Does the Irish rugby team have an identity?

UnitedWeStand

I've long since wondered if our team has struggled from not having a style.

The Aussies have had an identity spanning 30 years now of sporting out classy backs, as have the French.

NZ have ruthlessness and the fear of being the All Blacks

England have raw brawn and power

South Africa have supreme forwards and perhaps the most physical specimens the game has seen.

Wales have a claim to being the first team to be associated with flair rugby and having their Welsh Wizards.

Ireland have had passion in the amateur era, what now?

Does this explain to an extent a bit of an identity crisis in the team as for the past ten or so years Leinster and Munster have been equally filling up the team, with Munster being about physicality and bullying, and Leinster being about grace, handling skills and flashy backs. Do players struggle to unite, not because of rivalry, just simply out of struggling to be able to buy into a collective whole as a team to fall back onto?

LuckyLloyd

Ireland had passion when they won their triple crowns in the past decade; won the Grand Slam; beat a Southern Hemisphere side down South in a World Cup. The idea that it is a relic of the amateur era is a frankly mad idea?

Swan Curry

I hate when people talk about Triple Crowns as if they're a particularly impressive achievement."Well done guys,you couldn't beat France,here's a consolation".

UnitedWeStand

Swan Curry wrote: »

I hate when people talk about Triple Crowns as if they're a particularly impressive achievement."Well done guys,you couldn't beat France,here's a consolation".

Its all relative, given Wales and England are arguable the 3rd to 5th best teams in the world depending on who you ask, a triple crown now must surely be worth something as opposed to most years between 2005-2011 when they seemed very second rate as Wales and England flattered to deceive for most of the time bar Wales having two decent years in 05 and 08. Beating an English team in Twickenham this year where they perhaps would've beaten the All Blacks back to back had Tuilagi been there and a shoddy opening 15 minutes gone a bit differently.

I for one would be ecstatic with a triple crown this year. I actually think the Paris game will be easier than the Twickenham one.

Interesting how the power has shifted. The past 6/7 years France and Ireland have dominated euro rugby and for the past year and a half we've seen both nations slide down, and Wales and England rise up. Cycles eh?

bilston

Swan Curry wrote: »

I hate when people talk about Triple Crowns as if they're a particularly impressive achievement."Well done guys,you couldn't beat France,here's a consolation".

I have to say I take the opposite view when people talk down a Triple Crown.

France have absolutely nothing to do with the Triple Crown, just like New Zealand have nothing to do with winning a Grand Slam.

Gambas

bilston wrote: »

I have to say I take the opposite view when people talk down a Triple Crown.

France have absolutely nothing to do with the Triple Crown, just like New Zealand have nothing to do with winning a Grand Slam.

Do you reminisce about the great triple crown win of 2009?

jamiedav2011

UnitedWeStand wrote: »

I've long since wondered if our team has struggled from not having a style.

The Aussies have had an identity spanning 30 years now of sporting out classy backs, as have the French.

NZ have ruthlessness and the fear of being the All Blacks

England have raw brawn and power

South Africa have supreme forwards and perhaps the most physical specimens the game has seen.

Wales have a claim to being the first team to be associated with flair rugby and having their Welsh Wizards.

Ireland have had passion in the amateur era, what now?

Does this explain to an extent a bit of an identity crisis in the team as for the past ten or so years Leinster and Munster have been equally filling up the team, with Munster being about physicality and bullying, and Leinster being about grace, handling skills and flashy backs. Do players struggle to unite, not because of rivalry, just simply out of struggling to be able to buy into a collective whole as a team to fall back onto?

I agree with the sentiment, but the bolded is constantly thrown up, and it's just lazy analysis, particularly with reference to the last 4-5 years.

Leinster's game since Cheika has been as much about physicality and bullying than any team in Europe, while Munster since McGahan have, with varying degrees of success, brought their backs into play a lot more, and don't have the pack to bully teams for the last while.

