Depends on your criteria of what is successful. I'd say that Leeds in particular could probably double our figure and include more players that have made it to a higher level.

Only one of ours has made it to test level. Six of the rest are regular SL players. The rest have either disappeared from SL or are just coming through this year.

For the purposes of this thread I was referring to our systems up to this year so wasn't including the likes of Whitehead, Olbison and Donaldson who I hope are the start of something for us.

When you look at Leeds the following have become test players at one time or another in the past 7 or so years: Calderwood, Walker, McGuire, Burrow, Bailey, Diskin, Jones Buchanan, Hall, Smith and Sinfield. Add to that the SL regulars like Mathers, Watkins, Scruton, Burgess and Ablett and you can see that they did bring more "quality" players through compared with the Bulls in the same period.

I'd say by the number of players progressing to become super league standard first team regulars would be deemed the criteria for a succesful academy. Nothing really to do with test level or what they go on to achieve.

Talking about the period that you mention, players developed post 2003, Mark Calderwood, Chev Walker, Danny McGuire, Rob Burrow, Ryan Bailey, Matt Diskin, JJB & Kevin Sinfield were all developed and promoted to the 1st team by Leeds prior to the period that you mention, so I don't see how you can use them in your argument as you have claimed Bulls matched this level of junior development up until 2003, and it's quite evident we did. Just because we haven't managed to keep them all doesn't mean that Leeds are better at developing players than us.

Players developing post 2003, Leeds still do not have much on us,

You mention, Smith, Hall, Ablett, Burgess, Mathers and Watkins as notable examples, yet we have Burgess, Cook, James, Kopczak, Ferres, Halley who have all been developed and progressed to our first team since then.

So I'm really struggling to see how Leeds had had superior development of juniors post 2004 mate.

The fact is Bulls have always produced and still are producing juniors as good as Leeds Rhinos and anybody else in Super League for that matter.

TBF I don't think the club has pushed the "Noble bad, McNamara good", "Caisley bad, Hood good" line at all. Indeed while we've had years of rumours about Harrisgate, youth player issues, money etc. etc., it is only recently, and only to a limited extent, that comments have been made by the Club - under great pressure to "be open with the fans" so that a little light has been shed on the current regimes views as to the past setup as compared to now.

As Adey said, and we all know, you absolutely never get to find out all sides of the whole story, so have to form views on snippets. It isn't surprising for any new regime to advance (and presumably genuinely believe) that they are improving on / clearing up after the previous incumbents. It's normal. I'd say there's been much less of that at Bradford than there could have.

I reckon it is totally wrong to accuse the present regime of "trying to shift the focus away from Mac's short comings on to Noble and Caisley". I don't see that is fair at all. Where have they been doing that? The fans have been on at the club for a long time to say more and inform better, and it seems to me that if you asked for it, it's bad form to slag off when you get it.

On youth development, whether the problem was deficiencies in the system, or whether it was Noble/the club wouldn't give deserving cases a chance to the extent that they were even lost to the game in some cases - I've only directly heard that from RER, though I don't doubt it. If the Bulls were wanting to sling mud why would they not use this?

If the club [idid/i make these criticisms re failure to keep such promising youths, would that be (a) "trying to shift the focus etc" or just (b) the oft requested "truth"? If RER is right, surely you couldn't get a more damning indictment of the old youth setup?

And if he is right, what better ammo for a shift of focus could Hood & Co., have? Yet they have kept those bullets locked in the armoury?

In terms of other issues, we all know that Harrisgate was an utter financial disaster for the club and it was indeed 100% the fault of the previous administration, so no focus shifting required there. We also (I presume) all believe that selling Fielden and Noble was not unconnected to the state of teh club's cashflow so ditto; yet I haven't heard the present administration making a big song and dance about it and if they did then it would not be "spin" but the plain truth.

Of the two lists above I'll stick my neck out and say the Leeds players are generally speaking better than the ones we've brought through. It's ok bringing through lots of players but they need to be of a good standard, otherwise what's the point? As RER has stated we perhaps missed a trick at times with our own youngsters and didn't produce the quality, even if the quantity was ok. After all quality wins titles and trophies not quantity as we all know.

I guess Leeds are the best example because they've brought through their kids over a long period and kept it going. While the numbers produced might be similar there's a definite difference in quality over the SL years. Leeds have produced more test players than us, and that is what we should be aiming to do - bring through as many test quality players as possible.

