Chev looked the real deal when he bursts on the scene. Then he had a couple of bad games, as any kid does, but instead of taking him away from the team to help him, he was played continuously and the bad games compounded. Development is all about doing what's in the best interest for a player, not throwing them to the wolves and hoping they swim.

There haven't been many good young props recently. The better ones mature in their mid to late 20's unless you came out of Julie Burgess' womb. Even then, Sam was only thrown in as a teenager due to injuries. Luke was in his 20's even though he looked ready before then. George has been brought in over a 2 year period gradually and even though Tom has 2 full years of first team behind him at Bradford, Souths aren't rushing him. The best props in the world though over a prolonged period of time are late 20's into their 30s and all of them Werent rushed into things.

Firstly, why the hell would I go watch Hunslet?

Secondly, I said "I do not necessarily dissgree with you on the Hunslet boys". I said that because I hadn't seen them there so could not say 100%.

What I can say 100% though, is that they are nowhere near as good as the players you mentioned at the same age.

Furthermore, In a couple of the cases, I think we have players playing in the under 19's who are better than the ones at Hunslet. Does that mean the one's at Hunselt couldn't make it? not it doesn't, I just think it is not all about them ones.

I don't dissagree with this, but that it is different to "throwing them in too early". What you are suggesting there is just common sense. Besides though you also have to remember the lad played through a transisition phase for the team, which is not a bad thing for a player to learn and develop through.




it's not just about the Burgess's. What about Fielden, Graham, Scruton, Morley, Patrick, Crabtree, Carvell, Copczak, McCarthy Scarsbrook, Taylor,etc?

And recently Wigan aint doing to bad a job by going with youngsters at prop. The lad there now must have been way behind Singleton a couple of years back, but he certainly aint now.

That is just props, there is an awful lot of backrowers also who debuted at young ages.

Fielden burnt out in no time. Kopczak is in his mid 20s and only started to show promise after a few years of being gradually brought into the Bulls team. Crabtree, again, wasn't that young when he burst onto the scene and even then, I thought he was overrated until about 3 years ago when he found something extra. Carvell?! He didn't develop either until his mid 20s. As a kid at Leeds he was beyond average. Morley was a 2nd row until he was in his late 20s. Lauren Patrick is good, but again, more of a back rower and LMS has never impressed me. Always looked a decent prop in a poor team. Now he looks an average prop in a decent team. Ill give you that he made the grade early though. I just don't think he's good enough to be mentioned.

Also, you seem to be getting confused with what I am saying about development. You just seem to want some of these kids playing week in/week out. They should get a chance at some point but not as a full time thing.

FWIW too, Watson will never play SL. He will stay in the Championship and no one will even blink. The only player I have ever been wrong about is Ryan Hall, and I'm glad I was

Exactly. I have no idea why people continue to trot out this line that props are not ready until late 20's.

Sure they get better as they develop, but that is different to to not ready.

It's not about how good they are when they were 21 though. Who on that list were world beaters at that age? and Morley was a back rower!! It's about progressive development over the space of a set amount of time, not saying lets play them week in/week out because they have potential. We have 3 stage development plan now. 19's, DR and SL. Let them perform at 19s, then let them make the step up to Championship, and then if they look too good for that level, begin to bring them into the team.

That suggestion is just backwards and where we do entirely differ. If clubs followed that blueprint, the game in this country would quickly fall on it's knees.

The best players, as proven many times over, have started at a young age. Why the hell would anyone hold back a player until he has firstly played under 19's, then dual registered Championship? What we want is as many full time professionals as possible, not part time provers.

Many, Many, players have been way above championship standard at 17, never mind 19.

You underestimate the championship level then. It's a very good stepping stone. You seem to think I'm saying, "hold them back until they are 30"! I'm not. I'm just saying make sure they can handle the levels below before you expose them to the "top" level. I want to see a competitive SL from 1-14 but the quantity and quality of players just aren't there. No one in the u19s or on DR looks ready to be playing every week just yet.

No disrespect mate, and it may well be you are right, but you are not really in a position to form that view with such authority.