That can only be sorted by the clubs, but then youd end up with a junior SL of maybe 8 clubs at u 12 s / 14 s, and the St Pats and Blackbrooks of this world are happy just winning their local comps

Whilst the move to FB for Tomkins helped him tear up SL, it wasn't the best move for his own development and for England.

He should be our 6 right now.

I'd argue that we lost this game around the ruck as Clark isn't a good defender and Ferres isn't a Hooker!

At junior level it makes little difference who they're playing against. It doesn't need to be the best vs the best there just needs to be an environment where kids are performing those basic skills both in training and on game day. That is down to the coaches who choose not to practice decision making, kicking, passing etc.

Encourage those skills to be taught in training and to be used on game day and you'll see youngsters getting into academies & scholarship teams with better half back skills than currently.

But then there are equally big problems beyond junior level.

Widdop just a good 6 in the NRL.......!!!

He was the 2nd highest ranked half back for the 2014 season in the NRL behind Thurston and came 4th overall in the Dally M standings. Its no coincidence that Storm struggled in 2014 without him failing no less than 4 times to find a quality replacment!
What we need is a quality dominent 7 with a good kicking game and the indroduction of two quality back rowers and we win more than we lose. Over all I think this has been a great 4 Nations comp that could of gone either way.

I can't agree, i think that at junior level one of the things that work is simply 'give it to the big lad' which is why we struggle to produce as many skilful players. I dont think that changes by not funnelling the talent.

Players will do what works. If thats just give it to the big lad thats what they will do, if its give it to the fast lad with the step, that is what they will do.

One of the problems we face in bringing through our best players is that often they find it too easy. Even at academy level some players absolutely rip it up.

Tomkins is probably the best example of that, Tomkins tore up academy RL but Noble was reluctant to give him a shot because there was still deficiencies in his game, largely it wasnt a problem because he was such a good runner of the ball that what he did 'worked' eventually when he made the step up those deficiencies became apparent and he moved to FB.

Kids arent going to be throwing in a few runaround or dummy plays when they can just run through a gap and no-one can catch them.

The short version: when kids are too good for those they are playing against and with they dont need to learn to go around them because they can just go through them.

Widdop is a good player, dont get me wrong.

But he isnt, in my opinion, on the level of Thurston, Cronk or Johnson. He isnt a difference maker like they are.

One of the strengths of the England team in this 4N was the speed and range of Clark-Smith who, between them, can move the ball 30 yards in two passes.

Neither Widdop nor Tomkins have that range. If someone else does, let's here about them taking Smith's slot.

It would be great if professional clubs could get together and form a proper national league, with teams at under 12's and up.

Even if they just played 10 games a season with a few training camps and played for their local teams the rest of the time, it would really benefit them to be playing against good opposition and receiving some proper coaching.

It needs the clubs to make a commitment and spend some money though.

The give it to the big lad happens because that's what coaches encourage both in training and on game day. At junior level the big lad will prosper regardless of who he faces.

Players will do what the coaches tell them and encourage them to do. If at every training session players practice the skills and are encouraged to use them on game day they'll use them. Its that attitude in coaches we have to change, not picking and choosing who are the best 10 year olds and funnelling them into some sort of performance based system at such a young age.


That will happen at every level. Some just find that environment fits them. The big problem is the step between academy and SL. The step between amateur and SL is only a problem because the right skills aren't taught at junior level.


Yeah but that's nothing to do with him not playing with or against good enough players when he was 10 years old. It's to do with the fact he went from playing against 17/18 year olds to playing against men at the elite level with no step in between. The lack of a 2nd team or feeder league like in Australia.


Yes they will. If you coach them properly they will. They're young kids, they do what they're told and encouraged to do.


Not if you tell them that to do something different. That's a coaches job. Otherwise no kid would EVER pass the ball if they didn't listen to their coaches. Because every kid wants to score.
So teach them the basic skills. Practice, practice and practice them. Have a plan for game day to use them. Simples. I can remember my primary school team doing runarounds, drop offs & tactical kicking despite having a powerful runner in the team. Why? Because the coach told us to.
The coach is the one in control of his team. If he can't control a bunch of 10/11 year olds he shouldn't be coaching.

