you must be the only person who thinks his ball retention is good then. its something he does need to improve althought to be fair it is getting better.
his biggest problem is he plants his feet,and when isolated struggles to get the tackles in. this has been seen on a few occasions.
what he does do it hit the line and tackle harder. the potential is there, its upto him to realise it

I never said it was good tad. It is avearge, the same sort of rate as any other player. But it is not a problem. Yes, it could be improved, but it is not a problem.

He makes less errors per game than Bailey for example, despite carrying the ball more often and doing more work offensively and defensively. Luke Ambler is getting some praise and rightly so, but he too has only made 2 less errors than Burgess despite playing 4 games less. JJB's made a many more handling errors, but do people think he has a problem?

i think jjb dropped a couple against wigan because of poor passes iirc. i also think he was trying to hard, he was trying to lead the pack. no bad thing but it affected his game

You think? JJB has dropped the ball 15 times this season, Burgess 4. Which is exactly my point. Does it mean he has a problem with ball retention? does it bollox. Just as I think the label put on Burgess is also bollox.

Burgess wasn't a fan of Mclennan originally and the younger Burgess twins hated their time at Headingley.

In that case why did he stay and sign a new deal when Bradford and others wanted him?
I think Danny already posted that the twins hated at HQ but i didn't think there was any problem with Luke.

Maybe people stay in jobs where they don't like their boss?

But he had a lukewarm relationship with Mclennan in 2008. I've no idea how or if that has changed.

Luke's own view in 2008 was that Mclennan didn't rate him.

I suppose been in and out of the team didn't help.
I hope he stays i think he's got plenty of potential to be better and if he doesn't we will need reinforcements in the front row with Kylie and JP not getting any younger.

Maybe at that time this was true and things have improved for them both since then.
Let`s face it if half the Leeds Supporters were the Coach they would have dropped Donald after the first year and JP would be playing for Crusaders now.

Burgess, Bailey, Ambler, Amor, Pitts (he'll end up a front rower eventually, his feet and hands aren't quick enough to play second row).

Leeds have already put plenty of time and effort into identifying the future of the club front a prop point of view.

I stated the other week after Amor's bad couple of games that it was too early to write off and see how he is working full time after a year.

I kind of changed my mind after seeing that Whiehaven v Barrow game last Thursday. My god he was shocking. Missing tackles and errors. He looked out of his depth at that level even, despite having such a good year last year.

Was it a fluke last year? Has been with the Leeds coaches had a negative effect on his game? He certainly as a long way to go to be ready for week in week out superleague.

I'd agree with that, but I'd say that he looks similar to how Ambler looked when we first signed him. Ambler looked way out of his depth in the pre-season games he played when we first signed him and I worried for his future at that time, but he's done really well so far this season and hopefully Amor will do the same maybe after an extended period out of the first team.

That could well be the case.

Harsh imo mate.
This is his first time in a full time elite enviroment and the lad himself admitted he was dissapointed with his cameo appearances in the 1st team.
As for having a bad game for Haven i'd say that's the 1st bad game he's had in a very long time and you should stick by your original thoughts of giving him at least a full year in this enviroment and the same with Coady.

You might be right on Amor, hopefully.

You need to lengthen your thoughts about Coady though. He is going to take longer to be ready. People forget how few games Coady has actually played, at any level. Can't seem him been anything close to a regular for at least another 18 months.

Fair point you are right i'd forgotten his back-ground but hopefully he'll show his potential and go on to be the player the club hope he will.

Most young players getting their first opportunity in the 1st grade spend time in and out of the regular 17. I don't think anyone should be surprised at that.

If Burgess had a problem with a Leeds coach I'd have imagined it was more likely to be with Smith who never selected him for 1st grade despite him knocking on the door when Leeds were going with Kirke and Lauitiiti as interchange props late in 2007.

It was McClennan that gave Burgess his debut (7th March 2008 - six games into the new coach's time in charge) arguably at the first opportunity he got in the season with the openinmg four games being preparation and the fifth game being the WCC.

Since his debut Burgess has played in 58 of the 73 games Leeds have had. Leuluai 68 of 73, Peacock 66 of 73, Bailey 48 of 73.

That has never been expressed to me, though I am not saying it isn't the case. What has been expressed to me were his issues with Mclennan at the early stage of his career.

