In the short term it would help the England team if most/all of the team/squad played in the NRL but it's not a long term solution. All it would mean is that the next generation of England players would be playing in a weakened, less intense competition in England. We need to make our own competition stronger and more intense which means more good players/fewer weak links which is why increasing the league size was a bad idea and a massive cull in overseas players would not help either. More incentives to recruit, train and support quality juniors better than we do now are what we need. However, this solution is long term and won't pay dividends for some years.

I think we need to get our best 16-18 year-olds to Australia to train with NRL sides for a year. We have a classic case in point in young Hardacre. With the best will in the world, how much is he going to learn playing NL? More than Academy, but I'd suggest far less than reserve grade in Australia. Widdop sums it up - he's not a regular first-teamer in the NRL and yet he's got the basics down well enough to not look out of place alongside SL 'stars'.

I'd like more senior players to give the NRL a go, but do agree that we can't have all our star players leave at once. Having said that, we aren't going to face a mass exodus anytime soon for the simple reason that NRL clubs aren't going to be interested in many of our players - Graham, Roby, Tomkins maybe. But even then they aren't going to pay them anything like what they're on in SL. Just like Ellis, they're going to have to take a pay cut and prove themselves first. I would hazard a guess that very few of our star players would be willing to do that - and TBH I can't blame them individually.

While I agree completely with much of this and your previous posts, I do not agree with copying the way things are in NZ. We have a model far more akin to the Aussies who have mutiple sports competing for talent. We need to look at the way we work with kids in sport from the ground up. It's the Aussies who are masters of getting the most out of limited talent and population over lots of sports. In NZ they play rugby and that's pretty much it.

I'd like us to remember we had a playing style that was good enough to beat anyone and we could have again. I like the way we move the ball and the style we play. What we need to have are intelligent players who have been coached in basics like playing the ball and controling posession so it's built in. Ellis was the player he is before he went to the NRL, the fact he's shown up as outstanding there isn't because of magic NRL dust that's been sprinkled on him, it's because he is a great player.
Widdop doesn't sum anything up, he's a lad who is good enough to get in a Melbourne team a couple of times and apparantly immediately qualifies for an international shirt. Briscoe did not much wrong while playing full back for England, and I've sen him play far better than I've ever seen Widdop play (and I think I've seen all his first grade appearances so far).

Widdop vs Briscoe sums up everything. How many first grade games has Briscoe played? More than 3 I suspect. At the equivalent stage in his career as Widdop he would have been laughably bad in an international. That entirely sums up the difference in coaching and experience a kid in Australia gets compared to one in the UK.

The 'style of play' we had when successful was 40 years ago. The game is not the same at all as it was then. Sadly Australia has carried on moving forward whilst we lag way behind. Our style of play may be entertaining, but its patently not as good as the NRL.

The whole point about the coaching you suggest our kids need is that they aren't getting it in England. Otherwise we wouldn't have halfbacks with no kicking game and centres who are clueless. That's the point - if we sent our kids to Australia its those basics they would be looking to pick up. If they don't have the raw materials then nothing will help, but one of the most frustrating things to me is how so many of our players do have raw ability but have no taught skills to go with it. I'd argue its not just coaching but also playing - hence why sending kids to the NRL would probably work better than sending an army of Aussie coaches to teach Academies.

I'd also add that until we have a whole lot more players in SL of the required quality, the coaching will go to waste anyway. If you don't get punished for dropping the ball or giving away dumb penalties, then you'll keep on doing it. Its human nature.

A lot of rubbish has been talked about League in NZ. The Warriors produce a lot of juniors - in fact they just one the juniors comp? With many been signed by for the first team and a few for other clubs. TBF most of the current problems have been caused by ineffective administration - sound familiar - but that has now been sorted.

Many areas produce juniors that actively recruited by other NRL teams.

Granted Union is bigger, but kids often play both one on Sat and one Sunday, but league in NZ has one thing union does not. We have Sir Peter Leitch - the one and only Mad Butcher!

Briscoe was a very talented and much talked about young full back when he broke into the Wigan team. But that's not enough to get you in a GB team past two greats like Radlinski and Wellens. You have no idea how he would have played had he been selected. I suspect he would have shown up as well as anyone.

It's of limited value sending young players to the NRL because it's already too late. We have to adjust our attitudes from ground up - that's junior level - 8/9 and beyond.

Regarding Widdop, for his age and experience, he isn't ahead of where Chris Ashton and Lee Smith were, in fact he's probably behind them.

