Powell's reasons for his absence:

When asked, Powell says he expects Longstaff to be putting pressure on those ahead of him but that he is "a little bit below where he should be."

"I’ve sat down with Ellis and explained to him in great detail what I want him to do a couple of times," he said.

"There’s a few players under pressure in our team and I think Ellis should be there or thereabouts.

"At the moment, he’s a little bit below where he should be and I’m challenging him to step up.

"I understand why they're asking the question, but Ellis has got to do his part of the bargain and step up to the plate."

Not what I wanted to read. Some players need to turn their SatNavs on to find where the ballpark is, never mind the plate.

We need to be careful of hyping up this lad. It is unfair on him and Powell. It is a big tough world in the forwards if you are 19 ...coming up to 20.
It is a bit of a natural reaction to call for "bring in the youngsters" when all around are struggling.

I agree with you Smiffy and as long as Powell and his staff are encouraging the lad and setting him realistic targets to show that there is a genuine pathway then we can ask no more......or can we?

We've been poor across the park but (and we've spent some money here) we've been really poor at SR so perhaps rather than limiting his message to Longstaff selecting him in place of Holmes or Currie even for a game or two might have been effective

I think that one of the main reasons for the "we must pick Longstaff idea" is more to give Currie/Holmes/Hughes a kick up the bum.
I do not think he is ready to play regular second row at first team level yet. Mind you, I would love to be proved wrong.

Ellis has got to step up to the plate? I read this as "I'm not going to drop the guy I brought over with me from cas even though he's been amongst our worst performers".

It's not necessarily we must pick Longstaff from me. However, if that's the justification from Powell to not picking him, then there's [imore[/i justification for not picking those in front of him.

Bit weird that's how you read it to be honest.

Longstaff is very much a work in progress and mentally and physically he still has much to do, but the raw talent is there.

Keen as we are to have a team filled with talented academy products better to have a slow burn than a burn out - Harvey Livett springs to mind, a player who it could be argued was far more skilful than any of our backrowers aside from Currie, but who seemed to plateau very quickly.

Contrary to many posters, Powell thinks Longstaff is not at the level of Currie and Holmes - even in their current form.
He's the coach, his call.
He can see Longstaff has the potential, and if Longstaff addresses the areas that he needs to improve on then he's in a better place to challenge.
I've no strong view as I dont understand enough of the technicalities to judge, but one thing you always get with youngsters is energy and enthusiasm.
Our 2nd rowers are struggling in a struggling team. A lot of this is 'in the head' - confidence is part of that, and also controlling nerves.
Just got to work hard, but do things to relax.

Harvey Livett is an interesting one. I really rated him and agree that he had great skills (along the lines of Currie). I always got the impression that it was 'attitude' that was the issue. Shame really.

I too think that Currie and Holmes (even in their current form) are quite a bit ahead of Longstaff. However, Longstaff is likely to improve and things change. At the moment I would pick Currie & Holmes.

Disagree re Livett. He lost confidence after Price dropped him following the 2018 CC final. He played well since leaving us and has signed for Huddersfield next season. Still only 25. Good player.

I agree, but his career at Wires had stalled. He got a new deal, had a lousy CC final and never kicked on. I hope he does well at Huddersfield because the game needs less robots and more footballers but, for whatever reason, his career in the P&B was flatlining.