Why won't anyone copy New Zealand?

They've been awesome for decades. All they do is play at a very high tempo, there is always a man in support (both sides) and they always offload before or during a tackle.

Some of their vision (Carter) is like a 6th sense, but it's mainly just practice.

New Zealand don't play the rugby union that the rest of the world play. Its almost a different game. People say forwards win matches. This kind of old school myth is the same thing as people saying the fly half is the most important position. All positions are of equal importance. The NZ forwards do a decent enough job but all that they want to do is recycle the ball as fast as possible, fling it to Carter and run. It seems so simple.

Big differences:

Every man in the team gives 100%. Regardless of position they rarely make handling errors.
The skill levels for passing, handling and vision are the same REGARDLESS whether it's a back or a forward. That is why they score 3 tries in 10 minutes. Obviously the fitness and pace of each player is also a cut above. It makes this Poland malarky seem laughable.

Even with massive improvements in fitness, nutrition and training, most of our forwards in the NH still look like forwards. Some are still fat, round and with no definition and quite slow. Most of the all blacks look like centres or rugby league players.

In Wales I think we have fallen into the trap of "bigger" is better. The North's, Roberts, Phillips's and Cuthbert's of this world are only effective some of the time. We need to start embracing and developing players with raw talent, skill and attacking vision. We needed a Shane Williams type player yesterday to make a break, beat a guy one on one or just try something different. Wales had nothing of the sort, not even a simple offload or angled run.

We need to be developing players like Matthew Morgan. He's not huge but he's not as small as Shane Williams. He has a natural gift that needs to be looked into more seriously.

We need players with either good vision, one on one attacking nous, or a rugby brain. Players like this would be:

Shane Williams
Jiffy
Gavin Henson
Martyn Williams
Kevin Morgan
Allan Bateman
Arwel Thomas
Rob Howley
Rhys Williams

These are the players from the last 15 years or so that had that x factor and made a difference.
Yesterday was so boring. We need to copy NZ.

RogerLewis wrote:They've been awesome for decades. All they do is play at a very high tempo, there is always a man in support (both sides) and they always offload before or during a tackle.

Some of their vision (Carter) is like a 6th sense, but it's mainly just practice.

New Zealand don't play the rugby union that the rest of the world play. Its almost a different game. People say forwards win matches. This kind of old school myth is the same thing as people saying the fly half is the most important position. All positions are of equal importance. The NZ forwards do a decent enough job but all that they want to do is recycle the ball as fast as possible, fling it to Carter and run. It seems so simple.

Big differences:

Every man in the team gives 100%. Regardless of position they rarely make handling errors.
The skill levels for passing, handling and vision are the same REGARDLESS whether it's a back or a forward. That is why they score 3 tries in 10 minutes. Obviously the fitness and pace of each player is also a cut above. It makes this Poland malarky seem laughable.

Even with massive improvements in fitness, nutrition and training, most of our forwards in the NH still look like forwards. Some are still fat, round and with no definition and quite slow. Most of the all blacks look like centres or rugby league players.

In Wales I think we have fallen into the trap of "bigger" is better. The North's, Roberts, Phillips's and Cuthbert's of this world are only effective some of the time. We need to start embracing and developing players with raw talent, skill and attacking vision. We needed a Shane Williams type player yesterday to make a break, beat a guy one on one or just try something different. Wales had nothing of the sort, not even a simple offload or angled run.

We need to be developing players like Matthew Morgan. He's not huge but he's not as small as Shane Williams. He has a natural gift that needs to be looked into more seriously.

We need players with either good vision, one on one attacking nous, or a rugby brain. Players like this would be:

Shane Williams
Jiffy
Gavin Henson
Martyn Williams
Kevin Morgan
Allan Bateman
Arwel Thomas
Rob Howley
Rhys Williams

These are the players from the last 15 years or so that had that x factor and made a difference.
Yesterday was so boring. We need to copy NZ.

