I didn't say there's no element of luck involved in developing youngsters, but I do resent it being referred to as 'lucky' in such a dismissive manner as it seemed from Hudgell. It's not just about being 'lucky', it's about reaping the benefit/payoff of training youngsters and giving them a go. Dismissing it as 'lucky' has a certain implication that we did nothing to create the situation and are undeserving of it.

Think of it this way; if you encourage and help educate your kids through school, if/when they get excellent results, go on to further education, and end up in an excellent career path, would you be happy if people described it as you/they 'got lucky', or would you think you all deserved a bit more credit and respect for the achievement?

I also agree with Mrs B that Crooks largely emerged in 2012, so it's not like he came entirely from nowhere, we knew what we had with at least one of them. I also remember plenty of calls last year for Lineham to be given the number 2 shirt and questioning the need for Crookes, so he also had a fair bit of backing going in.

I only mentioned two when it came to full seasons.

All credit to Last indeed, but Lineham was brought in to the club and I reckon even Lasty will be (pleasantly) surprised at how well Crooks has done.

Similar comments made by Shaul.

Sounds more like astute decision making than "luck".

Neither did I say it was all luck.



That's the problem, it only [iseemed[/i that way. I don't think he meant that the production of the players was lucky, merely that how well all three had done was. Which is not totally true, it's certainly not all down to luck. To say it is is doing the players a disservice.




Not sure that's exactly how it happened for them, especially during the last few years of Kath's reign.



But it [iwas[/i both of them lads first [ifull[/i season.

Right, i'm saying that it's been a little bit lucky how well the three of them had done, not that they weren't good enough to make the step up.

Also, it's not like they are the only 3 we threw in and they all excelled. Kent, Hadley and Bowden are also all inexperienced and saw game time (the former 2 particularly), so we showed faith in half a dozen or so and half of them played well enough to stay in the team. Whilst probably more expensive, Miller is also a youngster in his first full season.

So whilst there is a certain element of luck in players making the grade, it would also be pretty unlucky (unless it was spectacularly poor judgement) for none of them to do so.

And nor did I suggest you did, or speak for you like this:



Which is not at all what I said in my original post.



Let's have a look at the quote:

"Hull got lucky last year as Ben Crooks, Tom Lineham and Jamie Shaul all came through and established themselves on a less established wage."

Established themselves. Not got in to the dream team, or excelled, just that they established themselves as first-teamers whilst still on a low wage. That should be the aim of every team in SL, and indeed he said about getting more youngsters in his own squad, so it is not just 'lucky', it is the reward for choosing and training the right lads and then having the balls to give them a go. Every single player who ever breaks into a first team will do so as one of the lowest earners in the squad.



The club offered them contracts. Then trained them. Then picked them. They are not the players they are in spite of these things, they are contributing factors.



I'm not fully understanding your obsession with this. Similar to earlier, every player has to have a first full season, and that obviously comes when they prove ready and usually on the back of a partial appearance the year before. That's exactly what happened with both Crooks and Lineham. That's not to say you can [iexpect[/i players to go on to seasons like those two just had, but IMO it's not quite as against the grain as you seem to be suggesting, either. Nobody would expect young players to do [ithat[/i well, but having them establish themselves as first-teamers before the season is out is not a ridiculous aim either.

Which is not what Hudgell said. In essence, he said we were lucky for doing exactly what rugby club youth systems are designed to do.

What a complete obsession thread this turned out to be, no real surprise there though suppose. If Pearson had sad that you’d got lucky with these players you’d no doubt all be nodding and saying how true. There is a whole article of valid points made by both chairmen that could have been debated, most of which effect the future of the game as a whole and effect the whether there will be a game to watch in the long term but just because NH said one word that’s all dismissed.

Did Hull get lucky with Crooks, Lineham and Shaul? As has been said it’s a bit of both. You lot on here have been saying for years how much underinvestment in youth has taken place, how Pearson had to completely rebuild the youth structure. Add onto that a coach who has now been sacked because he couldn’t motivate or had the wrong ethos to game preparation. A pack that had no teeth and a lack of half backs directing that team around. So in that context to get 3 players to come through and perform then yes it either has an element of luck or KH and co did a good job of getting these players into a position to step up.

Just to add context, its widely recognised that Wigan got lucky with Tomkins as they had to throw him in when Tim Smith got injured and he stepped up.

Unless he was deliberately trolling,

, then something like ' it's been great for Hull...' would have been more politic. No need to lavish the lucky lovers with praise, but I did think it'd provoke a reaction in certain quarters. We were fortunate Salter stepped up to fill in competently for Welham and Gleeson and that the relatively untried Walker turned out to be a decent replacement for Taylor.
There's a sensitivity, based on different interpretations and distrusts, on our side too, around this issue at the moment. There's bound to be some jockeying for position, for when these initial issues are resolved.

