I don't understand the point of playing in the U20s. If they're fit then they can play. The injuries will have been tested in every way in rehab and training. They may take a while to reach full match fitness but I'd rather have a Danny McGuire and Jamie Peacock eased back in for 30-40 minutes than Ian Kirke or Weller Hauraki playing those minutes.

The club will be doing everything to make sure they are right - anyone suggesting they are being rushed back is deluded.

Perish the thought that the club would bring back a player not fully fit.
Remind me, was Senior fit at Cardiff?

There's 2 types of fit (well 3). Physically fit and match fit (3rd is Sinny fit... ohhh errr). Playing them in an U20s game or 2 gives them time to get used to playing again, especially after a long break like these two have had. Its better than putting them on the bench and just giving them 20 mins each because thats a waste of interchange spots. Personally I wouldnt risk them Monday but would bring them back Friday.

Yes, the medical staff said so

As you well know, this is a completely different scenario. Much less important game & a much more serious injury.

I wouldn't be overly keen on them playing for the first time in the same game to be honest. If McGuire is OK for Monday I'd bring him on after about half an hour and shift Sinfield into the pack

When McGuire and JP do return they won't be match fit - no training can get you that. I would rather see McGuire given a little fitness test and get back into the swing of things against U20s opposition rahter than Super League opposition. Michael Maguire did it with Richards...

He got MOTM against Bulls I don't know how, as all he seemed to do was the one trick pony move which nearly caught Bradford a couple of times but even that shower of shi7e managed to get to him.

I know Michael Maguire can walk on water but that doesn't necessarily mean it's always the best option!

There's no such thing as being fit for an U20s games and not a first team game. If he's not fit to play first team then playing in the under 20s would be an enormous, unecessary risk. The question then becomes...Does a Danny McGuire playing to build up match fitness weaken our current side. I don't think it does so would give him a run out on Monday

Disagree. Yes there is such thing. I'm not talking about fitness with his injury as I'm sure that would be healed now hence why the medical staff have eased him back into full training and squad selection. I'm talking about fitness in the lungs and the reactions that differ in speeds between U20s and SL.
I'm quite a keen runner, I run marathons but if I got injured for 8 months I wouldn't lace my trainers and enter a marathon straight away! Its the same for McGuire, ease your way back in at a level where least amount of questions will be asked about you.

He'll have been doing more cardio work than anyone else in the team I imagine while he unable to do full contact. He will be a bit rusty but I would expect him to cover almost as much ground in a U20 game than a first team game. He'll handle the ball as much if not more, still have to go back 10 every time. In many ways he could end up doing more running in a U20s game as lines seem to be broken more frequently. He'd also have a target on his back saying "I'm Danny McGuire - make a name for yourself." In a first team game he can have the luxury of getting involved when he chooses with the other playmakers we would have on the field. The collisions might be harder but there is no one who can say he wouldn't have a massive collision in a 20s games.

If he is fit to play, he is fit to play in the first team.

I'd disagree with you there Andy. With McGuire's injury being a leg injury I doubt he'll have been doing as much cardio work since he won't have been able to/unwilling to risk sprinting for a long time. Whilst there might, as you rightly point out, be more line breaks the general pace of the game will be slower and far less intense at U20 level. So whilst he does have to get back 10 every tackle he has longer to get back that 10m every tackle than in a first team game. As you also rightly point out he'll be getting the ball just as often but the defensive line is slower giving him longer to make the plays. The tackles are also likely to be softer and less likely to be twisted and turned and pressure exerted on joints etc than in a first team game. In general it's a far less intense game across the board and is a good way of easing back in to playing. If it wasn't then teams wouldn't use it for players returning from injury. Recent examples being Richards at Wigan and Delaney for us.

I bet there are a hell of a lot more examples of players returning straight to the first team.

I know it will be a tougher game but my point is that if he is fit for one he is fit for the other. If he can't go 80 minutes the decision is are we better with him for 40-50 which I think we are. If there is any doubt about his leg he shouldn't be playing either. He could get hurt just as easily in an Academy game

So, your a keen runner so you think you know better than a whole team of experts as to what a PROFESSIONAL rugby league should do?

Where did you come in your last marathon? Top 10? 100? 1000? 10000?

He'll be fine attacking and defending (as he does remember) out there on the wing.

__________



Best to ignore Neil, he has a history of second guessing the Leeds medical staff and citing 'miracles' rather than 'science' when any player returns a week sooner that previously anticipated.

As Wheels might say

Haaaa