RR Both Buderus and Mcshane have rotated the 13/9 role every game they've been on the pitch at the same time together this season both players have mentioned it and so has the coach in post match interviews.
I don't think it's hard to notice who's doing which role by watching who's taking charge of the ptb and where the other one is in regards to the attacking line and vice versa defensively.
It's a ploy that's working very well and adds to our forward rotation this year.

It's been a remarkable ploy from the coach. So remarkable some of our less remarkable fans haven't been able to spot it.

Buderus was in at Dummy half when he scored. Is that what you're judging as "playing hooker"? If you're suggesting that anybody that goes in at Dummy Half is for that split second playing hooker, then I'll concede that you're right. And that would make Buderus the 2nd best of at least 6 hookers we played with yesterday.

If, however, you didn't have an anti-Buderus agenda, you'd view it as despite having to play out of position, he still managed to score a try from dummy half. Just have another look at my original post... here it is;



Whether or not he did the odd set at Hooker to keep McShane fresh (which I've never said he didn't!), whether or not he scored a try from DH, Buderus played MOST OF THE MATCH at Loose Forward. Which is what I pointed out.

HTH.

You really are beyond boring with that now.

Let me bat it back.

What do you consider constitutes "Playing hooker"? Set your definitions. You're the one claiming he wasn't doing so?

I'd suggest that in the modern era, given the virtually uncontested scrums, the the major role for a hooker is being dummy half. Of course, other players will get in at dummy half during the course of a game but that doesn't make them hooker.

As has been pointed out above, Buders and McShane shared the role of hooker and loose forward. Sal and you were trying to give the impression that once McShane came on Buderus exclusively played loose.

He didn't.

You were wrong.

As usual.

HTH

Where? Go on... where am I claiming that Buderus wasn't playing hooker?!

Are you sure you can read? Try and spell the letters out one at a time.

I'll try again;


Loose Forward for MOST OF THE MATCH, is not ALL of the match, thus SOME OF THE MATCH, he was playing hooker. I have never said he wasn't. READ!

Please don't shout dear.

Having that special visitor again this week are we?

lets look at the gist of our conversation shall we.

You wrote



I pointed out he wasn't. I pointed out that

You replied It's clear here what your meaning was. You mean that McShane played hooker and Buderus occasionally stepped in at dummy half (like other non hookers). It's clear you failed to spot the players swapping positions throughout the game and it's clear you felt McShane and only McShane played hooker once he came off the bench.

It's clear you were wrong.

Nice fog knitting attempt at a back track mind.

PS, do you have any information as to how many minutes McShane played at hooker compared with Buderus to substantiate your claim Buderus was loose forward for "most of the match"? As you're struggling to define what "playing hooker" means to you I wonder how you've arrived at that conclusion.

Fair play. I concede. I understand what you're saying, and understand why it was mis-read on both our parts.

To be honest, I just read your Buderus hatred and it clouds my judgement and I'm probably overlooking the facts slightly in an attempt to better defend who I think (and am allowed to think) is a great player and doing a great job for our club.

I do, genuinely, think that you're doing the same visa-versa though. I.e. overlooking just how good a job Buderus in an attempt to fuel the anti-Buderus posts. Each to their own though I guess. My opinion is if McShane is outshining Buderus slightly, it means he's been watching and learning from someone who, whether he's produced it on the field at Leeds or not, is one of the best hookers our game has ever seen.

Bidsy was unquestionably my mom. Played virtually all the game (at hooker, loose forward and stand off), copped a real shiner to the extent he was unable to see from that eye, produced an awesome try saving tackle then came up with the match winning try. Even the coach singled him out for deserved praise.

Still not enough for G1 though

McShane is undoubtedly the future but we'll miss Buderus if/when he goes - far more than we've missed Disko

Why do people keep going on about Diskin? we haven't missed Diskin at all and therfore he doesn't need mentioning when talking about Buderus. All this year has proved is how Diskin was holding back the obvious talents of McShane last year. We could have been further on now probably had we not done that.

I think that Buderus scored a great hookers try when McShane was unable to get to Dummy Half, something that Diskin was frequently accused of during his time at Leeds...

I miss Diskin.



remarkable, I don't hate Buderus at all. I like him, I think he's an excellent player.

My issue has always been that he has fallen way below expectations at Leeds, has never been the player he should have been, has received adulation from our fans not earned in the blue and amber (especially when someone did earn that adulation in the blue and amber and still does not receive it), and has overall been a disappointment given how he has failed to influence the side to an extent that a player with his reputation and experience should.

Not to mention that he was an unnecessary signing when the salary cap and quota space could easily have been used in positions of greater need. We were doing well with Diskin, we had McShane on the books (and Hood). He was a flashy headline grabbing signing (remember he was meant to be Ellis's replacement) that was not needed and hasn't borne fruit.

Of course, people interpret that as me "hating" Buderus. I can't be blamed for people's inability to comprehend.