Read Bloodbaths post!

So why you asking me then?

Think about it. You were the one chipping in with the billy big quoting a response to bloodbath.

If you don't want to contribute, don't chip in.

Let me make it simple for you. If bloodbath's view that there is relevance in Buderus's win per games ratio in comparison to Diskin, does this prove something with Kirke's win per games ratio in comparison to JJB?

What I would suggest is that Leeds' game looks more organised and natural without Buderus playing.

We have won the last 3 GF's without his input. Last season in the run-in we more than managed with him being injured. We wouldn't miss him.

Yeah of course he comes up the odd nice play but he hasn't done enough to warrant calling him a 'key player'.

When you look what he has done in his career (SOO etc) I'm disappointed that he hasn't (and doesn't look like becoming) a key player for us.

If you want to compare what I was saying and directly do the same for Ian Kirke than you are being creative with my words. When Ian Kirke's involvement and impact (and street value) is in the same ballpark as Buderus than YES you may do so. Until that point......

Which you wouldn't get from thos stats that you asked for. You only asked for win per game ratio, not how can we prove we look more organized without Buderus.

Therefore, you agree then, the stats would be irrelevant?

I agree by the way in principle with both those above comments. But emphasise I only agree with the 1st point because I have maintained all along since the first few games of last year that the two hookers does not work. And would further emphasies that had the injury been the other way round last year, that this thread would never have happend and nobody would be arguing over who is best.

What relevance does it have to us signing Buderus or not signing Buderus though?

We won SL without him last year. We'd have probably won it had it been Diskin injured and him playing but that's by the by. Did we need him or not?

It's irrelevant though whether we needed him or not. Did we need Eastwood? Do you think it would be no loss if he packed up now and went? We as spectators would lose out on seeing a good player, but would the team lose matches because of it. Did we need Donald? Apparently the arugment is we did because he had scored tries and won medals before. Would you really say we would not have have won without him?

Can we cope without is irrelevant. I agree we would win without him. But I undertand the clubs view of making sure you have the strongest player possible in each position salary cap permitting, And that is great for a spectator.

You say, we could have spent the cap elsewhere. An absolute valid point. So where should it have gone? considering that when anyone suggests the spending of caps anywhere, you and your pal then run off on the oppossite tangent.

So why are we even bothering to discuss it?



Yes. We needed someone to replace Ellis.



It would be a loss.



Who would have played on the wings?



We played a full back at centre last year because we'd signed a 3rd hooker.



What?

So just to get this straight. We don't need Buderus because we have won Grand Finals without him?

But we do need a backrower even though we won without him last year?

And I thought, no I can see from an earlier page, that you were suggesting letting Buderus go and use the cap elsewhere now. So rather than last years positions, what would you use it on now?

You see the inconsistencies again?

This post is a good summation IMO. We didn't need to get Buderus, but he makes us stronger. We dealt without him when he was unfortunate to get injured. We didn't need Eastwood as we won the title without him.

The thing is that both players were identified as people to fill a gap in our squad. I guess the descision to run with a weakened backline was due partly to availability, and partly due to the fact that we had a group of juniors that the management beleived could cover the vacant positions adequately, where no forwards were likely to come through.

Buderus has not shown his best form for Leeds, doesn't mean we are better off without him though.

Comparing win ratios of him in the team are irrelevant as different systems / tactics were used in games. Lets remember that when Buderus broke his leg last year, many were suggesting that we would struggle to win the title, as at the time he was outshining Diskin.

I personally think that were Diskin to be out for a significant period, we would see Buderus putting in top quality 80min performances. Then we'd be in a position to properly judge their contributions in a Leeds shirt.

I hope it doesn't happen though.

for me the nub of the matter is that with the individuals involves, 2 hookers doesn't work for Leeds

I know you were but I didn't take that too seriously, so soon after the discussion regarding Buderus' split between starts and bench in 2009. Buderus played in 17 of the 24 games prior to his broken leg at Wigan. There was ample opportunity for coach McClennan to run with one hooker or the other but in 15 of those 17 Buderus appearances he selected both.

