Leinster: Young lads on fire (Irish chances??)

First topic message reminder :

This is just a quick article on some of the young guys I have been most impressed with so far this season for Leinster who are IQ and should be in the Irish managements teams plans or should be a bigger part of those plans than they were before.

Cronin:
Didn't get to play much at the RWC but since he has come back for Leinster he has been doing well, one of the main points I'd like to make on the guy is that the source of most peoples worry (his throwing) has improved beyond recognition. He still is playing well in the loose be it in carrying or running support lines but his work in the tight has come up a notch. He is playing with a fire in his belly and is relishing the battle with Strauss it would seem. Also his error count is much lower than in previous seasons. Could do with improving his work in the srum and trying to create those mini mauls at times but huge improvements at the start of this season IMO.
Verdict: Not good enough to oust Best, but DK shouldn't be scared of getting him on the pitch.

Toner:
Bank of Ireland player of the month last month. Known for his great lineout work and how soft he is, he has really knuckled down this season. He has toughened up in the abscence of Hines and his work with ball in ahnd is much better as he doesn't go into contact so high, he also offloads and passes before contact more, we don't see him getting blown backwards anymore. He was always good on Leinster ball but he seems to have got better at stealing opposition ball now too which is a welcome addition and others in the camp say he has became something of a leader during the RWC. Needs to keep this work rate up and nail down a spot in the starting XV week in week out.
Verdict: Not good enough to challenge POC, Ryan, DOC but should be looking to break into the 30 man squad of the 6N as a medium term goal. Challenging Cullen and Tuohy.

Madigan:
Was behind McKingley and Sexton last year but is now getting more game time and seems to be trusted more too. He runs a backline very well and in general his defence is good, it was his game management that needed improvement and it got it. He now bosses games and bosses players, moving them where he wants them. He still pushes the flair button which is good but he knows that at times it's best to kick corners or crash it up. Still has a lot to learn and the more he plays the better but he is coming along nicely.
Verdict: Should be in the 6N training squad but will probably lose out to Keatley, however the experience and the confidence it will give him should be invaluable.

O'Malley:
In the abscence of BOD McFadden was given a shot at 13 and did well without lighting the place up (IMO). O'Malley had been playing 13 alongside Fitz during the RWC and was playing well, making breaks, getting outside guys and remaining defensively solid. He got called up when McFadden was injured against Glasgow and performed brilliantly. He has shown that he is more than a guy with quick feet, he can pass well, he is an excellent line runner and his defence is more than just solid (even for such a small guy). Needs to hold onto the 13 jersey until January and hold of McFadden and then who knows.
Verdict: Will be in the 6N training squad and has a chance albeit not a great one at starting a game or two. (A lot remains to be seen)

Fitzgerald:
After such a disappointment in not making the RWC (and rightly so IMO) he has really taken the finger out. No more is he butchering try scoring opportunities or remaining a defensively solid but offensively useless winger. From day 1 back in the Leinster camp he has been making breaks and half breaks, holding on to passes. Linking well and offloading whenever it was on. In general he has become not only more solid in the basics but also he ha recovered some of his flair and agility. Still needs to start scoring tries but he is doing well. There may well be a huge tussle between Carr and himself. Needs to work out what position to play in also, 12, 13 or wing.
Verdict: Is still a utility man and needs to nail down a place singular in the Leinster team (12 IMO) he will make the 6N squad and will be pushing hard for a spot in the 22 ahead of Trimble or Earls

On a side note: was disappointed with Dominic Ryan and was really looking for him to kick on and be Ireland's answer at 7.

Overall there have been some very good performances which is only a good thing for Irish rugby and particularily in certain positions like 13 where Ireland are missing a guy who can try and live in BOD's shadow, we have a lot of options but we need someone to really stand up. ROG will retire in the next 2 years so we may need another 10 other than Keatley and Sexton. With Fla not playing yet it's a good thing Cronin is improving also.

Have I missed out on anyone at Leinster?
Would anyone like to tell us about some of the players in other provinces?
Does someone completely disagree in something I've written or have another point to add?

Okay, I've been drawn into this...... residency! Who are the players that have only ever managed to play for another country solely because of residency and not because of a parentage link? Doesn't have to be just Ireland here, but we hear all the time about this on here but to be honest I don't know the players we are referring to other than Flutey.
Strauss might be the first for Ireland, is that correct? Or did Keith Gleeson or Andy Ward only make the grade through residency?

