All as in both of them then. One in 2008 and one in 2009. Ample opportunity for an Academy prospect to fit straight in and yet he was allegedly 'a poor winger' in both.

Anybody else making such vague assessments on such scarce gametime would, I suspect, be taken to task.

Anybody suggesting that on the basis of those two performances he should replace two time dream team winger Scott Donald as first choice wing man would, quite rightly, be taken to task by me.

Someone who has said BJB is a class full back and they hope our first choice full back within a season or so would be talking great sense.

Watkins seems to be first reserve for 1-5, which should mean he'll get a few games this year, but eventually he'll need a decent run in the centres.

My point about Donald vs Vainakolo is just a matter of taste - Vainakolo was the better winger in the sense of being a danger when he got the ball, but for me the sight of a fast winger in full flight on the outside and beating the full back is one of the best sights in the game. One of the reasons for all his faults that I loved watching Offiah. Even as an old crock, his try against us at Wembley for the Broncos was a joy to watch IMO.

Would that be in any way similar to someone calling for Kallum Watkins to be retained on the wing at the expense of two time dream team winger Scott Donald, after a single performance V Huddersfield last season? (Watkins was in the team because Hall was away on International duty)

Should you and did you take that poster to task?

i recall another try by scott donald in 2008 against hull at hq howmany players did he beat without any assists from anyone ?
he scored quite a few that year that were his own.

To the people who slagged him off in his first season, I will point in the direction of his walk about centre that year (unless someone already has) Chev Walker. You have to remember that Donald was trying to do the defending of two men that year because Walker was nearly always rushing out of the line to try and do an awesome hit, but more times than not missing, leaving poor Donald to mark 2 men.

I don't buy that about it all being Chev's fault.

He'd always had weaknesses in his game and I'm not convinced they got notably worse in 2006 but many chose to only see/comment on them once he announced he was leaving that year. A convenient scapegoat for an underperforming side.

Besides which things like being chased down by allegedly slower players when put into space or hesitating when given a tight chance to go in at the corner are nothing to do with his centre's defensive positioning and all to do with fitness, confidence and familiarity with the position.

Donald's first season problems were unsurprising in my view - he was seemingly already low on confidence after a torrid time at the start of the previous NRL season and then being dropped to reserve grade for the remainder of the year; he joined a new team the other side of the world; was asked to play on an unfamiliar flank in a slightly different role; had a virus just before the season (IIRC?) and was playing in an underperforming side. For mine he tried hard and worked hard but it just didn't 'click'.

I think you will find that particular poster was suggesting Watkins be rewarded for a fine performance on the wing (something not yet seen from BJB) rather than Donald be penalised.

What that does show is that, unlike some posters on here, that poster is prepared to give an unbaised appraisal of any player, even if its' a player that particular poster likes and has praised before.

We need more posters like that. That poster makes this board a better, more informed place. That poster is a wonderful person.

Have you ever slept with that poster?

I stand by that original opinion!!

It's the only person.

icon_smile.gificon_smile.gificon_smile.gif

I'd assumed Gareth was referring to himself!!!

Well that's opinion i posted at the time and given Scotty's form and lack of confidence at that time i thought it was harsh for Watkins to be dropped albeit after 1 decent game.

I bring that poster to climax four times a day.

Through fingering?

Let's try and add some meat to these bare bones. I know you like your Opta stats to add to any debate, so I'll offer you the choice of either Donald's previous (Catans home win) or following (Huddersfield away win) appearances to set against the 'poor' Jones-Bishop's stats from the Salford home defeat in 2009. Or you could have both if you prefer.



So far you've given two appraisals for Jones-Bishop's wing play. The first was a little inadequate consisting of just the one word 'poor' while the second was an 100% improvement with 'very ordinary'. Are you a fan of the Hitch Hikers Guide by any chance? So what are your specific areas of concern or are they amply expressed by your appraisals so far.



It's interesting that the player who you see as heir apparent to the full back position at Headingley could not succeed given his opportunity on the wing. I've always considered full back the more demanding of the two positions and provided the player had pace he'd also be able to adapt quite nicely to the wing.

My preference is my own appraisal of performances. Stats can be a useful tool in some circumstances and not so much in others.

If you could quantify how Donalds statistics from a completely different game help us appraise BJBs performance in another game that may be a start.

They're sufficiently expressed. I saw little to make me think he has the potential to be a better winger, long term or short, than Donald. Did you?

I've not said he could not succeed as a wingman. I saw nothing in his appearances there to suggest he should be 1st choice ahead of Donald and saw nothing to suggest there was any merit in not retaining Donald. Some disagreed with that view. Gary hetherington and Brian Mclennan seemed to agree.

Just as I think Donald will always be a better winger than BJB I think BJB will be a better full back. They're different positions requiring a different skill sets. Some players may be adept at that but I haven't seen it in BJB. It may be there but is that really a basis to release/not retain someone of Donalds' quality?

One of the finest full backs I ever saw was ET. In his 2nd stint he spent a lot of his early games on the wing. He was very poor.

So stats are useful if they support your argument? What about when they don't? From my point of view you either use stats or you don't. What's good for Jones-Buchanan should be equally good for Jones-Bishop.



It's not an exact science comparing any two players generally as they cannot be expected to fulfill the same role, at the same time in the same situation but we all use stats nontheless as indicators of a player's involvement.



I'm more interested to understand the areas where Jones-Bishop wing play has led you to conclude that he performs poorly in that position?



Donald is an overseas trained player, where the RFL have set a limit on their use. In that respect it's reasonable to look within your own set up to see which positions you wish to use those restricted places on. Leeds for 2010 had several Academy prospects potentially able to cover that position and having recently unearthed Hall a track record of giving youth it's chance in the position. I suspect few would now argue as to which is the better winger.



The basis to potentially release Donald at the end of 2009 was that Leeds had two players for the present/near future in Watkins and Jones-Bishop who could have been given valuable 1st grade SL experience on the wing in 2010, without a noticeable loss of quality in the position. Instead we will likely see Jones-Bishop develope at the Harlequins and Watkins kicking his heels in the lower grades at Leeds for the majority of the season.



But not a very poor winger generally I trust you will accept, indeed he was good enough in the position to play the majority of his international career for Australia on the wing IIRC.

Mad quoting skillz there Teev.

I'd have just settled for Mad.

Yeah, I've not yet fathomed how to do multiple quotes.
I know I should Google this but is anyone on here prepared to point me in the right direction?

Don't, its the most annoying thing on any forum is multiple quotes, especially where the quote-er picks tiny parts of sentences and analyses them to destruction, some people should banish the laptop from the bedroom and get out of bed in a morning, there's a whole new world out there...

Cue the theme tune from Disney's Aladdin...

On the other hand using multiple quotes allows the user to address each point individually and should keep the debate flowing right on track.



It turns out to be easier said than done. Every time you type in what you need to do it turns your explanation into a quote of sorts and renders it totally useless.

To Old Feller

I basically click on quote and then splice the post up using the above method before replying to each section in turn, not forgetting to Preview the post before Submitting to avoid alerting the quoting police to any indescretions.