It hasn't been glossed over at all - rhinoms gave it a 'Try Assist' on this week's Opta thread.

It was reminiscent of a similar effort last season V Huddersfield at Headingley.

I can imagine the level of reaction being similar had Diskin come up with an "effort" like that. No, really.

Then I'd guess you'd be surprised how little people care about a Bradford player missing a tackle around these parts.

I'm assuming your talking about the Chris Bailey try here so ignore it if I'm not.

It's pretty much all Watkins' fault IMO. Buderus has to try and contain the man and the ball on his own 3 yards from the line, a difficult task which he did for long enough to allow either his inside or outside defender the time to get to the tackle and help complete it. Instead, Watkins rushes out at the gap between Bailey and Burnett anticipating the offload/intercept (a terrible defensive play when they were 4 on 4 down that channel) and Sinfield (who's sliding across) tries to compensate by getting to the other side of the tackle as Bailey has gone for Buderus' outside shoulder due to the huge gap left by Watkins.

Buderus can do better there by all means, but he's also entitled to a bit of help and he got none.

When was the try scored? Perhaps the wisdom of playing him for 80 minutes a game needs to be questioned...

That's a spot on analysis that. I actually blamed Sinfield for it at first, and I still think he is part at fault, and Buderus is not blameless. But Buderus is not at total fault for that try.

Unless running at pace more often that not players tackling the upper body (which is what Buderus did here), dont get a player down without the second man going to the lower body. In this case there was no second man, despite Buderus holding the man up for a number of seconds.

Matt Diskin will be relieved that it's now the turn of Watkins, Sinfield and others to be blamed for Buderus failings.

"Light the red paper at arms length then retire to a safe distance.

If the thread fails to go off then repeat the above procedure."

Like his effort on Grix last Sunday at the Galpharm perhaps?

It appears to have passed by with complete indifference on here.

Until now.

This obsession with previous players is not healthy. It simply leads to frustration and negative posts. And bores the tits off everybody else.

So far we've had Donald, then last season Disko, this season' s manly crush appeared to be Sinny, and I suspect it will be a close run thing between BJB and Watkins for next seasons warm seal of approval.

Surely there is someone sensational and inventive in the current squad that an excitable chap could hitch his wagon to?

Perhaps because he's not playing for us any more?

Quick question...

Do the guys that have been here years (G1, tvoc, McF, Billy, Fat Boy & many more), not get sick of having the same discussions time and time and time and TIME AND TIME again?!

I've only been here since October and I'm already beyond bored discussing Diskin vs. Buderus.

Bring back Willie Talau I say.

Oh

Chris Joints voluntary tackle?

Some issues just never go away. We've had the debate over the relative merits of Smith vs McClennan ad infinitum, not to mention whether or not Peacock was signed as a 'bona fide' prop (this one at least has been resolved), and whether Sinfield is better than McGuire etc etc

Certain posters have a tendency to become entrenched in their views/agendas and the resulting 'fog knitting' (to quote one of the main culprits) sometimes provides entertainment but is also one reasons why I've spent more time posting on the Bulls board of late (where there are fewer egos and cliques). Things have improved since Swiftcorn/AP has returned - always enjoyed his posts on RLFans, in particular his efforts on the Saints board, not to mention his habit of dredging up old threads...