Let go, Hardaker - For other reasons,
McShane
Baldwonson,
Amor,

These are just a few of the once in a lifetimes !

I mean first team. All the ones I’ve mentioned have been selected in the first team fairly regularly. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think all of them have made 10 or more appearances this season so aren’t bit part players. I’m not sure what your term “available for development for first team” means but I suspect you mean fringe players like Baldwinson, Handley, Jordan Roberts, Oledzki, Walters and Cameron Smith.

Are you saying that Watkins, Ward, Sutcliffe etc are at the same level as the “golden generation” but have not been “dealt with in the same way” as them? Or are you referring to Baldwinson, Handley etc or some other group in the U19s. What do you mean by “dealt with in the same way”?



Bit confused what you’re saying here. Are you saying that Leeds if Leeds treated all their youngsters in the same way as that “golden generation” they’d have the same result (mega success etc)? They just have to choose to do it?



No arrogance in that statement. The game is strong in Leeds so they should be producing a lot of players. They always have. My issue is with the assertion that I think you’re making that Leeds could produce a “golden generation” any time they choose – simply by developing any bunch of players the same way as they did Burrow/McGuire/Sinfield etc. I don’t think you could.

So we do differ, becuase I am adamant we could. For Sinfield, see the player we missed out on to Wigan from Siddall. Had we planned for it, we would have got him, just like we got Sinfield from Lancashire back then. The forwards at Juniors are way above what was in that golden generation you speak of. Johnson, whom isn't even played at scrum half these days, is a far better half back than Burrow was then, and is miles above any hooker back then at same age. These are just two or three examples. It can be done, but it is by choice how you take their development on. And I can be clear now, waiting until they are approaching 20 years old to take the next stop will never produce another golden generation, or indeed a golden player even.

A lot of players mature later than others - natural physical development takes different speeds with different individuals. You can look great at 16/17 but not so good later as others catch you up. It may be you're never going to be better than what you were at 16/17.

If I did believe you were right what's the reason for Leeds not simply repeating what they did in 2002 again if it's so easy to replicate over and over?

Who is the player from Siddal that we lost to Wigan? Will watch out for him in years to come, see if he lives up to the potential.

And I am saying that first line is nothing more than a myth that is constantly proven to be not true. Players get better with experience and their phyiscal development going forward, that is not argued. But nearly every star player of the last twenty years in this country is playing regular first team rugby at a young age. You can count on one hand the exceptions, yet people still trot out that same myth. The simply reality is that without first team development they don't progress to the level they should be. That was the reason we had the golden generation, not because those players were better juniors than what we have today to develop. And it is exactly moving away from that succesfull conveyor, why you end up with poorer quality and less ready players, than you had then, and as a result the game across the league suffers. It is a choice from the clubs, and nothing different to that.

Smithies I think his name is. He was the best player at Siddall, including Holroyd, it was why Leeds set up the partnership to get them both, but lost out on him. We missed out on Longstaff this year also, who was also the main one they wanted from Kippax.

But the point was more the planning, using that player in the same way we did back then.

That's not the same as saying that any crop of youngsters can be world beaters if only given the chance using Leeds special methods as done in 2002.

You've offered no evidence that backs up your point of view.

Just because some players weren't given a chance doesn't automatically mean they would be successful if they had been a chance.

That is because I never at any time said such a thing. I emphasised enitrely on planning, and that means planning which juniors you are taking on in the first place. Of course you can't simply do it with a batch of players of the likes of Walters, Keinhorst, Sutcliffe. But if you were doing what we did back in 2000-2002 those plyers wouldn't have been the ones you were looking to develop. I am saying, you get the top juniors (which we generally do anyway), and you develop them the proven way we did. In that scenario you would get end product.

So if you got the "top" juniors you could do it any time you liked.

I agree you would have a better chance of success but it's not a certainty.

Which club always gets all the best youngsters anyway? Most often they're spread across a few clubs. That's almost always been the case.

Hence my original point that sometimes you get a crop of special players once in a while and you reap the rewards. It's hard to replicate or clubs would be having endless success.

It's easy to say just get all the best kids and we'll win the lot. But in the real world other clubs are competing and more often than not those good kids are spread around the clubs.

Apologies for hijacking this Leeds fans, but always take an interest in junior development discussions.

I'm guessing what Gotcha is getting at Bullseye is that Leeds's DEVELOPMENT of junior players isn't that good. Or as good as it could/should be. You look at the England squad and apart from Watkins & Hall who were developed nearly a decade a go, there's not many Leeds developed players who have come through recently. Only Stevie Ward is part of the elite training squad. This is Leeds! As was said earlier, Leeds have a better starting base than most as they will likely sign up many more a talented sixteen year olds than say Bradford (for obvious reasons) So they would have more to work with, but you compare the players that have come through and made a big impact on the sport, Bradford have developed significantly more than Leeds despite 3 admins (Burgess brothers, Bateman, Whitehead, Wardle) etc Before our latest admin, we had a special crop in Joe Brown, Jake Trueman, Luke Hooley, Cameron Scott etc. We manage to attract and DEVELOP these players as despite all of disgraceful off-field meltdowns, our academy and the development path is very good.

