whithers and lui lui

[DaveO]

ChrisA posted:
Genuinly talented young players make there way through if they really are good enough. It makes it look like we are stifling the young players, when the real reason is that 95% of the young players just aren't good enough, and never will be

This is the catch 22 situation. You will never know if young players are good enough if they are not given the chance.

It is obvious not all will make it but how many young players are lost to the game completely because there is no chance of progression to the first team when first team places are held by Kolpak players who are in the squad because they are seen as a quick fix to avoid relegation?

There are over 90 foreign players in SL and given the Wakefield service area is supposed to produce almost as many youngsters as the Wigan one, where do they go?

Well it isn't to Wakefield who have a deliberate policy of signing overseas players.

It is obvious from any crop of U21 players only a small number will make it. I think Monie said out of a top U21 side ony three or four will make the grade at pro level.

The problem is clubs like Wakefield don't even produce that many despite a large pool of available young players from their service areas.

Dave

[Neil In Wigan]

DaveO posted:
Without relegation we would neve rhave seen thee likes of Wilkes at this club.
Dave

Sorry to only pick on part of your post, Dave, but surely it also goes that we wouldn't have seen Dobson or Fielden either as there wouldn't have been the desire to get away from the bottom if the top six was out of reach. This is the point of relegation surely. We saw at London what happens to performance once the need for results is gone. Once a team is certain to finish in the bottom half, that has to impact on their intensity, which will in turn have a bearing on the top half if teams in the top six are playing them. And overall, I still think that it's unfair to tell teams from the lower leagues that they can't aspire to be in SL.

[DaveO]

cpwigan posted:
If we take the notion that no relegation would allow youngsters to come through then why did it not happen at Catalan?

Are you being serious? They have only been in existance one season.

It is the RFL/SL's policy to allow new clubs dispensation on overseas players but Les Cats have a self imposed limit that they didn't need to stick to as regards how many overseas players they have.

Overseas recruitment is a big factor for them. They tend to only take established French players. Stacey Jones got injured, they sought a replacement in Australia (Dobson) not in their reserves.

As I said they have a self imposed imit on their overseas recruitment.

As Les Cats are a new club they are not typical of established sides and so the time to judge them is after three years. They have the dispenationin on relegation in order to get established but if they choose to fritter this away and become London Broncos MkII then that is their mistake.

You can lead a horse to water etc. If they don't use the time to develop local talent then they will cease to exist in a few years as the locals will not put up with a team of foreigners running around.

If that happens it will be an argument for more compulsion on player development by club.

However even if Les Cats do get it wrong it won't prove that other clubs would not use the lack of relegation to emulate the NRL sides as regards player development.

Dave

[DaveO]

Neil In Wigan posted:

DaveO posted:
Without relegation we would neve rhave seen thee likes of Wilkes at this club.
Dave

Sorry to only pick on part of your post, Dave, but surely it also goes that we wouldn't have seen Dobson or Fielden either as there wouldn't have been the desire to get away from the bottom if the top six was out of reach.

And? We may even still have Millward as coach as well.

Now you could say recruiting all three men was good for Wigan but that is a different thing then being forced to recruit them.

You could argue that without the pressure of relegation Millwarsd would not have been the idiot he sounds to have been and Moran would have been a better player for us negating the need to look to Dobson in the first place.

This is the point of relegation surely.

What is? The fact Wigan were able to get Noble and pay a fortune for Fielden is not how it works in most clubs. They don't have that option as they can't afford it. The best example of a club that can't afford to to that is Wakefield and they solve the relegation issue with a team of over 10 foreign players.

It is all short term-ism whichever way you look at it. For Wigan it was panic buys be they Fielden or Wilkes. For Wakey it's Kolpak players as that is what they can afford.

We saw at London what happens to performance once the need for results is gone. Once a team is certain to finish in the bottom half, that has to impact on their intensity, which will in turn have a bearing on the top half if teams in the top six are playing them.

I am not sure what you mean by this given Quins hammered Salford 40-18 despite being safe.

Maybe Salford being safe in the playoffs were taking it easy but the concept of clubs trying 100% all the time went out of the window a while back when Saints set the precedent of fielding weak sides and getting away with it (which they can due to a rule change about always fielding your strongest side).

I also think you have to look to Australia again and they don't seem to have this problem. It is an attitude thing that treats every game as important.

We saw that with Wigan v Hull. We were safe, they were safe in 2nd but it was a high quality game.

And overall, I still think that it's unfair to tell teams from the lower leagues that they can't aspire to be in SL.

It is not just a question of fairness anymore but of practicality. SL is pulling away from NL1 so fast it is getting impossible for a simple promotion and relegation model to work.

Have a read of this:

http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... olumn.html

and this:

http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... 20606.html

Millward is 100% correct IMO. It is time to get tough and decide who is wanted in SL and have the franchise system as the only way aspiring lower league sides can get promoted.

Dave

[cpwigan]

Dave, not one club was anti relegation at the start of the season, not one club mentioned relegation as a reason for not developing players at the start of the season. It was only AT THE END when the bandwagon gained momentum.

