Will they be first team regulars at 19/20 years old? Or will they need to develop yet further before they become key players at those clubs. I've seen countless players standout at junior level who haven't made it to top pro level, or even any pro level in some cases.
Whilst you say a "large number" take a look at the number that don't actually make it.

When Northampton FC were looking at creating an RL club, one of our suggestions we proposed to them was basically to take advantage of the change in age groups to grab some of the large number of 20 year olds who couldn't play U19s and put them together in a team that could stay together a good few years. We knew such a team wasn't going to be at all competitive in it's early years.

The "golden generation" were just that - a very rare occurence. Pretty much all were eased in very gradually, and all had problems with ability and/or health and fitness in those early days.

I don't need to see any championship games to know a team full of half-decent semi-pro open age players would flatten ANY team composed solely of teenagers, no matter how talented. I used to watch Bramley a fair bit back in the day, when they were generally dire. I'd have backed them with any money against Leeds' best U19 sides. Their forwards would have monstered the Colts. Nothing at all has changed since then to make any difference.

I DO watch the U20s here, and there have been lots of complaints about how that competition isn't developing kids well enough (there are also definitely problems with NSW development and reserve grade here). I also watch reserve grade and regularly attend Qld Cup games. I'd bet any money that any Qld Cup side would slaughter even a combined 'best of' NRL U20s team simply because they all include a fair smattering of hardened pros - particularly in the pack.

In order to sort the wheat from the chaff Leeds and other clubs have to look at loan options for 19 year olds they want to keep an eye on as we have no reserve grade (a big mistake IMO, but we are where we are). SL loans will always be limited in number because every team should theoretically have a squad of 20+ at the start of the year. That means every year clubs will need to find a place for at least a couple of squad players in the Championship, or simply punt almost every 19 year old not quite ready for first team on a regular basis (the vast majority of them, regardless of what our youth-obsessed fans think).

That situation is only going to get worse as SL reduces the number of teams. Right now we've got probably 4 teams bad enough to consider almost anybody on loan. If that's cut by 2, the realistic number of potential loan places is halved.

IMO without an actual reserve competition, loans to the Championship will become the only viable route to first grade for the vast majority of outstanding teenagers at top clubs.

Quite. And they were nurtured.

Take McGuire and Burrow. Their introduction was much more gradual than Sutcliffe's has been. There's been no Andrew Dunneman to help Sutcluiff ease his way into a 1st team half back over a couple of years.

That's an open invitation for people to start counting (but not me, I can't be bothered).


One ...

As I have said before, feel free to check how many 1st team games Kevin Sinfield played in the 18 months or so after his first team debut.

Obviously this limited game time hindered him and the club and resulted in his career never taking off and the club failing to enjoy the success he could have brought. Sad really. Wasted talent.

Sinfield was 16. How did his "nurturing" pan out in comparison to Singleton or indeed Hood? That 19 months you talk of included two preseasons also. It was also at a time when the team had a lot of highly paid individuals that were picked because of that reason.

You do realize your argument is what I was arguing for? Sinfield is the perfect model to follow.

Well thanks, I will do.

He made 2 appeances from the bench in 1997.
He made another 2 from the bench in 1998
He made 9 starts and 12 from the bench in 1999
He made 19 Starts and 7 from the bench in 2000 9famously omitted from that years Cup Final)
It was 2001 he became what you might describe as a regular (32 starts and 1 bench appearance)

So, you're arguing introduce them very, very gradually and five seasons after their debut make them a regular if they're up to it?

That is how Kevin was introduced.

There is a good point here actually. Looking across the league, how many 16 year olds get a debut now? Things have changed across the sport since our golden generation came through.

In broad terms, I think Bradley Singleton can have a very long Leeds career, and there's little or no sense in rushing him into week-in, week-out senior grade matches. He's starting to look like a good Super League player who could be in our pack for a long time. The comparison may be that if he fulfills that promise nad plays 7 or 8 seasons (or more) in Leeds' first team then fretting because his first long run in the side came 5 or 6 months after you thought it should will seem pretty irrelevant.

In Hood's case I suspect (and history may make a fool of me here) that he will go on to have a Championship or maybe lower levels of SL career that will reveal that he is a decent player at that level but that comparisons with Kevin Sinfield are, indeed, meaningless. If he goes on to achieve great things then I'll happily hold my hands up and say I was wrong. But I've heard the desperate doom and gloom of an academy player leaving many, many times on these forums and elsewhere, and I can count on the fingers of one hand (quite easily) the number of times you could come close to even suggesting it has come back to bite us.

It is also, I believe, the case that young players will always mature physically at different rates, and that some positions (like prop) will always demand a slightly greater physical maturity than others.

There are no conclusive answers available to either of us here, but I don't think the Kevin Sinfield example does any great harm to my argument that it isn't worth rushing very promising kids into the first team if you are planning a long-term career for them.

It seems to me Singleton is following Sinfield's career path. 1 appearance in his debut year. 1 the year after. a dozen or so this year. Of course, he's no Sinfield and he's a forward so his development should be a little slower but they are, more or less, similar.

Sutcliffe might have waited a year or two longer but he's packed more in this season at 18 than Kevin did between his debut and 18 years of age.

Well, I wasn't specifically responding to you. But to be honest this wasn't what came across to me from your posts...

Really? I have been very consistent over last couple of years. You identify the top potential stars, and in the majority of cases you know at 16. You introduce them young to first team, to show them what they are aiming for and what they may need to improve. You look to give them two or three games first year, 5 to 6 second year, then you fully integrate them. All subject to them continuing to show the required credentials.

What you don't do is specifically wait until they are too old to play in the academy, or just hold back as you don't want to rest a current first teamer.

That has always been my view.

The Sinfield model is perfect, and he wasn't the only one from that era.

No it wasn't check you facts.

He debuted towards the end of one season, and the season after the next he made 22 appearances. Where do you get your five years?

And my point is more introduce them young and gradually.

Or in reality it is nothing like Sinfields introduction.

As I said, I wasn't specifically responding to you. If my view is the same as yours then we have no disagreement. So while I hadn't realised you were arguing the same thing (as I wasn't arguing with you anyway ) it 's nice to know we're on the same page.

A couple of notes on Sinfield:

It's easy to look back on the way his induction to senior grade panned out and assume a well laid plan. I for one though can't remember the circumstamces in which his chances came. Injuries may well have dictated their timing.

Secondly, in 2000 and 2001 the players he was trying to displace were not the cast and characters of the most successful period in the club's history. This is another of the many differences in historical context that mean the same model may be difficult to apply.

Also, Kevin Sinfield is a special player. You can't assume that what works for one works for all.

This isn't intended to dispute your ideal model, which I agree with, but just as a note of caution on the way that model might be applied in practice.