The Ubiquity of Rugby

pajunior

fissureseal wrote: »

So the golden era of Irish rugby as Gerry thornley calls it continues with another fine bad result against new zeal . If winning a single grand slam beating a group of 5 teams in a year when some of them are teams in transition after a world cup and a couple of others who are simply cannon fodder every year in the competition , if that makes it a golden generation , it really shows how pathetic the previous generations have been !! But of course what about all the heinrken cups our golden generation have won , yeah it's nice to win but when the competition is so skewed as to favour the provincial teams then it's not so hard or so wonderful an achievement . The English and French clubs have their own bruising lengthy national championships in which clubs treasure any national title win as equal or even more so than any heinrken cup . Meanwhile the provincial teams can put their second string in the meaningless magners rabo league , rest their best players for nearly all the season and still qualify for the next years heinrken . The irfu were just incredibly lucky that they had the provincial set up already established so they had a good base to start when the comp began a few years ago , the welsh and Scottish have only got organised the last couple of years. A grand slam , a few 6 nations , zero progress in any world cup beyond the quarter final when there's only 8 or 9 proper rugby playing countries . A golden era ?? Methinks not

I agree with just about everything you've said here. Spot on, this is not a golden generation of rugby players. However you have to remember compared to the 90's this is an amazing team.
Also the irish provinces have advantages for the Heineken Cup however, the two best teams in Europe are undoubtedly Clermont and Leinster and they played out an extremely tight semi final.

Downlinz

fissureseal wrote: »

So the golden era of Irish rugby as Gerry thornley calls it continues with another fine bad result against new zeal . If winning a single grand slam beating a group of 5 teams in a year when some of them are teams in transition after a world cup and a couple of others who are simply cannon fodder every year in the competition , if that makes it a golden generation , it really shows how pathetic the previous generations have been !! But of course what about all the heinrken cups our golden generation have won , yeah it's nice to win but when the competition is so skewed as to favour the provincial teams then it's not so hard or so wonderful an achievement . The English and French clubs have their own bruising lengthy national championships in which clubs treasure any national title win as equal or even more so than any heinrken cup . Meanwhile the provincial teams can put their second string in the meaningless magners rabo league , rest their best players for nearly all the season and still qualify for the next years heinrken . The irfu were just incredibly lucky that they had the provincial set up already established so they had a good base to start when the comp began a few years ago , the welsh and Scottish have only got organised the last couple of years. A grand slam , a few 6 nations , zero progress in any world cup beyond the quarter final when there's only 8 or 9 proper rugby playing countries . A golden era ?? Methinks not

Dumb post from a guy with a chip on his shoulder. General consensus is we have a golden generation of players being squandered by Kidney. Ask any neutrals and they'll tell you that Ireland for the talent they have, have underperformed for the past 10 years.
The hec provincial advantage has worked wonders for the welsh and scottish with their zero combined titles hasn't it. What you're referencing is nonsensical garbage spouted by bitter losing teams in desperation to not accept the reality that their leagues best are inferior. That'd be bad for business, sure haven't England tried to justify the exact same thing for decades as to why premiership players are a near irrelevance in most major international tournaments. Its clearly the "physicality" and "drain" of the league and not an indication of its inflated perception of quality, oh no.

pajunior

Downlinz wrote: »

Dumb post from a guy with a chip on his shoulder. General consensus is we have a golden generation of players being squandered by Kidney. Ask any neutrals and they'll tell you that Ireland for the talent they have, have underperformed for the past 10 years.
The hec provincial advantage has worked wonders for the welsh and scottish with their zero combined titles hasn't it. What you're referencing is nonsensical garbage spouted by bitter losing teams in desperation to not accept the reality that their leagues best are inferior. That'd be bad for business, sure haven't England tried to justify the exact same thing for decades as to why premiership players are a near irrelevance in most major international tournaments. Its clearly the "physicality" and "drain" of the league and not an indication of its inflated perception of quality, oh no.

I disagree, look at today's game, Cian Healy and SOB or Heaslip are the only Irish players who would get near the NZ team.
Against Wales it's a bit more debatable but maybe there are three/four players you would swap? (Sexton, SOB, Heaslip, POC, Bowe)
There is no denying we have a poor coach but it's not the only story.

English and French leagues are right now poor but it is a truth that the magners league setup is an advantage for it's teams in Europe, how big this advantage is, is debatable however.

But absolutely none of this takes away from Rugby as a game.

DB10

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I find it hard to get passionate about them as well at times and I'm a big rugby fan. My reasons are silly really but to me they come across as a corporate PR machine more than a nation. The false anthem and even the use of a false flag at one stage really turned me off. Also I don't want to offend anyone here but I regard myself as being from ROI, the 6 counties are a foreign country to me.

