The Academies

The Lost Sheep · 09-01-2016 03:40PM

Tox56 wrote: »

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

I agree its more a reflection on how 10 is seen. Cleary had played all his club rugby with Navan before moving to Clongowes and played Leinster u18 club rugby at 10 as well. He probably is a centre but played 10 as he could be more influencial there.
If you looked back at a lot of backs who went on to the top level and you will see plenty who ended up playing in the outside backs that played 10 at age grade be that in club or schools rugby because they were the most talented

CMOTDibbler · 09-01-2016 03:46PM

errlloyd wrote: »

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.

A bigger problem positionaly at schools level is in the front row. Many of the players playing in those positions really do not have the build for it and tend to be 'converted' back rows. What I mean by that is that they have a skill set that would make them a back row player so they're in the front row to enusre they're on the pitch.

We have quite a few good scrum halves coming along at the moment. John Cooney who's on loan to Connacht is still very good imo and obviously Kieran Marmion and Luke McGrath. There's also Caolin Blade who can't get a look in at Connacht at the moment but has played well when he did get a shot.

A scrum half needs the ability to pass well off both hands, box kick and organise the forwards. It takes a lot of training and practice.

errlloyd · 09-01-2016 03:54PM

I don't think it is as much of a developmental issue to put an outside back to 10 when they're young (as putting a 9 to 10). Ultimately it is actually probably a positive that our outside backs grow up in a position that gives them lots of ball, and lots of opportunity to practice skills. Felix Jones played 10 for most of his schools career, if he had played fullback in our school he'd have got a lot of practice unsuccessfully defending 2 on 1s and not a lot else.

I think it is a problem developing 9s though. I really think clubs and schools should be able to identify a player who will be a good scrum half, and play them there.

(I can't see the precious poster's name) but if we don't have a cultural problem developing 9s then what is it? Because there is definitely a problem.

wp_rathead · 09-01-2016 04:01PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

A bigger problem positionaly at schools level is in the front row. Many of the players playing in those positions really do not have the build for it and tend to be 'converted' back rows. What I mean by that is that they have a skill set that would make them a back row player so they're in the front row to enusre they're on the pitch.

We have quite a few good scrum halves coming along at the moment. John Cooney who's on loan to Connacht is still very good imo and obviously Kieran Marmion and Luke McGrath. There's also Caolin Blade who can't get a look in at Connacht at the moment but has played well when he did get a shot.

A scrum half needs the ability to pass well off both hands, box kick and organise the forwards. It takes a lot of training and practice.

Cooney was on season long loan last year with Connacht, then he signed a 1 year deal with Connacht for 15/16 season as his contract with Leinster was up at end of 14/15 season..
It is widely expected however that he will return to Leinster next season though

The Lost Sheep · 09-01-2016 04:37PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

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.

Cutting down on NIQs and investing in the academies sounds fine but that just isn't feasible in the short term or long term. The provinces and IRFU are investing heavily in the academies but just throwing huge money in to dramatically increase the spaces available when the quality isn't there or the quality of players that will come through at the end of 3 years is lessened how does that benefit us? Investment in imports is far from "fire-fighting",

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

You cant take all in. What exactly do you define as promising anyway? A difference in the number

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.

Schools sides do what? 3 pitch sessions and then gym/weights/core work. AIL sides have 2 pitch sessions and then players do rest themselves.

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.

That matches are friendlies are still games. Nowhere have I at all implied that Blackrock have that many good for academies.

CMOTDibbler · 09-01-2016 04:42PM

errlloyd wrote: »

I don't think it is as much of a developmental issue to put an outside back to 10 when they're young (as putting a 9 to 10). Ultimately it is actually probably a positive that our outside backs grow up in a position that gives them lots of ball, and lots of opportunity to practice skills. Felix Jones played 10 for most of his schools career, if he had played fullback in our school he'd have got a lot of practice unsuccessfully defending 2 on 1s and not a lot else.

I think it is a problem developing 9s though. I really think clubs and schools should be able to identify a player who will be a good scrum half, and play them there.

(I can't see the precious poster's name) but if we don't have a cultural problem developing 9s then what is it? Because there is definitely a problem.

I hope I'm not the precious poster

I do think it's a mindset though. There's almost a stereotypical selection of 'the small lad' at scrum half because he's keen and doesn't suit another position. As a result, it's reducing the options to the best 'small guy' who's also a good scrum half and there are less and less of those.