Neil3030

Swan Curry wrote: »

I hate when people talk about Triple Crowns as if they're a particularly impressive achievement."Well done guys,you couldn't beat France,here's a consolation".

I hate when people ignorantly dismiss the importance of a tradition spanning well over a century, but hey, whatever you're into.

.ak

I think we've always had a good reputation for being plucky, but in reality due to our average size we've mostly played well when we run around players, we also play clever rugby traditionally to offset these natural advantages most other teams have over us. My memories of some Irish legends were of guys that could turn on a penny and make a break, BOD, Gibson etc., etc.

jack presley

Neil3030 wrote: »

I hate when people ignorantly dismiss the importance of a tradition spanning well over a century, but hey, whatever you're into.

A tradition that lost its importance one a fifth and then a sixth team were added to the tournament.

jack presley

For me, Ireland's identity has been underachieving. One title in the 'golden era' speaks for itself

.ak

jack presley wrote: »

A tradition that lost its importance one a fifth and then a sixth team were added to the tournament.

Not when England are still a top tier nation.

Neil3030

jack presley wrote: »

A tradition that lost its importance one a fifth and then a sixth team were added to the tournament.

Because beating Wales, Scotland and England in a test match in the same year has proven to be that much of a doddle since 1910...

jack presley

Neil3030 wrote: »

Because beating Wales, Scotland and England in a test match in the same year has proven to be that much of a doddle since 1910...

I never said it was a doddle, and I don't think it is. I just don't think it's worth celebrating now that there are no longer only these teams in the tournament.

Technically you can come third in a six team tournament but still win the triple crown. Do you think that's worth celebrating?

OldRio

jack presley wrote: »

I never said it was a doddle, and I don't think it is. I just don't think it's worth celebrating now that there are no longer only these teams in the tournament.

Technically you can come third in a six team tournament but still win the triple crown. Do you think that's worth celebrating?

Yes indeed I do.

Neil3030

jack presley wrote: »

I never said it was a doddle, and I don't think it is. I just don't think it's worth celebrating now that there are no longer only these teams in the tournament.

Technically you can come third in a six team tournament but still win the triple crown. Do you think that's worth celebrating?

Yes, for me, that highly unlikely scenario would still be worth celebrating, as we have only won the triple crown ten other times in 130 years.

jack presley

Maybe that's the mindset of Irish rugby so and might explain why they've only won the 6 nations once.

.ak

jack presley wrote: »

Maybe that's the mindset of Irish rugby so and might explain why they've only won the 6 nations once.

Probably more to do with England and France being generally better teams.

jack presley

jack presley wrote: »

Maybe that's the mindset of Irish rugby so and might explain why they've only won the 6 nations once.

Edit - just wondering, do Wales and England get excited about the triple crown or is it just us?

jack presley

.ak wrote: »

Probably more to do with England and France being generally better teams.

Ireland's teams of the past 10-15 years have been up there with English and French teams ability wise anyway id say.

Neil3030

jack presley wrote: »

Maybe that's the mindset of Irish rugby so and might explain why they've only won the 6 nations once.

I really am finding it difficult to understand how someone could be so dismissive of winning three test matches in a single season, against three equally matched or often superior (some seasons vastly superior) teams. I can't help but feel that this would only be possible if you measure victory purely in shiny things, or you need the constant reinforcement provided by a league or tournament.

But rugby has always been an antidote from this hyped up Sky-Sports-generation-ADHD mindset for me. Not least because of its superior standard, but the aura of the test match still grabs me like no other point on the sporting calendar. Last Friday was a more torturous wait than the eve of every Heineken Cup final featuring my native province. It just means so much more, condensed, into a once off battle. To emerge victorious from three such skirmishes is still, to me, the stuff of legend and it will be very sad indeed if the cachet of such an achievement is lost because it doesn't come by way of a corporate sponsor.

