thats where its difficult though and what i think Stu was alluding to. Its all well and good bringing 1 or 2 into a side thats playing well and having 15 seasoned pros to look after them v bringing in 6 or 7 (i know different to drip feeding too )where they are potentially risking their futures due to the physical differences from age 16-18 and not being able to compete physically / getting battered by full time pros

i know sometimes circumstances (injuries) dictate that players are thrown in too early, but i dont think Saints are in that position injury wise that they need to risk wholesale changes this season. They also have a couple of fringe players that it appears Wellens doesnt want to play (Ritson and potentially Bennison). I know Bennison has had games on the wing, but the change last week was quickly reverted by Wellens and he was brought off to put Welsby back at FB.

One of my Saints supporting mates appears to be a real fan of Ritson, posting on FB quite regularly that he should be playing. I'm in the jury out on him as yes he's fast, but i dont think he is a smart rugby player from what i've seen of him, and Wellens probably doesnt trust him to be playing every week. There's no doubt initially it was good piece of business from Saints, getting him on loan but to turn that into a permanent signing IMO was an error or he would be playing every game. He's also not a kid (2icon_cool.gif so should be getting regular 1st team rugby somewhere

i wasnt aware he was with Vaughan, so as you say probably a good trial outside of the limelight of super league. Like i said initially i thought it was a smart piece of business, but to then offer him a deal but not particularly want to play him seems strange, even more so when he's not a young kid with plenty of opportunity for him to develop

I think if they are going to get any game time it will be in the next few weeks. After Saturday we have a relatively "easier" set of fixtures bar Catalan at the end of May.

London and the Castleford game in particular may be a good time to have a look at Vaughan and also Stephens

I keep hearing talk of this "Golden Generation". Given that so many careers falter between Academy and first team, what makes everyone so sure these youngsters are going to make the grade? More specifically that they're going to make the grade at the level Saints would be looking for.

I think back to the number of players tipped for big things at Wigan and I'd estimate that no more than 1 in 4 (and probably much less than that) actually go on to have long Wigan careers. Even the ones that make it (like George Williams for example) go on to have careers away from the club.

Its a valid point that you make and there are certainly no guarantees. Will Roberts for example (scrum half) was looking really good and then did his cruciate ligament on loan at Swinton at 17 years of age. He has only just come back from that injury so it remains to be seen what impact it has had on him.

I can only speak from what I have seen watching a fair bit of them but its more that Mike Rush when interviewed said that he feels 4 or 5 of them won't just have solid SL careers but he described them as "game changers" so when your CEO and someone who to be fair has had a great pedigree in the youth side of rugby says that then it gives you extra confidence.

Just going back to this, I think Wellens made a mistake by not playing a couple of them against Hull. They had a lot of injuries and young lads playing and we were at home. That would have been a perfect game for the likes of Vaughan or Stephens.

However this was the first game after the Warrington defeat and I think Wellens wanted to get back on the horse and get a good win and didn't want to risk any changes.

Regarding the fixture list Stu we have only played two of our eight league fixtures at home. When we play London at home at the end of June we will have played 10 matches away and only three on home turf. If we are in contention at that point the LLS could be a forgone conclusion.

I've never really seen any explanation of why the fixture list has been so ridiculous. Did Wigan and Huddersfield ask for loads of away fixtures due to the shared facilities with football clubs? We usually have plenty of away games in early summer but it isn't the norm for early season. We also have the ridiculous scenario where we'll have played Castleford 4 times come June 14th (I know one was in the cup), yet we still won't have played a single fixture against Hull or Leeds and I know that sort of scenario is being played out across the league.

It seems to be a lot of pressure on those guys and, more importantly, pinning your hopes on an unknown quantity from the club's perspective. I guess it's one thing if you're a settled side and these young players are being drip fed into it but, with a major rebuild ahead, it could be a real gamble depending on which signings are made. The incomings would have to be proven quality and even then there are no guarantees.

A very risky strategy from Saints if they're counting on all these young players coming good but one that could pay off if it works out well.

Not sure why this is funny though TYG, i think it is a very valid point.

We lose very few games at home under Peet. In fact, looking back we have only lost 2 home games under Peet. The 2022 semi final vs. Leeds & 1 game early last season vs. Catalan.

I would be confident if we are still up there come the second half of the season, when we will play mostly home games.

I think to suggest that top spot could be a foregone conclusion by June is ridiculous.

It's so the football clubs can treat the pitch in their off season

That accounts for late May/June but we’ve been playing away most of the time since Feb, just as Huddersfield have been. It’s why that has been the case that I’m curious about, as well as the crazy situation of playing some clubs 3 times by June and other zero times. You struggle to read that much in to the league table because of it.