A message from NZ.

[Dave T]

18 minutes ago, redjonn said:

In general I enjoy your posts even if I don't agree so don't let the baying mob get to you...

occasionally on here we do sometimes get the worst of the social media world.

I also enjoy Harry's posts, but I would hardly refer to a baying mob on here - light ribbing about what was a complete balls up of a thread maybe. 

[gingerjon]

26 minutes ago, redjonn said:

occasionally on here we do sometimes get the worst of the social media world.

Blimey.

Imagine being so much of a snowflake that you think this thread is an example of a baying mob or "the worst of the social media world".

[redjonn]

30 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I also enjoy Harry's posts, but I would hardly refer to a baying mob on here - light ribbing about what was a complete balls up of a thread maybe. 

fair enough in this instance. Never-the-less it does happen as I say occasional and yep baying mob was over doing it but it at least hopefully it made people think.

[redjonn]

25 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Blimey.

Imagine being so much of a snowflake that you think this thread is an example of a baying mob or "the worst of the social media world".

well as a Scouser rest assured I ain't in anyway a snowflake if my assumption of what that means is correct.

You are right that I over did the baying mob with reference to this thread but that's not to say we don't see occasionally the worst of social media on the web site as distinct from just this thread - note the word occasionally.

I note your (and here I assume) your derogatory remark towards me as a snowflake as distinct from just calling me out for over reacting.  I think Dave T hit it right with his polite feedback.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, redjonn said:

I think Dave T hit it right with his polite feedback.

He is usually more polite than me.

[Taniwha Warriors]

On 18/09/2021 at 17:33, Harry Stottle said:

We all know how the standard of our competition is viewed upon in Australia and to compound that I have just recieved a message from my grandson who lives in Auckland:-

"The feeling over here is that SL won't be around in 10 years time it is a complete sinking ship, they have stopped broadcasting it on Spark Sport this year (sports subscription channel) it's a joke over here"

Make that of what you will.

 

 

You sing the same tunes as those on here who said the same thing about union in Australia. Move along bro 

[frank]

When comparing  the standard of play in Aussie to the UK one has to take into account that the Aussies take the cream out of the Islands and NZ.  The UK then taking all  those over the hill from Aussie. 

It's only short term  but keeps the clubs involved  struggling financialy,  it does not increase attendances to any extent.

It  would be better business, at half the cost to invest in youth and secure a brighter and more secure future

 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, frank said:

When comparing  the standard of play in Aussie to the UK one has to take into account that the Aussies take the cream out of the Islands and NZ.  The UK then taking all  those over the hill from Aussie. 

It's only short term  but keeps the clubs involved  struggling financialy,  it does not increase attendances to any extent.

It  would be better business, at half the cost to invest in youth and secure a brighter and more secure future

 

This is flawed though. We are investing in youth, it isn't a binary choice. 

The Aussies invest many times more in youth than us and have a huge player pool compared to us, therefore they will generally have a higher standard of players that find their way into our squads. 

There are no guarantees with youth development, yiu just need to keep ploughing on and hoping to develop good players, but you also need to try and deliver the product at the top end. 

I genuinely think we have a relatively fair balance when you look at other sports like football, who spend millions on youth development but still have teams packed with overseas players. 

[Harry Stottle]

36 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This is flawed though. We are investing in youth, it isn't a binary choice. 

The Aussies invest many times more in youth than us and have a huge player pool compared to us, therefore they will generally have a higher standard of players that find their way into our squads. 

There are no guarantees with youth development, yiu just need to keep ploughing on and hoping to develop good players, but you also need to try and deliver the product at the top end. 

I genuinely think we have a relatively fair balance when you look at other sports like football, who spend millions on youth development but still have teams packed with overseas players. 

When you say we are investing in youth, yes unquestionably so, but with that are you centering on what is happening at pro level?

The pro clubs will still take in their required numbers of youth players be that 20, 25 or whatever, but it is below those elite youth players who manage to get to the pro ranks where the concern should be at.

Unmistakeably, the numbers of kids participating at junior level has dropped over the last few years for whatever reason that may be, other pursuits and activities, community clubs in decline or even parents thinking the game is to dangerous!

So if the numbers of kids playing is in decline it must follow that the standard - overall - of those who make it to the pro ranks will not be as good as once was, it is a simple numbers game the more that play the better chance of more 'gud un's' coming through.

To me, and I have seen a lot and been involved with kids and youth rugby league pre pro level is the area that requires investment, this is were the seeds of any of the great player's of the past is sewn and nurtured, I would suggest that this is the area where we fall way way behind Australia in that they invest more to till more fields, sew more seeds, foster the crop better and therefore reap a much better harvest.

Sorry for the analogy, but if we are trying to grow something it seemed the best way to put it over.

[Dave T]

43 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

When you say we are investing in youth, yes unquestionably so, but with that are you centering on what is happening at pro level?

The pro clubs will still take in their required numbers of youth players be that 20, 25 or whatever, but it is below those elite youth players who manage to get to the pro ranks where the concern should be at.

Unmistakeably, the numbers of kids participating at junior level has dropped over the last few years for whatever reason that may be, other pursuits and activities, community clubs in decline or even parents thinking the game is to dangerous!

So if the numbers of kids playing is in decline it must follow that the standard - overall - of those who make it to the pro ranks will not be as good as once was, it is a simple numbers game the more that play the better chance of more 'gud un's' coming through.

To me, and I have seen a lot and been involved with kids and youth rugby league pre pro level is the area that requires investment, this is were the seeds of any of the great player's of the past is sewn and nurtured, I would suggest that this is the area where we fall way way behind Australia in that they invest more to till more fields, sew more seeds, foster the crop better and therefore reap a much better harvest.

Sorry for the analogy, but if we are trying to grow something it seemed the best way to put it over.

Yeah, I agree with all that, I suppose my point was that it shouldn't be a case of one or the other. We need to sign players to play at the top level, but we should be investing in youth, junior and grassroots, that goes without saying. 

It is a numbers game, and many sports are facing a challenge on this, including us, but for me that isn't linked to us signing Aussie players. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Yeah, I agree with all that, I suppose my point was that it shouldn't be a case of one or the other. We need to sign players to play at the top level, but we should be investing in youth, junior and grassroots, that goes without saying. 

It is a numbers game, and many sports are facing a challenge on this, including us, but for me that isn't linked to us signing Aussie players. 

If we are not producing enough of the player's of such a skill set then it is either go overseas or accept the quality on field will decrease. In that signing Aussie, NZ or Island player's is explicably linked to not producing enough of our own required quality. 

[Scubby]

21 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

If we are not producing enough of the player's of such a skill set then it is either go overseas or accept the quality on field will decrease. In that signing Aussie, NZ or Island player's is explicably linked to not producing enough of our own required quality. 

If you can throw a blanket over most of your professional SL clubs in terms of geography then you are ultimately scrapping over the same young talent. Football is king, then daylight, the other stuff. We do okay with the footprint we have. It is no coincidence that a crop of Welsh SL players emerged when we had Crusaders and London fed some quality local players into the SL system when the were a regular feature in the top division.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

If we are not producing enough of the player's of such a skill set then it is either go overseas or accept the quality on field will decrease. In that signing Aussie, NZ or Island player's is explicably linked to not producing enough of our own required quality. 

Well no, my point is that it is unrealistic that we could, or should ever produce all our own players, and we should always have overseas players anyway. 

[Harry Stottle]

18 hours ago, Dave T said:

Well no, my point is that it is unrealistic that we could, or should ever produce all our own players, and we should always have overseas players anyway. 

How many and of what quality is a reasonable assesment for you Dave?

I think the last figure I saw was circa 90 imports, and obviously with the Northern and Southern Hemisphere's seasons linked we will never see the likes of the very best Australia and Co can offer again.

So go ahead convince me that we are not employing a lot of journeymen and past their sell by date NRL player's, if there was a tighter allowance on the numbers of overseas player's clubs could put into service and more emphasis on home grown talent instead of the quick fix option that is so commonly used we could bring more of our own through. 

Every import that is brought over here has a knock on effect down the chain in that it prevents some homegrown lads playing, if the limit was say 3 players per club and applied strictly with no emphasis for an allowance to overseas players for the longevity of plying their trade on these shores the attention would shift to producing better and more of our own, and maybe for those clubs who could conjure up a little more foresight they would realise that it starts way way back in pre-teen years, perhaps down to U8's.

