Jump to content

Academy funding cuts


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Easy when you know all the best kids select your club, not chance for others to break the cycle.

Nothing easy about it,the most successful academies cast their net the furthest,instead of popping down the road to the local community clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


5 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

Maybe if you had a bit of common you would eventually realise a few things 1. Parents of the best kids will direct said kids to the best academy showing interest 2. Said kids will be looking for a FT pathway into RL as a career 3. Said kids would be looking to compete against the best

Now if you ever grasp that then there is hope in the world

Wow personal insults,have you been taking anger management lessons from Derek ?

And yet Bradford operate a successful academy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Davo5 said:

Nothing easy about it,the most successful academies cast their net the furthest,instead of popping down the road to the local community clubs.

Not true I'm afraid. All academies know who the best players are across the Country. Being a scout isn't that hard, all top teams will know the top players. Some players have 6,7,8 teams select them, the kid then gets the choice and goes to the top clubs, and it's a cycle difficult to break. Other clubs struggle to get the third or fourth tier of 14 year olds, it's not that Saints, Wigan and Leeds have better scouts (although they are good people and set ups) they just have the most attractive offer as they are always at the top.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

Wow personal insults,have you been taking anger management lessons from Derek ?

And yet Bradford operate a successful academy.

Bradford are very good, great club with some great people. But they do not have the success at academy level as other clubs and again they miss out on many of the top 14 year olds. They do well as they are prepared to play youth in the first team. 

 

Often these teams look for other skills, they know they won't get the top 14 year olds so go for things like tenacity, toughness, skills that are not obvious, and some of these players do come through. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

How does that tie in with your post I replied to :-

"With reginal academys though you loose a lot of what we have. You could of course have a proper licence system for clubs with the bottom of SL having first choice of new talent"

You reckon that this system you describe would get the green light from some of our SL Chairmen, Leneghan, McManus, Hetherington etc, not a snowball in hells chance.

 

Sadly that is the problem. An institutionalised rigged system dominated by a few vested interests who would rather reactively preserve their privilege instead letting a little go to develop the whole sport.

RL is not going away. It will survive. But more so in the way Speedway and 5 day County cricket survives if it does not address its ingrained problems and keeps thinking altering structure is the answer.

Edited by idrewthehaggis
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Not true I'm afraid. All academies know who the best players are across the Country. Being a scout isn't that hard, all top teams will know the top players. Some players have 6,7,8 teams select them, the kid then gets the choice and goes to the top clubs, and it's a cycle difficult to break. Other clubs struggle to get the third or fourth tier of 14 year olds, it's not that Saints, Wigan and Leeds have better scouts (although they are good people and set ups) they just have the most attractive offer as they are always at the top.

Nice story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/10/2021 at 23:31, del capo said:

The funding comes from SL via the TV contract not the RFL. The same for the Foundations.

S L  clubs clearly deciding where to spend their monies.

As for that ' No players no Sport ' comment from Man of Kent,  the Academy system to an extent and the Scholarship one without doubt has been the single biggest contributor to the decline of what was once a great conveyor belt of talent from the Community game.......

The cut in development officers was a nail in the coffin, cutting academies is another nail, setting adrift championship one will be another, don't the people at the top realise they are slowly committing hari kari?

  • Like 4

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/10/2021 at 17:34, David Dockhouse Host said:

Not true I'm afraid. All academies know who the best players are across the Country. Being a scout isn't that hard, all top teams will know the top players. Some players have 6,7,8 teams select them, the kid then gets the choice and goes to the top clubs, and it's a cycle difficult to break. Other clubs struggle to get the third or fourth tier of 14 year olds, it's not that Saints, Wigan and Leeds have better scouts (although they are good people and set ups) they just have the most attractive offer as they are always at the top.

Well that is common knowledge.

The Big Clubs' Academy are de facto regional.

Unlike  a true Regional system, they benefit only a few and not the many. 

Edited by idrewthehaggis
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Marauder said:

The cut in development officers was a nail in the coffin, cutting academies is another nail, setting adrift championship one will be another, don't the people at the top realise they are slowly committing hari kari?

Cutting academies isn't the same as cutting Ayers though, the players are taken from the community game, so robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Yes we want our best playing elite. But about 1/20th make it in the first team of the club they select, so really about 5% are elite. Being generous, you could take half the players in half the academies with no impact on players entering SL.

I realise this is a simplistic formula and there are other factors to consider but it hopefully makes fans realise fewer academies doesn't mean developing fewer players, in fact it could benefit having fewer teams.

Edited by David Dockhouse Host
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Cutting academies isn't the same as cutting Ayers though, the players are taken from the community game, so robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Yes we want our best playing elite. But about 1/20th make it in the first team of the club they select, so really about 5% are elite. Being generous, you could take half the players in half the academies with no impact on players entering SL.

I realise this is a simplistic formula and there are other factors to consider but it hopefully makes fans realise fewer academies doesn't mean developing fewer players, in fact it could benefit having fewer teams.

So you see the goal being fewer teams to solve the problem - I'm in the other camp that believes more development officers around the country will produce more participants so the generous 5% will equate to more teams more exposure and dare I say more sponsorship.

  • Like 2

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Saint 1 said:

That implies that at age 16 you can predict which half have a chance of making it. That's a remarkably optimistic view of talent identification (across any sport). It also potentially further biases talent ID towards the biggest and most developed kids because there's no slack to take a punt on a kid - longer term these early developers are actually less likely to make it as professionals too.

