Ulster squad additions

First topic message reminder :

All things relating to Ulster squad changes

rodders wrote:

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote: I played on a representative tour in South Africa and my opposition number looked like he ate boys like me for breakfast everyday. Too many English players are gym monkeys. They run hard and straight, but too many are excellent from 15-18, but when they are caught up with physically they are shown to be very average players.
Is it any wonder our players don't physically develop until their mid-20s? It takes years of gym work to get them to that stage, but at least they have the basic rugby skills needed.

Hookie why do you think that is if you don't mind me asking? Why are we so far behind physically at that level and even up to early-mid twenties?

I have a few theories but one in particular I won't be sharing here. Personally I think School boy rugby isn't physical enough and players don't get the same advice on resistance training, diet etc. that their counterparts in England and Wales are getting from the clubs. The flip side is they are better drilled and coached with basic skills like rucking, contact skills etc.
My experience of underage rugby is a looonnnng time ago and never played representative level so I'd be interested to hear your thoughts?

rodders from my experience of other sports that is the case at young ages kids are taught how to warm up and stretch having known a few very talented footballers the physical aspect failed them when they went on trials in England.
There does need to be a balance between the two as its already being stated England have suffered from their overemphasis on size and power and players lacking creative skills

I totally agree. And, to be fair, I think thats something Jackson has coped well with since he came in against Leinster.

From what I've seen he gets away with it quite well in the same way as Ford, by being brave and having good technique. I did see against Edinburgh that they opened up his channel a couple of times but that is always likely to happen given that Paddy Wallace isn't the biggest tackle alongside him and that Ulster were missing their influencial 7. He'll learn and surely Ulster will sign up another 10 sooner or later as there is a couple floating around and all they need is a squad option.

rodders wrote:

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote: I played on a representative tour in South Africa and my opposition number looked like he ate boys like me for breakfast everyday. Too many English players are gym monkeys. They run hard and straight, but too many are excellent from 15-18, but when they are caught up with physically they are shown to be very average players.
Is it any wonder our players don't physically develop until their mid-20s? It takes years of gym work to get them to that stage, but at least they have the basic rugby skills needed.

Hookie why do you think that is if you don't mind me asking? Why are we so far behind physically at that level and even up to early-mid twenties?

I have a few theories but one in particular I won't be sharing here. Personally I think School boy rugby isn't physical enough and players don't get the same advice on resistance training, diet etc. that their counterparts in England and Wales are getting from the clubs. The flip side is they are better drilled and coached with basic skills like rucking, contact skills etc.

My experience of underage rugby is a looonnnng time ago and never played representative level so I'd be interested to hear your thoughts?

I think the most obvious explanation is genetics, certainly in comparison to New Zealand and South Africa. Particularly when we were in Natal those guys were big units to say the least. I'm not talking about being physically developed, but just naturally tall and broad. I know there have been some studies done on this in scientific and sports journals- I know a guy who has either just finished or is finishing a PhD on this at Loughborough. I'd love to know what conclusions he has come to.

I think schools rugby here in Northern Ireland, especially outside Belfast, is just too 'soft'. I cannot speak about the system as it is now as I left school some ten years ago and things have changed in some respects. Take the Belfast mafia dominance of the schools cup. For sure, catchment area and sports funding in schools like Methody, Campbell and RBAI help but I don't think it is that significant a factor. Take mini-rugby where Coleraine and Portadown have a tremendous setup, as do Lisburn, Ballyclare and increasingly Limavady and Ballymoney. Why do the schools in these towns not have better schools cup traditions? I know for a fact that Methody train before school, have weights sessions at lunchtime and fine players (its a token, but still) for not attending training. The country schools by and large don't do this. Schools are increasingly worried about parental responses to encouraging, for example, players to take protein products in case there are liability issues. Rugby clubs, such as Coleraine, Ballymoney, Dromore, don't have these qualms.

We also need to take account for schools coaching. For every Wells dynasty there are ten schools with nothing better than an interested teacher. More and more schools are encouraging coaches to have coaching certificates and such, but this is not always possible, especially in the 'country' schools.

