Well, Allan and Worrall were some way down the order anyway, and a bit of luck with injuries could have seen them not feature at all.
Although Ellis was relatively poor in 2008, we weren't really likely to sign a player of the same level just because there aren't many of them.




FWIW, I don't like the idea of trying to balance our two sides either. There's nothing wrong with being one-sided, or set up to go "long" one side, and short the other side. Most teams do, including Saints.

TBF I don't think anyone expected Eastwood's visa to be turned down over driving offences. Whether it was right to defer his contract till 2010 is another matter which has meant putting pressure on the other players for this year. I guess that the club felt that they were capable of qualifying for the playoffs with or without him and that they could match other teams in one off games.

Richie can knit for with the best of them.

They are only some way down the pecking order if the 10 man pack panel used for the weekly 17 can maintain intensity, fitness, form and stay clear of injuries. That is never realistically going to happen over a full season.

Given the lack of options being exercised by McClennan this season so far I think squad depth of an acceptable trusted standard (or lack of) is a real issue. The team looks like it could do with a freshen up but the options are minimal.

Well that logic is proving to be flawed around 1/3rd of the way in to the season.

Or, is this a more likely scenario ?

May be a bit of that but if you consider that Eastwood and Buderus salary would IMO not be a great deal less than Ellis, Toopi, Scruton and Tansey it reduces the scope for a further signing.

The Eastwood non-show is IMO playing havoc with Leeds plans for 2009

i'm struggling here richie.

i think it goes like this.

GH goes to bluey and says "eastwood is out of contract,he is cheap,so i'm signing him".

bluey says "great,he will replace ellis and bolster our pack well".

richie says" we don't need him".


who do i go with?
answers on a postcard

So where has Bluey said we need him?

and where did you hear either party make those statements by the way? Particularly the bit about Eastwood being cheap?

Isnt Eastwood on the record saying that he signed for the money? Not indicative that he is on a huge wedge, just more than he was in Oz.

I doubt he was cheap but I guess Bluey thought we needed him as why else would he want to sign to sign him?

I don't know where Tad got the idea about Eastwood being cheap, probably the same place as the "quotes" he supplied.

On signing him though, there's a difference between wanting to have a good player (and a coach will want as many of those as possible) and a team needing a player.

Where do you think the team needs strengthening either this season or next?

Smith was right. We needed to sign a proven in the off season and a back row forward when it was clear Greg (Billy Bunter) Eastwood was not coming. It should not have been left so long. The replacements simply are not up to standard yet. We have the added problem of Ali's regular unfitness and Lee Smith maybe going to Union plus the usual injuries. What if Senior gets a long term injury?

In addition to these squad weaknesses IMO there is another factor this season. The coach has a game plan based on defence and not attack. He has had us committing 3 and 4 players to tackle one man. This is fine when defending your own line but it has had a negative effect on the sharpness of the side. They all look tired and when all that effort is put in and they still let in 5 tries is also saps the confidence.

We must return to a game plan based on attack from the start of a game and not give the inititive to the opposition which is what we have been doing all season. We have the players for an attacking style and it is what the paying public want to see.

Whatever went on on the pre-season training field was wrong. They all look worn out with no form or sharpness with the exception of Lee Smith.

To end on a positive point. Bluey said he didn't want us to peak too soon this season - fairs fair - he has got that part of his plan right!

So Richie if Leeds didn't think they needed Eastwood why did they want to sign him - because they thought they would give him a couple of years in the UK or because they genuinely thought their was a weakness in the squad?


Not all players are going to improve some simply do not have the ability and plateau and some players will regress as age and condition effect them.

Will Senior be as good as he was? very unlikely not even Canute could turn back the tide. Does getting regularly concussed help Burrow's form?

If you are a top side you need top players in key positions centre is one of them it is the major strike position in most sides to not have a quality centre is an issue as it limits your attacking options and you become easier to defend against.

As for the Saints backline I would have Wellens, Gidley, Gilmour, Gardener, Pryce and Long.

The priority at the moment should be signing Lee Smith to a long term contract.
Across the squad there are no glaring weaknesses that demand an immediate signing. What we should be doing is looking for any player who comes at a good quality/cost ratio. I believe Eastwood (but don't know what he cost) fell into that category.
Longer term, we're strong at fullback as long as we have Webb and Smith contracted.
We have enough on the wing, but should be looking at whether BJB can replace Donald in a couple of years.
Centre should see Watkins & Smith as the longer term solution until Webb leaves, and then we need to find a centre or fullback, with Smith taking the other spot, and I reckon Smith will succeed Webb at fullback.
We're set at halfback*
I'm comfortable with the whole forward group, although we need to think about how long Ali and Peacock will be around. I see Kirke moving to prop at some point.
*At hooker, we're good for now, but will need a successor to Buderus, and I'd be looking to find a hooker/scrum half type who can add some zip around the PTB. That shouldn't be a big money signing though, but a development player.

I have already said why we tried to sign him. Did you read it?



You would really have Wellens over Webb, Gilmour over Senior and Gardner over Donald?

Once again you are being obtuse needing/wanting - GH does not spend it doesn't have to if he thought the player wasn't needed he would not be looking to spend a big chunk of money - Eastwood is not an academy player on 10k who might make it

Not at all. I am being very clear. There is a difference between needing and wanting. It's about price vs benefit.

Put it this way if an analogy helps - you get offered a nice Ferrari (ignore servicing, insurance and resale for the purposes of this) for £30K. It's a lot better than your Mini Cooper. You decide to buy it, but by the time you've checked your bank account it's gone, and you can't have it. Doesn't mean you needed that Ferrari, or even a new car for that matter.

Definitely Wellens over Webb and Gilmour over Senior both are far more consistent and significantly better defenders than their counterparts. On Donald it depends which side he plays you are saying he plays on the same side as Gardener because it suits your arguement his record more than stands up to Donalds

I'm comparing Donald to Gardner because they both play right wing this season.
I find your other two decisions odd.

You raise some interesting point's at times mate but that IMHO is bollox!

This is professional sport not some boy racer whim - you do not go out and pay big money because you want a player you do it because you think the squad needs it - especially if you are GH - so they got Buderus because they wanted him - no they got Buderus because McClennan wanted to play with two hookers so they needed another player of Diskin's quality. GH tried to sign Soliola why because the squad needed another centre if the intention was to convert Smith to be a centre why did GH try and sign a centre? it was because the centre didn't materialise that Smith all of sudden became a centre - a position he had never played before!!!

That is your opinion - Webb will never be the same player again - spinal injuries for a player in a high collision sport!!!

Gilmour is a much better defender than Senior and he will play for at least another 2/3 seasons how much longer will Senior play - he struggles to catch the ball now.

So that's it then after a few games back from a serious injury that's taken over 6 mths to recover from your writing him off?????

David Senior has two bad games on the trot and you have written him off?
Webb we'll have to wait and see be I think as usual you are knee jerking here.