When he was forced (by a Diskin neck injury) to go with just Buderus Leeds humiliated Harlequins to such a surprise and extent that had Burrow kicked the goal from the sidelines Phil Clarke was walking all the way back to Wigan.

I think Leeds look best having one hooker and four big men on the bench, it's a formula that has served them pretty well.

Gareth is right, you do fog knit. I've tried to look beyond it before but it's now evident.

We don't need Buderus because we already had a successful hooker and a more than capable understudy. McClennan seems to want to play with two hookers but it's not working and didn't work last year.

Where did I say the cap money coulkd have been spent better elsewhere this year?

Translation:- you have had your [iars[/ie handed to you on this thread, showing your inconsistencies all over the place. You could have done without Gareth taking that break to do some work.

Others didn't have a problem understanding. Or agreeing.

Inconsistencies? Where? In your head, that's where!

I ask you time and time again for links to things but you have never, ever supplied one. Therefore the only summation I can make is that you do not have them and thus, just lie all the time to try to prove your point when really you're just a bull sh[iitt[/ier.

Rothmans interprets 1985 as the 1984/85 season. I imagine that stems from the individual award in question being handed out at the end of the 1984/85 season so it would be strange to award the 1985 Harry Sunderland Trophy after a game played in May 1986.



Bugger and I was so looking forward to doing them an'all.

Either way it's ambiguous (I knew what game I meant) but don't tell Gotcha or she'll wet her panties over it again.

That's another win for me. Not bad for 30 minutes stints.

If it makes you feel better Danny.

Your losing quite a few of these lately, what's up lost your touch? Is it the strain of trying to remain under one alias?

It's not ambigious, it is what it is.

You could argue it's inconsistent:

Man Of The Match Awards. The Lance Todd and Harry Sunderland are designated by the year they are handed out (ie. 1985) but the JP/RT, Yorkshire and Lancashire Cups were given the full season (ie. 1984-85)

the perp is a spent force mate! His powers are weak! when he chats rugby some of his posts haven't been too bad. But I see he's back to sitting behind the keyboard with cock in hand. this personal battle crap is just weird.

Phil Clarke's increasingly inane ramblings are no barometer of anything. He makes Gotcha appear lucid and insightful.
I agree. Its' why Blu n Amber and I have said we would be underwhelmed and the team wouldn't miss a beat if Buderus got his reported wish to b[iugg[/ier off back home.

Should make you happy as well, what with giving us one less non federation trained player,

On paper, our strongest team we can put out IMO contains Buderus and 4 big lads on the bench. (Anyone who is starting to get hysterical about 'shiny new toys' just wait...).

However, we've won 4 titles with Diskin, 0 with Buderus. You've also got to consider that Disko has alot more years left in the tank than Buderus, and is probably our most successful hooker ever, we don't want him to leave. It's a difficult situation, but barring an injury to one of them, Bluey is going to have to make some tough decisions regarding this situation if we are to win the big games this season IMO. Last season this decision was made for him, with the injury to Buderus. I'd say playing the two of them in the 17 is slotting abit of a square peg in a round hole, but we'll see how the season develops from here.

Since 2004, seasons where we have primarily gone with 2 hookers in the 17 at business end of season

2005
2006.

silverware in these seasons = 1 WCC where only 1 was played.

Coincidence?

I was willing to accept Buderus as a good signing. He was a top qaulity player and he became available. I guess Leeds must have lined him up around a year before he actually joined us and Diskin at that time may have been seen as an injury "risk". But it's been fairly obvious that we don't work well with Diskin and Buderus in the 17. They are similar enough to make no change to then game when they are swapped. We look far more dangerous when we move Webb, Burrow and Sinfield to 9 for short stints at times when markers may be tiring (ie. last 10 of each half and the key period at around 50-55 minutes when so many games turn).
Buderus, for all he has achieved, is now only taking up a bench space from a big forward (and from what I've seen, Diskin is currently the better option for Leeds with the team we have around him).

It's a shame, he's a legend, but he doesn't fit in our team. He would probably be an unbelievebly good signing for practically any other team (apart fron Saints - although they seem to think of hookers like towels...you can never have too many).

Danny is absolutely right.