League Express Upfront: Do we really need to get smaller?

[The Future is League]

The jungle drums suggest that the RFL board is to recommend that the Academy competition, which involved 14 clubs this season, including Championship clubs Sheffield and Featherstone, is to become ten. And because that will mean fewer British players will be emerging, Super League clubs will be allowed to sign more non-Federation trained players to fill their teams.

Click here to view the article

 

The RFL showing once again they are intent on shrinking the game in the UK. Pandering to certain clubs who have no interest in junior development, and are just looking for the easy options all the time. Destroying any chance England ever have of reclaiming the ashes or ever winning another world cup.

If certain super league clubs are not interested in developing British talent, and are only interested in short cuts kick them out of super league.

Slowly but surely the clowns at Red Hall are destroying Rugby League in this country

[South Wakefield Sharks]

The RFL showing once again they are intent on shrinking the game in the UK. Pandering to certain clubs who have no interest in junior development, and are just looking for the easy options all the time. Destroying any chance England ever have of reclaiming the ashes or ever winning another world cup.

If certain super league clubs are not interested in developing British talent, and are only interested in short cuts kick them out of super league.

Slowly but surely the clowns at Red Hall are destroying Rugby League in this country

We then end up with a SL comp with very few teams in it! It's easy to say "kick them out", but what other option do you have? The 14 clubs in SL are probably the top 14 clubs in the northern hemisphere. There may well be a bunch of them that are little more than glorified community clubs (only worse run) but I don't see a long queue of clubs of the calibre of Wigan, Leeds etc chomping at the bit to take their place.

What we need to do is gradually increase the number of quality clubs. Salford dropping on DR K should help lift them out of the mire. Wire have become a serious club in recent years, and there is a danger that the Giants might become the real deal. We're getting there, but it's a long haul.

[keighley]

We then end up with a SL comp with very few teams in it! It's easy to say "kick them out", but what other option do you have? The 14 clubs in SL are probably the top 14 clubs in the northern hemisphere. There may well be a bunch of them that are little more than glorified community clubs (only worse run) but I don't see a long queue of clubs of the calibre of Wigan, Leeds etc chomping at the bit to take their place.

What we need to do is gradually increase the number of quality clubs. Salford dropping on DR K should help lift them out of the mire. Wire have become a serious club in recent years, and there is a danger that the Giants might become the real deal. We're getting there, but it's a long haul.

 

You are so right. Slowly but surely we should be inceasing the numbers of top tier clubs not decreasing them. Potential investors should look to be part of a growing expanding success story not a dwindling band of brothers. Sky and any other TV companies interested need to be engaged and courted, cajoled and flattered to gradually increase the amount of cash in their contract. French TV need to be brought in board for the Catalans and any other potential French member.

 

If the World Cup is a big hit, the next four nations an d th next World Cup need to be pshed aggressively at the broadcasters.

 

Eventually at club level we should be looking to have to equal conferences of 1o teams each divided on roughly East/West axes.

 

Instead we have doomongers wanting us to regress to a 10 team top tier all spread about the M62. Visionary it ain't.

[The Parksider]

The RFL........... Pandering to certain clubs who have no interest in junior development..........If certain super league clubs are not interested in developing British talent....................kick them out of super league.

 

Which Superleague clubs have no interest in junior development???

[The Future is League]

Which Superleague clubs have no interest in junior development???

You know the one's as well as me. The clubs who continue to sign overseas players and then look for them to have the Irish grannie so they don't count on the overseas quota.

Certain clubs who are in this mythical place called the heartlands, but can't be overly bothered with junior development, and just pay lip service to it in my opinion.

[Ackroman]

So you'd rather them be slogging it out playing amateur RL with poor coaching and poor facilities than being developed into professional players. About sums up the mentality of RL in this country.

Having read the all I had to come back to your post because it assumes coaching is poor at amateur level. What evidence have you for this? I believe there are some fantastic amateur coaches.

 

The thing is we have the structures in Rugby League we just seem hell bent on reinventing them rather than investing at the point it is needed. If we invested in developing professional coaching at amatuer level, just think what the talent pool would be like in 10 years.

