Just as a reminder to some, Rhinos-contracted players who've made SL appearances this year (for Leeds or elsewhere) who are 25 or under:

Zak Hardaker
Kallum Watkins
Joel Moon
Stevie Ward
Chris Clarkson
Mitch Achurch
Tom Briscoe
Liam Sutcliffe
Jimmy Keinhorst
Alex Foster
Thomas Minns
James Duckworth
Elliot Minchella
Rob Mulhern
Josh Walters
Robbie Ward
Luke Briscoe
Jordan Baldwinson

But what is the point you are making? you haven't stated that. Is it just a list of players?

6/10 of the players mentioned are average. No other top 4 team would touch them. Wakefield bound.

For all those criticising the club's failure to bring through youth or develop talent. We have it in bucketfuls.

Plus Yates when he gets fit, and Ryan Brierley if the rumours are true.

Yates is a crock and Brierley has signed for Wigan.

I bet every club in league can make a big list of players under 25 that are part of their club.

You ever get the feeling people are a bit too obsessed with what things will be like in 4/5 years time?

Take you back to the end of the 2010 season. No GF for the first time in 4 years, a hammering at Wembley, coach moving on, a new coach who many wasn't sure about, two of our best players with possible career shortening knee injuries, Eastwood leaving after just a year, Donald and Diskin departing.

That squad was finished and we needed a big transition.

Anybody who'd have said around December 2010 that we wouldn't make sweeping changes and that in 2014 Peacock and Leuluai would still be our front row, Burrow would be playing hooker, Sinfield, McGuire, JJB, Bailey, Kirke would still be part of the match day 17 and Delaney would be one of the better signings we've made in the SL era and be a key part of our pack would've been laughed at if they said we'd have achieved 2 GF's, 1 WCC, reach 2 CC finals and in the fourth year be a point off top and into the semi's of the CC with a defence who were conceding ridiculously few points and Peacock would be pushing for Man of Steel for the 2nd year in a row.

At that point we'd only just heard of this young lad from Fev signing called Hardaker. We thought we might have Buderus for longer than we ended up having. Hope Burgess would be a key part of our pack for the future. That BJB or Lee Smith would be the successor to Webb at FB and that McShane would shine under the guidance of Buderus.

Maybe we shouldn't look too far down the line....no amount of worrying will change what happens. Maybe a bit more of focus and soaking up of the present, otherwise all this might pass you by in a blink of an eye.

4 years ago did we know Salford could make ambitious big money moves for not only our players but other available talent? That the year 2014 could see the last Leeds/Bradford game for possibly quite a while? That NRL clubs would start taking 18 year olds from our Academy? That the competition would alter to this 3x8 structure with P/R returning?

Think it's a statement that applies to more than just RL, but if you spend too much time fixated on the future, your present can suffer.

That list also shows how difficult it is to pick future players, even as late as U19.

It was incredibly difficult at u21 nevermind u19. Not least because of the physical differences in players at those ages, but also lads mature mentally at different rates and in different ways. A lad might not be mentally ready for a pro rugby career at 18/19/20 but may be at 23/24. Yet we have to make decisions (and guesses to their potential including physical and mental maturity) at age 18.

It's also worth pointing out that Leeds are looking for faster, fitter players rather than bigger, more powerful players at the academy. Which goes someway toward the reluctance to put young lads into the first team.

That's why i'm pretty unfazed about the "loss" of a 16-year old wunderkid - or even 19 or 20 year olds. If someone feels they're worth taking a financial risk on then fair enough, but for every kid that looks good at 18 and goes on to be a good player over the long term there are probably ten Richard Gunns. You could probably make that 1 in 20 or more at 16.

I assume the need for speed wouldn't necessarily include props?

I bet without looking at the a Rhinos website you couldn't name a single player outside of the rhinos under 19's, probably not even them, unless names have been mentioned on here.

Let alone anyone at all in the junior game under it.

Yet you feel you can tell us all about who is right to keep and who isn't.

