If you can't find a suitable brick I'd gladly supply one.

Would that be the same Danny Brough that has done that to us during the majority of games that he as played against us since the 2005 Cup Final ?

Why has no Leeds coach clocked on to his threat ?

Don't ask me. At the very least I'd be asking McGuire and Burrow to be always ready to fall back to cover kicks. Gareth Widdopp does this exceptionally well for the Storm, regularly diffusing kicks when Slater is out of position.

The worrying thing to me was that Saints did exactly the same thing the week before to us. They realised we had an inexperienced FB and went on 3rd/4th tackle the majority of sets and it worked well. The difference in that game was that we held onto the ball. It was obvious that with a kicker as good as Brough, Huddersfield would play the same way. We didnt adjust well at all. The one time Vickery dropped back Brough noticed and ran it. Sadly, the rest of the right side defence didnt pick up the slack and hung back expecting the kick. They went 60m to score.

It's unfortunate that the two guys with real fullback experience are the two backs who are out at the moment. It's a very specialised position, especially defending last tackle plays near your line where the full backs reading of the game and positional play is critical.

ah while harrigan has much to say defending the fragility of a poor winger's mental health, who should be training not reading this, i see damo is still fair game on here.

He paints the target on and hands out the ammunition. If you ask he'll even buy you the rifle.

We should send that picture to Tory HQ so they can come to the correct conclusion regarding minimum pricing for a unit of alcohol.

But starting Burrow at hooker means extra pressure is put on the defence as he isn't trusted to defend around the ruck. If it's a win offensively it's a loss in the other equally significant aspect of the game.

Wouldn't be a problem if the loose forward currently playing at stand off defended where a loose forward is supposed to.

None of the 3 you mention are good enough. The strength in depth is not great. Still doesn't stop us becoming champs but it stops us for being able to finish top of the pile.

I'm told Stevo selects the MOM award winner for SKY. Does that explain it ?

It depends what you mean by strength in depth. The salary cap means you can't have 2 or 3 quality spares in each position. You have to try an get reliable players who won't cost the earth to pad out the gaps in between the star players. This is something we have done really well over the years. We have brought in Vickery as cover for our outside backs. We have always used Ablett as centre cover, which makes snese when you see how many reserve forwards we have. It would have been nice to have a Lee Smith to come in, but he was obviously not satisfied with playing in the 21s all season, and when he did get the chance he looked lethargic. On top of that we have several juniors who may or may not be called on, but I'd say we have pretty decent strength in depth compared to most in SL

There is lots of Strength in depth and some fantastic youngsters playing at Hunslet. The problem is McD keeps the same 19 all season.

Many a club would love to have the 6 players (who are currently at Hunslet on their books)

IMO, Watson isn't ready, Keinhorst hasn't shown up at this level, Hood is 3rd choice but will get his chance at some point this year, Singo also doesnt look ready but theres nothing to say further down the line he will be. Achurch just needs to get his head around the conditions and how we play over here. I think he will be a good signing for us. Who else?

Look, theres nothing wrong with playing youngsters now and again, but it can severely hinder their development, not to mention their confidence if they are thrown in too early. I dont mind what we are doing at all. The guys pushing for the 19 at the moment are all capable enough.

I disagree re Clarkson - he is an excellent player who has no quality issues at SL level

I agree totally. He is the best line runner at the club and is usually very good in defence. He had a poor game against Hudds which looks to have cost him his place this week but we do have some good back rowers at Leeds.

I can not recall one single example of a player deemed a potential future star playing too early and having his development hindered.

It can do nothing but enhance development for a player who the club are working with on a plan for future first team rugby.

Where it would be an issue, is putting someone in due to injuries and that someone not at that time in the clubs plans for future first team rugby. An example would be someone like that Elliot lad that played on the wing one game.

Chev Walker.

He was played too much too young and it killed his confidence for a couple of years at one point. He could have been one of the best centres in the game but never got above average.

Also, I don't see many stars in the few that are at Hunslet. Singo, maybe down the line, but my point lays especially true for props. Let them develop in their bodies 1st.

Completely dissagree. There was absolutely nothing to suggest that Chev Walker would have been a better player had he stayed in the Juniors.

He would have been one of the best in the game, firstly had he not gone to prison, and secondly had he not gone to union.




I don't neccessarily dissagree with your view on the Hunslet boys, but I will repeat my view always held that the line about the props is garbage. Exept in some circumstances (Peacock an example) the best props have usually debuted at a young age. Of course they generally also then go on to wear out quicker.

Clearly you havent been down to watch Hunslet lately? Do you think Danny McGuire, Rob Burrow, Jordan Tansey, JJB were any better than the dual reg guys at their age? Were they h*ll. Like I have said in previous posts, they were all given an opportunity cos the time fell right for them. They then developed over ten years to what they are now. You make it sound as though the 6 at Hunslet have to be better now than the above mentioned to stand a chance.

Chev looked the real deal when he bursts on the scene. Then he had a couple of bad games, as any kid does, but instead of taking him away from the team to help him, he was played continuously and the bad games compounded. Development is all about doing what's in the best interest for a player, not throwing them to the wolves and hoping they swim.

There haven't been many good young props recently. The better ones mature in their mid to late 20's unless you came out of Julie Burgess' womb. Even then, Sam was only thrown in as a teenager due to injuries. Luke was in his 20's even though he looked ready before then. George has been brought in over a 2 year period gradually and even though Tom has 2 full years of first team behind him at Bradford, Souths aren't rushing him. The best props in the world though over a prolonged period of time are late 20's into their 30s and all of them Werent rushed into things.

Firstly, why the hell would I go watch Hunslet?

Secondly, I said "I do not necessarily dissgree with you on the Hunslet boys". I said that because I hadn't seen them there so could not say 100%.

What I can say 100% though, is that they are nowhere near as good as the players you mentioned at the same age.

Furthermore, In a couple of the cases, I think we have players playing in the under 19's who are better than the ones at Hunslet. Does that mean the one's at Hunselt couldn't make it? not it doesn't, I just think it is not all about them ones.

I don't dissagree with this, but that it is different to "throwing them in too early". What you are suggesting there is just common sense. Besides though you also have to remember the lad played through a transisition phase for the team, which is not a bad thing for a player to learn and develop through.




it's not just about the Burgess's. What about Fielden, Graham, Scruton, Morley, Patrick, Crabtree, Carvell, Copczak, McCarthy Scarsbrook, Taylor,etc?

And recently Wigan aint doing to bad a job by going with youngsters at prop. The lad there now must have been way behind Singleton a couple of years back, but he certainly aint now.

That is just props, there is an awful lot of backrowers also who debuted at young ages.

Fielden burnt out in no time. Kopczak is in his mid 20s and only started to show promise after a few years of being gradually brought into the Bulls team. Crabtree, again, wasn't that young when he burst onto the scene and even then, I thought he was overrated until about 3 years ago when he found something extra. Carvell?! He didn't develop either until his mid 20s. As a kid at Leeds he was beyond average. Morley was a 2nd row until he was in his late 20s. Lauren Patrick is good, but again, more of a back rower and LMS has never impressed me. Always looked a decent prop in a poor team. Now he looks an average prop in a decent team. Ill give you that he made the grade early though. I just don't think he's good enough to be mentioned.

Also, you seem to be getting confused with what I am saying about development. You just seem to want some of these kids playing week in/week out. They should get a chance at some point but not as a full time thing.

FWIW too, Watson will never play SL. He will stay in the Championship and no one will even blink. The only player I have ever been wrong about is Ryan Hall, and I'm glad I was