Rugby League in Macarthur is 'Dead'

[TrueTiger]

Hey guys,just on this topic,I hail from the Southern Highlands of NSW..Moss Vale to be precise…The WTS come to my kids school regularly during the year,they give clinics and make themselves available for questions and autographs without fuss..the kids always say how nice the players are..I myself travel to Campbelltown frequently and Iam a member of Wests Leagues...I cant understand how Campbelltown and the Council there cant embrace the WTs as at least a drawcard for people to come to the area and support an NRL football side..there is room in that particular stadium to have the WTs set up a training base and get out of Concorde before it falls apart around them.....the only thing that is dead around Macarthur region is the productivity of the Councillors....

 

[batboy]

"Western Suburbs Magpies have moved to Liverpool"

Really?? So they don't base themselves out of Cambo anymore? News to me.

Even back when I played back in the 1990's and early 2000's the Wests Comp was merged with the Canterbury Comp.

And the Balmain Comp was merged with the St George Comp.

I can only suppose it has gotten worse by now.

Didn't the Cambo council wanna charge the Maggies an arm and a leg to have them set up out there - Or something like that (Rings a bell)

 

[innsaneink]

"Western Suburbs Magpies have moved to Liverpool"

Really?? So they don't base themselves out of Cambo anymore? News to me.

Even back when I played back in the 1990's and early 2000's the Wests Comp was merged with the Canterbury Comp.

And the Balmain Comp was merged with the St George Comp.

I can only suppose it has gotten worse by now.

Balmain, along with Canterbury Saints Souths/easts play in the ICCC from about 13s up….Inner City Combined Comp...preety sure im missing a district

 

[Spartan117]

Wests Tigers are more than the MacArthur region.

Agree with King Sirro

My kids were pulled cause they were too little and the fact that I couldnt get to separate fields at separate times, cold muddy fields, prams etc. It might sound soft but with a very young largish family something just had to give.

I see resurgences in each region when their team is winning.

I reckon N-QLD will have a bump in their registrations for next season at the junior level. The same will happen for the Tigers in 2043.

The Liverpool thing will be awesome for us all if it ever happens. We can call it the "Sheens / Farah center of excellence"

 

[Abraham]

"Western Suburbs Magpies have moved to Liverpool"

Really?? So they don't base themselves out of Cambo anymore? News to me.

Even back when I played back in the 1990's and early 2000's the Wests Comp was merged with the Canterbury Comp.

And the Balmain Comp was merged with the St George Comp.

I can only suppose it has gotten worse by now.

Balmain, along with Canterbury Saints Souths/easts play in the ICCC from about 13s up….Inner City Combined Comp...preety sure im missing a district

Seriously??!! Wow.

If you're missing a district it would likely be Wests. They couldn't field stand alone comps for some age groups 15 years ago, so doubt they would be able to now.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Wests Tigers are more than the MacArthur region.

Agree with King Sirro

My kids were pulled cause they were too little and the fact that I couldnt get to separate fields at separate times, cold muddy fields, prams etc. It might sound soft but with a very young largish family something just had to give.

I see resurgences in each region when their team is winning.

I reckon N-QLD will have a bump in their registrations for next season at the junior level. The same will happen for the Tigers in 2043.

The Liverpool thing will be awesome for us all if it ever happens. We can call it the "Sheens / Farah center of excellence"

At this point in time it's the Royce Simmons Centre of Excrement.

 

[Abraham]

"Western Suburbs Magpies have moved to Liverpool"

Really?? So they don't base themselves out of Cambo anymore? News to me.

Even back when I played back in the 1990's and early 2000's the Wests Comp was merged with the Canterbury Comp.

And the Balmain Comp was merged with the St George Comp.

I can only suppose it has gotten worse by now.

Didn't the Cambo council wanna charge the Maggies an arm and a leg to have them set up out there - Or something like that (Rings a bell)

Wouldn't surprise me.

Cambo Council are just as awesome as Leichhardt Council when it comes to "supporting" the Wests Tigers.

 

[Goose]

It's junior league in general. Numbers dropping dramatically everywhere. I don't see it changing either. There just isn't anything you can do to convince parents this is a good sport for their kids to play. Grubby parents ruining things on the sideline, teaching kids to play grubby, Sydney journos hell bent on putting the game down rather than supporting it, risk of neck injuries, big islander kids destroying small Caucasian kids….The reasons for your son not to play are endless. The reasons to play are the same reasons in other sports, so league doesn't provide anything positive to convince those on the edge to come and play. Anything positive they can get in other sports without the negative league stuff.

