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.

To be fair to Mac he has brought through or made regulars of Ward,BJB,Watkins,Clarkson and Hardaker in his time in charge and we do have the best young three-quarter line-up in the league, which should serve us well for the years to come so to say he he has no idea of what change means is a bit wide of the mark.

Mcdermott is in his third season at the club now,its highly likely that he will be gone anyway by the time the sweeping changes have to be made in 3-4 seasons time as Sinfield,Burrow,McGuire etc.. hang up their boots.

Watkins and Clarkson were regulars before his time. Hardacker was a big money signing, and Ward could not be ignored.




That's the worry I have, and why I made the comment that you quoted.

They weren't regulars Gotcha. They had been gradually brought into the team over time. Also, Hardaker was a signing, but we loaned him straight back to Fev to help him develop before just throwing him straight in. Even after he came back from Fev, he didn't play every week. It was a gradual process of getting him integrated in.

Going back to your, "I have a mate at the club who's in the know" post, who does he/you think should be playing First Grade who isn't at the moment?

Hang on with that one. Where have I said that sort of childish comment?

You have missread there mate.

No they wasn't at all. Had it not been for injuries Watkins would have been regarded as a veteran in number of games terms before McDermott. Clarkson had played continuously and played a challenge cup final before McDermott.

There is no way McDermott has played a part in their development.

Hardaker, yes was still developing, but that didn't stop a big money transfer been paid. You don't pay big money transfers and play them in the juniors. He was always going to be in. How many games did he play for Fev that season again?

There is no point in worrying.These great players we have that came through at the same time, giving us this golden period and will move on together are not going to make way for youngsters right now under Mcdermott thats for sure,unless they are proving they can not be ignored as you rightly pointed out was the case with Stevie Ward.

We are certain to go through a period like Saints are at the minute and Bradford did before them and Wigan did before them etc..where we have to rebuild with the youth and have to take a back seat for few years as far as silverware is concerned.

I personally would have liked to have seen us giving a young lad a chance on the wing these past few weeks, as i stated at the start of this thread as i dont see how they could have been any more out of their depth than Vickery but generally think Mac has done well bringing through the youth he has at his disposal in his time here.The good ones are making it,if the others turn out to be good un's i would suggest they will still make it too.

Not true. I advocate giving promising youngsters at the earliest opportunity ....if nothing else but to keep the exisiting first teamers on their toes.

I simply cannot understand the holding back of youth if the alternative is to play first teamers out of position or to have a no-better-Aussie with no pedigree speculatively flying in and leapfrogging his way into the first team (who then continues to be selected despite inept or poor performances - -plural).

Andy Gilder is probably correct in forecasting Watson and Chisholm will move on.....but in the meantime would it not be better to utilise both rather than having Watkins learn the FB role as he goes along.... and having a cart horse (with an apparent lack of any other attributes to compensate) commanding a now regular right wing spot ??

Didn't we have all this hand-wringing regarding Jay Pitts? He's not exactly setting SL on fire now he's free from the McDermott tyranny...

... but was/is he better or worse than the likes of the older Kirke/the older Moore/the older Griffin?

...ditto Kyle Amor? Was/is he better or worse than the likes of the older Kirke/the older Moore/the older Griffin?

I have a sneaky feeling we will soon be saying the same about Singleton (with 'the no-better-Achurch' superseding the soon to depart... 'the older Griffin')

Good to see these Dual-Registration partnerships are going so well.

Was the intention that leeds supporters would go watch Hunslet? Thought it was to get players game time.

The SL clubs sold it to the Championship clubs as both.