I agree with some of your points but the last line for me is rubbish.

The Irish soccer team is practically all Ireland at this stage guys like McLean and Gibson from Derry etc, and many more. Theres as many lads from the 6 counties on the soccer team as the rugby team, so I think your point is a bit off.

And I am a soccer fan btw and really do not like rugby too much. At the same time I respect lads like O'Driscoll and O'Connell are Irish sporting legends, but it's just not really my thing.

rKossi

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Soccer in Ireland:

• Embarrassing domestic league
• Rubbish international team
• Ireland ranked 33rd in the world

Rugby in Ireland:

• Ulster European winners once and finalists this season
• Munster and Leinster two of the truly great teams in Europe
• Ireland ranked 8th in the world - down from 4th after a few poor seasons

It's no real surprise rugby is becoming increasingly popular. We're performing at a much higher level than we are at football; both domestically and internationally. The number of European and domestic (ours being Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Italy) titles that we've amassed over the last 12 years is amazing for a country our size. Anyone that's been going to Leinster matches for the last few years will tell you how incredible it's been to be there.


Hopefully the national team can step up again soon and realise their potential.

How many countries care about rugby?? maybe 10? like sure countries like USA have teams but they are terrible because know one plays rugby there. So it not that hard to be ranked 8th.....THE other countries just fill the spaces

ormond lad

rKossi wrote: »

How many countries care about rugby?? maybe 10? like sure countries like USA have teams but they are terrible because know one plays rugby there. So it not that hard to be ranked 8th.....THE other countries just fill the spaces

The USA has fairly good numbers playing rugby and the numbers are increasing a lot every year and the sport is pulling kids from other sports
5 or 6 american clubs/schools(from various areas of the US ranging from kansas to Boston to New York to Pennsylvannia) have came to Nenagh to play rugby the past 3-4 years and every side that has came to Nenagh has said that numbers playing rugby have increased by unimaginable proportions in recent years

eyescreamcone

How come Ireland Rugby have failed to beat a country with a similar population (NZ) for over 100 years???

No elitism in NZ would have a lot to do with this statistic!!!



As for world rugby - the pinnacle of the rugby pyramid is a lot lower than the top level of soccer due to numbers playing the game worldwide.

For instance the Munster team is picked from a group of players not much larger than a GAA county team.

DEFTLEFTHAND

eyescreamcone wrote: »

How come Ireland Rugby have failed to beat a country with a similar population (NZ) for over 100 years???

No elitism in NZ would have a lot to do with this statistic!!!



As for world rugby - the pinnacle of the rugby pyramid is a lot lower than the top level of soccer due to numbers playing the game worldwide.

For instance the Munster team is picked from a group of players not much larger than a GAA county team.

Whats your issue here with elitism? Rugby in Ireland has always been open to the working classes via club level, we've never actively stopped anybody from playing rugby. If your good enough you'll rise to the the top regardless of class.

pajunior

eyescreamcone wrote: »

How come Ireland Rugby have failed to beat a country with a similar population (NZ) for over 100 years???

No elitism in NZ would have a lot to do with this statistic!!!



As for world rugby - the pinnacle of the rugby pyramid is a lot lower than the top level of soccer due to numbers playing the game worldwide.

For instance the Munster team is picked from a group of players not much larger than a GAA county team.

It's pretty simple, way way more people play rugby in NZ added to this they have a greater number of very good under age coaches working with all levels of kids.

ormond lad

pajunior wrote: »

It's pretty simple, way way more people play rugby in NZ added to this they have a greater number of very good under age coaches working with all levels of kids.

New Zealand doesnt have way more people playing the game but they do have a greater number of very good coaches working at all levels

Naomi00

eyescreamcone wrote: »

How come Ireland Rugby have failed to beat a country with a similar population (NZ) for over 100 years???

No elitism in NZ would have a lot to do with this statistic!!!



As for world rugby - the pinnacle of the rugby pyramid is a lot lower than the top level of soccer due to numbers playing the game worldwide.

For instance the Munster team is picked from a group of players not much larger than a GAA county team.

Ireland rarely play New Zealand because they're in the SH. The less times you play a team the less you know them and the more unlikely you are to beat them.

Also NZ are renowned for getting away with murder in matches, refs want them to win seeing as they are the 'poster' team for rugby, being the most famous team in the world.


Australia and South Africa have no problem beating NZ because they play them all the time, we don't, it's not like NZ are as great as what they're made out to be.

marienbad

Naomi00 wrote: »

Ireland rarely play New Zealand because they're in the SH. The less times you play a team the less you know them and the more unlikely you are to beat them.

