The Academies

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I'm not hearing a cogent reason here. It all smacks of complacency. So I'm not wrong about academies lurching from crisis to crisis.

Complacency from who? The coaches who work the system clearly see they don't need or feel more in the main academy system is best for their provinces needs. In no way do academies lurch from crisis to crisis.

You keep saying this as if repetition will make it true. I'd like to see
reasons, cogent thought out reasons as to why it wouldn't help.

Munster's system has been poor but that doesn't mean it lurches from crisis to crisis. Munster and the provinces are better specialising on the 24 or so they have in the academies and producing guys who will be regulars and hopefully internationals. Expanding in the manner you think is needed means a huge increase in costs as you need several more EDO's, support staff etc and then who are all these players who should be added? The level of player isn't there for there to be academies so much bigger than what currently is there.

We produce enough players to feed larger academies: Three per cent of the annual production of schools players alone is all that's needed to expand them. Add in clubs and that percentage drops again. I'm all for expanding the base, but we're just losing them as soon as they leave school and losing them in huge numbers as you have acknowledged.

How does growing the elite level of age grade development grow the sport? Explain how it does grow the sport? 3% of annual schools players are clearly not good enough to be added to the academies every year. Adding big numbers to the academy system wont change the numbers who 'retire' from the sport in the 18-21 age group.

The academies are an artificial choke point. There are problems on both sides of that choke point that have been acknowledged. On the top side, the provinces are missing players and have to buy in, on the other side, players are drifting away from the game or the country.

Adding players to the academy system when theyre not ready/good enough doesn't help the provinces. Players are not drifting away from the sport because of a lack of professional contracts. Why you are bring up this is nonsense. The drop off of 18-21 year olds playing the sport is a different issue.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

It's complacency to say there isn't a problem when there clearly is. James Hart was rejected by the Leinster academy yet at the age of 24 has 57 caps for Grenoble and has scored 271 points in the Top 14. He would have been in direct competition in the academy with John Cooney and that's why he wasn't deemed 'good enough'. If the academy had been bigger and allowed for a couple of scrum halves, I suspect we'd be looking at him playing for Leinster now.

There isn't a problem with the development system at the top to demand the academies to be expanded by so much. There will be plenty of cases from the past to say we should expand but the IRFU are right to limit the numbers as there isn't the numbers to expand the academies.

How much would it cost? Put a number on it and lets debate that.

I don't know and its impossible to know how much it would cost so its pointless coming up with a number but surely if it was cost effective to increase academy sizes to the level or near the level you think the provinces should increase the academies to then the IRFU and the provinces would have done it.

If even one promising player doesn't retire from the sport because there's a wider avenue open to them to realise their desire to become a professional rugby player then that's a success. It clearly can't affect the majority that retire early, but it will have an influence on some. You might as well say that there's no need for academies at all as to dismiss their influence on young up and coming players.

You keep going on about guys quitting(saying retire is rubbish - they quit as they cant handle the sport for a variety of reasons). The guys if you were expanding the academies are not the guys who quit. It wont influence most who quit the sport when they begin playing mens rugby.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The reality is that the academies are the only pathway to a professional career. The number of players who make it through to pro contracts anywhere without having gone through the academies is depressingly small.

Healy Adeolokun and Ronaldson, 1 out of 5 starting against Ulster and Leinster, don't came through any Academy system.

connachta wrote: »

Healy Adeolokun and Ronaldson, 1 out of 5 starting against Ulster and Leinster, don't came through any Academy system.

I think that's exactly my point. All three of them came up through Leinster schools and didn't get into the Leinster academy. You could add Dave McSharry to that list also. There are likely more that are playing abroad now that were also missed, which is why I'm saying the academies could be bigger. Especially in the provinces that have greater playing numbers.

Interestingly, those guys would have graduated from the Leinster Academy around the same time as Ian Madigan and Ian McKinley did. That particular year was very small by today's standards: 15 players in total.

wp_rathead wrote: »

Robin Copeland didn't come through any Academy did he?

He was in the Leinster academy before he went to England

its_phil wrote: »

Exceptions rather than the rule. How many in the Ulster, Leinster and Munster teams?

