Provincial Schools thread 2012-2013 *MOD WARNING POST 1*

opinionatedfan

Shame that Gardiner isn't involved, hell of a player.

Quint2010

Bit surprised Jody Carroll didn't get a look in at hooker-he only came back from a long injury after Christmas but is an absolute beast of a specimen

TheTalk

Surprised
Stephen Keelan and Garry Ringrose didn't make the squad.
McCarthy, Dardis and Brewer would be the only u19 I'd have on the squad as I feel the likes of Josh Murphy and Ross Byrne Would develope better at the u19 squad.
I tell you one thing though, James Ryan would be good enough to start on that squad and considering he's U18.

TheTalk

Potential Squad
1 Peter Dooley
2 Shane Delanhunt
3 Eoghan McKeever
4 Ross Moloney
5 Robert Sommerville
6 Jack O'Neill
7 Dan Leavy (c)
8 Peadar Timmons
9 Nick McCarthy
10 It's impossible to pick between Ross and Conor
11 Cian Kelleher
12 Sebastian Fromm
13 Harrison Brewer
14 Adam Byrne
15 Billy Dardis

Debatable between the centres I know but that's a good problem to have.
Squad should be rotated and play lots of friendlies

Leinster5

Gary Ringrose made the squad as well, missed his name on the sheet of paper. Also, there are 2 or 3 more players that I don't have the names of that made the squad.

opinionatedfan

Murphy is hardly a second row, sure he could cover there but he is more of a 6.

Somerville is an okay player aswell.

Stephen Gardiner is all of 6'6, mobile and tough. Sure he didn't play high level schools rugby but as a 6th year he is playing mens club rugby week in, week out for Gorey and doing very well.

lurtz

opinionatedfan wrote: »

Murphy is hardly a second row, sure he could cover there but he is more of a 6.

Somerville is an okay player aswell.

Stephen Gardiner is all of 6'6, mobile and tough. Sure he didn't play high level schools rugby but as a 6th year he is playing mens club rugby week in, week out for Gorey and doing very well.

well Murphy certainly has the height and good to have someone with that skill as an extra backrower

opinionatedfan

lurtz wrote: »

well Murphy certainly has the height and good to have someone with that skill as an extra backrower

agreed on Murphy, he is 6'5ish and i guess it would give us a very mobile pack.

still though think Gardiner is being overlooked.

Hagz

Remember that he said he's missing a few names so Gardiner could be in the mix.

wise7

opinionatedfan wrote: »

agreed on Murphy, he is 6'5ish and i guess it would give us a very mobile pack.

still though think Gardiner is being overlooked.

Delighted to be in agreement on something as promising as Josh Murphy. An incredible potential with huge carrying capability, excellent in the line-out, huge tackle count every game and a great engine.

lurtz

wise7 wrote: »

Delighted to be in agreement on something as promising as Josh Murphy. An incredible potential with huge carrying capability, excellent in the line-out, huge tackle count every game and a great engine.

great engine 100% agree with you there,huge worker

Gordon Gecko

lurtz wrote: »

please elaborate

I've never really seen the point of 19s and think any arguments for it have been further eroded by players skipping to 20s. That's resulted in the team's prestige being downgraded (slightly) and, as one poster referred to, players who should never have been there being in the team. I think the level should be set at u21s to mirror the club structure that these players are either already playing or about to play.

ormond lad

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

I've never really seen the point of 19s and think any arguments for it have been further eroded by players skipping to 20s. That's resulted in the team's prestige being downgraded (slightly) and, as one poster referred to, players who should never have been there being in the team. I think the level should be set at u21s to mirror the club structure that these players are either already playing or about to play.

The point of 19s is very obvious and don't know how you cant see the point of the side.
Would you prefer the side was got rid of?
Players skipping 19s to play 20s does not lower 19s at all and helps long term development as more players get the chance to be in a provincial set up that otherwise would not.
The team's "prestige" has not been downgraded in the slightest.
Why should the level be at 21s when there is no international level at 21s and no other countries play at 21s level.