I think the most imprtant point you made there was about NZ 'vision'. They are all exceptionally intelligent players. To a man they each have the ability to scan and see whats in front of them and make a good decision accordingly. Id say Ben Franks has more rugby intelligence than James Hook and that IMO is why we will never be on par with them

Copying a particular nation in style and format is not key to success, in fact more than likely its key to failure.

The ABs are not the best because they are faster or fitter as you said... They're the best because their basic skills are outstanding. Rugby is the national sport in NZ, you'll be hard pressed to find a kid in NZ who hasn't played rugby as a youngster.

They probably have a 5 year head start on any player in the UK as most pick it up there aged 11+.

Another thing to remember is that in Wales just like England, rugby is not the most played sport by kids, it's football. Generally speaking top class sportsman are natural sportsman, football always takes the best kids first in the uk and leaves rugby and cricket to take what they leave behind.

just think how good a player like Ryan Giggs could have been if he grew up playing rugby rather than football. You won't find that in NZ. What can be a bigger dream for a kiwi kid than being an all black?

If you want to look at a nation who bats well above their weight then look at Australia rather than NZ. Their rugby playing numbers are tiny compared to NZ, SA, FRA and ENG but they are always able to compete, never out of the top 3. Hardly any kids in AUS grow up playing union.

Nations should play to their own strengths not copy others, if they do they will always be in awe of such teams, always looking over their shoulders and will be beaten well before the match is played.

When primary school kids play the game skill is the biggest factor to success, come high school it's pace and size. If you introduce most of your kids to the sport in high school don't be surprised if you churn out 15 George North wannabes, I.e. big and strong but perhaps lacking a little in the overall skills department.

If a nations wants to make it big in test rugby the key is getting as many primary school kids into the game as possible and making rugby the de facto sport in the country. NZ and SA to an extent prove this time and time again.

Rob Penney is bringing a NZ type of game to Munster. As we can see theres a long long way to go but you have to start somewhere.

Without sounding like a bit of an ar$e I have written my diss on skill aqcuisition and phys developments this year and the biggest factor IMHO is the junior set up in NZ.

I know a lot of people bang on about it without knowing too much but in essence kids in NZ are pitted against each other by their abilities and size as opposed to age.

Everyones sees a junior game where there is 1/2 maybe 3 players on the pitch are far more advanced and phys older than the rest, they run tries in from everywhere and win games and make the cut for the elite teams. However this does noone any good and as they get older and progress through the levels they lose this physical edge and drift into the crowd, in which the kids who have developed better skillsets excell.

Key problem is that the group of kids in the elite clubs are largely the quickest boys to mature and not necesarily the best players, and therefor we are picking players from ultimately limited groups of players who just happened to develop earlier than their mates.

But I could write about this all night (at least 10 thousand words) so I'll leave it there.

You must have spotted Dane Coles when he came on then Bluesman? The epitome of the hybrid forward/back. He made a good impact in his short time without leaping off the pitch.

I feel that the addition of a pass fizzer at 9, rather than the more physical 9 has been responsible for the alleged step up in the ABs since the RWC. Kerr-Barlow/Aaron Smith/TJ Perenara look to be the way forward. It fits with your argument of forwards being there to get the ball to the backs quickly.

But the downside of course is when a team targets the loose as France, Australia and Ireland (in T2) did, then the whole machine comes crashing to a halt.

Coming into the RWC NZ had a robust set of enforcers in the unit: Thorne, Kaino, Read, McCaw. Without those guys working as a unit NZ are vulnerable to teams who throw everything into slowing down the breakdown and cutting off the momentum.

anotherworldofpain wrote:You must have spotted Dane Coles when he came on then Bluesman? The epitome of the hybrid forward/back. He made a good impact in his short time without leaping off the pitch.

He sure is...For the Canes this year took a pass and burst into the backline and when confronted put a deft little chip through off the side of his boot in true Centre style for another Cane to run onto and score. Certainly more mobile than either Mealamu or Hore. Whether he can cut it in the tight as either is yet to be sorted.