Also NZ are renowned for getting away with murder in matches, refs want them to win seeing as they are the 'poster' team for rugby, being the most famous team in the world.


Australia and South Africa have no problem beating NZ because they play them all the time, we don't, it's not like NZ are as great as what they're made out to be.

Ah come on, we are the only major nation never to have beaten them.

It would appear that we think they are as great as they are made out to be and that is more likely the problem.

The number 1 ranked team in the world has neve lost to the team usually ranked between 4 and 8 in 100 years ! And when it does happen it will be regared as a great achievement just to win a test , never mind a series.

And it is one of the reasons soccer is to popular . Such a stat could never happen in football. We are 4 games into the euros and one of the top 3 has already lost what most pundits regarded as a gimme.

You just don't get upsets in rugby . And please lets not have the few isolated cases trotted out, their very rarity proves the rule and on analysis they are not really that big an upset . The recent Australia- Scotland game being a case in point.




.

washman3

Funglegunk wrote: »

Ireland has a strong international team, and two of our provinces are among the best teams in Europe. It's also more often than not an exciting sport to watch.

Were you watching the game yesterday morning?? hammered 42-10 by a NZ team who are still suffering from the hangover of their WC victory and only met up for the first time since a few days ago.
Or should we dare mention Twickenham last St.Patricks day:o:o
As for the Heineken Cup, we are successful largely because the French and English teams have minimum interest in that competition.

Yamanoto

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Whats your issue here with elitism?

Have a read of the thread eyescreamcone started last year.

Quite instructive as to the mindset you're dealing with.

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Not only will they be excellent representatives of the people of Leinstershire, but of all the other forelock tugging west brits throughout the island (Munstershire included!).

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056191840

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Throw in the Irelands Call anthem + Invites to British Royal Weddings and you can see why I think Rugby is a foreign sport...foreign to me anyway!!!

The Aussie

Yamanoto wrote: »

I still get a chuckle out of that photo

Monty Burnz

Yamanoto wrote: »

Have a read of the thread eyescreamcone started last year.

Quite instructive as to the mindset you're dealing with.



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056191840

Ah, he's one of those 'West Brit' morons. One of the people who thinks we should all be leprechauns. Fair enough.

ormond lad

marienbad wrote: »

Ah come on, we are the only major nation never to have beaten them.

It would appear that we think they are as great as they are made out to be and that is more likely the problem.

The number 1 ranked team in the world has neve lost to the team usually ranked between 4 and 8 in 100 years ! And when it does happen it will be regared as a great achievement just to win a test , never mind a series.

And it is one of the reasons soccer is to popular . Such a stat could never happen in football. We are 4 games into the euros and one of the top 3 has already lost what most pundits regarded as a gimme.

You just don't get upsets in rugby . And please lets not have the few isolated cases trotted out, their very rarity proves the rule and on analysis they are not really that big an upset . The recent Australia- Scotland game being a case in point.

Argentina, Scotland and Italy have also never beaten the All Blacks
Unfortunately it is the case that big upsets at international level dont happen but with the work being put into the weaker countries more upsets are likely in the next few years.
Soccer is different, in how points are scored and the difficulty there is in getting scores and upsets are more likely.

washman3 wrote: »

Were you watching the game yesterday morning?? hammered 42-10 by a NZ team who are still suffering from the hangover of their WC victory and only met up for the first time since a few days ago.
Or should we dare mention Twickenham last St.Patricks day:o:o
As for the Heineken Cup, we are successful largely because the French and English teams have minimum interest in that competition.

A french side, Toulouse, was the most successful in the Heineken Cup until Leinster joined them on 3 wins this season and while some french sides have had little regard for the Heineken Cup in the past you can never say the same for english club sides.

purplepanda

Brain Stroking wrote: »

Of course i do

Gaa doesnt even extend out of ireland in a minor way. Ex-pats play Gaa abroad not foreigners

Seems that Hurling is spreading on it's own accord in the mid western USA without any GFA help. :rolleyes:

Milwalkee Hurling is real US club run by natives & the largest club in North America.

http://hurling.net/about-mhc/

pajunior

ormond lad wrote: »

New Zealand doesnt have way more people playing the game but they do have a greater number of very good coaches working at all levels

The stats in Ireland are skewed by the IRFU's need to boost their offical numbers, people who play a bit of tag and kids who go to two week summer camps and aren't seen for the rest of the year are all added to our total number of players. More people play proper rugby in NZ and to say otherwise is ridiculous.