You could add Delahunt, McKeown, Connolly & Robb to Connnacht as lads who deservedly got spots with no place for them in Leinster which is positive with Clive Ross and Charlie Butterworth, Trennier and blond Scrumhalf from Tarf (name escapes me at the moment) all getting time in Ulster for similar reasons. Darcy to Munster but hearing he has been released and a few more Leinster schools forwards moving to Munster academy. A few other players from AIL well 2 I know of offered development contracts in Munster last season but turned them down as have other careers planned or in progress. Once talent doesn't go unrecognized that is the main thing. An average of about 25 or so introduced into academies every year which seems about right. Some undoubtedly will be missed but only so many players can play pro in Ireland

RedemptionZ wrote: »

Ideally yes, but money doesn't grow on trees as they say. It's no coincidence all the best rugby schools are fee paying. The schools also have the advantage that they have access to their players 5/6 days a week, even if a club had money there's no way they'd be able to have that kind of control over a player.

All of this is true. But most of the schools have pretty much the same resources for their players and the same amount of training. Whether it be the mammoth 'Rock or tiny St. Gerard's, they all have 5/6 days training and top coaches and facilities. Here's another interesting factoid: Of the current Leinster academy (22), over half of them played in Senior Cup Finals. Eight of them played in the 2013 final between Blackrock and St. Michael's.

RedemptionZ wrote: »

The Academies should be bigger, in Leinster anyway. I don't really see the reasoning behind not having more players. They don't exactly have demanding salaries. The fact that only one player has graduated from the academy without a pro contract is a farce tbh. Not a dig at anyone who's made it pro, they worked their arses off to get it no doubt and earned their place but where is the competition? I mean every player in the academy should be competing with someone else for that pro contract. It shouldn't be this comfortable closed shop where if you behave yourself and do what you're told you'll get a contract.

To be fair; of the cohort that I looked at, not all got pro contracts with Leinster. Some are playing in the Championship or Pro D2, some went to Connacht or Munster and Ian McKinley is playing for Viadana in Italy currently (although he did actually get a pro contract with Leinster just before he was forced to retire).

However, my point is that a Leinster academy slot (and presumably the others also) is an almost certain ticket to a pro contract somewhere. If there's oversupply, there also would seem to be an outlet for it. Which brings me back to my (very) original point that it's far better to be looking at it, than looking for it.

Case in point. The Demented Mole has a recent article on the current lock shortage in Leinster. With the likelihood of Toner and McCarthy in the 6N squad, Leinster are down to three locks, one of whom is still in the academy.

Going back over the last five years, only four locks have graduated from the academy. Of those four, Tadhg Beirne and Gavin Thornbury have contracts with Leinster (Thornbury is currently long term injured), Ben Marshall is playing for Connacht and Mark Flanagan is tearing it up in the Championship for Bedford.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

That's circular reasoning. The numbers are limited because they're not there. How is it that Leinster who have the greatest playing numbers of all the provinces have less in their academy than Munster?

Circular reasoning :rolleyes:. You cant say the academies need to be bigger by so much when the players are not there for the academies to be as big as you think they should. It would be fantastic if the academies could be so much bigger as it could help develop potential for more A games and semi pro rugby in Ireland but the numbers playing at all levels dont demand that we can support or develop properly all these extra resources.

Here are some statistics to chew over: Including the current academy and the graduates from the last five years (55 in total), 49 came from Leinster schools. Half of that number came from Blackrock, St. Michael's and Clongowes. Only four came from clubs. Of the graduates (outside two retirements through injury) only one failed to get a pro contract. This from a catchment of 40 schools and 70 clubs.

Wow!!! :rolleyes: Most who make the Leinster academy come from the most successful schools with the most resources, which are some of the biggest schools.. Club players as highlighted quite a lot dont get anywhere near the same resources. Doubling the academies or dramatically increasing the size wont see more pro players.

More circular reasoning. Academy players are paid a small stipend of €5,000pa. They also get match fees if they play 'A' games or B+I cup. Add in an extra coach or two and it would still cost less than the likes of Ben Te'o or Zane Kirchener.

Academy players are only paid a pittance but to increase the size of it like you suggest means a doubling in everything else that supports the players - EDOs, s&c, physios, medical team etc etc. It isnt cost effective

Now you're victim blaming. It's their fault if they don't continue. The reality is that if you're set on becoming a pro player and the academy is closed to you, there's no avenue open unless (like James Hart) you're incredibly lucky and your AIL coach gets a job in the Top 14 and takes you with him. Without that pathway, you might play AIL but your career will go in a different direction and rugby will inevitably suffer as study time encroaches or you emigrate on graduation.

Of course the system has a role to play. Ive been advocating that since i joined this site over 5 years ago. But 90% of those set on trying to become a pro player are miles from getting near being a pro but the academy isnt closed to them and you dont have to be "very lucky" to get a contract to play pro rugby. I have very good friends who played ireland 18s/19s and provincially at 20s. They were gunning for academy. Didnt make it. Went to France. Played espoir rugby in french academy set up and now currently playing top level of english club rugby and getting some games in Aviva A games with premiership sides. But countless of those who give up and retire could have tried elsewhere but most dont even try at all. There is avenues open.

