Page 5 of 50 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 986

Thread: 2022 National Premier League thread

  1. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,516
    Cooks hill have pulled out of the u16s NPL completion, doesn’t sound like they were ready for promotion to me 🤦🤷*♂️

  2. #82
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2022
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by ForeverRed View Post
    Cooks hill have pulled out of the u16s NPL completion, doesn’t sound like they were ready for promotion to me 🤦🤷*♂️
    So.....how did they get promoted? Due Diligence process? Surely after all of the rubbish with NL1 Clubs who cannot field teams, a newly promoted NPL program would have their ducks in a row? What an absolute farce.

  3. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    212
    Maitland 4 Olympic 2,both sides missing players. Olympic up 2-0 early but Maitland finished the strongest .

  4. #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    1,350
    Quote Originally Posted by BBscone View Post
    So.....how did they get promoted? Due Diligence process? Surely after all of the rubbish with NL1 Clubs who cannot field teams, a newly promoted NPL program would have their ducks in a row? What an absolute farce.
    Last year they did have all 4 teams. For whatever reason these players have gone. I've heard comments they promoted the wrong club but if the reason is as others pointed out that players didn't want to play at a higher level and would rather be competitive in the lower division then stands to reason that there would be players from other clubs that would do the same


    This decoupling plan I heard of can't come soon enough.

  5. #85
    Senior Member W8 WATCHER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by Goatscheese View Post
    Last year they did have all 4 teams. For whatever reason these players have gone. I've heard comments they promoted the wrong club but if the reason is as others pointed out that players didn't want to play at a higher level and would rather be competitive in the lower division then stands to reason that there would be players from other clubs that would do the same


    This decoupling plan I heard of can't come soon enough.
    from all accounts,
    Cookers let go many of there foundation players in all there age groups. It's a sad scenario, as those players were part of their success and promotion.on the basis they would attract players from other Npl clubs.
    we all know its his coaching style

  6. #86
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,516
    It’s a bad look for NNSWF, who controls this stuff, it’s embarrassing, you either do the due diligence or you don’t, it’s like “we have upgraded the oval and painted the grandstand”
    fine, you’re getting promoted
    “ but did we mention we don’t have enough players” 🤷*♂️🤦🤷*♂️🤦

  7. #87
    Senior Member W8 WATCHER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by ForeverRed View Post
    Cooks hill have pulled out of the u16s NPL completion, doesn’t sound like they were ready for promotion to me ����*♂️
    How does NNSWF allow this, there is strict compliance to be in the top flight.
    Cookers have had teams in all ages , baffling why now in promotion year they cant.

    2 options would be, points deducted of their 1st grade or dropped back to NL1.
    Seems harsh but if allowed, sets a precedent for the bottom 4-6 teams, to do the same in future?
    thoughts on this.

  8. #88
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by W8 WATCHER View Post
    How does NNSWF allow this, there is strict compliance to be in the top flight.
    Cookers have had teams in all ages , baffling why now in promotion year they cant.

    2 options would be, points deducted of their 1st grade or dropped back to NL1.
    Seems harsh but if allowed, sets a precedent for the bottom 4-6 teams, to do the same in future?
    thoughts on this.
    Of course they'd have to allow it. Lakes lost a whole team of 16's last year, so they can't turn around and tell cooks that they can't do the same.

    In all honestly if they promoted New Lambton they might get lucky and still field a team because every time I've seen them they carry a full team, and the maximum amount of subs in each age group. in JDL they were rotating a full team on and off the park, and in NL1 games I've seen them do almost the same. Maybe northern need to cut the amount of players a club is allowed to register in each age group. For the girls JDL for the amount of subs NL had, those girls could have filled open spots at other clubs so those clubs could have enough subs, and those girls actually get more than 10 minutes of game time a week. Its extremely unfair on those kids to carry that many subs. If you looked at the top NL1 clubs now I reckon you could find all those missing u16s players sitting on the bench and playing 20 minutes of football a week.

    In saying that I reckon the bailout in any other NL1 team that got promoted would be the same. Some kids just want to win so they sit at the top in NL1 and ignore the fact there's a whole competition above them. 16s is also a really difficult age group to fill, there's boys competing for places from 13-15s but if you are up for the challenge if you jump to 16s you can find somewhere to play.