I think that many players slip through the net so to speak if they go to High schools, and to a lesser extent club rugby. The pinnacle of underage rugby still tends to be the grammar school system. It must be said that the Ulster branch is doing a tremendous job changing this, and we see more academy players from outside the big Belfast schools in that setup. Those teams tend to be physically superior, but the academy increasingly looks for a skill set in a player whom they can develop physically.

Sorry if that is all a tad rambling and it is general. I'm sure plenty of posters would be able to point to 'but what about school x...', but very generally this is the impression I have.

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:
I think the most obvious explanation is genetics, certainly in comparison to New Zealand and South Africa.

Thanks Hookie. Genetics yes ok in terms of NZ and SA and maybe England but Wales? No I think there is much more to it. Too much to discuss here though, maybe another thread for another day.

On Jackson, I think he looks good physically and has noticably bulked up this season.

Genetics yes ok in terms of NZ and SA and maybe England but Wales?

Funny that but when I was younger we always knew what the opposition teams would be like before we turned up. The ex-coal mining towns would be massive and dirty, the farming villages broad and squat (slow but good in the scrums) and the posh/richer towns would all believe they were playing for the Baabaas and throw the ball around whilst being physically smaller and quicker.

rodders wrote:

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:
I think the most obvious explanation is genetics, certainly in comparison to New Zealand and South Africa.

Thanks Hookie. Genetics yes ok in terms of NZ and SA and maybe England but Wales? No I think there is much more to it. Too much to discuss here though, maybe another thread for another day.

On Jackson, I think he looks good physically and has noticably bulked up this season.

Certainly not in terms of England and Wales and I think thats where what I was saying about the Ulster schools setup plays into that. Jackson for me still looks like he needs to develop physically. I don't mean that he needs to put on any muscle or the like, but he is still young and his still developing naturally. It might be couple of years before he gets to that stage. The same was very much true of Sexton was well. He had to put on some muscle for sure, but he also natural development as well.

I always find it interesting how most of our standout young players seem to come from schools which do not dominate the schools cup (Ferris, Bowe, Porter).
So many of the players from the big rugby schools don't go on to play after school, even at a lower level.
It is also interesting that towns such as Lisburn, Dromore and Portadown have hundreds of kids turning out on a Saturday morning for mini rugby but by the time they are 14 only 20/30 are still there.

Yeah we are saying the same thing here Hookie but for me Jackson has developed naturally since last season, he looks much more physical.

Jackson took SOB down twice against Leinster - I think he is one of the better defensive 10's.

Womble was thinking the same thing... the only two genuine World class players we've produced in modern times: Ferris and Bowe didn't come from tradional rugby backgrounds.

What does that say about the schools cup and grammar school system?

Don't get me wrong Geoff, this is not a criticism in any shape of Jackson. Yes, his tackling is better than Humphries (though, I'm petty sure so's my granny's) but he still has 'growing' to do in terms of natural development before considering conditioning and strengthening training. Studies have shown the damage done to young sportsmen and women from doing too many weights too young and actually stunts their natural development. Look at young players who burst onto the scene and have second season syndrome to various degrees- Bowe, Trimble, Spence, Marshall, Gaston. Ulster need to be very careful to manage Jackson well next season.

It also should be said that Methody seem to have provided quite a few of the players in our first team.

I went to a rugby playing grammar, and as a 15 year old was told that I would be in the 1st XV squad if I went into the summer fitness programme. I duly did and was included in all the training sessions as a tackle bag, when I mentioned that I might like to play for my club rather than the school 2XV I had to plead with the coach to sign the release form and was taken off the training regime.

Until we have an integrated system for developing players it will always hinder players who don't come through a school. Even at club level you feel invincible when you get selected for Ulster/Ireland then come down to earth with a bang when you get introduced to the grammar school kids!

Hookie I think the second season syndrome is more down to coaching, I'm not sure we've traditionally had coaches of the right calibre and knowledge.

We seem to flog our players to death or not play them at all with no in between.

Players need to do conditioning and strength training from a young age but it has to be managed right: body weight exercises, low weights, using correct technique etc. Its a myth that adolescents can't do strength training.

