Briscoe anyone ?!?

You seem to have made your mind up about Vickery pretty quickly. I've yet to be persuaded either way; what you see as lack of heart might just as easily be lack of confidence or, conceivably, carrying a knock.

I can't really comment on Lineham, only having seen him the odd time, but I'm not convinced that Hull's production line is the model we should aspire to. With regard to our own, I'd agree that we should be producing players for every position although a shortage of wingers worries me less than would, say, failure to develop talent at 1, 6, 7 or 9.

My mind isn't made up as such, I'm commenting on what I've seen of him so far and based on that questioning why the much vaunted Leeds Academy haven't produced someone with more of a threat to offer.

The CEO boasted this was the greatest Leeds 'squad' he'd ever assembled then started the season with Vickery in the run-on side. Is it unreasonable to hold the CEO to his word and judge the additions to the squad in those terms?

Crediting Hull's production line (Academy ?) for Lineham would be a little like crediting Leeds Academy for producing someone like Zak Hardaker. I don't give a great deal of credit for either in those instances.

WRT our academy, I suspect the answer depends on whether one expects it to produce quality players in every position. This isn't in itself an unreasonable aim but clearly we're not at that stage yet; indeed, we may never be, given that it's something that no club has achieved thus far.

Re GH's comments, assessing the quality of squad's always going to be a somewhat subjective exercise and it might be he was speaking with a genuine belief that he really had put together the greatest-ever Leeds squad. But my guess is that his comments were made with an eye towards selling season tickets rather than being based on any genuine opinion of the squad's quality.

But ultimately you're right in that it's not unreasonable to question the validity of his comments. However, I suspect he'll hardly have been the only one talking up the merits of his own team in the run-up to the season.

It's not unreasonable but it is niaive.

The double glazing salesman in him still surfaces every now and again and so it should when there are season tickets to be sold.

"My mind isn't made up.....as such" Mmm. Yet you choose to spout negative comments on Vickery after so little game time, and so little time with the ball in hand.



Yes it is most "unreasonable to hold the CEO to his word and judge the additions to the squad" so early in the season. The reason Vickery has made the starting line up is the injury to BJB plus his good pre-season work...something that you did not see. I have come to expect your comments to have a certain negative side to them but would still take them more seriously if they had balance ...say by giving equal space to judging the addition of the classy Moon.

I'm giving my opinion on the player just as you have previously. Sorry if my opinion differs to yours.



Pre-season counts for very little IMO whether seen or unseen. I made no comment on Vickery's addition to the squad until I saw him play 1st grade. The CEO said 'squad' rather than 'starting 13' or even 'gameday 17' and Vickery forms part of that squad and should be judged against that comment.



Moon appears a good addition to the squad at this stage and finally addresses the loss of Keith Senior - May 2011. I rated Moon in his time at Salford much the same as I rated Hauraki in his time at the Crusaders and he's oddly looking the part again now he's at Castleford.

No need to apologise for giving an opinion old boy but I'll accept it for the negativity though!



This maybe true in the world of the keyboard coach but out there in the real rugby world it counts for a lot.




I suppose this is the most positive comment I can prise out, so thanks for that.

Someone get the word out to GH, next pre-season just to satisfy tvoc he must announce that this is the 14th best Leeds squad of all time.



As for wingers, remind me who played on the wing for us in the last 2 GF wins and where they came from? It's probably most unreasonable to expect new ones year-upon-year, and lets not forget we've won GF's with other Academy players on in the wing in Calderwood & Lee Smith. 3 of those have played for the England, 1 for the Knights, we've hardly done bad just because our back-up winger for the first 5/6 games of 2013 hasn't come from the Academy.

TBF, statistically, this must be the best we have started the season in some time. TVOC may or may not back me up on this though.

A look at the fixtures at the start of the season and you would have been disappointed if we hadn't won three out of four in SL (I had us winning at Cas but losing at Saints).

The next two weeks will provide an acid test of where we are domestically. Two consecutive big efforts at this stage of the season, asking a lot to back it up with another two.

Im not on about wins/losses. I mean defence, completion rates, missed tackles ect. We could have won 3 from 4 and been half as good as how we have really started.

Defensively, after 4 games last year we had also won 3 but conceded 20 points more. Against the same teams in the corresponding fixtures last year we conceded 78.

That's just a start, but to me it shows we are playing better where it matters. In D.

i would be keen to see this switch, hall and keinhorst played well together last season especially at Catalan and Moon and Vickery are most likely good buddies off the field, walking around Headingley in flip flops and shorts

I hope they are in full-on Aussie mode

There are a host of very average players that get a game in the NRL especially on the wing - we see them week in week out in SL. The fact that Vickery got nowhere near playing regularly in the NRL suggests his talents are not of the highest order and nothing he has done on the field suggests otherwise.

The bigger question is why is he getting a game at Leeds?

Looking on the Titans message board it wasnt ball in hand that was his problem, it was defense and as anyone who watches the NRL knows, thats the most important part of an outside backs game.

