I think we'll see a spate of injured players miraculously fit for the Cup game. If that happens it will tell us all we need to know about how much effort is now being put into the league.

On reserves my view is simple - I prefer the feeder team concept as players not in the first team would be playing in a more competitive environment, but if its done half-baked (as it is in RL in England) then a simple reserve competition is better. The standard won't be high, but all you really want is more match fit open age players who can do a job if required, as well as get Academy players used to playing open age. That's what the old reserve competition used to do.

I see Peacock has now come out and said the exact same thing as the Huddersfield and Leeds coach said to me. His words, "It is no coincidennce that five of top six teams in the league this year have a reserve team".

It really isn't, but to see that you would also have to think without the need to defend everything Leeds does.

Yeah me defending what Leeds doing, its not like I said



It's no coincidence that Wigan, Saints, Warrington are up at the top half of the table because they always usually are.....why were they near the top for all these other recent seasons? Weren't Hull 2 from 2 at the start of the season and 1st place before any reserve games had even been played......how does that work if reserve games are the reason for their success, of which btw they've only played 3 including one against Featherstone reserves.

If not having a reserve side is costing Leeds and Hudds, why are they below other teams like Cas, Wakey and Salford who also don't have reserve sides.

I actually do think we should have a reserve side and that it will benefit sides, but OVER TIME, not after one or two games of being introduced.

Completely ignoring the point that Leeds and Huddersfield are way behind those teams, who were the clubs who chose not to go without reserve sides, yet were above them previously. What about Hull and Widnes which you also ignore. You are trying to defend a point without foundation, with completely the opposite showing to be correct.

Hearing from two coaches who's clubs went against it, and now a great at his new club also declaring they had made a mistake, these people are quickly coming to the same conclusion, that you seem to not be seeing.

It is a massive coincidence. It can be nothing else at this stage.

I notice you cherry pick Peacocks statements but ignore the fact that 3 clubs have already given up on it and another is moaning about it.

I have no problem with a reserves in principle. The issue comes with the fact it pays no attention to the reality of the structure the game operates under.

SL's reduction to 12 should have seen an increase in quality and talent, a consolidation of quality between fewer sides, except it didnt because we actually still have 14 full time sides, plus a couple more with increased wage bills trying to get close to full-time but we havent produced any more players. So we have the same pool spread over more sides.

The SC has stayed the same so SL clubs can't offer more to these players, or these ones who have broken through at 20/21 so its not even the best of that cohort who are playing in it. Its a joke league. Its quality is less than league 1, there are barely any fixtures, and its costly.

Would you want a young player playing and learning week in week out against Leigh, Bradford, Dewsbury, or playing once every couple of weeks against Dewsbury Reserve, Keighley Reserves or Hull Reserves.

What's Widnes got to do with it?

Yes Leeds are way behind those teams, but their's numerous reasons why

- The team struggling to to step up now Sinfield and Peacock aren't leading them
- the captain and experienced HB has missed most of the season
- our new hooker being a really poor signing so far
- McDermott perhaps reaching his shelf life at the club
- going into games with anywhere between 6-10 starters missing
- the training ground being flooded
- experienced players not performing well

All these are way more significant.

Do you really think all these things would be overcome and we'd be up in the top 4 if we'd played 3/4 reserve games? With how many injuries we've had what exactly would the lineups for these reserve games look like and how would they have helped us up the SL table? Looking at the match lineups for the sides with reserve teams, what players involved have been instrumental in their sides SL position?

The reserve competition is designed to give fringe players and young players games when they can't get into the first team.....however our fringe and young players are getting into the first team ATM because of injuries. If we'd have joined the reserve competition we'd have said at the start of the year it was ideal for the likes of Lilley, Handley and Golding to get game time.....yet they're getting that and at SL level instead right now.

I'd argue we would have had fewer injuries if we had a reserve team, because we wouldn't have had to play injured players every week. A squad of 25 looks OK on paper, but as we've seen starts to look ridiculously small if you get a batch of injuries.

The problem is that we don't have enough specialist fringe players. We have a hooker who generally can't play 80 minutes which means we need to pick two hookers most weeks (we certainly would be doing that if Falloon wasn't useless). If we were picking two hooker every week we wouldn't have a reserve hooker at all, yet there's no way in a squad of just 25 you could justify having 3 or 4 hookers unless the could play somewhere else well. If we had an A Team we could have kept Ward around for a year or so, at least until the next U19 prospect was ready.

Under the current system if we don't have a first team ready player in the Academy we are forced to play players out of position when injuries hit. Clubs also don't seem to value genuine utility at all. Someone like Luke Briscoe is exactly the sort of player a bigger squad would enable you to retain - never first choice in any position, won't play except for injuries but will do a job across the park.

BTW the only "learning" I'd expect a 19 year old to get from playing in a reserve grade is the experience of playing against men rather than boys on a regular basis (I still remember Brendan Hill getting the poop beaten out of him by the nasty old buggers Holdstock and Millington of KR one Friday night). The other advantages include being able to manage a bigger squad with more specialist players and at least having them all coached on the same basis.

Very true, the old reserve games could be a tougher breeding ground than the first team in days gone by. I think the injuries and lack of squad depth across SL this year shows that a return to that system is needed imo.

No, cup run or bust for Rhinos this season.
Wrong result tonight and the season is over.

Why do Wigan have a load of injuries now then?

More pertinent - why are they coping so much better?

It certainly is. Over at the Bulls we've got three lads that have come through this season and two are now over 19 and so are ineligible for the academy. They aren't getting the games they need to develop and the club don't want to farm them out to feeder clubs that have poorer coaching setups.

There's no movement on this issue from the RFL or from the clubs but the game needs a reserve grade.

They aren't now their injuries have started to add up (they weren't that bad at the start of the season), 3 losses in 5, were fortunate to beat Hudds and took hammerings vs Wakey and Warrington. Two of the players who've played the worst in their last two games have been Burke and Gregson, two players who started out in the reserve games.

When you say no movement from the RFL - is that the same RFL that is running a reserve grade competition but only 9 clubs could be bothered to enter it?