Irish rugby's inability to produce scrumhalves

brokenhooker

I think it's fairly notable that in the past decade: 2006 to 2016, irish rugby have failed utterly to develop top quality scrumhalves, apart from Conor Murray, so much so that there is talk of a 3rd string scrumhalf for a NZ super rugby franchise being a strong contender for an Ireland cap once he fulfills the silly project player rule.

What is it about irish rugby that has cause it to be so ineffective at developing scrumhalves?

CMOTDibbler

brokenhooker wrote: »

I think it's fairly notable that in the past decade: 2006 to 2016, irish rugby have failed utterly to develop top quality scrumhalves, apart from Conor Murray, so much so that there is talk of a 3rd string scrumhalf for a NZ super rugby franchise being a strong contender for an Ireland cap once he fulfills the silly project player rule.

What is it about irish rugby that has cause it to be so ineffective at developing scrumhalves?

It's no different from any other position we've had trouble with in the past:
Tight head, Out half, Lock, Hooker, Centre, etc.

My belief is that we don't actively develop beyond the immediate shortage. So back when we were fine for scrum halves: Reddan, Boss, TOL, Stringer, we didn't really look to bring on some new guys. In Leinster, James Hart was not considered for an academy slot because they already had John Cooney.

The rule of "An heir and a spare" doesn't seem to have permeated to rugby academies yet. :rolleyes:

brokenhooker

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

It's no different from any other position we've had trouble with in the past:
Tight head, Out half, Lock, Hooker, Centre, etc.

My belief is that we don't actively develop beyond the immediate shortage. So back when we were fine for scrum halves: Reddan, Boss, TOL, Stringer, we didn't really look to bring on some new guys. In Leinster, James Hart was not considered for an academy slot because they already had John Cooney.

The rule of "An heir and a spare" doesn't seem to have permeated to rugby academies yet. :rolleyes:

don't think it's as simple as that. Any scrumhalf than does make it thru academy system usually ends up being fairly average: Marshall, Williams, Cooney, Sheridan, Porter etc.

Also James Hart isn't some sort of great scrumhalf, he rarely plays for Grenoble, where he is 3rd choice.

CMOTDibbler

brokenhooker wrote: »

don't think it's as simple as that. Any scrumhalf than does make it thru academy system usually ends up being fairly average: Marshall, Williams, Cooney, Sheridan, Porter etc.

Also James Hart isn't some sort of great scrumhalf, he rarely plays for Grenoble, where he is 3rd choice.

That doesn't necessarily mean we can't produce them. It could just as easily mean that we aren't coaching them properly at age grade and as a result it's harder to identify the good ones. I actually rate Cooney as a decent scrum half and there are others coming through like Caolin Blade who have the capacity to be very good.

James Hart has played eight times for Grenoble this season. That's certainly less than the other two, but I'm not sure which are starts or subs. The rumour is that he's going to Racing 92 next season, so his career is hardly on the wane at the ripe old age of 24. His career to date looks a lot better than most of his contemporaries.

brokenhooker

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

That doesn't necessarily mean we can't produce them. It could just as easily mean that we aren't coaching them properly at age grade and as a result it's harder to identify the good ones. I actually rate Cooney as a decent scrum half and there are others coming through like Caolin Blade who have the capacity to be very good.

which is my point, Irish rugby does a poor job at developing scrumhalves..

CMOTDibbler

brokenhooker wrote: »

which is my point, Irish rugby does a poor job at developing scrumhalves..

Ok. I seem to have read you as meaning we're genetically incapable...

I do think that the situation has improved but we still firefight in the academies and never seem to be properly prepared for injuries/retirements etc.

brokenhooker

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Ok. I seem to have read you as meaning we're genetically incapable...

I do think that the situation has improved but we still firefight in the academies and never seem to be properly prepared for injuries/retirements etc.

they aren't prepared because irish rugby doesn't produce many decent scrumhalves, let alone outstanding.

many people consider John Cooney to still be developing and he is nearly 26.

MarinersBlues

Nope, not just scrum half.

There is a problem with the academies in general.
Connacht's academy is routinely out performing the other provinces in terms of input vs output. This can be demonstrated in a number of positions.