The Lost Sheep · 09-01-2016 04:49PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

A bigger problem positionaly at schools level is in the front row. Many of the players playing in those positions really do not have the build for it and tend to be 'converted' back rows. What I mean by that is that they have a skill set that would make them a back row player so they're in the front row to enusre they're on the pitch.

Why do you just mention schools? What of the clubs?
I really don't see it too much of there being 'converted' back rows too much in the front row. Perhaps at hooker but not so much at prop. I don't see anything wrong with front rows having skill set of back row. There isn't really too much of 'backrows' playing prop at age grade level

errlloyd wrote: »

(I can't see the precious poster's name) but if we don't have a cultural problem developing 9s then what is it? Because there is definitely a problem.

Yeah I would like to know exactly what this cultural problem is

CMOTDibbler · 09-01-2016 04:52PM

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Cutting down on NIQs and investing in the academies sounds fine but that just isn't feasible in the short term or long term. The provinces and IRFU are investing heavily in the academies but just throwing huge money in to dramatically increase the spaces available when the quality isn't there or the quality of players that will come through at the end of 3 years is lessened how does that benefit us? Investment in imports is far from "fire-fighting",

Of course it's fire-fighting. What else do you call bringing in a centre because you're short of decent centres or a lock when you're short of locks? Hayden Triggs was specifically brought into Leinster for exactly that reason. Seriously, if I say black, you automatically say white because it's me saying it and you don't agree with my main point. I've also said you don't do this overnight (because you can't) yet you are continually referring to a 'dramatic' increase. You keep saying the quality isn't there yet at the same time have admitted that there are plenty of players in other leagues who came from Ireland without the benefit of an academy contract. Where did they come from?

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

You cant take all in. What exactly do you define as promising anyway? A difference in the number
Schools sides do what? 3 pitch sessions and then gym/weights/core work. AIL sides have 2 pitch sessions and then players do rest themselves.
That matches are friendlies are still games. Nowhere have I at all implied that Blackrock have that many good for academies.

Most school sides do gym sessions as extras as well. Pitch sessions will be at least four times a week.

What exactly do the academies define as promising? Have they not got a metric to work to? Have they not got talent identification programs? If they are given a mandate to look farther and longer without the artificial constraint of a 22-24 man academy, do you think they'd come up completely empty handed?

CMOTDibbler · 09-01-2016 04:58PM

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Why do you just mention schools? What of the clubs?
I really don't see it too much of there being 'converted' back rows too much in the front row. Perhaps at hooker but not so much at prop. I don't see anything wrong with front rows having skill set of back row. There isn't really too much of 'backrows' playing prop at age grade level
Yeah I would like to know exactly what this cultural problem is

Clubs are odd at times. I've seen clubs with age grade players and none looked like becoming viable props. Another club I know had an absolute glut of props a couple of years ago at U21 and they all just dropped out. They were good too, loved propping just didn't like training :eek:

But getting back to scrum half, I suspect that the 'small guy' thing is still the main problem.

The Lost Sheep · 09-01-2016 06:03PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Seriously, if I say black, you automatically say white because it's me saying it and you don't agree with my main point

:rolleyes:

I've also said you don't do this overnight (because you can't) yet you are continually referring to a 'dramatic' increase. You keep saying the quality isn't there yet at the same time have admitted that there are plenty of players in other leagues who came from Ireland without the benefit of an academy contract. Where did they come from?

The provinces have said, well Munster definitely have, in the past they dont increase size of academy as they want to specialize in 20 or so. Those who went pro elsewhere some did go to an academy/contract at 18/19 but most played club rugby here and then went to england/france at 22/23...

Most school sides do gym sessions as extras as well. Pitch sessions will be at least four times a week.

Pitch sessions are not 4 times a week. Theyre on pitch 3 times and then in the gym

What exactly do the academies define as promising? Have they not got a metric to work to? Have they not got talent identification programs? If they are given a mandate to look farther and longer without the artificial constraint of a 22-24 man academy, do you think they'd come up completely empty handed?

You are the one who keeps going on using the term promising. Of course there is talent ID programs. Of course they look beyond those 20 or so in the academy. There is another 10-20 in the sub academy and players who are not in either will still be evaluated but that some may be good enough does not mean the academy should be bigger.

errlloyd · 09-01-2016 06:12PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I hope I'm not the precious poster

I do think it's a mindset though. There's almost a stereotypical selection of 'the small lad' at scrum half because he's keen and doesn't suit another position. As a result, it's reducing the options to the best 'small guy' who's also a good scrum half and there are less and less of those.

