The RFL clearly aren't judging the number of players produced as the main element their scoring or the North East Academy etc wouldn't have Grade 2's. I think its a more holistic sort of audit, meant to flag areas of best practice in the various sides of the academies and set a standard for all clubs to work towards.

Cas do produce a good number of decent SL players, but maybe (for example)the careers/aftercare side of things isn't up to scratch and prevents them from getting a 2.

Why is it undeserving of its rating? The rating isn't relative to other clubs, it's based on set criteria.
The only evidence I've seen given so far for Cas having an amazing academy is an unproven hooker and a load of young lads playing for Cas. A team that only avoided last place in 2012 on points difference and is currently 12th.

As I said before, the challenge is for the likes of Cas to start producing quality players, not average to poor players.
If you or CTID wants to turn that comment into some kind of evidence of "Cas hating" then feel free to live in that paranoid world.

7 pages discussing a RFL document which wouldn't look out of place as a piece of low grade, poorly researched school homework.

There's some people who are stereotypical RL fans here.

Instead of debating how the problems can be rectified they instantly claim the report to be wrong.

Surely it's about quality rather then quantity though? Yes you do have a high number of home grown players in your squad but your 12th in the table, whereas teams like Wigan produce a lot of youngsters that keep them at the top end of the table. Its all well & good bringing these players through but if the quality isn't there it's no surprise you get a low rating.

Could you answer my question please ???

If this isn't a case of let's have a cheap dig at cas, can you please give me an example of better/more players produced from all clubs/areas that scored better than us......
Thanks.

Players like the local Wigan (Normy) lad Ryan Hampshire last night ??? Attracting the top talent is easier with more £££££

I'm with you on this one and think Cas should be scored higher.

However I don't agree with the way the rating system works. Although Hull KR haven't been producing the players that Cas have, they are now starting to see the benefits of a lot of the good work which has gone on behind the scenes over the past few years. If you actually talk to the parents and academy players in Hull you will find they have no issues with Hull KR academy and are very complimentary of it. Yes we would like to produce the next Sam Tomkins but that takes time and when a hot prospect is given the choice of a club which regularly challenges for honours or one that doesn't, which one will they choose?

It has nothing to do with luck

WHat about them?
no, because HKR and Cas dont produce world beaters, they dont produce world beatesr because they dont invest enough in youth development.
wheree are they then?
or the 9 iu listed. Sutclifee is 18 years old, and is in the team on merit.
for the vast majority of that time there was a salary cap.

Agree with it or not the point of running academies is on the whole to produce first team players for that club. Of course player welfare, education etc is important but amateur clubs don't provide these things so not sure why an amateur jnr set up at prof clubs should be different until you are over 18 or 19 at least.

A far more meaningful rating system would be how many SL players have academy set ups produced.

Hull kr are challenging for a top 6 spot and have 4 first teamers with another 4 who have played first grade and 1 playing first grade in a top team.

I would obviously like to see a lot more and see hull lads playing for England but I am realistic enough to know the club isn't flush with cash, is competing with a neighbour club with more money and needs to keep a competitive team on the field every season.

As opposed to 130 pages devoted to the agenda of someone with nothing better to do.

Have you even read the document? Have you read the summaries? Do you understand that the grades aren't simply for numbers of players produced? That is only one part of it. But even if it were Cas still wouldn't score that highly. Your entire evidence for the Cas Academy being wonderful is an unproven hooker and a currently 12th placed team that will struggle further when their star player leaves.
There are no Cas academy products in the current ETS to my knowledge.
I don't know about the regions but as for the other clubs that scored higher than Cas here's a few off the top of my head that either are or will be of a similar or better quality than Clark is currently from recent years.
Bradford - Whitehead & Bateman
Hull FC - Briscoe, Crooks, Lineham, Houghton
Leeds - Hall, Jones-Bishop, Watkins, Singleton, Broughton, Ward
St Helens - Lomax, Eastmond, Smith
Warrington - Harrison, Cooper
Widnes - Myler
Wigan - Tomkins, Charnley, McIlorum, Mossop, Hansen, Farrell.

Plus I'm sure there'll be more Ive forgotten and more from years gone by since they generally, consistently produce players of a higher quality.

But once again, the number of players produced is almost irrelevant, it has a bearing but not so much as producing quality players. Put it this way, would you rather produce 1 Sam Tomkins or 3 Richard Owen's?
But also player production is only 1 element of the grading and evaluation. As I'm sure you would admit, Cas, along with other clubs, benefits from being in a rugby league playing area. That will have an effect on the quality of player going in to the Cas Academy compared to say London or Sheffield. It's then what the Academy "adds" to that player. Not simply the end product.

But if you want to just turn any criticism of clubs with a poor rating into "Cas hating" then go right ahead. I hope the management at Cas don't take such a paranoid view.

No, my evidence for Castlefords academy being higher than a 3 (where did I say it was wonderful ???) is the number of players playing not just at our club but at others that have come through our system. 16 players from our academy in a match vs Hull FC suggests quantity is not a problem. Quality not there ??? How on earth have we got a result at Wigan with 11 academy products a few wins ago with talented players learning the game such as Clark, Walker, (ex England academy CAPTAIN) Milner and Thompson. Consistency is the problem for our young players and that will only come with a few years. Oh but it's not that it's about how shiny your weights are and if your failed players can earn top bucks doing something else a year after they are found not to be good enough as a RL player.

These quotes suggest you think the rating is massively wrong



I'll ask you again. Have you read the document, the summaries, the grading criteria and the key areas judged?


Neither is it a major criteria of the grading.


So 1 result means players are of a high quality?
Against a Wigan team missing several players including Tomkins & O'Loughlin and backing up from a tough game away at Warrington 4 days earlier?
I'd rather look at performances over a whole season or more. Which show us that Cas only avoided last place in 2012 by points difference, are currently 12th with the 2 clubs below them imploding.
Which is why it's not just about numbers. It's about quality. I'll say it again, would you rather have 1 Sam Tomkins or 3 Richard Owen's?
As I said before Cas' challenge is to get their academy producing average to good SL players, not average to poor.


Which is where Cas recruitment and player development policy has failed. Because you should be drip feeding them into the first team as and when they're ready. Not putting them in as first 17'ers at the start of a season because you couldn't find anyone else.


That's the second time you've bizarrely mentioned shiny weights for some reason. Facilities are important as is player welfare, if Cas Acadeny share your viewpoint that they're irrelevant then maybe that's why they don't produce top players.
A dedicated gym, associated facilities and staff is important, the extras like player performance management and performance analysis are important, ensuring players complete their studies is important, ensuring players attitudes are modern and professional is important. They go toward creating and moulding young lads into professional young men.
And I'm sure most conditioners would say that weights play a very minor role in academies these days.

I'm not sure why you've attempted to turn this into some imagined witch hunt against Cas. Though maybe if Cas turned up to some best practice seminars run by the best clubs they might have learnt a few things and gained a 2 instead of a 3.

There doesn't appear to be any clarification of the relative weightings between the 4 Key Areas of Academies that have been assessed.

For any judgement to be made as to the accuracy of the gradings we would need to know this. If they all carry equal weight then the gradings are a nonsense.