They have developed Caolin Blade into a serious scrum half.

We need to have a look at sorting out the distribution of young players from Leinster.

Outhalf is another problem area. Munster have Blyendall (spelling??) and Connacht have had to get a Saffer. No province can take on AJ McGinty who was rejected by Leinster (and therefore Ireland) but every province, Leinster included, would love to have him next year.

It's a systemic failure all around. Project players are plastering over the problem at the moment but when there are more "projects" playing for Ireland than natives (possibly this will be soon enough) then the IRFU will have a serious problem.
it will be because of their failure to address the bottle necks, not a lack of talent in the country.

I suppose increased development of Connacht and more support for Munster will go to addressing this. I think splitting Leinster into Dublin and rest of Leinster could be an idea in time as well.

JPNelsforearm

I was watching the colours game last night, whoever the Trinity nine is, he is a quality player, ran the show, real live wire, outshone the UCD lad who is in the Leinster set up

brokenhooker

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I was watching the colours game last night, whoever the Trinity nine is, he is a quality player, ran the show, real live wire, outshone the UCD lad who is in the Leinster set up

Angus Llyod, Irish club scrumhalf.

errlloyd

I started a thread on this a while ago.

I genuinely believe it is because of how underage rugby and schools rugby is set up in the backs.

Your best player is your outhalf, second best is 13, then the fullback, then the other centre. Whatever you have left overs gets divded up as such.

"You can tackle but not run or pass, right wing"

"You can run but not tackle or pass, left wing"

"You can pass but not tackle or run, scrum half"

Because the outhalf is normally the best player on the team, and normally the dominant personality on a team, it is usually purely the job of the scrum half to deliver the ball.

That for me is why Irish rugby, and Leinster in particular aren't producing scrum halves.

brokenhooker

errlloyd wrote: »

I started a thread on this a while ago.

I genuinely believe it is because of how underage rugby and schools rugby is set up in the backs.

Your best player is your outhalf, second best is 13, then the fullback, then the other centre. Whatever you have left overs gets divded up as such.

"You can tackle but not run or pass, right wing"

"You can run but not tackle or pass, left wing"

"You can pass but not tackle or run, scrum half"

Because the outhalf is normally the best player on the team, and normally the dominant personality on a team, it is usually purely the job of the scrum half to deliver the ball.

That for me is why Irish rugby, and Leinster in particular aren't producing scrum halves.

Leinster are producing more underage scrumhalves than any other province..

I believe Conor Murray played wing in school and moved to scrumhalf very late.

I think there is an over emphasis on having a perfect pass and also a reluctance to give young scrumhalves gametime.

irishbucsfan

Developing scrum halves is not a uniquely Irish problem at all. It's a problem for every country and relies on a bit of luck that the right players will come along at the right time. It wasn't too long ago that New Zealand had problems in the same position.

JPNelsforearm

brokenhooker wrote: »

Angus Llyod, Irish club scrumhalf.

He looking to go pro, or going the career route. He definitely could play at pro 12 standard no problem.

brokenhooker

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

He looking to go pro, or going the career route. He definitely could play at pro 12 standard no problem.

no idea, leinster should definetly be looking at him.

.ak

errlloyd wrote: »

I started a thread on this a while ago.

I genuinely believe it is because of how underage rugby and schools rugby is set up in the backs.

Your best player is your outhalf, second best is 13, then the fullback, then the other centre. Whatever you have left overs gets divded up as such.

"You can tackle but not run or pass, right wing"

"You can run but not tackle or pass, left wing"

"You can pass but not tackle or run, scrum half"

Because the outhalf is normally the best player on the team, and normally the dominant personality on a team, it is usually purely the job of the scrum half to deliver the ball.

That for me is why Irish rugby, and Leinster in particular aren't producing scrum halves.

Slightly off topic but that's an odd analogy of a right/left wing.

Usually wingers pick the side they're most comfortable on, i.e; a right footed/handed kicker will be more comfortable on the right wing as they have to pass or kick back infield, visa versa.

Although there's exceptions. I like playing left wing because I can stay outside a player and use the touchline as an extra defender, using my strong shoulder to make a tackle to force the player back infield.

