You are confusing developing with winning. Winning is entirely different, and rely's on other factors. Developing star super league players is different. Plenty of star players have never won a thing.

Each club is taking on around 12-15 scholars each year. Potentially your under 19's with three years worth of pro contracts could be 36 to 45 players, but what good would that do with only one team to play in. Even now they fill up teams with number makers rather than quality that is avilable. But even with only 10 of those players developed to super league quality (and remember across three ages) you have what you and others would term a "goldern" generation. It really isn't as difficult as you see it. It doesn't happen because the clubs are not willing to put the time, effort, and risk of first team performance, into it. But that doesnt' mean it couldn't happen, Leeds proved that when they did put the time, effort, and risk into it. But I repeat, no matter what the numbers, it won't happen anyway without earlier development than we are currently doing. Waiting for players to reach an age is nothing more than laziness from clubs with no appetite for taking a risk, and as a result players don't become what they were destined to potentially be, and in a lot of cases lost from the game.

Agree about Smith. Discussing him with others at the U19s game on Saturday the opinion was that he's a bit soft.

The current way of bringing players on isn't ideal by a long way. There's a huge gap between U19 and SL first team. Very few players are up for that leap. Back in 2002 didn't we have U20s and there was dispensation for a few over age players?

Bingo. And those are the questions that should be asked.

You may be right but your argument is impossible to prove or disprove either way.

I agree that current setups mean it's harder than ever for a kids to get a proper break in a SL first team. McDermott strikes me as ultra cautious to the point where he's harming the future of the side.

And that is the point. We do know it can be done, because we have done it. Others have done it to be fair. But you would be correct to say there are no certainties. However, your two points in your second sentence are what is most relevant to Leeds issue.

I think we got there in the end.

Hardaker & McShane are the two who particularly stand out.
It grieves me every time I see them pull on a Cas shirt & then perform the way they have done over the this season - in Hardaker's case - & for the past 2/3 seasons in McShane's.
Powell seems to have got the best out of both players & you have to wonder why we couldn't do the same.
The fact that it's Powell also disappoints me.

In McShane's case Leeds went for the likes of Buderus, Aiton and Burrow instead. You didn't do too badly IIRC. It's only from last year that letting him go looks a bad move.

Hardaker left because he couldn't behave professionally. He may have grown up now, I don't know. Can't really blame Leeds for losing him.

Wasn't Powell let go at the end of 2003 to gain experience with a view to him returning

so we couldn't get the best out a hardaker, a player we plucked from a championship club, turned him into a international player and man of steel winner, but apparently he was crap before the great god Daryl Powell got hold of him.
there i s reason hardaker does not play for us, he is a who could not stay out of trouble, the fact we got 150k for him instead of just sacking him after the student assault business was a good deal, yes he's playing well at Cas, but he's a bad egg all round but he will screw up again.

Arguably many on here believe that McShane could & should have been the understudy to all of the above hookers.
Hardaker clearly was a problem child but what I perceive as the authoritarian militaristic regime at Leeds wasn't able to deal with him. You cannot treat all players the same, whether we have the flexibility to see this in our coaching & management staff is open to question.
Re your final point, that's what I certainly thought & hoped for. Again GH may be to blame for not delivering on this, who knows?
Whatever the reasons I think that the Rhinos are the losers.

Whilst it took some time to get there would people really now have McShane over Parcell?

Imagine if they started the season at opposite clubs, Cas would still be dominate with Parcell probably pushing Gale for MOS. Would Leeds be in 2nd with McShane instead of Parcell at hooker? I doubt it.


McShane didn't look anything special at Wakey and it's not hard to look good in this current Cas team, if he left there for another SL club I don't think he'd be looking like a potential Dream Team player as some people have him down as this year.

Southstander in a nutshell