  9. #89
    Senior Member W8 WATCHER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by KITZ View Post
    Of course they'd have to allow it. Lakes lost a whole team of 16's last year, so they can't turn around and tell cooks that they can't do the same.

    In all honestly if they promoted New Lambton they might get lucky and still field a team because every time I've seen them they carry a full team, and the maximum amount of subs in each age group. in JDL they were rotating a full team on and off the park, and in NL1 games I've seen them do almost the same. Maybe northern need to cut the amount of players a club is allowed to register in each age group. For the girls JDL for the amount of subs NL had, those girls could have filled open spots at other clubs so those clubs could have enough subs, and those girls actually get more than 10 minutes of game time a week. Its extremely unfair on those kids to carry that many subs. If you looked at the top NL1 clubs now I reckon you could find all those missing u16s players sitting on the bench and playing 20 minutes of football a week.

    In saying that I reckon the bailout in any other NL1 team that got promoted would be the same. Some kids just want to win so they sit at the top in NL1 and ignore the fact there's a whole competition above them. 16s is also a really difficult age group to fill, there's boys competing for places from 13-15s but if you are up for the challenge if you jump to 16s you can find somewhere to play.
    right
    i wasn't aware of that, very poor form, from both Lakes and NNSWF then to allow to downgrade the top flight competition.
    why have criteria to enter the NPL competition then?

  10. #90
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by W8 WATCHER View Post
    right
    i wasn't aware of that, very poor form, from both Lakes and NNSWF then to allow to downgrade the top flight competition.
    why have criteria to enter the NPL competition then?
    I don't think northern like to do it, and it does cost the club. Maybe now having TSP go through to 16s it might give players more incentive to stay. I think dropping off following players as they get older is a mistake northern are trying to rectify. Having elite representation through 16-18's and into reserves provides an alternate incentive for youth to keep playing, to know there's still options for them to be identified and in being identified it might also help them push into first grade football. I don't think its really the clubs fault I think its a mixture of what players think about their place on the ladder, the drop off in the past of following players after they turn 15, and teenagers just losing interest in the amount of commitment or getting jobs / doing their HSC etc etc. I think you'd even find in the top clubs in the 16s they don't carry a completely full bench of subs and there's more opportunity for the 15s playing up into 16s then in the more competitive younger age groups.

    It is a shame that this is happened in their first year though. Means you have to work extra hard to recruit in your 18s if you don't have a young 18s squad who can play another season of 18s.

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by W8 WATCHER View Post
    from all accounts,
    Cookers let go many of there foundation players in all there age groups. It's a sad scenario, as those players were part of their success and promotion.on the basis they would attract players from other Npl clubs.
    we all know its his coaching style
    This simply isn’t true, the majority of 2021 youth players who were keen to progress to the NPL were retained.

    The club had a very decent team in the age group that would have player u16s in 2022 - In 2021 the u15s ran 2nd and in 2020 they won the u14 Grand final. The issue was simply the existing players not being interested in playing NPL despite all efforts by the club to convince them otherwise. Turns out that when the bottom 3 or 4 teams get flogged every week by the top 3 or 4 teams it turns players away all together.

    COVID/Unknowns around trials etc all played a role in effecting the club’s ability to attract external talent. I'm told, In August had 40 EOI responses from external players for u16s positions however with all the unknowns around COVID lockdowns at the time, most players had resolved to remain at their existing clubs by the time trials were allowed in November.

    The final nail in the coffin for the team this year, was that other clubs were struggling for numbers and cooks hill decided to take the bullet to release their players so that a couple of other teams would get the numbers they need to fill their own teams.

  12. #92
    Lakes lost their U/16’s due to their coach being let go for being “too harsh” and wanting to win instead of developing.

    All the players walked due to having the coaches back and not wanting to stay at a club that doesn’t care about what the parents and players want/say.

  13. #93
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    1,350
    Quote Originally Posted by AVB View Post

    The final nail in the coffin for the team this year, was that other clubs were struggling for numbers and cooks hill decided to take the bullet to release their players so that a couple of other teams would get the numbers they need to fill their own teams.
    Hmm not sure about this, Cooks Hill recently raided another club taking their players and forcing them to fold their 15s team.

