That's why i'm pretty unfazed about the "loss" of a 16-year old wunderkid - or even 19 or 20 year olds. If someone feels they're worth taking a financial risk on then fair enough, but for every kid that looks good at 18 and goes on to be a good player over the long term there are probably ten Richard Gunns. You could probably make that 1 in 20 or more at 16.

I assume the need for speed wouldn't necessarily include props?

I bet without looking at the a Rhinos website you couldn't name a single player outside of the rhinos under 19's, probably not even them, unless names have been mentioned on here.

Let alone anyone at all in the junior game under it.

Yet you feel you can tell us all about who is right to keep and who isn't.

All players, regardless of age are not the same, and not the same level. Players who are regarded the top of their age group should and are judged differently to those at the bottom. Yes a lot have to develop physically, but it is quite amazing how some lads are showing skill levels including reading of the game at such a young age these days.


Of that list, for which as I said every club could produce a big one of players under 25, under 21 would have meant more, 10 of those players played first team by 18 years old.

Really? They said they weren't replacing Green as they have Hampshire, Powell and Williams ready to step up.

I pretty much agree with that.

Well yes it appears so, obviously to a degree but they would rather have an 80 minute prop.
It ties in with the approach taken at both academy and first team level to play (or attempt to) faster than their opposition.

It's easier to coach skills into someone who is athletic, rather than coach athleticism into someone who is skilled.

Not a route I would particularly advocate going down, but you can understand why a club would take that kind of approach.

My experience as a player and coaching kids would suggest that the opposite is true in most cases (not all obviously). I would also say that to get to even junior level at a SL club you are looking at an athletic kid. We have far too many skilless headless chickens in our game at the moment and part of that is because skillful kids tend to stand out less than the more athletic types at an earlier age. A kid who runs fast and is big at 16 will make more of an impression than a kid who gets himself in the right places, makes few mistakes, passes better, reads the game etc. It's mich harder to pick those kids out but IMO those are the kids you want to develop.

Yes. I have no idea what I will be doing then, I am not worrying about who will be the Leeds halves or front row.
But speculating how rubbish we will be (unless the club management follow their advice obviously) year after year is pretty much what half the contributors to this board get their jollies doing.
It's like a form of insurance. If Leeds keep winning titles then they can enjoy the victories (I presume they enjoy it when Leeds win although I'm not 100% convinced by that), and if Leeds are hopeless and go into decline they get to say "I told you so" as loudly as they can.

All good fun.

I don't mean this as a cheap shot, but it's pertinent that you don't know who some members of the Rhinos staff are but it doesn't stop you discussing them.

But you did anyway. And your wrong as usual, as I did know the staff and still maintain I was the one correct, even going back as far as six years ago. Just like I am right in having much more knowledge on the juniors and junior game now. So forgive me for looking down on you from my rather high horse

icon_smile.gif

I wouldn't have brought it up but you won't challenging Brisbane's opinion, you were challenging his right to give it, setting yourself up as an authority. If you're an authority you have to have credibility....................

But you go girlfriend.

Why should I be able to name any 16 year old when my point was about the general ability of anybody - including the junior coaches - to actually tell whether a kid will make it?

We can all have opinions on individuals, but that's exactly what they are. Richard Gunn and Jamie Peacock are a hugely instructive example - one a widely presumed wunderkind by any noumber of "experts" who turned out to be less than a plodder, the other not rated by clubs at junior level only to become an all-time great player. They are the extremes but you get my point.

That's why there's no point getting hysterical at all about losing kids - especially if another club is simply willing to pay more for them.

Vince Fawcett. Case closed

Actually no, I think your point is outdated.

Back when Richard Gunn was touted the player pool in the game was not massive at all, and the skill levels of the top players wasn't even close to the levels of the bottom players these days.

So now you have a massive pool of young players, and in many an incredible amount of skill, and much more athletic than they used to be, as mentioned earlier. If you are at the top of that lot, then any club has something very good to work with.

There is exceptions, I have always said that, but in the majority of top stars they are discovered young and debut young at first team.

Is the player pool coming through from the amateur game really that much bigger in terms of sheer volume?

What has changed is that players are coming into pro clubs at an earlier age than they ever did under the old Colts system, and pro teams are running two rather than one junior grade. This is exposing a wider range of young players to pro coaching much younger than they ever did and driving up skill levels as a result.

I certainly played alongside and against some very capable and skilful players at Under 19 level who would have held their own at that level today IMO, despite not having access to the same level of coaching and conditioning advice that young players today get.

Some are so strange on here, they worry so much that we won't be competing for and winning titles, yet when we've won GF's it's papering over the cracks.

Not on last night's performance!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah and almost 3 years ago to the day we were battered in France by Catalans and we did alright after that.

You can look at any of the sides challenging for the GF this year and pick games that you can say "they won't win anything based on that showing." Wigan themselves lost at Wakey just a few weeks back.

With the thread title being 'Bright' i thought it was gona be about an Aussie player ive never heard of who we needed to sign.

Billy Bright.
Harrison Bright - that sounds a little more Aussie like.
Or what about Austin Bright? Cameron-Harper Bright?

whats worrying is its not one game or even two but the last 6 or 7

I'm not worried. I'm looking forward to seeing how the season pans out. If you worry about this you need to get a grip, cause other than observing there's fekk all you can do.

I read it correctly but thought it was more about the longer term, not next week or next month. I see very little in the new youngsters that matches Sinfield, Burrow, McGuire when they entered the first team. These guys are getting older and slower together - experience is great but where is the hunger and creativity that youth brings. Think Gary is going to have to spend some of the annual profits on bringing in some quality for next season. Spend, spend, spend Gary cos the future ain't anywhere near bright enough to maintain our supremacy.

He was always going to have to bring players in (and has done with Hardaker, Moon, Briscoe, Aiton). For how good Sinfield, McGuire, Burrow and all the academy players who came through and were successful for us we also clearly needed the likes of Senior, Peacock, Lauitiiti, Webb, Ellis, Furner, Bai etc. to enhance the squad.

For all the talk of Wigan's academy, well a lot of their team were signed.....
Taylor, Pettybourne, Bateman, Sargison, Clubb, Bowen, Gelling, Green, Smith, Flower, Dudson, James

That's 12 players you could find making up a Wigan 17 and their two key academy graduates are O'Loughlin and McIlorum who made their debuts 12 and 7 years ago respectively.

A similar list can be made with Saints

Turner, Hohaia, Walsh, Masoe, LMS, Soliola, Wilkin, Manu, Laffranchi, Flanaghan, Amor and Walmsley makes 12.

Two of Saints still most key academy graduates are Roby and Wellens who've been around 10 and 16 years respectively.

At Leeds we have 10 non academy lads in our squad and one of them (Yates) hasn't even played for us yet.

Neither will Saints if we go by this weekend, we lost by 2 in the dying minutes, they got walloped by 30.

Didn't they say that next year everybody is contracted ? No new signings etc bar Cuthbertson who was apparently signed with the space left behind by BJB?

i'd like mulhern to get a game. like the look of the lad