Kayless

.ak wrote: »

I think we've always had a good reputation for being plucky, but in reality due to our average size we've mostly played well when we run around players, we also play clever rugby traditionally to offset these natural advantages most other teams have over us. My memories of some Irish legends were of guys that could turn on a penny and make a break, BOD, Gibson etc., etc.

I agree this is why I think Schmidt is such a good call. I know it's all doom and gloom atm but when we peak and I think we will around the 2015 World Cup our identity will be there for all to see.

.ak

Kayless wrote: »

I agree this is why I think Schmidt is such a good call. I know it's all doom and gloom atm but when we peak and I think we will around the 2015 World Cup our identity will be there for all to see.

That's the idea alright. Hopefully it works out.

razorblunt

Irish Rugby's identity is surely as the perennial underdogs; talk them up as being favourites and watch them implode!

jacothelad

Ireland's succesful periods coincide with the simultaneous emergence of a number of top flight players. It happend in the late 1940s, the late 60s/early 70s, the mid 80s and 2000 to 2009. each period was followed by an interregnum of varying degrees of low quality performances. It is naive to think we have turned the corner and now can produce sustained high quality teams on an annual basis. We might be edging that way.

I lived and played in Wales for a few years in the 1970s. The country oozes a love for the game and each village has it's own teams and the rivalry is fierce - akin to the local GAA village and small town rivalries. Even in the sparsely populated north this is true. Wales has a very small population compared to Ireland as a whole. There is of course one reason among others that is obvious and why we fail to hit the heights regularly. I firmly believe that if GAA had not emerged we would be up there with the top 2 sides. Our rugby 'infrastructure' would be wider, more akin to the Welsh experience, we would have more teams, more players, an intensity that is not really there in many AIL games. I often played in front of larger crowds there than anything in rugby here except Inter-pros and Cup Finals. Rugby is so much more limited in it's roots.

An awful lot of our rugby in N.I. for example is dependent for it's existence on State Grammar Schools. In N.I., non-grammar schools and Catholic Maintained Grammar Schools don't play rugby with any degree of seriousness. Soccer and GAA rule the roost in 70+% of the entire sector. The secondary schools are simply often too small in numbers to have guys big enough to compete in the front row for example. No matter how talented a player in one of those set ups is, he is unlikely to develop a love for the game and even more unlikely to play it after leaving school. Also, since most rugby is linked to schools of high academic achievement, many guys are not interested in playing it seriously post school and would rather concentrate on careers etc away from the game. We lose many fine prospects to Universities in G,B. Once the go there they rarely return.

Shamefully, we also have a divide between local clubs and schools that is actually enabled by the U.R. Branch. One local grammar school informed it's player that if they turned out even for training at Carrickfergus R.F. C. they would be given detention. F*ckin' disgraceful. Instead of schools being happy for the extra coaching the players get at no cost in terms of resources and manpower, they introduce rugby apartheid. At underage level, schools rightly have first dibs on players but not in the way that this represents.

There is still a lot of stuff like this going on in the game. It's akin in a way to all those on here whining about 'casual' fans or 'wimmin' at games. Instead of welcoming new attendees or converts to the game, we get a lot of sneering and looking down noses and superiority. When rugby reaches the level of grass roots support that exists in N.Z. and Wales we'll be able to compete season after season. Sadly, even the IRFU have now introduced a division into haves and have nots on the Island with their new T.V. deal.

RoyalCelt

so basically GAA and soccer are the reasons why rugby in ireland will never be like rugby in new zealand...

Grimebox

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Ireland had passion when they won their triple crowns in the past decade; won the Grand Slam; beat a Southern Hemisphere side down South in a World Cup. The idea that it is a relic of the amateur era is a frankly mad idea?

You're like a broken record. What the hell is passion and what does it have to do with international rugby. Ireland win, they have passion. Ireland lose, they don't have passion. You need to broaden your vocabulary. That word is useless in describing how a team is performing.

stefan idiot jones

Ireland like all countries have always played with passion.

It was kick and chase rugby for decades. There didn't seem to be any game plan except ruining the other teams one.

