Ireland is very well coached and tactically flexible. They adjust to their opponents and are generally very disciplined.
Their domestic competition is also excellent and that's one of the biggest keys to strong national performance.
Ireland is very well coached and tactically flexible. They adjust to their opponents and are generally very disciplined.
Their domestic competition is also excellent and that's one of the biggest keys to strong national performance.
Discipline to me here is key. Look at their tries conceded over the last 2 years it is phenomenal, they have a clear defensive plan for each game and stick to it, that is one of the most important thing in rugby, I wish Scotland had Farrell and his team as coaches.
Anyone who saw the referees putting their thumb on the scales for New Zealand for years will know about this.
Just because we thrashed you for so long it doesn't mean the refs were in on it.
We've got some good Super Rugby this year, pity you lads couldn't be there.
MrDeVil909 wrote:Anyone who saw the referees putting their thumb on the scales for New Zealand for years will know about this.
Just because we thrashed you for so long it doesn't mean the refs were in on it.
We've got some good Super Rugby this year, pity you lads couldn't be there.
I'll always concede that NZ is consistently the better team. Which makes it even more annoying that Richie McCaw was apparently invisible to refs at ruck time for years when Paddy O'Brien was their boss.
I'll give you that Richie was good at pushing the boundaries, but I ask you, could you penalise this man?
Here's something I'm curious about: Why is Ireland so good?
They're not as big or fast or scary as France. They're not as mean as South Africa. They're not as fun as New Zealand.
I watched Squidge's latest video last night, and his take seems to be that Ireland is really smart and well-coached, plays fast, is terrific with ball-in-hand and is a step ahead of everyone rugby-wise. Is that it? Or is there something more?
While the coaching is important the fundamental key part is player and coaches pathways, development and retention. France changed the rules in the Top 14 a few years ago to force clubs to have to select French qualified players. Ireland has a very similar but even stricter rule for it's clubs. On top of that they can keep their players at home unlike pretty much every other nation bar Japan.
Some countries are also far too focused on particular positions or player type for their own good. New Zealand is a prime example of this who love quick skilful and powerful players to a point that their tight fives production is poor which usually require a very different type of fitness and/or body type that are not as easy to bring through. Super Rugby for years didn't help this either but NZ got away with it due to the rest of the world being poor in the last decade.
South Africa problem is player retention and probably an over realiance on size, England and Japan is flooding their domestic competition with non-qaulified players, Australia and Scotland have spread themselves too thin and better players just go to other sports and Wales is a complete basket case.
Italy hired one of the architects of the Irish system several years ago and are starting to see the fruits of that. Unfortunately a new president came in and scrapped the whole system so we'll see how that turns out but I have my doubts.
Anyway, rule of thumb time: Tight head props, second-rows and out-halves are the hardest to produce as they take time and patience to develop but you cannot be successful in top flight rugby without them. And the kicker is you need at least 3 of each for your squad if you are aiming to win a world cup. Looking at those players, including the third choice ones, in any national squad will tell you a lot.
Player development is one of those things it's hard to follow from outside so the insights are interesting.
As you say South Africa has a problem with retention, there's also overwork problems. That's a consequence of how contracting works here.
NZ uses central contracting where All Blacks are contracted to the national team and are loaned to local teams.
Here it's the opposite. Players will almost always answer a call-up, but regional and provincial teams are under no obligation to rest their top players. So guys show up to national call-up having been through the ringer and unrested,
They tried to counter this by barring overseas based players, but the national team suffered too much because the choice of earning pounds or euros vs national representation was an easy one.
Here's a South Africa question for you, MrDrVil: Why do so many South African players play club rugby outside of RSA? Is it money? Or something else?
None of the other top teams (England, France and Ireland) have any (or maybe 1-2) players who play outside their domestic leagues. Why is SA such an outlier?
Oh mostly money. With exchange rates and the local economy playing overseas pays way more and as a bonus is less physically onerous.