  14. #94
    Senior Member Zico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    790
    It’s a no brainer. If they don’t or can’t meet the minimum requirement for NPL then move them back to NL1.

    This will be a test for NNSWF and hopefully they stand fast and enforce their own rules.

  15. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by AVB View Post
    This simply isn’t true, the majority of 2021 youth players who were keen to progress to the NPL were retained.

    The club had a very decent team in the age group that would have player u16s in 2022 - In 2021 the u15s ran 2nd and in 2020 they won the u14 Grand final. The issue was simply the existing players not being interested in playing NPL despite all efforts by the club to convince them otherwise. Turns out that when the bottom 3 or 4 teams get flogged every week by the top 3 or 4 teams it turns players away all together.
    Geez. A bunch of decent 15yo arent up to the challenge of playing with in the top grade for 1 year. Yeah they might finish bottom 4 but they might not. Theyll learn more there than whipping NL1 teams year after year.
    Sounds like these pea hearts should go straight to Church comp cause All Age will be a little tough.

  16. #96
    Senior Member W8 WATCHER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by Oldy View Post
    Geez. A bunch of decent 15yo arent up to the challenge of playing with in the top grade for 1 year. Yeah they might finish bottom 4 but they might not. Theyll learn more there than whipping NL1 teams year after year.
    Sounds like these pea hearts should go straight to Church comp cause All Age will be a little tough.
    i was thinking the same, if they had 4 to 5 16 year olds already, and promoted some better 15 year olds, this would work.
    At least they would develop playing up.
    As for players leaving because they don't want to go up to NPL, I'm not sure about this.
    Cooks Hill have been pushing for promotion, so it's not a secret to all players at club.
    i think they were told to re trial or not required and left personally.

  17. #97
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by Undertaker View Post
    Lakes lost their U/16’s due to their coach being let go for being “too harsh” and wanting to win instead of developing.

    All the players walked due to having the coaches back and not wanting to stay at a club that doesn’t care about what the parents and players want/say.
    What a load of rubbish. The parents were short sighted and frankly stupid, playing for themselves and not the team, by walking like that it shows they didn't give two shits what happened to their team mates, I wouldn't have taken any of them at another club with the piss poor attitude they showed. They left team mates high and dry and needed to grow the f up.

    Also there were issues with player behaviour and they didn't like being told that they needed to get their act together. lack of discipline, lack of respect for the club, the team and themselves..... need I go on? Keep blaming the club but everyone knows it wasn't just about that. They were the last of the youth coming through from the clubs old system, when the club picked up its standards, they weren't capable of meeting the required behaviours. The ones that stayed were either found other clubs by the club or were offered to go straight to 18s.
    Last edited by KITZ; 10-02-2022 at 01:41 PM.

  18. #98
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    7
    Another way of looking at it was that the club wanted a certain culture at the club and wasn't prepared to be pushed around by a coach that didn't fit that culture. Not all the players walked. Of those that remained several were assisted in finding new clubs by the lakes TD, and several were promoted to the U18 squad.

  19. #99
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by Dodo14 View Post
    Another way of looking at it was that the club wanted a certain culture at the club and wasn't prepared to be pushed around by a coach that didn't fit that culture. Not all the players walked. Of those that remained several were assisted in finding new clubs by the lakes TD, and several were promoted to the U18 squad.
    Sorry, I edited to elaborate on my tirade there. lol.

  20. #100
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2022
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by W8 WATCHER View Post
    i was thinking the same, if they had 4 to 5 16 year olds already, and promoted some better 15 year olds, this would work.
    At least they would develop playing up.
    As for players leaving because they don't want to go up to NPL, I'm not sure about this.
    Cooks Hill have been pushing for promotion, so it's not a secret to all players at club.
    i think they were told to re trial or not required and left personally.
    I am told Cooks Hill Youth were in and around 4th in NL1 Youth comps. NL and Belswans took over the top positions over recent years and both have shown in pre season that they can compete with NPL teams it seems?. The question to Ckids not wanting the challenge rings true when they couldn't win the second tier. Northern have once again cocked it up.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •