Ireland u20 6 Nations and Junior World Cup 2014

rugby_fan

Burcsd94 wrote: »

Next years team probably wont even have a player who solely played club rugby in it.. a few lads who moved to rugby schools may be involved...

a top club rugby if afforded the opportunity should attend a rugby school, increased opportunity, increased coaching, increased competition, increased standards...

it's not a necessity especially if you are a forward but it sure does help

Not sure I totally agree wit the fact that a top club player giving the opportunity should attend a rugby school, look at Peter Dooley as a prime example, giving the opportunity to attend a rugby school, turned it down, didn't do him any harm.

FrannoFan

rugby_fan wrote: »

Not sure I totally agree wit the fact that a top club player giving the opportunity should attend a rugby school, look at Peter Dooley as a prime example, giving the opportunity to attend a rugby school, turned it down, didn't do him any harm.

Tom daly year before was offered opportunity to move to a rugby boarding school but turned it down as well. He was playing leinster 17's and 18's so was already on the radar and probably didn't feel the need.
A move to a rugby school can put a player in the limelight though. It gets massive coverage. There is also the facilities advantages of gym etc.

The Lost Sheep

RedemptionZ wrote: »

That's a very petty thing to say. Yes he got attention from having a key role in the Leinster schools senior cup, it's the biggest underage tournament in the country, not very surprising. He got access to top class facilities and coaches 7 days a week, that isn't available for clubs. You're saying it as if it's a bad thing.

Im not saying its a bad thing and not petty at all. He was lucky he attended a big rugby school as if he came to the fore later than many do and if he had played his rugby elsewhere he wouldn't more than likely have got to play at irish 20s level

Burcsd94 wrote: »

his dislike for schools rugby is well documented..

You're new to this site. You know nothing on me and I don't dislike schools rugby but think its role in irish rugby has to be adapted

Burcsd94 wrote: »

Next years team probably wont even have a player who solely played club rugby in it.. a few lads who moved to rugby schools may be involved...

a top club rugby if afforded the opportunity should attend a rugby school, increased opportunity, increased coaching, increased competition, increased standards...

it's not a necessity especially if you are a forward but it sure does help

Why have situation where you want everyone with decent rugby talent to attend a small number of schools, which are primarily fee paying and by doing this we only reinforce the idea rugby is an elite sport dominated by those who can afford a fee paying school.

Burcsd94

rugby_fan wrote: »

Not sure I totally agree wit the fact that a top club player giving the opportunity should attend a rugby school, look at Peter Dooley as a prime example, giving the opportunity to attend a rugby school, turned it down, didn't do him any harm.

sure I said it wasn't a necessity.. Dooley, Daly, Byrne and Furlong are recent examples of that but they are the exceptions.

for the amount of players that go through the club system every year a tiny fraction are good enough to potentially make the academy.

As I said next year there won't likely be any players who have came solely come through the club system at least in Leinster.

The Lost Sheep

Burcsd94 wrote: »

sure I said it wasn't a necessity.. Dooley, Daly, Byrne and Furlong are recent examples of that but they are the exceptions.

for the amount of players that go through the club system every year a tiny fraction are good enough to potentially make the academy.

As I said next year there won't likely be any players who have came solely come through the club system at least in Leinster.

Its the same in schools only a tiny fraction overall but youths is getting stronger and while will be less coming through over the next few years as coaching standards and playing numbers in clubs improve over time(and they both are considerably) we will see much more from youths.

Burcsd94

Which is why top club players(in general) are better off going to schools if given the opportunity(at present).
Dooley, Byrne, Daly and Furlong are exceptions, they were the very best players in their age group at club level and when they joined the schools players they were again among the best players, that rarely happens with club players.
Hopefully it can start to happen more but there is no sign of it happening next season, the next player in Leinster who may do that is Conor O'Brien from Mullingar who played for Ireland under-18 club team this year.

The Lost Sheep

Burcsd94 wrote: »

Which is why top club players(in general) are better off going to schools if given the opportunity(at present).
Dooley, Byrne, Daly and Furlong are exceptions, they were the very best players in their age group at club level and when they joined the schools players they were again among the best players, that rarely happens with club players.
Hopefully it can start to happen more but there is no sign of it happening next season, the next player in Leinster who may do that is Conor O'Brien from Mullingar who played for Ireland under-18 club team this year.

