That's the point whenever they've had a bad result some posters comment on how many 1st years playing as an excuse, like you say it's not a bearing on the results they wouldn't be in the academy squad in the first place if they weren't good enough.

Lets be logical about this. Under the current rules we could theoretically have a team of 19yr olds playing one comprising 16 yr olds. Those 19 yr olds will on average be bigger, physically stronger, more mature and will have more game time (experience) and coaching. Clearly that adds up to a very significant advantage. Cast your mind back to school days, would you fancy taking on the year above you - or two years above you, at a game of rugby ?
As you mix the age groups the advantages diminish, but obviously the more '1st years' you play against 'third years', the bigger the disadvantage.

That argument should never enter the head of a coach or the team of course, when you go out to play you have only one mentality - winning. And if you lose, it's not an 'excuse' as you put it, it's one of the contributory reasons for losing.

Well then you will know (especially in early season) that a lot of the clubs don't play many first year players as these lads are there effectively learning and preparing to play. I know parents of lads at Wigan and they haven't even had one game. Warrington will be in good shape next year as a lot of the younger players are now experienced.

The bigger factor in recent games is the injuries ( both hookers and scrum half amongst others) and the players being drafted into the first team. Dare say they will still finish in the top four though.

Match Report from last night: warringtonwolves.com/u19s-fall-s ... aints-8154

Match Report from last night: warringtonwolves.com/u19s-fall-s ... aints-8154

Thanks for that; I always include both sides in the report otherwise it is neither use nor ornament.

If you are going to do the job then you do it properly and make sure it is a true reflection of the game.