The reality is that the academies are the only pathway to a professional career. The number of players who make it through to pro contracts anywhere without having gone through the academies is depressingly small.

That isnt true and never has. They will be where the majority who go pro come from but in what sport is that different but we cant just increase the size of academies if the depth and quality isnt there.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I think that's exactly my point. All three of them came up through Leinster schools and didn't get into the Leinster academy. You could add Dave McSharry to that list also. There are likely more that are playing abroad now that were also missed, which is why I'm saying the academies could be bigger. Especially in the provinces that have greater playing numbers.

Interestingly, those guys would have graduated from the Leinster Academy around the same time as Ian Madigan and Ian McKinley did. That particular year was very small by today's standards: 15 players in total.

They werent good enough at 18 though in most cases. More and more movement now occurs and kids are going to other provinces if not making their home set up.

Blackclaret wrote: »

Interesting discussion, personally I reckon the academies being a distilled select, of our most elite young players is a good thing, the stats relating to the Leinster academy are telling however, are we to believe that a handful of schools are gifted with such a high proportion of excellent athletes with the physical attributes to potentially become pro rugby players? Highly unlikely I would suggest, what is much more likely though is the fact that these guys have been exposed to the very best coaching and conditioning available at underage in this country and the most progressive introduction into the sport. What Irish Rugby needs is to expose every young player who has a mind to do so, to a comparable level of instruction, great coaching makes great players.

Yes it is true. Those schools have the most resources in terms of financial back up, and most importantly high numbers of coaches, very good(in general) and big numbers of players with many who aim for pro rugby from an early age.

How do you propose Irish Rugby exposes every young player who has a mind to do so to a comparable level of instruction as those few elite top schools?

RedemptionZ wrote: »

Ideally yes, but money doesn't grow on trees as they say. It's no coincidence all the best rugby schools are fee paying. The schools also have the advantage that they have access to their players 5/6 days a week, even if a club had money there's no way they'd be able to have that kind of control over a player.

The Academies should be bigger, in Leinster anyway. I don't really see the reasoning behind not having more players. They don't exactly have demanding salaries. The fact that only one player has graduated from the academy without a pro contract is a farce tbh. Not a dig at anyone who's made it pro, they worked their arses off to get it no doubt and earned their place but where is the competition? I mean every player in the academy should be competing with someone else for that pro contract. It shouldn't be this comfortable closed shop where if you behave yourself and do what you're told you'll get a contract.

Well in case of nearly all places bar Limerick its fee paying schools and thats one of the biggest problems in Irish Rugby. We have to get beyond that as a parents income should not impact a sons chances of going pro as much as it currently does. Salaries of players isnt the issue and never has been. Its the coaches/all the stuff beyond that. Its nothing to do with what an academy player earns for the 3 years in the academy. The standards arent there or at least the academy chiefs clearly see they want to get the best of what who they do sign up and not over stretch the set up needlessly.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

All of this is true. But most of the schools have pretty much the same resources for their players and the same amount of training. Whether it be the mammoth 'Rock or tiny St. Gerard's, they all have 5/6 days training and top coaches and facilities. Here's another interesting factoid: Of the current Leinster academy (22), over half of them played in Senior Cup Finals. Eight of them played in the 2013 final between Blackrock and St. Michael's.

Blackrock have 5/6 teams at under 14/15/16 and then 10 or so at senior compared to Gerards having probably half or less than that. The bigger you are and the more players you have the more potential and actual pros you will produce its basic maths. More competition for places on first team. Therefore standards are higher.

Going back over the last five years, only four locks have graduated from the academy. Of those four, Tadhg Beirne and Gavin Thornbury have contracts with Leinster (Thornbury is currently long term injured), Ben Marshall is playing for Connacht and Mark Flanagan is tearing it up in the Championship for Bedford.

And those who left were either not good enough for Leinster at the time they left or chose to play elsewhere where theyd get more pro rugby game time. Increasing the academy sizes doesnt help things. We are not at the stage where we need so much bigger academies

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I know that but still had to ask.

I could have listed him in(and some others) in numerous positions. He is likely to be playing across the backline depending on needs of club, A team in games. He may end up as a 9 but still likely play in other positions in AIL etc

He's been at 10 all year for us so far. Can't imagine that changing when he is back. Top quality footballer, may struggle in the future with Jack of all trades

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Blackrock don't have that many senior teams. Not even close. You'd have to have every single pupil in fifth and sixth year playing rugby to achieve those numbers. In reality they have four senior teams playing on any kind of regular basis. St. Gerard's have two.