Also if you're on a team with mostly right handed players you'll get the ball more on the left wing.

errlloyd

.ak wrote: »

Slightly off topic but that's an odd analogy of a right/left wing.

Also if you're on a team with mostly right handed players you'll get the ball more on the left wing.

Maybe it was just one coach I had but those two things are related. I think this was his philosophy. On underage teams left wingers get more touches, and higher quality possession. Therefore it makes sense for the better runner to be on the left. Following on from that logic, right wingers need to be able to tackle better, because the left wingers they're facing are getting more ball in better positions.

irishbucsfan

errlloyd wrote: »

Maybe it was just one coach I had but those two things are related. I think this was his philosophy. On underage teams left wingers get more touches, and higher quality possession. Therefore it makes sense for the better runner to be on the left. Following on from that logic, right wingers need to be able to tackle better, because the left wingers they're facing are getting more ball in better positions.

No, it's a very common usage of wingers and has been for a long time. It's down to the common ability and natural inclination of teams to pass from right to left. And it's developed into right-sided players being better defensively as well as being better coming in-field to look for opportunities.

errlloyd

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No, it's a very common usage of wingers and has been for a long time. It's down to the common ability and natural inclination of teams to pass from right to left. And it's developed into right-sided players being better defensively as well as being better coming in-field to look for opportunities.

I also always assumed it was why Right wingers were traditionally bigger, they were more likely to end up with slow ball in traffic, rather than quick ball in space.

irishbucsfan

errlloyd wrote: »

I also always assumed it was why Right wingers were traditionally bigger, they were more likely to end up with slow ball in traffic, rather than quick ball in space.

They'll also generally be able to play midfield, you don't tend to have tons of depth available when coaching underage squads at clubs, except maybe larger Dublin sides.

sulberto

I would imagine that the lack of specialist players developing has a lot to do with the amount of game time available to them post academy, especially for a position like scrum-half, a position that rarely gets subbed off.
A possible solution would be a better developed A league in the provinces that provides more than a handful of games/season.

RedemptionZ

errlloyd wrote: »

I started a thread on this a while ago.

I genuinely believe it is because of how underage rugby and schools rugby is set up in the backs.

Your best player is your outhalf, second best is 13, then the fullback, then the other centre. Whatever you have left overs gets divded up as such.

"You can tackle but not run or pass, right wing"

"You can run but not tackle or pass, left wing"

"You can pass but not tackle or run, scrum half"

Because the outhalf is normally the best player on the team, and normally the dominant personality on a team, it is usually purely the job of the scrum half to deliver the ball.

That for me is why Irish rugby, and Leinster in particular aren't producing scrum halves.

To be fair that would be the case for every country at underage level until you start getting to U18 and players start being groomed for certain positions.

Also slightly off topic but I don't think the outhalf is usually the best player in schools, normally it's someone in the backrow and they tend be where the captains come from too.

I don't think there's a big culture problem regarding developing scrumhalves, we probably do tend to decide a players position by their size, which can lead to someone who might be fairly tall getting put in the centre instead of his best suited position at 9. I think though that it's a much bigger problem for centres and a lot of big lads are being put in the backrow when they might be better suited at 12 or 13. Would Jamie Roberts have come through as a centre in Ireland for example?

brokenhooker

RedemptionZ wrote: »

To be fair that would be the case for every country at underage level until you start getting to U18 and players start being groomed for certain positions.

Also slightly off topic but I don't think the outhalf is usually the best player in schools, normally it's someone in the backrow and they tend be where the captains come from too.

I don't think there's a big culture problem regarding developing scrumhalves, we probably do tend to decide a players position by their size, which can lead to someone who might be fairly tall getting put in the centre instead of his best suited position at 9. I think though that it's a much bigger problem for centres and a lot of big lads are being put in the backrow when they might be better suited at 12 or 13. Would Jamie Roberts have come through as a centre in Ireland for example?

Plenty of big centres running around irish rugby these days.

I think the biggest problem at underage level is that the scrumhalf rarely is a decision maker in irish rugby, his job appears to be to get the ball to the outhalf as quickly as possible.

Bazzo

RedemptionZ wrote: »

To be fair that would be the case for every country at underage level until you start getting to U18 and players start being groomed for certain positions.