I honestly believe that pro clubs should have an obligation to support the community game both financially, on-field expertise and participation awareness and promotion, proper preperation will produce results, the alternative is to meander on as we have done for years and just accept as Scubby suggests and Tommygilf quantifies that we are comfortable with the numbers we are producing.

20 hours ago, Scubby said:

If you can throw a blanket over most of your professional SL clubs in terms of geography then you are ultimately scrapping over the same young talent. Football is king, then daylight, the other stuff. We do okay with the footprint we have. It is no coincidence that a crop of Welsh SL players emerged when we had Crusaders and London fed some quality local players into the SL system when the were a regular feature in the top division.

From previous posts I glean that you are a buisness owner Scubbs, if so do you have a sales department that promotes your company and it's products? With hand on heart can you completely say you have 100% converted the possible customers for your product/services from any given area? Or do you tell your employees "we are doing OK" when knowing only to well with a little more effort and organisation you could get more customer's on board.

I may be well left field and this scenario may not apply to your buisness, but I am just trying to emphasise the point "That doing OK" leaves a lot of scope for doing much better.

[Dave T]

44 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

How many and of what quality is a reasonable assesment for you Dave?

I think the last figure I saw was circa 90 imports, and obviously with the Northern and Southern Hemisphere's seasons linked we will never see the likes of the very best Australia and Co can offer again.

So go ahead convince me that we are not employing a lot of journeymen and past their sell by date NRL player's, if there was a tighter allowance on the numbers of overseas player's clubs could put into service and more emphasis on home grown talent instead of the quick fix option that is so commonly used we could bring more of our own through. 

Every import that is brought over here has a knock on effect down the chain in that it prevents some homegrown lads playing, if the limit was say 3 players per club and applied strictly with no emphasis for an allowance to overseas players for the longevity of plying their trade on these shores the attention would shift to producing better and more of our own, and maybe for those clubs who could conjure up a little more foresight they would realise that it starts way way back in pre-teen years, perhaps down to U8's.

I honestly believe that pro clubs should have an obligation to support the community game both financially, on-field expertise and participation awareness and promotion, proper preperation will produce results, the alternative is to meander on as we have done for years and just accept as Scubby suggests and Tommygilf quantifies that we are comfortable with the numbers we are producing.

My personal view is that in a squad of 25 to 30, having around 5 overseas players is a reasonable number. That means that 80-85% would be local, which I think feels OK and should be enough to feed our national team, which is the crucial thing. 

I am OK with the numbers, although some teams should be challenged to bring them down, but the focus on local development should be about improving the quality we bring through rather than getting more imho (although more should always be welcomed). 

I don't think the current situation stunts the growth of British players, there are plenty of opportunities, and in general the overseas players that play here do a good job, although there will always be duff signings no matter where they are from. 

I don't disagree with all your points on responsibility to develop, spot on, but I dont think that means the overseas players we currently sign are problematic. 

[redjonn]

19 minutes ago, Dave T said:

My personal view is that in a squad of 25 to 30, having around 5 overseas players is a reasonable number. That means that 80-85% would be local, which I think feels OK and should be enough to feed our national team, which is the crucial thing. 

etc etc

at first glance your numbers do seem reasonable... On the other hand I assume those 5 players are brought to be first team players and to play mainly in the starting line up. Why else purchase at the relative costs they are.

That means from the starting 13, 5 are probably overseas... or 5 out of 17. That is too much of a percentage.

 

[Harry Stottle]

22 minutes ago, Dave T said:

My personal view is that in a squad of 25 to 30, having around 5 overseas players is a reasonable number. That means that 80-85% would be local, which I think feels OK and should be enough to feed our national team, which is the crucial thing. 

I am OK with the numbers, although some teams should be challenged to bring them down, but the focus on local development should be about improving the quality we bring through rather than getting more imho (although more should always be welcomed). 

I don't think the current situation stunts the growth of British players, there are plenty of opportunities, and in general the overseas players that play here do a good job, although there will always be duff signings no matter where they are from. 

I don't disagree with all your points on responsibility to develop, spot on, but I dont think that means the overseas players we currently sign are problematic. 

