Look stay out of this, its a debate for adults and you are clearly deluded, nothing I have seen dictates Biderus cannot do 80mins, he's clearly the fittest player in the side playing in a game 20% slower than the NRL.

You think Diskin is the player he was, he has been in decline for the last 2 years, instead of trying to carry favour why dont you admit was is clearly on offer when you watch the game!!

Why dont you answer the question as Puig ain't got the minerals, when all the team are fit does Diskin get in the 17?

Simple question even for you.

Look stay out of this, its a debate for adults and you are clearly deluded, nothing I have seen dictates Biderus cannot do 80mins, he's clearly the fittest player in the side playing in a game 20% slower than the NRL.

You think Diskin is the player he was, he has been in decline for the last 2 years, instead of trying to carry favour why dont you admit was is clearly on offer when you watch the game!!

Why dont you answer the question as Puig ain't got the minerals, when all the team are fit does Diskin get in the 17?

Simple question even for you.

Of course he does.

When Buderus was signed McLennan openly stated he intended to use two hookers in rotation in his matchday 17. He's not made any comments to the contrary, and the fact that when both have been available they have both been in the 17 would suggest that's still his policy, irrespective of whether anyone else is fit or not.

If it's a discussion for adults LOG OFF!
I've answered yer question Diskin is in the 17.
Bless yer titchy you tried and failed miserably last year and once again you choose a player who's not on top form and write him off




How long before you try and claim you were trolling this time when yer handed yer @ss and shown up AGAIN?
Also IF Disko has been finished for over 18 mths explain him been the only 9 in the team when we went unbeaten from Buderus' injury at Wigan last year?
Was that down to sentiment and him getting carried by the team? PMSL

Really, so the McLennan game plan dicates that irregardless of form its a strict regime with no flexibility.

Thats that covered then....................

Place your 17 on paper when the whole squad are fit.

PS

I haven't wrote him off, I never wrote him in.

He will go down as an average 9 playing in a exceptional side, Buderus will go down as a League great criminally underused by Leeds to the detriment of the side.

Webb.
Donald/Smith.
Delaney.
Senior.
Hall.
Mcguire.
Burrow.
Leuleui
Buderus
Peacock
Ablett
Jjb
Sinfield.
Diskin.
Beastwood.
Ali.
Bailey.
As for never "writing him in" and him been an average 9 in a very good team that proves my point about yer pathetic player witch hunt!

Titch, effort can get you only so far.

Others might be willing to indulge your online masochistic desires but you'll need to do far, far better before I'll lower myself to give you a good beating.

You cant use three wingers so you lose Smith or Donald out of the 17?

Potentially Smith who can cover FB, Wing, Centre or even 6&7 for Diskin who is an average 9 and part time 2nd rower when required?

You also exit Kirke, Burgess, Pitts, and Ambler.

Translation: Still no answer.

On current form i'd go with Donald but i wouldn't retain him so Smithy takes that wing spot next year and allows for rotation in the backs this season.
FYi i'm fully aware who i've left out.

I know it sounds like a fudge but....

I have two alternative first choice 17's for Leeds depending on the opposition.

One has both Diskin and Buderus in it, the other has one or the other in it.

Not sure coach McClennan shares my view though.

Is that not pure supposition with little evidence that could be offered to support it?

My belief is that he can't cope with being an 80 minute a week hooker (and certainly can't produce quality for 80 minutes week in week out), but I don't think that's just supposition:

His age makes it reasonably unlikely - though far from impossible.

His record of not having played as an 80 minute hooker for 2 years suggests he might now struggle.

The fact that he missed 22/50 matches over the 2 years before that (when he was an 80 minute hooker) also suggest it would be unlikely that 4 years later he would be able to do it week in week out.

Many posters believe he is our best hooker, yet our coach only gives him half a game most weeks - suggesting he either can't complete 80 minutes each week or can't do it effectively (or if its not for these is he not quite as clear cut as top rake as might be claimed?).

Our coach also rests him for matches - even when only playing 40 minutes a week.

Have a little read through the thread Titch eh?

I'm referring to the run in last season after Buderus's injury at Wigan - 8 wins on the bounce up to and including the Grand Final.

I'm sure you'll have stats to show Diskin was spelled briefly in some of the games but the point would stand that he has shown himself able to operate effectively as the only specialist hooker in the 17 as recently as 10 months ago.