I just don't see why we have to more situations that just show rugby as an elitist sport and by saying you are best off attending the top rugby schools which are virtually all fee paying schools(in Leinster anyway) we are doing that.
The likes of Dooley et all are not exceptions they are the real beginning of strength in the clubs game. There is loads more like them in the youths side of things. Navan will produce quite a few academy players over the next few years with the numbers playing in the club at this time

Burcsd94

How can you say Dooley etc are not exceptions?
If there was loads more like them then they would be coming through, but they aren't currently.
No club players joining the academy this year, no club players players playing for Ireland under-19 this year.
Maybe in 5 years time there will be a Dooley/Daly/Byrne every year but it's not there currently.
Next year you might have a couple of players who moved from clubs to schools because they saw the benefit of the increased coaching, competition etc.

shaungil

I'm with Lost sheep on this. In fact the provinces nowcan have more control over guys in youths strutures at an earlier age and control their development with a iew to playing for longer. Some schools won't let provinces near their players as their focus is one competition for one year.
But the schools are still massive and highly pressurised and many guys will come from Youths to a school for a year or 2 like Blackrock this year.

The Pheasant2

I'm afraid I disagree with Lost Sheep here, I think schools do an excellent job of producing top quality players and I don't see why we should do anything to restrict their efforts.

In the top rugby schools up and down the country you'll have more or less every boy from 2nd class up training 3 times weekly with matches almost every Saturday - I went to a rugby school myself so you might say I'm biased, but I can say with near certainty that if I hadn't gone to a rugby school I probably would never have played the sport and probably wouldn't even be that interested in it - that's a big plus with the schools that you don't account for; a lot of young boys may only develop an interest/passion for rugby after they've been given a taste of it. Sure BOD was mainly into GAA before he went to Blackrock...how many other potential stars could fall through the net if they're not encouraged to play at school?

Then in secondary level the A squads will be training 4-5 times weekly and the Senior squad training daily with strength and conditioning coaches, video analysis sessions, dieticians, physiotherapists on hand to treat injuries - there's no better way in Ireland to prepare a prospect for top level rugby imo than to have them play School's cup rugby.

However, my while playing rugby with my school, I also played for a few years at a club too so I am familiar with how the club set up works. If you ask me the school's should be left as they are. Nevertheless more emphasis should be placed on getting kids who aren't in rugby school's/those who may not be exposed to rugby into the clubs.

No matter how good the clubs get, they'll never be able to match the level of access to their players and I feel therein lies the weakness of focusing on club rugby. I may be wrong, but didn't Scotland change their rugby system from school's focused to club's focused? Look how that's worked for them - rugby is stagnating if not dying in Scotland at the moment.

Basically I think that the clubs should of course be promoted and to the fullest extent, but not at the expense of schools rugby.

matthew8

Schools rugby is great for the players in the big rugby schools, but the vast majority of people don't go to a big rugby school. The smaller schools that play rugby are certainly no better than clubs at developing players.

Hagz

What's the alternative being argued here?

Burcsd94

There is no realistic alternative.. all the clubs can do is try to improve...

without strong schools rugby the production line of players will quickly dry up

I played for a club and never went to a rugby school...

The Lost Sheep

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

I'm afraid I disagree with Lost Sheep here, I think schools do an excellent job of producing top quality players and I don't see why we should do anything to restrict their efforts.

In the top rugby schools up and down the country you'll have more or less every boy from 2nd class up training 3 times weekly with matches almost every Saturday - I went to a rugby school myself so you might say I'm biased, but I can say with near certainty that if I hadn't gone to a rugby school I probably would never have played the sport and probably wouldn't even be that interested in it - that's a big plus with the schools that you don't account for; a lot of young boys may only develop an interest/passion for rugby after they've been given a taste of it. Sure BOD was mainly into GAA before he went to Blackrock...how many other potential stars could fall through the net if they're not encouraged to play at school?

Some schools do an excellent job as they have extra financial support than clubs combined with extra numbers.
Im not saying people shouldn't be encouraged to play at school im saying the links with clubs have to be kept up and the dual status of club and school should be reinforced. You are seeing a lot more clubs train more and players getting treatment similar to schools.
What ive highlighted in red is even more the case in the clubs game and more important there. If you attend a school where rugby is played quite a bit and has a decent history even if you haven't played the sport you will get into the sport in some way. Some will like the sport others not but there is still multiples more not attending one of those schools.

