Irish accused of aiding All Black defections

[TRF C A Iversen]

Who says the IRFU aren't focusing on developing youth? There's been a real pick up in the Ireland underage teams recently, the clubs team isn't just a joke, I am genuinely worried about the U18 final tomorrow - NOTE TO ALL: England vs. Ireland U18, European final, it is being broadcast live on... ahh, I forget which it is, Eurosport 2 I think, from about 5... the details escape me, but if interested, look it up. Should be a cracking game.

Anyway, there's been at least some improvement. I know Ulster are attributing a fair bit of it on a new academy structure, and things seem to be really motoring up there. I think Leinster have changed things but wouldn't swear to it. Munster, I believe, are currently changing things. And something must have happened in Connacht, as they've gone to joke shop to producing some very good players. And I don't think any of the U20 team in 2009 were ready for first team rugby. I mean, I was only just getting back into rugby then, but I remember noticing the difference in terms of players who were already playing. Now the full strength side has most of the back-line with ML experience.

If all this is true, we'll notice a huge difference in the next 3-5 years. Although I've heard this from NH teams for many years now.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

If all this is true, we'll notice a huge difference in the next 3-5 years. Although I've heard this from NH teams for many years now. You guys can hear the truth in 31 flavours, but still do otherwise. This'll always be a case of other people from NZ thinking wrong, but somehow being right when it comes to producing correct results.

I've read this a few times now but I'm not entirely sure what you're saying :S

You're saying our teams are going to be poorer in 3-5 years because of the imports?
Despite our youth teams consistently producing Magners/Aviva starters?

This'll always be a case of other people from NZ thinking wrong, but somehow being right when it comes to producing correct results.

I read this as "Well, NZ are better than you for having no imports" - maybe we should just pack in rugby and just watch NZ then, as we're obviously not good enough even if we do have NZ imports :huh:

 

[Peat]

If all this is true, we'll notice a huge difference in the next 3-5 years. Although I've heard this from NH teams for many years now.

In what? The standard of the Ireland national team? Doubt it, it's already pretty *****in', no difference at all would be a fine tribute to the academies considering the number of players who have to retire - although the players we're talking about now won't form the core of the team for at least 5 and probably more years. Its depth? Possibly. The standard of its provincial teams? Leinster are already about as high as they can go, Ulster have already benefitted from their youth program in their march upwards this season, Munster are very close to the top and whether they're still there in 3-5 years will be a massive test of their academy. Connacht should be a good indicator, a surplus of quality at the other provinces should trickle west. Except we've seen many Irish players would rather cross the water than go west, and you can't control that. At underage level? An improvement doesn't take the Irish up to the standards of the Baby Blacks yet, there's a lot more needed there, although I'd suggest recent events largely show the improvement. The difference will be gradual and creeping, much like England's since the new-style academy products have hit the market.

You want to see a difference? Go and look at age profiles, go and look at results. Already. Not a huge one, but noticeable over two years. What happens in the future is in the hands of the provincial coaches, not the academy ones.

p.s. Anyway, the north is doing NZ a favour. If we didn't keep clearing space for new talent, you'd have a massive backlog and all of a sudden the chances for youth would dramatically disappear. So be grateful

 

[gingergenius]

Both sides of this argument make some very good points. What sticks out to me, however, is what smartcooky was touching on vis-a-vis youngsters.

1. In the ITM cup, NZ has 14 teams playing week-in, week-out. Of the major nations, only South Africa and France have top domestic leagues as large. This is particularly astonishing when you consider the size of the NZ population; also when you consider that the biggest names are often missing from both the ITM and Currie Cups for large portions of the season due to internationals, that leaves a huge amount of space to be occupied by other players.

As smartcooky said, U20 players will be playing regular first team rugby in NZ. Certainly in England, you have to be a particularly special talent to get any decent amount of rugby before you're in your 20s.

2. Next is about culture and coaching. New Zealand seems to have a highly organised way of recognising talent, and a specific way of coaching it. Compare that to England where a lot of scouting is down to luck, reputation and contacts - you'll be put forward by your school to your county and so on, and there's no genuine expertise here.

