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

No Harrigan, your getting confused.

My view has always been about development, and my point was and examples given, of players making their =#FF0000debuts at a young age. Not playing consistently there.

Your initial posts worded as though you had a problem with throwing youngsters in and suggested that it had been proven that throwing in too early effects their development.

I picked you up on that. But if you are suggesting now that you meant not to be playing consistently at a young age if not ready, then yes I agree with you. The only point I would make, is young is under 20 to me, not 22, 23,24.

On Watson, I'd be surprised if he's at Leeds in 2014. Sunley and Jacob Morgan are coming through the 19s while there are a number of young(ish) players in the first team who have had a taste of playing full back and will be ahead of him in the pecking order.

Along with Chisholm he'll be plying his trade somewhere else next year.

Fielden burnt out because he was all-action and Nobby flogged him for 80 minutes every week. This doesn't prove anything.

With not many exceptions - Kopczak, Peacock, Hill (who was a regular for Leigh from a young age but obviously improved), most of the now-mature English props (Graham, Burgess, Morley, Carvell, Lynch, Bailey, Crabtree, Huby) were first-team regulars in SL before they were 21.

Sorry my mistake then. I'm on my phone and its harder to keep track of what I am saying when it takes 10 times longer to type



Young to me doesn't have an age on it. It's a rugby age. A player can be 21, and older than a player who's 23 for instance, because of his development and integration into the team. It just seems that you and Nantwich want kids in the 1st team for the sake of it. The current set of players we are using are better than what's behind them so I see no need to force it. It's not like he never gives youngsters a chance. 1st of all these kids have to hit a great standard at the level below. Then they can progress upwards. Stevie Ward did that and looks better than maybe 75% of the back rows out there at times. It's not an overnight process though. We have a young back line as it is. They are skilful but sometimes stability is needed, especially with a few out injured.

Exactly. I have no idea why people continue to trot out this line that props are not ready until late 20's.

Sure they get better as they develop, but that is different to to not ready.

I have never suggested a kid should be in for the sake of it, not once.

I have already said earlier I agreed with your view on the Hunslet opinion.

Where I dissagree is that McDermot gives youngsters a chance, he doesn't. He doesn't pick a team based on form either. And it is that where I pick up on.

There is the piece about Tony Smith today, saying he prefers player development to trophies. Could not be more true, he was very good at it, and brought through players. McDermot is scared of change.

I don't accept that in all cases the players currently playing are better than the ones behind, although in majority are. But more so I believe that some of these players need competition to maintain their right for the jersey. I do not see a problem in been dropped for a poor performance and give someone else an opportunity. That way the established player will come back and make a point, and at the same time it allows someone else to try and make a point.

It's not about how good they are when they were 21 though. Who on that list were world beaters at that age? and Morley was a back rower!! It's about progressive development over the space of a set amount of time, not saying lets play them week in/week out because they have potential. We have 3 stage development plan now. 19's, DR and SL. Let them perform at 19s, then let them make the step up to Championship, and then if they look too good for that level, begin to bring them into the team.

That suggestion is just backwards and where we do entirely differ. If clubs followed that blueprint, the game in this country would quickly fall on it's knees.

The best players, as proven many times over, have started at a young age. Why the hell would anyone hold back a player until he has firstly played under 19's, then dual registered Championship? What we want is as many full time professionals as possible, not part time provers.

Many, Many, players have been way above championship standard at 17, never mind 19.

You underestimate the championship level then. It's a very good stepping stone. You seem to think I'm saying, "hold them back until they are 30"! I'm not. I'm just saying make sure they can handle the levels below before you expose them to the "top" level. I want to see a competitive SL from 1-14 but the quantity and quality of players just aren't there. No one in the u19s or on DR looks ready to be playing every week just yet.

No disrespect mate, and it may well be you are right, but you are not really in a position to form that view with such authority.

Are you in a position to form the view that they are?


As far as I am aware it's up to a few guys with McDermott getting the final call. So far his judgement hasn't hurt the team at all.

I can not say I am, because I don't see them.

I do however still have contacts with a lot of respected scouts in the game, who have given me information on two or three of them. So no I would not make the sweeping statement that none of them are ready.





I will reserve judgement on hurting the team, as I am a big believer in plan for change. I don't believe McDermott has an idea of what that means.

Whilst it may not have hurt the team now, only time will tell on what effect the way he does things pans out.