Also slightly off topic but I don't think the outhalf is usually the best player in schools, normally it's someone in the backrow and they tend be where the captains come from too.

I don't think there's a big culture problem regarding developing scrumhalves, we probably do tend to decide a players position by their size, which can lead to someone who might be fairly tall getting put in the centre instead of his best suited position at 9. I think though that it's a much bigger problem for centres and a lot of big lads are being put in the backrow when they might be better suited at 12 or 13. Would Jamie Roberts have come through as a centre in Ireland for example?

Off the very very top of my head Henshaw and McCloskey are both plenty big enough to be back rows but came through as backs.

RedemptionZ

Bazzo wrote: »

Off the very very top of my head Henshaw and McCloskey are both plenty big enough to be back rows but came through as backs.

I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm saying there is still a tendency to judge a players position by their size. Peter Robb came through Blackrock as a centre and is huge, it happens and I don't deny that. I just think that because there can be huge size differences at U12-U15 players who mature a lot quicker can be popped in the forwards because the rest of the team simply aren't big enough to play there. The weight class rule in NZ would sort this out but granted I don't think it's really necessary considering our homogenous population. But anyway that's probably taking the thread off topic and I didn't mean to derail it like that.

pickarooney

errlloyd wrote: »

I started a thread on this a while ago.

I genuinely believe it is because of how underage rugby and schools rugby is set up in the backs.

Your best player is your outhalf, second best is 13, then the fullback, then the other centre. Whatever you have left overs gets divded up as such.

"You can tackle but not run or pass, right wing"

"You can run but not tackle or pass, left wing"

"You can pass but not tackle or run, scrum half"

Because the outhalf is normally the best player on the team, and normally the dominant personality on a team, it is usually purely the job of the scrum half to deliver the ball.

That for me is why Irish rugby, and Leinster in particular aren't producing scrum halves.

SH is the boss in French rugby and they're not exactly flush at 9.

jacothelad

Bazzo wrote: »

Off the very very top of my head Henshaw and McCloskey are both plenty big enough to be back rows but came through as backs.

Ironically, McCloskey was a 9 at school.

errlloyd

pickarooney wrote: »

SH is the boss in French rugby and they're not exactly flush at 9.

There are plenty of high quality number 9s in France. They haven't got a dominant world class operator, but that's not for lack of numbers coming through. I'd suggest any of the below would comfortably be the second best scrum half in Ireland. (At their peak I'd say Parra and Kockott were every bit as good as Murray).

Parra
Machenaud
Tillous Borde
Bezy
Depuy
Doussain
Kockott

I would also argue one of the problems the French national team have is that they don't stick with any halfback pairing for long. If one of these scrum halves had a good run of games they'd be very handy.

errlloyd

Also, this is a side note. I was having a gander at French SHs. Morgan Parra is 27, he's less than 6 months older than Ian Madigan. That is insane, he could make two more world cups.

The Lost Sheep

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I was watching the colours game last night, whoever the Trinity nine is, he is a quality player, ran the show, real live wire, outshone the UCD lad who is in the Leinster set up

Angus Lloyd. Fairly sure he has been looked at by pro sides already. Several Trinity players have been on trial or been asked by pro sides to play pro already...

errlloyd wrote: »

I started a thread on this a while ago.

I genuinely believe it is because of how underage rugby and schools rugby is set up in the backs.

Your best player is your outhalf, second best is 13, then the fullback, then the other centre. Whatever you have left overs gets divded up as such.

"You can tackle but not run or pass, right wing"

"You can run but not tackle or pass, left wing"

"You can pass but not tackle or run, scrum half"

Because the outhalf is normally the best player on the team, and normally the dominant personality on a team, it is usually purely the job of the scrum half to deliver the ball.

That for me is why Irish rugby, and Leinster in particular aren't producing scrum halves.

From my experience of coaching and refereeing I really have to disagree with that. Yes it could be true to some extent in some places but not all. Best player is far from simply your outhalf. And order then doesn't go 13/15. It varies a huge amount depending on resources of club/school and varies again depending on the year group/age group

pickarooney

errlloyd wrote: »

There are plenty of high quality number 9s in France. They haven't got a dominant world class operator, but that's not for lack of numbers coming through. I'd suggest any of the below would comfortably be the second best scrum half in Ireland. (At their peak I'd say Parra and Kockott were every bit as good as Murray).

