The balance of the squad is better too with the addition of Moon. We now have 2 classy centres and Ablett free to play in his best position in the back row.

Though it seems he is detined to play in the centres.

Not missed but ommitted from the comparison of names just as I did with any player that played 1st grade with Leeds during 2010 (or before) that still remain at the club in 2013. I've conceded some of those coming through the ranks will have moved up the pecking order over the intervening period.

The point was to highlight the quality in the squad of 2010 and for people to judge for themselves if the likes of a 2010 Buderus, Senior, Diskin, Lauitiiti, Eastwood, Burgess etc have been adequately replaced.

They were very adequately replaced in 2011 and 2012. That is to say, in terms of the goal of building a team that wins trophies and makes major finals.

Whether they were adequately replaced in some subjective game of fantasy football devised in your mind and played on paper is something none of us can judge.

Rather than looking inside my mind - which no-one is asking you to do - you could try offering an opinion of your own. Who do you see as adequately replacing Diskin, Senior and Lauitiiti?



Leeds also had a left and right centre in 2010 - albeit one was destined for the second row.

One area that is not as well catered for though I would suggest is hooker, arguably one of if not the most important position on the field. Replacing Buderus and Diskin with McShane and a scrum-half who cannot defend around the ruck.

OK, In 2011 Diskin was replaced by Buders. In 2011 he was replaced by Lunt. Both were adequate replacements in terms of what the team was endeavouring to acheive. In 2013 he has been replaced by a combination of Burrow and McShane.........so far (remember when Lunt joined last year?).

Senior was replaced by Ablett. Hard to replace a legend like Senior but the results were more than adequate and Ablett remains, whether he likes it or not and whether fans realise it or not, one of the best centres in the league. This year he is replaced by Moon. So far so good but remains to be seen.

In 2011 Lautiti was replaced by Lautiti. In 2012 He was. He still hasn't been and he's probably the most irreplaceable player I've seen in a generation. But, he's a decorator. He puts the finishing touches on (and boy did they look good). We still have the builders here. The finished product might not have looked so good in 2012 without Ali but it still stood. I'd hoped Achurch might be the 2013 replacement by our coach sees him more as a prop, sadly.

Overall, taking into account the differences in 2013 to 2010 between our cap and the Aussie cap, the strength of the dollar and the off shore loop-holes being closed I am perfectly satisfied that the squad is in the best shape it can be. I am not satisfied that the coach best utilises that squad on many occassions. Whilst he's not earned the same amount of wiggle room from me that GH has, he's still earned some these last two years.

Excellent summing up for me

Good well balanced stuff G1.

Re-Lunt, he appeared to be wanting to strike a deal with Leeds - Leeds appeared content to let him choose between what I imagine to be an all too Hetherington typical under-valued contract with Leeds or walk.

We'll never know whether that decision cost Leeds a record making 4th World Club Challenge but IMO it didn't help that quest of 'building a team that wins trophies.' Lunt had become an integral part of one such unit, only to be shown/offered the exit. While McShane is apparently not the answer (Gilder) nor your preferred option from twelve months ago (Hood, IIRC) then it will be interesting to see what, if anything, the CEO can magic up this season.

Why would you need to recruit when Burrow has been such a success at 9 and we have recuited Moon at centre who looks a better bet than the ageing 2010 version of Senior. It is unlikley that Lauitiiti at his best could be replaced one for one in any year, however I may be wrong but in 2010 I seem to recall Ali was struggling with his fitness and not at his best and the back rowers that have replaced him have all played important roles in our notable successes since.



IMO the 2010 centre combo was not as good as Moon and Watkins



You still don't get it do you? The game has moved on.....Hookers don't hook anymore! We do not need Burrow to defend around the ruck in the current set up. It has been a big success to play 3 half backs rather than 2 and a traditional hooker. Providing your team has the right mix of defenders, attackers and playmakers and they keep to the game plan then many traditional positions can be changed around. Coaches now make their game plans to keep their best mix of players on the field for the most time in given situations. If we were to sign a hooker again of the quality of Buderus then we would revert to a more traditional game plan.