In my opinion, whilst there are significant issues about size of player pool, the intensity of SL and I think there is a definite need for a mid season domestic rep series of some description, the biggest problem is that of junior and youth coaching. Still, despite some effort from the RFL, there are far too many junior and youth coaches who focus on winning instead of player development. There are far too many junior games where the team tactic is pass it to the big kid. The big kid who doesn't have good skills either but just happens to be 2 foot taller than the rest of his age group.
We get several kids every year who come to us whilst still playing for amateur teams who's basic skills are frankly appalling, especially their passing and handling. They can throw a ball but they can't pass it. Same goes for virtually every other skill, tackling is "brave" but technique is non-existant and there are too many who can't kick a ball to save their lives. I don't care if a lad is obviously going to be a prop I still want him to learn the basic skills which include accurate kicking of different types. As for attacking or positional "nous" well there's none whatsoever. We are literally having to explain to 12/13/14 year old kids the difference between a prop and a stand off. The play the ball is also appalling, it makes the play the ball in that cup final that was shown recently look tidy.
I've managed to see the training of scholarships at a few SL clubs and to say I was underwhelmed by the basic skills on show is an understatement. I also happen to know a couple of the scholarship coaches who are incredibly frustrated that they are having to coach/re-coach basic skills that should have been learnt at a much younger age.

Until there is a much firmer grip got on junior and youth coaching and the backward, aggressive, arrogant, idiotic, selfish and you scratch my back & I'll scratch yours elements are got rid of from junior coaching we won't move very far forward.

The well meaning but essentially clueless amateurs which make up a significant proportion of those coaching the next generation of professional players are doing more harm than good.

I'd suggest a mandatory minimum qualification scheme for all those involved in the junior game, say Level 1 for all those involved in the mini-mod game, Level 2 for those working with aged 12 and upwards and Level 3 for those involved with players aged 14 and over.

Whether the RFL has the resources/inclination to monitor such a scheme however is open to dispute.

I thought L1 was compulsory anyway? It's readily available, and only takes one day.
I'd support level 2 being compulsory, for anyone two years past their L1 qualification and still coaching.
Level 3 isn't really practical - it really requires access to pro players and includes a residential section.

There is plenty in between L1 and L3 that's available though. Things like the RPDC programme, the TGFU courses, and the RFL have arranged some partnerships between pro clubs and amateurs - the Northwest get Warrington Wolves, and we as the Midlands tagged onto that, which gave us an evening with Tony Smith and access to a scholarship training session.

Supposedly, although how much do the RFL check that everyone running a coaching session is qualified?

It's now two days and costs £130, which is hardly likely to encourage those who aren't already qualified to become so.

According to the RFL website, there are no places left on Level 1 courses for this year either - all of them are fully booked.

Level 2 is four days and costs £180, and is recommended for those involved in the 13-a-side open age or community game.

£90 and £110 payable by the coach Andy, they're both subsidised by the RFL. As usual for the RFL, their website is out of date, still stating "Course dates for the period September to December will become available in July"

Not sure how the RFL check the team has qualified coaches, but we've had to state who are coaches are for entry to the league and show they're qualified. The rules only call for one coach to be qualified at each session, which is a help when starting out, when it isn't realistic to have a full set of qualified coaches. In our junior section all our assistants are L1 and head coaches are L2 now, and we've been able to get RFL coaching development officers to coach coaches and take player sessions. If we can do it, as an outpost in the south Midlands, any club in the heartlands should be able to.

You know what? This post must rank as one of the best i have ever read on this board and clearly shows the frustration with the junior level coaching standards. How many times have we seen half time games with as you correctly say dominated by "pass it to the big 'un" mentality? too many id say. If you dont have the basics down how the hell are you supposed to coach the more in depth tactical drills?

When we played the Aussies they played error free, no frills rugby league and ground us down with accurate, well planned sets and a very good kicking game ie "basics". Once they had seen off our challenge upfront and run up the scoreboard, capitalizing off some unfortunate errors from us they then started to move the ball quicker and tried to showcase the usual Aussie "bag of tricks" plays, some worked, some didnt. But they knew when to start playing and when to front up again basics.

Is the amateur game even "talking" to the professional game these days?

Agree completely that the state of junior coaching is by and large a joke. My son is now playing for the school team as well as the local amateur team and neither team coaches any skills at all. To say there are players who cannot even hold the ball properly would be an understatement, and the do have the token "fat kid" who is positively hopeless in every respect, not that its his fault of course as he has had zero coaching input.

