Leinster Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread VII: The Fan-base Awakens

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's not really a useful competition when the 6 schools aren't involved. It's a discussion for a different thread perhaps but I'd love to see the two merged, bring in geograhical conferences, and then have a playoff from the top placed sides.

It's useful for the B schools that play in it, if not quite as high a level as they would find if the 'Big 6' were involved. I don't know if you played for one of the Big 6, but the meaningless bunch of friendlies played before Christmas followed by possibly just one cup match and oblivion is hardly a great experience builder. A lot of the league schools are doing better in the cup because they have that exposure to meaningful games.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The players have to have the potential to go on to play elite level rugby. That's a fairly obvious requirement for entry to an academy system in a province like Leinster.

I'm not sure you can identify that potential that early in every case. Great if you can, but the provinces need squad players just as much as the national squad, but in the latter case there are four provinces to choose from. So one in four would be a good return.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

It's useful for the B schools that play in it, if not quite as high a level as they would find if the 'Big 6' were involved. I don't know if you played for one of the Big 6, but the meaningless bunch of friendlies played before Christmas followed by possibly just one cup match and oblivion is hardly a great experience builder. A lot of the league schools are doing better in teh cup because they have that exposure to meaningful games.

The current lack of intensity for those schools wasn't always the case and has mostly been by their own creation. I'd hope it's a system someone will force a change to.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I'm not sure you can identify that potential that early in every case. Great if you can, but the provinces need squad players just as much as the national squad, but in the latter case there are four provinces to choose from. So one in four would be a good return.

That level of talent is rarer but there's certainly absolutely no point developing a player with the intention of making him a squad player. You can use current academy players as squad players if necessary. Certain provinces have gone down that path before and ended up regretting it when they spend 4/5 years developing a fairly average player only to find actual talent coming through the academy system, meaning those resources are wasted. If a player doesn't have 1/2 of Gatland's "magic attributes" (elite speed/power/skill) then we should be moving on.

leinstertalk wrote: »

why we are investing time in Marsh then beggars believe..

Because he has half of all of them?

Buer wrote: »

Is there another Nick Robinson I'm not thinking of? Cause I'd take Nicky Robinson standard and style player in a heartbeat from where Marsh is now.

Yeah I got stuck thinking of another player who is physically lacking and failed to deliver on promise so I decided to roll the dice on that one

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

It's a number of things that are failing to produce good enough out halves. Even in the schools where there are better resources and coaches, individual skills coaches for aspiring out halves and scrum halves are few and far between. There's better coaching for the pack then there is for the backs. At any one time between the Leinister clubs and schools (pre academy) there are probably 100+ players playing in the half backs and yet Leinster are struggling to bring on even one per year.

It's such a specialist position though that the vast majority of guys who are playing in those clubs and schools are actually much more natural in other positions. Like Noel Reid and arguably Madigan.

Again, we are not the only people struggling in either position. Look at how New Zealand struggled to produce a top-quality 9 for so many years. There's an element of luck involved.

Is it not a bit much to expect that the Academy captures all potential talent. It needs to make decisions based on limited availability of numbers. To take in more would cost more on wages, admin, insurance etc and so reduce out ability to pay the guys at the top the big bucks. And it would mean less game time per head without having a team in the AIL, which further adds to cost.

With only 4 top level professional teams, there is limited justification for having an increase in the total number of places in academies, otherwise we're throwing away money developing players that will have to go elsewhere to play. At some stage you have to back the best ones, take them into the academy, and let the others get professional rugby elsewhere. Look at Denis Coulson for instance, getting loads of game time at a young age.

BoardsMember wrote: »

Is it not a bit much to expect that the Academy captures all potential talent. It needs to make decisions based on limited availability of numbers. To take in more would cost more on wages, admin, insurance etc and so reduce out ability to pay the guys at the top the big bucks. And it would mean less game time per head without having a team in the AIL, which further adds to cost.

That's a tough question to answer without the actual costs involved. We're guessing as to the cost based on very little information. I think player wages would be the smallest portion of the expense; staff costs and facilities would be much more. As well as those costs, you'd have to know the marginal cost for additional players (whether you need extra staff or not). The real question is how much more (or less) does it cost to bring in foreign players than develop an extra academy player (or players) for example. As the cost of foreign imports rises, it's definitely a question that needs to be asked. It might be better to target resources lower in the age grades to identify and bring on younger players and then you have a better fix on what the return on investment is likely to be if they have to increase the academy size to get these players in.

