Re: Uninspiring : Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:09 pm  

_dyl_ wrote:

I'm sorry but Southstander does not represent the whole of rugby. Go do some scientific research on public opinion and I might agree with you. But, if your formulating your general view from people on the internet, you must also believe the moon landings were faked and that 9/11 was masterminded by the United States government.

Also, if you're comparing 10 years of data to one then this is not a logical comparison. Come back in 2023 and compare 2003 - 2013 and 2014 - 2023, this would then be logical. Yes, I do see having more British coaches as a good thing as it means they get experience of coaching at the top level.

My point is we shouldn't recruit more top quality players from the NRL, we should export them as we are so they gain experience of playing in the best RL competition. They then return home and share said experience and increase the quality of our own competition.

I think you will find there is one "truly elite" player that has gone to RU, not players. The rest of the players that have gone to RU have been chances taken by the RFU and most of them have failed. What other "truly elite" British player has gone to RU in the last 10 years?

The only way you increase quality is increase the pool of talent you select from. In 2003, only a few clubs had academy's feeding their 1st team. Now there are more. These lads are not going to be world class now but if the increase in academy products continues, I believe in 2023 we will be looking back saying "Wow, what a 10 years of amazing sport we've seen and that player and this team and England are now competing on a world stage". If I'm wrong, may you quote this post in 10 years time and prove me wrong.

Southstander is not meant to represent the whole of rugby, it represents the sentiments of one club. That club has declining standards of play as its core players age and their abilities fade.

On British coaches - I would agree with the correct training that would be a great thing, sadly most haven't had the training within the really elite level i.e. the NRL. So we are entrusting our elite youngsters to sub-standard coaching IMO.

Elite players that have gone to RU - Kyle Eastmond, Joel Tomkins, Sam Burgess, Chris Ashton (would have been an elite player if he had remained)

I agree with your point about developing talent however we are in the entertainment business and customers expect a certain standard to be maintained whilst this development is on going. Secondly one of the benefits of bringing top NRL players is the impact they have on youngsters and their development. I would find it hard to believe that you would not learn from a Michael Monoghan or a George Carmont or a Danny Buderus?

Re: Uninspiring : Thu Nov 13, 2014 3:07 pm  

_dyl_ wrote:

My point is we shouldn't recruit more top quality players from the NRL, we should export them as we are so they gain experience of playing in the best RL competition. They then return home and share said experience and increase the quality of our own competition.

Who, exactly are you talking about here? In recent years, which players have gained experience in the NRL then come back to SL and imparted their new found wisdom to increase the quality of our own competition?

Richie Mathers, Jordan Tansey, Adrian Morley... who exactly?

Re: Uninspiring : Thu Nov 13, 2014 10:47 pm  

tigertot wrote:

The standard of RL in late 70s, early 80s, was absolute garbage in comparison. But I still loved the game as much as I do now.

Spot on, although whilst I'll not align myself with the wrist slitters I don't enjoy it as much as I used to but that is because of me growing up, being less partisan and not because of this so called decrease in standards. I agree with you, standards are far better.

Re: Uninspiring : Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:02 pm  

G1 wrote:

Spot on, although whilst I'll not align myself with the wrist slitters I don't enjoy it as much as I used to but that is because of me growing up, being less partisan and not because of this so called decrease in standards. I agree with you, standards are far better.

I agree, and whilst part of not enjoying it as much I'm sure is to do with the things you say, I also think that it's often not as good as to watch despite being a much higher standard.

It's partly why I've come around to favouring having "proper" scrums in an attempt to open the game up a bit more and maybe adding a slightly different dimension to the game.

Re: Uninspiring : Fri Nov 14, 2014 1:21 am  

_dyl_ wrote:

I think there should only be 13 players called world class each year. The best in that position. All others a good, solid, talented etc. Like said earlier we don't want to be getting to a "world, world, world, world class" player.

Not sure you can use that as a general rule in all fairness. If that were the case one or the other of Greg Inglis and Billy Slater would not be world class for example and that's clearly not the case. Ditto Jonathon Thurston and Shaun Johnson, Cameron Smith and James Roby etc. World class is, of course, a subjective description but I don't think it should be subject to an arbitrary number limit. It is entirely possible to have a 'golden era' for a given position, such as the time we had Wally Lewis, Alan Langer, Peter Stirling et al. plying their trade at half for example, and I don't think it right to say any of those weren't world class but someone else of lesser ability from a different era is, just because there happens to be no one better at that particular time.

Re: Uninspiring : Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:06 am  

The point about falling standards is an interesting one - I agree with Gareth the game is of a far higher standard now than it was in the 70s and 80s. I don't think the current standard of the league is as good as it was in the early to mid 2000's. There has been a definite drop off due to the lack of quality from overseas, the increase to 14 teams, top players leaving for the NRL, RU and the general lack of good coaches.

Re: Uninspiring : Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:47 am  

World class means you can mix it with the best in the world and still hold your own. To say "you're not a world class player because someone else is slightly better than you are" is just plain ridiculous.

Re: Uninspiring : Fri Nov 14, 2014 9:37 am  

Fat Boy wrote:

Who, exactly are you talking about here? In recent years, which players have gained experience in the NRL then come back to SL and imparted their new found wisdom to increase the quality of our own competition?

Richie Mathers, Jordan Tansey, Adrian Morley... who exactly?

Richie Mathers and Adrian Morley played in a very successful Warrington side that won the challenge cup twice after they played in Aus. I absolutely believe Morley has shared valuable knowledge with the forwards he's played with at Wire and now Salford. I've no doubt Graham will return to Saints at some point and will play/coach and some, maybe not all, of the Burgess clan will return to do the same one day. Tomkins also is one I see doing great things (coaching/playing) and I thought his defence in the 4 Nations was outstanding, something he's definitely improved since leaving for the NZ Warriors.

