Schoey: Young players deserve more opportunities

[Tommygilf]

 

30 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

Harder, in what way ?

Blokes are full time monsters now that are far better trained as athletes if nothing else. Even at the amateur level there are blokes now who train more than professionals did then.

[Davo5]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

 

Blokes are full time monsters now that are far better trained as athletes if nothing else. Even at the amateur level there are blokes now who train more than professionals did then.

But this is offset by the improvement in strength & conditioning in the academies,I’d far rather see a young 17 yr old making his first team debut these days rather than 30yrs ago.

[Davo5]

5 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

I've said it for a very long time, limit any club to 4 overseas personnel which I would go as far to say would be non-trained here as a junior and include non of the resident nonsense, and if any club wishes to employ an overseas coach he becomes one of the 4 i.e. part of the count.

I wouldn’t like to see a coach counted on the quota but agree teams should only be allowed 4 overseas spots.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Davo5 said:

But this is offset by the improvement in strength & conditioning in the academies,I’d far rather see a young 17 yr old making his first team debut these days rather than 30yrs ago.

Course anyone would, because the game is harder now, but less rough.

[Robin Evans]

19 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Proper Uncle Albert stuff again from “the expert”. 

I haven't trawled through this relatively short thread, so apologies to those making valid points....

I just can't take anything coming from Schoey as anything but utter sheeeite!

However, odds are .... eventually he may call something correctly.

[Davo5]

3 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

I haven't trawled through this relatively short thread, so apologies to those making valid points....

I just can't take anything coming from Schoey as anything but utter sheeeite!

However, odds are .... eventually he may call something correctly.

The sad thing about Schofield is that he often calls some things correctly but it gets lost amongst the large amount of other rubbish he comes out with.

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

I haven't trawled through this relatively short thread, so apologies to those making valid points....

I just can't take anything coming from Schoey as anything but utter sheeeite!

However, odds are .... eventually he may call something correctly.

Broken clock right twice a day or something like that

[Robin Evans]

15 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Broken clock right twice a day or something like that

Yup

[JM2010]

6 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I really don't get the dismissive attitude or the hate for overseas players at all. Some the players I've most enjoyed watching over the years have been from overseas, and I support a club that doesn't have much trouble promoting it's own talent. Overseas players make our competition more exciting and more attractive. 

There's also not that much evidence to suggest that changing the overseas quota (as we did in the late 00s to mitigate the impact of Kolpack) has any benefit to the national team. It doesn't suddenly increase the talent pool or improve junior-level coaching, which is arguably a bigger issue. 

I read that column and parts of it come across very much as "old man doesn't like change and thinks the foriegners are to blame, Brexit means Brexit". Strength and conditioning have come a long way since Schofield, Shaun Edwards and Mike Gregory were kids so yeah, I could probably understand why coaches might think it's unwise (or even unsafe) to throw 17 year-olds into first team action against players who have had a ten-year or more head start on the protein supplements. I think he's right to suggest that reserve or A-grade rugby can bridge that gap but equally, clubs have the option to send players out on loan to get a similar experience. 

There's also an elephant in the room and that's relegation. When you put such huge commercial pressure on player performance, coaches and chairmen are naturally going to take lower-risk approaches and that usually means bringing in experienced, if unspectacular, players from whoever is available on the market. No chairman is going to risk their share of the Sky money on a 17-year-old half back and if people want to persist with this idea that "promotion and relegation is part of the British sporting psyche and must be retained", then that is the flip-side of that coin. 

I don't think it's a hatred towards overseas players. I agree that a good quality import can add a lot to the competition.

I think the issue being raised is that the balance is wrong with some clubs signing lots of overseas players without putting much money or time into developing their own or signing fringe players from the NRL instead of promoting a promising young player

It seems that the most successful SL teams are the ones who promote youth and add quality imports.

 

[whatmichaelsays]

4 minutes ago, JM2010 said:

I don't think it's a hatred towards overseas players. I agree that a good quality import can add a lot to the competition.

