Two leagues of ten

[Saint Toppy]

11 hours ago, Dave T said:

What is it about Saints, Wigan and Leeds' youth development that makes them so much better than say Wire, Hull or Catalans?

As in right now, what is better about Saints RLFC's setup than those other clubs named? 

I'd say one of the biggest factors the best young players choose Saints, Wigan & Leeds over other clubs is opportunity. Over the course of SL all 3 have consistently brought through their youngsters into the 1st team and given them the opportunity to establish themselves, there's a culture difference. All 3 primarily buy in players to supplement their home grown, many other clubs see it the other way round in that they try to buy the best players then then supplement the team with their youngsters.

Look at the make up of the 1st team squads of Saints, Wigan & Leeds over recent years and see just how many home grown players they've had playing regularly in their 1st team, its significantly higher than most other clubs. Young players know if they choose one of these 3 clubs then their chances of being able to progress and establish themselves in the 1st team are significantly higher

[RS]

To be fair they get the oppertunities because they sign the best kids 

[Saint Toppy]

1 hour ago, RS said:

To be fair they get the oppertunities because they sign the best kids 

Either way its still the clubs culture at fault. Whether the RFL introduce new rules or not to try and improve junior development you would have thought the other clubs would have realised by now that its no coincidence that the 3 most successful SL clubs are the 3 with the best junior set-ups and the 3 best at bringing through their youngsters into the first team. When will the penny drop that you can't just 'buy success'. It may get you the odd Challenge cup or maybe even 1 SL title, but multiple titles and continued success takes more than just wads of cash every year. It takes time, effort, patience and the will to prioritise your own youngsters over buying in. 

[Davo5]

Why should the sport give large sums of money to clubs who can’t be bothered developing their own squads & are resorting to padding it out with DR.

Superleague 2 would be just a money pit that would offer absolutely no benefit to the sport.

[dboy]

4 hours ago, Damien said:

Iain Thornley and Liam Forsyth both went to Union from Wigan academy when the club wanted to keep them. Players like Chris Mayor also went to Union with Sale and there have certainly been others. Just about every top youngster that Wigan sign Sale are also after as it is. The club had a real battle to sign Umlya Hanley for example. That is before the Owen Farrells of this world.

Its a weird question you ask though because you obviously didn't read the post I replied to or the context. Young players will go to Union if they are told they can't sign for a top RL club and instead have to sign for a Championship club. They are already getting the offers to do so and forced drafts certainly won't help to keep them in the sport.

Then I wish them all the best in the free market it is. Good luck to them.

You have hardly described a wave of code exits though. I am not worried by that.

[Damien]

Just now, dboy said:

Then I wish them all the best in the free market it is. Good luck to them.

You have hardly described a wave of code exits though. I am not worried by that.

You asked for examples, I gave them from one club. I could have given various others. Also yet again the context this was in seems to completely escape you and is only an indicator of what would escalate under such a proposal.

Its also ironic that you say all the best in the free market yet that is exactly what the post I was initially replying to didn't want in RL. Drafts and the like are not a free market and will force players to instead choose that free market elsewhere.

[dboy]

I have conversed only in response to you.

The thing you suggested - losing loads of young players to RU - simply hasn't happened, and your examples don't back it up.

Thornley is run of the mill and I've never even heard of the others. Plus you had to go back years for any decent names.

I have never mentioned a draft - which is a nonsense.

Players should go wherever they best feel suits them. It's a free market.

[Dave T]

5 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

I'd say one of the biggest factors the best young players choose Saints, Wigan & Leeds over other clubs is opportunity. Over the course of SL all 3 have consistently brought through their youngsters into the 1st team and given them the opportunity to establish themselves, there's a culture difference. All 3 primarily buy in players to supplement their home grown, many other clubs see it the other way round in that they try to buy the best players then then supplement the team with their youngsters.

Look at the make up of the 1st team squads of Saints, Wigan & Leeds over recent years and see just how many home grown players they've had playing regularly in their 1st team, its significantly higher than most other clubs. Young players know if they choose one of these 3 clubs then their chances of being able to progress and establish themselves in the 1st team are significantly higher

 

5 hours ago, RS said:

To be fair they get the oppertunities because they sign the best kids 

I think there is something in both of these points. I do think it is clear that these clubs use younger players that they develop - but is that as a result of hoovering up much of the best talent because they are seen as the 'best' clubs because they win the trophies? It's all a little chicken and egg - but in reality the majority of clubs, including Saints sign in far more players that they develop themselves. As you would expect. 

The bit I am interested in is do Saints, Wigan and Leeds do anything vastly different to other clubs (the top end ones I mentioned in particular) - or are they on a bit of a treadmill, benefiting from the grassroots game in their towns, benefitting from the historic success of the first team?

Of course it is all interlinked - but would it be possible for Salford to buy out Saints' youth setup and start winning comps because of it? My view is that no, they couldn't. And if that is the case - I'm not sure how strong the argument is that these clubs win because they have the best youth development.

