Worrall is what he is, cheap and cheerful cannon fodder, only now with a dodgy shoulder to recover from. Even before the injury he wasn't big enough, strong enough or explosive enough. I won't be holding out for much of an improvement in those deficiencies in a 24 year old.

Could do a job for the likes of Salford perhaps.

I thought he did a reasonable job tvoc tbh.
Age shouldn't matter afterall look how old the like's of kirke and raleigh were when they made the step up to SL and both have improved a great deal.

Look at the natural physique's that came with Kirke and Raleigh and then get back to me with regards Worrall.

So you have to be huge to be decent then???
I'd prefer to see how worrall come's back after his 1st season at 1st team level before writing the lad off mate.

No but if you are a forward, it helps...

Your choice, I've seen enough.

As I said previously for me Worrall wasn't big enough, strong enough or explosive enough and at 24 those characteristics aren't likely to alter.

Funny thing is I expressed the same opinion last season (even before the injury) and IIRC you agreed with me.

time spent on the park would be a better indication

I can't help you there but from his stats:

2008: 1559 metres from 208 carries (10.95 carries at 7.4952 metres per carry per game and 260 tackles at 13.68 per game)

2009: 652 metres from 87 carries ( 12.43 carries at 7.4943 metres per carry per game and 119 tackles at 17 per game)

It appears his workload is increasing but I wouldn't exactly call it a significant shift at this stage. An extra one and half carries and three tackles could be covered by an extra two or three minutes of gametime.

I thought he was ok was it in term's of who to retain and re-sign??
After reading an interview at the end of the season he was carrying that shoulder injury throughout the year until we had everyone fit then he had the surgery this led to him not being able to do the full weight and strength training.
I'm prepared to give the lad a chance and see how he does as a squad player having being able to fully train.

I think it was in terms similar to those I set out above. That he would never make a starting place due to his lack of physical attributes but that he was cheap and therefore OK to have around as cannon fodder to cover for back row injuries.

I still don't think he'd be 1st choice 17 mate i agree 100% but as a squad member he could prove valuable especially if we need the like's of kirke to do stint's at prop.

How many of Peacocks' 31 games last year were at prop though?

If you will recall we had a bit of a 2nd row and centre crisis last year which resulted in him starting a fair amount of games in the 2nd row and spending time in other games there.

I know your stats can only quantify starting posiotion so lets have a look at that for now.

Someone should tell Jamie Jones Buchanan.

As for Worrall, he's squad depth but still played a significant role in a championship season which shows he can do a job.

I don't rate him but i am rarely too vociferous in such negative opinions as I felt even less about JJB up to 2004.

Kirke can prop when all the back rowers are fit.

Our squad has the following forwards (hookers excluded)

Props:
peacock
burgess
bailey
leuluai

second row:
JJB
Lauiti'iti
Kirke
Ablett
Worrall

After that there are acadamy lads who haven't stepped up, such as Ambler and Haley, who I'd expect to take up some of the work-load left by scrutons departure.

I think it looks a little thin, if our general match day squad is 4 props and 4 second rows, although that will change to 2 & 1 when Buderus is back, it doesn't leave us great for injuries of longer than 2 or 3 weeks.

But if we are lucky, and play things right the young lads can come in now when they are not critical and allow some of the senior players to have a rest, whilst getting them experience. When they are needed they can then then call upon some SL experience.

Haley's left for good, I'm lead to believe.

We have Chandler and Hardbottle who look a bit handier than Ambler.

This is the key.

All this arument that we are not short, is purely based on the scenario that most are fit. And indeed, in the unlikely event that we do not get injuries (which we are currently experiencing) then all is fine.

Your argument appears to be that Ablett can play centre, so we dont need anyone else there.

Now its Kirke can play prop if we have a shortage in that postion.

Well straight away you have taken away two of the backrowers, at the same time as Ali is constantly in the training room, and can not be relied upon to be fit.

