You don't need to tell me what it was, I know that. I'm suggesting a compromise might have worked better than a full cut. If that debate is beyond you then forget it.

Yes it was and your totally right. The youngsters running around super league mostly came through with the other system. The impact of scrapping u23s will not be seen for few years.

I don't like that certain teams in the lower leagues are duel reg. Ive been to see rochadale few times and it was like saints reserves. This must stop local rochdale talent getting a look in also.

The has been no benefit of scrapping u23s apart from a £40k saving for each club.

How long ago was the u23s? I don't remember that age group.

I recall the u21s before it changed to u20s, with both allowing a certain number of over age players, but don't recall u23s in the recent to mid past.

The most successful academy system in respect of producing players as the u18s and u21 models. Should go back to this with say 3 overage players allowed at u21s.

To go to a full reserve team set up would just mean clubs stockpiling championship level players to the detriment of the Championship and the league below.

We should just put an end to the dreams of the Championship clubs and make them feeder clubs. Lets be honest, bar Leigh and Bradford, there isn't an English side in the competition that is worthy of even a minutes consideration for SL. It seems to work well in Australia?

The U23's was reserve grade in 2008 and 2009. It then went to U20's in 2010, 2011 and 2012 and U19's up until now. From 2002 - 2007 it was U21's.

That was just top academy level, we have had various junior academy levels from U15 to U18.

The other down side is that when your team put's out a team like we did at Odsal years ago, you can't sing the A-team theme tune anymore.

Would kyle Eastmond be a good call as he's home grown?

There's only one homegrown player we should be looking to bring home with the marquee rule and he's ginger!

I'm just not sure where Kyle would play in league anymore, centre? In the time it would take to relearn league (especially the defensive aspects) would he be any better than Turner? I'm not sure and it seems a lot of investment for "no better than Turner" - I have heard he's returning to league though

Jammer will be back in the red V but not for two years yet.

Eastmomd is much better than Turner. Eastmomd looked like the Next big thing. He was badly advised Imo but he's made a bucket load of cash.

He could play fullback, centre or the halves. We are crying out for a player to pull off individual brilliance out of nothing in them games we struggle.

Like you said, he's been out the game a long time and Might not hit the form we'd expect like many others that return to league.

Two years is too long



I'd be very interested in seeing Eastmond at fullback, it takes away my concern about learning defensive structure, and he could inject himself when he likes which would suit him! Would only happen if Lomax's exploratory surgery was worse than expected (as 3 fullbacks is way too many) though and I thought there was some positive news there?

Turner has been in great form, and one of the best centres in the league in the last month or so, I'm not sure how easy it is to say Eastmond is much better than him - I think you could say eastmonds potential was much better than him when he was last in league - but that was what 5 years ago? I know there are rumours warrington are chasing him, I'd rather took the Evans brothers off their hands (whom are supposedly being cleared out for Eastmond)

Quote St pete="St pete"Would kyle Eastmond be a good call as he's home grown?'" I'd want Eastmond back before Graham in an ideal world. British halves with that level of talent don't grow on trees. Graham will be knocking on in years and been battered from the NRL, plus we aren't exactly short at prop. Judging by this however, Eastmond is going pretty well at Bath, left us in pretty acrimonious circumstances and is rumoured to be on circa 300K a year. Not sure where Saints find the additional 200K from...... www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugb ... 85982.html Oh and by the way, I can say with the most ridiculous ease that Kyle Eastmond is a much better player than Jordan Turner. Not even up for debate.

Quote St pete="St pete"Would kyle Eastmond be a good call as he's home grown?'" I'd want Eastmond back before Graham in an ideal world. British halves with that level of talent don't grow on trees. Graham will be knocking on in years and been battered from the NRL, plus we aren't exactly short at prop. Judging by this however, Eastmond is going pretty well at Bath, left us in pretty acrimonious circumstances and is rumoured to be on circa 300K a year. Not sure where Saints find the additional 200K from...... www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugb ... 85982.html Oh and by the way, I can say with the most ridiculous ease that Kyle Eastmond is a much better player than Jordan Turner. Not even up for debate.

I'd be in for eastmond. But only to bid Warrington up. Reckon he'd come back and be a Harris. Less pace and less speed of thought.