I think Walters has done ok-ish in a few games this season compared to his mostly disappointing 2015 but he's always going to be someone in the 21-25 shirt number region and no further up the pecking order. If you've got new signings lined up then expendable but if not then fine to keep around for numbers. He'll also be cheap unlike Achurch so not really too much you could bring in on his wage that'll be a significant upgrade.

I agree Printer, but to me he is not a player i would want blocking the path to other young lads looking for a break.I don't see him ever becoming a fixture in the 17 when all are fit anyway although Mac does seem to select him over others you would expect to get in over him at times, how much that has to do with his match winning score at OT who knows?

Alex Sutcliffes is a definite upgrade, and I would guess much cheaper. Would not want his development blocking.

He'd need bulking up & filling that something which has done Walters no favours whatsoever.

People are obsessed with bulking up on here. A player of the exact same build and muscle mass but 10 years older and no one would mention it.

They would, they just isn't 27/28 year olds playing with the build, muscle mass, ligament/tendon strength and muscle toughness of 17/18 year olds.

So why do teams spend so much time in the gym if bulking up has no benefit?

I didn''t say it has no benefit. Players are bulking up in the gym from 14 at most junior clubs, then continue this further in scholarships, and further again on pro contracts. I just pointed out the obsession with bulking up that is immediately levelled at a player who is not past 20. The physical side of our game isn't the main issue to most players with a skill set, it is speed of the game that is key difference between making it and not. Of course to improve you will then need an edge, which would probably be strength. But this shouldn't stop the starting development. if you go to most clubs gym sessions the major concentration is on legs anyway, not filling out.

If junior clubs have kids in the gym at 14 adding muscle mass - often under the supervision of unqualified but well-meaning amateurs - then they are going down a dangerous road.

The physical development of young players is best left to qualified, experienced conditioning staff who can manage the process in a way that does not adversely affect their growing bodies. If that means waiting until they are 16/17 and on scholarship programmes, so be it.

We've all seen from watching Walters over the last two years how adding too much muscle in the legs can adversely affect a player's athletic ability.

Walters is a bit of a strange one. Upper body doesn't look massively different to what it was, but below the waist it looks like he's had an ar$e transplant from Kim Kardashian.

He's got nothing on Gary Pearce who played for Hull FC in late 80's/early 90's. He looked like a Russian doll that had had a few top-half layers removed

Just to be straight he, I never said that.

Kids are in the gym themselves from that age, trying to build for an advantage. Usually the ones who are more focused on making a career out of it.

Most studies say now if you want to build, then you should start from puberty, if you want to fulfill full muscle potential. Starting from late teens would not fulfill the same effect. It's up to the person after all, and I agree it should be under supervision.

The point that was more made though is that just because someone is you get does not mean their physical strength is less than that years older. Yes they could get muscle advantage further, but they may still be starting from an advantageous position. The obsession on her for people to immediately say someone needs to be bigger just by their age, doesn't fit for me.

Think you could be right. Hope so, we have to take something into next season, so knocking a few over in the top 8 as we get players back could be the way.

It's not an obsession it's just common sense. I'd say the club was in the best position to decide and they generally don't throw the young lads in if can be helped.

I think the obsession (and this isn't meant as a dig or a start to a big argument but genuine comment) comes from you. You have a vested interest in the academy as we've seen and I'd suggest your desire (and apparent closeness to some) to see lads you rate get a chance at SL level leads to an impatience/frustration that you want to throw them in more quickly than most would and will argue against common sense caution about bulking up and size at a teenage age.

Exactly, so which is it, common sense or the club? The club haven't said he needs to bulk up now. So when you say common sense who are you referring?




I am not going to argue with that, as it may well come across as that. Although I have called for players I don't know at all, other than their skill set, so not restricted to known players. However, that said, I think you are wrong, and players can be more than ready, regardless of age. As an example, I saw it on here last week regarding Cameron with regards physically ready. He is currently lifting weights in the top five at the club, and apparently touching 100kgs, in his weight. I would back Cameron for physical strength, than say someone like Keinhorst any day. But does anyone have concerns for Keinhorst in the pack?

I don't want to throw anyone in, and Infact back to Cameron I did say this week in an ideal world you want to introduce him in a full team, not a scratch one. To me you gently ease them in young over a longer period, rather than hold back and throw in when older expecting them to adjust quickly.

As another example, Jack Walker has been put on a longer term building programme, and the club are right there, has he just doesn't have the frame yet.