[The Parksider]

You know the one's as well as me. The clubs who continue to sign overseas players and then look for them to have the Irish grannie so they don't count on the overseas quota.

Certain clubs who are in this mythical place called the heartlands, but can't be overly bothered with junior development, and just pay lip service to it in my opinion.

 

I don't know them to be honest. I know Leeds and Wigan led the way, and Saints and Wire have followed.London have concentrated on bringing southern kids along since Lewis rescued them and demanded this. Huddersfield have also got on board and no doubt that Hull have the structures and the numbers.

 

HKR did struggle but all the best kids were at Hull now Rovers are producing local players. Widnes have sorted this out especially for Superleague and Bradford spent a lot on their academy. Cas churn out great numbers and Wakefield's academy is good and they have put money into protecting it despite the problems. That leaves Salford who despite having not much of a junior game have quite a decent academy.

 

I'm sure all SL clubs would rather bring a quality local junior through than import. For me the problem is the unproven perception that our game has quality young professionals lined up to play SL and useless imports are blocking them. Flies in the face of logic and reasoning for me.

 

Especially as the reality is our pool of junior talent who are serious about the game is very very small compared to Unions and miniscule compared to Soccer. Another idea that seems to fly in the face of reality is the one where we believe that if the coaching structures are excellent we will turn out talented RL stars. As mmp states there's only the odd one or two real talents a year coming through the academies, and has also been stated there's probably as many more such young talents who have given up the game for other "adult" pastimes..

Edited September 25, 2013 by The Parksider

[Jonty]

There are a lot of really good points in the above posts, especially the viewpoints put by Geordie Saint and South Wakefield Sharks.

On paper, the idea looks foolish, but you'd like to think that there is rational behind what Red Hall are doing. Only last week the RFL were recruiting a member of staff to develop talent in Cumbria, so the bigger picture needs to be considered.

I can see both arguments, and there are merits to both. I was involved in trying to establish an U18s side at a Championship club a few years ago and it hard work. The rationale behind it was that local amateur clubs couldn't get U18s teams out, and as a result kids were going from U16s straight to NW Counties or District League open age fixtures. At the same time the most talented local youngsters were going to SL clubs. The solution was an U18s NYL team that the local clubs would support and that was sponsored by the pro-club.

The amateur clubs didn't want this because they didn't trust the pro club, and actively told kids not to play, even though the standard of rugby on offer was very high. At the same time, the powers-that-be at the pro club had little interest in youth rugby. Very frustrating.

For me the solution (at U16s) would be about working with education, and increasing the player pool via schools. In this instance the pro club would invest resources in developing an elite programme in schools within it's catchment area, with such players feeding local representative sides. At the same time these players would add to the player pool in the amateur game. A little like service area, but with an enhanced player pool.

At 16+ the solution could be to work more effectively with FE, running academy teams through colleges - essentially playing Wednesday afternoon fixtures allowing players to play for their home club at the weekend, but committing to college football mid-week. Here the clubs have an opportunity for generating income to fund their programmes via FE, offering apprenticeships to young players and essentially turning them into semi-professional athletes.
 

What I am baffled by is the rational behind increasing the federation players number. One of the headline objectives of the RFLs strategy over recent years has been to increase the number of England/home nations eligible players in SL - does this increase, coupled with the 12-team scenario really help this? From the information in the public domain, it's difficult to see how. You could argue that it is about maintaining player quality. My argument is that having a system that puts technically good rugby players into a full-time environment will allow them to thrive.

 

I'll watch this one with interest, I think!

[mmp]

Tha bigger picture has to be about increasing the talent pool by maximising participation and NOT about everyone having an academy when there simply are not enough juniors in the first place.  Its madness having 5 SL academies in the NW competing for so few players UNLESS we add a lot more players to the player pool. 

 

We added a U16s at Bury Broncos this year - http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/burybroncos/news/u16s-cap-off-brilliant-first-s-1043719.html using a very particular model but one we think can be applied elsewhere.   I'd argue we need more new sides/teams more than we need the current number of academies and that if we put more investment into getting particpation up, we'd create an environment where more youngsters can flow through the system and reach the top.  Look at East Manchester Rangers at U13s - flying up a division as a new side with plenty of talent attracted into the game where we didnt get any before. 