He was playing longer spells than Diskin before he came here. He was wanted still in the NRL, where they do not play the 2 hooker games in every team like we tend to be doing here. Hookers in the NRL play for longer spells. He was playing SOO before arriving here, which is way above even our own international teams, which Diskin deemed not good enough for.

I think it is far more likely to be wrong to assume he wouldn't be playing those longer spells if was he in the NRL, or indeed any other super league team bar Saints.




I think the overriding opinion here is that the coaches actions are not because of what you are believing them to be, but because of other reasons.

Again there is nothing to back that up with assurance, but neither is there anything to back up your view either with assurance.

Both players IMO would have the equal stamina producing the same game time. I don't believe either can do a full 80, but believe Buderus would give more impact per minute in that hooking role. But at the same time, different games may dictate different tactics and there may be a time where Diskins steady safe game play is more beneficial to the side than Buderus's dynamics. However, I see no reason why it has to be cast iron that you need to have both in the 17 for that tactic all the time.

Sorry but to get it to basics:

I believe one reason why Diskin features in the 17 each week is because Buderus no longer has the fitness to be at the top of his game week in week out as the sole hooker in the 17 and point to his failure to fulfil that role for 4 years as evidence.

You believe he is significantly superior to Diskin and more than capable of operating effectively week in week out as the only specialist hooker but that the coach feels he has to select and play Diskin each week, apparently to the detriment of the team, because he's sentimental and so, presumably, is his boss?

Is that an accurate summary?

I don't think your last point is fair to use though as playing devils advocate one could argue that had it been Diskin that broke his leg last year that Buderus would also have ''shown himself able to operate effectively as the only specialist hooker in the 17'' and we might just have easily won 8 on the bounce and the GF with Buderus as our only specialist hooker.

Some interesting debate though all the same

Not far off, but not quite.

I don't think for one minute that anyone in the Rhinos management think that Buderus does not have the fitness to play week in week out at Leeds. I think you are correct though, that however would not keep him at the top of his game. He was however fulfilling that role before coming to Leeds regardless of your view.

My belief is that neither of the two hookers can play a full 80 minutes, but the you would get a higher impact per minute from Buderus than you would from Diskin. My belief is that there will be some games where Diskin's game would be better utilized than Buderus, but for the most part Buderus's game would be far better to use. My belief is that whilst there is times where both players are needed in the 17 to play the way the coach wants, that Buderus should play the greater time out of that 80 where the game dictates. And it is further my believe that there is no need that it has to be a given when both fit that they both have to be in the 17. And yes, I do believe that there is a man management issue here dictating selection rather than the one that you propose.

From my own p.o.v mate i used that example to show titchy that Diskin is still good enough and not "finished" as he and some others suggest.
It wasn't to prove or imply that Buderus wasn't good enough just to highlight we could be successfull without him.

Interesting - and probably pointless to pursue.

However, my point about Buderus in his last 2 years at Newcastle was that he was [itrying [/ito fulfil the role you mention but that his body was letting him down - that's why he missed so many games with injuries.

You might well be right, but as it was Buderus that was injured it was Diskin that had the opportunity. So we [iknow [/iDiskin can manage 8 games like that but we don't know Buderus could.

To extend it further Diskin could point at 2008 as evidence that he could operate consistently as the sole specialist but Buderus would need to go back to 2006 to do so.

But he wasn't missing games like you are portraying, and he was playing the game time I mentioned he should be give for Leeds. Infact, tvoc put a post in every week in his last season at Newcastle showing just how many minutes he was playing each week.

I also forgot to add something.

And yes, I would not give either player more than a 1 year contract, as I think both would not be adequate for Leeds come the start of 2012.

That's my opinion.

Its not his minutes I'm interested in its the number of games he missed.

He missed 22 of the 50 he could have played in. Even assuming he was fit and missed 6 for SOO he'd still have missed a third of all Newcastle's games.

I think bringing injuries into it add nothing. Last year DB broke his leg, not because he's not up to it, but that he bravely went for possession.

I don't know about his other injuries, but to a certain extent I would ignore them. 12weeks continous absence is acceptable for an RL player, its part of the game. 12 missed games in 4 or more blocks would raise eyebrows and warrant looking at in terms of whether he was still up to it