There's a few not far off first team rugby the way things are going, not sure if Baker is ready yet though.

Well if i were Lowes i'd throw a few in. The fans will get right behind Liam Kirk running in and Joe Lumb from dummy half.

The whole club is flat and the young players will give everyone a lift and weren't be under pressure from the fans. Lauaki for example won't lift the fans and and as soon as he makes a mistake the crowd will be on the teams back.

Agree we shouldn't just lob them in willy nilly, but I think there's a natural reluctance to blood youngsters generally (across all teams and even wider most sports)

How often has a new star emerged in an injury crisis when a club has no other option?

I'd say the incidence of new talent coming to the fore by this route is higher then youngsters being introduced in a "controlled way"

NB: I have no evidence to support this - purely gut feel!

Problem is largely that the young lads we do have that look like they're ready or nearly ready, are in positions that we're not exactly struggling in.

Joe Lumb for example. As much as we'd love to see him get some time off the bench, he's realistically not going to get in the side and then keep out the current 9.

I'm disappointed they didn't use Ethan Ryan a little more when we had a couple of centres out and Blythe was stinking up the place.

The main point being though our best academy players from what I've seen are mainly forwards. And we're not struggling for quality in the back row especially, but really all across the pack.

If we had a halfback who was even nearly ready, I'm sure they'd have tried him by now. Which suggests the current halves aren't ready for that step up yet and they don't want to shatter their confidence by throwing them in and having them crash and burn.

Jacob Trueman is a great prospect at stand off but is still 17 I think so could be ruined by being put into a demoralised 1st team and expected to make things happen. Same goes for Brandon Pickersgill at fullback.

Danny McGuire?

McGuire was 19 when he debuted (2 years older than many of our better U19s) and he wasn't a regular until he was 21. He was 22 when he broke through with all those tries.

He also had better players around him.

So I don't really think it's a fair comparison. Mind you in 1998 we were struggling and gave debuts to Fielden and Deacon who held their own at 19.

That then!

Thought he was loads younger....must be perception of time!

Wigan and Saints always seen to do similar in times of need and unearth a Gem - Eastmond is the one that sticks out straight away.

I understand not throwing them in too early as you don't want to destroy their confidence as Bullseye said. But at the same time the crowd make far more allowances if a young player makes a mistake. For me if we don't give some of the young players a go now, when none of the first team are justifying their shirt, when are we going to give some a chance?

Don't think we would see someone tried even if they were ready. Look at Adam Brook last year. Why the coaches think playing a centre or back-rower at HB is a better option just because they're more experienced is a mystery.

Thought I would put this here for anyone who wants to sponsor the walk that's raising money to renovate the Academy changing rooms www.crowdfunder.co.uk/bradford-b ... renovation

Thought I would put this here for anyone who wants to sponsor the walk that's raising money to renovate the Academy changing rooms www.crowdfunder.co.uk/bradford-b ... renovation

Problem is you've got to make sure they're physically mature enough to hand the pressure put on their bodies at 16, 17, 18.

It's easier to blood someone of that age in a strong side when they're physically developed enough but to do it when they're not and straight into s struggling side is folly. There are some exceptions to the rule and are physically monsters Al la Sam Burgess, Andy Farrell, Leon Pryce etc. But on the whole it's to much to soon.

Last year was ideal to blood Brook, but we didn't take the opportunity for whatever reason, maybe he wasn't as I mentioned above physically mature enough although he did seem to hold his own at Keighley.

We as fans have to understand that playing against U19/U16s is a completely different ball game to playing vs seasons pros with hardened bodies intent on causing physical destruction of the opposition.

They're not core first team facilities so I guess not an immediate priority.

Whatever, they need fixing up and the young lads deserve better so I'll be chipping in.

I'd rather the club prioritise £10,000 on a SH. If Bullbuilder are willing to fund the renovation AND we have that £10,000 to go towards paying for a decent SH, i'm all for it.

Whilst I understand that, I'm not sure it fits the core principles of the Trust.

Don't get me wrong, I'm completely behind Bullbuilder. I've been a member since early days and will continue to be so while they are supporting the kids. But they've always been good at making sure they pay for things that the club wouldn't otherwise have paid for. To "make that difference" rather than just saving the club having to pay for it.

The state of those changing rooms to me, the club should be paying for that. Not that I'm blaming Bullbuilder at all, they'll no doubt look at it as "This needs doing and the club just aren't stepping up, so let's us do it!". But the club themselves look to be taking advantage to me.