TVOC indulges you with all your attempts to dilute the argument when you get proven wrong. Maybe in the end thats all you want. Occupational hazard maybe.

Simple fact is our squad is light this year. TVOC and some others are realistic enough to see that.

Most posters think the squad is light.
The question is where and how do you strengthen the squad.

In light of the fact that eastwood is supposedly signed for next year (whether he shows is a different matter) who do you sign?

The squad is strong enough at the moment without any long term injuries and there are a number of players out of contract at the end of the year. In terms of priotities I would put it as follows:

1 Decide whose contracts to extend and get them to sign.
2 Look for replacements for those above who you don't want to extend/won't sugn
3 Make signings to cover long term injuries
4 Sign a quality player who becomes available
5 Make a signing because the masses demand it.

Somewhere in that list there should also be:

Use academy/reserve players if they are/have the potential to be of the required quality

What have I been proven wrong about?

Not enough go forward provided by the three prop rotation employed by McClennan on Sunday.

A pity he's being denied the fresh horsepower needed up front to match it in the big games this season.

A pity he either didn't chose Bailey or doesn't have the gumption to win with a 3 prop rotation like his predecessor did.

A pity Bailey was not selected for this game. Troublesome groin injury officially. Kirke appeared to have fairly limited game time and I'm pretty sure I saw Jones-Buchanan packing the scrum at prop at one point in the second half.

I suppose they had to stick him somewhere inbetween his running the ball on the last brain f[iar[/it and not facing the oppositions line when playing the ball.

Aye. A real shame how far back this lad looks to be going under Mclennan's tutilage. Still, sign a right centre and all in the garden will be rosy.

Right centre is one of the positions Leeds needed to strengthen after last season certainly but there were other positions as well that needed looking at with cap, quota and wriggly space to dust off.

Perhaps but looking at what Potter got out of his under-strength charges has Hetherington got the right to expect our Greatest Ever Coach* to get more out of what he has got?



*Mr Bywater and other positive/negative knee jerkers circa May/June 2008.

I'd expect Leeds' turnover to be a multiple of St Helens and yet traditionally Leeds have underspent the cap as if there was some form of virtue in doing so.

If Hetherington were to actually spend the full allowance and give the coach more options, more competition for places then perhaps he'd appear to improve as a coach also.

Of course Potter has yet to win any silverwear but I wouldn't put it past him this season.

When he came on, he was on for a long stint. But by the end of it, he wasn't half blowing. He was out on his feet. Not 100% fit, no question.

If top class centres were available (forgetting about Gleeson), would saints be playing Gilmour at centre by choice?

Saints lost a number of their squad last year, in similar ways to Leeds, their only signing was Petula.

Its interesting that with both the top 2 having weaker squads on paper than last year, they are actually considered to be further ahead of their rivals than last year.

But the Internet message board expert doesn't have to deal with such harsh realities.

All the Saints fans posting on here consider they have a weaker overall squad than us.

I am afraid Sunday had little to do with squad strength, lack of another prop or a right centre. In fact, chalking Sunday up to that is displaying the kind of arrogance Saints fans do when chalking off our GF wins to their bad performances.

Saints 17 played hungrier, harder and better than ours. They were also better coached on the day. Sadly this occurred in a cup game so we're out. There's time to remedy it before the GF and its' capable of being remedied without signings. If we make the right quality signing in the mean time then great. If we don't no need to slit the wrists or lambaste the board.

I do agree, but why were they better coached? We're they out coached 2 weeks ago as well? what about the WCC as well ? Is Mclennan not good enough on a day to day week by week basis in your eyes ?

Who knows? He's had a good start. I seem to remember early last year we were white hot. the game against Hull was a particular high point, but in July we lost our way badly, turning a 6 point lead into a 1 point defecit. Maybe we are trying not to go full tilt early doors, as nothing is handed out now. However you could argue that we have blown it a bit no we're out of the cup.

I suppose time will tell won't it. Yes agree, he could very well be holding them back with it being a long season and being a player down..

In order.

Because they had much better structure, a much better game=plan, much better discipline and generally looked more up for it than we did.

Yes.

No.

I think he's an excellent motivator. I think he's well liked. I think the team has become far too ill disciplined under his tutelage. I mentioned the discipline issues last year and was shot down. I have a nagging feeling that hi rah rah approach may wear off but there must be more to him than that. Overall, I am happy he's our coach but don't think he walks on water like some.

Bluey is a good coach..there cant be any disputing his winning record esp. compared to Potters but.....

His style seems to be very motivational as opposed to a structured (disciplined) one .....which appears to be Potters style.

Bluey can get teams up for the big one off occassions and the evidence has shown that this works ..the WCC apart that is....

The CC has become a side issue (sadly IMO) and a one off crucial (big) game at this time doesnt fit in with Blueys style at this early stage of the season but it was drawn out of the bag and there was no avoiding it.

The up side is we can concentrate again on the main objective without the distraction of extra games.

Get Buderus match fit. Sort out the injuries and some positional issues
and we are well placed to peak at the right time.

Yes In agree that the rah rah approach can wear off after a time and that is a big worry.

Personally I prefer a structured style and the current Saints one is as good as it gets IMHO.


but it relies on consistency both in performance and personel which is more difficult to maintain over a prolonged period.

Bluey seems to prefer building a performance slowly and peaking at the crucial time.

Both are strategies and both have their strengths and weaknesses.

BELIEVE......

Further ahead of last years rivals - Yes

Further ahead of this years rivals - ?

No matter how good or how poor a coach, his job will be made easier when given a fully equipped (as defined by the regulations) squad to work with. The current three quarter line (in their selected positions), Senior apart, offers no threat going forward. The current pack are playing one man, unsupported, ball dying drives. The quality on show is pretty poor and that includes when they win.

Coaching is a concern but it isn't the only one.

Sums it up very well for me.

Yep agree 100% with that. My dad who's watched Leeds for over 65 years was saying it's one of the weakest back lines he's seen for a while at Leeds. It won't stay that weak for long though.. (players getting better ie Hall, Watkins etc)

I'm only 29 and I'd be very confident I would go back a lot less than 65 years to find a weaker one. 1996 should do it.

Yes agree. My Dad's memory not so good these days mate..

he was probably refferring to last 6 or 7 years..

What was that full 1996 back line? I'm struggling to remember.. tend to forget the post Dougie Laughton era....and before Murray came along..

and before anyone says it I did still go down to watch em in thos dark days when it was a good job workington were worse than us...