Of players of my own age - the most talented No. 8 I know, from my club side (recently an Oxford Blue) spent his entire school career playing at 12 because the coach wanted a big fella there, and his talents were wasted and never picked up by England. The captain and vice captain of my school 1st XV had a reputation far beyond their ability. The vice-captain got a trial season at Wasps and didn't have his contract renewed; the captain didn't even get that far. Other players in the school 1st XV were better but had no reputation, and never got anywhere. One guy in the 2nd XV who was 6'7 made it all the way to South-East rugby, purely because of his size. The openside from my club team is certainly the best forward I've ever played with or against, but never made it anywhere because he was 'too small'.

I could go on with the examples, but the English system (and I'm guessing other ones up here) is a real lottery. NZ players seem to be getting moulded into professionals at the same age a lot of English ones are massaging their egos running rings around opposition schoolboy players.

Whatever we say in the North, we do have to face facts. Even when SA has a system rotten with politics, and Australia have no players to choose from, and NZ have far less money to throw at youngsters their coaching and youth development systems are far superior to ours. Which is why there is an obvious discrepancy at international level. Which is why the likes of Cooper, Beale and O'Connor are major world stars while their Northern equivalents (Earls, Cipriani, Bastareaud) are mere maybe-men.

 

[Shaggy]

The whole buying New Zealand players and playing them at the expense of giving local young talent, compared to the opportunities young New Zealand players get, is, if not like comparing Apples with Oranges, at least like comparing Mandarins with Oranges, their similar being both Citrus fruit, but not quite the same

In Europe/Ireland/The UK, the Six Nations, the Heineken Cup, and the Aviva/Magners League/Top 14 all over lap. This can cause long absences of the local international players, leaving a gap of experienced players, mid season, for some clubs.

You don't see this happening on mass in the Super 15 - with the internationals scheduled for after the completion of the Super 15, the absence of the internationals is usually due to injuries.

In the case of the NH sides, recruitment of experienced New Zealand players is a good option, as these players are available all season (as they can't be called away on international duty), and can fill the gaps while the Six Nations are on etc.

While you can argue that you could fill these gaps with younger local players, the most successful teams generally seem to be a mix of youth and experience.

Tony Johnstone's argument also overlooks the commercial value for the clubs in playing established New Zealand players over younger, inexperienced local players, as known players are likely to attract bigger crowds.

 

[profitius]

If all this is true, we'll notice a huge difference in the next 3-5 years. Although I've heard this from NH teams for many years now.

I'm confident and heres why. Its mainly because rugby has really taken off in the last 10 years here and its only now we're seeing the knock on effect of it. The underage club team are catching up with the schools team but theres still a long way to go.

Theres a big difference between the Ireland going into this world cup to the one in the world cup 07. The squad is much stronger and theres much more competition for the first team. I'd expect Ireland to continue getting stronger for the foreseeable future. There'll be a transition period coming between now and world cup 2015 where the likes of BOD, POC, DOC, David Wallace, ROG, Ferris, Flannery etc will end their Ireland careers. Naturally there'll have to be a transition period but you'd think there'll be players who'll step up.

 

[profitius]

Both sides of this argument make some very good points. What sticks out to me, however, is what smartcooky was touching on vis-a-vis youngsters.

1. In the ITM cup, NZ has 14 teams playing week-in, week-out. Of the major nations, only South Africa and France have top domestic leagues as large. This is particularly astonishing when you consider the size of the NZ population; also when you consider that the biggest names are often missing from both the ITM and Currie Cups for large portions of the season due to internationals, that leaves a huge amount of space to be occupied by other players.

As smartcooky said, U20 players will be playing regular first team rugby in NZ. Certainly in England, you have to be a particularly special talent to get any decent amount of rugby before you're in your 20s.

2. Next is about culture and coaching. New Zealand seems to have a highly organised way of recognising talent, and a specific way of coaching it. Compare that to England where a lot of scouting is down to luck, reputation and contacts - you'll be put forward by your school to your county and so on, and there's no genuine expertise here.

Of players of my own age - the most talented No. 8 I know, from my club side (recently an Oxford Blue) spent his entire school career playing at 12 because the coach wanted a big fella there, and his talents were wasted and never picked up by England. The captain and vice captain of my school 1st XV had a reputation far beyond their ability. The vice-captain got a trial season at Wasps and didn't have his contract renewed; the captain didn't even get that far. Other players in the school 1st XV were better but had no reputation, and never got anywhere. One guy in the 2nd XV who was 6'7 made it all the way to South-East rugby, purely because of his size. The openside from my club team is certainly the best forward I've ever played with or against, but never made it anywhere because he was 'too small'.