 

[Damien]

40 minutes ago, dboy said:

I have conversed only in response to you.

The thing you suggested - losing loads of young players to RU - simply hasn't happened, and your examples don't back it up.

Thornley is run of the mill and I've never even heard of the others. Plus you had to go back years for any decent names.

I have never mentioned a draft - which is a nonsense.

Players should go wherever they best feel suits them. It's a free market.

You are being obtuse. If you cant be bothered reading the thread and the points made and what people are replying too then its a waste of time even conversing with you.

[dboy]

20 minutes ago, Damien said:

You are being obtuse. If you cant be bothered reading the thread and the points made and what people are replying too then its a waste of time even conversing with you.

Fine.

I asked you a direct question in isolation, asking for evidence of a point you asserted. You failed to substantiate your point and now you hide behind the "context" of other people's posts.

[whatmichaelsays]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

 

I think there is something in both of these points. I do think it is clear that these clubs use younger players that they develop - but is that as a result of hoovering up much of the best talent because they are seen as the 'best' clubs because they win the trophies? It's all a little chicken and egg - but in reality the majority of clubs, including Saints sign in far more players that they develop themselves. As you would expect. 

The bit I am interested in is do Saints, Wigan and Leeds do anything vastly different to other clubs (the top end ones I mentioned in particular) - or are they on a bit of a treadmill, benefiting from the grassroots game in their towns, benefitting from the historic success of the first team?

Of course it is all interlinked - but would it be possible for Salford to buy out Saints' youth setup and start winning comps because of it? My view is that no, they couldn't. And if that is the case - I'm not sure how strong the argument is that these clubs win because they have the best youth development.

 

There is/was an objective analysis of club academies in the form of the RFL Parents Handbook, although this doesn't appear to have been updated since 2017. This guide doesn't look at recruitment and doesn't look at player outcomes (ie, how many go on to first-team rugby) but looks at issues like facilities, processes, pastoral care, management and leadership, and education provision

Wigan and St Helens have both score outstanding in the five years that the document covers, whilst Leeds have been graded outstanding in four of those five (and I seem to recall that 2014 was recognised as an anomaly as the club had changed some approaches) so on the basis of independent, objective assessment, these clubs have historically had the strongest academies, although it is also fair to say that other clubs have improved to also score highly on the same assessment over the years. 

[Dave T]

16 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

There is/was an objective analysis of club academies in the form of the RFL Parents Handbook, although this doesn't appear to have been updated since 2017. This guide doesn't look at recruitment and doesn't look at player outcomes (ie, how many go on to first-team rugby) but looks at issues like facilities, processes, pastoral care, management and leadership, and education provision

Wigan and St Helens have both score outstanding in the five years that the document covers, whilst Leeds have been graded outstanding in four of those five (and I seem to recall that 2014 was recognised as an anomaly as the club had changed some approaches) so on the basis of independent, objective assessment, these clubs have historically had the strongest academies, although it is also fair to say that other clubs have improved to also score highly on the same assessment over the years. 

I'd seen this before, it's a shame (yet typical) that we don't appear to have any continuity here which allows us to see progress. It was good to see a good number of top rated Academies in SL, and that doesn't include Catalans in there. 

I suppose a lot of this goes back to the point I often make. Do things well, time and time again. 

[Saint Toppy]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

 

I think there is something in both of these points. I do think it is clear that these clubs use younger players that they develop - but is that as a result of hoovering up much of the best talent because they are seen as the 'best' clubs because they win the trophies? It's all a little chicken and egg - but in reality the majority of clubs, including Saints sign in far more players that they develop themselves. As you would expect. 

The bit I am interested in is do Saints, Wigan and Leeds do anything vastly different to other clubs (the top end ones I mentioned in particular) - or are they on a bit of a treadmill, benefiting from the grassroots game in their towns, benefitting from the historic success of the first team?

Of course it is all interlinked - but would it be possible for Salford to buy out Saints' youth setup and start winning comps because of it? My view is that no, they couldn't. And if that is the case - I'm not sure how strong the argument is that these clubs win because they have the best youth development.

 

Yes your right its a 'chicken & egg' situation but the stats show that ultimately for continued & long term success its the best way to go. If other clubs want to match the success of those 3 clubs then at some point they have to get off the treadmill and focus on a slightly longer term goal rather than a season by season goal. They'll probably have to sacrifice being in a position to win SL for a couple of years while they allow more of their young players to fully establish themselves in the 1st team and to resist just buying in, but the long term benefits have proved to be there of taking this route.

Catalans have pushed themselves to the top of SL by trying to buy success, and while they'll probably be challenging again next year it wont last unless they continue to pay big money to buy in year after year after year which just isn't sustainable. In a couple of years from now when a lot of their current 1st team players have moved on they'll be back to being a mid-table team and they wont be able to replace them with good quality home grown ones, because they wont have many with much experience.