We fail to develop enough junior talent because junior teams rely on the 3 or 4 decent players that they have and the others never see the ball.

If we really want to improve it will be a long hard road and we need to start at the bottom not half way up the hill....

Quote ="batleyrhino"Is the amateur game even "talking" to the professional game these days? Agree completely that the state of junior coaching is by and large a joke. My son is now playing for the school team as well as the local amateur team and neither team coaches any skills at all. To say there are players who cannot even hold the ball properly would be an understatement, and the do have the token "fat kid" who is positively hopeless in every respect, not that its his fault of course as he has had zero coaching input. We fail to develop enough junior talent because junior teams rely on the 3 or 4 decent players that they have and the others never see the ball. If we really want to improve it will be a long hard road and we need to start at the bottom not half way up the hill....'" They're pretty well connected, although perhaps better for us in the Conference structure rather than BARLA. Good details here www.totalrl.com/index.php?showtopic=209538 Lets all remember one thing in criticising these junior coaches though: They're putting time and effort into coaching kids. You're (and I just mean everyone, not you Batley ) not. I'm sure they would appreciate help, whether as another coach, or taking care of the "dirty work" of collecting and sorting kit, arranging lifts, confirming games with opponents, sending in scorelines and match reports, etc.

Quote ="batleyrhino"Is the amateur game even "talking" to the professional game these days? Agree completely that the state of junior coaching is by and large a joke. My son is now playing for the school team as well as the local amateur team and neither team coaches any skills at all. To say there are players who cannot even hold the ball properly would be an understatement, and the do have the token "fat kid" who is positively hopeless in every respect, not that its his fault of course as he has had zero coaching input. We fail to develop enough junior talent because junior teams rely on the 3 or 4 decent players that they have and the others never see the ball. If we really want to improve it will be a long hard road and we need to start at the bottom not half way up the hill....'" They're pretty well connected, although perhaps better for us in the Conference structure rather than BARLA. Good details here www.totalrl.com/index.php?showtopic=209538 Lets all remember one thing in criticising these junior coaches though: They're putting time and effort into coaching kids. You're (and I just mean everyone, not you Batley ) not. I'm sure they would appreciate help, whether as another coach, or taking care of the "dirty work" of collecting and sorting kit, arranging lifts, confirming games with opponents, sending in scorelines and match reports, etc.

I know it's the metaphorical "you" Richie, so none taken. FWIW I am actually doing more coaching of the school team than the teacher is but unfortunately it's restricted to match days due to work commitments.

I understand that the people who are giving up their time are doing so for free and of their own free will, so I don't mean to bag them per se, I'm just frustrated at the lack of education they receive really which manifests in the development (of lack thereof) of the players under their tutelage. I see the issues in coaching in the same way as the issues in playing, no shortage of effort, but a real shortage of quality...

There needs to be a root and branch restructure of junior coaching, not forgetting to coach the coaches, so that we can improve the quality of junior rugby, and therefore send kids into the open age game with a much better skill set.

I'm not sure why that education is not there though. I can't really believe we have more access to resources here in Northampton than a club in the heartlands would, would we?

More access, probably not. More desire to use it, probably.

There is a view that because certain clubs are in the Heartlands, they already know how to teach kids to play and therefore don't need any education. IMO the ones that don't ask for it, are probably the ones that need it most....

A lot of these people, who work very hard with some of the kids under their control, are usually parents of one of the team, and focus on their child and the other "talents" without giving any time to the other kids, which only exacerbates the problem.

I applaud people who are willing to open their minds to education, sadly not enough are willing to do that IMHO.

Are you seriously suggesting that after 3 games Lee Smith or Chris Ashton could have done as well as Widdop for England?? The last junior I saw who I would have been confident about being able to play for England after 3 games was Garry Schofield in 1983. I genuinely can't think of anyone else who I'd be confident about after so few games - not Farrell, Sculthorpe, Harris, Robinson, Newlove - all of whom were better players than Ashton or Lee Smith are ever likely to be. Lee Smith looked hopelessly out of his depth at centre for England after a full season there for Leeds. Widdop was able to look OK despite not playing there at all.

The point about Widdop isn't that he's going to be a star - in fact I doubt it from what I've seen. The point is he's well enough endowed with all the basic elements of the game that he didn't look out of place for England. Not the best player in our team, just not out of place.

