Could the IRFU copy the All Black model for success?

heybaby

Could it be possible for the IRFU to emulate the All Black blueprint for success ? I know it could take a few years to come to fruition because you'd be starting from the schoolboy level and would need to incorporate emphasis on the importance of mindset as well as skills but would it be possible ? There are actually more registered rugby union players in Ireland 141k compared to Kiwis 153k.

CatFromHue

I don't think so as the Kiwi's have 5 Super rugby teams and 10 or 12 ITM Cup teams below them and then they get to the clubs.

Ireland only has 4 professional teams and then the clubs.

awec

heybaby wrote: »

Could it be possible for the IRFU to emulate the All Black blueprint for success ? I know it could take a few years to come to fruition because you'd be starting from the schoolboy level and would need to incorporate emphasis on the importance of mindset as well as skills but would it be possible ? There are actually more registered rugby union players in Ireland 141k compared to Kiwis 153k.

Is 153K not more than 141K?

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

Is 153K not more than 141K?

Everything is upside down in the southern hemisphere

wittycynic

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Everything is upside down in the southern hemisphere

Haha, brilliant.

wittycynic

heybaby wrote: »

There are actually more registered rugby union players in Ireland 141k compared to Kiwis 153k.

I've heard this stat before and I always find it so counter intuitive. I mean rugby is, at best, the fourth most popular sport in this country, after football, hurling, and soccer so it's difficult to see how we could have more players than a similar sized country where rugby is King.

neilmulvey

heybaby wrote: »

Could it be possible for the IRFU to emulate the All Black blueprint for success ? I know it could take a few years to come to fruition because you'd be starting from the schoolboy level and would need to incorporate emphasis on the importance of mindset as well as skills but would it be possible ? There are actually more registered rugby union players in Ireland 141k compared to Kiwis 153k.

not unless we tow samoa, tonga and fiji from the south pacific to the north atlantic

Losty Dublin

A few points to bear in mind here.

• New Zealand has a far larger player base than Ireland, both at grassroots and a high end professional level.
• Rugby is their primary sport and has more effort and cash invested into it as a whole. They also have less sports competing for the player base.
• Kids there are playing the game from a younger age than here, in general. Most Irish players first met the sport at secondary school level so they are a few years behind their Kiwi collegues.
• New Zealand are known to pilfer players from other Pacific nations, which helps their cause no end.
• New Zealand are several years ahead of the Eurpeans in terms of coaching and development. So long as trends in the games and coaching techniques come from New Zealand and are learnt from there then it follows that they will perpetually be ahead of everywhere else.

When you bear in mind the factors I have listed above, you can see why we will be second fiddle for years to come.

To their credit, the IRFU have brought the game along light years in the last 20 years at all levels so there isn't a lot wrong with what they are doing here as a whole. We have excellent underage teams and the provincial teams here are extremely strong, mainly with Irish born and developed players. It was not too long when avoiding a wooden spoon was a moral victory; these days fans expect at least a triple crown. That's a big jump in anybody's books.

heybaby

Ha yes sorry those figures should be Ireland with 153k and kiwis 141k.

backgreen

http://www.thescore.ie/jason-holland-ireland-1184892-Nov2013/
this is one of the reason...

molloyjh

Losty Dublin wrote: »

• New Zealand are known to pilfer players from other Pacific nations, which helps their cause no end.

Myth.

What happens is that a lot of people from the Pacific Nations migrate to NZ. Most of the guys of Islander descent were either born in NZ or moved there when they were young and so consider themselves Kiwis. Few, if any, are "pilfered" at all.

heybaby

backgreen wrote: »

http://www.thescore.ie/jason-holland-ireland-1184892-Nov2013/
this is one of the reason...

An excellent article which puts underage rugby in perspective.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Holland usiing that article to excuse his own performance as Munster backs coach it seems. Chip on his shoulder

Larbre34

Yes, one of two ways.

We can keep going the way we're going and pretty soon everyone involved in pro-rugby in Ireland will be a kiwi anyway, so success is guaranteed.

Or, we wait for that fine race known as the Hiberno-Eastern Europeans to start coming through from school in numbers to be our 'Islanders'. Fine strapping lads they are!

molloyjh

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

Holland usiing that article to excuse his own performance as Munster backs coach it seems. Chip on his shoulder

Schmidt said the same things about Leinsters skill levels when he started, so I'd say he has a point to be fair.

Swiwi.

molloyjh wrote: »

Myth.

What happens is that a lot of people from the Pacific Nations migrate to NZ. Most of the guys of Islander descent were either born in NZ or moved there when they were young and so consider themselves Kiwis. Few, if any, are "pilfered" at all.

