Crossley came into that category too for me. Holding out hope for Kirk but I can see where you're coming from.

Lot's of really big lads stroll through the 'ages' with many of the smaller lads just 'waving them through'. They look superb as kids, but when they hit the 19s, and open age, where their smaller opponents usually won't back off quite so easily, they don't look anything like as effective.

Kirks has got plenty of time to fill out. At the moment he's very tall rather than big. Due to the circumstances he's probably played many more games than he should have.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not counting him out just yet. I agree he probaably wasn't intended to play so many games this year, but circumstances have meant we've needed him to.

It's sometimes difficult to not compare him with a certain Polish 18 year old though. Without checking ages, I suspect Oledzki is actually younger, and I'd say he's also a little smaller, and yet look at the difference.

I'm fully aware it's an unfair comparison in that you could say every fullback is crap compared to Billy Slater, but it's hard not to look at it like that a little.

Not a fair comparison at all imo.

Some young players bound into first team at 17 or 18 and look the part, both physically and mentally right from the off, Sam Burgess and Leon Pryce are perfect examples. Others, Jamie Peacock is a textbook example, take much longer to make in inroads into first team rugby - Jamie was around 22 before he became anything like a 'regular', and he didn't turn out too shabby, IIRC.

You have to allow both types to develop at the pace which suits them or risk losing some real top class players.

I'm fully aware it's an unfair comparison, but that doesn't stop people making it.

And whilst you're right that you risk losing some top class players by cutting them early, there's the flip side of that where you risk paying someone for years who never develops and you've wasted money that could have been spent elsewhere.

That risk is ever more increased now that clubs have to make long term decisions about players at the age of 19. A ludicrous situation particularly with props.

Two of the best British forwards of the past 40 years (Jamie Peacock and Kevin Ward) were nowhere near the finished article at 19. They both went on to play top flight rugby well into their mid 30s. Nowadays they'd be binned off. Sometimes forwards that make it as teenagers burn out early, Stuart Fielden?

Liam may or may not come good. If Leigh Beattie, Rohan Smith and Geoff Toovey thought him worth a shot and a fulltime contract then I'll bow to their judgement.

We signed an Aussie in mid 80s called Ash Lumby, except when he scored a good try at Headingley, he was dire as was the Italian Aussie winger (so good I cant bring his name to mind) we had in late 90s. In the 60s we signed Keith Toohey who was reported to be the best junior in the game at the time, he never developed, played about a dozen games in 3-4 seasons and disappeared.

IIRC, we also got his brother Dennis. I think both played in the centres. To be honest, I don't recollect them as being particularly 'bad' but their statistics don't suggest they were runaway successes, it must be said.

Surely ample time for him to have clothes-lined a dozen or so players, given his strike rate at Wire?

1. McNamara
2. McNamara
3. McNamara
4. McNamara
5. McNamara
6. McNamara
7. McNamara
8. McNamara
9. McNamara
10. McNamara
11. McNamara
12. McNamara
13. McNamara

Coach McNamara

Oh, and Richie Hawkyard

Phil Howlett wasn't really a crowd pleaser from what I remember.

I never rated Tomlinson, always thought he was useless.

Shaun Edwards left under a cloud too after nobody in the squad seeming to like him much.