It is a myth that they can't use heavy weights from a young age too rodders. I am a huge fan of olympic weightlifting, and the majority of the really good countries (China, Russia, Iran etc) have children as young as 8 lifting weights. By the age of 12 they are lifting the kind of weights that the majority of adults couldn't touch.

Good points Rory. Eastern bloc training is where its at, personally I'm in favour of whacking kids with bamboo canes if they don't train hard enough like the Chinese do with the Olympians.... keep that one to yourself though....

Rory_Gallagher wrote:It is a myth that they can't use heavy weights from a young age too rodders. I am a huge fan of olympic weightlifting, and the majority of the really good countries (China, Russia, Iran etc) have children as young as 8 lifting weights. By the age of 12 they are lifting the kind of weights that the majority of adults couldn't touch.

Yes, China, Russia, Iran and Turkey are exactly the sort of countries we should model ourselves on. Did anyone see the documentary that was on a few years back about the wee kid with the mental muscles- I think he was from Ukraine? His six pack was insane!

Scientific studies have shown the damage this does in later life. I'll have to try and get some links to articles just to bore some of you into submission. Obviously adolescents can and should be encouraged to do weights programmes, but some of what is encouraged can have long term damage to the muscle tissue and joints.

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:
Scientific studies have shown the damage this does in later life. I'll have to try and get some links to articles just to bore some of you into submission. Obviously adolescents can and should be encouraged to do weights programmes, but some of what is encouraged can have long term damage to the muscle tissue and joints.

Absolutely but its a total myth to say adolescents shouldn't do conditoning and strength training. If anything this risks more injury.

Obviously there's things like plyrometrics, maximum lifts etc. that young athletes shouldn't do but you do hear some nonsence about this issue.

In terms of aerobic work young athletes can often do more than adults.

Too much emphasis is put on aerobic work though rodders. The whole long distance jogging business, circuits with little rest etc are pretty useless. I have read a lot of articles about rugby conditioning, and generally most of the game a player is walking or jogging very lightly, or recovering. A very small percentage of the game is spent fully sprinting, and the power required to perform a tackle or burst through defences lasts a few seconds max. Players should emphasise having maximum power throughout a game, and being able to fully recover. Rugby is a very stop-start sort of game, with plenty of variables in the mix.

I agree Rory... thats not what I meant though, it was just a general comment about aerobic training and young athletes.

Anecdotally though I believe that being aerobically fit really helps your recovery, even doing high intensity training and strength work. The research won't support that but that tends to refer to elite level athletes who have really high general fitness. Neil back for example had a phenomenaly high VO2 max as does Ritchie McCaw, who swears by aerobic training apparantly.

Thats my tip for the day

Interesting discussion lads.

A couple of points I'd like to add.

I'm not sure that any school "produces" players like Bowe amd Ferris. I think they are just fantastically talented sportsmen who would have excelled at whichever sport they had chosen. Tommy Bowe's sister plays hockey for Ireland and I'm sure they are blessed with excellent genes.

I don't think there is any advantage to preadolescents lifting heavy weights. Just because they can become excellent weight lifters at a young age doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing to do.

Mind you we do have a very gentle approach to kids and rugby here.

I was absolutely shocked to see pictures from SA of 7 year olds playing rugby. Full contested scrums, 15-a-side matches, full line outs with lifting!!!

Not saying it right or wrong just that it is a very different approach to our system.

Different culture. Out there, in rural South Africa, you're expected to be tough. Full physical contact is seen as a positive from an early age I'd imagine.

Suburban middle class UK and Ireland? Hah! Will my precious child get hurt? A lot of parents wouldn't want to send their kids to rugby if we had it like that.

Not saying either way is right or wrong. Although I think it's clear which one makes for better tight five forwards

Do you think that is why?

Not convinced.

Mrs P playing with a smile on your face won't help you against a team of giant Kiwis or Saffers who want to take your head off..... theres nothing else for it...get the bamboo canes out.....

Ohhhh!

Just you wait till you have a few little rodders running around!

I've got the bamboo canes ready and waiting Mrs P.... ....

Quite right, rodders, regular beatings = just the ticket!