Then in secondary level the A squads will be training 4-5 times weekly and the Senior squad training daily with strength and conditioning coaches, video analysis sessions, dieticians, physiotherapists on hand to treat injuries - there's no better way in Ireland to prepare a prospect for top level rugby imo than to have them play School's cup rugby.

Yes there is the time that schools have and in a most cases that's more than any other side but we cant rely on that. We need a dual approach where clubs can do work and that approach creates a mirage as unless you either make it into pro academies or a small number of clubs at the top levels you don't get anything like that again and that isn't good for the sport.

However, my while playing rugby with my school, I also played for a few years at a club too so I am familiar with how the club set up works. If you ask me the school's should be left as they are. Nevertheless more emphasis should be placed on getting kids who aren't in rugby school's/those who may not be exposed to rugby into the clubs.

I think the schools game needs to be totally rearranged and refocus its whole philosophy. Though I agree more emphasis needs to get more into rugby

No matter how good the clubs get, they'll never be able to match the level of access to their players and I feel therein lies the weakness of focusing on club rugby. I may be wrong, but didn't Scotland change their rugby system from school's focused to club's focused? Look how that's worked for them - rugby is stagnating if not dying in Scotland at the moment.

I disagree that no matter how good clubs get they'll never match the schools. Look to clubs like Waterpark. Navan. They are the top clubs and will only get even stronger over time and will match schools in time with the numbers they have playing with them and the standard of coaching in those clubs
Scotland had a very similar system whereby majority of players came from a small group of elite schools. The problem Scotland have is the schools are self serving and there's a lack of cooperation between schools and pro game.
They didn't change to a clubs focus. They realised that by just using a small number of schools they cant compete so are working on developing non traditional rugby areas

Burcsd94

luckily the IRFU realise how important the schools game is and wont be looking to totally refocus and rearrange it.. so this discussion is totally pointless

work should be put into developing the club game further and improving coaching because at many clubs it's not good enough

The Pheasant2

matthew8 wrote: »

Schools rugby is great for the players in the big rugby schools, but the vast majority of people don't go to a big rugby school. The smaller schools that play rugby are certainly no better than clubs at developing players.

Yeah I'm aware of that of course. My point was that we should focus on growing the clubs as much as possible but just that we shouldn't do it at the expense of the school's game - which is our current player production line (at least until the clubs are producing at a similar level)

The Lost Sheep

Burcsd94 wrote: »

luckily the IRFU realise how important the schools game is and wont be looking to totally refocus and rearrange it.. so this discussion is totally pointless

work should be put into developing the club game further and improving coaching because at many clubs it's not good enough

The IRFU know the strengths of the schools game(as do I) but they also recognise the weaknesses of it.
Their is quite a few in IRFU who would like to change many aspects of the schools game(H Kruger is one) but the schools lobby is very powerful considering so many blazers etc are ex pupils of the same schools.
More needs to be put into clubs as yes in plenty of clubs the standards of coaching are not enough but in much more clubs the coaching is as good as any school. Ie Navan, Bruff, Nenagh, Galwegians, etc

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

Yeah I'm aware of that of course. My point was that we should focus on growing the clubs as much as possible but just that we shouldn't do it at the expense of the school's game - which is our current player production line (at least until the clubs are producing at a similar level)

We need to alter the process. Schools have a financial back-up to do work in coaching etc clubs will never have. Schools(in general) should be getting proportionally less as they have much greater resources to provide facilities/paid coaches etc

FrannoFan

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

The IRFU know the strengths of the schools game(as do I) but they also recognise the weaknesses of it.
Their is quite a few in IRFU who would like to change many aspects of the schools game(H Kruger is one) but the schools lobby is very powerful considering so many blazers etc are ex pupils of the same schools.
More needs to be put into clubs as yes in plenty of clubs the standards of coaching are not enough but in much more clubs the coaching is as good as any school. Ie Navan, Bruff, Nenagh, Galwegians, etc
We need to alter the process. Schools have a financial back-up to do work in coaching etc clubs will never have. Schools(in general) should be getting proportionally less as they have much greater resources to provide facilities/paid coaches etc

Schools receive very little financial support from the branch. They fund it themselves. Most of the coaches in the schools game are not highly paid. Yes the odd SCT coach will be but most are teachers or past pupils who do it for very little remuneration considering the time they give.
Leinster are working on improving the club game with rdo's etc. the regional leinster sides are a great step in the youths game.
I don't understand your arguments about altering the schools game. The majority of schools games are at a healthy level involving participation.the cup games get the coverage but they are a tiny fraction of what the schools are doing. Often getting a 100 kids in first year out on the pitch many who may never have played before, having up to 5 or 6 teams being run at the senior end and working to find games for socials teams etc.

