19 btw is an age I think when they should at earliest in most cases be having a 'run' in the team. I'm not counting them out of having a game or two here and there at 18.

Again, I said at the start, different circumstances produce different results, and are uncomparable.

I am unsure how comparing a player who was not a star young player at Warrington with a lad who is rated the best in the country for his age in his position is comparable. The only comparison is the same players at the same age. You are talking about a player in Smith who was playing under 16 international at 14. Not many times that happens, because some young players are miles better than other young players, that's how it goes. It's those miles better than you look for any club to try and have for your team, and see what you can do with them.

As you have pointed out above. It might be that the halfs might not work for him (or wing for a winger, or loose for a 13), and they see a different position for him as more beneficial. You only work that out by firstly seeing how they cope with it. Saints did it, as you said, then decided they wanted to go another route. All three are still regular super league, when one of them is off the treatment table.

This seems to be moving once again to a point of if you say players can play from a younger age, then you are only saying regularly. That is not what is being said at all, and somehow it always moves there. There is a big difference between regular place, and occasional to show exactly what needs to be worked on.

I don't disagree. But what is wrong in them having a go at 16 if they are a highly regarded junior to see what they can do and need to improve? That is a go, not a regular place. Unless they really excel at it.

Sinfield and Walker were 16, and the two Smiths we have in our Juniors are the equal of their reputations at the same age.

So which players are leaving Leeds and making their first team debut's at a young age?

Every time we see a young player leave leeds for somewhere else we see some hand-wringing that something recently has gone very wrong at academy level. We saw it a few years ago when Learmonth went to Warrington, he is now at Hudds U19's whilst Rob Mulhern has played first team for Leeds, as have Minchella, Walters and R Ward as well as Minns and Foster last year.

We saw it when last year Baldwinson left, even though he debuted at 18, but he apparently left because of the poor state of the leeds conveyer belt. Less than a year later he re-signs for Leeds.

Nick Scruton played at 17, he has suffered pretty badly through injuries. Gaz Carvell debuted at 16, he has suffered badly aswell.

I think the vast majority of 16 year olds would get hammered in the 1st team these days. The strength, power & physicality of players has increased massively in the last 15 years in my opinion.
There may be an odd "freak" who can handle that but I think most would be at risk of being injured.
Going on from the point about full time education up to 18 now, I wonder what the legal & insurance side of playing lads under the age of 18 is? I assume the club would need parental consent?

I agree with the general point of giving young lads the occasional game though.

I absolutely do not disagree with you on the vast majority. I think that was the point I made on the earlier page. You need so many players to make a team, but not necessarily all of them are the same level, when you are talking about juniors. It is the really good ones I was talking about, like your Sinfield, like your Walker at the age. When we have two now who actually have the same reputation at the same age as those two, all I have said is don't just discount them because of a number. Which I think you have also said in your last sentence.

For me the question the coaching staff and medical staff need to look at is whether the player is physically ready. Age plays a big part in that, but is not an absolute. You can't say "at 19 you'll be ready." Chev Walker was physically up to being a SL player at 16. I reckon he still would have been if he came through the academy now. He was a ridiculously strong, powerful runner at 16. Some forwards don't really grow into their frames until their early 20s. Every player is different.

Probably what has changed since Chev Walker came through is that the sports medics have a better handle on the effects in later parts of a career of playing too many games as a teenager. So probably now the likes of Chev Walker would become regular players a bit later and more gradually.

So basically, I agree with Gotcha. On a player by player basis, you can easily give the youngsters a chance at senior grade for a week or two and see how they go. Handled right they can learn a lot.

Players also have to grab their opportunity with both hands. Look at Ryan Hall, came out of no-where and cemented his place in the starting line up pretty quickly. His career has turned out ok....I suppose.

As for El-D's post, looking at Josh Walters frame and ability makes him look likely to have a decent chance to make it at only 19. He will develop further size and skill, could be a scary prospect.

Has anyone heard who we have retained from the u16's/u19's?

There is also training you need to consider. A young player is likely to be smaller, less developed, less muscular, etc etc etc. They also still have skills to learn.

Throwing in a less physically developed player, or accelerating him to first grade also means that much more of his focus is on being physically capable, that if a player at 16/17/18 is being pushed to first grade, then his week day training will be geared towards preparing them for the Friday/Sat/Sun game sometimes at the expense of their 'RL' skills.

There is also the possible mental damage done by a player going backwards. It can be hard for a young kid at 16/17 who has naturally been one of the best players on every field they have been on for 6 or 7, sometimes 12/13 years to go into first grade a struggle and drop back down in to youth age RL with confidence shattered. A 16 year old kid could be destroyed by having a nightmare in front of 18k people.

Conversely, a player may very well get too big for his boots by being pushed too quickly.

It is very difficult to introduce any young player, even more difficult a very young player. Thats why it rarely happens anywhere. You dont see that many 18 year olds playing SL a year. You say 1 or 2 17 year olds if you are lucky. Does anyone know the last 16 year old to play SL?

The fact we do it rarely is a good thing, the fact we do it at all is better than most.

isn't it too early yet? I am hearing that Brad England is considering his options though.

I assumed with the M.Smith news breaking that deals were getting finalised pretty quickly.
I hope we make an offer to England he has really stood out imo even against huge packs he has done plenty of damage.

