I am sorry but if it's all the same with you I'll decide for myself how I answer questions that are put to me. Now who is being supercilious. You're on a short leash. You were the one who sought my opinion. I had no desire to discourse with you, hence you were on my ignore list. You're back in the good graces but don't push your luck.

Of course, what isn't speculation is the league position and trophies we attained with Diskin and without Buderus. What isn't speculation is that with Buderus playing the major role at hooker we're fifth in the league. I await incontrovertible evidence of this money well spent.

It does. As highlighted by Buderus injury record these last three seasons, both here and down under.

They have. I believe the signing of Buderus has had a negligible impact on whether the team has been successful or not. he has played well but he is not a key player. Saturday being a perfect demonstration.

I don't know how to break up a post so forgive my ignorance.

I was being flippant not supercilious.

To be honest I didn't really seek you opinion ...I couldn't care less and I also didn't really expect you to respond (how short is that 'leash' ?)....."ignore list" is a little juvenile I trust you will agree ?....but to your credit you are 'man' enough to let bygones be bygones and I can't argue with that. So thank you.



It is indisputable what Diskin has done in the past....but [ithe past[/i it is.

The 'incontrovertible' evidence for me is simply the fact that Buderus is a joy to watch (and that is what we pay our money for isn't it ?) Winning trophies is a fabulous bonus, but on a week by week basis I want to see skill pace and effort. This present team has given plenty of that during this recent 'golden era' and as far as I'm concerned Buderus has complemented that.

If you don't see him as a 'key' player you really do surprise me G1 ??? He leads in the tackling and his vision and passing ability from dummy half is always good if not sublime.
He is simply world class and again that is enough for me.

I always hoped Diskin would rise to the challenge, but IMO he hasn't. I'm glad he too had his contract renewed, but Buderus is streets ahead in all aspects of the pivotal role his position commands. It's a waste of a bench spot to have Diskin there. However, I believe he will be starting tonight...and I hope he has a 'blinder'

I guess here's the crux of our disagreement because it isn't for me. I saw some world class players play for Leeds in the 1980s. Didn't help Leeds win anything and days and nights like 1999, 2004,2007,2008 and 2009 are far more enjoyable to me than the odd touch of class from an antipodean here and there. I hope Buderus can play a part in those kind of memories going forward because it's not tennis or golf and most of us don't watch to admire individual players..

In fact, very little can ever better me seeing Leeds win the cup in 99 (I was there in 78 and 77 but too young to truly appreciate it) and, more so, lift that first championship in 2004 (again, I was alive in 1971 but only just). I doubt Buderus can ever do anything to overtake those memories and there made all the better that they were achieved mainly thanks to Leeds produced players (well 2004 was anyway).

Ol' Pinstripes reminds me of one of those snake oil salesman, who used to arrive in a Wild West Town, climb up on his waggon, and start peddaling his bottles of Doctor Feelgood. Two minutes later he had a crowd around him as every guillable numpty for miles around joined in the circus!

Ok I should have emphasized again ....whilst complementing a great TEAM ......and that he does. Diskin (and McShane) did well tonight against Cas.....pleased for both of them ....but I would still rather see Buderus there within the context of this bunch of commited lads, playing some great stuff. He just makes it that little bit more special.

I date back to the Sid Hynes team but I drifted away for a while in the 90's and I have never seen a better lot than this lot. It's a joy to see.

Forgive my ignorance but who is Ol' Pinstripes ? (Am I asking for trouble here ?)

It's me and I actually quite liked Billy Ramrods post.

Am I tarred with this brush [ione of the crowd / a gullible numpty[/i ?



Time to get a life again maybe and have another 'hissy fit' ??

Senior tackled Roby (it's a while ago now but I think it was Roby) instead of staying there at marker he retreated to the line. That strange? decision left Cunningham two metres out able to get a decent stride in before any Leeds player's made contact.

