The game is far more physical than when Holmes or even Sinfield started. It would be almost irresponsible to throw a 16-year old on in the first team now, no matter how big they are.

This.

Given his performances i'd say it's more than adequate for SL yes every player could improve somewhat in certain areas and no doubts Ash can also improve his overall game but to label his defence simply not good enough i'd suggest you watch all his games.

In what way is it almost impossible? I am not saying he will be playing or should be playing, but posters are far too obsessed with players ages rather than having a knowledge of their ability. Age is a number and that is all, it has always been and always will be the case that if you are good enough, you are old enough. And it is that very thing that the player will need to prove, is he good enough. The majority of every star player of the last 30 years made their debut in first team rugby at a young age, and that is because they have that ability.

Cameron is a big lad for his age, and way above others of his age group. The club were planning on playing him on boxing day, before his latest injury, so obviously they must have some faith in him. Now it is simply with him to prove himself, not what number he has on his birth certificate.

He did very well in his long run to cover for Briscoe last year and we must expect some errors from a youngster as he steps up to SL level. But I have watched enough of his games to know he needs to improve his defence and his handling before he is ready to be a starter in SL but this is only to be expected.

Agree with this. Defence can be worked on, granted, but his current level is such that he needs testing by SL-quality opponents. I don't really see lower grade rugby or the practice field yielding the same benefits.

<Edit> Just seen your post, JC. Looks like our opinions differ.

There's a difference between being good enough in terms of ability, and good enough in terms of physical preparedness. While Cameron might have the former, I'd argue given the way strength work is closely managed at Leeds in the junior grades he probably doesn't have the latter just yet.

Stuart Fielden was 18 when he made his Bradford debut. Paul Sculthorpe was 20 when he first played for Warrington in the first team. You can probably count on one hand the number of star players in the modern era who made their debuts at 16, probably only Andy Farrell springs to mind.

Wasn't Chev 16? Cummins was a very young 17 but i think it's a little bit different with wingers compared to a player in the middle of the park especially 20 years agao when wingers were naturally smaller.

Think Walker and maybe Nick Scruton might both have been debuts at 16, but given the amount of time both have spent on the sidelines in their respective careers I'm not sure they're the best adverts for it!

Sculthorpe was still 18 actually when he debuted, not that it matters, as a list can still be made of many debuting at the younger age. The point is, and you are right about a difference with ability and physical, but physical again is not determined by the age on a birth certificate. To instantly say someone can not do it just because of their age, and especially without ever seeing them, to me is just plain wrong. It maybe they can do it, but will only be something on a difference scale by physical improvement.

No correct, but then the likes of Sinfield, Harris, Newlove, Westerman all made debuts at 16. The likes of Clark, Graham, Watkins, were all 17. There is an abundance, and not just on this side of the globe, it is the same in the much appraised NRL.

Age is not a deciding factor.

I'd flip he argument slightly and say, if a kid is ready from an ability, mental and physical perspective, age shouldn't be the only thing stopping them playing in Super League - though I think it will be very very rare someone under 18 has all this - Chev did play at 16, but he was a physical freak for his age.....

The NRL side of your argument doesn't really stack up in the modern era though.... The rules in the NRL were amended a number of years ago that prohibits an under 18 playing NRL. The Roosters had a bit of an injury crisis last year and applied for dispensation to debut Latrel Mitchell (17 years and 10 months) but got it knocked back - Mitchell is a Chev type freakish specimen for his age. The last players to debut in the NRL as under 18's were Mitchel Pearce, Wade Graham and I think Jarrod Crocker.

Quite a few backs have played SL at 16, I can't recall anyone in the last decade, I can't remember the last forward to make his debut at 16? Burgess was 17/18 IIRC, Chris Hill was 17, but started in the halevs.

Asking any kid to play in the forwards at any open age level will take it's toll, and if you look at the injury problems the majority of forwards who are brought through at a young age seem to suffer it seems to suggest that exposing them to open age rugby at such a young age may not be beneficial to them in the long term.

Yep. Not to mention the physicality of RL has increased massively in the last 10 years.

I know it's an exception but Craig Huby debuted at 16.