Joined: Jul 22 2008 Posts: 16170 Location: Somewhere other than here
Carlos Alberto wrote:They can play every match, but it wouldn't be wise.
Why is that? I mean, why isn't it a good idea for a young player to get as much first grade experience as possible? I don't understand why it isn't wise? (Genuine confusion here! Ignorance of coaching teenage lads in rugby league in undisguised evidence!)
Joined: Aug 08 2002 Posts: 17417 Location: Better living through chemistry.
SaintsFan wrote:Why is that? I mean, why isn't it a good idea for a young player to get as much first grade experience as possible? I don't understand why it isn't wise? (Genuine confusion here! Ignorance of coaching teenage lads in rugby league in undisguised evidence!)
They run the risk of burning out as their levels of fitness are not comparible to an experienced professional, they run the risk of injuries etc. It's always best with young players to drop them in and out rather than make them a permanent fixture. Look what's happened to Fielden.
Tweet from @martinoffiah 23/08/2011: 'Must admit i did love watching Saints- Cunningham Joynt Longy Tommy then Leon, last classic RL team ever'. Even the dark side can't help but love the rebellion.
Joined: Mar 30 2002 Posts: 25689 Location: The posh end of Newton
Carlos Alberto wrote:They run the risk of burning out as their levels of fitness are not comparible to an experienced professional, they run the risk of injuries etc. It's always best with young players to drop them in and out rather than make them a permanent fixture. Look what's happened to Fielden.
I'm not sure about fitness levels they could well be similar, but youngsters are still physically growing. It's wise to be careful with them.
[quote="Meyt N Prater Pie"]I think I hate wigan.[/quote]
Blobbynator wrote:I'm not sure about fitness levels they could well be similar, but youngsters are still physically growing. It's wise to be careful with them.
Don't buy into this really.
If they are good enough, they are old enough and should be played.
Its been the way with every great player I can think of.
getdownmonkeyman wrote:You need to move on from here. SS has replaced you, he gets this debating/conversing lark far, far better.
TheJudge wrote:Look at Cunningham and the Legend Murphy
Murphy played consistently from 17 in a far more dangerous age of RL did he not?
Cunningham from what I recall was basically a first teamer every week from his debut?
I just think we should be hiding players due to their age. The Aussies don't do it and we are continuously praising these phenomenal talents playing for Australia at such a young age. We don't seem to grasp if these kids were British they'd still be playing A team rugby to 'protect' them. Its complete nonsense.
getdownmonkeyman wrote:You need to move on from here. SS has replaced you, he gets this debating/conversing lark far, far better.
Joined: Mar 30 2002 Posts: 25689 Location: The posh end of Newton
Stirlingshire Saint wrote:Don't buy into this really.
If they are good enough, they are old enough and should be played.
Its been the way with every great player I can think of.
There are the odd freaks such as Burgess, Farrell and KC who are massive at the age of 17 and can physically cope. The game was alot different in the 60's to what it is now.
[quote="Meyt N Prater Pie"]I think I hate wigan.[/quote]
if we had a murphy,connolly or cunningham in our junior ranks i would say play them every week.but we havent.we have a good bunch of kids who will do our club proud over the years to come if we are sensible with them.
playing them every week and running the risk of burn out will do them no good at all.
murphys aren't born everyday,only once a generation,unfortunetly
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
