: Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:55 pm  

tvoc wrote:

Yeah for me almost there, Leeds just needed a signing of someone like, ooh I don't know so I'll just pick a name out of thin air here 'Greg Eastwood' and they'd have been sorted. The problem is (and it is a problem) that didn't materialise. The question is what should the reigning Champions do about that? Go to Allan and Worrall? Well not really not if they were serious about mounting a challenge across all comps this season. Is Allan really a second row by trade anyway and in Worrall we have 'Ablett light' and in Ablett we have 'Ellis light'.

Well, Allan and Worrall were some way down the order anyway, and a bit of luck with injuries could have seen them not feature at all.
Although Ellis was relatively poor in 2008, we weren't really likely to sign a player of the same level just because there aren't many of them.

tvoc wrote:

Centre wasn't so much of an issue for me once Webb got back to fitness with Senior and Smith designated first choices although I had misgivings pre season that Hall was the real deal on the right and I couldn't see the logic or possibility of disturbing our excellent go to pairing of Senior and Donald on the left. Pre-season for me Smith was the right wing choice not Hall.

FWIW, I don't like the idea of trying to balance our two sides either. There's nothing wrong with being one-sided, or set up to go "long" one side, and short the other side. Most teams do, including Saints.

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:56 pm  

tvoc wrote:

Yeah for me almost there, Leeds just needed a signing of someone like, ooh I don't know so I'll just pick a name out of thin air here 'Greg Eastwood' and they'd have been sorted. The problem is (and it is a problem) that didn't materialise. The question is what should the reigning Champions do about that? Go to Allan and Worrall? Well not really not if they were serious about mounting a challenge across all comps this season. Is Allan really a second row by trade anyway and in Worrall we have 'Ablett light' and in Ablett we have 'Ellis light'.




Centre wasn't so much of an issue for me once Webb got back to fitness with Senior and Smith designated first choices although I had misgivings pre season that Hall was the real deal on the right and I couldn't see the logic or possibility of disturbing our excellent go to pairing of Senior and Donald on the left. Pre-season for me Smith was the right wing choice not Hall.

TBF I don't think anyone expected Eastwood's visa to be turned down over driving offences. Whether it was right to defer his contract till 2010 is another matter which has meant putting pressure on the other players for this year. I guess that the club felt that they were capable of qualifying for the playoffs with or without him and that they could match other teams in one off games.

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:09 pm  

rpw wrote:

:lol: You'd pick argument with your own shadow...

Richie can knit for with the best of them.

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:18 pm  

Richie wrote:

Well, Allan and Worrall were some way down the order anyway, and a bit of luck with injuries could have seen them not feature at all.

They are only some way down the pecking order if the 10 man pack panel used for the weekly 17 can maintain intensity, fitness, form and stay clear of injuries. That is never realistically going to happen over a full season.

Given the lack of options being exercised by McClennan this season so far I think squad depth of an acceptable trusted standard (or lack of) is a real issue. The team looks like it could do with a freshen up but the options are minimal.

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:19 pm  

finglas wrote:

I guess that the club felt that they were capable of qualifying for the playoffs with or without him and that they could match other teams in one off games.

Well that logic is proving to be flawed around 1/3rd of the way in to the season.

Or, is this a more likely scenario ?

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:45 pm  

AdmiralHanson wrote:

Well that logic is proving to be flawed around 1/3rd of the way in to the season.

Or, is this a more likely scenario ?

May be a bit of that but if you consider that Eastwood and Buderus salary would IMO not be a great deal less than Ellis, Toopi, Scruton and Tansey it reduces the scope for a further signing.

The Eastwood non-show is IMO playing havoc with Leeds plans for 2009

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:11 pm  

i'm struggling here richie.

i think it goes like this.

GH goes to bluey and says "eastwood is out of contract,he is cheap,so i'm signing him".

bluey says "great,he will replace ellis and bolster our pack well".

richie says" we don't need him".


who do i go with?
answers on a postcard

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:16 pm  

tad rhino wrote:

i'm struggling here richie.

i think it goes like this.

GH goes to bluey and says "eastwood is out of contract,he is cheap,so i'm signing him".

bluey says "great,he will replace ellis and bolster our pack well".

richie says" we don't need him".


who do i go with?
answers on a postcard

So where has Bluey said we need him?

and where did you hear either party make those statements by the way? Particularly the bit about Eastwood being cheap?

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:19 pm  

Isnt Eastwood on the record saying that he signed for the money? Not indicative that he is on a huge wedge, just more than he was in Oz.

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:24 pm  

Richie wrote:

So where has Bluey said we need him?

and where did you hear either party make those statements by the way? Particularly the bit about Eastwood being cheap?

I doubt he was cheap but I guess Bluey thought we needed him as why else would he want to sign to sign him?