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?

No it doesn't, but he has to go with what he thinks is right at the time, and at this current moment in time he thinks Vickery is the best pick for the right wing.



Concern about how money is spent isn't why Nantwich wants Academy players in, note how last year he wanted BJB (a player hardly too long out of the Academy himself and still only 23/24) to be replaced with Chisholm, hardly 'investing' if we're kicking them out again after 18 months in the first team.

We didn't 'need' to sign either Achurch or Vickery, we chose to, to give ourselves more options, the same reason why you have the Academy but it doesn't mean you're guaranteed a successful one at the RIGHT time. If we don't have a winger coming through at the moment it doesn't mean Leeds are doing something wrong, it just means Ryan Hall's don't grow on trees.

Also with 10 of the 17 who played in the WCC, the Academy IS our primary source for our first team and has been for a while now and arguably the best in the league since SL started. And as far as wingers go it should be remembered that it produced the guy who is being hailed as the current best winger in the world.....that suggests something is right with the development process.

And again, should we play someone just because it'll justify the investment in money on the Academy.....or play the person the coach thinks is best?........Personally I'd rather have a coach that did the latter thanks.

If Leeds had produced a half back of comparable quality to McGuire or Burrow they would have been challenging for a slot - we have produced one anywhere near that quality and that is a concern - these players cannot continue for ever.

However we may be over cautious and not allow kids the opportunity - Manning is an example - who become disheartened and lose interest and we will never now how good they could have been. Is JJB the best for that position? who knows, his place has been protected even when he has been playing poorly he has been allowed time to work through that drop in form and not dropped. This has prevented a youngster getting the opportunity to shine and maybe claim a place e.g. Hardaker.

What about Ablett, a second rower that came through in the period of JJB, Ali and Ellis? We could've easily kept Smith at 5 but Hall burst through, likewise when BJB came through on the right wing. Or one of the first things McDermott did was start Watkins at centre and not keep Delaney there.

We could have easily have seen Keith retained for another year or 2, instead we promoted young Zak to the 4 shirt.

You have to question how a player such as Justin Carney rocks up at a bargain basement club rather than their nearby Champion outfit.

Sure there'd be an increase in shirt material costs but sometimes such investments pay dividends - such as winning/retaining trophies.

The point I am trying to make is this - if the players you bring in add something to the squad so be it but it must not be at the detriment to younger players. The idea of bringing in an Achurch and then sending him to Hunslet seems barmy to me - hardly adding anything? Surely we have sufficient youngsters of that standard. All he is doing is preventing a youngster getting that opportunity. On Vickery I have yet to see anything to suggest he is any better than Chisholm, but then Chisholm hasn't had the same opportunity at senior level to judge.

Carney would have taken up a large chunk of cap space, a quota spot and would presumably have wanted a guaranteed starting spot. This probably didn't tick any boxes as far as Leeds were concerned, when we already have 2 very capable first choice wingers.

Vickery, on the other hand, offers solid enough cover across our backline, and is here on a low risk, low value, non-quota filling 1 year deal. Emphasis on the word cover.

Who knows the size of the deal he's on at cash-strapped Castleford. The fact he's there suggests to me he's not on a huge wedge.

I presume he'd have wanted the chance to claim a starting spot and would have been looking to earn the right with no guarantees.

Do Leeds have cap or quota issues?



He's showed no threat in the wing position (unlike Carney), it's yet to be seen if he's got anything more to offer across the backline as cover.

So far the emphasis on the word cheap (low value didn't work for me as that's two words.)

There's nothing to suggest Leeds were looking to sign anybody for the wing positions, and certainly not in early August when Carney was announced by Cas. They didn't sign Carney (or any other winger) because presumably it wasnt seen as a priority.

The signing of Vickery was a punt (instigated in no small part by him asking for a trial, not by the club persuing him), and yes a cheap one at that. It may work out, it may not, time will tell.

So far I don't think he's been the disaster that some would have us believe though.

But the fact that Leeds have felt it necessery to sign on a player with such apparent limited ability and little pedigree and fast tracked him into the first team must speak volumes to the outside backs trying to force their way into the squad at this time.Thats the point i think people are trying to make here.

On the early evidence IMO he is not good enough for Leeds.The next few fixtures are tough so we should find out for sure.I hope he proves me and others wrong and the club have seen something in the lad that will come to the fore in the coming weeks.

Has it escaped your attention that Vickery was given no such priority?

Has it escaped your attention that Vickery and Chisolm were given the wing spots in the boxing day freindly? Did it escape your attention that Vickery comprehensively out performed Chisolm (and other Academy lads) in that game?

Now, I have been as underwhelmed as most with Vickery so far but I saw what I saw on Boxing day. I also saw Vickery get rushed back very quickly from his injury. What I didn't see is how the other potential players to fill that wing spot peformed in training last month. The coaches did.

I've no reason to doubt that had Chisolm put in the kind of performance Vickery did in the trial match he might have got first shout. He didn't. He's at Hunslet. Anyone know how he's fairing there?

Nope. I think the point that people are trying to make is that Vickery has somehow blocked the path of some junior players who should have been given the shot instead. Some have even suggested, bizarrely, that this is a recurring theme at the club, and one poster suggested we should have signed Carney instead, even though he wasnt available.

But do people really think the club would waste money on this lad if they hadnt seen something more in him than what they see in the alternatives? And then keep selecting him too?

And who are the alternatives? Chisholm is the only out and out winger who is anywhere remotely close to 1st team selection, and frankly he hasn't done enough in the juniors, for me, to warrant selection.

Watson is a good prospect but will benefit more from being given time to develop in his natural position.

Keinhorst has played on the wing this season, and looked a little lost to say the least.

I think people have jumped to a conclusion about this lad way too quickly. Is he even fully fit at the moment?

It shouldn’t be an assumption that Chisholm would benefit from exposure to first team rugby at this stage of his development.

Kevin Penny was dumped in too early and pretty much ruined by having his flaws exposed at SL level rather than in the reserves. If Chisholm becomes a target it could ruin him.

Or that poster was highlighting a player that was seemingly available for 2013 and who could have become an instant SouthStand hero that was picked up by a cash-strapped club just a few miles down the road.

Jones-Bishop for me had a fairly indifferent season in 2012 compared to 2011, looking lethargic at times. Finding a quality winger and using Jones-Bishop as a utility back could have been an option and Carney would have fit that bill.

That could happen at any time and the only way to find out is to give him a go. Vickery had no more SL experience than Chisholm but he was given a go.

It isnt just pot luck. Chisholm has flaws in his game that are known. Whilst he very well may overcome them in his career, if he hasnt right now then no way should he be moved up.

Do we have an overseas space available?
If not, any discussion about Carney is a red herring.

Given we only have Kylie and Delanney - Achurch doesn't take a space and even if he did we would still have plenty of overseas spots available