Donald's form on the right wing as compared to Watkins one off performance on the left wing?

Yet Donald went on to score nine tries in the following nine games in eight appearances so you'd have discarded him for a spell just as his try scoring form picked up and he's never looked back since.

Quite possibly, though whats' to say how Watkins might have performed once Smith grew into the role of right centre for those final eight or nine games? Still, I certainly wouldn't have been silly enough to discard him completely, like some were advocating.

TBF i was saying the same and thought it harsh on Watkins when Hall returned from the England squad and he was put back in the acadamy.
All this was to do with Donalds form/confidence at the time and reflected as such imo.
The fact he turned it around was great for him,the team and all us supporters but it still didn't nullify the views i held prior to that imo.

Well said.

TVOC is trying to deflect attention from those posters who said they wished the club had not retained Donald by bringing up a discussion from mid season last year about who should be selected on form, on the wing, for the following match when Donald had shown such a lack of form and Watkins put in such a stellar display.

lesser posters will probably fall for it.

So you signalled you wanted him to re-sign for 2010 by trying to replace him for an extended period mid season with a rising Academy starlet. I'd imagine your support for Donald was overwhelming at that time. No wonder he decided to stay.

I'd have suggested similar to you except I'd have done it in the close season after Donald's 2009 contract had expired in favour of one of the promising Leeds Academy prospects.

That said although I wouldn't have retained him, once Leeds did for 2010 then he would continue to be one of my starting wingers, particularly given a quality centre beside him, unless injury dictated otherwise.

Anyone calling for his release from an existing contract would be premature.

s

You can hardly see the bold bits when you quote since the change to the board.

I was wondering what you were sing at, at first. Then I read the quote and guessed.

Burrow has been crap this year but would you listen the other week when I told you? Would you heck.

drop him andn sign brough the best half back in super league

Edit.

Quote ="G1"Unlike other knee jerking fekkwitts my opinion will remain so despite a run of poor form in three or four games. '" Didn't you want to deselect Scott Donald for much the same reason last season when we re-visited this subject the other day? It's on the previous page if you want to have a look. viewtopic.php?f=17&t=446933&start=30 Quote ="G1"It was more to do woth what Donald had done in the preceeding seven weeks.'"

Quote ="G1"Unlike other knee jerking fekkwitts my opinion will remain so despite a run of poor form in three or four games. '" Didn't you want to deselect Scott Donald for much the same reason last season when we re-visited this subject the other day? It's on the previous page if you want to have a look. viewtopic.php?f=17&t=446933&start=30 Quote ="G1"It was more to do woth what Donald had done in the preceeding seven weeks.'"

Quote ="tvoc"Didn't you want to deselect Scott Donald for much the same reason last season when we re-visited this subject the other day? It's on the previous page if you want to have a look. viewtopic.php?f=17&t=446933&start=30 '" Bingo!

Quote ="tvoc"Didn't you want to deselect Scott Donald for much the same reason last season when we re-visited this subject the other day? It's on the previous page if you want to have a look. viewtopic.php?f=17&t=446933&start=30 '" Bingo!

Quote ="tvoc"Didn't you want to deselect Scott Donald for much the same reason last season when we re-visited this subject the other day? It's on the previous page if you want to have a look. viewtopic.php?f=17&t=446933&start=30 '" Not really. Three or four games is not the same period and, more importantly, I do not accept Burrows' form has been as poor as made out on here unlike Donald's form up to and including the Huddersfield game last year which was, frankly, even though I am a fan, abysmal.

Quote ="tvoc"Didn't you want to deselect Scott Donald for much the same reason last season when we re-visited this subject the other day? It's on the previous page if you want to have a look. viewtopic.php?f=17&t=446933&start=30 '" Not really. Three or four games is not the same period and, more importantly, I do not accept Burrows' form has been as poor as made out on here unlike Donald's form up to and including the Huddersfield game last year which was, frankly, even though I am a fan, abysmal.

