amateur or professional

Question what if any improvements has there been in your countries or clubs/provinces results
in roughly.periods 1970-95 and 1996-2014?
theperiod takes in the decline SH via NH in the 1970`s,wales and England 3 golden periods
Sa`s drop out and reintroduction to RU.
There can be no direct comparisons of course about players ,comps,rules etc.
I don`t no the answers,and frankly after my recent treatment here can`t be
bothered to do the research to be rubbished.
Frankly I doubt if this thread will be read or answered to written in anger Alan'

Players are fitter and healthier now

England won a world cup(not sure if that's been mentioned on these boards)so professionalism has definitely been an improvement.also seems to be more support for players who have to retire early through injurywhich is a huge plus for me

Professionalism has changed things forever. Rugbys now a job, a career, an option for those good enough to be paid doing what we all love to play and watch. Its made the rugby world a smaller one, almost an elitist one for those in the inner circle, but also smaller in terms of travel. Its nothing for players to play a season here, then Europe, then Japan, anywhere where the moneys good. professionalism has also separated us from them more.

No longer do you go to your local club and catch your AB's your club might be lucky enough to have. Access to players is 'scheduled', set up to keep the franchise popular from a business point of view.

Loyalty is not so clear now. The myth of club vs country has been eroded. Kaino an example- who in his position would actually choose to play two years in a Japan club tournament if money wasnt a factor? Imagine if John Kirwan had said in 1988 after being part of the world cup winning side and one of the top players in the world had chosen to play club rugby in Japan for two years. We would have thought him mentally insane. Yet Kaino found himself in that position after 2011.

The game has got faster, more competitive and professionalism means theyre fitter athletes not having to do 9-5 jobs as they did pre professionalism.

The trade off however, is loyalty. Its no longer the primary driver for a career, money is, and as fans we need to have that in the back of our minds when tuning in. We are paying these players to go to work, we are paying for a service. The players have a job description that must be fulfilled first and foremost.

Having been brought up when Rugby was more about loyalty, that is the biggest change for me...erosion of loyalties, and removal of the borders- pay me what I want and I'm yours, anywhere on the planet.

Which is better?

I'd say professional but I loved the amateur era.

The amateur era had a certain romance about it. Rivalry was as strong as it is now but their was a certain respect between players and fans you don't see today. We never complained about refereeing decisions like we do and in reality by the mid 90s the rugby was pretty poor.

Had Lomu not come around I still wonder if they game wouldn't have limped into professonalism and quickly gone back to amateur. Lomu gave the rugby world a shot in the arm and a lot of professionals owe him a pint.

The rugby is better than it was overall. Yes this holding on stuff is annoying with the end of rucking but try watching a game from the early 90s. Maul maul maul maul, it was all a bit dull looking back. Games I recorded on VHS as classics when I looked back 20+ years later they seem pretty dire and I wonder how I managed to get into the sport at all sometimes.

We seem to think hat loyalty has gone but look back in the past and you will find many test teams had foreigners in them like today. Where you lived often had more of a sway on your choice of test nation to that of your birth/heritage.

There is a bit of overkill, test nations playing each other 4-5 times a year etc. in the past it was maybe that in a given year but only once every 5 years or so. The mystery, the tension, the bragging rights etc lasted far longer.

The amateur era had great characters.... Guys of all shapes, beer barrel props, stick thin long locks, tiny little backs... Today watching the game is akin to seeing 30 6'2 105 kg Ivan drago's.
Overall skills seem a little down on the past which is interesting given the amount of time the respected eras had training. Consistency is up though but size has become so important that it now outweighs skill in all positions.

Overall, it's progress but get me with a few beers in me and I might hold a candle to the old days. Certainly the best era of rugby was 1997-2005. The rugby in that era was magnificent but with leagues defensive bore and the growing size of the players the current game has dipped a little below.

For me the best era was 84 to 98 which coincidentally coincides with the re-emergence (and decline) of Auckland rugby, the unbeaten run of 65 straight Ranfurley Shield matches from 85 -93, the repelling of just about every international side it played, the emergence of the careers of John Kirwan, Michael Jones, Foxy, Shelford, the Whettons through to the Olo Browns, Lomus and Cullens, as well a the 87 World cup.