Likely as not the result would have been the same but it looked an odd decision on Senior's part.



What happened (in a Leeds Championship winning context) in '71?

Sounds like marker play needs to be sharpened up a bit then following this, and the Hall/Webb -> Gleeson try too

Just out of interest has anyone got the Opta Stats for the Cas game?

Would be interested to see how many tackles Clarkson made as from what I could see he seemed to be getting through a lot of work.

Cheers

A legend was born.

Oh dear, I do believe you're getting worse.

It's my age.

That's alright then.

I'd have preferred the Martin Brundle (Eric Stolz) reply though, 'I'm getting Better.'

I had the same impression. But this is the big weakness in Senior's game - his lack of defensive positional awareness. If you look back at many of the tries scored against us you will see Kev out of position and I cannot remember when he last caught a bomb!

Keith was covering the right hand side at the PTB. His positioning at marker had no effect on Clarkson and Burrow.

The problem with the attempt from Burrow and Clarkson is that both of them tried to go in on Cunningham with impact tackles and neither of them are big enough or strong enough to go up against Cunningham like that. Against Cas this week Clarkson perfectly implemented a surrender tackle when Cas were driving over the line and he held the ball up. That's the tackle we needed against Cunningham but neither Burrow or Clarkson attempted it.

Keith's positioning at the PTB was further back than normal. But IMO he did that because he was rightly getting into a lower position to challenge a possible Cunningham drive.

Pretty much agree. I'd add that if our left side marker at the PTB (Diskin?)had moved a step quicker, he might have been able to catch hold of the ball carrying arm.

As I recall it, Senior was the only defender at marker and chose to retreat to the line leaving no marker at the tackle. Whether Keith was left or right is something of a moot point as he'd retreated to the line.

It just all looked odd to me and invited Cunningham to charge.

What a shame the players don't get to spend weeks discussing these issues on a message board before they decide how to react.

Maybe a good fortnight's worth of debate from posters who obviously know better than keith might've helped him make a better split second decision in the heat of a semi final against probably the best English hooker from the last 15 years.

Isn't it the players job to make the correct call and perhaps that's what he did.

Just looked odd to me having no markers at all at a play the ball close to but not right on the line. A similar situation to the Gleeson try in the previous game where posters appeared at liberty to discuss what went wrong there.

Why's this one any different legend?

Quote ="tvoc"As I recall it, '" You don't need to recall it, it's still available on the SL website: www.superleague.co.uk/video/player.php?id=759 Quote Senior was the only defender at marker and chose to retreat to the line leaving no marker at the tackle. Whether Keith was left or right is something of a moot point as he'd retreated to the line.'" Keith was the only player at marker. He was the only one at marker because the distance between the PTB and the line made having a second player at marker pointless.

Quote ="tvoc"As I recall it, '" You don't need to recall it, it's still available on the SL website: www.superleague.co.uk/video/player.php?id=759 Quote Senior was the only defender at marker and chose to retreat to the line leaving no marker at the tackle. Whether Keith was left or right is something of a moot point as he'd retreated to the line.'" Keith was the only player at marker. He was the only one at marker because the distance between the PTB and the line made having a second player at marker pointless.

That discussion ended when I explained to a few misguided posters that Webb had actually been playing on the wing for that set of 6 and Hall at full back. The whole discussion was based upon all the other posters failing to grasp that one essential point. When the Legend (I am Legend, I assume) illuminated those posters from beacon of his wisdom there was no need for further discussion.

I am still considering whether to illuminate you all with my thoughts on the minutiae of this issue but, frankly, I've been doing some proper work today in between frequent bog visits thanks to a nasty stomach bug.

Bet you're glad you asked now.

On the wild assumption you are not a fresh prince from West Philadelphia.... ....unless you were referring to someone else born that year on the previous page:



I can see you're a busy man, in your own time.

I am never busy in my own time, always on works time, but never with work.