I think the issue being raised is that the balance is wrong with some clubs signing lots of overseas players without putting much money or time into developing their own or signing fringe players from the NRL instead of promoting a promising young player

It seems that the most successful SL teams are the ones who promote youth and add quality imports.

I agree on the latter point. I think my argument is that these "there should be a limit of [insert arbirtary number] overseas players" comments don't really seem to have a lot of basis to them when you start to ask "why?". Why that number? Why not more? Why not less? How many is too many? Why is that too many? 

If fringe NRL players are better than what is available on the domestic market or in the domestic talent pool, then those players are still adding to the competition. I personally don't care where the players are from and there's scant evidence that reducing overseas players in the competition has benefits to the England team. 

If there's a kid working in a factory in Wigan or a call centre in Leeds who could say "if it wasn't for Jackson Hastings or Rob Lui, I could be leading England to the World Cup final", then I'd hear the argument that overseas players might be holding back our talent. But I highly doubt there is anyone out there who can say that. 

[Lowdesert]

2 hours ago, Davo5 said:

The sad thing about Schofield is that he often calls some things correctly but it gets lost amongst the large amount of other rubbish he comes out with.

Agree with that.  Sweeping statements blaming everything carry no weight but we always get a reference to what Garry did - which was considerable but often irrelevant.  He usually mentions his drop goals.

I also think we have some exciting young players coming through now.  

[Harry Stottle]

17 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I agree on the latter point. I think my argument is that these "there should be a limit of [insert arbirtary number] overseas players" comments don't really seem to have a lot of basis to them when you start to ask "why?". Why that number? Why not more? Why not less? How many is too many? Why is that too many? 

If fringe NRL players are better than what is available on the domestic market or in the domestic talent pool, then those players are still adding to the competition. I personally don't care where the players are from and there's scant evidence that reducing overseas players in the competition has benefits to the England team. 

If there's a kid working in a factory in Wigan or a call centre in Leeds who could say "if it wasn't for Jackson Hastings or Rob Lui, I could be leading England to the World Cup final", then I'd hear the argument that overseas players might be holding back our talent. But I highly doubt there is anyone out there who can say that. 

You totally astound me with that reply Micheal, for someone who is so positive in how we should do this or do that in how to improve our lot in Rugby League. You tell us ways and give us strategies by allowing everyone the benefit of your experience with what you do for a living in turning failing companies around this last post does nothing of the sort, can you not see we have a problem with player development which needs addressing we simply cannot produce enough of own in both numbers and quality that is the real issue here, but you seem to accept that and say there is a ready made source elsewhere why should we bother.

I remember back to when we last won a series against the Aussies back in 1970, the clubs in Australia went on a mission with their new found wealth from the 'League's Clubs' and gaming machine proffits to take over there the best of our talent which quite a number went, the ARL at the time subsequently banned international transfers for a period as British imports they were deemed to be holding back development of their own talent, I am not saying we should go to such extremes but we should take heed of what Australia did and why.

[Martyn Sadler]

19 hours ago, Robin Evans said:

I haven't trawled through this relatively short thread, so apologies to those making valid points....

I just can't take anything coming from Schoey as anything but utter sheeeite!

However, odds are .... eventually he may call something correctly.

Extraordinary comment - disrespectful, bigoted and ridiculous.

Those are qualities I wouldn't normally associate with you.

How often do you read Garry's columns?

On what do you base making such an arrogant and sweeping comment?

[Hela Wigmen]

3 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Extraordinary comment - disrespectful, bigoted and ridiculous.

Those are qualities I wouldn't normally associate with you.

How often do you read Garry's columns?

On what do you base making such an arrogant and sweeping comment?

No, you usually leave that to Garry, it seems. 

Does anyone proof read his stuff? 

[Dave T]

21 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Extraordinary comment - disrespectful, bigoted and ridiculous.

Those are qualities I wouldn't normally associate with you.