Pro rugby started in 96 and the Blues dominated for the two years because of that huge legacy, then players realised they didn't have to all stay in Auckland and fight for the same position- they could get paid the same elsewhere, and have to this day.

Auckland remains the best breeding ground for players the world over, they've just nothing to show for it at the top.

Those are interesting comments concerning the physiological improvement of players and the perceived lack of skill. I remember Goldie always talking about avoiding contact whereas nowadays I see players actively seeking out contact. Perhaps the bulked up professional player has less time now to work on skills because the gym has swallowed up preparation time. In a way the flaws of amateur players encouraged them to maximize their strengths. This is indeed what Lomu did but now we appear to be intolerant of defensive frailty and get frustrated at the lack of attacking threat. In the amateur days our flaws were celebrated - perhaps with professionalism has been accompanied by better viewing technology and with the internet mistakes are isolated and debated ad nauseum. I remember Terry Wright thinking a gust of wind would blow him over but what a finisher.

Good thread, Alan.

If you're Scottish, the difference could not be more stark. The amateur era contained our best results. The professional era was an abject embarrassment and only now are our structures and means of bringing through younger players remotely competitive.

We were sorted in the amateur era as we were the first of the Home Unions to run a truly nationwide club league. This was introduced in 1973 and included most of the country's original clubs (Heriots, West of Scotland, Watsonians, Gala, Hawick, Jed-Forest, Kelso and Melrose). When Jim Telfer was appointed coach in 1980, a lot of firsts happened - first away victory against SANZAR nations (Wallabies, 1982); first draw with the All Blacks (25-25 in 1983 I think) and one of the very biggest winning margins at Twickenham. Grand Slams followed in 84 and 1990.

From 1990 onwards, the entire jamboree went to c0ck. We started with four pro teams, which became two, then three, then two again. Edinburgh was bought out by private investors and then sold back to the SRU in 2007 amid massive Liza Minelli hissies on both sides (the SRU banned Edinburgh from playing in matches at one point).

The chosen structures that the SRU were put in place were clearly ineffective and, in particular, it is well known that there is no age grade system for putting schoolkids with talent into intensive, competitive environment. You see this in particularly sharp relief when Scottish U20, U18 and U16 play their English counterparts. We are hopefully now no more than 5 years behind what everyone else is doing. Our younger players depend so much on other regional academies - the Newcastle club academy deserving special mention. That really shouldn't be necessary.

4 new academies open next year, which herald much and it is true to say that as a collective, the current Scotland first choice XXIII is as good as we have had in a decade. Some smart business in sponsorship terms means that the Union is now in surplus instead of in defecit and they have promised to direct this to grass roots, rather than waste it setting up a third pro team, which we have no reason would be any more successful than the last one. I genuinely live in hope.

For Ireland the complete reverse - we have gone from being the worst team in the 5N to having a win ratio as good as anyones in the 6N on a par with England and France.
Add to that provincal success with 6 HC's wins and 3 Runners Up.

Yes thats true Geoff.

Interesting the contrast between Ireland and Scotland who used to be similar at 4 and 5 in the 6N.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Those are interesting comments concerning the physiological improvement of players and the perceived lack of skill. I remember Goldie always talking about avoiding contact whereas nowadays I see players actively seeking out contact. Perhaps the bulked up professional player has less time now to work on skills because the gym has swallowed up preparation time. In a way the flaws of amateur players encouraged them to maximize their strengths. This is indeed what Lomu did but now we appear to be intolerant of defensive frailty and get frustrated at the lack of attacking threat. In the amateur days our flaws were celebrated - perhaps with professionalism has been accompanied by better viewing technology and with the internet mistakes are isolated and debated ad nauseum. I remember Terry Wright thinking a gust of wind would blow him over but what a finisher.

I don't buy the claim that players had more skill in the amateur days. They had more time on the ball, they had more opportunity, maybe they had more freedom to be creative, but I don't think they had more skill.

What professionalism has changed is that players have more time to work on their skills, and in particular on team plays. And coaches know that the first thing you work on is defence. Defensive systems and tackling are many times better than they were in the amateur era (I remember a great quote about the English defensive system and how it developed between 1999 and 2003 - "We used to show the players tapes of League players so they could learn how to tackle. Now the League players watch tapes of Jonny"). That means that modern players have less time on the ball and fewer options.

