Coach Stuart you are a ********** Disgrace

[super_coach]

Over the years their has been some coaches with a god given talent,to winge complain,poor loosers and poor winners,Bozo was a champion at the above,but little Sticky has raised the bar to a new level.
He can coach,and players love playing under him,I think he is a players coach,but take a leaf out of Sheen's book--bite your tounge when the calls go against you,go through the right channels and not the media.Over a season or two things balance out

 

[The Business]

I could have coached that NSW side which beat Hagans squad. Clear mismatch of strength. Possibly NSWs strongest squad for over a decade.

Of course, when a team wins it's because it's a great side. When they lose it's because the coach is no good.

 

[Catatonic_Omnivore]

Purchasing the Australian schoolboys side is not development.

So by your reasoning, any kid that makes it into the Australian Schoolboys side is automatically a First Grader? You actually beleive that?

You can buy a stock standard Porsche 911 which is pretty damn good. But you can make it better buy getting someone guy to mess with it or go to a specialist like Rinspeed. Results are not going to be the same.

Having your club chairman preside over the decision to modify the salary cap to allow an unlimited cap for these types of purchases then refusing to step down despite a unanimous call by club CEOs for a totally independent NRL board and partnership committee can not be considered development either.

Now your really clutching at straws here.

 

[Danish]

This season you currently have 10 players with representative experience.

Morely
Roberts
Minichiello
Tupou
Anasta
Harrison
Finch
Flannery
Wing
Fitzgibbon

I don't think Monahan has any rep experience, I may be wrong.


Question:

Do you think Ricky Stuarts coaching record in the absence of Brad Fittler is impressive?

With that list of players Stuart is so far 100%. Take away the 2 gained and the city/country "reps" (those teams wouldnt win a game against any top 4 club), and that drops the number down to 6. Hardly the 10 you are talking about.

I rate Stuarts coaching as good, his team selection is the only thing that has let him down (i.e playing finch, not playing soward etc)

How do you rate Folkes's post Price coaching given at any one time, regardless of injuries, the dogs had 6+ rep players on the field??

 

[DJ1]

So by your reasoning, any kid that makes it into the Australian Schoolboys side is automatically a First Grader? You actually beleive that?

No that is not my reasoning that every player in the Australian Schoolboys side becomes a first grader. I haven't said that.

But to take your line of rationale, would the ratio be better than non-Australian schoolboy players?

i.e.

On average, what percentage of players in the Australian schoolboys squad in any given year eventually become first grade players?

On average, what percentage of players who did not make the Australian schoolboys squad but were the correct age in any given year eventually become first grade players?

I know which one will be higher and simply skimming the cream of everyone elses juniors is not development.

 

[DJ1]

Of course, when a team wins it's because it's a great side. When they lose it's because the coach is no good.

Are you attempting to suggest that Ricky Stuarts NSW team was not a raging hot favourite to win the SOO?

 

[DJ1]

With that list of players Stuart is so far 100%. Take away the 2 gained and the city/country "reps" (those teams wouldnt win a game against any top 4 club), and that drops the number down to 6. Hardly the 10 you are talking about.

So are you saying that if you take the 11 representative players you have this season, take away the 2 which you just signed and then take away the city/country reps, you are left with a number of representative players which is "hardly" the number I was referring to which included all of the representaive players you currently have?

Or are you saying that you take away Anasta and Harrison who are the 2 representative players you have just signed for this season and add back in the 3 representative players you had all last year in Walker, Crocker and Ricketson, you have somehow managed to come up with a lower number of representative players?

Is this a Roosters accounting thing?
No wonder Schubert gets confused when he audits your books.

I rate Stuarts coaching as good, his team selection is the only thing that has let him down (i.e playing finch, not playing soward etc)

I would think that team selection and effective use of the interchange bench particularly during finals is a large part of what makes a truly great coach.

How do you rate Folkes's post Price coaching given at any one time, regardless of injuries, the dogs had 6+ rep players on the field??