You still do not understand. Results matter relegation or no relegation. Coaches , players live by them. If the supporters are unhappy and if attendances dwindle then Chairmen still hit the panic button.

[Neil In Wigan]

The point I'm making, Dave, (and I agree with some of what you say btw) is that i don't believe we have the mentality over here to go at it tooth and nail if we have nothing to fight for, hence the Salford result you alluded to. At least by having something to play for at both ends of the table, you'll alleviate this partly if not totally. I agree that stopping relegation purely on the grounds that we get all the clubs up to SL standard and then reintroduce it is okay, but you can do that by just telling the clubs that don't meet it that they can't come up. What I don't want with franchising is teams in such RL heartlands as Dublin, Cardiff, Leicester and these sorts of places just because Murdoch and Lewis want to make the game a city one, especially if this comes at the expense of clubs who have been the heart of the game for decades.

[GeoffN]

TWO EYED WARRIOR posted:
The heartlands could suffer as a consequence of the franchise,if some of the traditional teams dont have a sound financial footing and good facilities at there ground then they will not be included no matter how good they are on the pitch.Thats the point stevo was making last night.

And quite rightly, IMO. The so-called heartland clubs have had 100 years to get their acts together.

The new system is only 2 n a bit year off so if teams are leaving it to the last min to get there house in order they will be found out. I hope the franchise system has a clause regarding player development within the clubs local area and that suitable amount of funds should be made available within the franchise application to support junior and scholarship development.

Does anyone know whether the rules of the franchise system have been agreed and published yet?

Not in detail, but it will include youth development, along with financial management, marketing, stadium and fan base. These, IMO, are all more important than purely on-field performance, which is the only criterion under automatic P&R.
If the infrastructure isn't in place first, on-field results will never be enough.

[DaveO]

cpwigan posted:
Dave, not one club was anti relegation at the start of the season, not one club mentioned relegation as a reason for not developing players at the start of the season. It was only AT THE END when the bandwagon gained momentum.

I don't believe that us correct but even if it is, it is also completely irrelevant.

The arguments I put forward are my own and ones I have been making for years not this season. The fact I can quote sources in the game who agree with my srance just reinforces my position IMO.

If they have changed their tune or have suddenly jumped on a bandwagon that does not mean what they say is wrong.

You still do not understand. Results matter relegation or no relegation. Coaches , players live by them. If the supporters are unhappy and if attendances dwindle then Chairmen still hit the panic button.

The above view is contradicted by what happens in the NRL. They improve their squads and change their coaches but it does not hinder player development.

They don't panic buy players. Most player movements are at the end of the season. They don't have teams full of imports.

Had we not been in a relegation fight in the last two seasons the club would not have signed many of the players it did.

Without relegation the club will still want to strengthen but it would do so in a considered way.

What you suggest is the sport will always be based on short term thinking. The argument is remove relegation and that need not be the case.

Dave

[GeoffN]

ChrisA posted:

Genuinly talented young players make there way through if they really are good enough. It makes it look like we are stifling the young players, when the real reason is that 95% of the young players just aren't good enough, and never will be

Dave's already countered most of your points, but I'd just like to pick up on this one: which is true in any sport.
At the moment, only a handful of clubs (those who are normally not under threat of relegation, which is no coincidence) produce players in any numbers.
Three or four times as many clubs with academies like ours or Leeds would produce 3 or 4 times as many youngsters, of which maybe 5% would still make it to the top. But 5% of, say, 200, instead of 50.

[DaveO]

Neil In Wigan posted:
The point I'm making, Dave, (and I agree with some of what you say btw) is that i don't believe we have the mentality over here to go at it tooth and nail if we have nothing to fight for, hence the Salford result you alluded to.

This is indeed a culture shift but I think you will find the threat of the wooden spoon in Australia is a big motivator. Again that is a culteral thing but lets not forget there are other clubs who face meaningless games who are not involved in the p&r fight in the current set up here.

No ssystem is perfect and until this season p&r was just boring with Leigh relegated about 10 games infor example.

At least by having something to play for at both ends of the table, you'll alleviate this partly if not totally.

But not always. It is the exception that the promoted side does as well as Cas which results in a true fight at the bottom end of the table.

Normally is a walk over and I think this will be so next season no matter who comes up.

I agree that stopping relegation purely on the grounds that we get all the clubs up to SL standard and then reintroduce it is okay, but you can do that by just telling the clubs that don't meet it that they can't come up.

The trouble is the criteria does not include "being able to field a competative team".

They can't do it 99 times out of 100.

Ignoring this and treating p&r as something we need because it is fair is sweeping the problem under the carpet.

To have p&r between a pro and a semi pro league is nuts.

What I don't want with franchising is teams in such RL heartlands as Dublin, Cardiff, Leicester and these sorts of places just because Murdoch and Lewis want to make the game a city one, especially if this comes at the expense of clubs who have been the heart of the game for decades.

That is a danger sure enough but if it happens it is going to the be clubs own fault for not getting their acts together.

Dave