Ireland u20 2016 6Nations/Junior World Cup

ArmchairQB

Tarf1234 wrote: »

But reducing the size of other teams to the extent they cannot compete/fill a team is feasible????? Just have a logical think about that before you respond. - One way has been proven to work in the past one way this year has proven not to work with 3 teams pulling out of the All Ireland.

Surely, adding is a lot easier to do then gutting a team.

So we want them to play adult rugby but are afraid of them playing guys who are up to are an additional 6 months older???? That makes zero sense at all. Pick one point or the other.

Leinster league would be ruined as no team could compete with Lansdowne or UCD bar maybe trinity. Some teams struggle to have a squad of 23-25 players for the whole year. Removing anything from 3 - 10 players would disband those teams.

Situation has been the same for a number of years and does not suit any Leinster team but it is a national competition and the only chance the different provincial clubs get to compete against each other in competitive fixtures at 20s level. It is not supported well by the Union who play it at the same time and day as AIL fixtures in general and have an under 19s international camp during it where players are not released, they give 7/8 days notice of your opponent so what could be a great competition is not supported by the union.
In saying that the rules were there at the start of the season for all to see. Both UCD and Lansdowne are hugely disadvantaged and loose I would guess more than 50% of their players. Trinity with all of their resources should have the numbers to compete but their priorities are on promotion at senior level. Clontarf who have qualified for the first time in a number of years were probably caught out and unaware of the age change. I remember UCD fielding just 19 players a few years back with with forwards as centers but they took part to preserve the competition and didn't pull out for the fear of being well beaten as did Lansdowne in fairness a few years back v Cork Con as well. It is a good experience for the players and the highest level some of the lads will ever play. Munster Clubs will be favorite this season, at 20.5 Leinster clubs are much stronger than Connacht or Munster as has been proven many times in the past so Munster don't want to compete at that level, so I suppose my point is that it is a good worthwhile competition but it is very poorly run and orgainised.

Most of the problems with numbers, transfers and other issues that are regarded as Country wide issues are mostly Munster Issues. Leinster does not have that problem nor does Connacht or Ulster so Munster should as has been stated above look to other provinces for a better formula as theirs is not working as it should do or not nearly as good as other provinces.

Tarf1234

ArmchairQB wrote: »

Situation has been the same for a number of years and does not suit any Leinster team but it is a national competition and the only chance the different provincial clubs get to compete against each other in competitive fixtures at 20s level. It is not supported well by the Union who play it at the same time and day as AIL fixtures in general and have an under 19s international camp during it where players are not released, they give 7/8 days notice of your opponent so what could be a great competition is not supported by the union.
In saying that the rules were there at the start of the season for all to see. Both UCD and Lansdowne are hugely disadvantaged and loose I would guess more than 50% of their players. Trinity with all of their resources should have the numbers to compete but their priorities are on promotion at senior level. Clontarf who have qualified for the first time in a number of years were probably caught out and unaware of the age change. I remember UCD fielding just 19 players a few years back with with forwards as centers but they took part to preserve the competition and didn't pull out for the fear of being well beaten as did Lansdowne in fairness a few years back v Cork Con as well. It is a good experience for the players and the highest level some of the lads will ever play. Munster Clubs will be favorite this season, at 20.5 Leinster clubs are much stronger than Connacht or Munster as has been proven many times in the past so Munster don't want to compete at that level, so I suppose my point is that it is a good worthwhile competition but it is very poorly run and orgainised.

Most of the problems with numbers, transfers and other issues that are regarded as Country wide issues are mostly Munster Issues. Leinster does not have that problem nor does Connacht or Ulster so Munster should as has been stated above look to other provinces for a better formula as theirs is not working as it should do or not nearly as good as other provinces.

I can categorically deny the highlighted. We were well and truly aware of this issue and have been in recent years too. It has been a huge topic of conversation in the club all year. Every manager attends the annual meeting in the branch where this is always discussed. My understanding is that some of the clubs are fed up with the age change and will not play in it next year if it stays the same.

I agree that this should and could be a great comp. Remedial work is needed to rescue it or it will disappear into obscurity.

On the last point I don't think Ulster do 20s at all. Munsters format is not working in anyway shape or form... Can anyone tell me how many good competitive games UCC, Con, YM and Shannon have played at U20s this year to date? My understanding is the semi final will be Con's first proper competitive game. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

ArmchairQB

Tarf1234 wrote: »

I can categorically deny the highlighted. We were well and truly aware of this issue and have been in recent years too. It has been a huge topic of conversation in the club all year. Every manager attends the annual meeting in the branch where this is always discussed. My understanding is that some of the clubs are fed up with the age change and will not play in it next year if it stays the same.

I agree that this should and could be a great comp. Remedial work is needed to rescue it or it will disappear into obscurity.

On the last point I don't think Ulster do 20s at all. Munsters format is not working in anyway shape or form... Can anyone tell me how many good competitive games UCC, Con, YM and Shannon have played at U20s this year to date? My understanding is the semi final will be Con's first proper competitive game. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Apologies was only guessing re the highlighted text. Competition needs focus by IRFU and Leinster in requesting age to be changed especially as Connacht clubs now play 20s in Leinster under their age grade so 66% of the 20s teams in the competition play to a different age than Munster. MY understanding is that decisions on the age are made in April each year for the next year so all branch reps should be getting on to Leinster and the IRFU to change the age.

One look at the 20s league in Munster and you see the amount of fixtures not played shows the problem. A national 20s league would be good

Tarf1234

ArmchairQB wrote: »

Apologies was only guessing re the highlighted text. Competition needs focus by IRFU and Leinster in requesting age to be changed especially as Connacht clubs now play 20s in Leinster under their age grade so 66% of the 20s teams in the competition play to a different age than Munster. MY understanding is that decisions on the age are made in April each year for the next year so all branch reps should be getting on to Leinster and the IRFU to change the age.

One look at the 20s league in Munster and you see the amount of fixtures not played shows the problem. A national 20s league would be good

No offence taken.