I could go on with the examples, but the English system (and I'm guessing other ones up here) is a real lottery. NZ players seem to be getting moulded into professionals at the same age a lot of English ones are massaging their egos running rings around opposition schoolboy players.

Whatever we say in the North, we do have to face facts. Even when SA has a system rotten with politics, and Australia have no players to choose from, and NZ have far less money to throw at youngsters their coaching and youth development systems are far superior to ours. Which is why there is an obvious discrepancy at international level. Which is why the likes of Cooper, Beale and O'Connor are major world stars while their Northern equivalents (Earls, Cipriani, Bastareaud) are mere maybe-men.

It happened in my local soccer team years ago. 2 players were sent to England on trial which was puzzling because there was much better players than them. Its only later I realised why they were chosen. Ones father was a coach at the club and the others parents helped run the club. They didn't make it in England, as expected.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

I've read this a few times now but I'm not entirely sure what you're saying :S

You're saying our teams are going to be poorer in 3-5 years because of the imports?
Despite our youth teams consistently producing Magners/Aviva starters?


I read this as "Well, NZ are better than you for having no imports" - maybe we should just pack in rugby and just watch NZ then, as we're obviously not good enough even if we do have NZ imports :huh:

Wow, not often I get quoted on something I edited out, twice in one post.

Also, many people jumped on that post of mine.


All it means is that, you guys have your view, I have mine and we'll see if the Ireland national side is any better than they are right now in 3-5 years. I could be wrong, but I don't think the gap between New Zealand and Ireland that is currently there will be closed with the current strategies of the IRFU, that's all I meant.

I hate to think that people can't get over a "I have my view, you have yours" style comment. I personally thought it a reasonably fair way to bow out of an argument. Of course if I do have to think the way many of the other posters in this thread do, and not have my own opinion, just let me know thanks.

 

[smartcooky]

Sorry. I was relying on scrum.com to get their facts right.

Of the team that started against wales only Luke Marshall, Patrick Jackson and Craig Gilroy all of Ulster and Mark Dolan and Tiernan O'Halloran of Connacht were listed as having Magners League teams listed. All the others only had Ireland U20 as the major team listed against their names. e.g.

JJ hanrahan: http://www.espnscrum.com/ireland/rugby/player/134576.html

 

[smartcooky]

Tony Johnstone's argument also overlooks the commercial value for the clubs in playing established New Zealand players over younger, inexperienced local players, as known players are likely to attract bigger crowds.

No Shaggy, I don't think he's overlooked it, he has just deliberately not addressed it, because it is not important to the focus of his comments. He is talking about the International Game, and the impact on it of playing a lot of foreign players in your domestic leagues. NH posters here can deny it all they like every foreign player playing in your domestic competitions impact just a small amount. If you have four teams and one of the starting hookers comes from a foreign country, you only have three instead of four to choose from. Individually, they may not impact much, but the combined effect of many will have a greater impact. One needs only look at Wendyball, and the English Premier League. 40% of all players are not England Qualified. When was the last time England won a major trophy. FIFA world Cup - 1966 45 years ago, UEFA European Championship, never.. and they have England players playing in Europe available to them too!!

It is apparent that some here see the tribalism of supporting their Club team as far more important than International Rugby, which is considered a nuisance and a bothersome sideshow that needs to be tolerated until they get back to "real" Rugby like Leinster v Munster or Tigers v Wasps. In NZ, we see things entirely the other way around, with the domestic competitions being a means to an end, that end being a strong All Blacks team The fact that the All Blacks coach can get the Super Rugby and ITM Cup coaches to play certain players in certain positions illustrates this well. If Martin Johnstone tried this in the Aviva Premiership, he would be told to fvck off in very short order.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

I see you point out the English football team but your argument is not completely correct. English footballers don't play outside England on a high level. The only ones that come to mind of the last 30 years are Owen Hargreaves, David Beckham, David Platt, Chris Waddle, Steve McManaman, Gary Lineker and Kevin Keegan. That's nog even 10 players who played a significant role abroad. Holland doesn't have top class players in their clubs but our biggest players do play a big role in European football. van Persie, Sneijder, van der Vaart, van der Sar, Seedorf, Overmars, Bergkamp, Kluivert, van Basten, Rijkaard, Gullit, Ronald Koeman, Dirk Kuyt, Ruud van Nistelrooy, Jaap Stam... of the top of my head that's already more than the handful of English players I could think of.

