Schoey: Young players deserve more opportunities

[Dave T]

Just now, Martyn Sadler said:

And now you're just being silly.

I could go on to give you a lesson in English as a way of explaining, but that would be disrespectful and arrogant at the very least.

[Martyn Sadler]

3 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

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.

We all tend to make judgements based on minimal evidence, so I suppose in that sense you're not unusual.

[Martyn Sadler]

Just now, Dave T said:

I could go on to give you a lesson in English as a way of explaining, but that would be disrespectful and arrogant at the very least.

Very silly!

[Robin Evans]

46 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

We all tend to make judgements based on minimal evidence, so I suppose in that sense you're not unusual.

Listened to him for a whole evening and for an hour at another event.

With that, what I've seen and read by him in the media I think I have enough to form an opinion.

You don't agree. C'est la vie. I don't really care if I'm honest.

[Martyn Sadler]

Just now, Robin Evans said:

Listened to him for a whole evening and for an hour at another event.

With that, what I've seen and read him in the media I think I have enough to form an opinion.

You don't agree. C'est la vie. I don't really care if I'm honest.

You can form an opinion at any time and you have a perfect right to do so without any complaint from me.

It was how you expressed your opinion that I objected to.

Similarly, whether you care is up to you, although the fact that you've responded suggests that you do care.

I thought the way you commented initially was uncharacteristic of you.

Of course I could be wrong.

[Robin Evans]

1 minute ago, Martyn Sadler said:

You can form an opinion at any time and you have a perfect right to do so without any complaint from me.

It was how you expressed your opinion that I objected to.

Similarly, whether you care is up to you, although the fact that you've responded suggests that you do care.

I thought the way you commented initially was uncharacteristic of you.

Of course I could be wrong.

Schofield is not someone who's comments I gravitate to. He spouts what I consider to be ill informed and poorly evidenced sheeite almost all of the time.

Listening to 2 hours of inane drivel, about how badly he was treated and repeated "that b'statd Lyndsay"...comments, did not endear me to him.

His deliberately provocative musings are chronicled not just in your publication but more wide spread in the past.

There's plenty of his outpourings to see, read and listen to to make one's mind up of what value one puts on his comments.

I stand by my original comment. 

[Martyn Sadler]

2 hours ago, Robin Evans said:

Schofield is not someone who's comments I gravitate to. He spouts what I consider to be ill informed and poorly evidenced sheeite almost all of the time.

Listening to 2 hours of inane drivel, about how badly he was treated and repeated "that b'statd Lyndsay"...comments, did not endear me to him.

His deliberately provocative musings are chronicled not just in your publication but more wide spread in the past.

There's plenty of his outpourings to see, read and listen to to make one's mind up of what value one puts on his comments.

I stand by my original comment. 

His column in League Express is actually extremely thoughtful.

Listening to someone speaking can be markedly different to the experience of reading a column, which perhaps you don't do. I've listened to many people over the years who have been singularly ill-informed.

It reminds me of a discussion I had some time ago in the pub with a neighbour who, when I praised The Guardian, used similar language to you in describing it.

When I asked him how often he read it, he proudly said that he never did. He just knew it was, to use your descrption, sheeite, and he didn't need to read it to know that.

[Robin Evans]

23 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

His column in League Express is actually extremely thoughtful.

Listening to someone speaking can be markedly different to the experience of reading a column, which perhaps you don't do. 

And that is where the disagreement is registered....

We won't agree here so let's not waste any more of each others time in perpetuating this discussion.

You find schoey thoughtful and insightful.

I think he talks sheeite much more oft than not.

Failure to agree is ok.

[Dunbar]

26 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

His column in League Express is actually extremely thoughtful.

 

3 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

You find schoey thoughtful and insightful.

I think he talks sheeite much more oft than not.

Failure to agree is ok.

May I offer a middle ground.  He has been extremely thoughtful about what to write.  But then what he has written is sheeite.

Everyone's happy!

[Robin Evans]

10 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

 

May I offer a middle ground.  He has been extremely thoughtful about what to write.  But then what he has written is sheeite.

Everyone's happy!

Made me chuckle that!!

[Dave T]

To bring it back to the article in question - I think it would be useful to base these conversations around facts, rather than "it was better back in the day" kind of evidence. 

As a Wire fan I had a quick look back to when I was a lad - 1990 - Warrington had 33 players with only one of them being under 20 - Phil Sumner. Wigan had 3 that year (Phil Clarke, Bobbie Goulding and Gus O'Donnell). 

In 2019 Wire had 2 and Wigan had 4. 

But whilst these squads may be loaded with players in their 20s and 30s, they did start playing at a young age - again looking at Wire's key players, Currie started at 18, Hill started at 17 at Leigh, Ratchford at 19 at Salford, Clarke at 18 at Cas. And so on.

As is often the case, we need to understand what the problem is, if there even is one. 

[Dunbar]

I am going to start by apologising about the length of this post... I got carried away.

................................................................................................................ 

