Blackrock College Clash with Leinster Academy

vinny chase

Anyone see the piece in the Sunday Times yesterday about the developing clash between Blackrock College and Leinster Rugby concerning the access the school will allow Leinster to their players?

I can't post a link here because of the ST paywall.

It's an interesting one; Blackrock's fears are that players will possibly opt out of non-competitive school games on the instruction of the development officers.

I'm biased here, as I was a Blackrock student, but I'd argue the school does a fine job itself in developing players. The sheer number in the current Leinster squad and academy is testament to this. I'd also submit that the school is best placed to judge what is in the best interest of their students.

Quint2010

vinny chase wrote: »

Anyone see the piece in the Sunday Times yesterday about the developing clash between Blackrock College and Leinster Rugby concerning the access the school will allow Leinster to their players?

I can't post a link here because of the ST paywall.

It's an interesting one; Blackrock's fears are that players will possibly opt out of non-competitive school games on the instruction of the development officers.

I'm biased here, as I was a Blackrock student, but I'd argue the school does a fine job itself in developing players. The sheer number in the current Leinster squad and academy is testament to this. I'd also submit that the school is best placed to judge what is in the best interest of their students.

Might explain why Blackrock had no representatives in the Leinster U18 squad this year-although they had a couple who are in the U19 squad. Have read elsewhere people saying it maybe because of the random drug testing thats been brought in...

irishbucsfan

Irish players are not as physically developed as their foreign counterparts coming out of school precisely because of this. If we want to develop truly competitive under age national teams then we need to allow the provinces the same access to the players as the professional teams have. Then maybe they won't be physically outclassed at every u20 world cup.

vinny chase

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Irish players are not as physically developed as their foreign counterparts coming out of school precisely because of this. If we want to develop truly competitive under age national teams then we need to allow the provinces the same access to the players as the professional teams have. Then maybe they won't be physically outclassed at every u20 world cup.

The Blackrock College SCT are as well prepared in terms of weights training as they could be at that age.

The proof is in the pudding; Luke Fitzgerald came from school straight into the Ireland team within six months.

vinny chase

Quint2010 wrote: »

Might explain why Blackrock had no representatives in the Leinster U18 squad this year-although they had a couple who are in the U19 squad. Have read elsewhere people saying it maybe because of the random drug testing thats been brought in...

There was reference to there being no Blackrock players at all on the U-18 team as a result of this impasse in the article.

ormond lad

vinny chase wrote: »

Anyone see the piece in the Sunday Times yesterday about the developing clash between Blackrock College and Leinster Rugby concerning the access the school will allow Leinster to their players?

I can't post a link here because of the ST paywall.

It's an interesting one; Blackrock's fears are that players will possibly opt out of non-competitive school games on the instruction of the development officers.

I'm biased here, as I was a Blackrock student, but I'd argue the school does a fine job itself in developing players. The sheer number in the current Leinster squad and academy is testament to this. I'd also submit that the school is best placed to judge what is in the best interest of their students.

Blackrock are whinging as nobody was picked in the u18 interpros squad and only 2 or 3 were picked in the 19s squad back in september and they think that by leinster coaches getting more access to players that their best players may be contractually attached to Leinster while still in school.
In my opinion the way the schools cup is run has to change, only a tiny percentage of kids who play in the senior cup will ever play pro rugby for leinster and half the kids(around 200 or so) who compete in the schools cup(16 teams in the draw today x 25 students) will only play in 1 game in their main competition.
Too much pressure is being put on the kids in knockout competition, games being shown on tv, being treated like pros with video analysists, warm weather training. Their players will benefit from access to other coaches to those they have in school, as they will have different ideas, different training methods

vinny chase

ormond lad wrote: »

Blackrock are whinging as nobody was picked in the u18 interpros squad and only 2 or 3 were picked in the 19s squad back in september and they think that by leinster coaches getting more access to players that their best players may be contractually attached to Leinster while still in school.
In my opinion the way the schools cup is run has to change, only a tiny percentage of kids who play in the senior cup will ever play pro rugby for leinster and half the kids(around 200 or so) who compete in the schools cup(16 teams in the draw today x 25 students) will only play in 1 game in their main competition.
Too much pressure is being put on the kids in knockout competition, games being shown on tv, being treated like pros with video analysists, warm weather training. Their players will benefit from access to other coaches to those they have in school, as they will have different ideas, different training methods

It's nothing to do with players being selected on the U-18 side. The article implied that players were not released by the school for the U-18 side because of this dispute.