I think if Darcy was to move on/ become injured/ get replaced it would go

McFadden->BOD->Fitzgerald->O'Malley->Sheridan

That would be the order of things I'd guess.

Bandwagon there have been many players, for all countries, who only qualified through residency.

Gleeson was born in Dublin and brought up in Australia
Andy Ward was only through residency but as I mentioned a genuine migrant not a glory/cash seeker. There have been others for Ireland, who on the whole have less than nearly all the other major rugby playing nations.

I wouldn't care if Strauss played for Ireland - providing he's good enough. However I do object to the idea of a 'project' player. If provinces are bringing in players it should be because they are good value for the team and have nothing to do with them not being capped. Projects are not qualified for Ireland so should count just as much in the NIQ quota as any other import.

With regards residency I'd actually relax it a bit. I agree with the current minimum three year qualification period but I'd also bring in maybe a five year period for anybody with less than say five caps. This is primarily to help nations who don't produce enough homegrown players to be competitive - so what if Russia or Japan fill their ranks with other teams cast-offs? Are countries who are already producing lots of players take a punt on a foreign 20 year old with no experience and only potential?

Test rugby is a function of ability AND passion. If a player is only in it for the money he won't succeed in Test rugby and that will be very obvious when 'bodies have to go on the line'.

The Great Aukster wrote: I wouldn't care if Strauss played for Ireland - providing he's good enough. However I do object to the idea of a 'project' player.

This confuses me. You object to Project players but have no problem with one playing for Ireland ?

The Great Aukster wrote: Test rugby is a function of ability AND passion. If a player is only in it for the money he won't succeed in Test rugby and that will be very obvious when 'bodies have to go on the line'.

Only in it for the money yes but it would be niave to think that money was not instrumental in bringing the likes of Payne and Pienaer to Ulster. They would not come here on, say Trimbles, salary.

Mickado wrote:See I don’t think he’s over rated, because all I ever read about him is that he’s over rated! All I’m saying is that with Darcy fit I think Schmidt is reluctant to drop him as he is the old head in midfield. With O’Malley outside him and Sexton being rested it’s a cautious decision to not have too many inexperienced players in that at the same time.

McFadden has had some quality games in the center, Just as an example off the top of my head against Munster in TP last year (not last season) he was top quality.

Long story short, we haven’t seen him at 12 this season because we haven’t NEEDED to see him at 12.

+1

On the Leinster youngsters, I'd add that I wasn't impressed with either Willis or Cooney from the start of this season. With the rumours/mini-hype for Luke McGrath coming out of schools and into Leinster there might have been an opportunity missed to give that kid good early experience.

Also, that prop Jack McGrath seems solid any time he comes on as a sub but again they haven't really given him any start of note that I can remember instead keeping the SH prop rotating door going with Newland last year and White this year (having said this, White has been solid enough also so far but isn't IQ so in a 50-50 call I'd prefer the IQ player get the nod). Or am I confusing my LH and TH's here?

You are confusing the LH and Tighthead Im afraid, they were both on by the end of the Treviso game and yeah they look good.

What do people think of Hagan? He's another relatively young lad who has been doing average-to-good work with Leinster so far this season. Seems to fluctuate too often for my liking.

And then we have Carr. The guy hasn't been mentioned much here yet, and he deserves to be. He is a proper winger now. He has the pace that you get in the southern hemisphere and the elusiveness of most top class wingers. His basics are now much better than they were when he was with Connacht but more importantly his defence has come on leaps and bounds.

Also this is worth a read

https://www.606v2.com/t19130-bath

Pete, I read a very interesting bit in the times about Hagan, well about Feek’s opinion of Hagan.

It seems he’s still very much a work in progress, but hey, he’s a tighthead. It will take him a while to learn his trade at the highest level, but with the coaches he has around him he’s been given every chance.

I’d love to see the day when we put out our best squad and it’s all Irish but it will take a while for our props to catch up.

Feek particularly liked the way Hagan recovered from one or two bad scrums against Treviso. “As a coach, you look at that and see he got decked but he came back on the next one.

“As a tighthead you can never say ‘I never got caught in my whole rugby career, I won every scrum’. There are not too many tightheads in the world who can say that. With Jamie, I like the fact he came back and he hung in there and fought.

“For Jamie I think it is minute by minute,” added Feek. “Let’s not worry about next month, next week, next year. Every minute he gets on the field, let’s just make the most of it. A scrum goes for 15 seconds, get to the next one and we’re just trying to get him to do what he needs to do really. So, we’ll see.”