Why did Tansey never kicked on after showing promise at Leeds? Well I think an individual can sometimes not live up to their potential and settle to just being a squad player. But if we sent no one, then we would not get any experience, sending some and maybe more, will help the English game.

It also benefits the national side and for a month or two, the best English players get to train and be around the Aussie based crop. That must benefit English rugby?

Sal Paradise wrote:

On British coaches - I would agree with the correct training that would be a great thing, sadly most haven't had the training within the really elite level i.e. the NRL. So we are entrusting our elite youngsters to sub-standard coaching IMO.

Wane and McDermott haven't coached in Aus, though I've no doubt thy have benefitted from being understudies to Aussie coaches. I'm also glad McNamara is learning his trade as assistant at Sydney Roosters. When the next crop of players who become coaches start to filter through, they will have been coached by these three men, further enhancing our pot of coaches to pick from. Anderson, Agar, Chester, Radford, Harris, Betts and now Cunningham (who is an unknown but hope he does well) are all people I've seen on the pitch and it's great to see we are now seeing us not rely on the southern hemisphere to coach our teams.

Surely a coaches quality should be judged on how their team perform, a la Darryl Powell, who spent the majority of his coaching career in the Championship. He's now, IMO, one of the best in the league. Did he go to Aus?

Fat Boy wrote:

World class means you can mix it with the best in the world and still hold your own. To say "you're not a world class player because someone else is slightly better than you are" is just plain ridiculous.

Well that's where our opinion differs. I'd rather have a smaller pool of "world class" for players to aspire to than every man and their dog being classified as such. Do I think Sinfield has been world class in 2014? No. Do I think he's been world class in the past? Yes. Is he a true legend of the sport, absolutely. Do I think Hardaker is a fantastic player? Yes. Can he mix it with the best in the world? No idea, he doesn't get picked for the national team. Is he the best in SL? Yes, but that doesn't make him world class. If he gets picked at FB and plays against the current players considered best in the world at that position AND plays better then I'm happy for him, in my opinion of course, to be considered as such.

On a final note, listening to Andrew Voss commentate on the 4 Nations he said something like "You know, these English boys play a different style of Rugby to the NRL and it's great to watch, their deep lines and passing ability is better than the NRL". Surely that means we are developing our own brand of Rugby that can now complete with the NRL style. That hasn't produced a trophy yet but we are closer than we've ever been and that for me is as a result of standards in SL getting better, having a bigger pool of talent to pick from, more British Coaches and more players going to mix it in the best comp.

Come on lads, lets be positive!

Re: Uninspiring : Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:44 am  

It seems to my untutored mind that the game down under is based predominantly on size, power & pace hence the increasing numbers of what you may call polynesian or south sea islanders involved in their club game & representatively. Ally that to one or two clever, pacy half backs with a good kicking game & you're well on the way to success. An article I read today re qualification for the Aussie schoolboys reveals the ARL's worries that NZ or other nations (not from the northern hemisphere) are getting better able to compete with them. It reveals their totally self-centred & self interested view of the game. http://rugbyleagueweek.com.au/arl-commi ... ity-rules/

It seems to my untutored mind that the game down under is based predominantly on size, power & pace hence the increasing numbers of what you may call polynesian or south sea islanders involved in their club game & representatively. Ally that to one or two clever, pacy half backs with a good kicking game & you're well on the way to success. An article I read today re qualification for the Aussie schoolboys reveals the ARL's worries that NZ or other nations (not from the northern hemisphere) are getting better able to compete with them. It reveals their totally self-centred & self interested view of the game. http://rugbyleagueweek.com.au/arl-commi ... ity-rules/

Re: Uninspiring : Fri Nov 14, 2014 1:07 pm  

Old Feller wrote: It seems to my untutored mind that the game down under is based predominantly on size, power & pace hence the increasing numbers of what you may call polynesian or south sea islanders involved in their club game & representatively. Ally that to one or two clever, pacy half backs with a good kicking game & you're well on the way to success. An article I read today re qualification for the Aussie schoolboys reveals the ARL's worries that NZ or other nations (not from the northern hemisphere) are getting better able to compete with them. It reveals their totally self-centred & self interested view of the game. http://rugbyleagueweek.com.au/arl-commi ... ity-rules/ The NRL really focusses on doing the basics really well and being able to run set plays when the opportunity arises. The first 4 plays are just one out metre making runs and play 5 is when they put on a set play and set 6 is either a punt down field or a second set play. The game is very structured but faster and bigger hits than SL. It is more akin to American Football that SL in its mind set.

Old Feller wrote: It seems to my untutored mind that the game down under is based predominantly on size, power & pace hence the increasing numbers of what you may call polynesian or south sea islanders involved in their club game & representatively. Ally that to one or two clever, pacy half backs with a good kicking game & you're well on the way to success. An article I read today re qualification for the Aussie schoolboys reveals the ARL's worries that NZ or other nations (not from the northern hemisphere) are getting better able to compete with them. It reveals their totally self-centred & self interested view of the game. http://rugbyleagueweek.com.au/arl-commi ... ity-rules/ The NRL really focusses on doing the basics really well and being able to run set plays when the opportunity arises. The first 4 plays are just one out metre making runs and play 5 is when they put on a set play and set 6 is either a punt down field or a second set play. The game is very structured but faster and bigger hits than SL. It is more akin to American Football that SL in its mind set.