Nope. Ignoring the opportunity to cast aspersions on the quality of pack we've faced lately (Huddersfield's pack tore us all sorts of new orifices so it depends what is meant by 'of late') I've been very impressed by several of our forwards over the last 3 games (JJB being the stand-out, but Clarkson, Ablett, Leuluai and Bailey have also been good) and Cross hasn't been one of them. Winning a forward battle doesn't immediately suggest that all your forwards have been awesome.

For the most part Cross does the basics OK, but I wonder why we needed to go to an Aussie to deliver OK. This may be a problem of expectations being too high I suppose.

Spot on. He does exactly what it says on the tin and he has shown a good work rate with allround stats as good or better than any of our other props.

I too would have liked us to have signed a really top quality prop when JP was injured. But as none were available we have ended up with an experienced, rough edged, tough NRL style prop who is getting on with his job and doing the hardwork and IMO will become a valuable member of the squad.

I can understand why some posters have felt that perhaps a couple of the younger "on loan" props could have stepped up to the mark. But at the time of signing Cross it would have been a quite a gamble considering Burgess had still to prove his fitness after his operation and Bailey not fit to start the season.

When compared with the other props Cross has made double the marker tackles, has made the 2nd best metres per carry and has made the 2nd best number of tackles per game. His stats have been achieved with less time on field so he has perhaps the best work rate of the props.

Props in order of games played

.........................Kirke.......Burgess.......Cross......Leuluai........Bailey......
Appearances.........12............10............10............9...............5.........
Metres...............768...........957..........645..........799............381........
Carries...............108...........145...........90...........117.............52........
Tackles..............246...........208..........215..........138............110........
Marker tackles......26............24............47............17..............13.......
Miss tackles.........14............13............17............17...............8........
Errors...................5..............3.............4..............3...............2.......
Penalties...............3..............5............6...............5...............4.......
Yellow Card...........0..............1............0.............. 0...............0.......
Red Card...............0..............0............0...............0...............1......
Metres/carry........7.11..........6.6.........7.17..........6.83............7.33.....
Tackles/game......20.5..........20.6.......21.5..........15.33............22.........
Metres/game.......64............95.7.......64.5...........88.78...........76.2......
Carries/game........9.............14.5........9..............13...............10.4......

Not actually that high on the penalty count. Perhaps it's just that his penalties are more eye-catching. Perhaps I have been too harsh and/or expected too much?

I think perhaps many expected too much of Cross and have been unfairly critical, when he is doing at the very least as well as any other prop, yet are prepared to overlook the faults and poor performance of their favourites.

Bailey has made a big improvement in his go forward (but this is only over 5 games so far) and Kirke has also shown a big improvement in the unaccustomed role of prop.

Spot on Juan.

That example falls into my book on his Technically Awful moments.

'clumsy' 'sloppy' et al

Least he could do no damage with us having a healthy lead and only 30 mins to play. Phew.

But not as bad an example as that of Bailey's latest Disciplinary Awful moment in losing his cool yet again and getting sent off. Dirty, bad tempered, cheap shot "et al"

At least after he was off we conceded less points than when he was on. "Phew"

Knew you couldn't resist bringing, form prop, TMFMISL into proceedings. You can't help yourself.

Glad you brought this example up actually, you never got round to explaining the negative impact this had on Leeds. Could you do so?

Weren't we 20-0 down when he was sent off? Hmmmm? Do your figures stack up just out of interest?

'losing his cool yet again' - bit of a stretch yet again. He's a prop, a bit of biff happened, man-up dude.

Where was the cheap shot by the way? Are you thinking of Cross on Myler?

If Cross intended to fend using an horizontal forearm then I guess it must have been deliberate first, poor technique second and perhaps clumsy third.

The incidents (viewed in isolation) were similar enough in that they both involved the ball carrier using a raised horizontal forearm as a fend/bumper. Both connected at chest level, both ended up above the shoulder.



No doubt although the two match ban was specifically for the fend with the forearm and not the preceeding incident. Ganson reported it as an elbow IIRC (arguably invented to justify a red card) and something the disciplinary panel dismissed .

The panel appear pre-disposed to support (rather than undermine) the officials when they have taken the ultimate in game sanction.

By using an argument based on your "Ifs" and "guesses" you can read into it what you will in order to make a case. But that doesn't make you right.

The fact is in the Tomkins case he was sent off because in the ref's opinion the arm was deliberately raised into the face after contact to cause injury and who will doubt it knowing Tomkins involvement in the preceding brawl and this players violent history.

While in Cross's case he was not sent off (was he even put on report by the ref?) as the ref did not think anything was deliberate and neither did the Castleford players. A penalty yes but further action no.

But you seem not to want to recognise that one was deemed to be deliberate while the other was accidental. A big difference.



I think that the panel, quite correctly, took into consideration the preceding events and Tomkins part in the brawl and judged that he was deliberately violent. The histerical Eddie & Stevo also incorrectly reported the Cross incident as using the elbow.

Many players are penalised and suspended for contact with the forearm including Ablett this season and Lauitiiti a couple of years ago on Westwood. Morley was regularly in trouble for it and Bailey was up before the beak on the same charge. In many cases where it is the ball carrying arm that makes contact it is not deliberate as is often the tackler that makes contact with the ball carrying arm before it can be withdrawn.

Just to be a pedant but players don't get put on report, incidents in the game do.

Surley the last few pages should be transferred to TMFMISL thread?

So far he has made fewer silly penalities than Bailey per game! A contact sport like RL will occassionally have a bit of biff and I am sure should the occassion arise Cross will not take a step backwards and certainly will not hide behind his scrumhalf like Bailey shamefully did.



No I mean he was bested by Crabtree & co and didn't like it.



You appear to like foul and violent play. I don't. To "wallop" a half back does not make Bailey a man to be feared but rather despised. "Smashed" !!!!



You still avoid the fact before Bailey disgraced himself he had "marshalled" our defence to be 20-0 down. Nice technique!



Bailey has very limited skills - in fact he is basically just a tackler. They used to say tacklers are 2 a penny and you could go down to Buz Vale and sign up several good tacklers any weekend.

All the coaches play the squad that they have. Bailey has been a low cost fringe player that has been lucky to have been around to enjoy the trophy success that creative players like Sinfield, Maguire and Burrow have achieved. Note Big Mac has also waxed lyrical regarding Hauraki!

Hi Ho Silver!