Thurston and Cronk are in a class of their own.

Johnson is good but can disappear. See many games he's had for the Warriors and NZ versus Samoa.

When you consider the number of halfbacks playing the game in Australia it shows the problem of how many you have to develop before you get the real world class ones. They have lots of decent enough ones but apart from Cronk and Thurston none are much different to Widdop and Smith in ability.

At 12 to 13 the size gap widens if anything, your looking around 15 when the gap is drawn back in.

I believe they use or used the same size system in Oz, the drawback to it is if you have a big 11/12 year old playing against a kid 2/3 years older (not sure what limits they put on it) of the same height and weight but not maturity or muscular development.

Core skils ,movement skills and mental skills for all players are a must.

I currently coach at age U13 and am have taken part in the RFLs Embed The Pathway program, one of the aims of which is allowing all players to develop to their potential and not to rule out certain players at an early age. The relative age effect has a massive part on our game as the early developers dominate in our age bracket, yet theres kids with all the right attributes who do get overlooked.

I find the program and its content very helpful and its helped me develop as a coach and re-think certain aspects, im always open to learn but for everyone of me there's 2/3 old school who go down the win at all costs routes, were flat tracking teams is seen as a major achievement.

Spot on.

I think your last point is nonsense to be honest. it is nothing to do with 'control' its common sense. You are saying that a coaches job at that age is to, what could legitimately be described, as making his player play worse. Kids, parents, coaches everyone wants to win. You are demanding they do something other than try to win. Even more than it forcing teams to do things that aren't working as well at that level, It doesn't make sense that forcing the young Thurston to ignore that massive gaping hole in the defensive line in favour of running a set play to an inferior player is going to make him better. It wont. The difficult part of being a half back is not running, passing or kicking or running a set play, its knowing when to run, when to pass, when to kick and when to run that set play. Teaching kids to pass regardless of what they see isn't going to produce generation of world class half backs, it would produce a generation who wont recognise whats in front them.

I don't dispute that at young ages things like more small sided games, weight restrictions, and better coaches teaching better skills and a focus in coaching them is massively important. But that is an entirely different thing to not funnelling talent to a level congruent with that talent. Every sport in the world does so. Players improve playing with and against better players.

In fact what, I agree with Hutchie, that there will always be coaches who prepare teams to win, and its difficult to say they are doing a bad job. But them doing so effects everything. Kids however talented aren't going to enjoy getting beat, they definitely wont enjoy losing by big margins, they certainly wont stop doing the things that are working when that is one of the reasons they are losing big.

Thats a 2 edged sword for me, i know some very good coaches who would struggle to handle a bunch of 10 year olds, i also know some coaches who revel at the primary ages but you wouldnt want them anywere near youth rugby. It doesnt make you a bad coach and i would encourage all to try various age groups and come out there comfort zones to test their skills, but my philosphy is that i am not just here to teach I am also here to learn.

For what it's worth, for the last few years the Knights have been spending millions on juniors and the results have been remarkable.
They set up what was called the "High Performance Unit" which had it's own coach (former firstgrade halfback Troy Pezet) and their own trainer (a Phd qualified pom). The first real graduate is Sione Mataútia, who has just played for Australia at 18, but the two real stars of the programme are halfback and 5/8 Jack Cogger (son of Trevor Cogger) and Brock Lamb. Those two are 17 years old and have played for Australia and NSW at every age level for the last 3 years and will be on the Australian Schoolboys tour of the UK soon. They are already stars in the under 20s comp and took the Knights to a minor premiership.
Anyway, given a lot of talent to start with and their own quality coach and trainer (shared with about 15 other talented kids across all age groups) they have developed skills a lot of firstgrade halfbacks would be envious of. Lamb has a better kicking game than Luke Walsh.
So all it takes is a few million dollars.

