THE HERALD REPORTS

Poor return for hard-working youngstersJOHN BEATTIE June 21 2008
The Scottish Rugby Union conducted a survey a couple of years ago to identify the number of players from a national under-18 squad who had gone on to make it to the full senior squad. What percentage do you think made it through? I\'ll tell you later.

Here is a little thought: Scottish amateur clubs who can attract players in the SRU\'s national academy to join them are at a massive advantage in the coming league season. It is unfair that clubs can take advantage of specialist SRU coaching for their own benefits. Yet, there we are, life isn\'t fair.

National academy set-up? I\'ll come to that.

advertisement
The top clubs in the country now sell themselves as \"stepping stones to professional rugby\" - and maybe that is the way club rugby is going.

But back to the topic. I\'ve always thought one of the most important parts of a nation\'s rugby strategy has to be its junior talent identification programme and so I\'ve been talking to Henry Edwards from the SRU about it. There is a talent-identification programme in this county which starts at under-14 level in the Scottish regions. Yes, just as players start to speak in slightly deeper voices there is someone there suggesting a slightly new fitness regime.

\"They are the talent identification-led performance development managers, and there are six in Scotland and one in England at the moment,\" says Edwards, a former back-row man. Actually, I didn\'t know there was one in England, too. \"If we are looking at the level beneath the national academy players, then we are maybe talking about 150 players. They are involved in area institute and 17s and 18s national age-grade programmes, too.\"

The structure, in a nutshell, is this: at the top of the tree, or at least just beneath full professional level, are 60 hopefuls. They are the 30 full time academy players who are supposed to train daily at Murrayfield, and 30 part time academy players on a slightly lower tier.

Beneath them, all the way down to under-14 level, are players heaving weights before school, getting specialist lineout-throwing lessons at lunch time, getting help with their studies, and lots and lots of one-to-one skills stuff; I remember my son going through it.

So, there are more than 200 Scottish rugby players from under-14s to late-developing academy players who are in a stream, like salmon bursting for the higher ground. Oh, it takes me back.

Every day, 30 bleary-eyed young rugby players either get up to drive to Murrayfield for full-time training, or are requested by Glasgow and Edinburgh to come out and help them. \"Take Gary Strain, the Glasgow Hawks prop. He is at college in Glasgow,\" says Edwards. \"But, as he is with the national academy, all his support will be delivered to work for him around his studies. He will play for the Hawks and train with them on a Thursday night.\"

The format is simple for the lads at the top, with full-on training on a Monday and Tuesday to replicate the life of a professional player. Wednesday will be strength and conditioning, Thursday with the club, Friday is a rest and game day is Saturday.

Every single Scottish rugby player in this system, right down to the under-16s, is on a strength and conditioning programme under Ken MacEwan and there are other specialist coaches too.

Hovering beneath the professional ranks, though, are 60 players who train pretty much full time and want the step up to the professional game.

Some of them are in our under-20s at the World Championship. They play club rugby and, if you talk to them, you find out that they are inordinately keen to play rugby at a higher level.

How many of them will make it, though? How many of the desperate players, who get up early for strength training, who switch club for the dream, who have their heart rates monitored, who drop their studies, and who want to live professional life, will actually make it to the national squad?

Well, the last SRU research on the matter found that, for the under-18 group they monitored, it turned out to be 2%. Yes, just 2%. That, I think, is food for thought . . .

This article was posted on 21-Jun-2008, 07:25 by Hugh Barrow.