Monty Burnz

purplepanda wrote: »

Seems that Hurling is spreading on it's own accord in the mid western USA without any GFA help. :rolleyes:

Milwalkee Hurling is real US club run by natives & the largest club in North America.

http://hurling.net/about-mhc/

Conclusive proof that the game of hurling is growing in America. With one whole club, it will surely soon rival 'Beer Pong' as a sport with dozens of teams in Milwaukee alone.

rKossi

Yamanoto wrote: »

How can someone be so dumb

ormond lad

pajunior wrote: »

The stats in Ireland are skewed by the IRFU's need to boost their offical numbers, people who play a bit of tag and kids who go to two week summer camps and aren't seen for the rest of the year are all added to our total number of players. More people play proper rugby in NZ and to say otherwise is ridiculous.

The stats are skewed everywhere in all sports and kids who attend summer camps in rugby are not added to playing total numbers.
Soccer numbers regularly include lads who play every few weeks in the park with their friends

Monty Burnz

ormond lad wrote: »

The stats are skewed everywhere in all sports and kids who attend summer camps in rugby are not added to playing total numbers.
Soccer numbers regularly include lads who play every few weeks in the park with their friends

Indeed, but the number of tag players would have a huge influence on total player numbers if included - doubling or tripling total playing numbers. I'm not sure the same could be said for those playing assoc. football.

eyescreamcone

25 games against New Zealand in 107 years!!!
Victories Nil.
No decent explanations yet!!!

Monty Burnz

eyescreamcone wrote: »

25 games against New Zealand in 107 years!!!
Victories Nil.
No decent explanations yet!!!

New Zealand are better, and always have been. It's not rocket science. In rugby, the better team nearly always wins - it doesn't have the same level of randomness as assoc. football, where a shyte team can beat a good one with a bit of luck, which is both a blessing and a curse.

How many wins do we have against Argentina in assoc. football? How many against Mexico? Or Uruguay? We've only beaten Northern Ireland four times in ten games - 75% of Ireland can't even beat the other 25% half the time!

I'm not sure what your point is though - rugby's merit as a sport has nothing to do with our continuing travails against NZ.

marienbad

eyescreamcone wrote: »

25 games against New Zealand in 107 years!!!
Victories Nil.
No decent explanations yet!!!

For 107 years they have been better than us, and your point is ?

pajunior

ormond lad wrote: »

The stats are skewed everywhere in all sports and kids who attend summer camps in rugby are not added to playing total numbers.
Soccer numbers regularly include lads who play every few weeks in the park with their friends

I'm not comparing rugby's numbers in Ireland to soccer's. Rather rugby in Ireland to rugby in NZ. We skew are numbers, they don't.

fissureseal

Downlinz wrote: »

fissureseal wrote: »

So the golden era of Irish rugby as Gerry thornley calls it continues with another fine bad result against new zeal . If winning a single grand slam beating a group of 5 teams in a year when some of them are teams in transition after a world cup and a couple of others who are simply cannon fodder every year in the competition , if that makes it a golden generation , it really shows how pathetic the previous generations have been !! But of course what about all the heinrken cups our golden generation have won , yeah it's nice to win but when the competition is so skewed as to favour the provincial teams then it's not so hard or so wonderful an achievement . The English and French clubs have their own bruising lengthy national championships in which clubs treasure any national title win as equal or even more so than any heinrken cup . Meanwhile the provincial teams can put their second string in the meaningless magners rabo league , rest their best players for nearly all the season and still qualify for the next years heinrken . The irfu were just incredibly lucky that they had the provincial set up already established so they had a good base to start when the comp began a few years ago , the welsh and Scottish have only got organised the last couple of years. A grand slam , a few 6 nations , zero progress in any world cup beyond the quarter final when there's only 8 or 9 proper rugby playing countries . A golden era ?? Methinks not

Dumb post from a guy with a chip on his shoulder. General consensus is we have a golden generation of players being squandered by Kidney. Ask any neutrals and they'll tell you that Ireland for the talent they have, have underperformed for the past 10 years.
The hec provincial advantage has worked wonders for the welsh and scottish with their zero combined titles hasn't it. What you're referencing is nonsensical garbage spouted by bitter losing teams in desperation to not accept the reality that their leagues best are inferior. That'd be bad for business, sure haven't England tried to justify the exact same thing for decades as to why premiership players are a near irrelevance in most major international tournaments. Its clearly the "physicality" and "drain" of the league and not an indication of its inflated perception of quality, oh no.