Well said KS

I wonder how tempted the NRL is in going to back to kids playing in their weight divisions than in age groups and whether that would help at all

Suppose the problem is you could have 8 and 9 year old Islander boys playing 15-16 year olds kids

Happy I think how it would work is that it's not based solely on size. There would be conditions. For example, you can't play more than one year above your age, and you can't play below your age. So that would mean a big 10 year old would play up an age in the 11's, not the 12's or 13's. While the big 11 year olds move up to 12's etc. There will still be weight differences in the game, just not to the same extent and the small kids would have 12 months maturity on those bigger kids which helps them cope.

I was on a committee that investigated moving to weight divisions. It is actually worse.

You have kids that are the same weight but vastly different in age, an overweight 9 year old playing against 14 year olds is worse. The research indicated that despite being the same weight the older kids were far more developed in most ways mentally and physically and more injuries were likely.

They looked at age brackets- with weight bands and the players in each were not enough to accurately divide on ability and many clubs struggled to find players that met both criteria to fill a team. ANd believe it or not ability gaps are the most dangerous of the 3 (according to the research presented to us).

It seems, while not perfect, age based comps broken into skill levels (Div 1 to 5 or whatever) seems to be the safest option.

As for the islander kids having questionable ages, this is just a wives tale, almost all are born in Australia, NZ or Samoa which have very stringent birth registries. The days of kids being given birth certificates on arrival are a million years ago (if ever).
Islanders are just bigger and develop quicker. All races are equal but not identical, and islanders often have genetic traits that are suited to rugby league, good luck to them.

 

[king_sirro]

Goose I'm not sure u actually read my post which states you should not be allowed to play more than one year up in age.

 

[innsaneink]

It's junior league in general. Numbers dropping dramatically everywhere. I don't see it changing either. There just isn't anything you can do to convince parents this is a good sport for their kids to play. Grubby parents ruining things on the sideline, teaching kids to play grubby, Sydney journos hell bent on putting the game down rather than supporting it, risk of neck injuries, big islander kids destroying small Caucasian kids….The reasons for your son not to play are endless. The reasons to play are the same reasons in other sports, so league doesn't provide anything positive to convince those on the edge to come and play. Anything positive they can get in other sports without the negative league stuff.

Well said KS

I wonder how tempted the NRL is in going to back to kids playing in their weight divisions than in age groups and whether that would help at all

Suppose the problem is you could have 8 and 9 year old Islander boys playing 15-16 year olds kids

Happy I think how it would work is that it's not based solely on size. There would be conditions. For example, you can't play more than one year above your age, and you can't play below your age. So that would mean a big 10 year old would play up an age in the 11's, not the 12's or 13's. While the big 11 year olds move up to 12's etc. There will still be weight differences in the game, just not to the same extent and the small kids would have 12 months maturity on those bigger kids which helps them cope.

I was on a committee that investigated moving to weight divisions. It is actually worse.

You have kids that are the same weight but vastly different in age, an overweight 9 year old playing against 14 year olds is worse. The research indicated that despite being the same weight the older kids were far more developed in most ways mentally and physically and more injuries were likely.

They looked at age brackets- with weight bands and the players in each were not enough to accurately divide on ability and many clubs struggled to find players that met both criteria to fill a team. ANd believe it or not ability gaps are the most dangerous of the 3 (according to the research presented to us).

It seems, while not perfect, age based comps broken into skill levels (Div 1 to 5 or whatever) seems to be the safest option.

As for the islander kids having questionable ages, this is just a wives tale, almost all are born in Australia, NZ or Samoa which have very stringent birth registries. The days of kids being given birth certificates on arrival are a million years ago (if ever).
Islanders are just bigger and develop quicker. All races are equal but not identical, and islanders often have genetic traits that are suited to rugby league, good luck to them.

Good post goose.
Running fast and running hard are two very different things for a big kid playing up a few grades, along with defensive structures and set plays, physically some kids may look the part but mentally theyre a long way off

 

[glebe_tiger]

After reading this thread its probably all the more reason the next nrl boss needs to be from here and have some sort of league admin background. Smith's done his job, tv deal is almost done. Grass roots and crowd numbers need attention.

I'm surprised by the article indicating drops in junior registrations everywhere except penrith and north sydney. Thought north sydney was dead league wise.