Ah I meant previous.

This is what I think the cultural problem is, I'm possibly using the term cultural in the incorrect way.

So the cultural prevalence is that coaches don't value the contribution of scrum halves enough and just blast the little guy in there, if there is a bigger more suited player he ends up further out. (that's my suggestion is all)

CMOTDibbler · 10-01-2016 10:48AM

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

The provinces have said, well Munster definitely have, in the past they dont increase size of academy as they want to specialize in 20 or so. Those who went pro elsewhere some did go to an academy/contract at 18/19 but most played club rugby here and then went to england/france at 22/23...

Munster's academy is actually bigger than Leinster's at the moment. Judging by last night, it probably needs to be bigger again :rolleyes:.

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Pitch sessions are not 4 times a week. Theyre on pitch 3 times and then in the gym

Not in my experience. 5/6 days a week training. Mon, Tues, Wed, Thu on the pitch. Fri off, Sat 40 mins in gym followed by 90 minutes on the pitch, Sun off until December onwards when there's often a Sunday session. The lads are expected to follow their own gym plans some mornings before school starts. The odd time there's a midweek gym session if there's a need. If there's a match then there's no session that day although obviously warm ups and warm downs afterwards. Training continues through the Christmas holidays; hail, rain or snow.

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

You are the one who keeps going on using the term promising. Of course there is talent ID programs. Of course they look beyond those 20 or so in the academy. There is another 10-20 in the sub academy and players who are not in either will still be evaluated but that some may be good enough does not mean the academy should be bigger.

You're double counting by including the sub-academy. That's a holding pen from which the next year's academy intake are selected. Very few players go directly from school to the academies. They would have to be exceptional to do that.

irishbucsfan · 10-01-2016 04:42PM

Increasing the size of academies is not the answer.

Increasing the amount that the academies work together, and increasing the ability of academies to source players from across the country is the long term answer. The most important phase of the academy, beyond A level rugby, is first team exposure in year 2/3 and doubling up on positions just doesn't work for that. But players who are good enough for academy rugby should be found a place at one of the academies and the IRFU should facilitate that movement.

We're very good at catching guys of the required standard, we don't miss that much. What is far more important than this is increasing the standard of coaching for 15-19 year old rugby players in the country at smaller schools and clubs, there's a lot of untapped potential in those areas.

The Lost Sheep · 10-01-2016 05:57PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

You're double counting by including the sub-academy. That's a holding pen from which the next year's academy intake are selected. Very few players go directly from school to the academies. They would have to be exceptional to do that.

Im not double counting anything.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Increasing the size of academies is not the answer.

Increasing the amount that the academies work together, and increasing the ability of academies to source players from across the country is the long term answer. The most important phase of the academy, beyond A level rugby, is first team exposure in year 2/3 and doubling up on positions just doesn't work for that. But players who are good enough for academy rugby should be found a place at one of the academies and the IRFU should facilitate that movement.

We're very good at catching guys of the required standard, we don't miss that much. What is far more important than this is increasing the standard of coaching for 15-19 year old rugby players in the country at smaller schools and clubs, there's a lot of untapped potential in those areas.

+1. Increasing numbers in the main academies is not the answer. Its fixing/working better with the tiers below that must occur. The problem with your last paragraph is for too many their solution to helping the talented players in smaller schools and clubs is that they should simply move to one of the bigger schools and that's just crazy.

CMOTDibbler · 08-04-2016 10:37AM

leinstertalk wrote: »

Of course you can, he never pushed on to the senior team for whatever reason and is unlikely to return to Leinster.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Joe Schmidt clearly rated him and (in a period when Reddan and Boss were still prime players) he got 28 caps for Leinster. He was often on the subs bench in European games and imo was part of the impact that Joe liked to bring from the bench.

MOC gave him as many caps in two years as Joe did in his first year out of the academy (6). :rolleyes:

leinstertalk · 08-04-2016 10:46AM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Joe Schmidt clearly rated him and (in a period when Reddan and Boss were still prime players) he got 28 caps for Leinster. He was often on the subs bench in European games and imo was part of the impact that Joe liked to bring from the bench.

