On that basis does this make Martin a centre?
For me no, he`s a second rower.

I don’t really care where Donaldson tends to play, he is not a prop. Would he ever make the 4 prop rotation on game day if our real props are fit? No.

He is a committed tackler and runs hard but he is simply too small and lacks the mass required for heavy artillery.

If you think these two are good enough at prop that we’re fine in that position you do you.

Goudemand and Donaldson aren’t anything like big enough to be effective props. That might be where they play as they’re also not fast enough or have good enough hands to play in the back row, but it doesn’t mean they would be part of an effective Prop rotation.

Donaldson is well, just a Donaldson. I would never argue he was prop. Goudemand, on the other hand, has most definitely been part of a successful prop rotation at Catalans. I don't think you can really argue otherwise. Anyway, it would be nice if we judged on his performances in the blue and amber. Think he might surprise.

Jesus christ are we still going on about Donaldson and Goudemands positons.

Its obvious to most people, lets just end the discussion.

I still think Goudemand is too small for a prop, but he is mobile and seems skilful.

I feel too much has been made if the six again rule and mobility of props - you just cannot substitute mass and aggression and impact down the middle.

Hudson is coming off a big injury and has never played SL before. Even if you did accept Goudemand as a rotation prop I still think we are at least one specialist prop short ideally. Depends on the price though - Eseh for example seemed in lots of demand.

Mentioned Doro earlier in the thread who could do a job at prop along with Rodgers currently at Bradford.
Donaldson is 100% not a prop but you cannot fault him for guts and effort.
Put that into Oledzki and we have the impact prop we are all craving for.

I honestly don't understand how anyone in their right mind could consider Donaldson (or Goudemand for that matter) a prop.
Totally ridiculous.

Well Steve Macnamara mustn't be in his right mind then.

Given Goudemand has basically only played prop, what do you see him as? And why does that trump Steve McNamara's view, in your eyes?

Donaldson is a back row. No argument there.
In the dark days of Agar when he had no props, him and Bodene Thompson were used as 'middles', because we had no other option.
This forum was in meltdown.
Goudemand is smaller than Bodene Thompson.

The point here is that we need an actual prop to replace Tetevano.
Not a project or a 'middle'.

I think the thing to get your head around is that you wouldn't want them to be listed in your 5 props but that's where they will play on the field when used. Particularly for Donaldson because his deficiency is even more exposed out wide in the second row. He finds himself around the squad due to other attributes but essentially in the modern game is neither one thing or the other.

Goudemand is used down the middle to spell higher impact props, find the floor quick and ptb and inject some energy.

A modern day Ian Kirke, Goudemands job is to give Mik a 10 minute break?

My original point is that Hudson is only our fifth proper prop, and is coming off the back of an Achilles injury and no SL appearances. Much more raw than the outgoing Walters which is a downgrade.

Goudemand probably gets picked as 16th player if you like, a versatile forward to spell one of your front line players.

He isn’t a proper substitute for injury or lack of form to Sangare; Lisone, Holroyd or Mik. Sangare is also coming off a significant injury. We also have Gannon and McDonnell in the squad already, plus finding room for one or Johnson or O’Connor on the bench.

Goudemand works as 16th player but not as one of your specialist props from the start so much. We can go into 2024 as we are in the front row but it is a risk.

Jeez, he hasn't put on the shirt yet and he's been likened to Kirke. I hope your pre-season endorsement doesn't have the same effect as the one you gave to Olpherts last year