He's got nothing on Gary Pearce who played for Hull FC in late 80's/early 90's. He looked like a Russian doll that had had a few top-half layers removed

Just to be straight he, I never said that.

Kids are in the gym themselves from that age, trying to build for an advantage. Usually the ones who are more focused on making a career out of it.

Most studies say now if you want to build, then you should start from puberty, if you want to fulfill full muscle potential. Starting from late teens would not fulfill the same effect. It's up to the person after all, and I agree it should be under supervision.

The point that was more made though is that just because someone is you get does not mean their physical strength is less than that years older. Yes they could get muscle advantage further, but they may still be starting from an advantageous position. The obsession on her for people to immediately say someone needs to be bigger just by their age, doesn't fit for me.

Think you could be right. Hope so, we have to take something into next season, so knocking a few over in the top 8 as we get players back could be the way.

It's not an obsession it's just common sense. I'd say the club was in the best position to decide and they generally don't throw the young lads in if can be helped.

I think the obsession (and this isn't meant as a dig or a start to a big argument but genuine comment) comes from you. You have a vested interest in the academy as we've seen and I'd suggest your desire (and apparent closeness to some) to see lads you rate get a chance at SL level leads to an impatience/frustration that you want to throw them in more quickly than most would and will argue against common sense caution about bulking up and size at a teenage age.

Exactly, so which is it, common sense or the club? The club haven't said he needs to bulk up now. So when you say common sense who are you referring?




I am not going to argue with that, as it may well come across as that. Although I have called for players I don't know at all, other than their skill set, so not restricted to known players. However, that said, I think you are wrong, and players can be more than ready, regardless of age. As an example, I saw it on here last week regarding Cameron with regards physically ready. He is currently lifting weights in the top five at the club, and apparently touching 100kgs, in his weight. I would back Cameron for physical strength, than say someone like Keinhorst any day. But does anyone have concerns for Keinhorst in the pack?

I don't want to throw anyone in, and Infact back to Cameron I did say this week in an ideal world you want to introduce him in a full team, not a scratch one. To me you gently ease them in young over a longer period, rather than hold back and throw in when older expecting them to adjust quickly.

As another example, Jack Walker has been put on a longer term building programme, and the club are right there, has he just doesn't have the frame yet.

Not at all but Alex in particular hasn't the build or power imo that's ready for SL
Its all well & good wanting our jnrs to get games i back it 100% but some just aren't ready & id put AS in that category.

Alex is a huge frame under there. But we were talking about next season anyway in this, not now.

Fair doos this where though i think we need reserve grade especially for kids not on loan/dual reg.

I agree.

Exactly, but Hetherington has done everything in his powers to stop it happening. I believe Jamie Peacock has now come round to "the reserves" way of thinking and is hoping for HKR to field a team there next season.

the game in this country does not have the depth of quality necessary for a reserves league. The quality of the reserves league is absolutely atrocious.

The quality is less the point though.

The quality is entirely the point.

It really isn't. We only have to look at this year the benefit to those playing these friendlies.

no we dont. We would need a far greater data set than 13 games in to a season.

Why would we. We know it is not working for those without, that is good enough.

You made this claim earlier this year after the reserve teams had only played one fixture. Are Warrington doing well because they've played a couple of reserve games or because they've signed two NRL HB's? I'd suggest the latter. Are Wigan and Saints any different to what they've been for past seasons? In fact they look poorer even if they're still up near the top. Would we be doing any better if we'd have played 2/3 reserve games? Very much doubt it.

Thats not even to say we shouldn't have a reserve side/competition but to say the league table shows the benefit of it already after so little games and most who have reserve teams still being in the positions they usually occupy is far fetched.

No, I made this claim this week, having been convinced of its merits. I said a Huddersfield and Leeds coach at Easter said those teams were finding the benefits of it. I never said then, that I agreed with it. However, the proof is clearly there, and I can see the sense they were talking.

We dont know anything. Its 13 games in. The idea this has proven anything is moronic.

I'm of the opinion that Leeds chances of scraping into the Top 8 after 23 rounds probably evaporated with that defeat at Huddersfield on Friday.

I don't envisage them winning 7 out of the next 10 fixtures.

I think we'll see a spate of injured players miraculously fit for the Cup game. If that happens it will tell us all we need to know about how much effort is now being put into the league.

On reserves my view is simple - I prefer the feeder team concept as players not in the first team would be playing in a more competitive environment, but if its done half-baked (as it is in RL in England) then a simple reserve competition is better. The standard won't be high, but all you really want is more match fit open age players who can do a job if required, as well as get Academy players used to playing open age. That's what the old reserve competition used to do.

I see Peacock has now come out and said the exact same thing as the Huddersfield and Leeds coach said to me. His words, "It is no coincidennce that five of top six teams in the league this year have a reserve team".

It really isn't, but to see that you would also have to think without the need to defend everything Leeds does.

Yeah me defending what Leeds doing, its not like I said



It's no coincidence that Wigan, Saints, Warrington are up at the top half of the table because they always usually are.....why were they near the top for all these other recent seasons? Weren't Hull 2 from 2 at the start of the season and 1st place before any reserve games had even been played......how does that work if reserve games are the reason for their success, of which btw they've only played 3 including one against Featherstone reserves.

If not having a reserve side is costing Leeds and Hudds, why are they below other teams like Cas, Wakey and Salford who also don't have reserve sides.

I actually do think we should have a reserve side and that it will benefit sides, but OVER TIME, not after one or two games of being introduced.

Completely ignoring the point that Leeds and Huddersfield are way behind those teams, who were the clubs who chose not to go without reserve sides, yet were above them previously. What about Hull and Widnes which you also ignore. You are trying to defend a point without foundation, with completely the opposite showing to be correct.

Hearing from two coaches who's clubs went against it, and now a great at his new club also declaring they had made a mistake, these people are quickly coming to the same conclusion, that you seem to not be seeing.

It is a massive coincidence. It can be nothing else at this stage.

I notice you cherry pick Peacocks statements but ignore the fact that 3 clubs have already given up on it and another is moaning about it.

I have no problem with a reserves in principle. The issue comes with the fact it pays no attention to the reality of the structure the game operates under.

SL's reduction to 12 should have seen an increase in quality and talent, a consolidation of quality between fewer sides, except it didnt because we actually still have 14 full time sides, plus a couple more with increased wage bills trying to get close to full-time but we havent produced any more players. So we have the same pool spread over more sides.

The SC has stayed the same so SL clubs can't offer more to these players, or these ones who have broken through at 20/21 so its not even the best of that cohort who are playing in it. Its a joke league. Its quality is less than league 1, there are barely any fixtures, and its costly.

Would you want a young player playing and learning week in week out against Leigh, Bradford, Dewsbury, or playing once every couple of weeks against Dewsbury Reserve, Keighley Reserves or Hull Reserves.