letf wrote: » So Leinster aren't picking the most talented athletes, just the best coached players. Club players who are a bit rawer are being overlooked for polished schools players. Doesn't seem like a great idea to me, if they are trying to get the most talented players. As I said on an individual basis I don't really have a problem with any of the players offered an academy place, I do have a problem with not offering McElroy and Frawley academy places when they are just as good as there schools counterparts - Kelleher/Mullin.
CMOTDibbler wrote: » That's not what I said. Leinster are clearly working to identify talented club players. In terms of coaching, nobody can do much about the disparity in coaching the club players can get because of the nature of the clubs versus the schools. But that's pretty much the situation in AIL teams as well.
Sudolife wrote: » Tadgh McElroy had a falling out with Leinster in jan/feb, not sure if that has to do with not being offered an academy contract though
shuffol wrote: » Would a more efficient system be for the schools to act like sub-academy's. Leinster allocate funding and expertise to a certain amount and help fund scholarships to them for the most talented young players identified around the province.
The Lost Sheep wrote: » Certainly not. The aim should be to reduce role of schools, to some extent, not funnel more kids into the schools. Funneling the best into the schools does nothing to help Leinsters image considering most schools are fee paying yada yada etc.... The work the development officers and club coaches have been doing is great. That can be improved upon. Trevor Hogan is the provincial talent coach. He can see the best players throughout the province. Leinster should be running the coaching and development not leaving control to schools who will essentially have much shorter term goals....
letf wrote: » club can't provide the same level of coaching or support.. SOB said as much..
The Lost Sheep wrote: » So we should funnel the best club players into schools which are in Cork, most of Leinster, fee paying etc. Fees that are out of range of a huge proportion of people in the country. And doesnt help the sports image which has improved hugely the past decade and a half or so.. It must be province led and keep the best kids in the clubs and build and improve the coaching kids receive in those clubs and back that up with work/coaching from the development officers/regional coaching teams within the provincial pathways
letf wrote: Until clubs can provide sufficient support and coaching so that club players are not disadvantaged in comparison to schools players then it will be hard to keep players at clubs. Leinsters academy being dominated by two schools won't help nor will a large group of talented club players not getting academy offers from leinster but offers from elsewhere. Reinforces elitist image Would the club players I listed be better players if they had moved to one of the elite schools at 16?
The Lost Sheep wrote: » no they wouldn't as it distorts reality. Leinster and all provinces are helping to improve standards in clubs and that's why i agree with regulations around stopping kids play schools cup if they haven't been in a school for "x" amount of time.
shaungil wrote: » 1 Have academy places been announced? If not then there's not really much point in giving out about who hasn't made it. 2 Hopefully guys who don't get picked by other provinces as has happened to 2 players from my own club successfully. 3 There is a framework in place for stronger kids to from Leinster to go into Development squads playing the Shane Horgan cup etc. They're not being completely ignored within Leinster rugby. They then get training within their clubs plus development contract. going to a rugby school and training 4 times a week may not be the best long term approach fro some kids.
letf wrote: » and yet no club players from the 1997 age group have been deemed good enough by the leinster academy for an academy offer. I ask again would these players have gotten better support/coaching if they had went to an elite rugby school? Would that training and support been the difference between getting an academy place or not getting one?
letf wrote: » 1. No, but offers have been made. No club player from the 1997 age group in leinster has received an offer. In fact they seem to have gone out of their way to not do so. As they have only offered 4 players in the class academy deals. 2. Yes hopefully, but if they are good enough for Connacht, why not Leinster? 3. This framework hasn't helped any of the 1997 age group get leinster academy deals. I think it's quite clear that the intense training of a rugby school does benefit those players, would all 6 of the players offered contracts from Blackrock/St. Michaels been offered academy deals if they had come through the club system?
FrannoFan wrote: » if only 4 players have been made offers it sounds like there will be more made. As said, that is a low number to take in. Wait and see before getting too worried. A player might be good enough for Connacht who are realistically fighting for 6th in the table, that same player might not be good enough for leinster who basically are looking for international quality players. Both clubs are fighting on different fronts. Same way a player might be good enough for stoke city wouldn't be of interest to Real Madrid i would agree there is an issue with players from big schools appearing better than there club counter parts. The academy should be looking rough diamonds to polish not the finished articles. Talking to an S&C coach from Leinster he reckons it takes at least a year to close the physical conditioning gap. There does seem to be some seriously short term thinking from academy managers since colin mcentee was replaced by girvan Dempsey
letf wrote: » Only 4 players from the 1997 age group.. 2 of which joined the academy earlier in the season(Kelly/Larmour) 5 players from the 1998 age group have been offered academy deals - Doris, O'Brien, Kelleher, O'Sullivan & Aungier.Care to give an example of this short term thinking?
FrannoFan wrote: » The short term thinking has been with a number of Girvan Demspey choices i think he went with the player that was closer to the finished article younger instead of being able to see past that and see the potential of a player. Now i can't point at any players who missed out as they have failed to break through but some of his calls like Brewer and Dardis have not worked out. Both looked brilliant in school where they were really well coached etc and i think he had his mind made up on them. A player will look better playing for a michaels/Rock etc because they have been brought to the top of their ability already but there is no scope for improvement. The Academy should be looking to see who maybe hasn't had all these advantages but has the potential to be better. Admittedly not an easy thing to do. In the book "friday night lights" they talk about a number of the players not getting offerred college places on teams. The scouts opinion is that these guys are as good at Football as they are going to be(a testament to the coaches) but that they don't see them getting better and therefore not good enough to be college players. granted it is a different sport but there is an element of that in schools rugby- a player of average athletic/sporting ability gets coached to play at a high level or 100% of his potential. The academy needs to make sure they are picking the guys who can be the best at 23/24 not he best at 19/20
letf wrote: » What players were ignored though? Argument to be made they should not have offered David O'Connor an academy place, as he was never tall enough for lock. But there wasn't any other obvious options to pick ahead of him. Oisin Heffernan getting an academy place over JP Phelan or Craig Trenier, but neither of them have progressed much. Should Jack Power/Terry Kennedy have gotten an academy places last summer? Should Nick Peters gotten an academy place?
FrannoFan wrote: » It is very hard to gauge who should/shouldn't get a place. Under McEntee virtually every player who went through the academy ended up with a pro contract either with Leinster or Div 1 engl;and etc. Don't think Girve had the same rate of success.
letf wrote: » Not really sure that blame can be placed on Dempsey.
FrannoFan wrote: » not trying to apportion blame on anyone.
letf wrote: » Right now who is a better prospect as a TH prop? Andrew Porter or Charlie Connolly?
Tarf1234 wrote: » Comfortably Porter
letf wrote: » Tarf1234 wrote: » Comfortably Porter How? He is basically unproven as a tighthead prop, while Connolly has played nearly as much tighthead in AIL and also has proven himself at TH at u20 level.
Tarf1234 wrote: » All round player Porter is miles ahead. Scrum wise I haven't seen Porter yet at TH but haven't heard it's gone too badly. Don't see the major hype around Connolly.