Could be better. In Folkes case it was not simply Price who was unavailable, he had lost Price, Feeney, Scott, Maiava and Glen Hughes from his available forwards squad plus Thurston from the backs. We then had a massive injury toll with Mason, Williams, Maitua, O'Meley, El Masri, Patten, Oliver, Cutler, Harris, Utai and Tonga unavailble for large stretches of the season.

His overall record which is now in it's 9th season is impressive with,

Games 213
Wins 128 (60.1%)
Draws 7 (3.3%)
Losses 78 (36.6%)

Sticky would do well to close his mouth and learn from better coaches with far more experience than him such as Bennett, Sheens, Murray or Folkes.

Who knows, in a few years time Ricky may even be regarded as a truly great coach. On the other hand he may simply be remembered as a whining little stool.

 

[Catatonic_Omnivore]

No that is not my reasoning that every player in the Australian Schoolboys side becomes a first grader. I haven't said that.

But to take your line of rationale, would the ratio be better than non-Australian schoolboy players?

i.e.

On average, what percentage of players in the Australian schoolboys squad in any given year eventually become first grade players?

On average, what percentage of players who did not make the Australian schoolboys squad but were the correct age in any given year eventually become first grade players?

I know which one will be higher and simply skimming the cream of everyone elses juniors is not development.

To be honest I don't know what the ratio is but it not relevant to my point about Ricky Stuart.

And I really don't think you get my drift. I agree that the act of, let me use your term, "skimming the cream" isn't development. Its what he does with them is what I'm alluding to. If you can "skim the cream" why not? Would you rather persist with someone with out credentials and try to mold that person or would you rather seek a player with some potential. Let's be honest, that's all school boys have is "potential".

By extending your reasoning you would rather have a regime where if you are a junior from a specific region you are not allowed to play for any other team unless it is one that is the designated NRL team in your region.

Doesn't quite sound right does it? But I guess it does if your motives are to eliminate certain teams from the competition.

Or should you make an exception that teams outside the region can recruit juniors as long as they aren't very good. I mean they do have two legs and two arms but not much else. Hmmmm.... still have questionable motives on that one.

It's the way things are DJ1. Call it skimming if you like. At the end of the day, no one holds a gun to their heads. Just be thankful that the competative nature of the recruitment game allows these kids to progress through their careers with the best deal possible.

What I would like to see so far as Junior recruitment is some assurance from the ALL clubs to make sure that juniors are on some type of scholarship program as part of their contract. Whether its a trade or academic, does not matter. I do beleive that clubs should also be responsible for furthering their education and ensuring that they do have a life after their careers are over.

 

[DJ1]

To be honest I don't know what the ratio is but it not relevant to my point about Ricky Stuart.

And I really don't think you get my drift. I agree that the act of, let me use your term, "skimming the cream" isn't development. Its what he does with them is what I'm alluding to. If you can "skim the cream" why not? Would you rather persist with someone with out credentials and try to mold that person or would you rather seek a player with some potential. Let's be honest, that's all school boys have is "potential".

I think all clubs as a condition of receiving the NRL club grant should be required to be responsible for all junior development in certain regional areas, be this their own plus a rural region.

When you have only certain clubs spending their development budgets on the entire junior infrastructure and others skimming the cream then claiming that it was them who "developed" the player it's laughable.

By extending your reasoning you would rather have a regime where if you are a junior from a specific region you are not allowed to play for any other team unless it is one that is the designated NRL team in your region.

Doesn't quite sound right does it? But I guess it does if your motives are to eliminate certain teams from the competition.

Or should you make an exception that teams outside the region can recruit juniors as long as they aren't very good. I mean they do have two legs and two arms but not much else. Hmmmm.... still have questionable motives on that one.

It's the way things are DJ1. Call it skimming if you like. At the end of the day, no one holds a gun to their heads. Just be thankful that the competative nature of the recruitment game allows these kids to progress through their careers with the best deal possible.

What I would like to see so far as Junior recruitment is some assurance from the ALL clubs to make sure that juniors are on some type of scholarship program as part of their contract. Whether its a trade or academic, does not matter. I do beleive that clubs should also be responsible for furthering their education and ensuring that they do have a life after their careers are over.

All clubs should be required to invest in "regions" not simply "purchase" a schoolboys squad and then miraculously claim to have developed anyone.