Leeds struggle with that path IMHO. DR certainly doesn't help. They may get a good player who comes through the 19s. Then there is nothing for him. He gets sent on DR one week or loaned to our basketcase of a club, or if he does make it to the first 17, Mcdermott plays him for the last 5 mins of the game. No wonder some of these players aren't developing. Cameron Smith i've seen described on here as a special talent at 16 years old. Yet we've seen him Bullseye and he is absolutely gash! And that is in our team where many players would be lucky to be picked in NCL. If we signed Smith tomorrow to play for us in L1, i doubt many would be celebrating.

You are confusing developing with winning. Winning is entirely different, and rely's on other factors. Developing star super league players is different. Plenty of star players have never won a thing.

Each club is taking on around 12-15 scholars each year. Potentially your under 19's with three years worth of pro contracts could be 36 to 45 players, but what good would that do with only one team to play in. Even now they fill up teams with number makers rather than quality that is avilable. But even with only 10 of those players developed to super league quality (and remember across three ages) you have what you and others would term a "goldern" generation. It really isn't as difficult as you see it. It doesn't happen because the clubs are not willing to put the time, effort, and risk of first team performance, into it. But that doesnt' mean it couldn't happen, Leeds proved that when they did put the time, effort, and risk into it. But I repeat, no matter what the numbers, it won't happen anyway without earlier development than we are currently doing. Waiting for players to reach an age is nothing more than laziness from clubs with no appetite for taking a risk, and as a result players don't become what they were destined to potentially be, and in a lot of cases lost from the game.

Agree about Smith. Discussing him with others at the U19s game on Saturday the opinion was that he's a bit soft.

The current way of bringing players on isn't ideal by a long way. There's a huge gap between U19 and SL first team. Very few players are up for that leap. Back in 2002 didn't we have U20s and there was dispensation for a few over age players?

Bingo. And those are the questions that should be asked.

You may be right but your argument is impossible to prove or disprove either way.

I agree that current setups mean it's harder than ever for a kids to get a proper break in a SL first team. McDermott strikes me as ultra cautious to the point where he's harming the future of the side.

And that is the point. We do know it can be done, because we have done it. Others have done it to be fair. But you would be correct to say there are no certainties. However, your two points in your second sentence are what is most relevant to Leeds issue.

I think we got there in the end.

Hardaker & McShane are the two who particularly stand out.
It grieves me every time I see them pull on a Cas shirt & then perform the way they have done over the this season - in Hardaker's case - & for the past 2/3 seasons in McShane's.
Powell seems to have got the best out of both players & you have to wonder why we couldn't do the same.
The fact that it's Powell also disappoints me.

In McShane's case Leeds went for the likes of Buderus, Aiton and Burrow instead. You didn't do too badly IIRC. It's only from last year that letting him go looks a bad move.

Hardaker left because he couldn't behave professionally. He may have grown up now, I don't know. Can't really blame Leeds for losing him.

Wasn't Powell let go at the end of 2003 to gain experience with a view to him returning

so we couldn't get the best out a hardaker, a player we plucked from a championship club, turned him into a international player and man of steel winner, but apparently he was crap before the great god Daryl Powell got hold of him.
there i s reason hardaker does not play for us, he is a who could not stay out of trouble, the fact we got 150k for him instead of just sacking him after the student assault business was a good deal, yes he's playing well at Cas, but he's a bad egg all round but he will screw up again.

Arguably many on here believe that McShane could & should have been the understudy to all of the above hookers.
Hardaker clearly was a problem child but what I perceive as the authoritarian militaristic regime at Leeds wasn't able to deal with him. You cannot treat all players the same, whether we have the flexibility to see this in our coaching & management staff is open to question.
Re your final point, that's what I certainly thought & hoped for. Again GH may be to blame for not delivering on this, who knows?
Whatever the reasons I think that the Rhinos are the losers.

Whilst it took some time to get there would people really now have McShane over Parcell?

Imagine if they started the season at opposite clubs, Cas would still be dominate with Parcell probably pushing Gale for MOS. Would Leeds be in 2nd with McShane instead of Parcell at hooker? I doubt it.


McShane didn't look anything special at Wakey and it's not hard to look good in this current Cas team, if he left there for another SL club I don't think he'd be looking like a potential Dream Team player as some people have him down as this year.

Southstander in a nutshell

You're right. He was absolutely crap. Not being funny but I think the fact McShane is doing well at Cas tells you more about the strength of their forwards than it does McShane's strengths. Kyle Wood has also been very good for us ina pack not as good as Cas' and attributes wise I'd take Wood over McShane right now if someone said I had to pick one.

Any half-decent super league hooker worth their salt would look the part in that Cas team - also see Daryl Clark before he moved to Warrington.

I agree.

That said McShane is a far more complete player these days than he was 5 years ago. I think it is because of him moving around the clubs he has become that, had he stayed with us i don't think he would have kicked on the same as he has so i still don't regret him going.