Southern Hemisphere Domination

Snickers Man

glasso wrote: »

out of 8 world cups, only 1 was one by a NH team (won by an out-half kicking penalties and drop goals at a level not seen since and an excellent pack). Hard to argue against that stat.

The point about that English team was that they COULD put it to the backs if they had to and they COULD shred you that way if it was necessary. Backs like Jason Robinson, Will Greenwood, Ben Cohen, Josh Lewsey and Iain Balshaw were well capable of running in tries and did so. Remember what they did to us in Lansdowne Road earlier that year? If you don't, look up the scoreline. It's not pretty.

They scored a pretty spectacular try in the first half of that final against Australia too. People tend to think that it was only the last minute dropped goal that won it. It wasn't. See for yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNdSX3j6TcE

For what it's worth, I think we have got to be honest as well as optimistic. Yes we have been beaten by a better team and we would have struggled against both Australia and South Africa and there is little reason, other than the law of averages, to suggest we would have come within an ass's roar of New Zealand.

We can't blame the weather. South Africa is the country with the most different climate to ours. Dry hard grounds, many at altitude absolutely made for exhilarating running and handling. Yet they prefer to concentrate on forward power and kicking fly halves. They always have.

New Zealand is the country that, climatically at least, most closely resembles ours. They have pretty miserable wet winters too. Especially in the South Island where rugby is, if anything, more of a religion than in the North Island. The Crusaders and Highlanders play in Christchurch and Dunedin. And the Hurricanes play in Wellington which is on the southern tip of the North Island.

Their winters are pretty damn dreary. Ever heard Billy Connolly's shtick on how the Scots left Ireland to settle in Scotland because the weather was even more miserable there? "Follow that black cloud. We'll find an even colder place" Which is why they eschewed the semi tropical paradise of Rotorua and the North Island for the drizzle of Christchurch and Dunedin (which is after all an alternative name for Edinburgh). "Oh yes! This is the life!"

The Southern Hemisphere will always play first and foremost "winning rugby". They will play to their strengths and attempt to play to the opposition's weakness. They have made a strength out of playing a wide game WHEN THEY HAVE TO. We have got to do the same. We have to have that weapon in our arsenal. At the moment we don't.

WE have got to emphasise the basic skills more, especially at schoolboy level. Get kids learning to pass and tackle, run and dodge, not just give it to the fat lad to bulldoze his way through. Kids love that sort of stuff.

You may say that's trite, and it's what we're doing anyway. I would say yes it is and we are. But we've just got to do it more. The All Blacks have moved over the last few decades from a team which focussed on forward skills and nine or ten man rugby because that was the most error-free way of winning matches, to a team that puts it through the hands whenever it can.

Simply, their skills are so good that the risks of that sort of game are greatly reduced. Even when playing in Christchurch or Dunedin. We can get the same skills and bring them to the same level. Even in Limerick All it takes is the right mindset. And a lot of hard work.

I'm only 54. I WILL live long enough to see us beat those magnificent bastards.

CatFromHue

Yeah I'd say Lancaster would kill to have guys like Dawson and Greenwood available to him now, that's not mentioning Robinson or Catt either.

Tim Robbins

Pudsy33 wrote: »

D'Arcys articles are good, but they read a bit incoherently. He didn't voice any concerns about coaching in an of the previous articles. I don't disagree, but again it's a bit reactionary.

He wrote an article a few weeks back about the fact so many Irish players can't offload so he's consistent - me thinks.

Anyway, what he is saying the obvious. I have had this view for years myself. When Schmidt was at Leinster he played rugby because he had players who could off load at that level and he had players who are now retired.

Now we have several players in our international team, Zebo, Earls both Kearneys who in my view anyway struggle with executing Rugby skills at international even though their athletic skills are excellent so Joe changed to a rucking / mauling game.

I believe this problem goes even deeper than what D'arcy suggests. It goes right down to Mini level. When kids are young it is the best time to teach them how to side step, use change of pace and pass off both hands. Soccer and GAA are teaching young kids skills they will have at life at a very young age. For example,
in Soccer they are learning step overs from age 5, in GAA they are learning hand passing, solo'ing from age 5. Very few clubs are teaching really good skills to young kids.

Now, I know there are some great coaches out there but for the most part this is how Rugby works in Ireland. Go to a Rugby school, make the firsts and you will get great coaching from age 13 and up, but the emphasis will be on winning - not on developing all round skill. Good players are put in positions stay there. Given a role on a team that gives the team the best chance of winning not the best chance of developing all round skills.