Because Ben Jones Bishop is injured !
If Ben Jones Bishop would not have had a serious illness at the time would we have signed him ? The answer could be no, I have not seen enough of him to make an opinion. has he disapointed me ? No, has he impressed me No, so he has done a steady job and not let anyone down. Dont judge him on a handful of games most players take a season to settle in and get up to speed.

People still continue to miss the point it appears



If the lad had been targeted and signed as an established talent with automatic first team credentials I, for one, would be giving him chance to "get up to speed".

However, he came as an unknown and was [uNOT[/u targeted as a signing. Therefore the question remains why has he being given priority to establish himself over all those targeted and signed acadamey lads who might justifiably ask the question why so?
What exactly is Vickery's claim to the right wing position? Just how would the club have managed without his unexpected arrival? Should the acadamey scouts be sacked for sourcing apparently inferior players to the (admirable) chancer from Australia?

Nantwiche he paid his own way and asled for a trial the club duely obliged now during that time he's obviously impressed those that run the team enough to earn a deal and 1st chance at taking Bjb's spot.
The answer is straight forward enough whether any fan rates him or not he's done enough for the staff to trust him to the RW spot before any of the other youngsters.

When we found out about BJB, weren't we told he knew about it for a few months? FWIR Vickery came over about a month after the timescale given about BJB. I may be wrong though but I remember thinking it made more sense now.

You continue to not accept the obvious answer

Their obviously playing him at right wing ATM because they think he's the best choice ATM (with BJB out). It doesn't matter whether or not you agree, they pick the team.
What exactly is the real claim for any academy player to the right wing spot??? That they've been here longer so it should automatically be theirs??? Even if they haven't convinced the coaches that they're any more ready for it or will do a better job???

You need to stop waffling on about this 'priority' thing, you were at it last week about Achurch and how he'd been given 'priority', yet he found himself at Hunslet at the weekend and looks to be 6th choice prop ATM. And if any players want to ask questions then maybe the more experienced and suitable for that game Clarkson & Moore want to ask why a gamble was taken on Keinhorst on the bench for Wembley instead of them???

I'll repeat what i've said before in hope that it finally goes in, McDermott picks who he thinks is the best available team. It doesn't matter about nationality, age, or whether they came from the academy. You're damningly accusing the coaches/club of 'prioritising' certain players who they pick based on their background yet you're the one wanting to pick players just because they've played in the academy, it's complete hypocrisy.

That doesn't mean the coach always gets it right?

The point that trying to be made here is what is the point of investing all the money in youth development if it is not going to be your primary source for first team players. If we need to sign the likes of Vickery and Achurch - very average overseas players - it suggests something is wrong with the development process.

The bigger concern for me is this system hasn't produced a decent half back for more than 10 years?

I'm not sure that is such a concern, because the club hasn't *needed* to produce a decent half-back in the last 10 years. If it had, then perhaps more effort would have been put in to developing Luke Gale, or maybe we'd have gone out to sign Richie Myler at 16. But we didn't need to.

It *would* be a concern if the club doesn't produce a decent half-back in the *next* 5 years.

I refute this claim, well in principle anyway. I don't know if the academy or other has produced a decent half back in ten years or not but that applies across the team! Let me explain and this gets my back up.

If Leeds find a player who is decent in the academy and the timing is right, they get a chance. Just like McGuire, JJB and Burrows did. Ten years ago there must have been an opportunity for them to drop in those positions and there were more than that; Tansey and others were in there too. My argument would be - (at that time) were those players any better than what we have seen recently coming through the academy or for the last ten years? - I doubt it. Is nobody as good as JJB in the last ten years? The difference is the timing was right and they got a chance.

What p155es me off though is, that means nobody gets a spot for the next ten years because as an example JJB has claimed it. I hear you saying "well it is not solely his position and he has to fight for it" - But it is his and he keeps that number. Any player who plays in that spot for ten years gets kicked out of the academy - Simple.

So when you say the U19s are the best there has been for years. It all depends whether the timing is right. Ward's timing might be right to transition/take over from Sinfield at Loose Forward.

I feel as though chances might be limited for most academy players even if they are quality and good enough to play top level, because Leeds stick to what they have. All this 5 year contract stuff really bugs me. So nobody gets Clarksons position in the 19 squad for 5 years - its a joke.

In summary - you dont get a shot unless the timing is right no matter how good you are. Rant Over

Two words. Stevie Ward.

We're not exactly struggling for back rowers at the moment yet Ward is featuring in the 17, and is starting in preference to Clarkson.

Nothing to do with "timing", all to do with being better than the next bloke behind you in the queue. None of the half backs Leeds have produced in the ten years that McGuire, Burrow and Sinfield have been holding down those positions have gone anywhere else and shown themselves to be better players than the incumbents.

Tansey drank his chance away and is now plying his trade at Cas. Luke Gale isn't ripping up any trees at Bradford. Kyle Briggs has been in and out of SL. The reason none of those got an opportunity at Leeds is simple. They weren't better than the multiple GF winning, multi international capped incumbents.

Your example about JJB is equally flawed. Which back rowers have Leeds denied an opportunity to that have subsequently gone on to shine somewhere else? Give me names, and tell me why they deserved to be in the side ahead of probably one of the hardest grafters currently at the club?