In my opinion they are problematic in as long as they are an easy option to sign, as I say we need to remove that easy option and make the emphasis on homegrown. Albeit I agree with improving the quality is paramount the more that can be enticed into playing the sport the *greater the chance of unearthing some real gems, and if fit and available having invested in your 5 allowed overseas player's tge clubs will play them, that is very close to 30% of any team of 17, or put another way 30% of all the player's running about each week being imports, and you think that is acceptable?

*I remember seeing Billy Connolly in a programme saying "How do we know what talent we have unless it is given an opportunity" he was stood outside of high-rise tenament block in Glasgow and said "In there could be sat the greatest Formula 1 driver the world has ever seen, but he will never be given opportunity for him and us to find out" I don't think that is much different to increasing the numbers in any sport, the more that play the odds improve of better lads with the required skills being found.

[Dave T]

20 minutes ago, redjonn said:

at first glance your numbers do seem reasonable... On the other hand I assume those 5 players are brought to be first team players and to play mainly in the starting line up. Why else purchase at the relative costs they are.

That means from the starting 13, 5 are probably overseas... or 5 out of 17. That is too much of a percentage.

 

I'm not sure it is. It's still 70% local players.

As a football fan we see some starting line ups with barely an English lad in the team. We are a good way off that and we have a good representation of British players. 

Overseas players have a long history in our game and we need to be careful not to go too far to stop this. 

I quite like the incentives used on the cap to encourage local development. 

[Harry Stottle]

23 minutes ago, redjonn said:

at first glance your numbers do seem reasonable... On the other hand I assume those 5 players are brought to be first team players and to play mainly in the starting line up. Why else purchase at the relative costs they are.

That means from the starting 13, 5 are probably overseas... or 5 out of 17. That is too much of a percentage.

 

Beat me to it John, I was writing mine when you posted yours.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

In my opinion they are problematic in as long as they are an easy option to sign, as I say we need to remove that easy option and make the emphasis on homegrown. Albeit I agree with improving the quality is paramount the more that can be enticed into playing the sport the *greater the chance of unearthing some real gems, and if fit and available having invested in your 5 allowed overseas player's tge clubs will play them, that is very close to 30% of any team of 17, or put another way 30% of all the player's running about each week being imports, and you think that is acceptable?

*I remember seeing Billy Connolly in a programme saying "How do we know what talent we have unless it is given an opportunity" he was stood outside of high-rise tenament block in Glasgow and said "In there could be sat the greatest Formula 1 driver the world has ever seen, but he will never be given opportunity for him and us to find out" I don't think that is much different to increasing the numbers in any sport, the more that play the odds improve of better lads with the required skills being found.

Yes, I think having 30% overseas players in a team at any one time is fine.

[Harry Stottle]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yes, I think having 30% overseas players in a team at any one time is fine.

That doesn't surprise me Dave!

[Dave T]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

That doesn't surprise me Dave!

Why? 

[Harry Stottle]

Just now, Dave T said:

Why? 

Because you favour a club amongst another 4 or 5 that can afford to do as you suggest, the thing is if they were all limited to just 3 it would still be a level playing field between you all, effectively you are all fighting for the best surplus to requirement that the NRL can offer.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Because you favour a club amongst another 4 or 5 that can afford to do as you suggest, the thing is if they were all limited to just 3 it would still be a level playing field between you all, effectively you are all fighting for the best surplus to requirement that the NRL can offer.

You sometimes need to think before you speak/post Harry. 

My club have had one of the lowest % of overseas players for a long time in SL. 

You also may find this difficult, but not everybody forms their view on what suits their own club.

What makes your number of 3 right and my number of 5 wrong? 

[Damien]

16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yes, I think having 30% overseas players in a team at any one time is fine.

So do I. I think 5 is a reasonable number and its a reduction on the 7 we have now, which I do think is too many. I would love to see 3 but I think we need to be realistic on this and the players simply aren't there of the required quality to suddenly take 50 or so overseas players out of Super League. At the end of the day the sport still needs Super League as attractive as it can be, and overseas players do enhance the competition, and we need a balance. I do think 5 achieves that. A weak competition with simply a lot more average English players running about doesn't enhance the national team either.