I'm not going to diss Burgess' exit from us as everyone knew where he was going,

I just think that GH called his bluff and treated him with the same respect that Biff would have done come the seasons end when he would have done the same and rejected the Rhinos contract on offer and would have signed for Souths



At least GH will now have plenty of time to now fill this spot





Regarding Cross

I think that he has been made a scapegoat here



Although not a super star signing from the NRL, i actually believed that he could have played a vital part in our side this season and from what i have seen of him he certainly could have had more input into our side given the chance



I believe that this is Brian McD's decision as both GH and Bluey seemed happy to sign him on did they not?

im just off down to the registry office to change my name to burgess.....maybe they will sign me !!..it must be the only reason Souths would sign him cos it certainly isnt his class

Last time I checked it was 2011. So does it really matter what Burgess was going to do in 2012 and beyond and did he deserve to be sidelined (if that is what happened) because of that future decision?



I imagine there has been something more to it than just his previously stated desire to go to the NRL after his current contract expires, which obviously he is perfectly entitled to do.



Whatever has happened it's yesterday's news and he's now joined the ranks of players that used to play for Leeds.



Luke Burgess: Played 11 + 70, Tries 6, Points 24.

Didn't Burgess meet with Russell Crowe in York for dinner at the start of June after which the whole thing was a done deal?

I have no idea - what I find odd - if Hetherington knew Burgess was off to Australia why did he even make him an offer? seems a waste of time and effort?

Maybe hoping he could persuade him to change his mind? Lukes best years are ahead of him, no doubt. He becomes yet another prop who starts his career with Leeds but leaves before we see the true potential. Joining Anderson, Fozzard, Carvell, Ward, Dowes, Scruton et al

Mason too - although not sure he started his career at Leeds?



Would rather have him than Griffin tbh

Mason, Huby, Carvell, Graham, Ferriol, have were all having contracts expiring end of this season. I would have had any of those before Griffin.

A strike rate of better than 1 in 2? I'd suggest that the chairman of the PFU had a hand in here. Not exactly becoming behaviour of the shirt is it?

Agree fully with the above.

I'd rather have me than Griffin!!! Must be more BDLs around.

Is Tom going to souths also?

It only becomes a strike rate of better than 1 in 2 if you ignore the 70 games he played from the bench. I realise it's a generalisation but props have a tendency to play around half of each game they're selected in whether they start those games in the run on side or sat on the bench.



A comparison of strike rates among Leeds current/recently departed props during their Headingley careers show:



Jamie Peacock - 17 in 151 = 0.113 per game

Kylie Leuluai - 15 in 139 = 0.108

Luke Ambler - 1 in 10 = 0.100

Luke Burgess - 6 in 81 = 0.074

Ryan Bailey - 9 in 233 = 0.039



Ben Cross left without scoring and Kyle Amor, Brad Singleton are yet to score.



Leeds' prop with the highest strike rate during the SL Era was George Mann (although he deputised at 6 at times) here he is with a select of others:



George Mann - 4 in 19 = 0.211 per game

Jamie Thackray - 7 in 34 = 0.206

Wayne McDonald - 15 in 91 = 0.165

Barrie McDermott - 40 in 268 = 0.149

Chris Feather - 8 in 56 = 0.143

............

Jamie Mathiou - 4 in 136 = 0.029 (saving Bailey's blushes)

Chris feaher has a better "Strike rate" than I would have guessed at. At Baileys rate of scoring he will be below Mathiou by the end of his leeds career!

If Bailey's rate of scoring is above Mathiou's how will he be below Mathiou by the end of his Leeds career.

Unless he stops playing now it would seem pretty clear wouldn't it. He will play more games and therefore the strike rate will reduce.



Or have I missed something?

No thats how I worked it out, unless I am misunderstanding the more games he plays without scoring the lower his strike rate would get.

if he continues at the same strike rate of 0.039 his strike rate will be ......



yes you've guessed it 0.039. Which will still be higher than Jamie Matthiou at 0.029.

unless I am very wrong I would think the

has not been earned in this case!

you are very wrong

I get what you mean now, but wasnt what I meant. He hasnt scored for a few years now and if that continues and he continues to play then he will end up below Mathiou.



There is that better

But his strike rate for the last 3 years isn't 0.039. So if he follows the next 3 years the same rate of scoring as his last 3, then the rate will come down.

Bailey didn't score at all in 2009, 2010 or so far in 2011 so he's perfectly right to say if he carries on in that fashion he'll finish behind Mathiou.

Now that I agree with but that is different to







when Ferdy quoted the strike rate provided for Bailey



If he'd said "At Bailey's [icurrent[/i rate of scoring" that would have been more subjective and open to interpretation.

As clarified earlier that is infact what i meant. if bailey continues as he has for the last few years he will be below mathiou.



Thanks for being pedantic though!