We were clear favourites, but were not untouchable, and Smith tied our hands behind our back

Played as 4th prop is something that a second row could be expected to adapt to quite easily. Doing it as 3rd is a different proposition

Jamie Jones-Buchanan has now started 23 games for Leeds at prop.

His first starting game there was 29th April 2005 and he'd started four times in the position before the Challenge Cup final came around.

Still not my idea of a prop though.

Me neither, I'd go as far as to say IMHO he is the most ineffective prop in SL when played there. A good 2nd rower yes, prop no.

So, despite, assertions to the contrary it is clear that Leeds did NOT play Hull in the 2005 CC Final with 2 props.

I see you're no longer relying on statistics you openly admit are skewed but now using Peter Smith's opinion as definitive souirce material.

Are there no depths?

There were two mobile, experienced forwards on the bench both of whom had previous experience of playing prop for Leeds.

How small was Willie Poching compared to Ewan Dowes?

The team selected was perfectly capable of beating Hull. They didn't because Hull played exceptionally well and we didn't. A very experienced player made the howler of his career and two young players fluffed a kick at the end.

That is sport.

That things may have been different had an other played centre or Barrie played instead of anyone else named is far from clear and completely speculative.

Thank you. I'd imagine he'd packed down there many times in addition to those starts as well.

Nor mine frankly but not a view shared by Tony Smith (criticised roundly for it) or Brian Mclennan (fawningly idolised for it).

Still makes it hard for any rational person to maintain that we took on Hull with 2 props.

This is without considering where poching played in that game.

I have no stats on the minutes player's play in any game let alone in Challenge Cup games. The SL website stats (that I collate each week and reproduce on here) don't cover the Challenge Cup at all.

I've never relied solely on stats, they are but one of several resources one of which is the local Leeds newspaper reports. Often referred to as an unofficial Leeds propaganda machine.

Kind of day you might want someone more mobile in the the front row?

i wondered how long it would take!

Or the kind of day you might want more than 2 forwards on the bench?

We did have. Unless an interchange hooker is no longer a forward.

A hooker doesn't count as a forward on the bench in those terms, he may pack down, but he's not a meter maker.

Duneman was a halfback, or a part-time hooker at best. It should have been him or McGuire on the bench. Not both. There should have been one more second row/prop on the bench to allow the forwards to rest more

Would an extra forward have been worth 12 points start to offset mistakes by our backs?

Mistakes happen in any game, although not as stupid as Bai's, but certainly the same as Calderwoods. Hall failed to collect a difficult kick on Friday.

I think an extra forward may have given us a better platform. It may not have though. None of us are gifted enough to know how the game would have panned out.

I am sorry but Dunneman was selected to play hooker which makes him a forward. His role throughout that year, given Diskin's injury, was hooker.

Its' the same way that James Roby plays hooker, having once been a half back.

A hooker is a forward.

I think you should re-read TVOC's stats if you think hookers don't make metres. In fact, the role of the impact hooker, is to come off the bench and make metres. Its' a role one time half back James Roby earned man of steel playing.

Why should there have been one more 2nd rower on the bench? Is having Mcguire on there not effectively the same, given that his introduction would allow Sinfield to slot back into the pack?

He might pack down in a scrum, not regarded as a forward so much these days.

Glorified halfback is the general term used these days. Including 2005.

Thanks for that.

harvey Howard started his career as a winger. Paul Gill as a full back. They were still forwards.

The role of the hooker has changed, meaning nippierplayers are needed. They're still forwards.

A hooker does not have the same role to play in the game to the props and second rows, who's role although different, is similar in style..

Defining Dunemann as hooker is fine, as most of the season was spent in that position, but their role in the team is closer to that of a halfback, than as a runner.

Thats why I think that having him and McGuire on the bench was a waste, when we needed people to take drives up, we didn't have fresh enough legs, or enough size, across the 17.

Sinfield, would have moved back to loose, but we rarely took the ball up, especailly back then, and was much more of a halfback, than a runner.

I think you are crediting Duneman with a bit much in his role of a hooker, by comparing him to James Roby, he did a job, but had nowhere near the impact a man coming off the bench should give. Kind of like Diskin at present

The only point I was making was that he was a hooker and hence he was a forward and hence we had 3 forwards on the bench.

I made no comment about how effective he was though I seem to recall he actually played the role very well that year.

He did, and if anything Diskin was the pooroer hooker that year when he played. I just think the balance of that 17 was wrong. I remember some comments at the time about there being too many chiefs and not enough indians.

You must surely have been surprised at the 17 that was announced on matchday

I was. And annoyed. I felt sorry for Barrie and agreed with the comments made earlier on the thread that whilst he had an awful game against the Bulls he kept asking for the ball in, in defeat.

I mentioned at the time that it is easy to have a low error count if you do not take the ball in and felt Barrie had been treated harshly.

None of this makes any of the statements I have sought to counter in this thread any more accurate.

We did not play Hull with 2 props. We did not play them with 2 forwards on the bench. Nobody can say with any certainty that different selections would have altered the outcome.

The 17 selected could have won that game. Had three players whose selection has never been questioned (Bai, Calderwood and Mathers) not made howlers we may well have won the game.

Silly me..thought I was reading a thread about an update on Buderus only to find pages and pages arguing about why we lost a game 4 years ago.

I don't know about anyone else but i'm more interested in whats happening now and in the future as opposed to 4 yeeas ago



As peed off as I was in 2005 at that loss,i've now moved on.

Back on the topic of Danny I hope he makes a full and speedy recovery.

Had the pleasure of speaking to him in person outside the Carnegie Bar at the pre season game and he's truely a great guy as well as a legend of the game.

He must be so frustrated about his first season in England which has promised so much only to be now curtailed.

Your right. Sometimes though you have to accept that teams lose because players make the wrong plays, sometimes becuase the coach makes the wrong decisions, sometime both. Sometimes you are beaten by the better team, and there would be little you could do to stop that.

I feel that we lost that game becuase the wrong choices were made by the coach, and players made key mistakes in key areas of the field.

My memory has blanked out Mathers mistake. What was it again?

The grubber through near the end that both Mathers and Calderwood went for but neither gathered, giving Hull the set of six from which they scored the winner.