: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:34 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

OK understood, thanks.

What was your take on the youth development under the previous regime? There IS, in fairness, a fair bit of anecdotal evidence in support of the club's current line? And that comment from the Community Development team I referred to was made in a context where there was no reason whatsoever for an untruth to be told (you'll have to trust me on that one).

Seemed to me that we started SL well in terms of youth development - Fielden, Deacon (OK, ex Oldham) and Pryce obviously standing out - then we seemed to falter quite badly. Or maybe, more to the point, we produced quite a few but few stayed especially in the later years. What do you attribute that to? (Serious question, as always).

And yes, its easy to blame all that's wrong on the previous regime - hell, we'd had a government been doing just that for the last 12 years - especially when they are not well-placed to defend themselves. And anyone who belittles or sneers at what Caisley did for the club over most of his tenure deserves the kind of response you just came up with. But equally, that regime DID ultimately bring the club to the brink of falling over financially as well as landing us with the court action which did untold damage - both of which were pretty fundamental disasters which the next regime had to fix.

Trying to sift the truth from the spin is always hard, and its probably a truism I'll borrow from politics that all Chairmens' careers end in failure. The more facts, or informed judgment, people can put in the public domain, the more chance there is of people reaching the right conclusion and seeing through any spin - from whatever camp it comes. Wouldn't you agree?

I made the point in another thread the development was there. It's main problem was in the fact we tried to develop the wrong lads or when the got to the level of where they needed to be tested at the highest possible level they weren't given that chance. I've said before that lads were vexed of big style and rightly so one lad Paul Clarke is one of the best young full backs I've ever seen. If had been given a go we wouldn't have the fullback problems we have now.

: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:47 pm  

redeverready wrote:

I made the point in another thread the development was there. It's main problem was in the fact we tried to develop the wrong lads or when the got to the level of where they needed to be tested at the highest possible level they weren't given that chance. I've said before that lads were vexed of big style and rightly so one lad Paul Clarke is one of the best young full backs I've ever seen. If had been given a go we wouldn't have the fullback problems we have now.

That all makes a lot of sense and fits in tbh, when you look back. But (yes, call me "Mr But" if you want!) wasn't that a big failure on the part of the coaching and management set-up? The point maybe people are making, even if they are not quite getting the precise nature of the problem right?

: Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:20 am  

redeverready wrote:

IMO the club is trying to shift the focus away from Mac's short comings on to Noble and Caisley which IMO is out of order. Granted they might have had some flaws to be on the end of the tirade of abuse they are receiving is poor for two people who served the club so well.

Could not agree more.

Also, as McNamara was part of this last regime he would have been aware of the situation when he took the job in the first instance.

[Bullseye]

: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:00 am  

Terry Monster wrote:

Forget pre Super League, that's not what I meant.

I must have imagined Matt Cook, Sam Burgess, David Halley, Craig Kopczak, Ryan Atkins, Brett Ferres, Karl Pryce, Andy Smith, Chris Bridge, Aaron Smith, Matt James, Jason Crookes, Richard Johnson, Rich Hawkyard, Keal Carlisle, James Donaldson, Elliot Whithead, Tom Olbison all developing and progressing to play for Bulls super leage team post 2003 then.

Thats 18 super league players and a couple of ex and and there is probably more than that, that have been developed after 2003 by the Bulls, that record is as good as any club in Super League.

Depends on your criteria of what is successful. I'd say that Leeds in particular could probably double our figure and include more players that have made it to a higher level.

Only one of ours has made it to test level. Six of the rest are regular SL players. The rest have either disappeared from SL or are just coming through this year.

For the purposes of this thread I was referring to our systems up to this year so wasn't including the likes of Whitehead, Olbison and Donaldson who I hope are the start of something for us.

When you look at Leeds the following have become test players at one time or another in the past 7 or so years: Calderwood, Walker, McGuire, Burrow, Bailey, Diskin, Jones Buchanan, Hall, Smith and Sinfield. Add to that the SL regulars like Mathers, Watkins, Scruton, Burgess and Ablett and you can see that they did bring more "quality" players through compared with the Bulls in the same period.

: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:19 am  

Bullseye wrote:

Depends on your criteria of what is successful. I'd say that Leeds in particular could probably double our figure and include more players that have made it to a higher level.

I'd say by the number of players progressing to become super league standard first team regulars would be deemed the criteria for a succesful academy. Nothing really to do with test level or what they go on to achieve.

Talking about the period that you mention, players developed post 2003, Mark Calderwood, Chev Walker, Danny McGuire, Rob Burrow, Ryan Bailey, Matt Diskin, JJB & Kevin Sinfield were all developed and promoted to the 1st team by Leeds prior to the period that you mention, so I don't see how you can use them in your argument as you have claimed Bulls matched this level of junior development up until 2003, and it's quite evident we did. Just because we haven't managed to keep them all doesn't mean that Leeds are better at developing players than us.

Players developing post 2003, Leeds still do not have much on us,

You mention, Smith, Hall, Ablett, Burgess, Mathers and Watkins as notable examples, yet we have Burgess, Cook, James, Kopczak, Ferres, Halley who have all been developed and progressed to our first team since then.

So I'm really struggling to see how Leeds had had superior development of juniors post 2004 mate.

The fact is Bulls have always produced and still are producing juniors as good as Leeds Rhinos and anybody else in Super League for that matter.

: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:27 am  

TBF I don't think the club has pushed the "Noble bad, McNamara good", "Caisley bad, Hood good" line at all. Indeed while we've had years of rumours about Harrisgate, youth player issues, money etc. etc., it is only recently, and only to a limited extent, that comments have been made by the Club - under great pressure to "be open with the fans" so that a little light has been shed on the current regimes views as to the past setup as compared to now.

As Adey said, and we all know, you absolutely never get to find out all sides of the whole story, so have to form views on snippets. It isn't surprising for any new regime to advance (and presumably genuinely believe) that they are improving on / clearing up after the previous incumbents. It's normal. I'd say there's been much less of that at Bradford than there could have.

I reckon it is totally wrong to accuse the present regime of "trying to shift the focus away from Mac's short comings on to Noble and Caisley". I don't see that is fair at all. Where have they been doing that? The fans have been on at the club for a long time to say more and inform better, and it seems to me that if you asked for it, it's bad form to slag off when you get it.

On youth development, whether the problem was deficiencies in the system, or whether it was Noble/the club wouldn't give deserving cases a chance to the extent that they were even lost to the game in some cases - I've only directly heard that from RER, though I don't doubt it. If the Bulls were wanting to sling mud why would they not use this?

If the club [i]did/i] make these criticisms re failure to keep such promising youths, would that be (a) "trying to shift the focus etc" or just (b) the oft requested "truth"? If RER is right, surely you couldn't get a more damning indictment of the old youth setup?

And if he is right, what better ammo for a shift of focus could Hood & Co., have? Yet they have kept those bullets locked in the armoury?

In terms of other issues, we all know that Harrisgate was an utter financial disaster for the club and it was indeed 100% the fault of the previous administration, so no focus shifting required there. We also (I presume) all believe that selling Fielden and Noble was not unconnected to the state of teh club's cashflow so ditto; yet I haven't heard the present administration making a big song and dance about it and if they did then it would not be "spin" but the plain truth.

[Bullseye]

: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:41 am  

Terry Monster wrote:

You mention, Smith, Hall, Ablett, Burgess, Mathers and Watkins as notable examples, yet we have Burgess, Cook, James, Kopczak, Ferres, Halley who have all been developed and progressed to our first team since then.

So I'm really struggling to see how Leeds had had superior development of juniors post 2004 mate.

The fact is Bulls have always produced and still are producing juniors as good as Leeds Rhinos and anybody else in Super League for that matter.

Of the two lists above I'll stick my neck out and say the Leeds players are generally speaking better than the ones we've brought through. It's ok bringing through lots of players but they need to be of a good standard, otherwise what's the point? As RER has stated we perhaps missed a trick at times with our own youngsters and didn't produce the quality, even if the quantity was ok. After all quality wins titles and trophies not quantity as we all know.

I guess Leeds are the best example because they've brought through their kids over a long period and kept it going. While the numbers produced might be similar there's a definite difference in quality over the SL years. Leeds have produced more test players than us, and that is what we should be aiming to do - bring through as many test quality players as possible.

Bradford: Deacon, L,Pryce, Peacock, Fielden, Langley, Burgess.

Leeds: Walker, Sinfield, McGuire, Burrow, Diskin, JJB, Bailey, Smith, Hall & Calderwood.

: Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:27 am  

Bullseye wrote:

Of the two lists above I'll stick my neck out and say the Leeds players are generally speaking better than the ones we've brought through. It's ok bringing through lots of players but they need to be of a good standard, otherwise what's the point? As RER has stated we perhaps missed a trick at times with our own youngsters and didn't produce the quality, even if the quantity was ok. After all quality wins titles and trophies not quantity as we all know.

I guess Leeds are the best example because they've brought through their kids over a long period and kept it going. While the numbers produced might be similar there's a definite difference in quality over the SL years. Leeds have produced more test players than us, and that is what we should be aiming to do - bring through as many test quality players as possible.

Bradford: Deacon, L,Pryce, Peacock, Fielden, Langley, Burgess, Reardon, Atkins, Sykes

Leeds: Walker, Sinfield, McGuire, Burrow, Diskin, JJB, Bailey, Smith, Hall & Calderwood.

I wouldn't say so mate, they've definatley got some better players in their list than we have, but we can also claim to have some better players in our list.

Add Ryan Atkins to our list and you've got the current England left side partnership, I'd say that's pretty even, Cook & Ablett, Koppy, Scruton, again it's even, but our Burgess blows theirs away, where as Lee Smith is as good as any back in the league. Quality does win titles, and like I've said, we've always produced quality, it's just a shame that the quality we developed before isnt there to be complimented by the quality we continue to develop to this day. It only looks good on Leeds because theyve managed to keep them all together, which is an achievement to be proud of indeed, but imagine the team we would have had, had we managed to keep them together aswell.

Leeds are a good example for youth development, but so are we, just as much as them, there is no difference in quality whatsoever in the players both teams have produced, just that they have produced some better players than us, and we have produced some better players than them. In general, both teams have produced a constant supply of high quality juniors from 96 - to date.

I added 3 more Bulls juniors that you missed of your test players list, that brings us to 9, them to 10, 1 more..big deal.

: Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:40 am  

Terry Monster wrote:

I wouldn't say so mate, they've definatley got some better players in their list than we have, but we can also claim to have some better players in our list.

Add Ryan Atkins to our list and you've got the current England left side partnership, I'd say that's pretty even, Cook & Ablett, Koppy, Scruton, again it's even, but our Burgess blows theirs away, where as Lee Smith is as good as any back in the league. Quality does win titles, and like I've said, we've always produced quality, it's just a shame that the quality we developed before isnt there to be complimented by the quality we continue to develop to this day. It only looks good on Leeds because theyve managed to keep them all together, which is an achievement to be proud of indeed, but imagine the team we would have had, had we managed to keep them together aswell.

Leeds are a good example for youth development, but so are we, just as much as them, there is no difference in quality whatsoever in the players both teams have produced, just that they have produced some better players than us, and we have produced some better players than them. In general, both teams have produced a constant supply of high quality juniors from 96 - to date.

I added 3 more Bulls juniors that you missed of your test players list, that brings us to 9, them to 10, 1 more..big deal.

However all but 1 of theres is still at the club. Look how many we have still in our first team squad. Thats the difference

: Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:41 am  

Bullseye wrote:

Depends on your criteria of what is successful. I'd say that Leeds in particular could probably double our figure and include more players that have made it to a higher level.

Only one of ours has made it to test level. Six of the rest are regular SL players. The rest have either disappeared from SL or are just coming through this year.

For the purposes of this thread I was referring to our systems up to this year so wasn't including the likes of Whitehead, Olbison and Donaldson who I hope are the start of something for us.

When you look at Leeds the following have become test players at one time or another in the past 7 or so years: Calderwood, Walker, McGuire, Burrow, Bailey, Diskin, Jones Buchanan, Hall, Smith and Sinfield. Add to that the SL regulars like Mathers, Watkins, Scruton, Burgess and Ablett and you can see that they did bring more "quality" players through compared with the Bulls in the same period.

There are a number of other former Leeds players as well - Peter Fox, Scott Murrell, Jason Netherton, Chas I'Anson, Jordan Tansey, Gareth raynor, Ewan Dowes, Ben Kaye, Luke Gayle, Gareth Carvell - there are not many SL teams without a sprinkling of former Leeds youngsters.