Well Blackrock have like 200 lads a year, so between 4th, 5th and 6th year, thats 600 potential rugby players.
To field 10 teams, you'd need no more than 300 players, thats only half of the students available.
They mightn't field 10 teams, but they probably field at least 8.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Blackrock have approx. 1000 pupils. Split in to six years that's roughly 160 a year. They don't all play rugby and given that fifth year students only represent a small minority playing at senior level, it's not possible to get 10 senior teams.

There aren't matches for ten teams anyway. No point having them if they can't play them. There's the senior cup team and the seconds and after that there's just a few lower level matches available. I've seen a 'C' team from Blackrock and that's about it. They weren't particularly good either.

Blackrock has 1000 students split into 5 years. First year remain down with Willow Park junior school.
As senior teams go there are technically 11 senior teams (based on my time in 4th/5th/6th year) 2 of which are reasonably social but play regularly. 1 is a complete social team.
You have:
Senior Cup Team
4 'Castle' teams which are made up of 6th years
4 'house' teams made up of 5th years and 4th years
2 'Colts' teams made up of only 4th years

All these compete in senior cups and leagues.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

That depends on what you consider a senior cup and league surely? Isn't the reality that there's a transition year league and the fifth years tend to play in a seconds league with the 6th year 'Castles' on a mix and match basis?

Thanks for the info on the 1st years.

Not sure of the case now but from my last year in the school:
House and Castle 2nds competed in the Senior 2nds league as different teams and even met in the final one year.

House 3rds and Castle 3rds both compete in the Senior 3rds League

Castle 4ths and Colts 1sts competed in Senior 4 league.

House 4ths, Castle 5ths, Colts 2nds and House 5ths all competed in the same league. Standard would've been very poor though.

All played against full 6th years even in 4th year, just very poor ones. The 2 colts teams competed in leagues pre-Christmas too which was 80% 4th year teams and a few social 6th year ones from Gonzaga etc.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

You say they aren't there, yet you and others can enumerate many examples of non-academy players who've gone on to pro contracts elsewhere. If they were good enough to get pro contracts then they were good enough to get academy contracts.

Just because some go on to be good enough to play pro later on doesn't mean they are ready to join an academy at 18/19. The finances are not there as discussed already. The academy cant cope with all the extra players and still produce the high quality player it has when the players are finished. If you expand the academy significantly you have to add extra s&c coaches, elite development officers, support staff etc. It isn't viable.

The intake for one year in the academy consisted of players exclusively from the Leinster Senior cup final. Don't tell me that there were not other promising players (as in other years) elsewhere that didn't get a look in because the intake was limited and could be filled by selectors turning up to one match.

The quality of players isn't there and you have to look at the coaches and yes there is other promising players but that doesn't mean the academy should be significantly bigger. How big do you go on to let the academies be if you are to let most promising players join?

I've said they could be double the size, I didn't say that should be done overnight. Five years ago, the Leinster academy consisted of 15 players, it's now at 22. Which is still too small. As I pointed out earlier, it's smaller than the current Munster academy which makes no sense whatsoever. So you admit that there are players that the system discards because there isn't enough room.

The system doesn't discard them. If leaving school at 18/19 talented players will or should be playing AIL or u20 AIL. They will have one or two years of age grade interprovincial rugby and possibly age grade national rugby. Leinster clearly don't need to double the size of their academy. The likes of Mick McGrath and club players who didn't go to the academy show that. If good enough you will get your chance. The academy doesn't need to be 40-50 people. Concentrate on the 20 and others will get opportunities in time. The system doesn't discard those who don't make the academy. They can still play Leinster A, be added to Leinster squads on training contracts or whatever.

Blackrock don't have that many senior teams. Not even close. You'd have to have every single pupil in fifth and sixth year playing rugby to achieve those numbers. In reality they have four senior teams playing on any kind of regular basis. St. Gerard's have two.

They do have that many teams. They have more than 4 sides that play on a regular basis. What do you define as a regular basis and that kids Blackrock have so much more competition than anywhere else means players will be better as to make team you have to work harder as you have to get past more players to get jersey in main team

errlloyd wrote: »

I know there is a big discussion here, but there is something I have been playing over in my mind and I wanted to ask posters for their experiences. Do Ireland (and particularly Leinster) have a cultural problem with the scrum half position?

