I think you are wrong there mate. Leeds have brilliant coaching at it's juniors. They do put more in, and hope for the best, but they also do identify certain kids that they believe will go all the way and develop accordingly.

The problem is more to do with the stance they have on first team introduction. Every top star going, with a few exceptions, if an identified potential star, were introduced to first team rugby at a young age. From there they work on things that are needed, and keep experiencing in the mean time. Leeds failure is a stance now over last few years, where they believe not to introduce players young until they are a certain physicality. It does put some players off, who believe they are good enough to cut it. And in a lot of cases the player is correct. That is where the saying "good enough you are old enough" came from.

I have seen quite a few of the players in the under 15's and under 16's on the Leeds scholarship, and there is no way the teams in Lancashire have better players. They might have the same quality but not better. Yet I don't see the same stance that Leeds have with youngsters at the Lancashire clubs.

Which players were correct?

Which players did we lose because they werent introduced young enough that are better than what we have?

Gotcha -But in this case in particular it's been doing the rounds for a while that he wouldn't sign for us and as an u16 is that really foresight that he wont get a chance at first team level here?
Given the age of Sinfield ,McGuire and Burrow I'd say this is one of if not the best Club to be at to break through as a HB in the next 2/3 yrs whereas at Wire he still has Ratchford ,Myler and O'Brien all still in their prime or younger ahead of him.

I agree on that. And my post, and I think you got that, was in response, rather than specifically about Smith.

Fair do's!

nobody knows for sure but you can only assume Wire offered the lad a massive deal for someone so young and if that is the case it should come as no surprise as GH is not one to be held to ransom,and certainly not by an unproven player no matter the potential.

True. I mean did Leeds miss out on Luke Gale? Nup.

BB-Luke Gale was nowhere near as good as M.Smith at this age imo just saying.

Nope, and there is absolutely no substance to any claim of hindsight when somebody doesn't make it elsewhere. It's what would have happened here that matters.

I am just glad we still have the apparently best player of his age in the country in Cameron Smith. Hope the club ensure he does not go anywhere, and see him come through quick.

Just a big disappointment over Morgan, if it is true, as the halfbacks was the position we needed most over next couple of years.

So not a single player has left the Leeds system as a junior in recent years and gone on to be a major star elsewhere? But some of these "superstar" kids (Hood, Daniel Smith et al) would have made it if they'd stayed at Leeds? That's utter nonsense.

If Leeds aren't willing to break the bank for every kid who looks a star at 18 playing against other juniors then thats a policy I wholeheartedly support. Particularly when the money they get has to be looked at in the context of the overall pay structure at the club, which has been identified as a key reason for the longevity of Leeds' success.

I don't blame kids individually for taking silly money to go elsewhere, but neither do I blame the club.

It possibly could be nonsense, but then again, that wasn't what was said at all. And you probably know that.

You'd be better qualified to make that judgement. I haven't seen much of Smith.

But my overall point with kids is you never know what their potential will convert to. You might retain a turkey but release a future International.

That has some truth to it. We have done it with the retaining. I am still sure we have done it with the releasing also.

But more importantly, to have a team you need thirteen players just as a starting point, more to work. That doesn't mean that all those players are the same level, far from it. There will always be, especially when you are taken on by clubs, one or two who are at a level way higher than his peers. In a lot of cases certain players are already identified as "having it". It is those that you have to put more into, and those you look for faster development. A structure where all are treated the same, doesn't work if you want to see that potential released.

Whilst your doing that, there will also be the odd one who pops up from nowhere, with a point to prove, and is a late bloomer.

So let me get this straight. You're saying we disregard hindsight which is based upon what a players has actually gone on to do in real life but we must take into account a hypothetical scenario of what said player might have achieved with Leeds.

I see.

I take it this kid is represented by showmethemoney.co.uk If so and that is his priority, good luck to the lad. Seems to be prevalent with a lot of juniors these days. I call it the anti-Sinfield syndrome.

I am not saying you must do anything. I am giving a view at that is it. One I am confident enough to be correct.

I have heard a similar sort of thing this morning on the Leeds United manager. "Well we have had higher profile managers before and it hasn't worked", of course forgetting a completely different owner they were under, fighting near admin, and could not spend anything. But of course the scenarios were judged the same.

Different circumstances give different results, regardless how people want to compare.