I just do not see 20s at 1 Jan being sustainable for the majority of clubs. Traditionally Lansdowne tend to have quiet a few under 19s reps so would probably be ok and UCD will always be ok but outside of that I think it would be very tough for other clubs. Even the stronger senior clubs like ourselves, Belvo, Terenure etc. would struggle to be competitive.

Am I correct in saying Con have played 1 game?

I think national 20s would be a decent idea but added expense and if it was Saturdays it would clash with AIL and reduce the quality somewhat. Sundays is always a nuisance and would be brutal for managers and coaches if they had to travel significant distances every Sunday. Although in saying that it would probably only be 4 or 5 times a year.

D14Rugby

Terenure a year or two ago had a brilliant team winning everything in Leinster, not an easy thing to do with Lansdowne and UCD to compete with, but lost half their team because of the age rule so didn't do anything on the national stage which just about sums up whats wrong with the competition.

The Lost Sheep

Tarf1234 wrote: »

But reducing the size of other teams to the extent they cannot compete/fill a team is feasible????? Just have a logical think about that before you respond. - One way has been proven to work in the past one way this year has proven not to work with 3 teams pulling out of the All Ireland.

Surely, adding is a lot easier to do then gutting a team.

So we want them to play adult rugby but are afraid of them playing guys who are up to are an additional 6 months older???? That makes zero sense at all. Pick one point or the other.

Leinster league would be ruined as no team could compete with Lansdowne or UCD bar maybe trinity. Some teams struggle to have a squad of 23-25 players for the whole year. Removing anything from 3 - 10 players would disband those teams.

Most clubs dont lose half their players for all ireland do they? Its 20.5s compared to 20s in Munster. 6 months wont be haf their players...
Playing age grade rugby with teams playing off different age groups shouldnt happen even at 20s. It
You want them playing adult rugby but having teams playing for the same trophy with different age categories is nonsensical. It is up to the provincial branches to decide what is best to do and if you are to play for an all ireland competition you use the younger age group as that makes more sense.

ArmchairQB wrote: »

Situation has been the same for a number of years and does not suit any Leinster team but it is a national competition and the only chance the different provincial clubs get to compete against each other in competitive fixtures at 20s level. It is not supported well by the Union who play it at the same time and day as AIL fixtures in general and have an under 19s international camp during it where players are not released, they give 7/8 days notice of your opponent so what could be a great competition is not supported by the union.
In saying that the rules were there at the start of the season for all to see. Both UCD and Lansdowne are hugely disadvantaged and loose I would guess more than 50% of their players. Trinity with all of their resources should have the numbers to compete but their priorities are on promotion at senior level. Clontarf who have qualified for the first time in a number of years were probably caught out and unaware of the age change. I remember UCD fielding just 19 players a few years back with with forwards as centers but they took part to preserve the competition and didn't pull out for the fear of being well beaten as did Lansdowne in fairness a few years back v Cork Con as well. It is a good experience for the players and the highest level some of the lads will ever play. Munster Clubs will be favorite this season, at 20.5 Leinster clubs are much stronger than Connacht or Munster as has been proven many times in the past so Munster don't want to compete at that level, so I suppose my point is that it is a good worthwhile competition but it is very poorly run and orgainised.

Most of the problems with numbers, transfers and other issues that are regarded as Country wide issues are mostly Munster Issues. Leinster does not have that problem nor does Connacht or Ulster so Munster should as has been stated above look to other provinces for a better formula as theirs is not working as it should do or not nearly as good as other provinces.

Playing the competition on a Saturday is fine. Munster and previously Connacht sides had no problem playing 20s on a Saturday. Why is playing games on A saturday such an issue?
Munster dont play 20.5s/21s as the age group didnt work for most clubs and it was affecting player retention. 20s works better.
If you want an all ireland competition you do what suits all best. Playing 20.5s for all ireland competition doesnt actually work and the only way you can have an all ireland is playing 20s not 20.5s
Players coming out of school are under 19 or 20 in their first/second years of college so how do clubs lose half their players with change from 20.5s to 20s for the all ireland???

Tarf1234 wrote: »

I can categorically deny the highlighted. We were well and truly aware of this issue and have been in recent years too. It has been a huge topic of conversation in the club all year. Every manager attends the annual meeting in the branch where this is always discussed. My understanding is that some of the clubs are fed up with the age change and will not play in it next year if it stays the same.

I agree that this should and could be a great comp. Remedial work is needed to rescue it or it will disappear into obscurity.

On the last point I don't think Ulster do 20s at all. Munsters format is not working in anyway shape or form... Can anyone tell me how many good competitive games UCC, Con, YM and Shannon have played at U20s this year to date? My understanding is the semi final will be Con's first proper competitive game. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

There hasnt been a Ulster clubs league at 20s in years.. Munster are struggling to some extent but 20s works better than 20.5s or 21s.

rughug

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Most clubs dont lose half their players for all ireland do they? Its 20.5s compared to 20s in Munster. 6 months wont be haf their players...
Playing age grade rugby with teams playing off different age groups shouldnt happen even at 20s. It
You want them playing adult rugby but having teams playing for the same trophy with different age categories is nonsensical. It is up to the provincial branches to decide what is best to do and if you are to play for an all ireland competition you use the younger age group as that makes more sense.
Playing the competition on a Saturday is fine. Munster and previously Connacht sides had no problem playing 20s on a Saturday. Why is playing games on A saturday such an issue?
Munster dont play 20.5s/21s as the age group didnt work for most clubs and it was affecting player retention. 20s works better.
If you want an all ireland competition you do what suits all best. Playing 20.5s for all ireland competition doesnt actually work and the only way you can have an all ireland is playing 20s not 20.5s
Players coming out of school are under 19 or 20 in their first/second years of college so how do clubs lose half their players with change from 20.5s to 20s for the all ireland???

There hasnt been a Ulster clubs league at 20s in years.. Munster are struggling to some extent but 20s works better than 20.5s or 21s.

Think it's Terenure v UCD
UCC v Cork Con
in the semi's next Sat.

