Have to agree.Still early days but not seeing too much from this lad to convince he is worth playing over another of our young prospects.No pace at all for a winger, he looked like he was running in treacle when he got some space in the second half! It would be forgivable if he was defensively sound, but he looked all at sea at times.Also,Ablett doesnt look like he has much faith in passing the ball to him, says it all really.

And what "young prospects" are these?

Watson's a full back, not a winger by any stretch of the imagination. He'd get killed in SL under the high ball.

Chisholm is quick, but has hands of concrete.

Next in line is James Duckworth, who has 40 minutes of a first team friendly under his belt.

At the moment, Vickery is the best option the club have until BJB gets back fit again.

IF so then again I have to say the club should be very very grateful that the lad decided to take a punt in coming over here....and pay him double the agreed amount. By your account, otherwise, the club would have been up the proverbial creek ...... Doesn't say much for [uplanned[/u recruitment does it?

Have to admire Vickery's initiative, but I would have thought that home grown acadamey talent deserve first opportunity unless he is an [ioutstanding[/i talent that he doesn't yet appear to be: otherwise what's the bluddy point?

Vickery continues to enhance his reputation. After one and a half 1st grade games it was already pretty clear he had no pace, no size, no power - after last night we can add, no defence, no urgency (and bar the knock down) no rugby smarts. Why can't all players developed through the Aussie system be like him.

As I said last week, IMO, had he come through the Leeds Academy he would never have got close to an opportunity at 1st grade level. That he has says something about the current set-up.

I'd give Chisholm a go. 'Phil' Vickery is never a winger in a million years, I think he could develop into a decent back rower to be honest. He's got good leg drive and go forward, but no pace or footwork, and his decsion making is poor at times. I fail to see how Chisholm couldn't bring as much or more to side than Vickery at the minute. Vickery reminds me a bit of Cummins during the final days of his Leeds career.

Remind me where our present first choice FB made his debut??

As for getting 'killed' under the high ball...perhaps he should aspire to and study long term SL winger Gardner's performance last night



..... and as for not being a winger by any stretch of the imagination: remind me again where Chris Clarkson made his debut?

Watson (or indeed Chisholm) should be given priority opportunities over Vickery on the wing IMO

Cannot believe all the stick Vickery is getting.

Anyone at the Boxing Day game will know he has great leg drive going into contact. Probably only Peacock and Delaney are better.

Showed decent pace in that game without being electric but none of our wingers with possible exception of Chisholm have that.

The lad looked good in the Hull game before injury struck again and was supposed to be out for about 6 weeks but came back within 2-3. Maybe he shouldn't have come back as soon as he did put credit to the lad for putting his hand up.

I think once he gets his match fitness back and a good injury free run in the team he'll surprise some of the knockers.

Why are some so keen to knock these imported wingers? Remember the horrendous stick Donald got on here in his first few months before winning people round. Whilst I don't think Joe will end up anywhere near his standard I think he'll do more than a good job for us.

All these slagging off his lack of strength, he's showed more strength in contact than BJB in his few games already.

Vickery has shown nothing to get excited about since his introduction at competitive 1st grade level. It's a kick in the teeth to any Leeds youngsters brought through the Headingley system to see nobodies given an opportunity before them. How bad must they be if Vickery is seen as better?

More strength than Jones-Bishop? I never rated Jones-Bishop overly much in that department but he has some other attributes that more than compensate on the wing.

Having watched the game again Vickery was secure ball in hand without posing any threat. That said the game doesn't pose any threat either. Just watching a St Helens - Leeds Challenge Cup game at Knowsley Road from 2004. That was a proper game unlike last night's drab offering. Sean Long tackled harder in that game than any forward did last night.

Who knows what the coaching teams short term plans are. Maybe Mac sees Vickery as a stop gap until BJB is fit. I agree with some others that it is a shame that he hasn't used the unfortunate absence of BJB to give some of the youngsters experience. It's on the wing for god's sake, not the biggest risk he could take.
As for BJB, people should not forget that he is a great finisher.