Edited September 25, 2013 by mmp

[The Parksider]

What I am baffled by is the rational behind increasing the federation players number. One of the headline objectives of the RFLs strategy over recent years has been to increase the number of England/home nations eligible players in SL - does this increase, coupled with the 12-team scenario really help this? From the information in the public domain, it's difficult to see how. You could argue that it is about maintaining player quality.

 

Tremendous post. It'd be good to see an RL world article by a top coach to give us the reality in terms of numbers who play, numbers serious about a career, how many drop out, what's the best way to set up the youth/academy game, what are the problems, are we really blocking talented GB kids with overseas players etc etc etc.

 

Personally I think the games problems are quite serious at the moment and that the readjustments the RFL/SL are making are necessary and are sensible. The drain of real young home grown talent overseas is an extraordinary situation for the game as is the financial plight of lower SL clubs so IMHO action has to be applauded, not derided.

[The Parksider]

Tha bigger picture has to be about increasing the talent pool by maximising participation and NOT about everyone having an academy when there simply are not enough juniors in the first place.  Its madness having 5 SL academies in the NW competing for so few players UNLESS we add a lot more players to the player pool. 

 

We added a U16s at Bury Broncos this year - http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/burybroncos/news/u16s-cap-off-brilliant-first-s-1043719.html using a very particular model but one we think can be applied elsewhere.   I'd argue we need more new sides/teams more than we need the current number of academies and that if we put more investment into getting particpation up, we'd create an environment where more youngsters can flow through the system and reach the top.  Look at East Manchester Rangers at U13s - flying up a division as a new side with plenty of talent attracted into the game where we didnt get any before. 

 

another great post

[Jonty]

Tremendous post. It'd be good to see an RL world article by a top coach to give us the reality in terms of numbers who play, numbers serious about a career, how many drop out, what's the best way to set up the youth/academy game, what are the problems, are we really blocking talented GB kids with overseas players etc etc etc.

 

Personally I think the games problems are quite serious at the moment and that the readjustments the RFL/SL are making are necessary and are sensible. The drain of real young home grown talent overseas is an extraordinary situation for the game as is the financial plight of lower SL clubs so IMHO action has to be applauded, not derided.

 

Thanks.

 

Simple maths around this is quite alarming (if I'm correct)

 

If we take 13* clubs with 25 man squads playing, of which 5 are non-Fed players, it gives you 20% of the league. Do the same calculation on 11 clubs playing 7, and you get 28% of a reduced pool - an increase from 65 to 77. Essentially the numbers of academy-trained players has dropped from 260 to 198. Whilst  I appreciate that non-Fed does not equal "overseas", there is often a relationship.

 

* Catalans Dragons taken as the exception due to their unique circumstances

Edited September 25, 2013 by Jonty

[guess who]

Think RL Meltdown is going to be busy with this topic!!

Seems to me we need to consider whether the changes will replace poor home trained players with better quality non federation trained players. For instance is Wakey's 8th home trained player simply in a job because Wakey have to have 8 home trained players?

Could Wakey get a better non-federation trained player for the same money?

 

 

 

If the problem is poorly trained young players. Why are we not replacing the poor trainers. Instead of replacing the up and coming British kids coming through?

[keighley]

There are a lot of really good points in the above posts, especially the viewpoints put by Geordie Saint and South Wakefield Sharks.

On paper, the idea looks foolish, but you'd like to think that there is rational behind what Red Hall are doing. Only last week the RFL were recruiting a member of staff to develop talent in Cumbria, so the bigger picture needs to be considered.

I can see both arguments, and there are merits to both. I was involved in trying to establish an U18s side at a Championship club a few years ago and it hard work. The rationale behind it was that local amateur clubs couldn't get U18s teams out, and as a result kids were going from U16s straight to NW Counties or District League open age fixtures. At the same time the most talented local youngsters were going to SL clubs. The solution was an U18s NYL team that the local clubs would support and that was sponsored by the pro-club.

