If we want to kick on from our recent progress we need to have a reserve team.
On the larger picture all super league teams should run second teams if we are ever going to match the Aussies for depth of player quality.

Could not agree more but it won't happen.

A reserve team isn't going to bridge the gap with the Aussies unfortunately. Reserve team will never take priority over first team or even Academy level anyway.

It will take a lot more than that, starting with more participation at Junior level and within schools etc - our foundations are nowhere near that of the Aussies.

However I do agree it may help late developers etc stay in the game an become SL quality.

There are exciting plans afoot to get more of our academy players through to first team and sticking with us; I won't say too much because it's not fair of me to do so, but Richard Kelly is definitely making an impact. Not quite a reserve team, but it's a start.

Good to hear. It's not so much the reserve team or lack of that bothers me but a pathway for overage players to stay with the club. I dread to think of the talent lost to the game in recent years due to this.

I know it's a different sport but look at Vardy! There used to be pleny of late (british) bloomers in RL but not anymore, only ex NRL players seem to get that honour.

Sounds good too me. This season in particular we can see the fruits of 1873 - these kids can make this club great again if we hold onto them. We need to have a similar ethos as Leeds had at the start of the Maguire, Burrows et al, era

Completely agree, it should never have been stopped in the first place.

Haven't Featherstone just disbanded their A team citing a lack of meaningful opposition?

Surely the simple solution to not having a full reserve grade team, would be to allow say, a maximum of 3 overage players to play in the 19's.
This would allow fringe players and those coming back from injury, some much needed game time, which has to be better than the dual reg. system, which has certainly been abused by some of the "big 4".

That is brilliant to hear. Start with our own.....hasn't done Wigan any harm (well...until last Sunday .)

Id go with that, but instead of U19's id go to U21's.

I'd be really precious about it. Yes I'd make it under 21's and scrap the under 19's. In my opinion the under 19's tend to end up playing against the same teams as they did at under 16's and in some cases further back, thus they are not developing new skills against new opponants.

I would however have some very strong restrctions.

1: All players must be registered to the club as either academy or full time - the only exceptions being trialists or British players taken on a full season loan. The idea is to give the Under 21's a real team identity and not just a dropping off point.

2: Only four over 21's may play in any single game.

3: No non British players may be used as part of the over 21's contingent and the only non British players allowed to participate must be under 21. We cannot see it used as a vehicle to get NRL players fit, they simply shouldn't need it.

4: The competition needs properly marketing with full fixture played at a fixed time - which IMHO would be a Wednesday.

There is always the oppertunity for abuse, however a team that would currently have the likes of Anakin, Hall, Owen and Walker in it's ranks combined with the up and comers would still be very attractive to watch IMHO whilst not being overly physical for the younger players.

My biggest gripe in the pastwas the total lack of marketing done by the SL and RFL regarding a second string competition and was typical of the lazy short sighted couldn't give a toss attitude of Red Hall. The competition will never be profitable but it could less expensive with a bit of effort. A sponsor and some central funding etc could be obtained and I suspect attendances would rise with the addition of first teamers and a good competition format.

Just my opinion.