It's been one that is brewing for some time now. The school's argument is that they don't want outside interference in how they coach and develop their young players; it's an argument I think they're entitled to make.

Your criticisms of the perks enjoyed in the big schools rugby programmes is irrelevant; the schools systems have served us well as a breeding ground for players. In reality; the ideal is bringing the youths system up to match the output of the schools; not bringing down the schools to simply create equality.

ormond lad

vinny chase wrote: »

It's nothing to do with players being selected on the U-18 side. The article implied that players were not released by the school for the U-18 side because of this dispute.

It's been one that is brewing for some time now. The school's argument is that they don't want outside interference in how they coach and develop their young players; it's an argument I think they're entitled to make.

Your criticisms of the perks enjoyed in the big schools rugby programmes is irrelevant; the schools systems have served us well as a breeding ground for players. In reality; the ideal is bringing the youths system up to match the output of the schools; not bringing down the schools to simply create equality.

They are entitled to say that they dont want outside interference in how they coach players, but is it in the best interests in the kids.
At the elite end of the schools game it is about winning cups, the result superseding an holistic approach to skills development and everything else, no matter what the schools say.
Yes the youths system has to keep improving to get up to the schools level and at interpro level the youths and schools are nearly even and will be in the next 5-10 years.
Blackrock and every other school and youths club that sends their players to sessions conducted by leinster academy(widely regarded as one of the best in europe) will have better players than if they didnt get involved.

stephen_n

In the end this might backfire on Blackrock as parents who want their kids to have the best chance possible of going all the way with rugby may opt not to send their kids to the school, where as at the moment it could onl;y been seen as a positive to go there.

irishbucsfan

vinny chase wrote: »

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Irish players are not as physically developed as their foreign counterparts coming out of school precisely because of this. If we want to develop truly competitive under age national teams then we need to allow the provinces the same access to the players as the professional teams have. Then maybe they won't be physically outclassed at every u20 world cup.

The Blackrock College SCT are as well prepared in terms of weights training as they could be at that age.

The proof is in the pudding; Luke Fitzgerald came from school straight into the Ireland team within six months.

They're not, and a winger isn't a great benchmark for physical development.

To think blackrock college are capable of developing young guys to the level a professional rugby organisation can is just arrogant, and to expect Leinster to leave the development of their best youth players in the hands of 10 or more different schools all with different philosophies and budgets is naive.

When I was in UCD there would often be blackrock 3rd and 4th years (might have been a different age) in the gym there. They were completely unsupervised and were working on pretty useless programs from what I could see.

Irish schools players are excellent in terms of playing ability and skill level imo, but they are much smaller than guys at the same age in Engerland (where I live and play now) or France. It's because pro clubs have access to their players over there. Let Leinster manage the physical development and diets of these guys while leaving them to play schools cup rugby and everyone will be happy.

vinny chase

ormond lad wrote: »

They are entitled to say that they dont want outside interference in how they coach players, but is it in the best interests in the kids.
At the elite end of the schools game it is about winning cups, the result superseding an holistic approach to skills development and everything else, no matter what the schools say.
Yes the youths system has to keep improving to get up to the schools level and at interpro level the youths and schools are nearly even and will be in the next 5-10 years.
Blackrock and every other school and youths club that sends their players to sessions conducted by leinster academy(widely regarded as one of the best in europe) will have better players than if they didnt get involved.

Well; they also have the fact that they have played a huge part in the players becoming the players they now are. They've nurtured these talents; and naturally don't want to see their heads turned.

Leinster will only ever be interested in a handful of exceptionally talented young lads anyway; so the holistic arguments about better developing whole groups of kids doesn't stand up for me.

I think the impositions being placed upon the players by the Academy go further nowadays; and that is the point of Blackrock's ire at this.

