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.

None of your post mentions any of our young players, all your doing is basing you whole point on us being 12th (massively thanks to Millward). The reason we are 12th is not because of our youth system it's in spite of it. We spend nowhere near the cap and I'm sure having better players around them would only help player development other clubs can afford that luxury, we can't.

Whatever the evidence your not going to change your views. If your anti cas bias is too blinding that you ignore blatant facts then there isn't much point commenting in future.

Having read through the accreditation the whole process is totally flawed and is totally outcome based (how many players represent england 16s and academy) and how many go through to first team.

Wigan and Leeds are judged as having the best academies. Whilst no one can argue on the talent that has come through people are totally missing the point in wrongly assuming they have the best academies.

At present when players are signed for scholarship wigan and Leeds swoop in and take the vast majority of players (u15) hence already have the best players with the most potential already. It is obvious that they are going to see the most players come through. It also annoys me that wigan are now actively recruiting players from West Yorkshire for scholarship. Does wigan not have enough players in the local area to sign? The answer is they are harming the game in creating super academy teams that most other clubs will never compete with. Other clubs are left with what you may say are decent young players but not current high performers in that age group.

Therefore wigan and Leeds always have a greater start point in terms of players than most other clubs. What actually goes on at academies tells a totally different story to the gradings given. Delivery at some clubs graded a '3' is laughable as these clubs may not have star young players but develop these players really well in making good progress with the odd few becoming squad super league players or championship players.

Until as a game we balance academies out with equal strength players from scholarship all the way through then allowing Leeds and wigan a monopoly over every age groups best young players will only hinder the long term progress of the game as a whole. One final thing, when wigan and Leeds sign the majority of your highest performing school kids each year maybe 4-5 of these will get through to first team, what happens to the rest??? Answer is they either drop out of the game totally or end up playing championship rugby and never fulfilling the potential they clearly had as a youngster. Spread these kids around more evenly and you create a very competitive academy league and more will develop at each club to first team!

By the way this it not a dig at Leeds or wigan rather the systems in place that allow such a unfair and flawed accreditation that plasters over the real issues in player development in England. As a game we are brainwashed into thinking certain academies are better than others. I will sit and argue all day that their are a few clubs not graded as '1' that in terms of coaching and development including education rival Leeds and wigan. They just don't have the current calibre of player to start with and never get credit for the outstanding delivery that goes on!

Cant argue with that, greatly admire your youth system and quality you bring through. The AA is probably a bit like Ofsted a tick box system nothing to do with reality.