Tarf1234

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Most clubs dont lose half their players for all ireland do they? Its 20.5s compared to 20s in Munster. 6 months wont be haf their players...
Playing age grade rugby with teams playing off different age groups shouldnt happen even at 20s. It
You want them playing adult rugby but having teams playing for the same trophy with different age categories is nonsensical. It is up to the provincial branches to decide what is best to do and if you are to play for an all ireland competition you use the younger age group as that makes more sense.

Munster dont play 20.5s/21s as the age group didnt work for most clubs and it was affecting player retention. 20s works better.
If you want an all ireland competition you do what suits all best. Playing 20.5s for all ireland competition doesnt actually work and the only way you can have an all ireland is playing 20s not 20.5s
Players coming out of school are under 19 or 20 in their first/second years of college so how do clubs lose half their players with change from 20.5s to 20s for the all ireland???

There hasnt been a Ulster clubs league at 20s in years.. Munster are struggling to some extent but 20s works better than 20.5s or 21s.

Can you tell me why 20s works better rather then just repeating it over and over again with no actual decent rationale? Everyone else has discussed why it is not better and has given good reason. I know it is difficult, as there are no good reasons but at least try.

Plenty of people only get 1 year at 20.5s even. Plenty come out of school under 20s in Dublin. The Terenure example was just referenced above and Clontarf this year is another example. I believe it was the same for Greystones 2 or 3 years ago and Blackrock also this year. Trinity are arguing the same point this year. For anyone other then Lansdowne and UCD to compete, in Leinster, they need to have a strong second year team. This means they would have most of their crucial players over age.

I am not suggesting they play mixed age.

ArmchairQB

Tarf1234 wrote: »

Can you tell me why 20s works better rather then just repeating it over and over again with no actual decent rationale? Everyone else has discussed why it is not better and has given good reason. I know it is difficult, as there are no good reasons but at least try.

Plenty of people only get 1 year at 20.5s even. Plenty come out of school under 20s in Dublin. The Terenure example was just referenced above and Clontarf this year is another example. I believe it was the same for Greystones 2 or 3 years ago and Blackrock also this year. Trinity are arguing the same point this year. For anyone other then Lansdowne and UCD to compete, in Leinster, they need to have a strong second year team. This means they would have most of their crucial players over age.

I am not suggesting they play mixed age.

I heard Lansdowne who lost at the weekend only took part as they were defending champions put fielded a decimated team with around 12 lads missing from regular season & Blackrock had to give Cork Con a walkover as they couldn't field along with Clontarf and Trinity who were all similary effected by double digit player Losses.
As for Lost Sheep the great defender of all things IRFU, you have it wrong and no amount of spin or will make it right, listen for a change and accept the competition is hugely flawed and don't come back and ask me what would I do!

The Lost Sheep

Tarf1234 wrote: »

Can you tell me why 20s works better rather then just repeating it over and over again with no actual decent rationale? Everyone else has discussed why it is not better and has given good reason. I know it is difficult, as there are no good reasons but at least try.

Plenty of people only get 1 year at 20.5s even. Plenty come out of school under 20s in Dublin. The Terenure example was just referenced above and Clontarf this year is another example. I believe it was the same for Greystones 2 or 3 years ago and Blackrock also this year. Trinity are arguing the same point this year. For anyone other then Lansdowne and UCD to compete, in Leinster, they need to have a strong second year team. This means they would have most of their crucial players over age.

I am not suggesting they play mixed age.

Most overall don't come out of school and in their first season playing rugby are playing as under 20s. A huge number are coming out as under 18s and will play 2 years of 20s rugby.
20s works better for the all Ireland as it is simplier in every way possible to say to teams with the older age group to reduce players than to have teams play up 6 months or add players in.
The competition has faults but expecting this to change isn't what needs to happen.

The Lost Sheep

ArmchairQB wrote: »

I heard Lansdowne who lost at the weekend only took part as they were defending champions put fielded a decimated team with around 12 lads missing from regular season & Blackrock had to give Cork Con a walkover as they couldn't field along with Clontarf and Trinity who were all similary effected by double digit player Losses.
As for Lost Sheep the great defender of all things IRFU, you have it wrong and no amount of spin or will make it right, listen for a change and accept the competition is hugely flawed and don't come back and ask me what would I do!

:rolleyes: Me "defender of all things IRFU". You clearly know nothing about me if you think that.
There is flaws with the competition. Of course there is. There is in every competition that is played. No competition doesn't have some serious flaws with it...
Playing different eligibility dates in the provinces makes things difficult. Clubs have to come up with a compromise. In every way its easier for the leinster players to not use those who are 20.5s and play 20s than expect Munster sides to play 20.5s.

ArmchairQB

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

:rolleyes: Me "defender of all things IRFU". You clearly know nothing about me if you think that.
There is flaws with the competition. Of course there is. There is in every competition that is played. No competition doesn't have some serious flaws with it...
Playing different eligibility dates in the provinces makes things difficult. Clubs have to come up with a compromise. In every way its easier for the leinster players to not use those who are 20.5s and play 20s than expect Munster sides to play 20.5s.

If we look objectively and by that playing numbers and players going on to play junior & Senior rugby which system is working best. The Leinster system is by far the best at that level and even Connacht clubs have now joined up to that system. Munster clubs cannot even field against each other and both Cork Con & UCC have lost out on a huge number of fixtures this year. There is no denying which formula works best, none at all.

The Lost Sheep

ArmchairQB wrote: »

If we look objectively and by that playing numbers and players going on to play junior & Senior rugby which system is working best. The Leinster system is by far the best at that level and even Connacht clubs have now joined up to that system. Munster clubs cannot even field against each other and both Cork Con & UCC have lost out on a huge number of fixtures this year. There is no denying which formula works best, none at all.