Go to a Rugby club and you have probably a lower chance of getting a great coach because Rugby clubs can't pay big bucks for a youths coach, it relies on volunteers. There could be some amazing lad running the show or someone who just holds up the bar.

The way forward is get more volunteers getting their coaching badges and to open it up so say a 17 year old is encouraged to get some sort of coaching badge and can help out with the U10's and U12's. That's what happens with Soccer / GAA. We are always hearing the amount of people who watching the latest international match, why not set a goal to get a certain number of volunteers with certain coaching qualifications?

The only way we will improve this sport is to improve the standard of volunteers. The schools primary role is not to develop professional rugby players it is to educate kids. It would be better if clubs were more involved at grass roots than the schools. That would make it easier to develop the sport.

The IRFU do an amazing job with referee's (who are all volunteers). You get loads of training, you are always getting assessed and get great tips from x - refs. Result - way higher standard of reffing than Soccer + GAA (in my opinion). We are falling behind in the coaching.

pickarooney

D'Arcy was saying a couple of weeks ago that power and bulk in the centre would decide the world cup. Then he was advising against offloads and talking about dust bowl rugby pitches in New Zealand. He's a fine writer but he's anything but consistent.

The Lost Sheep

Tim Robbins wrote: »

He wrote an article a few weeks back about the fact so many Irish players can't offload so he's consistent - me thinks.

Anyway, what he is saying the obvious. I have had this view for years myself. When Schmidt was at Leinster he played rugby because he had players who could off load at that level and he had players who are now retired.

Now we have several players in our international team, Zebo, Earls both Kearneys who in my view anyway struggle with executing Rugby skills at international even though their athletic skills are excellent so Joe changed to a rucking / mauling game.

I believe this problem goes even deeper than what D'arcy suggests. It goes right down to Mini level. When kids are young it is the best time to teach them how to side step, use change of pace and pass off both hands. Soccer and GAA are teaching young kids skills they will have at life at a very young age. For example,
in Soccer they are learning step overs from age 5, in GAA they are learning hand passing, solo'ing from age 5. Very few clubs are teaching really good skills to young kids.

Now, I know there are some great coaches out there but for the most part this is how Rugby works in Ireland. Go to a Rugby school, make the firsts and you will get great coaching from age 13 and up, but the emphasis will be on winning - not on developing all round skill. Good players are put in positions stay there. Given a role on a team that gives the team the best chance of winning not the best chance of developing all round skills.

Go to a Rugby club and you have probably a lower chance of getting a great coach because Rugby clubs can't pay big bucks for a youths coach, it relies on volunteers. There could be some amazing lad running the show or someone who just holds up the bar.

The way forward is get more volunteers getting their coaching badges and to open it up so say a 17 year old is encouraged to get some sort of coaching badge and can help out with the U10's and U12's. That's what happens with Soccer / GAA. We are always hearing the amount of people who watching the latest international match, why not set a goal to get a certain number of volunteers with certain coaching qualifications?

The only way we will improve this sport is to improve the standard of volunteers. The schools primary role is not to develop professional rugby players it is to educate kids. It would be better if clubs were more involved at grass roots than the schools. That would make it easier to develop the sport.

The IRFU do an amazing job with referee's (who are all volunteers). You get loads of training, you are always getting assessed and get great tips from x - refs. Result - way higher standard of reffing than Soccer + GAA (in my opinion). We are falling behind in the coaching.

Tim we don't fall that far behind in coaching but the issue is assessing coaches is harder compared to assessing referees
I think its unfair to name specific players as to lacking in "rugby skills"... Zebo, Earls, Kearneys x 2 can offload. They have proven countless times they can but its the riskiness that Schmidt was worried about considering game plan and his lack of access to all players throughout the season.
To generalize the actions of clubs and say "very few" are teaching "really good skills to young kids" is very ignorant of the work being put in by a lot of clubs across the country. I speak coming from a background of playing in a club where the coaching standards are very high and from a playing base where we as a club have won nowhere near as much as local rivals at age grade but produced overall better players and players playing consistently at a higher level.
How do you propose for clubs to get all these new volunteers? Does that happen all that often in other sports in comparison to the lack of it happening in rugby? Anything to back that up or is it just your opinion?

davegrohl48

Interesting article in the Guardian about rugby in New Zealand.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/sep/11/all-blacks-how-new-zealand-sustains-its-rugby-dynasty
Kids at U15 can play an U55 kg rugby. At senior level you can play an U80 kg brand of rugby. Wonder what happens if you go on the beer solid at the New Zealand version of the Puck Fair and came back 82 kg?

pickarooney

Is an offload more of a risky play than a box kick? I wonder what the percentages are of each either giving a try-scoring opportunity or conceding one.

