It will be interesting to see what happens to him after this season.Will he go home or sign a deal elswhere?

Not good enough for SL, not good enough for NRL - Championship bound if you ask me.

What I don't get is how he ever managed to get the gig? IMHO (of course) I don't think he's good enough for ANY SL team, let alone Championship title contenders.

I think he could get a gig at a lower end super league team. Don't particularly want him at Leeds but I would think he's a good cheap option for someone tooth not as a first choice maybe

I understand Rhinos have 'asked' if Hunslet will take him several times, but Hunslet 'don't need him'



There are also some others who Rhinos have asked "can you accommodate" and Hunslet have said no. In previous posts I have mentioned these names - but have been shot down by people saying, "your having a laugh xxx is better than any player at Hunslet" It seems not!

Your description and mine are fundamentally different. As I have been stating since page 4, IMO Hall mistimed his challenge on McDonnell and failed in his attempt to take man and ball having comitted himself in coming out of the line. He only managed an outstretched touch on McDonnell who was then able to step inside him and run through an unready and obstructed defence. You blame Moon who you accuse of ball watching whereas I think he was obstructed. Had Hall not shot out of the line he would have ben able to "force" McDonnell to use his overlap or go outside giving our covering defence plenty of chance to stop the attack.

As I say look at the VT or the highlights on the Leeds website.

I still don't think I need to review the footage again although clearly you had to be told that it was Shannon McDonnell and not the Hull centre that broke the line.

Was it also on page four when you stated "=#0000FFHall a world class winger is currently out of form and on the last 3 games has been worse than Vickery." He hasn't IMO but is your view backed by the Opta stats this week?

So in the 2nd minute of the Hull game is it your contention that Hall should have stayed on his wing despite Leeds being outnumbered?

I was happy that he came inside in that situation and prevented the ball getting to the overlap - unfortunately for Hall and Leeds it was the slow to react than overplay on the drift by Moon and Jones-Buchanan unable to stay in touch on the inside that created the hole in the defence that McDonnell exploited.

And winning a point about a name is important to you when it made no difference to the point I was making.



Against Hull Hall made more metres than Vickery which was the first time in 3 games. Hall made 2 tackles and missed 2 (one of which led to a try.). Vickery made 4 tackles with zero misses. Vickery also made a Marker Tackle and Hall didn't.

Nice to see you are friends again with Opta. Since you are shall we also compare Vickery and Hall in the two previous games. Against the Saints Vickery made 3 rackles to Hall's zero. Hall made more carries but less metres giving Vickery a better average gain. Hall made one error and Vickery none.

Against Wigan Vickery scored a try and Hall nothing. Hall made 3 tackles and also 3 missed tackles. Vickery 2 tackles with one miss and one marker. Vickery once again made more metres from less carries with again a better average gain. He also made one clean break and Hall zero. While Hall made 3 errors to Vickerys 2.

All this supports my point that Hall is out of sorts his timing is off and he is missing tackles. He is a class act and will play himself back into form as will other key players. I am not suggesting for a second that Vickery is anywhere near as good. However in recent games the focus of criticism has been soley on Vickery which has been most unfair.



Yes. Unless he was certain to take man and ball. If Hall had of stayed back the ball carrier would have either passed to the man outside or used him as a foil and our sliding cover defence would most likley have prevented a score. Had Hall stayed in line it is not likley that McDonnell would have cut back inside as he had the overlap.



The Hall missed tackle and the ball carrier coming inside plus some obstruction to the Leeds defenders allowed our defence to be split open and this together with excellent handling completed the try.

he's not good enough for hunslet never mind super league

Not good enough for Hunslet, yet good enough to get a contract at Gold Coast and be a regular member of their reserve grade side - a level well above anything the Championship has to offer?

Some people really are masters of hyperbole.

have you ever actually watched their reserves?

Amazing isn't it? Hunslet don't think he's good enough to play in the Championship yet he played for GCT reserves.

This can only mean one of two things:

1) The standard of Championship RL is above reserve grade NRL.

2) Vickery's playing standard has dropped below Championship standard.

Which one do you think it is Andy?

Or that Barry Eaton is a poor judge of a player...

Can we not just forgot Vickery now. And by "we" I mean the Rhinos coaching staff as well.