 

[Catatonic_Omnivore]

I think all clubs as a condition of receiving the NRL club grant should be required to be responsible for all junior development in certain regional areas, be this their own plus a rural region.

When you have only certain clubs spending their development budgets on the entire junior infrastructure and others skimming the cream then claiming that it was them who "developed" the player it's laughable.




All clubs should be required to invest in "regions" not simply "purchase" a schoolboys squad and then miraculously claim to have developed anyone.

This is way off the original subject...

You obviously have an issue with how some people use the term "develop" and that's your perogative. Very petty and sad.

 

[DJ1]

This is way off the original subject...

and yet it was you who brought up player development under Stuart.

OK

Back on topic,

With Fittler, 76 Games
Wins 59 (77.6% wow)
Losses 16 (21.1%) Plus draw

Without Fittler, 31 Games
Wins 12 (38.7%)
Losses 19 (61.3%)

 

[Catatonic_Omnivore]

and yet it was you who brought up player development under Stuart.

OK

Back on topic,

With Fittler, 76 Games
Wins 59 (77.6% wow)
Losses 16 (21.1%) Plus draw

Without Fittler, 31 Games
Wins 12 (38.7%)
Losses 19 (61.3%)

You know what. Read my responses again.

Its quite obvious that the mere mention of the word player (dare I say) development prevents you from getting the gist of what I had to say.

 

[Danish]

Who are the great juniors the dogs have brought through in the past 2-3 years DJ??

All your talent is now from NZ. Much in the same way the Roosters constantly have people in QLD picking off the potentials the Dogs take more than their fair share of "cream" from the NZ junior ranks.

If a player has been with Easts/Dogs/etc since they were 16 you can thank that club for 90% of their development, their under 15s coach for 5% and their natural ability for the rest.

 

[RABK]

Stuart or Fittler?

Looking at the stats from 2002 to 2006 Round 1

Stuart has coached 107 First grade games (NRL premiership and finals)
Wins 71 (impressive 66.4%)
Losses 35 (32.7%) plus there was a draw

When this is broken down into with or without Fittler it's a very different story.

With Fittler, 76 Games
Wins 59 (77.6% wow)
Losses 16 (21.1%) Plus draw

Without Fittler, 31 Games
Wins 12 (38.7%)
Losses 19 (61.3%)

Geez, that is a good record under Fittler. And a few of those losses would have come from the first half of season 2002 when they were struck by a horrendous injury toll and were finding their feet under Stuart.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Who are the great juniors the dogs have brought through in the past 2-3 years DJ??

I love the deafening sound of silence :roll:

 

[DJ1]

I love the deafening sound of silence :roll:

Apologies c**k, I didn't see that one. Only saw the anal face one.

Who are the great juniors the dogs have brought through in the past 2-3 years DJ??

All your talent is now from NZ. Much in the same way the Roosters constantly have people in QLD picking off the potentials the Dogs take more than their fair share of "cream" from the NZ junior ranks.

If a player has been with Easts/Dogs/etc since they were 16 you can thank that club for 90% of their development, their under 15s coach for 5% and their natural ability for the rest.

A typical response from a supporter of a club who does not invest into junior infrastructure.

Junior development is not solely about skimming the cream of the crop to build a transit lounge. It is about developing and nurturing juniors from the youngest grade. This is grass roots development as opposed to buying a team.

The Bulldogs have a reasonably large junior infrasructure but not the largest by any stretch. I believe that the Dogs spend approximately $1.5M to $2M per year on junior development. That is before purchasing players from other areas. This type of grassroots investment needs to become mandatory for the NRL grant.

Many NRL players have come through those junior clubs over the years. Sometimes they play for us sometimes they don't but it was our junior infrastructure that they were developed in.

A new concept which has also gained popularity is the feeder club concept. This has been reasonably successful for clubs like Broncos, Bulldogs, Roosters, Storm, Panthers etc.

As to your comment that 90% of a players development comes from 16 and up I would disagree.

90% of the development of that player has occurred by the time they are 14. The key components being the desire to play and the instilling of a training regime.

There would not be more than a handful of players in the NRL who had not played the game prior to turning 16.

