Good to see he has stopped making mistakes and giving away penalties in the last 5 minutes - instead he has started scoring tries!!

Pity this point has been overlooked by some posters on here - perhaps a change of spectacles is in order

I noticed.

I also noticed that, yet again, he was the 2nd best hooker for Leeds.

I also noticed the thread about him perhaps leaving at the end of this season. I noticed the complete apathy from our fans at the prospect. It's almost as if it will make little or no difference if he's here, a fitting epitaph to his entire Leeds career.

Here we go......................

To be second best you actually have to play in position the something Buderus didn't do for 60 minutes of the game.

It will interesting to see his defensive stats.

As long as his leaving doesn't have a detremental effect on the side - surely that is more important than the views of a few keyboard warriors.

Let's face it it cannot have a lesser impact than Diskin's departure?

Hmm as good as McShane is playing, his defence is not even comparable to Buderus'.. in my opinion. Depends what criteria you judge who's the better player on I suppose ..

Indeed. Watching the game at the ground Saturday I had McShane up their as possibly MOM. He certainly changed the momentum.

But watching back on the box afterwards, my view changed significantly. He made an awful lot of errors that against better sides could have proved costly.

Did you also notice that he was playing Loose Forward for most of the match?

I hope you're not waiting for my weekly Opta thread for those.

My source - the SL website - aren't interested in the Challenge Cup or strangely the SL Play-Offs so I get to have a week off on Cup rounds.

Perhaps one of the Trade papers will carry them - I don't get to see any of those living in Lincolnshire.

Surely you could do them yourself based on the recording of the game (presuming you have one as normal)


Just for Leeds mind, I don't expect you to do it for the Cru as well

Unlike you, noticed both players were interchanging between hooker and loose during the game or do you pigeon hole players into positions based upon how they pack down in scrums?

I think you and Sal paradise should pause and reflect upon where Buderus was when he scored the final try of the game. Oh, yes, that's right, he was at Hooker. D'urgh!

So every single player that goes in at Dummy Half is classed as "playing hooker"? No, didn't think so.

McShane played Hooker. Did Buderus (being one of the best hookers in the world) occasionally nip in at Dummy Half? Yes, of course he did. But so did Hall, Smith, Burrow & Sinfield (at the least) so are you telling me we played a 6 hooker rotation formation?

Er, where was he at the end of the game when he scored the try that has gotten you so excited? He and McShane interchanged at hooker throughout the game. No suprise unremarkable rhino didn't spot this but I expect better from you.

The Opta stats for the game are in today's League Express...

I'm not telling you anything. I doubt you'd understand.

Are you telling me that Buderus didn't play hooker once McShane was introduced from the bench. Is that what you're saying?

What position was Buderus playing when he scored his try?

remember, you are the one claiming Buderus was not playing hooker. Explain what he was playing when he scored.

It's an interesting idea.

I'll just run it by the boss and she what she thinks of it. I'll get back to you as soon as my fingernails have grown back.

RR Both Buderus and Mcshane have rotated the 13/9 role every game they've been on the pitch at the same time together this season both players have mentioned it and so has the coach in post match interviews.
I don't think it's hard to notice who's doing which role by watching who's taking charge of the ptb and where the other one is in regards to the attacking line and vice versa defensively.
It's a ploy that's working very well and adds to our forward rotation this year.

It's been a remarkable ploy from the coach. So remarkable some of our less remarkable fans haven't been able to spot it.

Buderus was in at Dummy half when he scored. Is that what you're judging as "playing hooker"? If you're suggesting that anybody that goes in at Dummy Half is for that split second playing hooker, then I'll concede that you're right. And that would make Buderus the 2nd best of at least 6 hookers we played with yesterday.

If, however, you didn't have an anti-Buderus agenda, you'd view it as despite having to play out of position, he still managed to score a try from dummy half. Just have another look at my original post... here it is;



Whether or not he did the odd set at Hooker to keep McShane fresh (which I've never said he didn't!), whether or not he scored a try from DH, Buderus played MOST OF THE MATCH at Loose Forward. Which is what I pointed out.

HTH.

You really are beyond boring with that now.

Let me bat it back.

What do you consider constitutes "Playing hooker"? Set your definitions. You're the one claiming he wasn't doing so?

I'd suggest that in the modern era, given the virtually uncontested scrums, the the major role for a hooker is being dummy half. Of course, other players will get in at dummy half during the course of a game but that doesn't make them hooker.

As has been pointed out above, Buders and McShane shared the role of hooker and loose forward. Sal and you were trying to give the impression that once McShane came on Buderus exclusively played loose.

He didn't.

You were wrong.

As usual.

HTH

TIA for making it clear how much it gets up your nose. That will, of course, make me use it even less.

Where? Go on... where am I claiming that Buderus wasn't playing hooker?!

Are you sure you can read? Try and spell the letters out one at a time.

I'll try again;


Loose Forward for MOST OF THE MATCH, is not ALL of the match, thus SOME OF THE MATCH, he was playing hooker. I have never said he wasn't. READ!

Please don't shout dear.

Having that special visitor again this week are we?

lets look at the gist of our conversation shall we.

You wrote



I pointed out he wasn't. I pointed out that

You replied It's clear here what your meaning was. You mean that McShane played hooker and Buderus occasionally stepped in at dummy half (like other non hookers). It's clear you failed to spot the players swapping positions throughout the game and it's clear you felt McShane and only McShane played hooker once he came off the bench.

It's clear you were wrong.

Nice fog knitting attempt at a back track mind.

PS, do you have any information as to how many minutes McShane played at hooker compared with Buderus to substantiate your claim Buderus was loose forward for "most of the match"? As you're struggling to define what "playing hooker" means to you I wonder how you've arrived at that conclusion.

Fair play. I concede. I understand what you're saying, and understand why it was mis-read on both our parts.

To be honest, I just read your Buderus hatred and it clouds my judgement and I'm probably overlooking the facts slightly in an attempt to better defend who I think (and am allowed to think) is a great player and doing a great job for our club.

I do, genuinely, think that you're doing the same visa-versa though. I.e. overlooking just how good a job Buderus in an attempt to fuel the anti-Buderus posts. Each to their own though I guess. My opinion is if McShane is outshining Buderus slightly, it means he's been watching and learning from someone who, whether he's produced it on the field at Leeds or not, is one of the best hookers our game has ever seen.