does Wales need an A side

with so many Wales players coming through recently wouldnt it be wise for the WRU find funds for an A side that can use players that dont even get on the Welsh bench . when players get to old for the u20 these players are left in limbo and only given a chance against barbarians and the Japan tour next year . Dan biggar name comes to mind any thoughts .?

I can see the use for an A Team, however looking at the 'player drain' etc at the moment I think the WRU would be better served putting their money into keeping the professional game alive in Wales rather than an A Team.

That said though if money was not an issue I would back an A Team 100%, after all if you totally ignore players who went on the Australia Tour and those who went to the JWC Wales could still field an A Team along the lines of

15 - Morgan Stoddart - Martyn Thomas
14 - Thom James - Will Harris
13 - Gareth Maule - Adam Hughes
12 - Ashley Smith - Andrew Bishop
11 - Kris Phillips - Richard Mustoe
10 - Dan Biggar - Jason Tovey

1 - Duncan Jones - Scott Andrews
2 - Emyr Phillips - Scott Baldwin
3 - Eifion Lewis-Roberts - Craig Mitchell
4 - Lou Reed - Peter Sidoli
5 - Dom Day - Adam Jones
6 - Lewis Evans - Joe Bearman
7 - Josh Navidi - Darren Waters
8 - Rob McCusker - Jonathan Thomas

I know some of them are aging, but you need to mix experience with youth.

Don't you guys think an U23 side will be mre beneficial to all countries?

The reason why I say this is our U20s dissappear and ony a handful of them end up in the senior national sides.

A teams is one option, but I beleive if every tier one nation and those tier 2 nations that can afford it, can put out a Junior side, the IRB can sanction it and we can have a world wide series, similar to the 7's, obviously not in the same format, but let's say there are 8 or whatever teams, they can tour similar to the other nations and expeose these young players.

It will allow them a lot of room to develop and prove their talent.

perhaps thats a better idea u23 . i just think some talented players must be frustrated not being involved . everyone needs a goal and getting into the A or u23 side would motivated them further rather then just first choice in their club side

Yes, I fully agree with that, it will also show national coaches how these U23's perform amongst their peers. The standouts will most likely be promoted a lot sooner and make place for another youngster.

The problem with an Under 23s is that there are a number of under 23s in the current welsh squad (hell North and Robinson could have been at the JWC this summer), so it would just be a consolation prize for those who are no good enough.

Don't agree, there are only 30 spots available in a national squad on tour.

The youngsters will have a platform where they can rise above their peers. It is the next step.

I'd go with the A's.

U23 (or other age limited) would restrict fringe players who need exposure/game time but are to old!

Having said that I do see the positives from U23 as a stepping stone from U20's. Maybe we need both?

Dragon, I am of the view if you haven't proven yourself by 23 chances are you ain't going to.

Besides putting a guy in the jumper at age 28 for the first time will give you but a few years of service, and keeps a truely talented youngster out of the mix

biltongbek wrote:Besides putting a guy in the jumper at age 28 for the first time will give you but a few years of service, and keeps a truely talented youngster out of the mix

Ah but Biltong if they are only getting capped at 28 that is because they have had to wait their three years for residency

Biltong, I don't disagree on the whole.

If your top 3/4 choices are 24 or older, they will possibly go stale because they aren't getting the high level game time to keep them on their toes, I also see the A side as a way back from injury as well.

That's why I said we could use/need both A and U23.

biltongbek wrote:Dragon, I am of the view if you haven't proven yourself by 23 chances are you ain't going to.

The South African system may be so good that it identifies all talented players at a young age, with no-one falling into the gaps. That is not the case in England - our age group teams are actually drawn from a small pool and far too many players end up ignored because of where they live etc.

I actually feel that far too much emphasis is placed on how good a player is at 16 (especially forwards). these players then get fast tracked through the age groups.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Besides putting a guy in the jumper at age 28 for the first time will give you but a few years of service, and keeps a truely talented youngster out of the mix

Ah but Biltong if they are only getting capped at 28 that is because they have had to wait their three years for residency

Touche.

Red_Dragon_Spirit wrote:Biltong, I don't disagree on the whole.

If your top 3/4 choices are 24 or older, they will possibly go stale because they aren't getting the high level game time to keep them on their toes, I also see the A side as a way back from injury as well.

That's why I said we could use/need both A and U23.

True, but where is the money going to come from?

If you had to pick one, weighing up the pro's and cons?

Well choosing just one, its the A's then, because it won't discriminate at all.

If it turns out to be full of U23 then great, but everyone gets a chance if they're good enough.

As most know I have always banged the drum for us having an A Side amd would rather the money spent on the 7s circuit go towards funding an A Side.

biltongbek wrote:Dragon, I am of the view if you haven't proven yourself by 23 chances are you ain't going to.

Besides putting a guy in the jumper at age 28 for the first time will give you but a few years of service, and keeps a truely talented youngster out of the mix

Does that mean you don't want Kruger or Alberts, both first capped at 26?

Niwatts there are exceptions to any rule mate, there are also circumstances, Victor matfield and juan smith.

some positions require much longer for a player to develop....

Locks & Props especially generally don't burst onto the scene until a few years after backs say with explosive pace.

