I can't see any benefits apart from cost cutting. viewtopic.php?f=28&t=533823&tsmp=1343748899 Your thoughts please.

I can't see any benefits apart from cost cutting. viewtopic.php?f=28&t=533823&tsmp=1343748899 Your thoughts please.

The partnering with the Championship clubs makes sense. It gives the players better access to competition for places in a senior side, something that academy players at the likes of Wigan probably lack currently. It stops SL clubs holding on to too many young players and means they are out in the shop window for everyone to see.

Merging the junior levels seems a strange move to me. At U15 and U16 level there will be a big discrepancy in sizes presumably and will no doubt mean players either get knocked about a bit by bigger players or don't play at all.

Something had to be done, junior development in Super League clearly isn't working as it stands now and pretty much all the clubs are headed on a one way street to financial doom or complete reliance on a sole benefactor.

Some of it is OK in principal, it was one of my ideas put forward on the VT to get our u/20 s into the championship clubs, so I can agree with that.
But they have tinkered too much at and below the u/18 levels, its looks too fragmented and cant see how this will help progression wise.

I guess the fishing rod is broken.
Sam Powell who is in the squad for would take the tally of Wigan Academy products to play first team this year up to 21.

I'm not fishing Rogues, if anything it was a compliment. Wigan will clearly produce more Under 19s than they can accommodate in the first team squad. I'm guessing 4 or 5 per year that would be Championship/Super League level.

But you can't ship out 20 or so players to the Championship clubs. Where are their players going to play?
Will the Superleague Clubs form partnerships with more than one Championship Club.

How will the newly promoted U16's be expected to play against 19 year olds in the U19 comp.
Will that U19's comp be competitive with all teams playing each other or the joke that is the U18's for the last two years?

It looks like an ever diminishing pool of players to me, with cost cutting the priority.

Seems a big step up between under 16s to under 19's

I appreciate at present that we see some of the best under 16's sometimes being moved upto under 18's and also under 18's going into reserve competition.

However going forward we may be talking about 15 year olds being asked to play against 19 year olds.

I seem to recall back in the 1980's when i was a nipper, that something like that happened at Blackbrook when the Blackbrook Royals under 14's/15's played a match against a so called French school side, that actually put out 18/19 year olds.
The result was a bloodbath as the French "laid on" the Blackbrook kids. Parents of the blackbrook lads were naturally livid at seeing their sons take a hammering.

Such things can damage the reputation of a sport. If parents think RL isnt prepared to protect their children, and instead wants to throw them to the lions then many parents will just say no to letting their kids play RL. Promising kids themselves can also have their confidence literally smashed out of them by older and not necessarily as talented players.

What is also going to happen with the reserve competition. Is that going to stay, or will players be chucked on the scrap heap at 19 years old. Most players only really start to break into first teams at around 21 years of age. Hence if we bin off the reserves then we will pretty much be killing off any player development.

I like the idea of utilising championship clubs or even championship 1 teams as psuedo feeder teams for the SL clubs.
This would in many ways follow the australian model.
The best juniors who arent quite ready for the rigours of SL would be able to play at a higher level than reserves and thereby be able to polish their games off. It would also have the benefit of raising the quality and profile of the RL in the championship. Rather than ignoring the championship as most SL fans do now, we would instead see fans of Wigan, Warrington and St.Helens, keeping a close eye on reports coming out of Leigh, Swinton or Oldham to see who their new superstar player may be. Fans of Leigh, Swinton or Oldham would also get to see first hand the burgeoning talents of the new Jonny Lomax or Sam Tomkins.

Maybe we can limit the number of players in the U19's eg six 16 year olds, six 17 year olds and five 18 year olds.

It's still a big dilution of the playing pool though.

You'd know all about that wouldn't you!!

Another positive insightful input from you.

You're in no position to lecture anyone about positive posts. What's the matter do you not like people derailing your threads? You seem to revel in it normally!

I can only share Rogues' concerns from the original post on the Wigan board.

Seems ludicrous to me. I'm aware of the problems with the U18's competition but this is not the answer surely. A three year gap in the age groups at a critical stage in players development is insane! If it is down to cost-cutting then good on the teams that are against it.

Are these changes actually happening or are they just proposals at present? I read on the other thread that Saints and Warrington are dead against it. Any word on how Wigan feel about this?

I haven't heard anything about Wigans stance.
I heard about the proposed merging of the Hull/HKR academies a few weeks back, and how that is going to work? Who will have the choice of player?

A whole layer appears to going to be taken out, not just players, but coaches, physios etc.

What happens to the players who are 2nd year U20's next year. What if they are on two year contracts?
They can't all go and play in the Championship. What about fringe 1st team players or players coming back from injury, surely the U19's comp isn't going to allow overage players playing against 16 year olds.

Far more questions than answers I'm afraid, I suppose we'll have to see what the proposed changes bring.

Agree with all your additional concerns too Rogues. Can't see how anyone with interests in youth development can be happy about these changes.

Why not extend the scholarship u16s to u17s giving them another 12 months of maturity to play in u19s ?

I'll play devils advocate.
You want to change the U20's to U19's?
The U18's to U17's?

Where are next years 20's and this years U20's going to go?

Where do the first team squad / returned injured players play?

Rogues , i don`t particularly want to change the existing structure for the academy's .I think if this turns out to be true Rugby Union will be doing a merry dance cherry picking our unproven talent at 16/17

I know. As I said I was playing devils advocate. I agree with your statement regarding Rugby Union, they must be clapping their hands.

It was ridiculous enough that the U18's didn't play all teams, i.e Wigan didn't play Wire but played Sheffield.

What I would have liked to have seen is what we had a few years ago at U18 level. A qualifying competition of say 6 to 8 rounds (Lancashire and Yorkshire) and then split the teams into two competitive divisions for the remainder of the season.

Wigan U16 team this year is probably the best club junior side I have ever seen, but would I really want them playing against 19 year olds next year on a regular basis, no. But if they don't where are they going to play? As you say Union clubs will be watching with interest.

I would have to agree with most of what Rogues has said here. Personally I feel quite disturbed by these proposals as they appear to be a 'levelling down' of all our clubs junior program, all in the name of keeping costs down. We are bound to reduce the number of talented juniors coming into the game, and surely this is one of our most important objectives ?

I am awaiting more information on how this will all work ( and hoping it was a pet plan of a certain RFL chairman who has now moved on), but it doesn't look good.

I would have to agree with most of what Rogues has said here. Personally I feel quite disturbed by these proposals as they appear to be a 'levelling down' of all our clubs junior program, all in the name of keeping costs down. We are bound to reduce the number of talented juniors coming into the game, and surely this is one of our most important objectives ?

I am awaiting more information on how this will all work ( and hoping it was a pet plan of a certain RFL chairman who has now moved on), but it doesn't look good.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the RFL were pulling the sport England money out of the academy set up. So I guess that's why they're planning a cheaper academy. It's a shocking decision in my opinion and the union threat is a real and genuine one. The switch to summer in the NWC junior and youth league has opened up the chance for union players to play league in the union off season. Which is a good thing on one hand as these lads boost playing numbers and may stick with league. The downside is that union scouts are turning up at youth and junior rugby league games to watch them.