Quote: Wheels "Can I just say well done to Leeds for messing up mine, and most probably everyone elses, betting coupon this weekend. Harumph.'" Cheer your self up Wheels - www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b6mZ3xN ... re=related

Quote: Wheels "Can I just say well done to Leeds for messing up mine, and most probably everyone elses, betting coupon this weekend. Harumph.'" Cheer your self up Wheels - www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b6mZ3xN ... re=related

Every dog (or in this case - cat) has their day. Shame it's in Round 1???

Can you name a professional coach anywhere in the world that supports that view?

Getting injuries in the backs is comparatively rare and when they happen you inevitable end up with disruption but the game doesn't really allow the luxury of carrying a spare back on the bench when it's the forwards that do all the hard work.

Graham Murray.

I always liked the blue print of an outside/utility back, a back rower and two front rowers on your bench. Covers all eventualities.

Murray often had two backs and two forwards on his Leeds benches.

Isn't he currently the coach of the Australian Women's team?

Wasn't Murray more to do with how he could utilise the specific players he had - specifically St Hillaire, Harris & Powell - that meant the back on the bench wasn't simply cover he was always going to come on tactically.

For mine its 2 props, back rower and a utility back or hooker.

Yesterday the natural cover for centre was switching Ablett but with him already being injured the delaney absence was more difficult to cover. I'd have expected Eastwood to do the job but presume switching JJB was the option due to the amount of gametime he was going to have to play.

It was but it was hugely succesful and TVOC did ask for the name of a coach who supported the view that you should have a back on the bench.



Mine too (see above). You're very clever as well as handsome.

I asked for the name of a professional coach who supported that view.

My bad as I obviously should have been more specific and asked for a current professional coach involved at so called 1st grade level.

The question was posed in relation to the current attitude towards the make of of benches in 2010 rather than how it may have happened somewhere in the last Millenium.

And no I wouldn't strictly consider the Australian Women's team as 1st grade level in this context, although they'd probably still give England a competitive warm up.

Try not to let it happen again. I am not fog knitting with Gotcha here, I like our discussions to have clarity.

I personally prefer 2 props, a second row, and a utility back or hooker.

At leeds, we have the flexibility of Sinfield to halves, Ablett to centre to be able to pull off a 4 forward (2 props, 2 second rows) bench, and cover most injuries.

Bench GF 2009
Bailey Lauiti'iti Burgess Kirke

Bench GF 2008
Scruton Lauiti'iti Kirke Bailey

Bench GF 2007
Lauiti'iti Kirke Bailey Ablett

Mine too.

I think we rotate quite well with one hooker in the 17. Webb and Burrow move to dummy half for short spells, particularly when the coaches feel that the opposition forwards are tiring. Sinfield has already shown how good he is in that position as well. All that gives enough rest time for us to play with one specialist 9 who doesn't have to play the full 80. I think there was one point under Smith when we actually developed a style that involved no specialist 9 play at all.

I think the coaches have decided we need two quality 9's, which we now have. That makes sense if you are covering for injury, but seems to me that there is a dilema when both are fit at the same time. Looking at what happened last year when we were forced to play with one 9 due to injury, we looked better. With two 9's in the 17 there are fewer occasions for Webb and Burrow to move up to dummy half, where they can be devestating.

As for who is better, Diskin or Buderus - well the only evidence we have is of Diskin having a long run on his own when Buderus has been injured. It's difficult to say without seeing Buderus have 10 or 12 games in a row as the only 9 for comparrison. I don't think you can tell. Matt was very good at the end of last year, and I can't understand where the criticism of such a key player comes from.

Then of course we could have three "international" hookers in the 17. Frankly that would be a rediculous scenario and if I was a supporter of a club that had that bizarre policy I would have words to say about the ability of my teams head coach. But I can't imagine that really.

Don't Leeds regularly have the current England number 9, Diskin and Buderus all in the seventeen?

Well played Castleford. Used to hate watching Leeds play them in the 80s-mid 90s, and would like to get back to that intensity on a regular basis. I didn't see the whole game at Headingley last year, just the highlights on SLTV, and some of Cas' 'defending' was amongst the least interested I've ever seen. That's not what I want to see from them.

Have to say well done Cas - came with a game plan and stuck to it.

Have also to add that Cas wont play that well and we wont play that bad over the mojority of the remaining games this season. The final standings will tell the story of the season.

Also, I now believe we will pick up more points and play a damn sight better AWAY from home as the pitch is in a terrible state.

AND finally - Smith was very inconsistent for BOTH teams. We take a Cas player from the field of play and we got penalised. Hull did it on Saturday and got head and feed at the scrum!

Once again, Well done Cas - resembled the Classy Cas of the late sixties and early seventies before the Hull chequebook took away your shining lights!