European Super League?!

Not if super Nigel (saviour of this country to the hard of joined thinking) and the rest of his UKIPers get their way

Its always funny to see the fans of some non-descript small northern club decrying les Catalans and the French as 'bringing nothing to the game' as if their tiny club which is barely even heard of in the small pit-town it inhabits brings in all the money and the visibility and the players.

There are probably 6 clubs (including Les Catalans) who bring something meaningful to SL, the rest are only there because they either have a rich owner or have been the best at signing the cast offs from the big clubs and journeyman overseas players.

In fact that's one of the problems the game has

Why is it then that clubs like the one you claim to support are forever in areas where "small northern clubs play" hoovering up the better youngsters on scholarships? . If they didn't do this maybe the clubs you continue to mock wouldn't have to relay on signing your clubs "cast offs" to fill their squads?.

You will never admit it but all the current clubs in this country need each other in some capacity. As for this thread i don't have a problem with Toulouse if they made it to the top table providing they achieved it on the playing field and put strong foundations for R.L in the city for the future...and not like P.S.G did.

Because we play in a competition, teams compete with each other. A pro club doesn't lay claim to a player just because they may have lived near them at some point.

Toulouse will never make on the playing field because the playing field is entirely set up to protect these small northern clubs, who if you believed them have somehow never been given a fair crack of the whip. Even though the ENTIRE GAME is set up for their benefit and the rules we have, from the Salary Cap to quota's to the league structure are there to protect small northern clubs.

Have we been drinking again



The new structure does not benefit the smaller clubs in SL, it ensures that they will be playing in a relegation league every season.
What it does ensure, is that the top six, plus 2 others will dominate the league more than they currently do, probably leading to an even smaller
top flight in the next few years.

It does allow a possible promotion for Leigh, Bradford, London or Featherstone but, of course they too will still have to get lucky when the relegation league comes around each season.

Although there is some merit in the comment you make regarding the salary cap, this was only brought about to prevent other clubs trying to
follow the lead of the leagues biggest club, Wigan, who bought success and almost bankrupted the game.

Maybe, you haven't travelled outside the big city of Leeds very often but, you really should take note of the numbers and quality of junior set up's
in the areas around the clubs that you are talking about. Without which, there would be somewhat fewer youngsters taking up the game, which would
make the player pool very small indeed.

Perhaps the big 4 should just play with each other and leave the rest "behind" ???

Makes me laugh when I read about how Leeds rhinos have this amazing scholarship system when the truth is that it's full of young lads from Wakefield Castleford and Featherstone.

Then there's the Academy which is packed full of players who have spent 2 to 3 years in scholarship systems of so-called smaller clubs only for Leeds to come in for them when they are 16 years old and offer them more money to go to Headingley.

I accept that that is the way of the world and it's the nature of sport but for fans of the bigger clubs to then come on the forum and start criticising the smaller clubs for not producing players is downright pathetic.

Largely what you are saying is true... However lets look at the alternatives, are Wakefield or Castleford for instance under any more threat from being relegated under this structure than they were under franchising? Im just using them as an example, im not saying they are the only ones in that position, but Wakefield and Castleford made huge promises in terms of facilities that they just haven't delivered on, both have had serious financial difficulties etc etc and struggled with all the things demanded under licensing. Even as a Wakefield fan you cannot really tell me that you would have been confident coming up to a franchise decision time that Wakefield were in can you ?

If you think of it another way clubs who will likely be under threat from franchising are also the same ones likely to be most at threat under this P+R, however the 'fall' as it were is much less.

As a short term move, clubs at the lower end of SL don't really have much more of a threat of SL, but should they actually be relegated the downsides aren't as great (they get more funding, they can almost immediately come back up (in theory), they may still get a few 'bigger' attendances against the SL sides) In the short term the lower SL sides have somewhat insulated themselves from some of the more extreme damage relegation does.

However as you also state, long term it gives up pretty much any chance of a club growing in to a challenger, sure a Dr Koukash might come along every so often, but the best a lower end SL club can now hope for is a season in the sun before their squad is picked off ala Cas this year.

what right pathetic is a pro club expecting some kind of acknowledgement for that fact that another club scouted and trained and developed a player who at some stage lived quite near them .