The Lost Sheep

davegrohl48 wrote: »

Interesting article in the Guardian about rugby in New Zealand.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/sep/11/all-blacks-how-new-zealand-sustains-its-rugby-dynasty
Kids at U15 can play an U55 kg rugby. At senior level you can play an U80 kg brand of rugby. Wonder what happens if you go on the beer solid at the New Zealand version of the Puck Fair and came back 82 kg?

If over the weight and want to play you play at the open weight category....

davegrohl48

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

If over the weight and want to play you play at the open weight category....

Can I just bench for the day in that case

Snickers Man

pickarooney wrote: »

Is an offload more of a risky play than a box kick? I wonder what the percentages are of each either giving a try-scoring opportunity or conceding one.

Depends on how skilfull you are at offloading. Or box kicking.

To paraphrase Gary Player, "the more you practise, the less risky you get"

CatFromHue

I would say an off load is more risky.

When you box kick you should put the ball in front of all 15 of your team but when a player off loads the likelihood is that he's going to be doing it behind a good portion of his team

pickarooney

Well, besides the kick chasers. In terms of ball retention it's surely 50/50 for the box kick and you really shouldn't be trying the offload unless it's clearly on. You're opening yourself right up though.

irishbucsfan

pickarooney wrote: »

Well, besides the kick chasers. In terms of ball retention it's surely 50/50 for the box kick and you really shouldn't be trying the offload unless it's clearly on. You're opening yourself right up though.

It's not really a direct comparison.

There's different reasons you would kick the ball away. It might be due to your field position or it might be down to how many phases you've gone through before. You may not even be aiming to win the ball back directly from the kick. An offload is just a mechanism for keeping play alive within a phase whereas a box kick the decision on what you're doing with that entire phase really.

Tim Robbins

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

How do you propose for clubs to get all these new volunteers?

They need to drive it (like the way you follow 90% of posts around and disagree :-)). Put the resources in. Go after x - players. Get more assessors. Expand the video resources on the IRFU site to include some off loading drills (as most Irish coaches don't even know how to coach it).

Does that happen all that often in other sports in comparison to the lack of it happening in rugby?

GAA, Soccer way ahead at grass roots. Rugby way ahead in private schools.

Anything to back that up or is it just your opinion?

Well it's an informed opinion believe it or not.

thebaz

Why are so few top quality centres . coming out of Ireland today ?
To move the ball , offload , you need quality midfield , Payne and Henshaw are head and shoulders the best , and both are converted full backs , D'Arcy himself started life out as full back. BOD really stands alone , in recent years .
A few years ago props were the problem , today it is that basic rugby quality of quality offloaded/passer , you'd think with so many starting out playing GAA football ,it should be a good Irish footballing skill.

irishbucsfan

Stuart McCloskey looks excellent. Robbie Henshaw looks excellent. Ringrose looks an excellent prospect. Olding looks an excellent prospect. Plenty below them.

We lost the likes of O'Malley and McKinley and they were pretty big hopes. Marshall also was "lost". Hopefully the next crowd are luckier.

The Lost Sheep

Tim Robbins wrote: »

They need to drive it (like the way you follow 90% of posts around and disagree :-)). Put the resources in. Go after x - players. Get more assessors. Expand the video resources on the IRFU site to include some off loading drills (as most Irish coaches don't even know how to coach it).

"Put the resources in". "need to drive it" :rolleyes:
Nice use of cliché etc there. What exactly do you want clubs to do that is putting resources in that they don't do already?
Where will we get all these assessors?

GAA, Soccer way ahead at grass roots. Rugby way ahead in private schools.

Soccer will always be way ahead of all sports due to ease it is to play. Gaelic will always be ahead.

Well it's an informed opinion believe it or not.

Based on?

Tim Robbins

Ok was thinking about this a bit more some ideas to improve rugby skills in Ireland.

1. Contact begins at U8. Move it to U10. (This is what it is in UK). Reason, this would put more time on teaching basics like passing off both hands and basic evasion (side stepping, change of pace etc). It would also means that coaches get a very good grounding on the range of non-contact skills etc.

