29 replies to this topic

[flyingking]

http://www.warringto...layers/?ref=rss
Interesting that a club which has invested in developing their player pool has serious misgivings about the new youth structure. It would have been a great shame if someone like Tyrone McCarthy had not been able to play for Wire, as he has had a very good season. Some people like to claim that the changes are a cost-cutting measure designed to help SL clubs lower their expenditure, but from the article it appears that the iniatiative has not been led by Super League Europe but the RFL.

[The Parksider]

http://www.warringto...layers/?ref=rss
Interesting that a club which has invested in developing their player pool has serious misgivings about the new youth structure. It would have been a great shame if someone like Tyrone McCarthy had not been able to play for Wire, as he has had a very good season. Some people like to claim that the changes are a cost-cutting measure designed to help SL clubs lower their expenditure, but from the article it appears that the iniatiative has not been led by Super League Europe but the RFL.

unsure of all this but.......

"And with the number of players allowed to register with a single partner club restricted to five, it means Wolves will find it difficult to ensure all of their budding talent is getting the match experience necessary to fulfil their potential".

So already Super League clubs are touting for more than 5 dual registered players at their "partner" clubs.

They need to stop navel gazing and just get on with what they really want to do with their feeder clubs....

[1976PMJwires]

Clubs will have to let "potential" stars go.


Bobbie Goulding Jnr for one.


For years warrington have been slated for not bringing through kids, we win the under20's and now a large percentage of this group is broken up and where will they play.... So there will be many taking points good, bad and indifferent.

Like we know all clubs are different and it'll hit some clubs more than others!!

I'm interest in what other club director, managers, coaches and development officer have to say on this matter!!

Is it good for the game???

[RidingPie]

I don't think it is a good step forward.

In another thread earlier this week someone was asking if the RFL should take a more central role and relieve some clubs of responsibility for certain aspects of their business (although I think it was actually targeted more at the marketing and income side) but this seems to be exactly that. This may help the smaller clubs who haven't got the structures in place and are moving at tectonic speeds in that respect, and may be the levelling effect they are looking for, sadly however every time things are levelled standards seem to drop, and I'm not sure they're moving upwards again.

[South Wakefield Sharks]

Not sure about this. All it should mean is that the second tier of players at the better clubs will need to move on to get a spot, and they will push out the lesser players at the lesser clubs. That should result in the quality overall rising.

So for example a lad like Bobbie Goulding isn't among the very best at Wire, so they let him move on to a club like Wakey. He;s going to push out one of the weaker players at Wakey.

Reality is that if you're one of the weaker players at a club like Wakey, then you're probably not going to make it anyway.

Shame for the lad involved, but it should improve the quality of the teams across the board, increase the intensity of these teams and better prepare those who are good enough to step up to first grade.

[RidingPie]

Not sure about this. All it should mean is that the second tier of players at the better clubs will need to move on to get a spot, and they will push out the lesser players at the lesser clubs. That should result in the quality overall rising.

So for example a lad like Bobbie Goulding isn't among the very best at Wire, so they let him move on to a club like Wakey. He;s going to push out one of the weaker players at Wakey.

Reality is that if you're one of the weaker players at a club like Wakey, then you're probably not going to make it anyway.

Shame for the lad involved, but it should improve the quality of the teams across the board, increase the intensity of these teams and better prepare those who are good enough to step up to first grade.

But you're forgetting some critical points. The players might not want to play for anyone but, say, Warrington, and be willing to wait an extra year for a break through there. Maybe he will feel he is getting pushed out out to Wakefield, where he might not receive the same high level of coaching and tutoring. He may have no passion for Wakefield. For me it makes more sense for the juniors to be associate with the clubs they want to. Learn the structures of play there. Really feel like part of the team even before they make it in to the first team.

Why aren't the clubs who are weaker in the area of development being encouraged to make them places young players want to be part of and grow. Once again as a sport we seem to be levelling down.

Edited by RidingPie, 02 November 2012 - 11:27 AM.

[Dave T]

I think the point about having to make a decision about players at a younger age is a crucial one.

Interesting to see how this one pans out.

[Gav Wilson]

It wont make a blind bit of difference. SuperLeague clubs know which of their prospects will become SuperLeague players by the time they are 20 anyway.

[tim2]

A lot of players end up filling up places in U20s / U23s / Reserves just to make a team which includes a handful of players who will actually make it at the highest level. I wonder how many players who are cut from scholarships, academies, reserves etc. become disillusioned and stop playing altogether?

I'm not sure the whole picture has been thought through. SL, semi-pro, top level amateur and grass roots all have different requirements and too often the hole in the dam is blocked in one area only to burst out somewhere else.

[Blind side johnny]

Why don't they just run second teams with no age restrictions like in the "old days"? I don't understand the need for age restrictions in reserve teams - has it actually produced any benefits?

[tim2]

Probably not, Johnny.

The real problem is that we don't have enough players full stop and everything is a short term attempted fix that never has enough time to bear fruit.

More players at primary level now (by a big factor, not 5 or 10 percent) is what's needed to bear fruit in 15 years time.

In the meantime the RFU is ploughing ridiculous money at grass roots level in the run up to their World Cup in 3 years, whilst we are cutting right back due to lack of Sport England money.