The reason why NZ has been the best team in the world for so long is twofold.

Attention to detail.

Every person knows exactly what to do when, it doesn't matter whether it is a ruck, tackle, ball in hand etc. you can see how quickly they react when an opportuniyt arises to either turn ball over, counter attack etc.

Support play.

To me it seems NZ has this mantra of always having a support player that runs off each shoulder. It is rare to see a ball carrier get tackled and there aren't two players to setup the ruck, or someone to pass to in a better position.

If I was coaching the Boks, those would be the two aspects I would focus on.

Leinster have..that's why they've won 2 back to back Heineken cups...Ulster have copied them so watch this space...

Yeah Anscombe has defo brought that more ruthless, pacey basic game to Ulster and it's working well, if only we could get one in charge of Ireland

I'd say in players like Habberfield, Patchell and Prydie we look as if we have some x-factor players coming through. At least that's how it looks at the level they are now anyway.

bluesman, most important point so far on here and you made it, taking players who develop before other players, yes!!!! and we hang on to them, and the other guys .....who could be better just fade away. !!!!!! at 16 some of these guys are written off, at 19 they are certainly written off,

every player reaches their best at a different time.....this could be 3 or 4 years difference. the old systems ( laugh as you may !!!) of going out and spotting talent, any age, have gone.

we all know players who were great at 16, got through to 18, but were still making the same mistakes 2yrs on, and again same mistakes another 2yrs on at 20, by which time the kids with maybe more talent have been overlooked because they developed later.

big question here about coaching , identifying players mistakes, and identifying potential, identifying potential is the future ,we need top class coaches to identify and actually COACH these players. NOT just tell them what to do , get them to KNOW WHAT TO DO, the present system negates any individual thought.

I don't know if anyone read the Sunday Times yesterday but Clive Woodward had written an article (about technology in rugby) but that said that NZ had the highest number of 3 second rucks in world rugby last year.
I think it was something like they do it 60% of the time whereas most NH teams its half or worse of that.

I may have got the numbers slightly off, but the point was that NZ produce more quick ball going forward, therefore the defences have less time to form up and therefore there are more line breaks and tries. This combined with good ball handling skills and support lines makes them such an attacking threat.

But all of the techniques coached, ruck timings, support play lines, and tackle tech etc are all instinctive with NZ players where most other nations can't get that. Or if they can it's in 1 or 2 players who become world class whereas NZ can produce 30 or so of the same calibre!!!

It all comes down to skill acquisition at the earliest age possible. I have recently been reading papers from some of the worlds best including Balyi, and potential at birth is deemed 100%, the first year is very important for physiological growth, and is the year we grow more than any other as we double in size, but skill acquisition is much different. Unlike physiological windows of trainability where speed, strength, suppleness etc have accelerated times where we gain our adult attributes, skill is far more determined on quality of play, quality of coaching, and most important quality of opposition!!!

You can call it attention to detail, you can call it whatever you want, but as a kiwi you react instinctively because of the quality you do before the age of 16, anyone can be conditioned to be huge, or fast, or agile, but only those who have developed an instinctive all round skill for the game can play in black.

Ive seen 19/20 yr olds in Wales receiving one on one coaching for passing off their left hand, Ive seen an 18 yr old who started playing and within the month was in an elite team and being taught the game because of his size, speed and power ability compared to other 18 year olds... IT'S CRAZY!!!

Others have said bits of this in different posts, but they are simply the best at making the most of their relative advantages whilst (usually) minimising the effect of their oppositions' strengths.

They have better skills, man-for-man than any other team, although Aus are probably closest, when they have their 1st team on the field. They also have a very good "system" designed to produce the very best All Blacks team as is possible. They have a small population, but a very large population of excellent players, so don't have too many issues with strength in depth (unlike Aus).

