Again, what the flying duck are you on about? You should have thought "Oh Nevermind" before actually pressing submit.

You a bit weird, you.

Your taking posts from one user, in this case Mild Rover, then contrasting them against posts I'm making and proclaiming that Rovers fans are changing their minds to suit situations, where in reality its totally different users with totally different views.

Keep looking.

So what's the ruling on the junior teams, How many 'older' lads can play? The squad seems quite big this year and all 30+ can't play in the first team.

Not really, there have been a number of back-slapping threads about how great it is to be reducing overseas numbers with the emergence of Cox/Taylor (e.g. when Fisher went) and a few people, including the lovely duck sing about what Smokey TA, Rovers biggest critic in the overseas players debate, would be saying now. A few weeks later you're back to square one in terms of 11 overseas players, conveniently the reduction in overseas reliance previously lauded becomes an irrelevance. Maybe I do you a disservice if you've never been interested in reducing overseas numbers downwards from 11 and are consistent in that, but in general terms, there was applause (rightly) of more Hull players coming into the squad (from Hull, like Hodgson), but now we're back at 11, generally the opinion has conveniently swing back to stated ambivalence.

I'd love to agree with you and shut you up, but I don't like to be wrong and you don't shut up.

My view is, while the overseas numbers are up again (11 is incorrect, BTW), There is also lots (more than last year) of English and young lads in the squad. If anything I think the balance is probably lower, there's probably a higher percentage of English to overseas at Rovers now this year than last, whether they're selected to play or not is another matter for another day, who cares?

The Australian national team could (well, couldn't because of the pesky quota and salary cap) play as Rovers next season and win the Cup, the League leaders and the Grand final. I would absolutely love it.

Good for you and your consistent approach. Refreshing.

The state of our national game? Credit where credit is due, your username is very apt.

Given up on that one. After Crusaders went pop, splattering Australians around the league and the new Heremaia-Dobson interpretation of the 2008 exemptions... yeah, it's not happening.

But we'll still get to test the hypothesis that it is a lack of opportunities, rather than a lack of depth of talent, when our best go off to play NRL.

Tbf, I think that might help more, as our best will then be stretched more regularly.

Was that a question?

How does Hull KR having overseas players affect the national game? If we played without our overseas players, we'd be crap and I would have thought the rest of the league would miss out on the much needed competition which is needed to progress, if the other teams followed suit the standard would lower and we'd be even further behind the Aussies.

The username 'joke' has been done, wasnt funny or smart then, either.

We've been in SL 5 years,Our National game has been in a state 20/30+ years?

Here's what I put on another thread.



I submit to you that there are no outstanding players (or probably even many merely good ones) forced out of Super League by imports. Now some ordinary players who have the potential to be good/outstanding, may be denied opportunities - but tbf the bounce back rate from the second tier is low, so either that is [ireally[/i hard to do or there isn't actually much wastage.
Great Britain last won the Ashes in 1970, the World Cup in 1972. Imports might be having an adverse affect - but there are other more fundamental issues.
More British players might be desirable in of itself. It won't though make any significant difference to England's chances of beating Australia, if we're just promoting more players from closer to the middle of the normal distribution.

If you're just doing some cross-river moralising and points scoring, I apologise for wasting your time.

I hope for his case he isn't as he has little room for movement looking at how many of their recent juniors have made the step up.

Wow MR, my thoughts all summed up into a post I was too dum (can't spell dumb) to compile.

And AS, that's a sore subject, the pot's calling the kettle black.

I know-It's disgraceful that HullFc were the ONLY team NOT to give a SL debut to ANY youngster last season.
Disgraceful that isn't it Old_Faithful_IAKW ?
In fact we should start a thread about it on the VT shouldn't we Old_Faithful_IAKW ?

FC's record of bringing youth through under Agar is nothing short of a disgrace. Danny Houghton, that's it. But it doesn't mean I condone having more than 5 overseas players. The 7/8 we have is too many and 11 is way too many IMO. I do like that we have gone out to get promising British players too, like Briscoe, Westerman, Ellis, Sharp, (even Tansey, who was a handy, promising player but proved to be a crud signing). Not done them much good so far admittedly (although nice to see Westerman captaining the Knights today).

Why? Genuine question.

I don't think the numbers are the issue it's the quality. Fact is that a fair chunk of the overseas players in SL aren't really that good. they do a job but don't really offer enough to justify bringing them 1/2 way around the world. Develop your own reserve players (I mean every team in SL, not just rovers) rather than bringing players across who can't hack it in the NRL

Yeah, I know what you mean. The 8 club trained players is a positive and by the standards of other sports, pretty progressive. And the cash flowing in to the NRL is seeing SL clubs refocus on developing players, IMO. The Rovers board seem acutely aware of this and that will partly underlie the decision to go with a bigger, younger squad.

