thats a self-fulfilling argument, if we accept playing SL means you are SL quality and that adds to the the quality of the competition then we could simply employ the entire french 2nd tier and put them in SL. They would then by definition of playing in SL be SL quality players and as such adding to the quality of the comp.
How much do you think Blake Green is on? an how much do you think that would compare to a player like Wood, Southernwood, Myler etc? you really think Green will be on two or three times more? I dont think its down to cost, its down to risk. Going for Green is seen as the 'safe' option.

They signed him from Hull KR in NL1. Im not sure why this is relevant, unless its another attempt to claim Hull KR are responsible for Andy Raleigh even though they were his third club.
And? its a pretty poor effort to take 5/6 years to replace Andy Raleigh, A player you didnt even develop.

because it isnt sustianable for the entire league to rely on NRL fringe players. It damages the league, damages the international team and benefits no-one. And before you bring in your straw man argument of expecting you to have no overseas players or an entire squad of british players i dont. I just think considering you already have 9, and considering 3 of those never made it being NRL regulars, 2 of them never made an NRL appearance, you should be taking the same risk with younger british players.
If your under18s are so good, then at 19 next year they will be ready for SL rugby, how are you going to give them SL rugby with 10 overseas players? If they are good enough, then at 19 they need to be playing first grade. Why arent they getting a few games this year? and why do you need 10 overseas players next year?

im sure you will, which isnt a good thing. It just highlights how poor your commitment to the game, and to the young players of this country is.

aww, once again, and unsurprisingly, you are wrong. Go back and check what i actually said, which was there wasnt the roughly 90 players we would need to bring the SL clubs down to 5 overseas players each, and add 2 more teams. Considering (according to you) Hull KR couldnt ever possibly be at 5 overseas players by now, imagine how many more we would (apparently) need if Widnes had been promoted?

Not really, if the entire French 2nd tier team were put in SL and were all chosen in the dream team then yes, I would argue they have added to the quality of the competition. Otherwise your argument is, once again, ludicrous.



What makes Blake Green a 'safe' option?



One minute your saying sign players from other clubs, then your having a downer on HKR because they "didn't develop" the player. Your getting a bit transparent Smokey, I expect better of you.





Which is this league you speak of that relies on "NRL fringe players"? Surely Rovers have the same quota allowance as every other team. If players become off quota then it is hardly Rovers fault is it? Isn't the important thing the number of club trained players being brought through? Of which Rovers have added three to next seasons first team squad. I happen to think that it is important to respect the commitment to our game that players, of all nationalities, have made. The rules regarding the make up of squads set out by the RFL do that without casting aside long standing servants of the game. Those players will ultimately leave the game and any club that hasn't prepared for that will be shown up. I'm confident that HKR will not be.



They are good and three have been added to next season's SL squad. Welham when given a chance in pre season friendlies two years ago was good enough to pinch a former Great Britain internationals shirt off him, which he has retained ever since. That's quite a statement of intent regarding youth develoment and giving young players a chance don't you think? Young players have had game time this year.



Wrong. Your memory is, like your arguments, selective.

Well they would be in the dream team because the dreamteam would be picked from them.

a misplaced confidence in NRL reserve graders
One minute your saying sign players from other clubs, then your having a downer on HKR because they "didn't develop" the player. Your getting a bit transparent Smokey, I expect better of you.

'"

Just out of interest Smokey, who are these fair few lads we've developed who are better than Donald or Kylie?



I'd agree with that, as long as they are high quality. I'd also say that a reduction needs to be done slowly, there's no point chucking in a young lad simply because he's English. They need to be of sufficient quality otherwise it just dilutes the standard of the competition and helps no-one.

Sense at last!

Hall, Smith, Broughton, Gibson, Watkins, all either have the potential to be, or already better than Donald. Kylie we havent which is disappointing, but Ambler looks to have the potential to be much much better.


there will always, inevitably be the dilution of the competion. We need to rip of the plaster and just get it over and done with. Until a club sees the downsides of not developing their players they wont. As we are seeing. And im not asking for the moon on a stick here, i cant agree the quality of the league would fall drastically if Hull KR exchanged say, Lovegrove, Fisher, and Green, for say Amor, Kain, and Thackray.

Just because players arent playing SL doesnt mean they couldnt. Kirmond and Lunt are perfect examples of players who have improved the quality of the league because they are better than the equivelant players Hudds would have got had they followed the Hull KR route, players like Lovegrove and Fisher. So by giving a shot to these players we have in fact raised the quality of the league.

A few years ago Sheffield gave an untried 19 year old Rugby Union centre a position instead of a 25 year old NRL reserve grader. He wasnt an immediate success. He is now one the best players in SL history. There are others out there who could do the same, Leeds are trying with Amor and Coady, Hudds did it with Lunt and Kirmond why cant Hull KR?

Your argument would also hold water if the players they were bringing in were proven talents,they arent.

" If they haven't made it at 19 , they never will "

Is a post made by a poster involved on this argument

Any guesses ?

Scott Taylor & Josh Hodgson have both had game time this year,and will probably be replacing Ben Galea and Ben Fisher at the end of next season.

So why do you need to add Willie Mason?

