3rd grade you say in Oz - but good enough for SL Dream Team here and that frankly, is all I'm bothered about.

To say Lineham made Ben Crooks look good is bordering on lunacy and is simply not fair to the lad. Centres can make wingers look good, but don't buy into this little theory at all.

I use my eyes as evidence, he is a better than Yeaman and Micheals IMO and could be argued about Sa (Who after a good start to the season has disappointed at centre and is often injured).

I'm not sure what evidence you want?

Heres my 2p worth on the matter....... crooks, was given a chance by pg, who obviously rated him very highly, the season went great for him and lineham, culminating in a dream team spot.....BUT, since then, pg got the chop, and our new coach IMO doesnt rate him nowhere nearly as highly as the previous.... crooks has skill, no doubt, but tge sheer lack of size has had the coaching staff questioning him eversince he couldnt bulk up in the off season...... at times he got bullied, and without a big winger (lineham) outside him, i feel he would have looked average, when in defence anyways... i also beleive crooks himself thought he's better than he actually is, im sure radford and him had "words" regarding this, obviously tgey didnt agree, and both parties thought it was best to move on......, hes struggled to get a start in the reserve grade over in oz, and that probably says it all....... talent - yes...... finished article - nowhere near

Brilliant post. Good luck to the kid I hope he makes it but I doubt he will.

His dream team season was at a massive cost to the players directly around him. In defence he was 3 in. With a second row inside and half back outside. Basically body guards. So big men/2nds/centres ran at him and the 2nd row looked after him. Tricky decisions were made for him by Horne usually in open play defensive situations.
Then in attack was mostly used for the fancy stuff.
Which obviously kinda worked as he and tom made dream team and scored a few.
But Radford came in and I imagine he thought I can't run a team looking after individuals. Or effectively lose a right side for 1 man.
So it seemed to me he changed it and forced Crooks to look after himself. He went to a conventional defensive pattern and Crooks failed. Badly.
Personally I thought radford did what he could with him.
In - terrible
Took him out a while
Brought him back - terrible again
On loan - got some form,and confidence came back v London and looked good.
Next game couldn't tackle a dinner.
Radford couldn't defend for him. He gave him the chances imo

When defending at left centre he looked ok - at right centre he was poor.

So by your reckoning your coaches are better then the ones available to him at Parramatta too then?

Totally agree with this .

Wherever he ends up I hope the kid does well

the thing is when a player has had a good season in the past and form has dipped, there is always the feeling that a coach somewhere will be able to get him back to his best. there are usually quite a few prepared to take the chance or challenge, hence why the story claims other clubs are interested as well as Cas. This is one of those issues that at the moment where there is no right or wrong opinion - only time will tell if crooks can be rejuvinated

What? cant name one that's coming through.
my opinion don't think Logan will make it either,too small and not enough pace.

The problem for Crooks he was playing for a coach under pressure and suffered for that as his mistakes were seen to have cost Radford points whilst his mate Yeaman who does deserve to be dropped cements his place in the team week after week and his mistakes seemingly go unnoticed by the coach.

So you think his poor form last year was Radford's fault? What a surprise.

Crooks looked promising in 2012, was terrific in 2013 but poor last season. Some on here were tipping him to be a success at the Eels but is clearly hasn't worked out for him. Maybe it was their coach's fault.

Who are you thinking of? I don't get to see the U19s except for those who occasionally appear for the first team, like Logan.

3rd grade? The reserve grade as such was discarded years ago, when the u/20's was introduced.(Holden cup)
Any player who doesn't make the 17 for first grade plays in the NSW cup if he is too old for the u/20's.
Parra use Wentworthville as their NSW cup team, - Chris Sandow was dropped & played a few weeks ago,
although you presumably think the fans of any super league club that signs him will `go mental'
By denigrating players from the NSW comp' I assume (maybe wrongly) you don't watch the NSW cup,
IMO from the games I've seen the standard is pretty close to the bottom half of Super League & looking at
at our league positions last season & this, ? ? ? ?

Crooks was given a raw deal IMO, same as Miller, and yes Miller wasn't going to improve enough but was still given a raw deal throughout the season.

Crooks was in and out of the side after the first three games in which he did little wrong, it wasn't him that cost us those two early losses, he didn't play in the debacle at home against Widnes and yeah he fell off a few tackles but who didn't last season, we were absolute turb aside from a small handful of games.

In his games we had a higher % win ratio than without (P12 W5 incl 1 CC loss), he made fewer errors per game than Shaul missed fewer tackles than Shaul per game & as a ratio of tackles made plus also had equal metres gained/carry.

Compared to Yeaman (25 games incl CC loss) Crooks had exactly the same missed tackle ratio (to tackles made), Crooks made more tackle busts per game (twice as many in fact), made more average metres/carry, almost identical amount of errors per game yet Crooks was ostricised by Radford and Yeaman carried on playing as if untouchable?

But obviously the word was that he was getting above his station, getting cocky, bad attitude, poor form, you name it the rumours where everywhere about him, where did these 'rumours' originate from?

I really hope we can get a decent centre for next season because atm it looks like Yeaman is going to be first choice again.