Gordon Gecko

ormond lad wrote: »

The point of 19s is very obvious and don't know how you cant see the point of the side.
Would you prefer the side was got rid of?
Players skipping 19s to play 20s does not lower 19s at all and helps long term development as more players get the chance to be in a provincial set up that otherwise would not.
The team's "prestige" has not been downgraded in the slightest.
Why should the level be at 21s when there is no international level at 21s and no other countries play at 21s level.

I can't see the point of having a team for whom the most talented players in that age bracket don't even play for. Whose long term development are you talking about? I don't agree with this whole giving lads the chance to be in a provincial set-up for if they're not good enough to play representative rugby in the first place. The whole White team and Blue team system was madness looking back on it and I think it's a step in the right direction that it was scrapped.

I think representative rugby should be about developing the best players in the province and giving them the launching pad they need to progress to the highest levels of the game. Do you really think this is going to be achieved by having players there just to make up numbers?

The international point I will concede, but purely on the basis that other countries will not change their systems. I think u21s would be a much better system but given that u20s is the order of the day it's probably best to leave well enough alone.

ormond lad

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

I can't see the point of having a team for whom the most talented players in that age bracket don't even play for. Whose long term development are you talking about? I don't agree with this whole giving lads the chance to be in a provincial set-up for if they're not good enough to play representative rugby in the first place. The whole White team and Blue team system was madness looking back on it and I think it's a step in the right direction that it was scrapped.

I think representative rugby should be about developing the best players in the province and giving them the launching pad they need to progress to the highest levels of the game. Do you really think this is going to be achieved by having players there just to make up numbers?

The international point I will concede, but purely on the basis that other countries will not change their systems. I think u21s would be a much better system but given that u20s is the order of the day it's probably best to leave well enough alone.

The 20+ players who are playing 19s long term development. Not every player makes 20s for 2 seasons and why have players in set up for 18s and then not at 19s and then back in at 20s. That's just idiotic.
All players chosen are chosen as they are good enough and There is no players there "just to make up numbers"
The White and Blue team was not madness. Having 2 sides means more players get the chance to develop which is a key and vital part of these teams. Ultimately winning and losing with these sides does not matter that much if players capable of playing to the highest levels keeps on happening.
Darren Sweetnam for one couldn't make the Main Munster u19 side in 2011 and he prob would not have progressed as much as a player if he there was only 1 u19 munster side that season.
Representative rugby is about producing the best players and having 2 teams means it is much more likely that the best players are produced
No way at all that 21s would be a much better system

FellasFellas

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

I can't see the point of having a team for whom the most talented players in that age bracket don't even play for. Whose long term development are you talking about? I don't agree with this whole giving lads the chance to be in a provincial set-up for if they're not good enough to play representative rugby in the first place. The whole White team and Blue team system was madness looking back on it and I think it's a step in the right direction that it was scrapped.

I think representative rugby should be about developing the best players in the province and giving them the launching pad they need to progress to the highest levels of the game. Do you really think this is going to be achieved by having players there just to make up numbers?

The international point I will concede, but purely on the basis that other countries will not change their systems. I think u21s would be a much better system but given that u20s is the order of the day it's probably best to leave well enough alone.

I'm gonna take two example of players that played Whites rugby in 2011 that are fantastic players. Liam Bourke from Navan, now the star of UCD U21's and Niall Lalor, who really slipped through the net with Leinster, he's a dream flanker and a real number 7. Also, Peter Robb was originally picked for Leinster Whites for 2012 but never actually showed up, then only in an injury crisis for the Blues was drafted in and look at him now? The Whites team certainly had it's advantages.

lurtz

FellasFellas wrote: »