The business of players training with and playing for Leinster underage sides has been going on forever. The school don't have a problem with this, and actually take great pride from players earning representative honours. What is different is when the Academy starts trying to manage the gametime of these players and make changes to their training schedules (before they are part of the Academy structure) and that is what I think the school is well within its rights to take umbrage with.

vinny chase

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They're not, and a winger isn't a great benchmark for physical development.

To think blackrock college are capable of developing young guys to the level a professional rugby organisation can is just arrogant, and to expect Leinster to leave the development of their best youth players in the hands of 10 or more different schools all with different philosophies and budgets is naive.

When I was in UCD there would often be blackrock 3rd and 4th years (might have been a different age) in the gym there. They were completely unsupervised and were working on pretty useless programs from what I could see.

Irish schools players are excellent in terms of playing ability and skill level imo, but they are much smaller than guys at the same age in Engerland (where I live and play now) or France. It's because pro clubs have access to their players over there. Let Leinster manage the physical development and diets of these guys while leaving them to play schools cup rugby and everyone will be happy.

There are gym facilities in the school, and there was constantly people on hand to develop weight training programmes for youngsters. Your anecdotal tales of seeing young lads in the gym in UCD don't stand up to scrutiny here.

Also; as I've stated previously; Blackrock's problems with this go beyond simply Leinster advising the players on conditioning and diet; it specifically referred to attempts by the Academy development officers to manage the time the players played while in school.

CatFromHue

I read the article and both sides (Blackrock and Leinster) freely admit they have different agendas for the players; Blackrock to win the Senior Cup, and Leinster to prepare players for the pro game. I personally think the academy in Leinster is where players should be preparing for the pro game and in Blackrock they should be aiming to win the Senior Cup. Ultimately it's the school that is in charge of the schoolboys development both on the field and in the classroom so I can see why Blackrock would be resistant to outside interference. I think Leinster should take the back seat here and Blackrock should allow their players be selected for Leinster.

its_phil

vinny chase wrote: »

Your anecdotal tales of seeing young lads in the gym in UCD don't stand up to scrutiny here.

Actually you are wrong,because i'm in UCD currently and I see them doing useless programs as well.

vinny chase

its_phil wrote: »

Actually you are wrong,because i'm in UCD currently and I see them doing useless programs as well.

So some clown like you sees lads in a gym and you think that qualifies you to speak for the whole weight and conditioning programme in the school?

its_phil

vinny chase wrote: »

So some clown like you sees lads in a gym and you think that qualifies you to speak for the whole weight and conditioning programme in the school?

You accused irishbucsfan of telling false truths and I decided to tell you that I see it too. Im not saying the conditioning programme is bad, but im telling you they dont know how to do it and if anything they are going to do injury to themselves.

And I do know how to do weights because I was taught how to by a trainer and I'll tell you now some of those lads havent a clue.

Im not saying its the SCT in there but they are lads in 4th 5th year trying to break through

justsomebloke

vinny chase wrote: »

So some clown like you sees lads in a gym and you think that qualifies you to speak for the whole weight and conditioning programme in the school?

attack the post and not the poster, so please have a couple of days off

irishbucsfan

I play at a decent level in England currently and in the past I've played against blackrock players at schools level and club level whilst I played at home. They are not managed to a pro standard, as good as they are. They do not come out of school as physically well prepared as their French and English counterparts. None of the young academy lads over here would be allowed to do what the young blackrock guys I've seen are doing.

That's not to criticise blackrock college. I think their success puts them beyond criticism at that level. But that level is not the highest possible. If Leinster were allowed a little more access to them and other youths maybe that could change. English guys are being managed more at a younger level. I'm not saying leinster should control them, I'm saying they should be allowed to offer their far superior expertise as a professional sporting organisation. It should ultimately be up to the players to decide whether a secondary school knows more about rugby than the European champions.

thebaz

I'm no lover of Blackrock (always lost to them ) - but one of the major success of recent rugby , has been the leinster academy - and blackrock has probably produced more to it than anyone - club or school - so i guess if it ain't broke ......

