I think, if you just do the same again, it’ll very likely turn out similarly.

Did Hull themselves not struggle/fail to field a team on one or more occasion? Despite 2016 being a good year for injuries. You’re down to 17 fit players currently according to Lee Radford, never mind being able to field a second 17. You have had a bad time with injuries, but that is a big shortfall.

You started 2016 with 34 players with squad numbers, this year it was 31. Even if you don’t plan to send many or any on dual-reg, it needs to be up closer to 40 imo.

It doesn't have to be all 1st team squad members in the reserves. You can also put in academy players and trialists, rather like the old A team.

I believe that is the reason we went down the dual reg route due to the lack of fixtures in the reserves. If I remember rightly Adam Pearson came out in the press to explain the reasons behind dropping the reserve team as it takes a fair chunk of money run a reserve team properly and said the money could be spent better elsewhere to improve the players etc. problem with dual reg is your players are not in and around your own clubs training environment on a daily basis. Plus its also good to be able to slot players in that have been out for a long period to get a decent run out rather than straight back in to SL.

Dual reg is good for one or two players but is no substitute for a proper affiliated reserve set up. Its about bridging the gap between Senior rugby and the step up from junior which for me is currently to big and we are losing a lot of player who could/would make it if given more time. The reserves isn't just a full team of players who don't make the 17 its for the fringe players with a smattering of players that aren't making the 17 regularly to give them a bit of game time but also help bring on the young players at the same time.

There are a few players that nearly slipped the net because of no "A" team, or were rescued from Amateur. Jamie Shaul for you and George Lawler for us being examples
Wigan have just signed Handkinson, St Helens have Bullock from Barrow. These players look like they didnt mature/play to full potential until they were 21/22.
A reserves team is an excellent concept, aswell as giving squad players meaningful game time it gives clubs a chance to see how some academy players react when playing against "men" in a more physical game.


It also gives clubs a chance to see if there are any diamonds in the rough regarding local amateurs who didnt make it first time around due to different reasons (work/uni/family etc). Add in the fact clubs can look for players in expansion areas and have a good look at them, with nothing to lose for both parties.


I was a ball boy at Rovers when we ran and Alliance team, and witnessed some cracking games and some future international players.

If it is the odd academy player and trialist, that’s fine. However, if it’s half the team it becomes doubtful whether you’re really bridging the gap imo.

Remember the academy have their own fixtures to fulfill, and we’ve only got one between us now.



Yeah, I do see the benefits of a well-run, well-resourced reserve grade. But, in line with Pearson’s thinking above, it will take a chunk of money to do properly. I just think if you’re not going to do it properly, there’s not a lot of value in doing it at all. To help players step up to SL level, it has to be a decent semi-pro level, imo. For most of their history, the old A-teams were a stepping stone to being semi-pro - that won’t work in the modern game I don’t think.

In theory, i’m for a SL reserve league. However, we need to deal with the world as it is, rather than as we’d wish it to be. I don’t think the resource is there to support it properly, so dual-reg, imperfect as it is, is a more effective option.

I’d probably look at leaving players with their community clubs longer, and sending pro coaches to them, rather than bringing them into the academy so young. Then maybe switch to older age-group team. Under18s and 21s, rather than 16s and 19s.

A decent reserves is essential in helping players return from injury too. The game at Wakey was the first game time several of the lads had been given and it showed massively as they were far from match fit.

It’s true. However, another reason why a reserves team needs a reserves squad (or perhaps two thirds of one) is that it is another set of games players can pick up injuries in.

Also at Wakefield, how much was it a case of throwing players back in as soon as they were healthy in a gamble to ‘save’ the season? When you’re thin at first team level, all those players who could do with a run out for fitness and most who are thought of as fringe players are in the first XVII. Then, if you’ve only got a squad of about 35, you’ve a really tough job fulfilling your fixtures - and do you really want to risk losing anymore squad players?

Tbf, adding 10 part-time players to your squad maybe wouldn’t be that expensive. I think the harder part might be convincing them it is better than joining Batley or York or Sheffield.

I remember the cloak and dagger days when we used to trial RU players using exotic names such as A Newman, S.O. Else, A.N.Other etc. Although we don't need to be as secretive now the idea of running a reserve team is one that really needs to happen.

A Director of Rugby from a Super League club expected to field a reserves side in 2019, tonight confirmed that they won't be now running one now until 2020.

I'm thinking that a handful of clubs or merged outfits will play friendlies in 2019 and a competitive reserves league will commence in 2020.

That was definitely the case at Wakey, and Radders even admitted that, but if we'd had a reserves side, those lads could've been getting their fitness up in the preceding weeks instead of being chucked in at the deep end.