: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:42 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

who hasnt had a shot that obviously deserves one?

More a case of the ones that have had their shot and blown it being given chance after chance...and still blowing it.

You could pick a full team from the SL teams outside the top 4 that would have done just as good as England in the world cup.

[Mild Rover]

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:47 pm  

The Chair Maker wrote:

I think its interesting to note the rough correlation between junior development and league position.

The teams with the most juniors are those that tend to be at the top of the table and challenging for honours, while those with few youngsters are generally found to be cellar dwelling.

Hull KR therefore need to get their junior development sorted, otherwise they are unlikely to make more than the odd fleeting appearance in the upper reaches of SL in the years ahead.

This is half TIC, but:

Can't that be turned on its head? The teams that tend to be top of the table attract the best / the most juniors. Hull KR therefore need to get their league position sorted otherwise they are going to have to sign the big clubs cast-offs, and struggle to retain the most ambitious and talented players they produce.

My point is, it can't be one or the other if you want to compete at the very top. Leeds have now got the balance bang on and are at the top a very healthy cycle, which is why they are so strong.

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:48 pm  

Code13 wrote:

More a case of the ones that have had their shot and blown it being given chance after chance...and still blowing it.

You could pick a full team from the SL teams outside the top 4 that would have done just as good as England in the world cup.

go on then!

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:51 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

This is half TIC, but:

Can't that be turned on its head? The teams that tend to be top of the table attract the best / the most juniors. Hull KR therefore need to get their league position sorted otherwise they are going to have to sign the big clubs cast-offs, and struggle to retain the most ambitious and talented players they produce.

My point is, it can't be one or the other if you want to compete at the very top. Leeds have now got the balance bang on and are at the top a very healthy cycle, which is why they are so strong.

or they pay more and do better scouting! Kallum Watkins should have been picked up by one of the lancashire clubs, he wasnt

Ryan Hall had three clubs within a couple of miles of where he played his amateur rugbyand he still didnt get picked up until he was 18,

Simon Worrall was an RU player

what you say would be true if we were picking up every single talented youngster at a young age, but that isnt happening, and especially not in Hull where one fo the strongest amateur areas is producing only a few players

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:56 pm  

And the top clubs could afford to spend more on scouting and recruitment

They can also offer better deals to prospective youngsters and a greater chance of actually playing for the first team - since they are perhaps more willing to blood a youngster than teams at the bottom.

As I said previously, right now the numbers are nothing surprising at all, 2-3 years will show how clubs have improved with the stability of the franchise system.

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:03 pm  

Code13 wrote:

And the top clubs could afford to spend more on scouting and recruitment

They can also offer better deals to prospective youngsters and a greater chance of actually playing for the first team - since they are perhaps more willing to blood a youngster than teams at the bottom.

and the only people who can change that are those in charge at the bottom clubs, they need to shell out more, they need to give more youngsters a chance, they need to focus on british players

there is nothing wrong with competition in youth development, its a good thing

As I said previously, right now the numbers are nothing surprising at all, 2-3 years will show how clubs have improved with the stability of the franchise system.

it should never have got to state it is in now, and was in previously

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:12 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.

We have Calderwood and Dowes. Could include Raynor as well maybe but I don't know the full details of what happened with him with regards to been at Leeds. Hardly a 'fair number' is it

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:19 pm  

The Key wrote:

We have Calderwood and Dowes. Could include Raynor as well maybe but I don't know the full details of what happened with him with regards to been at Leeds. Hardly a 'fair number' is it

I suppose thats down to interpretation.

3 out of your 17 every week are going to be ex Leeds academy. Take from that what you will I suppose.

I'd say 17.6% is a fair percentage though, and thats how many of your starting 17 every week will be former Leeds academy (assuming Calderwood, Dowes and Raynor are fit).

Having said this though, you do bring through your own academy players, so its not like I am having a go, just stating a fact.

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:35 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

This is half TIC, but:

Can't that be turned on its head? The teams that tend to be top of the table attract the best / the most juniors. Hull KR therefore need to get their league position sorted otherwise they are going to have to sign the big clubs cast-offs, and struggle to retain the most ambitious and talented players they produce.

My point is, it can't be one or the other if you want to compete at the very top. Leeds have now got the balance bang on and are at the top a very healthy cycle, which is why they are so strong.

Leeds began its' firm commitment to home grown players and signed the likes of SInfield, JJB, Diskin etc, right at the very beginning of Sl when we were gash.

In fairness to Hetherington he remained committed to the policy whilst many of our own fans were screaming for big name signings and whining that the likes of Burrow, JJB etc weren't good enough.

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:46 pm  

RossRhino wrote:

I suppose thats down to interpretation.

3 out of your 17 every week are going to be ex Leeds academy. Take from that what you will I suppose.

I'd say 17.6% is a fair percentage though, and thats how many of your starting 17 every week will be former Leeds academy (assuming Calderwood, Dowes and Raynor are fit).

Having said this though, you do bring through your own academy players, so its not like I am having a go, just stating a fact.

Not really. Would you say 3 overseas players in a squad of 17 is a fair number? I reckon that if any club had just 3 in their 17, they would be commended to the hilt. If we had 6 or 7 from Leeds, then fair enough. But a maximum of 3 is not anything large at all