Tykes only had their promotion officially confirmed last week didn't they? If so, they could only recruit what they could afford in NL1. Failing that, they could only recruit once they finished top of the league and thought they were getting promoted, however, amny contracts were signed before this happened.

It is a situation mirrored in RL, where the team promoted only has 3 months to recruit, when most of the big signings are announced between June and August.

I did not suggestb they recruit "name" players. I suggested that the recruitment could be from NRL, SL and/or Academy/Reserves, you could also add to that current staff.

My understanding is that there are 5/6 player out of contract this season, they claim to have Eastwood signed for next season. Lee Smith is considering union options (apparently).

Ensuring that these players remain at the club or are adequately replaced is a minimum requirement of a club that wants to challenge for honours.

Having lost a player to a visa clampdown this year, not checking the visa qualification of a player next year would also be a failure.

I would also hope that given it's recent achievements the club would be better placed than most in selling itself to candidates who it feels could improve the squad.

Plenty?

Would you like to quantify that by telling me who has actually signed (not rumoured) for any of the Rhinos' "rivals" (Soliola apart) for 2010?

You are aware of when the offseason is for Union, aren't you? Having all your deals for 2009-10 tied up now is the equivalent of a League side completing its recruitment by October. Last time I looked, we weren't in October yet.

There will be plenty of players being released by various GP sides over the summer, some of whom will no doubt end up at Leeds as they rebuild their squad. The Super 14 competition has also just finished in the Southern Hemisphere, which will give them a better idea of who is going to be available from those sides. It's only something like 3 weeks since their promotion was confirmed, a problem we often lamented in League with the promoted side from the NFP/Championship not having sufficient time to build a squad. The scenario Carnegie face is no different.

I agree with you on that. However, the question of coincidence still remains. Carnegie are well behind the other sides in the GP for recruitment (although promotion confirmation accepted). Yet despite this Back and Key both stated a month ago when promoted that they had just about agreed the terms with the players they wanted. Thats quite a while now.

At same time the Rhinos also seem to be behind others.

That to me is too similar. However, it could also be the Leeds rugby spin machine. And maybe announcements are just delayed like they quite often are. And in this case both codes.

Hope so.

I didn't see those arguments raised on this thread to be fair but perhaps I missed it. No-one (I don't think) has argued for recruitment for recruitment's sake and no sane CEO would venture down such a path. It's a term you're fond of but not a trait I've seen exhibited on here or at least not by me.




You don't really need to rotate backs (especially half-backs) though. Cover for injuries is already provided at Leeds by Sinfield so it would be a waste of cap money signing a half-back. You could even say it would be recruitment for recruitment's sake, unless they were to replace an existing one on merit. So yes I agree probably a bad example.



A squad should be around 21 strong with a further three/four Academy prospects on the fringe. I specifically said that Leeds have a 17 (if on form) capable of retaining their title this season. Sorry if that wasn't clear but it is what I meant. A four forward bench (the majority of them are at Leeds - even this season) means all bar one (of your eleven) are needed on deck and that's without Sinfield covering half-back or Ablett covering centre. That's tight on bodies. Thank gawd we're out of the Challenge Cup.

Does the coach have much faith in Worrall, Allan and McShane? I haven't seen much evidence of it this season as yet.



Having a Soliola as a target that didn't come off should have led to a 2nd (plan B) or 3rd (plan C) choice being persued. A position was earmarked for strengthening, not doing so was a fail on the pre-season recruitment. Settling for a plan D is what they eventually did. Soliola was but one of a potential many quality centres in the NRL.

Agreed, those days are gone though i feel..

For some maybe but it's still happened twice in the last six seasons.

For Leeds never in 102 attempts though.

Yes I'm really jealous. I wish some Aussie club would come over and take on of our best players off our hands, it's just what we need. You must have been delighted when they signed Ellis.

There have been several posters suggesting in other threads that we should recruit another forward despite the fact that we are committed to signing Eastwood next season (although whether he comes is a different matter).

In that instance, unless the new signing is replacing a current player whose contract is not renewed then it is IMO an unnecessary signing at this stage. I accept that it leaves us tight for this year, but as soon as we were knocked out of the cup it gave the club latitude to cope as long as there were no long term injuries. The Leeds team that lost in the cup was as strong as we would have expected.

But perhaps not as strong as we would have liked.

It still had Ashley Gibson instead of a right centre (or even Lee Smith) and Ian Kirke as a makeshift interchange prop, which didn't say a lot about Ryan Bailey's form.

There didn't seem to be any complaints about Ian Kirke as a Grand Final interchange.

Between Kirke and Lauitiiti they can cover being a prop short (not the case in the 2008 GF) although I've yet to be convinced Lauitiiti should be used anywhere other than wide on the left.

Really pleased Tansey is getting a spot in the NRL but to be honest, I'm not sure Roosters are a better side than Leeds this year, although he is undoubtedly playing against better players week in week out.

its more the fact he's standing out that's pleasing. although its sometimes easier to stand out in a poor performing team, its rare that a ball handler will do so.

No-one will convince me that Ali should play prop. The props before him shoul be Kylie, Peacock, Burgess, Bailey, Kirke, JJB and Ablett.

Agreed. He looked dangerous last night. Made meters and always looked like he was going for an offload

You could argue that it is on the back of people doing the hard stuff up the middle that allows the likes of Lauiti'iti the freedom and space to express himslef out wide. If thats not happening, then it sort of makes sense for Ali to get dragged closer to the middle to allow the forwards a better grip on the game. And it is something he is able to do well, its just not the bst way of utilising him

It isn't but when you go into games with only three props it's a role he has been forced into in the past.

Last night was a case in point, having the four props allowed Lauitiiti to stay out there as right second row when he replaced Jones-Buchanan on 16 minutes. Jones-Buchanan didn't return allowing Lauitiiti to stay out wide and look both effective and dangerous. Had Jones-Buchanan not picked up his injury last night who knows how McClennan would have used him?

I thought Bailey picked up an injury in the warm up for the cup game, hence his exclusion from the 17? Of course, the seriousness or otherwise of the injury could also be open to conjecture.

I thought Bailey was impressive last night.

More + than -

Great energy levels, keen in defense and made some yards.

Thought he was a lot better last night - enthusiastic in defence (including on one occasion going across the face of three defenders from marker to get involved in a tackle), doesn't miss many first up tackles and made ground when he took the ball in.

Does need to eliminate the attempt to hit and spin which sees him backing into tackles at times given how infrequently he actually offloads.

Have you changed this view since last night ?

No, not really. Last night Lauitiiti was pretty effective playing on the right but he is a naturally left sided player IMO. He was forced to play on the right for an unusually long (for him) spell given the unfortunate circumstance of Jones-Buchanan's injury and he did the job very well.

It's a bit like playing Keith Senior on the right, he'd still be effective but not as effective as he is on the left.