Re: Constantine Mika : Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:24 am  

Wow, everyone search google images for Sinbad Kali Topless, how does he cover those norks up?

Re: Constantine Mika : Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:26 am  

roopy wrote: Sinbad this year - the guy is as cut as any 112kg player i've ever seen. http://www.flickr.com/photos/28990363@N05/5544658478/ you are starting to sound a bit gay now

roopy wrote: Sinbad this year - the guy is as cut as any 112kg player i've ever seen. http://www.flickr.com/photos/28990363@N05/5544658478/ you are starting to sound a bit gay now

Re: Constantine Mika : Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:34 am  

fun time frankie wrote:

you are starting to sound a bit gay now

I'd like to look like him, but i think that might involve spending half my life in a gym and eating nothing but raw eggs and tofu.

Re: Constantine Mika : Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:39 am  

id leave it now or you might explode

Re: Constantine Mika : Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:46 am  

fun time frankie wrote:

you are starting to sound a bit gay now

Glad I'm not the only 1 that was thinking that

The thing is size isn't everything, afterall David Mills is even bigger & Hutch Maiava is roughly the same size.

Re: Constantine Mika : Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:15 pm  

Amazing that there are all of these brilliant players sat around in the reserve grades when half of the overseas players with 100+ NRL apps come over here and are no better than the players we have already.

Shame that the aussies can't churn out cricketers like they allegedly can RL players

[Mild Rover]

Re: Constantine Mika : Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:02 pm  

Jake the Peg wrote:

Amazing that there are all of these brilliant players sat around in the reserve grades when half of the overseas players with 100+ NRL apps come over here and are no better than the players we have already.

Just maths innit?

There are outstanding, good and ordinary players both here and in Australia. And in similar proportions, looking at the right hand ends of normal distributions. The absolute numbers though are (crucially) different.

Let's say that England has a dozen 'outstanding players' at any one time. Players that wouldn't look out of place in State of Origin. Not quite enough for one a team in SL (especially with the likes of S. Burgess, J. Graham and G. Ellis heading over there), or to fill out an International XVII. Also they tend to be forwards, leaving us short in the backs.
Australia, I'd guesstimate for these purposes has 50.

Let's now say that for every outstanding player there are 10 good players.
That's 120 Englishmen and 500 Australians.
Just over nine Englishmen for each English SL club, meaning that the 17 man team and 25 man squads have to be filled out with ordinary players.
The Aussies have more than 30 good players per NRL team (though the NRL is expanding, of course), which is a surfeit. So good Antipodeans come over here and take the place of ordinary Englishmen in SL squads.
The numbers I've used for illustration are arguable, but the principle is sound, I reckon.
Now you get the occasional spectacular Aussie failure, but mostly they come across and do a good job - which is why there is always demand in the market.
Coaches who choose what you might call 'average Aussies' over 'promising Brits', do so for similar reasons that I'd choose a small pile of banknotes over a big bag of coppers. You're judging the groups by different standards, when the only one that matters to a coach is what they offer the team.

The reasons for this disparity are, I suspect, to do with coaching, sporting culture and, most important, junior player numbers.
There is nothing amazing about the situation. As the NRL gets richer and bigger, a new balance will develop. And England will most likely still only have a dozen outstanding players - because quotas don't make junior coaches better or get more kids playing the game.

Re: Constantine Mika : Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:40 pm  

I think we don't target kids from other sports, particularly Association Football enough.

All Premiership, Championship and the majority of League 1 and 2 clubs run extensive academies.

The drop out rate from these are huge.

Often these kids are lost to sport completely when they're cut at sixteen. Now these kids will understandably be talented sports men who can run and jump, have good hand eye coordination and will often have many transferable skills.

Many of these type of kids would have played Rugby League in previous generations but the lure and glamour of football is rammed down their throats from a very young age and so that becomes their first choice.

Re: Constantine Mika : Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:27 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

Just maths innit?

There are outstanding, good and ordinary players both here and in Australia. And in similar proportions, looking at the right hand ends of normal distributions. The absolute numbers though are (crucially) different.

Let's say that England has a dozen 'outstanding players' at any one time. Players that wouldn't look out of place in State of Origin. Not quite enough for one a team in SL (especially with the likes of S. Burgess, J. Graham and G. Ellis heading over there), or to fill out an International XVII. Also they tend to be forwards, leaving us short in the backs.
Australia, I'd guesstimate for these purposes has 50.

Let's now say that for every outstanding player there are 10 good players.
That's 120 Englishmen and 500 Australians.
Just over nine Englishmen for each English SL club, meaning that the 17 man team and 25 man squads have to be filled out with ordinary players.
The Aussies have more than 30 good players per NRL team (though the NRL is expanding, of course), which is a surfeit. So good Antipodeans come over here and take the place of ordinary Englishmen in SL squads.
The numbers I've used for illustration are arguable, but the principle is sound, I reckon.
Now you get the occasional spectacular Aussie failure, but mostly they come across and do a good job - which is why there is always demand in the market.
Coaches who choose what you might call 'average Aussies' over 'promising Brits', do so for similar reasons that I'd choose a small pile of banknotes over a big bag of coppers. You're judging the groups by different standards, when the only one that matters to a coach is what they offer the team.

The reasons for this disparity are, I suspect, to do with coaching, sporting culture and, most important, junior player numbers.
There is nothing amazing about the situation. As the NRL gets richer and bigger, a new balance will develop. And England will most likely still only have a dozen outstanding players - because quotas don't make junior coaches better or get more kids playing the game.

All very good but my point is that roopy claims there are players in reserve grade in the NRL who would "rip it up" when there are plenty of regular 1st graders come over and don't "rip it up". Now the aussies may have plenty of good players but surely the best ones play in the 1st grade?

Re: Constantine Mika : Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:33 pm  

Sandra The Terrorist wrote:

I think we don't target kids from other sports, particularly Association Football enough.

All Premiership, Championship and the majority of League 1 and 2 clubs run extensive academies.

The drop out rate from these are huge.

Often these kids are lost to sport completely when they're cut at sixteen. Now these kids will understandably be talented sports men who can run and jump, have good hand eye coordination and will often have many transferable skills.

Many of these type of kids would have played Rugby League in previous generations but the lure and glamour of football is rammed down their throats from a very young age and so that becomes their first choice.

Great point. People whinge about us losing the odd player to onion but then completely ignore the 100's (possibly even 1000's) who choose football over rugby in the 1st place.

There are 3 kids who play for the same team as my lad who don't play if their games clash with their football teams games