From what we have seen this season our young guns are not good enough and in a couple of years time we will have problems . Not just my theory it is backed up by the lack of trust Mac has in them and he is probably correct . No way otherwise would he leave two subs on the bench when clearly the majority of the team were out on there feet . It is pretty amazing with our so called fantastic academy set up we have not produced much in the last few years .

I have though this for a while now, a case of emperors new clothes with the academy graduates these days.I kept saying give them time they will come right but it just seems not to be happenning.We were spoilt by the calibre of players that came through the academy set up previously, with Sinfield,McGuire,Burrow, Diskin etc.

It has been obvious for some time now that Leeds have a major rebuilding to do when the likes of Sinfield, Burrow, McGuire, Peacock, JJB and a couple of others all get old together. It will be interesting to see how good those juniors are and who they bring in. The problem now is that even average players down under get more money than the SL can afford so how do teams up here sign them. SL doesn't have the real top stars any more apart from a small handful.

Sutcliffe was very good last night.

Yes he was and he is probably the only one at the moment anyehere near good enough

About time maybe...and he [iwas[/i.

However he was guilty of going for glory instead of helping to supply Sinfield with what could have been the winning DG

Some short memories on here the "Golden generation" were just that and to compare is unrealistic as well as unfair.
As for the Coach having trust issues is that "proof" they are not god enough or are you going by the defeat at London when they were picked "en masse"?
I've seen many write off Jjb ,Ablett & Hall over the years but the Club stuck with them and were rewarded the Likes of Walters ,R.Ward ,Mulhern ,Handley etc are still very young and IF nurtured correctly have the "potential" to make it and there are others.
We were very lucky to get so many quality players through at once but they were still nurtured ,mixed with quality signings and given time yet this batch "aren't good enough" without being given that same time?

I am much more inclined to agree with this.

It is more that the younger players are not [uyet[/u good enough to take the place of an outstanding set of first choices. Singleton IMO will become a good first team prop. At present he lacks some bulk which will come and also some experience which will also come. Because he was not used in a tight 12 man defensive situation in a very important match last night does not mean Mac doesn't rate him.

The coach has to make difficult decisions based on events on the field and he will have known how nervous a young player is and how fresh his 1st choices are. It would be interesting to see how many minutes each of our forwards played and how long each were rested.

Sutcliffe has the skills for a first team place (quite which position we do not know yet) and showed last night why he has kept being selected in the squad. Some players take longer than others to gain their self confidence at the SL level. Only time will tell if any of the youngsters turn out as good as those they seek to replace but given that the 'golden generation' were uniquely gifted it is a bit unfair to expect them to be just as good.

I'd be much more inclined to worry about the approach of the coach who left two players unused on the bench in a game where we were a man down than question the abilities of two youngsters who were given no opportunity to show those abilities.

If McDermott had no faith in Singleton, for example, why select him ahead of the apparently dependable Kirke who surely didn't need resting following his 7 minutes and two carries last week?

Truly bizarre.

I'm less concerned by the quality of our youngsters than I am the guidance they will eventually receive as they progress to the first team.

As has been said, Sutcliffe was probably our best player last night.

On the Leeds Twitter feed yesterday it did originally list Kirke on the bench instead of R.Ward so his absence may have been through a late call on an injury/illness.

Shame that. He could have made all the difference............

Would've gotten on the pitch though which seems to be the issue regarding the starters being asked to do too many minutes with 12 men and arguably what cost us. Peacock maybe getting a breather a bit earlier for Kirke and perhaps the first Saints try isn't scored? So could've made a difference after all.

I'd say Sutcliffe, Stevie & Robbie Ward, Singleton & Walters have all looked good enough to make it. Some need more time than others to develop and I know there is a concern amongst the coaching staff about the physical demands of RL games on young players.

I also like the look of Mulhern and think Minichella hasn't done much wrong when he's played but not sure what position he'll end up as.

Whilst there is obviously going to be outside recruitment needed it's certainly not all doom and gloom with regard the young players.

Any club that loses McGuire, Burrow, Sinfield, Peacock, Leuluai, JJB all within a few years of each other would struggle to replace them.

Have Warrington struggled to replace Michael Monaghan?

When are Leeds planning to replace Danny Buderus - the CEO even assured Leeds fans that he wouldn't be allowed to quit his contract until a suitable replacement was secured. They could have lucked in with Shaun Lunt but it would have cost a few bob so obviously that ruled Leeds out. Paul Aiton, as he showed last night could do the job but he'll seemingly have to wait until one or more of Sinfield, McGuire or Burrow decide when they're done.

No but they've struggled to replace Briers, Morley, Carvell & Hodgson.
They could've lucked in with Hardaker but it cost a few bob so obviously it ruled Warrington out.

Bit early to tell yet, given that his replacement hasn't even worn the shirt for a photo shoot yet.

Interesting isnt it. Kirke had very little time but was rested. The other props had big shifts and again last night.
The youngsters need time but when they have played together they have shown they are not yet ready. Still to early to rule them out though

.

.....especially when played out of position - in the centres for example

Not for the want of trying though and in Russell, Ratchford and Hill they have brought in three players with potentially big futures in the game.

Did Hardaker spend the majority of a season on loan with Warrington, help them to retain the SL Trophy, express publically his strong desire to join the club permanently and more to the point had he contributed to the extent that Lunt did with Leeds in 2012 would the Warrington board have let him get away for the sake of a presumably fair and reasonable transfer fee.

Somewhat ironically having then muddled through the unsuccessful 2013 season without a trusted/reliable hooker and then consequently predominantly played a scrum-half in the crucial role they end up paying a fee for a lower quality (IMO) older player.

Daryl Clark is exactly the quality of player that Leeds should be bringing to the club - shame he has gone across the pennines. It could have been worse he could have gone to Wigan like Bateman another excellent young player Leeds should have had

Possibly, the contracts of existing players coupled with the contract demands of proposed targets meant that they could not be accommodated within the club's salary structure & the salary cap.
I'd have loved to have seen Daryl Clark at Leeds but I bet he'd have cost more than Aiton.
Plus Cas I suspect received a payment from the Woves last year that helped them to stave off administration. A payment GH couldn't or wouldn't pay for his own & the club's financial reasons.
In this day & age, as you know Mr Paradise, no club can cherry pick all the best players.

It took carl ablett and JJB years to develop into the quality reliable players they are today.

It takes years and years to mould professional super league players of a decent standard. You need to give these players time and patience.

Which proposed targets might these be I wonder? Leeds were one of the clubs frequently linked/used by agents in the past to get better deals for their clients but few use that tactic these days. Re the salary cap which is increasing in 2015 (?) the squad of 2010 was assembled within that permitted and I'd assess the class of 2014 to be some considerable way below that required four years ago.



No doubt - you still get what you pay for just as you pretty much always have on the open market. The Warrington deal for Clark was apparently done sometime during 2013 with Clark effectively staying at Castleford on loan until (presumably) Michael Monaghan's cap money was available. Leeds at some point tossed one of their own into the SL bargain bin and found one of those cheap inferior imports.

Couldn't or wouldn't ? It's a good question for the Leeds CEO but meanwhile the Warrington club both could and would. Perhaps they are perceived to be a more attractive/ambitious club these days ?

In the long run the right investment usually pays dividends while under investment also usually reaps it's own reward.

What do you class as the "long run". Is the last 10 years a long run?

Why do you think, or why should anyone think, that Warrington's next ten years will be any better than ours?