Parra
Machenaud
Tillous Borde
Bezy
Depuy
Doussain
Kockott

I would also argue one of the problems the French national team have is that they don't stick with any halfback pairing for long. If one of these scrum halves had a good run of games they'd be very handy.

TB and Dupuy are very average IMO. Kockott's form has dipped but the fact he made the French team as a project player says a lot.

Doussain and Bezy look OK at club level but are not international standard (yet). Parra and Machenaud are both arguably better than Murray on form but for some reason the coaches never trust either for extended periods.

SA are fairly threadbare too and I'm not sure who's.coming through in Super Rugby. Aus have very little to offer either. It's really only Wales and NZ who could claim to be producing talent at the moment and it's not.long ago that Phillips was undisputed first choice for the Welsh despite the large flaws in his game.

CMOTDibbler

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

From my experience of coaching and refereeing I really have to disagree with that. Yes it could be true to some extent in some places but not all. Best player is far from simply your outhalf. And order then doesn't go 13/15. It varies a huge amount depending on resources of club/school and varies again depending on the year group/age group

So he's right then.

The Lost Sheep

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

So he's right then.

He's not. I haven't seen anything like that across clubs etc all over and I phrased previous post poorly.
To say best player 10 etc is just wrong.

Tim Robbins

The reason why we produce so few Scrum Halfs is because it is a position that demands a few skills that we are not very good at coaching.

In general, coaching is of a poor standard here. The academies are pretty good but only the top 1% of players make it that far. Meaning, there's probably a few potential decent 9's out there in the top 20% that could make it if they got decent coaching but there are more than likely not going to get it.

By the way I remember Guinness had an amazing 9 few years back. Very skilful and very competitive. I reckon this guy had the potential to play at a very high level, don't know what happened to him

In the academy, there is probably only one or two slots available for a nine and that's going to more likely going to go to a Rugby school guy who plays 9. When there could be another schools player who plays 10, 15 but could be a better 9 if he focussed on that position. If you are decent player in schools you tend not play 9.

leinstertalk

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The reason why we produce so few Scrum Halfs is because it is a position that demands a few skills that we are not very good at coaching.

In general, coaching is of a poor standard here. The academies are pretty good but only the top 1% of players make it that far. Meaning, there's probably a few potential decent 9's out there in the top 20% that could make it if they got decent coaching but there are more than likely not going to get it.

By the way I remember Guinness had an amazing 9 few years back. Very skilful and very competitive. I reckon this guy had the potential to play at a very high level, don't know what happened to him

In the academy, there is probably only one or two slots available for a nine and that's going to more likely going to go to a Rugby school guy who plays 9. When there could be another schools player who plays 10, 15 but could be a better 9 if he focussed on that position. If you are decent player in schools you tend not play 9.

Two of the best underage 9's in the country this year played fullback(Hugh O'Sullivan/Belvedere) and wing(Paddy Patterson/Blackrock) for their school.

Tim Robbins

leinstertalk wrote: »

Two of the best underage 9's in the country this year played fullback(Hugh O'Sullivan/Belvedere) and wing(Paddy Patterson/Blackrock) for their school.

What I would like to in schools and youths is players play a multiple of positions.

I remember playing adult junior rugby and we needed someone to play 10. The coach (who was very good) just told some Kiwi guy to play there and he was excellent. Another kiwi guy was a small lad and ended up playing second row when we were short and could ruck better than most of the pack.

I hate to say it but the way rugby is played here reminds me of the way some Americans play Soccer. I remember when we were young American Soccer teams used to come over and a few of them stayed with us in our house. So I went off an watch the matches and they got hammered - in every match - kinda 10 - 0.

When we play the Kiwis at any level (except woman's) they hammer us - usually without even trying that hard.

I feel the game here is need of a radical overhaul if we ever want to be taken seriously against the best in the world. Instead, it is run by a conservative Irish mentality. In Dublin, 50% of the people are only interested in it because of a class thing. If the God of poshness decided all the Rugby schools switch to Roller Skating because that's what upper middle class people now do - that's what they would do. Compare the skills level of an average soccer U10 or GAA team to an average Rugby team and there can be up to an Atlantic Ocean of difference.