I'd have preferred Lunt to share hooking duties with Burrow this year as well. I'm like the coach, undecided by McShane. I'll not yet write him off to Gilder's extent.

But Huddersfield always held the cards because of the lengtyh of his deal there. It could just as easily been Huddersfield's terms rather than Lunt's that GH wasn't willing to meet.

Yes I'd noticed that too .... still don't have to like it though.



We can have this discussion on every thread if you wish but couldn't we just confine it to the (Melbourne) thread for now? if I can remember correctly I'd highlighted some defensive alignments from early in that game that I'd be interested to hear your learned alternative take on.

For me it appeared the hooker and scrum-half were doing their own thing to the detriment of the integrity of the defensive line but I imagine I've simply got that wrong. Afterall as long as the coach and players know what there doing - not the players frantically waving for re-inforcements, obviously there new and they'll get used to it eventually.

Still, we made the final ...... so who gives a damn.

Excellent point re the possibility that Huddersfield's terms could have been the stumbling block in that situation, especially with the change of coach mid-season.

Just shows it's possible sometimes for clubs to play a little hard ball without players walking away. Only wish Hetherington had done that with Buderus who (unlike Eastwood) I am certain (as much as anyone can be) would have continued giving 100% to the cause while honouring his contract.

Defensive mis-alignments aren't unique to the current selection.
Really, there is little difference to this structure, and the old. In the old world, 6,7,13 were Mcguire, Burrow and Sinfield, defending on the edges with a middle four of two props, a hooker and a back row. In the new world, the 6, 7, 9 is Sinfield, Mcguire and Burrow defending on the edges with a middle four of two props and to back rows.

I don't think it's a case of old norm V new norm Richie. It's explained in more detail on the Melbourne thread: viewtopic.php? ... &start=267 Having players switching roles from defensive set to defensive set, pairing Burrow and McGuire together on the same side at any point while leaving the last defender opposite (whoever it is) with 30 to 35 metres to patrol on the 4th after the winger has dropped back is going to be exploited by a good passing side such as Wigan and Warrington. I'm only surprised Melbourne weren't all over it like a rash albeit it was their first hit-out so maybe that explains it somewhat. More than once all it would have taken was one reasonable pass from centre field and they would have been outside the condensed line.

I don't think it's a case of old norm V new norm Richie. It's explained in more detail on the Melbourne thread: viewtopic.php? ... &start=267 Having players switching roles from defensive set to defensive set, pairing Burrow and McGuire together on the same side at any point while leaving the last defender opposite (whoever it is) with 30 to 35 metres to patrol on the 4th after the winger has dropped back is going to be exploited by a good passing side such as Wigan and Warrington. I'm only surprised Melbourne weren't all over it like a rash albeit it was their first hit-out so maybe that explains it somewhat. More than once all it would have taken was one reasonable pass from centre field and they would have been outside the condensed line.

It was just an alignment screw up. Not related to our attacking lineup. Those kinds of mistakes are particularly common following a turnover, where players can get caught in the wrong spots without the chance to correct that kicks and scrums give.

Watkins is better at centre. He's the best attacking British centre in SL but very vulnerable in defence at either FB or centre.
At least at centre he has a 2nd rower alongside for support.

Could not agree more. By all accounts Watson deserves his chance at FB thus leaving the second of our "two classy centres" in his best position.

I bet Ablett would prefer this option too

Theoretically I'd agree, but given our next 3 games are Sts, Hudds and Wigan, I can't blame the coach for being a bit conservative in the choice of fullback.

If the kids were ready for this level, they would play! McDermott has always been fair and had picked/dropped players on merit. Why hinder a lads development and probably kill his confidence by putting him in against 3 of the better teams running around? Just because they kill it at 19's/Championship, doesn't mean they are ready.