Tactically, they often get it right (less so against SA, perhaps, who are the clearest example of a team with different attributes). All of this combined means they can play at 75% and still comfortably beat almost any team, and play at 85% and beat every team more often than not. When they are on fire, nobody can beat them - at least, not based on the levels of their current opposition.

Depressing!

fa0019 wrote:

Another thing to remember is that in Wales just like England, rugby is not the most played sport by kids, it's football. Generally speaking top class sportsman are natural sportsman, football always takes the best kids first in the uk and leaves rugby and cricket to take what they leave behind.

I totally believe this.
In England, the majority of naturally talented athletes (those who could play any sport well) spend the majority of their time playing football.
It's only those that either won't make it as a footballer, or who aren't interested in football that look at other sports such as Cricket and Rugby (and Darts!)

Its just the way rugby is in the UK.

When I was in my junior days come high school half the guys in and around the team found rugby because they were big lumps who had no ball to hand/foot coordination but found their size to be an advantage.

If we want to compete consistently we need to make rugby the sport of choice, still today its painfully poor in getting kids from diverse backgrounds to matches.
Not only are they priced out by the £60+ tickets, its near impossible to get them unless you're part of the supporters club/are best mates with the ticket secretary of a local club.

In SA you can buy tickets in near every supermarket.... and prices are affordable. Because of this you get guys like Willemse, Januarie and De Jongh who came from some of the poorest areas in Africa to playing for the springboks.

SA also have a well developed scouting system for school scholarships... the best schools are filled with rugby talent brought in from throughout the country. Offering these kids a great education is one way of making them choose rugby.... perhaps they'll make it as a professional player... if not they have free food and board and the best education you can get in SA.

I understand the home unions want to maintain good relationships with their clubs, their core supporters but its a little naive.... why not reach out to the potential millions of new fans rather than scratching the back of the old few every year.
Get the game into the playgrounds, the various youth clubs and you'll see talent emerging from places you'd never expect.

England are hosting the RWC in 2015... on the back of this they could easily start a mini revolution in the sport but introducing the game to the millions of kids who've never heard of the sport... not just for 6 weeks but ongoing.

fa0019

Couldn't disagree more, rugby has always been massive in junior participation in wales and certainly took the most talented athletes (by which I mean those who developed youngest). I have coached teams packed with kids who need lifts constantly, struggle to buy kit etc because of numerous reasons!!

I have coached at plenty of prep schools in England where rugby and Football are equal, and even some that prefer rugby over football.

In wales the two main cities of Cardiff and Swansea are so diverse that football has gained popularity (as the global sport of choice) and the FAW, football trust has capitalised excellently in recent years.

Rugby is very different in Wales than it is in Scotland or England, I'd say the Irish (Munster more so) and Welsh hold far more similarities than either do with Scotland or England (although I must admit my knowledge of Scottish rugby is limited) But then at the same time I'd say Welsh rugby and Irish GAA probably hold more similarities again.

I know a lot of people bang on about it without knowing too much but in essence kids in NZ are pitted against each other by their abilities and size as opposed to age.

I've lost count the amount of times I have suggested Wales needs to move to weight grade rugby. That was smaller but more skilful kids won't be put off by larger kids smashing them all the time. They can always develop later on like you mentioned.

Also the quality of coaching needs to be excellent at the earliest stage possible. I remember when Wales had lost to NZ and they asked Gatland on scrum v why we keep losing he said 'it's the kids, you need to invest in the kids'!

Impossible

I'd actually go further and include height/weight classes, then mix the teams etc, (but I could whinge about what I'd do all day) logistically very difficult but if the Fijian board had listened to my proposals they'd be 10 years from being rugbys dominant force

Also Ive read many reports on junior participation and the best Ive seen is Balyi's on the RFU, basically claiming the UK system has it totally upside down!!!

Fiji's lost I guess..

Probably not but we'll see in 10 years. Someones going to listen to me eventually though, I'm kinda hoping it's not the RFU next week but lets wait and see!

