Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

flyingking

First effects of the new development system

164 posts in this topic

Young players have left for Australia in the past, there's nothing new here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Young players have left for Australia in the past, there's nothing new here.

Having a development system is new ........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But for every player who goes off to Australia, how many others are lost to the game because of this cost cutting exercise by the SL clubs, just as we were starting to produce young British players of quality in numbers, we turn off the tap from the well. It probably had to be done from a cost standpoint but I think the overall numbers of quality players being nurtured into top class professionals will diminish greatly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People said that when the "A" Team system was scrapped

The' A' teams I remember were always half full of older first teamers returning from injury and some older never quite made it players who were there to provide cover for the 1st team and to make up the numbers for the A team, as well as a few younger players.

The scrapped teams now were all younger players and will, I think, reduce the opportunity for many to kick on and make the grade due to lack of numbers and playing time, so I don't think it's quite the same as when the' A' teams were scrapped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But for every player who goes off to Australia, how many others are lost to the game because of this cost cutting exercise by the SL clubs, just as we were starting to produce young British players of quality in numbers, we turn off the tap from the well. It probably had to be done from a cost standpoint but I think the overall numbers of quality players being nurtured into top class professionals will diminish greatly.

how many youngsters went into the system and then left after having their expectations over-optimistically raised? We havent the volume of kids in the sport as a whole, or the ultimate demand in the pro-game, to justify so many flowing into the systems that we're in place...for the good of the game, the reforms were required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the net effect will be that kids that werent good enough for super league will get games in championship teams instead of never playing or only playing other kids and so not getting better?

And the kids that are good enough get into the first team in their late teens and not early 20s and over all championship teams rely less on journeymen antipodeans and instead more kids stay in the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how many youngsters went into the system and then left after having their expectations over-optimistically raised? We havent the volume of kids in the sport as a whole, or the ultimate demand in the pro-game, to justify so many flowing into the systems that we're in place...for the good of the game, the reforms were required.

So you are saying less kids playing rugby will be better for the good of the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying less kids playing rugby will be better for the good of the game?

the opposite. we need to put more effort on increasing the total number of kids playing the sport to a level that makes running pro-Academy structures sustainable.

Take the NW - Widnes, Warrington, Salford, Wigan, St. Helens all taking 20 - 30 lads of each age group away from the amateur game per annum. There is no way on earth that all of them would flow into the pro game and many were being recruited into the structures to make up the numbers. Their expactations were over-optimistically raised and then many felt used by the sport so quit the sport.

Worse, was that many junior sides might only have 15 - 20 players and if they lose 5/6 to a scholarship system (and with so many pro-sides and so few jenuio sides this was happening!) the junior side might struggle each week to put a side out; so then even more players are pushed out of the game as individual junior sides struggle to be viable.

the system was not working - the result was less young players playing the game!

have 20+ more sides at each age group and it might have been sustainable to run so many Academy and Scholarship structures. Until we have that volume of kids in the game it's not vaible to keep dragging lads into 'talent pathways'. That is as much a reason for the reforms as it was cost-cutting by the pro-ranks.

so my point is, we can only run those type of structures as a sport IF we concentrate more time, effort and resource of increasing junior participation. we just need Sport England to recognise it now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But for every player who goes off to Australia, how many others are lost to the game because of this cost cutting exercise by the SL clubs, just as we were starting to produce young British players of quality in numbers, we turn off the tap from the well. It probably had to be done from a cost standpoint but I think the overall numbers of quality players being nurtured into top class professionals will diminish greatly.

So ;lets employ more rugby players than the game can afford and then...

You have posted post after post after post saying Bradford, Salford blah blah got in a mess because they didn't cut costs..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the opposite. we need to put more effort on increasing the total number of kids playing the sport to a level that makes running pro-Academy structures sustainable.

Take the NW - Widnes, Warrington, Salford, Wigan, St. Helens all taking 20 - 30 lads of each age group away from the amateur game per annum. There is no way on earth that all of them would flow into the pro game and many were being recruited into the structures to make up the numbers. Their expactations were over-optimistically raised and then many felt used by the sport so quit the sport.

