Re: Peacock has gone : Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:09 pm  

robinrovers10 wrote:

Wow, for someone like you who must spend every other minute looking at this forum, im assuming you attend the matches?? Oakes (yes he is or product, we got him as a just turned 16 little boy), Wallis, Cator, Wardill and Harrison must have sprung out of nowhere. I would even throw Mulhern in there, as 99% of his development has been at Rovers, likewise Atkin and Shaw.
so that's at least 5.

I reckon if you spent more time watching the first team instead of trawling through peoples posts on internet forum where people should say whatever they want, you may see furthur than your nose.

(2 hours later, PM- please refrain from having an opinion and just go with the flow. Im so scared of losing my admin role" MR)

So after that MR was right really the players you’ve mentioned aren’t really going to be starters and we can’t really claim Atkin Mulhearn and Shaw as our products but it’s good to see youth actually coming through

[Mild Rover]

Re: Peacock has gone : Wed Oct 31, 2018 10:00 am  

robinrovers10 wrote:

Wow, for someone like you who must spend every other minute looking at this forum, im assuming you attend the matches?? Oakes (yes he is or product, we got him as a just turned 16 little boy), Wallis, Cator, Wardill and Harrison must have sprung out of nowhere. I would even throw Mulhern in there, as 99% of his development has been at Rovers, likewise Atkin and Shaw.
so that's at least 5.

I reckon if you spent more time watching the first team instead of trawling through peoples posts on internet forum where people should say whatever they want, you may see furthur than your nose.

(2 hours later, PM- please refrain from having an opinion and just go with the flow. Im so scared of losing my admin role" MR)

You’re entitled to your opinion, just as i’m entitled to disagree with it - I certainly won’t be sending you a PM about it!

I do prefer to discuss things with people I disagree with, and so have a tendency to play devil’s advocate. I apologise if you found my tone aggressive or patronising.

Our disagreement really comes down a different definition of ‘bringing through youth’. My feeling, in terms of making us attractive to new recruits, is that the young players of the fringes of the squad won’t make much difference to outsiders’ perception. We know who they are because we’re interested in Rovers. I imagine other clubs have their own youngsters, but I’m not very aware of them because they haven’t broken through yet. The brutal reality is that most won’t have long-term SL careers - and there’s no shame in that! Spaven, Beharrell, Peterson, Sheriff, Hallett, Ollet, Guzdek, Holker, Robinson, Jubb, Moran - that’s how it usually turns out. My opinion is that until a few more make it to first choice in the 17, we’ll be perceived as a club that struggles to bring much young talent through the ranks to the first team.

Atkin, Shaw and Mulhern is a different way of looking at it. However, Atkin was already 24 and established championship player when he joined. Shaw was also 24, and Mulhern 22. So I think that is a fair, but slightly separate point.

Re: Peacock has gone : Wed Oct 31, 2018 2:13 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

You’re entitled to your opinion, just as i’m entitled to disagree with it - I certainly won’t be sending you a PM about it!

I do prefer to discuss things with people I disagree with, and so have a tendency to play devil’s advocate. I apologise if you found my tone aggressive or patronising.

Our disagreement really comes down a different definition of ‘bringing through youth’. My feeling, in terms of making us attractive to new recruits, is that the young players of the fringes of the squad won’t make much difference to outsiders’ perception. We know who they are because we’re interested in Rovers. I imagine other clubs have their own youngsters, but I’m not very aware of them because they haven’t broken through yet. The brutal reality is that most won’t have long-term SL careers - and there’s no shame in that! Spaven, Beharrell, Peterson, Sheriff, Hallett, Ollet, Guzdek, Holker, Robinson, Jubb, Moran - that’s how it usually turns out. My opinion is that until a few more make it to first choice in the 17, we’ll be perceived as a club that struggles to bring much young talent through the ranks to the first team.

Atkin, Shaw and Mulhern is a different way of looking at it. However, Atkin was already 24 and established championship player when he joined. Shaw was also 24, and Mulhern 22. So I think that is a fair, but slightly separate point.

Fair do's but my main piont is that we ARE bringing youth through at the par rate of Super League. Why is it that only a small percentage actually breakthrough?

Every season we add the same amount of youth to the 1st team squad (usually 3-4 a season).
So why cant they make the breakthrough like St helens/Wigan/Leeds.

Re: Peacock has gone : Wed Oct 31, 2018 3:59 pm  

robinrovers10 wrote:

Fair do's but my main piont is that we ARE bringing youth through at the par rate of Super League. Why is it that only a small percentage actually breakthrough?

Every season we add the same amount of youth to the 1st team squad (usually 3-4 a season).
So why cant they make the breakthrough like St helens/Wigan/Leeds.

My guess is that in those teams, they have better players around them to help them when they make their debut. Whereas we have squad players with few quality ones mixed in.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Peacock has gone : Wed Oct 31, 2018 7:02 pm  

robinrovers10 wrote:

Fair do's but my main piont is that we ARE bringing youth through at the par rate of Super League. Why is it that only a small percentage actually breakthrough?

Every season we add the same amount of youth to the 1st team squad (usually 3-4 a season).
So why cant they make the breakthrough like St helens/Wigan/Leeds.

It is an important, interesting and difficult question. I really don’t know. LifeLongHKRFan makes a fair point. Also, are they just not as good as the lads at Saints and Wigan, or are we missing something in our processes? One positive is that more of them seem to look physically ready to play against men than has sometimes been the case in the past.

Re: Peacock has gone : Wed Oct 31, 2018 8:32 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

It is an important, interesting and difficult question. I really don’t know. LifeLongHKRFan makes a fair point. Also, are they just not as good as the lads at Saints and Wigan, or are we missing something in our processes? One positive is that more of them seem to look physically ready to play against men than has sometimes been the case in the past.

I think it’s easier to slip a young player into a team that’s dominant without exposing him to much we’ve struggled one way or another for the last 4 or 5 seasons so any lads that have come through have been thrown into a bad situation