I'd agree with that. Although with Ward being a smaller type of back rower as well we would lack a bit of size in attack if we did sign him. Purely hypothetical anyway as it sounds like we've signed Westerman so I couldn't see us being in the market for him and by the sounds of it he's being groomed as SOL's successor so he's likely to be happy enough where he is.

Spot on, we can't have it all ways. We develop more young players than any other club and sometimes we have to let players go to accommodate them. I'm looking forward to see the next young group progress, and at some stage if they go well enough we'll have to find a way to pay them what they are worth.

Not overly popular but good opposition players rarely are, especially when they're young. Don't think he'd head our list of priorities unless he can play hooker though.

I think there is a case to be made for, at some point, sticking with what you have got. Our relatively large turnover of players could be viewed as detrimental IMO. Look how Leeds have remained unchanged for a decade in key areas. That stability is something I crave and if we relinquish crop after crop of kids, well, maybe that's the price to be paid.

Would you be happy to see the likes of Hampshire, Manfredi, Shorrocks etc released to keep Bateman? I'm playing devils advocate btw. I accept it's a difficult decision, but it's always going to be a problem if we keep churning out the young talent.

The point I'm making is that I don't want to hear calls for the next young thing to replace Manfredi, Bateman, etc as soon as those players reach the age of 24. Stick with this group for years to come and let the up and comers move on. Do you think Leeds had no great half back prospects coming through when Burrow and McGuire were in their mid 20s? I don't know if they did or not but what isn't in dispute is that Leeds had a squad chock full of players with 10 years or more on the clock - and now their trophy cabinet is chock full too. Coincidence? Well, maybe. I for one would like us to follow that route and see what happens.

The problem with that argument is that you could stick with someone and ignore someone better. What has happened at Leeds is unique I'm afraid and is unlikely to be repeated, especially by Leeds, as we shall see.

If you had identified Mellor and Powell from our Under 20 GF winning team a few years back and stuck with them as your argument suggests, you would have risked losing Williams and Hampshire.

Fair point but there comes a time when you have to settle on some players and stop keep changing and allow a team to develop - changing key positions every year or two is not a long term route to success, if that means missing out on a player who goes on to develop elsewhere so be it. That is the sad fact in the method Wigan have chosen - by developing young players you inevitably have to let some go who are or could be better than what you have!

A settled side is far more important than missing out on one or two talents imo. For example I'd personally have been happy if we'd have kept Green through to the day he retired even if that meant Williams had a tougher fight for the shirt. Having class and consistency is what turns good teams into dominant teams imo.

I'm also a firm believer that those who are good enough will always force thier way into a side. Williams would always eventually force his way in over Smith as he's a better player. Likewise there was no way in hell that Sam wasn't going to make it likewise Lockers, Faz & Rads.

Mellor and Powell? I'd still have Kevin Brown and Luke Robinson!

The problem with that is that Williams wouldn't be playing and would want away. We have a similar problem now with Hampshire, and there'll be hell on here if he leaves. They can't force themselves into the team if they're not playing anywhere.