The Lost Sheep

FrannoFan wrote: »

Schools receive very little financial support from the branch. They fund it themselves. Most of the coaches in the schools game are not highly paid. Yes the odd SCT coach will be but most are teachers or past pupils who do it for very little remuneration considering the time they give.
Leinster are working on improving the club game with rdo's etc. the regional leinster sides are a great step in the youths game.
I don't understand your arguments about altering the schools game. The majority of schools games are at a healthy level involving participation.the cup games get the coverage but they are a tiny fraction of what the schools are doing. Often getting a 100 kids in first year out on the pitch many who may never have played before, having up to 5 or 6 teams being run at the senior end and working to find games for socials teams etc.

Schools receive plenty from the branches and considering their own resources money would be better going to clubs at adult and youth level where clubs don't have anywhere near the backing.
Altering schools competitions to remove ridiculous focus on a max of 4 games a year 5 if theres a replay and 12-15 if a league school and league still don't have any of the same focus as the cups. If you are in a big 6 school in Leinster you will play 100's of friendlies that mean nothing and only have a few cups to play for. More regular league based competitions and removal of focus on a few small cups.
Only a minority of schools have anything near 100 kids in first year. Schools needs to be changed to keep ties with clubs and keep people in the sport as players beyond their late teens

RedemptionZ

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Scotland had a very similar system whereby majority of players came from a small group of elite schools. The problem Scotland have is the schools are self serving and there's a lack of cooperation between schools and pro game.
They didn't change to a clubs focus. They realised that by just using a small number of schools they cant compete so are working on developing non traditional rugby areas

Ireland has a lot of rugby schools to choose from to be fair. There's at least 10 in Leinster capable of producing international talent(I know every school is technically capable but I'm talking in realistic terms), I wouldn't be as familiar with the other provinces but assume there's at least 5 each in Munster and Ulster.

Fair play to Navan and the likes, if they're making such great progress and will soon match the schools standard then that's a huge positive for Irish rugby and I hope it continues, it'll mean more quality players for the U20s and in turn the senior provinces' teams but if they can thrive with the current schools system in place then why the need to change?

I do agree that the club game is very valuable to Irish rugby and by all means should be developed, but why can't it coexist with the current schools system?

FrannoFan

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Schools receive plenty from the branches and considering their own resources money would be better going to clubs at adult and youth level where clubs don't have anywhere near the backing.
Altering schools competitions to remove ridiculous focus on a max of 4 games a year 5 if theres a replay and 12-15 if a league school and league still don't have any of the same focus as the cups. If you are in a big 6 school in Leinster you will play 100's of friendlies that mean nothing and only have a few cups to play for. More regular league based competitions and removal of focus on a few small cups.
Only a minority of schools have anything near 100 kids in first year. Schools needs to be changed to keep ties with clubs and keep people in the sport as players beyond their late teens

Don't know where you get your facts from on money from the branches to schools but it's nonsense. They don't receive much at all.
Your suggested system of more competitive matches flies in the face of all research on developing more rounded players. It's the fact that the schools for the most part are not worried about winning that allows them to develop a complete player. (Read up on how Belgium changed their football fortunes, abolished league tables and results recording etc.)
I don't know your background or your involvement with developing players but that stated system would be a massive step backwards.
You keep saying schools need to develop links with clubs, no one disagrees with that. Most schools try(where do you think names like "old belvedere" and "old Wesley" come from) and their are links outlined by other people here between clubs and schools.
I really don't understand your constant complaining about the schools game. It delivers more pro players than the club game. You seem to think the schools are somehow taking resources from clubs. This simply is not the case. No matter what you are told here you are fixed with your opinion and clearly are not for turning regardless of any information to the contrary.

RedemptionZ

FrannoFan wrote: »

You keep saying schools need to develop links with clubs, no one disagrees with that. Most schools try(where do you think names like "old belvedere" and "old Wesley" come from) and their are links outlined by other people here between clubs and schools.

