Quote DAVE@CAS1990="DAVE@CAS1990"Pop Tart, I'm unsure, do you think that the U21's was a better option than dual reg'ing for young players in that case???'"
Personally, as long as the deal is a good one for all parties, I prefer the dual reg.
It's got a bad rep because of the teams playing injured players on a one off to bring them back through but the standard of player in the lower league is better in my opinion that at U19 or U21.
The difficulty of the transition to me is playing against more physically developed players, and you are not given that in an under 21s set up.
Because the player pool is not massive in rugby league you get the best kids playing super league already (a la Tomkins). You are not playing against the best U21s you are playing against those not ready for Super league yet possibly even 16/17. An average U19 could look good there when they will still struggle on the step up.
Whereas you get players that are either bigger but not quite as good, or more skillful but less fit because of part time setup in the lower leagues
Let's take whoever the next young centre is at Wakefield as an example. Assuming he is not quite ready yet and taking his first steps he would be playing against either younger players on their way up or 20/21 players not seen as good enough for even Wakefield/Cas/Salford etc. If he plays for Dewsbury he lines up against Menzie Yari or Jessie Joe Parker or even Danny Cowling who know their way about and will test them both physically and technically compared to the other kids learning their trade, without having the pressure of being the weakest link in the team.
It has to be done right to make it work.
Season long loans are better for all parties if you ask me, but it gets difficult when you have an injury crisis and would like them back.
It clearly works better when you have a big enough squad to keep some back. We don't have that I guess.
It would work best if we really did have a feeder club system but to change from what we have now to that is near impossible.