2022 NRL General discussion

apezza

Great White
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,020
Reaction score
1,718
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. Maybe every now and then there is a Latrell, but that is very rare.

For both clubs and schools it is a numbers game once the 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. Before 18, good = "more mature physically or mentally than kids your age".

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 identifying players at 17-19 and then turning them in to professional players is the only thing that actually matters, because what happens before that is 50/50 unless you have a budding superstar.
What age was Gal when he came to the Sharks?
 

BurgoShark

Super Moderator
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
12,628
Reaction score
3,853
Cool article.

I liked this bit.
Knowing Dylan Edwards made 200 metres is vaguely useful, but totally useless for judging if, say, Reece Walsh was any good. It’s like getting Tevita Tatola’s kicking metres.
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".
 

BurgoShark

Super Moderator
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
12,628
Reaction score
3,853
One thing I've done over the years is not have attacking positions bound to defensive positions. I've had my 1 or 13 be the primary playmaker at times, I've also had locks playing 3-in as an extra link man so my 7 could start shifts to either side without the 6 having to wrap, and plenty of other examples.

My current team I have a fullback who couldn't pass at all at the start of the year (but he's improving), and isn't great at support play. He's an outstanding defensive fullback though, so defends there, plays like an extra middle forward in attack and throws a few dummy half passes. We have the lock do the things that most people expect the fullback to do in attack (support through the middle, throw an extra pass when needed, etc.).

I could have tried to shoehorn a different player into an "NRL fullback" role, but then I'd have a fullback who is great at support/passing but can't tackle. Defending at fullback is frickin' hard. If you find a player who is both willing and able to do it, figure out a way to keep him there.
 
Last edited:

apezza

Great White
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,020
Reaction score
1,718
I know Gal says some silly things some times but you have to give the guy credit for speaking out. Gal on PongaGate:


"What happened in the toilet I couldn't care less. And nothing will ever happen about it, anyway, because there's no evidence or anything. So that doesn't worry me one bit," Gallen said.

"I couldn't care less what happened in the toilet. They could be kissing for all I care. I couldn't care less.

"But the fact is they're out on the drink when they're injured, when your team's struggling and going no good, getting smashed up week in, week out, their coach (Adam O'Brien) is under pressure, the whole club is under pressure. And you being the highest-paid, highest-profile player at the club go out and get on the drink? What are the rest of your teammates thinking?

 

BurgoShark

Super Moderator
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
12,628
Reaction score
3,853
17 I think
Gal wasn't identified as a gun player though. I believe he was playing for Wenty u17's and training with the SG Ball team, but wasn't a first choice player there.

Just another good example of a player who people looked at when he was 17 and said "yeah - goes OK but nothing special".
 

bort

Jaws
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
29,385
Reaction score
5,513
Location
IN A BAR
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
 

Sparkles

Jaws
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
11,860
Reaction score
2,650
Gould typically doesn’t leave much space for other people to have their say.

Effectively arguing definition of development.

Do roosters count as a club good at developing young players because they take a lot of 16-17 year olds and get them into the NRL (Gould) or do they not because another club/area spent 10 years getting that 16-17 year old to the point Roosters were able to talent ID them as a potential NRL player (Gal).

If they were doing it with any 17 year old at random Gus would have a good point but the fact they are picking and choosing guys they think are the best suggests to me some amount of development has already been put in place.
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. Maybe every now and then there is a Latrell, but that is very rare. 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 "C" team can't beat a local school whose team is half made up of soccer and AFL players. If they 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.

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.

Identifying players at 17-20 and then turning them in to professional players is the only thing that actually matters (for NRL clubs).
There's got to be something in both sides of the argument.
I'd agree that these kids don't become first graders by 17 (though there's a few the Roosters scored that did) but they've been given a platform of the fundamentals, physical and footy. The Roosters are picking those with the highest potential - skills, strength, speed, mental fortitude, etc. They'd have a set of metrics that goes well beyond passing and tackling that I'd suggest skews the odds in their favour. That potential has been nurtured and supported by other clubs.

So how much can either party claim? Both have too much vested interest in the answer for us to possibly ever know. Maybe we need to look at the percentage of Roosters 'development' players that make it into first grade. That'd be interesting.
 

apezza

Great White
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,020
Reaction score
1,718
There's got to be something in both sides of the argument.
I'd agree that these kids don't become first graders by 17 (though there's a few the Roosters scored that did) but they've been given a platform of the fundamentals, physical and footy. The Roosters are picking those with the highest potential - skills, strength, speed, mental fortitude, etc. They'd have a set of metrics that goes well beyond passing and tackling that I'd suggest skews the odds in their favour. That potential has been nurtured and supported by other clubs.

So how much can either party claim? Both have too much vested interest in the answer for us to possibly ever know. Maybe we need to look at the percentage of Roosters 'development' players that make it into first grade. That'd be interesting.
Yeh measure how many were brought in and than spat out.
 

