Yes and Sutcliffe, Ward and Singleton are all involved I the 17 most weeks now and 2 have final rings/medals to their names. If they've achieved this before they've even reached the point that they can grow proper facial hair then why won't Smith? You can make a case for Leeds not throwing in as many youngsters as Wigan, but the two players who have come through recently with the biggest 'reps' in Sutcliffe and Ward have hardly spent ages waiting not being involved now have they?

Sutcliffe is completely different to what is been spoken of in this thread. He was more of your Clarkson, or Foster type player. Someone who actually came good a bit later within the environment he was in, and good luck to him.

Ward I will give you was a player who was highly regarded as a Junior, and who Leeds got hold of. Had he not hit the injuries though, he would probably have been playing for his country before now, which tells you the difference with these lads who are pulling up trees at a younger age. Remember his debut season, and asked to join the England train on squad.

You can not put all the junior players in the same basket and follow the same, there has to be exceptions to the general rule. Much the same as they do at first team level if an exceptional talent became available.

what makes you so confident its not the beter coaching?
i mean, i've noticed we always seem to have a decent amount of players in the england youth/academy teams (4 in the england academy team that beat australia and 5 in the youth squad just announced)
so either that must be down to better coaching or having better players - something you also say no to because we dont win academy championships?

I also wonder what makes you say Ward's path into the first team is blocked?
he's been in the first team since 18 years old, and has made 46 SL appearances despite 2 shoulder reconstructions
9 less games than Bateman and 2 less than than Ben Currie (who would be considered good comparisons) who as far as i know have not had his injury problems.
Similarly, Sutcliffe has 39 SL apps for the Rhinos already at barely age 20 - more than Ryan Hampshire (12) and George Williams (23) combined

is he? i seem to remember him and Baldwinson making their u18s debut at the same time and both were very highly regarded even then.

All youngsters who get into the system have something about them, otherwise they wouldn't be taken that far. Some however, are regarded way above the rest, and that is what is been spoken about here. Sutcliffe was never spoken of in that ilk, and I don't think Baldwinson was either to be fair.

They may well have attracted attention when playing for the 16's and 19's after further developments. But we are talking here about players in the scholarship and pulling up trees.

And to balance it out a bit, I do believe Mason Tonks was someone who was also very highly regarded at the younger age, and it can not be said that his game is going the way it was expected at the moment.

I think you're going back towards the monetary thing. I was on about pathway to the first team. Whilst some would've like to have seen Sutcliffe start at halfback a few more times instead of from the bench you must agree he's hardly had a shabby first team career so far in terms of number of games and important games picked for. So really the suggestion from Sal about Smith and his chances of playing don't really hold much weight. Like you said, Sutcliffe wasn't as highly touted as Smith has been, but he's done fairly well and the pivot positions are only going to become more available over the next 2/3 years.

Foster and Clarkson were much more later bloomers.
Sutcliffe was an England youth international, and was always highly rated from what i can remember.
I accept your point that he wasnt as hyped as someone like a Morgan Smith or Cameron Smith though.
As for Tonks i honestly dont recall - am I right in thinking he wasnt with us through scholarship? I dont seem to remember him being an England youth international at the same time as our other players, either way (but i can see why people would have seen potential with his size)

My point was more that Sutcliffe wasnt some kid who came out of nowhere. He was an England youth international, made his debut in the u18s at 16, and has now made near 40 SL appearances and he's barely 20 years old.
He seems to be an example that we are able to offer good young players development and a pathway to the first team (just as we did with Stevie Ward)

You are right that all youth players cant be treated the same though - it'd be a big disappointment to lose Cameron Smith were he not to sign on with us.
But I'm not sure why some are criticising the way the academy is run when we've yet to really see something come back to haunt us (Learmouth, Baldwinson the two i can most recently remember who've not progressed as hoped)

Are we at crossed purposes here? I am talking about the hooker Ward not the second row.