 

Same Laughton is a good example of a guy coming into the game late and making it.

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Marauder said:

So you see the goal being fewer teams to solve the problem - I'm in the other camp that believes more development officers around the country will produce more participants so the generous 5% will equate to more teams more exposure and dare I say more sponsorship.

I'm not sure the solution but fewer would bring some benefits.

I'm all for more development officers, but it's worth noting that it's the community game that gives all players their first taste of rugby, they are the attraction and opportunity. They play a huge part in the player journey as must be protected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Saint 1 said:

That implies that at age 16 you can predict which half have a chance of making it. That's a remarkably optimistic view of talent identification (across any sport). It also potentially further biases talent ID towards the biggest and most developed kids because there's no slack to take a punt on a kid - longer term these early developers are actually less likely to make it as professionals too.

 

I agree there are always late developers. Many players particularly in league one come from the community game open age.

But fact is the majority of the top elite players in SL are spotted at 14 and come through a scholarship.

Fewer academies and scholarships wouldn't stop late developers or impact it, in fact it could improve it as many fringe players who may develop late drop out the game (14-18) as the community game has poor participation and they believe their chance has gone. A particular issue with those being let go from scholarships.  

Again I'm not saying fewer is the ultimate answer, but more academies isn't the ultimate solution either. It's a simplistic view to believe more academies will bring more Pro players but when you dig into how it actually works in reality you realise it's not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

I'm not sure the solution but fewer would bring some benefits.

I'm all for more development officers, but it's worth noting that it's the community game that gives all players their first taste of rugby, they are the attraction and opportunity. They play a huge part in the player journey as must be protected.

Pro clubs are aware of player selection and don't bias more developed kids.

Those born Sep to Dec make it more in sport than those born Jan-July, due to this and clubs are aware

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Pro clubs are aware of player selection and don't bias more developed kids.

Those born Sep to Dec make it more in sport than those born Jan-July, due to this and clubs are aware

I buy into the age thing Dave.  Not going to fish out a load of names whos birthday is mid/late year but there are plenty of the biggest names in RL born then.

None the less, and i dont think anyone has mentioned this yet, are the cuts on those Academies not being classed as Elite or is it across the board? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short,

Crucially and most important of all, the amateur game needs huge support and help getting the playing numbers back up. Schools competitions play a vitally important role in this, therefore more resources need pouring into getting schools to play the game.

The path to professional level needs to be clearly visible right the way through age limit Rugby League and into Open age.

The International Game needs to be paramount to everything and must have an annual calendar with headlining Test Matches or Series.

Finaly we must get some of our star players into the public eye, whether that’s Paul Scullthorpe on Strictly Come Dancing,  Jon Wilkin Captaining on A Question of Sport, Kevin Sinfield on Question Time, Sean O’Loughlin on Celebrity SAS or Sam Tomkins on Ninja Warrior.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is being presented as cuts to the academy, however its just cuts to overall funding to clubs (those with academies got a bit extra)

Clubs need to decide what's more important to them, the academy or an extra first team player(s)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Spidey said:

I know this is being presented as cuts to the academy, however its just cuts to overall funding to clubs (those with academies got a bit extra)

Clubs need to decide what's more important to them, the academy or an extra first team player(s)

So cuts to the academy then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Saint 1 said:

 

While this is based on data from a decade ago, "In junior representative selections, 47.0% of 12 Regional and 55.7% of National representative players were born in Quartile 1, with Relative Age Effect risk increasing with performance level" - https://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/id/eprint/324/1/The Prevalence, Influential Factors and Mechanisms of Relative Age Effects.pdf

Clubs are aware of it yes, stopping it having an impact is a much greater challenge and one that would be much harder to do with even fewer academy spots available.

This is also well worth a read - https://www.ukcoaching.org/getattachment/Resources/Topics/Research/Applied-Coaching-Research-Journal-April-2020-V-(1)/A-Talent-Development-Programme-for-Later-Maturing-Players.pdf?lang=en-GB

Plenty of the biggest names yes, but a disproportionately low amount of them being selected at u16s as it is.

Yes mate, I didn’t really want to get into this that is why I missed a word out! Should have read ‘don’t buy in...’ 🤪!!

Sure, youth is segregated into chrono order but from a development viewpoint, I never rejected those who were at the back end, i.e those having to catch up with the Oct, Nov, Decembers etc. Often they become better for various reasons.  

Thanks for the UK coaching link.  I have seen it before but I don’t want to get into it on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's really needed are a couple of SL clubs to have the foresight, courage and locally raised finance to maintain both an academy team and a reserve one - with each participating in meaningful competitions - to demonstrate the merits of progressive development of youngsters, whether early or late developers.

And, of course, we have two such clubs!

So "Chapeau!" to Les Dragons Catalans and Toulouse Olympique XIII.

Edited by Wiltshire Warrior Dragon
spelling mistake
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

What's really needed are a couple of SL clubs to have the foresight, courage and locally raised finance to maintain both an academy team and a reserve one - with each participating in meaningful competitions - to demonstrate the merits of progressive development of youngsters, whether early or late developers.

And, of course, we have two such clubs!

So "Chapeau!" to Les Dragons Catalans and Touylouse Olympique XIII.

double post - sorry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...