The Rhinos u16's beat their Wigan counterparts 26-10 today at Stanningley.
Lead by Cam Smith who was head and shoulders above every one on the pitch they were the better side from start to finish in a pretty scrappy game but there was some good RL at times with neither side afraid to hit or run hard.
Other stand outs for the young Rhinos were no-10 Mikolaj Oledski who played the whole of the first half and 15 minutes of the second this kid was very good he ran strong with the ball and hit even harder in defence one to watch out for.
Harvey Whiteley at 9 also very strong with and without the ball and no word of a lie he looks and more importantly plays like a young Kieron Cunningham.
Also worthy mentions for Alex Sutcliffe (Right Centre) and Spencer Darley(no 11) who stood out in a good all round team effort.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Smith and Oledski getting game-time for the u19's this year especially Cam he's too good for u16's.

Cam Smith is head and shoulders above anyone in the country in his age group. He is better than our under 19's. Can't play until turns 16's though. This nonsense about physicality and that that some posters post needs putting aside. Talent is a very big factor.

Still think we will lose him this year though.

Cameron Smith was outstanding today and was the best player on the field without a doubt, just as he was last week against Saints
He is without a doubt the best young player in the U16's competition

We need to get this kid tied down sharpish, although i doubt it as we wont pay the going rate where as other clubs will pay well above it, as we saw when Morgan Smith joined the Wolves recently

I hope that Cameron see's sense and sticks with the Rhino's despite an initial lower contract offer in the hope that he will have a clear pathway to first team footy mapped out for him, but with an agent called "Show me the money" i guess we could lose him to the highest bidder very soon

with warrington using melbournes accountants again?

I've always had the vague perception that the club knows what it's doing when it comes to offering terms to players. If Smith's as good as is claimed and my perception is correct, then we'll retain him.

On another note, I'm a bit disappointed that Rogues Gallery didn't pop over to post the U16's result, he's often fairly prompt

Having a wage structure is good provided its based on some concept of merit. The structure cannot be so rigid that it excludes the opportunity to make exceptions for genuine talent. Paying the market price now could actually save money later down the line as it avoids having to recruit the talent from other sources later down the line and paying a premium to cover their development investment. If a player is genuinely that good nobody should object if his talent is rewarded in line with his ability. It works that way in every other walk of life. The best cost they have a market rate and if you want them that cost has to be met.

History is littered with kids who were the best in their age group in the country, and didn't convert that into an outstanding pro career. From my own era, Richard Gunn springs immediately to mind - England Schools captain IIRC and the highest touted junior of his generation.

Who knows whether Morgan Smith converts his potential, or Cameron for that matter. Do you go overboard on what you pay these players in the hope they do succeed?

On another note, interesting to see from the highlights what appeared to be a significant size difference between the two sides. Leeds certainly looked the bigger team across the park, and some of the finishes were clearly a result of the ball carrier being able to overpower their opposite number.

It's not 'sing when yer winnin wih ' with Rogues though is it?

I was the U19 Wigan v Wire game.
Wigan won 30 - 12

hth

rogues I rely on you for info from the junior game

I always try to post something from the game I have watched (win, lose or draw) Our U16's fixtures are really weighted against this year, Leeds, Saints and Wire all away.

Meh.....Each game is only played on a piece of grass at the end of the day Rogues or do your lot get "coach travel lag" when you cross the pennines?

You really do despise it when the Rhinos juniors do a number on your mighty Wigan don't you

Cam is quite a talent who is the best junior I've seen in the past 20 years,he's a great kid too not big headed at all given his talent.

I'd be amazed if he doesn't play first team in the next couple of years choose where he goes,fingers crossed it will be his hometown club but either way I've had the privilege of watching him develope since he was a young boy and I'll follow his career closley

Then the highlights don't truly reflect their "size" live at the ground mate their prop n08 Kibula looked like a bloke playing against u10's and they more than matched size and many bigger across the park especially the pack.
Only our 9 (Whiteley) 10 (Oledski) and 13 (Smith) matched their physical build and even then all were small up against the previously mentioned Kibula who btw was very tough giving it to the smaller lads but not as interested when Oledski and Smith were smashing him.