Also, well said to whoever talked about the Aussies doing the basics first. They can run any side off their feet, but they generally try to work their way into a game first. Their execution of simple sets of 6 with no flash stuff - e.g. working the ball away from their own line - is simple but well done with a low error rate. You can tell that the whole side knows what they're doing and why. Then when they do get into an attacking position, there's a sense of control, with the playmakers calling the plays and again the team for the most part on the same page. The comparison is not just with England, but the way most SL sides play as well. We always talk about how great 'off the cuff' play is - and it can be exciting to watch - but sadly it looks like schoolboy rugby when it comes up against a well-drilled side.

Number of games, don't know. Same age, undoubtedly. In fact, considering the style of player Smith and Ashton are, they'd probably have looked better against France than Widdop did.

You can probably tell from my post how frustrated I am at the basic skills levels, of course there are always exceptions and we have a couple of very good young lads who could make the grade in my opinion, however (and this is where McLaren's Big Daft Lads Theory comes into effect) they are generally the slightly more intelligent kids who instead of continuing playing RL at amateur level will be put off by the too often aggressive and intimidating atmosphere, concentrate instead on GCSE's and A-Level's and get a decent job instead of RL. Whereas the thick as 2 short planks lads will happily carry on.

You're absolutely right about the Aussies game, they grind and grind and do the basics well time and time again until we c0ck up and then they know what to do at the right times, whereas ours too often need someone to tell them what to do next.

Without wanting to make this a nice little love-in

I sort of agree with everyone. In that I agree with Batley that there is a significant element of junior coaches who are in it either for egotistical reasons or to advance their own child's cause, and I agree with Richie that there are an awful lot of people who are in it for the right reasons and give up an awful lot their time to try and help the game.

I don't necessarily think the problem is with the coaching course itself since you can only do so much and only expect so much from volunteers. 4 days worth is already a significant commitment from volunteers who also have to go to work.

I think the problem lays with the Barla set up and more importantly some of the old farts within the Barla set up. My brother has just moved down from York to Nottingham and having watched him play in the Barla league to now be playing in the Conference I know which I enjoyed more. There were no drunks shouting abuse on the sidelines, no club officials going crazy at ref's decisions, no "linesmen" from each side attempting to screw over the opposition and just a much happier, healthier atmosphere to play the game in. It appeared that people were playing the game to enjoy playing instead of playing it to prove who's hardest.
How many times in Barla have teams and players been up before the "disciplinary" after committing what can only be classed as assault to receive a pansy @rse punishment because the "disciplinary" like the club/player/officials involved.

Until we get rid of that aggressive, backward element the more intelligent kids will be put off the game and we won't get rid of the "bad" youth coaches within the game.

I don't know much about the Conference to be honest and I'm sure it has its own problems but having watched a few games I know which I'd rather be in. I'm even considering coming out of retirement!

Got any North Leeds based clubs in mind there Rob?



The administration at BARLA makes Will Carling's "57 Old Farts" seem like cutting edge progressives - it's the same people running the same committees who have been around for 20 years or more scratching each other's backs.

I have no idea what you mean

It wouldnt be fair to single out one club so we'll simply refer to them as Kings ARLFC.

However the sad thing is that, despite not being as quite as bad as Kings ARLFC there are far too many other clubs in BARLA with a similar atmosphere and with similar disciplinary records and similar lenient punishments.
Also when a harsher punishment is handed down like a long ban for a certain play they are simply played under another name. There needs to be proper effective player registration combined with long and occasional life or multi-year bans from the game to root out the disgraceful elements of BARLA. Sadly the Old farts on t'commmmittte, most of whom still assume there are unlimited tackles, 3 points for a try and lineouts are still in force won't countenance any kind of modernisation.

For instance I've always wondered why a few clubs in an area don't get together and set up a charity similar to the Leeds Rugby Foundation where they can get money in at charity rates with gift aid relief and spend it on the clubs. Instead of thinking a raffle and a tombola 3 times a year will do fine. However that would require setting aside introverted backward, pathetic viewpoints and attempting to help the game as a whole instead of partisan, sectional, selfish interests so is obviously a non-starter.





Thank Christ, occasionally I start to think I'm the only one who's noticed! Im glad its not just me! Fortunately, not being in BARLA (since they wouldn't let us in years ago because we were far too different a thought for them to comprehend) I don't have to deal with them much. But sadly we are left attempting to clear up a little bit of the complete and utter mess they are making of Junior RL.