But why is that wrong? The Roosters have nowhere near the local players to build postcode juniors. They have to get them from elsewhere and put the same effort in that the Panthers do for a giftwrapped Cambridge Park local.
If other clubs that are struggling put the same effort and expertise into development as the Roosters, they might be just as succesful.
Postcode juniors mean nothing. How do Melbourne get enough locals with a single league in Melbourne. What do Perth do?
The more clubs that put effort into development the better for the NRL. Postcodes don't matter, effort and investment does. If you can instil some of your club's DNA into a young player during their development, they will give you just as much as a postcode junior.
JFH couldn't be more Penrith if he drove a Torana, wore a flannelete shirt and thongs and drank at the Pioneer Tavern. Dyl and Yeo the same. Penrith DNA right there.
Its wrong becuase the list is for local juniors and as you say the rooster dont have local juniors.
The roosters are a top development club but they are not developing locals so why would they be on the top of a list for developing local juniors? If just a list of develop juniors in general they belong up there, but if we are talking local juniors there is a difference. The central west or north coast is not penrith, we should get credit for scouting and developing the area no doubt but if you want to call Yeo or Martin or Edwards a local junior i dont really agree with that definition. It doesnt make them any less to say that.
When JFH felt a need to go home he went to another country, Im sure he loves penrith and feels a strong connection but hes a proud Kiwi, to call him a local junior makes little sense to me.
Last edited:

