Re: Looks like : Sun Aug 28, 2011 9:53 am  

BigDog wrote:

I am sure the truth of the whole Gledhill saga will come out soon enough and people are probably keeping quiet until it is all sorted once and for all.

One thing I do know is in the past alot of the youth were restricted to 1st team games due to bonuses that were agreed in their contract for number of appearances etc. For example £5000 bonus for making 10 first team games and so on.

Nothing new in that, it's been happening since time immemorial and has always been wrong.

I know of good junior prospects who's registration has been cancelled and the player released effectively ending their chances of making the grade purely because they were close to a birthday that triggered a contract payment

Re: Looks like : Sun Aug 28, 2011 9:56 am  

Not so sure whether it still goes on as much nowadays though. I'd heard of Ted doing it in the past, but not so much the recent past

Re: Looks like : Sun Aug 28, 2011 3:38 pm  

[quote="feline"]
Hope not, we need to keep hold of him with Gledhill going.

Re: Looks like : Sun Aug 28, 2011 3:50 pm  

[quote="Theboyem"]
Yeah with Korki & Gledhill rumoured to be on the way out and one on the way in we could do with keeping Kyle , though he will be too old to count as an U 20 not sure how many over age players you can have now. Oh forgot about Wilkes that is another one in

Re: Looks like : Sun Aug 28, 2011 3:55 pm  

The Clan wrote:

John Kear is definitely having no input into recruitment or retention of players that is true however that doesn't exonerate him from being partially to blame for Ben Gledhills lack of development and rumoured departure.

I'll state right now that I don't know why Bens leaving, I merely want to point out that there are many ways in which different people could have contributed to his departure and thus could be to blame.

Since his promising debut against HKR it's been evident that there was great potential in Ben, what he needed was a development programme that included a greater game based knowledge, specificity coaching as a front rower, nutritional advice and most importantly a conditioning programme that would add 18 to 20 pounds of lean muscle to his frame.

The first thing we do not know is whether JK identified what was required, secondly did JK instruct his back room team of Paul Broadbent & Colin Sanctuary to formulate and deliver the relevant programme and if so did Ben Gledhill commit to and follow it.

If JK failed to do his part of this then yes he is at fault for Bens lack of progress and departure.

If he did identify the above and order the required development programme and Paul Broadbent alongside Colin Sanctuary failed to make it happen then the fault still lies with JK for not intervening, finding out why and ensuring it was done.

If the back room team are incapable of devising and delivering such an individualised programme (highly unlikely) then the fault still lies with JK because he assembled his team and is ultimately responsible for their failings.

If the development programme was put in place and Ben failed to physiologically respond to the programme (unlikely) this would be identified very early and the programme should be reassessed and adjusted accordingly. If this didn't happen then the fault lies with PB & CS and therefore ultimately with JK.

The only scenario where JK bares no responsibility is if Ben Gledhill refused to undertake such a development programme or wouldn't sufficiently commit to it. If that were the case then Why would JK continue to pick him for 1st team duties.

JK cannot be exonerated just because he offered Ben Gledhill more opportunities at 1st team level. There is a responsibility with the coaching team to do what's best for the individuals under their guidance, a duty of care. Young men, athletes place their trust in the coaching team and will for the most part follow their instruction with blind faith.

With hindsight players may reflect on their development and be unsatisfied with the advice they've been given and may choose to leave their club in search of something they feel would be more beneficial to them and their careers. That is their choice but on the path to that choice they are influenced by the advice and development they've received along the way.

For that reason the coaching staff may well bear some blame for the loss of that player!

I have a much more simple view of the situation. And that is that Ben Gledhill is not good enough to be a Super League prop forward.

Re: Looks like : Sun Aug 28, 2011 3:56 pm  

[quote="feline"]
On a side note is it correct that Kyle is playing more back row these days? Would make sense because he may be too small for front row.

Re: Looks like : Sun Aug 28, 2011 3:59 pm  

imwakefieldtillidie wrote:

I have a much more simple view of the situation. And that is that Ben Gledhill is not good enough to be a Super League prop forward.

Yeah, well thanks for that....


At 22 he's too young to be written off, IMO.

Re: Looks like : Sun Aug 28, 2011 4:01 pm  

imwakefieldtillidie wrote:

I have a much more simple view of the situation. And that is that Ben Gledhill is not good enough to be a Super League prop forward.

Even this year Ben has the balls and is not frightened to take the ball up with gusto against anyone. The problem is he has not gained any more physical presence or strength on the field which he needed. Why havent the coaching team developed this?

Re: Looks like : Sun Aug 28, 2011 4:07 pm  

The Clan wrote:

Nothing new in that, it's been happening since time immemorial and has always been wrong.

I know of good junior prospects who's registration has been cancelled and the player released effectively ending their chances of making the grade purely because they were close to a birthday that triggered a contract payment

Not saying I was a good junior prospect but that was exactly how I left Wakefield in 1982? when the then Chairman John Scaife called me into the treatment room at 9.30pm, 2 and half hours before my birthday to tell me that they were cancelling my contract as they could not afford to pay me!
Back to the subject!

Re: Looks like : Sun Aug 28, 2011 4:23 pm  

The Clan wrote:

Yeah, well thanks for that....


At 22 he's too young to be written off, IMO.

My opinion is that at 22 he is still too far from the required standard. I'd like to see him have a go in the second row. But if he is to leave, I don't think he will be the major loss that others do.