Players DO deserve criticism. As does everyone in life. When I served my time it didn't matter how well I fabricated, my mentor would look at it call it Sh** and make me do it again. and when I did fab something well he'd look at it and say "it'll do, give it here" then go on the tell you it's still a couple of mm out on one side and something else needed doing, you wondered what you can possibly do to be perfect. Then after 3 years I came out my time and it clicks and you realise... No one can be perfect, it's impossible to be. However what you can do is try to be perfect. Make the effort to put everything into every job you do 100% of the time in order to try and be perfect. And when you have such high standards, just like the tradesmen around you once you turn up and slack off its glaringly obvious. Maybe you're having a bad day and you think "ah I can't be @r$ed, it'll do". Prepare to come under fire from everyone around you to critisise your work and not accept what you're producing until your effort is where it should be.

These lads are doing a job a vast majority of the male population in this town would give their right ball for, my self included. Nothing I can imagine, would be a greater feeling than running out at the HJ in the P&B on a packed out Friday night under the lights.

So if I don't think they're (or someone) pulling their weight, after I know that if I had even a snippet of their talent, I'd be leaving that field with absolutely nothing left then yeah, I'll say exactly what I think and they should expect it. It comes with the stripes. And I hope they do see the criticism and I hope their families see it and tell them everyone's pee'd off about the way they're playing because frankly, using Roberts as an example as he's most recent, the way he played was an absolute joke. 10 points behind with 15 minutes to go what can we all see? That bleeding t1t strolling round the pitch with his chewing gum like he hasn't a care in the world. If there was ever a visual description of someone who looked like they couldn't give a toss it was him.

I'm not bothered if you're not if you're homesick I get it, it's a huge change and you will never know till you try that's fine. But at least show respect for the shirt and the colours what mean so much to the town. Especially your halfbacks, they should be screaming instructions, dragging players to where they want them telling everyone around them exactly what they want them to do. You know.... Putting 100% effort in.

And if they can't handle the criticism or the pressure that comes from high standards in everything they do 100% of the time then they should be shown the door.

I get it I really do, but, this thread is about Squad Numbers and I'm sorry, but, for someone styling themselves as Moving On....

I understand as well. Those three years have left their mark on "moving on".
Anyway good squad. If we don't get too many injuries Rochdale will be rubbing their hands. Can't wait.

The club might well rub their hands but players from the local catchment might not be as happy about it. SL players who can't get a 1st team game being shipped out to play at a lower standard, so when they are called up they're not used to the intensity of SL. Then when they are called up the players they've pushed out aren't up to speed there by hindering the team there as well.

If only there was some sort of way we could field a 2nd team in a compertition against other SL clubs...

They're happy enough when they are receiving winners over losers pay.

Is playing SL Alliance closer to SL intensity than playing in the lower leagues? There's more at stake playing competitive fixtures surely.

I'd say it would be if it was mandatory for every team to field and 'A' team. In a proper competition with worthwhile rewards at the end of it. and 'A' team training with the first team, all using the same plays and the same style of rugby at the same intensity would strengthen the game no end and allows players called up to the first team to slot into the set-up with not too much of a shock.

Why would a local lad working his socks off want to get picked up by Rochdale where it doesn't matter how well he plays, he will always be dropped for a SL player who cant get a 1st team game and needs game time. Must be soul destroying to know that he will always be picked over you no matter how hard you work.

The game should be creating a pathway which creates ways for players working hard to progress in standard, not drop lower.

I would prefer to have an Alliance competition, but even taking finances aside, I wonder if there is really enough talent going round in the UK to support having a good quality reserve competition on top of an Academy.

If we want to have a functioning multi division league, where there is credible promotion and relegation, then it is better to try and get more quality in the second tier, so it becomes wasteful to have a bunch of players that are better than those in the second tier, hanging around SL reserve teams. I'm talking here about players that are over 21.

Would be good to understand how the Aussies do this. My basic understanding is that there are two systems, some of the Sydney clubs field sides in the NSWRL (effectively running a reserve grade in a second competition), but others like Melbourne Storm and the Queensland clubs don't have a formal reserve grade so have link ups with teams in the Queensland Cup and allow them to use their fringe players. The Queensland Cup is then quite a tough competition and some fringe NRL players have got great experience there. I could be wrong on this so happy to be corrected.

My main concern about us using an Alliance system is that it would be a substandard competition that doesn't really mean much and was just used to give players a run out every week so they retain match fitness, and it would result in players stagnating.

Or it could mean that previously discarded 19 year olds would carry on and receive another 2-3 years full time training at a professional level to improve them further? There might be a bit of a reduction initially of 19 year olds dropping down to lower division teams, but after a few years those reserve players from year one would be released and could then start to filter in to the championship with a few years more full time training behind them?

It also allows players such as Patton, Sita, Matt Davis, Mamo etc to continue training and playing in a team that has the same attacking & defensive structures and set plays etc as the first team.

why not run an A team comp which is also capped with players only allowed to remain in the club for 3 years after U19's?

That way clubs would keep hold of the players they believe would are worth while and will be pushing for 1st team shirts, whilst the rest that don't get picked could be offered up to championship clubs up in a draft system like NFL?

Those sound like interesting ideas. I guess the real barrier at the moment is that not all SL clubs could afford to run the teams.

