Genuine question. : Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:59 pm  

I'm not short on theories and opinions regarding RL.

But there is one issue that has bugged me for years and I just can't find a plausible explanation.

Josh Griffin: He's 33 years old, he now has the perfect build for a Rugby player, in fact he's a bit of a monster for his height.

I've followed his career since he was in our Academy right up until now.

It's only been in the last five years IMO that he's reached his full physical potential.

My issue is this. I can't help but think that had Josh come through the NRL, he'd have reached that potential at around 24 years of age. That is a full four years earlier than he did, and would have coincided far more with his playing prime years. This also applies to dozens of other players.

I just don't know why, as I reckon we reached more or less parity with the NRL in terms of sports science, training methods and life style about 15 years ago. Yes they are still ahead, but the gulf is nowhere near what it once was.

Yet look at Dom Young, a beanpole a few years back, but he looks like a terminator now. I honestly don't think that transformation would have happened in SL, certainly not in that timeframe.

Look at Toby Boothroyd, he's only 20, never played NRL, was never a squad player, has never been full time, but you find me 20 year old reserve players in SL that is his size. There are not many. Yet in Oz he'd be considered ordinary.

Look at Issac Shaw, he's older than Toby, yet every-time i see him I keep wondering when someone is going to introduce him to pasta! He looks like he lives on salad. He is a good player imho, but he doesn't seem to have developed physically much in the last few years.

So, why is it taking SL so long to physically develop their players compared to the NRL, especially regarding the top clubs, who allegedly have all the same structures in place.

Over to you.

Re: Genuine question. : Sat Apr 13, 2024 4:17 pm  

vastman wrote:

I'm not short on theories and opinions regarding RL.

But there is one issue that has bugged me for years and I just can't find a plausible explanation.

Josh Griffin: He's 33 years old, he now has the perfect build for a Rugby player, in fact he's a bit of a monster for his height.

I've followed his career since he was in our Academy right up until now.

It's only been in the last five years IMO that he's reached his full physical potential.

My issue is this. I can't help but think that had Josh come through the NRL, he'd have reached that potential at around 24 years of age. That is a full four years earlier than he did, and would it have coincided more with his prime years. This also applies to dozens of other players.

I just don't know why, as I reckon we reached more or less parity with the NRL in terms of sports science, training methods and life style about 15 years ago. Yes they are still ahead, but the gulf is nowhere near what it once was.

Yet look at Dom Young, a beanpole a few years back, but he looks like a terminator now. I honestly don't think that transformation would have happened in SL, certainly not in that timeframe.

Look at Toby Boothroyd, he's only 20, never played NRL, was never a squad player, has never been full time, but you find me 20 year old reserve players in SL that is his size. There are not many. Yet in Oz he'd be considered ordinary.

Look at Issac Shaw, he's older than Toby, yet every-time i see him I keep wondering when someone is going to introduce him to pasta! He looks like he lives on salad. He is a good player imho, but he doesn't seem to have developed physically much in the last few years.

So, why is it taking SL so long to physically develop their players compared to the NRL, especially regarding the top clubs, who allegedly have all the same structures in place.

Over to you.

Totally agree with this. Apparently Murphy has bulked up considerably with muscle in the pre season whilst training.

Perhaps it has more to do with nutrition though as much as training though I could believe that players are trained much more to develop physically in their academy age players than skills. You look at our academies at the top level over here I would say the difference in investment would be huge. But Thais it’s the 16-19 age bracket that a lot of the hard work is done that makes the difference in physicality.

Re: Genuine question. : Sat Apr 13, 2024 4:23 pm  

Trojan Horse wrote:

Totally agree with this. Apparently Murphy has bulked up considerably with muscle in the pre season whilst training.

Perhaps it has more to do with nutrition though as much as training though I could believe that players are trained much more to develop physically in their academy age players than skills. You look at our academies at the top level over here I would say the difference in investment would be huge. But Thais it’s the 16-19 age bracket that a lot of the hard work is done that makes the difference in physicality.

I'd agree with you to an extent. But food, good food, is no cheaper in Oz than here, and the science and knowledge has been around for years. Iy's readily available on the internet (and I am talking legal here).

When I was younger I knew a fair few lads who joined gyms and used a body builders diet and they all bulked up, some very significantly, and all off there own backs.

Obviously not all players need bulk, and some simply can't add it. But for those who can, and would benefit, it seems to arrive to late imho.

PS: Murphy did most of that whilst still in the UK, which really makes you wonder. I'm not sure he'd have bothered if he'd stayed, but might be wrong.

[PopTart]

Re: Genuine question. : Sat Apr 13, 2024 4:35 pm  

You answered your own question for me.
We do not have parity in Sports Science and nutrition with them.
Including facilities too.

Re: Genuine question. : Sat Apr 13, 2024 4:46 pm  

vastman wrote:

I'd agree with you to an extent. But food, good food, is no cheaper in Oz than here, and the science and knowledge has been around for years. Iy's readily available on the internet (and I am talking legal here).

When I was younger I knew a fair few lads who joined gyms and used a body builders diet and they all bulked up, some very significantly, and all off there own backs.

Obviously not all players need bulk, and some simply can't add it. But for those who can, and would benefit, it seems to arrive to late imho.

PS: Murphy did most of that whilst still in the UK, which really makes you wonder. I'm not sure he'd have bothered if he'd stayed, but might be wrong.

If Murphy did do that over here it makes you wonder if he was given a program from his new club to follow in order to become more physical.

When I say nutrition I more mean the access to the right food and supplements for young players that it will be better planned, perhaps paid for and monitored more due to the investment and focus I would imagine the clubs put into their academies. I’m not sure the uk clubs would put anywhere near the financial, management and educational quality into our youth systems.

Re: Genuine question. : Sat Apr 13, 2024 5:01 pm  

and we have enough coaches that have gone through the Aussie system, with the knowledge etc to be able to implement it here. Perhaps it's a money, or lack of, thing that is holding us back.

Re: Genuine question. : Sat Apr 13, 2024 5:30 pm  

PopTart wrote:

You answered your own question for me.
We do not have parity in Sports Science and nutrition with them.
Including facilities too.

No actually I didn’t. I said that was he case 15 years ago. I said the gulf was now very small. So question still in answered.

Re: Genuine question. : Sat Apr 13, 2024 5:34 pm  

phe13 wrote:

and we have enough coaches that have gone through the Aussie system, with the knowledge etc to be able to implement it here. Perhaps it's a money, or lack of, thing that is holding us back.

That’s exactly I think the issue, money and investment. Add to that the top clubs can just poach the academy players that other teams have heavily invested in at academy level.

[PopTart]

Re: Genuine question. : Sat Apr 13, 2024 6:12 pm  

vastman wrote:

No actually I didn’t. I said that was he case 15 years ago. I said the gulf was now very small. So question still in answered.

That was my answer.
I don't think the gulf is very small.....shown by the evidence you give.

Why ask a 'genuine question' if you are going to argue with a genuine answer?

Re: Genuine question. : Sat Apr 13, 2024 7:44 pm  

PopTart wrote:

That was my answer.
I don't think the gulf is very small.....shown by the evidence you give.

Why ask a 'genuine question' if you are going to argue with a genuine answer?

That wasn’t my issue. I’m pointing out that I didn’t answer my own question, because I don’t think there is a gulf. If you do fair enough, you might be right, but it wasn’t my answer it was yours