There is no luck.
Crooks played for England at every youth level and having started watching the 20s 3 yr ago even i could tell he had it. Only thing was building his body up
shaul was playing for skirlaugh 2years ago, anyone could of come got him, we saw something in him, now reaping the reward. Same with green.
Same with lineham from York.
We've identified them then given them the means to progress.
Astute really, not lucky.

It really is a simple fact of life that the harder you work at something the luckier you get

I know what the implied meaning of that is, but taken at face value that's simply inaccurate.

Another fact of life is that successful people often assign a relatively small portion of their success to good luck, whereas the unsuccessful are generally much quicker to mention their bad luck. It's a comforting self-deception, though potentially dangerous.

Anyway, projecting my unpleasant Machiavellian thought processes onto the RL world...

The RFL have, deliberately or otherwise, created a high-stakes game of musical chairs with their plan for 10 academies which will receive central funding, in a 12 team SL. Our rubbish score on their assessment exercise (Rovers fans: 'yeah, because independent RFL assessments have [isuch[/i credibility.' / Hull fans: 'well if you hadn't wasted so much money on overpaid Aussies and invested properly...' etc, etc - comforting, innit?). This provides AP with an opportunity to exploit, hence his eagerness to predict there'll be a single academy in the city, run by Hull. It presents NH with a problem to overcome, and might explain why he's ready to minimise the credit Hull get for these players, knowing AP has spoken negatively about the facilities and investment in youth in place, prior to his takeover.
It gives the RFL, accidentally or otherwise, a degree of political leverage - much more so than if they'd gone with 12 teams, 12 academies.

Can we all just settle on the fact that Hudgell is a bit of a c**t and be done with it. That's not lucky or astute

Small in stature, small in mind.

Luck is a funny thing. Everything happens as a result of chance but we pretend not to notice. Just part of being human I guess.

I think Hull were lucky to produce those three kids. Lucky they were so naturally talented. Lucky we had them in the system. Lucky we had coaches willing to work hard to improve them. Lucky they had the drive and attitude to succeed. Lucky that they got their chances thanks to other players bad luck. Lucky they didn't go to pieces in their first games... And now that we are working harder to recruit and promote more youth players I think we are going to get even luckier in the future.

I just hope that we are going to be as lucky with our recruitment. If our two young half-backs hit it off then we'll be the luckiest club in the league.

So all our poor signings in previous years were just down to been unlucky ?? My

all these years I've been wasting my time watching the game, we should just get a representative of each club to have a coin toss against their counterpart from each other club, the luckiest team will win every round and be declared Grand Finalists, we can then maybe play "Paper Scissor, Stone" against the Aussies for the WCC?

luck, my 'se

Dynamite comes in small packages.
Also Short people have a great perspective on life; they are always looking up.





As Oscar Wilde once said...We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Spoken like a true short ass

I can understand NH feeling uncomfortable about the success of Lineham, Crooks, Shaul, Green and our 6 players selected for England Youth and England Academy last month, the latter particularly after his declaration on promotion that "all the good Hull lads will want to play for Rovers". To badge it once as "luck" could be construed as silliness. To make the point publicly twice in a week just highlights justifiable anxiety at his inadequate pipeline of talent (relative to ours) at present. While Rovers keep binning off the likes of Beaumont to accommodate the likes of Maki, their "luck", or lack thereof, in delivering homegrown players to first team is unlikely to improve. Why does he feel the need to belittle our success in this area? See MR's post, he could be onto something....

As for ignoring the rest of the interview, there's no new information there, just chewing over the RFL's commercial and fan engagement failures that both have aired at length already and talking up chances for 2014 before season pass deadlines expire. Bit dull really.

I can't speak for NH, but IMO, based on what I can see and my own inherent bias, it is at least as much a political or presentational problem as it is a real one. I ceased [ucompletely[/u trusting the measures you're using there a little while ago, so my anxiety as a result is not that pronounced. There's room for improvement, but I'm confident we'll keep producing SL players - obviously if we lose central funding, then it'd become much more difficult. Though there are ways a Centre could work, it'd be very much plan B for me.
Obviously it is going to go down like a lead balloon among Hull fans, but he's got to fight our corner (assuming it wasn't just an offhand comment - we do tend to over analyse, you and I

). 'One academy in Hull, run by Hull' wasn't cheered to the rafters at chez Mild, but that wasn't AP's purpose.

Some FC fans have an unhealthy obsession with everything NH says, it's usually the same ones.

Neil Hudgell probably meant you were lucky to get 3 or 4 quality youngsters coming through together, rather than meaning it was pure luck lol

Absolutely not! Never heard such rubbish!