How often do you read Garry's columns?

On what do you base making such an arrogant and sweeping comment?

Why is disliking Garry Schofield's views "disrespectful, bigoted, ridiculous and arrogant"?

[Martyn Sadler]

14 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Why is disliking Garry Schofield's views "disrespectful, bigoted, ridiculous and arrogant"?

If Robin had simply said he didn't like Garry's views I wouldn't have reacted.

But he didn't say that.

[whatmichaelsays]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

You totally astound me with that reply Micheal, for someone who is so positive in how we should do this or do that in how to improve our lot in Rugby League. You tell us ways and give us strategies by allowing everyone the benefit of your experience with what you do for a living in turning failing companies around this last post does nothing of the sort, can you not see we have a problem with player development which needs addressing we simply cannot produce enough of own in both numbers and quality that is the real issue here, but you seem to accept that and say there is a ready made source elsewhere why should we bother.

I remember back to when we last won a series against the Aussies back in 1970, the clubs in Australia went on a mission with their new found wealth from the 'League's Clubs' and gaming machine proffits to take over there the best of our talent which quite a number went, the ARL at the time subsequently banned international transfers for a period as British imports they were deemed to be holding back development of their own talent, I am not saying we should go to such extremes but we should take heed of what Australia did and why.

Wow. Just wow. 

For starters, the stuff about what I have or haven't done in my day job is nothing that I have discussed here. Whilst it's probably no secret the line of work I do, I've never (to my recollection) talked in detail about specifics, about "turning failing companies around" or anything like that - that's all in your head. It's flattering all the same, but it's all in your head. 

But enough about me, let's deal with the point of the thread. 

Quote

can you not see we have a problem with player development which needs addressing we simply cannot produce enough of own in both numbers and quality that is the real issue here

Yes. I can see that we have a problem with player development. I do think that the problem needs addressing. 

But I don't think that overseas players in Super League are the reason that we have that problem and I think it's a strawman argument to suggest it is. 

The reasons we have issues with player development are nuanced and plentiful.

We struggle to recruit and develop young talent because the community game has a small and declining footprint, because RL in general lacks any real relevance nationally, because it's difficult to recruit the volunteers that the community game relies on, because professional clubs have underinvested in community club support, because facilities are often poor quality, because the quality of junior coaching isn't good enough, because the amateur game isn't particularlty well run, because the game has seen funding cuts from Sport England, because kids have far more distractions (sporting or otherwise) than they used to, or because parents are increasingly reluctant to let their kids play contact sports. 

It's not because Rob Lui and Jackson Hastings came to this country to take an English kid's Super League place. 

Quote

but you seem to accept that and say there is a ready made source elsewhere why should we bother.

That's your inference, but it's not what I've said. I've said that overseas players can be a benefit to the competition, but I have never said that we "shouldn't bother" with player development. 

The clubs are going to recruit the best talent that they can under the competition rules. That is their right. Adapting the rules to effectively force them to recruit inferior talent doesn't achieve anything positive. 

Quote

I remember back to when we last won a series against the Aussies back in 1970, the clubs in Australia went on a mission with their new found wealth from the 'League's Clubs' and gaming machine proffits to take over there the best of our talent which quite a number went, the ARL at the time subsequently banned international transfers for a period as British imports they were deemed to be holding back development of their own talent, I am not saying we should go to such extremes but we should take heed of what Australia did and why.

Let's take a more recent example. 

In the late 00's we introduced changes to the overseas quota to mitigate the impact of the Kolpak ruling. Since then, we've gone from a situation where the England/GB team can't win a series or tournament against Australia, to a situation where an England/GB team still can't win a series against Australia and also loses to Tonga and Papua New Guinea. 

Again, "overseas players" are an easy, lazy and wrong answer to a much more difficult question about RL talent development in this country.