You then mention about using two players that have not played first team super league, or even come close yet.

God help us if we lose Senior, JJB, Peacock for a few weeks at the same time (which in todays modern game could easily happen), because if we do the ones queriing the squad strength will certainly be proven correct. And the ones showing others taking the place will have their argument put in the bin.

And that looks a little worrying if you take our Worrall who's injured (and was "filler" last year really), Ablett who could have to play centre again in quite a few games, and Ali, who is now spending more time on the treatment table than on the pitch. Kirke is a big strong guy who does a good job in short spells, but only in short spells.
The only bonus is that we can have Diskin on with Buderus at the same time and Matt plays back row pretty well.

So that's JJB then who can play 70-80 minutes. Last year we had Ellis who could play the full 80 as well. If we lose JJB for any spell of time (like last year) it could cause us real problems. We rely on this guy firing every game too much for my liking. We lost him last year and form dipped and cost us the hubcap (which as we all have been told many, many times is the true way to decide who's the champion side..

).

Everyone at the club thought we needed another quality second row to replace Ellis, we tried to sign one, we should continue to try to sign one. A compromise would be a centre so that Ablett can concentrate on back row. I also think he's Sinny's understudy at 13, looks like he's developing into a very good player.

The argument is that Gibson and Watkins will play centre and therefore replace Toopi. This will allow Ablett to move into the forwards, thus replacing Ellis. Buderus will replace Scruton and we will run with a hooker within the substututes. Kirke will get more game time and will cover prop/second row.

If any team lost three players of the calibre of Senior, JJB and Peacock they would struggle.

Which full squad in SL is better equipped than ours?

This thread makes for a worrying read. If Peacock were to get a long term injury I don't think there is enough cover in the squad for us to defend the championship, especially as we can't count on Ellis and Scruton this year and Eastwood has failed to materialise. Thus far we've yet to see the benefit of bringing in another hooker - time will tell if Buderus was a good signing or not.

Even if we do manage to make do with the likes of Kirke filling in this season, we will need new prop forwards for 2010 with Peacock and Leuluai both being the wrong side of 30 (and the latter possibly going to Wigan). At present there do not seem to be any younger players on the verge of stepping up in the prop position, who would be natural or reliable candidates to succeed Peacock and Leuluai.

Add to that the need to replace Senior (assuming one of Watkins and Gibson plays on the right) and probably Smith (maybe Donald too) and GH is going to have to make a serious dip into the transfer market. Of course, it is possible that Gibson and Watkins can play their way into contention to take both centre positions which would be the preferred outcome, but we can't expect every youngster blooded to be an automatic success.

Marvelous. All we need now is the abolition of the salary cap and we can sign players to cover every position should our first choice players get injured.

Until that happens we'll need to carry on with players who can play a secondary position if needed.

Forrards do tu much exercisin nowadays. In my day we used ti train then go an trough double pie n peas washed down wi 7 pints o best bitter an drive 'ome. I cant even have a bluddy pint n drive nar.

Al tell thee summat now. All t injuries are cos theys no bluddy fat on the bodies. When a played mi belly hung donw ovver mi shorts an tother buggahs used to bounce off mi.

Only injury i ever got wor when Fred Paker bit mi bloody ear.

It wor a tough game in them days. non o this bloody poncy lycra.

None.

Look at Saints. Who have they turned to when players were injured? Wheeler, Lomax, Clough & Ashurst. How man of you had heard of those players before this season?

Saints and us continually demonstrate that reliance on youth players to cover injuries and squad depth is the way to go in order to comply with the salary cap and unearth new players.

Despite this, despite the success both clubs have been enjoying fans still question the wisdom of the approach.....

It's like those who seem to believe the Academy should be churning out another crop like 2001-02 every year, success makes you irrationally greedy.

They're the same people who come autumn time will be beating their chest about how appalling it is we don't produce any quality British players and how we're so far behind Australia and NZ.