Joined: Mar 14 2003 Posts: 25971 Location: Back in Hull.
Him wrote:But Leeds, Saints and Wigan youngsters apparent better preparation isn't really from what happens in the u16's or u19's. There's only so much you can do with part time players (which they are) seeing them only 2/3 times a week.
I think Leeds conditioning/sports science is significantly better than either Hull clubs (from what I've heard) but I think there are 2 far bigger factors:
1. A supremely professional attitude throughout the club - this filters down from the management and the first team and is expected of the academy players.
2. A good transition from u19's to first team - Leeds u19's aren't rushed into the first team. They are given plenty of DR time with Hunslet or sent out on loan, both crucially playing against men. When U19's players are needed for the first team due to injury etc they aren't expected to perform exactly like a regular first teamer. They are given help and guidance by the leaders in the team and are generally given a mentor. Also, the forwards who step up from the u19's aren't expected to do long minutes in games. They are eased in gently over a few seasons, see Singleton, Mulhern, Yates etc. Also at Leeds they don't pack muscle onto the u19's. They keep them very much away from weights until they're 19 years old. So whilst they might struggle a bit initially with the physicality of the game, you're less likely to see the kind of drop off a season or so later that seems to happen with Hull lads.
It is nothing more than a cost cutting exercise because all the benefits ie better coaching, better facilities etc can be obtained by spending more money on the academy. There is no need to merge. Just to spend more money on the academy itself and on the amateur game in Hull. Leeds have been spending lots of money on trying to improve participation and the quality of coaching in the amateur and schools game in Leeds since the Leeds Foundation was established. Hull need to do the same.
We don't have the money though that Leeds do or the time to do it, we need to also invest heavily in the first team or we lose more games, then more fans and more money so it's a circle, if we had Leeds team and success it could work, but we don't so need to improve the first team short term, by bringing in the likes of Taylor, Pritchard and hopefully Inu.
The merger won't effect the amount of players we bring through which is the main thing for us.
Him wrote: It is nothing more than a cost cutting exercise because all the benefits ie better coaching, better facilities etc can be obtained by spending more money on the academy. There is no need to merge. Just to spend more money on the academy itself and on the amateur game in Hull. Leeds have been spending lots of money on trying to improve participation and the quality of coaching in the amateur and schools game in Leeds since the Leeds Foundation was established. Hull need to do the same.
But again, why would Hull (or Rovers) take responsibility and spend money on the amateur and schools game development for the other club to take the rewards? There is this reluctance from either club to do this on a major scale because the other will get free benefits. If they work together on this, the joint academy will see the benefits and ultimately both clubs and the game of rugby league in Hull will improve.
Last edited by Wellsy13 on Mon Jul 13, 2015 4:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12671 Location: Leicestershire.
Him wrote:But Leeds, Saints and Wigan youngsters apparent better preparation isn't really from what happens in the u16's or u19's. There's only so much you can do with part time players (which they are) seeing them only 2/3 times a week.
I think Leeds conditioning/sports science is significantly better than either Hull clubs (from what I've heard) but I think there are 2 far bigger factors:
1. A supremely professional attitude throughout the club - this filters down from the management and the first team and is expected of the academy players.
2. A good transition from u19's to first team - Leeds u19's aren't rushed into the first team. They are given plenty of DR time with Hunslet or sent out on loan, both crucially playing against men. When U19's players are needed for the first team due to injury etc they aren't expected to perform exactly like a regular first teamer. They are given help and guidance by the leaders in the team and are generally given a mentor. Also, the forwards who step up from the u19's aren't expected to do long minutes in games. They are eased in gently over a few seasons, see Singleton, Mulhern, Yates etc. Also at Leeds they don't pack muscle onto the u19's. They keep them very much away from weights until they're 19 years old. So whilst they might struggle a bit initially with the physicality of the game, you're less likely to see the kind of drop off a season or so later that seems to happen with Hull lads.
It is nothing more than a cost cutting exercise because all the benefits ie better coaching, better facilities etc can be obtained by spending more money on the academy. There is no need to merge. Just to spend more money on the academy itself and on the amateur game in Hull. Leeds have been spending lots of money on trying to improve participation and the quality of coaching in the amateur and schools game in Leeds since the Leeds Foundation was established. Hull need to do the same.
I agree with Dave K.
Leeds have lots of money. That's the big difference.
The professional set-up is great, but now licensing is over clubs are able to try things that (might) suit their own circumstances better. I'm tired of hearing that we should mimic Wigan, Leeds and Saints (no offence intended, you make some good points) and of fans of Rovers and Hull swallowing it whole. It's great advice if we had an Eammon McManus, but generous as our benefactors are, they can't pump in that sort of money. And we don't benefit from top 4 incumbency.
It's sensible to try something different, if the current set-ups aren't delivering what is needed often enough. If heavy investment isn't an option, then focused investment seems a decent approach to me. Might not work, there are no guarantees outside the spend big model that anything will. If they do it well this has as much chance as anything else.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Some well thought out and reasoned comments there. Also nothing from people in favour. Did you only find people who hated the idea or were positive comments not allowed?
Thankfully the people 'interviewed' wont be anywhere near the decision making processes.
Some well thought out and reasoned comments there. Also nothing from people in favour. Did you only find people who hated the idea or were positive comments not allowed?
Thankfully the people 'interviewed' wont be anywhere near the decision making processes.
Joined: Mar 14 2003 Posts: 25971 Location: Back in Hull.
Monkey Lover wrote:Some well thought out and reasoned comments there. Also nothing from people in favour. Did you only find people who hated the idea or were positive comments not allowed?