BurgoShark

Super Moderator
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
12,628
Reaction score
3,853
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 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
I agree here for 16 and up, or rather than picking an age this really should really be "kids who have finished puberty".

For kids kids younger than that, there is absolutely no correlation between their performance now and performance as an adult. Statistically, 90% of players picked in rep teams 15 and below are born between January and March. Selection bias favours the older and more developed kids. This is well documented.

There's got to be something in both sides of the argument.
I'd agree that these kids don't become first graders by 17 (though there's a few the Roosters scored that did) but they've been given a platform of the fundamentals, physical and footy. The Roosters are picking those with the highest potential - skills, strength, speed, mental fortitude, etc. They'd have a set of metrics that goes well beyond passing and tackling that I'd suggest skews the odds in their favour. That potential has been nurtured and supported by other clubs.

So how much can either party claim? Both have too much vested interest in the answer for us to possibly ever know. Maybe we need to look at the percentage of Roosters 'development' players that make it into first grade. That'd be interesting.
Yeah. Survivorship bias. Count the hits and ignore the misses.

Again - it's just a numbers game.
 

bort

Jaws
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
29,385
Reaction score
5,513
Location
IN A BAR
I agree here for 16 and up, or rather than picking an age this really should really be "kids who have finished puberty".

For kids kids younger than that, there is absolutely no correlation between their performance now and performance as an adult. Statistically, 90% of players picked in rep teams 15 and below are born between January and March. Selection bias favours the older and more developed kids. This is well documented.


Yeah. Survivorship bias. Count the hits and ignore the misses.

Again - it's just a numbers game.
Yeah agree with that, the younger you go def be more of a crapshoot with strong bias towards physical traits
 

BurgoShark

Super Moderator
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
12,628
Reaction score
3,853
Here is the Australian Schoolboys side that Butcher played in Bort.

24 players

While most of them played an NRL game at some point, just 5 of them went on to debut with and become established players with the team who had them at 18, and only two were still with that team at the start of the 2020 season (5 years later).



**

Tom AMONE
Jayden BRAILEY
Nat BUTCHER
Oliver CLARK
Jack COGGER
Tevita COTTRELL
Tyrell FUIMAONO
Gideon GELA-MOSBY
Regan GRIEVE (R.I.P.)
Keegan HIPGRAVE
Jacob HOST
Robert JENNINGS
Brock LAMB
Luciano LEILUA
Jacob LIDDLE
Latrell MITCHELL

Ashleigh NISBET
John OLIVE
Braden ROBSON
Hame SELE
Bailey SIRONEN
Connor TRACEY
Jayden WALKER
Keenan YORSTON


***

.. and here is the team the following year. Again, this time just 4 players who ended up becoming established players at their current club.

1 Ryan PAPENHUYZEN
2 Tyronne ROBERTS-DAVIS
3 Curtis SCOTT
4 Reuben GARRICK
5 Tre WILLIAMS
6 Nathan CLEARY
7 Scott DRINKWATER
8 Jye CHALLENOR
9 Blayke BRAILEY
10 Jayden BUTTERFIELD
11 Cameron MURRAY
12 Adam KEIGHRAN
13 Reuben COTTER

14 David FAUID
15 Ray STONE
16 Bayley FAULL
17 Daniel VASQUEZ

***

Same story every year. Of the highest-rated players, a handful go on to become regulars for the team that "discovered" them, but the rest move on or never make it.

Seems to me this is a league-wide thing and not a “Roosters” problem. Roosters for Butcher but lost Drinkwater.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 7, 2005
Messages
18,221
Reaction score
1,922
Location
The Ridge!
Here is the Australian Schoolboys side that Butcher played in Bort.

24 players

While most of them played an NRL game at some point, just 5 of them went on to debut with and become established players with the team who had them at 18, and only two were still with that team at the start of the 2020 season (5 years later).



**

Tom AMONE
Jayden BRAILEY
Nat BUTCHER
Oliver CLARK
Jack COGGER
Tevita COTTRELL
Tyrell FUIMAONO
Gideon GELA-MOSBY
Regan GRIEVE (R.I.P.)
Keegan HIPGRAVE
Jacob HOST
Robert JENNINGS
Brock LAMB
Luciano LEILUA
Jacob LIDDLE
Latrell MITCHELL

Ashleigh NISBET
John OLIVE
Braden ROBSON
Hame SELE
Bailey SIRONEN
Connor TRACEY
Jayden WALKER
Keenan YORSTON


***

.. and here is the team the following year. Again, this time just 4 players who ended up becoming established players at their current club.

1 Ryan PAPENHUYZEN
2 Tyronne ROBERTS-DAVIS
3 Curtis SCOTT
4 Reuben GARRICK
5 Tre WILLIAMS
6 Nathan CLEARY
7 Scott DRINKWATER
8 Jye CHALLENOR
9 Blayke BRAILEY
10 Jayden BUTTERFIELD
11 Cameron MURRAY
12 Adam KEIGHRAN
13 Reuben COTTER

14 David FAUID
15 Ray STONE
16 Bayley FAULL
17 Daniel VASQUEZ

***

Same story every year. Of the highest-rated players, a handful go on to become regulars for the team that "discovered" them, but the rest move on or never make it.

