: Sun May 10, 2009 5:42 pm  

Bully_Boxer wrote:

One academy, one reserves! Keep up!

I know you're another year older now, but you're hitting the grumpy stage way too early

: Sun May 10, 2009 5:47 pm  

Paul124897 wrote:

I know you're another year older now, but you're hitting the grumpy stage way too early

I know you're another year older now, but you're hitting the confusion stage way too early

: Sun May 10, 2009 5:48 pm  

Bully_Boxer wrote:

I know you're another year older now, but you're hitting the confusion stage way too early

: Sun May 10, 2009 6:03 pm  

I don't no how Stuart's got the Academy score at 52 - 16 it was definitely 52 - 10.

: Sun May 10, 2009 6:04 pm  

Adeybull wrote: 52-16? But this would be the junior development that so many people assure us we don't have; the pipeline for the future that the club and its coaching staff have not been developing, compared to say...Leeds? who as all the world knows have far far better junior development. That's right, isn't it? To bring a balanced view to your argument Leeds play all their better U18's in the reserves while Bradford keep theirs down at U18 level.

Adeybull wrote: 52-16? But this would be the junior development that so many people assure us we don't have; the pipeline for the future that the club and its coaching staff have not been developing, compared to say...Leeds? who as all the world knows have far far better junior development. That's right, isn't it? To bring a balanced view to your argument Leeds play all their better U18's in the reserves while Bradford keep theirs down at U18 level.

: Sun May 10, 2009 6:24 pm  

redeverready wrote:

I don't no how Stuart's got the Academy score at 52 - 16 it was definitely 52 - 10.

Leeds have it as 52-10.

: Sun May 10, 2009 6:26 pm  

redeverready wrote:

I don't no how Stuart's got the Academy score at 52 - 16 it was definitely 52 - 10.

Well we had your original 52-4 (till you updated it). Stuart's 52-16, and your revised 52-10...!



But its all academic, cos everyone seems to agree on the number that matters - 52 - and that it was a right good stonking Leeds got.

: Sun May 10, 2009 6:31 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Well we had your original 52-4 (till you updated it). Stuart's 52-16, and your revised 52-10...!



But its all academic, cos everyone seems to agree on the number that matters - 52 - and that it was a right good stonking Leeds got.

I had the 4 in my mind from yesterday. It's hard to keep up when it's your 4th game of the weekend. There's more rugby than just first team rugby.

: Sun May 10, 2009 6:32 pm  

ritz wrote:

Leeds have it as 52-10.

Because that's what it was. Any way disappearing off at halftime I was going to talk to you but you shot off.

: Sun May 10, 2009 6:38 pm  

redeverready wrote:

I had the 4 in my mind from yesterday. It's hard to keep up when it's your 4th game of the weekend. There's more rugby than just first team rugby.

What's your take on our academy? Are they looking as good as that scoreline suggests? Were Leeds weak? Was it a fluke? I'm sure everyone is hoping its the first of those - and then of course that we get to keep and actually play some of them?