrote: »

new zealand doesnt have the GAA ( let alone soccer )

Not true (i hate not knowing for sure but...) they were the only team in the last Soccer World Cup to be unbeaten, could not score goals to save their life though.

Also Soccer is a growing sport there with parents not wanting "little Jonny" getting hurt, i for one hope it takes off there.

irishh_bob

The Aussie wrote: »

Not true (i hate not knowing for sure but...) they were the only team in the last Soccer World Cup to be unbeaten, could not score goals to save their life though.

Also Soccer is a growing sport there with parents not wanting "little Jonny" getting hurt, i for one hope it takes off there.

nine out of ten kids in nz who are good with thier feet , hands , running , will end up playing rugby

nine out of ten kids in ireland who are good with thier feet , hands , running wont end up playing rugby

The_Kew_Tour

irishh_bob wrote: »

its not in anyway overdone , its a fact , ive relatives in north wales and they are rugby mad , have no interest in soccer , north wales is the football heartland of wales , south wales is rugby heartland , wales is the one country in the uk where rugby is bigger than soccer

Football in Wales is still big enough though. Lived there for year and see plenty of young lads with Wales football jersey's even more then rugby.

The Welsh love their rugby like no other I wont argue there, but they still have big enough representative in football and interest.

irishh_bob

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Football in Wales is still big enough though. Lived there for year and see plenty of young lads with Wales football jersey's even more then rugby.

The Welsh love their rugby like no other I wont argue there, but they still have big enough representative in football and interest.

doesnt reflect at international or even club level , compare celtic and rangers with cardiff or swansea

Pete_Cavan

04072511 wrote: »

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yeSN53py7PI/TmXJ4UMiD1I/AAAAAAAAAgs/54kHw_zo9AY/s1600/IRB+Player+Numbers.jpg

Given the figures here England and France certainly punch significantly below their weight, as do Ireland to be perfectly honest.

Australia perform well given their playing numbers. New Zealand are astonishing. Practically the same playing numbers as us and they are streets above us and always have been.

Rugby is not a sport where we can call ourselves a small country and use that as an excuse. Ireland is a major player in rugby and is not perfoming to the level you would expect given the pool we have available to us.

The issue here is quality, not quantity. We may have a high number of teen males playing rugby, but only a low number of these play it at a high standard. It is hardly surprising that a better model for success on the rugby pitch is to have a lower number of players playing at a high standard, as is the case in New Zealand. I think it is a little unfair to say we punch below our weight as there is more to weight than just sheer weight of numbers.

The level of competition among various sports for players in Ireland puts us at a major disadvantage when competing in sport at international level (in all sports) imo. Of the 57867 teen male rugby players in this country (as per CatFromHue's post) Im sure a higher percentage of these play at least one other sport (most likely football/hurling/soccer) regularly than in other countries. I dont think its a case of calling ourselves a "small rugby country" and using it as an excuse, its just that we have a lot of big sports as well as rugby.

CatFromHue

profitius wrote: »

If that was really the case then we'd be on level terms with NZ before too long. I think those numbers are exaggerated though. There are only a few schools playing rugby.

Those teen males numbers don't make any sense. I can only assume that kids who play for their club and school are counted twice. Also while in NZ the kids may tend to just play rugby in Ireland kids tend to play rugby and another sport.

I really think though until you see how the numbers are compiled they can't be taken seriously.