Maybe they signed because they thought of other wingers who turned up with their boots and asked for a game and got a refusal.Then went on to become legends elsewhere,but he did have a 3 month trial and someone must have been satisfied to give him a Year.Could it be they thought the young kids needed a bit more time?

Didn't Graham McKay turn up with his boots for a gig?

Maybe McDonut thought he'd get the same from Vickery?

Brighouse Rangers are looking for new players, he might get a game there. But seriously the lad if he was good enough at the start of the season is shot now. He needs a fresh start in lower levels of the league.

Recognising the players and accurately relating the position they are attacking and/or defending in may be useful. Why not establish that first before trying to discuss the action.



So in the Hull game where in your opinion Vickery was the better of the two wingers - what were their metres again - sorry but I didn't quite catch it?

How very balanced of you to point out Vickery also made a marker tackle while ignoring that Hall made almost three times the total metres (177 to 66 - does Opta include the metres made in reverse?) Hall made twice the number of carries (20 to 10), Hall made 1 offload to Vickery's 0, Hall made one attacking kick to Vickery's 0, Hall made 2 runs from dummy half to Vickery's 0, Hall made 2 tackle busts to Vickery's 1 and they both made one error ........ that is if you trust what Opta claim.



Again you use selective stats that suits your agenda - where's the balance? Opta are no friends of mine but come in useful to counter your selective use of them. The Opta stats mean very little to me in regards to assessing player performance - the actual incidents that occur in games is what I try to focus on rather than someone else's subjective opinions which have often been proven to be inaccurate when tested. Your apparent willingness to accept their validity is not shared universally.

Leeds V St Helens:

The stats of Hall and Vickery show very little to choose between them in all honesty. Your interpretation is questionable without reference to actual incidents to support the numbers. This better average gain you speak of could be the result of more cheap metres on kick returns - I don't know and I suspect strongly that you don't either. Am I wrong to think that because if you think I am I'm quite happy to have a look for you. Another interpretation could be that fewer carries = a poorer work rate but again without the actual analysis of incidents what do you have? It's also the case on tackles made by wingers - most teams attack more on their left flank than their right flank so it's only to be expected a right winger will see more of the action, isn't it?. A side will also target the side they've pre-determined to be the weakest so again another explanation of why Vickery saw more of the action - if indeed he did.



Vickery caught a ball and ran five metres unopposed.



So Hall in this game was involved in 2% of Leeds' total tackles to Vickery's 1%, so is that questionable work rate on defence to add to his questionable work rate on attack that you keep helpfully pointing to? And again you're selectively picking out figures to support your case while ignoring those that do not. Balanced (?) - I suggest not. In this game Hall made more carries (15 - 9), was involved in more tackles (6 - 3), made more offloads (1 - 0), made more runs from dummy half (1 - 0), made more tackle busts (3 - 0)

Two of Wigan's tries were scored on Vickery's wing (the other from Sinfield's dubious kick selection), do we know if Vickery has been credited with any missed tackles on either down his flank, let's assume he hasn't as he failed to lay a finger on anyone with ball in hand in those situations IIRC can that be right? As I explained at the time he at least had the opportunity to prevent the second but hesitated and the opportunity was lost, the try conceded but do Opta have a category to express that failing?




That focus seemed to come after a thread was created to apologise to him - I agree that apology was unneccesary and unfortunately it allowed somewhere for comments to be deposited both pro but mainly con.

A winger missing tackles is often after a failure of the inside defence. Is Hall failing to make straight up one on ones - or is he having to make difficult decisions after failures from others. Same question for Vickery as Opta have them both in the mid 70's - Hall on 73%, Vickery 76%.



The sliding defence had it's chance once Hall had forced McDonnell back inside - it failed as Moon was initially late to react then over-chased and Jones-Buchanan wasn't quick enough (not a criticism) to fill the gap Moon had left on his inside.



Hall did his job in both covering the possibility of an early kick and preventing the ball getting out to the easily created overlap. The failure was primarily Moon's as above and previously described, IMO. Probably that was one of Moon's four missed tackles from the Hull game (according to Opta) and if you're looking for a defensive weakness on the left flank it isn't confined to Hall, again IMO.

BJ Bishop is back for the Widnes game. Is that the last time we see Mr Vickery I wonder?