Then why your comparisons to Sinfield and Chev Walker? Late 90's SL was different to the 2014 version but still you've used this?

Also how I hear people comparing to Wigan......different club, different circumstances as to why they might've needed to introduce a youngster....just look at the number of first team forwards that have left (and come and gone) since they won the title in 2010. If their current crop stick at the club and don't go to NRL or Union then the pathway for young forwards at Wigan might be very tricky in 2/3 years time.

I used an example of two sixteen year olds regarded as the best of their age group in the country, against two sixteen year olds regarded as the best of their age group in the country.

You tried to compare a lad who was never a high reputation playing making his debut at 19 and only making x amount of appearances for his club in three years, and even missed off his appearances on loan.

Can you not see the different circumstances?

Can you not see two sixteen year olds making debuts in the 90's is much different to sixteens year olds in 2014?

Why is different circumstances only allowed for your view?

I can see it very much. I used it as an example that would be much better to use than the one used. Remember it was in response to your post.

Remember also, the comparison wasn't just two sixteen year olds. It was two of the age group who were regarded the best in the country for their age, against again regarded the best in the country for their age. To be regarded the best isn't just an everyday thing.

So basically nobody can name a single Leeds Academy player signed by another SL team in the last 10 years who has gone on to be a genuine star elsewhere? This despite the annual hand-wringing over the latest not to be signed?

Probably the most bizarre argument I've ever heard is that somehow these future world beaters could only have made it if they stayed at Leeds. That really is twisting logic to try to brush over the somewhat more plausible argument that in fact said youngsters weren't anywhere near as good as some thought.

In the meantime over the past 10 years we've seen two genuine class outside backs come through the ranks in Hall and Watkins, a few above average players and a number of average players, and some we've still yet to see the best of. If anything I'd argue that what this suggests is that the supposed amazing quality at youth level actually isn't all its made out to be. Maybe, just maybe, quite average players can stand out at that age.

Anyway, if Leeds don't ever bring on another Academy player, eventually the hand-wringing will be proved correct. In the same way that eventually it will be proved that the sun will go out.

Who said anything about them being "world beaters"?
Surely the aim should be to retain the best of each age group within our academy structure which is basically the point most are making.
What's happened in the past proves absolutely zip each case is individual at that moment in time.

It's pointless arguing with people rhinoms, who can only think on what they have been told rather than forming their own opinion. Hindsight is wonderful, but if never tells a full picture.

There is also the fact that some players who have the natural talent, decide to take the realist approach and go for everyday jobs instead, and combine this by playing at a lower level. That is not to say they were not talented, just simply could not afford or had other reasons for not waiting for full time playing contracts.

The point gets missed by people who have no idea of the game from grass roots and junior level, is that there is a difference between players at the top of that level, and others. The responsive argument always seems to put all players at the same level, as they can not think of another route to argue.

So anyone wit ha differing opinion to yours can't form their own opinion or has no idea of the game.

If that is the best argument you can formulate it really is, as you say, pointless for you to continue arguing because, frankly, you're not very good at it.

Lets introduce some facts into the discussion. Not opinions. Not arguments. Facts. yesterday's Rhinos team contained 12 players from it's Academy. Of those 12, 8 have been selected for full international rugby league for England and or GB.

They get an awful lot right. If you really want to move the discussion along, give us a tangible example of one they got wrong. No one they theoretically get wrong using your magical powers of projection.

Again, absolutely nothing to do with the point that has been made. No where has anybody complained about what Leeds used to do with their academy players. Infact, the very first post I did that brought this up was to defend the coaching at Leeds in the junior levels, to a poster who was criticizing it. The way they did it was a model for everyone else. Why we changed the model is more of the questioning.

Your response is typical of exactly what I was saying above. It is all about what has happened, rather than what could have happened. Because posters have no knowledge what so ever of the game below first team they only rely on what they are told or what happens in front of them. Therefore there only argument is to argue something that isn't even been talked about.

Get the message straight. Just because a junior player hasn't left Leeds and become a major star, doesn't mean they have not missed out on potential gems. It works the same way for every club, not just Leeds. However, other clubs appear to do more to ensure the top ones are given the shot first.

We have just come through an era where players who were core to our success were in at or around the same time as one another, Sinfield, McGuire, Burrow, JJB, Diskin, Mathers, Walker, Ward, Bailey, Calderwood (restricted it to players at the start). The club went for the approach of go with home grown youngsters, and these players were all in and regular for 18. They all knew at the start they were going to be in also, as the plan was from the club.

There is nothing wrong with Leeds academy set up, and no body is arguing that. The posting is on how do we retain the ones who could be the best.

"We" don't do a damn thing. The club do that. As demonstrated above, the club know a damn sight more about what they're doing in this regard than "we" do.
You say that like it's a negative.

I'm inhabiting the realms of reality, rather than the realms of your imagination.

No, you are inhabiting a knowledge of knowing nothing but the first team, and what the club tells you. Which was my point above. If you had knowledge of the juniors and the clubs they have come from, and you gave your opinion that differs, then absolutely fine.

The club knew a damn sight more about what they were doing in regarding to retaining. The points on here, are questioning whether that is still the case. Which of course is completely different to whether they have a good set up and good coaching. So yes, I am saying it is a negative that is worth discussing.

Does George Burgess count? Not sure how many years him and Tom were in the Leeds scholarship scheme before they went to the Bulls.