Are "A" sides necessary.... well NZ, AUS, SA, WAL & FRA do not have them if I'm correct. That's 4 of the top 5 ranked sides in the world.

SR is probably higher than A grade rugby... if you ge regular SR experience you're ready to be tested if good enough.

In Europe however I think its beneficial esp. for players that only play say 2 or 3 HC matches a year... thats not good enough....

Steven Kitsoff a young Stormer (aged 19) who looks set to become a bok one day has played 12 SR matches this season and regularly plays against the toughest props in the business.

That sort of experience is invaluable..... he's probably 12 matches more experienced then fellow counterparts in ENG for instance and by the time he's say 23 he may have 50 matches under his belt whilst the same ENG player may have lets say 10 HC matches.

It makes you think really.

In the soccer Olympics I understand that all squads are only allowed a couple of players over twenty three.

A similar implementation would be very beneficial.

There are downsides for the regions by establishing a new a team and as we all know too well the regions are struggling enough as it is.

I would like to see an a team but stronger regional rugby would be my priority and in many ways would achieve the same goal.

Let him who "does" wrong continue to do wrong....

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:with so many Wales players coming through recently wouldnt it be wise for the WRU find funds for an A side that can use players that dont even get on the Welsh bench . when players get to old for the u20 these players are left in limbo and only given a chance against barbarians and the Japan tour next year . Dan biggar name comes to mind any thoughts .?

Would Shingler be elligible for Scotland if Wales made the A side?

anotherworldofpain wrote:

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:with so many Wales players coming through recently wouldnt it be wise for the WRU find funds for an A side that can use players that dont even get on the Welsh bench . when players get to old for the u20 these players are left in limbo and only given a chance against barbarians and the Japan tour next year . Dan biggar name comes to mind any thoughts .?

Would Shingler be elligible for Scotland if Wales made the A side?

No he wouldn't. However if there was an A Team when he was playing in the under 20s he would have been.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:with so many Wales players coming through recently wouldnt it be wise for the WRU find funds for an A side that can use players that dont even get on the Welsh bench . when players get to old for the u20 these players are left in limbo and only given a chance against barbarians and the Japan tour next year . Dan biggar name comes to mind any thoughts .?

Would Shingler be elligible for Scotland if Wales made the A side?

No he wouldn't. However if there was an A Team when he was playing in the under 20s he would have been.

Just asking

biltongbek wrote:Niwatts there are exceptions to any rule mate, there are also circumstances, Victor matfield and juan smith.

No there aren't. There really really aren't. Exceptions PROOF a rule (as in find out it's valid or not).
Why not just have an A team and select players based on any particular criteria you want. It can be U23, or no-senior caps, or whatever. I'd rather keep the flexibility of the Saxons (A level is generally pretty poor and it's more about taking players outside of their comfort zones with the clubs and mixing them up with players from other clubs and new coaches).

In the end its a general trend what BB was arguing against and in general trends, specifics need to be held with certain conditions in mind.... just like BB was suggesting.

If all rules were absolute then our world, our sport would be very different. i.e. Murder is illegal but not if you can prove it was in self defence and the force you used was not excessive.

Some guys mature later than others, some turn their career around, some were waiting for world class players to retire ala Juandre Kruger. But still world class talent generally is there from the off, its just a little unpolished but often nearly always enough to test at worst after a couple of years in senior rugby.

Generally speaking, world class players are born, not bred.

There is a difference in PROVING yourself and MAKING the national squad.

My orignal post said if you haven't proven yourself amongst your peers by age 23 it is unlikely you will ever.

HOWEVER you may prove yourself but not make the national team becuase of a guy like Victor Matfield.

Which means you will only get capped at a later age, WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY arises.

Not sure why that is difficult to comprehend.

Not everyone makes the squad at 21.

I think that u23 would be great. As I have stated before the u23s and 6Nb should play giving Georgia and Romanina a higher standard to test themselves and also give the A/u23 teams a better competion compared to what we have now.

Georgia in March would prove alot about a player then a match against the saxons

I know it would leave the Rabo teams/prem teams bare but if they scapped the LV cup it could be done.

Some of the players in the JWC fall away as they could be years before they make the senior step up. this way they know they have to be around the u23 in a year or two's time after they leave playing in the JWC

biltongbek wrote:Dragon, I am of the view if you haven't proven yourself by 23 chances are you ain't going to.

Besides putting a guy in the jumper at age 28 for the first time will give you but a few years of service, and keeps a truely talented youngster out of the mix

By that Logic Robert Howley would not of got capped, he had his first cap at 26 yet still managed 2 Lions tours and 59 caps before injury forced him to retire at 31.

Besides 23 is very young for a front 5 forward most of them are only breaking into first team rugby at that age, never mind international rugby.

Shifty please refer to my last post.

biltongbek wrote:Shifty please refer to my last post.

My point would be a country should pick the player who deserves to be picked not preculding players based on age. clearly you should make sure not all your players are going to retire at once but some people peak early and fade away and others are late developers.

Often you will see a young players path is blocked for many years until the senior player retires, Garin Jenkins kept Robin Mcbryde out of the Swansea team for years and with Wales but eventually Robin got his chance when Garin faded.

There is no one set rule really, so many factors come into play in players careers.

Some players dont qualify on residency until their late 20's