Can the provinces ever hope to emulate the Leinster academy?

irishbucsfan · 08-01-2018 04:42PM

awec wrote: »

IBF, if population and potential player base, as well as the economic / job factors are all irrelevant, why do you think the Leinster academy is miles ahead of all the others?

For the same reason that New Zealand is the envy of the rugby world while England end up doing well to stay ahead of Wales.

And why Kerry have won 37 All Ireland's while Cork have only won 7

irishfan9 · 08-01-2018 04:42PM

FrannoFan wrote: »

The leinster regional sides would play the schools from time to time. Leinster North-east would play a school or whatever. They attempted it on a wider scale and was pretty 1 sided. Good club players are monitored through those sides. The problem is some of them still feel they have to move to a big school to get a chance. The rock side with Jaeger/Carbery/Oliver was pretty blatant and unfortunate they feel they needed that exposure. That for me comes down to academy managers lacking ability to see past the extras provided to the potential. (i'm not a girvan dempsey fan!)

given new rules players aren't moving to schools anymore.. is that a good thing? hard to know...

people have complained about the Michaels players getting academy places under dempsey, but in the main they have all performed when called upon by the senior side..

Leinster u19 clubs played a non full strength michaels side recently and lost 52-0.

thomond2006 · 08-01-2018 04:42PM

CROOKED Leinster fans deny the RIGGED system that hands them all the players. Sad!

08-01-2018 04:44PM

awec wrote: »

I am not talking about people moving here when they are in their mid-teens, I am talking about people's parents moving here with young kids or maybe even no kids who settle here and subsequently have kids.

So you're just talking about a population issue. The population of Ulster is comparable, admittedly a bit smaller, but comparable to Leinster and it's growing.

molloyjh · 08-01-2018 04:45PM

awec wrote: »

Lets stop pretending that the provinces are all starting off on an equal footing to start with.

1. Is there any rugby club in the world that exists in the capital city of a country, with 1million+ people in it's catchment area, that doesn't have a single other professional sports club to compete with never mind another rugby club?

2. The majority of the population of Ireland live in Leinster

3. Leinster has more schools than any other province.

4. The movement of people from other provinces to Dublin further makes things interesting for Leinster. If you looked at all the Leinster players it would be curious to know what percentage of them have Leinster-born parents. I bet this is a lot lower than the other provinces.

5. When foreign people move to Ireland for work where do you think the overwhelming majority of them move to? When these people have kids, where do you think they go to school?

6. In the past number of years there has been a huge movement of jobs and people to Dublin from other parts of Ireland. When these people have kids, guess what province they'll be growing up in? Guess what academy they'll end up in.

People like to blow the Leinster academy horn quite a lot on here and they do deserve a lot of credit, but they have massive advantages over the other provinces that are not through any work of their own, but rather just basic societal and political reasons.

The problem is going to get worse, not better. I don't want to see the provinces watered down, but I think long term the current model is unsustainable, or at least unsustainable if you want to have 3 / 4 provinces that are actually competitive in elite rugby.

Completely agree with all of this. We're very lucky in Leinster and shouldn't lose sight of that.

awec · 08-01-2018 04:46PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

For the same reason that New Zealand is the envy of the rugby world while England end up doing well to stay ahead of Wales.

And why Kerry have won 37 All Ireland's while Cork have only won 7

Which is what?

Brynn Shy Washbowl wrote: »

So you're just talking about a population issue. The population of Ulster is comparable, admittedly a bit smaller, but comparable to Leinster and it's growing.

What? Read the rest of my posts.

awec · 08-01-2018 04:46PM

FrannoFan wrote: »

If it was just about population surely Ulster would be second behind Leinster?

Ulster has pretty unique issues when it comes to the player base. Issues that we're thankfully starting to get over, but it will be a long and slow process.

For one thing you have the fact that 50% of people get absolutely zero exposure to rugby. It's not played in their schools and there are no rugby clubs where they live.