The amateur clubs didn't want this because they didn't trust the pro club, and actively told kids not to play, even though the standard of rugby on offer was very high. At the same time, the powers-that-be at the pro club had little interest in youth rugby. Very frustrating.

For me the solution (at U16s) would be about working with education, and increasing the player pool via schools. In this instance the pro club would invest resources in developing an elite programme in schools within it's catchment area, with such players feeding local representative sides. At the same time these players would add to the player pool in the amateur game. A little like service area, but with an enhanced player pool.

At 16+ the solution could be to work more effectively with FE, running academy teams through colleges - essentially playing Wednesday afternoon fixtures allowing players to play for their home club at the weekend, but committing to college football mid-week. Here the clubs have an opportunity for generating income to fund their programmes via FE, offering apprenticeships to young players and essentially turning them into semi-professional athletes.

 

What I am baffled by is the rational behind increasing the federation players number. One of the headline objectives of the RFLs strategy over recent years has been to increase the number of England/home nations eligible players in SL - does this increase, coupled with the 12-team scenario really help this? From the information in the public domain, it's difficult to see how. You could argue that it is about maintaining player quality. My argument is that having a system that puts technically good rugby players into a full-time environment will allow them to thrive.

 

I'll watch this one with interest, I think!

 

I agree with you. The announcements today re the welsh schools imitiative backed by Wigan at Maesteg anf the Gillette sponsorship which is going to concentrate on grass roots and youth development are both positive developments in this regard.

[GeordieSaint]

For me the solution (at U16s) would be about working with education, and increasing the player pool via schools. In this instance the pro club would invest resources in developing an elite programme in schools within it's catchment area, with such players feeding local representative sides. At the same time these players would add to the player pool in the amateur game. A little like service area, but with an enhanced player pool.

At 16+ the solution could be to work more effectively with FE, running academy teams through colleges - essentially playing Wednesday afternoon fixtures allowing players to play for their home club at the weekend, but committing to college football mid-week. Here the clubs have an opportunity for generating income to fund their programmes via FE, offering apprenticeships to young players and essentially turning them into semi-professional athletes.

 

I have been saying that for ages. The RFL and clubs are tapping up the wrong location to develop players. We have seen a huge growth in Schools Rugby League in recent years and from an outside looking in, we aren't doing much to take advantage of this?

 

When I was a kid, I ended up in the Lancashire Cricket development programme as a result of the Schools system, which developed player capability. Basically, from school level, I was selected to represent Wigan Schools in a Lancashire-wide competition taking in places like St Helens, Liverpool, Tameside, Manchester, Bolton, Flyde Schools teams etc. The best players eventually went into the Lancashire Schools pot and then eventually played against other County Schools sides. I never quite made it to that level but it certainly did provide quality coaching at 'town' level and then subsequent County level.

 

For mine, that is exactly the system the game should be looking to develop across the country for the age groups below U16s. It will unearth players who don't play at club level and as played mid-week will allow those players to continue playing for their club sides at the weekend. It is slightly more difficult at post-16 level however, the announcement in South Wales this morning could very well be a vehicle to develop these age groups without decimating youth sides but continuing the development of quality Academy standard players.

[Jonty]

--- snip ---

 

Agree - the cricket structure that you've outlined is a good example. It happens in other sports too; notably rugby union where Premiership clubs have very strong ties with schools at an elite player development level.

 

It's an opportune time at the moment, given Sport England investment into satellite clubs - essentially out-of-hours clubs on a school site, but feeding a more established local club. This not only has potential to grow the player pool at secondary school age, but to grow the amateur game and support elite player development. In this situation you're also maximising player retention. If the elite programme is linked to education and midweek, players are retained by their amateur club. Instead of having a negative experience at a pro-club, and possibly being lost to the game at the end of it, players are instead in a development programme that would hopefully grow their technical and physical ability, making them an asset encouraged to find their level in the sport.

 

The other advantage of embedding this within education is that you can provide the participants with skills both on and off the pitch. For instance, ensuring that all the participants get trained with a RL organisers award, or equivalent, and can be deployed delivering sessions in their school. At FE level, ensuring that all get trained to at least L1 coaching standard and can be deployed back in the amateur club or as part of the pro clubs community programme etc.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Jonty