We need to seriously overhaul the squad at the end of this year. Senior is 35, Peacock will be 34, Leulaui is 33, Buderus is 33, Lauitiiti will be 32, and Cross 33. Too many players have been allowed to stay on while getting past their best, and retarding the development of younger talent. See Gibson, Fox, Broughton, Tansey and Scruton.

There are good, young, british players available but we don't seem to have any interest in signing them. Pryce & Clubb at Harlequins, for example. The pack is being carried by Bailey, with Burgess a decent defensive prop who offers little yardage, and JJB having reverted to his 150% effort, 50% product routine.

If we're to get better we need serious changes. We have tremendous talent in the backs: Jones-Bishop, Smith, Watkins & Hall are going to be the future of our outside division, while Hardaker & Kettlewell could be replacements for McGuire & Burrow. Up front Ambler has been impressive, as has Pitts (when he's had game time), while Ablett & Clarkson are already first teamers, and McShane has outshone Buderus.

If we drop the deadwood, move Delaney into the pack (where he's Bigger & faster than JJB), start Bailey & McShane with Ambler & Burgess benching, we have a team looking something like:

Webb
Jones-Bishop
Smith
Watkins
Hall
McGuire
Burrow
Bailey
McShane
?
Delaney
Ablett
Sinfield

Ambler
Burgess
Kirke
Pitts

If we can find a new starting attacking prop, and a replacement for Webb from next year so BJB can slot in at fullback, i think we'll be fine.

When I got to here, I just thought WTF. You don't watch really do you?

How on earth are we expected to take this seriously when you've suggested both "dropping the deadwood" and "renewing Kirke's contract" in the same post?!

And signing Karl Pryce...

You forgot about Kyle Amor too - can't be worse than Cross??

Geez ... What's this guy on. ? Burgess a good " defensive " prop ? He will be going to Oz anyway. Sign Pryce, retain Kirke... Webb to continue holding back Smith, BJB AND Hardaker.

Fair enough.



But in that case, wtf would we sign Pryce???? and Clubb?

And JJB must've slept with his Mrs or something if we're in a world where he's the "deadwood" and Messrs Kirke & Burgess are our first choice 17.

Goodbye, be seeing you, see you later, cheerio, farewell, so long, adios, ciao, adieu, au revoir, arrivederci, sayonara, auf weidersein, shalom, bon voyage, das vidanya .... etc

If we're talking a complete overhaul, I'd like to see us line up like this;

1. BJB
2. Hardaker
3. Smith (Unless we'd like to sign a proper Centre, which I'd be fine with btw!)
4. Watkins
5. Hall

6. McGuire
7. McShane

8. Bailey
9. Buderus
10. Peacock
11. Ablett
12. Delaney
13. Sinfield

14. Burrow
15. JJB
16. Clarkson
17. Pitts

That would involve dropping ; Leuluai, Lauitiiti, Burgess, Kirke, Senior, Webb & Cross.

Edit - I agree with the OP on one point; I would like to see us get a decent, proper, attacking, "future JP", new prop.

Why Pitts instead of Ambler ? Singleton ? Clarkson is not a bench forward... McShane good as a stop-gap scrum half only but admittedly better than Burrow at the moment.... Still think Hall or BJB would make a better right centre than Smith (FB for me). What about Wilson ?

How out-muscled would that pack be?

Ambler, Pitts, Singelton all competing for the bench spots depending on form. I didn't say we should drop them. Just didn't name them in my 17!

Clarkson is a Loose, but isn't likely to get that until Sinnie goes so he'll have to make do with stints from the bench.

McShane looks lively and talented, but is by no means Buderus. Burrow (heart & desire aside) is looking less lively and less talented. Makes sense to me to have McShane on the pitch over Burrow.

BJB is better than Smith at FB.

And where's all this come from about Wilson?! He's not even had his début yet and people are having him as the first name on the sheet?! He can shine all he wants in the U20s, I'm not putting him in my squad until I've seen some SL game time.

Starting pack wouldn't be that out-muscled!? Peacock, Bailey, Delaney?! I agree bench is light, but read the edit.

How many games has Delaney played in the backrow for us?

We bought him as a . He isn't producing the goods in that role, so we just accept that he is a backrower now and everybody says that's where to play him?

He's a big bloke, with a bit of extra pace. He's not afraid to go forward, and he's not afraid to tackle. He does, however, lack the positioning, footwork and ball handling skills to be a top class centre and as you've said, wasn't producing there.

So yes... we just accept that he is a backrower now.

Packs are generally 10 men from the 17 on almost any given match-day.

The four props (where are your other two btw) will expect to and be expected to play roughly 40 minutes each. To ask more than 40 from any of them is a tough requirement and a potential underuse of some of the bench players, IMO.

According to his interview in the programme for Friday, it's also where he sees his role.

It was a switch that worked well for Chris McKenna too.

JP was calling for 10 interchanges last time I spoke to him. Sounds like he's ready for your challenge.

Quote ="El Diablo"According to his interview in the programme for Friday, it's also where he sees his role.'" Old news judging by a similarly themed article printed in the YEP around five weeks ago: www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... _1_3165625

Quote ="El Diablo"According to his interview in the programme for Friday, it's also where he sees his role.'" Old news judging by a similarly themed article printed in the YEP around five weeks ago: www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... _1_3165625

Quote ="tvoc"Old news judging by a similarlt themed article printed in the YEP around five weeks ago: www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... _1_3165625'" In my defence, I never read the YEP when I lived in Leeds, and it is not freely available down here.

Quote ="tvoc"Old news judging by a similarlt themed article printed in the YEP around five weeks ago: www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... _1_3165625'" In my defence, I never read the YEP when I lived in Leeds, and it is not freely available down here.

What sort of defence is that when the link is clearly to the online article.



FWIW, the paper version is not available where I live either.

Most of my defence hinges on the fact that it's rubbish and I didn't read it when there was usually a copy sat around in the tea room.

Geography just serves to make an already unlikely event even less likely.

Who writes the articles for the programme these days, is it still the same bloke who writes for the YEP?

I wouldn't know, for the reasons outlined above.