21s/20.5s doesn't work outside of Dublin. 19s doesn't work outside of schools rugby. Leinster clubs have depth that isn't possible anywhere but Belfast and the Northern clubs don't field at under 20s grade and they would be only others who could do like the Leinster sides and field at 20.5s.
Leinster system isn't by far the best at the level. The Connacht clubs only joined as they had a falling out with the Munster clubs over some issues.

leinstertalk

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

:rolleyes: Me "defender of all things IRFU". You clearly know nothing about me if you think that.
There is flaws with the competition. Of course there is. There is in every competition that is played. No competition doesn't have some serious flaws with it...
Playing different eligibility dates in the provinces makes things difficult. Clubs have to come up with a compromise. In every way its easier for the leinster players to not use those who are 20.5s and play 20s than expect Munster sides to play 20.5s.

what critiscm's do you have the irfu then?

Tarf1234

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Most overall don't come out of school and in their first season playing rugby are playing as under 20s. A huge number are coming out as under 18s and will play 2 years of 20s rugby.
20s works better for the all Ireland as it is simplier in every way possible to say to teams with the older age group to reduce players than to have teams play up 6 months or add players in.
The competition has faults but expecting this to change isn't what needs to happen.

The highlighted is not true, in Leinster at the very least. Most come out as U19s with some U20 and little to none U18s. I can tell you over 30% of our players who are first year out of school this year are over age even at 20.5s next season. Forgive me using my own club as a regular example but it is where I have the actual facts for.

Again you are not saying why U20s is a better idea then U20.5s other then it is fairer to Munster clubs currently..... I don't see why that has any impact.

I think the weekend showed the true value of the comp as it stands.

The Lost Sheep

Tarf1234 wrote: »

The highlighted is not true, in Leinster at the very least. Most come out as U19s with some U20 and little to none U18s. I can tell you over 30% of our players who are first year out of school this year are over age even at 20.5s next season. Forgive me using my own club as a regular example but it is where I have the actual facts for.

Again you are not saying why U20s is a better idea then U20.5s other then it is fairer to Munster clubs currently..... I don't see why that has any impact.

I think the weekend showed the true value of the comp as it stands.

If in 6th year as an under 18 in this school year you would be especially if born in early part of the year 18 as you do your exams. There is loads like that. 20s works better overall. It doesn't work for the Connacht clubs with their change to Leinster league.
Im saying 20s helps as it means players in general have 1 or 2 years for those who leave at 18s once they finish school playing 20s and then are into adult grade.
How is it not true that huge numbers leave school as under 18s. Speaking as a final arts student. Trust me I know. Ive seen it in ages of those in college with me...

Tarf1234

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

If in 6th year as an under 18 in this school year you would be especially if born in early part of the year 18 as you do your exams. There is loads like that. 20s works better overall. It doesn't work for the Connacht clubs with their change to Leinster league.
Im saying 20s helps as it means players in general have 1 or 2 years for those who leave at 18s once they finish school playing 20s and then are into adult grade.
How is it not true that huge numbers leave school as under 18s. Speaking as a final arts student. Trust me I know. Ive seen it in ages of those in college with me...

Explain the highlighted. Just purely that one point as to why it works better. Not just for Munster clubs in the All Ireland. Explain why 20's works better overall?

The Lost Sheep

Tarf1234 wrote: »

Explain the highlighted. Just purely that one point as to why it works better. Not just for Munster clubs in the All Ireland. Explain why 20's works better overall?

IRFU have said on numerous occasions of fall off in playing numbers at 16-19. Key is to get players into open age teams asap. gradually of course.
20s allows this. From my experience of coaching age grade teams all way up. Most leave school as under 18s and then by having oldest age grade at 20s not 20.5s they have 2 years of rugby once they finish school. they don't need any more. for those who leave at 19s they will have 1 year in many cases but this means they should be getting tied into adult teams by clubs through the season and not solely focused on 20s.
20.5s adds another season of age grade rugby needlessly.

Tarf1234

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

IRFU have said on numerous occasions of fall off in playing numbers at 16-19. Key is to get players into open age teams asap. gradually of course.
20s allows this. From my experience of coaching age grade teams all way up. Most leave school as under 18s and then by having oldest age grade at 20s not 20.5s they have 2 years of rugby once they finish school. they don't need any more. for those who leave at 19s they will have 1 year in many cases but this means they should be getting tied into adult teams by clubs through the season and not solely focused on 20s.
20.5s adds another season of age grade rugby needlessly.

Finally an actually answer. Not one I agree with however. Why is the additional year more likely to make them quit? Surely they are more likely to have bought into the club after an additional year? Surely that is providing another chance to ingratiate players into adult teams while playing 20s?

So in essence it is not actually about the level of U20s at all and is about junior teams?

The Lost Sheep

Tarf1234 wrote: »

Finally an actually answer. Not one I agree with however. Why is the additional year more likely to make them quit? Surely they are more likely to have bought into the club after an additional year? Surely that is providing another chance to ingratiate players into adult teams while playing 20s?

So in essence it is not actually about the level of U20s at all and is about junior teams?

20s level and then junior and progression into adult sport and keeping people in the sport is what it should be about.
Playing 20s with 1/1 date helps that more.
The numbers dropping out of the sport just after leaving school are huge and most spend the few years after leaving school playing age grade rugby. You need to change that to keep numbers in the sport. You should be playing some form of open grade rugby in your first and definitely your second season after finishing youths/schools rugby. Having 20s on 1/1 does that more. By all means have teams enter the metro leagues as u22 teams etc if you want to help some players but keep 20s as 20s not 20.5s

So semis next weekend in club league are UCD Terenure and Con UCC.

leinstertalk

Possible irish u20 team next year?

1. Greg McGrath(Leinster)
2. Tadgh McElroy(Leinster)
3. Peter Cooper(Ulster)
4. Cillian Gallagher(Connacht)
5. Jack Regan(Leinster)
6. Marcus Rea(Ulster)
7. Tom De Jongh(Leinster)
8. John Foley(Munster)
9. Niall Saunders(Exile)
10. Bill Johnston(Munster)
11. Calvin Nash(Munster)
12. Michael McDermott(Leinster)
13. Gavin Mullin(Leinster)
14. Rob Lyttle(Ulster)
15. Jack Kelly(Leinster)

Tarf1234

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

20s level and then junior and progression into adult sport and keeping people in the sport is what it should be about.
Playing 20s with 1/1 date helps that more.
The numbers dropping out of the sport just after leaving school are huge and most spend the few years after leaving school playing age grade rugby. You need to change that to keep numbers in the sport. You should be playing some form of open grade rugby in your first and definitely your second season after finishing youths/schools rugby. Having 20s on 1/1 does that more. By all means have teams enter the metro leagues as u22 teams etc if you want to help some players but keep 20s as 20s not 20.5s

So semis next weekend in club league are UCD Terenure and Con UCC.