Impossible Standards wrote:

I know a lot of people bang on about it without knowing too much but in essence kids in NZ are pitted against each other by their abilities and size as opposed to age.

I've lost count the amount of times I have suggested Wales needs to move to weight grade rugby.

Come on! that's unrealistic. Shane Williams would still be playing with other 15 year olds and we'd never have seen his international ability!

Williams was frozen out many times AWOP!!! He refused to give up and forced his way into prof rugby.

But that was a whole different era, where prof didn't make everyone 6'4 and 17 stone, so your points redundant.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Williams was frozen out many times AWOP!!! He refused to give up and forced his way into prof rugby.

But that was a whole different era, where prof didn't make everyone 6'4 and 17 stone, so your points redundant.

Did he sneak in under the radar?

No he was rejected from clubs and national duty for years in an amateur era, then due to a glut of injury problems had to go to the world cup as 4th choice SH/wing cover, then he got the opportunity to show what he can do!!!

For every Shane there is 50 more boys who will not have the chance to compete with highly conditioned prof players much larger than them, and they don't have the financial backing to get themselves conditioned or play/train regularly enough to compete.

SnC is a relatively new concept and was not around in Shanes time, he would certainly have not made professional standards today!!

Firstly before you can copy the All Blacks you need to duplicate there background.Children from the age of 5 upwards,mixed sexes,non-contact,and graded by build.Play shorter games on mini pitches coached by school or parents
many with Itm/Super.test experience.Handling skills honed by touch,tag,7`s.basketball,netball whatever.Meyer correctly said at Test level the basics SHOULD be in place.Run ,tackle,kick,handle,pass,simple stuff like drawing a man then letting the ball do the work.
There are two ways to beat them according to teams who most beat them,out muscle them[Boks]or out run them[Aus].Problem with that is the ABs are usually pretty handy in both departments.
Then look at there overall structure NZRFU uses a central contract system,AB Coach says player X needs rest he gets it.Conversely player Y needs sharpening up he gets a ITM game or released to the 7`s squad look at Gear etc.No problems about not getting players released for Test duty or looking all over the world for them.You want Test Rugby you stay in NZ you want cash fine there`s the door.Theres a line up waiting to replace you heading way back
bigger isn`t always better .BUT these days the crash/bash routine is favoured more than the skilled 10 stone weakling anywhere.
IRB really MUST enforce the Country firsr rule especially for tier 2 sides so they can compete.Having a team who have had one session together play a Tier one side away.No matter how weakened that Tier 1 side might be is disgrace to both sides.
Australia isn`t a good example at Union,compare the size of them and NZ,they choose Rules and league as there primary codes fine.At Super level they can realistically sustain 3 sides they have 5 even a Barbarians style one.At national level there stats are barely if anything better than France ,England or Wales around 54%.

emack2 wrote:basics SHOULD be in place.Run ,tackle,kick,handle,pass,simple stuff like drawing a man then letting the ball do the work.
There are two ways to beat them according to teams who most beat them,out muscle them[Boks]or out run them[Aus].Problem with that is the ABs are usually pretty handy in both departments.

You missed the "wait for them to wilt under the pressure of expectation" approach Emack! It works once every 8 years on average for France.

thebluesmancometh makes an important point about age grade systems, but I think that rather than the AB's like fa0019 points out Aus are the onees we should be copying.

Everyone knows that Rugby is THE sport in New Zealand, and in SA it is THE sport in certainn sections, and can challange football for most Popular sport, little wonder these are among the top nations.

But Austrailia suffer the same problems most Europe teams face. Rugby union is the third most popular sport in Australia. The competation for players against Ozzie rule and Football are equal to what the European teams face, and yet Austrailia are constantly in the top 3. Whatever Oz is doing, we should look at also, as I believe we could learn more from them, than by trying to learn from NZ.