The lads playing for the Leeds Rhinos academy have the square root of F all to do with the pro clubs in Wakefield, Cas and Featherstone. That these places are a hotbed of amateur players playing for the big clubs is not source of pride for those pro clubs, it should be a source of shame.

It makes me laugh that we see fans of these smaller clubs arguing that because a lad in the leeds academy once went to nostell priory it is somehow necessary that we have 3 pro clubs in Wakefield.

Could you say its a source of shame then for amateur clubs in a large city like Leeds if the Rhinos look in other districts constantly for junior players?.

Lol at that, all of it!

So a kid from Castleford, who attends Castleford Academy school which has strong links with Castleford Tigers, who's spent 7 years playing for Castleford Lock Lane and 3 years being trained by Castlefords Tigers youth system, who when turning 16 is tempted to Leeds by a few extra grand has the square root of F all to do with Castleford?

Don't talk daft. There are a ton of players from Leeds playing SL for Leeds and for other clubs.

Cas tigers? Yes. An RL professional isn't made at 14. It's a pretty pathetic claim to fame that the club is near where a player lived for a time.

In that one statement you betray the fact that you know F All about player development

at 14 a kid is naturally talented, at 16 a kid is naturally talented, they aren't pro's.

I have seen players look world beaters at 16, absolute quality ready to be pro, I've seen those same kids.be semi pro by 20 and go on to do nothing in the the game.

The biggest effect clubs have on youth development is taking naturally talented kids and make them pros. That is the difficult part and our game is littered with players who were brilliant at 13/14/15/16/17/18 and went on to do nothing because the important part of their development failed.

Looking at 14 year old and seeing he is talented is the easiest part of youth development. It's the bare minimum a club can do and still claim to be doing youth development. Taking them and making them pro's is the tough part.

Claiming good youth development on the basis a kid has contact at 14 is pathetic, in fact it's embarrassing. Players are nowhere near pro at that age. The best evidence is I'm fact Wakefield, how many of their grand final youth team 2009 made an SL career?

As I stated, your knowledge of what happens within modern youth sport development programmes is worse than poor!

Keep digging though eh!

Oh go on then name them then.... you know you want to

16 x NRL U20's sides......say 400 players. Tell me purdie, how many do you think step up to the NRL?

What's that got to do with what's being discussed Nutterfax

How many kids that show promise actually make the grade.

At 13/14 they are talented boys, nothing more. Their development in the next few years is the real key especially given the fact of different physical maturation rates, different skill levels (which is 99% down to the quality of coaching received up to that point, sadly it's often quite poor) different emotional maturation rates, different confidence & self-esteem levels etc.
At 13/14 even the top scouts will admit it's a punt and it depends on the coaching received & how the individual reacts to that coaching plus a healthy dose of luck, be it good or bad.

This reliance upon the academy systems to teach players the skills properly (ie poor amateur coaching in a poor amateur system) is also one of a few development related reasons as to why we lag behind the Aussies.

Before I start let me make the point that I'm generalising about the quality of amateur coaches, there are some very good coaches in the youth amateur game but they're few and far between.

Up to the age of 13 the majority of players have poor to virtually no core skills development, this as you say is down to the poor coaching they receive at amateur clubs. The RFLs Embed the Pathway programme seeks to address this by putting amateur coaches through a rudimentary core coaching programme.

However, as things stand the better young players enter into pre-scholarship camps with awful levels of core skills right across the spectrum. Worse than that the more successful players tend to be the biggest and fastest which again as you rightly say is because of early maturation or because they're quartile 1 & 2 in terms of when they were born.

The problem here is that because they're bigger and faster the amateur coach doesn't change them or seek to develop them, instead they're satisfied with the big kid scoring 6 tries and winning the game because the coach and the parents have a winning/performance culture rather than a development culture. That means that when these bigger often more athletic players reach pre-scholarship or actual scholarship they're often the worst players in terms of core skill development.