I really don't see it helping retain players. I think the extra year at 20s allows for more of a tie to be created. I've heard the argument before but I don't see the validity. The only argument that makes any kind of sense in that line of thought is that it forces them to play adult rugby earlier. I reckon this just increases the numbers who will quit though.

Personally I don't like the u22 or u23 route. I think once you're in adult rugby it should be a mixed age teams. To suggest it goes against your original point in relation to getting people into adult rugby and into the club.

Tarf1234

leinstertalk wrote: »

Possible irish u20 team next year?

1. Greg McGrath(Leinster)
2. Tadgh McElroy(Leinster)
3. Peter Cooper(Ulster)
4. Cillian Gallagher(Connacht)
5. Jack Regan(Leinster)
6. Marcus Rea(Ulster)
7. Tom De Jongh(Leinster)
8. John Foley(Munster)
9. Niall Saunders(Exile)
10. Bill Johnston(Munster)
11. Calvin Nash(Munster)
12. Michael McDermott(Leinster)
13. Gavin Mullin(Leinster)
14. Rob Lyttle(Ulster)
15. Jack Kelly(Leinster)

I'd be interested to see Bill Johnston's development next year. If he misses the JWC he could end up never playing Ireland U20 which would be odd enough.

Has everyone given up on Conor Nash staying with rugby? I really hope not. It'd be great to see a trend broken and the academy take a risk on a non schools players straight out of school.

leinstertalk

Tarf1234 wrote: »

I'd be interested to see Bill Johnston's development next year. If he misses the JWC he could end up never playing Ireland U20 which would be odd enough.

Has everyone given up on Conor Nash staying with rugby? I really hope not. It'd be great to see a trend broken and the academy take a risk on a non schools players straight out of school.

Nash is going to Oz, Leinster won't or can't compete with the financial offer they've made him. Only hope is that he gets homesick or fails to make it with AFL. It's not uncommon. Shame Leinster losing a talent like him, sad that irish rugby can't compete or won't compete with a foreign professional sport.

The academy has stopped offering any players straight from school, everyone of the academy players have done a year in the sub academy the last three incoming classes. I can't see that changing anytime soon, when someone like James Ryan had to do a year in the sub academy. Nash would have had to skip the academy entirely from what i've been told and go straight onto a pro contract ala Luke Fitz back in the day.

The Lost Sheep

Tarf1234 wrote: »

I really don't see it helping retain players. I think the extra year at 20s allows for more of a tie to be created. I've heard the argument before but I don't see the validity. The only argument that makes any kind of sense in that line of thought is that it forces them to play adult rugby earlier. I reckon this just increases the numbers who will quit though.

Personally I don't like the u22 or u23 route. I think once you're in adult rugby it should be a mixed age teams. To suggest it goes against your original point in relation to getting people into adult rugby and into the club.

But you go on about the extra year of 20s. My point about having u22/23 teams is they play in the adult leagues and as theyre not teams in age grade competitions they don't have to be strictly u22/23 teams but primarily will involve players who are under 22/23. UCD, I think, have their j2s as an u22 team. Rather than an extra year at under 20 competition you instead have an under 22 team playing in the metro leagues and this means you can still have movement between different social teams. Getting players playing adult open grade rugby as early as possible needs to happen.
The current system isn't working so why not do something about it.

Tarf1234

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

But you go on about the extra year of 20s. My point about having u22/23 teams is they play in the adult leagues and as theyre not teams in age grade competitions they don't have to be strictly u22/23 teams but primarily will involve players who are under 22/23. UCD, I think, have their j2s as an u22 team. Rather than an extra year at under 20 competition you instead have an under 22 team playing in the metro leagues and this means you can still have movement between different social teams. Getting players playing adult open grade rugby as early as possible needs to happen.
The current system isn't working so why not do something about it.

One extra year for those who would otherwise be slightly overage compared to an additional 3 years for everyone..... No difference there at all you're completely correct.

I know UCD do it but again they are not a comparable club. They do not and cannot operate the same way. I know Old Wesley were doing it and it was working quite well. However, not sure if they still do. I'm not entirely against it but don't think it will work for the majority of clubs. It is a great idea for the clubs it works in. What happens to the guys who already play J2's?

The current system is not working in Munster. I know in my experience in Tarf it is working very well and we are not alone in that position.

So maybe to go back to the original point Munster need to change???

Tarf1234

leinstertalk wrote: »

Nash is going to Oz, Leinster won't or can't compete with the financial offer they've made him. Only hope is that he gets homesick or fails to make it with AFL. It's not uncommon. Shame Leinster losing a talent like him, sad that irish rugby can't compete or won't compete with a foreign professional sport.

The academy has stopped offering any players straight from school, everyone of the academy players have done a year in the sub academy the last three incoming classes. I can't see that changing anytime soon, when someone like James Ryan had to do a year in the sub academy. Nash would have had to skip the academy entirely from what i've been told and go straight onto a pro contract ala Luke Fitz back in the day.

Very disappointing indeed. They have been saying that for years but guys still have gotten first year academy contracts. If I remember rightly Jordan Coughlan and Conor Gilsenan both did even though they were saying no1 would get one straight out of school. I think it is a rule that can be broken very easily when they want to.

leinstertalk

Tarf1234 wrote: »

Very disappointing indeed. They have been saying that for years but guys still have gotten first year academy contracts. If I remember rightly Jordan Coughlan and Conor Gilsenan both did even though they were saying no1 would get one straight out of school. I think it is a rule that can be broken very easily when they want to.

yeah a few players got deals out of school a few years ago and nearly all weren't successful at Leinster, then those deals stopped and players have been made do a year in the sub academy.

of course the practise could begin again but Leinster have made a point in recent years in not doing it anymore. If they were to do it Nash is the type who should get that type of deal, although an academy contract wouldnt be enough from what ive heard.