Since the professional era, Ireland have come on an incredible amount. Ultra organised and drilled. Drilled to the point of predictable unfortunately. Over coached, but so many teams are in my view. Too rigid, but successful.

I agree with the OPs concern that what is the Identity of the modern team ? I don't know.

I have always hated Munsters style of play and loved Leinsters, but being Welsh and my age I was brought up with attacking rugby and as much as I want my team to win if they revert back to the dark days of Neil Jenkins kicking every point, they tooncan fcuk off.

Rob Andrew started the rot with his percentage game which in my view destroyed the spectacle for a while. O'Gara carried it on for a while, but thank God you have Sexton, a proper outside half who's not afraid to take a risk (and the talent to pull it off).

Cruden, Cooper, Sexton. Thats what you should base your identity on. Smart attacking rugby.
The best sport in the world when played properly.

Neil3030

Excuse me, but, "passion"? Isn't that just a buzzword dumb people ascribe to victorious performances to bluff causational shrewdness? Like the way soccer pundits say that teams need to play with "confidence"?

Not that I'm accusing you of anything like that.

I'm fired, aren't I?

buck65

I think Devin Toner summed it up when he said " I never thought I'd play for Ireland"

Dravokivich

jack presley wrote: »

I never said it was a doddle, and I don't think it is. I just don't think it's worth celebrating now that there are no longer only these teams in the tournament.

Technically you can come third in a six team tournament but still win the triple crown. Do you think that's worth celebrating?

I was happy with a wooden spoon. Good for stirring stew them.

Eoin

The triple crown may be considered beneath us now, but the first couple we won in recent times were a big deal. They were the start of Ireland getting a string of wins in a row, not just the occasional manic effort to get a win against England.

It's easy to forget that not getting the wooden spoon was a result for Ireland; and that's not too long ago.

razorblunt wrote: »

Irish Rugby's identity is surely as the perennial underdogs; talk them up as being favourites and watch them implode!

Isn't that the opposite of an underdog?

087brain21

RoyalCelt wrote: »

so basically GAA and soccer are the reasons why rugby in ireland will never be like rugby in new zealand...

yes in a way i think so,because if you ever get the chance to go to a sports store in nz its all rugby rugby, union and league maybe a lil soccer and cricket,but ireland as another small country have so much sports to follow gaa, rugby,soccer. it just hurts our rugby a bit and of course the rules in gaa and soccer are a bit easier to pick up and play,trying to explain rugby rules to a person who never watched before is a lil tricky

.ak

Yeah, you play 'footie' in NZ from a young age, footie being rugby. Dan Carter's impressive kicking form is because he used to nail kicks over his house and down his back garden as a kid. Completely different culture there.

I bet we're better at GAA than them tho!

also the fact that were splitting our countries premier athletes between 4 sports makes a huge difference

sydthebeat

i think the gaa argument doesn't exactly answer the question as to what our rugby "identity" is though.

If anything id argue that our players GAA background actually informs our identity to a significant extent. Players like the two Kearneys, Murray, Cronin, all had pretty useful GAA underage careers. Many others like L Fitz and Bowe also played quite a bit when younger. Im sure if surveyed most provincial players, especially munster and connacht, would have played significant amounts of gaa at underage level.

This connection would have developed skills in players that maybe wouldnt be otherwise developed in their positions in other countries, for example Keith wood was a very proficient kicker from hands and would have been unsurpassed in this skill when compared to other hookers of his generation.

i suppose thats why kicking the leather off the ball probably was utilised more by ireland than other countries during the dark ages of the 80's.

Currently i would argue that we have probably too much of a default to go back to boot in tight situations.
We probably also have too much focus on specialised skills for specialised positions rather than more uniform spread of skills through out the squad. What i mean by that is that we say that BOD is great at the breakdown and could play flanker.... but why dont we say the same about Bowe? or Kearney? these are players who you expect to be first to lots of breakdowns but can anyone remember when they actually forced a turnover?