Kingshu so you would go with average tight,especially front row forwards.
Outstanding loose forwards,THE best all round backs in the game as your template.Well it has yielded a 27% win rate versus the ABs around 54-57 % versus England/France and 66 % versus Scotland/Ireland/Wales versus the Boks no idea but hardly likely to be great.Australia had two great periods by there standards 1991-2,and 1998-2002 there results have been pretty patchy since.Do you model yourself on THE best or also rans?because at Union Aus are just that.

I found photographic evidence of Wales' quickest ever ruck...

http://redfoottortoise.com/images/rfmate3.jpg

Another point is make rugby less important in Schools (I have said this for years)

Firstly, this system emphasis the age system, 3rd years/4th years etc etc
Secondaly it creates the elite image the sport struggles to shake, and people playing rugby generally come from a certain number of Schools in the areas.

I've said before that if you had 2 kids in same town both equal at rugby, one goes to certain School with rugby structure, other plays for local club, the one in the School nevers joins the club untill they leave school and durning his time at school gets better coaching and plays against other School teams (whose players are not members of clubs either), and School teams are better prepared and coached and generally better that equal age grade club teams.The one playing for Club doesn't ever get the same development because of Scool he was in, didn't get same level of coaching and never got playing against the better players in his age group.

Downgrade rugby in Schools, and put the emphasis on Club rugby, if a Person wants to play rugby join a club, not go to a rugby playing school. For Kids you play Football/GAA for your School but its your local club that you learn most, Rugby should be the same.

Put emphasis on coaching club rugby not school rugby.
It would open Rugby up to far more people.
Easier to have height/weight teams.
Remove the elitist image of rugby.

Kingshu

I disagree totally, my ideas are not copying anyone, they are based on sound theoretical underpinning and the natural way to aquire skill in junior participation. It just so happens that NZ are the only nation on the planet doing it.

I also wouldn't say my ideas are exactly what NZ are doing because they are not, my plan would be to use the theory that is clearly working for the kiwi's but add to it and apply it in a welsh way that compliments the culture in wales, then and only then will we be able to compete on the world stage!!

The Ryan Giggs analogy is the best answer I've read.

Nearly all the most gifted sports people are given football as option 1.

In NZ there is no premier league or Swansea afc or man city academy.

emack2 wrote:Kingshu so you would go with average tight,especially front row forwards.
Outstanding loose forwards,THE best all round backs in the game as your template.Well it has yielded a 27% win rate versus the ABs around 54-57 % versus England/France and 66 % versus Scotland/Ireland/Wales versus the Boks no idea but hardly likely to be great.Australia had two great periods by there standards 1991-2,and 1998-2002 there results have been pretty patchy since.Do you model yourself on THE best or also rans?because at Union Aus are just that.

In terms of structures, as I was talking about.

Do you model it on a country that is compelty different in rugby attitude to yours, one that no European team can create, will Rugby ever be more popular than football in Scotland/England? So trying to copy the NZ model is unrealistic, unless you have a plan to make rugby THE sport in these places like it is in NZ.

Or do you model yourself on a team that faces similar problems to European teams, yet is constantally ranked higher than them?

I see your point regarding schools Kingshu but again disagree slightly.

I was at a tournament last season in gwent, school 7's tournament. Of the 12 teams involved 1 team murdered everyone!! 40 points plus in each game including the final, noone got anywhere near!!

The reason being PE teachers werent coaches except for 1, an actual 7's coach, at an actual rugby school. I say put the rugby in schools further, but ensure actual rugby coaches do the coaching, not dads from the sidelines like at most clubs.

Another thing I noticed though is that of every player that stood out they were already involved in a club, and the school that beat everyone had the superstars from all the clubs in the area.

As it stands the focus is on both or neither and the system is confused, PE teachers arent great coaches in general, but then neither are club coaches!!!

We need the best coaches at the earliest age in every school, then we will have larger numbers of quality players!!!