Another issue being that no matter your political views, 1/3 of Ulster kind of sticks out from the rest of it and for historical reasons many people in those counties have little to no affinity with Ulster Rugby. I recent years that has certainly got better, but it'll be a long time before Ulster see the benefits of that.

I never boiled this down to PURELY population, others just oversimplified it to that to try and make their point. Population is a factor among many others that have to be considered.

Buer · 08-01-2018 04:47PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

For the same reason that New Zealand is the envy of the rugby world while England end up doing well to stay ahead of Wales.

And why Kerry have won 37 All Ireland's while Cork have only won 7

England prioritises hurling over football?!

irishbucsfan · 08-01-2018 04:48PM

awec wrote: »

Which is what?

A whole host of rugby-related things from the people to the processes. But certainly the kiwis don't just point at the 50 million people in England with London as their capital and assume they shouldn't be capable of bettering them.

The Lost Sheep · 08-01-2018 04:48PM

FrannoFan wrote: »

Leinster to be fair hire loads of RDO's and community development officers. I would think there are more in Leinster than in Connacht(granted a bigger population but Leinster looking to tap into that population) The game is growing in Louth/Dundalk etc. But it takes time.

I think the province will naturally be bolstered by the schools game but it is doing a lot to promote the game outside non-traditional rugby areas.

The CDOs etc do a lot of work in schools getting kids playing and then helping them into clubs and provinces/IRFU should be doing more to assist clubs about work to put in when you get kids into playing
Game is developing in Dundalk and will take time. Dundalk went into AIL but dropped down immediately. Major issue up there is youth level and getting more kids playing the sport there.

irishfan9 wrote: »

The growth of St. Michaels into a professional rugby gold mine certainly has helped massively... their SCT team this year probably has 7-8 future academy players in it.

Has helped but Michaels are just part of same set up as already there. Fee paying school in south Dublin. Its great work put in but improvements in Navan RFC/Enniscorthy etc are more impressive and better to promote/highlight

irishfan9 wrote: »

the clubs would get embarrassed in the main..

That misses the point completely.

FrannoFan wrote: »

The leinster regional sides would play the schools from time to time. Leinster North-east would play a school or whatever. They attempted it on a wider scale and was pretty 1 sided. Good club players are monitored through those sides. The problem is some of them still feel they have to move to a big school to get a chance. The rock side with Jaeger/Carbery/Oliver was pretty blatant and unfortunate they feel they needed that exposure. That for me comes down to academy managers lacking ability to see past the extras provided to the potential. (i'm not a girvan dempsey fan!)

They do but these regional sides train together a good bit but wont be able to cope with school training together 3/4 times a weke.
The problem is about kids moving to a rugby school and thats why restricting movement is a good thing. For better growth of the game you need to improve the structures and training kids receive be that in each club as well as talented club players getting extra training/coaching at a regional/county/provincial level. Thats why restriction on kids moving for schools cup is a great thing overall.

errlloyd wrote: »

I don't think a state school could have made that transition. We had a headmaster who had resources and wanted us to be better at rugby. He made a big deal out of it. At the same time they got some help. One of my best mates is a senior coach at a similar school to St Andrews. Another school that produces a provincial player once every 5 years or so, and had a decent cup run a few years ago. He had an all day coaching workshop with Stuart Lancaster recently. Apart from behind helpful, it also sounded genuinely inspiring and motivating. Makes him throw more into his job. That stuff helps too.

A non fee paying school. Theyre all state schools....
Can make that transition. You only have to look at work done in Fintans Sutton, Temple Carrig Greystones and they can

awec · 08-01-2018 04:50PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

A whole host of rugby-related things from the people to the processes. But certainly the kiwis don't just point at the 50 million people in England with London as their capital and assume they shouldn't be capable of bettering them.

A whole host of what? Can I have some specifics?

I gave you various reasons as to why I think Leinster have advantages, you dismissed them as red herrings without explanation. And now are going on about vague things like "a whole host of rugby-related things".

