Cheers WP.

Good luck for next week, really hope you can turn Manly over.

I'd personally go radical with this line up, injuries permitting.

Webb
Hall
Watkins
Hardaker
Smith
Ward
McGuire
Peacock
Sinfield
Griffin
JJB
Delaney
Clarkson

Bailey
Burrows
Ablett
Hauraki

Thankyou

So how do explain with McShane being 'Bang in form' McDermott not starting him against Hull KR and then not even including him in the 18 for the following week. To me it suggests a lack of confidence in his ability at this level.

Sinfield cannot play 9 - he will not be able to control the attack!! although he will have his hands on the ball for all 6 plays rather than his usual 4 out of 6.

On the hooker Burrow is the lesser of two evils and not having a nine of the requisite quality will be costly. We must not overplay the influence of Buderus!!

He was included in the 18 the previous week. He was on the bench. Didnt get on but was on the bench

So why give him the no.9 shirt...AND a FOUR year contract ??

That is damn unfair on the lad....he could be playing for a different club now if he isn't considered good enough at Headingley.

As others have stated (DHM ?) McShane was looking pretty good when given a few matches on the run last season. Indeed some stated he could be the new K.Cunningham !! He was then very much out of favour and could even be suffering a continued personal vendetta. Why select him for the bench and then leave him there ? Cannot be doing much for his confidence.

I certainly wouldn't have Burrows playing



I'd go:

BJB
Hall
Watkins
Hardaker
Chisholm
Webb
McGuire
Bailey
McShane/Hood
Peacock
JJB
Delaney
Sinfield

Burrow
Griffin
Ablett
Amor...oops ! Sorry Moore/Lleulai

Smith
Clarkson

I am always considered a little reckless at work too

.....BUT I [udo[/u get results !!!

If Leeds could have signed a suitable replacement for Buderus McShane would not have got the 9 shirt. Given the squad who else could you give the 9 shirt to?

On a 4 year contract - a cheap way of paying him i.e. lower wages for a longer contract!!

The new KC - who said that

So you would choose this game to give Chisholm his debut!! I appreciate it is a friendly but even in training mode Manly would take him to the cleaners.

I didn't...but I do remember somebody else stating that. As for giving him the no.9 shirt that smacks of cruelty if he was not considered worthy of it....why not then have given it to Hood ?

More pertinently if he wasn't considered worthy enough to step up why the heck let Buderus leave ...when he stated he was prepared to stay ?

The most relevant point is that effectively yes this is a friendly.

I did say I was considered reckless......but if Chisholm is really not good enough for a first team squad number then again why give it to him ? This game might be the making of him: there is nothing really at stake here.

They had little really choice with Buderus - once Bennett went to Newcastle Buderus was off.

Hood is even less ready the McShane - potentially Hood is the better prospect IMO

Well if both Smith and Watkins are unavailable he might get a go - although I think both Matai and Lyon could wreck his confidence.

The public position was that Leeds had a player with an existing playing contract for 2012 and a player who entirely appreciated the difficult position he had put the club in by asking for a release and if the release couldn't be granted he would honour that commitment.

Do you know any different?

If a player wants to leave which Buderus did there is no future keeping them regardless of contract - the club is no respecter of contracts so you can hardly expect the players to be different. Buderus didn't want to be at Leeds if he did he would never have asked for a release?

Webb;
BJB, Watkins, Hardaker, Hall;
Sinfield, McGuire;
Bailey, McShane / Hood, Peacock;
Ablett, Jones-Buchanan;
Clarkson.

Burrow, Griffin, Leuluai / Moore, Delaney.

I don't think Buderus wanted away from Leeds as such although he clearly wanted to take up an (unexpected?) opportunity when it arose in Newcastle.

Buderus said he appreciated the difficult position he was putting his employers in and that if a release was not possible he would honour his existing playing contract for 2012.

Do you think if Leeds had turned down the request the player would have given anything less than his usual 100% commitment?

Buderus was WORLD class, playing in the most important position in modern RL. Unfortunately we don't have a world class no.9 at the moment.

It wasn't that long ago he was a 'waste of money' for some, he was a huge part in our success last season.

Sinny to play 9 on friday for my money.

I'd go with:
Webb
BJB
Watkins
Hardaker
Hall
McGuire
Burrow
-----------
Griffin
Sinfield
Peacock
Jones Buchanan
Delaney
Ablett

Subs: McShane, Leuluai, Moore, Bailey
Maximum impact from the start, and big hitters from the bench, i think we should try Sinny at hooker because McShane for me isn't experienced enough to start and i think we need speed at half back.

I doubt he would have been the same player with Leeds as he will be with Newcastle - mentally I think he would have found the year at Leeds tough especially the training. I bet he is really up for the challenge at Newcastle

No doubt.

It doesn't detract from the fact that Leeds is a professional club not a charity. If it was considered McShane is not as good a prospect for 2012 as a half hearted, distracted Buderus then again I ask why let him go ? He did state he was ready to honour his contract.

Do you not consider it bad management in not finding an adequate replacement....or at least formulating a good enough contingency plan to compensate for his [i[ulong known[/u[/i departure ?? To be experimenting after all this time as to how to proceed is nothing short of a debacle. What was all the close season for ?

You can only sign what is available, maybe they thought he wasn't quite the loss he might turn out to be this is all conjecture maybe they were going to adapt the style of play to compensate?

Really ? You're telling me by starting Burrow as hooker (the apparent first contingency plan) they really thought Buderus wouldn't be quite the loss he might turn out to be ????

How exactly were they then thinking they might adapt the style of play to compensate by starting Burrow in this most important of all positions ?

I repeat it can only be described as bad management. How else can it be described ?