Funny that you think it was a dumb post when our views aren't that far apart . My whole point was that the Irish players have underperformed at the top level these last ten years considering the undoubted talent at our disposal , one grand slam that we very nearly threw away and a couple of 6 nations is a meagre return considering in my opinion , I feel this generation far from being a golden generation are a generation that haven't fufilled their potential . My main gripe is the fawning soft focus uncritical analysis afforded to the rugby team and management by our media . Kidneys position should be under way more scrutiny considering our results the last while .
As for whether the little englander thinks his rugby premiership is the best in the world ( which of course it isn't ) doesn't take away from the fact the English and French club have to play alot more games in theie league as the qualification for the h cup is so competitive while the provincial team players can put their feet up safe in the knowledge that qualification to the heineken cup is guaranteed ( unless Connacht spring a surprise which the irfu with control of the funding of course will ensure won't happen ) and use the odd rabo game as a warmup prior to a heineken weekend . The fact the english or french have an inflated perception of the quality of their leagues is irrelevant to my point . Matt Williams in his column a few weeks ago found it bizarre that the Irish rugby fans seem to be happy enough to put with a underperforming national side at the top international level provided the provinces have success in the heineken ( a competition they have a marked advantage in , his words not mine )
Re your point bout the welsh and Scottish provinces , it's only the last couple of years they ve managed to get the provincial idea bedded down in places where club rivalry were intense ( esp in Wales ) , Ireland thru pure luck had a suitable provincial structure there in place already so they had a major headstart . Hence ospreys winning the rabo and edinb getting to the h cup semis are a sign of thingsto come . You can portray the french or English clubs as sore losers if you want but I think they ve a valid point

fissureseal

Monty Burnz wrote: »

purplepanda wrote: »

Seems that Hurling is spreading on it's own accord in the mid western USA without any GFA help. :rolleyes:

Milwalkee Hurling is real US club run by natives & the largest club in North America.

http://hurling.net/about-mhc/

Conclusive proof that the game of hurling is growing in America. With one whole club, it will surely soon rival 'Beer Pong' as a sport with dozens of teams in Milwaukee alone.

Is it really necessary to be so patronising and condescending all the time monty ?? Just because some people don't share your lofty perception of rugby doesn't mean their posts should
be regarded a source of ridicule for you .
And is there any particular reason for you calling it association football other than just to wind people up or is it beneath you to call it soccer

Monty Burnz

fissureseal wrote: »

Funny that you think it was a dumb post when our views aren't that far apart . My whole point was that the Irish players have underperformed at the top level these last ten years considering the undoubted talent at our disposal , one grand slam that we very nearly threw away and a couple of 6 nations is a meagre return considering in my opinion , I feel this generation far from being a golden generation are a generation that haven't fufilled their potential . My main gripe is the fawning soft focus uncritical analysis afforded to the rugby team and management by our media . Kidneys position should be under way more scrutiny considering our results the last while .

Agreed. To be fair, we should have had a second Grand Slam in 2007 except for the bounce of a ball and a single missed tackle, but your point stands.

fissureseal wrote: »

As for whether the little englander thinks his rugby premiership is the best in the world ( which of course it isn't ) doesn't take away from the fact the English and French club have to play alot more games in theie league as the qualification for the h cup is so competitive while the provincial team players can put their feet up safe in the knowledge that qualification to the heineken cup is guaranteed ( unless Connacht spring a surprise which the irfu with control of the funding of course will ensure won't happen ) and use the odd rabo game as a warmup prior to a heineken weekend .

Oddly enough, when the French and English teams were dominant, the English media told us that it was because the Premiership and the T14 were so competitive, the teams were all battle-hardened and used to high levels of comepetition, compared to the poor quality and low intensity of the (then) Celtic League. Make up your minds, fellas.

pajunior

fissureseal wrote: »

Funny that you think it was a dumb post when our views aren't that far apart . My whole point was that the Irish players have underperformed at the top level these last ten years considering the undoubted talent at our disposal , one grand slam that we very nearly threw away and a couple of 6 nations is a meagre return considering in my opinion , I feel this generation far from being a golden generation are a generation that haven't fufilled their potential . My main gripe is the fawning soft focus uncritical analysis afforded to the rugby team and management by our media . Kidneys position should be under way more scrutiny considering our results the last while .
As for whether the little englander thinks his rugby premiership is the best in the world ( which of course it isn't ) doesn't take away from the fact the English and French club have to play alot more games in theie league as the qualification for the h cup is so competitive while the provincial team players can put their feet up safe in the knowledge that qualification to the heineken cup is guaranteed ( unless Connacht spring a surprise which the irfu with control of the funding of course will ensure won't happen ) and use the odd rabo game as a warmup prior to a heineken weekend . The fact the english or french have an inflated perception of the quality of their leagues is irrelevant to my point . Matt Williams in his column a few weeks ago found it bizarre that the Irish rugby fans seem to be happy enough to put with a underperforming national side at the top international level provided the provinces have success in the heineken ( a competition they have a marked advantage in , his words not mine )
Re your point bout the welsh and Scottish provinces , it's only the last couple of years they ve managed to get the provincial idea bedded down in places where club rivalry were intense ( esp in Wales ) , Ireland thru pure luck had a suitable provincial structure there in place already so they had a major headstart . Hence ospreys winning the rabo and edinb getting to the h cup semis are a sign of thingsto come . You can portray the french or English clubs as sore losers if you want but I think they ve a valid point