You expect BJB to remain injury-free for the rest of the season?

Really?

What injury has BJB been suffering from?

Is this your entry for the Pedant of the Year award? I guess you will have a difficult decision choosing which of your posts to enter this year!



You talk of using selective stats to suit an agenda and you use the word "balance" ...not a word I readily associate with your postings.

I may well have an agenda and if so, it should be plain for all to see that it is to argue against comments that IMO are too negative, too insulting, too OTT or too wrong to let go. This doesn't mean I am blind to the mistakes, errors, loss of form and human failings that occur in our team from time to time and therefore I have never been against general critical comment and discussion. None of this proves any of us are always correct as in the end is a just question of opinion. As someone once said 'there is what you say, and what I say and then there is the truth'

In this case my comments clearly stated that we should put Vickery's errors in perspective and I pointed out Hall's lack of form (at the time) not to have a go at him (as I rate him highly) but as a "balance".

Regarding the use of selective stats well of course I will use the amunition that best supports my argument and so do you and most others. eg When you have been regulary and selectively deriding Vickery you never mentioned Hall's poor form to put in some "balance" did you....."sorry I didn't quite catch it".

Talking of agendas yours too is plain for all to see. Whatever the topic you choose to take a position that is both negative and anti Leeds. Your crusade against the CEO, McDermott, Lowes is well known despite their success and you have on-going issues against JJB, Burrow, the away strip etc and now Vickery, Moon, the medical staff etc etc.

You never seem to show balance or give the benefit of the doubt to those on your keyboard hit list and the only thing you prove when using VT as evidence is that you have more time than anyone else to trawl through repeat playbacks to find some "selective moment" that you know no-one else has the time or inclination to challenge.

What I would like to know is what brought about this negative agenda againstLeeds.

I'm not the focus of this message board. I come in here to listen to and share opinions on the game and on the team I've supported through (thinking in decade terms) thick and thin and thin and thin and thick.

I'd much rather talk about Leeds on here than talk about me - I don't matter. Some people appear to give the impression that my opinions count for something but they don't, they really don't. They are there for people to have a pop at as they see fit and I'll see if I can defend them.

I'm sorry if you don't appreciate having your opinions or the evidence to support them challenged on occasions such as your recent 'Hardaker can't pass for toffee' claim but I'm sure your opinions can withstand a little scrutiny if they're valid. I've even asked for, if not past examples, examples as they occur in the future but you're still not happy.



No-one's word on this forum is the law - it is as you say mostly opinion but opinions should still be formed from incidents that can be related back to otherwise how was the opinion formed. Posters should still be expected and be able to justify an opinion when challenged to do so.



Vickery's efforts have been put in perspective and hopefully we won't need to discuss his efforts as a Leeds player ever again and certainly not after his one year deal expires. If that means those whose initial assessment was that he's nothing to get excited about (me included - but only after watching a few appearances first) proves correct (as you seem to imply McDermott to be the sole arbiter) and others (yours included) are proven wrong then so be it.



I'm not as convinced as you are that the Hall comment is justified. In what way do you think Hall has been out of form and for how long? This is where you generally can't be bothered to offer anything other than Opta - you see we're all capable of making generalised statements that to the other poster feels unwarranted.



And the rest but what of it?

They are the views/concerns of a fan/customer. You never posted anything negative, have Leeds never made a poor decision, you never seen Jones-Buchanan fall asleep on top of a ball carrier and wondered how helpful defending another set of six is going to be?



I know no such thing - how could I? I'm not afraid whether someone looks at the same incident I'm looking at or not - it's entirely up to them. All they need is a Sky subscription it's not any more difficult than that. What follows is a debate based on an actual incident using actual evidence - where both sides are free to give a view just as we did here over the opening Hull try. We both had our say - I didn't alter my view and I doubt you did either.



What negative agenda?

Wanting something (in this case Leeds RLFC) to be the best it can be is where I'm coming from and if that means questioning some decisions from time to time (but only on here, where no-one connected with Headingley probably even sees it let alone would overly care if they did) then so be it.

Left the club this week and has returned to Australia, I've heard.

I wish the lad well. The Rex Terp of his generation.

He was just here to buy time for the young lads.Had a good visit and Mac gave him the news he expected