: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:30 pm  

RossRhino wrote:

its not just about your club, i think Hull KR are simply the team he is discussing, he could likely have the same discussion about a number of teams in SL.

as to why he is having the argument, it effects us all in a round about way when we begin talking about our international game.

perhaps that is why, i dont know for sure though?

you're right, it is plenty of Clubs, Wakefield could do more, Salford too, Wigan seem to get half the job in scouting and training them done, but struggle to get them firing in the first team

Wire are slowly improving on that front and have started to bring players through, Castleford and Huddersfield as well

and youth development is integral to our sustainability as a sport, and its competitiveness, not only at international level but SL level too,

[Mild Rover]

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:34 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

if that is the case, why do you need Lovegrove, Aizue, Gene, and Fisher, there are players as good if not better in the national leagues, surely these decent youngsters your bringing through have more potential than that?

Potential, exactly

in 3 years time you will have been in SL for 6 years, it doesnt take 6 years to start bringing through british talent,

To see its full benefits it can. A 16 year old signed today, will only be 22 in 6 six years.

but you keep on making excuses, ill keep watching teams filled with british talent contest finals,

Homegrown over a number of years - a number of years in SL. The only way we can match homegrown numbers of teams that have homegrown players in their late and mid-twenties, is to have loads of kids in the squad. Something they (the established SL clubs) never did, as each playing 'generation' has only so many players with real potential and it would have unbalanced their squads.

here are some stats for you the last 2 SL grand finals, has included 10 different overseas players, your team this year has 10

this year your squad contains more Leeds academy products, and more Hull FC academy products than Hull KR academy products,

Leeds, I'll give you. FC, I don't think so (Cooke is the only one we can't count as 'ours' as well). They are both long-established SL teams. It'd be weird if we were relying on Swinton- or Fev-produced players, but it is only natural we that we look to SL teams for SL players

they can and should do more, but wont until they are forced, which is why the rules need to change, so clubs see the benefits of investing in youth, but also the downsides of not

More youngsters coming through at Hull KR will be good - we agree on that.

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:34 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

of course its a negative, what kind of crazy fool wouldnt think that

Hull KR should have more ambition if they are to be an SL side than being a the home of players not good enough for Leeds, they should be bringing through players better than that themselves, it isnt up to Leeds to build you a squad with their cast offs.

how on earth do expect to challenge leeds with a team of 17 including 5 players not good enough to be there?

Are you actually joking with that post? If a Leeds academy player isn't good enough to make Leeds first team he should give up on his RL career?

If a player isn't the finished product by the age of 20 he should give up and not make himself available to lesser clubs. That makes complete sense...

And on that note, I'm done with this thread.

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:36 pm  

RossRhino wrote:

in fairness to HKR, they arent the only team with ex Leeds academy in.

Hull FC have a fair number too.

Just as Huddersfield have a fair number of ex Wigan academy players not deemed good enough.

im not sure that wigan is the same, almost all of the players going from Wigan to Hudds were established first team squad members, which is why i didnt include Fozzard in the 5 (otherwise there would be 6)

the same cant be said of Murrell, I'anson, Fox, and Netherton and Chev was god awful in his last year there

and Hull only have Dowes and Raynor as Leeds academy products, and Dowes was a tyke first, as was Raynor

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:37 pm  

j_hunter_hkr wrote:

Are you actually joking with that post? If a Leeds academy player isn't good enough to make Leeds first team he should give up on his RL career?

If a player isn't the finished product by the age of 20 he should give up and not make himself available to lesser clubs. That makes complete sense...

And on that note, I'm done with this thread.

well thats good, because you clearly struggled to read or went a little mental and decided to make something up, either way, dont attribute your mistakes to me

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:41 pm  

Huddersfield would probably double the number of first team players from the club if the 21 age cap was removed (all are in the 1st team, been with the club for over 3 years but not yet 21.)

I think the interesting numbers will be in 2 or 3 years time when the clubs in the bottom half of the table arent under so much preassure just to survive

[Mild Rover]

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:43 pm  

Smokey, I'm genuinely confused.

Would signing Ben Kaye or Danny Williams have been a positive investment in young british talent or scavenging rejects and dooming ourselves to be uncompetitive with the team that discarded them, IYO?

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:43 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

Potential, exactly

so give them a shot then

To see its full benefits it can. A 16 year old signed today, will only be 22 in 6 six years.

and if he is top quality he will be in and around the squad in two or three,

Homegrown over a number of years - a number of years in SL. The only way we can match homegrown numbers of teams that have homegrown players in their late and mid-twenties, is to have loads of kids in the squad. Something they (the established SL clubs) never did, as each playing 'generation' has only so many players with real potential and it would have unbalanced their squads.

no it isnt, there are thousands of amateur players, hundreds of NL players, hundreds of RU players and all you needed to find was 2 for this year and you would back at 8, then another 3 over the next 2 years and we are fine and dandy at 5, like the plan was, no need for dispensation, no need for rule changes,


here are some stats for you the last 2 SL grand finals, has included 10 different overseas players, your team this year has 10

Leeds, I'll give you. FC, I don't think so (Cooke is the only one we can't count as 'ours' as well). They are both long-established SL teams. It'd be weird if we were relying on Swinton- or Fev-produced players, but it is only natural we that we look to SL teams for SL players

indeed, but all SL squads should mostly be made up of their own juniors, all of them (bar maybe celtic, which is obvious)

More youngsters coming through at Hull KR will be good - we agree on that.

it would yes, and we should force them, and all clubs to do it, and do it well

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:44 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

Smokey, I'm genuinely confused.

Would signing Ben Kaye or Danny Williams have been a positive investment in young british talent or scavenging rejects and dooming ourselves to be uncompetitive with the team that discarded them, IYO?

it would have been better than what you have done, not quite as good as what you could have done

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:48 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

of course its a negative, what kind of crazy fool wouldnt think that

Hull KR should have more ambition if they are to be an SL side than being a the home of players not good enough for Leeds, they should be bringing through players better than that themselves, it isnt up to Leeds to build you a squad with their cast offs.

how on earth do expect to challenge leeds with a team of 17 including 5 players not good enough to be there?

or maybe now we can offer the kids the same pay and conditions as leeds we are able to attract them?

Look I am not in favour of our "dispensation" I would love to see SL restrict imports to 4 per club and have a criteria that they have to had played at rep standard but I am also very realistic that it takes years for a good jnr programme to bare fruit. Signing kids at 14-16 means a good 4-5 years min to see them develop into the first team squad.

You could level the same argument re "average" overseas players at most clubs. Why with Hull's amazing jnr development did they sign Byrne and Dykes? Why after 12 years of Sky money does Bradford go out and sign a 35 year old player? Why with all Wigans success have they signed a has been like Roberts? Rovers have more average pleyers than some clubs but again that is indicative of being a club that has only had 2 years in SL. We have strengthened with decent English players year on year and we will continue to do so. Hopefully some will be our own developed Hull lads, we've done it before and we'll do it again.