Cool article.
I liked this bit.
Oh - and obviously all that lock talk.
Imo he probably defined too many "roles". Ultimately a very long way to say "the number on a bloke's back doesn't pigeonhole him" and "rather than play a set way, figure out your players' strengths and how to use them".
Yeah probably a few too many roles overall just thought it was an interesting read and in line with some of the stuff we talk about sometime, like your next post for example.
Gal is way off on this one.
For 99% of players nobody can tell which 11-15 year old players are going to be good at 18 or at 22. Before 18, for most people good = "more mature physically or mentally than kids your age".
For both clubs and schools it is a numbers game once they hit high-school age. Get as many players as you can, have as many teams as you can, and then eventually some of them will be good. Marsden are a top 5 school in the country, but their U14 "C" team can't beat my son's school team who are all U13 and 1/3 of whom have never played before this year. If Marsden keep running with 4-5 teams per year level though, in a few years some of those kids in the "C" team will be in the "A" team, because they will improve. At that point some "expert" will say how great it was that they put 3-4 years of "development" in to him by shuffling him off to the C team to get coached by someone who has NFI and get beaten every week.
A 2018 study of NRL players found that there was close to a 50/50 success rate if you were identified before 16 and entered specialised development programs, or not.
So, what the science says is that what happens before 17 is 50/50 for the vast majority of players. Specialised development before that age doesn't necessarily increase a player's chances of being a successful adult player.
What Gal is referring to as "development" is the numbers game. Have lots of juniors; try to keep the best ones.
Identifying players at 17-20 and then turning them in to professional players is the only thing that actually matters (for NRL clubs). That's what Gus is talking about.
Gal is def a bit more caught up in his definition in it being towards 'juniors' vs who turned them from not an NRL player into an NRL player.
They are not bringing the kids all the way through to the point they are able to either be or not be these NRL players. They are picking them up just before this point. And much closer to the time when it becomes clear whether they are a prospect or not.
Also again they aren't just grabbing 16 year olds at random they are grabbing the ones they like the look of so if they then have a high success rate doesn't that suggest there is at least some correlation between the ones who look good at 16 and the ones who can become NRL players?
Well yes, you're saying it's 50/50. That's a high enough success rate that it makes sense to try get some of the top 100 looking kids rather some of the other 1000s
Maybe that same 16 year old who was in Sharks system never makes the NRL if Roosters don't bring him over to develop him, but maybe he does. Now if they regularly grabbed the
worst 16 year old in Cronulla area and turned them into NRL players they'd have a rock solid argument.
But I just think when you are doing a lot of picking and choosing and then finding success it is (likely) at least as much about talent ID as having a good system.
Look at Jesse C, rejected by St George and given a shot at Sharks he has taken his chance and run with it. That's a story more like where the new club has developed the player like Gus is talking about.
Look at some young roosters forwards, picked one I know the name of without knowing their background... Nat Butchers dad was an NRL player and was poached across from South Sydney as a current Australian schoolboy at 17. Then went on to play NYC for Roosters and excel and now in the NRL. Well that example worked out well... do Roosters deserve full credit for his development into an NRL player?
Obviously all clubs would have examples of both.
If you are talent IDing other places juniors yes you are likely still putting in good work to take them to the next level but that area has given you a decent leg up by getting that bloke to the point you're looking at him.
I don't feel as passionately about this argument as the length of my reply suggests haha