+1. This actually annoys me. There are more Pacific players pilfered by Eng & Fra (at least domestically) than NZ. It's just plain ignorance. Like accusing the States of pilfering Irish sports-people. Hello: famine, emigration, new life, American citizens, retain Irish ties. It's the same for the Pacific players, Piutau, Mealamu, Luatua etc are PROUD KIWIS, and equally proud of their Pacific heritage. I can't be bothered ranting further, this crops up every 6 months or so where some poster or other makes this comment.

LeinsterDub

heybaby wrote: »

There are actually more registered rugby union players in Ireland 141k compared to Kiwis 153k.

My club have over 200 registered players we've 1 mens team. So if the IRFU are using their own system as the source of that stat it's miles off

molloyjh

Swiwi. wrote: »

+1. This actually annoys me. There are more Pacific players pilfered by Eng & Fra (at least domestically) than NZ. It's just plain ignorance. Like accusing the States of pilfering Irish sports-people. Hello: famine, emigration, new life, American citizens, retain Irish ties. It's the same for the Pacific players, Piutau, Mealamu, Luatua etc are PROUD KIWIS, and equally proud of their Pacific heritage. I can't be bothered ranting further, this crops up every 6 months or so where some uneducated git makes this comment.

Unfortunately what happens is that the media here peddle this notion and are rarely pulled up over it. I think Pope did recently, maybe during the coverage of the Samoa game? But he was all but ignored when he explained it. If I'm honest I would have believed it up until I started posting here and found out what was going on.

Hagz

The schools register hundreds of kids that don't touch a rugby ball all year as well.

Losty Dublin

molloyjh wrote: »

Myth.

What happens is that a lot of people from the Pacific Nations migrate to NZ. Most of the guys of Islander descent were either born in NZ or moved there when they were young and so consider themselves Kiwis. Few, if any, are "pilfered" at all.

Yes, they have benefitted benefit from emigration but the pilfering does happen, just not on a heaps and heaps basis. There will always be a few AB's with cousins togging out for the other nations or tied into clubs and out of the spotlight. Don't forget, Tana Umaga famously faced his brother in an international

Swiwi.

molloyjh wrote: »

Unfortunately what happens is that the media here peddle this notion and are rarely pulled up over it. I think Pope did recently, maybe during the coverage of the Samoa game? But he was all but ignored when he explained it. If I'm honest I would have believed it up until I started posting here and found out what was going on.

Ah yeah, I actually feel sorry for the guys themselves. BORN and BRED in New Zealand, but viewed by many as not real Kiwis, instead stolen from the Pacific.

Swiwi.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Yes, they have benefitted benefit from emigration but the pilfering does happen, just not on a heaps and heaps basis. There will always be a few AB's with cousins togging out for the other nations or tied into clubs and out of the spotlight. Don't forget, Tana Umaga famously faced his brother in an international

Well just like some of the recent kids born here to Eastern European emigrants could declare for Poland/Latvia/Lithuania or Ireland in the future, same in NZ.

The only genuine pilfer, if you want, is Sitiveni Sivivatu, who came to NZ on some sort of scholarship aged 16 or 17 from memory. All others born in NZ, or else arrived aged in single digits.

molloyjh

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Yes, they have benefitted benefit from emigration but the pilfering does happen, just not on a heaps and heaps basis. There will always be a few AB's with cousins togging out for the other nations or tied into clubs and out of the spotlight. Don't forget, Tana Umaga famously faced his brother in an international

Were they not born in NZ though?

What tends to happen is the other way around. Like Umagas brother they are born and/or grew up in NZ but because of Islander blood they get picked up by one of the Pacific Nations.

MBolgia

Hagz wrote: »

The schools register hundreds of kids that don't touch a rugby ball all year as well.

There might have been a temptation for some schools to register loads of players as the number of tickets allocated to schools for internationals was dependent on the number of kids registered.

I'm sure that would never happen in practise though!

LeinsterDub

MBolgia wrote: »

There might have been a temptation for some schools to register loads of players as the number of tickets allocated to schools for internationals was dependent on the number of kids registered.

I'm sure that would never happen in practise though!

Tickets are allocated by teams fielded

Swiwi.

molloyjh wrote: »

Were they not born in NZ though?

What tends to happen is the other way around. Like Umagas brother they are born and/or grew up in NZ but because of Islander blood they get picked up by one of the Pacific Nations.

He he, Samoa pilfered Umaga, the dirty bastards :pac:

CatFromHue

There's more info on the playing numbers here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rugby_union_playing_countries

LeinsterDub

CatFromHue wrote: »

There's more info on the playing numbers here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rugby_union_playing_countries

It's mad there isn't a single club in American Samoa considering Samoa numbers and quality

CatFromHue

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It's mad there isn't a single club in American Samoa considering Samoa numbers and quality

It is a bit all right as it's maybe 100km away from Samoa.

