Am I getting the wrong player here? Didn't Annakin snub our offer a few seasons since as he had a well paid career away from rugby league?

I think he didn't take up the apprentice scheme or whatever it's called. Instead he worked his own way through college so to speak. This will be the first time he will be offered a full pro contract.

I'm not sure I'm right as I must say it's all very complex now as to how youngsters get paid and what deals they are on and whether they are a Trinity player or not.

Good player though!

Unfortunately, from someone like me who only sees what he sees on the field with the odd extra info from this forum it is hard to comment.
I would agree with both sides, in the sense that we should have signed him up if he is good enough, but not if his attitude wasn't right.
Clearly an on the fence position but the key for me is that people closer to the player made that decision.

I would criticise if they made no decision and then let him go because they couldn't work fast enough to recover, but as I see this, we have decided in teh past not to offer him something and now we may do as he is getting better.
I'd say that's a reasonable approach.

We have had many threads like these for the likes of Southernwood and Gledhill, but in reality I can't see any have really proved us wrong.
The Ferguson and Murphy type loss was less to do with us and more to do with a bigger money club just paying more and taking advantage at the time. Both would have been good of course but we've managed without for now.

The elements which were below standard are essential not only to an individual but also to the team dynamic.
There is simply no way for them to be tolerated as it would not only fatally flaw the player but would also undermine the whole team ethic not to mention diminishing the Coach in the eyes of everyone.

We've kept the faith with Annakin, he's on contract.
In some aspects the size of the contract isn't what’s relative now it's whether or not you could offer any player a place in the 1st team squad given that the player isn't conforming to the standards set and required by the Head Coach. If a player is not responding to the coaching team’s advice and failing to recognise the need for changes then it's time for the club to cut its losses.

There's a much higher degree of professionalism at the club than ever before, there's much more expected of the players in terms of their own self management. Some of the players who've been at the club under different coaching regimes have adapted to the higher standards faster than others, Wildie being one of them.

There's also a plate spinning act going on with the player budget which means we can't carry players who won't get with the program, their wages would be better redirected to someone else. Chris Annakins next contract is likely to be more financially significant than any of his previous ones therefore those spinning the plates needed to see the required improvements before making a decision, Chris Annakin is responsible for delaying the required changes.

Nobody's been waiting for the perfectly formed player just a genuine display of commitment at the desired level indicating that the raw materials can be moulded into something special without compromising the standards set by the club and its coaching staff.

Chris Annakin has really stepped up in all aspects on and off the field, at and away from the club but the changes are relatively recent. I'm delighted to see him playing in the 1st team and looking so good, he's beginning to realise the potential seen in him by so many people over the years. Other clubs will take notice, that’s the nature of the industry. I'm not going to criticise the club for thus far holding back on signing him up on a longer term contract. This season was make or break for Annakin and he looks like he'll make it but I'll say again, the person responsible for delaying his progress is Chris himself.

No one wants to see a Wakefield Trinity team full of local players who've come through our system more than me but we can't compromise the standards to make it happen otherwise we're destined to live our lives as a second tier feeder team.

Great post Clan.
It's unusual to see so much sense talked on RL Fans.

Great to read that about Annakin, Agar seems to be a strong disciplinarian and a methods man, as we witnessed when he sent us in "light" up front against Salford by dropping Amor.

A brave and potentially dangerous ploy by Agar, but certainly one that could reap long term benefits for the club.

What you say does seem at odds with what other posters of similar credibility have posted on here - this leaves someone less well informed such as myself slightly bemused and confused.

On this one I'm going to go with those who feel we have made a mistake - I base this on my own belief that sometimes you have to go on a hunch and the hunch was always there with Anakin for me.

Can't disagree although that is a slightly different issue.

wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/news/chr ... s/2011/07/ Signed a two year deal in 2011, no idea whether it was a full time one or not. Hopefully the club and player can sort something or re an extension. Once the pack is back up to full strength, I see Annakin, Trout and Mariano fighting it out for the remaining SR spot in the match day squad.

wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/news/chr ... s/2011/07/ Signed a two year deal in 2011, no idea whether it was a full time one or not. Hopefully the club and player can sort something or re an extension. Once the pack is back up to full strength, I see Annakin, Trout and Mariano fighting it out for the remaining SR spot in the match day squad.

Not sure who you're referring to, can you point me to the post(er)s in question then I can assess for myself.

Hunches are OK and they still have a part to play even in this era of sport sciences, metrics and analysis, they do however IMO require a fairly close relationship with the individual if they're going to be accurate.

Good post.

Annakin himself said he needed to improve his attitude & start listening to Agar more than he was. He's obviously knuckled down far more since the pre-season and now he's reaping his rewards with his consistent performances.

Most of that rings true in all honesty. My only other question would be over whether we have, as a club, managed the junior players as well as we could have and thereby contributed to the situation.

I know that there are some who say we mis-handled the whole of the 18's championship side - and that's not necessarily levelled at the current regime, although it still seems as if we stick with the same players come what may sometimes, hence why have we not given Cowling a run when Fox's form has dropped off a bit? (yes I know it's not like for like, but he could be fitted in).

Tough love is a difficult thing to get right - I really hope the club have got the gamble right?!

TRB and El ray amongst others have talked about the club mishandling young players and messing them around. I'm not saying they are talking it up as a massive issue but they seem less sure than you that the club is getting it right with he youngsters.

Agree about hunches but then we do pay RA to have good one

I don't want to get into criticising the previous coaching regime, they did what they had to in order to put out a competitive 1st team. Suffice to say that for numerous reasons our junior development wasn’t at the forefront of the 1st team coaches minds.