[Lounge Room Lizard]

Disgraceful decision whoever made and agreed to it. Typical short term thinking. Some players especially forwards like Jamie Peacock dont blossom until later in their career. Others like Jimmy Keinhorst missed the original way in, but still after joining a SL club very late have made it in to SL. Also if we want Wales and other Nations to grow we need to help the young guys come through a system and given the time and energy to do things correctly. If teams cant afford to run 3 academy teams at U23, U20 and U18 then I dont think they deserve to be in SL. If Halifax, Sheffield and Featherstone can achieve it then why cant SL clubs? Barrie John Mather from the RFL, has already damaged or caused major problems for Championship clubs trying to run academy teams. He forced these clubs to close down scholarships etc. Even if kids dont make it then they should be encourafged to link up with their old team and pass on what they have learnt.Surely the more kids involved at a Pro club learning and being given a chance the whole game benefits from the Pro clubs to the Internationals down to the Amateurs. I really cant see the new system helping anybody that much. Personally ALL Pro clubs should be allowed one overseas signing and the academy lads given a better chance of playing first grade. It still seems clubs would rather waste money on an average Aussie than spend it on bringing through youngsters.

[West Country Eagle]

As I understand it, the RFL Performance Department had a certain plan, which involved a two-tier academy structure at different age groups (i.e more like the existing ones) - i.e SL academy in two divisions, with the second division also including the academy sides being run by Championship clubs but it was voted down by the SL clubs. The two clubs to vote for it were Wire and Saints. Make of that what you will.

The RFL Performance Department have a clear agenda and ideas about what they want to do, but SL clubs are refusing to go with their plan. Basically, they want to reduce the amount of teams they run, so they can use more of the 120,000 PA they get to run academies on other things, like staying afloat. Typical short-sightedness in my opinion.

Any club who doesn't run academies/invest in youth structures should be slung out of Super League. We need more players coming through the performance pathway, not less!

[West Country Eagle]

Disgraceful decision whoever made and agreed to it. Typical short term thinking. Some players especially forwards like Jamie Peacock dont blossom until later in their career. Others like Jimmy Keinhorst missed the original way in, but still after joining a SL club very late have made it in to SL. Also if we want Wales and other Nations to grow we need to help the young guys come through a system and given the time and energy to do things correctly. If teams cant afford to run 3 academy teams at U23, U20 and U18 then I dont think they deserve to be in SL. If Halifax, Sheffield and Featherstone can achieve it then why cant SL clubs? Barrie John Mather from the RFL, has already damaged or caused major problems for Championship clubs trying to run academy teams. He forced these clubs to close down scholarships etc.

While this is true to a certain extent, the Performance Department (so BJ Mather and company) have blamed their actions against the Championship Clubs on the attitude of the SL clubs. The impression I get from talking to various people at the RFL and Championship clubs is that the Super League clubs aren't all that keen on Championship Clubs running academies, which is stupid. Maybe they feel threatened? Or is it that they might miss out on one or two promising youngsters?

Either way, it's a mess. The RFL need to grow a pair and make running academies and performance pathways part of the SL licence (it is, but they seem to be backing off for some reason). It is, as far as I can tell, but they're not enforcing it.

Basically, the game in this country is trundling towards another massive bust-up, and it's going to be messy. This is just the beginning.

[Father Ted]

Restricting the number of players DR to a Championship club to five may have its reasons. Like not getting the C Club too dependent on DR players.
If a SL club wants younger players to gain experience then why not loan them to other SL clubs?
Mellor and Powell are going from Wigan to Salford and McCarthy is off from Wire to (I think) Bradford.
Surely this is a way of keeping good young talent developing with regular SL games?

[Gav Wilson]

Basically, the game in this country is trundling towards another massive bust-up, and it's going to be messy. This is just the beginning.

Talk about melodramatic!

[Blind side johnny]

Probably not, Johnny.

The real problem is that we don't have enough players full stop and everything is a short term attempted fix that never has enough time to bear fruit.

More players at primary level now (by a big factor, not 5 or 10 percent) is what's needed to bear fruit in 15 years time.

In the meantime the RFU is ploughing ridiculous money at grass roots level in the run up to their World Cup in 3 years, whilst we are cutting right back due to lack of Sport England money.

Yes I agree. The amateur game seems to be getting slightly weaker, especially in "heartland" areas and the RFL needs a coherent consistent policy that doesn't simply focus on benefits to SL clubs. Dare I say that we are missing Richard Lewis's input already?

[West Country Eagle]

Talk about melodramatic!

Yep

True though. I'm generally positive but there's definitely trouble brewing. Time for Nigel Wood, Ralph Rimmer and co to earn their corn.

[Lounge Room Lizard]

Yep

True though. I'm generally positive but there's definitely trouble brewing. Time for Nigel Wood, Ralph Rimmer and co to earn their corn.

Time for them to have a clue and a plan because so far they are clueless and have no idea or proper plan for whats good for the game. Since Richard Lewis went PT the game has no genuine leader. The sooner those two get away from trying to run the game the better. They have had their chance and done nothing really except get poor sponsorship deals and have many factions fighting against each other in the game.

[giwildgo]

I'm not a fan of the new arrangements, but I can see it was a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. The standard of academy rugby has clearly not been up to scratch for a number of years, with a number of SL clubs barely being able to field teams on a regular basis. However unfortunately these same clubs are likely to be the ones that benefit from the over-age cast offs. It just doesn't sit well how a cartel of teams in SL can manipulate the sport to consolidate their position to the detriment of RL's wider health and profile. It's completely insular, the slow regression of the game can be traced back to the static salary cap, the 20/20 rules, franchising, etc, which were created to pander to the lowest common denominator. All it has served to do is stifle ambition for clubs to grow and a slow decline in standards. It has been depressing to watch the complete mismanagement of the sport over the last two decades. Lewis tried to drag us out of the dark ages, but it was all for nothing.

It is time for a serious root and branch review. The top league needs to shrink in size to make games more intense and competitive. Minimum standards need to be enforced more robustly and transparently. There also needs to be a clear pathway from the lower tiers that incentivises and rewards ambition, growth, efficient management and success - rather than allowing the same old failures to tread water for three years at a time.

Edited by giwildgo, 03 November 2012 - 09:10 PM.