The sports section on wikipdia are interesting. Dog Fighting is legal :mad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_in_American_Samoa

pickarooney

it's probably as accurate to say new Zealand pilfer Scottish players like McCaw

Klunk_NZ

If anything NZ is highly unlucky to have our born and bred depth pilfered by our pacific neighbors. Tonga, Fiji, Samoa ans even Australia.

Losty Dublin

Swiwi. wrote: »

Well just like some of the recent kids born here to Eastern European emigrants could declare for Poland/Latvia/Lithuania or Ireland in the future, same in NZ.

The only genuine pilfer, if you want, is Sitiveni Sivivatu, who came to NZ on some sort of scholarship aged 16 or 17 from memory. All others born in NZ, or else arrived aged in single digits.

Hey, I'm not complaining about it. I'm just saying that it's something which works in their favour

Mind you, all the paranoia from the Kiwis when it's mentioned

pickarooney

Klunk_NZ wrote: »

If anything NZ is highly unlucky to have our born and bred depth pilfered by our pacific neighbors. Tonga, Fiji, Samoa ans even Australia.

in fairness is invariably the ones you don't want.

Swiwi.

pickarooney wrote: »

in fairness is invariably the ones you don't want.

I would have taken Digby. Kahn too...

FrannoFan

wittycynic wrote: »

I've heard this stat before and I always find it so counter intuitive. I mean rugby is, at best, the fourth most popular sport in this country, after football, hurling, and soccer so it's difficult to see how we could have more players than a similar sized country where rugby is King.

yes,those numbers get miss interpreted. NZ have their top 150,00 athletes playing the game, we have the 141,000 players (or whatever the numbers are=those sound a little high) our top athletes are spread through GAA/Hurling/Soccer etc even if we match those numbers it doesn't necessarily mean we are matching them for athletes.

Seamo87

Impossible.


Rugby in NZ = GAA here. So you'd basically need to kill the GAA if you want to follow a NZ blueprint.

Swiwi.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Hey, I'm not complaining about it. I'm just saying that it's something which works in their favour

Mind you, all the paranoia from the Kiwis when it's mentioned

Ah you're ok Losty. It's just the latent racism of these assumptions that annoys me. White skin = Kiwi. Polynesian skin = must be pilfered.

[Jackass]

awec wrote: »

Is 153K not more than 141K?

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Everything is upside down in the southern hemisphere

Smart arses!!

OP, I don't think it's possible.

The main reason is, despite playing numbers, it's about sporting focus.

Rugby is the 4th biggest sport in Ireland after Soccer, Gaelic Football and Hurling.

In fact, geographically, Rugby is virtually unknown outside of cities (yes I know some good clubs at high levels exist outside of cities) but for the most part, that is the biggest problem.

Take for example playing numbers, every single child in New Zealand who plays sport at school will more than likely only play rugby, whereas in Ireland, rugby schools are few and far between in the grand scheme of things. There are more playing numbers at club level and older age, where facilities and resources are extremely limited and the knowledge base and quality of coaching at a pretty low level. If all Irish kids played rugby from the age of 6, 7 or 8 however, it would be a totally different story.

If we had the same rugby culture as New Zealand then absolutely we could replicate it, but I think the fact that we could hammer New Zealand in just about every sport bar rugby (including league) just goes to show there's only one sport they focus all of their energy and resources on.

beggars_bush

so rugby should copy what the GAA have already copied off NZ Rugby???

Small sided games for kids up to 12 years of age??
to promote players getting lots of touches and improving skills

OldRio

Our sporting culture is GAA.
NZ is rugby.

You cannot change the culture therefore it cannot be done.

As for those figures ?

bmwguy

CatFromHue wrote: »

There's more info on the playing numbers here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rugby_union_playing_countries

That page just shows you can put anything on Wikipedia, some serious anomalies there. For instance, both Scotland and Wales have more clubs than Ireland, but Ireland's playing numbers are nearly twice theirs combined. We must have some huge clubs if that's the case, I will take a rough stab at Ireland's playing numbers. 4 pro teams makes about 160 players. 52 AIL teams makes about 1300 players. Some AIL clubs have up to 5 teams but lets average it at 3, that's another 3900 players. This is based on 25 per team. 150 junior (non AIL) clubs fielding 1.5 teams on average (sure we will say 2 teams for ease of maths, but I think this is optimistic) gives 7500 players. Underage lets say clubs have youths at u21,19,17,15,13 and the average club fields 3 of these 5 teams (many AIL clubs don't field youths such as the universities except at u 21 Lansdowne and the ones that have direct feeder schools such as Blackrock, Terenure etc...) That gives us another 7500 youth players. Schools I will assume doubles this number. Minis (u7 to u12) may be the same as teenagers, so another 15000. Women's game has at most 5000 playing and I would say that is very optimistic. So in total I make that 12860 adult men, 5000 women 15000 teenagers and 15000 children making less than 50,000 in total. I was also optimistic with my figures and I am sure they aren't accurate but there is not a hope in hell anyone can tell me there are 3 times that number playing rugby in Ireland at the moment. That's before I mention that my own club have sent numerous complaints about clubs conceding matches, requesting uncontested scrums and the likes at every level except AIL and that includes j1 Leinster (now known as metro 2) where registered players weren't really available to tog out. Criticism of my figures is hugely welcome though