It's a joke we are so reliant of schools for the development of a sport.

You go to school to learn English, Irish, Maths etc and get ready for college if you are academic. Sport of course is also import. But clubs should drive that not school teachers who study to teach Geography or whatever not rugby,

leinstertalk

The clubs don't have the rescources or time/access to players.. all the most skilled players come from schools rugby.
Underage club players almost always have weaker skill levels to their school counterparts even if they are better athletes.
The idea that irish rugby should be moving away from schools rugby as it's primary development area is crazy, nothing suggests that club rugby have the structures, support, etc. to do a better job at developing young rugby players.
We can only hope to try and continously improve underage club rugby while also fighting hard to win the battle for athletes against the GAA which is the biggest barrier to more growth in that area.

JPNelsforearm

leinstertalk wrote: »

The clubs don't have the rescources or time/access to players.. all the most skilled players come from schools rugby.
Underage club players almost always have weaker skill levels to their school counterparts even if they are better athletes.
The idea that irish rugby should be moving away from schools rugby as it's primary development area is crazy, nothing suggests that club rugby have the structures, support, etc. to do a better job at developing young rugby players.
We can only hope to try and continously improve underage club rugby while also fighting hard to win the battle for athletes against the GAA which is the biggest barrier to more growth in that area.

Who says move away? you conjoin schools and clubs, invest more in underage clubs, raise competition, standards and most importantly widen the playing pool.

Its bizarre, only in Ireland do you have people not wanting the game to grow because of some fear the sacred cow of schools rugby might be hauled in and overtaken. The point of the IRFU is not to sell advertising to the casual fan, the semblance of rugby, its to grow the game.

leinstertalk

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Who says move away? you conjoin schools and clubs, invest more in underage clubs, raise competition, standards and most importantly widen the playing pool.

Its bizarre, only in Ireland do you have people not wanting the game to grow because of some fear the sacred cow of schools rugby might be hauled in and overtaken. The point of the IRFU is not to sell advertising to the casual fan, the semblance of rugby, its to grow the game.

that's an ongoing process throughout the country.. there has been huge growth in the game in the past decade.

The Lost Sheep

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The reason why we produce so few Scrum Halfs is because it is a position that demands a few skills that we are not very good at coaching.

In general, coaching is of a poor standard here. The academies are pretty good but only the top 1% of players make it that far. Meaning, there's probably a few potential decent 9's out there in the top 20% that could make it if they got decent coaching but there are more than likely not going to get it.

By the way I remember Guinness had an amazing 9 few years back. Very skilful and very competitive. I reckon this guy had the potential to play at a very high level, don't know what happened to him

In the academy, there is probably only one or two slots available for a nine and that's going to more likely going to go to a Rugby school guy who plays 9. When there could be another schools player who plays 10, 15 but could be a better 9 if he focussed on that position. If you are decent player in schools you tend not play 9.

But age grade teams are not about in many respects what position a player will end up in. You pick the best of what you have where best utilised. I don't think you can say the coaching isn't good enough. There only needs to be 2/3 positions available in each academy for a 9. We don't have the depth for more. We don't have the ability to have very strong fully independent semi pro teams/pro teams and its more likely a player from a rugby school will get a slot as they get more opportunities to be seen. Its not really true to say if a decent player at age grade you don't tend to play 9. Its very difficult to prove that

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What I would like to in schools and youths is players play a multiple of positions.

I remember playing adult junior rugby and we needed someone to play 10. The coach (who was very good) just told some Kiwi guy to play there and he was excellent. Another kiwi guy was a small lad and ended up playing second row when we were short and could ruck better than most of the pack.

I hate to say it but the way rugby is played here reminds me of the way some Americans play Soccer. I remember when we were young American Soccer teams used to come over and a few of them stayed with us in our house. So I went off an watch the matches and they got hammered - in every match - kinda 10 - 0.

When we play the Kiwis at any level (except woman's) they hammer us - usually without even trying that hard.