Ireland are fairly brutal at producing scrum halves, particularly in comparison to say Wales or even Scotland. Since 2000 we have had Murray and Stringer who would have made it into the Scotland or Wales teams, but IMO all of Peel, Webb, Davies, Philips, Cusiter, Redpath, Pyrgos, Blair, Laidlaw and more would probably have had decent careers in Ireland. When was the last time Leinster produced an international quality scrum half? I genuinely don't know, I certainly wasn't a rugby fan.

My own experience playing under-age rugby in Ireland (like u8 to JCT level), was that if you had two players with basic halfback skills, then the better one was outhalf and the less good one was scrum half. Even if that did not make sense. I look back now at the players who were the senior cup out-halves in my school, and they were always the best players we had, but the scrum halves were almost always the worst. However the worst bit, was that the two outhalves I played with were both small guys with particularly good passes. One is still playing a bit of AIL (the other is an international cricketer), but I wonder was it the culture of putting them at outhalf that ruined their chances of professional contracts.

One of my more negative memories of rugby was playing A's level in an U13 match. I was young for age grade, which is my excuse. In reality I just wasn't very good. I was quite firmly a Bs player. I played outhalf, not because I could kick, I had a winger who did that, and not because I could pass. I was just good at knowing at creating the right passing opportunity. Drawing the man, or creating the overlap, my execution was poor. Anyway, warming up for the B's match, the A's scrum half (who is now an international hockey player), doesn't show up, so in I go at scrum half for 30 brutal minutes. (Brutal because our 10 had a very "Sexton" temperament, and I wasn't a very confident 12 year old). But it just shows the way the coaches thought of the position, they didn't have a sub scrum half, and they didn't promote the B's scrum half, they promoted the B's 10 because sure all the 9 does is pass the ball.

I don't think the problem is entirely down to bad coaching. Sometimes I think coaches are just trying to be nice. If yo're a hopeless tackler and not very big but want to play rugby the coach is under pressure to put you somewhere so they put you at 9. Their choice is either to tell you to go home, or put you on the wing and pray to god the other team can't pass.

My question for those of you who played age grade rugby, was it your experience that the scrum half was the worst player on the team? Did the coach fill the other backline positions and then put whoever was left over at 9? Or is there another reason why there is this one position that we have typically struggled to fill.

I think what you say is more a reflection on how the role of 10 is seen than a negative reflection on how 9 is seen, it generally is the case that the most talented footballer goes to 10 as that's where they will have the most impact on the game, and honestly I'd be surprised if that didn't happen in other countries too. Two of the best outside centres Leinster have produced, BOD and O'Malley, were 10s in school, not necessarily because the position suited them, but because they were the best footballers. Same with Cleary who played U20 last year I think, he's a 'centre' really but he played 10 for his school. 10 is probably the most difficult and influential position on the field and so the best players go there, that's just the way it goes, not a reflection on our issues at 9 imo

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Just because some go on to be good enough to play pro later on doesn't mean they are ready to join an academy at 18/19. The finances are not there as discussed already. The academy cant cope with all the extra players and still produce the high quality player it has when the players are finished. If you expand the academy significantly you have to add extra s&c coaches, elite development officers, support staff etc. It isn't viable.

We're going around in circles here. I'm submitting that the finances are there if we don't buy in as many foreign players. Even one import could be the differeence depending on their salary. And that's the point really. Investment in academies is investment in the future. Investment in imports is fire-fighting.

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

The quality of players isn't there and you have to look at the coaches and yes there is other promising players but that doesn't mean the academy should be significantly bigger. How big do you go on to let the academies be if you are to let most promising players join?

You're contradicting yourself. But why put limits at all? Why not look at any given year and take allpromising players in. Some years there may not be many, other years there may be a lot more.

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

The system doesn't discard them. If leaving school at 18/19 talented players will or should be playing AIL or u20 AIL. They will have one or two years of age grade interprovincial rugby and possibly age grade national rugby. Leinster clearly don't need to double the size of their academy. The likes of Mick McGrath and club players who didn't go to the academy show that. If good enough you will get your chance. The academy doesn't need to be 40-50 people. Concentrate on the 20 and others will get opportunities in time. The system doesn't discard those who don't make the academy. They can still play Leinster A, be added to Leinster squads on training contracts or whatever.

The problem is that the training levels drop from school to AIL. A lot of AIL teams only train two to three times a week.

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

They do have that many teams. They have more than 4 sides that play on a regular basis. What do you define as a regular basis and that kids Blackrock have so much more competition than anywhere else means players will be better as to make team you have to work harder as you have to get past more players to get jersey in main team

So what you're saying is that Blackrock could be producing up to 20 players good enough for the academies a year? By regular, I mean an average of a match a fortnight for the season. They don't get anything near that. A lot of the matches they play are friendlies.