If the kids were ready for this level, they would play! McDermott has always been fair and had picked/dropped players on merit. Why hinder a lads development and probably kill his confidence by putting him in against 3 of the better teams running around? Just because they kill it at 19's/Championship, doesn't mean they are ready.

Brad Singleton was shipped to Wakey to get him prepared for this level and he got 1 game before Agar saw that he's not at the right level yet. Some on this board would have him starting week in/week out for us though. Look at the bigger picture! Watkins at FB and Ablett at Centre, is by far the best option for the team.

No he hasn't, and no they wouldn't. He's shown completely the opposite.

For what it's worth though, this time he's right, especially considering the games coming up. You need stability back there, especially when choices one and two are already out.

He brought Ward into the team over time. Played Keinhorst into things last season too. Got rid of Griffin and Cross. He knows that you can ruin a career by playing someone too soon. I don't know what everyone's obsession is with playing kids at an early age just because they have potential.

You're wasting your time. Gotcha and Nantwich won't be happy until each member of our under 19 side gets a run out. Your earlier point about singleton should stop people making these outrageous statements but it won't.

I for one am happy to trust a structure that has produced some of the best and most successful players in the clubs history, and a coaching staff who have given the chance to or further developed Hardaker, Bish, Watkins, Ward, Clarkson, Hood, Keinhorst etc.

If 2 players come through a clubs academy each year that is plenty to make the said club successful.

How many players who have been developed at Leeds and not given the chance would you have back now? I can think of Luke Gale possibly in a couple of years but that's about it

There's nothing wrong with wanting to see the clubs younger talent get more chances and NOT ONE poster has said we should give 5/6 u19's their debuts at once either.
Also just because wakey didn't use Singleton after week 1 doesn't mean he couldn't be useful for us or handle SL they will always be loyal to their own lads first and foremost and the terms of the original loan were because they had injuries up front.
Are we seriously saying Singleton isn't ready because he was part of team batterd at Odslum in week 1 and then didn't make the next matchday 17??
There have been plenty of opportunities to give some more younger lads chances over the last 2 years due to p!$h form or even better rotation but some seem undroppable which is as baffling as it is frustarting at times because the coach got Watkins ,Hardaker ,Ward and co into the team yet players like Kirke ,Kylie et al get games no matter how poor their respective form was even ignoring Moore who when given the chance wasn't the worse Prop in SL by a long way.
Some interesting calls to be made this year with Kylie retiring ,Griffin clearly out of favour and kirke out of contract should he start giving short stints to younger forwards now or just wait?? i know which route i think we should take which wouldn't damage the team or the youngsters.

Actually you need to read my posts again, and stop generalising, because my view is not the same as Nantwich.

I am not for throwing kids in for the sake of throwing kids in, far from it. I am all for identifying kids who it is deemed potentially will be future stars, and strongly believe that the only way of making that happen is to see introduction to first team early. That's introduction and develepment in stages, not a guranteed place.

I don't care what the know nowts say on here, but history clearly shows, that if you are identified as star potential at a young age, if you are not making first team starts by 19, then you simply do not make it.

There is exceptions to that, but usually the ones who are not deemed star potential at an early age and come good later in career. Although those players tend to drift away from clubs first before later coming back to attention.

Even more so now, with the new academy set up, once you are over 19 that's it below first team level. So it's either dual reg and you continue on your part time contract, or you look for another club, or you go for non rugby work and play for lower clubs.

For the record, I have never pushed for the like of Watson, Keinhorst, Chisolm, Bush, etc, as I just don't see them as potential stars. I do however believe we have wasted Singleton's talent, and think his development has gone backwards, and I strongly believe that we have a super quartet of Bawldwinson, Tonks, Foster, Minchella, who I would be looking to introduce to first team now. Again I repeat, that is introduce, not play each week.

So you're holding Huddersfield out as a shining example for Gary Hetherington to follow? Aside from the fact that premise is flawed (Luke O'Donnell) maybe Hetherington realises that the team is better off with slightly less talented but eager and committed individuals than players who would, in reality, want to be somewhere else.

Lunt was clearly no Buderus in 2012 but, let's be honest, so what? What did the team achieve in 2011 with Buderus that it didn't in 2012 without him?

I guess the point is that the coaching staff are clearly not identifying them as being talented enough to warrant early introduction. Where they have they have been a success (Watkins, Clarkson, Ward).

Just because we know-nowts pick someone out as a talent doesn't mean that they have the full set of tools to make it. There is more to a player than what happens on the pitch in an under 19s game

Perhaps the question should be what more could they have achieved if Buderus had stayed? Would Hood be closer to being ready for the first team than he is now?

And this is where it gets confusing.

Watkins and Clarkson were before McDermotts time. Ward was already identified before McDermotts time.

This is where I form the view that McDermott does not give chances, and is reluctant to do so. That doesn't mean I want a load of kids thrown in not ready. I have just seen nothing at all from McDermott to suggest that he is anything other than scared to change what has been a successfull team, rather than because they are the better option.

Far from not identifying them as being talented, Barry McDermott in contrast has constantly praised certain youngsters, they have been recognized as the best from other coaches, and indeed the national coaches.

Sport is a results business.

Sports coaching is a cuthroat results business. You either get them, or you're gone..

If I was coaching at this level, I'd want to be picking the 17 that gave me the best possible chance of winning every single week.

Remember Wigan taking a much changed team to Widnes last year and getting beat? Imagine the reaction on here if Leeds had done that. There would have been virtual meltdown calling for McDermott's head, irrespective of what experience it might have given the younger players.

Like Keinhorst who you have been less than complimentary about?

Didn't Wigan take a near full team of youngsters to Widnes?

This is where there is confusion on this board. It is either full team of youngsters or non at all, no middle ground. My own point is one of a clearly identified potential star been given a run out of a couple of games in a season, then stepping up over time. That is different to your example Andy.

All of our success has come from players developed the way I am suggesting, in certain cases even earlier than I am saying. It is a proven model and should be stuck to.

Wigan Warriors: Matthew Russell, Anthony Gelling, Darrell Goulding, Jack Hughes, Josh Charnley, Brett Finch, Joe Mellor, Jeff Lima, Michael McIlorum, Lee Mossop, Gareth Hock, Harrison Hansen, Chris Tuson

Subs: Epalahame Lauaki, Tom Spencer, Logan Tomkins, Ben Flower

So hardly a "team full of youngsters". They took a calculated gamble on giving a couple of talented young players some game time and resting old heads. It backfired on them.

Singleton's had "a couple of games" with the first team hasn't he, which seems to fit your criteria? How do those criteria apply to the likes Ward, Keinhorst and Hood under McDermott's reign?

Singleton's doesn't fit my criteria at all.

Development for me would have been, yes he got his debut two seasons ago. Therefore year 2, last season, should have been 4 or 5 games, and year 3 this year he should be looking at half the games. If he wasn't up to from the first game, and by year 2 after a couple of games he still wasn't showing what they saw in him, then you change the development course.

Infact Singleton is nearly an example of what I fear. I think he's gone backwards from what he could have been.

Ward is a perfect example of Sinfield and McGuire before him, and Tomkins at Wigan. He was always going to be a star and they had no choice whatsoever to leave him. These players once given the run out prove they can not be dropped.

Give over with the Keinhorst example, he is not a youngster and I have seen nothing to change my view that he will never make a super league player. That is a perfect example of my reservation on McDermott. Where he has his little own projects he will give it a go, regardless of been as good as others not given that chance.

Hood's development went back as soon as the decision was made to find a place for Burrow at all costs.