I feel the game here is need of a radical overhaul if we ever want to be taken seriously against the best in the world. Instead, it is run by a conservative Irish mentality. In Dublin, 50% of the people are only interested in it because of a class thing. If the God of poshness decided all the Rugby schools switch to Roller Skating because that's what upper middle class people now do - that's what they would do. Compare the skills level of an average soccer U10 or GAA team to an average Rugby team and there can be up to an Atlantic Ocean of difference.

It's a joke we are so reliant of schools for the development of a sport.

You go to school to learn English, Irish, Maths etc and get ready for college if you are academic. Sport of course is also import. But clubs should drive that not school teachers who study to teach Geography or whatever not rugby,

How do you propose getting people to play more positions?
Some of what you say is true but a lot is rubbish. Sport and academia. Its been proven playing sports improves grades...
Its not a joke that we are reliant on schools for the development of a sport. Its a joke that we are reliant on a certain type of schools in many areas. Most of which are out of reach of a lot of people due to the financial costs of attending those schools.

leinstertalk wrote: »

The clubs don't have the rescources or time/access to players.. all the most skilled players come from schools rugby.
Underage club players almost always have weaker skill levels to their school counterparts even if they are better athletes.
The idea that irish rugby should be moving away from schools rugby as it's primary development area is crazy, nothing suggests that club rugby have the structures, support, etc. to do a better job at developing young rugby players.
We can only hope to try and continously improve underage club rugby while also fighting hard to win the battle for athletes against the GAA which is the biggest barrier to more growth in that area.

To say all the most skilled come from schools is nonsense and a huge generalisation. Underage club players may not have better skills in some aspects purely because they wont train as much.
Irish Rugby needs to change the focus from schools rugby as the primary development area or at least combine schools and clubs better in terms of LTPD and linking kids in rugby playing schools with clubs better and have interaction between both rugby schools and rugby clubs at all ages more often.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Its bizarre, only in Ireland do you have people not wanting the game to grow because of some fear the sacred cow of schools rugby might be hauled in and overtaken. The point of the IRFU is not to sell advertising to the casual fan, the semblance of rugby, its to grow the game.

Its about power and influence. Schools, old boys have the power and influence. And changing schools game may mean schools power is eroded and that cant happen...

Tim Robbins

leinstertalk wrote: »

The clubs don't have the rescources or time/access to players.. all the most skilled players come from schools rugby.

Agreed.

Underage club players almost always have weaker skill levels to their school counterparts even if they are better athletes.

Don't think so.

The idea that irish rugby should be moving away from schools rugby as it's primary development area is crazy, nothing suggests that club rugby have the structures, support, etc. to do a better job at developing young rugby players.
We can only hope to try and continously improve underage club rugby while also fighting hard to win the battle for athletes against the GAA which is the biggest barrier to more growth in that area.

Ok. To improve rugby standards then we should just created more private schools?

As ridiculous as that sounds, it is probably the only way to create more rugby players.

As for your point about GAA. That is mainly a Saturday sport. Club Rugby is a Sunday sport. Kids can play both until they are 14 - 15 and then make up their mind.

Also GAA peaks in the Summer, Rugby off season.

Tim Robbins

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Sport and academia. Its been proven playing sports improves grades...

I think you would struggle for a decent peer reviewed paper to help you out there.

leinstertalk

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Agreed.


Don't think so.


Ok. To improve rugby standards then we should just created more private schools?

As ridiculous as that sounds, it is probably the only way to create more rugby players.

As for your point about GAA. That is mainly a Saturday sport. Club Rugby is a Sunday sport. Kids can play both until they are 14 - 15 and then make up their mind.

Also GAA peaks in the Summer, Rugby off season.

what highly skilled back has been produced by underage club rugby in the past 10 years?
how many have even played Ireland u20 rugby?

The average underage club player does not have the same skill level as the average underage schools player. Which was reflected this year in the Ireland underage squads.

GAA is a huge problem for rugbys growth, much more so than any other sport.

The Lost Sheep

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Ok. To improve rugby standards then we should just created more private schools?

As ridiculous as that sounds, it is probably the only way to create more rugby players.

No it isn't and I know you're not being serious...
But being serious what can be done to help create more players?