All players, regardless of age are not the same, and not the same level. Players who are regarded the top of their age group should and are judged differently to those at the bottom. Yes a lot have to develop physically, but it is quite amazing how some lads are showing skill levels including reading of the game at such a young age these days.


Of that list, for which as I said every club could produce a big one of players under 25, under 21 would have meant more, 10 of those players played first team by 18 years old.

Really? They said they weren't replacing Green as they have Hampshire, Powell and Williams ready to step up.

I pretty much agree with that.

Well yes it appears so, obviously to a degree but they would rather have an 80 minute prop.
It ties in with the approach taken at both academy and first team level to play (or attempt to) faster than their opposition.

It's easier to coach skills into someone who is athletic, rather than coach athleticism into someone who is skilled.

Not a route I would particularly advocate going down, but you can understand why a club would take that kind of approach.

My experience as a player and coaching kids would suggest that the opposite is true in most cases (not all obviously). I would also say that to get to even junior level at a SL club you are looking at an athletic kid. We have far too many skilless headless chickens in our game at the moment and part of that is because skillful kids tend to stand out less than the more athletic types at an earlier age. A kid who runs fast and is big at 16 will make more of an impression than a kid who gets himself in the right places, makes few mistakes, passes better, reads the game etc. It's mich harder to pick those kids out but IMO those are the kids you want to develop.

Yes. I have no idea what I will be doing then, I am not worrying about who will be the Leeds halves or front row.
But speculating how rubbish we will be (unless the club management follow their advice obviously) year after year is pretty much what half the contributors to this board get their jollies doing.
It's like a form of insurance. If Leeds keep winning titles then they can enjoy the victories (I presume they enjoy it when Leeds win although I'm not 100% convinced by that), and if Leeds are hopeless and go into decline they get to say "I told you so" as loudly as they can.

All good fun.

I don't mean this as a cheap shot, but it's pertinent that you don't know who some members of the Rhinos staff are but it doesn't stop you discussing them.

But you did anyway. And your wrong as usual, as I did know the staff and still maintain I was the one correct, even going back as far as six years ago. Just like I am right in having much more knowledge on the juniors and junior game now. So forgive me for looking down on you from my rather high horse

icon_smile.gif

I wouldn't have brought it up but you won't challenging Brisbane's opinion, you were challenging his right to give it, setting yourself up as an authority. If you're an authority you have to have credibility....................

But you go girlfriend.

Why should I be able to name any 16 year old when my point was about the general ability of anybody - including the junior coaches - to actually tell whether a kid will make it?

We can all have opinions on individuals, but that's exactly what they are. Richard Gunn and Jamie Peacock are a hugely instructive example - one a widely presumed wunderkind by any noumber of "experts" who turned out to be less than a plodder, the other not rated by clubs at junior level only to become an all-time great player. They are the extremes but you get my point.

That's why there's no point getting hysterical at all about losing kids - especially if another club is simply willing to pay more for them.

Vince Fawcett. Case closed

Actually no, I think your point is outdated.

Back when Richard Gunn was touted the player pool in the game was not massive at all, and the skill levels of the top players wasn't even close to the levels of the bottom players these days.

So now you have a massive pool of young players, and in many an incredible amount of skill, and much more athletic than they used to be, as mentioned earlier. If you are at the top of that lot, then any club has something very good to work with.

There is exceptions, I have always said that, but in the majority of top stars they are discovered young and debut young at first team.

Is the player pool coming through from the amateur game really that much bigger in terms of sheer volume?

What has changed is that players are coming into pro clubs at an earlier age than they ever did under the old Colts system, and pro teams are running two rather than one junior grade. This is exposing a wider range of young players to pro coaching much younger than they ever did and driving up skill levels as a result.

I certainly played alongside and against some very capable and skilful players at Under 19 level who would have held their own at that level today IMO, despite not having access to the same level of coaching and conditioning advice that young players today get.

Some are so strange on here, they worry so much that we won't be competing for and winning titles, yet when we've won GF's it's papering over the cracks.

Not on last night's performance!!!!!!!!!!!!!