Yeah Mick I read that too. Looks good for Hagan's long term prospects because Leinster will hold onto him and mould/improve him not chuck him aside because he isn't good enough. He is pretty good in the loose too and most importantly he is getting game time. Not always but if Ross is being rested and it is against average opposition Hagan is generally chosen over White.

Just in terms of this weekend relating to this article, this is the team I'd choose against a blues side who struggled against Aironi in the first half and also will be missing players due to the Wales Australia game

Healy-Cronin-Ross
Toner-Cullen
SOB-Heaslip-Jennings
Boss-Sexton
McFadden-O'Malley
Carr-Kearney-Fitzgerald

Strauss-VDM-Hagan-McLaughlin-Ruddock-Reddan-Madigan-Nacewa

Liking that starting XV, Pete. All Irish too. Hope to see that one start on Friday. Im going to it.

I’d love to see that team play. It’s a great combination of nailed on form starters and players who are slightly on the fringes of the first team.
Plus, it’s the week before an away trip in the HC, we need to break our bollix to win this game and put in a good intense performance, same reason they put the Munster match on the week before round 1…

Excellent team. The logical choice.

Discussion: Greg Feek and Jono Gibbes are more valuable than Joe Schmidt to Leinster.

See ya there big man!

Only 2 NIQs and Strauss in the whole 23.

Thanks boys!

Want to see that midfield in action and want to see Carr and Fitz a lot.
As well as more improvement from Toner and Cronin. Then get McL in at lock to close out the game and when it's safe bring in Madigan to get some more experience.

Hmm on the discussion point.....not sure. Schmidt has revolutionised Leinster's attacking play. Feek would be more important re: Ireland

Gibbs has been the Common coaching factor between the 2 HCs and our forward play has gotten better since 09 so I'd say he's probably the most important.

But obviously it's all a rich tapestry. Theyve all made big improvements.

Of all of the coaches we've had since 09 I reckon our defensive guys deserve the biggest plaudists

They have to be fair Mick. All have done great jobs but I agree Gibbes has been the outstanding appointment.

Our coaches at Munster leave a lot to be desired.

Yeah bigtime Stag, Foley has done well since he arrived, well better than the rest anyways, but yikes since DK left you guys have not been coached well at all

Jim Williams left too Pete and went to Australia. Laurie Fisher was apalling. McGahan has done ok. I think he would have done well had he remained an assistant coach. Not good enough to coach at the top.

I actually think our scrum coach Paul McCarthy has been slowly turning things around since taking over last year helped especially this year I would say by arrival of BJ Botha.

Good point Pete, I think since McQuilkin left us (remember the panic!!) our defence has actually improved. We scored more And conceded less in last year than we did the year before.

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:Yeah Mick I read that too. Looks good for Hagan's long term prospects because Leinster will hold onto him and mould/improve him not chuck him aside because he isn't good enough. He is pretty good in the loose too and most importantly he is getting game time. Not always but if Ross is being rested and it is against average opposition Hagan is generally chosen over White.

Just in terms of this weekend relating to this article, this is the team I'd choose against a blues side who struggled against Aironi in the first half and also will be missing players due to the Wales Australia game

Healy-Cronin-Ross
Toner-Cullen
SOB-Heaslip-Jennings
Boss-Sexton
McFadden-O'Malley
Carr-Kearney-Fitzgerald

Strauss-VDM-Hagan-McLaughlin-Ruddock-Reddan-Madigan-Nacewa

No Nacewa?! What I would do to have him play for Ulster..

To me this is your best XV:

Healy-Cronin-Ross
Toner-Cullen
SOB-Heaslip-Jennings
Boss-Sexton
O'Malley-Fitzgerald
Carr-Kearney-Nacewa

red_stag wrote:They have to be fair Mick. All have done great jobs but I agree Gibbes has been the outstanding appointment.

Our coaches at Munster leave a lot to be desired.

Paul O'Connell has a lot of good things to say about Laurie Fisher and his coaching at the breakdown, a facit of play that POC in particular is very good at.

Fisher was great for Munster when he came first of all - then they changed the laws again.

As regards the scrum - Munster just didn't have the personnel so we should not be blaming the coaching. Lets see how Mushy does with Sale first before blaming the coaching for that.

We didn't have a scrum coach for quite a while Sin E - Paul McCarthy only came last season and I've noticed Munster make a climb upwards since our scrum horror display in the HEC over a year ago.