Yeah when I finished school all the local clubs got a chance to send a coach in to give us a talk and try and entice us to come to play for them, most of the lads in the school already had some connection to one anyway either through family or they already knew three quarters of the team through schools rugby. I mean maybe there's a few that get away but by and large most players interested in playing rugby after schools do.

The Lost Sheep

RedemptionZ wrote: »

Ireland has a lot of rugby schools to choose from to be fair. There's at least 10 in Leinster capable of producing international talent(I know every school is technically capable but I'm talking in realistic terms), I wouldn't be as familiar with the other provinces but assume there's at least 5 each in Munster and Ulster.

Fair play to Navan and the likes, if they're making such great progress and will soon match the schools standard then that's a huge positive for Irish rugby and I hope it continues, it'll mean more quality players for the U20s and in turn the senior provinces' teams but if they can thrive with the current schools system in place then why the need to change?

I do agree that the club game is very valuable to Irish rugby and by all means should be developed, but why can't it coexist with the current schools system?

The current schools system leads to so much wastage in playing numbers and needs change. The current system has a ridiculous focus on a tiny proportion of games why is that a good thing?
Ireland doesn't really have a lot of rugby schools. Not a large number at all.

FrannoFan wrote: »

Don't know where you get your facts from on money from the branches to schools but it's nonsense. They don't receive much at all.
Your suggested system of more competitive matches flies in the face of all research on developing more rounded players. It's the fact that the schools for the most part are not worried about winning that allows them to develop a complete player. (Read up on how Belgium changed their football fortunes, abolished league tables and results recording etc.)
I don't know your background or your involvement with developing players but that stated system would be a massive step backwards.
You keep saying schools need to develop links with clubs, no one disagrees with that. Most schools try(where do you think names like "old belvedere" and "old Wesley" come from) and their are links outlined by other people here between clubs and schools.
I really don't understand your constant complaining about the schools game. It delivers more pro players than the club game. You seem to think the schools are somehow taking resources from clubs. This simply is not the case. No matter what you are told here you are fixed with your opinion and clearly are not for turning regardless of any information to the contrary.

Not from who ive heard from - ex branch officers etc
More competitive games makes sense as instead of dozen plus friendlies leading up to perhaps only 1 competitive game. How does that make sense at schoolboy level? How does that produce more rounded players rather than a mixture of merit based league for all sides combined with a cup competition.
Why would that system be a backwards step? And my involvement in coaching is 3-4 years of underage coaching between 13-16s plus refereeing at all age groups up to 17/18s.
Schools not concerned about winning :pac:. So all these coaches are paid plenty to just compete...
Why do you have many schools not competing in the Senior Plate once knocked out of the Cup?
How does a system that gives players more games where something actually is at stake and much more than fighting for a place in a game that may be the only competitive game of the school year?
I think the schools game is not what many think it is. I think we need a wider and better approach to the sport. I think we need a system where we are not losing anywhere near as many players in their late teens

Bridge93

More competitive games devalues the Senior Cup. Besides its only at 1sts level in the 'Big 6' that you could potentially get only one competitive game. Nearly all schools below that have leagues and qualifying cups. If you were to ask the Big 6 with the possible exception of St Marys I think you'll find very few wanting to enter the leagues etc. They are quite happy as they are and producing players and no slower pace.
At all levels below firsts there are numerous cups and leagues which are group based so players get a number of competitive games a season no bother.

It's made to sound like at 18 the only people who give up rugby are those who play in school. I have no figures and I know no one else does but I'm sure there is a rather large drop out rate from clubs at a similar age. It's natural at that time with other interests/studying elsewhere/work/dont want to play senior rugby, etc. There may be a slightly higher drop out rate due to no links but I would think that those who wish to continue rugby, generally will regardless of whether they were a school or club player.
the supposed numerous flaw in schools rugby keep getting mentioned (although few actually named) but instead of complaining over these which are part of a system that for the most part is working, why not try identify and rectify the problems with the youths system? After all its the side producing far far less quality players to progress. why not fix these and increase overall productivity rather than limit schools and decrease our overall outcome?

RedemptionZ

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

The current schools system leads to so much wastage in playing numbers and needs change. The current system has a ridiculous focus on a tiny proportion of games why is that a good thing?

