Bath Academy to group players based on size instead of age

[Every Time Ref]

I couldn't find a reference elsewhere apart from this Facebook video, taken from BBC local news.

Short story, Bath are experimenting with a new system, putting their young prospects into groups to train together based on their size, not their age - the idea being that all players should be better able to develop their skills when size is close to irrelevant. I'm aware that this is done in New Zealand (not sure if it is universal standard practice, or just some academies?), but have never heard of it being done in the UK before.

Interesting idea. I can see advantages, that big kids will not succeed simply by being big, and will hopefully therefore learn more skills; and talented smaller kids will be identified and developed rather than potentially wasted because they can't compete with giants. However, I also wonder whether there is a potential issue from taking away specialism - is it wise to have small, nippy potential scrum-halves and huge, slow potential locks both working on spin passing skills and linepout jumping skills equally?

Thoughts?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Bath have an academy?

Think it makes sense, in a way - gets a bit awkard when there's set u16/18/20 games, though, and your combinations no longer exist.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Bath have an academy?

Think he means London Irish?

 

[Peat]

I couldn't find a reference elsewhere apart from this Facebook video, taken from BBC local news.

Short story, Bath are experimenting with a new system, putting their young prospects into groups to train together based on their size, not their age - the idea being that all players should be better able to develop their skills when size is close to irrelevant. I'm aware that this is done in New Zealand (not sure if it is universal standard practice, or just some academies?), but have never heard of it being done in the UK before.

Interesting idea. I can see advantages, that big kids will not succeed simply by being big, and will hopefully therefore learn more skills; and talented smaller kids will be identified and developed rather than potentially wasted because they can't compete with giants. However, I also wonder whether there is a potential issue from taking away specialism - is it wise to have small, nippy potential scrum-halves and huge, slow potential locks both working on spin passing skills and linepout jumping skills equally?

Thoughts?

Good. Straight up good. There may be potential downsides, but it's going to be a net plus.

Spin passing should not be a specialist scrum-half skill and lineout jumping frankly shouldn't be that important for u16s or whatever regardless. They can learn that one later; teach them the basics of rugby in an environment where they have to be technically right first.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Bath have an academy?

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
<tbody style="box-sizing: border-box;">[TR]
[TD]Club[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]% of squad from own academy[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]% of squad English-qualified[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 156"]Bath[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]23.7%[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]71.1%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 156"]Exeter Chiefs[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]20.9%[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]67.4%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 156"]Gloucester[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]31.7%[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]58.5%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 156"]Harlequins[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]47.4%[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]71.1%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 156"]Leicester Tigers[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]30.4%[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]52.2%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 156"]London Irish[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]15%[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]45%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 156"]Newcastle Falcons[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]26.8%[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]46.3%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 156"]Northampton Saints[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]24.3%[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]72.9%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 156"]Sale Sharks[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]34.2%[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]55.3%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 156"]Saracens[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]30.2%[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]58.1%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 156"]Wasps[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]21.4%[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]54.8%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 156"]Worcester Warriors[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]16.7%[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]58.3%[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

 

[j'nuh]

lol at Irish being the lowest.

Bet they'd be one of the highest teams if they managed to keep half the players they produced.

 

[nickdnz]

I couldn't find a reference elsewhere apart from this Facebook video, taken from BBC local news.

Short story, Bath are experimenting with a new system, putting their young prospects into groups to train together based on their size, not their age - the idea being that all players should be better able to develop their skills when size is close to irrelevant. I'm aware that this is done in New Zealand (not sure if it is universal standard practice, or just some academies?), but have never heard of it being done in the UK before.

People confuse this a lot. It is not really done in NZ - at least not like you imagine.

In New Zealand many schools and clubs run U65kgs and U80kg competitions. Some highschools I believe even run U55kgs. The reason this is done is it gives people who are for an example 75kgs - an option to play in a league without risking the level of physicality in an open grade.

With that said, if you are 65kgs and a good player - you of course have every option of playing in the open grade. Schools still have 1st XVs which are all open grade, and clubs are all open grade for the first, second, third etc. Y19 and U21 competitions are all open grade.

So it's not that NZ sorts people into weight categories - it's that there are options for players to go into weight based competitions.

Dividing an academy this way seems pretty counter productive to me, as you want smaller guys to develop the technique required to beat larger players...

 

[Peat]

People confuse this a lot. It is not really done in NZ - at least not like you imagine.