Tarf1234

leinstertalk wrote: »

yeah a few players got deals out of school a few years ago and nearly all weren't successful at Leinster, then those deals stopped and players have been made do a year in the sub academy.

of course the practise could begin again but Leinster have made a point in recent years in not doing it anymore. If they were to do it Nash is the type who should get that type of deal, although an academy contract wouldnt be enough from what ive heard.

Ye, fair enough point I suppose. Sure the academy contract is hardly anything in fairness. Fairly easy for the AFL to blow it out of the water.

The Lost Sheep

Tarf1234 wrote: »

One extra year for those who would otherwise be slightly overage compared to an additional 3 years for everyone..... No difference there at all you're completely correct.

I know UCD do it but again they are not a comparable club. They do not and cannot operate the same way. I know Old Wesley were doing it and it was working quite well. However, not sure if they still do. I'm not entirely against it but don't think it will work for the majority of clubs. It is a great idea for the clubs it works in. What happens to the guys who already play J2's?

The current system is not working in Munster. I know in my experience in Tarf it is working very well and we are not alone in that position.

So maybe to go back to the original point Munster need to change???

Why are you assuming everyone plays this u22/23 team? You have the 20s competition and then if clubs are worried about retention they use one of their junior teams as an under 22/23 team and give players an option of playing in open grade adult rugby on an open age team or this under 22/23 team.
Under 20s works better than 20.5s. I see it in Galway where the Connacht clubs are struggling with the move to Leinster and theyre much worse off in Leinster than they were in Munster at 20s.
I said it as a junior team. It doesn't have to be j2s. A club can always move players around for this to suit.

Munster cant change and wont change. 21s was changed to 20s several seasons ago as 19s/21s didn't work in Munster bar the first season of it. 20.5s has the same affect.

Tarf1234

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Why are you assuming everyone plays this u22/23 team? You have the 20s competition and then if clubs are worried about retention they use one of their junior teams as an under 22/23 team and give players an option of playing in open grade adult rugby on an open age team or this under 22/23 team.
Under 20s works better than 20.5s. I see it in Galway where the Connacht clubs are struggling with the move to Leinster and theyre much worse off in Leinster than they were in Munster at 20s.
I said it as a junior team. It doesn't have to be j2s. A club can always move players around for this to suit.

Munster cant change and wont change. 21s was changed to 20s several seasons ago as 19s/21s didn't work in Munster bar the first season of it. 20.5s has the same affect.

Why can't they change it? Won't or don't want to are entirely different to can't... What is the physical or regulatory impediment?

If you agree it is won't/don't want to then why should Leinster clubs be expected to change from what they want to do and from what is actually working for them?

So you don't have enough players to fill a 20s team but then all of a sudden 2 years later and with some moved off to senior rugby and some quitting there are enough to fill a full U22 or U23 team?

I know Buccs struggled to field a team this year, sure that would only have been worse with less players? Or am I missing something? I believe Buccs struggles were largely down to missing a huge amount of players through injury.

leinstertalk

Tarf1234 wrote: »

Ye, fair enough point I suppose. Sure the academy contract is hardly anything in fairness. Fairly easy for the AFL to blow it out of the water.

yeah they'd have to offer him a development deal and that could open up pandoras box.

The Lost Sheep

Tarf1234 wrote: »

Why can't they change it? Won't or don't want to are entirely different to can't... What is the physical or regulatory impediment?

If you agree it is won't/don't want to then why should Leinster clubs be expected to change from what they want to do and from what is actually working for them?

So you don't have enough players to fill a 20s team but then all of a sudden 2 years later and with some moved off to senior rugby and some quitting there are enough to fill a full U22 or U23 team?

I know Buccs struggled to field a team this year, sure that would only have been worse with less players? Or am I missing something? I believe Buccs struggles were largely down to missing a huge amount of players through injury.

The 20.5s doesn't work in keeping players playing. 21s didn't work and 20.5s doesn't work for any of the more rural clubs.
Leinster clubs have more depth, city clubs, and more capability to provide rugby for all and changing to 20s means they can still provide rugby for all. 20s is a development age grade still and changing to 20s helps with keeping players in the sport. If you are worried about losing players after 20s. Get them playing on a team of their colleagues but not in age grade competition. Have them play against adult sides. Having 20.5s means you have people leaving school and still playing age grade rugby 2/3 years following their leaving cert. That doesn't help with progression to adult rugby and a lifetime of playing the sport
Look at the record of the Connacht teams in the Leinster 20s league this season. Does that really show how much better it is? Look at number of games the Connacht sides conceded etc

Tarf1234

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

The 20.5s doesn't work in keeping players playing. 21s didn't work and 20.5s doesn't work for any of the more rural clubs.
Leinster clubs have more depth, city clubs, and more capability to provide rugby for all and changing to 20s means they can still provide rugby for all. 20s is a development age grade still and changing to 20s helps with keeping players in the sport. If you are worried about losing players after 20s. Get them playing on a team of their colleagues but not in age grade competition. Have them play against adult sides. Having 20.5s means you have people leaving school and still playing age grade rugby 2/3 years following their leaving cert. That doesn't help with progression to adult rugby and a lifetime of playing the sport
Look at the record of the Connacht teams in the Leinster 20s league this season. Does that really show how much better it is? Look at number of games the Connacht sides conceded etc

I really do not see any logic in saying 20.5s doesn't retain players... Just saying it doesn't over and over is not going to convince me. There is no logic to it.

Are most if not all of the top 20s clubs city clubs? I can't think of any in Leinster. YM, Shannon, UCC, UL, Con all city clubs too. Why should a competition only really competed between city club be focused towards the needs of rural clubs?