To put it another way, as an amateur, it was often enough to be great at a few things and okay at the rest. Today's internationals have to have a much more rounded skill set, to which many of them add something extra. I genuinely think that pretty much any modern international centre would tear pretty much any amateur era defensive line to shreds, and that the very best players today have higher levels of skill than the very best of that era. But line speed and organisation these days is such that only when you have a mismatch (or a turnover, or an attacking system that has forced a bit of space) do players get a chance to show their skills in full.

Biggest change in the game has to be from contact sport to collision sport as the players have bulked up. And how scrums have turned from restarts into...well you know. And the impact of replacements as a tactical choice not to replace an injured player.

Cold winter Saturday afternoons spent on the terraces of the Cardiff Arms park watching local players try to entertain the crowd. No pop music either, it was the local schools brass band at half time. And seeing Jon doormat Humphreys getting rucked to pieces every week as he laid on the ball on the wrong side. Regular punch ups between the much smaller forwards always brightened up a poor match. And seeing the players out on the town in all steamed up in jacksons nightclub later on.

Its a different sport now. Still good, just different.

Everything changed when the world went to colour. It should never have been allowed. Things was just more real in B&W.

Bluedragon wrote:Biggest change in the game has to be from contact sport to collision sport as the players have bulked up. And how scrums have turned from restarts into...well you know. And the impact of replacements as a tactical choice not to replace an injured player.

Cold winter Saturday afternoons spent on the terraces of the Cardiff Arms park watching local players try to entertain the crowd. No pop music either, it was the local schools brass band at half time. And seeing Jon doormat Humphreys getting rucked to pieces every week as he laid on the ball on the wrong side. Regular punch ups between the much smaller forwards always brightened up a poor match. And seeing the players out on the town in all steamed up in jacksons nightclub later on.

Its a different sport now. Still good, just different.

They have pop music in Wales now? must sound good in them valleys...

Poorfour it's certainly easy to be nostalgic about the amateur days and it's a good point about how the defence is much better nowadays, and I think this has improved the most with the professional era and that may well, in turn, give the illusion of more expression because of that time and space.

However, I stand by the assumption that the professional era has not improved the basics of many teams. Basics ranging from running laterally instead of letting the ball do the work, not using the draw and pass to exploit numbers in the line, through to not coming infield away from the touch line all sound very simple but less time and space due to tighter defences does not explain these skill deficiencies in many modern teams.

To examine performance or make comparisons between amateur and professional times imo minimises the differences and tends to focus on being paid, size, fitness etc

The only similarity between a test match today and 30 or 40 years ago is that they were played by no more than 30 players at any one time using an oval ball !

Just about every law dictating the flow of the game and activity of players is now different. Set piece, breakdown, ruck, maul, kicking from hand - all are completely different. I would argue that the game of rugby union is as different today from the game 40 years ago as Union is to League today, perhaps more so.

Having grow up in the amateur era (I retired from reasonable standard rugby in 97) the rules then are the only ones I played under. I love the game I watch today, but the degree to which the game has evolved is extraordinary. To answer Alan's question - Welsh results have been better in the last 10 years than in the previous 20. Why? No idea, as we are almost comparing different sports.

The question of 'why' some teams have fared better in the professional era surely can only come down to the structures put in place to support the professional game and to that extent, there is not the same level playing field that there was in the amateur era. I don't think that Scottish players suddenly became much less talented than their colleagues from other nations - just that the margins became finer as training became more homogenised - and we lost a competitive edge quickly because other rugby unions and other franchises grasped the tenets of professional organisation and training much more quickly that we did.

In the amateur era, everyone had jobs and the player's natural inherent skill and fitness levels counted for much, much more.

