U 18s

I'm a huge fan of developing the player to match the skills (and find the concept of utility backs/forwards difficult).

Both my sons have had to compete with wise men advising them where they should play based around their physical attributes...no 1 son - at 6'1"...too small to play in his favoured position (No. 8)...but ideal for a hooker...got coached there at every level but his heart (and value addition) was in carrying .. ended up at 8 after a few seasons at 2 (including a couple of games for RFC)

No 2 son - same sort of size but a little more 'robust'...openside it is for you boi...
...it was the only and only time I've ever intervened with a coach ( son was 11 at the time) and said he's just won the Dyfed schools 100mts, can kick the ball a fair way, and has decent hands...surely he's a back?
...wonder what would have happened if I hadn't stepped in..

Wil Chips wrote: I'm a huge fan of developing the player to match the skills (and find the concept of utility backs/forwards difficult). Both my sons have had to compete with wise men advising them where they should play based around their physical attributes...no 1 son - at 6'1"...too small to play in his favoured position (No. 8)...but ideal for a hooker...got coached there at every level but his heart (and value addition) was in carrying .. ended up at 8 after a few seasons at 2 (including a couple of games for RFC) No 2 son - same sort of size but a little more 'robust'...openside it is for you boi... ...it was the only and only time I've ever intervened with a coach ( son was 11 at the time) and said he's just won the Dyfed schools 100mts, can kick the ball a fair way, and has decent hands...surely he's a back? ...wonder what would have happened if I hadn't stepped in..

yet at 6'1 he'd be taller than Ben Earl who's played at 8 for England.

i think 6'1 is a great height for a no.8 if you have a low centre of gravity and carry like a bull through a brick wall. 

no. 2 would be too busy trying chainsaw rip and get the glory!

I think my point is that it takes a deep dive in to a young players skill set to evaluate his/her best position, a quick scan and word of mouth isn't enough.

If that outcome doesn't align to what the player thinks, it's incredibly important to explain why, and to come from a position of knowledge/expertise in that of course.

The other thing is that to nurture talent properly (I mean through to it being their primary occupation )the player has to have the capacity to accept structured and well considered feedback...that can range from their work ethic through to their skills development.

Finally there's literally no need to jettison players from the pathway ( they can elect to leave for a host of other reasons of course) .. if they've been identified properly then it's the Academy coaches role to unlock the potential.

Players have been sidelined for a whole host of imperfect reasoning...size and injury being one of the main ones, but I know of examples like timekeeping, distance from training, too many in the same positions and a few other pearlers.

Realwest wrote: Did Ryan Lanfear come on I work with a guy who seems to think he is a bit special, a usual story looks like he’s too small for backrow and he’s been advised to learn to play hooker.

I watched him in the Dewar Shield final and he was impressive with his ball carrying. He’ll need a growth spurt if he’s going to play backrow at pro level though. He’s still eligible for U16 so that may still happen. 

6 tries to us 1 to the Dragons at half time. Whats not to like? 

That’s a cracking result. If the Dragons had won they would’ve qualified for the final with a week to spare. 

Wasp wrote: Wil Chips wrote: 55-12 ft. Loving that!