Yes I'd noticed that too .... still don't have to like it though.



We can have this discussion on every thread if you wish but couldn't we just confine it to the (Melbourne) thread for now? if I can remember correctly I'd highlighted some defensive alignments from early in that game that I'd be interested to hear your learned alternative take on.

For me it appeared the hooker and scrum-half were doing their own thing to the detriment of the integrity of the defensive line but I imagine I've simply got that wrong. Afterall as long as the coach and players know what there doing - not the players frantically waving for re-inforcements, obviously there new and they'll get used to it eventually.

Still, we made the final ...... so who gives a damn.

Excellent point re the possibility that Huddersfield's terms could have been the stumbling block in that situation, especially with the change of coach mid-season.

Just shows it's possible sometimes for clubs to play a little hard ball without players walking away. Only wish Hetherington had done that with Buderus who (unlike Eastwood) I am certain (as much as anyone can be) would have continued giving 100% to the cause while honouring his contract.

Defensive mis-alignments aren't unique to the current selection.
Really, there is little difference to this structure, and the old. In the old world, 6,7,13 were Mcguire, Burrow and Sinfield, defending on the edges with a middle four of two props, a hooker and a back row. In the new world, the 6, 7, 9 is Sinfield, Mcguire and Burrow defending on the edges with a middle four of two props and to back rows.

I don't think it's a case of old norm V new norm Richie. It's explained in more detail on the Melbourne thread: forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php? ... &start=267 Having players switching roles from defensive set to defensive set, pairing Burrow and McGuire together on the same side at any point while leaving the last defender opposite (whoever it is) with 30 to 35 metres to patrol on the 4th after the winger has dropped back is going to be exploited by a good passing side such as Wigan and Warrington. I'm only surprised Melbourne weren't all over it like a rash albeit it was their first hit-out so maybe that explains it somewhat. More than once all it would have taken was one reasonable pass from centre field and they would have been outside the condensed line.

I don't think it's a case of old norm V new norm Richie. It's explained in more detail on the Melbourne thread: forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php? ... &start=267 Having players switching roles from defensive set to defensive set, pairing Burrow and McGuire together on the same side at any point while leaving the last defender opposite (whoever it is) with 30 to 35 metres to patrol on the 4th after the winger has dropped back is going to be exploited by a good passing side such as Wigan and Warrington. I'm only surprised Melbourne weren't all over it like a rash albeit it was their first hit-out so maybe that explains it somewhat. More than once all it would have taken was one reasonable pass from centre field and they would have been outside the condensed line.

It was just an alignment screw up. Not related to our attacking lineup. Those kinds of mistakes are particularly common following a turnover, where players can get caught in the wrong spots without the chance to correct that kicks and scrums give.

Watkins is better at centre. He's the best attacking British centre in SL but very vulnerable in defence at either FB or centre.
At least at centre he has a 2nd rower alongside for support.

Could not agree more. By all accounts Watson deserves his chance at FB thus leaving the second of our "two classy centres" in his best position.

I bet Ablett would prefer this option too

Theoretically I'd agree, but given our next 3 games are Sts, Hudds and Wigan, I can't blame the coach for being a bit conservative in the choice of fullback.

If the kids were ready for this level, they would play! McDermott has always been fair and had picked/dropped players on merit. Why hinder a lads development and probably kill his confidence by putting him in against 3 of the better teams running around? Just because they kill it at 19's/Championship, doesn't mean they are ready.

Brad Singleton was shipped to Wakey to get him prepared for this level and he got 1 game before Agar saw that he's not at the right level yet. Some on this board would have him starting week in/week out for us though. Look at the bigger picture! Watkins at FB and Ablett at Centre, is by far the best option for the team.

No he hasn't, and no they wouldn't. He's shown completely the opposite.

For what it's worth though, this time he's right, especially considering the games coming up. You need stability back there, especially when choices one and two are already out.

He brought Ward into the team over time. Played Keinhorst into things last season too. Got rid of Griffin and Cross. He knows that you can ruin a career by playing someone too soon. I don't know what everyone's obsession is with playing kids at an early age just because they have potential.

You're wasting your time. Gotcha and Nantwich won't be happy until each member of our under 19 side gets a run out. Your earlier point about singleton should stop people making these outrageous statements but it won't.

I for one am happy to trust a structure that has produced some of the best and most successful players in the clubs history, and a coaching staff who have given the chance to or further developed Hardaker, Bish, Watkins, Ward, Clarkson, Hood, Keinhorst etc.

If 2 players come through a clubs academy each year that is plenty to make the said club successful.

How many players who have been developed at Leeds and not given the chance would you have back now? I can think of Luke Gale possibly in a couple of years but that's about it

There's nothing wrong with wanting to see the clubs younger talent get more chances and NOT ONE poster has said we should give 5/6 u19's their debuts at once either.
Also just because wakey didn't use Singleton after week 1 doesn't mean he couldn't be useful for us or handle SL they will always be loyal to their own lads first and foremost and the terms of the original loan were because they had injuries up front.
Are we seriously saying Singleton isn't ready because he was part of team batterd at Odslum in week 1 and then didn't make the next matchday 17??
There have been plenty of opportunities to give some more younger lads chances over the last 2 years due to p!$h form or even better rotation but some seem undroppable which is as baffling as it is frustarting at times because the coach got Watkins ,Hardaker ,Ward and co into the team yet players like Kirke ,Kylie et al get games no matter how poor their respective form was even ignoring Moore who when given the chance wasn't the worse Prop in SL by a long way.
Some interesting calls to be made this year with Kylie retiring ,Griffin clearly out of favour and kirke out of contract should he start giving short stints to younger forwards now or just wait?? i know which route i think we should take which wouldn't damage the team or the youngsters.

Actually you need to read my posts again, and stop generalising, because my view is not the same as Nantwich.

I am not for throwing kids in for the sake of throwing kids in, far from it. I am all for identifying kids who it is deemed potentially will be future stars, and strongly believe that the only way of making that happen is to see introduction to first team early. That's introduction and develepment in stages, not a guranteed place.

I don't care what the know nowts say on here, but history clearly shows, that if you are identified as star potential at a young age, if you are not making first team starts by 19, then you simply do not make it.

There is exceptions to that, but usually the ones who are not deemed star potential at an early age and come good later in career. Although those players tend to drift away from clubs first before later coming back to attention.

Even more so now, with the new academy set up, once you are over 19 that's it below first team level. So it's either dual reg and you continue on your part time contract, or you look for another club, or you go for non rugby work and play for lower clubs.

For the record, I have never pushed for the like of Watson, Keinhorst, Chisolm, Bush, etc, as I just don't see them as potential stars. I do however believe we have wasted Singleton's talent, and think his development has gone backwards, and I strongly believe that we have a super quartet of Bawldwinson, Tonks, Foster, Minchella, who I would be looking to introduce to first team now. Again I repeat, that is introduce, not play each week.

So you're holding Huddersfield out as a shining example for Gary Hetherington to follow? Aside from the fact that premise is flawed (Luke O'Donnell) maybe Hetherington realises that the team is better off with slightly less talented but eager and committed individuals than players who would, in reality, want to be somewhere else.

Lunt was clearly no Buderus in 2012 but, let's be honest, so what? What did the team achieve in 2011 with Buderus that it didn't in 2012 without him?