Connacht clubs first year in Leinster. Let's evaluate down the road rather than off one year.

The Lost Sheep

Tarf1234 wrote: »

I really do not see any logic in saying 20.5s doesn't retain players... Just saying it doesn't over and over is not going to convince me. There is no logic to it.

Are most if not all of the top 20s clubs city clubs? I can't think of any in Leinster. YM, Shannon, UCC, UL, Con all city clubs too. Why should a competition only really competed between city club be focused towards the needs of rural clubs?

Connacht clubs first year in Leinster. Let's evaluate down the road rather than off one year.

To help the growth of the game. If you want to grow the game you work so that the general good is satisfied. Playing 20s on the full year allows a proper all Ireland. It means more are available for adult rugby teams earlier and if you're worried about
Look at the results of the Connacht clubs. Theyre horrific. Theyre not going to get so much better.... Ive seen enough of the 20s games in Galway. Theyre struggling way more then how they were doing at any stage in Munster competition on the full year

Tarf1234

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

To help the growth of the game. If you want to grow the game you work so that the general good is satisfied. Playing 20s on the full year allows a proper all Ireland. It means more are available for adult rugby teams earlier and if you're worried about
Look at the results of the Connacht clubs. Theyre horrific. Theyre not going to get so much better.... Ive seen enough of the 20s games in Galway. Theyre struggling way more then how they were doing at any stage in Munster competition on the full year

But why should a competition that is not relevant to the clubs you are talking about need to change to suit them. You've already said that 20.5s works for the big clubs & city clubs. Nobody else plays in the All Ireland!!!!!!! Why handicap us to suit people whom it has no relevance too?

I would imagine anyone would get on easier in the Munster set up to the Leinster one. Kind of a redundant point.

The Lost Sheep

Tarf1234 wrote: »

But why should a competition that is not relevant to the clubs you are talking about need to change to suit them. You've already said that 20.5s works for the big clubs & city clubs. Nobody else plays in the All Ireland!!!!!!! Why handicap us to suit people whom it has no relevance too?

I would imagine anyone would get on easier in the Munster set up to the Leinster one. Kind of a redundant point.

Bruff have won the all Ireland at 20s. 20s works for a small number of clubs. Changing to 20s gets more clubs playing. 20.5s works for only the biggest clubs.

Tarf1234

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Bruff have won the all Ireland at 20s. 20s works for a small number of clubs. Changing to 20s gets more clubs playing. 20.5s works for only the biggest clubs.

So we leave it at an unworkable age group to suit 'all clubs' when you can only point to one club from outside of the clubs it clearly doesn't work for who have won the competition? It is a classic junior club mind-set to pull the top down rather then try and get up to it. Really does my head in. handicap the top so the lower end have a chance. Realistically the top (big/city) clubs will still dominate the competition.

Why can't clubs just compete in one of the lower leagues with a young team? Let the guys who are in the bracket between 20+20.5 play adult rugby. If they don't want them to play 20s.

The Lost Sheep

Tarf1234 wrote: »

So we leave it at an unworkable age group to suit 'all clubs' when you can only point to one club from outside of the clubs it clearly doesn't work for who have won the competition? It is a classic junior club mind-set to pull the top down rather then try and get up to it. Really does my head in. handicap the top so the lower end have a chance. Realistically the top (big/city) clubs will still dominate the competition.

Why can't clubs just compete in one of the lower leagues with a young team? Let the guys who are in the bracket between 20+20.5 play adult rugby. If they don't want them to play 20s.

Winning a competition isn't the ultimate goal and by only Bruff winning it doesn't mean that changes shouldn't be made. My point of view isn't a "classic junior club mind-set". Im not trying to drag any clubs down I want what is best for the majority. IRFU are always talking about the numbers dropping out of the sport in late teens and early twenties. Changing the last age grade available to players to one that gives the highest number of clubs the best opportunity to field is the best way at changing the numbers dropping out of the sport for the better.
Yes the city/bigger clubs will still dominate but that doesn't mean changes shouldn't be made to give the most number of clubs possible from competing to some extent at the age grade.

RedemptionZ

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Winning a competition isn't the ultimate goal and by only Bruff winning it doesn't mean that changes shouldn't be made. My point of view isn't a "classic junior club mind-set". Im not trying to drag any clubs down I want what is best for the majority. IRFU are always talking about the numbers dropping out of the sport in late teens and early twenties. Changing the last age grade available to players to one that gives the highest number of clubs the best opportunity to field is the best way at changing the numbers dropping out of the sport for the better.
Yes the city/bigger clubs will still dominate but that doesn't mean changes shouldn't be made to give the most number of clubs possible from competing to some extent at the age grade.

You've been saying it a lot but I still don't see how keeping the age at 20 instead of 20.5 retains more players? Can you explain this to me?

The Lost Sheep

RedemptionZ wrote: »

You've been saying it a lot but I still don't see how keeping the age at 20 instead of 20.5 retains more players? Can you explain this to me?

You play 20s. Then instead of an extra year of age grade you are playing adult rugby. To combat the worry some have of saying the extra year is needed to build ties with a club for those directly out of school with no club involvement before you change teams in the metro leagues/junior leagues to under 22/23 and they will play in the open age leagues and this allows players play with their friends at the same age but in open age categories. You shouldn't be playing age grade rugby after your first season out of school if leaving as a full under 19(playing up to the age grade of schools cups). Having it as 20.5s and people leaving school as under 18s which many/most will do you have the situation where people are in second/third year of college/out of school and theyre still playing age grade rugby. Change it to 20s and you have people playing in the adult rugby competitions earlier and this can help keep them playing

Tarf1234

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Winning a competition isn't the ultimate goal and by only Bruff winning it doesn't mean that changes shouldn't be made. My point of view isn't a "classic junior club mind-set". Im not trying to drag any clubs down I want what is best for the majority. IRFU are always talking about the numbers dropping out of the sport in late teens and early twenties. Changing the last age grade available to players to one that gives the highest number of clubs the best opportunity to field is the best way at changing the numbers dropping out of the sport for the better.
Yes the city/bigger clubs will still dominate but that doesn't mean changes shouldn't be made to give the most number of clubs possible from competing to some extent at the age grade.