Of course, I am passing on information from an un-named source so you will have to take it at face value, or not but those [iwere[/i his views. There was a period, after his debut, when he was unhappy and didn't thin kthe coach rated him.

His selection sequence under coach McClennan in 2008 was:

In - 10
=#FF0000Out - 2 Groin strain picked up in training. See article attached below.
In - 3
=#FF0000Out - 1 Shoulder injury. Second and third articles below
In - 4
=#FF0000Out - 3 Burgess 18th man after Scruton returned from his 3 match suspension.
In - 4
=#FF0000Out - 3 (Play-Offs)

In 2009 Burgess played in 30 of 32 Leeds games.

Wembley final would be a dream for Luke
9th May 2008

[iRookie Leeds Rhinos prop Luke Burgess admits a Wembley appearance would fulfil a childhood dream. And the unfortunate Burgess is hoping his team-mates can keep the dream alive for him after he strained his groin in training. Burgess’ name was missing when Brian McClennan named his 19-man squad this morning and the coach confirmed the Rhinos’ injury curse had struck again. McClennan said: “It is a bit of a blow, but we are confident we can carry on. He looks doubtful for the Wakefield game too, but it is a squad game and the 17 on duty will do their best for Leeds I am sure.” With the engage Super League and Carnegie World Club Challenge trophies already in the cabinet, the Rhinos have made no secret of the fact they are targeting the Challenge Cup this year. But Burgess feels there is plenty of hard work to be done before Leeds can even contemplate the final stages of their march to the arch. “We’ll be looking to get a win on Sunday and progress in the competition,” said Burgess. “It would be massive to go all the way. It is a childhood dream to play at Wembley and win the Challenge Cup, so obviously it’s something that’s driving us all. We just want to keep knocking these games off, taking each game as it comes and hopefully slowly work our way to Wembley.” [/i

Rhinos aces sign 5 year deals
19th June 2008

[iMeanwhile, McClennan will select from the 16 who played against Harlequins on Saturday plus unused sub Simon Worrall and Luke Burgess – back from a shoulder injury – for Friday’s mouth-watering home clash against St Helens in a battle of the top two in Super League.[/i


McClennan: Saints will test our mettle
20th June 2008

[iMcClennan has no worries over the RFL’s decision to appoint Steve Ganson – who is from St Helens – as referee for tonight’s showdown. “Not at all,” said McClennan. “He is a referee who has done Grand Finals and Test matches. If Stuart Cummings and the RFL think he’s the best man for the job, I think he’s okay for us.” Prop Luke Burgess is back in contention for the Rhinos after recovering from a shoulder injury which kept him out of last weekend’s defeat. McClennan said: “He’s okay. He only just missed last week, it was a last- minute decision, but he is 100 per cent okay now.” [/i

Interesting. Meanwhile, as I said, there was a period, after he made his debut, when he was unhappy and didn;t think the coach rated him.

Perhaps Burgess was mistaken? Perhaps coach McClennan's actions spoke louder than words on this occassion.

Just as your 'source' (same one or a different one?) claimed there was little chance of Lee Smith signing then a couple of days later.... he signed.

Mistaken about what he felt? He felt what he felt. His feelings may well have been wrong. They may well have been right. When all were available for selection in the first game of the season was Burgess in the 17?

It was a different source to the Lee Smith source. The source couldn't be any closer to Luke. Take it or leave it, it's not something I often indulge in but those who know me on here know my connection.

Different one. What the source told me about that was that he had spoken to Lee the week before and Wasps were not interested in any way in letting Lee back on loan. They were coaching his "RL Habits" out of him. I spoke to my source Monday evening and he told me of his discussions with Lee the week before. Ultimatley that week Wasps released him making it an all new ball game.

No he had to wait until the 6th game of the season (the first one after the WCC) to make his debut.





We're, as in Leeds? I suspect you were wide of the mark.

So maybe Burgess' fears were well founded?

I suspect I was. Thanks for finding my quote btw. It shows that I never said my source said "there was little chance of Lee Smith signing" as you claim. My suspicions at the end of my post do not alter how perfectly accurate my source was on the Lee Smith situation. Did anyone else at the time break that if he came back it would be full time and not on the loan deal Leeds had approached Wasps about?

Luke Burgess is one of the average squad players that comes along because of the salery cap, end of. Not worth 8 pages?