Disagree with your comment on the supposed overhaul of recruitment / retention and the so called "academy". Recruitment and retention seemed to be fine for the years 1996 - 2006 .
Yes it was, and it was shithouse from some time in the 80s until 1996, and again from 2006 to 2011. That five year gap was enough for us to have a massive gulf of talent by 2011 in the 18-22 age group. Players this age are guarded jealously by their clubs, because they are the key to success in the rest of the club - whether developing your own first graders or being able to afford to poach them from other clubs.
We have always had good juniors mainly due to the strength and quality of our junior league.
We have always had strong juniors (nine Harold Matts titles in the past 20 years) however as soon as they get close to age 18 we haven't bothered to keep them (three SG Ball titles and zero Flegg/NYC titles in the same 20 year period). That is what needed to be fixed - identifying, keeping and developing the players that emerge in Harold Matthews (under 16s) as well as poaching new players for the SG Ball (under 18s) team from Queensland and New Zealand. That all stopped after Brian Smith, and didn't start again until Kearney brought Nolan in.
Success in junior reps has been steady for some time.
Zero under 20s titles in the past 20 years is your idea of success in junior reps? The Harold Matthews team has won almost every second year for two decades. Why has this not translated into success at under 20s level? Even the SG Ball side has only won a third of the amount of premierships as the Harold Matts.
Immediately prior to their last NRL premiership the Dogs won four Jersey Flegg titles in five years. The Roosters have won SG Ball three times in the last seven years but have never won Harold Matthews. Do you see how junior reps becomes more important to NRL recruitment/retention as the reps get older? We have been massively successful in under 16s and then let more professional clubs sign our best players.
Decision making in recruitment has been questionable and many people here seem to agree.
Are these the same people who believe we've 'always been strong in junior reps' without noticing our junior rep teams get weaker as they get older?
But when you look at the success of this year, The NRL team really has only had an injection of 3 new players. They being, Hoppa, Norman and Peats. Having a coach who coaches and players respond to has been the major difference the year.
You're missing the fact that young players get better every year while old players get worse. So they are not the same player from year to year. Moimoi, Hindmarsh, Burt, Maitua, et al have all been declining while Sio, Morgan and all the young forwards have been getting better. Two years ago Junior Paulo was just a big fat teenager in the under 20s, while Pauli and Tanginoa were playing SG Ball. These young guys are not the same player they were the year before or the year before that. Just like Fui is no longer the player he was (not the coach's fault) the young guys are becoming the player they can be.
This is why the 'academy' was so important. Without it guys like Pauli and Tanginoa would be at Manly, Canterbury or the Chooks.
. Come on you Eels!