Brad Singleton was shipped to Wakey to get him prepared for this level and he got 1 game before Agar saw that he's not at the right level yet. Some on this board would have him starting week in/week out for us though. Look at the bigger picture! Watkins at FB and Ablett at Centre, is by far the best option for the team.

No he hasn't, and no they wouldn't. He's shown completely the opposite.

For what it's worth though, this time he's right, especially considering the games coming up. You need stability back there, especially when choices one and two are already out.

He brought Ward into the team over time. Played Keinhorst into things last season too. Got rid of Griffin and Cross. He knows that you can ruin a career by playing someone too soon. I don't know what everyone's obsession is with playing kids at an early age just because they have potential.

You're wasting your time. Gotcha and Nantwich won't be happy until each member of our under 19 side gets a run out. Your earlier point about singleton should stop people making these outrageous statements but it won't.

I for one am happy to trust a structure that has produced some of the best and most successful players in the clubs history, and a coaching staff who have given the chance to or further developed Hardaker, Bish, Watkins, Ward, Clarkson, Hood, Keinhorst etc.

If 2 players come through a clubs academy each year that is plenty to make the said club successful.

How many players who have been developed at Leeds and not given the chance would you have back now? I can think of Luke Gale possibly in a couple of years but that's about it

There's nothing wrong with wanting to see the clubs younger talent get more chances and NOT ONE poster has said we should give 5/6 u19's their debuts at once either.
Also just because wakey didn't use Singleton after week 1 doesn't mean he couldn't be useful for us or handle SL they will always be loyal to their own lads first and foremost and the terms of the original loan were because they had injuries up front.
Are we seriously saying Singleton isn't ready because he was part of team batterd at Odslum in week 1 and then didn't make the next matchday 17??
There have been plenty of opportunities to give some more younger lads chances over the last 2 years due to p!$h form or even better rotation but some seem undroppable which is as baffling as it is frustarting at times because the coach got Watkins ,Hardaker ,Ward and co into the team yet players like Kirke ,Kylie et al get games no matter how poor their respective form was even ignoring Moore who when given the chance wasn't the worse Prop in SL by a long way.
Some interesting calls to be made this year with Kylie retiring ,Griffin clearly out of favour and kirke out of contract should he start giving short stints to younger forwards now or just wait?? i know which route i think we should take which wouldn't damage the team or the youngsters.

Actually you need to read my posts again, and stop generalising, because my view is not the same as Nantwich.

I am not for throwing kids in for the sake of throwing kids in, far from it. I am all for identifying kids who it is deemed potentially will be future stars, and strongly believe that the only way of making that happen is to see introduction to first team early. That's introduction and develepment in stages, not a guranteed place.

I don't care what the know nowts say on here, but history clearly shows, that if you are identified as star potential at a young age, if you are not making first team starts by 19, then you simply do not make it.

There is exceptions to that, but usually the ones who are not deemed star potential at an early age and come good later in career. Although those players tend to drift away from clubs first before later coming back to attention.

Even more so now, with the new academy set up, once you are over 19 that's it below first team level. So it's either dual reg and you continue on your part time contract, or you look for another club, or you go for non rugby work and play for lower clubs.

For the record, I have never pushed for the like of Watson, Keinhorst, Chisolm, Bush, etc, as I just don't see them as potential stars. I do however believe we have wasted Singleton's talent, and think his development has gone backwards, and I strongly believe that we have a super quartet of Bawldwinson, Tonks, Foster, Minchella, who I would be looking to introduce to first team now. Again I repeat, that is introduce, not play each week.

So you're holding Huddersfield out as a shining example for Gary Hetherington to follow? Aside from the fact that premise is flawed (Luke O'Donnell) maybe Hetherington realises that the team is better off with slightly less talented but eager and committed individuals than players who would, in reality, want to be somewhere else.

Lunt was clearly no Buderus in 2012 but, let's be honest, so what? What did the team achieve in 2011 with Buderus that it didn't in 2012 without him?