Quote ="G1" Quote ="tvoc"Didn't you want to deselect Scott Donald for much the same reason last season when we re-visited this subject the other day? It's on the previous page if you want to have a look. viewtopic.php?f=17&t=446933&start=30 '" Not really. Three or four games is not the same period and, more importantly, I do not accept Burrows' form has been as poor as made out on here unlike Donald's form up to and including the Huddersfield game last year which was, frankly, even though I am a fan, abysmal.'" who is this burrows we keep mentioning

Quote ="G1" Quote ="tvoc"Didn't you want to deselect Scott Donald for much the same reason last season when we re-visited this subject the other day? It's on the previous page if you want to have a look. viewtopic.php?f=17&t=446933&start=30 '" Not really. Three or four games is not the same period and, more importantly, I do not accept Burrows' form has been as poor as made out on here unlike Donald's form up to and including the Huddersfield game last year which was, frankly, even though I am a fan, abysmal.'" who is this burrows we keep mentioning

I got the apostrophe in the wrong place.

Great spot and great post.

IMO bluey did the right thing and let him ride his bad form out by continuing to play him, Donald is not a kid and his effort was never in question (again IMO), I believe an experienced player should be playing games to improve a temporary dip in form unless a permanent replacement is a serious option and a youngster is showing more potential in training/academy games.

If you say so.



The Huddersfield Home game was Round 16 (60% of the Regular season) and if Donald's form up to then was truely abysmal, as you now claim, were you not surprised when Leeds extended his contract rather than promoting an Academy player into the squad for 2010?

I was but not because I thought he was abysmal, I just thought that although he'd been a good player, he wasn't worth an overseas place (with the quota reducing) and I'd have liked to see Leeds promote one of Broughton/Watkins/Jones-Bishop to the number 2 shirt to further their development.

FWIW I thought Burrow had an excellent game on Sunday - hopefully this will give him the confidence to kick on.

If you want an opponent to show your skills off against then I would suggest Harlequins at home is as near a perfect fit as they come.

Except that we're back home playing on quicksand.
I hope Delaney's leg stands up to it this time.

It looked worse than ever when they showed some highlights from the Tykes game on Sunday on Look North this week

No grass just sand

I claimed it at the time, not just now. No, I was not in the least bit surprised because, as Tony points out, Donald is a class player. Accepting a player is in bad form is not the same as dismissing that player as a bad player. The latter is fekkwittedry. The former is providing an objective and reasoned analysis of form, irrespective of personal preferences. It's what separates me from most on here.


I'd like the best player available to get the number 2 shirt and Donald is head and shoulders above the juniors you mention, two of whom will be better developed in the current scenario than had we released DOnald anyway.

The quota point is a non point. We're well within it. How many spare places would you like us to keep on our quota, given your criticisms of the club last year in not filling the quota/salary cap.

Here Here.

Regards

Stuart Fielden

Even when that reasoned analysis comes down to Jones-Bishop is a 'poor' winger (without further explanation) and Scott Donald's form for 18 games was 'abysmal' (again without further explanation.)

Are you really that different.... really?



And yet you claim he was 'abysmal' in the opening 18 games of the 2009 season and should have been replaced for an extended spell beyond that by one such Academy graduate.




I'd rather Leeds stayed within the numbers prescribed by the RFL. You may take an opposing view on the matter but will no doubt still bemoan England's inability to compete with the antipodeans over a series and likely as not correctly cite the number of imports as being a factor.

My critism was never about filling the quota per se but of not spending their full entitlement under the salary cap while the squad was vulnerable due to key players leaving and not being adequately replaced, especially when the desire was to challenge on more than one front in this potentially golden period.

Leeds operated with 5 overseas trained in 2009 set against the RFL's intended limit of 8. This season they have 7 when the intended limit has dropped to 6. Leeds have done nothing wrong legally but I'd rather they hadn't found a way around the quota limit. Finding ways around limits is not the way I want to see Leeds operate. The last overseas trained player to sign for 2010 was Scott Donald.

Double Post.