If this kid is a talented as many say I hope we retain him. However, throwing silly money at a 16 year old may not be best for the club or, for that matter, the kid. I recall certain posters lambasting the club when Baldwinson was lured to the NRL. Since that time Baldwinson career hasn't quite progressed as was precicted and he's back at Leeds.

Cameron Smith could be the next Ellery Hanley and he could be the next Richard Gunn. That's a degree of uncertainty.

What is far more certain is Leeds handling of juniors and their career progression has usually been spot on.

Cameron Smith, or any other Junior at this time as no relevance to Ellery Hanley or Richard Gunn. What they could be is the next Kevin Sinfield, Jamie Peacock, Sam Tomkins, Paul Sculthorpe, Kieron Cunningham, Gareth Ellis, James Graham, Sam Burgess, or James Roby.

You see we have a game in a completely different era to what we had in Richard Gunns days. There are far far far more kids playing the game these days, which means if you are top of a much bigger pool, the likelihood is you are better than those who were top of a much smaller pool. More importantly these lads are training with clubs from the age of 13 these days, not still in the amateur game until after 16 years of age before invited to clubs. They are training with the clubs facilities, getting integrated long before decisions are to be made.

Now Andy Gilder, if you can give examples of lads who are rated at the highest in the Junior game over the last 10 years who have failed to do anything, that would have relevance.

The skill is to spot the genuine talent - if he is a generational talent then he needs a different path to his peer group. When we talk about throwing money at somebody what are we talking about? this isn't PL soccer. It would be a shame to lose a future Kevin Sinfield because of the rigidity of the salary structure. The club will know in three years if he maintains his status in his peer group so if they pay 10k a year more than they would other youngsters what have they lost - a lot less than they have wasted on the likes of Brad Clyde, Brett Mullins, the second year of Tony Carroll etc.

I seem to remember the likes of Ashley Gibson being touted as the best thing since sliced bread about a decade ago, and it never really worked out with him. I'm sure there are many others

Do you know it as actual fact that the club doesn't already do this?

It's a kind of self-fulfilling prophesy: kids who don't make it weren't really top level youngsters (despite opinions held at the time) whereas those that do were. Particularly if they achieved elsewhere.

But I agree with Sal, our pay structure should not be totally inflexible. Then again, I'm not convinced it is. After all, that's hardly the kind of information the club would want to be widely known.

Ask Morgan Smith? that is a tangible example of what can happen with very talented kids. If Cameron really is that good then I would suspect there will be some competition for his signature.

If Wigan came along and offered on the basis of getting youngsters into the first team in key positions early it would be a very compelling argument, something Leeds would not be able to demonstrate so easily.

I'm still waiting for the day when a player we let go genuinely (post missing Robinson) goes on to bigger and better things elsewhere. It just hasn't happened over recent years. You can make an argument that players such as Carvell, Scruton, Burgess have done OK for themselves but I genuinely can't recall a player we've let go whose career has progressed to the point we'd be desperate to have them back.

This is how I'd be selling the club to our young players. You can also dangle the carrot to any young ball players that spots are going to be available in the first team in the fairly short term for them to make their own for the next decade.

Until I see otherwise, I'll trust the club on these matters. Baldwinson is a prime example of how A) the grass isn't always greener and B) some people or here don't know as much as they'd like to think.

Of course there will be many others. But not the ones touted as the best of their age group, that is the key difference.

There are plenty of youngsters who excel, but then many other variables come into effect, ability, attitude, focus, build. If they are the top of their age group, and of the right quality in these areas, then these are the ones you don't see many not making it.

These are fair points - how many youngsters have Leeds had in the past 5 years that are genuinely really top class - Watkins?