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.

Did you really think there was going to be a whole ten pages dedicated to a broken leg, six weeks in pot, rehab, GF 11 weeks away, get well soon wishes?

It's called conversation. It starts in one place and ends somewhere else. At least (for a change) it's still a rugby discussion.

I always had it down as Walker who also didn't gether it .

It must be because they look so alike

We'll see

I don't think Walker looks anything like Mathers

I thought it was Walker & Calderwood

that was my point

Calderwood also scored a wonder try that kept us in the game just at the point that Hull's physical superiorty was beginning to tell. As for the last Hull try Cooke simply ran between Sinfield and Ward both of whom were out on their feet.

Smith has always contended a smaller nimbler set of forwards would win the game - obviously influenced by the West Tigers who won the the NRL that year using that style - it was the wrong decision as was the decision to play Senior - hindsight is a great thing but coaches build their reputation on making the right decision when the "money-game is on"

Anyone who thinks his treatment of McDermott was anything but personal malice is deluded - Smith's arrogance was such that he believed whatever side he put out Leeds would win - sadly he was proved catastrophically wrong and it took him another two years to recover.

What did Smith do to you? come on tell us

It's not what he did to David personally - you have to understand David had a significant amount of money invested personally in sponsorship of one of the up and coming young players at the time who reportedly "hated" working under Tony Smith.

It would therefore be disloyal of him to show any respect whatsoever for Smith's achievements in being the most successful title winning coach in the club's history.

By saying "at the time" is this to say said player is not on Leeds's playing roster anymore?

I presume we're talking this [url=http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/leeds-rhinos-news/Leeds-Rhinos-McGuire-We-can.5498485.jpfella[/url.

Just look what he had to say about Smith last night ...... dynamite.

Given his own contribution to the penalty count at Wigan, his remarks at the end of the article made me laugh.

[i"We need to look at where we're going wrong.

We are giving too many penalties away and there are too many errors.

It has been the same all year, we have talked about it, but we don't seem to be putting it right."[/i

No 'we' don't do we.

Puts pay to all those rumours that they aren't addressing the problems though.

Up until Friday he had only given away 5. For some reason he doubled his tally on Friday

Exactly right....