Honest, procrastination inspired question;

Do people believe next years first choice XV will be stronger than this years? Our team from the Heineken Cup quarter-final is what I'm using for this years- I'm guessing next years.

2011/2012

1. Tom Court
2. Rory Best
3. John Afoa
4. Johann Muller (c)
5. Dan Tuohy
6. Stephen Ferris
7. Chris Henry
8. Pedrie Wannenburg
9. Ruan Pienaar
10. Ian Humphreys
11. Craig Gilroy
12. Paddy Wallace
13. Darren Cave
14. Andrew Trimble
15. Stefan Terblanche

2012/2013

1. Tom Court
2. Rory Best
3. John Afoa
4. Johann Muller (c)
5. Dan Tuohy
6. Stephen Ferris
7. Chris Henry
8. Roger Wilson
9. Ruan Pienaar
10. Paddy Jackson
11. Andrew Trimble
12. Paddy Wallace
13. Darren Cave
14. Tommy Bowe
15. Jared Payne

I think we are looking at an improvement there. The difference Tommy Bowe and Jared Payne could make coming into our back three is the most decisive factor for me.

Rugby has become all-consuming in some schools. The season generally ended with the Schools Cup final to allow the pupils to concentrate on the exam season. Now as young as Medallion sides start training for the next season after Easter, with weekly S&C sessions all the way through the summer.

I know several promising players who have given up rugby all together because it is too time consuming and they'd rather concentrate on getting to Uni. OTOH another wanted to play for his club when the school weren't playing and was put off the team for even asking. Yet another is one of those guys with great natural aptitude for all sports and reached representative level in both rugby and cricket. He was told by the rugby coach he had to play rugby and nothing else, so he gave up rugby.

While rugby remains centered around grammar schools, the kids will have aspirations to be doctors and lawyers rather than rugby players. They train to show off on the beach rather than get ready for a pro-rugby career.

It is no coincidence that the schools who are the most disciplinarian regarding conditioning are the ones seeing players progress to the full team, but at u20 these guys are way behind other nations in match hardness. Half the games at the JWC are total mismatches and the only real question is who will the baby blacks beat in the final!

Notch I think the 1st XV will be definitely stronger next year. A better backline with Bowe and Payne and Jackson is potentially better than Humph.

I maintain Pedrie is much better than Wilson though and overall our squad will be weaker with the players we are losing.

Notch wrote:Honest, procrastination inspired question;

Do people believe next years first choice XV will be stronger than this years? Our team from the Heineken Cup quarter-final is what I'm using for this years- I'm guessing next years.

2011/2012

1. Tom Court
2. Rory Best
3. John Afoa
4. Johann Muller (c)
5. Dan Tuohy
6. Stephen Ferris
7. Chris Henry
8. Pedrie Wannenburg
9. Ruan Pienaar
10. Ian Humphreys
11. Craig Gilroy
12. Paddy Wallace
13. Darren Cave
14. Andrew Trimble
15. Stefan Terblanche

2012/2013

1. Tom Court
2. Rory Best
3. John Afoa
4. Johann Muller (c)
5. Dan Tuohy
6. Stephen Ferris
7. Chris Henry
8. Roger Wilson
9. Ruan Pienaar
10. Paddy Jackson
11. Andrew Trimble
12. Paddy Wallace
13. Darren Cave
14. Tommy Bowe
15. Jared Payne

I think we are looking at an improvement there. The difference Tommy Bowe and Jared Payne could make coming into our back three is the most decisive factor for me.

Trimble has gone off the boil recently, he would need to buck up his idea's with Gilroy looking for a starting place.

I agree. Gilroy will take his place if he doesn't get back to his best.

The competition in the back three will be important for us next season I feel.

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:

rodders wrote:

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote: I played on a representative tour in South Africa and my opposition number looked like he ate boys like me for breakfast everyday. Too many English players are gym monkeys. They run hard and straight, but too many are excellent from 15-18, but when they are caught up with physically they are shown to be very average players.
Is it any wonder our players don't physically develop until their mid-20s? It takes years of gym work to get them to that stage, but at least they have the basic rugby skills needed.

Hookie why do you think that is if you don't mind me asking? Why are we so far behind physically at that level and even up to early-mid twenties?