Worse, was that many junior sides might only have 15 - 20 players and if they lose 5/6 to a scholarship system (and with so many pro-sides and so few jenuio sides this was happening!) the junior side might struggle each week to put a side out; so then even more players are pushed out of the game as individual junior sides struggle to be viable.

the system was not working - the result was less young players playing the game!

have 20+ more sides at each age group and it might have been sustainable to run so many Academy and Scholarship structures. Until we have that volume of kids in the game it's not vaible to keep dragging lads into 'talent pathways'. That is as much a reason for the reforms as it was cost-cutting by the pro-ranks.

so my point is, we can only run those type of structures as a sport IF we concentrate more time, effort and resource of increasing junior participation. we just need Sport England to recognise it now!

My mistake then. Good post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So ;lets employ more rugby players than the game can afford and then...

You have posted post after post after post saying Bradford, Salford blah blah got in a mess because they didn't cut costs..

What part of my last sentence didn't you understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The' A' teams I remember were always half full of older first teamers returning from injury and some older never quite made it players who were there to provide cover for the 1st team and to make up the numbers for the A team, as well as a few younger players.

Ahh, happy days!

I really used to enjoy A team games when they were open-age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What part of my last sentence didn't you understand?

Probably the bit that says someone else has to pay for it because the game can't afford to itself. That's not really such a great admission to make is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's inevitably going to be wastage. You only actually need about a third of your development players to come good to feed your first team - and that's assuming that you don't recruit from any other sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all ok we won't give as many youngster the opertunity to try and be the best they can and get involved with pro clubs to work harder to test themselves we will waste the money on other things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

talk of wastage is very over the top as most of those who do not make it with a professional team tend to join local community clubs as we are now supposed to call them.

as someone who watches a lot of local rugby league in the leeds area nearly every week i see young players who have not made the grade at pro clubs playing for there local teams such as east leeds or hunslet warriors ect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

talk of wastage is very over the top

Its just another attempt to try and beat the big clubs with a little stick.

It really is tiresome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its just another attempt to try and beat the big clubs with a little stick.

It really is tiresome.

the truth is unless a club has a lucky season then of the 10 or so young players they sign they will be lucky to get more than 2 or 3 that will in the end make the grade with them so how are they supposed to run an academy team without wastage even though a lot of the so called waste finds championship clubs or community clubs to join

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the opposite. we need to put more effort on increasing the total number of kids playing the sport to a level that makes running pro-Academy structures sustainable.

Take the NW - Widnes, Warrington, Salford, Wigan, St. Helens all taking 20 - 30 lads of each age group away from the amateur game per annum. There is no way on earth that all of them would flow into the pro game and many were being recruited into the structures to make up the numbers. Their expactations were over-optimistically raised and then many felt used by the sport so quit the sport.

Worse, was that many junior sides might only have 15 - 20 players and if they lose 5/6 to a scholarship system (and with so many pro-sides and so few jenuio sides this was happening!) the junior side might struggle each week to put a side out; so then even more players are pushed out of the game as individual junior sides struggle to be viable.

the system was not working - the result was less young players playing the game!

have 20+ more sides at each age group and it might have been sustainable to run so many Academy and Scholarship structures. Until we have that volume of kids in the game it's not vaible to keep dragging lads into 'talent pathways'. That is as much a reason for the reforms as it was cost-cutting by the pro-ranks.

so my point is, we can only run those type of structures as a sport IF we concentrate more time, effort and resource of increasing junior participation. we just need Sport England to recognise it now!

A very interesting and informative post.

You say "take the NW - Widnes, Warrington, Salford, Wigan, St. Helens all taking 20 - 30 lads of each age group away from the amateur game per annum".

What about West Yorkshire?, take Cas, Wakey, Leeds, Bradford, Fartown all dragging 20-30 lads a year out of junior RL then Featherstone, Halifax and Sheffield joining in, up to 200+ lads a year being taken away from the amateur game.

How many actually make it??

This kid in the OP is a Wakey kid, how many Wakefield lads have made it into Superleague since wakey came into SL in 1999?? How many Wakefield lads are playing SL regularly now? The numbers will surprise many on here.

