I wouldn't know old bean, I'm not a SL coach I don't profess to be. It seems to me you fancy being one? I just see things as they are imo of course.

I have to say I agree here. It is an underestimated facet of Roby's game, as people will tend to focus on his running from dummy half, but his defence around the ruck has often impressed me as well, and wherever he defends in the line he certainly isn't a weak link, either in positioning or tackling.

We'll see just how good Roby is when Cunningham retires....

I think we'll discover he's bloody good.

I agree tbf although will spend all his career at 9?
I could see him moving to 13 eventually.

There seems to be a consensus of opinion that Roby isn't best suited as starting hooker due to his ability to tire out defences when he is introduced around the 20-25 minute mark. Although it's obviously true that he does his best work around this time I don't personally agree that he can't step up and be promoted to the starting spot at the start of next season. In saying that, Scott Moore has been excellent from what i have seen at Hudds this season and I expect us to retain his services with him and Roby battling it out for the starting spot.

Although Roby has started at 13 on a few occasions, I'm not convinced he is suited to such a ball playing role. His assets lie in being involved in the ruck with good marker defence and quick hands to get the first reciever going, along with his running from dummy half.

Did Tony Smith have any problem starting with Roby (when available) at the World Cup last season?

This got a bit of discussion ahead of the World Cup last year. In my view, it isn't that I don't believe Roby can be a starting hooker, he's certainly plenty good enough, it's more that I think he can have a greater impact on the game coming off the bench. That will be for the Saints coaching staff to work out when Cunningham quits. They can use him as starting #9 where he will be better than 95% of the hookers he comes up against, but it might not be the way to get his absolute best out of him.

Why has a thread about Leeds performance last night descended into a discussion about a player from our major rivals?

Now that McGuire has lost a little pace, he does not have the ability to go round the men stood wide as often as he used to. His footwork in the middle makes himvery threatening to the heavy footed people in the midfield, and it is because of this he was able to create space for people further wide last night.

If you notice when Long goes to the line, before going behind to Pryce on a 2nd man play, he usually puts Pryce on the outside of the defence, in alot of space. This is because he has the ability to hold the men in the middle, be it with good footwork, or by utilising the dummy runner. Last night McGuire showed similar traits IMO, and looks very promising in that position.

Two words: Thread Drift.

I know but it's annoying when it gets in the way of a relatively interesting discussion/thread.
Still its only my usual grump mode.

Apologies, I just took exception to DISA's usual drivel.

As you were.

Out of interest why do you think Saints are not giving Long a 2 year deal?

I think it's obvious that his best years are behind him now and with the potential Eastmond has shown at scrum half it's looking like the right decision. The big worry of course is Eastmond's tendency to get injured, added to the fact that he hasn't done a full season (or anything like) as the no.1 scrum half at a big club. It's going to be a big step for him but Long won't be around forever and I would rather us promote from within.

Why or Why didn't we offer Brad Godden a 2 year deal??

Oh sorry, thread drift.

Yep, that's sounds pretty much bang on what I thought.

I like the look of Eastmond, looks a bit of a rough diamond at the moment, but looks to have real potential.

Or Senior for the last 3 years

Ah that's where your wrong. If you read the whole thread It refers to my posts and my argument with eccleshill. I was interested to see if a saints supporter agreed why they were not offering long a 2 yr deal.

On the tackling stats it is different to what you state.

The only thing Sinfield can be compared to is other loose forwards.

Missed tackles after 12 rounds.

Sinfield 26
Wilkin 31
O/Loughlin 30
Langley 30
Murrell 49

Judging be that, he isn't even high up ont he missed tackles stats for Loose forwards, let alone the rest of the game.

By the way, Sinfield missed only one game in 2008 and of course we won. But we missed the rest of the team then also.

He did not miss a game in 2007.

In 2006 he missed 6 games, and we lost 4 of them. The two we won were Harlequins and Cas at home, who both had poor seasons.

Sinfield missed those tackles over 12 appearances, as did Wilkin, O'Loughlin missed his over 15 appearances, Langley over 11 and Murrell over 14.

Missed tackles per game would give a fairer indication or alternatively the misses expressed as a % of their tackling totals perhaps?

O'Loughlin - 2.00 (95% Effective Tackles)
Sinfield - 2.17 (94% Effective Tackles)
Wilkin - 2.58 (94% Effective Tackles)
Langley - 2.73 (93% Effective Tackles)
Murrell - 3.50 (91% Effective Tackles)

Hopefully the SL website will eventually get around to updating their lists for the Leeds V Hull game for some more up to date Leeds figures.

Did you miss the Roby bit?

Oh shut up you old tart.

You are such a boring fart. Get your head out of your Saints coloured aresecal and start looking at the rest of the game.

You are actually stupider than I gave you credit for. You came on here spouting that Roby was a poor defender. I pulled you up on it. Your fellow Leeds fans (who must also have a Saints coloured ecal...whatever one of those is

)agreed with me. You then accuse me of bias.

If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I'd struggle to believe someone to be so stupid.

Thats right just keep looking in the mirror. I can assure you wont find any other one.