Translating back to rugby, it's not a problem if you get players from abroad, as long as you don't block the development of young talent. Players from New Zealand and South Africa moving to Europe just gives us the chance to bring young talent into the squad and give them a chance.

When you look at it from a different direction (the European point of view), they spend money on players like Steyn, Pienaar, McAllister, Carlos Spencer and Andrew Mehrtens, but their point of view is to boost their squad with these players and maybe let their young talents learn from our players.

Do you think there should be a limit on foreign players on the field? Or is there already a limit? It would be an idea to give the clubs a quota. A max. of 3 foreign players can play at the same time. I know it's difficult to do so with the European laws on people within the EU to travel freely and work without having to go through the hassle of work permits and all. And for the SANZAR citizens (e.g. Rugby players) it's also easy because of the Commonwelth treaty (If I am correct).

Now that I think of it, the Unions can not limit the number of foreign players. The only solution will be a gentlemen's agreement. Europe will always be the financial oasis for players to earn the big bucks (together with Japan of course) and especially in France the salaries are that high, players will give in to it. Salary caps are also not going to keep the SANZAR players home bound because in France they can earn more on sponsor deals than they do on a full salary in their home country

 

[Shaggy]

I see you point out the English football team but your argument is not completely correct. English footballers don't play outside England on a high level. The only ones that come to mind of the last 30 years are Owen Hargreaves, David Beckham, David Platt, Chris Waddle, Steve McManaman, Gary Lineker and Kevin Keegan. That's nog even 10 players who played a significant role abroad. Holland doesn't have top class players in their clubs but our biggest players do play a big role in European football. van Persie, Sneijder, van der Vaart, van der Sar, Seedorf, Overmars, Bergkamp, Kluivert, van Basten, Rijkaard, Gullit, Ronald Koeman, Dirk Kuyt, Ruud van Nistelrooy, Jaap Stam... of the top of my head that's already more than the handful of English players I could think of.

Translating back to rugby, it's not a problem if you get players from abroad, as long as you don't block the development of young talent. Players from New Zealand and South Africa moving to Europe just gives us the chance to bring young talent into the squad and give them a chance.

When you look at it from a different direction (the European point of view), they spend money on players like Steyn, Pienaar, McAllister, Carlos Spencer and Andrew Mehrtens, but their point of view is to boost their squad with these players and maybe let their young talents learn from our players.

Do you think there should be a limit on foreign players on the field? Or is there already a limit? It would be an idea to give the clubs a quota. A max. of 3 foreign players can play at the same time. I know it's difficult to do so with the European laws on people within the EU to travel freely and work without having to go through the hassle of work permits and all. And for the SANZAR citizens (e.g. Rugby players) it's also easy because of the Commonwelth treaty (If I am correct).

Now that I think of it, the Unions can not limit the number of foreign players. The only solution will be a gentlemen's agreement. Europe will always be the financial oasis for players to earn the big bucks (together with Japan of course) and especially in France the salaries are that high, players will give in to it. Salary caps are also not going to keep the SANZAR players home bound because in France they can earn more on sponsor deals than they do on a full salary in their home country

Mate, I think Cooky's point relate to the number of foreign soccer players playing in England limiting the number of places for their up and coming players, not how many English players are playing overseas

 

[Peat]

English football's problem is not so much the foreigners per se; English youngsters can and do get their chance. The problem is the coaching of the youngsters has been **** poor for a very long time. It's only now that we're seeing outstanding Arsenal youth prospects because these are the first generation of kids who've been through Wenger's entire program for example.

Also, I feel the need to obviously troll and say "Compare and contrast the effects of home expectation in choking in English football and Kiwi rugby"

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

English football's problem is not so much the foreigners per se; English youngsters can and do get their chance. The problem is the coaching of the youngsters has been **** poor for a very long time. It's only now that we're seeing outstanding Arsenal youth prospects because these are the first generation of kids who've been through Wenger's entire program for example.