You have to remember where the idea that this is a 'golden generation' comes from. Traditionally since ww2 Ireland have been the worst nation from amongst the original 5 nations and tri nations. We have a record for the most wooden spoons. Coming into 2000 we had lost to Italy three times and Argentina at the WC, we really did look like an awful rugby nation (sort of the way Scotland look now).

However a generation of brilliant Irish players came through the provinces and we have had more success over the last 10 years then almost any time before, it even got to the point where not winning a grand slam was awful. For England or France it would be seen as an average/below average decade but for us it has been quite fantastic.

Of course success breeds expectations and calling a group of players a 'golden generation' is quite a burden.
Should/could we have had more success? Of course but other nations would probably say the same, England's world cup winning team only ever won one grand slam, France have ever won a WC despite often knocking out the best team in the tournament (usually NZ). Scotland and Italy have achieved nothing over the last few years. Only Wales, South Africa and Argentina and now NZ would be genuinely happy with recent success. However in years to come I think Irish rugby fans will look back and be happy with how our team played.

marienbad

pajunior wrote: »

You have to remember where the idea that this is a 'golden generation' comes from. Traditionally since ww2 Ireland have been the worst nation from amongst the original 5 nations and tri nations. We have a record for the most wooden spoons. Coming into 2000 we had lost to Italy three times and Argentina at the WC, we really did look like an awful rugby nation (sort of the way Scotland look now).

However a generation of brilliant Irish players came through the provinces and we have had more success over the last 10 years then almost any time before, it even got to the point where not winning a grand slam was awful. For England or France it would be seen as an average/below average decade but for us it has been quite fantastic.

Of course success breeds expectations and calling a group of players a 'golden generation' is quite a burden.

Should/could we have had more success? Of course but other nations would probably say the same, England's world cup winning team only ever won one grand slam, France have ever won a WC despite often knocking out the best team in the tournament (usually NZ). Scotland and Italy have achieved nothing over the last few years. Only Wales, South Africa and Argentina and now NZ would be genuinely happy with recent success. However in years to come I think Irish rugby fans will look back and be happy with how our team played.

Except for the world cup 2007, the golden generation were fitter and younger . I always felt that was the performance that got away.

pajunior

marienbad wrote: »

Except for the world cup 2007, the golden generation were fitter and younger . I always felt that was the performance that got away.

We lost to a very good French team (they should have won the WC) and an Argentinian team which was peaking and playing it's best rugby. In Hindsight I would say that 2011 was a better team than 2007.
But I do agree that the 07 team got no-where near their best performances.

eyescreamcone

marienbad wrote: »

For 107 years they have been better than us, and your point is ?

They have been better than us because they have not excluded any part of their society in their trawl for potential international standard talent.
Ireland Rugby has ignored large portions of its potential talent base.
No internationals from Finglas, Tallaght or Knocknaheeney shows this to be true.

If only the "Limerick situation" was replicated throughout the country then I'm sure that we wouldn't have gone 107 years without a win v NZ!

Elitism might ensure 'caps for the boys' but in the white heat of international competition it will also ensure continued defeats to countries with a similar population.

pajunior

eyescreamcone wrote: »

They have been better than us because they have not excluded any part of their society in their trawl for potential international standard talent.
Ireland Rugby has ignored large portions of its potential talent base.
No internationals from Finglas, Tallaght or Knocknaheeney shows this to be true.

If only the "Limerick situation" was replicated throughout the country then I'm sure that we wouldn't have gone 107 years without a win v NZ!

Elitism might ensure 'caps for the boys' but in the white heat of international competition it will also ensure continued defeats to countries with a similar population.

I think you are mixing up elitism with bad growth/management.
The IRFU in the past has undoubtedly done a bad job of growing the game outside of traditional areas, however that has changed hugely over the years with new clubs/schools appearing in loads of different areas which are in no way traditional. Tallaght was used as an example earlier and in years to come it is not hard to imagine internationals coming from areas like Tallaght and others which are acceptable to your tastes.

I can't imagine the pain your going through when someone from Clontarf is lauded as a national hero.

Monty Burnz

eyescreamcone wrote: »

They have been better than us because they have not excluded any part of their society in their trawl for potential international standard talent.
Ireland Rugby has ignored large portions of its potential talent base.
No internationals from Finglas, Tallaght or Knocknaheeney shows this to be true.