Gareth, you are being a little naïve if you believe Sinfield would ever have been a Leeds first team player under the way we currently develop. He would have gone to another club (being the top kid in the country), just the same way as these others.

We utilised Sinfield properly, we developed him properly, and we put faith in him. That is why we got the best player and captain this club has had.

showmethemoney are not a problem, someone has to represent the players, so if not them it will be another agency. Funny how the Wigan academy doesn't seem to lose it's high potential stars.

I| see no difference between how the club is handling Ward to how they handled Sinfield.

I don't know whether WIgan lose any junior players they would rather retain. I do know they have lost their brightest Academy produced star in Tomkins which just goes to show you can't fight market forces.

If the players had a brain they wouldn't need to hand over a % of their earnings to an agent. After all, we're a sport with a very low salary cap. How much greater a % increase can an agent really get you? All they can do is persuade you to switch clubs to boost your earnings.

I think that is exactly where we have the difference of opinion. I strongly believe, and why I have the view I have, that the players at that age are not moving for an increase in their basic wage. There is more to it than that.

I think you're giving way too much credit to how much thought a 16 year old brain puts into a decision like this.

You are wrong on that Printer. There is a lot of thought goes into it. They are working for it from 13 these days.

Two of the lads in my lads team at under 13's have already been approached by a agency, and there is many more out there.

This game has moved on from the days of amateur, and having pints, and taking up the sport late in life. I would encourage people to go watch the Leeds schools North v South match at Headingley in a couple of weeks, and see some of these kids, and see where their future goes.

Yes but if you think about his age and the future a bit more, at 16 he's still around 3 years away from being a first teamer. That would be McDermott's 7th year in charge which is very unlikely in RL...so for anyone at that age to think "I'll move because I might have to wait under this coach" is very short sighted. Like has been pointed previously, by that time Sinfield and McGuire will definitely be too old or even gone. Also looking at Warrington, have they really done a great job introducing kids to the first team.....most seem like Leeds, forced through injury. As for halfback how long have they been messing Gareth O'Brien about before settling on Bridge, a utility guy they bought from Bradford many years ago. Also I doubt Smith will still be at Wire when the time comes for this lad to make the step up.....who knows they might hire McDermott to replace him.

Again. This is where I have the difference of opinion, and it is not limited to this lad.

Why is it 3 years away? You are making that statement because of how Leeds have changed their system and how they currently work, not because that is the way it should be.

If you are good enough you are old enough. And age should not be the barrier to first team, which was the point I was making.

I doubt any team in the competition will play a halfback regularly before the age of 19 unless for injuries. And as we've actually seen with Stevie Ward (physically needs to grow) and Sutcliffe (not looking like a HB) then the "good enough old enough" line is just a weak line people like to roll out and doesn't carry much substance.

Like I mention at Wire they've had Gareth O'Brien at halfback who made his debut for them at the age of 19. He'll be 23 at the end of this season and he's made 29 appearances for them since his debut. Why would you look at Warrington as any kind of better bet for progressing to the first team? If you look at Wire's 1-17 when fit then how many academy lads get in? Did they replace Morley with a young lad or bring an over the hill Asotasi in?

Did Saints put too long a faith in Lomax, Gaskell and Wheeler as halves? Or did they do out and buy Hohaia and play the likes of Wellens and Wilkin there.....what's that say to their youngsters? When Tomkins left did Wigan trust a young lad or bring in a 30+ for a few years? Brought Pettybourne in, a couple of London guys, just got Joel back from Union.

Will these clubs play youngsters less when the new structures come in in 2015 with less playoff spots and relegation going on?

Don't kids have to stay in full time education until they are 18 these days?

If so it might have an impact on our whole youth structure and how soon we progress youngsters into the first team.

Stevie Ward played first team whilst in Education.

It was a good point mind you, but I don't think that education holds back their talent.

I also think it is worth noting. Printer says 19 for first team, I don't think he will be alone on that, purely because that appears how Leeds are now playing it. However, of the home grown players come through the academy to win a Grand Final for Leeds, I believe there is only Hall and Clarkson, who had turned 19 before making their debuts. Of the other 15 players, they were 16, 17, and the majority just turned 18.

I would say that probably the change has more to do with the changes to the academies. For most of ours they were playing under 20's at 16. Now most of our under 19's are at the older end. I think Wigans as an example are mostly younger end.