The other side of the coin is that the smaller players often get shoved out of the way, played on the wing or don't get enough game time so their core skills are under developed as well.

Both groups, big and small, suffer a number of lads who give up the game, the smaller lads because they get too little game time, get knocked about and become disillusioned. The bigger lads have it too easy and when their peers begin catching them up in terms of size and physicality it means they can't score 6 tries a game anymore. They struggle to cope emotionally and physicaly because they can't dominate games and have the success they normally enjoy, because they've never been developed they don't have a plan 'B' and many give up playing.

Many of these young players receive core skills coaching for the first time ever when they enter scholarships with professional clubs. Every aspect of the game has to be addressed and core skills coached session after session after session in order to bring these lads up to somewhere near where they ought to be but the lost years of development can never be fully regained and that's where we really lag behind Australia.

Once in scholarships they receive dedicated, intense and expert coaching on everything from tackle technique, catch- carry - pass, evasion, PTB, defensive systems, marker play, mapping, kicking, catching etc etc etc

They also receive coaching on conditioning, physical literacy, SAQ, emotional Intelligence, diet, hydration, prehab, rehab, self analysis, goal setting and many other elements of the game that are alien to them because they've never seen it before.

This coaching goes on 2 times a week for 1 year in pre scholarship and at least 3 times a week for 2 years during scholarship. The lads are mentored, advised, reassessed, Tested, benchmarked and retested by experts during the 3 years of contact with the professional club.

When they reach the age of 16 they are all unrecognisably better players than they were at 13 when they started but unfortunately not all are good enough to become full time professional Academy players.

Also at the age of 16, unfortunately, you get the bigger clubs who have monitored the progress of these players from afar, coming in with a bigger financial offer and taking many of the players from the clubs that have invested years of time and expertise to get them where they are.

That's the nature of the beast, that's life, thats rugby league and I can live with that!

What I don't like is some poster from a big club who is obviously clueless about elite youth sports development coming out with ignorant statements that the development of the young players that leave for bigger clubs has "the square root of FZ All" to do with those who've invested so much time, money, expertise and emotion into the players in question.

Agree entirely with that Avenger. Unfortunately, like you say, the Scholarships at the age of 13/14 are having to teach the basic skills that should've been taught or at least started upon well before that age.

It sounds dramatic but I honestly think it's one of the biggest reasons why we lag behind the aussies.
The RFL are trying to address it but unfortunately until the old boys networks in the amateur leagues and clubs are eliminated and we get better people in to coaching positions and club and league officials positions then it won't change much.

got to agree with what you say last time I was in OZ a long time ago 1992 every team if I remember right had young kids from the age of 10 upwards school teams learning the same has their teams we don't and I don't think we will ever get to that stage

what I don't like is fans of smaller clubs playing the victim because they gave a young player in his early to mid teens a few coaching sessions and laying claim to his achievements, portraying an image that hi s success was stolen from them by big bad clubs splashing the cash. I don't like it because it is the lie the game tells itself to justify the fact that ALL clubs aren't investing enough in youth development.

I know what academy kids earn. It's not a lot. Nobody is blowing anyone out of the water with these offers. I know that academy lads.at leeds earn less then I did as a student working part time in a call centre years ago. Let's not pretend this is some robber barron scenario of smaller clubs finding diamonds in the rough and polishing them up to sparkle before the big bad steals them away.

The fact is that scholarships are teaching naturally talented kids the pretty basic skills of our game and a player who makes it from scholarship to academy does so far more because of his talent, because of his determination and because of him.

covering up the failings of your clubs academy by vicariously claiming the achievements of children as those of your own is a pathetic lie and worse it is a pathetic lie covering the failure of the game to give it a young players the best chance to make a career out of the game.

A kid like Ryan Hampshire got a gig at Wigan and became highly rated because of his natural talent, his determination and his hard work, anybody trying to claim a piece of that because a few years ago they did a few coaching sessions with him is lying to us and lying to themselves.

The Burgesses played for Leeds Scholarship. Nobody I pretending that we developed them.

As HIM says, this game is filled with people who think youth and amateur RL is about them and not the kids.