Nearly all the most gifted sports people are given football as option 1.

Couldn't disagree more, look at our athletes, boxers, rugby players, squash players, martial arts performers!!!

Has Ryan Giggs ever been clear number 1 in his sport in the world? I wouldn't say so, whereas we've won Gold medals, player of the world awards etc in other sports, clearly more talented than a guy who was created by an English football team!!

Kingshu

I would say Wales has a rugby culture closer to NZ or Ireland than England Scotland or France!!

@thebluesmancometh

Have you published anything online - what you're suggesting sounds interesting.

thebluesmancometh, you say We need the best coaches at the earliest age in every school, but I'm going to disagree,
We need the best coaches at the earliest age in every club, is what I go for.

PE teachers can't focus on one sport and never should IMHO, there job isn't to coach a very good rugby/GAA/Football team, there job is to have the kids play a range of sports and encourage the kids to join local clubs at sports they like or are good at, be it Basketball, football, hurling, rugby, tennis etc etc.
If a rugby coach is at the School then a number of kids may lose out as they focus on rugby, likewise a good rugby player is lost as teacher has them focused on GAA, even if they prefer rugby.

Let the best Coaches be at the clubs, that way when the kids who like the sport after trying it in School, come to them they get the best coaching, and its not at the expensive of other kids. Let the best GAA coaches look after local teams, again same reasons.

At present say a good GAA player who likes rugby, at a GAA school, if he went to local club he wouldn't recieve the same level of coaching as someone in a rugby playing School, better to have the GAA and Rugby School kids, go to thier local club to recieve the better coaching, instead of being just the one in the rugby School.

cp10

I havn't done anything personally, still struggling with the idea of a masters but definately won't get round to it this year. I do have some rough plans set out as this exact subject was going to be my diss until I ran into trouble with the WRU/Dragons/clubs about athics, publishings etc so had to change slightly. From my diss though the results of the regional academy I found was awfull reading regarding this subject!!

Kingshu

I agree totally, PE teachers should teach PE, I am talking about rugby coaches employed to coach rugby and control the team etc.

The problem with the clubs is that you will never get good coaches to volunteer, not that there arent any out there but they are negated by the bad ones in the year below or above etc...

Also I know lots of kids who won't attend their local club because their mates are at a club they can't get to etc, so they arent club players.

Maybe if there were decent links between schools who could feed to particular clubs but there isn't, right now we have neither!!

Also with the poloitics of the guys who run the clubs the junior section spends their entire time ironing out rinkles, arguing with each other and everyone else. In a perfect world I would agree with you but the clubs arent run well enough to be the sole focus IMHO.

I'd say you know better about the running of the clubs, in a perfect world these would run be run better.

An example for me was Brian McLaughlin, before becoming Ulster head coach he was a PE teacher in a rugby playing School. Now for me this is a real waste.
Firstly the School shouldn't be paying more than a normal PE teacher to have a great rugby coach, the funding would be better spent on eduction, after all that is what Schools are for.
Brian McLaughlin should have been in the employ of a club, not a School, it would mean his coaching would have been available to more players, and worked with the underage teams at the club as well.

I know the club prob couldn't afford him but its down to the IRFU to put coaches like this into clubs.

A recent example of the use of coaches at youth teams pushing up standards is th eresent GAA initivate in Dublin.
The GAA paid for coaches to Coach in Schools and clubs are round Dublin.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/59m-investment-key-to-dublins-drive-for-success-2842894.html

Over the first four years, the fund was €1m but that has been cut by €50,000 over each of the last two years.
Hurling has benefited enormously from that funding and the success of the game in the city across all levels points to the success of the scheme.
(PS this was just Dublin being focased on, and getting about 1/3 of the total help, other counties felt robbed that Dublin got so much more than them), but Hurling in Dublin has really come on, and they are one of the top teams in the country now.

Now if the GAA can do it the IRFU can do something similar, pay for coaches to target clubs and Schools and push up numbers playing and standard.

