This only been in SL for 7 years from Rovers fans is getting old, how many more years are they going to pedal this out. They will never improve if they keep signing players Like the PNG players in positions they have young players.

One area that gas been vastly neglected by NH, no coincidence that Rovers and Salford are the only 2 teams in SL not to have one player in any of the England academy squads, even Cumbria academy and north east academy who neither are in SL have any players in it.

www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/29 ... nd-academy

This only been in SL for 7 years from Rovers fans is getting old, how many more years are they going to pedal this out. They will never improve if they keep signing players Like the PNG players in positions they have young players.

One area that gas been vastly neglected by NH, no coincidence that Rovers and Salford are the only 2 teams in SL not to have one player in any of the England academy squads, even Cumbria academy and north east academy who neither are in SL have any players in it.

www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/29 ... nd-academy

The 2 PNG players will be playing for gateshead not rovers.Seems strange rovers joining forces with gateshead

The 2 PNG players will be playing for gateshead not rovers.Seems strange rovers joining forces with gateshead

Lets not forget that in 2007 when they came up all clubs were equal with the salary cap unlike when we came up!

Lets not forget that in 2007 when they came up all clubs were equal with the salary cap unlike when we came up!

We shouldn't pedal it out. In part, because the farce of licensing means there is no need for a moral justification, and as a political ploy, we're better focussing on the positives, even if they're a tiny bit on the meagre side.

If we're looking at just the SL-era development pathway, as a start-from-scratch launch pad, I accept that the likes of Welham, Mariano and Beaumont can't be used in evidence for the defence. Players now 24 and under, who started to make an impact ~2010 and later (it was always going to take 2 or 3 years), would seem a reasonable sample. Those that have played more than a couple of games - Watts, Taylor, Sam Latus, Cox, Salter. To a lesser degree Sheriff, Peterson, James Green and Ollet. A trickle over 4 seasons, frankly, and we've not retained most of them, their career trajectories taking them in different directions.
The RFL has effectively moved from being scrutineer to scrutinised, so other than as political bargaining chips, I see no great value in their assessments at the moment. But it is obvious that we won't improve without a better pipeline of talent (and the ability to retain a good proportion of the best of them, which creates a tension where resources are limited). The last couple of years hasn't given us the number of homegrown SL-quality players we'd hope to see emerging. But failures yield lessons - you try to learn them, adjust and roll out phrases like 'moving forward'.

I've noticed over about 3 or 4 years that we don't get any players in the youth age-group teams. Our junior teams seem to be middling rather than abysmal in terms of their results, so while I wouldn't expect many, our consistent failure to get any in has struck me as a bit odd. My concern is that it has become a self-fulfilling cycle - players realise they're more likely to get recognition elsewhere, so that's where the best go. We need to up our game significantly, and I'd include cultivating relationships with the people who pick these squads, as one priority. Which is cynical and probably paranoid, but harmless at worst.

We shouldn't pedal it out. In part, because the farce of licensing means there is no need for a moral justification, and as a political ploy, we're better focussing on the positives, even if they're a tiny bit on the meagre side.

If we're looking at just the SL-era development pathway, as a start-from-scratch launch pad, I accept that the likes of Welham, Mariano and Beaumont can't be used in evidence for the defence. Players now 24 and under, who started to make an impact ~2010 and later (it was always going to take 2 or 3 years), would seem a reasonable sample. Those that have played more than a couple of games - Watts, Taylor, Sam Latus, Cox, Salter. To a lesser degree Sheriff, Peterson, James Green and Ollet. A trickle over 4 seasons, frankly, and we've not retained most of them, their career trajectories taking them in different directions.
The RFL has effectively moved from being scrutineer to scrutinised, so other than as political bargaining chips, I see no great value in their assessments at the moment. But it is obvious that we won't improve without a better pipeline of talent (and the ability to retain a good proportion of the best of them, which creates a tension where resources are limited). The last couple of years hasn't given us the number of homegrown SL-quality players we'd hope to see emerging. But failures yield lessons - you try to learn them, adjust and roll out phrases like 'moving forward'.

I've noticed over about 3 or 4 years that we don't get any players in the youth age-group teams. Our junior teams seem to be middling rather than abysmal in terms of their results, so while I wouldn't expect many, our consistent failure to get any in has struck me as a bit odd. My concern is that it has become a self-fulfilling cycle - players realise they're more likely to get recognition elsewhere, so that's where the best go. We need to up our game significantly, and I'd include cultivating relationships with the people who pick these squads, as one priority. Which is cynical and probably paranoid, but harmless at worst.