I have a few theories but one in particular I won't be sharing here. Personally I think School boy rugby isn't physical enough and players don't get the same advice on resistance training, diet etc. that their counterparts in England and Wales are getting from the clubs. The flip side is they are better drilled and coached with basic skills like rucking, contact skills etc.

My experience of underage rugby is a looonnnng time ago and never played representative level so I'd be interested to hear your thoughts?

I think the most obvious explanation is genetics, certainly in comparison to New Zealand and South Africa. Particularly when we were in Natal those guys were big units to say the least. I'm not talking about being physically developed, but just naturally tall and broad. I know there have been some studies done on this in scientific and sports journals- I know a guy who has either just finished or is finishing a PhD on this at Loughborough. I'd love to know what conclusions he has come to.

Its not genetic. Rugby is the main sport in those countries don't forget.

According to wikipedia..
Average male height in South Africa - 1.690 m (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
Average male height in New Zealand - 1.770 m (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
Average male height in Ireland - 1.774 m (5 ft 10 in)

I think Finn McCool and the leprechauns may have skewed those averages dodger.......

rodders wrote:I think Finn McCool and the leprechauns may have skewed those averages dodger.......

Must be a serious amount of small indigenous people in South Africa to make up for those massive biltong eatin feckers of Dutch farming stock?

How else did they get the average so low?

profitius wrote:

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:

rodders wrote:

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote: I played on a representative tour in South Africa and my opposition number looked like he ate boys like me for breakfast everyday. Too many English players are gym monkeys. They run hard and straight, but too many are excellent from 15-18, but when they are caught up with physically they are shown to be very average players.
Is it any wonder our players don't physically develop until their mid-20s? It takes years of gym work to get them to that stage, but at least they have the basic rugby skills needed.

Hookie why do you think that is if you don't mind me asking? Why are we so far behind physically at that level and even up to early-mid twenties?

I have a few theories but one in particular I won't be sharing here. Personally I think School boy rugby isn't physical enough and players don't get the same advice on resistance training, diet etc. that their counterparts in England and Wales are getting from the clubs. The flip side is they are better drilled and coached with basic skills like rucking, contact skills etc.

My experience of underage rugby is a looonnnng time ago and never played representative level so I'd be interested to hear your thoughts?

I think the most obvious explanation is genetics, certainly in comparison to New Zealand and South Africa. Particularly when we were in Natal those guys were big units to say the least. I'm not talking about being physically developed, but just naturally tall and broad. I know there have been some studies done on this in scientific and sports journals- I know a guy who has either just finished or is finishing a PhD on this at Loughborough. I'd love to know what conclusions he has come to.

Its not genetic. Rugby is the main sport in those countries don't forget.

According to wikipedia..
Average male height in South Africa - 1.690 m (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
Average male height in New Zealand - 1.770 m (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
Average male height in Ireland - 1.774 m (5 ft 10 in)

I think its more to do with how kids are thought of if they turn out to be 'big strong lads' In SA and NZ, they see a kid getting big they say "Right, get you on a rugby field!" In Ireland theres a lot less chance that big athletic guys will be encouraged into rugby. I remember a guy at school who was a giant (and not just lanky). He would have destroyed people on a rugby pitch. But due to upbringing in a non sporting family, and not brought up with a competitive spirit, the big guy was happy to use a pen and paper.

In summary, the genetics are irrelevant, its simply about how much the countries and their people love rugby and sport in general, and so encourage their youngsters. They also value male athleticism more than we do here.

Why haven't the club announced NOC ??? - its a done deal

They probably don't want to lower moral before the HEC final Geoff.....

Yea even Radio ulster announced it yesterday. Maybe waiting to do a double announcement. Maybe want to spread announcements out over the two week gap. Danielli retiring was only a few days ago.

Again Danielli was retiring at least 1 month ago - sometimes these delays are strange.

They probably want to announce both signings at the same time. They generally announce 'minor' signings together or as a footnote to larger signings.

Did I read somewhere the squad was to be finalised in the next few weeks or did I imagine that?

-------

https://www.606v2.com/viewtopic.forum?t=29226