Do you think the reason Leinster's academy is miles ahead is that the Leinster coaches work harder? Is it longer hours? Obviously the idea that the Leinster coaches have more players of a higher standard to work with has no bearing at all.

irishbucsfan · 08-01-2018 04:51PM

awec wrote: »

I never boiled this down to PURELY population, others just oversimplified it to that to try and make their point. Population is a factor among many others that have to be considered.

You were the first person to mention general population. I asked about playing population, and most of your points have been about that.

And that's why I asked how different are they really? Surely if there was a massive difference then Leinster would have twice the number of clubs? Unless Leinster have a massively abnormal attrition rate post-school, which again would be interesting to see.

errlloyd · 08-01-2018 04:52PM

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

A non fee paying school. Theyre all state schools....
Can make that transition. You only have to look at work done in Fintans Sutton, Temple Carrig Greystones and they can

I'll rephrase, Andrews could not have made that transition if it was a purely state funded school, in my opinion. Fintans are an inspiring success story, but huge credit goes to Suttonians as well as the school.

irishbucsfan · 08-01-2018 04:53PM

awec wrote: »

A whole host of what? Can I have some specifics?

I gave you various reasons as to why I think Leinster have advantages, you dismissed them as red herrings without explanation. And now are going on about vague things like "a whole host of rugby-related things".

Do you think the reason Leinster's academy is miles ahead is that the Leinster coaches work harder? Is it longer hours? Obviously the idea that the Leinster coaches have more players of a higher standard to work with has no bearing at all.

The specifics don't actually matter though, is my point. The point is that general population and economic factors are not a precursor to success and New Zealand are a good example of that. The fact I'm not an expert on sports development is totally irrelevant.

You made points based on no evidence, so I dismissed them with a similar amount of evidence. All I asked was, what is the difference in playing populations? If someone has information along those lines it'd be really interesting to see.

irishfan9 · 08-01-2018 04:57PM

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Has helped but Michaels are just part of same set up as already there. Fee paying school in south Dublin. Its great work put in but improvements in Navan RFC/Enniscorthy etc are more impressive and better to promote/highlight

if you want to highlight growth of game sure, if you want an example of success in producing professional rugby players then Michaels can't be beat as an example.

the only enniscorthy play who is a pro is Josh Murphy, someone who played mini's with Enniscorthy but went to school in Michaels... if he had never went to Michaels it's unlikely he'd be in the academy.

awec · 08-01-2018 04:58PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The specifics don't actually matter though, is my point. The point is that general population and economic factors are not a precursor to success and New Zealand are a good example of that. The fact I'm not an expert on sports development is totally irrelevant.

You made points based on no evidence, so I dismissed them with a similar amount of evidence. All I asked was, what is the difference in playing populations? If someone has information along those lines it'd be really interesting to see.

What evidence do you want for me to support my points?

Rugby Union is the major sport in New Zealand. This is an advantage for the NZRU. They have the benefit of practically every child playing the sport.

I am not sure how you think this debunks my points.

I find it curious that you dismiss my points with little explanation, but can offer no other reason as to why you think Leinster are much better. I can only summise that you think it's down purely to the work of the Leinster coaching staff. The fact they have loads of private fee paying schools is not a factor after all, because economics is a red herring. The fact that more and more people are moving to greater Dublin is not an issue either, because an increased middle class playing population that is capable of sending its kids to these private schools is irrelevant too.

thomond2006 · 08-01-2018 04:59PM

Shoulder injury for Bowe. Les Kiss quoted on PR saying up to 8 weeks out.

The Lost Sheep · 08-01-2018 05:00PM

irishfan9 wrote: »

given new rules players aren't moving to schools anymore.. is that a good thing? hard to know...

people have complained about the Michaels players getting academy places under dempsey, but in the main they have all performed when called upon by the senior side..