As for your point about GAA. That is mainly a Saturday sport. Club Rugby is a Sunday sport. Kids can play both until they are 14 - 15 and then make up their mind.

Also GAA peaks in the Summer, Rugby off season.

Where are you talking about when you say GAA is mainly a Saturday Sport while Club rugby is mainly a Sunday Sport in many areas including several Connacht leagues, the Leinster leagues and some West, all south Munster leagues games are Saturdays.
In GAA where im from GAA is mainly mid week with very little club GAA weekends and if so its Sunday more than Saturday

sydthebeat

Tim Robbins wrote: »

As for your point about GAA. That is mainly a Saturday sport. Club Rugby is a Sunday sport.

not outside of the pale

the vast, vast majority of minis + youths rugby outside of the metro area takes place on saturdays.

senior club rugby takes place on sundays, but in the context of this discussion thats immaterial.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Also GAA peaks in the Summer, Rugby off season.

GAA is starting earlier and and finishing later season on season. Anecdotally i know of some underage gaa teams who are training winter long. There is most definitely a struggle between gaa and rugby for players, with a lot underage gaa players been warned not to play rugby on the off season.

JPNelsforearm

leinstertalk wrote: »

what highly skilled back has been produced by underage club rugby in the past 10 years?
how many have even played Ireland u20 rugby?

The average underage club player does not have the same skill level as the average underage schools player. Which was reflected this year in the Ireland underage squads.

GAA is a huge problem for rugbys growth, much more so than any other sport.

Chicken egg situation. Speaking of the GAA, look at Dublin, invested in grassroots county wide, not just a few, already elite, clubs, and now they are looking like an unstoppable juggernaut.

Compare that to Leinster rugby, does all it can to destroy club rugby (in conjunction with the IRFU) as a pipeline for pro players, then they point out its not a pipeline for players and the standards have dropped way off.

Why do you object to a widening of the player pool?


Personally I'd do away with the schools cup, integrate clubs and schools in the one competition, invest equally across the board, make a long term decision that every club and school will have a gym and access to Leinster trained S&C and skills coaches. That is how you grow the game.

leinstertalk

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Personally I'd do away with the schools cup, integrate clubs and schools in the one competition, invest equally across the board, make a long term decision that every club and school will have a gym and access to Leinster trained S&C and skills coaches. That is how you grow the game.

thank god you aren't in charge then because that would be disasterous for rugby in this country in the short term and holds no guarentees it would actually widen the playing base or produce better players.

the way to grow the game is to improve the underage club game, they are trying to do that but it's a slow process but it is happening. leave the schools game alone, it's not broken so don't try to break it.

leinster rugby trying to destroy the club game? leinster rugby has the healthiest underage club game in the country.. it's started to reguarly churn out academy players when previously it was massively underperforming in that area. senior club rugby has very little to do with the professional game apart from the AIl being a decent arena for young academy players to get games.

a comparison to Dublin GAA is bizarre.. totally different situations with massively different overheads and income streams

JPNelsforearm

How would integrating schools and clubs into the one competition be disastrous? It would still be a meritocracy. the only difference would be players playing against better players thus improving, add in investment and its a win win.

Why do all sports but Irish rugby want to expand? You are either evolving and expanding or you are standing still.

Tim Robbins

sydthebeat wrote: »

GAA is starting earlier and and finishing later season on season. Anecdotally i know of some underage gaa teams who are training winter long. There is most definitely a struggle between gaa and rugby for players, with a lot underage gaa players been warned not to play rugby on the off season.

You are right there. It used to be a lot easier to play both.

sydthebeat

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

How would integrating schools and clubs into the one competition be disastrous? It would still be a meritocracy. the only difference would be players playing against better players thus improving, add in investment and its a win win.

Why do all sports but Irish rugby want to expand? You are either evolving and expanding or you are standing still.

well for one thing clubs players would be in school when you want them to be playing games.... that would be a significant problem with your proposal

leinstertalk

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

How would integrating schools and clubs into the one competition be disastrous? It would still be a meritocracy. the only difference would be players playing against better players thus improving, add in investment and its a win win.

Why do all sports but Irish rugby want to expand? You are either evolving and expanding or you are standing still.

irish rugby has expanded massively in the past decade.