Thankfully the people 'interviewed' wont be anywhere near the decision making processes.
There certainly should be some balance in the article.
I also remember the incident in the picture back in the day.
I'm very much against the idea, but the majority of those comments are pathetic. I couldn't care less if Rovers benefit from it as long as we do too. My problem is that I can't see any benefits for either team.
It will be the same coaches we already have working with a smaller pool of players. Kids will slip through the net, and the ones we do catch won't be any better. The draft won't work (if indeed that's how it happens, but I can't see an alternative). Fans will be alienated, as we have already seen. And all the while we won't have done anything to improve the real issue, which is the integration of these players to first team, which is where we have fallen down for as long as I can remember.
What annoys me the most is that Pearson came in and spent years telling us how brilliant he was and how much money he had spent on getting the academy up to scratch, and now that it is baring fruit and we have some youth teams to be proud of he's going to rip it up and start again just to save a few £.
The reason Leeds, Wigan, Saints juniors do so well isn't because they are much more talented that ours, or even that they get better coaching. It's that a) they get introduced slowly into winning teams that have coaches who know to go about doing it. And b) the culture and the standards set by the first team are carried on through every aspect of the club, so that when kids make their debuts they already know what's it's about because that's the way they've always done it anyway. How are we supposed to set a culture and replicate it right through the club when effectively 3 different clubs are involved?
I have supported this club for not far short of 20 years, and obviously a lot of you have followed them for many more. I have already been becoming disillusioned with it. Not because of the bad results, or Radford, or the refereeing, but because I'm struggling to indentify with it anymore. You go to places like Cas and it feels like a proper part of the community. You go to the KC these days and it's just sterile and soulless. This whole move just feels like another small part of the clubs soul has been ripped out.
Joined: Feb 12 2005 Posts: 13126 Location: East Staffordshire
Mr. Zucchini Head wrote:I'm very much against the idea, but the majority of those comments are pathetic. I couldn't care less if Rovers benefit from it as long as we do too. My problem is that I can't see any benefits for either team.
It will be the same coaches we already have working with a smaller pool of players. Kids will slip through the net, and the ones we do catch won't be any better. The draft won't work (if indeed that's how it happens, but I can't see an alternative). Fans will be alienated, as we have already seen. And all the while we won't have done anything to improve the real issue, which is the integration of these players to first team, which is where we have fallen down for as long as I can remember.
What annoys me the most is that Pearson came in and spent years telling us how brilliant he was and how much money he had spent on getting the academy up to scratch, and now that it is baring fruit and we have some youth teams to be proud of he's going to rip it up and start again just to save a few £.
The reason Leeds, Wigan, Saints juniors do so well isn't because they are much more talented that ours, or even that they get better coaching. It's that a) they get introduced slowly into winning teams that have coaches who know to go about doing it. And b) the culture and the standards set by the first team are carried on through every aspect of the club, so that when kids make their debuts they already know what's it's about because that's the way they've always done it anyway. How are we supposed to set a culture and replicate it right through the club when effectively 3 different clubs are involved?
I have supported this club for not far short of 20 years, and obviously a lot of you have followed them for many more. I have already been becoming disillusioned with it. Not because of the bad results, or Radford, or the refereeing, but because I'm struggling to indentify with it anymore. You go to places like Cas and it feels like a proper part of the community. You go to the KC these days and it's just sterile and soulless. This whole move just feels like another small part of the clubs soul has been ripped out.
Fair post.
"To play your best football you need players with enthusiasm and drive and energy." - Peter Sterling
Adam Pearson said not wrote:I know there are two franchises and two clubs (in Hull) and that will remain forever more
Mr. Zucchini Head wrote:I'm very much against the idea, but the majority of those comments are pathetic. I couldn't care less if Rovers benefit from it as long as we do too. My problem is that I can't see any benefits for either team.
It will be the same coaches we already have working with a smaller pool of players. Kids will slip through the net, and the ones we do catch won't be any better. The draft won't work (if indeed that's how it happens, but I can't see an alternative). Fans will be alienated, as we have already seen. And all the while we won't have done anything to improve the real issue, which is the integration of these players to first team, which is where we have fallen down for as long as I can remember.
What annoys me the most is that Pearson came in and spent years telling us how brilliant he was and how much money he had spent on getting the academy up to scratch, and now that it is baring fruit and we have some youth teams to be proud of he's going to rip it up and start again just to save a few £.
The reason Leeds, Wigan, Saints juniors do so well isn't because they are much more talented that ours, or even that they get better coaching. It's that a) they get introduced slowly into winning teams that have coaches who know to go about doing it. And b) the culture and the standards set by the first team are carried on through every aspect of the club, so that when kids make their debuts they already know what's it's about because that's the way they've always done it anyway. How are we supposed to set a culture and replicate it right through the club when effectively 3 different clubs are involved?
I have supported this club for not far short of 20 years, and obviously a lot of you have followed them for many more. I have already been becoming disillusioned with it. Not because of the bad results, or Radford, or the refereeing, but because I'm struggling to indentify with it anymore. You go to places like Cas and it feels like a proper part of the community. You go to the KC these days and it's just sterile and soulless. This whole move just feels like another small part of the clubs soul has been ripped out.
Agree with every bit of that.
Cup Winners: 1914, 1982, 2005, 2016, 2017. Cup Runners-Up: 1908, 1909, 1910, 1922, 1923, 1959, 1960, 1980, 1983, 1985, 2008, 2013. League Champions: 1920, 1921, 1936, 1956, 1958, 1983. League Runners-Up: 1957, 1982, 1984, 2006.
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
_zps67e534e4.jpg)