There are other things that I've heard of, some alluded to on this forum over the last couple of years by El Ray et al, but I've no firsthand knowledge of those.

At last a thread I WOULD LIKE TO STATE AN OPINION ON. Wakefield is a business that belongs to AG and he runs it as he sees fit, but youth development is part financed by the 1973 scheme and therefore is or should be open to scrutiny. What a crop we had
Will = London scholars
Jordan = Mackay Cutters
Danny = wakefield
Lucas = wakefield
Dale = dewsbury
Cain = whitehaven
Mattie = wakefield
Russ = dewsbury
Tom = batley/hunslet
Kyle = wakefield
George = hull hr
Adam = aussie
Chris = wakefield
Adam = aussie
Jake = York
Lee = hunslet
Then there`s the ones who were deemed not good enough Greg = hull kr, Joel p = hunslet. Tom harrington, Luke pendleton, Joel gibson, Jordan lauther. There should have been more of these devolved and in the first team squad by now. Look at
How many SL appearances such as Joe Arundel and Oliver Holmes have, and that weren't as good as ours. Not one of the last years 20s were retained and
I dare say none of the 19s will be on FULL time contracts at the end of this one. The principle of the 1873 scheme is 100% correct but in practise as with the purchasing of a £100s worth of shares under the previous regime it is not. If there is one item that should be on the supporters trust list to challenge the club on, the scheme should be it, after all we were promised transparency.

And thats why Chris has maybe gone of the rails, due to being dumped on time and time again.

I am more than chuffed he's turning it around and that the clubs taking development to another level.

I have no issues with the present set up but i feel Chris as suffered in the past and while i don't have the knowledge you have with regards to sports science and all that stuff

and for the record i believe you.
I do know if you treat a dog badly it becomes a bad dog.

Lets hope threads like this are a thing of the past.

I 95% agree with you Al,

I understand the disillusionment a young promising player feels when left on the outside and not supported by those who are tasked with the resposibility of aiding your development.

That said
I'm commenting on where we're at now and where the current coaching staff found our junior players 18 months ago, their assessments of what they needed to do and the players efforts to get where they need to be.

While recognising the failings of the past, from the point Agar took over and put the support in place it became the players responsibility to take control and make the changes and improvements required.

I fully understand that and you are of course correct, i just wanted to point out thats its not always black and white and the players failings are not always down the them alone.

I hope he kicks on and we can sign him on but thats out of my hands but thankfully due to you're insight on here we all have a clearer understanding.

Ta.

It strikes me that the current lack of juniors coming through the system is a case of reaping what we didn't sow; the previous regime, for whatever reason, mishandled the situation and as a result, the conveyor belt that the likes of Leeds and Wigan have is, in our case, broken down; hopefully the breakdown is temporary.

I'm not very close to the situation but over the past couple of seasons, I've been around the fringes a bit; what I've seen reassures me that there's been some fairly significant restructuring of the youth development programme and that it is now much more closely allied to the first team set-up; that can only be a good thing in terms of succession planning and having kids who are ready to step-up when required. I'm also close to a couple of youngsters who've been earmarked as having potential (one who is quite simply an astounding young athlete) and both sets of parents have been extremely impressed by their dealings with the club so far.

In summary, I think it's short-sighted and a bit churlish to say that if we don't sign Anakin, 1873 has failed and a mass cancellation of direct debits will follow; I do however agree with the poster who has suggested that an annual report from the club on how it's going, what the money is being used for and what the future plans are would be very welcome - that way, people don't have to rely on anecdotal information from here, or Vasty's 'hunches' in forming their opinions.

I'd also agree that the ST would be an ideal vehicle to get that information out of the club and into the public domain - an evening of celebration would be quite spiffy, with representatives of the youth coaching and development staff, some young players who've benefited from it and maybe even an exhibition match or open training session viewable from the balcony of the hospitality block.

No doubt about it at all, we can blame the previous coaches or the previous regime at the club but they have been let down.
I don't hold with cancelling from 1873 its hardly any fault of theirs but sadly i don't think we much coming through so the gap is huge from the like of Cowling/Anakin to the next bunch.

I totally agree - there will be a gap in service whilst the next generation of youngsters is recruited, developed and they start to feed through into the 1st team set-up; I'm reasonably certain that the funding from 1873 has been used to support some significant changes to the system that will enable that to happen, but it was never going to happen overnight - it will take 2 or 3 years before the benefits become apparent.

In the meantime, as I say, the club could do a better job of communicating this stuff to those of us who continue to pay into the scheme; I know what I know through a bit of luck and our involvement with a research project around junior players that involved the RFL & WTW, but it would be handy if all 1873 members had the same information.

Amen to that. Hopefully the appointment of the new scheme manger will improve thing all round.

Hold on this is the new regimes 3rd season at what point do they take some responsibility.

Come on you can't use that excuse forever - the new lot have had two full years to sort it out with Anakin and others and they seem much better at it to me not so far anyways.

Doesn't wash for me I'm afraid.

Cue the club groupies....

Sadly the state of the club prior to AG meant a reliance on cheap journeymen because they didn't have the cash or the vision to see the future and indeed cheaper long term option is to bring through your own.
It will be a long time until we start to reap the benefits of good quality well funded youth development, and equally a long time until we become the first choice in the area for juniors to chose after the years of neglect and the running down of the club name.
I do agree that at sometime the old has to be forgotten and the new has to shoulder it's responsibilities.
I think three years is a bit optimistic though.