Re: Paul Johnson : Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:04 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Agreed,
This is my solution, apologies to all of you who have heard it before.

Six substitutes and substitutions, but NO interchange (bringing fitness and stamina back into the equation).
Two of those substitutes have to be 21 or under at the start of the season (or an agreed date) and English qualified.

Thoughts please?

There are a few issues with your idea rogues.

1. The Australian would never adopt such a scheme increasing the difference between the two main leagues in the world.

2. You would be guarenteed 2 under 21s on the bench but you would be discouraging teams from starting them.

3. The legality of saying that 2 players have to be British born is questionable. In fact our current system would probably not handle a legal challenge.

I do like the idea in principle but it would be hard seeing it executed.

My idea to solve the overseas issue is simple (and stolen from the RFU). Rather than just hand out the Sky tv money the rfl should pay each club for each player that is qualified to play for a home nation each time they play.

So take the amount of Sky money per club divide by 27 (rounds in a season) divide by 17 (players in a team) and that is the amount given for playing a player. If you wanted to reward teams that produce players you could give half to the team that produced the player and half to the team he played for. So when Michael Shenton Plays for Saints half the money goes to Saints half to Cas'. This would also reward Championship clubs that currently get nothing when Superleague teams poach their juniors.

No restrictions on overseas players so if a team wants to have all overseas players they can (they just won't get any tv money).

For this to work there would need to be a tightening of the qualification rules to prevent teams getting their players to register their players to play for england i.e. Manu and Maurie.

Re: Paul Johnson : Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:59 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Agreed,
This is my solution, apologies to all of you who have heard it before.

Six substitutes and substitutions, but NO interchange (bringing fitness and stamina back into the equation).
Two of those substitutes have to be 21 or under at the start of the season (or an agreed date) and English qualified.

Thoughts please?

I like the idea of bringing a bigger stamina factor in and in the past have thought 4 subs with 6 substitutions would be perfect.

One quiet day in work last year I came up with a whole program for a 3rd competion to replace the extra SL games, so that teams only played each other twice in the league.

the main points of the competetion were as follows:

8 of the starting squad must be 24 or under.

5m offside rule - this will benifit two fold. First, it will reduce the impact on our forwards, reducing the stress on there bodies that acumulates over a season and puts the lighter, younger players at less of a disadvantage. Secondly, having the defensive line start closer means we will have to improve our playmaking skills, hopefully producing a couple more players with the playmaking touch of a Gregory or Goulding, who learnt their trades under the 5m rule. It will also place a bigger imprtance on the kicking game, as yards will be harder to win with ball in hand.

Encourage a fast PTB. The 5m defensive line should ensure that blind scooting isn't rewarded, so a fast play the ball will bring fast entertaining rugby.

I came up with a playing scheulde for 16 team (including 2 from the division below) in four groups of four, with semi finals and a final to finish.

The competetion will help improve our players skills, bring on youngsters, give us another trophy to play for instead of a handfull of repeat fixtures and generally mix things up a bit.

Re: Paul Johnson : Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:44 am  

The Clan wrote:

The unfortunate thing for many 20,21 year olds is that they are often competing with 25 to 30 year old Ausies or NZs for a place in the team and thats not a level playing field.

A club will almost always opt for safety when picking its top 20 players, ie. those who will make up the team for the majority of the season. Sadly that means many young kids with potential never get to finish their rugby education by playing regular 1st team football.

The reduction in the quota and removal of relegation has already seen improvements in this area.

Even Wakefield are signing young English players to give them a chance rather than dodgy old Australians.

Re: Paul Johnson : Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:53 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

snip.

I much prefer the idea of a separate, possibly midweek comp for under 23-under 25s, possibly also including 1st teams from clubs in the championship, to Rogues's idea. I think the restrictions that the RFL have introduced are gradually bearing fruit, and we don't need to introduce artificial restraints on game-day selection.

I'm with Rogues on reducing the number of interchanges though. Twelve is just too many.

Re: Paul Johnson : Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:18 pm  

Dux wrote:

I'm with Rogues on reducing the number of interchanges though. Twelve is just too many.

I don't think so. You remove the interchanges and an awful lot of the impact would leave the game. By 60 minutes in your average game there would be very tired bodies and the standards would drop dramatically.

Re: Paul Johnson : Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:40 pm  

Shouldn't we give things a bit of time too. There was an article today in League Express about how the number of youngsters coming through has increased over recent years with Saints, Leeds and Hull being given lots of credit.

Re: Paul Johnson : Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:47 pm  

McClennan wrote:

Shouldn't we give things a bit of time too. There was an article today in League Express about how the number of youngsters coming through has increased over recent years with Saints, Leeds and Hull being given lots of credit.

More to the point, Saints leading the way (according to the RFL) in terms of locally grown product and as you suggest, very much up at the top end so far as young players go.

Re: Paul Johnson : Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:56 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

More to the point, Saints leading the way (according to the RFL) in terms of locally grown product and as you suggest, very much up at the top end so far as young players go.

I think what will be interesting is how the youngsters who leave saints get on. Jonkers and Stankewich got finished off pretty quick by injury, but the likes of steve hall and tony stewart failed to carve out much of a SL career.

Matty Smith bucked the trend and looks like he'll be around for a few years. I wonder how Chris Dean will go at Wakey? Its pretty likely that we wont hold on to all three of Dixon, Ashurst and McGennis.

Players like this, realesed by the bigger clubs after being surplus to requirements are the ones who'll benift most from the tightening quota. It will give me more than a little pride to see Saints acadamy products running round for other SL teams.

Re: Paul Johnson : Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:40 am  

Offside Monkey wrote:

Its pretty likely that we wont hold on to all three of Dixon, Ashurst and McGennis.

I disagree with that I would say all three are bankers for the next 7/8 years. Dixons defence is a concern and Maggenis' knee giving out again are the only things that can stop that.

Re: Paul Johnson : Tue Oct 12, 2010 12:08 pm  

Noel Cleal wrote:

I disagree with that I would say all three are bankers for the next 7/8 years. Dixons defence is a concern and Maggenis' knee giving out again are the only things that can stop that.

Thats a huge call, we dont know what backrowers might come along in that time.