Development Pathways

Once again, before you start accusing me of not arguing in good faith, I'd point out the following:

You have, today:

-outright lied on when John McKee entered the Leinster system to try and prove a point; being out by just the 4 years or so

-equated Leinster signing John McKee to their sub-academy as an 18-year-old to Munster signing senior players.

-basically put forward an argument that a player is fully developed when they leave school

-refused to engage further to the actual points, and just accused me of having a gripe with Munster

if you mean that you can't understand the difference between playing academy players in two dead rubber matches while saving players for the CC knockouts, compared with picking your best side to win must-win games to secure CC for next season.

That's clearly a very relevant part to WHY those players were being played.

It's not though - it's still really valuable development minutes for those players, and that's all we're talking about here. Leinster earned the right not to need a result in those two games with their performances all year, but that schedule comes with a significant risk. With different outcomes earlier in the year, they could have found themselves travelling down there in the middle of European Cup playoffs needing results in SA.

However, and once again, this wasn't the sole opportunity Leinster gave to Academy players or recent graduates this season. They had current Academy players on the field in 21 of 25 games (I've said this about 10 times now I feel like) and on at least 6 occasions (excluding the two SA games) had at least 4 Academy players in the match day 23.

@aloooof was literally trying to include a friendly game in the Munster stats, but you're here crowing about including two actual league games in the Leinster stats. Utter nonsense.

You might want to read Denis Leamy's comments lately that Munster are all about backing their own development of their players. There's not a lot to criticise about how Munster are being run at the moment, including how their academy system is being run.

I think you'll find I was the one (and the only one so far) who actually referenced Denis Leamy's comments on this thread, and, as I said, he's basically saying the same thing I was saying, that you all are so up in arms about. That academy production has improved, but that they need to keep backing it, and not sign unnecessary NIQs to stall the development of those players. The headline on the article was 'Door shut on Munster arrivals' with a sub-heading of 'Denis Leamy said developing homegrown talent from within Munster should be the top priority'.

Yeah, but sorry, can you please keep your arguments straight for once?

One second - it's Leinster only give development minutes in dead rubber games.

Faced here with a scenario where Leinster have more current academy and recent graduates than Munster in their squad this weekend for a knock out game, it's something different.

Still waiting on you sharing those numbers too btw.

Call it what you like, it wasn't a competitive game, there was nothing at stake (despite the players running around with some sort of trophy afterwards).

But, that's fine, if you're going to include it though, you should also include the fixture Leinster played against Chile in that window.

Consistency and all that.

've never said that. But it's an opportunity afforded to them that isn't afforded to Munster.

It's not an opportunity - it's a situation Leinster earned. And, once again, earned by having a squad that was heavily dependent on academy players and recent graduates all season.

No, and this is where you seem to be utter some illusion - there were still league points at stake in those SA games. Leinster got 5 of them for beating the Lions with a try bonus, and Bulls got 5 of them for beating Leinster.

These were scheduled league games.

I genuinely can't believe you're persisting with this argument.

Would you propose to include the Chile game on the same basis?

You said:

That's also within the context of McKee being a 23 year old who joined the academy last season as an already developed player from Ulster.

That was either an outright lie, or you just didn't know what you're talking about, but either way, it's completely incorrect. As I, and others, have pointed out.

I never said a player was fully developed at 18, I think you introduced that strawman to suit your bad faith argument.

That effectively is what you're saying if you're claiming Ulster developed McKee (and you've doubled down on it in your post here - "18 years in Ulster is a lot more than 4 years at Leinster".

Refusing to engage on the fact you stated Leinster don't sign mediocre players to fill gaps instead of using their academy players to fill gaps, except they do in the case of Tadhg McElroy this very season.

No, I think you'll find I pointed out, and asked you, if you could identify a clear distinction between signing McElroy and signing an NIQ. I actually explicitly stated I had no issue with Munster signing the likes of Conor Fitzgerald, Hugh O'Sullivan etc (or the best IQ players they can find). I applauded the signing of Sean O'Brien on the Munster thread at the time (and actually suggested it before they did it), as it makes perfect sense. It expands the Irish playing pool.

You lost the argument when you started comparing Munster needing to win and Leinster throwing out a team to get hammered by 60 points

Where exactly did I do this?

No, he explicitly didn't - he joined it in June 2020. He joined the sub-academy in July 2018.

He is, like I said, no different to any other Academy prospect in terms of when he joined, how long he spent there, or the age he joined at.

Yeah, but you're saying:

Leinster can afford to rotate their top guys out, because their wider squad is so strong, and still carry young lads and win.

When I'm saying to you, the reason the wider squad is so strong is because they have an extensive track record going back 15 years or so of backing these young players, and giving them opportunities. It's a squad where 84% of them came through the Leinster Academy, so this point actually reinforces my argument more than anything else.

Leinster can start Milne tomorrow, absolutely 0% chance any other province would be able to start someone like that in a knockout game by choice.

I dunno if you've seen enough of Michael Milne to make this comment - he's going to be in the mix for the RWC. I'd argue there isn't much between him and Jeremy Loughman (who Munster are starting), and he's better than Josh Wycherley right now (who could easily be starting for Munster this weekend), and would argue he's better than either Denis Buckley (or replacement Jordan Duggan) who are in the Connacht squad this weekend. Rory Sutherland is better than him, but he's an international NIQ. He's a better player than Eric O'Sullivan too.

So, I think that statement is completely incorrect. Just because he isn't Leinster's first or second choice does not mean he isn't better than some of the other province's first or second choices, something we seem to come up against frequently here.

It's not just that though - and that to me is too much of a defeatist attitude to the whole thing.

Michael Milne, referenced by @awec above is a perfect example. As recently as the start of this season I would have thought he's nowhere near ready for a stage like this. He's improved hugely just this season alone, in terms of his scrummaging, ball carrying, handling, defence, everything.

It's this sort of comments that have pissed Leo Cullen off in recent weeks too - this notion that Leinster's success is a fait accompli because of the Leinster Schools system.

Being said in the press by embittered beaten coaches doesn't make it a fact.

I've never claimed it's just because Leinster are braver in backing them, and, yeah, I would agree that the calibre of player coming into the academy is better, but the coaching thereafter is considerably better too.

The other point is the quality of the underage development work is significantly better too.

It's not just down to a couple of schools. Ulster is a prime example of a place with a big underage rugby playing population, a longstanding schools structure, and a strong rugby heritage and culture.

It's a complete cop out for other teams to just claim Leinster have such an advantage in this area that it's not worth them even trying to compete with or be compared with.

I've discussed this before - but Michael's is a perfect example of a school that didn't have a strong track record of player production or underage success until relatively recently. The progress that has happened there in the past 15 years or so ought to be replicable at least to some extent in other parts of this country.