In New Zealand many schools and clubs run U65kgs and U80kg competitions. Some highschools I believe even run U55kgs. The reason this is done is it gives people who are for an example 75kgs - an option to play in a league without risking the level of physicality in an open grade.

With that said, if you are 65kgs and a good player - you of course have every option of playing in the open grade. Schools still have 1st XVs which are all open grade, and clubs are all open grade for the first, second, third etc. Y19 and U21 competitions are all open grade.

So it's not that NZ sorts people into weight categories - it's that there are options for players to go into weight based competitions.

Dividing an academy this way seems pretty counter productive to me, as you want smaller guys to develop the technique required to beat larger players...

Depending on the age (haven't looked at the video), there's zero guarantee they'll be bigger or larger come adulthood - which is why I think it's good. Teach them rugby early, them the specifics once you know what their body size is going to be... although even at 16, things can change radically. There's a guy at my club who was keeping Andy ***terell out of the Kent colts at U16 level, but stopped growing from that age and ended up playing scrum-half for us. Conversely, Stuart McCloskey at Ulster was a schools scrum-half until a late growth spurt turned him into the Irish version of Jamie Roberts.

The better way would be grading it on physical maturity mind, which I think they're increasingly able to do.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Think he means London Irish?

I knew someone would go there

Good. Straight up good. There may be potential downsides, but it's going to be a net plus.

Spin passing should not be a specialist scrum-half skill and lineout jumping frankly shouldn't be that important for u16s or whatever regardless. They can learn that one later; teach them the basics of rugby in an environment where they have to be technically right first.

Those are just examples off the top of my head, there are better ones for my point - there will come a time in every small players life, for example, where they have to tackle someone much bigger than them for the first time. This is itself an important skill for these players I think. Saying that, yes overall my feeling is the positive will outweigh the negative.

The better way would be grading it on physical maturity mind, which I think they're increasingly able to do.

As I recall the video touches on this, it is something more complicated than just weight they go on, didn't really go into detail though.

 

[Bee]

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
<tbody style="box-sizing: border-box;">[TR]
[TD]Club[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]% of squad from own academy[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]% of squad English-qualified[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 156"]Bath[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]23.7%[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]71.1%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 156"]Exeter Chiefs[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]20.9%[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]67.4%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 156"]Gloucester[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]31.7%[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]58.5%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 156"]Harlequins[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]47.4%[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]71.1%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 156"]Leicester Tigers[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]30.4%[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]52.2%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 156"]London Irish[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]15%[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]45%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 156"]Newcastle Falcons[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]26.8%[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]46.3%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 156"]Northampton Saints[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]24.3%[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]72.9%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 156"]Sale Sharks[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]34.2%[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]55.3%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 156"]Saracens[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]30.2%[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]58.1%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 156"]Wasps[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]21.4%[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]54.8%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 156"]Worcester Warriors[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]16.7%[/TD]
[TD="width: 156"]58.3%[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

One should mention that Bath will drop below 20% with the signings for next season.

 

[Jakedood]

Depending on the age (haven't looked at the video), there's zero guarantee they'll be bigger or larger come adulthood - which is why I think it's good. Teach them rugby early, them the specifics once you know what their body size is going to be... although even at 16, things can change radically. There's a guy at my club who was keeping Andy ***terell out of the Kent colts at U16 level, but stopped growing from that age and ended up playing scrum-half for us. Conversely, Stuart McCloskey at Ulster was a schools scrum-half until a late growth spurt turned him into the Irish version of Jamie Roberts.

The better way would be grading it on physical maturity mind, which I think they're increasingly able to do.

My brother was actually in school with Stuart, he always says every time he's on TV about how he was tall and lanky in school, not the big barnstorming player we see now, but you can see how when we look at how he plays now he's not simply a big runner, but one with awareness of space and a good pass on him too!

 

[Which Tyler]

One should mention that Bath will drop below 20% with the signings for next season.

And the bounce straight back up again by promoting Ellis and Ewells etc.
Every other team, will also change next season, as some players leave, new players arrive, and academy kids get promoted.


As for the article itself - good, very good; been saying for years that this should be done (to some degree)

 

[Bee]

And the bounce straight back up again by promoting Ellis and Ewells etc.
Every other team, will also change next season, as some players leave, new players arrive, and academy kids get promoted.


As for the article itself - good, very good; been saying for years that this should be done (to some degree)

Indeed. Sorry. Really forgot the promotions :wall:

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Yeh but Ewels will leave soon anyway.