But what if you are?

At this point last season Burgess had played three games as part of a bona-fide five prop rotation. In any case even if he hadn't he had already graded at SL level with Harlequins in 2007 as Tony Smith failed to blood him at Headingley (a Smith failing, IMO, as I've mentioned on here previously.)

With Bailey, Leuluai, Peacock and Burgess currently under contract and Eastwood expected for 2010 I can't see Lynch being a signing unless one of the first four leave. GH's priority will be whether he keeps those four before signing anyone else (subject to the Leuluai to Wigan rumours).

The Saints cup game may be important in the thinking. Defeat may mean that players get the necessary rest and no requirement meaning that the cap can be held for covering a longer term injury in any position. Victory may mean that there's plenty in the coffers going forward to recruit now.

I also think that there may be a worry about Rob Burrow's longer term fitness after two bouts of concussion and they may feel they need to keep an eye on his situation.

That's a wait and see situation though. Hasn't Eastwood signed on for three years at Canterbury with an option for 2010?

Having an option doesn't neccessarily mean he will exercise it in Leeds' favour.

We could be left holding out for a player who cannot (Visa) or decides against (enjoying himself at the Bulldogs) making the move. Can Leeds afford to take that chance when it's impairing their ability to replace him in 2009 and possibly beyond?



GH and McClennan identified an area that needed strengthening, hence the signing of Eastwood. What has happened since to change their considered plan for 2009?

A 1 to 17 containing Hall and the perceived wisdom that Hetherington always leaves this 'wriggle room' suggests that money was available even after the Eastwood signing.

I generally agree with the policy of having a little spare but just how much under the cap can a team go before it potentially hinders their chances of defending their titles? It's one down already on that score.

Leeds produce plenty thanks.

"Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself." William Faulkner

He's not. Burgess had yet to make his Leeds debut going into last season.

meaning we went into our championship season last year with four recognised props (one of whom was Scruton who had barely played the year before) and an untried youngster.

Hmmmmmm, sound familiar?

........and Leeds finished off the season before that with 3, yes 3, recognised props in the team.

Their last domestic game of 2007 saw them run with Peacock, Kylie and a bench of Bailey, Kirke, Ali and Ablett.

They went pretty darn well in that last domestic game of 2007 IIRC.

With Morrison out I don't think they could afford to lose another forward

I'm assuming that McClennlan wants Eastwood and that's why they're looking at 2010. That being the case signing another player now restricts what ewlse the club can do and also may interfere with negotiations with players off contract this year.

If Smith and Senior go and Watkins/Gibson are not up to the mark the club will require 2 centres next year and therefore cannot afford to make a signing now that will limit their options later when they have a better picture of what is gong on.

I want Leeds to have the best possible squad, but I want them to sign the right players at the right time for the right reasons.

But that's not what he claimed.

He is wrong in the terms he set out and Burgess was recalled from the Harlequins in 2007 where he had 1st graded on loan. IIRC Leeds wanted to extend the loan stay at Quins but the Quins wanted to make the signing permanent so Burgess was recalled rather than lose him.

Sounds like Leeds had plans to play Burgess in 2008 and by this stage of last season he had played three games and scored his first try as part of a five prop rotation.

Any of the 4 props we have now would probably walk into any other team in SL, suggesting that at worst we need a 5th choice prop to play when one of the first choice are injured or need a rest. Can't see many players of the quality you're suggesting we require coming in without a guarantee of playing.

Surely we're better in this situation to use what we have, be it a youngster with potential (as Burgess last year) or one of the second rowers (such as Kirke) as it appears we were planning to do with Eastwood.

He said "his debut". Only dirty pretty thing can clarify whether he meant his Leeds debut or his SL debut.

How did we get on with 3 props in the 2007 GF?

Either way by this time last season (which is what dirty pretty thing claimed) he'd made both his SL debut and Leeds debut and that is why he was wrong to state otherwise.



Leeds won, two weeks before at St Helens Leeds lost but both IIRC were under a different Leeds coach. A coach that probably played anything from two props a game to five props a game as his plans dictated.

The team that wins the St Helens V Leeds SL Regular Rd fixture has gone on to lift the SL Trophy for the last three seasons. It will need a break of that sequence for Leeds to retain the trophy.

Its an interesting fact, but it bears no relation to the competition this season.

I agree that was the role earmarked for Eastwood but you've just stated we couldn't recruit a quality player to play in a five prop rotation system and yet that is just what Leeds had done. The truth is that Eastwood, Bailey and Peacock could also equally drop back and get gametime in the second row as injuries and form dictated.



Who else but Leeds or St Helens do you see winning the Grand Final at this point?

If, like the bookies and pundits, you can't see beyond the two favourites it's already no worse than a 50/50 chance.