Agree on Fisher. To be fair was great at the start but any coach needs to adapt and he couldn't.

The improvements in the forwards, the defence and the scrum have been crucial to Leinster starting to win silverware. But we love attacking rugby here. So we love the attacking play Schmidt has given us. Our attacking play before he arrived had become so poor. Thanks to the supposed genius that is Alan Gaffney. It's amazing how poor coaching can make good players play badly.

I think Ulster could do with some coaches from Australia or New Zealand. The good ones from these two nations really do seem to be ahead of everyone else when it comes to coaching (not Gaffney of Fisher though).

Feckless Rogue wrote:The improvements in the forwards, the defence and the scrum have been crucial to Leinster starting to win silverware. But we love attacking rugby here. So we love the attacking play Schmidt has given us. Our attacking play before he arrived had become so poor. Thanks to the supposed genius that is Alan Gaffney. It's amazing how poor coaching can make good players play badly.

I think Ulster could do with some coaches from Australia or New Zealand. The good ones from these two nations really do seem to be ahead of everyone else when it comes to coaching (not Gaffney of Fisher though).

My main problem with Gaffney is that he was never improving or bringing something new to the table for the backs, just relying on BOD (and back in the day, Felipe) to figure something out or else run through the phases. Schmidt seems to have brought a bigger book of backline moves to the table and has given all the backs confidence to 'have a go'.

I think mixing up the coaching styles can be a good thing for the players also, Schmidt can have the more open and relaxed approach because most of the squad are instilled with the focus and intensity that Cheika brought to the provincial setup.

That's true. Schmidt and Leinster were a good marriage. The players were focused and motivated and just wanted to learn anything he had to offer. I wonder would he be so successful if he had to knock a more shambolic outfit into shape.

David Knox was the real architect of the classic Leinster back lineup. But then he became a gobby Tinkywinky and headed home to Aus.

geoff998rugby wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote: I wouldn't care if Strauss played for Ireland - providing he's good enough. However I do object to the idea of a 'project' player.

This confuses me. You object to Project players but have no problem with one playing for Ireland ?

The problem I have with 'projects' is that by definition they are not test players, and are obviously not qualified to play for Ireland, yet block Irish talent from getting the development experience that might make them Test standard far sooner than three years. Provinces should try to get the best value players and IMO 'projects' aren't great in that regard as some value is placed on the fact that they're not capped. Totally wrong way round. Berquist isn't a project but just like one he isn't IQ and is potentially blocking Madigan.

geoff998rugby wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote: Test rugby is a function of ability AND passion. If a player is only in it for the money he won't succeed in Test rugby and that will be very obvious when 'bodies have to go on the line'.

Only in it for the money yes but it would be niave to think that money was not instrumental in bringing the likes of Payne and Pienaer to Ulster. They would not come here on, say Trimbles, salary.

I agree, that's why I specified Test rugby. A previous poster suggested that rich nations would try to corner the young player market by offering them money to become qualified for them by residence. Pienaar obviously can never qualify for Ireland and like every other professional will maximise his earnings. Whether Payne ever qualifies or plays for Ireland is irrelevant to me as I'm convinced he is a good value player now and should be treated just like every other NIQ player. I have no problem with a player qualifying to play for Ireland but the question at the back of my mind is whether someone like Struass would be putting his body on the line for Ireland (especially say against the Bokke) the way Best or Cronin would.

If Strauss was playing for Ireland against the Springboks I'd say he'd be even more motivated to win than anyone to be honest. I'd prefer if this project player business was stopped. But let's not all have some personal vendetta against Strauss. He didn't make the rules. And if he's presented with the opportunity to play for Ireland I wouldn't blame him for taking it.

Feckless its not personal against Strauss. If it was Borlase or Payne or Sykes I'd feel just the same way.

I will blame him and especially the IRFU completely if he chooses to avail of it. I don't see how you can be against the idea of project players but happy for one to play for Ireland.

I wouldn't be happy to see Strauss play for Ireland. I said I wouldn't blame him for taking the opportunity. It's understandable. Everybody wants a good career. And every sports person wants to test themselves at the top level.

I'd blame the IRB residency rule for making it within the rules to buy foreigners to play for your country. And I'd blame the IRFU for this cynical policy. If a foreigner is to play for Ireland then let it happen naturally.

e.g. a player signs for a province. He's NIQ. He settles and raises his kids here. He stays NIQ until the rules say he's not. Then he comes out himself and declares that he bleedin loves Ireland and would be proud to represent his adopted country and is available for selection. Then the IRFU can tell the coach he can select that player if he wants.

