: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:33 pm  

fanstanningley wrote:

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

I don't know where Tad got the idea about Eastwood being cheap, probably the same place as the "quotes" he supplied.

On signing him though, there's a difference between wanting to have a good player (and a coach will want as many of those as possible) and a team needing a player.

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:39 pm  

Richie wrote:

I don't know where Tad got the idea about Eastwood being cheap, probably the same place as the "quotes" he supplied.

On signing him though, there's a difference between wanting to have a good player (and a coach will want as many of those as possible) and a team needing a player.

Where do you think the team needs strengthening either this season or next?

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:46 pm  

Smith was right. We needed to sign a proven Centre in the off season and a back row forward when it was clear Greg (Billy Bunter) Eastwood was not coming. It should not have been left so long. The replacements simply are not up to standard yet. We have the added problem of Ali's regular unfitness and Lee Smith maybe going to Union plus the usual injuries. What if Senior gets a long term injury?

In addition to these squad weaknesses IMO there is another factor this season. The coach has a game plan based on defence and not attack. He has had us committing 3 and 4 players to tackle one man. This is fine when defending your own line but it has had a negative effect on the sharpness of the side. They all look tired and when all that effort is put in and they still let in 5 tries is also saps the confidence.

We must return to a game plan based on attack from the start of a game and not give the inititive to the opposition which is what we have been doing all season. We have the players for an attacking style and it is what the paying public want to see.

Whatever went on on the pre-season training field was wrong. They all look worn out with no form or sharpness with the exception of Lee Smith.

To end on a positive point. Bluey said he didn't want us to peak too soon this season - fairs fair - he has got that part of his plan right!

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:51 pm  

Richie wrote:

Didn't we sign another hooker too?
Should any of our younger players have improved in the last year?
Did our coaching and conditioning staff do anything in the off-season?

So Richie if Leeds didn't think they needed Eastwood why did they want to sign him - because they thought they would give him a couple of years in the UK or because they genuinely thought their was a weakness in the squad?


Not all players are going to improve some simply do not have the ability and plateau and some players will regress as age and condition effect them.

Will Senior be as good as he was? very unlikely not even Canute could turn back the tide. Does getting regularly concussed help Burrow's form?

If you are a top side you need top players in key positions centre is one of them it is the major strike position in most sides to not have a quality centre is an issue as it limits your attacking options and you become easier to defend against.

As for the Saints backline I would have Wellens, Gidley, Gilmour, Gardener, Pryce and Long.

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:52 pm  

fanstanningley wrote:

Where do you think the team needs strengthening either this season or next?

The priority at the moment should be signing Lee Smith to a long term contract.
Across the squad there are no glaring weaknesses that demand an immediate signing. What we should be doing is looking for any player who comes at a good quality/cost ratio. I believe Eastwood (but don't know what he cost) fell into that category.
Longer term, we're strong at fullback as long as we have Webb and Smith contracted.
We have enough on the wing, but should be looking at whether BJB can replace Donald in a couple of years.
Centre should see Watkins & Smith as the longer term solution until Webb leaves, and then we need to find a centre or fullback, with Smith taking the other spot, and I reckon Smith will succeed Webb at fullback.
We're set at halfback*
I'm comfortable with the whole forward group, although we need to think about how long Ali and Peacock will be around. I see Kirke moving to prop at some point.
*At hooker, we're good for now, but will need a successor to Buderus, and I'd be looking to find a hooker/scrum half type who can add some zip around the PTB. That shouldn't be a big money signing though, but a development player.

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:55 pm  

Eccleshill Rhino wrote:

So Richie if Leeds didn't think they needed Eastwood why did they want to sign him - because they thought they would give him a couple of years in the UK or because they genuinely thought their was a weakness in the squad?

I have already said why we tried to sign him. Did you read it?

Eccleshill Rhino wrote:

As for the Saints backline I would have Wellens, Gidley, Gilmour, Gardener, Pryce and Long.

You would really have Wellens over Webb, Gilmour over Senior and Gardner over Donald?

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:56 pm  

Richie wrote:

I don't know where Tad got the idea about Eastwood being cheap, probably the same place as the "quotes" he supplied.

On signing him though, there's a difference between wanting to have a good player (and a coach will want as many of those as possible) and a team needing a player.

Once again you are being obtuse needing/wanting - GH does not spend it doesn't have to if he thought the player wasn't needed he would not be looking to spend a big chunk of money - Eastwood is not an academy player on 10k who might make it

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:00 pm  

Eccleshill Rhino wrote:

Once again you are being obtuse needing/wanting - GH does not spend it doesn't have to if he thought the player wasn't needed he would not be looking to spend a big chunk of money - Eastwood is not an academy player on 10k who might make it

Not at all. I am being very clear. There is a difference between needing and wanting. It's about price vs benefit.

Put it this way if an analogy helps - you get offered a nice Ferrari (ignore servicing, insurance and resale for the purposes of this) for £30K. It's a lot better than your Mini Cooper. You decide to buy it, but by the time you've checked your bank account it's gone, and you can't have it. Doesn't mean you needed that Ferrari, or even a new car for that matter.

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:01 pm  

Richie wrote:

I have already said why we tried to sign him. Did you read it?



You would really have Wellens over Webb, Gilmour over Senior and Gardner over Donald?

Definitely Wellens over Webb and Gilmour over Senior both are far more consistent and significantly better defenders than their counterparts. On Donald it depends which side he plays you are saying he plays on the same side as Gardener because it suits your arguement his record more than stands up to Donalds

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:03 pm  

Eccleshill Rhino wrote:

Definitely Wellens over Webb and Gilmour over Senior both are far more consistent and significantly better defenders than their counterparts. On Donald it depends which side he plays you are saying he plays on the same side as Gardener because it suits your arguement his record more than stands up to Donalds

I'm comparing Donald to Gardner because they both play right wing this season.
I find your other two decisions odd.