: Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:06 pm  

G1 wrote:

They're the same people who come autumn time will be beating their chest about how appalling it is we don't produce any quality British players and how we're so far behind Australia and NZ.

Leeds produce plenty thanks.

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:12 pm  

Tony Soprano wrote:

Which full squad in SL is better equipped than ours?

"Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself." William Faulkner

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:53 pm  

tvoc wrote:

But what if you are?

He's not. Burgess had yet to make his Leeds debut going into last season.

meaning we went into our championship season last year with four recognised props (one of whom was Scruton who had barely played the year before) and an untried youngster.

Hmmmmmm, sound familiar?

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:55 pm  

........and Leeds finished off the season before that with 3, yes 3, recognised props in the team.

Their last domestic game of 2007 saw them run with Peacock, Kylie and a bench of Bailey, Kirke, Ali and Ablett.

They went pretty darn well in that last domestic game of 2007 IIRC.

: Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:57 am  

tad rhino wrote:

didn't know that. could test the water though

With Morrison out I don't think they could afford to lose another forward

: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:14 am  

finglas wrote:

With Bailey, Leuluai, Peacock and Burgess currently under contract and Eastwood expected for 2010 I can't see Lynch being a signing unless one of the first four leave. GH's priority will be whether he keeps those four before signing anyone else (subject to the Leuluai to Wigan rumours).

The Saints cup game may be important in the thinking. Defeat may mean that players get the necessary rest and no requirement meaning that the cap can be held for covering a longer term injury in any position. Victory may mean that there's plenty in the coffers going forward to recruit now.

I also think that there may be a worry about Rob Burrow's longer term fitness after two bouts of concussion and they may feel they need to keep an eye on his situation.

I'm assuming that McClennlan wants Eastwood and that's why they're looking at 2010. That being the case signing another player now restricts what ewlse the club can do and also may interfere with negotiations with players off contract this year.

If Smith and Senior go and Watkins/Gibson are not up to the mark the club will require 2 centres next year and therefore cannot afford to make a signing now that will limit their options later when they have a better picture of what is gong on.

I want Leeds to have the best possible squad, but I want them to sign the right players at the right time for the right reasons.

: Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:38 am  

G1 wrote:

He's not. Burgess had yet to make his Leeds debut going into last season.

But that's not what he claimed.

He is wrong in the terms he set out and Burgess was recalled from the Harlequins in 2007 where he had 1st graded on loan. IIRC Leeds wanted to extend the loan stay at Quins but the Quins wanted to make the signing permanent so Burgess was recalled rather than lose him.

Sounds like Leeds had plans to play Burgess in 2008 and by this stage of last season he had played three games and scored his first try as part of a five prop rotation.

: Wed Apr 01, 2009 10:21 am  

tvoc wrote:

But that's not what he claimed.

He is wrong in the terms he set out and Burgess was recalled from the Harlequins in 2007 where he had 1st graded on loan. IIRC Leeds wanted to extend the loan stay at Quins but the Quins wanted to make the signing permanent so Burgess was recalled rather than lose him.

Sounds like Leeds had plans to play Burgess in 2008 and by this stage of last season he had played three games and scored his first try as part of a five prop rotation.

Any of the 4 props we have now would probably walk into any other team in SL, suggesting that at worst we need a 5th choice prop to play when one of the first choice are injured or need a rest. Can't see many players of the quality you're suggesting we require coming in without a guarantee of playing.

Surely we're better in this situation to use what we have, be it a youngster with potential (as Burgess last year) or one of the second rowers (such as Kirke) as it appears we were planning to do with Eastwood.

: Wed Apr 01, 2009 10:32 am  

tvoc wrote:

But that's not what he claimed.

He said "his debut". Only dirty pretty thing can clarify whether he meant his Leeds debut or his SL debut.

How did we get on with 3 props in the 2007 GF?

: Wed Apr 01, 2009 10:56 am  

G1 wrote:

He said "his debut". Only dirty pretty thing can clarify whether he meant his Leeds debut or his SL debut.

Either way by this time last season (which is what dirty pretty thing claimed) he'd made both his SL debut and Leeds debut and that is why he was wrong to state otherwise.

G1 wrote:

How did we get on with 3 props in the 2007 GF?

Leeds won, two weeks before at St Helens Leeds lost but both IIRC were under a different Leeds coach. A coach that probably played anything from two props a game to five props a game as his plans dictated.

The team that wins the St Helens V Leeds SL Regular Rd fixture has gone on to lift the SL Trophy for the last three seasons. It will need a break of that sequence for Leeds to retain the trophy.