Quint2010

I know another school had a row with the Leinster branch last year when the academy tried to call up an U16 to the U18 team. The school refused but the player still got called up this year. I think part of the problem is Leinster trying to develop players from too young an age.

themont85

Blackrock would be in the middle of the pack for team emphasis on conditioning. It's all about playing the right way there with them.

RMD

Let the players decide. I'd much prefer to be trained by a set of professional coaches rather than 1-2 coaches and a squad of teachers in all fairness, get an indivualised conditioning + strengthening program and free supplements where required.

Blackrock take the Senior cup too serious on occasion, this time at the expense of their players. Let the players decide, it effects them the most.

S. Goodspeed

Personally I don't give a damn about how the underage national teams get on, if I had a choice between my school winning the senior cup or Ireland winning an u20 world cup I'd go for the former everytime and I would suspect the vast majority of people who went to rugby playing schools would think likewise.

I wonder how long it takes for a player who comes out of school short of his full physical potential to catch up when he goes into the provincial development squads. My guess.would be not too long relative to what could potentialy be a 10-15 year career. I'd also argue that deferring the intense physical training til later could even extend ones career.

ormond lad

S. Goodspeed wrote: »

Personally I don't give a damn about how the underage national teams get on, if I had a choice between my school winning the senior cup or Ireland winning an u20 world cup I'd go for the former everytime and I would suspect the vast majority of people who went to rugby playing schools would think likewise.

I wonder how long it takes for a player who comes out of school short of his full physical potential to catch up when he goes into the provincial development squads. My guess.would be not too long relative to what could potentialy be a 10-15 year career. I'd also argue that deferring the intense physical training til later could even extend ones career.

And that is the problem, people thinking that a schools trophy is more important than winning u/age world titles.

And it does take quite a while for most players to reach their physical potential after they leave school, if the schools cups are so great than why has ireland not done better in international underage tournaments, we've only 1 u/age world cup win.
If the schools cup was as good at developing players as people say we would have won more at international level, 1 grand slam since in 60 years isnt good enough considering how the schools cups are meant to be so good at developing players

irishbucsfan

Haha! A schools cup over a world cup!?

I went to a rugby school and I find that ludicrous. I'd prefer to win the AIL than the senior cup! I wonder what our world cup winners like BOD would think about that.

thebaz

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Haha! A schools cup over a world cup!?

in fairness an underage WC - for most, me included , the biggest crowd i ever played to was a schools cup - and like most, I was never good eneogh to go on to the provinicial pro game. Right now I see Declan Kidney national management more damaging than our current underage strategy

[Jackass]

There should be (and sort of is) a Hirerarchy or order in access to players....

Player > IRFU > Leinster Rugby > School

If the player wants to develop at Leinster academy, then so be it, it's the place where he will be surrounded by the most professionals and the people most interested in his long term development.

The problem is though, that the schools game in Leinster is SO competetive, that it has the intensity and pressure of a Heineken Cup or World Cup! At the time of playing, the schools cup IS the biggest competition on earth, and you only get one shot (in most cases) and must go unbeaten.

I think a group stage would serve the competition better, for giving smaller schools more game time (and more time to showcase players) and to take the pressure off the "winner takes all".

Nothing worse than a big school player training all summer and then going out in the first round thanks to a tough draw or whatever.

Nothing less appealing to a small school player than training all summer when chances are you'll only get 60 / 70 minutes of rugby.

Leinster should have primary access though imo.

S. Goodspeed

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Haha! A schools cup over a world cup!?

I went to a rugby school and I find that ludicrous. I'd prefer to win the AIL than the senior cup! I wonder what our world cup winners like BOD would think about that.

I genuinely would like to hear Drico or D'arcy's opinions on it. It's hard to compare winning a cup with lads you've known and in some cases lived with for the last 6 years to winning an international cup with a bunch of lads you are thrown in with. The attendances at big senior cup matches speaks volumes for what the publics preferences are. From 19/20 onwards everything is geared towards international success with the central contracting system, I just feel that its no harm allowing younger lads focus on something else before then.

