Sinfield has been selected at international level.....would he not be considered sufficient "specialist back up" if/when Buderus needs a break during a match ?

I would contest your absolute resolute claim that Buderus "is far more effective sharing the role with [iDiskin[/i". Specifically Diskin ? Have results always supported this ?

Not for me. In an emergency maybe, but to plan to stick your 4 time grand final winning, playmaking, tactical kicking captain and loose forward in at dummy half for half a game would be an act of insanity.



Its like this, 2 years ago Leeds made a strategic decision to go with 2 hookers. They then, correctly in my opinion, went out to sign the best they could to share the role with Diskin. I think we all agree they signed the best they could in Buderus.

The policy has not been as successful as we would all have hoped, for a variety of reasons, but when they are both fit and performing its been OK. Thankfully, on occasions this year it has worked pretty well with both players making key contributions at Dummy Half in the same game.

Even if many on here want to go experimenting with scrum halfs or loose forwards in that role, its not going to happen when we have 2 of the best in the business on the books. That only leaves the back up option of McShane and I have seen too many flaws in his defence this season to consider that viable.

So, yes, I think Buderus/Diskin is still the way to go and I truly hope the improvement in this strategy we have seen on occasions this year continues until the end of next season and gets somewhere near the potential we all envisaged.

Very informative and thought provoking post - I look forward to your next one. Perhaps next time we can try to form a sentance without vulgar language - Family Game and all that.

Maverick - I hear what you're saying, but the only way that scenario made sense is if Bluey et al viewed 4-time GF winner Diskin as not up to the job of number one hooker.

Apart from possibly Sts with Cunningham/Roby, every team has a clear number one and number two hooker (and even then Cunningham starts and roby is the bench player). The number two is to provide cover for injuries and short rotations on the field to give the main man a break. Neither Diskin or Buderus have ever been used as a number two hooker in their careers, and both look uncomfortable in short periods on the field.

I still think that if we wanted a second hooker we should have either told McShane he was it at the start of last year, or getting hold of a steady backup hooker if that was the plan, and using the money on Buderus somewhere else.

Can't disagree with any of that. The question has to be asked why the club signed him ? What was their vision which has been constantly debated and contested on here ...? Largely by those that would always vehemently defend the mamagement / coaching staff as bodies to be revered when mere supporters audaciously question their judgement. Have they made a mistake ? Shock horror !

The fact is Buderus is here; he is the better player than Diskin and the interchange with him is (IMO) patently NOT working to the club's best advantage. Still think we should play one or the other...with the likes of Sinfield, Burrow and Webb providing that short spell cover. Having one of the two on the bench is a waste....esp when the likes of Ambler would have produced more potential impact. IMO

I think the few games where Disko has started and Buderus has come off the bench the pairing has worked better and would be where i would change it because whatever our opinions are on the +'s and -'s of the pair neither will be dropped whilst fit.

Rhinoms is right in that no matter how much we debate this....we aint gonna change the mindset/lack of "cojones" of the man at the helm who makes the decisions.

However, I have to ask you why you think it has to be "half a game" ? That would perhaps indeed be insanity as you suggest...but where is it inscribed that has to be the case (as opposed to short spells where necessary) ? You also state it's been "Ok"....are you satisfied with that ? Just Ok ??? Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Rather than just signing the best in Buderus (no dispute there)....would it have not been better to consider an option that would have complemented Diskin (if they were indeed happy with his services going forward). ? Surely when Buderus was signed it was recognised he was a full 80 mins player (as is/was Diskin) ? Trying to accomodate both has smacked of compromise rather than a grand winning strategic plan.

I would therefore contest again your suggestion that it has worked "pretty well".

For you then to further imply we should still give it more time for it to work more effectively (until the "end of next season"icon_wink.gif is rather generous/unproductive don't ya think ? By then Buderus will most likely be gone/retired. Rather a waste I would have thought to persist into next season.

So for gawd's sake admit it ...and play one or the other 'specialist' hooker.

This is where I burp in your face.

Is that after a good hangi ? (You really are a wind up merchant looking for a good bite)

Ah, the mark of a gentleman and a scholar. I believe you have mistaken Headingley for Elland Road. Run along kid.

It's difficult to assess whether or not Danny Buderus is capable of being an 80 minute hooker at Leeds when it's a role he hasn't been asked to perform by this club. However the last season his club asked him to perform such a role was in 2008 for Newcastle and here are the results: live.nrlstats.com/nrl/season2008.html Round 1 - 80 minutes Round 2 - 74 minutes Round 3 - 83 minutes Round 4 - 80 minutes Round 5 - 80 minutes Round 6 - 74 minutes Round 9 - 80 minutes Round 12 - 80 minutes Round 14 - 72 minutes Round 15 - 80 minutes Round 20 - 77 minutes Round 21 - 62 minutes Round 22 - 76 minutes Round 23 - 80 minutes Round 24 - 73 minutes Of course those minutes were racked up in the NRL so you would have to bear that in mind as the standards, skills, speed, ferocity and intensity are all different to those he would experience in the SL.

It's difficult to assess whether or not Danny Buderus is capable of being an 80 minute hooker at Leeds when it's a role he hasn't been asked to perform by this club. However the last season his club asked him to perform such a role was in 2008 for Newcastle and here are the results: live.nrlstats.com/nrl/season2008.html Round 1 - 80 minutes Round 2 - 74 minutes Round 3 - 83 minutes Round 4 - 80 minutes Round 5 - 80 minutes Round 6 - 74 minutes Round 9 - 80 minutes Round 12 - 80 minutes Round 14 - 72 minutes Round 15 - 80 minutes Round 20 - 77 minutes Round 21 - 62 minutes Round 22 - 76 minutes Round 23 - 80 minutes Round 24 - 73 minutes Of course those minutes were racked up in the NRL so you would have to bear that in mind as the standards, skills, speed, ferocity and intensity are all different to those he would experience in the SL.

No it didn't. I cannot understand why people want to hark back to a decision made in 2008 and that obviously cannot be changed. I cannot believe for a minute that Hetherington's thinking was "lets change the squad to accomodate 2 hookers and compromise them both by playing them both". Of course it was "Saints and others run a great hooker rotation policy, lets emulate that, in fact lets go one better by adding the "world's best" to our existing first class incumbant".

Now, as we have all seen, in 2009 it was a non starter because Buderus was crocked, not that that mattered as Diskin performed admirably as usual and we won the league and championship. Maybe, in a way, that justifies having 2 great hookers as losing one didn't adversely affect the team.

This year, its worked better I believe, with both hookers adjusting to the role, but it could be so much better.

However, you then hit the nail on the head, prompted by Rhinoms...



... because in giving Buderus another year on his contract is is obvious McClennan is going to run this way next season. So, that is why I want it to work better next season, because that is how we are going to play whether we like it or not, and I have absolutely no agenda against any Leeds player. The minute they pull on the shirt I want to see them do well, we have seen glimpses of that this year and there is still time before the end of 2011 for Buderus to produce some career highlight games in Blue and Amber.

So, when asked to play for longer spells in his last season down under his body couldn't last the full season?