Rugby in the words of Von Clauzwitz is war by other means,or a game of thugs played by
gentlemen.Choose your quote etc.In the Case of all teams in the Jungles of Scrum/Ruck
lineout and Maul the battle for domination was fought legal or otherwise.
I deliberately chose 1970 because it was the start of the era when the NH became Streetwise
fighting fire with fire.Touring Sa or NZ always ended in a lot of battles of dirty play not to
mention the French who could give lessons in it.
About this time or just before law changes mean`t a 10 yard gap at lineouts[1964] yet
another term of kicking out on the full banned[first seen in NZ about 1919,and practiced
in AUs 1925 on].
Substitutes for injured players came into to effect to around then to TV was beginning to
make dirty play more difficult etc.
One of the major problems in the Amateur era was tradition in NZ for example election to
the NZ Council was more Machiavelian than the Papal Church in the Middle ages.
Selectors,managers for tours,and assistant managers[Coachs]were selected by buggins turn
not on ability.The innovators,the mavericks were passed over for.time servers.Often not
having coached till an advanced age.
Political appointments of captains/etc picked by tradition instead of merit hampered Lions
tours too.
The threat of a Kerry Packer ,Spanish practices involving payments in various ways including
the Cavaliers Tour,[born of frustration].Including the practice of players on Saturday turning
out for there Clubs,then nipping across the Channel to turn out fo French/Italian clubs for cash.
All this plus the growth of Sponsorship deals and Tv rights etc lead indirectly to Rugby World
Cups and the Professional era.
In 1970 Nz sent a Team to Sa with 4 Non -whites [honoury Whites] in 1976 was the first
Genuine NZ Rep team in SA.The Protest of many African nations boycotting the Olympics
was flawed by the fact all but one were military dictatorships.
In 1995 the Boks with Nelson mandela One Nation Speech won a RWC,BUT there were no
non-whites in the team[Ithink].According to Wikipedia the 1999,2003,and 2007 Bok squads
had only 1 or 2 Non-whites in the RWC squads.Not until 2008 were a Non-white quota
enforced on Boks[the time when many off shore players were picked].
The weight of players at every generation grow heavier in 1921 Royal Morkel was 17 plus
stone and Baby Michau over 18 stone when touringNZ. Certainly todays players are bulked up but it` gym muscle not aerobic muscle a few other points.The obsession with weight in 1949 robbed the Ab`s the services of K.D.Arnold[Killer]
only about 12 1/2 or 13 stone.BUT the perfect answer to Hennie Muller.
ALL Touring sides complained about refs decisions or interpratations prior to neutral refs.
Pride denied NZ the secrets of the 3-4-1 Scrum theres for the asking in 1932 and Neutral
Refs in 1976.
When  someone asked about the Difference between league and Union it was Fitness/tackling.
In the 1970`s the Lions and NH in general had the better of SH sides for about 8/10 years
[relatively speaking]then by about 1982 they were going backwards again.
In this period speaking from a NZ point of view versus the Boks they lost 2 away series
won 2 home series and won and lost I test each away.
Lost 3 matches to England and several to France,England had 2 coaches with 72 %
win record [better than SCW`s 71%]and had wins versus SA too.
Wales and France dominated the 1970`s between them England were in fall out yet
still beat Sa and Nz in the period.
Genarally speaking there were far less overseas players in the game than now.
in this period 3 SH teams 2 at home RWCs
SA had a win record against every team in the World till 1995 before being overtaken
in 1996 by NZ.
In the pro era the SH teams are still IRB 1,2,3,SA has an equal or plus score still versus
every team against them bar NZ.
The 3 SH sides have plus score versus all Nh sides still only France 54%,England 53.4 %
and Wales 50 % overall since about 1900.
All Englands coaches bar SCW have averages around 53-4 % in pro era [MJ`s slightly less]
Today there is no longer a level playing field due to money at club or Test level of course
there can be no direct comparison.
Todays game isn`t Rugby Union it is a combination of RL pre 4 tackle rule and grid iron.
When you have an International hooker faced with the new law variations says "Hook"
the ball how do you do that haven't has to in `10years what a joke.
I don`t do Club/Provincial rugby so can`t comment except to say to many non-qualified
players.Harm your test teams chances.

Alan, a few thoughts. I think there are a number of other influences in this period that affected nz rugby. These include:

1) the start of the interprovincial competition in the late 70's
2) the impact of regular games against Queensland and New South Wales from the early 80's.
3) the improvement of Australia combined with regular test series.
4) the migration of Samoans in the 1970's change in the ethnic make up of the side.
5) the emergence of coaches such as Lahore and co who were disciples of the Fred Allen and the running game.
6) the emergence of coaches with a more professional outlook (I.e business) e.g hart, and more open to sports science (wyllie).
7) the emergence of regular cheap jet travel and live televised games which meant better analysis of opposition and easier and more contact at all levels.