MOC gave him as many caps in two years as Joe did in his first year out of the academy (6). :rolleyes:

is playing for leinster? has he become 1st choice at Leinster or Connacht?

I'm not sure how you could consider him a success for the leinster academy when he is no longer here, was never 1st or 2nd choice and is currently a backup at Connacht.

Maybe your barometer for success is producing backup players for another province..

CMOTDibbler · 08-04-2016 10:55AM

leinstertalk wrote: »

is playing for leinster? has he become 1st choice at Leinster or Connacht?

I'm not sure how you could consider him a success for the leinster academy when he is no longer here, was never 1st or 2nd choice and is currently a backup at Connacht.

Maybe your barometer for success is producing backup players for another province..

You could say the same about any squad player. We're running to the end of Reddan and Boss, Luke McGrath is improving but we're still bringing in a foreign scrum half. John Cooney if he was still with Leinster would certainly do a job for us, either as second to Luke McGrath or first.

The same for Connacht. They have him as backup to Marmion as well as Blade. Some Connacht supporters have rated him above Marmion at times. He's a damn good scrum half and highly valued by Connacht. The fact that he's no longer with Leinster is on MOC, not Cooney.

leinstertalk · 08-04-2016 11:00AM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

You could say the same about any squad player. We're running to the end of Reddan and Boss, Luke McGrath is improving but we're still bringing in a foreign scrum half. John Cooney if he was still with Leinster would certainly do a job for us, either as second to Luke McGrath or first.

The same for Connacht. They have him as backup to Marmion as well as Blade. He's a damn good scrum half and highly valued by Connacht. The fact that he's no longer with Leinster is on MOC, not Cooney.

Cooney was offered a chance to return, he turned it down.
So he is 3rd choice scrumhalf at Connacht? and you want to consider him a success for the leinster academy? Bizarre.

Maybe a case could be made if he was returning, but then we'd be signing a 3rd string irish scrumhalf instead of a 3rd string NZ scrumhalf

CMOTDibbler · 08-04-2016 11:52AM

leinstertalk wrote: »

Cooney was offered a chance to return, he turned it down.
So he is 3rd choice scrumhalf at Connacht? and you want to consider him a success for the leinster academy? Bizarre.

No he's not and that's not what I said. Blade is third choice normally. He got a lot more this season because Cooney was injured but he's just out of the academy this year.

We'll see how it pans out when Cooney is fully back from injury. I'm backing Blade to be a future star but there's a lot of rugby to be played before he gets there.

Bazzo · 08-04-2016 11:58AM

leinstertalk wrote: »

Cooney was offered a chance to return, he turned it down.
So he is 3rd choice scrumhalf at Connacht? and you want to consider him a success for the leinster academy? Bizarre.

Maybe a case could be made if he was returning, but then we'd be signing a 3rd string irish scrumhalf instead of a 3rd string NZ scrumhalf

Cooney was pushing Marmion for first choice before his injury. Granted it coincided with a dip in Marmion's form but he's definitely a good quality scrum half. Marmion is an experienced and, in my opinion, quality scrum half and Blade is a great prospect so contending with them for a spot doesn't mean he's not good enough, and it'll probably push him to improve.

leinstertalk · 08-04-2016 12:04PM

Bazzo wrote: »

Cooney was pushing Marmion for first choice before his injury. Granted it coincided with a dip in Marmion's form but he's definitely a good quality scrum half. Marmion is an experienced and, in my opinion, quality scrum half and Blade is a great prospect so contending with them for a spot doesn't mean he's not good enough, and it'll probably push him to improve.

fair enough but he wasn't a success for leinster, however people want to spin it.

Luke McGrath might be, if he can beat out this third string NZer.

CMOTDibbler · 08-04-2016 12:46PM

leinstertalk wrote: »

fair enough but he wasn't a success for leinster, however people want to spin it.

Nonsense. You've already been proven wrong in your assumption about his standing in Connacht.

leinstertalk · 08-04-2016 12:49PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Nonsense. You've already been proven wrong in your assumption about his standing in Connacht.

what that he is backup for Connacht? Because that's what ive been saying.

It's setting the bar pretty damn low to say Cooney was a success for Leinster, he was never 1st or 2nd choice, started 8 games and now is a backup at another province.

CMOTDibbler · 08-04-2016 12:56PM

leinstertalk wrote: »

what that he is backup for Connacht? Because that's what ive been saying.