I've done some digging because the info isn't public, but it seems most professional players earn an average of around $30k a year. And that's actually pretty good, although not spectacular, money locally.
The salary cap is just over double that and top players get sponsorships and other incomes but that's only the top level.
In Ireland it seems like the average player earns a baseline of $55k and it goes up from there.
A more specific example is in the story below. TLDR local union could afford around $450k for a top prop, but Ireland beat the offer by 50%.
Interestingly England has a salary cap which is why less South African play there compared to Ireland, France and Japan.
In England, the RFU do not allow players who play for overseas clubs to be picked for England. This rule was instituted in 2011. The only exceptions at present are for players who were previously registered at clubs which went out of business this year (Wasps, Worcester).
Pressure is rising for this to be amended or ended. As MrDevil909 mentioned above, there is a salary cap in England which is effectively frozen, so players are now having to choose between playing for England or going overseas to make higher salaries in what can be quite a short career.
Yeah but that’s a short term solution. They are mimicking Ireland’s policy but without all the structures underneath that make that policy work. The IRFU makes sure to pay competitive salaries, not the same as the Top 14 but close enough, maintain healthy squads and limit playing time.
And not to mention a very strong players Union, IRUPA, that lobbies both IRFU and the government on many issues.
The RFU not selecting foreign based players was like putting a spoiler on a car. It helps but there is a ton of things that need to be running well before that even matters.
Oh mostly money. With exchange rates and the local economy playing overseas pays way more and as a bonus is less physically onerous.
I've done some digging because the info isn't public, but it seems most professional players earn an average of around $30k a year. And that's actually pretty good, although not spectacular, money locally.
The salary cap is just over double that and top players get sponsorships and other incomes but that's only the top level.
In Ireland it seems like the average player earns a baseline of $55k and it goes up from there.
A more specific example is in the story below. TLDR local union could afford around $450k for a top prop, but Ireland beat the offer by 50%.
Interestingly England has a salary cap which is why less South African play there compared to Ireland, France and Japan.
I'd even challenge the $55k for the average in Ireland a little. I suspect that's including acadmey and development contracts. I'd say the average jumps to 3 or 4 times that when you just go with senior contracts which is the range anyone coming abroad will be in.
I'd even challenge the $55k for the average in Ireland a little. I suspect that's including acadmey and development contracts. I'd say the average jumps to 3 or 4 times that when you just go with senior contracts which is the range anyone coming abroad will be in.
Yeah, fair enough. I just pulled from a cursory Google and a few Reddit threads. You'd know a lot better.
So a senior Irish contract is close to the best case scenario locally.
Senior contracts are around 150-300k euros give or take. Central contracts are the half a million ones. Non-qualified marquee signings tend to be around the half a million as well as we are competing with the French and English clubs, which is why the central contracts tend to be in that range as well.
This isn't hard an fast and the ranges can overlap. For example I'd say Jack Conan is on some serious money and Michael Aa'alatoa is not quite at the marguee/central contact levels but that gives you an idea of what the South African Union is up against.
Leinster v La Rochelle final. Along with Toulouse, who commited suicide on the weekend, these are the best club teams in the world. Well worth catching the final as this is a repeat of last years final that Leinster lost after leading for 78 minutes. Of course Munsterman O'Gara coaching La Rochelle will add it's own spice.
If anyone is watching the Glasgow v Munster game on Saturday my 8-9 yo team including mini bbk are the flag wavers and playing on the pitch at half time so you might catch a tiny glimpse of me pleading them to hold a defensive line whilst the pundits analyse the first half 
Leinster v La Rochelle final. Along with Toulouse, who commited suicide on the weekend, these are the best club teams in the world. Well worth catching the final as this is a repeat of last years final that Leinster lost after leading for 78 minutes. Of course Munsterman O'Gara coaching La Rochelle will add it's own spice.
Don't mention the war.
Pages