you realise that most people who vote on these are fekkwits, as labelled by your good self, I mean Damo can vote on them FFS

If we're going to debate like grown ups, here is how it should work. You have made a statement that, in your opinion, Buderus was a major influence in four specific games. In my opinion he wasn't.

If the discussion is going to move beyond "oh yes he was, oh no he wasn't". We have to take it further. To quantify my rebuttal of your proposition, I have provided objective evidence. It is the opinions of a cross section of leeds supporters about who was the most influential players in those games you mentioned*

Is it definitive? No. Is it arguable? Yes. Does it add weight to your proposition? No. Does it add weight to mine? Yes.

Now, you can use inflammatory, childish rhetoric like you have done or you could provide something substantive to support your claims. Something, anything, other than repeating your opinion which, it seems isn't shared by me or the varied cross section of supporters that post on here.



Does it matter if 100 or 1000 people vote? Those who voted gave their opinions. Nobody, I repeat nobody gave an opinion that appears to support your proposition.

So that is it? You make a wild assertion, which I rebut with independent, intrinsic evidence and all you can offer is "watch the videos". Henry Kissinger you are not.

*I gave you too much credit. I mistakenly gave the top three from Hudds away You know, the game I recalled him playing well in. Seems MY recollection is supported by the intrinsic evidence available. The top three from Hudds at home that you recalled him being the main man in. Well, he didn't fare so well in that.

Hudds at home.
10 Watkins 33%
8 Leuluai 22%
6 Lauiti'iti 17%

So, in every single one of the games you claimed he was the major influence in our winning not one of the supporters who logged on here and took time to give their opinion of the most influential player in the game had him in the top three. Not one single time.

Shall we have a look at how he's doing in 2010? Shall we do him a favour and expand the criteria to the top ten?

56 McGuire
35 Peacock
29 Eastwood
25 Burrow
24 Leuluai
20 Webb
19 Delaney
19 Jones-Buchanan
18 Sinfield
18 Senior

Oops, he's not there. Your mates Burrow, JJB and Senior are. He's clearly had a major influence on the supporters base since he got here.

Now, I am sure all you will do is dismiss this and insult the opinions of all who have given them but is there anything, anything at all, that you can provide to give credence to your opinion? Anything?

Where have I failed to do that? I have offered evidence supportive of my opinion that Buderus was neither influential or paramount to the result. Others can judge the validity of that evidence. However they may judge it it's far more evidence than you have provided to substantiate your opinion. Stop knitting fog and provide something. Anything. Anything at all.

So Man of the Match does not always relate to the most influential?

Or What about?



Where finally getting a bit of a pattern now. Using the evidence of a small minority from southstander, is in reality a pretty poor way of trying to back up an argument.

Can I just point out the flaw that only 10 players are put forward for MOM nominations, so to some extent the people receiving the votes are dependant on the views of whoever decides that list.

I do accept that if a player does not make SS.coms top 10 they are unlikely to stand out enough to get in the top3. Having said that, there have been times when I have not been able to vote for a player I think deserved my vote too

I hope he doesn't. I can't keep this up for much longer.

Much as he's a good player, I think we can only have 1 hooker + McShane next season. And it would be very harsh if Diskin was shown the door

12.09033203125:10