If only the "Limerick situation" was replicated throughout the country then I'm sure that we wouldn't have gone 107 years without a win v NZ!

Elitism might ensure 'caps for the boys' but in the white heat of international competition it will also ensure continued defeats to countries with a similar population.

How many soccer internationals are there from private secondary Dublin schools? PROOF THAT SOCCER IS ELITIST!!

:rolleyes:

Anybody who wants to can play rugby. This is a fact. Deal with it.

eyescreamcone

Anyone can play rugby but only those who go to the rugby schools get the best coaching. Fact!
This is similar to tennis where anyone can play but if your pater can afford to send you to a training academy in Florida then you will have a better chance of making the big time.
Rugbyheads don't like it when their sport is called elitist but tough.
If it looks like a monkey and smells like a monkey...

Monty Burnz

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Anyone can play rugby but only those who go to the rugby schools get the best coaching. Fact!
This is similar to tennis where anyone can play but if your pater can afford to send you to a training academy in Florida then you will have a better chance of making the big time.
Rugbyheads don't like it when their sport is called elitist but tough.
If it looks like a monkey and smells like a monkey...

You are looking and smelling a lot like a monkey here. What makes you think the best coaching happens at the schools? Have you been to some of these schools and some clubs to compare? Or are you talking out of your ass?

eyescreamcone

Most of the internationals came from the school system in the past and this continues today.
If this result is not due to superior coaching what is the cause??

Surely you are not implying that the schools produce more internationals IN SPITE of inferior coaching.

Monty Burnz

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Most of the internationals came from the school system in the past and this continues today.
If this result is not due to superior coaching what is the cause??

Surely you are not implying that the schools produce more internationals IN SPITE of inferior coaching.

This is because the overwhelming majority of rugby players used come from the schools, and the best club players are offered scholarships to the schools anyway so it looks like they came through the schools rather than the clubs. Today more and more are coming through the clubs (you have repeatedly been given examples in this thread), and in a decade as those who have started the game in the last few years come of age, you'll see a change of balance.

You still haven't cited any current assoc. football internationals who came from private schools, so I can only assume there's some sort of outrageous reverse snobbery going on in the FAI...

eyescreamcone

Soccer applying reverse snobbery! Haha
Most professional soccer players don't finish school so that can hardly be the case.
All soccer players are formed in clubs not schools (private or otherwise)

[Jackass]

This thread is funny.

Most people who hate rugby are insecure and have an inferiority complex to people who go to private schools etc who happen to play rugby, or maybe went to one and were bullied.

I'd like to see these people call Sean O'Brien, for example, a posh toff, from the bog arse end of nowhere and the biggest farm head on in imaginable.

Secondly, these people don't have a clue and have probably never been to a rugby game and lack the intellect to realise that Ross O'Carroll Kelly books are works of fiction, and not a college thesis documenting human behaviour. The word "D4's" is thrown around, without actually knowing what a D4 is...apart from anyone without a knacker accent maybe? And areas such as Blackrock and Foxrock...which are nowhere near D4..but again, and inferiority complex towards the wealthy, because people think the rich are better than them, so hate them.

As for football, I like it, but the Irish football fan is the biggest mug going, supporting Chelsea, Man City, Man Utd, Liverpool....places they have absolutely no connection to what so ever, but don't support a local team in the Irish league, and don't support QPR or Barnet City, as they just want the quick fix and glory. Only top teams. At least rugby people are real fans, supporting their local teams, and Irish football fans are fickle glory hunters by default. Also, the state of the Irish "fans" booing the English team off their bus in Poland, have they nothing better to do? And come September they'll all be arguing again about how Rooney is the best striker in the league etc. and passionately defending a player, despite booing him off a bus a few short months ago.

Football fans are muppets. The sport is decent, but it's gotten a lot worse over the last 10 - 20 years.

eyescreamcone

[Quote=[Jackass];79149946]This thread is funny.

Most people who hate rugby are insecure and have an inferiority complex to people who go to private schools etc who happen to play rugby, or maybe went to one and were bullied.

I'd like to see these people call Sean O'Brien, for example, a posh toff, from the bog arse end of nowhere and the biggest farm head on in imaginable.

Secondly, these people don't have a clue and have probably never been to a rugby game and lack the intellect to realise that Ross O'Carroll Kelly books are works of fiction, and not a college thesis documenting human behaviour. The word "D4's" is thrown around, without actually knowing what a D4 is...apart from anyone without a knacker accent maybe? And areas such as Blackrock and Foxrock...which are nowhere near D4..but again, and inferiority complex towards the wealthy, because people think the rich are better than them, so hate them.