2. No punt kick of the ball (unless you are in 5M zone) until U14. Changes to 22M when U15.

3. No conversions, shots at goal until U15. (Maybe U16).

4. Development league matches in 4 sections. This gives coaches more time to tell players what they are doing wrong etc.

5. Encourage players post school and in early 20's to get involved in coaching of younger kids (U14, U12s etc)

6. Increase number of paid development officers.

7. In developmental leagues, mini etc, same player isn't allowed score twice.

8. No pick and drive (jamming etc, where one person passes the ball and next person runs takes a hit) until U14. Teams must not deliberately only have one pass in between phases.

9. Reward coaches. Coaches that are prepared to get assessed and get the required marks get a preference on international ticket options.

10. X - coaches can be assessors (or just coaches of coaches). This is kinda of what happens in reffing - usually the lad assessing you has reffed at a decent level but has aged out of it or just can't commit to it. So you could have a bunch of x - coaches who were good but since their kids are out of the sport no longer want to coach on a weekly basis but still want to stay involved so say they help the development officer on a volunteer basis.

The Lost Sheep

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Ok was thinking about this a bit more some ideas to improve rugby skills in Ireland.

1. Contact begins at U8. Move it to U10. (This is what it is in UK). Reason, this would put more time on teaching basics like passing off both hands and basic evasion (side stepping, change of pace etc). It would also means that coaches get a very good grounding on the range of non-contact skills etc.

2. No punt kick of the ball (unless you are in 5M zone) until U14. Changes to 22M when U15.

3. No conversions, shots at goal until U15. (Maybe U16).

Why do you think beginning contact at u10 would change things? Will you really see coaching philosophy change dramatically with this change? No from my experience of coaching.
I think kicking should be allowed in 22 from 15s down. Better coaching to teach kids around when they should/shouldn't kick is needed
Why stop conversions and shots at goal until u16? What benefit does that bring to the game? Place kicking is a skill. What good is there in stopping practical use of these skills?
Maybe like in some under 13 leagues that I referee. All conversions are taken at least from within the 15m lines to give kickers a chance of getting the ball over the bar.

4. Development league matches in 4 sections. This gives coaches more time to tell players what they are doing wrong etc.

5. Encourage players post school and in early 20's to get involved in coaching of younger kids (U14, U12s etc)

6. Increase number of paid development officers.

7. In developmental leagues, mini etc, same player isn't allowed score twice.

When you say development league matches in 4 sections. At what levels are you referring to? Coaches at a lot of levels will be coaching the kids throughout
How do you encourage people post school and in early 20s to get involved in coaching younger players? What do you do to get them coaching?
The IRFU have in some provinces cut number of development officers due to financial cutbacks. Increasing them may be an issue of cost at the moment.
Denying players from scoring more than once isn't needed but if they are running in more than 3/4 tries and their side is comfortably winning. Switch them to the opposition and see how their team mates do playing against this dominant player

8. No pick and drive (jamming etc, where one person passes the ball and next person runs takes a hit) until U14. Teams must not deliberately only have one pass in between phases.

9. Reward coaches. Coaches that are prepared to get assessed and get the required marks get a preference on international ticket options.

Picking and driving is fine but its over using it that is the issue. Completely banning it until 14s isn't needed. Rewarding underage coaches is an internal club issue. Many clubs do it already

10. X - coaches can be assessors (or just coaches of coaches). This is kinda of what happens in reffing - usually the lad assessing you has reffed at a decent level but has aged out of it or just can't commit to it. So you could have a bunch of x - coaches who were good but since their kids are out of the sport no longer want to coach on a weekly basis but still want to stay involved so say they help the development officer on a volunteer basis.

There is development officers/club director of rugby/club youth officers in many clubs who are just some of the people who are "assessing" coaches - already done

Tim Robbins

Problem at dev level is there is way too much running at the face instead of the space and way too much individual attacks (give it to the big strong fast lad) rather than attacking in units of 2, 3, 4.

Jawgap

some thoughts / comments......

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Ok was thinking about this a bit more some ideas to improve rugby skills in Ireland.

1. Contact begins at U8. Move it to U10. (This is what it is in UK). Reason, this would put more time on teaching basics like passing off both hands and basic evasion (side stepping, change of pace etc). It would also means that coaches get a very good grounding on the range of non-contact skills etc.