Leinster u19 clubs played a non full strength michaels side recently and lost 52-0.

It is a good thing banning moves to schools but leinster need to ensure clubs players with potential to play to high level can get access to extra training etc through regional squads like expanding shane horgan cup at under 16 level and having an under 18 version for example

That doesnt mean leinster u19 clubs are bad. They were a scratch side and wouldnt just have been a lot of the under 18 interpro side from prev year and were playing a schools side prepping for cup very close to the cup

errlloyd wrote: »

I'll rephrase, Andrews could not have made that transition if it was a purely state funded school, in my opinion. Fintans are an inspiring success story, but huge credit goes to Suttonians as well as the school.

I really dont believe that. Schools can make transition if purely state funded. With correct level of support from teachers, parents, local clubs

irishbucsfan · 08-01-2018 05:06PM

awec wrote: »

What evidence do you want for me to support my points?

Rugby Union is the major sport in New Zealand. This is an advantage for the NZRU. They have the benefit of practically every child playing the sport.

I am not sure how you think this debunks my points.

I find it curious that you dismiss my points with little explanation, but can offer no other reason as to why you think Leinster are much better. I can only summise that you think it's down purely to the work of the Leinster coaching staff. The fact they have loads of private fee paying schools is not a factor after all, because economics is a red herring. The fact that more and more people are moving to greater Dublin is not an issue either, because an increased middle class playing population that is capable of sending its kids to these private schools is irrelevant too.

I’ve literally said what figures I’d love to see in nearly every post in this thread today. Not sure how many times I need to say it!!

As if a bunch of people moving to Dublin is relevant if they’re not playing rugby. If Meath was added to Ulster tomorrow it would provide 0 benefit to Ulster rugby because those lads would try to boil a rugby ball if you gave them one! Playing populations matter, not general populations or economic factors.

prawnsambo · 08-01-2018 05:06PM

awec wrote: »

I find it curious that you dismiss my points with little explanation, but can offer no other reason as to why you think Leinster are much better. I can only summise that you think it's down purely to the work of the Leinster coaching staff. The fact they have loads of private fee paying schools is not a factor after all, because economics is a red herring. The fact that more and more people are moving to greater Dublin is not an issue either, because an increased middle class playing population that is capable of sending its kids to these private schools is irrelevant too.

I think success has a lot to do with it. Leinster have been very successful in recent years and that gives rugby a very high profile in the province. Then you have the high level of competition at schools level that basically has the schools resourcing their programs to a very high standard. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that schools players are being coached and prepared to a professional standard.

That makes it a very seamless transition to academy and senior professional ranks.

awec · 08-01-2018 05:09PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

I think success has a lot to do with it. Leinster have been very successful in recent years and that gives rugby a very high profile in the province. Then you have the high level of competition at schools level that basically has the schools resourcing their programs to a very high standard.It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that schools players are being coached and prepared to a professional standard.

That makes it a very seamless transition to academy and senior professional ranks.

Ok. So why is it that Leinster can afford to do this and the other provinces cannot?

IBF says it has nothing to do with economics or an increased population to feed these schools, so I would assume the fact there are lots of private fee paying schools is not the answer here. I am curious as to what exactly Leinster Rugby have done to enable this.

errlloyd · 08-01-2018 05:11PM

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I really dont believe that. Schools can make transition if purely state funded. With correct level of support from teachers, parents, local clubs

Yes, if you insist on being unbelievably pedantic, with the correct level of voluntary support and motivation and parents and teachers and local clubs St Andrews could probably win Texas Level High School Football. Nothing is impossible when you have access to that. But Andrews didn't have those supports The Andrews I was in, the years I was there, COULD NOT have put in place the S&C facilities, brought in the overseas coaches they brought in, without the extra funding they had available to them. We had a few motivated teachers, but our best coaches were external. James Winstanley, a South African former pro was brought in. He had been through the Northampton Saints academy, and though he never played at a high level, he was at minimum a professional rugby player once.