That's only for players at the very top level. Most of these guys would've played seconds or thirds in 5th year and got loads of game time there. There's also loads of friendlies. Players desperately want to win the senior cup, but that doesn't mean the friendlies are pointless. Friendlies are a great way to develop players and give everyone a chance to prove themselves, too many results based matches would take away from that.

I think you also need to stop ignoring what people are saying to you. If you go to a rugby school, you're more likely to play club rugby after than the average school goer. Clubs do approach rugby schools and anyone who wants to play plays. Those who don't want to play, don't want to play full stop. Some people give up on sports when they get older, whether it's for the booze college lifestyle or to work. There is very little 'wastage' as you say.

Bridge93 wrote: »

the supposed numerous flaw in schools rugby keep getting mentioned (although few actually named) but instead of complaining over these which are part of a system that for the most part is working, why not try identify and rectify the problems with the youths system? After all its the side producing far far less quality players to progress. why not fix these and increase overall productivity rather than limit schools and decrease our overall outcome?

That's what I think, it's as if he wants to drag the schools standard to the youths standard to even up the tables. Improve the youths, not weaken the schools.

Shukes

This is a lot better from Ireland! Great game so far!

its_phil

This is some performance. Passing out the backs could be better and a bit more smart rugby in our own half are the only criticisms.

Great stuff.

Shukes

They need to take the advantage of the sin bin player. NZ very good down they're left side that's the side they've scored all they're tries with breakthroughs down that side. Ireland need to look to stretch them and get it wide quicker. Cracking game though! Well worth the early start

Beery Eyed

Bit of a mess at the end of the half. Glad we've come away still ahead after all of that

Beery Eyed

So it seems forward passes are just not applicable in this game. Even the NZ commentators have said as much on the IRB stream. There have been a few shockers missed/let go

.ak

What was the final score?

iamjenko

.ak wrote: »

What was the final score?

45-23. Cian Kelleher got a yellow (a bloody stupid one too) with 20 to go and they shipped three tries in that period. Disappointing end to a great tournament for them

.ak

Ah, shame.

iamjenko

It was yeah. There was only 3 points in it at that stage and they were going really well. Went down to 14 men and that lack of a man at the back cost them badly for two of the tries they conceded after that

The Lost Sheep

Bridge93 wrote: »

More competitive games devalues the Senior Cup. Besides its only at 1sts level in the 'Big 6' that you could potentially get only one competitive game. Nearly all schools below that have leagues and qualifying cups. If you were to ask the Big 6 with the possible exception of St Marys I think you'll find very few wanting to enter the leagues etc. They are quite happy as they are and producing players and no slower pace.
At all levels below firsts there are numerous cups and leagues which are group based so players get a number of competitive games a season no bother.

It's made to sound like at 18 the only people who give up rugby are those who play in school. I have no figures and I know no one else does but I'm sure there is a rather large drop out rate from clubs at a similar age. It's natural at that time with other interests/studying elsewhere/work/dont want to play senior rugby, etc. There may be a slightly higher drop out rate due to no links but I would think that those who wish to continue rugby, generally will regardless of whether they were a school or club player.
the supposed numerous flaw in schools rugby keep getting mentioned (although few actually named) but instead of complaining over these which are part of a system that for the most part is working, why not try identify and rectify the problems with the youths system? After all its the side producing far far less quality players to progress. why not fix these and increase overall productivity rather than limit schools and decrease our overall outcome?

More competitive games certainly doesn't devalue the senior cup. It would enhance the competitions with more games, the season for teams(both weaker and stronger) wouldn't be affected by the draw of the competition. Teams would have more than one goal in competition a season.
Im not saying their is problems just in schools rugby, far from it, but the schools game is supposedly the "elite" and why are we allowing a system that is every year allowing 000's fall out of sport.

RedemptionZ wrote: »

That's only for players at the very top level. Most of these guys would've played seconds or thirds in 5th year and got loads of game time there. There's also loads of friendlies. Players desperately want to win the senior cup, but that doesn't mean the friendlies are pointless. Friendlies are a great way to develop players and give everyone a chance to prove themselves, too many results based matches would take away from that.

I think you also need to stop ignoring what people are saying to you. If you go to a rugby school, you're more likely to play club rugby after than the average school goer. Clubs do approach rugby schools and anyone who wants to play plays. Those who don't want to play, don't want to play full stop. Some people give up on sports when they get older, whether it's for the booze college lifestyle or to work. There is very little 'wastage' as you say.