LeinsterDub

bmwguy wrote: »

Criticism of my figures is hugely welcome though

My only criticism would be of your critism of Wikipedia. All the stats are referenced directly from the irb.

bmwguy

LeinsterDub wrote: »

My only criticism would be of your critism of Wikipedia. All the stats are referenced directly from the irb.

Fair point, not Wikipedia's fault but the contributors in this case

LeinsterDub

bmwguy wrote: »

Fair point, not Wikipedia's fault but the contributors in this case

No the irb 's and the unions for publishing nonsensical stats

Kayless

NZ have all of there eggs in one basket so to speak, they are a good model of what a small nation can do on the world stage if they concentrate on one sport. I hate to go back to this point about rugby being our 4th sport but with the GAA we are at somewhat of a disadvantage.

I think we should try and use the GAA to our advantage because it's not going to go away (nor should it) it's part of our culture. I think if you look at players like Bowe, Gilroy, Zebo who have all played Gaelic, you can see the skills that it provides and I think if we got more of our players from that sort of background, or at least to embrace the game and the skills it provides we would be stronger for it.

yohan the great

[Jackass] wrote: »

Smart arses!!

OP, I don't think it's possible.

The main reason is, despite playing numbers, it's about sporting focus.

Rugby is the 4th biggest sport in Ireland after Soccer, Gaelic Football and Hurling.

In fact, geographically, Rugby is virtually unknown outside of cities (yes I know some good clubs at high levels exist outside of cities) but for the most part, that is the biggest problem.

Take for example playing numbers, every single child in New Zealand who plays sport at school will more than likely only play rugby, whereas in Ireland, rugby schools are few and far between in the grand scheme of things. There are more playing numbers at club level and older age, where facilities and resources are extremely limited and the knowledge base and quality of coaching at a pretty low level. If all Irish kids played rugby from the age of 6, 7 or 8 however, it would be a totally different story.

If we had the same rugby culture as New Zealand then absolutely we could replicate it, but I think the fact that we could hammer New Zealand in just about every sport bar rugby (including league) just goes to show there's only one sport they focus all of their energy and resources on.

We wouldn't hammer New Zealand in every sport bar rugby. Actually I think they would beat us in most international sports, just going by the Olympics results and also cricket they would generally hammer us

Kayless

yohan the great wrote: »

We wouldn't hammer New Zealand in every sport bar rugby. Actually I think they would beat us in most international sports, just going by the Olympics results and also cricket they would generally hammer us

Bit off topic but what the hell...

What about Golf and Football?

jamiedav2011

[Jackass] wrote: »

Smart arses!!

OP, I don't think it's possible.

The main reason is, despite playing numbers, it's about sporting focus.

Rugby is the 4th biggest sport in Ireland after Soccer, Gaelic Football and Hurling.

In fact, geographically, Rugby is virtually unknown outside of cities (yes I know some good clubs at high levels exist outside of cities) but for the most part, that is the biggest problem.

Take for example playing numbers, every single child in New Zealand who plays sport at school will more than likely only play rugby, whereas in Ireland, rugby schools are few and far between in the grand scheme of things. There are more playing numbers at club level and older age, where facilities and resources are extremely limited and the knowledge base and quality of coaching at a pretty low level. If all Irish kids played rugby from the age of 6, 7 or 8 however, it would be a totally different story.

If we had the same rugby culture as New Zealand then absolutely we could replicate it, but I think the fact that we could hammer New Zealand in just about every sport bar rugby (including league) just goes to show there's only one sport they focus all of their energy and resources on.

Choc full of hyperbolic goodness as usual Jackass!

Buer

yohan the great wrote: »

We wouldn't hammer New Zealand in every sport bar rugby. Actually I think they would beat us in most international sports, just going by the Olympics results and also cricket they would generally hammer us

Agreed.We would on our arses. They'd tank is in basketball, sailing, cricket and hockey which are some of the most popular sports in the world.

yohan the great

Kayless wrote: »

Bit off topic but what the hell...

What about Golf and Football?

That's two sports. New Zealand would beat us at nearly everything

P.Walnuts

We'd literally hammer them in boxing though :pac: