Dave K. wrote:
Be intrested to read the thoughts of RBA or other Rovers fans on this.
Hello.
I think there are two sides of the process that can be looked at.
Firstly the analysis and the performance/selection criteria. Were these established in advance of the analysis and at least checked by a qualified statistician? The panel consisted of an Air Commodore, Sport England’s strategic lead for talent and performance and four RFL representatives. I’ve just stalked the second of those, Duncan Truswell, on LinkedIn and he has a BS in Economics and Politics, so it isn’t implausible that it was done properly and both he Dean Andrew said they believed the process was robust and rigorous. From the bits and pieces I’ve seen, I’d have some questions I’d like to ask - but maybe it is kinder and a better use of everybody’s time if we move on. My point really is if it was done well, then the second ‘political’ element is easier to support. And it was always going to be a political decision to some degree, inevitably. If they didn’t precisely predefine their criteria or consider weighting across the follow-up period etc., then having a Hull fan chair a panel that denies Rovers a licence (especially when two remained open)
looks bad. Which doesn’t necessarily mean it is bad - I’m not questioning anybody’s integrity. I think the panel as a whole was… naive, perhaps? Maybe in not publishing their methods, results and full interpretation, if it was robust, or at least in the somewhat crass messaging and communication.
Weirdly, Rovers academy might ultimately have been saved by shortcomings in the process. It’s not like better analysis would have made our numbers look much better and we may not have met properly defined criteria. Despite the outrage, if the RFL had a proper defence they should have mounted it before resorting to Rimmer’s Random Word Salad in that Sky interview.
Irregular Hoops wrote:
We just need to keep doing what we’re doing.
I initially wrote a sarcastic ‘I hope you do’ type of response to this.
What I really hope is that all clubs reflect a bit more about what is and is not working for them and young local players, then maybe conduct some robust and rigorous analyses of their own with a view to considering some different approaches and testing new ideas. It’s an expensive do running an academy and neither Rovers nor Hull have had fantastic vfm in recent years. Both clubs need to do better - they shouldn’t just be a feel-good thing. I get the symbolism of Rovers’ academy beating Hull’s in these circumstances - but that isn’t the point of it. The success of those groups, as groups, should be judged in 5 to 10 years from now.