Will other clubs take this route to match the big 3, I seriously doubt it, not while we have a P&R system that could leave them in serious risk of relegation. But until they do we'll continue with the SL title being dominated by these 3 teams.

[sweaty craiq]

On 14/12/2021 at 09:29, Saint Toppy said:

Pemberton may be from Leigh but he chose Saints as his first club rather than Wigan.

Wingfield aint from Leigh, he's from St.Helens and they signed him from Blackbrook.

As for the post code idea how the hell do you manage that one. Who decides what clubs can recruit from what postcode based on where their family may live. Your forcing a young player to sign for a club they may not want to play for.

Wingy's more Leyth than Lobby, Lee's lad.

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

21 hours ago, dboy said:

Interesting.

Can you give some examples of young players choosing to go to union please?

The England Rugby Union captain from Wigan, Owen Farrell 

[dboy]

Just now, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

The England Rugby Union captain from Wigan, Owen Farrell 

He never a league player in all truth.

He went south as a small boy and grew up playing union.

 

[Damien]

11 minutes ago, dboy said:

He never a league player in all truth.

He went south as a small boy and grew up playing union.

 

Owen playing for St Pats up to u16s and still traveling back at weekends after moving down South must have been a mirage then.

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

35 minutes ago, dboy said:

He never a league player in all truth.

He went south as a small boy and grew up playing union.

 

If a wiganer who grew up playing Rugby League in Wigan, is the son of Wigan Rugby League legend Andy Farrell, nephew to Wigan captain Sean O’Loughlin, cousin to Wigan player Liam Farrell was never a league player I don’t know who is 

[dboy]

17 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

If a wiganer who grew up playing Rugby League in Wigan, is the son of Wigan Rugby League legend Andy Farrell, nephew to Wigan captain Sean O’Loughlin, cousin to Wigan player Liam Farrell was never a league player I don’t know who is 

He was 13!

How can he be claimed as leaving League for a better deal in union???

[dboy]

36 minutes ago, Damien said:

Owen playing for St Pats up to u16s and still traveling back at weekends after moving down South must have been a mirage then.

Which pro League claimed was he signed with?

That's right, he wasn't.

Your point is failing apart with every key stroke - from Thornley to Farrell, via a couple of names no-one outside of Billinge has ever heard of.

Where is this exodus of young players???

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, dboy said:

Which pro League claimed was he signed with?

That's right, he wasn't.

Your point is failing apart with every key stroke - from Thornley to Farrell, via a couple of names no-one outside of Billinge has ever heard of.

Where is this exodus of young players???

More nonsensical waffle. You really need to work on your comprehension skills because you seem to have real difficulty following a thread and the posts you reply to.

[Damien]

35 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

If a wiganer who grew up playing Rugby League in Wigan, is the son of Wigan Rugby League legend Andy Farrell, nephew to Wigan captain Sean O’Loughlin, cousin to Wigan player Liam Farrell was never a league player I don’t know who is 

And went to John Fisher and played at Wigan St Pats from the age of 6 until u16s. Somehow though despite all that he was never a Rugby League player

[dboy]

10 minutes ago, Damien said:

And went to John Fisher and played at Wigan St Pats from the age of 6 until u16s. Somehow though despite all that he was never a Rugby League player

From which pro RL club did we lose him to union?

From where was he snatched, tempted, allured, charmed, seduced?

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, dboy said:

From which pro RL club did we lose him to union?

From where was he snatched, tempted, allured, charmed, seduced?

What does it matter?

He was lost from Wigan who wanted to sign him.

[M j M]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

 

I think there is something in both of these points. I do think it is clear that these clubs use younger players that they develop - but is that as a result of hoovering up much of the best talent because they are seen as the 'best' clubs because they win the trophies? It's all a little chicken and egg - but in reality the majority of clubs, including Saints sign in far more players that they develop themselves. As you would expect. 

The bit I am interested in is do Saints, Wigan and Leeds do anything vastly different to other clubs (the top end ones I mentioned in particular) - or are they on a bit of a treadmill, benefiting from the grassroots game in their towns, benefitting from the historic success of the first team?

Of course it is all interlinked - but would it be possible for Salford to buy out Saints' youth setup and start winning comps because of it? My view is that no, they couldn't. And if that is the case - I'm not sure how strong the argument is that these clubs win because they have the best youth development.

 

In terms of on-field success the reason these clubs end up having a big advantage, if they do it properly at least, is that home-grown players are typically less of a salary cap burden than bought-in ones. Particularly during their early years. So the virtuous circle of getting the best kids, feeding into the first team, means you get more bang for your salary cap buck for the rest of the squad so you win from both sides - best kids, better 'outsiders' (and on top of which as long as you remain on top of the cycle you can get a top player to come to you for less than signing for Salford or Wakey say). These things all build up to quite a big advantage that the big three have - and I have to say it's not really clear why Warrington wouldn't similarly benefit nowadays.