Looking at the ABs as the standard bearers we see players who can almost be interchangeable. No matter the phase of play the player knows what they need to do dependent on the position they are in on the field. The backs know when a ruck isnt secure so they drive through. They seem to know it almost psychically.

I suppose the reason we dont yet have a clear 'identity' is because the provinces have only started recently to develop a provincial ethos at underage coaching level. I know in leinster they definitely want to develop a running game and the 'coaching the coaches' courses focuses on this. The IRFU have only had a Long Term Player Development strategy since 06 so it will be a few years before we see the result of this.

oh and "pashun" is a loads of bollix. You cant have a player run around like a headless chicken because hes pumped up on 'passion'. The aggression thats brought to a game must be controlled and tempered in its intensity.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

i think the gaa argument doesn't exactly answer the question as to what our rugby "identity" is though.

If anything id argue that our players GAA background actually informs our identity to a significant extent. Players like the two Kearneys, Murray, Cronin, all had pretty useful GAA underage careers. Many others like L Fitz and Bowe also played quite a bit when younger. Im sure if surveyed most provincial players, especially munster and connacht, would have played significant amounts of gaa at underage level.

This connection would have developed skills in players that maybe wouldnt be otherwise developed in their positions in other countries, for example Keith wood was a very proficient kicker from hands and would have been unsurpassed in this skill when compared to other hookers of his generation.

I disagree to be honest a lot of professional athletes are good at other sports when there younger because they tend to be one of the bigger quicker guys there.

also with regards the development of skills i think they would have been far better off concentrating on rugby skills. the ability of a hooker to kick the ball is of negligible importance compared to his ability to offload in the tackle /ruck etc.


i agree with you with regards pashun though any player at this level has plenty of it.

astonaidan

I think our style has an element of GAA to it, like good under high ball, big kicks, usually very fit. Like on my own team 80% of the guys still play GAA, Im the only one who hasnt, but I played in goal in soccer so pretty much the same thing.

astonaidan

astonaidan wrote: »

I think our style has an element of GAA to it, like good under high ball, big kicks, usually very fit. Like on my own team 80% of the guys still play GAA, Im the only one who hasnt, but I played in goal in soccer so pretty much the same thing.

are we any better than nz in these though i guess our front rows would be better than theres under a high ball but full backs and wingers in particular learn it as a vital part of the position

and i really dont think rugby players are fitter from playing gaa


ps. not bashing the gaa at all just realised it may come across that way love hurling in particular as a sport

sydthebeat

Bruce Muscular Pickaxe wrote: »

I disagree to be honest a lot of professional athletes are good at other sports when there younger because they tend to be one of the bigger quicker guys there.
.

but NZ doesnt have Gaa, wales doesnt etc etc

what i was saying is that the skills employed in gaa inform our rugby players skillset. This doesnt happen anywhere else apart from maybe australia where they have the AFL... and look what folau did the other day, classic AFL catch. That reinforces my point.

Bruce Muscular Pickaxe wrote: »

also with regards the development of skills i think they would have been far better off concentrating on rugby skills. the ability of a hooker to kick the ball is of negligible importance compared to his ability to offload in the tackle /ruck etc.
.

of course they would, if their goal at underage was to play rugby for ireland. Most underage players would play both codes and their paths are not set in stone.
Again when i am arguing is that this gaa background influences the way our players play rugby... is that what you are disagreeing with?

desertcircus

Passion is for sex. Rugby is a place for intelligent decision-making and specific physical tasks, not beating your chest and roaring about how much you love the jersey. Give me a completely bloodless seven who jackals every time it's on, runs intelligent lines in attack and gauges how far he can push the rules before the ref pings him, and I'll take him over any number of anthem-roaring sons of Erin.

