No it won't. Main reason that other coaches do what's best for the side and club, rather than what's best for him. Not surprising though that it would be you daft enough to come out with that.

And when one of the players (if not the actual player this mostly applies to in this particular situation) is an ill-disciplined sort that IIRC you would happily have dispensed with already you must be delighted with the coaches decision to ignore form and stick with his favourites?

Not that you've always backed the coaches call on his big men - this from early 2009 -



How right you were - he's robbed a living ever since.

I have said it before and will say it again. Look at Gilders posts, he contradicts himself so many times in his patronising arrogant manner. His views all depend on which way the wind blows, and which way posters are leaning towards.

This was not the a Gilder of previous. It's like someone else posts as him for last couple of years.

There was also the post tvoc, when Peacock got his extended contract in 2011 which he completely poo pood, telling everyone that Peacock was finished. Now the new Gilder as the nerve to have a go at posters who criticize long deals for lesser players of aged status.

Every coach, good or bad, makes decisions because they think they're the right decisions.

The successful coaches get most of those decisions right.

IMO, McDermott's decision to play an injured Kirke (leaving aside the merits of a fully fit Kirke) over a young, fit and on form Singleton was the wrong decision, whether McDermott thought it right or not.

Do you have an opinion on whether he got it right?

You mean since Peacock took himself out of the representative arena, extending his off season and rest time and thereby prolonging his club career?

Had he not done so, I'll stand by my opinion. He would have been done and dusted by now with his boots up on a shelf.

I don't think it would have made a material difference to results or performances either way. Kirke even with a busted rib was still one of the better performers in the pack at the back end of last year.

50-50 call, coach went with the player he thought he could trust to deliver the best performance. The one with the most experience of high-profile games rather than the enthusiastic youngster.

Easy to sit here in hindsight and hypothesise what Singleton might or might not have done. Much like yourself G1, most players get a lot better when they're sat in the stands

See Gotcha, this is two grown-ups having a discussion without having to result to ad hominem derogatory remarks. You really ought to try it some time, when you're grown-up. Bring tvoc along if you want an adult there to help you.

If you say so Andy. I really don't need to stoop that low to dig up your postings on the subject, and cause embarrassment. Suffice to say, there certainly was no subject to, to your post.

Just to be sure though, when did Peacock announce his retirement from representative rugby again? when he did he sign that contract extension you got so disappointed at?

Eloquent defence of McDermott's decision but I think you probably ducked the question. Do you think he made the right decision?

PS, I think the critique of Kirke's playoff performances have been somewhat overblown, you'll not be surprised to learn. They were better but better by his standards.

It's what the internet was invented for. In my defence, there's no "hindsight" from me when it comes to criticising Kirke's selection How dare you, I resemble that remark.

While no-one (including the coaching staff) could know in advance what Singleton would have offered in the play-offs they could see what he produced in the previous match when given the opportunity. I'd have preferred to see that good form rewarded rather than the giving up of the place to a player (of dubious worth IMO) returning from a self inflicted unnecessary ban.

Do you believe that a Peacock whose footwork had gone, off-load game had gone and generally looks like he's having to make a massive effort to drag his body around the field would have been selected for international representation?

Re the Kirke/Singleton debate: if this is one of the worst decisions McD makes during his tenure he'll have done pretty well.

McDermott's worst decision (so far) was allowing Danny Buderus to leave whilst still under contract without securing an adequate replacement and then compounding that mistake by not securing the Shaun Lunt gift-horse after it fell right into his lap.

Allowing the undisciplined Bailey straight back into the side after Singleton had played a blinder in Leeds' best showing for months the game before was a minor aberration by comparison.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your point, but as a point of detail didn't Bailey's return come at the expense of Alex Foster?

Agree re Bailey but I'd need to know what role GH played in the Lunt/Buderus decisions before criticising McDermott for them. In any case, Lunt was under contract to Hudds. Brown might have been willing to release him but I doubt Anderson would have, given that he's picked him week in, week out since his return. Perhaps it was simply bad luck: Leeds may have thought there was ample time to sort out a deal before being wrong-footed by Brown's unexpectedly-premature departure and replacement by a coach who clearly rates Lunt more highly.

Singleton is a very different type of player to Kirke. It isnt necessarily simply a decision over who you think is the better player, but who you think can do the job you need them to do.