Amazotheamazing

Weird argument to be having for the week of the budget. Frankly, if a school can afford an overly expensive rugby programme then they are getting too much State support. I'd much rather have a proper health service than an elite rugby competition between our schools.

MLC61

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Weird argument to be having for the week of the budget. Frankly, if a school can afford an overly expensive rugby programme then they are getting too much State support. I'd much rather have a proper health service than an elite rugby competition between our schools.

Bit of a leap there.

Amazotheamazing

MLC61 wrote: »

Bit of a leap there.

Not really, the State is broke but still propping up private schools by paying their teachers wages. If the same school can then afford complex sports programmes I think it's perfectly fair to say they are overfunded.

monkey 456

Terenure will beat blackrock in the first round of senior cup.... Just putting it out there

MLC61

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Not really, the State is broke but still propping up private schools by paying their teachers wages. If the same school can then afford complex sports programmes I think it's perfectly fair to say they are overfunded.

You are deliberately, I assume, over simplifying to make a point that isn't relevant to this thread - hence bit of a leap.

Amazotheamazing

MLC61 wrote: »

You are deliberately, I assume, over simplifying to make a point that isn't relevant to this thread - hence bit of a leap.

Well, I think it does go to the point of the thread, the Leinster branch should train the future pros from an earlier age and the heat, so to speak, should be taken out of the Senior Cup. Same applies to Munster etc.

anonymous_joe

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Not really, the State is broke but still propping up private schools by paying their teachers wages. If the same school can then afford complex sports programmes I think it's perfectly fair to say they are overfunded.

The State doesn't fund the sports stuff.

Superbus

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Well, I think it does go to the point of the thread, the Leinster branch should train the future pros from an earlier age and the heat, so to speak, should be taken out of the Senior Cup. Same applies to Munster etc.

Fair point, but pretty much unrelated to your original one.

Amazotheamazing

anonymous_joe wrote: »

The State doesn't fund the sports stuff.

Course it does, indirectly.

anonymous_joe

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Course it does, indirectly.

Nah, the fees pay for facilities and coaching.

CIARAN_BOYLE

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Nah, the fees pay for facilities and coaching.

Thats why he said indirectly.

If the state stopped paying teachers wages in private schools the schools game would collapse and club rugby would have a massive influx

Amazotheamazing

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Nah, the fees pay for facilities and coaching.

Drinking on a tuesday night, for shame. (even)

anonymous_joe

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Thats why he said indirectly.

If the state stopped paying teachers wages in private schools the schools game would collapse and club rugby would have a massive influx

Which couldn't really happen.

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Drinking on a tuesday night, for shame. (even)

Hmmm?

RMD

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Haha! A schools cup over a world cup!?

I went to a rugby school and I find that ludicrous. I'd prefer to win the AIL than the senior cup! I wonder what our world cup winners like BOD would think about that.

I remember Ollie Campbell in an interview saying his proudest achievement in Rugby is his SC medal, a pretty big claim considering his role in the Triple Crown win.

Just out of curiosity was it a big 6 Rugby school with a history of SC success, or a rugby which hasn't achieved much. That's where I've noticed the main difference in attitude to it is. Personally, I've played only game 1 in Donnybrook, but it was bloody amazing.

Amazotheamazing

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Which couldn't really happen.


Hmmm?

Do you think that the State should close nursing homes but continue to pay teachers in private schools? Surely it's time for private schools to pay for their own teachers, given the state of the economy?

I'd be amazed if anyone prioritised things like rugby programmes ahead of things like rural Garda stations etc.

anonymous_joe

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Do you think that the State should close nursing homes but continue to pay teachers in private schools? Surely it's time for private schools to pay for their own teachers, given the state of the economy?

I'd be amazed if anyone prioritised things like rugby programmes ahead of things like rural Garda stations etc.

The rugby forum isn't the place for this, so I'll be brief;

The government has always paid for teachers. It guarantees a certain number of teachers per pupils, a ratio which is more beneficial for public schools, meaning private schools generally have some non-state teachers.

So the number of teachers paid for in Blackrock or Michaels or whatever is lower than the number paid for in a non-private school.