I am fairly sure it was mostly a vanity project on behalf of the principal, and it wasn't a particularly popular one. It was kind of cringy when he'd celebrate rugby mediocrity and ignore international level hockey success. Not all schools principals can do what he did, having money is a massive advantage.

08-01-2018 05:20PM

awec wrote: »

Ulster has pretty unique issues when it comes to the player base. Issues that we're thankfully starting to get over, but it will be a long and slow process.

For one thing you have the fact that 50% of people get absolutely zero exposure to rugby. It's not played in their schools and there are no rugby clubs where they live.

Another issue being that no matter your political views, 1/3 of Ulster kind of sticks out from the rest of it and for historical reasons many people in those counties have little to no affinity with Ulster Rugby. I recent years that has certainly got better, but it'll be a long time before Ulster see the benefits of that.

I never boiled this down to PURELY population, others just oversimplified it to that to try and make their point. Population is a factor among many others that have to be considered.

You keep saying this, how is Dublin any different? Outside of private schools rugby isn't big at all. And yes coaching makes a big difference, otherwise your complaints about Kiss et. all would be irrelevant

Larger population is certainly a factor too but coaching and the academy system has to be recognised too.

irishbucsfan · 08-01-2018 05:20PM

awec wrote: »

Ok. So why is it that Leinster can afford to do this and the other provinces cannot?

IBF says it has nothing to do with economics or an increased population to feed these schools, so I would assume the fact there are lots of private fee paying schools is not the answer here. I am curious as to what exactly Leinster Rugby have done to enable this.

If it was caused by the number of private schools in Leinster we’d be seeing a massive number of private school produced players from an even distribution of schools.

So where are Kings Hospital? Where are Headfort? Where are Wesley? These are the schools where the money are if I remember right.

Instead it’s actually a tiny number of schools producing most players. So your hypothesis doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. We could give Ulster 46/50 private schools and we’d still have most of the quality. So clearly it’s not the number of private schools or their catchment area, it’s what they’re doing with young players when they’re there.

Former Former · 08-01-2018 05:24PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So where are Kings Hospital? Where are Headfort? Where are Wesley? These are the schools where the money are if I remember right.

Co-ed schools. Too many distractions...

The Lost Sheep · 08-01-2018 05:24PM

errlloyd wrote: »

Yes, if you insist on being unbelievably pedantic, with the correct level of voluntary support and motivation and parents and teachers and local clubs St Andrews could probably win Texas Level High School Football. Nothing is impossible when you have access to that. But Andrews didn't have those supports The Andrews I was in, the years I was there, COULD NOT have put in place the S&C facilities, brought in the overseas coaches they brought in, without the extra funding they had available to them. We had a few motivated teachers, but our best coaches were external. James Winstanley, a South African former pro was brought in. He had been through the Northampton Saints academy, and though he never played at a high level, he was at minimum a professional rugby player once.

I am fairly sure it was mostly a vanity project on behalf of the principal, and it wasn't a particularly popular one. It was kind of cringy when he'd celebrate rugby mediocrity and ignore international level hockey success. Not all schools principals can do what he did, having money is a massive advantage.

Im not being pedantic. And you're just being ridiculous.
You only have to look at clubs and level of work put in like Bruff rfc for example
Of course money is a massive advantage but it doesnt at all have to be or is a reason schools cant progress. Schools dont need to or have to put in these expensive s&c facilties etc for success to happen

awec · 08-01-2018 05:29PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If it was caused by the number of private schools in Leinster we’d be seeing a massive number of private school produced players from an even distribution of schools.

So where are Kings Hospital? Where are Headfort? Where are Wesley? These are the schools where the money are if I remember right.

Instead it’s actually a tiny number of schools producing most players. So your hypothesis doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. We could give Ulster 46/50 private schools and we’d still have most of the quality. So clearly it’s not the number of private schools or their catchment area, it’s what they’re doing with young players when they’re there.