Let me throw the question back at you - how does your "four players or coaches" quota address those core issues? How does it improve the quality of junior coaching? How does it improve the quality of community facilities? How does it encourage more kids to want to play the game nationally? How does it get kids away from Fortnite or FIFA 21? How does it encourage parents that RL is a safe sport that won't give their kids dementia? 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Martyn Sadler said:

If Robin had simply said he didn't like Garry's views I wouldn't have reacted.

But he didn't say that.

He used expressive language, but it's the point he was making. I still don't see how it makes him "disrespectful, bigoted, ridiculous and arrogant".

I find it interesting that this is how you would respond to what is ultimately feedback on a columnist in your media.

[Martyn Sadler]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

He used expressive language, but it's the point he was making. I still don't see how it makes him "disrespectful, bigoted, ridiculous and arrogant".

I find it interesting that this is how you would respond to what is ultimately feedback on a columnist in your media.

Then let me give you a lesson in the English language.

Robin said: "I just can't take anything coming from Schoey as anything but utter sheeeite!

"However, odds are .... eventually he may call something correctly."

I described those comments as "disrespectful, bigoted and ridiculous".

If you think that calling someone's views "sheeeite!" is not disrespectful then I don't know what planet you're living on.

To be bigoted means being attached to an opinion that is prejudiced against a particular individual or group. Robin's comment clearly demonstrates that quality.

And his comment was ridiculous because it's simply not true.

And, as a final point, all language is expressive. That, after all, is the whole point of language. 

[Harry Stottle]

19 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Extraordinary comment - disrespectful, bigoted and ridiculous.

Those are qualities I wouldn't normally associate with you.

How often do you read Garry's columns?

On what do you base making such an arrogant and sweeping comment?

I know (or think) you would not take heed of any disrespectful comments of any of your employees, if I could please place a comment of my own, I consider if your publication did not have Mr Schofield's input it would create a hugh void, I enjoy his columns maybe I don't always agree with him but I am as respectful of his opinions as I was of watching him as performer on the field of play. 

Off course he can be controversial but so can everyone of us who pen our comments on these pages, after all we personally are always correct, aren't we?

 

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Then let me give you a lesson in the English language.

Robin said: "I just can't take anything coming from Schoey as anything but utter sheeeite!

"However, odds are .... eventually he may call something correctly."

I described those comments as "disrespectful, bigoted and ridiculous".

If you think that calling someone's views "sheeeite!" is not disrespectful then I don't know what planet you're living on.

To be bigoted means being attached to an opinion that is prejudiced against a particular individual or group. Robin's comment clearly demonstrates that quality.

And his comment was ridiculous because it's simply not true.

And, as a final point, all language is expressive. That, after all, is the whole point of language. 

What a disrespectful, arrogant and ridiculous post.

[Dunbar]

Just now, Martyn Sadler said:

Then let me give you a lesson in the English language.

Robin said: "I just can't take anything coming from Schoey as anything but utter sheeeite!

"However, odds are .... eventually he may call something correctly."

I described those comments as "disrespectful, bigoted and ridiculous".

If you think that calling someone's views "sheeeite!" is not disrespectful then I don't know what planet you're living on.

To be bigoted means being attached to an opinion that is prejudiced against a particular individual or group. Robin's comment clearly demonstrates that quality.

And his comment was ridiculous because it's simply not true.

And, as a final point, all language is expressive. That, after all, is the whole point of language. 

As you said on here a while back "nowadays we all tend to get outraged on other people's behalf".

[gingerjon]

This thread is giving me strong "Old Man Yells At Cloud" vibes.

[Robin Evans]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Extraordinary comment - disrespectful, bigoted and ridiculous.

Those are qualities I wouldn't normally associate with you.

How often do you read Garry's columns?

On what do you base making such an arrogant and sweeping comment?

Seen him and heard him a couple of times. Occasionally read some of his stuff to form an opinion that he ranks sheeite.

I don't agree with how you view my post but I won't lose any sleep over it.

[Martyn Sadler]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

What a disrespectful, arrogant and ridiculous post.

And now you're just being silly.