The quality is less the point though.

The quality is entirely the point.

It really isn't. We only have to look at this year the benefit to those playing these friendlies.

no we dont. We would need a far greater data set than 13 games in to a season.

Why would we. We know it is not working for those without, that is good enough.

You made this claim earlier this year after the reserve teams had only played one fixture. Are Warrington doing well because they've played a couple of reserve games or because they've signed two NRL HB's? I'd suggest the latter. Are Wigan and Saints any different to what they've been for past seasons? In fact they look poorer even if they're still up near the top. Would we be doing any better if we'd have played 2/3 reserve games? Very much doubt it.



Thats not even to say we shouldn't have a reserve side/competition but to say the league table shows the benefit of it already after so little games and most who have reserve teams still being in the positions they usually occupy is far fetched.

No, I made this claim this week, having been convinced of its merits. I said a Huddersfield and Leeds coach at Easter said those teams were finding the benefits of it. I never said then, that I agreed with it. However, the proof is clearly there, and I can see the sense they were talking.

We dont know anything. Its 13 games in. The idea this has proven anything is moronic.

I'm of the opinion that Leeds chances of scraping into the Top 8 after 23 rounds probably evaporated with that defeat at Huddersfield on Friday.



I don't envisage them winning 7 out of the next 10 fixtures.

I think we'll see a spate of injured players miraculously fit for the Cup game. If that happens it will tell us all we need to know about how much effort is now being put into the league.



On reserves my view is simple - I prefer the feeder team concept as players not in the first team would be playing in a more competitive environment, but if its done half-baked (as it is in RL in England) then a simple reserve competition is better. The standard won't be high, but all you really want is more match fit open age players who can do a job if required, as well as get Academy players used to playing open age. That's what the old reserve competition used to do.

I see Peacock has now come out and said the exact same thing as the Huddersfield and Leeds coach said to me. His words, "It is no coincidennce that five of top six teams in the league this year have a reserve team".



It really isn't, but to see that you would also have to think without the need to defend everything Leeds does.

Yeah me defending what Leeds doing, its not like I said







It's no coincidence that Wigan, Saints, Warrington are up at the top half of the table because they always usually are.....why were they near the top for all these other recent seasons? Weren't Hull 2 from 2 at the start of the season and 1st place before any reserve games had even been played......how does that work if reserve games are the reason for their success, of which btw they've only played 3 including one against Featherstone reserves.



If not having a reserve side is costing Leeds and Hudds, why are they below other teams like Cas, Wakey and Salford who also don't have reserve sides.



I actually do think we should have a reserve side and that it will benefit sides, but OVER TIME, not after one or two games of being introduced.