I am very interested in the identification and development of talent in Rugby League and how it has changed over the years.  I think some of the things that Schofield references are spot on.  Young talent needs to be identified, nurtured and provided with opportunity.  But the problem with naming such players as Alex Murphy, Schofield himself and others is that they are not the 'normal' Rugby League players.  In fact, almost all of the players that Schofield mentioned who debuted at a young age (~16 or 17) is that they almost all went on to be Great Britain players of note... Denis Betts, Andy Farrell, Bobbie Goulding, Mike Gregory, Paul Newlove, Jason Robinson, Paul Wellens etc.  The big questions is not these international class players but the dozens or hundreds of pro level players that they will play with.

Let me provide a case study as I saw it live.  When I was 18 I was playing Rugby at NW Counties and for my college (St John Rigby in Orrell).  At the same college and in the year below was Phil Clarke.  It was well known that Clarke was regarded as the outstanding talent of his age group in the Wigan area and signed for Wigan as soon as he was able to.  Prior to that he was playing for St Pats in Wigan.

I was a season ticket holder at Central Park at the time and I was also a regular at the Friday night A team games and so I was able to watch Clarke play some of his early games in that team before he was promoted to the first team (again, at a very early age).

Because Clarke didn't play for the college and he played when I did as an amateur, I hadn't seen him play much before and It was abundantly clear straight away he was a great talent.  He was big for his age, very well conditioned and skillful.  I expect a lot of this was due to the great work at St. Pats but I also think some of it was down to the fact his dad was a former Wigan player and coach and so knew what Phil needed to do to crack the pro game.

But what was also clear was the players around him were not of the same class.  They were either perennial second stringers, some trialists, some first teamers coming back to fitness and some 'others' to make up the numbers who were paid on a game to game basis.  I genuinely do not think that those A team games helped to develop Clarke as a player and if anything they were just the stepping stone to get him used to the 'rough and tough' of playing pro rugby.

Now, if we fast forward to today, Wigan are not skimming the top talent at youth level and playing 17 year old's in A team games to hold them and prepare them.  Rather, they are running a hugely successful Academy with top class coaching all the way through the system and producing a 'cohort' of 20 to 25 very good junior players every two years (as are other Academies).  I have absolutely no doubt that the Wigan under 19's Academy is a far better place to develop young players than the old A team and if anything is probably a better standard.  Clarke would have been in that Academy side rather than mixing it with grizzled old pro's.  But more importantly, if the Academy existed in the 1980's a whole bunch more kids would have been and perhaps more talent identified.

The production line of Rugby League talent in this country has never been better or bigger.   The key question is how to transition them to first team.

There is no way for the two year cycle of Academy output to all find places in the first team... and not all should.  There are experienced professionals who will cement a spot and potentially keep it for a decade.  But I do think the likes of Wigan, Saints and Leeds (and others before I get complaints) graduate a fair few players from the Academy to the first team.

In some ways, I don't think it is the move from Academy to first team that is the massive problem in our game.  I think it is the development of those players between the ages of 19 and say 22.  This is where the Australian game beats ours hands down.  Players who are similar in talent and experience at Academy level then diverge over the next few years and we see Aussie players like Payne Haas and David Fifita make their representative debuts while still in their teens and others in their early 20's.  Our attitude is that they have to play 3 or 4 years to 'mature' before we consider them ready or even (god forbid) play a year in the league below.

I agree with Schofield that we need to give young talent the chance but I would say it is the continued development of young talent that is our biggest challenge... not giving 17 year old's a game.

[Tommygilf]

34 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I am going to start by apologising about the length of this post... I got carried away.

................................................................................................................ 

I am very interested in the identification and development of talent in Rugby League and how it has changed over the years.  I think some of the things that Schofield references are spot on.  Young talent needs to be identified, nurtured and provided with opportunity.  But the problem with naming such players as Alex Murphy, Schofield himself and others is that they are not the 'normal' Rugby League.  In fact, almost all of the players that Schofield mentioned who debuted at a young age (~16 or 17) is that they almost all went on to be Great Britain players of note... Denis Betts, Andy Farrell, Bobbie Goulding, Mike Gregory, Paul Newlove, Jason Robinson, Paul Wellens etc.  The big questions is not these international class players but the dozens or hundreds of pro level players that they will play with.

Let me provide a case study as I saw it live.  When I was 18 I was playing Rugby at NW Counties and for my college (St John Rigby in Orrell).  At the same college and in the year below was Phil Clarke.  It was well known that Clarke was regarded as the outstanding talent of his age group in the Wigan area and signed for Wigan as soon as he was able to.  Prior to that he was playing for St Pats in Wigan.

I was a season ticket holder at Central Park at the time and I was also a regular at the Friday night A team games and so I was able to watch Clarke play some of his early games in that team before he was promoted to the first team (again, at a very early age).