Personally, I think for reasons of safety and confidence kids should be taught to tackle properly and safely from as early an age as possible. Also, in my experience, kids enjoy the contact.

I think at younger ages, smaller sided games and a restricted scoring zone (5m in from the touch line on either side) might help kids think more in terms of spacing, passing and putting the ball through the hands. Possibly even a GAA-type rule - 4/5 steps then pass or go to ground and present the ball.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

2. No punt kick of the ball (unless you are in 5M zone) until U14. Changes to 22M when U15.

.....or allow kicks from anywhere within the '22' with the penalty of a scrum if the receiving team catch it on the full, and any kick going into touch, regardless of whether it bounces or not, results in a lineout opposite from where the kicker was - in other words, let the kids kick (it's part of the game) but make them think tactically before they do.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

3. No conversions, shots at goal until U15. (Maybe U16).

......again kicking is still an important skill, so maybe no place kicking - all conversions to be taken as a drop-kick?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

4. Development league matches in 4 sections. This gives coaches more time to tell players what they are doing wrong etc.

good idea. In the past some of the games I've been involved with have been played over 3 'halves' - with the first two being the actual competitive match. It just means the last/third 'half' is a run-out for the fringe players. 4 quarters would be a better solution.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

5. Encourage players post school and in early 20's to get involved in coaching of younger kids (U14, U12s etc)

6. Increase number of paid development officers.

I think there is some scope for looking at coaching / mentoring. It would be great in clubs if they could get the players on the first team to 'adopt' a kids team, although I appreciate time constraints mightn't always allow for that.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

7. In developmental leagues, mini etc, same player isn't allowed score twice.

there's probably also an argument to be made for getting teams to 'de-power' earlier if they are running away with a game to keep it competitive.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

8. No pick and drive (jamming etc, where one person passes the ball and next person runs takes a hit) until U14. Teams must not deliberately only have one pass in between phases.

Good idea. Numbers in the maul and ruck could also be limited.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

9. Reward coaches. Coaches that are prepared to get assessed and get the required marks get a preference on international ticket options.

In principle, I'd agree with the idea of recognising, even rewarding coaches, but I'm not sure international tickets are the appropriate reward.

Personally, as a coach I'd aspire to gaining more quals and if I was assessed and found to be operating at the required level I'd love a half-day session observing and picking the brains of the elite coaches at provincial and national level.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

10. X - coaches can be assessors (or just coaches of coaches). This is kinda of what happens in reffing - usually the lad assessing you has reffed at a decent level but has aged out of it or just can't commit to it. So you could have a bunch of x - coaches who were good but since their kids are out of the sport no longer want to coach on a weekly basis but still want to stay involved so say they help the development officer on a volunteer basis.

Coaches assessing coaches? Only if it was within the club in the context of a mentoring programme or as part of a formal assessment to progress your coaching quals.

LorMal

thebaz wrote: »

Why are so few top quality centres . coming out of Ireland today ?
To move the ball , offload , you need quality midfield , Payne and Henshaw are head and shoulders the best , and both are converted full backs , D'Arcy himself started life out as full back. BOD really stands alone , in recent years .
A few years ago props were the problem , today it is that basic rugby quality of quality offloaded/passer , you'd think with so many starting out playing GAA football ,it should be a good Irish footballing skill.

Maybe one of the issues is our tendency to rely totally on key players (irrespective of form). We seem to be very conservative and risk adverse. For example Jamie Heaslip (or Rob Kearney) - picked every time if not injured.
Surely we should be blooding alternative No.8s? Or do we wait until he retires (like BOD) and then wonder what to do next..

RedemptionZ

Personally, I think for reasons of safety and confidence kids should be taught to tackle properly and safely from as early an age as possible. Also, in my experience, kids enjoy the contact.

Kids might enjoy it more but it certainly favours the bigger children and makes the core skills a lot less important. My brother played minis at Lansdowne and there was another boy who's father was a prop at Leinster at the time, won't name names because they're only young lads, but he was much bigger than my brother and most of the people on the team. He seemed like a he had a lot of potential, he was fast and explosive. But all he did was run over everyone. And you can't blame him because it worked and he's an 8 year old kid that wants to score tries. But it meant that he didn't have to actually develop any skills at some of his most formative years. I think the less important physicality is at younger years the better.