But yep, we still have 11 who, if the rule was strictly enforced, would be non-fed. I think we could have gone with 9 with only fairly minimal cost to our prospects. I suspect we would have if it had been Wakefield to go rather than Crusaders.
Still, it'd be politics rather than conviction and you'd be slightly handicapping the new coach. Nobody else in SL seems to be heavily in to selflessness.

Because it removes opportunities for young british players, and it mitigates the need for HKR to go out and find, coach and bring through young british players which hampers the progress of the national side. It removes the need for you to put the requisite effort in to finding these players because there is no downside. If HKR dont find and bring through players, it doesnt really matter because there are some players in the NRL reserve grades that can do a job over here. Its a surefire, idiot-proof recipe for being left behind.

Not only that but it limits the relative quality of the league. If clubs are focussed on bringing in fairly average 22-30 year old overseas players because they are better than 18/19 year old british players than the potential of those 18/19 year old british players is sacrificed for the immediate results of 22-30 year old overseas players who are obviously going to be better at that stage of their development. This means in the long term the quality in this league is lower because the 18/19 year old british players are now 22/23 and still classed as 'young' and still inexperienced and learning things that in Australia/NZ they would have already learned and they arent as good as they could have been (because the opportunities and focus on them was sacrificed for overseas players) and as such bring down the quality of the league.

What also happens is that no club exists in a vacuum, the actions of each club effects the other clubs. There is a limited amount of play-off/final places available and if one club seeks to gain an advantage by employing numerous experienced overseas players rather than risking and giving opportunities to, and going out and finding, young british payers then it encourages others to do the same. Castleford for example have given opportunities to many many young british players over the last few years but have missed out last year to a team in HKR who have a disproportionate amount of overseas players last year, and this. How long can Richard Wright justify doing the right thing in going out and finding and bringing through the likes of Arundel, Clark, Milner, Owen, Walker, Thompson, Holmes and not signing the likes of Talupapa, Mika, Webster, O'hara etc when HKR are getting in to play-offs whilst Castleford arent? So if Castleford then choose to take the same path as HKR how are Wakefield and Salford going to challenge if they dont? and then they have to take the same path and so on.

All I saw was blah blah blah.

Your barking up the wrong tree, I couldn't care less how many overseas players we do or do not play.

probably because thats all you want to see, lest you need to accept the criticism as valid.

Of course you don't. Thats what all one-eyed club-before-game parochialists think.

Why would it bother me if having overseas players makes us better than Castleford?

It probably wouldnt because as you admit you are a one-eyed club-before-game parochialist. Though even knowing that, it may bother you that the reliance on overseas players means that our players, here, arent fulfilling their potential, that the national side is harmed by it, and that the relative quality of the league here is damaged by it with the net result that the game in this country is stagnant and left behind, though probably not. After all if HKR can buy better overseas players than Castleford can bring through who cares?

Hi Smokey.



Did you enjoy my amateur mathematical modelling on the previous page? I believe this argument is flawed. Also SL is a competition, not a feeder system for the national team. IMO.
But nonetheless, we have a club-trained rule that incentivises development of players. Economic imperitives are mounting too. We're now producing players. What I admit we continue to do is make up numbers with NRL 'cast-offs', rather than SL 'cast-offs'. Look at who is left ooc on Frosties ins/outs page on the VT and this ceases to be amazing. To save you 10 seconds, it's Jordan Tansey and Karl Pryce.




S'up to Richard Wright innit? Competing organisations respond to incentives, not appeals to their better nature. Cas get the requisite admiration and pity.
The incentives for Hull KR are changing. Slowly, but we didn't create the system, we just play it.

Hello.

The two go hand in hand. Being a quality feeder system for the national side is a positive but unavoidable by-product of a league which is functioning properly.
But that argument is simply circular and self-fulfilling. Whilst it may be 'obvious' that HKR choose NRL cast-offs rather than Karl Pryce and Jordan Tansey it is a failling of HKR that you need to be looking at either already proven SL players or NRL reserve graders. Where are the players HKR have found and contributed to the league? You need these players and they arent available because you havent created them as long as you dont create them they wont be there and you will continue to need ready-made overseas players.


HKR have a responsibilty to the wider game and longer term to be contributing more players to the player pool.