Bradford: Deacon, L,Pryce, Peacock, Fielden, Langley, Burgess.

Leeds: Walker, Sinfield, McGuire, Burrow, Diskin, JJB, Bailey, Smith, Hall & Calderwood.

I wouldn't say so mate, they've definatley got some better players in their list than we have, but we can also claim to have some better players in our list.

Add Ryan Atkins to our list and you've got the current England left side partnership, I'd say that's pretty even, Cook & Ablett, Koppy, Scruton, again it's even, but our Burgess blows theirs away, where as Lee Smith is as good as any back in the league. Quality does win titles, and like I've said, we've always produced quality, it's just a shame that the quality we developed before isnt there to be complimented by the quality we continue to develop to this day. It only looks good on Leeds because theyve managed to keep them all together, which is an achievement to be proud of indeed, but imagine the team we would have had, had we managed to keep them together aswell.

Leeds are a good example for youth development, but so are we, just as much as them, there is no difference in quality whatsoever in the players both teams have produced, just that they have produced some better players than us, and we have produced some better players than them. In general, both teams have produced a constant supply of high quality juniors from 96 - to date.

I added 3 more Bulls juniors that you missed of your test players list, that brings us to 9, them to 10, 1 more..big deal.

However all but 1 of theres is still at the club. Look how many we have still in our first team squad. Thats the difference

There are a number of other former Leeds players as well - Peter Fox, Scott Murrell, Jason Netherton, Chas I'Anson, Jordan Tansey, Gareth raynor, Ewan Dowes, Ben Kaye, Luke Gayle, Gareth Carvell - there are not many SL teams without a sprinkling of former Leeds youngsters.

But that's nothing to do with development that's a retention problem.

Well they do say you are never more than 12 feet away from a Rhino. I don't know if that is specifically Rhinos or includes Pigeons as they are often referred to as Rhinos with wings.

Looking at your list I'd agree that Leeds's biggest success was keeping their side together. Shame we allowed Peacock to leave, he was our biggest loss IMO. We did seem to have a "lull" in producing real top quality or allowing players like Atkins to leave. Leeds of course have done the same with the likes of Fox, Carvell and Raynor but haven't struggled as a result.

Have you tried the macaroons in Betty's? They are the dog's.

Whatever people say about him now, we miss Fielden aswell. We will never know if he'd have gone downhill if he stayed at Bradford, but we have never replaced Fielden, Peacock or Big Joe properly in our pack.

He was already going downhill before he left. He had that one superb game in the World Club Challenge and then had a poor half season before going off to Wigan.

I know, but some players have a bad season then come back all guns blazing the next. I just can't believe that he went from the best prop in the world to what he is now.

There's a number of former Bulls that are good solid players:

Stuart Reardon
Chris Bridge
Richard Moore
Andy Smith
Robert Parker
Karl Pryce
Robbie Paul (Technically an academy product)

The ones I mentioned were in addition to Calderwood, Walker, McGuire, Burrow, Bailey, Diskin, Jones Buchanan, Hall, Smith and Sinfield. Add to that the SL regulars like Mathers, Watkins, Scruton, Burgess and Ablett mentioned by Bullseye. You have merely reproduced the same list. I make that 25 Leeds products.
Who are these Andy Smith & Karl Pryce to who you refer?

Ryan Atkins
Brett Ferres
Chris Bridge
Stuart Fielden
Stuart Reardon
Paul Sykes
Karl Pryce
Leon Pryce
Robbie Paul
Robert Parker
Jamie Peacock
Andy Smith
Richard Moore
Jamie Langley
Sam Burgess
Matt James
Matt Cook
Craig Kopzcak
Dave Halley
Jason Crookes
Paul Deacon


Not that far behind really mate?

Plus one of our players is now the England captain so that's worth 2

Good solid player and Karl Pryce don't go together I'm afraid. His heart ain't in it, he just doesn't carry his weight.

It was till he went to the dark side.

No, it wasn't. Never impressed at the Bulls, just didn't look interested for the majority of his time here.

I always thought he looked to have good potential and agve a lot of effort in some appearances.

Fair enough, I'll agree with you about the potential, especially given his size, enormous unit for a three-quarter.

He just didn't want it enough at the Bulls the way I saw it.

Fair comment I suppose. Wigan obviously see the potential aswell.

If you're being silly there's Morley & Fozzard, younger (& better looking) than Robbie.

You must have been watching a different KP.

He was Lazy and didn't look at all interested when he was here.