Hall - perhaps, remains to be seen. If he keeps up his current form for a few more years then yes id agree.
Smith - sometimes he plays better, sometimes he plays worse. The fact that people aren't quite convinced he's an out and out winger yet and that after his brief stint in Union he's put on more weight than me after Christmas Day means the jury is still out on Smith.
Gibson & Watkins - are centres.
Broughton - has potential yes.

But all players have potential and besides is not what you said. You said that Leeds have developed a fair few wingers better than Donald. That is cr@p. At a push we've created one in Hall, and thats being generous. Thats also not criticising Hall, more praising Donald. Donald is a very good winger and in England we aren't, for whatever reason, producing good threequarters. Leeds included.

As for players better than Kylie, well we haven't produced any of those either. As you say Ambler has potential but to be "much much better" as you put it is a bold statement. That would be putting Ambler into the Peacock/Morley/Graham/Webcke/Price/Civoniceva category. Considering the lad is only 20 thats incredible foresight you have there. Plus we signed him from Salford.




For some reason, maybe because you know you're up a certain creek and paddleless, you seem to have tried to turn my argument into saying SL clubs should sign average Aussies. It's not and you know its not.
Everybody knows and agrees we have to reduce the number of imports in SL, the debate is over how best to do that. You think that the best way is to just slash the quota immediately (just out of interest, you don't work for the Tory Party do you?), whereas I would suggest a slower approach.
The problem with your way is that if we just immediately cut the quota to 5 then there would be 33 fewer imports playing in SL this season. Are there 33 English players of sufficient quality to replace every single one of them. If there aren't then the quality of the competition will decline, that then means that the English players who are of sufficient quality are playing at a lower level every week than they otherwise would have been. This obviously then affects the national team when we get our annual kicking off the Aussies, only this time it'll be worse than usual.
If, instead of that approach, we gradually reduce the quota (and since this is the approach the RFL have taken I assume they would agree too) then clubs have the opportunity to replace those imports steadily over time with youngsters of sufficient quality rather than chucking in young lads because they've no one else.

No-one is saying don't give young lads a chance either, just do it responsibly.

To add some beef to our pack,also he will hopefully put bums on seats and also bring on the young kids like,Liam Watts,Scott Taylor,Josh Hodgson,Scott Wheeldon etc.

Scott Wheeldon is 25 in February (and played in a Grand Final for Hull FC in 2006 and for 2 further seasons - 62 first team games in all) - is he really a "young Rovers kid" ? That [uis[/u a bit tenuous.

I disagree, i dont think he is a very good winger. He is a decent one, but both Hall and Smith have spent the season being picked ahead of him. And personally i would do the same.

And people dont doubt that Smith is an out and out winger because he struggles there, they doubt that because he has had some outstanding performances at full back where he has offered more.

Im not meaning to over-criticise Donald but he isnt a star player. I would take Peter Fox ahead of Donald (another Leeds product) along with a fair few other wingers in SL. He is an example of what i am talking about with a mis-placed confidence in fairly average overseas imports.

BTW, i think Hall is on a completely different level to Donald,

I said we havent, and have said i am disappointed that is the case. But being much better than a bit part NRL player doesnt make you Steve Price. Andy Lynch imo is much better than Lueluai, and i dont think its a massive stretch to say i think Ambler can be as good as Lynch
im not saying that this is your argument, simply that the alternative to giving these young players a go is average Aussies, that is what we are seeing with players like Blake Green and Shad Royston
I havent said we need to immediately drop to five, simply that we dont need clubs having 10. Also alot of that 33 would be some very average overseas players and the quality of the league really wouldnt be hugely impacted if at all by getting rid of them. I have no doubt that there are young players in the lower leagues and in academies who could do just as good a job as Charlie Leeano, Michael Korkidas, Rhys Lovegrove, Ben Fisher, Blake Green, Scott Donald, Cameron Phelps, et al.

And giving the youngsters a few games doesnt mean a fall in standards, we will find a few stars. Chris Clarkson only got so many games this year because of injuries at Leeds, he is now there on merit and has the potential to get much better, it helps him reach that potential that he is getting game time.

Well at my age,he's still just a kid


okay fair enough,but he's still young for a prop,and playing alongside big Willie will still bring him on.

This is one thing I disagree on , all this ' bringing on bollox

Young players need game time with some experience in their team , where that experience comes from is irrelevant

Well I still consider myself young at 27 so yeah why not.

thats one thing we can agree on

I have no doubt young players will benefit from playing with Willie Mason, but they need to actually play with him and not be replaced by him

They won't be, there's talk of a rotation system been used for our pack.

Sorry but I just don't see Willie Mason as some kind of ' teacher '

He's here for the dosh , nothing else

So playing alongside a world class player won't bring on young kids and help develop their game?

They can watch world class players on a video , playing against them is of more benefit than playing with them if they aren't good teachers

Well we'll only know once he arrives.

Thought you were against the signing and said he'd be an expensive disruptive influence.

I dont either, but then i dont know him well enough to make that decision, he wouldnt be the best example of what i mean.

But if you look at someone like Buderus, Barrett, Gidley et al, real leaders, then they will make that kind of contribution.