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

Well said KS

I wonder how tempted the NRL is in going to back to kids playing in their weight divisions than in age groups and whether that would help at all

Suppose the problem is you could have 8 and 9 year old Islander boys playing 15-16 year olds kids

Happy I think how it would work is that it's not based solely on size. There would be conditions. For example, you can't play more than one year above your age, and you can't play below your age. So that would mean a big 10 year old would play up an age in the 11's, not the 12's or 13's. While the big 11 year olds move up to 12's etc. There will still be weight differences in the game, just not to the same extent and the small kids would have 12 months maturity on those bigger kids which helps them cope.

I was on a committee that investigated moving to weight divisions. It is actually worse.

You have kids that are the same weight but vastly different in age, an overweight 9 year old playing against 14 year olds is worse. The research indicated that despite being the same weight the older kids were far more developed in most ways mentally and physically and more injuries were likely.

They looked at age brackets- with weight bands and the players in each were not enough to accurately divide on ability and many clubs struggled to find players that met both criteria to fill a team. ANd believe it or not ability gaps are the most dangerous of the 3 (according to the research presented to us).

It seems, while not perfect, age based comps broken into skill levels (Div 1 to 5 or whatever) seems to be the safest option.

As for the islander kids having questionable ages, this is just a wives tale, almost all are born in Australia, NZ or Samoa which have very stringent birth registries. The days of kids being given birth certificates on arrival are a million years ago (if ever).
Islanders are just bigger and develop quicker. All races are equal but not identical, and islanders often have genetic traits that are suited to rugby league, good luck to them.

Good post goose.
Running fast and running hard are two very different things for a big kid playing up a few grades, along with defensive structures and set plays, physically some kids may look the part but mentally theyre a long way off

Goose, that's what some have been trying to push on the Coast.
The skill level grading is the best answer, as the skill levels ate miles apart in that area from 12 down.
Even in the older comps where they are graded, we still have clubs who want their kids spread evenly throughout their teams rather than graded as A, B etc
The main reason is they say that the parents don't want their kids to be in a second grade team, and I have heard that said by some parents.
The main thing though is their safety, and if it means, someone gets their nose out of joint well that better than having their boy getting hurt by someone who has a much greater skill level.
Trying to get change on the Gold Coast is like herding cats.
Up here the weight thing may eventually get through , but I have my doubts that the skill grading will
Goose , where abouts was that committee from, and is it possible to get a copy of their findings?

 

[king_sirro]

Grading should be a part of the process, no doubt, but I don't think skill alone is the answer. My boy is a Div one player and is very comfortable in that environment ability wise, he is also the smallest kid in the comp, so i know that skill alone shouldn't be the criteria. It needs to be a mix. Have the grading along with the bigger kids moving up just ONE age group. Doesn't matter if they are 50kg heavier, the most they can play up is one age. They will then be graded in that age either Div 1 or Div 2\. I think that mix would be best.

However there is no perfect remedy for the situation junior league finds itself in. Like I said earlier, it won't be fixed.

 

[eyewonder]

what a great post goose.

its great that you are informed about junior rugby league and its issues.

the important thing is you are putting time in to your kids and other peoples kids.

onya!

 

[happy_tiger]

Happy I think how it would work is that it's not based solely on size. There would be conditions. For example, you can't play more than one year above your age, and you can't play below your age. So that would mean a big 10 year old would play up an age in the 11's, not the 12's or 13's. While the big 11 year olds move up to 12's etc. There will still be weight differences in the game, just not to the same extent and the small kids would have 12 months maturity on those bigger kids which helps them cope.

I was on a committee that investigated moving to weight divisions. It is actually worse.

You have kids that are the same weight but vastly different in age, an overweight 9 year old playing against 14 year olds is worse. The research indicated that despite being the same weight the older kids were far more developed in most ways mentally and physically and more injuries were likely.

They looked at age brackets- with weight bands and the players in each were not enough to accurately divide on ability and many clubs struggled to find players that met both criteria to fill a team. ANd believe it or not ability gaps are the most dangerous of the 3 (according to the research presented to us).

It seems, while not perfect, age based comps broken into skill levels (Div 1 to 5 or whatever) seems to be the safest option.

As for the islander kids having questionable ages, this is just a wives tale, almost all are born in Australia, NZ or Samoa which have very stringent birth registries. The days of kids being given birth certificates on arrival are a million years ago (if ever).
Islanders are just bigger and develop quicker. All races are equal but not identical, and islanders often have genetic traits that are suited to rugby league, good luck to them.