"Playing identity" seems to be shorthand for a high skill level at a particular facet of the game. We don't really have those skill levels (and probably never will without some huge work from the IRFU at underage level), so we play whatever gameplan we think will work.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

but NZ doesnt have Gaa, wales doesnt etc etc

what i was saying is that the skills employed in gaa inform our rugby players skillset. This doesnt happen anywhere else apart from maybe australia where they have the AFL... and look what folau did the other day, classic AFL catch. That reinforces my point.




of course they would, if their goal at underage was to play rugby for ireland. Most underage players would play both codes and their paths are not set in stone.
Again when i am arguing is that this gaa background influences the way our players play rugby... is that what you are disagreeing with?

no you could be right i may have been looking at it from the wrong angle

Neil3030

Yeah, I wouldn't be too quick to blame GAA for our lack of playing identity, or indeed any aspect of our shortcomings. Top athletes will usually play at least two or three sports, so having their time shared in such a manner at youth level is not a problem. So many top NFL players' highschool and college biographies feature baseball, track and field or basketball scholarships, for example.

The dominance of the GAA is also not to blame for the small numbers involved in rugby; this is simply an artefact of the sport being very geographically and socially concentrated up until quite recently. This is where the IRFU should be and have been focusing their efforts and the more they expand and support the grass roots initiative, the more players from various cultures and backgrounds we'll see coming through.

Henry Ford III

Identity? Greens shirts, and a generally pale skin tone.

Playing style? Give it a lash Jack (although even that's missing currently).

its_phil

Gavin Duffy and Dave McSharry both spoke at a sponsors event during the summer and said that they found playing other sports like gaelic football was important for developing a broad range of skills.

It's one of the reasons why we keep producing top level full-backs ever since the pro era began.

sydthebeat

Actually id be interested to see how supporters outside of ireland view our identity.... sometimes it incredibly hard to see your own traits when viewing it all the time.

Also, is there really any team out there who has a clear and defined "identity" in the top tier?
i suppose the obvious is Fiji who seem to always play a loose, fling it about, style because sevens is probably their national sport and they are very successful at it.

Daroxtar

Plucky. A fúcking horrendous slander, just about the most patronising description of a team or nation I can possibly think of. "Ah shure they're great losers, they gave it a shot"
Bóllóx.
Plucky is pathetic. Plucky is failing again and again and again but getting shallow praise for being beaten by some prick that automatically assumes he's better than you anyway.
Plucky is what's fúcking wrong with Irish rugby half the time. Showing respect to árseholes who think they are above us, puffing out our chests for show before failing bravely. Charge of the bloody Light Brigade.

We need to get rid of this Plucky sh!te. Maybe when we start treating our opponents as Sheep Shaggers, Convicts, Colonist Bástards, Egotists and even worse Sheep Shaggers we'll start beating them a bit more.

Fúck plucky, let the Scots be plucky.

astonaidan

Bruce Muscular Pickaxe wrote: »

are we any better than nz in these though i guess our front rows would be better than theres under a high ball but full backs and wingers in particular learn it as a vital part of the position

and i really dont think rugby players are fitter from playing gaa


ps. not bashing the gaa at all just realised it may come across that way love hurling in particular as a sport

Ah the GAA lads at underage level would be fitter, they are training all year round when you take the fact they have GAA in summer, rugby in winter.
Id back a GAA player against a rugby lad in the air for sure, take Folau for example, hes got AFL which is basically a bastard version of GAA

Daroxtar

Daroxtar wrote: »

Plucky. A fúcking horrendous slander, just about the most patronising description of a team or nation I can possibly think of. "Ah shure they're great losers, they gave it a shot"
Bóllóx.
Plucky is pathetic. Plucky is failing again and again and again but getting shallow praise for being beaten by some prick that automatically assumes he's better than you anyway.
Plucky is what's fúcking wrong with Irish rugby half the time. Showing respect to árseholes who think they are above us, puffing out our chests for show before failing bravely. Charge of the bloody Light Brigade.

We need to get rid of this Plucky sh!te. Maybe when we start treating our opponents as Sheep Shaggers, Convicts, Colonist Bástards, Egotists and even worse Sheep Shaggers we'll start beating them a bit more.