If you have an A team comp where players have to be under 22, then what happens to older first teamers who have had an injury lay off and need to come back to get match fitness, can you have say 3 players per team over 22?

A draft would be good and would make the championship interesting. Again I fear the problem would be the disparity of resources amongst the Championship teams. For a draft to work well you would want to have all players released from SL clubs to be put in to an off season draft and then the lower Championship clubs get first pick for the better players. The problem would be, if the lower Championship clubs could only offer meagre match fee payments, whereas there was some team at the upper end of the Championship willing to offer full time terms or nearer. So the better players are never going to go for that.

A team is out dated. It rewards mediocrity. Investing in the youth is the key.

So what happens then to fringe players aged 23 like Patton....does he just get discarded and given up on so we can focus on youth?

Get rid of the scholarship - leave players with their community clubs until they sign professional with a club. That increases the quality and number of junior teams and avoids players becoming disenchanted with the game if they miss out on scholarship whilst creating a pathway to open age amateur rugby and an affinity with an amateur team, hopefully increasing the numbers playing at that age.

One academy age group at u18's. Avoids three age groups contesting spaces in one team which restricts game time for young players.

Have an u23's or u21's league with say 5 overage players permitted - in effect a reserve league in all but name.

Compulsory running of the two teams for all Super League teams. Abolish dual registration, use the loan system (minimum one month) if you need to.

The recent "reserve" fixtures were generally low quality with Warrington often resorting to borrowing Rochdale's squad players to make up numbers. I seem to recall in the last season we ran a team our match against Wigan was cancelled twice (and never actually played) as Wigan couldn't raise a team!

Need to bring back under 23 sides, with allowance for older players returning from injury etc like it used to be.

But as has been said some teams won't/can't pay the money it will cost

The high volume of injuries and suspension in the modern game supports a large squad but not 2 teams worth.
'A'team has no place today.
To have a squad big enough to run 2 teams means bringing in mediocre players to stock it or risk not having enough players to raise a team.
A first team squad of quality and a team of youth with spots for squad members out of selection IS the way.

I was a fan of 'A' team too!

no you wouldn't. the first team squad is 30 strong. Those not in the 1st team 17 would play in the 'A team' youd need another 10 lads on the books at the very most. or give lads from the U19's a chance.

You could also employ ex players in development roles, the likes of Lee Mitchell/Matty Blythe etc who could combine a role playing in the reserves with going out to local amateur clubs and schools to promote and develop RL in the town.

'Yes you would'
30 you said....is that not an increase of our Base 1st team squad of around 25 players?
I'm pretty sure you can do the maths.... they will come off the cap no?

We currently have a squad of 30 players, with allegedly room for one more.

Some points around Salary Cap and the reserves

- The highest paid 25 players count on the cap, whether they play a game or not.
- A player outside of the 25 would count on the cap if they played a SL or Challenge Cup game (but note the two exceptions below).
- A player under 21, who isn't one of the top 25 earners does not count on the cap.
- A player who earns less than £20k does not count on the cap.
- Also a player not in the top 25 earners, who never plays a first team game, will not count on the cap.

So while there is obviously a financial cost for running a reserves side, it need not impact on the salary cap.

Then why bother if we are trying not to play those exceptions

Our squad is currently 30.

"I'm pretty sure you can do the maths", take away a match day 17 from 30 and that means the 'A team' would need to find 4 more players. take into an account of injuries ect, an squad of 40 players could sufficietly field 2 teams a week.

30 from 40 is??? 10 players like I said.

We want to play the exceptions, the likes of Wigan must have done very well with U21's coming in to the first team squad and not counting on the cap, but we need them to be ready for the first team when they are called upon.

The club believe a reserve competition is the best way to turn 19 - 23 year olds in to regular first team players. As a bonus it also keeps fringe players match fit and allows players returning from long term injury somewhere to play rather than being thrown straight back in to first team action.

I think the reason we have seen a plunge in the quality of rugby league in the UK is down to the low numbers of school age kids playing the game. Fewer players coming through results in fewer SL quality players at the top of the pyramid. For some time there have been club reports of matches being played with only 13 aside and even a few with 11/12 a side. I think releasing the Scholarship players back to their clubs will help somewhat, but lets remember that they only play 6 competitive games for the U16's during the year anyway. And of course ideally we also want the best quality coaches (Wire ?) overseeing their development if possible such that we at least get the full potential from the smaller numbers that continue to play.

If we had plenty of youngsters we could have U16, U18, U21 and Reserve sides, but we don't. So the problem we face is not really about what age groups we need, it's how do we get more local youngsters playing the game. Until we ( all RL clubs) solve that one we will continue to see 35/36 year old players extending their contracts and more poor quality matches being played out. If the sport fails to hold the interests of the viewing public we could easily see a fall in the Sky monies that underpin the game over here, or as has recently been announced with the Sky cycling team (with Froome and Thomas), Sky could pull out altogether.

I think to be successful and not come up short towards the back end of the season injury and fitness you would need 45-50 players in the squad. We got 30 now for one team and still get headaches injury wise through the season how will ha bing another 17 members of the squad playing a competitive game help this? We will have 34 players in a 40 player squad playing competitive games every week how many will be fit come the end of the year.

I want every team to have a reserve team but not if its not practical financially.