A word about commentating. The irony of the current crop of biased, hopelessly cliched microphone monkeys is that whilst they are professional commentators, many of them are less well prepared and considerably less able with their prose than their predecessors.

There's a great true story. In October 99, on the day that England played the All Blacks in the RWC Pool match a young journalist from the Telegraph looked in amazement at the multi-coloured, handwritten gant chart that Bill McLaren created for each game to assist his commentary. He asked him where Bill got all of his information from as there was stuff about player's families and early childhood in the game that nobody could possibly have found out from public sources. Bill replied that he just went to the training camps and had a chat with the players. Every single one of the match day 22 for the All Blacks and England were happy to give him at least 15 minutes to talk about themselves. Andrew Mehrtens spoke with him intently for an hour and Jonah Lomu introduced Bill to his family who had come to watch him. And Bill had tea with Peter Marshall (the match referee) the day before so Bill could even put the young reporter right about incorrect information he was holding about the match officials.

Now we need to read regurgitated tripe cut from the same tired old story, which was bought by 15 different news channels with no dedicated reporter of their own. Sad, sad, sad.

I'd prefer be an amateur (not having to train so intensely, not so regimented to time or diet etc)...on highest end professional wages

So both is my option!

Something that nobody seems to have mentioned, common to both amateur and professional eras, are the effects of body language, subtle eye movements, facial expression, etc which are apparent to other players on the pitch but maybe not to watching fans.

As an example, take Barry John, fly-half on the winning Lions tour of 1971. After one of the tests, a famous All Black flanker said :"Barry John rolled his eyes and I fell over". Presumably John's eye movements put the flanker in two minds about which way to turn so he actually lost his footing.

Professional players are fitter, heavier and faster than most were in the amateur era, but I think a good fly-half might do the same today. Some things probably never change. What do others think?

Role of no 10 has changed - mainly due to grant Fox, the protype of the modern 10, followed by Neil Jenkins, Stephen Jones, Rob Andrew, Jonny Wilkinson, andrew mehrtens, dan carter, and Andrew Larkham etc. Fly halves now need to be about game management, about standing flatter and distributing or kicking for territory. They rarely make a break - as defenses are tighter and the margins of error are less.

Wish I could name a french outside half.

Thanks for the insights BC.in answer 1970 for Nz was a big wakeup call from my
researchs.I never before realised the pressures BOTH Nz and Sa players had to
WIN.Before 1956 it was accepted that Whites only was just one of those things
afterwards it became a political football.BOTH sides trying to prove there system
was right.
Freddie Allen in his own words said he wanted another crack at the Boks 1970
but suits interfereing with his selections caused his resignation.
The 1970-80 period for Nz was one of endless tours with many players unable
or unwilling to tour.Tier 2 sides were met relatively often of necessity tours
of Sa and by Sa [1967-73-85 cancelled,Argentina tour cancelled]for politicall
reasons.
Early 70`s the Greats had gone from the teams or were due to injuries shadows
of there former selves. C.Meads playing the best Rugby in his life arm deliberately
broken by a kick,McLeod eyes damaged so badly by fingers to the face he had to
give the game away.[1970]
1971 NZ had 7 new starters in first test rising to 9 there on and so on.
As results at various times lacked by AB recent standards fell to 63% as same
as the Boks over the same decade.
Poor selections of players and managers/coaches led to scapegoats being constantly
looked for one player dropped aske d "WHY ME" answer "SOMEONE HAS TO BE THE SCAPEGOAT".
Australia started keeping players who usually went League,Shamturism was rife
worldwide.
England were a disaster area in the 1970`s great players dropped and recalled
at selectors whims.The Captains armband was considered the Kiss of death
dropping for the next game inevitable.
Clubs in the 50`s,60`s and 70`s often toured abroad for odd matches I recall
Wellington Athletic including Nev Mackewan visiting Blackheath.
Tours gradually vanished or became smaller meaning little game time for
some in squads for midweekers,.
Today the fitness of players seems good for only about 60 minutes despite
all the advantages the have now.
Squad management is vital in the game today as is managing things like
con cussion injuries and player burnout.
Tackling is now what used to be the desperation smother tackle,where poor
technique means injuries no matter how brave the player.[Jonnie Wilkinson]
With all the Coaches today for every thing from blowing up the ball to
making the tea.Faults are ironed out as a matter of course as part of the job.
Test Coaches shouldn't as Heynke Meyer complained have to teach basics
to players learned by schoolboys[running lines,passing,to supports etc.]
Tier 2 teams are no better treated if as well only France really supporting
the European sides like spain,Romania etc.