That's what I think, it's as if he wants to drag the schools standard to the youths standard to even up the tables. Improve the youths, not weaken the schools.

Oh loads of friendlies. real good. why not turn those friendlies into something meaningful and create 2/3 competitions for sides to aim for at the minimum.
The current system is completely results based with all the big schools only competing in the cup and have focus on the league,
Im not ignoring what people are saying. Ive seen it and taken in on.
Of course people give up sports when they're older but the current system allows much more people give up than would give up if schools and clubs were linked better and the schools competitive season was adapted for the better,
Im not saying this to weaken schools rugby. far from it. I will more than likely coaching/refereeing in a school that competes in SSC next year so do have a big interest in schools rugby and Im saying this as it'll strengthen rugby not weaken the sport

Quint2010

The final score was an unfair reflection of how the game went. Leading at HT, Ireland tired noticeably in the last 20 minutes. But I thought the forwards were immense and the set piece was fantastic. NZ though were clever. A few times Ireland were marching them back they stayed upright straight and square and didnt concede an inevitable penalty. I though Kelleher despite being sin-binned was Ireland's most dangerous back. Ringrose did OK and showed some nice touches and did Brewer despite being caught out for pace by the NZ backline a couple of times. But at least 5 of that backline are eligible again next year so it bodes well.

Shukes

That sin bin was what turned the game around in my eyes. NZ managed to score 2 in that ten mins and then they were steam rolling from there, Ireland just couldn't seem to find a way through and lost they're rhythm after that. Shame as it was such a good first half and game lost through a silly sin bin which could have been prevented

FrannoFan

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

The current schools system leads to so much wastage in playing numbers and needs change. The current system has a ridiculous focus on a tiny proportion of games why is that a good thing?
Ireland doesn't really have a lot of rugby schools. Not a large number at all.
Not from who ive heard from - ex branch officers etc
More competitive games makes sense as instead of dozen plus friendlies leading up to perhaps only 1 competitive game. How does that make sense at schoolboy level? How does that produce more rounded players rather than a mixture of merit based league for all sides combined with a cup competition.
Why would that system be a backwards step? And my involvement in coaching is 3-4 years of underage coaching between 13-16s plus refereeing at all age groups up to 17/18s.
Schools not concerned about winning :pac:. So all these coaches are paid plenty to just compete...
Why do you have many schools not competing in the Senior Plate once knocked out of the Cup?
How does a system that gives players more games where something actually is at stake and much more than fighting for a place in a game that may be the only competitive game of the school year?
I think the schools game is not what many think it is. I think we need a wider and better approach to the sport. I think we need a system where we are not losing anywhere near as many players in their late teens

Lost sheep firsts of all when you say schools you constantly only refer to the very tiny percentage at the top. You neglect all the good work done below that tier. If you are taking a 1st year D team you are not too concerned with winning. Of course SCT and jct want to win but again tiny number of the overall games played in school.
You over emphasise rugby drop out rates, it happens in all sports. Since you haven't researched it here you go
http://www.thescore.ie/irfu-player-participation-rugby-dropoff-1469048-May2014/

Next you wonder how more competitive games damages player development. It might seem counter intuitive but again,since you haven't researched it here you go again
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/27827569

I don't expect you to change your tune but try and be more open minded.

The Lost Sheep

FrannoFan wrote: »

Lost sheep firsts of all when you say schools you constantly only refer to the very tiny percentage at the top. You neglect all the good work done below that tier. If you are taking a 1st year D team you are not too concerned with winning. Of course SCT and jct want to win but again tiny number of the overall games played in school.
You over emphasise rugby drop out rates, it happens in all sports. Since you haven't researched it here you go
http://www.thescore.ie/irfu-player-participation-rugby-dropoff-1469048-May2014/

Next you wonder how more competitive games damages player development. It might seem counter intuitive but again,since you haven't researched it here you go again
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/27827569

I don't expect you to change your tune but try and be more open minded.

I am open minded but those player participation numbers are b****x. I could use my own underage team and any of the school sides the same year as me and those either side of me and prove they're false and while it does happen in all sports our school culture doesn't help in the slightest.
Competitve games and a totally results driven culture is counter intuitive. Focus on just 4 competitive games and if you lose not even playing in the plate competition is backwards and illogical.