 

[Catatonic_Omnivore]

Junior development is not solely about skimming the cream of the crop to build a transit lounge.

I would hardly call the Roosters a "Transit Lounge".

The Bulldogs have a reasonably large junior infrasructure but not the largest by any stretch. I believe that the Dogs spend approximately $1.5M to $2M per year on junior development. That is before purchasing players from other areas. This type of grassroots investment needs to become mandatory for the NRL grant.

So you say.

On the NRL grant, how much of that will leave player payments if you suggest they spend $2m on junior development? That's a great way to kill off teams like Souths.

Many NRL players have come through those junior clubs over the years. Sometimes they play for us sometimes they don't but it was our junior infrastructure that they were developed in.

Only because they live in the immediate area.

As to your comment that 90% of a players development comes from 16 and up I would disagree.

90% of the development of that player has occurred by the time they are 14. The key components being the desire to play and the instilling of a training regime.

There would not be more than a handful of players in the NRL who had not played the game prior to turning 16.

You must be an expert on human development & child psychology.

 

[super_coach]

South are a club that has always invested in junior talent.They have allway been a club,who would try and devolpe from inside their own backyard.Before taking the easy route,like the rorters and than eagles

The nrl will all ways struggle,till all teams are enforced,to make the same yards in junior devlopment.Granted,Bondi will never compete with penrith,but give them an area of regional australia,which is theirs to delevope.(you could imagine they would be paying kids to move towns)

If the game is to keep going forward,the burden of devolping talent must not be left to 1/2 the teams.Teams must be rewarded,big time for devolping talent and i dont mean talent aquired from the rep carnivals.

Like multi national companys,some clubs are giving very little and taking heaps

 

[DJ1]

Junior development is not solely about skimming the cream of the crop to build a transit lounge.

I would hardly call the Roosters a "Transit Lounge".

I guess you must be a Roosters supporter then.

The Bulldogs have a reasonably large junior infrasructure but not the largest by any stretch. I believe that the Dogs spend approximately $1.5M to $2M per year on junior development. That is before purchasing players from other areas. This type of grassroots investment needs to become mandatory for the NRL grant.

So you say.

On the NRL grant, how much of that will leave player payments if you suggest they spend $2m on junior development? That's a great way to kill off teams like Souths.

A club with a large junior infrastructure will spend upwards of $10M every year. As an example,

Primary cap $3.36M
Allowances $400K
Secondary cap $300K
Non NRL squad JF etc $1M
Junior Infrustructure $2M
Club administration and facilities $3M

Clubs don't simply operate on the NRL grant today.

Many NRL players have come through those junior clubs over the years. Sometimes they play for us sometimes they don't but it was our junior infrastructure that they were developed in.

Only because they live in the immediate area.

Not at all. Feeder clubs are a good example where a club is partially funded and acquires certain players on scholarships etc. The entire club benefits as well. All those kids who never go on with the sport but develop a lifelong love for the sport of rugby league.

As to your comment that 90% of a players development comes from 16 and up I would disagree.

90% of the development of that player has occurred by the time they are 14. The key components being the desire to play and the instilling of a training regime.

There would not be more than a handful of players in the NRL who had not played the game prior to turning 16.

You must be an expert on human development & child psychology.

Which is why I'm explaining this to you slowly.

 

[DJ1]

South are a club that has always invested in junior talent.They have allway been a club,who would try and devolpe from inside their own backyard.Before taking the easy route,like the rorters and than eagles

The nrl will all ways struggle,till all teams are enforced,to make the same yards in junior devlopment.Granted,Bondi will never compete with penrith,but give them an area of regional australia,which is theirs to delevope.(you could imagine they would be paying kids to move towns)

If the game is to keep going forward,the burden of devolping talent must not be left to 1/2 the teams.Teams must be rewarded,big time for devolping talent and i dont mean talent aquired from the rep carnivals.

Like multi national companys,some clubs are giving very little and taking heaps

We need to do more than just look after our little patch. Each club should also have regional areas that they are responsible for. Every junior club in Australia and New Zealand should eventually feed through to an NRL club at the end of the chain.