Seems to me this is a league-wide thing and not a “Roosters” problem. Roosters for Butcher but lost Drinkwater.
Aren't Papenhauyzen and Drinkwater established players at their clubs?
 

Sutty

Jaws
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
5,439
Reaction score
370
Junior systems and professional development are obviously different things, Gal is being a bit of a gate keeper there.

Newcastle are a great example of having a catchment but being absolute dogshit at turning them into confident first graders.
 

bort

Jaws
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
29,385
Reaction score
5,513
Location
IN A BAR
Here is the Australian Schoolboys side that Butcher played in Bort.

24 players

While most of them played an NRL game at some point, just 5 of them went on to debut with and become established players with the team who had them at 18, and only two were still with that team at the start of the 2020 season (5 years later).



**

Tom AMONE
Jayden BRAILEY
Nat BUTCHER
Oliver CLARK
Jack COGGER
Tevita COTTRELL
Tyrell FUIMAONO
Gideon GELA-MOSBY
Regan GRIEVE (R.I.P.)
Keegan HIPGRAVE
Jacob HOST
Robert JENNINGS
Brock LAMB
Luciano LEILUA
Jacob LIDDLE
Latrell MITCHELL

Ashleigh NISBET
John OLIVE
Braden ROBSON
Hame SELE
Bailey SIRONEN
Connor TRACEY
Jayden WALKER
Keenan YORSTON


***

.. and here is the team the following year. Again, this time just 4 players who ended up becoming established players at their current club.

1 Ryan PAPENHUYZEN
2 Tyronne ROBERTS-DAVIS
3 Curtis SCOTT
4 Reuben GARRICK
5 Tre WILLIAMS
6 Nathan CLEARY
7 Scott DRINKWATER
8 Jye CHALLENOR
9 Blayke BRAILEY
10 Jayden BUTTERFIELD
11 Cameron MURRAY
12 Adam KEIGHRAN
13 Reuben COTTER

14 David FAUID
15 Ray STONE
16 Bayley FAULL
17 Daniel VASQUEZ

***

Same story every year. Of the highest-rated players, a handful go on to become regulars for the team that "discovered" them, but the rest move on or never make it.

Seems to me this is a league-wide thing and not a “Roosters” problem. Roosters for Butcher but lost Drinkwater.
I def agree it is a league wide thing.
But specific to Goulds comments (and using example I picked) don’t think the roosters signing a rabbitoh with a dad who played NRL and who was a current Australian schoolboy is a noteworthy development effort another club couldn’t pull off.

certainly the roosters are contributing to development of a lot of players who come through to NRL but I’m not sold they are doing a better job than other clubs, and I think to Gallens point the fact they are at a stage roosters are seeing talent to poach probably means on average they’ve had some development already from their previous system
 

BurgoShark

Super Moderator
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
12,628
Reaction score
3,853
I def agree it is a league wide thing.
But specific to Goulds comments (and using example I picked) don’t think the roosters signing a rabbitoh with a dad who played NRL and who was a current Australian schoolboy is a noteworthy development effort another club couldn’t pull off.

certainly the roosters are contributing to development of a lot of players who come through to NRL but I’m not sold they are doing a better job than other clubs, and I think to Gallens point the fact they are at a stage roosters are seeing talent to poach probably means on average they’ve had some development already from their previous system
Maybe, and maybe not. There were 18 other players in that squad whose team couldn't turn them in to a regular NRL player, 20 if you count Dargan and Schonig who were added to the squad later.

Of course those players had "some development" prior to that. They didn't pop out of an egg the day before being signed. The question is how much of that is attributed to the NRL team who had them previously? Maybe Nat Butcher had a fantastic u14 B's coach who put him on the path to success. Maybe that guy is still pissed off about Butcher missing a game because the Bunnies made him.

Matt Gillett was once cut by the Broncos NYC team because he wanted to go play the local u20's Grand Final with his mates. Broncos said no, he played anyway, so they cut him. I'm going to go ahead and say that the Wests Arana Hills coaches had a fair bit of input in to Gillett's development. No Broncos input required.

I guess like anything, that Gus/Gal conversation was pitched as a black and white issue, but everything has grey areas...

My son goes to a school who are working on a feeder program with Manly (yuck). If he stays at that school, ends up doing a couple of 2-3 day dev camps with Manly over the next few years, but ends up signing with the Dolphins at 17, does Des get to have a whinge about all the development they put in to this player? The people most responsible for his success to that point would be is club coach (me up until this point) and his school coach. Manly might have tipped some money in the school bucket, but from their point of view he is just a number until he looks good at 17.

(Not suggesting my boy is a gun or anything. Just using him as an example).
 
Last edited:
Top