It very much is the classic junior club mind-set. Not dragging any clubs down intentionally, just the end product of what your plan is. Reduce all competitions to exact dates that suit all small clubs and only allow players who were born within the Parish play for the clubs..... This may work o a certain extent for GAA but it will never work for rugby.

If we are going to be in anyway realistic the only way to make it a meaningful competition (which is what the discussion is about) it must be at 20.5. This point has been proven time and again.

Out of interest what age grouping did Bruff win it at?

The Lost Sheep

Tarf1234 wrote: »

It very much is the classic junior club mind-set. Not dragging any clubs down intentionally, just the end product of what your plan is. Reduce all competitions to exact dates that suit all small clubs and only allow players who were born within the Parish play for the clubs..... This may work o a certain extent for GAA but it will never work for rugby.

If we are going to be in anyway realistic the only way to make it a meaningful competition (which is what the discussion is about) it must be at 20.5. This point has been proven time and again.

Out of interest what age grouping did Bruff win it at?

It isn't a junior mindset. Im not trying to drag anyone down. Im looking for the general good. Im looking for what is best for the general good. Keeping the grade at 20.5s suits only the bigger clubs.
The point hasn't been proven again and again that only 20.5 would be meaningful competition.

Bruff won it when all competitions at every grade were played with age eligibility off the middle of the year. That isn't the case now with only a small proportion of competitions played off july 1st as the overwhelming majority are played off January 1st. The circumstances are different now

Tarf1234

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

It isn't a junior mindset. Im not trying to drag anyone down. Im looking for the general good. Im looking for what is best for the general good. Keeping the grade at 20.5s suits only the bigger clubs.
The point hasn't been proven again and again that only 20.5 would be meaningful competition.

Bruff won it when all competitions at every grade were played with age eligibility off the middle of the year. That isn't the case now with only a small proportion of competitions played off july 1st as the overwhelming majority are played off January 1st. The circumstances are different now

So we are not talking about the good of the competition? How would a more one sided competition help anyone? Everyone has excepted that 20's means Leinster turns into a 2 team competition more or less with the odd 3rd side competing. In relation to the all Ireland this year has proved 20s does not work. That is an absolute stone cold fact.

So Bruff the club you used as example to disprove my point prove my point of 20.5s being better for those outside of 2 or 3 clubs?

The Lost Sheep

Tarf1234 wrote: »

So we are not talking about the good of the competition? How would a more one sided competition help anyone? Everyone has excepted that 20's means Leinster turns into a 2 team competition more or less with the odd 3rd side competing. In relation to the all Ireland this year has proved 20s does not work. That is an absolute stone cold fact.

So Bruff the club you used as example to disprove my point prove my point of 20.5s being better for those outside of 2 or 3 clubs?

When Bruff were at that level all rugby bar provincial development teams etc was played with age eligibility in the middle of the year. So, it doesn't prove anything that 20.5s is better as the alternative of 20s on January 1st had never been used at club level and wasn't an alternative for a significant period after Bruff were at that level of 20s rugby
That isn't the case now. Schools rugby is off January 1st. All youths rugby bar 18s in Leinster and Connacht is January 1st. Changing to 20s allows more teams compete at that level.
We are talking about the good of the competition if the change allows more teams compete. Leinster has always been dominated by a small number of clubs no matter what the age dates have been bar the odd exception.

Tarf1234

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

When Bruff were at that level all rugby bar provincial development teams etc was played with age eligibility in the middle of the year. So, it doesn't prove anything that 20.5s is better as the alternative of 20s on January 1st had never been used at club level and wasn't an alternative for a significant period after Bruff were at that level of 20s rugby
That isn't the case now. Schools rugby is off January 1st. All youths rugby bar 18s in Leinster and Connacht is January 1st. Changing to 20s allows more teams compete at that level.
We are talking about the good of the competition if the change allows more teams compete. Leinster has always been dominated by a small number of clubs no matter what the age dates have been bar the odd exception.

What other age groups do has no relevance though. How does under12s regulations or schools regulation impact club under20s? Surely it's still the same group of people coming out of school, no?

More teams will not compete in the all Ireland though. It will remain the same few clubs but the 2 top Leinster side will become more dominant. This year has proved that at least 3 Leinster clubs couldn't compete at 20s. Why can't you accept that?

Stainalert

Forget what these players get up to post 20's for a minute and just look at the facts.

Isn't it a fact that many Munster clubs have found it very difficult to field against each other at the lower age with a huge number of fixtures this year being cancelled. Surely a higher age cut-off would help this situation by increasing their universe of players? The Connacht clubs have suffered lots of injuries according to posters on this blog so how would going back to a lower age help them overcome this problem - surely it would only exaggerate it further?

The Lost Sheep

Stainalert wrote: »

Forget what these players get up to post 20's for a minute and just look at the facts.

Isn't it a fact that many Munster clubs have found it very difficult to field against each other at the lower age with a huge number of fixtures this year being cancelled. Surely a higher age cut-off would help this situation by increasing their universe of players? The Connacht clubs have suffered lots of injuries according to posters on this blog so how would going back to a lower age help them overcome this problem - surely it would only exaggerate it further?

Considering I played in each of the different age groups 20s/21s etc. 21s was worse and 20.5s didn't work either. Having a higher age group then affects the adult game. Clubs in Munster don't have the base that's elsewhere.

Stainalert

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Considering I played in each of the different age groups 20s/21s etc. 21s was worse and 20.5s didn't work either. Having a higher age group then affects the adult game. Clubs in Munster don't have the base that's elsewhere.

But if everyone was on 20.5 there would have been more underage games played this year both at provincial level and all Ireland level?

The Lost Sheep

Stainalert wrote: »

But if everyone was on 20.5 there would have been more underage games played this year both at provincial level and all Ireland level?

There wouldn't as 20.5s wouldn't work just like 21s was a serious issue for Munster clubs which is why they changed to 20s in the first place.