Fúck plucky, let the Scots be plucky.

wow you seem very very angry about this

i dont think we've been viewed like that for a long time and when we where to be hones we were a plucky team played our asses off but just didnt have the talent at the time.

this team has never iterated the phrases plucky or give it a lash and rightly so we are now one of the most talented countries in the world when it comes to rugby.

who said this to you in that last 10 years?

jacothelad

sydthebeat wrote: »

i think the gaa argument doesn't exactly answer the question as to what our rugby "identity" is though.

If anything id argue that our players GAA background actually informs our identity to a significant extent. Players like the two Kearneys, Murray, Cronin, all had pretty useful GAA underage careers. Many others like L Fitz and Bowe also played quite a bit when younger. Im sure if surveyed most provincial players, especially munster and connacht, would have played significant amounts of gaa at underage level.

This connection would have developed skills in players that maybe wouldnt be otherwise developed in their positions in other countries, for example Keith wood was a very proficient kicker from hands and would have been unsurpassed in this skill when compared to other hookers of his generation.

i suppose thats why kicking the leather off the ball probably was utilised more by ireland than other countries during the dark ages of the 80's.

Currently i would argue that we have probably too much of a default to go back to boot in tight situations.
We probably also have too much focus on specialised skills for specialised positions rather than more uniform spread of skills through out the squad. What i mean by that is that we say that BOD is great at the breakdown and could play flanker.... but why dont we say the same about Bowe? or Kearney? these are players who you expect to be first to lots of breakdowns but can anyone remember when they actually forced a turnover? Bowe certainly.

Looking at the ABs as the standard bearers we see players who can almost be interchangeable. No matter the phase of play the player knows what they need to do dependent on the position they are in on the field. The backs know when a ruck isnt secure so they drive through. They seem to know it almost psychically.

I suppose the reason we dont yet have a clear 'identity' is because the provinces have only started recently to develop a provincial ethos at underage coaching level. I know in leinster they definitely want to develop a running game and the 'coaching the coaches' courses focuses on this. The IRFU have only had a Long Term Player Development strategy since 06 so it will be a few years before we see the result of this.

oh and "pashun" is a loads of bollix. You cant have a player run around like a headless chicken because hes pumped up on 'passion'. The aggression thats brought to a game must be controlled and tempered in its intensity.

During the 'dark ages of the 80's', there were a few good years interspersed with whitewashes. I recall that these were in part,largely to do with awful selections. However, in 'season '81 / '82, Ireland beat Australia, England, Scotland and Wales, losing only to France. Other good years were '82 / '83 and '84 / '85. Ireland won a championship, triple crown and were robbed of a G.S. by an incredible refereeing blunder in the Ireland France 15 - 15 draw at Lansdowne. Ulster routinely beat touring international sides including the Grand Slam Aussies,( to whom Ireland were very unlucky to lose.)Ireland produced the Lions Captain and a large number of touring players. This, despite being run by a bunch of self serving blazers who interfered at every juncture. The wheel really fell off in season '87 / '88. from then into the '90s we were shockingly bad.

There is a lot of nonsense talked about GAA skills as transferring to rugby. Who can't catch a football ffs. You'd need to be wildly unco-ordinated and suffer from visual impairment. Yes, some are better at it than others as is the nature of any endeavour. Catching a cricket ball coming at you at 120 mph. or in hurling - now that is a challenge.

astonaidan

astonaidan wrote: »

Ah the GAA lads at underage level would be fitter, they are training all year round when you take the fact they have GAA in summer, rugby in winter.
Id back a GAA player against a rugby lad in the air for sure, take Folau for example, hes got AFL which is basically a bastard version of GAA

used to use that to piss off some of my aussie buddies

i think your right actually i was thinking more from about 16-17 onwards when lads started working out properly but before that in particular it would make a huge difference. just to long ago for me to remember im afraid