Because Clarke didn't play for the college and he played when I did as an amateur, I hadn't seen him play much before and It was abundantly clear straight away he was a great talent.  He was big for his age, very well conditioned and skillful.  I expect a lot of this was due to the great work at St. Pats but I also think some of it was down to the fact his dad was a former Wigan player and coach and so knew what Phil needed to do to crack the pro game.

But what was also clear was the players around him were not of the same class.  They were either perennial second stringers, some trialists, some first teamers coming back to fitness and some 'others' to make up the numbers who were paid on a game to game basis.  I genuinely do not think that those A team games helped to develop Clarke as a player and if anything they were just the steeping stone to get him used to the 'rough and tough' of playing pro rugby.

Now, if we fast forward to today, Wigan are skimming the top talent at youth level and playing 17 years in A team games to hold them and prepare them.  Rather, they are running a hugely successful Academy with top class coaching all the way through the system and producing a 'cohort' of 20 to 25 very good junior players every two years (as are other Academies).  I have absolutely no doubt that the Wigan under 19's Academy is a far better place to develop young players than the old A team and if anything is probably a better standard.  Clarke would have been in that Academy side rather than mixing it with grizzled old pro's.  But more importantly, if the Academy existed in the 1980's a whole bunch more kids would have been and perhaps more talent identified.

The production line of Rugby League talent in this country has never been better or bigger.   The key question is how to transition them to first team.

There is no way for the two year cycle of Academy output to all find places in the first team... and not all should.  There are experienced professionals who will cement a spot and potentially keep it for a decade.  But I do think the likes of Wigan, Saints and Leeds (and others before I get complaints) graduate a fair few players from the Academy to the first team.

In some ways, I don't think it is the move from Academy to first team that is the massive problem in our game.  I think it is the development of those players between the ages of 19 and say 22.  This is where the Australian game beats ours hands down.  Players who are similar in talent and experience at Academy level then diverge over the next few years and we see Aussie players like Payne Haas and David Fifita make their representative debuts while still in their teens and others in their early 20's.  Our attitude is that they have to play 3 or 4 years to 'mature' before we consider them ready or even (god forbid) play a year in the league below.

I agree with Schofield that we need to give young talent the chance but I would say it is the continued development of young talent that is our biggest challenge... not giving 17 year old's a game.

Lots to agree with there mate, though naturally a couple of things I don't agree with too!

I agree completely that 19-22 is a critical period in the development of players that we haven't quite got right. That said, I think there are other problems at play that make simply continuing the academy up an unviable strategy.

Most importantly, the academies are odd places. Very rarely are more than maybe 3 or 4 from the same age group team going to make it in the first team or even get a run. That essentially means you're co-opting a lot of good, but not quite top grade, talent throughout the academy system. We ask a lot of these young men, both directly and indirectly, tempting them with the lure of Super League into sacrificing a hell of a lot in the crucial years between 14 to 18 for only small handful of them to make it. Is it right that we ask them to continue that, for not much financial remuneration, into their 20s?

One of my own major concerns with reserve grade is that it was being done on the cheap - with part time, academy and even NCL amateur players being signed up to fill in squads. 

My compromise I think would be a gradual extension of the academy u18s upwards to an u21s or 23s (whichever the sport deemed best), but with an acceptable minimum wage and the expectation that the u21/3s was a cross between a reserves and an age group side. These players would have to be fully professional, and capable of being first team players the following weekend if needs be. It would require a lot of buy in across the league though and given the doubt there already over investment (some Super League wages for squad numbers 23/24/25 are relatively appalling) who knows how or if that would run.

Alternatively, thinking outside the box and more controversially, clubs could set up their own "senior academy"/reserve sides in the lower divisions. That can be as a stated B team or buy buying out an existing lower division side or by setting a whole new one up. Taking Leeds as an example that could be either Leeds Rhinos B, taking over Hunslet, or setting up a team to play out of Bramley or Harrogate. Wigan could be Wigan B, buy Oldham, or set up shop in Bolton or Preston or Manchester Rangers. It would require some strict rules around who could actually play in these teams but nothing out of the ordinary and possibly of a higher standard than the reserves or academy game. 

[BrisbaneRhino]

Just to add, in the NRL most players don't get a game until they're in their early 20s.  Between U-19 and first grade they play some older age group RL, and then tend to graduate into the open age feeder comps of the NSW and Queensland Cups which are tough competitions in their own right. There's definitely a better pathway than straight from Academy, which will suit a few but not all players.

When players do debut in the NRL, even if they're never going to be superstars they tend to be pretty solid at most parts of the game.  I doubt coaches would give most 18 year olds who have never played open age a go because they won't have the basics well covered even if they're marked for stardom.

I'm a bit torn on the A Team. The standard was poor and I'd guess that most clubs were like Leeds where more than half the team would be made up of players who were never going to be that good, but seemed happy to wait for the odd first team game through injuries. On the other hand it was at least open age, and I really think you can't tell how good juniors will actually be until they play open age.  I've lost count of the 16 year olds who I've been told were certain to be the next big thing but it turns out just developed faster than their peers or were just a bit bigger and faster than other teenagers.