At the moment yes they are. Gidley over Gibson, Gardener over Hall, or even Gilmour over Gibson. Gidley is better at present than any centre we have and Gardner is better than any of our wingers apart from Donald who has just lost form. I also think they have the edge in the pack with the addition of that big Kiwi (who's name i can't spell



)

you described eastwood as a water carrier and replacement for jjb and ali. i disagree 100% in that

Gibson is our reserve centre. Gardner should be compared to Donald, both being right wingers.
Gidley is the only one I'd take over his direct comparision.....and as a fan of the game more than a club, I'd rather us take the time to develop Smith than replace him with an australian at the back end of his career.

No I didn't.
You firstly said we need another back rower. I assumed you meant someone to play, which would have required them to replace JJB or Ali.
Then you said it was only a supplementary player you were wanting to sign - i.e. somone not to play all the time, therefore someone who is going to spend most matches carrying water.

Rubbish. Gardner could play on either wing. Didn't Donald play left wing all last season?

I'd rather us have someone like Gidley then put Smith on the wing instead of Hall. We're relying too much on players like hall and watkins who are not ready yet and need to be nurtered.

Ever heard of a bench or squad. you don't have the same 2 2nd rowers playing the full 80. Players like eastwood and ali are great impact players who don't play the full 80.

Rubbish? Gardner has pretty much always played on the right wing. I can't remember a game where he played on the left. Can you?
Donald has played right wing this season.
And you deem that "rubbish"





On the second paragraph....you're entitled to feel that way. Bet you didn't during the World Cup though.

We've already got JJB, Ali, Kirke and Ablett. Any further second rower will take gametime away from those, particularly the first two.
How many minutes a game are you looking for this new backrower Tad wants, to play?

Come again?

Don't know what you're talking about

Players don't stay fit for up to a potential 35 games a season, that is why you need a squad rather than just the 17 players that take to the field on any given week.

With all of those four in the 17 each week what happens if and when they need resting or as happened last season they pick up medium term injuries?

Drop Peacock or Bailey into the second row because we have enough props to cope?

ablett is playing at centre.leaves us with three.
eastwood can also prop

Three is the number you should take into a game.
With Smith, Gibson and Watkins available to play centre, we shouldn't be down to just three really.

We'd really only expect to use three second rows in a game, and we have four players for those three spots. That's enough, particularly with the cover we have from pulling players from other positions.

sorry ritchie, totally disagree.eastwood could have covered back row and prop and allowed us to rotate and rest. 99% of the time we have 2 props and 2 second rows on the bench.

Eastwood's gone. We don't have him for this season.

Whos' this other player you have us signing, and are you still thinking he won't take gametime away from JJB and Ali?

I always preferred a bench of two props, a second row and a halfback and/or hooker by the way. We're well equipped to do that with our squad.

so the 4 second rows can play most games? how often is ali out injured forcing the others to work more?
the coach thought we needed eastwood so i'm happy to go along with that

Look how often Ali is injured and does not play - thats why you need cover.

Yep, one injured, the fourth of the fourth plays. That's why we have four rather than just three.



Where did you hear "he coach thought we needed eastwood" ?
What I saw and heard is that GH felt Eastwood was the right combination of cost compared to quality and so tried to sign him. The fact that he couldn't complete the signing doen't mean that suddenly another back row player fulfills that criteria who didn't before.

That's why we have for experienced players for three spots.

this is getting nowhere. i see your point but i think i'll keep faith with bluey thanks

Whilst Peter Smith writes for a Leeds newspaper his reports generally tell it as it is.

Yesterday we were poor and Salford well deserved their vistory. Leeds were lethargic, seemed to have no energy, they were without any ideas and resorted to 4/5 tackles up the middle before aimless kicks up front or ridicluous off loads out wide (two of which resulted in trys under the posts)

Whilst its easy to blame the official who I thought was clueless at times yesterday (that said he was ably assisted by dumb and dumber on the touch line) we should be able to raise our game to at least compete on level terms with newly promoted Salford. Myler for me ran the game and we didn't have anyone in the team achieving his standard of play. I' can't remember when I've seen as many interceptions, drop balls etc in one game and I would have thought that the Salford game was an ideal opportunity to blood some of the youngsters particularly in the pack.

What's happened to the kid we got from Salford??? Is he injured or not up to the grade??

Overall a bad day at the office.

IMO we need a good quality centre to replace the space left by Toope and another forward who can provide some umpf up front. Plus let's get out of this predictable 4/5 tackles up the middle and kick on the last....variation is required

Interestingly, I haven't seen him come out and say he needs the club to sign more players.

he praises the players but what is said in private may be totally different

So replacing Ellis with Ablett makes the squad/team the same standard - you are being typically obtuse/stubborn as your views have been found out