BoardsMember wrote: »

With only 4 top level professional teams, there is limited justification for having an increase in the total number of places in academies, otherwise we're throwing away money developing players that will have to go elsewhere to play. At some stage you have to back the best ones, take them into the academy, and let the others get professional rugby elsewhere. Look at Denis Coulson for instance, getting loads of game time at a young age.

The time will come when transfer fees will be the order of the day. We're already there with contracts being bought out, so the next step is inevitable as the demand for players continues to grow worldwide.

Hi All, I’ve been following this thread with interest and think that many peoples expectations are unrealistic when evaluating progress from under age to senior inter pro/international success. The sport that I’m most familiar with is GAA and for any county it is seen as exceptional if more than 1 or 2 players from an U18 county team progress to the senior team. The transition of the 1 or 2 is rarely expected before 20/21 as they, usually, need to develop both physically and mentally. And this is in sports that are not a physically attritional as rugby and has, typically, a higher participation rate. In addition the GAA system, generally, funnels all of the player in the county towards the top with the cream rising (each club working with all their players, the best going to underage development panels and the best of the best playing county), whilst maintaining them playing regularly at a competitive club level.
Also in any age grade sport you are only looking at the best at that age, so a representative team that wins all around in 2016 may not be as good as that which only won 50% of its matches in 2015, due to the relative level of the competition.
To summarise, I think that expectations of getting many players to professional (not to mention international) level from each graduating school cycle is wildly optimistic and unrealistic

I wonder if they have KPIs that are informed based on international experience, i.e. how many international standard backs should they be producing in a given time frame. You'd imagine they have some form of KPIs for performance analysis against expecation, bonuses etc.

I'm not convinced at all that increasing the size is the answer, you would possibly end up producing players for other countries. I'd first want to be 100% sure the selection criteria for who gets in could not be improved, and then the management of players once in could not be improved. It's a bit of a "health system" type approach to just expand it and hope it does better, i.e. just throw more money at it when we don't know if its broken or not.

BoardsMember wrote: »

I wonder if they have KPIs that are informed based on international experience, i.e. how many international standard backs should they be producing in a given time frame. You'd imagine they have some form of KPIs for performance analysis against expecation, bonuses etc.

I'm not convinced at all that increasing the size is the answer, you would possibly end up producing players for other countries. I'd first want to be 100% sure the selection criteria for who gets in could not be improved, and then the management of players once in could not be improved. It's a bit of a "health system" type approach to just expand it and hope it does better, i.e. just throw more money at it when we don't know if its broken or not.

A while ago, I looked at the output of the Leinster academy over the last five years and iirc, only one player in that period didn't get a pro contract somewhere. AFAIR, that guy is playing club rugby at amateur level in New Zealand at the moment.

So if you have a KPI of matching output to pro contracts, you'd have to say it's been a success. All of the output can't get senior contracts at Leinster, but over the last couple of years, the majority have. The way I see it, the academy isn't part of a pyramid structure with the senior team at the apex. It's actually narrower than the apex which doesn't make sense on a developmental level.

cantwbr1 wrote: »

I wasn't. I used it as it was the sport I'm most familiar with. You could pick any sport and similar principles apply, participation of a vast number of underage player are required to produce a small number of exceptional adult players. And as I stated, expecting each SC year to produce 5 or 6 exceptional players (forwards or backs) is unrealistic

We're not talking about exceptional players though. That's the ultimate goal but not in every case. Two or three would be a great return in a year but one every year would be more than adequate. Leinster reliy on squad players when the internationals are away (roughly for half the Pro 12 games) and that should be the baseline requirement from the academy.

The output from Leinster schools and clubs every year has to be well over a thousand players.

leinstertalk wrote: »

i'd expect a leinster 1st choice back in the space of 6 age groups - 1988 to 1994. Something they have so far failed to do although that may change with Luke McG or if Dave Kearney manages to displace Nacewa.

and it's not like there hasn't been need for young talent in the backline, there quite clearly has.

I think i've been quite clear about my critiscms surrounding the academy, it underperforming when it comes to improving the talent going into it.

Well Dave Kearney obviously qualifies there. And also he was clearly improved in the academy coming in as an out half with a broken leg and leaving as a back 3 player and then going on to start in a world cup.

He was extremely talented at schools level though. Hopefully we'll get some more like him coming through over the next couple of years.