Page 5 of 5

Re: Are We Really That Bad?

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:51 pm
by catman
These names prove my point, they are all Australian they have a larger talent pool than us so they have players who are not only athletic and physical but have ball handling skills as well players like cronk, slater etc are not only super athletes but immensely skillful as well, the chance of unearthing such a player is thousands to one, yet in australia they have tens of thousands of young players so these players crop up regularly and they bring their skills to the NRL.

Meanwhile in this country we struggle to find such athletes as our talent pool is so small. We struggle to fill a quality superleague a reserve grade is out of the question. Some of our athletes have extremely limited ball skills yet they get a regular gig in our superleague.

What this means is NRL high skill high entertainment. Superleague low skill low entertainment.
Its not all bad news there are skillful British players out there, if you watch youth rugby, the NCL or lower league rugby you will see lots of good skillful players but these players cannot live with the physical monsters at the top level, to develop our game we need to find a way to get our skillful players to survive at the top level, otherwise we will always be playing catch up to the aussies.

Re: Are We Really That Bad?

Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:30 pm
by moto748
But surely the young skilful Aussie backs have their own 'physical monsters' to deal with? Seems to me the main factors are the bigger talent pool there, and the fact that being a top-line rugby league pro is a much more enticing prospect in Australia than here.

Re: Are We Really That Bad?

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:01 am
by DaveO
moto748 wrote:
catman wrote: To play modern rugby league you must be big and fit. You can be the most skillful or intelligent player but if you don't have the physicality or athleticism then you can't play at the top players from the past such as Andy Greg who were brilliant in their own era would not be able to cope with the physical demands of the modern game.
Ben Barba isn't big, and he copes all right, as do plenty of others.
And arguably the most successful SL scrum half of the modern era is the not long retired pint sized Rob Burrow. Andy Gregory would be fine.

Re: Are We Really That Bad?

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:32 am
by old hooker
pedro wrote:
old hooker wrote:
moto748 wrote: Ben Barba isn't big, and he copes all right, as do plenty of others.
Cooper Cronk, Billy Slater, James Maloney etc, etc, etc.
slater aint small
Slater was a jockey before RL so I think that indicates he was small.

Re: Are We Really That Bad?

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:15 am
by shaunedwardsfanclub
old hooker wrote:
pedro wrote:
old hooker wrote: Cooper Cronk, Billy Slater, James Maloney etc, etc, etc.
slater aint small
Slater was a jockey before RL so I think that indicates he was small.
Just short of 5'9" and 13st 12lb.

Re: Are We Really That Bad?

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:45 pm
by Wigan_forever1985
shaunedwardsfan​club​ wrote:
old hooker wrote:
pedro wrote: slater aint small
Slater was a jockey before RL so I think that indicates he was small.
Just short of 5'9" and 13st 12lb.
Tommy L hits harder than anyone in SL

Rob burrow is one of leeds most successful players

Re: Are We Really That Bad?

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 5:51 pm
by Southern Softy
You are Eddie Hemmings and I claim my £5.

Re: Are We Really That Bad?

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:56 pm
by pedro
old hooker wrote:
pedro wrote:
old hooker wrote: Cooper Cronk, Billy Slater, James Maloney etc, etc, etc.
slater aint small
Slater was a jockey before RL so I think that indicates he was small.
how long ago?