Last years squad fowards where Washbrook and Dowes.

I'd rather have the likes of Green, Cunningam etc than keep and play these two.

In fact I'd rather play the above over Lauaki.

Another foward will be signed, Whiting in the pack and we are OK.

It's a tricky one as you don't want to be relying on the youngsters too much, but at the same time you don't want to have the squad so full of seasoned pros that they don't get a look-in. Personally, I still think we're at least two experienced players short of giving the youngsters the best environment to develop in.

You ease them in, not depend on them

Could Pearce be our new Luauki? Only better hopefully.

Just out of interest, how would you ease them in? Play them over an experienced forward every once in a while? Try out one of them each week?

By easing them in one or two at a time for a week here and there with plenty of "protection" from established players.

As it stands, even an average amount of injuries to our pack could see us relying on too many of them for a substantial part of the season.

Play them when you get the inevitable injuries. As it is now, a couple of forwards out and we'll have 3 inexperienced forwards in the 17.

I don't disagree, as I said I think we do need another experienced forward in the pack, but I think this will be their perfect chance to break into the first team squad and finally get their chance. We must take at least some risk, otherwise they will never make it and will be another 'could have been'.

So you would play them over Manu, Tickle, Westerman or Whiting, just to try them out? Or would it be because of injury?

I'm very very happy to see the back of Radford, Dowes, Lauaki and Washbrook but as ordinary as they all were, we can't just replace them in our squad with untried academy players.

5 forwards out and only two in, should surely mean that we plan to have another two forwards coming in to address the balance?

I would guess that there will be at least one more forward, not sure about a second.

When the inevitable injuries occur of course.

We only have three established back rowers at the club. At least one of those three could be missing every week on average. Not to mention the probability of Tickle having to cover our very-light-on-numbers front row when injuries hit there as well.

I can see everyone point regards short of experienced players.

So should we have kept Dowes and Washbrook then?

Some of these youngsters should have been given an opportunity last season rather than Agar posting them to 18th man all the time. Now we have a couple more potential players that could step up , Gentle will find it more difficult to give everyone a place within the 17.

Realistically were not gonna achieve anything this coming season so lets go with what we have and blood some youngsters who will either sink or swim but as a club we'll hopefully be the better for it in the 2013 season

I don't have a problem with that approach, to be honest. We're overdue on bringing a few youngsters through, so next year is as good a time as any whilst we're still in a transitional phase.

I agree to a certain extent but throwing them in at the wrong time could also have a detrimental long term effect

Maybe in some cases, but usually, if they're going to make it, they'll make it. I remember Yeaman's first game against Saints (I think) at the Boulevard. To say he had a shocker would be an understatement, but he didn't seem to suffer too much in the longer term.

You think all of these changes have been made so that we can have an underachieving season? I reckon Pearson is expecting immediate, positive and perhaps even winning impact. He might as well have kept the previous team if he didn't mind either way.

I posed the question on here mid-season asking whether as fans we would rather see our clubs stick to first choice players and go all out for the top 8 or throw in a few youngsters and possibly risk missing out on the 8.
As it turned out both clubs got in the 8 but got murdered in the first round with only Jordan Cox given any game-time so was it really worth it?
Would we both be in a better position now if we had finished 9th and 10th but Chris Green, Liam Cunningham, Ben Crooks, Liam Kent, James Green, Rich Beaumont, Chris Heil, Nick Johnson etc had half a dozen games each under their belts?

Think he had a great debut (against Halifax, me thinks), but then got tore a new one by Gleeson in his next (home) game.

The worrying thing for me is, peoples expectations have gone up dramatically now we have a new regime. That means if we start poorly under Gentle or he bloods a few of the youngsters, a lot of fans may turn on the new coach/players and it may turn a bit sour.

I'll be amazed if we start badly under Gentle with this new regime in place.

impact' without us picking up any trophies. Next season is about a change in direction that can be built on for 2013. I think that has to include bringing some young players through.

I would hope fans will be patient.Rome wasn`t built in a day.Anything has to be better than the last few seasons.

wasnt this thread about martin to begin with lol