I tell you what that GAA has some money floating around it for a proud amateur sport!! You want to see players spare rooms packed to the raffters with uh 'gifts'? is that the right word???!!!

I see your point, but I must make myself clear, I was refering to Wales alone. A lot of clubs are run far smoother in Ireland, and the regional system runs throughout numerous sports and is part of the make up.

Here in wales half the feeder clubs to the regions refuse to comply, half of the local clubs are run by local businessmen using them to line their own pockets. From what Ive seen in Ireland there is a far better way of doing things (although it is far from perfect!!!)

Schools in Wales charge the WRU a fortune to hire pitches, local sports grounds charge premiums for clubs to hire training facilities and pitches, and the clubs charge the WRU a fortune to hire their pitches, all junior sections are looked down upon as drains to the club, and then rinced to the max for profit.

1 example, at a prem club a few seasons back the junior section was suspended for a month, told they were going to be shut down for numerous reasons, then when told the great news that the club will allow them to carry on they were forced to purchase new uniforms from one of the board memebrs shop directly (at elevated costs IMO). New equipment was needed, again fundraising from the parents of junior section, and they were not allowed to use the training pitch, meaning hiring the local schools pitch at a stupid rate and a copst to the parents once again.

Clubs are doing little for junior sections except keeping them barely alive to receive WRU funding, schools are proving far more usefull in Wales, and schools with PE teachers as coaches provide regular talent for the clubs.

In fairness of the €5.9 million over 6 years, The Goverment Sports Council provided €3.156m of it.

Now some will say there is no way the GAA should be getting goverment grants etc, but in fairness, they have gotten more and more kids playing gaelic games, put in more coaches and clubs and facilities, organised games leagues etc etc.

In terms of childhood obesity, getting kids in disadvantaged areas recreational activities, promoting sports and general heath, this was money well spent. The Goverment could have used it to lauch thier own scheme, but I doubt it would have had the same impact. Also GAA creates a club family whereby kids that played for it in th epast are more likily to volenteer there time for other projects, again benefiting the goverment.

The GAA are particurally good at getting local funding, and Rugby could learn from them, esp if funding under age teams.

the school curriculum is very specific on the amount of term time that is spent on each sport in school.

also, this year the wru has funded regional coaches to go in to schools, coaching at under 14's, under 15's and under 16's.

plus,in the ospreys region, players they have identified at under 15's will start next year at a summer type training programme so these players will be ready to join the ospreys under 16's set up at the start of the next academic year sept.2013

the format in previous years with the ospreys under 16's has been that the ospreys squad players ( 50, 60 boys which include boys from ogmore valley area as there is no regional team there) are not all allowed to play for their school, not allowed to play for a club, and train with the osprey set up 2, 3 times a week. This puts pressure on parent to travel up to 20+ miles for a training session, some of which are at 8am before school.

it has been known for some players to be in the squad, not get any game time and therefore no rugby because of their exclusion from school and club rugby. after bench warming , buying their kit, training, they are then let go end of december if not good enough.

in the blues region there are so many under 16's that they are split in to north and south and are about 100 boys. similar criteria is applied , where some players are not allowed school or club rugby, and they are not always on the blues team sheet.

Come xmas, the ones the blues and ospreys dont want are let go, the chosen few are then given development training for the under 17's squad and can be excluded again from school /college and youth team rugby.

we have got a system now where there is more training, healthy eating programmes(not knocking the healthy bit) gym work target setting, and less playing the game.

remind you of anything youve seen this weekend guys(& girls sorry) cant take it on to the pitch with you, and if you havent been playing well on top, you get a result like saturday.

fitness, 'gymness,' speed and agility are all very well, but if you are not playing, its only in the head not also in the hands and feet where it should be.

you dont hit problems to solve until you face them on the pitch, even then our players are not allowed to use their brains.......my /our way or the highway, says the coach (you know who I mean!!!)