So in that regard, I don't have any objection with private schools spending some of their own money on facilities, money generated from their clients.

That money was never going to be spent on rural Garda stations in the first place.

Amazotheamazing

anonymous_joe wrote: »

The rugby forum isn't the place for this, so I'll be brief;

The government has always paid for teachers. It guarantees a certain number of teachers per pupils, a ratio which is more beneficial for public schools, meaning private schools generally have some non-state teachers.

So the number of teachers paid for in Blackrock or Michaels or whatever is lower than the number paid for in a non-private school.

So in that regard, I don't have any objection with private schools spending some of their own money on facilities, money generated from their clients.

That money was never going to be spent on rural Garda stations in the first place.

Weak argument, just because something was always the case doesn't mean it should always be the case. If we can't afford to keep hospitals and Garda stations open, these funds should be redirected to that and let the schools muddle through somehow. I'd apply the same logic to a private GAA school or whatever, we're broke, time to cut back on the luxuries.

[Jackass]

Succch a weak and irrelivant argument from Amazon...you want to stop funding to private schools because they have professional academy style rugby programme, or you just think it's unfair that a lot of people send kids to fee paying schools around Leinster and hence Leinster have a number of top quality rugby schools and produce the best players in the country by a margin...

If it's not a rugby point you're making, then politics forum is that way >>>>>>

Blut2

Getting a bit offtopic but just to clear this up definitively - currently, students in private schools cost the state less per head than students in free schools. If the government subsidy for private schools was removed then they would have to drastically increase their fees (to something in line with Public Schools in the UK - think 30k p/a). This would lead to a large number of students going to free schools here instead of private schools. This would increase the cost of their education for the Irish taxpayer.

Providing a subsidy to private schools actually saves the exchequer significant amounts of money. Dont let the actual facts get in the way of your "WE R PAYING FOR RICH KIDS RUGBY!!" hyperbole though.

Quint2010

No 'Rock players in the Ireland U18 schools squad either...

Amazotheamazing

Blut2 wrote: »

Getting a bit offtopic but just to clear this up definitively - currently, students in private schools cost the state less per head than students in free schools. If the government subsidy for private schools was removed then they would have to drastically increase their fees (to something in line with Public Schools in the UK - think 30k p/a). This would lead to a large number of students going to free schools here instead of private schools. This would increase the cost of their education for the Irish taxpayer.

Providing a subsidy to private schools actually saves the exchequer significant amounts of money. Dont let the actual facts get in the way of your "WE R PAYING FOR RICH KIDS RUGBY!!" hyperbole though.

All that is supposition, what we do know is the schools are overfunded by the State as is. You have no idea, nor can you have any idea, of how many students would have to find alternative schools if the current, frankly bizarre, system was changed.

In an era when we're closing nursing homes, I find the insistence we keep funding private schools of any hue (again, not just rugby, I'd lump the GAA ones in there too) outrageous.

The Aussie

Dudes, its a Rugby forum here, there are other forums for crap, such as Humanities, Infrastructure, Debate, Irish Economy, Expand your Horizons and if your really frothing at the mouth go for a stroll over to Conspiracy Theories.

I look forward to your replies:D:D:D

DeDoc

They're kids and they're in school for an education and to develop them as people. Rugby is, or should be, a small part (for those who want it) of that

For all that Blackrock are saying (and I don't want to pick on them - I think the whole system needs a big overhaul on every side), what it largely boils down to (in my eyes) is Rock (the school) not wanting their chance of winning trophies compromised by the Leinster academy.

Now I'm not saying that is totally illegitimate, but there has to be a sense of perspective and balance in terms of the welfare of the individual - I think there are lots of unhealthy aspects to the whole 'SCT' scene. Not that Leinster are perfect either, but I do think they are putting the player first here. There has to be a sensible compromise here, that can see the ambitious kids helped and facilitated, and the schools getting something without the kids being squeezed too hard in the middle.

Anyone who watches the schools/underage internationals couldn't but agree that the English (in particular) players are typically far better conditioned/built than the Irish players (occasionally to the detriment of skills!). They have some pretty serious rugby schools there (e.g. Colstons) so how do they manage?