Are you seriously comparing those guys in quality terms to the likes of Sinfield and McGuire? If guys of the quality of Sinfield, McGuire and Burrow were around in the juniors now Sutcliffe would not get a look in - he isn't the future longer term.

We are talking about a different Ward - I was talking about the hooker not the second row forward.

Look at the youngsters at Leeds and how tough they find the transition into SL and compare that to the youngsters at Saints and Wigan.

Ask yourself this question - why aren't Leeds producing the quality of youngster into the first team - it is either one of three things, the quality of the intake, the quality of the coaching to bring them to the correct level or a coach who will not play them.

Let's look at the Leeds side: in the forwards only Ward is a likely starter that has come through the academy and Singleton on the bench, in the back Hall and Watkins in the last five years - so that's four players five if you count Sutcliffe out of 100+ youngsters that would have gone through the system. That suggests something isn't working.

Realistically Wigan, Saints and Wire don't have many more than that if picking the strongest 17. All very well talking about other teams playing youngsters and going on about pathways, A young Wigan forward today has to overcome players they brought in such as Tautai, Patrick, Flower, Bateman, Clubb, ones they've re-signed in Tomkin and Mossop and had they not wanted to leave also Scott Taylor and Pettybourne. Saints have Vea, LMS, Amor, Walmsley, Masoe, Flanagan. Wire bringing in Asotasi, England, Sims and Clark.

On one hand we complain that our rivals are going out buying players, but then say we want the youngsters to play.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if some kids went elsewhere at junior level. Until very recently if I was a young halfback Leeds would be the last club I'd look at. Now at 16 it could be one of the best in terms of timing of oportunities.

In any event, given the fact that the whole of SL produces virtually no world class backs, its hard to say that Leeds have done any worse than other clubs.

Where Leeds do seem to have underachieved in junior development is in the forwards. When McClennan came in he basically got rid of the entire crop of young forwards around - IIRC he wasn't impressed at all. Since then we've really only had Clarkson, Steve Ward and Singleton come through. The only one of those likely to be much better than average is Ward. That's not a great return in 7/8 years, when there has clearly been scope for juniors to come in and grab places (as Clarkson and Ward did) - even with the likes of Bailey and Kirke around.

Rogues Gallery will tell you Wigan Academy is the finest academy in the land, with the finest facilities, the finest coaching, the finest players all contributing to the finest record in rugby league history. Some of that is right. Maybe. But as I never tire of reminding him - Wigan are nowhere near the finest team in twenty years of SL.

Great kids will more than likely fail than succeed in the sport. It isn't easy.

On the flipside - "ordinary" kids can become great. Two obvious examples at Saints would be Paul Wellens and James Roby, both of whom were close to drifting out of the team age 19-20 before they fleshed out and made it on guts and determination.

When Sean Long and Sculthorpe were getting on at Saints the fans were told "don't worry". The "super kids" are on their way (Wheeler, Eastmond, Lomax). Of those only Lomax really made it.

Fast forward to last year and virtually no-one expected big things from the academy. And certainly not in the prop and second row position. The former of which is a role St. Helens have been nothing short of terrible at manufacturing (aside from Graham) for the best part of twenty or thirty years.

Until a kid physically matures somewhere between age 21 and 23 you really can't say whether he is going to make it at the top level. Million dollar academy or not.

Wigan picking their strongest 17 would include the following:
Burgess
Charnley
Williams
Gelling
McIlorum
Tomkins
Farrell
O'Loughlin
Crosby
Powell
Sutton

All have come through there system that's 11 out of 17 - add to that fringe players like Tomkins Mossop and Hampshire and Wigan could be close to fielding a full side of home-reared SL standard players. Against Huddersfield 13 of the 17 came through their academy. Even you would have to admit Leeds are nowhere near being able to achieve that. Wigan's junior development that spots and develops talent - something Leeds used to be very good at?

I wouldn't say we are nowhere near. Not quite a full 17, but this homegrown team would go pretty well, i think. And this time last year, you could have added Bailey, and BJB to this.