Neither of these things are a good thing. Because Ade Gardner is awful under the high ball that makes it OK for us? And because Clarkson played on the wing during an injury crisis, we should throw in an untested FB on the wing when we already have a fit winger?

Vickery has not showed much but has not been helped by Ablett. I don't think he is a centre, particularly on the right, and don't think it's the fact that he doesn't have confidence in Vickery but that he can't pass right or doesn't look to anyway, preferring to run inside instead. Admittedly, he links up bettter on the left but just play him at SR/LF where he should be and play an actual centre. With our injuries, this would leave Keinhorst, and if people don't want him and Vickery on the same side, why not play Keinhorst with Hall and Moon with Vickery?

That winger then would be Chisholm?

Are you serious? Or do you really think Vickery is a winger? Untested? Where exactly has Vickery been tested?

As for the references to Gardner and Clarkson I suggest you look up the definition of sarcasm.

Ah, the old nantwich defence of talking absolute bollards, demonstrating a yawning deficit in his understanding of the game, and then trying to pass it off as "sarcasm".

Vickery has played, and been successful, on the wing at a much higher level than any of the other possible choices Leeds have at the moment.

No idea what level Vickery will end up at but some of the reservations expressed remind me very much of Scott Donald's first season when, after a rpcky start, he won over most of his doubters.

So you don't think suggesting Watson try to emulate Gardner under the high ball was being sarcastic? Similary Clarkson being a winger?

Cannot remember ever resorting to pleading sarcasm when perhaps losing an argument.....now ignorance: that's a different matter

Some do appear to be getting the wrong end of the stick. I really do hope the lad does well and proves to be a major success.

However, my (and others') argument is why has an unknown unproven usurper with no pedigree being given priority to prove himself over and above the home grown acadamey lads?

Maybe he was better than them in training??????

Keinhorst sounds like he's had another good game for Hunslet. Give him a shot at centre? If he isn't going to get used now is he ever?

In what way exactly do you think?

Probably when he can have a more experienced winger outside him. I'm guessing he doesn't want to split the Moon/Hall partnership up by putting Moon over to the right centre position so that's leaves you with a potential Vickery/Keinhorst pairing......too inexperienced for the tough games we've had/have coming up IMO and unnecessary giving Ablett can give you very good quality there (granted he didn't get much joy from Percival).

Lets not forget this has then led to Ward getting starts (in which he's done very well in) and also Clarkson would then probably drop out of the 17 if Ablett headed back to the pack. So 2 other academy lads (1 of which has being earmarked for having the best prospects that any academy lad has being giving in a long time) have benifitted, just not in the backs.

Singing songs? Telling jokes? Giving home decor advice? Teaching them Latin?

How do you think!

He's probably really impressing McDermott on how better to handle a rubber glove at half time.

I know it breaks your heart that Chisholm doesn't get picked but you have to get over it.

I've no doubt Vickery is a good trainer (if the coaching staff say so) and a tryer out on the field but that should go without saying in a professional sport. At this level he needs to offer something over and above a good work ethic.

Whatever Scott Donald's perceived weaknesses were he always had pace to burn which for a winger is always a good starting point. Even the big wingers - such as Boston, Grothe, Vaikona, Vainikolo, Hall - could still shift. By comparison Vickery looks like he's running in treacle.

Hull have a young winger (Tom Lineham - originally from Leeds(?)) who would fit the bill. Why haven't Leeds got someone like that coming through the ranks? Vickery is probably just as big but he plays without the same heart.

Maybe Vickery is stronger, fitter, better under the high ball, better positioning, better defender.

Again, I'd back the professional coaches who see the players every day, rather than max of an hour and a half a week.

Also, arguments about it being safer on the wing, I disagree. Defensively you are most exposed and weaknesses are most easily exploited.