A win at Wembley?

The topic of discusion was the merits (or lack of) of the selection of Keinhorst for the Wembley Final and the suggestion that perhaps the game plan was to introduce him in the first half after the initial biff. This tactic had been suggested by nantwich the day before the game and I posted my agreement with his logic but added that it was risky but positive. I also commented that I would take the risk and pick Webb instead.

With your usual lack of imagination you chose to pooh pooh this idea after the game. You asked what evidence there was to suggest he would have been introduced earlier than he was.

It is imaterial, to the key rugby point of discussion, whether it was Davies or Woods that stated on the BBC that it was the Leeds intention to bring him on in the first half or indeed whether it was said prior or after the ko. The fact remains it was stated as part of the Leeds pre match game plan. This was the "evidence" you asked for and made the "nantwich" tactic a valid one. You may or may not agree with it and it may have been risky but as it was part of the Champions and World Cup Champion coaches pre match plan - that made it valid.

But you couldn't bring yourself to admit in fact there was "evidence" despite knowing it. Typically you chose to move from your failed argument and go off on the tangent, of who said what and when, because you have to be right about something.

Pity for you that some one else also heard the BBC comments, you nearly got away with it.

Yeah you tell him Juan.....Nantwich for coach I say

So we've established that the downpour didn't come just after Leeds had taken the lead, that the bad weather was as per forecast (almost to the minute according to one poster) and that Jonathan Davies made no comment regarding Keinhorst in the pre-match build up.



I didn't as at the time I had no recollection of such comments in the BBC pre-match build up and I at least tried to find them, of course I couldn't because they didn't exist. Such inaccuracies are rarely acknowledged on your part so be careful not to fall off that high horse of yours.

I now know (as of yesterday) what was actually said, when it was said and by whom. I also know the comment was preceded by a 'I think' and contained a 'might'. I can understand a commentator perhaps edging his bets given the lack of history of Keinhorst being introduced in such a manner previously. I can also appreciate a commentator speculating in advance only for events to totally disprove said theory.

McDermott's choice of substitutes and how they were used should be assessed on what actually happened during the game rather than what learned (or otherwise) pundits predicted 'might' happen especially as in this case they subsequently didn't. The 'fact' in this case remains that Keinhorst was introduced on fifty-six minutes and I've still to see or hear any credible evidence that that wasn't always the coach's plan.

Any 'plan' that involved moving a starting threequarter at any point in the game except through injury was nuts, regardless of how anybody tries to dress it up.

Agreed.