Bluedragon wrote:Role of no 10 has changed - mainly due to grant Fox, the protype of the modern 10, followed by Neil Jenkins, Stephen Jones, Rob Andrew, Jonny Wilkinson, andrew mehrtens, dan carter, and Andrew Larkham etc. Fly halves now need to be about game management, about standing flatter and distributing or kicking for territory. They rarely make a break - as defenses are tighter and the margins of error are less.

Wish I could name a french outside half.

I agree. As a Wales supporter for 60 years, who saw some of the best attacking fly-halves - Cliff Morgan, Dai Watkins, Barry John, Phil Bennett - the role of the No 10 has changed a lot. Part of our problem in Wales has been failure/reluctance to recognise it. Neil Jenkins, for instance, has never been bracketed with them despite scoring far more points with the boot.

An example, again involving Barry John in 1971, underlines the fact. In the Five Nations before the New Zealand tour, Wales beat France in Paris to clinch a Grand Slam. John decided to tackle the biggest man on the field, a French forward called Dauga. His nose was broken and he left the field.

After 20 minutes John returned, a plug of cotton wool up each nostril. Within 5 minutes he scored a try next to the posts, beating three defenders, not a finger laid on him.

On the following Monday, the Western Mail of course reported on the Grand Slam. But the paper also had an article chiding John for attempting the tackle. The gist was that the Welsh fly-half was on the field to attack and score tries or lay them on for the threequarters - not to risk injury by trying to stop the other side from scoring by tackling forwards! That's what the flankers and number 8 were for!

blackcanelion wrote:Alan, a few thoughts. I think there are a number of other influences in this period that affected nz rugby. These include:

1) the start of the interprovincial competition in the late 70's
2) the impact of regular games against Queensland and New South Wales from the early 80's.
3) the improvement of Australia combined with regular test series.
4) the migration of Samoans in the 1970's change in the ethnic make up of the side.
5) the emergence of coaches such as Lahore and co who were disciples of the Fred Allen and the running game.
6) the emergence of coaches with a more professional outlook (I.e business) e.g hart, and more open to sports science (wyllie).
7) the emergence of regular cheap jet travel and live televised games which meant better analysis of opposition and easier and more contact at all levels.

Very good BC, I also think the introduction of professionalism itself plays a large role, from 1996 it allowed or a spread of the talent more easily across the country, where previously better players were held back in their own unions because they couldnt make the top side, likewise, those sides without certain positions could...shop around, the result being that rugby across NZ was lifted to a higher overall level across the board.

Also of interest when looking at those points, it does highlight by its absence the fact that the Northern hemisphere really hasnt played a role in our development, where the environment in th NH has a heavy SH presence and likely influence.

Taylorman wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:Alan, a few thoughts. I think there are a number of other influences in this period that affected nz rugby. These include:

1) the start of the interprovincial competition in the late 70's
2) the impact of regular games against Queensland and New South Wales from the early 80's.
3) the improvement of Australia combined with regular test series.
4) the migration of Samoans in the 1970's change in the ethnic make up of the side.
5) the emergence of coaches such as Lahore and co who were disciples of the Fred Allen and the running game.
6) the emergence of coaches with a more professional outlook (I.e business) e.g hart, and more open to sports science (wyllie).
7) the emergence of regular cheap jet travel and live televised games which meant better analysis of opposition and easier and more contact at all levels.

Very good BC, I also think the introduction of professionalism itself plays a large role, from 1996 it allowed or a spread of the talent more easily across the country, where previously better players were held back in their own unions because they couldnt make the top side, likewise, those sides without certain positions could...shop around, the result being that rugby across NZ was lifted to a higher overall level across the board.

Also of interest when looking at those points, it does highlight by its absence the fact that the Northern hemisphere really hasnt played a role in our development, where the environment in th NH has a heavy SH presence and likely influence.

Only got as far as 1990. I think if looked further we'd sere a northern influence. I think there were some learnings around 2000. Expansion of the support teams, rotation and development of squads from returning coaches like Mitchell, Henry, Smith and Hansen. I guessing we'll have a think and hopefully learn about junior player development.