Good post goose.
Running fast and running hard are two very different things for a big kid playing up a few grades, along with defensive structures and set plays, physically some kids may look the part but mentally theyre a long way off

Goose, that's what some have been trying to push on the Coast.
The skill level grading is the best answer, as the skill levels ate miles apart in that area from 12 down.
Even in the older comps where they are graded, we still have clubs who want their kids spread evenly throughout their teams rather than graded as A, B etc
The main reason is they say that the parents don't want their kids to be in a second grade team, and I have heard that said by some parents.
The main thing though is their safety, and if it means, someone gets their nose out of joint well that better than having their boy getting hurt by someone who has a much greater skill level.
Trying to get change on the Gold Coast is like herding cats.
Up here the weight thing may eventually get through , but I have my doubts that the skill grading will
Goose , where abouts was that committee from, and is it possible to get a copy of their findings?

I always picked you as a cat herder GCT :laughing:

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

I was on a committee that investigated moving to weight divisions. It is actually worse.

You have kids that are the same weight but vastly different in age, an overweight 9 year old playing against 14 year olds is worse. The research indicated that despite being the same weight the older kids were far more developed in most ways mentally and physically and more injuries were likely.

They looked at age brackets- with weight bands and the players in each were not enough to accurately divide on ability and many clubs struggled to find players that met both criteria to fill a team. ANd believe it or not ability gaps are the most dangerous of the 3 (according to the research presented to us).

It seems, while not perfect, age based comps broken into skill levels (Div 1 to 5 or whatever) seems to be the safest option.

As for the islander kids having questionable ages, this is just a wives tale, almost all are born in Australia, NZ or Samoa which have very stringent birth registries. The days of kids being given birth certificates on arrival are a million years ago (if ever).
Islanders are just bigger and develop quicker. All races are equal but not identical, and islanders often have genetic traits that are suited to rugby league, good luck to them.

Good post goose.
Running fast and running hard are two very different things for a big kid playing up a few grades, along with defensive structures and set plays, physically some kids may look the part but mentally theyre a long way off

Goose, that's what some have been trying to push on the Coast.
The skill level grading is the best answer, as the skill levels ate miles apart in that area from 12 down.
Even in the older comps where they are graded, we still have clubs who want their kids spread evenly throughout their teams rather than graded as A, B etc
The main reason is they say that the parents don't want their kids to be in a second grade team, and I have heard that said by some parents.
The main thing though is their safety, and if it means, someone gets their nose out of joint well that better than having their boy getting hurt by someone who has a much greater skill level.
Trying to get change on the Gold Coast is like herding cats.
Up here the weight thing may eventually get through , but I have my doubts that the skill grading will
Goose , where abouts was that committee from, and is it possible to get a copy of their findings?

I always picked you as a cat herder GCT :laughing:

I'm deeply wounded Hap.
I'm very sensitive you know.
Although I must admit , I have chased a cat or two in my time.

 

[Doc_Tiger]

I coached a junior soccer team for a number of years over here. Our rego for the kids was the cheapest by a long way at $350\. Some were well over $600\. (Outrageous I know)
League for my son last year cost $150
AFL - not sure

Does that Football rego include uniform?

No, our club provided a pair of shorts, socks and a cheap crappy bag.

The more expensive clubs get a jacket and probably other benefits I guess. Some of them pay the coaches (so I've been told).

Our club house was a council owned one so is shared with a darts mob and cricket is run out of there during the summer.

All pretty basic as you'd imagine.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I coached a junior soccer team for a number of years over here. Our rego for the kids was the cheapest by a long way at $350\. Some were well over $600\. (Outrageous I know)
League for my son last year cost $150
AFL - not sure

Does that Football rego include uniform?

No, our club provided a pair of shorts, socks and a cheap crappy bag.

The more expensive clubs get a jacket and probably other benefits I guess. Some of them pay the coaches (so I've been told).

Our club house was a council owned one so is shared with a darts mob and cricket is run out of there during the summer.

All pretty basic as you'd imagine.

Wow, don't get much bang for your buck…

 

[Goose]

Happy I think how it would work is that it's not based solely on size. There would be conditions. For example, you can't play more than one year above your age, and you can't play below your age. So that would mean a big 10 year old would play up an age in the 11's, not the 12's or 13's. While the big 11 year olds move up to 12's etc. There will still be weight differences in the game, just not to the same extent and the small kids would have 12 months maturity on those bigger kids which helps them cope.

I was on a committee that investigated moving to weight divisions. It is actually worse.

You have kids that are the same weight but vastly different in age, an overweight 9 year old playing against 14 year olds is worse. The research indicated that despite being the same weight the older kids were far more developed in most ways mentally and physically and more injuries were likely.

They looked at age brackets- with weight bands and the players in each were not enough to accurately divide on ability and many clubs struggled to find players that met both criteria to fill a team. ANd believe it or not ability gaps are the most dangerous of the 3 (according to the research presented to us).

It seems, while not perfect, age based comps broken into skill levels (Div 1 to 5 or whatever) seems to be the safest option.

As for the islander kids having questionable ages, this is just a wives tale, almost all are born in Australia, NZ or Samoa which have very stringent birth registries. The days of kids being given birth certificates on arrival are a million years ago (if ever).
Islanders are just bigger and develop quicker. All races are equal but not identical, and islanders often have genetic traits that are suited to rugby league, good luck to them.

Good post goose.
Running fast and running hard are two very different things for a big kid playing up a few grades, along with defensive structures and set plays, physically some kids may look the part but mentally theyre a long way off

Goose, that's what some have been trying to push on the Coast.
The skill level grading is the best answer, as the skill levels ate miles apart in that area from 12 down.
Even in the older comps where they are graded, we still have clubs who want their kids spread evenly throughout their teams rather than graded as A, B etc
The main reason is they say that the parents don't want their kids to be in a second grade team, and I have heard that said by some parents.
The main thing though is their safety, and if it means, someone gets their nose out of joint well that better than having their boy getting hurt by someone who has a much greater skill level.
Trying to get change on the Gold Coast is like herding cats.
Up here the weight thing may eventually get through , but I have my doubts that the skill grading will
Goose , where abouts was that committee from, and is it possible to get a copy of their findings?

The forum was called something Douchey like the "Future of Rugby League" and was a NSWRL initiative (possibly NRL funded) in about 05 (give or take a year) and it was meant to focus on junior participation, elite talent pathways, schools footy and stuff.

A huge part of it was looking at moving to weight based divisions to increase junior numbers as the belief was some kids were being intimidated by the bigger kids, obviously bigger kids was a euphemism for islander kids.

They also discussed things like reducing costs and more aggressively engaging children with current players to increase junior numbers (of course none of this happened)

They also talked about elite programs (rugby league is pretty good at this) and Talent Identification, again a strength of RL.

I imagine the entire report is online somewhere, Im sure they would have published the findings.

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

I was on a committee that investigated moving to weight divisions. It is actually worse.

You have kids that are the same weight but vastly different in age, an overweight 9 year old playing against 14 year olds is worse. The research indicated that despite being the same weight the older kids were far more developed in most ways mentally and physically and more injuries were likely.

They looked at age brackets- with weight bands and the players in each were not enough to accurately divide on ability and many clubs struggled to find players that met both criteria to fill a team. ANd believe it or not ability gaps are the most dangerous of the 3 (according to the research presented to us).

It seems, while not perfect, age based comps broken into skill levels (Div 1 to 5 or whatever) seems to be the safest option.

As for the islander kids having questionable ages, this is just a wives tale, almost all are born in Australia, NZ or Samoa which have very stringent birth registries. The days of kids being given birth certificates on arrival are a million years ago (if ever).
Islanders are just bigger and develop quicker. All races are equal but not identical, and islanders often have genetic traits that are suited to rugby league, good luck to them.

Good post goose.
Running fast and running hard are two very different things for a big kid playing up a few grades, along with defensive structures and set plays, physically some kids may look the part but mentally theyre a long way off

Goose, that's what some have been trying to push on the Coast.
The skill level grading is the best answer, as the skill levels ate miles apart in that area from 12 down.
Even in the older comps where they are graded, we still have clubs who want their kids spread evenly throughout their teams rather than graded as A, B etc
The main reason is they say that the parents don't want their kids to be in a second grade team, and I have heard that said by some parents.
The main thing though is their safety, and if it means, someone gets their nose out of joint well that better than having their boy getting hurt by someone who has a much greater skill level.
Trying to get change on the Gold Coast is like herding cats.
Up here the weight thing may eventually get through , but I have my doubts that the skill grading will
Goose , where abouts was that committee from, and is it possible to get a copy of their findings?

The forum was called something Douchey like the "Future of Rugby League" and was a NSWRL initiative (possibly NRL funded) in about 05 (give or take a year) and it was meant to focus on junior participation, elite talent pathways, schools footy and stuff.

A huge part of it was looking at moving to weight based divisions to increase junior numbers as the belief was some kids were being intimidated by the bigger kids, obviously bigger kids was a euphemism for islander kids.

They also discussed things like reducing costs and more aggressively engaging children with current players to increase junior numbers (of course none of this happened)

They also talked about elite programs (rugby league is pretty good at this) and Talent Identification, again a strength of RL.

I imagine the entire report is online somewhere, Im sure they would have published the findings.

Thanks goose