Both Ulster coach Dan McFarland and Leicester’s Richard Wigglesworth, in consecutive weeks, were again on the wrong side of the scoreline. What really interested me was the way both tried to frame their loss, on one hand congratulating the winners while, on the other, suggesting the playing field wasn’t level.
McFarland suggested demographics played a major role with Wigglesworth declaring that financial clout played more than a small part in Leicester losing their Champions Cup quarter-final to Leinster. In the immediate aftermath of the matches, I found these odd sentiments to project. If anything, I thought, they felt rehearsed and partially designed to deflect from what happened on the pitch.
Anyone could see that Leinster are the main contributor to the Ireland team. I have written previously that this concentration level should be a huge concern to performance director David Nucifora and the IRFU. But Leinster’s domination of international players, in my view, is not about relative financial clout or demographics.
The privately funded schools’ game in Leinster provides a readymade academy for potential provincial players. This has always been the case since I attended school back in 1998, yet Leinster only won their first European trophy in 2009, beating Leicester in the final in Murrayfield. It was a full 13 years into the professional era. The problem for Leinster had been coaching failing to deliver on potential. It was Michael Cheika who began that revolution when he took over in 2005.
The challenge for Ulster and the other provinces, including Leinster, is to improve the quality of players coming into the academies through the club game. This has nothing to do with demographics. But it does require a coherent strategy and investment plan.
In Ulster’s case, McFarland, as both a player and a coach, is acutely aware of the limitations in the Irish system. A glance shows the majority of his players have come through the school system in the north, arriving from institutions such as RBAI, Wallace and BRA.
So, the Ulster system has the same constraints as the Leinster system, it is reliant on the schools system as the main feeder of academy players and has done little to address this imbalance.
This is now a circular argument, and until something is drastically done to address the inequality of academy entrants, it will give Leinster a substantial advantage over the other provinces.
One of the drawbacks from relying on the school’s system, is that the game at this level does not need to focus on set piece. Coaching in schools tends to copy the professional game, which means we end up with good rugby players that are short on set-piece experience. Players that could be excellent set-piece specialists in the senior game do not tend to be accommodated in the underage system and then they are perceived not to have the necessary skillset.
A stronger pathway in the club game would be ideal opportunity for those square pegs of the schools system to converge in the senior ranks. I have been writing about the gap between player development and the massive opportunity we have in the club game for the best part of eight years and, if anything, it has become more pronounced since I first wrote about it.
The other nagging feeling, when I heard the comments from the respective coaches, is that they would have sent a clear message to their players that they were not good enough to beat Leinster.
The dig was at the structures. But it also removes or deflects accountability from the coaches, even if it is acknowledged that they don’t have the raw materials needed to win at this level.
Ulster have their work cut out in matching bigger teams in the tight five. Now, this isn’t a new issue. But I do wonder whether the way they set up to play has gone against what made them dangerous a couple of seasons ago.
The James Hume try against Leinster was a reminder of what Ulster can do. It came from a Jacob Stockdale regather off a kick, which completely disorientated the Leinster defence. Billy Burns and Hume took full advantage of that. Contrast that to the rest of the match, with Nathan Doak slow and predictable at the breakdown, and the result was Leinster were allowed to suffocate Ulster.
Ulster have been at their best with a high-tempo, attack-focused game that plays to their strengths, with John Cooney as the architect. Unpredictability has been their friend.
However, they did not play their best hand against Leinster and were considerably short at the final hurdle. It constantly feels that the overarching demand for silverware is holding Ulster back from delivering performances they can stand over regardless of the result.
Clearly, neither Wigglesworth nor McFarland were delighted with their results. Nor can they be delighted with their own performances. In Wigglesworth’s case it was the bones of a Leicester squad that won the Premiership last season. While there were plenty of positives for the English club, they are not a team in transition, as they are currently sitting third in their domestic table.
So, Wigglesworth’s post-match comments were strangely timed and bring more scrutiny on the English club game when they’d just like to get on with rugby. English rugby has chronically underinvested in player pathways and used overseas players to plug holes and be the main drivers of the club rather than indigenous players. That comes at a cost.
Saracens are possibly the outliers in that they focused on a key English cohort to build a culture in the club, although it was contrary to the salary cap. They have served their ban, addressed the finance issues and are now back at the top of the table.
In recent years, I remember looking in the Premiership line-ups and only three or four of the outhalves that were playing were available to the national team, with a worrying number of non-English eligible players.
There have been multiple rumours of salary breaches, and legitimate questions have been asked about how clubs were able to afford players of the calibre they had. I believe the salaries in English rugby were inflated due to players driving the market and clubs not having functioning academies.
The key principle that was never adopted in the UK was the number of non-eligible English players allowed in the match-day 23. The French embraced this issue a few years ago, stipulating that sides must name a minimum of 14 French-qualified players in the match-day squad.
The penny seems to have dropped in France that they can compete with home-grown players, who are complemented by quality overseas players, with most clubs now fielding more French players than the minimum requirement.
The Covid pandemic also ruthlessly exposed financial discrepancies in the English system and a drastic recalibration is under way. Two clubs, Wasps and Worcester, have gone bankrupt and others are under financial pressure.
The crème of England is being drawn to the French model, where they put a premium on overseas talent. A number of current English internationals have opted to move across the water next season.
There is another issue. I have yet to meet a player that is content to take a drop in salary. So, regardless of the Premiership’s financial predicament, if players are to maintain their pay scale, they will do so. The fall-out of this exodus could mean that the quality in the English system may not be high enough for clubs to be competitive across multiple competitions.
In one sense, Wigglesworth is hunter turned gamekeeper as he benefited from the bloated Premiership salaries in years gone by. That system stacked the league with expensive journeymen.
Now, as a hands-on coach with the Tigers, he is beginning to understand the size of the challenge. After the quarter-final in the Aviva, he indirectly acknowledged that the quality of players at his disposal was not the same as those in Leinster. There is no shortcut to building a sustainable culture and pathway in rugby and for Wigglesworth it is probably more about what he can control rather than what he cannot. He should also be enthusiastic about the prospect of what good coaching can deliver if he is up for the challenge.
It is interesting that the one English club left in the last four of the Champions Cup - along with two French and one Irish side - is Exeter. They, from what I can figure out, are one of the few Premiership clubs that operate within their means and, due to that fact, they are losing players at the end of the season.
Unlike some of the others, they have been unwilling to match salary expectations that do not fit their model. With Exeter, success does not trump financial prudence.
Leinster, Toulouse and La Rochelle operate an indigenous model that can be complemented by overseas expertise. The movement of eligible players in the French system reflects those with the better academies. La Rochelle have few locals playing. But they meet the criteria of French eligible players by buying rather than developing.
This seems to be the model that works in rugby in the northern hemisphere, with France and Ireland being the main beneficiaries. Ireland is reaping the rewards for decisions made years ago and not chasing salary inflation, while the sleeping French giant has woken to find English rugby at a major inflection point both on and off the pitch.
