Again I ask the question what has Vickery done on the field to suggest he deserves his place - he was terrible last night.

He looks pedestrian in attack and unable to read the attack when defending. Watson would have to be pretty poor to be worse than Vickery.

I would agree, from what I have seen from the games I haven't been that impressed with vickery. He might very well be training the house down and have a good attitude but in the games I have seen he hasn't been great. For me he has come into the team as a utility man replacing smith, and I would much rather we had smith.

For me he seems very much like a Michael Cody signing.

Have to agree.Still early days but not seeing too much from this lad to convince he is worth playing over another of our young prospects.No pace at all for a winger, he looked like he was running in treacle when he got some space in the second half! It would be forgivable if he was defensively sound, but he looked all at sea at times.Also,Ablett doesnt look like he has much faith in passing the ball to him, says it all really.

And what "young prospects" are these?

Watson's a full back, not a winger by any stretch of the imagination. He'd get killed in SL under the high ball.

Chisholm is quick, but has hands of concrete.

Next in line is James Duckworth, who has 40 minutes of a first team friendly under his belt.

At the moment, Vickery is the best option the club have until BJB gets back fit again.

..... and as for not being a winger by any stretch of the imagination: remind me again where Chris Clarkson made his debut?

Watson (or indeed Chisholm) should be given priority opportunities over Vickery on the wing IMO

Cannot believe all the stick Vickery is getting.

Anyone at the Boxing Day game will know he has great leg drive going into contact. Probably only Peacock and Delaney are better.

Showed decent pace in that game without being electric but none of our wingers with possible exception of Chisholm have that.

The lad looked good in the Hull game before injury struck again and was supposed to be out for about 6 weeks but came back within 2-3. Maybe he shouldn't have come back as soon as he did put credit to the lad for putting his hand up.

I think once he gets his match fitness back and a good injury free run in the team he'll surprise some of the knockers.

Why are some so keen to knock these imported wingers? Remember the horrendous stick Donald got on here in his first few months before winning people round. Whilst I don't think Joe will end up anywhere near his standard I think he'll do more than a good job for us.

All these slagging off his lack of strength, he's showed more strength in contact than BJB in his few games already.

Vickery has shown nothing to get excited about since his introduction at competitive 1st grade level. It's a kick in the teeth to any Leeds youngsters brought through the Headingley system to see nobodies given an opportunity before them. How bad must they be if Vickery is seen as better?

More strength than Jones-Bishop? I never rated Jones-Bishop overly much in that department but he has some other attributes that more than compensate on the wing.

Having watched the game again Vickery was secure ball in hand without posing any threat. That said the game doesn't pose any threat either. Just watching a St Helens - Leeds Challenge Cup game at Knowsley Road from 2004. That was a proper game unlike last night's drab offering. Sean Long tackled harder in that game than any forward did last night.

Who knows what the coaching teams short term plans are. Maybe Mac sees Vickery as a stop gap until BJB is fit. I agree with some others that it is a shame that he hasn't used the unfortunate absence of BJB to give some of the youngsters experience. It's on the wing for god's sake, not the biggest risk he could take.
As for BJB, people should not forget that he is a great finisher.

Vickery has not showed much but has not been helped by Ablett. I don't think he is a centre, particularly on the right, and don't think it's the fact that he doesn't have confidence in Vickery but that he can't pass right or doesn't look to anyway, preferring to run inside instead. Admittedly, he links up bettter on the left but just play him at SR/LF where he should be and play an actual centre. With our injuries, this would leave Keinhorst, and if people don't want him and Vickery on the same side, why not play Keinhorst with Hall and Moon with Vickery?

That winger then would be Chisholm?

Are you serious? Or do you really think Vickery is a winger? Untested? Where exactly has Vickery been tested?

As for the references to Gardner and Clarkson I suggest you look up the definition of sarcasm.

Ah, the old nantwich defence of talking absolute bollards, demonstrating a yawning deficit in his understanding of the game, and then trying to pass it off as "sarcasm".

Vickery has played, and been successful, on the wing at a much higher level than any of the other possible choices Leeds have at the moment.