You can add academies at Batley, Keighley, Hunslet, Dewsbury and York and you can add more teams at each age level until your blue in the face with so called budding SL stars, but until more kids take up the game all your doing is increasing the numbers of rejects and stuffing up amateur clubs youth teams.

We don't need more academies in the same area, we need academies in London. Wales, Cumbria etc.

When we were full of Aussies the cry on here was get rid of them and allow the British talent to come through. But it's not there, there's a significant player shortage, Lamont Bryan has just signed for Fev saying he's had offers from SL clubs. This lad didn't make it with the supposedly gord awful Broncos? Why would any SL club want him? Why do HKR want Omari Caro? Don't they produce brilliant wingers from the hotbed of RL any more?

People come on here and play the attendances game - it makes sense to have the best supported clubs in SL, Broncos are a waste of space. Maybe they would be if the north wasn't desperately in need of lads from London Cumbria and Wales to develop to make up the quality player shortfall.

Sheffield for SL? Leigh for SL? Where are they going to find players when established big clubs like Wakefield or Bradford can't stock their sides locally from an amateur game established for well over 100 years???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the truth is unless a club has a lucky season then of the 10 or so young players they sign they will be lucky to get more than 2 or 3 that will in the end make the grade with them so how are they supposed to run an academy team without wastage even though a lot of the so called waste finds championship clubs or community clubs to join

Your a highly knowledgeable guy.

Since Gary Hetherington led the way and announced Leeds would produce their own players something like 12 years ago how many lads a year do you think made it through the Leeds system to be regular top class pro's? i.e the best system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably the bit that says someone else has to pay for it because the game can't afford to itself. That's not really such a great admission to make is it?

I said we probably had to cut the junior teams because the clubs couldn t afford them so Padge comes on and intimates that I was against cutting the teams even though I have, as he says, on other posts advocated SL cutting costs so that they can remain solvent on the income they receive. He obviously either didn t understand or didn t properly read what I wrote, namely that the abolition of the junior teams most probably had to be done because of the need to cut costs. I never said anybody else had to pay for anything so I don t understand what you are saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very interesting and informative post.

You say "take the NW - Widnes, Warrington, Salford, Wigan, St. Helens all taking 20 - 30 lads of each age group away from the amateur game per annum".

What about West Yorkshire?, take Cas, Wakey, Leeds, Bradford, Fartown all dragging 20-30 lads a year out of junior RL then Featherstone, Halifax and Sheffield joining in, up to 200+ lads a year being taken away from the amateur game.

How many actually make it??

This kid in the OP is a Wakey kid, how many Wakefield lads have made it into Superleague since wakey came into SL in 1999?? How many Wakefield lads are playing SL regularly now? The numbers will surprise many on here.

You can add academies at Batley, Keighley, Hunslet, Dewsbury and York and you can add more teams at each age level until your blue in the face with so called budding SL stars, but until more kids take up the game all your doing is increasing the numbers of rejects and stuffing up amateur clubs youth teams.

We don't need more academies in the same area, we need academies in London. Wales, Cumbria etc.

When we were full of Aussies the cry on here was get rid of them and allow the British talent to come through. But it's not there, there's a significant player shortage, Lamont Bryan has just signed for Fev saying he's had offers from SL clubs. This lad didn't make it with the supposedly gord awful Broncos? Why would any SL club want him? Why do HKR want Omari Caro? Don't they produce brilliant wingers from the hotbed of RL any more?

People come on here and play the attendances game - it makes sense to have the best supported clubs in SL, Broncos are a waste of space. Maybe they would be if the north wasn't desperately in need of lads from London Cumbria and Wales to develop to make up the quality player shortfall.

Sheffield for SL? Leigh for SL? Where are they going to find players when established big clubs like Wakefield or Bradford can't stock their sides locally from an amateur game established for well over 100 years???

You come back to this red herring time and time again. The game needs and gets kids in numbers from Cumbria and some from Wales both places, as you say, despite having no SL teams but when it comes to London there is a need for A SL club in order to sustain the player production. This flies in the face of the very facts you are stating regarding player production from Wales and Cumbria and , indeed, some from the Midlands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017