1. Golding
2. Handley
3. Watkins
4. Ablett
5. Hall
6. Mcguire
7. Sinfield
8. Singleton
9. Burrow
10. JJB
11. Walters
12. Ward, S
13. Sutcliffe

14. Ward, R
15. Mulhearn
16. Minchella
17. ??

I'm never quite sure whether the number of people coming through is indicative of talent at a club, development or opportunity. IN reality its a combination of all 3.

Over the last 12-13 years Leeds have had by far the greatest youth output of any club in SL. The trouble is that the juniors need the opportunity to come through. As has been said as a halfback you'd have to be one hell of a prospect to get into the Leeds team ahead of the golden triangle. In fact, once Leeds were a top, multi-title winning team, its hard to for new players to force their way in, especially whilst players are continually winning trophies. Sport is about winning stuff at the elite level, and this team has won more than any other in the last 10 years. Now the golden generation is on its last legs I would expect a new approach, maybe similar to what we had in 2001-2003 where more focus is on bring on new blood through the academy.

Over the last 5 years Wigan have brought a lot through from their academy, partly because of the state of the club 6-7 years ago, and partly because big names have moved on.

Saints have never hit a bad patch, and have always been there or thereabouts, but again have a lot of young players in their team, as they had space in their matchday 17 through retirements of their own golden generation.

In those teams, I don't see many youngsters who oust a top incumbent, its more through being groomed for an upcoming gap, and taking it when it becomes available

Fair point. There's a few decent players in amongst that lot too. OTOH they seem to lose a better class of player than we do. Bad luck, or is there an underlying reason?

A first choice Leeds 17 would probably have:

Watkins
Hall
Sinfield
McGuire
JJB
Ablett
Ward
Burrow
Singleton

So 9 compared to Wigan's 11 and with Sutcliffe, Golding, Handley, Mulhern, Ward being next in line we don't seem far behind them. Plus if you're including Gelling I reckon we can make a case for Hardaker.

For years people moaned about our lack of overseas signing - at once we had less than anyone else. We now have 5 and people moan about the academy.

It's all about balance-I still think as a club we get it about right. Admittedly, we need to replace some people over the next 5 years and we shouldn't expect miracles

Gelling is a Kiwi whom came through at the Roosters

Wigan have *had* to promote youth more than Leeds have, because they keep losing their players. Wigan have had to promote these players, but there's no point doing it for the sake of it. And in that list of yours (Gelling??) there are three players (McIlorum, O'Loughlin and either Tomkins or Farrell) who would get into the Leeds 17.

If you're going to make a statement get the facts straight and give it some valuable context.

Come on now, you only listed Ward and Simgleton for us because they've only come through recently (so not included JJB and Ablett) but then include O'Loughlin and McIlorum for Wigan who came through a long time ago as well.

Like has been mentioned, Wigan's team has a lot to do with how many they've lost also in recent seasons. Had Mossop stayed would Sutton be where he is? If Burgess was staying would any new wingers get a look in for the foreseeable future?

You have just completely changed you argument - first it was kids can't get through at Wigan because of overseas signings now Wigan have to give youth the chance because they have lost so many - which is it?

On Gelling he hasn't played first grade for anyone other than Wigan - but I take the point

Wigan are less bothered about losing key players e.g. Tomkins, Richards - I doubt you would see them fielding 2 37 year old props. They do appear to have a better/more consistent pipeline younger players and more confidence in using them

I can't believe that (the first bit, that is; I can't imagine many sides wishing to play 2 37 year old props apart from ourselves). I think they're probably phlegmatic about losing Richards - sort of similar to our losing Buderus, i.e. not one we've brought through, but I can't imagine they'd not be bothered about losing the likes of Tomkins (presume you're talking Sam here and not Joel although I shouldn't imagine they were ecstatic about losing either).

While I may give you Leuluai (although whether he represents better than value than the likes of Pettybourne, Lauaki or Tautai is arguable), I suspect there are very few Wigan fans who wouldn't happily trade Dom Crosby for Jamie Peacock, irrespective of their ages.