The IRFU shouldn't be going looking for uncapped foreigners to convert them into Irish qualified players. In theory then Ireland could win the 6 Nations with South African props, Kiwi backrowers and Aussie backs. What would be the point of that?

red_stag wrote:I don't see how you can be against the idea of project players but happy for one to play for Ireland.

There is a difference between a project player and someone qualifying by residency. The very term "project" implies a process with a goal at the end. A project player signs a contract with the specific INTENT to qualify for Ireland rather than to solely play rugby for the province. This is the wrong way round as the players intent should be to solely play for the province with International consideration won through perspiration on year three rather than declaration on day one. The length of the qualification period also means these players tend to get three-year contracts which is usually longer than the better and more loyal stalwarts of the team.

To simplify it further I don't like the project player system where a guy who can't make his own Test team gets a preferential contract, experience and learns his trade at another Irish hopeful's expense simply by declaring an interest in qualification.

Ireland should be able to pick their best possible team using the same rules as everyone else. That is why I'm happy for anyone who is qualified to play. See?

I am not really a fan of the residency rule, mainly because if a player isn't good enough to represent their own country, it is a farce to just play them here. Makes us look pretty weak honestly. Its what I think when I see the NZ players with England.. they weren't good enough for NZ but England will give them a go. I don't want to see us doing the same. We raise our own players, and we play our best players. I don't think we should be wanting to play someone who can't get time with their previous country.

On the other-hand, I think the coaching roles for Ireland would be best suited to any non-irish candidate. This way provincial bias and the like wouldn't come into it, which can often be blamed on our homegrown coaches.

red_stag wrote:Feckless its not personal against Strauss. If it was Borlase or Payne or Sykes I'd feel just the same way.

I will blame him and especially the IRFU completely if he chooses to avail of it. I don't see how you can be against the idea of project players but happy for one to play for Ireland.

Stag - Shaun Payne was Ireland qualified. His grandmother was from Sligo. I think he may have gone on a tour to SA with Ireland, but since Ireland were well served with fullbacks (Girvan & Geordan Murphy), he was never capped.

I'd be happy if they took out Irish citizenship (takes 5 years) or 3 years if they marry an Irish citizen (Paul Warwick married an Irish girl and has a child that is an Irish citizen).

We raise our own players, and we play our best players.

It's really the whole point of international rugby matches isn't it. To see which nationality is better at rugby.

Sin, think he was talking about Jared Payne up at ulster at the moment.

Ok a few people to reply to.

Feckless - Understand what you say. Good point.

Sin - I mean Jared Payne the Project Player at Ulster

Also I have no problems with residency. Only with project players.

Richard O' Straussain for Ireland!

ROS!

The Great Aukster wrote:

red_stag wrote:I don't see how you can be against the idea of project players but happy for one to play for Ireland.

There is a difference between a project player and someone qualifying by residency. The very term "project" implies a process with a goal at the end. A project player signs a contract with the specific INTENT to qualify for Ireland rather than to solely play rugby for the province. This is the wrong way round as the players intent should be to solely play for the province with International consideration won through perspiration on year three rather than declaration on day one. The length of the qualification period also means these players tend to get three-year contracts which is usually longer than the better and more loyal stalwarts of the team.

To simplify it further I don't like the project player system where a guy who can't make his own Test team gets a preferential contract, experience and learns his trade at another Irish hopeful's expense simply by declaring an interest in qualification.

Ireland should be able to pick their best possible team using the same rules as everyone else. That is why I'm happy for anyone who is qualified to play. See?

I'm really not sure that's the case though. To my knowledge a project player is simply a NIQ player who could potentially become IQ, it's not a player who is signed with the intention of representing Ireland. For example, lets say Sykes and Strauss were not at Leinster, Mat Berquist signs, would he be a "project player"? No, because his contract wasn't for 3 years, but had his contract been longer then he would have been, because by default at the end of his contract he could play for Ireland.

I think people see the word "project" and assume there's a plan to get these guys into the international set up. That's not the intention, it's a speculitive signing on behalf of the province which the IRFU considers slightly differently to standard NIQ signings because by it's nature it could have a different outcome.