It's setting the bar pretty damn low to say Cooney was a success for Leinster, he was never 1st or 2nd choice, started 8 games and now is a backup at another province.

Being behind Reddan and Boss in their prime is hardly something to be ashamed of. You've already been told that his standing in Connacht is pretty much on a par with Marmion. Is it that you look down on Connacht or something?

A player leabing Leinster to further his career is hardly a sign that he's not 'up to it'. You could say the same about Jonny Sexton, Marty Moore or Ian Madigan. It was a bad bit of businees that had Cooney loaned to Connacht and an endorsement of his quality that they wanted to keep him.

leinstertalk · 08-04-2016 01:06PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Being behind Reddan and Boss in their prime is hardly something to be ashamed of. You've already been told that his standing in Connacht is pretty much on a par with Marmion. Is it that you look down on Connacht or something?

A player leabing Leinster to further his career is hardly a sign that he's not 'up to it'. You could say the same about Jonny Sexton, Marty Moore or Ian Madigan. It was a bad bit of businees that had Cooney loaned to Connacht and an endorsement of his quality that they wanted to keep him.

He was on par with an out of form Marmion is what he said, he is comfortable 2nd choice and being pushed by Blade a 21 year old.

You didn't just compare John Cooney leaving Leinster, to Sexton leaving. haha

If a player does not become a regular starter at leinster, it's not really a success for leinster, they are after all trying to develop players for the Leinster 1st team. Not the Connacht one.

Keep spinning it all you want but John Cooney cannot be counted as Leinster successfully developing a player for Leinster. 8 starts is not that. Irregardless of how his situation was mismanaged.

CMOTDibbler · 08-04-2016 01:11PM

leinstertalk wrote: »

He was on par with an out of form Marmion is what he said, he is comfortable 2nd choice and being pushed by Blade a 21 year old.

You didn't just compare John Cooney leaving Leinster, to Sexton leaving. haha

If a player does not become a regular starter at leinster, it's not really a success for leinster, they are after all trying to develop players for the Leinster 1st team. Not the Connacht one.

Keep spinning it all you want but John Cooney cannot be counted as Leinster successfully developing a player for Leinster. 8 starts is not that.

Well we'll have to agree to differ so. Connacht got the better of the deal and now Leinster have to import a NZer to make up for MOC's brilliance in shafting a promising player. I'll continue to believe that Joe Schmidt saw the potential and used him as an impact sub and started him when Reddan and Boss were unavailable. Four starts and twelve subs in his second year under Joe is enough for me.

leinstertalk · 08-04-2016 01:20PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Well we'll have to agree to differ so. Connacht got the better of the deal and now Leinster have to import a NZer to make up for MOC's brilliance in shafting a promising player. I'll continue to believe that Joe Schmidt saw the potential and used him as an impact sub and started him when Reddan and Boss were unavailable. Four starts and twelve subs in his second year under Joe is enough for me.

Who else was going to start when Reddan and Boss were unavailable? He also got so many appearances due to an injury to Reddan iirc

I'm not saying he isn't a decent player, he is. But he isn't a leinster player anymore and he didn't have a successful career at Leinster, unless you consider 8 starts to be a successful leinster career. Therefore he wasn't a success at Leinster, which is what it's all about.

If he was a success then so is Brendan Macken or Andrew Conway. And it's clear as day that they weren't. A successful graduate from the academy should have a much more substantial leinster career.

Again he was never 1st or even 2nd choice at leinster, started 8 games and left for another province. That isn't my definition of successfully developing a quality back for the leinster senior squad. But your barometer is obviously lower.

stephen_n · 08-04-2016 01:27PM

leinstertalk wrote: »

fair enough but he wasn't a success for leinster, however people want to spin it.

Cooney wasn't a success because he couldn't push past two Incumbent Irish scrumhalves but don't let context get in the way.

leinstertalk · 08-04-2016 01:47PM

stephen_n wrote: »

Cooney wasn't a success because he couldn't push past two Incumbent Irish scrumhalves but don't let context get in the way.

so developing a backup scrumhalf for another province should be considered successful development by the leinster academy?

What low standards.

stephen_n · 08-04-2016 01:55PM

leinstertalk wrote: »

so developing a backup scrumhalf for another province should be considered successful development by the leinster academy?

What low standards.

What would you suggest? Adding another 10-15 players to the senior squad so we can retain them all?

The Academies

Comments