It's not nonsense to suggest that junior coach should be the one in charge of his team and not the juniors themselves!
It's also not nonsense to suggest that an u11's coach should be looking at something other than simply winning the next game. That right there is THE problem with the amateur game in a nutshell. It's actually not the coach's job to win the next game. It's the coach's job to teach the basic skills to as many kids as possible. That entails a fun environment not a pressured one. Now it's important to win SOME games in the year as, as you say, no-one enjoys getting beaten every week. But winning every week doesn't teach the kids their skills.
The really difficult part is the decision making and no-one is saying you never let the kids have a go. But it's your job as coach to provide a structure to their game. Firstly to allow the kids to use the skills you should be teaching them during the week, that are also lacking in general, but also, more passing gets the ball to more kids and so involves, for example, the ones stuck out on the wings who rarely get the ball. Also, at junior level, the big gaps are usually found on the wings, not in the middle. What you get in the middle is missed tackles. Which doesn't help at all with the halfbacks skills because at some point as he goes up the pyramid those missed tackles stop happening.

So you agree coaches should teach and encourage the skills but then call my post nonsense?
I've been coaching kids for over 10 years, I would struggle to say categorically who would benefit from being funnelled into a performance based system at 10 years old. Some probably would, but the majority, in my view, would suffer from being moved away from friends at their original club and then being in a pressured environment at a very, very young age.
It's not necessary and is counter productive in my view. At this age we just need lots of kids practicing the skills.

The skills gained from playing against "good opposition" come much, much later. We've to teach them how to pass & catch and gain confidence tackling first.

I actually agree but I'd say it does make them a bad coach at that level. Shaun Wane seems to be a pretty good coach, I don't think I'd want him coaching an u11's team though...

Yes that was sort of my point, in defence of the coach though it may be he's been chucked in at that level as he is the only one available/ willing volunteer / kids dad etc, you know what a struggle it is and how certain teams do struggle.

Any junior coach that doesnt prioritise learning skills as well as winning ( within reason ) will only ' win ' in the short term , and will eventually be overtaken by others as their players catch up sizewise

Instill good practise and emphasise skills will eventually win you more games when it counts

Having attended seminars hosted by pro coaches, their biggest gripe was having to start coaching 16/17 yr olds basic skills

Agreed. Smith is a capable journeyman halfback but out of his depth at international level but I thought we were let down in the back row. Particularly by Tomkins who did not look fit to me.

What P/Sports did during the Aussie play offs was to also screen the Holden Cup sides, the NRLs under20s competition.

It was a revelation to be honest, the quality of play was practically up to the NRL itself and the differences on view between the amateur or academy game here were immense.
At the Warriors (eventual champions) there were quite a few really exciting lads there who will be pushing for NRL spots in the not too distant future, some already gaining them.
I believe that the lad who played at F/B, for the Warriors, will be giving 'SAM' a bit of push for the F/B NRL spot soon and, that this could see Tomkins having to fit into the halves, like it or lump it. From an English POV, the sooner the better.

Back to the point of coaching. There was evident, a vast difference of approach to the playing of the game than you see from similar aged lads over here, both of flair and also structured play.
It stood out a mile that a hell of a lot of useful time and hard work, had been used in reaching the standards that these young men had at their disposal and really, we are, with our approaches to players in these categories of players, much more than miles behind.

At what ages these lads have been nurtured from I have no idea, but the time invested has clearly been put to excellent use. I hope P/Sports repeats the exercise next term, it really is well worth watching.

this obviously does not appertain to the Aussies alone as it was the Warriors that eventually came out winners, but only narrowly from a B/Bronco's side. It was frightening to watch and I doubt that the bottom half of S/L would have had a stroll against any of those under20s sides that I had the pleasure of watching.

Australian Halves over long periods of the 20 year SL have included - Daley,Gower,Johns,Fitler,Kimmorley,Lockyer,Thurston,Cronk

We have failed to produce one in the class of any of those guys over that period.Until we do it is always going to be tough for us no matter how much we can compete in the forwards.

Ring Trent Hodgkinson..........

End of Thread