Mickado wrote:I'm really not sure that's the case though. To my knowledge a project player is simply a NIQ player who could potentially become IQ, it's not a player who is signed with the intention of representing Ireland. For example, lets say Sykes and Strauss were not at Leinster, Mat Berquist signs, would he be a "project player"? No, because his contract wasn't for 3 years, but had his contract been longer then he would have been, because by default at the end of his contract he could play for Ireland.

I think people see the word "project" and assume there's a plan to get these guys into the international set up. That's not the intention, it's a speculitive signing on behalf of the province which the IRFU considers slightly differently to standard NIQ signings because by it's nature it could have a different outcome.

"Project" players are signed on three year contracts and supposedly there is an understanding that if they are capped by their home nation during that period they would be in breach of contract.

Sykes and Berquist were signed at the same time, on three and one year contracts respectively. The media made a big thing about the possibility that Sykes could become IQ in three years, but didn't mention that Berquist could also become IQ just the same. There is obviously a difference in the way these two signings are treated both contractually and how they are publicly portrayed. Crucially Berquist has to earn his corn if he wants a contract extension for next year, Sykes doesn't have that motivation. Which one is likely to be trying hardest for the province?

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I am not really a fan of the residency rule, mainly because if a player isn't good enough to represent their own country, it is a farce to just play them here. Makes us look pretty weak honestly. Its what I think when I see the NZ players with England.. they weren't good enough for NZ but England will give them a go. I don't want to see us doing the same. We raise our own players, and we play our best players. I don't think we should be wanting to play someone who can't get time with their previous country.

On the other-hand, I think the coaching roles for Ireland would be best suited to any non-irish candidate. This way provincial bias and the like wouldn't come into it, which can often be blamed on our homegrown coaches.

Interesting point - then would Conor O'Shea be an ideal candidate down the line or could he still be seen to have provincial bias?

So is a project player closer to an insurance policy for the IRFU. That they look at their pipeline coming through the age categories and compare it to the age of the current internationals. If they think, for example, the second row has a potential gap behind the POC-DOC-MOD-Cullen era to a class with Ryan/McL/Touhy/Caldwell/Toner/(Nagle even?) that might have doubts over whether they will definitely be able to make the next step, the IRFU take out an insurance policy to make sure there is someone there to keep the team competitive and eliminate an area of weakness. This policy is a 3 year contract that only as a last resort they could call on in an emergency. Enter Sykes.

Think back 3 years, Best's form wasn't as good, Flannery was getting older, Jackman was over the hill, the next generation were unproven with no guaranteed international talent at the time. And the fogarty's were getting seriously injury prone at that stage (hard to remember back to those times). IRFU take out a 3 year insurance contract only to be called on as a last resort in an emergency. Enter Strauss.

You play by the rules and to the letter of the law. If something is grey and unclear you take advantage of it. You focus and take advantage of opponents weakness and you negate your own weakness as much as is allowed by the rules.

These are the objectives when a team is on the field. Why does the management have to be held to a higher hurdle than the rules in front of them? I don't condone breaking the rules, but rugby is very much about pushing yourself right up to that edge.

I see earlier on, some residency players from yester-year are acceptable in part because they stayed around afterwards (Andy Ward for example). You only know he stayed around after the fact........

I'll get my coat

Bandwagon its simple really.

Project Players = bad

Residency Qualified Players = acceptable

thebandwagonsociety - I don't see it like an insurance policy at all, because it can't be claimed for three years. Accidents happen, fates conspire, and hookers get the yips, yet someone has to play hooker in the next Test, so an insurance policy would provide an immediate contingency for a problem position? Perhaps someone who is playing regularly at a high level but most importantly available at say three days notice rather than three years!

If the IRFU are arguing that they are forward planning to avoid a position becoming a problem, they should use that prescience on the Lotto instead and put the winnings into grass roots rugby to ensure such problems never arise.

red_stag wrote:Bandwagon its simple really.

Project Players = bad

Residency Qualified Players = acceptable

When does Strauss become acceptable to you?

Strauss?

Never in terms of representing Ireland, he is a project player. Thats the key thing. No problem with residency and no problem with NIQ playing for provinces.

He has had an IRFU contact since the day he arrived at Leinster. Same as Borlase. Ireland has invested in these players in the hope they will be future internationals.

It is possible for countries to simply buy players if their own are not good - thats a sham. Had Strauss simply signed for Leinster without this project tag I wouldnt be as angry about it.

Is a project player really centrally contracted???

Peter Borlase said that "I'm going to Ireland as a project player and that basically means it's through the Irish Rugby Football Union,"

Yes they do.