absolute b0llocks

Agreed.

You only need to look at the development over the years of a player like Matty Smith to see that's the case or Darrell Goulding is another.



There isn't a magic number where a backs development suddenly stops and you may as well throw them on the scrap heap.



A suggestion that time is running out for either is pure nonsense. They both have less then 30 first team rugby league games under their belts and I wouldn't mind, both have shown good signs at points but are inconsistant.

Yeah fully agree with that. Thornley reminds me a bit of Liam Colbon - steady, but you don't expect him to do anything out of the ordinary (better player than Colbon though). He needs to work on his hand off IMO.



I think Gelling has the attributes and the potential to be one of the best centres in SL, I suppose time will tell.

No need to be so rude, though, is there? Another keyboard tough guy......



There are younger better prospects currently in SL plus history has shown many examples of backs coming through at a younger age, Sam Tomkins included. Therefore, the clock is ticking for a 22 yr old "prospect". Conversely, 22 year old props have time on their hands. I hope that this is plain enough for you to understand. Given the quality of your effort, I thought a simple explanation was needed. Or would you rather I just said b0llocks to you too?

Gelling is head and shoulders above Thornley as far as centres go. If anything I would say Thornley is the one more likely to make a decent second row in the future.



Gelling just needs a bit more experience and he has what it takes to become a great player for us for many years. He has the size, handling skills and decent footwork.



Thornley is the safe option at the minute as he comes across as a more mature player and a bit more reliable in defence.

To Bill Sonny, this is how our argue your point. To respond, I never mentioned any scrap heap. My opinion is that neither looks likely to be a star, as Goulding isn't. I think I used the phrase "distinctly average". Could I ask how long you give backs to develop as opposed to forwards? That was the point I was making. Look at Crooks and Lineham for younger better backs, never mind Kallum Watkins. If gelling in particular has less than 30 games, isn't there the possibility that this is because he isn't good enough?



Edit: Thornley is 22, Gelling 23 next month.

Rather then age I'd be more inclined to look at first team appearances tbh. There is no way of telling how quickly a players game will develop in terms of age because they may just not have had the first team opportunities to develop their games. I think this applies to the pair if these lads for different reasons. They are both superb athletes but have plenty to work on but there's no better place to learn your trade then in the thick of the action in the first team.



As for a debate on development of backs in comparison to forwards I'd agree that you can be more patient with forwards and I think there's reasons for that. I think a major one is that a forward needs that element of physical presence and that can take a long time to build up. I also think that confidence to be aggressive with older and more experienced players takes time to build. The last reason I can see is pretty simple, squads carry more forwards then backs so you have to be more patient for chances and when you get them your likely to be spelled more then a back.



Back or forward though I'd never write and player off until they've had enough chances. Gelling or Thornley haven't.

Was Carmont a star at 22 or was he a late developer?

Your ridiculous post didn't deserve anything other than what I typed.

Nope in fact he made his professional debut at about 26 years old if I am correct? (Might not be)... Perhaps Jinkin Jimmy thinks he should have quit Rugby League altogether because if you don't develop by 22, go be a plumber or something worthwhile?



Who knows

Sign Blake Ferguson get Gelling in the pack and Thornley fighting it out for a wing spot. Job done.

Why would Thornley need to fight for a wing spot if we signed Ferguson?

Because we have Charnley on one side, Manfredi and Burgess, and that is if we do not recruit. Burgess and Manfredi to me like they have more potential on the wing than Thornley, and another off season I think will be really pushing for a chance in the starting line up.