.....or allow kicks from anywhere within the '22' with the penalty of a scrum if the receiving team catch it on the full, and any kick going into touch, regardless of whether it bounces or not, results in a lineout opposite from where the kicker was - in other words, let the kids kick (it's part of the game) but make them think tactically before they do.

That sounds like a good idea, I agree kicking shouldn't just be abandoned as its a necessary skill as you say.

The Lost Sheep

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Problem at dev level is there is way too much running at the face instead of the space and way too much individual attacks (give it to the big strong fast lad) rather than attacking in units of 2, 3, 4.

Is there? Having seen too many games at that level over past decade or so there really isn't too much running at the face over the space. Have you seen much rugby at this level to make this judgement?

Jawgap wrote: »

some thoughts / comments......

Personally, I think for reasons of safety and confidence kids should be taught to tackle properly and safely from as early an age as possible. Also, in my experience, kids enjoy the contact.

Agreed that tackling has to taught asap. In general kids enjoy the contact but it depends on how theyre taught to enter the contact zone with and without the ball.

I think at younger ages, smaller sided games and a restricted scoring zone (5m in from the touch line on either side) might help kids think more in terms of spacing, passing and putting the ball through the hands. Possibly even a GAA-type rule - 4/5 steps then pass or go to ground and present the ball.

Smaller sided games are needed. We need more 7/10/12 a side competitions. Don't agree with a limited steps rule but make a rule about minimum passes required for scores to count.

.....or allow kicks from anywhere within the '22' with the penalty of a scrum if the receiving team catch it on the full, and any kick going into touch, regardless of whether it bounces or not, results in a lineout opposite from where the kicker was - in other words, let the kids kick (it's part of the game) but make them think tactically before they do.

Maybe but
I wouldn't like any kick that goes into touch resulting in lineout from where they kicked it. That would be too harsh IMO

......again kicking is still an important skill, so maybe no place kicking - all conversions to be taken as a drop-kick?

Would have no issue with that. I refereed a few under 13 games this weekend. Several tries scored out in the very corner of the pitch. I moved the conversion infield to give players a chance of scoring. things like that should happen in all games at that level

good idea. In the past some of the games I've been involved with have been played over 3 'halves' - with the first two being the actual competitive match. It just means the last/third 'half' is a run-out for the fringe players. 4 quarters would be a better solution.

Maybe but where possible in terms of pitch availability and numbers there should be smaller game for the extra players(if teams have well over 20 players)

I think there is some scope for looking at coaching/mentoring. It would be great in clubs if they could get the players on the first team to 'adopt' a kids team, although I appreciate time constraints mightn't always allow for that.

That is done in a lot of clubs, I tried implement it in one of the clubs im coaching in but wasn't able to get it done this season. Its being done next season properly from the start

In principle, I'd agree with the idea of recognising, even rewarding coaches, but I'm not sure international tickets are the appropriate reward. Personally, as a coach I'd aspire to gaining more quals and if I was assessed
and found to be operating at the required level I'd love a half-day session
observing and picking the brains of the elite coaches at provincial and
national level.

Issue is for a lot of coaches they may have the basic qualifications needed to coach at the level theyre at but do they need to do more? You have guys coaching at some underage levels doing level 1 courses when whats taught is too advanced for the kids theyre coaching

Tim Robbins

RedemptionZ wrote: »

Kids might enjoy it more but it certainly favours the bigger children and makes the core skills a lot less important. My brother played minis at Lansdowne and there was another boy who's father was a prop at Leinster at the time, won't name names because they're only young lads, but he was much bigger than my brother and most of the people on the team. He seemed like a he had a lot of potential, he was fast and explosive. But all he did was run over everyone. And you can't blame him because it worked and he's an 8 year old kid that wants to score tries. But it meant that he didn't have to actually develop any skills at some of his most formative years. I think the less important physicality is at younger years the better.

Huge problem at mini's. Give it to the big strong guy and nobody develops any skill.

The parents think they have the next Sean O'Brien but don't realise that O'Brien can step and pass quite well and make space for other people.

Jawgap

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Huge problem at mini's. Give it to the big strong guy and nobody develops any skill.

The parents think they have the next Sean O'Brien but don't realise that O'Brien can step and pass quite well and make space for other people.

I think Healy might even be a better example, quite the twinkle-toed stepper in a tight spot!

kidneyfan

I'd suggest weight based teams until under 17.
Allow tackling violence is the core USP

Spread tip rugby (flag rugby is a good innovation)
Some variant of Rugby that kids can police themselves. It exists. It is called league.