As for football, I like it, but the Irish football fan is the biggest mug going, supporting Chelsea, Man City, Man Utd, Liverpool....places they have absolutely no connection to what so ever, but don't support a local team in the Irish league, and don't support QPR or Barnet City, as they just want the quick fix and glory. Only top teams. At least rugby people are real fans, supporting their local teams, and Irish football fans are fickle glory hunters by default. Also, the state of the Irish "fans" booing the English team off their bus in Poland, have they nothing better to do? And come September they'll all be arguing again about how Rooney is the best striker in the league etc. and passionately defending a player, despite booing him off a bus a few short months ago.

Football fans are muppets. The sport is decent, but it's gotten a lot worse over the last 10 - 20 years.[/Quote]

If ever somebody was aptly named it is you

[Jackass]

How drole and what a stinging retort. :rolleyes:

ben_bernanke

eyescreamcone wrote: »

25 games against New Zealand in 107 years!!!
Victories Nil.
No decent explanations yet!!!

ireland have not beaten brazil very often either , in soccer that is

Yamanoto

eyescreamcone wrote: »

How come Ireland Rugby have failed to beat a country with a similar population (NZ) for over 100 years???

Ridiculous over-simplification to frame it in terms of population.

The reasons NZ have historically dominated us (and the world) are multi-factorial - Rugby is central to that nation's identity and deeply interwoven into its heritage. The success of the early overseas tours, at a time when NZ was seeking a place for itself in the wider world, lit the country's imagination and sparked a fervour for the sport that no other country can match. Every small community formed a club, around which that parishes social and sporting histories were written. Sound familiar?

Also of considerable significance, how the principles enshrined in Maori and Polynesian culture seem to chime perfectly with the team ethos and controlled aggression required by Rugby Union, the obvious innate physical advantage possessed by South Sea Islanders and the early age and innovative methods by which youngsters develop the core skills of the game.

A sociologist / social anthropologist may also point to myriad other factors as diverse as demography, colonialism, meteorology, the built environment etc.

Ireland could replicate every single system in place in NZ Rugby and we would still fall well short, their advantages are societal and genetic and uniquely theirs alone.

eyescreamcone wrote: »

No elitism in NZ would have a lot to do with this statistic!!!

Can you provide any evidence to add weight to the above? Merely saying it is so does not make it so.

Monty Burnz

Yamanoto wrote: »

Can you provide any evidence to add weight the above assertion? Merely saying it is so does not make it so.

The treatment of the Maoris in NZ in the past also makes his point rather hilarious. Elitism doesn't quite begin to describe it.

ben_bernanke

Yamanoto wrote: »

Ridiculous over-simplification to frame it in terms of population.

The reasons NZ have historically dominated us (and the world) are multi-factorial - Rugby is central to that nation's identity and deeply interwoven into its heritage. The success of the early overseas tours, at a time when NZ was seeking a place for itself in the wider world, lit the Country's imagination and sparked a fervour for the sport that no other country can match. Every small community formed a club, around which that parishes social and sporting histories were written. Sound familiar?

Also of considerable significance, how the principles enshrined in Maori and Polynesian culture seem to chime perfectly with the team ethos and controlled aggression required by Rugby Union, the obvious innate physical advantage possessed by South Sea Islanders and the early age and innovative methods by which youngsters develop the core skills of the game.

A sociologist / social anthropologist may also point to myriad other factors as diverse as demography, colonialism, meteorology, the built environment etc.

Ireland could replicate every single system in place in NZ Rugby and we would still fall well short, their advantages are societal and genetic and uniquely theirs alone.



Can you provide any evidence to add weight to the above? Merely saying it is so does not make it so.

rugbys place in new zealand is probabley greater then the influence of GAA in this country and we all know how instrinsic the GAA is to culture in this country

btw , the GAA is one of the reasons rugby and indeed soccer struggle for talent and this hurts irelands ability on the international stage , outside the citys , GAA hoovers up the bulk of talent in rural ireland at a young age

eyescreamcone

ben_bernanke wrote: »

eyescreamcone wrote: »

25 games against New Zealand in 107 years!!!
Victories Nil.
No decent explanations yet!!!

ireland have not beaten brazil very often either , in soccer that is

We have beaten them tho
And that's not a fair comparison as Brazil have a huge population and use every inch of it to maximum potential

Monty Burnz

eyescreamcone wrote: »

We have beaten them tho
And that's not a fair comparison as Brazil have a huge population and use every inch of it to maximum potential

And in assoc football, it's much easier for sh!t teams to be competitive. Didn't we draw with mighty Liechtenstein? Weren't we hammered by mighty Cyprus?