Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


scotchy1 last won the day on March 4

scotchy1 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,343 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. They were that average they played in SL. Nobody is suggesting they put out an entire team of these players immediately (except maybe parky) but no doubt a sustained, long term effort appealing to a much larger pool of these players will produce better players than a couple who decided of their own back to just give it a try
  2. Liam Botham was a cricketer until 20 and didn't play RL until 25. Abi Ekoku was 26 I think and previously a track and field athlete
  3. The thing is they don't need to be elite CFL/NFL players. They need to be elite RL players. The reason they maybe an undrafted corner back rather than a superstar NFL player may very well be the reason they are a superstar RL player. People look at this backwards and look at it as there needing to be some mass of transferable skills from NFL to RL but there doesn't. What you are looking at isn't a players skills as a cornerback transferring to RL. What you are looking at is taking an elite athlete who has the things you cant teach like innate speed, reactions and athleticism and teaching them the stuff you can teach him like passing catching, tackling and positioning. The thing is that these athletes will have played numerous sports because of their innate athleticism but also because they improve the skills of both. Many football players play basketball and ice versa, Russel Wilson and Patrick Mahomes both had the choice of baseball or NFL as does Kyler Murray who has entered the NFL draft this year. You see a lot of wrestlers in offensive lines etc. There are sprinters, hurdlers, long jumpers, basketballers in the NFL Theres no reason to think you couldnt teach an elite athlete enough for them to be an SL winger.
  4. Theres a big and pretty fundamental difference between saying that the player pool we have are running at full capacity and you cant squeeze much more out of it and we can get players from a completely different player pool. Besides isn't it your defence of Leigh not bothering with youth that theres nothing left after the big boys have taken them? Also theres no need to sign your posts
  5. of course the earlier you get them the better but we can't (at the moment) offer them a college scholarship or a pro career so we aren't going to get the best athletes, nor the 2nd, nor third, nor any real level if we don't offer them that pathway.
  6. It should absolutely go solely on merit, but we also need to accept it is different to what has gone before. If GB is to find a place in the calendar it is as something different. One of those could be as "the greatest challenge" in rugby, a celebration of British heritage. So that would mean the likes of Frizzell, Aitken, Hastings and anyone else who qualifies under any rule.
  7. Ill just add, Liam Botham didn't play a game of RL until he was 25.
  8. Don't get me wrong, it will cost money and be a big commitment, and certainly they will need to invest in coaches, scouts and facilities. But I think if they do that, the over bits can be over-come. In fact I would say that the system we have bringing through young players is neither the best nor the most efficient, the expansion sides may be able to do much better than we do (in efficiency, obviously not volume) because they aren't restricted in the same way we are by old thinking. For example. Is there any reason for Toronto and Ottawa to have an academy at all? Wouldn't it make more sense for the entirety of Canadian RL to be their academies. running with 3 or 4 "academy sides" instead of giving maybe 30 kids each high quality training they are giving 130-160 kids each that high quality training. That's about 300 players to act as an incubator for them. Im confident if you take some high quality athletes, give them high quality training in the basics of RL you can find 1 or 2 a year who are super league standard, and every so often you will find a real star.
  9. I suspect they will purely on the numbers who have supposedly bought season tickets. However I think we will be up a little despite that, Salford have nearly doubled their attendance, Wakefield have put on a decent about game for game. Wire are putting a bit of a push on, les Catalans are up even from the winter games when generally they do the opposite and see their biggest games in the summer. Add to that Leeds will open the North stand soon and will be looking to put on at least a couple of big attendances to celebrate, up towards the 18/19k mark, and will be looking to get the averages back to the 15/16k mark rather than the 12/13k mark
  10. I disagree on that. For halves definitely, for probably hookers and centres, maybe full backs you need an elite environment to come through. For Props, Wingers, Second Rowers, Loose, you need athletes. Mikolaj Oledzki was a diver, he came to RL pretty late, Kevin Penny played basketball, he came to the game pretty late. I also think if you find natural athletes then the conversion is far easier and can be done at 16,17,19,20. The kind of athletes we want may not necessarily be the best in their sport, because we aren't wanting them for their sport. But im certain that there are plenty of wrestlers, sprinters, RU players, NFL/CFL players etc who aren't good enough to go pro, and may not even be good enough for college in their chosen sport who are good enough natural athletes to convert to RL within a couple of years.
  11. Leeds are a little misleading because of the two Elland Road games in there and the restricted capacity Id be surprised if, taking out the difference between London and Widnes, we didn't see a decent amount of growth by the end of the year. Nothing mind-blowing but somewhere around 3-5% which is statistically significant enough to call growth.
  12. A few things. Whilst I don't agree with the decision to bring back GB, especially being done in the way that it has. This isn't really an argument against it. England will still exist, should still be having train-on squads etc etc the development of England as a Brand and as a team shouldn't stop because of GB The GB tour is looking more and more like poor decision implemented terribly. There needs to be regular announcements throughout the season and discussion of players etc. to build excitement. There is next to none of that happening. I don't however have a big problem with the heritage players. GB is supposed to be something different. Heritage players who are eligible for Scotland/Wales etc are eligible for GB, there should if anything, be more of a focus on them to create that differentiation. England in a different jersey is just a terrible decision.
  13. What on earth is this moronic nonsense and what does it have to do with the statement you quoted?
  14. That article is typical of the problem because it is told in a narrative that doesn't actually fit what it is saying. The article starts from a point that SL is worried about expansion sides so is putting in place criteria to block them. The other way of looking at it is that SL are looking at possible broadcast rights deals from France the US and Canada and are putting place the structures to admit them. There is a real worry that there could be 4 overseas teams could also be there is real excitement that there could be 4 overseas teams, so much so "those criteria and the implementation of them will be on a case-by-case basis, and Super League has the right to relax or even ignore them if the case is strong enough from a club that wins promotion from the Championship into the top-flight."
  • Create New...