Why?

Do you honestly and genuinely believe the number private schools with their large amounts of cash, as well as the large (and ever growing) middle class that is there to fund these schools has absolutely no benefit for Leinster Rugby? Seriously?

Do you think if you send the coaches from Michaels to Methody they'd start churning out the same number of players that Michaels do now? If not, why not?

errlloyd · 08-01-2018 05:37PM

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Im not being pedantic. And you're just being ridiculous.
You only have to look at clubs and level of work put in like Bruff rfc for example
Of course money is a massive advantage but it doesnt at all have to be or is a reason schools cant progress. Schools dont need to or have to put in these expensive s&c facilties etc for success to happen

No, you're being massively pedantic, and I am being entirely honest and accurate about a situation that I was closely involved in.

I said "Andrews could not have made the transition, in my opinion"

and your response was basically.

"Yes they could, if they had all of these **list of resources that they didn't have** at their disposal"

It was the second time in a row you called me out on this board for not qualifying a statement to your satisfaction. In your most recent post you seem to imply that I said something I definitely did not. I never said "schools" needed money. I said "my school needed money". I don't know why you feel the need to point out that there are other ways to succeed when at no point did I say it was the only way for any school or club to succeed - I merely suggested it was the only way that Andrews were going to succeed right then.

If you wish, you can continue to list all the conceivable ways in which Andrews could have got better at producing rugby talent, that didn't involve investment. And I can explain why each one wasn't likely to happen there in 2007.

irishbucsfan · 08-01-2018 05:37PM

awec wrote: »

Why?

As I said, we could send you 46/50 schools and still get almost all the quality. Think about it... That clearly shows the number of private schools is not relevant, the (rugby) quality of those schools is, or rather the quality of players they produce.

And there’s no real reason whatsoever Ulsters schools couldn’t get there given the same support and development that saw Michaels get there in recent years.

Either that or they put something in the water fountains in Blackrock and Michaels. Which is also reproducible for Ulster I guess.

08-01-2018 05:42PM

awec wrote: »

Why?

Do you honestly and genuinely believe the number private schools with their large amounts of cash, as well as the large (and ever growing) middle class that is there to fund these schools has absolutely no benefit for Leinster Rugby? Seriously?

I can't speak for all rugby playing school but the ones I'd know well enough haven't noticeably increased their enrolment in decades.

awec wrote: »

Why?
Do you think if you send the coaches from Michaels to Methody they'd start churning out the same number of players that Michaels do now? If not, why not?

I'd say that's exactly what would happen... eventually. Schools are great for sports for two reasons. Unlike a club, you can't just stop showing up on a Saturday so schools tend to hold onto WAY more of their players through the years.

Schools team players also tend to spend a lot of non training time with each other socialising or in school but often with a rugby ball floating around.

But the big thing with the top rugby schools in Leinster is that they are all used to dining at the top table and they expect to be there. Lads who are good enough to make the top teams in the top schools know that they may potentially be good enough to get into an academy and a career as a professional rugby player is not a pipe dream.

In places where it's less likely you will start losing loads of lads from junior cert on.

It's not that different in the GAA, some clubs are much bigger feeder clubs to the Dublin panel than others and this comes down to coaching but also track record and belief in my opinion.

Getting that culture right and crystallising the expected standards with coaches coming from a top school to another would take time but with the same raw ingredients I'd back it to happen eventually.

I think Leinster just have a perfect storm of ingredients that has delivered a good generation of players. Things may improve or we may find that this is a golden time for the academies.

It's not that long ago that we couldn't produce forwards but efforts were made and now were certainly the top back row factory in the world, whatever about other forward positions.

I don't know anything about the Ulster academy so I don't want to comment on what they are doing right or wrong, but the wider game at grass roots would look to need an overhaul which gets pushed down the priority list when the first team is struggling with more immediate problems.

Can the provinces ever hope to emulate the Leinster academy?

Comments