the 94-95 side bar such as mick worrall were prob more expensive in wages if not transfers than the 98-99 team

sheridan , hay ,farrell were part of hetherington's south yorks old boys
godden, massella & glanville were relatively unknown , mathiou can stay unknown , powell and fleary were part of the keighley rescue deal

the teamwork of the defence especially farrell & fleary was better than I can remember before /after.

Everyone knew the harris plan but we had some entertaining 2nd halves from it.

Hay looked good as a sub under Murray but not as a later starting player.

A win at Wembley?

more importantly he turned around the whole ethos and attitude of the club

I'd have put more of that down to Dean Bell.

possibly but GM also had a massive influence

Indeed ... After a couple of months at the club (not long after the departure of a certain G Holdroyd aka 'the next Garry Schofield) from the club, Murray was quoted in the press words to the effect of 'we have no more poor trainers at this club'

Given that there is a suggestion that Murray might be lucky or be-in-the-right-place-at-the-right-time type fella, just look at his record :

- He took a nothing club (Hunter Mariners) to a final during their short life in the ASL

- He took Leeds to a Challenge Cup Final victory (and beat the three hardest other teams around at the time on the way) .... Something not achieved by ANY coach since

- Took a deadbeat Easts side to an NRL Grand Final ...

Let's not forget when Murray was around, our pack were a set of nasty b*stards .... Invariably, we'd be a team this week and they'd lose the following week too as a result of what we'd taken out of them. Anyone remember the letter from the league asking us to 'tone down' the big hits ?

I'd have him back tomorrow

Murray shipped out vast amounts of dead wood that Judas Bell was more than happy to have around and to whom he felt some sort of loyalty to.

Another 30 year wait for us then by looks of things.

I can only find a highlight package on there now.

The alleged Jonathan Davies comment in question came from somewhere in the build-up apparently but it appears no-one has been able to verify it's existence ... as yet.

I can only repeat it didn't appear during the BBC live HD version and if I'm being honest I'd be surprised if the BBC ran two differing build-ups.



Thanks but that wasn't who (or when) Juan was claiming to be the source of the Keinhorst comment he was using to back-up his version of intended events.

The judge was pretty damning in her verdict"On my analysis of the entirety of the evidence, I found Mr Cornetto an unimpressive, and inherently unreliable, witness, who regarded truth as a transitory, flexible concept, which could be moulded to suit his current purposes."[/i

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.