Leeds produce plenty thanks.

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

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?

........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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.



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.

Its an interesting fact, but it bears no relation to the competition this season.

I agree that was the role earmarked for Eastwood but you've just stated we couldn't recruit a quality player to play in a five prop rotation system and yet that is just what Leeds had done. The truth is that Eastwood, Bailey and Peacock could also equally drop back and get gametime in the second row as injuries and form dictated.



Who else but Leeds or St Helens do you see winning the Grand Final at this point?

If, like the bookies and pundits, you can't see beyond the two favourites it's already no worse than a 50/50 chance.

Well there a whole other discussion there about the merits of Smith and McLennan.

I am sure that on Grand Final date that strange quirk of statistics will have no bearing upon the outcome.

Leeds or Saints will win the title. If I were a betting man, I would put my house on it.

The result of the game last week will have no effect on the result though

No effect perhaps but a quirk of fate that has held true for the last three seasons. Does that make it any more or any less likely to ring true for a fourth season?

Having watching Horizon last night, I'll leave statistical probablility to the people that understand it.

To be fair to TVOC, he appears more interested in the season long impact of having 4 props as opposed to one off games and I don't think the fact that we won one off games should cloud the issue.

I can see where he's coming from and if I felt that there was a player of the right calibre available I would have no problem with the signing. If we have academy lads with the potential to fill the role then in the absence of Eastwood they need to be included in the first team squad.

My feeling is that the Eastwood situation, where he is supposedly coming next season is dictating policy. This along with the players whose contracts expire in 2009 (therehas been a list somewhere) probably mean that recruitment cannot be finalised at the moment.

Pre season you could back Leeds and seperately back St Helens to finish top after the SL regular rounds.

I forget the exact odds but if either went on to finish top you would cover your lost bet and win around 50% on top of your stake.

I'm not a betting man (well not anymore major) but that seemed like a rare giveaway from the bookies given your appraisal of the race.

If I don;t cloud the issue the debate is half as much fun



Agreed.

Agreed.

In all probability TVOC, you, me and a couple of others are in general agreement despite discussions about the situation. Its' those craving a signing, demanding a signing and critcising the club for not making one that are devoid of an understanding of the issues.

I'm not having that, I'm their cheerleader.

gareth, do you think 4 props, over the course of a season is good?
i could be wrong but i don't think we have a burgess who is ready to play from the reserves this season.
we haven't replaced scruton or ellis,though of course we did try to sign eastwood who can play both roles if required.
the pack does seem a little light. i'm not one for a big name signing but i would like someone who can play prop/second row,even if only on a season long loan.

I agree but who is available though

I recall when they announced the squad numbers for this year they left out no 25 - apparently for a close season signing.

My memories not great, but I don't recall it being filled.(?) So I suppose without Eastwood as well it may well leave us light in depth as the season progresses.

I feel proud to support a club that gives its academy lads a chance and brings them on to the first team, so I wouldn't want us to just sign bodies. However I suspect GH, BMcC had a plan which hasn't quite come off in their recruitment.

No 15 (Eastwood) and no 25 but Paul McShane has taken number 26 and obviously graded this season. The other named squad players yet to be seen in the first grade this season are 21 - Simon Worrall and 24 - Ben Jones-Bishop.

As for Ambler, Manning etc we'll have to wait for an appearance before we can catch a squad number, unless anyone out there knows any different?

I'm sure you'll tell me if I'm wrong again

but wasn't Manning named in the squad for the Warrington game? If so I'd have thought he had / would have been given a squad number.

(By the way on my earlier post I meant Burgess hadn't made his debut by start of last season just didn't make myself clear)