I'm gonna take two example of players that played Whites rugby in 2011 that are fantastic players. Liam Bourke from Navan, now the star of UCD U21's and Niall Lalor, who really slipped through the net with Leinster, he's a dream flanker and a real number 7. Also, Peter Robb was originally picked for Leinster Whites for 2012 but never actually showed up, then only in an injury crisis for the Blues was drafted in and look at him now? The Whites team certainly had it's advantages.

agree thoroughly and two excellent examples of talented players

Quint2010

FellasFellas wrote: »

I'm gonna take two example of players that played Whites rugby in 2011 that are fantastic players. Liam Bourke from Navan, now the star of UCD U21's and Niall Lalor, who really slipped through the net with Leinster, he's a dream flanker and a real number 7. Also, Peter Robb was originally picked for Leinster Whites for 2012 but never actually showed up, then only in an injury crisis for the Blues was drafted in and look at him now? The Whites team certainly had it's advantages.

That Niall Lalor the Terenure player?

FellasFellas

Quint2010 wrote: »

That Niall Lalor the Terenure player?

It is indeed. Plays for Nure RFC and IT Tallaght now, should be in a setup imo. Connacht would have loved him I'm sure.

Hagz

Bit late, but they eventually put up highlights of the u19 loss to France. Warning, they are really bad highlights.

http://www.irishrugby.ie/matchdaytv?play=media&id=15011

No report though so I don't know what the team sheet was.

specttator

I agree, the highlights are pretty ropey. I fail to understand any reluctance to show all film in their possession. Maybe they will now relent and show the u18 match against Scotland at FIRA.

stellenbosch

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

I've never really seen the point of 19s and think any arguments for it have been further eroded by players skipping to 20s. That's resulted in the team's prestige being downgraded (slightly) and, as one poster referred to, players who should never have been there being in the team. I think the level should be set at u21s to mirror the club structure that these players are either already playing or about to play.

Thanks but let me give you an alternative viewpoint!

Leinster U18 schools had 20 players on the Irish schools and there were others who were very good and did not make the squad. The fact that 5 or 6 of those have gone to the u20s is a reflection of the huge quality that that group and those players possess. it would be unusual but its also very good i believe. Are you seriously saying that the other 14/15 or 16 players would have no representative rugby at u19 level? Of course its a development programme and it will clearly serve Leinster rugby well as these players to continue to learn and develop by being part of a squad and training over the July and August period and playing interpros in september. A lot of the players will then go back into school as they did when playing for the u18s.

I do have a degree of sympathy for the view of not having two teams but definitely one is necessary and is mirrored in the other countries.

TheTalk

There is a point for u19 as for those still in school.
Would Nick Timoney and Fergal Cleary be good enough for u20s? Yes they would.
Would James Ryan start for u20s? Yes he would.
But they can't play for Ireland u20s because of the cup.
Players need the confidence and opportunity.

opinionatedfan

names to watch out for(Leinster under 19)

Jeremy Loughman
Eric O'Sullivan
Oliver Jager
Hugh O'Donnell
Andrew Roche
Graham Reynolds
David O'Connor
Patrick Thornton
Alex Penny
Nick Timoney
Tim Schmidt
Charlie Rock
James McCormack
Fergal Cleary
Cormac Brennan
Michael Courtney
Adam Leavy
Andy Marks
Cian O’Donoghue
Zach O'Hagan

Hagz

I thought the under 19 was stopping?

opinionatedfan

Hagz wrote: »

I thought the under 19 was stopping?

its going from two under 19 teams to one afaik

Hagz

Is Rory Parata any relation to Andrew Parata?

matTNT

What do you guys think of James Maxwell/Steve MacMahon, pretty good players from what I've seen.

lurtz

matTNT wrote: »

What do you guys think of James Maxwell/Steve MacMahon, pretty good players from what I've seen.

was mcmahon dropped from irish schools cos of the spear or just dropped?

matTNT

lurtz wrote: »

was mcmahon dropped from irish schools cos of the spear or just dropped?

I reckon he would have started they had to ban him after that tackle, but it wasn't as bad as it looked.