Also, I feel the need to obviously troll and say "Compare and contrast the effects of home expectation in choking in English football and Kiwi rugby"

Yes, I'd rather choke like New Zealand thanks. We actually win a good percentage of games. In world cups for a nation with bugger all population to choose from we also get pretty far in world cups. Mind you, this'll be gloating I suppose, but you asked. Thanks for the opportunity to compare and contrast.

 

[Peat]

But England's football team play in a game with far more global competition, and in rugby terms, NZ are clearly rugby's number 1 nation in a way England aren't in football. Either way, I'm glad we can acknowledge it happens, and that the point about it being all about those danged foreigners is somewhat flawed.

 

[Feicarsinn]

I don't think you'll find any Irish supporter who shares that view here. The provinces feed the international teams. Success breeds success though, so to have 3 provincial teams going well, each with say 18 Irish players in their 23 man squads is better than having 3 teams with 23 Irishmen enjoying mid table obscurity.

EDIT: Declan Kidney also has that luxury. Going into the 6 nations, we were missing Rob Kearney and Geordan Murphy, so Leinster were requested to play Fitzgerald at fullback to give him some time there. We did, because that's how the system works over here. There's no point lumping Irish and English rugby structures together as you did above, they're completely different beasts.

 

[lucky number 7]

Rabble Rabble Rabble

 

[Peat]

EDIT: Declan Kidney also has that luxury. Going into the 6 nations, we were missing Rob Kearney and Geordan Murphy, so Leinster were requested to play Fitzgerald at fullback to give him some time there. We did, because that's how the system works over here. There's no point lumping Irish and English rugby structures together as you did above, they're completely different beasts.

See also: Paddy Wallace playing at 10 for Ulster earlier in the season. Scotland also has a great degree of control over their domestic teams.

Even Johnson has some informal influence. See Banahan at 13 and Robshaw at 7.

 

[jackthelad]

... Why?, New Zealand doesn't have the population or the economic clout to compete with the kind of money that the likes of France can pay ... but it's about the same as Ireland. that being the case, you're going to use whatever means you can to retain as many of the natural resources you've developed (the players) by whatever other means you can, such as, if you play overseas, you can't play for the All Blacks.

... It's interesting that Ireland, Wales, England, South Africa etc, all retain a preference to picking players for their national sides,that play within their own borders,

Not true. There are very few Irish players of note outside Ireland. Those that are good enough get selected. The players are properly paid and financially incentivised with tax breaks to stay. There is no doubt that the NZRFU have a lot more income than the IRFU. Players should be paid what they are worth in the global rugby market, the one N.Z. wanted more than any other country.

in fact its sounding like a watered down version of what New Zealand is doing.

There is nothing stopping New Zealand from selecting the likes of Nick Evans for the All Blacks. Players MUST be released by their clubs for internationals. B.J. Botha and Ruan Pienaar at Ulster both played in the Tri-nations this current season.

If we going the paying the player what they are worth/tough luck if you can't afford to retain them route, I'm liking Cooky's transfer fee idea more and more ... If a country is supplying an overseas club with a "finished product" that they have put time and money into creating, I don't see anything wrong with getting paid for it. Who knows, it may even pump much needed cash into the cash strapped Pacific Island unions

It would be illegal. There used to be a system of indenturing an apprentice basically in which he would be tied to an employer who trained him and for which the apprentice was paid very little. If he wanted to move he had to buy himself out of his indenture....for his training etc. It is an ill disguised form of slavery and is banned in most if not all 'Western' societies. This is the system you are espousing. It was once necessary to 'buy' yourself out of the Army...also binned. At the end of a contract a player is a free agent. By your bizarre logic, at the end of a contract which was not renewed, a player could equally claim huge sums for his efforts in working for his employer. A player sells his talents to a club who benefit from it's use, he doesn't sell himself.

In terms of the laughable figures quoted for example that Afoa and Payne are alleged to be getting in the really reliable NZ press, the amount quoted as £400,000 is (a) wrong and exaggerated and (b) the total for both players.

 

[Teh Mite]

There is no law stating a player "Must" be released by a club for international duty. If a club hold a contract with a player and there are no clauses in there stating otherwise, they are perfectly entitled to tell a union where to go.