FrannoFan

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I am open minded but those player participation numbers are b****x. I could use my own underage team and any of the school sides the same year as me and those either side of me and prove they're false and while it does happen in all sports our school culture doesn't help in the slightest.
Competitve games and a totally results driven culture is counter intuitive. Focus on just 4 competitive games and if you lose not even playing in the plate competition is backwards and illogical.

That's an ESRI study not an IRFU one. If you are going to take anecdotal evidence over it go ahead,it suits your agenda here.

Cracking faces in this photo! Peader Timmins rising high

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/international/2014/0620/625216-juniors-come-up-short-against-new-zealand/

RobbieRuns

Well done to England........... SA must be kicking themselves, threw that game away, should have been comfortably ahead at half time. Still, back to back wins for England a great achievement.

RedemptionZ

Fair play England and unlucky Ireland, score line flattered NZ big time.

Burcsd94

A determination needs to be made with Brewer.. if he isn't upto centre think they should move him to 8... a lot of natural talent there

ArmchairQB

Burcsd94 wrote: »

A determination needs to be made with Brewer.. if he isn't upto centre think they should move him to 8... a lot of natural talent there

Conveyor belt of 8's next season Brewer is Ok nothing fantastic and people hyping him up doesn't help his cause no better or worse than any centre at 20's level the last few years. See how he goes next seasonand leave it at that.

Tox56

ArmchairQB wrote: »

Conveyor belt of 8's next season Brewer is Ok nothing fantastic and people hyping him up doesn't help his cause no better or worse than any centre at 20's level the last few years. See how he goes next seasonand leave it at that.

It doesn't help his cause at all because he's a perfectly good prospect that comes in for unfair criticism like the above with people playing down his ability because of the hype surrounding him. That said the 'hype' is overplayed at this stage, these days I hear a lot more about how not so great he is than how good he is

Buer

Tox56 wrote: »

It doesn't help his cause at all because he's a perfectly good prospect that comes in for unfair criticism like the above with people playing down his ability because of the hype surrounding him. That said the 'hype' is overplayed at this stage, these days I hear a lot more about how not so great he is than how good he is

I think they could be related. I was lambasted a few years ago here for suggesting the amount of smoke being blown up him could be negative for his progress but I stand by it.

He gets unnecessary criticism now but that's how it is. People build guys up and others just wait to knock them down.

If a bloke is built up massively I fully believe it can have an impact on his application to his career putting him under unnecessary pressure and giving him a false sense of ability.

Tox56

Buer wrote: »

I think they could be related. I was lambasted a few years ago here for suggesting the amount of smoke being blown up him could be negative for his progress but I stand by it.

He gets unnecessary criticism now but that's how it is. People build guys up and others just wait to knock them down.

If a bloke is built up massively I fully believe it can have an impact on his application to his career putting him under unnecessary pressure and giving him a false sense of ability.

Yes I don't see how it was ever going to be a positive for him, having that expectation every time you play all the way from schoolboy level must be tough and next year every time he plays he'll have way more attention paid to him than would otherwise be the case. He'll be way more criticised for quiet games than someone like Ringrose was in the 6 Nations for some very poor performances

To be honest above all else I feel sorry for him, if he does 'make it' it's going to be in spite of all this hype not because of it. I also wonder where the motivation for his move from backrow to centre came from, considering how well stocked Leinster are in one area and how lacking they are in the other

CatFromHue

It is very tough for these guys with massive hype for Junior Cup level or whatever.

I remember when I played at that level and there were guys with big hype who didn't even make it to Senior Cup level as others could match them physically by then. Then at Senior Cup level I remember guys who'd massive hype and didn't make it, then when I was at 20's level there were guys with massive hype who didn't make it, and then by mid 20's you look and you can see the patterns and the numbers and realise it does no one any favours having this amount of hype associated to them. Even when guys do make it to pro provincial level it's still very very difficult to progress e.g. Conway.

At this stage I just glaze over when reading XYZ is going to be the next big thing.

RedemptionZ

Personally I don't think he's a centre. But he could well turn out to be a quality 12 who knows.

With regards to hype, it doesn't do anyone much good but having followed college football in USA, we're nowhere near as bad as them. The pressure but on some of those guys is unreal.